« Brand new tiger cub! | Main | The cutest thing Quebec City could ever do »
January 22, 2007
Who decides what we are?
Sadia had a nice entry with the following quote from the End of Dave:
"La culture ce n’est pas un referendum, pas des bombes, pas la FLQ, c’est le peuple qui la fait vivre, qui lui donne son élan, son souffle. Je suis Québecois, pas parce qu’on m’a dit que je suis Québecois, parce que j’ai décidé que je l’étais."
Translated:
"The [Quebec] culture is not a referendum, not bombs, not the QLF, but the people who make it alive, who keep it going and give it its breath of life. I am Quebecois, not because someone told me that I am, but because I decided that I was."
That's a really nice sentiment, and I would like to believe this. But I don't, not in practice. For these things are decided by the majority, not the individual. It's all great to be self-affirming, but it sounds a little like Stuart Smalley ("I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"). If this were true; if I could actually decide how I am to be viewed in this world, couldn't I? Instead of seeing a black man that "isn't like the others" (more on that some other time, because there is much to be said there) but "probably isn't as well trained as his white peers", or a "fucking threat that I will avoid in the name of safety", or "a sexual curiosity that I just HAVE to try out, you know, just to see if it's true", I could declare that I am what I am, what I decide to be, and that is that. What a long sentence.
But surely Sadia, Dave and Stuart didn't mean that one could say some magic words and you would be instantly viewed differently. Maybe they meant that by making your (daily) affirmation, you would believe what you say, and act accordingly. And then people would see you as you want to be seen. But this is only true for some people, not everyone. Forgetting the obvious cases where a fifty-year old man wants people to believe that he's a twenty-five year old hot chick, of course. Here's a less obvious example.
Joe Nyugen is 27 years old and was raised in Ste-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, Quebec, although he was born in Vietnam. (I don't know if that place really exists, but it really sounds like it does, doesn't it?) Joe grew up with Vietnamese and Quebec values. Joe speaks French just like every other person from Ste-Marthe. Joe's politics are very much like those of the people in his neighbourhood, although you might assume differently by looking at him. What are the chances that Joe is seen as a québécois by his peers? I would say that they are slim. In fact, I suspect that as much as Joe may be liked and/or respected, he'll probably never be seen as one of the community. He is different. He looks different, he probably has different belief systems, and he speaks a funny language sometimes. He's NOT quebecois, and he never will be. Joe used to say that he is, but not anymore. All the comments and conversations he has heard throughout his life about foreigners coming in and changing this and that, wanting rights that they should not be granted at the expense of Quebec's culture have left him feeling "othered". No matter how much he has integrated into the culture, he's not one of so-called natives, and that's that. In the long run, this may or may not matter. Joe generally gets along fine.
Another example, a real one, is that of a former coworker, Jesse. He was born and raised in Quebec, and his family has been here for about six or seven generations. Jesse is English, speaks French extremely well, and will not allow anyone to say that he isn't quebecois. But they try, oh yes, they try. Some have insisted that because he isn't pure laine, that he is a Quebecker, which isn't at all the same thing.
As for me, I have been treated as everything from an interloper to an invader. One of the last times I went to the Sainte-Élisabeth bar downtown, there was nearly a physical altercation between my group and some francophone haters that complained to STAFF that there were "trop de blokes icitte". We, and in particular, we, were not supposed to be there.
I have defined myself as a Quebecker, or just a person living in Quebec (actually, I consider myself a Canadian and a Montrealer first and foremost, the rest be damned) and not as a quebecois, even though I have pretty well intergrated myself into the culture here more than many people I know that were born here. I won't bother saying that I am quebecois, because it seems very clear to me that that is not something that I can decide. Even if I were given some kind of honorary québécois title by the premier it wouldn't change the hearts and minds of most of the people living here. And perhaps that's fine. If you consider the québécois label as referring to a cultural or ethnic group, calling myself québécois would be like moving to China and calling myself Chinese, wouldn't it?
Does being considered québécois give you advantages in Quebec? I would think so. Any member of a dominant culture has advantages that non-members do not have whether you like it or not. I think that the point is, you can't unilaterally declare yourself québécois. Society has to allow you to be. The membership of any hegemonic, ruling or dominant culture is VERY exclusive. (This does not mean that I think that it is okay to abuse non-members, nor do I believe that non-members are necessarily being abused by those dominant cultures.)
But maybe this is all beside the point. Apparently no one knows what it means to be québécois, anyway. If you live here, do YOU call yourself québécois?
UPDATE: I googled Ste-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, and it's real. I must have seen it at some point.
Posted by JonasParker at January 22, 2007 9:00 PM
Comments
Dude, you really gotta stop picking on my posts *grin*
The reason Dave's quote resonated with me is because it reflects what I believe about the essence of any culture. To wit, it starts with vernacular. It starts at the level of the people and not the 'ruling (m)asses'. Walk 3 blocks along any major thoroughfare in this city and you will find Thai restaurants next to Mexican etc., Same thing where you buy your music - hip-hop CDs rest comfortably next to 'Les Trois Accords' and so on. Quebec is a mashup and that's because it's people are also a hodge-podge of backgrounds (but *some* people are in denial about this).
So little of the cultural activities we engage in (and propagate) are influenced by the soi-disant Powers That Be. So in that sense, Dave's "I" is not at all solipsistic. (I can't believe I'm deconstructing a blogger fer fucks sake!)
Anyway I should have emailed you instead - this is turning into a hydra-headed comment. As for "othering" I do relate. One of the first questions a new acquaintance will ask me is "Where are you from?" Grr.
Posted by: Me: The Sequel at January 23, 2007 9:03 AM
Great post. I was born in Quebec, some of my Quebec ancestry dates back to who knows when, and some of my ancestry is of immigrant stock. I classify myself as an anglo, as a visible minority, and I am quite fluent in French. I love Quebec. I love Canada, I love Montreal and I have to say it: my heart is in Quebec. With all its problems: the language issues, our abysmal healthcare, everyone's inherent racism and "pur laine-ism", I maintain my quebecness, and loudly. I suppose I figure if I say it with a big enough smile, in a loud enough voice, I'll be accepted. I plan to wear 'em all down. Here's to trying, at least. So, "Fuck-yeah, I'm quebecoise."
Posted by: zura at January 23, 2007 10:22 AM
I have always considered myself an interloper. I'll likely always be considered either an anglophone, American, or Chicagoan. I think it may even be possible to be considered Canadian someday. But being considered a Québécois is highly unlikely. My kids my may not even be considered québécoise in many people's eyes due to my background and their names.
But my concern is over being considered an invader. I'm uneasy with the level of xenophobia I've sensed in this place (moreso away from the big cities). Mainly because myself and probably 98% of the non-québécois who are here, embrace the québécois culture and have no intention of imposing their own culture. Maybe we'll like to share our culture and be able to express it, but it is not meant to overpower the existing francophone culture.
I agree with your point that who your are within the society is determined by society's perception of who you are and not who you feel you are. I can say I'm québécois until I'm blue in the face, but I will never be seen as one.
And lastly I think the situation here is similar to the one in France. It's a strong local culture with a relatively small non-native population. So since people are not exposed as much to outside cultures on a regular basis, it is largely unknown to them. This lack of understanding can lead to fear and in turn xenophobia. I've also noticed that the language barrier prevents people from travelling outside the border of the province which would remedy some fear. I find that unfortunate.
Anyhow, enough rambling. I hope this conjecture makes some sense.
Posted by: Frank at January 23, 2007 1:19 PM
Great comments, everyone.
Frank: Blue in the face? Was that intentional? If so, very subtle. If not, it's funny anyway.
Zura and Frank: There will be other posts about the racism here and elsewhere. Racism is the new black and all that.
MTS: I know what you are talking about, however, this is Montreal. Have you heard non-Montrealer Quebeckers talk about this place? One of the first things they say after complaining about the smell and the noise is that there are too many blacks, Chinese, etc. It's épouvantable. And this doesn't include the Montrealers that want things to go back to le bon vieux temps (Whatever the fuck that means. What, when they were OWNED by the English? When fairies would frolick in Parc Lafontaine and magic thinky boxes were powered by unicorn farts? ANYWAY...)
As for the powers that be determining what we are, well, I suppose you are right. It is the people. But this isn't necessarily anything good.
Posted by: JonasParker 
at January 23, 2007 1:44 PM
Yes, it was intentional.
And I agree that there is quite a difference between in the metropolitan area of Montreal and the rest of Quebec. Many talk about the diverity of Montreal, but I find it is only in concentrated areas like NDG, CDN, and St-Leonard. In the other areas the diversity is very low like Hochelaga or Boucherville. It is still enough to make the metropolitan area cosmopolitan, but I'm still surprised when I come across areas that lack that diversity.
Posted by: Frank at January 25, 2007 10:13 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)