Obviously, my attempts at making a blog about Quebec have run into my natural procrastination, and lost, badly.
Not sure yet what I'll do with this blog, but I think I can safely say the model of "I'll write about this" I tried to have in the past few months has come to nothing.
I'll probably keep this open and post news and commentary when I have any to make, or repost Quebec-related comments I made elsewhere to here, as was the original plan, before I got ambitious about it all.
There's more
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
New stuff coming
While I never got around to writing that essay on the many hats of the Quebec government, I haven't entirely forgotten about this blog.
As it happens, the association of weekly regional newspaper in Quebec just comissioned an enormous poll (with a sample size of 30 000, which is 0.4% of the entire population of Quebec; in US terms that would be a sample size of 1.2 million) of Quebecers attempting to present an accurate picture of who they are, how they view themselves, and how they act toward the world.
I'll look over the whole thing (four separate reports totalling 88, 78, 115 and 96 pages respectively), and try to put together some cohesive information out of it.
One statistic that's not particularly surprising that I can already point at is this: to the question, "Do you most identify to your hometown, Québec, or Canada," 32% of Quebecers answered "hometown", 51% answered "Québec", and a tiny 17% answered "Canada". Identification to Canada is also a very generational thing: 28% for 60 years old and up, 18% in the 50-59 group, 15% at 40-49, 14% at 30-39, and 12% at 18-29 (respectively 40, 52, 53, 53, 55 for identification to Québec).
More coming on this when I have time to look through the poll. There's more
As it happens, the association of weekly regional newspaper in Quebec just comissioned an enormous poll (with a sample size of 30 000, which is 0.4% of the entire population of Quebec; in US terms that would be a sample size of 1.2 million) of Quebecers attempting to present an accurate picture of who they are, how they view themselves, and how they act toward the world.
I'll look over the whole thing (four separate reports totalling 88, 78, 115 and 96 pages respectively), and try to put together some cohesive information out of it.
One statistic that's not particularly surprising that I can already point at is this: to the question, "Do you most identify to your hometown, Québec, or Canada," 32% of Quebecers answered "hometown", 51% answered "Québec", and a tiny 17% answered "Canada". Identification to Canada is also a very generational thing: 28% for 60 years old and up, 18% in the 50-59 group, 15% at 40-49, 14% at 30-39, and 12% at 18-29 (respectively 40, 52, 53, 53, 55 for identification to Québec).
More coming on this when I have time to look through the poll. There's more
Sunday, March 22, 2009
What's in a name?
"What's an Ontarian?" is a fairly easy question. "What's a Pennsylvanian", similarly, is easy. They're people who live (or at least, grew up) there. There may be some difficulties in how people react, but that's, basically the general view.
Not everywhere is like that, of course. There are - in North America - places that, for one reason or another, have developed a very strong cultural identity. Québec is, unsurprisingly, one such place. "What's a Québécois?" is probably one of the most complex questions having to do with Quebec.
I'm going to write a few posts on that topic, starting here with a brief history and explanation of how the current conception of the Québécois arose.
In theory (and by the dictionary), the term Québécois is the french equivalent of English "Quebecer". That is, the basic meaning is "A native or inhabitant of the province of Quebec".
That's the theory. In practice, Québécois, in French but especially in English, has a understood "French" (in the sense of French-speaking) added to the Quebecer part, and has largely replaced "French-Canadian" as the identity of French-Canadians from Quebec. The historical roots for that are complex, but I'll try to explain them here.
Now, originally, the French-Speaking, Catholic settlers along the Saint-Lawrence-Great-Lakes valley referred to themselves as Canadians. Their homeland, the French heartland in North America (far more so than Acadia or Louisiana) was Canada, a Iroquois name meaning "village" that the French wound up applying to the entire region of the Saint Lawrence valley. Note that this Canada did not include Acadia.
Now, with the conquest of Canada by the British in 1759, things changed. In 1763, the central part of what had been Canada became the province of Quebec; in 1774, this was extended to cover all of old Canada and then some. The French people of the region, however, remained the Canadiens or Canadians. The English-speaking inhabitants, on the other hand, were by and large simply British.
In 1792, for various reason, the Province of Quebec was reorganized as two political entities: mostly french Lower Canada (along the Saint-Lawrence), and mostly English upper Canada (along the Great Lakes). This is when the term "Canadian" began to be also applied to English-Canadians, and that French-Canadian begin to appear (in English). In French, for the most part, a "Canadiens" remained a descendant of French Canada. Hence, the "Canadiens" in the French version of the Canadian anthem are a deeply Catholic people growing up on the shores of the Saint-Lawrence; the Montreal Canadiens are named in reference to the French-Canadian people (as with their nicnkname, the "Habs", derived from les Habitants, the agrarian part of French-Canadian society)
Over the nineteenth and early twentieth century, particularly with the growth of Canada into an expanding and eventually independant country that reached three oceans (Pacific, Arctic, Atlantic), the distinction between Canadiens (someone from Canada) and Canadien-Français (French Canadian) passed into the French language, however.
At the same time, Quebec French-Canadians, became increasingly disappointed at the French-Canadian role and place in Canada. The hanging of Louis Riel as a traitor, where he was seen as defending the (French) Metis people in Quebec; the two cases where English Canada voted the draft for wars the French Canadian hardly wanted any part in, the decision to go to war in support of London in the Boer Wars, all contributed to a growing sentiment that Canada, instead of being the French-Canadian homeland it originally had been, was an English political entity, where they were sidelined.
The province of Quebec, on the other hand, was largely French-Canadian in population. It also largely corresponded, geographically, to the original Canada, or at least the heartland of it, with all the major cities of the first Canada: Montréal, Québec, Trois-Rivières.
As a direct result, Quebec French-Canadians largely started thinking of themselves as Québécois, and started rejecting French-Canadian for use with regard to themselves; Canadian, for its part, became a term refering exclusively to the country. Which means that Canada, a country created and named by the French, is now largely an English reality, whereas Quebec, a province created and named by the British, is now largely a French reality.
Of course, because reclaiming a homeland of our own ties directly into this, the concept of using Québécois-Français (French-Quebecer) instead of Québécois is unacceptable: it essentially amount to recreating in Québec the situation that was in Canada, with two nations claiming the same geographic entity as their homeland.
It would be wrong, however, to think of Québécois as "French-Canadian from Quebec". At the same time that they were redefining their homeland, the French-Canadian from Quebec were heavily redefining themselves.
This was the era called the Quiet Revolution. Over the course of a decade or two, they went from being strongly parochial and deeply attached to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, to breaking away with that establishment, opening to the world (hosted the World Fair in 1967, and the Olympic Games nine years later), completely rewriting the code of law along the way. Immigration also vastly increased, and that, too, was part of the redefinition.
As such, where French-Canadian had been a very parochial and ethnic term, Québécois instead became much more cultural and national. Canadien-Français (French-Canadian) hardly even had room (for most people) to new immigrants from France, and was strictly for people descended from the settlers of New France. Québécois, on the other hand, was to many Québécois based on language spoken: someone who spoke French, or was willing to learn it well enough to speak with the Québécois, and wanted to be a Québécois, was a Québécois. This is not a universal statement - there are people for whom "Québécois" has the same connotation as "French Canadian" did of old, and people for whom "Québécois" means "everyone living in Quebec, but in my experience, it's the general feeling.
(Even, as I noted yesterday, among the nationalist movement).
Tomorrow, or sometime this week, I'll delve into the complexities of Quebec and the many hats it must wear, and the complexities of the Majority-Minority relations for Quebec (since Québécois get to play both roles).
There's more
Not everywhere is like that, of course. There are - in North America - places that, for one reason or another, have developed a very strong cultural identity. Québec is, unsurprisingly, one such place. "What's a Québécois?" is probably one of the most complex questions having to do with Quebec.
I'm going to write a few posts on that topic, starting here with a brief history and explanation of how the current conception of the Québécois arose.
In theory (and by the dictionary), the term Québécois is the french equivalent of English "Quebecer". That is, the basic meaning is "A native or inhabitant of the province of Quebec".
That's the theory. In practice, Québécois, in French but especially in English, has a understood "French" (in the sense of French-speaking) added to the Quebecer part, and has largely replaced "French-Canadian" as the identity of French-Canadians from Quebec. The historical roots for that are complex, but I'll try to explain them here.
Now, originally, the French-Speaking, Catholic settlers along the Saint-Lawrence-Great-Lakes valley referred to themselves as Canadians. Their homeland, the French heartland in North America (far more so than Acadia or Louisiana) was Canada, a Iroquois name meaning "village" that the French wound up applying to the entire region of the Saint Lawrence valley. Note that this Canada did not include Acadia.
Now, with the conquest of Canada by the British in 1759, things changed. In 1763, the central part of what had been Canada became the province of Quebec; in 1774, this was extended to cover all of old Canada and then some. The French people of the region, however, remained the Canadiens or Canadians. The English-speaking inhabitants, on the other hand, were by and large simply British.
In 1792, for various reason, the Province of Quebec was reorganized as two political entities: mostly french Lower Canada (along the Saint-Lawrence), and mostly English upper Canada (along the Great Lakes). This is when the term "Canadian" began to be also applied to English-Canadians, and that French-Canadian begin to appear (in English). In French, for the most part, a "Canadiens" remained a descendant of French Canada. Hence, the "Canadiens" in the French version of the Canadian anthem are a deeply Catholic people growing up on the shores of the Saint-Lawrence; the Montreal Canadiens are named in reference to the French-Canadian people (as with their nicnkname, the "Habs", derived from les Habitants, the agrarian part of French-Canadian society)
Over the nineteenth and early twentieth century, particularly with the growth of Canada into an expanding and eventually independant country that reached three oceans (Pacific, Arctic, Atlantic), the distinction between Canadiens (someone from Canada) and Canadien-Français (French Canadian) passed into the French language, however.
At the same time, Quebec French-Canadians, became increasingly disappointed at the French-Canadian role and place in Canada. The hanging of Louis Riel as a traitor, where he was seen as defending the (French) Metis people in Quebec; the two cases where English Canada voted the draft for wars the French Canadian hardly wanted any part in, the decision to go to war in support of London in the Boer Wars, all contributed to a growing sentiment that Canada, instead of being the French-Canadian homeland it originally had been, was an English political entity, where they were sidelined.
The province of Quebec, on the other hand, was largely French-Canadian in population. It also largely corresponded, geographically, to the original Canada, or at least the heartland of it, with all the major cities of the first Canada: Montréal, Québec, Trois-Rivières.
As a direct result, Quebec French-Canadians largely started thinking of themselves as Québécois, and started rejecting French-Canadian for use with regard to themselves; Canadian, for its part, became a term refering exclusively to the country. Which means that Canada, a country created and named by the French, is now largely an English reality, whereas Quebec, a province created and named by the British, is now largely a French reality.
Of course, because reclaiming a homeland of our own ties directly into this, the concept of using Québécois-Français (French-Quebecer) instead of Québécois is unacceptable: it essentially amount to recreating in Québec the situation that was in Canada, with two nations claiming the same geographic entity as their homeland.
It would be wrong, however, to think of Québécois as "French-Canadian from Quebec". At the same time that they were redefining their homeland, the French-Canadian from Quebec were heavily redefining themselves.
This was the era called the Quiet Revolution. Over the course of a decade or two, they went from being strongly parochial and deeply attached to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, to breaking away with that establishment, opening to the world (hosted the World Fair in 1967, and the Olympic Games nine years later), completely rewriting the code of law along the way. Immigration also vastly increased, and that, too, was part of the redefinition.
As such, where French-Canadian had been a very parochial and ethnic term, Québécois instead became much more cultural and national. Canadien-Français (French-Canadian) hardly even had room (for most people) to new immigrants from France, and was strictly for people descended from the settlers of New France. Québécois, on the other hand, was to many Québécois based on language spoken: someone who spoke French, or was willing to learn it well enough to speak with the Québécois, and wanted to be a Québécois, was a Québécois. This is not a universal statement - there are people for whom "Québécois" has the same connotation as "French Canadian" did of old, and people for whom "Québécois" means "everyone living in Quebec, but in my experience, it's the general feeling.
(Even, as I noted yesterday, among the nationalist movement).
Tomorrow, or sometime this week, I'll delve into the complexities of Quebec and the many hats it must wear, and the complexities of the Majority-Minority relations for Quebec (since Québécois get to play both roles).
There's more
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Lies, Damn Lies and Journalists
One of my favorite (French) news site recently featured a link to a story on sportnet.ca, about a young Orthodox-Jew hockey player whose religious belief presented him with significant challenges. The article can be found here. It's not a happy story.
It's also a questionable story, that seems to start with a conclusion, and use a lot of sleight-of-hand and general trickery to "prove" its point. The paragraph describing Quebec culture is particularly egregious, and is what I'll adress chiefly here:
"In Quebec, reasonable accomodation is a controversial issue: the idea that government, school and companies should adjust to the cultural or religious needs of people outside Quebec mainstream".
This is simply the commentary of someone who has at best read the headlines and done no research whatsoever. There was, in 2007, a major controversy over "reasonable accomodation", that much is true. What was at stake, however, was not whether or not we should have them, but where the line between reasonable and unreasonable accomodations lay (of course there were people who thought that "any accomodation is too much", there always are. They were laughed at by most of the rest of the province).
The specific cases that precipitated the crisis were not exactly minor requests: we're talking about a debate over whether a Sikh boy should be allowed to bring his ceremonial dagger to school, several incidents where people of various faith (Orthodox Jews chiefly, if I recall correctly) refused to show any respect to female police officers (resulting in a misguided bureaucratic directive that female officers should call for male backup when dealing with those people), an incident where a Muslim man at a restaurant demanded to be served in a pork-free room, an incident where the Orthodox Jewish community requested that a nearby fitness center cover its windows to protect their children from "temptation", an incident where (non-jewish) workmen in a jewish hospital were banned from eating their (own) ham sandwiches in the hospital cafeteria, etc.
"Where signs in english are banned"
Probably the single most pervasive piece of mythology about Quebec. English is not, strictly speaking, banned (we once tried that one, backed down after the supreme court said "no"). Lack of French is. Which, given a historical situation where up to the sixties and seventies, lots of shops and companies had english-only signs in a province where 80% + of the population is French-speaking, where the official language is French, and where a lot of people don't have particularly good understanding of english, would seems sensible enough. We shouldn't need that rule: predominantly-French signs, guidebooks, product description, etc, should come by default in predominantly-French Quebec. They don't (because a lot of people seems to think "It's north of the Rio Grande, so English is good enough"), so we have those rules.
"Where a team of young girls are kicked out of a soccer league because a player wore a hijab."
As I recall the incident, it was a tournament, not a league, and the referee asked the player to remove her hijab because the rules of the tournament (based on international rules) banned scarves, earrings and other such headgears due to risks of injury. He chose to enforce that rule - something not all Quebecers entirely agreed with - and prevent the player from playing with a headscarf on. A judgement call, which one may disagree with, but which is hardly "stupid dumb racism" in and of itself.
"As Montreal author Mordecai Richler..."
This, right here, is perhaps the worst part of the text. Richler was a good author. What he was also, when it came to French Quebec, is incredibly biased (we are talking a man who routinely invoked Godwin's law on his own arguments about the Quebec independence movement). Which does not invalidate everything he said (and that anti-semitism has a long history in Quebec is the sad truth), but taking his general statements about Quebec society as basic truths is...questionable. Particularly when Richler wrote most of his texts on Quebec society several decades ago, largely based on even older experience: Quebec has undergone an extreme cultural makeover over the past half-century.
"They do not have in mind anybody named Ginsburg"
...but on the other hand, they do have in mind people named Freeman, Thai Thi Lac, Valdivia, Mourani, Jetha, Salem, Shields, Neko Likongo, Kentzinger, Johnson-Meneghini, Banolok, Kotto, De Benedictis, Santomo, McKay, Saywell, Wawanoloath...
Of course, these still represent a small minority of the independence movement, which is largely made of French-Canadians, but the fact that all of these names (English, Lebanese, Huron, Italian, Arab, Cameroonian, Arab, etc) belong to people who were actual candidate for either of the pro-independence party in the 2008 Federal and Provincial elections (some of whom were elected) is rather telling about the supposed close-mindedness of Quebec nationalism.
Now there was, and still is, a streak of ethno-nationalism to the independance movement, and there are certainly people in Quebec who will look down upon people with "weird" (read: not French-Canadian) names. But the generalization of the article are simply and demonstrably absurd.
-----------------
It is probably also worth noting that, unlike many other major-junior sports league in North America (university leagues, etc), the Quebec league is an all-out commercial outfit. It sees making money as its primary cause, not developping players or letting kids play. Which is to say that it is extremely competitive, with teams that focus on winning. Not on giving people a chance. And on playing a lot of game, which doesn't leave much room for scheduling issues (particularly with the league still beign set up to leave room for school).
That probably isn't for the best, and it's been a matter of some controversy in Quebec lately after the spectacular incident where an angry goaltender just crossed the entire ice rink to go beat up the opposing team's goaltender.
Again, this isn't to say that there aren't assholes, racists, and general twits in Québec. We have them, and they generally come out of the woodwork in these sort of situations (to the great delight of variety and humor shows, and the people who watch them). It isn't to say, either, that there isn't a highly defensive streak among Quebecers when it comes to matters of culture: we cling to our cultural symbols, even if we don't really believe in what they represent anymore (see the previous article on French Quebec and religion).
But the sort of absurd generalization, and (deliberate?) distortion of the truth present in this article both demean the story of Benjamin Rubin (and cast doubts on large part of it: if Joyce is willing to play fast and loose with the truth on Quebec society, what else is he willing to play fast and loose with in order to get a "good" story?), and is a general insult to a few millions French Quebecers.
And it certainly doesn't help convince French Quebecers that they are welcome or wanted in Canada (at least without becoming "like a proper (english) Canadian province").
There's more
It's also a questionable story, that seems to start with a conclusion, and use a lot of sleight-of-hand and general trickery to "prove" its point. The paragraph describing Quebec culture is particularly egregious, and is what I'll adress chiefly here:
"In Quebec, reasonable accomodation is a controversial issue: the idea that government, school and companies should adjust to the cultural or religious needs of people outside Quebec mainstream".
This is simply the commentary of someone who has at best read the headlines and done no research whatsoever. There was, in 2007, a major controversy over "reasonable accomodation", that much is true. What was at stake, however, was not whether or not we should have them, but where the line between reasonable and unreasonable accomodations lay (of course there were people who thought that "any accomodation is too much", there always are. They were laughed at by most of the rest of the province).
The specific cases that precipitated the crisis were not exactly minor requests: we're talking about a debate over whether a Sikh boy should be allowed to bring his ceremonial dagger to school, several incidents where people of various faith (Orthodox Jews chiefly, if I recall correctly) refused to show any respect to female police officers (resulting in a misguided bureaucratic directive that female officers should call for male backup when dealing with those people), an incident where a Muslim man at a restaurant demanded to be served in a pork-free room, an incident where the Orthodox Jewish community requested that a nearby fitness center cover its windows to protect their children from "temptation", an incident where (non-jewish) workmen in a jewish hospital were banned from eating their (own) ham sandwiches in the hospital cafeteria, etc.
"Where signs in english are banned"
Probably the single most pervasive piece of mythology about Quebec. English is not, strictly speaking, banned (we once tried that one, backed down after the supreme court said "no"). Lack of French is. Which, given a historical situation where up to the sixties and seventies, lots of shops and companies had english-only signs in a province where 80% + of the population is French-speaking, where the official language is French, and where a lot of people don't have particularly good understanding of english, would seems sensible enough. We shouldn't need that rule: predominantly-French signs, guidebooks, product description, etc, should come by default in predominantly-French Quebec. They don't (because a lot of people seems to think "It's north of the Rio Grande, so English is good enough"), so we have those rules.
"Where a team of young girls are kicked out of a soccer league because a player wore a hijab."
As I recall the incident, it was a tournament, not a league, and the referee asked the player to remove her hijab because the rules of the tournament (based on international rules) banned scarves, earrings and other such headgears due to risks of injury. He chose to enforce that rule - something not all Quebecers entirely agreed with - and prevent the player from playing with a headscarf on. A judgement call, which one may disagree with, but which is hardly "stupid dumb racism" in and of itself.
"As Montreal author Mordecai Richler..."
This, right here, is perhaps the worst part of the text. Richler was a good author. What he was also, when it came to French Quebec, is incredibly biased (we are talking a man who routinely invoked Godwin's law on his own arguments about the Quebec independence movement). Which does not invalidate everything he said (and that anti-semitism has a long history in Quebec is the sad truth), but taking his general statements about Quebec society as basic truths is...questionable. Particularly when Richler wrote most of his texts on Quebec society several decades ago, largely based on even older experience: Quebec has undergone an extreme cultural makeover over the past half-century.
"They do not have in mind anybody named Ginsburg"
...but on the other hand, they do have in mind people named Freeman, Thai Thi Lac, Valdivia, Mourani, Jetha, Salem, Shields, Neko Likongo, Kentzinger, Johnson-Meneghini, Banolok, Kotto, De Benedictis, Santomo, McKay, Saywell, Wawanoloath...
Of course, these still represent a small minority of the independence movement, which is largely made of French-Canadians, but the fact that all of these names (English, Lebanese, Huron, Italian, Arab, Cameroonian, Arab, etc) belong to people who were actual candidate for either of the pro-independence party in the 2008 Federal and Provincial elections (some of whom were elected) is rather telling about the supposed close-mindedness of Quebec nationalism.
Now there was, and still is, a streak of ethno-nationalism to the independance movement, and there are certainly people in Quebec who will look down upon people with "weird" (read: not French-Canadian) names. But the generalization of the article are simply and demonstrably absurd.
-----------------
It is probably also worth noting that, unlike many other major-junior sports league in North America (university leagues, etc), the Quebec league is an all-out commercial outfit. It sees making money as its primary cause, not developping players or letting kids play. Which is to say that it is extremely competitive, with teams that focus on winning. Not on giving people a chance. And on playing a lot of game, which doesn't leave much room for scheduling issues (particularly with the league still beign set up to leave room for school).
That probably isn't for the best, and it's been a matter of some controversy in Quebec lately after the spectacular incident where an angry goaltender just crossed the entire ice rink to go beat up the opposing team's goaltender.
Again, this isn't to say that there aren't assholes, racists, and general twits in Québec. We have them, and they generally come out of the woodwork in these sort of situations (to the great delight of variety and humor shows, and the people who watch them). It isn't to say, either, that there isn't a highly defensive streak among Quebecers when it comes to matters of culture: we cling to our cultural symbols, even if we don't really believe in what they represent anymore (see the previous article on French Quebec and religion).
But the sort of absurd generalization, and (deliberate?) distortion of the truth present in this article both demean the story of Benjamin Rubin (and cast doubts on large part of it: if Joyce is willing to play fast and loose with the truth on Quebec society, what else is he willing to play fast and loose with in order to get a "good" story?), and is a general insult to a few millions French Quebecers.
And it certainly doesn't help convince French Quebecers that they are welcome or wanted in Canada (at least without becoming "like a proper (english) Canadian province").
There's more
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Quebecers and their religion
The views of Quebecers with regard to religion is a fairly confusing issue.
Nominally speaking, 83% of Quebecers are baptized Catholics. Areligious people comes in second (5.8%), followed by Protestants (4.7%), Muslim (1.5%), Orthodox (1.4%), and Jews (1.3%), then a plethora of assorted Buddhists, Hindu, Sikhs and Other Christians.
Note that I said "Nominally speaking". That means, of course, the actual situation is a little more complicated...
In practice, polls over the last few years paint a very different picture - only 20% of Quebecers believe in the God of the Catholic Church, and only about 67% of French-Canadians believe in any God at all (the discrepancy is made up of people who have their personal take on God), with the number being even higher among younger Quebecers. Of Quebec's catholics, only about a quarter are actual practicing (ie, church-attending) Catholics, while the others are (to borrow a term from the Republicans) Catholics In Name Only.
At the same time, and quite paradoxaly, Quebecers are actually quite prone to having religious symbols in public settings: a crucifix hangs in full view in the assemblée nationale (parliament), town councils the province over regularly open their meetings with a decidedly Christian prayer, and the majority (as of 2007) was against changing either of these (even while being against religious symbols in the public domain in general). And, of course, even as 75% of Quebec Catholics are non-practicing, the majority of Quebec Catholics thinks that no longer going to church translates to Quebecers losing their moral value.
Confusing, isn't it? I could probably hazard a few guesses as to the why of this - for starter, the Church was a major institution in the history of French Canada from the start, and became the central French-Canadian institution after the British conquest, and thus became an important part of Quebec nationalism, and culture, something Quebecers are unwilling to discard even while they have been (badly) burned by actually listening to priests - but they would only be guesses. There's more
Nominally speaking, 83% of Quebecers are baptized Catholics. Areligious people comes in second (5.8%), followed by Protestants (4.7%), Muslim (1.5%), Orthodox (1.4%), and Jews (1.3%), then a plethora of assorted Buddhists, Hindu, Sikhs and Other Christians.
Note that I said "Nominally speaking". That means, of course, the actual situation is a little more complicated...
In practice, polls over the last few years paint a very different picture - only 20% of Quebecers believe in the God of the Catholic Church, and only about 67% of French-Canadians believe in any God at all (the discrepancy is made up of people who have their personal take on God), with the number being even higher among younger Quebecers. Of Quebec's catholics, only about a quarter are actual practicing (ie, church-attending) Catholics, while the others are (to borrow a term from the Republicans) Catholics In Name Only.
At the same time, and quite paradoxaly, Quebecers are actually quite prone to having religious symbols in public settings: a crucifix hangs in full view in the assemblée nationale (parliament), town councils the province over regularly open their meetings with a decidedly Christian prayer, and the majority (as of 2007) was against changing either of these (even while being against religious symbols in the public domain in general). And, of course, even as 75% of Quebec Catholics are non-practicing, the majority of Quebec Catholics thinks that no longer going to church translates to Quebecers losing their moral value.
Confusing, isn't it? I could probably hazard a few guesses as to the why of this - for starter, the Church was a major institution in the history of French Canada from the start, and became the central French-Canadian institution after the British conquest, and thus became an important part of Quebec nationalism, and culture, something Quebecers are unwilling to discard even while they have been (badly) burned by actually listening to priests - but they would only be guesses. There's more
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The inauguration from Quebec
It is probably no surprise that French-Quebecers watched the inauguration on TV at least as much as anyone else, and probably more than a lot.
The excitement here has been palpable. Most of the local news media have been devoting their attention to the United States almost exclusively for the past week. They have had chroniclers all over the place, not only in Washington, but in Alabama, Georgia, California, Indiana. Not only covering events, but actually going out in the streets, in the trailer parks, in the baptist churches to try to bring Quebecers a sense of what this inauguration means to the whole variety of American society. Even hockey chroniclers have made a pause in their chronicling (even though the Canadiens are playing tonight) to comment on the festivities (and, believe me, that's big).
The reaction of people to the inauguration hasn't really surfaced yet, obviously. I'd expect some to be amused at the repeated invokation of God (Quebec isn't all that atheist, but it is decidedly secular - God isn't someone you invoke in relation to public office), and probably some disappointed.
We will see.
EDIT: This may not make much sense to people who do not know Quebec much, but politicians usually fight losing battles for news space with hockey in the province. Bush's final address was (and this was caricatured by our own media) second fiddle to even rumor of a possible trade involving the Canadiens in the last few weeks.
Today, there was a hockey game, and yet the medias are barely paying it any attention. More than that: it was the hockey chroniclers and the after-game shows that actually devoted time to Obama. Outside the United States altogether.
That's how closely we've been following all this. There's more
The excitement here has been palpable. Most of the local news media have been devoting their attention to the United States almost exclusively for the past week. They have had chroniclers all over the place, not only in Washington, but in Alabama, Georgia, California, Indiana. Not only covering events, but actually going out in the streets, in the trailer parks, in the baptist churches to try to bring Quebecers a sense of what this inauguration means to the whole variety of American society. Even hockey chroniclers have made a pause in their chronicling (even though the Canadiens are playing tonight) to comment on the festivities (and, believe me, that's big).
The reaction of people to the inauguration hasn't really surfaced yet, obviously. I'd expect some to be amused at the repeated invokation of God (Quebec isn't all that atheist, but it is decidedly secular - God isn't someone you invoke in relation to public office), and probably some disappointed.
We will see.
EDIT: This may not make much sense to people who do not know Quebec much, but politicians usually fight losing battles for news space with hockey in the province. Bush's final address was (and this was caricatured by our own media) second fiddle to even rumor of a possible trade involving the Canadiens in the last few weeks.
Today, there was a hockey game, and yet the medias are barely paying it any attention. More than that: it was the hockey chroniclers and the after-game shows that actually devoted time to Obama. Outside the United States altogether.
That's how closely we've been following all this. There's more
Friday, January 9, 2009
Quebec in one song
Quebec, being the nationalist place it is, has had several songs written for it, or about it. Technically, even the present-day Oh Canada, in its French form, is pretty openly all about a Canada that's French, Catholic, and lives along the Saint-Lawrence; in other words, Quebec.
Quebec does not officialy have an anthem, which is surprising given how otherwise quick we are to give ourselves all the attributes of a country we can, and then name hem "national".
There have been proposal, ranging from the bombastic and over-proud Demain of the sixties, to the unofficial but popular Gens du Pays (by Gilles Vigneault), which is more of a celebration song, but since it is the song we sing every Quebec day (June 24), an association of sort has grown. On the downside, it's also the song whose chorus we've appropriated as a birthday song.
Personally, if I were asked to pick one song for Quebec, it would be another of Vigneault's song, namely Mon Pays.
Translation of the lyric is as follow:
My country is no country, it's winter.
My garden is no garden, it's the plain
My path is no path, it's the snow
My country is no country, it's winter.
In the white ceremony where snow and wind are wed
In this country of blizzards my father had a house built
And I will be faithful to his manner, to his way
The guest room will be such
That they will come from all seasons to build next to it
My country is no country, it's winter
My chorus is no chorus, it's a flurry
My house is no house, it's frost
My country is no country, it's winter
From this great solitary country I shout before going silent
To all the men of Earth My house is your house!
Between these four walls of ice, I take my time my space
To prepare fire and room
For the men of the horizon, for mankind is my race,
My country is no country, it's winter
My garden is no garden, it's the plain
My way is no way, it's snow
My country is no country, it's winter
My country is no country, it's the reverse
Of a country that was neither country nor homeland
My song is no song, it's my life
It's for you I wish to master my winters
I don't think you can put Quebec more effectively or more beautifully in a single song. There's more
Quebec does not officialy have an anthem, which is surprising given how otherwise quick we are to give ourselves all the attributes of a country we can, and then name hem "national".
There have been proposal, ranging from the bombastic and over-proud Demain of the sixties, to the unofficial but popular Gens du Pays (by Gilles Vigneault), which is more of a celebration song, but since it is the song we sing every Quebec day (June 24), an association of sort has grown. On the downside, it's also the song whose chorus we've appropriated as a birthday song.
Personally, if I were asked to pick one song for Quebec, it would be another of Vigneault's song, namely Mon Pays.
Translation of the lyric is as follow:
My country is no country, it's winter.
My garden is no garden, it's the plain
My path is no path, it's the snow
My country is no country, it's winter.
In the white ceremony where snow and wind are wed
In this country of blizzards my father had a house built
And I will be faithful to his manner, to his way
The guest room will be such
That they will come from all seasons to build next to it
My country is no country, it's winter
My chorus is no chorus, it's a flurry
My house is no house, it's frost
My country is no country, it's winter
From this great solitary country I shout before going silent
To all the men of Earth My house is your house!
Between these four walls of ice, I take my time my space
To prepare fire and room
For the men of the horizon, for mankind is my race,
My country is no country, it's winter
My garden is no garden, it's the plain
My way is no way, it's snow
My country is no country, it's winter
My country is no country, it's the reverse
Of a country that was neither country nor homeland
My song is no song, it's my life
It's for you I wish to master my winters
I don't think you can put Quebec more effectively or more beautifully in a single song. There's more
Quebec and Arkansas
Excerpt from a message to a friend I made during a visit to Arkansas in June 2008, who asked me how different my part of Canada (ie, Quebec) and Arkansas were.
Note that this was written with the parts of Arkansas around the university town of Fayetteville in mind, as it was the part of Arkansas I visited.
That much different? Not nearly as much as my fellow Canadians would like to think, for certain. What shocked me about Arkansas wasn't so much the differences (which I mostly expected), it was the similarities in landscape, in what the city actually looked like, and in mentality.
Which isn't to say there aren't differences.
The place religion occupies is probably the biggest; in Arkansas it is something people group around, organize, and identify to. You won't see that in Quebec; here, the Church is the place to have baptism, (if you have one) weddings (if you want one), and funerals in. That's not because Quebecers aren't religious; just that Quebec, due to its history, doesn't trust organized churches.
Other than that…peaceful depend of what you mean by peaceful. We get massive protests, we get riots (two in 2008!), but on things like murder, we are very, very quiet – one of Quebec's two big metro areas (Quebec City) actually had a murder-free year in 2007, and the other (Montreal) is headed toward under 30 murders in 2008. I don't know what Fayetteville is like there, so I can't compare.
That's for the differences. For everything else…the climate appears to be similar (it gets warm a little faster in Fayetteville, and stays warm a little longer), the landscapes are hauntingly familiar (I could actually stare out of my hotel room window and wonder whether I was actually in the US or visiting some regions of Quebec), and the mentalities…
Well, I could say people are the same the world over, but that's not true. Quebec and Ontario have very different mentalities. Quebec and what I encountered in Arkansas, on the other hand was shockingly similar: very hospitable and live-and-let-live (at least in person, although both regions have their blind spots), where family means a lot and try to remain close-knit, and both very deeply attached to their history, their traditions and their customs; there's a reason Quebec's motto means "I remember"!
Maybe it's because Quebec remained rural, agricultural, much longer than anyone else in the North East (and thus till has deep rural roots). Maybe it's because of the landscapes – both Quebec and Arkansas appears to have first formed in the lowlands of great rivers, before spreading into the neighboring mountain and hill regions. I don't know. All I can say is, Quebec and Arkansas were a lot more similar than I thought they'd be.
(Oh, and of course my region of Canada speaks French) There's more
Note that this was written with the parts of Arkansas around the university town of Fayetteville in mind, as it was the part of Arkansas I visited.
That much different? Not nearly as much as my fellow Canadians would like to think, for certain. What shocked me about Arkansas wasn't so much the differences (which I mostly expected), it was the similarities in landscape, in what the city actually looked like, and in mentality.
Which isn't to say there aren't differences.
The place religion occupies is probably the biggest; in Arkansas it is something people group around, organize, and identify to. You won't see that in Quebec; here, the Church is the place to have baptism, (if you have one) weddings (if you want one), and funerals in. That's not because Quebecers aren't religious; just that Quebec, due to its history, doesn't trust organized churches.
Other than that…peaceful depend of what you mean by peaceful. We get massive protests, we get riots (two in 2008!), but on things like murder, we are very, very quiet – one of Quebec's two big metro areas (Quebec City) actually had a murder-free year in 2007, and the other (Montreal) is headed toward under 30 murders in 2008. I don't know what Fayetteville is like there, so I can't compare.
That's for the differences. For everything else…the climate appears to be similar (it gets warm a little faster in Fayetteville, and stays warm a little longer), the landscapes are hauntingly familiar (I could actually stare out of my hotel room window and wonder whether I was actually in the US or visiting some regions of Quebec), and the mentalities…
Well, I could say people are the same the world over, but that's not true. Quebec and Ontario have very different mentalities. Quebec and what I encountered in Arkansas, on the other hand was shockingly similar: very hospitable and live-and-let-live (at least in person, although both regions have their blind spots), where family means a lot and try to remain close-knit, and both very deeply attached to their history, their traditions and their customs; there's a reason Quebec's motto means "I remember"!
Maybe it's because Quebec remained rural, agricultural, much longer than anyone else in the North East (and thus till has deep rural roots). Maybe it's because of the landscapes – both Quebec and Arkansas appears to have first formed in the lowlands of great rivers, before spreading into the neighboring mountain and hill regions. I don't know. All I can say is, Quebec and Arkansas were a lot more similar than I thought they'd be.
(Oh, and of course my region of Canada speaks French) There's more
Marriage and Quebec
Originally posted to my LiveJournal, September 2007, in reaction to new census statistics.
Meanwhile, back in Quebec, the death knell of the traditional family (two married adults and children) is no longer entirely a boogeyman invoked by conservative to argue against whichever latest change to the laws of matrimony they want to argue against. Instead, it is fast becoming a reality among French-Canadian society.
According to the last results from the census office, thirty-five percents of couples in the province of Québec live out of wedlock. In the regions that feature the least immigration, and are thus heavily fFench Canadian, those ratio soars past forty per-cent - nearly half of couples happily live out of wedlock.
In perspective, even the queen of all left-wing countries, Sweden, is far behind at twenty-five percent. Finland is at twenty-four. Canada as a whole - that's counting Québec - is at fifteen percent, which would give about ten percent without Québec's thirty-five thrown in.
This only goes to underline how far Québec culture has swept around - not fifty years ago, Québecers were proud to call themselves the favored, loyal children of the Roman Catholic Church, and priest had staggering political influence in the province; with excommunication of "evil" politicians being a powerful political weapon, and sayings like "Heaven is blue, Hell is red" (refering to the colors associated with political parties - blue for conservatives, red for liberals), being practically the norm.
And now instead we have this.
There's more
Meanwhile, back in Quebec, the death knell of the traditional family (two married adults and children) is no longer entirely a boogeyman invoked by conservative to argue against whichever latest change to the laws of matrimony they want to argue against. Instead, it is fast becoming a reality among French-Canadian society.
According to the last results from the census office, thirty-five percents of couples in the province of Québec live out of wedlock. In the regions that feature the least immigration, and are thus heavily fFench Canadian, those ratio soars past forty per-cent - nearly half of couples happily live out of wedlock.
In perspective, even the queen of all left-wing countries, Sweden, is far behind at twenty-five percent. Finland is at twenty-four. Canada as a whole - that's counting Québec - is at fifteen percent, which would give about ten percent without Québec's thirty-five thrown in.
This only goes to underline how far Québec culture has swept around - not fifty years ago, Québecers were proud to call themselves the favored, loyal children of the Roman Catholic Church, and priest had staggering political influence in the province; with excommunication of "evil" politicians being a powerful political weapon, and sayings like "Heaven is blue, Hell is red" (refering to the colors associated with political parties - blue for conservatives, red for liberals), being practically the norm.
And now instead we have this.
Notes on Quebec Mythology
Originally posted to my livejournal in July 2008, as part of research on one of my ongoing novel projects.
For various reasons, I've been reviewing my Québec mythology a little.
It's an interesting field. The Catholic European roots are undeniable, but there has definitely been an adaptation of such legend to the realities of an immense and sparsely inhabited territory (something true even to this day - Québec has a population density of 5.6 inhabits per square kilometer. While a lot of that is due to the empty north, that still leaves vast untamed forested areas).
Native American influence is probably there as well. For example, I'm not aware of too many European Catholic legend which feature sea serpents as benevolent being, but there are records of at least one in Québec, where the apparition of a sea serpent in the nearby lake announce a bountiful harvest for the year.
Similarly, the Québec werewolf is an interesting figure. While it is undeniably a man-human transformation, it's a were whose legend involve no biting (one becomes a were by not attending church for several years in a row. Or, in other words, deliberately stepping outside society), and no silver (simply bleeding the were is enough to cure him). Nor does the resulting being (were-cat, were-horse and were-demon all join the wolves in Quebec folklore) show any sign of ever being human : they completely take the form of the other (interestingly, while the cat and dog are universally described as enormous and black, the horse is enormous but white. The demon is, well, a demon). Possibly, this conception of the werewolf was influenced by the Native American wendigo, people who became demons for breaking taboos.
There's more
For various reasons, I've been reviewing my Québec mythology a little.
It's an interesting field. The Catholic European roots are undeniable, but there has definitely been an adaptation of such legend to the realities of an immense and sparsely inhabited territory (something true even to this day - Québec has a population density of 5.6 inhabits per square kilometer. While a lot of that is due to the empty north, that still leaves vast untamed forested areas).
Native American influence is probably there as well. For example, I'm not aware of too many European Catholic legend which feature sea serpents as benevolent being, but there are records of at least one in Québec, where the apparition of a sea serpent in the nearby lake announce a bountiful harvest for the year.
Similarly, the Québec werewolf is an interesting figure. While it is undeniably a man-human transformation, it's a were whose legend involve no biting (one becomes a were by not attending church for several years in a row. Or, in other words, deliberately stepping outside society), and no silver (simply bleeding the were is enough to cure him). Nor does the resulting being (were-cat, were-horse and were-demon all join the wolves in Quebec folklore) show any sign of ever being human : they completely take the form of the other (interestingly, while the cat and dog are universally described as enormous and black, the horse is enormous but white. The demon is, well, a demon). Possibly, this conception of the werewolf was influenced by the Native American wendigo, people who became demons for breaking taboos.
Frenglish Quebec
It sometimes feel like I've spent a large part of my online life of these past eight (oops. Nine now) trying to explain to various American, English-Canadians and various others the realities of Quebec life.
Since I had a blogspot account doing nothing useful, I've decided to create a central repository for all those stray thoughts (and, perhaps, articles) on Quebec I've logged at various discussion board, and in various forums over time.
In the interest of full disclosure, because sometime bias may come though, I will disclose that I am a white male and a "Québécois" (that is, a person who identify as part of the French Quebec culture). I am also (and this is probably the last time you hear me refering to myself as such, because I wholeheartedly hate the concept) what some people refer to as "Pure-wool", that is, a Quebecer of near-exclusively French ancestry. I am bilingual (French-English), which is to say I am equally inept in two languages. I live in the outer suburbs of Montreal.
Politically, I trend toward center-to-moderate-left in canadian terms, which is to say I favor some social programs (universal healthcare and making higher education more accessible, for two), but generally think the market is a good thing, so long as proper safeguard exists, and that money doesn't grow in trees. Morally, I'm very much the live and let live type - so long as no one is getting hurt (without consenting to it), do as you will - but don't expect me to do as you do. Religiously, I'm probably best described these days as an independent (and therefore not a church goer) Christian with some agnostic leanings.
I hope to make some use of this, but I make no promises!
There's more
Since I had a blogspot account doing nothing useful, I've decided to create a central repository for all those stray thoughts (and, perhaps, articles) on Quebec I've logged at various discussion board, and in various forums over time.
In the interest of full disclosure, because sometime bias may come though, I will disclose that I am a white male and a "Québécois" (that is, a person who identify as part of the French Quebec culture). I am also (and this is probably the last time you hear me refering to myself as such, because I wholeheartedly hate the concept) what some people refer to as "Pure-wool", that is, a Quebecer of near-exclusively French ancestry. I am bilingual (French-English), which is to say I am equally inept in two languages. I live in the outer suburbs of Montreal.
Politically, I trend toward center-to-moderate-left in canadian terms, which is to say I favor some social programs (universal healthcare and making higher education more accessible, for two), but generally think the market is a good thing, so long as proper safeguard exists, and that money doesn't grow in trees. Morally, I'm very much the live and let live type - so long as no one is getting hurt (without consenting to it), do as you will - but don't expect me to do as you do. Religiously, I'm probably best described these days as an independent (and therefore not a church goer) Christian with some agnostic leanings.
I hope to make some use of this, but I make no promises!
There's more
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
