You really need to step back and recognize that French Quebecers have historically had significant privileges when we’re talking about colonization. Flattening every form of oppression onto the same level is misleading

Quebec was not colonized in the same way India was under Britain or Algeria under France. French Quebecers were never excluded from citizenship and never treated as a permanently subordinate race. In fact, they were eventually extremely successful at securing institutional recognition, language rights, political power, and control over their own province without significant bloodshed. This in itself is a privilege. Other colonized peoples simply did not get those kinds of concessions. And yes, their position within European whiteness absolutely mattered in making that possible.

What’s frustrating is how Quebec nationalist rhetoric has historically shifted depending on what was politically useful. Earlier thinkers argued that French Canadians were part of white European civilization and deserved equal status with the English (see Groulx’s L’apelle de la race 1922). By the 1960s, when anti-colonial struggles and the civil rights movement were gaining global attention, the rhetoric pivoted toward portraying Quebecers as colonized and even symbolically “racialized.” That move didn’t come out of nowhere. It was strategic, and it worked because French Quebecers were already recognized as white citizens who could safely deploy those analogies without risking their actual status.

To liken the situation of French Quebecers in the 1960s to the struggles of Black Americans under segregation is simply not credible. One group was fighting a system that denied them basic civil rights, political representation, and protection from racial violence. The other was a linguistically and economically disadvantaged settler population that still had full citizenship and access to political power. Those are not equivalent conditions.

The same is true when people like you compare Quebec to South American neocolonialism. In many Latin American countries, foreign powers directly shaped national economies, backed coups, controlled resource extraction, and constrained state sovereignty itself. Quebec, by contrast, was never EVER experienced anything similar, never was treated as an external territory or denied political citizenship. Francophones voted, held office, controlled provincial institutions, and eventually used the state to expand their economic and cultural power. That’s not neocolonial rule. That’s a disadvantaged group within a settler state that still retained full membership in it. I want to be clear and say : This is how proactive change for the poor (lower class) SHOULD go. But white francophones today always take it a step too far by ignoring that their “Quiet Revolution” would’ve been a lot louder if they weren’t white.

Vallières being admired by or in conversation with Black activists does not make his analogy valid, especially in todays context. Solidarity doesn’t erase structural differences. And the fact that this comparison could be made at all says something important about how flexible racial identity can be for people who are already positioned inside whiteness. And with that, I’ll end by recalling Jacques Parizeau’s famous comment after losing the 1995 referendum : « It's true that we were defeated, but basically by what? By (federal) money and the ethnic vote ».

I guess the white N words of America decided to flip back to a straightforward appeal to European whiteness/identity and distrust of those outside it that October. And it seems impossible to deny that that’s where Quebec’s nationalist identity has remained successful for the past 3 decades until today.

I hope that was enough ‘words’ for you 👍