[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Zoupa]

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...

Do you know when was the high point of the number of Francophones in Louisiana? Somehow I think qc trumps it by a wide margin.

[Valmy]

Do you know when was the high point of the number of Francophones in Louisiana? Somehow I think qc trumps it by a wide margin.

It would almost certainly right before it became part of the US because the place exploded in population shortly afterwards.  I think New Orleans was the 2nd or 3rd biggest city in the US by 1810 or something like that.

[Zoupa]

But it's always been a multiethnic city. My point was that francophones in the US never reached a critical (enough) mass in one particular area to make assimilation hard, unlike in New France.

[Grey Fox]

But it's always been a multiethnic city. My point was that francophones in the US never reached a critical (enough) mass in one particular area to make assimilation hard, unlike in New France.

But that's just 1 factor. The British fear that the French majority would want to join the US if they were too hard affected a lot of decisions until, atleast the break of the 1812 war.

[viper37]

Do you know when was the high point of the number of Francophones in Louisiana? Somehow I think qc trumps it by a wide margin.

It would almost certainly right before it became part of the US because the place exploded in population shortly afterwards.  I think New Orleans was the 2nd or 3rd biggest city in the US by 1810 or something like that.

there was a sizable minority of French speaking people around the time of the Civil War.  The French Revolution and the Rebellion of Haiti brought many french speakers to Louisian toward the end of the 18th century. 

I can't find the population figures though, but if General Butler thought it a good idea to forbid French as a way to punish Louisiana for being on the wrong side, I imagine there must have been a few of them.

Really, it was no different for Cajuns than for French Canadians outside of Quebec from 1840 to the 1960s.  No French education, no government services in most places, unilingual states, cheap labour (well, labor down south), etc, etc.

Canada became bilingual as a way to get Quebecers to join onboard the Confederation project, wich was seen as a necessity to stop US expansion and insure lucrative railroad contracts for many politicians.

[viper37]

But it's always been a multiethnic city. My point was that francophones in the US never reached a critical (enough) mass in one particular area to make assimilation hard, unlike in New France.

But that's just 1 factor. The British fear that the French majority would want to join the US if they were too hard affected a lot of decisions until, atleast the break of the 1812 war.

that's why their attitude changed.  In 1763, they were all pro-assimilation and anti-catholic.  In 1775 they were all 'nice', "we love you, please stay with us, we won't hurt you anymore", in 1840, with peace in the US, it was again "speak white you rebel scum". 
And when the Eye of Sauron turned again toward the Canadian territories, then the British colonists of Canada tought it be a good idea to form a bilingual country.  Even if only on paper, at the time.

[dps]

Do you know when was the high point of the number of Francophones in Louisiana? Somehow I think qc trumps it by a wide margin.

It would almost certainly right before it became part of the US because the place exploded in population shortly afterwards.  I think New Orleans was the 2nd or 3rd biggest city in the US by 1810 or something like that.

As a percentage, maybe, but the way the question was worded, it seems he was asking for actual numbers.  I'd suspect that peak was later.  Quite a bit later, probably.

[HVC]

But it's always been a multiethnic city. My point was that francophones in the US never reached a critical (enough) mass in one particular area to make assimilation hard, unlike in New France.

But that's just 1 factor. The British fear that the French majority would want to join the US if they were too hard affected a lot of decisions until, atleast the break of the 1812 war.

that's why their attitude changed.  In 1763, they were all pro-assimilation and anti-catholic.  In 1775 they were all 'nice', "we love you, please stay with us, we won't hurt you anymore", in 1840, with peace in the US, it was again "speak white you rebel scum". 
And when the Eye of Sauron turned again toward the Canadian territories, then the British colonists of Canada tought it be a good idea to form a bilingual country.  Even if only on paper, at the time.

The British should have just let you guys turn into Haiti of the north and been done with it

[Oexmelin]

Even as a joke, this comparison relies on so very, very, very little. The problems inherent in a revolutionary situation for a slave society have little to do with a peasant society dominated by a clique.

[HVC]

Even as a joke, this comparison relies on so very, very, very little. The problems inherent in a revolutionary situation for a slave society have little to do with a peasant society dominated by a clique.

kill joy

[Oexmelin]

I simply put that little, meek, struggling joy out of its misery.

[crazy canuck]

IMO Harper's first big challenge.  A back bencher is revolting on the abortion issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/backbench-tory-breaks-ranks-vows-aggressive-stand-against-abortion/article2183552/

Will Harper kick the social conservative to the side and keep the vote of non social conservatives like me or will he bend to the will of the social conservative minority in his caucus and lose voters like me.

[Barrister]

That's nothing.

He'll let this guy rant to the Globe and Mil, which'll make him and a few other pro-lfiers feel good, they will repeat their line that it's only going to countries where abortion is illegal so they aren't funding abortion, and life will go on.

[crazy canuck]

It depends how much the back bencher wants to try to push this.  From the article it sounds like he is spoiling for a fight.

[Jacob]

IMO Harper's first big challenge.  A back bencher is revolting on the abortion issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/backbench-tory-breaks-ranks-vows-aggressive-stand-against-abortion/article2183552/

Will Harper kick the social conservative to the side and keep the vote of non social conservatives like me or will he bend to the will of the social conservative minority in his caucus and lose voters like me.

I'm glad you see it that way. This was one of the issues that had me disquiet re: Harper. I knew about the defunding in 2009 and wasn't sure how much more of that was going to happen in the background. That voters like you consider it significant and that Harper apparently agrees that voters like you consider it significant and was trying to keep you happy (and hopefully will continue to try to keep you happy) is reassuring.