1. Although not central to his thesis, Mills does remark upon one of the intellectual ironies of the postcolonial movement in Quebec: the French [were] not colonized as the Aboriginals are, but ironically were "the first invading race." How does such a truism figure into the arguments - and perhaps more importantly, ideologies - during Mills' time period?
2. While not inherently unique to black activism, just why would the politically conscious black activists of Quebec so ably disparage or distance themselves from their sisters-in-activism? Mills speaks about the language of protest being rich in masculine bravado, but almost entirely lacking in female representation. What was it about Quebec radicalism that was so attractive to this radical machismo?
3. The FLQ manifesto that denounced Trudeau for his flip demeanour and alleged homosexuality. While not representative of the entirety of the movements active within the province, Mills' work has little to say about Quebec's gay and lesbian population. Drawing upon my earlier question, what was it about these radical politics that mandated an unquestionable and parochial masculinity? Could it have been the old vanguard's fetishization of "work" or is a more nuanced reading required?
4. Perhaps more of an afterthought, than a real question: could it be argued that the culture that the Francophone activists of Mills' book were trying to preserve - a way of life that was subjugated by an Anglo empire - had itself, in light of my earlier questions, been responsible for pushing Quebec's Aboriginal, female and homosexual populations to an even further periphery?
1. How legitimate is the use of racial metaphors by francophone activists to describe their relationship with the English community i.e. blanc negres? Mills says that these terms were used as an expression of solidarity with black activists but also says that black activists themselves were not always supportive of the francophone cause. Do we see this as a well-intentioned attempt to place Quebec within the global decolonization movement or something that dehistoricizes and trivializes the black experience in North America? 2. Why is it that the FLQ has become the most famous political organization of this period on Quebecois history? Is it just because they produced better headlines or does it have more to do with the type of resistance that is easiest for us to understand? Mills says that the FLQ perpetuated the myth of the "solitary urban guerilla" and overemphasized the degree to which individual action is able to affect change. Why are these tropes so popular? What about them is seemingly easier to digest than collective solidarity movements?
1. The unequal power relations in Montréal were built on a linguistic binary. What is it about language that gives it the ability to stratify power so radically? Are Mills' arguments about language transferable to the context of other cities; is linguistic difference always a harbinger of economic or colonial oppression?
2. Another question about language: I was intrigued by the motif of women as bearers of the nation, not the makers of national identity (p. 23), and how this idea might relate to other struggles for national liberation in contemporary time periods. Are women necessarily excluded from wide-ranging participation in liberation movements because of contemporary social standards/expectations, or is the exclusion of women from Québec nationalist organizations (at least in the beginning), a unique function of French-Canadian life?
3. Pamphlets, manifestos, and other forms of written communication seemed to play a major role in galvanizing support for the various branches of activism that Mills discusses. The use of printed material to disseminate information is a frequent feature of Leftist organizations, but how might it be particularly indicative of the struggle of French-Canadians in Montréal?
(sorry for the multiple posts, I was having posting issues this week!)
1. In his discussion of "Montreal's Black Renaissance", Mills notes how Black activism in Montreal needed to alter its language in order to differentiate (but still present solidarity) with white nationalism that was using the language of the Black Power movement. We've started to discuss previously how anti colonial struggles essentially use many of the similar ideologies of its colonizers (nationalism, workers' uprising, political "liberation", etc). What happens (Montreal is a prime example) when the language of the "colonized" is co-opted by those with more power? Does the language of the colonized become diluted when co-opted by other groups? Is it even possible to avoid co-opting this language (which is essentially the language and ideology of the colonizer) for anti-colonial struggles?
2. In his introduction, Mills states that activist movements reshaped the ideas that original inspired them. He goes on to demonstrate a number of examples throughout his book of connection with other movements... But to play the other side of his argument, did Quebec profoundly reshape postcolonial thought and activism? Or, does Quebec remain a largely localized and particular example?
3. Casey's third question got me thinking about what we discussed in our last class (I know, it seems like a very long time ago). Mills discusses the place of the women's liberation movement in relation to other activism movements in Montreal at the same time period. We've examined women's exclusion due to gendered roles in anti colonial struggles, but we've also seen women's impact. How does the particular prominence of 'language' alter women's negotiations of nationalism in the context of their own liberation struggles? In other words, what unique conflicts does the centrality of language create within this relationship?
1. Mills mentions the idea that Montrealers were caught between 'colonization' by English Canada and the United States. We've talked about American cultural imperialism before, but how does it fit in here?
2. Why have the 1960s become such an iconic decade in world history? I mean, Carleton offers a half-credit course on that decade in the United States alone. Could this be partially linked to the rise in various alternative histories and not entirely due to the movements that inspired those histories?
1.) I was struck by constant presence of McGill professors, newspapers, student organizations, and protests in this work. Regardless of McGill’s importance as a symbolic of English imperialism, does this hint at an archival bias in the activities captured in this work? What are the records produced by smaller radical organizations?
2.) Did Montreal’s theoretically rich political activism limit the ability of individuals and groups outside of the city to participate the province’s political discourse? It seems only with the shift from postcolonial thinkers to generalized strands of Marxism in the 1970s that we see the growth of activism across Quebec and into smaller towns. It seemed that Marxism captured the concerns of labours that lived in smaller, unilingual French communities.
Though Mills does mention in the conclusion of his book that many leftist writers and groups had begun to realize some of the contradictions in their conception of themselves as ‘the colonized’ in the 1970s, their initial understandings of imperialism and the experience of oppression raises some important questions concerning the kinds of associations that we make with these terms. What does is it suggest that anti-colonial Quebeckers felt the need to present themselves as negres blancs? Is race an essential element to conceptions of oppression? Is there a problem with some of the writings in this period which expressed sentiments such as “to be Black was to be colonized, and therefore to be on the side of those who were involved in the worldwide struggle against empire”(111)?
Linked to this question is the issue of the “multi-layered nature of colonialism in Quebec” (212). The level to which the plight of natives and blacks is dismissed or ignored in these 1960s movements in Quebec is often raised as evidence of French Canada’s position as the colonizer rather than as the colonized. However, are there not other examples of strategic ignorance of colonial history as a means of promoting contemporary anti-imperialist movements? Are the multiple layers of colonialism being ignored in other regions of the world as well? How does this effect our understanding of Quebec’s relationship to the global anti-colonial movement?
How can one negotiate the supposedly inclusive nature of anti-colonial movements which purported to align themselves with the oppressed worldwide, with the simultaneously exclusive nature of these groups which attempt to represent themselves as the ultimate oppressed group? For example, the exclusion of Anglophone women from the FLF- does this tactic not create divisions where a united front might be more effective?
What does Mills' emphasis on the transnational character of Montreal social movements mean for his treatment of more local struggles?
Why didn't the anticolonial logic of Quebec nationalism fall apart sooner? Did earlier Quebeckers see their whiteness differently? Or was the experience of French-Canadian whiteness, and its relationship to anti-racist and Aboriginal struggles, different in the earlier part of Mills' period?
Do we buy Mills' assertion that so few Quebeckers supported the FLQ's actions in any way? How could the FLQ manifesto become so important if everybody was truly so deeply opposed to its authors?
1. Although not central to his thesis, Mills does remark upon one of the intellectual ironies of the postcolonial movement in Quebec: the French [were] not colonized as the Aboriginals are, but ironically were "the first invading race." How does such a truism figure into the arguments - and perhaps more importantly, ideologies - during Mills' time period?
ReplyDelete2. While not inherently unique to black activism, just why would the politically conscious black activists of Quebec so ably disparage or distance themselves from their sisters-in-activism? Mills speaks about the language of protest being rich in masculine bravado, but almost entirely lacking in female representation. What was it about Quebec radicalism that was so attractive to this radical machismo?
3. The FLQ manifesto that denounced Trudeau for his flip demeanour and alleged homosexuality. While not representative of the entirety of the movements active within the province, Mills' work has little to say about Quebec's gay and lesbian population. Drawing upon my earlier question, what was it about these radical politics that mandated an unquestionable and parochial masculinity? Could it have been the old vanguard's fetishization of "work" or is a more nuanced reading required?
4. Perhaps more of an afterthought, than a real question: could it be argued that the culture that the Francophone activists of Mills' book were trying to preserve - a way of life that was subjugated by an Anglo empire - had itself, in light of my earlier questions, been responsible for pushing Quebec's Aboriginal, female and homosexual populations to an even further periphery?
1. How legitimate is the use of racial metaphors by francophone activists to describe their relationship with the English community i.e. blanc negres? Mills says that these terms were used as an expression of solidarity with black activists but also says that black activists themselves were not always supportive of the francophone cause. Do we see this as a well-intentioned attempt to place Quebec within the global decolonization movement or something that dehistoricizes and trivializes the black experience in North America?
ReplyDelete2. Why is it that the FLQ has become the most famous political organization of this period on Quebecois history? Is it just because they produced better headlines or does it have more to do with the type of resistance that is easiest for us to understand? Mills says that the FLQ perpetuated the myth of the "solitary urban guerilla" and overemphasized the degree to which individual action is able to affect change. Why are these tropes so popular? What about them is seemingly easier to digest than collective solidarity movements?
1. The unequal power relations in Montréal were built on a linguistic binary. What is it about language that gives it the ability to stratify power so radically? Are Mills' arguments about language transferable to the context of other cities; is linguistic difference always a harbinger of economic or colonial oppression?
ReplyDelete2. Another question about language: I was intrigued by the motif of women as bearers of the nation, not the makers of national identity (p. 23), and how this idea might relate to other struggles for national liberation in contemporary time periods. Are women necessarily excluded from wide-ranging participation in liberation movements because of contemporary social standards/expectations, or is the exclusion of women from Québec nationalist organizations (at least in the beginning), a unique function of French-Canadian life?
3. Pamphlets, manifestos, and other forms of written communication seemed to play a major role in galvanizing support for the various branches of activism that Mills discusses. The use of printed material to disseminate information is a frequent feature of Leftist organizations, but how might it be particularly indicative of the struggle of French-Canadians in Montréal?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(sorry for the multiple posts, I was having posting issues this week!)
ReplyDelete1. In his discussion of "Montreal's Black Renaissance", Mills notes how Black activism in Montreal needed to alter its language in order to differentiate (but still present solidarity) with white nationalism that was using the language of the Black Power movement. We've started to discuss previously how anti colonial struggles essentially use many of the similar ideologies of its colonizers (nationalism, workers' uprising, political "liberation", etc). What happens (Montreal is a prime example) when the language of the "colonized" is co-opted by those with more power? Does the language of the colonized become diluted when co-opted by other groups? Is it even possible to avoid co-opting this language (which is essentially the language and ideology of the colonizer) for anti-colonial struggles?
2. In his introduction, Mills states that activist movements reshaped the ideas that original inspired them. He goes on to demonstrate a number of examples throughout his book of connection with other movements... But to play the other side of his argument, did Quebec profoundly reshape postcolonial thought and activism? Or, does Quebec remain a largely localized and particular example?
3. Casey's third question got me thinking about what we discussed in our last class (I know, it seems like a very long time ago). Mills discusses the place of the women's liberation movement in relation to other activism movements in Montreal at the same time period. We've examined women's exclusion due to gendered roles in anti colonial struggles, but we've also seen women's impact. How does the particular prominence of 'language' alter women's negotiations of nationalism in the context of their own liberation struggles? In other words, what unique conflicts does the centrality of language create within this relationship?
1. Mills mentions the idea that Montrealers were caught between 'colonization' by English Canada and the United States. We've talked about American cultural imperialism before, but how does it fit in here?
ReplyDelete2. Why have the 1960s become such an iconic decade in world history? I mean, Carleton offers a half-credit course on that decade in the United States alone. Could this be partially linked to the rise in various alternative histories and not entirely due to the movements that inspired those histories?
1.) I was struck by constant presence of McGill professors, newspapers, student organizations, and protests in this work. Regardless of McGill’s importance as a symbolic of English imperialism, does this hint at an archival bias in the activities captured in this work? What are the records produced by smaller radical organizations?
ReplyDelete2.) Did Montreal’s theoretically rich political activism limit the ability of individuals and groups outside of the city to participate the province’s political discourse? It seems only with the shift from postcolonial thinkers to generalized strands of Marxism in the 1970s that we see the growth of activism across Quebec and into smaller towns. It seemed that Marxism captured the concerns of labours that lived in smaller, unilingual French communities.
Though Mills does mention in the conclusion of his book that many leftist writers and groups had begun to realize some of the contradictions in their conception of themselves as ‘the colonized’ in the 1970s, their initial understandings of imperialism and the experience of oppression raises some important questions concerning the kinds of associations that we make with these terms. What does is it suggest that anti-colonial Quebeckers felt the need to present themselves as negres blancs? Is race an essential element to conceptions of oppression? Is there a problem with some of the writings in this period which expressed sentiments such as “to be Black was to be colonized, and therefore to be on the side of those who were involved in the worldwide struggle against empire”(111)?
ReplyDeleteLinked to this question is the issue of the “multi-layered nature of colonialism in Quebec” (212). The level to which the plight of natives and blacks is dismissed or ignored in these 1960s movements in Quebec is often raised as evidence of French Canada’s position as the colonizer rather than as the colonized. However, are there not other examples of strategic ignorance of colonial history as a means of promoting contemporary anti-imperialist movements? Are the multiple layers of colonialism being ignored in other regions of the world as well? How does this effect our understanding of Quebec’s relationship to the global anti-colonial movement?
How can one negotiate the supposedly inclusive nature of anti-colonial movements which purported to align themselves with the oppressed worldwide, with the simultaneously exclusive nature of these groups which attempt to represent themselves as the ultimate oppressed group? For example, the exclusion of Anglophone women from the FLF- does this tactic not create divisions where a united front might be more effective?
What does Mills' emphasis on the transnational character of Montreal social movements mean for his treatment of more local struggles?
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't the anticolonial logic of Quebec nationalism fall apart sooner? Did earlier Quebeckers see their whiteness differently? Or was the experience of French-Canadian whiteness, and its relationship to anti-racist and Aboriginal struggles, different in the earlier part of Mills' period?
Do we buy Mills' assertion that so few Quebeckers supported the FLQ's actions in any way? How could the FLQ manifesto become so important if everybody was truly so deeply opposed to its authors?