Mayor Bronconnier wants whites gone

[cyborg]

The mayor of Calgary says an internet offer by a white supremacist group to help pay the rent of new members willing to relocate to the city is “distasteful.”

Under a posting titled “White Nationlist Relocation Program — Destination Calgary” on an online forum earlier this month, a member of Calgary’s neo-Nazi Aryan Guard invited people to move to the city.

“The Aryan Guard is always seeking new brothers and sisters, if you are interested in relocating to our Calgary area, we will pay the damage deposit for your residence,” wrote someone nicknamed “pitbull-A.G.” on stormfront.org, a forum that promotes “white pride worldwide.”

“We believe that through fortifying our current locations with more White Nationlists we can spread the world more efficiently and than in the future branch out further throughout Canada.”

The neo-Nazi group claims to have about 20 members.

Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier said the offer shows the group has little support in the city.

“This is certainly something that we don’t support. This is, I think, the wrong move, of trying to take a supremacist organization and trying to encourage people, with money, to join their organization,” he said on Monday. “I find it distasteful actually.”

Some posters have replied with inquiries about what the job market is like in Alberta.

A man from London, Ont., wrote: “This announcement pleases me. This is exactly one of the things we ought to be doing. We should start doing this in London too. The government can’t do a thing to us just for helping other Whites settle in our cities. Whether it’s helping them find a place to stay or find a job, all perfectly legal.”

A study by Statistics Canada released in June showed Calgary had the highest rate of hate-motivated crime in the country. In 2006, 92 hate crimes were reported in the city — about nine incidents for every 100,000 people in the city, or three times higher than the national average of three per 100,000.

http://www.newsnet14.com/2008/07/23/white-nationlist-relocation-program-—-destination-calgary/

[harjit]

Misleading thread title (with due respect to Cyborg).


"This is certainly something that we don’t support. This is, I think, the wrong move, of trying to take a supremacist organization and trying to encourage people, with money, to join their organization,” he said on Monday. “I find it distasteful actually."
Nothing in the wildest imagination can support the interpretation that he wants white people gone. Not to mention, he's white himself.

[Count Sudoku]

Misleading thread title (with due respect to Cyborg).

Nothing in the wildest imagination can support the interpretation that he wants white people gone. Not to mention, he's white himself.

This whole story is ridiculous. How much money could these guys possibly have to help relocate White people? $50?

[cyborg]

The mayor is out of line because he's not a city leader but a mouthpiece for public hyperreality. A leader would ignore a few white pride families moving in to the area because it is non-threatening, non-eventful, likely mildly helpful adding stability. A mouthpiece ensures ideological enforcement when any miniscule opportunity presents itself and that is sheer demagoguery.

[Count Sudoku]

The mayor is out of line because he's not a city leader but a mouthpiece for public hyperreality. A leader would ignore a few white pride families moving in to the area because it is non-threatening, non-eventful, likely mildly helpful adding stability. A mouthpiece ensures ideological enforcement when any miniscule opportunity presents itself and that is sheer demagoguery.

What did you expect the Mayor to say? Every single elected official would have said the same thing.

[Starr]

“This is certainly something that we don’t support. This is, I think, the wrong move, of trying to take a supremacist organization and trying to encourage people, with money, to join their organization,” he said on Monday. “I find it distasteful actually.”

This is said almost as if a bribe is being offerered. Sort of like accept our views and we will give you money to rent a house. If this was posted on Stormfront then the people who even know about this already have those views. So they are offering money to people of their own race who have similar views to move to the area. What is distasteful in this? Would people object to a minority organization doing something similar?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

What did you expect the Mayor to say? Every single elected official would have said the same thing.

Of course...because Canada rejects White Nationalism. Good.

[Count Sudoku]

Of course...because Canada rejects White Nationalism. Good.

I imagine that less and less of (White) Canada will reject it as time goes on. There are thousands of White people who have left Toronto because they don't want to live in Third World territory.

Nothing sells WN better than proximity to large numbers of niggers.

edit:

And second of all, any candidate that didn't hold that position and said so publicly would be crucified by the joooooooooooooooooo media. They'd probably also be charged by Warman's kangaroo court.

[harjit]

This is said almost as if a bribe is being offerered. Sort of like accept our views and we will give you money to rent a house. If this was posted on Stormfront then the people who even know about this already have those views. So they are offering money to people of their own race who have similar views to move to the area. What is distasteful in this? Would people object to a minority organization doing something similar?
Almost no minority organizations in Canada have the levels of anti-social sordidity that WN groups do. Nor is their goal to deport others or balkanize nations.

People here always make this kind of comparison but the two are nothing alike. You need to realize that the vast majority of people who are overtly "pro-white" are mostly about attacking (not physically... at least in most cases) minorities and Jews. Two minutes browsing Stormfront will confirm this. Whether a more positive form of pro-whiteness, based on the kind of decency that people are used to and comfortable with, can be attained (e.g. the way specific European ethnic and cultural orgs are accepted in Canada just fine) is to be seen. However that is far from the case now. You guys seriously need more Ahknatons. :p

[Starr]

an all white organization that specifically advertised for whites to come and live in their community would be villified no matter what else they were to say. Just the existence of a white organizations and the call, specifically for white people to move to the area would be hateful. This is not something you would see happening with a black or jewish organization. And black and jewish organizations exist by definition(their definition anyway) to "protect" their people from big bad white gentiles who are out to get them at every turn. Something is too white or too christian and they will bitch about it and attempt to change it to their benefit.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

an all white organization that specifically advertised for whites to come and live in their community would be villified no matter what else they were to say. Just the existence of a white organizations and the call, specifically for white people to move to the area would be hateful. This is not something you would see happening with a black or jewish organization. And black and jewish organizations exist by definition(their definition anyway) to "protect" their people from big bad white gentiles who are out to get them at every turn. Something is too white or too christian and they will bitch about it and attempt to change it to their benefit.

Starr: there are hundreds if not thousands of white organizations in Canada. They just don't go by the term "white". They go by Ukrainian, Hungarian, Italian, etc. White is just a racial descriptor up here.

[Golobulus]

Almost no minority organizations in Canada have the levels of anti-social sordidity that WN groups do. Nor is their goal to deport others or balkanize nations.
No, of course not. They just demand any sign of Canada as a white nation be removed as they take advantage of our wealth and force their cultures upon us.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

No, of course not. They just demand any sign of Canada as a white nation be removed as they take advantage of our wealth and force their cultures upon us.

Canada isn't a white nation.

Canada isn't a nation.

[Golobulus]

If a sikh mountie wears a turban can he rightfully enforce the laws of the land from a nation who's customs he rejects?

[Golobulus]

Canada isn't a white nation.

It is.

Canada isn't a nation.
It was.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

If a sikh mountie wears a turban can he rightfully enforce the laws of the land from a nation who's customs he rejects?

Which customs are those? You work under the assumption that there's a Canadian identity in which immigrants are to assimilate into. This is a false assumption (as Haklyut has well pointed out). Canada isn't the USA.

[Raskolnikov]

an all white organization that specifically advertised for whites to come and live in their community would be villified no matter what else they were to say. Just the existence of a white organizations and the call, specifically for white people to move to the area would be hateful. This is not something you would see happening with a black or jewish organization. And black and jewish organizations exist by definition(their definition anyway) to "protect" their people from big bad white gentiles who are out to get them at every turn. Something is too white or too christian and they will bitch about it and attempt to change it to their benefit.

Well, the media doesn't demonize white flight. You see mostly whites moving to the Seattle area for example, but no one is saying its an evil exodus. There must be white flight out of the cities in Canada, but I could be wrong.

[harjit]

If a sikh mountie wears a turban can he rightfully enforce the laws of the land from a nation who's customs he rejects?
The turban thing doesn't mean he rejects Canadian values, nor does it have anything to do with whether he competently does his job.

For the record I oppose, for numerous reasons, that bill allowing Sikhs to deviate from standard uniforms. However your argument sounds pretty superficial.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

The turban thing doesn't mean he rejects Canadian values (Nic may argue there is no such thing, I disagree), nor does it have anything to do with whether he competently does his job.

Since multiculturalism is an enshrined "Canadian value", wearing a turban only reinforces it.

[1-800]

For the record I oppose, for numerous reasons, that bill allowing Sikhs to deviate from standard uniforms. However your argument sounds pretty superficial.

You are forgetting that the presence of alien subcontinentals in European nations and their overseas diaspora damages the genetic interests of European peoples.

[Golobulus]

The turban thing doesn't mean he rejects Canadian values, nor does it have anything to do with whether he competently does his job.

For the record I oppose, for numerous reasons, that bill allowing Sikhs to deviate from standard uniforms. However your argument sounds pretty superficial.
He is forcing his ways onto the country he immigrated/that “welcomed” him in, he shows himself ungrateful and rejecting of the ways the people who's laws he is to enforce.

What is the difference between what he is doing and if you had invited me over your place, asking me to take of my shoes, I said no?

[Count Sudoku]

Canada ceased being a nation when we let people like Nic in.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Canada ceased being a nation when we let people like Nic in.

What's a Canadian?

[1-800]

What's a Canadian?

What's not a Canadian? A swarthy wog, such as yourself.

:whip:

[Niccolo and Donkey]

What's not a Canadian? A swarthy wog, such as yourself.

:whip:

That's a negative definition, therefore it doesn't work. Canada has long attempted to work with negative definitions such as "we're not Americans".

[Niccolo and Donkey]

He is forcing his ways onto the country he immigrated/that “welcomed” him in, he shows himself ungrateful and rejecting of the ways the people who's laws he is to enforce.

Which people? Which ways?

Lots of Sikhs in Canada. He's not for instance rejecting the ways of Canadian Sikhs.

Why do you reject the ways of Canadian Sikhs?

[Count Sudoku]

What's a Canadian?

Apparently anyone who manages to be born here or manages to acquire citizenship which is handed out like my Grandma hands out Halloween candy (except to White people).

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Apparently anyone who manages to be born here or manages to acquire citizenship which is handed out like my Grandma hands out Halloween candy (except to White people).

According to this definition, Canada is not a white nation.

[harjit]

He is forcing his ways onto the country he immigrated/that “welcomed” him in, he shows himself ungrateful and rejecting of the ways the people who's laws he is to enforce.

What is the difference between what he is doing and if you had invited me over your place, asking me to take of my shoes, I said no?
In the case of the Sikhs, they were somehow able to convince the hosts that it's OK for them not to take off their shoes, to employ your example. History is replete with such examples. Each group of white immigrants also changed the society.

It's pretty blurred as to who the guests and hosts really are in a state, as opposed to a house where it's clear-cut.

[Count Sudoku]

According to this definition, Canada is not a white nation.

It isn't anymore.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

It isn't anymore.

We certainly can agree on that and therefore we agree that Golobolus' claim is a false one.

[Golobulus]

Which people? Which ways?

Lots of Sikhs in Canada. He's not for instance rejecting the ways of Canadian Sikhs.
A Canadian is a Canadian, a Sikh is a Sikh. A Canadian Sikh is a Sikh pretending he is Canadian to take advantage of what Canada has.


You play silly childish games that have no one amused but yourself. You are boring.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

A Canadian is a Canadian, a Sikh is a Sikh.

What's a Canadian?

You can't throw terms around loosely without defining them.

You play silly childish games that have no one amused but yourself. You are boring.

Driving arena sized holes through your weak arguments doesn't equate to "silly childish games".

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Maybe "Canadian" is like "anti-semite": "I know one when I see one" (as several told me on FR in the old days).

[Golobulus]

In the case of the Sikhs, they were somehow able to convince the hosts that it's OK for them not to take off their shoes, to employ your example.
False. The host - White families were never asked.

It's pretty blurred as to who the guests and hosts really are in a state, as opposed to a house where it's clear-cut.
No. Not at all, but you’d like it to be.

Do not confuse state with nation.

[Count Sudoku]

We certainly can agree on that and therefore we agree that Golobolus' claim is a false one.

You can make the case that Canada is a White nation because most people in it are still White.

[Golobulus]

Driving arena sized holes through your weak arguments doesn't equate to "silly childish games".
You speak only absurdities, you are a joke.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

You can make the case that Canada is a White nation because most people in it are still White.

Incorrect. The case would be "mainly white nation" if Canada could be considered a nation, not "white nation". If a Canadian nation does exist (which as you all know I dispute) it would be multiracial a la Brazilian.

[Golobulus]

You can make the case that Canada is a White nation because most people in it are still White.
and they did not all immigrate/invade all within the last few decades

[Niccolo and Donkey]

You only speak absurdities, you are a joke.

If facts are absurd, I agree.

Run along now, grown ups are talking. Go play RAHOWA in your basement.

[Count Sudoku]

Incorrect. The case would be "mainly white nation" if Canada could be considered a nation, not "white nation". If a Canadian nation does exist (which as you all know I dispute) it would be multiracial a la Brazilian.

Mainly White nation would be more accurate. Is Japan a Japanese nation or is it multiracial because Harjit lives there?

[Count Sudoku]

and they did not all immigrate/invade all within the last few decades

Good point.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Mainly White nation would be more accurate. Is Japan a Japanese nation or is it multiracial because Harjit lives there?

There's a big difference between Canada and Japan: Japan is a nation-state with a well-defined sense of nationhood and has never been a country of immigrants.

[Count Sudoku]

There's a big difference between Canada and Japan: Japan is a nation-state with a well-defined sense of nationhood and has never been a country of immigrants.

So was England until relatively recently.

Canada used to be a nation because the further back in time you go the less racially and ethnically diverse it was. In fact, now that I think about it, "Canada" was created by joining two nations together, the French in Quebec and the other provinces which were mainly English. And then as time passed we started the slipperly slope of letting in the Irish, Ukes, wops, dagos and shiptars who all voted liberal which eventually led to letting in low IQ, illiterate, unemployable, criminal prone HIV+ niggers and paki muslim terrorists.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

So was England until relatively recently.

True.

Canada used to be a nation because the further back in time you go the less racially and ethnically diverse it was.

I don't agree that Canada was ever a nation but I agree with the second part of your sentence. There was no national Canadian consciousness of note, but the roots were there to create one. Canada decided to go another route.

In fact, now that I think about it, "Canada" was created by joining two nations together, the French in Quebec and the other provinces which were mainly English.

I'd add the natives in there just to be as factual as possible.

And then as time passed we started the slipperly slope of letting in the Irish, Ukes, wops, dagos and shiptars who all voted liberal which eventually led to letting in low IQ, illiterate, unemployable, criminal prone HIV+ niggers and paki muslim terrorists.

Which is why there is no "Canadian nation". Canada's population has been too fluid and its binding institutions too few for a national consciousness of any real strength to be allowed to grow. Add to that the Quebec situation and it's made all the more difficult.

Canada can be viewed as a post-national state: a state that eschews nationhood in favour of a civic nationalism predicated on an acceptance of multiculturalism.

[Crowley]

Starr: there are hundreds if not thousands of white organizations in Canada. They just don't go by the term "white". They go by Ukrainian, Hungarian, Italian, etc. White is just a racial descriptor up here.

Ethnic organizations are respectable because that is the category Nic belongs to. Imagine how Nic would react if Croatia had a large black population who where in the habit of mugging, raping, and intimidating white Croatians in Croatia?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Ethnic organizations are respectable because that is the category Nic belongs to.

People up here identify themselves by ethnicity, not by racial classifications. Jamaicans call themselves Jamaicans, not blacks, for example.

[Count Sudoku]

People up here identify themselves by ethnicity, not by racial classifications. Jamaicans call themselves Jamaicans, not blacks, for example.

They may call themselves Jamaican but they identify themselves as black when it suits them. The push is for Africentic (black) schools in Toronto, not Jamaican schools.

[Crowley]

People up here identify themselves by ethnicity, not by racial classifications. Jamaicans call themselves Jamaicans, not blacks, for example.

What do the blacks whose ancestors came to Canada on the underground railroad call themselves?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

What do the blacks whose ancestors came to Canada on the underground railroad call themselves?

Afro-Canadians. They're a minority amongst blacks though. Most come from Jamaica, Ghana, Nigeria, and Somalia these days.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

They may call themselves Jamaican but they identify themselves as black when it suits them. The push is for Africentic (black) schools in Toronto, not Jamaican schools.

Their primary identification remains Jamaican, however.

[Crowley]

Afro-Canadians.

Which is not an ethnic classification, so your point about Jamaicans is only valid because they are recent immigrants. Black and Whites in US have been here so long we can't possibly identify by ethnicity. All of my grandparents have surnames from separate European nations.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Which is not an ethnic classification, so your point about Jamaicans is only valid because they are recent immigrants. Black and Whites in US have been here so long we can't possibly identify by ethnicity. All 4 of my grandparents have surnames from 4 separate European nations.

Precisely my point as to why Canada and the USA are different.

Blacks in the USA don't know their original ethnicity because they were torn apart from their families, forced into new ones, and lost their original languages. In short, they were Americanized by the slaveowners which is why they're Americans just like you.

As for the fact that the Jamaicans are recent immigrants, what are they supposed to assimilate into?

[Count Sudoku]

I don't agree that Canada was ever a nation but I agree with the second part of your sentence.

Why weren't we a nation?

There was no national Canadian consciousness of note, but the roots were there to create one. Canada decided to go another route.

"Canada" didn't decide. We had a bunch of lefty pols in the 60s who started filling the country with wogs and anyone who objected was a thought criminal. Same thing happened in many other White countries around the same time.

I'd add the natives in there just to be as factual as possible.

At the time the natives were considered non-entities.

Which is why there is no "Canadian nation".

Immigration is what creates nations and immigration is what destroys nations.

Canada like America is now a "propositional nation" which means it is built on an idea instead of race. This is total nonsense and eventually doomed to fail but that is where we are.

Canada's population has been too fluid and its binding institutions too few for a national consciousness of any real strength to be allowed to grow.

I'm sure the people here a hundred years ago would have laughed at you for saying this.

edit: Another poster repped me with this comment

"Canadians of a hundred years ago would have kicked his hairy wog ass, too"

Add to that the Quebec situation and it's made all the more difficult.

Yep.

Canada can be viewed as a post-national state: a state that eschews nationhood in favour of a civic nationalism predicated on an acceptance of multiculturalism.

I agree but things can change.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Why weren't we a nation?

The sense of a shared national consciousness just wasn't in existence. Quebec was far too distinct from English Canada to share with it an identity. English Canada was too tied to the British crown to have a sense of its own identity. English Canada was little more than a colony/dominion at the time. Again, the building blocks were there, but the difficulties were there too: the French language, the Anglican/Catholic divide, the vast geography, the weak central institutions, etc.



"Canada" didn't decide. We had a bunch of lefty pols in the 60s who started filling the country with wogs and anyone who objected was a thought criminal. Same thing happened in many other White countries around the same time.

Can you fill me in on the opposition to Lester Pearson (a Canadian of British descent) and his immigration reform?


Immigration is what creates nations and immigration is what destroys nations.

The USA did something right when it closed up its borders in 1924 and held them closed until 1965: it allowed for two generations to pass and assimilate into an American society and nation that was clearly well-established and defined. Canada doesn't have a well-established and defined sense of self in which immigrants can assimilate into.

Canada like America is now a "propositional nation" which means it is built on an idea instead of race.

I don't know of any nations that are built on race. Nations were traditionally built on ethnicity and language, plus shared culture and history.

[Crowley]

Precisely my point as to why Canada and the USA are different.

Blacks in the USA don't know their original ethnicity because they were torn apart from their families, forced into new ones, and lost their original languages. In short, they were Americanized by the slaveowners which is why they're Americans just like you.

As for the fact that the Jamaicans are recent immigrants, what are they supposed to assimilate into?

The same thing happens with Latinos that have been in America a long time, which is why they call themselves by the racial signifiers Latins or Hispanics. Recent immigrants from south of the border do not do this. In California there are Latinos that speak only English.

[Count Sudoku]

The sense of a shared national consciousness just wasn't in existence. Quebec was far too distinct from English Canada to share with it an identity.

It was shared among the English part.

English Canada was too tied to the British crown to have a sense of its own identity.

So it was part of the UK. That's still an identity.

English Canada was little more than a colony/dominion at the time.

That changed after WWI.

Again, the building blocks were there, but the difficulties were there too: the French language, the Anglican/Catholic divide, the vast geography, the weak central institutions, etc.

It just wasn't as strong as most other countries.

Can you fill me in on the opposition to Lester Pearson (a Canadian of British descent) and his immigration reform?

Sorry I don't know anything about it.

In fact, for the longest time I blamed that communist fag TURDeau for starting it but I subsequently learned that Lester the Molester got the ball rolling. I'm sure at the time if they were questioned about it at all they gave some lie about how this would not change the demography of Canada exactly like Ted Kennedy stated "his" 1965 Immigration Act wouldn't fill American cities with millions of Turd Worlders and the 1986 Amnesty would be the first and last.

The USA did something right when it closed up its borders in 1924 and held them closed until 1965: it allowed for two generations to pass and assimilate into an American society and nation that was clearly well-established and defined. Canada doesn't have a well-established and defined sense of self in which immigrants can assimilate into.

It doesn't anymore.

I don't know of any nations that are built on race. Nations were traditionally built on ethnicity

I've always considered ethnicity rightly or wrongly as a subset of race.

and language, plus shared culture and history.

Well Switzerland has 3 major languages and ethnicities. Do you consider them a nation?

[Golobulus]

Donkeyllo believes a nation is just some abstraction. a bunch of words. Of course the people whom settle these lands and their descendants are not some document or concepts and we never were. Our flesh and blood and time together makes us a nation by definition.

[harjit]

Donkeyllo believes a nation is just some abstraction. a bunch of words. Of course the people whom settle these lands and their descendants are not some document or concepts and we never were. Our flesh and blood and time together makes us a nation by definition. Donkeyllo is a faggot. Let him rot.
Were you there in the early days sweating and bleeding to build the nation?

Oh, I forgot, you happen to have the same skin colour as them. Too bad that in the modern world this doesn't have any currency, but if it gives you some solace be my guest. :rofl:

Besides, I assume the vast majority of whites in the early days were paid for their efforts. Just like whites and non-whites who arrived later.

[Errigal]

Were you there in the early days sweating and bleeding to build the nation?

Oh, I forgot, you happen to have the same skin colour as them. Too bad that in the modern world this doesn't have any currency, but if it gives you some solace be my guest. :rofl:

...

Don't try to create your own reality Harjit. Even as you typed that I'm sure you knew it was a tendentious claim.

To be fair to you Harjit, you and Niccolo were told by your schoolteachers that you're just as Canadian as someone with roots going back 150yrs. That was a polite fiction told to "New Canadian" children which you and Niccolo are taking seriously in your own ways. He woggishly struts around pissing on statues and you play the legalistic Indian: "I am knowing very much my rights please!"

Both you and Niccolo know you are not as Canadian as old stock Anglos, but you both deal with that in different ways. You both are caught between two worlds and so you question the "realness" of old stock Canadians, and of Canada itself, so that others will feel the sense of doubt and alienation that comes with being the children of immigrants. The metaphor of crabs in a bucket comes to mind.

[harjit]

Don't try to create your own reality Harjit. Even as you typed that I'm sure you knew it was a tendentious claim.
No I didn't/don't.

That quote of mine in bold that you were responding to wasn't anything far-fetched. Only a racist believes shared skin colour binds people together in some form of privilege or status. Is that notion so difficult?

If you're talking about something else, like relative feelings of Canadian identity or whatnot, please start from the beginning. I was only responding to Glob's racism.

Also, your post was a completely personal attack. Can you try responding to my points.

[Errigal]

No I didn't/don't.

That quote of mine in bold that you were responding to wasn't anything far-fetched. Only a racist believes shared skin colour binds people together in some form of privilege or status. Is that notion so difficult?

If you're talking about something else, like relative feelings of Canadian identity or whatnot, please start from the beginning. I was only responding to Glob's racism.

Was Golobulus making a claim based on skin colour? He was not:

Donkeyllo believes a nation is just some abstraction. a bunch of words. Of course the people whom settle these lands and their descendants are not some document or concepts and we never were. Our flesh and blood and time together makes us a nation by definition. ...

Bonds of kinship and a shared common history. Nothing about the shade of anyone's skin.


Also, your post was a completely personal attack. Can you try responding to my points.

I responded to your points by giving my interpretation of the personal life stories you and Niccolo have presented here at the Phora. It was personal in that sense. It was an attack in the sense that my comments were unsympathetic and contrary. Big deal.

[harjit]

Was Golobulus making a claim based on skin colour? He was not:

Bonds of kinship and a shared common history. Nothing about the shade of anyone's skin.

OK, you're right, in that specific post he wasn't. But he was earlier in the thread.

For example:
A Canadian is a Canadian, a Sikh is a Sikh. A Canadian Sikh is a Sikh pretending he is Canadian to take advantage of what Canada has.
Many Sikhs are pretty old stock, insofar as that matters, tracing their history in the country since the early 1900s. Whereas Glob probably wouldn't call even a recent arrival from, say, Holland, a "Dutchman pretending to be a Canadian".

Race was the overarching context of my discussion with Glob, it always seems to be that (yes, I know, I'm getting personal regarding Glob... won't pile further on the guy).


I responded to your points by giving my interpretation of the personal life stories you and Niccolo have presented here at the Phora. It was personal in that sense. It was an attack in the sense that my comments were unsympathetic and contrary. Big deal.
OK, sorry for calling it an attack, that was an overstatement. But if you want to make it personal, tell me, how "old stock" are you?

[Errigal]

...


OK, sorry for calling it an attack, that was an overstatement. But if you want to make it personal, tell me, how "old stock" are you?

I'm not. I was speaking on behalf of others.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Donkeyllo believes a nation is just some abstraction. a bunch of words.

On the contrary, I'm a nationalist.

Of course the people whom settle these lands and their descendants are not some document or concepts and we never were. Our flesh and blood and time together makes us a nation by definition.

Who specifically makes this "nation"?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Don't try to create your own reality Harjit. Even as you typed that I'm sure you knew it was a tendentious claim.

To be fair to you Harjit, you and Niccolo were told by your schoolteachers that you're just as Canadian as someone with roots going back 150yrs. That was a polite fiction told to "New Canadian" children which you and Niccolo are taking seriously in your own ways. He woggishly struts around pissing on statues and you play the legalistic Indian: "I am knowing very much my rights please!"

What's a "Canadian", errigal?

I keep asking this question yet no one is willing to give a serious answer.

Both you and Niccolo know you are not as Canadian as old stock Anglos, but you both deal with that in different ways.

Of course we're different: they're Anglos, I'm Croatian, Harjit is Bengali.

You both are caught between two worlds and so you question the "realness" of old stock Canadians

Who are these "old stock Canadians"?

and of Canada itself

Canada is a real country. However, there is no Canadian nation.

so that others will feel the sense of doubt and alienation that comes with being the children of immigrants. The metaphor of crabs in a bucket comes to mind.

Alienation from what? Alienation from a mythical Canadian nation?

[Errigal]

What's a "Canadian", errigal?

I keep asking this question yet no one is willing to give a serious answer.

Perhaps you want a simple answer where none is possible. "Canadian" is a term with an unclear meaning. The Canadian state is a confederation of 10 provinces and two founding nations: French (in language and origin) and English (in language, British Isles in origin). Quebecers are a nation who have Canadian citizenship but do not share the same nationality as Anglo Canadians. Post-60s, the Canadian and Quebec governments began handing out Canadian citizenships like Smarties, and so the definition of Canadian became even more difficult.

So we have a difficulty with terms. That doesn't mean old stock Anglo-Canada does not exist: Pluto existed before it was named "Pluto" and it's existence is unchanged by it being downgraded to a dwarf planet. Anglo-Canada exists whether it has a simple name (like "German") or whether you, Niccolo recognize it or not.

Canadians (meaning Anglo-Canadians), are the British North Americans who settled and populated Canada. They developed a style of living and several regional accents over the years as they were joined by migrants from the "home islands" of Great Britain and Ireland and by Germans, Ukrainians, Dutch etcetera, who came to adopt the common Anglo culture. Like the Australians, Anglo South Africans and New Zealanders, the Anglo Canadians developed their own regional variation of the British Imperial culture. Anglo Canada shared a common project when it made a large contribution in both World Wars and Korea. During all this time, of course, strong personal ties developed as families from different parts of Anglo Canada intermarried and people from different parts of Canada migrated for work.

Long story short, Anglo Canada exists just as Pluto does. It may be an ethnicity (like a dwarf planet) or it may be a full nation (like a planet), but it exists whether you recognize it or not.


Of course we're different: they're Anglos, I'm Croatian, Harjit is Bengali.

Who are these "old stock Canadians"?

They are the ones who are no longer mentally living out of a suitcase and have become something other than hyphenated Canadians. They are people whose families have been here for quite a few generations and have formed a bond with their piece of geography.



Canada is a real country. However, there is no Canadian nation.

True, English-speaking Canada needs its own name.


Alienation from what? Alienation from a mythical Canadian nation?

Alienation from from the people talking on the CBC, writing in the Globe & Mail and sharing their own common cultural references and attitudes that were surely not part of your Croatian household.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Perhaps you want a simple answer where none is possible.

We agree that there is no easy definition. A nation should be easily definable, which "Canadian" is not.

"Canadian" is a term with an unclear meaning.

Again, we agree.

The Canadian state is a confederation of 10 provinces and two founding nations: French (in language and origin) and English (in language, British Isles in origin). Quebecers are a nation who have Canadian citizenship but do not share the same nationality as Anglo Canadians.

The Quebecois and Anglo-Canadians are not the same nor do they share the same nationality. Agreed. Is there an Anglo-Canadian nationality? That's another question since part of Canada is Quebec.

Post-60s, the Canadian and Quebec governments began handing out Canadian citizenships like Smarties, and so the definition of Canadian became even more difficult.

...as I've stated before (as have a few others). The population of Canada is too much in a state of flux and just too diverse to be able to pin down and define easily, much less to make a nation.

So we have a difficulty with terms. That doesn't mean old stock Anglo-Canada does not exist: Pluto existed before it was named "Pluto" and it's existence is unchanged by it being downgraded to a dwarf planet. Anglo-Canada exists whether it has a simple name (like "German") or whether you, Niccolo recognize it or not.

I certainly do recognize the Anglo character of many of Canada's Anglophones (not all, since as you well know "Anglophone" refers to English speaking citizens of Canada who speak English and not French primarily).

Canadians (meaning Anglo-Canadians), are the British North Americans who settled and populated Canada.

...but wait a second....you're leaving out the French. You can't leave the French out of the definition of Canadians.

They developed a style of living and several regional accents over the years as they were joined by migrants from the "home islands" of Great Britain and Ireland and by Germans, Ukrainians, Dutch etcetera, who came to adopt the common Anglo culture. Like the Australians, Anglo South Africans and New Zealanders, the Anglo Canadians developed their own regional variation of the British Imperial culture. Anglo Canada shared a common project when it made a large contribution in both World Wars and Korea. During all this time, of course, strong personal ties developed as families from different parts of Anglo Canada intermarried and people from different parts of Canada migrated for work.

Yet I've been told on this forum that people like the Ukes cannot be considered Canadians either since they aren't of British descent.

Long story short, Anglo Canada exists just as Pluto does. It may be an ethnicity (like a dwarf planet) or it may be a full nation (like a planet), but it exists whether you recognize it or not.

You're debating a strawman since I never denied the existence of the obvious Anglo element in Canada.

They are the ones who are no longer mentally living out of a suitcase and have become something other than hyphenated Canadians. They are people whose families have been here for quite a few generations and have formed a bond with their piece of geography.

How is this different from the Germans, the Ukes, the Italians, the Blacks, etc. who have been here for four generations or more?

True, English-speaking Canada needs its own name.

Why? That'd only serve to split Canada along linguistic lines.

Alienation from from the people talking on the CBC, writing in the Globe & Mail and sharing their own common cultural references and attitudes that were surely not part of your Croatian household.

These are the only binding institutions you can think of? You left out hockey and maple syrup.

Look Errigal, I asked you to define what a Canadian is and you right away admitted that it can't be done. You then went on to explain what comprises the Anglo aspect of Canada and its one that I never questioned.

In short, we're really not disagreeing with each other here.

If I were asked to define what a Canadian is I'd have to say:

Canadians are founded upon British and French colonialism mixed with Native nations, speaking either English or French as their primary official tongue but are multiethnic, multinational, and multiracial as a whole.

That's what I would say but personally I feel that these ingredients are just too diverse from which a "Canadian nation" can be forged.

Maybe it'd be better to start like this:

Canada is a country founded upon British and French colonialism combined with the Native nations and immigrants from around the world speaking many different languages of which two are official, living in a state where individuals are free to retain their identities and customs provided that they do not violate Canada's Constitution.

Again, simply too diverse a base from which to create a common national consciousness.

[Count Sudoku]

Perhaps it would be easier if we knew how you defined a nation.

Is America a nation? What about India?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Perhaps it would be easier if we knew how you defined a nation.

Is America a nation? What about India?

Americans are a nation, albeit with a large Latino majority these days.

India, as you well know, has dozens upon dozens of different nations within it. It's a multinational state. Indians will sometimes refer to themselves as Indians just to make it easy, of course.

A nation is a group of people sharing a well-defined geography, history, language and cultural attributes, as well as strong, binding institutions. Not every nation has all of these characteristics, but most do.

[Count Sudoku]

Americans are a nation, albeit with a large Latino majority these days.

India, as you well know, has dozens upon dozens of different nations within it. It's a multinational state. Indians will sometimes refer to themselves as Indians just to make it easy, of course.

A nation is a group of people sharing a well-defined geography, history, language and cultural attributes, as well as strong, binding institutions. Not every nation has all of these characteristics, but most do.

So Canada wasn't a nation in 1900 because of Quebec?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

So Canada wasn't a nation in 1900 because of Quebec?

A country? Yes. A nation? No. More like British subjects living in a country/dominion called Canada beside French subjects who themselves were forced under the Crown in 1763.

[harjit]

To be fair to you Harjit, you and Niccolo were told by your schoolteachers that you're just as Canadian as someone with roots going back 150yrs. That was a polite fiction told to "New Canadian" children which you and Niccolo are taking seriously in your own ways.
You make it sound like newer Canadians are like people in a wheelchair or something who need to be politely told they belong.

In fact, in my Montreal/Ottawa/Toronto neighborhoods and suburbs "New Canadians", most of whom were white, were the majority.

[Errigal]

You make it sound like newer Canadians are like people in a wheelchair or something who need to be politely told they belong.

In fact, in my Montreal/Ottawa/Toronto neighborhoods and suburbs "New Canadians", most of whom were white, were the majority.

That doesn't make what I said any less true. It just means the Canadian governing class was optimistic to the point of irrationality. That was the spirit of the times.

[Alex_De_Large]

Canada takes immigrants because the whites aren't breeding.

[Count Sudoku]

Canada takes immigrants because the whites aren't breeding.

If Canada was really concerned about global warming they would cut immigration to zero instead of bringing in millions of people every decade.

[Alex_De_Large]

Immigrants take out loans from the central bank. If the immigrants didn't take out new loans the banking system would collapse. Every pyramid scheme needs new suckers.

[Golobulus]

Only a racist believes shared skin colour binds people together in some form of privilege or status. Is that notion so difficult?


Than you must be a racist, or do you not recall your own postings; on one hand you decry shared racial solidarity/racially based identity, while on the other hand posting article after article, wherever you may find them, praising your own kinfolk (whom you like to claim having no greater affinity nor relationship than with any another's race). Why is there not any randomness in whose race you celebrate?


White people’ having our own countries is not some special privilege you and other races lack. What do you want, every country on earth?

- Au contraire mon cher, us white folk are the only ones criminalized for speaking a nation is our own and only you (non-whites) have special privileges in our land.


The clearest interpretation of harji's logic – Indian persons may self identify/value each other; White persons can't. Is not that the definition of bigotry? Haha.

I've asked you before - How does it feel to be such a huge hypocrite, Harji?

It would be nice if you could be logically consistent, but than that would impossible with one's position based in deceit.

Harji, the kind hearted Indian fellow, wanting all proud white men imprisoned or executed; And our moral superior!


I was only responding to Glob's racism.

Funny how words of love are words of hate when a white man speaks them!

An anti-racist is an anti-White. And btw, thanks for disparaging my character on account of my concern for family. It let's us know where you stand. :hugs:

[harjit]

Than you must be a racist, or do you not recall your own postings; on one hand you decry shared racial solidarity/racially based identity, while on the other hand posting article after article, wherever you may find them, praising your own kinfolk (whom you like to claim having no greater affinity nor relationship than with any another's race). Why is there not any randomness in whose race you celebrate?


White people’ having our own countries is not some special privilege you and other races lack. What do you want, every country on earth?

- Au contraire mon cher, us white folk are the only ones criminalized for speaking a nation is our own and only you (non-whites) have special privileges in our land.


The clearest interpretation of harji's logic – Indian persons may self identify/value each other; White persons can't. Is not that the definition of bigotry? Haha.

I've asked you before - How does it feel to be such a huge hypocrite, Harji?

It would be nice if you could be logically consistent, but than that would impossible with one's position based in deceit.

Harji, the kind hearted Indian fellow, wanting all proud white men imprisoned or executed; And our moral superior!


Funny how words of love are words of hate when a white man speaks them!

An anti-racist is an anti-White. And btw, thanks for disparaging my character on account of my concern for family. It let's us know where you stand. :hugs:

If you can locate among my posts the amount of ill-will toward whites that the racists here express toward blacks or Jews or others, you may have a case for calling me a hypocrite.

Frankly you'll have to spend days and nights and find only a fraction of such.

Also, try rebutting the points in my post rather than constantly being focused on my person.

[Alex_De_Large]

http://www.herveryssen.com/image/set6%20serbe%20copie.jpg

Harjit in the middle taking the only white girl who isn't a lesbian.

[Golobulus]

If you can locate among my posts the amount of ill-will toward whites that the racists here express toward blacks or Jews or others, you may have a case for calling me a hypocrite.
IT IS THE WHITE MAN'S LAND THAT IS BEING THREATEN.



All White countries and only White countries are expected to take on a never ending mass of Non-whites and bend over backwards to accommodate them. And any White person who opposes such thing has committed the most severe crime imaginable. Leftists (like our buddy harji here) mock and vilify the White Man for loving his race and the concerns he has for it. Non-whites (the harjis of the world) enjoy and defend our currant state of decline as they personally benefit from it.


O' Sir, you are indeed a grave hypocrite. You would stink if you were not so laughable.


Also, try rebutting the points in my post rather than constantly being focused on my person.
Why? You do not give the same courtesy.

[Corrupt]

Almost no minority organizations in Canada have the levels of anti-social sordidity that WN groups do. Nor is their goal to deport others or balkanize nations.



Members of immigrant communities love to boast about how their group is "taking over."

[Corrupt]

Canada ceased being a nation when we let people like Nic in.

And allowed and, insanely, encouraged him to spew his poision. One can really only wish the worst on people like him.

[Corrupt]

A nation is a group of people sharing a well-defined geography, history, language and cultural attributes, as well as strong, binding institutions. Not every nation has all of these characteristics, but most do.


This comes close to "a nation is something well-defined."

Er, yeah, that clears it up.

By these standars Nicco'd have to agree that either gypsies and Serbs, having lived in Croatia for centuries, are therefore as "Croatian" as he is, or that, as a result, there is no Croatian nation.

Except, bizarrely, in the case of Croatia, he doesn't argue that at all. No, when it comes to Croatia, somehow it's really easy to understand who's a Croat and who isn't; and it's really easy to understand the desirability of foreigners living in your land; and it's really easy to understand which positions undermine your nationhood and which don't.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

This comes close to "a nation is something well-defined."

Er, yeah, that clears it up.

By these standars Nicco'd have to agree that either gypsies and Serbs, having lived in Croatia for centuries, are therefore as "Croatian" as he is, or that, as a result, there is no Croatian nation.

Except that the Serbs and gypsies don't share all those attributes with the Croatians, nor do they share the identification. Therefore they aren't Croatian.

Except, bizarrely, in the case of Croatia, he doesn't argue that at all.

Canada isn't a nation-state.

No, when it comes to Croatia, somehow it's really easy to understand who's a Croat and who isn't; and it's really easy to understand the desirability of foreigners living in your land; and it's really easy to understand which positions undermine your nationhood and which don't.

In the case of Canada, there is no Canadian nation.

[Errigal]

...



Canada isn't a nation-state.



In the case of Canada, there is no Canadian nation.

The Russian Federation is not a nation-state and yet Russian is a nationality. Russians are around 80% of the population, ie. not all Russian citizens are Russian by nationality. Can you incorporate that kind of mind-bending concept into your thinking? Can you go one step further and see if something similar may apply in Canada?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

The Russian Federation is not a nation-state and yet Russian is a nationality. Russians are around 80% of the population, ie. not all Russian citizens are Russian by nationality. Can you incorporate that kind of mind-bending concept into your thinking? Can you go one step further and see if something similar may apply in Canada?

Russians are the largest nation in the Russian federation. A Tatar isn't a Russian, except by citizenship. Nor is a Bashkort, nor Udmurt, nor Mari, nor Chuvash, nor Chechen, nor Armenian.

They can be Russian by citizenship, but that doesn't make them Russians.

Next thing you know you'll be telling me that Algerian immigrants in France are really Frenchmen because they have French citizenship papers.

[Corrupt]

Russians are the largest nation in the Russian federation. A Tatar isn't a Russian, except by citizenship. Nor is a Bashkort, nor Udmurt, nor Mari, nor Chuvash, nor Chechen, nor Armenian.

They can be Russian by citizenship, but that doesn't make them Russians.

Next thing you know you'll be telling me that Algerian immigrants in France are really Frenchmen because they have French citizenship papers.

Exactly. But in the case of Canada, you use this to argue there's no such thing as Canadians.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Exactly. But in the case of Canada, you use this to argue there's no such thing as Canadians.

There is no Canadian nation.

What's a Canadian, corrupt? Tell us.

[Corrupt]

I'll tell you, Nicco, but will you remember it? Or will you again pretend that we've never had this discussion?

There are two sorts: A primarily British-descended Anglo-Canadian and his French-descended counterpart, with "Canadian" being their primary ethnic identification. These are the real Canadians, the ethnic Canadians. Just like the ethnic Russians are the real Russians and just like you are a real Croat in a way no gypsy could ever be.

A nation can't be defined with mathematical precision, and yet only an idiot believes nations don't exist. You have no trouble identifying a man as a Croat provided he meets certain criteria. Neither, I bet, do Canadians have much trouble identifying who the real Canadians are.

The issue complicated by miscegenation, but beyond a certain point, it becomes impossible to regard an invidual as a real Canadian, no matter how intensely that individual might feel "Canadian." Most people eventually give in, however, and loosen their criteria so as to include such people, but this isn't really necessary, since someone who is far enough away from what real Canadians are racially tends to self-hyphenate, precisely in order to forestall the rejection he'd expect were he to attempt to claim full Canadianhood.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

There are two sorts: A primarily British-descended Anglo-Canadian and his French-descended counterpart, with "Canadian" being their primary ethnic identification. These are the real Canadians, the ethnic Canadians. Just like the ethnic Russians are the real Russians and just like you are a real Croat in a way no gypsy could ever be.

Yet the Quebecois consider themselves Quebecois and over half of them don't even consider themselves Canadian.

Therefore your definition is already incorrect.

A nation can't be defined with mathematical precision, and yet only an idiot believes nations don't exist.

I believe nations exist..I'm a nationalist. But there is no Canadian nation.

You have no trouble identifying a man as a Croat provided he meets certain criteria. Neither, I bet, do Canadians have much trouble identifying who the real Canadians are.

Then you certainly aren't acquainted with Canadian politics since the topic of "what is a Canadian" is a constant debate up here.

The issue complicated by miscegenation, but beyond a certain point, it becomes impossible to regard an invidual as a real Canadian, no matter how intensely that individual might feel "Canadian." Most people eventually give in, however, and loosen their criteria so as to include such people, but this isn't really necessary, since someone who is far enough away from what real Canadians are racially tends to self-hyphenate, precisely in order to forestall the rejection he'd expect were he to attempt to claim full Canadianhood.

Your definition of Canadian fails, as illustrated above.

According to you, Canadians are either Anglo or French in descent.....at this point you fail on the Quebecois matter and you fail on the matter of Italians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc that are in Canada and have been for some time now.

Are they not Canadian either?

[Corrupt]

Yet the Quebecois consider themselves Quebecois and over half of them don't even consider themselves Canadian.

Therefore your definition is already incorrect.

I would happily have left French Canadians out of the definition since I suspected they wouldn't heavily identify as Canadian.



I believe nations exist..I'm a nationalist.

Yet you can't provide a definition of a nation that applies to Croatia and Russia but not Canada.

But there is no Canadian nation.

So all those Canadians choosing "Canadian" on the census identify with nothing in particular.


Then you certainly aren't acquainted with Canadian politics since the topic of "what is a Canadian" is a constant debate up here.

Perhaps I'm not. But I'm very well acquainted with the evasive tactics of non-white scumbags putting forward the grossest inanities with a straight face.

Obviously such "debates" are artificially limited and thoroughly useless since race isn't given the treatment required in order to properly debat the topic.


According to you, Canadians are either Anglo or French in descent.....at this point you fail on the Quebecois matter and you fail on the matter of Italians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc that are in Canada and have been for some time now.

Serbs and gypsies have been in Croatia far longer. Why are they not Croatian?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I would happily have left French Canadians out of the definition since I suspected they wouldn't heavily identify as Canadian.

But then you run into a bigger problem if you leave them out since they account for 25% of Canada's population.


Yet you can't provide a definition of a nation that applies to Croatia and Russia but not Canada.

According to the criteria I listed Canada fails as a nation.

So all those Canadians choosing "Canadian" on the census identify with nothing in particular.

They certainly will identify with something or other, but not enough to establish a solid national identity.


Obviously such "debates" are artificially limited and thoroughly useless since race isn't given the treatment required in order to properly debat the topic.

Giving race the treatment that racialists want it given is silly since race is overexaggerated in importance by racialists.


Serbs and gypsies have been in Croatia far longer. Why are they not Croatian?

Gypsies speak their own language, have their own customs, live in their own self-segregated communities, do not partake in Croatian life to any great extent and reject Croatian institutions. Serbs speak their own language, have their own religion, their own customs, their own institutions, look towards Athens and Moscow rather than Berlin and Rome, etc. Neither identify with the Croatian nation even if they have citizenship.

[Errigal]

...

According to you, Canadians are either Anglo or French in descent.....at this point you fail on the Quebecois matter and you fail on the matter of Italians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc that are in Canada and have been for some time now.

Are they not Canadian either?

Canadians whose ancestors are not from France or Britain are Canadian when they adopt either the Anglo or Franco culture as their own. Prime Minister Diefenbaker and Governor General Hynatishen were fully Canadian despite their German and Ukrainian names. The current head of the Canadian Forces who also has a Ukrainian name and is also fully Canadian. Wayne Gretzky and Phil Esposito are Canadian. The children of a Lebanese restaurant owner who grow up in Peterborough or Belleville are Canadian.

Canadian citizens who live in little ethnic enclaves within a half-hour drive of the airport they and they parents used to immigrate are not Canadians by nationality. They are limbo babies floating somewhere between the arrivals hall of the airport and Canada. They are not unique though, many New Yorkers have spent four generations floating in the limbo between Ellis Island and America.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Canadians whose ancestors are not from France or Britain are Canadian when they adopt either the Anglo or Franco culture as their own. Prime Minister Diefenbaker and Governor General Hynatishen were fully Canadian despite their German and Ukrainian names. The current head of the Canadian Forces is also has a Ukrainian name and is fully Canadian. Wayne Gretzky and Phil Esposito are Canadian. The children of a Lebanese restaurant owner who grow up in Peterborough or Belleville are Canadian.

Canadian citizens who live in little ethnic enclaves within a half-hour drive of the airport they and they parents used to immigrate are not Canadians by nationality. They are limbo babies floating somewhere between the arrivals hall of the airport and Canada. They are not unique though, many New Yorkers have spent four generations floating in the limbo between Ellis Island and America.

You're gonna have a difficult time here since many of these "Canadians" will list themselves as something else on census forms, as Hak himself mentioned when discussing Ukrainians.

You're also gonna have a difficult time with racialists like corrupt who believe race is paramount when discussing nationhood, and for whom Slavs like the Ukes aren't white and therefore cannot be Canadian.

And finally you're gonna have a difficult time explaining how Quebecois separatists can be seen as Canadian since they themselves reject Canada and identify as Quebecois.

[Corrupt]

But then you run into a bigger problem if you leave them out since they account for 25% of Canada's population.

Their proportion is immaterial. If 100 million Chinese somehow achieved Canadian citizenship tomorrow (not as outlandish as it sounds), it wouldn't change who real Canadians are.


According to the criteria I listed Canada fails as a nation.

I can't see how.


They certainly will identify with something or other, but not enough to establish a solid national identity.

Sure, nicc, why not make it up as you go along?


Giving race the treatment that racialists want it given is silly since race is overexaggerated in importance by racialists.

Surely making positive statements about whites isn't "overexaggerating." Yet that is proscribed in these phony "debates" you think are raging.


Gypsies speak their own language, have their own customs, live in their own self-segregated communities, do not partake in Croatian life to any great extent and reject Croatian institutions. Serbs speak their own language, have their own religion, their own customs, their own institutions, look towards Athens and Moscow rather than Berlin and Rome, etc. Neither identify with the Croatian nation even if they have citizenship.

And Italians, Ukes, Croats, Chinese, Sikhs etc don't see themselves as ethnicaly Canadian. If gypsies and Serbs living within Croatian borders doesn't invalidate the concept of a Croat nation, your presence and harj's and millions of other ethnics doesn't invalidate the concept of a Canadian nation.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

And Italians, Ukes, Croats, Chinese, Sikhs etc don't see themselves as ethnicaly Canadian. If gypsies and Serbs living within Croatian borders doesn't invalidate the concept of a Croat nation, your presence and harj's and millions of other ethnics doesn't invalidate the concept of a Canadian nation.

If you read Errigal's comments, you'll already see that you're in disagreement with him about what a Canadian is.

...and that's been a raging debate in Canada for a long time now, regardless of the fact that you're ignorant about this debate actually existing.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

This sentence alone from Errigal is enough to send the racialists into a tizzy:

The children of a Lebanese restaurant owner who grow up in Peterborough or Belleville are Canadian.

[Corrupt]

You're also gonna have a difficult time with racialists like corrupt who believe race is paramount when discussing nationhood, and for whom Slavs like the Ukes aren't white and therefore cannot be Canadian.

Let's talk specifics. The best way for a Uke to become a Canadian is by marrying a British-Canadian and having a white Canadian child (and raising it Canadian). A Uke can do this because he's "white enough" and the resultant offspring will tend to be somewhat more a more western looking sort of white than the average Uke. If sufficient numbers of Ukes do this, it will affect the Uke community and encourage it to trade Uke identity for unalloyed Canadian identity, and even unmixed Ukes will be identified by real Canadians as fully (or as close to as possible) Canadian.

This sort of assimilation option isn't available to all races. Some races are just too far from the racial type of real Canadians. Some are so far that even several generations of interbreeding with real Canadians won't breed out readily observable racial differences, and the presence of those racial differences will cause these groups to self-hyphenate. This is why race matters.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Let's talk specifics. The best way for a Uke to become a Canadian is by marrying a British-Canadian and having a white Canadian child (and raising it Canadian). A Uke can do this because he's "white enough" and the resultant offspring will tend to be somewhat more a more western looking sort of white than the average Uke. If sufficient numbers of Ukes do this, it will affect the Uke community and encourage it to trade Uke identity for unalloyed Canadian identity, and even unmixed Ukes will be identified by real Canadians as fully (or as close to as possible) Canadian.

This sort of assimilation option isn't available to all races. Some races are just too far from the racial type of real Canadians. Some are so far that even several generations of interbreeding with real Canadians won't breed out readily observable racial differences, and the presence of those racial differences will cause these groups to self-hyphenate. This is why race matters.


And now you've fallen into the debate about what a Canadian is.

Let's take a look at what the Irish Protestant Canadian resident Errigal says:

The children of a Lebanese restaurant owner who grow up in Peterborough or Belleville are Canadian.

Errigal obviously disagrees with your racialist perspective.

[Corrupt]

If you read Errigal's comments, you'll already see that you're in disagreement with him about what a Canadian is.

...and that's been a raging debate in Canada for a long time now, regardless of the fact that you're ignorant about this debate actually existing.

Restricted to those groups, the debate would be valid. If Chinese and Jamaicans are to fall under consideration, the debate is futile if it fails to properly discuss race.

If you read my further comments, you'll see that I anticipate the sort of view he puts forward. The debate really does become about where to draw the line. But race is obviously a central consideration.

[Corrupt]

If gypsies and Serbs living within Croatian borders doesn't invalidate the concept of a Croat nation, your presence and harj's and millions of other ethnics doesn't invalidate the concept of a Canadian nation.


Please respond to this, Nicco.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Restricted to those groups, the debate would be valid. If Chinese and Jamaicans are to fall under consideration, the debate is futile if it fails to properly discuss race.

Which groups?

If you read my further comments, you'll see that I anticipate the sort of view he puts forward. The debate really does become about where to draw the line. But race is obviously a central consideration.

What a second, now you're admitting that there's a debate when you a few posts earlier said that the raging debate about Canadian identity is a myth!

This is turning into a turkey shoot :)

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Please respond to this, Nicco.

Croatia is a nation-state and has a well-defined sense of nationhood.

Canada isn't a nation-state and has a poor self-identification and there is no Canadian nation.

[Errigal]

And now you've fallen into the debate about what a Canadian is.

Let's take a look at what the Irish Protestant Canadian resident Errigal says:



Errigal obviously disagrees with your racialist perspective.

That's true I do. But if a person always feels different (and is always made to feel different) because they look racially different, then there will always be that gap. Like the racially different adopted child in a family. No way around that unless Canada enforces a Mocha Revolution with Pol Pot thoroughness. Canada will became a giant labour camp full of mocha-coloured limbo babies but I suppose it is a viable option to some people.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

That's true I do. But if a person always feels different (and is always made to feel different) because they look racially different, then there will always be that gap. Like the racially different adopted child in a family. No way around that unless Canada enforces a Mocha Revolution with Pol Pot thoroughness. Canada will became a giant labour camp full of mocha-coloured limbo babies but I suppose it is a viable option to some people.

Errigal, you must concede that the Canadian identity is a poorly defined one and is a matter of great debate up here.

[Errigal]

Errigal, you must concede that the Canadian identity is a poorly defined one and is a matter of great debate up here.

Yes it is a poorly defined identity and listening to Canadian national identity debates really hurts my head. Like listening to blind people arguing about art history, but I got the impression Canadians had exhausted themselves on that topic during the last constitutional debate. I think it is more of a pressing issue for the many immigrants and children of immigrants floating in the multicultural mush their schoolteachers taught them about Canadian-ness.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Yes it is a poorly defined identity and listening to Canadian national identity debates really hurts my head. Like listening to blind people arguing about art history, but I got the impression Canadians had exhausted themselves on that topic during the last constitutional debate. I think it is more of a pressing issue for the many immigrants and children of immigrants floating in the multicultural mush their schoolteachers taught them about Canadian-ness.

I don't recall being taught much about multiculturalism except for a few brief mentions about Trudeau. Nevertheless, as the population becomes even more diverse and as the central government weakens even further in relations to the provinces and municipalities, any sense of shared identity will become even weaker.

What binding institutions are left outside of hockey these days? Even the CBC is a shadow of its former self.

[Dan Dare]

But even if there is such a debate going on, it’s of quite recent provenance and largely a consequence of the managerial elites’ decision to transform Canada into a polyglot transnational job-centre. The attendant importation of millions of immigrants from every place on earth, few of whom will have had any notion what Canada represented historically, and probably cared even less as long as they were able to avail themselves of its benefits, could not help but serve to dilute any sense of national conciousness that might have existed prior to their arrival.

Perhaps that’s the whole point of the exercise.

Certainly earlier ‘old-stock’ generations were quite comfortable in their sense of Canada as a nation, functionally independent but with strong and deep ties with the Mother Country, whose history provided a foundation for their own. The people who erected this monument to the 20,000 Canadians who fell in the Second Battle of Ypres would have had no doubt about the matter. If you look closely you can even make the word ‘Canada’ on the plinth.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6104/img0044ka3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Niccolo and Donkey]

But even if there is such a debate going on, it’s of quite recent provenance and largely a consequence of the managerial elites’ decision to transform Canada into a polyglot transnational job-centre. The attendant importation of millions of immigrants from every place on earth, few of whom will have had any notion what Canada represented historically, and probably cared even less as long as they were able to avail themselves of its benefits, could not help but serve to dilute any sense of national conciousness that might have existed prior to their arrival.

This is a point I myself have risen and one that certainly cannot be denied.

Certainly earlier ‘old-stock’ generations were quite comfortable in their sense of Canada as a nation, functionally independent but with strong and deep ties with the Mother Country, whose history provided a foundation for their own.

I disagree. The Quebecois were very, very distinct from the Anglo part of Canada. Quebec was pretty much an ultramontantist regime within the larger Canadian confederation. A shared sense of what Canada was even then could not have existed in two parts that were so different from one another.

The people who erected this monument to the 20,000 Canadians who fell in the Second Battle of Ypres would have had no doubt about the matter. If you look closely you can even make the word ‘Canada’ on the plinth.

A proto-nation? Possibly. But recall Quebec's attitudes towards both world wars. And Pearson's moves ended any chance of a shared Canadian identity arising any time soon.

[Dan Dare]

...I disagree. The Quebecois were very, very distinct from the Anglo part of Canada. Quebec was pretty much an ultramontantist regime within the larger Canadian confederation. A shared sense of what Canada was even then could not have existed in two parts that were so different from one another.

I understand why you keep wanting to bring up the Quebecois as an objection to the proposition that there was ever a Canadian national consciousness, but for the purposes of the present discussion it seems more rational to consider them as merely an awkward boundary case, another ethnic minority just like the Ukrainians and Chinese. In the national context, we should view the Quebecois as one of the native tribes that lost out in the struggle for nationhood, and being defeated, withdrew into their own quasi-autonomous reservation, rather like the Navajo Nation in the US, and there developed a uniquely local culture while at the same time enjoying federally-endowed special concessions and privileges as do other ‘Native Americans’.

A proto-nation? Possibly. But recall Quebec's attitudes towards both world wars. And Pearson's moves ended any chance of a shared Canadian identity arising any time soon.

Considering it was their ancestral homeland that had been invaded and in danger of German subjugation once again the reluctance of French-Canadians to volunteer for military service is mystifying. However it does serve to highlight the extent to which their own self-imposed and resentful isolation meant there was little interest in matters that had no immediate impact on the internal affairs of the reservation.

Thus, the claim being put forward that a Canadian nation did not exist simply because the Quebecois declined to consider themselves a part of it is not really sustainable.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I understand why you keep wanting to bring up the Quebecois as an objection to the proposition that there was ever a Canadian national consciousness, but for the purposes of the present discussion it seems more rational to consider them as merely an awkward boundary case, another ethnic minority just like the Ukrainians and Chinese. In the national context, we should view the Quebecois as one of the native tribes that lost out in the struggle for nationhood, and being defeated, withdrew into their own quasi-autonomous reservation, rather like the Navajo Nation in the US, and there developed a uniquely local culture while at the same time enjoying federally-endowed special concessions and privileges as do other ‘Native Americans’.

Okay, then you side with those who say that the Quebecois aren't Canadian.


Thus, the claim being put forward that a Canadian nation did not exist simply because the Quebecois declined to consider themselves a part of it is not really sustainable.

That's not the claim that I'm making. What I'm saying is that there was no shared sense of identity, which you readily concede. So once again we have an issue where some suggest only Anglos can be Canadians, while some insist that both the French and the Anglos are Canadians. Others still say that those who melt into those two cultures are Canadians, depending on race. Yet others say that race doesn't matter, as long as they adopt one of the two prevailing cultures.

That four different definitions of Canadian alone!

[Errigal]

I understand why you keep wanting to bring up the Quebecois as an objection to the proposition that there was ever a Canadian national consciousness, but for the purposes of the present discussion it seems more rational to consider them as merely an awkward boundary case, another ethnic minority just like the Ukrainians and Chinese. In the national context, we should view the Quebecois as one of the native tribes that lost out in the struggle for nationhood, and being defeated, withdrew into their own quasi-autonomous reservation, rather like the Navajo Nation in the US, and there developed a uniquely local culture while at the same time enjoying federally-endowed special concessions and privileges as do other ‘Native Americans’.

That's not at all an accurate description of Quebecers within Canada.

I wonder what's with the modern Brits and their lounge-bar bravado, their gin-and-tonic bigotry? It is a really boring and self-defeating pose. They seem to expect everyone else to just take all these Jeremy Clarkson jokes with a smile. I come from what could be called a West Brit background and even I can't stand this stuff.



Considering it was their ancestral homeland that had been invaded and in danger of German subjugation once again the reluctance of French-Canadians to volunteer for military service is mystifying. However it does serve to highlight the extent to which their own self-imposed and resentful isolation meant there was little interest in matters that had no immediate impact on the internal affairs of the reservation.

A more useful question would be why the rest of us killed and died in the mud of Flanders for no clear reason at all.


Thus, the claim being put forward that a Canadian nation did not exist simply because the Quebecois declined to consider themselves a part of it is not really sustainable.

Don't bother debating Niccolo. Waste of time on this issue.

[Errigal]

...

That four different definitions of Canadian alone!

New topic: What's a Croat Niccolo?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Don't bother debating Niccolo. Waste of time on this issue.

Why's that Errigal? The three of you alone on this thread have proven my point because each of you has defined what a Canadian is in vastly different terms.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

New topic: What's a Croat Niccolo?

Open a new thread and i'll be glad to answer that question.

[Errigal]

Why's that Errigal? The three of you alone on this thread have proven my point because each of you has defined what a Canadian is in vastly different terms.

We have all already conceded that the term "Canadian" vague, just as the term "Russian" is vague and the term "British" is vague. You seem to make the leap that therefore every fresh off the plane vizmin and self-described "wog" with a Canadian passport is therefore just as Canadian as the guy with pre-Confederation ancestors on both sides. Not true.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

We have all already conceded that the term "Canadian" vague, just as the term "Russian" is vague and the term "British" is vague. You seem to make the leap that therefore every fresh off the plane vizmin and self-described "wog" with a Canadian passport is therefore just as Canadian as the guy with pre-Confederation ancestors on both sides. Not true.

I don't see the term Russian as vague. Russian is an ethnicity bounded by blood and soil and even though non-Russians have Russian citizenship, it doesn't make them Russian.

Nor am I putting forward the claim that everyone off the boat is "just as Canadian" because I'm holding the position that there's no such thing as a Canadian. Those people were just residents of the Commonwealth...British subjects without any distinct identity that could be called "Canadian". As Hakluyt has pointed out, the notion of creating a Canadian "nation" would have been abhorrent to the ears of those United Empire Loyalists. Canada is simply a Commonwealth that extended citizenship beyond those of the Commonwealth to those from around the world. A post-national country.

[Dan Dare]

That's not at all an accurate description of Quebecers within Canada.

Kindly highlight where you feel I’m going wrong.

I wonder what's with the modern Brits and their lounge-bar bravado, their gin-and-tonic bigotry? It is a really boring and self-defeating pose. They seem to expect everyone else to just take all these Jeremy Clarkson jokes with a smile. I come from what could be called a West Brit background and even I can't stand this stuff.

I wasn’t joking.

A more useful question would be why the rest of us killed and died in the mud of Flanders for no clear reason at all.

That question has been mulled over more or less constantly since the event itself. As someone whose grandfather and great-uncle still lie somewhere in that mud, I’ve often pondered it myself.

But I don’t see its utility in terms of the present discussion. It is more interesting to understand why Anglo-Canadians went in great numbers to fight in France (in both world wars) while French-Canadians did not.

Got a better answer than the one I proposed?

Don't bother debating Niccolo. Waste of time on this issue.

Thanks for the advice, but I’m big enough now to decide for myself how I want to waste my time.

[Corrupt]

Croatia is a nation-state and has a well-defined sense of nationhood.

Croatia has only been a nation-state since 1991. Yet the Croatian nation existed for hundreds and hundreds of years. Clearly the possession of a state doesn't define a nation.

You keep using "well-defined" yet you never provide a definition under which the Croat nation exists but the Canadian nation doesn't.

So you're left with the "sense" of nationhood, and arguing that this sense is sharper and more intensely felt among Croats than among Canadians. You'll get no argument from me there, but you haven't ruled out Canadian nationhood.

Canada isn't a nation-state and has a poor self-identification and there is no Canadian nation.

This doesn't make sense. Why even speak about "poor self-identification" if there is no Canadian nation? Either there is a Canadian nation with a certain level of self-identification (a poor level, according to you) or there isn't a nation at all.

About the "debate": yes there is one taking place here, because here we're permitted to treat race with the seriousness required. No public debate in Canada, I am betting, even comes close, wich is why those debates are phony.

[Corrupt]

I understand why you keep wanting to bring up the Quebecois as an objection to the proposition that there was ever a Canadian national consciousness, but for the purposes of the present discussion it seems more rational to consider them as merely an awkward boundary case, another ethnic minority just like the Ukrainians and Chinese.

Even better, just like the Serbs of Croatia.

[harjit]

The issue complicated by miscegenation, but beyond a certain point, it becomes impossible to regard an invidual as a real Canadian, no matter how intensely that individual might feel "Canadian." Most people eventually give in, however, and loosen their criteria so as to include such people, but this isn't really necessary, since someone who is far enough away from what real Canadians are racially tends to self-hyphenate, precisely in order to forestall the rejection he'd expect were he to attempt to claim full Canadianhood.
Not sure if this is the same thing, but in Japan when people ask where I'm from (and in any substantial conversation you WILL be asked this) I explain that I'm Canadian but of Indian origin.

If I just leave it as Canadian I get follow-up questions, so I do them the courtesy of spelling it out at the start. They are not very familiar with Canada but do realize that the U.S. is a multi-racial land of immigrants. When I explain that so is Canada they completely understand it. After all it's right beside America.

My general estimation (and I could be wrong) is that it may have been a net advantage here to be a native-English speaking culturally-Westernized Indian, compared to some typical white fratboy type, and certainly compared to a non-Westernized Indian. (Although the fratboy would no doubt have an advantage if we were competing for a job as a model, or picking up unknown girls in bars.)

[Errigal]

Kindly highlight where you feel I’m going wrong.
Quebec is not like a defeated Indian tribe relegated to a reservation. Read these if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deux_nations


I wasn’t joking.

I suppose I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Fine, you were speaking out of sincere ignorance.


That question has been mulled over more or less constantly since the event itself. As someone whose grandfather and great-uncle still lie somewhere in that mud, I’ve often pondered it myself.

But I don’t see its utility in terms of the present discussion. It is more interesting to understand why Anglo-Canadians went in great numbers to fight in France (in both world wars) while French-Canadians did not.

Got a better answer than the one I proposed?

You were right about Quebec's parochialism:

Considering it was their ancestral homeland that had been invaded and in danger of German subjugation once again the reluctance of French-Canadians to volunteer for military service is mystifying. However it does serve to highlight the extent to which their own self-imposed and resentful isolation meant there was little interest in matters that had no immediate impact on the internal affairs of the reservation.

But their were two more important reasons:

The Quebecers remembered the relatively recent controversy about Canada's participation in the Boer War in which Quebec sympathized with the Boers.

Secondly, the French Third Republic had shown itself to be violently anti-clerical with its 1905 legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_separation_of_Church_and_State). Because Quebecers saw themselves as French-speaking Roman Catholics in North America, rather than children of the corrupted French Republic, they did not feel a pressing need to rescue it from a German invasion. They had a point.

[Errigal]

I don't see the term Russian as vague. Russian is an ethnicity bounded by blood and soil and even though non-Russians have Russian citizenship, it doesn't make them Russian.

Nor am I putting forward the claim that everyone off the boat is "just as Canadian" because I'm holding the position that there's no such thing as a Canadian. Those people were just residents of the Commonwealth...British subjects without any distinct identity that could be called "Canadian". As Hakluyt has pointed out, the notion of creating a Canadian "nation" would have been abhorrent to the ears of those United Empire Loyalists. Canada is simply a Commonwealth that extended citizenship beyond those of the Commonwealth to those from around the world. A post-national country.

It's true that Canada has burdened itself with a mass of New Canadians who likely will never feel a part of their new home. You yourself Niccolo are a symptom of this problem.

Perhaps if Canada expelled Toronto, as Malaysia did to multi-ethnic Singapore at independence, then Canada would start making a lot more sense. Niccolo could dance away his doubts with all the other multi-tinted Gunkeys (Gay, urban monkeys) of the Globalist Test Area. Every day will feel like Pride Day for the little lost Gunkeys.

The others can go back to drinking rye-and-gingers at the curling rink and painting landscapes from the back of their canoes. The idea has its merits.

[cyborg]

But, what is this Mayor Bronconnier's problem with whites? Did they push him down and take his lunch money during past decades? Maybe the personal and the professional need to be separated while serving in public office.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Croatia has only been a nation-state since 1991. Yet the Croatian nation existed for hundreds and hundreds of years. Clearly the possession of a state doesn't define a nation.

No it doesn't, but you asked for the differences and I listed them.

You keep using "well-defined" yet you never provide a definition under which the Croat nation exists but the Canadian nation doesn't.

Scroll upwards to the post where I list the attributes of a nation.

So you're left with the "sense" of nationhood, and arguing that this sense is sharper and more intensely felt among Croats than among Canadians. You'll get no argument from me there, but you haven't ruled out Canadian nationhood.

According to the attributes listed, Canada fails.

This doesn't make sense. Why even speak about "poor self-identification" if there is no Canadian nation? Either there is a Canadian nation with a certain level of self-identification (a poor level, according to you) or there isn't a nation at all.

Not enough of one for a national consciousness to take a firm hold, as evidenced by the varying and contradictory definitions on this thread.

About the "debate": yes there is one taking place here, because here we're permitted to treat race with the seriousness required. No public debate in Canada, I am betting, even comes close, wich is why those debates are phony.

You're not the judge of the debates but the debate nevertheless exists.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

It's true that Canada has burdened itself with a mass of New Canadians who likely will never feel a part of their new home. You yourself Niccolo are a symptom of this problem.

Perhaps if Canada expelled Toronto, as Malaysia did to multi-ethnic Singapore at independence, then Canada would start making a lot more sense. Niccolo could dance away his doubts with all the other multi-tinted Gunkeys (Gay, urban monkeys) of the Globalist Test Area. Every day will feel like Pride Day for the little lost Gunkeys.

The others can go back to drinking rye-and-gingers at the curling rink and painting landscapes from the back of their canoes. The idea has its merits.

It ain't just Toronto, Errigal. You'd have to detach Ottawa, Montreal, Hamilton, Windsor, Vancouver and a few other places.

[Dan Dare]

Quebec is not like a defeated Indian tribe relegated to a reservation. Read these if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deux_nations

I suppose I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Fine, you were speaking out of sincere ignorance.

On reflection, characterising Quebec as a reservation may have been a metaphor too far, however, there are many parallels between the two that make the comparison quite apt, however uncomfortable that might make one. The principal difference that I can see is that the British were more generous to their defeated enemy than the United States was to its. That doesn’t seem to have left the Quebecois any less prickly, disgruntled or sensitive to perceived slights.

But their were two more important reasons:

The Quebecers remembered the relatively recent controversy about Canada's participation in the Boer War in which Quebec sympathized with the Boers.

Secondly, the French Third Republic had shown itself to be violently anti-clerical with its 1905 legislation. Because Quebecers saw themselves as French-speaking Roman Catholics in North America, rather than children of the corrupted French Republic, they did not feel a pressing need to rescue it from a German invasion. They had a point.

Both fair points. However both also serving to underline the particularity of Quebec as an inward-looking nation within a nation, one which viewed itself as a reluctant and perhaps only temporary part of the larger whole.

Which really circles back to my argument with Niccolo and to the central point I was making: Quebec has never been, or even wanted to be, an integral part of Canada in same sense as the other provinces, so it is misleading to claim, as Niccolo does, that Canada has never existed as a nation simply because the Quebecois were not fully commited participants in the Confederation.

Rather than focusing on the dry detail of constitutional history, the relationship of Quebec vis-à-vis Canada is in my view better exemplified by the frenzied response (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Params=A1ARTFET_E53) to de Gaulle’s infamous speech "Vive le Québec libre ! Vive le Canada français ! Et vive la France !"

[Errigal]

It ain't just Toronto, Errigal. You'd have to detach Ottawa, Montreal, Hamilton, Windsor, Vancouver and a few other places.

Vancouver perhaps, the rest would do fine. Those who like things "vibrant" would find their way to Gunkeytown, the rest would assimilate. Just a thought experiment.

[Felix the Cat]

The Quebecers remembered the relatively recent controversy about Canada's participation in the Boer War in which Quebec sympathized with the Boers.

Secondly, the French Third Republic had shown itself to be violently anti-clerical with its 1905 legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_separation_of_Church_and_State). Because Quebecers saw themselves as French-speaking Roman Catholics in North America, rather than children of the corrupted French Republic, they did not feel a pressing need to rescue it from a German invasion. They had a point.
Even if sympathetic to the cause, there would have been a natural fear of being used as cannon-fodder by uncaring (if not actively anti-French) commanders

[Errigal]

Even if sympathetic to the cause, there would have been a natural fear of being used as cannon-fodder by uncaring (if not actively anti-French) commanders

It turned out everyone was cannon-fodder in that war. The people at the centre of the British Empire burnt through an enormous pile of goodwill and loyalty with the two World Wars. Considering they had also built up a long list of enemies and detractors it is not surprising Britain is now apparently settling in as a province in the New American Empire.

[Hakluyt]

Something that's difficult for outsiders to understand is that English Canadians and French Canadians really never have had a problem defining their dual nationality, at least on the the 'folk' level.

'Canadian' has its own meaning in both English and French. Thus, when we say 'Canadian' in English, we all know the speaker refers to English Canadians, and the French Canadian understands this. And when one says 'Canadien' in French, we all know the speaker refers to French Canadians, and the English Canadian understands this. We are two distinct nationalities who happen to use the same name to describe ourselves. The issue of 'Quebecois' difference is thus a canard because we have always accepted this duality.

A French Canadian can mock a certain beer commercial of note by standing up on a podium and proclaiming 'My Name is Yves ... and I am not Canadian!!' and then go home and tick 'Canadien' off on his census form.

(As a side note: very very few people in Quebec call themselves 'Quebecois' as an ethnic term; it's a purely civic term, and pure-bred Anglos who grew up there use it too (Brian Mulroney for example). An astounding total of 94,940 used it on the 2001 census [out of 7 million]. On the other hand, 4,897,475 call themselves Canadien. The remainder are either immigrants, or simply call themselves 'Francais').

[O'Zebedee]

That's an excellent description of the tangled, hard to describe Anglo version French Canadian relationship in this country, as well as the way we view each other.

[Dan Dare]

Something that's difficult for outsiders to understand is that English Canadians and French Canadians really never have had a problem defining their dual nationality, at least on the the 'folk' level....

I understand the dual-nationality thing for French-Canadians, but how does that work for 'English'-Canadians? Does being an Ontarian carry the same valency as being a Quebecois?

[Errigal]

I understand the dual-nationality thing for French-Canadians, but how does that work for 'English'-Canadians? Does being an Ontarian carry the same valency as being a Quebecois?

No, and that's where the constitutional idiocy began. Quebec is a distinct society and wanted that recognized in the constitution. They already have their own National Assembly so it would have been a case of having their cake and eating it too. People in the other provinces did not want to turn Canada into a kind of Swiss Confederation just so that every province would be symmetrical with Quebec. They also didn't want Quebec to have a "cake and eat it too" relationship with the rest, so the whole constitutional adventure deservedly died. Some people countered the claim of Quebec's distinct society status by saying "Nova Scotia is a distinct society too" or "my cat and I are a distinct society". It became really stupid.

In brief, Ontarians see themselves as Canadians living in one of Canada's provinces, not as a distinct society.

[Hakluyt]

I understand the dual-nationality thing for French-Canadians, but how does that work for 'English'-Canadians? Does being an Ontarian carry the same valency as being a Quebecois?
French Canadians are just fortunate to be so heavily concentrated in one particular province, and marginal in all others. That's the simple explanation. If Quebec was half Anglo (like New Brunswick), they would lack the particularisitic government institutions, but the question of dual nationality and bilingualism would be essentially the same. It's firmly rooted in the Quebec Act, where the choice not to assimilate the French Canadians was codified (though there were a mere 40,000 of them in all of Upper and Lower Canada at the time of conquest, and they did nearly become a minority at one point), and the aristocratic respect held for them on the part of early government officials like Sir Guy Carleton.

The only English Canadian province that has an identity anywhere near as powerful would be Newfoundland. Of course, the deficit in identity among English Canadians is a central problem for me, and I hope to see a larger English Canadian national identity develop in the future.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

French Canadians are just fortunate to be so heavily concentrated in one particular province, and marginal in all others.

Shared geography, especially in a compact area, is one of the defining traits of nationhood.

The only English Canadian province that has an identity anywhere near as powerful would be Newfoundland. Of course, the deficit in identity among English Canadians is a central problem for me, and I hope to see a larger English Canadian national identity develop in the future.

You put it forward quite well. It was never given a strong push from above in the days prior to Pearson's reform. I can only see it occurring as a reaction to mass immigration, but this would entail a rejection of multinational/multiracial definition of what it means to be a Canadian and rely on hyphenization along ethnic lines.

[Corrupt]

You put it forward quite well. It was never given a strong push from above in the days prior to Pearson's reform. I can only see it occurring as a reaction to mass immigration, but this would entail a rejection of multinational/multiracial definition of what it means to be a Canadian and rely on hyphenization along ethnic lines.

Which you, presumably, don't support, and would work (are working) to prevent, right?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Which you, presumably, don't support, and would work (are working) to prevent, right?

Hak supports a hyphenized nationality for those of British heritage. That's fine with me since it rejects an attempt to create a racial nation where one doesn't exist and in an environment that is multiracial.

[Errigal]

Hak supports a hyphenized nationality for those of British heritage. That's fine with me since it rejects an attempt to create a racial nation where one doesn't exist and in an environment that is multiracial.

I think Hak is speaking for Hak. Ask yourself how many other multi-generational Canadians would like to put themselves in the same category as fresh off the plane immigrants and would accept that their real homeland is the island of Great Britain?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I think Hak is speaking for Hak. Ask yourself how many other multi-generational Canadians would like to put themselves in the same category as fresh off the plane immigrants and would accept that their real homeland is the island of Great Britain?

Frankly, I don't know. But you yourself put forward the proposition that Lebanese children living in Belleville and Peterborough are themselves Canadian.

This whole debate is a legacy of the United Empire Loyalists and their stubborn refusal to reject the British Crown like their American cousins did. Not only that, but their refusal to actually try to create a sense of Canadian identity. One need only look at Australia, a much younger country, but one with a much stronger self-identity than Canada even though both are part of the same Commonwealth.

[Errigal]

Frankly, I don't know. But you yourself put forward the proposition that Lebanese children living in Belleville and Peterborough are themselves Canadian.

This whole debate is a legacy of the United Empire Loyalists and their stubborn refusal to reject the British Crown like their American cousins did. Not only that, but their refusal to actually try to create a sense of Canadian identity. One need only look at Australia, a much younger country, but one with a much stronger self-identity than Canada even though both are part of the same Commonwealth.

Yes, something went wrong with the Anglo-Canadian project. The jump was not successfully made from Dominion in the British Empire to New World nation. The very close American cultural influence is a problem Australia was blessedly free from.

Anglo Canada got mass-immigration, the Quebec in Canada crisis, the rapid disappearance of the British Empire and the flood of American broadcast culture all at the same time. As well, Western Civilization was undergoing a self-inflicted crisis of confidence that the Anglo-Canadian chattering class embraced with both arms.

[Hakluyt]

Shared geography, especially in a compact area, is one of the defining traits of nationhood.
I'd say uninterrupted geographical space is a power dynamic, not a kinship dynamic. It allows for political unity and the formation of nation-states, but doesn't define the nation to begin with - that can happen even in a nomadic context. I'm quite sure French Canadians would have developed into a nation - that's to say a nation distinct from both English Canadians but also from France - whether or not they had the geographical space to themselves.

You put it forward quite well. It was never given a strong push from above in the days prior to Pearson's reform. I can only see it occurring as a reaction to mass immigration, but this would entail a rejection of multinational/multiracial definition of what it means to be a Canadian and rely on hyphenization along ethnic lines.
It's true, there was never a strong push for any form of identity, and there still isn't, because it's alien to our governing traditions. We're traditionally a monarchial-pluralist society, where in the interest of maintaining order the leadership doesn't interfere with identity or religion. The closest European comparison would probably have been the Habsburg Empire. That's the fundamental origin of our multicultural policy, not a nation-building project.

but this would entail a rejection of multinational/multiracial definition of what it means to be a Canadian and rely on hyphenization along ethnic lines.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. We already accept hyphenisation and always have - we've never tried to stop Ukrainians, Italians, Germans etc. from hyphenating themselves and keeping their old identities. Multiracialism has no quantity in Canadian politics - never heard that term used by a politician.

Hak supports a hyphenized nationality for those of British heritage. That's fine with me since it rejects an attempt to create a racial nation where one doesn't exist and in an environment that is multiracial.
Not really; like I said a few posts ago, 'Canadian' works fine as a dual nationality: English (British) and French. We know very well that it means both Anglo-Canadian and French-Canadian in each respective language - we only need to hyphenate them when we're talking about them at the same time because they use the same word. That may seem confusing on the surface but it's a simple linguistic necessity.

[Hakluyt]

I think Hak is speaking for Hak. Ask yourself how many other multi-generational Canadians would like to put themselves in the same category as fresh off the plane immigrants and would accept that their real homeland is the island of Great Britain?
They're different of course. We can't expect peoples who watch different TV stations and use idiosyncratic slang to feel kinship toward eachother.

[Hakluyt]

This whole debate is a legacy of the United Empire Loyalists and their stubborn refusal to reject the British Crown like their American cousins did. Not only that, but their refusal to actually try to create a sense of Canadian identity. One need only look at Australia, a much younger country, but one with a much stronger self-identity than Canada even though both are part of the same Commonwealth.
The simple answer is they had no reason to create a 'Canadian identity'. Why would they have done that when they were determined to preserve their already existing identity? That was the idea of going into exile in the first place.

Canadian identity came out of inertia, not a deliberate intent to create a new society tabula rasa. For that reason Canada didn't develop the myth of perfectibility or the 'New Man' like the Americans, and we're perpetually in their debt for that. The French Canadians, who would have been easily overwhelmed by if we'd had such a New World zeal, owe their very existence to the UEL's conservatism.

[Errigal]

The simple answer is they had no reason to create a 'Canadian identity'. Why would they have done that when they were determined to preserve their already existing identity? That was the idea of going into exile in the first place.

Canadian identity came out of inertia, not a deliberate intent to create a new society tabula rasa. For that reason Canada didn't develop the myth of perfectibility or the 'New Man' like the Americans, and we're perpetually in their debt for that. The French Canadians, who would have been easily overwhelmed by if we'd had such a New World zeal, owe their very existence to the UEL's conservatism.

Sadly, Anglo Canada was so conservative that it never really grasped the concept of self-government. They had the Westminster system copied and bought the shelf of law books but never really understood civic life and the need for real debates in which the citizenry action come to their own decisions. Culturally. elite Anglo Canada is still a cargo-cult society waiting for more books to arrive from the mother country or the US. Michael Ignatieff's career is a perfect example of this colonial mentality.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Sadly, Anglo Canada was so conservative that it never really grasped the concept of self-government. They had the Westminster system copied and bought the shelf of law books but never really understood civic life and the need for real debates in which the citizenry action come to their own decisions.

This is precisely the point I brought up earlier on this thread in regards to the Constitution.

Culturally. elite Anglo Canada is still a cargo-cult society waiting for more books to arrive from the mother country or the US. Michael Ignatieff's career is a perfect example of this colonial mentality.

Which is why I consider Canada to be a post-national country.

[Errigal]

...
Which is why I consider Canada to be a post-national country.

Not post-national, pre-national. It is still early days.

[Hakluyt]

Sadly, Anglo Canada was so conservative that it never really grasped the concept of self-government. They had the Westminster system copied and bought the shelf of law books but never really understood civic life and the need for real debates in which the citizenry action come to their own decisions. Culturally. elite Anglo Canada is still a cargo-cult society waiting for more books to arrive from the mother country or the US. Michael Ignatieff's career is a perfect example of this colonial mentality.
Contentless blather. Canada made several unique accomplishments in the field of statecraft, from the client system of the Family Compact, to Confederation, to the dominion system enshrined in the Statute of Westminster (largely the work of Canadian politicians and theorists). Our civic culture was quite advanced for such a small and sparse population, especially considering we attracted almost no significant literary minds (with some notable examples, like Goldwin Smith), faced constant emigration for the better part of 40 years, lack of a dynamic economy, etc. There was certainly no lack of civic life and public debate during this period, however.

There's no question that Canada has 'achieved' less than most countries during its short existence; but there's also no question that most 'achievements' of this period have around the world have been questionable. That we had fewer radical thinkers, democratic convulsions, and silly writers is to our credit. That we got along with our lives, fought well, had a place in the world and were generally happier than our neighbours testifies to a superior existence, IMHO.

Canada's failure as a society in the second half of the twentieth century was a direct result of the collapse of the British Empire (and that's to say the 'White Empire', of course, which the Canadian usage of the term always implied). We simply hadn't invested in a sense of purpose limited to this country alone because we were never forced to, and never found it a desirable idea. Optimism about the future of Canada in the British Empire was widespread, and the notion of nation-building in exclusion of the motherland was not taken seriously. Few could have predicted the implosion of our cultural universe, even while it was in fact taking place.

[Errigal]

Contentless blather. ....

Spare me the Lord Teletubby imitation. Look where that got him.

The rest of your post was itself blather, but not without content. It supports my statement that Canada was sadly not ready for independence when it was thrust upon her.

[harjit]

Spare me the Lord Teletubby imitation. Look where that got him.
Not an imitation, I bet Hak is Conrad Black. :p

[Errigal]

Not an imitation, I bet Hak is Conrad Black. :p

Yeah, trading cartons of cigarettes for Internet time on the prison computer. Like Napoleon did on Elba.

We are honoured by your presence Your Lordship!

[harjit]

Yeah, trading cartons of cigarettes for Internet time on the prison computer. Like Napoleon did on Elba.

We are honoured by your presence Your Lordship!
I thought Niccolo was was our resident cigarette pusher.

[Errigal]

I thought Niccolo was was our resident cigarette pusher.

Maybe Niccolo should propose a business deal to Barbara Amiel, he'll smuggle cigarettes to her favourite Toygoy in the Florida pen for a price.

[Hakluyt]

Spare me the Lord Teletubby imitation. Look where that got him.

The rest of your post was itself blather, but not without content.
I.e., you're out of your depth as usual. Can't even expect an original response from you these days.

It supports my statement that Canada was sadly not ready for independence when it was thrust upon her.
That's exactly my thesis, friend. Canada's civic culture was an advanced one by any standard, but that's not the same as purposefully laying the foundations for an independent society, detatched from the motherland. There was never any collective desire for that.

[Errigal]

I.e., you're out of your depth as usual. Can't even expect an original response from you these days.

Seeing that we almost never communicate with one another I have no idea what you're talking about. Just following some pompous template I suppose.


That's exactly my thesis, friend. Canada's civic culture was an advanced one by any standard, but that's not the same as purposefully laying the foundations for an independent society, detatched from the motherland. There was never any collective desire for that.

Unfortunately Anglo Canada's civic culture is not an advanced one. It does not have a healthy clash of political and social ideas at the top. Instead it is a culture with quite reasonable working-class and middle-class people getting on with their lives and a stagnant and culturally derivative governing class. Anglo Canada's governing class was politically correct before the term was invented.

[harjit]

Unfortunately Anglo Canada's civic culture is not an advanced one. It does not have a healthy clash of political and social ideas at the top. Instead it is a culture with quite reasonable working-class and middle-class people getting on with their lives and a stagnant and culturally derivative governing class. Anglo Canada's governing class was politically correct before the term was invented.

Which sounds like a privileged and blessed state, by world standards.

[Errigal]

Which sounds like a privileged and blessed state, by world standards.

Yeah "Go for Bronze!" man.

[harjit]

Yeah "Go for Bronze!" man.
No, my point was that maybe being in a position where there isn't much need for clashing ideas is the Gold.

If you like ideas for their own sake, there are many outlets for that. Another luxury.

[Hakluyt]

Seeing that we almost never communicate with one another I have no idea what you're talking about. Just following some pompous template I suppose.
We've exchanged views in a good dozen or so threads over the past year. The outcome certainly does follow a familiar template, with similar emotional language always seeping out when bested.

Unfortunately Anglo Canada's civic culture is not an advanced one. It does not have a healthy clash of political and social ideas at the top. Instead it is a culture with quite reasonable working-class and middle-class people getting on with their lives and a stagnant and culturally derivative governing class. Anglo Canada's governing class was politically correct before the term was invented.
If you'll learn to read, I said Canada's civic culture was an advanced one, and I have no respect for our current establishment. I'm sure any reasonable person could infer that when I talk about things like the "implosion of our cultural universe".

Still I think we're basically a virtuous society, even if a bovine one. I'll take political correctness and multiculturalism over the political legacy of racism and assimilation. A lack of political intrigue is also better than pretty much any other example of a 'clash of political and social ideas' you can name around the globe. (At any rate, we have a bigger diversity of politicial parties than the other Anglo/American democracies, which actually creates a more substantial debate than the typical left/right polarity; we've also got the most popular Green party in the Anglosphere at the moment).

We have evolved into an arbitrary, authoritarian, top-down society, without question. But is that such a bad thing? Immersive, Res Publica involvement in the political sphere is only desirable when we have a homogeneous, united population to begin with. We can very well predict the outcome of a full discussion on immigration in Canada c. 2008, for example. The weight of opinion and interest is just too strong. The only place such a debate could possibly be decided in our favour would be in a backroom, parliamentary, quasi-authoritarian context. We should be thankful we even have the option... the USA doesn't have that, the UK and France don't either. I actually find it encouraging to think that Canadians, presented with a fait accompli, will probably accept kind of reform.

[Dan Dare]

At last we seem to have hit upon a subject that gets Canuckistanis all riled up! :D

[Errigal]

We've exchanged views in a good dozen or so threads over the past year. The outcome certainly does follow a familiar template, with similar emotional language always seeping out when bested.

Save the trash talk for your next chess club cage match.


If you'll learn to read, I said Canada's civic culture was an advanced one, and I have no respect for our current establishment. I'm sure any reasonable person could infer that when I talk about things like the "implosion of our cultural universe".

For someone about to sing the praises of the servile life you seem to have trouble with basic courtesy.

Canada's civic culture was not, and is not, an advanced one. Neither is the civic culture of other New World states like Argentina. Such is life.

I would add though that French Canadians seem to have a bit more steel in their spine, judging from the French words to "Oh Canada":

O Canada!
Land of our ancestors
your brow is crowned with glorious garlands.
As your arm know how to wield the sword,
It knows how to carry the cross.
Your history is an epic
Of the most brilliant exploits.
And your valour, steeped in faith,
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights


Still I think we're basically a virtuous society, even if a bovine one. I'll take political correctness and multiculturalism over the political legacy of racism and assimilation. A lack of political intrigue is also better than pretty much any other example of a 'clash of political and social ideas' you can name around the globe. (At any rate, we have a bigger diversity of politicial parties than the other Anglo/American democracies, which actually creates a more substantial debate than the typical left/right polarity; we've also got the most popular Green party in the Anglosphere at the moment).

We have evolved into an arbitrary, authoritarian, top-down society, without question. But is that such a bad thing? Immersive, Res Publica involvement in the political sphere is only desirable when we have a homogeneous, united population to begin with. We can very well predict the outcome of a full discussion on immigration in Canada c. 2008, for example. The weight of opinion and interest is just too strong. The only place such a debate could possibly be decided in our favour would be in a backroom, parliamentary, quasi-authoritarian context. We should be thankful we even have the option... the USA doesn't have that, the UK and France don't either. I actually find it encouraging to think that Canadians, presented with a fait accompli, will probably accept kind of reform.

The rest of this could just be entitled In Praise of Oligarchy . You must have read Orwell's 1984 and wondered what Winston Smith's big problem was.

[Hakluyt]

Save the trash talk for your next chess club cage match.
More feeble with each post.

For someone about to sing the praises of the servile life you seem to have trouble with basic courtesy.
A barb or two - in an otherwise substantial post - never hurt anyone. They're necessary to deflate pretentions, and remind you that arrogance is ill-advised in a topic you're ignorant about.

Canada's civic culture was not, and is not, an advanced one. Neither is the civic culture of other New World states like Argentina. Such is life.
If you're ever interested in learning about the history of the adoptive country you so cutely insult, the literature is immense, and I can recommend you the best sources to consult. The finest popular historians to start with are Donald Creighton (Dominion of the North; John A. MacDonald) and W.L. Morton (The Kingdom of Canada; The Canadian Identity). I can provide you with a more academic reading list whenever you're ready.

I would add though that French Canadians seem to have a bit more steel in their spine, judging from the French words to "Oh Canada":
Thanks Captain Trivia, but you'll get no argument from me about the French Canadians. I've actually lived in Quebec for a significant part of my life, have recent French ancestry, and lots of family in La Belle Province. The superiority of their social fabric comes from the distance they decided to put between themselves and their motherland; they built themselves a unique New World identity more than two centuries ago and are a much much older society in that sense. There's really no direct comparison to be made between them and English Canada in that regard.

The rest of this could just be entitled In Praise of Oligarchy . You must have read Orwell's 1984 and wondered what Winston Smith's big problem was.
Snide and contentless, as usual.

The type of system I'm describing was the norm for the majority of European history. Democracy is an aberration. It simply doesn't work outside of perfect homogeneity.

[Corrupt]

No, my point was that maybe being in a position where there isn't much need for clashing ideas is the Gold.



I suppose there isn't, seen from your "worldly" vantage point.

[Errigal]

Which sounds like a privileged and blessed state, by world standards.


No, my point was that maybe being in a position where there isn't much need for clashing ideas is the Gold.

If you like ideas for their own sake, there are many outlets for that. Another luxury.

Yes, Canada ideally will be like a giant Smurf village, but Papa Smurf will always be elsewhere. Sometimes the all knowing patriarch will be at the LSE, or Harvard or The Guardian , but always somewhere over the horizon.
http://www.schtroumpf.com/images/meet_us/papa.jpg
The Canadian Smurf village will have to make due with Papa Smurf's pedantic and sanctimonious representative Brainy Smurf.
http://www.schtroumpf.com/images/meet_us/brainy.jpg

Brainy Smurf will get his pay cheque from the Gargamel Institute for Social Justice and Diversity.
http://www.schtroumpf.com/images/meet_us/gargamel.jpg
Anyone who says the different coloured Smurfs are a menace will receive jail time, a fine or both.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Schtroumpfs_noirs.JPG/180px-Schtroumpfs_noirs.JPG

It sounds like heaven.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/AzizalSaqr/SmurfNoWar.jpg

[Felix the Cat]

Is the US still Anglophobic and anti-Catholic to any significant degree?

The two Canadian nations have never liked each other very much, but there used to be a strong common desire not to be absorbed into the US - is that still true?

[Felix the Cat]

(dupe post)

[Errigal]

Is the US still Anglophobic and anti-Catholic to any significant degree?

A big chip on the shoulder mentality toward England and anti-English sentiment is still strong in America. The Atlanticists like to paper over the cracks but American patriotism has a strong anti-English character to it. Tony Blair's lapdog years helped the English earn the friendship of people they might prefer not to please in America, but anti-Englishness is still there. Many Americans like parts of English culture but still think Britain needs to understand its new subservient position in the American Empire and should learn to be more thankful for being rescued from the Germans twice and the Soviets for forty years. They also like to think all Englishmen are soccer hooligans or effete fags.

Anti-Catholicism, as an ideology, is reserved to non-mainstream Bible-bangers like the Reverend Hagee. There is legitimate anger at the RC Church for helping illegal migrants from Latin America flout immigration laws, but many Protestant churches do that too.

This is an interesting site if you want to see how antiwar American paleo-conservatism is blended with Catholicism:
http://www.takimag.com/


The two Canadian nations have never liked each other very much, but there used to be a strong common desire not to be absorbed into the US - is that still true?

Yes.

[Errigal]

... The principal difference that I can see is that the British were more generous to their defeated enemy than the United States was to its. That doesn’t seem to have left the Quebecois any less prickly, disgruntled or sensitive to perceived slights.

Both fair points. However both also serving to underline the particularity of Quebec as an inward-looking nation within a nation, one which viewed itself as a reluctant and perhaps only temporary part of the larger whole.

Which really circles back to my argument with Niccolo and to the central point I was making: Quebec has never been, or even wanted to be, an integral part of Canada in same sense as the other provinces, so it is misleading to claim, as Niccolo does, that Canada has never existed as a nation simply because the Quebecois were not fully commited participants in the Confederation.

Rather than focusing on the dry detail of constitutional history, the relationship of Quebec vis-à-vis Canada is in my view better exemplified by the frenzied response (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Params=A1ARTFET_E53) to de Gaulle’s infamous speech "Vive le Québec libre ! Vive le Canada français ! Et vive la France !"

I'm just reviving this conversation because I found a video which might be relevant. This is a Loyalist song from Ulster which gives a good sense of how many felt after the apocalypse of the First World War. This is what I had in mind when I talked about those in power in the British Empire cashing in all their goodwill chips.

RsLUZCJ6OeM&feature=related

also here's a recent Quebecois video I posted before which shows their incorrigible blood and land spirit:

cKCRHhmHvjg
:)

[Alex_De_Large]

I am a real Canadian...

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/Hulk-Hogan-.jpg

Fight for the rights of Pakistan!

I am real Canadian...

Figh for Harjit's rights.

Fight for what's right!