U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada > Montreal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2014, 01:45 PM
 
34,267 posts, read 41,320,656 times
Reputation: 29761

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I suppose if you consider King George III and his successors and the British Colonial Office to be "God"...
I recently saw a post with a map of North America where the French owned almost a third of the entire continent, why did the French ultimately get pushed back to a small area (Quebec) and dwindle to a paltry 6 million and the Anglos rose to dominate the entire continent with a figure near 350 million.?
I think it had more to do with Anglo cultural dynamics than anything George III and his successors did.

Here it is,, looks to me like some one blew it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...efrance-V2.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2014, 02:31 PM
hvl
 
403 posts, read 439,174 times
Reputation: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
I recently saw a post with a map of North America where the French owned almost a third of the entire continent, why did the French ultimately get pushed back to a small area (Quebec) and dwindle to a paltry 6 million and the Anglos rose to dominate the entire continent with a figure near 350 million.?
I think it had more to do with Anglo cultural dynamics than anything George III and his successors did.

Here it is,, looks to me like some one blew it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...efrance-V2.jpg
The French did a pretty bad job of occupying their territory, imho. Just like the Mexicans in the south-west, they were too few of them for their claim to those lands not to be challenged.

It seems that France was never too enthusiastic about sending large numbers of her people to faraway lands. The English were for some reason much more interested in being settlers and they were soon much, much more numerous than the french.

The 6 million Quebecois are actually a demographic miracle because they were quite a small population at the beginning.

The 350 million anglos are not mostly from the UK. Almost all of the immigrants to North-America were assimilated into the Anglo population and almost no one assimilated into the French population (would it have made any sense back then ? no).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Colorado
1,524 posts, read 2,256,556 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonsereed View Post
Did God himself place anglos atop said ''pecking order'' or was it because they fought harder, had vision and better work ethics ?

Back in the days the canayens were busy trapping furry creatures, including squaw beavers while brits were setting up financial, political and mercantile institutions

Nowadays most of those ROC frenchies are trawling for crabs in the gulf , picking cherries in the valley or going down the shaft in the nickel belt __ so what else is new?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
I recently saw a post with a map of North America where the French owned almost a third of the entire continent, why did the French ultimately get pushed back to a small area (Quebec) and dwindle to a paltry 6 million and the Anglos rose to dominate the entire continent with a figure near 350 million.?
I think it had more to do with Anglo cultural dynamics than anything George III and his successors did.
Cultural dynamics and notions of British superiority were irrelevant. The French were outnumbered by their British rivals almost 20 to 1 on the North American continent, yet lasted from over 150 years. The Swedish and Dutch colonies which were similarly outnumbered were quickly overwhelmed in a few decades. The reason why the French were "pushed back" to only Québec is because Québec is the only place with any significant French settlement. The rest of the French territory was almost barely populated, mostly by men manning trading posts and military forts designed to ensure French domination of the fur market. It is worth noting that France was the most advanced and influential world power in this time period, not Britain, and this was best illustrated by the rise of Napoleon and the French empire in the late 18th to early 19th centuries.

English speakers came to dominate Canada only because their military conquered Canada, not because of cultural dynamics or economic superiority. When Canada was conquered the French nobles and people with mone, left for more desirable locations in the Carribbean or France. The Canadiens who stayed in Canada were the peasants. The British came in and replaced the French nobles as the landowners and aristocracy. This is the exact same phenomenon that happened in every conquered colony: In Nigeria, India, Burma, South Africa, etc, the British replaced the former nobility in the conquered land. As a result, a colonial who wished to advance socially or financially needed to know the language of the ruling class: English. This is why Jonsereed's Francophones in ROC are "trawling for crabs in the gulf , picking cherries in the valley or going down the shaft in the nickel belt". The Francophones who went into more lucrative and esteemed professions shed their identity and became anglophones. And their offspring knew well that to revert to "Canadien" culture would be like taking a step backwards socially and economically.

So the British weren't on top because they were somehow culturally or economically superior. They were on top because they took over the land and became the ruling class. The Francophones in ROC are poorer because they are descended from the Canadiens who did not try to get better paying jobs; those who did get better paying jobs usually abandoned their culture. The Canadian/British government encouraged all of this, and tried to avoid recruitment of immigrants from French speaking countries, so as not to reinforce French in Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hvl View Post
It seems that France was never too enthusiastic about sending large numbers of her people to faraway lands. The English were for some reason much more interested in being settlers and they were soon much, much more numerous than the french.
It had little to do with enthusiasm.

The British practiced land enclosure, which meant that British peasants could be easily kicked off of their small farms by local landlords, and the king or other higher officials could do nothing about it. Additionally, the British tended to arrest more of it's populace for petty "crimes" such as being jobless or being in debt for too long, and wanted those of non-Anglican religions to leave the country. This meant large numbers of potential settlers for new lands.

In France, this was not the case and the French peasant was less likely to be homeless, destitute, or under the threat of losing his or her land to a noble than in Britain. This meant that the French peasant had much less incentive to leave to settle a new land.

When it comes to immigrating to new lands, the number of immigrants leaving a country is not a sign of internal health or stability. Today we in the first world would never consider the countries where people are most desperate to leave to be superior to countries where people want to stay in.

This was the same in the colonial period, where the willingness of peasants to leave for new lands was largely indicative of internal problems in the mother country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Colorado
1,524 posts, read 2,256,556 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by hvl View Post
The 350 million anglos are not mostly from the UK. Almost all of the immigrants to North-America were assimilated into the Anglo population and almost no one assimilated into the French population (would it have made any sense back then ? no).
Only about 233 million Americans speak English natively, and about 21 million Canadians do. So the number of "Anglos" in North America is nowhere near 350 million as often cited on this forum. The 350 million figure is too high for North America even if we include the non-English speaking Canadians and Americans.

Regarding Canada, British is certainly the main source of English-Canadians heritage, with those of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish heritage making up a number several times greater than those of any other heritage.

Lastly, many immigrants did assimilate to French (Canadien) culture. The Irish assimilated in significant numbers, and Quebecois also commonly have Scottish and Italian heritage. It is not unusual to find French-speakers with last names like Kelly or Patrick. It made sense back then because the Francophones were Catholic and the Anglophones often hostile to Catholics and the Irish; thus the Irish and many other Europeans found themselves better accepted among the Francophones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,839 posts, read 27,246,126 times
Reputation: 8573
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
Cultural dynamics and notions of British superiority were irrelevant. The French were outnumbered by their British rivals almost 20 to 1 on the North American continent, yet lasted from over 150 years. The Swedish and Dutch colonies which were similarly outnumbered were quickly overwhelmed in a few decades. The reason why the French were "pushed back" to only Québec is because Québec is the only place with any significant French settlement. The rest of the French territory was almost barely populated, mostly by men manning trading posts and military forts designed to ensure French domination of the fur market. It is worth noting that France was the most advanced and influential world power in this time period, not Britain, and this was best illustrated by the rise of Napoleon and the French empire in the late 18th to early 19th centuries.

English speakers came to dominate Canada only because their military conquered Canada, not because of cultural dynamics or economic superiority. When Canada was conquered the French nobles and people with mone, left for more desirable locations in the Carribbean or France. The Canadiens who stayed in Canada were the peasants. The British came in and replaced the French nobles as the landowners and aristocracy. This is the exact same phenomenon that happened in every conquered colony: In Nigeria, India, Burma, South Africa, etc, the British replaced the former nobility in the conquered land. As a result, a colonial who wished to advance socially or financially needed to know the language of the ruling class: English. This is why Jonsereed's Francophones in ROC are "trawling for crabs in the gulf , picking cherries in the valley or going down the shaft in the nickel belt". The Francophones who went into more lucrative and esteemed professions shed their identity and became anglophones. And their offspring knew well that to revert to "Canadien" culture would be like taking a step backwards socially and economically.

So the British weren't on top because they were somehow culturally or economically superior. They were on top because they took over the land and became the ruling class. The Francophones in ROC are poorer because they are descended from the Canadiens who did not try to get better paying jobs; those who did get better paying jobs usually abandoned their culture. The Canadian/British government encouraged all of this, and tried to avoid recruitment of immigrants from French speaking countries, so as not to reinforce French in Canada.



It had little to do with enthusiasm.

The British practiced land enclosure, which meant that British peasants could be easily kicked off of their small farms by local landlords, and the king or other higher officials could do nothing about it. Additionally, the British tended to arrest more of it's populace for petty "crimes" such as being jobless or being in debt for too long, and wanted those of non-Anglican religions to leave the country. This meant large numbers of potential settlers for new lands.

In France, this was not the case and the French peasant was less likely to be homeless, destitute, or under the threat of losing his or her land to a noble than in Britain. This meant that the French peasant had much less incentive to leave to settle a new land.

When it comes to immigrating to new lands, the number of immigrants leaving a country is not a sign of internal health or stability. Today we in the first world would never consider the countries where people are most desperate to leave to be superior to countries where people want to stay in.

This was the same in the colonial period, where the willingness of peasants to leave for new lands was largely indicative of internal problems in the mother country.
Excellent post. It's funny how if what some people have said here about the relationship between English Canadians and French Canadians (''We came to dominate because well, we're just better. Sucks to be you'') were said with regard to aboriginals for example, it would be condemned as racist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 12:04 AM
 
34,267 posts, read 41,320,656 times
Reputation: 29761
Good info Hobbs however you can dress it up anyway you like in the end the (French) had it all and lost it by letting the English take it..,
Assimilation? thats never going to happen, Now we are relegated to listening to Marois cranking up the old separation albatross.Assimilation? never going to happen in Quebec ,in fact its going totally the other way.
Pauline's independence dream: more public consultations | CTV Montreal News

Last edited by jambo101; 02-07-2014 at 01:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 02:26 AM
 
307 posts, read 184,519 times
Reputation: 256
Hey Acajack, could you please explain this one away? You're so good at it...

"The French Language Charter doesn’t oblige any given city to post bilingual street signs in a bilingual borough."

What sense does that make? I'm sure 'twill be justified by you shortly...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,839 posts, read 27,246,126 times
Reputation: 8573
Quote:
Originally Posted by quebon View Post
Hey Acajack, could you please explain this one away? You're so good at it...

"The French Language Charter doesn’t oblige any given city to post bilingual street signs in a bilingual borough."

What sense does that make? I'm sure 'twill be justified by you shortly...
I don't understand your question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:43 AM
hvl
 
403 posts, read 439,174 times
Reputation: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
...The French were outnumbered by their British rivals almost 20 to 1 on the North American continent, yet lasted from over 150 years. ... The rest of the French territory was almost barely populated, mostly by men manning trading posts and military forts designed to ensure French domination of the fur market. It is worth noting that France was the most advanced and influential world power in this time period, not Britain, and this was best illustrated by the rise of Napoleon and the French empire in the late 18th to early 19th centuries.
Of course let's take the time to mention that though the French territories were empty of Frenchmen but were home to lots of Natives and Metis.

It's more accurate, imho, to say that France and Britain alternated as top world power during that time period (late 18th century to early 19th century). They were both in the same category basically. As the 19th century went on, though, the UK eventually outpaced France. Not to say that France wasn't a power anymore. It certainly was, but by 1850 the UK was definitely the top dog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
...
This is the exact same phenomenon that happened in every conquered colony: In Nigeria, India, Burma, South Africa, etc, the British replaced the former nobility in the conquered land. As a result, a colonial who wished to advance socially or financially needed to know
the language of the ruling class: English. This is why Jonsereed's Francophones in ROC are "trawling for crabs in the gulf , picking cherries in the valley or going down the shaft in the nickel belt".
The Francophones who went into more lucrative and esteemed professions shed their identity and became anglophones. And their offspring knew well that to revert to "Canadien" culture would be like taking a step backwards socially and economically.
The Brits did not colonize in the same way everywhere.

Nigeria is a good example of what I think is called indirect rule. The Brits largely left the local aristocracy in place and left them a large role in administering the territory, though they were of course ultimately subservient to the british crown. The face of authority didn't change that much for the local peasant, I'd think.

Kenya was quite different in that the British intended to settle the country in the way they settled Oz and NZ, etc. That had quite different effects on the ground as far as what authority looked like.

India was yet different.

In Quebec, I'd think that there was enough of a critical mass of french speakers to allow for a french speaking class of "bourgeois" involved in the professions, industry, finance etc. Outside of QC it's probably the case that economic advancement demanded abandonment of french.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post

It had little to do with enthusiasm.
I was using a figure of speech. Though I can certainly imagine a time during which colonization and conquering of new lands is seen in a romantic manner as a worthwhile venture for, say, young men trying to prove themselves. It can be romanticized. It was romanticized in late 19th century France.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
...
In France, this was not the case and the French peasant was less likely to be homeless, destitute, or under the threat of losing his or her land to a noble than in Britain. This meant that the French peasant had much less incentive to leave to settle a new land.
Can anyone chime in on the reasons some of the Normands and other Atlantic facing Frenchmen did leave France to go to the colonies ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post

When it comes to immigrating to new lands, the number of immigrants leaving a country is not a sign of internal health or stability.
Massive emigration can be about desperate people trying to get out at all cost.
It can also be about not so desperate people looking for even more opportunities than they have at home. Or people voluntarily looking for a new land where they can establish their own state.



btw,
I don't think it makes much sense to dismiss any discussion of possible British advantages or superiority in some way. The Brits were pretty much the masters of the world 100 years ago and they had been an extremely dominant power for 100 years before that. Why were they able to accomplish that ? Sheer luck ? They were just meaner than everyone else ? What about the UK being the leading industrial, financial and intellectual power during that time ?

There are no cultural characteristics of a given people that have influence on their eventual place in the economic landscape ? To declare that discussion of such characteristics and of the extent of their influence is "racism" is simply political correctness.

In my native caribbean island, people of middle-eastern origin largely dominate the economic life.
They never conquered the island. They influence politics with their money but that's now. When they showed up the vast majority of them were quite poor and in their particular case they were fleeing intense persecution. Characteristics of their culture, their habits, their ambitions and their knowledge allowed them to slowly but surely take over the commerce sector in general. Would it be inappropriate and "racist" to discuss in what ways the native population of that caribbean island is not as knowledgeable or capable, at this moment, when it comes to running businesses ?

Is it really totally irrelevant that the faith that most Quebecois adhered to viewed money with suspicion while the protestant faiths of the Scots and English didn't ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,839 posts, read 27,246,126 times
Reputation: 8573
Quote:
Originally Posted by hvl View Post
Of course let's take the time to mention that though the French territories were empty of Frenchmen but were home to lots of Natives and Metis.

It's more accurate, imho, to say that France and Britain alternated as top world power during that time period (late 18th century to early 19th century). They were both in the same category basically. As the 19th century went on, though, the UK eventually outpaced France. Not to say that France wasn't a power anymore. It certainly was, but by 1850 the UK was definitely the top dog.



The Brits did not colonize in the same way everywhere.

Nigeria is a good example of what I think is called indirect rule. The Brits largely left the local aristocracy in place and left them a large role in administering the territory, though they were of course ultimately subservient to the british crown. The face of authority didn't change that much for the local peasant, I'd think.

Kenya was quite different in that the British intended to settle the country in the way they settled Oz and NZ, etc. That had quite different effects on the ground as far as what authority looked like.

India was yet different.

In Quebec, I'd think that there was enough of a critical mass of french speakers to allow for a french speaking class of "bourgeois" involved in the professions, industry, finance etc. Outside of QC it's probably the case that economic advancement demanded abandonment of french.




I was using a figure of speech. Though I can certainly imagine a time during which colonization and conquering of new lands is seen in a romantic manner as a worthwhile venture for, say, young men trying to prove themselves. It can be romanticized. It was romanticized in late 19th century France.



Can anyone chime in on the reasons some of the Normands and other Atlantic facing Frenchmen did leave France to go to the colonies ?



Massive emigration can be about desperate people trying to get out at all cost.
It can also be about not so desperate people looking for even more opportunities than they have at home. Or people voluntarily looking for a new land where they can establish their own state.



btw,
I don't think it makes much sense to dismiss any discussion of possible British advantages or superiority in some way. The Brits were pretty much the masters of the world 100 years ago and they had been an extremely dominant power for 100 years before that. Why were they able to accomplish that ? Sheer luck ? They were just meaner than everyone else ? What about the UK being the leading industrial, financial and intellectual power during that time ?

There are no cultural characteristics of a given people that have influence on their eventual place in the economic landscape ? To declare that discussion of such characteristics and of the extent of their influence is "racism" is simply political correctness.

In my native caribbean island, people of middle-eastern origin largely dominate the economic life.
They never conquered the island. They influence politics with their money but that's now. When they showed up the vast majority of them were quite poor and in their particular case they were fleeing intense persecution. Characteristics of their culture, their habits, their ambitions and their knowledge allowed them to slowly but surely take over the commerce sector in general. Would it be inappropriate and "racist" to discuss in what ways the native population of that caribbean island is not as knowledgeable or capable, at this moment, when it comes to running businesses ?

Is it really totally irrelevant that the faith that most Quebecois adhered to viewed money with suspicion while the protestant faiths of the Scots and English didn't ?
I don't think anyone would deny that the French Canadian and Roman Catholic Church leadership also had a role to play in the situation.

That said, it's Colonialism 101 that when you take over a place, you give all the goodies to your own people and not the people you are trying to subjugate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada > Montreal
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top