Is Canada's history (what history is actually has) really

>>321937
>Were there ever any violent/racist points in its history?

I really hope you aren't Canadian if you don't know this shit.

>>321952
I'm an American who is genuinely interested in Canada's past because I can't believe that a country has a clean past.

I'm already aware of the residential schools and the shit done to the natives, but that hardly counts.

>>321937
Japanese Internment during WWII.
The Feds stole their boats.

not a Canadian, but I heard they treated the Chinese like shit for a period.

canadian immigration was historically racist and targeted towards white anglo-saxons

>>321937
>Is Canada's history (what history is actually has) really all about being the "nice guy" of the world?

No, a lot of that stuff comes from the 1960s/70s when there was a deliberate push by politicians to make us a peacekeeping country.

>Were there ever any violent/racist points in its history?

Residential schools, Winnipeg general strike, anti-chinese riots, Komagata Maru

>>321966
Same thing we did, used them for building the railroads.

The forcing of natives on reservations were pretty much as cruel as the american ones.

There was a revolt in Manitoba 1860s, but it was pretty minor.

Confederation only happened mostly in response to the US winning the Civil War and all those north american british colonies having to unify or risk manifest destiny.

All the stuff about Canada being "pacifist" mostly comes from Pierre Trudeau's leadership. Because he was leader at such a crucial point in the country's history, he practically made his values, the national values.

Keep in mind, the country's flag is younger than my parents.

>>321937
>Were there ever any violent/racist points in its history?
Oh yes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-history-of-residential-schools-in-canada-1.702280

>>321968
>The Horror.

They put a fucking leaf on the Flag.

That's like an aesthetic holocaust

Weren't there some huge anti-Greek riots after WWI?

>>321957
>I can't believe that a country has a clean past

It does because it's not a country

I don't know what it was like in other parts of the country, but the history education here seemed to place pretty heavy emphasis on all the mistakes made throughout our history. I remember a high school assignment that involved looking at a document "translated from German" that involved a detailed look at the procedure for detaining Jewish German citizens and repossession their property, and in the last five minutes of class it was revealed that it was actually a document by the Canadian government for detaining Japanese-Canadian citizens and repossession their property, and the only change was the translation and switching the nationalities around.

It was a recurring theme that the "nice Canada" shtick was largely propaganda as >>321973 pointed out.

>>321988
They conveniently leave out the graves, and any mention of them dying.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/at-least-4000-aboriginal-children-died-in-residential-schools-commission-finds

File: 040723_MNightShyamalan_bcol_2p.grid-4x2.jpg (16KB, 308x399px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 308x399px

>>322011
>looking at a document "translated from German" that involved a detailed look at the procedure for detaining Jewish German citizens and repossession their property, and in the last five minutes of class it was revealed that it was actually a document by the Canadian government for detaining Japanese-Canadian citizens and repossession their property, and the only change was the translation and switching the nationalities around.

>>321996
found it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Toronto_anti-Greek_riot

>>321937
>violent/racist

>>>/t/umblr

>>322054

If prejudice against someone purely by their race isn't racism, I don't know what is.

>>322064
I wasn't arguing that. I'm just tired of people looking for shit to whine about

>>321968
Call me /pol/ but multiculturalism is self-destructive. We were better off then. We should at least be pursuing an aggressive policy of assimilation towards these immigrants.

>>322069

I don't think he's whining. Most Americans see Canada as a clean, polite society where everything has been good and happy. Most of them don't know it used to be as bad as the US's worst parts until about 50 years ago.

>>321968
It was a British colony and still is technically ruled by the british monarch so its hardly surprising that the vast majority of immigrants came from Britain.

>>322078
What do you consider bad? Social cohesion and trust in rural regions with 95% white residents who leave their doors unlocked year round?

>>322086

If the rest of the US was Minnesota, that would be great. But it's not.

And I meant the historically worst parts, not geographically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_Party_of_Canada

This was probably the largest far-right movement in Canada's history.

>>322078
In terms of dealing with the Natives, we're still not great. There is still some pretty significant, non-tumblr definition racism happening with them. They're generally not meeting the country halfway either, so it's not like they're completely innocent in all this, but placing blame doesn't actually fix the problem.

>>321937
Was gonna talk about the residential schools and the japanese internment camps but it looks like I'm already covered.

Otherwise, that's pretty much it.

>>322096
>populist
I really didn't need to read after that. That word kinda tell a person all they need to know about a political party.

>>322104
Assuming you actually know what the word means it was a lot more than just that.

>>322104
The fact that the word "populist" triggers you tells me all I need to know about you.

>>321937

They treated the french part like second class citizen, biased their policies in favor of the western English parts when french people started to rise from the peasantry which led to the steep decline of the previously wealthy St Lawrence valley.

Even to this day there's discontent between the two ethnicity.

'Canadians' are hardly nice too. They were essentially a lot like the average Northern Irish guy a few decades ago. Bigoted, jingoist and ready to chimp out on any religious minority any time if it wasn't for the United States closely watching.

>>322109
>>322114
Yeah I know what it means, but populism is generally a bad thing on the grounds that most people are well, stupid.

I know it's following what the people want, but the problem with direct democracy is the exact reason why populism is flawed.

>>322100
>chimp out all the time
>get free gibs me dats for just sitting on their asses all day
>completely worthless to society
>whine about 'muh native genocide' all the time
>basically Canadas niggers
Yeah I wonder why nobody likes them

>>322118
hello pierre

>>322100
I blame it all on the corrupt chiefs to be honest.

>>322118
>They treated the french part like second class citizen

Because they LOST. And then acted like the war was a fucking draw.

>>322126
>throw money at Natives
>no auditing or accountability for what the corrupt as fuck chiefs do with said money
>let them maintain their isolated, impoverished communities with third world social problems

All the government does is enable them, which is pretty bad as well

>>322076
Self-destructive to what?

If you're talking about Anglo-Canadian 'culture', then good riddance

>>322118
You lost, Quebec, get over it. Be happy we let you harass minority restaurant owners for putting the original names of the food they're serving you on menus and call the language police on them. Hell, be fucking thankful we let you have something so ridiculous as "the language police."

>>322140

In fairness we do the same thing with ours. Only the few casinos, and the Navajo Nation are the only prosperous parts of the native population (and the latter not really, it's just better governed).

>>322146
>if your talking about Indian "culture" then good riddance

This is what you sound like you fucking racist.

>>322154
MUH RAYCISSS

>>322152
Sure, but if we're going to pretend to be nicer than the Americans, we should at least act like it sometimes and try to do better, as to not he massive hypocrites. Nobody wants to be like the Quebecois who whine and throw shit everywhere and then bitch when nobody likes them.

>>322139
>>322149

>Vae Victis

What are you guys, some sort of machete gang rape enablers?

The reason Canada exists in the first place is because of the deals made with the french living there, deals that were promptly withdrawn by the crown soon after. Both times.

Westerners expected every other christian to play by the rules and behave with honor and trustworthiness. Reckless perfidy is what led Britain to be diplomatically isolated so many times in the modern timeline when it was easy for them not to be.

File: 30 Canadian Immigration Waves - The Canadian Encyclopedia (20151129).png (542KB, 1175x3645px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1175x3645px

Canada's had a very tranquil domestic history, as far as countries go (mostly because it's big and isolated imo). But I'll go over the major issues:

>Race

Because it was too cold for plantation agriculture, there were only very small numbers of slaves, so they could be freed very early with no impact on anything. The small black population that came after the American Revolution and runaways up to the Civil War was reasonably well assimilated (similar to blacks in the Northern US before the Great Migration were quite civilized and integrated)

Because such a large countries required continual settlement it was eased into multiculturalism over centuries. From the start the Anglos (mostly Scottish and ex-American) and French had to cooperate for no other reason than not being swallowed up by the US. Then you get waves of immigration over the 19th and early 20th century such that no one immigrant group predominates, but each has a large enough settled community to help newcomers also find their bearings (no different from the US in this respect).

There was some paranoia at one point about too many Asians on the West Coast and measures to restrict immigration (as in the US), and internment of Japanese during WW2, but it didn't do any long-term damage to those groups (didn't in the US either).

With the notable exception on natives (Indians), who have LOTS of issues, no race/group in Canada is associated with criminality and poverty. A mild exception might be those from the Caribbean. Certainly nothing like blacks and latinos in the US, or gypsies and muslims in Europe.

...

>>322195

You can't act like a cocky shit when you LOST THE WAR.

>>322195
>What are you guys, some sort of machete gang rape enablers?
Don't judge my hobbies.

>>322199
Are the prairie provinces full of Ukrainians?

>>322126

There's a reason why we call them 'prairie niggers'.

>>322200

Back to the third world you cruel chink. Go eat a bunch of live baby mouse while civilized Europeans talk.

>>322216
>while civilized Europeans talk

What do you think all those European nations did for centuries whenever they won? What nation do you think Vae Victus came from?

>>322216
>Quebecois
>civilized
I will take a FOB Hongcover resident over a Francophone every single day. At least they will pretend to be grateful when the country bends over backwards to please them, while all you do is whine that the back of their heads isn't touching the back of their ankles.

Okay, this is veering too close to /int/-without-flags territory. The point is, Canada has a very complicated relationship with its French population, and if you want to look into it you will find fertile ground for understanding some shader parts of Canadian history.

>>322221

War was more like a sport and over ambitious imbeciles trying to play with the rules were harshly punished. Notoriously Napoleon but a few dozen miles of open sea prevented another bunch of pathological shit stirrers from getting what they deserved quite a few times too.

>What nation do you think Vae Victus came from?

Some warband of primitive celts.

>>322246
>War was more like a sport

Yeah, for the leaders who aren't actively fighting in it. For the soldiers war has always been cruel and brutish. And when you win, if they made it hard for you, you generally make the losers pay.

They couldn't in Canada because the French were nearly half the population. Even forcibly Anglicizing them would have been too financially costly when they were worried about a newfound nation that popped up to the south that they were worried about being targetted for land expansion. A worry that was proven true in 1812.

If the British Canadians had the ability to culturally Anglicize the French at the time, they would've.

>Some warband of primitive celts.

They were Gauls at the time.

>>321937
What's the deal with those Human Rights tribunals or whatever they're called targeting comedians? I've heard from comics that if, for example, they make fun of a disabled person in a comedy club they get a summons to a tribunal with the most recent case being the comic Mike Ward. When did these tribunals first start up and is there an actual need for them or is it just mostly nonsense to waste tax payer money?

>>322266

Like, a disabled person that's in the audience, or just disabled people in general?

How do you stop offensive jokes?

>>322266
Literally never heard of them, but it wouldn't surprise me.

>>322243

That's acknowledging my point. Quebecers are a bunch of rednecks because until 50 years ago the vast majority were illiterate peasants and kept that way by the biased economic situation, courtesy of course of governmental policies and a virtual apartheid between the business owning English minority in Montreal and the rest of the province.

Then when modernity kicked for the population as a whole, the capital flow swiftly moved away from Montreal toward Toronto (guess why). Not exactly an ideal start.
When they looked toward Europe and especially France for formation/economical partnership they were heavily discouraged by the federal government (Universities were stock full of continental french teachers in the 80s for example).

>>322266
>Human Rights tribunals

Most of that stuff started during the Trudeau administration when they were trying to make Canada multicultural

>>322279
In the audience.

>>322199

>Natives (Indians)

Early on natives were seen as vital for defence from the US (as demonstrated in the War of 1812). Natives were also seen as vital to the economy early on, for their work in the fur trade. There were no forced expulsions as in the US, and no wars between natives and government forces. Settlement happened in an ordered and legally-above-board fashion, with land claims being settled before settlers moved into an area (with some minor exceptions here and there). Given the small population of natives, and the largeness of the country, this wasn't terribly difficult.

The one notable exception was relations between the Metis (Indian-European mixed group on the Western plains, largely French speaking and Catholic) and the government as Manitoba and Saskatchewan was opened up to settlement. Metis felt they weren't fully consulted when the area was acquired by Canada (from the Hudson's Bay Company). Then they made the mistake of hanging an Anglo Protestant who opposed their provisional government, which turned it into an Anglo-Protestant (Ontario) vs. Franco-Catholic (Quebec) proxy shitshow. The federal government agreed to most of the Metis demands and amnestied everyone and it seemed settled (this episode is known as the Red River Rebellion).

But a couple years later some of the Metis hardcore, notably under the same leader (Louis Riel), staged another rebellion further west in Saskatchewan (the NorthWest Rebellion). This one was far bloodier, Riel having gone completely insane (literally) since the first go-round, thinking the Metis on some kind of Catholic crusade for survival, and in the end (after a few battles, where some full-blood natives got involved on the Metis side) the government crushed the rebellion and hung Riel. This is probably the most controversial episode in Canadian history....

>>322279
>>322281
I've heard of them twice before. Mike Ward said in an interview that they're mostly centered in the French part of Canada, but he had to go to court in order to fight for his right to make offensive jokes. I found an article talking about it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-petit-jeremy-human-rights-1.3240005

It feels like such a weird thing to read about. Reading about the tribunal system leads me to believe it was intended to stop businesses and agencies from unlawfully discriminating, but perhaps individuals are misusing the system as a way to get restitution?

>>322261
>For the soldiers war has always been cruel and brutish

Absolutely not in stable times. Those who were in those armies were in out of their own free will. Aristocrats were especially eager to serve and be on the first lines.

Extreme sports, lots of testosterone fueled action, no qualifications required, nothing to worry about long term.

It was certainly not good to be a peasant confronting a foraging party But I was referring to diplomacy, honor and agreements mostly.

>And when you win, if they made it hard for you, you generally make the losers pay.

Christian Europe had rules. Genocides was a thing of the past by the 18th century anyone who would have committed that against other Christians would have been in deep shit.
It was so bad that public opinion alone forced France and England to go completely against their own interests and support the greeks against the Ottomans for example.

Note that I'm not playing a blame game (and I'm actually not french). The French authorities never gave two shits about the Louisianians and Quebecers and even outright ignored official pleas.
But the truth is that Canadian history is tainted by this poor relationship and while it's still heavily discussed inside, no one outside really knows about it.

>>322322
>they're mostly centered in the French part of Canada

How am I not surprised.

>>322324
>Genocides was a thing of the past by the 18th century

I wasn't talking about genocide, I was talking about culturally whitewashing them. Something every culture has done to some extent after a war.

>>322302
...today natives are in a pretty sorry state, as in every part of the world it was attempted (even with the best intentions) to leave the natives to their own devices in isolation. For the most part reserves are epidemic with crime, alcoholism, abuse, corruption. A lot of natives leave their reserves with this baggage, and end up in a very bad way in the city (drugs, prostitution, etc.).

There's no obvious solution, since natives insist on their treaty rights to govern themselves on their own (isolated, uneconomical) reserves, but of course this is totally impractical in the 21st century and will lead only to further misery (since there's nothing to do and little opportunity for employment on these reserves). This is a somewhat more pressing issue in Canada than in other similarly afflicted countries (the US, Australia, etc.) since natives are a much larger share of the population (4.3% in Canada vs. 0.9% in the US).

>>322146
Piss off Chink.

>>322096
Early on you could count it as far-left (when it actual followed Social Credit economic theory, which is really quite interesting)

>>322210
Yes, Ontario also has a fair few.

>>322324
>Those who were in those armies were in out of their own free will
Or they were criminals and it was that or prison.

>>322334
>I was talking about culturally whitewashing them. Something every culture has done to some extent after a war.

In the 18th-19th century, by western Europeans on other western European? Completely unfeasible. Besides initially they were more than willing to compromise but a lot of bullshit happened and this turned out badly. Then the whole 1815 backpedaling is another thing.

>>322370
>In the 18th-19th century, by western Europeans on other western European? Completely unfeasible.

I know, I stated that in detail in my previous post. I just said that if the British were able to do it, they would've.

>>322377

Obviously. But if the french canadians wanted to turn into innawoods semi native machette gang rapists they would have gone full Boers and even worse.
And this would have reflected badly on the international scene for everyone involved.

The idea is that initially no one expected things would go too bad, and if you look at Louisiana after the American purchase there's good reason to believe this could have gone much better.
But then the loyalists came in and this is when things went sour.

When the UK first got control of French Canada, there was a lot of prejudice towards them Francophones, and a lot of indirect voting suppression. Also for a long time in the 20th century they treated they natives like shit, and obviously chinese workers, but what country didn't?

The nice gut of the world is probably only really a thing of the past 30-40 years?

>>322408
>machette gang rapists
What is with you and criticizing my hobby?

>>322419

I'm not judging but it can really go in fashion in a few contexts.

>>322341

>French vs. English

Since the American Revolution the French and English in Canada had to cooperate in order to defend themselves from the US. This was most evident in the War of 1812. From the beginning toleration was pretty well entrenched, with Anglophones having equal rights in Quebec and Francophones in the other English-majority provinces (e.g. to their own school systems).

Since Ontario and Quebec first joined, which later grew into the modern Canadian confederation, a political party hoping to form government federally needs to be credible in English and French Canada, otherwise the numbers don't add. Since by tradition coalition government just don't happen in Canada, this means political parties themselves have to be pan-Canadian to have a shot at power (you don't have governing coalitions of regional/linguistic bloc parties as in e.g. Belgium).

Before the rise of Quebec nationalism in the 1960s there were three notable events that pitted English vs. French Canada: 1. the above-mentioned Metis rebellions (although that was fundamentally Protestant vs. Catholic), 2. the Manitoba School Crisis which was an outgrowth of those rebellions (obnoxiously Anglo-Protestant government in Manitoba taking away French-Catholic schooling rights), and 3. the issue of conscription in the World Wars (English Canada being largely for, French being large against, although in the end it really didn't matter)...

>>322432
>English Canada being largely for, French being large against, although in the end it really didn't matter

It did because it reminded everyone who was the boss. And this is the main event that gave rise to nationalism in the first place.

>From the beginning toleration was pretty well entrenched, with Anglophones having equal rights in Quebec and Francophones in the other English-majority provinces

That was not really the case in politics especially early on but the issue was more Catholicism vs Protestantism. In this case this meant French vs English by default and dragged language along with it.

>>322432
...up through the 1950s French Quebec was EXTREMELY religious and parochial. Their population exploded (highest sustained birth rate ever recorded anywhere in human history), but their priests wanted to keep them close to home so not many moved to settle in the opening-up West, which is why Western Canada is overwhelmingly English (instead, marginal bits of Northern Quebec and Ontario were settled, and farms were subdivided). Francophones also weren't very present in the Quebec/Canadian business elite.

From the 1960s you get a huge upswing in secular nationalism. Churches empty out overnight, and a narrative of oppression (at the hands of an Anglo business elite) develops. 'Separatist' governments were formed off and on in Quebec, although they didn't necessarily want outright independence. A few referendums on unclear questions (not necessarily independence, but a mandate to renegotiate the constitution and separate if that didn't work) were held and lost.

This movement was given a bit shot in the arm when Canada adopted a new constitution in 1982. All the provinces except Quebec (which then had a separatist government) signed it and it was enacted. Through the 1980s several attempted were made at some minor changes in order to get Quebec's signature, but all ultimately failed by a hair. Nothing material was at stake, except verbiage about whether Quebec was just another one of equal provinces, or whether some special status was due to it (e.g. whether it would have an effective veto over further constitutional change). Many Quebecois took the failure to recognize Quebec as 'distinct' as a slight, and the 1995 referendum was as close as the separatists came to victory.

Since then all the heat has come out of the issue, and separatism seems like a movement that will die with the baby boomers.

>>322500
>Many Quebecois took the failure to recognize Quebec as 'distinct' as a slight, and the 1995 referendum
They gave them "distinct nation" status not long ago. What the fuck do they want? Actual nation status, so America can dominate them individually from the way they already dominate the rest of Canada? Because they will have much less patience with this "we're special snow flakes! " crap than Quebec is used to.

>>321992
underrated post

>>322432
>3. the issue of conscription in the World Wars (English Canada being largely for, French being large against, although in the end it really didn't matter)...

I remember hearing about that in the documentary Apocalypse: World War I. A lot of them were asked to do it to help their fellow Frenchmen in Europe.

No one is mentioning the October Crisis?

Crazy French terrorists kidnapped some politicians and began running amok around Quebec.

Trudeau had to violate our constitution to deploy military on Canadian soil to clean up the mess

>>322542
The Canadian Parliament has declared 'Quebecois' (not the use of the French term in English) as a nation, which is of course an objective fact.

The issues at stake are whether 1. Quebec as a geographical expression is the possession of the 'Quebecois' (however one wants to define that), and 2. whether Quebec has rights over and above the other provinces.

The first issue is really something for people in Quebec to hash out. The rest of the country really doesn't care except a little as it infringes on the rights of Anglos in Quebec.

The second is really a total non-starter for the rest of the country (something Quebeckers somehow fail to understand): they simply will no accept their provinces (which many identify with as fiercely as do Quebec nationalists) as second-class. It's not that the rest of the country doesn't think Quebec is 'distinct', but that they don't accept that their own provinces are indistinct by implication.

>>322557
oh yeah, forgot to add. The War Measures Act took away all citizens rights for a little bit as the police and military were given absolute freedom to arrest, detain, or attack anyone they pleased

>>322500
>and a narrative of oppression

While no oppression took place it's the general apathy and policy bias that is to blame. The social ladder we take for granted today was not something established back then and not being part of the Anglo Protestant clique made it very difficult to get started. You would have to be a die hard nationalist to persevere in french.
Policies regulated trade and immigration. A national Quebec government would certainly have handled it differently than a Canadian wide government.

There is also the matter of Laws. The french will favor the Napoleonic civil code over the common law but they have been (and still are) cockblocked in that regard since the beginning.

That's not mentioning the outright undemocratic and shady stuff that happened in more primitive times that set the momentum for the century to come.

To put it simply, every country is built around a culture, this is what the united nations intuitively refer to as self determination. To deny that it would have been ultimately more pertinent for the French people in Canada to have their own French country is foolish.

>>322555
If I remember correctly, the heart of the issue was whether conscripts would be sent overseas (nobody serious had issue with conscripts being tasked to national defence). I don't think conscripts were forced to fight overseas in either world war (?).

>>322561
*note the use

In English 'Quebecois' is usually understood as an ethnicity, while 'Quebecker' is used more broadly to mean people living in Quebec.

>>322557
Really a footnote. Just a few dipshit radicals, no more representative of the population at large than the Weather Underground.

>>322569
>To put it simply, every country is built around a culture, this is what the united nations intuitively refer to as self determination. To deny that it would have been ultimately more pertinent for the French people in Canada to have their own French country is foolish.
Throughout history, countless smaller cultures have been absorbed or incorporated into greater cultures. Nobody talks about how the Orphics should have been given their own country. The only mistake Canada made is trying to appease the Quebecois after conquering them, instead of absorbing them completely. If they get what they want and an actual war happens, that exact outcome will happen.

>>322096
Social Credit was pretty interesting, and it would be cool if they made a comeback. It sucks having only 3 neoliberal parties to vote for.

How about that time the Canadian government actually lied about ballot results to get Newfoundland to join the Confederation? People are still angry about that one.

Or the whole province-rights versus federal (read: Eastern Canadian) rights.
The West still doesn't feel like it's equally represented to the East.

You just gotta look for the juicy bits.

>>322598
Arguably the whole world has been actively implementing Social Credit economic theory since at least the 2008 crash, printing money like crazy to keep the economy moving along with no signs of rising inflation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory seems like a modern re-stating of social credit economic theory to me.

They burned down the White House in the War of 1812. Literally worse than 9/11.

>>322628
Not an expert, but if any rigging was done it was by Britain to get Newfoundland off its back once and for all. Remember that an 'independent' Newfoundland had previously reverted to colony status when it fucked up; Britain couldn't afford to bail it out anymore, while Canada could.

>>322590
>The only mistake Canada made is trying to appease the Quebecois after conquering them, instead of absorbing them completely.

Quebecois were in small numbers but the vast majority of them had military/trapping/lumberjack backgrounds as well as strong ties with the natives.

Initially their guerrilla kept the British in check for decades, it was continental decisions that led them to pick battles out in the open (which was a thinly veiled attempt by the crown to get rid of a costly colony).

Alienating them would just result in violent escalation and basically a crisis on a bigger scale than the Boer wars, in a time where London had its hands tied. With the United States invading afterward they would most likely have stroke a bargain with the French and this would have been the end of British Canada.

That said culture absorption is not an actual direct thing outside of pure genocide or forced education/conversion (as Prussia in their Slavic territories). In addition to internal conflict this could even trigger an international outcry. The other option is indirect osmosis and essentially what happened, and failed.

File: lemme show you how to turn it up a notch.jpg (138KB, 847x871px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 847x871px

>>322011
>I remember a high school assignment that involved looking at a document "translated from German" that involved a detailed look at the procedure for detaining Jewish German citizens and repossession their property, and in the last five minutes of class it was revealed that it was actually a document by the Canadian government for detaining Japanese-Canadian citizens and repossession their property, and the only change was the translation and switching the nationalities around.

That's actually a pretty good trick if a little cynical about how people don't care about non-pop culture human tragedies.

File: intro-map.png (47KB, 357x352px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 357x352px

Ironically, by appeasing the inhabitants of newly-conquered New France (allowing them their traditional laws and religion, and expanding Quebec's borders enormously) the British pissed of the English settlers and ultimately lost the 13 colonies.

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act (one of the 'intolerable acts' cites in the Declaration of Independence)

>>322703
>the British pissed of the English settlers and ultimately lost the 13 colonies.

Only in retrospective. That is, when the loyalists came in and bitched about it. Before that no one in New England would give two shit about how some conquered people hundreds of kilometers away is treated.

>>321966
Now Canada is 90% Chinese right?

>>322734
About 4% as of the last survey, yeah.