Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 12  Next

Because Americans were more anti-pope than the British.

   

Aaaa... Religion! Never underestimate it!

   

Without the Pope, there would be less charity and without charity, less immigration.

   

the heading of this post is not correct.. it should read . Immigration is not as open in Quebec as the rest of Canada...

   

If immigration is not as open in Quebec as the rest of Canada (ROC) it is in part due to the fact that Quebec has no army, so no need of recruits.

   

I think you need to re word that before you get a lashing.

   

Lashing is outdated.

   

Canadian army only in English? Nahhh...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IQE0fqycP ... B8&index=2

   

You talk like the Brits did that out of pure goodwill... which most definitely isn't true. They needed the Québécois to administer the province properly and help defend it, the English simply weren't numerous enough, especially for the former. I guess British soldier alone could have been able to defend it properly in case of attack, but the anglophones were still so few in Quebec shortly after the conquest that administering it correctly without the help of the French-speaking majority (as was originally intended) would have been a staggering task. The big reason why the Brits took little time to give Québécois so much loose is because they not only needed to get a larger number of competent persons along with the people as a whole on their side, but also especially the overwhelmingly influent Catholic Church : altogether, that implied giving away a few "gifts" to prevent dissent. It did work, though, so no wrong there.

   

Immigrants from Afghanistan would be very useful in the Canadian army.

   

You need to check out what was going on in the world, besides the Seven Years War, at that time.
Once peace eventually came to that part of N America the UK parliament for one was very proactive on 'rights of man' and all that good stuff. Not because they were being nice but because it was the new thing to do. Don’t forget that Simcoe as one of his first measures on taking up his Governorship, outlawed the sale of slaves in the Canada’s. Stirring stuff and good ‘new age’ thinking.

There was military law until 1763. That means occupation. That's four years of occupation where the supposedly vulnerable British held the line in New France.

Check out Hansard, there was great pressure from Parliament to ensure freedom of religion and the right to practice French Civil Law from Westminster.
I'm sure the British Army would have been quite happy to be bad to the Québécois but that's not what happened in this case.

Really, you Quebec chaps need to read more than one version of history. Try another that's not written by a Quebecker. Open your mind!

   

History is important but it shouldn't affect our every day lives and our politics!

C'omon, what we are talking about here is from 1763. 1763!!! That's even before Napoleon! If people in Europe would be so remembering, there would be no EU. Europeans don't give as much shit to WWII, and thats 1940's!

   

and history should be told as it happened not as a fairy tale... fact is france did not want anything to do with Quebec...

   

Quite true, but not completely. France did establish Quebec, eh?

I would say it's like with a girl beautiful girl that is kinda weird. From one point of view you want her, on the other hand you don't want to have anything to with her.
I am not saying Quebec is like such a girl, but France was behaving that way (undecided). Wasn't it?

   

the french did establish Quebec but they were in search of something else...

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 12  Next