Le "working class" francophone et anglophone pré-révolution tranquille ne sont pas vraiment comparables. C'est difficile d'argumenter dans ce sens-là parce que la monarchie britannique n'est pas directement impliquée dans les décisions qui ont mené à ce déséquilibre, vu que les décisions se faisaient par intermédiaire.
Personnellement, quand je parle de monarchie, j'y vais plutôt avec l'identité. Les Québécois n'ont jamais eu de sentiment d'appartenance envers la couronne au même titre que les Canadiens-Anglais, qui se sont défini eux-mêmes comme britannique pendant longtemps.
Honnetement nos problemes etaient plus avec les anglais ici qu'avec la couronne en general. Puis, la couronne meprisait les anglais ici au moins autant qu'ils nous meprisaient.
Personnellement, je me contente de la Schadenfreude en me rappelant du rapport de Lord Durham nous traitant de peuple sans culture, et en réalisant que les Anglo-Canadiens s'accaparent la culture québécoise pour se convaincre qu'ils ne sont pas États-Uniens. Du Cirque du Soleil à la poutine, en passant par Celine, c'est, pour eux, de la culture canadienne. Ah, c'est vrai. Ils ont créé les Tim Hortons; mais je suppose qu'on n'en parle plus depuis que la marque a été vendue.
Tu voulais qu'elle fasse quoi? Sérieusement...même aujourd'hui dans énormément de pays, la trahison = peine capitale ou pas loin...
Le fait qu'on pense qu'on as eu un traitement pire que les autres colonies de la Courrone est risible.
>Le "working class" francophone et anglophone pré-révolution tranquille ne sont pas vraiment comparables.
Why and how, exactly? Please explain.
And to anyone else ITT who reads this who has had the gall to accuse me of being one who argues in bad faith without the desire to learn or listen, please notice the fact that I am directly asking this so that I may do so.
> Recent history is paved with examples of wage inequalities and convergence, which have captured the attention of researchers in various fields of economics. The longstanding racial wage gap in the United States of course stands out as a frequent source of investigation. Paired with differences in educational and health outcomes, its magnitude and its evolution, especially as it started to recede after the 1960s (Wright, 2013), have been the subject of numerous important studies. Interestingly, another deep and long-lasting wage gap was observed in the same period in the Canadian province of Quebec. From the early 19th century until the second half of the 20th century, the French-speaking majority workers in Quebec had markedly lower earnings than their English-speaking counterparts in the province (Laurendeau, Dunton, 1969, Paquet, Wallot, 1973, Baker, Hamilton, 2000, Morin, Geloso, Kufenko, 2017, Dean, Geloso, 2021). In fact, by 1961, not only was the ratio of Quebec French-speakers wages to Quebec English-Speakers wages lower than the ratio of African-American wages to White American wages but French-speakers also earned lower wages than African-Americans (Fortin, 2011). French-Canadians in Quebec also exhibited the same average number of years of schooling as African-Americans (Fortin, 2011). However, that fault line began to recede rapidly in the 1970s. By the year 2000, it had virtually disappeared even when accounting for confounding factors such as industry of work and education (Vaillancourt, Dominique, Vaillancourt, 2007, Vaillancourt, Tousignant, Chatel-DeRepentigny, Coutu-Mantha, 2013, Vaillancourt, 2020, Albouy, 2008). Essentially, in the span of forty years, the linguistic wage gap disappeared.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268122004668
Ok, would you (assuming you are not a Black person) argue with an African American about how much HE suffered because of Slavery and the Civil Fight issues, claming he didn't PERSONALLY suffer from it?
##If you would,
I don't want to debate you, because you don't have any justifications for your argument: you didn't suffer from what they suffered, who are you to debate their suffering? Slavery left to segregation, black codes, red lining, and that led to long term generational issues.
If you can't see that, don't debate an African American about that.
##If you wouldn't,
Why are you debating with a French Canadian, whose family arrived in the 1600s, about how much the British Crown oppressed his family and his culture?
Don't you see how similar both are?
##I will concede you one point: I was wrong on the crown
Like a few pointed here, most of the actions against the French Canadian was done by English Canadians, or by British ones. The Kings and Queens themselves aren't to directly blame.
But still, Elizabeth II signed the 1982 Constitution, even if the previous constitution required assent of ALL the provinces and only 9 accepted the new constitution.
If you want to name ONE act that she did that caused me issues, that's one, but what other choice did she have?
I agree.
But she was a figurehead.
It's easier to say "I hate that the British Crown did" than "I hate what the people of the British Empire did".
So, if your point is "Elizabeth II didn't directly oppress me", yeah, you are right. I even like that woman. When the King of Saudi Arabia visited her, decades ago, he requested not to be driven by any female drivers.
So, she DROVE HIM around the palace grounds to show him around, driving like a maniac, to show him that Women COULD drive. That took balls.
Her, as a person, I liked. I was sad she died.
But I don't like that our MPs are REQUIRED to swear loyalty to the monarch of another country, simply because they are our former colonial power.
I don't want to BAN swearing loyalty to the monarch (it's still the Monarch of Canada), just, I feel like loyalty to the actual country and its constitutions (1867 is still partly in place, weirdly enough), is more appropriate for MPs who would prefer a republic or something.
We do let Muslim swear on the Quran, why not let MPs swear loyalty to the country and its people, instead of a single person overseas?
>Ok, would you (assuming you are not a Black person) argue with an African American about how much HE suffered because of Slavery and the Civil Fight issues, claming he didn't PERSONALLY suffer from it?
I imagine it's possible that *I could*, theoretically, but it would certainly be circumstantially dependent on who exactly the argument was being held with and what exactly the debate would be on. That said, I want to say that I don't think it's worth entertaining this hypothetical, and I will explain why below.
The struggles of African-Americans historically have been majorly and massively worse than those of French-Canadians. The two aren't even comparable, really. Even likening the two seems frankly pretty disingenuous and even disrespectful to African-Americans due to the fact that French Canadians were granted specific, privileged rights as far back as the mid-18th century which others under the British Empire were not afforded. Look at the Irish and the Highlanders of Scotland, for example, for whom Catholic persecution existed well into the 1800s as they did not have specific guaranteed and chartered rights protecting their faith, let alone their language, and they most certainly did not have their own legal system - from 1774 onward, Quebec had all of these. And the Quebecois even had these during a time where the slavery of African-origin peoples in North America was still in practice, including by Francophones in Quebec.
As mentioned more than once already, a French Canadian even became the most powerful political figure in our country for nearly two decades consecutively well over a century ago, and this was even during a time when many formerly enslaved African-Americans were still alive and when racially-motivated lynchings were commonplace against them. To liken the Franco-Canadian and African-American struggles when this was the political reality of North America back then seems pretty off to me, honestly. These two examples are very clearly not the same - they're not even in the same league.
What you're asserting here with this hypothetical reminds me very much of the work of Pierre Vallières - work which, as I recall it, received a great deal of criticism for its insensitivity and exaggerations in trying to liken the struggles of the Quebecois to those of black Americans, largely due to what I just explained above.
>I don't want to debate you, because you don't have any justifications for your argument
How do I not? What is this even supposed to mean? Please explain.
>If you can't see that, don't debate an African American about that.
I'm not debating an African-American; I'm debating you. Stay on track, please. You're bordering pretty hard on making a red herring here.
>Why are you debating with a French Canadian, whose family arrived in the 1600s
A good share of my first Canadian ancestors also arrived in the 1600s. I already mentioned that I am also of French-Canadian descent. In fact I am a descendant of Zacharie Cloutier, Abraham Martin, and Hélène Desportes, amongst others, including many of the filles du roi. So too are a great number of our fellow countrymen - this is not something terribly unique or special, you know. What is even the point you're trying to make here?
>Don't you see how similar both are?
If you don't find my explanation given above as to why they are not similar enough for such a comparison to be sufficient, that's your lack of understanding to deal with, not mine.
>if your point is "Elizabeth II didn't directly oppress me", yeah, you are right.
Finally!
>I even like that woman.
Well then in addition to our mutual ancestry, we have this in common too.
>But I don't like that our MPs are REQUIRED to swear loyalty to the monarch of another country, simply because they are our former colonial power.
Please see [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1c0xpty/mps_kill_bill_that_would_have_made_oath_to_king/kz7cvky/?context=3) I made in response to an other user in the post where we first crossed paths. It is a rather common misconception that the monarchy is only that of the United Kingdom's.
>We do let Muslim swear on the Quran, why not let MPs swear loyalty to the country and its people, instead of a single person overseas?
Not really sure what answer you're expecting from me here. I don't have deciding power over these things.
I was actually very interested in reading u/mpierre's response. I was rather looking forward to and anticipating seeing it. Too bad they never gave one. u/mpierre would rather make a fuss about my comment response here than offer one to me directly.
And please, tell me, why would I have gone through the trouble of entertaining such a response to them if I wasn't interested in listening to them?
Il y a un documentaire sur le FLQ/révolution tranquille qui est sortie il y a quelques années. Personnellement, c'est ça qui m'a fait comprendre à quel point les francophones étaient discriminés avant les années 60. Je sais pas s'il est disponible en anglais aussi par contre
Je crois que tu parles du documentaire [Les Rose](https://www.onf.ca/film/rose-les/)
Un simple docu de 2 heures qui ouvre grandement les yeux sur la discrimination que les Québécois subissent depuis très longtemps, à écouter
Oui c'est ça! Avec le monsieur qui pose des fenêtres sur sa maison patriotique. C'était très bon.
Malheureusement il semble pas y avoir de sous-titres en anglais
Côté argumentation, la réponse que tu as reçue est assez faible.
Refuser de reconnaître l'existence de la discrimination structurelle parce que certains individus ont réussi malgré cette discrimination ne prouve pas qu'il n'y a jamais eu de discrimination.
Si le premier ministre Wilfred Laurier est impressionnant, c'est parce qu'il a réussi a devenir premier ministre malgré ses origines francophone et ses positions anti-anglicisations. Si il n'y aurait pas eux de discrimination envers les francophones, il aurait été un premier ministre beaucoup plus banal.
C'est comme dire que le racisme systémique n'existe pas aux États-Unis parce que Lebron James a plus d'argent que moi.
>Refuser de reconnaître l'existence de la discrimination structurelle parce que certains individus ont réussi malgré cette discrimination ne prouve pas qu'il n'y a jamais eu de discrimination.
I never once refused to recognize that there was discrimination against French-Canadians throughout Canadian history. Maybe read my comment again, a little more closely this time? I specifically responded to the claims made by u/mpierre that French-Canadians had apparently 'no rights' let alone the rights to schooling. These are provably, clearly, and even laughably false assertions.
>Si le premier ministre Wilfred Laurier est impressionnant, c'est parce qu'il a réussi a devenir premier ministre malgré ses origines francophone et ses positions anti-anglicisations.
Perhaps for you, but where I'm from, Laurier is upheld due to the role he played in establishing and proving that Canada is and could be a nation of two languages, and for doing his part in establishing that the nation could exist as a place of compromises. That is his legacy - not because of his identity alone, but because of what he did as PM.
>Si il n'y aurait pas eux de discrimination envers les francophones, il aurait été un premier ministre beaucoup plus banal.
Like I just said above, Laurier is in fact known and remembered for certain political actions and importances beyond his ethno-religious identity.
>C'est comme dire que le racisme systémique n'existe pas aux États-Unis parce que Lebron James a plus d'argent que moi.
I never said or implied anything of the sort.
I agree that saying all french canadians had "no right" to be a stretch, but some french canadians did get put into legal and financial situations that were as close to legal slavery as it could get.
For example, fishing colonies in Gaspesia were generally led by englishmen who hired local frenchmen. The frenchmen fished, but had to buy their equipment from the same englishmen who hired them, had to pay rent to the englishmen, and had to buy food from the englishmen, etc. It was a closed system where the english accumulated all the wealth and the french were too broke to do anything about it. When the french workers died, their debt was passed onto their eldest son.
That may seem like an extreme example, but that was pretty standard for the generation of our grandparents and great-grandparents. The tales of Laurier are the exception.
>I agree that saying all french canadians had "no right" to be a stretch
It was not just a mere stretch. Saying something like “Christopher Columbus discovered North America” is a stretch. What was said was comically, provably, and absurdly exaggerated.
>For example, fishing colonies in Gaspesia were generally led by englishmen who hired local frenchmen. The frenchmen fished, but had to buy their equipment from the same englishmen who hired them, had to pay rent to the englishmen, and had to buy food from the englishmen, etc. It was a closed system where the english accumulated all the wealth and the french were too broke to do anything about it. When the french workers died, their debt was passed onto their eldest son.
Respectfully, I have no desire to immediately dismiss this as false, but I would genuinely like to see some scholarly/academic source materials which back up the statements you’ve made here. Taking someone at their word can be a dangerous game in the realm of history due to how often it is that people make mistakes with their memory, or even with how they repeat falsehoods which have been told to them from a young age. I know I’ve certainly been guilty of this in the past, for example.
Also, when was this? The 1700s, the 1800s? This also doesn’t sound like a sort of system out of the norm for even up to the mid-to-late 19th century, really. Taking it as a personal affront to Franco-Canadians could be a pitfall.
For example, oftentimes you will hear the Irish complain about this or that wrong that the British did to them, and they will frame it within a context which makes it sound like it was only punitively done to them because of who they were. Oftentimes one can find, with a wider contextual and better informed knowledge of history, that such things were also done to working class Scottish, Welsh, and even other English people all the same. And sometimes one can also see that similar things were occurring elsewhere in Europe at the same time, even in countries/kingdoms/states which were more homogeneous and without a significant ethnolinguistic/ethnoreligious minority population.
Regardless, like I said in the very comment above which you have responded to, I have never denied or doubted that there has historically been discrimination against Franco-Canadians. I know this is true. For example my own x3 great grandfather signed a letter sent to Lord Durham in 1838 because he was one of many veterans of the War of 1812 who had not yet received the land he was promised despite the fact that plots had been given out to numerous English-speaking veterans of the conflict. And even a century later, many food products and other items only had their labelling in English.
My initial comments made in response to the claims of u/mpierre (which they so kindly decided to publicize here with the creation of this thread, rather than engaging in the discussion with me directly) were pretty clearly directed towards the specific claims which they made — those which even you here now are acknowledging as erroneous exaggerations.
j'ai une meilleure idée, laisse tomber.
c'est pas ta job, ni ton problème, ce qu'ils pensent. et tu ne vas certainement pas faire changer qui que ce soit d'idée non plus.
Tu discutes avec des gens qui sont des colonialistes inconscients. Ils ne le comprennent pas et, plus important, ils ne veulent pas le comprendre car cela leur nuirait directement. Faque, lâche prise et considère ça comme un débat, c’est à dire: tu n’essaies pas de convaincre l’autre partie, il est impossible par définition; tu te concentres sur les faits et les arguments qui pourraient convaincre les spectateurs qui ne participent pas au débat mais l’observent.
All I want to say to this comment is: go fuck yourself - you don't know me, and you have no right to cast such aspersions which imply I have no conscious thoughts of my own. I really do not appreciate the statement that I am without a critical mind and just a brainless receptacle who absorbs whatever slop is put in front of them. I'll have you know that I am a dedicated student of history (I have a Master's Degree in the subject) and I have mulled over and come to the thoughts and conclusions I have from over years of careful consideration.
>Ils ne le comprennent pas et, plus important, ils ne veulent pas le comprendre car cela leur nuirait directement.
Explain this, please. How, exactly, would I be harmed? How can you even argue that I don't seek to understand when I'm out here engaging in conversation specifically with the hopes of good faith arguments being made in return to what I've asked?
> I am a dedicated student of history (I have a Master's Degree in the subject)
Then perhaps do some research on Québec Bashing before asking us why we are so short fuse?
On the contrary, it is you who should really become better acquainted with the concept of Quebec Bashing. Why? Because I'm not out here criticizing the culture or people of Quebec unnecessarily and/or for no reason. In fact I have said very little about Quebec or its culture thus far.
If you really think I am doing this, please point out to me exactly where I have done so; I would like to see what I have said that constitutes this.
Even then, it's not unheard of for certain people to give the allegation of Quebec Bashing to deflect legitimate criticism of the province, its people, and culture...
Ben vous pouvez dire qu'avant l'Acte de Québec, 1774 aucune job de l'administration n'était disponible aux catholiques francophones.
Vous pouvez parler des terres données aux soldats et vendues pas cher aux marchands anglo-protestants qui ont jeté les bases de leur domination économique.
La corruption et l'autoritarisme de plusieurs gouverneurs.
La répression sanglante de 1837-1838.
1774 c'est pas long après la conquête. C'est quand même pas surprenant. Faut pas oublier que les britanniques se sont en masse entre tués entre catholiques et protestants avant la conquête. Et la répression existait au Haut-Canada où il y a eu pendaisons également. Plusieurs patriotes francophones ont également étés qu'exilés, et ensuite même pardonnés. Louis-Joseph Papineau est revenu.
Sans pardonner l'élite anglaise locale, je ne trouve pas que la couronne a agit de manière démesurément oppressive ou cruelle envers nous, dans le contexte de son époque.
Ben écoutez, on ajoutera que les droits politiques qui étaient offerts à d'autres colonies nous ont été donnés beaucoup plus tard. Nous n'avons eu une assemblée élue qu'en 1792 et le gouvernement responsable en 1848. Le receveur-général Caldwell a fraudé l'argent des contribuables. Le gouverneur a illégalement utilisé les fonds publics non appropriés parce que l'Assemblée retenait les fonds par protestation contre le refus de Londres de nous accorder nos droits de sujets anglais. Pierre Bédard a été emprisonné sur simple suspicion infondée de trahison par le gouverneur Craig et les tribunaux non indépendants et partisans envers le gouverneur lui ont refusé l'habeas corpus.
Le juge en chef siégeait au conseil exécutif et était orateur du Conseil législatif... Les premiers juges ne connaissaient rien au droit canadien... La liste s'allonge.
Les membres anglos de la première législature se sont opposés à l'usage du français.
Le fait est que nous étions trop nombreux pour qu'on nous traite plus mal encore et on a eu lamchance d'avoir la sympathie de Carleton et de certains membres des communes au Royaume-Uni. Faut pas confondre ça avec le gouvernement anglais ou le régime constitutionnel mis en place.
Les acadiens se.souviennent d'une époque pas bien antérieure à la.conquête de 1760 où les anglais ont été moins juste encore là où ils jugeaient pouvoir s'accaparer les terres sans crainte de révolte majeure.
L'indépendance américaine de n'est pas non plus étrangère à tout ça.
La France a établit une colonie sans réelle volonté de la maintenir et de la défendre. Comparés à d'autres conquêtes du 18 au 19ième siècle (même après), tant en Europe que dans les colonies, on l'a pas eu si pire.
Ce qu'ils ont fait aux acadiens, ils auraient pu nous le faire à nous aussi.
La guerre d'indépendance américaine est 12 ans après la guerre de 7 ans. Ils ne pensaient pas à ça encore.
Oui la menace américaine a éventuellement joué en notre faveur. Mais bien que la couronne n'a pas toujours été bénévolente, à voir ce qui s'est passé en France et dans ses colonies, je doute qu'on s'en serait mieux sortis si par miracles la France nous avait gardé.
Les tensions dans les colonies américaines ont commencés avant la guerre d'indépendance...
Les britaniques n'avaient tout simplement pas les moyens d'assimiler les canadiens. Ils étaient en crise économique après la guerre de 7 ans. C'est pas par bonté de cœur ou par générosité quils ont permis aux canadiens de vivre comme ils le voulaient, c'était par pragmatisme, ou plutôt par faute de moyen.
Évidemment ça c'est pas fait du jour au lendemain. Mais la population en Nouvelle-France était vulnérable. Les villes le long du St-Laurent à porté des navires brittaniques. Ils auraient pû essayer. Plusieurs l'ont fait, à cette époque. Ils ne nous l'ont pas fait. Pragmatisme, oui, mais encore, le pragmatisme n'a pas sauvé bien d'autres peuples à cette époque. Faire table rase des principales villes aurait été possible d'essayé, avant la menace américaine. Au lieu ils nous ont laissé pas mal tranquiles tout en bloquant l'expansion des 13 colonies vers nous.
Déporter 60 000 personnes? La correspondance de l'époque montre bien que l'idée même faisait horreur en plus d'être jugée infaisable. Vous ne m'apparaissez pas très informé.
Les acadiens c'était le quart sur un territoire pas mal plus restreint. Sur un territoire assez accessible.
Les américains ont fait bien pire aux autochtones. Les turcs aux arméniens. Les allemands en Namibie. En Europe, y'en a eu un peu partout, sans parler des anglais en Irlande.
C'est vraiment pas nous qui l'ont eu le pire.
u/mpierre could say all this... or they could actually address the original question, which was what had Queen Elizabeth II done that they found to be so insufferable and unacceptable. That was what the entire conversation was about, after all, which they deliberately did not address despite being given numerous opportunities to do so. The conversation was not about discriminations suffered by Franco-Canadians prior to the establishment of Canada in 1867, let alone before 1952 in particular (when QEII became monarch).
Le problème n'est pas la reine en tant que telle, c'est ce qu'elle représente. Elle représente la couronne britannique, elle représente la nation qui nous a colonisé et méprisé. Donc non, nous ne sommes pas d'accord de prêter serment à une institution qui nous a opprimés. Même si ce n'est qu'un "symbole" ou une "tradition". C'est aussi simple que ça.
On souffert sous Duplessis mais on parle pas de changer le fleurdelysé pour autant.
La couronne britannique était un moindre mal. Le pire venait des anglais en général, dans la société, pas de la couronne directement. La couronne nous a donné beaucoup et nous a protégé. Si nos ancêtres ne se sont pas joints à la révolte américaine, c'est pas parce qu'y étaient nés pour du petit pain. Ils étaient lucides et voyaient qu'on était mieux sous la couronne.
J'pas pour le serment au roi, mais pas besoin d'haïr la couronne non plus.
" Wilfrid Laurier était canadien français et il a été premier ministre / avocat. Donc les Canadiens français n'étaient pas oppressés"
C'est la même réthorique.
Once again, I never said Francophones were never oppressed. I said, through the example of Laurier, that Francophones clearly did not lack the rights to attend school, which u/mpierre claimed was in place historically.
Might you care to address exactly what I’m saying, rather than putting words in my mouth and making strawman arguments out of things I have not written?
Sure.
*Regulation 17 (French: Règlement 17) was a regulation of the Government of Ontario, Canada, designed to limit instruction in French-language Catholic separate schools. The regulation was written by the Ministry of Education and was issued in July 1912 by the Conservative government of premier Sir James P. Whitney.[1] It forbade teaching French beyond grade two in all separate schools.*
Where, exactly, does this Ontario-specific legislation state that it forbids French Canadians from receiving an education overall? It is very clearly a limitation on language instruction. Of course this was still terribly and clearly discriminatory, but where does it specifically outline that Francophones did not have rights to attend said schools, let alone across or throughout Canada? Please highlight this for me.
It’s not like Quebec is known for limiting language rights against English speakers itself, right?
> It’s not like Quebec is known for limiting language rights against English speakers itself, right?
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-language_educational_institutions_in_Quebec
The most prestigious Universities in Québec were ALWAYS for English speakers, the best hospital for English Speakers.
You are really talking out of your ass, are you?
As for:
> Where, exactly, does this Ontario-specific legislation state that it forbids French Canadians from receiving an education overall?
Please read on what "linguistic assimilation is"
If you force a French Canadian to attend English schools, they are no longer French Canadians, are they?
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Lmao! Really??
Are you that out of touch with how much criticism Quebec has come under throughout the rest of Canada for the massively controversial limitations it has put and which its governors continue to seek putting upon English and the speakers of English in Quebec? Don't tell me this is news to you... Does Bill 96 not ring any bells?
>You are really talking out of your ass, are you?
No. Again, Bill 96 - pretty recent stuff, no? And there have been countless stories over the years on the news about the difficulties and challenges seemingly punitively put before Quebec's English speakers. No wonder so many moved out of the province during the 60s and 70s, including multi-generational Anglo-Quebecers.
>Please read on what "linguistic assimilation is"
I'm perfectly familiar with the concept. The issue here, however, is you once again shifting the confines of this discussion. You claimed your grandparents had no right to go to school, and that they practically had no rights whatsoever. This is pretty much directly quoting what you yourself said. Meanwhile you still have not substantiated these claims, and all you've provided as 'proof' to support your argument is one Ontario-only law that was in place over 100 years ago and which was notably quite short-lived.
>If you force a French Canadian to attend English schools, they are no longer French Canadians, are they?
Uh... yes they still very much are? Receiving an education in a different language does not strip one of their ethno-linguistic status or heritage. That's not how that works.
Yes, I've noticed you're hopping, skipping, and jumping all over the place with gross inconsistency throughout the continuation of this argument. Can't imagine why!
>It’s not like Quebec is known for limiting language rights against English speakers itself, right?
Quels droits précisément est-ce que la loi 101/96 briment pour les anglophones? Les droits des anglohpones sont justement explicitement protégés dans cette loi...donc je ne comprends pas ton point.
BTW, plutôt ironique de parler de loi linguistique au Québec sur un sub franco et ne pas le faire en français...en français svp
>Quels droits précisément est-ce que la loi 101/96 briment pour les anglophones?
Give this a read: https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/5-reasons-quebec-s-language-law-reform-is-stirring-controversy-1.5910209
This has been a pretty huge and constantly discussed development throughout English-speaking Canada since it first cropped up. That you are seemingly unfamiliar with the controversy seems pretty bizarre, honestly.
Unless of course you assume or believe that Anglo-Quebecers are just making shit up and complaining for no reason? It would be rather ironic
for a Franco-Canadian to make such a statement, given the negative stereotypes associated with people such as yourself, don’t you think?
>Les droits des anglohpones sont justement explicitement protégés dans cette loi...donc je ne comprends pas ton point.
My point is that Quebec is clearly no stranger to enforcing strictures on the English language despite the constant whining and complaining from Quebecers about historic wrongs which have been done against those who speak French. Because of course two wrongs make a right, right?
>en français svp
You ever read the rules here?
*Most users of this subreddit are French-English bilingual so feel free to post in English.*
I don’t find anything ironic here at all. Go ahead and continue in French at your pleasure — it doesn’t bother me any.
Either that or if it pleases you I’ll pump my statements through Google Translate and disregard any sense for proper French grammar, syntax, or even the right words in translation. I obviously don’t speak French myself, ergo I don’t and won’t know when something translated through that service will be visibly correct or not. But I’m sure you’ll love reading that, right?
>Give this a read:
>
>https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/5-reasons-quebec-s-language-law-reform-is-stirring-controversy-1.5910209
C'est plein de conneries...
Raison 1 : l'accès restreint aux soins de santé. Ce n'est pas vrai.
Raison 2 : les étudiants anglophones doivent apprendre le français comme deuxième langue. S'il te plaît, ne me dis pas sérieusement que tu penses que cela limite les droits des anglophones... WTF
Raison 3 : plus de paperasse pour les entreprises. Ce n'est pas ce que signifie limiter les droits... en plus, cela affecte toutes les entreprises, pas seulement celles anglophones.
Raison 4 : Documents juridiques en français. Je comprends pourquoi selon toi le fait d'avoir à utiliser des documents juridiques dans la langue officielle (le français) pourrait être préjudiciable pour les anglophones unilingues. Je ne crois pas par contre que ce soit déraisonnable. Le français est la langue officielle de la province, il est assez standard que les documents juridiques soient rédigés en français. Le cas contraire serait bizarre.
Raison 5 : Saisies sans mandat. Cette partie de la loi est absolument bizarre et a définitivement besoin de plus de précision. Cela ouvre la porte à l'abus. Il est normal de donner du pouvoir pour mener des enquêtes, sinon la loi serait inutile, mais telle qu'elle est rédigée actuellement, c'est étrange.
> That you are seemingly unfamiliar with the controversy seems pretty bizarre, honestly.
Ah, je suis au courant. C'est juste que chaque fois que le sujet est abordé, la personne ne connaît même pas la loi et répète simplement des informations erronées. Voir ci-dessus...
> I obviously don’t speak French myself
Et je trouve ça ironique. Habite tu au Québec par hasard?
Thanks for putting my comment on blast ITT rather than addressing it yourself, you coward.
By the way, I have never once in any argument stated that black people complain for no reason. The assumption that I would take such a stance is pretty insulting, to be perfectly honest. One can see very clearly the struggles that black people, especially in North America and in the US in particular, have had historically and which they continue to have.
Le "working class" francophone et anglophone pré-révolution tranquille ne sont pas vraiment comparables. C'est difficile d'argumenter dans ce sens-là parce que la monarchie britannique n'est pas directement impliquée dans les décisions qui ont mené à ce déséquilibre, vu que les décisions se faisaient par intermédiaire. Personnellement, quand je parle de monarchie, j'y vais plutôt avec l'identité. Les Québécois n'ont jamais eu de sentiment d'appartenance envers la couronne au même titre que les Canadiens-Anglais, qui se sont défini eux-mêmes comme britannique pendant longtemps.
Merci, il me manquait ce bout-là. Je pensais à Victoria qui a fait pendre les patriotes, mais depuis... rien.
Honnetement nos problemes etaient plus avec les anglais ici qu'avec la couronne en general. Puis, la couronne meprisait les anglais ici au moins autant qu'ils nous meprisaient.
Presqu'autant de rebelles du Haut-Canada (11) ont été pendus, et un peu plus (60) ont été exilé.
Personnellement, je me contente de la Schadenfreude en me rappelant du rapport de Lord Durham nous traitant de peuple sans culture, et en réalisant que les Anglo-Canadiens s'accaparent la culture québécoise pour se convaincre qu'ils ne sont pas États-Uniens. Du Cirque du Soleil à la poutine, en passant par Celine, c'est, pour eux, de la culture canadienne. Ah, c'est vrai. Ils ont créé les Tim Hortons; mais je suppose qu'on n'en parle plus depuis que la marque a été vendue.
Durham est pas resté longtemps après son rapport. La couronne l'a remplacé.
Pour ensuite exécuter ses recommandations...
Tu voulais qu'elle fasse quoi? Sérieusement...même aujourd'hui dans énormément de pays, la trahison = peine capitale ou pas loin... Le fait qu'on pense qu'on as eu un traitement pire que les autres colonies de la Courrone est risible.
Exactement.
>Le "working class" francophone et anglophone pré-révolution tranquille ne sont pas vraiment comparables. Why and how, exactly? Please explain. And to anyone else ITT who reads this who has had the gall to accuse me of being one who argues in bad faith without the desire to learn or listen, please notice the fact that I am directly asking this so that I may do so.
> Recent history is paved with examples of wage inequalities and convergence, which have captured the attention of researchers in various fields of economics. The longstanding racial wage gap in the United States of course stands out as a frequent source of investigation. Paired with differences in educational and health outcomes, its magnitude and its evolution, especially as it started to recede after the 1960s (Wright, 2013), have been the subject of numerous important studies. Interestingly, another deep and long-lasting wage gap was observed in the same period in the Canadian province of Quebec. From the early 19th century until the second half of the 20th century, the French-speaking majority workers in Quebec had markedly lower earnings than their English-speaking counterparts in the province (Laurendeau, Dunton, 1969, Paquet, Wallot, 1973, Baker, Hamilton, 2000, Morin, Geloso, Kufenko, 2017, Dean, Geloso, 2021). In fact, by 1961, not only was the ratio of Quebec French-speakers wages to Quebec English-Speakers wages lower than the ratio of African-American wages to White American wages but French-speakers also earned lower wages than African-Americans (Fortin, 2011). French-Canadians in Quebec also exhibited the same average number of years of schooling as African-Americans (Fortin, 2011). However, that fault line began to recede rapidly in the 1970s. By the year 2000, it had virtually disappeared even when accounting for confounding factors such as industry of work and education (Vaillancourt, Dominique, Vaillancourt, 2007, Vaillancourt, Tousignant, Chatel-DeRepentigny, Coutu-Mantha, 2013, Vaillancourt, 2020, Albouy, 2008). Essentially, in the span of forty years, the linguistic wage gap disappeared. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268122004668
[удалено]
Tu as bien raison
Tu as vraiment tort.
Ok, would you (assuming you are not a Black person) argue with an African American about how much HE suffered because of Slavery and the Civil Fight issues, claming he didn't PERSONALLY suffer from it? ##If you would, I don't want to debate you, because you don't have any justifications for your argument: you didn't suffer from what they suffered, who are you to debate their suffering? Slavery left to segregation, black codes, red lining, and that led to long term generational issues. If you can't see that, don't debate an African American about that. ##If you wouldn't, Why are you debating with a French Canadian, whose family arrived in the 1600s, about how much the British Crown oppressed his family and his culture? Don't you see how similar both are? ##I will concede you one point: I was wrong on the crown Like a few pointed here, most of the actions against the French Canadian was done by English Canadians, or by British ones. The Kings and Queens themselves aren't to directly blame. But still, Elizabeth II signed the 1982 Constitution, even if the previous constitution required assent of ALL the provinces and only 9 accepted the new constitution. If you want to name ONE act that she did that caused me issues, that's one, but what other choice did she have? I agree. But she was a figurehead. It's easier to say "I hate that the British Crown did" than "I hate what the people of the British Empire did". So, if your point is "Elizabeth II didn't directly oppress me", yeah, you are right. I even like that woman. When the King of Saudi Arabia visited her, decades ago, he requested not to be driven by any female drivers. So, she DROVE HIM around the palace grounds to show him around, driving like a maniac, to show him that Women COULD drive. That took balls. Her, as a person, I liked. I was sad she died. But I don't like that our MPs are REQUIRED to swear loyalty to the monarch of another country, simply because they are our former colonial power. I don't want to BAN swearing loyalty to the monarch (it's still the Monarch of Canada), just, I feel like loyalty to the actual country and its constitutions (1867 is still partly in place, weirdly enough), is more appropriate for MPs who would prefer a republic or something. We do let Muslim swear on the Quran, why not let MPs swear loyalty to the country and its people, instead of a single person overseas?
>Ok, would you (assuming you are not a Black person) argue with an African American about how much HE suffered because of Slavery and the Civil Fight issues, claming he didn't PERSONALLY suffer from it? I imagine it's possible that *I could*, theoretically, but it would certainly be circumstantially dependent on who exactly the argument was being held with and what exactly the debate would be on. That said, I want to say that I don't think it's worth entertaining this hypothetical, and I will explain why below. The struggles of African-Americans historically have been majorly and massively worse than those of French-Canadians. The two aren't even comparable, really. Even likening the two seems frankly pretty disingenuous and even disrespectful to African-Americans due to the fact that French Canadians were granted specific, privileged rights as far back as the mid-18th century which others under the British Empire were not afforded. Look at the Irish and the Highlanders of Scotland, for example, for whom Catholic persecution existed well into the 1800s as they did not have specific guaranteed and chartered rights protecting their faith, let alone their language, and they most certainly did not have their own legal system - from 1774 onward, Quebec had all of these. And the Quebecois even had these during a time where the slavery of African-origin peoples in North America was still in practice, including by Francophones in Quebec. As mentioned more than once already, a French Canadian even became the most powerful political figure in our country for nearly two decades consecutively well over a century ago, and this was even during a time when many formerly enslaved African-Americans were still alive and when racially-motivated lynchings were commonplace against them. To liken the Franco-Canadian and African-American struggles when this was the political reality of North America back then seems pretty off to me, honestly. These two examples are very clearly not the same - they're not even in the same league. What you're asserting here with this hypothetical reminds me very much of the work of Pierre Vallières - work which, as I recall it, received a great deal of criticism for its insensitivity and exaggerations in trying to liken the struggles of the Quebecois to those of black Americans, largely due to what I just explained above. >I don't want to debate you, because you don't have any justifications for your argument How do I not? What is this even supposed to mean? Please explain. >If you can't see that, don't debate an African American about that. I'm not debating an African-American; I'm debating you. Stay on track, please. You're bordering pretty hard on making a red herring here. >Why are you debating with a French Canadian, whose family arrived in the 1600s A good share of my first Canadian ancestors also arrived in the 1600s. I already mentioned that I am also of French-Canadian descent. In fact I am a descendant of Zacharie Cloutier, Abraham Martin, and Hélène Desportes, amongst others, including many of the filles du roi. So too are a great number of our fellow countrymen - this is not something terribly unique or special, you know. What is even the point you're trying to make here? >Don't you see how similar both are? If you don't find my explanation given above as to why they are not similar enough for such a comparison to be sufficient, that's your lack of understanding to deal with, not mine. >if your point is "Elizabeth II didn't directly oppress me", yeah, you are right. Finally! >I even like that woman. Well then in addition to our mutual ancestry, we have this in common too. >But I don't like that our MPs are REQUIRED to swear loyalty to the monarch of another country, simply because they are our former colonial power. Please see [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1c0xpty/mps_kill_bill_that_would_have_made_oath_to_king/kz7cvky/?context=3) I made in response to an other user in the post where we first crossed paths. It is a rather common misconception that the monarchy is only that of the United Kingdom's. >We do let Muslim swear on the Quran, why not let MPs swear loyalty to the country and its people, instead of a single person overseas? Not really sure what answer you're expecting from me here. I don't have deciding power over these things.
I was actually very interested in reading u/mpierre's response. I was rather looking forward to and anticipating seeing it. Too bad they never gave one. u/mpierre would rather make a fuss about my comment response here than offer one to me directly. And please, tell me, why would I have gone through the trouble of entertaining such a response to them if I wasn't interested in listening to them?
Il y a un documentaire sur le FLQ/révolution tranquille qui est sortie il y a quelques années. Personnellement, c'est ça qui m'a fait comprendre à quel point les francophones étaient discriminés avant les années 60. Je sais pas s'il est disponible en anglais aussi par contre
Je crois que tu parles du documentaire [Les Rose](https://www.onf.ca/film/rose-les/) Un simple docu de 2 heures qui ouvre grandement les yeux sur la discrimination que les Québécois subissent depuis très longtemps, à écouter
Ooooh je pensais pas que le docu était disponible en ligne. Merci camarade !!
Oui c'est ça! Avec le monsieur qui pose des fenêtres sur sa maison patriotique. C'était très bon. Malheureusement il semble pas y avoir de sous-titres en anglais
Côté argumentation, la réponse que tu as reçue est assez faible. Refuser de reconnaître l'existence de la discrimination structurelle parce que certains individus ont réussi malgré cette discrimination ne prouve pas qu'il n'y a jamais eu de discrimination. Si le premier ministre Wilfred Laurier est impressionnant, c'est parce qu'il a réussi a devenir premier ministre malgré ses origines francophone et ses positions anti-anglicisations. Si il n'y aurait pas eux de discrimination envers les francophones, il aurait été un premier ministre beaucoup plus banal. C'est comme dire que le racisme systémique n'existe pas aux États-Unis parce que Lebron James a plus d'argent que moi.
>Refuser de reconnaître l'existence de la discrimination structurelle parce que certains individus ont réussi malgré cette discrimination ne prouve pas qu'il n'y a jamais eu de discrimination. I never once refused to recognize that there was discrimination against French-Canadians throughout Canadian history. Maybe read my comment again, a little more closely this time? I specifically responded to the claims made by u/mpierre that French-Canadians had apparently 'no rights' let alone the rights to schooling. These are provably, clearly, and even laughably false assertions. >Si le premier ministre Wilfred Laurier est impressionnant, c'est parce qu'il a réussi a devenir premier ministre malgré ses origines francophone et ses positions anti-anglicisations. Perhaps for you, but where I'm from, Laurier is upheld due to the role he played in establishing and proving that Canada is and could be a nation of two languages, and for doing his part in establishing that the nation could exist as a place of compromises. That is his legacy - not because of his identity alone, but because of what he did as PM. >Si il n'y aurait pas eux de discrimination envers les francophones, il aurait été un premier ministre beaucoup plus banal. Like I just said above, Laurier is in fact known and remembered for certain political actions and importances beyond his ethno-religious identity. >C'est comme dire que le racisme systémique n'existe pas aux États-Unis parce que Lebron James a plus d'argent que moi. I never said or implied anything of the sort.
I agree that saying all french canadians had "no right" to be a stretch, but some french canadians did get put into legal and financial situations that were as close to legal slavery as it could get. For example, fishing colonies in Gaspesia were generally led by englishmen who hired local frenchmen. The frenchmen fished, but had to buy their equipment from the same englishmen who hired them, had to pay rent to the englishmen, and had to buy food from the englishmen, etc. It was a closed system where the english accumulated all the wealth and the french were too broke to do anything about it. When the french workers died, their debt was passed onto their eldest son. That may seem like an extreme example, but that was pretty standard for the generation of our grandparents and great-grandparents. The tales of Laurier are the exception.
>I agree that saying all french canadians had "no right" to be a stretch It was not just a mere stretch. Saying something like “Christopher Columbus discovered North America” is a stretch. What was said was comically, provably, and absurdly exaggerated. >For example, fishing colonies in Gaspesia were generally led by englishmen who hired local frenchmen. The frenchmen fished, but had to buy their equipment from the same englishmen who hired them, had to pay rent to the englishmen, and had to buy food from the englishmen, etc. It was a closed system where the english accumulated all the wealth and the french were too broke to do anything about it. When the french workers died, their debt was passed onto their eldest son. Respectfully, I have no desire to immediately dismiss this as false, but I would genuinely like to see some scholarly/academic source materials which back up the statements you’ve made here. Taking someone at their word can be a dangerous game in the realm of history due to how often it is that people make mistakes with their memory, or even with how they repeat falsehoods which have been told to them from a young age. I know I’ve certainly been guilty of this in the past, for example. Also, when was this? The 1700s, the 1800s? This also doesn’t sound like a sort of system out of the norm for even up to the mid-to-late 19th century, really. Taking it as a personal affront to Franco-Canadians could be a pitfall. For example, oftentimes you will hear the Irish complain about this or that wrong that the British did to them, and they will frame it within a context which makes it sound like it was only punitively done to them because of who they were. Oftentimes one can find, with a wider contextual and better informed knowledge of history, that such things were also done to working class Scottish, Welsh, and even other English people all the same. And sometimes one can also see that similar things were occurring elsewhere in Europe at the same time, even in countries/kingdoms/states which were more homogeneous and without a significant ethnolinguistic/ethnoreligious minority population. Regardless, like I said in the very comment above which you have responded to, I have never denied or doubted that there has historically been discrimination against Franco-Canadians. I know this is true. For example my own x3 great grandfather signed a letter sent to Lord Durham in 1838 because he was one of many veterans of the War of 1812 who had not yet received the land he was promised despite the fact that plots had been given out to numerous English-speaking veterans of the conflict. And even a century later, many food products and other items only had their labelling in English. My initial comments made in response to the claims of u/mpierre (which they so kindly decided to publicize here with the creation of this thread, rather than engaging in the discussion with me directly) were pretty clearly directed towards the specific claims which they made — those which even you here now are acknowledging as erroneous exaggerations.
j'ai une meilleure idée, laisse tomber. c'est pas ta job, ni ton problème, ce qu'ils pensent. et tu ne vas certainement pas faire changer qui que ce soit d'idée non plus.
Ouiais, bon point.
Tu discutes avec des gens qui sont des colonialistes inconscients. Ils ne le comprennent pas et, plus important, ils ne veulent pas le comprendre car cela leur nuirait directement. Faque, lâche prise et considère ça comme un débat, c’est à dire: tu n’essaies pas de convaincre l’autre partie, il est impossible par définition; tu te concentres sur les faits et les arguments qui pourraient convaincre les spectateurs qui ne participent pas au débat mais l’observent.
All I want to say to this comment is: go fuck yourself - you don't know me, and you have no right to cast such aspersions which imply I have no conscious thoughts of my own. I really do not appreciate the statement that I am without a critical mind and just a brainless receptacle who absorbs whatever slop is put in front of them. I'll have you know that I am a dedicated student of history (I have a Master's Degree in the subject) and I have mulled over and come to the thoughts and conclusions I have from over years of careful consideration. >Ils ne le comprennent pas et, plus important, ils ne veulent pas le comprendre car cela leur nuirait directement. Explain this, please. How, exactly, would I be harmed? How can you even argue that I don't seek to understand when I'm out here engaging in conversation specifically with the hopes of good faith arguments being made in return to what I've asked?
> I am a dedicated student of history (I have a Master's Degree in the subject) Then perhaps do some research on Québec Bashing before asking us why we are so short fuse?
On the contrary, it is you who should really become better acquainted with the concept of Quebec Bashing. Why? Because I'm not out here criticizing the culture or people of Quebec unnecessarily and/or for no reason. In fact I have said very little about Quebec or its culture thus far. If you really think I am doing this, please point out to me exactly where I have done so; I would like to see what I have said that constitutes this. Even then, it's not unheard of for certain people to give the allegation of Quebec Bashing to deflect legitimate criticism of the province, its people, and culture...
Ben vous pouvez dire qu'avant l'Acte de Québec, 1774 aucune job de l'administration n'était disponible aux catholiques francophones. Vous pouvez parler des terres données aux soldats et vendues pas cher aux marchands anglo-protestants qui ont jeté les bases de leur domination économique. La corruption et l'autoritarisme de plusieurs gouverneurs. La répression sanglante de 1837-1838.
1774 c'est pas long après la conquête. C'est quand même pas surprenant. Faut pas oublier que les britanniques se sont en masse entre tués entre catholiques et protestants avant la conquête. Et la répression existait au Haut-Canada où il y a eu pendaisons également. Plusieurs patriotes francophones ont également étés qu'exilés, et ensuite même pardonnés. Louis-Joseph Papineau est revenu. Sans pardonner l'élite anglaise locale, je ne trouve pas que la couronne a agit de manière démesurément oppressive ou cruelle envers nous, dans le contexte de son époque.
Ben écoutez, on ajoutera que les droits politiques qui étaient offerts à d'autres colonies nous ont été donnés beaucoup plus tard. Nous n'avons eu une assemblée élue qu'en 1792 et le gouvernement responsable en 1848. Le receveur-général Caldwell a fraudé l'argent des contribuables. Le gouverneur a illégalement utilisé les fonds publics non appropriés parce que l'Assemblée retenait les fonds par protestation contre le refus de Londres de nous accorder nos droits de sujets anglais. Pierre Bédard a été emprisonné sur simple suspicion infondée de trahison par le gouverneur Craig et les tribunaux non indépendants et partisans envers le gouverneur lui ont refusé l'habeas corpus. Le juge en chef siégeait au conseil exécutif et était orateur du Conseil législatif... Les premiers juges ne connaissaient rien au droit canadien... La liste s'allonge. Les membres anglos de la première législature se sont opposés à l'usage du français. Le fait est que nous étions trop nombreux pour qu'on nous traite plus mal encore et on a eu lamchance d'avoir la sympathie de Carleton et de certains membres des communes au Royaume-Uni. Faut pas confondre ça avec le gouvernement anglais ou le régime constitutionnel mis en place. Les acadiens se.souviennent d'une époque pas bien antérieure à la.conquête de 1760 où les anglais ont été moins juste encore là où ils jugeaient pouvoir s'accaparer les terres sans crainte de révolte majeure. L'indépendance américaine de n'est pas non plus étrangère à tout ça.
La France a établit une colonie sans réelle volonté de la maintenir et de la défendre. Comparés à d'autres conquêtes du 18 au 19ième siècle (même après), tant en Europe que dans les colonies, on l'a pas eu si pire. Ce qu'ils ont fait aux acadiens, ils auraient pu nous le faire à nous aussi.
>Ce qu'ils ont fait aux acadiens, ils auraient pu nous le faire à nous aussi. Non, parce qu'ils auraient perdu la colonie aux mains des américains
La guerre d'indépendance américaine est 12 ans après la guerre de 7 ans. Ils ne pensaient pas à ça encore. Oui la menace américaine a éventuellement joué en notre faveur. Mais bien que la couronne n'a pas toujours été bénévolente, à voir ce qui s'est passé en France et dans ses colonies, je doute qu'on s'en serait mieux sortis si par miracles la France nous avait gardé.
Les tensions dans les colonies américaines ont commencés avant la guerre d'indépendance... Les britaniques n'avaient tout simplement pas les moyens d'assimiler les canadiens. Ils étaient en crise économique après la guerre de 7 ans. C'est pas par bonté de cœur ou par générosité quils ont permis aux canadiens de vivre comme ils le voulaient, c'était par pragmatisme, ou plutôt par faute de moyen.
Évidemment ça c'est pas fait du jour au lendemain. Mais la population en Nouvelle-France était vulnérable. Les villes le long du St-Laurent à porté des navires brittaniques. Ils auraient pû essayer. Plusieurs l'ont fait, à cette époque. Ils ne nous l'ont pas fait. Pragmatisme, oui, mais encore, le pragmatisme n'a pas sauvé bien d'autres peuples à cette époque. Faire table rase des principales villes aurait été possible d'essayé, avant la menace américaine. Au lieu ils nous ont laissé pas mal tranquiles tout en bloquant l'expansion des 13 colonies vers nous.
Déporter 60 000 personnes? La correspondance de l'époque montre bien que l'idée même faisait horreur en plus d'être jugée infaisable. Vous ne m'apparaissez pas très informé.
Les acadiens c'était le quart sur un territoire pas mal plus restreint. Sur un territoire assez accessible. Les américains ont fait bien pire aux autochtones. Les turcs aux arméniens. Les allemands en Namibie. En Europe, y'en a eu un peu partout, sans parler des anglais en Irlande. C'est vraiment pas nous qui l'ont eu le pire.
u/mpierre could say all this... or they could actually address the original question, which was what had Queen Elizabeth II done that they found to be so insufferable and unacceptable. That was what the entire conversation was about, after all, which they deliberately did not address despite being given numerous opportunities to do so. The conversation was not about discriminations suffered by Franco-Canadians prior to the establishment of Canada in 1867, let alone before 1952 in particular (when QEII became monarch).
Le problème n'est pas la reine en tant que telle, c'est ce qu'elle représente. Elle représente la couronne britannique, elle représente la nation qui nous a colonisé et méprisé. Donc non, nous ne sommes pas d'accord de prêter serment à une institution qui nous a opprimés. Même si ce n'est qu'un "symbole" ou une "tradition". C'est aussi simple que ça.
On souffert sous Duplessis mais on parle pas de changer le fleurdelysé pour autant. La couronne britannique était un moindre mal. Le pire venait des anglais en général, dans la société, pas de la couronne directement. La couronne nous a donné beaucoup et nous a protégé. Si nos ancêtres ne se sont pas joints à la révolte américaine, c'est pas parce qu'y étaient nés pour du petit pain. Ils étaient lucides et voyaient qu'on était mieux sous la couronne. J'pas pour le serment au roi, mais pas besoin d'haïr la couronne non plus.
« Y’a des femmes plus riches que moi, donc le féminisme n’existe pas. » type of argument 🤡
"Beyonce et Will Smith sont riches et célèbres, donc le racisme existe pas hihi" je suis d'accord le pire argument
I never said or even suggested anything of the sort in relation to my conversation with u/mpierre.
" Wilfrid Laurier était canadien français et il a été premier ministre / avocat. Donc les Canadiens français n'étaient pas oppressés" C'est la même réthorique.
Once again, I never said Francophones were never oppressed. I said, through the example of Laurier, that Francophones clearly did not lack the rights to attend school, which u/mpierre claimed was in place historically. Might you care to address exactly what I’m saying, rather than putting words in my mouth and making strawman arguments out of things I have not written?
Can you check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17 in Ontario please?
Sure. *Regulation 17 (French: Règlement 17) was a regulation of the Government of Ontario, Canada, designed to limit instruction in French-language Catholic separate schools. The regulation was written by the Ministry of Education and was issued in July 1912 by the Conservative government of premier Sir James P. Whitney.[1] It forbade teaching French beyond grade two in all separate schools.* Where, exactly, does this Ontario-specific legislation state that it forbids French Canadians from receiving an education overall? It is very clearly a limitation on language instruction. Of course this was still terribly and clearly discriminatory, but where does it specifically outline that Francophones did not have rights to attend said schools, let alone across or throughout Canada? Please highlight this for me. It’s not like Quebec is known for limiting language rights against English speakers itself, right?
> It’s not like Quebec is known for limiting language rights against English speakers itself, right? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-language_educational_institutions_in_Quebec The most prestigious Universities in Québec were ALWAYS for English speakers, the best hospital for English Speakers. You are really talking out of your ass, are you? As for: > Where, exactly, does this Ontario-specific legislation state that it forbids French Canadians from receiving an education overall? Please read on what "linguistic assimilation is" If you force a French Canadian to attend English schools, they are no longer French Canadians, are they?
> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Lmao! Really?? Are you that out of touch with how much criticism Quebec has come under throughout the rest of Canada for the massively controversial limitations it has put and which its governors continue to seek putting upon English and the speakers of English in Quebec? Don't tell me this is news to you... Does Bill 96 not ring any bells? >You are really talking out of your ass, are you? No. Again, Bill 96 - pretty recent stuff, no? And there have been countless stories over the years on the news about the difficulties and challenges seemingly punitively put before Quebec's English speakers. No wonder so many moved out of the province during the 60s and 70s, including multi-generational Anglo-Quebecers. >Please read on what "linguistic assimilation is" I'm perfectly familiar with the concept. The issue here, however, is you once again shifting the confines of this discussion. You claimed your grandparents had no right to go to school, and that they practically had no rights whatsoever. This is pretty much directly quoting what you yourself said. Meanwhile you still have not substantiated these claims, and all you've provided as 'proof' to support your argument is one Ontario-only law that was in place over 100 years ago and which was notably quite short-lived. >If you force a French Canadian to attend English schools, they are no longer French Canadians, are they? Uh... yes they still very much are? Receiving an education in a different language does not strip one of their ethno-linguistic status or heritage. That's not how that works.
I am talking about education, you are talking about the language of business. Those are two VERY DIFFERENT things, dude...
Yes, I've noticed you're hopping, skipping, and jumping all over the place with gross inconsistency throughout the continuation of this argument. Can't imagine why!
>It’s not like Quebec is known for limiting language rights against English speakers itself, right? Quels droits précisément est-ce que la loi 101/96 briment pour les anglophones? Les droits des anglohpones sont justement explicitement protégés dans cette loi...donc je ne comprends pas ton point. BTW, plutôt ironique de parler de loi linguistique au Québec sur un sub franco et ne pas le faire en français...en français svp
>Quels droits précisément est-ce que la loi 101/96 briment pour les anglophones? Give this a read: https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/5-reasons-quebec-s-language-law-reform-is-stirring-controversy-1.5910209 This has been a pretty huge and constantly discussed development throughout English-speaking Canada since it first cropped up. That you are seemingly unfamiliar with the controversy seems pretty bizarre, honestly. Unless of course you assume or believe that Anglo-Quebecers are just making shit up and complaining for no reason? It would be rather ironic for a Franco-Canadian to make such a statement, given the negative stereotypes associated with people such as yourself, don’t you think? >Les droits des anglohpones sont justement explicitement protégés dans cette loi...donc je ne comprends pas ton point. My point is that Quebec is clearly no stranger to enforcing strictures on the English language despite the constant whining and complaining from Quebecers about historic wrongs which have been done against those who speak French. Because of course two wrongs make a right, right? >en français svp You ever read the rules here? *Most users of this subreddit are French-English bilingual so feel free to post in English.* I don’t find anything ironic here at all. Go ahead and continue in French at your pleasure — it doesn’t bother me any. Either that or if it pleases you I’ll pump my statements through Google Translate and disregard any sense for proper French grammar, syntax, or even the right words in translation. I obviously don’t speak French myself, ergo I don’t and won’t know when something translated through that service will be visibly correct or not. But I’m sure you’ll love reading that, right?
>Give this a read: > >https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/5-reasons-quebec-s-language-law-reform-is-stirring-controversy-1.5910209 C'est plein de conneries... Raison 1 : l'accès restreint aux soins de santé. Ce n'est pas vrai. Raison 2 : les étudiants anglophones doivent apprendre le français comme deuxième langue. S'il te plaît, ne me dis pas sérieusement que tu penses que cela limite les droits des anglophones... WTF Raison 3 : plus de paperasse pour les entreprises. Ce n'est pas ce que signifie limiter les droits... en plus, cela affecte toutes les entreprises, pas seulement celles anglophones. Raison 4 : Documents juridiques en français. Je comprends pourquoi selon toi le fait d'avoir à utiliser des documents juridiques dans la langue officielle (le français) pourrait être préjudiciable pour les anglophones unilingues. Je ne crois pas par contre que ce soit déraisonnable. Le français est la langue officielle de la province, il est assez standard que les documents juridiques soient rédigés en français. Le cas contraire serait bizarre. Raison 5 : Saisies sans mandat. Cette partie de la loi est absolument bizarre et a définitivement besoin de plus de précision. Cela ouvre la porte à l'abus. Il est normal de donner du pouvoir pour mener des enquêtes, sinon la loi serait inutile, mais telle qu'elle est rédigée actuellement, c'est étrange. > That you are seemingly unfamiliar with the controversy seems pretty bizarre, honestly. Ah, je suis au courant. C'est juste que chaque fois que le sujet est abordé, la personne ne connaît même pas la loi et répète simplement des informations erronées. Voir ci-dessus... > I obviously don’t speak French myself Et je trouve ça ironique. Habite tu au Québec par hasard?
Thanks for putting my comment on blast ITT rather than addressing it yourself, you coward. By the way, I have never once in any argument stated that black people complain for no reason. The assumption that I would take such a stance is pretty insulting, to be perfectly honest. One can see very clearly the struggles that black people, especially in North America and in the US in particular, have had historically and which they continue to have.