Monday, November 27, 2006

Bollocks of the week.

It's a tie! First, there's alleged historian Michael Bliss in the Post:
Let there be no misunderstanding about concepts of nation and nationality. The only two meanings of "nation" are (1) a human group bound together by ethnic ties, i.e. ties of blood; (2) a territorial unit that exercises political independence. We call aboriginal Canadians "nations" in that racial or ethnic sense; they used to be seen as tribes. We call Canada a "nation" in the political sense because it is an independent country.

In what sense can Quebecers be considered a nation? Quebec is not an independent country. If Quebecers are a nation because they are of the French-Canadian tribe, the volk, as the Germans used to say, then we are legitimizing racial/ethnic concepts that are ugly almost beyond belief in the 21st century. We turn all Quebecers who don't have the right blood -- all the Schwartzes and Cohens and others -- into second-class citizens.
First step, the nation resolution... Second step, the Holocaust! Or 'Olocaust as they'll say in Québec as the bloodthirsty nationalists start with Barbara Kay and work their way through Cote-St.-Luc. Sigh. (Potter's on this one.)

Secondly, there's John Ibbitson in the Globe and Mail:
For anyone under 40, it's so obvious that Quebec is its own nation that the subject isn't worth discussing.
What? Oh, and for everyone between the age of, um, 32 and 53, incomes trusts were so obviously a tax loophole that needed to be plugged, like, totally.

Okay, upon further consideration, Bliss clearly is the actual winner of the Bollocks of the Week award. But, really, Ibbitson, come on. (By the way, did you know that Ibbitson was a playwright in a previous life? Where can I get a copy of Mayonnaise?)

1 comment:

Adam Daifallah said...

Ibbitson's statement would have been more accurate had it read: "For [any Quebecer outside Montreal]under 40, it's so obvious that Quebec is its own nation that the subject isn't worth discussing."