First, let me point out that i knew about bikers in Québec long before i took any interest in Canadian history, because i worked in a family shelter almost twenty years ago, and there was a men's shelter run by the same organization. One of the men there, who occasionally was assigned to do grunt work for us, had fled Canada, as he eventually explained to me, because he was on a biker "shitlist," and his life wasn't worth a dime across the border or even near it. That was the only burden i had in making that remark. I'll make a shot at these jokers, though.
A wrote:While it can be suggested that the French established the first permanent colony, the French efforts at colonization, they certainly didn't get here first, nor were they the first Europeans, nor were they the first in the "second wave" of Europeans. The first was an Italian sailing under and naturalized as a British citizen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cabot
The remarks about North American colonization here are meaningless. What we call Mexico is, of course, a part of North America, and Cortez landed there in 1519. By 1522, the Spanish were firmly in control. I haven't the least notion of what this joker is trying to say, but there were no "waves" of colonization. His remarks about Cabot are only a propos to the extent that Cabot was there on a mission of exploration. European fishermen, and that included Frenchmen from St. Malo, from La Rochelle, and from many other Atlantic coast cities and villages, had long landed on the North American coast to dry and or smoke fish to be transported home. When the French were finally definitively driven from the area now known as the maratimes, this ancient practice was rcognized, and was enshrined in the treaty between the English and the French. Cabot made no attempt to establish colonies--so bringing him up is meaningless.
Jacques Cartier visited in the mid 16th century, and brought back detailed descriptions of the valley of the St. Laurent, which was the basis upon which Champlain eventually esatblished a colony. There were earlier French colonies in the new world, in the Florida Keys, and on the island of Hispaniola--but these were settlements of Protestants, and their efforts were largely piratical, against the Spanish. As Protestants (the mariners of the French Atlantic coast largely became Protestants), they got no support from the royal government. Champlain's colony in "Canada" (which then meant only the upper St. Laurent region) was Catholic and royal, and so it became important.
Quote:At the time, North America wasn't seen as wonderful new discovery, it was a freaking obstacle that they wanted to get around so they could get to China quicker.
If the author refers to Cabot's voyages when he says "at the time," then, once again, this is a meaningless statement. It was not immediately evident that Columbus had not reach the Indies, which is why the region was referred to as the Indies, and not rechristened the West Indies until the error was understood. In the 1490's, when Cabot and Vespucci sailed, it was still not established that Columbus was in error--many people believe so, as it had been speculated (with a good deal of accuracy) in Greek times that the planet was larger in diameter than Colubmus' voyage would have implied, if he really had reached the Indies. Within a generation, people understood that they had reached land between Europe and the Indies, but how far they needed to yet go was uncertain, and would not be understood until after the Magellan expedition, and even then, still not fully understood. This joker is making it up as he goes along. People did soon begin looking for a route through the new islands, but it took many years to establish that there was an uninterrupted coastline which ran from Greenland to Cape Horn (south of Tierra del Fuego), and even as late as the Magellan expedition, the Spanish were counting on finding a passage at what is now known to be the Rio del Plata. It was Magellan's expedition which firmly established that the Plate River was a river, and not a passage to the Pacific Ocean.
However, the belief that a passage could be found through the Americas did persist for a long time. Le Sieur de La Salle (Rene-Robert Cavalier) established an estate at the rapids between Lake Ontario and the St. Laurent River, and it was (and is to this day) known as
la Chine, which is to say, China. As late as the 1850s, people were still looking for a northwest passage past Canada, and the disasterous Franklin expedition was the last serious attempt to find one.
Quote:The French eventually established a small colony, which died out quick, then they established a second one that lasted a bit longer but was pretty much close to death when the British rescued it in 1760. To give you idea how badly New France was fairing, the colony had a population of between 20,000 and 30,000 people in 1750. In comparison, New England's population was over a million citizens, plus another 200,000 slaves.
If this refers to Canada, it is patently false. The first attempt to establish a permanent colony in Canada was Champlain's colony, which became Québec. For all that it had a rocky start, it never died out, and it eventually prospered, as the seat of royal government under the French, and, of course, survives to this day. The statement that the English "rescued" the colony is patent absurdity, and shows the depth of this gentleman's ignorance (i don't deny my own ignorance, but i'm not this badly off). The New France colony prospered, despite gross corruption, precisely because the corruption continued to benefit individuals, and the crown continued to prop up the colony. At the time of the Seven Years War, known in North America to English-speakers as the French and Indian War, the population of
la nouvelle France was over 60,000, not counting who knows how many
coureurs du bois, renegades living with the aboriginals (perhaps a few thousand).
The French had long held their own against the English-speaking colonists to the south, and the colony survived despite a lack of interest among the French at home. In fact, they eventually brought their own destruction on themselves because they were so effective at stirring up the aboriginals against the Dutch and the English. They were at war with and survived more than one invasion of the Iroquois Confederation almost from the beginning. Champlain buddied up with the Ottawa in 1608, and joined them on a raiding party that attacked an Iroquois war party, and the Iroquois never forgave them. In one of their invasions, the occupied Canada for two years continuously, and the survivors among the
habitants gave the French Canadians their own home-grown heros and heroines, and their own cultural legacy of toughness and survival.
Wolfe finally defeated Montcalm in the fields before Québec's city walls at the end of the summer of 1759. Both men were mortally wounded--a reasonable case has been made that James Wolfe committed suicide by combat, because by all rights, he should have lost. He might have lost, but Montcalm, carried along against his will by running troops, tried to pull his horse up at the city gates, and received a musket ball which passed through both lungs. He died near midnight, in the Urseline convent, and the nuns had him secretly buried under the altar in the cathedral, fearing the English would desecrate the remains. The governor, Vaudreuil, was corrupt and incompetent, and he fled. With no effective military commander on the scene (Lévis had wanted to stay and fight, but the Governor had ordered him to Montéal--he marched back in late winter, but failed to re-take the city, and in the spring, the Royal Navy reinforced the city, and the English managed to hang on by the skin of their collective teeth), the English were left in possession. Suggesting that they were a colony about to fail without the rescue by the English is a work of pure fantasy.
The best source on the French in North America is the seven volume history of Francis Parkman, which i cannot recommend too highly.
Quote:There are lots of reasons why New England was vastly more successful than New France, but the main reason was that the British had evolved a far more effective system of government than the French. Cultural concepts like rights, freedom and individuality were foreign to the French, making them extremely inefficient in all areas. Whereas the French labored under the absolute monarchy of a string of "Louies", who happily proclaimed such things as "L'etat, c'est moi!", British monarchy was tempered by things like the Magna Carta, Act of Settlement and the English Bill of Rights.
More fantasy mascarading as history--but it would take pages to explain why this is nonsense.
Quote:The "war" in North America between the British and French was really just a "sideshow" between the actual global conflict between the two of them. What happened to turn it from being a fairly low intensity conflict in North America was a bunch of French militiamen who made a really stupid mistake: They slaughtered a bunch of New Englander POWs, which inflamed the British public both in North America and in Britain. This prompted the British PM, William Pitt to send 30,000 regular troops to North America to sort things out once and for all.
This is once more a recitation of pure fantasy. In fact, the last war, the so-called French and Indian War, was started because George Washington (then a Major in the militia and all of 23 years old) had lead a raiding party that surrounded a party of French and Indians in the woods, the leader of which was killed. Washington was subsequently attacked in a poorly placed field fortification, and lacking experience and judgment, he surrendered to inferior force. The French demanded he sign a capitulation, in which he admitted to murdering an ambassador (no one bothered to explain why an "ambassador" was hiding in the woods with a band of Indians). He had a Dutchman who could read French, but he read the passage as kill the officer, not murder the ambassador, so Washington signed. This joker reduces vast, complex historical events which fell out over a century and a half to some extremely ill-informed quips.
Quote:The British, both the New England militia and the British regulars proceeded to kick the snot out of the French. Louisbourg, which was supposed to be the linchpin of French strategic security in North America, fell with barely a shot fired when the British beat them with a road map and landed further up the coast and walked in from behind.
Montcalm, with inferior force, actually did quite well. He took Fort William Henry by regular approaches. It was after the surrender that the Indians slaughtered a good many of the retreating English, which is the incident to which this joker refers in his improbably account above. Later, William Johnson, the Royal Agent, lead Indians and New York militia in a revenge attack which succeeded in driving the Canadians (they had a regular army of their won) and their Indian Allies out of the southern portion of upstate New York. It was not decisive, though. The largest single force ever to that time assembled in North America, lead by Abercrombie with his very competent second in command, George Howe, was fewer than 15000 men, and it marched and sailed north to attempt to take Carillon from the French (we now know Carillon as Ticonderoga)in 1758. Montcalm and Lévis effectively defended the place--Howe was killed in a skirmish shortly after the English and the Americans landed, and Abercrombie proceeded to screw up the attack in about every way he could.
It was at Louisburg, which was not taken as described above, but required a seige by regular approaches, that James Wolfe made a name for himself under the command of Jefferey Amherst. In the following year, 1759, Wolfe was given the command of the expedition against Québec. Louisbourg had fallen before, in the previous war, and had been given back to France. It meant nothing, so long as the French could hold out in Canada (remember, at that time Canada was just the region of the upper St. Laurent River). Wolfe spent all the spring and summer of 1759 failing to take the city, and his final attack was a desparate one. They scaled the cliffs, about 3,000 strong, and then marched on the city. Wolfe took a musket, and marched in the line with his men. He was hit in the wrist by a musket ball, and had to drop his musket, but he wrapped his handkerchief around the wound, and continued to march with the line. He was hit again by a musket ball, but continued with the line. The third musket ball which hit him laid him out, and he died shortly after. It was, as Wellington described Waterloo, a damned close run thing.
Quote:The long and the short of the conquest of North America by the British was that if they hadn't conquered it, New France would have dried up and blown away in about another 20 years on it's own.
Bullshit.
Quote:So, if we want to get technical, the second wave of European contact with North America can be blamed on the Italians. The constitutional construct of North America, except for Mexico, can be blamed on the British, with the French providing the fly in the punchbowl.
Bullshit--this guy makes it up as he goes along.
B wrote:For all you that hate the Quebecois... why don't you turn off Fox news and read a history book. When Canada was founded as a nation the English and French colonies were set up as equals. The French were never supposed to be a province of Canada, but an equal partner with the English speaking areas.
If you think about the separatist movement within that context, it makes sense. And I don't really blame them. If I lived there, I'd probably vote to separate too. Quebec is one hell of a lot more interesting culturally than anywhere else in Canada. Why shouldn't they try to preserve it?
This lacks a good deal of detail, but it is not horribly inaccurate. After the American revolution, Canada was divided into Upper Canada (roughly, Ontario) and Lower Canada (roughly, Québec). After the failed insurrections of the mid-1830s, the two Canadas were renamed Canada East and Canada West, and a parliament was formed, which guaranteed parity to the two Canadas (this did not include the maratimes), or anything west of the Lake of the Woods). This was a sweet deal for the English-speakers initially, since the French outnumbered them, and had a higher birth rate. It was a long time before immigration allowed the English-speaking portion of Canada to catch up.
A wrote:Um, no. Not even close. I've heard that drivel from hippie separatists, but the historic documents and facts do not support it.
First, you have to define your terms better: Are you speaking about "Canada" as in Upper and Lower Canada or are you speaking about "Canada" as in the loose confederation?
Lower Canada, which was made up of the northern bits of New France, was founded by the British. It was founded at the same time as Upper Canada. Both were British colonies, just like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI and Newfoundland.
Summing up the history a great deal, the HMS Trent affair and it's aftermath during the US Civil War, which saw a British warship carrying Confederate delegates be intercepted by the Northern navy and boarded triggered near war between the British Empire and the Northern US. Both Upper and Lower Canada got very nervous, as the US now had the largest active army in the world and a strong dislike for the British at that point. The British tried to reinforce Upper and Lower Canada and it was shown that they couldn't respond fast enough due to the freezing of the St. Lawrence.
When the Fenian raids started happening from the US, the colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI got together to discuss a protective union, as they could be re-supplied by the Royal Navy and have reinforcements quite quickly.
Both Upper and Lower Canada crashed that party, pretty much uninvited and begged to be included, as they didn't want to be left out to be annexed by the US.
To be a Quebec separatist based on them being forced into confederation is laughable in the extreme.
[/quote]
This is another historical abortion. Upper and Lower Canada no longer existed at the time of the American Civil War. Canada East and Canada West were joined in a colonial government. The Fenian raids were mostly an annoyance, and were ineffective. From the end of the American Revolution onward, the French-speaking militia, usually styled
voltiguers, had been very effective, and had driven off American invasion attempts in the War of 1812, and dealt quickly with the Fenians who attempted to invade.
One Fenian party did succeed in crossing the Niagara River. They were veterans of the American Civil War, and were lead by "Colonel" O'Neal, who was also a veteran of that war. There were about 600 of them. With about 350 of them, he routed the Canadian militia at Ridgeway, including the Queen's Own from Toronto. After that, the English made it plain that they were gonna drop Canada like a hot rock--too much expense and trouble to keep defending it.
John MacDonald and George-Etienne Cartier got together with George Brown (Brown the "Liberal," MacDonald the "Tory" from Canada West), and began to plan for confederation. A conference of the maratime colonies was going to be held in Charlottestown, PEI, and they attended with a slick presentation, and convinced the maratimes to join them (Newfoundland and Labrador backed out, and did not join the Dominion until 1949). The
habitants had been brought along with a promise that they would have the old parity guarantee in the Parliament on which they had always relied, and Cartier sold them a slick bill of goods which convinced them to accept, even without that guarantee. On July 1, 1867, thanks to the British North America Act, Canada became an independent Dominion of the British monarchy, comprising PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Québec and Ontario. The prairies and the West were added in the years to come.
Basically, neither of them is well-informed, but "B" is talking far less **** than "A," who makes **** up as he goes along.
