PDA

View Full Version : Quebec declared nation 'within Canada'...


freddie
28-11-2006, 20:19
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/11/23/canada.quebec.ap/index.html)

Damn Frenchies. :p
That's just the first step before the whole country is hacked in two pieces. I don't understand how a french culture who's just another kind of indo-european culture would be so eager to separate itself from it's english part. If anybody should deserve to be called themselves "nation within Canada" it's the Native Americans.

haku
29-11-2006, 03:48
Vive le Québec libre. :D

Anyway, that "nation within Canada" declaration is just words, there's nothing concrete behind it, the Inuits in the north have been recognized as a nation for years and that didn't change anything for them or Canada, so the Anglo-Saxon majority can relax, it won't lose its supremacy.

And even if Québec became independant one day, the rest of Canada wouldn't have to stay cut in half, it could simply merge with the US (except for the Inuit part i guess), it's not like there's any difference between the Anglo-Saxons living north of the 49th parallel and those living south of it.

freddie
29-11-2006, 07:27
It's a dangerous precedence imo. Something they'll no doubt try to use to their advantage a decade from now. When you offer them a finger they'll take the hand.

Inuits never threaten of becoming seperate from Canada either so they aren't a clear and present danger to the unity as much as the separatists in Quebec are - a movement that stems out of terrorism, mind you. Smells like Palestine, almost. :p

If you ask me there's a HUGE difference between Anglo-saxon Canadians and Americans, but that's just my opinon. Both socio-political, economic and genetic (eventhough Nothern parts of the US share much of the Anglo-saxon genotype with Canadians, but that's irrelevant, if you consider the extent of intermixing between cultures.)

haku
30-11-2006, 01:25
Ok, but if the people living in Manitoba and North Dakota for example are so hugely different that they deserve their own separate countries (even though they speak the same language, have the same ancestry, and share basically the same culture), why is it that Quebeckers who are undeniably even more hugely different (different language, different ancestry, different culture) don't have the right to a separate country?

Or to take another comparison, why was it alright for Slovenia to break away from Yugoslavia but it would be unacceptable for Quebec to break away from Canada? Quebec is more different from the rest of Canada than Slovenia was from the rest of Yugoslavia.

Don't get me wrong, i actually don't think Quebec should secede, i support the creation of a European federation, so i'm not gonna support the secession from a North American one, i'm just saying that if Liechtenstein, San Marino, or Andorra have the right to independance, surely Quebec should have that right too.

The root of the problem i think is that Quebec never really chose to be part of the Canadian federation, back when Quebec was a French colony, it was annexed by force to the British colonies, French settlers were forced to swear allegiance to the Queen of England (supreme humiliation), and a forced anglicization of Quebec was attempted for many decades (with moderate success), and finally when the British colonies founded the Canadian federation, Quebec was not given any other choice but to join. All of that has left a long lasting resentment in Quebeckers.

It's true that Quebec is not the only territory that was annexed by force to Canada or the US; Texas, California, Oregon (the original Oregon which covered the area from California to Alaska) all wanted to remain independant. With time they got over it (probably because they were heavily colonized by Anglo-Saxons), Quebec never did.

freddie
30-11-2006, 04:11
Ok, but if the people living in Manitoba and North Dakota for example are so hugely different that they deserve their own separate countries (even though they speak the same language, have the same ancestry, and share basically the same culture), why is it that Quebeckers who are undeniably even more hugely different (different language, different ancestry, different culture) don't have the right to a separate country?

What do you mean? Manitoba and North Dakota aren't seperate countries. One is a province in Canada the other a state in the USA. Or did you mean the Canada/USA divide? Because that's a different story altogether. It's part of a larger movement of events, compared to a plight of a lone province trying to separate.

Or to take another comparison, why was it alright for Slovenia to break away from Yugoslavia but it would be unacceptable for Quebec to break away from Canada? Quebec is more different from the rest of Canada than Slovenia was from the rest of Yugoslavia.

There's an absolutely HUGE difference, imo.
1.) First of all Canada itself is a colony which was established somewhat recently (speaking from the history and development of nations perspective), and Quebec is just a province within that entity. You can't compare "states" in the USA and "provinces" in Canada to national countries that stem back more than a millenium at least. The first proto-Slovene country was established around the year 560 and was also considered the first slavic political entity ever.

2.) European countries tend to be "national countries", which means most of it's inhabitants are genetically still a part of the extended family (despite the recent influx of immigrants). So this persistant nationalism Eurpean countries are displaying despite EU trying to glue everything together is somewhat easy to explain looking at it from that perspective. This certainly doens't apply to most states in the USA and even less to to provinces in Canada (with a few notable exceptions, I'd reckon). Can the francophones really speak for a province that's ethnically so ridiculously diverse? The French established the province I give you that. But that's water under the bridge. Other people have since come there and made a life for themselves. Some of them indentify themselves as Canadians. The francophones can't even use "we were here first" demagogy since infact they WEREN'T. Sure in Slovenia vox populi was overwhelmingly for independance but you have to consider Slovenia is 99,9999% slavic and ...

3.) (and this is probably the most valid argument I can give). Slovenia would never break away from Yugoslavia weren't it for the fact that Serbians slowly established a centralized economic regime where Belgrade was leeching resources from other (more productive) Republics. On one hand you can say it evolved into a raging nationalism that ended the dream of a common slavic state, but it all started with economy. That was the initial spark. Nationalism just added fuel to the fire.
Now with Quebec I can't see that problem AT ALL. Infact it's one of the more impoverished Provinces. If anything it's them leeching resources from other provinces. Could this raging nationalism be a concialed resentment from the francophone side given the fact they play nothing but a microscopic role in North American Free Trade Organisation?

4.) Seperatists in Quebec (from reports I've read at least) identify "fear of cultural assimilation and initial annihilation" as their basic urge for wanting a seperate country. I'm sorry but that's rubbish. As long as there's an academic authority and population of +500.000 chances of complete annihilation are absolutely zero. Again I'll draw a comparison with Slovenia. During our turbolent past we were forced to accept many languages as our lingua franca. German and Hungarian (Austro-Hungarian empire), French (Illirian Provinces), Italian (facist occupation of our capital) and most notably Serbo-Croatian. Especially the last one (which was heavily enforced as an official language for 50 years in Yugoslavia) could potentially be a destructive force that would effecivelly errase any trace of our culture since the language itself was of Slavic origin and as such pretty similar to our own. And yet... it didn't. All it took was a nation of a million. Same with Kosovar Albanians. They were heavily tramppled while being a part of Yugoslavia yet they're still around. Identifying themselves as Albanians in the sea of Slavs around them.
I don't understand where this manic fear of one's culture being annihilated comes from, honestly. Everything that stemed from the french in particular has shown itself to be incredibly resiliant. And more to the point: no one is FORCING anyone to accept the Anglo-saxon culture. Most of them are doing it by choice. Just like people in Europe are doing it as well. Doesn't mean we'll all speak accented English in 100 years. Italians will still be Italians and French willl be French. And I'm sure Quebeckers will still be Quebeckers as well. Even if they don't have their own country to protect their fragile francophone ego.

coolasfcuk
30-11-2006, 04:45
freds you changes too quick.. you knew i was coming to contest the 'first Slavic country' comment :heh:

i also agree that comparing North Dakota and Manitoba was a bad idea as well...

there's lots other things, but my deadline is calling meeeeeeeee

i hoavent been in canada, but man, you could say that North dakota(ive been) compared to motropolitan NYC is like two different countries... the different ways of speaks are almost like 2 different languages - like for example in North Dakota you'd say: "Can i have some POP, please" while shoppong at McDonalds, while in NYC that would't fly :lol: (excuse the bad joke)

Talyubittu
30-11-2006, 07:40
I don't see what the big deal is... Why keep a province that is trying to break free anyways. Thats only casing trouble within the countries borders. One of the only downsides is that if Quebec did break away - Canada's population would plummet profoundly. Not to mention it would lose it's raninking as the largest country in the world.