Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ugh, to be honest with you, I found this video to be kind of offensive. I try, but the bigoted caricatures of English Canadians went through my armor and rubbed a raw angryphone nerve in there somewhere. Not amused, couldn't bring myself to look past it, call me overly sensitive if you must, but for me it was too much.
I never saw it that way but I certainly can understand that.
If it's true that few francophones even speak fluent English as has been discussed in this thread, then how are their language traditions in peril? They live in an officially bilingual country, but in a province that is decidedly unilingual. So who is threatening their culture and how are they threatening it?
Personally, I see our monolithic neighbour to the south as being the main threat to Canadian culture of all stripes.
If it's true that few francophones even speak fluent English as has been discussed in this thread, then how are their language traditions in peril? They live in an officially bilingual country, but in a province that is decidedly unilingual. So who is threatening their culture and how are they threatening it?
Personally, I see our monolithic neighbour to the south as being the main threat to Canadian culture of all stripes.
This ad was actually aimed at the Conservatives a few campaigns ago, when they were talking about cutting funding for arts and culture, or at least subjecting the funding that arts and culture got to a stricter (some said political or ideological) test. There were comments that stuff that was judged to be obscene or in poor taste might not get funding.
The ad is not really about Quebec francophone culture being endangered by the English Canadian majority, although of course as we all know some people do think that.
^^^^^^^ if I'm not mistaken, Harper did make those cuts. This short film made it seem like the threat was by English-speaking Canadian politicians to Quebec's francophone culture, when it was actually the Conservative Party threatening all of Canada's arts and culture scene.
I love it when "fiscal conservatives" deride the funding of arts and culture as a waste of taxpayer money, often saying something along the lines of "taxpayers shouldn't be helping to subsidize some artsy type's hobby." Meanwhile arts and culture funding provide one of he highest returns on taxpayer money compared to any other government grant or subsidy. I think the ratio is something like $10 dollars of economic activity generated for every $1 of government money spent. And this makes sense.
Think about a major urban art or cultural festival. The cost of the festival itself may be, let's say $5 million for a big one that will attract tourists from all over, and let's imagine that half of that $5 million is provided by different levels of government. So how does that $2.5 million government subsidy go about generating at least $25 million? Well, it's quite simple when you think of all the money tourists and locals will spend in the local economy while attending the festival.
For tourists, they may choose to fly or take the bus or drive, but either way their money is being spent on travel for the purpose of visiting the festival. Locals don't have as far to go, but they still often need to pay to get there, via car or transit. Once at the host city, tourists need to say somewhere, so hotel rooms usually fill up, which = more money injected directly into the local economy. And both locals and tourists need to eat while they're attending the festival, which means local restaurants do a tremendous amount of business during the festival. Also, many local shops and businesses will be patronized by locals and tourists during the festival, whether for souvenirs or clothes, or whatever. Even a tourist going into an interesting-looking store to step out of the heat/cold for a moment can lead to an expensive purchase. Either way, all these thousands of visits to local businesses that would not have occurred without the festival are pouring cash into the local economy. Cab drivers also tend to rake in the dough during these festivals as do tour operators who show tourists around the city while they're staying here. Visits to other institutions like the CN Tower, Hockey Hall of Fame, the AGO and ROM (if the festival is in Toronto), or perhaps visit to a ballgame or hockey game or soccer match (depending on the season) are common activities for tourists who not only want to attend a festival, but also want to make the most of their visit to the city to experience as much of it as they can. They may even take in a play or musical, or catch a performance by the symphony, or the ballet company, or the opera. I'm using a major city like Toronto as an example, but the same is true for smaller towns like Niagara-on-the-Lake and Stratford with their respective world-famous theatre festivals that generate millions in revenue for businesses in those towns.
The list goes on and on, with tourists and locals alike spending all kinds of money on all kinds of things that are directly and indirectly related to their attending the festival. All in all, at least 10X the $2.5 million grant paid by the government to the festival operators has been injected into the local economy as a direct result of the festival, which was made possible by the "hobbies of some artsy-type." And the trickle-down effect doesn't stop there: waiters and waitresses who made good money in tips during the festival might spend some extra money on a new pair of shoes, or a new outfit; restaurants patronized by locals during the festival may be revisited again and again if the food was particularly good; tourists who enjoyed their stay in the city may return some other time regardless of the festival, or urge their friends and family members back home to visit the city if they had a positive experience. The numerous ways in which a single arts festival can generate millions of dollars for the local economy (never mind the huge chunk of those millions that go right back into government coffers in the form of taxes, meaning that the original $2.5 million dollar grant has not only been paid back, but also turned a profit) would take many pages to explore.
The bottom line is that when fiscally conservative governments cut arts and culture funding, they are cutting off a massive source of revenue that is made possible by government grants and subsidies. Far from subsidizing the hobbies of artsy types, smart governments know that investing in arts & culture is good business. Why do you think so many tourists flock to arts & culture Meccas like France, Italy, London, Germany? It's not to admire their efficient public transit and entrepreneurial spirit, or to enjoy the benefits of low taxes and small government.
And it's not like I'm the only one who realizes that arts and culture are a huge wealth-generating industry. The Conservative Party knows this just as well. The question remains, if they know investing in arts & culture is good for the economy, why do they slash the amount of money they invest in this sector? I certainly have my theories, but I wonder what others think.
So I suppose that short film that portrayed English-Canadian politicians as unappreciative of francophone culture bothers me because the enemy is not just English-speaking politicians, and the victims are not just francophone artists and musicians. The enemy is any member of government who thinks slashing grants and funding for arts & culture is good politics, and the victims are all Canadians (not just the artists and musicians who rely on that funding) who lose out financially on the major infusions of cash that arts & culture brings with it.
^^^^^^^ if I'm not mistaken, Harper did make those cuts. This short film made it seem like the threat was by English-speaking Canadian politicians to Quebec's francophone culture, when it was actually the Conservative Party threatening all of Canada's arts and culture scene.
I love it when "fiscal conservatives" deride the funding of arts and culture as a waste of taxpayer money, often saying something along the lines of "taxpayers shouldn't be helping to subsidize some artsy type's hobby." Meanwhile arts and culture funding provide one of he highest returns on taxpayer money compared to any other government grant or subsidy. I think the ratio is something like $10 dollars of economic activity generated for every $1 of government money spent. And this makes sense.
Think about a major urban art or cultural festival. The cost of the festival itself may be, let's say $5 million for a big one that will attract tourists from all over, and let's imagine that half of that $5 million is provided by different levels of government. So how does that $2.5 million government subsidy go about generating at least $25 million? Well, it's quite simple when you think of all the money tourists and locals will spend in the local economy while attending the festival.
For tourists, they may choose to fly or take the bus or drive, but either way their money is being spent on travel for the purpose of visiting the festival. Locals don't have as far to go, but they still often need to pay to get there, via car or transit. Once at the host city, tourists need to say somewhere, so hotel rooms usually fill up, which = more money injected directly into the local economy. And both locals and tourists need to eat while they're attending the festival, which means local restaurants do a tremendous amount of business during the festival. Also, many local shops and businesses will be patronized by locals and tourists during the festival, whether for souvenirs or clothes, or whatever. Even a tourist going into an interesting-looking store to step out of the heat/cold for a moment can lead to an expensive purchase. Either way, all these thousands of visits to local businesses that would not have occurred without the festival are pouring cash into the local economy. Cab drivers also tend to rake in the dough during these festivals as do tour operators who show tourists around the city while they're staying here. Visits to other institutions like the CN Tower, Hockey Hall of Fame, the AGO and ROM (if the festival is in Toronto), or perhaps visit to a ballgame or hockey game or soccer match (depending on the season) are common activities for tourists who not only want to attend a festival, but also want to make the most of their visit to the city to experience as much of it as they can. They may even take in a play or musical, or catch a performance by the symphony, or the ballet company, or the opera. I'm using a major city like Toronto as an example, but the same is true for smaller towns like Niagara-on-the-Lake and Stratford with their respective world-famous theatre festivals that generate millions in revenue for businesses in those towns.
The list goes on and on, with tourists and locals alike spending all kinds of money on all kinds of things that are directly and indirectly related to their attending the festival. All in all, at least 10X the $2.5 million grant paid by the government to the festival operators has been injected into the local economy as a direct result of the festival, which was made possible by the "hobbies of some artsy-type." And the trickle-down effect doesn't stop there: waiters and waitresses who made good money in tips during the festival might spend some extra money on a new pair of shoes, or a new outfit; restaurants patronized by locals during the festival may be revisited again and again if the food was particularly good; tourists who enjoyed their stay in the city may return some other time regardless of the festival, or urge their friends and family members back home to visit the city if they had a positive experience. The numerous ways in which a single arts festival can generate millions of dollars for the local economy (never mind the huge chunk of those millions that go right back into government coffers in the form of taxes, meaning that the original $2.5 million dollar grant has not only been paid back, but also turned a profit) would take many pages to explore.
The bottom line is that when fiscally conservative governments cut arts and culture funding, they are cutting off a massive source of revenue that is made possible by government grants and subsidies. Far from subsidizing the hobbies of artsy types, smart governments know that investing in arts & culture is good business. Why do you think so many tourists flock to arts & culture Meccas like France, Italy, London, Germany? It's not to admire their efficient public transit and entrepreneurial spirit, or to enjoy the benefits of low taxes and small government.
And it's not like I'm the only one who realizes that arts and culture are a huge wealth-generating industry. The Conservative Party knows this just as well. The question remains, if they know investing in arts & culture is good for the economy, why do they slash the amount of money they invest in this sector? I certainly have my theories, but I wonder what others think.
So I suppose that short film that portrayed English-Canadian politicians as unappreciative of francophone culture bothers me because the enemy is not just English-speaking politicians, and the victims are not just francophone artists and musicians. The enemy is any member of government who thinks slashing grants and funding for arts & culture is good politics, and the victims are all Canadians (not just the artists and musicians who rely on that funding) who lose out financially on the major infusions of cash that arts & culture brings with it.
Agree on everything with respect to the economic impact of arts and culture.
As for the fingerpointing at English Canadians... I think the point was that decisions about funding Quebec culture would be left up to bureaucrats in Ottawa who know nothing about it. Of course, the Department of Canadian Heritage is located in Gatineau, and has a high proportion of francophones working in it.
I also thought there was an English version of it that was produced, but I can't find it.
The ad I think was also around the time when James Moore, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, appeared on the popular talk show Tout le monde en parle. It's a bit of an irreverent show, and like often happens with other guests Moore was quizzed - on Canadian culture. Including Quebec culture, which he seemed to know very little about. Other than that it was a good interview - he was very personable and good in French. The lack of knowledge didn't make a big scandal but people took note of it. Certainly in the milieu.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
