I'm open to what you're saying, but it seems to be based on the argument of "because Quebecois are lazy," and I'm not sure that I buy it. Can you explain more? Perhaps without shouting?

It's not based on being lazy. It's based on the fact that for our economy to run well, we need investors, like anywhere else. The prospect of an independant Quebec is, currently, stopping a lot of investors from coming in. If we actually were to become independant, the day after the vote tons of investors would pull out and hardly any would come in. It's not cause they don't like us, it's cause no one likes instability and risk.

As for "Quebecois are lazy", it's of course a dilution on Bouchard's manifesto. The slightly more elongated version is that Quebecois love their social net a little too much. We expect, nay, demand, that the State provide us with Free healthcare, Free education, Free this and that.

And, just to show how fucked-up we are, we are the province with the highest level of people living on credit (living above their means), with the lowest amount of personal savings (will need state to survive retirement), and with the lowest claimed desired retirement age. Oh, and 30% of people say they are going to work as consultants before retiring. Cause you know, they have so much to offer.

Meanwhile, the Unions go on strike and hold businesses hostage the second the management starts telling them they need to cut back in wages or benefits in order to stay competitive in a world gone global. But that guy with a 5th grade education won't settle for less that 40-50k a year, because it's his right.

And then, the cherry on top, of course, is that after wanting all these things, no one is prepared to pay a dime to the governement to finance all this. The last figure I recall are that 60% of people don't pay the income taxes they are supposed to. Which of course places a huge tax burden on the 40%, who of course then don't want to pay huge huge taxes. But still everyone continue to want Free Everything, without having to pay for it.

The "lazy" thus refers to our Want Everything Without Working For It mentality.

Just to throw in my two nuyen...

I really like Montreal. I'd like to go there again.
That being said...

I think it would take some severe insanity for Quebec to go as rampantly psycho as it has in the 6th world. I mean, francophilia notwithstanding, prison time for speaking english?
You can't have a real nation impose that kind of law. At least not if it wants to have anything to do with the rest of the world.

Well, come now. That's a gross oversimplification. Many of the quebecois who are separatists are pro-separation *because* they want greater economic freedom. You can't want a better economy and also want to shut your borders, especially not in the super fast economy of 2070.

Forget Quebec, I hereby call to arms those who are in favor of a Soverign West in Canada... come Albertans, join your BC bretheren and shed the ugly fat that is the rest of the country...

To arms! Or at least to the polls, with you.

Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning-hooks into spears.

~J

That would require taking a stand ... and making an effort. We are talking about Albertans here.

For the hydro-electric power, uh, what part of the provence do the rivers start in? Seriously, again if the northern part (Timber country) was to break away, they'd take control of the rivers to. As for the 'service industry" at that point you'd be outsourcing from other countries most likely and not exactly a popular view.

As for my comments on the french view of Quebec, If you don't know my history, I was born in New York but my parents are both from France. There is a big freench population outside New york.

Well, it's the same people, just different categorizing. They called themselves British at the time. Some time later, they called themselves Canadians. Doesn't mean a whole lot these days, anyway.

Backgammon: Thank you for elaborating. I understand your take on it better now.

There's irony about BC and Alberta joining up in a separation bid. They're about as different in culture and ideology as any two regions of the country, I think.

I like it when people talk about Canada like it's a real country, and not a yard sale that pretends to be a store.

Right. canada did not invade the United States. In 1814 Canada, as a colony of Great Britain was used as a staging area for British assaults on the United States and it was the American burning of public buildings in York, Canada that spurred on the brutality of the British, but it was not Canadians who burned Washington DC. That was done by British Army regulars. landed from Royal Navy ships. Not Bubba and Skeeter coimng over the border.

One of my more interesting cook books is called King's Bread Rising which are recipies from Fort niagara. It is in 3 sections, the french, English and American ownership of the fort. The French section is the crudest since it was when the area was far less developed. It includes such delicacies as "Muskrat Stew" I kid you not. The British section has more developed recipies and you'd expect the American version to be the most advanced, but in fact it isn't. The orchards that provided fresh fruit and such, were all on the Canadian side of the river.

In WW I the Canadian Expeditionary Force was counted among the best armies in the world. They succeeded remarkably well where the British and French failed miserably.

Snow Fox: I hear you. I just think that it's an issue of semantics. Sure it was called the British army and the Royal Navy. That's because anything Canadian was still British at the time. At one point they changed the name, but it was still the same folks.

I'm saying that you're correct, but that it's kind of pointless to distinguish between British and Canadian in reference to that era. Hell, I know some folks still alive who have paperwork indicating that they were British subjects, despite being born and raised in Canada and having never seen Britain.

As an aside: Is there more than one person using your ID? Sometimes your posts are typed nearly impeccably. Sometimes... not.

And Snow Fox, you do your country credit by making your argument with respect. I appreciate that. So much more productive than just trying to provoke and insult. Thanks.

The army which took DC in 1814 was made up of British regulars. Most of them veterans of Wellington's army in spain. With a little digging I've found rgt's that attacked DC included the 85th, 36th and 4th.
The Canadian troops, the militia, were mainly on the US/Canadian border were there were few major actions after York but many short, sharp and brutal fights that left bad blood on the border. I'd refer anyone interest to Anthony Pitch's The Burning of Washington, Bluckjacket Books,1998. It's really written from the American side but most British writers of the age were more concerned with Napoleon.
It was at Vimy Ridge in 1917 that the Canadian's first struck as a Canadian army, much the way the Australians did at Gallipoli in 1915. In both cases it may have been a British plan and British generals but the rank and file were Canadian and that is from the logistics people up to the front line troops. The Asutralian, Canadian and South African forces are considered, looking back, as elite because of their spirit. Unlike the British or french armies they fought besides they were all volunteer forces, no conscription so they could pick and choose the best men. Unlike armies with conscription who could get less desirable men worked into them.

For my typing I've been tested at 40 wpm without flaw but sometimes I just get my fingers in knots when I think faster than I can type and things just sort of bunch up.

Dog, you're welcome, I come here to exchange ideas, not picking fights. I don't see any point in doing that.

Oh the Drop Bear thread is perfectly okay but insulting French Canadians isn't? Whatever. Please.

The idea that the canadians were considered elite because they had spirit is faulty. The ultimate measurement is success.
In the battle of Vimy Ridge Snowfox mentioned, the canadians lost less than 4000 man in taking a german position that was considered impregnable and one of the most fortified positions at the front. Spirit of course plays its part, but they also had a plan and successfully used new tactics.

To put it in perspective, the french alone lost over 150000 men at vimy and never came close.

I spent two holidays, 5 weeks total, in Canada. Actually in BC (I have relatives there), and I liked it a lot. So I am not predisposed to hate Canadians .

Stick up your ass and ban me. Or both.

Nath beat me to it, gee I wonder why he had the french figures

The spirit is why they, Canadian, ANZAC, Sprinboks were able to achieve what they did. Their conditioning and outlook were suprior because of it, unlike the pilou for example who were made up of a large number of conscripts and treated as meat by their officers. While the British, German and Commonwealth units were rotated out of the line on a timed schedule, the French forces were rotated out only after suffering a set amount of casualties.

Success by the UK/commonwealth forces where French failed made french generals more sure their men just were not trying. (Gallic pride)
While the Canadians were proving what could be done with good planning instead of just throwing bodies at it, half the regiments in the french army mutinied and flat out refused orders to attack, or if not in the trenches, refused to return.

to get this back on topic though, where in Quebec is the hydroelectric power? I'm not looking for a fight, I really didn't know it was going on so it would be nice to add that to the map. Also it might create a spot for a run

Maybe some frenchmen here, like Nath might, diplomatically, put in their 2 sou about how Frenchmen view French as it is spoken by Quebecois. Personally that was the last thing my paternal grand mother said to me "You talk like you're from Canada, put your father on the phone."

a friend of mine in HS who's mother was French told me one day she was upset because hse had been talking to her family in France on the phone and they had teased her that her french was so poor from lack of use, it sounded like she was a Canadian.

As for Cyrano, gentlemen be careful of that analogy. Gascons are willing to defend each other. Even if removed by a generation and an ocean!
"I had a glove, one of an old pair but I lost it. Very careless of me. A gentleman offered me an insult, and I left it in his face!"

Québécois are perceived as more hardcore about the French language than the French themselves. We do have the 40 members of the Académie Française deciding that we should scannérise a document to put it on a cédérom, but everybody outside of press journalists and lawmakers basically ignores them and still use english or frenglish (franglais) when deemed appropriate. French use english words like parking, hamburgers
Quebecois wouldn't use words like parking, ferry, hamburger, that Quebecois wouldn't use ( while football, backetball, tennis and nearly every sport adopted english terminology, French ice hockey inherited from Québec a whole lexicon in French, cinglage for slashing, etc.). On the other hand, Quebecois would speak about a brake, instead of a frein. So, both French and Québecois use english words, but not the same. Québécois have been assimilating English words for two centuries or so, and started resisting new use in the last 50 or 60 years ; it's rather the opposite for the French.

The Québecois is made fun of, but not much more than the Belgian or Marseille accent. Interestingly enough, some linguists have formulated the theory that what we now call the Québécois accent was actually how French was spoke in Brittany, Vendée and Gironde around the XVIth and XVIIth century.

A lots of French also ignore, and thus get surprised, if not confused, by the broader and more direct use of tutoiement by the Québécois, which migh appear sometimes as impolite ("tu" is second-person singular, "vous" second-person plural, but also a polite use somewhat comparable, if not exactly equivalent, to "Sie" in german). This might have something to do with English, which does not make such a difference.

If they're in the northern/underpopulated part of the provence, those would be gone too- if that area stayed with Canada the way they threatened to when it was last brought up.

as for supplies power, they just say 'canada usually, and not whether it's hydro, conventional, nuclear or hamsters on a tread mill.

or a little less technically, many languages have different levels of formality.
In french Tu and Vous both mean 'you.' Tu is for good friends and fmaily, not to be used casually. "Vous" is more polite, respectful and dignified.
Each have differnet way the same verb is written depending on which you use. BUT in English we just have 1 level of familiarity. "you" whether speaking to your spouse in the dark of the night or your president in the oval office.

Just to add confusing, Vous also refers to a group of people you are not part of: "you guys", if you will. So when saying Vous, the context, whether you are refering to a group, or a single person, is implicit.