AngryFrenchGuy

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

with 360 comments

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Add to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to TwitterSOMEONE ON THE INTERNET NEEDS TO KNOW

Written by angryfrenchguy

April 19, 2010 at 1:00 am

360 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “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”.”(Michel)

    No, my ancestry does not originate in France. I am not a Français. My ancestry begins on the birth of the Canadien people (somewhere between 1620 and 1640). That Canadien nation is the product of a cultural transformation between the Français who decided to adopt Canada (St-Laurent valley) as their new home and the Amérindiens of that same region who accepted this sharing with them. That cultural transformation between those peoples was possible through the intermediary of a previous new people called the Metis (nomads). All have changed their way of life. These are the “souches” of the peoples or nations of Québec (amérindien-french) and Canada (amérindien-french).

    The scots have nothing to do in this. I simply have scotish herirage on my mother’s side just like I have a French heritage. But never lived in France neither in Scotland. It is not my culture even though I speak french and english. I also speak some polish. Dzien dobry !

    After the british invasion, some scots joined the Metis and are a very important part of this nation’s history (Peter Mcleod, especially).

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 1, 2010 at 10:46 am

  2. “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.).”(Michel)

    Obviously you were not successful in AngryFrenchGuy’s Quiz.

    No. Quebec culture is not the same as USA-ROC.

    If the soapoperas, music, etc.. were the same, one would only need to translate all this in all languages. They dont. All have to be culturally adapted first. Has to be re-made. You can’t just translate a french cultural product into english and vice-versa. Even british cultural products have to be adapted to USA. But canadian-U.S. products are exactly the same, not same culture but same lack of culture (universal appeal).

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 1, 2010 at 11:01 am

  3. For Acajack’s “Anglo shit” file:

    “Obviously, given the ethnic and sociocultural make-up of modern Quebec society, only the pure laine Quebecois could arguably be considered a people.” -Stephen Harper

    That’s the Prime Minister of “the greatest multicultural country on Earth” stating in plain English that he is total agreement with Parizeau.

    I was deeply offended by Parizeau’s inference that “ethnics” were not part of “NOUS”.

    But Canadians only seem to be offended when it is said in French. When the same thing is said in English, they absolutely agree.

    angryfrenchguy

    May 1, 2010 at 12:42 pm

  4. I absolutely agree with this even in french

    geck

    May 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm

  5. “That Canadien nation is the product of a cultural transformation between the Français who decided to adopt Canada (St-Laurent valley) as their new home and the Amérindiens of that same region who accepted this sharing with them. That cultural transformation between those peoples was possible through the intermediary of a previous new people called the Metis (nomads). All have changed their way of life. These are the “souches” of the peoples or nations of Québec (amérindien-french) and Canada (amérindien-french).”

    Not much different, then, from Latin America.

    michel

    May 1, 2010 at 9:16 pm

  6. agf,

    i think what canadians found offensive was the shocking reality that a great number of citizens living in canada did not want to continue being canadians (and it turns out “they” are easily identifiable because “they” all live in quebec). these voters created recognition of a new identity very difficult for political opponents to embrace.

    where the first referendum had caught most everyone in canada off guard and it was deemed an aberration that could not stand the test of time – the second expression was widely recognised as a direct threat to the integrity of the nation. not small potatoes.

    parizeau’s words were insult added to injury. it is well known that human beings react poorly in situations when emotions run high.

    if you have never experienced rejection – then you are incapable of understanding the position, but you might forgive roccers for an emotional response and you might forgive good ol’ jacques for losing his calculated cool too. he was an easy target on that night; the scapegoat for graceless arrogant scorn.

    johnnyonline

    May 1, 2010 at 9:29 pm

  7. I am just back from a trip abroad, and as usual upon my return I am grateful to be home, but struck by the tired, pathetic, small-minded, pointless nature of this topic.

    In order to be happy and sustainable as a society, we need to be respectful of each others different concepts of identity, and pragmatic about working to build and maintain a safe and just society.

    Most places in the world have real problems to worry about. We are so lucky here. People who have time to navel-gaze and stir the pot (like AFG and many others here and in our various media outlets) are doing us all a great disservice. The best we can do is ignore them, and be good people to each other. You know, think globally, act locally etc.. We are all invested in this province, and have roots here, and manage to treat each other nicely in public. Screw all this negative energy!

    How are all your gardens coming along? Jazzfest is coming etc.. Régalez-vous !

    Carlos

    May 1, 2010 at 10:41 pm

  8. I heartily agree with you Carlos, except for the part about AFG doing us a disservice. The untended splinter becomes a festering infection that leads to the loss of the limb.

    The key is to tend to the splinter without picking at it so much it becomes even more infected.

    There is a bit of the conspiracy theory floating around here, but there is at least as much education and genuine free expression of cultural attitudes. The fact that this blog is in English rather than French proves that it is about education and not simply about picking at a scab.

    edward

    May 2, 2010 at 1:08 am

  9. I should clarify that I mean that it is more for discussion and debate with non-Francophones than it is for shouting in the echo chamber.

    edward

    May 2, 2010 at 1:10 am

  10. @AFG, you said:
    “I was deeply offended by Parizeau’s inference that “ethnics” were not part of “NOUS”.”

    I can see that you listen to the whole speech. Which anglo medias don’t seem to be fond of doing. They usually refer only the phrase on “money and ethnic vote” and pass on the actually offensive part of the speech.

    My initial reaction at the precise moment of the speech couldn’t pass the wordpress profanity filter. Let’s just say that it contained a long string of religious words out of religious context, mixed with a good number of epitets about low mental ability. So, though perhaps a little bit more heated, much in line with yours. And we weren’t alone. Most people, and particularly PQ supporters and officials, couldn’t say enough how much they hated the speech at the time. There weren’t any surprises when, the following day, Parizeau resigned.

    I still don’t like the whole speech. The most offending part is the one about “nous”. But the catchphrase “money and ethnic vote” ? It tooks me time, and reading a couple of Foglia’s chronicles about it over many years, to acknowledge that it was, simply put, true. A cold hard sociological fact.

    Now we can surely discuss the brilliance of saying that at that particular moment, and whether it was respectful of “ethnic voters” who voted “YES’ despite their communities’ endorsment of the NO. We can also say that a nation is not just cold hard sociological facts, it’s a project, it’s not just about the past and the present, but also about the future, and this sentence was jeopardizing the project.

    We can also discuss the small prints. Ethnic vote perhaps, but it may be just a proxy variable; when you control for language, you can see that it’s not ethnic but linguistics, with ethnicity making a much smaller contribution (you don’t get 5% yes, but 34% among franco “allogenes”; and while you get about 1% among anglo crees, you get about 22% among francos hurons). You may even say that the vote is not as “ethnic” now as it was then, that the situation have changed, like recently Parizeau said himself.

    And you can listen to the whole speech; Landry made a point of revisiting it in 2003. He was ridiculed for that, but if you want to criticize Parizeau, there is a lot to criticize in that speech, which you can still hear on Breaking Point. Lisée’s comments in this documentary of the SRC/CBC make it quite clear that the speech was a surprise even to him, who was Parizeau’s main strategist.

    But all this is complicated, I suppose, and that’s why we keep hearing about the “money and ethnic vote” quote, without context. And since we keep hearing about it and it only, I think we should in the end be honest and say that, if somebody think that all that matters is the “money and ethnic vote” part, then we should admit that this comment was, simply, true. And I repeat, I don’t like that it was true, I don’t like to have to say that it was true, but it was. We just have to work more so that it won’t be true next time.

    Tancrède

    May 2, 2010 at 5:17 am

  11. “Not much different, then, from Latin America.”(Michel)

    A world of difference.

    A “native” people is a people who was living in a country before an invasion that took over by force and/or massive colonisation (Spanish and British).

    The Canadien people (not the citizens of the english federation) or Québécois nation (today) are natives.

    This is according to UN’s definition of “native”. Obviously, Harper is aware of that.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 2, 2010 at 8:09 am

  12. “How are all your gardens coming along?”(Carlos)

    Fine. So dont touch it.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 2, 2010 at 8:14 am

  13. “Friends, we have lost, but not by a lot. It was successful in one sense. Let’s stop talking about the francophones of Quebec. Let’s talk about us.”(translated Parizeau)

    This would be just like a english canadian saying “Let’s stop talking about the anglophones of north america, lets talk about us.”

    That the english canadians feel unconfortable with this shows the pitiful state of what may be left of a national identity (or even cultural) in them.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 2, 2010 at 8:32 am

  14. @ Gébé: Not all of the English colonies in North America were established by force.

    I suggest that the colonial history of Québec has some things in common with that of Pennsylvania, where the local Indians (Lenape) by and large welcomed the coming of the whites. I suspect that part of the reason the Lenape favored the white settlers was that they reckoned that the whites would act as a buffer against Iroquois raiders, in the same way as the Hurons–who like the Lenape were Algonquian-speaking people–hoped that the French would help them against the northern Iroquois who raided their homelands.

    What with one thing and another, most of the Lenapes moved west (Ohio, and then Oklahoma and Ontario), although some still remain in their original homeland. The same is true of the Hurons–under the name Wyandots, most of them now live in Michigan, Oklahoma and Kansas.

    littlerob

    May 2, 2010 at 9:19 am

  15. “Not all of the English colonies in North America were established by force.”(Littlerob)

    The Dutch are not british, Littlerob.

    Even the Dutch did not settle with the Lenapes or mingled with the natives.

    The case of the Québécois (Canadiens) people is unique. It is the birth of a new nation in the land Canada (Kanata) that they shared and defended with the natives whith which they mingled (a major cause of survival of the resulting children that thus carried the antibodies against smallpox).

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 2, 2010 at 11:18 am

  16. Please, don’t touch the gardens of Gebe Tremblay. And BS cheque.

    geck

    May 2, 2010 at 11:44 am

  17. @ Gébé: The *Dutch* colonized the Hudson Valley, now part of New York State, and a small portion of what is now the state of Delaware, near Lewes. *Pennsylvania* was colonized by the English and Welsh under William Penn, followed soon after by German pietist refugees (Amish, Mennonite). The “Pennsylvania Dutch” so called are not Dutch at all, but the descendants of these German settlers. Some of them still speak a variant of Palatine German. I know some phrases of this language.

    It is true that neither the English nor the German colonists of Pennsylvania mixed with the local Indians very much. Some of the Lenape around here (the stay-behinds) have some black and Italian ancestry, though.

    The New York Dutch had a few early clashes with the local Indians (Raritans), but they established an alliance with the Iroquois–this alliance was later inherited by the English after they took over New Amsterdam in 1664–which was to prove a thorn in the side of the French settlements on the St. Lawrence throughout the colonial period, as you are probably aware.

    A few New York Dutch *did* mix with the local Indians. There is a community in northern New Jersey called the “Jackson Whites” who appear to be descended from local Raritans or Lenapes and Dutch settlers.

    littlerob

    May 2, 2010 at 1:13 pm

  18. “If the soapoperas, music, etc.. were the same, one would only need to translate all this in all languages. They dont. All have to be culturally adapted first. Has to be re-made. You can’t just translate a french cultural product into english and vice-versa. Even british cultural products have to be adapted to USA. But canadian-U.S. products are exactly the same, not same culture but same lack of culture (universal appeal).”

    If your argument was completely correct, then films could not be “international”, nor “sung” music, nor visual art, nor literature and poetry.

    But obviously, this is not the case. When I lived in San Francisco, I used to watch Japanese television series broadcast, with subtitles, by NHK, the main Japanese network. While I may have missed some nuances I certainly was able to understand what the show was about, ( believe me, Japanese soap operas are of universal, ( global), meaning. One, called Oshin,about a widow running a fish shop, was extremely popular in Iran).

    Your argument is incorrect concerning Canada. I should know…I used to listen to Canadian radio broadcast via a public radio in S.F. and certainly obtained a more varied view of the world than the U.S. version of world news. Popular Canadian shows have a certain ethos that U.S. shows do not have.

    It is true that many Canadians are involved in U.S. media, all to the good. Most present a broader view of the world than native, home-bound, USAr’s.

    If your argument was correct, no one could communicate with anyone from other cultures which is certainly not the case.

    As for lack of culture, I would argue that this is a world-wide phenomenon. It’s linked to the prevalence of mass consumerism.

    michel

    May 2, 2010 at 3:02 pm

  19. A world of difference.

    “A “native” people is a people who was living in a country before an invasion that took over by force and/or massive colonisation (Spanish and British).

    The Canadien people (not the citizens of the english federation) or Québécois nation (today) are natives.

    This is according to UN’s definition of “native”. Obviously, Harper is aware of that”

    Now I’m confused. Do you mean that the French, ( yst, that is who they were), did not “invade” Canada and “colonize” it?

    Do you mean that it was always a peaceful process?

    Then why the Great Peace Treaty of 1700? Why the attempt, ( which I do admit is extremely unique, indeed, one of the most remarkable events in the history of the Americas), to prevent war and clashes between colonists and natives, ( it did not completely work but certainly it was a deeper and more respectful action than the English or Spanish ever did)?

    Be a little clearer in your argument.

    michel

    May 2, 2010 at 3:11 pm

  20. Too subtle for me to make all my points in French, but a few observations:

    A great deal of comment here is fixated on Canadien and American and Canadian history which has now flowed by, while new things are happening.

    One new thing, is that in Toronto, arguably according to the UN the most cosmopolitan city on the planet, we have every culture and every language surrounding us here, and caucasians, english and other northern and southern European people here are inter-relating, interconnecting , inter-coupling and intermarrying as never ever before. This is the new Canadian metissage in progress, the great inter-racial inter-ethnic fusioning process that is well advanced here. This is hardly the English aloofness of the colonials in India, who, in E.M Forster’s Passage to India, talking idly, yet tellingly at high tea, opineing that chaplins were good, to lead the Anglican church services, but that missionaries would be a bad idea, because the British ladies having their crumpets and Earl Grey or Darjeeling etc. did’nt like the idea of having to rub shoulders in God’s heaven with the Indian masses converted to Christianity.

    So we see that in the 1608 to 1759/1760 period the French colons, and voyageurs were open to these liasions with the amérindiens whilst the anglos in India were not.

    Today it seems the reverse to a large degree. Québécois are having some reservations warming up to all the immigrants who are also hedging their bets in return, while the world is mingling together fairly joyfully in Toronto. Yeah we do tend to speak a fair amount of English here, but we could hardly be described as English — we are pretty much the world. There is no language war here, but it is very desireable for people’s future, and prosperity to acquire English as the lingua franca just as in Québec one must acquire French, but additional English also to really thrive, so it is tougher to be an newcomer in Québec.

    Anyhow the take home point is that in ROC there is an explosion of openess with respect to all the cultures of the globe, and there is a great synergy growing out of that a rich tapestry of culture.

    It is a bit sterile to read the naive assertions that there is no culture in the ROC. Culture is fabulous here!

    Clearly Torontonians and southern Ontarians are not very fixated on what is going in in Québec and why should we be. We love to visit Montréal, Québec, the Saguenay, Cantons de l’est, Monterégie, Gaspésie, etc. etc. and some of us can even manage a bit of French, and a few even more, so what’s so much not to like? Those of us who are anglos ” de souche” feel a connexion with the French fact of our binational heritage, which runs deep for us, though you guys have no idea, and define us as indifferent, uncultured identityless etc. etc. etc. and it is unlikely Gébé etc. spent much time in Toronto or Vancouver or other parts of ROC, having psychologically turned his face away from fellow Canadians towards the solitude of an imaginary sovereign nation which only exists in the mind. Because you are in the grip of historical grievance, rather than open to the new dynamics of Canadian co-existence and multicultural society.

    So it looks like that 30 to 40% of core independance voters are not open, albeit open in the past when there were no French women to marry with, but now rather closed to the real world all around you.

    The highly theoretical ideas that you vigile.net sorts have about the realities of ROC and the mindset and culture of ROC Canadians comes across as a little sterile, naive and isolating. That is kind of sad, because there is a larger group in Québec who are Ok with dual identity, with being linguistically francophone, and celebrating the local arts scene as well as being Canadian and celebrating the cultural values of the entire planet. Joie de vie yes… but that can and does exist in many tongues.

    By all means protect and promote the French language in Québec, as we would have you do, it is after all a profound Canadian heritage for all of us, the 2nd language of choice in the ROC. But don’t close yourselves off to us. We are open to you guys in so many ways, but we are just not obsessed with this bitterness approaching paranoia where everything you see happening is a conspiratorial movement of disdain and attempted “humiliations”. We are not obsessed with these things.

    The past that you guys are so obsessed with is long gone. The Catholic church in Québec that promoted 10 or 15 children is in the past.

    We the fusion of the world in the ROC, who do speak the current default language, naturally enough, are the natural allies of Québec, and in the projet of protecting French. The US of A is NOT your ally in protecting French, and at least around 50% of them are busy battling against Spanish! Like Michel offers us the video clip of the governor of Alabama, Tim James.

    Jesusland is xenophobic!

    Québec should not become like that! Why not cozy up and get some anglo friends on the west side of Montreal and help them work on their French spoken skills? When the allos see this they will be much more enthusiatic! You are far too pessimistic, far too self-isolated in a coccoon of feeling the ROC is out to “get you” It is not true.

    You are in circle the wagons mode thinking that way. Free your minds and souls from all that bitter rhetoric, and find positive psychic energy to SHARE french with all of Montréal with all of ROC in as much as possible. The whole country cannot become fluently bilingual, but it can appreciate being a dual language country , it can appreciate Québec culture and history and contributions to this fairly blessed part of the planet Earth.

    Good vibes to all! Next post in French I promise.

    bruce

    May 2, 2010 at 4:16 pm

  21. “If your argument was correct, no one could communicate with anyone from other cultures which is certainly not the case.”(Michel)

    Sorry but it is the case for U.S. and ROC.

    “When I lived in San Francisco, I used to watch Japanese television series broadcast, with subtitles, by NHK, the main Japanese network. While I may have missed some nuances I certainly was able to understand what the show was about,”(Michel)

    Of course ! All countries are creating “universal” products intended for the U.S. ROC market. The local cultural products wont make it there.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 2, 2010 at 6:04 pm

  22. “A few New York Dutch *did* mix with the local Indians.”(Littlerob)

    Yes. A lot of rapes also. Black slaves have mixed and even lots of other different ethnic individuals.

    We are talking about nations, here. Major social and cultural transformations and adaptations that imprints a new character that was not there before. A new people.

    It is a phenomena that can be easily observed through the multitude of different nations living in America before the Europeans arrived.

    It is sad that most citizens of this “canadian” federation dont know nothing of the history of this land and its people.

    The only “canadian” history lessons they get is from the european jewish community (Bronfman) through propaganda institutions like HISTORICA.CA.

    History from the mafia alcohol bootlegers of the 30’s !

    English Canada is a joke. A very mediocre joke.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 2, 2010 at 6:24 pm

  23. “Now I’m confused. Do you mean that the French, ( yst, that is who they were), did not “invade” Canada and “colonize” it?

    Do you mean that it was always a peaceful process?”(Michel)

    Yes it was. The French were only 100, while the natives were thousands.

    “Then why the Great Peace Treaty of 1700?” (Michel)

    That was with the Iroquois (english allies).

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 2, 2010 at 6:38 pm

  24. “This is the new Canadian metissage in progress, the great inter-racial inter-ethnic fusioning process that is well advanced here.”(Bruce)

    No way. A multicultural mess. Babel tower.

    Lots of trouble on the horizon.

    Ghetto land.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 2, 2010 at 6:42 pm

  25. 00Judge other people
    “If your argument was correct, no one could communicate with anyone from other cultures which is certainly not the case.”(Michel)

    Sorry but it is the case for U.S. and ROC.

    “When I lived in San Francisco, I used to watch Japanese television series broadcast, with subtitles, by NHK, the main Japanese network. While I may have missed some nuances I certainly was able to understand what the show was about,”(Michel)

    Of course ! All countries are creating “universal” products intended for the U.S. ROC market. The local cultural products wont make it there.

    Gotta laugh here! The “market” was Japanese of the third generation…those who spoke just a little Japanese but were actually Anglophone.

    You are really stretching your argument to nonsensical limits.

    But I can’t really blame your ignorance. You ( that is, the generation of the 60’s) have driven out
    the Japanese that were placed in Quebec during W.W. II because they only spoke Japanese and English, ( to some degree). So much for honoring those of other cultures.

    Mr. Tremblay, you need a course in multi-culturalism.

    michel

    May 2, 2010 at 8:07 pm

  26. @michel: When the first French settlers arrived in the St. Lawrence valley in the early 17th century, they encountered Algonquian-speaking Indians whose lives were frequently made unbearable by Iroquois raiders from what is now New York State. The Indians of what is now Québec and southern Ontario looked to the French for assistance against the Iroquois. Fighting between the French and their Indian allies on one side and the Iroquois–who became allies of the Dutch of the Hudson Valley (and of their English successors in interest)–on the other side continued sporadically for most of the century.

    The way I interpret this history, the Iroquois-Algonquian conflict, which had been going on before the Europeans arrived, basically continued for some time after they got there, except that both sides began using European weapons (muskets, steel knives–they traded beaver pelts for them), and that the French colonists of the St. Lawrence fought on the Algonquians’ side.

    The Anglo-Iroquois alliance continued pretty much unchanged for most of the eighteenth century. Iroquois fought on the Anglo-American side during the Seven Years’ War (1756-63), and for the Crown during the American Revolution. After a couple of Iroquois-Tory (Loyalist) raids brought death to hundreds of settlers in New York and Pennsylvania, George Washington organized an expedition to crush the Iroquois. This 1779 “Sullivan Expedition” broke the Iroquois’ power (thousands of Iroquois died of starvation after their homes and crops were destroyed). Some of the survivors ultimately moved to Québec; their descendants still live there today in reserves near Montréal.

    littlerob

    May 2, 2010 at 8:31 pm

  27. But the question of the French being “colonists” or “peaceful settlers” is not answered.

    I’m not arfuing that the French were vicious etc;

    Mr. Tremblay wants to argue that the “nation” of Quebec is, somehow, fundamentally different than what happened in Latin America.

    But I think that, essentially, once one goes beyond the ‘first contact’, what happened is essentially the same.

    I’m thinking of Octavio Paz and his essays on Mexican identity.

    Essentially, Paz’s essays point to very much the same situation as Quebec.

    michel

    May 2, 2010 at 9:40 pm

  28. “No way. A multicultural mess. Babel tower.

    Lots of trouble on the horizon.

    Ghetto land.”

    Only from your viewpoint.

    Mr. Tremblay….perhaps you really, really, should look at your ancestors.

    You scoff at your Scots ancestor…why?

    The same with your French ancestors…why?

    Do you know which tribe your Amerindien ancestors are from? If not…why?

    If you don’t really care about your French, Scots, and Amerindien ancestors, then you don’t really care about who you truly are.

    You’ve created a simulacrum, an ersatz self, a false identity that you call “Quebecois”.

    In reality, you’re no more knowledgeable about your past than most “tea party” people in the U.s.

    michel

    May 2, 2010 at 9:48 pm

  29. Bruce,

    I love you man but your portrayal of diversity in Anglo-Canada on May 2, 2010 at 4:16 pmis waaaay too milk and honey.

    I am from the ROC originally and in tune with what is going on there, so sorry.

    Also, you seem to not be aware of the fact that the same thing is going on in Quebec, though at Quebec`s pace. Last Wednesday I watched the 7th game of the Habs-Caps series with a bunch of neighbours. We watched the game in French on RDS and I was the only one there who could be considered remotely close to a French Canadians.

    I also respectfully would submit that the openness to French and francophone culture you report in your milieu is not representative of the broader English-speaking Canadian population. Once again I speak from experience as a majority of my family members live in the ROC and have English Canadian spouses. If I don’t see much openness on the part of people who have kids who are half-francophone and who usually go to school in French, what can we expect from the rest of the ROC?

    Acajack

    May 2, 2010 at 9:58 pm

  30. ”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.
    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.”

    Lepage almost certainly makes more money than Sugar Sammy. He is the author of a TV series concept that has been sold to over 30 countries.

    And even if he wasn`t, who cares? I am sure The Tragically Hip would make way more money if they sang about Oklahoma City and Chicago instead of Kingston and Sault Ste Marie, Ontario…

    Acajack

    May 2, 2010 at 10:03 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: