From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denis Beauregard's hero?
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:38:14 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <9651@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
	beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

I'm sorry, Denis, but I really think you're resorting to some fairly
desparate arguments in order to justify your infatuation with this
racist Groulx.

>Is there any fan of NHL and hockey on this net?
> 
>But, the hockey players that win a lot more than you and me are
>going to be in strike to get more money.  And who will pay
>that more money?  Ordinary people assisting at hockey match.

And if they don't want to pay it, they won't. And if the TV networks
don't think the ratings will be good, they won't pay the NHL as much as
it wants.

The majority of people I know couldn't care less about whether the
players and owners want to throw tantrums about it. Especially since
baseball season is underway.

>Take the 50 first players in Hall of Fame.  See the proportion
>of French Canadian right there.  I say French Canadian instead of
>Quebecois because they are easier to be find as their name
>is enough.  How much?  25, 30, 50 %  Indeed, they are a lot.
> 
>Now, take the names of divisions of NHL.  How many French names?

I can't believe this. By this one yardstick (which is convenient
considering it requires absolutely no research), you brand the NHL as
anti-French.

Does a French player not get comparable pay to an English player of
similar talents? Do the French get unfairly shut out of NHL awards? Do
coaches give public interviews saying that they consider French players
inferior?

If you can demonstrate that any of the above, which would be real
instances of discrimination, still happen, I might believe your point.
But it amazes me that you are so captive to the symbolic (QC as an
address, Division names of the NHL) rather than the substantive.

>Then, take the second class hockey players.  While the elite
>often has French name, the second class players are not.

Examples, please. I don't think your research here has extended
beyond a quick glance at the sports page. I also suggest that no two
people could completely agree on the difference between "first-class"
and "second-class" players.

>You see, despite of a possibility of racism in NHL, you continue
>to be a fan.
> 
>Why?   You take the good and reject the bad.
> 
>It is the same with Lionel Groulx.

Besides the enormous errors in your accusations made above, there are
many reasons why interest in a sporting event is incomparable to embracing
the founder of a political philosophy.

>Some fanatic

Oh, you mean that doctoral student defending a thesis?

>decides to go
>thru every edition of Le Devoir and every book of Groulx to prove
>something.

Yes, it's called exhaustive research. Some people use that as a way to
prove therories or formulate new ones. You really should try the concept
of research. It might prove beneficial in your arguments.

>Just an overview was not enough.

If she had only done an overview you would have complained that she was
not complete, or that she might have taken individual writings of his
out of context. You have had a criticism ready no matter what she had
done, because her conclusion ridicules the very heart of your political
philosophies.

>Because in some circumstances, Groulx used some heavy wording.

This is an excuse?

>Sometimes, I would like to be better in sports.  It would give me
>some material for this posting.

Not knowing about what you're talking about, obviously hasn't stopped
you from coming to some fairly serious accusations.

>And about the 25 millions when I said 250 millions?  Typical
>sample of Canadian chauvinism (the reason why in 1867 they made
>a dominion instead of joining USA).  They see the 18 millions
>of anglophones that can be victim of 5-6 millions of francos
>that are so strong that they have to use laws to survive.

Not "so strong", I would suggest "so paranoid".

>WE ARE A MINORITY either in Canada and in North America.  
>WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACT AS A MINORITY.  

This may be the ultimate political dilemma in Quebec -- a group of
people with the political power of a majority but the political
philosophy of an oppressed minority.

>We want to keep alive the language of our fathers and mothers.  

Then do it yourself! You don't need any laws restricting other
languages/cultures in order to keep your own alive. Why do you believe
it is the job of governments and other institutions to protect your
culture, when the job ultimately lies in the individual hands of you and
every other francophone?

If stores won't sell to you in French, don't shop there. Start your own
shop if you must, and if other francophones care about this issue they
will come to you.

>The immigrants have not that need.  AS A MINORITY, we do
>what we can to survive in a challenged world.

How about learning from other minorities? There are many ways to protect
your culture, you just happen to prefer the approach that beleieves that
preserving your culture *requires* the opression of others.

>Je sais que c'est parler a des murs.

Right back at ya.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
              If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Newsgroups: can.politics