What Canadians think of Quebec

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] Well, we could. However, I'm not sure how many citizens would be attracted to an area that could be translated as 'Destroy Scotland'. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> [/QUOTE] Well, to look a it in a positive way, it could mean, "let's undo what did not work, start from scratch and build a better Scotia".

[QUOTE BY= michou] "Our young men will marry your daughters, and we shall be one people." - Samuel de Champlain on edit: some people have vision, some don't.[/QUOTE] Nice quote michou! The French came here to trade, the English came here to invade and have never stopped since.

Gaulcon??? I realize that I have expressed some market ideas disruptive to various sovereignties. I have also been well challenged by cultural integrity correctness matters. But I think these discussions are now going amok and seriousness does have its value afterall, thanks to Samuel's gentle reminder. Pourquoi pas Britois? et pas Brises-toi? Parizeau might even get a kick out of some London School of Economics nostalgia. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Back to seriousness. Here is a question to my sovereignty friends. Don't you think that First Nations would much rather have their sovereignty defined in terms independant of the Quebec, Canada and even US ones? Have you ever heard of this place called Turtle Island? Cultural majorities (whether anglos or francos) both share this blind spot in regards to how they treat their so called protected minorities. I am certainly quite aware of current situations of absolute despair in Northern Quebec amongst First Nations very similar to the ones in the ROC. Yes there are some brighter cases in Quebec such as the Crees in the James-Bay area; but then anyone could look bright when acting as the Custodian of a land producing TeraWatts in an energy addicted world. I will remind you that the ROC also has brighter case with First nations, generally for similar reasons. My personal experience with the Hurons around Quebec City showed a high level of cultural integration. Some would just call it assimilation that has been well cammouflaged by the PR department of "Indian Affair" residing in Quebec City pushing their political agendas and subsidizing well the culture. I can tell you that, as an FHQ (originally from Quebec City), I relate very much to the conditions of "cultural integration" of Hurons around Quebec City. In addition, if I am not mistaken, Quebec had its own share of residential schools problems too. I note Kory's remark on your limited participation on our First Nations Forum and some huffing and puffing in response to spoiled child references. Could there be some outstanding blind spots amongst all the ones pretending to self-rightness better than other ones? Are political agendas still getting in the way of these generally frank and honest sovereignty discussions?

Besides First Nations, francophones outside Quebec (FHQ) are often used as an argument against sovereignty by the federal govt/Bay St. Their survival will be jeopardized because Quebec will "abandon" its brothers and sisters from other provinces. The feds hope we will get sentimental over this dishonest propaganda and give in. From a Quebec point of view, this means that Canada will not respect the right of its french minority, after Quebec's departure. It is an extremely poor argument and it proves what I have been saying all along : Quebec is seen as a huge cultural community, powerful enough though to get concessions from the feds, but that's it. Canada will not want to recognize FHQ after Quebec is gone and that won't be Quebec's fault. FFQ will be seen (as they have always been seen) as a cultural community among others and not worth granting any kind of status. Assimilation oblige. This kind of blackmail on the part of Canada is not healthy and it will backfire. Quebec has stated that the rights of its anglo minority will remain as is (education in their language and whatever health services they have now). Double standards, quand tu nous tiens...

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] Gaulcon??? I realize that I have expressed some market ideas disruptive to various sovereignties. I have also been well challenged by cultural integrity correctness matters. But I think these discussions are now going amok and seriousness does have its value afterall, thanks to Samuel's gentle reminder. Pourquoi pas Britois? et pas Brises-toi? Parizeau might even get a kick out of some London School of Economics nostalgia. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Back to seriousness. Here is a question to my sovereignty friends. Don't you think that First Nations would much rather have their sovereignty defined in terms independant of the Quebec, Canada and even US ones? Have you ever heard of this place called Turtle Island? Cultural majorities (whether anglos or francos) both share this blind spot in regards to how they treat their so called protected minorities. I am certainly quite aware of current situations of absolute despair in Northern Quebec amongst First Nations very similar to the ones in the ROC. Yes there are some brighter cases in Quebec such as the Crees in the James-Bay area; but then anyone could look bright when acting as the Custodian of a land producing TeraWatts in an energy addicted world. I will remind you that the ROC also has brighter case with First nations, generally for similar reasons. My personal experience with the Hurons around Quebec City showed a high level of cultural integration. Some would just call it assimilation that has been well cammouflaged by the PR department of "Indian Affair" residing in Quebec City pushing their political agendas and subsidizing well the culture. I can tell you that, as an FHQ (originally from Quebec City), I relate very much to the conditions of "cultural integration" of Hurons around Quebec City. In addition, if I am not mistaken, Quebec had its own share of residential schools problems too. I note Kory's remark on your limited participation on our First Nations Forum and some huffing and puffing in response to spoiled child references. Could there be some outstanding blind spots amongst all the ones pretending to self-rightness better than other ones? Are political agendas still getting in the way of these generally frank and honest sovereignty discussions? [/QUOTE] Gaulois, I am well versed on native issues because I greatly care about them. It is such an abominable insult to see federalists who haven't the slightest idea about First Nation issues pull this card on separatists because it suits them that natives were misled on sovereignty by federalists in 1995. You should all start by naming them for what they are, First Nations, Natives or Indegenous Peoples of Canada because one of the biggest insults to them is to be referred to as "Indians". Québec Department of Native Afffairs / Affaires Autochtones Canadian Department of --- Indian --- Affairs

"heir survival will be jeopardized because Quebec will "abandon" its brothers and sisters from other provinces. The feds hope we will get sentimental over this dishonest propaganda and give in." What has Quebec done for FHQ in the last decade? Nothing. I've met Quebeckers who were completely floored to find out that there are people in other parts of our country who speak French at home and go to school in French. Quebec abandoned the FHQ long ago, so I doubt it would be a potent argument anyway.

Forget FHQs. We have made the choice to live as a minority in the ROC (protected by the 1867 act and not by Quebec). We will deal with the consequences of ROC shortcomings ourselves as you do in Quebec. The case raised here is First Nations Sovereingty. I will argue that First Nations people in Quebec have the right to hold their own referendum that will determine whether they wish to remain in Canada. Same logic under the charter of United Nations that was referred earlier. No blind spot? I will move this under its own thread in the First Nations forum.

[QUOTE BY= Ed King]What has Quebec done for FHQ in the last decade? Nothing. I've met Quebeckers who were completely floored to find out that there are people in other parts of our country who speak French at home and go to school in French. Quebec abandoned the FHQ long ago, so I doubt it would be a potent argument anyway.[/QUOTE] Québec never abandoned FHQs because we never started to in the first place. We can barely keep up with protecting "la fracophonie" within Québec!

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] Gaulcon??? I realize that I have expressed some market ideas disruptive to various sovereignties. I have also been well challenged by cultural integrity correctness matters. But I think these discussions are now going amok and seriousness does have its value afterall, thanks to Samuel's gentle reminder. Pourquoi pas Britois? et pas Brises-toi? Parizeau might even get a kick out of some London School of Economics nostalgia. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Back to seriousness. Here is a question to my sovereignty friends. Don't you think that First Nations would much rather have their sovereignty defined in terms independant of the Quebec, Canada and even US ones? Have you ever heard of this place called Turtle Island? Cultural majorities (whether anglos or francos) both share this blind spot in regards to how they treat their so called protected minorities. I am certainly quite aware of current situations of absolute despair in Northern Quebec amongst First Nations very similar to the ones in the ROC. Yes there are some brighter cases in Quebec such as the Crees in the James-Bay area; but then anyone could look bright when acting as the Custodian of a land producing TeraWatts in an energy addicted world. I will remind you that the ROC also has brighter case with First nations, generally for similar reasons. My personal experience with the Hurons around Quebec City showed a high level of cultural integration. Some would just call it assimilation that has been well cammouflaged by the PR department of "Indian Affair" residing in Quebec City pushing their political agendas and subsidizing well the culture. I can tell you that, as an FHQ (originally from Quebec City), I relate very much to the conditions of "cultural integration" of Hurons around Quebec City. In addition, if I am not mistaken, Quebec had its own share of residential schools problems too. I note Kory's remark on your limited participation on our First Nations Forum and some huffing and puffing in response to spoiled child references. Could there be some outstanding blind spots amongst all the ones pretending to self-rightness better than other ones? Are political agendas still getting in the way of these generally frank and honest sovereignty discussions? [/QUOTE] Gaulois, you seem to be blaming us for not participating on the Natives forum. I mentioned when I started this thread that I wanted to express my opinion on sovereignty. Kory mentioned my non participation on the Natives thread, now you; if you push this issue further, will you accuse us of being racists because we don't participate? Personally, I am not well versed in Native issues. So I am not going to go into details as to what deals can or can't be done with the Natives. But I trust the government in this regard. I know from various sources that Quebec has been better than Canada in the treatment of Indians. The PQ has done a lot in this regard, and Ted Moses (Cree chief) gave his allegeance to the PQ in the last provincial elections. I am 100% confident that treaties can be achieved with Indians in the event of sovereignty. You said : Don't you think that First Nations would much rather have their sovereignty defined in terms independant of the Quebec, Canada and even US ones? Have you ever heard of this place called Turtle Island? First Nations are free to express themselves and speak for themselves.

Ed, Samuel and everyone: please keep FHQs and Quebec totally separated for the purpose of these discussions. This thread was not about What Québécois think of FHQs or What Canadians think of FHQs and vice-versa. The First Nations case is under scrutiny here. Canadians are certainly allowed to think about First Nations people in Quebec without simply being brushed off with the "Quebec has no lesson to take".

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] Forget FHQs. We have made the choice to live as a minority in the ROC (protected by the 1867 act and not by Quebec). We will deal with the consequences of ROC shortcomings ourselves as you do in Quebec. [/QUOTE] Way to go, Gaulois! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] Ed, Samuel and everyone: please keep FHQs and Quebec totally separated for the purpose of these discussions. This thread was not about What Québécois think of FHQs or What Canadians think of FHQs and vice-versa. The First Nations case is under scrutiny here. Canadians are certainly allowed to think about First Nations people in Quebec without simply being brushed off with the "Quebec has no lesson to take".[/QUOTE] Gaulois you suffer of something, but I don't know what it is. You are trully an enigma to me. You are constantly bringing up this FHQ issue at odd times that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Just now, you yourself have introduced the Native issue within a thread dealing with sovereignty. Here you are now, telling Ed, Delenda and myself that these subject matters have no place in this thread ???

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] ... if you push this issue further, will you accuse us of being racists because we don't participate? ... First Nations are free to express themselves and speak for themselves. [/QUOTE] [rant] I do not do demagogy well myself but I will certainly keep going at my references of blind spot, self-rightness, promotion of a political agenda -vs- frank and open discussions (we are all seeking), and Quebec the spoiled selfish brat (aka huffing and puffing) when told some hard truths. You certainly do not mind telling those to the ROC. [/rant] I will suggest that culturally subsidized First Nations in Quebec may not have the balls to speak for themselves. Déjà-vu? If you want to familiarize yourself with First Nations issues (from a non subsidized standpoint), go check it out on ghostchild.com Internet forum. Participating on the Vive forum might help too.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] Gaulois you suffer of something, but I don't know what it is. You are trully an enigma to me. You are constantly bringing up this FHQ issue at odd times that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Just now, you yourself have introduced the Native issue within a thread dealing with sovereignty. Here you are now, telling Ed, Delenda and myself that these subject matters have no place in this thread ???[/QUOTE] Yes we all suffer from something... My key blind spot is that I think I cannot be boxed in by any ideologies whatsoever. I was not the one that brought back this FHQ issue. I think I have explained the relevance of the First Nations issue in regards to the title of this thread. I have also mentionned many times how blind spots affect people reasoning and how they get used to promote political agendas.

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] [QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] ... if you push this issue further, will you accuse us of being racists because we don't participate? ... First Nations are free to express themselves and speak for themselves. [/QUOTE] [rant] I do not do demagogy well myself but I will certainly keep going at my references of blind spot, self-rightness, promotion of a political agenda -vs- frank and open discussions (we are all seeking), and Quebec the spoiled selfish brat (aka huffing and puffing) when told some hard truths. You certainly do not mind telling those to the ROC. [/rant] I will suggest that culturally subsidized First Nations in Quebec may not have the balls to speak for themselves. Déjà-vu? If you want to familiarize yourself with First Nations issues (from a non subsidized standpoint), go check it out on ghostchild.com Internet forum. Participating on the Vive forum might help to. [/QUOTE] Gaulois, what about culturally subsidized First Nations in Canada? Do they have the balls to speak for themselves?