Perhaps this should be the topic of a future podcast, but who exactly are the “Anglo-Canadian people?”
In particular, are the Ukrainians and the Germans that significantly settled the West “Anglo-Canadian”, despite differences in religion, low participation in the World Wars and that they maintain a separate self-identity?
If the Ukrainians and Germans are not Anglo-Canadian, then what are they?
Please take this in the spirit of debate. I think there is a 75% probability that what I’m about to say is correct.
Here goes: I think Quebec will separate from Canada by 2030.
My reasoning: The Québécois have to decide if they’re better in or out of Canada. It is that simple. I remember the great Quebec Director Denys Arcand saying that to the Québécois a Torontonian is no different than a Texan. So in that vein the question is a simple binary, in or out.
The case for “out” - oui - is easy to make and Paul StPierre Plomondon is a capable salesman. Here is the argument: mass immigration is going to swamp our culture, like it has in the rest of Canada. New immigrants are eventually Canadian citizens and are flooding across provincial borders in pursuit of economic opportunity. Who can blame them. Quebec having control over immigration saved the day in the 1995 referendum but now it’s the internal immigrant that’s the problem. That can’t be fixed. This is a winning argument.
The 25% that I reserve as the possibility of failure is simply that the young people of Quebec have likely been demoralized in school and hold their culture in contempt as a settler colonizing oppressor. They likely don’t give a shit about Québécois culture they want to be citizens of the world.
The 25% non is much more likely to be because Quebec is a province dependant on equalization payments to the tune of 13B per year and separatism just isn't fiscally possible.
That also means that in any hypothetical future where the ROC becomes unable to bribe quebec to stay in confederation, seperatism will become an issue. It's pretty likely that the conditions for seperation will occur at some point in the future.
About bloody time. Thankfully, after eight decades of continuous degradation of the Anglo Saxon experience, my "white shame" gene no longer gives a shit.
Great premise for a paper. A useful subject for an article might be the origin of the name Canada, as the present argument for its indian origin is both widely accepted and not very convincing.
This 1893 linguistics journal includes an argument by A. Marshall Elliot, who makes a convincing case for a European (Spanish or Portuguese) origin for the word, and effectively criticizes the dubious argument for indian origin. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2918432?seq=10#metadata_info_tab_contents
Perhaps this should be the topic of a future podcast, but who exactly are the “Anglo-Canadian people?”
In particular, are the Ukrainians and the Germans that significantly settled the West “Anglo-Canadian”, despite differences in religion, low participation in the World Wars and that they maintain a separate self-identity?
If the Ukrainians and Germans are not Anglo-Canadian, then what are they?
Broke: N-word
Bespoke: Ensign
Please take this in the spirit of debate. I think there is a 75% probability that what I’m about to say is correct.
Here goes: I think Quebec will separate from Canada by 2030.
My reasoning: The Québécois have to decide if they’re better in or out of Canada. It is that simple. I remember the great Quebec Director Denys Arcand saying that to the Québécois a Torontonian is no different than a Texan. So in that vein the question is a simple binary, in or out.
The case for “out” - oui - is easy to make and Paul StPierre Plomondon is a capable salesman. Here is the argument: mass immigration is going to swamp our culture, like it has in the rest of Canada. New immigrants are eventually Canadian citizens and are flooding across provincial borders in pursuit of economic opportunity. Who can blame them. Quebec having control over immigration saved the day in the 1995 referendum but now it’s the internal immigrant that’s the problem. That can’t be fixed. This is a winning argument.
The 25% that I reserve as the possibility of failure is simply that the young people of Quebec have likely been demoralized in school and hold their culture in contempt as a settler colonizing oppressor. They likely don’t give a shit about Québécois culture they want to be citizens of the world.
Sorry to be a bummer .
The 25% non is much more likely to be because Quebec is a province dependant on equalization payments to the tune of 13B per year and separatism just isn't fiscally possible.
That also means that in any hypothetical future where the ROC becomes unable to bribe quebec to stay in confederation, seperatism will become an issue. It's pretty likely that the conditions for seperation will occur at some point in the future.
I agree, Jordan, that is the counter argument. Time will tell.
About bloody time. Thankfully, after eight decades of continuous degradation of the Anglo Saxon experience, my "white shame" gene no longer gives a shit.
Solidarity from another Anglo-Canadian here. We have much in common it seems.
Great premise for a paper. A useful subject for an article might be the origin of the name Canada, as the present argument for its indian origin is both widely accepted and not very convincing.
This 1893 linguistics journal includes an argument by A. Marshall Elliot, who makes a convincing case for a European (Spanish or Portuguese) origin for the word, and effectively criticizes the dubious argument for indian origin. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2918432?seq=10#metadata_info_tab_contents