babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » The Obligatory "Conan In Toronto" Post

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Obligatory "Conan In Toronto" Post
C. Haught
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4778

posted 12 February 2004 08:56 AM      Profile for C. Haught     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For the few Canadians that were able to watch it (on NewVR in Barrie/Toronto, ON or NewRO in Pembroke/Ottawa, ON or NewPL/NX/WI in London/Wingham/Wheatley/Winsdor, ON or NewVI in Victoria/Vancover, BC) What did you think so far? Was Conan good or overrated?
From: Grand Forks AFB, ND | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 February 2004 09:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They played his first monologue on the radio yesterday morning, and I thought it was pretty funny. Didn't see the show though. He made a Don Cherry joke and then said something like, "The sound you're hearing is that of all the Americans watching not getting it."


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 12 February 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been pleasantly surprised by the show - caught both nights. Can't help but wonder how Conan's audience back Stateside is taking it, though.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 13 February 2004 12:06 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Conan skewers Quebecois

quote:
But on Thursday night's show, Late Night regular Triumph the Insult Dog — a cigar-chomping hand puppet character — was dispatched to the Quebec winter carnival in a pre-taped segment in which he took on French Canadians and separatists in particular.

"It was funny and this was about comedy," said Soumalias, who says he doesn't expect a backlash.

But when reminded of the trouble hockey commentator Don Cherry stumbled into for a comparatively mild suggestion that French-Canadian players are wimps, Soumalias said: "Come on, the CBC has made a culture of making fun of Americans. Americans think that's funny.

"It's a silly puppet that tells silly jokes. Again, it's comedy. Most people find it funny."

In the skit, Triumph was seen visiting the Quebec carnival where several locals appeared distinctly unamused by his grouchy remarks.

"So you're French and Canadian, yes? So you're obnoxious and dull," the puppet quipped to one passerby.

"You're in North America, learn the language," he hollered at another Quebecois.

And to one rotund man who admitted to being a separatist, Triumph suggested he might want to separate himself from doughnuts for awhile.

Of course, O'Brien, whose NBC show is never one for the sensitive, has been spreading the wisecracks across the Canadian map all week, poking fun at Winnipeg as a vast ice wasteland, for example, and showing a mocked up enlargement of a Canadian five-dollar-bill on which the Queen sported a black eye, missing tooth and a hockey helmet.



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 February 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was just looking for this thread to post the same thing!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 13 February 2004 12:17 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, what the hell? I couldn't believe that when I read about it. Stupid, obnoxious, ignorant, bigoted ... and the opposite of funny.

I'm sure it will get plenty of media play in Quebec, with special attention to those in the Toronto audience who cheered and laughed.

What an embarrassment.

[ 13 February 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 13 February 2004 12:33 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
Yeah, what the hell? I couldn't believe that when I read about it. Stupid, obnoxious, ignorant, bigoted ... and the opposite of funny.

[ 13 February 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


I think the dog is SUPPOSED to be stupid, obnoxious, ignorant and bigoted. They may have gone overboard with that this time, but I didn't see it to know myself.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 February 2004 01:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, from what I understand about the character of the dog, that's where the humour is supposed to come in - that he's supposed to say horrid things to people in order to see their reactions.

I heard a clip on the radio this morning, but they didn't give the context (i.e. that it was a puppet called "the Insult Dog") making the comments. I was rather offended, but I think I'd have to see the clip in context before I could pass final judgment.

Isn't that "insult dog" the one that they had interviewing Star Wars "nerds" who were standing in line all day in costume for the premier of the movie?

And they do have a point, that Canadian comedy has turned stereotyping and insulting Americans to an artform, and it's funny in the context of comedy.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 February 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the spirit of the on-going segment 'Triumph the Insult Dog', it was funny, in that painful kind of way that made you laugh at Archie Bunker.

But it was also humiliating and embarrassing, in that the hoots and hollers from the audience indicated they didn't get the joke, they were getting their jollies instead.

quote:
I'm sure it will get plenty of media play in Quebec, with special attention to those in the Toronto audience who cheered and laughed.
Undoubtedly.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 February 2004 01:54 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What is described in JimmyBrogan's link isn't funny. Six-year-olds could come up with more comedically sophisticated material.

It sounds like little more than gratuitous frog-bashing.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 February 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, that's true. And what I heard on the radio this morning wasn't very funny either. But then, I've never been a big fan of the "insult comedian" genre of comedy. Some people love it though.

[ 13 February 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 13 February 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What IS funny though, is that Stephen Harper has slammed it, leading to one FreakDominioner to pull his support in favour of Tony Clement.

Basically, if they can't openly slam gays and Québécois, then for some people the Conservative Party is too restrictive.

The Conservative Party is funnier than anything Conan's writers could come up with.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 13 February 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For the past 20 years a large proportion of the dominant comedians in North America are and have been Canadians, yet the federal and Ontario governments have to pay a second rate American comedian to come to Canada?
From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 13 February 2004 07:36 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What IS funny though, is that Stephen Harper has slammed it, leading to one FreakDominioner to pull his support in favour of Tony Clement.

Hahaha, that's hilarious. Will Free Dominioners ever cease to provide entertainment? I don't think so.

As to what was said, I was pretty appauled, not in good taste at all. It was far worse than anything Don Cherry said (not that I'm defending Don Cherry!). I agree though, I don't think the comments were very funny at all, offensive material nonwithstanding. I basically think bringing Conan O'brien to Toronto was a waste of money. There are plenty of better comedians than him in Canada, I've never really found him to be that funny.

[ 13 February 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Hoffman ]


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug the Red
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4971

posted 13 February 2004 08:33 PM      Profile for Doug the Red   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I figured people would be pissed off with that skit. I thought it was pretty offensive too, and honestly didn't expect Conan to wade into that debate with a pro-English Canadian slant. Triumph should have stuck to generic Canadian stereotypes - that would have been funny enough. Better yet, he should have skewered Americans for the Canadian audience.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 13 February 2004 08:36 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not so long ago, an American radio show host from New York was added to the Toronto lineup by, I think, CFRB. He used his first show to say that Quebeckers were cowards because of their opposition to a military draft during the war. There was an added insulting rant about the French
language, too.

And now the Insult Dog.

I think Americans are tone-deaf to the whole issue of Quebec. They may know, intellectually, that it is important here, but it doesn't really feel that way to them. It seems petty, something to joke about.

That is what cultural imperialism is; an inability to identify with the smaller culture.

Down there, you don't joke about 9/11 or soldiers coming home in body bags. Because that would be in bad taste. Canadians feel the same way about someone saying "It's North America; learn the language, already!"


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 13 February 2004 08:59 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Usually, I find the Triumph bit pretty funny. But this is a rather different animal from when he's making fun of David Lee Roth or Eminem. I can only assume that Conan and the Late Night staff somehow didn't realise that making fun of Quebeckers the way they did was the same as going after an ethnic group.

Triumph should stick to taking shots at Tom Arnold and hamming it up at Bon Jovi concerts.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 February 2004 09:00 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm surprised at the lack of perspective here.

First off, nobody paid to bring a comedian to Toronto. They paid to bring an major American network television show to town. It's not about Conan, it's about the audience.

As is the big, broad targets for the humour. You're dealing with an audience that is barely aware that Canada exists through most of their existence. Of course there's a lack of subtlety - the show isn't for Canadians, it's about Canada, for Americans.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 13 February 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So what's the difference really, between Triumph's little schtick and Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans"? Besides Triumph being funny that is?
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 13 February 2004 10:38 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All I know about Triumph comes from the radio coverage of this event, so I can't say how funny he is normally. But from what is described, it's not nearly as clever as what I've seen Mercer do, because rather than shouting insults at Americans, he gives them the opportunity to demonstrate their own ignorance- i.e. he gives them enough rope to hang themselves. To be fair, we have no way of knowing how much of Mercer's work ends up on the cutting room floor because the Americans he chose failed to display the necessary ignorance...
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 13 February 2004 10:38 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just wish that they had tried that when Raymond Villeneuve happened to walk by.

Edited to add this link for those who don't recognise the name.

[ 13 February 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 13 February 2004 11:38 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
First off, nobody paid to bring a comedian to Toronto. They paid to bring an major American network television show to town. It's not about Conan, it's about the audience.

And how is that going to help Toronto.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bill Haydon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3273

posted 14 February 2004 12:14 AM      Profile for Bill Haydon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The amount of fawning attention paid to this visit from a second rate American TV show in the Toronto media baffles me. Is there really nothing else going on in Toronto right now? Do people really think American tourists will now flock to Toronto because Conan O'Brien has graced the city with his presence? Do people in Toronto actually think this makes Toronto "important"?

Wow, and I thought people in Saskatchewan could be hicks.

Nothing against Conan O'Brien, he was one of the best writers on the Simpsons, but enough already.


From: Redchina | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TroyMcClure
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4984

posted 14 February 2004 12:36 AM      Profile for TroyMcClure        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No way is Conan is '2nd rate'.

He has a huge following despite a lousy air time. 1 am Eastern, I beleive.
His resume in comedy, writing, producing, preforming is unmatched. - The Harvard Lampoon, Saturday Night Live, The Simpsons to name a few.

Truth be told, half of his comedy (Triumph, the Masturbating Bear etc..) wouldn't be allowed on an earlier time slot.

[ 14 February 2004: Message edited by: TroyMcClure ]


From: 99999 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 14 February 2004 12:59 AM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what's the difference really, between Triumph's little schtick and Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans"? Besides Triumph being funny that is?

The difference as I see it is that Triumph was not making fun of Canada as a whole, as Rick Mercer was the US. He was attacking a certain type of people within Canada, a certain culture. Him going after Quebec and French canadians was like going after an ethnic group, not a whole country. Furthermore, Rick Mercer was not being mean to the Americans, he was actually pretty nice to them. Triumph more or less just went up to Quebeckers and shouted insults at them about their culture and way of life, some of which were very offensive and mean spirited. I don't really think the two things compare...


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 14 February 2004 01:05 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Newbie:

Basically, if they can't openly slam gays and Québécois, then for some people the Conservative Party is too restrictive.

Well according to your logic, Stephen Harper should quit the party right now.

I never watched Conan before now, so whether or not he made asshat comments is completely irrelevant in my opinion. Just don't watch.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
TroyMcClure
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4984

posted 14 February 2004 01:07 AM      Profile for TroyMcClure        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yea, Mercer does it in a more subtle, more 'Canadian', less in your face, you're-an-ignorant-moron kinda way.

Big difference people.

[ 14 February 2004: Message edited by: TroyMcClure ]


From: 99999 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 14 February 2004 01:27 AM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yea, Mercer does it in a more subtle, more 'Canadian', less in your face, you're-an-ignorant-moron kinda way.

Have you read the comments made by Triumph? It's a compleatly different kind of comedy than Mercer's (That is the tasteless, offensive, kind that I don't find funny). Realize that when Stephen Harper actually DEFENDS French Canadians against what was said, it's a clear indication it was definatly out of line.

My main point was that in Canada this is a very sensitive issue. If Triumph had of made these comments to all different kinds of Canadians, not just French ones it would be a different story. Although I still wouldn't find it funny. Just as it's in bad taste to go around insulting people because they're gay or because they're asian, this is in bad taste too.

quote:
Big difference people.

Between Mercer's "Talking to Americans" and Triumph's "Assaulting Quebeckers"? Of course there is.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
C. Haught
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4778

posted 14 February 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for C. Haught     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In all this reaction, we have yet to hear from a Quebecer. Quebec Babblers, give us your take!

Oliver, thank you for giving us your opinion. I'm sorry I forgot you when I had posted this.

[ 14 February 2004: Message edited by: C. Haught ]


From: Grand Forks AFB, ND | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 14 February 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
O'Brien is actually a pretty good humourist--for an American. But then, that's why I generally watch Canadian or British humour: The American sense of humour is primitive and offensive. They never seem to be able to tell a joke without beating it to death.
Conan O'Brien is actually interesting in that he does American humour but shows a self-awareness about it, and a certain self-mockery. I wouldn't be surprised if he was more aware of what would happen than most people here believe.

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 14 February 2004 06:06 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Well according to your logic, Stephen Harper should quit the party right now.


My logic?

It's the morons on FreakDominion who are saying they can no longer support Harper for condemning Conan.

You know -- your friends and allies. Certainly not mine. Your argument is with them, not me.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 14 February 2004 06:07 PM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess since we are not allowed talking about the Fringe, I'll just have to join in the talk about pop-culture. Does anyone know where I can get a TV to follow all the latest on Conan, Cherry, Timberlake, and the Jacksons?


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 14 February 2004 06:53 PM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In all this reaction, we have yet to hear from a Quebecer. Quebec Babblers, give us your take!

Well, I personally think Conan's remarks were pretty stupid and insulting to both Canadians and the Quebecois people. Buy why should that be surprising? It is just a stupid corporate TV show that wants to capture our attention and keep us immobilized from taking any real action ourselves. The fact that 99% of this "arts & culture" column is about American-owned "entertainment" attests to the brainfuck that we are afflicted with. Start up a conversation about the new "Minister of Culture" in Canada and you hear *crickets*; flash a boobie on the "superbowl" and everyone babbles incessantly. Talk about how the Fringe (the very edge of the fabric of our society) has been co-opted, and the moderator locks the topic.

Yes, Conan is an idiot, but we are the bigger morons to be discussing him and his "jokes" at this length. There's nothing funny about O'Brien, and there's nothing amusing about the "celebrity"-fixations on this supposedly activist board.

[ 14 February 2004: Message edited by: Performance Anxiety ]


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 14 February 2004 10:42 PM      Profile for Marc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There's nothing funny about O'Brien, and there's nothing amusing about the "celebrity"-fixations on this supposedly activist board.
Snob.

From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 15 February 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, it's probably a few years out of date, but I have no idea what is so bad about making fun of Quebec Seperatists, which was about half of Triumph's schtic on that segmant.

1.I think the audience reaction showed how angry even people in Toronto are with the seperatists. Why shouldn't we be angry? Until recently, we'd been dancing to their tune for over 20 years. Heck, you can't fault the seperatists for it, but even the sponsership scandal would not have occured were it not for them.

2.I think Alexa McDonough's reaction showed once again how tone deaf, unfunny and over the top she is. Thank goodness she is no longer longer leader of the NDP. Not only did she not seem to realize Triumph is comedy (the unfunny and over the top part), but as I said above, I think she completely missed out on the fact of how much people are sick of the seperatists (the tone deaf part).


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 February 2004 05:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"So you're French and Canadian, yes? So you're obnoxious and dull," the puppet quipped to one passerby.

"You're in North America, learn the language," he hollered at another Quebecois.


Speaking of tone deaf, how is this making fun of Québec separatistes?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 15 February 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for Marc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not every Quebecer is a sovereignist (most hate the word separatist)...not every Quebecer who doesn't speak English is a sovereignist. Being a sovereignist is hardly justification for verbal abuse.

How about if a person went to Los Angeles and started yelling out racial epithets at the Latino population?? Would that go over well?

RE: Alexa McDonough's reaction -- her reaction was absolutely on target -- Quebecois' tax dollars were used to lure Conan to Canada as well and thus the government has some responsibility in the matter. Are you willing to pay money to be verbally abused?


From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 15 February 2004 06:01 PM      Profile for Marc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is the epitome of vulgarity --

"I can tell you are French -- I can smell your crotch from here."

There aren't strong enough words to condemn this.


From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 15 February 2004 06:19 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah most of the comments had absolutely nothing to do with seperatism. The fact is there is no defending the remarks that were made. I don't think there was anything wrong with Alexa's response.
From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 15 February 2004 08:33 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Conan wasn't the only American perpetuating stereotypes this week.

I watched this movie filmed entirely in Quebec last night and I was shocked.

First off, they portrayed Québécois in the most stereotypical terms imaginable all rural, unilingual French lumberjacks, hunters and mounties.

What's worse though, was the lack of respect given to the Quebec flag. No, it wasn't mocked. And it wasn't damaged. But what they did on it -- well, I won't say what it was, but even Conan wouldn't go that far.

While tax dollars didn't go into it, our federal government actually forces cable and satellite companies to make this available in Quebec!

I think that since Stephen Harper condemned Conan O'Brien we should have him watch this movie all the way through and comment on it.

What Conan did, by the way, is about as funny as sending Ed the Sock down to the United States and have him tell black people to speak white and comment about how they smell funny.

[ 15 February 2004: Message edited by: Newbie ]


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 15 February 2004 09:08 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is there a prize for most amusing post? If so, that's my candidate for 2004.

Now I have to explain to my wife and kids why I'm giggling uncontrollably...


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 February 2004 09:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
First off, they portrayed Québécois in the most stereotypical terms imaginable all rural, unilingual French lumberjacks, hunters and mounties.

... doubtless with dark, curly locks, smouldering Gallic eyes, toned muscles (from all that logging and snowshoeing) and huge... er, tracts of land.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 February 2004 09:31 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stop, stop...I'm getting herpes from this thread!
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 February 2004 10:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam T:
Well, it's probably a few years out of date, but I have no idea what is so bad about making fun of Quebec Seperatists, which was about half of Triumph's schtic on that segmant.

I fail to see how telling Quebecois that the smell like crotches is a comedic comment on the separatist movement.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 15 February 2004 11:03 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I believe I said about half of his schtick was anti seperatist. That they prefer to be called "sovereignists" rather than seperatists is just one of those annoying things. Why don't you want to be called by what you actually are?

Well, maybe this is why: because a huge number of people that voted in favor of seperatism still believed they would send MP's to Parliament, believed they would still receive eqaulization payments from the rest of Canada and so on. The term is a lie. They are seperatists and should be called as such.

As to the rest, I agree it isn't particularly funny, but it's pretty obvious Triumph was making fun of them being French, not being Quebecois. The joke quoted is a reference to the stereotype that the French never shower.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 15 February 2004 11:06 PM      Profile for Marc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, I believe I said about half of his schtick was anti seperatist. That they prefer to be called "sovereignists" rather than seperatists is just one of those annoying things. Why don't you want to be called by what you actually are?
Because they do not want to actually physically separate from Canada...unless you know a way that would be cost effective. They want sovereignty not separation, therefore, we are calling them something that they are not.

From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 15 February 2004 11:08 PM      Profile for Marc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As to the rest, I agree it isn't particularly funny, but it's pretty obvious Triumph was making fun of them being French, not being Quebecois. The joke quoted is a reference to the stereotype that the French never shower.
How does that make it any better? The perpetuation of stereotypes is hardly funny and isn't something that the government should be supporting with their tax dollars.

From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 February 2004 11:38 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As to the rest, I agree it isn't particularly funny, but it's pretty obvious Triumph was making fun of them being French, not being Quebecois.

I can never figure out what it is about American attitudes toward the French. Anyway, it doesn't say much for Conan's organization that no-one told him Quebeckers aren't French -- or for O'Brian, more likely, that he doesn't understand or care about the difference.

Howard Stern pulled a stunt like this a few years back, when a few Canadian radio stations, including CHOM (I think) in Montreal, briefly picked up his show. He went on a tear about the "French," with lots of references to "surrender in 1940," etc. & so forth, until someone pulled him aside and said "Uh, Howard, you've got it wrong, here..." He muttered an apology of sorts, but the damage was done.

Admittedly this kind of ignorance is widespread. In Australia I met a guy who said he'd like to visit Canada, but "couldn't stand the French." Rather than take on this casual bigotry head-on, I said something like "French-speaking Canadians are to the French as Australians are to the English" -- which is oversimplifying almost to the point of caricature, or past it, but which was, I judged, an analogy that would get through to him (nice guy in his way, but not the swiftest 'roo in the mob). Some kind of light seemed to dawn.

Edited to add:

quote:
Not so long ago, an American radio show host from New York was added to the Toronto lineup by, I think, CFRB. He used his first show to say that Quebeckers were cowards because of their opposition to a military draft during the war. There was an added insulting rant about the French language, too.

Right, I'm pretty sure that was Stern (missed this comment of yours when I posted). But if I remember right, he lacked even the historical knowledge to talk about conscription in Quebec. The best he could manage was rubbish about the Maginot Line, Vichy, etc.

[ 16 February 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 16 February 2004 12:29 AM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Stop, stop...I'm getting herpes from this thread!

Hardy-har-har-har! But seriously, I don't have an ounce of French blood in me, and I can totally agree with the need to separate...The rest of the "Country" is ridiculous.


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 16 February 2004 12:37 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When I was a camp years ago we went to the Meech Lake area on our "day off" as counsellors. Several of the counsellors were American and I was very embarassed when we walked into a McDonald's or some such place and one of the Americans, amused at the sound of people speaking French, started speaking a mock French. I had to explain to people there that he's American, not a Canadian.

Americans just don' t seem to "get" sensitivities about the language issue or English-French Canadian relations.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 16 February 2004 12:52 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree, most of the jokes were pretty lame, but, on the other hand, because they were just referencing silly stereotypes, I didn't take them seriously, and I didn't see much that anybody should really get upset about. The comment that the fellow should "seperate himself from donuts" being an exception, and a good number of people in the audience jeered that line.

I thought Don Cherry's bigoted comments were much more offensive. He wasn't kidding and is holding himself up to be some sort of expert.

As to the sovereignty thing. No, they don't want to be called sovereignists as opposed to seperatists because they don't want to "physically" seperate Quebec, they want to be called "sovereignists" because they want to confuse the issue. All you have to do is look at the referendum questions for proof of that.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 February 2004 01:04 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As to the sovereignty thing. No, they don't want to be called sovereignists as opposed to seperatists because they don't want to "physically" seperate Quebec, they want to be called "sovereignists" because they want to confuse the issue.

Quite wrong. It's true that PQ governments have wanted to confuse the issue, and that the 1995 referendum question was vaguely worded (the 1980 question, though tortuous, at least referred to a process). But most Quebecois who tell pollsters they support "sovereignty" (typically 40%, year in and year out, with occasional fluctuations this way and that) are clear that they don't want "separation," where that's understood as a classically distinct sort of nation, customs posts at the borders and all that. Only around 20% or fewer Quebecois claim to be for that option.

As to what "sovereignty" means, exactly -- well, that would take more than a sentence to answer (and I'm not qualified anyway). The point is, you have to make a distinction between sovereigntist governments, which are as cynical and slippery as any other kind -- or at least, were under Parizeau -- and popular attitudes.

The exercise of making this kind of distinction is not unique to Quebec.

[ 16 February 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 16 February 2004 01:24 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Also, the term "separation" only makes sense if your frame of reference is Canada. If your frame of reference is Quebec and its independance, then "sovereignty" makes more sense. The aim of separatists isn't just to separate from the rest of Canada; it is to become an independant nation. Why would they define themselves in terms of what they are "separating from", rather than what they are striving for?

[ 16 February 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 16 February 2004 01:33 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lance, it sounds like you are agreeing with me.
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 16 February 2004 03:59 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

But most Quebecois who tell pollsters they support "sovereignty" (typically 40%, year in and year out, with occasional fluctuations this way and that) are clear that they don't want "separation," where that's understood as a classically distinct sort of nation, customs posts at the borders and all that.

Yeah, but that's kind of the problem. An awful lot of Canadians look at that and see a bunch of people who want all the goodies and none of the responsibilities. They want to be able to call their tune totally independently, but they seem to also want to have MPs, and by extension have the Quebec vote frequently decisive in national Canadian elections, Quebecois prime ministers more the rule than the exception--in short, they still get to tell the rest of us what to do, even though they don't have to listen to us. And ya know what? Fuck that. I'm willing to agree that Quebec has the right to become an autonomous country if that's what they really want. But if they're gonna be their own country, sorry, they're gonna have to *be* their own country. No more influence over the rest of us, no more fiscal involvement, a border, passports, new negotiated trade deals, no Quebecois working in the federal bureaucracy without work visas.

In short, I find this insistence on "sovereignty" rather than "separation" to be rather unfair, and certainly unrealistic. If there's ever a yes vote, the rest of Canada would have to have a new federal election with no Quebec seats or MPs involved, so that we can then have a proper negotiation between a Canadian government and a Quebec government. And the position of the rest of Canada would almost certainly be that half-measure "sovereignty" would not be an option.

So like some others, I'm likely to continue calling 'em separatists as an attempt to get it through that that's what they're gonna be whether that's what they have in mind or not. I'm happy to have Quebec as part of Canada, even maybe with somewhat greater control over programs than a typical province (which in fact they already seem to have). And I'd be willing if necessary to accept Quebec as not part of Canada. But Quebec as part of Canada when/how it suits Quebecois and not when it doesn't--at that point I'm just being scammed, and I won't sit still for it. And to me, that's what "sovereignty" frequently seems to come down to.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 16 February 2004 06:52 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hard-line supporters of independence here are "indépendantistes".

I think a lot of people here would like shared borders, currency and monetary policy, even foreign policy, as in the European Union, but more right to determine our own affairs. People realise that if they want benefits they have to pay taxes.

Other than that, not much interest in getting involved in your discussions about what "they" want. Odd, it is about the only thing that would raise my nationalist ire these days, and I'm suspicious of all forms of nationalism - even and especially dominant ones, whether Canada vis à vis Québec or Québec vis à vis Aboriginal nations ...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 16 February 2004 07:44 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

... doubtless with dark, curly locks, smouldering Gallic eyes, toned muscles (from all that logging and snowshoeing) and huge... er, tracts of land.


I could post some stills if you like.

This was broadcast on PrideVision, by the way.

Even funnier than the porn movie was during a commercial break when the Nivea commercial informed us that most men would rather have their underwear set on fire than shave.

I guess that's why none of the men in the movie were wearing any.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shazam
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2607

posted 16 February 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for Shazam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, um, just to get back to Conan, I thought the Quebec bit was mostly lame.

So I posted a msg expressing my disappointment on the official Conan O'brien Message board. There were a few other irate messages up there yesterday morning, but the message board hasn't been working since yesterday afternoon (being somewhat delusional, I like to think Conan and his minions have been up all night in the boardroom agonizing over whether to allow dissenting canuck posts on their board, and have dismantled the msg board until they can agree).

Anyway, my post -- subject: "overstaying one's welcome" posted by "iamcanadian" (lame, I know) had friggin well better be still up there when the board gets running again.

post your own at www.nbc.com/conan


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 February 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's catching

quote:
Red Wings prospect Jiri Hudler, a centre for the Grand Rapids Griffins, has been fined an undisclosed amount by the American Hockey League for an ethnic slur against Simon Gamache during a game Saturday night.

Hudler, a 20-year-old native of the Czech Republic, made the remark to Gamache, a French-Canadian from Thetford Mines, Que., in a 2-1 victory over Milwaukee.


I don't know whether to laugh or change the channel.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 24 February 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah yes, Jiri Hudler, the infamous Czech diving champion (and he had a heck of a lot of competion from his World Junior teammates).
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
restive
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5036

posted 24 February 2004 05:45 PM      Profile for restive     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Conan's Apology: top of list

[ 24 February 2004: Message edited by: restive ]


From: canada | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca