TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

quote:

Originally posted by malek aha. you don't know your history. The British Royal proclamation of 1763 right after the conquest clearly stipulated: - abolishment of all French laws and customs - establishment of the anglicane church, the catholic church was barely tolerated (Canadiens were Catholics) - the Canadiens cannot occupy a position in the govt at that time unless they deny their Catholic Church and become Anglican. - a project of massive english immigration, helped by huge lands giveaways to members of the British military (ex 5000 acres to Officers) - Catholic Church could no more collect its tithes (money or sunday basket) - The British forbid religious persons like priests or nuns to come from France, even to replace dead ones in New France - All laws and customs were in English - etc etc etc their motives were clear, you're smart enough to see that. But, this never worked out, barely any English came and established in Canada, there was 65000 French for 600 English, no one understood the laws and there was not enough people (english) to apply them. In 1774 the British had no choice but to return to French laws and customs... with the Grand Act of French Canada (loose translation).

Um, you do realise that Britain had just defeated France in a war of conquest right? I think it's bloody remarkable the British just didn't turf all the French out. (maybe they should have...we'd have less problems and bickering today, that's for sure).
And the two nations had been warring for centuries...numerous French Catholic plots to overthrow and assasinate protestant monarchs...they had good reason to outlaw Popery and Catholicism. Let's not forget that Britain had, a mere 30 years later, to defend the world against French aggression yet again in the form of the Revolution and Napoleon, plus the French stuck their noses into the American Revolution. I'd have to say that for the British to even TOLERATE the French population in Quebec was amazing.

And the Quebec Act of 1774 was remarkable precedent in of itself. Put yourself in the British position in the 1760s...you had Natives complaining about land, Anglo colonists bitching even more about their rights, taxes, protection from natives on the frontier, land...and then you had the French population in Quebec whining as well. How do you serve all three interests at once? History shows the British didn't do a bad job of it. By giving the French their religion back, their land, their municpal governments and by keeping out Anglo businessmen from the colony (thereby protecting French local businesses) they ensured French loyalty only to FURTHER anger the colonists in the 13 Colonies, which was certainly a big factor in the Revolution, though you'll rarely hear the Yanks even mention it.

The fact that Britain was giving so much protection and BASIC RIGHTS to people who were, at the time, enemies to the crown for obvious reasons is stunning. Try to name any other country that was doing anything remotely this democratic at the time? And just so you know, who did the French in Quebec side with when George Washington came calling in 1778? Definitely not the Americans.

You DO know your history, but your conclusions and judgements are one-sided and clouded.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Um, you do realise that Britain had just defeated France in a war of conquest right? I think it's bloody remarkable the British just didn't turf all the French out. (maybe they should have...we'd have less problems and bickering today, that's for sure). And the two nations had been warring for centuries...numerous French Catholic plots to overthrow and assasinate protestant monarchs...they had good reason to outlaw Popery and Catholicism. Let's not forget that Britain had, a mere 30 years later, to defend the world against French aggression yet again in the form of the Revolution and Napoleon, plus the French stuck their noses into the American Revolution. I'd have to say that for the British to even TOLERATE the French population in Quebec was amazing. And the Quebec Act of 1774 was remarkable precedent in of itself. Put yourself in the British position in the 1760s...you had Natives complaining about land, Anglo colonists bitching even more about their rights, taxes, protection from natives on the frontier, land...and then you had the French population in Quebec whining as well. How do you serve all three interests at once? History shows the British didn't do a bad job of it. By giving the French their religion back, their land, their municpal governments and by keeping out Anglo businessmen from the colony (thereby protecting French local businesses) they ensured French loyalty only to FURTHER anger the colonists in the 13 Colonies, which was certainly a big factor in the Revolution, though you'll rarely hear the Yanks even mention it. The fact that Britain was giving so much protection and BASIC RIGHTS to people who were, at the time, enemies to the crown for obvious reasons is stunning. Try to name any other country that was doing anything remotely this democratic at the time? And just so you know, who did the French in Quebec side with when George Washington came calling in 1778? Definitely not the Americans. You DO know your history, but your conclusions and judgements are one-sided and clouded.

let me get this right:

1-exterminate all french
2-the 13 colonies revolted because of the French.

wow, weren't you banned? you are beyond stupid and twist history beyond any credibility.

1)turfing is not exterminating...it is removal. The British certaily could have deported 65,000 Quebecers within a year or two but did not.

2)The Quebec Act of 1774 was a major tension point between the British Government and the American colonists. They figured, having defeated the French, that the colonist merchants should be able to "invade" Quebec, take everything (ie business and land) and dictate to them. The British government, however, never allowed this to happen despite what was set out in the Royal Proclamation. The colonists were already becoming more and more aggressive against British taxes (which ironically enough, were imposed to pay for the war the colonists wanted against the French in the first place). They could not afford to lose French loyalty at the same time as having a much larger American population revolting against centralised rule. Then there was also the Native factor.

The American Revolution is not a simple matter of "unjust" taxes ...it goes far beyond that, stemming from the Royal Proclamation which gave all land to Natives west of the Appalachian Mountains in effect stunting American expansion, lack of direct political representation in London, British army militia garrisoning in colonists houses, confiscation of colonists weapons amid growing tensions, a series of taxes and finally, the Quebec Act which to the colonists, looked like the British were siding with their former French enemies instead of English speaking settlers. Then of course there was the Boston Massacre, in which three people were killed by British soldiers when rocks were hurled at them.

Your problem is that you are looking at the Quebec Act without factoring in all the necessary background. It played a part in a much larger issue. Withdraw yourself and stop looking at isolated events with a 21st Century viewpoint. That will get you absolutely nowhere in an historigraphical sense.

Did you ever take Canadian history or did you sleep through it?

asking me if I slept thru it when clearly you show signs of ignorance.


There was no such term as Quebecers, it was Canadiens, being Canadiens designed those who lived in the French Colony called Canada and them being French Catholic. Later on, it designated those who lived North of the US and wanted to stay loyal to the King. Quebecers is a relaitvely new term.

The 13 colonies already had tensions with the UK, but it was clear that after the conquest of all enemies in North America, that paying taxes for "protection" was out of the question. The 13 colonies decided to rise against the British. It was British greed that did it, not those 65000 Canadiens

I can continue about the Loyalists moving north and asking for harsher policies against French and the return of assimilation politics, but its useless to lower myself to your unidimensional view of things.

After posting what you did early it serves no purpose, you're still an idiot even after all those years.

With regard to the Quebec Act's influance on the US revolution.... While those that supported US cecession from Britain did cite this as part of their greivences and did use it to rally support it really was inconsequential in the final decision. Revolutionary rhetoric and even meetings had existed long before the Quebec Act was proclaimed. Furthermore, the 13 colonies had origionally planned for 15 colonies. The additional two colonies were Quebec and Nova Scotia. Both of these colonies refused to join in the revolution because they believed they would benefit from association with Britain more so then with the colonies. Following the revolution representitives from the Continental Congress again approaced Quebec (Lower Canada at the time) and Nova Scotia to join, again both rejected the offer. Lower Canada was actually approached a thrid time (prior to the onset of hostilities in 1812) with an invitation to join the US. Certainly, if the US were really infuriated with the existance of a French culture in North America they would not have wished to allow that culture into their own state. This idea that the Quebec Act was a catalyst to the US revolution is a historical inacuracy that is a product of the propaganda of the time rather then fact.

Thank you, it doesn't make sense anyways.






back to current days politics>>>>>>>>>>>>

quote:

Originally posted by malek asking me if I slept thru it when clearly you show signs of ignorance. The 13 colonies already had tensions with the UK, but it was clear that after the conquest of all enemies in North America, that paying taxes for "protection" was out of the question. The 13 colonies decided to rise against the British. It was British greed that did it, not those 65000 Canadiens I can continue about the Loyalists moving north and asking for harsher policies against French and the return of assimilation politics, but its useless to lower myself to your unidimensional view of things. After posting what you did early it serves no purpose, you're still an idiot even after all those years.

you're doing all the childish name calling yet you're calling me ignorant? Is this what they teach you in the Middle East or Montreal or wherever it is you were "educated"?

Your views on the American Revolution are especially twisted. British greed? Are you kidding me? You do realise that the British had fought what was really the first world war (ie fought across the globe in Europe, America and India) that stressed Britain's economy and put her in massive debt. Do you know what set off the Seven Years War in the first place? George Washington and his Virginians crossing into the Ohio Territory in 1754 demanding that French territory be annexed by the British government. The colonists set off the war, although tensions between Britain and France were always shaky at best during those times.

So let me see....you have a massively indebted Britain that just inherited basically a whole continent by 1763 after defeating France for the third time in a century. Again, you keep ignoring this point, but they have their own interests as a centralised government to look at, the bickering of American colonists, the interests of the French in Quebec and the oft forgotten Natives. So the British, in order to remedy the situation, give all land west of the Appalachians to the Indians and impose a series of taxes on the colonists to pay for the war that they DEMANDED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The British had to maintain 10,000 troops on the frontier to satisfy the demands of the colonists for protection against Native harrassment. How else does a nation offer such services? They tax...and tax...and tax. And in this situation, it was completely justifiable.

You obviously have trouble seeing the bigger picture here. Even American intellectuals will admit their Revolution was due to greed, money and land yet you're saying it was because of British greed! Please tell me you're not a history major.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard With regard to the Quebec Act's influance on the US revolution.... While those that supported US cecession from Britain did cite this as part of their greivences and did use it to rally support it really was inconsequential in the final decision. Revolutionary rhetoric and even meetings had existed long before the Quebec Act was proclaimed. Furthermore, the 13 colonies had origionally planned for 15 colonies. The additional two colonies were Quebec and Nova Scotia. Both of these colonies refused to join in the revolution because they believed they would benefit from association with Britain more so then with the colonies. Following the revolution representitives from the Continental Congress again approaced Quebec (Lower Canada at the time) and Nova Scotia to join, again both rejected the offer. Lower Canada was actually approached a thrid time (prior to the onset of hostilities in 1812) with an invitation to join the US. Certainly, if the US were really infuriated with the existance of a French culture in North America they would not have wished to allow that culture into their own state. This idea that the Quebec Act was a catalyst to the US revolution is a historical inacuracy that is a product of the propaganda of the time rather then fact.

I can't believe the both of you, trying to talk history here, are nearly completely overlooking the impact of the Quebec Act on Anglo colonial opinion. That act was passed in 1774, the Revolution's first shots were fired in 1775 at Lexington and Concord. Do you not at least see the correlation here? There is an abundance of material to be found concerning American upheaval over the Quebec Act.

I quote, from "A People and a Nation 4th Edition Volume 1: To 1877"

"The Quebec Act granted greater religous freedoms to Catholics, thereby alarming Protestant colonists. The act annexed to Quebec the area east of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio Valley where American merchants and businessmen had begun to stake their claims. That region was thus removed from their jurisdiction. To Patriots, the Quebec Act proved what they had silently feared since 1768: that Great Britain had embarked on a plan to oppress American expansion, while granting concesssions to an already conquered French population and savage Indians on the frontier". page 90.

This, coming from American historians, should shut you both up. The Quebec Act was an integral component, albeit a much later one in addition to the Intolerable Acts (such as garrisoning troops in local houses as I said earlier, The Boston Massacre, the Navigation Acts, the series of taxes, no representation in London), in swaying patriot opinion over to the militant side.

And it was not the "existence" of a French culture in their society that "infuriated" the Americans...it was the British preventing them from CONTROLLING that society via the stipulations in the Quebec Act. Please remember that without monetary and military support from France, the Americans never would have defeated the British in any event.

Now, if you're going to argue with an historian, next time do a better job than typing up your own opinions as fact.

Come on Malek, what about that British greed that started the American Revolution?

I guess we'll have to ignore the fact that 2/5 of the 13 Colonies' population was Patriot, 2/5 were loyalist and 1/5 neutral, changing sides based on whoever was doing better at any given time. What a united cause against British greed!

so now we're playing the "Post a Stupid Picture" game?

shit, i forgot that thread.

So Smitty, you still argue, that Quebec is the cause of the American revolution and all the shit happened on this continent since 1763...

man, you need help for being so francophobe and desillusionned.

That's hilarious! Let's hijack this thread!

I return your volley...



This doesn't mean I'm pro-liberal, read my posts earlier.

Beer for the parents, popcorn for the kids. Everyone benefits. What's the problem?

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie

my point exactly

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie That's hilarious! Let's hijack this thread! I return your volley... This doesn't mean I'm pro-liberal, read my posts earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf

BWHAHAAAHAHAH....

two peas in a pod...

It actually kinda makes sense that he would go on that route with the gay marriages because one of his strongest campaign issues now is to secure the seniors vote. Who better than a senior to agree with oldschool ways like abolishing gay marriages....Anyhow, don't like him, vote green party!!!

quote:

Originally posted by malek shit, i forgot that thread. So Smitty, you still argue, that Quebec is the cause of the American revolution and all the shit happened on this continent since 1763... man, you need help for being so francophobe and desillusionned.

man, are you retarded? why don't you READ what I posted, especially the quote from a SCHOLARLY WORK BY PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS. I'm the farthest thing from a francophobe actually and nowhere did I ever state that the Quebec Act was the sole cause of the American Revolution. Your brain must not translate English very well if you think I did. Go back and read.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 man, are you retarded? why don't you READ what I posted, especially the quote from a SCHOLARLY WORK BY PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS. I'm the farthest thing from a francophobe actually and nowhere did I ever state that the Quebec Act was the sole cause of the American Revolution. Your brain must not translate English very well if you think I did. Go back and read.

drop it francophobe

quote:

Originally posted by malek drop it francophobe

so gracious in defeat. Who are you voting for...Le Bloc?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 so gracious in defeat. Who are you voting for...Le Bloc?

No, les Cons.

... here goes your stereotypes...

You know I didn't want to get into the whole French/English thing but... from what I'm reading, I see incorrect interpretations of life in Quebec.

I'm not going to point anyone out, but it appears this person votes for this guy;

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.