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.

 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.

Like every American people. Which is why no quebecer will consider itself a European. Which is why my Irish friends can be has separatist as me whitout any contradiction. Being a quebecer is, in romantic terms, being in love with the French-Canadian culture. It's not an issue of race. The colombian chicky who love Montreal, speak french, wants to stay here is more Quebecer than any of the Westmount brat who haven't bothered to learn a fething word of french and is constantly obssessed with US culture (or worse, British)

And what are you talking about, not conquered? There already was established colonists for decades at the time of the conquest. Afterward, there still was Métis in the (now) RoC who spoke either Indian or French. Each French spoken community got conquered at some point or another (or got sold by France)

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

You say it like its a bad thing. Moth to the flame baby!

 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.

What you described isn't racism but national or ethnic discrimination.

 Frazzled wrote:
It was sovereign French territory, peopled by French citizens

AIt was not a sovereign territory, either, but a viceroyalty whose current population, whatever their ancestry, does not seek repartiation into France.

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

Again, your understanding of "race" does not reflect the term's historical usage.

 Cheesecat wrote:
What you described isn't racism but national or ethnic discrimination.

Even the Wikipedia article will explain to you why there is no difference. But I again recommend Evans's work on the rise of the Third Reich to give you a clearer understanding.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It was sovereign French territory, peopled by French citizens

AIt was not a sovereign territory, either, but a viceroyalty whose current population, whatever their ancestry, does not seek repartiation into France.

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

Again, you're understanding of "race" does not reflect the term's historical usage.

yea, it kind of does. Its also in line with the 1964 Civil rights Act language which separates "race" from "national origin."

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It was sovereign French territory, peopled by French citizens

AIt was not a sovereign territory, either, but a viceroyalty whose current population, whatever their ancestry, does not seek repartiation into France.

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

Again, your understanding of "race" does not reflect the term's historical usage.

 Cheesecat wrote:
What you described isn't racism but national or ethnic discrimination.

Even the Wikipedia article will explain to you why there is no difference. But I again recommend Evans's work on the rise of the Third Reich to give you a clearer understanding.

I'm pretty sure discriminating someone for racial reasons is different than discriminating some for national or ethnic reasons.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Being a quebecer is, in romantic terms, being in love with the French-Canadian culture.

And in political terms, it seems to mean for the PQ taking away the rights and privileges of anyone who is not. Also "being X means loving X" is a propagandistic argument and reflects little to nothing about reality.

Kovnik Obama wrote:And what are you talking about, not conquered?

Who exactly conquered all the Irish Québécois or the Columbian girl you mention?

 Cheesecat wrote:
I'm pretty sure discriminating someone for racial reasons is different than discriminating some for national or ethnic reasons.

As sure as you are, you are not necessarily correct. Certainly, they can be different things. The attitude of the PQ, however, seems exceptionally similar to that of the racialist-nationalist theorists of the nineteenth century whose acolytes achieved power in the twentieth.

 Frazzled wrote:
yea, it kind of does.

No, it kind of doesn't. Please see European history, circa 1860s - 1940s.

 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.

Because you are asserting that on the grounds that a people has mixed with another, that they no longer have a right to self determination. It's like saying that the Irish, because there are quite a few of them of mixed ancestry, should never have been allowed to form their own country. To use your name example, I have an American sounding name. Not because I'm American, but because Americans tortured my great grandparents every time they spoke any language but English, until they forgot their native language. Does that mean that we lack a separate cultural identity to differ us from Americans? No. We're still a separate and distinct people (despite the best efforts of 'the most powerful nation on earth').

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Because you are asserting that on the grounds that a people has mixed with another, that they no longer have a right to self determination.

No, I didn't say that. I said that the "one pure people" approach being taken here, like Frazzled's mythical sovereign Quebec or Kovnik's romantic ideal, is not grounds for sovereignty today because that kind of account has never been true.

 Manchu wrote:
No, it kind of doesn't. Please see European history, circa 1860s - 1940s.

I'll go with the law and the Constitution of the United States thanks.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
No, it kind of doesn't. Please see European history, circa 1860s - 1940s.

I'll go with the law and the Constitution of the United States thanks.

Weren't you just criticizing me for making presumptions based on an American viewpoint?

 Manchu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Because you are asserting that on the grounds that a people has mixed with another, that they no longer have a right to self determination.

No, I didn't say that. I said that the "one pure people" approach being taken here, like Frazzled's mythical sovereign Quebec or Kovnik's romantic ideal, is not grounds for sovereignty today because that kind of account has never been true.

Seems like South Sudan disagrees.
The Irish disagreed and killed British until the British got right in the head.
Prior to the Pax Amiericana Alsace Lorraine was a region fought over.
Separatist movements go on all the time.

I'm truly not getting what you're trying to say.

Quebec was French property peopled by french citizens. It was conquered. Many of the descendants of those that were conquered wish to maintain their cultural identity. Ethnically both sides cames from Celts, Germanic Franks/Angles, and Normans. Its not a race thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
No, it kind of doesn't. Please see European history, circa 1860s - 1940s.

I'll go with the law and the Constitution of the United States thanks.

Weren't you just criticizing me for making presumptions based on an American viewpoint?

Beats your weird historical nonsense.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm truly not getting what you're trying to say.

Quebec was French property peopled by french citizens. It was conquered. Many of the descendants of those that were conquered wish to maintain their cultural identity.

France and French people have nothing to do with Quebec sovereignty. In fact, the only people who Québécois seem to like less than Anglos are Parisians. So let's leave that unhelpful line of thought to the side and get to the real point, which you identify as the Québécois desire to maintain their cultural identity. What I am saying is that a politics of exclusivity, up to and including secession, is not necessary to achieve that goal. And I'm saying that history, the things that have already occurred to bring us to the situation today when Québécois speak Québécois as citizens of Canada, seems to show as much.

 Manchu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Because you are asserting that on the grounds that a people has mixed with another, that they no longer have a right to self determination.

No, I didn't say that. I said that the "one pure people" approach being taken here, like Frazzled's mythical sovereign Quebec or Kovnik's romantic ideal, is not grounds for sovereignty today because that kind of account has never been true.

I wanted to reply, but I have a course starting soon. It'll have to wait for tomorrow. Sorry, and thanks for staying courteous despite our differences of opinion

 Manchu wrote:
No, I didn't say that. I said that the "one pure people" approach being taken here, like Frazzled's mythical sovereign Quebec or Kovnik's romantic ideal, is not grounds for sovereignty today because that kind of account has never been true.

There's no such thing as 'one pure people' anywhere. However, culturally, Quebec is, in fact, distinct from the rest of Canada.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm truly not getting what you're trying to say.

Quebec was French property peopled by french citizens. It was conquered. Many of the descendants of those that were conquered wish to maintain their cultural identity.

France and French people have nothing to do with Quebec sovereignty. In fact, the only people who Québécois seem to like less than Anglos are Parisians. So let's leave that unhelpful line of thought to the side and get to the real point, which you identify as the Québécois desire to maintain their cultural identity. What I am saying is that a politics of exclusivity, up to and including secession, is not necessary to achieve that goal. And I'm saying that history, the things that have already occurred to bring us to the situation today when Québécois speak Québécois as citizens of Canada, seems to show as much.

Poppycock my dear yankee!
It was France. Those people were French. Then the redcoats came and said shut up Frenchie! You're part of the British Empire now!
Strangely the French Canadians, like the Boers, Irish, Indians, Singaporians, Scots, Zimbabweans etc etc didn't particularly like it.
under manchue's theory of whatever the you're arguing, they all are racists and should shut the hell up.

Maybe they should. Maybe they shouldn't but don't give us this bogus concept that its racism. At best its regionalism, or love of better food. Frankly this is an error, because the rest of Canada has excellent beer, and of course bacon. This epic combination should not be broken. The UNION SHALL NOT BE DISSOLVED.

Now lets get back to how many WWII planes the Canadians would like to rent to insure Montreal doesn't secede...
Oh we have a broken down B58 hustler in there too. That'll really scare em!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
thanks for staying courteous despite our differences of opinion

Thank you for the same! John XXIII said, "and everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church." If that can be true for the Church then why not also other social institutions? I think history, which John called "the teacher of life," shows us -- teaches us that it is true of nations, too. That is my main point about the strength, and even unity, to be found in diversity.

 Frazzled wrote:
Poppycock my dear yankee!

Frazzled, I'll let this one slide on the basis of your obvious senility.

Frazzled wrote:At best its regionalism.

Not quite. As Kovnik pointed out, the fault lines here are "cultural." That is the language of nationalism. But we don't have to rely on Kovnik. Just look at Quebec internally during the last few decades, with all the nationalist rhetoric. They even renamed their provincial legislature the "National Assembly."

I should never have watched Game of Thrones. For some reason I just pictured Frazz yelling 'Un roi du nord!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Not quite. As Kovnik pointed out, the fault lines here are "cultural." That is the language of nationalism. But we don't have to rely on Kovnik. Just look at Quebec internally during the last few decades, with all the nationalist rhetoric. They even renamed their provincial legislature the "National Assembly."

And let me ask this: How is nationalistic sentiment (also called by some 'patriotism') a bad thing in this context? They're functionally a different culture than the nation they're joined to, is it wrong of them to want to exercise every culture's right (save where occupied by the United States) to self determination?

Historically, one culture being given rule over another has only ever led to violence and destruction.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
And let me ask this: How is nationalistic sentiment (also called by some 'patriotism') a bad thing in this context?

Because it speaks to a myth rather than a reality. Because it's a merely symbolic gesture masquerading as a solution to a real problem. Because it is a divisive and marginalizing to a significant portion of the people.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
is it wrong of them to want to exercise every culture's right to self determination?

No dominant culture has the right to discriminate against its constituent minorities. This is as true when it comes to Canada's relationship to Quebec as it is when it comes to Quebec's relationship with the Anglo minority.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Historically, one culture being given rule over another has only ever led to violence and destruction.

And this is why I advocate the notion of cultures governing together rather than ruling one over the other.

 Manchu wrote:
Because it speaks to a myth rather than a reality. Because it's a merely symbolic gesture masquerading as a solution to a real problem. Because it is a divisive and marginalizing to a significant portion of the people.

Myth and symbols can have a lot of power, and are very frequently the spark that ignites a firestorm.

 Manchu wrote:

No dominant culture has the right to discriminate against its constituent minorities. This is as true when it comes to Canada's relationship to Quebec as it is when it comes to Quebec's relationship with the Anglo minority.

And yet, this is what is happening, both between Canada and Quebec and Quebec and it's anglo minority. While two wrongs do not make a right, Quebec against the anglos might be lessened by an end to the Canada against Quebec angle.

While two wrongs do not make a right, Quebec against the anglos might be lessened by an end to the Canada against Quebec angle.

I think the two wrongs don't make a right maxim might cut closer to home with the separatists. If they feel oppressed and discriminated against by the rest of Canada, how can they justify engaging in the kind of treatment that they complain about, against their fellow Quebecois of anglo background? It's hypocritical.

Do you really think that independence would "end" the Canada against Quebec angle? If anything, wouldn't that recast their relationship more as rivals?

The last referendum was so close, that the Canadian government flew all the fighter jets out of Quebec so they couldn't claim them as their own.

Here's an important question... where's the strategic reserve of Maple Syrup stored?

I wonder who be the first country to recognize the new government if they do succed

 Mr Nobody wrote:
The last referendum was so close, that the Canadian government flew all the fighter jets out of Quebec so they couldn't claim them as their own.

I was listening to a story about the election on NPR on my drive home, and they reported that current polling has support for independence ~ 28%, and that 2/3 of those polled don't want another referendum raised on it.

 Manchu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
And let me ask this: How is nationalistic sentiment (also called by some 'patriotism') a bad thing in this context?

Because it speaks to a myth rather than a reality. Because it's a merely symbolic gesture masquerading as a solution to a real problem. Because it is a divisive and marginalizing to a significant portion of the people.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
is it wrong of them to want to exercise every culture's right to self determination?

No dominant culture has the right to discriminate against its constituent minorities. This is as true when it comes to Canada's relationship to Quebec as it is when it comes to Quebec's relationship with the Anglo minority.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Historically, one culture being given rule over another has only ever led to violence and destruction.

And this is why I advocate the notion of cultures governing together rather than ruling one over the other.

The Southerners wanted the right of self determination for their culture, which was different than the north. It ended badly.

The Southerners wanted the right of self determination for their culture, which was different than the north. It ended badly.

If you define "self-determination for their culture" as the right to own other people, to breed them like animals, to torture and kill them. I don't disagree with your larger point, and of course the North didn't fight primarily for the slaves. So the comparison isn't really bad. But we should be clear about what the Civil War was about.

Honestly, the only reason I'd oppose Quebec leaving is because they are unlikely to repay their percentage of the national debt, which is the highest in Canada at over $39,000 per person in Quebec. If they can cough up the money, I'd let them leave, after carving out a pathway along the south side of the province to ensure trans-canada freight and eliminate any border Quebec might have with the US.

Overall it's not the smartest move, but that "distinct society" garbage really irks me. Such is the level of my irritation.

 Mannahnin wrote:

If you define "self-determination for their culture" as the right to own other people, to breed them like animals, to torture and kill them. I don't disagree with your larger point, and of course the North didn't fight primarily for the slaves. So the comparison isn't really bad. But we should be clear about what the Civil War was about.

See again the part of my post about violence and destruction. The US Civil War is a wonderful example. According to some sources, 700,000+ were killed or wounded, and the cost of the war alone (never mind damage to infrastructure, etc) came to 80 billion dollars+ (in FY2011 dollars, CSA expenditures are based on estimates). This made it the most expensive war until World War II, and the most costly in human lives the US ever fought.

Personal Opinion: Depending on how Machiavellian they want to get, having someone who can be quickly and directly linked to the Canadian or US governments murder the Prime Minister shortly before the referendum would be just the right push, I think, to have it pass.

 Mannahnin wrote:

The Southerners wanted the right of self determination for their culture, which was different than the north. It ended badly.

If you define "self-determination for their culture" as the right to own other people, to breed them like animals, to torture and kill them. I don't disagree with your larger point, and of course the North didn't fight primarily for the slaves. So the comparison isn't really bad. But we should be clear about what the Civil War was about.

True, I just brought up that example to show how something like seperatism can be not as good as portrayed.
I'd hate to see things get ugly over in Quebec like they were in the 1960's and 70's. I remember when Trudeu's friend was kidnapped by seperatists, strangled with his own rosery and left in the trunk of a car. As a child living on the Maine side of the border, I couldn't understand why there were killings going on because I grew up surrounded by French people and they were some of the coolest people I've ever known in my life.