I don't know why youtube's algorithm brings me here. but I'm happy to see that my cousins from northern Maine are interested in their French roots and their history. Friends of Quebec.
@EdinburghFive2 жыл бұрын
As is the case in other talks by Ms. Pelletier she has errored on a number of points or not provided critical context about Acadian history and the deportations and thus may leave the listeners with the wrong impression. Nomenclature, geographic location, and origins of ‘Acadia’: Acadia was not in fact the name “…Giovani Verrazano, … gave to the entire area along the coast of the Atlantic…”. Verrazano used the term Arcadia and placed this name only for an area that now approximates the region of Virginia. A review of the maps for the period clearly indicates this. Later maps tend to move the name northeastward. In this talk she completely also ignores the Indigenous origins of the name Acadia. There are two possible origins for the name Acadia, but only one, the Eurocentric version has been presented in the video. The name ascribed to the region that eventually became the French colony has been attributed to the movement of the location of Verrazano’s Arcadia on maps, as previously mentioned, along with the dropping of the ‘r’. The notion that the Arcadia of Verrazano origins and the Acadia of what is today the Maritime region of Canada, as well as parts of Maine, are related, arose over time, and was cemented in the historical psyche in the early twentieth century. This was a period when Indigenous people were largely marginalized and relegated to a few minor references in the written histories. The absence of the second possible origin of the name Acadia is troublesome to current sensibilities concerning the Indigenous people of North America. It is well known that ‘acadie’ is a common Mi’kmaq toponym as evidenced for example in the following place names - Tracadie, Benacadie, and Shubenacadie. European fishermen and traders had visited the shores of Acadia since at least the early 1500s and it could not have gone unnoticed that the Mi’kmaq used ‘acadie’ to indicate many places throughout the geographical area. The word translates to the approximate meaning of a ‘place of abundance or fertility’. With the common use of the word and the fact the region supplied an abundance of trade items to the Europeans, it can readily be supposed that Acadie was adopted to mean the entire region. This being the case perhaps it is a coincidence that Verrazano’s Arcadia and the Mi’kmaq Acadia are so similar. The establishment of Acadia as a colony arose as a business venture, not a project of the French Crown. Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons, along with his investors, desired to exploit the riches of the region. To that end, Dugua acquired a trade monopoly and right to colonize Acadia, from the French crown. The settling of colonists would support his efforts to exploit the fur trade, fishery, and other resources. Acadia did not become a French Crown colony until the 1660s. Ms. Pelletier gives Champlain first billing in the establishment of the colony beginning in Sr Croix. Although he was an important figure in the adventure it needs to understood Champlain was hired help in the form of the expedition’s cartographer. Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons was the gentleman behind the expedition and all others reported to him. The image of the Habitation provided is not how the settlement at St Croix would have looked. Champlain's own map of the settlement shows the buildings being distributed somewhat. The image in the video is of the formation of the buildings at Port Royal Habitation site. The buildings were set together as an enclosed fort for protection. This arrangement was not required at St Croix as the setting, being an island, provided natural protection. The Port Royal of Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons and Champlain's day is not at what is known today as Annapolis Royal. Annapolis Royal sits on top of the second iteration of Port Royal which was established in the 1630s on top of the earlier Scottish settlement of Charles Fort. The original Port Royal was built on the opposite shore of the Annapolis Basin a few miles to the southwest. It was mentioned the Acadians had a number of 'towns' but this was not the case. There was one settlement that can be considered a town and that was at Port Royal/Annapolis Royal. The rest of the Acadians lived in extended un-nucleated villages that ran along the marshland edges. As for the French settlers tending to immigrate in groups of associated family and community groups this was the case. Ms. Pelletier may be implying these people made this decision as an independent group. What is missing from the discussion is these groups were moving from seigneurial lands in France as tenant farmers to their Seigneur’s lands in Acadia, where they remained tenants. Although these French settlers made a choice to move to the New World it was not done on a random and independent basis. This is most evident in the settlers who arrive with Razilly and d’Aulnay in the 1630s. The soils of the Acadian marshlands and surrounding uplands are distinctly red in color, not black as stated in the video. The image in the video of the Acadians building dykes displays quite nicely the reddest colour of the soils. With respect to the use of the name ‘Acadian’ by the settlers it is unclear when the name came into broad use. It appears it may have come into broad use post deportation. I am not sure why Ms. Pelletier is linking the inherence of land to neutrality. Pre 1755, The Acadians had almost unrestricted access to land, thus tying land to being loyal to the French or English held little relevance. It is a completely unsupportable claim that when the Acadians were asked to provide the oaths they had to renounce their Catholic faith. The opposite was in fact the truth. Under the Treaty of Utrecht, the Acadian’s right to practice their Catholic belief was specifically protected. In England in the 1700s there were still practicing Catholics and they were not required to renounce their faith. Although the scale of the initial immigration to New England was larger than that of Acadia, the dynamic was very similar. There was an initial settlement period in the 1600s and from then on until the nineteenth-century the population grew primarily internally due to a low death rate and high birth rate. Although there was certainly an element of a land grab by Massachusetts this was not the primary reason behind the deportation of the Acadians. Ms. Pelletier provides little to no historical context. In this case she ignores the background of war and regional destabilization that arose due to the imperial rivalries of France and Britain. A state of war or near war had existed in the region since the 1740s and then it erupted again in the mid-1750s as the French and Indian War/Seven Years War. These tensions and loss of trust in the Acadians led to their deportation. Nova Scotia/Acadia was of great strategic interest to both France and Britain. The value to France was not in the Acadian people but in either controlling or destabilizing the region as a bulwark to protect the larger colony of New France. The estimate of 50% of the population dying during their transportation to the other colonies, England, and France is too high. There were certainly deaths due to poor conditions and sinking, with the highest losses occurring during the transatlantic crossings to England and France due to several ships sinking. What is not well understood, due to the lack of research, is the number of deaths that occurred as a direct result of the deportations, once the Acadians were landed at the various destinations. It is unknown the number of Acadians there were in 1755. The number tends to range from 15,000 to 18,000, with the lower number being considered more often. Approximately 11,500 Acadians were deported. The slide indicating the whereabouts of Acadians in 1763 at about 12,660 does not appear to support a 50% death rate. It was indicated there were no females in New France for the first forty years and thus the Filles du Roi were sent there. It should be clarified there were not 'enough' women in the colony to help establish a self-sustaining natural population growth. There also appears to be an error in the duration of Filles du Roi period as the video states a forty-year period when it was a ten-year period (1663 to 1673).
@TheLucyBetsy2 жыл бұрын
Awesome information!!
@patriciamachado60502 жыл бұрын
A word of advice: look for no sulfates fast hair growth shampoo.
@vanessaangrisani55422 жыл бұрын
Suggestion: check out no sulfates fast hair growth shampoo.
@rebeccamurille69522 жыл бұрын
You should look into fast hair growth shampoo to double hair growth.
@marialogan9392 жыл бұрын
Say hi to Paul! Maria Dorsey
@nxgrs743 жыл бұрын
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere/GHGs, makes the earth cooler than it would be without that atmosphere like that reflective panel set behind the windshield. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth would become much like the Moon and Mercury, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which according to RGHE theory comes from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a LWIR ideal black body which 4) cannot happen because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules and as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science: principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/ 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. Version 1.0 062221
Пікірлер
I don't know why youtube's algorithm brings me here. but I'm happy to see that my cousins from northern Maine are interested in their French roots and their history. Friends of Quebec.
As is the case in other talks by Ms. Pelletier she has errored on a number of points or not provided critical context about Acadian history and the deportations and thus may leave the listeners with the wrong impression. Nomenclature, geographic location, and origins of ‘Acadia’: Acadia was not in fact the name “…Giovani Verrazano, … gave to the entire area along the coast of the Atlantic…”. Verrazano used the term Arcadia and placed this name only for an area that now approximates the region of Virginia. A review of the maps for the period clearly indicates this. Later maps tend to move the name northeastward. In this talk she completely also ignores the Indigenous origins of the name Acadia. There are two possible origins for the name Acadia, but only one, the Eurocentric version has been presented in the video. The name ascribed to the region that eventually became the French colony has been attributed to the movement of the location of Verrazano’s Arcadia on maps, as previously mentioned, along with the dropping of the ‘r’. The notion that the Arcadia of Verrazano origins and the Acadia of what is today the Maritime region of Canada, as well as parts of Maine, are related, arose over time, and was cemented in the historical psyche in the early twentieth century. This was a period when Indigenous people were largely marginalized and relegated to a few minor references in the written histories. The absence of the second possible origin of the name Acadia is troublesome to current sensibilities concerning the Indigenous people of North America. It is well known that ‘acadie’ is a common Mi’kmaq toponym as evidenced for example in the following place names - Tracadie, Benacadie, and Shubenacadie. European fishermen and traders had visited the shores of Acadia since at least the early 1500s and it could not have gone unnoticed that the Mi’kmaq used ‘acadie’ to indicate many places throughout the geographical area. The word translates to the approximate meaning of a ‘place of abundance or fertility’. With the common use of the word and the fact the region supplied an abundance of trade items to the Europeans, it can readily be supposed that Acadie was adopted to mean the entire region. This being the case perhaps it is a coincidence that Verrazano’s Arcadia and the Mi’kmaq Acadia are so similar. The establishment of Acadia as a colony arose as a business venture, not a project of the French Crown. Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons, along with his investors, desired to exploit the riches of the region. To that end, Dugua acquired a trade monopoly and right to colonize Acadia, from the French crown. The settling of colonists would support his efforts to exploit the fur trade, fishery, and other resources. Acadia did not become a French Crown colony until the 1660s. Ms. Pelletier gives Champlain first billing in the establishment of the colony beginning in Sr Croix. Although he was an important figure in the adventure it needs to understood Champlain was hired help in the form of the expedition’s cartographer. Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons was the gentleman behind the expedition and all others reported to him. The image of the Habitation provided is not how the settlement at St Croix would have looked. Champlain's own map of the settlement shows the buildings being distributed somewhat. The image in the video is of the formation of the buildings at Port Royal Habitation site. The buildings were set together as an enclosed fort for protection. This arrangement was not required at St Croix as the setting, being an island, provided natural protection. The Port Royal of Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons and Champlain's day is not at what is known today as Annapolis Royal. Annapolis Royal sits on top of the second iteration of Port Royal which was established in the 1630s on top of the earlier Scottish settlement of Charles Fort. The original Port Royal was built on the opposite shore of the Annapolis Basin a few miles to the southwest. It was mentioned the Acadians had a number of 'towns' but this was not the case. There was one settlement that can be considered a town and that was at Port Royal/Annapolis Royal. The rest of the Acadians lived in extended un-nucleated villages that ran along the marshland edges. As for the French settlers tending to immigrate in groups of associated family and community groups this was the case. Ms. Pelletier may be implying these people made this decision as an independent group. What is missing from the discussion is these groups were moving from seigneurial lands in France as tenant farmers to their Seigneur’s lands in Acadia, where they remained tenants. Although these French settlers made a choice to move to the New World it was not done on a random and independent basis. This is most evident in the settlers who arrive with Razilly and d’Aulnay in the 1630s. The soils of the Acadian marshlands and surrounding uplands are distinctly red in color, not black as stated in the video. The image in the video of the Acadians building dykes displays quite nicely the reddest colour of the soils. With respect to the use of the name ‘Acadian’ by the settlers it is unclear when the name came into broad use. It appears it may have come into broad use post deportation. I am not sure why Ms. Pelletier is linking the inherence of land to neutrality. Pre 1755, The Acadians had almost unrestricted access to land, thus tying land to being loyal to the French or English held little relevance. It is a completely unsupportable claim that when the Acadians were asked to provide the oaths they had to renounce their Catholic faith. The opposite was in fact the truth. Under the Treaty of Utrecht, the Acadian’s right to practice their Catholic belief was specifically protected. In England in the 1700s there were still practicing Catholics and they were not required to renounce their faith. Although the scale of the initial immigration to New England was larger than that of Acadia, the dynamic was very similar. There was an initial settlement period in the 1600s and from then on until the nineteenth-century the population grew primarily internally due to a low death rate and high birth rate. Although there was certainly an element of a land grab by Massachusetts this was not the primary reason behind the deportation of the Acadians. Ms. Pelletier provides little to no historical context. In this case she ignores the background of war and regional destabilization that arose due to the imperial rivalries of France and Britain. A state of war or near war had existed in the region since the 1740s and then it erupted again in the mid-1750s as the French and Indian War/Seven Years War. These tensions and loss of trust in the Acadians led to their deportation. Nova Scotia/Acadia was of great strategic interest to both France and Britain. The value to France was not in the Acadian people but in either controlling or destabilizing the region as a bulwark to protect the larger colony of New France. The estimate of 50% of the population dying during their transportation to the other colonies, England, and France is too high. There were certainly deaths due to poor conditions and sinking, with the highest losses occurring during the transatlantic crossings to England and France due to several ships sinking. What is not well understood, due to the lack of research, is the number of deaths that occurred as a direct result of the deportations, once the Acadians were landed at the various destinations. It is unknown the number of Acadians there were in 1755. The number tends to range from 15,000 to 18,000, with the lower number being considered more often. Approximately 11,500 Acadians were deported. The slide indicating the whereabouts of Acadians in 1763 at about 12,660 does not appear to support a 50% death rate. It was indicated there were no females in New France for the first forty years and thus the Filles du Roi were sent there. It should be clarified there were not 'enough' women in the colony to help establish a self-sustaining natural population growth. There also appears to be an error in the duration of Filles du Roi period as the video states a forty-year period when it was a ten-year period (1663 to 1673).
Awesome information!!
A word of advice: look for no sulfates fast hair growth shampoo.
Suggestion: check out no sulfates fast hair growth shampoo.
You should look into fast hair growth shampoo to double hair growth.
Say hi to Paul! Maria Dorsey
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere/GHGs, makes the earth cooler than it would be without that atmosphere like that reflective panel set behind the windshield. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth would become much like the Moon and Mercury, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which according to RGHE theory comes from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a LWIR ideal black body which 4) cannot happen because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules and as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science: principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/ 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. Version 1.0 062221