Is Montreal too English?
It's a question that is debated on much too regular a basis in the French media, this obsession that Montreal is anglicizing. It remains a staple topic in the never-ending portrayal by language militants of Francophone Quebeckers as victims.
At the recent anti-Bill 103 rally at the Pierre Charbonneau Centre in Montreal, the master of ceremonies, Denis Trudel, railed from the dais that if the law was passed, it would mean that, over the next thirty years, it would lead to 50,000 new anglos in Quebec. He could have remained politic and say that there would be 50,000 less francophones, but instead, he made no attempt to hide his contempt. That's the type of nastiness that is generated on a daily basis by language militants against anglos.
The message, that we anglos are taking over, is something that we brush off as nationalist fantasy, it's something we're used to.
While we have learned to live with that, it was with a measure of sadness, that this week, I read a Montreal Gazette news article and listened to a
CBC radio talk show discussing that news article, where a bunch of self-loathing Anglo Quebeckers were re-selling the fiction of oppression and the myth that we are marching across the city, conquering Francophone neighbourhoods, hitherto bastions of language purity.
"First we take Manhattan, then we take Plateau!"
I can't imagine any local community newspaper which caters exclusively to Jewish, Arabic, Italian or Greek Montrealers, debating whether an increase in that community's population would be a good or bad thing for the city. But for the Montreal Gazette and a group of
hoity-toity Anglo apologists, buying into the argument that a rise in the use of the English language (and Anglos as a result,) is a bad thing for Quebec, seems to be the intellectual thing to do.
The article in question is this week's Montreal Gazette story by
DAVID JOHNSTON entitled
More English or less French? (Great Taste, Less Filling?)
Mr Johnston tells us that it is his considered opinion that anglos are spreading across the city and invading traditionally Francophone districts. This statement alone wins him an automatic place of honour on
vigile.net.
The 'alarming' prospect is surely sending shock waves throughout francophone boroughs, like the Plateau Mont-Royal (Montreal's snobby, self-declared neighbourhood of cool, bohemian nationalists,) where Luc Ferrandez, the borough mayor, might consider erecting big signs (not billboards) at the entrance to his Utopian kingdom, reminding all who enter, of the district's political philosophy - "
No Billboards, No Cars, No Money and No Anglophones"
While it may be hard to argue against Mr. Johnston's 'gut feeling,' not so for his gratuitous and faulty use of statistics.
"I do think Montreal is becoming more English. But it’s not just that there are more anglos around, I added. It’s also because there has been an increase this past decade in the ongoing exodus of francophones from the Island of Montreal to off-island suburbs.Consider:
The years 2001 to 2006 saw the Island of Montreal lose 47,650 more
people of French mother tongue to off-island suburbs than it gained from
those suburbs, compared with a net loss of 6,740 people of English
mother tongue and 22,830 people of other mother tongue"
"To be sure, francophones are still a 2-to-1 majority in the metropolitan region as a whole"
Mr Johnston argues that because a great number of Francophones are abandoning the island of Montreal, the linguistic balance is being altered.
According to his figures, between 2001 and 2006, 48,000 mother-tongue francophones left the island of Montreal and a combined total of 30,000 anglophones and allophones left as well.
Boiling it down, it means that for every 2 francophones taking flight, 1.2 anglos and ethnics were doing the same.
Since Mr. Johnston advises us that the present ratio between mother tongue French Montrealers and the rest of us, is 2-to-1, he actually proves that the exodus is improving the balance in favour of francophones!
These are his own figures, I didn't make it up.
Do I believe this is happening? Dunno... but Mr Johnston is apparently sure. Despite the fact that his figures are either muddled or prove the exact opposite of the point he tried to make. (Ah those statistics, always troublesome things for amateurs!)
After shaking my head at this mathematical boner, I was further dismayed by rest of the article, wherein the author vacillates back and forth over the issue (unproven) of whether more English in Montreal is a good or bad thing. Hamlet would be proud.
Mr Johnston, makes reference to a moronic statistical study written by that paragon of impartiality, separatist and fantasist, Pierre Curzi, entitled
"Le grand Montréal s’anglicise" which employs a variety of statistical leaps, to conclude that the sky is falling on French Montreal.
No thinking anglophone should ever reference trash like that.
The 'study' is based on the racist concept of 'mother tongue' which is just code for the no-longer politically correct term "
Québécois de souche." It assumes that those who aren't born from 'pure stock' and who can't trace their lineage back to the
"filles de roi," cannot be counted as 'real' francophone Quebeckers, even if they live their lives entirely in French.
"And now we’re on the cusp of a new francophone exodus – the exodus of francophone baby boomers from the workplace."
Anglophones should be relieved to know that according to Mr. Johnston, they can't qualify as baby-boomers and therefore only francophones may be on the cusp... Hmm....
"During
my appearance on Je l’ai vu à la radio, author and radio personality
Georges Nicholson, another panellist, acknowledged that more anglos are
able to function in French these days. But he asked me whether anglos
are any more deeply connected to Quebec, as a result of their knowledge
of French – whether, for example, they go to French theatre or read
authors like Réjean Ducharme, Quebec’s J.D. Salinger. I said no. Réjean
Tremblay of La Presse maybe, but not Réjean Ducharme."
I bet there isn't an anglo in a thousand (or a Russian, a Swede, German, etc) who ever heard of Réjean Ducharme. Trust me, he's no
Jack Kennedy J.D Salinger. If he was any good, he'd be translated into English like Solzhenitsyn or Marcel Proust. Maybe then I'd read the original French version (as I did with Proust's sublime '
À la recherche du temps perdu.')
The truth is that there are only two truly great international writers from Quebec, Saul Bellow and Mordechai Richler and one international poet, Leonard Cohen and no, I'm not going to state the obvious.
By the way, the French radio show that Mr. Johnston so proudly participated in, 'Je l’ai vu à la radio,' is hosted by Franco Nuovo, that wonderfully culturally sensitive ex-columnist for the Journal de Montreal, who during the Nagano Olympics, honoured the host country by changing his byline picture to that of himself wearing a rubber band around his eyes to give him that 'oriental look'. Marvellous!
As for going to French theatre, there's a legitimate reason why we don't go.
It isn't very good.... Sorry.
Now that doesn't mean Quebeckers are talentless, in fact the opposite is true. Francophone entertainers outperform their Canadian counterparts, but with a pool of only seven million francophones, they can only do so much.
The last French play I attended, was Quebec's only blockbuster, "
Notre Dame de Paris."
Comparing it to those plays that I've seen on Broadway, in New York, I can only say that it was a thoroughly disappointing affair, not exactly a '
Miss Saigon,' '
Cats' or '
Phantom of the Opera,' that's for sure. There was no live orchestra, just a canned music track. The staging was
cheap minimalist and while the music somewhat catchy, the voices were strictly sub-Broadway calibre. The only thing that reminded me of Broadway was the price of admission.
Never again.
The same goes for Quebecois film and television, all sub-par.
That's not say there aren't some flashes of greatness, I diligently watch Patrick Huard's TV show
Taxi- 0-22 because he is as good as any comedian in North America. His rapier wit and expert delivery places him just below Chris Rock and above Russel Peters in my estimation.
To expect a small community to compete with the world on quantity is unrealistic. How many Patrick Huards or Celine Dions are there out there?
To expect bilingual Anglos to consume Quebec French culture because they can, not because they find it interesting, is unrealistic.
"One
thing that I didn’t know then that I know now is that anglos are 12
times less likely to listen to French radio than francophones are to
listen to English radio, according to Statistics Canada."
Ya think?....See above explanation.
"......the
only other anglo on the panel, a native anglo Montreal musician named
Paul Cargnello who sings in French as well as English. Nuovo asked him
why an anglo, with such a big English market, would want to sing in
French.
“The question isn’t why, it’s why not?” said Cargnello."
I've never heard of this guy and I bet you haven't either.
Nobody who could compete in the NHL would ever stay in the American Hockey League, not if they had their druthers.
To say otherwise, well, let's be charitable and leave it at that.
"These
days I am surprised to find myself speaking French more deliberately to
bus drivers and retail clerks. I want francophones to see that I
recognize that I am living in Montreal, not Toronto or Boston."
I think the writer meant to say "deliberately speaking more French" rather than "speaking more French deliberately."
At any rate, I for one, always start conversations with people that I meet in public in French, but I don't speak French to suck up to anybody and 'prove' that I am a 'bon anglais.'
I do so out of common politeness and good manners, not to kowtow.
Spot on.
ReplyDeleteGood post. Thanks. I’ve noticed for a long time now that it is socially acceptable in Quebec to publicly bully Anglos. We hear less and less of the veiled disdain and more and more of the unashamed hatred. We are repeatedly marginalized and caste as contemptible and repugnant, the vermin of Quebec society if you will. Our language is viewed as a social pathogen. Our ancestors who helped build and nurture the province are ignored and systematically dishonored. Our fondness for the ROC is ridiculed and viewed with suspicion. To me it plain to see, the Quebecois don’t want us around. They want to expunge their society of the unholy irritant that we are. But despite all of the rejection and ridicule, our community remains. The language militants and the Quebecois at large have underestimated our strength, resolve, and ability to adapt. We are a tough bunch (except for the turncoats among us) living through difficult times in an unforgiving city. At the best of times, Montreal is not an easy city to live in and not a place for the timid. The lesson that the Quebecois will likely never learn, is that the more they try to beat us down the stronger and smarter we get.
ReplyDeleteI'll keep saying it over and over, "They say "Integrate" but really mean Assimilate."
ReplyDeleteBut, at the end of the day, these same zealots will go eat sushi using chopsticks and then head over to some rally which uses african tam tams.
I think you're playing on the field of victimization a bit too much...just like most Anglo Quebecers.
ReplyDelete"At any rate, I for one, always start conversations with people that I meet in public in French, but I don't speak French to suck up to anybody and 'prove' that I am a 'bon anglais.'"
That is indeed the right attitude. Moving right along now...
"If he was any good, he'd be translated into English like Solzhenitsyn or Marcel Proust. "
So just because a writer hasn't been translated into English, it automatically means he's no good? What kind of twisted anglo-imperalist logic is that? Francophone Quebec writers have been translated into Spanish, Italian or even Tamil. Michel Tremblay was translated into dozens of languages, such as English, Scottish English (where he is deemed to be as important as any national writer), Japanese, Polish, German and so on...Anne Hébert into English, Finnish, Swedish and Danish; Dany Laferrière? Spanish, English, Korean, Japanese...
Quebec theatre is bad? I highly doubt it. I'm sure you haven't been around the countless theatres in Montreal, Quebec City or Sherbrooke? The many outdoor theatres running all summer long? You're passing a judgement and I'm right ready to bet you don't have the slightest idea about the Quebec theatre world.
Quebec TV: Un gars, une fille; Les Parents; Les hauts et les bas de Sophie Paquin; Les Bougon; Les Invincibles were all exported abroad - and not just to France - along with Taxi-022. Name me one, just one, English Canadian programme who has made it just across the border or across the Altantic.
Quebec film: Le déclin de l'empire américain, Les invasions barbares, Incendies, Comment j'ai tué ma mère, Les amours imaginaires, C.R.A.Z.Y. won multiple awards both at home and abroad.
Now onto the real stuff...I haven't witnessed any *serious* anti-Anglo discrimination in ages, and this coming from an English CEGEP and Bishop's University graduate who has revolved around English-speaking circles for the past decade and count among his friends both Anglo Quebecers and English Canadians alike. You will get the occasional Anglo-bashing comment from your ignorant, has-lived-in-the-sticks-all-his-life sovereignist or the usually reasonable Franco who, in the heat of action, will say more than he actually intends to. However, you will see the exact same occurences from the Anglo side. Need I provide some examples?
Bill 103 is a mistake because not only does it favour the rich, but also because it gives the right to Francophones and Allophones to transfer into the publicly-funded English-speaking school system after a mere three years in the private system. In other words, Francophones will be paying for the near-free English education of another Francophone or Allophone: ridiculous. The right solution would have been: you wan to pay for your kid to be linguistically dysfunctional? Then pay for the whole ride, not just three years. Because let's face it: early bilingual education doesn't work, it only makes for little Anglos who can only speak street French/slang and little Francos who use French words over an English syntax.
Now, don't bring me the whole ''hail to individual liberties'' argument because I won't have it. Nowhere in the world do parents have the choice over the teaching language for their kids in a *public* school system.
Now, the anglicization of Montreal does not only imply more English or more English-speakers in and around the island, it also refers to the anglicization of Quebec French...examples? Bon matin, faire du sens, réaliser que, oh my God!, être en amour, the word "party" pronounced the English way, "bus" pronounced the English way, payeurs de taxe, j'ai gradué, etc.
Sequel to the above comment:
ReplyDeleteFranco Quebecers are not trying to beat you down, they're merely trying to protect a language they have been speaking for four centuries, the language of their ancestors, of their great-grandparents, of their grandparents and parents. Franco Quebecers don't want their children to bear a French last name in 40 years from now and not speak a word of the language. Let's look at the bigger picture: Francophones only represent 2% of the North American population, that is 6-7 million Francos among 400 million Anglophones. Stunning, isn't it? I know we keep shoving this down your throat but you just won't swallow it for Christ's sake...it's called geolinguistics, sociolinguistics...you know? French-speaking communities outside Quebec are already dying out or speaking some sort of French that doesn't even sound like or look like French anymore.
Anglo Quebecers only need to drive less than two hours west or south to speak their mother tongue with other native English-speakers, whereas Franco Quebecers need to pay $1000 and board a plane to French-speaking Europe or pay for an even more expensive ticket and board an 11-hour flight to Northern Africa.
No one is denying the great contributions Anglo Quebecers have made to Quebec society over the centuries - I am very well aware of them and point them out to others whenever I can. Be that as it may, French is Quebec's sole official language, which in turn, is the mother tongue of 82% of the population (more or less now, it seems) and Anglo Quebecers are Canada's best treated linguistic minority, far better than Franco Canadians living outside Quebec.
Your blog seriously needs to be read by more people. You present a truly objective and logical perspective on the daily stupidities that a non-''race superieure'' must face every day in this backward province. Something is seriously wrong when you can't be openly patriotic in your own god damn country.
ReplyDelete'' About the independentist movement:''While the movement was steadily making headway-and perhaps because of that- the rest of Canada, and Quebec federalists, were scrambling to provide answers. Never a decent word could be hear about separatism, and more often than not, political leaders would rival in their injurious hyperbole.'' Trudeau's darkest hour ( Baraka books)
ReplyDelete@ Anon. at 3:17 PM,
ReplyDeleteCopying and pasting an identical comment from one thread to another is quite pathetic. It's not even in your own words.
"Never a decent word could be heard about separatism"
Sedition and treason generally aren't met with approval by the leaders of countries.
Chénier dit: ''The truth is that there are only two truly great international writers from Quebec, Saul Bellow and Mordechai Richler and one international poet, Leonard Cohen and no, I'm not going to state the obvious.'' Vous démontrez votre non-intérêt pour vos voisins immédiats et votre manque de culture générale. Gaston Miron est bien connu, à ce titre je vous laisse les mots de wikipédia, source privilégiée ''Gaston Miron, OQ (French pronunciation: [ɡastɔ̃ miˈʁɔ̃]; January 8, 1928 – December 14, 1996) was an important poet, writer, and editor of the Quebec post Quiet Revolution. His masterpiece, L'homme rapaillé (partly translated as The March to Love: Selected Poems of Gaston Miron, whose title echoes Miron's most celebrated poem La marche à l'amour) has sold over 100 000 copies, in Quebec and overseas, ensuring Miron as one of the mostly read author of Quebec literature [1]. His commitment for a sovereign Quebec, both politically and through his writings, associated with his popularity, placed Miron as a central figure of the Quebec nationalist movement.''
ReplyDeleteSo just because a writer hasn't been translated into English, it automatically means he's no good? What kind of twisted anglo-imperalist logic is that?
ReplyDeletethe kind which guides this blog. And if we go by the old adage « dis-moi qui tu hantes et je dirai qui tu es », we should look at the majority of commentators the blog attracts. Its "amen corner" of comments reads as the sort of stuff you'd hear over ales at the Orangemen's Lodge.
to Anon @4:32
ReplyDeleteYou've go to be joking!
Are you really comparing Gaston Miron to Leonard Cohen?
100,000 copies?
Between his book, "Beautiful Losers" and his album "Ten New Songs" Leonard Cohen has sold more than TWO MILLION COPIES. Take his whole body of work and he may have sold double that amount.
He is a celebrity known round the world.
In 2010, Cohen was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. He has earned a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Francophone separatist poets don't have much of a worldwide following.
I bet you 99 out of 100 people reading this is, are thinking to themselves.... "Who the f**k is Gaston Miron?"
Remember, I said 'international'
How many theatre tickets would Gaston Miron sell in Tokyo, New York, Berlin, London or even Paris.
Sorry to be cruel...but you are just out of touch with realty.
To Jacques @ 5:25
ReplyDelete"So just because a writer hasn't been translated into English, it automatically means he's no good? What kind of twisted anglo-imperalist logic is that?"
It's truth kind of logic...
Every real great piece of writing has been translated in English.
Spanish, Russian, French, German, etc.
Every great poem and every great book.
I'll say it again because it annoys you so.
If it hasn't been translated into English, it's because it's of interest to locals only.
Name me one famous work, that has not been translated into English.
I never never said that works that weren't translated into English weren't good, just not up to international standards.
Remain safely in your fantasy world. Perhaps read something by Gaston Miron.
Pouvons-nous considérer Jack Kérouac comme un Québécois?
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, your attitude and the blog you oh-so heroically run are exactly what nourishes anti-Anglo sentiment among the French-speaking population. If you at least had the guts to criticize Francos in French, we could give you more credit...but as this stands, we can only say this is pathetic.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon. at 8:43 PM:
ReplyDeleteFortunately you do not have the power to FORCE the NoDogs blogger to post in French on the internet. The truth about the awful situation in Quebec is getting out. And the author allows contrarian comments in French, which is much more than can be said for ANY of the Quebec nationalist/separatist blogs.
And frankly, your attitude and the blog you oh-so heroically run are exactly what nourishes anti-Anglo sentiment among the French-speaking population. If you at least had the guts to criticize Francos in French, we could give you more credit...but as this stands, we can only say this is pathetic.
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true nouveau fascist, how vogue of you. What’s pathetic is your condescending and revealing comment. You infer we are gutless because we speak and write in our native language. You imply that our collective criticism of Quebecois tyranny would be more valid were it delivered in the officially sanctioned French language. How feeble minded of you to say; the truth knows no language. By now, most of us have learned that countless Quebecois resent hearing and reading English anywhere in their public sphere including this blog. We know it doesn’t take much to ‘nourish’ the always simmering anti-Anglo sentiment among the bigoted French-speaking population. We get it already, you think we are pathetic because we speak English and we’re candidly unhappy with the oppressive and dictatorial ways of the French speaking majority. Sorry for living il duce.
Actually Quebecois demographic fears are entirerly rational and justified although not in the way they usually think. The true problem is not French spoken in Quebec (although in Montreal it is tenuous) but rather the never-ending slide in Quebec's share of the total Canadian population, caused almost entirerly by immigration. In 1867 Quebec was one province in FOUR. Now it is one in TEN. B.C. and Alberta which didn't exist in 1867, now have a combined population almost 500,000 larger then Quebec. In 1867 Quebec had 36% of the seats in the house of commons and today only 24%. (Consider Quebec would have 111 seats in the house today if it still had its original 36% level). This will decrease further when the 30 new seats are added. And we probably won't be too far into this century before another 30 will have to be added to accommodate the continuing population growth caused by our ridiculously high immigration levels. Eventually MAJORITY governments will be routinely elected to Ottawa without ANY support from Quebec at all. The Toronto guy.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, your attitude and the blog you oh-so heroically run are exactly what nourishes anti-Anglo sentiment among the French-speaking population. If you at least had the guts to criticize Francos in French, we could give you more credit...but as this stands, we can only say this is pathetic
ReplyDeleteSomehow I doubt the editor is seeking your approval. Perhaps it is quite the opposite, where your peevish disapproval is a welcome sign that the blog is working. After all, your comment speaks for itself and typifies the xenophobic rhetoric coming out of Quebec on a regular basis. Keep on representing dude, you make our job that much easier.
Name me one famous work, that has not been translated into English
ReplyDeletewithout exhausting your bandwidth requirements?
The most watched tv series ever in Canada, claiming a viewership of millions, never got translated into English. (and to be fair, I don't know any really idiomatic translation which would have done it justice, but that only further illustrates my point). That's not "famous"? Most people in English Canada couldn't even name the series I'm talking about.
Les Bougon, and C.A., both series getting adapted for viewerships in France, aren't famous, just because no-one's adapting them for the folks in Belleville and Kingston?
I've got news for you NoDogs, there *aren't any* "international standards" which determine whether something is of exalted enough literary or intellectual quality to be translated from one language to another. There's no-one who's ever formulated them, codified them, posted them anywhere, or who consults them before hiring the translators and signing the deals. They're a complete creation of your imagination, much like the determination that Bill 115 is "illegal", or that the referendum law "blocked" the federalist side from making their case. I can only imagine the scandalment if the Yes side had been able to outspend the No side 3 to 1 during the pre-referendum and get away with outspending them 4 to 1 during the referendum itself. You have a very active imagination indeed, though very selective indignation.
There are no "international standards" which caused Mein Kampf to get published in English, or cause every Tim Allen film vehicle to be released in French, or caused Bon Cop Bad Cop to have a run in chain cinemas in English Canada while Contre toute espérance didn't, or cause Sarah Palin to get published at all.
C'est du pur délire.
Before disingenuously comparing your "freedom of speech" record to discussion lists dedicated to promoting sovereignty, why not explain why the only people who ever receive admonishments on this blog are people who challenge your tiresome moral demotion of francophones and your stilted and often factually marred attacks on the sovereignist movement?
I've been admonished for nothing more than calling you on facts, but what about your amen corner, who in just the last short while have said things, genre : "take your opinions and shove them up your Québécois ass", "I guess if you don't like it you can go back to France", who explain that a people being massacred and pillaged into joining an empire that took over their economy and told them what language to speak in business and public life and hyperexploited them for a couple centuries isn't "really" colonizing them, and so on? So what's the difference between this gang and the much-publicized rubes you like to feel superior to, you know, the ones who went before Bouchard-Taylor and told the "towelheads" if they didn't like it, they knew where the airport was, etc? Sounds like the same deal to me.
Mississauga Guy finally decides to weigh in...
ReplyDeleteToronto Guy @ 5:00PM above: The only reason we have to keep adding constituencies (seats) to Parliament is because Quebec was guaranteed to keep its 75 seats no matter what. The only way to now proportionately represent the population, given Quebec's 75 "guaranteed seats", is to increase the number of constituencies.
It's ridiculous we cannot simply reduce Quebec's representation below 75 constituencies because the Constitution ridiculously bound us to it for all eternity. Then again, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his cabinet members nearest and dearest to him were from where else, but the place I was born and raised: «Le Québec».
I don't think we need that many more constituencies. It's costly; besides, we're only going this route in order to more accurately represent the provinces that are growing from a proportional standpoint. I do agree with Ontario getting its fair share. Ontario represents close to 40% of the population, but still is underrepresented in Parliament. We're at long last getting there thanks to this expensive way of adding constituencies, but the fact Quebec has not gotten anymore representation than it has is not the fault of the Real Canada (ROC, "English Canada" (ewww, how I detest that moniker)) or however else you want to label the portion of Canada outside of Quebec.
BTW, I reiterate: Who is Gaston Miron? 100,000 copies of his writings worldwide? Gee, maybe ex-PQ MNA from the first two PQ mandates, Robert (pron: Roe-BARE) Burns should become a poet as well. We can eat haggis...ahem...I mean, tortière on his birthday. With some luck, he may sell 100,000 copies of it worldwide.
Of course, the Quebec nationalists would somehow attempt to confuse the rest of the world of the millions of copies sold by the late 18th Century Scottish poet (who died in 1796 at the tender young age of 37--a tragedy considering what impact his works have had in just half a lifetime). He was born in A-louer, Scotland (transliteration my idea).
As for the anonymous contributor yesterday (Oct 29) @ 1:40PM in his long-winded two-part exposé: If Anglophones are so well treated (as you wrote in your last paragraph), why have over a quarter million of us left, present company included?
Picking on smaller entrepreneurs who, unlike McDonald's, Blockbuster, Microsoft, Dunkin' Donuts and other gigantic multinationals who have legal departments or large law firms on retainer, are persecuted by your OQLF language Gestapo for the pettiest of uses of the unforgivable English language?
Boy, they sure treat the Anglophone community like royalty! Yeah, right!
"The true problem is not French spoken in Quebec [...] but rather the never-ending slide in Quebec's share of the total Canadian population, caused almost entirerly by immigration. […] Eventually MAJORITY governments will be routinely elected to Ottawa without ANY support from Quebec at all."
ReplyDeleteI’m not sold on the merits of lamenting the inevitable natural changes in the status quo.
Taking monumental action to protect things like wildlife, rainforests, and even culture might certainly be of value. But I’m not impressed by even well-meaning action whose scope and reach becomes so protectionistic that it begins to seriously impair a people’s chances in different areas altogether.
If there are pull factors resulting in more people settling outside Quebec (and particularly within Western Canada), it seems to me that Quebec should focus both on creating pull factors of its own as well as do everything it can to attenuate all existing push factors. We also need to appreciate that even if we do both properly, we still might not reverse the trend.
The question to ask is, does it matter?
Time was, France was the dominant nation in Europe, both politically and demographically. Many other countries have since occupied this role. Has this reality killed France? Certainly not. Some would even argue to the contrary.
Whining about our shrinking piece of the House pie and enacting draconian legislation to ensure our slice keeps tasting different from the rest of the pie isn’t going to help us prepare for and compete against emerging superpowers whose speakers will likely prefer neither English nor French (and presumably won’t care for our pies, baguettes, or poutine either).
I can’t help but feel that turning how to keep alive the culture of our (francophone) grandparents into a national fixation that colors everything we do is a surefire way to ensure that we won’t even be in the running. At most, it'll ensure our growth remains anemic. I agree it’s a great cottage industry for career separatist politicians, but beyond that, I don’t see much use to it.
Legitimate emotional attachment can only go so far. Fluent bilingualism, if not multilingualism is the answer. This requires a serious ideals shift to our concept of "Canada" no matter where we live.
Besides, nobody bemoans the fact that I don’t pronounce my French ‘r’ sound in the trilled way my joual-speaking French-Canadian ancestors did, or that I don’t speak English with a British accent. My “immigrant” heritage reflects a rich multi-dialectal tapestry that would have tragically disappeared with elders dearly departing sometime around World War II, but which by complete fluke survived three to four generations in a completely foreign environment and managed to be passed down to me.
Do I obsess about this on a daily basis? Heavens no. I earn a living (multilingually) and fantasize that an anthropologist might one day find my case interesting. I do my work and let him do his.
Beyond that, I pay my taxes and don’t give it a second thought. At least not until I see the kind of political dreck that can be spun by people who have less to lose (and clearly more time on their hands) than I do.
"Now, don't bring me the whole ''hail to individual liberties'' argument because I won't have it."
ReplyDeleteToo bad for you. It IS an attack on individual liberties. The government took away a right, a freedom, which belonged to everyone and made the restriction the default. You can say to hell with my argument just as I can say to hell with yours.
"Nowhere in the world do parents have the choice over the teaching language for their kids in a *public* school system."
So we can't be innovative just because nobody else is? Poppycock, balderdash, and doppeldreck.
I can support cultural legislation if its aim and execution fosters ideas of more (opportunity), not less. I’m hearing growing calls for a uniform bilingual education system throughout the province and find this encouraging, since the best way to encourage healthy integration and involvement is to enable successive generations to communicate with one another, an idea that is surprisingly lacking in implementation in our province.
I'd find it sad if francophones in North America were to go the way of the dodo, but I'm not sure the current language legislation is doing us the great service that French-language supremacists think it is. WE'RE the exception here; it only makes sense that we should be take on the language monolith that surrounds us head on on its own turf and in its own language and score one for all of us.
Call me sentimental, but the part of me that is francophone can't help but feel that my victory's even sweeter that way.
to Jaques @ October 30, 2010 7:15 PM
ReplyDeleteI liked your rant. Really, I'm not kidding.
It's important to expose people to different points of view.
The readers will read and decide.
That's what a fair discussion in a democracy is all about.
I'm glad you stick to your point and not descend into name-calling.
Keep it up!
I don't agree with much of what you say...but I'm interested!!!!
To readers who disagree.
There is no debate without an opposing view....
I laugh at people who call Anglos fascists when they're the ones who are constantly calling for dominance over English and are trying to limit the amount of English outdoor signs. I guess bigots don't know they're bigots, just like crazy people don't know they;re crazy.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Anon 1:39 PM...
" You will get the occasional Anglo-bashing comment from your ignorant, has-lived-in-the-sticks-all-his-life sovereignist or the usually reasonable Franco who, in the heat of action, will say more than he actually intends to. However, you will see the exact same occurences from the Anglo side. Need I provide some examples?"
Almost the entire French language media promote the sovereignist cause and are, on average, very nationalistic. This includes newspapers as well btw. When anti-Anglo garbage is allowed be published in journals like Journal de Monreal and Le Devoir, you know that anti-Anglo racism is socially acceptable.
"Bill 103 is a mistake because not only does it favour the rich, but also because it gives the right to Francophones and Allophones to transfer into the publicly-funded English-speaking school system after a mere three years in the private system. In other words, Francophones will be paying for the near-free English education of another Francophone or Allophone: ridiculous."
Firstly, Bill 103 is wrong because it is even more restrictive than its predecessor. People, regardless of social class, should have the right to attend the school of choice(language of choice. Secondly, I"m currently for someone who was FORCED attend French school against that person's wish. So what's your point exactly?
"Now, don't bring me the whole ''hail to individual liberties'' argument because I won't have it. Nowhere in the world do parents have the choice over the teaching language for their kids in a *public* school system."
Please tell me you're joking, because if you're not than I'm afraid you aint that bright for a Bishops' graduate. You do know ALL provinces have French public schools, right? And guess what else? Parents outside of Quebec enjoy a right that Quebecers don't, that is--the choice of language of education. No one forces kids to attend English or French schools in other provinces.
"Franco Quebecers are not trying to beat you down, they're merely trying to protect a language they have been speaking for four centuries, the language of their ancestors, of their great-grandparents, of their grandparents and parents."
I feel so sorry for Francophones. They have had to hear this nonsense from separatist scumbags that they eventually took it as truth. If you repeat a life often enough, it becomes truth. There's no available statistical evidence that the French language was in danger prior to Bill 101. Gendron never advocated measures such as Bill 101/86/178/115.
"French-speaking communities outside Quebec are already dying out or speaking some sort of French that doesn't even sound like or look like French anymore. "
That's because they chose to integrate into the English majority. Not some federal government assimilation program you paranoid Francophones constantly talk about.
All in all, I grant you that French was unfairly represented in the labor market, but the language itself was not in danger. And the only reason most immigrants went to English schools was because the Catholic Church didn't allow non-Catholics to attend French schools, these includes Jews, Greeks, East Asians and North Africans whom some had French as their mother tongue!
" C'est du pur délire "
ReplyDeleteTout a fait daccord et je ne voudrais pas être dans les souliers du dit blogueur qui vient de se faire dégonfler l'égo dans les règles de l'art et en anglais en plus.Espérons maintenant que l'exercice sera utile et salutaire.
Both Apparatchik and M.G. completely misrepresent what I am saying and make unrealistic assessments that fail to address my points. So we do away with the 75 seat floor for Quebec and REDUCE its share of the house, rather then keep it and INCREASE the share of the house for the rest of Canada? I don't see how this changes ANYTHING for Quebec at all (if you cut off your head and stand on it are you any taller?). Either way it ends up with a smaller and less influential share. In 1867 Quebec had 36% of the house. Not its 24%. This will fall below 22% after 2017 when the 30 new seats are added. By the 2030's or so when another expansion will be required it will probably fall below 20%. Maybe as low as 18%. And ALL of this is due to immigration-driven population growth. And why single out Quebec M.G.? P.E.I. is ridiculously over-represented in relation to its tiny population. The Toronto guy.
ReplyDelete"Apparatchik and M.G. completely misrepresent what I am saying and make unrealistic assessments that fail to address my points."
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, it sounds like your points have to do with Quebec progressively losing its "share of voice" as a result of other provinces' gains in population relative to us.
Indeed, smaller provinces benefit from a seat allocation ratio that is far more favorable than some of the larger provinces. The table at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada#Members_and_electoral_districts] is particularly helpful in this regard. At the same time, Quebec isn't quite as disadvantaged as Alberta, Ontario, or BC, which are indeed well ahead of it in the "screwed electoral quotient" category. Note also that Quebec's quotient is actually slightly on the more favorable side of the national average.
"Picking on smaller entrepreneurs who, unlike McDonald's, Blockbuster, Microsoft, Dunkin' Donuts and other gigantic multinationals who have legal departments or large law firms on retainer, are persecuted by your OQLF language Gestapo for the pettiest of uses of the unforgivable English language?"
I agree that we have let ourselves be taken for a ride by self-justifying sanctimonious nationalist rhetoric posing as truth. Protecting French has deviated from its original intent and has become an Orwellian racket.
"je ne voudrais pas être dans les souliers du dit blogueur qui vient de se faire dégonfler l'égo dans les règles de l'art et en anglais en plus"
Voilà qui confirme du moins en partie ma théorie qu'on ne se fréquente pas assez afin de bien se connaitre. Être à même de mener un débat dans les deux langues officielles du pays -- de NOTRE pays -- est un idéal auquel il vaut mieux tendre. Sinon on risque de se débattre tout seuls.
Seul un engagement envers un vrai bilinguisme permettrait de tels échanges.
En plus, ça m'agace qu'une province comme le Nouveau-Brunswick peut se prétendre plus bilingue que nous.
À quand une maturité collective culturelle, politique, et législative chez nous qui met les deux langues sur un pied d'égalité institutionnel et sociétal? On se veut (et on se dit) une société accueillante tout en repoussant perpetuellement "l'ennemi colonisateur". Une contradiction faisant montre de trop peu de pragmatisme, à mon avis.
Des petits gestes comme remettre à leur place les génériques "street", "avenue", et "boulevard", ainsi que "stop" en-dessous d'un panneau d'arrêt partout à Montréal seraient de bons débuts. L'apostrophe-s pose beaucoup moins danger pour la langue française qu'une poutine qui envenime graduellement le système circulatoire. Des commissions scolaires francophones qui se veulent compétentes dans l'enseignement des langues française ET anglaise nous avantageraient encore plus qu'un organisme gouvernemental dont une partie sert finalement à encourager l'unilinguisme dépassé.
Que nos démagogues séparatistes se trouvent enfin une vraie job.
Anon 1:39PM: “Nowhere in the world do parents have the choice over the teaching language for their kids in a *public* school system.”
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:40PM: “Francophones only represent 2% of the North American population, that is 6-7 million Francos among 400 million Anglophones. Stunning, isn't it?”.
Nice try, Anon. But the issue is not whether parents have (or should have) the choice of the teaching language – obviously these things are decided by governments all across the world. The issue is why in our particular jurisdiction the choice of the teaching language has generated (and continues to generate) so much controversy, discontent, and harsh criticism, while everywhere else in the world it’s hardly ever an issue and in most cases a complete non-issue. Why is it that while everywhere else this issue is a matter of unanimous consensus, here it is not even close to that. These are very important questions that you cheekily shrug off with a "public should have no say" dismissal. Except that this does not answer a single question.
So what are the answers? Why the discontent? Is it because everywhere else in the world the selection of the jurisdiction’s teaching language takes into consideration (amongst other things) the linguistic reality and therefore has a pragmatic aspect to it, while in Quebec the reality (which you summarize very well in your 1:40PM post) is being cynically ignored, and the practicality aspect is sacrificed in the name of lofty ideals and principles? Could that be the source of frustration for all those who do not share these ideals as fanatically as you do but who are nonetheless stonewalled in their attempts to better adapt to this stunning reality? Qu’en pense-tu?
You may of course counter me by saying that given such stunning demographic reality, it is rather easy to acquire English, and many Francophones and Allophones in fact do despite being subjected to the language legislation. But that will lead to another question: what is the purpose of linguistic legislation that clearly fails to meet its objectives? Is it just to be petty and vindictive and to act out historical frustrations? Or is there more to it? Also, it makes for a pretty lame argument to begin with, because the fact that many Francos and Allos do manage to pick up English does not mean that 101 isn’t trying to stop them.
@Adski 9:39 AM
ReplyDeleteI'm in complete agreement. I also believe that trying to create a linguistic reality using genteel ethnic cleansing ought to fail specifically because it is based on restricting, rather than expanding, language opportunities.
It is time for us to revisit our sacrosanct language ideals. It’s also time to expose the demagoguery that systematically robs all Quebecers of the opportunities that we deserve for the fraud that it is.
The objective of interest groups hijacking the language debate has clear political motivations; namely, the furtherance of the two-solitudes paradigm, rather than its complete eradication.
I agree with you that despite heavy governmental and para-governmental apparati purposely designed to disenfranchise, attenuate, or otherwise linguistically cleanse Quebec of its remaining non-francophone "historical elements", Montreal has not become a de-facto French-only place. It is shameful that governments, both Liberal and Péquiste alike, keep pulling on this string for political ends.
I also agree that geopolitical pragmatism would dictate that we (francophones) would find a way to embrace the English-language element that surrounds us and indeed has been a very tangible part of our own story (for better or for worse) for over 250 years now, all while maintaining French as the very core language in which the Quebec psyche lives and breathes.
Alas, methods to implement such a seemingly pragmatic “other way” are few and far between. Detractors to such a thought experiment have effectively monopolized this discourse (and to an extent that far outweighs their fair share) on this topic for nearly 40 years now. I agree with the idea that if their restrictive French-only solution truly offered Quebec a better way, it would have been embraced by all Quebecers, especially those who have found it most repugnant. The fact that this has not happened is proof enough that something is horribly the matter with the strategy.
Alas, fearmongering keeps a lot of nationalists in business and has not been critically attacked, consumed, and unceremoniously excreted in the public sphere as it deserves to be. French-language media, whether covertly or overtly, have long been accomplices to preventing a genuine and healthy debate from ever truly taking place on this topic, and this has resulted in the tenuous stalemate that we are all living. Sensationalism seems more de rigueur even for those of us who like to think we’re so far above the trite Fox News.
The pathetic lack of "crossover" journalists and commentators who regularly contribute and appear in both English and French language media outlets could be addressed. Sure, it’s encouraging to see the likes of Josée Legault, Chantal Hébert, and L. Ian MacDonald, appear on weekly talk shows. But this should only be the tip of the iceberg. What if our journalists and anchors were household names in English Canada and the reverse were true in Quebec media too? All nation-building takes work; I’d like to think such an initiative would be more productive than restrictive, and would help foster a healthy dialog.
Taking a step further, let's begin this thought experiment right here. Tangibly now, how can all of Quebec aspire to be confidently (and perennially) French all while confidently assuming a welcoming, functioning English-language identity which, given our location and history, behooves us?
Céline Dion is selling more copies than Cohen by the way.
ReplyDeleteApparatchik:
ReplyDeleteYou just don't get it. You bemoan the lack of "crossover" journalists. That's because Canada is not and never will be an even remotely bilingual, let alone bicultural country. Trudeau sold naive Canadians on this poppycock forty-one years ago. Its not called two solitudes for nothing you know. Your "thought experiment" and "nation building" comment is inane to say the least. Believe me the great unwashed have other plans for themselves. You are a lot like Trudeau in your mentality - a blissful ability to ignore facts, logic and unalterable realities. The Toronto guy.
I must admit this was one of your poorer posts. Dumping on Quebec nationalist rhetoric is fine,but attacking Quebec francophone culture is not.Television,film and theatre in francophone Quebec is truly amazing. Watching "Incendie" or any play by Robert Lepage this "bloke" is mightily impressed.Too my francophone brothers and sisters when it comes to culture Mad Dog is wrong.
ReplyDelete@Toronto Guy
ReplyDelete"You are a lot like Trudeau in your mentality - a blissful ability to ignore facts, logic and unalterable realities."
With respect, I think it is you who haven't taken stock of the realities that bind us together. I also choose to interpret your comment as a compliment, rather than as a derisive observation.
When you factor out our competing nationalisms, we are in fact a lot more bicultural and have a lot more in common than you think.
Our socially liberal outlook, our mutual appropriation of North American cultural markers, and (most eerily) even our way of speaking French reveal a sometimes unconscious connectedness with the continent at large.
We believe in the welfare state much more than our neighbors to the south, and are environmentally aware of our attitudes and responsibilities toward our shared northern climate.
We eat the same food, buy the same clothes, drive the same cars, spend the same currency in the same (inter)national chains, and are protected by the same military. The depth of our economic union with each other cannot be understated. Indeed, this was a major selling point behind confederation.
We are governed by the same electrical, broadcasting, and telecommunications technical standards. We live and work in the world's (currently) most culturally, economically, and socially dominant time zone.
For such a huge landmass, I'd say that's already quite impressive. But wait, there's more.
We've stopped obsessing over the minute religious differences between Protestantism and Catholicism (for the most part). Indeed, we might believe in a God, but aren't sure one theory alone can faithfully explain how he governs the universe. Our cultural communities seem to be the only ones who subscribe en masse to some kind of organized religion.
Shacking up before marriage, once taboo, is now not even the exception. It's become the norm. The rule, even. Marriage is a backward and formal institution. We've even managed to outdo the anglos on this one.
Quebecers have an innate connection to this land, and don't feel European "French" beyond a loose historical connection to our ancestors who crossed the pond centuries ago. Sure, we are "French" inasmuch as we celebrate aspects of French cuisine and our own spin on French culture, fashion, and food.
Our farm animals are blissfully unaware of any language legislation, and moo, oink, and cluck as they see fit. They taste good no matter where we eat them. Even the packaging they come in is the same across the country.
Unlike our farm animals, our speech has been much maligned by our European cousins, yet we struggle to feel something beyond a passing kindredness to what we like to tell ourselves (and what is in many ways quite truthfully) a common language. Was it Shaw or Churchill who said of Britain and America that they are two nations divided by a common language? It doesn't really matter; what does is that the same holds true for France and Quebec/all of French Canada.
(1)
We have our rich capitalists and our white trash. Our backward, bigoted rednecks (bluenecks?) are some of the finest on the continent, and can compete with the very best anywhere in the world. We stereotype people whose speech patterns drawl or twang more than some arbitrarily defined average.
ReplyDeleteWe play and watch (American-style) football. We even have college teams. With serious followings (for Canadian football, at least).
Sure, we have our motley assortment of Quebecors, our Provigos, and our St-Huberts. But beyond ownership, how different are these from Rogers, Loblaws, and Swiss Chalet, which are about as foreign to Quebec as maple syrup and hydroelectricity? Looking south, how different are figures like Doc Mailloux and Dr Laura? Why do you think The Simpsons did so well in Quebec?
Clearly we have a lot more in common, geographically, economically, and even culturally, than we appreciate.
We even have a shared history. Consider how the Quebec Act of 1774 and its after effects could have ever have gone down the way they did (and a Canada independent of Manifest Destiny could have ever existed) had it not been for the presence of les Canadiens along the Saint-Lawrence.
French radio stations in Quebec play what a newcomer would consider quite a lot of English music.
We're already extremely integrated in ways well beyond the languages we speak. That's even more powerful when you consider how over 80% of communication isn't even verbal.
All that's really left is language, and the entertainment/communications industries around it. With everything else so well-integrated, tell me again why I'm so crazy to think Peter Mansbridge should appear more often on Radio-Canada, or that Patrick Huard and Emmanuelle Latraverse should be just as familiar to you as Colm Feore and Susan Bonner are to me.
The only reality to really be altering is the perception that SOME Canadians have about how un-integrated we really are.
I'm really not much of a Zionist, but that movement's slogan - "if you will it, it is no dream" - is quite pertinent in any nation building exercise. They said Herzl was crazy and Ben-Gurion too. Sure, the early Zionists failed spectacularly at selling their project to the native Arabs, with tragic consequences to this day. Fortunately at least for us, where they failed, Canada (almost completely) succeeded. At the same time, Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews negotiated a very bumpy road toward some shared national consciousness within the tumults of Israeli society, despite their huge cultural differences.
Nobody’s waged a recent Auschwitz-style holocaust here which brutally decimates entire families. Nobody’s building an illegal wall or settlement that intersects anybody’s ancestral olive grove. (How conveniently we leave out the Natives whose lands we both occupied).
Our two solitudes haven't got a fraction of the integration (let alone recognition?) issues the Palestinians and Israelis have (thank Allah/God), and you want me to believe that after all the work we’ve done and gotten RIGHT, that ALL Canadians can't learn the other’s language and will and work toward something as simple as a conscious, lasting, and cohesive cultural integration? (How embarrassing for us that even many Israelis speak Arabic and many Palestinians speak Hebrew, and that many of both speak English…)
If that’s true, maybe it’s just because we’re so tired, we can’t dream. Spoiled little rich kids, we are.
(2)/2
Why, just why do you live in Quebec if you hate the Québécois so much? Just... just why? Can't you see how ridiculous you are?
ReplyDelete"Céline Dion is selling more copies than Cohen by the way."
ReplyDeleteAnd how many of them are in French language?
"...and you want me to believe that after all the work we've done and gotten RIGHT, that ALL Canadians can't learn the other's language and will and work toward something as simple as a conscious, lasting, and cohesive cultural integration?"
ReplyDeleteYES Apparatchik. That is what I want you to believe because it is true, factual and reality. But you DON'T WANT to believe it. You WANT to believe whatever you want to believe, whether it is so or not. But that doesn't make it so. The Toronto guy.
"YES Apparatchik. That is what I want you to believe because it is true, factual and reality. But you DON'T WANT to believe it. You WANT to believe whatever you want to believe, whether it is so or not. But that doesn't make it so. The Toronto guy."
ReplyDeletePeople will believe what they want to believe, and I could very easily hurl the same comment back your way.
I guess what separates us is that I think Canadians can aspire to a more integrated national consciousness whereas you believe evolving in this direction is neither feasible nor desirable.
I guess it's only to be expected that you and I should disagree. You seem to revile big-idea people like Trudeau because he was out of tune. I find that unfortunate because after a lifetime of reconciling three different cultural identities, I've come to appreciate what he stood for, at least culturally. And I'm not the first to get here. Many who hated Trudeau's cultural worldview never bothered walking a mile in his shoes.
I've also come to appreciate that every now and then we get a leader with chutzpah AND who can challenge us to think outside the box. I respect someone that can aspire to an able, working, united Canada, rather than of us as one (or two) mindlessly obedient northern suburbs.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I must admit this was one of your poorer posts. Dumping on Quebec nationalist rhetoric is fine,but attacking Quebec francophone culture is not.Television,film and theatre in francophone Quebec is truly amazing. Watching "Incendie" or any play by Robert Lepage this "bloke" is mightily impressed.Too my francophone brothers and sisters when it comes to culture Mad Dog is wrong."
Liar! You are not an Anglophone, or so-called "bloke". You are a Francophone commentor, formerly known as Dartagnan. This indicates how much integrity you possess.
Apparatchik,
ReplyDeleteI think that any attempt to eliminate (or reduce) animosities in this country of ours and to build a cohesive nation must be grounded in reality. And unfortunately, this reality is very constraining, and because of it, we are in the quagmire that seems to have no end.
I by no means oppose the idea of bilingual Canada on principle. I think that fully French-English coast-to-coast bilingualism would definitely turn this federation into something that resembles a nation. The problem with this is that it is not real. Back in the 1970s, we knew that it was a long shot, but at least we could say: “let’s give it a shot”. In 2010, we must put this issue to rest. It cost us a lot of money and it did not work. English Canada is clearly indifferent. And my experience teaches me that it’s hard to make someone who is indifferent care. More often than not, it has the opposite effect – you actually end up upsetting him and maybe even turning him into your enemy.
The reluctance of English Canada to pick up French (or any other language for that matter) is a carbon copy of American attitude on this matter – we are English speakers, our language dominates the world, so why should we bother. It is an attitude which is both grounded in reality, and at the same time self-limiting. In my opinion, given that Spanish is 350 million strong and is knocking at the southern US border, I find it astounding that they refuse to even make an effort. If I lived in southern US, I would be cramming Spanish like there is no tomorrow. But alas, that’s how they think, and that’s what we can’t do anything about.
As for the solutions for our country, I think it largely rests with French Canadians accepting that they are cohabiting this country with “other” people, and these “other” people are both *different* and *indifferent*. This will involve swallowing of pride, I know, but it must happen. In this respect I wish that Francophones change their way of looking at this – instead of feeling slighted and ignored, why not think that by being bilingual, we are actually better than all those uniliguals, as we know an extra language and they don’t. This would require a shift in collective perception from what it is now – that since we have to learn their language and they don’t have to learn ours, we are somehow inferior.
And alternative to swallowing the pride is Quebec separation. This would be equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. The economic repercussions and inter-ethnic relations in an independent Quebec would not be enviable. My guess is that this province would implode, or become a US state (meaning an end to the French fact in NA within a generation).
At this point I’d like to add that what Duceppe (politically) and Parizeau (as a writer) are doing right now is political gangsterism. They are opening up old wounds and making the ground fertile for more divisions, only to satisfy their OWN ambitions. If support for secession was polling at 60% or 70%, you might argue that it is politician’s responsibility to act on the will of the people. But since it’s continually polling low, bringing this issue to the forefront is nothing but political crime. It can't lead to anything good.
I must add one note - the English Canadian attitude to other languages IN GENERAL is an equivalent of the American attitude, but their attitude towards French SPECIFICALLY in some cases is further complicated by political and historical considerations. So in the case of French, I still think most Canadians are indifferent, but some (I think a minority) can be hostile.
ReplyDeleteA nationalist-federalist I know who lived in the RoC for a while estimates that 80% of English Canadians are “couldn’t be bothereds” about French (i.e. indifferent), about 10% are favorable (which seems to match the bilingualism rate in the RoC), and about 10% are hostile.
I appreciate your realism ADSKI as opposed to APPARATCHIK's mindless idealism. But I sense in your writing a hint that unilingual Anglophones are somehow "wrong" in not embracing bilingualism. But consider; You are a unilingual English-speaker living in Vancouver or Victoria. You live thousands of miles from Quebec. French is about as relevant to your daily life as Romanian is. The only time you ever hear a word of it is when you accidentally flip through the French language channel when you are using the TV remote. Now why would you go to all the time, effort and trouble to learn French? It is not a lack of cultural "sophistication" that explains unilingualim but self-interest. Bilingualism in Canada has no spatial, demographic or cultural underlying reality. The whole edifice is a facade that would collapse tomorrow if Quebec ever DID separate. You are right that millions of Spanish-speakers (most of them illegally) are entering the USA. But Spanish is not the language of commerce, science or technology. Nor is the average American Anglo any more drawn to Latin-Mexican culture then the average Canadian Anglophone is drawn to the culture of Francophone Quebec. And there is NOTHING WRONG with this. The Toronto guy.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to comment on Anonymous' post regarding no Anglo-bashing or negative comments and the rest of his/her post in general.
ReplyDeleteI have experienced first hand said discrimination, to deny it exists is ignorant. I'm not talking about the typical Anglo-bashing,I refer to full out, discrimination.
Let me explain, despite my being fluent, yes fluent, not "FUNCTIONALLY" bilingual, I have experienced a client refuse to do business with me on the basis of my mother tongue. I never even so much as met the person or spoke to them and they were assured that I was fluent. No, he wouldn't have it, he was not dealing with an Anglo. And this in the city of Montreal not the outskirts as you imply. I have also been cursed out for saying "sorry" in English (which was just instinct when I accidently brushed someone with my bag on the metro) and called maudit tete carree etc...but the rewarding part of all this, when I speak in a flawless French and tell them off as well. The surprised expression on their faces (since most are given to the stereotype that Anglos don't speak French), when I do respond to them in their language. It's actually quite comical.
As far as Bill 103, yes priviledged Francophones/Allophones will now be able to become bilingual. Notice I say Francophones/Allophones. Do you not see something wrong with this? Do you not see something wrong with your politicians providing their children the right to bilingualism while denying you and your family that right? Anglos are ALREADY priviledged, in that we can choose how to educate our children. We can decide to put them in a public French school or English school. It's our choice. And you as Marois was quoted saying "les petit peuples" are still allowing your government to make your decisions. Ha, the irony.
1/2
2/2
ReplyDeleteAs for bilingualism at a young age NOT working, I suggest researching this further as there have are several advantages to learning languages at an early age, not by the biased sovereignist papers but by reputable linguists. It is known learning languages at a young age, provides better cognitive skills, ease of learning other languages even at older ages, not to mention a better mastery of our own maternal language. And an openness that being uniligual does not provide, a better understanding of others, etc... Check out research documents online, all this is verifiable.
I would also like to ask, why is it that I often hear from my Francophone friends they "do not have the right" to send their children to English school. It is them who wish to send their children. Bill 103 did not violate any English-Canadian rights, but it does French-Canadians or if you prefer, Quebecois. Another complaint I hear is that Anglos learn better French and receive a better education than in the French school system, hence the reason for them wishing to send their children to English schools. And I guess you're ok with denying a portion of our population this right? Why impose your will upon those who wish to have the choice? Like many that I know.
My child is four and is already learning French, it is not harming them at all. My first child is trilingual as they offer a third language in the International program.
Also, when will Francophones realize that Anglos do their part in promoting French as well. We are learning it from Kindergarten, our children are bilingual upon graduating elementary school. This I can attest to as I have one who is graduating high school this year. His French is far beyond "functional" as is his friends and my other Anglo friends and their children. As a matter of fact, I have been asked during interviews that require bilingualism whether I can speak English. So, contrary to your findings preached by the PQ and Bloc, bilingualism at a young age DOES work and actually has several benefits.
As for us being the "best treated minority", this is a tired statement. We have the same rights as Francophones outside Quebec, no more, no less. The constitution of 1867 has provided the Francophone minority in Canada with "historical" rights, well the English of Quebec have been afforded the same "historical" rights here in Quebec. Although I would say now, Francophones in Quebec are BY FAR the BEST treated minority in Canada.
''Although I would say now, Francophones in Quebec are BY FAR the BEST treated minority in Canada.'' Non, mais vous êtes idiot ou quoi ? Les francophones ne sont pas minoritaires au Québec, ce sont les anglophones qui les sont ! Québec indépendant !
ReplyDelete@ Nov.4, 10:35 PM:
ReplyDeleteAnglophones are indeed a minority in Quebec and they are treated much worse than the Quebecois minority within Canada.
Hey Anonymous - Maybe brush up on your English reading skills, I did not say Francophones are the minority in Quebec and I quote:
ReplyDeleteThe constitution of 1867 has provided the Francophone MINORITY in CANADA with "historical" rights, well the English of Quebec have been afforded the same "historical" rights here in Quebec. Although I would say now, Francophones in Quebec are BY FAR the BEST treated minority in Canada.
You ARE a minority IN CANADA!
11th Position – The English Speakers of Quebec, the Anglophones: the Minority the Bloc Refuses to Accept Exists
ReplyDeleteYou only have to look briefly at the Bloc’s site to understand the type of society this party proposes: a society where prejudice against Quebec’s English speaking population continues, and that it is acceptable they be treated as second class citizens. Anglophones, along with their fellow Quebeckers, don’t they have an interest to know the Bloc’s position regarding the Economy, the Environment, and Culture? How can the Bloc pretend to defend the interests of Quebec while affirming, that Anglos are a spoilt, over-funded minority, whereas at the same time, they refuse to address them in English through their tools of communication? What Federal political party writes off an entire part of the population that represents between 1 Million English speakers (+ 2 Million Bilingual persons) within their own province of 7.5M, by not even providing a link to English on their website? When Mr Duceppe speaks in English (and even admits his heritage is part Anglophone, the Rowlands), it is not to speak with his provincial Anglophone neighbours, but to sell the idea of separation to the rest of Canada and abroad, even from his Ottawa office! What possible credibility does the Bloc Québécois have, when it demands that our francophone brethren across Canada be respected, when this party’s own segregation-is-the-only-answer position is nothing other than pure hypocrisy? Their idea of a unilingual Quebec is not what our society represents, thus, a vote for the Bloc means swallowing the ‘Anglos do not matter to me’ pill.
Read the rest of the Bloc's Failures, and how the certainly do not care of about Quebecker's interests (only concrete benefit is to their personal pension funds, and Duceppe's magical mystery tours abroad):
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/hugo/archive/2010/09/30/when-the-bloc-qu-233-b-233-cois-is-a-nuisance-for-quebeckers-interests-the-top-20-countdown.aspx