A federation in which provinces have a long tradition of working together but with enough autonomy to become seperate whenever they want to.
Vive Le Quebec libre
Au lieu de vociférer des contre-vérités, il faut savoir que le reférendum de 1995 a donné 49,5 % de oui à l'indépendance. La marge est ténue et susceptible de renversement à la prochaine consultation (en conformité avec la légalité canadienne).
Vive le Quebec libre ! I agree, and it is true that Quebec is libre (free) because Canada is a democratic country : a free Quebec means a Quebec free to choose itself for independance or not. It seem that for the moment, a majority of Quebecers (around 50,5%) don't want independante. let"s respect their choice, and as said Greg, when it is so close, things can change at anytime.
There have been two referenda on Quebec independence. Both times the questions asked by the "Independantiste" government of Quebec promised negotiation with and acquiescence by the Federal Canadian state as a condition of separation.
The Federal Canadian state, however, has established its legal position which is that it would only accept separation based on a "clear question" and a "clear majority". So far we have not seen a "clear question" . Any victory for the "yes" side will probably be close. To me 50.5%, or even 53% is not enough to justify separation, especially since the next time it could be 50.5% the other way. (Public support for independence fluctuates).
Although I support separating Canada from Quebec as being beneficial to Canada, I do not agree that Quebec can just keep running referenda until they squeak out a separatiste win and then call that decision final, and all the previous referenda irrelevant.
When Norway voted to separate from Sweden the vote was something like 95% in favour. I do not know what the question was. I think that the Czechs and Slovaks also had a large margin in favour.
If the Quebecois were so oppressed and badly in need of liberation, as implied by some here, the vote would not be so close, expecially considering that all "intellectuals", teachers, and media personalities are openly separatist.
The Federal Canadian state, however, has established its legal position which is that it would only accept separation based on a "clear question" and a "clear majority". So far we have not seen a "clear question" . Any victory for the "yes" side will probably be close. To me 50.5%, or even 53% is not enough to justify separation, especially since the next time it could be 50.5% the other way. (Public support for independence fluctuates).
Although I support separating Canada from Quebec as being beneficial to Canada, I do not agree that Quebec can just keep running referenda until they squeak out a separatiste win and then call that decision final, and all the previous referenda irrelevant.
When Norway voted to separate from Sweden the vote was something like 95% in favour. I do not know what the question was. I think that the Czechs and Slovaks also had a large margin in favour.
If the Quebecois were so oppressed and badly in need of liberation, as implied by some here, the vote would not be so close, expecially considering that all "intellectuals", teachers, and media personalities are openly separatist.
Steve K : la question n'est pas de savoir si 52 % ou 54 % est un chiffre qui te convient. La question est de savoir ce que les Québécois estiment leur convenir. Si les Québécois ont envie de faire 70 référendums, ils en ont le droit.
greg, nobody's saying that Quebec doesn't have the 'right' to hold referenda (referendums??). They could hold one every weekend as far as I'm concerned. I think the results are *extremely* relevant, and it seems that certain people want referenda (or simply opinion polls) to be run and run and run until a satisfactory result (a majority in favour of independence) is achieved. Then, apparently, all previous results become irrelevant.
greg, maybe it's a question of my bad French, but I'm afraid I don't get your point here. Do you mean that it doesn't matter how many people in Quebec vote for independence, as long as it's slightly in the majority??
greg, maybe it's a question of my bad French, but I'm afraid I don't get your point here. Do you mean that it doesn't matter how many people in Quebec vote for independence, as long as it's slightly in the majority??
greg
The issue is not what suits me. The question of breaking up a country (which I favour in the case of Quebec) is not one that should be decided lightly. The problems it creates are not insignificant, such as what to do with the national debt, the armed forces, the currency, the status of Natives and their land claims, the status of the Anglophone minority which is around 20% of the population in Quebec etc. Legally the government of the Federal state (which has been headed up by Quebecois for most of the last 30 years) has a say in the conditions under which a province may decide to separate.
It is both legitimate and legal under Canadian and international law to require a clear question and a clear decision. There are all kinds of important questions in democracy which require higher then 50% for approval, simply because they are important and irreversible.
An important part of the independantise argument is that the separation will be amicable, that there will be a EU-like arrangement with the Federal state, and all problems will be resovled. Based on frequent opinion polls,a unilateral declaration of independence would probably get less than 33% of the vote in Quebec. Therefore Quebec cannot ignore the stated legal position of the Canadian government which requires a clear question and a clear majority. The problem for the independandistes is that independence is not a burning issue for Quebecois. Many are tired of it. Most realize that the benefits of separation would be mostly symbolic.
It is the rest of Canada that suffers by having Quebec in. It disrupts our unity and solidarity to have one group constantly selfishly clamouring for more attention and special favours. Quebec is indirectly responsible for Canada having one party rule for over 30 years by a corrupt collection of politically correct opportunists. If the rest of Canada were to express itself more strongly in favour of getting rid of Quebec, this might help get the support for separatism in Quebec up to a reasonable threshold like 60%.
The issue is not what suits me. The question of breaking up a country (which I favour in the case of Quebec) is not one that should be decided lightly. The problems it creates are not insignificant, such as what to do with the national debt, the armed forces, the currency, the status of Natives and their land claims, the status of the Anglophone minority which is around 20% of the population in Quebec etc. Legally the government of the Federal state (which has been headed up by Quebecois for most of the last 30 years) has a say in the conditions under which a province may decide to separate.
It is both legitimate and legal under Canadian and international law to require a clear question and a clear decision. There are all kinds of important questions in democracy which require higher then 50% for approval, simply because they are important and irreversible.
An important part of the independantise argument is that the separation will be amicable, that there will be a EU-like arrangement with the Federal state, and all problems will be resovled. Based on frequent opinion polls,a unilateral declaration of independence would probably get less than 33% of the vote in Quebec. Therefore Quebec cannot ignore the stated legal position of the Canadian government which requires a clear question and a clear majority. The problem for the independandistes is that independence is not a burning issue for Quebecois. Many are tired of it. Most realize that the benefits of separation would be mostly symbolic.
It is the rest of Canada that suffers by having Quebec in. It disrupts our unity and solidarity to have one group constantly selfishly clamouring for more attention and special favours. Quebec is indirectly responsible for Canada having one party rule for over 30 years by a corrupt collection of politically correct opportunists. If the rest of Canada were to express itself more strongly in favour of getting rid of Quebec, this might help get the support for separatism in Quebec up to a reasonable threshold like 60%.
Steve K,
Si le Canada anglophone "souffre" de la présence du Québec (le foyer initial du Canada), c'est très simple : le Canada anglophone n'a qu'à quitter le Canada et fonder un autre pays. Le cas du Labrador est spécial dans la mesure où ce territoire doit revenir au Québec (en tant que province ou État indépendant).
Candy,
Ce que je veux dire c'est que le Québec peut très bien voter l'indépendance demain et voter le réunification avec le Canada anglophone après-demain (à condition, bien sûr, que le Canada anglophone le souhaite aussi). La seule chose qui compte c'est que 50 % des Québécois + un Québécois votent dans ce sens (ou dans l'autre d'ailleurs). C'est le principe de la démocratie.
En admettant (ce qui est absurde, j'en conviens) que 100% des Québécois anglophones aient voté en 1995 contre l'indépendance du Québec, on peut estimer que 62 % des Québécois francophones ont voté pour l'indépendance du Québec (le taux étant ramené à 49,5 % du total de la population québécoise = francophones + anglophones).
A tous les deux,
Il n'y pas eu de référendum au cours du XVIIIe siècle quand la Nouvelle-France a fait l'objet d'une tentative de nettoyage ethnique qui a commencé à s'estomper début XXe siècle.
Si le Canada anglophone "souffre" de la présence du Québec (le foyer initial du Canada), c'est très simple : le Canada anglophone n'a qu'à quitter le Canada et fonder un autre pays. Le cas du Labrador est spécial dans la mesure où ce territoire doit revenir au Québec (en tant que province ou État indépendant).
Candy,
Ce que je veux dire c'est que le Québec peut très bien voter l'indépendance demain et voter le réunification avec le Canada anglophone après-demain (à condition, bien sûr, que le Canada anglophone le souhaite aussi). La seule chose qui compte c'est que 50 % des Québécois + un Québécois votent dans ce sens (ou dans l'autre d'ailleurs). C'est le principe de la démocratie.
En admettant (ce qui est absurde, j'en conviens) que 100% des Québécois anglophones aient voté en 1995 contre l'indépendance du Québec, on peut estimer que 62 % des Québécois francophones ont voté pour l'indépendance du Québec (le taux étant ramené à 49,5 % du total de la population québécoise = francophones + anglophones).
A tous les deux,
Il n'y pas eu de référendum au cours du XVIIIe siècle quand la Nouvelle-France a fait l'objet d'une tentative de nettoyage ethnique qui a commencé à s'estomper début XXe siècle.
The hypocritical indignation of French people over the treatment of their Quebecois cousins is a laugh when contrasted to their lack of concern over the harsh suppression of language and cultural rights in Corsica and Brittany and elsewhere in France.
Today the franco-Quebecois speak French and control their own destiny. The same is not true for the Bretons and Corsicans.
A vote for separation will, in reality, be final. No Quebec government will then ask for a vote to rejoin Canada.
As for majority votes in Federations check out the requirements for unanimity and qualified majoirities in the EU.
The Council and European Parliament share legislative power as well as responsibility for the budget. The Council also concludes international agreements that have been negotiated by the Commission. According to the treaties, the Council has to take its decisions either unanimously or by a majority or "qualified majority" vote.
On important questions such as amending the treaties, launching a new common policy or allowing a new country to join the Union, the Council has to agree unanimously.
In most other cases, qualified majority voting is required - in other words, a decision cannot be taken unless a specified minimum number of votes is cast in its favour. The number of votes each EU country can cast roughly reflects the size of its population. Until 1 May 2004, the numbers were as follows:
Germany, France, Italy, the UK: 10
Spain: 8
Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal: 5
Austria, Sweden: 4
Denmark, Ireland, Finland: 3
Luxembourg: 2
TOTAL: 87
The minimum number of votes required to reach a qualified majority was 62 out of the total of 87 (i.e. 71.3%)
As for Canada expelling Quebec this cannot happen constitutionally and any such motion would garner little support (unfortunately). It is possible that in the future provinces like Alberta, BC or Newfoundland could vote to secede, but highly unlikely.
Today the franco-Quebecois speak French and control their own destiny. The same is not true for the Bretons and Corsicans.
A vote for separation will, in reality, be final. No Quebec government will then ask for a vote to rejoin Canada.
As for majority votes in Federations check out the requirements for unanimity and qualified majoirities in the EU.
The Council and European Parliament share legislative power as well as responsibility for the budget. The Council also concludes international agreements that have been negotiated by the Commission. According to the treaties, the Council has to take its decisions either unanimously or by a majority or "qualified majority" vote.
On important questions such as amending the treaties, launching a new common policy or allowing a new country to join the Union, the Council has to agree unanimously.
In most other cases, qualified majority voting is required - in other words, a decision cannot be taken unless a specified minimum number of votes is cast in its favour. The number of votes each EU country can cast roughly reflects the size of its population. Until 1 May 2004, the numbers were as follows:
Germany, France, Italy, the UK: 10
Spain: 8
Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal: 5
Austria, Sweden: 4
Denmark, Ireland, Finland: 3
Luxembourg: 2
TOTAL: 87
The minimum number of votes required to reach a qualified majority was 62 out of the total of 87 (i.e. 71.3%)
As for Canada expelling Quebec this cannot happen constitutionally and any such motion would garner little support (unfortunately). It is possible that in the future provinces like Alberta, BC or Newfoundland could vote to secede, but highly unlikely.
"The hypocritical indignation of French people over the treatment of their Quebecois cousins is a laugh when contrasted to their lack of concern over the harsh suppression of language and cultural rights in Corsica and Brittany and elsewhere in France. "
This is one to remember. In fact I'm going to post this message everytime someone shouts 'v.l.q.l'
This is one to remember. In fact I'm going to post this message everytime someone shouts 'v.l.q.l'
" The hypocritical indignation of French people over the treatment of their Quebecois cousins is a laugh when contrasted to their lack of concern over the harsh suppression of language and cultural rights in Corsica and Brittany and elsewhere in France. "
Steve K, I would suggest you to avoid to speak about a subject wich you seem not knowing.
For your information :
- the percent of Corsican people who claim independance is 10% (49.5% in Quebec) - comparision difficult to make...
- The percent of Corsican people who know and can speak Corsican language is 60%, for a big part of them as a second language, (80% in Quebec have french as first language ) while the number of french speakers in Corsica is 100%.
In Britanny this is more strong. Even if most people of Britanny are proud of their region and its particularities, almost none of them want independance (despite the existance of ultra-minoritary radical groups - most of them being extreme-left groups hidden behind an "independantist" label). the Brittany language continues to exist only in the extremity of Brittany (more or less Finistere departement) as a folkloric language - it knows now a revival thanks to the "ecoles diwan" (schools in brittany's language agreed and financed by french public education), the rest of Brittany is speaking a Oil dialect since centuries. For being of Britanny origins myself, your declarations makes me laugh and being sad of so much disinformation about french realities.
In some other "particular" regions, independentist movement are hardly imaginable (in the case of Alsace for exemple ; despite being a region with a strong specific germanic culture, independantism is close to 0%, at the contrary this region host one of the highest number of french extreme-right nationalists (unfortuannly).
Steve K, I would suggest you to avoid to speak about a subject wich you seem not knowing.
For your information :
- the percent of Corsican people who claim independance is 10% (49.5% in Quebec) - comparision difficult to make...
- The percent of Corsican people who know and can speak Corsican language is 60%, for a big part of them as a second language, (80% in Quebec have french as first language ) while the number of french speakers in Corsica is 100%.
In Britanny this is more strong. Even if most people of Britanny are proud of their region and its particularities, almost none of them want independance (despite the existance of ultra-minoritary radical groups - most of them being extreme-left groups hidden behind an "independantist" label). the Brittany language continues to exist only in the extremity of Brittany (more or less Finistere departement) as a folkloric language - it knows now a revival thanks to the "ecoles diwan" (schools in brittany's language agreed and financed by french public education), the rest of Brittany is speaking a Oil dialect since centuries. For being of Britanny origins myself, your declarations makes me laugh and being sad of so much disinformation about french realities.
In some other "particular" regions, independentist movement are hardly imaginable (in the case of Alsace for exemple ; despite being a region with a strong specific germanic culture, independantism is close to 0%, at the contrary this region host one of the highest number of french extreme-right nationalists (unfortuannly).
harsh suppression of language and cultural rights in Corsica >=
Steve K could you please be more "explicit" in the Corsica case about the supression of language and cultural rights?
The hypocritical indignation of French people over the treatment of their Quebecois cousins is a laugh when contrasted to their lack of concern over the harsh suppression of language and cultural rights in Corsica and Brittany and elsewhere in France. "
This is one to remember. In fact I'm going to post this message everytime someone shouts 'v.l.q.l' >=
Sander could you please explain what is v.lq.l?????
Steve K could you please be more "explicit" in the Corsica case about the supression of language and cultural rights?
The hypocritical indignation of French people over the treatment of their Quebecois cousins is a laugh when contrasted to their lack of concern over the harsh suppression of language and cultural rights in Corsica and Brittany and elsewhere in France. "
This is one to remember. In fact I'm going to post this message everytime someone shouts 'v.l.q.l' >=
Sander could you please explain what is v.lq.l?????
=>Sander could you please explain what is v.lq.l?????<=
LOL, of all people you ask....
LOL, of all people you ask....
v.l.q.l = Vive Le Québec Libre isn't it?
Ok that might work with French people (in Corsica and Brittany cases) but what are you going to do when a non French people (Quebecois, Spaniard, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, Mexican, Peruvian, Brazilian for example) shouts "v.l.q.l", that cases of Corsica and Brittany will not work with them (us) , I'm really curious what are you going to say to them (us).
Ok that might work with French people (in Corsica and Brittany cases) but what are you going to do when a non French people (Quebecois, Spaniard, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, Mexican, Peruvian, Brazilian for example) shouts "v.l.q.l", that cases of Corsica and Brittany will not work with them (us) , I'm really curious what are you going to say to them (us).
Guest
Thank you for providing proof of what I said. Most French people have only scorn for the suppressed languages and cultures of Corsica and Britanny, or for any expression of independence by those people. Gallic scorn is usually directed to anyone who is not so keen on speaking French including Flemish speaking Bleigians, German speaking Swiss, and of course English-Canadians. It is all a port of their cultural chauvinism which is, to most non-French people, simply a laughable delusion of grandeur. I say that as a francophile and fluent French speaker with great admiration for so much of the achievements of French culture and as someone who regularly enjoys visiting France.
But the truth is that in France the cultural cleansing was essentially completed long ago. Just a little research on the Internet yielded the following information, somewhat different in tone from Guest's position.
Corsica
"It was in the course of the 18th century that the Corsican nation was forged, in the modern sense of the term, in the struggle first of all against Genoa and than against France. In 1755, at the Consulta of Casabianca, the representatives of the people adopted a modern constitution. It asserted national sovereignty and organised the separation of powers and the election of a national representative assembly with the power to raise taxes, pass laws and declare war, elected by all citizens over 25, including women. The assembly elected an executive, the Supreme Council, which was the government. The head of the government was directly elected by the assembly, which kept the name of Consulta. One of the first decisions was to create the University of Corte to train the future cadres of the nation. It was no doubt not a model of absolute democracy. Pasquale de Paoli, elected General of the Fatherland, enjoyed enormous power. And it was largely the leading citizens who were elected. That was the case with all the first national assemblies, in the United States as well as in France, whose first constitution instituted a property-based suffrage and excluded women. Corsica was in advance as far as that was concerned.
The King of France didn’t want an independent Corsica, for strategic reasons in the Mediterranean, and even less a democratic Corsica. The war was merciless. At the same time Paoli had to face, internally, the resistance of local nobles whose only thought was to consolidate their existing privileges and sinecures and acquire new ones, and the power of the clans who wanted their share of power, if not the whole power. He fought ferociously against the traditional Corsican feud, the vendetta (“vengeance”) (1), instituting and applying the death penalty against those who engaged in it. So it was through an external struggle against the monarchy and an internal struggle against the remains of the old Corsican society, that Corsica under Paoli entered into the modern history of nations. And it was by the coalition of these internal and external forces that it perished, outnumbered and defeated militarily by the French royal army at Ponte Novo in May 1769.
What followed was a period of ferocious “pacification” conducted by the Comte de Marboeuf and the Comte de Narbonne. Those who resisted were hanged, broken on the wheel, sent to the fortress of Toulon where the water was waist-high. Villages and crops were burnt. The full arsenal of repression was brought out at the least sign of disobedience. The popular revolt was crushed....
A process of “Francisation” was begun from the time of the royal conquest in 1769. But it accelerated sharply from the middle of the 19th century, especially under the Third Republic. It had several aspects. The first was cultural. Up until then the language of the intellectual elites had in the main been Italian. They studied in Italian universities, notably in Tuscany. Gradually a dual process developed. On the one hand higher education took place in France and the intellectuals began to write in French. At the same time the national language, Corsican, which was essentially oral and spoken by the people, began to be written.
The establishment of universal primary education was a decisive factor in the penetration of French, accompanied as in other regions by banning the use of the national language in school. Corsican was designated as a patois, a provincial dialect. Denigrating the language of the people was one of the ways that the French asserted the legitimacy of their own rule. But the French language also became necessary, because of the need for the children of the lower classes to find a job. French became the vehicle of upward social mobility via the administration and the army. But the national language continued to be spoken on a day-to-day basis. So a large part of the population became bilingual....."
Britanny
"France guilty of 'cultural genocide': TV exec
PARIS, Sept 1 (AFP) - Patrick Le Lay, head of the top-ranking French television station TF1, accused France of "cultural genocide" Thursday for its suppression of Breton -- the Celtic language of the people of Brittany.
In an interview in a new monthly magazine 'Bretons', Le Lay -- who was born in the Brittany town of Saint-Brieuc -- launched a bitter tirade against the country's Paris-based elite, for whom "Breton culture has no right to exist."
"I am not French. I am Breton. I am a foreigner when I am in France," said Le Lay, 63, who has headed the privately-owned channel since 1988.
Breton is spoken by some 300,000 out of the 3.75 million people who live in Brittany -- half the number that
spoke it 20 years ago. At the start of the last century, some 1.2 million spoke the language -- and half of these had no knowledge of French. Teaching of Breton was banned from 1902 to 1951.
"If in a family you no longer speak the language of your grandparents, it is because people came along and stopped you .... There is no greater crime against humanity -- apart from killing people -- than killing their language. France carried out a cultural genocide of the Breton language," Le Lay said.
Le Lay said he faced constant obstruction from Paris when he helped set up the private Brittany-based television channel TV Breizh in 2000, and was forced to give up plans to dub American programmes into Breton because of the "hue and cry"."
"
From about the year 1100 onwards Breton slowly yielded ground to Gallo and retreated westwards. It is estimated that by 1881 about 2,000,000 people out of 3.2 million in Brittany spoke Breton. By 1914 it is estimated that out of 3.1 million inhabitants of Brittany at least 1,300,000 were still Breton speaking. In addition, several hundred thousand Breton speaking emigrants were to be found in Paris, northern France, Belgium, Canada and the United States so that the Breton speaking world at this time probably encompassed some two million souls, and it is clear that Breton was the most widely spoken Celtic language in 1900.
Few would have predicted in 1900 that the twentieth century would witness the most massive erosion ever experienced in the sixteen century long history of the language. It is estimated that 90% of the population of Basse Bretagne or western Brittany (Breizh-Izel in the Breton language) was Breton speaking in 1900. In 1945 it is estimated that 75% of the population of western Brittany was Breton speaking. In 1997 a survey considered to be reliable, carried out by Le Télégramme the French language daily of Brest it was determined that only 25% of the population of western Brittany or some 240,000 persons virtually all above the age of fifty were still Breton speaking. The same survey determined that a further 125,000 persons in western Brittany had a more limited command of the Breton language for a total of 365,000 persons with varying degrees of fluency in the language not including the thousands of Breton speakers in eastern Brittany and Paris.
What could have wrought such thorough-going socio-linguistic dislocation in such a relatively short period of time? In the case of Breton many theories abound but several facts can be deduced with relative certainty. Firstly the critical period in question lies during the postwar era, broadly speaking from about 1945 to about 1960 when Breton parents virtually ceased raising their children in Breton and the critical cycle of intergenerational mother tongue transmission broke down. The suddenness of Breton language collapse in and around 1960 while long in the making was somewhat of a surprise to many. Despite the continued encroachments of French, Breton had maintained it's hold over family and community life among all age groups into the postwar era just as Welsh, Basque and others had in spite of the adversities in question.
It would appear there are two main reasons for the accelerated shift from Breton to French during this period. One reason was economic, the drift from the land to jobs in the towns and the cities as mechanisation reduced the need for farm labour during the 1950's clearly weakened Breton particularly in southwestern Brittany where industrialisation and urbanisation were more marked and where the tourist industry attracted a steady stream of monoglot French speaking outsiders.
The second reason the position of Breton was sharply undermined in this period was a political and ideological one. Postwar France was forced to come to terms with the phenomenon of widespread collaboration with the Nazi régime. Some Breton nationalists had worked with the Germans in the hope of establishing a separate Breton state. Little came of this. What in fact happened was an incredibly severe postwar suppression of virtually all forms of cultural expression of the Breton language, from journals to newspapers, to lessons in Breton to use of Breton in the schools, limited as that had been.
The negative impact on the morale of the Breton people and their attitude towards their language caused by postwar rhetoric which often labeled Breton as a patois and even worse as a language championed by the enemies of France (such as those right wing Breton nationalists who had sought to reach an accommodation with the Nazi administration between 1940 and 1944) cannot be overstated. In fact a very high percentage of the Breton population seems to have sided with the Allies from an early point in the war. In addition it should be noted that a position of neutrality was taken by mainstream Breton nationalism particularly the BNP (Breton Nationalist Party). Suffice to say that the divisions caused by the Second World War still haunt Breton society as they do French society.
The situation began to ease somewhat in the 1950's as Breton was reintroduced into the schools by a new socialist government. Breton had been officially barred from the schools in 1947. The "Loi Deixoine" of 1951 however specifically permitted Breton at all levels of education including the university level but the goal of this legislation was really to permit use of Breton in order to make acquisition of French that much easier for children not to strengthen the position of Breton and other minority languages in the schools. Ironically through the 1950's and 1960's it was increasingly the parties of the left including both the French socialists and communists who now began to speak up for regional languages and greater decentralization as opposed to the parties of the French right who were now more opposed to any concessions than ever. Within Brittany itself in the immediate postwar years it is important to note that much of the opposition to Breton in the schools or anywhere else in society came from Bretons, even native speakers who viewed French as the language of the future and a tool to better the lives of the people. It was precisely during these years that Breton began to lose its hold on community life. Breton/French bilingualism was a necessary milestone on the road to a unilingual French speaking society. By the 1940's at the latest bilingualism was well advanced in Brittany and the stage was set for the showdown between Breton and French. Now during the 1950's the critical break began to occur. Succumbing to the various pressures of modernisation and even French government rhetoric against the use of Breton, parents began to exclude Breton from their homes and use only French with their children. Breton however continued in use more strongly in certain areas such as the northwest and central Brittany and hence the advance of French was an uneven one which in the end did not succeed in eradicating spoken Breton.
By the 1960's in addition a new activism began to take hold which often expressed itself through music such as that of Alan Stivell but which proved effective in rejuvenating pride in the language and stimulating new literature and other activities which expressed themselves through Breton. It was this new activism which led to various protests carried out in the 1970's and to the establishment of Diwan in 1977. A further important outcome of the activism and lobbying of the 1960's and 1970's was the Cultural Charter for Brittany which was signed in 1978 between central government and local representatives. The articles of the Charter while somewhat ambiguous did expound on the need for the greater teaching of Breton culture. While not exactly an endorsement of greater Bretonization of society the Charter was clearly a watershed in that both central and regional officials were acknowledging that the Breton language and culture could no longer be ignored even if different parties read different interpretations into the nature of the agreement."
Thank you for providing proof of what I said. Most French people have only scorn for the suppressed languages and cultures of Corsica and Britanny, or for any expression of independence by those people. Gallic scorn is usually directed to anyone who is not so keen on speaking French including Flemish speaking Bleigians, German speaking Swiss, and of course English-Canadians. It is all a port of their cultural chauvinism which is, to most non-French people, simply a laughable delusion of grandeur. I say that as a francophile and fluent French speaker with great admiration for so much of the achievements of French culture and as someone who regularly enjoys visiting France.
But the truth is that in France the cultural cleansing was essentially completed long ago. Just a little research on the Internet yielded the following information, somewhat different in tone from Guest's position.
Corsica
"It was in the course of the 18th century that the Corsican nation was forged, in the modern sense of the term, in the struggle first of all against Genoa and than against France. In 1755, at the Consulta of Casabianca, the representatives of the people adopted a modern constitution. It asserted national sovereignty and organised the separation of powers and the election of a national representative assembly with the power to raise taxes, pass laws and declare war, elected by all citizens over 25, including women. The assembly elected an executive, the Supreme Council, which was the government. The head of the government was directly elected by the assembly, which kept the name of Consulta. One of the first decisions was to create the University of Corte to train the future cadres of the nation. It was no doubt not a model of absolute democracy. Pasquale de Paoli, elected General of the Fatherland, enjoyed enormous power. And it was largely the leading citizens who were elected. That was the case with all the first national assemblies, in the United States as well as in France, whose first constitution instituted a property-based suffrage and excluded women. Corsica was in advance as far as that was concerned.
The King of France didn’t want an independent Corsica, for strategic reasons in the Mediterranean, and even less a democratic Corsica. The war was merciless. At the same time Paoli had to face, internally, the resistance of local nobles whose only thought was to consolidate their existing privileges and sinecures and acquire new ones, and the power of the clans who wanted their share of power, if not the whole power. He fought ferociously against the traditional Corsican feud, the vendetta (“vengeance”) (1), instituting and applying the death penalty against those who engaged in it. So it was through an external struggle against the monarchy and an internal struggle against the remains of the old Corsican society, that Corsica under Paoli entered into the modern history of nations. And it was by the coalition of these internal and external forces that it perished, outnumbered and defeated militarily by the French royal army at Ponte Novo in May 1769.
What followed was a period of ferocious “pacification” conducted by the Comte de Marboeuf and the Comte de Narbonne. Those who resisted were hanged, broken on the wheel, sent to the fortress of Toulon where the water was waist-high. Villages and crops were burnt. The full arsenal of repression was brought out at the least sign of disobedience. The popular revolt was crushed....
A process of “Francisation” was begun from the time of the royal conquest in 1769. But it accelerated sharply from the middle of the 19th century, especially under the Third Republic. It had several aspects. The first was cultural. Up until then the language of the intellectual elites had in the main been Italian. They studied in Italian universities, notably in Tuscany. Gradually a dual process developed. On the one hand higher education took place in France and the intellectuals began to write in French. At the same time the national language, Corsican, which was essentially oral and spoken by the people, began to be written.
The establishment of universal primary education was a decisive factor in the penetration of French, accompanied as in other regions by banning the use of the national language in school. Corsican was designated as a patois, a provincial dialect. Denigrating the language of the people was one of the ways that the French asserted the legitimacy of their own rule. But the French language also became necessary, because of the need for the children of the lower classes to find a job. French became the vehicle of upward social mobility via the administration and the army. But the national language continued to be spoken on a day-to-day basis. So a large part of the population became bilingual....."
Britanny
"France guilty of 'cultural genocide': TV exec
PARIS, Sept 1 (AFP) - Patrick Le Lay, head of the top-ranking French television station TF1, accused France of "cultural genocide" Thursday for its suppression of Breton -- the Celtic language of the people of Brittany.
In an interview in a new monthly magazine 'Bretons', Le Lay -- who was born in the Brittany town of Saint-Brieuc -- launched a bitter tirade against the country's Paris-based elite, for whom "Breton culture has no right to exist."
"I am not French. I am Breton. I am a foreigner when I am in France," said Le Lay, 63, who has headed the privately-owned channel since 1988.
Breton is spoken by some 300,000 out of the 3.75 million people who live in Brittany -- half the number that
spoke it 20 years ago. At the start of the last century, some 1.2 million spoke the language -- and half of these had no knowledge of French. Teaching of Breton was banned from 1902 to 1951.
"If in a family you no longer speak the language of your grandparents, it is because people came along and stopped you .... There is no greater crime against humanity -- apart from killing people -- than killing their language. France carried out a cultural genocide of the Breton language," Le Lay said.
Le Lay said he faced constant obstruction from Paris when he helped set up the private Brittany-based television channel TV Breizh in 2000, and was forced to give up plans to dub American programmes into Breton because of the "hue and cry"."
"
From about the year 1100 onwards Breton slowly yielded ground to Gallo and retreated westwards. It is estimated that by 1881 about 2,000,000 people out of 3.2 million in Brittany spoke Breton. By 1914 it is estimated that out of 3.1 million inhabitants of Brittany at least 1,300,000 were still Breton speaking. In addition, several hundred thousand Breton speaking emigrants were to be found in Paris, northern France, Belgium, Canada and the United States so that the Breton speaking world at this time probably encompassed some two million souls, and it is clear that Breton was the most widely spoken Celtic language in 1900.
Few would have predicted in 1900 that the twentieth century would witness the most massive erosion ever experienced in the sixteen century long history of the language. It is estimated that 90% of the population of Basse Bretagne or western Brittany (Breizh-Izel in the Breton language) was Breton speaking in 1900. In 1945 it is estimated that 75% of the population of western Brittany was Breton speaking. In 1997 a survey considered to be reliable, carried out by Le Télégramme the French language daily of Brest it was determined that only 25% of the population of western Brittany or some 240,000 persons virtually all above the age of fifty were still Breton speaking. The same survey determined that a further 125,000 persons in western Brittany had a more limited command of the Breton language for a total of 365,000 persons with varying degrees of fluency in the language not including the thousands of Breton speakers in eastern Brittany and Paris.
What could have wrought such thorough-going socio-linguistic dislocation in such a relatively short period of time? In the case of Breton many theories abound but several facts can be deduced with relative certainty. Firstly the critical period in question lies during the postwar era, broadly speaking from about 1945 to about 1960 when Breton parents virtually ceased raising their children in Breton and the critical cycle of intergenerational mother tongue transmission broke down. The suddenness of Breton language collapse in and around 1960 while long in the making was somewhat of a surprise to many. Despite the continued encroachments of French, Breton had maintained it's hold over family and community life among all age groups into the postwar era just as Welsh, Basque and others had in spite of the adversities in question.
It would appear there are two main reasons for the accelerated shift from Breton to French during this period. One reason was economic, the drift from the land to jobs in the towns and the cities as mechanisation reduced the need for farm labour during the 1950's clearly weakened Breton particularly in southwestern Brittany where industrialisation and urbanisation were more marked and where the tourist industry attracted a steady stream of monoglot French speaking outsiders.
The second reason the position of Breton was sharply undermined in this period was a political and ideological one. Postwar France was forced to come to terms with the phenomenon of widespread collaboration with the Nazi régime. Some Breton nationalists had worked with the Germans in the hope of establishing a separate Breton state. Little came of this. What in fact happened was an incredibly severe postwar suppression of virtually all forms of cultural expression of the Breton language, from journals to newspapers, to lessons in Breton to use of Breton in the schools, limited as that had been.
The negative impact on the morale of the Breton people and their attitude towards their language caused by postwar rhetoric which often labeled Breton as a patois and even worse as a language championed by the enemies of France (such as those right wing Breton nationalists who had sought to reach an accommodation with the Nazi administration between 1940 and 1944) cannot be overstated. In fact a very high percentage of the Breton population seems to have sided with the Allies from an early point in the war. In addition it should be noted that a position of neutrality was taken by mainstream Breton nationalism particularly the BNP (Breton Nationalist Party). Suffice to say that the divisions caused by the Second World War still haunt Breton society as they do French society.
The situation began to ease somewhat in the 1950's as Breton was reintroduced into the schools by a new socialist government. Breton had been officially barred from the schools in 1947. The "Loi Deixoine" of 1951 however specifically permitted Breton at all levels of education including the university level but the goal of this legislation was really to permit use of Breton in order to make acquisition of French that much easier for children not to strengthen the position of Breton and other minority languages in the schools. Ironically through the 1950's and 1960's it was increasingly the parties of the left including both the French socialists and communists who now began to speak up for regional languages and greater decentralization as opposed to the parties of the French right who were now more opposed to any concessions than ever. Within Brittany itself in the immediate postwar years it is important to note that much of the opposition to Breton in the schools or anywhere else in society came from Bretons, even native speakers who viewed French as the language of the future and a tool to better the lives of the people. It was precisely during these years that Breton began to lose its hold on community life. Breton/French bilingualism was a necessary milestone on the road to a unilingual French speaking society. By the 1940's at the latest bilingualism was well advanced in Brittany and the stage was set for the showdown between Breton and French. Now during the 1950's the critical break began to occur. Succumbing to the various pressures of modernisation and even French government rhetoric against the use of Breton, parents began to exclude Breton from their homes and use only French with their children. Breton however continued in use more strongly in certain areas such as the northwest and central Brittany and hence the advance of French was an uneven one which in the end did not succeed in eradicating spoken Breton.
By the 1960's in addition a new activism began to take hold which often expressed itself through music such as that of Alan Stivell but which proved effective in rejuvenating pride in the language and stimulating new literature and other activities which expressed themselves through Breton. It was this new activism which led to various protests carried out in the 1970's and to the establishment of Diwan in 1977. A further important outcome of the activism and lobbying of the 1960's and 1970's was the Cultural Charter for Brittany which was signed in 1978 between central government and local representatives. The articles of the Charter while somewhat ambiguous did expound on the need for the greater teaching of Breton culture. While not exactly an endorsement of greater Bretonization of society the Charter was clearly a watershed in that both central and regional officials were acknowledging that the Breton language and culture could no longer be ignored even if different parties read different interpretations into the nature of the agreement."