# Canadian Doublethink



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Huh? How to keep Canada united is make Quebec a nation unto itself? /boggle.

Canada needs to just remove Quebec on its own terms, negotiate a land passage to the East Coast provinces, and have done with it. _Mon dieu_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

From the article:



> The recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada is an important step for national unity and a sign of major progress for the province, Premier Jean Charest said yesterday in applauding Prime Minister Stephen Harper's initiative...


Again: huh?

War is Peace....Division is Unity


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In this case, it appears that national unity can only be preserved by sacrificing it. All right? ;-)


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

In the speach the PM actually recognized the _Quebecois_ as a nation, but the press was to stupid to catch that. So, the people of quebec are a nation within Canada, in the same way that we refer to aborignals as the First Nations peoples.

It's still dumb.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jeansguy said:


> In the speach the PM actually recognized the _Quebecois_ as a nation, but the press was to stupid to catch that. *So, the people of quebec are a nation within Canada*, in the same way that we refer to aborignals as the First Nations peoples.
> 
> It's still dumb.


Ah, but not everyone that lives in Quebec is a _Quebecois_.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I do not support a separate Quebec. In fact I think the separatist movement there should be crushed. If Canada can't do it, then perhaps the US will, eventually. Last thing the US needs is "a seditious French thing" on our border. It would be a flocking ground for all kinds of terrorists that would like to be geographically close to the US. In fact, there are plenty of North Africans there already as it is.

M8


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Last thing the US needs is "a seditious French thing" on our border.


:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:

+1



Martinis at 8 said:


> It would be a flocking ground for all kinds of terrorists that would like to be geographically close to the US. In fact, there are plenty of North Africans there already as it is.
> 
> M8


Very true. Many former French colonies or areas with French penetration have French as a common language to this day. It makes it easy for people from the area to move to Quebec.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:
> 
> +1


Oh c'mon! That was worth +10. Just wait till *É**tienne* reads it :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah, but not everyone that lives in Quebec is a _Quebecois_.


I agree. The whole separatist movement is ridiculous, but they won't let it drop. Personally, I'd like to see them separate, then come begging back in a couple years. The US would never accept them, there is far too much anti-french sentiment in the country to ever allow that. I suppose they could ally with France.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Just wait till *É**tienne* reads it :icon_smile_big:


Even somebody like me, who has a serious trouble remembering pseudonyms and names, learns eventually. I have finally learned the names of a couple of our resident trolls who will churn out offensive trolls without bothering to give any argument. And since I know that trying to have a reasonable discussion in answer is useless, I shall endeavour to let the trolls be as offensive as they will with no reaction from my part.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

This is a fascinating thread. Can we do Greenland next?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Even somebody like me, who has a serious trouble remembering pseudonyms and names, learns eventually. I have finally learned the names of a couple of our resident trolls who will churn out offensive trolls without bothering to give any argument. And since I know that trying to have a reasonable discussion in answer is useless, I shall endeavour to let the trolls be as offensive as they will with no reaction from my part.


Oh lighten up *Étienne*. You know how fond of France I really am, especially Paris.

M8


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

A few years ago, I think it was the French in France, wrote about "their research" about Canadian French. Snobby, hard to get along with, etc.

The French in Canada have had lots of time to really become Canadians. But, like in Iraq, division rules. For example, they demand that French language be offical. But, they don't want English language in there area on paper, signs, etc. Then they demand that the rest of Canada has French language everywhere. 

I don't see where the French Canadians intend to be fair. For decades they got more than there share of tax money while BC, AB never got there share, until perhaps, lately.

One way for the French Canadians not to become seperate is if other Canadians move in and start voteing out the French. English speaking Canadians ought to take back their Canada.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

WA said:


> I don't see where the French Canadians intend to be fair. For decades they got more than there share of tax money while BC, AB never got there share, until perhaps, lately.


Even from the little I know about interior Canada history, that strikes me as a slightly unbalanced historical account. My understanding was that there has been, for a long time, an anti-French Canadian bias in several important areas.

That being said, I have no definite opinion on the independence of Québec (or of all French-speaking Canada?). I trust Canadians to resolve the matter peacefully whatever the solution they eventually choose, and as such I suppose people in the rest of the world should not care much (as opposed to, say, a partition of Iraq).


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

*Je me souviens*

Gents,

Not to worry if things get hot, its not as if there is much military hardware left in Canada for anyone to get hurt with. Besides the Quebecoise are not much of a fighting people - many of them even refused to fight during World War Two bc they sided with Vichy.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I trust *Canadians to resolve the matter peacefully *whatever the solution they eventually choose, and as such I suppose people in the rest of the world should not care much (as opposed to, say, a partition of Iraq).


Yes, no chance of violence from the Quebec seperatists, is there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_libération_du_Québec

I'll let the facts speak for me.


> From 1963 to 1970, the FLQ committed over 200 violent actions, including bombings, bank hold-ups and at least three killings by FLQ bombs and two killings by gunfire


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, no chance of violence from the Quebec seperatists, is there?


What exactly is your point? You think a civil war is likely in Canada? I do not, but I could be wrong. Until proven wrong, though, I will keep my trust that Canadians will resolve the matter peacefully.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> What exactly is your point? You think a civil war is likely in Canada? I do not, but I could be wrong. Until proven wrong, though, I will keep my trust that Canadians will resolve the matter peacefully.


My point? Can it be that vague? You stated your trust in a peaceful solution. I gave you recent historical facts that the French seperatists are certainly capable of violence, indeed, terrorism, including kidnapping of foriegn and domestic officials, bombings, and bank robbery. Now possibly you could split hairs and say, "But after all, they were French seperatists, not really Canadian." I would agree with you.

History has proven you wrong, there is no real reason to suppose violence will not occur again. Full civil war on the part of Canadians in general? No. Domestic terrorism on the part of French seperatists? Well, it has already happened.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Full civil war on the part of Canadians in general? No.


See? You are capable of getting my point. I am talking civil war, not a few acts of violence. Contrary to what you claim, I see nothing in your examples that "proves me wrong", you just underlined it yourself.

Thanks for the information and the confirmation of my opinion. I knew I did not have all the information, so a confirmation is important.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'm not a Canadian, but I found Oh Canada, Oh Quebec by Mordecai Richler to be very instructive on the issue of Quebecois separatism.

https://www.amazon.com/Oh-Canada-Qu...ef=sr_1_9/103-0363962-9388674?ie=UTF8&s=books


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> *I trust Canadians to resolve the matter peacefully whatever the solution they eventually choose*, and as such I suppose people in the rest of the world should not care much (as opposed to, say, a partition of Iraq).


I think I need to point your original words out to you. Read the bold. You did not refer to civil war, you said "resolve the matter peacefully" meaning *no acts of violence*. What you've done is attempt to create an _ad hoc_ by broadening things in your next post to "civil war" when you saw that indeed, French seperatists had a history of violent terrorism in Quebec.



Étienne said:


> You think a civil war is likely in Canada? I do not, but I could be wrong.


I was kicking around whether to bother with this, but as you are just so intelligent, I thought you'd want to know this to correct your errant thought patterns. I am sure it was just a mistake on your part, as surely you did not want to use a logical fallacy to make yourself not seem shown up? :icon_smile_big:

Cheers


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

This is rich. 

I really love that guys from Arizona, Texas and France are arguing Quebec politics... 

Btw, you guys are pretty far off the mark...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

johnnyblazini said:


> This is rich.
> 
> I really love that guys from Arizona, Texas and France are arguing Quebec politics...
> 
> Btw, you guys are pretty far off the mark...


Johnny, grew up in Ontario. Where am I off the mark btw?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

johnnyblazini said:


> This is rich.
> 
> I really love that guys from Arizona, Texas and France are arguing Quebec politics...
> 
> Btw, you guys are pretty far off the mark...


It's because we are worldy people :icon_smile_wink:

How do like them apples? :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You did not refer to civil war, you said "resolve the matter peacefully"


Yes.



> meaning *no acts of violence*.


No.

Stick to what I said (people usually oppose peace to war), not to your interpretation of it. The important part for me is the valuable information you provided that backs my claim. As stated earlier I could not be sure beforehand of that claim given my limited knowledge of that precise subect.

It is amazing to see how much you like nitpicking and how you consider any discussion as a confrontation, but perhaps that's something you reserve to what appears like an obsession with confrontation with me. In any case, that has a very limited interest to me. I was not challenging you or anything, just looking for information. If it is so important to your ego, I'll gladly recognize that you "proved me wrong" or whatever you wish me to say. I have I now have the information and confirmation I sought, the nitpicking is indifferent to me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Stick to what I said (people usually oppose peace to war), not to your interpretation of it. The important part for me is the valuable information you provided that backs my claim. As stated earlier I could not be sure beforehand of that claim given my limited knowledge of that precise subect.
> 
> It is amazing to see how much you like nitpicking and how you consider any discussion as a confrontation, but perhaps that's something you reserve to what appears like an obsession with confrontation with me. In any case, that has a very limited interest to me. I was not challenging you or anything, just looking for information. If it is so important to your ego, I'll gladly recognize that you "proved me wrong" or whatever you wish me to say. I have I now have the information and confirmation I sought, the nitpicking is indifferent to me.


Thank you for clearing that up. I now understand when you say that things can be resolved peacefully, this does not preclude acts of violence.

Glad I could return the favor and educate you concerning the violent outbreaks in Quebec in the recent past. I hope it does not occur again, but as we have seen time and again on the world stage, a sub-population deeply invested in seperatists movements often resort to domestic terrorism.

I shall just ignore your trolling attempts and leave it with this.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I now understand when you say that things can be resolved peacefully, this does not preclude acts of violence.


I do not know a modern society with no acts of violence. If that were how you defined "peace", that would be pretty ridiculous (that would mean things like describing the US as not at peace because there are ocasionnaly some militias engaging in violent attacks, and the same would hold for about every developed nation). I am sure you are well aware of that, and my words were clear.

Since you are not stupid, it follows that you were not understanding my point on purpose, and that that portion of your discourse was just there to be confrontational. Well, whatever rocks your boat. If that's the only form you can discuss or deliver information in, I'll just benefit from the information and ignore the disagreeable tone to the best of my ability and patience.



> I shall just ignore your trolling attempts and leave it with this.


Priceless.

Edit: typo


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I do not know a modern society with no acts of violence. If that were how you define "peace", that would be pretty ridiculous (that would mean things like describing the US as not at peace because there are ocasionnaly some militias engaging in violent attacks, and the same would hold for about every developed nation). I am sure you are well aware of that, and my words were clear.
> 
> Since you are not stupid, it follows that you were not understanding my point on purpose, and that that portion of your discourse was just there to be confrontational. Well, whatever rocks your boat. If that's the only form you can discuss or deliver information in, I'll just benefit from the information and ignore the disagreeable tone to the best of my ability and patience.


Glad to hear you benefited from my knowledge.

Cheers


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

Wayfarer: The likelyness of further violence related to separatism is (in my opinion) close to nil. One can argue that events which unfolded over 30 years ago are now a possibility due to their past occurence, but so are events that could have unfolded and did not. 

Yes, Quebecois' have the potential for violence, as does every society. But overall, we are a very peaceful "nation" (lol), and you are not likely to see similar events to the October crisis re-occur anytime soon. 

Otherwise, I tend to agree with your general stance...


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Étienne - I figured you didn't mean a civil war.

Wayfarer - you must be a youngster.

It would be a shame if Canadian French break up Canada. It seems selfish.

Étienne - "anti-French Canadian bias in several important areas" I'm sure there is some bias, but nothing like the Canadian French bias for the rest of Canada. As I said, the Canadian French got more than there share of the tax money, but I don't see the BC, AB, Yukon bawling about it like the Canadian French do, and I don't see hard feelings about it either, except from the Canadian French. I think in the US and CA people who have moved West, especially the early years, don't want governments help like Easterners do. The Easterners tax themselves into a stupor and expect the government to change there diapers, too. The people in the big cities out west are like the Easterners. And the Easterners moving out West are ruining the West with there need of government diaper changeing. The Easterners don't know how to rough it. Nor do they want to, being they need somebody to hold there hand.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> I don't see the BC, AB, Yukon balling about it like the Canadian French do


No doubt the French-Canadians would agree that they are good at balling. Oh-la-la!

Unless you meant bawling.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs said:


> Unless you meant bawling.


Thanks CRS. Not being a writer and being 30+ years away from school one does forget somethings.

Before high school my spelling and gramma was fine. But, like a lot of unused things, 30 years later, what does one remember?


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

WA said:


> I think in the US and CA people who have moved West, especially the early years, don't want governments help like Easterners do. The Easterners tax themselves into a stupor and expect the government to change there diapers, too. The people in the big cities out west are like the Easterners. And the Easterners moving out West are ruining the West with there need of government diaper changeing. The Easterners don't know how to rough it. Nor do they want to, being they need somebody to hold there hand.


That's pretty much it IMO.

Living in western Canada, I often feel a lot of resentment at eastern Canada. Not because I dislike them, but because they present an image to the world of what Canada is. The Canada they present is nothing like the Canada that I live in everyday. In fact, where I live is much more like the northern US (Montana, the Dakotas) than eastern Canada.

I resent the 'aboot' comments, and maple syrup, and poutine. These things have no place in my life, they are foreign to me. The first time I saw a group of maple trees I was 28 and in Atlanta, Ga.

The continual blathering and whining from all of eastern Canada really gets on the nerves after a while. Ironically, I deal with many easterners throughout the course of a day, and I quite enjoy their company. Maybe they are like bees: not so bad alone, but dangerous in a group, lol


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

WA said:


> Étienne - "anti-French Canadian bias in several important areas" I'm sure there is some bias, but nothing like the Canadian French bias for the rest of Canada.


Well, I have no direct feeling about it. I am not Canadian and have never visited Canada. But if you read closely, I was not talking about present days (I was talking in a past tense).


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Just a question*

I seem to remember that the national government offered French Canadians a deal that would allow the possibility of secession by popular vote, but would allow individual counties to within the French state the option of remaining in Canada.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Wayfarer - you must be a youngster.


Wow, that comment sure has cleared things up concerning this topic! Thanks for the insight there WA...or in a similar vein, should I say "four the incite their"?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jeansguy said:


> Living in western Canada, I often feel a lot of resentment at eastern Canada. Not because I dislike them, but because they present an image to the world of what Canada is. The Canada they present is nothing like the Canada that I live in everyday. In fact, where I live is much more like the northern US (Montana, the Dakotas) than eastern Canada.
> 
> I resent the 'aboot' comments, and maple syrup, and poutine. These things have no place in my life, they are foreign to me. The first time I saw a group of maple trees I was 28 and in Atlanta, Ga.
> 
> The continual blathering and whining from all of eastern Canada really gets on the nerves after a while. Ironically, I deal with many easterners throughout the course of a day, and I quite enjoy their company. Maybe they are like bees: not so bad alone, but dangerous in a group, lol


First, never knock poutine! :icon_smile:

I understand what you are saying though, Western Alienation is nothing new and I think it has some validity. I am surprised the US does not have an official term term for it, as my experiences since moving to the US in 1990's are very similar. Maybe it is because the US is even more fragmented than Canada?

I think we all feel something like this though, growing up in the hinterlands of southern Ontario, we always hated people from "the City", as in Toronto. As yes, there is only one city in Canada


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> First, never knock poutine! :icon_smile:


Yummmmm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/...&en=27b2d7db41c369a4&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Three Canadians were walking along the beach when they came across an old, dusty lamp. They picked it up, polished it, and a genii came out.

"Thank you for freeing me from my imprisonment. Since there are three of you, I will grant you each one wish."

So they thought for a little bit, and the first Canadian, from Newfoundland, said," I'm a fisherman, my father was a fisherman, and his father before him as far back as our family goes. My wish is that there will always be a plentiful supply of fish, and that our nets will never come in empty."

"Done," said the genii.

The second Canadian was from Quebec. He says, "I'd like to see a wall all around Quebec. Make it twenty-five feet high, eight feet wide, no gates, doors, or openings of any kind."

"Done", says the genii again. "You will never have to contend with outsiders from other parts of Canada interfering with your affairs."

The last Canadian was from Alberta. "Genii," he says, "Tell me a little more about this wall."

"Well," said the genii, "It's pretty simple really. Twenty-five feet high, no openings, covering the whole provincial border."

"Okay," said the guy from Alberta. "Let's fill it up with water."


----------

