|
Post by franko on Nov 28, 2006 11:49:33 GMT -5
It gets even more confusing. What if I am Acadian in New Brunswick? What if I am Francophone in Manitoba? What if you were born in St. Pierre et Miquelon to Newfoundland parents and moved to Newfoundland and was raised in Newfoundland? Then you're just a mess! ;D
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Nov 28, 2006 11:52:08 GMT -5
So, do I have a double nationality this morning ? ;D What happens if I am a Quebecois living in Ontario ? Is Quebec a new Nation of the Quebecois form a new Nation ? It gets even more confusing. What if I am Acadian in New Brunswick? What if I am Francophone in Manitoba? What about Anglophones that live in Quebec..... What a mess.... Methink a big ass can of worms was just opened...
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 28, 2006 12:11:54 GMT -5
Well, my heritage is French (Acadian), Irish and Miq'maq. Mrs Dis is Polish, Austrian, German and Scottish.
Didn't mean anything before. Shouldn't mean anything in the future either.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 30, 2006 18:41:37 GMT -5
I hate this resolution....
It doesn't actually have any kind of legal or moral weight, yet now the ROC believes that it's given something to Quebec.
It's actually against everything I believe in myself - because it mentions Québécois and not Quebeckers, and focuses precisely on the type of "ethnic nationalism" that doesn't really exist in Quebec anymore. Quebeckers read the paper in French and see "Québécois" in the Federal text, and read it as meaning "Quebeckers"... only in English is there a different word for French-speaking Quebeckers than for all inhabitants of Quebec.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2006 19:02:23 GMT -5
I hate this resolution.... It doesn't actually have any kind of legal or moral weight, yet now the ROC believes that it's given something to Quebec. It's actually against everything I believe in myself - because it mentions Québécois and not Quebeckers, and focuses precisely on the type of "ethnic nationalism" that doesn't really exist in Quebec anymore. Quebeckers read the paper in French and see "Québécois" in the Federal text, and read it as meaning "Quebeckers"... only in English is there a different word for French-speaking Quebeckers than for all inhabitants of Quebec. That is exactly why I hate it too. This goes to the Liberal party and their desperation. Of course, dimwit Harper joins the dance. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 30, 2006 20:43:07 GMT -5
I hate this resolution.... It doesn't actually have any kind of legal or moral weight, yet now the ROC believes that it's given something to Quebec. It's actually against everything I believe in myself - because it mentions Québécois and not Quebeckers, and focuses precisely on the type of "ethnic nationalism" that doesn't really exist in Quebec anymore. Quebeckers read the paper in French and see "Québécois" in the Federal text, and read it as meaning "Quebeckers"... only in English is there a different word for French-speaking Quebeckers than for all inhabitants of Quebec. That is exactly why I hate it too. This goes to the Liberal party and their desperation. Of course, dimwit Harper joins the dance. *sigh* Well, a properly labeled resolution, with actual communication from the PM and an explanation about what this means/doesn't mean, could have been of real value - not legally binding, yet a nice expression to Quebec from the rest of the country that they're respected within the country as a distinct group, and not "just another province that should do everything like everyone else". Harper just throwing this out there to spite the Bloc and the Liberals just won't cut it. It's taking a potential symbol and pissing on it to make a point.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 30, 2006 20:50:19 GMT -5
I hate this resolution.... It doesn't actually have any kind of legal or moral weight, yet now the ROC believes that it's given something to Quebec. It's actually against everything I believe in myself - because it mentions Québécois and not Quebeckers, and focuses precisely on the type of "ethnic nationalism" that doesn't really exist in Quebec anymore. Quebeckers read the paper in French and see "Québécois" in the Federal text, and read it as meaning "Quebeckers"... only in English is there a different word for French-speaking Quebeckers than for all inhabitants of Quebec. Now there is something I didnt know sounds like I actually screwed up ... I thought Quebeckers refered to "people of Quebec" (ie french and english) and Quebecois referred to the french-speaking Quebeckers (ie francophone).
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 30, 2006 21:37:13 GMT -5
Are Québecois not distinct and separate from Quebeckers?
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 30, 2006 21:41:29 GMT -5
I thought Quebeckers refered to "people of Quebec" (ie french and english) and Quebecois referred to the french-speaking Quebeckers (ie francophone). In English, yes. In French, we call everyone in Quebec "Québécois" and rarely refer to francophones only - or if we do, it's by calling them francophones! In other words, in French, Québécois means what Quebecker means in English.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 30, 2006 22:00:35 GMT -5
I thought Quebeckers refered to "people of Quebec" (ie french and english) and Quebecois referred to the french-speaking Quebeckers (ie francophone). In English, yes. In French, we call everyone in Quebec "Québécois" and rarely refer to francophones only - or if we do, it's by calling them francophones! In other words, in French, Québécois means what Quebecker means in English. A succinct and PC definition. However, on the street... Nonetheless it's a good sound-bite and leaves no evident bruises. If only life were lived on paper, or photons. The only cure for xenophobia is a brain-drain of native talent coupled with a healthy dose of immigration, preferably non-Caucasian. The real world will eventually triumph, unless women suddenly abandon clubs and professions en masse and start dropping babies like affadavits. Long live democracy!
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 30, 2006 22:31:08 GMT -5
I thought Quebeckers refered to "people of Quebec" (ie french and english) and Quebecois referred to the french-speaking Quebeckers (ie francophone). In English, yes. In French, we call everyone in Quebec "Québécois" and rarely refer to francophones only - or if we do, it's by calling them francophones! In other words, in French, Québécois means what Quebecker means in English. But in your original post you stated that you were upset because the motion means Quebecois and not Quebecker .... if everyone in French is Quebecois and the motion refers to Quebecois than why are you upset it doesn't mention Quebecker??
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 30, 2006 23:22:48 GMT -5
In English, yes. In French, we call everyone in Quebec "Québécois" and rarely refer to francophones only - or if we do, it's by calling them francophones! In other words, in French, Québécois means what Quebecker means in English. But in your original post you stated that you were upset because the motion means Quebecois and not Quebecker .... if everyone in French is Quebecois and the motion refers to Quebecois than why are you upset it doesn't mention Quebecker?? I'm upset because within Quebec we've been trying to create an integrated society for all who live in Quebec, yet the resolution mentions only a part of that integrated society. The resolution, in French, sounds fine. But in English it creates a split by using a word that has a more specific meaning in English than the one used in French. It's as if the UN passed a resolution saying that white anglo-saxon Canadians were the best nation in the world. It's a good thing to have said, but you don't want it to be said about only a portion of an integrated society.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 1, 2006 8:41:59 GMT -5
I thought Quebeckers refered to "people of Quebec" (ie french and english) and Quebecois referred to the french-speaking Quebeckers (ie francophone). In English, yes. In French, we call everyone in Quebec "Québécois" and rarely refer to francophones only - or if we do, it's by calling them francophones! In other words, in French, Québécois means what Quebecker means in English. I'm not sure I completely agree with the subtle distinction you make nor that Harper is actually trying to isolate french speaking Quebecois with this motion. I do agree that the motion has no real legal legs in its present form but it's been demonstrated over and over that trying to recognize Quebec as the distinct nation that it is and give them the tools that goes with it in the same breath can't be done as ROC feels that when Quebec receives the tool to promote and protect it's identity that it takes something away from them. I see it as a step.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 1, 2006 10:51:48 GMT -5
In English, yes. In French, we call everyone in Quebec "Québécois" and rarely refer to francophones only - or if we do, it's by calling them francophones! In other words, in French, Québécois means what Quebecker means in English. I'm not sure I completely agree with the subtle distinction you make nor that Harper is actually trying to isolate french speaking Quebecois with this motion. I do agree that the motion has no real legal legs in its present form but it's been demonstrated over and over that trying to recognize Quebec as the distinct nation that it is and give them the tools that goes with it in the same breath can't be done as ROC feels that when Quebec receives the tool to promote and protect it's identity that it takes something away from them. I see it as a step. I'm curious Doc. What do you think is missing in terms of additional power or autonomy for Quebec. What do you wish you had that you don't have now? Since I moved to the US ten years ago (from Montreal where I was born and raised) I have seen first hand how little power US states have relative to the federal government. Despite strong regional identities this is still a country dominated by the federal government - when I look at my paycheck the vast majority of taxes are federal; the state income tax rate in Massacusetts is 5%! In Canada the difference couldn't be more stark. Provinces have much more autonomy over economic and social policy within their borders. They can and do tax the heck out of their citizens. Quebec has its own pension plan, labor laws, the province takes an active role in economic development. Combine that with the fact that Quebec has been able to implement language laws that, although protecting its identity, would nonetheless be laughed out of any court in the USA as a rank violation of individual freedom of speech. From that perspective it seems that Quebec, indeed all the provinces, have a good deal and high degree of control over their destinies.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2006 13:05:03 GMT -5
Combine that with the fact that Quebec has been able to implement language laws that, although protecting its identity, would nonetheless be laughed out of any court in the USA as a rank violation of individual freedom of speech. From that perspective it seems that Quebec, indeed all the provinces, have a good deal and high degree of control over their destinies. BH, while I think Bill 101 was wrong, but I sincerely didn't want the French language disappearing from the Canadian identity. On that premise, while I disagree with it, I think I can understand where it comes from nowadays. Specifically, while it has nothing to do with the thread Franko started, I fear that Canada is losing its identity ever so slowly and we really don't have the politicians with the nuts to do anything about it. Maybe they just don't know what to do, but I find that too convenient an excuse. There are far too many immigrants who simply immigrate to Canada yet fail to intigrate to Canadian society. A flaw to multi-culturalism? What I admire about the USA is their ability to keep their country together. They have many ethic peoples in their society, but they drill being American into everyone first and foremost. Americans have a strong central government and a belief that their country is the simply the best in the world. And, with very few exceptions, they could care less what others think of them. Conversely, decentralization has given more autonomy to the provinces and with that comes strong independent identities. I don't think Trudeau thought of the possible reprocussions of multi-culturalism, or if he did he certainly miscalculated. This recent decision is precedent-setting. Every province should now have the right to similar status out of fear of losing their identities. And, if you've travelled Canada you'll see that there each region of the country is different. NFLD, and the Maratime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Praries and BC, all have different attitudes. And if you go north, you'll see a completely different mindset altogether. But, as I was saying, there's no strong central government willing to put their collective Johnson's on the line to pull this country back together. No one has even considered re-opening contitutional talks. It's all about accomodation and political correctness. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2006 13:57:27 GMT -5
I fear that Canada is losing its identity ever so slowly and we really don't have the politicians with the nuts to do anything about it. Maybe they just don't know what to do, but I find that too convenient an excuse. There are far too many immigrants who simply immigrate to Canada yet fail to intigrate to Canadian society. A flaw to multi-culturalism? A flaw? THE flaw! There is no Canadian identity! I am all for Quebecers/ois fighting to hold on to their heritage -- they (and by they I wish that I could honestly include me in the mix, but I'll have to just include my extended family as I am now too Anglo)have something special -- a past. In TROC we have . . . what? We used to have UELs, but now we have an anti-monarchist league. We used to have westerners, but now we have people from Newfoundland to Manitoba-Saskatchewan migrating to Alberta for jobs (I guess because we used to have fish). I'm not saying that I want a white society; I want an integrated society where people who move to Canada become Canadians and are proud of "our" country . . . not a bunch of people who move here for convenience but never really make this "home". I don't know. I just hate the idea that a Canadian is "someone not from the United States". Which is what we are becoming.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2006 17:19:21 GMT -5
We used to have UELs, but now we have an anti-monarchist league. We used to have westerners, but now we have people from Newfoundland to Manitoba-Saskatchewan migrating to Alberta for jobs (I guess because we used to have fish). I'm not saying that I want a white society; I want an integrated society where people who move to Canada become Canadians and are proud of "our" country . . . not a bunch of people who move here for convenience but never really make this "home". I don't know. I just hate the idea that a Canadian is "someone not from the United States". Which is what we are becoming. I agree entirely. Way too many people want to convert Canada into a ten cent shopping bag that holds all these cool people with special identities. I resent having my national identity hijacked by whoever or whichever group thinks they have the "right too". When I lived in Quebec, I was supposed to be a Quebecer, I live in Ontario, I am suppose to be an Ontarian. Why? The provincial borders are artificial and have no real historical meaning other then who taxes me to death. Clearly, Quebecers have a social identity but to declare that Quebec, or any mainland province is from here to there and from there to there is a bit of a stretch. The only place that has natural and distinct borders is PEI, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. If anyone asks me where I'm from outside Canada, I am Canadian, if someone asks me where I'm from within Canda, I'm assuming they detected an accent and I tell them that I was born in Greece. I don't think that I ever answered the question with provincial identity. Tell you what Franko since silly old you and me are excluded from all these cool nations and special identities, I'm thinking of creating a "Nation of People Who Are Not Special Enough". We will identify our National identity by wearing black thongs. Want in?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2006 18:35:26 GMT -5
Tell you what Franko since silly old you and me are excluded from all these cool nations and special identities, I'm thinking of creating a "Nation of People Who Are Not Special Enough". We will identify our National identity by wearing black thongs. Want in? Would that be a "special" black thong?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2006 18:36:17 GMT -5
Tell you what Franko since silly old you and me are excluded from all these cool nations and special identities, I'm thinking of creating a "Nation of People Who Are Not Special Enough". We will identify our National identity by wearing black thongs. Want in? Not sure that these are "me".
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2006 20:02:26 GMT -5
I am all for Quebecers/ois fighting to hold on to their heritage -- they (and by they I wish that I could honestly include me in the mix, but I'll have to just include my extended family as I am now too Anglo)have something special -- a past. In TROC we have . . . what? I am sensing some bitterness. I am not sure about the mainland. But Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) definately has a past. It starts with being being a native indigenous people (Innu and Inuit), the first place in North America the "white-man" landed (Vikings), went through various wars between the French and English for control of, developed into one of the jewels of the grandiose British Empire, formed our own nation, .... then mutiny to join Confederation. We are a different people on the rock .... and the one thing we have is history and a past. Not sure what the UEL is ... United Empire Loyalist? Personally, what benefit is the Queen to Canada? What benefit is the Govenor General? And the Lieutenant Governors? And let me inform you that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians (NALs) are not "migrating" to Alberta for work ... they are being recruited. There was a time when NALs went to Toronto for work, and yes, even went to Alberta (and yes still do) but now Alberta companies are coming here to recruit. In the past 2 years I have seen 5 major job searches by Alberta companies here in St. John's. When Loblaws, yes a grocery store, comes here and offers $35,000 salary, with benefits and promise to help find housing ...... well there aren't workers in Alberta or no one willing to work those jobs. But it isnt just the low jobs either. Two weeks ago there was 3 other companies down here offering 6 figure salaries, and living allowances (I know of one engineer, not personally, but through colleagues that was offered $120,000, a $50,000 living allowance, a company vehicle, and all gas paid ... she was hired on the spot, walked in said hi, passed over her resume, and they hired her to start work in three days time). So I hope people arent fooled into thinking many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are migrating west, they are just going to where others wont. And as for others not making west or Ontario home. Well that is a two way street my friend. I can tell you countless (I have many that happened to me) episodes where people didnt want NALs there. How can you expect a Newfoundlander or Labradorian to make Alberta home when some Albertans don't make them feel welcome. There are countless times i have heard people tell me they heard "Go home stupid Newfie, we dont want you here taking our jobs and money" ... I heard it - But not in Alberta. Many NALs are now taking these "living allowances" and flying home every 2-3 weeks for a week , I have a friend doing it. And as much as he would love to settle down, he says he doesn't feel welcome there and would quit but he cant find a comparable paying job. Then there is the case of the Edmonton police officer who lost his job in March (was it?). He apprehended the suspect and called in the description to the station as "a friggin (or was it stupid?) Newfie". Very welcoming. You want an integrated society, a Canadian society ... all I want is an equal society. A society where I am considered Canadian all over the country, but the sad fact is ....it isnt going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2006 20:05:35 GMT -5
The only place that has natural and distinct borders is PEI, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia borders New Brunswick. Newfoundland is not a province ... the province of Newfoundland and Labrador borders Quebec (the border dispute notwihstanding). I could say that BC has a natural and distinct border because of Vancouver Island. PEI is the only province that does not boder another.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 1, 2006 21:01:01 GMT -5
And let me inform you that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians (NALs) are not "migrating" to Alberta for work ... they are being recruited. There was a time when NALs went to Toronto for work, and yes, even went to Alberta (and yes still do) but now Alberta companies are coming here to recruit. In the past 2 years I have seen 5 major job searches by Alberta companies here in St. John's. When Loblaws, yes a grocery store, comes here and offers $35,000 salary, with benefits and promise to help find housing ...... well there aren't workers in Alberta or no one willing to work those jobs. But it isnt just the low jobs either. Two weeks ago there was 3 other companies down here offering 6 figure salaries, and living allowances (I know of one engineer, not personally, but through colleagues that was offered $120,000, a $50,000 living allowance, a company vehicle, and all gas paid ... she was hired on the spot, walked in said hi, passed over her resume, and they hired her to start work in three days time). So I hope people arent fooled into thinking many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are migrating west, they are just going to where others wont. Actually, I have several friends out of high school that decided to head west soon after graduation. Some are still there while others have returned. Mrs Dis and I thought about going west upon our return from Germany. We really should have because we both have had only wisps of visits out there. Most of the military friends I have that did go out there have decided to stay there. It's that good and they won't be coming back. I'm actually quite surprised to hear this, Skilly. NFLDers are probably the easiest folks I found to get along with. Never heard the bigotry you're describing against NFLDers. Not saying it didn't/doesn't happen. Just never heard of it before to that degree. But, in some parts of Alberta there is very little tollerance for Ontario folks. I have another high school buddy who lives in Red Deer. He's a transplanted Ontarian and ex-RCMP officer. He's a self-proclaimed redneck who hates the Liberal party and anything resonnating from Ontario 'just because.' But, we're pretty good friends. Odd, in the 70's if you got in trouble with the law in Alberta they would normally ask what part of Ontario you were from. I'd like to see the equality you're referring to also Skilly. And I agree in that it will be difficult to find that equality. Yet some folks don't want to be known as Canadian in their own country while others only want the duo citizenship when it benefits them. Why do we allow that? In a lot of ways many of our government policies are the cause of our worse failings. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2006 21:05:28 GMT -5
I am sensing some bitterness. I am not sure about the mainland. But Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) definately has a past. It starts with being being a native indigenous people (Innu and Inuit), the first place in North America the "white-man" landed (Vikings), went through various wars between the French and English for control of, developed into one of the jewels of the grandiose British Empire, formed our own nation, .... then mutiny to join Confederation. We are a different people on the rock .... and the one thing we have is history and a past. Not sure that bitterness is the right word, but may be close. I am sad that Canada’s heritage is being smothered and lost. Maybe it’s because I live in a “metropolitan/cosmopolitan” part of Canada (and the fact that I’ve lived here long enough that I can’t remember what it’s like not to live here!). I don’t think our history and past is being celebrated (except maybe July 1). Instead, we celebrate diversity. Probably no benefit, other than the history of tradition. My point was that we were once proud of our past, now we want to forget it . . . or ignore it. If “migrating” has too much of a negative comment forgive me. I simply meant “moving”. Nothing new – I worked out west with Newfoundlanders who came looking for work and money, with plans to move back “home” once they could (don’t know if they ever made it). My meaning entirely. Funny thing about Albertans when I lived there (how’s that for a caveat?): Vietnamese, Pakistani, whoever was immigrating would find a job or three and work hard, bring others in the family that would work hard at two or three jobs, and move ahead. Some I know complained about them “taking our jobs”, but these were jobs that many Albertans would not take (minimum wage jobs) because it was beneath them to work for peanuts. Sometimes still I feel there is an aura of entitlement (but that’s for another thread and another day). Try having a French surname in the 70s and 80s. Did not go over well, I’ll tell you. Or identify yourself as a person from Quebec. Lots of cars spray-painted “Go Home ___”. Rednecks who justified themselves. But I think this goes in every province in some way. Yes I do. Integrated and equal. I think we are going in the opposite direction – back to tribalism. The Balkans of North America.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2006 21:10:20 GMT -5
But, in some parts of Alberta there is very little tollerance for Ontario folks. I have another high school buddy who lives in Red Deer. He's a transplanted Ontarian and ex-RCMP officer. He's a self-proclaimed redneck who hates the Liberal party and anything resonnating from Ontario 'just because.' But, we're pretty good friends. We moved to Ontario in 1987 because it was the only province I could find a placement. I had no idea how I'd fit in with the "uppity Ontarians", but pledged to hang on for a couple of years so that I could move back. When I visited my in-laws in 1990 I couldn't believe how much the people of Alberta had changed in just those few short years, how uppity and close-minded they had become. So much so, that I said that I could never move back. ;D
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 2, 2006 0:49:18 GMT -5
I can understand how those in Alberta feel. They've had their lunch handed to them for the last 35 years from Central Canadians, notably Quebecers. Since 1968, Canada has been run by Quebec Prime Ministers, with help from the Ontario electorate. The NEP was the big stab in the back and until recently, they have been held in check by the eastern establishment. If it wasn't for Harper and Peter McKay, then the status quo would have prevailed. I don't blame them for being pissed about what central Canada was doing to them. They had the majority of the natural resources and the bankrupt central Canadians controlled them. It is not all about Central Canada. May the Conservatives win a majority and straighten out this eastern establishment, once and for all. I believe the Quebecois would also welcome their demise.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 2, 2006 1:16:06 GMT -5
It gets even more confusing. What if I am Acadian in New Brunswick? What if I am Francophone in Manitoba? What if you were born in St. Pierre et Miquelon to Newfoundland parents and moved to Newfoundland and was raised in Newfoundland? I lost a lot of sleep last night thinking about it!
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 2, 2006 2:26:31 GMT -5
The only place that has natural and distinct borders is PEI, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia borders New Brunswick. Newfoundland is not a province ... the province of Newfoundland and Labrador borders Quebec (the border dispute notwihstanding). I could say that BC has a natural and distinct border because of Vancouver Island. PEI is the only province that does not boder another. You missed my point, We created provincial borders and some define themselves within them. If we took out the provincial borders from BC to Labrador, most of the "I'm from x province" would disappear. I can understand Europeans feeling distinct because of thousand year histories based on land, language, religion and history, but you are going to tell me that Saskatchewan is that much different from Manitoba? We are grasping at air when we define ourselves over shades of differences. I am sensing some bitterness. I am not sure about the mainland. But Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) definately has a past. It starts with being being a native indigenous people (Innu and Inuit), the first place in North America the "white-man" landed (Vikings), went through various wars between the French and English for control of, developed into one of the jewels of the grandiose British Empire, formed our own nation, .... then mutiny to join Confederation. We are a different people on the rock .... and the one thing we have is history and a past. . What do Vikings, Inuits and Innu have to do with white man who want to define a country for themselves? And you are really different from a guy in BC because you.......have a ddifferent and distinct religion? Distinct language? Customs? Or does a dialect define a nation? What makes me think that this "unigueness" is based on negative stereotyping? "We are not like those mainlanders..." The human brain may be wired for tribalismn but I thought that by now, mankind would get over their spearfishing tribalism and reap the rewards of integrated societies.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 2, 2006 6:24:28 GMT -5
Nova Scotia borders New Brunswick. Newfoundland is not a province ... the province of Newfoundland and Labrador borders Quebec (the border dispute notwihstanding). I could say that BC has a natural and distinct border because of Vancouver Island. PEI is the only province that does not boder another. You missed my point, We created provincial borders and some define themselves within them. If we took out the provincial borders from BC to Labrador, most of the "I'm from x province" would disappear. Sufficiently strong regional differences result in borders being established. Northern Ontarians feel separate enough from the Southerners that there is talk of creating a province-within-a-province. Human beings like to feel special, yet tend to distrust and even fear difference. Well. first you have to grab the land from someone. Then, evolution permitting, acknowledge that this was done—while still maintaining control of the land. Anyone who has traveled the country can attest to its strong regional differences. A universal appetite for hamburgers does not make us all the same. And who best to lead an integrated society than an English-speaking white guy? If you don't believe that, me and the boys can come over and straighten you out—we may have to "borrow" your house to do that, but I'm sure you'll understand that it's ultimately for your own good..
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2006 9:23:27 GMT -5
[ And you are really different from a guy in BC because you.......have a ddifferent and distinct religion? Distinct language? Customs? Or does a dialect define a nation? What makes me think that this "unigueness" is based on negative stereotyping? "We are not like those mainlanders..." I think Mr. B. has answered this question (Prince Hal goes too far -- I wonder -- has he lived out west so that he can speak to the mind-set of an Albertan? but I digress). There is a definite regional mindset out west. BCers (not ours ) look down upon people form "the other side of the mountain), Albertans want everyone to think that Alberta, not Ontario, drives Canada (the little brother syndrome), Saskatchewa and Manitoba are actually quite different, yada yada yada. BC hippies, Alberta ranchers, Saskatchewan farmers, Ontario elitests manufacturers, East Coast fishermen . . . all different. Manning wanted to say that every culture in Canada is distinct. He is right, but wrong. The distinctness is merging into sameness. Quebec should indeed fight for her heritage (so should Newfoundlanders if they want, I guess) because if they don't they'll just join TROC's blandness. Or rather, nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 2, 2006 11:57:46 GMT -5
[ And you are really different from a guy in BC because you.......have a ddifferent and distinct religion? Distinct language? Customs? Or does a dialect define a nation? What makes me think that this "unigueness" is based on negative stereotyping? "We are not like those mainlanders..." I think Mr. B. has answered this question (Prince Hal goes too far -- I wonder -- has he lived out west so that he can speak to the mind-set of an Albertan? but I digress). There is a definite regional mindset out west. BCers (not ours ) look down upon people form "the other side of the mountain), Albertans want everyone to think that Alberta, not Ontario, drives Canada (the little brother syndrome), Saskatchewa and Manitoba are actually quite different, yada yada yada. BC hippies, Alberta ranchers, Saskatchewan farmers, Ontario elitests manufacturers, East Coast fishermen . . . all different. Manning wanted to say that every culture in Canada is distinct. He is right, but wrong. The distinctness is merging into sameness. Quebec should indeed fight for her heritage (so should Newfoundlanders if they want, I guess) because if they don't they'll just join TROC's blandness. Or rather, nothingness. It was a rhetorical question meant to challenge Skilly's tribalism regionalism assertions of nationhood. But since you joined the dance.... Tell me, how different is BC from Alberta from Saskatchewan from Manitoba from Ontario? For the sake of discussion, try making the trivial differences sound important. Don't forget to include the religious, language, physical and social differences. Oh wait, I hear that BC'ers......walk tilted to the left. Canadian tribalism is slowly disintegrating this country into nothing more then a 10 cent shopping bag where everyone with nothing more then a trivial difference perceives themselves to be special and distinct. There is only ONE large collective with a distinct language but even they have a tough time and gone to great lengths to differentiating themselves from the greater collective.
|
|