Invasion of Canada

[Altai]

I dont have so much idea/knowledge about the history of many countries including Canada but I learn. 

Invasion of Canada starts with the Vikings expeditions. After Vikings, Italians started to invade Canada in the name of France and then Britain (ofcourse). Then they started to fight each other (ofcourse) for the lands which also is not belong to them but belongs to Canadian native people. 


I am against the ownership of lands but I talk according to today's generally accepted political concept.

[Wilber]

Depends what you mean by invasion.

The Vikings came for a short time and didn't stay. Cabot, an Italian, made two voyages in the pay of Henry VIII accompanied by merchants, not soldiers. He didn't stay either. Hardly invasions. The French did come and stay but as colonists and traders, not conquerers.

The only military invasions were in conflicts between Europeans where both sides had native allies. The British and French in Canada were a sideshow to a much greater conflict that involved every European Power of the time except the Ottoman Empire (speaking of invasions). The other two were invasions by the Americans in 1775 and 1812.

 

[Altai]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Depends what you mean by invasion.

The Vikings came for a short time and didn't stay. Cabot, an Italian, made two voyages in the pay of Henry VIII accompanied by merchants, not soldiers. He didn't stay either. Hardly invasions. The French did come and stay but as colonists and traders, not conquerers.

The only military invasions were in conflicts between Europeans where both sides had native allies. The British and French in Canada were a sideshow to a much greater conflict that involved every European Power of the time except the Ottoman Empire (speaking of invasions). The other two were invasions by the Americans in 1775 and 1812.

 

You gave me totally wrong informations. Not to encounter with a resistance does not mean you didnt invade it. It belongs to native people. Its also ridiculous that you openly say "French came there as colonists not conquerers", LoL this is a shame.  According to what I read, Vikings had stayed there a few centuries at least , they created a town and they named Canada as Vinland. Then they started to fight against natives and they leave the Vinland. Then French and Britons came, they shared all the lands among themselves.

If you read the comments of the video below, you will see many people talking about how the native people were massacred by the invaders.


Please give me true informations, you cant wash my brain, I will learn the true history sooner or later. DEAL WITH IT 
 

 

[Benz]

55 minutes ago, Altai said:

You gave me totally wrong informations. Not to encounter with a resistance does not mean you didnt invade it. It belongs to native people. Its also ridiculous that you openly say "French came there as colonists not conquerers", LoL this is a shame.  According to what I read, Vikings had stayed there a few centuries at least , they created a town and they named Canada as Vinland. Then they started to fight against natives and they leave the Vinland. Then French and Britons came, they shared all the lands among themselves.

If you read the comments of the video below, you will see many people talking about how the native people were massacred by the invaders.


Please give me true informations, you cant wash my brain, I will learn the true history sooner or later. DEAL WITH IT 

 

Altaï, Canada is very wide. The vikings have settled few habitations along the east coast. The only natives they have encountered are the Mi'kmaqs and the Innus. Nothing to do with an invasion. At best, they had settlements from Labrador to Capte Breton. The truth is we do not know much about it because nothing remains, but very few ruins in Newfoundland. The Vinland has existed but, it is difficult to figure out how big the settlements were. If they desapeared, it means it was not that big. I hope someday we will found new artifacts that will help us to know more about it.

You definitely have no clue regarding the impact of the french and british in north america. Those two nations did NOT share as you say. They were constantly fighting each others for the ownership. They had two different approaches regarding america. The british were here to conquer and grab all the land. The french were rather doing business with the natives and they were entertaining a much better mutual relationship. Without the natives, the french wouldn't have make it. If you look at map of 1755 per say, you will find out that the french were mostly owning all of north america, except the east coast (13 colonies) and hudson bay. But the british outnumbered the french by 40 times. How do the french managed to hold them? The explanation is simple. The natives were the allies of the french. Almost all of them. In 1701, they all signed along the french  the "Grande Paix" treaty where they united against the british. After the british beat the french in Québec and France gave up north america, there were no more obstacles for them to kill the natives. Slowly, one by one, they destroyed them all. It got worst when the americans became independent. Today, none of the remaining native nations has sovereignty. They are all placed into small reserves. The french got assimilated almost every where but in Québec. The only french majority location in north america. The british have tried for a long time to assimilate them but they always failed. Now the english canadians accept that reality and except on few political issues, they get along not so bad. Do not get confuse regarding the french of Canada and France Although the french canadiens are France's colonists, France has give up New France in 1763. France was not interested to keep it and prefered to keep few carabean islands. Too bad for the remaining french in Canada. So the french canadians developped their own identity and they do not feel they belong to France. The people of Québec call the french of France, "our cousins".

Oh, and John Cabot was only an explorer. He did not invade anything. He was just passing by.

Canada history is interesting. It's a good idea to study it. It's a short one though. 400 years ago, it was the creations of the first colonies. Compared to the history of humanity, it's a very short story.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Benz

[Wilber]

Vinland comes from the Norse Sagas and while it is thought they may have explored the east coast of North America as far south as the Hudson River, there is no archeological evidence to support it. The only evidence of Viking settlement is at l'anse aux meadows on the northern tip of Newfoundland and archeologists believe they were only there for a short time.

The difference between invasion and migration is always debatable but it seems you have already decided.

 

So why are you asking?

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, Altai said:

You gave me totally wrong informations. Not to encounter with a resistance does not mean you didnt invade it. It belongs to native people. Its also ridiculous that you openly say "French came there as colonists not conquerers", LoL this is a shame.  According to what I read, Vikings had stayed there a few centuries at least , they created a town and they named Canada as Vinland. Then they started to fight against natives and they leave the Vinland. Then French and Britons came, they shared all the lands among themselves.

Canada didn't exist before the French/British.  North America was just a giant heap of land without any defined borders, with a very small patches of territory here and there lived on by a number of different native groups.  "Natives", btw, could also be considered immigrants, they came the way from North East Asia, just a long time before the Europeans.  Humans originated out of Africa, and emigrated into the rest of the world.

What the Europeans did was want to take over just about everything, including much of the small patches that the natives lived on (Canadians now still only live on a very small amount of the total land mass of Canada), so we ripped them off through crappy treaties we never even lived up to, and other terrible nonsense.

To think that aboriginals had ever lived on or controlled or had even discovered the vast majority of what's now Canadian territory would be ridiculous

[Bonam]

59 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

To think that aboriginals had ever lived on or controlled or had even discovered the vast majority of what's now Canadian territory would be ridiculous

Depends what one means by "discovered". I would think that it's likely that most of the territory of Canada and the US had been seen by human eyes at some point before Europeans arrived. But does one person or a small group of people having passed somewhere while hunting or whatever count as "discovering" if there is no record, no maps, no names, etc, and a generation later no one knows that that place exists. 

But anyway it's a bit of a moot point... peoples have been migrating around and overwhelming other peoples since the dawn of human history. There were many waves of migrations from Asia into Europe, often destroying or radically altering the existing cultures, for example. It is only really since WWII that the idea that borders shouldn't be changed any more has taken root, that we should prevent groups from pushing out other groups and taking over their territory. Prior to WWII, this was largely seen not only as acceptable behavior but in fact something of an imperative for any nation that could do so. Leaders that could take and hold new territory for their nation/state/empire were widely admired.

While technology has transformed society drastically since then, it seems doubtful that present day borders represent an everlasting equilibrium. The post WWII consensus of no more military expansion has been a result first of a nuclear balance of power in the Cold War, and more recently, of the relative "benevolence" of the world's remaining superpower. But the US is in relative decline (it's share of the world's gdp, population, and military power are all falling as other nations advance), and it cannot solely enforce the present world order forever. Meanwhile, the relative peace of the threat of mutual assured destruction can now be circumvented by any advanced nation that wanted to spend enough money on defensive technologies, since a nuclear attack could now plausibly be neutralized with a sufficient set of layered anti-missile defenses. 

[August1991]

16 hours ago, Altai said:

I dont have so much idea/knowledge about the history of many countries including Canada but I learn. 

Invasion of Canada starts with the Vikings expeditions. After Vikings, Italians started to invade Canada in the name of France and then Britain (ofcourse). Then they started to fight each other (ofcourse) for the lands which also is not belong to them but belongs to Canadian native people. 


I am against the ownership of lands but I talk according to today's generally accepted political concept.

You clearly have little idea of Canada; but Altai, I suggest that you approach your curiousity first as an Ikean/Lutheran. (It works!)

Invasions? The Europeans wanted fish. (1000 years ago, with salt, this was a big deal.) 

Edited November 8, 2016 by August1991

[Altai]

I see many people here are brainwashed by their history classes. We need to listen story from both sides. Briton-French origin persons claim they were "invited" to the land by natives to establish their states (here a big LoL from me). Even some of them are aware of it and they say "our history classes dont mention anything other than how the native lifestyle was and how they helped "occupiers" to occupy their lands "peacefully". "


I will search for native sources.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Altai

[Rue]

Hey about you examine the record of the Ottoman Empire and before them invasions to Europe by "your people"

As for brain washing the expression " The dogs bark and CAMELS (not caravans) pass.." was originated by Beduins not "your people".

As for brain washing thank you but I don't have the same affection for Trudeau as you do Erdogan.

The only person I would vote into office today is either Norm MacDonald or Michael Harder.

[Rue]

9 hours ago, August1991 said:

You clearly have little idea of Canada; but Altai, I suggest that you approach your curiousity first as an Ikean/Lutheran. (It works!)

Invasions? The Europeans wanted fish. (1000 years ago, with salt, this was a big deal.) 

Lox is  a big deal, Salted fish is over rated. You have to smoke the fish. You smoke it, its worth an invasion. This salted fish caused

a lot of dehydration issues. Actually all kidding aside its quite something how at one point in history fish was such a vital commodity dare I

say as much as fur and gold. Gone full cycle. Ask the Ruskies, Japanese, Chinese, Portugese, Spanish. They have removed what ever fish was left.

Now you have fisherpersons claiming they resport to piracy since there's no fish left.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Rue

[Ash74]

It is a terrible thing what happened to the natives of the western hemisphere when the Europeans landed. 

Can't change it. All we can do is own up to it and do not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. The sins of the past cannot be changed. It is our history. I could justify it and talk about the Armenian genocide or how there is not a nation with some kind of sin but all that does is pass the buck. 

We were terrible to the natives. Can't deny it all we can do is learn from it. 

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, Ash74 said:

....We were terrible to the natives. Can't deny it all we can do is learn from it. 

 

"Natives" were also terrible to other natives...long before the Euros showed up.

[?Impact]

On 11/7/2016 at 3:01 PM, Wilber said:

The only evidence of Viking settlement is at l'anse aux meadows on the northern tip of Newfoundland and archeologists believe they were only there for a short time.

 

Have you followed what happened with Point Rosee near Port aux Basques? 

[Benz]

On ‎2016‎-‎11‎-‎07 at 8:52 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

To think that aboriginals had ever lived on or controlled or had even discovered the vast majority of what's now Canadian territory would be ridiculous

There were 11 millions of natives in north america when the first european settlers came in. Now they are moreless 1 million.

They did not occupy the territories as we do because many of them were nomades. They were also fighting against each others for territories.

They did discovered the vast majority of the Canadian territory. If there was a place where they did not go yet, they eventually went there because the europeans were taking their land until they had no where else to go and ended up into small reserves.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2016-11-07 at 10:11 PM, Bonam said:

Depends what one means by "discovered". I would think that it's likely that most of the territory of Canada and the US had been seen by human eyes at some point before Europeans arrived. But does one person or a small group of people having passed somewhere while hunting or whatever count as "discovering" if there is no record, no maps, no names, etc, and a generation later no one knows that that place exists. 

Well consider aboriginals only started riding horses in the 17th century (the horse was imported by European colonists from Europe).  Aboriginals mostly traveled by foot. Also by canoe.  In the winter, snowshoe or dogsled.  When much of Canada is made up of an endless ocean of this, how much could they really have discovered?  Tracking through the boreal forest isn't exactly easy.

Quote

But anyway it's a bit of a moot point... peoples have been migrating around and overwhelming other peoples since the dawn of human history. There were many waves of migrations from Asia into Europe, often destroying or radically altering the existing cultures, for example. It is only really since WWII that the idea that borders shouldn't be changed any more has taken root, that we should prevent groups from pushing out other groups and taking over their territory. Prior to WWII, this was largely seen not only as acceptable behavior but in fact something of an imperative for any nation that could do so. Leaders that could take and hold new territory for their nation/state/empire were widely admired.

Yes I agree.  It was a different world.  It was also zero sum.  ie: If the British didn't take it, the French would have.  If neither took it, the Spanish would have etc.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[Altai]

I have been learned that Turkish and American and Canadian native languages has many common words. This means they are from Central Asia and they are relatives of mine. 

[Argus]

On 11/9/2016 at 4:46 PM, Benz said:

There were 11 millions of natives in north america when the first european settlers came in. Now they are moreless 1 million.

There are an estimated 1.4 million aborigines in Canada alone so I think your numbers might be off a bit.

[The_Squid]

The research estimates the First Nations' population pre-contact at 200,000 to 2 million....  . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

 

in Canada

Edited November 12, 2016 by The_Squid

[Altai]

Quote

When Europeans explored Canada they found all regions occupied by native peoples they called Indians, because the first explorers thought they had reached the East Indies. The native people lived off the land, some by hunting and gathering, others by raising crops. The Huron-Wendat of the Great Lakes region, like the Iroquois, were farmers and hunters. The Cree and Dene of the Northwest were hunter-gatherers. The Sioux were nomadic, following the bison (buffalo) herd. The Inuit lived off Arctic wildlife. West Coast natives preserved fish by drying and smoking. Warfare was common among Aboriginal groups as they competed for land, resources and prestige. 

 

 

Quote

In 1604, the first European settlement north of Florida was established by French explorers Pierre de Monts and Samuel de Champlain, first on St. Croix Island (in present-day Maine), then at Port-Royal, in Acadia (present-day Nova Scotia). In 1608 Champlain built a fortress at what is now Québec City. The colonists struggled against a harsh climate. Champlain allied the colony with the Algonquin, Montagnais, and Huron, historic enemies of the Iroquois, a confederation of five (later six) First Nations who battled with the French settlements for a century. The French and the Iroquois made peace in 1701.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/section-06.asp

Edited November 15, 2016 by Altai

[Altai]

Contact became more frequent toward the late 16th century when Europeans (Scandinavians, Bretons, Basques, Normans, etc.) began frequenting the North Atlantic fishing grounds. The natives generally tolerated foreign fisherman, as long as they focused on trade and did not attempt to settle on their land. During this same period, many French (Breton, Basque, and Norman), Spanish, and Portuguese come every spring to fish off Newfoundland, returning in autumn with their salted cod cargo. The island and southern Labrador where the Basque hunted whale consisted only of fishing stands, but that had been there long before Jacques Cartier officially took possession of these territories on behalf of the king of France. The real European invasion is estimated to have begun in the early 17th century when some 1,000 ships arrived each year for fishing and fur trading in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Atlantic coast. The Newfoundland region became a sort of "European annex" for fishermen.

https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=european_colonization Edited November 15, 2016 by Altai

[betsy]

On 11/7/2016 at 5:57 AM, Altai said:

I dont have so much idea/knowledge about the history of many countries including Canada but I learn. 

Invasion of Canada starts with the Vikings expeditions. After Vikings, Italians started to invade Canada in the name of France and then Britain (ofcourse). Then they started to fight each other (ofcourse) for the lands which also is not belong to them but belongs to Canadian native people. 


I am against the ownership of lands but I talk according to today's generally accepted political concept.

You may be against ownership of land....but your opinion has nothing to do with history!

 

Yeah, Vikings were here.....but they weren't the ones who built this nation into what we now know!  Whether you folks like it or not, Christianity is Canada's heritage. 

 

 

Quote

 

Canada’s first inhabitants were the native peoples, who crossed from Siberia to Alaska and migrated eastward across the continent. The first Europeans to arrive were Vikings from Scandinavia, who came to the eastern shores of the country approximately one thousand years ago. The explorer John Cabot claimed Newfoundland for the king of England in 1497. In 1534, Jacques Cartier claimed another part of the land for the king of France. The colony was called New France and was filled with missionaries, fur traders and farmers. In 1759, British troops defeated French troops in the battle for control of New France. British North America became the Dominion of Canada on July 1st, 1867, with four provinces joining to form the new union. Over the years, the country grew to include ten provinces and three territories. Canada remains part of the British Commonwealth of nations, and as such is a fulfillment of prophecy (see GENESIS 35:11).

 

The British and French contingents of Canada are both descended from the tribes of Israel (see Christian History of Britain and Christian History of France).

 

The name “Dominion of Canada”, the motto of Canada, “He shall have dominion from sea to sea” and the phrase on Canada’s coat of arms “A mari usque ad mare” (Latin for: From sea to sea”) are taken from PSALM 72:8.

 

A letter signed by John A. MacDonald - Canada’s first prime minister - explained to Queen Victoria that the name was “a tribute to the principles they earnestly desired to uphold.” The last province to join Canada was Newfoundland whose motto is “Seek ye first the kingdom of God” (MATTHEW 6:33).

 

Canada’s parliament buildings in Ottawa contain scriptures carved into the stones: EPHESIANS 6:13 is written around the altar in the memorial chamber: “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” PSALM 139:8-10 is found on the wall in the same room beside a list of wars in which Canadians have fought and on the outside of the Peace Tower, PSALM 72:8, PROVERBS 29:18a and PSALM 72:1 are all engraved.

 

The change that took place in Canada is well symbolised by the change of the official Canadian flag in 1965 under prime minister Lester Pearson. It was a conscious step to replace the Christian British heritage by a modern man-made United Nations philosophy of diversity and multi-culturalism - a trend that continued especially under Pierre Trudeau (1968-1984) and until today. Of course, in a multi-cultural society, Christianity is only one out of many religions. Modern Canada therefore has no other values but “diversity”.

 

https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/canada’s-christian-heritage

 

The change was just recent! 1965!

Edited November 15, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, betsy said:

You may be against ownership of land....but your opinion has nothing to do with history!

 

Yeah, Vikings were here.....but they weren't the ones who built this nation into what we now know!  Whether you folks like it or not, Christianity is Canada's heritage. 

 

 

https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/canada’s-christian-heritage

 

The change was just recent! 1965!

History is History, and there is no denying that, but there is also no reason to continue doing something just because it was done in the past. 

That said, as one of the British contingent, I'm not altogether sure I'm descended from the tribes of Israel.

[betsy]

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

History is History, and there is no denying that, but there is also no reason to continue doing something just because it was done in the past. 

 

Certain people want to deny that.  They try to rewrite the cultural identity of the nations they "invade."  

The title of this thread is accurate.  It is an invasion - and liberal Canada is throwing Canada's identity away!

 

There is also no reason to discontinue practical policies that's done in the past!  It depends.

So, you're saying you agree to OPEN BORDERS?  Yes or no.

Edited November 16, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

Certain people want to deny that.  They try to rewrite the cultural identity of the nations they "invade."  

The title of this thread is accurate.  It is an invasion - and liberal Canada is throwing Canada's identity away!

 

There is also no reason to discontinue practical policies that's done in the past!  It depends.

So, you're saying you agree to OPEN BORDERS?  Yes or no.

Oh no, not at all.

There is definitely no reason to discontinue practical policies that have worked in the past.  "Worked" would be the reason to keep them though. Not religion, or tradition.