 |
| |
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why not?
We were an independent country. Had we chosen to abandon France to the Nazis, we could very well have done so.
Parliament did not think that it was in the best interests of any Canadians to have done so, regardless of whether they be French or English.
|
Talk about revisionnism. No one gave a **** about the Nazis before the horrors were revealed in 1945.
quote:
As a colony of France, would they ever have industrialised? Name one colony of France that has. |
And now to the historical what-ifs-ifs-ives. For many reasons your question doesn't make sense.
1) No colony that was majoritarily populated by non-whites before colonialism came in ever experienced an economic boost similar to that of white colonies. Africa has always remained poor, and so did India, the Caribbeans. OTOH Australia and NZ became rich countries.
2) After losing Canada, France had no colony with a major French population. In fact, France was, between 1763 and 1830, pretty much colony-less, until they expanded in Africa and later in Indochina.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Talk about revisionnism. No one gave a **** about the Nazis before the horrors were revealed in 1945.
|
Lots of people did, even before 1945.
That's why we went to war, after all.
Maybe Mackenzie King didn't care all that much, and maybe the people in Quebec had their heads in the sand, but all the accounts I have read from the time showed that people were really concerned about the events in Europe, and had some doubts as to whether the Allies, even with the US and Canada, would succeed.
People had concerns about the Nazis even BEFORE the war here in Canada, after the Berlin Olympics.
quote:
1) No colony that was majoritarily populated by non-whites before colonialism came in ever experienced an economic boost similar to that of white colonies. Africa has always remained poor, and so did India, the Caribbeans. OTOH Australia and NZ became rich countries.
|
Canada had a majority indigenous population before colonisation. I can't think of one country that did not have a majority indigenous population before colonisation.
True, some colonies have prospered, but the British ones have always done the best, because of the different model adopted by the British.
The French, never really managed to encourage population and settlement in Quebec, or the development of industry. This is why you get a feudal model along your seigneuries, which you can still see in your electoral districts.
quote:
2) After losing Canada, France had no colony with a major French population. In fact, France was, between 1763 and 1830, pretty much colony-less, until they expanded in Africa and later in Indochina.
|
Yes, but that still does not negate the different approaches to colonialism, between the British and the French.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
I wonder which avatar you prefer....?
How are you holding up under the new one?
|
Fine so far.
No proabortion stuff, but we'll see what Guynemer has to say.
As for my favourite avatar, I must say I am pleased with the Sinai icon of Mary that I had before the election, but given that I owe another 2 weeks to Guynemer, I won't have that up until the new year.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 09-11-2004 at 05:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
But loyalty to the monarch is. In theory, isn't there some power that lets the Queen appoint a governor who has complete control over Canada? I doubt you'd actually let that happen. |
Not really, sky. The monarch fills the same function here as she does in Britain. She is a defanged head of state, but her assent is still required for anything really important to happen, like laws being passed. She is also the ultimate head of the armed forces. In short, she is a fail safe, final check against potential abuse by the PM and cabinet while at the same time saving us all from the spectacle of low life politicians slinging mud at each other for the priviledge of occupying a similar position.
The Queen gives assent to the appointment of a GG. That is done as all other matters that involve the monarch. The PM recommends a person for the postion and the Queen agrees. From then on that person then represents the Crown, but is a servant of the Queen and might refer to her in some important matters, like the Patriation of the Constitution.
But in all, the powers of the GG (and the monarch) are very restricted. Assent could be withheld... once... and then he or she had better have been very right or we would most likely be a republic within 12 months.
One other important function of the monarch/GG is in the formation of governments. For instance, say the recently formed Liberal government had failed on the Speech from the Throne. The GG would then have been in a position to either dissolve Parliament and send us to the polls again, or find another party that might have a chance to gain the confidence of Parliament. In short, there are times when we need a non-politician to be there to make jusdgement calls. The GG fills that role.
You have to get the personage of the Queen out of the picture. It is more a matter of loyalty to our institutions and our country. It's been working quite well for us for these last 150 years.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2004 23:43
Kucidude crossposting the exact same argument! The sky must be falling! 
|