The Quebec Thing
So, long string of posts over at Alex’s joint, on the occasion of our newly minted Journée des Patriotes, formerly Mrs. Fête de Dollard, née Victoria Day.
First off, I respect Alex’s point of view - he’s one of the best writers and thinkers I know. He raises some interesting examples of Quebec successes in response to one commenter in particular, former sovereignist-turned-federalist, David, who in turn has raised tough questions that, in my mind, neither Alex nor his supportive commenters have really answered yet - unfortunately things seemed to have degraded into a flamewar.
So here’s my thoughts. I know this is going to be a bit scattershot and more than a little Socratic, but here’s my take on some of the points Alex raised. I know some of them were intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but there’s always a grain of truth in a joke. In truth, I do agree with some of them - and that’s the topic of another future post.
It’s easy to adopt reflexive positions based on your background, upbringing, schooling, or political affiliation, that risk becoming inflexible lines in the sand. It’s sad, because rhetoric like this rupture friendships and community. Neither position really seems to want to examine the other’s ideas openly, because of years of distrust / disappointment / resentment, etc.
I understand something of what Alex says when he claims not to have an attachment to the rest of Canada, of which more below. But in a perverse mirror of that, I have that kind of relationship with franco-Quebec culture, and it’s not something I’m proud of.
…
Alex said:
Je ne me retrouve pas dans la culture canadienne, ou si peu. Je ne m’associe pas aux Canadiens. Je n’ai à peu près aucune idée de ce qu’ils mangent, ce qu’ils écoutent, ce qu’ils aiment. Sont-ils heureux avec leurs choix? Comment entrevoient-ils leur avenir? Je ne le sais pas mais je sais une chose: je les trouve trop loin de ma réalité quotidienne à moi. Ils sont en général plus à droite et moi je suis plus à gauche. Voilà. Comment aimer un pays dans lequel je me reconnais pas?
I think it’s sad, because he seems to reject something out-of-hand that he hasn’t even attempted to truly experience.
To truly reject something, you first have to have made the honest effort to embrace it, understand it, live it, be it, and still find it lacking.
Do Quebecers really have such a lack of curiosity about their neighbors? The current generation seem pretty well-travelled and Internet-savvy, but I wonder if years of Quebec-centric educational materials (some of which I got in my immersion program) and an almost completely inward-looking mediasphere haven’t sort of created a kind of Truman Show bubble effect as regards Canada. “Oh, you can go outside the dome, but you won’t like it.”
What do they eat? Turn the cereal box around and find out! (© douglas coupland)
What do they listen to? Same stuff. Crappy corporate manufactured pop music. Heavy metal. Techno. Local music promoted by Cancon regulations….
What do they love? Hockey, ice fishing, shopping, soccer, their kids, dancing all night, surfing the web, eating bad Chinese food, watching TV, drinking beer, driving monster trucks, line-dancing to country music (straight outta St-Tite, yo) — in short, the exact same stuff that Quebecers do, except in English, mostly.
This is the great secret. We’re really not that different, individually. I don’t think you can point to random anglo Ontarian A and random franco Quebecer B, examine their daily routines and find much difference on that granular scale. There are vast differences between individuals within a single group, after all - you’d hardly think Jacques Parizeau and Jean Leloup were from the same species, much less the same ethno-cultural makeup.
There is much more difference at the aggregate level - you can draw shared cultural generalizations about Montrealers vs. Quebec City, or Toronto vs. London - but even then you end up with some real surprises.
For example, check out these CROP-Environics poll numbers from after the 1995 referendum.
About 75% of Quebeckers feel an affinity for Canada; only 25% see themselves as “Quebeckers only”. Another 25% say they are “Quebeckers first, Canadians second”; 30% identify as “Quebeckers and Canadians and 20% as “Canadians only.” Two-thirds of Quebeckers would rather have more power within Canada than separate. In this same poll, 80% of people across the country agreed that Quebec is an essential component of Canadian identity; we are a society founded by two nations of two different ethnic origins and we have lived together for a long time.
(CROP-Environics, March 26/96, Globe & Mail)
So what’s the truth of the matter, as to how Quebecers feel about Canada? I think there are as many answers as there are Quebecois(es). But statistically, they seem pretty positive on the idea.
On a related note, Alex also said:
Je n’ai pas une personnalité canadienne comme un Italien a une personnalité italienne. Ou un Français. Ou un américain..
Would that be a Milan Italian personality? Roman? Sicilian? Calabrese? Swiss Italian? Italian-American? New York Italian vs. Chicago? Toronto? Rio de Janeiro or Brasilia Italian, for that matter? And I can think of at least fifty different responses for American — Vermonters and Texans are definitely different breeds and they will tell you so.
Nobody has a “Canadian personality” - what’s a Quebec personality for that matter?
Quebecers as a group, have evolved their own attitudes and morals, laws, media, dialects and (not unrelatedly) musical styles. So yes, that’s culture.
But personalities are…personal. If you say Quebecers are more passionate, I can point to several who aren’t, and if you say Torontonians are more reserved, I can find exceptions there as well.
By that reckoning, what am I supposed to be - a one-quarter passionate, one-eighth each penny-pinching and alcoholic, one-half mystical guru floating on a lily pad? Come on.
The idea that different nationalities or ethnic groups share some sort of hard-coded mental wiring is a pretty cartoonish idea of the universe, straight out of Asterix. I have found these ideas to be pretty common among Quebecers of a certain age, who grew up never encountering visible minorities — and they certainly weren’t seeing images of anyone but pure laines in the media.
ironically, their kids, at least in Montreal, are in the most multi-ethnic school environments in the province’s history….
…
In life, you must be willing to go out and find the best in a situation, to brave something new, to go someplace where, yes, you will be at a disadvantage, either being an outsider, a tourist, a city slicker or a yokel out of your environment, where quite possibly you don’t speak the language. You have to watch the TV shows, read the newspapers and magazines, talk to people, get a leg up on the culture.
If there would be one good thing done with my federal tax dollars, it would be to take every young person from the ages of 16 to 21 and send them every summer to live and work in another language, in another province. Quebecers get the rest of Canada, the rest get Quebec. New Brunswickers can go to the next town over, if necessary.
Dating a unilingual person from the other language group will be mandatory. There’s a challenge for the homme rouge…!
…
Alex said:
un truc qui me donne espoir, c’est le sentiment de rejet du Québec qui se développe dans le ROC à cause, entre autres, du scandale des commandites. C’est peut-être le Canada qui va se défaire du Québec!
Uh? What rejection of Québec? The sponsorship scandal has brought down faith in the Liberal party machine, and I suspect there would have been the same outrage if it had originated in any other province. I really don’t see a nation rejecting a whole province over a government scandal - the fact that it was related to the referendum is tangential, the real point is that money was paid illegally and under the table to bypass electoral financing laws.
I could point to very real (and now, documented) case of the PQ organizing and instructing scrutineers at polls to reject perfectly good “No” ballots in that same referendum, but that would be an indictment of the PQ, not of Quebec as a whole…. I mean, would you excise your liver over a case of sunburn?
On top of that, can we just once and for all stop the myth of some sort of united, monoculture, mono-opinionated “rest of canada?” If one travels (ahem) one learns that every province has a history and a distinct culture / cultural mix of its own.
BC is not like Alberta is not like Saskatchewan is not like Manitoba, anymore than Switzerland is like Italy, France or Germany - sure, they might speak the same languages to each other, but they are really different countries. Just as a nationalist Quebecer might take umbrage at being called a Canadian while abroad, so too does anyone from any Canadian province resent the loss of identity when lumped into an imaginary beast called “the Roc.”
…
On the subject of Quebec cheeses: So if there’s a dumb governmental policy about exporting raw-milk cheese, do you change the law, or change the country?
Every society has a dumb rule on the books that comes from some incident in the past. Maybe people died from bad raw milk cheese in the past, when we didn’t know how to make it properly. Who knows. Quebec still requires margarine to be another colour than butter — like you can’t taste the difference — and that’s equally stupid. So petition your MP and the minister for Agriculture…
What I do know about the dairy industry in Quebec and Canada is that without substantial subsidies by the Canadian government to dairy producers (under the guise of provincial transfer payments), Quebec milk, cheese and yogurt would not be as competitive in the world market.
The WTO ruled in 1999 in a case brought by US and New Zealand dairy producers alleging that Canadian dairy exporters did not pay market rates for their milk - and Canada had to comply, cutting those subsidies to the point that one of the largest processors, Lactel, was forced to close.
…
On the issue of school costs — well, sure, they’re the lowest, but at a certain point, you get what you pay for. Every time a school begs for more money to keep the lights on, students march in force and we get another tuition freeze. It’s a political hot potato, but eventually the students get burned.
Because of this, Quebec post-secondary schools simply don’t attract the same teaching talent as their counterparts in other provinces or in the US, they expand less, their facilities are smaller and less well maintained / refurbished. Compare McGill or UQAM to U of T, Queen’s or even Ryerson - they run a distant third at best - and then go to Boston and walk around a bit and compare all of those to MIT, Harvard, Yale… If we want to keep our cost of education low, and quality high, then we have to find a new funding formula.
And if we want to do it without transfer payments from Ottawa…good luck.
….
If there’s one thing that disturbs me about patriotic ideas of “nationhood” - besides the risk of bloody, Balkan-style conflict - is the unspoken ethnocentric idea.
Even though later PQ leaders have tried to defuse the racial overtones of “quebec aux quebecois” by generously redefining it to mean “anyone who lives in quebec,” I cannot help but feel that when “We” talk about ourselves, “We” means Quebecois de souche, pur et dur. It just seems to be understood, assumed, drilled into the consciousness of everyone born after 1970.
I don’t think sovereignists operate in bad faith necessarily, but I am wary of the unintended consequences of their assumptions. By and large, this idea of “nation” excludes people like me, or tolerates me as long as I don’t get in the way of “the majority.”
I come by this unease from a lifetime living under laws that discriminate based on what you speak at home, having your language be second-class, to be taken off the sign, half-sized, assimilated in school in some sort of reverse-Durham Report fashion. I worry that a sovereign Quebec would see independence as a mandate to remove hard-won minority language rights.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Quebec’s situation is unique and yes, it should promote the French language, culture, and heritage as one of its #1 goals. But I think now is the time to put away the old reasons and the old methods. I don’t think you need to put other languages down in order to elevate French, and we have to let go of all the cliches and folktales about the Anglo Boogeyman who’s out to “get” the Quebecois.
From my point of view, the battle is over - ever since I can remember, Francophone Quebecers have been at the reins of power, not least of which in the banks, the crown corporations and public agencies, the media, and of course the corporate boardrooms. (Pierre-Karl, line one…)
So to still claim oppression at this point reminds me of how the conservative-evangelical Right, which controls the House, Senate and Executive in the US, claims to be some sort of persecuted minority, and how liberal-left politicians, who are far from having power, are demonized as some sort of threat. It’s patently false, but the culture of aggrievement gets votes.
Sadly, it really ends up just dividing people who ought to be on the same side. There well may be good, positive, rational reasons for Quebec to “leave the nest,” as Alex puts it; I’d hate for old, irrational ethnic divisions to be one of the forces involved.
…
So to get back to the beginning, I find it sad Alex has practically no relationship with the country outside his doorstep. To be honest, I have that kind of relationship with the rest of Quebec outside Montreal, and it’s something I am not proud of.
I was born in Montreal, raised here and lived here all my life; had bilingual education even to the point of French immersion - the good school-French that lets you understand the SRC evening news and Le Devoir, but not a word of Louis-José Houde. Other than Goldorak, Albator and Capitaine Flam, the media bubble I grew up in was Anglo-Canadian, British and American.
My mother grew up in Abord-a-Plouffe and can switch into a sort of old-school joual when she pleases, but it takes me 30 seconds to get into French-mode, and even then, I can just forget about using idioms, new slang, or telling jokes.
Still, my heritage, in part, is as souche as anyone - I can trace my lineage back to the first Gendreau that ever stepped off a boat in New France, and I’m distantly related to all the other Gendreaults, Gendrons, and even a couple of Beausoleils. Like most French-Canadians there’s First Nations in the mix - Mohawk, apparently - and the other eighths on that side came directly from Ireland via Liverpool, married to Alexandria, Ontario Scots.
The other side? From Ahmedabad, Maharastra province, India.
So I know what it’s like to feel like you don’t belong, or even that you’re unwanted. I never had the natural confidence of pure-bred kids, of any race in particular. I could never be part of anyone’s crowd, except the misfits. I had to pretty much invent myself from whole cloth, because while I’m proud of all those roots, I don’t feel particularly attached to, or shaped by, any of them.
My primary identity is as a Montrealer, then a Quebecer, then a Canadian (depending on the context of course; a Canadian abroad, a Quebecer in Canada, a Montrealer in Quebec.)
Which explains the weird feeling I get whenever I have to go off-island: It isn’t my territory and it’s strange. I’ll always feel much more at ease in other cosmopolitan cities than I will in any countryside, whether it’s my “home province” or not.
That said, I’m becoming more at home the more I explore Quebec, because I’m open to the idea that this is mine too, a sense of wonder that I am disappointed Alex doesn’t share, presumably, when he sees a picture of the Rockies or the Prairies or even the Casa Loma…
In the end I count myself as a Quebecer - I was born here, my roots are here, even if I am a bit disconnected from them, but dammit, doesn’t my voice count too?
…
(Edited for clarity, May 26.)
One rule - if there’s any commentary, let’s keep it civil and on-topic, no personal attacks, folks…
May 26, 2005 4:05 AM
Comments
OK - let’s not make this a board for anglo grievances. The Gazette editorial page is quite enough for me, thanks :)
Still, not to dismiss your feelings, Paolo - why do you feel 2nd class, unwelcome, and mistreated?
I can think of many government policies that use the sacrosanct excuse of “protecting culture” in order to confound the lives of citizens. It is these abuses that are unnecessary and counterproductive.
At the same time, Alex has a point when he notes the PQ’s quite progressive social policies, which I rather like.
My point is, are we not part of Quebec culture as well, having been born and raised here? Is Anglo-Quebec culture (irish, scots, eastern townships, etc.) not part of Quebec culture as a whole, the same way that Acadian French, Cape Breton Gaelic, and Manitoba Ukranian form part of their respective provinces’ cultures?
The awful truth is that there are many cultures native to Quebec; there just happens to be one big dominant one tied to ethnic origin and language. Can a future Quebec transcend the ethnic origin and focus on the language? Demographically speaking, they’re going to have to, but that’s the topic of another post.
wrote aj on May 26, 2005 2:02 PM
Wow, wow, oh wow.
First, A.J., let me tell you how much I admire your bravery AND your energy. This is one long post but I am very glad you invested the time you did in writing it. I hope people will give you the respect it deserves, i.e. to actually read the post before they comment.
It is brave to write about this subject because you never know what kind of comments you’ll end up with. Hopefully, people will appreciate, as I did, that you clearly expressed a personal opinion, without making wide generalizations or accusations.
I was born and raised in Quebec City in a very, very francophone milieu where everybody came from the same kind of background. I was raised by parents who were older than my friends’ parents and who knew the Québec of Les Plouffe, where francophones had no true economic power. They’ve told me stories about working for rich anglos who looked down on them. Everybody knows these “Eaton ladies” kind of stories and they are important to know about, even though times have obviously changed.
It’s only when I moved out of the country to live in the US that I started to understand what Canada was about. People at work in San Francisco would tease me and say “hey” all the time, and I didn’t even understand what they were teasing me about because I was so unfamiliar with the English Canadian culture and language. Like a lot of québécois francophones, I first started being aware of a Canadian identity when I was able to compare it with the American identity, (if there is such a thing). I knew I wasn’t American. Did that make me Canadian? Let’s say that with the years living in the US, I became more and more comfortable with the idea of being Canadian. I understood how that was closer to who I was than being American.
I liked it when you said:
“On top of that, can we just once and for all stop the myth of some sort of united, monoculture, mono-opinionated “rest of canada?” If one travels (ahem) one learns that every province has a history and a distinct culture / cultural mix of its own.”
I completely agree with you here. And it does not only apply to Canada. A San Franciscan is very different from a Texan. Un Parisien n’est pas le même qu’un Marseillais. But it’s something you realize only when you experience it and get away from your home (hometown, home province, country, etc). As more and more young québécois travel, the attitudes will change. Which does not mean that they will no longer root for independance but that they might look at it from a different standpoint.
wrote Martine on May 26, 2005 3:44 PM
Oh, and there’s something else I wanted to talk about. ;-)
You said: “I understand something of what Alex says when he claims not to have an attachment to the rest of Canada, of which more below. But in a perverse mirror of that, I have that kind of relationship with franco-Quebec culture, and it’s not something I’m proud of.”
Once again, thank you for your honesty! I’m sure it’s not something that is easy to say. I know you are not the only one in this situation (Blork is the same, even though he wasn’t born here), and it puzzles me. The francophone culture is all around you, with a healthy music industry, movies that have more success than any other movies in Canada, an interesting literary scene, tv series that rival with big US productions. If I lived in Milan, for example, I would be super curious to learn Italian so that I could understand what young people are into, so that I could follow local culture and bond with the locals. But it’s most often québécois francophones who are bilingual and truly navigate between the two art scenes. This is a big generalization I’m about to say but I don’t know how to voice it otherwise so please bear with me: Why do you think so many anglos in Quebec are so “uncurious” about québécois francophone culture?
wrote Martine on May 26, 2005 3:53 PM
Martine, thank you for your kind words!
Yes, I was trying to get away from the old anglo grievances, because - aside from ongoing headaches like being able to choose the language of education for your kids - 30 years on we’ve adapted, largely become at least functionally bilingual, and you know, we just want to get on with life.
The “angry anglo” is just as extreme as the MLNQ-types, and these elements do not represent the mainstream, however, they garner more press and reaction, because it’s like right-wing talk radio — it gets good ratings the more extreme it gets.
From my generation, it’s the opposite story to the “Eaton ladies” of myth - now we have the “Desjardins bureaucrats” who can’t or won’t speak English unless you make it clear you’re American (we’ve seen this happen dozens of times). Even as someone born here, I could never imagine advancing very far in a corporate giant like Quebecor, the SAQ, Hydro-Quebec — not to mention even getting a job with the provincial government — if I didn’t bring my conversational French up to the level of a native speaker.
And that answers your last question. We’re not incurious, we’re just shut out because we learned French later in life, in a stilted, school-lessons way, not in a total immersion environment.
I can’t follow the hairpin turns of conversational Quebec French well enough to watch a talk show without having to guess and fill in words and meanings. This makes me feel embarassed sometimes, in conversation, like people are “dumbing down” their French for me, if they don’t switch to English.
Doubly so for stand-up comedy or pop music - which often uses the most idiomatic “street” French. If that’s the heart of pop culture, you have to agree it’s harder to get to without already being “inside” from the beginning. I appreciated RBO because, to me, they seemed very much like The Kids In The Hall, and also, oddly, unlike other French comics of the day. But I cannot follow Houde or Perusse without subtitles. My loss.
Most people just “tune out” second languages. Every time I go to Toronto, for instance, I feel like I’m being assaulted by the in-your-face-ness of the signage, but then I realize it’s just because it’s all in English. I’m naturally pulled into recognizing and parsing English words, whereas here in Montreal, French signs seem less prominent. In the same way, you and I don’t “see” signs in Korean or Chinese. It’s a quirk of human perception.
In a more real sense, it’s sadly easy to just delete channels from your Illico or ExpressVu favourites grid, so that you’re left with the handful of channels with “your shows.” You can go for months without seeing a French station. I think I’m going to make a favourites list of all-French stations - I love the fact I can get SRC Moncton for instance.
wrote aj on May 26, 2005 6:05 PM
One more thing about your comment - yeah, the one constant in Canadian identity is mutability. We’re always different depending on the context. A Canadian in the US, a Quebecker in Canada, a Montrealer in Quebec, a Griffintowner in Mile-End. As i commented over at M-C’s site, the good thing is we’re moving past negative definitions. No longer are we “not american” or “not canadian” but we can point to emerging, distinct culture(s) all across Canada, and for the country as a whole.
On another note, I do try to rent Quebec movies. Recently I really liked that older comedy, J’en suis and Quebec-Montreal was good. The fact that there’s a Boite Noire nearby helps with that. And did i mention - Marie-Josee Croze is hottt. I gotta check out more of her movies :)
I really recommend everyone read 3 books - they’re short, too. Michael Adams’ Fire and Ice: The Myth Of Converging Values, about the emerging distinctness of Canadian culture vs. the US; and Douglas Coupland’s two coffee-table books, Souvenir of Canada volumes 1 and 2.
Coupland in particular has his own perspective, being a Vancouver-born person who lived, at times, in Montreal and Toronto, and he seems to have an unerring finger on the pulse of “what it means to be Canadian,” at least in my mind.
wrote aj on May 26, 2005 6:18 PM
Thanks A.J.! I definitely need to read something by Coupland.
If you like Marie-Josée Croze, rent Maelstrom. It’s an interesting film, directing wise.
http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=5719&reviewer=247
I also suggest “Un crabe dans la tête” (Soft Shell Man). Funky, contemporary, touching.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=259813
wrote Martine on May 26, 2005 7:27 PM
Oh, and of course, rent the set of DVDs from the tv show “La vie la vie”! I’m not sure if they have a version with subtitles though. It’s worth checking.
wrote Martine on May 26, 2005 7:29 PM
great thread, AJ.
in response to martine’s question, “Why do you think so many anglos in Quebec are so “uncurious” about québécois francophone culture?” personally, i’m very curious about franco-québécois culture. i almost never watch french TV but i usually read la presse every day, along with the globe and mail. mostly, i’m a big fan of quebec music and TV. my music collection brims with stuff by jean leloup, mara tremblay, dumas, les cowboys fringants and so forth. the francofolies is my favourite festival of the year simply because it affords me the opportunity to discover so many great new musicians.
and quebec movies — they’re great. i don’t go to enough québécois or french movies in the theatre because they are so often subtitles and my girlfriend, who is allophone that speaks a limited amount of french (she’s curious, though). we hit up tons of quebec moves on DVD or whenever they’re subtitled in the theatres, though.
still, i can understand AJ’s feeling about being left out of the loop. straddling two cultural milieux can be quite exhausting. some of it, admittedly, has do to entirely with a lack of interest. i really don’t care about quebec vedettes any more than i do about hollywood celebrities. the latest ohh-ahh trends among the quebec intelligentsia make my eyes glaze over as much as anything to do with the toronto can-culture clique.
one thing that really struck me about alex’s post was the comments about not knowing who canadians are, what they think or even what they eat. all he knows is that they’re right-wing and he’s left. i think that’s the worst kind of smug, self-satisfied ignorance. he makes the rest of canada sound like a far-off, foreign and totally monolithic place. it’s an especially surprising sentiment coming from someone who lives in montreal, a lingustically and culturally diverse city if there ever was one. living in a bubble is bad regardless of what language you speak or what culture you come from.
wrote chris dewolf on May 26, 2005 8:32 PM
sorry, i should have said “great post.” i’ve been spending too much time in online discussion forums!
wrote chris dewolf on May 26, 2005 8:32 PM
martine, CBC ran “la vie la vie,” subtitled in english, every night at midnight last year. i only watched a couple of episodes and it was certainly an unfortunate time slot (part of a “best of canada” series of shows and movies), but it was there nonetheless.
wrote chris dewolf on May 26, 2005 8:34 PM
Martine - Yes, I’ll check out all those movies and the TV series if I can get ahold of them. I’ve rather gone off Coupland’s fiction work - I think his non-fiction is more interesting. He wrote a great little book called City of Glass, a little guidebook to Vancouver that’s funny and also very insightful. I’ll lend you all of them if you’re interested. Quite by design, his “Souvenir of Canada” books are patterned after the souvenir books from Canada’s centennial in 1967. Of which I also have one :)
I recently rented the CBC documentary “Expo 67,” part of the Canadian Experience series, and it interviewed people that worked at the fair - it was the most highly sought-after summer job in Canada - and I was really struck by the kids (now 40 and 50somethings) who came from outside Quebec to work at the fair, how it changed their view of how life could be forever - culture, poetry, arts, two languages, staying up till 2:30 in the morning. One guy from a farm town in Saskatchewan said “it seemed like an illegal act!”
Chris - thanks for stopping by. You’ve certainly made more of an effort than most people - that deserves some applause of its own!
I don’t think it’s smug ignorance, but more a result of that inward-looking view that Quebec has had, both officially and in its media, for decades. It is hard to care about someplace you don’t know. And you don’t see TVA or TQS burning rubber to cover civic politics in Calgary, exactly, do you?
To me, it looks like the inward focus has created a vibrant cultural/media scene, but it’s also created a self-fulfilling prophecy about “not knowing” the Other. The less you know about something, the less you think about it, the less it gets coverage, the less it crosses the radar at all. The other provinces become strange abstractions, unreal, as unimaginable as life on another planet.
Combine that with the Truman Show effect - “Tante Mathilde went to Toronto once and they were so rude! Why would you want to go there?” - and the years of myths, anecdotal stories, politics etc - can you blame anyone for being uncurious? If anything, it’s a symptom, not the cause.
wrote aj on May 26, 2005 8:59 PM
I have read Alex posts and following comments and your current response. And I must say that being a French Quebecer from Italian descent and having been raised in a city that kept reminding me I was’nt exactly a Quebecer, I sometimes have doubts about that Quebec is so left-wing. Proof is that Mario Dumont, with his right-wing party, now has 10 % of the vote in Quebec. I am now writing from my father’s house, in Quebec city, where people like big trucks, classic anglo rock music and extreme talk-radio. We speak French but like American tv a lot, and listen to people discuss it on the radio. We do are progressists, considering where we were in the 40’s, when women finally gained the right to vote… Some twenty-something years after the other Canadian women. We have done wonderful things and are renown everywhere for them, but being very critical myself, I would like Quebec to be a bit more self-critical and a bit less entwined in that “we are so different and so great compared to other people of that country” discourse. We have le Code civil du Quebec, Canadians have the Common Law, but we share the same criminal code. Still people will say that we do things differently in that matter. And of course most Quebecers still ignored that their Civil code does not recognize what we call common law unions. And about that Italian identity Alex refered to, my grandfather was from the Abruzzes and he could barely understand the language of our neighbour who was an Italian from Venetia… But they did cheer together, when an Italian team would win the soccer cup.
wrote Nadia on May 26, 2005 11:24 PM
Do you need to go to Mexico to know you aren’t Mexican? Everytime a Québécois like me says “I’m not Canadian”, he automatically gets told that he doesn’t know cause he’s never been. Then something is usually said about the Rockies…
You say if I go to Canada, I will realize that these people aren’t so different from me. But they most certainly aren’t the same either. They speak english for one thing.
You must understand that everything I identify myself too is from Quebec and is PROPER to Quebec. All my cultural background is about french and is COMPLETELY irrelevant in the rest of the country. That’s why I think it’s dishonnest to say that the duality Quebec -ROC is not some thing very different from the duality BC-Alberta. I mean, sure, you can try to blur any national distinction, but I don’t think that cultural relativism is a realistic way to see life.
So it’s not ignorance so much as difference. People from Brittish Columbia will never know anything about Felix Leclerc, Gilles Vigneault, Anne Hébert, Jacques Godbout, Honoré Mercier, Duplessis, Jean Lesage, Jean Drapeau. And I will never know anything about the discovery of the West. But I don’t believe this has anything to do with ignorance. You can’t skip on stuff like cultural background, just because yours is a little more uncertain. All this stuff makes me what I am, way more than the exact location where I reside.
In other words, we have a lot more differences with the ROC than ressemblances.
It’s a matter of feeling and you can’t try to rationalize that. (we’re just talking “sentiment d’appertenance” here, seperation is a matter of arguments and you can try to rationalize THAT, but I don’t think that’ exactly what this post was about).
Just because you don’t feel this huge duality between Quebec and ROC doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to ski in Whistler and I bet Lake Louise is breath taking, but that won’t ever make me Canadian. The same way the grand canyon won’t ever make me feel american.
And just one thing, there is something very disturbing about somebody mocking the “english boogeyman” and the french protection policies, when that person grew up here and will not feel at ease in a french conversation. The policies and laws are not necessarly there to be useful themself, but to clearly state that French is the official language here. That doens’t, in any way, diminuish your right to live a happy life in english because of your indeniable historic rights and privileges (for wich you shouldn’t fear anything in the event of a free Quebec). But it must be important for immigrants to understand that if you want to live here you will have to speak french. I don’t expect you to embrace the whole of Quebec culture, but french is a mandatory condition.
wrote Philippe-A. on May 26, 2005 11:46 PM
Nadia - very interesting. Thanks! (I never knew you were part Italian!) I think that whenever national myths are (re)written the bad parts are conveniently overlooked.
wrote aj on May 27, 2005 2:24 AM
Bonjour Aj,
Tu écris :
« I understand something of what Alex says when he claims not to have an attachment to the rest of Canada, of which more below. But in a perverse mirror of that, I have that kind of relationship with franco-Quebec culture, and it’s not something I’m proud of ».
J’ai habité pendant des années une ville sise à la frontière ontarienne et à moitié anglophone. On peut dire de mes grands-parents qu’ils étaient « anglicisés ». Mon père partage sa vie avec une anglo (tout à fait charmante). Je demeure depuis 10 ans dans NDG à la limite du West-Island. J’ai visité le Canada d’est en ouest. J’ai des amis anglophones ici, en Ontario, à Vancouver, À Calgary, au Nouveau-Brunswick. Des amis ouverts, qui s’intéressent à la vie artistique francophone (et moi à la leur) . L’histoire m’a légué un héritage anglo-saxon que je ne renie d’aucune manière (notre héritage parlementaire notamment). (Tiens….ça peut-être à voir avec le sondage Crop que t’as cité) D’ailleurs, chaque fois que je le peux, je souligne à mes étudiants nos racines anglo-saxonnes.
Pourtant ..shame on me ;-)..je suis souverainiste. Je ne le dis jamais à mes amis anglophones. Oh !… Ils le savent bien. Mais on n’en parle pas. C’est tabou. Ça divise. De part et d’autre, on ne veut pas ça.. la division… En tant qu’individus, s’entend…Contrairement à toi (et à tous les franco-québécois dans ton cas, pour des raisons inverses), je ne suis pas complètement détachée de la culture anglaise,donc (je pressens que c’est aussi ton cas concernant la « franco-Quebec culture », mais que par excès d’honnêteté tu as joué le « va-tout ».. Non ???. Anyway, on peu plus loin dans ton texte quand tu évoques ta mère , tu te dédies..Non ??? Ce sont là des questions , bien sûr).
Alors dites-moi, comment expliquer mon attachement à la nation canadienne-française (vous avez bien lu) ??, mon désir d’être reconnu comme peuple fondateur de ce pays (peu importe l’échelle) ??, mon sentiment, qu’étant donné la donne de ces dernières décennies à cet égard, il vaudrait mieux viser l’autonomie gouvernementale ???. Comment expliquer…ce sentiment d’appartenance viscérale à ma culture française. Ce n’est pas de la frime. Cela est une vraie question. Depuis 15 ans que ça me « turlipine »… Comme tu le dis si bien AJ (c’est sincère) : « We’re really not that different, individually. I don’t think you can point to random anglo Ontarian A and random franco Quebecer B, examine their daily routines and find much difference on that granular scale. There are vast differences between individuals within a single group, after all… »… Je suis d’accord avec toi. Et, non, la personnalité n’a rien à voir (« But personalities are…personal. If you say Quebecers are more passionate, I can point to several who aren’t, and if you say Torontonians are more reserved, I can find exceptions there as well »… You are right !…) Alors pourquoi, moi, je continue d’être une « bibitte souverainiste » (ou indépendandiste, ou séparatiste..name it..) ?? Ça me hante tellement cette question ; j’ai tellement cherché à me comprendre (et à comprendre « les Autres) que j’en ai fait mon domaine de spécialité comme prof-chercheure (citizenship and ethnic relations in education).. Putain, ce dilemme en moi..Depuis toujours..Woody , god damn, give me the name of your psychanalist.. ;-)
***
À un moment donné dans ton texte, Aj, tu évoques la place du français (comme langue). Et tu lui donnes sa juste place (oui, oui). Mais voilà que mon cœur bat. Oui. Oui. Que les « pouristes » aux jugements prompts aillent se rhabiller : Je comprends parfaitement l’anglais à l’oral et quand je le lis ; je prends des cours à Mc Gill pour parfaire mon anglais à l’écrit- oui oui..un jour je t’écrirai en anglais AJ, promis- j’ai inscrit ma fille à un camp d’immersion anglaise cet été…SO…
T’es là à nous livrer un raisonnement implacable (que j’apprécie)… et tout à coup mon coeur bat. Putain ! Ma langue..wow là !..Ma culture… J’ai peur de la perdre tout à coup.. j’ai toujours peur, en fait. Ça ne s‘explique pas.
Voilà, j’ose le dire. Aux discours rationnels de tous mes amis anglos ( y compris toi même si on n’est pas des amis officiels), je n’ai que mes « trippes » à livrer en échange. Tu déclares que la culture française devrait être une priorité.. et malgré tout ma gorge se noue. Pourquoi donc ?
Aj, j’ai toujours un peu peur, comprends-tu ça ??
Merci pour ton humanisme, ta franchise et ton ouverture..
Lili
wrote lili on May 27, 2005 2:39 AM
AJ, J’ai imprimé ton billet parce que je ne l’ai pas lu aussi bien que je le veux. C’est très long et il est très tard! Mais je veux le relire à tête reposé parce que, encore une fois, tu exprimes magnifiquement des idées et je veux y réfléchir.
Thank you for this post. Like i said, i’ve printed it! And you know what? Thats’ the first time i ever print a post! Must be really good and important for me!
I have to say that if you know me, you know that i don’t take my blog too seriously. It’s my personal space where i put my thoughts (No?!? Really?!? Bravo Alex! Héhé.) - bad or good. - well written or not. I know that’s a mistake and i should be more careful sometimes before posting.
I didn’t expressed well enough my feelings about Canada. I resumed it too much and missed my point, at least that’s how I feel right now. I’ll get back on the subject eventually.
Encore, magnifique billet! J’ai beaucoup de respect pour toi et pas seulement depuis ce soir! Je tiens à diree que tes écrits me font toujours réfléchir.
wrote Alex on May 27, 2005 2:44 AM
Philippe. Where to start.
I never said there wasn’t a unique culture in Quebec, or that it wasn’t worthy of protection. I just think there’s a better way to do it than they way we do it now.
Promote French first.
Teach French better. There’s no reason any kid should graduate from CEGEP or university not speaking French well enough to pass a Civil Service exam, or specific exams related to their vocation if necessary.
Teach English better in French schools, too. It was Jacques Parizeau who said he’d “kick the ass of anyone who couldn’t speak English,” after all, in reference to giving young people more options and opportunities. Even if it’s only an option, it will be better than current norms of instruction - start earlier, more hours of instruction. Learning more than one language at a young age is good for the brain, so they say - and surrounded by a thoroughly French society I don’t think it would hurt to allow it.
Support homegrown Quebec culture first, absolutely. Give all the subsidies and tax breaks and grants we need to maintain a strong, vibrant culture industry.
Sure, stream new immigrants into French schools - I agree with that. Surprised?
…
Of course there are cultural differences on a mass scale between Quebecers and Canadians from other parts of the country. But it is untrue to say that all individual members of these groups are identical.
But ask 50 Quebecers and 50 Albertans “what does it mean to be a Quebecer, an Albertan, a Canadian” and you’ll get 300 different answers.
…
When I mention the “English boogeyman,” it’s not mockery - it’s an acknowledgement of historical fact and a plea to move on to something more positive.
As Martine pointed out, at one time, there were ‘bad old English bosses,’ Lord Durham, etc.
Emphasis on at one time. That’s all history now. No-one, English or French, wants to go back to those days.
Are Quebec Anglos oppressing Franco Quebecers anymore? At less than 10% of the population and dropping, aging rapidly and being replaced by a rising tide of multilingual allophones, I really don’t think so. But somehow I still feel like they exist as the straw-man argument in the sovereignist equation, a convenient scapegoat, the group that is put down in order to elevate the other.
…
Attempting to protect your culture by draconian legislation is like trying to hold a handful of sand in a clenched fist - it all trickles between your fingers.
That’s why I don’t think it is necessary to put other language groups down in order to be “on top.” To do so betrays a pathological fear of losing something.
That is why I must disagree with your last point, which seems to me to be couched in exactly that pathological fear and denial.
In a very real sense, yes, the language laws and their application did diminish people’s right to live a happy life in English, because historic rights, privileges and recognition as part of the fabric of Quebec were chucked out the window.
As a direct result of these language policies, 130,000 Quebecers, mostly in Montreal, and the head offices of several companies, left the province between 1976 and 1981.
Imagine Quebec City becoming a ghost town. That’s about what it’s equal to.
It was a loss of a community, a brain drain, an enormous loss of human, industrial and financial capital, and essentially cemented Montreal’s slide from #1 to #2 city in Canada, where it languished for a good two decades.
Was that a victory for anyone? Is the French language and the Quebec culture now safer because of this? Was it worth it? I don’t think so.
That’s why I want to find a better way. Whether Quebec stays in or out of the federation, these old rivalries, revanchist tactics and resentments have to go, on both sides of the fence.
…
Which brings me to my last point, in rebuttal to your first.
I find the definition of Quebecois as merely “Not Canadian” to be lacking in imagination. It is empty, a void, a negative. I find the easy slide into rejecting something merely because of differences to be a cop-out, again, rooted in an irrational fear. Differences are normal. Embrace them!
At heart, I feel most Canadians want Quebec to succeed, because both culturally and economically, it’s vital to the entire country. If there is a soul in Canada it is in Quebec, surely; no-one was inspired to write poems after visiting the Welland Canal, I don’t think. I don’t think most Canadians want Quebec to be a “good little lapdog” or subservient.
And it’s equally important that Canada succeed, because it’s vital to Quebec - it provides common services, we are deeply entwined in interprovincial trade, there is common infrastructure, defense. Canada helps creates the safe bubble in which the Quebec culture - and all other provincial, regional, and minority cultures - can flourish.
Quebec has so many good things going on - it would be so easy to create a positive, inclusive vision for the 21st century. And Canada - a young country, still in the making - has so much to be proud of, too. Depsite our missteps, false starts and disappointments — Why reject the good, along with the bad?
wrote aj on May 27, 2005 3:14 AM
Lili —
Thanks so much for your wonderful comment. I hope we can be friends in real life, too!
I wish I could reply in wonderful written French but it’s 3:18 AM…Why are we all up so late???
I do have attachment to my French roots, and yes, I’m not completely cut off from Franco-Quebec culture, just as you are connected to your anglo-saxon roots.
Yes, I understand completely why there is the fear of losing your culture / identity, even if everyone you meet is very knowledgeable and pro-quebec etc. It is a combination of language, history and place, and we all know these things change with forces larger than all of us.
It’s the same question outside Quebec. What makes Canadians different from Americans? Why don’t they just assimilate us? Will they invade Alberta for the oil? Are we just unarmed Americans with health care?
Thankfully, all the signs show that distinctness is deeping both in Quebec and in Canada as a whole. That book I mentioned earlier, Fire and Ice, is full of statistics about that. On many important issues - the role of government, the rights of citizens, policies, opinions etc - there are deepening differences between us and them; Quebec is the leading trendsetter, so when I say it’s the soul of Canada, I’m not kidding.
Good article about it here:
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3501
wrote aj on May 27, 2005 3:29 AM
Alex!
Thank you very much, first of all for writing your thought-provoking pieces in the first place. I wouldn’t write at all if I didn’t respect you either — and your pieces definitely got me thinking about things in a way I haven’t really done in a while. I don’t have any answers, only questions at the moment, but they’re good ones, I hope.
I know it’s personal and just thoughts. Mine too - It’s my fault - I went to a Jesuit school and they really taught me how to argue the case!!
I’m sorry mine ran on so long — i hope you don’t need to use too much paper.
I didn’t get to really express what I feel about Quebec either - i have another post (hopefully shorter!) in mind for that. Call it the “Switcher” ad for a new brand of quebec sovereignty…
wrote aj on May 27, 2005 3:35 AM
You say -“To truly reject something, you first have to have made the honest effort to embrace it, understand it, live it, be it, and still find it lacking.” I hear this often when Québecois cultural identity is discussed and it makes me uneasy, only in that it strikes me as an inherently intolerant statement delivered as a very tolerant one.
If you were say… discussing racism or even homosexuality vs. heterosexuality you know this argument would ring false. Gay persons everywhere would quickly explain to you why they don’t need to fully “embrace” heterosexuality “live it” or “be it” before knowing wholeheartedly that it’s not who they are.
wrote Rachel on May 27, 2005 10:47 AM
I absolutely disagree that Felix Leclerc, Gilles Vigneault, Anne Hébert and the rest are in any way irrelevant to the “rest of Canada”. That is simply not the case - they are all - with Gabrielle Roy, Emile Nelligan, and dozens of others - considered fundamental elements of Canadian culture and are celebrated, taught in schools, and deeply loved by Canadians from East to West.
As I would expect Margaret Atwood, Robertson Davies, and (say) Susanna Moodie to be celebrated and loved in Quebec.
wrote Michael Boyle on May 27, 2005 10:59 AM
OK, Rachel, point taken, but that’s sort of splitting logic hairs a bit. Race and gender are quite a bit more tied to biology than language and culture.
Given that it is possible to consider oneself as a Quebecer and a Canadian, or a Quebecer only, but that it is impossible, say, to be “just” a Canadian and not also, say, a Nova Scotian, I’m just trying to understand the thought process that leads towards rejecting the idea of a Canadian identity in addition to a Quebecois one. I don’t think one negates the other, but some people obviously do.
In following that question, it leads me to ask — what is a Quebecer, and what is a Canadian, and how can anyone be so sure that they are “not also” the other thing when they admit not to knowing, or even wanting to know, anything about it? Why is it somehow a bad thing?
If we agree that the definition of Quebecois contains an innate negation of the larger Canadian identity, then sure. But as polls show, the majority of Quebecers also view themselves as Canadian. So obviously the concept of membership in different identity groups is a little less rigid than some would have us believe.
wrote aj on May 27, 2005 12:33 PM
Mikel - thanks, good point!
I live a short walk away from Gabrielle Roy’s old neighborhood. I think her old house is now some sort of museum or B&B, just near the park.
wrote aj on May 27, 2005 12:35 PM
But, language and culture affects the way in which one’s mind develops and how one views the world - it actually trumps biology. Therefore, why wouldn’t culture itself be something as uncontrollably known and heartfelt as anything which “ties” into biology?
I’ve never believed that Quebecois identity hinges upon the “rejection” of Canadian identity. Growing up Quebecois, Canadian identity simply wasn’t relevant. You can’t “reject” something you’ve never even considered. Does this make the Quebecois culturally “un-curious” about Canadian culture? Un-informed? Ignorant even? Well, how informed are Canadians about Inuit culture or the language and history of the Acadians? These cultures are just as geographically adjunct as Canada’s own is to Quebec. By your own argument, why don’t Canadians try to “live and “be” more Inuit before “rejecting” them and calling themselves Canadians? As for what “defines” Quebecois culture. Well, what “defines” any culture? Would you deny that Inuit culture exists? No? Then apply the same criteria you used to form this opinion when analyzing Quebecois culture and presto, you’ll have your answer.
* Ironically Canada would see fit to offer Inuit culture it’s own sovereignty and cultural identity, but Quebec still has to argue for its own. When it comes down to it… it’s all about power and fear isn’t it? Canada doesn’t fear Inuit nationalism, but it does fear Quebec nationalism. That’s also where the sense of “rejection” ties in. Canada doesn’t feel “rejected” by Nunavuut, but does feel “rejected” by Quebec. Canada clearly has “issues”.
wrote Rachel on May 27, 2005 4:58 PM
Rachel, I do agree that language and culture affect people’s development. It’s natural that people feel at home in the language and culture they grew up in.
I think the idea of “Canadian identity” only matters when you’re outside Canada, it’s how we define ourselves to others… I mean, it’s not like I’m up late at night wondering who I am!…but I do think that we’re getting a clearer idea of what we are, as opposed to merely what we are not.
I think sometimes the wording is a little too loaded. I think it’s better to say “society” instead of culture, because culture is pretty specific. Society is more neutral, more inclusive, and pertains more to the borders, the civic institutions, laws etc. that technically belong to everyone inside it. So, there is a Quebec society that contains one majority culture and several minority cultures, and a Canadian society that is a kind of “umbrella organization” for the other societies and cultures within it.
Thus it is perhaps more accurate to say that I don’t question people’s attachment or detachment as regards culture or identity, but I am puzzled by people’s rejection or “disbelief” in a larger society outside their own, where membership in one doesn’t negate the other - I think they are complementary, and mutually beneficial.
I do think the treatment of aboriginal peoples has been hypocritical, and yes, most Canadians are poorly educated about the cultural groups within our borders, even within our own societies. I think we got a single paragraph about Ukrainians in my Canadian History text in high school, for instance. It’s clearly something that needs fixing.
Now, in the case of granting “sovereignty” in Nunavut, the phrase was actually “self-governing.” Technically, Canada retains sovereignty over that land mass. I don’t think Canada has the power to offer the Inuit their own cultural identity - they already have one - but merely to fund organizations and initiatives that reinforce and protect it, as is done with cultures across the country, including Quebec!
Power and fear - I just wrote a new post about that. Yes, in a sense, you’re right, but in reality, both sides are afraid of losing something, and attempt to use power to hold on to it.
Practically speaking, It’s hard to have a country with a large physical gap in the middle of it. There are billions of dollars of economic exchange at risk for both sides. Taking Quebec out of Federation means that the very idea of modern Canada - a country founded on two cultures and languages - has failed. The remaining provinces of the country then risk an uncertain future.
In truth, Canada tried to settle it once and for all with the Clarity Act - to get a clear majority on a clear question, and respect the decision of the voters. Post-referendum polling from 1980 and 1995 showed that each time, 46% of Quebecers didn’t understand what they were voting on - they thought they were voting for more autonomous political and economic power within Canada, not separation, and clearly not for unilateral separation regardless of the results of that negotiation!
The fact is, as the polls show, on the clear question of “Do you want Quebec to leave Canada?” the majority of Quebecers would opt to stay in. 2/3rds would vote to reform the Confederation instead, which I think is a much more sensible approach, if less dramatic and emotional.
wrote aj on May 27, 2005 7:47 PM
The slight problem with a constitutionnal solution is that it’s been tried and it failed. Quebec needs a handful of tools to protect its points of uniqueness within Canada, yet the very idea of “distinct society” or “asymetrical federalism” seems to get blasted in the rest of the country. That severely narrows the options. It comes down to living under a bad constitution we hate, or leaving.
Personnally I’d rather see a Meech Lake type accord get signed, but Canada said no to that.
As far as I’m concerned, Quebec isn’t considering leaving as much as Canada is pushing it away. Right now Quebec is living under an imposed constitution it simply can’t sign (both federalists and separatists won’t touch it.)
The way I see it, Quebec is in front of the front door, waiting for a buzz to unlock it. If that doesn’t happen, we’ll have no choice but to walk away.
wrote PTH on May 27, 2005 10:54 PM
You don’t know what it’s like to be a Canadian? Well, until Quebec becomes its own country, you are a Canadian! Wow! Imagine that. So now you know that Canada isn’t something over an imaginary wall, but something that lives all around you. But hey, you’re right. You’re different so why be a part of another culture? Why not segregate yourselves and be apart from everyone that doesn’t “get” you.
In fact, lets’ all do that. Everyone that wants to form special groups where the only people allowed in are the ones that understand you. Let’s also cut off tourism, because who needs visitors that aren’t going to speak the language or try and understand us? For that matter, cut ties with other countries and groups. They don’t understand either. Oh and beware of outside media. In the end, that will dilute the culture with another.
Eventually, we can all live in tiny microcosms and no one will rob us of how different and special we are. But don’t forget! We have to outlaw interracial unions. We can’t have outsiders marrying in. That dilutes our special nature, too.
***
Seriously, though. Quebec is the only province that holds a threat of leaving over the head of Canada to get what it wants. And guess what. It works. So a little warning to all of you who one day hope for your own sovereign country: it probably won’t ever happen. Because so long as the threat continues to loom, Quebec holds all the cards. The day they separate is when they show their hand and the game is over. Then they have to fend for themselves and there will be no one around to manipulate anymore.
We’re all being jerked around on this issue. But if you want to know what to expect, read about the boy who cried wolf.
wrote Paolo on May 28, 2005 7:52 AM
Pth (hi, by the way!), just because past attempts like Meech Lake and Charlottetown failed, it’s no reason not to progressively work towards a new mutual accord. I think it is disappointing that neither of these accords passed (the latter in a national referendum), as they would have been large, progressive steps toward a devolution of powers to the provinces, notably Quebec.
As Jacques Parizeau once said, “You can’t ask for the moon” - not all demands would be met in one shot, but if the door was left open for future negotiation, points of contention could be met with good faith down the road.
Paolo - that’s a bit over the top, isn’t it? Given that our definition of “Canadian” as a cultural entity, vs. a social and legal entity, is quite a bit more vague than a Quebecer’s idea of him or herself as part of a distinct, identifiable cultural group, surely you can recognize that some people (a minority, but a significant one) choose to see themselves as “quebecers only” or quebecer first, canadian second etc.
Demographics are changing the reality of Quebec, just like everywhere else. The birthrate of the old founding peoples, of European stock, is declining precipitously, and our population is really only kept up by immigration. In the near future, Quebecois identity will become less tied to ideas of race and more to ideas of language and culture. Aside from a few hard-right xenophobes, no-one really seems to object to this, that I can tell. Not in Montreal, anyway.
Politicians who use fear as a tactic, inside and outside Quebec, will become less relevant as a people gains confidence and esteem in themselves. The further the “bad old days” recede into memory, the less effective that is as a tactic and motivating force.
wrote aj on May 28, 2005 1:51 PM
Well, every region is different, Quebeckers think that there is this monolithic “le reste du Canada” which is not at all not the case. Newfoundland has a very distinct culture, I cannot tell you who their artists are, etc.
I was once talking a girl on my recent trip to Mexico, in French. I said it’s great to be bilingual, to get to know Quebec artists etc, and the reply was:
Je n’ai aucune idée de ce qui se passe dans “le reste du Canada,” et, ça me ne dérange pas.
Isn’t time to stop looking at one’s navel and get with the world globalizing and taking an interest in something other than La Belle Province.
wrote Brian on May 5, 2006 3:03 PM
I was born and raised in Montreal, but it’s not my home. I’m 2nd class here and obviously being from here doesn’t mean I’m welcome.
How can I promote or defend Quebec’s supposed most cherished and important culture when it mistreats its own people every single day?
wrote Paolo on May 26, 2005 12:57 PM