I noticed how you conveniently omitted the fact that you thought Giovanni Caboto was French. He wasn’t – he was an Italian-born explorer that sailed under the English flag was French. You were wrong! You are so blatantly ignorant and anti-English that you thought anyone that set foot in the New World was French! WRONG! This is simply symptomatic of a greater malady – wilful ignorance. You don’t have the foggiest notion about Canadian history and I’ll illustrate it every time. Cabot was French? Brilliant.
LeCanadien LeCanadien:
He he he! Frustrated loser...
And this coming from the halfwit neophyte that thinks Cabot was French? Hey…loser are you enjoying your recent ban? Perhaps while you are off sulking you could pick up a history book and get a clue? It saves us the hassle of correcting your garbage
$1:
“They also called it New-France, yes. You saying "also" is like admiting the fact. It was already called "Canada" before 1867.”
Yeah…it was called New France. Before 1867, it was a British colony that consisted of Canada West, East, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. There were colonies, dumbass. These colonies became the nation-state of Canada after 1867. Semantics won’t save your crumbling argument.
$1:
“Oh here we go again. Did Victoria the whore invent the name "Canada"?
Or did she take it (steal) from someone else? And would that someone else be Jacques Cartier, a frenchman?”
Queen Victoria, my uneducated chum, signed the Dominion of Canada’s constitution into law on March 29, 1867. Before that, this was a collection of British colonies. She didn’t “steal” anything, as the name already existed as Cartier “stole” it from the aboriginals.
$1:
“Keep playing your childish word games, it has been proven to you with four old maps. Canada existed before 1759, and therefore before 1867.”
I’ve been proven wrong? This is coming from the scholar that thinks Caboto was French. Please. New France existed before 1867. So did Canada West. So did Nova Scotia. So did Newfoundland. Your pitiful attempt at Gallic propaganda won’t alter the notion that while the etymological origins likely were found with French exploration, (although, it is clearly an aboriginal term), the name “Canada” did not achieve true prominence until Confederation delegates adopted it as the name of a new nation. One that was, unlike New France, a successful venture.
$1:
“Yes, and before that? You don't want to know about before that because it wasn't british?”
I’ve already correctly addressed what existed “here” (a term that is somewhat geographically misleading). The fact that your untrained intellect can’t recognize that is largely immaterial.
$1:
“And you want me to deal with your illusionist vision of history where the world started spining the day the english won a war?”
Never once said that. Nor did I suggest Cabot was French, either.
$1:
“Canada was not a british colony, it was called this way between 1759 and 1867 to hide the presence of the habitants.”
Canada was a British Colony. Denial or historical misrepresentation won’t modify that objective fact. It was a collection of British Colonies and perhaps in your infinite wisdom you could explain how the Quebec Act tried to “hide the presense of the habitants”? Uh-oh…you got caught in another historical misstep. Sensing a trend?
$1:
“Canada was a british province (conquered territory), not a british colony.”
Correction. British North American was a British colony. New France was conquered territory.
$1:
“The habitants were here for more than a century before the british military invasion.”
Point? They were here after the British victory too.
$1:
“Of course, the british never steal. They simply defeat inferior foes and take their stuff while they are knocked out. Right...
That's one way (a biased one) of looking at things.”
And the French never steal either? Nice try – they are as culpable as their contemporary imperial counterparts in this regard. The British did defeat an inferior foe – one who was planning on invading the home isle in 1759. The seven years war was a legitimate conflict that saw the French’s colonial overextension exploited. They lost. The British were victorious. You can put whatever Gallic spin you want on things – we’ve all seen your blatant bastardization of history before – but it doesn’t change the fact that France lost.
$1:
“You must be quoting "The british imperialist view on world history", you brain-washed m...n.”
Nope. My history books are historiographically sound (they are multi-discipline approaches that are culturally balanced). Just because you are oblivious to Cartier and Jean Francois de la Roque’s failed settlement attempts (this was before Champlain), doesn’t mean they didn’t happen (care to challenge it? That should be entertaining). It only draws attention to your limited historical knowledge. Besides, unlike whatever Separatist, Anti-Canadian, preschool pamphlets you labour over, my book also don’t claim Cabot was French.
$1:
“Good night, and good luck in getting a brain, if you can find one that is square enough to fit in that head of yours...”
Enjoy your ban. Read a history book. Get your nurse to increase the dosage. Adjust your tinfoil hat. Practise rationalizing your ignorance. You just got schooled.
CKA Uber 
Haven't seen you around the forum in quite some time, vacation?
