[Smilin' Dave]

The natives had more control over the local Feudal system than you suggest.

Don't forget that it was French explorers who opened up North America so that the British could ethnic-cleanse it a few centuries later. But when the French were the European force, the locals were treated like human beings, and received as much independence as a French peasant would.

As I've previously pointed out to you Qatz, these differences are more easily explained by France's incapacity to exert more control over their colonies in North America than by this "hybrid culture" notion that's you've invented. France simply didn't have as big a footprint as the British in the region, though it wasn't for a lack of effort. After all France did make several attempts to increase the number of colonists, they just weren't as successful. A look at French colonies further south, like Saint-Domingue, shows that when the balance of power favoured the French they were much more heavy handed with the non-French population. So the idea that the French were intrinsically 'nicer' colonisers is pretty silly.

Hey, speaking of Saint Domingue, slavery. Where does the practice of slavery in New France fit into this hybrid culture you've dreamed up? Slavery seems a relevant topic in a thread about a "black" prime minister.

[QatzelOk]

these differences are more easily explained by France's incapacity to exert more control over their colonies in North America than by this "hybrid culture" notion that's you've invented. France simply didn't have as big a footprint

You are using symptoms to explain the cause, which is poor methodology.

First of all, England had a "large footprint" because it had created so many refugees in the UK. These refugees were easily expelled from the UK, and sent out to the colonies. Having tormented, tortured, and scarred minorities in Ireland, Scotland, and among the English themselves gave England the "advantage" of having desperately poor people who could be paid to scalp injuns. These refugees tended to be damaged and racist as well, so this dovetailed nicely with England's quest to colonize other continents.

France reacted to this invasion of damaged British victims by attempting to convince French people to emigrate to North America. But life was much better in France than England, and the French didn't have the internal refugee "advantage" that hateful England did.

Today, the vestiges of the British Empire (USA, Israel, Commonwealth) create millions of refugees with wars for resources, and these refugees are still used to destabilize resource colonies.

This is a British game that resembles the Holocaust-Israel creation model.

[Smilin' Dave]

You are using symptoms to explain the cause, which is poor methodology.

Labelling a policy as a symptom because it doesn't fit with your fantasy isn't so much poor methodology as sad on your part.

First of all, England had a "large footprint" because it had created so many refugees in the UK.

Irrevelevant and likely a diversion. Topic is Canada and colonial, not comparitive domestic policy of the UK and France. Why one or the other was successful in encouraging flows of colonists has no bearing on the resulting actions in the colony.

Instead you should be addressing the topic of slavery in New France. This seems a pretty serious black mark on this idyllic scenario you've conjured, so I think it ought to be addressed.

Or if you want to duck that one then the looming question is still what actual evidence you have that achieving a hybrid culture, or having a small footprint, or whatever was intended from the start rather than the logical result of the limited means available. I've demonstrated (and apparently you could not refute) that it clearly wasn't something intrinsically French as you originally claimed, after all the French empire at the same time elsewhere in the world looking nothing like the culture you claim.

Don't change the subject again. If you don't want to discuss your own ideas then I suggest you go away, again.

[QatzelOk]

Why one or the other was successful in encouraging flows of colonists has no bearing on the resulting actions in the colony.

So the fact that most of Canada/USA/Australia/Israel's "refugee colonists" were socially damaged, desperate and filled with rage has nothing to do with the results of how the colonization process unfolded? Sending damaged people to "the front", and paying them to kill the locals has no effect on anything?

Just because this element isn't written extensively about (for obvious reasons) doesn't mean it isn't important. It just isn't convenient to read about it. It could demoralize the Anglosphere's latest war effort, for example.

Who is it killing these days? Arabs and other oilfield residents?

Sir Wilfred Laurier - Canada's first francophone Prime Minister (black president) was useful in making the continuing hatred, racism and ethnic-cleansing of francophones and natives seem - new and improved. Sound familiar?

[Smilin' Dave]

Still dodging the real questions I see Qatz.

So the fact that most of Canada/USA/Australia/Israel's "refugee colonists" were socially damaged, desperate and filled with rage has nothing to do with the results of how the colonization process unfolded? Sending damaged people to "the front", and paying them to kill the locals has no effect on anything?

It's irrelevant if you still haven't actually shown the conclusion it is supposed to support even existed. It is irrelevant since my question has never been about British colonial practices, but rather about French ones. I don't want to here about the British, I asked you a simple question about something else.

The entire basis for the hybrid culture you've claimed seems to be entirely your own invention. It doesn't take French colonialism as a whole into consideration, in fact it doesn't even seem to look at the New France colony in its totality either.

Instead you would rather distract from the issue by adding dubious commentary about current events, as though making your phoney morality tale 'relevant' it compensates for the fact that it's largely fraudulent.

Now stop pissing about and answer the questions I've asked you. I will delete any response that refers to current events on the basis it is off topic, so I don't want to here any more about Israel or the Arabs.

[QatzelOk]

Topic is Canada and colonial, not comparitive domestic policy of the UK and France.

But Smilin, one is unable to understand Canadian history unless one compares the domestic policies of the time of England and France. That is what created Canada - that competition.

England created thousands of refugees with its various policies regarding land enclosures, etc. France hadn't "modernized" in this way at this point.

England had a race-based colonization process, which was enforced by radical religious people who were well armed. France didn't have this. France simply set up trading posts, and was only forced to send soldiers/colonists (in small numbers) in order to guard against the British colonies, which were growing like a cancer (literally killing all other cultural tissue) south of them.

England won over the French in 1760, and this loss of New France was one of the main reasons France modernized, and began to imitate England's applied racism, selective propaganda, and scorched earth warfare for colonies.

Thanks for the life lessons, Sunsetless Mega-power.

Canada's "first Black president" continued the race-based ethnic-cleansing that British commerce demanded - but with a French face.

[Smilin' Dave]

Okay, whatever. Now, would you bloody well deal with these two topics:

Instead you should be addressing the topic of slavery in New France. This seems a pretty serious black mark on this idyllic scenario you've conjured, so I think it ought to be addressed.

Or if you want to duck that one then the looming question is still what actual evidence you have that achieving a hybrid culture, or having a small footprint, or whatever was intended from the start rather than the logical result of the limited means available. I've demonstrated (and apparently you could not refute) that it clearly wasn't something intrinsically French as you originally claimed, after all the French empire at the same time elsewhere in the world looking nothing like the culture you claim.

You can prattle about 'perfidious Albion' all you want in your answer, but you are eventually going to have to talk about the French and what they did or did not do. You wanted to discuss it, so away you go...

[QatzelOk]

Smilin' Dave, this thread is about Canada's first black Prime Minister, who was part metis himself.

New France doesn't exist anymore (since 1760), and the class of aristocrats who owned slaves was deported, along with all other high class francophones. Only farmers, lumberjacks, and priests of French origin were allowed to remain.

None of these remaining groups (the ones who we descended from) owned slaves. and they had lots of children of their own - many of them part native - to do the farm labor.

The British who took over New France, however, continued to own slaves, until they realized that francophones were an easier source of labor. Wilfrid Laurier was not from New France. He was from Quebec, and wasn't a descendant of the aristocratic class of New France. He was a descendant of farmers and priests like almost all French-Canadians.

My own group - Acadians - didn't participate in any kind of aristocracy because we were blended with the local natives who - unlike Europeans - hadn't invented class technology yet. Everyone was still pretty well equal - like stone age cavemen. Backwards, huh.

It took a pseudo-French strawmen to get us to "see the light" and watch as the remaining tidbits of francophone metis culture were destroyed.

[Smilin' Dave]

Smilin' Dave, this thread is about Canada's first black Prime Minister, who was part metis himself.

Which would make the history of slavery in New France fairly pertinent don't you think? Why won't you discuss it?

My own group - Acadians - didn't participate in any kind of aristocracy because we were blended with the local natives who - unlike Europeans - hadn't invented class technology yet. Everyone was still pretty well equal - like stone age cavemen. Backwards, huh.

Don't changes the terms of reference just because the discussion has taken a turn you don't like. You insisted this hybrid culture nonsense was a phenomena of French colonisation in general, not just an Acadian thing.

[QatzelOk]

Don't changes the terms of reference just because the discussion has taken a turn you don't like.

There's only you and I "discussing," so the "turn" was one that you alone made.

And this is because you didn't like discussing the implications of electing a token "minority" as a way of enacting horrible racist policies.

I don't blame you. It doesn't make our elite look very useful or honest.

But thanks for the link to slavery in New France. It turns out the French aristocracy had, on average, one slave each. And there were no plantations in Canada, and most of the back-breaking work was done by French-Canadians, so these were mainly man-servants.

Likewise, even though the aristocrats of New France seldom mixed with low-class locals, their man-servants were a hot ticket. Which is why Quebecois are mixed with native across the board.

My own ancestors - the Acadians - were ethnic-cleansed. And here, you can find the only significant link to slavery: the darker skinned Acadians - the ones with the most native blood - were sent to the Southeast USA where they were worked to death beside African slaves. This was the anglosphere's way to show the perils of race mixing.

What a wonderful example of success.

[Smilin' Dave]

There's only you and I "discussing," so the "turn" was one that you alone made.

I've been asking you a few simple questions for weeks, questions you avoid and would instead rather rabbit on about nonsense that had nothing to do with your eventual answer.

And this is because you didn't like discussing the implications of electing a token "minority" as a way of enacting horrible racist policies.

I have said nothing related to that, once again you're trying to distract from the debate.

But thanks for the link to slavery in New France. It turns out the French aristocracy had, on average, one slave each. And there were no plantations in Canada, and most of the back-breaking work was done by French-Canadians, so these were mainly man-servants.

So your hybrid society was built on a French upper class that used slaves as servants, and apparently, maintained a lower class of French labourers/peasants. The native population appears not to enter into the equation at all and are instead foreign, outside the society being built.

This sounds not so much like a hybrid society, but like monarchical France implanted in the Americas. Is this what you are trying to tell me?

[QatzelOk]

I've been asking you a few simple questions for weeks

Actually, no you haven't. You've been trying to distract from the main subject.

If you list a "few simple questions" I'd be happy to answer them.

So your hybrid society was built on a French upper class that used slaves as servants,

No. "MY" hybrid society was Acadian, and never had an aristocracy OR slaves.

Are you able to follow complexity? And if not, why do you pretend to understand history?

[Smilin' Dave]

No. "MY" hybrid society was Acadian, and never had an aristocracy OR slaves.

You are a hopeless liar:

The French weren't colonizing in that period. England attacked both the French and the natives, who were busy fusing into a new hybrid culture.

This hybrid culture was stopped by race-purity England...

You spoke of the French, not Acadians only. Indeed your whole ramble was phrased in terms of countries, not regional variations etc. Nowhere did you specify that this was a personal thing, so don't claim you meant French in some personal sense. You only mentioned the Acadians once on the whole first page, and that was in regard to this mass deportation rather than in terms of your imaginary hybrid culture.

Are you able to follow complexity?

You can't tell the different between all of France and its colonial empire and one small region of it. Clearly basic geographic is too complex for you Qatz.

[QatzelOk]

You are a hopeless liar:

Since you wrote that about my statement that Acadians never had slaves, you had better back that up with proof of Acadian slave-holding.

LIkewise, the Quebecois - of which the first black Prime Minister was a part - are NOT descended from the aristocratic slave-holding class.

So your point was that "since French aristocrats had man-servants at one point, it's okay to elect faux-black presidents if it helps the Elite genocide the third world and cut social programs to the poor."

Not a very strong argument, I must say. I guess it's hard to construct a point from disparate details that have been stacked like cards in a cheater's game of poker. Though you may fool the less intelligent with this ploy.

[Smilin' Dave]

Since you wrote that about my statement that Acadians never had slaves

Stop lying, it really is pathetic. As I made very clear to you I proved you lied when you initially claimed that "hybrid culture" was a French phenomena. French and Acadian are not interchangable terms. As I pointed out in my post, you did not originally speak of the Acadians being the bearers of "hybrid culture", you said it was intrinsically French.

Your hybrid culture claim is a bullshit. It was not reflective of Canada as a whole or even the French colonial period. This throws into doubt all your subsequent comparisons with Britain and South Africa.

Now, if you wish to correct your possible mistake and acknowledge you didn't intend to speak of the French in general originally we can move on. But don't be dishonest and lie about what you clearly wrote. And don't even try to misrepesent what I said.

[QatzelOk]

Oh, and Smilin' Dave, "French" - unlike "English" - is NOT an ethnic concept. It's a cultural/academic one. Like Muslim.

ANYONE can be French, just like anyone can be Muslim.

The very French language - which evolved from the original Lingua Franca, as well as from various dialects of Latin mixed with local languages - was meant to unite disparate peoples from various cultures. It wasn't an ethnic abstraction like the English language was.

The English outlawed Anglo-Norman in the 13th Century, and this cemented the link between English ethnic identity and that language. Which is probably why the English were must more exclusive and racist in their colonizing than the French were before their revolution.

Don't forget, the French Revolution - which occurred AFTER Quebec was no longer part of France - created the modern French colonizing state, which resembled both the British and American racist/exclusionary models.

So Wilfred Laurier - by providing an Uncle Tom for British interests - was actually facilitating racism and corporatism - two smallpox-like illnesses the British spread around the globe via their proxies.

[Smilin' Dave]

Oh, and Smilin' Dave, "French" - unlike "English" - is NOT an ethnic concept. It's a cultural/academic one. Like Muslim.

Whatever, but your argument revolves entirely around the Acadians, not the French in general as you originally stated. You're playing a pea and shell game, only you would have me believe the game wasn't rigged when it turns out there was another set of shells under the first?

It's really simple Qatz. All you have to do is say "I meant Acadians all along" and stop structuring your posts on the topic as the French vs. Britain.

[QatzelOk]

Louis Riel archives from Radio-Canada. In French.

[Godstud]

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions ... ry_e.shtml
While many English-Canadians supported Britain's cause in South Africa, most French-Canadians and many recent immigrants from countries other than Britain wondered why Canada should fight in a war half way around the world. Concerned with maintaining national stability and political popularity, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not want to commit his government. Yet the bonds of Empire were strong and public pressure mounted. As a compromise, Laurier agreed to send a battalion of volunteers to South Africa.

It sounds as though Laurier just made an unpopular decision(with some). That's all. You are severely biased, QatzelOk. That's all. Your bias doesn't change things or make Laurier comparable to Obama.

[AVT]

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/boer/boerwarhistory_e.shtml
While many English-Canadians supported Britain's cause in South Africa, most French-Canadians and many recent immigrants from countries other than Britain wondered why Canada should fight in a war half way around the world. Concerned with maintaining national stability and political popularity, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not want to commit his government. Yet the bonds of Empire were strong and public pressure mounted. As a compromise, Laurier agreed to send a battalion of volunteers to South Africa.

It sounds as though Laurier just made an unpopular decision(with some). That's all. You are severely biased, QatzelOk. That's all. Your bias doesn't change things or make Laurier comparable to Obama.

Of course I already pointed this out to Qatz, but have had no reply, I guess it didn't suit his latest narrative and so was not worthy of being addressed.