Re: a discussion on OIT: attention moderator

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> > <gabaroo6958@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > . . .
> > > > Unfortunately, that ideology might be what upholds the group
> > > > of the proponent in question, and giving up the belief will
> > > > make it crash. Look what happened in the socialist block after
> > > > they gave up the doctrine. It's all more complicated than you
> > > > would like to believe. Linguistics is a dangerous thing. Most
> > > > East European nations owe their existence to it.
> > >
> > > Look at how Third World dictatorship create enemies
> > > through linguistic differences and thereby prop up
> > > their regimes. On the other hand, Latin America is a
> > > failure because linguistics was not strong enough to
> > > hold it together. Geography defeated it.

Ethnicity defeated it. Hispanic America still contains those tribes
that were obliterated in Angol America. You can't expect them to feel
a common solidarity just because they switched to a new language.

> > > North America
> > > was defeated by ideology: Tories vs. Yankees.

The American Revolution took place before Romanticism and with it
linguistics became an issue.

> > > If linguistics had triumphed, the US would include Canada
> > > and Quebec would probably be another Louisiana.

You just couldn't wait to get your democracy, could you? ;-) Another
100-150 years and Canada had been yours, in orderly fashion.

> > > Yet the historical moment seemed to dictate whether or not
> > > linguistics, geography or ideology would prevail.
> >
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure what you and Torsten mean by "linguistics" in
> > these statements. In regard to Latin America and North America, I
> > think you're referring to shared language, language identity as
> > opposed to political identity. But I don't see why
> > Quebec should become another Louisiana just because it would be
> > surrounded by U.S. English speakers rather than Canadian English
> > speakers ("if linguistics had triumphed"). Or maybe I'm being too
> > critical.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> As a significant part of Canada, Quebec was able to
> maintain its language and culture. Louisiana, as a
> miniscule part of the US, was completely swamped and
> forced to adopt English. The Quebecois often complain
> about their fate in Canada. Whatever the merits of
> that argument, their fate would have been
> significantly worse as part of the US --in cultural
> and linguisitc terms. Millions of New Englanders and
> others are of Quebecois ancestry but the French
> language AFAIK, doesn't even make it across the
> border. I lived for a year in NY on the Quebecois
> border where almost everyone was of Quebecois ancestry
> and none of them spoke a word of French, although
> Quebec was right next to them.

By the time Canada received (not took) its independence, the
Quebequois had had time to get their victim story together (Acadia,
Angeline etc), and Romanticism flourished in England too.


Torsten