It’s an English-speaking World Out There – The Quiz!

with 360 comments

Vodpod videos no longer available.

$FaceBook : It\'s an English-speaking world - The Quiz! : http://wp.me/pa15u-BS$ $Google Bookmark : It\'s an English-speaking world - The Quiz! : http://wp.me/pa15u-BS$ $Twitter : It\'s an English-speaking world - The Quiz! : http://wp.me/pa15u-BS$ SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET NEEDS TO KNOW

Written by angryfrenchguy

April 19, 2010 at 1:00 am

Posted in AngryFrenchGuy Speaks!

360 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

“At present, Quebec is not in a reserve but part of a federation, sharing economic and political power. It may not be completely perfect but it is far from being in a “reserve”.”(Michel)

I am not saying Québec is in a reserve, I’m say it is a reserve. No Québécois, nor Amérindiens, has ever voted to join that federation. We are forced.

No cage is gold enough.

And no one assimilates completely. Besides, assimilation does not erase anything unless you are deprived of it. I know exactly what is Québécois, Amérindien and Scotish in me. I recognise it in my sons also.

You have to know yourself and where you are from for that. Complete assimilation is when you are deprived of your history, your origins.

Gébé Tremblay

April 29, 2010 at 9:00 pm
@Bruce

Je vois pas de problème avec l’expression “pure laine” ou qu’elle soit un anglicisme. Si tu vois un problème faut que tu m’explique. Tu préfère “de souche ” ?

“Tu pourrait être le porte-parole garçon d’affiche pour la société multiculturelle pan-canadienne-québécoise! C’est chouette.”(Bruce)

Non. Car je ne suis que d’une seule culture. Que d’un seul pays et un seul peuple. Le Québécois est le descendant du Canadien français et du Canadien de la Nouvelle France. Je ne suis pas Amérindien et je ne suis pas Écossais. J’ai jamais mis les pieds en Écosse. J’ai parcontre hérité du caractère amérindien et du caractère écossais.

“Tu pense que les immigrants demeurent fidèles à leurs pays d’origine, mais ils sont même plus fidèles au Canada, je n’ai aucun doute!”(Bruce)

Ils peuvent être fidèles à cette fédération canadian autant qu’ils veulent, ce n’est pas du tout mon Canada à moi et à ma nation. Mon Canada n’a pas changé il est le même qu’en 1608. Le même que mes ancêtres et de mon patrimoine amérindien et écossais.

“Puis tu crois que Canada n’a pas une culture parce que nous avons beaucoup de nations séparées chez nous!”(Bruce)

Je ne crois pas. C’est écrit dans la constitution de TON Canada. Renseignes-toi.

Pour moi ce Canada est faux et un mensonge.

Gébé Tremblay

April 29, 2010 at 9:22 pm
acajack –

“That fact doesn`t make them insignificant however…”

right you are – it is definitely a matter of perspective – and burning issues are often lotsa smoke and no fire. bloviated hyperbolic exaggerated super-superlative redundancies made moot by repetition are tedious at best – self-defining proof positive zzzzzz…

found the bottle tonite – my guy at the saq (who tells me the vinyard is owned by two women – hence the “folie à deux” on the label) tells me there is no middle ground on this vintage. he says people love it or hate it. being a positive sort – i am expecting to thank you forthwith.

johnnyonline

April 29, 2010 at 9:26 pm
“I am not saying Québec is in a reserve, I’m say it is a reserve. No Québécois, nor Amérindiens, has ever voted to join that federation. We are forced.”

Sir George-Étienne Cartier

Sir Jean-Charles Chapais

Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt

Sir Hector-Louis Langevin

Thomas D’Arcy McGee

Sir Étienne-Paschal Taché

These are all listed as founding fathers of the Canadian Confederation and are all listed as being from/ representing Quebec.

They’re not Quebecois? I grant that not all are Quebecois de souche but they all lived in Quebec.

Perhaps you would have that Canada became assimilated by the U.S.?

After all, the move towards confederation was inspired by that very fear, the fear of the U.S. manifest destiny.

You make an interesting point about assimilation. You do realize, of course, that had the U.S. taken over Canada, your heritage would not have been possible.

Canada is Canada because of Quebec and Quebec is Quebec because of Canada.

michel

April 29, 2010 at 9:36 pm
“And only people with very strong prejudices and attachement to stereotypes would hold every single Québécois, French-speaking Canadian and Indépendantiste forever responsible for one sentence by one man.

Shall I start down the list of terribly offensive, racist and xenophobic statements by good Timmy drinkin’ Canadian leaders throughout history?”

Where did I say I am talking about all Quebecois? I was talking about the former leader of the PQ, a man still very much respected in the sovereignty movement. But I can tell you that that day I felt very much excluded from his view of Quebec.

Yes, I would like to see a list of these offensive remarks. Just keep it recent, no quotes from Lord Durham please…

Anonymous

April 29, 2010 at 11:14 pm
@michel: The events that *really* prompted Canadian confederation were the huge expansion of the US Army during the 1861-65 Civil War, and the war’s aftermath, when Irish-American veterans of that army(the “Fenians”) invaded Canada at several points. There was a Fenian raid against the Eastern Townships of Québec–it was repulsed, as the other raids were–but that area was majority Anglo at the time, so that Francos weren’t by and large affected by the raids. The events that prompted Confederation were therefore, I believe, of less significance to Francos than they were to Anglos, so that at the time I would guess that relatively few Francos would have been receptive to an argument that Confederation was necessary to avoid being swallowed up by the US.

littlerob

April 30, 2010 at 6:06 am
“Yes, I would like to see a list of these offensive remarks. Just keep it recent, no quotes from Lord Durham please…”

Just off the top of my head… a few years ago New Brunswick Liberal Doug Young, who was a minister at the time, told Bloc MP Osvaldo Nunez (born in Chile but a Canadian citizen) in the House that if he didn’t like Canada the way it was, he should get out of the country…

Acajack

April 30, 2010 at 7:46 am
“found the bottle tonite – my guy at the saq (who tells me the vinyard is owned by two women – hence the “folie à deux” on the label) tells me there is no middle ground on this vintage. he says people love it or hate it. being a positive sort – i am expecting to thank you forthwith.”

Ooh the pressure… Now I am not saying it is the best wine in the world. But I think it is a decent one in its price range.

Acajack

April 30, 2010 at 7:48 am
littlerob

“The events that prompted Confederation were therefore, I believe, of less significance to Francos than they were to Anglos, so that at the time I would guess that relatively few Francos would have been receptive to an argument that Confederation was necessary to avoid being swallowed up by the US.”

That is true. In fact, Quebec was never given a referendum to join Canada. A few Quebec elites (sell-outs) brought an ignorant people under the thrall of the Catholic Church into Confederation.

The only reason Confederation happened was because the English-Canadians feared being assimilated into the USA: they wanted to preserve the British character of Canada and be part of the then huge British Empire. In other words, Confederation was an ethnic movement. If it is good for Canada, why not Quebec finding its own country? Quebec should have its own country in order to preserve the French character from being assimilated into English Canada just like English Canada did in 1867.

Antonio

April 30, 2010 at 10:02 am
“Sir George-Étienne Cartier

Sir Jean-Charles Chapais

Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt

Sir Hector-Louis Langevin

Thomas D’Arcy McGee

Sir Étienne-Paschal Taché

These are all listed as founding fathers of the Canadian Confederation and are all listed as being from/ representing Quebec.

They’re not Quebecois? I grant that not all are Quebecois de souche but they all lived in Quebec.”(Michel)

The Québécois did not exist in 1867. These few Canadiens had the power to make the Québec province part of the british Dominion, but no legitimacy to make the Canadien nation subjects to it. A referendum would have been necessary for that. The people did not have a voice in this.

No one can own a nation or people. Not even a King or Queen. That is the law. Even the british law.

Gébé Tremblay

April 30, 2010 at 11:20 am
“You do realize, of course, that had the U.S. taken over Canada, your heritage would not have been possible.”(Michel)

That is speculation.

I think that the geographical position of Québec is important in our success of keeping our heritage. And beside, the U.S. HAVE taken over english Canada, culturally and economically !

Gébé Tremblay

April 30, 2010 at 11:30 am
“I was talking about the former leader of the PQ, a man still very much respected in the sovereignty movement. But I can tell you that that day I felt very much excluded from his view of Quebec.”(Anonymous)

Parizeau was not speeking about Quebec, but about the Québécois nation (people) and addressing it TO the Québécois nation.

Obviously you are not part of it. So you should not be concerned about it because you are NOT concerned in it.

What the Qeen say to the english canadians I dont care one bit. It does not concern me.

Gébé Tremblay

April 30, 2010 at 11:36 am
Still more from Acajack’s “Anglo Shit Does Stink in Fact” file:

Saskatchewan MP Jim Pankiw distributed borderline anti-aboriginal leaflets to his constituents with titles like “Stop Indian Crime”.

Alberta MP Jack Shields told Ontario MP Howard McCurdy to “shut up Sambo!” in the House of Commons.

Ontario MPP Gilles Bisson was heckled with cries of “Speak English!” in the provincial legislature for speaking in French. He was talking about the Franco-Ontarian flag.

Ontario MP Pierre Poilievre (he is fully anglo, and pronounces his last name Polliver in fact) used the borderline racist term “tar baby” publicly last year.

In this latter case, it is really borderline, and Poilievre wasn’t really insulting anyone. Sort of along the same lines as Lucien Bouchard’s ill-advised reference to “a race of white people” when talking about Quebec’s low birth rate.

What is particularly telling though, is if you do a Google search on Bouchard’s comments, you get more than 250,000 hits in English! All of the others I referred to above get less than 10,000 hits in English, except for the one involving Bisson, which gets less than 1,000. Doug Young’s comments to Nunez also garner less than 10,000 hits.

Acajack

April 30, 2010 at 12:59 pm
“The Québécois did not exist in 1867. These few Canadiens had the power to make the Québec province part of the british Dominion, but no legitimacy to make the Canadien nation subjects to it. A referendum would have been necessary for that. The people did not have a voice in this.”

Quebecois did not exist in 1867? When did they come into being? This seems to be a rather interesting notion, that is, that a people can spontaneously generate. Usually, a people or nation have a long “pre-history” that clearly defines them before “creating”, as it were, a nation, ( in modern terms).

“No one can own a nation or people. Not even a King or Queen. That is the law. Even the british law.”

But one can “own” a colony. Which is why Quebec was ceded to the British rather than Guadeloupe and why the Louisiana Purchase was decided by Napoleon.

“That is true. In fact, Quebec was never given a referendum to join Canada. A few Quebec elites (sell-outs) brought an ignorant people under the thrall of the Catholic Church into Confederation.”

Were the English colonists into Confederation through referendum? I don’t recall reading anything about referendums at the time of Confederation. In fact, the whole affair was decided in London.

“I think that the geographical position of Québec is important in our success of keeping our heritage. And beside, the U.S. HAVE taken over english Canada, culturally and economically !”

You’ll really have to convince me that Quebec hasn’t been subject to the same forces, “culturally and economically”. Examples; the prevalence of fast-food restaurants, the automobile culture, the prevalence of frozen foods, shopping malls, pizza, beer, rock music ( it doesn’t matter about the lyrics, ( which are unintelligible in any language- it’s still the same music)),the homogeneity of television ( a soap opera is a soap opera no matter the language), movies, clothes, sexual mores, materialism, chain stores such as Wal-Mart ( who really cares if the product being sold has French on the label? the money still goes to the U.S.).

So…if, by magic or through politics, Quebec becomes independent, will all that go away?

The irony of the debate about separation is that what is sought can only be found in re-appropriating a culture that’s been almost destroyed through urbanization, ( a U.S. phenomena that’s spread world-wide). That would mean, ( gasp!), re-appropriating the Catholic heritage. Despite your obvious distaste for the Catholic Church, it was the one institution, the one organization, that enabled the preservation of the language and culture of Quebec.

It’s ironical but true. Yet, I have yet to read any enconium to the Catholic Church by separatists.

I have yet to read anything advocating sovereignty that isn’t based just, simply just, on language.

Language, by itself, simply by itself, does not imply culture or its mores or values. Culture and its values are based on more than language. They’re based on a deep spiritual understanding of human existence, its telos or goal, its final purpose.

It seems to me that Quebec, having abandoned its spiritual heritage, doesn’t really have a true reason for separation or sovereignty.

michel

April 30, 2010 at 5:04 pm
“Quebecois did not exist in 1867? When did they come into being? This seems to be a rather interesting notion, that is, that a people can spontaneously generate. Usually, a people or nation have a long “pre-history” that clearly defines them before “creating”, as it were, a nation, ( in modern terms).”(Michel)

Exactly. Because you are incappable of assimilating other cultures, we have to express ourselves in your own terms so you can understand we are talking about ourselves.

But your terms are fondamentally biased and narcissic. They always only relate back to your ego.

You are deprived of this communication the french and amérindiens shared, because of a cultural racism that was the basis of the British Empire.

Gébé Tremblay

April 30, 2010 at 7:33 pm
“what does the massive unilingualism of our fellow Canadians say about their openness?”

Nothing except that they don’t need to learn any other language in order to prosper. Otherwise, they would.

“Or are francophones just held to a higher standard?”

No. They simply live in an environment (North America) where it is sometimes very beneficial or even necessary to become fluent in English. And therefore so many of them are bilingual. And many more in the regions would like to be, but they are stalled by their own cynical rulers.

It is really very simple, and deep down you know it, although you’ll never admit it.

Anonymous

April 30, 2010 at 7:43 pm
“Exactly. Because you are incappable of assimilating other cultures, we have to express ourselves in your own terms so you can understand we are talking about ourselves.’

Excuse me. You do know whom you are discussing this with, ( refer to AFG’s whine about me if you don’t know).

What I’m referring to is the standard depiction of “nations” as accepted by the European intellectual elite, ( not all “British”).

It’s rather you who are narcissistic, rather than me. I was born in England, raised in France, and lived in the U.S. adopted by an Hispanic father. That does mean I have an insight into what “assimilation” means, probably more than you.

For another take;

Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Arizona Department of Education “recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English”:
State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators. […]

“This is just one more indication of the incredible anti-immigrant sentiment in the state,” said Bruce Merrill, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who conducts public-opinion research.

But many schools in the state still have a significant number of teachers who are native Spanish speakers. At one school, state auditors complained that teachers pronounced “words such as violet as ‘biolet,’ think as ‘tink’ and swallow the ending sounds of words, as they sometimes do in Spanish.” The principal at that school acknowledged that teachers “should speak grammatically correct English” but said they shouldn’t be punished for having an accent.

And the Arizona legislature passed a bill yesterday outlawing ethnic studies programs.

The frenzy is accelerating and it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. This kind of nativism is part and parcel of right wing populism and when there’s economic strain it rises to the surface. I think it’s actually a testament to progress that it took this long.

But it’s very much complicated by the fact that there are so many Americans of Hispanic descent who know very well what’s going on. And they can vote.

.

michel

April 30, 2010 at 7:47 pm
”“what does the massive unilingualism of our fellow Canadians say about their openness?”

Nothing except that they don’t need to learn any other language in order to prosper. Otherwise, they would.

“Or are francophones just held to a higher standard?”

No. They simply live in an environment (North America) where it is sometimes very beneficial or even necessary to become fluent in English. And therefore so many of them are bilingual. And many more in the regions would like to be, but they are stalled by their own cynical rulers.

It is really very simple, and deep down you know it, although you’ll never admit it.”

Good. Now we know that being bilingual is a question of practicality and not a question of moral virtue. You seemed to be making a question of moral virtue in the posts I was responding to, in which you a huge deal about whether or not Guy A. Lepage and Dany Turcotte could speak English. We haven`t confirmed that they do or don’t, but they likely haven’t needed English to have successful careers. So whether or not they speak English is just as irrelevant as whether Don Cherry speaks French, right?

Acajack

April 30, 2010 at 8:47 pm
“Excuse me. You do know whom you are discussing this with, ( refer to AFG’s whine about me if you don’t know).”(Michel)

You are refering somebody else so I can know who you are ?

This is the person debating on my national identity ? :-)

Gébé Tremblay

April 30, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Excuse me. You do know whom you are discussing this with, ( refer to AFG’s whine about me if you don’t know).”(Michel)

You are refering somebody else so I can know who you are ?

This is the person debating on my national identity ? :-)”

Mr. Tremblay,

Are you intellectually impaired? or is it some stubbornness on your part to not recognize that your argument is weaker than a sprinkle of water in the Sahara?

What “national identity” are you referring to?

You’ve stated that you are of Quebecois, (which I understand to be someone whose ancestry originates in the Normandy or Breton region of France), Amerindian, ( which could mean an ancestry from any number of Fist Nations) and Scots,( which could be Higlands or Lowlands or the Islands).

All of these indicate separate “nations” or “peoples”.

You are a “mixture”, a person whose ancestry is quite wide. As such, you have a destiny that should impel you to be someone as inclusive as possible since you cannot, logically speaking, exclude anyone as an “Other” given your ancestry.

You really should reflect on your ancestry.

You should pay homage to your ancestors. Honor them by reflecting on what they held to be sacred and true.

If you do that, ( it should really take quite a bit of time- to knbow one’s ancestors is a difficult task), then you will realize that, without acknowedging your ancestors, your viewpoint is as dry as dust.

michel

April 30, 2010 at 10:24 pm
“Saskatchewan MP Jim Pankiw distributed borderline anti-aboriginal leaflets to his constituents with titles like “Stop Indian Crime”. ”

Actually ACJ, are “facts” slander. Fully 80% of the people incarcerted in SK are aboriginal in hertitage (sad but true) . Dr. Jim (chiropractor) was simply stating facts in the leaflet he sent out a couple or years ago. He was a mayorality cantidate in the last municipal election and got over 22% of the vote ( I think the current mayor was only about 35% or so) …Those voting most for him from the West side of the city where there is significant aboriginal presence. Pankiw just presented the facts of the situation. Perhaps not politcally correct but statistically correct, which is a truth. n’est pas mon ami.

ABP

April 30, 2010 at 10:41 pm
“No. They simply live in an environment (North America) where it is sometimes very beneficial or even necessary to become fluent in English. And therefore so many of them are bilingual. And many more in the regions would like to be, but they are stalled by their own cynical rulers.”

Pour Quoi ACJ… French really has little value outside of Quebec… Why would the majority anglo population wish to learn french when in day to day life it is of little consequence…other than for curiousity… Of course, the OLA, civil service etc is biased towards bilinguals (what is a defination of bilingual anyways).

Is it your plan and belief that you want Canada to speak french border to border. Doubt that is reality from recent statistics.

Far better if the Language is that important to the Quebecois that they go their own way…Don’t you agree? Futhering this sillyness will only generate ill feelings which in the end will have the same result.

Even corporate Canada sees this coming with CORUS selling off all their Quebec properties to Cogeco today (at bargain basment pricing BTW). They likely surmise that the PQ will likely win over Charest in the next election and don’t wish to see their assets further erode in value. (cut and limit your losses)

Today, the three western provinces entered into a trade and marketing agreement which as I understand is only the start of something of more consequence.

It is really over! I doubt language will trump economics…

Of course we have in SK, as I return, the local french school board in Regina wanting to sue the provincial government about not building a new french high school…on the grounds of constitutional rights.. good luck with 0.4% of the population who parlez la francais en la maison. BIG DEAL

Supreme court justices…language over competence…long gun registry…95% against itaccording to recent CTV survey. No problem, we know what is right for you as politicians (those who can’t wipe their own ass without help :)) And the list goes on.

Pardon me for being cynical.. its over.

ABP

April 30, 2010 at 11:12 pm
tonite’s recommendation comes courtesy of acajack – it’s as surprising as some of the comments he has made here.

mènage à trois (2008) is napa valley red with a twist – a cousin of j lohr, if you will. it’s candied… and beautiful wife (who prefers lighter steady stock from bordeaux)says caramel is the ingredient i could not identify. next time i pick it up, guests will be treated with dessert and we’ll skip the liqueur.

un gros merci for entertaining secret #237.

johnnyonline

May 1, 2010 at 12:16 am
apb,

no pardon necessary. but i wonder what it is the end of.

margaret thatcher said that socialism only fails when they run out of other peoples’ money to spend.

i’ve heard of second mortgages and even thirds if there’s a friendly with deep pockets – but i have never ever heard of a fourth mortgage.

johnnyonline

May 1, 2010 at 12:27 am
“no pardon necessary. but i wonder what it is the end of”

Suggest you read Atlas Shrugged.

Its over, the idiots are running the asylum…

ABP

May 1, 2010 at 12:40 am
@Antonio: I can’t find an online source for this, but I am pretty sure that a good part of the British Army was sent to Canada during 1861-65 because London wanted to deter the US from making any moves to the north in the event Anglo-American tension over the Civil War overheated (as it almost did during the Trent Affair). The presence of British troops and military hardware in Canada during this period might have been another factor that paved the way toward Confederation.

littlerob

May 1, 2010 at 7:16 am
littlerob

you are right. The US Civil War was considered a factor in creating Confederation. However, I think that Confederation was going to happen anyway because it was the result of a British ethnic movement that feared the USA. The US Civil War only speeded up the pace towards Confederation.

Antonio

May 1, 2010 at 8:54 am
In one of my posts above, I may have given the impression that I consider the Catholic Church as bad. It did bad things, it discouraged general learning and stressed that Quebecers make a living in agriculture. Anything else other than agriculture was considered bad. And it cooperated with the British and Canadian authorites who gave the Church a free hand in creating a Quebec francophone society where the the people were superstitious and ignorant farmers. I read somewhere that before the Quiet Revolution, only about 10% of Quebec francophones had a university eductation.

But the Church also did good things for Quebec: it stressed family planning, marriage and community gatherings and charities. These are concepts that Quebecers today need to relearn. It also resolutely defended the French language which played no part in its survival in Quebec up to now.

Antonio

May 1, 2010 at 9:08 am
“it discouraged general learning and stressed that Quebecers make a living in agriculture.”

Your new Deity, Bill 101, discourages the use of a particular language and stresses that Quebeckers live in Joual. You new Deity asks you to ignore the reality that surrounds you, and for those that refuse to ignore that reality, your new Deity can resort to coercion.

Your people basically swapped one idol for another.

“Now we know that being bilingual is a question of practicality and not a question of moral virtue.”

100% yes. There is nothing moral about a language. But whereas in other parts of the world English might not be so predominant because it is not so practical, in Quebec (and Montreal especially) it is very practical but is stymied by decisions made miles away (a couple of hundred miles geographically, millions of miles mentally) in a mysterious place called the “national” assembly.

“You seemed to be making a question of moral virtue in the posts I was responding to, in which you a huge deal about whether or not Guy A. Lepage and Dany Turcotte could speak English.”

I made no mention of morality at all. This is your (mis)interpretation.

Lepage and Turcotte are fossils not because they did something morally questionable, but because they are being left behind while others are moving forward. Others like Allophones and many Francophones who refuse to believe in empty statements about the “primacy” of French and go on to learn and use a second language that is very useful and in Montreal even necessary.

Sugar Sammy is a “child of Bill“. In his case we can talk of 101 in a more or less positive way, as it only added French to Sammy’s repertoire of 4 languages. Most Allophone “children of 101” are like that, and you can see that on the rates of their switching from French high schools to English cegeps.

Turcotte and Lepage, on the other hand, are “victims of bill 101”, like many other Francophones who bought the official line and got left behind.

“We haven`t confirmed that they do or don’t, but they likely haven’t needed English to have successful careers.”

Your options in French only are much more limited. They are limited to Quebec only, and only in professions of a local or provincial scope. In Montreal, your options are limited very severely if you’re a white collar professional. In fact, you are probably stuck with a job in the provincial government.

As entertainers, Turcotte and Lepage could reach a much wider audience if they could function in English. Sort of like Roy Dupuis or Celine Dion, who went from a market of 7 million to a market of 350 million. This is something that Turcotte and Lepage missed out on, and thanks to the laws that they themselves support.

Anonymous

May 1, 2010 at 10:04 am
“Quebecois did not exist in 1867? When did they come into being? This seems to be a rather interesting notion, that is, that a people can spontaneously generate. Usually, a people or nation have a long “pre-history” that clearly defines them before “creating”, as it were, a nation, ( in modern terms).”(Michel)

Exactly. Before calling themselves Canadiens, they were Français. The Canadiens were no more Français but true habitants of Canada (St-Laurent valley). Then they became Canadiens français to distinguish themselves from the english canadians in Bas Canada. In the late 50’s the Québec flag and nationalism established the Québécois who distinguished itself from the Canadien français in the ROC. It is the same people through history. Québécois is a political dénomination. We are the original Canadiens of the original Canada.

The political notion of Québécois did not exist in 1867.

Gébé Tremblay

May 1, 2010 at 10:12 am