First, I brought up the Seven Wars War as a reference point because I was referring to the period of time before then at the time e.i. 1600s. Second, Quebec was most certainly French, and most certainly under English rule after it was conquered. Third I was referring to activities between the colonies of the different nations
I'm quite confused now. You're bringing up events from the 18th century to make a point about the 17th century? How does that work?
Yes, Quebec was and is French. And it was under British rule after the French and Indian Wars. But there weren't many English settlers there, since the Quebec Act gave the French Catholics plenty of autonomy to conduct their colony in their own way. What English settlers there weren't in much of a position to try to enforce their language on the French in Quebec, due to simple demographics.
Can you show any evidence that the colonists or the governments were motivated by linguistic differences? It would seem to me that the Quebec Act flies directly in the face of this assertion. The moment the British had their hands on a large chunk of French subjects in Quebec, they didn't seem all that eager to try to teach them all English.
And I know early Americans were biased against everyone, speak French in school was one of the worst things you could do well into my grandparents generation.
Your grandparents generation? Unless you're *far* older than I am, I'm going to have to doubt that. I grew up in Massachusetts, and, up into my mother's generation (she was born in the 50s), classes in our town were still taught half in French for the French speaking population (the town had more Catholic schools than public schools). The only real problems were with the Poles, because they taught their kids half in Polish instead. My grandfather was raised in a French-speaking home (born in the 1910s), and my grandparents were married in a French Mass. There was never any problems for them, nor for the previous generation.
Now, perhaps your family was from a different part of the United States, but Massachusetts was pretty WASPy and it managed to accommodate all those French Catholics by the late 19th and early 20th centuries pretty reasonably.
For the first part visit an area that is not populated by English first, and do some research there.
On what basis are you assuming that I am ignorant about which I speak? Simply that I am disagreeing with your assertions for which you have provided nothing other than anecdotal evidence about your own family's experiences?
And as for the casus belli poor choice of words on my part, more so that it was a propaganda tool to drum up support for a conflict, again focusing on the 1600ish time period
Again, in the 17th century, any propaganda was going to focus mostly on Catholicism vs. Protestantism, rather than language.
So, I ask you:
- What examples are there of propaganda based on language from this period ?
- What examples are there of the government forcing other Europeans to learn English (to be sure, the United States did attempt to force English on American Indian tribes in the 19th century)?
- What is, in a concise description, your point about Anglophone supremacy?