Re: RE: Quebec Sucks
Rick van Opbergen said:
And I guess it's even more the land of the Native Canadian Indians, right? What is your opinion about that (to all users)?
Well, I'd say that depends on whether it's a question of politics or principal. Let's look at it along a spectrum of the most political interpretation of your question to the most ethical(my biasses, consious or unconscious, of cource, according to my understanding of ethical, but you could always add your comments later).
1. From a simple perspective of raw political force, certainly English Canada, assuming the internatinal community didn't get involved to simplify the scenario here) could end the debate on sovereignty with a simple Canada-wide referendum, Full stop. And if Quebec should declare a path to separation, no matter the percentage of the Quebec population that wants to separate, English Canada could outnumber French Canada by about four to one should push ever come to shove. But one to four would still be able to put up a fight, not to mention that the Royal 22nd regiment is reported to be loyal to Quebec, so I'd assume the same might apply to Quebecois in other branches of the Canadian military, so would certainly lead to all out civil war with English Canada winning, but at what a cost (assuming it was fanaticaly zealously political of course; remember, I'm looking at this along a spectrum). Honestly, however, I doubt many people in either camp is that brutally political.
3. From a perspective of overwhelming political force through alliance building, English and French Canadians, the two single largest ethnic groups in the country, could reach a deal amongst themselves but neglect the indians, whereby the indians are left politically powerless (in theory the Canadian military could have simply annihalated the natives during the Oka crisis with sheer military force). I believe that most Canadians have a higher sense of ethics than that as well.
4. In reality, of course, even if Canadians were that cold-blooded, the UN would certainly intervene. So then we have what we might call pragmatic politics (Right about where I'd say most Canadians stand on the political/ethical scale). That's the Being aware of the overwhelming political, military and economic power of the descendants of the European colonizers of the land, the majority English and French Candians can legimitize their power. Don't forget the natives weren't even allowed to vote prior to the 1960's. By then, their numbers were so depleted through cultural genocide that it could then be considered quite safe to give them the vote without threatening the two dominant ethnic groups. But to continue not giving them the vote would of course hurt Canada's reputation abroad. At that stage, legitimacy could be sytematised through democracy (don't forget, after all, that democracy means nothing more than the will of the majority, and since democracy is drilled to us in the school system, many therefore become blind to the ethics behind historical genocide and theft of land, arguing that majority rule is the ultimate measure of justice in the world). The indians get the vote, so what's the issue? And as for the land? It introduces the myth of Two Founding Nations (that way history can defend the interests of the 'whites', otherwise it could pose a pragmatic threat to the hitorical arguments in favour of the Englihs and French cultures in Quebec). After all, there is no legitimate way to defend the past treatment of the natives, so the best solution is to write it off the history books altogether and to teach the history of Canada starting at the point when the Europeans arrived. How convenient. As for the Oka crisis, again the federal government had to consider international public opinion, and so decided to deal with the situation more humanely, always knowing that it didn't really matter because the 'whites' were just such an ovewhelming majority anyway, and the democratic system that was in place would naturally benefit the majority through a legitimate structure.
4. Then we come to the ethical stage. Obviously we need to be consistent with our arguments, so if the argument is that historical presence therefore proves ownership, then I suppose from that standpoint the natives ought to have the final say as to what Canada's borders will look like. That would mean many different countries scattered across the Canadian landscape, each allowing travel through the land, regardless what the majority thinks, since that would be a matter of history, not democracy. According to democracy, the English Canadians ought to have the final say because of its majority. So it seems that if the Quebecois want to win a legitimate argument in favour of sovereignty, it wil need to fight on a different front. The only front I could think of would be to fight the sovereignist cause on the ethical front. That would mean acknowledging the natives and their history and therefore not use democracy as a political weapon against them. Yet justice would also imply that 'whites' ought to have rights likewise. But then, if Quebec renounces democracy and history in its arguments, it must therefore respect other immigrant communities as well (after all, just as Englich canada woud renounce the use of democratic force against Quebec, so certainly teh just thing to do would be for Quebec to reciprocate. And if Quebec has renounced history in its argument, then the Quebecois must acknowlede that their culture is a foreign culture to Quebec likewise). So what's left would be a province which must respect all cultures equally, regardless of history or majority. The result would be that the native and immigrant languages would have to be given equal respect. But obviously it's not possible to have 60 odd official languages, laws and legal sytems, education system, etc. So to some gegree all sides would need to agree through genuine consultation on a common education system, legal system, and culture et. that all cultural groups could agree to regardless of their percentage representation in the population or their history.
In the end, if the Quebec sovereignist movement can rise above historical mythology and the legitimization of political power under the name of democracy, and build a truly just society, then I'd certainly support the sovereignis camp. At the moment, however, it seems English Canada is winning that game (after all, what I'd seen at the Quebec local library a few years ago would never have been acceptable in English Canada; the section 'Religion' contained books on Catholicism only, and all other books relating to religion fell under the section 'other religions'!). So certainly the sovereignist camp could win my support, but it's got some catching up to do.
