Everyone, including my morning newspaper" keeps reporting the
essence of Parizeau's shameful fiasco as blaming the narrow defeat on
"money [read Anglophones, Jews, etc.???] and the ethnic vote." This
misses the essence, I think. That phrase was juxtaposed with "60% of
us" voted Oui. This constructs a dichotomy between true Quebeckers
and others who live in Quebec but are not "us," not part of the
Quebec nation or "people." It parallels Bouchard's remark about the
low birth rate among "white" Quebeckers. It also parallels a
commentator (a francophone political science professor, I believe) on
CBC the next day who complained that, as a consequence of FEDERAL
immigration policies, most of the immigrants in Montreal think of
Montreal firstly as Montreal, Canada (not first as Montreal, Quebec);
and, he added, Quebec needs Montreal, Quebeckers need to feel at home
in Montreal. Again "Quebec" excluded a whole bunch of people
(including perhaps some of my in-laws, whose family has been in
Quebec since the 16th century) who live comfortably in Montreal and
want Montreal to be Canadian (and who presumably voted Non).
It is this dichotomy that is rhetorically constructed, this
dichotomy which (however positively pro what it constructs as the
Quebec "people") creates the kind of nationalism Russ (among others)
has been deploring. As Burke emphasizes,
consubstantiality/identification inevitably implies division. But
this dichotomy, even if not racist in intent, even if asserted by
those who genuinely believe in pluralist (post)modern nationalism,
ends up constructing racist effects.
Oops! Got to run. A student needs help with grammar.
Rick Coe
