What was the outcome of the Native Land Claim in Oka Quebec?
361992
I'm assuming you know the issue so i'll go with the short answer.  They ended up building the golf course on the burial grounds after the standoff.\n\nI tried to find a news article or something to back it up but i only came up with a cbc news article that really had no info but here's the link http://history.cbc.ca/history/webdriver?MIval=EpisContent&series_id=1&episode_id=17&chapter_id=2&page_id=2&lang=E
887318
I foresee a couple of problems with this.\n\n1) what about all the non-"Quebecois" living in Quebec - by this I mean anglophones, immigrants, natives, etc.  Would they have to identify with the "Quebec" nation or ELSE?\n\n2) what about all the francophones living outside of Quebec who identify with the Quebecois due to language but with Canada because of their geographical location.  Would they be abandoned by the Quebecois?  \n\nSeems like we're stuck with the idea of "two nations, side by side" as Mr. Harper is stating (although, I wish we could just leave this doggone issue alone already!!! but if the Bloc was going to bring it up anyway, I guess he had to say something and a pre-emptive strike is as good as anything).\n\nI think the idea of Quebec nationality is "too little, too late" - it's too late to separate because of pure geography - if they were to create a new nation out of the province of Quebec (outside of Canada, I'm talking now), they would have a whole slough of new problems in Quebec with all the people who didn't want to separate ... special status, "what about me".  I don't think they really want to go there.  In my opinion, there's a "hard-core" group of francophones in Quebec who descend from the old New France settlers and they are the Quebecois.  The rest, sorry to say, are just plain old Canucks like the rest of us.  \n\nJust my two cents!
393947
Bonjour!\n\nI was in the Universite Laval a little ovfer 10 years ago when Quebec first wanted to separate itself from the country.  Fortunately, the citizen voted against separation, and although it's still a popular movement, the vote is not there.\n\nI have to admit that although Quebec is self sufficient and adamantly wants to keep their French "Quebecois" culture, independence is a bad move for the province.\n\nThe Quebecois are like the "Southerners" here in the US.\nThey have this "Southern Pride" that pretty much means absolutely nothing to the rest of the country.\nFortunately, the South knows that they cannot separate themselves from the union because of simple logic; MONEY!\n\nEventually, Quebec will not be able to financially afford the independence.\n\nSo to answer your question - Never.\n\nVive la Canada :-)\nBon Journee...
1153392
back up, back up, backup, we as white men, came from England to get away from oppression.  We land here on this beautiful rock and right away, we start oppressing.  We drove the natives off 'their' land and stole there goods and their women.  Now would you be pissed?  I have 1/8 Choctaw in my blood and I'm pissed.  Pissed that my people we're treated just like the English, the same thing that brought them over here in the first place.
154124
*Shrugging my furry shoulders* Well of course first came native americans, they spread to both of the American hemispheres. \n\nThe time line runs basically...\nInhabited for millennia by First Nations.\nFirst Nations is a term for ethnicity used in Canada to replace the word "Indian". It refers to the Indigenous peoples of North America located in what is now Canada, and their descendants, who are not Inuit or Métis. The proper terms to refer to the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis collectively is Aboriginal peoples or First peoples or Indigenous peoples, tribes, or nations. A national representative body of the "First Nations" in Canada is the Assembly of First Nations.\n\nBasque exploration\nBasque fishermen (primarily whalers) from southern Europe began fishing the Grand Banks as early as the 15th century. They primarily hunted arctic bowhead and white whales for their blubber (which produced whale oil) and their plates of baleen, used in dressmaking. By the mid-16th century, at least nine fishing outposts had been established on Labrador and Newfoundland. The largest of these settlements was the Red Bay station, with an estimated 900 people. At the height of Basque whaling, about 2000 people were employed each summer. However, the operation had largely collapsed by the early 1600s as the two whale species were hunted to near-extinction and many Basques whaling ships were pressed into service by the Spanish navy.\n\nEarly colonial period: The rise and fall of "New France" (Nouvelle-France) 1604-1763\nIn the 16th and 17th centuries English and French colonists established settlements in eastern Canada largely to support fishing or fur trade. French settlement began with Samuel de Champlain and Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Monts, first in Acadia in 1604, then Quebec City in 1608.\n\nAs New France was established over an extremely vast expanse of territory, the French had to secure the cooperation of the various amerindian nations, in effect creating a new hybrid civilization which allied Amerindian technology with French values.\n\nOver the next 150 years, Canada and Acadia continued to expand from the heartland of the St Lawrence River into the upper country (pays d'en haut) of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi Valley of North America. Their expansion was opposed by the Wyandot (Hurons), the Iroquois, and more significantly the British, who waged a series of wars (French and Indian Wars) that cost France first Acadia, then Canada. Under British rule, Acadians were expelled in 1755. France was defeated at Louisburg in 1758 and at the decisive Battle of the Plains of Abraham at Quebec City in 1759. By the Treaty of Paris in 1763, France kept its Caribbean island colonies but lost almost all of its North American colonies to Britain and Spain. Of its northern possessions, all that was retained were the tiny fishing outposts of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Subsequently, only the French élite was repatriated, leaving the peasants at the mercy of the British conquerors, who tolerated the Canadians' Roman Catholic faith under the terms of the treaty.\n\nBritish imperial control 1763-1849\nBritish North America (BNA) was reduced with the American Revolution to the colonies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. The American Revolution was in part triggered by the necessity of accommodating 60,000 Catholic Francophones. To accommodate the many American Loyalists who were persecuted and expelled from the United States during and after the revolution, Britain created in 1784 the province of New Brunswick and, in 1791, divided Quebec into two provinces: Lower Canada and Upper Canada.\n\nBritish colonies were drawn into the War of 1812 between Britain and the United States, one of the effects of which was the first rise of a sense of nationalism amongst the British North American population. Subsequent disputes that arose between BNA and the U.S. over trade, fishing, and boundari
408786
It was, as usual, a fight between the native peoples and the new inhabitants that were trying to take their land away.  \n\nIt was known as Yarmirr v Northern Territory.
849021
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007094
879557
ZERO.  And allow me to say that I am really surprised at the ignorance about this.  If anyone would care to look it up, this was yet, another horrible thing that was forced upon the true Native Americans (Cherokee) by Andrew Jackson with the so called Indian Removal Act.  4,000 men, women and children died.  This was a forced death march from the East all the way into Oklahoma.  Some managed to escape but most did not.  This story breaks my heart.
808191
First, I could be wrong, but I didn't think the Quebec-as-nation recognition has officially come yet. The PM said he considered Quebec to be a nation "within a united Canada" on Nov. 22 and that he'd introduce a motion to the House of Commons. No vote should have happened yet, unless I've missed something.\n\nAs for other nations inside Canada: no. Quebec is a unique case. It would be interesting to see aliens ask for one, though. But I think I get your point. Why make nations within nations? But Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have had their devolution thing going on in the UK, and that country is still ticking.
498856
http://www.schoolnet.ca/ABORIGINAL/Plains_Cree/part24-e.html
63638
Native Americans... but I would not put it as "disputing European land claims".... rather the question should be "Who did the Europeans steal the land from" !\nThe native americans lived in what is now called america for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived to loot and plunder and commit genocides... this sounds harsh but it is sadly true.
168318
Oklahoma.  On old maps, it is shown as "Indian Territory."
204926
quebec will never separate.  all they want to do is threaten to seperate, so that ottawa will negotiate with them under emergency conditions, and give them what they want\n\nbasically the federal government and a majority of the provinces are ready to give quebec what it wants, which is just a little sentence acknowledging that they are different, and an equal partner to the english part of canada\n\nbut the problem is that it's literally impossible to change the constitution just for that.  there are too many other special interest groups out there that could petition any court, or filibuster any legislature, and prevent a quebec amendment from taking place.  these groups would rather force the government to have a full constitutional convention, that would adress their grievances as well.\n\nthe conservative government came close.  but they also tried to use the constitutional accords to make a bunch of other changes that would weaken the power of the federal government, giving the provincial governments the power to withhold funding from our welfare programs.  this was unpopular with many canadians, as well as quebec, which left the conservative party in disgust\n\nif quebec did seperate that would be interesting.  if any province did join them it would probably be new brunswick.  it is the closest, and has a large francophone population\n\nbut qeubec seperation would also be the beginning of the end for canada.  tehre is no reason for alberta to stay.  they have all the oil and canada is basically a liability to them, costing them more than they get back in programs the province doesn't need or could finance itself because they have the oil wealth.\n\nif canada did fall apart, it would be very feasible for the maritime provinces as well as ontario to form a union with quebec.  it is really the western province alberta that is at the most risk of seperating, since it is actually feasible and they would be the better off for doing it.
603437
This link might help. I'm not really sure.\nhttp://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/ywtk/index_e.html
215075
There was really no bad or good.  Just ignorance and greed on the part of the Europeans.  They thought that they were doing good when trying to convert the native peoples.  It just pissed the Indians off.  I agree that it was right of them to fight for their land, tho.
146361
From the American perspective, the New England states they wanted no part in the war at all. A town in Maine is reported to have bought gunpowder for its July 4th celebration from a supplier in New Brunswick, Canada. Likewise in Acadia they didn't want a war with the USA and kept up trade throughout the war.  \n     Now Quebec is a whole book so i'll be brief. The French called it an english war and wanted no part. When the British tried to draft soldiers in Quebec Riots broke out, people died, mayhem reigned. Many feel Quebec wanted the Americans to win. \n     Michigan was only a territory at the time, mostly farmers and fur traders who were mainly french canadian and traded with the native tribes. Washington was a world away. Many actually aided the British forces in the capture of Detroit. \n     Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky seemed to be the war mongering states. Simmering fueds between different tribes and new settlers created many "Indian Wars". These were a rough, tough breed of people always eager for a fight and a touch or three of the whiskey. Too bad no one told them it snows in Canada and they might want to bring a coat. \n     Upper Canada(Ontario) was primed and ready for the War. A Year before war was declared an alliance was formed between General Brock and Tecumseth's Northern Tribes Confederacy and they even discussed creating a Native state or country between Canada and the US. The residents of Ontario at the time were also largely "Loyalist" of British or Irish decent, or were former Americans who came north for free land grants who did not agree with the American ideals.
985437
http://www.farzwego.com/gallery.html\nhttps://dspace.ucalgary.ca/items-by-subject?subject=Objibwa+Indians+-+Ontario+-+Government+Relations\nhttp://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv15349.php