From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Subject: Re: The Journal on 'Untying the Knot'
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:06:20 GMT

In article <97kPiB1w164w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> boris@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (boris) writes:
>This posting is Boris's reply to Sylvain. It is LONG. (250 lines).
> Abort now or read til your eyes bug out.  :}
>---------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------

This one too is *LONG*!!!     :)

>>Sorry Boris, but to me, your view appears simplistic to me.
>>I mean, the "power grab" thing a lot of english-canadians are
>>talking about in this newsgroup.
>
>Of course it's simplistic. How much time do you think I have 
>to devote to the issue?  I have limited sources, research 
>materials and no one but you guys to confer with.  But I do 
>think that while it probably isn't a general attitude of the 
>majority of quebecers, there are some who are in the 
>political arena for the sole purpose of gaining as much power 
>as he or she can.  
>         data:  
>       There is an individual who is a 
>politician. ( a power seeker to begin with ).  He tries to 
>gain the leadership of a certain political party way back 
>when, and doesn't get it.  He does not stay in politics and 
>fight for and promote his beliefs, but instead he retreats 
>from public life.  Years later, the party is again involved 
>in a leadership vote and he comes out of the closet and as 
>politicians are unfortuatly able to do, he won the vote and 
>became leader of the party.  He is against any form of 

Until now, it could have been Bourassa as well as Parizeau...   :-)


>(more "stuff" deleted)
>process of going it alone in the world.  His postion sounds 
>like " give us these powers or we will take them and hurt you 
>in the process of taking them".  He does not say " We have a 
>problem. Help us to solve it."  He also does not say "We can 
>work with you to correct our mutual problems" 
>
> He simply says "give us these powers or else."

You forget something: he made his mind 20 years ago. For him, it's
impossible for French-Quebeckers to survive in Canada.
He's not interested in Canada's problems, but its own: it's normal,
it's written in Parti Quebecois's constitution: independance.

How do you expect him to want to solve Canada's problems?  He gave up
20 years ago.

Now, I assumed you were talking of Parizeau. Because you talked about
him not being ready to any compromise.

About Bourassa, he is ready to anything. He would sell his grandmother.
He is the ultimate politician. He has no principles, just the will
to be premier. He always was like that. The only thing he wants is
to practice his pet theories and dreams about economics and big dams.
(James Bay is *nothing*. You should read "L'energie du nord". What
about selling James Bay water to the Americans?  This is megalomania...) 

All he does is to stay in power. He does not want the powers he demand
to Canada just for a "power grab", but because he believe it's
Quebeckers's will. And if he does not do as Quebeckers will, he will be
dumped...  so it's just to stay premier.

>Sounds like he wants the powers first and the problems solved 
>second. His wanting the problems solved is in doubt as he did 
>not continue to try to solve them after he lost the leadership 
>race the first time. Instead he retired from the fight. 
> So what's left? A quest for power.
>What bothers me most is that it seems some believe him.

In my messages, I talked about nationalists. I did not speak about 
any political party.

Yes, many politicians are shrewd. Many are not. My premier is from the
first group I believe, as well as Brian. (And I believe Levesque was from
the second group) 

I believe there is a difference between politicians and "nationalists",
"federalists", or even members of a political party. Many of these 
people become members because they believe in some ideals.

When I say "nationalists" or "federalists", I am talking of these
sincere people, not ultimate politicians like Bourassa (and maybe
Parizeau? I don't know, I know him less than Bourassa)


>>To a lot of nationalists in Quebec, the powers demanded are not a simple
>>"power grab". Considering it so is simplifying the problem to the 
>extreme
>>I believe.
>
>Maybe, but the powers are a brass ring which they are reaching for.  
>They believe the powers are necessary for the survival of the 
>culture.  They are not.  Quebec is a valid culture due the 
>respect and admiration it has earned, but it can not be 
>purchased at the expense of other cultures. In reality they are 
>not purchasing it. They demand it.  They say they will have 
>it even if they have to rip apart other cultures to get it. 
> It all sounds like politicized extortion to me. 

You speak of admiration of my culture. The problem is that many French
Quebeckers don't see any admiration from "TROC" for their culture, they
feel like second rate citizens. They don't see any respect.

Funny, isn't it?

Quebec demand the distinct society so that it can be a true equal.
("Egalite ou independance" was the campaign motto of Quebec premier
Johnson in late '60s.)  (that's my interpretation)    
 
And "TROC" reject it because they fear to become second rate citizens.

Well, it does not sound like extortion to me. It sounds like anger. Longtime
anger which exploded in early '70s, which gave language bills.

Injustice has been replaced by the other's injustice...
As we say in French, anger is not a good "advice-giver"...
(would "advisor" be a correct word?)

The anger is still there.

>>Did you ever wonder why, basically, Quebec wants these powers?
>>It's not just for the fun of power. Nationalists would say it's the
>>only way for Quebec to be able to preserve its society.
>
>They would be wrong.  Look, any law passed in canada before 
>1931 HAD to go to westminister and was invalid if it 
>contradicted a british law. Only after The Statute of 
>Westminister in 1931 which recinded the Colonial Laws 
>Validity Act did canada gain the right to make it's own 
>laws tailored to canada's situation and beliefs.
>  How have they managed to maintain thier culture up to this 
>point? What methods have they used? What institutions?  Why 
>are these seen to now be inadequate?  What exactly is it that 
>is in need of preservation?  Why is the aquisition of more 
>powers the only possible solution?  Why is it neccesary that 
>only quebec have these powers?  

Let me correct you. I don't think Quebec is refusing to let other
provinces have the same powers.

The problem is that TROC *does not want them*. And does not want Quebec
to have them either...

> How will these powers help quebec preserve it's cultural 
>cuisine for instance? What is french-canadian culture anyway?

You just have to learn French and come live in Quebec (or in New Brunswick). 
You will discover what is the french-canadian culture.

Even French people from France discover an alien world when they come
to Quebec.

And a culture is not only limited to its cuisine. If we had to use only
this critter, the American society would certainly rate very *low*... :)
(the American society has many other good qualities than its cuisine...)

I would say, the culture determine your behavior, your values, your
dreams, your way of thinking...

It's all that some people in Quebec fear Canada is incapable of preserving... 


>I couldn't tell you what's english-canadian culture, just as 
>the CRTC can't decide adequatly decide canadian and non-
>canadian culture.

Culture is not only limited to songs and TV programs.

For me, I guess that just "TROC" genuine love in the Royal Family
is suficient to qualify it as very different from the USA...  :)

What about the elections in Canada and those in USA??

The behavior of each nation is very different during the elections...
(We don't see here the witch hunt for people who did drugs in their
youth... that's part of our culture...)


>You forgot to mention the English Quebecers and the French Canadians.
>  People who continue to beat the living with the bones of 
>the dead are stupid, idiots, morons, and brainless fools. 
>They are suitable only for being the resting place of overly 
>ripe tomatoes. 
>  The past is done. Carved in stone. Immutable. Do not forget 
>it, but also do not re-live it.
>------------------------------------

I am sorry, but the past is continuously re-lived, when I see
Canadian Rating Bond Service giving a bad mark to Quebec because
of political reasons (independance), when a respected English
Canadian journalist say that Parti Quebecois politicians should be
put in jail (Diane Francis), when APEC walks on Quebec flag,
when stupid Quebec nationalists burn the Canadian flag...

All these actions do not contribute to forgetting the past... 

>What is so distinctly different about quebec?  

The *culture* is different. We live in separate worlds.

The law is different. The way of doing business is different.
Values are a little different. Behavior is different.

I have a funny example about that: some time ago, there was ducks
crossing the road near the place I live. Drivers on both sides
let the ducks cross the road. WITHOUT USING THE HORNS!!
(God knows the darn ducks took their time!!   ;)   )

I was amazed... I think that in Quebec, drivers would have let the
ducks cross, but not without using the car horn to scare the ducks away...
(Well, at least, it's what I would have done...) 

>----------------------------------
>
>>What do you think?
>
> The main problem between us is the lack of knowledge of each 
>other and the mistrust that generates.  The unknown is 
>always scary.  Whether it's a dark alley, a different culture 
>or the future ramifications of a new law.  Having someone 
>push us into that dark alley or into passing that law only 
>makes it worse.  Then that alley or law looks malevolent and 
>our instinct is to resist being pushed.  Some, like the 
>separatists, are actively threatening us as we are being 
>pushed into the alley. 
>--------------------------

In what way the separatists are threatening you???

They are not threatening anybody: they say, "we want our own country."

Is it threatening?

When 2 children are playing together, and one of them say "I don't want
to play anymore", is he (or she) threatening the other???


Sylvain.
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario

Xref: sparky can.general:2141 can.politics:3708 soc.culture.canada:3357