Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[someone123]

Originally Posted by thewave46

In a sense a new homogeneous group emerged via the Baby Boom from those immigrants in the 1950s-1970s that integrated itself into preexisting British-Empire Anglo-Canadian prejudices. The most difficult years of the Quebec-ROC thing were the 1970s through the 1990s (admittedly for a bunch of reasons), but it was also when that group came to ascendancy.

I won't pretend to be an expert on this but I think that if we want to consider separatism the bigger issue is really the English minority in Quebec and the Francophone majority. And it didn't have to do with prejudices. It had to do with the English minority being a colonial style administrative and professional class while Francophones were an underclass with limited opportunities, a milder version of South Africa or Rhodesia in the 1960's. The answer for the majority was revolution and a big question was where the end goal would be.

Had Quebec been economically egalitarian but with a bitterly anti-Francophone Anglophone minority that didn't hold the reins of power people would not have cared so much. And that would have softened as all racism and similar isms did in the late 20th century.

I don't think it would have been any better if the Francophone and Anglophone classes in Quebec were subdivided internally more than they were, without the economic structure changing, or if there were more Chinese people in Toronto in 1980.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Acajack's current signature is the obvious sign that Canada is still a tribal nation, somehow.
He says:

It's really unfair to me as a Canadian that French should be a required job skill given that the language is totally useless to me.

Bah, French should neither be required nor useless. It's just an undeniable plus in your local curriculum vitae, isnt' it?

France has struggled for centuries against tribal tendencies over her natural territory that spreads from the North to the Mediterranean seas.
It took the tyranny of monarchy, then some excessively centralized Republican governments to make it, but I think our people feel as one today.
It eventually worked somehow. From Rennes, Brittany to Nice, French Riviera and from Strasbourg, Alsace down to Biarritz, French Basque Country, they all feel like they belong to a same weird nation called France today.
They all speak standard French with some various accents sometimes, because some still can speak their peculiar regional languages. But local languages are no longer felt as any threat to national unity, since the feeling of a same nation has been strong enough by now.
Foreign languages are all easier to teach here in this country. Myself, I was pretty good at speaking Spanish when I was a teen and I should learn about it again, because I miss it. It is some part of my youth.

Again, it was no easy matter to get to this state of mind across our nation. It took centuries and a lot of pain to make it.
But it works in the end, I guess.

No, Canada is not like France in this sense.

We're more like Belgium (on a bad day) or Switzerland (on a good day).

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by someone123

I won't pretend to be an expert on this but I think that if we want to consider separatism the bigger issue is really the English minority in Quebec and the Francophone majority. And it didn't have to do with prejudices. It had to do with the English minority being a colonial style administrative and professional class while Francophones were an underclass with limited opportunities, a milder version of South Africa or Rhodesia in the 1960's. The answer for the majority was revolution and a big question was where the end goal would be.

Had Quebec been economically egalitarian but with a bitterly anti-Francophone Anglophone minority that didn't hold the reins of power people would not have cared so much. And that would have softened as all racism and similar isms did in the late 20th century.

I don't think it would have been any better if the Francophone and Anglophone classes in Quebec were subdivided internally more than they were, without the economic structure changing, or if there were more Chinese people in Toronto in 1980.

Most Quebec anglophones were never Fat English Salesladies at Eaton's. Your most characterizes the erstwhile Quebec Anglophone population as being anti-francophone, when this was not the case. More, it was a case of two solitudes, with Montreal as a dual language environment and Montreal still being the primate city of Canada. Rhodesia? Really? That is not at all an appropriate comparison.

Much of Montreal operated in French, in the 20s, 40s, the 60s, and continuing up until the present time. Anglos are far, far less prominent than they were in the 60s. Fortunately, the small angryphone minority has largely moved on or died out. Anglos are mostly comfortable functioning in a predominantly French speaking Montreal.

Look, I speak from personal experiences. Even in the 70s, if you were unilingual anglo, forget about a top position at a Montreal-based firm. My father's career was permanently plateaued from that period due to his poor French abilities. My parents made my brothers and I go through french immersion the whole way through school, so we wouldn't face that situation.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by someone123

I won't pretend to be an expert on this but I think that if we want to consider separatism the bigger issue is really the English minority in Quebec and the Francophone majority. And it didn't have to do with prejudices. It had to do with the English minority being a colonial style administrative and professional class while Francophones were an underclass, a milder version of South Africa or Rhodesia in the 1960's.

I don't think it would have been any better if the Francophone and Anglophone classes in Quebec were subdivided internally more than they were or if there were more Chinese people in Toronto in 1980.

That I'll agree on. It was an era punctuated by second-class citizens wanting the same treatment as first-class ones along language lines.

Now the question for the future is: Does that conflict continue into the future or does the axis of conflict change as demographics change? I say that the axis does, because much of the conflict that divided those lines got (quite imperfectly) settled decades ago along provincial border lines. So, these new groups that are changing the face of Canada may have different grievances about how the power structures of Canada operate and how their injustices are interpreted. Does that change the narrative for the future and suck the oxygen out of the old debates?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Sure, but the animosity between Quebec and the ROC reached the fever pitch among the descendants of those groups, not the original immigrants AFAIK. The original immigrants were the outsiders to Canada.

In a sense a new homogeneous group emerged via the Baby Boom from those immigrants in the 1950s-1970s that integrated itself into preexisting British-Empire Anglo-Canadian prejudices. The most difficult years of the Quebec-ROC thing were the 1970s through the 1990s (admittedly for a bunch of reasons), but it was also when that group came to ascenIdancy.

Does that happen again when there are many more markers of differentiation today than of yore? Do Haitian Francophones in Quebec hold the same animosity for Bangladeshi Anglophones in Ontario that used to be the marker? Or does the glove not fit the same way?

I'm also looking in terms of generational change. What happens 50 years in the future, not the next decade.

In terms of the population in Canada that speaks English as its societal language, as a francophone there is no tangible difference in our relationship with any of them that would be dependent on skin tone, eye shape or whether they immigrated from Bangladesh or are descended from United Empire Loyalists who arrived in the 1780s. There is no "thing" where Jamaicans and Italians in Toronto all think we're great and Scottish-Canadians in the same city think we're all assholes.

The probability that they either hate our guts and think we're a pain in the ass, or love us and cherish the unique character we bring to Canada, is about the same in my experience. It varies widely across all groups and the proportions are roughly the same.

As such when Québécois talk about "English Canada" or "the ROC" as if it was monolithic, inasmuch as their view only involves people's attitudes towards Quebec, French, bilingualism, etc., they're actually pretty spot-on with that. Even if it irritates ROCers and ignores the multiple particularities that exist within the population of the 9 provinces other than Quebec. (But which are largely irrelevant to Québécois grappling with the Quebec-Canada relationship.)

Québécois francophones are a bit different as there are multiple, competing paths to integration with the new society here: the francophone one, the anglophone one, the bilingual one, the ethnic ghetto one, and even some of the more ethnic ones are split up into more franco and anglo leaning ones.

These all can affect political views and attitudes. Though the reality on the ground sometimes defies one's assumptions. A Québécois of Haitian origin who doesn't speak any English and only speaks French (and maybe some Creole) is very likely to be a Liberal and believe in a united Canada. Even if the idea of what the broader Canada actually means is a bit vague to him.

The Montreal-born child of immigrants from a country with no historical relationship to French, and who studies in English at McGill, might still speak perfect French and sympathise with Québécois nationalism and separatism.

All sorts of variables exist. It's all over the map.

Broadly speaking, the stereotypes still hold true: anyone who isn't of French Canadian origin in Quebec is quite a bit more likely to vote Liberal and be a federalist.

But other parties (including the separatist ones) are by no means devoid of minority people. Minorities in Quebec do appear to be spreading across the political spectrum more, even if they're still concentrated in Liberal ranks.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In terms of the population in Canada that speaks English as its societal language, as a francophone there is no tangible difference in our relationship with any of them that would be dependent on skin tone, eye shape or whether they immigrated from Bangladesh or are descended from United Empire Loyalists who arrived in the 1780s. There is no "thing" where Jamaicans and Italians in Toronto all think we're great and Scottish-Canadians in the same city think we're all assholes.

The probability that they either hate our guts and think we're a pain in the ass, or love us and cherish the unique character we bring to Canada, is about the same in my experience. It varies widely across all groups and the proportions are roughly the same.

As such when Québécois talk about "English Canada" or "the ROC" as if it was monolithic, inasmuch as their view only involves people's attitudes towards Quebec, French, bilingualism, etc., they're actually pretty spot-on with that. Even if it irritates ROCers and ignores the multiple particularities that exist within the population of the 9 provinces other than Quebec. (But which are largely irrelevant to Québécois grappling with the Quebec-Canada relationship.)

Québécois francophones are a bit different as there are multiple, competing paths to integration with the new society here: the francophone one, the anglophone one, the bilingual one, the ethnic ghetto one, and even some of the more ethnic ones are split up into more franco and anglo leaning ones.

These all can affect political views and attitudes. Though the reality on the ground sometimes defies one's assumptions. A Québécois of Haitian origin who doesn't speak any English and only speaks French (and maybe some Creole) is very likely to be a Liberal and believe in a united Canada. Even if the idea of what the broader Canada actually means is a bit vague to him.

The Montreal-born child of immigrants from a country with no historical relationship to French, and who studies in English at McGill, might still speak perfect French and sympathise with Québécois nationalism and separatism.

All sorts of variables exist. It's all over the map.

Broadly speaking, the stereotypes still hold true: anyone who isn't of French Canadian origin in Quebec is quite a bit more likely to vote Liberal and be a federalist.

But other parties (including the separatist ones) are by no means devoid of minority people. Minorities in Quebec do appear to be spreading across the political spectrum more, even if they're still concentrated in Liberal ranks.

I appreciate the insight.

I think my point is that while the ROC-Quebec thing mattered to the Anglos and Francophones in the past, it doesn't seem to matter in the same sense as much today, especially in newer Canadians. I'm just using anecdotal experience here, so YMMV.

The Indo-Canadians I've talked to kind of just accept that, yes, Canada has two languages that are part of life here. They don't seem to think it a big deal. They came from a place that had many regional languages, so I suspect they're mostly kind of confused when we get antsy about just two.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

That I'll agree on. It was an era punctuated by second-class citizens wanting the same treatment as first-class ones along language lines.

Now the question for the future is: Does that conflict continue into the future or does the axis of conflict change as demographics change? I say that the axis does, because much of the conflict that divided those lines got (quite imperfectly) settled decades ago along provincial border lines. So, these new groups that are changing the face of Canada may have different grievances about how the power structures of Canada operate and how their injustices are interpreted. Does that change the narrative for the future and suck the oxygen out of the old debates?

One thing is that the economic inequities that drove a lot of the initial bitterness in the movement have largely disappeared.

Net worth may be lower in Quebec due to a lack of old money from way back when, but in terms of lifestyle and standard of living these days there isn't much of a discernable difference between your average city or town in Ontario and one in Quebec.

Incomes are lower in Quebec for sure but this is offset by lower housing costs, and more generous social programs like parental leave, daycare, tuition, pharmacare, etc.

Your average person in St-Hyacinthe doesn't appear to be less well off than their compatriot in Brockville, and the highway between Montreal and Quebec City last week was filled with trailers with large boats, Denalis, Winnebagos, Can-Am Spyders and Teslas. The hotel I stayed at had luxury cars parked outside and the restaurant was filled with well-dressed people sipping fine wines with their meals.

Francophone Quebec isn't a noticeable step down from the rest of North America like it probably was into the 1970s and even into the 1980s maybe.

It's got its warts but so does the rest of the continent. Most of the socio-economic contrasts have been ironed out.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Most Quebec anglophones were never Fat English Salesladies at Eaton's. Your most characterizes the erstwhile Quebec Anglophone population as being anti-francophone, when this was not the case. More, it was a case of two solitudes, with Montreal as a dual language environment and Montreal still being the primate city of Canada. Rhodesia? Really? That is not at all an appropriate comparison.

You are right, I didn't word it well. I don't mean that all English speakers were in that group, but that there was a sense of exclusion from elite circles that operated in English, and a lack of opportunity for French speakers (what are the demographics of Westmount today? What were they in 1960?). I think that 70's period you were talking about was already well along in the transition. We can debate how accurate this idea was but a lot of people seem to have bought into it and wanted to take it further.

It's often true that when we talk about cultural phenomena like this we're really talking about elites or maybe the mid level (managers in firms, high level bureaucrats in government), not so much the working class and poor. And often elites drive the changes and things don't work out well for other people.

At one point Montreal was majority English speaking while Francophones were mostly rural and Francophone elites inhabited narrower areas like some political positions and the Catholic clergy. If we go back to the 19th century it was quite segregated and economically unequal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

You are right, I didn't word it well. I don't mean that all English speakers were in that group, but that there was a sense of a glass ceiling in important firms that operated in English, and a lack of opportunity for French speakers (what are the demographics of Westmount today? What were they in 1960?). I think that 70's period you were talking about was already well along in the transition. We can debate how accurate this idea was but a lot of people seem to have bought into it and wanted to take it further.

It's often true that when we talk about cultural phenomena like this we're really talking about elites or maybe the mid level, not so much the working class and poor.

At one point Montreal was majority English speaking while Francophones were mostly rural and Francophone elites inhabited narrower areas like some political positions and the Catholic clergy. If we go back to the 19th century it was quite segregated.

You have these moments that kind of get embedded in the public consciousness.

In the early 1960s, the president of CN (one of the larger employers in Montreal at the time), was asked why his company had no francophone managers, in a city that was probably 70% francophone.

His answer: "well, there aren't any who are qualified".

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by JHikka

This is if you're painting Quebec with one wide brush, applicable to the entire province. Sherbrooke is not Chicoutimi, just as Gatineau is not Outremont. There are many different facets to Quebec as a whole and assuming it's all the same is like assuming if you get North Bay then you get Bay & King. You can paint provinces with a wide brush if you like but by doing so you'll be missing smaller regional and city-dependent intricacies.

No, I definitely wasn't painting Quebec with one big brush. I've been to every region in the province with the exception of Nunavik. I've also been to every city there.

I probably wasn't very clear in what I was trying to write. A lot of Ontarians only see Quebec by only visiting Gatineau and/or Montreal and surrounding area. Those two cities and their surrounding areas definitely miss out on certain aspects of Quebec. My region borders places such as La Sarre, Rapide-Danseur, Duparquet and Rouyn-Noranda which are close to 100% Francophone and with very few ethnic minorities. If you know those places well, you probably won't be in for a shock when visiting other near 100% francophone places elsewhere in the province. Montreal and Gatineau are somewhat more like much of Ontario in certain ways due to various reasons.

[Dengler Avenue]

Just now, Patrice Roy grilled JT on the nomination of Mary Simon.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.facebook.com/45500412457...374298478/?d=n
Il semble que “la vallée de l’Outaouais” ça se dit après tout.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.facebook.com/45500412457...374298478/?d=n
Il semble que “la vallée de l’Outaouais” ça se dit après tout.

Bien oui. Tout peut se dire.

Mais c'est très rare que "Outaouais" fait référence au côté ontarien de la rivière.

[MolsonExport]

^word

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's sometimes one "part" that, and sometimes another "part" which is that they are noble survivors who have a unique and interesting culture.

I am interested as to how this dynamic plays out.

My junior high French teacher was Acadien, and I recall her telling us that, in terms of language, people from France looked down on people from Quebec as speaking improper French, and additionally people from Quebec looked down on the Acadien people as speaking some kind of bastardized, slang French.

Not being part of the culture, I've been somewhat insulated from these nuances, but I've always wondered how it plays out, both socially and politically... and culturally as well. From what I've seen, the ability of people to speak 'proper' French does seem to be more important among francophones than proper English use does among English speaking people (in fact, butchering of the English language seems to be almost cool in terms of using Americanized urban slang, etc.).

That being said, any time I've been to Quebec, I have always attempted to speak French to the people I met (as a sign of respect, and not a sign of mastery of the language), in my bumbling broken-up way, and have never been treated negatively because of it. In fact, I got the impression that they thought it was sort of 'cute' that I was trying to speak to them in their first language, and often would graciously switch the conversation to English to save us all from the pain of my skewering of their language.

I agree with your second "part" by the way. The Acadien people were very much mistreated in every way, which IMHO pales in comparison to how things played out for the Quebecois.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^word

Perfect timing to illustrate the point I was making in my previous post (re: "butchering of the English language seems to be almost cool in terms of using Americanized urban slang, etc.")!

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's sometimes one "part" that, and sometimes another "part" which is that they are noble survivors who have a unique and interesting culture.

Does this extend to "Cajuns" in Louisiana?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by esquire

Ashton is kind of like the NDP's Poilievre. Someone who has their place with the party's hardcore ranks but not really someone you want to trot out in public to sway swing voters. She'll run again I'm sure, but the NDP would be wise to steer clear.

That said, I'm sure there are some capable future leaders waiting in the wings of the NDP's ranks. The federal and provincial wings are big organizations and only a small handful of people have national profiles... they are hardly the only pool of candidates to draw from.

The NDP needs a roster of good candidates to inspire people to vote for them. I won't just vote for the leader of a party*, I have to vote for a party that best represents my views/priorities but also, that has a decent team that I could trust to handle the reins of government. I have been leery of the NDP, despite having a positive impression of their views, since the debacle of Bob Rae's time as Premier of Ontario. One person does not a party make (whether it is jolly Gilles, melancholy Mulcair, or tepid Trudeau).

*(although I could refrain from voting for a leader of a party, e.g., Trump is so repulsive on so many levels that if I was American I could not be persuaded to vote for him even if I agreed lock-stock-and-two-smoking-barrels with every item on their platform, and even if they paid me handsomely to vote for that truly horrible person).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Does this extend to "Cajuns" in Louisiana?

Yes, though there are fewer and fewer of them who can speak French.

Here is Zachary Richard from Lafayette, Louisiana. He's a household name in Quebec (and in the Acadian Maritimes of course) and you hear his songs on the radio all the time.

(In keeping with the political spirit of the thread, you can spot Pauline Marois and Gilles Duceppe in the crowd at the 2:30 mark.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZLqGL9CHas

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I am interested as to how this dynamic plays out.

My junior high French teacher was Acadien, and I recall her telling us that, in terms of language, people from France looked down on people from Quebec as speaking improper French, and additionally people from Quebec looked down on the Acadien people as speaking some kind of bastardized, slang French.
.

This is definitely true at least to some degree. By that I mean that most people are respectful at a base level no matter where you go, who you are and how you speak.

But yes, it does still exist to some degree. One of those ironies of life I suppose.

Note that Québécois kids who move to Ontario and go to Franco-Ontarien schools may also get mocked for not knowing English and all of its cool expressions - since in a Franco-Ontarien schoolyard English is the "in" language.