Vive Le Quebec libre
=>Sander : tu ne parviendras pas à nous convaincre de l'inexistence de caractères latins. Mais tu peux toujours essayer si ça te fait plaisir... <=
Read Tiffany's article Greg.
I will certainly never stop spreading the truth on this forum.And the whole idea of me trying to 'convert' you?! Well, there we have the same old problem eh?Seeing yourselves as the most important persons here.I'll tell you a secret: I'm not doing this for you... but for the people who come to the forum, I want to let them know that there are still normal people here, instead of a bunch of nationalists who write as if they are writing reports on 'saltus Teutoburgiensis'.
I don't think the real issue is whether or not there are "caractères latins", but the small-minded jingoistic bigotry and "latin superiority" that many adherents here insist on preaching. At this point I think the casual reader would be forced to conclude that "latin unity" is predicated on the rejection and hatred of anglo-germanic culture, and only exists in opposition to the other. I think it is entirely appropriate to continue to refute this kind of ugly prejudice.
[Edited version of Fabians post]
It seems that people who speak a romance tongue feel superior to people who do not speak a language of roman descendant. Somehow they are proud that their forefathers were too weak to resist the latin invaders and succumbed to them.
They were forced to forget their own languages and to accept the language of their subduers. Well, this just didn't happen once but always when a tribe defeated an other tribe.
There are people who assume that the language(in this case Latin) of the supposed more advanced nation replaces the language of the inferior nation.
Now, owing to the fact that latin men adopted Greek and used it as the superior language shows, that Latin and it's descendants are less worthy than Greek.
Who still thinks, that germanic languages are less worthy than romance languages has also to agree that romance languages are less worthy than Greek.
" Culture is not just about language nor just about religion. Culture is about how people lead their lives. I have very good friends in Le Havre, Paris and the Loire region. I know Belgian people, Spanish people and Italian people. The way of life in northern France is more similar, in my exprience, in terms of approaches to life, business, leisure, and of course climate, with all that implies, to that of the Benelux and the Rhine area of Germany than it is to Andalucia and Naples for example. Of course it is not black and white.
Historically the Netherlands, Flanders and Burgundy were often part of the same kingdom and cultural sphere. "
Language and religion made about 90% of the cultural identity. Of course, in other fields there is other influences. these are the main characteristics to describe the world's big "civilisation the western one (of christian origin), the arabo-muslim one (of linguistic and religious definition), etc..
Of sourse that climate plays a role in the feeling you can have in a country, because climate bring a specific kind of architecture and a way of life that goes with. I note that your exemples in Spain (Andalousia) and Italy (Napoli/Naples) are considered by most spaniards and Italians to show a specific southern identity. The differences you're speaking about could aslo be found between Milano and Napoli, beetween Barcelona and Andalucia. But If you shoose to compare Marseille with Napoli, Paris with Milano, etc... your conclusion will have to be very different.
world's big "civilisation = the world's big "civilisationS"
"Language and religion made about 90% of the cultural identity"
"But If you shoose to compare Marseille with Napoli, Paris with Milano, etc... your conclusion will have to be very different"
It seems to me you contradict yourself here.
There is also a difference between culture and cultural identity. The Ulster Protestants and Catholics identify as different but are culturally otherwise very similar. The same could be said of Croats and Serbs, and even of Christian and Moslems and Jews where they have lived together in the MIddle East.
Similarly Quebecois are more similar to other Canadians than to French people from France, and Brazilians to other Latin Americans than to Portuguese, at least in my opinion. As for simlarities within the Latin family of languages I do not think these are very strong. Similarities between Spanish speakers in Latin America or Rumanian speakers in Rumania on the one hand, and French speakers in Belgium on the other hand, are much less important than the shared history and common experience of Flemish and Walloons.
>>>It seems that people who speak a romance tongue feel superior to people who do not speak a language of roman descendant. Somehow they are proud that their forefathers were too weak to resist the latin invaders and succumbed to them.
They were forced to forget their own languages and to accept the language of their subduers. Well, this just didn't happen once but always when a tribe defeated an other tribe.
There are people who assume that the language(in this case Latin) of the supposed more advanced nation replaces the language of the inferior nation.
Now, owing to the fact that latin men adopted Greek and used it as the superior language shows, that Latin and it's descendants are less worthy than Greek.
Who still thinks, that germanic languages are less worthy than romance languages has also to agree that romance languages are less worthy than Greek.<<<
Yes Sander. We must admit when something is good, in this case Latin was better than the dialects sopken in Iberia. In fact, we're not only proud of the Latin invasion in Europe, but also in Asia, America and Africa. And Sander... stop pretending being a Spaniard.
Por cierto, ¿Dónde está Sébastien? Su participación en este post sobre Québec es muy necesaria.
=>Yes Sander. We must admit when something is good, in this case Latin was better than the dialects sopken in Iberia. In fact, we're not only proud of the Latin invasion in Europe, but also in Asia, America and Africa. And Sander... stop pretending being a Spaniard. <=
Was Latin better how would you know? Who's 'we' which group do you pretend to represent?and why would I pretend to be spanish?
Most of the time, when speaking about the latin countries we also include the latin-american countries because they speak latin languages. The quebecers sometime describes themselves as "the latins of the north" (Quebec is not conisdered as latin-american, but etimologicaly it should be. Quebec is even more latin than most of the so called latin-american countries)
http://moss-place.stblogs.org/archives/006170.html
Good links, Trunks. I especially liked Jesse's reply to our old friend Aldebaran's broken-record diatribe about Mexico's loss of its northern territory to the US:
<<This is what I meant about old grudges. *ALL* of America belonged to First Nations tribes (and Aztecs and Olmecs and so on, is there a name for all such tribes in central america?), not to the Spanish, Portuguese, English and French invaders. The land was all taken by force; by your logic, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Canada and so on must ALL be dissolved and control returned to the original inhabitants (are you a true mexican, or are you of spanish descent?). Yes, wars happen and have caused great injustices. But re-defining national borders only leads to *more* war and injustice, as evident from the Balkans, Congo, Rwanda, Kuwait, and so on. Creating new nations only increases the number of divisions between people, it does not remove any. *Nations* are the problem, not which specific nations exist and claim the land. >>
And we've already established that French-Canadians are latin, Trunks. You're preachin' to the choir. ;)
I like Sébastien answer to the Myth of "Canada united"
>>"Un Québec fort dans un Canada uni" dixit Yvon Deschamps. Cela a été répété et répété. Cela a été tenté et retenté... Quels résultats avons-nous obtenu mon ami ? Constitution de 1982 sans le QUébec, Meech, Charlottetown... Cela te dit quelque chose. Si nos amis canadians sont prêts à offrir quelque chose de valable au Québec d'accord mais j'en doute fortement. Quelque chose de valable sans longues négociations ou tentatives délibérées pour faire traîner le processus afin de le voir échouer éventuellement... afin de voir les QUébécois se désintéressés de la question. C'est un vieux truc n'est-ce pas ?
Non merci. Nous avons trop vu ce que Meech et cie ont donné. L'idée autonomiste de Dumont n'est pas mauvaise mais je doute fort qu'elle soit réalisable tenant compte des précédentes négociations. Beaucoup ont désespéré de voir quelque chose de valable pour le Québec venir du ROC. À toi de me prouver que cela est réalisable. Moderniser la fédération ??? Tu emploies le juste terme. Une fédération et non pas une confédération ! On fait croire qu'on vit dans une confédération... on dit que le concept a été délibérément proclamé par les Pères de la Confédération afin de duper le Québec d'alors. Nous ne vivons pas dans une Confédération (comme en Suisse) mais une fédération. Le Québec s'est assez fait niaisé, ne trouves-tu pas ? Ce n'est plus au Québec de quémander une place au Canada. C'est au Canada à offrir quelque chose de valable au Québec. En attendant, comptes sur moi pour voter BQ, PQ et oui...
Ton argument économique est mauvais. Oui, il y aura transfert des dettes fédérales vers Québec. Bien sûr. Mais il y aura également fin des transferts province-fédéral. Le QUébec est tout à fait capable de s'occuper de ses dettes. Nous ne sommes pas la province la plus riche bien sûr mais pas la plus pauvre non plus. Tu veux des chiffres à l'appui ??? Le Québec comme futur État tient très bien la route côté économie lorsque tu le compares à d'autres pays occidentaux.
Il n'en tient qu'à nous...>>>
Here's the whole reply of Jesse to Aldebarán:
>>[Quote by: Aldebaran]
But whatever the point here is that we know here in Mex what is it to be broken in smaller countries (remember that Texas and California were small republics thanks to te US hands before they joined the Union.)
So perhaps there are many more similarities between Mexico and Canada than at first appeared!
[Quote
But the point here is that Quebec originally and legally belonged to the French culture, it was owned by them first. The British took that land by war too, they defeated the French army.
This is what I meant about old grudges. *ALL* of America belonged to First Nations tribes (and Aztecs and Olmecs and so on, is there a name for all such tribes in central america?), not to the Spanish, Portuguese, English and French invaders. The land was all taken by force; by your logic, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Canada and so on must ALL be dissolved and control returned to the original inhabitants (are you a true mexican, or are you of spanish descent?). Yes, wars happen and have caused great injustices. But re-defining national borders only leads to *more* war and injustice, as evident from the Balkans, Congo, Rwanda, Kuwait, and so on. Creating new nations only increases the number of divisions between people, it does not remove any. *Nations* are the problem, not which specific nations exist and claim the land >>