Hispanics, ( “Mexican-Americans” are only one part- the term would include Californios and New Mexicans as well as immigrants from Latin/South America), aren’t too well treated either.

Had Quebec become part of the U.S. in the 19th century, it probably would have had the fate of California and Texas where Spanish speakers lost their property, livelihood, and the right to have Spanish as a language for legal purposes as well as education etc; ( My step-father, who is Mexican-American,( family roots from before 1836), has memories of being forbidden to speak Spanish in school and in public spaces). It might have ended up like Louisiana where the Cajuns live in the outerlands.

Truth is, most anglo institutions in Quebec weren’t originally put in place as “privileges” for the minority. They were put in place as building blocks for what was to be the future societal foundation of Quebec – the English-language institutions were everyone in Quebec, francophones included, was expected to converge once that pesky French language problem was out the way.

If you look back historically, Quebec in 18th and 19th century North America wasn’t unique like it is today. Plenty of areas of the continent (north of the Rio Grande let’s say) had substantial non-anglo populations with a rudimentary society and all of its trappings emerging around them.

So no one setting up these institutions such as McGill or Bishop’s universities or the Montreal General Hospital would have ever in their wildest dreams (or nightmares) imagined that in 2008 these would still be “minority” institutions in an overwhelmingly French-speaking province.

Things weren’t supposed to turn out this way. And for the most part, in the United States and Canada, they didn’t. Except for Quebec.

If Quebec’s francophone majority has any congratulations to receive for any generosity at all, it’s for not switching all of these institutions over to French when things started getting hot politically in the 60s and 70s.

Now before someone screams out at this suggestion, let me just say that it wouldn’t have been the first time this was done. In fact, that’s pretty much always how it’s been done: “Sure you’ve been (insert language and culture) forever, but from now on this how it’s gonna be. Sorry. No choice.”

If you don’t believe me, look at how many institutions in Western Canada (that were built by and for francophones) were anglicized by government fiat in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the name of social cohesion. Behind many a Holy Cross Hospital and St. Mary’s School is the ghost of an Hôpital Ste-Croix and an École Ste-Marie.

And Canadian anglophones being hypocritical? Well I’m shocked…just…shocked!

The truth is Galagonov types and Quebec nationalists have much more in common than either side would like to believe.

In any case, lets all agree that this drama needs to stay in Canada — or an independent Quebec — where it belongs.

Just like the Gazette and other anglo media fought the protection of any rights for French-speakers until they decided after 25 years that bill 101 was a compromise that preserved linguitic peace?

FYI, protection for Québec’s English minority institutions have been in Bill 101 since the first draft.

Just what minority rights are these? Schools? Hospitals? Just remember that in the not too distant past, some of these minorities were not allowed to use francophone/catholic institutions. What would have immigrant children done if there were no English schools in the 1950′s??

Now, the past is the past and we are in the present now. But there is a difference between opening a new Jewish hospital today and having one that was built in a period when Jews perhaps did not have the same access to health care as Christians. So you can say it is a “right” to have a Jewish hospital, but it was built not because it was a privilege granted to them, but out of necessity.

Now they say “We were with you the whole time!”

It reminds me of a libertarian who wrote a book on all of the progress in America living standards since 1900. He was actually trying to prove that unfettered capitalism was the way to go. But he kept talking about how the air was cleaner and products were safer. He was inadvertantly making the case for government regulation.

If I’m incorrect, by all means set me straight. But I don’t get the impression that nationalists, left to their own devices, would be nearly as generous.

So how did English become so prevalent in the US? Take Pennsylvannia, where German settlers were nearly as numerous as the British: “All that seems necessary is to distribute them more equally, mix them with the English, establish English schools where they are now to thick settled(…)” dixit Benjamin Franklin. Mr. Franklin also arranged that only the English language would be allowed in the Pennsylvania legislature. Québec, FYI, allows English in it’s legislature.

So what you are saying, john is that it is OK for the US to legislate in favour of english but not for Québec to protect it’s own culture? Care to explain this neighbour?