AngryFrenchGuy

Jack Jedwab and the Celestial Association of Canadian Nonsense

with 210 comments

Jack Jedwab of the Association for Canadian Studies released his latest survey on cultural relations in Canada, this week, and just like in every other study published by the association, we learn that the people of Québec are less tolerant of immigrants than English-Canadians and that they don’t like Jews (oups…  actually the Québécois are slightly MORE tolerant of immigrants than other Canadians… Even I am starting to believe the lies and prejudice!  Argh!).

The only big novelty this time around is that the results show than English-Canadians really don’t like French-Canadians all that much.

Like most other Association for Canadian Studies surveys, this one doesn’t make any sense.

Nevermind the slow-pitch worthless self-assessment questions that only tell us that people in Ontario express more politically correct sentiments than people in Québec or Alberta.  No one needed a government-financed survey to find that out.  What strikes me about Jack Jedwab polls  is that they always seem to be inspired by the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, a made up Chinese encyclopedia invented by Jose Luis Borges in which the animals of the world are divided into:

a. those that belong to the emperor;

b. embalmed ones;

c. those that are trained;

d. suckling pigs;

e. mermaids;

f. fabulous ones;

g. stray dogs;

h. those that are included in this classification;

i. those that tremble as if they were mad;

j.  innumerable ones;

k. those drawn with a very fine camel’s-hair brush;

l. etcetera;

m. those that have just broken
the flower vase;

n. those that at a distance resemble flies.

For his latest survey, Jack Jedwab asked Canadians if they had a favourable opinion of: French-Canadians, English-Canadians, Aboriginals, Immigrants and Jewish people.

In other words, he asked them to compare two linguistic groups, an ethnicity, a civic status and a religion …

Jews get their own sociodemographic box but Blacks, South Asians and the Chinese, for example, don’t.  Neither do Muslims, who are twice as numerous in Canada as Jews, and who are the fastest growing demographic group in the country.

Now if your want to measure tolerance in the 21st century, islamophobia is what you want to be looking at.  And it certainly would have been interesting to compare Québec and Canada on this issue considering the two communities very different approaches to issues like the hijab.

Now what about my buddy AK?  Is he a Jew, an immigrant or a French-Canadian?  How about Jon in BC, is he Jewish or English?  How about my sister’s friend Sofiane, a French-speaking immigrant from the English-speaking part of New Brunswick?

Even the concepts he tries to measure are not the same from one part of the country to the other.  Ask someone in Toronto to think of “a Jew’, and he will think of Mike in sales.   Ask someone in Québec to think of “a Jew” and he is much more likely to picture the members of an ultra-orthodox sect who raise their children like Cistercian monks or images of the Middle Eastern conflict.

It’s not that French-speakers don’t know about secular Jews.  They are just more likely to categorize Leonard Cohen and Julius Grey as English-Canadians than as Jews.  There almost no Hasidics in Ontario while Québec has the third biggest community in the world after New York and Jerusalem.  It’s a demographic reality.

As best as I can tell, a French-speaking Montrealer in 2010 divides the world into:

a. French-speakers;

b. les Anglais;

c. People from the 450;

d. Haitians;

e. People from Québec City;

f.  the French from France;

g. the Viet at the Dep;

h. Muslims.

This is not the way the world looks like to someone in Vancouver and those categories are not objective or exclusive, but they are not less real.  Just ask any Black person in Montreal who is not from Haiti how many time a day he is being asked if his family is alright.

And they certainly make as much sense as the categories cooked up by Jack Jedwab and his scholarly association.

Now any point of view is as valid as any other.  The problem is that the Association for Canadian Studies gets several hundreds of thousands of tax dollars a year to evaluate Canadian attitudes on complex issues from the very narrow perspective of an English-speaking Montrealer in 1947 and then publishes it’s results as if they were the objective evolution of Canadian thought.

That and they never include Mermaids in their polls. Nonsense, I tell you.

Written by angryfrenchguy

January 29, 2010 at 11:38 am

210 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well that might be unwise considering he was a Jew.(Edward)

    Edward, you are always asserting things that you just pop out of nowhere. How can Jesus possibly be a jew when the term “jew” was first heard of in the 18th century ?

    …and what fraction of head wear is non-religious?(Edward)

    A lot. But there is no catholic cake nor catholic ring. There is a islamic veil.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm

  2. You’re joking right?

    edward

    February 11, 2010 at 2:09 pm

  3. Non, la tradition du diamant a commencé en 1477 lorsque Maximiliem de Habsbourg a donné une alliance sertie d’un diamant à sa femme.(F-X)

    Exact. Et elle était conçue par les juifs (ne s’appelaient pas comme ça en ce temps). La Renaissance fut le début de la tradition juive du la bague en diamant pour le mariage “juif”. Le terme “jewel” nous vient de là.

    En effet, vous voyez des conneries partout.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 11, 2010 at 2:36 pm

  4. You’re joking right?(Edward)

    That’s what is left of your “analogy”, indeed. LOL

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm

  5. Rabbi,
    The word jewellery is derived from the word jewel, which was Anglicised from the Old French “jouel” circa the 13th century. Further tracing leads back to the Latin word “jocale”, meaning plaything. (Wikipedia)

    I don’t imagine you’ve ever read Shakespeare, or perhaps even heard of him, but the Merchant of Venice belies your bizarre 18th century etymological bupkis.

    Is your rhetorical pièce de résistance the claim that because Jesus didn’t speak English that he would not have called himself a “Jew”?

    I concede that my analogy may be contrived, but at least when I search around in my ass for ideas I don’t find my own head.

    http://www.eleves.ens.fr/aumonerie/seneve/numeros_en_ligne/toussaint98/bague.html

    edward

    February 11, 2010 at 2:52 pm

  6. “F-X:

    I was quoting Gebe Tremblay. I did not say the words you ascribe to me.

    Please reread my post.”

    Tony,

    You misunderstood my message. I was replying to Gébé Tremblay’s paranoid comments.

    Gébé,

    C’était un mariage chrétien. Cette tradition n’existait pas chez les Juïfs.

    Aussi, tu as tort. Jésus se considérait comme JuÎf.

    Je commence à penser que tu es un petit rigolo qui veut jouer au troll…

    F-X

    February 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm

  7. F-X,

    D’accord et moi j’ai joué l’idiot.

    En effet, vous voyez des conneries partout.

    edward

    February 11, 2010 at 3:10 pm

  8. F-X:

    Sorry, F-X, I should have been clearer. Yes, I see that you are agreeing with me. What threw me off what that the way you wrote the post it looked like you were ascribing the quote to me because you didn’t mention Gebe.

    Tony Kondaks

    February 11, 2010 at 3:46 pm

  9. Le niveau des commentaires s’est vraiment dégradé. Vous vous obstinez sur de menus détails historiques qui n’ont plus aucun rapport avec l’article de AFG. Please stay decent and pertinent.

    Peter Fork

    February 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm

  10. The word jewellery is derived from the word jewel, which was Anglicised from the Old French “jouel” circa the 13th century. Further tracing leads back to the Latin word “jocale”, meaning plaything. (Wikipedia)(Edward)

    Exactly. That is what I suggest here. It is because of their speciality in jewllery (english version of joaillerie) starting in Rennaissance that they became known as jews later. Jew is a english word (first appear in King James Bible 1611), so it was born under those englishmen who traded with the jewellers (the jews). They were already the master diamond cutters at Antwerp when Maximillian ordered that ring. They dominated the industry by 1500.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 11, 2010 at 7:28 pm

  11. Is your rhetorical pièce de résistance the claim that because Jesus didn’t speak English that he would not have called himself a “Jew”?(Edward)

    Well that is the first good reason. The next one is that the followers of judaïsm at that time were called Pharisees and were from Judea, while Jesus was from Gallile and despised Pharisees.

    So, Jesus cannot possibly be called a jew.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 11, 2010 at 7:39 pm

  12. Regarding the etymology of “jewish”:

    I don’t see anything in the etymological dictionary that suggests a connection or derivation from “jewelry”:

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Jew

    Tony Kondaks

    February 11, 2010 at 10:39 pm

  13. “[The English word] Jew (first appears in [the] King James Bible in 1611…)”

    The word appears (as “Jewe”) in the English translation of the Vulgate made by John Wycliffe (d. 1384).

    http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/wycle.htm

    littlerob

    February 12, 2010 at 8:39 am

  14. Wow. Gébé just owned you Edward on the jewelry thing.

    I have to research that whole jesus/jew topic . . .not that I wouldn’t be inclined to believe what you are saying Gébé, I just remember the nuns in Catholic school saying here and there that Jesus was a Jew. They would talk about Pharisees all the time too and I always thought they were a separate group.

    But many things taught to us by learning institutions are lies anyway. Or distortions of history to push certain agendas.

    Thomas Dean Nordlum

    February 12, 2010 at 9:07 am

  15. A humble contribution to the discussion:

    Every cross I have seen in my life that had a likeness of Jesus on it also had a little plaque at the top with the letters I.N.R.I., which stands for Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudæorum (Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews) in Latin.

    Acajack

    February 12, 2010 at 9:14 am

  16. I don’t see anything in the etymological dictionary that suggests a connection or derivation from “jewelry”:(Tony Kondaks)

    Well, even those scholars are not 100% sure of the exact origins of those words connected to the french and english terms for all that has to do with jewelry. They make suggestions and give what they find most propable.

    I am simply doing the same by deduction.

    How many english terms start with “jew” ?

    Only 2 : all that has to do with jewels and jews.

    We are pretty sure jewel is taken from the french jouel and all the french terms associated with it : joaillerie, bijou, etc..

    The core is “ou” or simple “o”. So the english, logically, has chosen “ew” to immitate the french “ou”.

    On the other hand, the french terms used to identify the people from Judea or followers of judaïsm or descendents of Judah (Y’hudah), have all the “u” core “ju”(Judaeus). All other ethnic peoples use “ju”, “Jude” in German, “juif” in French, “jøde” in Danish, “judío” in Spanish, etc.

    Jew has no core relation with Judea. It has the core of Jewelry, the main trade of those people.

    It seems most likely to me that the English identified this people with it’s trade and not with it’s pretended origins to Judah in the land called Judea.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 12, 2010 at 1:03 pm

  17. Every cross I have seen in my life that had a likeness of Jesus on it also had a little plaque at the top with the letters I.N.R.I., which stands for Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudæorum (Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews) in Latin.(Acajack)

    Precisely. Nazareth is in Galilee. Pilate, here, is ironic. Jesus the galilean King of the Judeans. Judean here refering to all Judeans and not specifically to the religious followers of judaïsm (Pharisees), so “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews”(King James Bible) is not a correct translation.

    The exact text on the plaque is this:

    IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM (Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judaeorum)(or Ioudaios in greek).

    It does not make any sense translating IVDÆORVM to a modern word like “Jew”. They dont mean the same thing at all. It’s like translating ROMANORUM (Romans) to “Italian”.

    IVDÆORVM means Judeans. RUM (people from) IUDEA (Judea).

    Same in greek Ioudaios : aios (place) Iouda (Judea).

    The correct modern english translation is “Judeans”.

    Jesus the galilean King of the Judeans.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm

  18. Gébé Tremblay writes:

    I am simply doing the same by deduction.

    Funny, I thought that you arrived at your conclusion from evidence in etymology. Now you are suggesting it was your own logic and conclusion.

    To use your way of reasoning, Norman Jewison, the famed and highly successful Canadian film director, is obviously Jewish because his last name starts with “Jewis”. Jewison is a Methodist and yet has related how he is often thought of as Jewish because of his name.

    Mr. Trembley, you seem to think the same way.

    Tony Kondaks

    February 12, 2010 at 3:28 pm

  19. “or Ioudaious in Greek”

    Someone who knows more Greek than I do may want to help me here, but I was told long ago by a Greek-American (the guy who taught me my trade) that the Greek inscription Pilate wrote or had written was “Iisous Nazareios Vasileous Ioudaion,” which he translated as “King of the Jews”—literally.

    This site has the Greek as “Iesous o Nazoraios o Basileus ton Ioudaion.”

    http://acronyms/thefreedictionary.com/INBI

    littlerob

    February 12, 2010 at 4:23 pm

  20. Did it again. Correct link is:

    http://acronyms.freedictionary.com/INBI

    littlerob

    February 12, 2010 at 4:24 pm

  21. Third time’s a charm. Actually, it’s:

    http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/INBI

    littlerob

    February 12, 2010 at 4:25 pm

  22. Funny, I thought that you arrived at your conclusion from evidence in etymology.(Tony Kondaks)

    Not from your source, of course. The evidence from your source presume that Ioudaios means Jews. This is false.

    Like I demonstrated, it is a english etymology problem. It is false.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 12, 2010 at 4:29 pm

  23. To use your way of reasoning, Norman Jewison, the famed and highly successful Canadian film director, is obviously Jewish because his last name starts with “Jewis”.(Tony Kondaks)

    You are actually supporting my evidence, because the family name Jewison (1066) is an english adaptation from the norman name Jowett, so from the “o” and not from the “u”. Surname Jowett is from ancient name Julien.

    So it confirms the Jewel theory from the joaillerie, bijou.

    Julien in english is Julian. Not Jewlian.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 12, 2010 at 4:47 pm

  24. Littlerob, your “Iesous o Nazoraios o Basileus ton Ioudaion” is taken from the Greek New Testament in the Westcott-Hort edition of 1881.

    From english (King James) to greek.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 12, 2010 at 4:57 pm

  25. Gébé, my *source* isn’t that webpage but the guy who taught me the phrase. He had it without the articles “o” and “ton,” but he had grown up (to the age of 15) in Greece (his father had financed the construction of a church there), and in the Greek Orthodox religion, whose priests would not, I put it to you, use a version of the Bible edited by Protestants. So please forgive me if I continue to trust his translation rather than yours.

    littlerob

    February 12, 2010 at 5:45 pm

  26. Littlerob, if you cannot give me the name of the edition from where comes the text of your friend, then I can only consider it coming from the one I have provided here.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 12, 2010 at 6:23 pm

  27. G–My friend told me what he told me. I assume that he learned the phrase from the priests who taught him when he was a kid in Greece in the 1920s. He did not mention what edition of the Bible they used. There are obviously differences between his version and the online version I cited which you seem to ascribe to an 1881 English to Greek translation. You are of course free to draw your own conclusion. But I think your premise would be mistaken.

    littlerob

    February 12, 2010 at 7:18 pm

  28. That takes care of the historical and political evidence showing clearely that Jesus was no jew. (religious way).

    Now lets look at the ethnic evidence a “successful” or real christian should consider before claiming Jesus was a Jew (genetic heritage).

    A true christian believe that Joseph was not the genetic father of Jesus, so from whaterver tribe Joseph was from is pointless.

    Mary, on the other hand, is identified as a Judaen or Judahite. She is from Judea. But the scriptures on if she is of Judah or Levi tribes are so confused and contradictory that it is impossible to say for sure. But, for a christian, Mary MUST be of the Judah tribe because if he is not he cannot be decendant of King David and thus not be the messiah. That would make Jesus a Judean of the tribe of Judah, but not necessarely a convert to judaïsm. If Mary was instead from the tribe of Levi, she was then most probably from a faily of judaïc priests and thus make Jesus a automatic matrilinear convert to judaïsm (modern Jew) but not a messiah for sure.

    The only almost sure thing is that Jesus was a Judean from her mother and a born Galilean.

    But from his teachings and reformation attempts against judaïsm, he was clearely not a convert to that religion.

    If this prove something, it is how ridiculous the concept of jewish ethnicity is in the 21th century when we cannot even decipher the genealogy of the Judeans 2,000 years ago ! And not even themselves at that time in all the confused books they left !

    What are called Jews today have nothing genetic in common with the Judean 2,000 years ago. The only acceptable definition of a jew is a convert to judaïsm. Period.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 12, 2010 at 8:14 pm

  29. My friend told me what he told me.(Littlerob)

    I understand.

    Gébé Tremblay

    February 12, 2010 at 8:27 pm

  30. Beyond baseless speculation…

    Click to access fulltext.pdf

    Edward

    February 12, 2010 at 9:05 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: