What Should be an Example for Quebec

[Argus]

Canadians are a civilized people, and Quebecers too.

I think that if English Canada voted by referendum to join America with a 50.1% verdict, many English Canadians would object but they would not use violence to obstruct the decision.

Am I wrong?

I cannot imagine there are many Canadians in existence who would care enough about Quebec leaving to try and forceably stop them. However, I can imagine conflict growing out of ownership or posession of this or that piece of real estate if the people there did not want to leave by a very large majority, for example. I can also believe passions would be roused if, for another example, Quebec announced it was going to separate but would leave behind its share of the national debt.

[madmax]

The U.S. is not held to extortion or ransom by ethnic, racial, geographic or linguistic minorities. The lesson of not giving in to minority interests was costly; and worth it.

Yes, no fear of Civil disorder ever happening in the United States again. All racial tension has subsided. Government is happily controlled by corporate lobbiests and pork politics is the order of the day. The United States has no fear, or concern, no underground tension around a large Spanish speaking population and no illegal immigrants are welcomed into US sweatshops.

At least Obama has got more people thinking peacefully and well balanced.

But good Lord, you just got rid of one of the most incompetent people on the face of the planet removed from the Presidents office and you had to do it by running out the clock.

And if you had to compare the damage George Bush did to a nation and towards other countries, vs put up with the antics of Gilles Duceppe. One thing is certain, at least Duceppe came to the table with a brain.

Edited August 28, 2009 by madmax

[bush_cheney2004]

And why are two yanks posting in the Canada section and trying to stir up that boneheaded 'manifest destiny' crapola again?

For the same reasons other members post in the US Politics section.....again...who died and left you Queen?

[bush_cheney2004]

But good Lord, you just got rid of one of the most incompetent people on the face of the planet removed from the Presidents office and you had to do it by running out the clock.

That's how it works...according to the constitution. No need to ask Mommy about when to have an election or dismiss / proroque Parliament. The new president has kept most of the previous administrations policies.

And if you had to compare the damage George Bush did to a nation and towards other countries, vs put up with the antics of Gilles Duceppe. One thing is certain, at least Duceppe came to the table with a brain.

Duceppe can't do any real damage even if he wanted too.

Edited August 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Peter F]

Duceppe can't do any real damage even if he wanted too.

Good. No need then for 600,000 dead and whole regions to be devastated.

[jbg]

Not as troubling as a civil war.

The difference is that it happened and now secession is off the table. We have a very united nation compared to most. I bet even Robert E. Lee would be smiling if he saw what the U.S. has become.

[jbg]

Canadians are a civilized people, and Quebecers too.

I think that if English Canada voted by referendum to join America with a 50.1% verdict, many English Canadians would object but they would not use violence to obstruct the decision.

Am I wrong?

I would hope you are wrong. Changes in national identity have to be subject to far more than a slim majority vote. Perhaps a supermajority such as 80%.

[jbg]

I think Canada's civilization is based on Quebec's civilized nature just as America's civilization is baed on Canada's civilized nature. IOW, it is the minority that makes life civilized for the majority.

I think Quebeckers and English-speaking Canadians are wonderful as neighbors. My point is that there is nothing inherently good or civilized about having secession available constantly dangling over the head of a nation. Certain things should be conclusively settled. National identity is high among those values.

[jbg]

And why are two yanks posting in the Canada section and trying to stir up that boneheaded 'manifest destiny' crapola again?

Do you have a problem with Yanks posting on a forum you post on? Open your own forum, and bar it to non-Canadian IP addresses then.

[Smallc]

We have a very united nation compared to most.

I wouldn't say that such a statement is all that true. Though Americans very much think of themselves as one people, they seem to be very divided along partisan lines. Americans are also very much divided along urban and rural lines.

I think that John Stewart put it best:

"Everyone knows Republicans love America, they just hate half the people living in it."

[WestViking]

Family members reserve the right to bicker amongst themselves but will quickly unite against any outside threat.

[jbg]

Good. No need then for 600,000 dead and whole regions to be devastated.

Freedom has a price.

I trust you would revert to a system where racial minorities are enslaved then, mere property of their owners. How very progressive.

Where people are not allowed to maximize their potential, but are instead treated at best as mere servants, at worst as animals. Where children can be sold off by their parents "owners" to be enslaved on a distant property, because the highest bidder was willing to pay good money for them.

Would your world be one where a genius such as George Washington Carver (link about him, excerpts below) had to duck out of speaking engagements by a secreted entrance just because he was black? Is that a "progressive" or left-wing view of the world?

No, it is a world view that those who fought for one nation hated with every ounce of their being. Should the world be one where lifelong, English-speaking Montrealers cannot display signage on their own businesses in their own language?

The people who fought for the Union, in the U.S., wanted a world where people were Americans, and had rights as Americans. And that's a world I'd like to see.

Excerpts, as promised, about a great man:

It is rare to find a man of the caliber of George Washington Carver. A man who would decline an invitation to work for a salary of more than $100,000 a year (almost a million today) to continue his research on behalf of his countrymen.

Agricultural Chemistry

As an agricultural chemist, Carver discovered three hundred uses for peanuts and hundreds more uses for soybeans, pecans and sweet potatoes. Among the listed items that he suggested to southern farmers to help them economically were his recipes and improvements to/for: adhesives, axle grease, bleach, buttermilk, chili sauce, fuel briquettes, ink, instant coffee, linoleum, mayonnaise, meat tenderizer, metal polish, paper, plastic, pavement, shaving cream, shoe polish, synthetic rubber, talcum powder and wood stain.

*********************

Early Life

George Washington Carver was born in 1864 near Diamond Grove, Missouri on the farm of Moses Carver. He was born into difficult and changing times near the end of the Civil War. The infant George and his mother kidnapped by Confederate night-raiders and possibly sent away to Arkansas.

*******************

Education

He began his formal education at the age of twelve, which required him to leave the home of his adopted parents. Schools segregated by race at that time with no school available for black students near Carver's home.

*******************

Honors and Awards

George Washington Carver was bestowed an honorary doctorate from Simpson College in 1928. He was an honorary member of the Royal Society of Arts in London, England. In 1923, he received the Spingarn Medal given every year by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In 1939, he received the Roosevelt medal for restoring southern agriculture. On July 14, 1943, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt honored Carver with a national monument dedicated to his accomplishments. The area of Carver's childhood near Diamond Grove, Missouri preserved as a park, this park was the first designated national monument to an African American in the United States.

"He could have added fortune to fame, but caring for neither, he found happiness and honor in being helpful to the world." - Epitaph on the grave of George Washington Carver.

[Peter F]

Freedom has a price.

I trust you would revert to a system where racial minorities are enslaved then, mere property of their owners. How very progressive.

Where people are not allowed to maximize their potential, ...

Would your world be one where a genius such as George Washington Carver (link about him, excerpts below) had to duck out of speaking engagements by a secreted entrance just because he was black? Is that a "progressive" or left-wing view of the world?

Hello? I live in Canada, not the USofA circa 1852.

No, it is a world view that those who fought for one nation hated with every ounce of their being. Should the world be one where lifelong, English-speaking Montrealers cannot display signage on their own businesses in their own language?

Actually they can. And if they couldn't I wouldnt say that was worth killing 600,000 people over.

The people who fought for the Union, in the U.S., wanted a world where people were Americans, and had rights as Americans. And that's a world I'd like to see.

Well? Start the killing then!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Freedom has a price.

I trust you would revert to a system where racial minorities are enslaved then, mere property of their owners. How very progressive.

Where people are not allowed to maximize their potential, but are instead treated at best as mere servants, at worst as animals. Where children can be sold off by their parents "owners" to be enslaved on a distant property, because the highest bidder was willing to pay good money for them.

Would your world be one where a genius such as George Washington Carver (link about him, excerpts below) had to duck out of speaking engagements by a secreted entrance just because he was black? Is that a "progressive" or left-wing view of the world?

Canada simply made slavery illegal. America had to fight a war. Who's progressive again? If people are inteligent and reasonable freedom can be free.

[jbg]

Freedom has a price.

I trust you would revert to a system where racial minorities are enslaved then, mere property of their owners. How very progressive.

Where people are not allowed to maximize their potential, but are instead treated at best as mere servants, at worst as animals. Where children can be sold off by their parents "owners" to be enslaved on a distant property, because the highest bidder was willing to pay good money for them.

Would your world be one where a genius such as George Washington Carver (link about him, excerpts below) had to duck out of speaking engagements by a secreted entrance just because he was black? Is that a "progressive" or left-wing view of the world?

Hello? I live in Canada, not the USofA circa 1852.

*******************

Well? Start the killing then!

So, I guess in your world view, ending the enslavement of an entire people isn't worth shedding some blood for? Really?

How does that square with your views that Israel is oppressing the "Palestinians" and that their senseless (by comparison) shedding of totally innocent Israeli and U.S. blood is justified?

[jbg]

Canada simply made slavery illegal. America had to fight a war. Who's progressive again? If people are inteligent and reasonable freedom can be free.

I guess you know nothing of history.

When a President was elected who conceivably considered limiting slavery to its existing territories, seven of the existing fifteen states that allowed slavery seceded from the Union immediately. When Lincoln made it clear that he would oppose secession with force of arms, another four seceded. Simply declaring slavery illegal would have no effect in areas where the Union's writ no longer ran.

Why don't you learn a little before posting stuff that is so obviously and blatantly wrong?

[Guest TrueMetis]

I guess you know nothing of history.

When a President was elected who conceivably considered limiting slavery to its existing territories, seven of the existing fifteen states that allowed slavery seceded from the Union immediately. When Lincoln made it clear that he would oppose secession with force of arms, another four seceded. Simply declaring slavery illegal would have no effect in areas where the Union's writ no longer ran.

Why don't you learn a little before posting stuff that is so obviously and blatantly wrong?

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote

Canada simply made slavery illegal. America had to fight a war. Who's progressive again? If people are inteligent and reasonable freedom can be free.

Pretty sure the American civil war happened because of the attempt at ending slavery.

While in Canada it was made illegal without a war.

[jbg]

Pretty sure the American civil war happened because of the attempt at ending slavery.

While in Canada it was made illegal without a war.

Again, you didn't read what I wrote. What I said was that most of the "slave" areas seceded in order to avoid likely limitation (and ultimately abolition) of slavery.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Again, you didn't read what I wrote. What I said was that most of the "slave" areas seceded in order to avoid likely limitation (and ultimately abolition) of slavery.

Which resulted in the civil war. In America it took a war to end slavery in Canada it didn't. In America it tool a war to end succession in Canada it didn't.

Edited August 29, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Smallc]

Succession is something that is obviously allowed under both Canadian and International law given the right circumstances, as laid out by the Supreme Court. We can't simply roll the tanks in if people talk about succession, they have to be allowed to go through a democratic peaceful process.

It is very unlikely that the conditions in the clarity act would be met. Even if they were, it is very unlikely that all provinces would agree to change the Constitution Allowing Quebec to leave. All of that could conceivably result in a civil war, but we're into highly speculative and unlikely territory. The bottom line is that Quebec Separatists must be allowed as voice (as it is their right to have one) and we have to allow things to play out as they will within the law. No blood needs to be shed right now and probably won't ever need to be shed.

[jbg]

Which resulted in the civil war. In America it took a war to end slavery in Canada it didn't. In America it tool a war to end succession (should be secession) in Canada it didn't.

succession (should be secession) is something that is obviously allowed under both Canadian and International law given the right circumstances, as laid out by the Supreme Court. We can't simply roll the tanks in if people talk about succession, they have to be allowed to go through a democratic peaceful process.

*******************

The bottom line is that Quebec Separatists must be allowed as voice (as it is their right to have one) and we have to allow things to play out as they will within the law. No blood needs to be shed right now and probably won't ever need to be shed.

The problem isn't the actuality of secession but the threat of it. Under that hammer, Quebec gets away with some very real suppression of rights of English-speakers. Just as the Confederate States couldn't be allowed to violate the rights of Americans, same with Francophone Quebeckers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada simply made slavery illegal....

Almost true....slavery remained legal in Canada until made illegal by Britain's Parliament in 1834.

[Peter F]

So, I guess in your world view, ending the enslavement of an entire people isn't worth shedding some blood for? Really?

Who's enslaved in Quebec again?

How does that square with your views that Israel is oppressing the "Palestinians" and that their senseless (by comparison) shedding of totally innocent Israeli and U.S. blood is justified?

It doesn't because those are not my views.

[g_bambino]

I merely wondered how English Canadians would react to a referendum in which 50.1% voted in favour of joining America.

How did Newfoundlanders react when 51% voted in favour of joining Canada?

[g_bambino]

Almost true....slavery remained legal in Canada until made illegal by Britain's Parliament in 1834.

Not quite. Except for owned slaves at the time and their children up to age 25, the practice was abolished in Canada in 1793, by an act of the parliament of Upper Canada, not of Britain. No new slaves could be imported, and the third generation on were all born free. In 1834, slavery was abolished completely; no civil war needed! Thanks "Mommy"!