But then why is it that Quebec is - bar none - the two tiered health care capital of Canada. Private clinics of various types are popping up all over the place where people with money can jump the queue and no one there seems to care! In Ontario or even in Alberta there are practically riots when someone tries to open a private eye clinic or MRI clinic, but in Quebec people just seem to accept it! Polls show that Quebecers are far more likely than Anglos to think that people should be able to buy themselves better health care.

Secondly, because we've had a party that actively promoted it during the last elections, headed by a very charismatic leader, and the most left-wing of the parties didn't react well enough (they avoided the subject, didn't propose any reform to counter privatization actively). The only who were openly attacking it were the unions and the left fringe, both don't get media coverage the way a major party gets.

quote:

---

Plus, both of our major parties have been hijacked by conservative leaders for the past 12 years, with a little pause of about 2 years with Landry. Even if the base is left-wing, there's bound to have problems like this.

---

quote:

---

In part because, like I said, two-tier health care is not a taboo here, it's not considered part of our culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
What happened to the Quebec that is social democratic and rejects free market neo-liberal economics?

---

a bit of a myth, I think, esp. among people who grew up amazed at the political energy of 1970s Montreal, :

Quebec in the 1980s was gung-ho over its Bombardiers and SNCs, its small-business PME entrepreneurs and the rise of the HEC management-school generation;

Quebec, unions and all, voted very heavily in favour of the NAFTA free trade Mulroney Tories in 1988, when that was the only real issue; in my riding at the time, Outremont, people voted out the (anti-NAFTA) Liberals, for the 1st time since Confederation;

despite the post-Quite Revolution aura, the Quebec public sector is now distrusted to a huge extent there; I spent some time this summer with a friend who was just raging with anger about the hospital waits and mismanagement in the public sector -- and she's a teacher! the bed-in-the-corridor scenes in Barbarian Invasions captured a pervasive reality. She welcomed private clinics with open arms.

plus, times change ....

[ 15 September 2004: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

It just goes to show that people who think that the PQ is like the NDP with a bit of nationalism are 100% wrong. There are all kinds of rightwing Duplessisists in the PQ who just happen to to favour sovereignty, but otherwise they could be Conservatives in the rest of Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
You know, I think the argument that works best when blasting two-tier healthcare in Canada is calling it "americanization" of healthcare, just like Martin did to Harper during the elections, but it doesn't work as well in Québec. We feel we have so many differences from Americans that there is no fear at all of being absorbed into it.

---

If people in BC were really paying attention to our health care system, Campbell and his band would be horse whipped down main street.

To think a weakened Canada means a strong Quebec and a separate country is such folly. A Quebec without a strong Canada is called Louisiana.

This thread smacks of searching for a reason to hate Quebec, and I'm not quite sure what Stockholm's motives are. Until Stockholm provides an argument to back up his claims, with perhaps some facts, I don't see any merit in this thread at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BleedingHeart:
The other way is to send people who really don't need MRIs (which BTW is in my opinion about 90% of the people currently getting them).

---

(joke)

But I always wanted to find out what it felt like to be downfield from TMS.

quote:

---

To think a weakened Canada means a strong Quebec and a separate country is such folly. A Quebec without a strong Canada is called Louisiana.

---

About the 2 tier health care question:

Quebeckers want to be like Americans not anglo Canadians.
In terms of business and their show business aspirations, they compare themselves to Americans and not anglo Canadians. Quebeckers find Americans to be much more spirited and colourful unlike anglo Canadians whom they find boring.

Quebeckers dislike, nay hate anglo Canadian culture but have a great admiration for much American culture.
Look at the virulent anti-anglo and anti-Toronto Quebec press in both english and french. They have an absolute loathing for Toronto whether deserved or not.

Look Quebec does whatever $$$$$uits Quebec. They don't much care for Canada really. There's a whole lot of "what's in it for me" attitude going on in Quebec.

I live in Montreal and have observed this attitude here for quite awhile. And I know it's not 'politically correct' to talk about it but I want to. And don't shush me. I will express how I think and feel even if it goes against the politcally correct rule of "Thou shalt NEVER criticize Quebec" commandment.

Quebec gets away with too much crap and we ought to call them on it much more often.

[ 16 September 2004: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Look at the virulent anti-anglo and anti-Toronto Quebec press in both english and french.

---

Where please? However, I can easily find proofs of English Canada's press making virulent anti-Québec statements, a sovereignist site archives these.

quote:

---

Quebeckers dislike, nay hate anglo Canadian culture but have a great admiration for much American culture.

---

Not really either, but there is a historical dislike for anglo-British culture, that is true. That's the logical consequence of a century of domination, which is why in parts we had a rather more positive view on Americans years back, because they were replacing the "old masters" in the economy, parallel with our own growth.

Also, the way you can get open hatred for Canadian culture is when the federal government is trying to impose it on us. There you will have a backlash against that. When we learn that 75% of the budget of Canada day celebrations were spent in Québec, when the federal wants everyone who gets even a cent out of federal programs put a Canada flag somewhere, in short, when we feel that the federal government is trying to deny our existence as a culture by trying to assimilate us into its own hybrid, bastard culture, don't be surprised that Quebecois get a dislike about that same culture.

In the end, we don't want to be more like Americans or more like Canadians, we just want to be ourselves. The problem is that Americans don't seem to bother while the government that represents Canada does seem to bother about it, and to bother us about it.

quote:

---

Look Quebec does whatever $$$$$uits Quebec. They don't much care for Canada really. There's a whole lot of "what's in it for me" attitude going on in Quebec.

---

That's rather true, but it's not really a matter of bucks, more of autonomy (we don't want more money spent here, we just want that more of it be spent by the government of Québec). And we do in general look at Canada like we'd look at a foreign country, we don't feel like really a part of it. Then again, I speak only for the more or less 70% of nationalists in Québec, there are exceptions who have a maple leaf, rather than a fleur-de-lys, "tatoué sur le coeur" like we say. (tattooed on the heart)

[ 16 September 2004: Message edited by: simonvallee ]

I think mary123 is talking about elite media trends and I don't think that's the same as what the people are actually like.
But Quebecois, like Americans, tend to be somewhat louder, more colourful as mary123 said, more willing to, more or less consciously, base their ideas on emotions rather than the other way about--where Anglo-Canadians are more likely to claim that their emotions are based on ideas, on some kind of objective truth. Of the three, Quebecois may be closest to being honest with themselves about what they're really doing.

At the same time, Quebecois, like Americans, spend a lot of energy defending and indeed expanding their culture, to the point where it is quite robust, and yet continue to hold as a central feature of that culture to the notion that it is under constant attack. So, just as Americans are easy to convince that the rest of the world "hates our freedom" etc. etc., Quebecois, certainly sovereigntist Quebecois, seem prone to thinking that the RoC hates their identity and want to get rid of their culture. Canadians don't protect our culture nearly enough, and are insufficiently paranoid about it.

[ 16 September 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

People in Québec elected Mulroney not because of free trade, but because of his promises of constitutional reforms

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
We are always told that Quebec is the most social democratic left leaning place in canada. Sovereignists argue that Quebec needs more sovereignty so that they can pursue their leftwing tendencies with nout being held back by the supposedly neo-liberal rightwing English-Canadian political culture. Fair enough.

But then why is it that Quebec is - bar none - the two tiered health care capital of Canada. Private clinics of various types are popping up all over the place where people with money can jump the queue and no one there seems to care! In Ontario or even in Alberta there are practically riots when someone tries to open a private eye clinic or MRI clinic, but in Quebec people just seem to accept it! Polls show that Quebecers are far more likely than Anglos to think that people should be able to buy themselves better health care.

Why are Quebecers so accepting of the neo-con agenda when it comes to health care?

---

quote:

---

in short, when we feel that the federal government is trying to deny our existence as a culture by trying to assimilate us into its own hybrid, bastard culture, don't be surprised that Quebecois get a dislike about that same culture.

---

The only profound difference I've seen between anglo- and franco-canadian culture is in the degree of self-confidence (...and the effects of some particular religious-based ethical constraints), but even these have changed drastically in the last decades.

[ 16 September 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

A lot of this comparison with the Americans is simply the fact that Quebeckers are pretty immune to American culture (for obvious reasons) and don't feel as threatened by it.

---

My point was that my culture is no more 'bastardized' than Quebec culture. My culture is constantly threatened by the overwhelming noise coming from the south - as is Simon's. But my culture is not imposed upon Quebec in any way, shape or form, and if Simon is claiming that it is, I'd like him to make his case here.

[ 16 September 2004: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

My point was not to offend. I believe if Quebec wishes to separate they should be able to do so, at the same time, I believe that Quebec culture is a wonderful asset to Canada.

I am aware that domination breeds dislike and I am also aware that policies meant to enhance and perserve French Culture are used by certain politicians and groups (like the Fraser Institute) to inflame English Canada, just as anti-English sentiment in Quebec is used politically against the Quebec people for purposes of power and domination of another kind.

What I meant is, just like Louisana, if Quebec were to separate they eventually (maybe even as soon as twenty years) would be swallowed whole by the US. That is all. And, if Quebec were to separate and remain in partnership to Canada it would be of more benefit to Quebec to have a strong Canada.

Canada, as all Nations right now, is under a systemic attack to destroy the concept of Nation, so globalized corporations will own us. As Ms Barlow said, to 'turn us into a holding company' for multi-nationals. This is the threat we are all under today, I believe.

I believe most Quebec people are for socialized medicine as most English people are. It is just it is being destroyed through acts and lies.

I just want to add, the tactic of the reactionary right wing, is to create a divided society. Look anywhere in the world and see they are promoting discord. Why? Because, then they can come in and steal everyones assets and hard won policies while people so busy fighting among themselves do not see they are experiencing a raid. Look at the US right now. While the country is divided in two and really are almost in a civil war mind-set again, domestically, Bush etal are dismantling the New Deal.

This is something the Bloc needs to think about while it promotes it's separation agenda.

This is just my opinion. No offense meant to you.

Blessings.
Blueiris

[ 16 September 2004: Message edited by: Blueiris46 ]

quote:

---

Are you out to prove Mary123's point?

---

I will not deny there is a dislike to the culture the federal government is promoting here. There is some, however, it is not pandemic like she tries to convince us it is.

quote:

---

What I meant is, just like Louisana, if Quebec were to separate they eventually (maybe even as soon as twenty years) would be swallowed whole by the US. That is all. And, if Quebec were to separate and remain in partnership to Canada it would be of more benefit to Quebec to have a strong Canada.

---

quote:

---

~yawn~

---

Hey, I missed that. LTJ, you'll rue the day you ever yawned at me. A shove it, dork, I can handle. A well-placed fuck you I meet willingly. I can even take a your writing lacks panache and your thoughts are derivative with only minor sobbing. But...~yawn~?!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
No, that was imported from France. American Idol was another spinoff.

---

No, American Idol (and Canadian Idol) are spin-offs of the British show Pop Idol. Regardless of how similar they may be (I am proud to have never seen an episode of any of 'em), they are separate programs with no ownership connection at all to Star Académie.

Apart from that, I don't see localized versions of game shows to be a sign of the imposition of another country's culture anymore than Americans deciding they like to play hockey or soccer is an imposition of Canadian or European.

What IS fascinating is the groundless assumption that these things are American. Idol is not. Big Brother is not. Survivor is not. They're all just silly European games with an appeal broad enough that they can be adapted to almost any country.

Were it not for our proximity to the U.S., Canadians would think of Idol as wholly Canadian, just as Americans do with their version.

[ 17 September 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
I'd say first that we don't consider universal healthcare as part of our culture the way Canadians do. You know, I think the argument that works best when blasting two-tier healthcare in Canada is calling it "americanization" of healthcare, just like Martin did to Harper during the elections, but it doesn't work as well in Québec. We feel we have so many differences from Americans that there is no fear at all of being absorbed into it. Those who normally oppose it do it more because they truly believe it is best.

Secondly, because we've had a party that actively promoted it during the last elections, headed by a very charismatic leader, and the most left-wing of the parties didn't react well enough (they avoided the subject, didn't propose any reform to counter privatization actively). The only who were openly attacking it were the unions and the left fringe, both don't get media coverage the way a major party gets.

Plus, both of our major parties have been hijacked by conservative leaders for the past 12 years, with a little pause of about 2 years with Landry. Even if the base is left-wing, there's bound to have problems like this.

---

Landry's a bitter asshole and was the choice of Bouchard, a former Conservative cabinet minister, to win the leadership election following his resignation.

I know he has some leftist credentials, but I dislike him immensely.

quote:

---

Simon - C'est clairement une conversation qui peut seulement servir à vous offenser.
Mais je ne peut pas quitter sans faire mention de la fait que le contraire d'un culture 'bastardized' est une culture 'pur laine': exclusif, et exclusionaire de les étrangers.

---

I'll answer in English because, though I appreciate that you try answering in French*, Babble is an English-speaking forum. No, a culture that is not "bastard" doesn't mean it is exclusive, it can evolve by assimilating outside influences and changes in the demography of the society it's rooted in. What I mean by a "bastard" culture is one which is not truly rooted anywhere, it's created artificially by, if you allow me to use a metaphore, banging together two cultures till they're able to fit together, and don't care about the bits you lost along the way.

*BTW, like most anglophones I know, you seem to always inverse gender in nouns. You know, they should be right about half of the time, but they seem to ALWAYS be wrong, sometimes I wonder if they know what gender to use but use the opposite just to spite us

[ 18 September 2004: Message edited by: simonvallee ]

On an interesting mini-snapshot, the Canadian provinces all generally disagreed with the statement "The father of the family must be the master in his own house"--it had between 15% and 21% support, with Quebec at 15%, the prairies and Alberta at 21% and the rest in between. New England was at 29% and the rest of the US ranged upward, with the Deep South at a revolting 71% agreement with this patriarchal dictum.
Generally, regional Canadian values (including Quebec) seemed much closer to one another than regional American values which varied widely across geography, and the least progressive Canadian regions were generally more progressive than the most progressive American regions.

Is it not simply that your first impulse is to reject them as (respectively), the remnants of colonial times, and a defeated culture that is without rights?

quote:

---

But Simon, English has been a significant cultural force in Quebec for hundreds of years, and aboriginal culture has co-existed since the first European contact - so how do you presume to say that they are rootless, and an imposition?

---

They're not rootless, both are rooted into their specifics nations (or peoples, take the term you like best). It is the hybrid culture promoted by the Federal that is rootless, it is not founded on a people or a nation, it is an imitation to try to make people believe we're all one big happy family with not many differences. That's why there is so much of a rejection here, that's why people feel angry when they're paying big bucks to make these little "Heritage" ads ("les minutes du patrimoine" in French) or when they learn that 70% of the budget for Canada Day was spent in Québec.

quote:

---

Why are you so uncomfortable with the fact that there are Quebecois who are equally as proud of the nation of Canada as of their province?

---

quote:

---

I don't visit old people's homes very much, so I don't frequent enough to make me uncomfortable

---

quote:

---

What's wrong with being "one big happy family with not many differences"?

---

Because it's not true and because I don't want to live in an uniformized world where cultural differences are systemically destroyed. (just like when some people talked about taking out Christmas' decorations from Montréal City Hall because they were afraid of the reaction of non-Christian immigrants). An uniformized world is the destruction of the human spirit.

quote:

---

If you took the time to learn about other parts of Canada you would realize that there is no "bland coast-to-coast culture", that there are many distinct societies all over the place.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, we all seem to be concentrated in Montreal.

---

quote:

---

Because it's not true and because I don't want to live in an uniformized world where cultural differences are systemically destroyed. (just like when some people talked about taking out Christmas' decorations from Montréal City Hall because they were afraid of the reaction of non-Christian immigrants). An uniformized world is the destruction of the human spirit.

---

quote:

---

That's what I've been saying pretty much, but tell that to the FEDERAL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:

Actually, except for anglophone and allophone communities (for different reasons, they are mostly split on their cultural identities), Montrealers are pretty much the most ardent sovereignists and nationalists there are in Québec.

---

But - but - but - Montrealers are all part of one nation, aren't they? What's all this business about making an exception of the votes of anglophones and allophones in order to make the case that Montrealers are an ardently nationalistic bunch?

[ 20 September 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Radioactive Westerner:
My theory is that when faced with a choice between waiting 9-16 months for a medical service (and probably dieing) or having it done right away in a private clinic, many people will choose the latter option.

---

quote:

---

But - but - but - Montrealers are all part of one nation, aren't they?

---

Of course we are. The nation of Montreal. As far as I can tell most people in this city consider themselves Montrealer first and last. Our Québecois and Canadian identities are extensions of our civic identity. Quite a few of us, myself included stopped relating to the people from outside Montreal a long time ago.

quote:

---

Originally by BugBear:
This thing about waqiting lists is invented by people who want to sell the system to their friends at bargain basement prices (cus its broken) so their friends can enrich themsoeves on the sufferings of others.

---

Are you really so sure about waiting lists being an invention? All I know is that my mother was told that she would have to wait for 3 months before getting an MIR, despite being diagnosed with cancer. Her other option, which she availed of, was to head to a private facility and have the exam done immediately. It was expensive, but worthwhile.

quote:

---

But - but - but - Montrealers are all part of one nation, aren't they? What's all this business about making an exception of the votes of anglophones and allophones in order to make the case that Montrealers are an ardently nationalistic bunch?

---

Simple, different cultural dynamism. It is normal for the anglophone minority to have a strong rattachment to the Canadians cultural identity since they share many similar characteristics (common language amongst others). As for allophones, most of them are immigrants and in their minds, they migrated to CANADA, and were probably informed of Québec's specificity when they arrived here, so it's normal they're hard to reach for Québec culture, though with bill 101, they have been more and more to integrate with Québec francophone society. Still, they're all part of the Québec nation, otherwise they wouldn't be here.

quote:

---

I happen to think that "multicultural" is not a contradiction.

---

A multicultural society is not, a multicultural culture (like what the federal is trying to promote) is. Plural cannot be singular, it's basic logic.

quote:

---

I happen to think that it is reasonable to ask a secular state to be neutral regarding the trappings of religion. I'm surprised you don't agree.

---

quote:

---

Still, they're all part of the Québec nation, otherwise they wouldn't be here.

---

BTW, re a previous discussion, the existence of institutions as a defining characteristic of nations is a wholly subjective manner, simply because I can ask the question, "How much?" And, "What institutions matter?" And, of course, you will give me an explanation that doesn't apply to everyone to whom people call a nation.

quote:

---

A multicultural society is not, a multicultural culture (like what the federal is trying to promote) is. Plural cannot be singular, it's basic logic.

---

This is part of what I do for a living, btw. While I post here, I am presently procrastinating on working with a logic of logics. There are entire fields devoted to logics about logics. Yes indeed, you can effectively talk about whether a logic is logical or whether it is an illogical logic, depending what logic about logics you are talking about... Singular and plural are really complicated things.

Consequently, you can also have cultures about cultures, and cultures of cultures. It is totally conceivable to me. It is simply a second-order culture. And rightly or wrongly, the federal government is trying to sell a second-order culture. And this makes perfect sense, as it is (you would agree) a second-order government.

quote:

---

I don't believe we should renounce our past and our culture just because there are immigrants. Our society has no excuse to make about having christian influences (sunday=holiday, christmas, easter, etc...), and those who settle here should know this and respect us. This doesn't mean adopting every one of our values or anything, just live and let live. We don't ask Japan to cease their shinto-related holidays, or Muslim countries their Islam-influenced holidays, why should we shy away from being ourselves? When the debate came on, the ones who defended most our institutionalized religious-based holidays were actually immigrants who told pretty much what I just told you.

---

quote:

---

Just because you live in a particular locality, doesn't mean you belong to a nation.

---

You make the choice of living in Québec society, you made the choice at the same time of living in the nation of Québec. If you wanted to live in Canada without living in Québec, there are plenty of other provinces where you could do this.

quote:

---

I continue to deny any necessary connection between state, nation, and geography.

---

Of course you will always have inescapable historical background noise. It's how this background noise interferes with the reality of others that is at stake. Should this interference be celebrated...or minimized when minorities do not like it? I think that the state should lean towards minimization.

I only spoke as someone who has observed the connection. The argument you made is all over right-wing radio stations in the RoC at least, particularly regarding Christmas decorations, etc. It is most closely associated with that position in the rest of the English-speaking world, I think.

quote:

---

You make the choice of living in Québec society, you made the choice at the same time of living in the nation of Québec. If you wanted to live in Canada without living in Québec, there are plenty of other provinces where you could do this.

---

quote:

---

Your loss. This is the basis of international politics, the only one that can bring stability and peace. It is when it is not correlated in reality that troubles are created, when it is applied, it goes better. Still, continue your fabulations designed to deny Québec nationalism and adopt a "holier-than-thou" attitude, sophism can be interesting sometimes.

---

I believe that the present nation-state system has been a disaster. It is very prone to abuse. It invites the creation of artificial borders, which force violent redrawings that are no less artificial than the previous situation, but simply favour a different group. I point to northern Iraq as an extreme example. Nations, if they really exist, overlap and there is no satisfactory way of separating them.

(BTW, in linguistics, especially of the Chomsky variety, it is popular to say that there is no such thing as a "language". Like there is no real object like "English" or "French", but there is only Simon, Mandos, skdadl, and so on. It is by environmental accident that our languages converge to something approaching the average of those around us, but no clear line between any of the languages "English", "French", and so on. A "language", therefore, is but an average dialect which can raise an army, if it doesn't already have one...

I am drawing an analogy here. Is it clear?)

quote:

---

Come on, Mandos, what's wrong with a little White Pride?

---

Come on, this is getting ridiculous. So what if we have some pride from our history? Should that be forbidden? Should emotions be forbidden? Of course, whenever someone uses "pride" as an excuse for intolerance, I will be there to kick his ass. I don't care that the people next to me is of a different ethnic origin, I just don't give a damn. He can talk to me, worship whomever he wants, speak whatever language he wants, I have absolutely no problem with it. I consider that everyone must be judged as a person and not on his race/ethnicity/religion/etc... I find interesting to have people from different cultural backgrounds and chat with them. But I don't see why the majority shouldn't live its cultural life just because there are immigrants. If Chinese want to celebrate their New Year publicly and advertise for it, take a day off for it, they've got my blessings. But why should it be different for us?

quote:

---

Should this interference be celebrated...or minimized when minorities do not like it? I think that the state should lean towards minimization.

---

Live and let live as they say. But, you know, minorities can be intolerant too sometimes, intolerance isn't something only a majority can do.

quote:

---

How do you cut up society into segments?

---

Cut what society? Canadian society? I already made it clear, this is not coast-to-coast Canadian society. Canada is a country of regions, and Québec is a region that has developped itself into a nation that is always seeking more autonomy. You don't create a nation out of thin air, it took us decades to come to a point where only fanatical anti-Québec orangists or ignorants can claim that there is no Québec nation/distinct society/people.

quote:

---

It is precisely what you practice when you define "nation" and the nation-state relationship in ways that suit your self-perception.

---

It is not a matter of Chinese New Year, and taking a day off. When you celebrate your holiday, the Chinese must take a day off, whether they like it or not.

My cousin married (from the same ethnic group as us) a young woman from Montreal who is perfectly functional in French and certainly has lived her life in Quebec society. But when she thinks of the PQ she thinks, "white." She is perfectly aware of Quebec nationalism, but quite instinctively knows that its primary purpose is not her, but for a cultural heritage that doesn't belong to her. And this awareness is widespread in the Quebec allo community and the main reason, forget Parizeau, that the sovereignty movement has never really broken into that community, so far.

quote:

---

Live and let live as they say. But, you know, minorities can be intolerant too sometimes, intolerance isn't something only a majority can do.

---

The majority community must yield because it is the majority community. That is the only reason why. Because they have the advantage of being the majority community, they must often forbear to use the tools of the state they control to benefit their culture.

quote:

---

Cut what society? Canadian society? I already made it clear, this is not coast-to-coast Canadian society. Canada is a country of regions, and Québec is a region that has developped itself into a nation that is always seeking more autonomy. You don't create a nation out of thin air, it took us decades to come to a point where only fanatical anti-Québec orangists or ignorants can claim that there is no Québec nation/distinct society/people.

---

quote:

---

You're guilty of the same "crime". The only difference is that for more than a hundred years, international politics have acted on nations pretty much like I defined them. You bring only confusion by refusing to admit a definition that's been universally recognized.

---

Many unfortunate things have been around for a 100 years and sometimes even a 1000 years and longer. And there are reasons why they evolved that way, I know. That doesn't make them good or useful in the long run. The question I have been trying to answer is this: why does nationalism, a force whose purpose was to liberate, turn so sour so quickly so often? The reason: it is a very dangerous weapon, to be used only as a last resort, in a life-and-death confrontation. And yet in Canada we have people toying with it as though it were some kind of benign natural process. We are lucky that we have the luxury to do so, but by our example we can make something seem harmless when it is clearly not.

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]

Why? Because the sense that Pierre Trudeau gave the Liberal party and the philosophy that it represents in the government is one that ethnic minorities in both Quebec and the RoC feel the most comfortable with. Why? Because at its root it denies the centrality of the majority cultures, but instead declares all minority cultures to be equal to the majority one at least in a very "paper" sense. So regardless of their faults the immigrants communities are still very comfortable with the Liberals.

quote:

---

The majority community must yield because it is the majority community.

---

That is just plain stupid. The majority should be able to live in a society that represents their particularities as long as minorities' rights are not denied and that there is no intolerance.

quote:

---

I am not conveniently reusing the definitions, I am simply denying their relevance. So I am not guilty of the same rhetorical crime.

---

To deny the relevance, you modify the definition to make it a lot more subjective than it is. It's even worse than what I "do". You limit the definition to identity, but that's not true. The nation is based on identity but on that identity, so that it may become a full-fledged nation, must be built something, so that a nation's definition is not only an identity, but it has geographical, social, institutional and capability parts of the definition. But that you continue to reject becuase if you ever were to acknowledge that a nation is not as subjective as you thought, all your nihilist construction would crumble.

quote:

---

why does nationalism, a force whose purpose was to liberate, turn so sour so quickly so often?

---

quote:

---

That is just plain stupid. The majority should be able to live in a society that represents their particularities as long as minorities' rights are not denied and that there is no intolerance.

---

quote:

---

To deny the relevance, you modify the definition to make it a lot more subjective than it is. It's even worse than what I "do". You limit the definition to identity, but that's not true. The nation is based on identity but on that identity, so that it may become a full-fledged nation, must be built something, so that a nation's definition is not only an identity, but it has geographical, social, institutional and capability parts of the definition. But that you continue to reject becuase if you ever were to acknowledge that a nation is not as subjective as you thought, all your nihilist construction would crumble.

---

That is why I say that it is purely subjective. Because no one has ever agreed on the criteria. There is very little reason why some groups get states and others don't, if you look at the world as a whole. Very little but fortune. Fortune, violence, and manipulation.

quote:

---

Because you have to liberate FROM, and when that FROM is not democratic and is repressive, there's the problem. It's not really nationalism the problem, it's reactionary opposition that cause radical elements to emerge. Look what happens to Chechnya, at first, the nationalist movement was rather moderate and only defended itself. After the repression of Russia (a Federation mind you) that killed, imprisonned or exiled all moderate leaders, only radical elements are left that preach terrorism.

---

In any case, I have long ago conceded the liberatory and necessary capacity of nationalism in such situations as Russia. As soon as the majority community uses violence to *quash* demands, then secession is often absolutely necessary.

So now you can put together the pieces of the picture that I have been providing you.

1. Nationalism on the part of minorities is a highly dangerous tool to be used as a very last resort.

2. To avert any chance of this tool becoming necessary, the majority must not expect that its culture will take primacy as a matter of principle.

quote:

---

That is just plain stupid. The majority should be able to live in a society that represents their particularities as long as minorities' rights are not denied and that there is no intolerance.

---

Even Gandhi, the leader of a very successful nationalist movement, was guilty of this. MA Jinnah became a separatist from India because it was clear to him that Gandhi's movement would ultimately demand that Indian Muslims respect the particularities of the majority. And do this by ignoring their own particularity as Muslims.

Of course, after Gandhi separated from Britain, and Jinnah separated from India, then Bangladesh separated from Pakistan, and so on...

quote:

---

That is just plain stupid. The majority should be able to live in a society that represents their particularities as long as minorities' rights are not denied and that there is no intolerance.

---

I don't think Simon said anything particularly bad and frankly Mandos your drawing a false conclusion. Yes theoretically telling some one to 'fit in' can lead to something uglier, but your drawing conclusions that in a healthy society won't happen (healthy in the sense of a society vigilant against racism and other 'isms' which Canada is a lot more so than many other places). And besides there is a certain amount of 'fitting in' that has to be adopted when moving to a different society. If I were to move to Mongolia shouldn't I learn Mongolian? Oh no wait the Mongolians would be oppressing me by making me speak English. And before you break out the rollie-eyes I think this is a perfectly fair statement in response to your post. By your logic that's the conclusion I can draw, even if it is over the top.

BTW what did this have to do with Quebec not being as progressive as were told due to private health care?

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

In simpler terms, "Don't rock the cultural boat if you live here." It is a perpetual immigrant minority dilemma to figure out how to assert one's minority culture without offending the majority. It is dinner-table conversation. As such, some minorities would wish that the reverse would sometimes be true: that some consideration be taken not only to "tolerate" the minority, but also to avoid creating cultural situations that are uncomfortable to the minority.

Simon's demand is that minorities accept mere toleration, but ultimately bow down before the primacy of the original culture. That is, the minority must accept the majority, but the majority merely must tolerate the minority. I claim that this a dangerous path for many reasons, and Simon only says it because he feels he is part of a dominant culture.

quote:

---

Originally by Simonvallee
That is just plain stupid. The majority should be able to live in a society that represents their particularities as long as minorities' rights are not denied and that there is no intolerance.

---

I agree with you here, but take a good look around you and tell me that minority rights are not being trampled in Quebec. I will only raise the spectre of the language issue here, because it is the most visible form of minority oppression in this province.

My cousins were unlucky enough to immigrate to Quebec after 1977 when the language laws went into effect. Despite the fact that they were from India, had spoken and studied in English all their lives, they were forced into the French education system. As a result, both of them ended up spending a year each in those wonderful Classes d'acceuil where all immigrant children are herded and innundated with a culture that is simply not their own.

My anglophone friends cannot get a spot in an English speaking daycare for their daughter, because all the famous $7 a day spots are French and they cannot afford a private daycare.

Any anglophone unlucky enough to have a medical emergency other than western Montreal is usually unable to communicate with the medical staff attending them because nurses are not required to be bilingual. Doctors on the other hand tend to speak both languages simply because they have to in order to get their medical training.

On a more personal note, I grew up equally fluent in French and English and went to school in both languages. However, I have always used computers with an English operating system. I am completely baffled by French computer terminology and Windows in French makes no sense to me. However at my office, I am obliged to use a French comp. because we have more than 30 people working here and the Office de la langue française decrees that all our software must be in French.

quote:

---

Why do the majority particularities matter anyway? Because they are a majority? Do you now believe in the tyranny of the majority?

---

Tyranny supposes imposition, which is not the case. Their particularities matter because everyone's particularities matter, the minorities included. Unless you want the majority to have no right to those particularities.

quote:

---

I have repeatedly asked you give a clear and unambiguous criterion for the "institutional" part. I have never received one.

---

Because it's clear enough. Institutions come in different forms, but they all have purposes to be used by the society to govern and they create a sentiment of belonging.

quote:

---

So not only is nationalism dangerous, but the threat it poses almost always causes a counterthreat from the majority.

---

Nationalism in istelf is not dangerous, it is the reaction that is. Are unions in themselves dangerous because the reaction in the 19th century was to shoot striking workers?

Mandos, my example was perfectly valid because as I said that's how I interpreted your point about acceptance -- sure like I said it was overblown (and language isn't a necessarily great example but it's part of any particular culture. And such influences are seen within language, therefore it's perfectly fair for me to use it in contrast to your argument). I hardly think it's worth dismissing in one sentence.

quote:

---

What happens when you stuff all the cutlures together in Canada is everyone tries to be like everyone else and you get an insipid, monocultural consumerism.

---