Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1166413589

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Any study on MexicoY-dna? arethey mostlyEuropean orIndian?
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:46:29 -0700
References: <><00a501c72138$cf3ac950$640fa8c0@Villandra2><003701c7213b$0a119520$6400a8c0@Ken1><00ee01c72143$3c80ade0$640fa8c0@Villandra2><00bc01c72146$0c4033f0$6400a8c0@Ken1><013701c7214f$75430d10$640fa8c0@Villandra2><005c01c72151$8cb13600$6401a8c0@Richard><03a101c72245$9f5cdee0$640fa8c0@Villandra2><002001c72246$937cc030$6400a8c0@Ken1><042a01c72252$81400e70$640fa8c0@Villandra2>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <>

> Ken, you said the colony failed because it had such few numbers. That
> did
> not mean that its historical importance was insignificant?

I said they lost a war. I am well-aware that Quebec is alive and
well-populated today. In fact, the prime minister of Canada just declared
that Quebec "is a nation" whatever that will ultimately mean beyond the

1760 population of New France --- about 70,000
1760 population of British Colonies --- about 1.4 million

That's 20 to 1 Even if you grant some elements of military/strategic
superiority to the French side of this conflict, and I can't think of one at
the moment (the British lined up some native-American allies as well), the
demographics was bound to favor a British victory. Both France and Britain
sent regular army and navy forces to the theater, but both sides also called
on their colonists to assist. Actually the British insisted that the
colonists should continue to "assist" with higher taxes afterward, and that
was a big factor which led to the revolution.

This thread: