Watching the ongoing Quebec language debate over these last years, I remain sorely disappointed how easily the issue has been manipulated by French language militants into a public discussion based on a series of false premises that twist reality, resulting in public discussions over unreality.
One of the most blatantly false premises concocted by French language militants, is that of the calculation of Quebec English-speakers versus that of French-speakers.
Readers know my position on statistics and how they can be manipulated to more or less support any position one might want to promote or attack.
In this endeavor, French-language militants are expert in parsing, twisting or interpreting facts and statistics to suit their own purposes and it is our own fault and that of the Press that we give these conclusions any weight or credence.
In Fridays post one of our readers made the point that French students are clearly superior to English students because in a certain study among fifteen year-olds, French students scored higher than their English counterparts in reading by a score of 522 to 520, a statistical difference of about one-third of one percentage point.
Of course the alarming dropout rate in high school or the shameful performance in university graduation rates as compared to English speakers is of course conveniently omitted by the commenter, typical of the dishonest tactics regularly utilized by French language promoters, in the statistical war waged on the English.
But more importantly, there is another practice going on in the language debate that is more dangerous and insidious. That is the promulgation of a dishonest debate based on a false premise.
Consider two teams asked to debate whether the flat end of the Earth culminates in a cliff or a waterfall.
Participating in such a debate which starts off with such a decidedly false premise is absolutely pointless and so, the resulting 'winner' of said debate, is really of no consequence!
Believe it or not, we are engaged in that very same type of debate here in Quebec, over the issue of anglophones, Francophones, Ethnics and language.
Here French language militants have cleverly manipulated the basic premise of the debate between the relative weight of the French and English languages in Quebec by making a fundamental and dishonest leap.
I like to call that slight of hand 'Anglos with Red Hats.'
The simple issue of how many people use English rather than French in Quebec is manipulated and twisted by subjecting the rather simple question into a discussion about the number of Anglophones, versus Francophones, versus Ethnics with the resulting false premise adopted, that only 'pure-bred' Anglophones should be counted as English-speakers. It's nonsense.
By dividing English speakers by ethnicity, history or parentage and only counting a portion thereof, French language militants have been able to reduce the number of Quebec English-speakers from the very accurate count of 13.1% made by Statistics Canada, to that of 8%, or 5% or even 3% as I heard make mention.
Every time I hear the phrase "Historical Anglophones" or some other nonsensical qualifier used by militants, I think of 'Anglos with Red Hats,' a device whereby the numbers are reduced by dividing English speakers in sub-groups and then using just one of the sub-groups as a debating point.
Now as I mentioned in an earlier piece, I have a friend whose mother immigrated from Italy over forty years ago and believe it or not, doesn't speak a word of English or French.
She is as you would probably agree, quite an anomaly, not representative at all of the immigrant experience, but it is this type of 'ethnic' that Quebec language militants would have us believe is the norm, rather than the exception, and so can be counted as neither French-speaking or English-speaking, thus removed from the debate. Very convenient...
The reality is that almost every immigrant, their children and their descendants adopt either English or French as the language they use in public, regardless of what they speak around the dinner table.
Even there, the adopted language, either English or French soon becomes the lingua franca of the family and in fact, the children and grand children of immigrants usually lose the 'old' language as assimilation into the host society runs its course.
There are few Quebec Jews who speak the Yiddish that their grandparents came over with from Europe and that holds true among Italian, Greek and other immigrant families where the children and grand children lose fluency in the old tongue rather quickly.
It takes but one or two generations for the descendants of immigrants to become solidly entrenched in the English or French side of Quebec life, language included.
And so, regardless of mother tongue, ethnics adopt either English or French, take your pick.
It is this all important choice that Bill 101 tries to influence, so the government does acknowledge what French militants won't, that Ethnics will by choice become part of the French or English community.
So why all the different classifications?
Why do French-language militants insist on discussing Anglophones, Ethnics or Historical Anglophones versus Francophones, when in fact all we should be looking at is English-speakers versus French-speakers, period.
Obviously it is not convenient, especially with Ethnics, where the division of into English-speakers and French-speakers is asymmetrical and benefits the English side immensely.
More ethnics become English-speakers than French-speakers, so when debating the issue, its always more convenient for French language militants to return to the Anglophone versus Francophone debate while ignoring those pesky ethnics who assimilate to the English side in too high numbers.
Every time you hear or see a French-language militant use the terms Anglophones, Ethnics and Francophones in relation to language, remember that they are using a device to avoid talking about the real issue, English-speakers versus French-speakers.
Instead of comparing Apples to Oranges, they attempt to pull the wool over the shoulders of Quebecers by comparing 'Granny Smith Apples' to Oranges, (omitting the rest of the apples) a rather neat trick......
In Quebec's language debate, the amount of Anglophones, Ethnics or Francophones, is in fact, irrelevant.
All that counts is the number of English-speakers versus the number French-speakers, a fact that militants try hard to repress.
And so any discussion of history, ethnicity or mother tongue is just a case of counting"Anglos with red hats."
The language zealots have been speaking statistical lies going back to their document, produced in both languages, their goals of so-called "sovereignty-association", a doucment they prepared to explain thei 1980 Referendum. It was garbage. What they did before that was garbage, and what they've done since is just more and more garbage. Garbage in, garbage out, garbage forever!
ReplyDeleteReed Scowen in his book Time to Say Goodbye talked about the different classifications of Anglos, from the "Anglophones de souche" or English in Quebec for an undefined long time, to new arrivals who did not and would not have the same degree of rights. "If you don't have roots, you don't have rights!"
Newcomers were not meant to have ANY access to English schools. That was reserved only for the children of Quebec-born Anglophones who studied six years of ELEMENTARY school in Quebec, and ONLY IN QUEBEC! The only thing that killed that part of the Great Charter of Charters was the Constitution that guaranteed English language education for ALL citizens who moved to Quebec from another province.
The goal of ALL Quebec governments, whether federalist or separatist, was and still is to put an end to that as well. Children born in the post-Bill 101 era are EXPECTED to live in French. They were "generous" enough to allow those "born" in English to "die" in English up until 1977, but the later children are born after 1977 will ever so decreasingly have this "privilege".
It's kind of a vaccuum of time that is leaking. With every Anglophone death you read of in the obituaries of the Gazette or elsewhere, those "privileges" and that vaccuum are diminishing, one dying Anglo at a time.
Generally in agreement with you in regards to hype, fear, and extremist manipulation in terms of the numbers and dogma.
ReplyDeleteA few comments though:
> Every time you hear or see a French-language militant use the terms Anglophones, Ethnics and Francophones in relation to language, remember that they are using a device to avoid talking about the real issue, English-speakers versus French-speakers.
This is further complicated by the fact that (especially French), "anglophone" and "francophone" could variously (depending on context) refer to the speaker's "ethnicity" (old-stock French-Canadian or British-Isles/English-Canadian) like it could refer merely to the language spoken by individuals
> More ethnics become English-speakers than French-speakers [...]
Actually, the situation for more recent immigrants is that they tend to assimilate more to the French side in Quebec (especially those arriving during or after the 1970s).
> Every time I hear the phrase "Historical Anglophones" or some other nonsensical qualifier used by militants [...]
The terminology is part of psyops and wishful thinking, Editor, combined with the old adage that a lie repeated enough times ultimately becomes true. To the language militants, English MUST become nothing more than a footnote of Quebec history - wiping away ALL effects of 1759 is the lifeblood of the movement. And the only way for the seppies to get their revenge on the successors of the English is to make the latter as insignificant to the order of things in this province just as the bigoted English once did to the former's own ancestors.
In my view, a more interesting terminological point remains the unresolved debate over precisely who (or what) is "un Québécois". An ethnic French-Canadian? A French-speaker living in Quebec? Someone who personally identifies with the chiefly ethnic French-Canadian majority? A Quebec resident? Someone who pays taxes in Quebec? A multi-ethnic mutt (like me)? Someone who simply declares themselves as such? This policy of deliberate ambiguity appears to simultaneously undermine and benefit the seppies about as much as it does the federalists. My sense is that its effects are simply a "partie remise" for the time being. And quite the stalemate indeed.
I’m reminded that even in its early days (in the early 60s), the RIN knew that its movement’s strength lay in crowd psychology. One thousand well-placed operatives in a neutral-to-sympathetic crowd can easily be made to look like a jubilant display by 10,000 supporters. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that the primary motivator in support of separatism (especially among young people) that emerged in the late 50s/early 60s was economic and not political. The fact that most ethnic French-Canadians living in Quebec today are generally ambivalent at best about the project stands as proof that the product isn’t salesworthy anymore. The fact that upsurges in support for separatism are drawn from chiefly emotional reactions to some generally perceived “bad English-Canadian behavior” rather than the project’s own genuine appeal demonstrates all too well that this movement needs its perceived perennial bogeyman to stay in business. No movement so devoid of genuine content and woefully dependent on the outside for its own cues is worthy of respect – much less support – from the population. And on face value, I don’t think it ever really was.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive repudiation of these tactics in the next generation or two. The conversation's gotten quite stale.
Donnons un peu plus de lumière à notre enculé de service:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/7uoznkq
Je l'aime bien ce Stéphane Gendron. Quoiqu'un peu trop populiste à mon goût, il n'hésite pas à tenir tête aux groupes de pression et aux vaches sacrées tant de certains "francos" que d'"anglos" (langue française, Sionisme, et j'en passe).
DeleteQu'il fasse ainsi simplement pour faire monter sa cote de popularité ou bien par pure et honnête conviction, je suis bien heureux qu'il fasse partie du paysage politique, culturel et médiatique Québécois et à mon avis toujours trop peuplé de Lisée, Préfontaine, Bourgeois, Frappier, Beaudoin, Curzi et Larose. Il y a un déséquilibre philosophique et existentiel à redresser chez la majorité francophone Québécoise et je suis ravi de voir que plusieurs fraoncophones aient le courage de se prononcer contre certains éléments d'une philosophie qui dans le fond les désavantage.
Il faut remettre en question publiquement et sans crainte les orthodoxies souvent trop facilement adoptées et répétées par des groupes intéressés.
Bravo.
By the way readers, I found another reference today in regard to "Historical anglophones"
ReplyDelete"Les anglophones du Québec qui font partie de la minorité historique d’origine britannique ne dépassent pas les 3 % de la population du Québec, estime M. Serré. Cette surreprésentation et cet attrait pour l’anglais ne favoriseront donc pas le français dans les années à venir."
Link L’état du français à Rivière-des-Prairies
More Anglos with Red Hats!
Well if "minorité historique" refers to ethnic English, Irish, Scots (and Welsh?) when talking about "anglophones", one could only surmise whether, accordingly "francophones" is code for ethnic French-Canadian.
DeleteIn this tin pot playground of proxy nomenclature, immigrants, whether fresh off the boat, or here since Queen Victoria reigned, are nameless, faceless, and placeless.
And suddenly, the francophones-below-50%-on-island fearmongering makes sense. It's about the founder population angsting that it no longer demographically dominates the numbers.
And unlike Toronto or Vancouver, that's twice as scary if you're an ethnic French-Canadian separatist because it's terrifying confirmation that you're (demographically, at least) quickly becoming a white elephant.
Apparatchik,
DeleteWhy relate everything with ethnicity? You've got federalists and seperatists alike from pretty much all ethnic backgrounds. Why identify the "Ethnic French-Canadian separatist" as a unique specie? The "Ethnic French-Canadian federalist" is also becoming a white elephant at probably an even faster rate.
And isn't French-Canadian already an ethnic qualifier? It is certainly not a cultural one. I was born and raised in the deep woods of northern Lac-Saint-Jean and I've never heard of anyone refering of himself as a "Canayen-França".
Regards,
What I'm saying is that I agree with Editor that the vocabulary has a certain Orwellian quality to it that I find both disquieting and infuriating, for the reasons I mentioned.
DeleteI don't particularly endorse relating everything with ethnicity; I'm just saying I get the feeling that (not-so-)deep down, separatism continues to be the siege mentality ideology of a segment of a very insecure founder population whose (arguably) very legitimate grievances in my view are being argued and addressed the wrong way entirely.
And no, I don't care much for the ethnic French-Canadians in Quebec poo-pooing the use of the label. It's still the least ambiguous one around, and incidentally, it's why I buck the trend and proudly refer to myself as being part French Canadian (even in French) over a generation and a half after the term was widely abandoned.
I never thought Riviere de Prairie had a large English speaking population. I know that St Leonard and Montreal North had large english speaking populations. Hopefully Pointe Aux trembles is next.
DeleteTo say you've got separatists from pretty much all ethnic backgrounds is an overstatement. There are exceptions, but separation of Quebec is not in the interest of non-Francophones, so unless they have some personal stake in it or some conscience-altering personal experience, they are against it. Separatists who claim there is a fair share of ethnics on the separatist side then contradict themselves by complaining that ethnics viscerally reject Harel, or PQ candidates, or BQ candidates, or have voted Non in a higher proportion than the anglos in 1995 (98% vs. 95%)
DeleteThe separation of Quebec favors the Quebec ruling class, and for other francophones who support it, it is a long-time dream weaved into their psyches during their upbringing. The ethnics lack both the interest (political and especially economic - the separation would NOT improve Quebec's economy, and in the short run it would almost certainly put a dent in it), and they lack the experience of the mythology that francophones absorb in their formative years.
The ideological shortcomings amongst the ethincs are meant to be compensated for in the FSL classes the immigrants receive for free (before, they were paid for taking French), but at that point the people are too old to easily absorb the spin, and to let go of the loyalties, beliefs, and their own myths that they have absorbed in their countries of origin. (for example, an adult Algerian Muslim told that from now on he's supposed to be secular and change his attitude to women will NOT do that).
As for the kids of immigrants, they are exposed to some of the mythology in school, but at the end of the day they come home, where their native language is spoken, the tv is on in English, an the parents are there to balance things out and sometimes rectify the distortions "learned" in school. It is by no means the same thing as with francophone kids of nationalist parentage, who get only one side of the story, and turn out separatist in their older years, contrary to the evidence that it might not be in their best economic interest.
@Apparatchik
DeleteOver the last weeks, I encountered randomly several federalists (ethnic French-Canadians as you would call them), we discussed about politics in general and the question of ethnicity (québécois de souche, pure laine) came back a couple of times. I won't hide myself, I'm a young separatists (sovereignist, independantist, secessionnist... I don't mind) and the point is that I rarely have these conversations with fellow young separatists. Which left me thinking that (some) federalists may have some problems identifying themselves with the (heavily quiet revolution related and by extension somewhat separatist related) term Québécois. End of my questioning.
@Adski
"To say you've got separatists from pretty much all ethnic backgrounds is an overstatement."
I don't think so. I recall seeing a survey (I believe in 2007 for the 30th anniversary) trying to sort out the political opinions of "les enfants de la loi 101". Results where that as young adults, they would vote similarly (with a bit lower support for the "yes") as other francophones on the question of separation (I'll post the link if i find it).
Obviously, the closer immigrants are from anglophone communities, the more they will adopt a federalist point of view. But as most immigrants nowadays come from Maghreb or France, the TV is hardly on in English when kids come back from school.
Here is a corrected link to the story above
Deletehttp://www.linformateurrdp.com/Actualites/Vos-nouvelles/2012-01-17/article-2866792/L%26rsquoetat-du-francais-a-Riviere-des-Prairies/1
I'm still waiting to meet one of these allos. I know they exist, somewhere. I just haven't run into one of them yet. I want them to tell me. Whose interests do the PQ/BQ represent? In whose interests is the separatist movement working? Have they heard of a term "useful idiot"?
DeleteBut I also remember a La Presse article a few years back that broke down the votes based on ethnicity for Harel vs. Tremblay, and the numbers were rather telling. Harel was rejected by the majority of allophones. La Loi 101 has been around for over 30 years then, so there was a whole generation raised on it, and yet madame Harel faced the consequence of that particular vote. Mr.Tremblay's corruption was less of a deterrent than Mm.Harel's ideology. So maybe my chances of running onto one of these allos aren't so great after all.
As an Eastern European who lived in Montreal for 20 years, learned both English and French, and over time became cynical about both anglos and francos (and sensing the remnants of the White Man's Burden / La Mission Civilisatrice mentality in both cultures - bill 101 for example is not a law passed by people with a colonized mindset, it is a law passed by people with the mindset of a "my way or the highway" colonialist), I nonetheless look at the state Canada as a much better alternative to myself than the potential state of Quebec, on both economic and political grounds. On the economic level, why would I risk instability, which is almost certain, especially in the short run. On the political level, the state of Quebec hasn't done much to make us feel welcome, on the contrary, it has treated like children in need of reeducation and constant ideological surveillance, and as potential pawns in a political game, all of which I personally find insulting.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteInteresting post Adski.
Delete"As an Eastern European who lived in Montreal for 20 years, learned both English and French, and over time became cynical about both anglos and francos."
I'm for my part disguted of constantly opposing anglos and francos. On a positive note, I feel like in Montreal at least it is changing slowly and surely for the better (i.e. towards a less anglo vs franco mindset).
"I'm still waiting to meet one of these allos. I know they exist, somewhere. I just haven't run into one of them yet. I want them to tell me.Whose interests do the PQ/BQ represent? In whose interests is the separatist movement working? Have they heard of a term "useful idiot"?"
The Bloc obviously represented Quebec's interests the best they could while in Ottawa. And arguably they had very urban considerations and even 1st generation immigrants as MPs. Why wouldn't immigrants identify with them? As for the PQ... Lets just say you won't see me defending Marois' "mouture" of it. But the PQ has not always been like this. Gerald Godin (Mercier MP for over 20 years) for instance was probably the most ethnic-friendly MP in Quebec politics.
On top of my head, Maria Mourani, Amir Khadir, Joseph Facal , Maka Kotto and Osvaldo Nuñez (don't ask me why, several Chilians are die-hard separatists) were not born in Canada and have been or are presently separatist MPs.
On my part, I find it weirder for immigrants to support the late ADQ or the new CAQ (which I find are really "rural" in their concerns) for example than let say Quebec Solidaire who is arguably the most pro-Montreal of all political parties and who have a non "ethnic French-Canadian" (haha this one will stay) co-chef.
And whose interests exactly does the QLP serve? If you ask me, they neither server the francos, anglos or allos.
Regards,
“several Chilians are die-hard separatists”
DeleteI doubt their motives are economic. The only people who would benefit economically from a separation are sitting on upper floors of ivory towers, or by the foyers of their cozy Outremont homes.
But human mind works in strange ways. I suspect these Chileans have true-believer inclinations, have integrated deeply with the Quebecois population and developed some sort of emotional attachment to the issue. Every human being strives for meaning in their livers, and these people found this. In a prosperous society which never experienced real war, people must look harder to find meaning, and some of those who haven't found it in materialism hitch themselves to or invent rather peculiar things (that they call "causes").
That’s more to say than about an average Quebecois who is not a separatist, but some sort of “sovereignist-associationist” (I prefer the term "extortionist-opportunist"), i.e. he wants all the advantages of a country, and all of the advantages of a federation.
“And whose interests exactly does the QLP serve?”
A few rich people. But the question is wrong – it is obvious that they don’t serve our interests. The right question is not – which party represents your interests. The right question is – which party is against your interests the least. Karl Popper used to say: “to ask which candidate is best is a wrong question – all candidates are venal and arrogant and all people attracted to power are at best mediocre. The right question is – which candidate can do us least harm”.
The PLQ could do me less harm the PQ, especially on the level of economics.
@adski
Delete"The right question is – which party is against your interests the least. Karl Popper used to say: “to ask which candidate is best is a wrong question – all candidates are venal and arrogant and all people attracted to power are at best mediocre. The right question is – which candidate can do us least harm”."
Call me utopic, but I believe some political parties are there for representing the interest of the people and that some politicians are there for the good reasons.
The most obvious is probably Aussant. Look at guy's resume (http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/deputes/aussant-jean-martin-509/biographie.html). The guy could do much more money while being at Morgan Stanley or anywhere else for that mather. He's the leader of an obscure Quebec political party to defend his ideas.
"That’s more to say than about an average Quebecois who is not a separatist, but some sort of “sovereignist-associationist” (I prefer the term "extortionist-opportunist"), i.e. he wants all the advantages of a country, and all of the advantages of a federation."
Haha I woN't blame you as I'm myself somewhat harsher than you on these "souverainistes mous".
A guy like Aussant could make a lot of money in the private sector, but he can’t complain about his salary as a high thinking member of a political party and a member of parliament. Apart from the financial aspect matched by being in politics and colluding with lobbyists, he gets other perks that come with being close to the centers of power – prestige, media spotlight, influence, etc...So there is still a lot of goodies in his life for me to maintain my skepticism. It’s not like he abandoned a lucrative career in the private sector to become a social worker, an OXFAM volunteer, or a doctor without borders. He abandoned his career for a better career.
DeleteFor me to convince myself that Aussant represents the interests of people other than himself and his immediate entourage would require a giant leap of faith. For me to think that I, a non-francophone immigrant, am one of those “represented” by him or other pequistes would require being reborn as somebody else. So in the next life, perhaps.
Now that he jumped ship, he talks about values and ideology, yethis defection coincides too closely with the gradual demise of the PQ.
DeleteIt is very interesting that defections hardly ever occur in parties that do well and have a shot at being in power. They always tend to occur when parties aren't doing very well.
"He abandoned his career for a better career."
DeleteLet us disagree on this one. Option Nationale hasn't got any exposure from any mediatic group. Only some popular support. The party is fated to remain obscure.
Pretty far off from the Normandeau, Couillard, Bouchard or Boisclair de ce monde.
"For me to think that I, a non-francophone immigrant, am one of those “represented” by him or other pequistes would require being reborn as somebody else. So in the next life, perhaps."
I can understand. And that's precisely why I hate the present-day PQ.
The French connection.Vous avez dit Rednecks?
ReplyDeleteRegardez les 15 dernières secondes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tyFaWhygzjQ
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteFaut quand même avouer que ça gratte pas mal le fond du baril.
ReplyDelete"A Massachusetts moderate cannot beat Barack Obama"
Pourtant, le problème des républicains c'est qu'ils se livrent depuis Reagan à une dégringolade intellectuelle et se contentent de représenter la droite extrême, provincialiste, xénophobe et repliée sur elle même. Or, à voir ce parti aujourd'hui, on aurait peine à reconnaitre qu'il s'agit du descendant direct du Grand Old Party d'Abe Lincoln, de Teddy Roosevelt et même d'Eisenhower. Du "Southern Strategy" de l'ère des droits civils, jusqu'à l'élection même de Reagan - cette dernière rendu possible en grande partie grâce au vote évangélique, blanc, et "de souche" - aura changé à jamais le visage politique de l'Amérique... Et pas pour le meilleur, à mon avis.
Mais bon, aux États-Unis, les archi-républicains m'ont déjà dit que je suis un libéral athée multiculturel (pas vraiment la réalité mais apparemment une troïka impardonnable dans certains milieux) et que l'unité et la moralité même de l'Amérique seraient au bord du gouffre à cause de païens comme moi - ennemis du bon peuple .
... un peu comme les Préfontaine, Curzi, et Beaulieu, chez nous d'ailleurs.
Qu'est-ce qui se passe?Les allos (Roger Rabbit,Froggy & cie) ont quitté le blogue?
ReplyDeleteFor Seppie and Leo:
Delete"But as most immigrants nowadays come from Maghreb or France, the TV is hardly on in English when kids come back from school."
As mentioned in one of my previous posts: too bad that you fail badly to realize that language-filtered-immigrants versus skill-filtered-immigrants are not good for Quebec any more ... and for sure, if someday you will regret this, it will be our ( anglos/allos ) fault.
It would be great if immigrants from France would be as numbered as Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa ones. Yup, not racist but realist.
And especially for Seppie: low-vocabulary-troll.
While I agree trying to segregate English speakers into separate groups is ridiculous and absurd, we certainly CAN differentiate between a French speaker and Quebec-French speaker.
DeleteI consider Quebec-French an entirely different language dialect.
Example of a Parisian French singer (yes, singing gibberish words, but it is soothing and pleasant on the ears):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwKeuoti-3o
Example of a Quebecois French singer (take note of the strange accent and bizarre tongue twisting):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSPgzqLs8g&feature=related
I believe French is a beautiful language, but what is spoken and heard in Quebec is just simply not French. It's a distant cousin of the language. I agree there linguistic differences between Canadian/American English and UK English (certainly UK English is more elegant!) but regardless of which region your from, the language is completely recognizable. I can watch a British film and understand the dialog. Persons from France however cannot understand Quebec films, it's a different language. Interesting how the language has transformed, to the point it really is no longer French.
Example of a Parisian French singer (OK, a better example, but you get the idea). :)
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfs0HO5eXW0&feature=fvst
Anglo Avenger est un homme cultivé.Il ne sait pas que le Québécois est un dérivé du français et ne fait pas la distinction entre l'espagnole et le portugais.
DeleteAA:Un fier représentant des anglouilles/Allouilles.
Voici un autre succès de Mary Rose Anna Travers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dI-DdTZJyo
Les Québécois vont comprendre la subtile allusion :)
Gilles Duceppe for president!!!
"Gilles Duceppe for president!!!"
DeleteI never thought I'd say this, but even Dubbaya would be a better option...
24 english accents:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dABo_DCIdpM
@ Anglo Avenger
ReplyDeleteI believe your musical references are a bit outdated.
Here's a better one for you when in the mood of sh%t-talking on Quebec French:
Bernard Adamus, Polish borned, raised in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve singing in probably one of trashiest form of Quebec French i've been given to hear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08o5jnQPlb8
Honestly hope you'll enjoy,
Sorry for this misplaced post Editor, as it was meant to be a reply under Seppie's post.
Delete