Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As I said, perhaps my choice of words was not the best but there are definitely lots of sneers directed at Montreal when this topic comes up, in that it gave up with it "could" have been and settled for second-best because it gave in to its darker impulses.

Now that I think of it there is almost a classically Protestant tone to those reproaches.

Robert Charlebois summed it all up:
"J'ai passé d'belles nuits à Toronto
Mais si j'me rappelle bien, ça fermait un p'tit peu trop tôt"



• Video Link

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

My sense is that Montreal's prospects as a global city are still pretty robust, either as Canada's second city or the metropolis of an independent Quebec that would have just under 10 million people.

That's my thought too. The metro area grows at breakneck pace, it attracts record numbers of immigrants, something one could not imagine reading this conversation. And with the future growth of Francophone sub-Saharan Africa, Montréal will probably continue to attract LOTS of immigrants.

In fact it's perfectly possible that as Toronto starts to reach a point where more people means too many negative externalities, Montréal will catch up with Toronto around the 8-9 million people limit. Beyond that size, both cities would start to become rather unlivable, and the rest of Canada is vast. We are already seeing that in Toronto, it approaches now a size were life is getting too complicated, housing expensive, traffic difficult, and people start leaving to other areas of Canada.

In any case Toronto won't be able to grow to the sky, there'll be a point where its growth will stop, be it at Chicago level, or at LA level. And there's no reason Montréal won't be able to grow to that point too with African immigration. So who knows, both metro areas could become of equal size again in the future.

Regarding skyscrapers, isn't it the case that Montréal has smaller skyscrapers due to political choices (height restrictions) and not the economic environment? They too could have supertalls if the authorities were less conservative (a trait unfortunately shared with their Francophone cousins in Europe).

[theman23]

Toronto is already basically at 8 to 9 million.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by theman23

Toronto is already basically at 8 to 9 million.

If you include enough, but actually not for awhile yet.



https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/2...%20from%202019.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Little Stockholm, with the metro population of 2.4 million that Montreal had when it hosted Expo, had a 2019 GDP of CAD 197bn vs. Montreal's 2021 forecast of CAD 188bn (at 4.5 million people).

Actually, according to the OECD, Montreal has a larger GDP than Stockholm. The OECD has developed in partnership with Eurostat (the EU statistical agency) a unified definition of metro areas for all OECD countries. In a nutshell: a core built-up area and market center, and the surrounding territories where more than 15% of employed local residents commute to the core built-up area and market center.

The OECD calculates the GDP of these metro areas every year. In 2019 the Montréal metro area had a GDP of US$185 bn (at market exchange rates), whereas the Stockholm metro area had a GDP of US$170 bn


For comparison, GDP of the metro areas in 2019 in US dollars (at market exchange rates):
- Chicago: 727
- Boston: 449
- Seattle: 427
- Toronto: 348
- Detroit: 278
- Sydney: 277
- Melbourne: 247
- Montréal: 185
- Perth: 171
- Stockholm: 170
- Copenhagen: 139
- Vancouver: 125
- Brisbane: 122
- Lyon: 112
- Calgary: 98
- Helsinki: 95
- Edmonton: 87
- Auckland (NZ): 77
- Ottawa: 71
- Adelaide: 60
- Gothenburg (Göteborg): 52

Compared to US metro areas, Montréal's economy is slightly larger than St Louis, Portland, and Austin, but smaller than Denver and San Diego.

[lio45]

Nice to see you back! Been a while

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

What about... Montcalm defeats Wolfe but New France remains a desultory imperial afterthought. American Revolution still occurs despite absence of Quebec Act (there were other Intolerable Acts, after all), Halifax becomes largest city of British North America and a major naval port in the buildup to avenge the loss on the Plains.

Nova Scotian British troops sweep upriver in 1837, capturing Montreal and Quebec City. The latter is burned, the former becomes a sizeable British port, albeit with no Lachine Canal power-up as BNA's nascent industrial revolution is centered in Halifax and New Glasgow.

Maritime reign of the New Atlantis, Hollis Street metonym for BNA finance, lobster roll hyperorgy, oligarch palaces out to Chester.

I might be missing some stuff.

Edit: my time gap sucks but its because I'm trying to do a stich from the Plains to the industrial revolution.

That is an unlikely scenario. The most likely one, if France had invested more in New France and sent enough troops and men, Québec City would never have been captured, New France would have remained for some decades (until eventual independence? but probably a more peaceful one, like Australia becoming independent from the UK). Montréal would probably have become the Chicago of North America. There would be basically two primary megacities in North America: an English-speaking one (NYC) and a French-speaking one (Montréal). It's very unlikely that a rump small British North America in Nova Scotia would have launched an invasion of French Canada (not enough men and financial means, and no interest from the British motherland after the independence of the US, they were far more focused on India, Nova Scotia would have been a backwater for them).

More likely, the real risk would have been endless Franco-US wars. The USA would never have accepted to border a large French empire, and would have invaded countless times. Whether the French government in Paris would have been willing to spend the enormous capital needed to defend New France against an independent USA is debatable... My feeling is no (they did not even spend the much smaller capital needed to defend it against Great Britain), but demographics could have made a difference. With enough French settlers in New France, there's not much the USA could have done if they had invaded New France. You cannot subjugate a country that is already inhabited by many people. Of course all of this assumes more interest from France in New France and more French people migrating to New France, which, in the real world, never took place. Less than 10,000 French people migrated to New France, compared to 600,000 people who migrated from the UK to the 13 colonies, despite France having more than twice the population of the UK at the time.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

Nice to see you back! Been a while

I was actually looking for some information about Abidjan (where lots is going on at the moment, 2nd tallest skyscraper in Africa U/C plus tons of infrastructure development, autoroutes and bridges), which landed me in this thread.

Conversation was interesting and civil though (at least what I've read).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Montréal would probably have become the Chicago of North America. There would be basically two primary megacities in North America: an English-speaking one (NYC) and a French-speaking one (Montréal). It's very unlikely that a rump small British North America in Nova Scotia would have launched an invasion of French Canada (not enough men and financial means, and no interest from the British motherland after the independence of the US, they were far more focused on India, Nova Scotia would have been a backwater for them).

Quebec can be blockaded by patrolling a path of about 120 km of water in Atlantic Canada. Once Louisbourg was lost, Quebec City was probably done. NS never had a large population but it is strategic for military and trade purposes, sort of like the Crimea of North America.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

Quebec can be blockaded by patrolling a path of about 120 km of water in Atlantic Canada. Once Louisbourg was lost, Quebec City was probably done.

French Canada was autarkic. It relied on itself, and didn't need imports from France. So the severance of maritime lines was not a problem.

If Louis XV had sent several regiments with enough equipment, powder and ammunition to last years, there is no way the British could have conquered Canada.

The problem is the French government sent only one regiment, because they didn't want to spend too much for a colony that did not generate lots of profits for France. The one colony France was interested in and was ready to fight for was St Domingue, which was the richest territory in the Americas at the time, the largest sugar, coffee and indigo dye producer in the world. It is also a colony the British were far more interested in than Canada.

In fact it's little known, but during the negotiations of the 1763 Treaty of Paris ending the Seven Years War, the British offered to return Canada to France if France gave St Domingue to the British. The French negotiators of course refused.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

French Canada was autarkic. It relied on itself, and didn't need imports from France. So the severance of maritime lines was not a problem.

It didn't have the means to keep up technologically and French Canada was mostly a narrow strip of land along the St. Lawrence. So if it had been cut off eventually it would have been trivial for the US or British to sail up and down the river, blowing up whatever they felt like. As they both did dozens of times around the world for many decades.

France did send a large expeditionary force to North America but it failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duc_d%...lle_expedition. They spent a lot of money on Louisbourg too. I could imagine their 18th century North American colony investments being Apollo program scaled by French standards of the day.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

It didn't have the means to keep up technologically

I meant during wars. Wars couldn't last more than 7-8 years, because European states didn't have the means to finance longer wars. Britain left the Seven Years' War financially bankrupt, which is why it started to tax its American colonies, leading to the US Revolution.

French Canada could perfectly survive for 10 years without much contact with France. It was only a question of having enough soldiers, powder, and ammunition at the start of the war.

When wars ended, maritime links with Europe were restored, until the next war 10 to 15 years later. That's what happened throughout the 18th century. Cycles of 7 years of wars, 15 years of peace, 7 years of war, etc. More or less.

Originally Posted by someone123

French Canada was mostly a narrow strip of land along the St. Lawrence. So if it had been cut off eventually it would have been trivial for the US or British to sail up and down the river, blowing up whatever they felt like.

The fortress of Québec City blocked the entrance of the St Lawrence valley. There was no way to sail upstream without taking Québec City, which was the best defended fortress in North America.

Originally Posted by someone123

France did send a large expeditionary force to North America but it failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duc_d%...lle_expedition. They spent a lot of money on Louisbourg too. I could imagine their 18th century North American colony investments being Apollo program scaled by French standards of the day.

You're confusing the previous war here (War of the Austrian Succession) with the war that saw the conquest of French Canada by the British (Seven Years' War). That expedition you're mentioning was in the War of the Austrian Succession, and France recovered the fortress of Louisbourg at the end of the war on the "tapis vert" as the French phrase goes (i.e. diplomatic negotiations, in a nutshell the French agreed to return Madras to the British, and in exchange the British returned Louisbourg to the French, which was greatly criticized in New England).

Regarding the fortifications of Louisbourg, they did cost lots of money (although let's put things in perspective, France had more than a hundred fortifications like Louisbourg in Europe), and Louis XV resented it. He complained to his ministers that this had cost the royal treasury way too much. There was frankly no desire in 1763 to negotiate with the British the return of Canada to France and having to spend yet again lots of money to defend it. It wasn't worth it they thought.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The fortress of Québec City blocked the entrance of the St Lawrence valley. There was no way to sail upstream without taking Québec City, which was the best defended fortress in North America.

But it was conquered and we know now that with each passing decade it would have been easier to conquer and France would have declined in power relative to the UK and definitely the US. I'm responding to your earlier scenario where Quebec either remained French or operated as an independent country for a long period of time.

You're confusing the previous war here (War of the Austrian Succession) with the war that saw the conquest of French Canada by the British (Seven Years' War).

Not confusing, just pointing out that France invested a lot in its North American colonies. More than could rationally be justified by economics. Pretty much every colony was a waste in strict economic terms. Rather than aggressively cutting off New France, I think France painfully came to terms with the fact that they couldn't maintain it after decades of decline and struggle. It's not surprising that France struggled to be a naval power since they had to maintain a large land army to fight off other European land attacks while the UK did not.

(Wikipedia says the 1758 siege of Louisbourg was 26,000 British vs. 7,000 French while the Battle of Quebec was 4,400 vs. 3,400. I wonder how many people would estimate that those numbers were flipped.)

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Architype

If you include enough, but actually not for awhile yet.



https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/2...%20from%202019.

It’s at least 7 million. Hamilton and Oshawa are a part of the GTA now. Similarly, Abbotsford should be counted as part of the Vancouver metro area.

The entirety of the Golden Horeshoe should really be considered the GTA. The growth has skipped across the green belt, but those areas are mostly growing because they’re “close enough” to Toronto

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

But it was conquered and we know now that with each passing decade it would have been easier to conquer and France would have declined in power relative to the UK and definitely the US.

It's all a question of demography like I wrote. With enough settlers and a large enough population, no way the US, let alone the UK, could have absorbed Canada and the Louisiana territory. The problem was always the lack of interest from French people, and the very small population.

Originally Posted by someone123

Not confusing, just pointing out that France invested a lot in its North American colonies.

Not really. Like I said there were more than a hundred similar fortresses as Louisbourg in European France. France invested essentially on its land army and its fortifications in Europe.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I meant during wars. Wars couldn't last more than 7-8 years, because European states didn't have the means to finance longer wars. Britain left the Seven Years' War financially bankrupt, which is why it started to tax its American colonies, leading to the US Revolution.

French Canada could perfectly survive for 10 years without much contact with France. It was only a question of having enough soldiers, powder, and ammunition at the start of the war.

When wars ended, maritime links with Europe were restored, until the next war 10 to 15 years later. That's what happened throughout the 18th century. Cycles of 7 years of wars, 15 years of peace, 7 years of war, etc. More or less.

...which all illustrates that humans are idiots. Culture and religious struggles, wars, power, dominance... a waste of energy and resources that could be put to positive uses if people could just get their heads out of their asses and get along with one another. We still haven't learned.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It's all a question of demography like I wrote. With enough settlers and a large enough population, no way the US, let alone the UK, could have absorbed Canada and the Louisiana territory. The problem was always the lack of interest from French people, and the very small population.

The settlers need to have land that supports them. The American colonies ended up with much more hospitable land that quickly attracted more settlers. Maybe French settlers would have been more interested in moving to Virginia.

I agree that in a scenario where tons of settlers move in from France, they spread through the Great Lakes area and down the Mississippi, and Britain and the US completely leave them alone they would eventually grow to become a larger population over hundreds of years.

In our timeline however Britain took Port Royal then Louisbourg then Quebec City.

I don't think a New Orleans based settlement would have worked out well in the 1700's/1800's either due to tropical diseases. Both ends of the French colonial areas had a relatively small carrying capacity for European settlers in the pre-1900 era.

Not really. Like I said there were more than a hundred similar fortresses as Louisbourg in European France. France invested essentially on its land army and its fortifications in Europe.

People make a big deal about that moon walk thing but did you know in the US millions of people walk around every day?

[lio45]

In retrospect, I guess one could say it was smarter to invest militarily in the motherland and its immediate vicinity, since nearly all colonies of all the colonial powers are gone now; France might be smaller at the moment if it had invested less on the Continent and more in Canada a couple centuries ago. (Canada would have gone its own way since then anyways.)

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by lio45

In retrospect, I guess one could say it was smarter to invest militarily in the motherland and its immediate vicinity, since nearly all colonies of all the colonial powers are gone now; France might be smaller at the moment if it had invested less on the Continent and more in Canada a couple centuries ago. (Canada would have gone its own way since then anyways.)

It depends on how tangible one wants their Empire to be, I suppose.

One might say that Britain's investments in its former Empire (and the resultant creation of a large, linked English-speaking world) were beneficial in the 20th century when it needed help during the world wars. Or afterwards, when it benefited from the Special Relationship with the United States aiding it.

In France's and most of the other European powers' case, it didn't work out so well. Spain or Portugal today aren't helped much by having a large Spanish/Portuguese-speaking populations around the globe.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

That is an unlikely scenario. The most likely one, if France had invested more in New France and sent enough troops and men, Québec City would never have been captured, New France would have remained for some decades (until eventual independence? but probably a more peaceful one, like Australia becoming independent from the UK). Montréal would probably have become the Chicago of North America. There would be basically two primary megacities in North America: an English-speaking one (NYC) and a French-speaking one (Montréal). It's very unlikely that a rump small British North America in Nova Scotia would have launched an invasion of French Canada (not enough men and financial means, and no interest from the British motherland after the independence of the US, they were far more focused on India, Nova Scotia would have been a backwater for them).

More likely, the real risk would have been endless Franco-US wars. The USA would never have accepted to border a large French empire, and would have invaded countless times. Whether the French government in Paris would have been willing to spend the enormous capital needed to defend New France against an independent USA is debatable... My feeling is no (they did not even spend the much smaller capital needed to defend it against Great Britain), but demographics could have made a difference. With enough French settlers in New France, there's not much the USA could have done if they had invaded New France. You cannot subjugate a country that is already inhabited by many people. Of course all of this assumes more interest from France in New France and more French people migrating to New France, which, in the real world, never took place. Less than 10,000 French people migrated to New France, compared to 600,000 people who migrated from the UK to the 13 colonies, despite France having more than twice the population of the UK at the time.

Interesting scenarios. The second is the more plausible one.