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.
I understand that the Quebecois (aka French Canadians) have had relatively few connections with France since the late 1700s, and the Afrikaners (aka Boers) have similarly had few connections with the Netherlands since the early 1800s, due to the effects of the Quebecois and the Afrikaners being cut off from their respective homelands because of the British captures of Quebec and the Cape. (I think that might at least partly explain why relatively few immigrants from France made their way to Canada in the 19th and early 20th century, and the same thing with Dutch immigrants to South Africa at that same time. I think it may also explain their quirky nationalisms through the course of the late 19th and 20th centuries.)
Did Latin Americans have more links with Spain (Portugal, in the case of Brazil) since the time that their countries gained independence from Spain or Portugal in the 1810s and 1820s? (Here, let's ignore Cuba and the Domincan Republic, since they gained independence only later, and of course Puerto Rico, since it's still a US possession.) Of course, unlike with Canada and South Africa, a lot of Spaniards migrated to Latin America (including Brazil) at the turn of the 20th century, and a lot of Portuguese migrated to Brazil at that same time.
In the case of Quebec anyway, the limitations on immigration and other ties with France were not just a question of feeling, it was basically the law and government policy for a very long time.
At least for Quebec and post-1763 French immigration, was it because the British (and later, the Canadian government - which was pro-British) wanted preferably immigrants who were anglophone and/or of British/Irish descent? But I thought that many immigrants did arrive in Quebec and Canada from all quarters of Europe, and beyond, from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century; these included European Jews, Italians, Slavs, Greeks, Portuguese, etc.
At least for Quebec and post-1763 French immigration, was it because the British (and later, the Canadian government - which was pro-British) wanted preferably immigrants who were anglophone and/or of British/Irish descent? But I thought that many immigrants did arrive in Quebec and Canada from all quarters of Europe, and beyond, from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century; these included European Jews, Italians, Slavs, Greeks, Portuguese, etc.
By far the most important reason is that France experienced very little emigration compared to other countries (I pick 1880-1889 because it's a representative decade):
Source (table 1)
Gross emigration rate per 1000 population, 1880-1889:
Ireland 16.04
Norway 10.16
Sweden 8.25
Italy 6.09
Great Britain 5.71
Netherlands 4.06
Spain 3.91
Denmark 3.74
Germany 2.91
Belgium 2.18
France 0.29
There are likely secondary reasons such as the British willing to accept immigrants from anywhere except France (or perhaps more likely, the emigrating French not willing to go somewhere under British rule) but the above is the main explanation.
Barneyg: I think it's a bit of both. It was very hard for people from France to immigrate to Canada under the British colonial rule and even for a good time later on when the current Canadian system of government was put in place.
The preference was generally for settlers from the British Isles, and then when this was not sufficient (as the competition got fiercer with the US (viewed less and less as a pariah as memories of 1776 etc. faded away), Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (and even Rhodesia, etc.) ramping things up and offering attractive locations to British migrants, Canada started looking for non-anglo immigrants that were thought to be easily assimilatable to the anglo way: German, Dutch, Scandinavian, etc.
For a good while, Canada was not even that open to southern European immigration as they were thought to be too lazy and not suitable to adapt to the harsh climactic conditions. These groups only started to be welcomed by Canada once there was a need for industrial labour in the rapidly-growing cities.
It was even difficult for French Canadians to migrate within their own country, and the cost of transport from Kiev, Ukraine to western Canada (where lots of land was available) was much cheaper than for a family that wanted to move west from Montreal.
Basically the Canadian authorities preferred to have French Canadian migrants move to the cities of the NE US where they would be assimilated by the strrong existing local culture, rather than have them migrate en masse to the wide open west and create mini-Quebecs all over the place.
And this is exactly what happened: while there was some westward migration of francophones within Canada, the greatest migration was towards the NE US. Something like 900,000 French Canadians migrated there. Whereas migration to Western Canada was a small trickle.
By far the most important reason is that France experienced very little emigration compared to other countries (I pick 1880-1889 because it's a representative decade):
Source (table 1)
Gross emigration rate per 1000 population, 1880-1889:
Ireland 16.04
Norway 10.16
Sweden 8.25
Italy 6.09
Great Britain 5.71
Netherlands 4.06
Spain 3.91
Denmark 3.74
Germany 2.91
Belgium 2.18
France 0.29
There are likely secondary reasons such as the British willing to accept immigrants from anywhere except France (or perhaps more likely, the emigrating French not willing to go somewhere under British rule) but the above is the main explanation.
But I see that the Netherlands and Spain had similar emigration rates, at least in the 1880s, and yet many Spanish immigrants came to Latin America at that point while relatively few Dutch people came to South Africa at that same time!
But I see that the Netherlands and Spain had similar emigration rates, at least in the 1880s, and yet many Spanish immigrants came to Latin America at that point while relatively few Dutch people came to South Africa at that same time!
I'm a French Canadian, I can't speak for the dynamics of immigration in South Africa and South America. The policies of "receiving" countries obviously play a significant role in how many people from a given country end up moving there. My main point is that the France/Quebec example is different from the others because there were so few French emigrants to begin with.
Barneyg: I think it's a bit of both. It was very hard for people from France to immigrate to Canada under the British colonial rule and even for a good time later on when the current Canadian system of government was put in place.
I don't deny the effect of British policies, but I wanted to point out that the France/Quebec vs Netherlands/S.Africa vs Spain-Portugal/S.America comparison is unfair to begin with, since so few French people emigrated from France. France's birth rate following the Franco-Prussian War was much lower than elsewhere in Western Europe, so the economic incentives to emigrate were much lower.
It was even difficult for French Canadians to migrate within their own country, and the cost of transport from Kiev, Ukraine to western Canada (where lots of land was available) was much cheaper than for a family that wanted to move west from Montreal.
Why was transport to Western Canada cheaper for a family from Ukraine than for a family from Quebec, despite the much longer distance and coming from another country in another continent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Basically the Canadian authorities preferred to have French Canadian migrants move to the cities of the NE US where they would be assimilated by the strrong existing local culture, rather than have them migrate en masse to the wide open west and create mini-Quebecs all over the place.
And this is exactly what happened: while there was some westward migration of francophones within Canada, the greatest migration was towards the NE US. Something like 900,000 French Canadians migrated there. Whereas migration to Western Canada was a small trickle.
But many, many Quebecois migrated to Ontario at that same time, too! Especially to the east and north of Ontario (not far from the Quebec border). Hence, the Franco-Ontarians - the single-largest French population of any Canadian province outside Quebec. And some have assimilated into the Anglo population more than others.
Why was transport to Western Canada cheaper for a family from Ukraine than for a family from Quebec, despite the much longer distance and coming from another country in another continent?
.
I suppose it was, as I said, because the Canadian government did not want French Canadians to migrate in large numbers to the west, and preferred that they move to the United States. So migrant travel from Ukraine and other parts of Europe was more heavily subsidized than over much shorter distances within Canada.
Clifford Sifton, who was the great orchestrator of the settlement of the Canadian Prairies, was not known for being a big "fan" of French Canadians.
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.
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.
