Le NPD Au Quebec
Sun, 2008-09-14 09:30
#1
Le NPD Au Quebec
Sun, 2008-09-14 09:30
#2
[url=http://election.rabble.ca/post/49896269/why-the-npd-is-disconnected-in-q... thought I'd respond to Beaudet's article:[/url]
quote:
These days, Jacks runs around Quebec with a big smile on his face. He goes all over the place with the ex Charest Minister, Thomas Mulcair, who was also the director of the anti-nationalist lobby of the Anglophone minority, Alliance-Quйbec, and who was elected in a by election in Outremont last year. He thinks he can zip in Mulcair again and maybe another MP with disaffected Liberal voters like in Westmount where the NPD candidate is a popular radio show host called Dawson-Lagacй. And on the overall he hopes to augment his share of the vote nibbling on the edge of the Bloc Quйbecois’ vote, because too many people are angry with the Nationalists. I like Jack personally, but I think this is lousy politics.
I've expressed concerns about the NPD running an ex-Liberal cabinet minister from a right-wing provincial administration. Having said that, Mulcair's done really well on the important issues from what I can see. What's happening is that there is an NDP beachhead forming in the Montreal area. Once that is established, then it will be possible in the future to expand further into Quebec. Several Quebec ridings, are demographically similar to NDP ridings throughout Canada, with the only major difference being the dominant language spoken. It's also noteworthy that the Quebec wing of the Liberal party was an important ally on the missile defence question.
quote:
The popular bases of the NPD in Ontario and the West are not spontaneously sympathetic to Quebec social forces. They are mostly ignorant, believing the rightwing propaganda, (many activists read the National Post and watch CTV!) that Quebec is a nest of quasi Nazis, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant, anti-aboriginal. They also believe that Canada needs a «strong central» (read federal) state and that any idea of «national» or «provincial» autonomy is bad for the working people. There are many exceptions of course, but that is the major trend.
I am so sick of this "Quebec good, beaten down by bad English Canada" mythology that the nationalists like to promote. Does Quebec have legitimate grievances regarding how Confederation has (not) worked? Absolutely. So does every other province, several of which have also threatened separation. It's simply a hard sell in the Rest of Canada (another phony nationalist term) that the province of Quebec should be extended what they see as "special privileges," and feeds into the right-wing narrative that Quebeckers are "whiners." This is what causes people to think, "if they want to go, let them go."
In terms of the Aboriginal issue, not like the rest of the country has much to be proud of, but Quebec has also mistreated them. Classic example was ramming the James Bay project down the throat of the First Nations. It's also a point of contention among hard-core nationalists that the second language for many Aboriginal communities, after their native languages, is English, not French. Recall that during the 1995 referendum Aboriginal leaders called for a boycott. It is entirely possible that the sovereigntists have since reached out to First Nations in that time, I don't know. But let's not whitewash this part of Quebec's history.
quote:
At the basis, there is a denial that Canada was and still is a colonial construct
while Quebec isn't?
quote:
Today, the NPD is way out of this debate, thinking, like the Canadian bourgeoisie, that the nationalists are on the run and that the «threat» of separation is out of the picture. It’s a big mistake on two counts. First, it is not going to disappear. Second and more importantly, what is the project of a left party if not to challenge, and eventually to replace the structures of domination?
Is Beaudet not aware of la declaration de Sherbrooke? It addresses this exact same question, and passed easily at the last NDP convention. Has he forgotten that former leadership contender and nationalist Pierre Ducasse is running for the NPD across the river from Parliament? As for separation declining in importance? If that's not true, how does he explain the PQ losing seats in 2 consecutive elections while campaigning on that? How does he explain why Marois herself said the issue isn't importance? I always tell people here who say they are tired of hearing about Quebec separation to imagine what it must be like to be bitterly divided among their friends and families over the topic every time it comes up. Quebeckers on both sides of the federalist/soveriegntist spectrum are tired of that.
These issues are also taking a back seat to such things as the economy, the environment, and the war in Afghanistan. What Layton is trying to do is to build common ground among people inside and outside of Quebec on these issues. That's how you win is to find common ground among your differences. Constantly discussing our differences is what keeps us divided.
I think the only thing disconnected here is Beaudete's thinking.
Sun, 2008-09-14 10:03
#3
Claiming to seek common ground but on your own terrain and while you are busy chipping away at your vis-а-vis' political base is just propaganda. If the NDP were serious about the oft-quoted "dйclaration de Sherbrooke", it would not run candidates against Bloquistes in Franco ridings. It would help y'all to understand that the Quebec independance project is not necessarily nationalist and right-wing. Look at a party such as Quebec Solidaire and you will find most of Quebec's progressives, united around independantist, socialist and feminist principles. But I imagine you are terrified at finding yourselves forced to deal with the Alberta dinosaurs without our help.
Sun, 2008-09-14 10:24
#4
Nothing to add to what martin said, except, I agree.
Sun, 2008-09-14 10:55
#5
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Claiming to seek common ground but on your own terrain and while you are busy chipping away at your vis-а-vis' political base is just propaganda.[/b]
How am I seeking common ground on my own terrain when much of what I read from Quebec leftists boils down to, "we're a nation and if you don't agree with that narrative it's because you're part of the oppressive Canadian bourgeois?" Has Beaudete or anyone else who thinks like him been to other parts of Canada? If so, why do they insist on this phony Quebec/ROC dichotomy?
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:[b]If the NDP were serious about the oft-quoted "dйclaration de Sherbrooke", it would not run candidates against Bloquistes in Franco ridings. [/b]
Why not? The Bloc exists primarily to defend Quebec's interests in Parliament, the NDP is a social-democratic party. 2 completely different things. The NDP is under no obligation to stand down and support the interests of another party.
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Look at a party such as Quebec Solidaire and you will find most of Quebec's progressives, united around independantist, socialist and feminist principles. But I imagine you are terrified at finding yourselves forced to deal with the Alberta dinosaurs without our help.[/b]
And yet QS, while unflinchingly independantist, is primarily concerned with such things as poverty, the environment, and corporate globalisation. That's why for it's first time out last year, it did relatively well in provincial elections, because they were interested in the practical day-to-day concerns of Quebeckers.
By the way, Western Canadians aren't all "dinosaurs." There are many of them, inside and outside of Alberta, who are working on a number of issues and there are several success stories. The key thing is to focus on areas where you can make a difference, that improves the lives of people on the ground, whether they live in Quebec, Alberta, Inuvik, or anywhere else in between. There's really no appetite anywhere in Canada for endless discussions around these issues which only result in frustration. Remember how badly the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords ended?
By the way, one strategy that the ruling class likes to use is to keep the focus on people's differences so they're fighting with each other instead of working together.
Sun, 2008-09-14 11:03
#6
And another one is to invite us all under the "big tent" it defines instead of taking into account the forms of oppression that really divide us.
Sun, 2008-09-14 11:22
#7
How is Quebec oppressed in the 2008 context? Quebec has its own provincial police, its own public pension system, has a great degree of control over immigration (moreso than other provinces) and has very strong language laws. Where is the oppression coming in? How does that constitute oppression when you look at places like the former Yugoslavia, Darfur, and Rwanda where massive genocides either have gone on or are continuing?
Sun, 2008-09-14 11:32
#8
Ha ha ha... Rabble is the last place where I expected the "What does Quebec want?" rigmarole to surface... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2008-09-14 11:52
#9
We will just go and explain to Quebeckers that their feelings are not real. That should do the trick.
Sun, 2008-09-14 11:56
#10
Okay, well why do they feel that way then?
Sun, 2008-09-14 13:17
#11
bagkitty
Is it a pur laine kinda thing?
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2008-09-14 13:24
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[b]Okay, well why do they feel that way then?[/b]
You know, I have a lot of patience for this kind of discussion with friends, co-workers, one-on-one, etc. It's important to try to explain to people why Quebeckers feel the way they do.
But I don't have that patience right now. It's an old story, and progressives ought to either know it, or else know where to look it up. If you don't like Beaudet's article (and there's much more to be said than he did, because his theme is specifically why the NDP has historically failed in Quйbec), then read some more stuff.
I personally am not a "sovereignist".
But I fully, wholeheartedly, support the right of the people of Quйbec to self-determination, including the right to form our own independent state - without interference from outside, and indeed without having first to "explain" to others why we want it. I fully, unreservedly, support our right to demand and win powers within a federal state that will enable us to safeguard and develop our national culture, language, values, and institutions.
That goes for Aboriginal nations as well, by the way - and I have no sympathy whatsoever for Quebeckers or Canadians who consider that Aboriginal rights must be subordinated to some greater "nation".
Having said all that, the real theme of this thread is the NDP and Quйbec. Your questions, A., about why Quebeckers feel as they do - posed in 2008 - merely confirm why well-meaning NDPers have had such problems here historically.
Sun, 2008-09-14 13:25
#13
quote:
Originally posted by bagkitty:
[b]Is it a pur laine kinda thing?[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Watch your mouth - s'il vous plaоt.
Sun, 2008-09-14 13:51
#14
bagkitty
I'm confused. Nativism is bad when... but nativism is good when...
Nah, been there, argued that.
Sun, 2008-09-14 14:13
#15
Catchfire
quote:
Originally posted by bagkitty:
[b]I'm confused. Nativism is bad when... but nativism is good when...[/b]
You know, you really shouldn't use terms (like 'nativism') that you don't understand. Especially in contexts you don't understand.
Sun, 2008-09-14 14:31
#16
bagkitty
Hmmm, after a decade of living in Quebec I found that neither the Xenophobic nor the Assimilationist tags really fit the bill, I've settled on calling it Nativist. I fully recognize the progressive tendencies within the nationalist movement and had the good fortune of living in constituencies where I could vote PQ in good conscience, but I am also painfully aware that there is a virulent negative tendency as well. Consider me a "soft-federalist" who endorsed the first referendum as a bargaining position and just an observer of the second referendum.
Mon, 2008-09-15 00:29
#17
I agree with you Aristotleded24, attacking the NDP for running candidates against the BQ is ridiculous.
The NDP was running candidates before the BQ existed.
In a nutshell the counter-argument is simply the NDP is always wrong about everything. C'est la vie.
Mon, 2008-09-15 02:59
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Frank_:
[b]
The NDP was running candidates before the BQ existed.[/b]
That's right. The CCF/NDP went nowhere in Quйbec for decades.
quote:
[b]In a nutshell the counter-argument is simply the NDP is always wrong about everything.[/b]
If that's your conclusion, then it confirms the problem: [i]Not listening.[/i]
Mon, 2008-09-15 05:53
#19
Pierre Beaudet knows English-speaking Canada well, and speaks fluent English. He has mostly been involved in international solidarity and development issues.
The other stuff is simply not worth debating. I have no interest in debating anything with someone who does not recognise Quйbec as a nation (like Scotland or Catalonia) or who talks about "myths" (shades of Mordechai Richler and William Johnston).
As for "nativism", that is not a political term relevant to any faction within Quйbec. It is originally a 19th-century US political term. It is not an adequate description of the inward-turned, protective, "frileux" self-protection of old French Canada as a minority - and conquered - nation in North America, and far less to modern Quйbйcois politics with people such as Amir Khadir of QS or Vivian Barbot of the Bloc (the latter up against Justin Trudeau).
I suppose the reactionary, xenophobic movements around the ADQ and the Hйrouxville bigots share some characteristics of nativism, but the latter was an aggressive, assimilationist (within racist and culturalist limits) movement within a US enamoured of power and manifest destiny. It is silly to simply "plaquer" such a term on a retrograde movement within a minority nation.
In general I think Pierre's column is accurate; perhaps he is rather too critical of Mulcair in light of the latter's evolution (the reason he left the Liberal caucus) and his performance as an MP.
By the way, I attended the Alternatives-sponsored conference that saw the discussions among Layton, Judy Rebick and other progressive forces. More such discussions are essential if one is to really promote understanding between progressives in Quйbec and English-speaking Canada. The "Canada-Quйbec-First Nations Social Forum" has been on the drawing board for a long time; hopefully it will become reality.
Mon, 2008-09-15 07:06
#20
quote:
That's right. The CCF/NDP went nowhere in Quйbec for decades.
What a revelation. I'm going to call NDP HQ and let them know.
quote:
I have no interest in debating anything with someone who does not recognise Quйbec as a nation
Exactly, why bother when you can talk only to those who already agree with you?
That's the whole problem with the internet isn't it, you might hear contrarian views.
Perhaps I will go to Bloc forums and post on how they shouldn't run candidates against the NDP because they don't bring anything new to the table. Then put on a front of being shocked that anyone would say they didn't care what I thought.
Having lived in Alberta I know all about people who don't like hearing "outlandish" views and who say they can't stand to even listen to an NDPer.
Aristotleded24 wrote a decent post which wasn't mean-spirited and was certainly put nicer than the post that inspired him to write (Beaudet's).
Good for you Aristotleded24.
Mon, 2008-09-15 08:04
#21
This article looks like it was written 30 years ago. The NDP has always supported "self-determination" for Quebec and all you have to do is read the Sherbrooke Declaration to see a reiteration of that.
The idea that the NDP should not run candidates in BQ held seats is absurd. The BQ is not a leftwing party - they are just pro-sovereignty and many of their MPs are very rightwing ADQ types. Why should the NDP roll over and play dead for a party that supports expanding trade agreements, supports the war in Afghanbistan and opposes raising the federal minimum wage and which propped up Harper for the first year he was in power and voted for two Tory budgets?
When Jacques Brassard "accused" the BQ of being a twin of the NDP - Duceppe retorted that the BQ was totally different from the NDP because the NDP (horror of horrors) supports diversity and multi-culturalism and doesn't want more free trade agreements and wants to pull out of Afghanistan.
The only prerequisite for being in the BQ is wanting Quebec to be independent. You can be as rightwing as you want in the BQ - as long as you would vote Yes in referendum on independence.
Mon, 2008-09-15 17:33
#22
quote:
Why not? The Bloc exists primarily to defend Quebec's interests in Parliament...
Which it frequently does badly or not at all, viz. pesticides, Afghanistan, voting against the 2005 budget, etc. The NDP has defended the interests of Quebecers better than the Bloc on these and other issues.
The idea that the Bloc is somehow entitled to the votes of Quebec progressives is not even worth discussing. Although several of its MPs are progressives, it is not a progressive party and cannot be expected to act like one.
The more that progressive Quebec nationalists learn about the NDP, the more they are coming towards us.
[ 15 September 2008: Message edited by: montrealais ]
Mon, 2008-09-15 17:54
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]The NDP has always supported "self-determination" for Quebec and all you have to do is read the Sherbrooke Declaration to see a reiteration of that.[/b]
The first time the NDP ever supported self-determination for Quйbec was indeed in the Sherbrooke Declaration of 2006, and I for one praised the convention highly for adopting it.
Like the position on Afghanistan, however, it needs to be practised, perfected, and defended from those false friends of the NDP who agitate non-stop for anti-Quйbec positions. Like the "old guard" that convinced Layton to abandon his opposition to the Clarity Act. Like some people on this very board.
And... what lagatta said. Understanding between progressives in Quйbec and outside is still really fragile.
Tue, 2008-09-16 06:23
#24
Catchfire
Wonderful post, lagatta.
Tue, 2008-09-16 08:57
#25
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]By the way, I attended the Alternatives-sponsored conference that saw the discussions among Layton, Judy Rebick and other progressive forces. More such discussions are essential if one is to really promote understanding between progressives in Quйbec and English-speaking Canada. The "Canada-Quйbec-First Nations Social Forum" has been on the drawing board for a long time; hopefully it will become reality.[/b]
What don't you understand about the fact that BC is not the same as PEI or Alberta. The political culture especially is not some Quebec on one hand and monolithic Canada on the other hand. I have a suggestion for respect. I will try not to define the Quebec nation because that is up to the people in Quebec. Please could you show the same respect and stop trying to define my political culture in BC in a context that includes very differing types of cultures in other parts of Canada. Canada is a diverse nation not a bipolar one.
Tue, 2008-09-16 09:34
#26
That is the official name of the social forum, as agreed upon by representatives from Quйbec, whatever you want to call your nation (I don't see why "Canada" is offensive - it isn't "Rest of Canada", English Canada", or whathaveyou) and at least some of the many Aboriginal nations. I did not make it up, so stop picking on me about that. I did not invent those terms and it is not up to me to invent new terms when terms have been agreed upon by the social movements involved.
I certainly don't think BC is the same as Ontario or the Atlantic. But I do think you are insinuating that Quйbec is "une province comme les autres".... Long knives?
My only misgiving about my post was that some newer posters might think I was a Bloc supporter, which I most certainly am not and have never been, precisely because it is a "rotten Bloc" between nationalist Tories (Bouchard et al) and trade-unionists and other people from progressive social mouvements (Duceppe, Francine Lalonde, Oswaldo Nuсez etc) who would have been NDP candidates in ... (can I say the rest of Canada here? In BC, in Ontario, in Nova Scotia, in Saskatchewan?)
Tue, 2008-09-16 10:48
#27
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]The first time the NDP ever supported self-determination for Quйbec was indeed in the Sherbrooke Declaration of 2006, and I for one praised the convention highly for adopting it.[/b]
Not exactly.
[url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/Infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=118&art=681]At its 1967 convention even the Federal Council, faced with the success of the NPD-Quйbec, accepted the idea of special status for Quebec.[/url]
quote:
In 1977, resolutions from a number of local and provincial NDP groups in different parts of Canada recommended that Quebec's right to self-determination be recognized, but the resolution was defeated at the convention. Instead, another resolution was passed affirming that the people of Quebec had a right to make their choice without constraint. Ed Broadbent asserted that this did not mean that Quebec could be sole judge of the terms of its independence. The Quebec wing interpreted the vote as a recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination.
So did most or many delegates from the rest of Canada, including me. [url=http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2004/cooke.pdf]It recognized Quebec’s right to “make their choice without coercion” while declaring that “we strongly support a federal Canada and are confident that the majority of Quebecers will decide to remain within Canada.”[/url] Sounds like a recognition that Quebecers had the right to decide, which no serious person ever doubted.
quote:
The referendum of 1980, the Constitution Act, 1982, the economic crisis at the beginning of the decade, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's retirement, labour's dissatisfaction with the second Lйvesque administration, and Quebecker's apparent indifference to the constitutional debates gave new hope to the NDP's leaders. They appeared willing to soften the Party's constitutional stance, as they had at the time of the Party's founding in 1961 and again when Robert Cliche gave it momentum in 1968. Once again they believed that circumstances favoured the NDP. A political vacuum appeared to be developing in Quebec, both federally and provincially, and the NDP leadership talked more and more about the right to self-determination, and opting-out with financial compensation.
Tue, 2008-09-16 11:02
#28
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]That is the official name of the social forum, as agreed upon by representatives from Quйbec, whatever you want to call your nation (I don't see why "Canada" is offensive - it isn't "Rest of Canada", English Canada", or whathaveyou) and at least some of the many Aboriginal nations. I did not make it up, so stop picking on me about that. I did not invent those terms and it is not up to me to invent new terms when terms have been agreed upon by the social movements involved.I certainly don't think BC is the same as Ontario or the Atlantic. But I do think you are insinuating that Quйbec is "une province comme les autres".... Long knives?
My only misgiving about my post was that some newer posters might think I was a Bloc supporter, which I most certainly am not and have never been, precisely because it is a "rotten Bloc" between nationalist Tories (Bouchard et al) and trade-unionists and other people from progressive social mouvements (Duceppe, Francine Lalonde, Oswaldo Nuсez etc) who would have been NDP candidates in ... (can I say the rest of Canada here? In BC, in Ontario, in Nova Scotia, in Saskatchewan?)[/b]
Tue, 2008-09-16 11:04
#29
And your point was?
Tue, 2008-09-16 11:11
#30
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[QB][/QB]
Yup go ahead continue to define my culture and berate me becaue you think you can read between the lines an insult to your nation. There is no ROC, there is no English Canada. There is Canada and then there are provinces and territories. I would never say Quebec is a province like the others but I will say that none of the the provinces are alike. Those are two seperate concepts and one does not negate the other.
So respectfully try harder with your language. To me your lumping together Vancouver and Moncton makes no more sense than if I was saying that Quebc is a province like all the others. I don't say or believe that but for some reason you think it is all right if you say the converse.
Tue, 2008-09-16 11:28
#31
I DID NOT NAME THE SOCIAL FORUM! Yes, I am shouting. Do you have any idea how long it takes to hammer out such points as a name, a banner, a venue, for such events?
Reposting what I wrote without comment was simply incoherent.
Tue, 2008-09-16 11:48
#32
Krop, frankly, you are not registering with me at all. What's your beef with the name of this forum including the word "Canada" when you yourself write: "There is no ROC, there is no English Canada. There is Canada and then there are provinces and territories."?
It would help if you made that point clearly rather than trying to hang some hidden agenda (so well hidden that I can't fathom what you are alluding to) on a perfectly clear label. Is the notion that Quebec and First Nations as such would discuss issues with Canada as such that horrendous to you? Is it a matter of "Le roi ne discute pas avec ses sujets"?
ETA: Oh, and please go beyond rhetorical leading questions.
[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2008-09-16 11:49
#33
It sure was incoherent I hit the wrong button.
You are so passionate about your identity I don't understand why you think I should be less passionate about mine. So how many FN's from BC are going to be invited. Will Quebec FN's get to speak on behalf of all FN's or will some Ontario FN's be invited as well.
Tue, 2008-09-16 12:01
#34
Actually, I'm not passionate about my "identity" (in a national sense) at all, and it would be fairly complicated to describe (and I'm not interested).
I am very passionate about recognition of the right to self-determination, and overcoming a long history of anti-Quйbйcois bigotry - in order to forge the much vaunted, and rightly so, workers' unity. You can't forge unity without recognising histories of oppression, whether racism, sexism, national oppression or whatever. And certainly not without dialogue.
I have no idea on what Aboriginal peoples (whether FN, Inuit or Mйtis, would be attending the Social Forum; I am not one of the organisers. There would certainly be no restrictions on any Aboriginal person or people from anywhere within the Canadian state or elsewhere in the world attending it - have you ever attended a Social Forum?
Anyone can attend, unless they are a fascist thug, or a troublemaker. The only restriction is limits on participations by leaders of political parties (and specifically prgressive political parties) as the forums are above all for social movements, not parties and their platforms.
Aboriginal Canadians attended the first World Social Forum in Brazil, and certianly others since. There have been a lot of discussions on pan-continental and international Aboriginal issues at Social Forums, and they have led to more specific meetings on those issues.
And I simply don't get your hidden agenda. [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-09-16 15:45
#35
Sorry Lagatta I misunderstood and didn't realize that the name was a description of where the participants were going to be coming from.
Martin the FN's nations have always had a direct relationship with the crown. The Quebec people have the right and I support that right totally to at any time vote in a referendum and declare themselves a separate country and not a part of Canada. In the meantime the term Canada includes the ten provinces and the three territories. No Quebec is not the same as other provinces but it is part of the club.
Tue, 2008-09-16 15:59
#36
Part of "the club" but in Quebec's case not part of the Constitution. And I leave it to FNs to articulate their gratitude about that "direct relationship to the crown". It doesn't seem to buy them much respect.
I don't see how relationships of relative inclusion keep anyone from recognizing differences and envisioning exchanges and discussions between these three political entities as such.
Tue, 2008-09-16 16:14
#37
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Part of "the club" but in Quebec's case not part of the Constitution. And I leave it to FNs to articulate their gratitude about that "direct relationship to the crown". It doesn't seem to buy them much respect.
I don't see how relationships of relative inclusion keep anyone from recognizing differences and envisioning exchanges and discussions between these three political entities as such.[/b]
When I said direct relationship I meant it in the sense that if someone is pointing a gun at my head and saying "I own your home now" I have a direct relationship with them.
When I hear easterners refer to Canada and Quebec in reference to things taking place in central Canada I always think they really mean Ontario and Quebec you know the old Upper and Lower. IMO its sort of a centre of the country syndrome similar to TO's centre of the universe syndrome.
Tue, 2008-09-16 16:39
#38
bagkitty
[b]Kropotkin1951[/b], please forgive me if I am misinterpreting your statements, but I would suggest that with a closer reading of the original article that is sparking this discussion the matter will become clearer.
Pierre Beaudet asserts, in his article:
[i]At the basis, there is a denial that Canada was and still is a colonial construct, based on the subjugation of the Quebecois and the Aboriginals.[/i]
If one accepts this assertion as being entirely true everything that you have expressed concern about is simply wrong-headed.
If, on the other hand, it is only a partial truth, your concerns are potentially valid.
If one were, for example, to suggest that Central Canada (that famous Windsor-Quebec City corridor) was a colonial construct based upon the exploitation of the outlying regions you might end up with a different narrative. In that narrative you might find right-wing resistance to that colonial construct (think Social Credit) or left wing resistance (think CCF). You might find elements in the outlying regions strongly identifying with the project (and trans-generational voting behaviour in some of the more easterly areas outside of the corridor) or even a turning inward and almost isolationist attitude from some of those inside the corridor (the latter potentially compounded by ethnic and linguistic division within the Central Canadian family itself). Such a situation would not, of course, be constant, revolutions (quiet or otherwise) might occasionally happen, and a populist might have a field day with them.
I think it all depends on which narrative you are following. Personally I find the one presented in the original article somewhat myopic, but am quite willing to accept that the lens I hold up to the question might cause some dizziness and obscure some detail as well. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-09-16 17:03
#39
I not only agree that Quebec is a nation and different from other provinces but also support Quebec's independence. I also do not consider Nova Scotia as "Canada" since the term historically applies to central Canadian regions for which Nova Scotia has long been a periphery to be exploited; in that sense I do consider the term "rest of Canada" to be offensive. I'd equate it to the way Southerners in the US are offended by being lumped in with the Yankees.
Tue, 2008-09-16 19:21
#40
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]When I hear easterners refer to Canada and Quebec, in reference to things taking place in central Canada, I always think they really mean Ontario and Quebec you know the old Upper and Lower.[/b]
There's something to that.
From an Ontario point of view, we know that Quebec can't really get away from us, nor we from them. It's a matter of redefining or renegotiating the relationship. Since 1763 we've made about six stabs at it.
Until 1774 Quebec lived under English law.
Then until 1791 Ontario settlers lived under French law.
Then until the 1820s we were quite separate.
Then the canals had to be built, and the Montreal merchants agitated for the provinces to re-unite, or for Montreal to secede from Quebec and join Ontario. Then the railways had to be built, but meanwhile the Quebecois tried to assert the same democratic control over their government that Ontario had generally enjoyed (since the MPs we elected didn't disagree much with the governing elite), were forcibly put down in 1837, and democracy was suspended in Quebec for close to four years.
So then in 1840-41 the two provinces were forcibly amalgamated, with the initial idea of assimilating the French. That idea died within about three years, but the amalgamation took decades to die.
So then in 1867 we got the current arrangement.
People in the West get impatient with this history. They weren't part of it.
Tue, 2008-09-16 19:25
#41
bagkitty
Wilf Day: yep, no history between your cut-off date and the present. We have nothing but undying admiration for our Central Canadian overlords. We just hope they manage to patch up their troubled relationship, "for the sake of the children". [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-09-16 20:30
#42
peterjcassidy
Bien, a good discussion.
I like Wilfs' history and into that can add the protsdtant Conservatives hanging Riel and the Liberals and Laurier splitting over conscription and why Social Credit beat out the CCF in Alberta and Quebec and Rene Leveque. For personal and political reasons I have a lot of sympathy for
the Quebec as nation having the right to self determination point of view. This is part of a discussion lefties need about how questions of nationality, ethnicity, race, gender etc. interact with questions of class.
Tue, 2008-09-16 22:09
#43
quote:
The popular bases of the NPD in Ontario and the West are not spontaneously sympathetic to Quebec social forces. They are mostly ignorant, believing the rightwing propaganda, (many activists read the National Post and watch CTV!) that Quebec is a nest of quasi Nazis, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant, anti-aboriginal. They also believe that Canada needs a «strong central» (read federal) state and that any idea of «national» or «provincial» autonomy is bad for the working people. There are many exceptions of course, but that is the major trend.
I can respect (and indeed I've spent many a late night) arguing forcefully for Quebec's national rights with English Canadians (particularly Western Canadians), but I think progressive Quebec nationalists can do a lot better than this article. Frankly, I'm disappointed to read such a shallow caricature of the Canadian Left outside of Canada, and I'm not sure Beaudet is showing the Canadian Left the respect which he rightfully demands is shown to the Quebec Left.
Martin - I'm not sure how one goes automatically from respecting and accommodating Quebec nationalism, to dropping off the map in support of the BQ. The Bloc doesn't have a monopoly on 'speaking for Quebec' or for the Quebec left any more than Jack Layton has a monopoly on the Canadian left. And while I have lots of respect for many activists in QS, to say that it includes "most of Quebec's progressives" would be depressing if it were anywhere approaching accurate.
Aristotle - there's nothing phony about the Quebec/ROC dichotomy and this thread just proves it; and of course the NDP doesn't always have the best track record in terms of going beyond platitudes when it comes to recognizing Quebec's national status. Unfortunately I think Beaudet's article re-enforces it with a startingly out-dated and ridiculous view of Canadians outside of Quebec.
Wed, 2008-09-17 10:48
#44
Sounds like Aristotled wants to return the party back to its "roots" - and historically the CCF/NDP was horrible on Quebec.
Wed, 2008-09-17 11:57
#45
I'm not sure where you get that idea. In the 60s, the Quebec lieut. to Tommy Douglas was Robert Cliche - and man greatly revered in Quebec and particularly in his native Beauce. The NDP came out with policies for "special status" for Quebec and asymmetrical federalism back in the early 60s and was way ahead of its time in that regard.