Jump to content

C'est confirmé, les Québécois s'enrichissent plus vite


Recommended Posts

Il y a 7 heures, YMQ a dit :

Debate like a half-rational human, and stop being so darn childish. you're not much braver by taking cheapshots. 

The revolution tranquille 2.0, if we want to call it, is not caused by the turn over of the so-called anglo exodus - it's the fact that Montreal (Quebec's economic engine) is a diverse, multi-cultural and bilingual city that is attractive, and promotes creativity. It's a city that is oozing with talent, because of its diversity and its educational institutions (francais et anglais).  Montreal has produced virtually all the jobs and all the growth in our province. This wealth was created by francophone, anglophone, and allophone. 

So to say that because we got rid of the banks, and because we send hundreds of thousands of Montrealers down to 401, and lost all the wealth related to numerous head offices sent to Toronto - that this is turned caused Montreal to finally come of its cocoon is a bit far-fetched. 

The United States made a lot of rich Loyalists leave when they had their War of Independence, but still it provoked one of the greatest growth in the history of the World.  The true British people were the first class citizens of the Empire, the rest were just living there.  George Washington's dream was to be like any other British officers and rise in the ranks but he was seen as a second class soldier because he was born in the United States.  

Sometimes you need to weed out the bad stuff that is suffocating you before you can grow for real.  It hurts but it is necessary.  Les départs des années 1970-1980 ont fait mal mal c'était un mal nécessaire.  Et ce n'est pas toutes les personnes qui sont parties qui étaient des atouts pour le Québec et les Québécois. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Il y a 2 heures, YMQ a dit :

some on this thread have suggested that the great emigration of anglo institutions have led to today's so-called revolution tranquille 2.0.

Some on this thread? I had asked you for citations so that we know exactly what you are talking about. If you did not oblige it is because you couldn't. For no one ever said that.

My own argument is that because of the massive exodus of anglophones from Québec to Ontario the latter benefited greatly from it while it was highly detrimental for the former. And the reason I brought this in the first place is because if most people recognize that it was detrimental for Québec's economy few appreciate how beneficial it was for the development of Toronto. Especially in view of the fact that this was happening around the same time Mirabel opened, which by itself was not very good for Montréal as an aviation hub. A lot of damage was done in the process and it took a long time to repair it.

As for the révolution tranquille 2.0, I don't understand the connection you are making with the departure of the anglos. It would be more accurate to say that it happened in spite of the departure of the anglos. But I shouldn't use past tense because RT 2.0 as we understand it is a recent phenomenon that is currently unfolding in all its glory.

Here is how I interpret History:

RT 1.0 started when Maurice Duplessis died in 1959 and ended sometime before the PQ was first elected in 1976.

As for the RT 2.0 we are discussing here I would arbitrarily say that it started when the PLQ was elected in 2003. For this long stretch that went nearly uninterrupted for 15 years allowed a new generation of Québécois to express its full potential.

However, between RT 1.0 and RT 2.0 it was total chaos: manufacture closing, head offices moving, massive exodus of people and capital, political turmoil, social instability, population anger and just like in 1849 the incendiary editorials of The Gazette.

But if we start RT 1.0 in 1963 like I did in a previous post, and start RT 2.0 in 2003 like I am doing now, it covers a period of 40 years, which represents two generations of Québécois.

Now, for someone with a limited knowledge of History it is impossible to appreciate the progress that was made since the Grande Noirceur period. And for that person it would also not be possible to understand what RT 2.0 represents in the minds of those who are entertaining this interpretation of History.

There is also the age factor. For someone below the age of 40 it means this person would have been born around the time of the first referendum or later. RT 1.0 was already behind us at that time. Providing that person understands what the révolution tranquille was in the first place. Which does not appear to be the case here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...