Talk:English Canada

Definition rather than wikipedia entry

This article seems more like a definition. In fact, there is a wiktionary article that has essentially the same information. Is there any reason why this should be its own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.250.7 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article uses some charged language and makes a lot of controversial -- and unsubstantiated -- claims. It is not neutral and it is not encyclopedia; it needs a major rewrite. --74.58.81.219 (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

ROC

Where is the citation for this? I have never heard of the rest of canada being described as english-canada. Citation is needed. Thankszoreos--Geppy 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't have the time or date, but here's a famous quote for you, then: "English Canada doesn't have a culture. I'm going to give it one." - Pierre Trudeau, speaking of his imminent institution of multiculturalism and the opening up of immigration from Commonwealth countries in Asia and Africa.Skookum1 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you meant a cite for "ROC"....that first surfaced in the Mulroney years and it was a widespread acronym and also the subject of heated debate; as with "English Canada" it's a designation that only results from Quebec setting itself apart as special, distinct or whatever. There IS no such place as English Canada, although the politicians and certain pundits will speak that way; there are about fourteen/fifteen English Canadas, in fact, all of them different; the term ROC was coined to avoid saying "English Canada" partly because the other provinces have significant French populations and the North, of course, is a different matter entirely. If you had a GlobalNews online subscription it'd be easy enough to search their archives for a usage; or the CBCs.Skookum1 18:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an awful quote. Talk about contempt for English Canadians. How did such a man ever become Prime Minister? If a people exist, it has a history and if it has a history it has a culture. Canadians have a specific culture of course, it is just diluted in the Anglo-American one. That can be fixed by policy. We did it in Quebec for our own culture and it worked quite well under the circumstances. I remember Pierre Bourgault, a hard core separatist from Quebec who expressed his dismay at the sight of so many English Canadian intellectuals betraying their own people, their cultural needs. How ironic that he was the one to care more about others than Trudeau, the alienated and colonized Québécois. -- Mathieugp 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not meaning to be rude, but I think that I would have to agree with Trudeau's statement much more than yours Mathieu. It seems to be a common misconception in Quebec, and Ontario to some extent, that there was ever a unified culture of English speaking Canadians. Not to say there weren't and aren't efforts to patch together a national notion of English Canada - possibly embraced most especially by those of English ancestry - rather Trudeau recognized a need for the creation of such a culture to unify the diversity (division?) of the country. It was not because what is deemed as English Canada was without cultures (there were and still are strong regional cultures entirely distinct of the simplistic paper machéd version of so-called English Canadian culture), it was without a single one. With different mixes of ancestries, histories, religions, geographies and even institutions, only imperialism could brush such an enormous land with the same tone. Combined with a renewed opening to non-European cultures, multiculturalism fit in "English Canada" as perhaps the only possible unifying principle, even though strong traces of imperialism in Central Canada systematically want to equate their culture with the entire country. AnthroGael 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthroGael (talk • contribs)

I have an inkling Trudeau's sentence might have partly been a dig taken at the infamous (at least among francophones) Durham Report, which once claimed about the same thing of Canadians (the word at the time meaning "French Canadians", "English Canadians" still being referred to as British subjects). While Lord Durham didn't exactly use these exact words in his report, it could be an accurate shorthand for what he wrote. To wit:

"There can hardly be conceived a nationality more destitute of all that can invigorate and elevate a people, than that which is exhibited by the descendants of the French in Lower Canada, owing to their retaining their peculiar language and manners. They are a people with no history, and no literature. [...]"

And, if you allow me to cite one more thing in the same vein:

"The language, the laws, the character of the North American Continent are English; and every race but the English (I apply this to all who speak the English language) appears there in a condition of inferiority. It is to elevate them from that inferiority that I desire to give to the Canadians our English character. I desire it for the sake of the educated classes, whom the distinction of language and manners keeps apart from the great Empire to which they belong. At the best, the fate of the educated and aspiring colonist is, at present, one of little hope, and little activity; but the French Canadian is cast still further into the shade, by a language and habits foreign to those of the Imperial Government. [...]"

I, of course, am no history or political expert, but I could imagine a French Canadian Prime Minister might not resist introducing his policy on multiculturalism with a dig reminiscent of Durham's words... Especially Pierre Eliott "Just Watch Me" Trudeau. Oh well, make of that what you will. :) 69.156.175.48 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

should be also written in french. term is used by french speakers, within the regions discussed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E006:34:1124:5606:3E04:189A (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Why no article for "English-Canadians"?

By this I don't mean English-speakers/anglophones, but people of English ancestry. They're mentioned here, but doncha think it would be fair/proper if there was an article on Canadians of actual from-England English heritage? Maybe would have to be Canadians of English ancestry as "English Canadian" currently redirects here. Sure, the Scots and Irish seem to predominate among the various British components of the population, but the English are a big chunk of it (the largest, I think). So why is it that this ethnicity doesn't deserve its own article and list of "Notable Canadians of English ancestry" (since "Notable English Canadians" would be misleading).Skookum1 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting

"This article appears to be a dictionary definition. Please rewrite it to present the subject from an encyclopedic point of view. (March 2022)" - The top of the page.

@Meters, if I get warned for simply rewriting the article as the note says in order to make it less dictionary-like, what next? Either the note goes or the previous edits are restored, and the article is developed or revised from there if you're unhappy with my edits.

Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You were warned for restoring a contested edit that completely rewrote the article without first discussing it. Meters (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then let's discuss it (even though you made no effort to in the beginning as well, as the contester of the edit). What did I do that you disagreed with, and how can I do it right? Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, I objected to your complete rewrite of the article. It's up to you, as the person wanting to change a long-standing article, to get consensus for those changes once they have been contested. You made no attempt to do so, you simply restored your edits.

To start off with, why are you completely removing all mention of the other interpretations of "English Canada" that were discussed in the original version? Meters (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:IAR

Secondly, my plan was to format and add the other examples in a separate "Other uses" section, which would've made the article far more encyclopedic whilst retaining the information. I had already incorporated the first interpretation (ROC) into the beginning.

If you had stated opposition specifically to the omitted info, I would've added it when I had the chance. Stating opposition to a rewrite when there's an exclaimer at the top of the page asking for the article to be rewritten is beyond absurd. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)