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.
Anthony Kavanagh is a Haitian and while his name is completely English (Irish actually), I doubt
that he was an anglophone from birth, as there is no native english speaking people in Haiti.
About 15% of the anglo community in Quebec is of French-Canadian origin. However, this phenomenon has basically stopped and any people you meet who are like this are basically a reflection of the ''lag'' from another era.
Yes. About 15% of the anglo community in Quebec is of French-Canadian origin. However, this phenomenon has basically stopped and any people you meet who are like this are basically a reflection of the ''lag'' from another era.
For example, not sure of her family history but tennis player Eugenie Bouchard who is doing very well in Australia right now is from the upper crust anglo district of Westmount in Montreal, and although she speaks French fluently she is definitely an anglo in spite of her French name.
I knew a girl from the west-island of Montreal who was completely pure laine ethnically but who was well on her way to assimilating into Angloness. She and her parents spoke French but she refused to speak French with me because she found it weird for "young people" to be speaking in French. She had no interest in her Quebecois heritage at all. I found it a bit odd, lol, but whatever.
In essence, would we say that the volume of French-speakers in QC and elsewhere is what has preserved the French language in Canada to this day? I'm trying to compare it with the way French was pretty well stomped out of existence in Louisiana in the years leading up to WWII.
As an example, neither of my parents spoke a lick of English until they went to school (they were born in the late 20s) but once there, speaking French was a big no-no. Since Louisiana was such a small part of the overall USA (and then again, French-speaking Louisiana was at best a third of the population, even back then) I'm guessing that this is how the Anglophones were able to win this battle (and that this is what has prevented the same in Quebec).
In essence, would we say that the volume of French-speakers in QC and elsewhere is what has preserved the French language in Canada to this day? I'm trying to compare it with the way French was pretty well stomped out of existence in Louisiana in the years leading up to WWII.
As an example, neither of my parents spoke a lick of English until they went to school (they were born in the late 20s) but once there, speaking French was a big no-no. Since Louisiana was such a small part of the overall USA (and then again, French-speaking Louisiana was at best a third of the population, even back then) I'm guessing that this is how the Anglophones were able to win this battle (and that this is what has prevented the same in Quebec).
My posts on here, especially number 25, should give you a pretty good idea of what I think about this:
I agree with Acajack's post, but have a few other insights to share:
Since the French presence in Quebec antedated the British conquest, and the Quebecois would always compose a substantial proportion of the population of British North America (later Canada), authorities had to take some account of French-Canadian wishes. As Acajack noted, the British Crown accepted French language and culture as part of an implicit deal to win French-Canadian loyalty to the Empire. After the Revolution, Crown officials steered English-speaking Loyalists toward the future Ontario, and soon divided Canada into a Francophone Lower Canada and an Anglophone Upper Canada. An attempt to unite the two provinces in 1840 into a single Canada pleased no one, and was replaced by Confederation in 1867, which created a bilingual nation with substantial provincial autonomy. In the following years, Francophones retained enough power to protect bilingualism, and enough autonomy to protect French's dominant role in Quebec.
By contrast, the Louisiana French become part of the United States more than a decade after the Constitution, and never made up a significant portion of the nation's population. (As far as I know, there has never been a significant movement for Louisiana independence). There was no attempt to make the USA bilingual, and no reason for national politicians to pay much attention to the concerns of the Louisiana French. Instead, Presidents Jefferson and Madison took actions detrimental to a Francophone Louisiana. Jefferson set the northern boundary of Orleans Territory (soon to become the state of Louisiana) far enough north to allow for a potential Anglophone majority, while Madison ordered Governor William Claiborne to annex the Florida Parishes, which would also soon become English-speaking. Louisiana began as a bilingual state in 1812, but after an Anglophone majority emerged in the mid-19th century, bilingualism fell apart between the Civil War and the 1920s.
I do think sheer numbers played an important role in the different outcomes, given that I believe Quebec usually had about 4-5 times the population of French Louisiana. For Anglophones to outnumber Francophones in Quebec would have required (1) a conscious program of settlement or (2) some powerful attraction to stimulate in-migration. Crown officials decided both were unrealistic. I don't think Quebec has ever had a vigorous enough economy to stimulate mass migration by Anglophones, who, after all, had a whole continent to choose from. By contrast, for Louisiana to retain a Francophone majority would have required some conscious effort to keep out Anglophones.
Almost reminds me of the arguments about Hispanics "taking over" in parts of the United States that were first Spanish-controlled, in the SW.
California and Texas both had Spanish-speaking populations that were pretty quickly inundated by Anglophone settlers. (Most of the Hispanics living in those states trace their roots to some more recent migration). New Mexico took much longer to develop an Anglophone majority, which was one reason it was not admitted as a state until 1912.
California and Texas both had Spanish-speaking populations that were pretty quickly inundated by Anglophone settlers. (Most of the Hispanics living in those states trace their roots to some more recent migration). New Mexico took much longer to develop an Anglophone majority, which was one reason it was not admitted as a state until 1912.
One thing that also played in French Canada's favour compared to these places was that France (although not a great developer of its colonies by any stretch) did make some effort into creating an organized society. This was not done to any significant degree by the Spanish/Mexicans in the SW US. (A little bit in New Mexico apparently, but not that much really.)
Whereas when the British took over New France, at least in the St. Lawrence valley there was the semblance of a society that had been put in place with the obvious intent that this society was here to stay as opposed to a placeholder or outpost that secured access to resources and looked good on the king's wall map.
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.
