CANADIEN

Nice try. Only fools would buy it. But you claim that I would understand things better if I had succeeded in life and become a taxpayer. Rather tough to miss what you mean by success. Go read your original posting again. You are clearly advocating slavery, which means you are favourable to it.

It makes no sense at all, but obviously we will to agree to disagree on this one.

If the concert was in Saskatoon (nothing against people from Saskatoon, btw, just the first word that came to my mind), and Sir Paul was saying on stage "Frenchies are racists", you would not be screaming political correctness or political interference. But hey, we know your hatred for Quebec is such that even the idea of someone giving a concert in ENGLISH there makes you angry. After all, it is clear that for you Quebec is not part of Canada. And the people who will attend the concert tonight are not sent there. No more than people who go to municipal, provincial or federal free access beaches are sent there by anyone but themselves.

Very good idea. The word used is indeed Canada, so there was most definitely at least one example of the word used in a legal sense before 1791. On this one, I was wrong, and I will admit it readily. The word Nouvelle-France was not used, nor was the word Canadiens. Does not change some fundamental facts. Canada, as it exists today, was created in 1867. Which is not denying or rejecting previous uses and understandings of the word. Or denying that the roots of today's Canada are the lives and experiences of the people who have lived here since more than 10000 years, especially the First Nations and the descendants of the French and British immigrants, both also including people The word Canada was not hijacked or pirated, its meaning changed overtime. And no matter what term one chooses to use to describe the events of 1759-1760, we are in 2008 and neither Canada or any part of it is under foreign occupation (now, I am sure some would argue this is First Nation land under European occupation, but that's an other issue).

Talk about the pot (you) calling the kettle black. Which we all know. BTW, Iroquoian First Nations did not have a writing system, and therefore no alphabet. You are more than delusional if you have not got yet to the FACT that I am Canadian, and a French-speaking one at that. Don't worry, I do not believe you are a revisionist - revisionists may view historical facts in a new angle, sometimes arriving at wrong conclusions, but at least they understand a few things about the facts. You don't.. We already know, through the treaty between France and the United States, that France formally renounced any claim to land in North America that was British at the start of the coict. If you want to continue the fiction that France's objective was to get back its lost North American colonies, show the documentary proof. So, we both know that by the mid-18th century the white inhabitants of New France were known as Canadians. What you lack the capaacity to comprehend is that this does not change another FACT, which is that Canada as it exists today exists since 1867, not before, and that nobody stole that name from anyone.

The guy drove for 20 years... He has seen and read hundreds of road signs, and have communicated with other truckers, law enforcement officers and the public. Others must have found is English was good enough for their communication purposes, since he is still driving. So what it boils down to is the own judgement of a law enforcement officer - another one in the same conversation might have found the driver's English was good enough. Some people will conclude a person's mastery of a given language is good enough if they can count from 1 to 10, while others will settle for nothing less than flawless accent and writing. If language skills are so important, then it is ridiculous to depend on the personal judgement of an officer on the roadsite as a valid language test; have all drivers pass periodic standardized tests measuring the language knowledge needed for the job. Besides, language skills are needed to pass a written driver's test; what language(s) a person speaks and how well they do has nothing to do with their capacity to drive. Also, drivers of commercial vehicles entering the United States from either Mexico and Canada in order to pick-up/deliver products then return to their country (or travelling between Mexico and Canada) are admitted in the US every day, and American drivers are admitted in Mexico and Quebec every day, and I have never heard of any of them turned back aat the border due to lack of language skills. If foreign drivers do not pose a threat, American drivers do not. That makes the regulation ridiculous.

So what was so different about the icons on Quebec highway signs that you could not understand them? Too bad though you decided to close the discussion, as I was about to write my argument in favour of bilingual highway signs in Quebec.

Here's what i said: The legal name of the colony was New France. And Canada as it exists today started to exist in 1867. Deal with it. The word Canada, pirated? :lol: The history of Canada started more than 10000 years ago with the arrival of the First nations. The word Canada, a French rendition of an Iroquoian word, was used in a number of ways, official and non-official, to designate first part of the French colonies in North America, then some of the British colonies in North America, then the country created on July 1, 1867. That's the history, that's the facts. Pirating? Then you would have to admit that Jacques Cartier pirated an Iroquian word when it heard it wrong and got its meaning wrong. Go say that to the Péquiste. You get it the wrong way. Quebec, the whole of Canada, and even France are celebrating the 400th anniversary of Quebec City. Here's what I wrote. Which means that, by the mid-18th century (you know of course 1755 is the mid-18th century, right?) the word Canadiens (in English texts, Canadians) was used when referring to people of French descent born in New France. Your baseless belief that what I wrote amounts to claiming George Washington was a liar proves I was wrong about you. You are not only ignorant, you are also an imbecile.

If they're fans, they're fans.

Now now, his ignorance is no more wilful than leafless'.

From an Iroquoian word, as any good historian knows. Period. As a Franco-Ontarian, I consider it insulting that you claim facts are British. Does not change the fact the first official use of the word Canada was in 1791, and no I didn't forget it, it's not the at the centre of my showing how ignorant you are. This is not a discussion on Quebec's entry in Confederation. It is about the fact Canada as we know it was born in 1867. Absolutely not. what i call YOU though is someone who is ignorant and cannot read.

Too bad that for the most part what you see has little resemblance with facts. For once, you got something right. Under the terms of Article 5 of the Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France (1778), (original French text) France was acknowledging that Bermuda and British posessions in North America would, if conquered, become the possession of the United States. Under article 6, France formally renounced any claim on Bermuda or any land in North America that was British before 1763 or had become British in 1763, that meant all of former New France except Lousiana. The Americans were quite happy to obtain France's help, but they actually didn't trust them. Many Americans still had the memory of French and First Nations raids on frontier settlement, and more than a few of those who hesitated between the Rebolutionary and Loyalist camps would have joined the British if they had thought the French wanted to set shop in Montreal, Detroit and Niagara. The French government knew it, and that an independant United States served their interests far better than regaining a New France that would have fell in the next war. The Americans were trying to prevent the British from using Montreal and Quebec City as a base for an invasion of the Hudson Valley. Trying to get the local population to join the revolution was a side objective. I will not dwell on the fact there was no United States until 1776, and there was not even a joined government structure for the British colonies (there was a failed attempt in 1755, in response to a military threat from... New France). Before the English conquered New York/New Amsterdam iin 1663, the English and French colonies pretty much co-existed. After that... the play of alliances with First Nations, economic rivalries and European conflitcs led to 4 declared war between the French and English colonies. In between, they were fighting indrectly through their Aboriginal allies. Co-existence it wasn't. it is of historical record that the French court and noted influencial people like Voltaire were more interested, after 1759, in keeping the Caribbean islands rather than New France. The French foreign Minister, Choiseul, was predicting with glee in his private journal in 1763 that the British colonies would revolt before long and that France would then be able to do what they were doing with New France... keeping the British in check - and have someone else do it for them. It is also of historical record that Louis XV died in 1774, at the beginning of the American Revolution. It is of historical record that La Fayette served as a general in the U.S. army. Talking to yourself? I would not begrudge you from getting any passport you want, on the contrary I want you out. I do begrudge you from showing ignorance and prejudice.

The worse ignorance is the one displayed by those who get tidbits of facts then draw conclusions contrary to the facts as a whole. The word "Canada" first appears in the writings of Jacques Cartier, and designated an area ("le Royaume de Canada") centered around Stadaconé (on the current site of Québec City); ironically, the word was based on an iroquian word meaning "village". Although the word Canada appears in various texts and maps during the 17th and 18th century, it was never used as an official name for New France. The first official use of the word Canada as an official name was made by the... British, in 1791, when they divided the Province of Quebec (another British creation) into Upper and Lower Canada. The word Canada was later retained as the name when Lower and Upper Canada were merged in 1841, and adopted as the name of the union of three British colonies in 1867. Canada, as it exists today, was born on July 1, 1867, not in 1604 or 1608, even though its roots come in part from New France. As for the term Canadien ("Canadian", as it was translated early on in English), was first used to designate the aboriginal inhabitant of the Saint-Lawrence and Great Lake areas. Some early 17th century authors even limited to the term to nomadic nations. The term was not used to describe the French-speaking natives of New France (as opposed to those born in France) until the late 17th century. It is only in the 19th century that the word Canadien began to designate first the inhabitants of Upper and Lower Canada, then those of the whole of the country of Canada.

They didn't. I suggest you read, period. With good reasons. Interesting that most historians consider that the French policy at the time of the American Revolution sought U.S. independence while being content with leaving Canada in British hands, so that both the UK and the U.S. would keep each other busy... and with France not having to shoulder the expenses of governing Canada. The Americans invaded the Province of Quebec in the fall of 1775, then retreated in the spring of 1776. During the American occupation, most of the local population remained neutral, and there was no mass movement to join any of the warring camps during the rest of the war, which btw ended in 1783. In was Louis 16. The Marquis de Lafayette served from his arrival in the United States (against official orders from the French government) in 1777 to 1781 as a volunteer in the American Army and as such was placed in command of an American aborted plan for a second invasion of Canada in 1778. He served as a General in the American Army until 1781, As for the alleged French plans for an attack on Canada... the French knew well the last country the Americans wanted on their northern border was them. This is 2008. The only yoke is the one you and other wear, the yoke of prejudice and ignorance.

WOW, someone who as ignorant of facts as leafless. Watching you two debate should be fun. Actually, the British deported no Acadians to Lousiana. They were for the most part deported to British American colonies, with smaller numbers to the Caribbeans and France. As Lousiana was then (1755) a French colony, iiiiit would have made little sense for the British authorities to deport them there. The first Acadians in Lousiana settled there about eight years after the deportation. The larger group arrived there in the mid-1780's and consisted of people deported to France or who had taken refuge there. As for Canada, its primary roots are French, British and Aboriginal... the tree has since grown with contributions frrom people from all around the world.

Yes... your hatred... I've heard all the whining... Quebec is being occupied... Quebec is dominating Canada... Quebecers are at the short end of the stick... Quebecers are ruling us... This is 2008, time to join the 21st century. But before, feel free to entertain all of us by telling me who I.

Go ask leafless if he shares your opinion about me being "anglo". A thing is sure, with your hatred and the way you don't get it, you two should become fast pals.

You feel like an hostage? Free yourself and free us of you by the same token. We don't need anti-immigrant bigoted whiners.

If Canada is not good enough for your ignorant mind, prend la porte.

Not a bad idea... but then leafless will complain that there is no English on it.

Feel free to take any foreign citizenship you want. I am content with being a Canadian.

Unless they are actual fans of Sir Paul, politicians should just stay away. This is a music show, not a political event.

Why shoud I be surprised that you cannot understand the pictograms on the signs? BTW, road signage is a provincial, not federal, responsibility. Get your facts straight. This driver passed his. He speaks enough English to have passed a drviers' test, to have kept his licence for 20 years, and to respond to basic questions about what he was doing. BTW, he was ticketted under a FEDERAL law. Get your facts straight.

Thirty-six hours to go... they are getting ready... apparently they are even planning to place screens in Lévis, across the river . On another note, apparently the PQ critic on language issues is trying to backtrack on his opposition to the show... he must have realized he was looking like a moron on this one.

What I am saying is that you target me for one primary reason... your hatred for Frenchies. And btw, I actually couldn't care less about the quality of Leafless' English. What makes it a riot is how he combines it with a total lack of understanding of about anything and his desire to force everyone to use English and no other language. by you But it gets on your nerves when I show that your hatred makes you a low-life. Yeah right. I doubt it... you fail to see one when you look in the mirror. I would suggest you follow your own advice, but this site would be lacking in the entertainment value you provide. :lol: