ahc-mainly-francophone-but-liberal-secular-maybe-even-anticlerical-quebec, by 1890

[Rob]

Quebec's identity over the centuries (except perhaps the 21st?) has been tied up with conservative, Catholic values. How can we have a Quebec that is still mainly Francophone, but with a more progressive, forward-looking tradition.

.....Since Quebecois culture has evolved a lot over the last 20-50 years, I want to take the 20th and 21st centuries out of consideration. Liberal, secular Francophone Quebec needs to arrive by 1890.

....and before anybody says it, because somebody always does: it cannot repeat not repeat not repeat not be Huguenot-settled.

[e***@gmail.com]

Post by Rob
Quebec's identity over the centuries (except perhaps the 21st?) has been tied up with conservative, Catholic values. How can we have a Quebec that is still mainly Francophone, but with a more progressive, forward-looking tradition.
.....Since Quebecois culture has evolved a lot over the last 20-50 years, I want to take the 20th and 21st centuries out of consideration. Liberal, secular Francophone Quebec needs to arrive by 1890.
....and before anybody says it, because somebody always does: it cannot repeat not repeat not repeat not be Huguenot-settled.

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:16:30 -0700 (PDT), Rob

Post by Rob
Quebec's identity over the centuries (except perhaps the 21st?) has been tied up with conservative, Catholic values. How can we have a Quebec that is still mainly Francophone, but with a more progressive, forward-looking tradition.
.....Since Quebecois culture has evolved a lot over the last 20-50 years, I want to take the 20th and 21st centuries out of consideration. Liberal, secular Francophone Quebec needs to arrive by 1890.
....and before anybody says it, because somebody always does: it cannot repeat not repeat not repeat not be Huguenot-settled.

Well the obvious way would be to have Quebec adopt the ideals of the
French Revolution but after 1763 the dominant attitude in Quebec was
that France had abandoned them and that they had to make the best deal
they could to preserve their culture. This attitude doubled after the
Durham report in the 1830s which advocated what we would call today
de-francization.

I would think the most obvious way to keep Quebec in French hands
after 1763 would be for Britain to lust after acquiring French
possessions in the Caribbean and India rather than North America.
Britain's victory 1756-63 wasn't great enough to require cession of
all three. (Obviously French Quebec in 1776 would not have been
invaded by the 13 colonies as it was in 1775.)

If France does better than OTL perhaps Britain is desperate enough to
give militia office G Washington a regular army commission. That alone
has major effects 20 years later even if nothing else changes.

Yet another POD would be the capture of Riel in 1870 rather than 1885
making the political chaos in Quebec happen 15 years earlier than OTL.
(This has huge knock-on effects in western Canada but we're talking
Quebec here)

[Robert Woodward]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:16:30 -0700 (PDT), Rob

Post by Rob
Quebec's identity over the centuries (except perhaps the 21st?) has been
tied up with conservative, Catholic values. How can we have a Quebec that is
still mainly Francophone, but with a more progressive, forward-looking
tradition.
.....Since Quebecois culture has evolved a lot over the last 20-50 years, I
want to take the 20th and 21st centuries out of consideration. Liberal,
secular Francophone Quebec needs to arrive by 1890.
....and before anybody says it, because somebody always does: it cannot
repeat not repeat not repeat not be Huguenot-settled.

Well the obvious way would be to have Quebec adopt the ideals of the
French Revolution but after 1763 the dominant attitude in Quebec was
that France had abandoned them and that they had to make the best deal
they could to preserve their culture. This attitude doubled after the
Durham report in the 1830s which advocated what we would call today
de-francization.
I would think the most obvious way to keep Quebec in French hands
after 1763 would be for Britain to lust after acquiring French
possessions in the Caribbean and India rather than North America.
Britain's victory 1756-63 wasn't great enough to require cession of
all three. (Obviously French Quebec in 1776 would not have been
invaded by the 13 colonies as it was in 1775.)

It might be better that some of French North America was ceded (e.g.,
everything south of the Great Lakes). This would result in significant
London-colonial dispute over the western territories (especially if
London passed a "Trans-Appalachian" act as a substitute for OTL Quebec
Act (but otherwise much like). Otherwise, the colonies would be
surrounded by French territory and would be less adverse to a British
military presence.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 21:55:35 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by The Horny Goat
I would think the most obvious way to keep Quebec in French hands
after 1763 would be for Britain to lust after acquiring French
possessions in the Caribbean and India rather than North America.
Britain's victory 1756-63 wasn't great enough to require cession of
all three. (Obviously French Quebec in 1776 would not have been
invaded by the 13 colonies as it was in 1775.)

It might be better that some of French North America was ceded (e.g.,
everything south of the Great Lakes). This would result in significant
London-colonial dispute over the western territories (especially if
London passed a "Trans-Appalachian" act as a substitute for OTL Quebec
Act (but otherwise much like). Otherwise, the colonies would be
surrounded by French territory and would be less adverse to a British
military presence.

Bear in mind that following 1763 Quebec was NOT seen as a red-hot
British priority - else the Quebec Act would have taken much less than
7 years to pass!

As for a 'trans-Appalachian' act, that was basically what the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 (the one that pretty much all Canadian laws on
the subject of aboriginal peoples are based on) was about. With nearly
250 years hindsight it could be argued Canada had more cause to damn
George III than the United States based on that alone.

Certainly the current interpretation of that proclamation is at least
as far from the original as the Second amendment and both have seen
major impacts on their respective body politics.

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 21:55:35 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by The Horny Goat
I would think the most obvious way to keep Quebec in French hands
after 1763 would be for Britain to lust after acquiring French
possessions in the Caribbean and India rather than North America.
Britain's victory 1756-63 wasn't great enough to require cession of
all three. (Obviously French Quebec in 1776 would not have been
invaded by the 13 colonies as it was in 1775.)

It might be better that some of French North America was ceded (e.g.,
everything south of the Great Lakes). This would result in significant
London-colonial dispute over the western territories (especially if
London passed a "Trans-Appalachian" act as a substitute for OTL Quebec
Act (but otherwise much like). Otherwise, the colonies would be
surrounded by French territory and would be less adverse to a British
military presence.

Bear in mind that following 1763 Quebec was NOT seen as a red-hot
British priority - else the Quebec Act would have taken much less than
7 years to pass!
As for a 'trans-Appalachian' act, that was basically what the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 (the one that pretty much all Canadian laws on
the subject of aboriginal peoples are based on) was about. With nearly
250 years hindsight it could be argued Canada had more cause to damn
George III than the United States based on that alone.
Certainly the current interpretation of that proclamation is at least
as far from the original as the Second amendment and both have seen
major impacts on their respective body politics.

Is it possible to clarify your statement about the current
interpretation, or would you get BoP'd for doing so?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by The Horny Goat
As for a 'trans-Appalachian' act, that was basically what the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 (the one that pretty much all Canadian laws on
the subject of aboriginal peoples are based on) was about. With nearly
250 years hindsight it could be argued Canada had more cause to damn
George III than the United States based on that alone.
Certainly the current interpretation of that proclamation is at least
as far from the original as the Second amendment and both have seen
major impacts on their respective body politics.

Is it possible to clarify your statement about the current
interpretation, or would you get BoP'd for doing so?

The Royal Proclamation of his Majesty King George III can be found at
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/royal_proclamation_1763/

and by Canadian aboriginal peoples have been considered their
constitution and the basis of their right to pretty much anything they
want in Canada.

This has been interpreted "liberally" by the courts which in
aboriginal circles means "we get everything we want" while is
considered "once again the taxpayer gets screwed over yet again". It
has been argued by some that escaping from the onerous language of
this declaration was one of the primary causes of the American
Revolution though is considered to be still binding in Canada. (Well
maybe not the parts about "West Florida" and "East Florida".....)

BoP is generally considered in this newsgroup to mean exclusively US
matters with the exception of the immediate run up to an election in
the UK, Canada or Australia all 3 of which have several regular
posters in soc.history.what-if.

In practice what that means is that you'll probably get flamed for
saying "Donald Trump is a bastard" but not for saying "Teresa May is a
bitch" or "Justin Trudeau is a bastard". (Since his parents were
married less than 3 miles from my home I don't think that's literally
true though some would definitely consider him a "complete idiot"
particularly in light of his recent trip to India)