C
couchcommander
Guest
Kirkhill said:
...and I thought I was being quite clear....
Quebec Liberals call province 'nation'
- Thread starter Bigmac
- Start date
...and I thought I was being quite clear....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
You guys completely lost me.
I don't buy the alarmist stance that anything that creates inequality (nation within a country) creates conflict, or even warfare as some of you would imply.
Not every Canadian is a privileged middle class wasp, to recognize such may be extremely threatening to some people, but its a reality. The idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation may save Canada.
I don't buy the alarmist stance that anything that creates inequality (nation within a country) creates conflict, or even warfare as some of you would imply.
Not every Canadian is a privileged middle class wasp, to recognize such may be extremely threatening to some people, but its a reality. The idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation may save Canada.
Also nice of you to play the race card, because all wasp types are privileged. :
- Reaction score
- 7,982
- Points
- 1,160
UberCree,
If you will excuse me I am going to continue a longstanding tendency to keep using WASPish personal analogies. I am a Scot by birth and an Englishman by blood. My father was English. That made it easy for me to see myself as British. Then I didn't have to choose between my Mother and my Father.
When I came to Canada that made it easier for me to accept taking on an additional identity as a Canadian. I have many such identities. Some of them change over time as I self-identify with some groups then change my mind.
One thing that never changes though is my seeing myself as a Scot and a Brit and a Canadian. I don't find those things to be mutually exclusive. I can't do anything about my blood. It defines me as a Scot and a Brit. I wouldn't do anything about it anyway as I am proud to be both.
I am also proud to be a Canadian. That is something that I asked to become and I was honoured to be allowed to become.
In the case of my blood, my nation - that is an accident of history and beyond my control.
In the case of my citizenship - that is a contract that I voluntarily entered into. It entailed rights and responsibilities. I accepted the responsibilities and welcomed the rights.
Regardless of my citizenship my nationality will not and cannot change.
By the same token I don't expect my nationality to have any legal effect on my citizenship.
I am not alone in seeing nationality and citizenship in this light. Many, if not most, Brits living in Canada as Canadians see things in a similar vein as, I am sure, do most Germans, Ukrainians, Sikhs and other immigrant populations. I am fairly sure that this is the way that Ignatieff, Martin, Turner and Federalist Quebecers see the concept of a nation. In fact this may be the way that most Sovereigntists see themselves - hence the request for something other than an independent Nation-State.
Unfortunately, many other people around the world do not see things in the same light. Even at home here my wife, a French-Canadian from Saskatchewan, sees nationality and citizenship as synonymous. She sees herself as a Canadian. Full Stop. My children, likewise, see themselves as Canadians. Full Stop. For them nationality and citizenship are one and the same. In addition they see themselves as belonging to the country of Canada and of Canada belonging to them. Canada is birthright. Not a voluntary decision. From there it is a short step to believing that citizenship is a birthright and from there that no responsibilities are entailed. We work to ensure that they understand there are both rights and responsibilities.
My question to you UberCree is: Can you see yourself as a member of the Cree nation, with no legal distinctions resulting from that differentiation that would set you apart from my children, and also a citizen of Canada with the same rights and responsibilities as they have?
If you can, and you can see all other Canadians seeing themselves in the same light then there is no problem with defining nation as Ignatieff wants to define it.
On the other hand, even if you personally can accept that definition of nation I would argue that many would not because there are those that prefer not to see it in that light. For political purposes, to achieve political ends, they look for allies and one of the oldest sources of allies are family. If you can convince people that they are all of one blood family, and different to the rest, then you have the basis of a political movement. Belief (religious or political) works just as well to cut out a body of support from the herd.
It is the concern of most others that this is the intent of those that insist on seeing Quebec, and first nations, as separate and distinct. It is not the seeing of them as nations. It is the threat that in a world of United Nations that that word has very significant political meaning that could be used to tear apart the State of Canada.
If you will excuse me I am going to continue a longstanding tendency to keep using WASPish personal analogies. I am a Scot by birth and an Englishman by blood. My father was English. That made it easy for me to see myself as British. Then I didn't have to choose between my Mother and my Father.
When I came to Canada that made it easier for me to accept taking on an additional identity as a Canadian. I have many such identities. Some of them change over time as I self-identify with some groups then change my mind.
One thing that never changes though is my seeing myself as a Scot and a Brit and a Canadian. I don't find those things to be mutually exclusive. I can't do anything about my blood. It defines me as a Scot and a Brit. I wouldn't do anything about it anyway as I am proud to be both.
I am also proud to be a Canadian. That is something that I asked to become and I was honoured to be allowed to become.
In the case of my blood, my nation - that is an accident of history and beyond my control.
In the case of my citizenship - that is a contract that I voluntarily entered into. It entailed rights and responsibilities. I accepted the responsibilities and welcomed the rights.
Regardless of my citizenship my nationality will not and cannot change.
By the same token I don't expect my nationality to have any legal effect on my citizenship.
I am not alone in seeing nationality and citizenship in this light. Many, if not most, Brits living in Canada as Canadians see things in a similar vein as, I am sure, do most Germans, Ukrainians, Sikhs and other immigrant populations. I am fairly sure that this is the way that Ignatieff, Martin, Turner and Federalist Quebecers see the concept of a nation. In fact this may be the way that most Sovereigntists see themselves - hence the request for something other than an independent Nation-State.
Unfortunately, many other people around the world do not see things in the same light. Even at home here my wife, a French-Canadian from Saskatchewan, sees nationality and citizenship as synonymous. She sees herself as a Canadian. Full Stop. My children, likewise, see themselves as Canadians. Full Stop. For them nationality and citizenship are one and the same. In addition they see themselves as belonging to the country of Canada and of Canada belonging to them. Canada is birthright. Not a voluntary decision. From there it is a short step to believing that citizenship is a birthright and from there that no responsibilities are entailed. We work to ensure that they understand there are both rights and responsibilities.
My question to you UberCree is: Can you see yourself as a member of the Cree nation, with no legal distinctions resulting from that differentiation that would set you apart from my children, and also a citizen of Canada with the same rights and responsibilities as they have?
If you can, and you can see all other Canadians seeing themselves in the same light then there is no problem with defining nation as Ignatieff wants to define it.
On the other hand, even if you personally can accept that definition of nation I would argue that many would not because there are those that prefer not to see it in that light. For political purposes, to achieve political ends, they look for allies and one of the oldest sources of allies are family. If you can convince people that they are all of one blood family, and different to the rest, then you have the basis of a political movement. Belief (religious or political) works just as well to cut out a body of support from the herd.
It is the concern of most others that this is the intent of those that insist on seeing Quebec, and first nations, as separate and distinct. It is not the seeing of them as nations. It is the threat that in a world of United Nations that that word has very significant political meaning that could be used to tear apart the State of Canada.
- Reaction score
- 7,982
- Points
- 1,160
This article says it better than I can.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061027.wjohnson27/BNStory/National/home
And I don't normally find myself agreeing with PET.
The only thing I would add is that this also ties into the concept of mindset and the desire of some to create a perfect society.
To prevent the use of guns in crime, you deny the use of guns to everyone.
To prevent the use of police and security services in oppressing a population, you deny the state police and security services.
To prevent the use of religion as a rallying cry against the state, you deny the expression, and even the existence, of religion.
To prevent the use of nation as a rallying cry, you likewise deny the expression and existence of the concept.
As I said on another thread. It is not the tool: gun, police, religion, nation or chisel. It is the intent of the person that wields that tool.
Unfortunately that intent is not controllable by legislation, nor apparently, by education.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061027.wjohnson27/BNStory/National/home
And I don't normally find myself agreeing with PET.
The only thing I would add is that this also ties into the concept of mindset and the desire of some to create a perfect society.
To prevent the use of guns in crime, you deny the use of guns to everyone.
To prevent the use of police and security services in oppressing a population, you deny the state police and security services.
To prevent the use of religion as a rallying cry against the state, you deny the expression, and even the existence, of religion.
To prevent the use of nation as a rallying cry, you likewise deny the expression and existence of the concept.
As I said on another thread. It is not the tool: gun, police, religion, nation or chisel. It is the intent of the person that wields that tool.
Unfortunately that intent is not controllable by legislation, nor apparently, by education.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Part of the problem for those wanting Nation status (I'm not completely opposed) is that they insist on viewing their proposed Nation (e.g. Quebec) as being on a Nation-to-Nation status with Canada.
This dismisses all other Canadians as being a generic lump of people they term as "Canadians". If they were able to get around their bigotry and understand that being "Canadian" is the encompassing term for all, then they would probably find a better response.
That is to say: If Quebec wants to be referred to as a Nation then it must refer to the other provinces as Nations. And come to terms with the fact that it changes nothing fundamentally about the structure of Canada.
There can be "layers" to Nationality, but the understanding of this can't be one sided.
This dismisses all other Canadians as being a generic lump of people they term as "Canadians". If they were able to get around their bigotry and understand that being "Canadian" is the encompassing term for all, then they would probably find a better response.
That is to say: If Quebec wants to be referred to as a Nation then it must refer to the other provinces as Nations. And come to terms with the fact that it changes nothing fundamentally about the structure of Canada.
There can be "layers" to Nationality, but the understanding of this can't be one sided.
- Reaction score
- 7,982
- Points
- 1,160
That may be true Iterator, but do the people of Ontario see themselves as a Nation of Ontarians. Or even Alberta - do they see themselves as a Nation? Some may but I don't believe the majority do. In any event, as PET pointed out, the problem is NOT the notion of nation, it is the combination of the Wilsonian concept of "self-determination" and the self-defining membership of a nation which means that the entire concept is undefinable and unmeasurable therefore uncontrollable.
The underlying problem is summed up in this statement: "And come to terms with the fact that it changes nothing fundamentally about the structure of Canada." There are those in this country who want to change the fundamental structure of Canada. Fortunately they seem to be in an overall minority position and are very much divided as to what should replace the status quo resulting in an ineffective body of minorities.
But ultimately this isn't about definitions. It is about power and being able to live your life the way you choose and being able to live with the compromises necessary to maintain a functioning society. And that cannot be clearly set for eternity. That is the sum total of individuals making choices in response to situations as they perceive them.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
UberCree said:
As Kirkhill said, the concept of "nationhood" is rather slippery. Historically, it has been the rallying cry of zealots and revolutionaries, and we have seen examples all through history of "nations" tearing apart States. The 20th century was particularly apocalyptic, we saw the disintegration of the Hapsburg "Austrio-Hungarian Empire" along nationalist and ethnic lines, many "small wars" in the 1919-1939 period being fought along ethnic divides (even if the ostensible cause of the war wasn't ethnic; look at the general breakdown of the forces in the Russian Civil War), the "tribal" fighting which plagues Africa and parts of SW Asia, the ethnic divisions which erupted in Former Yugoslavia, inter communal violence in places as far afield as Latvia (directed at ethnic Russians) or France (by Islamic radical youth, generally ethnic Algerians)....about the only peaceful divide I can think of is the separation of the Czech Republic from Slovakia.
Given the rather blood stained history of Ethnic Nationalism, I would say that anyone of ANY background should be worried when a stupid but influential person like Micheal Ignatieff is suggesting Quebec is a nation. Inside the "nation" of Quebec are many other ethnic communities which are "nations" by the same definition as the Quebecois, do you think they should be accorded different treatment because of that? Will Quebec recognize the rights of these "nations"? If Quebec does not, what do you think will happen?
I am not saying civil war is inevitable, however, based on history the possibility of unrest and violence is certainly present. Why mess with what we already have, engage and promote Civic Nationalism so people can embrace a positive Canadian identity.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Kirkhill said:
I am not in disagreement. Quebec actively accepts immigrants and is not derived of one ethnic origin or religion. The population of Quebec has long since passed the days when they could be described as a "People" (if that time ever truly existed).
And I also agree that it is not the term or idea of Nation, it is that there are those that want to have the label of Nation so that they can then gain the concept of Sovereign Nation.
But I believe that Canada would be better off if it co-opted the term Nation. By codifying the term Nation so that it doesn't reflect sovereignty, then you allow Canada to be ahead of the separatists.
Define the term Nation and its many meanings, call Quebec a Nation, Newfoundland a Nation, Alberta a Nation, the Haida a Nation, etc, and as long as Canada is the level of Nationhood that has exclusive external authority then the power of the term Nation is lost to those who would wield it against Canada.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Civic Nationalism as usually defined is the acceptance of certain unifying symbols, ideas, myths etc by all the people who consider themselves to be citizens of the nation.
In history, the two most successful examples were the Roman Empire, which granted citizenship to virtually all the people inside its far flung realms (and allowed for advancement by merit as well, several people achieved the Imperial Purple without being born in Rome, and a great many famous if lesser "Romans" were born in the provinces), and the United States, which expected people to adopt the unifying ideas (or mythology, if you will) of American Citizenship as expressed through such symbols as the Constitution.
Since citizenship is not equated with "nationality" (or at least not the ethnic kind), a person born in Iberia, Gaul or Britania is equal to a person born in Syria (in the Roman example), and being born in Iowa makes you no more or less an American than being born in Saigon or Havana and coming into America, adopting the American ideals and becoming an American.
Civic Nationalism is faltering in the United States, as multi culturalism becomes more entrenched and the concept of "hyphenated Americans" becomes more prevalent. The concept of the State is also morphing into an all encompassing entity, which demands as much attention as the concept of the Nation (if not more, the State wields the tools of power, even if it is not always synonymous with the Nation). This trend may yet be reversed (only time will tell).
In history, the two most successful examples were the Roman Empire, which granted citizenship to virtually all the people inside its far flung realms (and allowed for advancement by merit as well, several people achieved the Imperial Purple without being born in Rome, and a great many famous if lesser "Romans" were born in the provinces), and the United States, which expected people to adopt the unifying ideas (or mythology, if you will) of American Citizenship as expressed through such symbols as the Constitution.
Since citizenship is not equated with "nationality" (or at least not the ethnic kind), a person born in Iberia, Gaul or Britania is equal to a person born in Syria (in the Roman example), and being born in Iowa makes you no more or less an American than being born in Saigon or Havana and coming into America, adopting the American ideals and becoming an American.
Civic Nationalism is faltering in the United States, as multi culturalism becomes more entrenched and the concept of "hyphenated Americans" becomes more prevalent. The concept of the State is also morphing into an all encompassing entity, which demands as much attention as the concept of the Nation (if not more, the State wields the tools of power, even if it is not always synonymous with the Nation). This trend may yet be reversed (only time will tell).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
So doesn't that leave Quebec with a form of civic nationalism?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,353
- Points
- 1,040
>I don't buy the alarmist stance that anything that creates inequality (nation within a country) creates conflict, or even warfare as some of you would imply.
It shouldn't, as long as a people's expression of their nationality is defined and executed by themselves, for themselves. The instant someone tells me that he needs me to recognize that he has some sort of special status, I have for him two questions:
1) Why do you need me to validate your self-realization?
2) What extra powers and privileges are you seeking at my expense?
If the answer to (2) is "none", then my answer to (1) is "Fix your ego problem and define yourself. You don't need my blessing." If the answer to (2) is "some", then my answer to (1) is "One law for all. Go pound sand."
It shouldn't, as long as a people's expression of their nationality is defined and executed by themselves, for themselves. The instant someone tells me that he needs me to recognize that he has some sort of special status, I have for him two questions:
1) Why do you need me to validate your self-realization?
2) What extra powers and privileges are you seeking at my expense?
If the answer to (2) is "none", then my answer to (1) is "Fix your ego problem and define yourself. You don't need my blessing." If the answer to (2) is "some", then my answer to (1) is "One law for all. Go pound sand."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Brad Sallows said:
How is this for one law (this ties in with the land claims thread).
My band is currently negotiating with the province of Manitoba for land claims settlements. The process began in the early 90's, its called Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) and recognized (in our community anyway) numbers were altered so we would receive less land that was originally negotiated through the treaty process. Nation to nation ;D
We have a number of acres of land on Clearwater Lake in Clearwater Lake provincial park, adjacent to our traditional fishing area. Through the TLE process we have been trying to increase our land on Clearwater Lake (it is a beautiful lake) and we would like to develop private housing there, but the province has refused to negotiate for lands in provincial parks, as through lobbying from the 'Clearwater cabin owners group', they openly declared that the lake could not handle any further development ecologically. We were cool with that and actually looking into negotiating for other land elsewhere. (60,000 acres total). We were negotiating in good faith.
This week we find out that the Province was in fact behind our backs negotiating with the town of The Pas and the cabin owners to create a new subdivision at the lake, a rather large subdivision.
So were we being treated equally? Hell no, the whole thing stinks of racism, as the cabin owners tend to be the last refuge of rednecks in the area and they absolutely cannot even fathom our communtiy having access to their little estuary. The people of influence that have cabins at the lake took the opportunity to be treated differently than us and we fell for it.
So when you say "One Law for all" I call utter and complete B.S., or else I see plain ignorance. One law for all is nice and dandy if you are one the receiving end of lots of goodies, it aint so nice when you do not have the political, and legal influence of rich cabin owners (metaphorically speaking this case is being replicated elsewhere no doubt) on your side.
- Reaction score
- 6,318
- Points
- 1,360
Maybe its because your looking for racism?
Kinda looks to me like your mad because someone else is going to do what you wanted too but didn't get the chance.
Now, I know there are people out there that are slimy/despicable racist morons who should be memory-cleansed but, sometimes things just don't work out.
I want about 10% of the city of Guelph that my Great-Uncle lost for taxes ........
Kinda looks to me like your mad because someone else is going to do what you wanted too but didn't get the chance.
Now, I know there are people out there that are slimy/despicable racist morons who should be memory-cleansed but, sometimes things just don't work out.
I want about 10% of the city of Guelph that my Great-Uncle lost for taxes ........
Similar threads
