Will CJNT continue to Use Public Airwaves to Anglicize Québec’s Immigrants?
This is exactly why Québec must become an independent country.
Once upon a time, back in the late 90′s, Québec’s different cultural communities had their own TV station, called la Télévision Ethnique du Québec. It was a public access community station that broadcast cheap looking shows of uncomfortable looking men and women sitting on chairs and talking in one of 35 languages in front of cartboard sets.
Of course it sucked. How could immigrants and wide-eyed community activists fresh out of CEGEP ever produce any good TV? Especially back in those days before digital when making TV actually cost money?
Yeah, but it was local TV. Made by Montreal’s immigrants and about their lives and concerns.
In the summer of 1995, a date which I am sure has no significance whatsoever, Canada’s guardian of the airwaves gave away TEQ’s valuable cable channel to some vast media empire that eventually traded it to CanWest media, the owners of the Montreal Gazette, Global TV and the National Post. Within 18 months of the sale, as many as 20 local shows were replaced by shows produced in Toronto or the States. Interestingly, the cut shows were essentially those “from communities more integrated in the francophone majority”, according to Pedro Quirido, president of producers union of TEQ. Eventually locally produced programming was all but abandoned and actual ethnic content dropped from 100% less than 60%. David Letterman and infomercial made up the rest of the grid.
“One City, many Cultures”, became CJNT slogan. To which we can add: One language.
Yep. Nearly all of the station’s ID and promos suddenly became all-English and French became just another one of Montréal’s linguistic communities. Montréal’s “multilingulal” TV station still only has an English only website.
Just like the founders of the station warned ten years ago, the owners of the Montreal Gazette transformed a TV station run by and for Montréal’s ethnic communities into a pedagogical tool used to perpetuate the myth that Québec’s allophones and anglophones are one and the same community and the “ethnic” programming became like training wheels on a bike used to train immigrants into consumers of anglo media.
Either these people don’t know that at least 60% of Québec’s immigrants are French-speakers when they get here…
…or they do know, and they are trying hard to do something about it.
You know, for all the angst about the use of English by Québec’s immigrants, the majority of them are already part of the French-speaking community when they get here! Seven out of the top 10 countries of origin of immigrants are part of the Francophonie. The US is the only English-speaking country of origin in the top 10 and, please, I beg you to argue Americans don’t have acces to enough TV in their language. French is still the most used language by 60% of immigrant workers, it is the language their children study in and the language of the majority of the people who live around them.
There is no justification for CJNT treating them like generic Anglos. It’s not based on demographics, culture or any real numbers.
Except economics. Of course, the owners of CJNT are going to trash locally produced programing in favour of cheaper mass produced Toronto and American fare. And of course a media empire in the business of selling English-thinking minds to advertisers will use all its ressources to train and format more and more English-thinking minds and consumers.
That is why they put on air a channel where nearly all station IDs, commercials, and promos are in English and an English only website when targeting a market that is mostly French-speaking and living in a city where French is supposed to be the common language. That’s somewhere between disrespectful and socially dangerous.
And it sure as hell is not an innocent decision.
This week CanWest Global sold CJNT to Toronto’s Channel Zero. Will the pornographers give back the station to cultural communities?
It’s doubtful. Not only did the CRTC not demand that the station stop acting like an ESL network, it straight out relieved the new owners of of any obligation to use any French at all! (Which is not a reasonnable decision, Fagstein, if CJNT continues to broadcast in English). Read all about the company’s purchase of a multilingual channel in a French-speaking city in their English-only press release right here.
The CRTC’s decisions consistently reduced the amount of programing available to cultural minorities in their language, encouraged the exclusion of immigrants from Québec society and CanWest didn’t even make any significant money. This is a perfect illustration of why a Canada-wide body like the CRTC is inadequate to govern Québec’s airwaves.
And this is why Québec should become it’s own country.
Oh, and by the way :
“I’m all willing to learn about arguments to be made by federalists. Unfortunately, the only ones I got so far are paternalist, a bit like “you are not intelligent/rich enought to form a country, you need the guidance of an enlightened anglo-saxons.””
This is not 1970 anymore. Maybe if you ask an Ontarian federalist that is well in his 70s, you’ll get that kind of arrogant answer. Or maybe you’ll get that if you ask the federalist versions of James and Jean what they think about the subject. But you might get another one if you ask a moderate French-Canadian federalist.
Vinster171
September 2, 2009 at 8:39 am
“So basically, even if I’ve had lots of debates with Acajack, we probably share the same general opinion : no for separation, but no for status quo either. I’m just a lot less tolerant than he is with jerks and anglophobes.”
Vinster, I get the impression you have never really lived outside of Quebec. So this means that 80%+ of the jerks and whatever-phobes you’ve met are Québécois francophones.
I spent most of my life outside Quebec, so most of the jerks and whatever-phobes I have met in my life were English Canadians, so I guess the Québécois jerks and anglophobes that are out there don’t impress me that much. No more than the anglo bozos do.
I’ve been around the block with these types of people from both sides of the issue more times than I can possibly remember, which perhaps explains why I more often than not tolerate (or, more accurately, ignore)
them.
Acajack
September 2, 2009 at 8:45 am
“Ignorance” would probably be more accurate than “tolerance”, I’ll agree with that. And you are right: I’ve spent all 27 years of my short life in Québec up to now.
I am very much aware, however, that there are jerks everywhere. I know people that have been heckled in Ottawa for not speaking English… and that replied “dans la langue de Shakespeare” to the shocked hecklers. However, since I hate to generalize, I am not going to say that all english canadians are arrogant-french-hating-bastards, nor will I say, after exchanging with the likes of Jean and James, that all separatists are anglo-hating-sell-victimizing-morons. That too, is having a very “black-white” vision of things.
Vinster171
September 2, 2009 at 8:54 am
doesn’t take a word processor. Just a cursory glance down virtually any of the threads shows you’re one of the blog’s premier windbags, pumping out the most verbiage. Too bad the quantity is so disproportionate to the quality. You expend a lots of keystrokes to say the same thing every time.
why not just stick with this, which you’ve already said a million times or so:
Well, what can be said about the separatist argument? In short, and if I procede like you do with the federalist argument, it mostly becomes something along the lines of “everything will magically be better”.
It’s false and stupid, but it’s concise and you’ve shot your entire intellectual wad here. So why keep saying it in endless variations over endless posts? Sometimes less is more. Even if it’s motivated by saving separatist humanity from themselves and not to delect over your own prose, bien entendu.
James
September 2, 2009 at 9:32 am
I’ll spare you the humiliation of summarizing your argumentation, James. First, because it is useless. Second, because although I do have some spare times, there’s only a certain limit of it I am willing to waste on you. But I do encourage you to read the next lines, and follow the principle they encompass :
“So why keep saying it in endless variations over endless posts? Sometimes less is more.”
Vinster171
September 2, 2009 at 10:31 am
> Perhaps, Acajack believes that while there are several arguments to be
> made in favor of the indepedance of Quebec, he believes that there are
> a few stronger ones to be made against it.
Precisely. Or, while he believes that good things would come out of Quebec becoming independent, he also believes that these good things can also be attained without independence. In this case, the route that does not involve independence is likely the more reasonable one. (From Acajack’s post earlier today, this seems to be the case.)
I’ve read Acajack and Dave’s discussions, and it seems to me that the crux of their disagreement is Dave’s rejection of Acajack’s claim that the French language would be in a stronger position in an independent Quebec. Well, I agree with Acajack on this. But why should it lead one directly toward sovereignty? Maybe the French language would be in a stronger position, but at the expense of great economic or social costs. Or maybe it’s possible to strengthen the French language without independence, maybe not to the same level but at least very close. It’s all a question of tradeoffs, and if you can’t see any positive points in a position you disapprove of, you’re not looking very hard.
Marc
September 2, 2009 at 11:38 am
Vinster:
> But I’ve always found the separatist argument a bit empty. I understand
> that in our country, “we will control our destiny!”… care to elaborate
> on how precisely?
Well, it’s not untrue that many sovereigntist arguments (but federalist ones as well, let’s not forget) are based on emotion. I mean, I’d like to have a country that I can really consider my own. The symbols of Canada that you see English Canadians gush about, the maple leaves, beavers, Mounties, Rockies, eh?s, green gables and iconic niceness don’t mean very much to me. The national image of my country really isn’t anything that I identify with. What I do identify with, my fellow countrymen outside Quebec mostly don’t even know exists and certainly isn’t what people think about when they think “Canada”. So yes, it would be nice to have a country that I can really call my own. Is it worth splitting up Canada for this? Probably not, but people will have to understand why I definitely identify myself with Quebec before identifying myself with Canada.
> On the other hand, I hear lots of separatist saying that “there is no other
> solution, nothings else to try!”. Well, maybe it’s just because I’m too young to
> remember Charlottetown very precisely (I was 10 at the time), but it
> seems to me like not much has been tried since that time.
Meech Lake and Charlottetown killed any interest there might have been in Canada for constitutional change, and frankly I’m not sure there was all that much interest in the first place. Now, does having Quebecers’ concern in Canada be recognized require constitutional change? Maybe not, maybe it can be done piecemeal, but honestly I don’t know. Frankly, I think what is really needed is a culture change, so that Canadians stop viewing Canada as a nation-state and instead recognize that it is a multinational state. But this idea, even if it is mere philosophy, is usually understood as “caving to Quebec even more” or “coddling separatists”. So what now?
> We want to live in French, yet learning English is a must in almost every
> sphere of education or work.
Most countries make that work, honestly. Yes, knowing English is an important skill, but that doesn’t mean that the common language of Quebec shouldn’t be French.
> Europeans are literally bringing boundaries down. Meanwhile, some people
> want to create another one right here. And while 10 provinces out of 10 agree
> that provinces should have more power and that the problem is at the
> federal level, the main separatist argument is “they don’t understand us”.
Europe is bringing down commercial boundaries, but cultural ones are still strongly in place. That’s the whole philosophical idea behind “sovereignty-association”. And yes, most provincial governments would like more money and power. But Acajack has pointed out before that most of the time there has been a federal-provincial conference, the provinces started out united against Ottawa, but slowly the block disbanded until it was down to Quebec and Alberta, and then even Alberta eventually lost its resolve. (From my readings that’s certainly what happened in 1981 — I’m the same age as you, Vinster, so I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of these events that you don’t have — and why René Lévesque was very disappointed in Peter Loughheed.) And what the provincial governments think isn’t necessarily what the people thinks, though there is resentment of the federal government in many places.
Actually, I have to mention something. Just a few weeks ago, Quebec provincial minister Claude Béchard warned us against criticizing too much Alberta’s oil activities. Honestly, that was a shrewd move on his part. Alberta is our likely ally in any future negociations on the nature of Canadian federalism (if they don’t lose their resolve) so it’s a good thing if we attempt to make them see ourselves as friends and allies, instead of lazy bastards who take all their hard-earned money.
> This is not 1970 anymore. Maybe if you ask an Ontarian federalist that is
> well in his 70s, you’ll get that kind of arrogant answer.
Well, we do get comments about how an independent Quebec would be close to a third world country, and probably politically illiberal. Some people even think that sovereigntists aren’t sincere in their beliefs, but rather want to extort money from hard-working Canadians. So there is arrogance out there. But it’s true that we must not let it taint the whole side.
Marc
September 2, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I’ll spare you the humiliation
Lol. On dirait The Mouse that Roared.
I’ve never seen you humiliate anyone here except yourself, quite frankly.
James
September 2, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Eum, Concordia is mostly…. Jewish?!?!
The Concordia I go to has more Iranians than Jews and more Arabs than Iranians. It also has more mainland-Chinese than all of those groups put together.
Also, there are plenty of Morrocan Jews in town who speak more French than English.
As for the racism, I’ll let others sort that one out, I wouldn’t even know where to begin.
Julien
September 2, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Acajack,
Boy have you read me wrong. I truly believe that the federal government is, as I stated above ”The federal government of Canada does an absolutely appalling job of administering whatever its constitutionnal responsibilities are. Just think RCMP, Canadian Armed Forces,CSIS etc etc”
I have little respect for the sovereignty movement when all they can argue for is to replace everything federal with Quebec without specifying what changes can usefully be made.
Take the CRTC for example. Its irrelevant in today’s broadcast universe, they may well be able to regulate the cable companies, but what about the satellites and the internet ? What does AFG argue, replace the CRTC by a QRTC, that solves nothing and is a complete waste of time and money. But for whatever emotional reason, it makes nationalists feel good about ”controling our own destiny” . It misses the point altogether and its what frustrates me the most about blind us vs them nationalism.
Dave
September 2, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Well, you are all going to get another chance to change things a bit courtesay of Iggy.
Going to be interesting what Gilles Duceppe has to say this afternoon. Looks like Iggy is going to go for broke. The NDP’s Musclair has already soft peddled the issue and has indicated they may not go along to Iggy and Denny Codeine’er. So that would leave Gilles in the driver seat to either side with good old Stephen H or force an eletion which nobody seems to really want. Wonder how that will go down in the ROC. Duceppe (and Quebec) being the cause of an election which clearly no one wants by recent polls.
Sure is a good thing for advertising revenues.
ABP
September 2, 2009 at 1:58 pm
To be honest, I don’t actually think that Canada is that badly run, as most countries go. Where Canada does fail quite disappointingly is in taking into account the needs and concerns of two groups who presence pre-dates the very existence of the current state: francophones and aboriginals. (Of course, Canada is by no means unique as a country with failings towards groups long-established on its territory.)
But back to the original point – every country has a government apparatus, and it is unrealistic to expect this would go away no matter how the former colonies of British North America (sounds so anachronistic) are politically structured (or restructured) between now and the end of the 21st century.
Linking one’s support for a political option as you have done before Dave (promise me a lightweight bureaucracy and I’m all for Quebec’s independence!) seems a bit absurd to me.
Sort of like saying you’ll vote me if promise you a chocolate ice cream cone every day for the rest of your life.
Acajack
September 2, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Linking one’s support for a political option as you have done before Dave (promise me a lightweight bureaucracy and I’m all for Quebec’s independence!) seems a bit absurd to me.
Sort of like saying you’ll vote me if promise you a chocolate ice cream cone every day for the rest of your life.
It’s called: any excuse will do.
If you promised a first-rate bureaucracy, and the best urban bike paths, and the best health inspections of workplaces and restaurants, the answer would still be no. Yeah, but what about promising to exile Falardeau and Mario Beaulieu to Anticosti Island? Are you prepared to commit to that?
Any excuse will do.
James
September 2, 2009 at 3:10 pm
@Vinster
Comme tu parles Français, je vais continuer en français.
“it mostly becomes something along the lines of “everything will magically be better”.”
Je suis d’accord, malheureusement avec toi, sur ce point. Je mets ça cependant sur le dos de la politicaillerie et de la partisanerie. Évidemment, personne ne peut clamer de façon sérieuse que la séparation du Québec règlera tous les problèmes environnementaux, la pauvreté, Star Académie, etc.
Par contre, la souveraineté nous donne la possibilité ou, plutôt, l’opportunité de régler certains problèmes. Il est possible que le Québec se plante.
Pour faire une métaphore, c’est exactement ce qui se passe dans le cas d’un divorce. Il n’est pas certain que les deux partenaires seront financièrement plus aisés, n’auront jamais de problèmes par la suite et gagneront la loto, par contre, il y a clairement une possibilité pour devenir plus heureux.
“I understand that in our country, “we will control our destiny!”… care to elaborate on how precisely?”
Cette partie est simple. Si un peuple donné contrôle tous les leviers politiques, il peut clairement “contrôler sa destinée”, à savoir faire les choix collectifs qu’il croit les meilleurs.
Te donner davantage de détails serait de jouer au futurologue. Qui peut prévoir exactement quels projets de lois seront adoptés en 2050? Québec souverain ou pas?
“On the other hand, I hear lots of separatist saying that “there is no other solution, nothings else to try!”. Well, maybe it’s just because I’m too young to remember Charlottetown very precisely (I was 10 at the time), but it seems to me like not much has been tried since that time.”
Parce qu’une réforme passe par un amendement constitutionnel, ce qui est théoriquement possible, mais pratiquement impossible considérant que le Canada n’est pas intéressé à rouvrir ce débat et a une conception radicalement différente de l’identité que celle faisant consensus parmi les Québécois.
“It also seems to me like the separation idea, while maybe good in 1970, is probably “passée date” in its actual form. In the 70s, it was about preserving our language and our culture, in a world where contacts with other provinces and countries weren’t as numerous as they are today.”
Sur ce point, je crois que tu manques de recul historique. Au cours des siècles, l’Occident est passé à travers des phases de repli ou de protectionnisme, suivi par des phases d’ouverture. D’ailleurs, saches que la mondialisation actuelle est relativement de la petite bière comparée à celle du 19e siècle, quand tu considères qu’il n’y avait pas d’avion et pas d’internet à l’époque.
“How realistic is that in 2009? We want to live in French, yet learning English is a must in almost every sphere of education or work.”
Donc, selon toi, la France devrait demander à Élizabeth II d’en faire un des royaumes-unis? Le Canada devrait-il s’annexer aux États-Unis?
“I’m thinking that maybe separation isn’t the solution anymore, and that we could probably get CJNT to translate its web page without separating from Canada.”
Je pense que AFG désirait simplement prendre un exemple et non en faire un argument majeur en faveur de la séparation du Québec.
“Europeans are literally bringing boundaries down. Meanwhile, some people want to create another one right here.”
Attention. Premièrement, saches que, même au sein du Canada, il y a énormément de barrières commerciales. Ne te demandes pas pourquoi les vins de l’Okanagan ne sont pas disponibles à la SAQ (indice: ce n’est pas un complot séparatiste). Historiquement, le commerce et les échanges au Canada se sont faits dans une logique nord-sud et non est-ouest. En fait, présentement, il est beaucoup plus facile de commercer avec le Vermont qu’avec l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard.
De plus, la séparation ne revient pas à ériger un gigantesque “mur de l’Outaouais”. Il y a beaucoup de possibilité pour des échanges culturels et commerciaux entre le Canada et le Québec.
Quant à l’UE, tu remarqueras que les citoyens semblent ne pas tellement lui faire confiance et celle-ci a des gros problèmes de crédibilité, de légitimité et semble incapable de faire quoi que ce soit. Le désastre en Bosnie l’a bien montré.
“Well, seems to me like the ROC is agreeing with the separatist on the principal contention, i.e. the federal government having too much power.”
Je ne comprends pas trop d’où tu trouves cette belle unanimité entre les provinces sur la question du pouvoir fédéral. Quoiqu’il en soit, cela prendrait une réforme constitutionnelle, qui est présentement pratiquement impossible.
“I’m thinking that there should be a way to work with the other provinces to create a system where everyone can be happy.”
En théorie, oui. En pratique, non.
So basically, even if I’ve had lots of debates with Acajack, we probably share the same general opinion : no for separation, but no for status quo either. I’m just a lot less tolerant than he is with jerks and anglophobes.
FX
September 2, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Oooh! How clever of you! Here’s a cookie!
Vinster171
September 2, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“Pour faire une métaphore, c’est exactement ce qui se passe dans le cas d’un divorce. Il n’est pas certain que les deux partenaires seront financièrement plus aisés, n’auront jamais de problèmes par la suite et gagneront la loto, par contre, il y a clairement une possibilité pour devenir plus heureux.”
Vois-tu, je suis entièrement d’accord avec cette analogie. Je ne suis pas de ceux qui croit que le Québec sera forcément dans la misère suite à une séparation du reste du Canada. Simplement, tout comme un divorce est généralement la dernière solution envisageable, je n’ai pas l’impression que toutes les avenues ont été épuisé avec le reste du Canada. Je pense même que si ce n’était pas du fait que beaucoup de détails sont montés en épingle afin de mousser l’option souverainiste, on réaliserait que, finalement, on n’est pas si mal que ça à l’intérieur du Canada.
“Te donner davantage de détails serait de jouer au futurologue. Qui peut prévoir exactement quels projets de lois seront adoptés en 2050? Québec souverain ou pas?”
Entièrement vrai. Sauf que, si souveraineté il y a, le parti qui la réalisera devrait pouvoir ou moins nous dire à quoi on peut s’attendre pour le premier mandat du futur Québec souverain. Et ça, malheureusement, c’est un exercice que le PQ semble incapable de faire. On dirait que c’est toujours l’argument de la baguette magique de l’indépendance qui règle tous les problèmes. À force d’utiliser la même stratégie, le PQ en est rendu à devoir attendre qu’il y ait des mini-crises d’hystérie constitutionnelle pour pouvoir mousser leur option, ce qui donne lieu à de l’argumentation négative. Personnellement, ce n’est pas le genre de discours que je trouve rassembleur.
“Parce qu’une réforme passe par un amendement constitutionnel, ce qui est théoriquement possible, mais pratiquement impossible considérant que le Canada n’est pas intéressé à rouvrir ce débat et a une conception radicalement différente de l’identité que celle faisant consensus parmi les Québécois.”
Quand je vois les PMs des dix provinces canadiennes s’entendre sur ce qu’ils veulent réclamer du fédéral, je me dis que ce n’est peut-être pas aussi impossible que certains le pensent. Et je suis assez convaincu que la conception de l’identité varie d’une province à l’autre, ou encore d’un type de région à l’autre.
“Donc, selon toi, la France devrait demander à Élizabeth II d’en faire un des royaumes-unis? Le Canada devrait-il s’annexer aux États-Unis?”
J’aurais probablement eu intérêt à étendre un peu plus ma réponse sur ce point, ça aurait évité la confusion. Pour répondre à tes questions : non et non. Le sens de ma réponse, c’était que même dans un Québec souverain, on va devoir continuer à apprendre l’anglais. La souveraineté ne fera pas en sorte que le français va soudainement devenir plus fort et plus utile. Bien sûr que c’est important de préserver le français. Mais je ne pense pas que la souveraineté soit la solution à tous les problèmes à ce chapitre.
“Je pense que AFG désirait simplement prendre un exemple et non en faire un argument majeur en faveur de la séparation du Québec.”
Bien évidemment! Sauf que les arguments d’AFG repose sur une multitude d’exemples insignifiants qu’il tente de monter en épingle pour promouvoir ses idées politiques. C’est de bonne guerre, j’imagine, mais quand je vois à quel point ça en exalte plusieurs, j’avoue que j’hésite entre trouver ça drôle ou démoralisant.
“Ne te demandes pas pourquoi les vins de l’Okanagan ne sont pas disponibles à la SAQ (indice: ce n’est pas un complot séparatiste).”
Je ne croiyais pas au complot séparatiste, mais merci pour l’explication! Ça explique aussi pourquoi j’aime bien la LCBO…
“En théorie, oui. En pratique, non.”
Donc j’imagine que je ne suis simplement pas encore désillusionné? Bof, on verra bien.
Vinster171
September 2, 2009 at 4:41 pm
why don’t you put it where you usually have your thumb?
James
September 2, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I wonder when these politics from Quebec will stop crying: If it’s good for Quebec, if it goes in the direction of Quebec’s interests, we’re supporting. If not, no! Are we living in the different countries?
Geck
September 2, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”
Vinster171
September 2, 2009 at 9:51 pm
@ Julien :
Facts are not welcomed here. Only baseless accusations and “evilisation” of anglo-saxons and their friends (which, for Jean and James, means every immigrant whose first language is not French) are allowed.
Vinster171
September 2, 2009 at 10:23 pm
If you’re refering to the Bloc, well they did get elected on a platform of acting in Quebec’s interests.
RoryBellows
September 2, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Well, if you look at the whole picture, they did not really get elected based on their platform… or at least, it wasn’t the first reason why people voted for the Bloc. It was basically a lack of a viable alternative :
1- There was no way in hell Harper was going to get lots of votes here.
2- There was too much history with Stéphane Dion for him to have a chance in the province.
3- Layton still doesn’t have enough credibility here.
IN the minds of a lot of Quebeckers, there just wasn’t any better option than voting for the Bloc. If Ignatieff plays his cards well, the Bloc will most probably not fare as well in the next elections.
Vinster171
September 3, 2009 at 8:23 am
I never said nor implied that. If the sovs started using positive arguments rather than defensive ones, I would start listening.
For now their promise is like ” free beer – tomorrow”
Dave
September 3, 2009 at 9:05 am
I get the impression he’s never really lived outside of André Pratte’s ass.
James
September 3, 2009 at 9:40 am
“It is not a lie, if YOU believe it.”
Vinster171
September 3, 2009 at 10:17 am
James,
What have we done that thou dar’st wag thy tongue? And what in the hell is a “Stepandfetchster”? I tried googling it, I tried German-English dictionary, I asked a friend who speaks German. I got nothing.
Answer me; stand, and unfold yourself. By heaven I charge thee, speak! And let us once again assail our ears. Tell us what ’tis, that we may take it thence.
allophone
September 3, 2009 at 10:20 am
Stenandfetchster was a sobriquet moron.
(and that would be your cue to google the word “sobriquet”).
James
September 3, 2009 at 10:26 am
@ James :
“Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.”
Vinster171
September 3, 2009 at 10:32 am
Trying is the first step towards failure.
allophone
September 3, 2009 at 10:37 am
It is in Montreal. But not in Quebec as a whole. Have you ever been up north in the boonies? Nobody speaks a word of English up there.
But what should we, the Allophones, care, right? We’re all in Montreal anyways. So for our purposes, English only will do.
Oh yeah, there is also this whole thing about learning a language “out of respect”. Yeah, hmmm…interesting…
allophone
September 3, 2009 at 11:50 am