Talk:Robert Bourassa's speech on the end of the Meech Lake Accord

Not being a Canadian, I don't know enough about this article to be sure, and I'm certainly not in a position to correct it, but it sure seems like it's written from a pro-Quebec nationalist perspective and is therefore horribly POV. --Robert Merkel 13:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Horribly? How so? I am willing to listen. The article states facts. Maybe I can clarify things for you here, if you tell me what passages you are refering to; I will be happy to, in fact. I actually feel, on the contrary, that the article paints a very good picture of Robert Bourassa and portrays him as a uniter of both sides at the moment of the end of the Meech Lake Accord, while also stating, as the fair counterbalance, what was subsequently seen as the more negative aspects. Please give me your questions and I will be happy to answer them. --Liberlogos 14:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On rereading the article more carefully, my initial comment was overly hasty. Sorry. I still have some questions/comments, though. One thing that seems to be missing is the non-Quebecois Canadian reaction to this speech; the article describes the political ramifications within Quebec in a quite detailed manner, but not outside. Secondly, if you have the chance (access to Lexis-Nexis or its equivalent) could you dig up some relevant quotes from politicians, newspaper editorial, or other relevant primary sources, to give words to the general impressions you give in the sections "description" and "reaction". --Robert Merkel 14:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I do not mind. I am happy that this gives us a reason to discuss the subject. :P Especially when the dialogue is conducted in a gentlemanly manner, as it is here the case. I do not have access to Lexis-Nexis. Hmm. Little has been said about the Canadian reaction to the speech... I know that Jean-François Lisée (he is an perspicacious, respected journalist and past adviser to Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard), in the books mentioned in the article, said that Bourassa called a worried English Canadian provincial Premier the very next day, telling him in private that he would not accomplish Quebec sovereignty. Around the same time, Bourassa was being nebulous in public about his stance. To the question from journalists Êtes-vous fédéraliste? ("Are you a federalist?", federalist in the Quebec sense), he did not answer, stating something akin to It is a question of semantics. This worry of the English Canadian Premier was possibly felt by part of the population of English Canada. Little sympathy can be found for Quebec independentists in English Canada. It is a bit in contrast to England or France, for example, that did have some people supporting independence for Ireland and Algeria, respectively, before it actually happened. The reasons for this probably lie in sociology and history.

This article has Lisée suming up and supporting parts of this analysis (in French, however). I may review it soon and bring here some translated quotes. I can try to find quotes elsewhere, although it obviously will not be an easy task. Most of what is stated in the article is self-evident in Quebec history. It would be easier if you pointed out some of the main things that, from your point of view, for a foreign reader like you, makes you wish for further documentation. I am curious and eager to hear it and I'll explain the historical context. I can try, along with other Quebec history buffs of Wikipedia, to find references to the Canadian response to the speech. The speech might have given the impression to some Canadians that Bourassa was on the verge of becoming independentist... But the major mood showings coming from Canadians, in regards to what is called in Quebec the National Question, are mostly related to independentists. Federalist nationalists are usually less considered.

It is, however, easier to speak of the reaction of Canada to the general reaction and nationalist surge of the Quebec population at that time (rather than to the speech specifically). A non-negligible part of English Canada was feeling frustration (ironically) and a quite sharp new wave of cold-shoulder rejection appeared in some places. Examples can be found in the television images of Ontarians wiping their feet on the national flag of Quebec, a city in Ontario declaring itself English unilingual as a political statement of bravado and the very negative, some would say cruel, depictions of Bourassa himself and Quebecers in English Canadian political cartoons during the Oka Crisis. One cartoon had, for example, very crude representations of Quebecers through (some would say bigoted) stereotpyes of France. Another one had Bourassa portrayed as a tank pilot in front of a defaced Quebec flag, with the four fleur-de-lys replaced by bananas, evoking the view of Quebec (seen more than once) as a Banana republic. The press treatment of Bourassa during the Oka Crisis might be partly a result of his conspicuously nationalist speech and subsequent public statements. But I think that if we leave the Canadian general reaction and get into its reaction to the speech, only the speech, we would have to fall in assumptions, which is not quite appropriate for such an article. This whole thing has also set the stage for what has been called the Quebec bashing in the Canadian press, especially after the 1995 Quebec referendum on independence. Quebec bashing refers to an arguably slanted string of angry articles about Quebec, even internationally, by English Canadians, with unabashed, totally groundless comparisons to such things as nazism (I assure you of the absolute absence of foundation to such accusations) and claims of the superiority of anglo-saxon democracy. These are some of the Canadian reactions that appeared following the general reaction of Quebecers themselves, including its leader in the person of Bourassa.

Thank you for taking interest in this article and Quebec history. I hope I'm not writing too long answers ;) and I will wait for your response to what I have just presented, and for the aspects you wish more information, contextualization about. --Liberlogos 18:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your very detailed reply. If you think there wasn't much specific reaction from the non-Quebecois body politic, IMO the article should state that briefly, and link to other articles which describe the non-Quebecois view on the broader question. As to the desire for quotes, to give an example, consider this passage

This is widely seen as Bourassa's greatest speech. In retrospect, it conveyed the general sentiment of outrage and national pride in the Quebec society of the time. As such, it was, and still is, one of the most vibrant and emblematic symbol of the unity of Quebecers at the time, after years of differences between sovereigntists and federalists.

If the speech was widely seen in this fashion, surely newspaper articles, books, or other commentaries on the period have described it as such. It would be great, if you have ready access to a proper research library to get this stuff, to add a direct quote saying such things.

Thanks again. From faraway Australia, you don't get a very good understanding of Quebec-related issues. If I pay attention to enough of these articles on Wikipedia, hopefully I'll learn something, particularly on the internal Quebecois perspective, something you don't see much of here. --Robert Merkel 23:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi there again. About the quote about the quote (if you will), I have one that is pretty convincing. Bernard Landry, then Vice Premier Ministre du Québec, future Parti Québécois Premier Ministre du Québec, and the current PQ president and Leader of the Opposition, said on April 8, 1998 about the last sentence of the Bourassa speech: [...] the famous sentence of Bourassa, on the 23rd of June, 1990, the most beautiful sentence, in fact, having been pronounced by him in this National Assembly, and one of the most beautiful of all history. [1] Mr. Landry is considered by many as one of the most dedicated PQ leaders to the cause (of independence; the PQ also has the cause of Social Democracy). Also, if you read the article, I do mention a quote, that of Jacques Parizeau saying the words Mon Premier Ministre and offers to find a way for the future of Quebec together with him. The words Mon Premier Ministre is in the history books; it is seen as a definite demonstration of Parizeau being drawn to unite with Bourassa. He also said Je vous tends la main, which means "I present to you my hand".

I understand too clearly what you mean about not getting a good understanding of Quebec-related issues internationally. You know, an Australian has to worry that ousiders might associate her or his country with narrow stereotypes like... kangoroos or the wild outback. A Quebecer has to worry about ousiders simply not knowing the name, or difference, or existence, of her or his people. The Catalans or Basque have, for example, somewhat similar problems, a people without a state has them inescapably, but it feels quite acute sometimes for Quebec. A French sociologist has put this into words by speaking of a touching solitude about Quebecers. If one wishes to understand better the dreams of Quebecers, this is an important aspect to realize: this desire to join the world and to be treated as a dignified equal. The French speaking world knows, understands and sympathizes more, but there is still misunderstandings. Therefore, I always welcome any attempt to understand our people with fondness. Thanks again. --Liberlogos 18:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rickk was right

Asides from the fact that this is the English Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Put it on Wikisource. --Robert Merkel 13:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I spent all this time transcribing the ******* speech, playing and pausing the **** video, for nothing. Hearing what the historical event is about isn't important here. The students and amateurs of speeches, those who actually want to know WHAT WAS SAID, are not welcome here. The respect for the original delivering of the speech, in the original language, isn't important here. Those languages aren't important here, English is. If you want a speech, if you want consideration for another language, there's your ghetto, right there, turn right go straight ahead. Wikipedia motto: WE WANT AS LESS INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. Fantastic. I love those little corporals who go around Wikipedia ripping pages to pieces for purism's sake. Is the english translation acceptable at least (which I'm working on myself also, no copy-paste, word by word, looking, verifying every single word, every single coma, for the very best faithfulness). This makes no sense and Rickk will have to make a better case to convince of voluntarily ripping pages to incomplete states. --Liberlogos 03:17, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Calm down. Nobody said "throw your work in the bin," and nobody said "it's in French so it's not welcome." He said "Put it on Wikisource." Perhaps you're not familiar with Wikisource? You can find it at http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page - it is a sister project to Wikipedia, a "repository of source texts in any language which are either in the public domain, or are released under the GFDL." Put the text in an article there, put a link to it here, and everyone who wants to read the speech will be able to, and I guarantee you that your hard work transcribing and translating will be greatly appreciated by them. —Stormie 03:33, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your respect, Stormie. I simply react badly to forceful action upon one's work, whoever it may be (especially when it is repeated while a controversy is raised, even if the author, is this case, me, may be wrong). I have created the Wikisource article and will link this page to it, and vice versa. Would any partial translation be acceptable, or is any excerpt to be banned? --Liberlogos 03:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the Wikisource article looks just fine to me.. I assume you're intending to work further on the translation? Sorry if any offence was caused by any of the earlier comments, I think that some long-time Wikipedians can be a bit terse in their comments at times - I'm sure I have been myself on some occasions.

By "would any partial translation be acceptable?" I assume you mean in the Wikipedia article? My personal thoughts would be that quotes such as in the last sentence of the Description paragraph are great, but I'd try to avoid excerpts longer than a few sentences. If a section of the article was to be more "quote" than "article", I think it would be a bit unbalanced, and either need the quote trimmed or the article text expanded. But that's just my thoughts. —Stormie 06:29, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you again. I guess I did find terse RickK's phrase it will be enforced. ...but it's behind us and I also did unfortunately react too badly. I absolutely intend to work further on the translation: a full translation will shortly be posted, with all the care I always give to translations and articles in general.

Yes, I meant: a partial translation *within* the Wikipedia article. My phrasing could have indeed been confusing. I was thinking of including the original short translated quote and leave any original (or full) quote to the Wikisource document. I'll think about it. I'd like at least a short brush up of what we're talking about, on this Wikipedia page.

Thanks again for your tact. The most courteous Wikipedians all seem to be Aussies; what's happening? The Northern hemisphere must be going to Hell. ;P --Liberlogos 18:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge

I think this article should be shrunk down a tad and put at the end of the Meech Lake Accord article, which I plan to start expanding later...any objections?Habsfan|t 05:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)