Talk:Quebec

Changes to lead

I'd like to move the sentence on English-speaking Quebecers from the first to the fourth paragraph, while adding some additional information. I think this improves the flow of the lead sentence, adds pertinent and more detailed information about the status and location English speaking Quebecers, and puts it in the context of Quebec's minority populations (i.e. Aboriginals, allophones).

Also, Quebec is in "central Canada", which is in "the eastern part of Canada". It is not in the central part of Canada. A person not familiar with the peculiarities of Canadian geography might be confused by this.

It's because Québec along with Ontario were the first to be part of Canada. [1] It's ironic how Québec haven't yet officialised it's part. [2] --DynV (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the two paragraphs would look like.

• Quebec (Template:PronEng or /kəˈbɛk/), in French, Québec () is a province in the eastern part of Canada. It is the only Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking population, and the only one whose sole official language is French. Other elements of French tradition, such as the system of civil law, also remain strong in Quebec.

• Quebec is Canada's largest province by area and its second-largest administrative division; only the territory of Nunavut is larger. It is the second most populated province, behind Ontario. Most of its inhabitants live along or close to the banks of the Saint Lawrence River. English-speaking communities and English-language institutions are concentrated in Montreal but significantly present in the Outaouais, Quebec City, the Eastern Townships, and Gaspé regions. The central and northern portion of the province is sparsely populated and inhabited primarily by Aboriginal peoples.

--soulscanner (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm making these changes, as no one seems to object. Feel free to revert to the previous version if you feel this needs to discussed more; I'll respect the consensus on this. The old version is okay, and by no means compromises the neutrality of this page. --soulscanner (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Canada vs. Central Canada

We need to figure out what to do about this one in the first sentence, as neither term is completely accurate. The grouping of "Central Canada" has much more historical and political meaning than a grouping of Central Canada with the Atlantic Provinces. Nevertheless, as you point out, the term might confuse people given that the province is physically located in the Eastern half of the country. What we need is a very concise way of saying that it is in the political and sociological region of Central Canada while being in geographic East. Whatever we do, the articles on both regions should probably be linked somewhere. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Canada doesn't really have an east-west divide. It's more like west of Ontario is the "west", Ontario and Quebec are "central" and the maritimes are the "east" (although then they're Quebec's Eastern Townships too). Although, those less familiar with Canada might just separate it into east-west, and obviously Quebec falls in the east geographically. Maybe we could do a footnote like we did for the name? Something like

Quebec is located in the Eastern half of Canada, but is historically and politically considered to be part of Central Canada

-Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, as a resident of the province of Quebec, I've always heard it said here that Quebec was in Eastern Canada. I hardly ever heard of Central Canada. However, since this is a geography article, shouldn't the eastern geographical location be the prominent consideration?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As a native born Quebecer, I've most often heard Central Canada. I agree with arctic.gnome on this, and Royalguard's proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed also with Arctic Gnome that we should specify that it's Eastern in geography, but Central in politics, though like Ramdrake, I've never heard of "Central Canada" despite being Québécois myself. CielProfond (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Speak to any Atlantic Canadian, and you'll hear it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a musing: is it possible that the cause of these different perceptions might be that "Central Canada" is use more in English than in French? (I'll volunteer that I almost always listen to French-language news).--Ramdrake (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be. I did a quick search of CBC (en) of 'quebec "central canada" ', first result was the winter storm from March titled Monster storm in Central Canada moves to Maritimes. Quebec is implied to be in Central Canada. When I search 'quebec "eastern canada" ', got the ice storm of '98 titled Ice storms continue in Quebec and eastern Canada, implying that Quebec is not part of Eastern Canada. So it might just be an english thing. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Quebec belongs to eastern Canada. Ontario and Quebec definitely form central Canada. On the other hand, I did find this article referring to Montreal as being in eastern Canada. If we look hard enough we might even find American writers referring to Quebec being in the east. I've actually heard Britons refer to Toronto and Montreal as being on the "east coast"! Joeldl (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've added the line as a footnote. If you don't like the wording, feel free to change it. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I added that Quebec was a nation at the beginning of this article. Thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.44.25 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the introduction

Can we please remove the second paragraph in the article completely? It really doesn't belong in the lead. It's just a bunch of political crappe. Maybe we can move it to the politik section.Soup on the rocks (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work went into the crafting of this paragraph, and it was important to a lot of people, so, I don't think we should reopen this can of worm too soon.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work went into the articles about Corey Worthington and Al Gore III, but those were deleted anyway. The whole paragraph doesn't belong in the front of the article and it makes the lead far too long. We should excise it or move it to its appropriate location. Soup on the rocks (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we should not remove it. And you don't strengthen your case one bit by deleting it all the time despite being the only one if favour of doing so, it's starting to look very much like vandalism or WP:OWN. I have to admit that your arguments thus far fail to persuade, if you want to argue your case you might come up with something a bit more convincing than "It's just a bunch of political crappe". JdeJ (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is convincing, what I wrote. The fact that this declaration by our infamous Prime Minister, Mr. Steven Harper, has changed absolutely nothing in the lives of honest hard-working Quebeckers (of which I am a member) goes to show that this paragraph really doesn't belong in the introduction of the article. It's a piece of trivia and carries little importance to the article. The introduction should be concise and relevant, in order to encourage readers to continue to the meaty sections of the article. Soup on the rocks (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)~

Maybe what you wrote is convincing to you, but not to the rest of us.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And who, pray tell, is "the rest of us"? Soup on the rocks (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake. Two other points.

• DON'T edit other users' comments like you did to mine on your talk page.
• Having looked into your edits, such as all the nonsense you've posted to vandalise Proto-Indo-Europeans, it looks likely that you're on Wikipedia just to troll. I suggest you improve your behaviour immediately. JdeJ (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1. You made a spelling error.
• 2. I'm very serious about this proposition Soup on the rocks (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of good reasons why this section shouldn't be in the introduction:

1. It's a bunch of political crappe designed to increase the number of Quebec votes for the federal Conservative Party
2. The declaration changes absolutely nothing with how the province functions or for the people.
3. The Prime Minister himself made the declaration on the spur of the moment; he notified his cabinet only the very morning before he made the declaration.
4. The hon. Lawrence Cannon was hard-pressed to explain this declaration to reporters after the Prime Minister made it, thereby showing how devoid of real meaning it really was.
5. It makes the introduction too long and unfocused.

Please do not remove the template that I added to the beginning of the article as long as we are discussing the introduction. --Soup on the rocks (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph on nationalism is very appropriate in the lead. The lead should be a summary or introduction of the key points of the article and nationalism has a key rightfully-lengthy section in the article. I have a point-of-view about the significance of the nation declaration as well but the way to deal with the somewhat contradictory interpretations of the declaration is to describe and cite both sides and let the reader make his own conclusions; not to censor it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The bit about Quebec being a nation (i.e. the political crappe) is five lines long in the article. 'That' is the appropriate spot for it. I'm not suggesting anything gross like censorship. I'm saying that the whole nationalism bit does not belong in the introduction. To be more precise, it doesn't deserve a spot in the introduction. Soup on the rocks (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. I guess most of us still disagree. To many of us, the recognition, although symbolic, is important enough to be in the lead.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're making a good point. It's unusual to launch into politics unless there's a civil war going on. However, there are better ways of making your point. You're going to have to put together a very careful argument if you want to open this topic again. I don't really have time for it. --soulscanner (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As Soulscanner argues, a case could be made for removing the section although Sotr hasn't made such a case. I agree with Soulscanner that a statement of this kind is unusual. On the other hand, the situation is also a bit unusual. Very few provinces and countries have voted twice on independence in the past 30 years and there are also very few places where the issue of national identity is so prominent in many aspects of life. JdeJ (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

People from Quebec are called...?

Quebecians? That does not sound right... Ehccheehcche (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could say Quebecois (with an accent in there somewhere), but then we'd have to re-open the debate on whether they are a cultural nation or a political nation, and whether or not the term applies to everyone in Quebec or just to Francophones. I think Quebecers could work without provoking a sovereigntist uprising. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They're called Québecois for both Vernacular and Nation specific and Quebecers to be more geo-politically inclusive. --DynV (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am from Quebec and I use only the word Quebecer. When used in English, Québécois usually implies reference to French-speaking Quebecers. Joeldl (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I always say "Québecois". I've never heard anybody say "Quebecer," and in any case that word doesn't sound pleasing to the ear at all, so I myself would never use it in any context. That's just my personal preference. 72.39.148.218 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lived in Quebec all my life and "Quebecker" is pretty much the word of choice for most Anglophones. When someone refers to him or her self as Quebecois, it implies more than just having been born or grown up in the province, it implies that you are part of the Quebec nation. That being said, you will never hear a Francophone say Quebecker since you are either Quebecois or you are not, there is no real gray area. I find that often people will cling to other identities such as Canadian, Italian, Irish, Polish, etc., instead of describing themselves as Quebeckers. Of course everyone is free to their own opinion but in my experience the two words have very different connotations and it would not be accurate or appropriate to single out either of them as a catch all term when referring to the people of Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul menard5 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

city names

Québec vernacular city names NEED accents when appropriate. If this seem insufficient, you may add a standardized version in parenthesis with the first occurrence.

How would you feel if I made an article about your hometown in a language not officially used in it and I'd modified its name to be more appropriate in that language ? I don't know about you but my name can be translated and I dislike it when people do that. --DynV (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Certain cities in Quebec (and the province itself) have had their names rendered a certain way in English for centuries. Montreal and Quebec (City) do not have accents because, foremost, English-speakers have been writing them without accents for a very long time. Their pronunciations are also markedly different from how they're rendered in French. It's the same with other foreign cities like Rome, Moscow, Athens, etc.

The analogy also extends to cities and places with English names rendered in French, such as Londres, Philadelphie, Floride, Californie, etc. G. Csikos, 1 June 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.83.153 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quebec is a nation

Hi. Quebec is a nation, and you have to write it at the beginning. There is a canadian bias in this article and it should minimized. Quebec is a nation and its language is french. The other anglophones are canadians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.44.25 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And what you are saying is that we should write the article from a complete Quebec bias. The Quebecois are a nation (the people the last time I checked, wether that means French or anyone in Quebec is unknown because it wasn't specified). We've already fought over the lead and this is what we decided. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. While the Quebecois are indeed a nation "within a united Canada", it is not universally agreed that Quebec is a nation. It is certainly false and racist to say that Francophones belong to the nation of Quebec and Anglophones to the nation of Canada. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian as an ethnic origin

Since when is Canadian an ethnic origin? Unless it means Native americans, these are the only people who are ethnically from this area. If it means people who can trace ancestery back a few generations in Canada, that doesn't make them "ethnically canadian". They are of European descent, and should not be classed as ethnically Canadian. Canadian is a nationality, not an ethnicity. Does that mean if someones ancesters came from China but they are say fourth generation Canadian that this makes them Ethnically Canadian? Come on, it is the same for Australia. Only the indigenous people are ethnically Australian, the rest are "recent" settlers, over the last few hundred years.194.46.243.238 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are the results from Canada's 2006 census. I don't think it implies exactly as an ethnicity, but rather as self-identification. Pieuvre (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, self identification does lead to weird answers sometimes. See also Jedi "religion". -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no census question about the "ethnicity" of the respondents to the Canadian census. There is however one asking about the ethnic or cultural origins of the ancestors of the respondent. Specifically, it asks:

17. What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors?

An ancestor is usually more distant than a grandparent.

For example, Canadian, English, French, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, East Indian, Irish, Cree, Mi'kmaq (Micmac), Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), Ukrainian, Dutch, Filipino, Polish, Portuguese, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Salvadorean, Somali, etc.

Specify as many origins as applicable using capital letters.

Prior to the 2001 census, "Canadian" was not listed as an example. This made perfect sense, however a right-wing lobby group from Ontario succeeded at having "Canadian" appear as first example, and consequently nullified the value of this answer entirely. For decades, the US Census bureau resisted similar pressures to have "American" as a choice in their census. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mathieugp, the examples listed in the census are chosen automatically based on the last census; no lobby group had anything to do with it (though they may have encouraged people to choose it as a response). In the 1991 census there were enough people who wrote in "Canadian" that it got onto the 1996 census at the end of the list. With it at the end of the list, enough people chose it the next year to bump it to first place. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually people who are Native put their actual heritage too (Dakota, Saulteaux, Métis, Lakota, Inuit, ect). I think Canada should exists at least several hundred years before "Canadian" is a real ancestry. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone has been in Canada for ten generations and no longer feels any connection to the places from which their ansestors came, it is irrelevant which country they specifically came from, they are for most intents and purposes Canadian first. When it does matter what colour their skin is, you can look up stats on the number of people identifying as visual minorities, which would be less effected by attachment to Canada. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arctic.gnome: That is not true. It was the fifth most common in 1991, so was fifth in the list of 1996, which was a new list. Please read [3] and look at the questionnaire yourself here. There was a decision taken in 1996, and as with all political decisions, lobbies exercise pressure on officials to influence the outcome. Comparability was broken with past census information, so this was no simple decision. There was pressure on StatsCan for them to place "Canadian" in the example list. I wish I remembered the name of the lobby group. I'll search for it. In any case, scientific integrity should have prevented this from happening no matter the name of the lobby group. For many many censuses people have been writing "American" in the USA and "Canadian" in Canada and groups pushing for these changes. Nowhere as in Canada does this change lead to more ridiculous results, with Jean-Baptiste Charboneau picking "Canadien" because his ancestors are old-stock Franco-Catholic Quebecers from 18th century Beauce and John Smith picking "Canadian" because his ancestors are from 19th century Upper Canada. The value of that question is today null. Many people know about their genealogy tree nowadays. StatsCan could have gotten valuable information, while not destroying that question, by asking a second question about the number of generation(s) the person's families have been in Canada. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some value to knowing whether people identify themselves as Canadian, but the question becomes useless because different people are answering in different ways; some are talking about identity while others are talking about ethnicity. They could have gotten lots of valuable information if they split it into clearer questions along the lines of: 1) with what nationality they identify (with Canada or regional nationalities therein as acceptable answers), 2) where their family came before Canada (with "I don't know as an acceptable answer); 3) How long their family has been here; and 4) whether they consider themselves to be a visible minority. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stats Canada should just hire us ;) -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And where were they from before they were of European descent? I guess we should all choose Africa. DigitalC (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<--OK, let's quit being stupid. If you're born in Canada, you're of Canadian ethnic origin. Get over it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Colour blindness in Québec

A couple years ago, my French Immersion class (as well as classes from other schools in my area) took a trip to Québec, and the tour guide told us that a significant percentage (I can't remember what number it was exactly) of the Québecois population is colour blind -- thus, the traffic lights were all different shapes (i.e. square, triangle, circle). I think that it's important to mention this somewhere (obviously the correct percentage will need to be obtained); and also to have a blurb, if possible, on why the number is so high in Québec; and to mention (in a bit more detail than I have here) the traffic lights that were made to accomodate this, possibly with a picture. Obviously I would do this myself, but I don't have enough editing experience and in any case don't know where it would go, what title it would fall under, etc. It doesn't seem to really fit anywhere yet, and there's no way I'm going to make a new section just so I can add a paragraph about colour blindness in Québec. I may be inexperienced, but I DO know that doing that isn't kosher. If a section is ever created where adding this thing about colour blindness would be relevant, it would be great if someone would put it in as soon as possible. 72.39.148.218 (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any studies that show a higher rate of colour blindness (daltonism) in Quebecers. The traffic lights are designed the way they are (shape- as well as color-coded, not everywhere but pretty much) to account for the colour-blind, but there aren't significantly more colour-blind people in Quebec than elsewhere that I'm aware of.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please ! That's stupidness talking again. Xenophobia against Québec people seems to be a way of life for many here. --Mekmtl 17:24, 24 June 2008 (EST)

You may wish to review WP:AGF. - DigitalC (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

your tour guide don't know anything, the rare studies about that show that the concentration of coulour blind is the same as anywhere, and anyways the majority of traffic lights doesnt use shape anymore now..... 24.122.143.182 (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Methinks the tour guide was having a little fun with the anglos. lol --soulscanner (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

they usually do...on a trip to quebec city a few years back, my tour guide made a joke saying "welcome to quebec, please have your passports ready" as we were crossing the provincial boundary between ontario and qc. nat.utoronto 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's outrageous!

I've heard religious toleration guaranteed to Quebec after La Conquête called one of the "outrageous acts" leading to the American Revolution. If anybody can source it, would you include it at La Conquête? Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the term used was the "intolerable acts," of which the Quebec Act was part. G. Csikos, 13 July 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.67.103 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I knew they were considered outrageous... Help with causality is still desired, since I can't cite it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Quebec Act was "outrageous" on many accounts from the point of view of the Congress: it made the then prevailing despotism over the newly conquered French Canada enter the constitution of Quebec. In 1763, France ceded Canada and by the Treaty signed at Paris, the former French subjects were to continue being treated as new British subjects as per the capitulation of Montreal (1760). In other words, the Canadians or Quebecers were legally entitled to their own Provincial Parliament with an elected Assembly. The Congress's official answer to the Quebec Act are:

Letter to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec

In addition to these philosophical and legal reasons to object to the Quebec Act was another reason which the Congress made explicit not in the letter to Quebecers, but in a petition to the King:

Petition to the King - Continental Congress, October 25, 1774

The extension of the borders of the province of Quebec was a great concern for tactical reasons in the ongoing conflict. Anti-Catholic prejudice and fear is also often cited as a reason, and it probably was, but only for the unenlightened elements among the delegates of the Congress.

Quebecers did gain a Provincial Parliament later on, thanks to the French revolutionaries who scared the British ministry enough that it conceded a great deal to us with the Constitutional Act of 1791. Unfortunately, the constitution was most flawed and 1791 to 1837 46 years of internal struggles between the unrecognized legal majority of the representatives in the House of Assembly and the appointed members of the Legislative Council, who were no other than those who despotically ruled over us from 1760 to 1791. And thus the left hand of the British government took back what it had given with its right hand. The rest of the story is more controversial because the regime that is still in power today in Canada has its root in the 1840 Act of Union, which became a federal union in 1867. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Wow. Never seen revisionist history like this. You have to be pretty allergic to facts to believe it though.

The reason French Canada didn't join the revolution was because they were all too aware of the ant-Catholic and anti-French sentiments in the 13 colonies at the time. The French-Indian war was still fresh in the minds of New Yorkers and New Englanders, and anti-French sentiment was widespread. Governors Carleton and Murray, who argued successfully for reinstating religious and language rights to French Canadians (along with French Civil Law), were all too aware of this, but underestimated the backlash in the 13 colonies to the "intolerable acts". It's the Anglo-American business elite in Quebec that clamoured for an Elected Assembly, because they would control it: only property owners (mostly Anglo-Americans) would vote, as was the Anglo-American tradition at the time. The French Canadian elites (the Seigneurs and the Church) did not want one because Catholics were not allowed to hold office, and the common Canadien would simply not get a vote becasue the Seigneurs held most of the land. As a result, only English Protestants would be represent in the assembly.

The anti French and anti-Catholic sentiments were openly declared at the First Continental Congress in Phuiladelphia in 1774, and passed by a majority (if not unanimously). It clearly argued against reinstating French Canadian religious rights, and against adopting French civil law, because the English settlers there would be "deprived" of the English law and spoils of war promised them. They argued that Quebec had been conquered, and should now be all English:

"Also the act passed in the same session for establishing the Roman Catholic religion, in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so total a dissimilarity of religion, law and government) of the neighboring British colonies, by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France."

" ... an act was passed for changing the government of Quebec, by which act the Roman Catholic religion, instead of being tolerated, as stipulated by the treaty of peace, is established, and the people there are deprived of a right to an assembly, trials by jury, and the English laws in civil eases are abolished, and instead thereof the French laws are established, in direct violation of his majesty's promise by his royal proclamation, under the faith of which many English subjects settled in that province; and the limits of that province are extended so as to comprehend those vast regions that lie adjoining to the northerly and westerly boundaries of these colonies.[4]

It's this declaration this open declaration of hostility towards French Canadians in support of English Quebecers that led to the propaganda spread by revolutionaries afterwards falling on deaf ears in Quebec. French Canadians weren't stupid. They knew those leading the revolution in the U.S. were the same who conquered them a decade earlier.

This was not a minority in the U.S. ... it was supported by a strong majority (if not unanimously) in the Congress. It's pretty clear that Quebec would be less French than Louisianna had they joined in the revolution. --soulscanner (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As an American who had two years of American history in high school, I have to agree. One also has to remember that the American colonists were, at first, rebelling British subjects who were claiming that the King had violated their ancient rights and liberties as Englishmen. Many historians consider the Revolutionary War a continuation of the English Civil War for this reason.

As for the Quebec Act, most of the (Protestant) colonists were pissed at the King for either not expelling the (Catholic) French colonists in the newly conquered territories (like the Acadians) or assimilating them outright. G. Csikos, 16 July 2008.