Why isn't Canada part of the U.S.A.?

[RickJay]

Dear Straight Dope;

Since you folks know everything there is to know, perhaps you could enlighten me on the subject of Canada. Why isn’t Canada, well, American? Being in Canada now and learning a lot about it, I know Canada was made up of colonies, just like the soon-to-be-USA in 1776. Why didn’t they revolt at the same time? Surely British laws affected New Brunswick the same ways (more or less) as they did Virginia. I could understand why Quebec would go its own way for linguistic reasons, just as Mexico became independent on its own, but why didn’t Nova Scotia or Ontario end up as Maine North and Michigan East, respectively? Why isn’t Saskatchewan called “Really North Dakota”?

I mean, we’re not talking about Germany and Italy here or something. They’re both English-speaking (except for Quebec, as above) they’re both democracies with similar forms of government, they both have similar legal systems. They’re both rich and industrialized. They even have major league baseball here. It doesn’t really seem to serve much purpose except to hassle people at the border and provide more jobs for bad politicians.

[AWB]

IIRC, the Canadians consider that they and England won the War of 1812. So it's a matter of pride that they didn't join the US.

I heard a rumor last time Quebec independence came to a vote that the Maritime Provinces would join the US if Quebec became an independent country rather than be disjoint parts of Canada.

[justwannano]

It may come to a shock to you but maybe they don't want to be.

[madd1]

Canada is a "Wholly-owned subsidiary" of the United States.
It says it on the bottom of the map, along the boarder. You may also find it is in small print on the sign that says "Welcome to Canada".

[sailor]

If you were in Canada surrounded by ice you'd probably rather stay home by the fire too rather than go to some crazy tea party.

[RickJay]

I know Canadians don't WANT to be part of the United States. My question is; what historical, sociological, or economic forces caused Canada to take a different path than the 13 Colonies?

[jayron 32]

1) Population. At the time of the War for Independence, Canada was quite smaller than the Colonies to the south. If I'm not mistaken, the only city of any real size was Quebec, which was French speaking anyways.

2) War of 1812. The U.S. invaded to force Canada to join the U.S. Canada fought back and preserved their territory. Why voluntarily join the nation who tried to take you by force?

3) Canada doesn't have a similar goevrnment to the U.S. They have a British style parliamentary system, which while qualifying it as a democratic republic, does make it quite different than the U.S.

4) One of the causes of the War of 1812 was the fact that there was a huge influx of Loyalists into Canada, especially the Maritimes, after the American Revolution. Remember, even generous historians put the pro-Independence side in the revolution to about 1/3 of the U.S. population. Once we won, lots of people moved to Canada who were against severing ties with Britain.

[lolagranola]

I couldn't possibly say it better than the I AM CANADIAN ad...

http://www.adcritic.com/content/molson-canadian-i-am.html

[tomndebb]

And it isn't all that simple.

Here are a few issues (that are not comprehensive):

The people in Canada in 1776 were the French-speaking settlers who had "lost" the French and Indian war that ended in 1763. There were fewer than 1,000 British immigrants among the 70,000+ Canadians. The French settlers were used to "government from afar" because France had established Canada as a Royal Colony (not sure if that was the term they used) and had continued to govern as a monarchy through the royal governors. In contast, the British settlements to the south, while also administered by a royally imposed governor, had generally been founded by grants from the British king and each had developed a legislative body to conduct government at the local level. The Canadians did not see the various taxes and restrictions as much different than the sorts of things that the French king had been imposing all along.

At the start of the American War for Independence, several people wanted to encourage Canada to join with the thirteen colonies. Benjamin Franklin was part of a delegation sent to try to arrange it.

Unfortunately, there were a couple of problems. The winter before Franklin's journey, Benedict Arnold had led an attacking force into Canada. While his intent was to neutralize the British command of the St. Lawrence River, he effectively "invaded" the land of the French settlers. Since the Americans had no money, they had to rely on requisitioning supplies from the local people. This did not endear him or his cause to the people. Since the majority of the battles in the French and Indian War had been fought between the militias of French settlers and British settlers, the Canadians tended to think of the British/American colonists as "the enemy" while they thought of the British king as simply the latest ruler from the east side of the Atlantic.

In addition, Britain had shrewdly enacted the Quebec Act in 1774. This act vested power in the (Catholic) Church and the local large land-owners, while recognizing the validity of Catholicism and the French language. (The RCC was still undergoing an off-and-on struggle to be legal in Britain and its other colonies and many restrictions were imposed on its adherents.) (That the Quebec Act ultimately blew up in the face of the British and, later, Canadian governments is a different story.)

When Franklin showed up to encourage the Canadians to throw in with the revolting colonists, he could not promise that Catholicism would be accepted in the new country (even in Maryland, the RCC had been restricted after Lord Baltimore converted to the Anglican Communion).

The people had no background of self-determination, few owned land, and the seigneurs who actually owned the land could not be persuaded that it was in their interests to defy the British Government who had only three years earlier granted them more power.

Add in that there was no common language or culture, and the mission of Franklin and his colleagues was doomed from the beginning. The English-speaking provinces of today, were not settled until after the War for Independence--and the first settlers were Loyalists fleeing the new, victorious United States. They certainly had no desire in later years to make common cause with or to join the U.S.

[handy]

Russia is only 20 miles from the USA [take a look at Alaska]. Now Why aren't they part of the US? :-)

[jayron 32]

Wow... excellent answer by Tomndebb. I was answering mostly on speculation (I knew there weren't many British in Canada, but I didn't know that there were THAT few) but his answer was quite well researched. Good job!

[Little Nemo]

Yes, Tom, what jayron said. I've also often wondered about why there weren't sixteen colonies in revolt and you've explained it.

[dtilque]

The English-speaking provinces of today, were not settled until after the War for Independence--and the first settlers were Loyalists fleeing the new, victorious United States.

Not totally true. There were English speaking colonies in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island (at the time called Abegweit) before the American Revolution.

But it is true that Ontario and New Brunswick were settled by Loyalists. But after they got there, they found that they didn't get along with their new colonial governments (in Quebec and Halifax respectively) and convinced the authorities in London to split them off as separate colonies.

[Gunslinger]

Simple--it's not worth invading!
:running for cover:

[KarlGauss]

Hey, what do you expect from a bunch of "loyalists" who, in an atmosphere and time of daring, of new found freedom, and of opportunity, preferred to retain their allegiance to a demented monarch.

The future Canadians seemed to prefer obeisance, just as the current ones do now. Why lead when you can be led?

Canadians seem not to value individual freedom. The American Bill of Rights is an anathema to many Canadians. Indeed, the Canadian "equivalent" is a sham. Any of the so-called "rights" can be abrogated if it is felt to be in "the better interest of the society" to do so (or sentiments to that effect) .

I am not surprised that many Canadians don't wish to join the USA. They couldn't handle it (and they know it).

[manhattan]

Karl, it was a pretty simple question, and well answered. Did you really have to flame an entire country and a large proportion of our membership?

Don't answer that. The answer is, "No, you did not."

[KarlGauss]

Fair enough. But, as a Canadian myself, I thought I might be given a bit more latitude.

Clearly (I hope) it was obvious that I was being dramatic. I wanted to make the point that many of my compatriots couldn't cope with what it takes to be an American.

I am sorry if offended anyone.

Karl

[hansel]

I wanted to make the point that many of my [Canadian] compatriots couldn't cope with what it takes to be an American.


Please, unpack this a bit for me. It sounds like you're suggesting that most Canadians are just shy, wallflower Americans waiting to be asked to the Prom or something. That libertarianism doesn't have the same foothold as in the U.S. doesn't make us all sheep. You could as easily say that Canada is free of the perverse and self-destructive tendency of Americans to value individual liberties above common sense.

While the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has proven to be a ridiculous and easily abused escape hatch, I don't think that the American constitution is particularly bulletproof either. Ask the NRA about the second amendment; ask a liberal about the first. Anyone here know how many different federal agencies have it written into their charter that they have the power to suspend civil rights in times of national emergency?

I don't intend this as an attack on Americans; I'm a Canadian living here for job reasons, and overall I've realized that the cultural and social differences between the U.S. and Canada are minimal compared to the regional differences in North America (who has less in common, Torontonians and New Yorkers, or Alabamians and Seattlites?).

[Coldfire]

So, Karl, what DO you think it takes to be an American? I mean, I coulnd't tell you that, obviously. But it sounds like an awfully weird statement coming from a Canadian.

I'd say, as a neutral outsider, both countries have their merits and drawbacks. But what would prompt you to use such a pro-USA tone in you post?

Just curious, that's all.

And NONE of you have what it takes to be a True Dutchman, of course :D

[Zarathustra]

I've heard a number of Canadians, when becoming well and truly pissed (drunk), flame their own country much worse than any but the most obnoxious American would. In fact, unless they are intentionally ragging on Canadians, I think most Americans are more or less oblivious to the Great White North.

I've sometimes thought that being Canadian in American society is something like being Jewish--especially as an entertainer or other public figure. It's not immediately apparent that William Shatner (for example) is Canadian. Once you find out he is, though, it's like, "huh", interesting but not a big deal for most people.

Zarathustra

[braintree]

Exactly how much freedom does one have to be able to handle in order to download pornography?

Frankly, a country who's most relevant national symbol is Homer Simpson hasn't got a lot to answer for. Just ask the MacKenzie Bros.

Here's to the citizens of Canada: a simple happy people of delightfully loose morals whose very existence is a spit in the eye of American sexual hypocricy. As far as I'm concerned they should be invited to annex New Hampshire as a symbol of our veneration no later than the end of next week. If you don't agree, it's only because you're shallow.

[tomndebb]

There were English speaking colonies in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island

Very true, and while I might get away with pointing out that the combined (British) populations of the three colonies was only about 15,000 (if my memory serves me), scattered along the coast in fishing families and across the back country as farmers, I was certainly remiss in forgetting that Nova Scotia actually sent a delegation to the Philadelphia convention in the summer of 1776. (I have no idea what their participation or decisions were, there. I just remember that they showed up.)

On the other hand, while a large number of New Englanders settled Nova Scotia at the time of the Acadian expulsion, around half of the British settlers had arrived in a block from England around 1750 and were still pretty much "British" in their sympathies. If the New England settlers followed the general trend of only 1/3 in favor of independence, then only 1/6 the population would have been willing to join the colonies to the south.

(Interesting side note: in the 1948 referendum on the status of Newfoundland, serious consideration was given to applying to the U.S. for statehood, but pressure from both the United Kingdom and the rest of Canada kept that option off the ballot. Had it been placed on the ballot, there is no indication that I have seen that it would have carried many votes.)


And NONE of you have what it takes to be a True Dutchman, of course
Well, we of Irish extraction can recall our own wooden shoes, but you're right that we're too diplomatic to be insufferable stubborn blockheads. One point for you.

[samclem]

RickJay From reading your OP, you wonder why parts of Canada didn't go American around the time of the US Revolution. tomndebb gave, in his usual professional manner, a world-class answer.

But then you continue on with a litany of common traits which are relevant to this century: i.e. industrialized and baseball. They have little to do with your original question.

Zarathustra said It's not immediately apparent that William Shatner (for example) is Canadian. Once you find out he is, though, it's like, "huh", interesting but not a big deal for most people Wrong, I have always felt an affinity for my colder bretheren to the North. But this revelation has made me ill. Canadians are now on my *hit list. :D

hansel, on the otherhand, has convinced me to become a Prussian. Where do I sign up for the women with pendulous breasts?

[KarlGauss]

First, let me apologize again. I was in a foul mood and should have known better than to press "submit". Thank you.

Second, I guess a lot of my frustration has to do with things which are typified by government-enforced Canadian content. So, for example, even an "oldies" radio station is forced to devote a substantial amount of air play to Canadian tunes, despite the fact that there are precious few legitimate Canadian "oldies" to be played. This is cultural revisionism.

Along a similar vein, the Federal Government once stepped in to prevent a Canadian entry into the erstwhile World Football League. The rationale was that if there was a Canadian team in an American league, the endogenous Canadian Football League, the CFL, would not be viable. In other words, the CFL would be essentially legislated to survive - competetion be damned and who cares what the fans want.

Likewise, the Government doesn't trust us to freely choose our cable TV channels. No, certain channels will be forbidden to Canadians.

And, TV commercials too. Can't let us see the American ads. Who cares if we 'steal' the signals, we'll simply insert a Canadian sponsor. Who cares if the sponsor didn't put forth a nickle to actually sponsor. Hey, let's substitute local used car ads for the showpiece ones during the Super Bowl.

It is this type of government-led manipulation and control that irks me so much. I can't believe Americans would stand for it.

[Little Nemo]

And NONE of you have what it takes to be a True Dutchman, of course

Most people pass the oral interview and written test but then everyone backs out at the last minute when they're told they have to eat a plate of French fries with mayonnaise.

[hansel]

hansel, on the otherhand, has convinced me to become a Prussian. Where do I sign up for the women with pendulous breasts?


You don't sign up, you silly bunt: you grab your pikestaff, invade some nation of women with pendulous breasts, and spit their babies. If the expected doesn't follow, repeat next door.

Jeez, do I have to teach you guys everything?

[tomndebb]

when they're told they have to eat a plate of French fries with mayonnaise.
Ever since I first tried friten met mayo nigh unto thirty years ago (in Belgium, not the Netherlands) I have refused to sully my fries with ketchup. (Pili-pili would be OK from time to time, but mayo is the way to go.)

[Danielinthewolvesden]

You are both crazy. Being half Canadian, I can tell you that it is MALT vinegar on those "chips",you heathens.:D

[vanilla]

I think it has something to do with Wally.

[Diceman]

I heard a rumor last time Quebec independence came to a vote that the Maritime Provinces would join the US if Quebec became an independent country rather than be disjoint parts of Canada.

I've heard this, too. Growing up in southeast Michigan, we got Channel 9 from Windsor. My impression is that the Maritimes are kind of the awkward step-children to the rest of English-speaking Canada. Any Canadians can correct me if my imressions are wrong, but it seems like they've been pretty much sidelined in the whole Quebec secession issue. Noone seems to care what they want.

[jayron 32]

i know this is becoming a habit, but it's a related hijack:

Along a similar vein, the Federal Government once stepped in to prevent a Canadian entry into the
erstwhile World Football League. The rationale was that if there was a Canadian team in an American
league, the endogenous Canadian Football League, the CFL, would not be viable. In other words, the
CFL would be essentially legislated to survive - competetion be damned and who cares what the fans
want.

The Canadian Football Act, which was a silly piece of legislation to begin with, need not to have existed. The World Football League (1974-1975, NOT the WLAF which is now NFL Europe) will go down in the annals of history as the worst managed, poorest organized professional sports league to have ever existed.

While it could be said that the Canadian Government is somewhat reactionary with regards to "Canadian Culture" (i.e. the Can-Con laws that dictate that two out of every 5 songs be Rush or Bare Naked Ladies), and the above example is no doubt an example of it, it should be remembered that the Candian People are no more well represented by their government than the American people. Canadians are just as varied in their political and social beliefs as their neighbors to the south.

Speaking to the viability of the CFL, it's an 8 team sports league in a country of 25 million people. Football is an expensive sport to run, and it suffers the same problems that forces Canadian hockey teams to move to tropical U.S. climates: not enough money to survive. Hell, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers just held a benefit concert to help keep their team from going bankrupt. The four biggest U.S. metropolitan areas are larger in population than the whole country of Canada, and while it sucks (I happen to LIKE the CFL) there just isn't enough people to keep the league afloat. There have been two attempts in the past three years by American business interests to keep the CFL afloat (one by the NFL and one by Vince McMahon) all of which were flatly (and somewhat justifiably, IMHO) refused in order to keep the game in Canadian hands.

Ok, hijack over...

[lolagranola]

It is this type of government-led manipulation and control that irks me so much. I can't believe Americans would stand for it.
Well, the things that you seem to resent so deeply, like Canadian commercials, etc, are the result of the government trying to step in and keep some cultural identity. Living next to the US can be overwhelming. American TV, magazines, and just general culture pretty much take over the media. I've seen little kids who watch a lot of TV that think that everyone is supposed to be American, and that American=Good.

I personally don't see what's wrong with trying to make sure that we still have Canadian content on our radio and television.

I also believe that Americans fight for individual rights often overtake common sense for things that should be for the good of everyone. I don't personally believe in individual rights when they infinge on the rights of society as a whole.

I wonder... if you really feel this way, why are you still in the country? If you really feel that Canada should lose what little identity it has, why not just move to the States?

[Lord Derfel]

There have been two attempts in the past three years by American business interests to keep the CFL afloat (one by the NFL and one by Vince McMahon) all of which were flatly (and somewhat justifiably, IMHO) refused in order to keep the game in Canadian hands.
I don't think this is quite true. McMahon's bid was refused outright, but I believe the CFL accepted a *mumble* million dollar loan from the NFL. The conditions on the loan required cooperation between the two leagues, including allowing players under contract to the CFL to leave and join an NFL team. A joint NFL-CFL flag football promotion for kids has also been started. There was also talk of having a "World Championship" game played between the NFL Europe champion and the CFL Grey Cup Champion (BC Lions in 2000!).

[yabob]

Fair enough. But, as a Canadian myself, I thought I might be given a bit more latitude.
No way. The 49th parrallel ought to be enough for you.

[ZenBeam]

This thread's already covered a lot of ground (interesting, though), so a little more won't hurt... Can Canadians not within range of U.S. broadcast stations, and without satellite dishes, see the major U.S. broadcast networks? (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX,...)

[raoulortega]

I heard a rumor last time Quebec independence came to a vote that the Maritime Provinces would join the US if Quebec became an independent country rather than be disjoint parts of Canada.

I've heard this, too. Growing up in southeast Michigan, we got Channel 9 from Windsor. My impression is that the Maritimes are kind of the awkward step-children to the rest of English-speaking Canada. Any Canadians can correct me if my imressions are wrong, but it seems like they've been pretty much sidelined in the whole Quebec secession issue. Noone seems to care what they want.


I always wondered if in the event of Quebec independence, the Maritimes might not seek some sort of Commonwealth status, becoming a collection of Puerto Ricos del Norte. That way their subsidies could continue, only from Washington instead of Ottawa.

And like Puerto Rico, each province could send its own team to the Olympics.

[Lord Derfel]

Can Canadians not within range of U.S. broadcast stations, and without satellite dishes, see the major U.S. broadcast networks? (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX,...)
Yes, on cable. This is irritating though, because if a Canadian network and a US network are showing the same show, the same signal is broadcast on both channels (ie: the Canadian network's signal is shown on top of the US signal). This means that we don't get to see the Superbowl commercials if a Canadian network is showing the game (and it always is) - the cable company broadcasts the Canadian advertisements on both stations. And everybody knows the best part about the Superbowl is the ads.

[fierra]

You are both crazy. Being half Canadian, I can tell you that it is MALT vinegar on those "chips",you heathens.:D


Being English & having started all the mess in the first place (ok, my ancestors, probably, I'm not that old - or someone else's ancestors 'cos all mine were poor & stayed put in England!), I can tell you that it is:
vinegar and salt and tomato ketchup...
or curry sauce...
or gravy...
or grated cheese...
but I've never tried mayo, I think tonight's menu needs updating!
Fi.

[jayron 32]

There was also talk of having a
"World Championship" game played between the NFL Europe champion and the CFL Grey Cup
Champion (BC Lions in 2000!).

I hope this was just idle speculation, and not serious talk because, aside from the similarity in uniforms and equipment, the two sports have some real differences to overcome. Now, the basics of each are still the same, but the CFL plays on a larger field, with more players, less downs, and a few more rules (motion towards line of scrimmage) which make the strategies of each sport considerably different. Would the game be played under CFL rules? American rules? SOme hybrid(which is bound to suck)? A two game series played under both sets?

[Modian]

On the fries issue:
Ranch dressing is the only way to go.

On the Canadian issue:
Nothing really, cept "Take off you hoser!" :)

Surprised no ones used that yet, hehe

[John Bredin]

"Anyone here know how many different federal agencies have it written into their charter that they have the power to suspend civil rights in times of national emergency?"

You've been watching too many X-Files episodes. The answer is: none of them.

1) The "charter" of any Federal agency is the statute that creates it, adopted openly by Congress and printed in the Statutes at Large and the U.S. Code for everyone to see. No Federal agency exists except as approved by Congress, NOT the President in some secret order locked away in some safe.

2) The Constitution has no clause about suspending civil rights in time of war or emergency, except for the suspension of the right of habeas corpus during rebellion and invasion (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2).

3) The Supreme Court has found specifically that the Bill of Rights does not cease to apply, and cannot be suspended, because the United States is at war or otherwise in an emergency. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946).

[Lord Derfel]

jayron: they were apparently quite serious about the game, but appear to have forgotten about it lately. They first announced the possibility 2-3 years ago, but I can't find any links on it right now.

I believe the idea was to have the game shortly after the NFL Europe season ends and before the CFL season starts. Apparently professional sports teams can be on an equal footing at different points in a season. :rolleyes: At the time, they were still trying to work out under which rules the game would be played and I haven't heard anything in the last year or so.

[labradorian]

1) Population. At the time of the War for Independence, Canada was quite smaller than the Colonies to the south. If I'm not mistaken, the only city of any real size was Quebec, which was French speaking anyways.

Actually, after the British regime came in, Quebec was full of Yanks, Scots, Brits, and others, besides the native francophone Canadians. It was a pretty mixed city, much more than nowadays.

[Northern Piper]

(That the Quebec Act ultimately blew up in the face of the British and, later, Canadian governments is a different story.)


tom, can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean.

There were English speaking colonies in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island (at the time called Abegweit) before the American Revolution.

But it is true that Ontario and New Brunswick were settled by Loyalists.

This statement overlooks the francophone Acadians of PEI, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, who were there long before the British came along. (New Brunswick was part of Nova Scotia at the time of the American rebellion.) The Acadians weren't all that happy with the Brits (see Evangeline by Longfellow), but neither were they all that keen on joining the rebellion, for reasons similar to the Québécois.

[Olentzero]

The answer is simple.

The U.S. is arrogant enough without having bragging rights to WallyM7 as a citizen. Then we'd be insufferable. :D

[tomndebb]

tomndebb
(That the Quebec Act ultimately blew up in the face of the British and, later, Canadian governments is a different story.)

jti
tom, can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean.

The Quebec Act gave political recognition to the powerful landowners and to the Catholic Church that had not been granted under the French Charter. It was intended as a pre-emptive appeasement of the Franco-phone population of Quebec, to prevent them considering joining the rebellious colonies to the south. (Independence was not much spoken of at that point, but general agitation and aggravation was a reality the Brits were trying to avoid.) The act also made French an official language of the region.

The power of the local inhabitants, enshrined in law according to their traditions, meant that there was little reason for the French speaking people to conform to British law, language, or custom. This had the effect of perpetuating a system of two cultures, living uneasily together. By (not very direct) comparison, Michigan was wholly French in 1763 and still primarily French at the time of the War for Independence with a strong French presence as late as the war of 1812. (As late as 1880, the French population of Detroit was large enough to continue building new schools where French was taught.) However, the French community was eventually overwhelmed by immigration. With no law to support their language or to enshrine their culture, they were simply assimilated over a period of 150 years.

I am not saying that French Quebec is a bad thing. It is, however, clearly an issue that has caused both British and Canadian governments a lot of grief over the years. The Quebecois independence movement is the most visible sign of that, but it is demonstrated in many small things, as well. For example, it has only been within the last 20 years (I don't remember the date) that birth records in Quebec became a state function; previously they were maintained with the baptismal records at the local parishes.

Another aspect of legal conflict was the settlement of power on the large land-owners or seigneurs. They had nearly feudal rights over the administration of their lands and over the people who lived and worked on the land. Initially, the French culture helped this format of governance to work. The seigneurs while no more altruistic than anyone else, managed the land and the people, acknowledging certain reciprocal obligations derived from those priveleges. Later, as English/Scots/American landholders bought out some of the seigneurs who had fallen on hard times, they were more than willing to demand the privileges but were unaware of (or unconcerned with) the reciprocal obligations and they created a great deal of hard feelings among their tenants. The hard feelings, of course, translated into something along the lines of "those British bastards..." and further divided the cultures.

[dtilque]

This statement overlooks the francophone Acadians of PEI, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, who were there long before the British came along.

I was aware that Acadians lived on PEI (which they called Isle St. Jean), but they'd almost entirely been kicked out or emigrated by time of the American Revolution. See this page (http://www.geocities.com/~timhebert/expei.htm) for a quick history. They were also largely (but not entirely) kick out of Nova Scotia by this time as well. In fact, a goodly number of them had been shipped to other English colonies such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. But Acadian history is rather complex and the page referenced above is part of a larger site detailing all their comings and going.


(New Brunswick was part of Nova Scotia at the time of the American rebellion.)

And my post implied this. NB was split off after the war when Loyalists settled the western parts of NS and then convinced the powers in London to give them a separate colony.

[SpoilerVirgin]

I've sometimes thought that being Canadian in American society is something like being Jewish--especially as an entertainer or other public figure. It's not immediately apparent that William Shatner (for example) is Canadian.

It's also not immediately apparent that William Shatner, like Leonard Nimoy, is Jewish. ;)

[Zarathustra]

I've sometimes thought that being Canadian in American society is something like being Jewish--especially as an entertainer or other public figure. It's not immediately apparent that William Shatner (for example) is Canadian.

It's also not immediately apparent that William Shatner, like Leonard Nimoy, is Jewish. ;)


And again, I say, "Huh. How 'bout that." <stretching yawn>