Calling all Separatists!

DasFX · May 10, 2005

s_lone said:
Das FX said:

In the Americas Quebec would be neighbours with a unilingual nation 40 times its size population and with a nation of ex compatriot 3.5 times its size.

Click to expand...

It's the way it's been for quite a while now and I think Quebecers have shown their culture and society are not about to be swallowed by the rest of North America. Let's not forget that French Quebecers are a minority among many other minorities in North America. North America is a huge melting pot of cultures and I certainly wouldn't feel threatened by new political frontiers. We are a pretty strong North American minority and whatever economic power we lose, I have no doubt that Quebec will strike back and stand out in it's own way with new and modern accomplishments.

Sure, Quebec may already feel like it is on its own, but there is a huge difference between feeling alone and actually being alone.

As for your confidence of Quebec's future, what else really are you going to say? As a separatist you really have no choice except to think that way otherwise why would you want to separate? I'm not saying Quebec would fail, but based on economics and past examples throughout the world, I believe Quebec's stature in the world will be diminished significantly.

Quebec can easily become a country, but the question is what kind of country will it be?

Ondrej · May 12, 2005

jackd said:
Trying to make a parallel between Slovakia and Quebec is quite an acrobatic exercise.
Without trying to denigrate Slovakia, Quebec is in a totally different economic reality.
Annual national budget: Slov: $15 Billion, Quebec $43Billions
GDP: Slovakia: $78Billion, Quebec: $210Billion
GDP per capita: Slov: $14,500, Québec $27,789.
Inflation rate: Sovakia 7.5%, Quebec, 2.3%
Balance of payments: Slov:$1.4billion negative, Quebec: 53Billions, positive.
Slova: Landlocked
Quebec. Opened to the world with majors ports.

Jackd, my "parallel" if I indeed wanted to make one, was not in economic terms only. I know that Slovaks are in different position than Quebec (however, with quite a stellar future, if they don't screw it up), but they are in my opinion similar in thinking, opinions and actions, as are most nations that want to separate from some sort of an union of nations. I feel this parallel is thoroughly valid.

BTW something different - actually, our countries are not as distant as it might seem. Early this year, we had our little version of your nice scandal as well. Our prime minister, Mr Stanislav Gross (social democrat), was found to provide himself with a nice big luxury flat worth 4.000.000 Czech Korunas (approx. quarter a million of CAD). He did not bought it with mortgage, but our illustrious journalists found out that all his political career, he might have earned as much as 2.500.000 CZK only. So media started to inquire about the missing money. Some were provided by his wife, who is actually very active in multilevel marketing (Amway). He could not provide a definite explanation of whom he actually owes the rest of the money to, trying "unknown friend abroad" and finally (after three months of silence or meaningless babble) settling with his retired distant uncle and some other people I can't remember. This would be quite ok, you know, but his poor wife was more active than our country could think of. Media found out that She had got a loan from a bank worth 50 million CZK to buy a derelict house and turn it into a luxurious appartment building. Her company existed for 2 days ONLY when she got a loan that big (which is quite unusual here). Moreover, her partner in this endeavour was her long term friend, a lady that runs a brothel in one of Prague's not-so-nice quarter. This was pretty too much to swallow for Catholic Christian Democrats in the coalition and they waved the prime minster adios and left the government.

There was one lesson from this pitoresque affair. Our country was essentially without government for at least 4 months. There was no revolution, no insurgency whatsoever, no people in the streets (save few booing men in front of governmental office). This made me quite happy - it means my homeland is the normal usual western dull democracy we all wanted fifteen years ago when we said good bye to the commies.

HOCK · May 13, 2005

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p121_HNAC.html
This story was posted on another thread (by ten packs under How interesting.....) It all relates to Quebec separation and the American interests within Canada. Could it happen again with Mr Bush should Canada/Quebec separate???

vidal · May 19, 2005

I just want to congratulate DasFX for his rational and coherent arguments when responding to cub1c. Hard as I've tried, I could only conclude that cub1c's words amounted to well... drivel. I suspect he/she is the greatly influenced by the separatist propaganda served by high school and/or CEGEP teachers. I don't think any measure of logic would sway a person like cub1c and, in many ways, I'm not surprised.

I am a French-Canadian and lived 60% of my life in the province of Quebec. Admittedly, I am not a separatist. I am a federalist. I just happen to think that separation is inherently regressive... but I'm not even going to attempt to convince a separatist that he or she may be wrong. I think most separatists choose to be so on a purely emotional level and that is fine. In fact, it is quite courageous of them to seek that goal. Although most separatists don't too much care to look very closely at the economic and financial costs of separation, I do admire their sense of risk and adventure because that will certainly be what they're in for! Like DasFX and others have written many times, the choice facing les Québécois should be made clear in an unequivocal question without any mention of a so-called economic and social agreement. This hogwash about being able to use Canadian passports and currency is mind-boggling. Do you want your own country or don't you, dammit? I will respect a Québécois's decision to separate. Think about it in terms of a divorce. If I divorce my wife, I would not give her the keys to my house nor the PIN to my bank account. Come on! I wouldn't insult you by saying you couldn't go it alone. Don't insult the Rest of Canada by playing them for chumps either. The Rest of Canada - not necessarily the federal government but preferably all of the other provinvial governments - should tell the Quebec separatist movement exactly what Quebec independence would entail for les Québécois. In some instances, there may be some re-assuring information for them like an economic/trade agreement with Ontario, for example, but when it comes to passports, keeping your job with the federal government in Ontario... no deal!

DasFX · May 19, 2005

Mediana said:
No amount of Liberal B.S. is going to turn Quebecers away from 300 year old dream.

I had no idea Quebecois were looking to separate for 300 years. In 1705, Quebec was still in control of its own destiny, Canada did not exist. Quebec became a British colony on September 13, 1759 more or less because they were incapable of defending it. You would think that if les Quebecois wanted a country so bad, they would have fought a little harder instead of losing in just 30 minutes on the Plains of Abraham.

Now I'm neither of English nor French ancestry, but this whole notion of oppression, or a dream of a “Québec libre” for 300 years is bogus. Representatives from Quebec signed on in 1867, they could have abstained. Quebec has already had two chances to leave and they haven't. I mean so many chances for Quebec to become it's own country, yet time after time, they either miss them or decline them.

Québec not being a country isn't because of Canada or the English, Québec isn't a country because of Quebecers.

DasFX · May 19, 2005

When does Non mean Non?

We've already had two referendums on the issue of Québec sovereignty and both times the answer was Non. At what point will the sovereignists recognize this answer from the Québec people?

I mean, if Québecer vote Oui, there will be no more referendums right? Why accept the first yes side win, but reject the victories of the no side?

I have an analogy for Quebec separatists. They are like a child in the mall with their mother. They see something they want (Separation) and they ask their mother (Québec People) for it. She says no. The child then waits a while (1980 to 1995) and asks again. The answer is still no. So what the child continues to do is keep asking, and asking, and asking until the mother cannot take it anymore and she finally gives in just to get the kid to shut-up. So in the end, the child gets what he wants (Separation) and the mother doesn't have to hear the nagging child anymore.

This is what is going to happen with Québec. Hopefully the people of Québec will not relent as easily.

Jay · May 19, 2005

"You would think that if les Quebecois wanted a country so bad, they would have fought a little harder instead of losing in just 30 minutes on the Plains of Abraham. "

Maybe the English wanted it just a little more than the Quebecers thought...

Jay · May 19, 2005

"They are like a child in the mall with their mother. They see something they want (Separation) and they ask their mother (Québec People) for it. She says no."

Mom has a lot of English in her.....

s_lone · May 20, 2005

DasFX wrote:

You would think that if les Quebecois wanted a country so bad, they would have fought a little harder instead of losing in just 30 minutes on the Plains of Abraham.

With that kind of twisted logic you could also say that native Americans probably didn't want to keep their land because they didn't fight hard enough and were defeated... :?

Seriously, I entirely respect and understand your federalist opinion but I think your understanding of history is very superficial. The fact is that it was probably impossible for the French descendants and the French soldiers in place not to be defeated by the British. Even if the French would have won that battle on the Plains of Abraham, the war for possession of the land would have eventually been won by the British anyway. At that point France had pretty much decided that New-France wasn't so valuable and the French (from France) had basically resolved to let it go. They were a lot more interested by the Carribean islands... The interest of the British for the land now known as Quebec was much stronger and they clearly wanted a united British North America. (You can add English speaking to that...)

Although the French lost that battle, the following winter was quite bitter and violent. The "Quebecois" of the time did offer a strong resistance but in the end, it was simply useless next to the British military power. With time, French Canadians became quite docile because the British let them keep catholicism and the French seigneurial system for a while. If they hadn't, you can be sure the British would not have known peace here in French Canada... Still today, we still have the French civil code...

French Canadian nationalism really started on the day of the conquest because French Canadians were suddenly detached from their mother country and put under a foreign crown. They were forced to assume a new collective identity. The French (from France) really didn't do much to try and get the land back and the French Canadians quickly detached themselves from the French crown. As for the English crown, nobody but the British truly respected it. In fact, French Canadians didn't give a damn about it. French Canadians jsut didn't have any moral authority anymore other than the church.

French Canadians were put in a position of "solitude" before the English Canadians who until today are still symbolically loyal to the British Crown. I believe it is because of this head start over the others in assuming "popular" idependance that French Canadians developped such a strong national identity. Despite being politically dominated, they were the first to become fiercely independant in their hearts, and that gave them an edge that is still very strong today.

DasFX · May 20, 2005

s_lone said:
DasFX wrote:

You would think that if les Quebecois wanted a country so bad, they would have fought a little harder instead of losing in just 30 minutes on the Plains of Abraham.

Click to expand...

With that kind of twisted logic you could also say that native Americans probably didn't want to keep their land because they didn't fight hard enough and were defeated... :?

French Canadians were put in a position of "solitude" before the English Canadians who until today are still symbolically loyal to the British Crown. I believe it is because of this head start over the others in assuming "popular" idependance that French Canadians developped such a strong national identity. Despite being politically dominated, they were the first to become fiercely independant in their hearts, and that gave them an edge that is still very strong today.

Absolutely, I cannot accept Native claims that the land was stolen. There was a battle and they lost. It was not stolen! War isn't about being fair; it is about winning and losing. We still have the same system today, we still fight military wars, and we have wars in court.

As for the French Canadians being dominated, well what did you expect? That was the consequences of being conquered. In fact, the British were quite lenient (for the time) with French Canadians. They allowed the system of law, religion and other various French ways of life to continue rather than forcing conformation to the British way.

I'm not arguing about the war or history, I'm just tired of Quebecois blaming their lack of a nation on other people. Through various devices, the French Canadians have had opportunities to become independent.

Look at what Parizeau said after the last referendum, he blamed money and the ethnic vote. Why didn't he blame the 40% of French Canadian who also voted against Separation? It isn't like all French Canadians unanimously supported sovereignty, yet he only chose only to point out the voting trend of the non-French.

Jay · May 20, 2005

"yet he only chose only to point out the voting trend of the non-French."

Considering this is a "French" issue, and immigrants to Canada don't come here to separate from Canada, I think it is fair to assume that if the "ethnic" vote didn't exist, the vote would have been yes to separate. His only mistake was to mention it.

DasFX · May 20, 2005