Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Can you truly say that a people that is different on every level that defines a people from those that decides, and wishes to govern itself, is doing it through pettiness? That any issue regarding the wish for a people to preserve itself is reductible to racism and provincialism? That a people doesn't have the right to wish to direct itself because 'the era for such struggle has passed'?

I am saying that it takes an arch-nationalist point of view to declare that Francophonic Canadians are different from Anglophonic Canadians "on every level that defines a people." One would think you are talking about different species rather than human beings who have indeed been caught up in similar historical circumstances for centuries -- and that tone is the very hallmark of sinister politics. Balkanization has never been a viable solution and thanks to the ongoing development of multiculturalism we no longer have to pretend that it is the only solution. Is not French spoken in Quebec, no let me say, in Canada even today? Then what use for the bigotry masquerading as self-determination that underlies this issue? Why drag the mistakes of the twentieth century into the twenty first? I see no democratic germ at the heart of a movement obsessed with disassociation.

It is not that the era of struggle has passed: the struggle of today is to live together even though we are different, same as it was yesterday. The era of racialist nationalism, however, is indeed over I should hope.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)

The Canadian Forces don't really have the force to occupy a territory the size or 3 Frances, not even a city like Montreal.

As for reimbursement for the debt, it's good to keep in mind that we provide a metric crapton of hydro-electricity to the RoC.

Firebomb Montreal. Problem solved.
Ask Sherman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Can you truly say that a people that is different on every level that defines a people from those that decides, and wishes to govern itself, is doing it through pettiness? That any issue regarding the wish for a people to preserve itself is reductible to racism and provincialism? That a people doesn't have the right to wish to direct itself because 'the era for such struggle has passed'?

I am saying that it takes an arch-nationalist point of view to declare that Francophonic Canadians are different from Anglophonic Canadians "on every level that defines a people." One would think you are talking about different species rather than human beings who have indeed been caught up in similar historical circumstances for centuries -- and that tone is the very hallmark of sinister politics. Balkanization has never been a viable solution and thanks to the ongoing development of multiculturalism we no longer have to pretend that it is the only solution. Is not French spoken in Quebec, no let me say, in Canada even today? Then what use for the bigotry masquerading as self-determination that underlies this issue? Why drag the mistakes of the twentieth century into the twenty first? I see no democratic germ at the heart of a movement obsessed with disassociation.

It is not that the era of struggle has past: the struggle of today is to live together even though we are different, same as it was yesterday. The era of racialist nationalism, however, is indeed over I should hope.

Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all...
you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.

 Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:


Canada can't stop it, in theory at least. ...

Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!

Sadly, I'm with Frazzled this time. (it hurt me to say so )

Yes, the Supreme court did decide that a referendum would by legally binding. And no, I dont believe the Federal Gov would let anyone go. ever.
They did declare War Measures for less that that.
And that is why the 1995 referendum was scary: 49.5% for and 51% against, that civil war material...

 Jihadin wrote:
So they got you by the short hair eh?

Quite the contrary.

You have to realize, this is a governement that prefered to sign a 'peace' with a masked and armed insurgent then send an army against a group of weapon smugglers in a town of 387 households (The Oka Crisis ; http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crise_d%27Oka).

They won't send the army against a legitimate Nation of about 7 million people.

 M_Stress wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:


Canada can't stop it, in theory at least. ...

Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!

Sadly, I'm with Frazzled this time. (it hurt me to say so )

Yes, the Supreme court did decide that a referendum would by legally binding. And no, I dont believe the Federal Gov would let anyone go. ever.
They did declare War Measures for less that that.
And that is why the 1995 referendum was scary: 49.5% for and 51% against, that civil war material...

STI International, is willing and able to supply high quality competition level AR 15s to either the Righteous Protectors of the Union, or the Sacred Few Fighting for Truth, Justice, and proper croissants, whichever pays more (or both - we're equal opportunity).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
So they got you by the short hair eh?

Quite the contrary.

You have to realize, this is a governement that prefered to sign a 'peace' with a masked and armed insurgent then send an army against a group of weapon smugglers in a town of 387 households (The Oka Crisis ; http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crise_d%27Oka).

They won't send the army against a legitimate Nation of about 7 million people.

Its surprising how active rebellion can change that view.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all...
you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.

What is the relevance of the clashing ambitions of eighteenth-century colonial powers? No one is talking about France or Britain, no more than with regard to the contemporary United States we talk about Powhatan, Iroquois, and Apache -- nor even the Confederacy.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all...
you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.

What is the relevance of the clashing ambitions of eighteenth-century colonial powers? No one is talking about France or Britain, no more than with regard to the contemporary United States we talk about Powhatan, Iroquois, and Apache.

The relevance is, is that Quebec was a conquered people. You can't expect a conquered superior people (I give you French cuisine vs. the horse poop that is British cuisine) to willingly or easily assimilate to their conquerors. Its like Scotland or Ireland wanting independence from England. Getteth realio boyo! Its not racism, sexism, blah blah. At worst its foodism! Vive le munchies!

 Manchu wrote:
I am saying that it takes an arch-nationalist point of view to declare that Francophonic Canadians are different from Anglophonic Canadians "on every level that defines a people."

Just language, religion, law, attitude toward gender relations, culinary tastes, and general political spectrum position. Denying the essential cultural difference between Anglo Canadians and Franco Canadians is as absurd as denying a cultural between Chinese and Americans.

One would think you are talking about different species rather than human beings who have indeed been caught up in similar historical circumstances for centuries -- and that tone is the very hallmark of sinister politics.

One would then not know the gigantic differences between a discourse based on race and a discourse base on culture.

Balkanization has never been a viable solution and thanks to the ongoing development of multiculturalism we no longer have to pretend that it is the only solution.

There are plenty of countries that have fared well once they have obtained independance. Or do you think the US should still be British? Federalization only works if theirs a balance of power between the federalized entities. The only violence done on this topic is from the dude in a bathrobe trying to kill a duly elected official.

Is not French spoken in Quebec, no let me say, in Canada even today?

Less than it was 2 decades ago.

Then what use for the bigotry masquerading as self-determination that underlies this issue? Why drag the mistakes of the twentieth century into the twenty first? I see no democratic germ at the heart of a movement obsessed with disassociation.

So what, you support a one world government? The negation of diversity? The negation of the right of individual Nations to govern themselves?

It is not that the era of struggle has passed: the struggle of today is to live together even though we are different, same as it was yesterday. The era of racialist nationalism, however, is indeed over I should hope.

Your the one bringing the race point in it. As I've stated before, every quebecers I've spoken to is happy with the definition of a quebecers as someone who as spent a winter here and knows french.

@Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.

KO check your post. It looks off.

Yeah, the Quebec separatist movement has nothing to do with racism (wtf? ) and more to do with nationalism, patriotism, independence, etc.

 Manchu wrote:
@Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.

Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh. In turn, many of those French were driven from the country, some settling in Louisiana. Interestingly family on my mom's side still speak (or spoke I should say) harshly about the Brits, almost to the level of the dreaded DamnYankees). Memories run deep.

Now having said that, they are acting stupidly. French should not be the first language. This is North America! Speak Spanish!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, the Quebec separatist movement has nothing to do with racism (wtf? ) and more to do with nationalism, patriotism, independence, etc.

And cheese. don't forget cheese.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.

Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh. In turn, many of those French were driven from the country, some settling in Louisiana. Interestingly family on my mom's side still speak (or spoke I should say) harshly about the Brits, almost to the level of the dreaded DamnYankees). Memories run deep.

Now having said that, they are acting stupidly. French should not be the first language. This is North America! Speak Spanish!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, the Quebec separatist movement has nothing to do with racism (wtf? ) and more to do with nationalism, patriotism, independence, etc.

And cheese. don't forget cheese.

No think more poutines, smoked meat sandwiches, bacon and maple syrup.

Its Spanglish Frazz....spanglish

 Jihadin wrote:
Its Spanglish Frazz....spanglish

I thought it was Franglais?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franglais

 M_Stress wrote:

Sadly, I'm with Frazzled this time. (it hurt me to say so )

Yes, the Supreme court did decide that a referendum would by legally binding. And no, I dont believe the Federal Gov would let anyone go. ever.
They did declare War Measures for less that that.
And that is why the 1995 referendum was scary: 49.5% for and 51% against, that civil war material...

They declared the War Measures because a Minister was murdered by a bunch of thugs.
Again, how do you figure that a force of 88 000 (including civilians and support troops) can occupy a population of 7 millions? When, again, 35% of those troops are attacking their own homes?

Woops my bad...Franglais north of the border and spanlish south of the border...How does Taco Bell fit in up there?

 Frazzled wrote:
KO check your post. It looks off.

Thanks!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I am saying that it takes an arch-nationalist point of view to declare that Francophonic Canadians are different from Anglophonic Canadians "on every level that defines a people."

Just language, religion, law, attitude toward gender relations, culinary tastes, and general political spectrum position. Denying the essential cultural difference between Anglo Canadians and Franco Canadians is as absurd as denying a cultural between Chinese and Americans.

So all the Chinatown's should be independent nations???

Kovnik Obama wrote:

One would think you are talking about different species rather than human beings who have indeed been caught up in similar historical circumstances for centuries -- and that tone is the very hallmark of sinister politics.

One would then not know the gigantic differences between a discourse based on race and a discourse base on culture.

That "one" seems to be the PQ. There's a good book by Richard Evans on the subject of culture and race in politics. Good to keep such things in mind.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Balkanization has never been a viable solution and thanks to the ongoing development of multiculturalism we no longer have to pretend that it is the only solution.

There are plenty of countries that have fared well once they have obtained independance. Or do you think the US should still be British? Federalization only works if theirs a balance of power between the federalized entities. The only violence done on this topic is from the dude in a bathrobe trying to kill a duly elected official.

Woah, slow down there. No one was talking about the sovereignists being violent. And so what if some nations have prospered as independent states? Just as many have not. Plus, you're confusing the issue. The prospective secession of Quebec has nothing at all to do with the end of colonialism.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Is not French spoken in Quebec, no let me say, in Canada even today?

Less than it was 2 decades ago.

So the solution is to deny citizenship to those who speak something different??? According to the premier elect, yes.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Then what use for the bigotry masquerading as self-determination that underlies this issue? Why drag the mistakes of the twentieth century into the twenty first? I see no democratic germ at the heart of a movement obsessed with disassociation.

So what, you support a one world government? The negation of diversity? The negation of the right of individual Nations to govern themselves?

Federalism is not the opposite of diversity. In fact, the great thing about federalism is that finds unity in diversity.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

It is not that the era of struggle has passed: the struggle of today is to live together even though we are different, same as it was yesterday. The era of racialist nationalism, however, is indeed over I should hope.

Your the one bringing the race point in it. As I've stated before, every quebecers I've spoken to is happy with the definition of a quebecers as someone who as spent a winter here and knows french.

I'd say the PQ brings the issue of "race" (in the nineteenth-/twentieth-century sense) into things.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all...
you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.

What is the relevance of the clashing ambitions of eighteenth-century colonial powers? No one is talking about France or Britain, no more than with regard to the contemporary United States we talk about Powhatan, Iroquois, and Apache.

The relevance is, is that Quebec was a conquered people. You can't expect a conquered superior people (I give you French cuisine vs. the horse poop that is British cuisine) to willingly or easily assimilate to their conquerors. Its like Scotland or Ireland wanting independence from England. Getteth realio boyo! Its not racism, sexism, blah blah. At worst its foodism! Vive le munchies!

This gets you an exalt.
We don't hate the Anglo. I almost married one (God did I dodge a bullet, tho, completely unrelated story). We just don't think they represent what we are and what we want to be.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 M_Stress wrote:

Sadly, I'm with Frazzled this time. (it hurt me to say so )

Yes, the Supreme court did decide that a referendum would by legally binding. And no, I dont believe the Federal Gov would let anyone go. ever.
They did declare War Measures for less that that.
And that is why the 1995 referendum was scary: 49.5% for and 51% against, that civil war material...

They declared the War Measures because a Minister was murdered by a bunch of thugs.
Again, how do you figure that a force of 88 000 (including civilians and support troops) can occupy a population of 7 millions? When, again, 35% of those troops are attacking their own homes?

Look up Arc light missions.

Seriously civil wars are always the worst bloodbaths. Don't think that if Canada decides to keep Quebec that it won't be bloody.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Woops my bad...Franglais north of the border and spanlish south of the border...How does Taco Bell fit in up there?

Wherever there are missing cats, there will be Taco Bell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all...
you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.

What is the relevance of the clashing ambitions of eighteenth-century colonial powers? No one is talking about France or Britain, no more than with regard to the contemporary United States we talk about Powhatan, Iroquois, and Apache.

The relevance is, is that Quebec was a conquered people. You can't expect a conquered superior people (I give you French cuisine vs. the horse poop that is British cuisine) to willingly or easily assimilate to their conquerors. Its like Scotland or Ireland wanting independence from England. Getteth realio boyo! Its not racism, sexism, blah blah. At worst its foodism! Vive le munchies!

This gets you an exalt.
We don't hate the Anglo. I almost married one (God did I dodge a bullet, tho, completely unrelated story). We just don't think they represent what we are and what we want to be.

No no, you need to marry a firey lass from South America. For good or bad, things will never be boring.
"all right, calm, just put down the knife. Your cooking is great, really, the best ever."

 Frazzled wrote:

No no, you need to marry a firey lass from South America. For good or bad, things will never be boring.
"all right, calm, just put down the knife. Your cooking is great, really, the best ever."

I really do. Damn, I have my eyes on a Colombian hottie right now. Good call. Uncle Frazzled always know what words to use to cheer you up

 Frazzled wrote:
Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh.

First, it was not a "separate country" -- it was a French and then British colonial possession. Second, I'm talking about racism in the sense of Japanese looking down on Chinese people or Germans looking down on Poles. You know, the racism that inspired the greatest conflicts of the twentieth century.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

No no, you need to marry a firey lass from South America. For good or bad, things will never be boring.
"all right, calm, just put down the knife. Your cooking is great, really, the best ever."

I really do. Damn, I have my eyes on a Colombian hottie right now. Good call. Uncle Frazzled always know what words to use to cheer you up

The honor, is to serve.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


That's evil, dude. Quebecers make fun of french people like nobody else. Can't stand fething Parisians.

And rightly so. They're a bunch of spankers, at least to work with.

 Manchu wrote:
@Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.

By that logic the Irish are not a people, consisting as they did (and do) of Norse, displaced Saxons, Gaels, Scots, etc, and therefor should bow to the throne of England.

I think that the typical Irish response to that would be 'Póg mo thón!'

 BaronIveagh wrote:
By that logic the Irish are not a people, consisting as they did (and do) of Norse, displaced Saxons, Gaels, Scots, etc, and therefor should bow to the throne of England.

I don't see how acknowledging the reality of multiculturalism over and against nationalist-racialist myths means the Irish need to bow to the English or that Québécois should not speak French. You'll have to explain to me what it is you mean by "logic." Better yet, explain it to dogma who will at least be entertained.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh.

First, it was not a "separate country" -- it was a French and then British colonial possession. Second, I'm talking about racism in the sense of Japanese looking down on Chinese people or Germans looking down on Poles. You know, the racism that inspired the greatest conflicts of the twentieth century.

It was sovereign French territory, peopled by French citizens who, like the Germans many years later, were conqured by the British. They just didn't have the snazzi uniforms and cool Polka music.

Again racism is via "races." This is good old fashioned nationalism / xenophobia.

KO...be careful around a columbian female. She WILL cut you if you treat her wrong.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't see how acknowledging the reality of multiculturalism over and against nationalist-racialist myths means the Irish need to bow to the English or that Québécois should not speak French. You'll have to explain to me what it is you mean by "logic." Better yet, explain it to dogma who will at least be entertained.

No difference. OK, one has better whiskey, stew, and a oligoplistic domination in the redhead market.