Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

whowhere · February 28, 2009

Quebec is one of Canada's ten provinces. It lost its colony status in 1867. End of story.

Really? You should have that about that it 1982 when that constitution was being established.

whowhere · February 28, 2009

Actually, Canada, and therefore Quebec, was still a Britsh colony until 1931.

And Canada satisfied the Statue of Westminister to make this so? The queen signing the 1982 constitution was not required for this document to be used against the Canadian people?

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Are you ok? You sure the white coats are not coming for you? One thing is certain, in a hundred years the sources of my information will still be cycling around and people in that day people will use their brain and 20/20 hindsite to see what went down and shake their head back and forth on you deluded people and think: idiots... To bad they were thrown into the furnace as describe by jesus and obliterated out of existence. I guess they reaped what they sowed.

You mean, they'll we were idiots for even bothering to respond to your stupid non-sense.

whowhere · February 28, 2009

Wrong.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html

Executive branch:
chief of state: Queen ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952); represented by Governor General Michaelle JEAN (since 27 September 2005)

You better tell the US government to change their information

whowhere · February 28, 2009

You mean, they'll we were idiots for even bothering to respond to your stupid non-sense.

Hey, if the shoe fits where it. :lol:

Edited February 28, 2009 by whowhere

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Indeed, indeed... But I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with a re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Are Quebecers not Canadians with full linguistic rights and others, as Canadians, because of the results of the battle?

As usual, the topic has moved away from what it was originally.

French-speaking Canadians are Canadians because of the battle and things that have happened since. As for us enjoying full rights now, it can easily be argued that it has occured despite the battle, or more exactly despite the attitutde that we should be treated as conquered people and be assimilated.

There will be some who will "but if it has not been for the British, Quebec would today be part of the United States and be a second Lousiana." The problem with this statement is not that it is an impossible scenario, but that it's presented as the only one. There are many other scenarios, equally plausible.

For examole; Right from the start, the continued presence of New France after 1763 would have given pause to those considering a break-up of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. They remembered full well how, during the last war, frontier settlements were attacked at will by Canadian and Aboriginal raiders, annd that they had needed british regular troops. Not to say of course that the United States would have never existed, but I doubt if would have occured less than 20 years of the the treaty of 1763. And if you change that as well, you change a lot of thigs after that too.

whowhere · February 28, 2009

As usual, the topic has moved away from what it was originally.
French-speaking Canadians are Canadians because of the battle and things that have happened since. As for us enjoying full rights now, it can easily be argued that it has occured despite the battle, or more exactly despite the attitutde that we should be treated as conquered people and be assimilated.

There will be some who will "but if it has not been for the British, Quebec would today be part of the United States and be a second Lousiana." The problem with this statement is not that it is an impossible scenario, but that it's presented as the only one. There are many other scenarios, equally plausible.

For examole; Right from the start, the continued presence of New France after 1763 would have given pause to those considering a break-up of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. They remembered full well how, during the last war, frontier settlements were attacked at will by Canadian and Aboriginal raiders, annd that they had needed british regular troops. Not to say of course that the United States would have never existed, but I doubt if would have occured less than 20 years of the the treaty of 1763. And if you change that as well, you change a lot of thigs after that too.

what a steaming pile of manure your post is. France was not conquered they still exist. Quebec is an occupied colony. The United States were colonies until they were freed by France. Perhaps one day Quebec will be freed from 1867 Canada as well.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

what a steaming pile of manure your post is. France was not conquered they still exist. Quebec is an occupied colony. The United States were colonies until they were freed by France. Perhaps one day Quebec will be freed from 1867 Canada as well.

And has anyone here said that France does not exist. Keep reading Jupiter word in the Bible and leave the real with people with a brain, will you?

jbg · February 28, 2009

Are you ok? You sure the white coats are not coming for you? One thing is certain, in a hundred years the sources of my information will still be cycling around and people in that day people will use their brain and 20/20 hindsite to see what went down and shake their head back and forth on you deluded people and think: idiots... To bad they were thrown into the furnace as describe by jesus and obliterated out of existence. I guess they reaped what they sowed.

I am not going to respond to your post which tends to encourage hatred and ridicule of an identifiable group.

whowhere · February 28, 2009

And has anyone here said that France does not exist. Keep reading Jupiter word in the Bible and leave the real with people with a brain, will you?

Fact, these letters are of the Latin alphabet. Not English, Not French, Not spanish, not German, etc. Latin was the language of the Romans. Rome existed for a 1000 years and their God was Jupiter not Jesus nor the God of Moses.

Jupiter doesn't need to be in the Bible to lay claim to has been rendered to him.

Matthew 22:21

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Letters are things. They are tools of understanding. I doubt Jesus spoke or preached in Latin. He spoke in Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew.

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210200/an...t_rome/gods.htm

Jupiter
King of the gods, and god of rain, thunder, and lightning thunderbolt and breastplate with a picture of a storm cloud eagle Son of Saturn (whom he overthrew) and Ops

worshipped in a temple on the Capitoline Hill (Monte Capitoline)

Romans prayed silently with their arms stretched out in front of them. They stood facing east and covered their heads with veils or their toga. When praying in public the Romans followed many rules. An assistant read each phrase to be recited by the priest. Another assistant checked all terms that were being used to make sure they were correct.

The Romans tolerated all religions except Christianity.

So really, the English, the French, the Christians, the Catholics should all eff off and get their own alphabet.

You are all to cease and desist your vains usage of said alphabet. Failure to comply will result in you all being escorted to the furnace to be obliterated once for all.

Signed,

Jupiter.

jbg · February 28, 2009

You mean, they'll we were idiots for even bothering to respond to your stupid non-sense.

Thanks for the help. You and I can disagree but you're not talking about hurling people like me into ovens. WhoWhere is.

jbg · February 28, 2009

For examole; Right from the start, the continued presence of New France after 1763 would have given pause to those considering a break-up of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. They remembered full well how, during the last war, frontier settlements were attacked at will by Canadian and Aboriginal raiders, annd that they had needed british regular troops. Not to say of course that the United States would have never existed, but I doubt if would have occured less than 20 years of the the treaty of 1763. And if you change that as well, you change a lot of thigs after that too.

Actually, and I don't know who's right, the Colonists would have said that their troops bore the brunt of the fighting and that Britain's thanks was to send them the bill.

Again, there are numerous sides on this issue and even not all Colonists agreed.

whowhere · February 28, 2009

Thanks for the help. You and I can disagree but you're not talking about hurling people like me into ovens. WhoWhere is.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=chapter

16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

You have to decide if you want to be like CANADIEN and spin your propoganda or stick to the events and facts as they are and not what you want them to be.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Thanks for the help. You and I can disagree but you're not talking about hurling people like me into ovens. WhoWhere is.

The key with whowere is to remember he is an idiot.

jbg · February 28, 2009

The key with whowere is to remember he is an idiot.

There is no problem he has that this place couldn't solve.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Actually, and I don't know who's right, the Colonists would have said that their troops bore the brunt of the fighting and that Britain's thanks was to send them the bill.
Again, there are numerous sides on this issue and even not all Colonists agreed.

Up to about 1758, the British troops (colonial and imperial) were getting their ass handed back to them on a regular basis. Apparently the governor of New York even considered declaring neutrality after Carillon. Massive influx of imperial troops, and most importantly the Royal Navy turned the tide. Left to themselves without British help, the 13 colonies could not have won.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

There is no problem he has that this place couldn't solve.

He's beyond that.

Wilber · February 28, 2009

Up to about 1758, the British troops (colonial and imperial) were getting their ass handed back to them on a regular basis. Apparently the governor of New York even considered declaring neutrality after Carillon. Massive influx of imperial troops, and most importantly the Royal Navy turned the tide. Left to themselves without British help, the 13 colonies could not have won.

That's one of the things that mystifies me. You say that Quebecers wish to forget that part of their history but the French in North America acquitted themselves quite well during that war even though they eventually did lose. It was inevitable considering the differences in population and resources. No one can say they didn't fight with skill and bravery, why do they wish to forget that?

whowhere · February 28, 2009

The key with whowere is to remember he is an idiot.

And you are forum Troll Loser.

whowhere · February 28, 2009

There is no problem he has that this place couldn't solve.

Yeah you and Canadien should check it out.

jbg · February 28, 2009

Yeah you and Canadien should check it out.

Are you from Manitoba?

whowhere · February 28, 2009

That's one of the things that mystifies me. You say that Quebecers wish to forget that part of their history but the French in North America acquitted themselves quite well during that war even though they eventually did lose. It was inevitable considering the differences in population and resources. No one can say they didn't fight with skill and bravery, why do they wish to forget that?

Yeah why would the blacks in the US want to forget slavery. Maybe the US should hold parades celebrating this part of history. Maybe they could reenact a slave getting whipped for not getting the work done. All you people are trying to do is posture yourself as better then Quebec. This is your attempt to marginalize and degrade Quebec and the people of Quebec. The fact is 1759 is still not your history. It's not even American History because what was the loss of 1604 Canada to them? Other than it provided the motivation for France to help the American Colonies to become free from the British Monarch.

Americans would not care about this reenactment. The only stakeholders in this history is 1604 Canada, Britain and France. 1867 Canada can eff off and get its own history.

ironstone · February 28, 2009

I know it's not politically correct to write this,but sovereigntists in particular and Quebecers in general are very thin skinned.Watch out for the outrage!The indignation!The nerve of it all!

In Canada there is an unwritten rule that Quebec is the centre of our universe,everyone is just too afraid to admit it.

Argus · February 28, 2009

Except that now the Post has made it clear that they think Quebecers has to be reminded of who is the boss.

The message I got from the Post editorial was that we should stop giving the whiny baby of confederation special treatment. It never shuts the baby up, never satisfies it, and angers the rest of the children.

Argus · February 28, 2009

And I believe in Santa Claus... I know from experience that most of time it reverts back to one thing...The fact that French-speaking Canadians speak French.

Superficial people might think that, just as they thought the Irish problem was about Catholics not liking Protestants, and vice versa. But it really had nothing to do with religion except that the opponents happened to be Catholic and Protestant. It was a handy identifier, just as English-French is a handy identifier. But nobody dislikes people simply because they speak a different language. There are deeper reasons, and in this case, most of them are political and economic.

This coming the the chief islamophobe anti-immigrant poster on this site, who advocates a return to slavery. :lol:

There is much to dislike about Islam and the followers of it, all based on basic common sense, just as there is much to dislike about Quebec and Quebecers - or Quebecois, if you prefer, based on the same reasoning. Their own cultural value set is quite different from ours. The Islamists are dangerous, while the Quebecois are just stupidly annoying and cost us a ton of money. It has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with judgement.