Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: can
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:54:53 GMT

Rheal Nadeau (nadeau@bnr.ca) wrote:
>In article <BuDswF.J8C@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.183650.28754@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>>You assert the principles of rep-by-province and rep-by-pop, but ignore
>>>what is most important to nationalist Quebecers, rep-by-nation.  It is
>>
>>Except Quebec is a province not a nation.  They are not the "French nation"
>>either - they are 1/6 anglophone, and there are many, many francophones
>>outside of Quebec.
>
>Let's see - what does Webster's have to say?
>
>Nation 1 a (1) : NATIONALITY
>           (2) : a politically organized nationality
>           (3) : a non-Jewish nationality < why do the nations conspire,
>                 Ps 2.1 (RSV)>
>         b : a community of people composed of one of more nationalities
>             and possessing a more or less defined territory and
>             government
>         c : a territorial division containing a body of people of
>             one or more nationalities and usu. characterized by
>             relatively large size and independent status
>       2 archaic : GROUP, AGGREGATION
>       3 : a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)
>
>Nationality 1 : national character
>            2 : NATIONALISM
>            3 a : national status; specif : a legal relationship
>                  involving allegiance on the part of an individual
>                  and usu. protection on the part of the state
>              b : membership in a particular nation
>            4 : political independence or existence as a separate
>                nation
>            5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and
>                  language and capable of forming or actually
>                  constituting a nation-state
>              b : an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger
>                  unit (as a nation)
>
>Can you deny that Quebec satisfies several of the definitions above?
>
>But leaving aside dictionary games, Quebec forms a nation because MOST
>OF ITS MEMBERS VIEW THEMSELVES AS A NATION!

I, personally, have difficulty with a definition based on such
non-objectivity.  There is no necessary correlation between the holding of
a belief and the reality of the situation. I may view myself as g*d's gift
to humankind, but the reality is far more mundane.

Having said that, I am not bothered one way or the other whether Quebecers
view themselves as a nation. However, what does concern me is when this
view starts to result in asymmetries in Canadian institutions. This is what
has happened in the constitutional deal, and being a person who believes
that you do not unite by legislating inequalities, I would have to say
that I am less than happy about it.

>And, by either the dictionary of my own definition, I don't see any
>other province that can claim "national" status.

Actually, while looking at the dictionary definitions I thought to myself
that Newfoundland and even BC would indeed qualify as a nation. Which of
the above definitions would you say applies to Quebec but not to either of
these other two provinces?

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics