Who can say, Doug?

My opinion is the following:

French and English in Quebec lived side-by-side in harmony between 1867 (Canada's COnfederation) and 1960. In many cases during those years French-speaking Canadians (not necessarily only Quebeckers) were in the majority of our (Federal) Parliament.

In 1960 a provincial government that had existed for over 40 years, and in tight collusion with the Catholic Church, lost power. THAT was the start of the "quiet revolution".

There were a few French Quebeckers who exploited the situation of the time, no doubt for personal ambitions of power and using 'sovereignty for Quebec' as the lever. After our 5 year encounter with internal terrorism it became clear that NO ONE supported such actions so things moved to the political arena.

That's where it stands even today, and at this particular time the separatist movement is a mere shadow of its former self. But there remain those who crave power and who keep it alive in hopes of better days for their movement. These do so, though, through regular legal channels and I want that to be perfectly clear.

Do I think there was/is a "war of cultures"? No, I do not.
Between 1759 - 1960 there was calm between the cultures of French and English. Between 1960-1970 there was an "awakening" in the French population and an extremely small (miniscule, really) group opted for terror to achieve their goal of power through separation/sovereignty.
Since 1970 there has been a political party that has employed democratic means to achieve a separate nation of Quebec, and their fortunes have waxed and waned.

On a related note: It had always sounded to me that there are great parallels between the French/English situation of Quebec and the Protestant/Catholic situation of Northern Ireland. In both cases one group controlled the money and made their money "off the backs" of the other group.
But a major major difference in the two situations is that, in Quebec, French speakers have always held the governmental power within the province. This has never been the case in Northern Ireland.

My opinion only.

>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...