Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (161683)	5/10/2005 12:19:37 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 281500

Can't recall anything specific, but no doubt the 'Perpetual Union' part would have turned them off before they got to the body of text .... the quebecois had long before come to see themselves as sufficiently isolated to be able to ignore unpleasantries elsewhere, and considered the rest of the world a pain in the ass that existed only to irritate them ... this applied to the king of France as much as to anybody who has interfered since - France had had little interest in settlement, beyond a few fortified harbours, with small areas surrounding to feed them, so the quebecois stock developed largely from those defecting from the fur trade and the military ... this is a good part of what makes Canada a nation basically of refugees, the 'french' had considered themselves such, in their own way, for a long time before They were already a lot more independent than most people on the planet, and wouldn't have seen much advantage in handing over control to people famously anti-catholic ... their catholicism was deep and strong, a major part of their self-identity [and remained so until the 1960s], the british had changed for them the test oath, removed all reference to religion, they could swear allegiance to the crown without including a church foreign to them ... their clergy was left to run the country, which had always been their way, other than that they were pretty much left alone, so they had more to lose than to gain, from any rebellion Those moves were made by the government of Pitt the elder, a few years later comes that of Lord North, an unrefined tory with a militarist background, he is in power from 1775 if not before I just looked it up, the Articles of Confederation come in 1777 - by that time there had been an invasion of Québec from the southern colonies, beaten off at considerable cost to their peace of mind, well this was probably not the way to gain their support ... before that there was at least some rebel sympathy in Montréal, if memory serves, it being more of a trading centre than of government ... but after an invasion, no way ... during the next attempt to take Canada, in 1812-14, les habitants fought as hard and as well as the loyalists, for instance with de Salaberry at Chateauguay i think there were only voltigeurs, no regulars present In re evolution vs. 'great leap forward' - yes there were elements coming out of the rebellion that did contribute to democracy, eventually ... one was the way Washington stepped down after a term as president, this had never been done before ... might have had something to do with his being sterile and without sons to carry on, who knows, but it was ballyhooed as a thing of principle, which was good .... having the president be titular head of state was regarded elsewhere as scarey, it removed a system of checks and balances that were present when the king had certain powers, and parliament managed his purse ... so another system had to be set up, and in the writings surrounding that effort there is some of the finest rhetoric the species has ever known, truly magnificent stuff ... if/when the reality of human affairs ever gets to that level, we'll do fine