Montreal City Weblog

Kate 07:41 on 2019-08-15 Permalink Reply  

• Jack 11:05 on 2019-08-15 Permalink

  “his assertion the anglo minority in Quebec “continues to be in a position of power even if it loves to play the victim. … Anglo Quebecers are always trying to claim their privileges as rights.”
  Look I am not a big fan and I am a bloke, but these two assertions usually backed up by an anecdote are how he argues and writes. Which for somebody with a Phd is sad. Even though I’m told that PKP was in the front row at UQAM when he defended his Thesis, that is very convenient, largest institutional donor making sure his buddy gets through. (See Im doing the same thing!)
  Breaking down these two assertions is pretty easy. First victimization in Quebec is the exclusive property of French origin Quebecers, it is seen as necessary for all nationalist discourse pre 1995. Culturally in film, theatre and yes poetry ( Speak White!), this idea was important during the quiet revolution and after.
  This concept was provided its intellectual architecture from the history faculty at U de M, when it created a historiography that posited French Canadian nationalism was weak and pitiful and English Canadian strong and powerful, with only one rectification , independence.
  His second point is not only factually wrong but in real terms shows animus. His claim that anglo’s have privileges not rights, ignores the fact that the BNA granted these rights as part of our constitutional obligations to each other. His desire to change the frame of reference to privilege is supposed to tell English speakers that they are here in Quebec at the behest of the majority he incarnates, and the privileges come from his good will. In other words we are subordinate.
  In general what makes him dangerous is his very fine tightrope he walks for the Grand Replacement tropes that he writes about frequently. That discourse is very dangerous.