From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: When do we stop being outsiders? (WAS Re: The Journal on ...)
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:55:26 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr10.011017.17271@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.221447.27285@watserv1.waterloo.edu> jkramer@sunwise.UWaterloo.ca (Viscous Pig Dog) writes:
>>In article <11408@std-2> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>>In article (Craig Campbell) writes:
>>>>Well, for one Quebec is not a nation. 
>>>
>>>Of course Quebec is a nation!
>>>
>>
>>Did I miss the smileys?
>
>No, no smileys were required. Most of French Quebeckers on this net will
>say it: we ARE a nation.
>
>This distinct society thing was accepted by Quebec federalists because
>TROCians could not accept the idea of "nation".

I agree with Francois.
A nation is only any imagined community as defined by that community.
A nation need not be separate politically (something a lot of nationalists
forget to  include in their definition.) A nation is a way of thinking.
A majority of Quebecois consider themselves a nation (within the territory
of Quebec). That is enough.


>
>But it does not change our feelings. We feel we ARE a nation.
>Take an honnest look at our 2 societies in Canada. 2 solitudes, many
>have said. 2 nations, I would say. 

Here I disagree. I don't think that Canadians outside of Quebec, perceive
themselves as TROC yet. 
Thus one of the flaws of the so-called 2 nation theory (there are plenty
of flaws in it.)
They perceive themselves as Canadians that include
Quebec. 
So within the Canada nation (or country at least) there resides the nation
of Quebec. I think the Canadian nation is in the process of evolving. 

It is important to realize that nations are IMAGINED COMMUNITIES. They are
not real. In no nation, does anyone know all their compatriots. So the 
complexity of the Canadian model,
needs not to be simplified necessarily.  Except for definition-sake, the
complexity is irrelevant.

>>And, saying that a bunch of Quebecois (correct spelling?) are trying to
>>destroy the country is not Quebec-bashing. A bunch of people in Quebec
>>want Quebec to leave Canada. If Quebec leaves Canada then the
>>nation of Canada will be destroyed. Pointing out this fact is not
>>Quebec bashing.
>
>For us, there is no such thing as "the nation of Canada". there is 2
>nations, and as long as TROCians won't recognize this, sorry, but
>there will be troubles...


If there are TWO nations, which is the second one (other than Quebec)?
TROC? Nobody conceives of that yet.
Just as the Quebecois have a right to define themselves as nation (the right
of self-determination) so Canadians have a right to define themselves as
they wish.


>As well as in Czechoslovakia (don't know the correct English spelling)
>there are 2 nations: the Czechs and the Slovaks (well, Slovaques in
>French).

And there are lots of examples: Within Britain, there are 3 nations plus
one occupied. Within Iraq, also the Kurds. In former Yugoslavia, the Serbs,
Slavs, Croats, (now) Bosnians, etc.
Within Ethopia, the Eritreans.
etc etc.

Frank.
Newsgroups: misc.misc,rec.humor