> Maybe it's coming, but I didn't see anything about the ROC* response to the 1995 referendum.
Indeed. I do not know if we'll be covering them or not, but I will bring this question up in Thursday's class.
It is important to remember, this is a Québec politics and history class, taught from a Québécois POV, and partially funded by the Québec government... though I haven't detected any particular anti-Canadian bias (for instance, the instructor says he is proud of both his Québécois AND Canadian identities).
> 1. That massive rally of bused-in non-Quebeckers asking that they vote 'no'. There are mixed feelings on whether that had much effect on the vote.
I'll definitely bring that up.
> The non-acceptance of S-A by the ROC
Yes, an important point. S-A was a frightfully confused notion, and even the voters in Québec weren't fully able to define it. It is understandable that the ROC wasn't accepting of the idea. But the ROC wasn't voting in the 1995 referendum, and this lecture had a focus on Québec during that period. Again, I will bring up the point on Thursday.
About your comments on point 1C, that all of the potential negative economic effects you list if the "YES" side won, it all may very well be true.
But the point was, the voters didn't "believe" that the "YES" vote wouldn't be economically costly. Whether or not this was true, and whether the ROC believed it, is another story.
Of all of the points you list, only one was actually mentioned in class -- the threat of First Nations' refusal to separate from Canada in the event of a "YES" victory -- and it was brought up by me.
I'll bring up the rest of the negative economic effects from the ROC's POV in Thursday's class.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 03:50 pm (UTC)Indeed. I do not know if we'll be covering them or not, but I will bring this question up in Thursday's class.
It is important to remember, this is a Québec politics and history class, taught from a Québécois POV, and partially funded by the Québec government... though I haven't detected any particular anti-Canadian bias (for instance, the instructor says he is proud of both his Québécois AND Canadian identities).
> 1. That massive rally of bused-in non-Quebeckers asking that they vote 'no'. There are mixed feelings on whether that had much effect on the vote.
I'll definitely bring that up.
> The non-acceptance of S-A by the ROC
Yes, an important point. S-A was a frightfully confused notion, and even the voters in Québec weren't fully able to define it. It is understandable that the ROC wasn't accepting of the idea. But the ROC wasn't voting in the 1995 referendum, and this lecture had a focus on Québec during that period. Again, I will bring up the point on Thursday.
About your comments on point 1C, that all of the potential negative economic effects you list if the "YES" side won, it all may very well be true.
But the point was, the voters didn't "believe" that the "YES" vote wouldn't be economically costly. Whether or not this was true, and whether the ROC believed it, is another story.
Of all of the points you list, only one was actually mentioned in class -- the threat of First Nations' refusal to separate from Canada in the event of a "YES" victory -- and it was brought up by me.
I'll bring up the rest of the negative economic effects from the ROC's POV in Thursday's class.