[DerbyX]

$1:

So, my question is : is it correct in English to use the word "nation" in the meaning of "nation-people"? Like I said, there are strong evidences that this is correct (even if the meaning of "nation-state" is perhaps more common), but because of the political question of Quebec, English Canadians seems to feel that recognition of Quebec as a "nation people" (not a "nation-state") is an agression and just separatist propaganda. I consider this very sad and frustrating...

I think that we often see it as a means of divorcing yourselves from the ROC. I have no problem recognizing uniqueness & distinction of the many peoples within Canada but think that the "Canadian identity" should come forth. Like I said before, my francophone side sees no problem being "Quebeckers" & "Canadians". They see their history as Candians that speak french. Why do you think places like France militantly take the position that all its citizens must think of themselves as French first and other distinctions after. I have no problem recognizing the distinctivesness of Quebeckers within Canada. The problem arises from those who push that distinction to the exclusion of a Canadian identity. You are correct that francophone Quebec can be considered a "nation" and by many definitions as well.

I think it is in Canada's best interest that all Canadians should be "Canadian" first and other distinctions after. Canada has not been doing this and look at identity & separation (east & west) problems we have. That is why the "nationhood" of Quebec is very strongly pushed. They realize that a strong Quebec must have a strong singular identity.

Since we are on the subject, you find it frustrating that many english Canadians don't view Quebecs "nation status" but we also get loads of Quebeckers coming on here and dismissing every other Canadian culture as copycat American and yet expect us to respect their view.

I think you will find that those who oppose "Nation status" for Quebec oppose it on the grounds that it is being used as an exclusion to a Canadian identity rather then an addition to a Candian identity.

[QuebecSpock]

-Mario- -Mario-:

The problem is not the definition of the word... its almost the same between the French and English. The problem is in what contexte it is used.

I think we are arguing the wrong end of it. Its not what we think it means, but more like what it means when the PQ uses it. Does it mean Country, People or both???

Si le PQ dit "le Québec est une nation", ce n'est pas qu'il auto-proclamme la souveraineté du Québec de façon unilatérale. Il parle alors de "nation-people", comme par exemple d'exprimer sa fierté de représenter la nation ("nation-people") Québécoise à l'Assemblée Nationale.

Si le PQ dit "nous voulons que le Québec soit reconnu comme une nation aux Nations Unies", là il parle de souveraineté et de "nation-state".

C'est très clair.

De plus, une éventuelle reconaissance officielle du Québec comme étant une nation ("nation-people") par le gouvernement du Canada pourrait être faite de telle sorte qu'il n'y ait aucune ambuiguité, i.e. que le texte de la déclaration pourrait expliquer que cette reconnaissance fait référence au concept de "nation-people" et non "nation-state", et que les droits accordés avec la reconnaissance (s'il y en a) sont EXPLICITEMENT mentionnés dans le texte de la déclaration.

[QuebecSpock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I think it is in Canada's best interest that all Canadians should be "Canadian" first and other distinctions after.

Cette obsession pour "l'Unité Canadienne" cause plus de tort au pays qu'il ne peut l'aider, si vous voulez mon avis. Avant toute chose je suis Québécois et fier de l'être, mais je suis aussi Canadien et j'en suis aussi fier.

Si vous croyez que de persister à nier que les Québécois forment une nation aide l'unité canadienne, vous vous mettez le doigt dans l'oeil, vous polarisez les souveranistes mous comme moi.

[DerbyX]

ummmm,

I think I came out in agreement with you, that Quebec is distinct and a nation. Did I leave you with the wrong impression?

I'm sorry but I don't think that having a national Canadian identity is wrong anymore then you wanting a Quebec identity.

The nation status that people like you (unique identity within Canada) is perfectly acceptable & reasonable. Its the people who use it as a means to an end that cause the problem.

On a side note, I would try and translate this into french but yesterday I was too drunk and today I'm nursing the affects and playing video games while posting. I'm on vacation after all. Must go eat.

[QuebecSpock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I think I came out in agreement with you, that Quebec is distinct and a nation.

Oui. Cela a été long, mais j'ai réussi . Quoique prouver l'évidence même, ce n'est pas supposé être aussi compliqué... SVP allez-vous pouvoir m'aider à expliquer cela à ceux qui ne comprennent pas encore?

DerbyX DerbyX:

The nation status that people like you (unique identity within Canada) is perfectly acceptable & reasonable. Its the people who use it as a means to an end that cause the problem.

Peut-être que "cette fin" ("end") n'est pas apparue sans raison...

De plus, la reconnaisance de la nation ("nation-people") Québécoise ne donne pas vraiment d'arme aux indépendentistes, au contraire ça aurait l'effet de convaincre les souverainistes moins radicaux que la Canada est compatible avec une identité Québécoise forte...

[DerbyX]

Well identities are a tricky thing. It was not to long ago that religion was the identity that people associated themselves with. Class was also used as an identity. Upper class (between countires) usually had a greater group identity then with the lower class people of their own country. Now that type of thinking is very old school type stuff. Certainly there is the movement in Quebec for a "Quebec identity". Who knows, 10 years from now everybody will identify themselves by the game console they own. We XBOX people are better then you PS3 people.

What I see (want) for Canada is what I saw in the UK. The people were all proudly english but drew a great deal of their "unique" identity from the city/county that they were from. ie, a scouser is from Liverpool, geordie from Newcastle, manc from manchester and so on. A strong identity but one that does not conflict with a strong national identity.

[Pimpbrewski]

QuebecSpock QuebecSpock:

-Mario- -Mario-:

3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: "Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity" (Robert Conquest)

C'est ce que je disais. Je peux affirmer haut et fort que "Quebec is a nation" sans faire référence à la souveraineté? Êtes-vous d'accord?

It seems to me that you read your interpretation of ``only`` what you want to hear.

It's funny

Notice how Mario gave 4 definitions, yet you only described the one that suits your boat.

Have you even noticed the other description, mostly no. 2.

$1:

2. The government of a sovereign state.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Al the definitions are appropriate, depending on context.

There is a real problem with people who quote another and, because of the ambiguity of the word, make it seem that the original author meant one use of the word 'nation' and not another.

Another older common use of the word 'nation' was to indicate people of one blood, as the French 'gens'.

So it is probably best to always be clear whether 'nation' is meant in it's genetic, it's cultural, or political/legal sense.


But still, with Québec, there is the further question, if it is a nation distinct from the ROC, does that mean that it is really French, or as well distinct from France?

Or, to put it another way, is the difference based on Frenchness, or is it based on uniqueness, (the unique qualities that make the Québécois different from all other people in the world).

Two choices. It seems that the following two outcomes would follow:

If it is Frenchness, then it makes the Québécois genetically different, and it is a nationhood by blood.

If it is uniqueness, then it makes the Québécois culturally different, and it is a nationhood by uniqueness.


(I'm not convinced of either outcome, I am just seeing where things may lead.)

[QuebecSpock]

Pimpbrewski Pimpbrewski:

It seems to me that you read your interpretation of ``only`` what you want to hear.

Exercice:

Je prends le dictionnaire (petit Larousse). Je prends une page au hasard. Je tombe sur le mot "foyer".

1. Lieu ou on fait le feu
2. Partie d'un appareil de chauffage industriel ou domestique où a lieu la combustion
3. Lieu ou habite une famille
4. Maison d'habitation réservée à une certaine catégorie de personnes (foyer de jeunes travailleurs, foyer pour personnes agées)
5. Lieu, local servant de lieu de réunion.
6. Centre principal d'où previent qelque chose
7. Siège principal d'une infection (MED)
8. Point ou convergent des rayons initialement parallèles (PHYS)
9. Foyer d'une conique (Géométrie).

Bon, maintenant que j'ai lu tout ca, je décide de faire un feu dans mon foyer (définition 1). Ma grand mère voyant ça, elle me dit : voyons donc, ce n'est pas un foyer, car un foyer est une une maison d'habitation réservée à une certaine catégorie de personnes (def. 4). De plus, on ne fait pas de feu dans un foyer, c'est contre le règlement. Je lui réponds : Grand-Mère, un foyer peut avoir plusieurs significations, regarde dans le dictionnaire.

Tu as deviné que tu joues le rôle de la grand-mère (fais-toi en pas, ya pas de loup dans l'histoire )

---

Revenons au cas du Québec. Je reconnais que le mot nation, en anglais autant qu'en français peut avoir plus qu'une signification. Dans le cas du Québec, est-ce parce qu'il ne correspond pas à une des définition (nation-état) que toutes les autres définitions ne peuvent s'appliquer (dont celle correspondant à un peuple distinct). Autrement dit, le fait qu'un foyer ne sert pas principalement à faire un feu nous empêche-t-il d'appeler cela un foyer?

Pimpbrewski Pimpbrewski:

Notice how Mario gave 4 definitions, yet you only described the one that suits your boat.

Have you even noticed the other description, mostly no. 2.

Quote:
2. The government of a sovereign state.

Le Québec n'est pas une nation selon cette définition #2. Satisfait? (mais néanmoins la définition #3 s'applique )

[Optinum]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

If it is Frenchness, then it makes the Québécois genetically different, and it is a nationhood by blood. no , its not Frenchness, we dont salute like the french does, we dont eat the same food, we dont live in the same environement, we dont have the same accents, our vocubolario is more less sexist than the french one, we juste have a cross history ( the french conolisation), but after the cowardness of the french state, our ancestor has manage our language and culture

If it is uniqueness, then it makes the Québécois culturally different, and it is a nationhood by uniqueness. the cultures in quebec is really different, i did make a work for my chilian musique class to proff that folklore existe in north america, but the thing that define our different of culture with other is that at the start, we were influanced by the french culture and after with the irish, the folk was linked to the celt music. but above all, quebec culture is about discours ( discourso ( en spanish)). sure we are not european like every one like to says but we are american / continant) and in this continent, im sure we are distinc of all nation or culture in this continant.

quebecer is different of anglo-saxon
different of latino america and brezil




(I'm not convinced of either outcome, I am just seeing where things may lead.)

[QuebecSpock]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Al the definitions are appropriate, depending on context.

There is a real problem with people who quote another and, because of the ambiguity of the word, make it seem that the original author meant one use of the word 'nation' and not another.

Tu as raison. La prochaine fois que je ferai l'affirmation que le Québec est ma nation, je vais préciser le sens. Peut-être qu'à la longue les gens vont s'habituer et ca ne deviendra plus nécessaire de préciser...

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Another older common use of the word 'nation' was to indicate people of one blood, as the French 'gens'.

So it is probably best to always be clear whether 'nation' is meant in it's genetic, it's cultural, or political/legal sense.

But still, with Québec, there is the further question, if it is a nation distinct from the ROC, does that mean that it is really French, or as well distinct from France?

Nous sommes définitivement distincts de la France.

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Or, to put it another way, is the difference based on Frenchness, or is it based on uniqueness, (the unique qualities that make the Québécois different from all other people in the world).

Two choices. It seems that the following two outcomes would follow:

If it is Frenchness, then it makes the Québécois genetically different, and it is a nationhood by blood.

If it is uniqueness, then it makes the Québécois culturally different, and it is a nationhood by uniqueness.

Le second choix correspond beaucoup plus au cas du Québec.

[Jaime_Souviens]

QuebecSpock QuebecSpock:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Or, to put it another way, is the difference based on Frenchness, or is it based on uniqueness, (the unique qualities that make the Québécois different from all other people in the world).

Two choices. It seems that the following two outcomes would follow:

If it is Frenchness, then it makes the Québécois genetically different, and it is a nationhood by blood.

If it is uniqueness, then it makes the Québécois culturally different, and it is a nationhood by uniqueness.

Le second choix correspond beaucoup plus au cas du Québec.

Good. That seems the better view to me as well.

One wonders though, when one hears about "pure laine" Québécois whether some people see this as genetic.

But if it is distinct by culture, history, tradition, and not blood,--then everything since Champlain is included, from an old family from Les Eboulements to a West-indian family that has been in Québec since 1946.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Optinum Optinum:

...the cultures in quebec is really different, i did make a work for my chilian musique class to proff that folklore existe in north america, but the thing that define our different of culture with other is that at the start, we were influanced by the french culture and after with the irish, the folk was linked to the celt music. but above all, quebec culture is about discours ( discourso ( en spanish)). sure we are not european like every one like to says but we are american / continant) and in this continent, im sure we are distinc of all nation or culture in this continant.

quebecer is different of anglo-saxon
different of latino america and brezil

That should have been easy in a music class, where the varieties of fiddle music are like so many languages, and have already been traced :

England, Ireland, Scotland, Normandie, Bretagne, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Acadia, Québec.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Nation can mean a lot of things. It is often used as 'government', as in the 'United Nations'.

But it is also used for tribal associations outside of law, such as the 'Sioux Nation.' (And this doesn't mean the legally instituted organization that runs the Sioux reservation--there was a Sioux Nation long before there was a reservation.)

'Nation' can be used in nearly every sense that the word 'people' is used, but it does have an overtone of formal organization.

The Québécois culture has all the attributes of a nation, including a formal organization in the provincial government and l'Assemblée Nationale du Québec.

But there is one difference between 'nation' and 'people' in that the word 'nation' implies allegiance. Political loyalty. Can one be loyal to two sovereigns?

At first, one is inclined to say no. But the rest of Canada ought to have a hard time making this argument, where, at least for some period of time, every good Canadian was loyal to Canada and to the British Empire.

Cannot the Québécois today say that they, in the same way, are loyal to Québec and to Canada?



(I am not asking this as a way of forcing only one reply, ---I am not certain of the answer myself.)

((Or how about this, should an Albertan be loyal to Alberta and Canada?))

[Jaime_Souviens]

Oh, and the Oxford English Dictionary says:

$1:

I. A people or group of peoples; a political state.

1. a. A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now also: such a people forming a political state; a political state. (In early use also in pl.: a country.)
In early examples notions of race and common descent predominate. In later use notions of territory, political unity, and independence are more prominent, although some writers still make a pointed distinction between nation and state. Cf. NATION-STATE n.
The term is rarely used to refer to a state in its physical or geographical aspect; but see quot. 1653.