Quebec is a nation? What does that mean?
- Thread starter DasFX
- Start date
So what does this say about the separatist? What does this say about what kind of country Quebec will be?
It will be a crap country.
There are far more "nation" in the world than countries. Why cannot a group of nations live in one country?
That is the ideology of a nation within a nation state.
It will be a crap country.
There are far more "nation" in the world than countries. Why cannot a group of nations live in one country?
That is the ideology of a nation within a nation state.
Re: RE: Quebec is a nation? What does that mean?
I totally agree. That is, in light of that fact, that's probably why the Canadian government won't acknowledge their "nationess", and will only offer them their "distinct society" classification. I do think there is enough support in Quebec for this though, there are lots of other groups living within nation states, only the majority identify with whatever it is that makes them a nation.
DasFX said:
I totally agree. That is, in light of that fact, that's probably why the Canadian government won't acknowledge their "nationess", and will only offer them their "distinct society" classification. I do think there is enough support in Quebec for this though, there are lots of other groups living within nation states, only the majority identify with whatever it is that makes them a nation.
Has anyone thought, maybe, Canada should do something like Russia.
Russia with its distinct group sign different consititutions with each republic that makes up its country and gives wide-ranging powers to that republic within the state.
Russia with its distinct group sign different consititutions with each republic that makes up its country and gives wide-ranging powers to that republic within the state.
Re: RE: Quebec is a nation? What does that mean?
A nation is a living political entity that is not a static thing. Generally a poltiical will by a collective majority of people to be recognized as a nation, a common culture, common history, language are particular aspects that lend validity to a people's claim to "nationhood".
It took the global community a long time to recognize that "nations" could be separated from "nation-states" meaning that the older definitions of "nations" include geographical boundaries. However, it is now commonly recognized that there are many "nations" that are displaced or landless, these include most first-nations, and in Canada the metis nation and the acadian nation.
On a political scale the desire to be a nation is a desire to be recognized in the world political forums as an equal and unique voice. At the current time Quebec cannot speak to other nations as a nation and be recognized as a nation by other nations.
This issue of immigrants, anglophones etc... is really a moot point when it comes to transversing Quebec the people-nation to Quebec the nation-state. A nation-state would have geographical boundaries, and self government that would include the characteristics of all countries such as immigrants and people who speak languages other than the official languge, just as Canada has immigrants and chinese-speaking Canadians.
The issue at hand here is that Quebec soverigntists feels that Quebec is significanlty different, and has a significantly distinct voice that Quebecquers should be able to represent themselves on the world stage instead of being represented as a sub-set of Canada.
DasFX said:
A nation is a living political entity that is not a static thing. Generally a poltiical will by a collective majority of people to be recognized as a nation, a common culture, common history, language are particular aspects that lend validity to a people's claim to "nationhood".
It took the global community a long time to recognize that "nations" could be separated from "nation-states" meaning that the older definitions of "nations" include geographical boundaries. However, it is now commonly recognized that there are many "nations" that are displaced or landless, these include most first-nations, and in Canada the metis nation and the acadian nation.
On a political scale the desire to be a nation is a desire to be recognized in the world political forums as an equal and unique voice. At the current time Quebec cannot speak to other nations as a nation and be recognized as a nation by other nations.
This issue of immigrants, anglophones etc... is really a moot point when it comes to transversing Quebec the people-nation to Quebec the nation-state. A nation-state would have geographical boundaries, and self government that would include the characteristics of all countries such as immigrants and people who speak languages other than the official languge, just as Canada has immigrants and chinese-speaking Canadians.
The issue at hand here is that Quebec soverigntists feels that Quebec is significanlty different, and has a significantly distinct voice that Quebecquers should be able to represent themselves on the world stage instead of being represented as a sub-set of Canada.
Jay said:
Quebec lives under the same rules as the other provinces. Why is this so unacceptable to Quebec, why does Quebec need these extra powers on the international stage? What will it accomplish on its own that is hasn't now? Quebec wields vast power in Canada and has played a huge role in the evolution of country. How can Quebecers be so repulsed at a country they created?
I don't like seperatism but like Duceppe said in the debate,
"Quebec is different, no better and no worst but different to Canada".
Which is correct.
Re: RE: Quebec is a nation? What does that mean?
I just don't understand how Quebec expects to be heard on a world stage of 6 billion people when it "feels" it is not being heard on a stage of 32 million people.
I have no problem with recognizing the will of the people, but I just don't like how certain aspects are sugar coated or contradicted just to win a referendum.
poligeek said:
I just don't understand how Quebec expects to be heard on a world stage of 6 billion people when it "feels" it is not being heard on a stage of 32 million people.
I have no problem with recognizing the will of the people, but I just don't like how certain aspects are sugar coated or contradicted just to win a referendum.
Maybe you’re not aware of the great animosity between English Canada and French Canada. Quebec doesn't want to be governed out of Ottawa by a bunch of people who can't stand them. They certainly don't want to be governed by a bunch of people who apparently can't read the constitution. Quebec has always maintained that issues like healthcare and education are provincial matters, and that sending money to Ottawa so it can be returned to them is a waste of time effort and money. The day care plan is the best example of this. Quebec already has a provincial system....so why would they send their money to Ottawa to have it returned to them to do what they are already doing? Ontario isn't as socialist as Quebec, and (more than likely) wouldn't opt for a provincial wide program, but would use a different system. Same with health care. IMO.
Are they repulsed with the country they created? Well, I don't think they consider it their country, considering the Queen of England runs it.
Are they repulsed with the country they created? Well, I don't think they consider it their country, considering the Queen of England runs it.
Canada was created by the French. Doesn't matter who is the head of it, Canada was created by the French.
Jersay said:
I agree, but what is the point of the statement? I do not think that anyone in across the country would disagree that the province of Quebec has distinct differences from the other provinces. But my question is, so what?
DasFX said:
That's the critical question.
Some would argue that Quebec has a very good "deal" as part of Canada which is an established nation-state, they hold a lot of power, Canada is not an oppressive nation-state, they have the benefits of univesal health-care and established currency, and are part of a strong federation, so on and so forth.
However, that may simply not trump the desire for self-determination. For example Norther Ireland if they can remain peaceful is part of the British Nation, not exactly a bad nation, but that does not stop the Irish from wanting to be part of Ireland which they see as their own nation.
Logically Canada could be economically stronger if we joined the United States, but most Canadians feel that we have values that are significantly different from the United States and we value our ability to voice our values and our opinions in the world forums as seperate but equal entities to the United States.
Quebec sovereigntists see it the same way. Canada, is a nation they may respect and may even think it is a good nation, however they do not necessairly believe that Canada represents Quebec as Quebec sovereigntists would like to be able to represent their own values and their own opinion in the world forums.
Re: RE: Quebec is a nation? What does that mean?
I realize it isn't generally a static thing. I'm not really sure what you're explaining to me here.
Anyway, as to the issue at hand, they should not represent themselves on a world stage, negotiating on their own. Each province has different issues and I think Quebec has been represented quite well to date.
poligeek said:
I realize it isn't generally a static thing. I'm not really sure what you're explaining to me here.
Anyway, as to the issue at hand, they should not represent themselves on a world stage, negotiating on their own. Each province has different issues and I think Quebec has been represented quite well to date.
poligeek said:
I can understand and respect that notion. I certainly do not want to scare Quebecers into staying in Canada (as is the current federalist strategy). If the majority of Quebecers truely feel they need to be separate and sovereign then so be it, but I don't think the PQ is running a campaign of truth. The are skewing things in their favour which is what I don't like.
A big point in this debate has been Quebec wanting the ability to control its own destiny and sign its own treaties and what not. My question is what specific changes would Quebec implement? Would the people of Quebec see a actual difference in quality of life if Quebec was separate? Already Quebec has said it would seek to join onto treaties and agreements that Canada already subscribes to. Is this all really about just the act of signing their own nation rather than signing as part of Canada?
Re: RE: Quebec is a nation? What does that mean?
I was more responding to DasFX original question of why Quebec sovereigntists feel that Quebec should be recognized as a nation.
As to if Quebec should be a nation and represent themselves, I don't feel that I am able to weigh in too strongly on that debate. I can understand why they want to. On the other hand I feel that part of what makes Canada a great country to live in is the contributions that Quebec has made, and that Canada would be poorer for loosing Quebec. So, I don't want to see them leave, but I also feel that I don't have a right to weigh in on that decision other than to hopefully reassure Quebecquers that they are indeed wanted and needed as part of Canada.
This is what worries me the most, that Quebec may be receiving a message that Canadians in general are resentful or want Quebec to separate, and I don't think that is the case. I would like to see much more transparancy in the PQ, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
Said1 said:
I was more responding to DasFX original question of why Quebec sovereigntists feel that Quebec should be recognized as a nation.
As to if Quebec should be a nation and represent themselves, I don't feel that I am able to weigh in too strongly on that debate. I can understand why they want to. On the other hand I feel that part of what makes Canada a great country to live in is the contributions that Quebec has made, and that Canada would be poorer for loosing Quebec. So, I don't want to see them leave, but I also feel that I don't have a right to weigh in on that decision other than to hopefully reassure Quebecquers that they are indeed wanted and needed as part of Canada.
DasFX said:
This is what worries me the most, that Quebec may be receiving a message that Canadians in general are resentful or want Quebec to separate, and I don't think that is the case. I would like to see much more transparancy in the PQ, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
Re: RE: Quebec is a nation? What does that mean?
Could be. The PQ has not been too clear on what the tangiable benefits to Quebequers would be. There are plenty of economic arguments as to why Quebec should not split. Originally (and I don't know if this is still the case), Quebec wanted to keep the Canadian currency if it split. This of course got the backs up of many Canadian Federalists, on the other hand several countries besides the US use the US currency.
I don't think there are too many economic incentives for Quebec to leave, although they may retain more of their tax, as opposed to giving into Ottawa, although I think their transfer payments are higher than most proviences, but I think they are still a "have" provience so they give more than they get in return.
DasFX said:
Could be. The PQ has not been too clear on what the tangiable benefits to Quebequers would be. There are plenty of economic arguments as to why Quebec should not split. Originally (and I don't know if this is still the case), Quebec wanted to keep the Canadian currency if it split. This of course got the backs up of many Canadian Federalists, on the other hand several countries besides the US use the US currency.
I don't think there are too many economic incentives for Quebec to leave, although they may retain more of their tax, as opposed to giving into Ottawa, although I think their transfer payments are higher than most proviences, but I think they are still a "have" provience so they give more than they get in return.