If it was 1914...

[purple]

Nicely said Smellie, BUT, being an historian myself and a teacher, I must say that its very obvious in this country that history is not analysed the same way if you are an anglo-canadian of a french-canadian. I'm refering to you statment about the fact that french canadians were better under english rule/occupation than under the french régime... This is a popular point of view within the anglophone community of historians, but it is simply not true and its probably the result of a colonialist and paternalist influence. The fact is that french canadians were undermined from the beginning (I,m sure your know about Lord Durham report...) by the British autorities, despite the Act of Quebec in 1774... Dont forget the Rebellion of 1837-38! Happy peoples dont take arms against their governement... So no, french canadians were NOT better off under british rules... Everything wast nice with France, but its the lot of every colony to have issues with the motherland. This has been discussed for years and years by many historians, Frégault, SÉguin and Breton among others. I'm not saying that you are wrong on porpose, but simplly that history isnt teached nor interpreted the same way in french Canada than it is in anglo-Canada. BUT... This being said, I agree with most of your post nevertheless and I really appreciate your threads wich i read everytime. By the way, beside being an historian, I had the honor to serve my country in the Royal 22e Régiment for a while and I'v been accross Canada doing it, that teached me more about Canada and its peoples than any political speach

You are dead right about one's frame of reference. Things do look different through a different historical prism. My wife and I are both westerners by birth and by choice, but we took the time to visit Montreal and Quebec City last year during the course of a month long tour through eastern Canada. Quebec is indeed the belly button of early Canadian history, but most westerners have a totally different historical experience which has squat to do with the ancient struggles of Quebec and Ontario and the story of French vs the English in Canada. My Canadian history starts in Saskatchewan in 1908 when one set of grandparents emigrated from England followed by the other set who came from the US just after WW1. My wife`s history on one side starts with United Empire Loyalists who came to Ontario post 1776, the Cariboo gold rush in the 1860s, and an emigrant grandfather from Wales in 1910. We did have a French community 7 miles down the track in Saskatchewan, but these people came from Brittany and didn`t (and still don`t) give a rat`s patoot about what happens in Quebec. This history was one of hard work and struggle to make a go of it in a pretty harsh and unforgiving land with little time to spend on ruminations about the whys and wherefores of what happened in Quebec 300-400 years ago.

There is no doubt but that the Quebec Act of 1774 was a brilliant gesture which pacified the French and eliminated any degree of sympathy for the American Revolution and effectively pulled the teeth on a potential insurgency in Quebec during a very fragile time in history. Benjamin Franklin visited Quebec in 1776 to explore the depth of French dissatisfaction with the Brits and went home to report that the Quebecois were quite docile and content with the status quo, and that there was no fertile ground for a sympathetic revolution there. Maybe those of us who think about counter-insurgency warfare today would profit from a closer study of the Quebec Act.

I sometimes wonder what Quebec would be like today had the Brits simply pulled pole and went home after 1763. I think French would most likely be a curiosity, like it is in Louisiana, and that the inhabitants of Quebec would be electing delegates to Washington instead of Ottawa.

 

[smellie]

@ Heimrick:

So, should the nasty Brits have left the Canadiens EVERYTHING they had before the Plains of Abraham? Remember, the Coutume de Paris had about four times as many death-penalty offences in it as had the British law of the time; the change was made in order to be MERCIFUL. They were left their language and guaranteed the right to use it in their own government. They were treated as human beings, ceratinly NOT the way France treatd every place they ever sent troops into. They were left their Church, which was, at that time, MOST unpopular in England. They were allowed to elect their own Assembly, not simply obey the ORDERS of the Bishop and the Intendant. The MONEY was good, it held its value and the value of the money was the SAME in Canada as in England. That ALONE was a vast improvement over the Ancien Regime, which flooded New France with overvalued obsolete coins which were no longer good in France.

In the War of 1812, French- and English-Candians alike defended THEIR country.

There were TWO Rebellions in 1837, you know: one in what is now Quebec, one in what is now Ontario. BOTH were caused by flagrant abuses of power on the part of the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. They were not rebellions against The Filthy British: they were rebellions against OUR VERY OWN SIMON-PURE ELECTED GOVERNMENTS.

The problems which caused both rebellions were sorted out by Lord Durham in his Report.

People were getting along quite well after that...... until the introduction of Ultramontanism from Europe.

THAT was the seed of discontent...... and it has been watered and fed daily by corrupt, self-interested politicians. Damn them all!

Let's try to be NEIGHBOURS..... for a change.

 

[TonyE]

Not the Canadians. The First Division which sailed to England in 1914 and then to France in 1915 was all militia. The tiny Canadian Permanent Force (Regulars) had been dispatched to Bermuda for garrison duty by the eccentric M&D minister Sam Hughes. The result was that there almost no trained instructors for the CEF.

True. I should have made myself clearer. I meant the British troops in France were all regulars, as the Canadians had not yet arrived.

Regards
TonyE

 

[Heimrick]

To PURPLE and SMELLIE, some food for thoughts

To Purple : Very refreshing and objective point of vue. I cannot agree more. I beleive Canadians form every part of the country should travel accross from coast to coast more, that would resolve some missunderstanding problems and missconceptions we have.

To Smelllie : I need to make some majors adjustments to what you are implying. Again, not to prove you wrong, but to proove you that there are other points of vue about this part of our history and that the french canadian point of vue might be considered as good as yours, simply because we're talking about us here. Probably the truth is somewhere in between...

first when you make this statement :

the change was made in order to be MERCIFUL. They were left their language and guaranteed the right to use it in their own government. They were treated as human beings, ceratinly NOT the way France treatd every place they ever sent troops into. They were left their Church, which was, at that time, MOST unpopular in England. They were allowed to elect their own Assembly, not simply obey the ORDERS of the Bishop and the Intendant. The MONEY was good, it held its value and the value of the money was the SAME in Canada as in England.

I must add that most of the changes that you're talking about were made after the Act of Quebec NOT in order to be mercifull but rather to eliminate sympathies for the American Revolution among the french population... They, the Brits, werent all bad of course and the first gouvernors were pretty decent of course. But it was still a foreign occupation and somehow you fail to understand that. Brits were NO ''liberators'' comming to New France to free us from the bad mother patrie... You might wish it was like that but sorry it wasnt. The peoples of New France massively joined the local militias (the militias of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres) and put up a very good fight all the way trough the wars... You can look out the statistics of the 7 Years war and you'll see that it was a hell of a fight considering the odds were 10 to 1 against us... Now there's tons and tons of sources backing up this reality and honestly it was just a conquest... With the usual hardship and the changes that comes along. Of course we couldnt keep all the privileges we had after the defeat, and the Brits were decent winners, but lets not forget the deportations of the Acadians, and many others abuses. I dont beleive the Brits were kinder than the frenchs when it comes to colonisation or military victories... Let think about the concentrations camps in South Africa, the creation of indians reserves in Canada (indians were treated as equals in New France by LAW since Louis XIV, that doesnt means that there were no racism, but still its a good exemple of integration). The deportation of Acadians, the paternalist and nearly apartheid ruling in India and so on and so on. I dont beleive that France was any better in its colonies all over the world, but please lets not paint the Brits of the XVIIIth and XIXth century as freedom fighters bringing culture and democracy over the empire, its simply not the reality...

Secondly you stated :

In the War of 1812, French- and English-Candians alike defended THEIR country

The war of 1812 was made by the British Empire, NOT by Canada wich was founded in 1867 you know that. There wasnt any sort of canadian identity in 1812...French canadians took part of it because some of them enlisted in the colonial militias. Beleive it or not, we use to be decent soldiers during the New-France and we proved it a lot... Its not unusual then, perhaps like in Scotland, that several men decided to join the colonial army a while after the fall...

There were TWO Rebellions in 1837, you know: one in what is now Quebec, one in what is now Ontario. BOTH were caused by flagrant abuses of power on the part of the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. They were not rebellions against The Filthy British: they were rebellions against OUR VERY OWN SIMON-PURE ELECTED GOVERNMENTS.

OMG you got it all wrong on this one... The Rebellions were caused by the abuses of the GOVERNOR, wich was NOT part of the elected governement. In 1837 the chamber had not real powers at all because the Governor had a VETO over all the decisions the chamber can make... So no, the rebellions werent made against our LOCAL governement but rather against the Governors and the CROWN that named them... Because yes, the Governors were named by the crown and then he named the executive and legislative concils...Making the assembly pretty much useless if it tried to go agains the good will of the governor wich it tried to do hundreds of times in Lower Canada. I know there were Rebellion in Upper Canada too and I salute that. But you have to admit that it was a pretty minor movment up there... anodectic at best because of the small number of peoples involved. On the other hand, in Lover Canada it was major. Mostly because of the ethnic factor altough some anglophones joined the movement in Lover Canada too! I agree with you that the ethnic factor wasnt absolutly central in the Rebellions, BUT it was directed agains the head of the governement, the Governor, and the crown... At least here in Lower Canada. If you arent convinced,You can read the multiples political speeches, made at the time by the most popular men in Lower Canada, like Chevalier Delorimier, Louis-Joseph Papineau, the Nelson brothers, etc etc etc. They were all made against the crown and its representative in the colony : the Governor...

The problems which caused both rebellions were sorted out by Lord Durham in his Report.

Please, do not start me with Lord Durham... The man recommended the assimilation of the french population of the colony, saying that we were an ''history and cultureless people''... Among many other things.

I really like those discussions we are having. Having a different point of vue about historical events is normal coming from differents nations/origins, and i find it pretty interesting actually. I hope its the same for you. I just wish i'd be as fluid in english than I am in french, so please excuse all the typo, grammatical and style errors that you will find in my posts.

 

[buffdog]

.
Now this discussion could get interesting! Nothing like a good debate to liven things up a bit.




I have to wonder what "slant" will be put on the "French Language Laws" and the disregard and refusal to comply with the "Gun Control Laws" a hundred years from now?
.

 

[Heimrick]

Nicely said Buffdog! It would be nice to see what historians will think of all that later on the road! BTW I'm not really judging today's Canada, wich function pretty well nevertheless, but rather correcting some historical missconceptions.

 

[H4831]

.
Now this discussion could get interesting! Nothing like a good debate to liven things up a bit.




I have to wonder what "slant" will be put on the "French Language Laws" and the disregard and refusal to comply with the "Gun Control Laws" a hundred years from now?
.

What history you read, depends on who the historian is and what the results are.
If the results of the people of Canada having relatively free access to millions of firearms turns out to be disastrous, the people who are here a hundred years from now, will be reading that the Liberals and NDP of the late twenty and early twenty first century were hero's, but just weren't listened to!

 

[purple]

What history you read, depends on who the historian is and what the results are.
If the results of the people of Canada having relatively free access to millions of firearms turns out to be disastrous, the people who are here a hundred years from now, will be reading that the Liberals and NDP of the late twenty and early twenty first century were hero's, but just weren't listened to!

Bruce, for a long time the CBC has been telling us that the Libs and NDP are heroes. Just recently they unveiled a statue to Layton in downtown Toronto. It appeared to be a bicycle built for two....with him steering of course. I wouldn't follow him, dead or alive, even out of curiosity.

 

[smellie]

I understand that an occupation is an occupation, but there are occupations and there are occupations.

The people in Quebec were given almost everything they asked for and were given also a fairer and more lenient justice system and a stable currency, later an elected government and an equal position in the country, along with protections which the other people have never had.

And they are still complaining. Do they EVER intend to become CANADIAN CITIZENS like the rest of us, or is this to go on for another 500 years?

How does that compare with the way ALSACE has been treated since Louie XIV got it? That is how FRANCE occupies a country: after 300 years, still oppression. Or look at the Viet-Nam War: from 1870 to 1954 it was against France..... and for very good reason. Read "The Ugly American" some time.

You still have not mentioned the influences of the Ultramontanist movement.

The 1837 Rebellions were, in Upper Canada, against the "Family Compact", in Lower Canada against the "Chateau Clique". The Governor, all by himself, is not a "clique" or a "family". He had a LOT of local help!

It wasn't all the "sales anglaises" by any means.

What you are spouting is the way history is taught IN QUEBEC. Did you ever think that you might be teaching divisive propaganda..... without even knowing it?

"The most effective propaganda is a selected version of the truth." - Paul Joseph Goebbels.

"I can make anyone believe anything I want him to. All I have to do is tell him loud enough, and long enough." _ also Paul Joseph Goebbels, PhD

 

[Heimrick]

Still to Smellie

I was only correcting few historical errors that you'v made, the point was to show you that there is another point of vue about history in Canada. But you keep bringing the discussion back to today's Canada and today's politic...I told you already, I dont need a patriotic lesson, I served my country in the R22R for several years, I travelled accross it from coast to coast AND I speak both the official languages (not that beign bilingual is necessary to be a good canadian). Now, I never accused you of being blinded nor incompetant sir, and I really think its pretty sad that you accused me of ''spouting'' divise propaganda....WITHOUT knowing it as you said. Wich really is an insult against my objectivity and professionalism as an historian and a teacher... I also beleive that the use of some Joseph Gobbels quotes is out of line and rude. Its a little bit too easy to push away all the french canadian point of vue in canada's history in the name of today's politics... I gave you solid arguments backed by sources and modern work, you replied with political mumbles and a Nazi's quote... Really? I'M not saying you have it all wrong, i was just correcting some missconceptions you carried on. In order to understand a country you should march it, travel it, meet the peoples and open your mind. I did and still do read many historical work in english to enlarge my horizon, and it help. Have you read some french canadian historians works? And by the way, i'm not talking about todays politics like you do, because because we probably vote the same way, hell, I'm probably voting the same way the vast majority of CGN's members are voting already, so there's no point nor debate to have there about today's politics.

Now back to history if you please, you said :

One thing Quebec should try is to remove the reflexive "me" from those licence-plates and start thinking of more than just themselves.

As a fellow historian, you are surprising. On our license plates its written : Je me Souviens wich mean : I remember. Honestly I'm surprised that you are asking us to forget where we come from and what made us who we are, you of all peoples should be all against that, no?

the change was made in order to be MERCIFUL. They were left their language and guaranteed the right to use it in their own government. They were treated as human beings, ceratinly NOT the way France treatd every place they ever sent troops into. They were left their Church, which was, at that time, MOST unpopular in England. They were allowed to elect their own Assembly, not simply obey the ORDERS of the Bishop and the Intendant. The MONEY was good, it held its value and the value of the money was the SAME in Canada as in England.

I know the occupation wasnt all bad, and I know it could have been a lot worse, but please dont make it look like it was a walk in the park... From 1754 to 1837 , There were burned villages, rapes, murders AND of course a massive deportation of a substencial part the civilian population of the New France... I hope you wont deny the deportation of the Acadians nor the trail of blood that mr Colborne let in Lower Canada or will you?

Then before 1774 we werent allowed to take part in the active life of the colony witout rejecting our religion and beleives. Its ONLY after the ACT of Quebec in 1774 that we were given the liberties you are talking about. And its a well know fact that the ACT of Quebec was made ONLY in order to keep us from joining the American Revolution. I hope that you wont deny that either? Some fellow CGNERs have already brought this up before I did by the way. Now I agree with you that we were given a lot and it was pretty wise for the KING to allow us those liberties. But please dont tell us it was out of generosity or because the KING had a big heart! 1774 act of Quebec is so well knowed and analyzed its common and accepted all accross Canada today.

The 1837 Rebellions were, in Upper Canada, against the "Family Compact", in Lower Canada against the "Chateau Clique". The Governor, all by himself, is not a "clique" or a "family". He had a LOT of local help!

The governor was named by the king/Queen and then he named the member of the executive and legislative chambers... Those were the ''clique du chateau'' or the Castle's club as we could say and english. What's important to know here is that NO ONE in the clique du chateau was an elected representative... so when you say :

BOTH were caused by flagrant abuses of power on the part of the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. They were not rebellions against The Filthy British: they were rebellions against OUR VERY OWN SIMON-PURE ELECTED GOVERNMENTS.

Its wrong in the sense that they we ablsolutly not our very own elected governement... There were absolutly NO member of the elected chamber nor francophone in actual power in the governement of lower canada before and during the Rebellion, its a simple fact and its easy to verify. The 92 RÉSOLUTIONS wich were the demands the Patriots had were sent to the CROWN, not to the governor... Among wich was the need to have a RESPONSIBLE governement (so the assembly would be legit and have some actual powers...).

In english I would recommend :
Allan Greer work on the Rebelllions (1995)
Wim Klooster, Revolutions in the Atlantic World: A Comparative History (2009)

gives a quick comprehensive view of the period and the events

On the other hand,
I agree with you concerning the influence of ultramontanism by the late XIXth century and that's why I didnt bring it out earlier. I'm not sure to what extend the influence was and it take a while to analyse, but I agree over the principle no problem there

ALSACE has been treated since Louie XIV got it? That is how FRANCE occupies a country: after 300 years, still oppression.

I beleive the Alsaciens have proved their attachment to France several times, specially during the german occupation of between 1870/1914. And beside some linguistic law (in BOTH ways, since the frenchs imposed french and the Germen also imposed german during given periods of times) I dont see any misstreatment by the Republic nor by the German Empire since the XIXth century. I'm no secialist of this period, but some quick links over the internet failed to prove any serious aleguations on both side

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/kaiserreich/innenpolitik/elsasslothr/
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsland_Elsaß-Lothringen
http://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/u...ace/article/050313/et-lalsace-restera-lalsace
http://www.encyclopedie.bseditions....Alsace+au+temps+des+%AB%A0malgr%E9+nous%A0%BB

I tried to find some links BOTH in german and french...Always good to have more than one set of references!

I know that many Alsaciens were forced to fight in the german army during WW2 and there's several books about this issue. but this exemple of Alsace seems pretty far fetch from our discussion... I just beleive that to say that there is still oppression today in Alsace is kinda ridiculous to say the least, give me some sources to back it up.

to conclude this post, I agree with a part of your first post :

I will simply make one observation: if you carry around a visible chip on your shoulder and point to it on every possible occasion, don't be surprised if, sooner or later, somebody offers to knock it off for you.

I totally agree with you on this principle! BUT I'll add that WE arent the only ones with a chip on our shoulder, and I beleive we all cary some big chips as nations the wisdom here must be to try to be objective and to listen to others point of vue... This beign said I really appreciate our discussions and wish they will continue.

 

[H4831]

Bruce, for a long time the CBC has been telling us that the Libs and NDP are heroes. Just recently they unveiled a statue to Layton in downtown Toronto. It appeared to be a bicycle built for two....with him steering of course. I wouldn't follow him, dead or alive, even out of curiosity.

John, you missed the point I was trying to get across.
I, in no way, was advocating the following of the NDP. I can guarantee you that I have been anti NDP longer than you have!
What I was trying to say, was the people a hundred years or so down the road, may be reading of an entirely different accounting of the history that you and I are seeing taking place right now. It will depend on who the historian is, because historians twist history to suit their opinion of what it should have been.
I am seeing this happen right now regarding the recent history of our own country.

 

[Heimrick]

H4831

Good historians try to be as objective as possible I beleive, but you are right about the fact that history will be seen differently later on the road. That's why its important to rely on facts only and to try to replace yourself in the period you study. That's also why one should rely on multiples sets of references to understand one reality. Objectivity in history is nearly impossible to acheive with perfection and historians are teached that in the very early years of university. So I agree with you and you have a good point. Oh and I agree with you about the NPD!

 

[kennymo]

I had the priviledge of reading two letters my great grandfather wrote to his brother during the war this weekend. The first one was sent from France and mainly consisted of advice to said brother on courting the local school marm back home in Manitoba.
The second was sent from a hospital in England, he had been in a gas attack shortly after Passchendale and became violently ill three to four days later, despite feeling no effect initially. He spoke of the fighting at Paschendale and of being one of only three men in his section still fit for duty the next morning. And something along the lines of 'throwing a trainload of Krupp works steel at a man and calling it war'. There was also talk of the French Canadian situation at home, the news must have reached the front as he told his brother 'I hope you do not end up fighting another war, this time at home'. I guess it shows how passionate things were getting at the time. I'd actually like to post the entire letter in one of the forums here when I can get a copy made. Just thought the rest of you might find it a bit interesting with the subject matter of this thread.

 

[sunray]

"...if global war broke out today..." There'd be no time to raise and train anybody.
"...in Quebec..." Only by the church. Quebecers saw W.W. I as a Brit war and most of 'em wanted nothing to do with it.
In any case, if it was 1914, the War would be a matter of weeks old. Have a read of The Guns of August.

 

[purple]

John, you missed the point I was trying to get across.
I, in no way, was advocating the following of the NDP. I can guarantee you that I have been anti NDP longer than you have!
What I was trying to say, was the people a hundred years or so down the road, may be reading of an entirely different accounting of the history that you and I are seeing taking place right now. It will depend on who the historian is, because historians twist history to suit their opinion of what it should have been.
I am seeing this happen right now regarding the recent history of our own country.

Hey Bruce, I'm slapping down the CBC, not you for sure. Shame on them for their lefty, political correct agenda. Its sad that so many people buy into the dumbed down/candied up superficial view of events that passes for news nowadays. Shame on us.

Objectivity and completeness in history most often needs a passage of time before things can be put into context, complete facts found and a broader analysis done. Just consider the existence of the 30 year rule that masked the ultra secrets for so long.The credentials of the historians are quite important as well. I have a well illustrated history of WW1, published in 1919, and it's stunning how biased and un-informed that it is in many places. The pictures and maps are good though. We sure do see a lot of revisionist history after a period of time with facts twisted to suit the current agendas. One that really gets up my nose is how WW2 is presented in the schools today. Its mostly about us being big, bad racists for seizing the property of Japanese Canadians on the west coast and then sequestering them in faraway concentrations camps.

I always found the study of history to be helpful during my military service as human nature never changes, terrain and weather don't change that much, while technology, levels of training and information, and communications systems always change. The enduring things over time are traits of character (leadership, motivation, and perseverance) and human emotions (pride, fear, greed, empathy and insight and understanding). I maintain a very comprehensive military library, but it does not contain any autobiographies written by generals or admirals. By and large these tend to be very self-serving and obscure or twist facts, events and decisions to bolster the image of the author. I'd much rather read biographies about them, preferably those that are written after the subject has been dead for at least 20 years.

 

[Winchester-1897]

2nd CEF Eastern ON

You beat me to it. My Grandfather was in the East Ontario Regiment 2nd Battalion.

 

[bigedp51]

It's not 1914 but this might mean war, I'm American and my last name is Horton, and my cousin Tim lives in Canada. "BUT" looking at the Tim Horton restaurant locations on the map below I think I see a French plot to encircle Washington and possibly take over both countries.

So I just want to warn all you Canadians no matter if your of French or British decent, it only took one hour and forty-seven minutes for the American Mel Gibson to defeat General Cornwallis and kick the British out of America.

So don't mess with us, my mothers maiden name was McVitty and I'm part Scottish.

 

[Heimrick]

to Purple and Bigedp51

TO Purple :

One that really gets up my nose is how WW2 is presented in the schools today. Its mostly about us being big, bad racists for seizing the property of Japanese Canadians on the west coast and then sequestering them in faraway concentrations camps.

You are so right on with this statement. I try to present all sides of the story in class, specially about WW2. Its not always easy, but by presenting more than one frame of references about an event, it can developp the capacity of analyzing things and the critical mind too. About these moving of populations in camps during WW2 (Japanese and Italians) its very important to explain clearly the reasons why this was done at the time, so the students will at least understand part of the process. We have the same debate about Hiroshima and Nagasaki... Its might seems too harsh today, but we have to get back in the perspective of the period and try to understand why it was done. But I know that a lot of teachers dont do that and just rely only the ''program''... Its a bit sad.

I maintain a very comprehensive military library, but it does not contain any autobiographies written by generals or admirals. By and large these tend to be very self-serving and obscure or twist facts, events and decisions to bolster the image of the author. I'd much rather read biographies about them, preferably those that are written after the subject has been dead for at least 20 years.

I totally agree with you on this!

TO BigEDP51 :

AWESOME post!!! Loved it and still ROFL!

 

[purple]

It's not 1914 but this might mean war, I'm American and my last name is Horton, and my cousin Tim lives in Canada. "BUT" looking at the Tim Horton restaurant locations on the map below I think I see a French plot to encircle Washington and possibly take over both countries.

So I just want to warn all you Canadians no matter if your of French or British decent, it only took one hour and forty-seven minutes for the American Mel Gibson to defeat General Cornwallis and kick the British out of America.

So don't mess with us, my mothers maiden name was McVitty and I'm part Scottish.

That looks like top secret briefing map from the CIA. You are going to be in big ka-ka for stealing it and divulging it's contents to those darned Canadians. Anyway, it shows that the main thrust can be expected from the historic "snowbird" invasion route down from Niagara with a supporting/diversionary effort along the proposed oil pipeline heading south from Alberta. The heavy concentrations in the Maritimes are clearly diversionary or are intended to keep the natives placated while awaiting a counter-attack on Halifax. Or maybe it's just a blow-up of downtown Moncton, NB which has a 4 donut shops at every intersection. BTW, the last Mel Gibson movie I saw showed him as the pussy that he really is wearing pantyhose and an exfoliating cream.

 

[Coyote Ugly]

It's 2013 as we speak.