I think Quebec is distinct enough. 400 years is enough. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Should the Swedes, Danes and Norweigans still refer to themselves as the Norse? Those three only branched off form each other a hundred years or two before New-France was colonized. What about the Brits vs the Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Norse? What about the Scots? Aren't they just the Picts? All these changes happened not too long before New-France was colonized.
Europe was ethnically very very different in 1600. Lots of ethnicities appeared and disappeared since then.
Right, but what you’re describing is regional ethnicity as it pertains to North America (Quebecois, First Nations, etc.).
However, unlike Sweden, Denmark, etc., we are comprised of gigantic land masses with gigantic amounts of differing immigrant cultures. 400 years is not enough time to form a collective ethnicity in such a circumstance.
But there's nothing wrong with it. I'm of the opinion that diversity and non-homogenous populations are strengths.
Last edited: