tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) (07/21/89)
In article <89Jul19.104948edt.18727@me.utoronto.ca> flint@me.utoronto.ca (Kenneth Flint) writes: >In article <604@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >>Please keep in mind that most people in Que'bec dont really care >>about Canada (Day). > >If this statement is true, then I guess I shouldn't have been surprised >by the Gallop poll released this week that stated the majority of >english speaking Canada believes it is Que'bec's goal to separate from >the country. > >In my opinion we would be losing a vibrant part of our culture. I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using plurial. Canada like many other countries (Swiss, Belgium...) do not have a true culture but is composed of a many cultures. For Canada that is an English Canadian culture and a French Canadian culture. The English Canadian culture (that I assume you are part of) would not lose anything in the event of a Que'bec separation. With or without separation, anyone who care may enjoy our 'vibrant' French Canadian culture. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Michel J. Tremblay at : Email : tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca Phone : +1 514 744 8200 ext. 2416 Snail Mail : Philips Electronique, Inc. 600 Boulevard Dr. Frederic Philips St-Laurent, Quebec Canada H4M 2S9 Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner !
charlesv@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Charles van Duren) (07/21/89)
In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca>, tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) writes: > In article <89Jul19.104948edt.18727@me.utoronto.ca> flint@me.utoronto.ca (Kenneth Flint) writes: > >In article <604@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: > >>Please keep in mind that most people in Que'bec dont really care > >>about Canada (Day). > > > > I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using > plurial. Canada like many other countries (Swiss, Belgium...) do not have a > true culture but is composed of a many cultures. For Canada that is an > English Canadian culture and a French Canadian culture. If you lived in the West, you would not say "English-Canadian" culture. There is no such thing out here; nor is there in Ontario. That is perhaps a large part of the problem. The rules were established before the settlement of the West, and before non-British Isles immigration. It would behoove Quebecois to remember this when dealing with the rest of Canada. Charles van Duren (Canadian, not Dutch-Canadian) "considering how dangerous everything is, nothing is really very frightening." Gertrude Stein
tony@yunexus.UUCP (Tony Wallis) (07/22/89)
... charlesv@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Charles van Duren) writes: >If you lived in the West, you would not say "English-Canadian" culture. >There is no such thing out here; nor is there in Ontario. That is perhaps >a large part of the problem. The rules were established before the settlement >of the West, and before non-British Isles immigration. It would behoove >Quebecois to remember this when dealing with the rest of Canada. > >Charles van Duren (Canadian, not Dutch-Canadian) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bravo ! I migrated to Canada from <somewhere> 23 years ago and took out Canadian citizenship as soon as possible (back then you had to wait 5 years). Since then I have been sickened both by fellow Canadians who "hyphenate" me (presumably because my lingering accent tells them I wasn't born here) and by government(s) that encourage them to do so. Tony Wallis (Canadian, not <ethnic>-Canadian) "When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my pistol." - Hermann Goering. "When I hear the word 'multi-culture' I retch." - Tony Wallis :-)
ndonald@ccu.UManitoba.CA (Nick Donaldson) (07/22/89)
About Canada's cultures. It seems that many people have reduced Canada's cultures to French and English. We cannot forget our other cultures, although they may not be as prevalent as these two. I wonder how people in places like Belgium and Switzerland manage. If I'm not mistaken, Switzerland has 7 major languages. I wonder if they have the same problems as Canada. I consider myself a Canadian. French, English, whatever, doesn't really matter. As was mentioned in an earlier article, the West was settled after all the rules were made. The French Canadian/English Canadian thing doesn't really play a big part out here in Manitoba.
rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) (07/23/89)
In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca> Michel J. Tremblay writes: >I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using >plurial. Canada like many other countries (Swiss, Belgium...) do not have a >true culture but is composed of a many cultures. For Canada that is an >English Canadian culture and a French Canadian culture. The English Canadian >culture (that I assume you are part of) would not lose anything in the event >of a Que'bec separation. With or without separation, anyone who care may >enjoy our 'vibrant' French Canadian culture. I believe this to be a mistake. I perceive the two Canadian cultures as being representatives of what has been termed the two `modernisms'. One based on the modernism of technology with its deterministic and anitseptic scientific sense of progress (linear time), and the other based on a rebuttal of romanticism: idealized neo-classicism; history becoming a much more convolved circumlocution on recurrent themes. In the worst case, the former degenerates into sterility, the latter into triteness; the antogonism of the Canadian melange acts as a bulwark against such a degeneracy - WHEN there is some recognition of their complementary natures. Regrettably, the fracturing into an exclusive bipolarity which is being fostered these days threatens to separate out the agents. No doubt the purists will be happy - until they recognize the long-term debilitating effects of their own particular brand of monomania. R. -- Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated | P.O. Box 9707 (613) 738-1338 x5013 | 3755 Riverside Dr. UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp | Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4
mikeb@sockeye.ee.ubc.ca (Mike Bolotski) (07/23/89)
In article <232@ccu.UManitoba.CA> ndonald@ccu.UManitoba.CA (Nick Donaldson) writes: > >Belgium and Switzerland manage. If I'm not mistaken, Switzerland has 7 major >languages. I wonder if they have the same problems as Canada. I consider myself Four languages. French, German, Italian and Romansch. Mike Bolotski, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada mikeb@ee.ubc.ca | mikeb%ee.ubc.ca@relay.ubc.ca ee.ubc.ca!mikeb@uunet.uu.net | ...!ubc-vision!ee.ubc.ca!mikeb
elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) (07/24/89)
In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: > >I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using >plurial. Canada like many other countries (Swiss, Belgium...) do not have a >true culture but is composed of a many cultures. ... I'm not sure what any of you people mean by "culture", but any way you slice it, the Swiss and Belgians have distinctive ethno-social traditions (call them "cultures" if you want). There are lots of them, granted. But a Swiss-German is not a German, and a Swiss French is not French. Swiss Italians are a slightly different story, but in any case, it is inaccurate to think that this thing called "culture" can be grouped by linguistic equivalence classes. Sometimes language is used to partition different groups (as in the many dialects spoken in Italy, for example), but I don't believe it is the first cause. Just look at the different sets of values that a vanilla "big-city" Canadian has from a vanilla "small-town" Canadian. Language is an over-rated cultural factor. I don't believe distinctive "cultures" are possible in young countries, at least not like the cultures that have developed elsewhere over many centuries. I consider this a blessing. There are seedier sides to maintaining one's "culture", such as xenophobia. A "culture" is just a big club, which reminds me of the Groucho Marx quip (-: . -------- -- Eugene Fiume Dynamic Graphics Project University of Toronto elf@dgp.toronto.edu
glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) (07/24/89)
In article <2875@yunexus.UUCP> tony@yunexus.UUCP (Tony Wallis) writes: >... charlesv@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Charles van Duren) writes: >>Charles van Duren (Canadian, not Dutch-Canadian) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Tony Wallis (Canadian, not <ethnic>-Canadian) I have been in Canada for 21 years, and yes, I did take out citizenship as soon as I could. I have always viewed myself since then as a full citizen of Canada, and in domestic and foreign policy matters, taken what I feel is a Canadian stand (don't ask me what I would do if I was asked to serve in the armed forces if Canada is at war with China, not a fair question, and probably an outdated one at that). However, I have a lot of trouble with people who say that Canadian is Canadian, and not some Canadian with ethnic ties. This seems to be what the United States avocates, the so called melting pot. I fully support the multi-culturalism policy of Canada. I believe that it helps to educate the population about the diversity of people in the country, and helps prevent prejudice. It probably also helps ease the English-French tension, though there are many political factors involved here, many times I feel that it is not so much a cultural clash as it is a power struggle. Perhaps the white majority can be cavalier about being Canadian and not <ethnic>-Canadian, but when your skin colour marks you as something different, I would think that you want the society to accept difference as part of the societal-norm, instead of sameness as the norm. Think about that! -- Godfrey Lee P.O. Box 9707 Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Dr. VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3802 FAX: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!glee CANADA K1G 3Z4
rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (07/24/89)
In article <1989Jul24.085326.28706@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) writes: >In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >>I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using >>plurial. >I don't believe distinctive "cultures" are possible in young countries, at >least not like the cultures that have developed elsewhere over many >centuries. Until the sixties Quebecois culture was largely rural, introspective and completely dominated by the Catholic church. English presence in such areas as commerce or other extroverted activities was largely by default, as can be seen with the rapidity of its purging once the inhabitants shucked the church's restraints and decided to do so. Some of side effects of the rebellion against the Church are the fall in the birthrate within the province, and the very materialistic and modernistic outlook that has replaced the former culture. In short Quebec 'culture' is in its adolescent stage, demanding to be recognized as an adult, and given all the privileges of an adult. They believe they have all the answers and a new way (though obviously the backlash from some of their education policies which are turning out multi-ethnic rather than french only show that not all the answers were completely thought through). In short, it behooves the rest of the country to bear with them while they go through the maturing process and debate whether to leave home and strike out on their own, or stick around and milk mom and pop for all they can. Kids do grow up, and so do cultures and for the most part they grow up to be responsible and far less self-centered than one would ever guess from their teen years. The trick is to outlast this stage. >Language is an over-rated cultural factor. Obviously you have little understanding of la Francophonie, or countries which have a government department to oversee the purity of their language. >Eugene Fiume It behooves (Western) Canadians who share a more American homogeneous melting pot type of culture, not to overlook the fact that though there may be an overlying Canadian patina, there are a lot of different roots to Canadian culture, and in some cases the roots are buried less deep than others. However, having said all this, Quebec culture produces an awful lot of obnoxious bastards at the moment, doesn't it :-? Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 4719 | !watmath!rwwetmore
lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) (07/24/89)
In article <362@fs1.ee.ubc.ca> mikeb@ee.ubc.ca writes: >In article <232@ccu.UManitoba.CA> ndonald@ccu.UManitoba.CA (Nick Donaldson) writes: >> >>Belgium and Switzerland manage. If I'm not mistaken, Switzerland has 7 major >>languages. I wonder if they have the same problems as Canada. I consider myself > >Four languages. French, German, Italian and Romansch. > Actually, Switzerland has four OFFICIAL languages, while Canada has two. This does not determine how many other languages are in daily use outside the individual homes in either country. Unlike Canada, however, the question of whether Swiss citizens of one language group should be "forced" to study another language, and tolerate its use around them, doesn't arise. On the other hand, even though Romansch is an official language, its use is declining and it is slowly being lost. After all, outside Switzerland Romansch is unknown -- merely another ancient language related to Sardi, Etruscan and the Romany dialect of the gypsies. Is this deliberate cultural repression, or rather the effect of global communication unknown only a generation ago? I consider myself a Quebecoise because my family has been there for many generations, both French and English. (Although my mother tongue is English, i of course speak French.) The strangest thing about the recent language issues is Quebec is the overwhelming conviction on the part of my French counterparts that association with the US is the answer. They seem to feel that the US will behave much as the Romans did, permitting local cultural and linguistic institutions to thrive while imposing economic and political Roman structures. Examples to the contrary are either dismissed, disbelieved or naively taken as inapplicable to the Quebec situation. I don't get it. However, time alone will tell.
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/25/89)
In article <1989Jul24.085326.28706@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) writes: >In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >> >>I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using >>plurial. Canada like many other countries (Swiss, Belgium...) do not have a >>true culture but is composed of a many cultures. ... > >I'm not sure what any of you people mean by "culture", but any way you >slice it, the Swiss and Belgians have distinctive ethno-social traditions >(call them "cultures" if you want). There are lots of them, granted. But a >Swiss-German is not a German, and a Swiss French is not French. Swiss >Italians are a slightly different story, but in any case, it is inaccurate >to think that this thing called "culture" can be grouped by linguistic >equivalence classes. Sometimes language is used to partition different >groups (as in the many dialects spoken in Italy, for example), but I don't >believe it is the first cause. Just look at the different sets of values >that a vanilla "big-city" Canadian has from a vanilla "small-town" >Canadian. Language is an over-rated cultural factor. > >I don't believe distinctive "cultures" are possible in young countries, at >least not like the cultures that have developed elsewhere over many >centuries. I consider this a blessing. There are seedier sides to >maintaining one's "culture", such as xenophobia. A "culture" is just >a big club, which reminds me of the Groucho Marx quip (-: . >-------- >-- >Eugene Fiume >Dynamic Graphics Project >University of Toronto >elf@dgp.toronto.edu I have not been following this discussion very carefully. My father's people are from Gaspe, P.Q., New Brunswick and France. There is also Native Indian in our blood. My mother's people are from New Brunswick, Ireland and England (Ireland - mom's great grandparents, England her mother). I am proud of being an Acadian. I prefer my French, Irish and Indian ancestry. But I am Canadian first. I am sick and tired of all this belly aching about cultures. If someone doesn't want to be a Canadian or they are not proud to be a Canadian, then go back to the country they came from. I realize that it is not that simple. But I am sick and tired of all the complaining. I went to Europe for the first time 2.5 years ago. I came home realizing how lucky we were in Canada. While not perfect, we have cleaner air, a good standard of living, and people who are often quite thoughtful. I reacted the same after being in England (although I really liked Scotland) and Trinidad & Tobago. We are lucky to be Canadians. But do you realize that my neighbour's children know the American national anthem better than the Canadian because of the T.V. they watch? How many people are really proud to be Canadians? Canada is a multi-cultural country. There should be French, English, Ukrainian, etc. schools where there is a need. But we are still Canadian first. I do not think that all government services should be French/English bilingual, and I prefer my French ancestry. There are not French speaking people everywhere. Just because they might visit that place, so what! What do they do in England? I like going to Amsterdam, for example and learning a few words in Dutch. I like going to Western Canada (or some of my friends in Toronto) and learning a few words in other languages. But English is the international language. I am not married to English. I don't care if someone invents a language and the whole world adopts it. But at the moment, English is used most frequently in North America and parts of Europe and other parts of the world. If you don't like Canada, leave. I'm all for trying to make a country better. I always try to be a better person. But it is necessary to appreciate what you have, first.
elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) (07/25/89)
In article <27944@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: >In article <1989Jul24.085326.28706@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) writes: > >>Language is an over-rated cultural factor. > Obviously you have little understanding of la Francophonie, or countries >which have a government department to oversee the purity of their language. > What's there to understand? In some countries, some bureaucrats have set up laboratories to fossilise artificially something that would otherwise mutate and thereby evolve into (gads!) something relevant to real people (that it will do this anyway is proof of the power of evolution). If language ain't moving, it's dead. French certainly isn't dead, but it is most certainly is not due to the pompous postures of committees and politicians (or the lobby groups pressuring them). The same "poke at stick at it" metaphor probably applies to "culture", though I've seen many "cultures" in Europe that are quaintly and happily frozen in amber. -- Eugene Fiume Dynamic Graphics Project University of Toronto elf@dgp.toronto.edu
GERARD@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (07/25/89)
In article <232@ccu.UManitoba.CA>, ndonald@ccu.UManitoba.CA (Nick Donaldson) writes: > About Canada's cultures. It seems that many people have reduced Canada's > cultures to French and English. We cannot forget our other cultures, although > they may not be as prevalent as these two. I wonder how people in places like > Belgium and Switzerland manage. Switzerland is doing quite well, I think. This is probably due to their strict compartimentalization forced by the mountains. These mountains have made Switzerland in to a country different from the rest for millenia (ask Ceasar about it, some time!). How is Belgium managing? Recently the government there fell over a language issue. Belgium is, unfortunately, not managing very well as far as languages go. "Language struggle" is a houshold term there. There is occasionaly violence (though not wide spread) in the border region between the two languages. Canada is not doing too bad. This is probably because French is located in the main in Quebec. Troubles only arise when you try to mix languages. When we stop trying that, many troubles will go away. Switzerland shows that one country can very well have several languages. If you don't try to force mixing them.
tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) (07/26/89)
In article <27944@watmath.waterloo.edu> you write: > Until the sixties Quebecois culture was largely rural, introspective and >completely dominated by the Catholic church. English presence in such areas >as commerce or other extroverted activities was largely by default, as can New-France was occupied!. In an occupied country (or territory) I have never seen the rulling class not taking over financially. So dont talk about 'English presence by default'. It does not make sense at all. >be seen with the rapidity of its purging once the inhabitants shucked the >church's restraints and decided to do so. I think you over emphasize the Church role. His main goal was to assert survival of the French Culture on the continent; and they did. > In short Quebec 'culture' is in its adolescent stage, demanding to be >recognized as an adult, and given all the privileges of an adult. >... >In short, it behooves the rest of the country to bear with them >while they go through the maturing process and debate whether to leave home >and strike out on their own, or stick around and milk mom and pop for all >they can. Kids do grow up, and so do cultures and for the most part they >grow up to be responsible and far less self-centered than one would ever >guess from their teen years. The trick is to outlast this stage. We are not kids asking permission, we are 'Constitutional prisonners' trying to recover out freedom. > However, having said all this, Quebec culture produces an awful lot of >obnoxious bastards at the moment, doesn't it :-? > >Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth >University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca >Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} >(519) 885-1211 ext 4719 | !watmath!rwwetmore Is this perception shared by most English(speaking)Canadians on the net? I am curious about that. Ross I think you over generalize. If you have grief against some individuals please be more specific and address your concern directly to them. Hatred litterature shall go to /dev/null. Michel J. Tremblay, tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclamer : The opinions expressed herein are solely mine and are not necessarily those of my employer. (Can my employer have opinions on its own :-)...) Le Roy est mort. Vive le Roy! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) (07/26/89)
In article <11622@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) writes: >If language ain't moving, it's dead. French certainly isn't dead, but it >is most certainly is not due to the pompous postures of committees and >politicians (or the lobby groups pressuring them). The primary goals of L'Acade'mie Francaise is to update and standardize the French language. They have been updating the vocabulary and the grammar rules over the last 400 years with great results. The language have changed and is keeping in pace with our changing society. However it is standard. French spelling is French spelling. There is no such thing as French-Canadian or Franco-Swiss spelling. Thanks to L'Acade'mie Francaise and to other cooperating committies within the Francophonie. For the 'anglo-languages' it's a different story: American spelling, British spelling, and such. Standardization bodies are a necessity in our modern world. You could not read these lines without the existence of CCITT, ISO and other Telecommunication Committies. Michel J. Tremblay, -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Philips Electronique, Inc. | tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca 600 Boulevard Dr. Frederic Philips | or St-Laurent, Que'bec | uunet!philmtl!tremblay Canada H4M 2S9 | +1 514 744 8200 ext. 2464 |--------------------------------- C'est pourtant si facile! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclamer : The opinions expressed herein are solely mine and are not necessarily those of my employer. (Can my employer have opinions on its own ?!...)
richardb@fear+loathing.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (07/26/89)
In article <6642@cognos.UUCP> rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: >In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca> Michel J. Tremblay writes: > >>I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using [stuff deleted] >>enjoy our 'vibrant' French Canadian culture. > >I believe this to be a mistake. I perceive the two Canadian cultures as >being representatives of what has been termed the two `modernisms'. One >based on the modernism of technology with its deterministic and anitseptic >scientific sense of progress (linear time), and the other based on a >rebuttal of romanticism: idealized neo-classicism; history becoming a much >more convolved circumlocution on recurrent themes. In the worst case, the >former degenerates into sterility, the latter into triteness; the antogonism >of the Canadian melange acts as a bulwark against such a degeneracy - WHEN there >is some recognition of their complementary natures. Regrettably, the fracturing >into an exclusive bipolarity which is being fostered these days threatens to >separate out the agents. No doubt the purists will be happy - until they >recognize the long-term debilitating effects of their own particular brand >of monomania. > > R. >-- >Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated > | P.O. Box 9707 >(613) 738-1338 x5013 | 3755 Riverside Dr. >UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp | Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4 Say bro', Could you repeat that in English (OR in French)? L o t s O f S p a r e L i n e s -- Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb
richardb@fear+loathing.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (07/26/89)
In article <1989Jul24.220904.22318@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >I have not been following this discussion very carefully. Obviously not... >My father's >people are from Gaspe, P.Q., New Brunswick and France. There is also >Native Indian in our blood. My mother's people are from New >Brunswick, Ireland and England (Ireland - mom's great grandparents, >England her mother). > >I am proud of being an Acadian. I prefer my French, Irish and Indian >ancestry. But I am Canadian first. I am sick and tired of all this >belly aching about cultures. If someone doesn't want to be a Canadian >or they are not proud to be a Canadian, then go back to the country >they came from. Its this kind of attitude that fuels the fire... >I realize that it is not that simple. But I am sick >and tired of all the complaining. > >I went to Europe for the first time 2.5 years ago. I came home >realizing how lucky we were in Canada. While not perfect, we have >cleaner air, a good standard of living, and people who are often quite >thoughtful. I reacted the same after being in England (although I >really liked Scotland) and Trinidad & Tobago. We are lucky to be >Canadians. > And be thankful for what you got, child. Your father worked long and hard for your standard of living... >But do you realize that my neighbour's children know the American >national anthem better than the Canadian because of the T.V. they >watch? How many people are really proud to be Canadians? > >Canada is a multi-cultural country. There should be French, English, >Ukrainian, etc. schools where there is a need. But we are still [ranting deleted] >someone invents a language and the whole world adopts it. But at the >moment, English is used most frequently in North America and parts of >Europe and other parts of the world. You've obviously never have been shopping in downtown Montreal dear... My mother has rarely gotton served in French by merchants on St. Catherine street. Things are better now, but slightly so. Any we're not in Tim-buck-too here deary... we're at home. >If you don't like Canada, leave. I think thats the general goal of the separatists... although they want to take the furniture and half of THEIR house. >I'm all for trying to make a country better. I always try to be a >better person. But it is necessary to appreciate what you have, first. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Try to get a bit more educated though, before you bother ranting on the net. There ARE books out there... S p a r e l i n e s -- Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb
afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) (07/26/89)
In article <627@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >For the 'anglo-languages' it's a different story: American spelling, British >spelling, and such. The American spelling seems to be an attempt to make English spelling easier. favourite->favorite, center¢re->center, metre->meter Unfortunately, Canadian newspapers/magazines seem to be adopting the American spellings. Canadianized English uses some British (humour,colour) spellings and some American spellings (tire<>tyre). We are moving towards the American language (as the US would like to claim) but as Michel pointed out, English is fragmenting into different global dialects whereas French is moving to one standard. (Maybe two, is the French-Canadian dialect being standardized?) >Standardization bodies are a necessity in our modern world. You could not >read these lines without the existence of CCITT, ISO and other >Telecommunication Committies. We need standards. Look at the mess of the Imperial weights and measures system (U.S. gallon,British gallon). We have the French to thank for early standardization of the SI (metric) system. (If I'm not mistaken there was an attempt to improve the calendar in France, also) Anthony //// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu //// "I can't believe the news today, I can't close my eyes and make it go away" -U2
flint@me.utoronto.ca (Kenneth Flint) (07/26/89)
In article <625@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) writes: >In article <27944@watmath.waterloo.edu> you write: > >> However, having said all this, Quebec culture produces an awful lot of >>obnoxious bastards at the moment, doesn't it :-? >>Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth >Is this perception shared by most English(speaking)Canadians on the net? >I am curious about that. >Michel J. Tremblay, tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca I as far as my views go, I do not share this perception. I have truly enjoyed Quebec and the people I've met there. I can not see how Quebec culture could produce any more obnoxious bastards than any other culture. No matter where you go or who you encounter you are bound to meet someone who will rub you the wrong way (if you let them). Ken -- Kenneth Flint flint@me.UTORONTO.BITNET UUCP: ...!utai!me!flint flint@me.utoronto.ca "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." Albert Einstein
manis@faculty.cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (07/27/89)
In article <625@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) writes: >> However, having said all this, Quebec culture produces an awful lot of >>obnoxious bastards at the moment, doesn't it :-? >> >>Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth > >Is this perception shared by most English(speaking)Canadians on the net? >I am curious about that. I wouldn't have used Ross' phrasing, but certainly in Western Canada, there isn't a lot of sympathy for the current Quebec position. Consider my own opinions: I have long since been a believer in peoples' rights for self-determination. Further, I have long championed changing the Anglophone domination of Quebec. I have supported bilingualism for many years (ever since the Bi-Bi Commission), thinking, mistakenly, that what the Quebecois wanted was a chance to participate fully in the affairs of Canada. As recently as a year ago, I posted to can.politics an article saying that I supported the principle of Quebec being a `distinct society', on the grounds that there are certainly many historical traditions (such as civil law) which are specific to Quebec. I had the mistaken idea that if those of us in the rest of Quebec extended the hand of goodwill, Quebec would reciprocate. The Bill 101 ruling, and the consequent National Assembly ruling, changed my beliefs. Apparently, it is not sufficient to require that French be given primacy. One must further debarraser les Anglos, by removing any trace of their presence from public view. All I could think of was the Nuernberg Laws in Nazi Germany, eliminating from public view the existence of German Jews. (I explicitly repudiate any comparison between the democratically elected government of Quebec and the fascist government of the Third Reich. The flavour is, however, the same). Not only the Anglos are affected, though: Cree, Mohawk, Inuit, and other aboriginal peoples have effectively been told to assimilate into the Francophone society of Quebec. The result is that I no longer feel at home in Quebec. This is a society which considers people such as myself (bilingual, but far more competent in English than French) to be foreigners, and which can persecute a small business for posting a sign saying `Ouvert tous les lundis/Open Mondays'. My vision of Canada is a bi-/multi-lingual one: we draw strength from our various cultures. The fact that Quebec seems to wish to be a monolithic society fills me with regret. The fact that francophone Quebecois media speak only of events in Quebec causes me to wonder whether francophones have any interest in the vision of Canada as a country built on many nations. The possibility that Quebecois consider they have more in common with Miami than with Toronto saddens me. ____________ Vincent Manis | manis@cs.ubc.ca ___ \ _____ The Invisible City of Kitezh | manis@cs.ubc.cdn ____ \ ____ Department of Computer Science | manis%cs.ubc@relay.cs.net ___ /\ ___ University of British Columbia | uunet!ubc-cs!manis __ / \ __ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 | (604) 228-2394 _ / __ \ _ "There is no law that vulgarity and literary excellence cannot ____________ coexist." -- A. Trevor Hodge
stewartw@warpdrive.UUCP (Stewart Winter) (07/27/89)
In article <1989Jul24.220904.22318@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: > >I am proud of being an Acadian. I prefer my French, Irish and Indian >ancestry. But I am Canadian first. I am sick and tired of all this >belly aching about cultures. If someone doesn't want to be a Canadian >or they are not proud to be a Canadian, then go back to the country >they came from. I realize that it is not that simple. This is such a natural reaction to have I don't know what the 'appropriate' way to deal with it is. My example is not of the culture of language, but culture of religion (i think). I went to see the Canadian Nation BasketBall team play at varsity arena (several years ago). The team they were matched against was Israel. The arena was packed ... unbelievably so and almost all were cheering for Israel. The patriotism exhibited for Israel was amazing; flags were waving, people cheering. Basketball doesn't fit in the world of religious experiences, so I put this into 'culture.' I know that I felt a great deal of anger at knowing these Canadians were supporting the opposition. I'm not sure that that is how I should have felt, but I've never decided what would have been better. The problem is that this is exactly the same concerns many Canadians have with naturalized Canadians that really don't put Canada first. The question then becomes should Canada be first for all Canadians and do the rest of us have the right to be angry at Canadians for whom Canada doesn't come first? Stewart -- Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3830 FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive UUCP: uunet!cognos!stewartw Ottawa, Ontario "The bird for the day is .... canary winged parakeet." CANADA K1G 3Z4
jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) (07/27/89)
In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca>, tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) writes: > In article <89Jul19.104948edt.18727@me.utoronto.ca> flint@me.utoronto.ca (Kenneth Flint) writes: > >In article <604@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: > >>Please keep in mind that most people in Que'bec dont really care > >>about Canada (Day). > > > >If this statement is true, then I guess I shouldn't have been surprised > >by the Gallop poll released this week that stated the majority of > >english speaking Canada believes it is Que'bec's goal to separate from > >the country. > > > >In my opinion we would be losing a vibrant part of our culture. > > I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using > plurial. Canada like many other countries (Swiss, Belgium...) do not have a > true culture but is composed of a many cultures. For Canada that is an > English Canadian culture and a French Canadian culture. The English Canadian > culture (that I assume you are part of) would not lose anything in the event > of a Que'bec separation. With or without separation, anyone who care may > enjoy our 'vibrant' French Canadian culture. Are you a Canadian? Then any other addition to the name is a qualifier and thus you are 'qualifying' your Canadian citizenship. I don't know about you but where I come from, if you qualify your committment to something, it usually means you really are not committed to the true value represented by that to which you say your are committed. I come from an 'Irish' heritage, yet I do not say that I am an Irish Candian, or a part of an Irish Candian Culture. I was either born or naturalized a Canadian citizen, and I am committed to Canada as a country, from east to west, north to south, and to its people, whether or French, English, Ukranian, Irish, Scottish, etc., descent. There may be bigotry, prejudice, crime, poor government, or many other ills that inevitably come when you have a mosaic of people and cultures, but compared to much of the rest of the countries of the world, I don't think I would or could live anywhere else. A country is both a geographic location and a mosaic of people. There aren't many others outside of Canada where you can travel up to 3000+ miles (or the equivalent in kms :-)), cross as many borders and meet such a rich diversity of people without hassle or challenge. If you really want to know what it means to be a Canadian, get in your car sometime and travel the Canadian highway system. Stop at Moncton, Sherbrooke, Lachine, Portage la Prairie, Biggar, Lac La Biche, Golden. Get out of your car, talk to the people, smell the fresh air. Listen to the sounds. See the mountains, the great lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. Canada will no longer be qualified, but will be who she is, a great country filled with great people and places.
lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (07/27/89)
In article <1458@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >There may be bigotry, prejudice, crime, poor government, or many other ills >that inevitably come when you have a mosaic of people and cultures, [...] Are you saying that if we didn't have this mosaic the ailments you mentioned would not exist in Canada? -- Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,decwrl,ncc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA It's 2:00 A.M.; Nobody looks ugly.
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/27/89)
In article <625@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) writes: >In article <27944@watmath.waterloo.edu> you write: > ... >> In short Quebec 'culture' is in its adolescent stage, demanding to be >>recognized as an adult, and given all the privileges of an adult. >>... >>In short, it behooves the rest of the country to bear with them >>while they go through the maturing process and debate whether to leave home >>and strike out on their own, or stick around and milk mom and pop for all >>they can. Kids do grow up, and so do cultures and for the most part they >>grow up to be responsible and far less self-centered than one would ever >>guess from their teen years. The trick is to outlast this stage. > >We are not kids asking permission, we are 'Constitutional prisonners' trying >to recover out freedom. Give me a break! I lived in Quebec in 1976 when the P.Q. were first elected. Bourassa was terrible. Neither French nor English liked him or trusted him. But when Levesque asked in the referendum to separate from Canada, the people said no; both French and English. Every province can complain about being constitutional prisoners. Ontario's Peterson did not want Free Trade. Atlantic Canada has very high unemployment... this is an unexpected constitutional right!! The West and the East are fed up with everything being decided in Central Canada. Maybe, we should throw up our hands in defeat and become the 51st State of the U.S. after all!!! Our supposed National Railway is being dismantled (except in Quebec and Ontario) thanks to Mulroney. Federally, each province doesn't get an equal vote. The same number of MP's should come from each province. Then you would see some changes. What about Atlantic Canada? Everyone ignores them because the Federal election is decided by Ontario and Quebec, because that is where the majority of the country's people live. That sucks!! The Constitution is not perfect but Meech Lake does not guarantee women's rights, minority rights, or Native Indian rights. Also, the idea of needing 10 provinces to agree to any future constitutional changes is very restrictive. I think that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be allowed to become provinces if they want to. But can you imagine trying to get everyone to agree? Because of my Native Indian blood, my ancestors were here before you were. Native Indians do not get a "distinct society" clause, NOBODY SHOULD. I am all for signs in Quebec being in French. After living in Montreal for so long, when I moved to Toronto, I was in culture shock. Everything was in English and I didn't like it. But, if Quebec wants to deny minority rights in Quebec, they don't deserve minority rights outside of Quebec. What's good for one province is good for them all. In my neighbourhood, the street signs are in English and Greek. In other areas they are in English and Italian or English and Chinese. Multi-culturalism is being stressed. Tolerance is being stressed. I'm not sure where our society is going. I know that I don't want to end up like the U.S. But if we don't want to end up a 51st State, we had better decide that being Canadian is not so bad and can even be improved; IF WE TRY. Elizabeth
jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) (07/27/89)
In article <688@aurora.AthabascaU.CA>, lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: > In article <1458@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: > > >There may be bigotry, prejudice, crime, poor government, or many other ills > >that inevitably come when you have a mosaic of people and cultures, [...] > > Are you saying that if we didn't have this mosaic the ailments you > mentioned would not exist in Canada? No.
TMCLELLA@UALTAVM.BITNET (Tim Mclellan) (07/27/89)
In article <625@philmtl.philips.ca>, Michel Tremblay writes: y) writes: >We are not kids asking permission, we are 'Constitutional prisonners' trying >to recover out freedom. Why does your freedom have to fetter western English speaking Canadians with your language? I suspect Quebec francophones would gain more support from WESC if they didn't shove their language down our throats. French is not a commonly recognized language "out here". There are communities within our cities, as well as towns that are predominately French. But that is no reason for the rest of us to have to put up with French within our share of the national government, nor within our regular lives. Bilingual consumer goods are redundant if the consumer speaks just English. If I were to travel to Spain, I wouldn't expect anyone to understand my English. I would be grateful if I found someone who did though. When I travel to Quebec, I wouldn't expect anyone to understand my English. I would be grateful if I found someone who did. Please don't have the audacity to think that if you travel to Western Canada that everyone should understand your French. Be grateful if you find someone who does. IMHO :{) Tim McLellan
tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel Tremblay) (07/28/89)
In article <1989Jul24.220904.22318@tmsoft.uucp(Elizabeth Doucette)> you write: >In article <1989Jul24.085326.28706@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) writes: >>In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >>> >>>I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using >>>plurial. Canada like many other countries (Swiss, Belgium...) do not have a >>>true culture but is composed of a many cultures. ... > >I am proud of being an Acadian. I prefer my French, Irish and Indian >ancestry. But I am Canadian first. I am sick and tired of all this >belly aching about cultures. If someone doesn't want to be a Canadian >or they are not proud to be a Canadian, then go back to the country >they came from. Well there is a litle problem with you proposition. Most immigrants to this land have chosen to be Canadians. On the other hand, French Canadian were FORCED to become Canadians. When we (the French) came here and established ourself, there was no problems. We had friendly relations with most native nations. However after the british occupation of our country (+- eastern Canada) things got bad for the French Canadians: seizure of land and goods, political prisonners, restricted civil rights, imposition of a foreign judiciary system, cutoff of relations with France, etc. The 'Lower-Canada repesentatives' and later the 'que'bec representatives' who agred to joined the Confederation in 1867 were representing the interests of the English Lords and the Dominion's Financial Institutions, not the interests of the Que'bec population. Although all these events and constraints are past, they have shaped French-Canada to be what it is today. For all these reasons, a lots of Que'bequois and French Canadians are not proud of been Canadians and dont want to be Canadians. For us, going back to our country mean Independence of Que'bec, unless Canada acknowledge the fact that we are not just 'yet an other culture' in the English-speaking Canadian melting-pot but a Distinct Society with more constitutional power. bien a vous, Michel J. Tremblay tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca Dieu et mon droit
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/28/89)
In article <1989Jul27.131633.14903@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes: >ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: > >> Federally, each province doesn't get >>an equal vote. The same number of MP's should come from each >>province. Then you would see some changes. > >Yep. Things would change, alright. For one, I'd move to PEI! :-) > >Quite frankly, if the same number of MP's came from each province, residents >of less populous provinces (PEI, for example) would have much more clout >than residents of more populous provinces. No they wouldn't. The residents would have the same clout. The only difference is that in one province there might be 0.5 million people voting for 1 M.P. and in the other province there might be 50,000 people voting for 1 M.P. The difference comes in the amount of work that each M.P. would have to do, for example, if each M.P. were to try to talk to each voter. > >The reason why central Canada (Ontario, Quebec) has so much influence in >Federal politics is that most of Canada's population is there. > Of course that's the reason. But that doesn't mean that the Atlantic provinces and the Western provinces, like the provinces of Ontario and Quebec determining what's going to happen to the whole country. And you can bet that Ontario and Quebec want to hang onto that power. I think it should be taken away from them. >John Elizabeth
tony@yunexus.UUCP (Tony Wallis) (07/28/89)
stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) writes: > [ about seeing the Canadian National Basketball team play against Israel > and the arena being packed with Canadians supporting Israel rather > than Canada .. ] > The problem is that this is exactly the same concerns many > Canadians have with naturalized Canadians that really don't put > Canada first. The question then becomes should Canada be first > for all Canadians and do the rest of us have the right to be > angry at Canadians for whom Canada doesn't come first? Yes, and yes. *sarcasm on* Canada - a pseudo-country where diverse ethnic/cultural groups attempt to eat their cakes and have them. *sarcasm off*
dbf@myrias.com (David Ferrier) (07/28/89)
In article <629@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >When we (the French) came here and established ourself, there was no >problems. We [...review of early Canadian history deleted...] >Although all these events and constraints are past, they have shaped >French-Canada to be what it is today. >For all these reasons, a lots of Que'bequois and French Canadians are not >proud of been Canadians and dont want to be Canadians. >For us, going back to our country mean Independence of Que'bec, unless >Canada acknowledge the fact that we are not just 'yet an other culture' >in the English-speaking Canadian melting-pot but a Distinct Society with >more constitutional power. You vastly overrate the potential impact of a group's historical origins, previous status, and cultural/national heritage on the course of present day-to-day political events. Just because the residents of Quebec province (or any political unit) had a certain origin or status in the past is not going to get them considered a separate nation today. The North American Indian tribes certainly had nationhood status at one time, but do not now, nor can ever hope to have. The blacks in the United States (some of them anyway) can trace their roots back to independant African states; they're not going to get one now! The mere existance of a strong and cohesive Quebec cultural national heritage is not going to bring about separate nationhood either. If it were otherwise, present-day descendants of emigrants from the Ukraine would not still be vociferously campaigning to have the USSR "free" "their" "country". -- David Ferrier | computer: Edmonton, Alberta | a million morons uunet!myrias.COM!dbf | working at the speed of light
jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) (07/29/89)
In article <6666@fear+loathing.UUCP>, richardb@fear+loathing.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) writes: > In article <1989Jul24.220904.22318@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: > >I have not been following this discussion very carefully. > > Obviously not... ------------Lots of sarcasm deleted here---------------- > Try to get a bit more educated though, before you bother ranting on the > net. There ARE books out there... Well now, does anybody out there realize that having an education to some level predetermined by this gentleman is a requirement for posting to the net? Perhaps, sir, you could answer one or two questions: 1) What level of education is required for posting (in your opinion, of course)? In what subjects must the person be educated? Is there a certification required before you can post? 2) What level of education do you have, and does it, in fact, qualify you to post to the net? Please sir, I wish to keep posting. So please tell me what the requirements are........:-) > > S > p > a > r > e > > l > i > n > e > s > -- > Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardb
dgibbs@bnr-fos.UUCP (David Gibbs) (07/29/89)
In article <1989Jul28.003559.25233@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >In article <1989Jul27.131633.14903@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu >(John DiMarco) writes: >>ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >> >>> Federally, each province doesn't get >>>an equal vote. The same number of MP's should come from each >>>province. Then you would see some changes. >> >>Yep. Things would change, alright. For one, I'd move to PEI! :-) >> >>Quite frankly, if the same number of MP's came from each province, residents >>of less populous provinces (PEI, for example) would have much more clout >>than residents of more populous provinces. > >No they wouldn't. The residents would have the same clout. The only >difference is that in one province there might be 0.5 million people >voting for 1 M.P. and in the other province there might be 50,000 >people voting for 1 M.P. The difference comes in the amount of work >that each M.P. would have to do, for example, if each M.P. were to try >to talk to each voter. > >Elizabeth The general principal in federal elections is one person one vote, with the hope that all the votes will be about equal. If we distribute the M.Ps equally by province we don't get that. Lets use your figures of .5 Million per M.P. (say Ontario) and 50,000 (P.E.I?). These probably won't be accurate, but should justify my point. Let's say you and 10,000 people get together to fight for a certain point. In P.E.I, that is probably enough to elect an M.P. (only about half the eligible voters vote) so you would have just under 50% of the needed amount, or at worst, you would have 20% which gives you a big headstart. You will put an M.P. in. Now lets say you are in Ontario with your 10,000 people. What M.P. is going to notice you? You comprise at best 2% of the vote. And the difference is not between .5 million and 50,000 -- that is only a difference of one order of magnitude. The actual population figures for Ontario (estimated 1987 data based on 1986 census from a 1989 almanac) are about 9,270,000 and for P.E.I are 127,000. If we work with say 20 M.P.'s per province (this wouldn't too drastically change the size of parliament, and makes for easy figuring). Would give figures of 463,500 (about .5 million) for Ontario, and 6350 for P.E.I. That is a bit steeper difference. My 10,000 people could probably elect two or even three M.P.s in P.E.I. Obviously each resident of P.E.I. has a lot more clout. Also, if we give all of the provinces the same number of M.P.s, what do we give the teritories? Do we give them the same number as the provinces? (I think one of the territories had a population about 1/5 that of P.E.I, in which case it would have 1270 people per M.P.) Do we ignore them altogether? Even with the current system, anyone in the more urban provinces has less clout per voter than in the less urban, and a voter in P.E.I has the most clout. And anyone in a city has less clout. -David (Remember Canada in supposed to be a nation of Canadian citizens, not a union of semi-independent provinces.)
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/29/89)
In article <629@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >In article <1989Jul24.220904.22318@tmsoft.uucp(Elizabeth Doucette)> you write: >>In article <1989Jul24.085326.28706@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) writes: >>>In article <609@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >>>> >>>>I dont know how you can talk about 'our (canadian) culture' without using >>>>plurial. Canada like many other countries (Swiss, Belgium...) do not have a >>>>true culture but is composed of a many cultures. ... >> >>I am proud of being an Acadian. I prefer my French, Irish and Indian >>ancestry. But I am Canadian first. I am sick and tired of all this >>belly aching about cultures. If someone doesn't want to be a Canadian >>or they are not proud to be a Canadian, then go back to the country >>they came from. I also wrote... ** If someone doesn't want to be a Canadian ** or they are not proud to be a Canadian, then go back to the country ** they came from. I realize that it is not that simple. But I am sick ** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ** and tired of all the complaining. ** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Well there is a litle problem with you proposition. >Most immigrants to this land have chosen to be Canadians. On the other >hand, French Canadian were FORCED to become Canadians. >When we (the French) came here and established ourself, there was no >problems. We had friendly relations with most native nations. However This is simply not true. Often we don't want to admit the injustices that we have done. And the Native Indians have had many injustices done to them. But whether we talk about languages (English people being denied rights in Quebec; French people being denied rights elsewhere) or pollution (Sudbury polluting the environment), we have to clean up our own back yard before we can complain about others. We have to clean up our own back yard before others will take us seriously. >after the british occupation of our country (+- eastern Canada) >things got bad for the French Canadians: seizure of land and goods, >political prisonners, restricted civil rights, imposition of a foreign >judiciary system, cutoff of relations with France, etc. And you think that the Native Indians freely gave away their lands? >The 'Lower-Canada repesentatives' and later the 'que'bec representatives' >who agred to joined the Confederation in 1867 were representing the >interests of the English Lords and the Dominion's Financial Institutions, >not the interests of the Que'bec population. > >Although all these events and constraints are past, they have shaped >French-Canada to be what it is today. It shapes CANADA what we are today. Do you think Newfoundland has benefited from being part of Canada? Hell, do you think anyone except Ontario and Quebec have benefited very much? No, they haven't. > >For all these reasons, a lots of Que'bequois and French Canadians are not >proud of been Canadians and dont want to be Canadians. At the moment I'm not proud of being a Canadian either but at least I've decided to try to do something about it. My ancestors are from here (Native Indians), France and the U.K. If I don't like it here I, too, have the choice to try to make it better, or to leave. >For us, going back to our country mean Independence of Que'bec, unless >Canada acknowledge the fact that we are not just 'yet an other culture' >in the English-speaking Canadian melting-pot but a Distinct Society with >more constitutional power. > >bien a vous, > >Michel J. Tremblay >tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca > >Dieu et mon droit Elizabeth
alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo Gariepy) (07/29/89)
In article <6642@cognos.UUCP rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: >perceive representatives termed modernisms modernism technology >deterministic anitseptic scientific sense progress linear >rebuttal romanticism idealized neo-classicism history convolved >circumlocution recurrent themes former degenerates sterility >latter triteness antogonism melange bulwark degeneracy recognition >complementary natures Regrettably fracturing exclusive bipolarity >fostered threatens separate agents purists recognize long-term >debilitating effects particular monomania. > R. >-- >Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated Sure Ray, you can say that again... Just in case anyone thinks I'm taking this out of context: "which the had an who have if while and had where to by are then for is" In this world of extremes, our cultural differences can create an interesting and productive balance, if we'll only let them. Alonzo Gariepy Canadian-American
edhew@xenitec.uucp (Ed Hew) (07/29/89)
In article <629@philmtl.philips.ca> tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca (Michel J. Tremblay) writes: > >Well there is a litle problem with you proposition. >Most immigrants to this land have chosen to be Canadians. On the other >hand, French Canadian were FORCED to become Canadians. <brief segment of Canadian history used to live here> >For all these reasons, a lots of Que'bequois and French Canadians are not >proud of been Canadians and dont want to be Canadians. How our ancestors got to Canada is not of particular relevence. What is significant is that neither of us have to stay here. There are no Canadian border police to shoot us if we try to crawl over the barbed wire. We are totally free to emigrate to any country that will have us. I am not so totally determined to give up what we as a nation have, as you appear to be. I would much rather improve on our base as try to destroy it, as some would do. >bien a vous, y bce dobre do vas >Michel J. Tremblay >tremblay@philmtl.philips.ca Ed. A. Hew Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@egvideo.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!egvideo!edhew ->home: changing to: edhew@xenitec.uucp [but be patient for new maps]
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/30/89)
(Because of my editor I've had to delete part of my "reference:" line. In article <814@bnr-fos.UUCP> dgibbs@bnr-fos.UUCP (David Gibbs) writes: >In article <1989Jul28.003559.25233@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >>In article <1989Jul27.131633.14903@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu >>(John DiMarco) writes: >>>ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >>> >>>> Federally, each province doesn't get >>>>an equal vote. The same number of MP's should come from each >>>>province. Then you would see some changes. >>> >>>Yep. Things would change, alright. For one, I'd move to PEI! :-) >>> >>>Quite frankly, if the same number of MP's came from each province, residents >>>of less populous provinces (PEI, for example) would have much more clout >>>than residents of more populous provinces. >> >>No they wouldn't. The residents would have the same clout. The only >>difference is that in one province there might be 0.5 million people >>voting for 1 M.P. and in the other province there might be 50,000 >>people voting for 1 M.P. The difference comes in the amount of work >>that each M.P. would have to do, for example, if each M.P. were to try >>to talk to each voter. >> > >>Elizabeth > > > The general principal in federal elections is one person one vote, with >the hope that all the votes will be about equal. If we distribute the >M.Ps equally by province we don't get that. Lets use your figures of >.5 Million per M.P. (say Ontario) and 50,000 (P.E.I?). These probably >won't be accurate, but should justify my point. Let's say you and >10,000 people get together to fight for a certain point. In P.E.I, >that is probably enough to elect an M.P. (only about half the eligible >voters vote) so you would have just under 50% of the needed amount, or >at worst, you would have 20% which gives you a big headstart. You will >put an M.P. in. Now lets say you are in Ontario with your 10,000 people. >What M.P. is going to notice you? You comprise at best 2% of the vote. > > [...] >-David >(Remember Canada in supposed to be a nation of Canadian citizens, > not a union of semi-independent provinces.) Of course David is right. When I wrote the above, I was thinking about my suggestion re equal clout that a province would have. As I've mentioned in other postings, this was just a suggestion. I was talking about being fed up with Quebec's complaints because the situation is a lot worse, and much more unfair in other provinces. In another posting I mentioned other suggestions and have asked for Timothy and others to come up with other suggestions. The problem is that the current system is not working. Ontario and Quebec are the richest provinces because of their population. Because of their population (and number of M.P.'s) the government buys their votes with various bribes, (oops, industries!). Yes, I'm being sarcastic. People only complain, they don't come up with solutions. Elizabeth