Talk:Québécois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Quebec, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Quebec. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute to more articles.

Contents 1 Definition 1.1 Québécois vs. Quebecker 2 Métis as French-Canadians and as a grouping 2.1 Meti are spin from Quebueqois that left Quebec 2.2 How big is the Quebecois Nation 3 The relevance /irrelevance of Mordecai Richler 3.1 Gutting the article 4 Restating 5 Ethnicity and Residence 6 Variations on the word 7 Confusion 8 Proposals to improve the article 9 On the obsolescence of the term French Canadian 10 What Wikipedia is not 11 Quebecois! 12 minor changes 13 Orthography 14 Controversy section is unneccessary 15 For edits from new users 16 Boisclair's "slant eyes" comment 17 Quebecois identity 18 Soul scanner wasting peoples time

[edit] Definition

Note to readers of this article. The definition is erroneous and Wikipedia seems to be happy with it. I am from Québec and it is false to state that the word Québécois can only be used to define French speaking residents from French ancestry. This has probably been added by someone with the desire to fuel intolerance towards French speaking canadians. Since Wikipedia has worldwide attention, I think this should be removed from the definition.

Racist? I agree that it would be racist to limit the meaning of québécois in French to a descendent of the French colonists. However, this is the English wiki, and in English the term Quebecois has a very specific meaning and refers to a very specific concept that has to do with ethnicity rather than with residence. I have never heard Quebecois being used in English to mean anything other than a Quebecer of French-Canadian descent. This is why I was careful to distinguish between a Quebecer and a Quebecois. I'm not a Quebecois, though I am a Quebecer.

Whether or not the concept is racist or not, the fact is that this is the meaning of the word. - Montréalais

The dictionaries do seem to think that "quebecois" includes any resident (see here and here), though they specify that its more narrow meaning is the French-speaking residents. I'm not sure how that would indicate pure ethnicity or descent, as there could also be Francophones of ethnic "English" or non-colonial descent. It could be that your interpretation is just the local English usage and not the general one, but I'm not certain. Scipius 19:06 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

FWIW, my Canadian Oxford gives "a francophone native or inhabitant of Quebec." I suspect they're being a little broad. I've never heard a Parisian immigrant to Quebec described in English as Quebecois, for the same reason that if a Quebecois moved to Belgium, he or she would not turn into a Walloon.

I admit it's a little confusing - most demonyms use the same word for an inhabitant/national as they do for a member of the ethnic group. My mom and I are both Canadian and American, but for opposite reasons (she's an American by birth who moved to Canada; I'm a Canadian by birth who has dual citizenship with the US). Quebec is somewhat clearer in having different words for the nationality than for the ethnicity, and this can sometimes cause confusion. - Montréalais

Do you think mentioning "pure laine" would clarify, or further confuse the issue? (And am I spelling that right?)Vicki Rosenzweig

It's a pretty separate issue, I think. Quebecois and pure laine are not synonyms. (I'm Scottish, but I'm not, um, pure laine Scottish, if you want.) - Montréalais

Dictionaries will typically favour the broad definition of "Québécois" as any resident of Québec, or any person with links to Québec irrespective of linguistic ties. (There is also the use in reference to the Québec French dialect but that is not in dispute here.) I am of course familiar with the term "Quebec(k)er" and view it as interchangeable with "Québécois" in its ethnic or national sense, but not in its linguistic sense. As a bilingual Canadian, I find "Quebecker" to be a somewhat illiterate term which I would not normally use. My francophone ancestors moved from Québec to Ontario in about the 1860s, and I certainly do not consider myself to be Québécois in any sense of the word.

The definition that Montréalais seeks to impose is one from a nationalist POV. It is not new. In using the term to apply to pure laine (or "old stock") people in Québec, it carries implications of special rights or privileges, Such semantic distortions have been used repeatedly to fan the ardour of nationalists. These suggestions of superiority are what make this usage racist. These 1995 comments from the World Jewish Congress provide insight into the minefield where Montréalais' definition can lead:

A History of Extremist Rhetoric

Parizeau's belligerent (POV) stance does not represent an entirely new phenomenon. The PQ has an uneven history in relation to minorities (and especially Jews (sic=not based on facts)) living in the province (POV). Father Lionel-Adolphe Groulx, the patron saint of modern Quebecois nationalism (sic=not patron saint of modern Quebec nationalism), was an outspoken antisemite(sic=distorsion), and antisemitism in the 1930's was a prominent feature of French Canadian politics (sic=as it was in any christian society). It has also recently been revealed that prominent Quebecois politicians (including Father Groulx(sic=groulx was not a politician), Provincial Premier Maurice Duplessis and Montreal Mayor Camilien Houde) helped (sic=distortion) French "refugees" (Nazi collaborators fleeing justice) settle in Quebec to escape prosecution. It had been believed in some quarters that the Quebecois nationalists had abandoned the chauvinism and parochialism that had characterized the party in times past. In the most recent election, members of the province's ethnic minorities, including Jews, could be found amongst the PQ's activists and supporters (sic=not just in recent elections). One North African Jew active in the separatist movement explained that "Quebec nationalism is not ethnic based; it is territorial, so I am comfortable with it." Mr Parizeau's remarks, however, left many such supporters feeling disappointed and isolated (POV). Mr Parizeau is not the only chauvinist in his party(POV). In the period preceding the election PQ MP Philippe Parc suggested in the Canadian parliament that ethnic minorities refrain from participating in the vote on the future of the province and allow "old stock Quebecois" to determine whether or not to secede(sic=distortion). Across Canada, and even among certain quarters of the PQ, Parizeau's words produced outrage(sic=embarassement, but not outrage). Prime Minister Jean Chretien, a French Canadian, was shocked by the invective and roundly condemned it(sic=he was not shocked. He exploited the gaffe for political ends). PQ members who were not old stock Quebecois were especially upset. Edmond Omran, Director of the "Medical Aid for Palestine" office in Montreal, said it "felt like a slap in the face". Jack Silverstone, National Executive Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress declared that "to differentiate between classes of voters is reprehensible and racist" (POV + sic=distorsion). The Jewish Community was particularly outspoken in its condemnation(POV). Better than most, Jews understand that a state in which there is any differentiation between citizens based on religion, race, national origin or roots is a state doomed to ruin. (POV + Chauvinism)

A proposed definition that does not take this into account is not NPOV, and therfore intolerable (POV + sic). Eclecticology 08:19 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake, this is insane ! "Extremists use it..."? I find that personally insulting. I and everyone I know use it this way, and most of us are federalist anglophones! (not surprising, since we are talking about English usage !) The definition you wrote is a falsehood, personally contradicted by my example and the example of everyone I know, and I am reverting it.

I have explained the difference between Quebecois and pure laine to you. You are bringing in a host of irrelevant issues. That some Quebecois are racist, and some Jews feel and do not feel threatened by the sovereignist movement is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the Quebecois people. (All Quebecois are not sovereignist!)

"Quebecer is interchangeable with Quebecois in its ethnic... sense..." As written, you do not concede that Quebec(whatever) has any ethnic sense; you are using it only to refer (ooh, except for by those scary extremists) to all residents of Quebec, who are composed of a large variety of ethnicities.

"Special rights and privileges..."? Will you please explain the special rights and privileges involved with being Quebecois, according to the definition I wrote, and compare and contrast these with the special rights and privileges enjoyed by members of other noted ethnicities such as British-Canadian, Fleming, Turk, Picard, Valencian, Basque, Welsh, Heiltsuk, Han, Tamil, Uzbek, Dyirbal, or Inuk?

Tell me, does any other group of people have to go through this? Do you even concede that the French-Canadian people of Quebec even exist, or do we have to have that argument too? If so, under what title can we write about them? Can we write an article about the Walloons, the Basques, the Scots, or the Catalonians, without having to tie ourselves in knots detailing the difference between a Walloon and a "French-speaking resident of Belgium"? Are we even allowed to write about ethnic groups?

Look - I'm just trying to write an article that discusses the French-descended people of Quebec. I don't see how specifying their mere existence is racist. I'm going to try again, move up the difference between the English and French languages, in order to assuage what I understand can be a legitimate source of confusion. But if you don't think the description is a fair one, I would ask you to please hash it out in Talk. - Montréalais

---

Okay... after some reflection I think I understand the origin of the conflict. Am I right in thinking that you took "descended from the French settlers" etc. to mean wholly or mostly descended? If so, that wasn't my intent - I meant this to refer to the French-Canadians of Quebec as opposed to (for example) recent Belgian immigrants. I'm of course aware that a lot of people who consider themselves Quebecois are nowhere near pure laine, and that pure laine is widely considered (as it is by me) to be a racist idea. I was referring to the descent of the ethnicity, not of the individuals.

For that reason, I've thoroughly reworded the definition, and added the term "pure laine" to contrast with it. I've also mentioned other Francophone ethnicities in Canada, as well as a description of some Quebecois cultural items which I'm about to expand (and could use some help with). If someone (you, perhaps, Eclecticology?) wanted to write/work on articles about the Franco-Ontariens, Franco-Manitobains, etc., this would be most helpful. Anyway, how does this look? - Montréalais

This is much improved; I had previously been puzzled about the relevance of the "Walloon" issue. I've parnethetically added "old stock" for the benefit of those who might take the reference to wool in a literal sense, and be thereby quite confused. I've also changed the reference to French-Canadian authors to Québécois, since that is what the article is all about. I've also removed Gabrielle Roy who was Franco-Manitoban.

One small issue that I would like accomodated is the fact that tourtière does not mean the same thing throughout Québec. Tourtière du lac St-Jean is a deep dish recipe that includes a variety of meat chunks (traditionally wild game) with potatoes, and a pastry covering; It is different from the small meat pies that you might find in Montreal.

I'll keep in mind, without any promise, the suggestions that you made about doing something for the other French-Canadian cultures; however, as is typical with many Wikipedians, I already have a very long list of topics that I would like to work on. Eclecticology

I'll see what I can do (once I return from indulging in highly Anglo traditional specialties in the middle of cottage-country Ontario (I haven't seen my aunt's family in three years, it's not my fault, I swear !! :). FWIW, I knew G.Roy was Franco-Manitoban, which is why I hedged by saying French-Canadian... I figured her writing was pretty important in QC culture (viz. Bonheur d'occasion... my metro station has a big mural commemorating her :)

Glad we were able to work this out. -- Montréalais

---

I've moved this since it paints with an incredibly broad brush:

The anglophones primarily indentify to Canada (with Quebec as just a province), the francophones to Quebec (with Quebec as a nation), and the native populations do not recognize the borders established by the europeens imperialists at all. Miraculously, this country is one of the most peaceful on Earth.

- Montréalais 12:44 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

I changed the first sentence of the second paragraph because Montréalais is right. In English, Québécois means a francophone Quebecker (sic) whose family has spoken French for at least a few generations, at least on one side (that's why Daniel Johnson and Georges Dor and Steve Penny are considered Québécois). The only authorities who think otherwise seem to be people who don't use the word routinely and in whose lives it is not an important concept. The phrase I replaced -- "can more specifically refer to a particular francophone ethnicity and culture" -- implies there is something else it can refer to. If somebody decides to revert they might add a citation to demonstrate what else the term designates. I also capitalized Québécois in the first sentence because as a noun it is capitalized in both French and English. Have to see if they've got Georges Dor on the list of Quebecois. Torontois

---

[edit] Québécois vs. Quebecker

In the intro, when it says that Quebecker/Quebecer is the English equivalent of Québécois, which is it talking about?

1. word equivalency?

   the two words means identically, and are perfect translation

2. person equivalency?

   An English speaker in Quebec is called a Quebecker; a French Québécois.

I think it probably means the 2nd. Clarify? --Menchi 02:42 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And is that the French usage? I recall Mordecai Richler being described by a provincial cabinet minister as "pas de la famille." Jfitzg

The "Richler" comment has nothing to do with the description of what Québécois is. (Irrelevance) Québécois

If a prominent Québécois says that an English-speaking Jew doesn't belong to the Quebec family you're probably right that it's not relevant, but it sure as hell is revealing, eh? Québec pour les Québécois, et pour personne d'autre. Trontonian 20:19, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with what Mordecai Richler writes and it stains the reputation of Québec in big American newspapers. A member of the National Assembly calls him "pas de la famille". A normal, non-racist, person can only see two political adversairies not happy with each other. A racist person will ignore the political debate (which he obviously does not comprehend) and only consider the blood and tongue of the two persons and make his observation on it. Who is racist again? Mathieup

The issue of blood is raised by the phrase "pas de la famille." I should think that's obvious. Trontonian 04:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Obvious to a person who's convinced that Quebec independence has something to do with the ethnic origin of people. People who are involved in the debate know that it's about equality of peoples and self-government. Mordecai Richler was judged to be "pas de la famille" has someone who works for the other "famille". Mathieup

Hm. It is somewhat idiosyncratic, but I think it's an illustration of a certain mindset. It's not representative of the opinions of the whole society, but it does represent the opinions of a certain segment. I think there's something to be said for restoring it, but perhaps refactored so as not to give it more weight than it deserves. - Montréalais 18:02, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

The statement "Quebec is home to a multi-ethnic society with a primarily francophone population, eleven First Nations, an anglophone minority and a wide variety of ethnic minorities" confuses categories. Francophone and anglophone are linguistic categories, First Nation is a legal one (since one may be an aboriginal person without belonging to a First Nation), and ethnic minority is an ethnic category. I did change native tribes to First Nations (native tribes made my skin crawl) but the original phrase is no better -- in Canada so-called tribes, First Nations, bands or whatever you want to call them are legal entities defined by treaty. A member of a First Nation will be a member of an ethnic minority, but will also often be either anglophone or francophone. Jfitzg

So I revised it. Jfitzg

I'd just like to jump into the fray here and say that as a English-speaking western Canadian, I'm confident that I have never used the word "Quebecker". As far as I'm concerned anyone who was born in Quebec is Québécois. I don't care if their parents were born in Pakistan. I don't think it is a word that describes ethnicity or language (there are other words for those), it describes the province of one's birth. My two cents.

Steve Lowther 09:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Métis as French-Canadians and as a grouping

I changed "French-Canadian cultural groupings" to "French-speaking cultural groups" because considering all we have done to them I don't know that Canadians really accept the Métis as Canadian. I may be wrong, though, so feel free to change it back. However, I do think "group" is a better word than "grouping," which seems to me to imply an arbitrary aggregation. Métis culture goes back to the seventeenth century, so they seem to me better described as a group. Trontonian

[edit] Meti are spin from Quebueqois that left Quebec

Sorry man but Meti are a culture is from the west and Québécois are Native-French that never left... Quebec is a native word and not french... Its a word that the french hijack over time... The British did not set out, however, to persecute Quebec's native French population. The Quebec Act, passed in 1774, allowed the Quebecois to have religious freedom.

Also at the time was slavery of native population... so to state that your native descendent are would bring about bad things like capture or get shot… That’s why many left and changed to Métis… I know because I am from Métis-Quebecois… And we had to keep are mouths shut and go to church or no job or money went to you… we the French people who the Algonquin adopted…created the nation of people called Quebecois…

Now why should bad people take my history away... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZorroIsGod (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] How big is the Quebecois Nation

Don't forget that is like 270 years of new Native-French kids being born...to 1774 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZorroIsGod (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

The word Nation is used in Canada to describe First Nations Natives like the Cree-Nation so when you talk about the Quebecois they are mostly the Native-French descendents who lived and created Quebec city before 1774… Not Meti who are from the west... If your family tree dates back that far then your a Quebecois.

France back then in 1500 did not build jails they just ship you here to Quebec…it was way to get development going here…

When my great grandfather came over on one boat escaping prosecution he had to change his last name... I think it was a way to track down his descendents... The story was handed down to show the truth how we got here...

Father Paul Le Jeune proposed to the governor, Champlain that they try to promote Huron-French intermarriage. Champlain agreed not only for religious reasons, but also because intermarriage was a way of further cementing French-Native alliances. He also thought that by building a settlement in the Huron country, the French/Huron population could complete the exploration of the continent.26 While the Huron were ambivalent about accepting this proposal, the French court accepted and still promoted it during the late 1660s, namely that French and Natives “mingle” and “constitute only one people and one race.”

Harper himself has done little to clear up the confusion, saying cryptically, "The Quebecois know who they are."

After the initial 1755 deportions, England decided to sent the French back to France instead of to the American colonies.. When Louisbourg fell in 1758, over 3000 Acadians from the Ile St. Jean area were exiled to France. When Quebec fell in 1759, hundreds of prisoners of war were also sent to France. In 1763, 753 more Acadians arrived from England. Generally, they lived in poor conditions. Most lived in coastal cities, though several attempts were made to settle them elsewhere. When the opportunity came to leave in 1785, over 1500 of them traveled to Louisiana.

England did not remove the Naitve-Franch only the real french...So when did the French come? LOL

Quebecois are people of old Quebec they are mix blood that created an identity for them selves a long time ago… Vikings and other Europeans also came to Quebec before France and mingled with natives as a new nation… This all happed before the British came… To state that all Quebecer’s are Quebecois then you actually change their identity… It’s like saying the Cree and Mohawk should now be the same under one name… The Quebec Provence should not discriminate or set up pollicise that state that all people from Quebec are Quebecois…. That like creating an assimilation province under one culture… Under First Nations of many nations a nation is not defined by its boarders… Only a selected few Quebec are trying to redefine this as all people under a boarder are Quebecois… When they do this they are erasing history of the true Quebecois…

Take a look at this Metis site and you will see what i mean about its from Ontario and west.... http://www.metisnation.ca/

[edit] The relevance /irrelevance of Mordecai Richler

I see Mordecai Richler has been excised from the article as irrelevant. Well, that's a very Quebecois idea, eh? Sarcasm aside, I think that he is relevant, but the references to him need to be worked into the article better. So I won't revert but will consider a better use of the references. Or a use of better references -- certainly there are plenty from Oh, Canada! Oh, Quebec! which could be used. Trontonian 20:55, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I decided the excision was justified. See User talk:Québécois. Trontonian 21:26, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have also added a bit of clarification about Parizeau's statement (which probably didn't represent his real opinions on the matter) and removed the assertion that immigrants choose to speak French. Given the pressure on immigrants to adopt French describing their adoption of the language as a choice is questionable. Trontonian 21:34, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Gutting the article

If you're going to gut the article, how about logging in first? How about explaining why you're doing it? I'm open to arguments that the last massive deletion was justified, but apparently we're not to be made aware of any. If none are forthcoming I'm going to treat the deletion as an act of vandalism and revert the article. Jfitzg 22:37, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree, and I've restored the previous version for the time being. The Jacques Parizeau bit needs work, but that wasn't the way to go about it. - Montréalais 04:26, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think buddy may have been right to delete the paragraph, but it is inappropriate and unWikilike to do it without at least stating a reason. Uppermost in my mind is that the issue of whether Québécois are necessarily French or not was raised early in the history of this article, and at length, so the passage seems to me on balance to be relevant. Jfitzg 23:22, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From a really pissed off person: To whoever keeps putting back the Québec bashing junk everytime, get the facts straight: The Québécois are not an ethnic group! The main ethnic group composing those who self-identify as Québécois are the (French) Canadians (aka the Canadiens). But they are not the only ethnic group making up this people! Québécois means all the citizens of Québec (YES, even those who don't identify as Québécois, the same way all Québécois are citizens of Canada even though a huge chunk of them don't agree to be called Canadians.)

Québécois IS NOT EQUAL TO French Canadian. The French Canadian ethnic group includes millions of people born out of French Canadian + Irish mariages (and others). According to the Canadian Irish Congress, 40% of the francophones in Québec have Irish ancestry! Wake up! You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word ethnicity! The word "ethnic" comes from Late Latin "ethnicus", which comes from the Greek "ethnikos", from "ethnos", meaning a people, a nation. A people is a sizable group of individuals sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

So the Irish are not a people to you, I take it. After all, large percentages have Norman, Flemish, Scottish, and English ancestry (and other ancestries). Incidentally, we don't speak Latin or ancient Greek any more, so how they used cognate terms is irrelevant. Jfitzg

??? What? I am saying exactly the opposite. People who self-identify as Québécois may not be of French ancestry because it is a nationality, not a blood line. Hence, all the Johnsons, Burns, Skene, Nelligans etc who identify as Québécois despite their origins. There is no difference for the Canadians. Not all are of British ancestry, because many other groups have been assimilated to the English language culture of Canada (since the conquest). Mathieugp

It seems to me that you explicitly say that French Canadians are not a people because many have Irish ancestry. I fail to see who can be a people then. However, what you do say is so confused that i could easily have misunderstood what you intended. Anyway, this is irrelevant to the meaning of the term in Canadian English. Or irrelevant to the fact that some Quebeckers of French descent believe that Québécois are francophone. The article does not say anything beyond that, not the last time I looked, anyway. Trontonian

Removed personal attacks I am saying that Quebecers are a nation (in the modern political sense). The majority group composing this nation (all citizens of Quebec) are those English-speakers called the French Canadians (aka the Canadiens). These French Canadians are not all of French ancestry, and they are definitely not all of French "blood". The term Québécois in English can refer to the French language culture and population of Quebec all you want. Despite English being my second language, I believe I had made that clear in my previous intervention. I do that because this page is awful. It must be free from any political bias. (This IS and encyclopedia!) Mathieugp

Today, hundreds of thousands of Québécois simply have NO French roots at all (yes, even those who speak French too!).

Those who root back to the French colonists are today scatered across all of North America. If all these people had their identity based on their origins, there would be about 10 millions in the US and 8 million in Canada. These people are of French ancestry. This is not the case for all Québécois.

For the love of God, keep politics out of this page: this is an encyclopedia! We need facts and facts only!

Removed personal attacks To those who to think that québécois = french race = parizeau = fascism should really visit http://english.republiquelibre.org/ .

Okay, show us some authoritative quotations where any anglophone Canadian has ever used the term to mean anything other than a francophone Quebecker. In Canadian English Québécois means a francophone Quebecker. I'd also say that Lucien Bouchard's description of the Québécois are a white race shows that the party named for this people certainly considers them to be an ethnic group. This party also has a policy of restricting the use of English and other languages, which also suggests that it sees the Québécois as francophone. Jfitzg 01:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is it possible that you see Québec through the racist filter of English Canadian medias? Because it seems that all your opinions are taken from the loads of Québec bashing published since 1995. I am more than ready to grant that Québécois is, most of the time, used to refer to a francophone Quebecer or to refer to Québec's own culture (Québécois literature, music, cinema etc.). That does not make it right. Why is that? Do English speakers do that for other nations? Do they use the word français when speaking of french-speaking French? Of course not. That would be ridiculous even if there are millions of French citizens who speak languages other than French.

The word entered your vocabulary because we are dealing with a very unique situation. Québec is an annexed nation, in which also lives a colony of Canadians who will never see themselves as Québécois until the day we are independent. Until then, there will be brainwashed people to make the distinction between the two. In Québec, we started to use the word Québécois specifically to rid ourselves, once and for all, of the ethnic question we inherited. How can a chinese, an algerian or any other immigrant self-identify as a Canadien-français were we telling ourselves some 50 years ago? It's then that we abandonned the idea of being recognized as an equal nation inside Canada (the name of the country in which the Canadien people was born in the time of New France) and we opted for Québec. In fact, René Lévesque's movement started as Option Québec. Mathieugp

Sigh. Haven't got an answer? Claim I'm Quebec-bashing! The issue is what the word Quebecois means in English, not what you think it should mean (especially as the word is not offensive or derogatory in English). English is something we learn in Toronto. Trontonian

I have answered twice. You can say that in English Canada, people use the term Québécois in an ethnic sense because that's what they learned. Despite the non-homogenious nature of their population, it is generally accepted to claim that the Americans are an English-speaking nation even if there are of course large groups who speak other languages. The Algerians are an Arabic-speaking nation. The Italians are an Italian-speaking nation. The British are an English-speaking nation. Quebecers are a French-speaking (non-sovereign) nation. Oh no, wait! we have to disect them along ethnic lines because otherwize, they might start thinking they have the right to be free like the other nations of the Earth! They might tell the world that they are an oppressed nation and make us look bad! Yeah, but surely we can dig out their past and find things to stain their reputation with. Yeah, I like it. Ah! Look at them, those bastards had fascists as part of their elite in the 1930s! That's great! Let's not talk about the fascists in all the other Christian nations and make them look silly with this and have people be afraid of them! Nobody will ever know the truth, who still speaks French nowadays! Ha! Ha! Ha! Mathieugp

Incidentally, I don't think Parizeau = fascism. I think he's provided some of the most intelligent analysis there is of the relationship between Quebec and Canada. That doesn't change the facts that Quebecois in Canadian English means a francophone Quebecker, or that there are francophone Quebeckers who think that only francophones are Quebecois. Trontonian (aka Jfitzg)

Your almost right. Except that you see it from the wrong angle. It is only francophone Quebecers who identify as Québécois. They, themselves, do not reject any person from doing the same, on the contrary! To adopt a new culture is a very difficult change. Mathieugp

What we are talking about here is not the readiness of the French-speaking citizens of Quebec to accept others as Québécois (a fact which I myself personally have introduced into the article, if you'd care to check the page history) but what the word means in Canadian English. To say that the word means what it means is not Quebec-bashing. There is nothing wrong with being a French-speaking citizen of Quebec, so why having a term designating such a person is Quebec-bashing is beyond me. We are also discussing what the word means to some francophone Quebeckers. The article does not say that most francophone Quebeckers believe that only francophones are Québécois. Trontonian 04:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The clear-cut little world I live in (Québec) made me a person who speaks two of the most influential languages on Earth. A person who understands and appreciates cultural diversity in general and wish that people be able to put themselves in the skin of others more often. Mastering a second language will teach you that. A great deal of immigrants in your country know that. In Quebec, because we are a French-speaking people in North America, even non-immigrants like me can fully understand this.

I believe there is no truth in the opinions of the right-wing English Canadian press. That the nationalists of Québec are not as open-minded as Canadian nationalists is something a great deal of anglophones take for granted. In fact, I can't think of nothing more twisted than claiming that people from another culture are incapable of the same level of moral standards as your own. This is what Quebec bashing is. If you want to express that, in Quebec, as in any other society, there are people who discrimate others, go ahead. However, this page is not the place for it. Mathieugp

I removed a line that is unnecessary in an encyclopedia. A statement of relevant facts is all that is required. NightCrawler 01:35, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Second: give weight to the ideas of someone using a pseudonym? NightCrawler

Buddy did identify himself on the edit as Mathieugp who is a user on the French side, so I removed my indignant stuff. Pis je lui ai laissé un petit message là-bas. Nothing nasty, or mostly not nasty, but I would like to see his answers to those questions. Jfitzg 01:50, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It seems Mathieugp has never made any contributions to the French wikipedia, so I suspect his contribution here is going to end up being a piece of anonymous abuse. Maybe we'll get more! If he has that idea, though, I'd encourage him to check my user page, where he'll find there's no mystery about who I am (just click the links). Some of us, at least, aren't ashamed of disagreeing with others. Jfitzg

That is not accurate. I contributed a good number of time in both French and English, however only recently did I create myself an account. It seems Mister the Torontonian really has it for judging without knowing. How would you feel if on the Canadian page of Wikipedia, it emphasized that John A. MacDonald was a racist Orange man and that MacKenzie King was an avowed antisemite ( http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/non2many.html )? Mathieugp

Well, I added the bit to the Louis Riel article about Macdonald's calculations about the political effect of hanging Riel (incidentally, one would think it would have occurred to you that someone named FitzGerald is not a fan of the Orange Order -- you know, there are many Catholics in English Canada). Macdonald was an Orangeman, or at least he pandered to the Orange Order, and King was an antisemite; I can have no objection to those observations being included in their articles or in any article about Canadian history where those points are relevant. Wikipedia is not about making people/peoples feel good about themselves. Trontonian 04:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And I remain open to removing the paragraph about Parizeau and Bouchard if someone would like to advance some serious reasons for doing so. I even like Parizeau. Jfitzg

There are millions of people who call themselves Québécois the way you call yourself Canadian. You cannot take the sentence of one of them to stain the reputation of the rest of the nation. If you really cannot help but talk about Parizeau, then leave it to his page in Wikipedia. And don't forget that the last time Parizeau and Bouchard sued for deffamation, they won their case. Mathieugp

If you had looked below you would have seen that I had already reached the conclusion that it was best to leave the discussion to Parizeau's and Bouchard's pages -- but now I see below that you have replied to it. Work on the memory. And has anyone here said anything defamatory about either Parizeau or Bouchard? Incidentally, the Toronto Star once published a column saying I represented an extreme of political correctness because I dared to send them a letter defending Mr. Parizeau's statement (and pointing out that they had made worse ones). As for defamation suits, Canadian libel law is such an offence to natural justice that any public figure or rich person can win a defamation case. Even Bill Van der Zalm won one. Trontonian 04:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To link anyone who is not an antisemite or a racist man to fascism and nazism in mass media is defamatory and never innocent. For God's sake, we have a picture of Trudeau in a Nazi uniform. We have him speaking of the 1982 federation as a regime that would "last for a thousand years" paraphrasing Hitler himself. How difficult would it have been to use that against federalists? Why did the nationalists of Québec not use this? Because they are fair minded people who care about the truth? No, that's impossible, we cannot say that. It would make them look good. Mathieugp

Another removal: "and the control of the Anglo-American financial elite in the province" - It was no greater in Quebec than any other province. NightCrawler

The two revisions by 64.10.99.80 on November 4 were by me -- forgot to log back in. Jfitzg 14:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I revised the paragraph about Parizeau, Bouchard etc. to tone it down. As I've noted above, it is a fact that that some francophone Quebeckers believe that only francophones are Quebecois. Still, the assertions by Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bouchard are dealt with in the articles about them, I believe. Even if they aren't there's no need to make the point at length, given the purpose of the article -- or purposes, since some people seem to be determined to turn it into a puff piece, which I don't think was Montréalais's intention. Trontonian 23:53, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Don't tone it down. Put some more details on it if you want in a page named Quebec bashing. This page should be written by someone who is knowledgeable of Quebec's culture as whole. Mathieugp

Oh, I see. If I agree with you, I'm still wrong. Glad you're being so reasonable. Trontonian

You are funny. I am beginning to like you. :-) Mathieugp

Remember Mordecai Richler's interview with Barbara Frum? He said when they March down the street on Saint John Baptiste day shouting "Le Quebec pour (for) Le Quebecois", he didn't think they were including him! NightCrawler

This is unbelivable, but true. At a time when so many new nations were gaining there independence ( http://www.angelfire.com/sc/freedom/polbritain.html )? Poor mister Richler. Yet another great writer living in isolation from the rest of the world.

But they weren't including him. Remember when the Quebec government named all sorts of geographical features after Québécois authors? They didn't name any after Mordecai. Trontonian

Mordecai Richler's books are part of the Bibliothèque québécoise like all the other famous authors of Québec. He is not all that renouned in the French-speaking world because a translation can never be as good as the original and anglos live in a segregated Canadian bubble inside Québec. Can you be impartial and agree that Québec anglophones themselves do not identity to Québec the way the majority of the people of Québec do because they consider themselves Canadians first? Can't you see it is the same as Englishmen living in Scotland or Wales or before Ireland? Mathieugp

Mathieugp, you know, the quickest way to express your concerns would have been to make the addition I made to the article today about how some francophones consider the English use of the term Quebecois offensive. But it has amused me to read all those blanket generalizations about the evil imperialist English Canadians from someone who claims to be fighting racism. Your remark about how someone from Toronto wouldn't know anything about diversity was especially rich. Anyway, if you feel the need to slag me and the English Canadian people further, please do it on my talk page. This page is getting way too long and I think everyone here's got your point. However, it would help us settle these issues if you tried to address what I and others write rather than basing your responses on your lurid fantasies about the English Canadian mind. But whatever floats your boat. Trontonian 03:24, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse my exasperation. This page cannot be made decent, objective and similar to the Americans, Canadians, French or British wiki pages without a near complete rewrite. There are a good number of facts scattered throughtout the article, but they are presented in such a twisted way that people from outside Quebec or Canada must be unable to make sense it. Is it so much to ask that the pages Quebecer and Quebecois be made by people who are from Quebec or know and love Quebec? I don't believe so.

I can see that you have taken some of my comments the wrong way. The policy of Ottawa towards Quebec is that of neo-colonialism. However, I am lucid enough not to generalize about English Canadian sentiments towards Quebec. I lived among your people for years (in Alberta) and I know that since the MPs in this federation are elected with the archaic first-past-the-post voting method, the people in power represent a minority of the population most of the time. I met very open-minded people in Alberta. Most of you guys have of course nothing to do the imperialist tories and pseud-liberals who governed the Dominion of Canada in the interest of Britain for over a century. Since 1957, the immigration policies of Ottawa can no longer be considered racist. Today, Toronto is one of the most ethnically diverse megacity in North America. All these immigrants are well integrated into mainstream Canadian culture and quickly self-identify as Canadians. The overwhelming majority of them want to be a part of your society, learn English and send their children to English schools. The linguistic transfer rate is pretty much that same as in the United-States. Where there is a problem though, is in Canadians realizing that Quebecers want the exact same thing, but in French. I trust that you and others who write better English than I do can make a nice article that will reflect what Quebecers are. Mathieugp

This is great, Mathieugp. I'm glad we could both clarify that we are serious. Mettons qu'on n'a rien dit. Thank you. I've removed my outburst in French because it is now obviusly irrelevant. I would be quite happy to work with you to improve this article. And an article on Canadian neo-colonialism would be a good addition to the encyclopedia, if you want to work on that. I'm sure we would differ on may points, but that would make a good article (although I certainly do not reject the idea outright). It could also include Ottawa's neo-colonial policies towards the aboriginal peoples, and towards other parts of Canada (notably the Maritimes). Trontonian 17:18, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

By the way, although I do not share the idea that a page about Quebec should necessarily be written by someone from there, I'll point out that Montréalais, whos started this article, is from Quebec, and that I was born there (a petit gars de St-Henri). Perhaps you could let me know on my talk page what you consider twisted and we could start by working on that. Trontonian 17:22, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well if it isn't cute. We shake hands and become friends. ;-) I'll do my best to provide you with as much facts as I can, but I think you should write the text. I'll also give you (on your page) the details of what is not acceptable to me (and probably a majority of the people in Quebec who are lucky enough not to be able to read all this because they don't read English well enough.) Mathieugp

Removed personal attacks I know what discrimination is like in Quebec, more than Mordecai or any other person I am aware of. For MathieugpTo link Trudeau to the Thousand Year Reich is symbolic of his/her integrity. The realties of anti-semitism writings in Le Devoir etc. of the 1930's is abundant but this crap was not limited to Quebec by any means although it was more pronounced. When a society honors a stated public bigot like Lionel Groulx by naming a street after them, it is no difference whatsoever to name a street for Hitler. Racism is racism it is not acceptable and certainly not laudable, in any form. When reading Sir John A. MacDonald's words and actions, we must take in the times. Always. Translating him, or anyone, into today's views is not only illogical but reveals the immaturity of the commentator. NightCrawler 17:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's funny how you can say that "translating him, or anyone, into today's views is not only illogical but reveals the immaturity..." and be unable to realize that it also applies to Lionel Groulx. This old catholic priest's views on many subjects were archaic in the 1920s and still are today. The man can be quoted for saying really nice things on the Jews as much as saying the most stupid crap. Contemporary Quebec nationalists cannot share the opinions of this man on religion and nationalism. They defend him because he defended our language, our culture and our existence as a people.

A persecuted religious and linguistic minority had better things to do than persecute another one. Mathieugp

They defend him because he defended our language, our culture and our existence as a people. - Conclusion : if you are a bigot and promote hatred of a specific race, its okay to do that if you defend your language and culture. That, Miss/Sir, is exactly what Adolf Hitler did. No man in history defended his language, culture, and existence as a people more than Hitler and he doesn't have a street named after him.

Miss, Adolf Hitler is a monster for organizing the systematic killing of every single member of the Jewish community in Europe. This is called a genocide. Many such events, I am sad to say it, have occured in Human history. However none compares to the Shoah in monstrosity. As for individuals defending their people's culture and language in a situation of political inferiority, we are millions throughout the world right now and billions in Human history. It will end when all nations, small and big, old and young are permitted to govern themselves or, in other words, respect Principle VIII of the Helsinki Act. Mathieugp

Also: A persecuted religious and linguistic minority ? What world do you live in? Start with 54,963 people of French origin living on a narrow strip of land along the St. Lawrence River in 1759 and look at what the British conquerers did and how well that group has grown and prospered and the size of the land they have now. Then, compare that to France's conquering of say Algeria, Vietnam, and dozens more and see what they did to the ethic groups who lived there. NightCrawler 00:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Strange, I thought that Quebecers had battled for 200 years to keep their political autonomy and were militarily crushed in 1837-38 when they were ready for independence. I had forgotten that her Royal Majesty was the elected authority in determining what peoples are allowed to live freely and what others don't. As for the colonial history of France, you won't find a single Quebec nationalist to defend it. Quebecers, such as Rene Levesque who went to Algeria for reporting, were thrilled to see the Algerian people vote for its independence in 1962 after a war of 8 years. It's around that time that Quebecers understood that they were not alone. Mathieugp

Please clarify on User talk:Cyan: which part of NightCrawler's post was a direct threat to you? Thanks, Cyan 01:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Yeah, i think we'd all like to know. Trontonian

Re-reading the comment, I can see why you guys are wondering. I think I had misread. I thought she was implying that we should have been crushed like in Africa. I removed the first sentence since it makes absolutely no sense to me either. Sorry, it is not always easy to read a foreign language. Mathieugp

Oh, well. Maybe that wasn't such a good idea I had. Maybe you should just dispute the neutrality of the page. Or maybe you should find a non-Canadian to work with. When Lionel Groulx was around the brief campaign to absorb francophones (which was British idea) had been over for 75 or 100 years or so, thanks in large part to the co-operative relationship established by Macdonald and Sir Georges-Étienne Cartier, and to the one between Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine. But leave me some stuff and I'll see if there's anything I can or am willing to do with it. Trontonian 22:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see so many wrongful ideas in your last comment. The assimilation plan, which was Britain's plan of course because the idea was to keep Canada British at all costs (despite the fact that the majority of the subject were Canadiens), was passed when the Act of Union passed. The Act of Union of the Canadas is no different in nature than the Act of Union that united Wales with England in 1536. Or Scotland and England in 1707. Or Ireland and England in 1800. It is about political annexation. Do you understand how that alone is an assimilation policy?

When was Quebec (or Lower Canada or French Canada or whatever name they gave us) given back its autonomy? In 1867? It could have been. That's what Cartier had in mind when he and others demanded exclusive power for provinces over of many key jurisdictions such as education. However, history has proved John A. MacDonald to be the brightest of the two: He went for money powers. Today, Quebecers send 60% of their tax money to Ottawa. And before the 1950s it was worst. Ottawa is considered the national government of Canada by Canadians (- Quebecers). Quebecers don't have the sovereign State they are more than ready for. What is normal is self-government for all peoples and peaceful relations among States.

Some people dare compare Canada with the European union where each sovereign country sends 3% of its tax money to Brussels. The European union, the world's most brillant political union based on equality and mutual recognition of nations is something that Bernard Landry keeps talking about everywhere he goes since he became an evil separatist. Mathieugp

Sigh. How can anyone "give back" an autonomy that Quebec never had?

Before the annexation of Quebec, only the Parliament of England had supranational powers over the legislature of Quebec. When Lower Canada became Canada East, the parliament of Quebec stopped existing, hence it losts its autonomy. With the 1867 pact, Quebec thought it was regaining it's autonomy in a loose confederation. Refer to the definition of autonomy at Dictionary.com. Mathieugp

And how can one be both a member of a confedersation and autonomous?

See the definition of a confederation in Dictionary.com. A confederation is a union of States (autonomous from each other). Autonomy was important to Quebec and the maritimes, because they had smaller populations than Ontario. It was extremely important to Quebec, because it was the only state with a Canadien majority, therefore the only place where democracy (the majority rules) would work for them. Mathieugp

And haven't you noticed that Quebec does have money powers?

You really should read on the fiscal strangulation of provinces by Ottawa. This is something not just Quebec complains about nowadays. In Quebec, the complains began from Day One of the confederation (which really is a federation with a strong central power, especially since Trudeau). Mathieugp

It collects its own taxes and runs its own pension plan. Much of the money it sends to Ottawa, if not most of it, goes to pay for programs negotiated between the federal and provincial governments to ensure national standards in areas of provincial jurisdiction rather than for programs within exclusive federal jurisdiction (and when you lived in Alberta you were sending a larger share of your income to Ottawa than you would have in Quebec).

Of course. Alberta is not home to a nation. If the Albertains were to have a national consciousness, if they considered that they were a distinct nation because of their history, their culture, their traditions, their language or else, than nobody on Earth would have the right to tell them that they are wrong. They would have the right to build a society that resembles them. This is however not the case. They consider themselves Canadians living in Alberta, like some others live in Ontario. Mathieugp

Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over education, and over immigration, and over taxation, and over other areas which in other coutries are considered the rightful sphere of the federal government.

You mean the rightful sphere of the national government. Education, culture, immigration, banking, international trade. These are jurisdictions split between Ottawa and Quebec in the 1867/1982 constitution. Ottawa is however in a much better position than Quebec City because it has a lot more money and it gives itself the right to violate the spirit of the constitution with its spending power. Also, all new jurisdictions go to the federal government. Mathieugp

It has more autonomy than it would have had under the Yes side's sovereignty plan presented for the 1995 referendum, which would have paralyzed both the Quebec and Canadian governments.

You cannot be serious when you write this. There is not a iota of truth in this sentence. After independence, 100% of taxes are levied by the National Assembly. All laws, all treaties are passed in the interest of Quebecers. If there were to be a union between Quebec and English Canada, it would be based on the equality of both our nations. Mathieugp

Look, I would like to help you, but I can't if you keep ignoring the facts and making blanket generalizations (that no Quebecker regards Ottawa as the national government, for example).

There are individuals who consider Ottawa to be their national government in Quebec. These people tend not to self-identify as Quebecers. These people tend not to get elected in the National Assembly of Quebec. I find it so sad that we have to repeat that everytime. The parliament of Great Britain recognizes the existence of the Scottish and Welsh nations. Lester B. Pearson spoke of Quebec as "the nation within the nation". While England moves forward in recognizing others as equal, Canadians regress. Mathieugp

Perhaps you should just put the standard notice on the top of the page that the neutrality of the article is disputed and take the issue up in the appropriate forum. And I wish you well – some of the issues you have raised should be dealt with somewhere here and I will follow your attempts to deal with them and will contribute where I can. But I've had it with trying to find out just what the hell is supposed to be wrong with this article. Trontonian 13:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think Quebecois should be a disambiguation page pointing to Quebecers. On that page, you (or others) can write that when Canadian anglophones use Quebecois in English they mean French speaking Quebecois or of Quebec French culture, unlike the francophone majority who uses it to mean a citizen of Quebec. This should of course not be in the top paragraph as it is somewhat irrelevant to an article treating of who Quebecers are. There could be an article on Canada/Quebec debates where pro-federation and pro-independence opinions can be presented. That's where all those who think Quebec nationalists are ugly fascists can express their views. Maybe we can invite Irish, Scottish, Welsh and American people in the debate? Mathieugp

Please can everyone on this page read the No personal attacks policy and make some attempt at adhering to it. I have removed various irrelevant insults from the page and would encourage you to do the same for any I have overlooked. Thanks. Angela 23:47, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Restating

As I wrote above, Quebecois should be a disambiguation page pointing to Quebecers (which could simply redirect to Quebec). The page could clarify that, in Canadian English, Quebecois is generally used to refer to Francophone Quebecers or Quebec francophone culture. There are a lot of relevent details in the article that could be moved to Culture of Quebec or others. By the way, there is a Constitutional debate of Canada article now which needs to be restructured. The contentious subject of the national identity of Canadians and Quebecers would be more appropriate there I believe. Mathieugp 18:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity and Residence

You write:

"Racist? I agree that it would be racist to limit the meaning of québécois in French to a descendent of the French colonists. However, this is the English wiki, and in English the term Quebecois has a very specific meaning and refers to a very specific concept that has to do with ethnicity rather than with residence. I have never heard Quebecois being used in English to mean anything other than a Quebecer of French-Canadian descent. This is why I was careful to distinguish between a Quebecer and a Quebecois. "

Ethnicity and residence. That's exactly what 'québécois' named and that's why i use it even in english. A cultural group in North-East America. A creative cultural group i think. In french, we can't do the distinction between quebecer and québécois.

That's because there isn't one. In French, here is what you can do:

Québécois = a Quebecer, someone who resides in Quebec or identifies as such. Exactly the same as Canadian, or American, or German, or French, or Irish, or Mexican etc.

• Québécois d'origine canadienne-française = Quebecer of French-Canadian origin
• Québécois d'origine française = Quebecer of French origin
• Québécois francophone = Francophone Quebecer (can be of French-Canadian origin or any other imaginable except except extra-terrestrial)
• Québécois anglophones = Anglophone Quebecer (most likely to self identify as a Canadian living in the province of Quebec.)
• Franco-Québécois = same as Québécois francophone
• Anglo-Québécois = same as Québécois anglophones

I understand that the root of the problem is that in English, Quebecer already meant a Canadian who lives in Quebec when the French word Québécois started being used to refer to a nationality by the Quebecers of French-Canadian origin who no longer wanted to have anything to do with an hyphenated ethnic identity they had inherited from British imperialism in America. In a sense, they went back to being Canadien as it originally meant in the times of the Patriots. Back then, you were either with us, or against us. No in betweens. ;-) -- Mathieugp 04:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think Mathieugp has hit the nail on the head here. The two words "Québécois" and "Quebecker" are the same, just in different languages. Like "Parisien" and "Parisian." Sure, people may (say, in English) use the French word to refer to Quebeckers who are French(-speaking or -descended), but that is not an inherent property of the word but of the language of the word used, which influences the meaning in context. Even when it's literally the same word in both languages (like "baguette"), whether or not you pronounce it à la française influences what you're saying: if it's just baguette, I'm referencing the type of bread; if it's baguette I'm talking French Revolution-esque let's-storm-the-Bastille type bread. And I agree, Quebecker should be classed with all the other local appellatives like American, German, Ontarian, Manitoban, etc. 68.116.189.234.

Pure laine is used to designed somebody who has a family here since the Nouvelle France. America is a so young continent... All Québécois are not francophones. And all Franco-Americans are not québécois. But we were all canayens, canadiens, cadiens and acadiens, canadiens-français.

I always understood pure laine as meaning a Quebecer of French-Canadian origin, ie, related to the French Canadian community by descent. Most of the time, that will be someone who's ancestors came from Quebec, lived there for many generations before the British army took over.

Canayen, Canadien français and Canadien-Français appeared when being Canadien alone started to make little sense because there were now two solidly anchored nationalities inside something called Canada (which no longer was the St. Lawrence river valley alone). The word Canadien français existed before though, because the Catholic cleargy was sometimes using it before the rest of society did after the forced Union. The priests were the first ones to bend over and accept domination. -- Mathieugp 04:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

English Canadians don't use the word Québécois. But that's ok, we call them 'canadiens anglais'. But when i talked about me, in english, i am not able to say that i am quebecer. I would prefer say i am québécoise or i am canadienne. I know... my english is a litte bit cranky...

They do use it. They often give it the meaning we (those who consider themselves Quebecers) give to Québécois d'origine canadienne-française. This is really confusing and should be avoided in my opinion. It would never come to the mind of any English-speaker to use français to refer to the French language culture of France right? A French is a French is a French right? For two centuries, we have called the Canadians les Anglais or les Anglais du Canada. We moved to Canadien anglais more recently. Although not obvious, this includes any person who identifies to Canada and speaks some English. Now we are trying to call them by their own name. We can't call them Canadien because that already means either all residents of Canada (now) or my ancestors (historically). I have seen a lot of people write Canadian in italics the way you sometimes see Québécois in italics in English texts. However, in French, Canadian in italics will never exclusively mean the Canadians of British descent. It will always mean all of those who identify as such, whatever their origin. Maybe it will evolve to Canadian without the italics. Human language is so poor at expressing complexity... -- Mathieugp 04:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh! And i would like to add at the 'pâté-chinois-beans-tarte-au-sucre-poutine' list this important information: Canada can eat now raw-milk cheese because some brave québécois made a 'dégustation' on the parliament hill. Sorry for my english. Back to reading. Excusez-la. H

[edit] Variations on the word

The article is not clear on when it's discussing English vocabulary or French. It should mention:

1. Quebecker is not interchangeable with Quebecois; Quebecker almost always means a person, it not used as an adjective
2. Quebecois is not spelled with accents when it's used as an English word. When it is used as a French word it's québécois in italics.

• Plus it doesn't make sense to call this an English word and then go on say "English equivalent is..." Peter Grey 19:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary does not agree: it lists Québécois, Quebecois, and Québecois, in that order, as the most common spellings as an English word. Indefatigable 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

I am really confused by this reworked sentence:

"Its English equivalent is Quebecer or Quebecker (pronounced [kwəˈbɛkɚ] or [kəˈbɛkɚ]), although these terms are used most usually to refer to anglophone or allophone natives or residents of the province."

Why does the word "Quebecer" (or Quebecker) not include the majority of Quebecers? I had never heard that one before. -- Mathieugp 20:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

All the English-speaking Canadians I know use Québécois to refer to Francophone people from Quebec, and Quebecer to refer to Anglophone people from Quebec... There is an indisputable difference in usage between the forms. For instance, even though the word Québécois has definitely become incorporated as a Canadian English word, in Canadian English you hear the term Scots-Quebecer but never Scots-Québécois, even though in Canadian French it WOULD be Écossais-Québécois. Fawcett5 22:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A lot of bilingual people use "Québécois" for Francophone Quebeckers and "Quebecker" for Anglophones, sometimes with a political connotation, sometimes not. But it's certainly not a trend in the English-speaking world as a whole. The article should just list every variation, and then point out that Canadian English (really just the Montreal dialect) has a few eccentricies. Peter Grey 22:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not just the "Montreal dialect" — I have lived in 6 of the 10 provinces from BC to NS, and yes, including PQ. I have never, anywhere in Canada, heard the term Quebecois used to refer to an anglophone Quebecer. The relationship is not transitive though, because sometimes you will hear people talk about Quebecers being either either francophone or anglophone....but this is why the article text says "most usually". Granted, Yanks, at least those that have even heard of Quebec, would probably say "Quebecer". Fawcett5 23:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope, most Yanks are more familiar with both the (now outdated) "French Canadian" and with "Quebecois" than they are with "Quebecer." I've lived in the United States my whole life and I only have ever heard "Quebecer" when talking to English Canadians, but plenty of Americans say "Quebecois."

[edit] Proposals to improve the article

I clicked on this article out of sheer curiosity, and found I had landed into one of these raging controversies typical of Wikipedia. If I can give my two cents worth... it seems to me the article as it stands now is in need of more clarity and disambiguation. I think, you tell me what you think, that the words "québécois", "québecois", "quebecois", "quebecer", and "quebecker" should all direct to one single article that would fully explain the differences and similarities between these five words. The article would have to clearly list the definitions of these five words in international French, Canadian French, international English, and Canadian English. I am going to write here below the clear definitions of the words that exist in international French (with examples showing how the words are used). Please do the same for Canadian French, international English, and Canadian English. Then when we have all our definitions, we can put them into a clear and unique article. What do you think? Hardouin 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

International French	Canadian French	International English	Canadian English
*Québécois (capital C): noun Someone from Québec, most often understood to be French speaking, but no matter the ethnicity of the person (could be a black French-speaking person from Québec). An English-speaking person from Québec is rather called "un Canadien", without more specific details, or "un Québecois anglophone" if one wants to be more specific. E.g.: an inhabitant of Brussels (Belgium) speaking: Mon voisin est un Québécois qui a un drôle d'accent quand il parle. *québécois (lower-case c): adjective –meaning #1: Of someone or something from or related to the province of Québec, no matter language or ethnicity. E.g.: Cette jeune start-up québécoise a fait son entrée à la Bourse de Paris jeudi dernier. –meaning #2: narrower meaning: Of someone or something from or related to the French speaking people of Québec, no matter the ethnicity. E.g.: La littérature québécoise fait entendre une voix différente au sein du monde francophone. ;–meaning #3: narrowest meaning: Of someone or something from or related to the people of French descent living in Québec. E.g.: La culture québécoise a été pronfodément marquée par la prépondérance de l'Eglise catholique.	Please add	Please add	Please add

[edit] On the obsolescence of the term French Canadian

Today, French-speaking Quebecers who go on to learn English as a second language discover with great surprise that Anglophones still talk about them as "French Canadians", a term which in French (Canadien français) has fallen out of fashion some half a century ago for political and cultural reasons. The majority of Quebecers will usually never use Canadien français when referring to themselves. The fact that the same is not true in English brings a lot of confusion. Confronted with a reality that does not reflect how they seem themselves, Francophone Quebecers have been trying to explain the situation to English speakers for decades with little success. Again, politics is behind all this. -- Mathieugp 17:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take a middle road here. The term French-Canadian is often inappropriate; individual people should normally be referred to as Québécois, Franco-Ontarian, Franco-Albertan, etc., rather than French Canadian. However, there's really no other way in English to clearly express the more general concept of "all Canadians whose ancestry can be traced back to New France", which is the way in which it's used here.

I long ago made an edit to the French-Canadian article which tried to clarify appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of the word. I may be wrong, but I thought Mathieu had found that edit worthwhile and helpful. I've also just added a paragraph to this article which tries to clarify in as NPOV a manner as possible that the word's definition and application can be controversial at times. Bearcat 16:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As Lysane Gagnon articulately explained in the Globe and Mail a few weeks ago, there is no such thing as a "Quebec nation." Quebec is a province. The nation that everyone is really talking about is the French-Canadian nation. Quebecois nationalism arose from those French-Canadians in Quebec who turned inward. The 400 years of culture and history on which Quebecois nationalists are more than happy to declare defines their distinct character does not belong exclusively to Quebecers as a birthright. It belongs to all French-Canadians across Canada who have collectively contributed, and continue to contribute, to French-Canadian identiy. Moi, comme un francophone hors Quebec, je proteste fortemont contre cette grande injustice a ma identite. The next time Quebecers read a book by Manitoban Gabrielle Roy or enjoy the music of another Manitoban Daniel Lavoie, they would be well advised to take a moment and consider that they are francophones who were born and raised outside of Quebec - and they each have made critical contributions to franco-Canadian culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.55.142.205 (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] What Wikipedia is not

The Wikipedia policy clearly states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Should we move/merge the contents of this article over to the Wikitionary instead and link to it? -- Mathieugp 18:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously? I think this is already more than a dictionary definition, and I think there's quite a bit more that can be done as well -- there's a lot of cultural and historical context to it that could be expanded upon. So I don't think Québécois is a Wiktionary candidate, and I'm actually kind of surprised that you would suggest this. Bearcat 19:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• NO! There is much here that is encyclopaedic! Fawcett5 19:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised by this opposition. Québécois is a word that should not even be there in English, just like Français or Espagnol. There is already a good word to translate the French meaning of Québécois : Quebecer.

There could be, as Bearcat said a full article on the historical, cultural and political references associated to the word, but how could we make NPOV? That seems impossible. The POV of Quebec nationalists, who are at the origin of the current French meaning of the word, is unlikely to be accepted as valid by Canadian nationalists. I am anticipating more endless debates. -- Mathieugp 19:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

While that's probably true, moving something to Wiktionary isn't really the solution to potential controversy; the solution is to have as many objective people as possible keep it on their watchlists. And whether the word Québécois should be used in English or not isn't really the point; it is used in English, and Wikipedia's job is to report what is, not to enforce notions of what should be. Bearcat 19:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Therefore we must make it into a full article covering all aspects of the issue because otherwize we are violating the Wikipedia policy by making an article on a single term.

Here is the POV of Quebec nationalists on the use of the term Québécois to convey the meaning it currently has in English: it is propaganda and a denigration of who we are collectively. For as long as Quebec is not recognized as an equal nation within a new Canada or outside Canada, Anglophone Canadians will continue to reject Quebec's nationalism, continue to misunderstand Quebec, misrepresent it on the international scene, and continue to make an unecessary distinction between Quebecer and Québécois even though one is logically the only correct translation of the other. The failure of English-speaking Canada to recognize/accept the existence of a French-speaking national community with its own distinct political institutions inside Quebec is at the root of the problem. For as long as it is like that, Francophone Quebecers will fail at convincing non-francophones (and especially anglophones living in Canada) that Quebec is another nation within a bigger nation and that no, you can't just move to Quebec and ask everyone to switch over to English for you because that is colonialism. Until then, Anglophone Canadians will continue to assume that it is their "right" to just be Canadians in Quebec without first "immigrating" into a French Quebec, therefore bypassing the normal way of naturalization. -- Mathieugp 21:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Mathieu, please note that Québécois IS now an English Canadian word (though often spelled Quebecois), and it is NOT interchangible with Quebecer, which is a word that MOST English-speaking Canadians reserve for Non-Francophone people from Quebec. What is offensive here is when people that don't speak English as their first language try to dictate to native English speakers how to speak and use our own language. Ring any bells for you? Fawcett5 05:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC) And by the way, my Anglophone father, brother, and sister were all born in Quebec, so don't presume to lecture about how they should somehow "immigrate" to their own birthplace. That is truly offensive. Fawcett5 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least now you know how difficult it will be to reconcile all our POVs, although I don't see what could be offensive in anything I wrote. Can you explain the nature of my offense? I never meant to tell Canadians how to use their language, that would be pointless and silly. I am forced to accept that everything that has happened in Quebec in the past 50 years is still completely misunderstood in the other provinces. The language divide surely has something to do with this!

In French, Quebec-born Anglophones are Québécois, they are Anglo-Québécois that's all. However, we are not stupid. We are aware that this isn't how the majority of them perceive things. They will never see it like that for are long as Canadians use the power of their language and state to divide Quebecers along ethnic lines. The Quebecois (read "French Canadians") on one side and the rest of us who are normal Canadians living in the province of Quebec on the other side. Its a question of who's the minority of who.

After independence, everything will fall into place. Quebec will continue to welcome some 20 000 to 30 000 new immigrants every year, but these people will know that they are moving into a society that functions in French. There will no longer be a competition between two host societies, a huge English-speaking one which contains a smaller French-speaking one. No more flag war, finally! Quebec will continue to be what it has become in recent years. The English language will continue to have a disproportionate influence in Quebec because we will continue to live North America, but we actually like America. What we don't like is a 200 years old political inequality between two nations that should see themselves as equal. -- Mathieugp 15:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The point remains that Wikipedia's role is not to impose a vision of how things should be; it's to present as balanced a picture as possible of the way things are. Wikipedia, thus, simply cannot structure articles based on how you think the English language should handle the distinction between "Québécois" and "Quebecer" — our job is to neutrally reflect how the English language actually does use the words. Wikipedia can discuss why the common usage is controversial, but until common usage actually changes, we simply can't pretend that usage doesn't exist. The fact that you don't particularly like the way the words get used has no bearing on the matter. (Just for the record, I'm not nearly as far from your way of thinking as it might seem; in reality, I agree with you that a lot of English Canadian language around Quebec and francophone culture is quite problematic. But my job as a Wikipedia editor is to reflect the way the world is, not the way I think it should be. I'm fully amenable to expanding the article with more references and a more thorough analysis of why the term is controversial, but that's not what you proposed — you expected the article to be entirely canned because of your political preferences regarding how the word should be used.) Bearcat 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in no way opposed to that. My reasoning, was 1) I don't see a point to the article, let's use Wikitionary. Then I wrote: "OK. Therefore we must make it into a full article covering all aspects of the issue because otherwize we are violating the Wikipedia policy by making an article on a single term." I then proceeded to give an example of why the word is so politically charged. If you still want to make Quebecois into an article, I can assist you. --Mathieugp 02:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quebecois!

Well, here in Alberta, I've heard Quebecois used interchangeably with Quebecer--certainly there are many people who would tell you that Quebecois means someone from Quebec (and, if you questioned them, they might agree that Quebecois implies the ability to speak French), but many would be surprised to hear the term Quebecois tied to ethnicity. But, if you're from Quebec, and you speak some amount of French (even not as your primary language), you could be Quebecois.

Here are a few English documents/pages that uses the phrase "English-speaking Quebecois", from the CBC to a site promoting an independent Quebec.

• http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/docs/languages/2005-2006/pdf/QC2005_e.pdf
• http://gocanada.about.com/cs/mediaqueacute/
• http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/1999/0107/the4.html
• http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/QUEBEC2.HTM

FireWorks 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] minor changes

The term Quebecois in English generally refers to Quebeckers who self-identify as francophone, mostly in the cultural sense of that word.

That is the way it is used.

Quebecois and Quebecker are not synonymous in English.

The article already made that clear; your changes were unnecessary. Bearcat 20:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthography

Standard English orthography does not employ accents, tildes, diereses, or other diacritics on letters. Since this is English Wikipedia, orthography should follow English conventions, so it seems to me that the article title should be Quebecois, and that the words should appear without accents in most cases. Of course, it is completely appropriate to spell it the French way in the right contexts, so I'm not proposing that all of the accents shoudl be removed--just the majority of them. Thoughts? Godfrey Daniel 09:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose there can be, at times, a question of what's standard, but in fact, English does frequently retain accents on words adopted from other languages. For example, even in English the thing at your kid's birthday party is spelled "piñata" rather than "pinata", and the thing you submit when you're applying for a job is spelled "resumé" rather than "resume". (It should actually be "résumé", but IME the first accent is usually dropped, while the second one never is.) The rule, by and large, is that the accent is retained if the anglicized pronunciation has kept features that would not be conveyed by the usual rules of English orthography — i.e. we still say "pinyata" and "rezumay" rather than "pinnata" or "rezoom", so we've retained the accents on the letters whose pronunciation doesn't follow normal English rules — but we've largely dropped the first one in résumé, because the anglicized pronunciation has more or less dropped any audible distinction between "re" and "ré" in that word. But, on the other hand, we've kept it in "récherché", as we've retained the "ay" sound in that case.

It's true that some people do type "pinata" or "resume" or "recherche" if they don't know how to type the accented letters, but the accented spellings are still considered the correct and normal spellings in English and the unaccented ones are technically considered spelling errors.

For what it's worth, Québécois is a word that has retained its accents in normal English usage. I don't think it really matters whether that's because the French orthography influences English Canadians to ignore a standard drop-the-accent rule, or because we still do say "kay-bay-kwa" rather than the "keuh-beuh-kwa" that would be expected if the accents were absent — what matters is that the accents still do appear in normal and correct English usage. The Oxford dictionary of Canadian English, for example, doesn't even list the unaccented spelling as an alternative; it only lists the accented spelling. Bearcat 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section is unneccessary

The controversy section is unnessessary. If it is included, you should definately include the fact that the POV has been called into question.

Firstly, I realize that there is no offence intended, but holding up Haitians as an example could be misconstrued as unjustifiably singling out an ethnic group, and has the unintended effect of making the ethnic sense of the word "Quebecois" more racist than it is in most cases. It's clear from the already stated definition that the term Quebecois is ambiguous, and can either refer to ethnicity, citizenship, or residence. Call me guilty of political correctness here, but since we're talking about the widespread Quebec nationalist denial of a cery real populist Quebecois ethnic identity, I think political correctness might be the call of the day here.

Bringing in the "Pur-Laine" controversy adds nothing of use to the article:

- Pur Laine does not literallay translate as "100% wool" - it translates literally as "pure wool" - a better translation would be "died in the wool" or "true blue". It is not neccessarily racist - it can refer to ardent patriotism, and not ethnic nationalism, although like Quebecois, it is an ambiguous term that populist demagogues can twist anyway they like. The embarrassment of Quebec's educated elite at this term has as much to do with class as any: people who use the term are generally working class and look a little like yahoos when they use the term. If you insist on including that reference, at least take some time to explain the full cultural and societal context.

- A mildly less controversial term that refers the Quebecois ethnicity is "Vielle souche" or "old stock". That definately refers to ethnicity, but there is nothing wrong with being proud of your ethnicity.

- As well, the reference to Quebec Bashing should not be made without reference to the considerable Canada-Bashing performed regularly by Quebec seperatists before the referendum. Otherwise, these refrerences should be prefaced by POV qualifiers like "Quebec Nationalists claim" or "Quebec sovereignists believe". If there is POV, it should be cleraly delineated. One man's Bashing, is another womans legitimate political criticism. Morover, it should be balanced with alternative POV if included. I'll gladly provide alternative POV if you want to make a long list of other Quebecois qualifiers.

I couldn't agree more that the section is unneccessary. There used to be a time when Quebecois would simply redirect to Quebec which was even better. When English speakers start to call ethnic French the "Francais", and ethnic Germans the "Deutch", an article on the use of the "Quebecois" word will start being relevant. -- Mathieugp 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the same thing, because as previously noted, the word is used in English as to imply a distinction, fair or not, between residents of Quebec. Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant, because Wikipedia's job is not to prescribe how words should be used. Our job here is to describe how words are used, and the fact that the word is used in English in the way this article describes, and is controversial in the way this article describes, is — like it or not — a simple and unavoidable reality. Bearcat 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"The word Québécois can be politically charged because ..." I've added the more germaine aspect of ethnocultural identity. This revolves more around language in Quebec than ancestry, and is the course of the ambiguity surrounding the term I

Controversy often results over the word's definition.

"people of Haitian ancestry living in Montreal" - I still think it's a bad idea to use particular ethnic groups as examples in this context. However, I've added the dimension of etho-cultural identity in the example if we insist upon keeping it

"... Anglophone Quebecers are generally included in the French meaning of the word ... " This is POV based on subjective impressions. It may be true, but this is not my POV. To present such a controversial statement without any objective evidence or references is misleading in an encyclopedia article. I changed it to "may be" to reflect the uncertainty of this claim.

"This interpretation of the word's meaning is now rejected by the majority of francophone Quebec society, ... "

This is POV. Have any polls been conducted on how francophone Quebec interprets its meaning?

"... and public figures who have used it have been quickly rebuked by other public figures and the media."

This means that it remains a debate and that it is politically incorrect to use the term. It makes no claims of how this term is used or iontended by the general public.

"... (sometimes in a derogatory fashion) ... "

This is a big assumption. It is not used to refer to anyone in derogatory fashion. This makes it sound like an ethnic slur. It is never intended that way. It is used to highlite the attitude of those who first used the term. This may be considered unfair or antiquated, but it is equally unfair to say that it is used in derogatory fashion.

"As noted, most francophones use a single inclusive term which describes residents of the province without distinction to origin or ethnicity. "

Again, you need to document a controversial notion like this, and I'm not sure that it's worth going into in a quide for the English usage of the word. The English sense of "Quebecois" is just as often employed in French, and it's meanng is sometimes deliberately ambiguous.

"Pure laine is itself a deprecated term in French — in modern speech the term is now used almost exclusively by anglophones, to denote the disputed idea that mainstream Quebec society actually draws this type of distinction between residents of the province."

Actually, it is deprecated in French BECAUSE anglophones and allophones use it to underscore their exclusion from much of Quebec society. It has become bad form to use it because it makes Quebec Nationalists look bad.

I think the majority can be wrong. Québécois includes all Quebecers whether it is used this way or not. I love Québec, but I live in francophone Quebec and I know that anyone with a strange last name or an accent or a different skin color is not really considered to be a Québécois. It does not really matter if you have a carte soleil. We are told we are Québécois by the politicians who want to be politically correct, but it is not used this way. Unfortunately most Quebecers including French Quebecers use the word Québécois to mean only French Quebecers. I sometimes insist "En fait, je suis Québécois". I think more Allophones and Anglophones in Quebec should start asserting their attatchement to Québec. It is partly our fault if we are not considered Québécois. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should all start voting Parti québécois, but maybe we need an advertising campaign with posters like "hey, je m'appelle (add any "non québécois" name here), je suis québécois(e) aussi!". I am glad to see many people from Quebec insisting on an inclusive definition of Québécois. It takes time for changes to happen.

I actually disagree. There is nothing wrong with francophone distinguishing between anglophones and the Québécois; if they are to retain their culture, language and identity, they need to distinguish themselves from other Canadians. If you rob the word of its cultural meaning, what's the point? A Quebecois then becomes like an Ontarioan, a Canadian living in Quebec. I object to the politicization of the word, becaseu at that point it infers more civic rights to French-speaking Quebecers than others by elevating their identity and culture above those of others (specifically, English-speaking, aboriginal, and immigrant Quebecers). --Soul scanner 04:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

== POV ==--Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This has lasted long enough. It's time to properly source all assertions and rewrite the article in a NPOV manner. Otherwize, we should revert to an encyclopedic definition or just redirect to Quebec. -- Mathieugp 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the whole "Controversy" section can be eliminated. Does everyone agree? This article is also very relevant, particularly today when we have had the term used in a Parliamentary motion for the first time. --Soul scanner 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a rewrite, but the point has been, is and continues to be that Wikipedia's role is to describe the way words are used, not to cast pronouncements on how they should be used. Again, like it or not, Canadian English does use the word Québécois to draw a distinction between French-speaking and English-speaking residents of Quebec, so Wikipedia simply cannot pretend that it doesn't. We can discuss why that usage is controversial; we cannot pretend said usage doesn't exist. Did any of you actually read the hoohaw that greeted Lawrence Cannon's statement today?

Question: Why did you use the word Québécois in English? I think we're all wondering why did you use the word Québécois in English and not Quebecer? And my question, especially for Ms. LeBreton, and I guess that's why people are suspicious. Is that a reference to some sort of ethnic identity of what it is to be (inaudible)?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I'm an English-speaking Canadian and I refer to -- I call -- I say Québécois. I believe -- I believe that in the country and certainly we've seen evidence over the past few days as cabinet ministers have been around the country there's a wide degree of acceptance for the prime minister's leadership on this issue.

Question: (Inaudible) with all due respect people (inaudible).

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Well, I know Anglophone Quebecers who call themselves Québécois so you know —

Question: They call themselves Quebecers. I'm sorry, with due respect, I live in Quebec and English people talk to themselves about Quebecers, not Québécois. Why did you use this French word in an English motion? Explain to us the rationale for that. There's a word in English for that and please explain to us why you're not using it.

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, écoutez, c'est bien clair là, bien clair la motion qui a été présentée par le Bloc québécois parlait de Québécois et de Québécoises dont ne référait pas à autre chose que des Québécois et des Québécoises.

Question: Why in English?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: Bien, in English the Quebecer is a Québécois. Alors il faudrait que vous demandiez à monsieur Duceppe parce que nous on sait —

(...)

Question: Can you — to follow up on Hélène's question, just to make it very, very clear, especially to my readers at The Gazette, when you talk about les Québécois does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this. Four hundred years ago, four hundred years ago when Champlain stepped off and onto the shores in Quebec City he of course spoke about les Canadiens. Then as the debate went on on parlait des Canadiens français. Et au Québec on parle des Québécois maintenant qui occupent cette terre-là, Amérique. Il est fort possible — non seulement il est fort possible, il est tout à fait évident qu'il y ait des Canadiens français qui demeurent à l'extérieur du Québec, qui demeurent en Ontario, qui demeurent au Nouveau-Brunswick, qui demeurent partout au pays. Et donc dans ce sens-là nous on a répliqué à la motion que le Bloc québécois a mise de l'avant, une motion qui a dit singulièrement les Québécois et les Québécoises forment une nation. On dit, oui, ils forment une nation et à deux reprises, plus à quatre occasions, à l'occasion d'élections ils ont manifesté leur attachement au Canada. Ce soir, cette résolution-là, après 40 ans, est en train de reconnaître les décisions qui ont été entérinées à plusieurs occasions par des Québécois et des Québécoises de dire nous on fait partie du Canada. Nous on continue de construire le Canada. Et c'est ce que cette résolution-là formellement dit ce soir.

Question: Je ne suis pas une descendante de monsieur Champlain et tous ceux qui n'ont pas des noms canadiens-français ne sont pas des Québécois selon votre définition.

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, pas du tout, madame Buzzetti.

Question: Il y a plein de gens qui sont arrivés (inaudible).

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, non, mais pas — et moi aussi parce que ma famille est débarquée en 1795. Est-ce que je me considère comme étant un Québécois? Oui, je me considère comme étant un Québécois et ceux qui se considèrent comme étant des Québécois ils peuvent bien le porter. Mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait question de forcer quelqu'un qui ne se sent pas comme étant un Québécois qui doit être nécessairement lié à cette chose-là et ça c'est le dilemme dans lequel le Bloc québécois s'est toujours trouvé. D'une part faire reconnaître par l'Assemblée nationale l'intégrité du territoire et d'autre part dire que les Québécois ou les Quebecers comme vous dites font partie de ce territoire-là c'est faux parce qu'il y a des gens qui fondamentalement ont opté pour le Canada et c'est ce que nous reconnaissons ce soir. Quand on a demandé au Bloc québécois d'accepter cette chose-là c'est ce qu'ils acceptent tacitement, que les Québécois font partie de la nation canadienne dans un effort d'unité nationale et c'est ce qu'on reconnaît.

Question: (Inaudible) Montrealers why they're not Québécois.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that.

Question: Well, you said that it doesn't — you said it doesn't apply to people that aren't French.

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: I didn't say that they're not Québécois. What I'm saying here, and the reference that the Bloc Québécois has made is that they've made the Francophone pure laine. That's the intention. The intention is to be able to divide. We are taking the same words and we are saying no. On two separate occasions - and I'm repeating myself - on four provincial elections Quebecers have said no, we are voting for a federalist government, we are voting no to your proposal, we are part and parcel of Canadian unity and that's what we are indicating here. We're not playing semantics with the words. We are saying that that is a formal decision that was taken by Quebecers years ago and here's the first, first group of sovereingtists that are admitting this fact of life. Mr. Duceppe got up in the House the other day and you heard him talking about il faut reconnaître la réalité. On reconnaît la réalité. Les Québécois vous ont dit non à deux occasions. Et maintenant les Québécois vous ont dit — non seulement ils vous ont dit non, parce que la proposition ne se sépare pas, les Québécois vous ont dit formellement depuis qu'on est ici on chemine à l'intérieur du Canada. On est non seulement partie du processus, we are also making the country and that's what they've been saying to us.

Honestly. How can you read that and not see that there's an issue here with competing interpretations of what the word refers to? I agree wholeheartedly that Canadian English should use Québécois in the same manner that Quebec French does, but the role of Wikipedia is to provide an objective and NPOV description of how the word is used in English, not to dictate how it should be used. NPOV on Wikipedia is not served by pretending a controversial usage doesn't even exist; it's served by providing the context for a reader to understand why the usage is controversial. Bearcat 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When I read that I see that some politicians continue to try to make it an issue. They are playing on the ambiguity of words, an unfortunate consequence of the imperfection of all natural languages. The words guilty of being ambiguous here are "nation" and "Québécois". Some are trying, and have been trying for a very long time, to convince Canadians and anyone listening in the world wide English-speaking and French-speaking communities, that people who cannot trace their ancestry to New France are not considered Québécois by Québec nationalists. Some people who claim to be more moderate render this slightly differently by saying that such is the case of only a minority of supposed "hard liners" within the ranks of the PQ, a secessionist political party. Thank to the common reason of man, the academic and scientific communities of Canada and Quebec refuse to play this game of ethnic division and manipulation of the electorate using sophistry.

Indeed, politicians. The Bloc brought up the issue to whip up resentment against English Canada and fire the flames of seperatism and again underscore this as a malicious rejection of French Quebec. So Harper replied with a motion to blunt this, emphasizing that this did not change the legal status of anyone in Quebec. He was merely recognizing a reality that the majority of francophones identify primarily Quebecois, and that the majority of non-francophones do not. It is also a myth that intellectuals are motivated purely by reason. This is a naive attitude. Intellectuals in particular come with their own ideological prejudices and make their living rationalizing them. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the chronology of events. First, the irrational ideological blocus against recognizing the specificity of Quebec within Canada in the 1960s. Against British wisdom as made obvious by the situation in the UK. The refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Quebec's decades-old demands for internal autonomy, against the whole of Quebec civil society, which ignores Ottawa and moves forward with its project. In a decade, Quebec is completely transformed and a peaceful pro-independence movement reaches maturity. Instead of recognizing the errors of the past, repairing the injustices and let's be honest, grow up and drop the imperialist discourse of domination, which would have resulted in Quebec "separating" inside Canada instead of outside, thereby killing the secessionist movement, a handful of Dominion nationalists, afraid to loose everything they own in Quebec, afraid to see their financial empires dismantled, afraid of socialism and feminism and other things they do not understand even though they themselves created it by refusing equality and justice to all, recruit a few Quebecers with French names and present them to the Liberal Party of Canada. Les trois colombes as the media will call them have the dirty job of crushing the resurrected separatist movement, by attacking its legitimacy. Colonial indirect rule. We brought you peace, order and good government, how dare you defy us? Using the old trick of the Straw man, the political adversaries of equality amongst nations create an imaginary separatist movement which they paint as hugly as possible so people can hate it and find it justifiable to want to hurt it and ultimately kill it. It didn't take long for ignorant and naive people who had only seen the straw man to start throwing tomatoes and garbage at it. Decades later, there are a lot of people who have seen both the straw man and the real man. The illusion is fading. They are aware that the discourse must change as it is becoming an ambarassment. So here we are with Michael Ignatieff who proposes that Ottawa recognizes Quebec as a civic nation, something that should have been in the constitution of the Dominion from the start, something that many politicians from both Quebec and Canada were always willing to recognize, notably Lester B. Pearson before Trudeau replaced him. Something that almost became a reality with the Meech Accord. Believing that something positive was happening, that the climate was changing, the leader of the Bloc Québécois presented of motion that went in the direction of Ignatieff's motion. A reminder that the Bloc had tried to do the same a year or so before. Only, Duceppe isn't even asking to modify the constitution because he knows the political game, unlike Ignatieff. What's the problem with Ignatieff's motion for the ruling class? It is simple: Ottawa recognizing Quebec as a civic nation means discrediting Trudeau's legacy, admitting that Quebec nationalists, both the federalist and the sovereignists have a valid point since the beginning. That is when Harper, who supports partitioning Quebec along ethnic lines in case of secession, proposes a counter-motion. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

International law does not require that Canada grant Quebec internal autonomy. It does grant all provinces a certain amount of autonomy, and grants Quebec considerably more (in immigration and language, for example). If Quebec wants more, it can vote for independence (not sovereignty asociation), or vote specifically for which items it wants autonomy. If voting for independence, it would be granted after negotiating borders, repayment of debt, etc. to the satisfaction of enough parties to warrant a constitutional ammendment. If voting for specific items, it would need to be negotiated with the other provinces and federal governemnt and also be ratified with a constitutional amendment.

Separating inside Canada would have weakened the federation to the point of collapse. It would have been required to grant other provinces the same autonomy, which they all would eventually demand once the precedent has been set. Weakening the federation would pull the provinces one by one into the orbit of the U.S., with eventual statehood. Preserving federal powers is not done just to spite Quebec. It's done with the entire nation in mind.

As for statements of colonial rule, this only shows that your view is based on inflammatory rhetoric as opposed to a grasp on reality. It does not take federalists to spin that into something based on exagerated anti-Canadian and anti-anglophone rhetoric. Quebec has it's share of Parliamentary seats based on it population, has it's language is recognized as an official language, and has 1/3 of the seats on the Supreme Court. That is more than its share of democratic representation on the federal leval. All federations have debates on separation of powers from time to time, and just because Quebec provincial politicians have lost a few and do not like it does not make the federal goverment colonial. I invite you to continue with the rhetoric, though, because it shows everyone patient enough to read this dialogue that you speak from an extreme point of view.

The Bloc Quebecois intoduced the motion only to provoke the kind of tirade against Canada in Quebec that you are unleashing here. Everyone knows that. That debate is dead in Quebec, even if some idiot in English Canada says something stupid about it. The Quebecois understand that there are anti-French bigots in English Canada, just like there are anti-English bigots in Quebec.

There is nothing wrong with Trudeau's legacy. It protects the rights of linguistic minorities across the country, and is used as a model for coexistance between different linguistic and ethnic groups the world over. His point that French deserves strong representation in a strong federal government is perfectly legitimate. You may disagree with it, but there is not need to pretend that there is anything anti-Quebec about it.

Harper merely proposes that Quebec be divided along the same lines as Canada. Those areas voting to stay in Canada stay in Canada. Those that vote to stay in a seccessionist Quebec stay there. It's based on a civic majority within a territory, just like Quebec. If harfpers proposal is along ethnic lines, so is Quebec's. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As made very clear by the Common declaration of sovereignist and federalist intellectuals from Canada and Québec, there are different versions of what constitute Canada.

These are merely the opinions of a few professors in their ivory towers. Their influence on the political and social reality in Quebec is limited. The influence of politicians is far larger as they are the ones who write the laws and are accountable to the public. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these would be the opinions of those who educate the voters, who then elect the politicians to represent them. Talk about anti-elitism. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

They educate a few political science majors, most of whom don't even agree with them. Most Canadians don't even know who they are. They don;t even represent th majority of academics, Their manifestos are as good as something I would put together with a bunch of my professor buddies. That you have to reach to such obscure sources shows how marginal your views really are. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, some Quebecers, typically anglophones of all origins, currently do not identify to Quebec the way most Quebec francophones do because they already consider themselves Canadians living in Quebec.

Indeed. That is the definition of a Quebecker. It is a purely civic definition of the term. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Quebecers, including a now large majority of francophones or all origins, do not identify to Canada the way most anglophone Canadians do.

True. They iodentify with their province becasue they see this as the only place where they can live comfortably in French. This is relates to all sort of factors such as identification with language, identification with culture, identification with ancestry, etc. As such, it arises out of a need for the political hegemony of francophones and French-Canadian culture, and also Quebecois ethnicity. It is a fact that a large number of Quebecois list "Quebecois" as their ethnicity on the Canadian census. In any case, it's origin has to with an emotional sense of belonging; it has nothing to do with reason, although reason copmpells us to recignize it as human. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The census asks for the ethic origin or your parents, not for your ethnic origin. Many Quebecers know that their parents were born in Quebec of parents born in Quebec etc. etc. A lot of us find it strange to have to pick "French", since we conceive the French and the Quebecers as two distinct national cultures, just like the British and the Americans do. Since 2001, "Canadian" is a proposed choice for the ethnic origin of your parents. Does it mean that the millions of people who pick this choice are believers in ethnic nationalism? That they need to belong because they are emotional? That is none-sense of course. If you think it through, you'll realize what your prejudice against the majority of Quebecers is: that we are inferior, morally and intellectually. That our civilization was and still is inferior because it is not British. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It means that they recognize the word Quebecois in the ethnic sense of the word. My point and only point is that the majority of francophone Quebecers consider Quebecois to be an ethnicty, since the word "French Canadian" has become obsolete. Changing the name has not changed the "sens d'appartenance" of the word; it just associates with a more limited territory. I also made it quite clear that it is as normal as German, Cree, Irish, Croatian, Jewish or German nationalism. It is perfectly normal and universally human to be proud of your ethnicity and all that goes with (language, religion, ancestry, culture, shared history, shared territory). What I am saying is that it would be wise to recognize that not everyone in Quebec identifies with this nationalism, and that it is unwise to force this identity on them. Calling Durham's proposals to forcibly assimilate French Canadians unwise or even racist does not mean you are calling the English inferior. Similarly, calling policies designed to forcibly assimilate non-Quebecois living in Quebec unwise or racist is not calling the Quebecois inferior. It's just calling them wrong. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that everyone that is a citizen of Canada is an equal member of the body of Canadian citizens and that everyone that is a citoyen du Québec (i.e., essentially anyone that is a Canadian citizen and resides in Quebec for more than 6 months) is an equal member of body of the citoyens québécois.

This is the same as in any province. The same residence rules apply in Ontario, Alberta, etc. If the definition of Quebecois is meant purely in a civic context, why then the need to distinquish between, say, Quebnecois and Albertain? Becasue of the ethno-cultural overtones of the word, of course.--Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not the same as any province. You are missing the historical perspective. Newfoundland, having evolved distinctly from the rest of Canada from its foundation until 1949 is about the only province that could compare here. The institutions of the Quebec community of citizens that exist today trace their origin in New France buddy. Long before the Dominion gave birth to a "New Nationality" as the self-proclaimed fathers of "confederation" called it, there already was a nationality all formed in Quebec, shaped by centuries of legal and political history. The institutions are the matrix of society. In Canada, there is a political nation within another political nation. How many times are we going to have to say this? -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Several patent innaccuracies here. Firstly, Quebec's democratic institutions date back to 1791 and 1867, when the elected National Assembly was set up. This is a distinctly British institution in all its aspects (one could legitimately call these colonial as it was founded by a colonial government). It's civil legal system (Code Napoleonic) also dates back to 1867, but was based on that of Napoleon, who came long after New France had fallen.

Quebec's institutions do not go back to New France. The ETHICITY (i.e. language, ancestry, culture, religion and history) of the vast majority of Quebec's francophones (the Quebecois or French Canadians) goes back to New France. That is what sets Quebec apart from the other provinces. Hence, any sense of "territorial nationalism" or "sens d'appartenance" in Quebec nationalism is also embued in the mind of ethnic Quebecois (i.e. French Canadians) with all the other associations (in order: shared language, culture, history, ancestry and religion) that the word Queebcois conjures up. This isn't calling them inferior: it makes them just like Germans, Swedes, Scots, Serbians, Croatians, Irish, etc. etc. All are ethnic groups have asserted their hegemony over their territory the way the Quebecois seek to do. If you took this ethnic "sens d'appartenance" out of the meaning of Quebecois (particularly the attachment to language), you would weaken the sense of differnce with the rest of Canada, and the desire for autonomy would be proportionally weakened. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is only one legal definition of Québécois. This mean that the citizens of Québec are part of two communities which the majorities consider to be nations in the political sense of the word.

Again, the legal civic definition yopu describe applies to the resident of any province in Canada. That is precisely what the Tory motion underscores. That the sens eof 'nation' is made in a sociological context and carries with it no change to the current legal status of any Quebecer.--Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Retired judge Henri Brun makes an interesting point in an opinion letter entitled La motion Harper: peu mais tout de même pas rien (Le Devoir, December 2-3 2006) :

Selon la motion Harper, ce sont les Québécois qui forment une nation. Dans la version anglaise de la motion, le même mot «Québécois» est utilisé plutôt que «Quebeckers». De cela, certains ont déduit que la nation reconnue était celle des seuls Québécois francophones.

Nous pensons que tel n'est pas le cas. Le mot «Québécois», en langue française, désigne tous les habitants du Québec. Son utilisation, au sein d'une phrase anglaise, peut très bien signifier qu'on a tout simplement voulu employer la langue commune des Québécois pour nommer la nation québécoise plutôt que la langue maternelle d'une des minorités qui se trouvent au Québec. Et si le mot «Québécois» devait pouvoir receler un second sens dans le contexte de la version anglaise, il faudrait, selon les règles d'interprétation, retenir le sens non ambigu qu'il a dans la version française.'

which translates to:

"According to the Harper motion, it is the Québécois who constitute a nation. In the English version of the motion, the same word of Québécois is used instead of Quebeckers. From this, some have deduced that the nation just recognized was that of Quebec francophones alone.

We think that such is not the case. The word Québécois, in the French language, designates all the inhabitants of Quebec. Its use, within an English sentence, could very well mean that we have wanted to use the common language of Quebecers to name the Quebec nation instead of the native language of one of the minorities of Quebec. And if the word Québécois was found to conceal a second meaning within the context of the English version, we would have to, according to interpretative rules, retain the nonambiguous meaning the word has in the French version."

This is his opinion. He might even really believe that this is the way it should be. Stephen Harper (who put forward the motion) and Stephane Dion (who supported it and was consulted by Harper on it), though, already said that they were talking about the "sociological" and "cultural" sense of the word, for which there is plenty of evidence. When it comes down to interpreting the motion legally, and courts judge the intent of the people who framed the motion, they will probably give more weight to the people who wrote the law rather than the opinion of a judge who did not. Although some might pretend that this sociological sense of the word is non-existant need only watch a hockey game on RDS. Martin St. Louis, who has lived in the U.S. for years, and Martin Brodeur are considered "un joueur Quebecois". Sheldon Souray and Bob Gainey, Candian citizens who have lived in Quebec for years, are not. Frankly, I deeply resent this kind of attitude, but at the same time I don't blame the Quebecois (in the ethnic sense of the word) for identifying more with Celine Dion and Martin St. Louis more than Sheldon Souray or the members of Arcade Fire. But if you really disagree with what you deem as "incorrect" usage, complain to the folks at RDS who reinforce it among francophones; don't bitch about anglophones rolling their eyes and blowing the whistle on this kind of thing. The fact is, people like you only complain when anglos mimic the ethnic sense of the word use in French, and let it slide when the francophone press and nationalist politicians make reference to it. All this sophistry about Quebecois refering to the purely civic sense of the word in French is nonsense and anyone who lives in Quebec knows it. In English, we just have more precise terminology to distinguish between the ethno-cultural and civic senses of the word, and that needs to be made clear. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Of course it is his opinion. Nobody said the opposite. I show you that in French, there is only one legal definition of Québécois, and that consequently the French motion recognized the community of all Quebec citizens as forming a nation within Canada, and all you find to reply is that English is more precise a language and that francophones reject non-francophones because of hand-picked anecdote A and hand-picked anecdote B. Talk about chauvinism. Do you even realize that you are writing this in the talk page of an encyclopedia and that possibly hundreds of thousands of people might read some day? -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I do. And they will see that you fabricate insults where are none. Saying that Quebecois is a more ambiguous word in French than in English does not imply inferiority. The word "snow" is more ambiguous in Inuktitut than in English. That deosn't make English inferior (I suppose now you'll say that I'm imnplying that English is superior to Inuktitut). As far is the motion goes, what the differnt MP's voted for is on the record. You can cannot deny that Dion and Harper defined Queebcois in its sociological and cultural sense, and not the legal sense; they said so explicitly in Parliament, so any judge will have that record to work with. That is the defintion that will stand up in law. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the much more interesting subject of the ambiguity of the word "nation", philosopher Michel Seymour has distinguished 7 types of national communities (there could be more than those 7 types of course) :

1. Ethnique: quand on se représente comme partageant la même origine ancestrale.

2. Culturelle: quand on se conçoit comme ayant différentes origines ancestrales mais qu'on est rassemblés autour d'une même langue maternelle, d'un même ensemble d'institutions et d'une même histoire.

3. Civique: quand on partage le même pays et que celui-ci est conçu comme un État mononational.

4. Sociopolitique: quand on participe d'une même communauté politique qui n'est pas souveraine mais qui contient en son sein l'échantillon le plus important dans le monde d'un groupe partageant à la fois la même langue, les mêmes institutions et la même histoire.

5. Diasporique: quand on fait partie d'un groupe dont les membres ont la même langue, la même culture et la même histoire mais qui sont étalés sur différents territoires discontinus et qui sont minoritaires sur chacun de ces territoires.

6. Multisociétale: lorsque l'État souverain apparaît aux yeux de la majorité comme étant composé de plusieurs cultures sociétales nationales (Royaume-Uni).

7. Multiterritoriale: lorsque le groupe se trouve sur un territoire continu mais qui ne correspond pas aux frontières juridiquement reconnues. Par exemple, le peuple kurde occupe un territoire non fragmenté (le Kurdistan) mais qui déborde les frontières officielles des États existants.

which translates to:

1. Ethnic: when we think of ourselves as sharing the same ancestral origins.

2. Cultural: when we think of ourselves as having different ancestral origins, but are nevertheless united by a common mother tongue, a common set of institutions and a common territory.

3. Civic: when we share the same country and that this country was made to be a mononational State.

4. Sociopolitical: when we participate to the same political community that is not sovereign but contains in its midst the most important sample in the world of a group sharing the same language, the same institutions and the same history.

5. Diasporic: when we belong to a group whose members have the same language, the same culture and the same history but have been dispersed on various discontinuous territories and are a minority inside all these territories.

6. Multisociétale: when the sovereign State is thought of by the majority as being made out of multiple national and cultural societies (United Kingdom).

7. Multiteritorial: when the group is located in a continuous territory but one that does not correspond to juridically recognized borders. For exemple, the kurds occupies a territory that is not fragmented (Kurdistan) but its borders do not match the official borders of existing States.

Again, this is his personal opinion. It's highly subjective and based on his hard-line nationalist sentiments and more designed to justify his own emotional sovereignist convictions. In fact, all communitees are different and complex, and categorizing them demeans all of them in that it cameoflages important differences; at the same time it ignores the common defintion, which is that communities are based on an individual's personal decision to identify with and participate interactions within these communities. It can be based on common ancestry, geographic proximity, religion, etc. It deosn't really matter, becasue all can be equally important and feed an emotional and largely irrational sense of belonging. If you look at the "ethnic" conflict between Croat and Serb, for example, you'll see a common ancestry and even a common language on both sides; it is mostly a question of identification with religion, written script, and even varying degrees of identification with Western and Eastern European society (Croatia with Catholic western Europe; Serbia with Orthodox Slavic societies). In Quebec, it is a mattter of an identification with language and an ancestral culture that is much, much stronger among French-Canadians than other Quebecers. See ethnicity and see that ethnicity is also based on a shared language (French in Quebec) and Religion (Catholicism) as well as ancestry (French settlers). The reality is the Quebec nationalism is as "ethnic" as that found in Croatia, Norway, Catalonia, or Serbia. It is dangerous to deny it because it lulls us into a flase sense of security that we are somehow different in Canada than other humans. Just because nationalists can't admit to being ehtnic nationalists doesn't make it so. There's nothing wrong with it, by the way, it's just expectations that immigrants, anglophones, and First Nations are going to share in it will lead to resentment. I can admit myself that if I were a French Canadian, I'd be a Quebec seperatist too. So I don't blame the Quebecois for being nationalists; I do however resent politicians and demagogues that attempt to exploit these sentiments to forward their pet political ideologies by appealing to these emotions rather than reason. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you identified with humanity first, you would identify with all legitimate national struggles at once and not write ethnicizing comments like "I can admit myself that if I were a French Canadian, I'd be a Quebec seperatist too. " I wish for the independence of all nations and I am confident I am in the right when I say that political borders must be drawn to respect the needs of human collectivities and not to respect the legacy of British imperialism in America. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am doing precisely that. I'm recognizing that it is perfectly human to identify with your ethnicity. it doesn't matter if your Cree, Swedish, or Quebecois. However, wiping out the British colonial legacy is somewehat one sided and based on anti-British prejudice. Lets extend to that to the legacy of French and Spanish Imperialism and we may have something balanced to talk about. We would have to wipe out common law in the U.S. and Canada, civil law in Quebec and Louisianna, burn down the National Assembly and the Parliament buidlings, rename the Champlain, Jacques Cartier, and Victoria bridges (The Lafontaine Tunnel and Mercier Bridge are arguably from here) , and give the St, Lawrence Valley back to the Mohawk, Abenaki, MicMac and Innu. I'd have to go back to Germany, and you'd have to leave your Amerndian part here, send your french part back to Normandy, and your Irish part back to Kilkenny. it could get gory. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbelieveable. When did you write that? In any case, that is pure none-sense. 1) You cannot go "back" to Germany because you were born here. You have the right to consider yourself at home in Quebec.

Geez, thanks for giving me that right. --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

2) French colonialism in North America ended in 1763.

In that sense, British Colonialism ended in Canada in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster.--Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Spanish and Portugese colonialism ended a long time ago.

Yet their colonial lagacy remains in the languags spoken in Latin America. --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

4) The St. Lawrence Iroquoians "vacated the St. Lawrence valley sometime prior to 1580". I visited the exposition at Pointe-à-Callière and it was very interesting. I recommend it.

I didn't mention them. I mentioned the Mohawk, the Abenaki, the MicMac, and the Innu. They were still there. --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

5) All new nations born out of European colonization (the Americans, the Canadians, the Quebecers, the Acadians, the Mexicans etc.) are distinct from Europe. There is no way to go back in this regard.

That is my point. They are all part of the European colonial legacy. It's all part of who we are. The National Assembly is part of the British colonial legacy. It is not all good, and it is not all bad. --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

6) All Amerindian claims for self-goverment in Quebec are legitimate and can be met without sending people of European ancestry back to a place they might have only seen on a post-card before. Deportation is a crime against humanity, and the Amerindians are not asking for more crimes to be committed, they are asking for justice for all, they are asking for their just demands to be met, much like Quebecers are. The Quebec territory is big enough for 12 nations to coexist peacefully.

So it goes for all of Canada.

7) The legacy of British imperialism in America is the system of Indian reserves and the locking up of Quebecers inside a province. How could anyone in Canada be proud of this? -- Mathieugp 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And the Quebecois used that system to restrict the Cree to small tracts of category one, two and three lands around their reserves; this was done int he 1970's, not in the 1800's. The legacy of Quebec nationalism on Cree territory is huge Hydro projects, the destruction of their land and userpation of their sovereignty. How can any Quebecois be proud of that? Why do you criticize Canada for something that Quebec uses everyday to keep the Cree and Inuit down? --Soulscanner 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a neutral and encyclopedic way to write about this, in all its aspects, but the right article for it surely is not Québécois. Maybe Controversy over the meaning of the word Québécois in Canadian English? -- Mathieugp 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I think the section of Quebec Nationalism would be the place. We should focus less on history and more on contemporary expressions of nationalism in Quebec. What exists here serves as a fine summary of the use (or if you prefer, abuse) of the word Quebecois. It is extremely important that English-speaking Canadians and even other people in the world understand the difference between Quebecker and Quebecois in English, as well as the many ambiguous and overlapping meanings that it has in French. The fact is, an Albertan moving to Quebec will have to be here a long, long time (much longer than six months) before his coworkers at the office (francophone or anglophone) will start to refer to him as a Quebecois (if ever), no matter how much he insists on it. --Soulscanner 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was called a "French" by the Albertans because of my accent, even 3 years after I was there and I didn't accuse them of rejecting me. It is only when your Albertan buddy will start to think of himself as a Québécois that his coworkers will do the same. It might take a year, two years, three years, ten years, that depends on the indidividuals. What is certain though it that even if he never ever started to identity with his new community, sign of his assimilation, it would never change the fact that after 6 months he would be, before the law, a "Québécois" like the others. And unlike all those Quebecers whose native language is not English or French, he would even be in a privileged position to ask the government of Québec to communicate with him in his native language. -- Mathieugp 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you seek to asimilate anglophones? Apparantly, assimilation is only wrong when Durham wants to do it to you. If the Quebecois do not want to become English Canadian, why would English-speaking Canadians want to become French Canadian or Quebecois? What is wrong with respecting minority as efined by the canadian constitution and the United Nations, and the European Community? Why are you unable to accept the English-Speaking minority community or people in Quebec as fully 100% Quebecois? According to you, you are not Quebecois until you assimilate the many Irish did in the 1800's. this why English-speaking Quebecers distinguish between Quebecker and Quebecois: A Quebecker does not have to assimilate and the definition is purely civic; to be Quebecois, you have to assimilate becasue the definition is ethno-cultural. We do not want to assimilation and we should not have to. --Soulscanner 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Francophones distinguish between Quebecois and anglophones too; hence Celine Dion;s non-acceptance speech at ADISQ a few years back "Je ne suis pas une artiste anglophone ... je suis une Québécoise" ... there's nothing wrong with it, by the way ... francophones have every right to distinguish themselves culturally from others ... why would anyone wish to deprive them of that distinction? It goes to the heart of Quebec nationalism ... calling anglophones Québécois, who identify with the culture of "English" Canada, would kill the most important sense of the word --Soul scanner 12:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[1]. I find this really icky, and presumably based on an opinion I disagree with, but it is an example of the distinction that is drawn in English usage. Bearcat 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You can pretend that it isn't, but it is there in French usage side too (see Celine Dion quote above); again, I see nothing wrong with it; there are two linguistic communitees in Quebec and it is perfectly natural for both to maintain a distinct identities. The sad thing is that it has been politicized. [2] What's particularly funny about the reference is how the immigrants suggest a strictly a civic and territorial sense of being a Quebecer, « If you live here, you are a Quebecker, if you leave tomorrow, you are not. », the article seems to imply that this is something less than an ethno-cultural-linguistic "sens d'appartenance" that makes you a true Quebecois --Soul scanner 09:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For edits from new users

We've discussed these definitions before: Encyclopedic articles describe the way terms are used, not the way some would like them to be used. I've provided references to the Oxford (British) and Marriam-Webster (American) dictionaries that provide authoratitive definitions, suitable for beginning the article. The article represents a composite definition of these two sources. The links require subscriptions, but you should be able to access them from any library. If anyone wishes to change the introductory definition, please provide comparable authoratitive sources. --Soul scanner 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the contraversy section, I will support anyone who wishes to remove it. I think it can be best relegated to this discussion section as it contains more subjective rants and original "research" (I use that term lightly) that are unencyclopedic. --Soul scanner 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I must object a bit here, my friend. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary, thus it makes sense to provide a more recent and academic definition that is reflective of current usage. Dictionaries are often very behind the times, especially in matters such as these, as we are all well aware. When I have time, I will find proper sources, and I invite others to do the same. However, there should be no dispute that in French, throughout the French-speaking world and not only in Quebec, Quebecois refers to anyone from Quebec. Laval 08:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy forbids "original research". Dictionaries provide definitions based on research of how often these words are used in referenced sources. The definitions given are from the most recent editions of authoratative dictionaries. If you can find dictionary or other authoraticve sources that cite frequency of usage, then bring them forward. --Soul scanner 09:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything you have added to this "article" is original research supporting your flawed thesis on the "Quebecois" as everything you have ever added to Wikipedia clearly shows. The various dictionary definions can be added to Wikitionary. -- Mathieugp 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added nothing to the article. The article clearly documents (and anyone who reads it can see) several definitions of "Quebecois" that exclude different portions of the population. --Soulscanner 15:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can review all the edits you have made to the article. How can you write something so untrue as "I have added nothing to the article." The various dictionary definitions of Quebecois in English belong to Wikitionary. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to the journal article. There is nothing in my edits that isn't referred to in the journal. There is no original research. It is in fact you who provide no objective references to back up your edits. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the dispute, it is largely irrelevant in an encyclopedia of whether there should or shouldn't be a dispute about the French definition of Quebecois. The fact is that there is. I've also provided a full reference and link to a scholarly article that documents this dispute, discussing the ambiguity of the term when it is mentioned in French in a political and cultural context. I've also provided references and links to where it is disputed in current events. The fact is that sometimes in French, Quebecers distinguish between anglophones and Quebecois. Some like it, some do not, but it is a fact that this happens. To hide this fact is largely an objective by those who are embarrassed by the debate for political reasons. --Soul scanner 09:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are the one using an annecdote which you take out of its original context to support your thesis. Most of the time, not sometimes, Quebecers consider French to be their language, to be the language reflecting their national culture, something English cannot do. That is the main fact, but you will never find a valid logical inference to go from that fact to your flawed and unencyclopedic conclusion. -- Mathieugp 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not an anecdote. It is a documented event discussed in peer-reviewed literature and fully contextualized, remains a subject of debate in Quebec, and is representative of how the word is commonly used by many anglophones and francophones in Quebec. Many Quebecois are embarrassed by it, particularly Quebec nationalists who do not agree with it, but that is no reason to bury your head in the sand and pretend that it does not exist. I can tell you many, many 'anecdotes' from personal experience of where francophones distinguish between Quebecois and anglophones, so a politicized attempt to deny it just does not hold up to any objective scrutiny. The article makes plenty of references to other scholarly articles that document the debate among Quebec nationalists about who to include in their definition of Quebecois, and it is disingenuous to deny the existence of the debate. --Soulscanner 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly deny the existence of a debate on this. For a debate to exist, there needs to be multiple people with multiple thesesis confronting each other. Here, we have only one POV. Mathieugp 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article examines the wider issue of the definition of Quebecois. Yet you say there is only one POV. You have obviously not read the article. Consider the definition given by (Hero & Balthazar, 1988, pp. 55, 80)

"During recent decades, francophones in Quebec have modified the way that they refer to themselves. They generally called themselves "Canadiens français" (French Canadians) until the early 1960s, but they have increasingly called themselves "Québécois" (Quebecers) since the Quiet Revolution."

Reading the article through did make me realize that Celine Dion never said what some journalists claimed she said and the whole thing is sensationalistic as the article suggests in the intro. The source really is Don Macpherson (how original) and GESCA journalists. The full quote of Dion makes it quite clear what she meant and that invalidates your assertion completely. This is a very interesting article indeed and I intend to use it in the future to demonstrate how deep the misrepresentation of francophone Quebec really is. One day this double-language will have to stop. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the passage, made with reference to a well known and authoritative scholar (Balthazar), that directly confirms the short introductory definitions in my edit. It is a definition that you wish to deny in order to mislead people as to how the word Queebcois is used in Quebec.--Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken here. I do not object to writing that Anglophones do that. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The media-fabricated controversy you are talking about is unknown to the majority of Quebecers who do not read English language corporate and anti-Quebec media day after day. The only thing they remember, if they do remember, is that Celine Dion refused to be considered an anglophone because she was singing in English, her second language. She refused an award that belongs to Arcade Fire and the likes.-- Mathieugp 20:36, 16

Precisely. She said she was not anglophone, but that she was a Quebecoise. This meant a "francophone or French Canadian living in Quebec", the common French usage established by the Balthazar reference above and the one documented with my edit. And you continue to deny that this very common and normal definition exists. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do deny this to be a formal definition and even as common usage in the population. According to the Montreal Gazette translation (which we should double-check because they are not reliable and neutral at all here): "I am not an anglophone artist and the public understands that. Everywhere I go in the world, I say that I'm proud to be Québécoise". There is no opposition between being a Québécois(e) and being an anglophone here. To claim that is litterally a misrepresentation of what she said and only Anglophones ignorant of Quebec's francophone and general culture can fail to see this. Celine Dion is a francophone famous for singing in English worldwide. She was and still is often referred to as an example of the international success of Quebec artists and the export of Quebec culture worldwide. During the Lucien Bouchard years, she was routinely used as an example in goverment-sponsored speeches to the point of getting many people sick and tired of hearing about it. Some of the people who got tired and sick of it were Quebec artists and ordinary citizens wondering if really a francophone Quebecer singing pop songs in English was such a good export of "Quebec" culture. Many will agree that Japanese rock bands singing in English and making it big in the USA are not exactly contributing much to authentic Japanese culture. This, no francophone Quebecer (even people like me who do not own a TV) missed it because it really became common place to critize the exploitation of her success abroad. You can see how sovereignist/federalist divisions might come into play here. I specifically remember one Bloc MP saying bluntly that Celine was not contributing to Quebec culture and was some sort of a turncoat. This might have been after though, I am not certain. In any case, the criticism of Celine's success in imitating Anglo-American singers entered the mass media and journalists eventually spoke to Celine who said (I cannot recall exactly of course) that she was shocked and that she considered herself to be contributing to Quebec culture and was not selling out. Anyone doing some research here will be able to confirm I am not making this up. So her statement is indeed, as Parizeau said it is. She showed courage and patriotism and she deserves to be praised for taking the stand she took. She replied to her detractors that night and showed she was a Québécoise and not just someone going for easy commercial success by singing in English. But of course Don Macpherson did not miss it. He did not miss any occassion to misrepresent the majority of Quebecers to his readers in the typical fashion of the adversaries of the all things Quebecois. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are literally lying when you state that "The article makes plenty of references to other scholarly articles that document the debate among Quebec nationalists about who to include in their definition of Quebecois". There are no such references in the article first of all and second those references do not even exist. Moreover, anything pertaining to how francophones use Québécois in their language is irrelevant to an article about the use of Quebecois by (some) Anglophones. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are just being silly and abusive. This is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You should read before you talk. Here are the relevant scholarly references that offer the definition:

Balthazar, Louis. (1994). Interview with Louis Balthazar. In Gilles Gougeon, A history of Quebec nationalism (pp. 107-114). Toronto: James Lorimer.

Hero, Alfred Oliver, Jr., & Balthazar, Louis. (1988). Contemporary Quebec and the United States, 1960-1985. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

I'll await an apology here. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll wait for a long time. The article I was referring to was of course the current article, not one of the articles in the references. Duh. And you are lying again because these sources found in one of your sources do not support Don Macpherson's and other journalists' interpretation. The source for the Celine Dion controversy in the English language press should be the Montreal Gazette or some other of the typical corporate media bashing the evil Quebec nationalists as usual, yesterday using an annecdote about Celine today trying to make Boisclair pass for a racist man. How vulgar. If you want to use the Canadian Journal article as a source, you'll have to write up something that actually goes along the lines of the said article. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree on removing the controversy section. Are there any objections? Laval 08:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You won't see me object. I voted to have Quebecois and Quebecer and all variants to redirect to Quebec or to the Wikitionary definition. -- Mathieugp 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quebecois and Quebecer have two distinct meanings in English, as evidenced by several references to authoratitive dictionaries, scholarly articles, and articles on current events. Your attempt to deny that this distinction is commonly made in Quebec is strictly predictable, similar to Andre Boisclair's spin that calling Asians "slant-eyes" is no big deal to white Quebecois and therefore okay. It turn out that most Asians, even Pequistes, object. It's really a political campaign of denial. --Soulscanner 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quebecois and Quebecers have two distinct meanings in English because a certain political power works hard to misrepresent French-speaking Quebec to English speakers. All dictionary definition belong in Wikitionary where people can consult them and think whatever they want of it by themselves. -- Mathieugp 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, before you were argueing that there was only one definition. Now that I've documented and referenced the definition, you concede. Why did you deny it at first? Clearly, you have political motivations. It is progress though. The reason this dichoromy exists in English is because francophones and French Candians living in Quebec refred to themselves as Quebecois, and distinguished themselves from other Quebeckers. The references I cited (among many, many others) clearly show this. This was was done for political reasons to alienate French-speakers from Canada. Anglophones just adopted the word to avoid calling their neigbours French Canadian which they consisder antiquated. It's not an anglo conspiracy, although I understand why someone as eager to denigrate Canada would want to spin it that way. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not conceded anything there at all. In French, there is only one formal definition. There is no Anglo conspiracy. This is a misrepresentation of the majority of Quebecers which can only work on people who do not master French and do not have an understanding of Quebec's history. -- Mathieugp 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This Wiki article simply attempts to explain the issues surrounding the Quebecois identity. That requires more than a dictionary entry because it is complex and there is a great debate in Quebec on it. There are many definitions to Quebecois, so all should be given and documented. All encyclopedia articles begin with a definition. It is just common sense. You just want to bury the article because you know the facts will contradict your narrow political agenda. The article actually review other definitions given by important Quebec figures that also contradict your claim that there is only one definition of a Quebecer. It is the Dion Affair that ignited the debate about who's a real Quebecer, and anglophones that pushed for the more inclusive form of the word:

- Anglo friends of Donald MacPherson: '"Several anglophones told me this week, before I wrote a column on the subject, that they found Dion's remarks offensive. To them, a Québécois is simply a Quebecer, someone who lives in Quebec and feels attached to it regardless of linguistic identity. . . . '(they agree with you!)

- Bernard landry: "someone who lives in Quebec and who loves it enough to consider it his or her homeland"

- Alain Dubuc: 'They were right, he said, "in not accepting that the term Québécois should be reserved for native-born francophones." Dion had opened a debate as to who was a real Quebecer, he added.' (Gee ... I thought the francophone press did not cover it ... yeah right) --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained above a while ago why an article on the subject is not a good idea. I still claim the same today. I am not the only person to see how writting something neutral on this will be a headache. Dictionary definitions belong in Wikitionary. You can write all the BS you want there if they let you. An article on the subject of the use of the word Québécois by francophones is far more complex and can't seriously be written out of a few English language sources. It also cannot be written in an article meant for the definition of another word, Quebecois, in another language, English. That is plain common sense.

[edit] Boisclair's "slant eyes" comment

Your vulgar attempt at defamating Boisclair (who of course never used that English expression alien to most Quebecers) only shows your irrepressible contempt and misunderstanding for those you call "white Quebecois". I'd like to see your fabulous stats about what "most Asians" think. You are of course fabricating false information here again. -- Mathieugp 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read what this francophone Asian Pequiste said about it. What is funny is that immigrants who try to participate in Quebec public life and try to tranfrom the nature of Quebec nationalism are constantly thwarted by the old guard. I suppose she is another anglo trying to defame Boisclair. Give me a break. He's done it to himself. When a committed Pequistes question the leader in teh middle of an election campaign, it is serious. Of course, this story is buried in the francophone press.

PQ insider slams Boisclair for 'slanting eyes' comment. [3]

May Chiu, a prominent Péquiste who was the first Chinese-Canadian candidate to run for the Bloc Québécois, has slammed PQ Leader André Boisclair for using a French expression that means "slanting eyes" to describe Asian students. Chiu — who ran unsuccessfully for the Bloc in the 2006 federal election and is now working on PQ candidate Zhao Xin Wu's campaign in Montreal — warned that Boisclair's refusal to apologize for the comment would jeopardize the inroads that his party has made with Quebec's Asian population.

With one remark in two seconds, I think he has done a lot of damage with the work and the bridges that these candidates have built with the community," Chiu told the CBC on Thursday night. Boisclair spurred controversy when he used the expression les yeux bridés (slanting eyes) Wednesday night in a speech to students in Trois-Rivières, when he talked about the influx of Asian students coming to study in North American universities.

Chiu said Boisclair's reaction to the outcry following his remarks revealed his ignorance. "I think that you've got to be extremely disconnected with reality if you don't realize that calling people slanted eyes has been an insult to Asians for the longest time, and is still used as an insult."

The PQ leader refused to withdraw his comments on Thursday, arguing the expression is commonly used in a non-derogatory way in the French language, and most Quebecers would agree with its use. He also said he was amazed by the discipline and success of the Asian students. But Chiu urged Boisclair do his homework. "He doesn't know the experiences of Asians in Quebec, the experiences of racial minorities. If he thinks Quebecers will stand behind him, they will not stand behind a remark which is so harmful to so many Quebecers of Asian descent."

And you sit here and deny that Boisclair did not to refer to students with "slanting eyes". Incredible! The utter refusal to even acknowledge the ethnic nature of the Quebecois identity boggles the mind. --Soulscanner 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He did not say "slanting eyes". I am almost sure he, just like me, had never even heard or seen written that expression before he was asked about it by Anglo journalists. He of course spoke in French and said les yeux bridés which indeed is not used pejoratively in French, at least not intentionally. There are all kinds of nasty words used by racist people to refer to Asians in French. les yeux bridés or les yeux en amandes are rather poetic to tell you the truth. May Chiu is right though. It was a mistake. Many Anglophone Asians will probably think it means what the Montreal Gazette tells them it means an implies. That Boisclair is another racist PQ leader like Parizeau. This dictionary disagrees with the translation of yeux bridés:

http://dictionnaire.tv5.org/dictionnaires.asp?Action=4&param=brid%E9&che=1

That is a poor translation. "Slit" can mean vagina in English, especially when you refer to the human body. It would be way worse that way.

Speaking English as a second language, I have no way of knowing how "slit eyes" or "slanting eyes" differ in meaning if they do, or what connotations they may have acquired in Anglo-Canadian or American society. Boisclair neither. That's probably why he stopped to explain how the English translation might have some connotation it does not in French. -- 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So Boisclair spent a year at Harvard (where everyone is Asian-American, apparantly), grew up in Montreal, and has no idea that refering to someone's physical features might be offensive? I would say he's moving in some very closed circles. Really, someone who wants to be Premier of Quebec should know better.

Some 4 ago, there was an anti-racism campain in which we could see, in the Metro and other places, an advertizing of the cutest little Asian girl holding two almonds over her eyes and smiling. It said "Les yeux en amandes, le coeur québécois." A lot of people will remember it in Quebec. Just like in Englihs, some words and expressions are banned from French vocabulary because they were once or are still used pejoratively. For Asians, examples would be jaune and chintok but in no way shape or form yeux bridés and even less yeux en amandes. -- 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I rememeber that one, and my reaction was the same as with Boisclair. I found it incredibly patronizing. I got this image of a whole bunch of white francophone fonctionaires in Quebec who had never met an Asian (but seem them waling around) coming up with a publicity campaign to satisfy hemselves that they are not racist. Do you understand that Asians do not notice their slanted eyes when they look at each other or themselves, just like we do not see round eyes when look at each either? I guess the intentions are good, but it shows a certain lack of understanding of what life is like from a Asian (or any minority) persepective; had the Asian community actually been consulted on this campaign, it never would have happened; it served as a blatant reminder that minorities are obvioulsly under represented in the Quebec civil service and their voice is not listened to. I had friend who printed out a T-shirt with a smiley face and a square head "La tete carre, le coeur quebecois" in parody of this campaign. A lot of my francophone friends saw it as an amusing act of self-depreciation, whereas the anglophones understood the parody. Two cultures, I guess.

Imagine if someone from English Canada would try to build bridges by a poster campaign on the well known beauty of Quebecoise women: "la belle quebecoise , la belle canadienne". Would you not find this patronizing? Responding to serious political issues with "poetic" compliments about physical beauty? It is inappropriate. And can you imagine the outcry if someone running for Prime Minister did this?

Let's imagine that I am so irrational that I can actually think that being morally inferior might be a national feature of Quebec francophones, even though that is the foundation of racism itself. So since they are morally inferior, they, unlike us, cannot conceive a society where the common denoninator is citizenship and not the ethnic features of a given ethnic group.

The fact that the majority of those morons actually project to built a new country with a new common citizenship, speak of the equality between nations, falls outside of the elements I will choose to consider relevant, otherwize I might end up realizing that some major and providential facts go against my initial prejudice. Now let's imagine that I was brought up thinking that Quebec francophones, being morally inferior because of their religious past and in spite of everything that was attempted to civilize them, are lead by an elite that is too stupid to follow the trends of the Western World, which include the civil rights movements aiming to eliminate social exclusions of all types. The fact that the left-wing groups that are associated with these movements in my culture, support, in their culture, the independence movement of Quebec will be ignored because that is just too confusing to add this variable in the equation. Since nothing valuable could possibly come out of this weak link of the human family, I will not bother to try to understand who they are by myself. Even when speaking their awful sounding language not-as-beautiful-as-real-French and interacting directly with them, I will continue to shut my reason off and not learn a thing of their take on the world. Their language is not really useful anyway and not worth mastering and unlike English does not open doors to science and the job market. Since the depiction of their institutions and leaders, as the corporate media engaged in a political war against them present it to my community is surely as good as anything, I will refuse to consider I might not be well-informed. In spite of my ignorance of what is going on in their human heads and their human hearts, I will judge myself in a better position to judge of their character, their morals and their intentions than they could possibly be themselves. Yes, I can image now. Now that I have an irrepressible negative image of them based on the exploitation of my fears and carefully entertained prejudice against all things French, I can see how it can be self-reassuring that they are so wrong and even when they try to do things right, that is when they copy us, they are clumsy and fail to hide their true vile nature. I can see it now. What a bunch of bastards! -- Mathieugp 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again. French Quebecers are always the victims. They are always right. They are incapable of showing insensitivitiy and holding on to old stereotypes. What is so hard about about self-examination? Why not instead of expatiating your particular ethno-cultural perspective, you try considering those of others for a change? The fact is, everyone comes to the discussion with their own ethnocultural perspective. --216.208.208.121 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the point. It is not that Boisclair is racist. It's that he is out of touch with the reality of the minorities that he says he wishes to represent. He doesn't even listen to voices from his own party on the issue. But he knows that his political bread and butter is in Herouxville, Lac St Jean, and not TMR or Cote des Neiges, so why should he? It seems that white francophones don't care about this, and simply ignore any complaints, or demonize them as invention of the evil English press. This is why most minorites have given up on political involvement in Quebec. If you stand up for yourself quitely: you get ignored. If you make noise, you get smacked down and humiliated in the public by a defensive nationalist press. And if Don Cherry complains about "French guys" wearing visors, it becomes front page news in the Journal de Montreal. You can insult anyone in Qubec except francophones de souche. --Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe too many Anglo-Quebecers are out of touch with the rest of Quebec and therefore out of touch with themselves as citizens of Quebec, a country that was 259 years-old in 1867? -- Mathieugp 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think they are very in touch with the attitudes of Quebec nationalists, and this is reflected in the hiring pracices in the Quebec civil service and the underrepresentation of minorities in the Quebec civil service. That is why they do not bother with politics inside Quebec anymore: they will only get dismissed or attacked as Westmount Rhodesians, Imperial Conquerors, or overly sensitive slant eyes unless they put up with the kind of venom you spew. --216.208.208.121 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebecois identity

Soul scanner, your above comments are completely "original research" as they are your own opinions. You cannot claim that because Celine Dion said this or that a politician said that, that "Quebecois" means what you claim it means. That is the exact definition of original research. Do you have a French dictionary? I challenge you to find a single French dictionary which supports the definition you are claiming. In fact, find any French sources that support such a exclusive notion. You will not find one, because it is only the English language media (not all, but most) that is ethnically motivated, that consistently attempts to inject false ethnic notions into the question of Quebec national identity and culture.

That is not what I did. I was using the article to link to the definition Balthazar's (whose definition defintion is the same as mine) of "Quebecois", which is representative of how Quebecois has been used since the 1960's. You will find this in English dictionaries, and the same one you will find in the Petit Robert: '(repandu v. 1965) "Du groupe ethnique et linguistique canadienne-francais composant la majorite de la population du Quebec"' Celine Dion's statement is just an illustration of how this definition is commonly used in French in Quebec. I could still find thousands of others, but that would be overkill. I'm not saying the other definition is not valid, which is why I include it in the introduction. That is one definition. I'm just saying that there are several, and that we need to explain all of them here because it is very important in understanding the nature of the word and all its cannotations in political debates.--Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to read The Nation in Question (La Nation en question) by Michel Seymour [4]. From your discussions it appears you have very little understanding of the full nature of Quebec society because you are too reliant upon English language sources, most if not all of them based elsewhere in Canada. I quote from Seymour's own summary of the book's conclusions: "Quebec is the result of two major cultural influences, and it does not form an ethnic, exclusively civic or cultural homogenous nation. It must rather be understood as a political community which is sociologically constituted by a national majority of francophones, a national minority of anglophones and by citizens having other national origins. Quebec’s nation is thus pluricultural and multiethnic, even if it would not exist without the language, culture and history of the majority."

Yes, I'm familiar with Seymour. Everything he says is true about Canada too, except the minority/majority statistics are reversed. I recommend reading a little bit by Pierre Dubuc [5]. He says that if what Michel Seymour is saying is true, there would be no need for language laws, and that francophone academics have been hectored into their politcally correct position of civic nationalism by Trudeauists and the English press. I agree with this analysis; of course I differ from him because I think it's a good thing. The Dion incident and Parizeau's referendum night speech forced francophone academics to reexamine their positions, which is a good thing. Like he says, if you take language out of the equation, Quebec nationalism would cease to exist. I would say that more Quebecois would agree with Dubuc than with Seymour, even though politicians are forced by political correctness to adopt Seymour's stand. Of course, I would prefer to live in Seymour's Quebec, but we are not living in that "nation" yet. And the way Quebec is treating Muslim women lately, and my feeling is that it would be a while. If Seymour were part of the PQ, I would consider them. But there are people like Dubuc in it. That's why the PQ has limited appeal in Montreal. --Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, let us put aside this politicking and begin seriously making an attempt at neutrality here. The English Wikipedia appears to have very few francophone editors from Quebec and I have noticed that many of the articles in question in relation to this subject are in dire need of less biased perspectives, to make them more neutral. I am assuming the quality of the articles here is bad primarily because francophone Quebecois have decided that their efforts would be pointless. I would not be surprised if this were the case. Laval 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is perfectly neutral. It includes all definitions of Quebecois, the ones I would like to see, and the ones I don't like to see. You are the one who wishes to delete the definition for political purposes. This article focuses on how 'Quebecois' is used as a word in the English language. It is also mentioned how it is used in relevant political contexts. It needs more than a dictionary definition because its usage is complex and at times contraversial. Many of these issues would be better discussed under the Quebec Nationalism, which needs serious work, or a seperate article on Quebecois Identity. Perhaps this article could eventually be redirected there. --Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Above, I posted the 7 definitions of "nation" by Michel Seymour and attempted to translate them in English:

1. Ethnic: when we think of ourselves as sharing the same ancestral origins.

Cultural: when we think of ourselves as having different ancestral origins, but are nevertheless united by a common mother tongue, a common set of institutions and a common territory.

Civic: when we share the same country and that this country was made to be a mononational State.

Sociopolitical: when we participate to the same political community that is not sovereign but contains in its midst the most important sample in the world of a group sharing the same language, the same institutions and the same history.

Diasporic: when we belong to a group whose members have the same language, the same culture and the same history but have been dispersed on various discontinuous territories and are a minority inside all these territories.

Multisociétale: when the sovereign State is thought of by the majority as being made out of multiple national and cultural societies (United Kingdom).

Multiteritorial: when the group is located in a continuous territory but one that does not correspond to juridically recognized borders. For exemple, the kurds occupies a territory that is not fragmented (Kurdistan) but its borders do not match the official borders of existing States.

I wa replied by SoulScanner that "this [was] his personal opinion. It's highly subjective and based on his hard-line nationalist sentiments and more designed to justify his own emotional sovereignist convictions." I'll spare you the rest of his comment. Michel Seymour cannot be "authoritative" because he is just a sovereignist with a rational understanding of complex issues. We need to bow down and admit the supremacy of Don Macpherson, journalist at The Gazette... -- Mathieugp 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Michel Seymour, Gerard Bouchard, and Charles Taylor discuss what the nation should be. Don MacPherson is saying in the article the same thing before the 1995 referendum what Michel Seymour was saying after it. They all want a Quebec that is based on civic as opposed to cultural nationalism.

My problem with Seymor's definitions is that they are designed so that Quebecois nationalism, which is based primarily on language, francophone culture, and a shared sense of history, does not fall into ethnic nationalism. The motivation is political, since it was defined at the time of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and the word "ethnic" had taken on sinister overtones. But a look at wikipedia article , which give a broad range of references, you can see that ethnicity entails elements of shared language, shared descent, shared culture, shared history and many of the elements used to define the Quebecois nation.

Second; the definition of civic nation as being characterized as a unitary state is designed to negate the federalist vision of Canada. The classic example of civic nationalism is Switzerland, where there is one nation, 4 language communities, and several cantons. So these definitions are highly debatable, and designed to set up a political argument against Canada by painting as a unitary state.

This is largely beside the point, though. We are discussing here how the term "Quebecois" is viewed in English, and in French. This does not adress that issue. --Soulscanner 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have lost all the patience I once had to deal with those kinds of contributors. Maybe Laval has more virtue than I have. Bonne chance mon ami! :-) -- Mathieugp 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

--Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)==Redirect to Quebec== According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thus, the existence of this article makes no sense. I was not aware of this policy before editing this article, but now it is incredible that this article is even present given the nature of such a policy. I found it curious why this article was here, when on the French Wikipedia, the link to québécois redirects to Quebec. No other Wikipedia project has an article for this term and it is certainly biased as it stands here. I suggest whatever useful information that is here (very little) be merged with the main article (Quebec) and that views from francophone academics be included as well. To include the views of someone from McMaster University (David Young), yet censoring the view of Michel Seymour, an academic at the University of Montreal, is abhorrent. If that is not an obvious anti-Quebecism, then what is? I am very disappointed at this, as this is against the nature of Wikipedia. Laval 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you will notice that Irish people does not redirect to Ireland, that French people does not redirect to France, and Croatian people does not redirect to Croatia. It is normal to divide the people, territory, if their is ambiguity, which there is in the case of Quebecois.French and Irish redirect to disambiguation pages which seems appropriate here. What I would recommend is renaming this article Quebecois identity or Quebecois people, and moving Quebecois to a disambiguation page.

The "ambiguity" you are referring to exists for most if not all national identities. I have already explained this to you with much detail. Here it is again: Like most civic nations that welcome a great deal of immigrants, Quebec 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. 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? How many Canadians do that? 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. Canadians are, in one meaning, all citizens of Canada including all those who do not identify as such. In another meaning, Canadians are those who identify as such and they do because they share a common culture through a common language, that they speak as first, second or third language. There is absolutely nothing special about the case of Quebec, except that its English-speaking minority is also part of the Anglo-Canadian majority which seems to lead to all sorts of confusion for them. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is false to compare Canada, the U.S. and Quebec in this manner. From a civic point of view, Canada and the U.S. are civic nations. Quebec is not. From a civic standpoint, Quebec is a province. Hence, it is the province and not the nation of Quebec that welcomes immigrants in an official capacity, just like Ontario or B.C. does. People are citizens of the province of Quebec, not the nation of Quebec.

The citizens of Quebec are the body of a civic nation since the time of New France.

Already false. They were not a civic nation in any sense of the word. They were Subjects of the King of France and a colony of his Empire, which he ruled as an absolute Monarch. Quebec had no representation in any elected Assembly. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, now a State with an absolute monarchy has no body. A nation becomes civic when it institutes an Assembly whose members are elected based on property qualifications? How do you reason that out?

Quebec is a province of the Kingdom of France transfered to the Kingdom of Great Britain. At the time this was happening, the Canadiens already considered themselves a nation (plain fact), behaved as such and continued to behave a such under British rule (another plain fact).

Sure they were a cultural nation in the same sens eas the Acadian, Virginians, and Newfoundlanders. Civically, they were loyal Subjects of the French King as English Colonists were subjects of the English King. Their civic status was that of a Royal colony, not a sovereign nation. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That only says something about the relation between the province and the Kingdom. De facto, internally, they were already a distinct society as were the British colonies in America in relation to Great Britain.

This new national society was shaped by the policies and laws of a provincial state, as is the case for many other American colonies, British or Spanish, that went from colony to nation, from province to independent State. Quebec is a nation that was forcibly, in violation of natural law, public international law and British law, annexed by force to a neighbouring province for the sole purpose of preventing its French-speaking and Catholic majority from gaining the colonial self-government they were entitled to as of 1763.

Natural Law? As a physicist, I can tell you there was no violation of natural law in any Imperial Wars. The laws of physics applied, and the cannon balls all followed the same trajectories they do now. Under International, France transfered it's North American possessions to England. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I have a hard time believing you could be a physicist. To be such a person, you would have to know how to better use your own reason, which you have countless time demonstrated to be incapable of doing, at least on subjects outside physics. So you are a physicist? Then read about Natural rights, Natural Law. I'll make it easier for you to grasp these new concepts: In the world of ants, there are individuals made for certain tasks needed by an ant colony. Their society is naturally made so that some fly, some don't, some are the Queen, some are the pions. In human society, there is no such thing. All individuals are naturally equal, so no one individual is predisposed, as of birth, to certain functions within the social organization. That is a key notion of the whole concept of equality of man, and the the rights of man by the way. Yet, human societies are in need to have certain individuals exercise specific functions by the nature of human society itself. How to determine who does what and when? On what basis? The political incarnation of such philosophical notions took the form of Article I of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen:

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common utility." -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

With the Treaty of Paris, the French subjects became British subjects with the same rights. In addition, some natural rights were recognized to them to insure the respect of the nationality. Unfortunately, there was a huge difference between what the law said and what the enforcers of the law did in the despotic regime that existed in my country back then. As early as October 1774, the Continental Congress informed my people of some of the keys rights that Quebecers were entitled to equal British subjects. You can read about it here : http://english.republiquelibre.org/index.php?title=Letter_to_the_Inhabitants_of_the_Province_of_Quebec

The Quebec Act of 1774 (which restored that Catholic faith and allowed Catholics to hold public office) was among the Intolerable Acts that triggered the American Revolution; New England Purtitans were aghast that having spent seven long years conquering Canada, that the British would allow Catholics the same rights as protestants. Moreover, the Generals that led the Revolution (i.e. George Washington) were among the soldiers that had shelled Quebec and Montreal mercilessly only 15 years earlier. The Canadianans had good reason to be suspicious of overtures from American as they knew the virulent anti-Catholicism that was behind much fo the Revolutionary fervor. --Soulscanner 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet, the Parliament with an elected Assembly came in 1791, and guess what, its representatives struggled during half a century to get this Parliament to serve the interests of the people. They failed. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All British subjects in that colony, and later in the two colonies of Lower and Upper Canada, were denied their right to provincial self-government in hatred of the French language and Catholic religion of the majority of Lower Canada.

Hold it here. The anti-Catholicism was inherent in the American colonies to the south, particularly the Puritan ones in New England, and one of the main reasons that French Canadians did not join the American Revolution. They were more attached to the Church than the idea of civic institutions. It was the British who gave Quebec it's first elected Assembly (which is still in use today) and eventually (albeit begrudgingly) granted all its North American colonies Responsible government in the 1840's thanks to Patriiotes like Louis H. Lafontaine. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sort of historical evidence for this feel-good revisionist thesis? The Quebecers of Catholic faith were legally cast off from 1764 to 1774. When the legal barrier came down, they found themselves continually underrepresented in all public functions of their native (or adoptive) country. In as much as it was possible for them to understand where their national interest lied, Quebecers participated to the American revolution either by defending their new Sovereign as ordered by the King and strongly suggested by the Church or by fighting along side the Congress (see the Congress' Own). When the military regime of Colborne was done hanging the most intelligent men left in Lower Canada, most being in exile, the Union regime came. In this new system, the overall population was underrepresented by lowering the number of electoral districts. The size of the electorate was reduced by increasing the value of the property a man had to own to be eligible to vote. And the French speakers were even more underrepresented because urban areas were alloted more representation than rural areas. Within this new improved and liberal system whereby the Quebec nation was deprived of any distinct means of legislation and executive government, the already well-established British system of patronage and corruption finally contaminated the only branch of the Legislature that had been resisting it from 1791 to 1840 (in both Upper and Lower Canada) : the elected Assembly. Do you wan to learn more? I can go on for hours on the specific of this transition as well and the one that followed, from Union to "Confederation". A great deal of the key documents are already online. Much much more are not there yet, but it will come. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not unusual for 19th century ideologues to spew on for hours. That is why the PQ is now a third party. How you can call the attainment of Responsible government in the 1840's revisionist history, I do not know. It is a fact of Canada. It forms the basis of our democracy. Canada is still here because of it, and it has proved a flexible yet stable form of government. While Revolutions and Civil wars rocked the rest of the continent, we generally talked it out in Parliament. Compared to the United States, Mexico, Central America, and Europe (save perhaps Switzewrland), it worked out much better. --Soulscanner 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By depriving the citizens of Lower Canada, of any means of government, the forced union of Quebec and Ontario caused to Quebec evils similar to those inflicted to Ireland after the forced union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800. The evolution of the union into a confederation could have solved the problem of Quebec all the while saving the people of Ontario from the humiliation of taking part in the ethnocide of the majority of the people in Quebec. But the people who proposed the confederal union were not humanist, enlightened pro-democracy liberals from Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They were the same royalist tory businessmen who had pushed, for entirely selfish and racist reasons, for the re-union of Lower and Upper Canada in 1808, in 1822 and finally got what they wanted in the spilling of human blood in 1837-38.

True, but they got their just deserts with the Signing of the Rebellion losses Bill in the late 1840;'s. The more enlightened minds of Lafontaine, Baldwin, and Elgin accomplished with compromise what the Patriotes could not with bullets. That is the pragmatic Canadian tradition. Our democratic institutions are based on the dialoque between French and English reformers.

--Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Their just deserts??? How about those who were hanged and exiled. Pragmatic Canadian tradition? Despotism causes a great great evil, then a less-despotic regime restores only a small portion of the good the existed before. Why weren't those who burned down the Parliament in Montreal never jailed? Why did people attempted to kill Lafontaine, a naive pseudo-liberal, multiple times? Why was the good and just Union regime ultimately replaced? There was a dialogue between "French" and British and Irish reformers inside Lower Canada before the Union. After the Union, the Liberals were for the first time strongly divided, hence the split between the Bleus and the Rouges. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"French Canadianism" as George Brown called it was locked into the province of Quebec and a new federal government, one which they would never control, was put over the heads of Quebecers. It is withing this new federal State that modern Canadian nationalism was born after a long period of British colonial pride. Quebec became a nation within a nation as simply an clearly put by Pearson without any vulgar attempt at ethnicizing the issue from his part, without trying to impose one national project as morally superior to the other. It is within Quebec that the oldest of the two nations was never given up my the majority of Quebecers. After almost a century of destabilization leading the majority of the Quebec people roaming and wandering in ethnic survivance like the Jews, they, in the 1960s, reclaimed their right to build a modern civic nation inside Quebec, be it inside or outside the Canadian union. It is within this context that the Canadien français (ethnic survival, boundary less) to Québécois (civic identity, bound to the territory of Québec) name changed occured. -- Mathieugp 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The attachment of French Canadians to their Church and Religion was organic and sincere and spanned centuries. The change to civic nationalism never occured in the population, and the appeal to "survivance" is very apparant in films like Lise Payette's "Disparaitre" and the ad nauseum repeition fo the cliche that Quebec is a francophone island in the sea of English; Quebec's language laws are based on this ethnic nationalism that goes back to the original settlers. This change only occured in the minds of souless senior technocrats who came of age during the Quiet Revolution. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So much ignorance and contempt for a people trying to make justice for all by legal and democratic means. Are you able not to repeat the same old tune from the same old broken record everytime I try to inform you of things you should at least be aware of to be credible when you discuss Quebec politics. The Quebec language policy tries to undo an evil inherant to the Canadian system, an evil inherited from the forced Union. The antagonizing of "ethnic nationalists" vs "civic nationalists" is a ridiculous oversimplification of reality that does not serve the cause of the Truth. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Quebecois (French Canadians), Acadians, Metis define themselves as cultural nations within Canada. English Canadians do not think of themselves as a cultural nation. Culturally, they identify with their ethnicity or their region (e.g. Nova Scotian or Newfoundland). They by and large share a language and culture with their U.S. neighbours, the same way Austrians share a culture with their German neighbors. English Canadians define themselves civically, that is, by their shared institutions and civic values, not their culture. That is a civic nationalism.

The ruling class in Canada defines the "Quebecois" the same way as the Acadians and the Metis for obvious reasons: it cannot lead to any meaningful change of how the Canadian system works. Quebecers define themselves, in fact and in law, as the citizens of Quebec. They have given themselves the whole set of national institutions. Those institutions belong to all the citizens. Much like a minority of the citizens of Canada (most in Quebec) do not identify as Canadians the way the majority do, a minority of the citizens of Quebec (most in the West Island) do not identify as Quebecers the way the majority of them do. Yet, in fact and in law, all citizens of Quebec are citizens of Quebec and Canada and all citizens of Canada are citizens of Canada. There are two sets of national institutions, one set sustained by a provincial state the other set by a federal state. The only thing preventing all citizens of Canada from recognizing this and formalizing this is the chauvinism of a part of the ruling class in Canada. -- Mathieugp 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

English speaking Quebeckers and most allophones in Quebec are English Canadian in this regard. They identify with civic institutions just like English Canadians. Hence, they are citizens of the province of Quebec, but generally do not identify as Quebecois, just like anglophones in New Brunswick do not identify as part of the Acadian nation. Similarly, Acadians living in Bonaventure, Quebec, even though they are citizens of Quebec, are mostly part of the Acadian nation and will generally not identify as part of the Quebecois nation (i.e. as a French Canadians living in Quebec).

The result is that francophone Quebeckers not residing in Quebec will commonly be referred to as Quebecois (even though they are not Quebec citizens).

Separatist politicians in Quebec exploit ambiguities in the civic and cultural sense of the word Quebecois. They use rhetoric to inflame animosity and misunderstanding between Quebeckers (be they Anglophone, Acadian, Cree, Mowhawk, or Quebecois) and other Canadian citizens from outside the province. Separatists claim that the failure of English Canadians to recognize a "Quebec nation" means that they deny the existence of a Quebec cultural nation. The recent motion to recognize the Quebecois nation (as opposed to the Quebec nation) has added legal legitimacy to the cultural sense of the Quebecois, but was very careful that Quebec in the civic sense remains a province. So I have no trouble with a civic definition of Quebec citizenship for myself; it's the same in every province or U.S. state. But I simply do not define myself culturally as Quebecois because to me it is the shared values of rights and freedoms embodies in our civil institutions that I identify and as important rather than the collective cultural identity derived from the French language, shared history, ancestry, and cultural references; I choose and derive my cultural identity from number of sources, not just the culture of the linguistic majority. --Soulscanner 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also not denying that Seymour's defintion exists. You'll see that the introductory sentence uses his defintion, but also includes that of Balthazar. Why not include both, as I do? Good introductions include as many senses of the word as possible and seek to explain their contexts.

Those definitions are not the problem. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But all I do here is introduce these definitions. I do not understand your objections. I include the French definition that I find in my 1988 definition of the Petit Robert. --Soulscanner 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article is ostensibly more than a dictionary definition. It begins with a dictionary definition, as all Wikipedia articles do. English and French usage is discussed. Their political and legal implications are summarized. Quebecois has ambiguous cannotations owing to the history of Quebec nationalism. As Balthazar and the Petit Robert point out, Quebecois was defined in the 1960's as French Canadians or francophones living in Quebec for the politcal purpose of breaking with a pan-Canadian identity. The Dion incident caused English-speaking Quebecers (e.g. MacPherson + Johnson) to question this defintion in the early 1990's, because it defines Quebecer based on language, ethnicity, and culture that excludes anglophones. In the later 1990's, francophone nationalist academics began to debate whether to change the definition. Seymour, Bouchard, and Taylor argue for a new civic definition as proposed by anglophones, while activist within the Parti Quebecois like Pierre Dubuc and other academics like Fernand Dumont [6] argue for an ethno-cultural definition. I'm saying both definitions need to be described, not just those of one academic, and that the full evolution of the debate (including the contributions of Johnson and MacPherson) need to be described. The fact that you negate definitions that you disagree with shows that you wish to misrepresent Quebec nationalism. This is intellectually dishonest.

You are mixing up two definitions of two words in two languages. You are completely ignorant of the history that lead to the Canadien-français => Québécois change as well as the nature of the debates on Quebec nationalism. You are not seeing the big picture here. There is nothing in this article that could possibly be informative and enlightening on the subject. To illustrate how much history you are missing, the first project of a civic Quebec nation, using today's modern definition of nation, goes back to 1784. You can read about the System of Government for Canada proposed by Pierre du Calvet here: http://english.republiquelibre.org/index.php?title=System_of_Government_for_Canada . The most enlightened men in the British Parliament were favorable to such a system which never came. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the current usage of "Quebecois"? I fail to see relevance.--Soulscanner 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

People who do not ignore the long history of Quebec see that the change from Canadien français to Québécois is in fact a return to the late 18th century, to the modern idea of nation that came out of the American revolution (an association of equal citizens holding sovereignty and granting nationality rights to immigrants by granting State citizenship). The System of Government of Canada of Pierre du Calvet and Francis Maseres, never translated to English until recently when it was put on line, attests the birth of a modern project of a civic nation within Quebec in 1784, 24 years after the Conquest and 5 years before the taking of the Bastille. The Appel à la justice de l'État was read and clearly understood by Joseph Papineau, notary, and father of Louis-Joseph, who took part in the movement that lead to the sending of petitions asking for an English-type colonial government, including an elective House of Assembly in which all British subjects, of any origin or faith, would be eligible to vote. The French revolution and the birth of a French republic scared the British aristocracy enough that the crippled parliament of Quebec was replaced by a new one and the new settlers of what would become Ontario were at the same time given an entirely separate province. This was in 1791 and it did not take long for the citizens of both provinces to realize that this new system of government was not what they had asked for during the 1780s. -- Mathieugp 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the model adopted by modern Quebec nationalists, who borrow heavily from the romantic idealism of Fichte, which defined a "people" based on a shared culture, history, language, and ancestry (one can see this in the romanticized rambings above). In a purely civic nationalism as defined here, Quebec could join the U.S. as did Vermont, Massachessets, etc. (which it had the opportunity to do when Arnold's Army invaded and occupied Quebec City and Montreal. There would be no problem with being part of Canada either. However, Quebec nationalism is based on a collective identification with language, which is in turn part of the French colonial legacy. Hence, the Quebecois identity also carries with it an ethnic sense. This is obvious to anyone who has ever set foot in Quebec. --Soulscanner 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. You see things that oppose each other where there are things complementing one another, which is a classic error of reasoning. There is nothing like "purely civic" except in theory books. The model defined in 1784 is of course not special and is the model explicitely or implicitely adopted in Quebec by all Quebec Premiers since Lesage! All currently existing national institutions of Quebec, in fact and in law, belong to all Quebec citizens, from the Assemblée nationale to the new Grande Bibliothèque! Wake up! "Quebec could join the U.S." and "There would be no problem with being part of Canada either"? No kidding! Wasn't Louis-Joseph Papineau and the Parti rouge advocating the annexation of Quebec to the USA?? Were't the former majority of nationalists advocating an autonomous Quebec inside a reformed Canada? Aren't the current minority of them still doing this today? Aren't the moderate Quebec sovereignists favorable to an Association or a Partnership after secession?

You are correct that the differnce between civic and ethnic nationalism is one of degree. Serbian or German nationalism are not all ethnic; they are more ethnic compared to that of the Swiss or Americans. There's nothing wrong with basing cultural identity on ethnicity. African-American culture, based mostly on ethnicity and race, has given us the most influential culture in the globalized world: Jazz, hip-hop, Rock-n-Roll, etc. It's only when you confuse the two that you get into trouble.

"Quebec nationalism is based on a collective identification with language, which is in turn part of the French colonial legacy." Not based on it, but one of the main reasons for its specific and distinct existence as is the case for any nation-state on Earth, including Canada. Why any specific association of citizens at all? Why the association of the citizens of Italy on their given territory and not another? Why not the association of all citizens of North America? Why the association of the Canadian citizens? What's the point? Why not one big association of the Earth's citizens destroying all current States and their associated and identities, young or old? Because there are individuals, inside each State who see a value to their people beyond just existing inside a State.

If you want to understand why a nation without a State or a nation inside a non-sovereign State almost always wants to have it back or have it for the first time in the case of new nations born out of colonies, just consider the liberties a nation has when it has the ability to democratically govern itself. Just consider that the very existence of this nation as a distinct human group is the result of the prior existence of a State enjoying, de facto, a certain level of autonomy for some period of time. Learn how new languages are born and how they construct and describe the world of sense around you as a human person. Learn how for a language to continue existing, it needs a space where a population will be free to use it in all aspects of their everyday lives. Learn how language rights are human rights, neglected human rights, but human rights nontheless. Nature (or God if you believe in this unecessary concept) has created natural human languages. Each has an unmeasurable value to humans. Nations, in the ethnic sense this time, exist as distinct communities first and foremost because of those languages.

Certainly, but if that is the case, The English Canadian and American nations should join, a they share a language and culture and a common border and Switzerland should Afcrican staes should splinter into one hundred tribal zones, and the Cree and Inuit should split off from Quebec. Most nations do not revolve around language. Language is but one human construction to base a sense of identity on. The Quebecois do it now based on language, but for centuries it was also based on Religion. The Swiss base it on a purely civic conception of the nation in response to the larger Imperial entities (i.e. Germany, France, and Italy) that did use language as an Imperial tool to wipe out cultural diversity and local autonomy. Serbs and Croats (who speak the same language) base their nationhood on affiliation with Roman and Byzantine civilization. Americans base it on a Republican ideal. In Canada, it is based on a dialogue between French and English linguistic communities in the context of largescale cosmopolitiain immigration (i.e. bilinguaism and multiculturalism). --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now, even in this purely civic and souless State of Canada which you seem to idealize, one has to learn English or French to become a national through immigration. Oh no! Canada is an Ethnic state! By favouring some languages over others, by having existed for some time giving it a history, its population is gilty of sharing something in common beyond their passport!!

Seriously, a language, when it is the first, second, third or else language of a person can be given the status of an official and public language. Free associations of citizens are a purely abstract notion.

Ther eis nothng abstract about the free association of citizens. That is why autocrats and totalitarians seek to limit it. --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The citizens are always real human beings who need to communicate with each other somehow for their community to even exist. When the enlightened nationals of a given State believe in the Jus soli notion as French-speaking people, educated in French law and customs, would naturally do, you can get something like modern nation-states trying to respect the rights of all humans on their territories, both majorities and minorities. Unfortunately, some people want the club of the free nations of the Earth to be select club and do little to encourage, and sometimes everything to prevent, small nations from getting their own State. In our next class, we will learn why humans are sometimes so stupid as to go to war against each other. -- Mathieugp 05:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada isn't. Canada recognizes the right of all provinces to secede. It recognizes the linguisitc rights of anglophone and francophone citizens. Hence, you have nothing to complain about.

Let's talk about small nations in Canada. Lets compare the Quebecois and the Jame Bay Cree. The Quebecois have complete jurisdiction over natural resources. The Quebec government limits the rights of Cree to their resources in a labyrinth of Category I II and III lands around small reserves, and even there insists upon shared jurisdictions. If you believe in the autonomy of small nations, why not grant the Cree and Inuit their own provinces with autonomous powers equal to that of Quebec? --Soulscanner 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet you defend Canada, the system that perpetuates those inequalities. I am all for the Crees and the Inuits to self-govern on their own territories. If they did, then I could move up their and become an Inuit myself just by receiving a citizenship card and accepting to submit to the laws and customs (that means learning their language) of my new adoptive community. -- Mathieugp 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Cree and Inuit are francophone or anglophone, so there would be no need to learn their language. They run their own schools, which are run in English, French and Cree by their own choice. Language isn;t as big a deal for them as with the Quebecois. I do not defend the treatment by Quebec and Canadian governments by of the Cree and Inuit. I think that Quebec needs to transfer over jurisdiction over natural resources, health, language and education on their territories so that they can be masters in their own house and develop their own economies. Natural resources, health, and education are provincial matters, and the federal government has no control over these. In the event of Quebec separation, I think if they decide to stay in Canada if they vote in yheir own referendum to do so. Do you? --Soulscanner 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As for going up there, there is no guarantee that they will allow in immigrants from Quebec, especially after the way the provincial government has treated them. If you do, you will be able to get along quite alright in English as long as you respect their sovereignty. --Soulscanner 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the discussion above. You will see that Mathieu conceded that the majority in Quebec use Quebecois to refer to francophones in Quebec when speaking of identity, but that the majority is wrong. This is not for us to decide in this article. You will see that the consensus here is that encyclopedia articles document the way things are, not the way we would like them to be. I recommend that you work on your countrymen to change their minds about this definition, because when anglophones try to do it they are ignored or dismissed as extremists: they have given up and recognize this as the price of living in Quebec. --Soulscanner 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are literally misrepresenting my thought. I doubt you will convince anyone here by doing that. -- Mathieugp 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soul scanner wasting peoples time

User:Soul scanner has persistently wasted peoples' time here. His comments above are purely his own opinion and have no grounding in fact, yet this person constantly makes the same pointless arguments again and again. Nothing he says above is true or even remotely factual. Does Wikipedia not have some system of recourse for dealing with this problem? Laval 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that the civic status of Quebec is that of a province, not a nation. There is nothing controversial about that. Actually, you are wasting time; the article cites known and documented usage of Quebecois,a nd includes all usages of the word. You are attempting to advance a separatist political agenda here. I should point out that offering varying point of view in the discussion page does not make this article POV. Discussion pages are for that. I'm very careful to leave that out of the article. The articvle is no more POV than the Websters or the Petit Robert. --Soulscanner 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So now I'm a separatist with an agenda, huh? From where I stand, it is you who has the agenda and anti-Quebec bias. Go ahead and keep throwing around attacks. Laval 09:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that you often fail to login when undoing other peoples work and leaving comments. You should stop doing that because it looks like an attempt to avoid so-called "3RR". As well stop making accusations against me of making malicious edits. The article is not neutral and contains original research, and the validity of its existence is arguably weak. Again you are the one promoting bias and agenda by making a big huff over nothing about this term. In the Quebec article, it deserves at most only a few lines. In the end you will not have your way because what you are doing and promoting is against Wikipedia policy. If others are willing to let you do whatever you want and get away with it, then I should not waste my precious time with Wikipedia. Laval 09:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please identify the original research and I will add a reference. As I said, all claims in the article are referenced. As for being anti-Quebec, that accusation is made by all Quebec separatists when facts they don't like are mentioned. I guess then that the Petit Robert is anti-Quebec. Take it up with them. --Soulscanner 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the controversy section, which itself was pure opinion. David Young's idea that in French, "Quebecois" has a political context is pure original research. Read WP:OR carefully - unless an idea has wide acceptance in the academic community, it is total OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. In French, the fact remains, whether you like it or not, that "Quebecois" is not tied to politics or ethnicity. It is just as neutral as say, "New Yorker" or "Californian". The fact that Young is all you can reference shows how fringe this idea is. And again, this is why this article doesn't deserve to exist and should be merged into Quebec. We don't have articles on Californian (disambig page), New Yorker (disambig page), Ontarian (redirects to Ontario), and so on. By the way, don't ever call anyone a separatist here. It is a joke for you to do so especially since you are clearly an advocate of Canada joining the Union and becoming a mere 51st state. What a world. Stop wasting peoples' time. Laval 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the controversy section. I also changed Young's article for the definition found in the Petit Robert. The fact is, whether you like it or not, Quebecois has been used to refer to the culture and language of French Canadians in Quebec since the Quiet Revolution. That s why dictionaries, who document the usage of language, record it. Again, it is encyclopedic to use words as they are commonly used, not how we would like them to be used. --Soulscanner 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)