"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

[cybercoma]

Not the same way and not for the same reasons.

The french did not try to destroy the natives and take their land. They settled on unoccupied territories and they were dealing very well with the natives. Except of course the Iroquois that were allied with the british and were fighting for them.

The british knew that the only way to conquer the whole north america was to get rid of the biggest natives' ally. The french.

Will do. Because your message is very clear. Someday they will understand they were wrong about you.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the French did not try to destroy the Natives and take their land. To be sure, they had a more co-operative working relationship because the French population was more sparse in the beginning. They used the First Nations to help them travel the tributaries and rivers, covering and claiming most of North America in the process. Since so few Frenchlived here initially, given the geographic scope of their endeavours, they relied on their relationships with the First Nations to keep the territory for them. Nevertheless, the French Jesuits did their damnedest to convert the "savages" and traders introduced firearms and alcohol, which did untold amounts of damage. Moreover, overhunting and overharvesting of the natural resources here, considerably changed the First Nations' ways of life.

The French were not entirely co-operative or benevolent; however, is fair to say that the Hudson's Bay Co. took it to a whole new level with their "bring us the furs and piss off" attitude. They demanded that the First Nations go to them, rather than actually working along side them. This is why we think of the Metis as French-Aboriginal. To be fair, though, there were Metis of Anglo-European ancestry, so they weren't entirely douchebags about it. Just not nearly as co-operative as the French were.

Edited May 11, 2011 by cybercoma

[bloodyminded]

Not the same way and not for the same reasons.

The french did not try to destroy the natives and take their land. They settled on unoccupied territories and they were dealing very well with the natives.

I have indeed heard it contended that the British were more ruthless than were the French when it came to the Natives. It may even be true, I don't know. I do know that the French were arrogant and oppressive, and often treated the Natives like garbage, despite whatever revisionist fantasy you have about loving brothers-in-arms. Even if the British were worse, that doesn't make the French good.

And note, you're arguing from nationalist pride; I'm not. I'm an English-French mongrel, and feel no pride nor sting about the way either of the Imperialist assholes behaved.

Will do. Because your message is very clear. Someday they will understand they were wrong about you.

My "message" is that Quebec is an excellent place, the people are awesome, and my Canada is lucky to include you fellows. If that's offensive, then I'm surprised, but so be it.

Edited May 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

That played a heavy role in the utter destruction of the 'old Tory' Progressive Conservative Party. A reprise by the new Tory, non-progressive Conservatives could do the same for them.

Maybe, but I'm sure it's not lost on Harper that he won his majority without Quebec...something that Mulroney was unable to do without running a contingent of Quebec nationalists. Being the cold, calculating type of political operator, Harper is likely viewing Quebec as declining in population and economic influence, and less receptive to his kind of conservative social agenda. Time will tell I suppose, but I wouldn't be surprised if his MP's start blaming Quebec for budget woes, and the costs of language policies.

[WIP]

I wouldn't necessarily say that the French did not try to destroy the Natives and take their land. To be sure, they had a more co-operative working relationship because the French population was more sparse in the beginning. They used the First Nations to help them travel the tributaries and rivers, covering and claiming most of North America in the process. Since so few Frenchlived here initially, given the geographic scope of their endeavours, they relied on their relationships with the First Nations to keep the territory for them. Nevertheless, the French Jesuits did their damnedest to convert the "savages" and traders introduced firearms and alcohol, which did untold amounts of damage. Moreover, overhunting and overharvesting of the natural resources here, considerably changed the First Nations' ways of life.

The French were not entirely co-operative or benevolent; however, is fair to say that the Hudson's Bay Co. took it to a whole new level with their "bring us the furs and piss off" attitude. They demanded that the First Nations go to them, rather than actually working along side them. This is why we think of the Metis as French-Aboriginal. To be fair, though, there were Metis of Anglo-European ancestry, so they weren't entirely douchebags about it. Just not nearly as co-operative as the French were.

I would say the fact that the French freely intermarried with natives and created Metis populations, tells us that the French did not see themselves as much as culturally superior as the English felt superior to natives...since I'm not aware of any significant intermarriage between English and natives. Many French, such as my wife's family from Northern Ontario, are really Metis, even though most of them are not officially recognized as Metis.

A snapshot look at history would say that the problems for the French started when Champlain picked the losing side when he stepped into the middle of a war between the Algonkian and Iroquois tribes. They were never able to recover from having the Iroquois as constant enemies to fight alongside the English.

[Evening Star]

Explain. What warnings? You are getting very ugly if it is what I think you are trying to say.

That's pretty much the definition of ethnic nationalism and I do think it is incredibly dangerous and fundamentally wrongheaded.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Evening Star

[Benz]

Nevertheless, the French Jesuits did their damnedest to convert the "savages" ...

True. However, it shows that if converted, the french would considere the natives one of their own. In the same period of time, the british had disdain over the natives, even among their allies, the Iroquois.

and traders introduced firearms

They did it late. The british were helping the Iroquois to massacre the Algonquins and Hurons, but the french didn't care until they were threatened also. Then they spplied firearms to their allies as well.

and alcohol, which did untold amounts of damage.

Indeed, but they did it for commerce purpose. Not necessarly with the intention to create damages among the natives.

Moreover, overhunting and overharvesting of the natural resources here, considerably changed the First Nations' ways of life.

I am not aware of overhunting by the french in New France.

The French were not entirely co-operative or benevolent; however, is fair to say that the Hudson's Bay Co. took it to a whole new level with their "bring us the furs and piss off" attitude. They demanded that the First Nations go to them, rather than actually working along side them. This is why we think of the Metis as French-Aboriginal. To be fair, though, there were Metis of Anglo-European ancestry, so they weren't entirely douchebags about it. Just not nearly as co-operative as the French were.

One can argue that the french had no other choices. If they would not ally with the natives, the british would have conquer north america way earlier than that and maybe there would be no french speaking people by now.

[Benz]

A snapshot look at history would say that the problems for the French started when Champlain picked the losing side when he stepped into the middle of a war between the Algonkian and Iroquois tribes. They were never able to recover from having the Iroquois as constant enemies to fight alongside the English.

The french were very late to provide supports to their allies. That's one strategic error. However, the french crushed the Iroquois to a point the Iroquois became neutral and stoped fighting against the french after 1701. With few exceptions.

It's when the kingdom of France succession passed into the hands of Louis XV that the fate of New France became a borrowed time. Unlike Louis XIV, that new king hold little interest in New France. Barely no colonisations and no future developments. The french crown was more interested in their few carribean islands. It was a matter of time before the british could be strong enough to win over a colony left to itself.

[Benz]

That's pretty much the definition of ethnic nationalism and I do think it is incredibly dangerous and fundamentally wrongheaded.

I said explain what it has to do with anything. Québec nation is not funded on the race or physical traits. It is based on a cultural heritage that anyone can adopt. Whether you are born from a pure laine linage or in the Africa's savanna.

[dre]

Hey Rick, check the date on that reporting....so far I've not seen any denial yet coming from the NDP or young Pierre.

Frothing at the mouth is one thing.....actually getting it published in a newspaper is another!

I wonder how many newspapers are willing to place their credibility on the line (or getting sued for that matter)?

I don't judge an article or commentary by the style of delivery - besides the greater challenge is in knowing the difference on what can be taken seriously or not.

No you have FAR greater challenges than that.

[Evening Star]

I said explain what it has to do with anything. Québec nation is not funded on the race or physical traits. It is based on a cultural heritage that anyone can adopt. Whether you are born from a pure laine linage or in the Africa's savanna.

I was responding to this quote from cybercoma (post 89):

Many in Quebec feel that the province is sufficiently unique in ethnicity and culture to distinguish it from being "just another province".

(Emphasis mine.)

I think my comment was fair.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Evening Star

[Molly]

I said explain what it has to do with anything. Québec nation is not funded on the race or physical traits. It is based on a cultural heritage that anyone can adopt. Whether you are born from a pure laine linage or in the Africa's savanna.

Incidents like Parizeau's 'money and ethnic vote' suggest otherwise.

-------------------------------------------------------

But how is your suggestion/expectation that people should abandon their own cultural heritage to adopt yours any less odious than the cultural genocide of which you accuse 'the english'? Why would anyone want to adopt the cultural heritage of the 'french nation', when they have a perfectly lovely cultural heritage of their own?

[Benz]

I was responding to this quote from cybercoma (post 89):

(Emphasis mine.)

I think my comment was fair.

Fair enough, I thought you were commenting the real situation. You were rather commenting his post. My bad.

[Benz]

Incidents like Parizeau's 'money and ethnic vote' suggest otherwise.

Suggest? Parizeau gave his appologies and never intended to mean what the interpretation the people did of his words.

When Parizeau says something like that, his fellows ask him to resign and so he did. When someone like Parizeau in english Canada bashes Québec, he is applauded and appreciated.

So I have no lesson to hear from you.

-------------------------------------------------------

But how is your suggestion/expectation that people should abandon their own cultural heritage to adopt yours any less odious than the cultural genocide of which you accuse 'the english'? Why would anyone want to adopt the cultural heritage of the 'french nation', when they have a perfectly lovely cultural heritage of their own?

Who said abandon? What are you talking about?

[Evening Star]

Benz, maybe you've mentioned it upthread, but what sort of arrangement would you prefer? I lean towards the Trudeau view of federalism but I'm open to other ideas if they will ultimately be more satisfying for the whole country. (Our federation seems relatively decentralized already to me.)

Edited May 12, 2011 by Evening Star

[cybercoma]

As offensive as Parizeau's statements seem, he was merely stating a statistical fact. English and immigrant Quebeckers did predominantly vote against secession. He wasn't being xenophobic or racist as people claim.

[Evening Star]

I do think there's a pretty blatant 'us vs them' attitude in the way he framed the situation. The complete transcript of the speech and a translation are available here (and I don't buy the interpretation of the person who hosts the site): http://money-and-the-ethnic-vote.co.tv/

Si vous voulez, on va cesser de parler des francophones du Québec, voulez-vous ? On va parler de nous à 60%. On a voté pour...

...C'est vrai, c'est vrai qu'on a été battus, au fond, par quoi? Par l'argent puis des votes ethniques, essentiellement. Alors ça veut dire que la prochaine fois, au lieu d'être 60 ou 61% à voter OUI on sera 63 ou 64% et ça suffira....

Please, let's stop talking about the francophones of Quebec, would you? Let's talk about us: the 60% - those who voted for...

...It's true, it's true that we have been defeated, but basically by what? By money and ethnic votes, essentially. So all it means is that, in the next round, instead of being 60 or 61 per cent to vote YES, we will be 63 or 64 per cent and it will suffice.

Who could he be referring to by "us" if 60% of "us" voted "Oui" and were beaten by "money and the ethnic vote"?

[Benz]

Benz, maybe you've mentioned it upthread, but what sort of arrangement would you prefer? I lean towards the Trudeau view of federalism but I'm open to other ideas if they will ultimately be more satisfying for the whole country. (Our federation seems relatively decentralized already to me.)

From the english canadian point of view, the system is perfect. It is a normal feeling since it was set by the english canadians. If you really care about your french neighbor, you have to see it from another angle.

Indeed, I have said it several times and ok, I'll say it again.

1) Senetate: The regions must be able to choose their own senetors. Not the prime minister of the country.

2) Décentralisation: If you do not want to décentralize more, then at least, allow a province to opt out from a federal program and get full compensation. Ottawa still put its nose where it does not belong.

3) Religion: Not above the laws and rules. Religious weapons in school is considered outrageous in Québec. If it is not for you, then Québec must be the exception. We unanimous here to think it doesn't make sense.

4) Québec nation in the constitution. To make sure that even if the number of french diminish, the nation status will give us

5) Constitutional veto for Québec. To make sure any further modifications are set in agreement from both cultures. English and French.

There are other points but those are the most important. Regarding point 4 and 5, if you have a better idea, we are open to hear suggestions. As I said, another way to approach it is by the sum of individuals by status. A referendum among the canadians where the results are summed up by nationality english and french. The yes must get a majority on both sides to be adopted. The problem with that idea is, how do we apply it. What do we do with one citizen having parents on both side. If my dad is french and my mom is english. What am I? If I am from Russia and I immigrate in Montreal. Will I be considered an english or a french canadian? I think the management can be a mess. The easiest way is to give Québec the veto. The anglos in Québec will be like the francos outside Québec. Outnumbered. No system can be perfect but at last, the majority of french will have a say. Also keep in mind that the veto is only to future constitutional changes. No veto on the House of Common or the Senate. The HofC is fine as is and the except for who chooses the senators, it is also fine as is. It is important that all individuals are equal under the constitution. No matter if they are french or english. However, the rules cannot be set only by the english. Both must agree to make them fair.

Unfortunatly, most of english canadians do not want to see it from another angle. In their mindset, Quebec is only a province like the others even if it is the only one with a french majority. They want to keep the total control of the constitution with the tyranny of the majority.

The solution is simple. There is a lack of will though.

[Benz]

Who could he be referring to by "us" if 60% of "us" voted "Oui" and were beaten by "money and the ethnic vote"?

What's the big deal? It's the truth. The anglos voted 99.9% against and the non-french/non-english voted 90% against. While the french voted 60% in favor. Total, 49.4% of all Québécois voted for. It is very frustrating for him to be so closed. You must admit it. But this is the only thing he said. He didn't invite his "us" to do any harm toward the "them" or something. There were no bashing of what so ever.

You cannot say the same regarding the common Quebec bashing we often observe in english Canada.

[Evening Star]

#1 is fine and if I understand #3, I think I agree with it. #5 is definitely more than I could stomach, you're right, and I'd really need to be sold on #4 or #2. So I'm not completely sure we can reach agreement on this after all...

I don't completely agree that the system was set by English Canadians, if you consider the role that French Canadian Liberals played in 1982.

From the english canadian point of view, the system is perfect. It is a normal feeling since it was set by the english canadians. If you really care about your french neighbor, you have to see it from another angle.

Indeed, I have said it several times and ok, I'll say it again.

1) Senetate: The regions must be able to choose their own senetors. Not the prime minister of the country.

2) Décentralisation: If you do not want to décentralize more, then at least, allow a province to opt out from a federal program and get full compensation. Ottawa still put its nose where it does not belong.

3) Religion: Not above the laws and rules. Religious weapons in school is considered outrageous in Québec. If it is not for you, then Québec must be the exception. We unanimous here to think it doesn't make sense.

4) Québec nation in the constitution. To make sure that even if the number of french diminish, the nation status will give us

5) Constitutional veto for Québec. To make sure any further modifications are set in agreement from both cultures. English and French.

There are other points but those are the most important. Regarding point 4 and 5, if you have a better idea, we are open to hear suggestions. As I said, another way to approach it is by the sum of individuals by status. A referendum among the canadians where the results are summed up by nationality english and french. The yes must get a majority on both sides to be adopted. The problem with that idea is, how do we apply it. What do we do with one citizen having parents on both side. If my dad is french and my mom is english. What am I? If I am from Russia and I immigrate in Montreal. Will I be considered an english or a french canadian? I think the management can be a mess. The easiest way is to give Québec the veto. The anglos in Québec will be like the francos outside Québec. Outnumbered. No system can be perfect but at last, the majority of french will have a say. Also keep in mind that the veto is only to future constitutional changes. No veto on the House of Common or the Senate. The HofC is fine as is and the except for who chooses the senators, it is also fine as is. It is important that all individuals are equal under the constitution. No matter if they are french or english. However, the rules cannot be set only by the english. Both must agree to make them fair.

Unfortunatly, most of english canadians do not want to see it from another angle. In their mindset, Quebec is only a province like the others even if it is the only one with a french majority. They want to keep the total control of the constitution with the tyranny of the majority.

The solution is simple. There is a lack of will though.

[g_bambino]

I don't completely agree that the system was set by English Canadians, if you consider the role that French Canadian Liberals played in 1982.

The system has been in place since long before 1982. But, still, Quebec has always had a say in it since the days of its planning. Senate reform is about the only sensical thing Benz hopes for. The rest is ridiculous, based as it is on over-inflated ethnic national pride that is itself based on ignorance and revisionism.

[Evening Star]

The system has been in place since long before 1982.

Sure. However, the Constitution was opened (by a Liberal leader from Quebec whose support was heavily based in Quebec) and important amendments were made in 1982, even if it wasn't exactly a matter of setting the system.

[g_bambino]

Sure. However, the Constitution was opened (by a Liberal leader from Quebec whose support was heavily based in Quebec) and important amendments were made in 1982, even if it wasn't exactly a matter of setting the system.

It was very far from setting the system; the constitution is much, much more than the amending formula and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which were the only two real changes to the constitution in 1982. My point is, though, that Quebecers have had a say in the constitution ever since the constitutional conferences in the mid 1860s: There were representatives at those meetings from what would become the province; the British North America Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, in which sat elected representatives from Lower Canada; they were there in the federal parliament when the Statute of Westminster was debated; and both the Premier of Quebec and the province's legislative assembly, as well as Quebecers' representatives in the federal parliament and a prime minister who was himself, as you note, from Quebec, were all a part of the constitutional negotiations in 1982. Today, no amendment affecting Quebec can be made or made to apply to Quebec without the consent of the province as spoken through its legislature.

[Evening Star]

(We completely agree about that.)

[Benz]

#1 is fine and if I understand #3, I think I agree with it. #5 is definitely more than I could stomach, you're right, and I'd really need to be sold on #4 or #2. So I'm not completely sure we can reach agreement on this after all...

I don't completely agree that the system was set by English Canadians, if you consider the role that French Canadian Liberals played in 1982.

Look, when I say you have to see it from another angle, bear with me. In our mindset, Québec is our home and Canada is only a union. In the english canadian's point of view, the home is the federal and the provinces are just smaller administration of your main home. Right there, there is a huge difference of the understanding of what the union must be. Now remember that 1982 is just two years after the 1980's referendum. During that referendum, the same liberals you are talking about, did HUGE promises to the Québécois. In 1982, they betrayed us all and did not respect a single one of their promises. That's exactly why the Québécois voted for Mulroney afterward. To repair the insult done by the liberals. The liberals did not have the mandate to speak in the name of the Québécois, against their own promises and against the unanimity of the National Assembly. Trudeau did it anyway. He is considered the worst traitor in Québec's history.

So no, the Liberals did not have the legitimity to speak in the name of Québec and betray us like that.

Once you will understand our position, then you will see why it is difficult to reach an agreement. Because we have a total different opinion of what Canada should be. The anglos see it as one monolitic block where the majority rules. Québec see it as two main members who founded the country and both must agree to build this together.

And gambino digging in the dirt to see how deep he can dive his head.

Now tell me evening star. Even if we can't reach an agreement right away, do you at least understand the problem and recognize that our concerns are legitimated.

[August1991]

I have indeed heard it contended that the British were more ruthless than were the French when it came to the Natives. It may even be true, I don't know. I do know that the French were arrogant and oppressive, and often treated the Natives like garbage, despite whatever revisionist fantasy you have about loving brothers-in-arms. Even if the British were worse, that doesn't make the French good.

It's an interesting question. On one hand, various Europeans - almost savages themselves in the 17th century - met, on the other, various and very few North American natives/savages. In North America, the first European that a native American ever met was probably a lost Frenchman - likely seeking animal pelts. There were a few Jesuits too.

Northern north America was empty in the 17th century. IOW, I don't think one can draw much of a conclusion about who treated whom better.

Edited May 13, 2011 by August1991