Canada's first "black" prime minister (1896-1911) - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13797978
Image

Wilfrid Laurier was the first francophone prime minister of Canada. Elected in 1896, he was Canada's seventh PM.

Like Obama, his administration ruled during a series of economic crises in which he was asked to help the bankers and Elite culprits by lending an "underdog" face to brutal top-down social engineering and warfare. Panic of 1896

This "francophone" accomplished the following:
:: he supported the continuation of the British Empire if it was based on "absolute liberty political and commercial"
:: his administration helped destroy French language communities in Western Canada and the Maritimes
:: he sent Canadian troops to help the British fight the Boer War for control of Apartheid South Africa
:: he was in opposition during Canada's participation in WW1, but Robert Borden - a descendant of the New Englanders who killed the Miq'mac and ethnic cleansed the Acadians - was the war prime minister during that racist and "absolutely commercial and free" intervention.

In other words, Laurier got to be PM by being a total sell-out to his own community.

He stayed in power as long as his ostensible "Frenchness" made the racist policies of the Canadian government seem less so.

100 years later, not many francophones have very nice things to say about this "Nègre blanc d'Amérique."
#13798064
QatzelOk wrote::: he sent Canadian troops to help the British fight the Boer War for control of Apartheid South Africa

I was unaware the British Empire/Canada had access to a time machine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
Because Apartheid didn't actually start until 1948, quite some time after the end of the Boer Wars.

Although maybe it was some time of alternative reality? Because it was the Boers who most consistently supported Apartheid, rather than the British 'outlanders' living in South Africa who tended to be more divided on the issue.
#13798132
The wiki article that Smilin Dave quoted wrote:Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times.

Of course, it wasn't called Apartheid. That WORD was only invented when you said it was.

But your point was that you didn't have one other than this, I suppose.

When Laurier was elected, Canada was also very segregated by language and ethnicity.

So by involving Canada in this war for race-based British colonial control of a foreign nation, he as also confirming the legitimacy of French-Canadian repression. Perhaps Obama's administration is sending a similar message to American blacks: non-whites are either cannon fodder or prey.
#13798771
QatzelOk wrote:Of course, it wasn't called Apartheid. That WORD was only invented when you said it was.

The laws Apartheid was based on weren't really in place during 1896-1911 either. This was mentioned in the link I provided.

QatzelOk wrote:So by involving Canada in this war for race-based British colonial control of a foreign nation

Transvaal had been a British possession since 1877, prior to the Boer Wars for those of us not using time machines. There is also the matter of the Boers attacking British possessions triggering the war, not the other way around.

QatzelOk wrote: Perhaps Obama's administration...

If you can't put two items in logical order (ie. the Boer Wars predated Apartheid), what credibility could you possibly have in explaining current affairs?
#13798916
There is also the matter of the Boers attacking British possessions triggering the war

That sounds like it was made up to justify British colonial aggression.

The laws Apartheid was based on weren't really in place during 1896-1911 either.

Racial separation structures were socially enforced long before they were committed to words.

This should be common sense knowledge, and it's exactly this precious commodity (common sense) that seems to be AWOL in many of your barrages of obtuse "facts" that serve only to obscure big picture thinking.

Laurier was a sell-out to francophones. And that's how he got to be rich and famous.

Your "the word Apartheid didn't appear on paper until X date" does nothing to change this.

That the sentence "Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times." appeared in an article that you yourself quoted leads me to wonder what kind of "proof" you're looking for. Proof that the articles you yourself quote are true?
#13799343
QatzelOk wrote:That sounds like it was made up to justify British colonial aggression.

No sorry, factual event. Even a Boer view of the history would agree on the course of events, if not their meaning. Unless you have evidence of fabrication I'm going to go with established history on this one rather than your usual approach of making shit up to fit your pop-history.

QatzelOk wrote:Racial separation structures were socially enforced long before they were committed to words.

Which completely ignores the political, social and economic impact that the implementation of Apartheid had.

QatzelOk wrote:Your "the word Apartheid didn't appear on paper until X date" does nothing to change this.

I didn't actually say the term didn't exist prior to 1948, I said the policy didn't. And legally, it didn't. As always, reading comprehension is a failure of yours.

QatzelOk wrote:This should be common sense knowledge, and it's exactly this precious commodity (common sense) that seems to be AWOL in many of your barrages of obtuse "facts" that serve only to obscure big picture thinking.

The big picture without any evidence is just fabrication. Appeal to common sense in defiance of all evidence and logic is an all too common tool of the populist. Sounds nice if you didn't know any better, but its still a lie.

Once again you have provided facts to support your argument, had the fact dismissed as incorrect and then you've gone ahead and declared all facts irrelevant. Worthless, tiresome and cheap hypocrasy. Why on earth do you bother if you're going to be this boring and predictable? Is this some social form of masochism.

QatzelOk wrote:That the sentence "Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times." appeared in an article that you yourself quoted leads me to wonder what kind of "proof" you're looking for. Proof that the articles you yourself quote are true?

Oh goodo you finally read it. Gold star for you.

If you read the whole thing however you would get to the bits were it explains how the Apartheid period was distinct from the one that preceded it, and also how linking the British Empire and the Boer War to Apartheid policy implementation is idiotic.

In the end you didn't say "something like Apartheid", you specifically called it Apartheid South Africa. Which would require a time machine, or for a piece of evidence in your nonsensical screed to be incorrect.
#13799773
the Apartheid period was distinct

This is what your entire three-post, ad hom-filled manifesto amounts to, Smilin' Dave.

And it's not very convincing.

Fact-checking is a useful service for mindless generalists like myself. But useful argument is rhetorical because fact-scraping has infinite contradictory conclusions and is thus relatively valueless, while fact-positioning is finite and definitive and social.

I notice you often entertain and enjoy the vague posts of other posters in the History thread.

Why must History be an abacus of calendar pages and ideological magic cards?

Why can't it be a frank moral lesson - garnished with our own spoken word knowledge of the real world around us that we experience each day - about how to survive on this planet?
#13799814
QatzelOk wrote: infinite contradictory conclusions and is thus relatively valueless

You haven't contradicted my point. I'm even getting the feeling we need some kind of 'Godwins Law' effect in threads you start, where the moment someone points out how it fits into the Qatz pattern it immediately goes off topic, largely because you drive it there instead of addressing legitimate questions.

QatzelOk wrote:Why must History be an abacus of calendar pages and ideological magic cards?

I couldn't care less about ideology, I tend to come down heavily on ignorance more than anything else.

Chronology is important because you present events out of context, in order to make a point which is not supported by the facts you yourself introduced. Referring to Apartheid South Africa when it didn't exist solely to bash some politician is a clear example of this.

QatzelOk wrote:Why can't it be a frank moral lesson

Morality, unlike real history, is relatively fluid. If you want to give moral lessons fine, just don't pretend it is based on a historic precedent. As I suggested to you in The Basement, post it in Gorkiy if you don't want to be taken seriously.

QatzelOk wrote:about how to survive on this planet?

Survival is not based on learning fraudulent lessons any more than you can understand advanced physics by making up your own numbers.
#13800393
Smilin wrote:Referring to Apartheid South Africa when it didn't exist solely to bash some politician is a clear example of this.

I referred to Canada contributing troops to the Boer War, and used the adjective "apartheid" to create a mood.

That's it. Mood. Because that's all we really have to build the truth from.

Are you suggesting (by insisting on it) that until the word Apartheid appeared along with the written laws, that South Africa was NOT a racist colonial construct?

Would you thus conclude (counter to my assertion) that Canada was NOT fighting to defend some racist colonial narrative in the Boer War?

With a French-Canadian (colonized) prime minister at the helm, sending troops to help out.
#13800401
QatzelOk wrote:I referred to Canada contributing troops to the Boer War, and used the adjective "apartheid" to create a mood.

Oh yeah?
You wrote:he sent Canadian troops to help the British fight the Boer War for control of Apartheid South Africa

Capital A, marking a proper noun. You didn't say "apartheid-style South Africa" or anything else which you make it sound like a descriptor, you referred to a term which traditionally refers to a specific entity which was called "Apartheid South Africa". You also didn't immediately say you intended it as a descriptor, instead you challenged me on the definition of Apartheid.

You made a mistake either in the use of the term or its presentation, just admit it. :roll:

QatzelOk wrote:Would you thus conclude (counter to my assertion) that Canada was NOT fighting to defend some racist colonial narrative in the Boer War?

White European settlers fighting white European settlers featuring soldiers from a European empire is racist how?

If you had said he sent troops to fight in the Zulu wars, or against the Xhosa or any other native group you might have had a point. Instead you referred to what was probably the 'whitest' war Africa had prior to WWII.
#13801521
I'm not sure about Canada, but elements of Australian troops (such as troopers from the Queensland Mounted Infantry e.g. Stephen Midgely) sent to the Boer war stayed behind and formed militia forces to enforce the new British rule. As part of their duties they put down the Bambatha Rebellion, which was a rebellion of “Zulus” who were fighting a racist apartheid-style Colonial Government.
#13802930
As part of their duties they put down the Bambatha Rebellion, which was a rebellion of “Zulus” who were fighting a racist apartheid-style Colonial Government.

But did Australia have an Aboriginal prime minister to send off the troops?

That is the delicious irony of having a "minority" prime minister: he can make even the most blatantly racist policy look "enlightened." And the people who put him (Laurier, Obama) there knew this.

In Obama's case, you had the violent overthrow of the most actively pro-African-freedom government in the world. And the smearing of Gaddafi as "just another tyrant." All in the media theme of "helping the protestors" - a weak justification for a hideous act of colonial greed and mass murder.

This would have been a lot more difficult a lie to make credible if W were still the star of the State of the Union TV series.
#13803086
But did Australia have an Aboriginal prime minister to send off the troops?

That is the delicious irony of having a "minority" prime minister:


No, Deakin was not an Indigenous Australian. And I would hardly call a white, upper class, roman catholic, highly educated, male, propped up by big money and colonial interests, a minority PM just because he speaks French.

you had the violent overthrow of the most actively pro-African-freedom government in the world.

The French government are more guilty than anyone else as they pushed for the intervention and were the first to us military force
The French are guilty of using the Libyan revolt to peruse regional power expansion policies, supported by their military industrial complex to push weapon sales of French manufactures across the Mediterranean
#13803289
And I would hardly call a white, upper class, roman catholic, highly educated, male, propped up by big money and colonial interests, a minority PM just because he speaks French.

There had never been a francophone prime minister in Canada up until that point.

His election was considered a watershed moment for Canadian "unity" - as if the local cultures would all suddenly die off and be replaced by this new, fake identity that was invented in an Ottawa basement over whiskey sours. "We're all Canajuns now that a french guy is wearing the prime minister wig."

The comparison with firstblackprez is actually strengthened by what you wrote.
#13844843
Was the immigration of blacks a problem back then as well? When the first Dutch settlers arrived on the cape, there were no prior human settlements. That's because sub-saharan Africans didn't have any crops suited to South Africa's Mediterranean climate. There were no blacks south of the Orange river. I very much doubt there was any kind of apartheid-like laws prior to the union.
#14084719
No doubt there was racism, just not institutionalised like it was in apartheid, but then again I think all western societies at that time were openly racist as eugenics and social darwinism were popular. So really Qatz you are upset about a Francophone PM sending Canadian troops off to fight in a British imperial war.

However, I think you will find that public opinion in Canada (especially the majority anglo-celtic citizens) at the time would have been pro-war and pro-empire, so the PM was mearly fullfilling the democtatic wish of the people.

Also from wikipedia:

'At first, Canadian Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier tried to keep Canada out of the war. The Canadian government was divided between those, primarily French Canadians, who wished to stay out of the war and others, primarily English Canadians, who wanted to fight. In the end, Laurier compromised by agreeing to support the British by providing only volunteers, equipment and transportation to the war. The United Kingdom would be responsible for paying the troops and returning them to Canada at the end of their service.'
#14086507
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I can see why French Canadians would identify with the Boers - both are set of Europeans who started colonising another country, exploiting or moving the original inhabitants, who then found themselves taken over by the British and incorporated in the British Empire.

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, which was one of the reasons for its success in taking over the world. Non-racists couldn't compete with England's scorched-earth war policies.

After the fall of New France in 1760, France became more modern, and its later colonial enterprises in North Africa and elsewhere resembled the early British model. The French imitated the "successful" racism and apartheid existence of their former enemies.

Why mess with success?
#14086818
Oh yes, of course, the seigneurial system wasn't colonial in the slightest - clearly it was a 'hybrid' of the native system, what with the nobles and peasants, and promising military service to the French king, and clearing land for it.

http://www.canadahistoryproject.ca/1663 ... urial.html

That wasn't anything at all like an attempt to impose the French feudal system on Quebec. I'm sure the native influence on that was immense, and they felt they had just as much control over the seigneurs as the French king did.

:knife:
#14087953
QatzelOk wrote:That wasn't anything at all like an attempt to impose the French feudal system on Quebec. I'm sure the native influence on that was immense, and they felt they had just as much control over the seigneurs as the French king did.

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.

This wasn't the case with the British, who weren't used to dealing with foreigners because they lived on an island with a few nations they had ethnic-cleansed/tortured/destroyed (Scotland, Ireland, Wales).

The French had learned to co-exist on a continent, as had most of the natives they encountered and traded with.

Can you please tell us about all the smallpox blankets and dead buffalo in New France? I haven't been exposed to these texts yet.

Palestinian armed groups in Gaza do have a history[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

^ His lies are creative at least, I'll give him th[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

^ I shared the Sachs and Meirsheimer videos in her[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]