Jim,

Thanks for the info/clarification. It's appreciated. So, would you think that there has been a sort of war of cultures in your country that either precipitated these events or reflected them?

Thanks...

>Doug,
>
>Just clarifying on the French/English issue in Quebec. . .
>
>The French settled Quebec first, and by a long shot. There were probably 10s of thousands of them there before the first Englishman arrived.
>
>However, they (the French) did lose a war back in the mid-1700s and thereafter the British were in charge of things.
>
>In the 1840's one Lord Durham recommended the immediate assimilation of the French into English cultural life. Queen Victoria rejected that, in fact proclaiming protection of the culture.
>
>Between then and the early 1960s there were some cultural 'differences' expressed, but by and large the two cultures got along well. That time saw the French segment of the population largely under the thumb of the Catholic church, who guided the more educated French toward lawyering and the clergy. The church controlled all education of the French population.
>Even as a young lad in Quebec in the 50s and 60s it was evident to me that the English kid's fathers were the foremen/supervisors/managers of virtually all businesses while my French friend's fathers were labourers/factory-workers/clerks. In other words, English folks controlled the money.
>
>In the 60's began the "quiet revolution", first upsetting the Church's influence and then improving the education for the French side, specifically adopting more a business-related curriculum.
>There were some who were impatient for this change and also saw an "opportunity" to push it further - to demand their "right" (as first settlers) to become a sovereign country. This culminated in several bombs that killed a few people and, finally, in political kidnappings (2). One French Quebec politician was killed and a British trade emissary was released after a long detention (in exchange for a one-way trip to Cuba).
>
>Those unacceptable (to all in Quebec) events resulted in the creation of a political party (PQ) that won election in 1978. Their stated aim is to have Quebec become a nation, separate from Canada. After their first election over 500,000 people left Montreal.
>The PQ imposed several laws to 'further the French cause', promoting in particular that French Quebec would surely disappear in a sea of North American English if they did not take such steps.
>
>While they have alternately lost/won reelection, one of the last remaining of the aggravating laws is the "sign law". It still stirs much trouble in the province (and outside too, fomenting disrespect (to hate) by its very existence).
>
>But you should see Quebec and the rest of Canada! We have LARGE communities of virtually every race, colour and creed of the earth. And we all get along just fine, in the main. I bet you would meet more people of African origin in Quebec than in any other province/state in North America.
>We have had our racist incidents against Muslims too since Sep. 11, sadly, but they are not condoned by anyone.
>
>Overall the Canadian experience (it used to be called an 'experiment') with multiculturalism has been a most positive one. Sure, we have had our moments, and no doubt will continue to do so, but the general consensus is that we have each been enriched and educated by the fact.
>
>
>
>>Evan,
>>
>>>>http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/horowitz/index.htm
>>>
>>>Jerry, I have trouble believing any publication that calls multi-culturalism "a crisis".
>>
>>Balkanization is bad for any nation. You may not think so but your position is not borne of original thinking. Stripping a nation of its commonly shared cultural identity is a great way to weaken it. Just look at you guys with your separatist movement where it's illegal to post signs in English only in Quebec. I would think of all people you might have figured this out since it's so close to home.
>>
>>JOMO...