Talk:French Canadian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corrected numerous mistakes based on a fallacious interpretation of historical data. French Canadians and Acadians are separated peoples. The first Canadians were the Canadiens who renamed themselves Canadiens-français and later again québécois during the Quiet Revolution. The Acadians became inhabitants of Canada in 1867 and therefore cannot be considered Canadians before that time. -- Mathieugp

Sorry, I disagree. Strongly. My French-Canadian ancestors first arrived in Acadie in 1605. I don't know when the term "Acadien" was first used. In 1755, the British depopulated the area of all French-speakers who would not swear allegiance to the British king (I'm quite sure all of them gave the British the 18th-century equivalent of "the finger".) They loaded them onto converted slave-trader ships. I don't think there were any first-class or second-class accommodations. Those who survived two ocean crossings settled in Louisiana and became known as "Cajuns". Others quietly moved back across the border, such as it was before the American Revolution. What's all this about 1867, anyway? I seriously doubt it was a special date where French-speakers suddenly started moving in. Cbdorsett 08:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If your ancestors are Acadian, then they're not French-Canadian; French Canadians and Acadians are two different things. The thing about 1867 is that prior to Canadian Confederation, the Acadians did not live in any geographic or cultural entity that was called "Canada" or "Canadian" — the issue isn't about the Acadians alone, as it would be incorrect to refer to any resident of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island as "Canadian" prior to 1867. Prior to 1867, the name "Canada" only referred to what are now Ontario and Quebec. Bearcat 10:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, the Québécois and the Acadiens see themselves as distinct nations. In 1885, the Acadiens gave themselves their own national flag. During the convention which decided on the flag, some people wanted the incorporation of the Acadiens population as part of the Canadiens français, blurring all distinctions, claiming that both were children of New France and would be stronger under one flag. But the majority voted for the keeping of this historical distinction. It very well could have been that all French speaking populations of what is today Canada (or even all of North America) come to see themselves as one united continental nation, but it didn't happen. To write it would be to write fiction, not history. Spanish colonial history also produced multiple nations in South America. They all speak Spanish, but different varieties of Spanish, and they will all vigourously defend their own individual differences, past and present. -- Mathieugp 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the article: "One of the motivations for the union was to limit French Canadian political power." What kind of POV unfounded rubbish is this? Angelique 23:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do you prefer "One of the primary motivations for the union was the complete assimilation of French Canadians for their own good."? I thought this would pass as non-neutral, although that is what the Durham report clearly states as an objective. If you want to quote the Durham report, you are free to do it, but I garantee you that someone will eventually try to tone it down with something like "limiting French Canadian political power". -- Mathieugp 03:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For me the flags all show up in a single right-aligned vertical column. I'm not an expert in wikipedia editing, but is there anyway they could be organized into multiple columns dependent on the width of the browser? I could table them into a fixed number of columns, but it would be nice if the number of columns could be window-size-dependent. Willhsmit

Contents 1 Semantics 2 ACADIA 3 Hyphenation 4 First Europeans to colonize Canada? 5 Removed Quebec nationalist bias 6 Sources tag 7 Article improvement 8 Further improvements

[edit] Semantics

Recently, someone moved this article form French-Canadian to French Canadian. This action resurrected the semantic problem that we need to fix with regards to Francophone Canadians. Here is what we need to distinguish:

Francophone Canadians: Canadian citizens who speak French. This denomination includes French Canadians (2), Acadians, Metis, or immigrants from any part of the world. This definition excludes all people who are not Canadian citizens. In French, this would be Canadiens francophone.

French Canadians (1): Canadian citizens who have some French ancestry. This denomination can include actual French (from France), French Canadians (2), Acadians, Metis, Cajuns etc. This denomination excludes Canadian citizens who may be Francophone, but are not of French descent. It is somewhat equivalent to "Franco Americans which include Americans of French, French Canadian, Acadian (and others) descent. In French, this would be Franco-Canadien or Canadiens d'ascendance française.

French Canadians (2): People who are French Canadian by birth or adoption. This denomination includes individuals of French Canadian descent (on either side of their famility tree), or Acadians, Irish, Scots, English etc. who were brought up as French Canadians or accepted as such by their community. Such communities existed in French Canada (Quebec) and then from there some migrated to all parts of North America. This denomination excludes French, Acadians, Cajuns, Metis etc. and other distinct Francophone cultural groups. In French, this would be Canadiens from the time of New France up to the Union Act, then later on Canadiens francais when the Canadiens became a minority ethnic group inside a federal Canada with different borders. After the 1960s, the Canadiens francais of the province of Quebec started to refer to themselves as Québécois (citizens of Quebec).

Considering the current contents of this article, I think we should move this article from the ambiguous French Canadian to Francophone Canadian or create an disambiguation page with French Canadian. What do you all think? -- Mathieugp 00:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last week, I added a subheading to Franco-ontarian in order to clarify almost exactly this kind of issue. I think, realistically, there does need to be something at the title French Canadian, since it's unquestionably a common historical term and one that still gets used by many today (even if it shouldn't be). I think it's probably possible to resolve the issue by adding something similar to what I wrote up at franco-ontarian (under the heading Franco-ontarian identity). Bearcat 17:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Does that mean you favour a disambiguation page? Because I can't imagine including a disambiguation paragraph into each article dealing with the broad subject of French Canada. It would, in the long run, lead to a lot of duplications. I think a disambiguation notice at the top of the current French Canadian article would be appropriate. The disambiguation page already sort of exists in French Canada.

Personnally, I think it is essential that this encyclopedia informs its readers of the distinction between "Canadian citizens of French descent" which lumps everyone into one meaningless ensemble and "Canadian citizens of French Canadian descent" which specifically refers to a national group that is distinct from the French, the Acadians and the others francophones. I mean, if people don't even know that Quebecers are to the French as the Americans are to the English, how could they possibly understand anything about our culture? -- Mathieugp 21:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another good reason to solve this issue: Franco Americans. Where do they fit in this? They are certainly French Canadians (2) but not French Canadians (1). Considering that there are many more people of French Canadian (2) heritage in the United States than in Canada outisde Quebec, there is no way we can avoid the subject in the long run. -- Mathieugp 15:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All I can say is that these observations are correct, however, when referring to the US or the UK, most people don't even use the "-Canadian" suffix or noun, depending on how you choose to view it. They think that there's some sort of enclave of French citizens living in North America. Oh, and the same (mis?)understanding goes for the hispanophone and lusophone Americas. So, for roughly a billion folks, French Canadian = those who speak French in Canada, i.e. francophones or as I mentioned above, some enclave of French citizens in N.Am.

What this translates into is that if you mention "Québécois" most people have no clue of what you mean. And by referring to "Quebecers", one would convey, regardless of his or her intention, simply the residents of the province and not their heritage or first langugage. -- CJ Withers 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACADIA

Although the history of Acadia, noted in the separate discussion of Acadia in another article, is valid, one CANNOT seriously list present-day French-Canadian groups without some reference to Acadia and Acadians. The article on French-Canadians has a glaring hole in it and is of little use to people using this document to learn about Canada and its french-speaking population. It should be fixed by someone more knowledgeable than I. User: 234561

I understand. The confusion around the term "French Canadian" is a big problem. Historically, Acadians are NOT French Canadians, for the simple reason that the French colony of Canada and the French colony of Acadia were separate colonies. The people of French Canada (today Quebecers) and the people of Acadia are quite isolated from each other geographically speaking. What is today called Canada just happens to include both the historical homeland of the Canadiens (French Canadians) and the Acadiens (Acadians). The result is that there are two different French language nationalities in present day Canada. See the semantic problem I discussed just above (under Semantics). -- Mathieugp 21:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphenation

I disagree that "French-Canadian" should not be hyphenated. I am in the middle of editing this article and am finding that we are hyphenating the provincial groups (Franco-Manitoban) but not the umbrella group, which is grammatically inconsistent. In addition, I am French-Canadian and have always seen and used the term primarily with a hyphen, just as one would write Italian-Canadian or African-American. I propose the page be moved back. Was there a prior discussion about this before it happened? Mona-Lynn 21:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These expressions fall into two different groups. (1) Terms that start with combining forms, like Anglo-, Franco-, Russo-, Sino-, and so on. These are always hyphenated. (2) Terms containing two national adjectives, like French Canadian, Italian Canadian, and so on. These take a hyphen when they are adjectives: "French-Canadian town", "Italian-Canadian newspaper", "Irish-Canadian woman", "Mona-Lynn is French-Canadian"; but not when they are nouns: "He is a French Canadian", "Italian Canadians have been around for generations". It's a bit tricky till you get used to it. The Wikipedia naming convention is to have titles in noun form, with adjective forms as redirects, so that's why the article is "French Canadian" and "French-Canadian" is a redirect. Indefatigable 21:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do we need to remove the hyphens from Franco-Manitoban, Franco-Albertan, etc. when being used as nouns? Mona-Lynn 00:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, those belong to group (1) above, and they always have hyphens. Those combining forms that end in with an o never stand alone. They have to be joined to the word they modify with a hyphen, whether they are adjectives or nouns. Isn't English grammar grand? Indefatigable 01:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Europeans to colonize Canada?

Is that true? What about Newfoundland? The St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador article claims that it was founded in 1497, although I'm not certain that is accurate.

Funnyhat 06:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Newfoundland was discovered in 1497, but the first permanent settlement wasn't founded until 1610. Quebec was first settled in 1608.Since Newfoundland was discovered first, and Quebec settled first, they both get bragging rights. Vary 04:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is with the definition of Canada. Newfoundland was a separate colony of Great Britain until 1949 when it was annexed to what is today called Canada. This means that, for a very long time, Newfoundland could not have been where the first settlement of "Canada" occured.

Worst than that, Canada currently refers to a federation in which what used to be French Canada is now a province called Quebec. For a great many Quebecers, the current Canada is a distinct political and geographical entity from the historical Canada (a colony of New France, itself a province of the Kingdom of France) which was founded by their ancestors who used to called themselves "Canadiens" long before their country was annexed to the British Empire. It is not uncommon in Quebec to say that in reality Champlain founded what is now Quebec, since Canada is today a word that conveys a different meaning than 242 years ago. So were the French first Europeans to colonize Canada? Well, it depends on which Canada you are refering to. Did you mean "le Canada" founded by Champlain, renamed the province of Quebec in 1763 or the younger Dominion of Canada, founded by John A. MacDonald and friends in 1867? -- Mathieugp 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What did Jacques Cartier according to you???17:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Quebec nationalist bias

I removed parts prescribing how to refer to French Canadians. I think each person can speak for themselves on the issue of identity, including Céline Dion. I know Quebec nationalists might dearly love to get rid of the word, but that does not apply to everyone. I somehow doubt that Americans in Montana will ever adopt "franco-saskaskois" to refer to their French-speaking neighbours.

It's not a Quebec nationalist bias. Celine Dion does identify as Québécoise rather than French Canadian. Franco-Ontarians do identify as Franco-Ontarian rather than French Canadian. And on and so forth. The section was added by me (and for what it's worth, I've never lived in Quebec in my life, so I can hardly be accused of harbouring some Quebec nationalist bias) to clarify an objective reality. It's a fact that most French Canadians identify with their provincial subgrouping, and it's a fact that Wikipedia has to respect the right of people to self-identify rather than simply imposing a label that a group doesn't use for themselves, even if that's the more common term among outsiders. Bearcat 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of a francophone outside Quebec or Ontario object to the term "French Canadian" or "Canadien-français", nor have I heard Celine Dion object to the word. I do remember her going ballistic when she won an award for "best anglophone recording artist" at ADISQ a few years back and claiming that she was not "anglophone" but "Québécoise", an indication that anglophones as a whole are not considered "Québécoise" outside the politically correct circles of Quebec intellectuals.

In any case, French Canadians outside still strongly identify as French Canadian. This is very clear when they name their national pan-Canadian and provincial cultural organizations. All you need to do is google "Canadienne-française" and you will get 269 000 hits leading to these organizations. Among hundreds of others, these include:

- Fédération culturelle canadienne-française (Cultural organization) http://francoculture.ca/fccf/

- Association canadienne-française pour l'avancement des sciences (Science Organization) www.acfas.ca/

- Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française (Youth organization) http://www.fjcf.ca/

- Alberta (Association Canadienne Française de l'Alberta (ACFA)) http://www.acfa.ab.ca/default.asp

- Ontario (Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario (ACFO)) http://www.acfo.ca/

- Regina (L’Association canadienne-française de Regina (ACFR)) http://www.scfpa.ca/

So your whole point about French Canadians outside Quebec no longer self-identifying as French Canadian is completely unsubstantiated. At best, it is annecdotal. It is clear that "franco-ontarian" is used interchangeably with "French Canadian from Ontario". It is not offensive to anyone.

- the following peer-reviewed article,it's clear that outside Quebec, they continue to speak of their French-Canadian identity, particularly in literature:

http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=product/utq/634/634_hayne.htm

The article also reviews the nationalist political context behind eliminating the word in Quebec.

So until you come up with some of examples of organizations outside Quebec that have specifically negated the use of "french Canadian" or "Candien-français", I think your point on modern usage is just plain wrong. Every Francophone organization outside Quebec refers to itself as French Canadian in some context, and French Canadians outside Quebec, be they from Ontario or Saskatchewan, have no problem with it. There may be a few Quebec nationalists living there that disagree, but they are about as marginal as Alberta seperatists.

As for the point that the Quebecois no longer identify as French Canadian, that point is made clear earlier in the article. You do not long, belaboured personal annecdotes to make this point. I think the whole section on "modern usage" should be removed pending revisions of the factual errors.

And to clarify, I am not vandalizing the site and making arbitrary changes. I'm removing content that cannot be substantiated beyond anecdotal evidence. I've added links to Pan-Canadian "Canadien-français" organizations that clearly identify as just that, and made reference to several provicnicial and local organizationes as well. I apologize if I have violated any wiki protocols.

Franco-Ontarians, for example, identify strongly as Franco-Ontarian. They retain the Franco-Ontarian identity even if they move to another province. They do not identify as "French Canadian" — in fact, the official name of ACFO was changed within the past few years from "Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario" to "Association des communautés franco-ontariennes", precisely because "canadienne-française" is problematic and not representative of how the community identifies. The article also needs to make clear that a Franco-Ontarian who moves to Quebec does not magically become Québécois; the identities are not interchangeable. And, for the record, your evidence is not supporting your claim — every one of the examples you posted is a national group which is using "French Canadian" as a collective term for all francophone groups in Canada, which is precisely one of the contexts where the section you're disputing says the term is still perfectly valid and correct. You have not provided any proof that groups exclusive to Saskatchewan would identify themselves as "French Canadian" rather than Fransaskois; you've provided evidence that "French Canadian" is used as a collective term when something applies equally to Saskatchewan and Ontario and Quebec. Bearcat 08:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Newfoundlanders maintain their Newfoundland identity when they move to Toronto or Calgary, and Montrealers maintain their Montreal affection for bagels and the Canadiens when they move to Toronto, so why is it worth mentioning that Saskatchewan francophones maintain a soft spot for Saskatchewan when they leave? And none of that prevents them from identifying as Canadians. And in Quebec they make a huge fuss about making sure that Algerians and Haitians are "Quebecois", that it's just silly to consider that francophones moving from Saskatchewan aren't considered "Quebecois". The whole subject is silly and not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

You might perhaps want to try reviewing the edit war that took place some time ago at Michaëlle Jean, regarding whether her last Québécois predecessor was Jeanne Sauvé or Jules Léger.

As for what is "politically correct", that has no place in an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is here to describe words and ideas as they are used, not how you would like them to be.

I am describing the word as it is used. It has jack-all to do with what's "politically correct"; I'm describing what's actual. You're the one engaging in wishful thinking here, not me.

You decribed how the word is used, and then went into how it should be correctly used.

Moreover, I still haven't come across any Franco-Ontarian or Fransaskois having a problem with "French Canadian". I know lots that would have a problem with "Quebecois" if they are not living there, just like an Albertan might have trouble if you called him a Nova Scotian. You are going to have to provide proof that individuals identify more with their provincial identity than with their national one. You will have to go one step further and show examples where someone has taken offense at being called "French Canadian". That is obvious in Quebec, but not elsewhere in Canada.

And I've never come across a Franco-Ontarian who did move to Alberta and decide that having moved suddenly made him now a Franco-Albertan rather than a Franco-Ontarian. It is not an identity defined solely by the province one currently resides in; a Franco-Ontarian remains Franco-Ontarian throughout their lives no matter where they may subsequently move to. And I'm sorry, but when disputing how Franco-Ontarians define themselves, I think the actual lived experience of an actual Franco-Ontarian counts for a hell of a lot more than you seem to believe.

My main point is that it is not insulting to call anyone French Canadian. And from personal experience, I know several ex- "Franco-Ontarians" and Franco-Manitobans who move to Quebec and consider themselves Quebecois for the same reason that Michaelle Jean does. Multiple identities are not unusual in Canada.

"Fransaskois" like Carmen Campagne live their lives in a French Canadian milieu whose cultural life is centered in Quebec (Montreal to be exact). That is the reality of those who choose to live and work in French.

You're still using French Canadian as a collective term for groups across Canada, and then claiming that the usage invalidates the reality of the provincial subgroupings. IOW, you're still basing your claim on evidence that undermines it rather than supporting it. Bearcat 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm saying that the cultural life of francophones all across Canada revolve more around a this national culture (music, literature, television, etc.) than around local institutions. That is precisely what my "Carmen Campagne" example illustrates.

[edit] Sources tag

Like most of the articles here about Canadian English, this one doesn't cite any sources for its assertions, which like any other assertions about usage are debatable. I think it's a good stab at defining the term, although I don't agree with it completely. Anyway, it would help if some sources were provided to back up the assertion that the term is most often used with this meaning in Canadian English. For example, I would think that people born in Quebec of immigrant parents who speak French as a first language are French Canadians. I can't provide any source to show that that's the implication of common Canadian English usage, but then I haven't made the claim in the article.

Oh – don't want to imply guilt by association. this article is better than the other articles about Canadian English I'm familiar with. John FitzGerald 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article improvement

To be more along the lines of other articles describing ethnocultural groups, there should be a template made like the one found on the articles Acadian people, French people, Irish people or English people.

As for sources on the subject, there are a lot on-line. On the French Canadians living in what is today Canada, a lot of sources are unfortunately heavily politicized. For French Canadians in the United States, it is still politicized but better in average. However, resources are more scarce in this case.

Good Internet sources for French Canadians (and Franco Americans) in the USA:

• Franco-American History, Marianopolis College in Montreal
• Marianne Fedunkiw, French-Canadian Americans, in the Website "Countries and Their Cultures"

-- Mathieugp 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further improvements

Can someone find the number of Francos who settled in Northern and Eastern Ontario during the late 19th and first half of the 20th century? The Franco-Ontarian population being half a million today, I suspect it must be at least some 100 000 people.

I think the "History" section should, much like the other articles about ethnocultural groups, talk about the history of the population (settlements, growth, emigration, development of the core institutions (parishes, schools etc). Since the scope of the article is now on "the French Canadians" and not "all the people of French ancestry living what is today Canada", the section must be adapted to consider the whole population, especially the important part of it living in the USA. Right now, the "History" section is a bad rehash of the usual discourse on Canadian/Quebec history. -- Mathieugp 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I think while French Canadian populations in the U.S. are worth mentioning, I think details should propably be left for a seperate article on Franco-Americans similar to Franco-Ontarians and Acadians. --Soulscanner 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be inconsistent with the other articles about peoples, such as English people, Scottish people, Irish people, French people etc. An article about the French Canadians is of course about all French Canadians, not just those who reside is what is currently named Canada. Articles focussing on Franco-Americans and Franco-Ontarians are already existant. Same for the one on the Acadians, which of course talk about all Acadians, not just those who reside in what is today Canada.

This is true to certain extent. However, more French Canadians identify as such in Canada. Franco-Americans identify more as Americans. French Canadians in Canada identify more as French Canadian, and your undue emphasis on American is part of a deliberate and politicized attempt to diminish the importance of a Candian identity among francophones. --Soulscanner 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In your rewrite of the intro, you wrote that most French Canadians (of Canada) identify as Québécois, which is true. Now you say they identify as French Canadians in Canada. That is a first class contradiction. Of course Franco-Americans identify as Americans: they are an ethnic minority in something called America. If according to you "undue emphasis on American is part of a deliberate and politicized attempt to diminish the importance of a Candian identity among francophones", then is an undue emphasies on Canadian a deliberate and politicized attempt to increase the important of Canadian indentity among francophones? I doubt you will admit this since you are a partisan. The article, to be consistence with the other articles about peoples will talk about all French Canadians, those who are still francophones and those who are not, those who live inside their historical homeland and those who do not. There could be no undue emphasis on the major part of the Quebec diaspora which just happens to live in the USA. You are the one refusing to see this for political reason. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a contadiction. Seperatists (and many other Quebecers) who identify with their French Canadian roots refer to these as Quebecois (for obvious reasons). Hence, as I said before, when Celine Dion says "Je suis pas une artiste anglophonie ... je suis Quebecoise" she is obviously using this sense of the word. In English, we distinguish between this sense of Quebecois and Quebecker. --Soulscanner 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how your contradiction is not a contradiction? How is your political use of an annecdote about Celine Dion changing anything to the fact that the article is about all French Canadians, not just those who live inside the current borders of the Canadian federation? Where are your arguments? -- Mathieugp 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

French Canadians are not people "who can trace their ancestry and cultural identity to colonists from France who settled the Saint Lawrence River Valley during Canada's 17th and 18th century French colonial period". This is a narrow definition that only corresponds to a subgroup of the French Canadians. Ethnic French Canadians are many to have Irish, Scottish, English, German, Italian etc. ancestry or mixed ancestry going back to 18th, 19th, 20th century. Ethnicity is socially transmitted, unlike "race" which has to be passed down biologically. One common, probably the most frequent way a person will come to identify and/or be identified as a member of a given ethnic group is to be brought up as a member of that group. A confusion arise I think because a great deal of people (this would be my case for example) are both member of a given ethnic group and also member of the main community(ies) of biological descent that make up the bulk of the said ethnic population. Like most nations of with populations of many millions, different communities are at the origin of the nation's culture and social frabric. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The French Canadian people were founded by French Catholic settlers. Aboriginals, Irish, Germans, etc. were assimilated by the descendants of these settlers. African Americans also have as many elements of Scotish, Irish, English, German and Italian ancestry and culture, indeed, as much as French Canadians. However, they identify primarily with their African ancestry and culture. That is what makes them African American. Similarly, French Canadians identify primarily with their French ancestry and culture (language, culture, ancestry, etc.). They do not identify as much with their German, Irish, Scotish ancestry, culture, and language. Race usually implies a visible difference, which is why African Americans also can be categorized as of African race. Ancestry does not neccessarily cannotate race in modern parlance. --Soulscanner 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are almost making sense. First, you do not "found a people", you found a country which gives birth to a new society and the new society allows for the birth of a new people. Second, there are Black French Canadians. Third, French Canadians do not identify with their French ancestry the way you mean it unless they were assimilated to Anglo-American or Anglo-Canadian culture. It is within this context, that of a minority group inside a larger group, that such identification is possible. Those who are francophones and tend to live in Quebec identify with a language and culture that is still alive and that is, because the political institutions are there to make it possible, dissociated from ethnicity, as are the American or Canadian cultures. One can thus be Franco-Québécois, Anglo-Québécois, Sino-Québécois as one is Anglo-American, Franco-American or Chinese-American. When Franco-Québécois identify with their ancestors, they very much indentify with their ancestors in the New World, the Canadiens, or the Acadians, like the Anglo-Americans who identify with their Yankee ancestors. This does not exclude also identifying with their ancestors on the Old Contient, but it just happen that it is much less important to them. Nothing of what you wrote invalidates or even contradicts what I wrote, but it confirms that you are not qualified to write on the subject. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not contradicts these points. You make good analogies. As many New Englanders identify with the first English settlers of New England and the culture they spawned, so do French Canadians (including the Quebecois) identify with the first French colonists. You are wrong, though, that language is dissociated from ethnicity in Quebec. Indeed, shared language is an intrinsic component of mostethnicity and ethnic groups, and so it is especially with the Quebecois or French Canadians in Quebec. This is a key component of Quebec nationalism. They in fact identify much more strongly with their ancestry because they go through the trouble of preserving the language associated with this ethnicity. In order to perpetuate that ancestral culture, it is entrenched in Canada's and Quebec's civic structures, often to the exclusion of others. The Fet nationale is another example: the "national" holiday of ethnic French Canadians is made the holiday of the state, imposing ethnic culture on the entire population. Certain ideologues may pretend that all this has nothing to do with identifification with their ethnicity, but that doesn't change the facts: you don't have to be minority to identify with your ancestors; it is just that with the ideology of nationalism, it is just assumed that the majority ethnic group may use the state to dominate the others. Don't get me wrong, their's nothing wrong with preserving your culture: Jews do it, Muslims do it, and it would be inhuman to deny it to French Canadians. But unless you recognize it for what it is you will have the type of difficulty with minorities that we see today in Quebec and (even worse) France. The need to dominate others culturally, as we learned in Canada with Durham, will always bring resistance. --Soulscanner 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to go even more off topic? How is anything you wrote supporting your definition of the French Canadians, as a community limited to those people who can trace their ancestry to the original settlers of Canada, New France? What about those French Canadians whose ancestors are not French at all, or mixed? You have yet to make a valid point on this. -- Mathieugp 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The French Canadians are undisputably a nation, as are the Acadians. The only thing that makes the concept of a French Canadian nation controversial, unlike that of an Acadian nation for example, is the political "debate" going on over the secession of Quebec. An encyclopedia has to be above the biases of the political conflicts. If people want to argue that the French Canadians are not a cultural group and nation, they can present their arguments here. I and others will be happy to refute them. -- Mathieugp 07:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It IS disputable. It depends on your definition of nation. The Civic Nationalism link explains it quite well. French Canadians do not form such a civic nation, and many (especially Americans) use that definition for nation in academic political discourse. If you wish to use nation, you should specify "ethnic nation", which comes with it's own loaded meanings. Hence the assertion that French Canadians form a nation is clearly dependent on which definition you choose based on POV. That will be based on your political view.

No it is not disputable. We are of course talking about a cultural nation here. The civic or political nation would be Quebec, as the associations of citizens cannot strech beyond the borders of States. Do you seriously believe you could possibly teach me anything about the subject of nation and nationalism? Do you have any idea how much reflexion the people of Quebec, over the course of the past two centuries, has given into these? Read the articles about the other peoples inside Wikipedia. This is what we are talking about here. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. We are talking about a cultural or ethnic group; those are the words that should be used to avoid ambiguity. Refering to it as something was as imprecise a meaning as a nation will confuse things and lead to ambiguities unless it is qualified with "ethnic" and "cultural". Quebec seperatists do this intentionally, ad\nd the fact that you attempt to use this word clearly indicates a political agenda. Quebec is not a civic nation. Not anymore than Newfoundland or Texas, anyways.It is a province. That is the civic entity. Those are objectively different. That is my point. You may want Quebec to be a civic nation, but it is not. Canada is a civic nation, as is the U.S. --Soulscanner 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Go on the talk page of English people. Convince the contributors to this article that the English are not a nation and that any mention of it should be removed from the article, as it could be controversial. If you win your argument, repeat the process for the other articles about peoples, including French Canadians.

Quebec is a civic nation in fact and in law. Like most civic nations that welcome a great deal of immigrants, it is made out of a majority ethnocultural group and minority groups. There is not much difference between Canada, the US and Quebec in this regard, other than Quebec not being sovereign, which is precisely why there is an independence movement in that state. Anglo-Americans, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Americans and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of the USA. Anglo-Canadians, being a majority, tend to identify as simpy Canadians and generealize their perception of reality to all citizens of Canada. Franco-Quebecers, being a majority, tend to identify as simply Québécois, and generalize their perception of reality to all citizens of Quebec. That is perfectly natural as they, being the majority, are setting the social norms and usually come into contact with the Other through their own language and culture. When Joe Canadian says, "we Canadians say hey", he is generalizing to all Canadians something which only ethnic Anglophone Canadians and people assimilated to the culture of this group, could possibly relate to. Is anyone accusing the Anglo-Canadians of rejecting the other citizens of Canada? Of course not, that would be dishonest and vain. Yet, this dishonest and vain process you apply to people who, identifying as Québécois generalize this to all citizens of Quebec. What is your justification for this unequal treatment of the evil ethnic Franco-Quebecers? -- Mathieugp 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely because the encyclopedia has to be free of political biases (in this case yours iis highly politicized and that of a hard-line Quebec seperatist; the emphasis on nation is clearly used to justify the legitimacy of Quebec sovereignty, which is also disputable). It should be specified that "French Canadianess" is a question of identification with French ancestry and culture and ethnicity, as being African American is of identification with African ancestry and culture. They are different of course, as are all diaspora identities. it's a fact that very few French Canadians identify with their German heritage as much as they do with their French ancestry, language and culture (that is why they speak French instead of German). --Soulscanner 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My political opinions never leave the talk pages, unlike yours which you pour into all the articles you touch. Again, read the articles about the other peoples inside Wikipedia. The French Canadian article is going to be similar to those. I doubt that your contribution will be significant in the end. -- Mathieugp 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have clearly shown here, the very fact that you attempt to get away in the article with not qualifying the word "nation" is evidence enough of your political bias. Anyone here can read that. --Soulscanner 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly shown? Through what argumentative process did you invalidate the reasons that I have put forward? Where are your logical inferences? Where are your facts? -- Mathieugp 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Quebec is a civic nation in fact and in law. Like most civic nations that welcome a great deal of immigrants, it is made out of a majority ethnocultural group and minority groups. There is not much difference between Canada, the US and Quebec in this regard, other than Quebec not being sovereignThat is a HUGE and important difference that is not made clear by how the word nation is used in this article. However being a ardent federaliste and anglophone Montrealer I probably have a bias so I have tagged this article as POV and weasel words. Ideally sopmeoen who isnt Canadian (or French Canadian/ Quebecois) and therefore have no vested intereste will resolve the dispute. Mathieugp you clearly ahve a political bias which is colouringyou views on this subject as indeed to I, which is why I believe a more impartial editor should dela with this issue. -Mathieugp.

First, this article is about the French Canadian nation, not the Quebec nation. The best comparision here would be the Jewish or Irish peoples (including all diaspora members disregarding territory) versus the body of citizens of the States of Israel or Ireland.

Regarding the use of the word "nation" to qualify French Canadians, the challenge is, if you succeed at getting the word "nation" removed from the English people article, than for consistency's sake it should be removed everywhere else in Wikipedia including here. In the end, ambiguity over words can be resolved 1) by disambiguation pages or 2) proper definitions but not by ideological censorship. You are welcomed to work on improving the nation article if you master the subject. -- Mathieugp 03:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)