BLoved
Posts: 642
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnimusRex
Sincerely,
America
Ha!! You guys are hilarious with your US-centrism ;-)
The fact of the matter is, it was a few person debate on the original thread and I have a feeling there won't be many more people interested in this question here.
I pretty much answered his question: - LA
Y'all look like you're having much too much fun with this topic 
Here's my response to LA's most recent post to the original discussion:
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:
ORIGINAL: BLoved
My understanding is that while many people vote PQ in provincial elections because they want a very strong pro-Quebec government representing them, they do not support the PQ platform to seperate. That's why they win elections and lose referendums.
They're not sitting on the fence, they are using the PQ as leverage.
Partially. The thing is that the PQ were never able to paint a clear picture of what post-seperation Quebec would look like and that made the soft-seperatists vote no in my opinion.
Thank you for that insight. I was unaware of that issue.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Actually so much has happened in the last 40 years that people really don't talk about it anymore. Probably most people don't know about this.
For half the population, give or take, it is 'ancient history', before their time.
You know, your argument that most of us are too young to know or realise is getting old. Seriously.
It is one thing to read about it in the history books, quite another to experience it.
My mother lived through the blitz in Liverpool. She knows what it is like to have bombs dropped on a city. No matter how many books I read, I'll never know what it was really like to be there.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
And along comes the PQ. I can't think of another country where a provincial government says they want to seperate, and will hold a referendum for that purpose, and the federal government did nothing to stop it.
Really? You think the federal government did nothing to stop it? You really hold that opinion? Just because they didn't come out with guns doesn't mean they did nothing.
They campaigned in the referendum. I mean that they took no legal steps to prevent the referendum, passed no legislation regarding it.
Legally, there is not much they could have done. Any action they would have taken to try to stop Québec would have just worked against them in the eyes of the Québec population. It would have been seen as hostile.
Uniquely Canadian that we see it that way. 
Let's compare: the last time a state voted itself out of a union on this continent led to five of the bloodiest years in American history.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Right up until the language rights issue.
While I don't agree with what they did to deal with the language issue, I agree that something had to be done.
In what way was the french language in jeopardy?
Pretty good summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_assimilation#North_America
What is being described here is a voluntary assimilation, not one that is forced upon another.
quote:
I guess you were never told to Speak White: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_white
I understand that there have always been bigots in Canada. There are in every country. That neither makes all of us bigots, nor even the vast majority.
In response I offer the following:
Wiki: Official bilingualism in Canada
Wiki: Official Languages Act (Canada)
quote:
quote:
quote:
Canada is bilingual. Every Canadian province and territory is unilingual English except for Quebec which is unilingual French and New Brunswick which is bilingual.
I believe Ontario is also officially bilingual.
No it is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Language_policies_of_Canada.27s_provinces_and_territories
I refer you to the following:
Wiki: French Language Services Act (Ontario)
quote:
quote:
quote:
There is no banning of English signs. There was a law that said that signs could not be only in English. It also said that the French portion of the sign has to be larger.
That sounds like the modified law, not the original.
Yes it is a modified law. You need to stay up to date on a subject if you want to discuss it. It takes more than just historical facts, it takes current day facts! That is where we youngins come in handy ;-)
I acknowledged that the law had been modified, and admitted I was not aware of the specifics of the modification.
Being able to acknowledge the limits to one's knowledge seems to me to be a responsible decision. 
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I notice you were born after the FLQ crisis.
It isn't the FLQ crisis but the October Crisis and yes, I was born 2 years later. Part of my extended family were members of the FLQ so I think I know a thing or two.
I am sure that has a lot to do with why we differ in our view of english-french relations prior to the crisis.
No it doesn't. My father is an immigrant. He was not born in Canada. My parents were liberals, Trudeau supporters.
The fact that I had members of the FLQ in my extended family only means that I was exposed to just one perspective on the issue and have been able to make an informed opinion for myself. For the record, I have never voted PQ.
Fair enough. Just keep in mind most of us do not have members of our family involved in the FLQ and thus are not exposed to those arguments.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
You wouldn't recall DeGaulle's "Vive le Quebec Libre!" and the shockwave it sent through Canada. You wouldn't have experienced our pride as a nation during our centennial year.
Ok, so I wasn't around when happened, no. I was born 5 year llater. But it impacted almost every day of my life. And I've seen the speech over and over again, studied it's impact in history books, debated with others about what right a foreigner had to come in and speak about our faith...
Oh yeah, you're right. It has no impact on me at all.
I'm not saying it has no impact ... I am saying there is a difference growing up in Canada before the crisis as compared to growing up after the crisis. I grew up believing we could all get along and that language was not an insurmountable barrier dividing us. Post-FLQ we no longer get along and language became a divisive issue.
And there is a difference between the Québec you lived in and today's Québec. I know my history. You admitted yourself you are a little behind on your current events.
No argument there.
However, the number of people who knew Canada prior to all the tension over language diminishes every day, while the number of people who have only ever known the tension increases.
The demographics are changing, and thus the way citizens view this country is also changing.
There may yet come a time when most Canadians see us as two nations, not one.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
We have changed quite a bit since then.
Some things have changed and some things have remained exactly the same.
While I am not in agreeement with a lot of the decisions that the PQ made, I am grateful that someone stepped up to the plate and did something about trying to preserve my language and heritage. I just wish they would have made better decisions and would have created less animosity in this country by doing so.
I don't believe anyone in Canada has ever intended to deny the Quebecois their language or their heritage.
Ok. Keep believing that. Ask all the Franco-Ontariens what they think of assimilation.
Which was no different than what my mother experienced being English-only in Montreal. It was one of the main reasons we moved back to Toronto.
If you move to an area where they don't speak your language, over time you will find yourself adopting the language of the area you live in. That doesn't stop people from speaking their own language, hanging up signs in their own language. Take a tour through Toronto sometime and you will see what I mean. The last time I was there after a considerable amount of time away I was amazed at how little English I saw.
quote:
quote:
Certainly not like we did with native peoples in the 50s.
Again, Franco-Ontariens were not able to protect their language. Here is an example of what happened about a hundred years ago in Ontario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17 only took about 55 years to turn around.
I cannot excuse those who enacted such legislation, but will note that the article claims the regulation was repealed in '27, 15 years after its enactment, not 55.
I will also point out this was a Conservative policy, and that the Conservatives have ruled Ontario for most of the past century, which I suspect explains why change has been so slow to come in Ontario.
However, today, we support four school systems:
"Ontario operates four publicly funded school systems. An English-language public school system, a French-language public school system, an English language separate school school system and a French language separate school system."
Wiki: Education in Ontario
quote:
quote:
The FLQ radicalized the issues and the PQ took advantage of it. English Canada was demonized for political gain and we are still living with the consequences.
The whole seperatist movement has been like a gun to the head of English Canada, and has done more harm to the goodwill in this country that anything else I can think of.
That is your perception of things. It is not mine. And I am a bilingual Canadian who has studied and worked in both official languages.
And I am an English Canadian who has lived in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver who has spoken with a wide cross-section of other english speaking Canadians on the subject.
I agree, we have differing views on the subject. I also disagree with those english-speaking Canadians who want to discard Quebec, and there are quite a few who blame Quebec for Canada's economic troubles.
quote:
quote:
No one likes having their country threatened.
Nor their province, culture, heritage and language.
I'm sorry, but in my eyes you've not demonstrated a credible threat to any of the above.
You speak of persecution 100 years ago, you speak of bigotry that is not wide-spread, you speak of the troubles people have moving into english-only areas, but you do not speak of any attack against Quebec or its culture, heritage or language.
quote:
quote:
I've lost track of the number of times I've heard English Canada should have a referendum to see if we want Quebec to stay or go.
You just contradicted yourself there.
I am speaking of in the last forty years, post-FLQ.
I take it this is the fallout you've spoken about regarding PQ policies.
quote:
quote:
~sigh~
How far we have fallen since 1967.
How do you know? Did you say you stopped tuning in? My gosh, the world hasn't stopped because you did. In fact, there is a movement in Québec now that the only way the French speaking Québécois are going to survive is by distinguishing themselves with excellence and worldwide recognition. We have 5 universities in a region of 5 million individuals in Montreal. We are going to be ok.
I am speaking of Canada, not just Quebec.
We are more divided now than we were in '67.
The "Notwithstanding Clause" has been used to legally and officially supress the human rights of minorities in Quebec.
Not a proud moment for Canada.
And has Quebec signed onto the Constitution? Last I heard the answer was "non".
< Message edited by BLoved -- 2/26/2010 9:08:00 AM >
_____________________________
When your bdsm paradigm makes love essential, expect some flack from those for whom love is anathema.
|
RE: Quebec - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread