Nation - what are we about to do?

For the past several days, the politicos in Canada have been talking about Quebec as a nation. Liberals will be talking about in their convention in Montreal in the next week. Apparently some members of the convention are raising the motion that Quebec ought to be considered a nation. Michael Ignatieff raised this curious notion himself during his campaign as a way of tweaking some debate among his colleagues and, according to some pundits, raising the ghost of Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. OOO - that confederation talks begin again - that separatism be stirred up, that separate and distinct society status become a discussion point amongst Canadians again.

What is a nation? Is Canada a nation? Here is what Wikipedia has to say about "Nation":

One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The members of a nation are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual's sense of belonging to it.

A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different applications. Small differences in pronunciation may be enough to categorise someone as a member of another nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be seen by
others, as members of the same nation. Members of a nation are considered to share certain traits, values and norms of behavior, certain duties toward other members, and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation.

Nations extend across generations, and include the dead as full members. More vaguely, they are assumed to include future generations. No-one fixes a timespan, but a nation is typically several centuries old. Past events are evaluated in this context, for instance by referring to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago.

The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual. Almost all nations are associated with a specific territory, the national homeland. Some live in a historical diaspora, that is, mainly outside the national
homeland. A state which explicitly identifies as the homeland of a particular nation is a nation-state, and most modern states fall into this category, although there may be violent disputes about their legitimacy.

Where territory is disputed between nations, the claims may be based on which nation lived there first. Especially in areas of historical European settlement (1500-1950), the term "First
Nations" is used by groups which share an aboriginal culture, and seek official recognition or autonomy.

Canada - it seems from this explanation - is not a nation per se, but a conglomeration of various groups of ethnicities who gathered together to form a confederation. I know that being Canadian is NOT a nationality, it is a Citizenship. Being Spanish or Belgian or German is a nationality. I am a citizen of Canada. I am Canadian. It is NOT my nationality.

Rather than make Quebec, or any one province a nation, whether exclusively in a united Canada, as proposed by Stephen Harper or others, or simply a nation unto itself as proposed by the Bloc Quebecois whether Quebec one day separates or not, may I suggest the following:

• Make French speaking Canada a nation, all those people who proclaim their first language and culture to be French are indeed part of a nation in this country from Vancouver Island to Cape Breton Island. They represent the expansion of the Francophonie across Canada and should, like the other nations in Canada, the First Nations, have a status, to preserve and protect French culture wherever it is thriving and surviving. Quebec happens to be a mother province of Francophone culture but it is certainly NOT the only place where French speakers and French culture thrives.
• A recognition of Francophone culture and heritage across Canada would be an appropriate culmination, before 2008, of 400 years of French Culture in Canada - Champlain's dream to expand French Canada across the continent.
• There are unique and long standing contributions which Francophone culture made and continues to make to Canada and which should be recognised, protected and celebrated. These contributions deserve support by federal and provincial taxpayers.
• Declaring Francophone culture and language in Canada nation status achieves two important goals:
• - it would diminish the likelihood of other provinces to proclaim their special nature and the need for their declaration as a nation in some near future scenario
• - it would unite, dare I say, a nation-wide, community of Francophones rather than split French Canada into those inside the nation and those outside the nation, as has been done with reserve and off reserve natives. Can we learn some lessons from past experience?

I do not hold high hopes for politicians of any stripe who endeavour for whatever reason to split Canada into two or more "nations". It's difficult enough managing this country with 10 provinces and 3 territories. Get on with the business of governing and stop trying to make political hay.