Machjo

Had you bothered reading my response, you would have seen that I was not defending the Quebec legislation, but merely pointing out that I would be just as opposed to it elsewhere as I am to it in Quebec. You seem to be suggesting that we apply it in other provinces too, thus spreading the problem even more. So in other words, you want to suppress people outside of Quebec to punish Quebec? Brilliant. Remember I'm the one who'd posted the link. Though I would certainly support de-officializing french in the NWT, that's a far cry from your suggestion of suppressing it.

As is true of many large nations, and even some small ones.

A border is in fact an imaginary line, purely manmade. Try to see most national borders from space and you won't see a thing. That's why they have to be added in atlasses.

To me it wasn't 100% clear that he was saying that Canadian culture and US culture are the same, or if just the English aspect of them is the same. if he meant the latter, then he's certainly at least partially right, at least as applies to English Canadians and English americans.

I'll admit I know little of how natives really feel. But no need on anyone's part to start insulting each other over 'not knowing' or being in Lala land.

Nothing is ever 'self-evident'. We should avoid Gramscian common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci#Hegemony

Following your logic, since minority religions are persecuted in Iran, we should persecute Muslims here. That's just a sign of a vengeful character.

Though I agree with the thrust of your argument, I oppose your motive, obvious contempt for 'kebek' in a desire to have it 'outlawed'. While I agree that it's somewhat rediculous at the territorial level to make French official in the NWT, your idea of 'outlawing' it is ridiculous and merely reveals your contempt for that language and us. Strange how two people can agree on a principle yet be totally at odds on the motives behind it.

It's hard to counter ambiguity.

Nice rhetoric. Could you elaborate on that? Give an example? And instance? Anything?

I'll look it up tomorrow.

I'm vegan already, and thin enough. How much lighter would you like me to get?

I'm sorry, I'm not following what you mean. Could you elaborate?

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/Toc.htm

I'll keep looking into it.

Forget this post.

Though the US federal system of government bears similarities with the Mohawk Federation. Add to that that the cucrent non-partisan democracies in Nunavut and the North West Territories also have indigenous roots. Of course Britain's Parliament was once non-partisan too, but the non-partisan system in Canada's north does not stem from that but from their own culture of consensus covernment.

Interestng, this could then also eplain what I'd read a few years ago about certain similarities between Aztec and Inuit cultures and many others.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/laws/jaystreaty.html

And this is all a valid reason to abandon the learning of any North American history before Europeans came?

Thanks for the info. So based on your experience, would you say your ideas are typical? And how would you define Canadian culture? For istance, right now we have the notion of two founding nations, official multiculturalism within the context of official bilingualism? Do you identify with this definiiton of Canada? Based on the above, you don't. But if not, then how would you define a Canadian Identity that would be acceptable to you? Also, what do you think of the following article: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090531/...ench_aboriginal

Well that made acquisition alright then, eh? Some of their history would certainly have passed down from generation to generation orally. Add to that that their culture itself would tell us alot of their history.

Excellent. So if I take your land by force, as long as I have a strong enough army behind me to keep it by force for at least a few generations, then my posterity gets to benefit from it and your posterity can suffer. Wow. To think we might have evolved somewhat.

Native thuggery? Had that been true, the British would be speeking a North American language, not the other way around.

On the countrary. In the initial stages, the 'noble savages' were quite curious about European culture. It's only once it became thrust on them did they recoil defensively. By the way, we took some technology from them too, such as the snow shoes. Also when British sailors got stranded in the North, those who adopted local ways often survived. The locals were more familiar with the nutritional properties of local plants than the British were. Those sailors who didn't conform usually died of scurvy.