well teribus as usual is ignoring real history from "shudder" other languages. the french removed the first argintine colony, the americans gthe second. the second was hardly viable, the first was doing ok--and the first was the important one from a legal perspective). the british claims remains by right of conquest.

but english historians generally ignor anything that raises questions about their militarist vision of history.

as far as the canadian situation(sending back the british might not be practical--trying to eliminate the french and of course the nagives didn't work as well as planned) . in 1912(or thereabouts--i don't have the books in front of me) we in fact negotiated the end of the french rights on the mainland of new foundland. we did not then agree on offshore rights as no one was thinking about that ten. that did happen post 1992. however the french had treay rights to the use of the coasts of nfld and the use of natural resources there untill the 1912 treaty. these rights were agreed by the treaty ending the seven years war when the british empire comquered what is now canada.

as to the emotional attachment to land you;ve shed blood over then we are all in trouble. the british have made war in almost every corner of the globe. a record as one of the most bloodthirsty and war like state in history. what cann you say. they forgive themselves. the sad thing is americans(and the harper government now)are on the same path. rejecting the noble american civil rights and social justice traditions.

i oppose militarism--but some times people are forced to fight the militarists. they don't go away because most people think they are evil.