|
Greg,
Vous avez partiellement raison. Pourtant le scénario ordinaire dans la plupart de l'Amérique du Nord (l'est et l'ouest) était pour les trappeurs français pour vivre dans les communautés indiennes souvent avec les femmes indiennes plutôt que dans les villes. Les Britanniques ne le faisaient pas d'habitude. Le Néerlandais ne l'a jamais fait.
Les Huguenots qui se sont installés dans les treize colonies anglais ont fait la même chose. Ils ont vécu dans les communautés anglaises et écossaises et se sont mariés avec les colons britanniques. Le célèbre héros national américain Paul Revere de Massachusetts ( et un vétéran de la "guerre contre les Français et les Indiens") avait un père huguenot appelé Apollos Rivoire (est mort 1754).
You are partially right. However the usual scenario in most of North America (east and west) was for French trappers to live in Indian communities often with Indian wives rather than in towns and cities. The British usually did not do this. The Dutch never did this.
French Huguenots who settled in the thirteen colonies did the same thing. They lived in English and Scottish communities and intermarried with the British colonists. The famous American national hero Paul Revere of Massachusetts (and a veteran of the French and Indian War) had a French Huguenot father named Apollos Rivoire (died 1754).
|
|
Adam,
Re: "If the 13 opriginal colonies of the US got their independence from France rather than Britain, then the US would today be a poor country rather than a rich one. "
This holds true for America, I think. Although the Huguenots were very industrious and any French colony which had been full of them almost certainly would have emerged from colonialism relatively wealthy. As historian Arnold Toynbee pointed out, the Huguenots did much to enrich both Charleston and Cape Town.
Also, despite some spectacular successes, not all former British colonies are rich . Basket cases abound too like Belize, Burma (Myanmar), Jamaica, Guyana, Nigeria, South Yemen (Aden), Sudan, Zambia and Zimbabwe etc . India is just beginning to become an economic powerhouse.
|
|
"Vancouver, Canada"
How many Vancouvers are there?
|
|
"How many Vancouvers are there?"
There's also a Vancouver in Oregon.
And a West vancouver in New Zealand.
|
|
|
On the subject of New France versus the British colonies of North America, it was a numbers game: the French (for a variety of reasons) were never able to match the numbers of colonists in their territories with those of the British.
|
|
Oops!
Nope. No West Vancouver in NZ.
Mea culpa!
|
|
|
I'd say the reason that the ex-british colonies are so rich right now, as compared to ex-Spanish/French colonies is probably because the British invested more into their colonies. The Spanish pretty much took all the resources back to their mother country, and the French didn't put much effort. It seems the British were the only ones who cared enough to invest. In the end they lost the colonies, but they had a good run.
|
|
<<There's also a Vancouver in Oregon.>>
That Vancouver is actually in Washington, just across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon. But because of its close proximity to Portland, it makes up part of the Portland metropolitan area, with a majority of its residents working in Oregon.
There's also a Mount Vancouver on the Yukon-Alaska border.
|
|
Re: "That Vancouver is actually in Washington, just across the Columbia River ..." - George
Vancouver, Washington is actually the original Vancouver but it was called Ft. Vancouver when it was the regional headquarters of the Hudson's Bay fur trading company in the Pacific Northwest. Fur trading was a big business in the early 1800's partly because of the growing market for fur hats in China which had become popular among the Chinese.
|
|
Re: "I'd say the reason that the ex-british colonies are so rich right now... JR
A word of caution here. Not all former British colonies are rich. Jamaica almost went communist in the 1970's; still has high unemployment and a large national debt. Zimbabwe, once a major food producer, now verges on famine and imports most of its food. Even Newfoundland is not as well off as the rest of Canada and its people are having a harder time making a living off the fishing industry.
|
|
Also, despite some spectacular successes, not all former British colonies are rich . Basket cases abound too like Belize, Burma (Myanmar), Jamaica, Guyana, Nigeria, South Yemen (Aden), Sudan, Zambia and Zimbabwe etc . India is just beginning to become an economic powerhouse.
yes..and all french speaking countries are very poor except belgium (the French part is poorer than Dutch part) and switzerland
even France is the biggest land in europe in term of jobless
The french pasific countries is used by French as laboratorium to test french nuclear..
|
|
|
A French America? You mean a Latino USA.
|
|
Guest Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:38 am GMT
A French America? You mean a Latino USA.
brennus told his imagination about French glory 200 years ago,...
|
|
You are partially right. However the usual scenario in most of North America (east and west) was for French trappers to live in Indian communities often with Indian wives rather than in towns and cities. The British usually did not do this. The Dutch never did this.
PINGA SEMPRE PONGO
yutlcvnrw dinghwme vpsarcf lqktd chexikzv aticjqmp ntyi
|
|
|
Without wishing to appear racist, it has mainly been the former British colonies that were dominated by settlers, such as Canada and Australia that have thrived. The basket cases like Burma and Zimbabwe either had minimal settlement, or the settlers' role was later reduced to a minimum. The reasons for this can be debated, but it is a clear pattern.
|
