What Canadians think of Quebec

Samuel, just a story. Many years ago, before Saturday night live, The National Lampoon Travelling Show came to the El Mocambo in Toronto. My buddy and I went to ther show. The show consisted of the whole later to be Saturday Night gang (Belushi, Radner, etc.). Jim Belushi spent most of the show insulting the audience and Canadians in general. After some time passed, I started heckling Belushi, or in my underhanded way, passed lines to my buddy to heckle Belushi. I've mellowed through the years however, I can say, without pride, that I was then exceedingly good in the area of sarcastic and belittling comments. After this went on for awhile, Belushi got pissed off and asked the management to throw us out. We were told to quiet down or go. So, we quieted down, satisfied we'd made our point. Belushi also toned things down. Now, at any time did Belushi's comments affect my image of myself or myself as a Canadian. Well, no. I knew who I was, and am, and who Canadians were, so why would I care about the ravings of a drunken (or stoned) clown. As I mentioned earlier, and you've probably noted yourself, males in recent times are often portrayed as inept bumblers and objects of hilarity. Do these portrayals cause either of us to feel badly about ourselves? I think not, at times they're amusing. When I hear non-white comedians make jokes about whites, do I get offended. Not that I can think of. We both know that television comedians and night show hosts insult everyone at one time or another, sometimes in ways that blow up in their face. I didn't watch the offensive Conan O'Brien or Don Cherry segments that got our government friends and everyone else so up in arms however, if I had would it have caused me to think less of my French-Canadian colleagues and friends. Well, no. I've read some of the comments and these are stupid rather than funny. While we're on the topic though, were these the only poor taste types of comments directed at Canadians by Conan that week? I don't know, just asking. Many times mention has been made as to the benefits of sovereignty for Quebec, which as michou points out above, should be the end of the story. If there truly is a benefit for most Quebecois to be sovereign, why should any sovereignist care what anyone supposedly thinks of Quebec or Francophones? However, time after time we come back to some stupid remark or letter by non-Quebecois as somehow being representative of Canadian thought in general and each as a justification of Quebec sovereignist thought. Why are these stupid types of remarks given such importance, given that the Quebec sovereignist is provenly justifiable on other terms? I haven't wanted to discuss any Quebec sovereignty issues because I see no productive purpose in doing so, as neither you nor I are likely to change our views no matter how long we discuss the matter and neither of us owes the other an explanation for those views. I will say that if the day ever comes when I hear most non-Quebecois talking about what a neat thing it would be to join the U.S., I'll change my thoughts re: Quebec sovereignty. I've appreciated your remarks because they have lead me down differing paths of thought. But, to be honest the way you have at times in the past chosen to phrase things comes across as attempting to elicit an emotional or poorly thought through comment which you then use to support your apparent belief that most non-Quebecois harbor ill-feelings or ill-will towards Quebecois, or just can't understand what you never seem to have the time or desire to explain (not that you owe anyone the same.). If you truly believe all non-Quebecois are so 'hateful', spiteful or out and out incapable of understanding the Quebec sovereignist view, why this apparent need to keep proving it to yourself again and again? Why bother creating self-fulfilling prophecies? I may be off base or you may not see things this way however, if you reread some of your posts from a couple of months back with an objective eye, you may see what I mean. I grew up in a small business retail environment and started working in it in my early teens. I noticed that if you served 300 customers a day and 299 of them were really pleasant and 1 a total jerk, I tended to focus on the total jerk as summing up my day. I've discussed this with many other retail workers since then and found I wasn't alone in this rather unproductive view. Although I've never been entirely successful, I did learn to focus on the good, and not let the jerk define my view of the world. A lot of people don't seem to learn this.

Calumny, I can certainly appreciate comedy when in an appropriate perspective. Had O'Brien visited Québec and later ridiculed us on his American show, I'd of been the first to belly over it. But this wasn't the case, it was racial profiling clearly orchestrated in Canada with federal subsidies no less. That said, no amount of ridicule will diminish my self esteem. I will not however stand idly by while corruption, propaganda and lies are proliferated. If you really did go back and read my comments on this site, you'll notice these were in response to such behaviour. In fact, let me refresh your memory. I distinctly remember righteous members of this site using such words as "terrorist", "fraud", "hypocrite", "stupid" and "lunatic" so please, examine those who share your views and values before analyzing my behaviour. My comments were emotional responses indeed and without profanity, you've just got it the other way around.

In "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert,he states that the neocons have Canada in their sites. The way they plan to take us is by prodding Quebec to separate and then when the First Nations rebel they will send in US troops to help our government quell the violence. Our government has obligingly passed legislation to allow them to put US troops on our soil without asking permission. Seems like we have some cancer cells in our body politic. Once the troops are here they will of course stay to protect us from freedoms side effects. When we plan to attack someone the first step is to dehumanize them, call them names, impute vile intentions to them. Then we can decimate them with a clear conscience.

Samuel. I didn't indicate you directed any directly insulting comments or profanity towards others. I'm aware others responded to you at times in ways I didn't see as polite or productive. It's my understanding the feds chipped in a mil in respect of O'Brien's week in Toronto. During that week the show included some offensive remarks concerning French-Canadians (as previously mentioned this is all second-hand for me, I didn't watch amy of the shows.). I recall there was some talk at the time concerning the feds asking for their mil back. Putting aside my previous question re: were these the only example of poor taste jokes directed towards Canadians, i.e., no jokes about westerners, newfies, etc., I have a hard time seeing some federal plot directed at French-Canadians. Somehow I just don't see the then PM or any other French-Canadian in the government or public service being okay with such a scheme. As I've previously indicated, I think discussing the pros and cons of Quebec sovereignty is rather futile between those who have definite views on either side of the matter. However, if the issue is discussed, I'd prefer it be on the basis of some hard fact study being brought to my attention to support one side of the issue or the other, e.g., report concludes Quebec economy would expand upon achievement of sovereignty, rather than on the basis of whatever the latest example of an idiotic comment by some twirp being jumped on as yet further validation that Quebec sovereignty is the way to go. You said: [QUOTE]Stymiest thanks for highlighting the persistant nature of the ROC[/QUOTE] I'm part of the 'ROC' myself and don't ascribe to the views you were referencing as 'highlighting the persistant nature of the ROC'. Why is it that any insulting and/or emotional views expressed by an individual is taken as being representative of the ROC, rather than my views? While enjoying your past posts, I did find on occasions as deliberate attempts to evoke a negative response from some readers, exemplified to some extent by the comment from your first post as to: [QUOTE] I will attempt to weigh into your one-sided views here for a moment with a French perspective, you can all breath easy though, I'll do it in English[/QUOTE] If you can look at this and tell me it doesn't come across as patronizing and insulting, and would be seen as such on any site, e.g., change 'French' to 'English' and vice versa and post on site concerning Quebec sovereignty, I'll apologise for my misinterprtation. As might be anticipated, you received some rather 'negative' responses and used as examples of the 'hatred', etc. typical to the ROC in respect of Quebec. I don't easily tolerate foolishness, or 'corruption, propaganda and lies', and wouldn't expect you or anyone to either. However, I don't use examples of these to paint a bigger picture than may truly be the case or seek to apply the ignorance of one or a few individuals to a society as a whole. As you're aware, I have posted items which indicate insults, name-calling, etc. are unproductive in discussions, regardless of the source. I have also never taken any comment from a supporter of Quebec sovereignty that struck me as insulting, patronizing or rude and attempted to apply it in any context further than the individual, i.e., as being representative of Quebec society as a whole. Milton, history has demonstrated the validity of your final paragraph. It's particularly easy to attack those who have been demonized, e.g., WW1 posters of the rapacious hun, etc. It's harder to kill those you see as people, e.g., those you actually take the time to know or actually listen to. Unfortunately, it also aptly describes much of what one sees on TV, particularly in reality shows.

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] Pourquoi repondre a de la violence avec de la violence? Non ce n'est pas necessaire. Mais tout le monde a droit a sa propre opinion.[/QUOTE] Preemptive peace seems a lot less popular somehow. In commenting on the interest of Don Cherry and other clowns in the ROC, I will remind you that at all times people have enjoyed bread&games, Gladiators chewing up Christians, the World Wrestling Circuit and "Professional Hockey" in our more modern times. I can think of CHOI on the air garbage more recently. I am not sure how much more "refined" things are on the internet. So before you say the "majority" of Canadians (or Quebecois) think in a certain way, just think it through. You may find that the majority on all sides is all for bread&games. Mr./Ms. (?) Delenda Carthago: why don't you answer the posting "When did I start to care" as a way to warm me up to your great cause? And also to keep things positive, answer this connendrum: how can Canadian sovereignty be enhanced with Quebec sovereingty (and vice-versa)? That would be a very positive contribution to this group.

M. Gaulois, je trouve ce site un peu compliqué pour l'utilisateur. J'ai essayé de retrouver ce fil "how I started to care...? Pourrais-tu me diriger, s.v.p.

Here is some reading for you Calumny: <a href="http://www.rocler.qc.ca/turp/eng/Intellectuals/Intel.htm">Intellectuals for the Sovereignty of Quebec</a>

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] Here is some reading for you Calumny: <a href="http://www.rocler.qc.ca/turp/eng/Intellectuals/Intel.htm">Intellectuals for the Sovereignty of Quebec</a>[/QUOTE] On sait bien. C'est toujours pour Calumny... Merci Samuel pour le lien. Je n'avais pas celui de la version anglaise et il est déjà enregistré dans mes favoris. Heureuse de te revoir sur le site.

Calumny, You said : "As I mentioned earlier, and you've probably noted yourself, males in recent times are often portrayed as inept bumblers and objects of hilarity. Do these portrayals cause either of us to feel badly about ourselves?" This reminds me of jokes on females, blondes, civil servants, etc. They are all laughable and to a certain extent, innocent, and Quebeckers will be the first to agree with it. We too have our 'male' jokes. However, when it comes to denigrating Quebeckers, a whole society is being put down and ridiculed. Our language, our culture, our habits, our institutions, our laws, our ancestors, our music, our trades, our way of thinking, in fact, we are being attacked on the most precious thing we have : our identity. I know the ROC more than you know Quebec. So try to step into our shoes for a few minutes and you'll realize your comparison is just not sustainable.

Thank-you, Samuel. To ensure there exists no misunderstanding, it should be noted that I have never indicated that those seeking sovereignty for Quebec are seeking an illegitimate goal. I am not in any position to judge the legitimacy of the goals of Quebec sovereignists, and would not presume to do so, because I've never walked in Quebecois shoes. As I've expressed before, my view relates solely to my own belief that belief that Canada is a better country with Quebec in some sort of relationship, than without. Much that I see as good in Canada has come from or been supported by Quebecois. Given circumstances in today's world, I tend to think all Canadian provinces have a greater chance of survival together, again in some sort of association, than apart. However, I've been wrong before and could be now. Time will tell. And, in all honesty, were Ontario the sole English speaking enclave in a North America dominated by another language, might not I also share a similar perspective to those seeking sovereignty for Quebec? In fact, should Canada continue the road some would see it follow in becoming a U.S. north, I think Quebec would be better to seek its own path. No matter what the future brings, I value the people of Quebec and will continue to do so. The unfortunate part is that humans do often have problems with 'break-ups'. And at the end of the day, the real problem often comes down to an issue of control, e.g., most prefer to be the one initiating the break-up rather than being on the other end. Again, thanks for the link.

Calumny : "If there truly is a benefit for most Quebecois to be sovereign, why should any sovereignist care what anyone supposedly thinks of Quebec or Francophones?" I am sorry, but I still pay my taxes to Ottawa. Cherry's $700,000 annual salary is funded through our taxes. After Quebec is gone, you can ridicule us all you want with every Cherrys and O'Briens. Just as you said, you know who you are when Americans pick on you. Same here. If you continue picking on us after Quebec is gone, that won't matter.

[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] M. Gaulois, je trouve ce site un peu compliqué pour l'utilisateur. J'ai essayé de retrouver ce fil "how I started to care...? Pourrais-tu me diriger, s.v.p. [/QUOTE] http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=14&showtopic=865&fromblock=yes Rf. also home page "Latest 10 Forum Posts" with titles Quand tu dis que tu connais bien le ROC, est-ce une perspective d'Ottawa et de son Droit? Ottawa est le COC i.e. le centre du Canada? et le nombril du monde ;-)

. Quelle est ta connaissance de l'Ouest canadien?

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] Why are these stupid types of remarks given such importance, given that the Quebec sovereignist is provenly justifiable on other terms? [/QUOTE] Though I agree with Delenda's response, I maintain we should not give more importance to these hate filled letters than they truly deserve. We (Québécers) shouldn't ignore them either. In a sense, they only help us strenghten our position. I can understand and I am willing to listen as to why many Canadians are against Québec leaving the federation but my understanding and willingness to listen cease when opinions and comments such as Mr. Anders surface, mostly because they are basically irrational rants. Even Mr Anders contradicts himself when he starts on with racist slurs and continues with Canadians being tolerant and generous. (Yep. Slave owners also thought of themselves as good and tolerant people.) Sovereign or not, taxes or no taxes, we are all humans. Racism is racism in any color, shape or form and it is never a pleasant experience for those at the receiving end.

Delenda, actually, I imagine Cherry's salary is paid mostly by Molson, Ford and whoever else sponsors HNIC (of course, later partially subsidized by we taxpayers through the corporate sponsors write off of their advertising costs.). My question was poorly phrased. I can't at this time think of a way to properly get across what I actually mean. I apologise. If you prefer to believe that most of the ROC is contemptuous of or holds hate for Francophones or supports the type of crap in the letter you posted, neither I or anyone else will convince you otherwise.

michou, I understand what you're saying and agree. Perhaps I'm not as sensitized as I should be due to the number of years I spent working with a public from which one often received rude, offensive and ignorant remarks. Or, maybe it was the years I spent working with emotionally disturbed youth, where one received bite marks, as well as offensive remarks. Many people say many unpleasant things for many reasons. I'm not saying these can or should be ignored, shrugged off or tolerated. Just that the decent people still outnumber the jerks in every race, and I'd prefer to dwell on that thought than on the jerks. Fortunately, we still have Baffin island, which one day could serve admirably as a 'jerk' sanctuary ("last remnants of a group on its way to extinction"...that sort of thing.).