Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Such an oversimplification. The date of initial colonization is not the sole indication of what areas are going to be more populated than others. By your logic, if 1 million people had been forcibly moved to the Dakotas and Montana in 1850, those combined states would be larger than California today. Ignore all of the migration patterns that occured in Western societies over the last 200 years. It's simply a matter of starting population + amount of fertile land.

New Brunswick has 11 inh. per km² despite being a backwater away from the main trade routes and without any significant river, plus rather insignificant seaports. How do you explain that South Dakota, which is fully in the prairies, with large rivers, much more fertile farmland than New Brunswick, has only 4 inh. per km², and New Brunswick nearly 3 times more despite being a barren backwater? Answer: guess which was colonized first and had more time to grow.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

« On pourrait se tutoyer ? – Si vous voulez… » Prêtée à François Mitterrand, cette réponse à un vieux militant socialiste montre, s’il en était besoin, qu’entre l’usage du tu et du vous existe une frontière malaisée à établir, parfois difficile à franchir mais toujours mouvante.

https://www.lopinion.fr/politique/vouvoiement-tutoiement-a-tu-ou-a-vous

This one is not very well known. But the guy wasn't an interviewer. An interviewer would never dare to say "tu" to a politician here. That would be considered very rude.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

New Brunswick has 11 inh. per km² despite being a backwater away from the main trade routes and without any significant river, plus rather insignificant seaports. How do you explain that South Dakota, which is fully in the prairies, with large rivers, much more fertile farmland than New Brunswick, has only 4 inh. per km², and New Brunswick nearly 3 times more despite being a barren backwater? Answer: guess which was colonized first and had more time to grow.

New Brunswick's urban areas make up a much larger percentage of the overall land area than South Dakota's do.

I think this conversation has run it's course. Someone else feel free to weigh in on the likelihood of the Prairies having a similar population as Russia lol.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

New Brunswick's urban areas make up a much larger percentage of the overall land area than South Dakota's do.

And why are there so many urban areas in the first place...? The reason might surprise you.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

And why are there so many urban areas in the first place...? The reason might surprise you.

Is there an elegant French phrase for "confidently incorrect"? You exude it.

[drew]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

New Brunswick has 11 inh. per km² despite being a backwater away from the main trade routes and without any significant river, plus rather insignificant seaports. How do you explain that South Dakota, which is fully in the prairies, with large rivers, much more fertile farmland than New Brunswick, has only 4 inh. per km², and New Brunswick nearly 3 times more despite being a barren backwater? Answer: guess which was colonized first and had more time to grow.

You are either

1) ignoring how different the climates/soils are from locations that are 1000's of km apart to suit your argument

or

2) are ignorant of the vastly varying climates/soils in North America.

There is a reason that the southern prairies in Canada and the northern plains of the US do not have intensive agriculture, and do have lower population density - and it's certainly got nothing to do with how many babies were getting pumped out by the families that moved there.

I am honestly surprised that Harls hasn't completely lost his mind on your astonishingly (ignorant/snobby/ridiculous/ you get the point) posts are on this.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by drew

1) ignoring how different the climates/soils are from locations that are 1000's of km apart to suit your argument

or

2) are ignorant of the vastly varying climates/soils in North America.

There is a reason that the southern prairies in Canada and the northern plains of the US do not have intensive agriculture, and do have lower population density - and it's certainly got nothing to do with how many babies were getting pumped out by the families that moved there.

The island of Newfoundland has the same population density as South Dakota despite being far, far more infertile, and also colder than South Dakota (average yearly temperature in St John's is 5.3C, whereas in Pierre, South Dakota it is 8.3C). But of course that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact Newfoundland was colonized way earlier than South Dakota...

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The island of Newfoundland has the same population density as South Dakota despite being far, far more infertile, and also colder than South Dakota (average yearly temperature in St John's is 5.3C, whereas in Pierre, South Dakota it is 8.3C). But of course that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact Newfoundland was colonized way earlier than South Dakota...

If there was any inclination to introduce even an ounce of nuance beyond the time of first settlement, we could make points about the relative difference in rural subsidization between Canada and the U.S. A more "free market" Newfoundland under the same federal jurisdiction as South Dakota would almost certainly have experienced dramatic population shifts. West Virginia comes to mind.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Acajack

« On pourrait se tutoyer ? – Si vous voulez… » Prêtée à François Mitterrand, cette réponse à un vieux militant socialiste montre, s’il en était besoin, qu’entre l’usage du tu et du vous existe une frontière malaisée à établir, parfois difficile à franchir mais toujours mouvante.

Vouvoiement is either common politeness to strangers or, slightly more subtly and coldly, some way keep some distance between you and them, when you don't want them to go familiar with you.
On that occasion, Mitterrand definitely used it to make it clear that a random activist of his party had to show respect to him.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think this conversation has run it's course. Someone else feel free to weigh in on the likelihood of the Prairies having a similar population as Russia lol.

Its course was run long ago... but at least the troll has been well-fed.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

New Brunswick has 11 inh. per km² despite being a backwater away from the main trade routes and without any significant river, plus rather insignificant seaports. How do you explain that South Dakota, which is fully in the prairies, with large rivers, much more fertile farmland than New Brunswick, has only 4 inh. per km², and New Brunswick nearly 3 times more despite beinga barren backwater? Answer: guess which was colonized first and had more time to grow.

No significant River? Merde!

The port of Saint John is literally one of the most significant ports in Canada. You don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

[harls]

Only had the great grandparents birth 7 kids in ND/MB to make me. Scandinavians don't count. They weren't doing their part. Not as prolific as the French.

[harls]

Originally Posted by harls

Only had the great grandparents birth 7 kids in ND/MB to make me. Scandinavians don't count. They weren't doing their part. Not as prolific as the French.

Whoops - 'French'.

[harls]

Originally Posted by drew

I am honestly surprised that Harls hasn't completely lost his mind on your astonishingly (ignorant/snobby/ridiculous/ you get the point) posts are on this.

Honestly contained. Vanriderfan probably the same.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

If there was any inclination to introduce even an ounce of nuance beyond the time of first settlement, we could make points about the relative difference in rural subsidization between Canada and the U.S. A more "free market" Newfoundland under the same federal jurisdiction as South Dakota would almost certainly have experienced dramatic population shifts. West Virginia comes to mind.

I used South Dakota as an example only because Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta include far more than the Prairies, and you would have been whining that the comparison was unfair because these provinces include uninhabited areas up north.

South Dakota is not going to have a population density any lower than the inhabited part of these 3 provinces in the Prairies. You're simply obfuscating here and trying to find some excuses.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I used South Dakota as an example only because Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta include far more than the Prairies, and you would have been whining that the comparison was unfair because these provinces include uninhabited areas up north.

South Dakota is not going to have a population density any lower than the inhabited part of these 3 provinces in the Prairies. You're simply obfuscating here and trying to find some excuses.

and you're simply full of crap.


Prochain.

[New Brisavoine]

You're hunting in packs now? I wasn't responding to you.

[someone123]

These arguments seem too simplified to explain anything. Sure, length of time settled is one factor, but there are many others you have to control for before you can draw conclusions about it. Settlement patterns in a place like NB are very complicated and it has many different sub-areas and populations. The population density in parts of Southern NB is pretty high while it's very low in northern NB and urbanization makes a huge difference there.

South Dakota is quite arid. Google says only a small percentage is irrigated. Aridity matters on the Canadian prairies as well. If you want to talk about agriculture, water supply is a basic factor along with soil nutrients, temperature, and sunlight.

It's not obvious at all whether Newfoundland would have more or fewer inhabitants under some different system or where they'd live. It has lots of resources like offshore oil and gas and the fishery (all mismanaged to some degree due to federal involvement). It is strange to compare Newfoundland to South Dakota and talk mostly about agriculture. Most of the food produced in Newfoundland comes from the ocean and most of the population lives on the coast.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

You're hunting in packs now? I wasn't responding to you.

Yes, you didn't bother responding to my post taking issue with your description of NB as a backwater with rather insignificant seaports.

I guess the definition of "backwater" is quite subjective, but the Port of Saint John is objectively one of the most significant seaports in Canada. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about, and you just like to get a rise out of people. N'est-ce pas?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

South Dakota is quite arid. Google says only a small percentage is irrigated. Aridity matters on the Canadian prairies as well. If you want to talk about agriculture, water supply is a basic factor along with soil nutrients, temperature, and sunlight.

I'm not so sure about that. The Beauce (in the Paris Basin), which is the most productive wheat farmland of Europe, and which has no major river (the Seine and the Loire are to the north and to the south of the Beauce, and there's not much in between in terms of rivers), gets 202 mm of precipitation from April to July. In comparison, Pierre, South Dakota, gets 286 mm from April to July, Winnipeg gets 213 mm, Regina gets 253 mm, Calgary gets 269 mm. The Paris Basin is known for being quite dry, but that has never prevented it from being a major farmland of Europe, even away from the main rivers, able to feed the largest European city in the Middle Ages.

Judging from the stats, the Prairies seem quite dry in winter, when the vegetation is dormant, and they get their water in summer at the peak of plant growth, due to the monsoon effect which moves from the Gulf of Mexico as far north as the Prairies. In this respect, their climate is more akin to central China than to Western Europe (where our wet season is more in the winter, with dryer conditions in summer). That's why corn (which needs lots of water to grow) is more adapted to North America (east of the Rocky Mountains), whereas wheat (which needs dry conditions especially in June and July when it ripens) is more adapted to Europe, although we do also produce lots of corn now but with irrigation systems (whereas wheat usually doesn't require irrigation).