1
   

Canada in 1776

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 06:00 am
If this drivel you're posting now is some lame attempt to explain away your hostility to any aspect of Canadian culture which does not derive from Anglo-Saxon Protestant sources, i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt to assume that you're not really a bigot.

That is, after all, why i did not call you a bigot, but only characterized your expressed attitudes toward those who are not Protestant English-speakers as bigoted. I suppose then that your perfervid defense of yourself on the basis of only referring to a peeve means that the bigoted attitudes you expressed sit lightly on you, and we really shouldn't think the less of you.

For the purposes of discussing 1776, that portion of North America which was then referred to as Canada, the only portion of North America which ever had been referred to as Canada, was overwhelmingly Catholic and French-speaking (whether or not you are charmed by the thought). West of the Maritimes (which were not then, nor previously had been referred to as Canada), the number of English speakers was restricted to the few hundred officials, merchants and soldiers at Québec and Montreal. That number was so small that Montgomery was able to take Montréal with fewer than 2000 men in the summer of 1775--although that city held the most English-speakers west of the Maritimes The defending force at Québec on December 31, 1775, when Arnold and Montgomery attacked the upper and lower town respectively was smaller still--generally estimated at fewer than 200 men. The francophone population stood aside to let the English-speakers fight it out.

Whether or not Chumly likes it (apparently, he doesn't), the francophone population of Québec has been there for almost 400 years. In 1776, they represented the overwhelming population of Canada, if one narrowly considers only what was then thought of as Canada; if one considers what is today Canada they were, of course, second in numbers to the aboriginal inhabitants, but certainly not to English-speakers. Whether or not Chumly likes it (apparently he doesn't), for those nearly four hundred years, the inhabitants of Québec have learned the French language in their homes from infancy, and in the Catholic churches which they attend in overwhelming numbers compared to any other confession represented in that province.

That fact of life was even more salient in 1776 than it is now.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 11:55 am
Again, I did not polarize my references to English / French, that is your incessant harping, not mine. Hence my references to Aboriginal Americans which I note you have always ignored. Hence my references to the Chinese, the East Indians, the Jews, and the Poles etc. which I note you have always ignored.

Again, I did not polarize my references to early white Canadian history that is your incessant harping, not mine.

Again you miss my peeve as per interventionism/recognition in today's Canada i.e. if we should have an Official Languages Act etc., then all popular languages deserve equal merit in today's Canada, but that is not the case.

I note you are driving with the rear view mirror by arguing history as a consistently merited rationale for today's Canada; that is rather dubious.

As per the "Canada in 1776" thread where I query to semi-rhetorical effect
Chumly wrote:
I take it the indigenous peoples of North America were for the most part treated with bigotry and cruelty throughout all this?
As per the "Name your political correctness peeve" thread
Intrepid wrote:
French and English have been spoken in Canada for over 300 years
Chumly wrote:
So what! The Native Aboriginals tounge have been spoken for far longer.
Intrepid wrote:
and is part of Canada's identity.
Chumly wrote:
Says who? You? The Official Languages Act? The Multiculturalism Act? The Chinese? The East Indians? The Jews? The Poles? The Native Aboriginals?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 12:00 pm
Given that this thread refers to Canada in 1776, i see no problem with offering an historical view. Given that a significant proportion of the population of Canada today learns French from the cradle and routinely uses it on a quotidien basis, while living in a francophone, Catholic culture, i continue to see a problem with referring to that fact of life as cultural drivel.

As for "all popular languages," i've never made a single comment on the merit of the Official Languages Act. I would, rather, refer you to your own nation's constitution and the very political nature of the necessity of recognizing the culture and language of Québec. It is a fact of political life, just as the language and culture of the francophone is a fact of daily life in Québec.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 12:04 pm
bookmark
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 12:51 pm
Setanta wrote:
Given that this thread refers to Canada in 1776, i see no problem with offering an historical view.
As discussed your so-called "historical view" does not exempt you from the following inflammatory and specious allegations (see below) nor does it exempt you from driving with the rear view mirror by arguing history as a consistently merited rationale for today's Canada (see my post above). As per the "Name your political correctness peeve" thread and as per the "Canada in 1776" thread note the iflammatory and specious allegations.
Setanta wrote:
With reference to Chumly's bigotry…………….
I find, sadly, that bigotry such as Chumly has expressed………..
Nevertheless, i was grossly offended by Chumly's remarks, which i suggest are largely conditioned by ignorance. Given the large Asian population of Vancouver, i found it ironic. I can understand that he is ignorant of the importance of French to so many Canadians, but his remarks about "multi-culturalism" seem awfully dull-witted to me.
Chumly's remarks are not simply offensive, they sound rather hollow and uniformed.
Setanta wrote:
Forget it Chumly, your entire tenor reeks of bigotry and i'm not going to waste any time or space pointing out in a detailed manner why bigotry is bigotry . . .

If you don't get, i doubt that anything i point out will, especially as i've already addressed your bigoted drivel in detail . . .
Setanta wrote:
Thought you'd drag your ugly anti-francophone bigotry in here, eh?
Setanta wrote:
I am not surprised, though, to learn that you are a rabid supporter of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy--the most pleasant and reasonable Canadians turn into snarling bigots on this topic.
Setanta wrote:
If this drivel you're posting now is some lame attempt to explain away your hostility to any aspect of Canadian culture which does not derive from Anglo-Saxon Protestant sources, i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt to assume that you're not really a bigot.
Setanta wrote:
Chumly, you have provided the evidence of your own bigotry with your statements about les habitants and about the "multi-culturalism" in Canada.


Now, moving further into your most recent post, I note a number of continuied dubious writings.
Setanta wrote:
Given that a significant proportion of the population of Canada today learns French from the cradle and routinely uses it on a quotidien basis, while living in a francophone, Catholic culture, i continue to see a problem with referring to that fact of life as cultural drivel.
Direct me to where I defined "that fact of life as cultural drivel" as I challenge your allegation, and further for the sake of clarity define "quotidien basis"as I will not give you the benefit of the doubt as to definitions in any further postings due to your erroneous "les habitants" diatribe.
Setanta wrote:
As for "all popular languages," i've never made a single comment on the merit of the Official Languages Act. I would, rather, refer you to your own nation's constitution and the very political nature of the necessity of recognizing the culture and language of Québec. It is a fact of political life, just as the language and culture of the francophone is a fact of daily life in Québec.
I made no claims or inferences that you made "a single comment on the merit of the Official Languages Act." I made the references to the Official Languages Act, and for the merited in context reasons already presented a number of times.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 02:54 pm
In the PC thread, you wrote:

Quote:
That's what Quebec would have you believe due to forced language indoctrination and all that supposed separate culture drivel


That statement suggests that people in Québec are somehow closet anglophones who speak French on a whim, or are forced to do so by statute or indoctrination. They speak French because they learn it from infancy in their homes, as has been the case for nearly 400 years.

Quotidien means daily. Do you deny that the Québecois speak French on a daily basis?

In that same thread, Intrepid wrote:

Quote:
Canada is also known as a multicultural society and this is also part of our identity.


After first carefully editing that statement of his, you responded as follows:

Chumly wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
and is part of Canada's identity.
Says who? You?
The Official Languages Act? The Multiculturalism Act? The Chinese? The East Indians? The Jews? The Poles? The Native Aboriginals?


Intrepid is completely correct about the multi-cultural nature of Canada, and i would add that many Canadians are proud of that and boast of it. If i had a toonie for every time i've heard that from a Canadian, i'd take us all out to dinner at a dim sum house on Spadina, or maybe one of the excellent Greek restaurants on the Danforth, or maybe that excellent little Italian place on Bloor, where most of the staff are native speakers of Italian. The folks next door are native speakers of Italian. They speak that language almost exclusively, except for the eldest surviving son, who understands it perfectly, but always responds in English, saving those occasions when he needs to explain something to his parents when their English fails them. The Greek family across the street speak Italian to them as well. The Italian population of Toronto is sufficiently large that there is an Italian language television station. There is a large Portugese community in Toronto as well (best damned wedding receptions you'd ever want to attend), which accounts for the Portugese language television station. The Chinese population is so large that there are several Mandarin newspapers--same for the Hindi language, due to the large population from the subcontinent. Those communities also have television stations which broadcast in their languages.

Surely, though, they're all just a product of indoctrination, the dupes of cultural drivel. When the Governor General read the Speech from the Throne today, in English and French (the latter no doubt because she is just a tool of indoctrination in cultrual drivel), one of Harper's points was that the Tories embrace Canada's multi-cultural heritage. But they've all been indoctrinated, haven't they.

More than 20% of the population of Canada are native speakers of French, whether or not you are charmed by the prospect. They've been here, speaking French and attending the Catholic church, for much longer than the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy has been here. Too bad, so sad, you need to get over it. That constitutes an historical reality which is translated directly into a present reality, once again, whether or not you like it.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 04:02 pm
Setanta wrote:
That statement suggests that people in Québec are somehow closet anglophones who speak French on a whim, or are forced to do so by statute or indoctrination. They speak French because they learn it from infancy in their homes, as has been the case for nearly 400 years.
It might suggest that to you from your overtly politicized/historical position, but from the perspective of my pet peeve, it is that I was forced to take French in high school for a number of years otherwise I was not permitted to graduate. Where I grew there were no French speakers (still are very few) but there were plenty of others such as Chinese and East Indians and Jews, none of whose languages would have been allowed as an alternative to learning French in high school in order to graduate.
Setanta wrote:
Quotidien means daily. Do you deny that the Québecois speak French on a daily basis?
Thanks for letting me know what it means. No I don't deny Canadians speak French in the same way I don't deny Canadians speak Chinese, Hebrew, English, Native Aboriginal Languages, East Indian Languages, Polish etc. but that in no way imputes that I should elevate French to a higher station or approve of government interventionisms with that goal and/or net result.
Setanta wrote:
After first carefully editing that statement of his, you responded as follows:
I did no such thing as per your allegation of "carefully editing that statement". In fact I had a ton of text, all quoted in full, already to go, but it was so long as to be rather impenetrable. You are welcome to quote whatever you wish more fully if you feel it somehow beneficial in trying to support your increasing (and perhaps increasingly) specious and inflammatory allegations.
Setanta wrote:
Intrepid is completely correct about the multi-cultural nature of Canada, and i would add that many Canadians are proud of that and boast of it.
Again you misunderstood my text as I was in no way denigrating the concept of the "multi-cultural nature of Canada". If you read my post you will see I make reference to this mixed background I was challenging who gets to decide what the official nature of this fabric is made of, as per government interventionism, and pet peeves.
Setanta wrote:
If i had a toonie for every time i've heard that from a Canadian, i'd take us all out to dinner at a dim sum house on Spadina, or maybe one of the excellent Greek restaurants on the Danforth, or maybe that excellent little Italian place on Bloor, where most of the staff are native speakers of Italian. The folks next door are native speakers of Italian. They speak that language almost exclusively, except for the eldest surviving son, who understands it perfectly, but always responds in English, saving those occasions when he needs to explain something to his parents when their English fails them. The Greek family across the street speak Italian to them as well. The Italian population of Toronto is sufficiently large that there is an Italian language television station. There is a large Portugese community in Toronto as well (best damned wedding receptions you'd ever want to attend), which accounts for the Portugese language television station. The Chinese population is so large that there are several Mandarin newspapers--same for the Hindi language, due to the large population from the subcontinent. Those communities also have television stations which broadcast in their languages.
And I am Jewish and speak some Hebrew and my wife is Polish and speaks both English and Polish superbly, my bestest bud is from Quebec and speaks both English and French fluently. As a musician I play at a number of ethnic weddings each year, I like.
Setanta wrote:
Surely, though, they're all just a product of indoctrination, the dupes of cultural drivel. When the Governor General read the Speech from the Throne today, in English and French (the latter no doubt because she is just a tool of indoctrination in cultrual drivel), one of Harper's points was that the Tories embrace Canada's multi-cultural heritage. But they've all been indoctrinated, haven't they.
Sadly I am not sure of the relevancy of this text as I did not watch it nor am I sure what you are asking/stating.
Setanta wrote:
More than 20% of the population of Canada are native speakers of French, whether or not you are charmed by the prospect. They've been here, speaking French and attending the Catholic church, for much longer than the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy has been here. Too bad, so sad, you need to get over it. That constitutes an historical reality which is translated directly into a present reality, once again, whether or not you like it.
Again you have misinterpreted my post as per pet peeves and my position that the official languages act is not a level playing field. It's not the French v. English theme either historically or in modernity which you keep harping on that's pivotal to my pet peeve.

If I may suggest another allegory: when it comes to your specious and inflammatory allegations, and your overtly politicized/historical position as per my pet peeve of not having a level playing field vis-a-vis government interventionisms & languages a sledgehammer is infective.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 04:02 pm
Setanta wrote:
That statement suggests that people in Québec are somehow closet anglophones who speak French on a whim, or are forced to do so by statute or indoctrination. They speak French because they learn it from infancy in their homes, as has been the case for nearly 400 years.
It might suggest that to you from your overtly politicized/historical position, but from the perspective of my pet peeve, it is that I was forced to take French in high school for a number of years otherwise I was not permitted to graduate. Where I grew there were no French speakers (still are very few) but there were plenty of others such as Chinese and East Indians and Jews, none of whose languages would have been allowed as an alternative to learning French in high school in order to graduate.
Setanta wrote:
Quotidien means daily. Do you deny that the Québecois speak French on a daily basis?
Thanks for letting me know what it means. No I don't deny Canadians speak French in the same way I don't deny Canadians speak Chinese, Hebrew, English, Native Aboriginal Languages, East Indian Languages, Polish etc. but that in no way imputes that I should elevate French to a higher station or approve of government interventionisms with that goal and/or net result.
Setanta wrote:
After first carefully editing that statement of his, you responded as follows:
I did no such thing as per your allegation of "carefully editing that statement". In fact I had a ton of text, all quoted in full, already to go, but it was so long as to be rather impenetrable. You are welcome to quote whatever you wish more fully if you feel it somehow beneficial in trying to support your increasing (and perhaps increasingly) specious and inflammatory allegations.
Setanta wrote:
Intrepid is completely correct about the multi-cultural nature of Canada, and i would add that many Canadians are proud of that and boast of it.
Again you misunderstood my text as I was in no way denigrating the concept of the "multi-cultural nature of Canada". If you read my post you will see I make reference to this mixed background I was challenging who gets to decide what the official nature of this fabric is made of, as per government interventionism, and pet peeves.
Setanta wrote:
If i had a toonie for every time i've heard that from a Canadian, i'd take us all out to dinner at a dim sum house on Spadina, or maybe one of the excellent Greek restaurants on the Danforth, or maybe that excellent little Italian place on Bloor, where most of the staff are native speakers of Italian. The folks next door are native speakers of Italian. They speak that language almost exclusively, except for the eldest surviving son, who understands it perfectly, but always responds in English, saving those occasions when he needs to explain something to his parents when their English fails them. The Greek family across the street speak Italian to them as well. The Italian population of Toronto is sufficiently large that there is an Italian language television station. There is a large Portugese community in Toronto as well (best damned wedding receptions you'd ever want to attend), which accounts for the Portugese language television station. The Chinese population is so large that there are several Mandarin newspapers--same for the Hindi language, due to the large population from the subcontinent. Those communities also have television stations which broadcast in their languages.
And I am Jewish and speak some Hebrew and my wife is Polish and speaks both English and Polish superbly, my bestest bud is from Quebec and speaks both English and French fluently. As a musician I play at a number of ethnic weddings each year, I like.
Setanta wrote:
Surely, though, they're all just a product of indoctrination, the dupes of cultural drivel. When the Governor General read the Speech from the Throne today, in English and French (the latter no doubt because she is just a tool of indoctrination in cultrual drivel), one of Harper's points was that the Tories embrace Canada's multi-cultural heritage. But they've all been indoctrinated, haven't they.
Sadly I am not sure of the relevancy of this text as I did not watch it nor am I sure what you are asking/stating.
Setanta wrote:
More than 20% of the population of Canada are native speakers of French, whether or not you are charmed by the prospect. They've been here, speaking French and attending the Catholic church, for much longer than the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy has been here. Too bad, so sad, you need to get over it. That constitutes an historical reality which is translated directly into a present reality, once again, whether or not you like it.
Again you have misinterpreted my post as per pet peeves and my position that the official languages act is not a level playing field. It's not the French v. English theme either historically or in modernity which you keep harping on that's pivotal to my pet peeve.

If I may suggest another allegory: when it comes to your specious and inflammatory allegations, and your overtly politicized/historical position as per my pet peeve of not having a level playing field vis-a-vis government interventionisms & languages a sledgehammer is infective.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 04:15 pm
Sorry you didin't enjoy high school. Do you usually want cheese with your whine?

Political reality elevates French to the position it occupies, not you lack of language skills. As i've pointed out more than once, the francophones represent more than 20% of the population. As i've also pointed out, other large language minorities enjoy their native languages on television and in newsprint. If they don't get it put on the national table, it's just once more a reflection of political realities.

I quoted your response to Intrepid by copying and pasting it directly from that thread. You edited his sentence before you responded to it.

Your response to my comment about Intrepid's statement on multi-culturalism is a non sequitur.

Your response to my discursus on multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism in Toronto is a non sequitur.

My remark about the speech from the throne is straightforward. It points out that the Tories tipped their hat to multi-culturalism. I guess they didn't vet it with you in advance, huh?

I don't use sledgehammers in debate. I leave that to the bigots.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 04:15 pm
Setanta wrote:
That statement suggests that people in Québec are somehow closet anglophones who speak French on a whim, or are forced to do so by statute or indoctrination. They speak French because they learn it from infancy in their homes, as has been the case for nearly 400 years.
It might suggest that to you from your overtly politicized/historical position, but from the perspective of my pet peeve, it is that I was forced to take French in high school for a number of years otherwise I was not permitted to graduate. Where I grew up there were no French speakers (still are very few) but there were plenty of others such as Chinese and East Indians and Jews, none of whose languages would have been allowed as an alternative to learning French in high school in order to graduate.
Setanta wrote:
Quotidien means daily. Do you deny that the Québecois speak French on a daily basis?
Thanks for letting me know what it means. No I don't deny Canadians speak French in the same way I don't deny Canadians speak Chinese, Hebrew, English, Native Aboriginal Languages, East Indian Languages, Polish etc. but that in no way imputes that I should elevate French to a higher station or approve of government interventionisms with that goal and/or net result.
Setanta wrote:
After first carefully editing that statement of his, you responded as follows:
I did no such thing as per your allegation of "carefully editing that statement". In fact I had a ton of text, all quoted in full, all ready to go, but it was so long as to be rather impenetrable. You are welcome to quote whatever you wish more fully if you feel it somehow beneficial in trying to support your increasing (and perhaps increasingly) specious and inflammatory allegations.
Setanta wrote:
Intrepid is completely correct about the multi-cultural nature of Canada, and i would add that many Canadians are proud of that and boast of it.
Again you misunderstood my text as I was in no way denigrating the concept & spirit of the "multi-cultural nature of Canada". If you read my post, you will see I make reference to this mixed background. I was in fact challenging the precept of who gets to decide what the official nature of this fabric is, as per government interventionism, and pet peeves.
Setanta wrote:
If i had a toonie for every time i've heard that from a Canadian, i'd take us all out to dinner at a dim sum house on Spadina, or maybe one of the excellent Greek restaurants on the Danforth, or maybe that excellent little Italian place on Bloor, where most of the staff are native speakers of Italian. The folks next door are native speakers of Italian. They speak that language almost exclusively, except for the eldest surviving son, who understands it perfectly, but always responds in English, saving those occasions when he needs to explain something to his parents when their English fails them. The Greek family across the street speak Italian to them as well. The Italian population of Toronto is sufficiently large that there is an Italian language television station. There is a large Portugese community in Toronto as well (best damned wedding receptions you'd ever want to attend), which accounts for the Portugese language television station. The Chinese population is so large that there are several Mandarin newspapers--same for the Hindi language, due to the large population from the subcontinent. Those communities also have television stations which broadcast in their languages.
And I am Jewish and speak some Hebrew and my wife is Polish and speaks both English and Polish superbly, my bestest bud is from Quebec and speaks both English and French fluently. As a musician I play at a number of ethnic weddings each year, I like.
Setanta wrote:
Surely, though, they're all just a product of indoctrination, the dupes of cultural drivel. When the Governor General read the Speech from the Throne today, in English and French (the latter no doubt because she is just a tool of indoctrination in cultrual drivel), one of Harper's points was that the Tories embrace Canada's multi-cultural heritage. But they've all been indoctrinated, haven't they.
Sadly I am not sure of the relevancy of this text as I did not watch it nor am I sure what you are asking/stating.
Setanta wrote:
More than 20% of the population of Canada are native speakers of French, whether or not you are charmed by the prospect. They've been here, speaking French and attending the Catholic church, for much longer than the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Ascendancy has been here. Too bad, so sad, you need to get over it. That constitutes an historical reality which is translated directly into a present reality, once again, whether or not you like it.
Again you have misinterpreted my post as per pet peeves and my position that the official languages act is not a level playing field. It's not the French v. English theme either historically or in modernity which you keep harping on that's pivotal to my pet peeve.

Again I was in no way denigrating the concept & spirit of the "multi-cultural nature of Canada" but to certain specifics such as the official elevation of certain languages over others, and it's attendant governmental interventionisms in the context of a pet peeve.

If I may suggest another allegory: when it comes to your specious and inflammatory allegations, and your overtly politicized/historical position as per my pet peeve of not having a level playing field vis-a-vis government interventionisms & languages; a sledgehammer is infective.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 04:17 pm
Damn, it's deja vu all over again . . .
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 04:23 pm
Shirley You're Joking, Mr. Setana!
(Adventures of a Curious Character)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Canada in 1776
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/05/2021 at 10:34:18