Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy
He made a lot of contributions to Quebec society in his early days. He helped bring about the obscene dominance of the minority Anglophone business community over Francophone in Montreal. He refused to let Francophones be treated as second class citizens especially in Montreal which in many ways they were. He did a lot of good and brought about a lot of needed changes in the 50s, 60s,and 70s.
All that being said he was also xenophobic and racist to his very core. He was a real believer in "pure laine" ............this idea that unless you were a Francophone you were not a "real" Quebecer. The old "money {read Jewish} and the ethnic vote" stuck with him not because he said it as all politicians have said things they regret but rather the fact that he really believed it and saw absolutely nothing wrong with it.
He was also no statesman and often was extremely offensive to the point of turning off many Quebecers as exemplified by his reference of the Canadian flag as being the "red rag"
He believed in the independence of Quebecers but only if you were his kind of Quebecer.
|
I mostly agree, but I'm not sure about the racist and xenophobic part since he strongly condemned/ridiculed Drainville's proposed "Charter of Quebec Values".
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit
he wasn't wrong about the "money and the ethnic vote" thing, he was just intemperate. it was well-known that many major quebec companies, as well as many immigrants, were opposed to separation in '95.
the english canadian media pilloried the man for saying a true thing.
what does that make us? |
See, this is why some people don't like separatists. "What? What he's saying is true!"
If you examine the statement is it racist? not entirely, but it's a few shades in that direction. Does it SOUND racist? Yes, and that's why people care about it.
It also discounts the many Francophones who voted "Non" and creates an "us vs. them" attitude that sets off a lot of English Canadians. This is one of the few true and clear cultural differences between English and French Canada.
French Canada (not without some reason) has a persecution complex due to being "conquered" by the British Empire. This is the start of the "us vs. them" mentality that pervades all of Quebec. Meanwhile, in English Canada, the story is one of unification and perseverance against all odds. An "us vs. them" mentality to most English Canadians is an insult and affront to our history which has largely been one of unification. Trying to create a notion of "otherness" or "distinctness" is seen as dangerous to social and political cohesion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
Wow. Un tel déluge de stupidité et d'ignorance, ça donne envie de voter "oui". Juste de penser que c'est techniquement des compatriotes, ça me dégoûte.
|
Well yeah, but the guy WAS an enemy to those of us who want a unified Canada that includes Quebec. Most people do not care for their enemies. It's part of why we have enemies in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
That's a classy thing to do... with the federal government, lately it has seemed like things get named after political heavyweights only when their affiliated party is in office. It's nice to see Couillard rise above that kind of petty politicking.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim
When I was a kid he was known to me as the "enemy", trying to break the country apart. As I've grown older, I realize who that man truly was. A true patriot for his cause, a fantastically brilliant mind and a great human being.
The ROC has never understood him, but yet, the ROC has never understood Quebec.
RIP monsieur.
|
Well, again, he WAS the enemy. I am capable of respecting my enemies; especially when they are charismatic and talented like Mr. Parizeau. Parizeau and I could have easily gotten drunk and discussed society, history, art, culture, etc. until the sun rose up, but we also would have been vicious opponents because our political beliefs and objectives are polar opposites on a deeply important issue.
Parizeau was most definitely an enemy to Canada, since he wanted nothing to do with and take its largest province and a huge part of its people, history, and economy with him. That hasn't changed and that will never change. He was an enemy to our nation and our unity.
But does he deserve to be villified to the extent he has been? Absolutely not. He was important to Quebec and for better or worse, shook Canada to its foundations and altered our course as a country. I disagree with the man on many things, but he is still deserve of some level of respect.
I will not miss him, but I will not drag his name through the mud either.
Prev
Linear Mode
