From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: When do we stop being outsiders? (WAS Re: The Journal on ...)
Organization: CSI Dept., University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 16:40:12 GMT

In article <9702@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <SBO.92Apr8195121@walhalla.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>#In article <1992Apr1.173245.6854@cattnts> craig@cattnts (Craig Campbell) writes:
>#   In article <9643@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>#
>#   >1950's : censuses of Quebec are microfilmed.  Location names are only
>#   >documented in English.
>#
>#   What, a name is not a name?  What is the english name for Quebec city?
>#   If every location was actually given a name both in french and english, then
>#   this is government sillyness at a real high!!  (I have to admit, I would be
>#   annoyed if the government tried to change my name.)
>#
>The documents were concerning Quebec, were describing cultural material,
>and contained not only the places names, but other information.  This
>indicates that Canada will not help in cultural issue, except when we
>complain.
> 
>#   >Until 1976 and law 101 : a French-speaking could not get higher than
>#   >a subaltern job in many English-directed companies in Quebec
>#
>#   "could not get higher"?  That is an interesting phrase.  Why could a "French-
>#   speaking" [person] not get higher?  Inability to communicate with the parrent
>#   company?  Board of directors?  Or was it a vicious nasty plot? :-)
>#
>If two persons can do the jobs (thus, equal ability to do the job),
>and one is a franco-bilingual and the other anglo-unilingual, the
>anglo got the job.  Not a vicious nasty plot, just a vicious nasty practice.
> 
>#   >Francos are some 5-6 millions in a see of 250 millions
>#   >of English-speaking and they can challenge the 250 millions language!
>#   >Are we that powerful?
>#
>#   I don't believe that anyone wishes to erradicate the french language or
>#   culture.  I do suspect that some groups are fostering that fear for their
>#   own personal gains.  
>#
>#   Why don't other cultures in canada also have this fear.  I have some personal
>#   experience with German, Italian, and some Oriental cultures and have never
>#   detected any fear of their culture dieing.
> 
>After one or two generation, there original language become some matter
>of curiosity except if they live in a ghetto-like area (i.e. in a 
>liguistic island).  We are some 6 millions concentrated in one province
>for the most, you should not compare with under a million groups
>in a sparsed area.
> 
>#
>#   >Almost no calendar published by an Anglo-Canadian company say that 
>#   >June 24 is Quebec National Day.  This includes many calendars 
>#   >distributed inside Quebec.
>#
>#   Well, for one Quebec is not a nation.  For another, the calendar's already
>#   have John the Baptist (St. Jean de Baptiste Day (Quebec) ) on the calendar.
>#   (My office calendar has the French spelling.)
>For one, June 24 is officially "Quebec National Day" by a Quebec
>National Assembly law.
>For two, Quebec is a nation.  If you contest this, you are confused
>(if you think the use of confused here is pejorative, I am sorry,
>but in my limited English, it is close of French confus which is
>accurate here) between a Nation and a Country.
>For three, if your calendar said "St. Jean de Baptiste Day", you should
>change your calendar.  Right spelling is St-Jean-Baptiste.
> 
>#   >Federal forbids any publishing of documents proving that Quebec
>#   >secession can be done economically.  Last year, C.D.Howe institute
>#   >got a blame for such a document.
>#
>#   Perhaps because it can't be done economically.  I don't know.  But if Quebec
>#   did leave, they could definitely take their share of the national debt with
>#   them.
>#
>We are already paying our share of the federal debt.  I don't see what that
>change and it is thus irrelevant.  But, if federal bannish 
>publication of this kind of documents, this prove that (1) they are
>disturbing the reality to try to prove secession is negative; (2)
>they know they have no real argument to keep Quebec in Canada.
> 
>#   What ever happened to people just being nice to each other?  You know
>#   "neighbourly, friendly, tolerant"?  Perhaps it was just an urban legend.
>#   Too bad.  Sigh...
>#
>I work in a almost uniquely French-speaking company.  There are some
>anglophones that never speak in French.  Find me one anglo/TROC company 
>WHere a unilingual francophone can work.  Then, I will say
>you're right.  For now, Quebec is more tolerant, and by a large
>factor, than Canada/TROC.
> 
>-- 
>    Denis Beauregard       _ _ _ _  Collecting Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
>beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca | * | * | Promoting use of QC as Quebec Postal Code
>  Andre Jarret, sieur de  |===|===| Mes opinions?  Oui, oui, les miennes!
>   Beauregard 1642-1992   |_*_|_*_| My opinions?  Yes, yes, mine!


Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Distinct/Nation (was When do we stop being outsiders?)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Keywords: 

In article <SBO.92Apr13172534@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.192821.12799@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>
>   In article <9804@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>   >Distinct may mean superior if you want so.
>   >THis in French and in English.
>   >
>   >See this example in French:
>   >M. X s'est distingue aux Jeux Olympiques.
>   >
>   >something like
>   >Mr. X was distinguished at Olympic Games. 
>
>   This is a common mistake. "distingue'" and "distinct" are two different
>   words, as well as "distinct" and "distinguished" are in English...
>
>   This is maybe the source of the problem here. Many people are confused
>   by these words "distinct" and "distinguished".
>
>No. As I said in some previous post, the word  distinctive denotes
>superiority. This word resemble quite a lot to distinct, and in my opinion
>it is the origin of the misinterpretation.
>
>   An anglo told me so...
>
>Ask your anglo about my explanation...

"Distinguished" can be a verb that simply denotes that two things are in
some way different.  In my Webster's dictionary, some of the definitions
express this fact.

Then it has several definitions that express the "superiority" meaning.
To wit, "Distinguished: adj. 1: Marked by eminence, distinction (hmmm...),
or excellence.  2: Befitting an eminent person"

and then descriptions of various British/American awards/medals that start
with the word "Distinguished".

"Distinctive" has as one of its definitions "having or giving style or
distinction."

One concern that "TROC" seems to have is that French Quebec seems to be
demanding that they be the ONLY "Distinct Society".

Either (A) Distinctness is NOT very important, and thus Quebecois should
have no reason to complain about other groups being granted "Distinct
Status"; or (B) Distinctness IS important, making the "Distinct Society"
more powerful (in some way) than NON-Distinct Societies.

You appear to be claiming that the distinctness of Quebec shouldn't be
a big deal.  This would tend to lead to option (A), in which the
demands of other provinces ought to be no big problem.

The fact that there's such a fuss over "Distinct Society" suggests
that (B) is ACTUALLY true - a "Distinct" Quebec would be more powerful
than the other provinces in a re-aligned Canada.

Distinct Society is either purposeful and important, or it isn't.  If
it merely reflects the (already self-evident) fact that people are
different, then there should be SEVERAL distinct societies in Canada.

If it reflects a new view of sovereignty, then it's quite a different
animal, since a recognition of a "Distinct Society" becomes akin to
recognizing a new nation-state.

Recognizing a Quebecois nation-state would necessitate recognizing
other states.  The fact that this would make it necessary to recognize
a ``British-Descended-Canadian-Nation'' is a problem.  That would be
contrary to the way affirmative action works.  Suddenly the
``rednecks'' and the WASPs would have to be recognized, and given some
special rights.  The groups that look out for minority rights are
probably not too happy about this, and probably don't want such people
to recognize their potential power here.

So, the question:
Is "Distinct Society" just a recognition of current status, or does it
reflect the creation of a new "nation-state"?
-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: can.general