wikieditor
10,503
edits
History: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It is not possible to understand the current political situation of Québec and the reasons for the existence of its strong independence movement without a solid knowledge of its history. | It is not possible to understand the current political situation of Québec and the reasons for the existence of its strong independence movement without a solid knowledge of its history. | ||
Real history is made of out a countless number of events. No historian ever intended nor was ever expected to enumerate and explain them in totality. When talking about the history of a given human community, a number of events must be selected and interpreted to make up a "story" with a beginning, a progression, and some sort of a conclusion. All over the world, in the past and in the present, patriotism and political leanings | Real history is made of out a countless number of events. No historian ever intended nor was ever expected to enumerate and explain them in totality. When talking about the history of a given human community, a number of events must be selected and interpreted to make up a "story" with a beginning, a progression, and some sort of a conclusion. All over the world, in the past and in the present, patriotism and political leanings have weighted a great deal in the selection and interpretation of the events making up the tale of "national history". There is no exception for Canada or Quebec. | ||
Many English language resources you will find on the Internet (type "Canada" or "Canadian" and "History" in Google) present a very superficial overview of Canadian history as it is understood and promoted by Canadian nationalists and Unionists who defend the point of view suitable to the purpose of the political power in Ottawa, even when | Many English language resources you will find on the Internet (type "Canada" or "Canadian" and "History" in Google) present a very superficial overview of Canadian history as it is understood and promoted by Canadian nationalists and Unionists who defend the point of view suitable to the purpose of the political power in Ottawa, even when this point of view is morally wrong and/or supported by logically flawed arguments and/or factually incorrect assertions. In fiction, nobody expects a tale to be written using an unbiased and scientific collection of facts as sole material. In the writing of human history, the national fairy tales taught in schools are too often closer to fiction than non-fiction. | ||
In the view of a certain minority of interested individuals and their paid or fooled followers, it was decided that "modern" Canada was born with the "confederal" regime of 1867. This is the | In the view of a certain minority of interested individuals and their paid or fooled followers, it was decided that "modern" Canada was born with the "confederal" regime of 1867. This is the dominant perspective in Canada. The most important events of the history of Québec (and therefore also Canada) which occurred before 1867 are therefore sketched out in a manner which pays little respect to the important facts necessary to understand the nature of today's conflict between Québec and the federal state of Canada and yesterday's conflict between Québec and the British government. | ||
Québec, it is said by these nationalists, is only a province like the others, and it is therefore wrong to suggest the idea and even worst to ask for a special arrangement between Québec and the federal state. The secession of Québec is treason and the equality of provinces is placed above and made in opposition to the equality of nations. But those same people hold the view that Quebec is not a nation, as they have learn from their historians, so there could not exist any good argument following from the premise that Québec is a political nation and was such even before the creation of the federal Dominion of Canada in 1867. In simple terms, their view is the history written by the victor, the one which is not interested in giving an accurate account of the way in which the victories were achieved and the human cost involved in achieving them. | Québec, it is said by these nationalists, is only a province like the others, and it is therefore wrong to suggest the idea and even worst to ask for a special arrangement between Québec and the federal state. The secession of Québec is treason and the equality of provinces is placed above and made in opposition to the equality of nations. But those same people hold the view that Quebec is not a nation, as they have learn from their historians, so there could not exist any good argument following from the premise that Québec is a political nation and was such even before the creation of the federal Dominion of Canada in 1867. In simple terms, their view is the history written by the victor, the one which is not interested in giving an accurate account of the way in which the victories were achieved and the human cost involved in achieving them. | ||