November 29, 2006
Majorities, Minorities and Nations -- who is "Us?"
I’m glad that the Canadian parliament passed the bill recognizing the Quebecois nation. If we’re to be citizens of a living country and not tied to dead notions, or just interchangeable consumers, we have to recognize that we have common history as well as differences, and make adjustments, amends and agreements in order to pave the way for the future.
However, some dangerous ambiguities have been left unclarified. And it’s starting to look more like a political move, than a bona fide reaching out to Québec.
Québec’s Intergovernmental Affairs minister, Benoit Pelletier, invited anyone that thought that “québecois” didn’t mean “all residents of Québec” to come forward and explain their views more clearly.
If taken at face value, that response seems honest and forthright, but in context, Pelletier’s response is of course politicized and also contains a kind of poison pill defence, that automatically makes anyone who challenges it out to be anti-democratic or worse, racist. (And while we’re at it, have they stopped beating their wives?)
I’m sure average Quebecers have a wider spectrum of views on the matter, but such is the charged meaning of words in this topic that it’s hard to use them without seeming sensationalist, evoking old grievances (yawn), or accidentally inferring something you might not have meant.
While there are often comforting noises from our officials, we also have the occasional unguarded outburst, like Mayor Tremblay’s sneering reference to “neo-Montrealers” in reference to the opposition to renaming Parc Avenue, which eerily reflects Jacques Parizeau’s career-ending “money and ethnics” comment after the ‘95 referendum.
Which position reflects the true feeling of Quebecers - the progressive, inclusive movement, or the divisive, ethno-nationalists?
This abuse of language and obfuscation of true intent isn’t healthy in a democracy, and so I have a few multiple-choice questions for you, my readers, to try to get at the truth here.
more after the jump.
Truism #1: the word “nation” has very different implications in French and English. This ambiguity is the pivot point on which the interpretation of the phrase ‘the Quebecois nation’ turns.
Namely, are we talking about a complete state, or an ethno-linguistic group, or both — or what?
From a personal standpoint, when someone says “chez nous,” referring to a kind of greater Québecois “us,” I want to be included. On one side of my family, we’ve been here since at least the 1600s and the other, since the 1800s, so I’ll be damned if anyone says I’m not.
I know things are changing here, and that generations younger than me are much more worldly, well-travelled, net-savvy and inclusive-minded, but for anyone who grew up under the early years of Bill 101, there’s a lingering sense of exclusion that has yet to be really addressed.
I was chatting with zura, who’s also of mixed other-and-quebecois origins, and we both feel like we’re waiting for someone from a respected position on the nationalist side to actually come out and say “Yes, you are also québecois” — preferably St. Julien Poulin in the context of a Pierre Falardeau film, actually…
Here’s some questions for you, my readers (anglo et franco compris). I’m not trying to stir up division, or to try to be a thorn in anyone’s side, or start a fight. I just want to get some sort of sampling of what people’s gut instincts are, what they honestly believe. Answer in comments, anonymously if you choose.
Which of the following most closely resembles your interpretation of the term “Québecois?”
- a. All people living within the currently defined geographic borders of the province of Québec, regardless of ethnic background, language, date of arrival, political or religious beliefs, etc.
- b. Primarily, the French-speaking/descended majority of the population of the province of Québec, but secondarily, also the minority groups living there, who have learned French and participate in the mainstream francophone society to varying degrees.
- c. The French-speaking majority only (mother tongue / primary language) regardless of origins
- d. The French-speaking and traceably French-descended only (québecois de souche)
Which of the following most closely resembles your interpretation of the term “nation?”
- a. A modern, diverse political entity, possibly with a common official language, that may exist either on its own or as part of a larger federation
- b. A people that share a common language, history and culture
- c. A particular ethno-linguistic group that comprises the majority within a traditional geographic area
The answers to these questions are important.
I haven’t even begun to explore all the possible implications of what these interpretations mean because I want to avoid dredging up old grievances and kneejerk responses. That said, the lack of a single, commonly agreed-upon meaning for “Québecois” is self-evidently problematic.
I can’t disagree with the idea of a Québec nation — it seems quite strong and well in control of its destiny already, frankly — but I’m just one person with a particular point of view and I want to know what a broader slice of Québecois(es) think.
Disclaimers:
- No, I’m not trolling for hits on a controversial topic. The last time I posted on it I got the most comments of any post I’ve done other than the one on the silly dilemma/dilemna spelling fracas.
- Yes, I’m sorry I was a bit blockheadedly flame-y when commenting on other people’s blogs recently about a related subject. I think I owe some people drinks at the next yulblog…
Posted by aj_kandy at 1:08 AM
October 7, 2004
What Barry Says
Above are three images from the startlingly cool, constructivist/totalitarian/stencil graffiti-inspired animation What Barry Says.
It's really beautifully designed: every frame could be a fantastic poster.
The short film is a collaboration between animator/designer Simon Robson and his friend Barry McNamara. The narrative is a recording of Barry's views on U.S. foreign policy, U.S. imperialism and neocon think-tank the Project for the New American Century, whose members now reside in the upper echelons of the White House, State Department and the Pentagon.
To view the clip, click here (25MB QuickTime, right-click to download)
Thanks to Oblivia for the link and to Drunkfoundation.com, where i snarfed a copy of the file and the description.
Posted by aj_kandy at 4:14 PM | Comments (2)
September 16, 2004
Is marketing evil?
Following up on a rather good comments thread over on Boris' site, here's an interesting tidbit from a book review on YouthToday.org (I read 'em all, folks:)
Elitist critics of American culture want us to believe that marketing is inherently evil and manipulative, that we are dumb animals, easily herded to buy things we don’t want or need. I’ve never believed that. Companies that can’t convince consumers that their products or services will bring them to a better place will fail. Those that lie or appear manipulative will be exposed and rejected. The problem is not marketing itself, but the fact that people often turn to things to meet psychological and even spiritual needs.
As I've said before, marketing is a tool for research and development, not inherently evil or dangerous in itself. Advertising, too. We hate advertising because it is done so badly, so ineffectively, and usually full of false promises. Paradoxically, advertising is most effective and direct when it just tells the truth -- like thetruth.com's highly-effective anti-tobacco campaign.
I'm of the view that adults have become inured to advertising; they certainly don't pay attention to blinking banner ads on the Web, and they tune out flashy, expensive TV spots. No-one really pays attention to ads (as they are currently done) anymore except young children.
While we may be moving inexorably back to a local, agrarian, authentic culture (when the fossil fuels run out) -- albeit with Internet access and cell phones -- there will always be Large Organizations who have to communicate with the public, and tailor services and products to meet their needs. Marketing -- as in, research, observation, hypothesis, testing, development -- helps narrow the gap and if properly done, reduces waste.
It is in the execution of marketing and advertising that things have to change. I see things like The Cluetrain Manifesto to be a harbinger of how things will be -- more interactive, more personal, more blog-like, one-on-one, no cold bland corporate voice, no 'us and them', just Sally your next-door neighbor, who works down at the bank answering your questions in person or online. Of course there will be people who try to appropriate this authentic voice or fake it, and they deserve to fail miserably. But instead of complaining about it, why don't we get together and build it?
Posted by aj_kandy at 9:07 AM | Comments (4)
May 14, 2004
The End Of Suburbia
Tipping you all to this new documentary by Toronto filmmaker Gregory Greene which opened last month in Toronto and is on the festival circuit at the moment.
Greene's credits include work for Bravo's Arts and Minds, documentary series for MuchMusic and more. Hosted by VisionTV's Barrie Zwicker, The End Of Suburbia: Oil Depletion And The End Of The American Dream is the documentary I was seriously considering making on my own.
The 78-minute film examines the subject of Peak Oil through interviews with leading urbanists, scientists and authors including Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, Peter Calthorpe, James Kunstler, and more.
Find out more here. And you can purchase the DVD online via PayPal (or cheque) for just $24.95: they're encouraging screenings for groups of up to 50 people. Anyone interested in seeing it? I'll get a copy and we can find a place to watch it and have a discussion.
Posted by aj_kandy at 12:48 PM | Comments (2)
January 27, 2004
The People's Republic of StarbucKEA
Patrick notes a very interesting post of Adam Greenfield's on the disproportionate amount of energy spent by our young Adbusting types on "uncooling" consumer brands such as IKEA and Starbucks. Greenfield says:
The dynamic at work in both cases is one many of us might recognize from bad relationships: when a deeply wounded person suffering from low self-esteem finally fights back against the various agents of their distress, very often it's the closest, most sympathetic soft target they lash out at first, in defiance of all logic (or justice).
Not the absent father, but the present lover. It feels like the same neurosis at work with young activists of the No Logo stripe: never ADM, General Dynamics, Monsanto, but Nike and Ikea and Starbucks. And never mind that each of these latter firms is, to a greater or lesser degree, founded on what used to be known as progressive principles, or is to a greater or lesser degree responsive to the demands of a politically and socially conscious audience.
There are a lot of arguments that Starbucks edge out "local" coffee shops. I don't buy them. There are places (like Open Da Night or Navarino's bakery, for instance) that go out of their way to be friendly and serve good food, and they are very popular neighborhood institutions. Starbucks can't even be said to compete with places like this, because (aside from coffee) they're selling two completely different experiences.
Greenfield makes the astute point that before Starbucks "swept down from its Pacific Northwest redoubt to cluster-bomb us with franchises," the coffee experience in America was, by and large, pretty insipid. In fact, today's elevated consumer knowledge about coffee in general - fair-trade, shade-grown, organic, Blue Mountain, etc. etc. can be traced back to the arrival of Starbucks on the franchise landscape. Partly also due to the controversy surrounding them. But it can't be argued - we're all drinking better coffee today.
If any "local" places died off because a Starbucks opened down the street, they probably would have gone out of business if any stronger competitor with better coffee and a better experience opened up next door. I've walked into "local" arts-sceney-indie coffee shops in Montreal and been completely ignored; I've gotten alternatingly great and terrible service in locally-owned Starbucks-a-like chains -- and when it's been bad, it's exactly as described in Greenfield's entertaining little rant.
Being local's got nothing to do with the core mission of good coffee and excellent service. The one deplorable thing about chains like Starbucks is that, despite local jobs for local people etc, a large chunk of change heads Seattle-ward.
But we're getting our quiet revenge: we're giving America Couche-Tards on every corner.
"You got your Slöche in my grande latte!"
"You got your grande latte in my Slöche!"
Etc.
Posted by aj_kandy at 9:39 AM | Comments (10)
January 7, 2004
Gentrification and the Faux-Bombardiers
Why is gentrification such a dirty word?
James Kunstler wrote quite eloquently about the misguided politics of anti-gentrification activists in his book The City In Mind. In an interview with the right-on Christian Science Monitor, he said:
"If you're against gentrification, you're saying, well, we don't want the well-off to come up and fix up this property in the city. Are you simply going to say, the well-off have no business fixing up urban property at all? Are they morally restricted to living somewhere else? Where is that somewhere else? The suburbs? Because that's where they are."
So now that our faux-bombardiers have our attention, I'd like to know: what exactly do they want instead of condos? And more importantly, why?
Michael Moore has a great chapter in Dude, Where's My Country? -- a facetiously dreamed Socratic dialogue between himself and his future granddaughter, in an energy and resource-starved post-oil future. "People left the cities to live in suburbs because they didn't want to live next to people that were different from them," he patiently explains to the puzzled child and to We, the Readers.
Well, isn't that what the anti-condo activists are saying? "We don't want your kind next door?"
Postwar tract suburbs are commonly derided as "cookie-cutter," "boring," "soul-crushingly dull," "whitebread," etc ad infinitum. Well, doesn't that sound like a description of life in a Modernist social housing project like Les Habitations Jeanne-Mance? (Substitute "no bread" if applicable.)
Suburbs and housing projects are both ghettoes: each a perverse mirror of the other, based on the unstated assumption that these two groups - people with and without money - cannot and should not live intermingled.
Look at Beaconsfield: somewhere around Walpole Avenue or Windermere Park, let's say. A land of three-story ranch houses, mock-Tudor manors, and split-levels. It's affluent, and you can guess that everyone is pretty much of the same educational level and professional cadre. There might be a wealthy barber in there somewhere, but mostly it's professionals, business owners and executive types. In short, people next door are pretty much Just Like Us.
Closer look: there are no places of work, shops or services within walking distance, unless you want to take your life in your hands and cross the railway tracks and the highway to dart southwards into Beaconsfield village. There are no cafs or restaurants, unless you count the takeout Chinese place in the one-story mini-mall down by the service road.
There is precious little access to green space. There are few places for young people to go. There are no places, no monuments or boulevards, period - just endless avenues of other people's houses, with the occasional postwar school/factory complex. You'd be hard-pressed even to find an actual stretch of sidewalk.
If you don't drive, bus service is pretty sad. People must drive, isolated in their plastic bubbles from the environment, and from each other. House prices are high, but when there's no more oil they won't be worth much.
Compare with St-Henri: corner of Notre-Dame and St-Remi, let's say. Several blocks of three-story red-brick and aging greystone flats. A few condo units are going in. But walk for several blocks and you'll be hard-pressed to find a new apartment building that doesn't have an "SHDM" plaque on it like some sort of scarlet letter.
This is the area of Montreal with the highest concentration of social housing other than Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. The SHDM flats are in OK, if depressing, shape, but the ones that aren't city-owned are slowly falling to bits: some nearby buildings have roofs and walls that sag, with widening cracks between the bricks.
Literally all the ground-floor retail in the neighborhood is papered over, boarded up, gone away, save a brave little corner coffee bar and, of course, that hardy perennial, le depanneur. Elevated highways loom overhead. Railway lines run a little too close for comfort, after which Notre-Dame becomes strictly industrial. There are a few places of work nearby: garages mostly, along St-Patrick - but precious few shops and services.
Things get better as you move closer to Atwater, but that's due to... you guessed it - gentrification.
So what's the solution?
I think it's perfectly possible for government and the private sector to work together, to create viable mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods instead of "warehousing the poor" in rows of SHDM flats, or projects like Les Habitations Jeanne-Mance, which depresses an entire area by unnatural selection, which conversely, encourages the flight of middle-class capital to the suburbs, creating an artificial, unsustainable "wealth bubble."
People of small or moderate means should never be displaced, and planners must work hard to ensure that "Monklandization" doesn't price people out of their own neighborhoods.
But gentrification done right is a good thing.
Maybe it's the stigma of the "g" word. Well, let's call it "smart growth" instead.
Ideally, there's shouldn't be any "hot neighborhoods" with "trendy shops" - every neighborhood should be a really great place to live and work, to own and to rent, to shop and enjoy a public social life, with space enough for everyone, of every ability.
The real issue is perhaps not urban-infill condos in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve -- but rather, overcoming the objections of demerger-obsessed sub-burghers in order to create suburban infill: turning the West Island from conurbations of one-acre house farms into higher-density, but viable towns and cities.
Posted by aj_kandy at 8:42 PM
