Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[Barrister]

For what it's worth, the interpretation of Confederation that I recently read was that it was an attempt to submerge a possibly seperatist French identity into a more loyal pan-Canadian one.

That's something of an over-arching theme of Canadian history, true, but it's not actually relevant to Confederation itself.

The reason is that they had already tried "submerging a possibly separatist French identity into a more loyal pan-Canadian one".  It had happened 20 years earlier, when Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (now Quebec) were merged into the united Province of Canada.  That was done pretty explicitly to try and overwhelm the then French majority.

The problem was that it didn't particularly work well.  That's why, as part of Confederation, the separate provinces of Quebec and Ontario were formed.

[Jacob]

I wasn't suggesting that. I was highlighting that talk of a united Canadian identity stemming from 1812 is a little odd only insofar that one of the key parts of Canada at that time (Quebec) doesn't seem to be fully united in said identity. Although as you rightfully point out - most of Quebec isn't like grallon, viper et al.

Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that the events of 1812 are some sort of singular all-encompassing source of Canadian identity or anything like that; rather it was one of several early foundational events from which Canadian identity was formed.

[garbon]

Why did Canadians fear invasion?  Well, as mentioned, there was the example of 1812.  By the 1860s that would be very old news - a battle your grandfather fought in, but it was not forgotten.  Probably more important though was the fact that there was an armed paramilitary group than was planning, and carried out, military assaults into Canada from the United States - the Fenian Brotherhood.  Their stated aim was to pressure for an independent Ireland, but since the US seemingly turned a blind eye to their activities, it was not hard to see some level of support  for their actions.

And finally, by 1865 the United States had one of the largest standing armies in the world, and Canada had no unified military defending it.


Edit: Malthus beat me to mentioning the Fenians.

But like 1812, wouldn't it be misplaced to think that the Fenians suggested that the US wanted to annex Canada? Malthus linked to the wiki article that seems to suggest that like in 1812, the invasion by the Fenians was done to use Canada as a bargaining chip - not for conquest.  I can see then a confederation for mutual defense stemming from that (and the 1812 bit) but not because there was fear that they were going to be annexed - just that their lands were to be continually disrupted/lain to waste if they didn't band together.

[Malthus]

Why did Canadians fear invasion?  Well, as mentioned, there was the example of 1812.  By the 1860s that would be very old news - a battle your grandfather fought in, but it was not forgotten.  Probably more important though was the fact that there was an armed paramilitary group than was planning, and carried out, military assaults into Canada from the United States - the Fenian Brotherhood.  Their stated aim was to pressure for an independent Ireland, but since the US seemingly turned a blind eye to their activities, it was not hard to see some level of support  for their actions.

And finally, by 1865 the United States had one of the largest standing armies in the world, and Canada had no unified military defending it.


Edit: Malthus beat me to mentioning the Fenians.

But like 1812, wouldn't it be misplaced to think that the Fenians suggested that the US wanted to annex Canada? Malthus linked to the wiki article that seems to suggest that like in 1812, the invasion by the Fenians was done to use Canada as a bargaining chip - not for conquest.  I can see then a confederation for mutual defense stemming from that (and the 1812 bit) but not because there was fear that they were going to be annexed - just that their lands were to be continually disrupted/lain to waste if they didn't band together.

The Fenian plan had nothing to do with the US wanting to annex Canada, it is true. It is more the theme of continual hostility comming from south of the border.

Note that one of the Fenian raids was undertaken with the express intention of supporting Louis Riel - the Pembina Raid (which was even more farcical than most of the Fenian raids, but still).

The message was clear: any hint of disunity north of the border could easily attract hostile intervention from south of the border. If the disunity was sufficiently serious, and depending on the US political situation at the time, the possibility at least existed of the US doing unto Canada what it had earlier done unto Mexico - that is, nab bits of it.

[Jacob]

But like 1812, wouldn't it be misplaced to think that the Fenians suggested that the US wanted to annex Canada?

In hindsight, maybe; but that is hardly relevant to the issue of the formation of national myths and identity.

[katmai]

I think I'm the only American who understands the Canadian perspective on this.  It seems incredibly clear and logical to me.

Canada Lover! 

[Eddie Teach]

How shocking that "Benedict Arnold" is a traitor.

[garbon]

But like 1812, wouldn't it be misplaced to think that the Fenians suggested that the US wanted to annex Canada?

In hindsight, maybe; but that is hardly relevant to the issue of the formation of national myths and identity.

I don't know about hindsight - but it is relevant to BB's claims that the national myths and identity stem from concerns about annexation by the US. Neither event (particularly not the latter one) help shore up that claim.

[Jacob]

I don't know about hindsight - but it is relevant to BB's claims that the national myths and identity stem from concerns about annexation by the US. Neither event (particularly not the latter one) help shore up that claim.

Uh... yes it does. People were concerned, at that time, that those events might lead to annexation. You saying that they shouldn't have been does not somehow undermine the role those concerns played in the formation of Canadian identity.

British subjects in the 1800s Canada did not read your posts on languish, so they were unaware that you have dismissed their concerns.

[garbon]

I don't know about hindsight - but it is relevant to BB's claims that the national myths and identity stem from concerns about annexation by the US. Neither event (particularly not the latter one) help shore up that claim.

Uh... yes it does. People were concerned, at that time, that those events might lead to annexation. You saying that they shouldn't have been does not somehow undermine the role those concerns played in the formation of Canadian identity.

British subjects in the 1800s Canada did not read your posts on languish, so they were unaware that you have dismissed their concerns.

[Jacob]

[garbon]

Actually, they should have been reading my posts.

[Razgovory]

Ted Cruz is swelling with pride, but he doesn't know why.

[jimmy olsen]

The US example of violent revolution and inter-communial strife, (leading eventually to a massive civil war), and violent expansion at the expense of native groups and Mexicans, was seen as a cautionary tale of what *not* to do, in achieving peaceful self-determination.

The American revolution was not that violent as Revolutions go. Certainly was quite tame compared to the contemporary one in France. 

[Viking]

Ted Cruz is swelling with pride, but he doesn't know why.

That's not "pride", it's the secret hidden smugness that all canadians feel when in contact with their southern counterparts.