jbg Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 There are damned few Americans who know anything about early Canadian history either - not that they necessarily should. Early Canadian history is early American history. We were governed together until the Rebellion started around 1774. Our troops fought heroically for the Crown in the Seven Years War. They know the glorious, freedom loving rebels beat the evil redcoats, but how many know the redcoats were mostly Americans? I learned that in High School. I just asked my 14 year old daughter and she told me all about the Plains of Abraham. She learned it last year. Much like your thread on multiculturalism, you seem to rely on a couple of anecdotal stories to form your opinion. You're in Alberta, which may make a difference. Also, you seem to enjoy personally attacking me. I've never personally attacked you. As for the anecdotal nature of what I relay, these are real-life events. Granted, they're not statistical studies, but those can be pushed in many different ways. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
madmax Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Themes of the topic are:- New France - British colonies - authority of the colonial government - trade with Britain and France - Native people - United Empire Loyalists - explorers of Western Canada - immigration/migration - Red River Settlement - two founding peoples - Proclamation Act 1763 - Quebec Act 1774 - Constitutional Act 1791 - struggle for reform in the colonies · Louis-Joseph Papineau/William Lyon MacKenzie · Rebellions of 1837 · Act of Union 1841 - Confederation · American Civil War · B.N.A. Act, 1867 · John A. Macdonald · bilingualism - response to expansion · Louis Riel - Canadian Pacific Railway - creation of provinces Hmm, the War of 1812 is missing. Guess we can arbitrarily remove something above to fit this in. Quote
seabee Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 And nothing about the War of Conquest, also called in the U.S. the French and Indian War, and in Europe the Seven Year War. Churchill descrbed this period as the real first word War. A rather serious omission. Quote
stignasty Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Also, you seem to enjoy personally attacking me. I've never personally attacked you. Did my post really seem like a personal attack to you? I find that hard to believe. Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
jbg Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Also, you seem to enjoy personally attacking me. I've never personally attacked you. Did my post really seem like a personal attack to you? I find that hard to believe. Your statement: "Much like your thread on multiculturalism, you seem to rely on a couple of anecdotal stories to form your opinion." Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Catchme Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Evidence on hunting and gathering: Nobody cares about hunting and gathering. ALL societies were hunter gatherers at one point. Some moved on to more advanced systems. The natives of North America did not. Romans were Mediterranean peoples NOT Europeans. Okkkaaaayyyyy. So much for education. They did advance, and you have a lack of education, that is quite clear. If not for hunting and gathering capabilities, that settlers learned from FN, they would not have survived, nor could have exploartion of Canada and the USA have happened with out FN's skills in these areas. Nor the fur trade. Here is a map of ancient Rome, they were Mediterranian peoples, not that you would care the only thing apparently you care about is completely skewing history to conform to what you want it to and to portray FN's in as bad of a light as you possibly can. http://www.roman-empire.net/shop/empire-map-116.html Guns and steel make better arms advancement and nothing more. And even then they could not have beaten FN's except for the nasty evil actions taken against them. Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
jbg Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Guns and steel make better arms advancement and nothing more. And even then they could not have beaten FN's except for the nasty evil actions taken against them. Smallpox? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
White Doors Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Here is a map of ancient Rome, they were Mediterranian peoples, not that you would care the only thing apparently you care about is completely skewing history to conform to what you want it to and to portray FN's in as bad of a light as you possibly can. So English people are 'mediteranean people's'? What does that even mean? Are you saying that Iberia (modern day Spain) Gaul (modern day France) are not apart of Europe? I think they would be quite surprised to hear that. As would your ancestors, the anglo-saxons. (presumably) I find it curious that a radical ideology can warp the mind thusly. sad really. I don't think anyone is putting any FN people in a 'bad light'. Merely exposing them to be human as all peoples are. FN's killed each other long before the whiteman arrived and continued to do so after the whiteman did. They did not learn it from the whiteman. It just happened that the whiteman at the time was a much more advanced society with a military to match. They had no chance and fought bravely anyways. Those are the facts. Being defeated in combat doesn't necessarily make you an innocent victim. It just makes you defeated. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
stignasty Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Your statement: "Much like your thread on multiculturalism, you seem to rely on a couple of anecdotal stories to form your opinion." Exactly how is that a personal attack? Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
jbg Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Your statement: "Much like your thread on multiculturalism, you seem to rely on a couple of anecdotal stories to form your opinion." Exactly how is that a personal attack? Maybe I was a bit sensitive. But still, anecdotes are not a bad way to explain oneself. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Catchme Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Here is a map of ancient Rome, they were Mediterranian peoples, not that you would care the only thing apparently you care about is completely skewing history to conform to what you want it to and to portray FN's in as bad of a light as you possibly can. So English people are 'mediteranean people's'? What does that even mean?[/qb] You're rambling now white doors, focus, k? Romans were mediterrian peoples, they were not Europeans at the time of Roman Empire. Those who insist upon putting modern day contextual values upon ancient peoples are using sloppy thinking. Are you saying that Iberia (modern day Spain) Gaul (modern day France) are not apart of Europe? I think they would be quite surprised to hear that. As would your ancestors, the anglo-saxons. (presumably) No, you and argus, are the ones trying to say ancient Romans were Europeans. And, as I noted above, that is sloppy thinking. Plus it shows a lack of knowledge, that of course is not surprising as it runs through both of your dialogues. I find it curious that a radical ideology can warp the mind thusly.sad really. Funny I was just thinking that about you, though it was unexpected for me to see you self identify quite so honestly. I don't think anyone is putting any FN people in a 'bad light'. Merely exposing them to be human as all peoples are. FN's killed each other long before the whiteman arrived and continued to do so after the whiteman did. They did not learn it from the whiteman. It just happened that the whiteman at the time was a much more advanced society with a military to match. They had no chance and fought bravely anyways. Whitemen killed whitemen long before they came to North America, to kill FN's in the USA. And whitemen continue to do so today. No one said they learned from the white man, really white doors you need to focus. They had no chance because of of the heinous actions that were perpetuated upon them and the diseases that ravaged them, that white man brought. Those are the facts. Being defeated in combat doesn't necessarily make you an innocent victim.It just makes you defeated. They were innocent victims, both in the USA in the Indian Wars, and here in Canada though the breaches in Treaty ratification, stealing land, residential schools, etc etc. FN were not defeated in Canada, in fact some were rewarded with land settlements for their assistance to the Crown. And this is why they have exclusionary rights under the Charter, because of outstanding, rights that had not yet been met. Anyone who suggest changing the Charter does so for agendas in stealing FN lands yet again, and to deprive others of their rights and freedoms. Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Argus Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Romans were Mediterranean peoples NOT Europeans. Okkkaaaayyyyy. So much for education. They did advance, and you have a lack of education, that is quite clear. They did advance? Who advanced? Where? What are you blathering about now? As for education - weren't you going to tell all us uneducated people about your own towering academic accomplishments? If not for hunting and gathering capabilities, that settlers learned from FN, they would not have survived, nor could have exploartion of Canada and the USA have happened with out FN's skills in these areas. Nor the fur trade. Right, because, Europeans didn't know how to hunt. I mean, all of Europe (excluding Italy, of course, which doesn't count because it wasn't yet part of Europe) was paved over by the sixteenth century. Here is a map of ancient Rome, they were Mediterranian peoples, I'm really not sure in what context you are attempting to use the placement of the body of water around Italy. Italy is and was in Europe. Ergo, the Romans were Europeans. Claiming anything else is just stupid. And I don't see why you are even attempting to argue the point. You have many other points in which you can make yourself look confused and silly.Guns and steel make better arms advancement and nothing more. But which came first, the chicken or the egg? The fact is, that guns and steel ARE AN INDICATION of a superior, advanced technological society, a society which is well-organized, and engages in mining and smelting ore, for example, and which has manufacturing facilities on a large scale.And even then they could not have beaten FN's except for the nasty evil actions taken against them. Disease just made it easier. There is no question they would have prevailed in the end. They were simply too well-organized, too numerous, and too far advanced in technology. Further, their technology continued to advance over the decades, while the natives would have remained the same to this day, if left alone. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Catchme Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Argus: Romans were mediterrian peoples, they were not Europeans at the time of Roman Empire. There was no Europe. Those who insist upon putting modern day contextual values upon ancient peoples are using sloppy thinking. FN's did mine and smelt, just not steel. Some were master stonemasons that people are in awe of today. You cannot make that claim they would not have advanced. That is unknowable. But none of this has anything to do with Charter and Charter rights and those who think by changing the Charter they can deprive others of their rights. Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Argus Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Argus:Romans were mediterrian peoples, they were not Europeans at the time of Roman Empire. There was no Europe. Those who insist upon putting modern day contextual values upon ancient peoples are using sloppy thinking Repeating something which was dumb in the first place does not make it less dumb. Saying Romans were a "Mediterranean people" (please note spelling) and not Europeans is like saying Koreans are "Pacific" people and not Asians, or that the English are "Atlantic people" and therefore not European. BTW, Europe always existed. It is a geographical area, not a political unit. Or perhaps you could give me the date Europe was "founded". FN's did mine and smelt, just not steel. Or anything else up here. The southern nations, ie, the Azteks and Incas might have mined and smelted but OUR aborigines were still a little low on the learning curve for that sort of thing. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
White Doors Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Romans were mediterrian peoples, they were not Europeans at the time of Roman Empire. There was no Europe. Those who insist upon putting modern day contextual values upon ancient peoples are using sloppy thinking. talk about sloppy. Why don't you prove that Romans were 'mediteranean people' whatever that means. I get a laugh out of your posts. A sign of a low IQ is defending an assertion that is not defendable. keep it up! They couldn't have been mediteranean peoples either as they called it: The Mediterranean Sea has been known by a number of alternative names throughout human history. It was, for example, commonly called Mare Nostrum (Latin, Our Sea), and occasionally Mare Internum by the Romans so technically Romans were Mare Nostrum peoples by your definition. feel a little silly yet? Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.