Well, it depends on how important your Language is to you. 

Anglos often miss that point because their language is used all over the planet.  And it almost doesn't correspond to any nationality anymore.  If it wasn't for our local nationalism, I'd be unilingual English, and that would be a major loss, as French - from the first nation to promote separation of cult and state, and the first nation to elevate rationalism to almost statehood - provides brilliant litterarure on these matters.

And I'm not talking about History, of which every language has a slightly different version...

Michel

Far enough to keep the language alive.

i wanna get in on this topic, but i dare not say anything more, until some one else opens up the big can'o worms

1- I did not favor a language, it favored me. It shaped my thinking from the get-go.  History just contributed to French survival (against British invasion) in our neck of the woods.  Too bad that this bit of history involved a cult's agenda of control and manipulation. 

And that's also why, as soon as I could I learned another language - including with it another version of history for the same territory, it does give perspective - a language with which, I hope you'll agree, I'm not too bad at. BTW, one of my sons speaks fluently 9 or 10 languages, it generates great envy in me and his worldview (roughly: humanist, atheist and skeptic) is very interesting to discuss. I suggest you learn more science about language and thinking. 

2- Sometimes you will discover that it was the-right-thing-to-do after the fact, in hindsight. No matter how you get to that point, if you do get there you are right, the real question is to maintain that stance and the reasons you are doing it for.  Thanks to those rational roots implanted in our french brains, we (as a society) were lucky enough to get rid of that cult as fast as we could - in the late 50's.

3- I'm not honoring a tradition or defending the notion that history is the only reason to become secular.  I came to this atheistic rationalist position after about 30 years of personal research into the odd, the extraordinary claims, the strange, the invisible, the spiritual, the religious, the miraculous, the coincidences, the superstitious...name it.  Found no evidence.  Irrational?

4- That is a stupid comment Nigel.  How for that matter does Chinese, Hindi or Spanish sound to your sophisticated ear? I'd like to read your opinion on these too. You should at least remain polite, unless of course you sincerely believe politeness to be irrational.  And I wonder what you English accent's like.

I don't know where you are from (somewhere U.S.A. I presume - didn't do any research on you yet) or how many languages you speak, or how in your particular case, history, genealogy and past cultural influences shaped you (or not) and brought you here, but I hope you at least appreciate the fact that we are discussing in English.

-----------------------------------------------------

The point I'm trying to bring forward is: yes nationalism is a belief, based incompletely on the many obvious differences with the neighbors - specially when also conquerors - and tons of built-up prejudices over years - thus the importance of an historical angle.  And that worse, in our Québec case, this situation was maintained for more than 200 years by a rabid-mad cult of greedy missionaries.

But also that ironically this sorry conjuncture involving preservation of a language managed to produce a society that got rid  - I'd say elegantly - of that cult's influence, thus helping bring about an early climate where modern atheism could take roots.

I wanted to examine these ideas and see if something similar happened to other members of RRS.

Michel

Be my guest, someone already did.

Michel

Oh I'm very relaxed about that since I speak read and write French - so I'm OK, Thanks. 

We fixed that (as well as religion) on a national level, and for now French and secularism are pretty safe in Quebec.

I was not defending French, but proposing another perspective on nationalism.à

We'll just forget it.

M.

First, I'm glad you see there are also other reasons to separate.

But let me assure you, language is not as dumb a reason as you think.  Sure languages change, all the time, they are functions of living things - they ought to.  I'm 10th generation here, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't understand more than 30% of what the original Poisson in 1620 would have uttered - and that's because I learned some Medieval French as a student.  But languages encapsulate much more than just prejudices or differences.

Language shapes your thinking.  If you're started in French, you are French, man - there's no other way about it . 

You think in French. If you don't know anything else, you'll learn from French scientists, philosophers and witers.  Which is - and I know because I'm lucky enough to be fluent in both English and French - quite a different worldview from the English one.  Plus all your opinions will be on things of interest that are local first, which in our case happens in French.  How you become a social being will also be with local people first, again, here, only in French.

Language is but one constituent of nationalism - the tendency to hang out with buddies similar to you, that you understand.  How about a whole culture ? I don't think a nation is like a sect, or just a belief.  It has to do with language, culture and territory.  Your language happens to be all over the place, ours is confined to a little region. We have borders close by, you have to walk up to Mexico or Quebec to find one.  You might therefore not see that it counts.

But even though English is quite the bastardised language, it is clearly superior, as it seems to be gaining all over Earth.  Survival of the fittest.  And I must add, for the last 20 years I've only read English writers as I'm a SciFi litt fan and I think the French are lousy at that.  Worse, I like the Brits best.

And as proud a Quebecois as I am, I use English to communicate with the rest of the world. 

Michel

I agree with almost all of this, though I'm not sure any language is truly superior to another. A language may be superior to another in a certain context, but can it be superior in general?

The thing that pisses me off the most about Quebec is that they force French on everyone and disallow every other language. That's not preservation, that's oppression. Especially when I look at New Brunswick or Ottawa, places that are truly bilingual.

But it should be.

Je ne parle pas Francais. That's about 30% of my french vocabulary. lol. I used to be better versed in it, but 15 years of no practice at all has eroded it to practically nothing.

It effectively is forbidden. Anything in English must be smaller than French by a significantly large ratio, and must be accompanied by French. Nowhere else in Canada is such a ridiculous law applied. As an example: China town in Vancouver and Edmonton and Toronto and Halifax are all the same. But in Quebec, it's French China town.

Which is why Quebec should be bilingual.

Incidentally, it wasn't my intention to bring up the FLQ. I don't think of them as Quebecors, I think of them as traitors to both Quebec and Canada.

Been there a few times. It's a nice city. Crazy drivers, but 10 steps up from those in Toronto. Probably because they aren't all drunk and cracked out like Toronto drivers are. lol.

Personally I'd rather we all be friends. If Quebec were ever to leave, Alberta would soon follow, probably Newfoundland as well, and then Canada would simply dissolve. Then the US would absorb all of us. Pity so few in Quebec realize that they have it infinitely better now than they could with what they hope to achieve.

Yes language is used for communication with others, once you have completely integrated it into thoughts and ideas. As far as I'm concerned, I think a lot more than I communicate.

Same here, except I had to learn pretty thoroughly another language to do so.  The reach of English is so planetary while French is limited to a short list of countries (above).  I even exchange with other french-speaking persons in English over the web.

That's something I don't understand, as for me early learning, communicating and thinking in French has made me what I am.  And I am a slightly different person when I use English.  But in a way, like you, I'm culturally closer to the US and even Mexico than I might from a European.  Luckily though I also have my French connection, and my affection for British writers...

Michel

Don't need to be sorry because they do learn English, recently from grade 2, I believe. (I started in grade 4 eons ago).  And for us it's a good thing - opens up the world).

Forcing you blokes to learn French , with very little chance to use it afterwards, in a country that's 75% English (counting Quebec of course, about 90% if you don't&nbsp - is a stupid law, in my opinion.  Spanish would be a better bet.

Very interesting discussion Cpt_pineapple!

Probably a bit too Canadian for a US forum, but hey! we stumbled upon each other so....

Michel

The point I was trying to make out about language is while its important its not important as the rest of the culture you were brought up and your general level of education.

The political differences between France, Germany, French speaking  Canada , English speaking Canada, the UK  etc are utterly trivial compared to say that of Canada and the US for most people.

The countries  I've mentioned on that list will have populations that have a 99.9% political support for universal healthcare, doesnt matter if they are 'right wing' ,'left wing', theists , atheists, racists , non-racists. Having universal health care is no more of debating point on whether we have an army or not (people will of course disagree on how much is spent on defence).

Of course you could be way of the main stream but I know for a fact in the UK there is not one political party from the marxist political parties to openly fascist ones that are against universal health care (well the fascists might shoot a few people before they treat them).

Come to the conclusion that you can only ever really understand the politics of your own country is by emmigrating

You do actually get national movements where all parties speak the same language (England Scotland), (most of the former Jugoslavia), Czechslovakia.

I think the problem with independenace movements is when two nations seperate they may appear to have more independance but the reality is they just get more dominated by their large neighbours. I would far rather be part of a large federation with some compromises in soverignty than to be a small nation alone.

That isnt to say I dont agree with the right to self determination but the practical consequences need to be considered. I'm sure the American states have the same problem, does Texas really have that much in common with New York?

 I think nationalism can be a good thing, but also a very bad thing.  Of course you get different types of nationalism. You get political nationalism, cultural nationalism, expansionist nationalism, anti colonial nationalism and may more. The problem with it it can cause a Us and them mentality. This can cause problems. However it is a binding force in my view witch can do some very good things. The apartied resistance had a form of nationalism, anti colonial nationalism. However the apartheid government was started by Afrikaaner nationalism. There are to sides to this coin. So it's not so much that nationalism is a bad thing but more a vechile that serves certian intrests. they can be good or bad. The reason aparthied came into existance was because the government wanted to protect there culture. That in it's self wasn't a bad thing, but the method used was bad. But the method wasn't caused by nationalism so I cannot see nationalism as strictly a bad thing. Btw I belive nationalism normally arises up of the desire to protect something, what is irrational about protecting something you care about?