Re: Use of french *not* forbidden by usenet charter [Was: Re: Use of french forbidden by usenet charter]


"Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedrins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137968530.446489.35020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
«Pas de deux» wrote:
> "Pçteris Cedriòð (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedrins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137944026.040901.153610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip]

> >P.S. Whilst I sympathize with the Francophones in Québec to a degree,
> >I think comparing their linguistic situation to that of the Baltics in
> >the USSR goes _far_ too far, especially since French has been the sole
> >official language there since 1977. The province was never under
> >totalitarian rule, French is a major world language, and Anglophones
> >make up only 6,8% of the population.
>
> Loi 101 has been in force for a while, but the Québec anglophones treat
> it with contempt and a large percentage of them (I'd love to know the
> true figures) remain monolingual in English and have an aggressively
> contemptuous attitude toward French.

Well, what are the figures? You must know that you are using much too
broad a brush when you write "the Québec anglophones treat it with
contempt." You're an Anglophone (in the way that word is used in
Québec), at best an Allophone, and you don't treat Loi 101 with
contempt.

I haven't been to Montréal for quite some time, but during my visits I
noticed very little contempt on the part of Anglophones (I did notice a
bit of contempt on the part of Francophones, however, and I did use
French almost exclusively). I'm sure there are some contemptuous
Anglophones -- but I'm sure that some of the Anglophones' contempt is
for contemptuous Francophones.

It is a bilingual city historically, and it is a very large city, and
many large cities are multilingual and cosmopolitan. As Martin points
out, you cannot paint a picture of horrible British imperialists vs.
innocent little Francophones, since the Francophones are the result of
French imperialism. The reports I have read of late, for instance in
_The New York Times_, do not agree with your view, Gintai --

"In a recent study by the Missisquoi Institute in Montreal, 50 percent
of English-speakers surveyed said the provincial government should
maintain the language laws, though older English-speakers still
expressed opposition."

("Quebec Seeks to Ease Divisiveness," by Clifford Krauss, April 13,
2003; the article costs money at the NYT site, but you can find it at a
few sites or in the Google cache.)

If half of the Anglophones don't mind Loi 101, I doubt that "the
Québec anglophones treat it with contempt." I'm sure some do, but you
do love to tar everybody with that broad brush.

> Now doesn't that sound like some
> parts of Latvia (and Estonia, and Vilnius, Klaipeda and Visaginas?)?

There are some similarities -- I find information on the fact that few
of the Anglophones use the French language media very interesting, for
example. But the similarity to Visaginas? What are the demographics in
Visaginas? I've only been through it, but my impression is that Russian
is the mother tongue of most of its inhabitants. You're not only asking
for a miracle if you expect them all to swiftly convert linguistically
-- you're asking for something that's a little bit strange. And again,
I can't help pointing to history -- Vilnius was a multicultural city in
which the Lithuanian element was quite small for a very long time.
Interbellum Lithuanian policies in Klaipeda don't sound at all pretty
when Stranga writes about them.

> And of course where the Baltic states are definitely better off is that
> they have sovereignty, so no one seriously questions (apart from a few
> Russian drunks) the right of the Baltic states to continue to have their
> local language as the only official language.

I daresay that numerous people question that right, many of them sober
and not at all Russian. There is also the question of what "official
language" means -- that varies widely both in policy and practice. Loi
101 (and other language legislation in Québec) seems in some ways more
stringent than Latvia's legislation -- in other ways less so.

> Meanwhile, there is every
> indication that right wing Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party,
> Bush's no. 1 pin-up boy and darling of the US Christain fundamentalist
> right, who may win on Monday, intends to do everything in his power as
> PM to undermine Loi 101 and to turn back the clock/calendar to the
> 1950s/60s as concerns English Canada's attitude to Québec and the French
> language.

Alarmist rhetoric, sorry. Look at the numbers. And you know perfectly
well that the clock can't be turned back. The changes weren't just
about the language law but deep and socio-economic.

But one would think you'd be jumping for joy, since the more the ROC
offends Québec, the more likely it is to secede. All you really need
are a few more boors stomping on the flag.

> Already he has questioned the need for French announcements
> on Air Canada flights that are not flying into/out of Québec. Of
> course if you allow that then within a few weeks they'll be questioning
> the need for Air Canada to use any French at all. I would never have to
> do another translation again and I could retire quite comfortably in
> Lithuania if I just had $1 for each time I have heard an anglo say "What
> the fuck do we need any French for at all? Those fucken Frenchies are
> just being troublemakers. They all speak English too anyway so what the
> *** do they need French for?"

Sure, but that is partly because Québec has become more and more a
separate nation. It doesn't make much sense for a guy in rural
Saskatchewan to have to learn French to work at the post office. The
emphasis on bilingualism for the whole country was partly the work of
federalists determined to keep Québec in Canada, no?

> To them it's that simple: just like
> having an extra fridge or something that you don't need. Just dump it.
> That's what comes from being monlingual in English and having a world
> view that treats English domination of everything as 'good' and 'normal'
> and any departure from this as a 'problem' and a 'nuisance'. Now try
> and tell me that this isn't like Latvia - and not Latvia of this
> decade, but of the 1960s and 1970s. [Of course, in all the above, read
> 'Russian' for 'English' and 'Latvian' for 'French'.]

There are some similarities, but English no longer dominates in
Québec. The language laws were necessary for that domination to end.
Many Anglophones in Québec have accepted the linguistic change, and I
would be more careful not to confuse the desire for English domination
with the desire to preserve the presence of English and an Anglophone
community. There is also often a conflict between individual and
collective rights -- in the choices one has to educate one's children,
for example.

More from the NYT article: "'What used to drive politics in Quebec was
the Francophone majority's fear of assimilation into the
English-speaking mainstream of Canada,' said Benoit Aubin, who learned
English listening to Bob Dylan records and is now the Montreal
correspondent for Maclean's magazine. 'But as soon as English speakers
learned French the problem was gone. Being bilingual became cool.'"

I've met Québécois nationalists who think like you, Gintai -- but
I've met many who don't.

Viso gero,
/P

Vilnius soundw about like the whole country of Latvia,
Pertriukai, no?

Coopted by someone else.

But, on the other hand, it did start out as a Lithuanian
city and Lithuania was Lithuania - no?
I hate to mention it - when was Latvia that?

We tolerate you to a point, Petriukai, but don't push it
you damn half-breed.

Best - - Henry




.