It's erasure to not include them, but cultural appropriation when including them as Quebec's history. I visited many first nations historical museums as a kid in school. They exist. Each one has their place. People are too offended these days.
In a state of high inflation, housing shortage and lumber mills demand dropping (weird), immigration influx, bridges broken, roads like Gaza strip and we're talking about museums. Museums. The screaming made the CAQ deaf.
Well I suppose if Indians had invented the pencil, paper, and a historically sound methodology around the recording of events, they'd be included. But they were in a different age- the Stone Age, Neolithic. Fact and full stop.
So were numerous European civilizations, they still get included in history books. Quebec's history books include lots of alternative facts. This is well known.
Champlain died in 1635, new France fell in 1760, the pencil was invented in 1795. So, no history for you either I suppose? (and this isn't even getting into the relative reliability of proper oral histories - as separated from other forms of oral tradition. Honestly, a lot of American history books are full of unreliable accounts prior to the 19th century. The accuracy of an account is based on the motivation to preserve it accurately, much moreso than how it is recorded).
@@paulhuedepohl1661 I've definitely read accounts in American history books that are more unreliable than some oral histories. An example: Chief Seattle's speech was rewritten and edited by Euro-American publishers a half dozen times (and the original has elements which were almost certainly introduced by the non-Indigenous person who wrote it down). On the other hand, there are oral history accounts which consist of a few paragraphs which are carefully memorised and always recited in the same way (including using the verbatim words of the person who originally said it) and such accounts are often clearly marked by a verbal cue to show exactly where the recitation begins and where it ends.
If you're not French, but any minority, English, Aboriginal etc., Legault has no use for you. Everything for him is about the almighty French nation, there's no room for anyone else.
I like Legault but when he talks politics or language he sound like a 1850 grandpa. If he had said a museum of "French Canadian culture" I would have had no problem at all. But he is talking about "our nation" the "Quebec nation" then if you are talking about the Quebec Nation then natives and everyone else should be included.
![[LIVE] Breakfast Television](/img/1.gif)
It's erasure to not include them, but cultural appropriation when including them as Quebec's history. I visited many first nations historical museums as a kid in school. They exist. Each one has their place. People are too offended these days.
In a state of high inflation, housing shortage and lumber mills demand dropping (weird), immigration influx, bridges broken, roads like Gaza strip and we're talking about museums. Museums. The screaming made the CAQ deaf.
Well I suppose if Indians had invented the pencil, paper, and a historically sound methodology around the recording of events, they'd be included.
But they were in a different age- the Stone Age, Neolithic. Fact and full stop.
So were numerous European civilizations, they still get included in history books. Quebec's history books include lots of alternative facts. This is well known.
Written in full blown arrogance of the French. Fact and full stop
Champlain died in 1635, new France fell in 1760, the pencil was invented in 1795. So, no history for you either I suppose? (and this isn't even getting into the relative reliability of proper oral histories - as separated from other forms of oral tradition. Honestly, a lot of American history books are full of unreliable accounts prior to the 19th century. The accuracy of an account is based on the motivation to preserve it accurately, much moreso than how it is recorded).
@@jwg72 Not as unreliable as "oral history"...
@@paulhuedepohl1661 I've definitely read accounts in American history books that are more unreliable than some oral histories. An example: Chief Seattle's speech was rewritten and edited by Euro-American publishers a half dozen times (and the original has elements which were almost certainly introduced by the non-Indigenous person who wrote it down). On the other hand, there are oral history accounts which consist of a few paragraphs which are carefully memorised and always recited in the same way (including using the verbatim words of the person who originally said it) and such accounts are often clearly marked by a verbal cue to show exactly where the recitation begins and where it ends.
If you're not French, but any minority, English, Aboriginal etc., Legault has no use for you. Everything for him is about the almighty French nation, there's no room for anyone else.
He makes that clear!!!
@@jarjar0653 Perfectly clear!
Good, as it should be. No one cares if an immigrant is mad for a country trying to preserve the history of the settlers
Legault has no use for lazy and arrogant English-speakers who can't be bothered to adapt to a different society...
Welcome to Canada, where you can't have a museum about your own history in your own country without being called supremacist.
Who’s included in The Legault Nation?
du souches, la meute, imperatif francais, pure laines.
Good remark.
@@trevorchabot864
Fausse nouvelle la Karen
I wish he would just go ahead and grow that tiny mustache and bloody well come out of the closest already!
I like Legault but when he talks politics or language he sound like a 1850 grandpa. If he had said a museum of "French Canadian culture" I would have had no problem at all. But he is talking about "our nation" the "Quebec nation" then if you are talking about the Quebec Nation then natives and everyone else should be included.