🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fawzi-1710961415350001@news1.vir.com>, fawzi@vir.com (Fawzi) writes:
>In article (Dans l�article) <DzC293.9CM@blaze.trentu.ca>,
>rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote (�crivait)�:

>> How does
>> that differ Quebecers from Acadiens or Frenchmen?
>
>I don't know about Acadiens much, but I do no that French people listen to
>a lot of music from here, music that is specificly and uniquely qu�b�cois
>and very far from being folk music.  And perhaps even they listen to ours
>more than we listen to theirs...
>
And I know that Newfoundland music isn't generally heard outside of
Newfoundland.

>> Funny you should bring media up....because as I said before, your argument in
>> support of "language" being the principle vehicle of culture is inconclusive
>> with your practice.  You ask us to accept that Quebec is distinct
>because it is
>> French speaking, then you maintain that communications is the vehicle of
>> culture, and language is what this is illustrated through.  In practical terms
>> then, Quebec is not distinct from France- or is it?  I am saying now that
>> ideology and community are the key, and language is not.  Sure, in Quebec's
>> position, language is vital- but that isn't the key with every cultural
>> difference.
>
>I never said it was.  I'm saying it is the main determinant.  It is also a
>major influence on ideology and community.

And I'm saying it's not a major influence on ideology and community- otherwise
Canadians and Americans would have fundamental discrepencies on many major
issues in each other's culture.  And there are major differences Fawzi-
Canadians trust in society more than Americans....and the concept of Freedom (a
fundamental aspect of American culture) is overwhelmingly different, Canadians
are outwardlooking....likely because there has always been a recurring fear in
this country that we might be annexed by the US- American culture reflects a
reassurance that they are the strongest nation.  Canadian multiculturalism,
which isn't really popular in most parts of Canada anyways, exhibits a strong
difference between the way Canadians feel towards local culture, and the way
Americans feel about local culture.  What I mean is this: Canadians put a great
deal of emphasis on the city, province, community because fundamentally, each
province is quite different- Americans, even though the differences exist, have
a greater sense of community throughout their entire country because history,
tradition, hegemony, etc...has shaped it's proliferation.

>And our french isn't like France's french, much like north american
>english differs from British english.  A typical "frenchman" needs at

Actually, Canadian English is Commonwealth English- we spell words different
from the way they are spelt in the US, we pronounce some words differently,
etc...  There is no "north American" English- there is American English, and
Commonwealth English.

>least a couple of months to adapt to Quebec's french language.  And it is
>being very seriously studied right now in Sherbrooke university, on how it
>differs in syntax and in grammar with french from France, and how it is
>becoming a language by itself developing and evolving independantly from
>France's influence.  Much like the north american english language
>evolving on its own.
>
Interesting you should say this- Anglophone scholars have actually started
writing a book on Canadian English- which they claim differs from American
English AND Commonwealth English in accordance with local linguistic traditions
that are unique to this country.  I don't know how much we differ from
Commonwealth English....but I'd be interested in reading the book.  
>> 
>> No, the problem you have with me is that I refuse to see the reality that you
>> believe is evident- however I speak from a Canadian perspective.  I am an
>> Anglophone on a continent of Anglophones whose culture, for the most part,
>> differs considerably from mine.
>
>Yet you watch the same movies, watch the same television, listen to the
>same music, read the same books, etc.  And all that without an ounce of
>translation, with accent, expressions, humour, ideology intact... I guess
>the difference is considerable.
>
Any Anglophone could be in the same boat Fawzi- just because an Australian
speaks Commonwealth English, that doesn't mean he can't read Stephen King.  And
this harks back to one major point with regards to language- Americans are an
elitist bunch who, in most cases, will not provide translations in literature
even if they are marketing to a British, Australian or Canadian market.

As for some of your other points, Canadians can understand what Americans are
saying....but so can Brits, Australians and the like.  Austrians can understand
low German- but that doesn't mean that someone from Vienna is part of the
German culture.  As for ideology- it is becoming increasingly apparant that you
refuse to see what is an OBVIOUS difference between Americans and
Canadians...so I don't know if I should even bother answering.  Do you think
Americans would laugh at the Royal Canadian Air Farce?  Would someone from
California understand the drawn out REEFOOORMMM and laugh at it?  Not likely. 
Americans lack a left wing....and marxist or feminist IR theorists are quite
literally ostracized from their academic institutions- in Canada, there are
plenty of socialist and feminist thinkers.  I could go on....but at this point,
if you still believe that Canadian ideology mirrors American ideology (btw,
most Canadians are usually disgusted by the cheerleading that goes on in many
American action flicks), then you'll not likely accept evidence to the
contrary.
>
>I'm not saying that canadians share the same nation as americans.  I'm
>saying that they basicaly share the same culture, because of the shared
>language.
>
But you've identified North American and British English- yet we do not write
the same "English" as the Americans....but it's the same one the Brits use.
>
>Well, it becomes upseting to repeat over and over the same thing to
>someone in every way possible and yet resulting in a failure to
>understand.  It makes one wonder...
>
I don't fail to understand.

>> Yes, despite your assertions, Newfoundland
>> has folk music, folk dance, a long history independent of Canada, a language
>> that sounds considerably different, a set of values, outports, etc...that
>> differ considerably from anything else on this continent!
>
>Are you for real?
>
Yes, I am.  So what if they speak English- if I were to talk to someone from an
outport tomorrow, his accent would likely be so overwhelming that I'd barely be
able to understand him without translation.  That outport sense of community
differs from anything I've ever seen....and this doesn't take into account the
folk music and dance that, contrary to your remarks, is not just a regional
variation.
>
>> I've answered your
>> claims, and your only basic retort is to merely go on about how you're right,
>> or how I misunderstand what culture is, or what it is to Quebec, etc.....  It
>> all leads down the same road: Quebec is a nation because of x, y and z, and
>> Newfoundland (even if it's distinct and could very well have been a "nation"
>> and an independent country in the same sense) is not because you say so!
>
>I'm starting to understand better now, first you were confusing one's
>personal culture with a culture, now you're confusing culture with
>folklore.  Quebec's culture is more than that.
>
Folklore?  I'm tired of discussing this Fawzi- clearly you've come to the
conclusion that your definitions of culture are the only acceptable ones....and
that anyone who has a different opinion/definition to work from is absolutely
wrong.  The reality is that Newfoundland is different and distinct....and
whether or not you want to believe that will not change my or many other
people's opinions that it is such.

>> Your
>> second point, that language determines culture, would mean that Quebec is not
>> distinct- because surely the majority of French in Quebec is much the same as
>> French found in France, in Zaire, in Belgium, etc...  I'm sure you don't like
>> that idea either....it might lead me to question your "Quebec is distinct in
>> the world...." stuff again, right.  Of course, you have set this up yourself-
>> and after you use language to define Quebec, you decide to change all the
>> rules- language is the only true means of communication, therefore, it is
>> culture!  Of course, this exempts Quebec from being "French" (the nationality,
>> not the language), but doesn't exempt Canada from literally being
>American (the
>> nationality, and not the worldwide movement you perceive)- a conclusion which
>> is not only inconsistent....but is also paternalistic (are you keeping score? 
>> that's rude, paternalistic...and see above for the others- I"m being
>> sarcastic...can you tell?).
>
>First, French spoken here is as different from french from France as
>american is different from british english.

British English IS spoken in Canada- that's a fact.  I suggest you compile a
couple of those before you proceed.  Flavor vs. Flavour, Color vs. Colour,
etc....

>Second, (and again...) I never said that language is the only determinent
>of culture, I'm saying it is the principal element (history and folklore
>are some of the others for exemple...).

And I don't accept this- because it allows you to get away with denigrating the
cultural value of Newfoundland because they speak BRITISH ENGLISH and not some
other language unique to North America.  Different cuisine, community,
folklore, history, costume and dance, traditions, etc...are meaningless in your
evaluation.  I will never accept this as fair, appropriate or "the truth."  

And don't be coy Fawzi....by your very stand you have chosen to denigrate
Newfoundland's distinctiveness- that too is a FACT that is obvious given your
past posts.

>Third, as for your double standard, you made it up.  I never said you were

No, I didn't.

>american, I'm saying that because of the language you share, you share a
>common culture.  I'm not saying that you are culturaly identical to

And I'm telling you that you are wrong....that you didn't know that Canadians
do not speak the same "English" (as you put it) as Americans.  It's "British"
English that is used here.

>americans, I'm saying you share a common culture.  Is this to subtle? Did
>I lose you here?
>
You never lost me....and your simplifying is not helpful when one considers
that your statement is wrong.

Anyways, I have no more time for this- it's obvious that I will never agree
with you...and thus I intend to leave it at that.  Not because I can't answer
your remarks- but rather because you are unprepared to accept that "nation" and
culture are not always indigenous to language.  Most cultural characteristics
are not subservient to language- what would one do with someone who was
illiterate?