Acadians and the Minimal Role of Immigrants Before the Conquest/1763

Posted on by

Acadians and the Minimal Role of Immigrants Before the Conquest/1763

by Ricardo Duchesne

Acadians building dykes

It has been established at CEC that the current portrayal of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds should be seen as nothing more than an act of deception orchestrated by academics in wilful disregard of the historical evidence for the sake of legitimizing the leftist/global corporate goal of creating a race-mixed Canada against its European heritage.

The record shows, rather, that ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain, that it was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from the Third World started to arrive in large numbers, that Canada was 96 percent ethnically European as late as 1971, and that immigration itself was not even the most important factor in Canada’s population history but the high fertility rates of true born Canadian pioneers.

It has also been established at CEC that the French Canadiens were practically a new people born in the soil of New France, or within lands inside present-day Quebec, driven by the “exceptionally high” fertility rates of women, 5.6 surviving children on average, coupled with honourable patriarchal respect for women with children, the hard work and self-reliance of farmers.

In this article we will show that before the conquest, from Canada’s origins up until the 1760s, immigrants played a very small role demographically in the making of Canada. Not only the Quebecois, but the Acadians as well, were a newly created people in the soil of North America. Native born Quebecois and Acadians were the main historical protagonists in the settlement of Canada for almost the first two hundred years.

Another Misleading Text about Canada’s “Diverse” History

Don’t you believe current historians who tell you that “New France was a multicultural society, with a considerable First Nations population and an African community”. This is the message advocated by one of the most widely used texts in Canadian universities, consisting of two volumes, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, and Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation, by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith. This very successful text, now in its seventh edition, claims that it is a major improvement over “the older texts,” not only in incorporating “new historical research,” but in showing that “anyone seeking to understand our diversitytoday must first examine the pre-Confederation era” (Origins, pp. 108, viii, Fourth Edition).

The two volumes seek to imprint upon students an image of Canada as “diverse” and “multicultural” from the beginning. Needless to say, Amerindians were the first inhabitants of territories that came to be identified as “Canada” only through the establishment of French and Anglo institutions during the 1600s to 1800s. But the “first peoples,” the Hurons, Algonquins, Cree, Iroquois, and others, were organized in tribes spread over territories that can in no way be identified as part of “Canada” before Europeans arrived. They were territories actually contiguous with the United States rather than neatly located within Canada. Only in retrospect, through the European science of geography, have they been, and can be, demarcated in the continent of North America for pedagogical instruction, but not as actually existing tribal nations with definite geographical boundaries, since none of these tribes were organized as nations with marked boundaries.

European geographers, not the Amerindians, have classified the natives of Canada in terms of six cultural areas, “Northwest Coast,” “Plateau,” “Plains,”Subarctic,” “Arctic,” and “Northeast”. Indians had an intimate knowledge of the land, the soil, migration pathways of animals, weather, location of rivers, lakes, mountains, upon which the first European settlers and fur traders relied for survival. It was the Europeans, however, who mapped these territories and eventually created our modern institutions from the ground up.

It is extremely anachronistic and misleading to tell students that these tribal groups were members of a multicultural Canada. The French and English, for one, inhabited separate cultural lives, and in respect to the Natives, they inhabited totally different worlds. Their interactions with Natives are best described as interactions between separate peoples, commercial and military interactions, which affected both sides, but which essentially involved the modernizing encroachment of the Anglo-French side upon the Native cultures, leading to a situation in which, by the time of Confederation in 1867, only 1 percent of the racial population of Canada was Amerindian.

This reduction was of course tragic for the Aboriginals. But it is only by identifying them as a separate people that we can acknowledge their distinctive heritage instead of falsely assimilating them into a “multicultural Canada” as co-creators of a nation that only became multicultural in 1971 and in which, to this day, most Natives remain apart.

It is outlandish for Origins and Destinies to tell students that “in 1867″ the Natives peoples were one of the three “major groups” that made up “Canada’s multicultural society” (Destinies, Third Edition, p. 1). How can one percent of the population living in “lands reserved for Indians” — to use the official designation of the British North America Act — be identified as a “major” cultural group in Canada, equal to the French and the British, which made up 99 percent of the population?

The historians of these volumes want to have it both ways: an image of a European Canada that “decimated” the Natives through diseases, and an image of “First Nations” as co-partners in the creation of Canada’s parliamentary institutions, legal system, schools and universities, churches, and modern economy. They want students to believe that the Natives were the “first peoples,” followed by the French and English, as the next two “major groups,” followed by the arrival of “non-British and non-French immigrants,” as a fourth major group. This fourth group is portrayed as a multiracial lot, even though the statistics contradict any such picture.

The facts about the ethnic composition of immigrants, which this text cannot hide altogether, show that, at the time of Confederation, the English constituted about 60 percent of the population, the French 32 percent, and the remaining “non-British and non-French immigrants” about 8 percent. The non-British and non-French were all whites from Europe and the United States.

There was no “considerable” African community in New France. The facts stated in Origins, which are the only facts that can be legitimately used, contradict this contrived interpretation: from its origins to 1759, only about 1,200 African slaves were brought to New France (p. 111). Another source says that “from 1681 to 1818 there were approximately 4100 slaves in French Canada, representing less than one per cent of the population”.

The facts Origins has to rely on, since they are the only historically documented facts, contradict not only its claim that Canada was created by diverse racial groups but also the claim that the Europeans generally were “immigrants”. In the case of New France (and let us not forget that the history of New France is basically the history of Canada up until 1763), the text offers a detailed table on the number of French immigrants “by decade” from 1608 to 1759, from which we learn that the total number of immigrants throughout this period was only 8,527 (p.93). By contrast, the population of New France in 1759 was about 60,000. These numbers are consistent with the numbers I offered in The Canadiens of New France: A People Created Through the Fecundity of the Women — Not Immigration.

Since the French were the first Canadians, and the English proportion in Canada as a whole, before the Conquest of 1763, was scattered and incidental, it behoves us to conclude, on the basis of the above numbers, that immigrants played a minimal role from the time Samuel de Champlain planted the first permanent settlement at Quebec in 1608 up until 1763.

The Acadians

This point can be further accentuated through a consideration of the Acadians. In the calculation of the demographic history of French Canadians, the Acadians are sometimes included without a clear identification of their own demographic identity. The Acadians were another newly created people in the soil of America, not in present day Quebec, but in the maritime part of New France, or in the province of present day Nova Scotia.

The beginnings of the Acadians closely resembles that of the Quebecois; they too began as a small colony of men, or wooden buildings constructed in Port Royal in 1605 by Champlain, but these colonists were forced to return to France in 1607. In 1611, 20 new colonists, including a family, were brought back to Acadie, but this settlement failed as well.

It was only in 1651 that a demographic dynamic was set in Acadie, when about 50 families, or about 500 settlers, were brought in. After 1671, 40 more families were recruited from France, leading to a population of 800+ by 1686. By 1710, there were around 2,000 Acadians, “most of them born in North America” (J.M. Bumsted, 2003, p. 39). The text Origins likewise informs us that the “average Acadian couple usually married in their early twenties and had ten or eleven children, most of whom survived to adulthood” (p. 140).

Without any more French immigration, “the Acadian population multiplied by nearly 30 times between 1671 and 1755″. By 1750, “there were more than 10,000,” and “in 1755, more than 13,000 (excluding Louisbourg” (Origins, p. 141-44). J.M. Bumsted tells us that Louisbourg’s Acadian population was 3,500 in the 1750s (2011, p. 67).

The British gained control of Acadia in 1713, and in 1750-51 they recruited about 1,500 German Protestants, if not more, depending on the sources one examines, possibly as many as 2500, settled at Lunenburg. This population, however, has not been counted in the above Francophone numbers. We will be writing about British immigration/birth rate patterns in a future article.

In the context of a full-scale war between France and Britain, and the refusal of the Acadians to give a formal pledge of loyalty to the British rulers in Acadia, in 1755-58 the British deported about three-quarters of the Acadian population. By 1762, they had expelled another 3000. However, in 1764, the British allowed about 3000 Acadians to resettle back in Nova Scotia, and by 1800 the Acadians numbered 4000.

It should be noted that in the 1740s there were about 700 Acadians in Prince Edward Island (PEI), then known as Île St-Jean, and categorized as part of Acadia (Nova Scotia). In 1757, approximately 2,000 Acadians had fled to PIE as refugees, which increased the population to about 4,500, but the British expelled many of these Acadians in 1758. A census of 1803 showed a population of nearly 700 in PEI. In New Brunswick, a territory carved out of former Nova Scotia in 1784, there was a population of 4,000 Acadians in 1803, a “result of high birth rates rather than the return of more exiles” (Origins, p. 153; Bumsted, 2011, p. 109).

The conclusion we must reach is quite self-evidential: the Acadians began as a small group of immigrant families, only to grow into a people with blood ties firmly set in Acadia, through a very high fertility rate, with its own unique Francophone identity, with speech patterns quite different from the Quebecois, in a very harsh environment that required the harvesting of salt from the salt marshes, the clearing of forested uplands, the building of dikes to reclaim land from the Bay of Fundy’s strong tides; yet establishing themselves with a “far higher standard of living than all but the most privileged French peasants,” coupled with a spirit of independence and refusal to submit to external authorities, which led to their expulsion, though not their demise, constituting today about 11,000+ in Nova Scotia, and 25,000 in New Brunswick.

The claim that Acadians were just immigrants no less different to the making of Canada than Sri Lankan Tamils, corrupt Chinese real estate millionaires, andSomalis is patently absurd, a discreditable claim that only academics who are out of touch with historical reality, and shamelessly unburdened by their traitorous attitudes towards their ancestors, would make.

Sources

  • Bumsted, J. M. A History of the Canadian Peoples (Oxford, 2011, Fourth Edition)
  • Bumsted, J. M. Canada’s Diverse Peoples (ABC CLIO, 2003)
  • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation (Harcourt, 2000, Fourth Edition)
  • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation (Harcourt, 1996, Third Edition)
  • K

    Acadians and the Minimal Role of Immigrants Before the Conquest/1763

    by Ricardo Duchesne

    Acadians building dykes

    It has been established at CEC that the current portrayal of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds should be seen as nothing more than an act of deception orchestrated by academics in wilful disregard of the historical evidence for the sake of legitimizing the leftist/global corporate goal of creating a race-mixed Canada against its European heritage.

    The record shows, rather, that ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain, that it was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from the Third World started to arrive in large numbers, that Canada was 96 percent ethnically European as late as 1971, and that immigration itself was not even the most important factor in Canada’s population history but the high fertility rates of true born Canadian pioneers.

    It has also been established at CEC that the French Canadiens were practically a new people born in the soil of New France, or within lands inside present-day Quebec, driven by the “exceptionally high” fertility rates of women, 5.6 surviving children on average, coupled with honourable patriarchal respect for women with children, the hard work and self-reliance of farmers.

    In this article we will show that before the conquest, from Canada’s origins up until the 1760s, immigrants played a very small role demographically in the making of Canada. Not only the Quebecois, but the Acadians as well, were a newly created people in the soil of North America. Native born Quebecois and Acadians were the main historical protagonists in the settlement of Canada for almost the first two hundred years.

    Another Misleading Text about Canada’s “Diverse” History

    Don’t you believe current historians who tell you that “New France was a multicultural society, with a considerable First Nations population and an African community”. This is the message advocated by one of the most widely used texts in Canadian universities, consisting of two volumes, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, and Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation, by R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith. This very successful text, now in its seventh edition, claims that it is a major improvement over “the older texts,” not only in incorporating “new historical research,” but in showing that “anyone seeking to understand our diversitytoday must first examine the pre-Confederation era” (Origins, pp. 108, viii, Fourth Edition).

    The two volumes seek to imprint upon students an image of Canada as “diverse” and “multicultural” from the beginning. Needless to say, Amerindians were the first inhabitants of territories that came to be identified as “Canada” only through the establishment of French and Anglo institutions during the 1600s to 1800s. But the “first peoples,” the Hurons, Algonquins, Cree, Iroquois, and others, were organized in tribes spread over territories that can in no way be identified as part of “Canada” before Europeans arrived. They were territories actually contiguous with the United States rather than neatly located within Canada. Only in retrospect, through the European science of geography, have they been, and can be, demarcated in the continent of North America for pedagogical instruction, but not as actually existing tribal nations with definite geographical boundaries, since none of these tribes were organized as nations with marked boundaries.

    European geographers, not the Amerindians, have classified the natives of Canada in terms of six cultural areas, “Northwest Coast,” “Plateau,” “Plains,”Subarctic,” “Arctic,” and “Northeast”. Indians had an intimate knowledge of the land, the soil, migration pathways of animals, weather, location of rivers, lakes, mountains, upon which the first European settlers and fur traders relied for survival. It was the Europeans, however, who mapped these territories and eventually created our modern institutions from the ground up.

    It is extremely anachronistic and misleading to tell students that these tribal groups were members of a multicultural Canada. The French and English, for one, inhabited separate cultural lives, and in respect to the Natives, they inhabited totally different worlds. Their interactions with Natives are best described as interactions between separate peoples, commercial and military interactions, which affected both sides, but which essentially involved the modernizing encroachment of the Anglo-French side upon the Native cultures, leading to a situation in which, by the time of Confederation in 1867, only 1 percent of the racial population of Canada was Amerindian.

    This reduction was of course tragic for the Aboriginals. But it is only by identifying them as a separate people that we can acknowledge their distinctive heritage instead of falsely assimilating them into a “multicultural Canada” as co-creators of a nation that only became multicultural in 1971 and in which, to this day, most Natives remain apart.

    It is outlandish for Origins and Destinies to tell students that “in 1867″ the Natives peoples were one of the three “major groups” that made up “Canada’s multicultural society” (Destinies, Third Edition, p. 1). How can one percent of the population living in “lands reserved for Indians” — to use the official designation of the British North America Act — be identified as a “major” cultural group in Canada, equal to the French and the British, which made up 99 percent of the population?

    The historians of these volumes want to have it both ways: an image of a European Canada that “decimated” the Natives through diseases, and an image of “First Nations” as co-partners in the creation of Canada’s parliamentary institutions, legal system, schools and universities, churches, and modern economy. They want students to believe that the Natives were the “first peoples,” followed by the French and English, as the next two “major groups,” followed by the arrival of “non-British and non-French immigrants,” as a fourth major group. This fourth group is portrayed as a multiracial lot, even though the statistics contradict any such picture.

    The facts about the ethnic composition of immigrants, which this text cannot hide altogether, show that, at the time of Confederation, the English constituted about 60 percent of the population, the French 32 percent, and the remaining “non-British and non-French immigrants” about 8 percent. The non-British and non-French were all whites from Europe and the United States.

    There was no “considerable” African community in New France. The facts stated in Origins, which are the only facts that can be legitimately used, contradict this contrived interpretation: from its origins to 1759, only about 1,200 African slaves were brought to New France (p. 111). Another source says that “from 1681 to 1818 there were approximately 4100 slaves in French Canada, representing less than one per cent of the population”.

    The facts Origins has to rely on, since they are the only historically documented facts, contradict not only its claim that Canada was created by diverse racial groups but also the claim that the Europeans generally were “immigrants”. In the case of New France (and let us not forget that the history of New France is basically the history of Canada up until 1763), the text offers a detailed table on the number of French immigrants “by decade” from 1608 to 1759, from which we learn that the total number of immigrants throughout this period was only 8,527 (p.93). By contrast, the population of New France in 1759 was about 60,000. These numbers are consistent with the numbers I offered in The Canadiens of New France: A People Created Through the Fecundity of the Women — Not Immigration.

    Since the French were the first Canadians, and the English proportion in Canada as a whole, before the Conquest of 1763, was scattered and incidental, it behoves us to conclude, on the basis of the above numbers, that immigrants played a minimal role from the time Samuel de Champlain planted the first permanent settlement at Quebec in 1608 up until 1763.

    The Acadians

    This point can be further accentuated through a consideration of the Acadians. In the calculation of the demographic history of French Canadians, the Acadians are sometimes included without a clear identification of their own demographic identity. The Acadians were another newly created people in the soil of America, not in present day Quebec, but in the maritime part of New France, or in the province of present day Nova Scotia.

    The beginnings of the Acadians closely resembles that of the Quebecois; they too began as a small colony of men, or wooden buildings constructed in Port Royal in 1605 by Champlain, but these colonists were forced to return to France in 1607. In 1611, 20 new colonists, including a family, were brought back to Acadie, but this settlement failed as well.

    It was only in 1651 that a demographic dynamic was set in Acadie, when about 50 families, or about 500 settlers, were brought in. After 1671, 40 more families were recruited from France, leading to a population of 800+ by 1686. By 1710, there were around 2,000 Acadians, “most of them born in North America” (J.M. Bumsted, 2003, p. 39). The text Origins likewise informs us that the “average Acadian couple usually married in their early twenties and had ten or eleven children, most of whom survived to adulthood” (p. 140).

    Without any more French immigration, “the Acadian population multiplied by nearly 30 times between 1671 and 1755″. By 1750, “there were more than 10,000,” and “in 1755, more than 13,000 (excluding Louisbourg” (Origins, p. 141-44). J.M. Bumsted tells us that Louisbourg’s Acadian population was 3,500 in the 1750s (2011, p. 67).

    The British gained control of Acadia in 1713, and in 1750-51 they recruited about 1,500 German Protestants, if not more, depending on the sources one examines, possibly as many as 2500, settled at Lunenburg. This population, however, has not been counted in the above Francophone numbers. We will be writing about British immigration/birth rate patterns in a future article.

    In the context of a full-scale war between France and Britain, and the refusal of the Acadians to give a formal pledge of loyalty to the British rulers in Acadia, in 1755-58 the British deported about three-quarters of the Acadian population. By 1762, they had expelled another 3000. However, in 1764, the British allowed about 3000 Acadians to resettle back in Nova Scotia, and by 1800 the Acadians numbered 4000.

    It should be noted that in the 1740s there were about 700 Acadians in Prince Edward Island (PEI), then known as Île St-Jean, and categorized as part of Acadia (Nova Scotia). In 1757, approximately 2,000 Acadians had fled to PIE as refugees, which increased the population to about 4,500, but the British expelled many of these Acadians in 1758. A census of 1803 showed a population of nearly 700 in PEI. In New Brunswick, a territory carved out of former Nova Scotia in 1784, there was a population of 4,000 Acadians in 1803, a “result of high birth rates rather than the return of more exiles” (Origins, p. 153; Bumsted, 2011, p. 109).

    The conclusion we must reach is quite self-evidential: the Acadians began as a small group of immigrant families, only to grow into a people with blood ties firmly set in Acadia, through a very high fertility rate, with its own unique Francophone identity, with speech patterns quite different from the Quebecois, in a very harsh environment that required the harvesting of salt from the salt marshes, the clearing of forested uplands, the building of dikes to reclaim land from the Bay of Fundy’s strong tides; yet establishing themselves with a “far higher standard of living than all but the most privileged French peasants,” coupled with a spirit of independence and refusal to submit to external authorities, which led to their expulsion, though not their demise, constituting today about 11,000+ in Nova Scotia, and 25,000 in New Brunswick.

    The claim that Acadians were just immigrants no less different to the making of Canada than Sri Lankan Tamils, corrupt Chinese real estate millionaires, andSomalis is patently absurd, a discreditable claim that only academics who are out of touch with historical reality, and shamelessly unburdened by their traitorous attitudes towards their ancestors, would make.

    Sources

    • Bumsted, J. M. A History of the Canadian Peoples (Oxford, 2011, Fourth Edition)
    • Bumsted, J. M. Canada’s Diverse Peoples (ABC CLIO, 2003)
    • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation (Harcourt, 2000, Fourth Edition)
    • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Destinies: Canadian History since Confederation (Harcourt, 1996, Third Edition)
    • Kenneth Donovan, “Slaves and Their Owners in Ile Royale, 1713-1760″ Acandiensis, Vol. XXV, No. 1 Autumn/Automne 1995
    • Cole Harris and John Warkentin, Canada Before Confederation: A Study on Historical Geography (McGill-Queen’s Press, 2005 [1974])
    • Sally Ross, The Acadians of Nova Scotia (Hignell Printing, 1992).

    Posted at 07:32 Be the first to comment enneth Donovan, “Slaves and Their Owners in Ile Royale, 1713-1760″ Acandiensis, Vol. XXV, No. 1 Autumn/Automne 1995

  • Cole Harris and John Warkentin, Canada Before Confederation: A Study on Historical Geography (McGill-Queen’s Press, 2005 [1974])
  • Sally Ross, The Acadians of Nova Scotia (Hignell Printing, 1992).

 

German Victimization: The Ethnic Cleaning of 16-Million Germans, 1944-1948

Posted on by

German Victimization: The Ethnic Cleaning of 16-Million Germans, 1944-1948

 
 
 
 
 
Inline image 1

The Loyalists Were Not Immigrants: 1763-1815

Posted on by

The Loyalists Were Not Immigrants: 1763-1815

by Ricardo Duchesne

We have seen that up until the British Conquest of New France in 1763, the vast majority of Canadians were francophones, Quebecois and Acadians, born in the soil of North America. The total number of immigrants who came to Quebec and Acadia, from the first settlements Samuel Champlain established in the first decade of the 1600s until 1763, was very small. In Quebec, only 8,527 immigrants arrived during this entire period (from 1608 to 1759). In Acadia, a few hundred settlers arrived in the first half of the seventeenth century, and thereafter it was the high fertility rates of Acadians that engendered a population of roughly 13,000 by the 1750s.

How about the role of immigrants from “diverse” places after the Conquest? Was not the English-speaking Canada that emerged after the Conquest, in Ontario and Nova Scotia, created by arrival of immigrants “from many ethnic backgrounds”, as standard college textbooks religiously inform their students today?

Don’t you believe them. The immigration time line from 1760 to 1815, which is the subject of this article, and which includes the Loyalists as the principal new settlers in Canada, can only be categorized as a period of “many new diverse immigrants” through the manipulation of words.

What this period actually witnessed was:

  1. a massive growth in the population of Quebec through the continuation of high fertility rates with zero francophone immigration, and minimal arrival of British individuals.
  2. an internal migration of New Englanders and Loyalists from some regions of British North America to other regions of British North America, principally to Upper Canada and Nova Scotia. Both New Englanders and Loyalists were long established native born British settlers in the American colonies, not immigrants.
  3. the arrival of immigrants from the British Isles (with the exception of some Whites from Germany) should also be identified as movement by internal migrants, from the British Isles to other British lands.

High Fertility Population Growth in Quebec 1763-1815

The English population in New France/Quebec numbered only about 500 in 1765. When the British conquered Quebec they anticipated that significant English-speaking families would move from the British American colonies to the British Canadian colonies. They hoped that in this way Quebec would be gradually Protestantized and Anglicized. But only “a few hundred English-speaking, Protestant immigrants, largely merchants” had arrived by 1774. The number of English has been estimated at 2000 in 1780.

In the 1780s, a few thousand Loyalists did arrive. There are no precise estimations as to how many Loyalists settled in Quebec proper, rather than what would become Upper Canada or Ontario, which was carved out from the western side of New France in 1791. In any case, when this partition occurred, the English population in Quebec proper, or Lower Canada, was about 10,000. Meanwhile, the total non-Aboriginal population of Quebec in 1791 had increased substantially since the Conquest from about 60,000 to about 160,000.

Now, assuming that all the English speaking inhabitants, the 10,000, were immigrants, we can safely say that Quebec’s francophone population increased by 150,000 souls solely through a high fertility rate without any immigration. It has been estimated that the English population in Lower Canada/Quebec reached 30,000 by 1812. The francophone population, meanwhile, increased to 335,000 by 1814.

Again, assuming that the 30,000 English speakers were all immigrants (hardly the case, since after the Loyalist influx of the 1780s there was little immigration from the English world), it follows that the history of one of the two founding peoples of Canada, the Quebecois, was a history without any significant immigration from 1608 up until 1814. Therefore, it is simply an act of malicious deception to identify the Quebecois as immigrants.

The Internal Migration of New Englanders and Loyalists

Between 1758 and 1762, before the arrival of the Loyalists, about 7000 to 8000 New England “Planters” settled in Nova Scotia in the lands previously occupied by the Acadians who had been expelled in the 1750s. But half of these Planters left within a few years, finding Nova Scotia too scarce in resources and good lands. These New Englanders were British-Americans who moved from one British-ethnic land (New England) to another British-ruled land (Nova Scotia), which was fast becoming Anglicized after the expulsion of Acadians.

The estimated number of Loyalists who came to Canada has been estimated at 50,000. About 14,500 Loyalists went to the new territory of New Brunswick, which was partitioned from Nova Scotia in 1784. About the same number went to Nova Scotia, 400 to Cape Breton, and some 500 to PEI. Roughly about 14,000 Loyalists went to Lower and Upper Canada, mostly to the latter territory, during the 1780s and 1790s.

The popular textbook, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, by R. Douglas Francis, et. al, refers to the Loyalists as immigrants who came “from many ethnic backgrounds” (p. 233). It notes that “as many as 500″ “black Loyalists” (p. 237) were brought to Upper Canada and some 3000 to Nova Scotia). A History of the Canadian Peoples, by possibly the foremost historian of Canada, J.M. Bumsted, likewise refers to the Loyalists as “quite a disparate group” that included “well over 3000 blacks”, as well as 2000 Aboriginal “loyalists”, who settled in Upper Canada (p. 101). He notes, though, that nearly half of the Blacks soon emigrated to Africa.

There is no way around the fact that, as the text Origins eventually admits, the “overwhelming majority of the Loyalists were white”. Even if we were to accept the rather wishful claim that blacks and Aboriginals were “Loyalists” (Americancolonists who remained loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War), the total non-White proportion was only 7 percent.

Moreover, it is more accurate to identify Loyalists as “internal migrants” rather than immigrants, since they actually moved from colonies that were thoroughly British to territories rule by Britain that were becoming, Nova Scotia and Upper Canada, increasingly Anglicized. It was essentially a movement by Brits within the Anglo mainland of North America.

Some may reply that this argument only holds for the New England “Planters” but not for the Loyalists, since the Loyalists were leaving the newly independent American lands of post-1776. They were Americans rather than British. But this is not a good argument for two reasons: the Americans were indeed a new people created in the soil of North America, but they were still racially British, and the Loyalists were called “Loyalist” precisely because they remained loyal to British rule, rather than American rule in the thirteen colonies.

Immigrants from the British Isles

The texts I have examined don’t always provide consistently precise numbers, but only indicate that from 1790 to 1815 immigrants from the “British Isles” came to Upper Canada, mainly from the Scottish Highlands and Ireland. One estimate has it that between 6000 and 10 000 immigrants came in the early 1800s from the Highland to the Maritimes and Upper Canada. Another text says that in the 1760s and 1770s Nova Scotia saw some 2000 settlers arrived from Ireland, 750 from England, and, in 1773, 200 Scots.

Before these immigrants from the Isles, Nova Scotia saw the arrival of some 1500 German Protestants in the early 1750s. Taking into account these immigrants, Bumsted portrays (p. 86) Nova Scotia in the late 1760s, that is, before the arrival of the Loyalists, as a land characterized by ethnic and religious diversity. He sees the arrival of Loyalists as adding more to this diversity, with the “black Loyalists”. But we already saw that Blacks were a very small proportion of the total population, and that the Americans, both the New England “Planters” and the Loyalists, were internal migrants.

It can also be added that the immigrants from the Isles were all English-speaking, very closely related genetically and culturally, moving from the British Isles to an increasingly Anglicized Nova Scotia and a newly-created Anglicized Upper Canada. The Acadians added, and I suppose all the different groups did as well, an intra-European ethnic diversity, a French-British diversity combined with some German Aryans.

Conclusion

The most reasonable conclusion we can reach about immigration patterns in Canada’s history from 1763 to 1815 is that it was an internal migration movement within a British world in mainland North America, and across the Atlantic from the British Isles to British North America. The demographic growth that Upper Canada experienced from the 1760s, when it was barely populated by Europeans, to 1815, was quite substantial, from 14,000 inhabitants in 1791, to 70,718 in 1806, to 95,000 in 1814. The Loyalists undoubtedly played a key role in this demographic expansion. For example, in Upper Canada, in 1812, American inhabitants, or with American ancestry, made up about 80 percent of the population of 136,000. It is not exaggeration to say that the Loyalists were the original founders of Ontario, and the original internal migrants who did the most in the introduction of British culture and political institutions to Canada.

Similarly, in Nova Scotia, immigration from the British Isles, and internal migration from British/America contributed, to the demographic growth of Nova Scotia after the expulsion of the Acadians. We will see in a future article that immigration from the British Isles was to increase substantially after 1815. We will see, too, that these immigrants are best identified as pioneers or settlers. Outside the francophone communities, Anglo pioneers were creating a world of Canadian Anglo ethnicity, British rule of law, language, and religions, not a world of multiple cultures and races.

Sources

  • J.M. Bumsted, A History of the Canadian Peoples, Oxford, 2011, fourth edition
  • J.M. Bumsted, Canada’s Diverse Peoples, ABC CLIO, 2003
  • J.M.S. Careless, Canada: A Story of Challenge, St Martin’s Press, 1965
  • R. Douglas Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Origins: Canadian History to Confederation, Harcourt, 2000, fourth edition
  • The Canadian Encyclopedia, Loyalists

Related posts:

Disrespecting the European Founding/Settler People Majority

Posted on by
Disrespecting the European Founding/Settler People Majority
Have your MPs begun the habit of greeting their constituencies in several languages other than the official languages of English/French?  I think this should be illegal.  I notice he didn’t send greetings in European languages such as German, Danish, etc. The picture is also offensive with whites represented by one-third implying that Canada is two-thirds non-White. It is actually only 21 per cent non-White.

image

The Komagata Maru: Stop Apologizing! Paul Fromm: The Untold Story of the Komagata Maru

Posted on by

The Komagata Maru: Stop Apologizing! Paul Fromm: The Untold Story of the Komagata Maru

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ujYu-n4tyc

 

This interview serves as a reaction to the apology offered to the Canadian Sikh community by Justin Trudeau on May 18, 2016 for the Komagata Maru incident,

Komagata Maru: Illegal in 1914; No Apology Needed Today! CFIRC Organizes Protests in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa

Posted on by

Komagata Maru: Illegal in 1914; No Apology Needed Today!

CFIRC Organizes Protests in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa

 

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee  is organizing protests in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa on May 18,   to protest Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced plan to make yet another apology to Canada’s Sikhs for the expulsion of the “Komagata Maru” in 1914.

As well, the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee will hold a press conference to oppose Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s  apology to Canada’s Sikhs for the “Komagata Maru” incident. The press conference will be held in the Charles Lynch Room (Room 130-S) on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

 

“Prime Minister Trudeau’s apology to Sikhs for the Dominion Government’s decision 102 years ago to turn back the “Komagata Maru”, a ship carrying 376 Indians, mostly Sikhs, is humiliating and wrong,” says CFIRC Director Paul Fromm.

 

“We can only apologize for our own actions,” Mr. Fromm explains. “We cannot apologize for the actions takenover a century ago, nor should we. The government of the time did the right thing. The “Komagata Maru” was hired by a radical Sikh businessman to try to test Canada’s immigration laws. The Dominion Government upheld the laws; the border busters lost. No apology needed.”

 

“For 30 years, Canadian politicians have been bedeviled by demands by radical Sikhs for an apology. Prime Minister Harper apologized in 2008 and paid over $2-million for Sikhs to commemorate their own history,” Mr. Fromm adds. “These demands do not reflect reality. Most Sikhs clearly do not consider Canada a hostile country. Indeed, they see it as a promised land. In the past four decades, tens of thousands of Sikhs have come to Canada. Canada  has the second largest Sikh population outside of India,” he adds.

 

Sikhs constitute 1.5 of Canada’s population but have 4 members or 13 per cent of the Liberal cabinet. Again no apology is needed.  Canadians cannot apologize for what other Canadians did a century ago. Policies change, politics change and new people are elected. If our views today differ from our forefathers, that difference shows in new policies, not apologies.”

 

“If the Government wants to revisit the Komagata Maru incident, it might consider honouring, perhaps with a stamp, William  C. Hopkinson, a resourceful immigration department inspector. Born in India, he spoke several Indian languages and his duties included going under cover among Sikhs revolutionaries active in British Columbia. It was also thought that he worked for the Americans in a similar capacity. He put together the information relied on by the Dominion Government to turn back the Komagata Maru. In October, 1914, he was assassinated by Mewa Singh, a Sikh extremist inside the Vancouver Court House (now the Vancouver Art Gallery) as a direct result of his work in the Komagata Maru incident.

–30–

 

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee publishes the monthly Canadian Immigration Hotline and holds meetings across the country. A recent video on our website explains our position on the Komagata Maru incident more fully: Justin Trudeau Shouldn’t Apologize to the Sikh’s on May 18th https://youtu.be/czbKQq5KWXc

[To learn the truth about the “Komagata Maru”, send $7.00 to 

C-FAR Books, 

P.O. Box 332, 

Rexdale,. ON., 

M9W 5L3

 for a copy of Robert Jarvis’s booklet The Komagata Maru Incident: A Canadian Immigration Revisited. Read about the assassination by a Sikh extremist of William Hopkinson, a Canadian immigration agent and undercover operative. The memory of this intrepid and brave man has been thrust down the memory hole by the politically correct.]

Komagata Maru Incident Fact Sheet – No Apology Needed
The Komagata Maru’s arrival challenged a 1908 regulation that denied entry to immigrants unless they had $200 and had made a “continuous journey” from their home country. … Under the policy, only 20 returning residents, and the ship’s doctor and his family were allowed to enter. The remaining passengers were confined to the ship for two months, after which the ship was forced to sail back to India.

 

The incursion of the Komagata Maru was organized by a radical Sikh businessman named Gurdit Singh as a test of Canada’s immigration laws. It was a business venture. Gurdit Singh, originally from the Punjab but based in Singapore, told associates in Hong Kong that, if the Komagata Maru succeeded in busting Canada’s immigration regulations, he’d bring 25,000 Sikhs to British Columbia. Remember that, in 1914, Vancouver was a city of just 70,000 souls. The passengers had to pay a hefty fare.

 

       Gurdit Singh was an associate of an Indian revolutionary movement called the Ghadar Party. Ghadar is Urdu for “mutiny.” Many Whites could recall the brutal massacre of men, women and children when some units of the Indian Army mutinied in 1857. The mutiny claimed over 11,000 British troops and hundreds of British women and children. Undesirables:White Canada and the Komagata Maru explains: In 1913, “the Hindustani Workers of the Pacific Coast, a revolutionary organization,  crystallized … in Astoria, Oregon. It would soon become known, after the title of its magazine, as the Ghadar Party – a provocative name, since ghadar meant mutiny. The new party … advocated the armed overthrow of the British Empire, extolling [sic] Indian soldiers to mutiny once again.”

 

Husain Rahim, Bhag Singh, Balwant Singh and Sohan Lal, among others were its members.” These four were key members of the Shore Committee which agitated on behalf of the Komagata Maru, raised funds and retained legal assistance. Undesirables, which is fervently for the Komagata Maru cause, adds: Immigration inspector William Hopkinson was “certain that the voyage of the Komagata Maru was part of a Ghadar Party strategy, with Gurdit Singh in on the conspiracy. Singh’s statements to the press on the arrival had confirmed [these] fears: ‘What is done with this ship load of my people will determine whether we shall have peace in all parts of the British Empire.’”

 

William Hopkinson’s short life would make an excellent movie plot or a gripping dramatic series dealing with undercover work and foreign revolutionaries, schemes to hoodwink the Canadian government and much, much more. Oh, yes, and many shootings and assassinations by a group of newcomers to Canada.

 

Instead of apologizing for a past patriotic government’s decision to expel a shipload of illegals and instead of issuing a stamp (as the Harper government did in 2014) commemorating the radicals of the unsuccessful Komagata Maru immigration incursion of 1914, the Canadian government should issue a stamp honouring William C Hopkinson. He was a gifted linguist and a daring undercover agent who ran a network of spies among Vancouver’s radical Sikh community. He developed much of the information that the Dominion Government used to expel the bulk of the Komagata Maru’s passengers in the summer of 1914. Largely due to his information and the leadership of a rookie Vancouver MP H.H. Stevens, the Canadian government met the challenge of unwanted and uninvited illegals seeking to evade our rules and sneak into Canada.

 

William Hopkinson would pay the ultimate price for his dedication. He was assassinated by Mewa Singh, a Ghadr party member and Sikh radical inside the courthouse in downtown Vancouver, October 21, 1914. It is now the Vancouver Art Gallery. Many of his Indian agents were also murdered by radical Sikhs. With all the boo-hooing about the government of Sir Robert Borden’s decision to expel the illegals, the toadying politicians and the servile media tell us little of the killings and violence perpetrated by the Sikh radicals within their own community in that Vancouver of a century ago.

 

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee  is organizing protests in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa on May 18,   to protest Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced plan to make yet another apology to Canada’s Sikhs for the expulsion of the “Komagata Maru” in 1914.

As well, the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee will hold a press conference to oppose Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s  apology to Canada’s Sikhs for the “Komagata Maru” incident. The press conference will be held in the Charles Lynch Room (Room 130-S) on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

 

“Prime Minister Trudeau’s apology to Sikhs for the Dominion Government’s decision 102 years ago to turn back the “Komagata Maru”, a ship carrying 376 Indians, mostly Sikhs, is humiliating and wrong,” says CFIRC Director Paul Fromm.

 

“We can only apologize for our own actions,” Mr. Fromm explains. “We cannot apologize for the actions takenover a century ago, nor should we. The government of the time did the right thing. The “Komagata Maru” was hired by a radical Sikh businessman to try to test Canada’s immigration laws. The Dominion Government upheld the laws; the border busters lost. No apology needed.”

 

“For 30 years, Canadian politicians have been bedeviled by demands by radical Sikhs for an apology. Prime Minister Harper apologized in 2008 and paid over $2-million for Sikhs to commemorate their own history,” Mr. Fromm adds. “These demands do not reflect reality. Most Sikhs clearly do not consider Canada a hostile country. Indeed, they see it as a promised land. In the past four decades, tens of thousands of Sikhs have come to Canada. Canada  has the second largest Sikh population outside of India,” he adds.

 

Sikhs constitute 1.5 of Canada’s population but have 4 members or 13 per cent of the Liberal cabinet. Again no apology is needed.  Canadians cannot apologize for what other Canadians did a century ago. Policies change, politics change and new people are elected. If our views today differ from our forefathers, that difference shows in new policies, not apologies.”

 

“If the Government wants to revisit the Komagata Maru incident, it might consider honouring, perhaps with a stamp, William  C. Hopkinson, a resourceful immigration department inspector. Born in India, he spoke several Indian languages and his duties included going under cover among Sikhs revolutionaries active in British Columbia. It was also thought that he worked for the Americans in a similar capacity. He put together the information relied on by the Dominion Government to turn back the Komagata Maru. In October, 1914, he was assassinated by Mewa Singh, a Sikh extremist inside the Vancouver Court House (now the Vancouver Art Gallery) as a direct result of his work in the Komagata Maru incident.

–30–

 

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee publishes the monthly Canadian Immigration Hotline and holds meetings across the country. A recent video on our website explains our position on the Komagata Maru incident more fully: Justin Trudeau Shouldn’t Apologize to the Sikh’s on May 18th https://youtu.be/czbKQq5KWXc

[To learn the truth about the “Komagata Maru”, send $7.00 to 

C-FAR Books, 

P.O. Box 332, 

Rexdale,. ON., 

M9W 5L3

 for a copy of Robert Jarvis’s booklet The Komagata Maru Incident: A Canadian Immigration Revisited. Read about the assassination by a Sikh extremist of William Hopkinson, a Canadian immigration agent and undercover operative. The memory of this intrepid and brave man has been thrust down the memory hole by the politically correct.]

Komagata Maru Incident Fact Sheet – No Apology Needed
The Komagata Maru’s arrival challenged a 1908 regulation that denied entry to immigrants unless they had $200 and had made a “continuous journey” from their home country. … Under the policy, only 20 returning residents, and the ship’s doctor and his family were allowed to enter. The remaining passengers were confined to the ship for two months, after which the ship was forced to sail back to India.

 

The incursion of the Komagata Maru was organized by a radical Sikh businessman named Gurdit Singh as a test of Canada’s immigration laws. It was a business venture. Gurdit Singh, originally from the Punjab but based in Singapore, told associates in Hong Kong that, if the Komagata Maru succeeded in busting Canada’s immigration regulations, he’d bring 25,000 Sikhs to British Columbia. Remember that, in 1914, Vancouver was a city of just 70,000 souls. The passengers had to pay a hefty fare.

 

       Gurdit Singh was an associate of an Indian revolutionary movement called the Ghadar Party. Ghadar is Urdu for “mutiny.” Many Whites could recall the brutal massacre of men, women and children when some units of the Indian Army mutinied in 1857. The mutiny claimed over 11,000 British troops and hundreds of British women and children. Undesirables:White Canada and the Komagata Maru explains: In 1913, “the Hindustani Workers of the Pacific Coast, a revolutionary organization,  crystallized … in Astoria, Oregon. It would soon become known, after the title of its magazine, as the Ghadar Party – a provocative name, since ghadar meant mutiny. The new party … advocated the armed overthrow of the British Empire, extolling [sic] Indian soldiers to mutiny once again.”

 

Husain Rahim, Bhag Singh, Balwant Singh and Sohan Lal, among others were its members.” These four were key members of the Shore Committee which agitated on behalf of the Komagata Maru, raised funds and retained legal assistance. Undesirables, which is fervently for the Komagata Maru cause, adds: Immigration inspector William Hopkinson was “certain that the voyage of the Komagata Maru was part of a Ghadar Party strategy, with Gurdit Singh in on the conspiracy. Singh’s statements to the press on the arrival had confirmed [these] fears: ‘What is done with this ship load of my people will determine whether we shall have peace in all parts of the British Empire.’”

 

William Hopkinson’s short life would make an excellent movie plot or a gripping dramatic series dealing with undercover work and foreign revolutionaries, schemes to hoodwink the Canadian government and much, much more. Oh, yes, and many shootings and assassinations by a group of newcomers to Canada.

 

Instead of apologizing for a past patriotic government’s decision to expel a shipload of illegals and instead of issuing a stamp (as the Harper government did in 2014) commemorating the radicals of the unsuccessful Komagata Maru immigration incursion of 1914, the Canadian government should issue a stamp honouring William C Hopkinson. He was a gifted linguist and a daring undercover agent who ran a network of spies among Vancouver’s radical Sikh community. He developed much of the information that the Dominion Government used to expel the bulk of the Komagata Maru’s passengers in the summer of 1914. Largely due to his information and the leadership of a rookie Vancouver MP H.H. Stevens, the Canadian government met the challenge of unwanted and uninvited illegals seeking to evade our rules and sneak into Canada.

 

William Hopkinson would pay the ultimate price for his dedication. He was assassinated by Mewa Singh, a Ghadr party member and Sikh radical inside the courthouse in downtown Vancouver, October 21, 1914. It is now the Vancouver Art Gallery. Many of his Indian agents were also murdered by radical Sikhs. With all the boo-hooing about the government of Sir Robert Borden’s decision to expel the illegals, the toadying politicians and the servile media tell us little of the killings and violence perpetrated by the Sikh radicals within their own community in that Vancouver of a century ago.Maru: Illegal in 1914; No Apology Needed Today!

CFIRC Organizes Protests in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa

 

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee  is organizing protests in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa on May 18,   to protest Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced plan to make yet another apology to Canada’s Sikhs for the expulsion of the “Komagata Maru” in 1914.

As well, the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee will hold a press conference to oppose Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s  apology to Canada’s Sikhs for the “Komagata Maru” incident. The press conference will be held in the Charles Lynch Room (Room 130-S) on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

 

“Prime Minister Trudeau’s apology to Sikhs for the Dominion Government’s decision 102 years ago to turn back the “Komagata Maru”, a ship carrying 376 Indians, mostly Sikhs, is humiliating and wrong,” says CFIRC Director Paul Fromm.

 

“We can only apologize for our own actions,” Mr. Fromm explains. “We cannot apologize for the actions takenover a century ago, nor should we. The government of the time did the right thing. The “Komagata Maru” was hired by a radical Sikh businessman to try to test Canada’s immigration laws. The Dominion Government upheld the laws; the border busters lost. No apology needed.”

 

“For 30 years, Canadian politicians have been bedeviled by demands by radical Sikhs for an apology. Prime Minister Harper apologized in 2008 and paid over $2-million for Sikhs to commemorate their own history,” Mr. Fromm adds. “These demands do not reflect reality. Most Sikhs clearly do not consider Canada a hostile country. Indeed, they see it as a promised land. In the past four decades, tens of thousands of Sikhs have come to Canada. Canada  has the second largest Sikh population outside of India,” he adds.

 

Sikhs constitute 1.5 of Canada’s population but have 4 members or 13 per cent of the Liberal cabinet. Again no apology is needed.  Canadians cannot apologize for what other Canadians did a century ago. Policies change, politics change and new people are elected. If our views today differ from our forefathers, that difference shows in new policies, not apologies.”

 

“If the Government wants to revisit the Komagata Maru incident, it might consider honouring, perhaps with a stamp, William  C. Hopkinson, a resourceful immigration department inspector. Born in India, he spoke several Indian languages and his duties included going under cover among Sikhs revolutionaries active in British Columbia. It was also thought that he worked for the Americans in a similar capacity. He put together the information relied on by the Dominion Government to turn back the Komagata Maru. In October, 1914, he was assassinated by Mewa Singh, a Sikh extremist inside the Vancouver Court House (now the Vancouver Art Gallery) as a direct result of his work in the Komagata Maru incident.

–30–

 

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee publishes the monthly Canadian Immigration Hotline and holds meetings across the country. A recent video on our website explains our position on the Komagata Maru incident more fully: Justin Trudeau Shouldn’t Apologize to the Sikh’s on May 18th https://youtu.be/czbKQq5KWXc

[To learn the truth about the “Komagata Maru”, send $7.00 to 

C-FAR Books, 

P.O. Box 332, 

Rexdale,. ON., 

M9W 5L3

 for a copy of Robert Jarvis’s booklet The Komagata Maru Incident: A Canadian Immigration Revisited. Read about the assassination by a Sikh extremist of William Hopkinson, a Canadian immigration agent and undercover operative. The memory of this intrepid and brave man has been thrust down the memory hole by the politically correct.]

Komagata Maru Incident Fact Sheet – No Apology Needed
The Komagata Maru’s arrival challenged a 1908 regulation that denied entry to immigrants unless they had $200 and had made a “continuous journey” from their home country. … Under the policy, only 20 returning residents, and the ship’s doctor and his family were allowed to enter. The remaining passengers were confined to the ship for two months, after which the ship was forced to sail back to India.

 

The incursion of the Komagata Maru was organized by a radical Sikh businessman named Gurdit Singh as a test of Canada’s immigration laws. It was a business venture. Gurdit Singh, originally from the Punjab but based in Singapore, told associates in Hong Kong that, if the Komagata Maru succeeded in busting Canada’s immigration regulations, he’d bring 25,000 Sikhs to British Columbia. Remember that, in 1914, Vancouver was a city of just 70,000 souls. The passengers had to pay a hefty fare.

 

       Gurdit Singh was an associate of an Indian revolutionary movement called the Ghadar Party. Ghadar is Urdu for “mutiny.” Many Whites could recall the brutal massacre of men, women and children when some units of the Indian Army mutinied in 1857. The mutiny claimed over 11,000 British troops and hundreds of British women and children. Undesirables:White Canada and the Komagata Maru explains: In 1913, “the Hindustani Workers of the Pacific Coast, a revolutionary organization,  crystallized … in Astoria, Oregon. It would soon become known, after the title of its magazine, as the Ghadar Party – a provocative name, since ghadar meant mutiny. The new party … advocated the armed overthrow of the British Empire, extolling [sic] Indian soldiers to mutiny once again.”

 

Husain Rahim, Bhag Singh, Balwant Singh and Sohan Lal, among others were its members.” These four were key members of the Shore Committee which agitated on behalf of the Komagata Maru, raised funds and retained legal assistance. Undesirables, which is fervently for the Komagata Maru cause, adds: Immigration inspector William Hopkinson was “certain that the voyage of the Komagata Maru was part of a Ghadar Party strategy, with Gurdit Singh in on the conspiracy. Singh’s statements to the press on the arrival had confirmed [these] fears: ‘What is done with this ship load of my people will determine whether we shall have peace in all parts of the British Empire.’”

 

William Hopkinson’s short life would make an excellent movie plot or a gripping dramatic series dealing with undercover work and foreign revolutionaries, schemes to hoodwink the Canadian government and much, much more. Oh, yes, and many shootings and assassinations by a group of newcomers to Canada.

 

Instead of apologizing for a past patriotic government’s decision to expel a shipload of illegals and instead of issuing a stamp (as the Harper government did in 2014) commemorating the radicals of the unsuccessful Komagata Maru immigration incursion of 1914, the Canadian government should issue a stamp honouring William C Hopkinson. He was a gifted linguist and a daring undercover agent who ran a network of spies among Vancouver’s radical Sikh community. He developed much of the information that the Dominion Government used to expel the bulk of the Komagata Maru’s passengers in the summer of 1914. Largely due to his information and the leadership of a rookie Vancouver MP H.H. Stevens, the Canadian government met the challenge of unwanted and uninvited illegals seeking to evade our rules and sneak into Canada.

 

William Hopkinson would pay the ultimate price for his dedication. He was assassinated by Mewa Singh, a Ghadr party member and Sikh radical inside the courthouse in downtown Vancouver, October 21, 1914. It is now the Vancouver Art Gallery. Many of his Indian agents were also murdered by radical Sikhs. With all the boo-hooing about the government of Sir Robert Borden’s decision to expel the illegals, the toadying politicians and the servile media tell us little of the killings and violence perpetrated by the Sikh radicals within their own community in that Vancouver of a century ago.

Consider this, “Black Lives Matter” And So Do Other Groups Other Groups

Posted on by
Consider this, “Black Lives Matter” And So Do Other Groups Other Groups
By Nick Champani
 
On Monday April 4, 2016, more than 100 Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters rallied at Queens Park. This was a continuation  of a  protest involving BLM members who, starting on March 20  illegally squatted in makeshift tents and set bonfires in front of Toronto Police Headquarters. The squatting began a day after the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU) announced that no charges would be laid against the unidentified officer who fatally shot  a Black man named Andrew Loku in a confrontation with Toronto Police in the summer of 2015.
 
Mr. Loku reportedly suffered from mental illness.  His death has now become the motive for recent BLM squatting campaigns in Toronto.
 
BLM claims to be a call to action,  a response to virulent anti-Black racism and is against the not legally authorized killings of Black people by police and vigilantes. One of the organizers,Christina Gabriella Griffin, made it clear following their Toronto rally that ” Toronto and other cities need to know that if your police force is committed to an anti-black program, there’s going to be more tent cities. As long as the killing keeps going on, we’re going to be out here.”
 
But what exactly happened to Mr. Loku is the real question. Was he simply a vulnerable target for “racist” and “anti-Black” police to murder in cold blood, and perhaps something for these officers to laugh about afterwards? Or was this a case of one of our police officers having his or her safety put in immediate danger and resorting to lethal force to avoid potentially losing his own life?
 
Mike McCormack, who is president of the Toronto Police Association, stated the following:
 
“On the early evening of July 4, 2015, Toronto police officers saw Mr. Loku riding a three-wheeled scooter on a busy highway in downtown Toronto. Needless to say, this was a dangerous situation for Mr. Loku and motorists. Concerned for his safety and well-being, the officers assisted Mr. Loku by loading his scooter into a police car and driving him home.
 
“Three hours later, there was an assault-in- progress call to Mr. Loku’s Toronto residence, involving a man armed with a hammer threatening a woman with death and refusing to leave her apartment. Police officers responded where they were met by an agitated and violent Mr. Loku, wielding a hammer.
 
“The officers attempted to de-escalate the situation and repeatedly asked Mr. Loku to drop his weapon. Mr. Loku’s violent behaviour intensified, and with the hammer raised above his head, he advanced within several feet of the officers. Unable to create distance between themselves and Mr. Loku due to the narrow hallway and stairwell behind them, the officers responded to this imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death, by using force.”
 
Perhaps this truly was the case. If so, some may consider the circumstances justified the shooting of Mr. Loku. Or perhaps there are some major aspects of the story which are missing. In either case, it does not seem to really matter to those who are part of BLM what actually happened. In other words, are the BLM protestors simply looking for incidents like Mr. Loku’s death in order to label any police officer’s shootings of Black people in order to accuse police of being “racist” and “anti-Black”. 
 
Knowing actual facts, of course, would likely give them fewer grounds for tossing names around in their attempts to defame people. One of this groups biggest arguments is that the police are disproportionately arresting  and carding people of non-White ethnicity. The evidence on the other hand very strongly suggests that the police simply arrest people who commit crimes, and people of non-White ethnicities appear to commit crimes at higher rates. Many crimes have witnesses. For example, in cases of robberies and rapes, the victim usually gets a good look at the perpetrator. And if 70% of people who are victims tell the police the assailant was black and 70% of the people arrested for robberies and rapes are back, the police are probably just doing their job.
 
Although crime statistics on the basis of ethnicity are allegedly not collected by any major government department in Canada, this graph from the U.S. (where the BLM movement originated) looks at 22 types of offenses. In the graph, there are two lines for each offense. The left line for each offense indicates the race of the person whom a witness alleges had committed the crime. The right line for each offense indicates the race of the person who was actually arrested.  For example, the most frequent offense is robbery. Witnesses said that more than 70% of robbers were Black. However, as you can see from the shorter lighter line to the right, fewer than 60% of those arrested for robbery were Black. Similarities can be seen in Assault Offenses, Kidnapping/Abduction and in Sex Offenses. In each offense category, in spite of witnesses identifying offenders as Black (or Asian, Hispanic or White), police arrested fewer Blacks than what witnesses told them were Black offenders. In other words, in 15 of the 22 offense categories, witnesses identified Blacks as the offenders, but police arrested fewer Blacks. This may indicate that police may have given Blacks a break by probing witness statements more carefully than otherwise and finding evidence which contradicted witnesses’ accounts.

In some cases, slightly more Blacks are arrested than you would expect from witness reports. However, when you add up the offenses from all categories, the Black arrest rate is actually 14% lower than the percentage reported by witnesses. This data is from more than 6,000 different police departments. 

Take a look at this graph from New York City where Blacks are a minority making up around 30% of the population.

This New York City graph shows the rate at which people of different races are arrested for different crimes. For Murder, the White arrest rate is about 1. In contrast, the Black arrest rate is 30.9, a huge difference that cannot be easily dismissed as prejudicial against Blacks.  Even starker than the arrest rate for murder is the arrest rate for shootings. For that crime, the arrest rate is 98.4% for Blacks and 1% for Whites. Again, the difference in the rate is so great that even movements like Black Lives Matter will have extreme difficulty in attributing the difference to such phenomena as racial profiling.

As you will notice, in each crime category, Blacks commit more crime than Hispanics and Hispanics commit more crime than Asians. For the Black Lives Matter movement, this must mean the NYPD loves Whites and Asians. Right? 

Let’s face it. The police arrest criminals. In the case of the U.S., if they arrest more Blacks than they do Whites and Asians, it is simply because Blacks commit more crime. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sources:

“Racist” Chinese Detergent Ad

Posted on by

“Racist” Chinese Detergent Ad

Only in the West, infected by Cultural Marxism do we hear arguments that race does not exist, that it is only a “social construct”. The rest of the world knows race exists. Most people clearly know who they are. They are unashamedly supportive of their own race or tribe  and fearful, contemptuous of or hostile to others.
 
The Cultural Marxist mental syphilis seeks to erode European pride and will to exist and defend itself against invaders.
 
“Anti-racism”, thus, can only be seen as a code word for anti-White.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE

This Chinese laundry detergent commercial is jaw-droppingly racist

Updated by on May 27, 2016, 1:10 p.m. ET @germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com

On first thought, a laundry detergent commercial may not seem like a place for any message about race whatsoever. But as the blog Shanghaiist reports, a company in China apparently decided blatant racism was the right way to sell laundry detergent.

The ad, for Qiaobi laundry detergent, starts with a woman doing her laundry, when a paint-splattered black man appears. The woman signals him to her washing machine, then stuffs detergent in his mouth and pushes him into the machine. After the wash is done, a young, clean Chinese man rises out of the machine.

There’s not much to explain here. This ad is blatantly racist. (And based on a similar Italian commercial.)

But it’s also a reminder that attitudes over race and skin color in China can be very bad. Shanghaiist explained:

Thanks to traditional beauty standards valuing white skin, many Chinese people have a well-established phobia of dark skin which unfortunately also breeds racist attitudes towards people of African descent, who are viewed by some as “dirty” simply because of their skin tone.

Another recent example of how this shows up in marketing, also cited by Shanghaiist, is the promotion for Star Wars: In China, posters for The Force Awakens were altered to minimize John Boyega, a black actor who plays Finn, a central character in the movie.

Sans Serif

Send

 

Social Rights Versus Equality of Races

Posted on by

Social Rights Versus Equality of Races

Nottingham miners in 1948
Nottingham miners in 1948
Current liberals with socialist leanings have deceptively extended the concept of “social rights” to foreign immigrants in direct opposition to the original ethno-nationalistic meaning of this concept intended by the early European proponents of welfarism.

UN Covenant on Social Rights

The beginnings of this extension may be traced back to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966. Articles 6-15 of this “international covenant” include rights to work, to form and join trade unions, social insurance, paid parental leave, adequate standard of living, health care, free primary education and generally available secondary and higher education.

These social and economic rights, however, were first formulated within the context of the nation states of Europe intended for the native population. The key rationale in their formulation, by socialistic liberals in the late 19th century to early 20th century, was that civil rights on their own (equal rights to freedom of expression, equal treatment under the law, religious freedom) were inadequate since many members of the nation were too poor to make full use of these civil rights, and only government assistance would it be possible for all citizens to enjoy a level playing field in “the full development” of their “human personality”.

But in the aftermath of WWII, Western liberals began to argue for the extension of these rights to humans across the world, leading to the formulation of this treaty in 1966. Although this was an international covenant, the proponents of these rights were Westerners. Non-European nations, to this day, have generally ignored these rights. And those nations like Japan, which developed the wealth necessary to afford them, could not care less whether other nations live up to these rights. Only Western liberals have made it a matter of principle and conscience to work for the successful application of these rights around the world.

The New Ideology of the Equality of Races after WWII

Social rights are consistent with liberalism and Western ethnic nativism. The problem is that the enactment and application of these principles came in tandem with the spread of a new ideology of the equality of races.

This new ideology, which is not intrinsic to the concept of social rights, found full expression after WWII in three major political movements:

  1. “the struggle for decolonization” in the period from about 1948 to 1965, that is, the demand by colonies of the West to be granted national self-determination;
  2. the struggle against racial segregation in the United States, or the civil rights movement for equality under the law between Whites and Blacks from about 1955 to 1965;
  3. the struggle for the elimination of White-only immigration policies in the settler states of Canada, America, and Australia during the 60s and 70s.

All these movements were driven by the new ideology of the equality of races. This is not to say that the right of all peoples to national or ethnic self-termination, the movement against the division of the world into colonized and colonizer nations, can’t be supported without acceptance of the ideology of the equality of the races. Just as the concept of social rights is conceptually independent from the notion of racial equality, so is the principle of national self-determination conceptually independent from both social rights and the equality of races. One can agree that all peoples have a right to self-determination on the grounds that the racial and ethnic differences of peoples is a good thing. One can accept, on liberal principles, the notion of civil rights and economic rights within a nation, and argue for separate territories for different races. One can also argue that there is nothing in the principle of civic and social rights that calls for racial integration.

Likewise, there is nothing in the concepts of civic and social rights that precludes nations from excluding foreigners from enjoying these rights. It was only with the spread of the idea of the equality of the races that Westerners came to think that to be a true liberal believer in civic and social rights requires one to extend these rights to all humans across the world. The notion of the equality of races would transform the meaning of civic and social rights into human rights to be enjoyed by all humans regardless of nationality. Misusing Kant’s concept of “cosmopolitanism”, Western liberals in the last decades have brought about this conceptual change without any nationalist opposition.

One of a number of liberals involved in this conceptual transformation is the Turk Seyla Benhabib, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Yale University. In The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (2004), she redefines the notion of civic rights to mean human rights, from which point she then argues that insofar as everyone on the planet has human rights, it is “impermissible from a moral standpoint” to deny incorporating aliens and strangers, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers into the existing liberal polities of Europe. Europeans, if they are to live up to the principles of civic and social rights, must extend these rights as human rights to immigrants wishing to come to Europe. The Europeans who reject this extension are fascists.

This is what socialists are arguing today. Socialists used to be for the protection of nationals against the importation of cheap labour; but now they have accepted the notion that all humans have human rights as equal members of the same human race, and that insofar as they have human rights, they have a right to migrate to Western nations and enjoy the same social rights as the natives.

This evident in David Abraham’s article, Immigration, Majority Rights, and Welfare State Solidarity, which is an assessment of Liav Orgad’s right wing “liberal theory of majority rights”. Abraham, Professor of Law at Miami University, has an extensive publication record dedicated to the promotion of economic rights for immigrants, against “neo-liberal globalization”, as the best way of integrating diverse ethnic groups within Western nations. Abraham wants his readers and students to believe that this extension of social rights to immigrants is what the liberal tradition calls for.

In what follows, which is a continuation of my assessment of Liav Orgad’s right wing “liberal theory of majority rights”, I will counter Abraham’s claim by relying on the “Anglocentric” socialist ideas of T.H. Marshall (1893-1981), a first formulator of the concept of social rights. The principle of social rights was never intended, and does not in principle entail, social rights for humans across the world and for immigrants. The latter is a cultural Marxist idea that was infiltrated into Western socialism by hostile elites.

The Flaw in Orgad’s Theory — Again

Orgad’s thesis is that the peoples of Europe have a legitimate right to restrict immigration in order to protect their majority culture. Orgad is correct that in the face of mass immigration, and the ever demographic growth of minorities, and the projected reduction of European majorities into “majority-minority” status, it would be absurd to keep pressing for the rights of minorities.

But Orgad’s theory amounts to no more than a call for the assimilation of immigrants to those cultural attributes of the majority culture that bespeak currently of tolerance, diversity, and constitutionalism.

Not long ago, roughly before WWII, one would be hard put finding calls for diversification in the Western liberal tradition. But liberalism has now been thoroughly colonized by hostile concepts; and so what Orgad, associated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is defending is a cultural Marxist version of liberalism. His theory of majority cultural rights basically says that Western nations can continue to be immigrant nations as long as they protect the majority liberal culture, and that this is the best way to fight off “extreme nationalism”.

We believe at CEC, to the contrary, that civic rights were postulated in the context of highly homogeneous European states, and that these rights are being threatened by diversification and extension into peoples lacking a history and a disposition for these rights. Civic rights presuppose European ethnic self-determination, which is not inconsistent with the acknowledgement of the rights of historically rooted minorities to the degree that these minorities have shown a natural predilection to live up to the principle of civic rights. By the same token, liberal rights are consistent with the separation of peoples into different territories within which they may find their own national means of ethnic self-determination.

David Abraham’s Multicultural Social Rights

David Abraham’s objection to Orgad is simply that it is preferable to emphasize additional socialist spending as a way of integrating everyone within the nation’s multicultural setting, rather than promoting the cultural rights of majorities. A more open, broader, and tolerant sense of “we”, he argues, can be nurtured more effectively through “social equality” measures than through “normative principles, values, and institutions”. The best medicine, which would encourage the majority culture to feel at home, in their increasingly diversifying nations, is to fight neoliberal economic policies, which weaken immigrant integration.

In other words, what the majority tax-paying culture needs to do is fork out more money for the growing immigrant populations. The massive welfare states of Europe should forego whatever “neoliberal” economic policies they adopted in recent decades and expand welfare spending. Orgad’s call for greater majority protections, Abraham warns, is “very slippery” and can quickly create a climate in which illiberal views, such as those of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, become acceptable. The way to overcome the illiberal immigrants is to support them economically, educate them, given them pride in their heritage, and make them feel a home in Europe.

Many may think that Abraham is arguing in a consistently socialist manner; a social liberal who believes that welfare rights are essential to the integration of previously excluded groups into a common national culture, a patriot calling for national integration and loyalty. The truth is that all the welfare states of Europe were created for the sake of making the native White working classes feel that they were part of the national culture, by integrating them into the national economy and the educational system, in order to nurture a sense of ethnocentric identity with the heritage of their nation.

T.H. Marshall’s Anglocentric Social Rights

 

T.H. Marshall

One of the theoretical strategies early socialists used in justifying the creation of welfare programs was to argue that liberalism was consistent with the inclusion of “social rights” into the concept of civic citizenship. The best known proponent of social rights in England was T.H. Marshall; an idea he first espoused in his 1949 essay Citizenship and the Social Class. Marshall observed that the British working classes lacked a sense of identity, national in scope, because they were existing on the margins. He further argued that the best way to nurture a British national identity was to afford workers with social rights, by which he meant a modicum of health care and educational facilities. Civic rights were not enough for workers since they lacked the means to participate fully as co-creators of the national culture beyond their localities.

It should be noted, if we are to keep Marshall’s ideas in historical perspective, that state spending on education started in Europe after the 1850s, on compulsory and free education for children, and on public health and sanitation, focusing mainly on the lower to middle classes, but then growing and benefiting the less skilled working classes through the first half of the twentieth century, though it was only in the 1950s and 1960s that Western countries saw full fledged programs, guaranteed income supplements, pensions, child welfare, disabled person’s benefits, etc, to establish an “adequate” living standard beyond bare subsistence.

Marshall was advocating ideas that would rationalize this expansion in the 1950s and 1960s. But he was not original in this respect; socialists had been arguing for these policies for decades. What was new about Marshall was his effort to argue that civil rights were not enough to integrate the working classes into the nation’s culture. Liberal theory needed to be expanded to include social rights as a matter of principle to give workers a sense of identification with the nation’s culture by giving them a fairer chance to develop themselves as individual members within the nation.

Marshall did not frame this argument in economic terms, in trade-union or Keynesian terms, but insisted that social rights would work to integrate the working classes into the national liberal culture of Britain. Moreover, when he spoke of the working class in Britain he meant the native-born English, by ethnicity, religion, and culture generally. Not surprisingly, as liberalism was taken over by cultural Marxists in the 1960s, and a new breed of feminist/anti-White liberals was born, Marshall’s conception of social rights was “criticized by many for only being from the perspective of the white working man”. Members of the hostile elite, in full control of academia in the 1970s, announced that Marshall was too “Anglocentric” (PDF) and no longer a “true” liberal.

This is a subject requiring further study; suffice it to say that major conceptual alterations and additions transpired within liberal theory after WWII, from the time of Marshall to the time of Abraham.

One can certainly find reasonable objections to Marshall’s concept of social rights on economic grounds and on libertarian grounds. The point at hand is that the concept of social rights is not inconsistent with a nation that believes in civic rights, freedom of expression, separation of church and state, representative institutions, and at the same time opposes open borders and encourages ethnic pride in their citizens. What is inconsistent is the notion that social rights presuppose the creation of nations dedicated to the integration of foreigners as immigrants with social rights. The historical and theoretical evidence does not support this extension.

Arabic writing on police cruiser in Ontario

Posted on by

Arabic writing on police cruiser in Ontario

SO IT STARTS – THE LITTLE TOE IS IN THE DOOR ALREADY.
WELL NOW  –  How do you like this ? THIS IS OUR ONTARIO ! ! 
Why is this acceptable?  and who in hell authorized it ??????????
 
 
Not even French
cid:939F9BACF30F479BAAE53D84DA9F6336@c4

cid:A26F282B0E3D434480E13E7271F1C4A9@c4