Firstly - it is not an inclusivist term. I imagine that if one is of Vietnamese descent, or of say, Kenyan ancestry, it seems particularly alien to be referred to as 'English-Canadian' - I imagine it would in fact be fairly alienating. What does this say about First Nations? Are they to be considered English Canadian?

Secondly - it gives many Quebec nationalists a stick to beat us with. It suits the more extreme Pequistes to refer to us outside of Quebec as 'les Anglos', as if there were only two groups involved in the history and creation of Canada. It allows them to transfer all the deep-seated rage (much of which is justifiable) against the real 'Anglos' - the Anglophone Montreal business class who did perpetuate an imperialist mentality over Francophones to us, regardless of our own ethnic heritage and backgrounds.

Thirdly - it is simply inaccurate. We are not English - only a small percentage of non-Francophone Canadians are of English descent. We are Scots, Irish, Chinese, Punjabi, Korean, Jamaican, Spanish - we are, we represent every nation of the world. Furthermore, many of us speak another language that is neither French nor English at home - to use the terms French or English-Canadian is to denigrate those people, to deny the reality of our nation.

And so say I, a Scots-Irish-slightly Welsh Canadian.

[ 13 November 2005: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]

I can recall Peter Gzowski interviewing Lucien Bouchard in... well, must have been the late 1980s. Bouchard referred in passing to "English Canada," whereupon Gzowski, without missing a beat, interjected "You mean English-speaking Canada, don't you?"

Yeah. Welcome to English Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
I agree, SLB, but I think the notion's dying of natural causes anyway. (Pequistes of the Jean-Baptiste Society stripe may well cling to it like the Last Flag, but piss on them, what?)

---

Possibly - it looks that way, but I do hear the term from Quebec Nationalists. What causes me to raise the question today is that I recently heard it from, well, English-speaking Canadians. Ironically enough - they were what I would term German-Canadian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by champagne socialist:
It's still used fairly often by sovereigntists. Either that or they just use "Canada", like it doesn't include them. It means the same thing to them, though: white people with a British background, which really doesn't reflect Canada today, AT ALL.

---

But surely sovereigntists, by definition, can't or won't be persuaded that federalism is at all good for Québec. (Though perhaps I should say "independentistes"). That being so, is it worth anyone's while to try to change their minds on such a relatively minor matter?

I grant you, it may be worthwhile challenging the notion in public, in the hopes of persuading the undecided, or those who hadn't thought about it much.

quote:

---

What causes me to raise the question today is that I recently heard it from, well, English-speaking Canadians. Ironically enough - they were what I would term German-Canadian.

---

That is ironic. Still more bizarre, as John Ralston Saul pointed out somewhere, is that those referring to themselves as "English" or "French" Canadians, and spitting venom at one another, were in so many cases descended from peoples who'd been shat on from a great height by either the English or the French -- Scots or Irish, say, in the one case, or Bretons in the other.

[ 13 November 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
I can recall Peter Gzowski interviewing Lucien Bouchard in... well, must have been the late 1980s. Bouchard referred in passing to "English Canada," whereupon Gzowski, without missing a beat, interjected "You mean English-speaking Canada, don't you?" Bouchard conceded the point, with all the grace he was capable of.

---

[ 13 November 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

But surely sovereigntists, by definition, can't or won't be persuaded that federalism is at all good for Québec. (Though perhaps I should say "independentistes").

---

The Two-Nations concept never was a reality despite the 'feel-good' history stuffed down our throats in school. It ignored First nations and any number on non-anglo Canadians.

Shall we also do away with the term "French-Canadian?"

What do we call the non-French ancestry francophones in Quebec and elsewhere? Franco-allophones? Frallo-phones?

Does "Quebecois(e)" refer only to "pur laine" Quebeckers?

And the "dead duck" francophones outside Quebec are still not quite dead yet.

Multicultural and the most colour-blind country we are, I truly believe. We have a chance to continue building on this, if we can keep it together.

Yet I do subscribe to the Two-Founding Nations concept (and the spirit of the Official Languages Act). Without the original cooperation between the English and French, Canada would not exist. This doesn't necessarily place the English and French "cultures" on a pedestal, nor does it relegate any group to second-class citizen status. I see the 2 founding nations concept as recognizing not the ethnic groups themselves, but rather their sensible and seminal cooperation as a foundational cornerstone of the country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
Don't be so insensitive - we prefer the term 'Rubble O' Canada' thankyouverymuch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

What do you think will happen to "ROC" if Quebec becomes independent? Will it further divide into additional subparts?

---

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

For all Trudeau's faults, he did, occasionally, lead with a wink, a little like John Lennon. Not a bad comparison when you consider that he could also be cynical and witheringly sarcastic.

I'd thought Deschamps had simply reversed the Quiet Revolution slogan of "un Québec fort dans un Canada uni" (and it shows how shaky my French is that I rendered that as "unifiée"). Or was that the (a) slogan?

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]

I think it is important to remember that as the condition against which dissenters of any kind were straining, because that construct, however oversimplified and mythologized, became part of the culture of dissent, which cannot simply be swept away or denied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Yvon Deschamps. I think the line was "Un Québec indépendant dans un Canada uni."

---

The way he timed it was, as with any comedian, crucial. "English Canada asks 'What does Quebec want?' The answer is simple. Un Québec indépendant!!" (Shouted with the verve of Rene Levesque, to cheers from the crowd) "Dans un Canada fort!!" (Growled in the style of Jean Chretien, to laughter from the crowd.)

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

It's a term that's alive and well, used by those who prefer to think of all of us as oppressors. As a Vancouver resident, I think I can say with certainty that I have never knowingly or unknowingly oppressed a Quebecer, but I could be wrong. I can also say that my Hungarian roots have little to do with the English, and my Irish roots have about 600 more years of English oppression to resent that the Pequistes. Both of them strongly resent being called 'the English'.

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Back to the "two nations" concept, to take it apart: it was true, and for a long time, well into the C20, of the economic and political elites of the country...

---

Edit; now that I think of it, maybe he was the only Prime Minister who was not of British or French descent.

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

In a recent poll, I saw that 58% of Bloc supporters want to see a Conservative minority government. A number of others want to see a Liberal minority government. Here is an example of this contradiction at work.

They want a strong Quebec Nation State that they can feel a part of. But they also want to be part of Canada and enjoy those benefits as well. It is not an EITHER/OR thing. You have to get over that.

Texas is a sovereign State within the American Union. Once Canada recognises Quebec's sovereignity, nothing much else will change. When all is said and done, some will recognise Quebec and some will recognise Canada as their source of nationalisms.

While killing the notion of 'English Canada', why don't we also kill the modernist concept of mutual exclusion of Quebec independence and Canadian federalism?

We are defined by our paradoxes.

[Edited for gibberish]

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: Being ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
maybe he was the only Prime Minister who was not of British or French descent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Being:
They want a strong Quebec Nation State that they can feel a part of. But they also want to be part of Canada and enjoy those benefits as well. It is not an EITHER/OR thing. You have to get over that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Most Canadians outside of Quebec, should Quebec declare independance, will accept nothing short of treating Quebec as a foreign country in every aspect, and will not go for what they perceive as "special partnerships."

---

I disagree. Patience with demands for special treatment will be short, but I think most of us would accept some adjustments in the relationship without getting all pissy and closing the border.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
I disagree. Patience with demands for special treatment will be short, but I think most of us would accept some adjustments in the relationship without getting all pissy and closing the border.

---

Except that people will look and say "Quebec has the second-most seats in the federal Parliament, we became a bilingual country because of them," etc, and point to all the concessions we've made to keep Quebec in Canada. People have had their patience tried by trying to accomodate Quebec within Canada, and they won't have any if Quebec chooses to separate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Yes. There should be seperate provinces for the rocky, treed, and watery regions of Canada.

---

There are rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks

No one in their right mind is going to want to abandon 300+ years of commerce between Quebec and the Rest of Canada. No one is going to want to disrupt the many business and family links or freedom of movement, both into and out of Quebec.

Canada had already won the referendum in 1995 when the Liberals decided to continue the sponsorship program. The sovereignists had already lost by a razor thin margin, and then the federal government spent over $300 million of taxpayers' money on trinkets and trash promoting Canada in Quebec. It implied Quebecers were cheap and could be bought off. Revelations of it had the effect of turning Quebecers against Canadian federalism in its current form, after a period of relative stability and separatist calm.

The Liberals did the damage by promoting their 'my way or the doorway' form of federalism for so many years. Federalism now has to compromise and govern if Canada is going to continue.

Right now, it looks like the Conservatives are ready to compromise with the Bloc Quebecois for the sake of political expediency. 58% of Bloc supporters want to see a Conservative minority government, and they fully intend that a Conservative minority will cooperate with the Bloc. If the Bloc gets 60 seats and the Conservatives get 100, there is the 160 seats needed for the confidence of the House. It will not matter then if the Liberals get more seats than the Conservatives, the Conservatives will be forming the government with the cooperation of the Bloc. We see in a coalition the same majority Brian Mulroney obtained, but more naked in its parts.

The Liberals have blown all credibility in Quebec as the spokespeople for federalism, and personally I am not too happy about the prospect of a Bloc-Conservative government. They will have their hands on the levers of power before any kind of rules are established governing the interaction between a Quebec Nation State and the federation.

Exploring the idea of a Quebec Nation State within a United Canada is going to get us much closer to a solution than digging in our heels and taking the Liberal approach of no compromise. It may even lead to a solution which would include Quebec in the Canadian constitution as a full participant. True Canadian values as I see them include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is popular in Quebec.

As someone who is social democratic and not liberal (no compromise) or conservative (collusion) I think we should have an honest solution to this problem that will define Quebec and Canada for the years to come, and put the constitutional question to the back burner for another generation or so. I am not even sure if my ideas are the right ones, but we need to break the impasse somehow. I am proposing a tradeoff where we accept an independent Quebec, and Quebec accepts that it is part of Canada, and this was done by our free will as peoples of Quebec and Canada.

As Canadians we have to get across the message in Quebec that we do not think Quebec is politically corrupt. We do think the federal Liberals have been corrupt in Quebec, and there is some evidence to prove it. We should also acknowledge that Quebec has led Canada in having clean politics since Rene Levesque became premier. How hard is it to go from there to recognizing the legitimate aspirations of Quebec as a Nation State, while maintaining the Canadian federation?

We all have to accept that at any given time, more than one Nation is going to have a claim on a particular piece of land.

quote:

---

Skdadl said:

(Actually, the "anglo" part was always only partly true: even among the elites, and especially in Montreal, the English speakers were as likely to be Scots- as English-descended, even when their ancestors had first arrived as disposable Highland troops. The Anglo anglo elite was mainly only Upper Canada, yes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Being:
Exploring the idea of a Quebec Nation State within a United Canada is going to get us much closer to a solution than digging in our heels and taking the Liberal approach of no compromise. It may even lead to a solution which would include Quebec in the Canadian constitution as a full participant. True Canadian values as I see them include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is popular in Quebec.

---

Then why not an Alberta Nation State, Manitoba Nation State, British Columbia Nation State, Saskatchewan Nation State, Ontario Nation State, New Brunsiwck Nation State, Nova Scotia Nation State, Prince Edward Island Nation State, and Newfoundland Nation State all within a united Canada? Remember, Newfoundland used to be its own country, and has its own culture distinct from the Rest Of Canada. Trudeau once said, and this makes sense, you cannot say that Quebec is distinct from Ontario without saying Ontario is distinct from Quebec. And you forget that many of the people demanding "recognition" for Quebec are more concerned about maintaining power and priviledge for the pur-laine francophone Quebeckers than they are about any meaningful dialogue with anyone else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:

...does anybody here know what she was talking about?

---

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

They came in a blizzard, we offered them heat
A roof for their heads, dry shoes for their feet
We wined them and dined them, they ate of our meat
And they slept in the house of MacDonald.

Chorus:
O, cruel is the snow that sweeps Glencoe
And covers the grave o' Donald
O, cruel was the foe that raped Glencoe
And murdered the house of MacDonald

2. They came from Fort William with murder in mind
The Campbell had orders King William had signed
"Put all to the sword" these words underlined
"And leave none alive called MacDonald"

Chorus:

3. They came in the night when the men were asleep
This band of Argyles, through snow soft and deep
Like murdering foxes amongst helpless sheep
They slaughtered the house of MacDonald

Chorus:

4. Some died in their beds at the hand of the foe
Some fled in the night and were lost in the snow
Some lived to accuse him who struck the first blow
But gone was the house of MacDonald

Chorus:

---

Blood and belonging, eh?

Ginger: Everybody knows lots of MacDonalds, and all the variants thereof. They are the hugest, hugest clan of all. They are magnificent. They are unstoppable. And they are everywhere.

In Scotland, the clan name is third only to Smith and Brown.

That night in Glencoe, though: it was a whole sept that was attacked, a whole local grouping of MacDonalds. Some survived, but the patriarch was killed and the village was wiped out.

After the 1960's when Quebec definitively became the homeland of "french-Canadians" this became even more true. Quebec is the home of one nation. ROC is the home of the "other nation." It's why so many sovereigntists refer to "English-Canada" as a monolithic construct. In their minds, this is the basic structure of Canada: a bicultural political compact between two cultures and has been every since 1791. In this line of thought, Canada isn't one nation and never has been. It's why various leaders have said "English Canada" should just get its act together, find its nationality and then it can deal with Quebec. Two nations. The whole idea of multiculturalism is a red herring in this context.

quote:

---

maybe the odd sheep or goat too, I dunno.

---

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Being:
We should also acknowledge that Quebec has led Canada in having clean politics since Rene Levesque became premier. How hard is it to go from there to recognizing the legitimate aspirations of Quebec as a Nation State, while maintaining the Canadian federation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
In their minds, this is the basic structure of Canada: a bicultural political compact between two cultures and has been every since 1791. In this line of thought, Canada isn't one nation and never has been. . . You can't argue with faith, and particularly not with such a core facet of national identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Canada is still and always has been a structure by which European white elites have enabled themselves to appropriate and exploit the lands and resources of the First Nations that existed here for tens of thousands of years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Well, let us not forget that Canada's first PM was a Scot, eh, Skdadl?

---

I think it would help if we can define our respective nationalisms with a sense that in Canada these nationalisms can overlap and coexist, the relations between all of them can vary, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I think recognising these nationalisms and encouraging their positive aspirations and human development in this vast land makes good social and economic sense. I don't think nationalism necessarily has to be reactionary. But for it not to be reactionary, it has to be inclusive where possible.

And, anyone recall that Air Farce skit? What could a Montreal split off from Quebec be called? I only remember two of their suggestions...

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: mimsy ]

Most modern separatists widely accept and recruit immigrants and those from other cultures. This is obviously different from how the movement often acted historically, but they know this transformation is the only chance they have for long-term relevance. Looks like they are having some success: in 1995 fully 90% of immigrants voted against separation, but today only 70% would do so. When separatists ranks are filled with as much of a cultural mix as federalist partisans, then they will either have gained enough legitimacy to separate, or have helped transfom the Quebec nation into ...essentially the RoC.

Canada must take up the task of constitutional reform one more time, however reluctantly. We must transform ourselves into a nation of nations. We may already be this, but if it is enacted in law, constitutionally, Quebeckers and other Canadians will finally be able to move on. The GG may have been a bit premature when she said it, but it's true that the 'two solitudes' no longer really describes Canada well, and will be an even worse analogy as time goes on. But I think time is running out for federalists as well; everyone knows that a 50%+1 victory will mean a new country and the end of Canada as we know it. And this seems a likely outcome for the next referendum in a few years, since Canadian federalists have their heads in the sand. If they wake up 3 days before the referendum like they did in 1995 and realise "Hey, we're losing!", it will be too late. A Constitutional deal must be made before the PQ gains power in 2008. After all, a country takes work; it dosen't just form out of nothing. If its people don't even attempt to keep their country together, do they deserve to have one?

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: A Blair ]

quote:

---

I somehow doubt there even IS an "Inverness-Burns-McLeod clan".

---

You would be right. I believe that the Burnses are a Lowland family -- the sainted Robbie was from Ayrshire (south of Glasgow). The MacLeods are a Hebridean clan, mainly from Skye and the isle of Lewis and Harris (a single island but divided in two -- I think the MacLeods are from the Lewis part, but I could be wrong).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Ok, let me say this once. The whole French-English thing is not ameliorated by the fact that either side has let in a handful of non-Eng/Fr speaking folks into the fold. Canada is still and always has been a structure by which European white elites have enabled themselves to appropriate and exploit the lands and resources of the First Nations that existed here for tens of thousands of years. The recent manifestation of 'multiculturalism' is merely a bait and switch to make this history of theft, genocide and exploitation more palatable to the masses to continue to grant privilege to those who have always held power. It's all a con game to maintain the historical theft in the shiny eyes of the newcomers over the past few hundred years who sigh at the apparent largesse offered to them, not seeing the dead lands and the long rotted carcasses of those who were clearcut like deadwood to make way for their subdivisions.

---

quote:

---

The recent manifestation of 'multiculturalism' is merely a bait and switch to make this history of theft, genocide and exploitation more palatable to the masses to continue to grant privilege to those who have always held power.

---

I would like to remind babblers that there are LOTS of francophones of Scots and/or Irish descent. Blackburn, Burns, Ryan, O'Neill etc are all very common francophone names.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mimsy:
[QB]I don't see Canada continuing as a viable entity without Quebec. Neither did Charles Doran, in an article in Foreign Affairs back in '96(?)(sorry no time to link it now).

---

WILL CANADA UNRAVEL?

Plotting a map if Quebec secedes
EVER-LOUDER rumblings north of the border should not be dismissed as another Canadian nonevent. Potentially, they portend much greater consequences for American interests than many nationalist breakups around the world.
Canada's dilemma, typically put, is the separation of Quebec. At least since the abortive rebellions of 1837-38, Quebeckers seemingly have been revolting against Canada. The question has always been, "Will Quebec separate?" After a recent referendum in Quebec almost answered yes, Canadians have begun to ask other questions in more heated tones, such as, "Should Quebec be partitioned?" "For other francophones and the rest of us," wrote Diane Francis, editor of The Financial Post, "(partition of Quebec) would rid this country of troublemakers who do not value Canada or its citizenship and who play fast and loose with the rule of law and minority rights." Quebeckers, for their part, call partition dangerous, nonviable, undemocratic, and contrary to law. They regard it as a precedent that would threaten the geopolitical balance in North America. So the tensions increase.

- snip -

by Charles Doran, 1996

comment: Geez, that awful quote from Diane Francis - was it ever challenged???

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Blair:
If its people don't even attempt to keep their country together, do they deserve to have one?

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: A Blair ]

---

Great post, A Blair.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:

I would like to remind babblers that there are LOTS of francophones of Scots and/or Irish descent. Blackburn, Burns, Ryan, O'Neill etc are all very common francophone names.

---

I always feel a little swell when I see a francophone with a celtic name - I like the ideal there, the sense of a wider, wilder new idea of nationality. There is a history there, from Cartier's pilot Abraham Martin, to the Sieur de Ramezay, Montcalm's Franco-Scots second-in-command.

As an Albertan my answer is 'NO'. My answer is 'there is the door. Stay or go'. Otherwise in another 5, 10 15, years etc. It will be same-old-same-old. Quebecer federalists don't need to be bribed to stay in Canada and Quebec sovereigntists can't be bribed to stay in Canada. Quebec has all the powers it needs to preserve it's language and culture within the Canadian state.

The approach from ROC should be 'Quebec, we'd like you to stay part of Canada. Canada is a better place with a Quebec in it. Quebec is a better place by being part of Canada'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tallyho:
A Blair: "Canada must take up the task of constitutional reform one more time, however reluctantly. We must transform ourselves into a nation of nations. We may already be this, but if it is enacted in law, constitutionally, Quebeckers and other Canadians will finally be able to move on.'

As an Albertan my answer is 'NO'. My answer is 'there is the door. Stay or go'. Otherwise in another 5, 10 15, years etc. It will be same-old-same-old. Quebecer federalists don't need to be bribed to stay in Canada and Quebec sovereigntists can't be bribed to stay in Canada. Quebec has all the powers it needs to preserve it's language and culture within the Canadian state.

The approach from ROC should be 'Quebec, we'd like you to stay part of Canada. Canada is a better place with a Quebec in it. Quebec is a better place by being part of Canada'.

Period. Quebecers who don't want to be part of Canada because they can't have 'x' or 'y' don't really care about Canada that much. It's a fool's game into trying to brew up a deal to keep the country together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tallyho:
The approach from ROC should be 'Quebec, we'd like you to stay part of Canada. Canada is a better place with a Quebec in it. Quebec is a better place by being part of Canada'. Period. Quebecers who don't want to be part of Canada because they can't have 'x' or 'y' don't really care about Canada that much. It's a fool's game into trying to brew up a deal to keep the country together.

---

Wow, I don't even know where to begin with this. Basically you are saying that you are quite satisfied with the approach the country is taking to the separatist threat right now, because its almost exactly what you describe. Congratulations, I guess you & the separatist movement really do have something in common.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tallyho:
[...]if Quebec had Alberta's wealth would Quebeckers vote to remain in Canada? No way. Very few francophones have an affinity for Canada and thus most of those who do vote for Canada in referenda do so because of economic considerations.

---

I don't know if the majority of the many francophones I've known in my life were just statistical anomalies, or if you don't know what the heck you're talking about. 'Cause it's one or the other. Francophone federalists are amongst the most hard-core federalists around, even if most are feeling vulnerable right now in the wake of Gomery. And there's still many: almost half of the francophone polulation in Québec and virtually all francophones outside of Québec. They're the ones defending & presenting the case for your country when you clearly are not (wait... I'm assuming 'your country' is Canada, but if it's Alberta I guess the rest of your comments make more sense). So when you say "Very few francophones have an affinity for Canada" you should tell that to the millions of francophone Canadians - the majority of francophones in the country in fact - who bleed red & white regardless of a few lousy dollars. They're the ones that stay behind to fight it out after referendum scares result in thousands of anglophones fleeing the province.

Both of you seem to also assume that Québec robs the country blind and that its a terrible financial burden to carry, a point the intolerants on this issue never fail to bring up in every discussion on Québec separation. This is a shared cultural greviance myth, often used to frame 'us versus them' arguments. It's not surprising that separatists very commonly employ the same argument. I think the truth is somewhere between the two positions (each with their own studies, statistics, and economists to back them up). A greedy 'me first' mentality like this is a slap in the face for what many Canadians consider one of the better qualities of Canada: an attept at sharing wealth between regions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Blair:

I don't know if the majority of the many francophones I've known in my life were just statistical anomalies, or if you don't know what the heck you're talking about. 'Cause it's one or the other. Francophone federalists are amongst the most hard-core federalists around, even if most are feeling vulnerable right now in the wake of Gomery. And there's still many: almost half of the francophone polulation in Québec and virtually all francophones outside of Québec. They're the ones defending & presenting the case for your country when you clearly are not (wait... I'm assuming 'your country' is Canada, but if it's Alberta I guess the rest of your comments make more sense). So when you say "Very few francophones have an affinity for Canada" you should tell that to the millions of francophone Canadians - the majority of francophones in the country in fact - who bleed red & white regardless of a few lousy dollars. They're the ones that stay behind to fight it out after referendum scares result in thousands of anglophones fleeing the province.

Both of you seem to also assume that Québec robs the country blind and that its a terrible financial burden to carry, a point the intolerants on this issue never fail to bring up in every discussion on Québec separation. This is a shared cultural greviance myth, often used to frame 'us versus them' arguments. It's not surprising that separatists very commonly employ the same argument. I think the truth is somewhere between the two positions (each with their own studies, statistics, and economists to back them up). A greedy 'me first' mentality like this is a slap in the face for what many Canadians consider one of the better qualities of Canada: an attept at sharing wealth between regions.

In any event economics is not a real reason for separating and forming your own country. Even less when the majority in the country has a pretty good standard of living already. Something as drastic as ripping a country apart & forming a new one is an emotional decision, not financial. Talking about economics like the No side did in the last referendum, is mostly meaningless and a red herring. It's a distraction from the real reasons to keep Québec in Canada or have them leave.

---

Sure francophones outside of Quebec are federalist but since the topic is on Quebec and how Quebec citizens will vote in a referndum, I had assumed that readers would understand the term francophone refers to Quebec francophones. Sorry for not realizing that would be a stretch for some.

Your sample of francophones (and from now on please read it as Quebec francophones)sounds like you live in the Ottawa area and spend your time with civil servants. No more than 1/4 of francophones have a strong affection for Canada, 35% are committed separtists and a majority of the other 40%(soft nationalists) tilt toward Canada in referendum votes because of the economic uncertainties about independence. Boisclair and the new generation of PQists understand this and will be hammering the economic issues hard. Combine that with liberal corruption and the PQ are guaranteed to win the 2009 referndum. Your only hope is to prevent the PQ from winning the next election.

This is why Quebec can't be appeased with more constitutional rejigging.

as for: "Yes, my country is Alberta not Canada but I will be watching the Quebec drama play out with interest, albeit without emotio"

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Blair:
Both of you seem to also assume that Québec robs the country blind and that its a terrible financial burden to carry, a point the intolerants on this issue never fail to bring up in every discussion on Québec separation. This is a shared cultural greviance myth, often used to frame 'us versus them' arguments. It's not surprising that separatists very commonly employ the same argument. I think the truth is somewhere between the two positions (each with their own studies, statistics, and economists to back them up). A greedy 'me first' mentality like this is a slap in the face for what many Canadians consider one of the better qualities of Canada: an attept at sharing wealth between regions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tallyho:
Who? And hy do you presume someone speaks for me? We know the NDPers get 'gaga' over cult figures but that's not my style.

---

quote:

---

Honey, where'd you ever get the idea that you got style in the first place? >snap<

---

The SPA is a joke and everybody knows it. Every year, I relish in the fact that thousands of folks from Ontario come to Alberta and drown out these traitors. Yes, disloyal traitors.

[ 18 November 2005: Message edited by: Cartman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
[QB]

The SPA is a joke and everybody knows it. Every year, I relish in the fact that thousands of folks from Ontario come to Alberta and drown out these traitors. Yes, disloyal traitors.

/QB]

---

Gee, if Ontario/Canada is so wonderful, why do they move to Alberta?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AltaInd:

I can assure you that the refreshing winds of independence are blowing through Alberta.

---

*giggle*

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: In the only poll that matters, the SPA got 4,680 votes. Half of a percent. The PQ got 23.06% (and 7 seats) in the first election it ever contested. Its predecessors, the RN and RIN, together got almost 9% in the first (and last) election they contested. Call me again when the SPA elects a majority government. Hell, call me again when they elect a single MLA.

quote:

---

Gee, if Ontario/Canada is so wonderful, why do they move to Alberta?

---

quote:

---

Traitors! Wow, you are a tuffy; going to slap me if I fly the Alberta flag instead of the red rag? I can assure you that the refreshing winds of independence are blowing through Alberta.

---

quote:

---

Screaming Lord Byron wrote - It occurs to me that it really does not serve the most multicultural nation on earth to have the non-Francophone population refered to as 'English-Canadians'.

---

Harmony and everyone holding hands is always nice when a power structure works in your favour.

Most Quebecers consider themselves Quebecers first. Most natives identify with their nation. I am an Albertan first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by firecaptain:

I say why do you even acknowledge a portion of Canadians as Francophones? If you include the french speaking people in Canada as part of the multicultural tableau that we have in canada, then I agree with you, but to exclude the french speaking portion and consider them a distinct ethnic group and every other ethnic or cultural group as one other group then I vehemently disagree with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AltaInd:
Sure francophones outside of Quebec are federalist but since the topic is on Quebec and how Quebec citizens will vote in a referndum, I had assumed that readers would understand the term francophone refers to Quebec francophones.

---

You said 'Very few francophones have an affinity for Canada and thus most of those who do vote for Canada in referenda do so because of economic considerations.' and if you just meant francophones in Québec it's still bogus. There's millions of francophone Québecois who vote out of loyalty to Canada rather than mere money. And again I state that they tend to be the most hard-core federalists on Canada's side. Further, your attempt to paint francophones with the same brush is again a result of your divisive 'us vs. them' vocabulary & mentality. It's not so simple.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AltaInd:
Your sample of francophones (and from now on please read it as Quebec francophones) sounds like you live in the Ottawa area and spend your time with civil servants.

---

Not only do I avoid civil servants when I can, but I'm in Québec and only know 1 or 2 francophones originally from the Ottawa area. The real question is how you got your simplistic & skewed views of francophones. I guess you don't get to meet that many in Alberta, and this breeds generalizations & misconceptions. Why don't you move to Québec for a while and learn about the situation before commenting so vociferously? I did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AltaInd:
Yes, my country is Alberta not Canada but I will be watching the Quebec drama play out with interest, albeit without emotion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tallyho:
The same here. Quebec staying or going has an impact on my country, Alberta.

---

Oh. I'm kind of new on Babble but I think I get it now. This is the reason this thread has degraded so fast. It's also probably why you two are finding almost everyone disagreeing with you, and undoubtedly not just on this thread.

PS. Alberta isn't a country, it's a province. Check your passport if you're not sure.

[ 18 November 2005: Message edited by: A Blair ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Blair:
Not only do I avoid civil servants when I can

---

Where is it said that Canada is a country? Is a 'country' a legal entity? Is Scotland a country?

One can equally write
'PS. Canada isn't a country. it's a state
(according to the U.N.)

What is a state?
What is a nation?
What is a country?

There is no universal definition. Are the Mohawks a nation? Iowa a state? Scotlamd a country? Canada a nation? Canada a state? Canada a country?

As quebecers say

Scotland.

Independent nation within recognizable borders 843 - 1707. Check.

Independent monarchy 843-1603. Check.

Seperate, distinct legal system that is not part of English common law. Check.

Seperate education system, not part of English education system. Check.

Distinct language and dialects. Check. (two distinct languages, if you're counting)

Definite, provable national identity expressed in sports, arts and culture, agreed upon by the majority of its residents and recognizable as such by others. Check.

quote:

---

"Let me also add, let us kill the notion of a French Canadian, but instead let there be just "Canadians".

Harmony and everyone holding hands is always nice when a power structure works in your favour.

Most Quebecers consider themselves Quebecers first. Most natives identify with their nation. I am an Albertan first.

Why 'Canadians'? Why not 'North Americans' or 'British Commonwealthers' Canada is not a heaven-ordained sacred entity.

---

Oh, fer Gawd sakes!! The separatists across this country have one thing in common. They don't get it.

The thing that makes Canada great is that it isn't a nation. There isn't a single way to be Canadian. When people say they aren't attached to Canada as a nation, I think that's great. Canada is a concept and a magnificent one at that. You can be who you want to be without your own border guards or your own navy. You can have every ethnic group in the world living side by side without having a war. As a nation we may be a failure but as a community, we are leading edge.

The separatists in this country have their heads shoved so far up their asses that their brains have been digested. If you split Canada at any point, all you get is another Canada - a smaller entity that is multi-cultural.

In Quebec, the roots of separatism are intolerance and ethnic bigotry. That's still better than Alberta where the roots of separatism are a sense of entitlement brought on by huge petro-dollars. In both cases, the great myths of oppression and estrangement have taken on a larger-than-life manifestation. Talk to somebody from the third world about the problems in Quebec or Alberta. If they 'get it' tell them to explain it to me because I don't (and I grew up in Alberta!).