[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Indeed. We probably would have been better off being annexed by the US.

Indeed. Quebec could have been a northern Louisiana. It missed its chance by not being annexed by the US.

[Barrister]

Indeed. We probably would have been better off being annexed by the US.

Because the French in Louisiana made out so well...

As for Indians in the US vs Canada - I suspect you are unaware just how Indians were treated in the US.  Trail of Tears, Oklahoma being declared "Indian Territory" (then kicking the Indians out later on), Custer and Little Bighorn - all of those have no equivalent in Canada.  Indeed several Indian bands actually relocated north to live under the protection of the Great Mother.

Being an Indian in what became Canada was hardly ideal, but it was a darn bit better than being in the US.

[Neil]

Indeed. We probably would have been better off being annexed by the US.

I rather doubt that.  Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being Canada's first city, and the Mexicans in the American West certainly didn't retain their distinctiveness.  In fact, all of Canada would likely be much poorer if we had been conquered by the US.

[viper37]

Indeed. We probably would have been better off being annexed by the US.

Because the French in Louisiana made out so well...

Louisianna was punished for being part of the Confederate rebels.
Anyway, it's pointless to discuss serious alternate history.  We could fantasize all we want about Montcalm winning the 1759 battle, it might have changed things, it might have not.

As for Indians in the US vs Canada - I suspect you are unaware just how Indians were treated in the US.  Trail of Tears, Oklahoma being declared "Indian Territory" (then kicking the Indians out later on), Custer and Little Bighorn - all of those have no equivalent in Canada.  Indeed several Indian bands actually relocated north to live under the protection of the Great Mother.

In Canada, we granted asylum to the indians, and then we kicked them out back south to the US so they could starve to death.  And I know my history, I know the Trail of tears for the Cherokee and I know the indians were expelled as soon as the white settlers needed the land.  Wich is the same that happenned in western Canada, except that there were far fewer white settlers in the first place, and the indians living upper north didn't really have contacts with the whites until much later, unlike the US wich was a temperate zone suitable to colonization from north to south.

Being an Indian in what became Canada was hardly ideal, but it was a darn bit better than being in the US.

How is it different today?  What's different in between an Indian in Vermont or New York and being an indian in Quebec or Ontario?

[viper37]

I rather doubt that.  Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being Canada's first city, and the Mexicans in the American West certainly didn't retain their distinctiveness.  In fact, all of Canada would likely be much poorer if we had been conquered by the US.

Some border States don't seem that bad.  Like Massachussets and New York, I hardly seem them as poor states.

Certainly, there would be no Royal this or that for the army and no Queen portrait in our embassies, so, yeah, maybe some artists would be poorer.  A shame.

[viper37]

Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being Canada's first city,

Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being the last city upriver toward the great lakes.
Southern Ontario would have been fucked for sure, had Britain lost the war.

[Neil]

I rather doubt that.  Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being Canada's first city, and the Mexicans in the American West certainly didn't retain their distinctiveness.  In fact, all of Canada would likely be much poorer if we had been conquered by the US.

Some border States don't seem that bad.  Like Massachussets and New York, I hardly seem them as poor states.

Certainly, there would be no Royal this or that for the army and no Queen portrait in our embassies, so, yeah, maybe some artists would be poorer.  A shame.

Massachussets and New York and significant commercial centres, Quebec isn't.

Quebec would certainly be poorer, as the US wouldn't funnel enormous amounts of cash from successful states to help a poor one set up some socialism.

[Grallon]

Remember this Anglo-Canadians - should Quebec leave this accursed federation - it would soon spin out of control and be promptly swallowed by the US.  We are what maintains Canada possible.  We are what gives it cohesion.  Without Quebec - Canada would be nothing more than the eccentric collection of multicultural-ridden states of the US. 




G.

[viper37]

Massachussets and New York and significant commercial centres, Quebec isn't.

But Ontario is, and it has been favored since the beginning of Canada.

Quebec would certainly be poorer, as the US wouldn't funnel enormous amounts of cash from successful states to help a poor one set up some socialism.

Quebec might not have needed enormous amounts of cash, and maybe we wouldn't have turned to socialism.
Lots of maybes.

[Malthus]

I rather doubt that.  Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being Canada's first city, and the Mexicans in the American West certainly didn't retain their distinctiveness.  In fact, all of Canada would likely be much poorer if we had been conquered by the US.

Some border States don't seem that bad.  Like Massachussets and New York, I hardly seem them as poor states.

Certainly, there would be no Royal this or that for the army and no Queen portrait in our embassies, so, yeah, maybe some artists would be poorer.  A shame.

If the US had taken Quebec, there would almost certainly have been majority English language use in Quebec. French use would be an exotic minority flavouring (see, for example, Louisiana).

Seems that's the trade off - no Queen on the currency, and no official and majority use of French. Certainly no federal bilingualism!

[Fate]

I rather doubt that.  Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being Canada's first city, and the Mexicans in the American West certainly didn't retain their distinctiveness.  In fact, all of Canada would likely be much poorer if we had been conquered by the US.

Some border States don't seem that bad.  Like Massachussets and New York, I hardly seem them as poor states.

Certainly, there would be no Royal this or that for the army and no Queen portrait in our embassies, so, yeah, maybe some artists would be poorer.  A shame.

If the US had taken Quebec, there would almost certainly have been majority English language use in Quebec. French use would be an exotic minority flavouring (see, for example, Louisiana).

Seems that's the trade off - no Queen on the currency, and no official and majority use of French. Certainly no federal bilingualism!

Why is federal bilingualism needed when there's no official national language? States with significant non-English populations, like New Mexico, give equal status to Spanish and English in government affairs. Puerto Rico certainly does not have majority English language use.

[garbon]

States with significant non-English populations, like New Mexico, give equal status to Spanish and English in government affairs.

Does it? The wiki about New Mexico is ambiguous at best.

[Malthus]

I rather doubt that.  Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being Canada's first city, and the Mexicans in the American West certainly didn't retain their distinctiveness.  In fact, all of Canada would likely be much poorer if we had been conquered by the US.

Some border States don't seem that bad.  Like Massachussets and New York, I hardly seem them as poor states.

Certainly, there would be no Royal this or that for the army and no Queen portrait in our embassies, so, yeah, maybe some artists would be poorer.  A shame.

If the US had taken Quebec, there would almost certainly have been majority English language use in Quebec. French use would be an exotic minority flavouring (see, for example, Louisiana).

Seems that's the trade off - no Queen on the currency, and no official and majority use of French. Certainly no federal bilingualism!

Why is federal bilingualism needed when there's no official national language? States with significant non-English populations, like New Mexico, give equal status to Spanish and English in government affairs. Puerto Rico certainly does not have majority English language use.

So that things like federal laws are translated into the (approved) language?

[viper37]

I rather doubt that.  Quebec benefitted greatly from having Montreal being Canada's first city, and the Mexicans in the American West certainly didn't retain their distinctiveness.  In fact, all of Canada would likely be much poorer if we had been conquered by the US.

Some border States don't seem that bad.  Like Massachussets and New York, I hardly seem them as poor states.

Certainly, there would be no Royal this or that for the army and no Queen portrait in our embassies, so, yeah, maybe some artists would be poorer.  A shame.

If the US had taken Quebec, there would almost certainly have been majority English language use in Quebec. French use would be an exotic minority flavouring (see, for example, Louisiana).

Seems that's the trade off - no Queen on the currency, and no official and majority use of French. Certainly no federal bilingualism!

Had Canada been conquered by the US, Ontario wouldn't have been a safe haven for loyalists.  These people might have opted for Newfoundland, or another British colony.  French expansion toward the west, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan might not have been compromised by a central power whose intent was to assimilate or displace the French settlers for the Glory of the Empire.  Most likely, we would have been left alone.  No mass exodus to New England, no displacement of the French speaking Metis by British settlers, and more francophones overall in the country.  Had they tried to assimilate us by force, they wouldn't have had the might of the British Empire at their back to do that, so they would have most likely failed.  Maybe even a Quebec as US state comprising actual Ontario and Quebec and part of Michigan would have entered the US Civil War on the side of the union, and not suffered the fate of the Cajuns, wich, as I recall, were sent there by the British occupying force in Acadia.
So, really, the fate of the French speaking population in Louisiana is the result of British imperialist policies and mass deportation of French speaking citizens.

You tell me again how is this different from the American policies of displacing indians as they needed lands for white settlers?

[Oexmelin]

and not suffered the fate of the Cajuns, wich, as I recall, were sent there by the British occupying force in Acadia.

Acadians were deported to the 13 Colonies, precisely in order to assimilate them. They slowly, and discretely regrouped, some going to Saint-Domingue (now Haiti), some to France, some returned to Acadia - but the lands had been confiscated, so they settled in New Brunswick. Many headed towards Louisiana.

At the time, the colony was in a kind of official flux - officially Spanish, but without Spanish representation or institutions. The local French government - unsure of what to do with these people - used the Acadians to settle the underdevelopped backcountry. The rest of Louisiana history - and its relationship, with the French language, with the "Canadian" upcountry, and with France itself, is complicated...