Why no explusion of the Quebecois in 1763?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Mustang1 @ Mon May 23, 2005 4:40 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
$1:
Whether it was a “primary factor” I suppose can be debatable (although this seems like needling
Needling? Care to tell me why you would say that? Can I not express my own views in context with yours or may I not? Anyways, I asked if there was any online sites( sorry I dont have a stack of text books) Im not questioning your integrity, it is my own point to research more and more. Thank you.
Firstly when one makes specific text alterations that denote small, differentials like “primary” it is needling the point (in argumentative terms, it can be construed as a delaying tactic). It seeks to alter the context by placing emphasis or deflecting attention away from salient points. I initially said that “population was a factor” and you responded with “would have to disagree with Mustang1 on "population" being a reason for this as the British troops could easily have sent in more at any giving time.,” and followed up by “see now how population is a factor however I wouldnt consider it primary” I provided ample evidence to support this rather conventional assertion (none of which, by the way, you have addressed) and now you are personalizing the issue (which is not needed – it’s history). As I said before, “Incidentally, It’s not an opinion; I was merely applying relevant objective historical information (the population issue is tackled in most first year university Canadian history and Political Science courses) to the original historical query.” This is not about opinion - it’s about history. My intention is to present good, solid, academically verifiable history – that’s all.
$1:
“Can I not express my own views in context with yours or may I not?”
Sure, express away. I was presenting a collective historical analysis (based on primary and secondary sources) that postulated the reason that massive overt assimilation or explicit expulsion tactics were not used after Conquest was that major population issues existed (along with other Colonial agitations) that prevented the British from doing this ( I gave text-based direct quotes). They adopted a decidedly soft conciliatory tone that sought to placate French majority until English settlement patterns readdressed the demographic problems that faced the English minority (that’s why I introduced the political angle in the previous post).
$1:
“Anyways, I asked if there was any online sites( sorry I dont have a stack of text books) Im not questioning your integrity, it is my own point to research more and more.”
I didn’t think you were questioning my integrity – I don’t find it offensive in the least if someone inquires as to where figures were retrieved from as it shows critical thinking on their part. I can’t fault anyone for that. I don’t use online information as it presents a host of methodological problems, author nightmares, historiographical issues and factual errors. Sorry. I can, however, certainly elaborate on the numbers or their sources, but I can’t provide a legitimate Internet site that would equal a peer-reviewed scholarly text(s). I’m almost positive that those books are in most libraries (one is on most university course syllabuses) – they shouldn’t be difficult to find.
$1:
“Curious, can you say population was a factor if Britain didnt want to expell the Quebecois? or no?”
Could you elaborate on the question?
Optinum @ Mon May 23, 2005 4:53 pm
Why no explusion of the Quebecois in 1763?
wtf!! if this was done, canada should have the darkness history in the world. expelle it own citizen... the creator of this topic is really anti french, and every body that agree to it...
Tman1 @ Mon May 23, 2005 5:05 pm
Sorry double post
Tman1 @ Mon May 23, 2005 5:08 pm
Well, as a whole, I did not mean to engage in a lengthy debate and do not see the need to address your "salient" points. You have provided your specifics I merely disagreed with your point in saying population was a "significant" factor. The bottom line is that Britian had no wish to remove the population so does that not make this case in point moot? You think I would want to needle you to prove my case? Come on, I thought you had more respect for me than that, im not Jaime souverins. In this case, I merely expressed doubt at first because I had thought there would have been a significant force in Quebec after the conquest rather than a measly 1600 troops, which by the way is significantly less than the original conquering force. Seems ridiculous to invade a place and than reduce the force that invaded it no? Actually I may have unintentionally misread your undisputed facts and figures and im probably wrong in this but indulge me.
I think we both crossed a different path into answering this question so thats why I think I disagree with your point sorry. In fact now that I think about it I kinda jumped to conclusions a bit.
Sorry for that last question, I retracted it and consider it no point in answering because like I said before I may have misread your information. Sorry about that call it what you will, I do that alot. 
Mustang1 @ Mon May 23, 2005 5:28 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
Well, as a whole, I did not mean to engage in a lengthy debate and do not see the need to address your "salient" points. You have provided your specifics I merely disagreed with your point in saying population was a "significant" factor. The bottom line is that Britian had no wish to remove the population so does that not make this case in point moot? You think I would want to needle you to prove my case? Come on, I thought you had more respect for me than that, im not Jaime souverins. In this case, I merely expressed doubt at first because I had thought there would have been a significant force in Quebec after the conquest rather than a measly 1600 troops, which by the way is significantly less than the original conquering force. Seems ridiculous to invade a place and than reduce the force that invaded it no? Actually I may have unintentionally misread your undisputed facts and figures and im probably wrong in this but indulge me.
I think we both crossed a different path into answering this question so thats why I think I disagree with your point sorry. In fact now that I think about it I kinda jumped to conclusions a bit.
Sorry for that last question, I retracted it and consider it no point in answering because like I said before I may have misread your information. Sorry about that call it what you will, I do that alot.
I think we both crossed a different path into answering this question so thats why I think I disagree with your point sorry. In fact now that I think about it I kinda jumped to conclusions a bit.
Sorry for that last question, I retracted it and consider it no point in answering because like I said before I may have misread your information. Sorry about that call it what you will, I do that alot.
Hey, no worries. I do have respect for you and, no, I haven’t mistaken you for that “other person”. It wasn’t my objective to push you into a debate – I may have come across as somewhat antagonistic, but that wasn’t my intention. I sometimes become combative when it comes to history (it sometimes seem that many here – not you – simply reject any objective information that trumps their baseless personal opinions), as it tends to get misrepresented, bastardized as some view it as intellectually relative. I shouldn’t take that approach with you – my apologies, if you thought I was pushing the issue in an unfair manner.
No issues, dude.
Tman1 @ Mon May 23, 2005 5:28 pm
My reasons would have to emphasize more on cost, money, time, and commitment. Already the British had their hands full with the 13 colonies as well as repercussions from the Seven years war so in my opinion, Quebec and the rest of BNA was furthest from the crowns minds. As well, like I stated yet again which needs to be addressed as well.(I think we both did that) was the Acadians. Isnt that what History is? Lessons learned from the past?
Tman1 @ Mon May 23, 2005 5:32 pm
Thanks bro. No harm done and hope to continue with a "civilized" discussion.
Beez @ Mon May 23, 2005 5:49 pm
"Were you sarcastic or you are really that racist ?"
You can suggest a level of discriminatory thinking, certainly. However, the French, English, Germans and all Europeans are essentially the same race. I think you are confusing nationalism (i.e. peoples as nations) with racism.
If anyone wants to use the racism card, it's important to know what race is. As follows: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... manity.htm
Outline of Human Racial Classification:
I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa
A. Khoid (Hottentot) race
B. Sanid (Bushmen) race
II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa
A. Central African race
1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)
2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)
3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)
4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)
B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies)
C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)
III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies
A. Mediterranid race
1. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace)
2. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)
3. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type, has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized during the Bronze Age [second millennium B.C.] and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)
4. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt)
5. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews)
B. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland, western Austria and eastern Ukraine)
C. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and Bohemia, important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland)
D. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)
E. Nordish or Northern European race (various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race)
F. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews)
G. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan.; common in Hungary and Turkey)
H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)
I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)
IV. Australoid Subspecies
A. Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India)
B. Negritos (remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines)
C. Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)
D. Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines)
V. Mongoloid Subspecies
A. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
B. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in Indochina, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, some partly hybridized with Australoids)
C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (hybridized with Australoids)
D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)
Tman1 @ Mon May 23, 2005 5:52 pm
Whether or not he meant or didnt mean, why dosent the original poster follow up on his own thread?
RoyalHighlander @ Mon May 23, 2005 6:32 pm
Beez Beez:
"Were you sarcastic or you are really that racist ?"
You can suggest a level of discriminatory thinking, certainly. However, the French, English, Germans and all Europeans are essentially the same race. I think you are confusing nationalism (i.e. peoples as nations) with racism.
If anyone wants to use the racism card, it's important to know what race is. As follows: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... manity.htm
Outline of Human Racial Classification:
I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa
A. Khoid (Hottentot) race
B. Sanid (Bushmen) race
II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa
A. Central African race
1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)
2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)
3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)
4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)
B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies)
C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)
III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies
A. Mediterranid race
1. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace)
2. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)
3. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type, has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized during the Bronze Age [second millennium B.C.] and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)
4. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt)
5. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews)
B. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland, western Austria and eastern Ukraine)
C. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and Bohemia, important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland)
D. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)
E. Nordish or Northern European race (various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race)
F. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews)
G. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan.; common in Hungary and Turkey)
H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)
I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)
IV. Australoid Subspecies
A. Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India)
B. Negritos (remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines)
C. Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)
D. Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines)
V. Mongoloid Subspecies
A. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
B. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in Indochina, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, some partly hybridized with Australoids)
C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (hybridized with Australoids)
D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)
You can suggest a level of discriminatory thinking, certainly. However, the French, English, Germans and all Europeans are essentially the same race. I think you are confusing nationalism (i.e. peoples as nations) with racism.
If anyone wants to use the racism card, it's important to know what race is. As follows: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... manity.htm
Outline of Human Racial Classification:
I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa
A. Khoid (Hottentot) race
B. Sanid (Bushmen) race
II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa
A. Central African race
1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)
2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)
3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)
4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)
B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies)
C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)
III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies
A. Mediterranid race
1. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace)
2. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)
3. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type, has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized during the Bronze Age [second millennium B.C.] and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)
4. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt)
5. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews)
B. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland, western Austria and eastern Ukraine)
C. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and Bohemia, important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland)
D. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)
E. Nordish or Northern European race (various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race)
F. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews)
G. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan.; common in Hungary and Turkey)
H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)
I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)
IV. Australoid Subspecies
A. Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India)
B. Negritos (remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines)
C. Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)
D. Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines)
V. Mongoloid Subspecies
A. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
B. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in Indochina, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, some partly hybridized with Australoids)
C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (hybridized with Australoids)
D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)
Pimpbrewski @ Mon May 23, 2005 7:15 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
I wouldnt want cool people like you and Sabre expelled. Then who would I talk to on the drunk thread? 
lol !!!!!!!!!!
Yea, I would not want to be expelled either. Cool comment by the way. Sorry that I was not here for this long weekend (some call it Victoria day, Quebec calls it Patriot's day). Had a little fun of my own.
My kitty drank most of my beer. Could have had more fun
I know off topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Won't let it happen again.
Tman1 @ Mon May 23, 2005 7:19 pm
I guess felines develop a thirst once in a while.
Pimpbrewski @ Mon May 23, 2005 7:23 pm
Beez Beez:
"Were you sarcastic or you are really that racist ?"
Ok now.... back on topic.
What does the part of being ``racist`` have to do with anything???
I do not consider the rest of Canada being racist towards Quebecois. Or maybe I misunderstood something
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
Anyways, I do not have much to argue with since I am not really a buff when it comes to history (Yea, that's right, at least I am man enough to admit it lol !!!!!!
)
deneb @ Mon May 23, 2005 7:39 pm
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
deneb deneb:
PeterFinn PeterFinn:
Why no expulsion of them in 2005? 
Go ahead dumbass, laugh!
![[stupid]](./images/smilies/stupid.gif "With stupid")
![[boff]](./images/smilies/boff.gif "From Behind!")
Just remember, I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you!
Never had any doubt about it.
That's why I called you stupid in the first place.
Damien @ Mon May 23, 2005 7:57 pm
Peterflinn, I don't know if you realized yet but... nobody cares if USA and France are hating each others right now, it's not our freaking problem.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next