[BeaverFever]

So federal troops can march in, take what they want and declare it national property? Maybe we should send the army to PEI and relocate Ann of Green Gables' house to Ottawa.

[Praxius]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

The permanent European presence in Canada does indeed begin with New France - he is correct

Well I'm going before Canada even existed, where the first European settlers lived, where the first french settlers lived (which is now Canadian territory) and regardless that the maritimes joined Canada after Quebec, our own history is just as much a part of Canadian history (before joining and after) as any others and the history prior to us joining Canada is just as important.

If we want to tip toe around "Firsts" then Quebec's argument doesn't even compare, considering the coat of arms was taken before Canada was even Canada.

Their argument is not justified and their technicality is trivial.

Added:

To explain a bit better, my position is based on the first settlers in North America in land which is now Canada.

First in "Canada" or first in the lands that is now called "Canada" I guess it depends on one's perspective. But last I checked, the Acadians are also a part of Canada, just as much as those in Quebec, thus their history should have equal value in Canadian history.

But to each their own I guess... I still think it should remain where it is.

If Quebecers really want it.... they can come and get it.

[bootlegga]

maldonsfecht maldonsfecht:

I was in Amsterdam where they have the masthead and coat of arms from a captured Royal British Navy ship in their museum... as much as I lamented it being there (from a battle hundreds of years ago) I knew enough history to understand why it was and the circumstances surrounding it... does this mean that the Dutchmen I was surrounded by were laughing at me and spitting at the three lions? no... it's part of HISTORY. It happened, that's that. Learn a little something and get on with your life

Look at the British Museum in London, it's full of stuff they stole while they were the big dog. The Military Museum in Beijing has a regimental flag captured from the Americans in Korea too. Frankly, this is quite common and a non-issue.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Quite frankly, it's just another pathetic reason for certain factions within Quebec to whine about how hard done by they are being part of Canada

[BeaverFever]

Yeah but flags and warships are different than artifacts. I think the Brits should return all the egyptian loot they plundered, they had no business taking it in the first place.

not super passionate on this one, but I guess I see their point.

[PENATRATOR]

Well if everybody wants to whine, I still have a Star Wars Action figure I took from my brother from back when I kicked the shit out of him around 1981, I guess I'd better dig it up and rush it back to him before he makes an international fucking incident out of it.


** oh, and before anybody says it's not the same, have you seen what the geeks are paying for a mint original Bobba Phett these days?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Well if everybody wants to whine, I still have a Star Wars Action figure I took from my brother from back when I kicked the shit out of him around 1981, I guess I'd better dig it up and rush it back to him before he makes an international fucking incident out of it.

Yep, I guess I better rush to Germany to return the assorted war memorabilia my grandfather left to me.

[Bodah]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

It's a CANADIAN artifact and Quebec IS still part of Canada. Last time I checked it still was anyway.

Exactly. And that's what irks them so much to be reminded of that fact.

Impératif Français are anything but english/Canada friendly, these bigots can drop dead.

[Mustang1]

Praxius Praxius:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

The permanent European presence in Canada does indeed begin with New France - he is correct

Well I'm going before Canada even existed, where the first European settlers lived, where the first french settlers lived (which is now Canadian territory) and regardless that the maritimes joined Canada after Quebec, our own history is just as much a part of Canadian history (before joining and after) as any others and the history prior to us joining Canada is just as important.

If we want to tip toe around "Firsts" then Quebec's argument doesn't even compare, considering the coat of arms was taken before Canada was even Canada.

Their argument is not justified and their technicality is trivial.

Added:

To explain a bit better, my position is based on the first settlers in North America in land which is now Canada.

First in "Canada" or first in the lands that is now called "Canada" I guess it depends on one's perspective. But last I checked, the Acadians are also a part of Canada, just as much as those in Quebec, thus their history should have equal value in Canadian history.

But to each their own I guess... I still think it should remain where it is.

If Quebecers really want it.... they can come and get it.

He's still correct - New France initially geographically encompassed Acadia (historically) and that included areas like Ill-Ste-Croix and Port-Royal and the Maritimes and Maine. I'm not interested in later history like the Treaties of Breda, Utrect or The Grand Dérangement as that wasn't his point. Permanent settlement in Canada DID begin with New France.

This isn't a debatable point - its objective fact.

I disagree with his contemporary agenda, but his statement is historically sound

[DerbyX]

Be interesting to see of they have a legal claim under international law. As already posted, historical artifacts are usually found to belong to their original point of origin. Certainly naval treasures found by treasure hunters are challenged in court such as the recent finds of Spanish gold (I wonder if ultimately South America has the best claim).

Naval law is a bit different though. Make for an interesting law case.

[Praxius]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

He's still correct - New France initially geographically encompassed Acadia (historically) and that included areas like Ill-Ste-Croix and Port-Royal and the Maritimes and Maine.

Any yet, as I claimed before, those areas were colonized long before Quebec ever was (Territorial speaking and people speaking.)

Why it should go to Montreal over anywhere else in this guy's view is beyond me.

$1:

I'm not interested in later history like the Treaties of Breda, Utrect or The Grand Dérangement as that wasn't his point. Permanent settlement in Canada DID begin with New France.

This isn't a debatable point - its objective fact.

I disagree with his contemporary agenda, but his statement is historically sound

If settlement in "Canada" began with "New France" then everything I know of Canadian provinces would state that "New France" ceased to exist by the time Canada came about (Upper/Lower).... so "Permanent Settlement in Canada" didn't begin with New France. Those people already were settled in those lands under New France, they just got a new name and new rule.... it's a trivial argument for obtaining this thing.... because if one wanted to argue it further back and if one wanted to base this on who was here first, Quebec still loses.

Maybe the "Artist Formally Known as New France" which is now Quebec, but if his whole argument of possession is based around "Firsts" then his Quebec argument holds no grounds.... because if we're going to base this all around "French" history in the Americas... the Acadians still hold that record above Quebec.

And my previous arguments wern't in regards to later history, but that later history validates the previous history I speak of that existed prior to Quebec ever having a french person's foot on the ground in that area.

The first perm. settlement in Canada, pales in comparison to the historical origins of French in North America, which is in territory that is currently Canada. The French history in NA doesn't begin with Quebec.

And even if it did, the artifact was captured during British Rule, not Canadian, and thus Canadian history as an argument is still not valid.

All I was trying to say is that his argument is a poor one for a number of reasons that could be easily challenged if one wanted to take this to the canadian courts. The other thing I was trying to say is that if by some remote chance anybody would be getting this given away, the Acadians in Nova Scotia would hold just as much right, if not more, then Quebec for having it in their possession, if they were so inclined to fight for it.

Not that I really care either way.... melt the thing for scrap for all I care.

[EyeBrock]

The scene, a dark dingy Habitant trailer in deepest Quebec.

Henri talks with his Bloc chums.

"What about the British and Canadians? What have they ever done for us?"

From his crew..."Sanitation......health care, law and order.....freedom of religion...loads of free cash..."

Henri, "Yes, yes, but what have the British or Canadians really ever done for us?"

Crew, "Language rights, Provincial immigration policy, cheap Hydro from the newfies..."

[Mustang1]

Praxius Praxius:

Any yet, as I claimed before, those areas were colonized long before Quebec ever was (Territorial speaking and people speaking.)

Who colonized them?

$1:

If settlement in "Canada" began with "New France" then everything I know of Canadian provinces would state that "New France" ceased to exist by the time Canada came about (Upper/Lower)

That's not entirely historically accurate.

New France ceased to exist by 1763 - after that, Canada was British. Upper/Lower Canada don't become political entites till the Constition Act of 1791.

$1:

.... so "Permanent Settlement in Canada" didn't begin with New France.

Yes, it did. Your previous erronous statement doesn't alter anything.

$1:

Those people already were settled in those lands under New France, they just got a new name and new rule....

You mean the French? No, they set up the political entity, established lasting legal, cultural and religious foundations and they were the first to establish permament settlement in Canada. You've provided nothing to alter that history.

$1:

it's a trivial argument for obtaining this thing.... because if one wanted to argue it further back and if one wanted to base this on who was here first, Quebec still loses.

It's not trivial, it's history.

$1:

Maybe the "Artist Formally Known as New France" which is now Quebec, but if his whole argument of possession is based around "Firsts" then his Quebec argument holds no grounds.... because if we're going to base this all around "French" history in the Americas... the Acadians still hold that record above Quebec.

<Sigh> Acadia was encompassed by New France. Acadians were the colonists that dispersed throughout the region after the final attempts at Port Royal permanent settlement failed. And by the last attempt at permanent settlement failed, the city of Quebec was already established (by 1608). Maybe you could explain what permanent colonies existed in "Acadia" that weren't French as of early 1600s (and that had significant impact on the development of Canada).

$1:

The first perm. settlement in Canada, pales in comparison to the historical origins of French in North America, which is in territory that is currently Canada. The French history in NA doesn't begin with Quebec.

It begins with Cartier's royal commissioned (by Francis I) expedition in 1534 and politically, begins in earnest after the arrival of Pierre du Gua de Monts and Samuel de Champlain in 1604. New France, the political entity, was established by settlements at Port Royal (Ile Ste. Croix having been orginal a year before) and then Quebec City (Port Royal also abandoned by 1607) in 1608. And Acadia was initially part of New France ( - even primary sources indicate its mention by royal charter in 1604.

If you really wanted to get historical, technically, Pierre de Chauvin de Tonnetuit, had a settlement in Tadoussac, Quebec as of 1600.

$1:

And even if it did, the artifact was captured during British Rule, not Canadian, and thus Canadian history as an argument is still not valid.

In "Canadian" history, inhabitants of both "New France" and "British North America" (Quebec, then Upper and Lower Canada) are seen as "Canadian". This is "Canadian" history, hence its inclusion in the Canadian War Museum

$1:

All I was trying to say is that his argument is a poor one for a number of reasons that could be easily challenged if one wanted to take this to the canadian courts. The other thing I was trying to say is that if by some remote chance anybody would be getting this given away, the Acadians in Nova Scotia would hold just as much right, if not more, then Quebec for having it in their possession, if they were so inclined to fight for it.

I don't agree with his agenda (although i've yet to see his history proven incorrect). But why would Acadians have "just as much right, if not more" to a French Royal Coat of Arms than any other Canadians? In 1759, Acadia, simply wasn't a part of New France - Quebec City was the symbolic centre for many Canadiens. Besides, didn't the Treaty of Utrech (1713), cut Acadia lose (to the British) long before the Plains of Abraham anyway? That tends to diminish your supposition's historicity.

$1:

Not that I really care either way.... melt the thing for scrap for all I care.

Evidently others feel differently

[kenmore]

The fact of the matter is......... it belongs to Canada and the last time I looked the capital was Ottawa.. Quebec is a province in Canada, not an independent Country.. as a Quebecer, it would mean as much to me if it were in Regina,Vancouver,Toronto etc. We all share the same history and I say let them whine! they are probably the separatists group anyway.

[Mustang1]

kenmore kenmore:

The fact of the matter is......... it belongs to Canada and the last time I looked the capital was Ottawa.. Quebec is a province in Canada, not an independent Country.. as a Quebecer, it would mean as much to me if it were in Regina,Vancouver,Toronto etc. We all share the same history and I say let them whine! they are probably the separatists group anyway.

As i said before, i see his history, but i reject his agenda. It's a part of Canadian history and should be experienced by all Canadians.