Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

What does it mean to be English Canadian?


Recommended Posts

IMO earthlings are what we are to extra-terrestrials.

Terrans, that's it we're all Terrans first or last, whatever.

We don't have 2 solitudes as is often referred to by some political observers, we have 3. The English who hate Quebecers, Quebecers who hate the English and those who don't care one way or the other.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Semantics.

Actually no, your argument is more semantics than mine (since the Constitution does apply despite the absence of the signature). No, Quebec didn't sign. That doesn't make them any less a part of Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well no. We call them "first Nations" but only as a matter of trying to marginalize them into one homogeneous melting pot, instead of recognizing each and every nation for who they are with the culture they preserve. Their concept of nation is not well understood in our terms, and infact our terms are not well understood because we try to make claims we are something we are really not.

Canada is really a Metis nation.

I know what you mean, I live in the Yuu-tluth-aht Ha- Ha’houlthee. I aknowledge the Ha’wiilth and I'm thankful for the welcome they've given me.

The Nuu-chah-nulth are an all round decent bunch of Terrans if you ask me.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
The sad truth is that English Canadians are the bastard children to a government that has undertaken for far too long the impossible task of keeping together dissimilar peoples. English Canada has given up its ethnic national identity for a civic national identity, in the hopes that this country could be kept together. English Canada sacrificed its identity to embrace French Canada only to have it thrown in their face everytime someone from the Bloc Quebecois--a party whose purpose is to fortify the French ethnic nationality--is elected to Parliament.

That's my opinion anyway.

You give the government far too much credit for the effort that's gone into Canada. I think the greater share should go to the dissimilar peoples of Canada that have kept the country together. If anything its those who govern that have done all they can to divide the governed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely we need unity, but Quebec never signed the Constitution and it currently holds seats hostage in Parliament by electing a party whose sole purpose is to fortify the French ethnic national identity. The problem is how do you have unity without one culture absorbing the other? Is it even possible to have unity yet maintain heterogeneity? I don't know. Perhaps the only way to have unity is to let Quebec go its own way.

Where exactly is Quebec going to go?

I get this Monty Pythonesque image of Quebec hoisting its sails and literally separating from the landmass of North America.

In the case of Alberta I guess they'd have to ignite all that hot gas they're sitting on and blast themselves into orbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually no, your argument is more semantics than mine (since the Constitution does apply despite the absence of the signature). No, Quebec didn't sign. That doesn't make them any less a part of Canada.
That they didn't sign doesn't make them any less a part of Canada, you're right. That they consider themselves less a part of Canada is what made them choose not to sign.
Link to post
Share on other sites
An "English-Canadian" is someone who was born in England and now resides in Canada as a Canadian citizen.

The law does not distinguish between English-speaking Canadian and French-speaking Canadians per se but provides laws that accommodate both languages through-out Canada. Then there may be territorial laws such as in Quebec that protect culture through language and in turn protect the use French on public display. Most people know that language and culture are intrinsically linked.

No. An "English-Canadian" is someone whose right to government employment is severely circumscribed in practice if not in theory, as Quebec has taken advantage of its ability to swing elections. In effect, Quebec is the tail wagging the English Canadian dog.

English Canada by itself would remind one of Australia, something between what the U.S. and the U.K. have to offer. English Canada's blood moistened Juno Beach. English Canada is there for assistance in all major U.S. disasters. French Canada is there to whine about teaching the true history of a great land. It's a fact that certain matters were settled on the Plains of Abraham. French Canada wants to refight the battle rather than getting on with building a great land. Busy people build. Idle people resent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You give the government far too much credit for the effort that's gone into Canada. I think the greater share should go to the dissimilar peoples of Canada that have kept the country together. If anything its those who govern that have done all they can to divide the governed.
Agreed. Quebecers seem to suffer a collective lack of self-confidence and expect other to salve their easily wounded egos.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Quebecers seem to suffer a collective lack of self-confidence and expect other to salve their easily wounded egos.

Some individuals in Quebec suffer this I suppose, I know people here in BC who do too so it stands to reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That they consider themselves less a part of Canada is what made them choose not to sign.

Most Quebecers want to be Canadians. Recent pools put separation at under 40% support. Before the sponsorship scandal, support was down to 25%. Its realistic to assume that those numbers will return. Most Quebecers consider themselves to be a part of Canada. They simply see it in a different way.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Quebecers want to be Canadians. Recent pools put separation at under 40% support. Before the sponsorship scandal, support was down to 25%. Its realistic to assume that those numbers will return. Most Quebecers consider themselves to be a part of Canada. They simply see it in a different way.

Most Quebecers are content being Quebecios. They don't want to be Canadian is it means having to compromise their language and culture. That is what creates the solitude.

English Canadians have every opportunity anywhere in Canada but like Americans in their hate relationship in Europe, they aren't very well welcomed in Quebec, or in francophone communities outside of Quebec. The problem isn't Quebec per se but those English Canadians who insist they are an inferior society. Yet that is opposite to the truth, since English Canadians are cultureless and tradition amounts to putting lighted stars or angels on plastic Christmas trees. In Quebec as well as aboriginal communities, common law and societal practices are derived from their culture and language. On the other hand the rest of Canada struggles with issues that law after law has been unsuccessfully thrown about. What we see as the ailments in aboriginal communities is derived from that same cultureless society in imitation of us, and from the decades of abuse and assimilation we have subjected them to.

We can't get our act together to admit we are not nobles and elite. We are paupers who ate hunted and gathered with the First Nations, who married into their communities and who learned how to carry canoes where the wheel was a useless decoration. We fought side by side with natives and Quebecers to defend Canada not only from the 18th and 19th century threat from the south but from World Wars and regional conflicts. We built Canada shoulder to shoulder, brick by brick alongside Metis, aboriginal, and Quebec tradesmen in every region of this country. We have adopted some of the culture that our First Nations and Quebecers embrace as their own. That does not make us less of a country, and it certainly does not exclude all to the benefit of a British-only descendant relationship. We are Canadian, not American and not colonlials - even though the latter creeped into our thinking in the 19th century and the former dominates our cerebral myths today. Once we accept that there were really three solitudes - French, English and Aboriginal - that make up Canada we'll have a better understanding of who we really are.

Edited by charter.rights
Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Quebecers want to be Canadians. Recent pools put separation at under 40% support. Before the sponsorship scandal, support was down to 25%. Its realistic to assume that those numbers will return. Most Quebecers consider themselves to be a part of Canada. They simply see it in a different way.

I said nothing about Quebeckers wanting to separate. I said they identify with their province and their French ethnic nationalism first before they identify with the state and the civic nationalism that was used as a tool to unify the country as a nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think life is too short to be bitching about these petty differences. ;)

If that is what you want to waste your time and energy on, then go for it. I'd rather put my time and energy towards more important things.

I don't care what language you speak, we are all in this shit together. We should be promoting our similarities instead of our differences, then you will find it easier for a unified Canada to come into existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is sidetracking the topic here. That is all.

Nope. It's pointing out that in a country with as many immigrants as we have, many have emotional attachments to other nations and other cultures as great as or greater than any attachment they have to Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
People keep struggling with a "Canadian" identity. Yet what most believe identifies is nothing more than a myth.

There is not "Canadian culture" and without culture there is no identity

There IS a culture, even if none of the immigrants yet subscribe to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's it? Sad.

But my questions was: if uopu speak English, what is Canada?

No, August, that was not exactly your question. Maybe it's a question of semantics, but you actually asked

What is an (English) Canadian?

Which is what everyone has clearly focused on, for the most part, looking for a dictionary definition.

What exactly are you looking for? A list of common traits, beliefs, loves and hates, hopes and dreams, cultural values which hold us together?

What is a French Canadian? A Canadian who's French. Care to expand upon that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Semantics.

The fact remains that Trudeau's vision was adopted by those outside of Quebec (so much so that Canadians name bilingualism, multiculturalism and our rights just behind Tim Hortons, Hockey and Don Cherry when asked what it means to be Canadian) and the national identity he forged has been largely rejected within Quebec.

From Trudeau's time, succesive federal governments have taken for granted the loyalty of "English" Canadians, and sacrificed, as you've earlier suggested, our cultural icons, our historical traidtions and cultural beliefs as needed in desperate hopes of enticing Francophones and "ethnics" to join as part of our "happy family". And anyone who complained about that or complains about it now is labelled as intollerent or bigoted for not wanting to join in the sacrifice to embrace those who don't particularly want to be embraced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was born here and I still haven't subscribed to it. Will I get a nice complimentary gift if I do?

I think it's wide enough to embrace even you, even if not in every aspect and facet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. It's pointing out that in a country with as many immigrants as we have, many have emotional attachments to other nations and other cultures as great as or greater than any attachment they have to Canada.

That's because the national identity of those countries is based on ethnic nationality. A lot of immigrants come from ethnically homogeneous nations, where the state national identity is the same as the ethnic national identity. One cannot relate to Canada in this way because Canada is not ethnically homogeneous. We cannot have a state ethnic nationality, so we resort to a civic identity that includes rights and freedoms for example. As it pertains to the original post, t$his raises the question of what's stronger. For people outside Quebec the civic national identity is stronger, for people within Quebec, who are looking to preserve their culture, language and ethnicity the ethnic nationality is stronger. You can't compare state nationalities from a state that is ethnically heterogeneous to states that are ethnically homogeneous. They derive their identity from vastly different principals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Quebecers are content being Quebecios. They don't want to be Canadian is it means having to compromise their language and culture.

No one is saying they have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I said they identify with their province and their French ethnic nationalism first before they identify with the state and the civic nationalism

And there's really nothing wrong with that. In many ways, Albertans and Newfoundlanders (and possibly the people of Nunavut) seem to feel much the same way about their provinces and their collective identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Trudeau's time, succesive federal governments have taken for granted the loyalty of "English" Canadians, and sacrificed, as you've earlier suggested, our cultural icons, our historical traidtions and cultural beliefs as needed in desperate hopes of enticing Francophones and "ethnics" to join as part of our "happy family". And anyone who complained about that or complains about it now is labelled as intollerent or bigoted for not wanting to join in the sacrifice to embrace those who don't particularly want to be embraced.

While you may think this makes you sound like you know what you are talking about, in reality all you are doing is repeating the myths that Canadians believe about themselves. Canadian cultural icons, traditions and cultural beliefs do not exist as a Canadian identity of what is Canadian. And while English Canadians like to boast that we are part of the British colonial experience, we are as far removed from it as India is from their colonizers.

When you come up with some ideas on what you think makes us unique as Canadians maybe we can discuss it further.

Keep in mind as well as we may have regional culture that defines pockets of us.....such as Metis around the Red River, or Newfoundlanders...but we have no national culture like India or truly cultural societies do, save and except that we are deluded into thinking we do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there's really nothing wrong with that. In many ways, Albertans and Newfoundlanders (and possibly the people of Nunavut) seem to feel much the same way about their provinces and their collective identity.
It's not at all the same with Albertans and Newfoundlanders. They may identify with their province, but that is also a civic nation. Regardless, I'm not claiming there is anything wrong with it. I'm just stating that'st he way it is.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...