Michel wrote:
I'm not denying regionalism and chauvinism, neither in Québec, Texas, the South, the West, Latin Europe, Chinese expat, Taiwanese racists, Japanese xenophob, etc., you name them. I'm questioning your association of entire regions or group of people culturally recognizable as reactionary by opposition to other that would be progressive according to the region. I'm saying that people are backward or progressive according to their personal experience, social position they occupy in the social production process and level of critical thinking they are able to manage in society in front of constant media and political brainwashing from the ruling class apparatus. I'm from Québec as you said, and I don't share anything politically with the archetype image you have of that province, which is a bourgeois image by the way, a mix of Québec bashing, Québec and Canadian nationalism and chauvinism, plus the federalist official party line. And I know people from California who appears as idiots as any German university student burning their books in 1933, just like there are revolutionary marxist element in Arkansas that would be as radical as any Russian worker of 1917 being them put in the same social environment and intellectual debate. Your vision of the world is a vision imposed by the various ruling class sections in their regional fight of one against the other.
This is what I call racism in an intellectualized form, presented as sociology or anthropology. You're parroting ruling class crap and lacking critical thinking.
There's an american idol made in Québec, can't remember the name. And that prove nothing except that this group of people is culturally different from the rest of Canada speaking another language.
------------------------------
There is always going to be elements in certain societies that do not go with the overall trend or percieved majority view constructed by the media and 'norms'. If there's a town of 10,000 people and 1,000 of those people have a different life that counters everything the 9,000 people believe, they will be repressed. The high concentration of American Idol viewers come from the South and the South as a whole (not everyone but as a group) tends to place location over talent. "He's a good old boy, he's one of us," etc. I agree with you on people's life experiences shaping their world views, but now the media does the cultural shaping as it is a powerful propoganda tool. To many in the rural parts they still only see a black person on the late local news. I'd may or may not have a different view of the US if I hadn't experienced the rural element along with growing up in St. Louis. To people just a bit older than myself their view of the south is one of lynchings and riots where cities burn. The racial hatred is still there, but the only time I've ever seen a city burn was when a bunch of whites got drunk on Halloween and burned a couple pubs down.
No I was saying if Canada had an actual country wide bi-lingual show, not a different one for each of the two countries within it. You would see the same sort of voting patterns by the majority of people. Then the local or provincial media forces get involved and force you to root for the local kid. People vote for the familiar and a person who most likely represents them and their image of society.
Another or better example that isn't confined to language is sports. Lets say Canada had a country wide hockey tournament based on each province having their own team. BC plays Quebec, Ontario plays Alberta etc (every province has a team made up of players from their respective locations) etc. On a whole who do you think people of BC or Quebec are going to root for? Sure, there will be some elements in Quebec who might root for the BC squad based on actual judgement of talent, but they would keep that to themselves as rooting against the 'home team' might not be the wisest thing to say publicly. But overall Quebec would be feverishly supporting their own, just as BC would. If the series was any good the tensions would escalate. Hooligans would call into 1040 after a loss and start ranting on French people, Quebec radio callers would do the same after getting wind of some attack on somebody in the street with the Quebec sweater etc.
Basically going back to that town scenario the 9,000 people who are of like minds control the image of that town and how it sees itself as a whole. The 1,000 who are opposed to the 9,000 are repressed and never are able to get their voices heard through the tyranny of the majority. But then the city attracts jobs and people who aren't familiar with the old dynamic move in and join the 1,000. Years go by and that side steadily grows to 6,000 while the 9,000 shrinks.
Then the minority gets empowered and creates a social change. The social change is so drastic that it frightens the old guard as they used to have all the power and control. As the upper class lost their power they started to band together and peruse their options, but are just calling it a different name from what it was in the 60s. That is the story of the South. After de-industrialization of the North, Northerners flocked to the South where the jobs were located and distrubed the traditional social structure of the South. The old guard got defensive and fought back as they percieved it as a threat to their social class power or as they would term it 'way of life'. The South has many Hérouxville's on average based on racial and social lines than anywhere else in the country. Now its illegal emigrants who happen to have a strong base in the South threatening that old power structure. The suburban town next to mine is an "anti-illegal" town where anyone who doesn't have American papers can't live, work, go to school in the town and English is the official language.
