HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: French in france
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:10:03 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr08.184425.27865@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <11388@std-2> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr03.231628.26105@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>>
>>>  I state again::
>>>Half the population of France at the time of the Declaration did not
>>>speak French.
>>>(Source: Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780.)
>>
>>Well, I'll have to verify.
>>
>>If this is true, then it is remarkable that the colons who colonized
>>Quebec (then Canada) all spoke french, and no other languages from
>>France. It is also strange that all the remaining text from the time
>>are in French. There is no litterature from France in languages other
>>than french from that time.
>
>Half spoke French and only 12% spoke it "properly", as they say.
>Most colonists from France came from one small area, which was
>french-speaking.
>If you ever get a chance to look at the Historical Atlas of Canada,
>look at the map that shows the origins of the Quebecois French.
>One big blob.

My ancestors came to Canada in the early 17th century (long before
the Declaration), from Bretagne, Normandie, Champagne (and I think
some from Paris also).  Not a small area, though all in the north
of France.  At the very least, I would expect the Breton to have
spoken their own language first, French second.

Once in Canada, though, the settlers would probably have switched to
French as the common language.  And the leaders, the king's
representatives, would certainly have spoken French first (and they
were the ones keeping the records).

I would like to know more about the linguistic backgrounds of these
settlers, if anyone has more information (Denis?)

>It would not surprise me at all if most known literature from that period
>was in french. How much Basque literature can you name even today?
>I do recommend that book for verification (and because it is an
>interesting read in itself.)

With few exceptions, a society's litterature is created in the language
of the elite - the ones with the education and leisure to devote to
such things.  So one would not expect too much written litterature in
Breton or Basque or whatever, and what there was would not be read as
widely.  (As an example, Latin remained the litterary language of Italy
long after most people stopped speaking it.  Dante caused quite a stir
when he wrote the Divine Comedy in the "common" Italian, rather than
Latin.  Even when Italian did establish itself as the litterary
language, this was the "official" Italian of the elite, since each
region clung to its own dialect...)

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:47:25 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

stevew@tsltor.uucp (Stephen M. Webb) writes:

>In article <SBO.92Apr12121903@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>>You're in for a tough break Peter. I've seen support for the queen even by
>>the so called moderate in can.politics. I agree with you that the queen has
>>no business in Canada, but I suspect that a large segment of the
>>anglophones still worship the queen.
>>

>Okay, time for an informal survey.  How many here worship, adore, or favour the
>Queen as sovereign of Canada, or even think it's a good idea, and how many
>participants of this news group feel we should turf the old biddy and her silly
>offspring and get on with it (did my bias show though)?

I think the only place she should have in Canada is a purely historical
one, maybe on a few coins, a monetary note and a stamp but other
CANADIANS should be promoted (e.g. formers PMs, notable scientists,
explorers, and other personalities). The rest of Canada should celebrate
Guy Fawkes day as we do here -- that should inspire people to "turf the
old biddy" out :-)
--
=================================
skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
St. John's, NF, CANADA
"Have a touton or do without'n !"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau)
Subject: Re: A really nice, fuzzy love letter for Sylvain et al. ...
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:33:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.163800.18708@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>  
thomas@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Thomas Jelonek) writes:

> Lise Bissonette is incredibly narrow-minded and naive. 
> Her views on the states role in cultural activity place
> her somewhere between Andrei Zhdanov and Francois Mitterand
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (only she wouldn't allow Eurodisney). She is someone who is
> obviously well educated but equally as obvious not very bright.
> Personally, I think she doesn't understand culture at all, 
> regardless of how many essays she writes on the topic.

Oh!nooooo !   Quebec has been bashed everywhich way: 
sexists, anti-semites, racists, facists, and now "communists" ...

What next ? send the G.I's !
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: O Canada, O Quebec  - reaction
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:03:26 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Marc Riese) writes:
>
>If I were you, I might have talked about onus of proof, or attempted
>some sort of counter-argument. I said that I believe that we Canadians
>generally have bad taste. I don't know why Richler said so, but
>I simply find that, in my modest experience, we Canadians, in general,
>have bad taste with respect to Europeans, in general.

Bonne remarque pour un suisse. J'imagine que la maison des stroumps a
geneve, ou la merveilleuse fontaine sont des exemples de "bon" gout.

>It's just a feeling based on my limited perception of the average Canadian
>and my even-more-limited perception of the average European.
>How is that insulting? I think I'm just facing the facts.
>I make no pretensions about my own taste, I'm just making a generalisation
>about two groups of people. The problem with proof is that it's impossible.
>As they say, "Les gouts et les couleurs ne se discuttent pas."

Le point n'est pas de savoir si telle  ou telle personne a "bon" gout.
Une phrase du style "les canadiens ont en general mauvais gout" est
tellement deplacee (surtout dans can.politics) que je me demande meme
pourquoi je replique.


-- 
Francois Audet
Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: riese@litsuns1.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: O Canada, O Quebec  - reaction
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:39:01 GMT
            <1992Apr10.163102.5720@bmerh2.bnr.ca>


Moi:
>Un avis que je partage avec Richler c'est que la caracteristique commune
>la plus significative entre les Quebecois et les TROCiens, c'est que nous
>avons generalement du mauvais gout. Par rapport aux Europeens, c'est vrai. 

Me:
>point I agree with Richler about is that the most significant common charac-
>teristic between Quebecois and TROCiens is that they generally have bad taste.


Francois Audet:
>Plus j'en entends sur cet imbecile, plus il me tombe sur les nerfs. A
>mon avis, il provoque seulement pour provoquer. Si j'etait
>psychologue, je dirais qu'il se hais lui-meme.


Frank Robin Collins:
>Marc:
>I guess from your sophisticated position of objectivity over
>there in Switzerland, we do have such parochial and narrow
>interests. We are such colonials -- and bad-taste colonials to
>boot -- unlike yourself.
>Do you normally like to insult entire nations like that?

C'mon guys.
1. Calling Richler or myself names is arguing ad hominem.
2. Implying that I pretend to be sophisticated is a straw man argument as well.
   (Incidentally, I don't think I'm "sophisticated", whatever that means.)
3. Asking whether I normally "insult" nations, whatever that means, is 
   irrelevant to the proposition. Ditto for colonialism.

If I were you, I might have talked about onus of proof, or attempted
some sort of counter-argument. I said that I believe that we Canadians
generally have bad taste. I don't know why Richler said so, but
I simply find that, in my modest experience, we Canadians, in general,
have bad taste with respect to Europeans, in general.
It's just a feeling based on my limited perception of the average Canadian
and my even-more-limited perception of the average European.
How is that insulting? I think I'm just facing the facts.
I make no pretensions about my own taste, I'm just making a generalisation
about two groups of people. The problem with proof is that it's impossible.
As they say, "Les gouts et les couleurs ne se discuttent pas."

Comments?

Marc Riese
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: On Exaggeration
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:54:27 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>I indeed wish Le Devoir would sue Richler for libel (as Bissonette
>claimed she would do), so that the truth or falsehood of his allegations
>about the paper, and Groulx, can be made conclusively and very publicly.
>(Perhaps it is in the best interests of Groulx's fans for this *not* to
>happen, so an illusion may be kept alive). Those who ridicule the
>allegations simply because they don't like the tone, are no better than
>the critiques themselves.

I found an interesting letter in the newspaper on the allege
antisemitism in Quebec.

It says that in 1832, the jews in Canada were not allowed to have
cimetaries or synagogues. In 1832, the deputies of the Patriote party
(under Louis-Joseph Papineau) voted the first Charter of Rights, that
got these rights (synagogues & cimetaries) for the jews.

In Upper-Canada, it was 2 years later, and in England 20 years later.

The letter also said "Au surplus, le Quebec serait le seul pays au
monde, a part Israel, ou la communaute juive a le droit et les fonds
publics pour gerer ses ecoles et ses services sociaux."

-- 
Francois Audet
Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: French in france
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 20:20:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.143618.20508@bmerh2.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.140618.19084@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>
>>If Q City french was made of french from all over France, how could
>>it be richer than France french, which (I assume!) also came from all
>>over France. 
>
>Because in Quebec, the dialects got combined; in France, they stayed
>separate and did not influence each other to the same degree.  And
>Francois pointed out that the Quebec dialect that resulted did
>stabilize and lose some of this richness over the years.


OK I will accept the possibility, but only if it is assumed here
that not all Quebecois embraced the more numerous combination
of vocabularies than the French of France.
I cannot believe somehow that all those Quebecois had such
huge vocabularies, as compared, say to the graduates of the Sorbonne.
Somehow I doubt that France french was stagnant, while Quebec french
evolved......Consider that Quebec french is thought to be more similar
to pre-revolutionary France french than is present-day France french.
So which has "evolved" more?

Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:00:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.182025.7598@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>

	Context deleted

>			 (sorry for the native indians, but
>learning cree won't help anybody to communicate here) 

	Unless, of course, you're trying to talk to Cree...

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: can
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:46:43 GMT

FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA () writes:
>In article <1992Apr06.072628.29969@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca
>(Ken Mcvay) says:
>>
>>Barring some major miracle, I believe that British Columbians will reject
>>outright any constitutional change that does not include the EEE senate,
>>or which grants special powers to any province. Any politician who
>>stood up to urge another position would be committing political suicide.
>>Perhaps it is the same in Alberta.
>>
>I hate to cloud the debate with facts ... but  if memory serves ....
>
>Last week the Committee of the B.C. Legislature studying constitutional matters
>issued a report that DID NOT recommend a EEE Senate.  Late last week Mr. Sihota
>the B.C. Minister responsible for constitutional matters announced the position
> that the Government of B.C. with respect to constitutional reform.  So much
>for the consensus among residents of B.C. on the merits of a EEE Senate.
>
>If my memory does not serve please correct ...

I believe that is all more or less true except the conclusion. The
residents of BC and the government of BC are 2 distinct entities. The
residents of BC have the last say because we get to vote on ratification.
The government of BC's role is merely to help shape what we, the residents,
vote on. The recommendations of a government committee do not necessarily
reflect the views of the residents.

As well, I remember a news clip that said that the government was caught
off guard by the number of submissions favouring a EEE senate. This caused
the government to modify its position and put forward a recommendation for
an equitable senate whereby BC and the NWT, combined, would be considered a
region and have the same number of senators as either Ontario or Quebec,
each of which would be a region. Under this plan Alberta, Sask, Manitoba,
and I think, Yukon, would be considered another region. (I can imagine what
Alberta thinks about that!).

Personally, I suspect that the government is only making a token gesture
towards a revamped Senate since it has always been NDP policy to abolish
this institution, and considering their statement that if a reasonable
alternative cannot be found they would favour abolishing it altogether.


-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdivax1.mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: revow@cs.toronto.edu (Mike Revow)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: South Africa and the commonwealth (was Queen of Canada)
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:23:25 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

In article <1992Apr16.095239.14186@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.224705.21930@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.130754.17153@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>>>
>>>True, but a lot do, like Britian, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.  
>>
>>South Africa is not a member of the Commonwealth; it is a republic
>>(or if it is a member of the C. it does not have the queen as head of state.)
>
>If I remember correctly from the history books, South Africa declared
>itself as a republic to get out of the commonwealth, as it was coming under
>pressure to reform its racial laws.  Once it became a republic, apparently
>they could have applied to rejoin the commonwealth (of course, they
>didn't).  So by this deft manoeuvering, they managed to resign from the
>commonwealth before being kicked out or causing an uproar by resigning.
>
>-- 
>Mike Godfrey   	           		"Either that wallpaper goes, or I do."
>Dept of Comp Sci, UofT      	         	-- allegedly, the last words
>migod@turing.toronto.edu			   of Oscar Wilde

Correct, South Africa not being a member of the commonwealth has nothing to do
with being a republic. It left the commonwealth 'hours before' it was
about to be booted out because of its rush into apartheid which had gathered
momentum in the '50s and the heavy repression of opposition to things like
pass laws. Good ole Dief played a major role. The promise to boot Apartheid
South Africa out was probably one of the better things that the commonwealth
did.  It is likely that if South Africa ever gets a non-racial constitution
it will rejoin the commonwealth (Sort of like when Zimbabwe became
independant)

Michael
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau)
Subject: Re: On Exaggeration
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:13:22 GMT


In article <1992Apr06.070926.29681@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>
(Ken McVay) writes:

> In article <1992Mar31.234410.9741@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>  
pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau) writes:

[following-up on Evan Leibovitch]

> > I gathered from your writings that genuine victims
> > of oppression may find justifiable disgust at reading
> > about three-times daily fed, First-World citizens
> > complaining about language disputes using strong
> > wording which should be exclusive to genuine
> > victims of persecution, if only by basic respect.

to which Ken McVay comments:
 
> The Lubicon Lake Cree, a tragic (and near-perfect)
> example of genuine victims of oppression, wouldn't
> find disgust at such conversations - if they ever saw
> them, which is unlikely. Their history has taught them
> that little or nothing we have to say carries conviction
> or merit anyway, so our conversational topics are simply
> not relevant to them.

  Well Ken, following your logic, it is therefore best to
hear from the Lubicons directly :-) ... Note that when
Lubicons were starving only a few years back I contributed
to the transport of food, so I have some idea of what they
think of white society.  Once the truth in your last statement
is recognised, then a clear start to rectify this sad situation
is for us to discover the true meaning of respect for others,
which I humbly tried to do.

I take the opportunity to thank you for bringing the Lubicon
issue on the net; it is a "helluva" way to snap us all out of
accute complacency, and a pointed reminder that the "conciliatory
character of Canadians" is not a birthright, but something that
each and everyone of us must earn ...

Pierre R.
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:40:14 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr14.135932.8169@cc.umontreal.ca> coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael) writes:
>Stephen Webb asked how Canadians felt about the monarchy and so I've
>got to leap in with my $0.02.  I don't care much one way or another
>about the English monarchy; my ancestors were Irish and so I don't need
>anybody to explain to me the faults of Britain or its monarchy.  At
>the moment, they are a quaint part of the government whose main attraction
>is being a form of tradition.  When the monarchists write into the Glove
>and Mail (whoops, sorry about the spelling error but I don't know how to
>edit on this thing yet) after a Royal visit they always proclaim that the
>huge crowds are evidence that Canadians long to have the Royals as our
>heads of state.  Strange that they don't suggest this when the Pope gets
>even bigger crowds.  If we MUST have a monarchy for constitutional reasons,
>then I would prefer having one from the native peoples of Canada.  Or
>Gretzky.


I've always been amused by the supposed justification used to support 
the monarchy -- that being TRADITION>
Which traditions are we talking about here?

High divorce rate?
Incest?
Feudalism?
inheritance of power and wealth?
Colonialism?
Brutality and killing of wives?
Elitism?
War?

Which ones?
Frank.
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Separation?
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:13:13 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr10.010038.15969@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>"My Canada includes Quebec."  <-- If you believe it, say it!
>
>About this campaign of the trucker, in French, it says "Mon Canada comprend 
>le Que'bec". Direct translation in English: could be "My Canada includes
>Quebec"  OR "My Canada understands Quebec".
>The true exact translation should be "Mon Canada INCLUT le Que'bec".
>
>Why the words are different in French?
>Many people think exactly that Canada DOES NOT understand Quebec.
>Coincidence???
>
>Care to comment???

Oui, Sylvain, je veux bien commenter - mais pas exactement a la
question que tu poses.

Bon, ca fait combien de fois que je me fais mettre sur le nez cet
anglophone imbecile qui a pietine le drapeau quebecois, comme preuve de
la mauvaise volonte du Canada envers le Quebec (et cela, meme si la
majorite des Canadiens ont desapprouve ce geste).

Mais qu'un autre anglophone tente de tendre la main, d'etablir un lien,
et qu'arrive-t'il?  Certains le voient comme enemi.  Toi, tu critiques
son geste, parce que tu n'aimes pas sa traduction.  On n'est pas loin,
meme, d'y voir un complot anglophone pour tromper le Quebec.

Au mieux, ce n'est qu'un geste isole, sans importance.

Penses-y un peu - y'a pas quelque chose qui cloche, la-dedans?

     ,          ,
Le Rhealiste (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Recherches Bell-Northern
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
Mon employeur ne controle pas mes opinions. |  (613) 763-4266
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:59:00 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr15.223446.21515@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>Enough of this silly feudal tradition (it's almost as bad as the
>fleur de lis, symbol of french royality on the Quebec flag.) 
>Ooops, sorry, steph!
>

Worse than that - the French royalty chose the fleur de lys (symbol
of purity) and the colour blue (symbol of the virgin Mary) as proof
of attachment to the Catholic church, and especially to Mary...

So the Quebec flag reflects royalist AND religious symbols (both
of which are obviously unacceptable to many Quebec nationalists).
Yet I don't see a movement in Quebec to remove such symbols of
oppression from their flag...

:-)  (of course)

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: massi@cs.sfu.ca (Pierre Massicotte)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:48:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.072628.29969@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>,
kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
> 
> Barring some major miracle, I believe that British Columbians will reject 
> outright any constitutional change that does not include the EEE senate, 
> or which grants special powers to any province. Any politician who 
> stood up to urge another position would be committing political suicide. 
> Perhaps it is the same in Alberta.

The (all party?) BC report on the Constitution was released last week
(there was an article about it in Saturday's Globe & Mail).  Apparently,
BC's position is to reject a EEE senate in which one of the E is for
equality of provinces in representation.  Instead the report supports
equality of regional representation.  It went on to sugest some regions.
I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember the regions included: BC - Yukon,
Alberta - Saskatchewan, Manitoba - NWT.  The report also supports the
notion of distinct society for Quebec with some power (language, culture, ?).

Cheers,
Pierre