quebec referemdun

Valerie Scatamburlo valeries at YorkU.CA
Sun Oct 22 22:30:19 MDT 1995


On Oct 22,  3:58pm, Ryan Daum wrote:
> Subject: Re: quebec referemdun

>
	 I simply pointed out the utter ridiculousness of making
> defense of Quebec and its rights contingent on what particular
> politicians said and did.

	But I ask you this - how can you simply ignore and sweep under the
rug that what has been said by the "leaders" ????  You seem to want to paint
this movement as somehow inherently progressive while ignoring its
complexities and contradictions - Jim J. is correct in this regard - take off
the rose coloured glasses. You assume that a sovereign QUebec will be the
answer to a number of woes and you speak of Quebec's "rights" - what about
the "rights" of non-Quebecers or non-French speaking residents of Quebec???
What about the rights of aborginal peoples in Quebec and what about the
rights of its immigrant populations - especially those newly arrived
constituencies???  You completely ignored my statement with regard to the
treatment of ethnic and racial minorities in Quebec - which is by and large,
abhorrent. And please what about the statements that Quebecois women just
aren't having enough babies??? You speak of a group you are involved with
which has attempted to work with the native people - this is great - but
unfortunately that voice is not the dominant one being heard - it is that of
Bouchard, Parizeau, etc.  You may want to distance yourself from their views
but it is their ilk which is leading the voters of Quebec to the referendum
on Oct. 30.  I am not so stupid as to assume that the PQ/BQ speak for all
those involved in the movement I only wish that the voices of more
progressive minded people could have been heard.  In one post, a fellow Jerry
harkens back to the 1970s and those movements and you credit him I believe
for his insights - but let's face it - that was then and this is now - the
situations ansd the contexts are quite different.  The current brand of
nationalism being proffered by the PQ/BQ is far more reactionary than its
predecessors - as I said you may chose to distance yourself from that
rhetoric but that does not change the fact that it represents the dominant
voice in today's political climate regarding the separation of Quebec.



 not recognize the fact that  _ econdly, I pointed out the ridiculousness of
> attacking Quebec's right to self-determination based on the actions of
> the Quebec Liberal Party government's attack on Oka (in tandem with the
> federal government.)
>
	Excuse me, but you seem to conveniently neglect the historical role
played by French Canada in the colonization of native people and for that
matter the role of the Roman Catholic church in various fiascos... I could go
on here but the hour is late

Ryan wrote:

 Do you or do you not
	> recognize Quebec's right to choose its own destiny?  IF you don't,
do you
> support that right for native peoples?  If yes, how do you justify this?
> If not, I don't think we have much in common atC all.
>
	Frankly Ryan,  your question is rhetorical - whether or not I
recognize Quebec's right to chose its own destiny is a moot point - Quebecers
will decide that question next Monday and that decision will stand,
regardless of what I may or may not think - I don't have a vote.  C'est la
vie!



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list