Add new comment

Why you are lazy: your "tiny correction" is known, and addressed in the text in footnote #11:

I invite actual factual corrections, but please, make sure I actually got the fact wrong first. (Also, incidentally, your point occludes the fact that, on conquest in 1860, the new Westminster-administered polity renamed the name "Quebec", up through at least 1775. This is also addressed in the text.)

Why you are tiresome: your point about conservatives' role in the formulation of specifically Québécois identity, in the decades before 1960, is true enough - and I don't deny it. But this is not a text about Québécois nationalism, per se. It is about language dynamics, and incidentally, those conservatives relied upon the more primordial, pre-discursive fact of a large population of French-speaking people before they could write their primordial tracts. This is, again, a point explicitly made in the text.

But clearly you are not interested in engaging with the ideas, but with attacking me and/or what I represent.

So, addressing each point in turn...
1. This is bad faith. You are basically saying, "And yet you participate in society! Curious."

2. Not wrong, on the whole (though it may be wrong in the specifics, vis-à-vis PASC for instance), but not relevant to the specific concerns of this text. I look forward to a salient critique on this subject specifically.

3. Learning Spanish could be performative nonsense, but it probably has more practical value. Most (though not all) speakers of indigenous languages in the Western Hemisphere also speak French, English, Spanish, or Portuguese. Some speakers of Spanish do not speak English or French. "Practicality" isn't everything, but that is my principal concern in this text.

4. You are very wrong. First, for an anglophone or a francophone, Arabic is not as easy as Spanish. Second, Arabic is also just not as easy *in general*. You have to learn at least two very distinct registers in order to be fluent at all, and you will still face severe limitations in terms of where you can go, understand people, and be understood. There are also dialectical differences within Spanish, but they are lesser. You will get on much better in Spain with Mexican Spanish than if you try to Yemen with Moroccan Arabic.

5. I suppose I worded the last point poorly. Ideally the anarchist bookfair is about fomenting anarchy - but in Montréal, not in China, not in the Arab world. Spanish is useful for that purpose. As I say in the text, Spanish-speaking anarchists (some of them monoglots) circulate through Montréal frequently, and we are closer to Spanish-speaking countries. I stand by my point about a "missionary" attitude being present in your apparent belief that the purpose of learning a language is to tell the people who speak about that language about the Gospel of Anarchy. That was not the point of this text; the point was for anarchists to increase their own capacities to speak to one another, collaborate, travel about, meet new people who share our ideas, etc.

6. Spanish is a colonial language; I say as much in the text. It also doesn't matter that it is a colonial language. If you believe that speaking a colonial language is so awful, however, I invite you to respond to this comment in an indigenous language of your choosing.

Bonus: "Also spare me your puerile urge for win/lose domination games." Sounds like someone who likes to dish it but can't take it.