[kozumi_star]

Basically, the Quiet Revolution in Quebec was a period of changing from an old-fashioned lifestyle (where the Roman Catholic Church controlled most of the thing) to a modernized lifestyle.

Do you think that the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s was the birth of seperatism? Why do you think so?

Here is a site about the Quiet Revolution:

http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=Ep ... d=1&lang=E

[Knoss]

Hard to say. In many respects it sounds as though the Queiet revolution of Quebec was not much differnt then Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas. The only difference was that Saskathcewan had a dual school system, government administerd public schools in English, which was more secular (English Anglicans, German Lutherans, Ukrainina orthadox, Ukrainian, Irish, Frech Catholics) and a French system for Metis and French-Canadians which was more catholic. THe changes here were brought on in the early 1930's byt he Conservatives who it is belived were influenced by the KKK. The policy went as far as prohibiting the crucifix from public schools.

[Mustang1]

I posted this on another thread,

Many historians would suggest (see Brune, et al.) that the modern separatist movement began in the 1960s and early 1970s (with the 1966 provincial election seeing RIN and the RN achieve roughly 9% of the popular vote). By 1968, Levesque’s PQ would be the prime political instrument in the democratic movement to make Quebec and independent political entity.

[Knoss]

But did it happen in Quebec?

[Mustang1]

Knoss wrote:

But did it happen in Quebec?

Huh?

[Knoss]

but WHY did it happen in Quebec and not other provinces?

[Mustang1]

Knoss wrote:

but WHY did it happen in Quebec and not other provinces?

Separatism? Sovereignty-Association? The Quiet Revolution? You’ll have to be more specific.

[Knoss]

Why did sepratism occure as a result of the reforms in Quebec and possably the right wing reforms in Alberta and not say reforms in Saskatchewan?

[Mustang1]

Do you mean modern separatism or sovereignty-association (there are competing political philosophies at that time and Quebec nationalism was hardly a recent phenomena)? And I’m not sure why reforms in Alberta or Saskatchewan would serve as a direct impetus to Levesque or Lesage’s Quiet Revolution – especially considering that internal Quebec politics (the antiquated nature of the Union Nationale and Duplessis, modernization, industrialization and urbanization pressure, unionism and nationalization of corporations – like Levesque’s Hydro-Quebec) and demographics were the driving force behind the emergence of the socio-political changes.


See Durocher’s “Quiet Revolution” for more.

[Knoss]

I guess it would have to do with older element sof nationalism, but the political shift in 1960's Quebec sounds almost identical to CCF Saskatchewan of the 1940's, provincialized warter and power companies (Saskpower, saskwater), major influx of social spending and a pro union attmosphere.

[themasta]

I wrote a thesis on this topic. My conclusion was that French Canada had its language and religion as stabilizing forces. With the loss of influence the Church suffered, language became the only thing that made the French different from English Canada. During the Quiet Revolution is when you have more talk of a "distinct society". This society is now only distinct because of it's language, which scared people in Quebec because language is so easily changed. Just think, before the revolution, every Frenchman spoke French and was a Catholic. It served as a united front against English Canada. Without that solid wall of resolve, they started to panic ie. separatism.

[Mustang1]

Knoss wrote:

I guess it would have to do with older element sof nationalism, but the political shift in 1960's Quebec sounds almost identical to CCF Saskatchewan of the 1940's, provincialized warter and power companies (Saskpower, saskwater), major influx of social spending and a pro union attmosphere.

Quebec did indeed begin a major political shift toward nationalization (the aforementioned Hydro-Quebec) but it also made tactical moves toward dealing with the economic inequality that existed in Quebec between French-Canadians and English-Canadians (avg Fr.Cdn earned 40% less than the avg. Eng.Cdn in 1961) and this resulted in Caisse do depot et placement du Quebec (which invested the money place in the Quebec Pension Plan and the Caisse became one of the largest financial institutions in Canada) and the Societe generale de financement du Quebec, which was designed to help small businesses. I’m not sure if these solutions to equally comparable problems existed in the Parries. Quebec is rather unique in this instance.

Secondly, radical separatism emerged during and after Quiet Revolution (see first Levesque, but then Vallieres) that sought to either politically break-up Confederation either peacefully or violently, if needed. This surge in pride (and other reasons), many historians (see Brune et al) note, did owe some relation to the Quiet Revolution. I’m not sure you’ll see this linguistic, religious (I didn’t even mention the government’s take over of education) cultural and political environment mirrored elsewhere.

[Virgil]

Mustang1 wrote:

I posted this on another thread,

Many historians would suggest (see Brune, et al.) that the modern separatist movement began in the 1960s and early 1970s (with the 1966 provincial election seeing RIN and the RN achieve roughly 9% of the popular vote). By 1968, Levesque’s PQ would be the prime political instrument in the democratic movement to make Quebec and independent political entity.

What I'm about to post I've stated on an other thread as well.

I would say that the modern seperatist notion was primarily motivated by this Revolution. Was Levesque's slogan not "Maitres chez-nous"? did De Gaulle not visit Quebec and shout "vive le Quebec libre!"? Though there were of course seperatist sentiments in the past, I have to go along with Mustang1 here in saying that this was the origin of the modern seperatist movement.