DLC 6 Anticipation Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most Americans are only dimly aware the rest of the world exists, but most Americans really aren't overly attached to the American state or all "huzzah!" over being American. If you call an American a Canadian, he'll laugh and maybe correct you; if you call a Brazilian Hispanic or a Pole Russian you risk starting World War 3. ;)

In the original meaning of Canadian (Canadiens), it referred to the French inhabitants of Canada, namely French Quebecers (Acadians were French, but not French Canadian). If someone identified as Canadian, that implied they were French. This of course changed after the British Conquest of Canada.

In the early 1800's, the Maritime Provinces and Ontario were culturally and linguistically American, because a majority of the people living there were United Empire Loyalists who had fled the colonies after the American Revolution. I don't recall the exact percentage of loyalists in Canada overall, but I think shortly after the American revolution, some 80% of the people living in New Brunswick were loyalists (or descendants of loyalists) who had fled the colonies. Loyalists were also the majority in Upper Canada (Ontario), at nearly 75% of the population. By 1914, those percentages had fallen drastically, with United Empire Loyalists being a much lower percentage.

During the War of 1812, the two largest ethnic groups in Canada, were the French Canadians and British loyalists who had fled the Thirteen Colonies after the American revolution. When America tried to invade Canada during the War of 1812, many of the Canadians helping to repel the invasion, were exiled Americans who had remained loyal to the British Crown.

Conversely, at the same time all the British loyalists were fleeing the Colonies for Canada, French Canadians / Acadians were migrating south to the United States. The Acadians left Canada, because the British forcefully evicted them after the Seven Years war for refusing to swear allegiance to the British crown. The French Canadians (Quebec) started leaving, because Quebec was over populated and didn't have enough farm land to go around, while the 1800's saw the rise of industrialization in the USA, offering jobs to the many Quebecers who left.

In the early 20th century, nearly 25% of New England's population consisted of families with ties to Canada, either French Canadians or descendants of United Empire Loyalists who decided to return to the USA. In the late 19th century, nearly 20% of Canadians with European ancestry had left for the United States, primarily the Midwest and New England.

Today, an estimated 20% of British Canadians have at least one loyalist ancestor, with another 25% of Canadia having an Acadian or French Canadian ancestor. Conversely, sizeable percentage of Americans with French ancestry, have an Acadian or French Canadian ancestor, and many Americans of British ancestry, can claim to have a United Empire Loyalist ancestor, who fled the USA for Canada, only to have a descendant migrate back to the USA.

Prior to WW2, the USA / Canada were very similar culturally, and the differences were becoming smaller. In the post WW2 era, both countries essentially adopted open borders policies, and the influx of mass immigration began to widen the cultural differences, as opposed to narrowing them.

The term "American" is a political / cultural identity, as the American people are just a mixture of other groups, so many Americans identify with whatever their ancestors were. In my case, that would be French Canadians, German Silesians / Pommeranians / Hessians / Hanovarians, and Karelian Finns.
 
Well, that's quite a history lesson.
 
@berlin88

Not just that, but there's some communities in Rhode Island that have more French Canadians than Americans.

The Cajuns of Louisiana were originally Acadians, which means that many Francophone Louisianans are of French Canadian origin.

During the Vietnam War, quite a number of Americans fled to Canada. A small part of Downtown Toronto (the area in and around University of Toronto) had a large American population even.
 
@berlin88

Not just that, but there's some communities in Rhode Island that have more French Canadians than Americans.

The Cajuns of Louisiana were originally Acadians, which means that many Francophone Louisianans are of French Canadian origin.

During the Vietnam War, quite a number of Americans fled to Canada. A small part of Downtown Toronto (the area in and around University of Toronto) had a large American population even.

Most of the French Canadians who came to America, assimilated over time, so they are largely English speaking and are culturally American. In fact, most Americans of French Canadian ancestry have mostly non French ancestry at this point, given the amount of mixing and matching between the various European ancestry groups in America.

The French Canadians in Quebec, have largely retained their cultural, linguistic and religious identify, but many French Canadian descendants outside of Quebec, have assimilated into the broader Anglophone society they now live in. This is a result of French Canadians being so numerous in the province of Quebec, and the efforts by early French Canadian politicians, to preserve the French way of life in Quebec.

My own ancestors, arrived in Quebec in the 1600's, and then left following the American Civil War to come to America, where they eventually assimilated and become culturally and linguistically American.

One of my ancestors served in the parliament of lower Canada, and would have been part of the effort to defend the French Canadian way of life, only to have some of his descendants end up in the USA, with no real cultural or linguistic connection to French Canada.

The other major difference with French Canadians, is that French immigration to Canada was extremely low, only 5,600 or so, so they had to rely on internal population growth to survive. The result of this, was gigantic French Canadian families and numerous instances of intermarriage between relatives, resulting in a modern French Canadian population that is largely one giant family. If you go back far enough, virtually all French Canadians are related to each other, albeit distantly related in some cases. Even French Canadian descendants in the USA, are likely all related to each other if you go back far enough.
 
That must explain why spoken Quebec French is dissimilar to standard French in many ways.

The settlers whose surname was Tremblay must had numerous descendants, given that Tremblay is the most common surname in Quebec.
 
That must explain why spoken Quebec French is dissimilar to standard French in many ways.

The settlers whose surname was Tremblay must had numerous descendants, given that Tremblay is the most common surname in Quebec.

Tremblay is a common French Canadian name here in the USA as well, but more so in the eastern USA, as opposed to the Midwest.

Most of the Acadian and French Canadian immigrants to Canada, were from the coastal provinces of France, such as Bretagne, Aquitane and Normandy, but also Paris. The areas of France bordering Belgium, Italy, Switzerland and Germany produced very few immigrants to Canada. In fact, some of the eastern regions of France were not yet part of France at the time most immigrants left for Canada. When my ancestors were in France for instance, Elsass and Lorraine were part of the Holy Roman Empire, inhabited largely by Germans, and were not yet part of France.

After the Treaty of Paris ceded Quebec to England following the Seven Years War, immigration from France was largely ended, as England wanted to keep Canada as British as possible. Therefore, the French speakers of Quebec became isolated from France, and the languages began to diverge, with Quebec French and later New England French becoming distinct variations of regular French.

In regards to French surnames, the average French Canadian parent during the colonial era, is estimated to have had an average of 7 or 8 offspring, so after a few generations, a family would be rather large. For example, one of my French Canadian ancestors had 10 kids, 83 grand kids and 156 great grand kids all by himself, with a brother of said ancestor producing a similar number of descendants, so the family got large very quickly, and there would be numerous descendants to carry on the family name. Most French Canadians today have tiny families of 1.xx kids, so instead of massive population growth, they are slowly shrinking demographically.

One other interesting aspect regarding French Canadians, is that French people of the colonial era, tended to have "dit names", so instead of simply being called say Joe Smith, they would be Joe Smith dit Anderson. This was largely a carryover from France, where the legal and military authorities used dit names to distinguish between people who had the same names. If you had two people named Joe Smith, that would be confusing, so they would simply add another name on the end, resulting in Joe Smith dit Anderson and Joe Smith dit Miller.

In the case of Quebec, having dit names also helped to sort the many large families into branches, as it would be every confusing after a couple generations, when families had hundreds of descendants and many of them had the same name. Over time however, many families adopted the dit names as the surname, thus dropping the original family name, or in other cases, they changed the spelling.

Going back my direct French Canadian ancestor, it is estimated, that there could be as many as 100,000 living descendants between the USA / Canada, although many no longer have the original family surname.

Another oddity, was that many of the railroads in America during the 1800's, refused to hire multiple people form the same family, so French Canadians would cheat the system, by altering the spelling of their name, so that multiple family members could then apply for railroad jobs, with the railroads not caring or not realizing that many of the job applicants were actually family members, who had simply altered the spelling of their name, so they would appear unrelated. Unfortunately, many of these French Canadians kept the spelling alterations, so it causes confusion when researching family history.
 
That must explain why spoken Quebec French is dissimilar to standard French in many ways.

The settlers whose surname was Tremblay must had numerous descendants, given that Tremblay is the most common surname in Quebec.

Actually, researches have shown that the French spoken in the province of Quebec is much closer to 'old' french than what is now spoken in France. It actually
is a little funny when we talk to people from France... We DO have some difficulties understanding each other perfectly ;-) What's most funny is that people from
France accuse Quebeckers of having assimilated too many english words in the language, but they don't realize that they have inserted even more of them...
It's just that they control the official dictionary contents, so they simply pretend they're french words :lol:

Now, depending on the perspective, some will say that the fact of being closer to 'old' french means Quebeckers have kept the french language more pure,
whilst others will say that France's french has evolved more, but hey, I'll leave that can of crabs to others :crazyeye:
 
Apparently the Armish people who live in the USA speak as close to Old English as you can get; I also believe that British English has developed since the American separation to have different spellings such as the most common "Colour" whilst American English kept a fair amount of Old English spellings (such as Color).
 
Apparently the Armish people who live in the USA speak as close to Old English as you can get; I also believe that British English has developed since the American separation to have different spellings such as the most common "Colour" whilst American English kept a fair amount of Old English spellings (such as Color).

Not true. The Amish dialect is archaic, but it is still as distant from British dialects as most American varieties. It also has a bit of German influence. There is one from the Carolina coastal region that is almost dead now that is considered to be the closest to Middle English, but it is still greatly changed.

The reason Americans changed the spellings of words, like eliminating superfluous vowels, is thanks to Noah Webster, who wrote a dictionary in the early 1800s. He was a proponent of reforming English spelling, and as the primary lexicographer in the US at the time, had an out-sized influence on the language.
 
Actually, researches have shown that the French spoken in the province of Quebec is much closer to 'old' french
Now, depending on the perspective, some will say that the fact of being closer to 'old' french means Quebeckers have kept the french language more pure,
whilst others will say that France's french has evolved more, but hey, I'll leave that can of crabs to others

Just like how some scholars say that American English is closer to Elizabethan English than the latter is to contemporary British English.

Not true. The Amish dialect is archaic, but it is still as distant from British dialects as most American varieties. It also has a bit of German influence. There is one from the Carolina coastal region that is almost dead now that is considered to be the closest to Middle English, but it is still greatly changed.

The reason Americans changed the spellings of words, like eliminating superfluous vowels, is thanks to Noah Webster, who wrote a dictionary in the early 1800s. He was a proponent of reforming English spelling, and as the primary lexicographer in the US at the time, had an out-sized influence on the language.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it that the "native tongue" of the Amish is a dialect of German that evolved into its own language?
 
Apparently the Armish people who live in the USA speak as close to Old English as you can get; I also believe that British English has developed since the American separation to have different spellings such as the most common "Colour" whilst American English kept a fair amount of Old English spellings (such as Color).

I could be wrong but I think the Amish speak Pennsylvania German (or Deitsch), which is actually developed from the German languages spoken in southwest Germany, from where these people migrated.

Old English, referring to Anglo-Saxon, had passed out of use long before the first English settlers arrived in the Americas. The language they spoke was essentially Modern English.

The colour/color change is based on American spelling reforms. The realise/realize distinction is more along the lines of what you describe: the -ize ending for such words actually predates the -ise version on both sides of the Atlantic, but for some reason British English changed to favour -ise.
 
Just like how some scholars say that American English is closer to Elizabethan English than the latter is to contemporary British English.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it that the "native tongue" of the Amish is a dialect of German that evolved into its own language?

There is a group of Amish called the Pennsylvania Dutch that are descended from Germans. They do speak a creole of German and English, but other Amish do not have that.
 
I think this thread is getting off-topic. What do the Amish and Acadians have to do with the upcoming DLC? :confused:

If the SE Asian Civ is Indonesia, I hope someone other than Gajah Mada is chosen as the leader. Maybe Indonesia will come with two leaders (a male and a female). It'll be strange for that to happen, but the other alternative is that a pre-existing Civ gets a 2nd leader (likely choice is India or China). I don't think 2 SE Asian Civs will come with this DLC.
 
I think this thread is getting off-topic. What do the Amish and Acadians have to do with the upcoming DLC? :confused:

If the SE Asian Civ is Indonesia, I hope someone other than Gajah Mada is chosen as the leader. Maybe Indonesia will come with two leaders (a male and a female). It'll be strange for that to happen, but the other alternative is that a pre-existing Civ gets a 2nd leader (likely choice is India or China). I don't think 2 SE Asian Civs will come with this DLC.

I think the problem is that we learned that it's probably going to be Indonesia so long ago now, that we have run out of speculations to, uh, speculate upon, hence the diversion into Amish and Acadians :lol:

I was saying the other day that I didn't think it would be two civs either, so I agree with you. But I think that means Gajah is more likely to return - with two leaders to play with I can see Firaxis bringing him back so that the casual players will see him and go "Oh yeah, that guy, I remember him!" and if they found Indonesia fun to play in Civ V they will be tempted to pick up this DLC. That leaves them free to bring in someone totally new as the alternate though.
 
I think this thread is getting off-topic. What do the Amish and Acadians have to do with the upcoming DLC? :confused:

If the SE Asian Civ is Indonesia, I hope someone other than Gajah Mada is chosen as the leader. Maybe Indonesia will come with two leaders (a male and a female). It'll be strange for that to happen, but the other alternative is that a pre-existing Civ gets a 2nd leader (likely choice is India or China). I don't think 2 SE Asian Civs will come with this DLC.
What's wrong with gajah mada?:sad: He's like the founder of the majapahit empire pretty much... Do you have better options?
 
LOL I wish yall bules better be right or atleast monkeypaw'ed the leak into reality. Otherwise I'll be looking like a fool making Indonesian LS for nonexistant civ for a game I didnt own on PC specs I cant afford
Hasanuddin
Spoiler :

hasanuddin_Leader.jpg


Soekarno
Spoiler :

soekarnoleader.jpg

 
Last edited:
What's wrong with gajah mada?:sad: He's like the founder of the majapahit empire pretty much... Do you have better options?

Raden Wijaya would be a good Majapahit alternative to Gajah Mada. The previous kingdom that the Majapahit replaced had insulted the Yuan Empire, which eventually invaded, only to discover that that kingdom had fallen. In the meanwhile Raden Wijaya had split it in half with another king, who became his rival. Raden Wijaya enlisted the aid of the Yuan armada to help him drive off his rival and place him on the throne of a new kingdom (the Majapahit). Once this was accomplished, he betrayed the Yuan armada and destroyed it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom