BartSimpson
My God. Just, wow, oh wow.
You know man, I had respect for you. We pretty much always disagree on every issue, but I had respect for you. But I read that last post of yours, and wow. I'll have to reconsider.
So I could call you a twit all along this post. I could. But I won't, because that'd lead nowhere. Just read it as you'd always do, but keep the words you've just read in mind. Truly, you disappoint me - you're better than that. You're a bright guy, I know it. Now, please, show it.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Belief? That would be the numerous people who were raised Cajun who go to voice coaches to relieve themselves of their Cajun accents because (whether you like it or not, you twit) people who have Cajun accents have a bitch of a time getting work and they also have a bitch of a time getting into higher education. Probably the highest profile examples of two people who went to voice coaches to get rid of their Cajun accents would be Britney & Jamie Lynn Spears.
That's good. I agree. On all the line. Thing is : that wasn't what I was talking of at all. That "belief" I talked of is rather your belief that Quebec francophones are going against a wall. Maybe I wasn't clear enough - I'll give that to you. But really, considering all I wrote afterwards, I DO wonder how you could get the idea I was questioning what you were saying about the Cajun accent rather than your position on the actions of Quebec francophones.
$1:
Ignorantly assuming that my opinions were formed only as I read this post is, well, ignorant.
Okay, then what do you base your opinions on? I'm still waiting...
$1:
Bilingualism is not a necessity for 350 million people on this continent.
Sure it isn't.
But huh. Hello? I was talking of
Quebec francophones alone, and that was painfully obvious. The rest of America has nothing to do with it. I was saying that bilingualism is critically important for francophones. Sure it's a bonus for everyone else, but I never rose that point.
So please, don't say I
assume... one, you do the same, second, I at least have the decency of
acknowledging I assumed stuff and asking you to tell me if I was off the mark.
$1:
Again, you miss the point that 350 million people are not going to learn a dialect of French to accomadate a relative minority in Quebec or an even smaller minority in Louisiana.
And you miss the point that I was talking of bilingualism in
Quebec alone, for
francophones alone, so please read what I said again and keep this in mind. I don't know where you got the idea I was talking of the entire freaking continent, but you had to look pretty damn deep. So please, please, don't go
$1:
Yet Quebec has laws openly discriminating against English. I imagine you see the hypocrisy here, right?
BUZZWrong.
Again, as I always do, I admit there are some tiny aspects of the language laws that are ridiculous and uneeded, and could even be considered discriminating if one would stretch it and stretch it and stretch it and completely ignore all the context for the purpose of victimizing a group and demonizing another. But the laws themselves ARE NOT discriminatory. At all. The language police? There are always idiots, and it's sure some will attempt abusing their power - but the laws themselves are fine, barring a few, nearly absolutely irrelevant details
because nothing is perfect.
You have qualms against the language laws, well then tell me why, exctly why, and I'll do my best to show you why they're actually just fine and everything up to little details is justifiable. Again, maybe not outright
justified, because some will always disagree, but
justifiable enough to be maintained.
$1:
Corporations like VISA are not social programs. If they do not find it cost effective to conduct business in French then it is their choice not to do so.
Yes I agree. Hence why I'm saying : if they won't accept our laws, then we'll have no choice but to speak to them in their language - money. Payback, basically. And if that's not enough for them to accept bending just a little bit, then so be it. But really, no company in its right mind would accept to piss off a market of 6+ million people to save like a few hundred thousands one-time. Guess we'd just have to be pissed enough.
$1:
Whether or not you find the observations about Cajuns to be offensive is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the observations are fundamentally true and Cajuns themselves are dispensing with the linguistic aspects of their culture in order to assimilate into the broader population. An interesting byproduct of their successful integration into popular culture is the increasing popularity of Cajun cuisine.
No. That I agreed with all along. What I find offensive is that you seemed to condone that discrimination. And I'll say it one more time : I know that's not what you meant. But it simply
sounds that way, and it makes a little annoying ticking at the back of my brain.
$1:
What remains to be seen is whether or not Quebec's francophones will elect to isolate themselves from the rest of North America or if they will choose to leave the past behind and integrate into the dominant culture. As the USA and Canada merge closer economically and politically then at some point your language laws in Quebec will come into conflict with a treaty or agreement with the USA. And that will be the end of your language laws right there. The decline of French in North America is an inevitability. Deal with it.
Aaaaaaand now THE beef of the issue.
And that was all I was saying all along, and what you didn't understand correctly it would appear. To put it as clearly as possible, as evidently as possible :
--- It is possible for Quebec francophones to maintain the French language as well as integrating themselves to all eventual north american markets and maintaining a competitive economy on the world scene by promoting unifying factors such as
bilingualism among Quebec francophones all while keeping the language laws strong. We're not asking for the moon here, but only for a little bit of goodwill - and that would be
reciprocical - yes we ask for some, but we'd also do our part of the job to make sure our laws don't interfere too much. Find a middle ground, basically : as long as any eventual treaty would have Quebec as a minimally significant market, it is almost certain an agreement could be reached to satisfy everyone (and again, I'll take time to note, I'm not saying the 7 million of us would bark and bite until the 350 million others would give us the moon - we'd just ask for maybe a tiny addendum or a fucking pamphlet to be translated, and a market of 7 million people is so much more important than this kind of details that everybody would agree it's better that way like 98% of the time - as for the other 2%, well SO BE IT, don't think francophones will be ditching the last line of defense of their language and culture because of mere peanuts in the coffers of the state). The only times an agreement couldn't really be reached is when Quebec would be essentially insignificant anyway, so one would have to wonder why we'd be so bothered about signing that kind of treaty anyway.
Anyway, one would think that if Quebec would have to destroy its language laws to get a place in a critical treaty, it'd already have happened. In fact, there are some theoretically important treaties we live happily without. Like, say... the Canadian Constitution. Just an example. Sloppy, maybe, but still...
Every 50 years someone new predicts French will be done with and buried by the end of his lifetime. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen tomorrow. It might happen in a long while, if the world changes a lot. But under the current dynamics, or only slightly different ones? Forget it. We're here to stay. Will protecting our culture cost us a bit, economically? Sure it will. Will it put us to our knees? It simply won't. Is the cost worth it? It damn is, and nobody is going to break us so easily - protection of our own language and culture makes near-unanimity among Quebec francophones, and as long as we hold power on our own destiny, don't even imagine we'll be dropping our defenses. And please, don't go saying we won't hold our destiny for long. That'd be a delusion. We do, we'll still do tomorrow, we'll almost certainly still do by the time we'll both be dead - only a truly huge change could modify that. In fact, even in much worse conditions before, French and the Québécois culture survived, so one has to wonder if even completely losing control over protection of it would change anything at all. It's not economical cost that's going to stop us, especially when it's illogical and virtually impossible to think the costs are going to kill our society - they never have, they don't, they almost certainly never will unless things change dramatically, so they realistically won't until a long, long time. Hurt a bit, yes, destroy, no.
Right, that is all I had to say. Like, ever. So I'll just say to everyone who read this : if you want to say something to me, or ask me a question, read this again and maybe the answer will come to you.
Forum Addict 
CKA Moderator 
