http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:42:40 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-331605 As an American I have the utmost respect for Quebec wanting to maintain the purity of its French heritage and language. Let the Anglophones who don't want to learn French move somewhere else. For those liberals who claim to value diversity, may I point out that if multiculturalism suceeds in homogenizing the world's races and cultures, then there won't be any diversity left to value! Another related inconsistency is posturing as defenders of endangered species and varieties, while at the same time not caring whether varieties within the human species disappear - or in the extreme case actually wanting them to disappear, believing that if there are no longer any different races and cultures, requiring a mutual respect for each other's right to exist, then the world would be more "peaceful". Quebec is a perfect model of how the homogenizing, diversity destroying effects of multiculturalism and multiracialism can be reversed, namely by setting up separate geographical areas designated for particular ethnicities, with sufficient autonomy to be able to enact laws encouraging one particular group to stay in or migrate in and other groups to stay out or migrate out. 331605@blogcritics.org Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:42:40 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-242824 Hi guys, as an 'Anglo' Quebecer, and as a filmmaker, I feel it's only right I stick my nose in here. Firstly about the CRTC: without an independent organization overseeing spectrum licensing for broadcasting & guiding the production of cultural content for Canadian media there would be no way of interceding if any problems arise. It is supposed to intervene to help, and largely does. Occasionally, the CRTC will do something that someone doesn't like: forinstance licensing Al-Jazeera and not FOXnews. Well, without going near the politics of that choice, there are only so many licenses the CRTC should give out. With too many frequencies and broadcasters advertising revenue dives and the $/min available for making tv show similarly goes down. The reason why many Canadian shows suck is because there's hardly any money to make them at the moment. That is why the CRTC requires new applications to include more private broadcaster capital than was available before to offset the market's ad revenue ratio-loss. I hope that's clear in some way. Second up: what is it like living in Quebec as an 'Anglo'? Well, apart from the institutionalized racism (or, culturism if you will) it's great! My wife and I call ourselves 'cultural refugees'. I'm originally from BC, she's from AB. We both have lived in many cities around Canada including both coasts & places in-between like Toronto. We both feel that Montreal is where we feel most at home. It is also a place where there are many other people like us--whether they be French, English, or Swahili for that matter. As has been mentioned before, Quebec's cultural output out-does the rest of the country. Certainly with regard to the cinema, Quebec cinema roundly trumps anything English Canada has been able to do. The French actually MAKE MONEY with their films--something all too rare in the rest of Canada. Why? We all have our theories. My favourite is: because they are left to do what they want without too much interference from the government. They are allowed so much lee-way because they make money. They're doing it right. It 'ain't broke so don't fix it. All correct. In English Canada everything's broken, so all the beaurocrats are in there tinkering & screwing around all the time. To make a film in English Canada is to have one's idea so 'rounded off at the corners' that it's just a big blob of boring. French films leave the corners rough--great for dramatic film. The difficulty arises when we English-language filmmakers try to make films in Quebec. A very tough thing to try to do, as you can imagine. The SODEC (the Quebec provincial arts funding organ) only gives around ten percent of its money to English language projects. Of that, most money goes to the English language projects made by the French. Without a French-speaking producer it is next to impossible to get an English production off the ground here. Well, in the next half-hour I'm off to see a French producer--wish me luck. My big wish is that it would stop being politically correct to completely ignore the English artists we have in Quebec. As I intially stated, I think Quebec's culture is doing gang-busters because the culture here is very permissive. We can talk about what we want in our respective art forms--and that's why we live here as opposed to the more conservative rest-of-Canada. That goes as much for English artists and their projects as the French & their projects. It would be great if the cultural agencies in government would open their eyes to how much creative power is here in Quebec IN ENGLISH ALSO. I believe we have great art to make & great films to make that will besides being worthy artistic ventures, will be worthy financial endeavors too. And finally, it would be really nice if the not-so-new head of Telefilm Canada (Wayne Clarkson) would at some point mention the existence of English filmmakers from Quebec, as he has not once mentioned us in any of his public speeches since getting the reigns of that company some time ago. Hope this helps the dialogue. 242824@blogcritics.org Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:22:24 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133959 Ok Rob H... I see your point. I've heard it many times, and perhaps I was a little heavy on the Cus words, but I used them to show that I feel strongly about the situation. My stand is this. Yes Quebec is a bit aggressive in its' efforts to preserve it's culture. It is unfortunate for the English speaking population who live there and have to put up with it on an everyday basis. However, I do believe that a government should have a right to preserve a culture and resist trends that threaten to obliterate it. This is where our opinions differ (both with regards to Quebec and to Canada-Us relations). You say culture just "occurs", and certainly this is true of most places and times in history. Usually, cultures morph and change along with Diaspora and all demographic shifts etc. However, other times, cultures want to protect their culture when they feel that it might easily become extinct. The present situation is this. With globalization and Capitalism, we're seeing an unprecedented homogenization of culture. We got Tibetan's using cell phones and Malaysians watching WWE wrestling. We are fast approaching a world where culture will be more or less homogenous. Of course their will always be slight differences, but not the extreme differences that were in the past. Quebec is one distinct culture that has done a marvelous job of preserving itself despite real, and constant threats. Admittedly, they have squashed the rights of English speaking people LIVING IN QUEBEC in the process. Let Anglophone Quebecers complain about this , because it is them and them only that understand the problems. Also, the Canadian taxpayer has footed much of the bill. You object to paying this bill I suppose? Fair enough. But the money that we pay towards Quebec is absolutely miniscule when compared to other misuses such as corporate profits that are horded amongst a small elite. Do you complain about these inequalities? No. Instead you, and so many others, complain about the few dimes or perhaps the dollar you pay each year towards Quebec. I don't have time to go into my thoughts on the CRTC thing ... but I will another time on this post perhaps. Essentially, I feel people are way under appreciative of all that we will lose if we don't protect Canadian culture. Of course we'll will be, and have always been, very similar to our American Neighbors but there are some distinct differences and that's why we have a country so different from America. We have the highest standard of living in the world. The product or Canadian hearts and minds (as expressed an embodied by the CBC and other Canadian cultural institutions). Why are you so desirous and envious of American Culture? 133959@blogcritics.org Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:35:33 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133915 Quebec knows the Bard is best in the original French. "Quelle lumière jaillit par cette fenêtre? Voilà l'Orient, et Juliette est le soleil!" C'est brillant! 133915@blogcritics.org Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:12:52 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133855 Well... Sooooorrrrryyy for hitting a nerve Sydney - I didn't say you couldn't watch your CBC programs, and I didn't say that I couldn't watch VIP and Baywatch under the existing system - what I did say is that I don't see, in a free society, that giving the government the control of the airwaves was a wise move, particularly where our government has shown itself as being very willing to be less than scrupulous and less than intelligent about how they do things. I am glad that you concede that "if it were up to free market processes" you wouldn't be able to watch the pap that passes for entertainment coming out of Canada - well, in other words, I guess what you are saying, is everyone who doesn't want to watch what you want should have to subsidize it anyway because it is "good for us". According to who? According to you? According the Liberal poobas? Just suppose for a moment that I, and other like-minded Canadians were in control of the CRTC (don't have a coronary - I'm sure there are enough sheep in Canada to keep that from happening). Now suppose my new government thinks that we should all watch FOX news because it's good for us.... I'm thinking you might feel a little differently about government control then... The point is that no one should tell us what we "should" be watching or what we "should" be speaking. Culture occurs. It cannot be legislated or controlled - and I question whether it even should. What good has come from encouraging cultural divisiveness - go travel to Serbia and Croatia - or maybe Somalia and find out how valuable "cultural sovereignty" really is... compared to the concept of a melting pot, where cultural differences over time become blurred or non-existent. I come from good Anglo-Saxon stock - yet, for the life of me, I can't recall any of my former cultural rituals or dialects - poor me. Perhaps I should lobby the government to support the Anglo-Saxon dialect in our schools.. because, how can I and my children thrive without it? "And forgyf us ure gyltas swaswa we forgyfath thampe with us agyltath." 133855@blogcritics.org Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:03:53 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133808 Wow! Despite the title of this post (elbow to ribs) this is one of the most original discussions in days and days! My wife is Quebecois, born in Granby. She is quite disgusted by the secessionist movement, and the whole Frocophone-only issue. Many French speaking Quebecois feel the smae way, and this is why the secessionist movement has always failed to date. Walking the streets of Montreal is like being back in my home town of Oakland. The cultural diversity is most beautiful, and such a contrast to the "all too white" state of Vermont. I love Toronto too, have family there, and appreciate the different takes on Canadian Culture posted in this thread. Beaurocrats aside, Canada is a cherished neighbor...... Eh? Salut! 133808@blogcritics.org Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:14:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133801 It's always interesting to hear people who say they just *love* to visit Quebec. No one ever says they want to live there. Here's another reason for our American friends. This week the Supreme Court of Canada is going to rule on a challenge to Quebec's education law. You see, in Quebec, there are English language schools and French language schools. But you can send your children to an English language school *only* if one of the two parents (and I think they have to be birth parents -- remarried doesn't count) went to an English school somewhere in Canada (the US doesn't count, either). This law is social eugenics in practise. No new blood is allowed into the English system. The court case being decided this week is a challenge from French parents who want their kids to learn English for future opportunities. But both the government and the opposition will oppose any changes, and will use a constitutional escape hatch to ignore a ruling that strikes down the law. Why? Because the goal is not to have a stable English population, or a French population comfortable with English. The goal is to eradicate English. Period. In French Quebec, they have a phrase: "pure laine" which means "pure wool". Though they insist it doesn't have a racist meaning (ie, "white" wool), it is an exclusionary term that refers to "true" Quebecois -- French, anti-English, nationalist, secessionist. Nice place to visit? Maybe. But you wouldn't want to live there. Fact is, you wouldn't be very welcome. 133801@blogcritics.org Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:40:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133639 Me and my fellow intellectual elite?? man o' man, I haven't ever been called that in my life. And for good reasons, I'm far from an intellectual. I spend half my time out at the bars, I rarely read anymore, and the extent of my education is a masters in education (which isn't a very intensive education). Why would we want FOX news in our country? As far as I'm concerned, fox news should be banned from the air for essentially lying to the public, sensationalizing the news, and advocating war (despite the American population's reservations). They are into entertainment, not objective news. That's not bullshit either, I have watched a fair amount of fox news while in the states and it is clear to see the rhetorical slant each and every news broadcast. Really, I'm curious... why the fuck would you watch FOX news except as to cast a critical eye on it??? Secondly, just because you don't like Canadian television, doesn't mean you have to watch it. Just flip the fuckin channel over to one of the thousands of American shows. Christ, you sound as if your being kept from watching all your favourite programs. Secondly, a lot of the Canadian talent in America got their start working in front of, or behind the cameras of those Canadian shows. If it weren't for them, we might not have nurtured our own talent. As for me, I watch quite a lot of Candian programming because I enjoying seeing distinctly Canadian sensibilities up on the screen. I enjoy seeing our sense of humor, our politics, and our accents up on the screen. If it were left to free market processes, I wouldn't be able to. Instead, I'd have to watch "charmed" or CSI, or some other fuckin lame show. Sure I tune in to those occasionally to check out some tits, but I like shows about more than that too. 133639@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:27:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133593 Supporting CRTC restrictions? "Quit your wining and support your own countries talent?" Well, here's the thing, Sydney - at least on the internet I can tell you and your fellow intellectual elite that if I want to ignore what passes as force-fed "Canadian Talent" to go stuff it. What can't I get in Canada - oh, until very recently, how about Fox News? CRTC was happy to approve licensing for broadcast of al-Jazeera - yet initially turned down Fox News, until under pressure following the approval of al-Jazeera. Sorry if I'd rather pull out my eyeballs than watch Red Green and Coronation Street. This is the typical stupid Canadian refrain - "it's ok to do without this freedom or that - because it's for the best." Well, at least there are a few free-thinking Canadians left - even if you aren't one of them Sydney - you go enjoy watching some Beachcomber re-runs - I'll get my Canadian content by watching Pam Anderson on VIP and Jim Carrey on the big (shudder) American screen. How will I learn to build an igloo? 133593@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:38:12 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133534 "If you really want to blow your mind - try this as well - again brought to us by the "cultural police" of Canada - it is illegal to bring U.S. content television into Canada that is not first vetted and manipulated by our CRTC - cable feeds are stripped regularly of American advertising, and it is illegal to acquire a U.S. satellite feed in our country." -- I for one am a huge supporter of these CRTC restrictions. Don;t you already get too much american crap culture? We need to allow for Canadian Content so we can comment on our own realtiy. Of course American stuff is more cool, and the kids will recognize the slick production as being that of big-time entertainment, but it lacks the intelligence that canadian art has. We need to foster Canadian talent, and these restrictions allow it. Name one American tv show that you can't get here in Canada? All these restrictions do is prevent American shows from taking up every chanel, all day long. Quit your wining and support your own countries talent. 133534@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:49:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133514 Ok. After I'm sure my last post suggested or implied some distain for the dominant political attitude in Quebec, let me say that the Gomry Inquiry should piss off the citizens of Quebec - only slightly more perhaps than the citizens of the rest of Canada... The French-Canadian of Quebec were being manipulated in what could only be described as a "small town cheap" manner, to coin a phrase - however, if its any consolation, mes frères Quebecois -we were all taken down the garden path by a sad and corrupt Liberal government. I have great regard for my fellow Canadians in Quebec, and value their cultural differences - however, I do not believe that those differences should be supported at the cost of marginalizing and offending the constitutional rights of 25% of the population... For our friends in the U.S. - imagine, if you can, a law in South Florida stating that it is illegal to advertise or put up signage on your business in anything but Spanish. Such is the case in Quebec - where in seeking to sustain their cultural diversity, they pass laws preventing free expression, and are allowed to ignore our constitution for that purpose... If you really want to blow your mind - try this as well - again brought to us by the "cultural police" of Canada - it is illegal to bring U.S. content television into Canada that is not first vetted and manipulated by our CRTC - cable feeds are stripped regularly of American advertising, and it is illegal to acquire a U.S. satellite feed in our country. I think I recall them trying that in the former Soviet Union - didn't work then, don't think it will work now - pensez à cela, mes amis. 133514@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:29:45 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133513 well I agree with a little of what you say and I understand your thinking on the issue. however, I think that Canada is a richer country having suppoted quebec culture as we have over the past many years. Their have been costs. Soem financial costs, but more importantly, some emotional costs as most of English Canada loves to complain about Quebec. To me its all worth it thus far. Quebec culture is to me the most interesting part of Canada and the art coming out of Quebec has been consitintly amoung the best Canada has to offer. I think Quebecers think of themselves as Canadians, and I think they love Canada. In any case it doesnt matter if they don't or if they want to leave because the Canadian Government would never allow them too. This was made clear after the last referendum. 133513@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:27:40 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133509 "A strong Quebec means a strong Canada" No, part of a nation's strength is in its commitment to protect all of its citizens, and to guarantee them all equal treatment under the law. A strong Quebec committed to the denigration of 25% of the Canadian citizens within its boundaries while pursuing its zero-sum approach to protecting French culture weakens Canada as long as the rest of Canada tolerates it. The attempt to "strength" Canada, now at the centre of the Gomery Inquiry, has done the opposite, as you've pointed out. People cannot be paid to love their country, They either do or don't, based on their upbringing, and the shared history of the nation. Canada has ignored its history prior to 1970, when everything became subsumed to constructing an ever-more-intrusive nanny state. In Quebec, separatism took off. In the rest of Canada, a weary malaise has taken grip while we watched taxes go up and up, and watched as Quebec grew more and more distant and disconnected from what we thought were universal Canadian values of tolerance. A strong Canada is going to be a fundamentally changed Canada. And since I suspect Quebec will want nothing to do with those changes, I also think a strong Canada will be a Canada without Quebec. Fine by me. 133509@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:17:17 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133504 Oh boy... all this rhetoric has got me worried of another referendum. firstly, let me say that Quebec is my favourite province in Canada, though I live in Ontario. The people are interesting and refreshing. That being said, I Think they have a complex of some sort and are a little ruthless in their pursuit of cultural independence or security. Any Canadian who has spent any time in Quebec and gotten to know the people a little, do not want to see Quebec go. It would be a horrible loss. In any case, just want to remark on the effect of the Gomry Inquiry in revitalizing a separatist movement. The Ottawa Citizen is reporting that Quebecois are watching the inquiry in droves (over 300, 000 per day). Since that inquiry involved a campaigning to use propaganda to create patriotism in Quebec, the Quebecois feel manipulated. Political pundits say this Inquiry guarantees that Quebec will elect minority governments for at least the next 10 years (this swing , comes on the heals of quebeqers embracing federalist governments) Personally I think it's all ridiculous. A campaign to increase patriotism can hardly be called propaganda. Quebecers need to elect a therapist to give them some provincial counseling. That being said, I think Ontario's should stop griping about language laws etc. Let them protect their culture, but let them also, make sound decisions. A strong Quebec means a strong Canada. 133504@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:04:24 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133496 "being bi-lingual is required in Canada as the Law of the Land" Actually, you are thinking at the Federal level. In the province of Quebec, the push for the last 30 years has been to eradicate anything not French, and in particular English. No job can require English (very few exceptions). No one can answer the phone (in a business situation) in English. The original law said no commercial sign could be written in English, but that was too strict according to the Supreme Court, and the new law says that French has to be in larger font (like 60% larger, I think). You know that if Quebec separates, they'll go back to the old law. Students have been harassed, by teachers, for using English in the schoolyard during recess. Business have had their assets taken and sold to pay for fines for violating language laws, often the case being that the business owner had not realized he was in trouble because he was English, served and English clietele, and did not understand the French-only legals summons being sent to him. The courts have essentially given Quebec carte blanche on this, and the federal government worries about sparking another secession fight if they try to step in and guarantee the civil rights of Canadians living in Quebec. So this abuse continues, and English is slowly being strangled, often at great personal and financial pain for people in Quebec. 133496@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:49:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133194 heh...well angry in t o...welcome ta blogcritics.. what seems to have thrown most folks is that they were expecting the Bard..and got a Quebecois rant.. no worries..it's a tough crowd around here i think part of the difficulty your Cause faces is that Language, per se, is a cultural, NOT an ethnic distinction both cultures are ethnically western european white folks when looked at that way, within the context of the Totality of ethnic diversity...a "minority" based solely on what language they speak pales ( sorry couldn't resist) in comparison to say..african descent...native cultures, orientals ..et al as i understand it tho...being bi-lingual is required in Canada as the Law of the Land, and thus should not be any kind of barrier...if prejudicial behaviour can be proven based on such discrimination...then take it up with the Courts just my one sixth billionths of the World's opinion, yer mileage may vary.. Excelsior! 133194@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:05:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133188 Hmmm, next time I will take extra time thinking about the title. I didn't mean for everyone to get hung up on the England Englishness of Shakespeare. Perhaps if I had said Margaret Atwood? But these are valid points, and I'll try harder next time. In the mean time, leaving the Bard out of this, any thoughts about the way the Quebec government counts everybody except English speakers? Does it seem designed to marginalize that group that makes up to 25% of the population of the province? More importantly, that group is strongly centered on Montreal, the very city being discussed in the article. If you are going to consider your minority representation, do you think considering the largest single linguistic minority should be a given? 133188@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:50:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133155 I think that many minority cultures have their languages and the people who speak it ignored even if the dominant culture somehow uses parts of the ignored culture. There are many areas of the US where the Spanish culture is celebrated and yet bilingualism is not considered an asset until after public education. There has been, historically, a lot of prejudice toward the Latinos in those areas even if they were the original non-native settlers (because after all, California and Texas and some other areas of the Southwest were originally parts of Mexico). Further the same can be said for both the US and Canada in the case of the Native Americans, their languages and their cultures. A catchy title should not be misleading. IMHO your essay needed to draw greater parallels to why the francophones are showing some kind of disrespect toward Shakespeare (as opposed to Moliere) and perhaps include Shakespearean allusions for the title to fit the essay. Further, it would also seem to indicate that there is more connection between the anglophones and England than their own Canadian-formed anglophone culture. In the case of the US, the question would then be why hark back to Elizabethan England as opposed to a rich, history of American English literature (Hawthorne, Twain, etc.). I'm pretty sure that Canadians do not speak British English any more than Americans speak British English and neither speak Shakespearean English. 133155@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:08:38 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133089 I agree PT, that the connection seems a little nebulous - but perhaps the concept being expressed is that Anglophones do provide something of value, believe it or not, culturally, and to resign them to "non-status" in the linguist bigots of the Quebecois government, should be no less offensive than in refusing to acknowledge any other identifiable minority in that Province... frankly, as a "red neck" from Alberta, I never cease to be amazed by the hypocrisy of a part of our country which vilifies the group which provides it the greatest protection from cultural devastation. Feel free to separate, Quebec, and see just how long your culture stands alone against he might of the American Media Machine - keep Madonna and Marshall Mathers from your youth, if you can! The existence of a full Country which respects cultural diversity is a much greater barrier to cultural erosion of the French language, than the island of Quebec standing alone. Oh, and by the way, our small city does continue to support not only French Immersion school programs, but in fact, also supports a fully Government funded Francophone School... the converse of which is certainly not supported in Quebec... who are the real "red necks" I wonder. 133089@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:33:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133087 I was trying to highlight the idea of purposely ignoring a language and the people who speak it, along with all the cultural contributions that are associated with it. I thought it made for a catchy title, too. I figured it was obvious that if you pretend English doesn't exist, you ignore everything that goes with it and that came from it. Thanks for the critique -- let me mull it over for a bit. 133087@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:30:53 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/26/145037.php#comment-133082 Your title and last line referencing Shakespeare isn't well delineated throughout your essay. It assumes that an anglophone would know Shakespeare and a francophone or people who speak non-English dialects would not? Shakespeare's English is not, after all, the English spoken anywhere except classical theaters who regularly perform Shakespeare in English. 133082@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:20:34 EST