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

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another thing is that neither in Miami nor anywhere in the U.S. do you really have non-Hispanics integrating and assimilating to the Hispanic population. No matter how large or dominant it is demographically.

In Miami you don't see African-Americans, Haitians, anglos or anyone else "becoming" Hispanics.

In fact the movement is in the other direction, with younger Hispanics becoming anglos, or at least becoming English dominant.

Even if you go to places like Laredo which are 95% Hispanic, an Indo-American kid will integrate into the broader American anglo culture and will only acquire those snippets of Hispanic culture that have become mainstream Americana.

This is quite different from Montreal/Quebec where a growing segment of the population is made of people of non-francophone origin but who live pretty much seamlessly as francophone Québécois.

It's been estimated that about 15% of the people who are categorized as "francophones" in Montreal aren't of francophone origins.

In Miami you don't really have anything like this: comedian Mariana Mazza. Born and raised in Montreal. Lebanese mother and Uruguyan father.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puoWFbseVU4

Not to mention the other two guys in the video. One of them is called Dave Morgan.

and this (annoying) guy:

sagamontreal

Yé trop de bonne heure

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another thing is that neither in Miami nor anywhere in the U.S. do you really have non-Hispanics integrating and assimilating to the Hispanic population. No matter how large or dominant it is demographically.

Puerto Rico.

Maybe not in current times, but in the 19th century, Germans, Italians, Irish, Corsicans, French, and even Syrians and Chinese people immigrated to and integrated/married into the local communities of Puerto Rico, having descendants speaking Spanish today.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Puerto Rico.

Maybe not in current times, but in the 19th century, Germans, Italians, Irish, Corsicans, French, and even Syrians and Chinese people immigrated to and integrated/married into the local communities of Puerto Rico, having descendants speaking Spanish today.

Yeah, Puerto Rico I guess. If you count that as the U.S.

[Capsicum]

If we're talking about a US state, New Mexico comes closer than others to providing some legal provisioning in Spanish, and is closer to "Spanish speakers as charter group" than "Spanish-speakers as seen as immigrants" but I don't know if transplants or immigrants to New Mexico who don't speak Spanish pick it up either.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if you go to places like Laredo which are 95% Hispanic, an Indo-American kid will integrate into the broader American anglo culture and will only acquire those snippets of Hispanic culture that have become mainstream Americana.

What about learning Spanish in high school/college? Many, if not most Americans take Spanish as the language requirement as there is sometimes a language requirement to graduate. The fact that people most commonly choose, or are offered Spanish as opposed to say, German or Italian, probably means that at least Spanish is seen as of wide or practical importance in the US relative to other non-English languages.

Historically, I know French was actually quite commonly the language people chose as their second language learned in school.

[Capsicum]

It appears that Spanish in the US occupies some vague "middle ground" between on the one hand the solidly entrenched legal status of French in Canada federally, and the provisioning at least in principle in places where Francophone communities exist in Anglo Canada, and on the other hand something like the private, home languages, that exist due to immigration, but had little sway outside enclaves either in the past or present, like German or Ukrainian in the American and Canadian areas of the Midwest or prairies, Italian in the Northeast US, Chinese languages in Chinatowns etc.

Spanish is obviously more mainstream in the US than most "immigrant languages" as evidenced by people being familiar enough that it is often the default "second language" in situations like deciding what class to take in school or deciding what to print as second language on packaging labels and hearing the option of service in it on the phone or in stores (sometimes to give the illusion that it holds as much sway as French in Canada), but yet not enough to be mainstream that its existence holds much challenge to English and there is easily pushback by English-speakers if anyone dares suggest that the onus is on the English-speaker to learn Spanish rather than the Spanish speaker to learn English.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

If we're talking about a US state, New Mexico comes closer than others to providing some legal provisioning in Spanish, and is closer to "Spanish speakers as charter group" than "Spanish-speakers as seen as immigrants" but I don't know if transplants or immigrants to New Mexico who don't speak Spanish pick it up either.

That would be the closest case, but I doubt many newcomers have integrated with Spanish speakers there in the past 100-150 years. Most people descended from that charter Spanish speaker group are English dominant or English only speakers today anyway.

Although it's interesting that in that part of the U.S. I believe there are some aboriginal communities that are at least partly Spanish speaking.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What about learning Spanish in high school/college? Many, if not most Americans take Spanish as the language requirement as there is sometimes a language requirement to graduate. The fact that people most commonly choose, or are offered Spanish as opposed to say, German or Italian, probably means that at least Spanish is seen as of wide or practical importance in the US relative to other non-English languages.

Historically, I know French was actually quite commonly the language people chose as their second language learned in school.

There is no doubt that Spanish is THE second language in the U.S. but mandatory Spanish classes in school now and then aren't going to make Bhupinder Srivastava into anything different (relative to Spanish or Hispanics) from what high school French classes in Calgary are going to do for Dave Friesen as hypothetical francophone/French Canadian/Franco-Albertan.

[Capsicum]

This blog post (written by a Canadian political philosophy professor) has a few paragraphs in part arguing that there's a big issue in treating Spanish in the US with an ambiguous status -- not a national language, but with some, but incomplete provision for its speakers, which receives backlash from native English-speakers.

The idea is that it is better to stick with one or the other, so the lines are clear -- either make English solely the national language, and then it's clear that Spanish-speakers have to assimilate and won't be provisioned with legal help in their language, or if the argument's that for places like the southwest they are like a "charter" group, then elevate Spanish to a co-official status, and decide that yes, it deserves the legal provisioning.

http://induecourse.ca/what-the-unite...ration-policy/

[Acajack]

One elephant in the room with Spanish in the U.S. is that the language only continues to grow due to immigration (both legal and illegal).

Turn off the immigration tap and Spanish will decline just like other immigrant languages decline. Perhaps more slowly, but decline it will.

There aren't that many Spanish dominant U.S.-raised Hispanics, and by the time you get to the third generation, most of them aren't really functional in Spanish.

For all the talk of Miami being taken over by the Spanish language, if you ask white collar employers in the city they will tell you that there is a critical shortage of local people with professional-level Spanish. These types of jobs in Miami are mostly filled by people who grew up abroad in Spanish-speaking countries.

This is what happens when you have a 70% Hispanic city but local kids go to school in English, not Spanish. Their Spanish skills are good for driving tour buses with a headset mike, or working in retail, but not for swinging legal or financial deals in that language. (You often have the same challenge here in Canada with francophones from outside Quebec. Though things have gotten a bit better.)

If you look at Canada, the intergenerational continuity for French can be said to be about 97%. That is, the number of French native speakers relative to the number of French native speakers who still speak French as a home language. So there's a three percent loss overall when you count all francophones in Canada. This is entirely due to high assimilation rates of francophones living outside Quebec.

But if you look at Quebec and Montreal it's a bit different.

In Quebec the ratio is 103% and in Montreal it's 104%. This means that there are more people speaking French at home than there are French native speakers. So basically everyone born a francophone is still a francophone today, plus some people of other origins have joined the group.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One elephant in the room with Spanish in the U.S. is that the language only continues to grow due to immigration (both legal and illegal).

Turn off the immigration tap and Spanish will decline just like other immigrant languages decline. Perhaps more slowly, but decline it will.

There aren't that many Spanish dominant U.S.-raised Hispanics, and by the time you get to the third generation, most of them aren't really functional in Spanish.

For all the talk of Miami being taken over by the Spanish language, if you ask white collar employers in the city they will tell you that there is a critical shortage of local people with professional-level Spanish. These types of jobs in Miami are mostly filled by people who grew up abroad in Spanish-speaking countries.

This is what happens when you have a 70% Hispanic city but local kids go to school in English, not Spanish. Their Spanish skills are good for driving tour buses with a headset mike, or working in retail, but not for swinging legal or financial deals in that language. (You often have the same challenge here in Canada with francophones from outside Quebec. Though things have gotten a bit better.)

If you look at Canada, the intergenerational continuity for French can be said to be about 97%. That is, the number of French native speakers relative to the number of French native speakers who still speak French as a home language. So there's a three percent loss overall when you count all francophones in Canada. This is entirely due to high assimilation rates of francophones living outside Quebec.

But if you look at Quebec and Montreal it's a bit different.

In Quebec the ratio is 103% and in Montreal it's 104%. This means that there are more people speaking French at home than there are French native speakers. So basically everyone born a francophone is still a francophone today, plus some people of other origins have joined the group.

Where do you find numbers on inter-generational continuity of languages spoken?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Where do you find numbers on inter-generational continuity of languages spoken?

On the Stats Can site under language.

I take language spoken at home and divide it by mother tongue.

Not everyone agrees that this calculation should be used to measure assimilation but it was used for eons before someone bitched about it because it made things look bad for them.

It's as good a metric as we have to go on, though there can be exceptions I recognize.

If you're a native francophone living in Regina SK and you're not speaking French at least at home, there's a pretty good chance you're not speaking any French at all anymore. I guess in theory a person could be teaching at a French school but have an anglo spouse at home, but realistically how many people would that apply to?

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That would be the closest case, but I doubt many newcomers have integrated with Spanish speakers there in the past 100-150 years. Most people descended from that charter Spanish speaker group are English dominant or English only speakers today anyway.

Although it's interesting that in that part of the U.S. I believe there are some aboriginal communities that are at least partly Spanish speaking.

Some examples of in my view overblown emphasis on the Spanish character of US regions.



As shown in the book "The Nine Nations of North America", treating regional groupings with cultural features as if they were "nations". A bit of a stretch to suggest that you can culturally group parts of Texas and California with the adjacent parts of Mexico. I mean, I know the book talks about cultural values or influence, rather than language alone, but still...

Another example of this kind of thing showing regions described in the book "American Nations" (grouping parts of the US with Latin America again, even grouping Quebec and parts of Louisiana together!)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Some examples of in my view overblown emphasis on the Spanish character of US regions.



As shown in the book "The Nine Nations of North America", treating regional groupings with cultural features as if they were "nations". A bit of a stretch to suggest that you can culturally group parts of Texas and California with the adjacent parts of Mexico. I mean, I know the book talks about cultural values or influence, rather than language alone, but still...

Another example of this kind of thing showing regions described in the book "American Nations" (grouping parts of the US with Latin America again, even grouping Quebec and parts of Louisiana together!)

It's very common to hear Americans say that "being in El Paso feels like being in Mexico", as if there was no difference. But there is a difference for sure. El Paso has Mexican influence for sure - a whole lot of it - but it's still a U.S. city and has lots of cues that give away that fact.

It doesn't feel "just like" Mexico. No way

Nowhere in the continental U.S. does unless you go to some tiny isolated "colonia" hamlet on the Rio Grande right on the border.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's very common to hear Americans say that "being in El Paso feels like being in Mexico", as if there was no difference. But there is a difference for sure. El Paso has Mexican influence for sure - a whole lot of it - but it's still a U.S. city and has lots of cues that give away that fact.

It doesn't feel "just like" Mexico. No way

Nowhere in the continental U.S. does unless you go to some tiny isolated "colonia" hamlet on the Rio Grande right on the border.

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.

[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."

[lio45]

When I visited El Paso what I found fascinating is that it feels very much an American city run the American way, except that nearly everybody running it happens to be ethnically Mexican.

(Which of course means that food, language, etc. will have a Mex flavor. But for everything else, you're in familiar territory.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

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.

One of my first memories of Brampton (circa 2005; the new Cascades' Norampac plant there was a customers of ours) was seeing a brown-skinned guy with a turban driving a white GMC Savana fullsize van with lettering (plumbing company, I think I recall) into a Tim Hortons' drive through. I had no idea it was an ethnic enclave that the time, but that didn't strike me as exotic behavior. Spending more time there over the next few years did confirm to me that it was culturally just like anywhere else in Ontario, except with more Indian restaurants.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Some examples of in my view overblown emphasis on the Spanish character of US regions.



As shown in the book "The Nine Nations of North America", treating regional groupings with cultural features as if they were "nations". A bit of a stretch to suggest that you can culturally group parts of Texas and California with the adjacent parts of Mexico. I mean, I know the book talks about cultural values or influence, rather than language alone, but still...

Another example of this kind of thing showing regions described in the book "American Nations" (grouping parts of the US with Latin America again, even grouping Quebec and parts of Louisiana together!)

I disagree with both maps.

(Also, SSP Canada definitely has matured - you can now call the area where Calgary is "Empty Quarter" and a day later still no shitstorm.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

I disagree with both maps.

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.

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. It also doesn't capture the urban-rural divide which is more important. Boston has more in common with Labrador than some part of NY state a few hours away? When you drive from PEI to NS you go through another nation?

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. I would argue much more distant than anywhere in Canada. Most of the cultural affinities in North America area pretty boring, i.e. one state or province is a lot like the one next door. And the states or provinces tend to be more like other domestic neighbours rather than areas across an international border.