• Our spoiler embargo for the non-DLC content for Pokémon Legends: Z-A is now lifted! Feel free to discuss the game freely across the site without the need of spoiler tabs, and use content from the game within your profiles!

(Some) Quebec nationalists throws shitstorm over McCartney concert

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,778
Reaction score
1,046
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/07/21/qc-mccartney0721.html

Music icon Paul McCartney gave an explosive show on an old battleground Sunday, churning out a song list laden with Beatles tunes to a pumped-up crowd on the historic Plains of Abraham.

The knighted ex-Beatle was in town to help Quebec City celebrate its 400th birthday.

"Bonsoir les Québécois, bonsoir toute le gang," McCartney shouted to his faithful after he opened the show with the Wings song Jet.

The crowd erupted and the band turned it up a notch by ripping into the Beatles' classics Drive My Car, Only Mama Knows and All My Loving.

"I only speak a little bit of French," he said in French before switching languages. "So, I will be speaking in English."

But McCartney, whose appearance raised the ire of some Quebec nationalists who said a Brit shouldn't be part of the city's festivities, alternated between the languages when addressing the crowd throughout the concert.

At one point, a huge image of Quebec's flag covered the stage backdrop during Mrs. Vanderbilt. Later, he strutted around the stage waving the fleur-de-lis banner.

During Yesterday, he came out wearing a souvenir-shop sweatshirt with "Quebec" written across the chest.

Organizers had expected some 200,000 people at the free outdoor concert on the Plains of Abraham.

A massive tangle of swaying arms and bodies covered the rolling fields in front of the stage. It was McCartney's first appearance in Canada since 2005. "C'est ma premiere visite a Québec, and it's a great place," he said, earning a roar from fans.

Fans trip down memory lane

On several occasions, McCartney's English comments were translated into French and the words scrolled across the giant screens.

An energetic McCartney played 36 tunes through the 2½-hour show. During the first half of the concert, he performed a mixed bag of Beatles, Wings and solo tunes.

The rest of the way was heavy on Fab Four hits, including Hey Jude, Get Back and Let It Be. He started off Something on a ukulele that he said was a gift from George Harrison. "That one was for George," he said.

He also paid homage to John Lennon. "This song is dedicated to my friend John," he said in French, before starting into A Day In The Life and then Give Peace A Chance.

McCartney later launched into an anniversary tribute with Birthday.

"This song is for a woman who is 400 years old," he said in French. "Happy Birthday, Quebec."

Montreal band The Stills and up-and-coming Quebec City singer Pascale Picard opened the concert to set the stage for the legendary rock star.

Front-row spots coveted overnight

Tens of thousands of music fans streamed onto the Plains of Abraham and spilled into the surrounding streets of Quebec City on Sunday in hopes of securing a good vantage point to watch the concert.

Dozens of people started lining up as early as Saturday afternoon for a shot at nabbing coveted ground at the front of the stage. When the gates finally opened a couple of hours before the show, a mass of fans flooded down a slope, as hundreds sprinted for the front row.

Seven jumbo screens were set up on the historic battlefield and along downtown streets, several of which were closed to traffic.

Hoping to guarantee themselves a spot in front of a screen, thousands of people camped early Sunday in the middle of the Grande-Allée, one of the provincial capital's main boulevards, while others were stretched out on the lawn of the provincial legislature.

The party in honour of Sir Paul also got underway early.

Beer vendors on the Plains did swift business throughout the day, which contributed to long lineups of swaying patrons waiting impatiently for portable toilets. Many beer kiosks ran out of cold drinks before the show started.

Meanwhile, whiffs of marijuana wafted through the crowd.

Restaurants, bars, buskers and cars along the main drag blasted Beatles tunes, and souvenir tents offered up the latest McCartney gear.

Carol Cleeland travelled from New Jersey to see the show.

"We've been fans of the Beatles and Paul McCartney since the beginning," said Cleeland, who headed to the Plains of Abraham with her sister, Elizabeth, more than 12 hours before McCartney's concert. "We love Paul McCartney's music and everything about him. He's just a really great guy."

Fan Leo Rodrigue sported a red Montreal Canadiens sweater with the name "McCartney" emblazoned across the back above the number one.

"I saw him the first time at the Montreal Forum, Dec. 9, 1989," Rodrigue said. "It's the greatest. [He's] the greatest artist. All songs of McCartney [are] beautiful."

On a local overnight radio talk show, fans gushed about McCartney's "generous" performance and called his free show a "special gift" to the city.
McCartney happy to visit la vieille capitale

McCartney arrived in Quebec City on Saturday evening and was greeted by hundreds of fans, many of whom had waited several hours outside the Chateau-Frontenac Hotel to catch a glimpse of him.

Fans approached his car as it drove through the hotel parking lot and McCartney, who had his window partly down, waved to the crowd.

Journalists yelled questions at him from a distance as he got out of the car in the hotel's underground garage and he waved and replied, "Bonjour."

McCartney took a quick car tour of the old city before dining at a local restaurant with his band and entourage.

The much-anticipated show, McCartney's only scheduled performance in North America this year, was part of Quebec City's 400th birthday bash. But there are some in the province who would have preferred that McCartney had stayed home.

Several Quebec sovereigntists have been questioning McCartney's participation in Quebec City's 400th anniversary celebrations because of his British roots.

They claim his presence evokes painful memories of Britain's conquest of New France in 1760.

The Plains of Abraham was the site of the pivotal 1759 battle between British Gen. James Wolfe and France's Marquis Louis-Joseph de Montcalm.

In an interview with Radio-Canada on Thursday, the 66-year-old bassist brushed off the nationalists' claims. "I think it's time to smoke the pipes of peace and to just, you know, put away your hatchet, because I think it's a show of friendship," McCartney said.

McCartney played to 350,000 people in Kiev, Ukraine, in June.

Céline Dion is set to perform on the Plains of Abraham for Quebec City's birthday on Aug. 22.
Click to expand...

Thank you, dear nationalists for making jokes out of us (again).

(Me, I was one of the 200 000 spectators, not one of the some nationalists :-D)
 
Their stance is completely absurd and detrimental to the idea of celebrating this historic moment together. Paul McCartney came to party with everyone in Quebec, why the hell should it matter what passport he carries or where he is from? Don't they want people from other countries to come and celebrate together with them simply because of an event nearly 300 years ago? He is probably one of the most famous and most successful pop artists in history and he is doing a show for Quebec for absolutely no charge because he wants to join the commemoration with all the other citizens. I personally see that as a commendable act, especially with so many celebrities being money hungry and arrogant. One should think they could be thankful and overjoyed that he has arrived to join the revelry. The position the critics of the show took is deeply shameful and borderline racist. I truly hope the mayor of Quebec takes time to condemn these comments to the fullest.
The fact that it's supposedly a historical issue is pure bullshit, may I ask who the hell even cares about that anymore? I bet half of the people complain don't know a single fact about what happened on the battlefield, just using any excuse to stir up a fuss. It's some superficial reason to cloak their racism.

Good on the majority of les Québécois that simply enjoyed the show and enjoyed having a good time with him. Congratulations Quebec for having such a wonderful anniversary festivity and sharing it with such a prominent artist.
 
While I agree with you (that the stance is ridiculous, and that Paul's presence should be a joyful think), let's be fair : there are valid reasons behind Québec nationalism and resentment against English.

I herd u liek Swampert? said:
because of an event nearly 300 years ago?
Click to expand...

It's not the event in itself that's the problem. There were many French-English battles throughout the history of North America. We won some, lost others.

Why this one battle (250 years ago) matters a lot more is because it was followed by roughly 200 years as (effectively, at least as the vast majority of Quebecers perceive it, and they aren't too far off) of being effectively a colonized people : no political power, no economic power, no nothing except for a microscopic English-cozying elite.

Canadian steps toward independance didn't help much : it simply transfered the name of the colonial power; the same people went on running the place in the same way, only now their capital was Ottawa, not Washington.

I don't entirely agree with the blame-england view - in my view, it was actually the aforementioned "english-cozying elite" (and above all else, the Roman Catholic church) who went out of their way to keep the rest of Québec as second-class citizens, while the English "merely" took advantage of those turncoat elites. But I can most certainly see where that analysis comes from.

The fact that it's supposedly a historical issue is pure bullshit, may I ask who the hell even cares about that anymore? I bet half of the people complain don't know a single fact about what happened on the battlefield,
Click to expand...

About what happened on the battlefield, maybe. About the effects of what happened on that battlefield? It wasn't until 1960 or so that French-Canadians definitely re-emerged as an actual political force in Québec, so a large percentage of people actually lived through some of it, and nearly every Quebecers know someone who did.
 
Last edited:
While I disagree with the some nationalists dissing McCartney's concert, I do support Quebec's right to be a free & sovereign nation if the people of Quebec so choose.
 
Thing is, the people of Quebec have chosen not to cecede from Canada and become a sovereign nation; not only once, but twice I believe, although the 1995 referendum was admittedly close.

Personally, my Canada includes Quebec. It's my favourite province.
 
Circumstances and people changes, though - and I mean that literally.

It has been twenty-eight years since the first referendum and thirteen since the second. That's thirteen years worth of immigrants moving into Quebec, and thirteen years worth of teenagers turning eighteen (including myself). Assuming we makeit a full fifteen years to the next referendum, and assuming 30 000 immigrants and 50 000 teenagers becoming adults each year (and those I'd say are low-ball estimates), that's still 1.2 million new voters.

When you're dealing with 7.7 million people in a province, - not all of whom can vote - 1.2 million new voters is a whole other ball game.

(The 15 years is also a low-end assumption. The PQ has stepped away from "Referendum the second we get elected" and back to the whole concept of "not unless we think we can win". And right now, it would take a sever misstep from Ottawa for yes to have a chance)

Requiring a clear majority (as opposed to a simple one) is clearly a good thing to avoid Quebec seceding on a whim (and then 5 people changing their mind and leading the majority right back the other way), but if at some future point a third referendum gets a 55% majority (or however many "clear" is defined to be), then Canada should no longer include Quebec.

That said, until such a thing occur, I'll be happy to be Canadian (well...if we can put the Conservatives back out of a job)
 
Last edited:
I'm curious Evil Figment; if there were to be another referendum within the next year, would you vote to secede, or to stay as part of Canada?

And I agree completely with putting the Conservatives out again. I'm personally amazed that they've lasted so long given all of the scandal they've put themselves through in the last six months.
 
Honestly? I don't know. I really don't.

Certainly, I consider myself a Québécois above any and all other things. The flag that makes me proudest to see flying is the Fleur-de-lis ; my national holiday is the 24th of June, not the 1st of July. My mother tongue is French, and my ancestors - with the exception of one native woman - arrived in the New World from France, the first in 1603, the last in 1756. D'Iberville is, if not strictly one of our hero (we are somewhat more picky about actual heroes), at least one of the "good guys" (never mind that he trashed Newfoundland a few time and did some nasty bouts of slaughtering), and Wolfe a bad guy (so what he made Canada possible?); and let's not get into Durham's just "reward" for his wonderful report (hint : it involves fire, pitchfork, brimstone and eternity).

As far as I'm concerned, the 2006 "Québécois nation" act was not a "boon", a "bone" thrown to Québecers - it was a ridiculously delayed recognition of what has been a simple fact of life for a generation if not more.

Canada is a very distant second. I still consider myself Canadian, and take pride in Canada's successes and achievement, but to me, Canada is a federation - an alliance - of very different people, and nothing more, certainly not a nation (a country, yes. But not a nation. At least not my nation).

There is a definite...charm, I guess...in the notion of building our own country at last - of the Fleur-de-lis flag being a full country flag; of Gens du Pays (if we keep that, which I'd hope we would) being a real country's anthem, rather than the unofficial anthem of a nation. Building the country of Québec is a dream, if a dangerous one, and it wouldn't take much to convince me it's a dream worth trying to carry out.

On the other hand, cold, rational analysis tell me we're better off staying in Canada at this time. But the dream remains a powerful bait.

I THINK it's most likely I would vote no if the voting was right now - BECAUSE, unlike a Yes, a no doesn't have to be permanent. I'd imagine it unlikely Canada would let us back in if we wanted back in after we leave, but there's little that can be done if we want to try having referendums every decade or so while we're in.

In essence, more of a "The time isn't right, let's wait a bit" than a "No, we are Canadians and Canadians we remain".

And honestly, from what I know of Quebecers, this is how many of them feel, too.
 
Last edited:
You phrased that in a way that helped me see a side and point of view missed by many english-speaking Canadians. And I can certainly both understand and respect that position.

I'm a first-generation Canadian, and my family came over from England. But nonetheless, I am ashamed of how both my countries have treated the French-speaking population in Canada. And I'm sure the majority of Canadians feel the same way. I agree with you completely that the "Québécois nation" act was long overdue. However I also feel that, given the length of time since the atrocities committed, there is no need to still hold a grudge against the people alive today who are not responsible for what happened.
 
I certainly agree with you; while one or two things might deserve issuing a formal apology over, that's no reason to hold grudges against modern English and English-Canadians and Americans (and indeed, most of my friends are of either group :-D)

Still, it gets aggravating when http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen....html?id=11bd71bb-371a-4fdc-92e6-f9565a5f727c get said (and the comments make it worse). EXCUSE ME? The fact that his official report advocated an official policy of anihilation of the French-Canadian presence is "unimportant"? (The fact that he called French-Canadians a people without culture and history does not help)

Ottawa is supposed to be the capital to both English and French Canadian. To suggest that French Canadian concerns about Durham - one of the greatest villains ever in the French-Canadian view of history - should be swept under the rug and that his plaque in Ottawa should reflect only the English-Canadian view of him...if English-Canadian build the country for themselves, addressing things only from their views and their concerns...how are we French-Canadians supposed to fit in? What place do we have?

Are we supposed to simply accept the English-Canadian view of history and culture, to follow along with it peacefully? To neatly fit into the mold English-Canadians feel is for "All Canadians", and happily abandon our view of culture and history for theirs?

Because when English-Canadian act like this - that a (Global) Canadian view of history and culture should reflect primarily their concerns and their views, and that French-Canadians should accept it and feel at home in it...

Sometimes - a lot of times, really - it feels like a lot of English-Canadian secretly think Durham was right.
 
Last edited:
It is really too bad that such people feel so strongly about the past; the choice to observe and focus on only one perpspective is simply too narrow. I agree with you completely over that editorial. Focusing on only one aspect of what the man did certainly gives a false sense of grandeur.

If I recall my History class seveal years ago correctly, then the idea of assimilation was not just for French-Canadians, but for Aboriginals as well. Whether Durham was responsible for both, I cannot recall. It's certainly not something that I would ever support. I personally celebrate the differences between the cultures of Canada, as it is what makes us the most unique nation in the world. There is an incredible amount of diversity between English-speaking Canadians, the Québécois, Aboriginals, and the ethnic minorities that make up the population.

I said it above, and I will say it again; Québéc is my favourite province. I find the cultural differences between Québéc and it's neighbouring provinces to be fascinating, and I love going to historical landmarks in the province as they frequently tell the past as it's not heard in History class. Old Québéc is quite possibly my favourite place in the world, and I have yet to meet a Québécois who I dislike.

Speaking as an English-Canadian, I do not believe that the Québécois should ever abandon the culture and history that makes them so unique. I do not want you to do this. Canada has a lot to answer for in the world, and it is not just the treatment of the Québécois. There is the treatment towards native Aboriginals, which I am ashamed to say is still ongoing today. There is the concentration camps we had during the second world war for Japanese Canadians. And of course, who can forget about the way we invited the Chinese into the country, made them build our railways, and then refused them citizenship?

Once, when I was in New Brunswick with my family, we went to a museum. At the end, there was a guestbook and several comments above ours was a message from a Québécois, who had come with his family. He wrote how they had enjoyed the tour but the English-only display tags had limited this enjoyment, so he suggested that they install bilingual tags. Whether this was ever done, I am not sure. But that remark has always stuck with me.

Do I think it right that the federal government focuses so little attention on Québéc? No. Do I think it right that, despite the fact we are officially a bilingual country, dual-language tags do not appear in Ontario until you are close to the Québéc border? No. Do I think the aforementioned editorial on Durham is justified? Again, I do not; history should be told as is, not just the bits and pieces that people prefer.
 
I was in Quebec City in June!

Such a nice place. I would live there if it weren't for the language barrier.
 
(For the record, I was born in Montreal in 1954. My family--both of my parents immigrated to Canada from Europe following WWII--immigrated to the United States in 1962.)

I wonder why Canada is so different from the United States.

We Americans have certainly waged war on native Americans with the intent of extermination. We have enslaved people. We have persecuted peoples of other religions (see what we did to the Mormons). We've institutionalized racism through Jim Crow laws. We've even indulged in empire building through wars with Spain.

Yet, all of us, even those people who suffered and are still suffering, proudly call ourselves Americans. Even the French-speaking Cajuns.

To bring this post closer to the situation regarding Quebec, the U.S. annexed massive amounts of territory from Mexico through war. The Mexicans in the conquered territory suffered discrimination and worse. California was not a good place to be for those Mexicans who owned large ranchos. Nevertheless, they called themselves Americanos, not Mexicans-in-exile.

I live in California. Whites are a minority here--the biggest minority, but still a minority. Latinos will soon overtake us. Nobody is talking about seceding from the U.S. and returning to Mexico or establishing a new country.

So, why is Canada so different? How did we become the "melting pot" and our neighbor didn't despite our common origins?

Why is it people here identify themselves as African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. and nobody blinks?
 
Last edited:
Agreed, I also find the idea of independance for Quebec downright foolish and misguided. It reminds me of the SNP (Scottish National Party) and their wish for Scottish independance, everytime I hear it I wonder if any of them have actually thought this idea all the way through. The same applies to Quebec just because the groups living there currently can't work with each other does not mean that splitting away from Canada solves all the problems, the mood is eerily remniscient of the conflict that exists in Belgium at the moment.
I am sure there are many that want Quebec to be a nation, but there are few that have truly thought about how it would work in reality if this wish came to pass. There are other far more sensible solutions out there, but I doubt most care or are prepared to compromise on the issues at hand. That in my eyes is the real core problem that they don't want it to work similarly to the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, where two groups couldn't make it work till very recently.
 
Swampert, perhaps you should try to get better informed on the issue.

Gadfly, it's a good question indeed. I think ultimately it goes back to the situation in North America immediately following the fall of New France.

Think back then. Britain was in a precarious position despite the fact that it held America all by itself. To the south, its English-speaking colonies were on the verge of open revolution. To the north, the French-speaking people were recently conquered and had no love for London. The only vaguely loyal colonies was the former Acadia, and that mostly because they were military base with only a small civilian population (well, them and Newfoundland, but who cares about Newfies?)

The American colonists could not be bought. Not, at least, without changing dramatically the political structure of the british empire to make room for colonial representatives (or letting them get away with draining the king's treasury for their defense, but not paying taxes). Québec, however, could be bought at a fairly small price - enact laws allowing them to maintain their french-catholic culture, and tell them the Americans are anti-French, anti-Catholic.

So that's what happened. When the thirteen colonies revolted, it left British North America a predominantly French, predominantly Catholic area by a very large margin - a state of fact that remained true for many years afterward, and all the more so when the British, rather than reverse policy after the American revolution, separated Canada into the english speaking Upper Canada (ie, Ontario) and the French speaking Lower Canada (that is, Québec).

Mind, even so Lower-Canada soon had an English-speaking elite, and most of what French members of the elite there were were English-friendly, but French-Canadians remained pretty close to a plurality of British North Americans well into the 19th century.

It's hard to assimilate a plurality.
 
Evil Figment said:
Swampert, perhaps you should try to get better informed on the issue.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice but I see absolutely no need to do that, I understand the basis of the problem and I also see that an independent Quebec will not be happening any time soon. There is no historic precedent in modern times that vouches for the creation of a separate nation in a situation like this, for now the status quo will remain.
 
...the De Gaulle speech? INITIATOR of the Quebec Independence movement?

De Gaulle may have helped it take off a little (mostly by giving the early independantists the feeling (illusion?) that they had foreign support, but certainly didn't initiate anything ; there were people with "Vive le Québec libre" signs at De Gaulle's speech (you know, before he said it), and it's a matter of debate in Québec whether he had planned to say "Vive le Québec libre", or simply improvised that part of the speech based on reading it from the signs around him.

It was an important moment, but hardly what you make it out to be ; French Quebec nationalism (not independantism) was on the rise since 1948 or so, and the independence movement was only a natural offshot of the nationalist movement after the Quiet Revolution (ie, returning Québec to its proper state as a French-Canadian province).

The links may be good, but seriously, Swampert, I don't think you realize how poor your information is regarding the Québec independence.
 
Last edited:
idiot

Evil Figment said:
...the De Gaulle speech? INITIATOR of the Quebec Independence movement?
Click to expand...
Nowhere did I say it was the initiation of the independence movement as a whole, well done reading that one! I think you gravely misunderstood what I said, I can assure you that I am decently informed on the subject and that my information is perfectly valid.

Your position or stance on the issue seems rather strange as I am merely re-stating what is also written there. It revived the movement as it stands today, but whatever ignore it if you will. It is even noted as a watershed moment and a turning point in the movement and nowhere did I even state that it was the only reason or the main reason for the modern campaign. I think I have my information right, thank you very much! However I do believe that you managed to misread or misinterpret what I wrote.

I hope Canada grants Quebec freedom sometime although all the referendums so far speak against the decision and even pundits argue that it's not connected with the long intervals in between. I do want to see how quickly people change their mind and ask Canada to let them rejoin the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom