How well connected do you think "French-Canadian" descent Americans are to Canada?

[Docere]

What's the justification of putting Ontario with "Midlands"?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think they are silly. They're basically "clickbait". Just about every area I'm familiar with has some kind of problematic association on those maps, which suggests that more or all of those regions are probably off.

Yep, same here.

Detroit for example seems to be in the same region as say PEI whereas Toronto is in a different one, lumped in with the northern part of Texas.

I happen to be somewhat familiar with that area so I can point out that placing a regional boundary in the middle of the Texas panhandle is total nonsense, even leaving aside the fact the northern part of it is somehow in the same region as Thunder Bay and Timmins.

I also find these things often commit the error of clustering based on salient features rather than important features. Modern Louisiana may have some French historical associations but the reality is that it is quite distant from Quebec.

Whoever made that map hasn't traveled much, for sure. They might have set foot in either Quebec or Louisiana but not both. Or else they visited both in the 1700s and left their instructions in writing to their great great great great great great great grandson to create that map.

[Acajack]

The map and the book were by Joel Garreau, in the 70s. He was or is a Franco-American (I guess judging by the name) journalist in Washington. It was an interesting read 25 years ago.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I've heard people from Southern Ontario describe Timmins as being like a small city in Quebec. While we do have many similarities for a city in Ontario and around 40% have French as a first language, we're very far from being "Québécois."

The places that feel closest to being Québécois outside Quebec are Hawkesbury and Edmundston. They are pretty darn close. Honourable mention goes to Hearst.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I wonder if it's people who have not been to Mexico and whose only frame of reference is how it (and other heavily Mexican-American areas) differs from the US mainstream. If you have really limited exposure to non-American societies, even slight differences within US cities, states and their associated cultures seem large.

People say stuff like Montreal is like France/Europe too, from a North American standpoint.

Even more of a stretch is when people say that ethnic enclaves in the US or Canada are literally like the "old country". For example, claiming that the San Gabriel Valley is like being in a Mexican or Chinese city, or that Brampton, Surrey, or Edison, NJ are like being in India. These are just run-of-the-mill North American urban or suburban areas with cars and houses like any other, but just because you see scores of plazas with foreign writing driving by, and make value judgments based on the appearance of a bunch of people with recent ancestries from elsewhere (whose children are probably going to consume Anglo-North American culture anyways) doesn't mean the place is super exotic.

The overused cliche of some place with lots of people from country X being claimed to be "just like being in the country X" can be sold in both positive ("look at how diverse and multicultural our city/suburb is, you don't have to visit X to experience X culture, just go there!) or negative ways (eg. "look, they're taking over, this place isn't like what it used to be", but either way it is exaggerated.

It's always either people who have "never seen anything" or who have an agenda of some kind...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The map and the book were by Joel Garreau, in the 70s. He was or is a Franco-American (I guess judging by the name) journalist in Washington. It was an interesting read 25 years ago.

Even in the 1970s I'm all but certain these regional groupings left lots to be desired. That partly-Ontarian pale blue donut surrounding the darker (Halifax-colored...) Upper Midwest is ridiculous, among other things.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Even in the 1970s I'm all but certain these regional groupings left lots to be desired. That partly-Ontarian pale blue donut surrounding the darker (Halifax-colored...) Upper Midwest is ridiculous, among other things.

Agreed.

I would say the idea that there might be quasi-nations that cross international state and provincial boundaries is an interesting one that may have some truth. But not with these borders and labels.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The places that feel closest to being Québécois outside Quebec are Hawkesbury and Edmundston. They are pretty darn close. Honourable mention goes to Hearst.

I agree to agree about Hawkesbury and Edmundston and it also helps with both places being on the Quebec border.

Hearst always amazes me considering how far it is away from Quebec. Same goes for tiny Dubreuilville. But I've noticed that people from those places are using more English and the younger folks no longer have the strong French-Canadian accent when speaking English.

Back to Timmins, we have a number of Quebec-based businesses here that you wouldn't normally find in Ontario cities. We have the only Mikes restaurant outside Quebec. And a store that comes to mind is Chaussures POP Shoes. (one of only a few in NE and Eastern Ontario)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The places that feel closest to being Québécois outside Quebec are Hawkesbury and Edmundston. They are pretty darn close. Honourable mention goes to Hearst.

I'm sure you realize this, but the maps make more sense when you think about the cities and population density as well as languages. Edmundston is closer to major population centres in Quebec than it is to comparable areas in the Maritimes. Fredericton is on the periphery of the main part of the Maritimes and it separated from Edmunston by a large hinterland. The Francophone areas in Southern NB on the other hand are more closely aligned with the central part of the Maritimes (and generally aren't as heavily Francophone; there isn't a hard cutoff anywhere). Economically the little towns around Southeastern NB are of course far more like other little towns around the Northumberland area than they are like Northern NB.

Another reality as far as present-day Atlantic Canada goes is that the ties to New England are weak and more historical than tangible. Politically and culturally they are different worlds now. A politician from Massachusetts or New Hampshire would seem quite foreign in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland (e.g. imagine importing Mitt Romney). New Englanders can be picked out at 100 paces. And people are no more likely to visit Boston from Atlantic Canada now than they are to go to Toronto or Montreal. It is not at all like here in Vancouver where many people go down to the US every few weeks. Halifax to Boston is a 10 hour drive. Not much shorter than Montreal (it would be longer than the drive to Montreal if the highway followed a sane route), and a bigger effort if you factor in the border.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The map and the book were by Joel Garreau, in the 70s. He was or is a Franco-American (I guess judging by the name) journalist in Washington. It was an interesting read 25 years ago.

Originally Posted by lio45

Even in the 1970s I'm all but certain these regional groupings left lots to be desired. That partly-Ontarian pale blue donut surrounding the darker (Halifax-colored...) Upper Midwest is ridiculous, among other things.

Were the cultural traits of the US and Canada really that different between the 70s and now such that these groupings were that much more valid then?

For instance, did the French connection between Quebec and Louisiana really decline (or increase) that much within one generation, or did the cross-border influence of Canada or Mexico really shift the influence of what regions cultural belong that much in a generation.

Also, I get that the counter-culture and likely the environmentalist movement was fresh in the minds of people in the 70s, but also is being left-wing really that much of a defining feature of the west coast (to the exclusion of other big metro areas)?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Were the cultural traits of the US and Canada really that different between the 70s and now such that these groupings were that much more valid then?

For instance, did the French connection between Quebec and Louisiana really decline (or increase) that much within one generation, or did the cross-border influence of Canada or Mexico really shift the influence of what regions cultural belong that much in a generation.

Also, I get that the counter-culture and likely the environmentalist movement was fresh in the minds of people in the 70s, but also is being left-wing really that much of a defining feature of the west coast (to the exclusion of other big metro areas)?

Where are you from Capsicum? I've been wondering about this for a while.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Agreed.

I would say the idea that there might be quasi-nations that cross international state and provincial boundaries is an interesting one that may have some truth. But not with these borders and labels.

Setting aside "the two solitudes" within Canada, I find that Anglo-America and Anglo-Canada are really homogenous in terms of what is "mainstream" culture.

True, there are subcultures or areas that are very distinctive but they seem either small or localized (eg. religious subcultures like the Amish, the cultures practiced by first generation immigrant enclaves, or in the case of territory with somewhat of their own sovereignty, Native American reservations), and not large blocs that form "nations" like those argued in the "nations" of North America book or map.

Also, cultural differences based on socio-economic status (eg. poor neighborhoods or working class, economically struggling towns vs. the suburbs and wealthy downtowns of big cities) seem to me to override regional cultural differences among English-speaking North Americans.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Where are you from Capsicum? I've been wondering about this for a while.

I am originally from the Greater Toronto area and spent most of my youth and formative years there but have spent most of my adult life living in various American cities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Setting aside "the two solitudes" within Canada, I find that Anglo-America and Anglo-Canada are really homogenous in terms of what is "mainstream" culture.

True, there are subcultures or areas that are very distinctive but they seem either small or localized (eg. religious subcultures like the Amish, the cultures practiced by first generation immigrant enclaves, or in the case of territory with somewhat of their own sovereignty, Native American reservations), and not large blocs that form "nations" like those argued in the "nations" of North America book or map.

Also, cultural differences based on socio-economic status (eg. poor neighborhoods or working class, economically struggling towns vs. the suburbs and wealthy downtowns of big cities) seem to me to override regional cultural differences among English-speaking North Americans.



I am originally from the Greater Toronto area and spent most of my youth and formative years there but have spent most of my adult life living in various American cities.

Ok thanks. I was wondering because your posting angle isn't really typical of Canadians but it is not typical of Americans either.

Regarding Louisiana if anything things have gotten closer with Quebec (and also Maritime Acadians) in recent decades. It started with the Cajun singer Zachary Richard who became a huge star here in the 70s. Prior to that we were barely aware of each other's existence.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Setting aside "the two solitudes" within Canada, I find that Anglo-America and Anglo-Canada are really homogenous in terms of what is "mainstream" culture.

True, there are subcultures or areas that are very distinctive but they seem either small or localized (eg. religious subcultures like the Amish, the cultures practiced by first generation immigrant enclaves, or in the case of territory with somewhat of their own sovereignty, Native American reservations), and not large blocs that form "nations" like those argued in the "nations" of North America book or map.

Also, cultural differences based on socio-economic status (eg. poor neighborhoods or working class, economically struggling towns vs. the suburbs and wealthy downtowns of big cities) seem to me to override regional cultural differences among English-speaking North Americans.

.

I like to put this question to what I call an "alien-ness" test.

As in, how much stuff is "alien" to someone? As in never having heard of it. And if they haven't, how accessible is it to them? Obviously in the latter case language is a big factor, but not the sole factor: some foods can be more alien to us than others based on what is generally considered gross in our culture. Soup with fish eyes in it (as in parts of Asia) is more alien and less accessible to me than frog's legs (as in France).

Also, you don't have to partake in something in order for it to not be "alien". Manhattanites may not be into Nascar and don't eat grits. But they've heard of them and know they exist. They have a reasonably high degree of familiarity with them. That's how you define your cultural space, not only (as people often do) by the stuff you personally partake in.

Which brings me to the recent death of Tragically Hip singer Gord Downie. This is perfect yet rare example of Canadian culture that is largely alien to Americans. Downie and his band were household names pretty much *only* in Canada. (Well, Anglo-Canada in fact, as they aren't that well know in Quebec, but let's not quibble.)

But as I said this is a rare example of where the Canadian and American mainstreams *don't* overlap. Well, generally the situation is that the American mainstream overlaps into Canada, and as for mainstream *only* Canadian stuff that enjoys ubiquity coast-to-coast, well... there isn't that much.

Now, there are also cases where uniquely Canadian stuff does enjoy a kind of cult following in the US. Trailer Park Boys is one example.

Knowing my reputation on this forum some would expect me to dismiss this as not being Canadian culture because it has some US traction, but that's not my view.

The reason being that Trailer Park Boys doesn't pretend to be anything other than a show about a trailer park in Nova Scotia, Canada. If the same crew had done the same show but set it in Paducah, Kentucky, then it would be a different story. (As they did with Wayne's World and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.)

Just because I as a Canadian know Mad Max doesn't make it any less Australian. Now, if they had taken the same story and set it in Arizona... that would make it a lot less Australian.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I like to put this question to what I call an "alien-ness" test.

As in, how much stuff is "alien" to someone? As in never having heard of it. And if they haven't, how accessible is it to them? Obviously in the latter case language is a big factor, but not the sole factor: some foods can be more alien to us than others based on what is generally considered gross in our culture. Soup with fish eyes in it (as in parts of Asia) is more alien and less accessible to me than frog's legs (as in France).

Also, you don't have to partake in something in order for it to not be "alien". Manhattanites may not be into Nascar and don't eat grits. But they've heard of them and know they exist. They have a reasonably high degree of familiarity with them. That's how you define your cultural space, not only (as people often do) by the stuff you personally partake in.

Which brings me to the recent death of Tragically Hip singer Gord Downie. This is perfect yet rare example of Canadian culture that is largely alien to Americans. Downie and his band were household names pretty much *only* in Canada. (Well, Anglo-Canada in fact, as they aren't that well know in Quebec, but let's not quibble.)

But as I said this is a rare example of where the Canadian and American mainstreams *don't* overlap. Well, generally the situation is that the American mainstream overlaps into Canada, and as for mainstream *only* Canadian stuff that enjoys ubiquity coast-to-coast, well... there isn't that much.

Now, there are also cases where uniquely Canadian stuff does enjoy a kind of cult following in the US. Trailer Park Boys is one example.

Knowing my reputation on this forum some would expect me to dismiss this as not being Canadian culture because it has some US traction, but that's not my view.

The reason being that Trailer Park Boys doesn't pretend to be anything other than a show about a trailer park in Nova Scotia, Canada. If the same crew had done the same show but set it in Paducah, Kentucky, then it would be a different story. (As they did with Wayne's World and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.)

Just because I as a Canadian know Mad Max doesn't make it any less Australian. Now, if they had taken the same story and set it in Arizona... that would make it a lot less Australian.

As you mention, Gord Downie's death and the tribute given to his musical influence was definitely something that hit home for Canadians specifically, and I can confirm that it seems to be my Canadian friends, not American friends who are reacting/talking about it.

There seems to be a spectrum of how much Canadian artists/celebrities shed their "Canadian-ness" or don't bring it up at all. Someone like Samantha Bee, Neil Young, or Mike Myers pretty much only mentions being Canadian in passing and basically act like Americans existing in an American media landscape. Other times Canadians will be recognized as distinctively Canadian by Americans but are still well known in the US, eg. Shania Twain, Celine Dion, the band Rush. Then there's the more "known domestically" (Anglo-)Canadian icons like the Tragically Hip, the Barenaked Ladies etc.

Sometimes the Canadian-ness of a famous celebrity will be used as a foil in discussion against some aspect of American culture (eg. Neil Young's Southern Man and the response with Sweet Home Alabama with regard to him as an outsider critiquing southern society), but the focus is still on American culture itself, with Canada existing only to serve to highlight or contrast with it.

The thing with alien-ness more broadly though is that you can have really localized exposure or lack thereof of things brought to your attention in your vicinity. People living in warm climates probably find winter sports more unfamiliar, and people who never lived in arid climates like Phoenix probably see the desert landscape as "exotic". People who've lived their lives in a city where all their friends have immigrant families probably don't sweat when they have to repeat something to a non-native English speaker, compared to someone who grew up with only native-born people of families present in an area for generations. People in big cosmopolitan cities, especially those with certain ethnic enclaves or influences that are much diminished in the national discourse outside of these areas will find a range of things less alien than people not exposed to stuff outside non-Anglo-American culture. For example, non-Chinese people in the Bay Area or Vancouver are more likely to take for granted that people know what dim sum is, and someone from Miami is more likely to assume someone knows what Santeria is without having to explain it, even if they're not from the Spanish Caribbean. Many Canadians recognize someone wearing a turban and carrying a kirpan as a Sikh while it seems proportionally fewer non-Sikh Americans are familiar with Sikhism as a religion. Even within one culture but between generations, what is familiar or not can differ. I'm sure the American culture of decades or generations back is just as alien as something of a different culture. Among some American teenagers living today, "I Love Lucy" is probably going to get blank stares, just like a TV series from a foreign country would.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Soup with fish eyes in it (as in parts of Asia) is more alien and less accessible to me than frog's legs (as in France).

Accessibility is a thing but familiarity in terms of "alien" or not can be a matter of choice though. People easily walk past restaurants serving things they'd never want to eat in cities all the time. Someone can visit an Asian restaurant and enjoy his or her regular dish and never order the fish head soup, even if it's located on the same menu.

If I don't take astrology or fortune telling seriously, I don't really care to walk into the door of that place whose window advertises psychic services to determine my future fate for $20, even if that place has been there in my neighborhood since childhood. To me it'd just be an odd thing others want to do or believe in.

Guns are a big part of supposedly what distinguishes American from Canadian culture, but an American with no interest in guns and who never visits gun shops or shooting ranges, even if they're not far away, could find the habit of enjoying shooting as foreign as a person who lives in a country with strict gun control.

Groups like the Amish have no problem accessing mainstream American culture but choose not to, even if geographically you only have to cross over a few miles to the next town over to be exposed to it.

[Acajack]

I get that, and it is pretty much was what I was saying. I am a big believer in "cultural osmosis" - stuff you are exposed to influences you even you're indifferent or even hostile to it.

Catholics in the Protestant-dominated Bible Belt are more conservative and traditional than most Catholics in western countries.

Many Christians in Middle Eastern countries observe a kind of quasi-Ramadan and the women sometimes wear something on their heads. This is not always out of fear - they are cultural practices adopted over time.

[Architype]

I thought this to be a strangely random topic, but then remembered the odd statistic about the relatively large number of Americans living in Quebec City. Are they French Canadians returning home?

Cities outside of the United States with the largest population of American overseas citizens

1. Vancouver, Canada: 183,155
2. Tel Aviv, Israel: 102,442
3. Toronto, Canada: 78,371
4. London, United Kingdom: 61,490
5. Montreal, Canada: 44,597
6. San Jose, Costa Rica: 44,191
7. Quebec City, Canada: 37,002
8. Tokyo, Japan: 34,302
9. Hong Kong, China: 34,042
10. Melbourne, Australia: 27,709

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanco...pat-population

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Architype

I thought this to be a strangely random topic, but then remembered the odd statistic about the relatively large number of Americans living in Quebec City. Are they French Canadians returning home?



http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanco...pat-population

I always thought that Calgary would be high up on that list.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

I thought this to be a strangely random topic, but then remembered the odd statistic about the relatively large number of Americans living in Quebec City. Are they French Canadians returning home?



http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanco...pat-population

Yes, most of those "Americans" living in Quebec City have names like Pierre Pelletier and Marie Rivard.

If you look up stats on "ethnic" communities in Quebec, there is a category for "Americans" - e.g. people born in the U.S. but now living in this province.

I can't recall the exact figure but according to these stats a clear majority of Americans living in Quebec (60-70% I think) have French as a native language.