PAPER PRESENTED AT

THE 2005 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

BRITISH SOCIETY FOR POPULATION STUDIES

THE UNIVERSITY OF KENT AT CANTERBURY

12 SEPTEMBER, 2005

MONTREAL NATIONALISM: A DEFAULT MULTIDIMENSIONAL IDENTITY

BY

YOLANDE BOUKA

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY

JOHN C. WHITEHEAD SCHOOL OF DIPLOMACY

boukayol@shu.edu

ABSTRACT:This research was conducted on the urban/local nationalism in Montreal. The intent was

to develop a theory, or to contribute to existing theories, which would explain why many Montrealers who are not of French or British descent define their identity as Montrealers, or Canadians to a much lesser extent, but not as Quebecois, while maintaining ambiguous ties to their homelands. This topic is not only relevant in understanding the crisis faced by Quebecois nationalism, but also helps conceptualize the relative stability of Canada as a country of opened citizenship, but not necessarily as a nation. In order to develop our model, we explored different theories and studies related to the conditions of Montreal, Quebec, and Canada as a whole. We looked into studies addressing nationalism, taking into account language and ethnicity as markers of identity, territorialization of nationality, bilingualism and identity, and transnationalism.

After developing a theoretical framework, a focus group, composed of Montrealers of different ethnic backgrounds, was carried out, during which were discussed: markers of identity, citizenship, patriotism, immigration, perception of identity, and ethnic and civic nationalism. So far our findings have led us to conclude that a growing number of Montrealers coming from ethnic minorities tend to define themselves as members of a nation confined within the Greater Region of Montreal due to the lack of specificity of what the Canadian nation is, and the fact that most people have an ethnic understanding of Quebecois nationalism rather than a civic one. Furthermore, the politicization of language usage in Quebec has led non-“Quebecois de souche” to refuse to take part in the debate that would crystallize language usage with identity, since a strong percentage of minority Montrealers are multilingual.

“I am a Montrealer. When people ask when I travel, I tell them I am Canadian from Montreal, but I am originally from Lebanon… What I know is Montreal, that’s it!”

- Paul Younan, November 2004, Laval, Quebec

In 1996, when the Parti Quebecois launched its referendum, the second in twenty

years, for the secession of the Quebec from the rest of mostly English speaking Canada, it

encountered its strongest opposition from the Greater Region of Montreal. When the final

count was made official and the “yes” vote had failed to win by a little less than one

percent, a drunk and defeated Jacques Parizeau said unapologetically what every citizen

of Canada knew: Quebec had not been able to achieve independence mostly because of

ethnic votes. Evidently, this outburst of emotions cost Parizeau his leadership position of

the Quebecois nationalist movement, but it also lead the entire population of the province

of Quebec to wonder about what defines a true “Quebecois.” There is no doubt that some

Quebecois nationalists started to doubt whether a “Quebec Libre” was even attainable

2

with the problematic, but necessary, growth of the diverse population of Montreal: the

“ethnic votes” roadblock.

Montreal, the second most populous city in Canada, is the metropolitan hub of the

province of Quebec and one of the only true bilingual cities of a the so-called bilingual

country. While Montreal is known for its opened bilingualism, social liberalism and

diversity, it is also the most important city in the French speaking province of Quebec,

home of the strong francophone separatist movement, and where French, in the past thirty

years has become the lingua franca (Lamarre, 2002). Since the end of the 1970s, and

especially during the early 1980s, a very important vague of immigrants and refugees

found a new homeland in the province. For Haitians, Romanians, Lebanese,

Salvadorians, Cambodians, Rwandans, or Armenians, for obvious economic

opportunities and sometimes linguistic reasons, Montreal became one of the favorite

destinations where they had to learn both French and English in order to be economically

viable in the city. While they do not surpass the population of “Quebecois de souche,”

ethnic Montrealers (Montrealers members of a visible minority or an ethnic minority)

have succeeded in shaping the image of Montreal into one of the most multicultural cities

in North America. Today, a growing number of young Montrealers are not “Quebecois de

souche,” but of ethnic1 immigrant descent and the majority of them are trilingual

(Lamarre 2002).

While many ethnic Montrealers have a loose attachment to the Maple Leaf, I

found that they feel like their identity best finds its definition in the region of Montreal.

Evidently, if given the choice between defining themselves as Quebecois or Canadians,

many will draw from the Canadian essence, and not from the Quebecois “fleur-de-lis.”

1 By “ethnic” I mean not of English or French descent.

3

Moreover, one of the interesting characteristics of the young immigrant population in

Montreal is the strong ties that they have with their “native” land. “Native” should be

used loosely since a considerable number of those youth were, if not born, at least mostly

raised in Montreal, and not in some distant land. However, when one is asked where he’s

from, he or she will say that he is from Senegal, Romania, or Lebanon, whether s/he is a

second or third generation citizen. Additionally, the young ethnic Montrealer them speaks

his/her parents’ language at home or with other members of their community, French in

school (thanks to the Bill 101) and English or French with his/her friends who are, at

times, themselves sons or daughters of immigrants from a diversity of countries.

All these interesting characteristics about Montreal and its ethnic population lead

one to ask herself the following questions: Why do a large number ethnic Montrealers

develop such a strong feeling of belonging to the Greater Region of Montreal without

developing a sense of belonging to the Quebecois nation. Furthermore, while young

ethnic Montrealers might pride themselves of their Canadian citizenship, why do they

still not consider themselves connected to the greater Canadian nation? The final question

addresses the reasons why young Montrealers retain a strong sense of transnational

identity towards their parents’ or grandparents’ country.

I- WHAT IS A NATION?

Here we find ourselves faced with the old inevitability of defining the nation.

Plano and Olto offer a simple definition of “nation” and it significance: a “nation” is “[a]

social group that shares a common ideology, common institutions and customs, and a

sense of homogeneity…[T]here is a strong group sense of belonging associated with a

particular territory to be peculiarly its own… The concept of the nation emphasizes the

4

people and their one-ness… [and] involves a socialcultural perception of the group”

(Plano and Olto, 1982). On the other hand, Nolan describes it as “[a] self-conscious,

imagined (but nonetheless real) political community composed of those who share

ethnicity, language, and possibly also a common religion and/or culture, but who may or

may not possess a legally sovereign state” (Nolan, 2002). The second meaning according

to Nolan is “[a] political community that need not to share common race, language, or

culture but has a recognized and defined territory and government derived from historical

circumstance, which it defends with a display of some degree of common purpose…

Such nations might contain one or more regional identities of subnationalities, which,

under different circumstances, could see themselves constitute nations” (Nolan, 2002). Of

course, the latter seem to be more description of a civic nation.

Since the topic of nationalism is at the forefront of this research, it was essential

to review what people like Ernest Renan and Benedict Anderson have developed on the

topic. According to Ernest Renan’s essay What Is a Nation? one makes a dangerous

mistake in reducing nationalism to ethnicity, religion, or “linguistic groups” (Goeff

1996). Instead of taking these overly simplistic routes, Renan concluded that the nation

was “a soul, a spiritual principle” (Goeff 1996). The willingness of a people to choose to

forget, to remember, and to share a common history in which are imbedded a culture and

values, whether in the past or in the present, derives from a purely “spiritual principle”

(Goeff 1996). According to his essay, an individual is not be bound by his/her language

or his/ her race. It is the will of his heart that will dictate the sacrifices the individual is

ready to make for the better good of the community (Goeff 1996). “Yet the essence of a

5

nation is that all individuals have many things is common, also that they have forgotten

many things” (Goeff 1996).

This last statement is considerably important in making sense Benedict

Anderson’s Imagined Communities in which he defines a nation as “an imagined political

community – and imagined as both inherently and sovereign” (Anderson 2003). Benedict

wants to clarify that nations are “imagined” or “spiritual,” not because there is no validity

in their claims of possible common heritage and history, but “imagined” in the way that

the ties have been conceptualized. That is, what defines a nation is not as fascinating as

delineating the “how” it all came together, since one could say that people are not born

into a nation, but rather grow into one.

Still according to Anderson’s Imagined Communities, one cannot deny the

importance of print capitalism and the revolution of vernacular languages. While the

reality of communities might have been rooted in time, the actual defined concept of

nationalism is recent, since in order for a nation to come together under one banner, she

has to be able to communicate with her members what defines her and determines who is

worthy of being called of her. Added to the essentiality of the development of print

capitalism of some sort of vernacular language, is the immediate consequence of the

latter. The community develops into a nation as people feel some sort of simultaneity in

time by imagined linkage (Anderson, 2003). Anderson describes this phenomenon as

when, through the ability of being mutually and consciously aware of the existence of

other members of a so-called nation, the individuals grow together in a feeling oneness.

Added to those attributes of a nation and nationalism, one can add the importance

of allegiance and patriotism as “components of national identity, as their definition refers

6

to the latter; patriotism is indeed defined in terms of attachment and loyalty to a country

and its political community” (Chastenay, and al. 2004).

II - CANADA

a) The Morning When Everything Changed

A few minutes: that’s all it took for the British army to defeat the French on the

Plaines D’Abraham in 1759. Like the Moors loosing Granada to the Reyes Catolicos in

1492, the French capitulated, packed up, and left their population to mercy of the new

British rulers and allowed the creation of Canada, a state with two founding peoples: The

French and the British. It was a unique case in history as the colonizers became the

colonized. The country that we know today is much different from what it was 1867.

Today Canada, the second largest landmass, has a population of approximately 30 million

mostly established close to the southern boarder and has the privilege to have its

economic survival depend on its neighbor: the all-powerful United States of America.

Canada has known very little peace when it comes to determining a system that

would allow both Franco-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants to fully and equally develop as

parts of the same country. But as if it was not enough to attempt to untangle this intricate

situation, the country’s necessity for immigration brought another set of issues for this

newly founded state. As sundry waves of immigration took place, they slowly disrupted

the duality of the Canadian origin system (McAndrew and Janssens, 2004).

b) Canada Compared

While it is sometimes difficult to reach a consensus when distinguishing between

ethnicity and national identity is some parts of the world, many other countries, apart

from Canada, from developed to developing states, are considered to be multinational

7

states: Spain, Nigeria, South Africa, Belgium, and Switzerland amongst many others. For

example, it not disputed whether a French-speaking Swiss is more Swiss than an Italian-

speaking Swiss: the tests of time and history have proven the strength of the Swiss

identity. Hence, what makes other multi-ethnic states so strong in defining their identity

that Canada seems to be lacking? This question, evidently, if valid, can be subject to

endless debate. However the premise of this paper assumes that the Canadian identity is

weak in definition. We can concede, nonetheless, that a robust definition of the Canadian

identity might not be necessary to observe the existence of the strong Canadian nation,

which is embodied beyond the simple citizenship.

Nations, Language and Citizenship by Norman Berdichevsky brings a very

interesting perspective on multi-ethnic countries and language and their implications on

citizenship and identity formation. His main focus is to assess language in identity

formation is spite of other factors such as race, religion, shared territory, or historical

continuity. The book is consisted of twenty-six cases studies which evaluate each country

with respect to how they deal with minorities. Berdichevsky analyses the possibility of

rooting nationalism into linguistic differences or similarities and the ramifications on

citizenship. He attempts to verify whether language has an overriding strength in

determining national identity despite of shared citizenship. For the purpose of this article,

I will summarize two of his case studies: Spain and Switzerland; and I will discuss

Belgium from another scientist’s point of view.

As Spain has built its strengths on multiple coalitions, one of which ousted the

Arab-Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula, the country has seen the majority of its issues

rooted in regional autonomy and the status of each regional language. While there is no

8

doubt that Spain has had it share of issues with the Basque independence movement, the

Castilians, Catalans, Galicians “would not challenge the appellation of “Spaniards”

(Berdichevsky, 2004). If fact, if language were to be the main source of identification, the

Galacians would have found most comfort in uniting with Portugal since Galacian and

Portuguese were at one time identical (Berdichevsky, 2004). While Galacians have

linguistically tremendously more in common with the Portuguese than with the

Castilians, it is common battles and memories that have contributed to the uniting

Spaniard force.

The 700 years of common past of the Swiss have created a strong nation that has

withstood the pressures of wars and invasions. With four official languages and two

religions, Switzerland has enjoyed a great deal of internal stability as its people have

cherished peace, neutrality, and strong democratic institution (Berdichevsky, 2004).

According to the author the key to the Swiss success was in creating a system that

allowed it citizens from different cultural identities to enjoy the “maximum of local self-

rule” (Berdichevsky, 2004). Berdichevsky therefore concludes that the autonomy, the

history of military resistance, and tolerance has allowed the citizens of this state to share

of sense of nationhood, solidarity and sometime exclusive cohesion in spite of linguistic

or cultural difference

Belgium’s geographical location “between countries of linguistic influence” has

been one of the major causes of its history of language conflicts (Mc Andrews and

Janssens, 2004). For a long time, while the country enjoyed a German majority, French

was still considered to be the language of prestige and was therefore promoted in

education. It is not until 1963 that the central government instituted a law territorializing

9

official languages. Therefore, education must be received in Dutch, French or German,

depending on which is the official regional language, unless the head of household can

prove that the language spoken at home is different (Mc Andrews and Janssens, 2004).

Brussels is, however an exception where parents and children can chose and reevaluate

the language of education year to year.

The multi-ethnic and linguistic status of Brussels makes it very interesting to

compare with Montreal. In fact, Mc Andrews and Janssens concluded that according to

the home language date of Brussels, only 60% of the population could be labeled Flemish

or members of the Francophone community. It was also possible to find approximately

10% of Brussels residents to be traditional bilinguals. The striking feature of Brussels is

that out of the 30% of Brussels inhabitants that are non-Belgian nationals, and important

number of them could identity themselves as Belgian but most of them cannot “consider

themselves a member of the Flemish or Francophone community, even if they use French

in their daily communication” (Mc Andrews and Janssens, 2004). Therefore language

usage does not tend to define immigrants identity, while the great ideal of citizenship is

embraced.

c) Canada as a Nation

Hey, I'm not a lumberjack, or a fur trader....I don't live in an igloo or eat blubber, or own a dogsled....

and I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada,although I'm certain they're really really nice.

I have a Prime Minister, not a president.I speak English and French, not American.

And I pronounce it 'about', not 'a boot'.

I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack.I believe in peace keeping, not policing,

diversity, not assimilation,and that the beaver is a truly proud and noble animal.

10

A toque is a hat, a chesterfield is a couch,and it is pronounced 'zed' not 'zee', 'zed' !!!!

Canada is the second largest landmass!The first nation of hockey!

and the best part of North America

My name is Joe!!And I am Canadian!!!

http://www.coolcanuckaward.ca/joe_canadian.htm

Courtesy of Molson

This email has been circulating in Canadian circles for the past few years, and it

cannot but put a smile on a Canadian face. While this email seems to define “who is” and

“who’s not” Canadian, there is a very comparative undertone assuming a comparison

between Canadians and the American hegemony. Regional competition put aside, one

needs to analyze some of the key factors to state patriotism, pride and allegiance and put

them in the Canadian context.

The first one is the flag which is the pride of many Canadian travelers. However,

it is no secret that many Quebecois are unhappy with the current Canadian flag as it bears

no representation of their French origins (Berdichevsky, 2003). In the province of

Quebec, flying the Maple Leaf is a powerful political statement of a united Canada, while

flying the “Fleur-de-Lis” is one that can be easily interpreted as “Vive le Quebec Libre.”

While it is reasonable to assume that most Canadians outside of the Quebec Province can

flying their nation’s flag without any worries, in the French province, one cannot to so

without social ramifications.

Moreover, when it comes to the national anthem, “Ô, Canada” bears the same title

in French and in English and is sang at every hockey game, while some Quebecois

nationalist mumble under their breath the lyrics of “Mon Cher Quebec.” But still

11

according to Berdichevsky, “the most “patriotic” song, still beloved by many Canadians

(outside of Quebec), and the second national anthem speaks of the history of Canada in

terms devoid of affection for the Quebecois (Berdichevsky, 2003):

In days of yore from Britain’s shore,The dauntless hero came

And planted firm Britannia’s flag on Canada’s fair domain.Here may it wave.

Our hopes, our pride and joined in love together,The thistle, shamrock, rose entwined

The maple leaf forever!

The maple leaf, our emblem dearThe maple leaf forever,

God save the QueenAnd Heaven bless our maple leaf forever!

Our fair domain now extends from Cape Grace to meet the sunAnd peace forever be our lotAnd plenteous store above,

And may those ties of love be oursWhich discord cannot sever.

This song, mostly unknown by the Quebecois population explicitly depicts the

British take over symbolized by the beloved maple leaf. Here again, we witness the

dichotomy of identity between the Anglo-Canadians and the Franco-Canadians from

Quebec. It is quite likely that these Canadian anthems bring together Albertans and

Ontarians (possible, but not assured), it surely leaves the French province the odd one out

of the group.

In spite of linguistic differences, multiple states have been able to reconcile their

internal differences through the need to unite against a common enemy. Spain and the

Arab-Muslim at the end of the fifteen century, Switzerland against many foes, including

the Nazis during the Second World War, many former colonies trying to liberate

themselves from foreign dominations. Unfortunately, even during the two World Wars

12

Canada participated in, most Quebecois opposed “the draft and service in the Canadian

armed forces,” forgoing an opportunity to develop “a memory of a common loyalty and

heroism” (Berdichevsky, 2003).

Additionally, the mere principle of a bilingual state seems to be an illusion. The

vast majority of French speakers live within the Quebec province, while all the other

provinces are English-speaking, “with the exception of New-Brunswick, which is

officially bilingual” (Chastenay, and al. 2004). Despite the tremendous efforts and

investments made by the federal and provincial governments, “Quebec remains the

Canadian province with the highest proportion of French-English bilinguals: 37.8 percent

as compared to 10.2 percent in the rest of Canada” (Marmen and Corbeil, cited in

Lamarre, 2002). One can speculate that while French is the official language of Quebec,

the linguistic legacy of pre-Bill 101 and the necessity to remain connected with the rest of

the country and the southern neighbor (USA) makes the knowledge of English, for many

Quebec residents, an imperative skill.

Another item needs to be factored in as we attempt to evaluate the strength, or the

weakness, of the Canadian nation. Endowed with relatively liberal immigration policies,

“Canada has one of the highest immigration rates per capita” (Chastenay, and al. 2004).

This phenomenon, while remarkable, only dates of the 1970s when the Canadian

government changed its favoritism of Western European immigrants towards more

inclusive policies. This fact is clearly illustrated when we compare the 1871 census with

that of 2001. In the former only 8 percent of Canadian citizens claimed to have at least

one ethnic origin other that French or British, while the latter disclosed as many as 48

13

percent (Bourhis, 2003). While the self-assessment of ethnic origin is in many ways

subjective, it remains an excellent illustration of ethnic diversity of the country.

It also allows researchers and policy makers to evaluate Canadians perceptions of

who they are. Ethnicity may be defined as a multidimensional concept that may comprise

factors such as race, ancestry, and religious attachments (Bourhis, 2003). A debate lies in

whether an ethnicity is fixed or not. Bourhis argues and concurs with Yancey and al. that

ethnicity shifts and is transformed through the cycle of life (Bourhis, 2003). During a

census, Canadians are given to choose one or multiple ethnic identities. In 1991,

following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, a group of Ontarians campaigned and

encouraged their fellow Ontarians to mark Canadians as their ethnic identity, despite the

fact that it was not an official option. Given that 3% of Ontarians decided to heed to the

call, and made “Canadian” the fifth most popular choice of ethnic identity that year,

Statistic Canada established “Canadian” (“Canadian in the French version) in 1996

census (Jedwab, 2003). That year, 19% of the citizens opted for “Canadian” and 12% for

“Canadien” as one of their options. While, this drastic increase could be interpreted as a

rise of Canadian consciousness, some like Victor Piche note that these results might have

been highly skewed by the failed Quebec referendum of 1995 as some citizens might

have wanted to reiterate their attachment to the vacillating state.

It is to be noted that the following census of 2001 reported an increase of the

“Canadian”/Canadien” ethnic origins in Quebec, going from 38% in 1996 to 51.4% in

2001, while the rest of Canada had a trivial raise from 12.4% in 1996 to 15.1% in 2001.

According to the same article, the vast majority of the “Canadian” respondents were of

English or French mother tongue with at least one parent born in Canada (96%), and the

14

majority “were mainly from families who had resided in Canada for several generations”

(Jedwab, 2003).

Jebwab, a fervent supporter of the “ethnic” question in the Canadian census,

claims that there is no empirical evidence that the ethnic attachment of minority is the

cause of the vulnerability of the Canadian identity. While Jebwab might be right, since

the Canadian identity was weak before the new wave of immigrants arrived on the shores

of the countries, it seems like the facts on the ground suggest that this cultural/ethnic

retention will do nothing to reverse the fragility of the Maple Leaf.

As the number of non English/French Canadians increases along with immigrants,

one needs to consider the level of intergenerational transfer of ethnic/cultural/linguistic

identity. A study conducted by Madeline A. Kalbach indicated that the said transfers are

increasing in intensity as the immigrant population is augmenting (Kalbach, 2003). These

new Canadians and immigrants still may identify themselves as Canadians while “being

aware of their ethnic and cultural ancestry” (Kalbach, 2003).

Transnationalization is a common phenomenon that involves a transfer of national

identity from one generation to the next. Georges Woke Up Laughing: Long Distance

Nationalism and the Search for Home written by Nina Glick Schiller and Georges

Eugene Fouron addresses long distance nationalism and its implications on citizenship

and loyalty. Schiller and Fouron focus on the case of what they call “Haitian long

distance nationalists living in the United States”. They studied the tendency of Haitians in

the United States to maintain their Haitian citizenship and to remains fairly active in the

Haitian politics, while living abroad. The chapters were broken down into sections

delineating the implications of those ties. The most important was, of course, the

15

ramifications of Haitian transnationalism on their assimilation within American culture.

The study described the strength of the Haitian community in New York and their family

ties back in Haiti as one of the factors influencing the level of transnational attachment to

Haiti.

A few things seemed to be prominent in this book. First and foremost, Schillet

and Fouron described the notion of long-distance nationalism or transnationalism.

Transnational is being defined as “transcending or reaching beyond national boundaries”

(Schillet and Fouron, 2001). Furthermore, the study investigated the level of transmission

of transnationalism to subsequent generations of Haitians. The conclusion was that no

matter the extent to which second or third generations “viewed themselves as partly or

completely Haitian” the pride of being Haitian was significant (Schillet and Fouron,

2001). One of the crucial factors in assuring that transnationalism was transmitted from

one generation to another is in the active efforts that Haitian put into sending their

children back to Haiti on a regular basis and to develop strong community networks

(Schillet and Fouron, 2001). The other one is to remind them of Haiti’s particular history.

This pride in Haiti is linked to a catalog of Haiti’s historical accomplishments that were recited or referred to in each of the interviews. Among those achievements mentioned were that Haiti was “the first country to defeat slavery”; it is a country that maintained “an African religion,” “a country with its own language,” “a country that fought for independence,” and the first black republic to defeat a white army.”

While this book focuses on Haitian communities in the United States, the similar

phenomenon takes place in many other countries, including Canada. However, this

occurrence has strategic environmental difference when it take place in Quebec and

particularly in Montreal, which makes our case unique.

16

e) Conclusion

Canada is unequivocally not the only country composed of more than one

founding cultures. The fact, however, that a colonizing people ended up being colonized

by their trans-Atlantic/trans-Channel nemesis might explain the lasting grievances

expressed by the Quebecois. The lack of common symbol or memory to create a sense of

cohesion between the French and English, is however not the only factor in the weakness

of the Canadian identity. A country with such a modest history and, unlike most countries

of the Americas, void of blatant confrontation with the European colonizer, might not

have been able to secure uniting values characterizing its identity. Additionally, the ever-

increasing multiplicity of the ethnic origins coupled with the emergent level of

cultural/ethnic transfer/retention is revolutionizing the relation betweens immigrants and

host countries.

During the focus group, an attempt was made to define the Canadian identity. The

major difficulty for the participants was to define the citizenship without comparing

themselves to Americans.2 After a long period of silence and meditation, Raffi threw in

hockey as a marker, semi-jokingly, semi-seriously, because he seemed to have no clue.

Then Nina mentioned equality, Paul said respect, and Raffi concluded: it was Canada’s

opened multiculturalism that made it so unique. Lindsay added open-mindedness and

described it as such: “Like you were saying: to be able to respect differences. Thinking:

“I’m going to do my stuff. I don’t really care what you are doing. I’m going to respect

what you are doing. I’m going to so my stuff the way I think it’s gotta be done, and that’s

it.”

2 Please recall the poem “I Am Canadian”.

17

This point was striking since it seemed to better illustrate considerate carelessness

than respect. Was being Canadian equivalent to social individualism, carelessness as long

as it was within the legal framework of the country? The participants were then given the

following definition of a nation: people member of a same nation have a conception of

being one in their values and their way of lives. Members of a same nation are conscious

that somewhere else within their nation, there were other people sharing the same values

and remembrance, which refers to Anderson concept of simultaneity and Nolan concept

of “common purpose.” They were then asked to comment on this statement with regards

to how their felt about people in British Colombia, Alberta, or Nova Scotia. This question

was followed by a long silence and a burst of laughter. Paul said: “I couldn’t care less. I

don’t know them. What I know is Montreal, that’s it!”

Lindsay added that she questioned how much we shared the same values as a

Canadian nation because we didn’t know how they lived, and the little she knew from

visiting Manitoba for a summer was that they were “way” different! To what extent do

Canadians living in Quebec connect to rest of the country? This is a possible answer from

Berdichevsky

In 1968, Ross McKay measured telephone traffic between Montreal (largely French-speaking) with (1) other cities in French speaking Quebec, (2) other Canadian cities in predominantly English-speaking Canada and (3) the United States. For cities of roughly the same size and located at the same distance from the target city, the number of calls within French-speaking Quebec and Montreal was ten times more than the number of calls made to cities outside of Quebec in English-speaking Canada.”

If the study were to be conducted nearly forty years later, one may wonder of the

likelihood of obtaining similar results. Are levels of “differences” mentioned by Lindsay

comparable as those between residents of Marseille and Paris or Bamako and Timbuktu?

18

One would have to quantify and measure the notion of “difference” and evaluate the

impact of those difference on national identity in each case.

The data collected from the focus group reiterate the same conclusion. As the

participants attempted to lay out a list of markers of identity, they came across a

significant hurdle: they were unable to come up with a serious and solid answer.

This confirmed my assumption that the essence of the Canadian nation might be in the

making, at least for those who have to choose between Canadians and Quebecois, if there

is such a choice. This state of opened citizenship seems have been so worried by

maintaining the great values of its pluralism that it has forgotten to define itself outside of

its founding peoples. This aspect becomes interesting when new immigrants decide to

adapt to the Canadian culture: they have difficulties doing so because there seems to be

nothing concrete, stable, or universal defining it.

II- Quebec

a) Politicization of Language

As mentioned above, the status of French-speakers on the North American

continent drastically changed as they became minority subjects to Britain. From then on,

language usage and status has been a hotly debated issue both in Ottawa and in Quebec

City. The Quiet Revolution of the 1960 was the birth of Quebecois nationalism as we

know it today, based purely on ethnic origins, as countries in many African countries

were claiming their independence from their European colonizers. But can we blame the

Quebecois to attempt to preserve their language and their culture which set them apart

from the rest of the country? Hardly, since it is common knowledge that French-speaking

people had become second class citizens in their own province, as Anglo-Canadians often

19

time enjoyed better jobs and status and as immigrants chose to learn English, adding to

the dismay of the Quebecois.

In 1977, the Charte des Droits et Libertes de la Personne du Quebec became the

Quebecois’ weapon to regain the control of the nation’s destiny. Bill 101 made French

the official language of the province of Quebec and the de facto language of education

for all pupils, unless one was a member of the historical English community or an

immigrant who had arrived prior to the bill (Mc Andrew, 2004). To some, the bill was

instituted to protect the French language against assimilation, while for others it was a

weapon to eradicate the English language out of the province. Made effective almost

thirty years ago, the bill is still controversial.

b) Crystallization of Identity in Language Usage

Chastenay and al. affirm that citizens in the province of Quebec have two distinct

civic identities, one being Quebecois and the other Canadian. A little further in the

argument, they state that in order to measure either of the identities, one needs to be able

to observe some sort of connection with the collectives “which implies the sentiment of

sharing certain characteristics with the other members of the collective” (Chasternay, and

al, 2004). It is however difficult to imply from this statement that every citizens in the

province of Quebec is a part of both civic identities, since to in reality, the Quebecois

identity has yet to shift from a ethnic identity to a civic identity. Furthermore, as the

politicization of language is still very strong in the province, many have had to choose

between Quebecois and Canadian. It is, in fact, no coincidence that the highest incidence

of “Canadian”/”Canadien” as ethnic origins, while Quebecois is still not an option on the

census.

20

There is no need for advanced research on Canada’s linguistic relations to

conclude that language usage is a strong marker of identity. Until approximately 30 years

ago, one spoke French at home and we could conclude that s/he was of French descent

and was Catholic, while English speakers were Protestant. While, today it is much more

difficult to define the religion according to language usage, in the province of Quebec,

with maybe the exception of the Greater Region of Montreal, one’s choice of language

still labels him/her as either Francophone or Anglophone. An Anglophone is de facto

rejected from the Quebecois identity, while an immigrant, depending on his/her ethnicity,

might take part in the Quebecois nation. But realistically speaking, many agree that the

nationalist discourse based on ethnicity in Quebec has made very little progress to

respond to the new multiethnic reality of the province, as 67.6% of the population of the

province claimed to have an ethnic origin others than French or English (Statistics

Canada, cited in Piche 2002).

In fact Quebec nationalist and sovereign project seems to be one belonging to the

pure-breaded Quebecois as Victor Piche affirms. Some efforts have been made to

develop are more inclusive notion of Quebecois nationalism, like nominating Luc

Merville, a French-Canadian of Haitian origins, as the spokesperson for the St-Jean-

Baptiste (Quebec’s national holiday). However, the feeling of belonging is determined by

the general perception. Until ethnic minorities feel completely invited to join the

Quebecois nation, or choose to embrace it, it will remain an ethnic nation. Piche adds

that, “Minority groups reject ethnic nationalism” of which they are not a part (Piche,

2002). With this comes a sense of rejection of any identity built in the linguistic notion as

21

52% of Allophones in Quebec consider themselves to trilingual and enjoy this mobility

eroding the traditional linguistic frontiers (Tokita 2004).

Conclusion

During the focus group, the topic regarding the Bill 101 was introduced by Nina

who abhors this bill. In her opinion, since Canada is officially a bilingual country, its

citizens should have the right to communicate either in French or English, and to go to

any educational institution, regardless of language. She felt that since the institution of

the Bill 101, “Quebecois de souche” had become hostile to the English language and that

life has become harder for English speakers. She stated that it was almost impossible for

English speakers to find a job without knowledge of the French language in Montreal.

This statement provoked a strong reaction from Lindsay whose mother could not get a

descent employment because of her lack of English proficiency. In fact Paul and Lindsay

indicated that they had many friends who did not speak French, but managed to find

employment, while those who did not speak English were handicapped from the

beginning.3

On the other hand, Paul said he completely understood the rational behind the bill.

Whether he approved or not was hard to tell. However he said that when people chose to

come to Quebec, they knew that Quebec was French speaking. In his eyes, there was no

excuse for those who lived in the province for years and could not speak French: “Canada

is a bilingual country, but each province has the right to choose which language was

going to be predominant. Everybody knows that Quebec is French.” In his opinion if

people didn’t like it, they had the right to choose to move to an English province. Nina

3 We can conclude that both Paul and Linsday consider knowing English as necessity to be financial viable in Montreal, regardless of the official status of French.

22

asked him if he was a separatist. He answered that he did not care whether Quebec stayed

within Canada or not. He thought that it would be more economically and socially viable

as a part of Canada, but he had not preference. Nina, on the other hand, felt strongly

enough to stay she would consider moving out of Montreal if Quebec succeeded from

Canada.

Despite her dislike of the Bill 101, Lindsay, just like Paul, believed that the

rational behind the bill was justified. She recognized that English was a threat to the

French language and then only way that Quebec had to protect it back in the 1970’s was

to create Bill 101. Both Paul and Lindsay saw the Bill 101 a protective measure: to

preserve the language and the culture of a people trapped between an English Canada east

and west of its borders, and an English America in the south. Raffi seemed to be

completely indifferent in that debate. To him, language did not seem to be a really issue.

A few things can be concluded from this part of the discussion. Nina assumed that

Paul had a separatist inclination because he believed in the need to protect the language

and the culture of the province. Nina’s position was that the language debate was a we-

immigrants (or descendant of ethnic immigrants) against them- pure-breaded Quebecois.

She was surprised to see that a naturalized Canadian approved of such a discriminatory

bill. Language has become such a politicized issue in Quebec that some believe that the

side one takes on the issue determines his or her identity. Furthermore, it was obvious

that Paul, Lindsay, and Raffi did not feel threatened by the 101 Bill since they spoke

French as well as, if not better than English, while Nina’s parents had immigrated prior to

the bill and had enjoyed the higher status of the English language, only to see it plummet

after 1977.

23

III - Montreal

If we can talk about an “ethnic Canadian”, there is therefore nothing wrong with

the possibility of an “ethnic Montrealer.” Renan and Anderson’s contribution to the study

of nationalism is crucial. They have open the way for the introduction to civic

nationalism theories, warnings against claims of the incontestability of race purity as sole

marker for nationness, and assessing the weight that one can attribute to primacy of

nationalism as scholars like Huntington have claimed (Clash of Civilizations). If we agree

with the “imagined” and “spiritual” nature of nations, then it is easy to accept the

possibility of this pattern in the growth of Montreal urban nationalism. An ethnic

Montrealer is composed of cells which range from class, to religion, to language, to

country of origin, to refugee or immigrant status. As secessionist movements are

constantly being created while immigrants find new homes in new locations in this

increasingly globalized world, it is fair to say that neither the strongest religious or ethnic

bounds are infallible strong enough to keep a group of people senses of loyalty intact, nor

different ancestries or histories to keep people apart.

a) Linguistic and Cultural Diversity

Please take into account that in the tables, the world immigrant refers to those who have

an immigrant status and does not include naturalized citizens.

Table 1 is a rapid overview of the current immigrant patterns of the region of

Montreal compared to the rest of Quebec. Other statistics have shown a complete list of

countries of origin of immigrants from 1970 to 1986. However, Table 1 demonstrates

something very interesting. Out of the 131, 655 new immigrants in the whole province of

Quebec in 2001, over 105 000 of them decided to move to Montreal and Laval, which

24

confirms our assumptions that the region of Montreal, which composes nearly half of the

entire population of Quebec, is an increasingly diversifying city (Lamarre, 2002). Out of

all the immigrants absorbed by both Montreal and Laval over 90% of them came from

countries other than France. Assuming that this trend has been consistent for the last

thirty years, we can better comprehend Meintel and Fortin when they describe the

Montreal-immigrant relation as one where the immigrant population is shaping the

“ethnic mosaic” of the region, more than Montreal leads the immigrant population to

assimilate.

At this rate, if the ethnic votes of Montreal were the main roadblock to Quebec’s

independence in 1996, this problem is unlikely to fade away and will be strengthened

with increasing immigration. Keeping in mind the decreasing birth rate of Quebecois de

souche, ethnic Montrealers’ population is likely to exacerbate the ethnic definition of the

Quebecois nation in the decades to come.

Table 1. New immigrants by place of birth, administrative regions of Montreal and Laval, 2001Nouveaux immigrants par occurrence du lieu de naissance, régions administratives de Montréal et de Laval, 2001

Total Algérie République France Haïti Maroc *Tous lespopulaire autres lieuxDe Chine de naissance

N

Montréal 101 050 9 460 8 090 6 620 5 160 5 130 66 590Laval1 4 225 250 160 235 385 355 2 840  MRCCommunauté-Urbaine-de-Montréal 101 050 9 460 8 090 6 620 5 160 5 130 66 590Laval 4 225 250 160 235 385 355 2 840    Le Québec 131 655 10 570 10 875 11 045 6 330 6 345 86 490

%

Montréal 100,0 9,4 8,0 6,6 5,1 5,1 65,9Laval 100,0 5,9 3,8 5,6 9,1 8,4 67,2

25

  MRCCommunauté-Urbaine-de-Montréal 100,0 9,4 8,0 6,6 5,1 5,1 65,9Laval 100,0 5,9 3,8 5,6 9,1 8,4 67,2  Le Québec 100,0 8,0 8,3 8,4 4,8 4,8 65,7

1. Comme les nouveaux immigrants sont classifiés en fonction de l'occurrence du lieu de naissance, les deux régions étudiées, Montréal et Laval, ne peuvent présenter le même portrait. Les données relatives à la région de Laval se conforment à l'ordre établi pour Montréal.Source : Statistique Canada, Recensement du Canada, 2001.Compilation et traitement : Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2003. 5 mai 2003* All other places of birth.

A few things can be drawn out of Table 2. The striking element of course is the

percentage of immigrants under the age of twenty compared to that of those over twenty.

A rough estimate of 33% of immigrant population is under the age of twenty, which

concurs with Kratl who stated that history had shown that 3 out 10 immigrants were

under the age of fifteen (Kratl, 2003). One can only be amazed at the high percentage of

young people entering the regions of Montreal and Laval. As mentioned by Lamarre in

her study on linguistic practices in Montreal, the younger immigrants come into the

region, the more likely they are to be multi-lingual and be at ease in linguistically diverse

environments.

Furthermore, the younger they are, the more likely they are to interact, throughout

their lifetime, with a more diverse entourage of friends in their educational and

professional settings, which will increase the likeliness to develop a multidimensional

identity, more than an ethnic or linguistic one. Given that linguistic socialization is

inversely proportionate to age of immigration, multilinguism is increased and so is the

non-acceptance of linguistic definition of national identification.

26

In addition, the younger immigrants are when they enter the country, the more

likely they are going to be willing or able to attempt a certain level of assimilation or

adaptation. However, because of the problems delineated in the theoretical framework,

they will, in all probability, be unable to adopt any identity available to them. They will

be left with a default identity of Montreal and whatever is left from their transnational

identity. Some might call this statement a hasty generalization, but it has yet to be proven

wrong and is therefore opened for further investigation and debate.

Table 2. Immigrant population according to the age at the time of immigration, administrative regions of Montreal and Laval, 2001

Population immigrante selon l'âge au moment de l'immigration, régions administratives de Montréal et de Laval, 2001

Total 0-4 ans 5-19 ans 20 ans et plus

N

Montréal 492 235 38 660 127 495 326 080Laval 52 495 4 560 15 500 32 435  MRCCommunauté-Urbaine-de-Montréal 492 235 38 660 127 495 326 080Laval 52 495 4 560 15 500 32 435    Le Québec 706 965 67 355 184 800 454 810

%

Montréal 100,0 7,9 25,9 66,2Laval 100,0 8,7 29,5 61,8  MRCCommunauté-Urbaine-de-Montréal 100,0 7,9 25,9 66,2Laval 100,0 8,7 29,5 61,8    Le Québec 100,0 9,5 26,1 64,3

Source : Statistique Canada, Recensement du Canada, 2001.Compilation et traitement : Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2003. 30 avril 2003

27

Table 3 shows only one cell of linguistic socialization which is the work

environment. However, this cell is crucial in understanding the necessity to know at least

two languages in the regions of Montreal and Laval, and subsequently in the Greater

Region of Montreal. Over 50% of the population uses at least two languages in the

professional context. This necessity within this realm of linguistic socialization creates an

increasingly important multilingual portion of the population as the professional world

becomes a motivation to develop an additional language. Those numbers are significantly

lower for the rest of the province, which demonstrates once again the distinctiveness of

the region of Montreal in its complex linguistic milieu which allows the existence of

larger ethnic space that anywhere else in Canada (Tokita, 2004).

Table 3. Population according to language used at work, administrative regions of Montreal and Laval, 2001Population selon la langue utilisée au travail, régions administratives de Montréal et de Laval, 2001

Total1 Une seule langue Plus d'une langue

Français Anglais Langue Français Français et Anglais et Français,non et anglais langue non langue non anglais et

officielle officielle officielle langue nonofficielle

N

Montréal 982 245 310 345 115 415 7 560 492 635 13 640 13 985 28 660Laval 192 800 88 565 7 165 795 87 485 2 055 1 825 4 900    Le Québec 3 938 510 2 343 755 193 315 13 800 1 294 570 24 350 24 730 43 985

%

Montréal 100,0 31,6 11,8 0,8 50,2 1,4 1,4 2,9Laval 100,0 45,9 3,7 0,4 45,4 1,1 0,9 2,5  MRCCommunauté-Urbaine-de-Montréal 100,0 31,6 11,8 0,8 50,2 1,4 1,4 2,9Laval 100,0 45,9 3,7 0,4 45,4 1,1 0,9 2,5    Le Québec 100,0 59,5 4,9 0,4 32,9 0,6 0,6 1,1

28

1. Personnes de 15 ans et plus qui, au moment du recensement, travaillaient depuis le 1er janvier 2000.Source : Statistique Canada, Recensement du Canada, 2001.Compilation et traitement : Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2003. 11 mars 2003Anglais: EnglishFrancais: FrenchLangue non-officielle: Non-official langue (Other than French and English

Table 4 is another illustrations the multilingual nature of Montreal, but also the

trend seeming to affect the rest of the province. In Table 4, 51,4% of the people

considering to have more than one native langue in the province of Quebec consider to

have French and English simultaneous natives languages, compared to a rough estimate

of 35% in the Greater Region of Montreal. However the latter has a greater percentage of

the population who consider having a non-official language as a native language. If we

take into consideration the data found in tables 1 and 2, this number should increase in

the next decade if we assume that Quebec will maintain its immigration flow for

economic sustainability.

Table 4. Population having more than one native language, administrative regions on Montreal and Laval, 2001Population ayant plus d'une langue maternelle, régions administratives de Montréal et de Laval, 2001

Total Français Français Anglais Français,et anglais et langue et langue anglais

non officielle non officielle et languenon officielle

N

Montréal 51 165 17 435 18 475 11 565 3 690Laval 7 030 2 775 2 395 1 340 520  MRCCommunauté-Urbaine-de-Montréal 51 165 17 435 18 475 11 565 3 690Laval 7 030 2 775 2 395 1 340 520    Le Québec 97 350 50 060 26 885 15 045 5 360

%

29

Montréal 100,0 34,1 36,1 22,6 7,2Laval 100,0 39,5 34,1 19,1 7,4    Le Québec 100,0 51,4 27,6 15,5 5,5

Source : Statistique Canada, Recensement du Canada, 2001.Compilation et traitement : Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2003. 2 avril 2003

Anglais: EnglishFrancais: FrenchLangue non-officielle: Non-official langue (Other than French and English

b) Cultural and Linguistic RetentionYoung Montrealers have multiple outlets of linguistic and cultural socialization:

work, school, friends, and of course cultural events. Each year, Montreal welcomes

tourists from all around the world to partake of the never-ending series of festival the city

offers: International Jazz Festival, Montreal Film Festival, Just for Laugh Festival,

African Nights Festival, Asian Movies Festival, the Caribbean Parade, Lights Festival,

Francophonie Festival, Francopholies Festival, and many more. Many of these festivals

are vehicles allowing Montreal to be “known to scholars for its “ethnic retention”; i.e.

greater maintenance of ethnic institutions, social patterns (e.g. ethnic endogamy), and

languages over time than any other North American cities” (Meinte and Fortin, 2002).

In addition, young ethnic Montrealers enjoy two programs designed to contribute

to cultural and linguistic retention. The first one PLE (Programmes des langues

ethniques), which is the responsibility of each community to organize (Tokita, 2004).

Classes are often offered on Saturdays in the communities’ native languages and cover

diverse topics like history. While reliable data on this program is hard to access, some

approximate the enrollment of 15 000 students each year in about twenty languages

(Tokita, 2004). The second program has not shown itself to be as popular: PELO

30

(Programmes d’enseignement des langues d’origines). Classes are held during lunch time

or after school, helping about 7000 students each year to learn their native language.

Each community in the region has its ways of maintaining social ties as the

immigrant to Montreal. Marie Nathalie Leblanc focused her research on French-speaking

West Africa migrants in Montreal. In her article, the author states the emergence of

transnational networks that “comprise social spaces that cut across geographical, cultural,

and political borders,” allowing migrants to maintain their ties to their homeland while

strengthening each other abroad and attempting to integrate their host society (Leblanc,

2002). The analysis depicts multiple transnational networks like trading, religious,

personal, artistic, political and professional networks (Leblanc, 2003)

c) Deterritorialization of ethnic origin

Robin Cohen, in his book Global Diasporas, states that globalization makes

possible the “development of global cities… the creation of cosmopolitan and local

cultures… [and] the deterritorialization of social identity challenging the hegemonizing

nation-states’ claim to make an exclusive citizenship a defining focus of allegiance and

fidelity in favour of overlapping, permeable and multiple forms of identification” (Cohen,

2003). We can expend his argument by learning from Liisa Malkki’s article “National

Geographic: The Rooting of People and the Territorialization of Nation Identity among

Scholars and Refugees” (Goeff, 1996). Her article challenges the notion of

territorialization as an essential marker characterizing a nation. She believes that while

our common understanding of the nation is rooted in the arborescent culture of

nationalism, refugees, and perhaps all immigrants of different status, social scientists

should reconsider the need of a land to call a group of people a nation. She commences

31

her article by addressing the general preconceptions regarding territory and national

identity. First there is this constant confusion in the way one uses the terms “nation” and

“state” (Goeff, 1996). The state is known to be a sovereign political entity demarcated by

geographical (whether real or imaginary) boundaries. “Nation,” however, refers to a

group of people sharing a certain remembrance. By confusing the two terms, we embark

on the rooting of a people to a territory.

Moreover, the arborescent vocabulary and concepts of nationalism have grounded

in our theories the need of territory to define a nation. When one talk about nationalism,

one often refers to the mobilization of a people for the gain of control over their

“homeland” or “motherland”, where is “rooted” their heritage: the “soil” of their

ancestors (Goeff, 1996). Conversely, Malkki brings up a case study where the ability of

people, even refugees, to adapt in a new homeland while maintaining their identity brings

up the principle of possible deterrorialization of identity. In fact, those refugees even

came to the point of considering the idea of actual return to their home country as a

journey to a foreign land, no longer a part of their reality. Deterritorialization then refers

to nations without the need of borders or territory (Goeff, 1996). She concludes her

article by saying:

Observing that more and more of the world lives in a “generalized condition of homelessness” –or that there is truly an intellectual need for a new “sociology of displacement,” a new “nomadology” –is not to deny the importance of place in the construction of identities. On the contrary, as this article has attempted to show, and as Hebdige suggests above, deterritorialization and identity are intimately linked [but] to plot only “places of birth” and degrees of nativeness is to blind oneself to the multiplicity of attachments that people form to places through living in, remembering, and imagining them. (Goeff, 1996)

32

On a simply theoretical base, one can have difficulties accepting Malkki’s

deterritorialization concept, since most of the literature on national identity refers to

territory at one point or another. In fact, most of the modern nationalist movements have

strong claims over land. If we think about the Quebecois, the Basque, and the

Palestinians, we observe a recurring pattern of demand of control over territory backed by

national identity claims. However, if we think about nations, removed from the elitist

nationalist movements, we can consider the adaptability and mobility of nations and their

members, which leads me to the case of immigrant Canadians. While they consider to

have maintained strong ties to their homeland, one can observe a concrete alienation from

the “people from back home.” The territorialization of their ancestral identity seems to be

imagined, but dichotomous with their actual identity in their new homeland. While the

attachment to the homeland remains real, overtime it is transformed by the reality,

political culture and social networks created, developed and embraced in the host

country.

d) Conclusion

At the end of the focus group, when it came to define the Montreal identify, the

words were coming from all sides. Montreal is a “European city with a North American

style.” It is the home of 24 Stanley Cup, the Montreal International Jazz Festival, Nuits

d’Afrique Festival, good food, good people, and multiculturalism. The four participants

were convinced that every single individual who had visited Montreal had had a great

experience. Montreal had an international recognition. For the first time since the

beginning of the discussion, there was a sense of pride, of common understanding and

heritage within a geographical area. Unlike when it had been time to define Canada, the

33

participants were not tempted to compare to city some other location, simply because

there was no need to compare.

Paul finally said to him the essence of the Greater Region of Montreal what was

taken place in downtown Montreal. Montreal was “fast pace, but too much.” It was”big,

but not too big.” According to him “people in Montreal are all up in people’s business,”

they will make eye contact as if they knew each other. To him, it reflected the closeness

of the people in the city. “Everyone always feel likes they knew each. It is this sense of

community is this big city that makes the city so great.” Finally Lindsay determined why

they loved Montreal so much was because it was balance city. From Nina, to Raffi, to

Lindsay, to Paul, they all felt at home in the Region. They felt a sense of belonging in this

“big but small world.”

While the discussion was sometimes confrontational, it ended on a good note

when it came for them to talk about this place they called home: Montreal. At the end of

the focus group, I asked them what they considered themselves to be. Paul said: “I am a

Montrealer. When people ask when I travel I tell them I’m Canadian from Montreal, but

I’m originally from Lebanon.” Almost unapologetically meaning, this is as simple as it

gets.

CONCLUSION

After the research, I decided to slightly modify my questions. The overarching

question is what are the factors determining ethnic Montrealers identity? Under this

question, I maintained my initial questions: why do ethnic Montrealers develop such a

strong feeling of belonging to the Greater Region of Montreal without ever feeling a

sense of being a part of the Quebecois nation. Furthermore, while ethnic Montrealers

34

might pride themselves of their Canadian citizenship when they travel abroad, why do

they still not consider themselves members of a greater Canadian nation? The final

question addresses the reasons why young Montrealers retain a strong sense of

transnational identity towards their parents or grandparents country.

I believe that the data analysis and the literature review have appropriately been

able to answer those questions. In fact, it is dangerous to define nationalism as an ethnic

or linguistic issue. Not only because those ties can be disproved or overridden by stronger

markers, but also because like in the case of Quebec, once those factors begin to be

challenged or to disappear, one needs to look into broader markers to define the nation.

As we were able to see, Montrealers from different linguistic and ethnic backgrounds

shared this sense of belonging and of values embedded in the nature of Montreal.

While Malkki is right is saying that national identity can move beyond borders, I

still believe that this territorialization of identity leads the national feeling to be altered

with time with something somewhat foreign to the general values shared within the larger

nation. But through the transmission of transnationlism, certain values, language, and

culinary traditions are kept, still maintaining some ties to the greater ancestral nation.

Cohen brought light on globalization and its impact on migration and the

development of global cities like Montreal was crucial. While Montreal is unique, I

believe that the globalization of major cities still challenges the notions of national

identity in the region, and came become problematic if most policy decisions are made

out of those cities.

As far as the implications of this research on policy, it is evident that if the Parti

Quebecois wants to achieve independence for Quebec, it will need to redeem itself in the

35

eyes of “victims” of the bill 101 and to draft a more civic definition of the Quebec

national’s identity. While, they have attempted to be more inclusive in the past few years,

the challenge is great. On the other hand, Canada needs to make the same efforts but in

primarily defining the Canadian essence. It might need to take example on the former

Soviet States who had to rewrite their history to build a sense of nationalism, but it will

definitely need to find something stronger than an alleged official bilinguism, a beaver

and a maple leaf to keep the second largest land mass from fragmenting from sea to sea.

In the meantime, people like Paul, Lindsay, Raffi, and Nina will keep on saying: “What I

know is Montreal, that’s it!”

36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Benedict. 2003. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin of and the spread of nationalism, Revised Ed. London: Verso.

Benmayor, Rina, and Andor Skotnes. 1994. International yearbook for oral history and life stories. Vol. 3, Migration and Identity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Berdichevsky, Norman. 2004. Nations, language and citizenship. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Bledsoe, Robert L., and Boleslaw A. Boczek. 1987. The international law dictionary. Santa Barbaea: ABC-CLIO.

Bourhis, Richard Y. 2003. Measuring Ethnocultural Diversity using the Canadian Census. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35, 1:9-32. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic Studies Association.

Cohen, Robin. 2003. Global Diasporas: An introduction. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Eley, Goeff, and Ronald Grigor Suny. 1996. Becoming national. What is a nation, by Renan, Ernest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eley, Goeff, and Ronald Grigor Suny. 1996. Becoming national. National Geographic: The rooting of people and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees, by Liisa Malkki. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Evans, Graham, and Jeffrey Newnham. 1998. The Penguin Dictionary of international relations. New York: Penguin Books.

37

Jebwab. Jack. Coming to Our Census: The Need for Continued Inquiry into Canadians’ Ethnic Origins. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35, 1:33-50. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic Studies Association.

Kalbach, Madeline A. 2003. The Intergenerational Transfer of Ethnic Identity in Canada at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35, 1:135-48. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic Studies Association.

Kralt, John. Country of Birth of Parents and Ethnic Origins: A Comparison of Reporting Patterns in the 2001 Census. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35, 1:51-83. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic Studies Association.

Krieger, Joel, Margaret E. Crahan, Lawrence R. Jacobs, William A. Joseph, Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja, and James A Paul, eds. 2001. The Oxford companion to politics of the world. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lamarre, Patricia. 2002. Multilingual Montreal: Listening in on the language practices of young Montrealers. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 34, 1:34. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic Studies Association.

Leblanc, Marie Nathalie. 2002. Processes of Identification among French-Speaking West African Migrants in Montreal. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 34, 3:121-43. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic Studies Association.

Mc Andrews, Marie, and Rudi Jenssens. 2004. The Role of Schooling in the Maintenance and Transformation of Ethnic Boundaries between Linguistic Communities: Contrasting Quebec and Belgium. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 36, 3:61-83. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic Studies Association.

Meilleur, Nancy. 2005. Profil Sociolinguistique des Elèves du Secteur des Jeunes de la Commission Scolaire de Montréal – Année Scolaire 2004-2005. Commission Scolaire de Montréal.

Meintel, Deidre, and Sylvie Fortin. 2002. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 34, 1 : 1. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqd&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&rft_dat=xri:pqd:did=0000006. [Last visited: October 6, 2004].

Nolan, Cathal J, ed. 2002. The Greenwood encyclopedia of international relations. Vol. 2, F-L. Wesport: Greenwood Publishing.

Nolan, Cathal J, ed. 2002. The Greenwood encyclopedia of international relations. Vol. 3, M-R. Wesport: Greenwood Publishing.

38

Piche Victor. 2002. Immigration, Diversity, and Ethnic Relations in Quebec. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 34, 3:5-27. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic Studies Association.

Plano, Jack C., and Roy Olton. 1982. The international relations dictionary. 3rd ed. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Schiller, Nina Glick, and Georges Eugene Fouron. 2001. Georges woke up laughing: Long distance nationalism and the search for home. Durham: Duke University Press.

Tokita, Tomoko. 2004. Les Attitudes et la Motivation au Trilinguisme des Etudiants Allophones dans un CEGEP Anglophone de Montréal. Mémoire Présenté a la Faculté des Etudes Supérieures de l’Université de Montréal.

39