Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Quebec Act was intended primarily to thwart American colonial ambitions to the west of the Applalachians. In addition to guaranteeing Quebec a huge amount of territory in the midwest, it also created a large parcel of Indian reserve lands that would be blocked to colonial settlement. This is what caused the most resentment in the American colonies. Why did the Brits do this? It really wasn't so much magnanimity as it was impatience with the restless American colonists. The Brits feared frontier troubles with the natives as the American colonists ventured west. The Crown was not interested in wasting military resources guarding an expanding western American frontier. They had bigger fish to fry, and were worried about the expense of it all, hence the decision to create lands reserved for the natives between the American colonies and the expanded province of Quebec. |
Quote:
Quebec was "theirs", so it wasn't giving lebensraum land to the French or Canadiens. It was a military and administrative decision to organize the land it was left with in North America. Not really a plum to francophones (or Indigenous people for that matter). |
Quote:
Has Chrétien ever said that French is more likely to die or seriously decline in an independent Quebec than in status quo in Canada? (This supposed dilemma was cited by Truenorth, and not by you in your comments on the Chrétien book.) I'd agree that Chrétien is probably in the "economic risks that aren't worth it" camp when it comes to independence, though he's said before that if independence happened, it would be a shame but the sun would still come up and he'd still live at his camp on Lac des Piles. Life would go on. He also once said that he had dreams of being the hero who woke Montcalm in the middle of the night so that he could defeat Wolfe and the British. |
The French simply did not garrison enough military in Quebec to hold off the British for long (had it not been Wolfe, someone else at a later point). Moreover, they did not bring enough settlers over in time to occupy the vast space that they nominally controlled.
|
Quote:
Like I said before, It was not necessarily out of any real 'let's give the land back to the people' feel-good thing, but practical reality. I'm not condoning the British colonial position in North America of the time, but I won't condemn them as completely evil when they were a lot more brutal with some of their other historical colonies. Ireland was much worse in the 1840s under British rule. Mostly, the British wanted a pacified population that demanded little and acted as a bulwark against the Americans. Was it the worst deal? Nah. Was it the best? Probably not. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Strategy again. |
Quote:
In keeping with the spirit of the times, though, I am only applying the principles to my own in-group! |
Quote:
Sugar >> beaver pelts Quote:
|
Quote:
Captured By Brigadier General Robert Monckton BTW :D Canada was nothing more than a few acres of snow after all (so said Voltaire). |
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVSgXy9KQ1s Well, that critical backward glance at history was short-lived, wasn't it. |
Quote:
Admittedly, my existence is owed to some unluckiness. It's not like the Scots cleared off the Highlands exactly won a great concession prize from the British, but they did get sent here. |
Quote:
|
Genocide isn't just about what happened butwhen it happened. Standards have changed so drastically over time that something that was considered normal in 1850 was considered harsh in 1900, barbaric in 1950, and genocide in 2000.
|
Quote:
The Brits originated the idea of the "concentration camp" during the Boer War in response to the Boers conducting guerilla warfare and subsequently hiding within the general Boer population. The Armenian genocide in the First World War (a true genocide by any measure) did not generate much press at the time, and still is not acknowledged by the Turkish government. True genocide as practiced by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe as well as gypsies and other "undesirables" during the Second World War is what began to tip the balance. It really wasn't until the new millennium that the definition of "genocide" began to be defined exponentially more broadly. I think you can use the term more broadly if you qualify it (ie - cultural genocide or linguistic genocide) but, by some measures, if I get rid of an anthill in my backyard, that could also be considered an act of genocide, which is ridiculous. Genocide is a very potent word. If you define it too broadly, then it begins to lose it's potency and meaning. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Using schools to forcefully assimilate the population was the de factor standard in the late 19th and early 20th century. Whether with Britain with the Irish, Germans with the Poles, Russians with the Lithuanians, Canadians with the indigenous peoples, French with the Occitans, Italians with South Italians, Austrians with the Croats, or about two dozen other examples. In 1870, it was the only way. In 1910, it was being fought against by natives peoples worldwide, by 1920 it was considered inappropriate, and by 1960 was considered genocide. |
Quote:
It wasn't that long ago that the Spanish have behaved similarly to their regional dialects. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Europe-en.gif |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.