Canadian Maps and Graphics

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The Coast of Labrador has always been English, and always culturally part of Newfoundland.

Most of the border between Labrador and Quebec is based on watersheds, and is quite reasonable. The British commission which finalized the border dealt with only a relatively small part of the border along the southern boundary (where it forms a straight line). Most of central Labrador historically has always been part of Newfoundland (except on Province of Quebec maps).

Maybe there could be a swap. The original watershed boundary along the southern border of Labrador could be given back, but in return, Newfoundland would get the historically English speaking communities along the lower north shore of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Essentially swapping the white area in the map below, for the red area. What do you think?

That's actually not a very good deal for NL, at least not with modern considerations in mind, as the disputed border area has significant hydroelectric potential as I understand it. It's the reason for all of these disputes. Churchill Falls I believe is located in Labrador but in the zone that Quebec says was unfairly taken away from it in 1927.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

It did? I'm pretty sure it began with someone pointing out that images of Quebec occasionally include Labrador. (Even on our driver's licenses ...)
.

I don't believe they do anymore, though. Let me check my wallet.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sure. I don't really have a horse in this race. Not arguing that any particular area should be a part of NL or Quebec.

But I do think it's silly that Quebec produces maps with Labrador included.

Maybe Nova Scotia should start making maps of the province that extend to the Penobscot River in Maine. The British gave all that away without asking.

Regardless of the past, I think it's very unfortunate that people think Labrador is just claimed by Newfies because it's a natural extension their share of the map.

By newfoundland standards the place is populated east to west north to south.

It's not like we could snip off a piece and not cause a relocation of a substantial part of our population.

Also not huge on reducing newfiedom to being an Anglo-Irish thing.

NL is very much a subarctic territory.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's actually not a very good deal for NL, at least not with modern considerations in mind, as the disputed border area has significant hydroelectric potential as I understand it. It's the reason for all of these disputes. Churchill Falls I believe is located in Labrador but in the zone that Quebec says was unfairly taken away from it in 1927.

Hydro development has put us in financial ruin for 3 generations in a row.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Maybe Nova Scotia should start making maps of the province that extend to the Penobscot River in Maine. The British gave all that away without asking.

I wouldn't mind if they did, same way I don't mind at all that I'm nearly 100% certain the maps currently produced by India, Pakistan and China don't agree on Kashmir's exact borders.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Regardless of the past, I think it's very unfortunate that people think Labrador is just claimed by Newfies because it's a natural extension their share of the map.

That is my impression. I think Newfoundland got just a fraction of its "traditional" territory rather than a bunch of empty or indigenous land that was given just because the north was being carved up. And when you look at a map closely the areas of Labrador given to Newfoundland are for the most part very sensible.

For example you see a town of 8,000 populated mostly by Newfoundlanders that has saltwater access with a river running through it and opening into the bay. That river is called the Churchill River and Churchill and Muskrat Falls are both a part of it. Quebec was granted other watersheds like the Manicouagan which empties into the St. Lawrence.

[Acajack]

The map of Quebec no longer seems to be on driver's licences. Mine is a bit faded but one of my kids has a new one and it's really hard to make out a map on there.

[Acajack]

I have an artistic map hanging in my dining room that I bought in South America and which has some islands off the east coast of the continent labelled as "Islas Malvinas (Arg.)".

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have an artistic map hanging in my dining room that I bought in South America and which has some islands off the east coast of the continent labelled as "Islas Malvinas (Arg.)".

And look how far that got the Argies!

[JHikka]

See guys? It's ok that Quebec does it because China does it, too!

*cranes neck to look up at the Chinese map above his head which consolidates Taiwan into PRC*

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Ignoring the bit where everyone has friends/relatives who've lived in Labrador.

That's like using the argument, in a conversation about whether or not the 49th parallel border should have extended into Vancouver Island, "no, because the people living in the Victoria of nowadays have much more friends/relatives in Vancouver than Seattle". It has no bearing on the original situation nor should it have any on the dispute, if the demands are actually valid. See for example how the more legally solid old aboriginal rights are still considered unextinguished despite them having been screwed of such rights for a while.

I think your view is a bit of a slippery slope. Under your view, Russia could grab legitimate parts of Ukraine totally illegally including by Russia's own admission, then proceed to resettle Russians to it and a few years later, "return that land? sorry, no can do, that territory is now full of Russians" and that argument would win the case.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's like using the argument, in a conversation about whether or not the 49th parallel border should have extended into Vancouver Island, "no, because the people living in the Victoria of nowadays have much more friends/relatives in Vancouver than Seattle". It has no bearing on the original situation nor should it have any on the dispute, if the demands are actually valid. See for example how the more legally solid old aboriginal rights are still considered unextinguished despite them having been screwed of such rights for a while.

I think your view is a bit of a slippery slope. Under your view, Russia could grab legitimate parts of Ukraine totally illegally including by Russia's own admission, then proceed to resettle Russians to it and a few years later, "sorry, no can do, that territory is now full of Russians" and that argument would win the case.

That actually happens... all the time!

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by someone123

That is my impression. I think Newfoundland got just a fraction of its "traditional" territory rather than a bunch of empty or indigenous land that was given just because the north was being carved up. And when you look at a map closely the areas of Labrador given to Newfoundland are for the most part very sensible.

For example you see a town of 8,000 populated mostly by Newfoundlanders that has saltwater access with a river running through it and opening into the bay. That river is called the Churchill River and Churchill and Muskrat Falls are both a part of it. Quebec was granted other watersheds like the Manicouagan which empties into the St. Lawrence.

Yeah growing up, I never had google maps, I had family that lived in Labrador etc.

When it came to the Quebec border debate, my default claim was just create an independent native territory and be done with it.

You'll quickly realize that only the northern part of Labrador would make sense as a independent territory and only purely on ethnic terms.

I'm not sure that small number of Inuit living that far up north want independence. As they are a proportionally large fish, not sure they'd want to be the middle man between Nunavut and Ottawa.

Also it's worth noting that the population of French Canadians living in Lab city Wabush isn't anywhere near as high as it could be.

Even if it was in Quebec I wouldn't be shocked to find out that the majority of people living their would of been Newfies/Labradorians.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That actually happens... all the time!

Yeah, and it's a slippery slope in my opinion. We shouldn't be making this process even easier by formally accepting that possession is 9/10th of the law

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Yeah growing up, I never had google maps, I had family that lived in Labrador etc.

But that's a result of current borders mostly. Has no bearing on whether the decision at the time was correct. It's like saying it's was a no brainer for Northern Maine to go the USA using the argument "the people currently living in Northern Maine are all Americans, the area has almost no Canadians. Therefore the decision was correct."

Growing up in Rouyn-Noranda, you'll have family that lived in Montreal.

Growing up in Thunder Bay, you'll have family that lived in Toronto.

In a Canada with slightly different provincial borders, people in Rouyn-Noranda would have family in Toronto instead, and people in Thunder Bay would have family in Winnipeg instead, and people in Victoria would have family in Seattle instead.

Sure, you can say that it would make it impractical and inconvenient to alter borders today... but my point is that the causality relationship is the other way around.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's like using the argument, in a conversation about whether or not the 49th parallel border should have extended into Vancouver Island, "no, because the people living in the Victoria of nowadays have much more friends/relatives in Vancouver than Seattle".

Difference is there were no checkpoints and visa checks at the Lab-Quebec border. You out number us 15-1. Even ignoring the language barrier, if there was a real interest in living in the area a lot more frenchman would be living in lab city now.

This isn't a 49th parallel thing, this is people going up river from where they were already living.

The watershed argument isn't remotely an arbitrary British ruling.

It's the common sense that the whole world lives under.

Originally Posted by lio45

I think your view is a bit of a slippery slope. Under your view, Russia could grab legitimate parts of Ukraine totally illegally including by Russia's own admission, then proceed to resettle Russians to it and a few years later, "return that land? sorry, no can do, that territory is now full of Russians" and that argument would win the case.

Watersheds isn't a slippery slope it's almost the literal definition of something that can't be made slippery.

Your example would make more sense if the Russians did something like claim part of the Arctic owned by American, populate it and have the traditional majority of the population.

If this were the past I think hands down the bulk of the peninsula should of stayed in the hands of natives. My point was that currently the integration is so high it wouldn't make any sense.

[someone123]

I'd say for the Quebec-Labrador thing the complete argument is that there's a de facto border argument, an argument based on past arbitration and norms of distribution of territory based on geography, and the cultural/historical argument. And they all point to NL getting a chunk of "inland" Labrador (actually a lot of it being waterways that empty in the towns and villages on the coast). Yet Quebec is not always happy about it.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

But that's a result of current borders mostly. Has no bearing on whether the decision at the time was correct. It's like saying it's was a no brainer for Northern Maine to go the USA using the argument "the people currently living in Northern Maine are all Americans, the area has almost no Canadians. Therefore the decision was correct."

Growing up in Rouyn-Noranda, you'll have family that lived in Montreal.

Growing up in Thunder Bay, you'll have family that lived in Toronto.

In a Canada with slightly different provincial borders, people in Rouyn-Noranda would have family in Toronto instead, and people in Thunder Bay would have family in Winnipeg instead, and people in Victoria would have family in Seattle instead.

Sure, you can say that it would make it impractical and inconvenient to alter borders today... but my point is that the causality relationship is the other way around.

That doesn't explain Quebec's newfie shore.

It was also my understanding that the Timmons area was already mixed of french and english regardless of the territorial claims?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd say for the Quebec-Labrador thing the argument is more than there's a de facto border argument, an argument based on past arbitration and norms of distribution of territory based on geography, and the cultural/historical argument. And they all point to NL getting a chunk of "inland" Labrador (actually a lot of it being waterways that empty in the towns and villages on the coast). Yet Quebec is not always happy about it.

Don't forget that a big reason watersheds matters is when you engage in damming those rivers.

But yeah, the part I'm missing is where the Quebec claim even comes from.

Like is it literally anything north of us is ours?

I've never understood why Quebec has any claim to most of its northern bits. Nor do it make sense that most northern ends of the other mainland provinces are under control of the south.

Newfies didn't need a territorial claim to head to Fort Mack. We were going no matter what.

[MonctonRad]

One good thing about using watersheds as a boundary is that in a part of the world where hydro electric power is so important, if you create a new reservoir, as least you can be assured that you won't accidentally flood any of your neighbours territory.