[QatzelOk]

or example it ignores the role of other colonising powers in the formation of the American colonies,

The Spanish mixed with the natives, rather than genociding the entire continent, as the Anglos attempted to do (and were ultimately successful).

and ignores subsequent immigration.

The Anglos imported other peoples in order to destroy any competition for cultural hegemony. So, Scottish and Irish immigrants were created and imported to dilute the use of French in Eastern and Western Canada. Ukrainian farmers were imported to displace the Natives in the West (by using all the hunting land for farms). Etc.

This strategic immigration continues to this day. The Anglos continue to build their master race culture through wars, legislation, and strategic immigration.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Spanish mixed with the natives, rather than genociding the entire continent, as the Anglos attempted to do (and were ultimately successful).

Given the Spanish were the first to introduce smallpox etc. to the Americas this seems to be an odd view of Spanish colonialism. It also ignores the institution of slavery, forced religious conversions and economic exploitation. That Spainish colonisers mixed with the population more than in the British example isn't really a product of humanity, but a lack of available immigrants.

I'm still waiting for those references to genocide in Canada post 1900.

[QatzelOk]

Given the Spanish were the first to introduce smallpox etc. to the Americas this seems to be an odd view of Spanish colonialism.

Jeffrey Amherst was Spanish? He was the first euro to use smallpox as a weapon against "the bad guys" - meaning, the non-whites.

I'm still waiting for those references to genocide in Canada post 1900.

The Anglos imported other peoples in order to destroy any competition for cultural hegemony. So, Scottish and Irish immigrants were created and imported to dilute the use of French in Eastern and Western Canada. Ukrainian farmers were imported to displace the Natives in the West (by using all the hunting land for farms). Etc.

This strategic immigration continues to this day. The Anglos continue to build their master race culture through wars, legislation, and strategic immigration.

Also, the French in Quebec -- read what FDR wrote to our prime minister about this non-Anglo race. It looks like something Hitler would have alleged to have written.

All of this leads me to wonder whether, by some sort of planning, Canada and the United States, working toward the same end, cannot do some planning - perhaps unwritten planning which would not even be a public policy - by which we can hasten the objective of assimilating the New England French Canadians and Canada's French Canadians into the whole of our respective bodies politic. There are of course, many methods of doing this, which depend on local circumstances. Wider opportunities can perhaps be given to them in other parts of Canada and the U.S.; and at the same time, certain opportunities can probably be given to non French Canadian stock to mingle more greatly with them in their own centers.

If FDR had been destroyed, would Quebec be free?

[Smilin' Dave]

Jeffrey Amherst was Spanish? He was the first euro to use smallpox as a weapon against "the bad guys" - meaning, the non-whites.

This isn't the point, the point is your vision of benign Spanish empire is highly fraudulent. To use your approach, if the Spanish had stayed away millions (? can't remember the stats) of natives would not have been killed in the resulting epidemics.

When asked for evidence of genocide, you reiterated this,

The Anglos imported other peoples in order to destroy any competition for cultural hegemony. So, Scottish and Irish immigrants were created and imported to dilute the use of French in Eastern and Western Canada. Ukrainian farmers were imported to displace the Natives in the West (by using all the hunting land for farms). Etc.

Cultural hegemony isn't genocide, and if it were, then you are again engaging in fraud with respect to your claims on Spanish colonialism.

Then this,

All of this leads me to wonder whether, by some sort of planning, Canada and the United States, working toward the same end, cannot do some planning - perhaps unwritten planning which would not even be a public policy - by which we can hasten the objective of assimilating the New England French Canadians and Canada's French Canadians into the whole of our respective bodies politic. There are of course, many methods of doing this, which depend on local circumstances. Wider opportunities can perhaps be given to them in other parts of Canada and the U.S.; and at the same time, certain opportunities can probably be given to non French Canadian stock to mingle more greatly with them in their own centers.

FDR could well be talking about political association here, rather than somehow breeding out the French Canadians. For example population transfers could actually result in more French Canadians running around the place, but it would result in a shift in political power.

[QatzelOk]

It is on the same basis that I am trying to work out post-war plans for the encouragement of the distribution of certain other nationalities in our large congested centers. There ought not to be such a concentration of Italians and of Jews, and even of Germans as we have today in New York City. I have started my National Resources Planning Commission to work on a survey of this kind.

What an interesting racial view Mr. Roosevelt has. Other races need to be "redistributed" so that they can be assimilated. He wants to disappear any challenge to WASP hierarchy. And he is one of the heroes of WW2 that we Quebecois were supposed to be "fighting" beside.

Meanwhile, in private, he plots to destroy our culture with whatever means are available to him.

Once the anglos had killed off the natives, and humiliated the French settlements, it went on to use every thing in its arsenal - wars, economic blackmail, language laws, banning French from schools, appointing Irish anti-French priests, eradicating the Metis culture from the West... anything to destroy the other cultures.

Would this kind of mentality have been destroyed if England had been properly bombed?

[pugsville]

I dont think that colonial brutally is the domian of any particular race. Mass Murder, Terrorism, Oppression has happened through out history with a wide variety of perpertrators and victims. The British Empire may have been more "sucessfull" but I dont see it as been different in the sort of things afflictted on native populations. The worst colonial experince is widely regarded to be the belgian congo. The arrogence that your people are better than some other people and because you have superior firepower you should take what you want is hardly solely in the hands of the british empire. And certianly by WW2 the effect of the dissappearance of the british empire would have been minimal as most of the damage had been done. Do you think if the spanish armada had been sucessful and the conquestadors had conquored a empire the sun never set on that the subject native people would had a qualitatively better experince?

[QatzelOk]

The worst colonial experince is widely regarded to be the belgian congo.

Widely regarded by Anglos, you mean.

I attended a lecture on Genocide in Paris, and the American presenter mentionned all of the genocides of the Russians, Chinese, Germans and Belgians. But the USA's genocides were not even mentionned.

Ironically, the course the lecture was part of was on xenophobia and Orientalism.

One of the great propaganda coups of Britain was how it educates its minions (who attend its schools) into some kind of nationalist cocoon where British crimes - the greatest in the world - can be swept away as "typical" on the one hand, and yet its empire is "exceptional" on the other.

Note to common sense: If imperialism is built on racism and genocide, than the most "successful" empires will be built on the most severe racism and the most horrendous genocides.

And could the Germans have rid the earth of its worst racist genociders (the British?). Think of all the post-colonial wars that could have been avoided. Millions of innocent civilian lives could have been spared if Germany had eradicated the British Colonial scourge.

[Smilin' Dave]

What an interesting racial view Mr. Roosevelt has. Other races need to be "redistributed" so that they can be assimilated.

Again this isn't necessarily an issue of race, but one of political integration. Roosevelt isn't specifically discussing cultural assimilation. Now, I seem to remember you claiming that the "WASPs" were using immigrants specifically to dilute other populations. This text you quote from FDR suggests that the opposite is true, and in fact suggests that immigrants from a range of backgrounds were having a socio-political impact on American development.

Widely regarded by Anglos, you mean.

So you think the Congolese peoples thought King Leopold's little experiment was fair and even handed? You really are just being ridiculous now.

If imperialism is built on racism and genocide

It isn't, so the wheels fall off your bit of false reasoning before you even get started. Domination of others need not be based on race or extermination of all other major populations. See the Romans for a case study.

Millions of innocent civilian lives could have been spared if Germany had eradicated the British Colonial scourge.

As opposed to the millions who would have been killed in east and western Europe? I've yet to see anything from yourself other than clueless fantasy to suggest that an Axis dominated world (including those modern colonial-types, the Japanese) would have been better for the rest of the world than Britain etc.

[QatzelOk]

Now, I seem to remember you claiming that the "WASPs" were using immigrants specifically to dilute other populations. This text you quote from FDR suggests that the opposite is true

Are you kidding me? That quote is FDR suggesting that more redistribution of foreign elements is necessary to preserve Waspiness in White post-injun-genocide America. Hitler is alleged to have thought like this as well.

Congo... The Romans...

If the Romans had been destroyed, would its colonies have been freed? Answer, yes. I think you're just trying to justify English master-race behavior, when this thread isn't about whether it's good or bad. It's about whether England being "passified" would have freed up all those colonies all over the world.

Millions of innocent civilian lives could have been spared if Germany had eradicated the British Colonial scourge.

As opposed to the millions who would have been killed in east and western Europe?

How could England have kept killing people in Eastern and Western Europe if it had been silenced by Germany? Perhaps England being passified in World War One would have lead to peace in that region as well. But by WW2, it was too late. Britain's tentacles were pulling the levers of power in that part of the world, and that meant war.

But we're only talking about British colonies being freed if the UK had been utterly disgraced by Germany in the UK's second colonial war - WW2.

[Smilin' Dave]

Are you kidding me? That quote is FDR suggesting that more redistribution of foreign elements is necessary to preserve Waspiness in White post-injun-genocide America.

This appears to be nothing but you reading what you wish to see in the text. Based on what is actually in the text, and what we know of FDR in general, I don't see your interpretation at all. And to reiterate, relocation isn't not necesarily genocide though it can be. It is apparent from the text quoted this wasn't the intent at all, and it wasn't even implemented.

this thread isn't about whether it's good or bad. It's about whether England being "passified" would have freed up all those colonies all over the world.

That is indeed the title, but your OP clearly suggests that we were to discuss broader issues and also had a clear moral spin on it. So yes, good and bad were at issue when you started throwing around terms like vandalism, terrorised and vanity. Don't pretend you are not changing the subject.

How could England have kept killing people in Eastern and Western Europe if it had been silenced by Germany?

I was referring to the Nazis rather than the English, although I think you knew that. I know you are allergic to discussion Nazi genocide, but it is a fact and I won't be ignoring the true ramifications of what you propose just because it conflicts with your dreadful world view.

But we're only talking about British colonies being freed if the UK had been utterly disgraced by Germany in the UK's second colonial war - WW2.

World War II was not about colonies (Poland after all was no one's colony in 1939) and even if it were, it would not even be close to the UK's second colonial war. Just how arrogant do you have to be, to be a commentator about something you show no knowledge about?

[QatzelOk]

Just how arrogant do you have to be, to be a commentator about something you show no knowledge about?

This doesn't really help answer my question, does it.

How arrogant would you have to be to blow up half the world and blame it on the Huns again?

Who will get the blame for the world war America is working so hard to start? Afghan resistance fighters, or will it be... the Huns?