NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/can/politics/9881

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 4.9 KB

Xref: sparky can.politics:9881 soc.culture.canada:8735
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!cunews!revcan!software.mitel.com!grayt
From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Message-ID: <13614@grayt>
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:06:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <13572@grayt> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.
Lines: 99

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Denis Beauregard) writes:
}In article <13572@grayt> [e-mail] (Tom Gray) writes:
}>
}>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Denis Beauregard) writes:
}>>In article <13533@grayt> [e-mail] (Tom Gray) writes:
}>>>Now here is another example for the "Thank You Mr. Clark" file.
}>>>This person is a perfect example (as if we needed another after
}>>>Beauregard and Schuck) of someone living in ignorant certainty.
}>>
}>>Selective list?  I don't feel as an ignorant certain, but I feel
}>>that you often are.
}>
}>I freely admit to ignorance about many things. I freely admit to partial
}>knowledge of fewer things. I will not admit to certainty.
}
}So, you will agree that you are totally wrong in this posting?
}You misleadingly mix my opinions with that of other persons.

No. I don't misleadingly mix your opinions with those of others.
One thing I am not ignorant of is your opinions.

}
}>
}>Certainty is direct indicator of error. You were certian that the dreaded
}>English exploited the helpless French in Canada before Confederation. When your
}

}I pointed out some facts that were never discussed and other that were.

What facts? The mythical vote on Confederation that failed in Quebec.
When it was shown that there was no vote that failed. You said that it
passed only because the dreaded anglo's had stacked the system. Whn it
was pointed out that there was no significant opposition to the principle
of Confederation in Quebec and that Quebec politicians used the
Confederation debates to provide for the protection of their culture, you
retreated to attacks on the dreaded anglo.

}The point that was never discussed is that we (French-speakers) were more
}more often victims than guilty.  In a few cases, some points were debattable.
}For example, part of our problem is from tyranny of catholic church.
}People were victim, not guilty.  Tyranny of church was exercised with
}the help of the British conqueror after the conquest for the purpose of
}concentrating fire on (future) USA instead of having 2 rebellions in

You see what I mean. All problems relate back to the dreaded anglo do they
not?

}American colonies.  But, like Ponce Pilate in the story of Jesus,
}the Brits used that tyranny to control the territory and helped to build
}a wall of isolation among catholics while the brits merchants were
}controlling the economy.  And instead of using their (LEGENDARY and often
}not true) fairness to promote actual equality, they did nothing.  They
}were the government, they were distributing lands, they were controlling

There you go again>

You still will not accept the facts that French spreakers had a significant
role in the government. You have been told repeatedly of the principle of the
double majority and local control of culture. yet you still retreat to this
myth of oppression whenever you are challenged.

Was Lafontaine not in the government. Was Cartier not in the government.
Was Mercier not in the government. To point out something more sinister,
was Duplessis not in the government. Lafontaine and Cartier achieved rights
for the French culture. Mercier and Duplessis pushed the French culture into
isolation and ignorance.

Isolation and ignorance breed certainty. The certainty that "les autres" are
your enemies not your compatriots. The certainty that you are a minority and
that you can act as a minority legitimately to attack your neighbour's culture.
Sound familiar, it is your opinion expressed in this forum.

}immigration, etc.  I do not say I am "certain", I just presented facts.
}If your racist mind can accept facts, you have a problem and it is not mine
}nor me.
}

Now there you go. When challenged you retreat into certainty.

}>error was pointed out to you, did it change your view? No it only
}>seemed to confirm you in your myth of oppression.
}
}I can't change facts, I just can select other facts and present them.
}They are so numerous.
}

It's never stopped you from concocting fantasies, I'll agree to that.


}>Now this completely apropos of the topic being discussed. Regional isolation of
}>groups as proposed by Clark in his "Community of Communities" proposal will
}>foster ignorance. Myths such as the absence of French schooling in CSQ or
}
}I did not talked about that absence of French schooling.  In one posting,

Oh come on!

--
i.sinature