Talk:History of Quebec/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about History of Quebec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Discussions from 2003 and earlier

Hello - Someone seems to be doing cut and paste from Patrick Couture's history website. This problem can be solved two different ways: 1. You can ask the permission to copy some of his work into this article. 2. The sentences are rephrased in such a way that you can no longer tell where it came from. :-) - Mathieugp

Explanation for the corrections of recent edits of very doubtful objectivity:

"Ontario adopts the teaching of French..."
No, French had been taught before. it was now basically outlawed. Read the resolution's text here: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/ontario_reglement17.htm

Your original statement was false and deliberately misleading. I note you didn't reinstate it.Angelique 14:00, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't my original statement. And how is outright forbidding teaching in French (under periodical inspection by inspectors) not, well, forbidding the teaching in French? It's definitely not "adopting" the teaching of anything, like you'd changed it to. Tremblay

"The Charter [...] makes it illegal for an employer to speak to an employee in the English language."
I invite you to read the Charter's text at: http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/index.html - And if you happen to be able to read French I invite you to read the FAQ here: http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/charte/questions_freq/faq_juridi.html

Sorry, read what happened in the Town of Rosemere. Two English employees were ordered not to speak to each other in English. Read all corollary laws and Departmental implementation notices on the language law. Angelique 14:00, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this article? Tremblay

You'll see that it's definitely not illegal for employers to speak to their employees in English. However, if the employee cannot understand or chooses to reply in French, they cannot be discriminated against by their employer. As had been the case before.

As someone whose family owned a business and was ordered by the Language Police not to speak English to an employee who spoke and understood English is a fact. Your wording confirms it, but disguises racism under the term "discrimination against French persons". Angelique 14:00, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See: http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/charte/questions_freq/rep_14.html Tremblay

Quebec, like Canada, has a language policy. If you read French, please educate yourself of the State of linguistic diversity in the world and the use of language policies in the majority of countries. http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/monde/index_politique-lng.htm -- Mathieugp

The bit about having French-only tribunals is also completely false. Unlike other provinces, the minority language in Québec (English) can be used in trials on the same level as French. This is very explicit in the Charter's text. In addition to this(!) a lawyer is even allowed to send an english-only document to a francophone even if this person requests a french version.

Sorry: THIS IS FALSE: Reference: Quote from the office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec: "A notice from the ministry of Justice of Quebec specifies that in civil matters, a party that does not understand the French language in Court has to obtain himself the assistance of an interpreter and support the cost of this service." Angelique 14:00, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bill 101 specifically gives the right to an English-speaking person to do what other hundreds of linguistic minorities cannot do in Quebec: obtain judicial services in their native language. This is very clear and has never been the subject of a controversy unlike other regulations such as language on commercial signs. -- Mathieugp

While I'm at it, the bit about municipal governments being 'forbidden' from having their proceedings in English is also false. Any organism is allowed to offer services in any language other than French. And municipal employees *are* allowed to have written communication in English. But if someone requests it, said written communication must be translated to French.

Honestly, I suggest you actually read the Charter before making more edits to this article. It'll clarify/dissipate lots of the urban legends spread through certain media outlets. You'll find out that the Charter exists mainly to guarantee the fundamental right of the majoritarily francophone population to be served in their language (within the province only). It doesn't exist, like some like to pretend, to oppress anglophones or to keep them from speaking English. Like the United Nations once proclaimed: anglophones in Québec are the most well-treated, but most vocal, minority in the world.

Anglophones are not a minority in their own country. Angelique 14:00, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well here we are. Quebec's Parliament, older than the federal Parliament by some 75 years has full jurisdiction over language and culture. This State is home to a French-speaking nation who's right to live in its own language is denied by people who only recognize their own nationalism as valid. It is true that anglophone Canadians do not see themselves as a minority in Quebec. That's always been the problem. This attitude has a name: we call this imperialism. The same kind of imperialism defeated in Britain by the British themselves, by the French in France, by the Spanish in Spain. Today, the English Parliament recognizes the existence of the Scottish and Welsh nations and their need for political autonomy. English Canada used to be at least as progressive as England, around the time when Lester B. Pearson spoke of Quebec as "the nation within the nation". Nationalism is only acceptable when it recognizes the equality of all other nations and their own nationalism. Quebec nationalists do not deny the existence of the Canadians, an English-spkeaking nation. -- Mathieugp

To answer Angelique's statement about the Quebec Act, let me just say that the National Library of Canada doesn't think it's an "unsubstantiated speculation" to say that the Act was influenced by the uprising in the American colonies (See: http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/2/18/h18-2083-e.html)

This is an example of quoting out of context to serve one's goal. I will clarify it in the article in a factual manner, withgout manipulation. Angelique 14:11, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Out of context? It's an article, by the National Library of Canada about Lower Canada. Can it be any more factual and "in context"? You could concede at least that much. Tremblay

Now that I've supplied all of this, is it possible for Angelique to provide proof that when there were 1200 African slaves in New France there were only 12 000 colonists? Same goes for Henri Bourassa's support of Nazis in Le Devoir. Tremblay 04:29, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The quote of only 1,200 slaves (all happily working as maids) came from another person trying to manipulate this article. MY reference to 12,000 French people in all of North America comes from Microsoft Encarta. Angelique 14:11, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can you provide the year where there were only 12 000 colonists and 1200 African slaves? I'd like to verify it myself. Tremblay

What are you trying to do here? There were amerindian and black slaves all accross America during colonial times. The English, the French, the Spanish, the Americans, the Iroquois were all slave trading nations. It was a huge step forward for humanity when this disgusting practice was abandonned. All your little inputs serve only one purpose: to prensent the "French" as an evil bunch of racist bigots, unlike the Canadians of course, who are the bestest defenders of human rights in all history. Its funny how I thought that chauvinism (pride in ones moral or cultural superiority) was in opposition to humanism. -- Mathieugp

And oh, yes. Why do you need to lie? I never said Henri Bourassa supported the Nazis but I will repeat: the anti-Semitic, racist, bigot, Lionel Groulx did. Angelique 14:15, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you want to support the thesis that Lionel Groulx was a racist bigot, please do it in Lionel Groulx and leave the chronology of Quebec alone. -- Mathieugp

It's an honest mistake on my part. While reading through your dozens of small edits to this article, I ended up associating Henri Bourassa, Le Devoir and support for Nazis. Tremblay

This is an encyclopedia that the rules say is to be written with NPOV and factual. When one has to slant and manipulate words, quote out of context, it shows just how valid their arguments really are. Angelique 14:11, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As soon as I get time, I will fix the rest of this distorted article as well as others that one or two people have doctored to use Wikipedia as a public forum for promoting their own political goals. Sad. Angelique 15:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pot to kettle? I'm afraid to see how you'll right all of the francophone world's wrongs. Tremblay

You are the only one clearly doing this here Miss. -- Mathieugp

I removed : "In a third of the ridings, no elections were held." This is out of context and done to denegrate the democratic system. It should only be stated with the facts given as to why, temporarily, there was no election held in a particular riding. Angelique 15:43, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This was indeed a mistake. It should have read No vote was held in a third of the ridings. My last edit had this in it as well as The ballot was not used, as was the rule of the time. These are historical facts. -- Mathieugp

Mathieugp - You have made more changes that are unfounded, are not NPOV and you continue to use Wikipedia as a platform for your political views. You also have repeatedly deleted important facts and delinked articles embarassiung to your "cause." I will reverse it all and will post a warning on this page and ask for a Wikipedia Administrator to intevene. Angelique 15:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I was about to ask a Wikipedia Administrator to intervene myself, because writing long paragraphs detailing how you think that French colonization was evil is not the purpose of this page. Colonization of America by the French and the British is of course not a pretty story.

The page History of Quebec is a chronology of events. The hanging of Angelique is a fact. That's why it belongs under 1734. If you have other information to contribe to this page, you are welcomed to insert them. If you believe that what I or other Quebecers write on our history is not accurate, please tell us why and how it is in this discussion page. If you are correct and we are wrong on the facts, we will be glad to change it for truth's sake. -- Mathieugp

Uhm, Angelique, I don't think anyone is voluntarily taking out those links. From what I see, no one is deleting anything; it's being overwritten by simultaneous edits. It's one of the many disadvantages of making dozens of little edits instead of a single major edit. If someone else is editing at the same time as you are and saves their work after yours, it'll overwrite every change made since the person started working in the edit form.

If you look carefully, your last edit was at 19:38; and IP 65.92.243.221 saved their edit at 19:47. So when IP 65... saved their work, it must've inadvertently undone part of your 23 consecutive minor edits.

Besides, what kind of a "cause" would anyone be promoting by removing links to things like Florida and Nova Scotia? In my opinion, seeing what you've done and said on the topic so far, I don't think you're in the ideal position to be telling anyone that they're "pushing their cause" by not having a NPOV on Wikipedia.

We should start working together on this instead of deleting every change made, regardless of the irrevocable facts brought forth. We should start by reverting to Mathieugp's version and combining it with Angelique's Dec 1 19:38 version. Tremblay 16:27, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I added tons of new dates, reinserted the info about the hanging of the black slave under 1734. Then, I came back and saw that Angelique had reverted to an older version of this page. We should only insert dated facts and leave the interpretation of those to the readers. I don't know how to put back all that I had added without doing it manually. Can you do it Tremblay or Angelique? -Mathieugp

Can someone do the rollback? I really don't understand how you can do that in Wikipedia? -Mathieugp

You need to be an administrator to use the rollback function. Essentially it is just a quick revert function, nothing special really. Adam Bishop 16:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can you do it then? Otherwize I will be forced to manually re-enter some 30 or so dated events that were removed after Angelique reverted to a previous version of this page. -Mathieugp

Well, I can't rollback to a specific version, now that I see which version you want to use. But I manually revert it, I hope that is what you want (you can do that too, actually). Adam Bishop 19:42, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And now that I look at the edit history, I have no idea which version you want to revert to anyway, so you'll have to revert it yourself I guess. Adam Bishop 19:46, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Adam. I reverted to my most up to date version and manually inserted all of Angelique's paragraphs into it. I hope I didn't forget anything. If I did, please feel free to reinsert it yourself Angelique. Now, as for rewriting other people's paragraphs to give the event a different interpretation, I think it is more than time for it to stop. We are all adults, and I think we can consult each other and agree that NPOV means that you only put the facts and leave those to the interpretation of the readers. -Mathieugp

Right now there are at least three articles relating the history of New France:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_France
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Quebec

I think we should merge them with New_France and have a brief summary of the events on History_of_Quebec with a link to the full article. Now who's up for doing it? :P Tremblay 22:36, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I started History of New France, but later found out that there was already a decent New France page. We can certainly integrate the detailed chronology into the main article. -Mathieugp

I would say merge them all with New France, and have History of Quebec start at 1763 (well, it shouldn't start at 5 billion years ago, anyway :)) Adam Bishop 23:38, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. Starting the History of Quebec in 1763 makes no sense. If we start it in 1534, we only tell the history of French and British colonization. If we tell it from 1763, we only tell the history of British colonization. Starting billions of years ago might be exaggerated, but it is the best way to tell the history of all peoples that have lived here, including the Native Americans whom we forget so often. Or maybe we can start at 8000 BC when the first humans arrived? -Mathieugp

See: (cur) (last) . . 20:23, 3 Dec 2003 . . Mathieugp (Integrated all of Angelique's inputs into the chronology) -- Not true, the game playing with words, deletions and innuendo continues by Mathieugp. Angelique 00:10, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The scattered bits about slavery should be verified and grouped under a single paragraph. Right now we have bits about the total, and inconsistent, number of slaves in the colony listed under 1608 and 1632. Same goes for contradictory population counts.

I think we should gradually move to a paragraph-based article to provide more background on certain issues. Also, as it stands now, unrelated statements are put under the wrong dates (for example the bit about English in Roman Catholic schools in Quebec after the mention of Regulation 17 in Ontario).

Aside from that, I hope to start working on the New_France merger in the next few days... if anyone wants to help... ;) Tremblay 07:29, 4

(diff) (hist) . . History of Quebec; 12:07 . . Angelique (Talk) (Reverting to last edit by Angelique following massive propaganda by USER: 66.130.171.30 who labelled it as "Clarifications, typos, etc (same old, same old)" - Editing like this in massive form, removing facts because they don't suit your racist cause and making degrogatory references is unacceptable conduct at Wikipedia. A developer can match USER: 66.130.171.30 to a logged in User. Dec 2003 (UTC)Angelique 12:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"racist cause"? I mean... come on. Aside from being inappropriate and childish, this name-calling leaves no doubt as to your very big personal bias.

I made the changes as 66.130.171.30. My login had timed out but I made a small edit as Tremblay a few minutes later to show that it was me. Honestly, I don't see what can be labeled as "massive propaganda" in my edit and am very curious to see what you have to say on the matter. I will also second Mathieugp's motion on Vandalism in Progress given your refusal to work together on the matter.

Also, before deleting someone's changes under the accusation of it being "massive propaganda", please(!) discuss the troublesome passages here (like Mathieugp and I have been trying to do with your passages). In addition to being self-centered and insulting, reverts undo all sorts of necessary edits like typo-corrections and clarifications.Tremblay 18:42, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angelique: I have added you to the Vandalism in Progress page. I do not have the patience to monitor all the little removals, modifications, and additions that you do to this page many times a day. I know that everything I entered personally is verifiable, it is even maybe readily available in English online. I invited you to point out what could be considered non-NPOV in the various edits made by me or others, but you never bothered replying and kept removing what you didn't like and adding all that you could find to "make the French look bad". You are volontarily linking slavery under the Ancien Regime to the destruction of Iroquois villages during wartime to exclusion of non-Catholics from New France to electoral fraud in Quebec to Lionel Groulx and Bill 101, all this in the hope of leading other people to see the evil "French" of New France from a narrow point of view where they are ugly monsters who deserve to be hated like Nazis. I find all this very childish. Mathieugp 14:48, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, USER: 66.130.171.30 is me (don't know why it didn't show my name) and most if not all of what I add inserted can be verified on a federally funded history site called Canadiana. Visit http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/constitution1_e.html and learn. Mathieugp 15:06, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I wasn't 66.130.171.30 then. :-) Mathieugp 19:04, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we can begin by merging by year to clean up?

Example:

1837 - event 1

1837 - event 2

1837 - event 3

into:

1837 - event 1,2,3

If we find that we crammed too many different events into a single year, then we can move the stuff into another page dedicated to it or put a see also: blablabla.

Mathieugp 19:12, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please Angelique, I'm asking you once again: Is it possible for you to stop automatically reverting to your versions on History of Quebec whenever someone edits it? The very least you could do is provide an explanation for your reverts on the Talk: page. We've pleaded with you, time and time again, to have an open and honest discussion with us on Talk:History of Quebec. By doing so we were hoping to start working together on the article - instead of working on trying to contain the damage left by your reverts.

You're sending out an awfully bad message by consistently reverting to your edits. It's as though you think you're the article's new overseer, and that only your edits are acceptable. But in spite of your attitude, after every one of your multiple reverts, I've been kind enough to manually insert your changes into the pre-revert version of the article. We've put a lot of energy into trying to keep the edits on History of Quebec civil, but if you continue to resort to unjustified reverts while obstinately refusing to discuss your caveats, more drastic measures will have to be taken to prevent your vandalizing.

I just undid the damage done by the latest revert. I didn't add the bit about Yves Michaud since it is a copyrighted text taken straight from http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/michaud.htm Ironically (not really), the only part that Angelique didn't copy-and-paste was the bit that gave a bit more context to the quote. If an original version is to be added it is necessary (and objective) to add the following information:

a) Put Michaud's comments in context
b) The Parti Québécois and the National Assembly hastily condemned his comments;
c) 3 out of 4 Quebecers were against his statements;
d) Later, the director of the Quebec chapter of B'nai Brith, Robert Libman, said that Michaud's words had been incredibly distorted and that he didn't think he was an anti-semite. He even stated that Quebec was the least anti-semitic province in Canada - and that all the anti-semitic inscriptions found in Quebec by B'nai Brith were written in English. Tremblay 06:15, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

REPLY by Angelique to the team of Mathieugp and Tremblay (are they one and the same or just two friends?)

YOU SAID: "I believe you will learn a lot by reading of the 328 Huguenots who came to live in New France. --> http://pages.infinit.net/barbeaum/huga/ Mathieugp 03:33, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)"

I already know a lot, far more than most, about the Huguenots. The only Huguenots who were tolerated in New France were during the reign of the Protestant king Henry IV of France. My reference in the history of Quebec is the specific butchering and slaughter of Huguenots and their being forced to flee France and not allowed to practise their religion in New France. (Note, in the expulsion of the 12,000 Acadians, they weren’t murdered and butchered in the streets. 70,000 Huguenots were slaughtered and almost 500,000 fled for their lives. So, let's not pretend it's only those awful English who did things. Want a list of French atrocities in their colonies?)

"The Prime Minister of Canada, John A. MacDonald declares that "Even if all the dogs of Quebec bark, Riel will be hanged!" " --- User: Mathieugp : You inserted this in order to make it appear that the Prime Minister called the people of Quebec “dogs.” This is an example of how those who have no case create innuendo and hide any facts they don’t like. Do not insult the Prime Minister again.

You're being inconsistent. You remove quotes by John A. MacDonald on the basis that they can be misinterpreted, yet you insert "bitter, racist" to qualify Parizeau's remarks. I've taken out those adjectives so that readers can judge by themselves when reading the article on the matter. Tremblay

I did not insert this. The Prime Minister of the Canadian Dominion called the people of Quebec dogs. You are saying, we can't judge the entire life of this man on one sentence. You are right. It is the same for so many other people stained by the right-wing anglo-Canadian press like Parizeau and Michaud. This is of course out of context: it should be placed in History of Manitoba or something like that. However, I do not believe you have the authority to tell anyone not to let the world know of what McDonald and his Tories did in the West. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Later, when such opinions weren't uncommon for North American and European Christians, he denounced Jews and supported the Nazis in Germany" --- User: Mathieugp : Do not speak for others and label them as racist. If you insert this racism again, I will ask the Wikipedia Administrators to ban you.

First of all, this is User:Tremblay who wrote this. What is racist in this sentence? 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User: Mathieugp / Tremblay : I will edit more of your deliberate attempts to distort facts later but for now will change your most blatant violations of Wikipedia policy.

Yeah ok. Continue to revert this page over and over again. Remove all that you don't want to remember about British colonization in America and exaggerate all that the evil French Catholic of Canada did even though they were the bestest treated conquered people on earth. This is sure to have everyone wish for us to get banned from Wikipedia. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I certainly did not breech copyright laws in any way shape or form in the things I wrote on the racist Yves Michaud.

Did you ask the permission before copying his work? Because, the Wikipedia rules are strict on this: DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION! 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Go to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/michaud.htm ; look at the bottom of the page: © 2001 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College - Wikipedia has a very clear policy against the submission of copyrighted material. Tremblay

And do not put words in Robert Libman’s mouth.

See: VOIR, week of March 1st 2001 edition, article by Georges Boulanger.

What Tremblay wrote is straight from Robert Libman's mouth, live on Quebec TV. While being interviewed in French, he clearly stated that the whole Michaud affair had, in his opinion, been blown out of proportions, that he didn't think Michaud (who lived in a Jewish neighbourhood most of his life and is even the godfather of a Jewish kid) was not antisemite. He also informed us that, in the facts, in the numbers, Quebec is the province with the least amout of antisemitic incidents (according to him, I personally think it probably is a maritime province considering the population) and yes, that ALL the ones found by the B'nai Brith in French Quebec were in English. I guess that, being really twisted, one could conclude that all these people (writing crap against the Jews) were in fact bilingual Francophone separatists worshipping Lionel Groulx. Most people are not that twisted thanks to God, especially when they lived in Quebec for a while and they know from experience that it is one of the most open societies in the world. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Everything you write is either a lie, innuendo, quoted out of context, or distorted.

You have stated that many many times now, without ever giving an concrete example. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fact: the French people in Quebec were abandoned by France and the pain those people must have felt in 1763 is unimaginable.

Fact: Quebec was conquered by the arms. France left, was replaced by Great Britain, the most powerful Empire, on which the sun never sets. This Empire was in the hands on a Monarch, who favored one religion and one language. This is the same for all other European powers. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(And this is at a time when the French King is still seen as "father of the people".)

This is a very Britishy perception of things, portraying the Canadiens as children, unable to govern themselves. These children, defended their country, Canada, for 75 years, without the support of the French Crown before the Conquest. The Canadiens were a proud people. France didn't care much for this unvaluable colony. Also, the French Empire was declining at the time, they have better things to do, like battle Britain which was getting much stronger than they could have ever imagined. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Read the history of French colonialism - the conquest by brute force, the maintenance of power through brutal suppression, the executions for "disobedience," the imposition of the French Language and the imposition of the Roman Catholic faith. This conduct was how it was. The English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Belgium etc. all behaved the same way : violent, brutal suppression and theft of the colony’s resources.

Well here you go. It is not that hard, is it? To admit that ALL colonialisms are bad, including the one which ruled over Quebec from London until 1931, and was replaced by the one in Ottawa after that. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Been to the Côte d'Ivoire lately? 400,000 French troops in Algeria and a French rule that was one of the most brutal in history. READ. I eventually will go to each site here at Wikipedia and do a "History of XXX" demonstrating what happened to that country under French occupation. I note, the article on Vietnam touched on it, but you should read more. Have you ever seen the giant Roman Catholic Notre Dame Cathedral in Hanoi?

I have nothing against that, although you really should also be doing the same for the British, the Germans, the Chinese, the Albanians, the Romans, the Spanish, the Portuguese the Americans and all powers that pillaged the world resources. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The history of the French people in Canada will certainly have instances of bigots, etc. All nations do.

In that case, what is this obsession of yours with Quebecers who never even had an army to take control of another people's land? Also, please stop referring to as as "The French" the French live in France and left centuries ago. We are not French. We speak French and are no longer Catholic. Surely you must be aware that our culture is not that of France, being separated from it for that long? 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That was history, it was how everyone thought and acted at the time. Women’s rights? Public executions? Or being jailed for speaking out against the British Aristocracy was not limited to the French. ALL peasant Canadians were subjected to the same thing. One of my mother’s English ancestors was put in jail in 1803 in New Brunswick because he insulted an aristocrat. And he stayed there for months until a trial was held. Meanwhile his wife and 13 children almost starved to death. (And yes, I have the documents from the N.B. archives.)

Well, I have nothing to say here. This is a very sad history indeed. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And oh yes, land grants -- the United Empire Loyalists who fled New York in 1783 got a 50 acre land grant in N.B., soldiers got 100-200 acres for their service. But, members of the aristocracy got 6,000 on average!

Well, it sure was not fair but, the Loyalists were the colonizers in America miss. They were booted out by the American freedom fighters, remember? You won't see me and the majority of English-speakers on this planet cry for these ones. 65.92.243.221

And, this religious crap, that saw the French in France slaughter Huguenots was of course a major issue in Canada because Protestants lived in fear of the Catholic Church because of its history of brutal oppression.

Now that's twisted. The Protestants who came here during the French regime converted to Catholicism, or married Catholics and their children became Catholics. I condemn religious persecusion, but you have to be severely biased to link the war against Protestants in France to a small colony in America. When the English took over, the roles were reversed: The Catholics were now living under the Rule of a Protestant King who spoke a different language. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But, nowhere in the British Empire (and especially not in any French colony) was any conquered minority ever treated so well as the French in Quebec.

Conquered minority? The Canadiens were a majority in Canada (today Quebec). The minority was British. A minority ruling the majority. This is what will be replaced by democracy later. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In 1774, the Quebec Act is an astounding and unheard piece of democracy unparalleled in the history colonization that was passed despite powerful opposition.

Democracy? Democracy is 50% + 1 vote the laws. The majority of the people rule. It didn't exist before the independece of the Americans and the French Revolution, unless you go back to the Ancient Greeks. The Americans battled against the very political regime which you glorify today. That is totally unacceptable. You are insulting humanity's memory by defending the British Empire's governments. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And it was passed by the British Parliament because the English citizens of Canada wanted it.

It was passed by the British Parliament, under severe pressure because of the troubles in the American colonies. That is a measure of apeasement. The "citizens" (subjects) of British origin were numbering in the hundreds and were opposed to Governor Murray, whom they considered weak and bough out by the "French". They got him removed and replaced by someone else, who pretty much concluded the same thing as Murray. The capitulation act had numerous garanties for the Canadiens, the Acadiens and the natives. Today, we consider that all humans deserve to be treated equally, despite their origins, their belief. Back then, a King or a Queen could decide the faith of millions of people. The world as evolved, but we will not speak of Human rights the way we do now before 1789. First, we will have to destroy governments controlled by the aristocraties. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The people of Canada wanted peace from Europe’s never-ending wars for power and wealth and peace from murder, torture, and discrimination in the name of religion. The 53,000 French people in 1765 Quebec had never known any form of democracy or the right to speak out against injustices.

It was the same all over the world. Do you really think Quebecers would have gotten anything if they hadn't battled for it? Again, please, stop calling us French. We have a name. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Under the English, French Canadians enjoyed democratic freedoms unheard of in France let alone in any French colony.

The best thing back then was British Parliamentarianism. The Canadiens got this in 1791, like all the other colonies of Britain that hadn't booted the monarchists out. That was a measure of apeasement and it worked brilliantly. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And as a result, the 53,000 French citizens in 1765 Quebec became 6 million today and the French language, preserved and protected with a great deal of help and money by all of Canada is stronger today than ever.

Wow. Centuries of a complex history summed up in such a short sentence. I had not realized how we all owed our life to a dead King of England. It is strange how I thought that I had the inherant right to exist because I am a human being. It is funny how all this time I thought that all nations had the right to equality. Thank you for reminding me that I was wrong to have faith in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And, despite isolating themselves, French Canadians live in what most people see as one of the greatest countries in the World and occupy the most powerful positions in government, both elected and in the civil service. (It is worth noting that the number of French Canadian civil servants in Canada is a greater percentage than their population while in Quebec the approx. 20% non-French hold only 2.4% of the jobs in the Quebec provincial civil service.)

Thank you Trudeau! Now all of Canada think we want to remain a minority forever! Isn't it great to be governmed by a generous foreign nation when you are a weak and incapable people! Vive le Canada! 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, please note that the isolation of Quebec by the Church and the lack of participation in business was such that no MBA program existed in any Quebec university until the early 1980’s. Within a few years, the program at the University of Montreal was graduating more French Canadian MBA’s than any university in Canada. Imagine what might have been in the past if the Church didn’t keep control.

It's funny. That's what a lot of Quebecers wonder as well. What would our history have been if we had succeeded in getting rid of the Catholic nuisance sleeping with the British colonial government in 1837? Wow, imagine if Monseigneur Lartigue had not been there to block the construction of our first secular schools. Imagine we had controlled our own tax money to build those same schools. Imagine what would have happened if the government of Lower Canada had been elected instead of appointed by London... 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Take a good look at the Beauce Region. It shows what French Canadian entrepreneurship can do.

I wonder if Quebecers themselves, collectively, have anything to do with this. Do you thing the Quebec governement of Jean Lesage (with young Levesque and Parizeau) has anything to do with this? 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So, bottom line is stop blaming others and participate instead of wallowing in self-pity about a universal code of conduct from years ago, unable to justify your tales of supposed woe without distortion.

Nobody blames nobody Angelique. Quebecers want to govern themselves and not be governed by another nation. That's the exact opposite of self-pity. It's called self-confidence and self-respect. This is necessary in order to be treated as an equal and treat others as equals in return.

It reminds me of people I visited in Northern Ireland : Protestants teaching their tiny children songs about killing Catholics and reminding them of the Battles fought 400 years ago, and insisting on Marching in the streets to celebrate a victory in some battle centuries before. And the IRA teaching hatred and the killing goes on. God bless Canada, even when the FLQ did what they did, we overcame it and quickly.

I fail to see how teaching the history correctly has anything to do with violent religous organizations. Nobody is talking about killing anyone here. In our case, there is only one side with an actual military power and it is not Quebec. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And, as a matter of interest, because of the business environment in the USA and in the rest of Canada, French Canadians standard of living surpassed France almost 100 years ago and today GDP, per capita income, etc. etc. is far ahead of France and with much lower per capita taxation.

That's not true. The standards of living of Quebecers went up when they started to use the powers of th Quebec State at their advantage. This started in the 1960s during the Quiet Revolution. Before that, being a Quebecer of French Canadian origin was ranking your at the bottom of the later. All the stats can be read in the report of the Federal commission of Bilingualism and Binationalism of 1963. Only in the 1990s did the Francophone majority of Quebec start earning as much as Anglophones. I fail to see what comparing the quality of live in Quebec and France has to do with all this. 65.92.243.221

After the French Revolution, the rise of an absolute Emperor, the return of three Kings as rulers, an election and then another self-declared Emperor right up to 1871, is a history where the word democracy has little meaning.

You are terrible. Democracy in Europe began with the French revolution. The revolution ended after 13 years with the restoration. All monarchies of Europe united against France to put a King back in power. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Given what we can see in Senegal, Vietnam and countless other French colonies, I shudder to think what Canada would be like had it been under French rule.

The French would have kept ignoring the Canadiens probably and they would have been given their independence or would have fought for it. That's the history of all colonies except Quebec. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bottom line : the French speaking people of Quebec are citizens of Canada, equal in all respects to the immigrant Pakistanis, Haitians, Palestinians, etc. and have no right to divide the sovereign Country of Canada, period. France and Germany slaughtered each other over Alsace and Lorraine, both oppressing its citizens, imposing language and education.

Your bottom line makes us a minorty amongs many in a country build on our back. Quebecers cannot accept this. Half of them want to become independent, the other half wants to reform the country. Wake up. All international observers can clearly see that. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stop playing games, User: Mathieugp / Tremblay. Grow up, get rid of your racism, and learn about the real world. Angelique 16:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think calling me a racist as you do and did in the past is more than enough to have you banned from Wikipedia. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Although this very long and very emotional paragraph can be considered a step towards open discussion, it doesn't actually refer to anything found in the article. :P Tremblay

OK, I think everyone involved here needs to take a break from this article. Especially you, Angelique - calling everyone a racist etc etc is more of a "bannable" offense than whatever wrongs you think Mathieu has committed (though none of you would be banned over this, that would be ridiculous). How about you just stop editing the article for a few days or a week. If it helps, I could try to make this into a proper article (rather than a chronology, I mean). I wrote most of what is on New France, and none of you seem to have any issues with that....I'm also not from Quebec so I might be more neutral. But please, stop fighting/reverting, it is not solving anything. Adam Bishop 17:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with that, an objective third party is needed here. Tremblay 18:14, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree too. I'll be back in about a week to see what progress can be made in spite of Angelique. 65.92.243.221 18:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am removing the following input by Tremblay and Mathieugp for the fourth time. This is absolute and total falsehood deliberately placed in this article to denegrate the Prime Minister of Canada. Angelique 16:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The Prime Minister of Canada, John A. MacDonald declares that "Even if all the dogs of Quebec bark, Riel will be hanged!" He later claimed that he meant dogs in the literal sense."

Which part do you object do? That he meant dogs literally? If so, then it's probably a good idea to take that out, even though you should still be avoiding editing the article :) Anyway, are you objecting to the quote in general? Is it apocryphal? Or do you just think that nothing bad should be said about Macdonald? Adam Bishop 16:40, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)