Jump to content

User:Andrew647/Quebec1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a continuing discussion on the status of nation in Quebec. See Talk:Quebec.

Preview: This short essay argues that at least two authors denounce the claim "Quebec is a nation."

In order to produce sources that denounce the claim "Quebec is a nation" to demonstrate that there is not a consensus, I borrowed several texts from a local library. This is a summary of two of the texts, Ramsay Cook's Canada, Quebec, and the Uses of Nationalism and Joe Clark's A nation too good to lose. I intend to review the remaining four and post my findings.

Ramsay Cook argues that not only is Quebec not a nation, but the attempt to secure this status, the Parti Quebecois' policy, failed due to a lack of consensus among members of the PQ party. Cook states that "making state and nation coincide in Quebec may not have been fully accepted or even understood by all of Lévesque's colleagues in the Lesage government."[1] Even members of the PQ did not believe that Quebec was a nation.

Cook concludes Chapter 7 of his book, titled Has the Quiet Revolution Finally Ended, addressing Lévesque's policy goals by stating "the project of making Quebec the national state of French Canada, it failed."[2] Therefore, Cook does not believe that Quebec is a nation.

Other Quebecois intellectuals that disagree with the claim for the status of Quebec as a nation include Dominique Clift in Le déclin du nationalisme au Québec, arguing that certain CÉGEP intellectuals do not agree, cited by Cook on pages 102-103[3] , and Michel Morin and Claude Bertrand in Le territoire imaginaire de la Culture, pages 48 and 103, who claim themselves that Quebec is not a nation.[4]

The three Quebecois intellectuals, the undisclosed amount of PQ members and CÉGEP intellectuals, as well as Cook himself all denounce the theory of Quebec as a nation for various reasons. There is clearly a lack of consensus demonstrated in this text.

Joe Clark argues that as a society and culture, Quebec is no different from other provinces. The people are as distinct as Nova Scotians. He continues to promote a cooperation of the provinces of Canada, a decentralized federal state, stating that "separation (of Quebec) would add to the complexity and tension" of Quebec-Canada relations.[5] Clark argues that all the provinces are equal in status in the federation though not uniform in characteristics.

This does not denounce "Quebec is a nation." It promotes "Newfoundland is a nation" or "Alberta is a nation" because all provinces are equally distinct. A symbolic recognition of the status of Quebec as a nation would require recognition of other provinces as nations.

Out of these readings, we see that Cook denounces the status of Quebec as a nation, while Clark argues that recognition of this status requires recognition of all provinces as nations. I personally believe Clark's point is universally accepted when discussing peoples (such as the Quebecois) but is not reflective of provinces' status because the term nation is too ambiguous to use when describing them. All provinces are equal in status in Canada, as provinces that contribute to the greater whole, but that status is not that of nations since every province is a smaller multicultural region that contributes as subordinate to that whole. Nation implies sovereignty (unless the nation is enslaved, which is definitely not the case of Quebec) and the provinces of Canada are not sovereign; they are subordinate to the Dominion of Canada.

Cook's argument is presented as a failure of PQ policy and citation of intellectuals from Quebec. The PQ's attempts to have that status recognized are typical of the party's subtle attempts at separation, which Clark recognized as well. [6]

I conclude that the first two books argue either that Quebec is not a nation or all provinces are nations. This demonstrates clearly that there is not a consensus that Quebec is a nation.

To comment on this, please add to the discussion on the talk page.

So do I, in the sense which he uses in this context: Quebec did not reach attain Statehood. This is not in disagreement. --Mathieugp 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Joe Clark an academician? The theory of the equality of provinces is well known: it is in fact in the constitution. There is no one denying that Canada does not wish to change the provincial status of Quebec within Canada. -- Mathieugp 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
To equate the regional differences of Anglo-Canadians to differences between Anglo-Canadians and Quebecers is not serious. Quebec also has regionalisms internally like English Canada does. -- Mathieugp 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe you use the verb to demonstrate quite liberally here. I fail to see anything remotely resembling a demonstration, whatever the acception of this word is adopted. Cook uses nation in a sense that is not contested by anyone and Clack is using arguments supported by no evidence to support his political vision. Give me quotes from the other guys to see what they really meant to say. -- Mathieugp 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
These sources show unequivocally that there are academics that refute claims of Quebec nationhood; they show clearly that there is no consensus on this subject, not even in Quebec. We are not here to debate these, as we already know you disagree with them. You are confusing your disagreement with the fact that these show that there is no consensus among academics that Quebec is a nation, and that presenting Quebec nationhood as an objective fact pushes the POV of academics who do hold this claim.
I'll add Quebecoise Lysianne Gagnon to the list of intellectuals that outrightly deny the existence of a Quebecois nation, claiming that it is a partisan issue . [7][8].
There are also other opinions that distinguish between residents of the province of Quebec and members of the Quebecois nation. Julius Grey, while not denying the existence of a Quebecois nation, states that the majority of anglophones, who do not identify as being part of this nation, cannot be forcible included in the definition agaisnt their will. [9]. This means that any mention of the Quebecois nation needs to take into account the many different meanings that scholars assign to the word nation in order to be neutral. --Soulscanner 05:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cook, Ramsay (1986). Canada, Quebec, and the Uses of Nationalism. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. p. 108. ISBN 0-7710-2261-1.
  2. ^ Cook, Ramsay (1986). Canada, Quebec, and the Uses of Nationalism. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. p. 109. ISBN 0-7710-2261-1.
  3. ^ Cook, Ramsay (1986). Canada, Quebec, and the Uses of Nationalism. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. pp. 102–103. ISBN 0-7710-2261-1.
  4. ^ Cook, Ramsay (1986). Canada, Quebec, and the Uses of Nationalism. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. pp. 48, 103. ISBN 0-7710-2261-1.
  5. ^ Clark, Joe (1994). A nation too good to lose. Toronto: Key Porter Books. p. 32. ISBN 1-55013-603-8.
  6. ^ Clark, Joe (1994). A nation too good to lose. Toronto: Key Porter Books. p. 90. ISBN 1-55013-603-8.
  7. ^ Gagnon, Lysiane (2006-11-13). "There's no Quebec 'nation'". Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2007-04-03. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authorpage= ignored (help)
  8. ^ Gagnon, Lysiane (2006-11-26). "La nation? Quelle nation?". La Presse. Retrieved 2007-04-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authorpage= ignored (help)
  9. ^ Grey, Julius (2006). "The Effect of Recognizing the Québécois Nation" (pdf). Ameriquests. 3. Vanderbilt Univesrsity, Nashville, Tennessee. e-ISSN: 1553-4316. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Andrew647/Quebec1&oldid=163267589"