Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[HVC]

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.

thats not true. Our smugness is never hidden

[Eddie Teach]

thats not true. Our smugness is never hidden

Pffft, yours is often hidden behind embarrassment. 

[viper37]

Pretty much everything has been said about this, but I'll just add this.

• The War of 1812 is mostly unknown, except for history buffs, the likes we find on these forums.  This goes for America and Canada.
  
• The myth of this war as one that founded Canada, were English, French and Indians fought side by side to repeal the invader is pretty recent.  As of last year, mentionning this got laughs from English Canadians.  It still does in Quebec. 
  
• The French militiamen, incorporated with British garrison troops, under the command of Charles de Salaberry, fought to defend Lower Canada from an American invasion forces.  "Indians" did not rally to the cause, rather, the Mohawks living nearby, mostly former loyalist indians fought with the British, and some French soldiers who decided to join the British military at some point after the Quebec Act, because it pays well.  They did their duties, point.  There was no drum of war beating in lower Canada, and at this point, I'm unsure they cared either way wich was the worst between two group of englishmen.
  
• Tecumseh built a formidable alliance of indians to fight against the Americans, siding with the British when the opportunity presented itself.  He couldn't care less about British intentions, all he wanted was for his people to be left alone by encroaching Americans.  It's not that Americans were nazis and British do-gooders, but there was a ton more Americans than British colonists, and they required more space.  As soon as things turn bad, the British turned their back and retreated, leaving Tecumseh and his allies to fend for themselves.
  
• Later in history, despite the mythology, indians in canadian territories were starved and displaced by the British and the Canadians.  Indian bands seeking refuge in Canada were promptly forced to go back to the US to suffer anihilation.  It wasn't as bad as in the US, because the country was so large and there were so few colonists, but whenever the British & Canadians needed something, they took it, be it Metis or Indians they were displaced or coerced.  Given that the north was mostly for fur trapping and barely any colonization efforts until very later on, the shock was not as brutal as for the US, wich expanded in all four directions at once.
  
• The American behavior is invading Canada was considered brutal, very brutal, and helped shaped what would become canadian identity, as in "we're not americans".  It was a gradual process, not a straight cut.  It further develop toward the 1866s, but again, it's a gradual evolution.
  
• As BB&Malthus said, there were certainly fear of American invasions, politicians did use the War of 1812 as a reminder of what would happen to a disunited Canada.  How much did people buy it, I don't know.  What was a more pressing fear was US annexation of various territories in their march to the West, once the Civil War was ended.  Uninhabited territories could be claimed by whomever, but once colonists start living there, if they petition to rejoin the US, it is doubtful that Great Britain would go to war to preserve some "Canadian unity".
  
• Building the railroad was the objective of the Canadian Confederation, and that could not be done without a merger of all colonies.  As such, the prospect of American invasion was raised, and the War of 1812 was instrumental to raise some fear amongst the populace, what would happen if the Evil Americans were to again invade in force.
  
• The US Civil War was instrumental in shaping what is Canada today, as the British colonists of the time felt that a decentralized Canada would pave way to a bloody civil war on our side, unless we were governed by a single overarching huge central government.  That was certainly Sir John A. McDonald's point of view.
  
• French was re-established as an official languages and no longer forbidden in parliament as a way to get Quebec politicians onboard the deal.  Later on came the myth that Canada save us from anihilation.
  

[Razgovory]

Tramp, tramp, tramp the boys are marching
Onward, onward let them come
For beneath the Union Jack
We will drive the Fenians back
And we'll fight for our beloved Canadian homes!

- I learned this song from my grandfather.

Damn Canadians, stealing our songs.

[Admiral Yi]

Jesus Veep, your written English has gotten really fookin' good. 

I liked the points you made man.

[grumbler]

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.

I am not sure they have read your posts, either.  Simple assertion does not equal evidence.

I find it interesting that BB and Malthus would argue that the US invasions in the War of 1812 lead to a sense of Canadian identity, and yet also argue that, 50 years later, the Confederation was needed to avoid having separate Canadian provinces play off the US against one another.  If a canadian identity arose out of the US invasions, then why would Canadians play the US card against each other?  OTOH, if there was a genuine fear that the separate provinces would play the US card, isn't that evidence that they did not, indeed, feel a sense of "Canadian identity?"

My reading of Canadian history is that the idea the Canadians were a separate and distinct people arose from Confederation, which was aimed not at the US, but at Britain. Some parts of Canada were self-ruling before Confederation, and some were not (or, at least, less so; all had some voice in their own affairs by then).  Certainly, when the Maritimes started talking about joining together in 1864, no one anticipated that their actions would lead to Confederation only three years later.  Equally certainly, the motives for the Maritimes to unite wasn't due to their fear of a US invasion.  Newfoundland didn't join until 1949, and yet never played the "US card."

In short, I see no evidence that the retcon of Canadian history to include fear of a US invasion, US annexation, or that the separate provinces would play the "US card" as reasons for the creation of a Canadian identity and Canada itself.  Rather, as I see it, confederation occurred because of the separate provinces saw increasing political and economic advantages to banding together, especially in their relations with Britain.  I see a sense of Canadian identity as a result of confederation, not as a cause of confederation.

[Jacob]

I am not sure they have read your posts, either.  Simple assertion does not equal evidence.

But maybe I have read their posts

I find it interesting that BB and Malthus would argue that the US invasions in the War of 1812 lead to a sense of Canadian identity, and yet also argue that, 50 years later, the Confederation was needed to avoid having separate Canadian provinces play off the US against one another.  If a canadian identity arose out of the US invasions, then why would Canadians play the US card against each other?  OTOH, if there was a genuine fear that the separate provinces would play the US card, isn't that evidence that they did not, indeed, feel a sense of "Canadian identity?"

My reading of Canadian history is that the idea the Canadians were a separate and distinct people arose from Confederation, which was aimed not at the US, but at Britain. Some parts of Canada were self-ruling before Confederation, and some were not (or, at least, less so; all had some voice in their own affairs by then).  Certainly, when the Maritimes started talking about joining together in 1864, no one anticipated that their actions would lead to Confederation only three years later.  Equally certainly, the motives for the Maritimes to unite wasn't due to their fear of a US invasion.  Newfoundland didn't join until 1949, and yet never played the "US card."

In short, I see no evidence that the retcon of Canadian history to include fear of a US invasion, US annexation, or that the separate provinces would play the "US card" as reasons for the creation of a Canadian identity and Canada itself.  Rather, as I see it, confederation occurred because of the separate provinces saw increasing political and economic advantages to banding together, especially in their relations with Britain.  I see a sense of Canadian identity as a result of confederation, not as a cause of confederation.

You may be right. It may well be that the importance of 1812 to the formation of a Canadian identity was a retcon at the time of Confederation, or even later. Personally, I expect that these sort of crucial dates in a nation's mythology as often as not are understood very differently at the time than once they're part of the canon, so to speak.

How- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.

[Berkut]

Wow, that is some rather thorough historical revisionism.

How- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.

Kind of alarming how important it is to Canadians to make sure the US is portrayed as the enemy, even to the extent of simply inventing a history to support it.

[Jacob]

Jesus Veep, your written English has gotten really fookin' good. 

I liked the points you made man.

Concur - good points, well made.

I'm not sure I agree with the first one entirely, at least for Canada. I think a significant number of Canadians will be at least dimly aware of some sort of "we burnt down the white house!!11!!" claim. Though I guess you can argue that that still counts as "mostly unknown".

[Jacob]

Wow, that is some rather thorough historical revisionism.

How- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.

Kind of alarming how important it is to Canadians to make sure the US is portrayed as the enemy, even to the extent of simply inventing a history to support it.

Alarming!

Alright, Tim.

[Berkut]

Wow, that is some rather thorough historical revisionism.

How- and when- ever the significance of 1812 entered the national mythology, such as it is, it is definitely there now; it is, for example, part of the historical information every new immigrant has to learn as part of gaining citizenship.

Kind of alarming how important it is to Canadians to make sure the US is portrayed as the enemy, even to the extent of simply inventing a history to support it.

Alarming!

Alright, Tim.

Shrug. It certainly informs my own views on how I should consider our supposed allies - the arguments I've seen here essentially amount to the idea that the need for this national myth of the US as a enemy to be feared is so important to current, modern Canadians that they are perfectly content to have their society and government intentionally muddle history to portray the US as a national, even potentially existential threat, at least historically.

That says a lot about views of the US north of the border, and none of it healthy.

[Jacob]

Shrug. It certainly informs my own views on how I should consider our supposed allies - the arguments I've seen here essentially amount to the idea that the need for this national myth of the US as a enemy to be feared is so important to current, modern Canadians that they are perfectly content to have their society and government intentionally muddle history to portray the US as a national, even potentially existential threat, at least historically.

That says a lot about views of the US north of the border, and none of it healthy.

And your post says a lot about the importance to you of feeling hard done by.

[Berkut]

Shrug. It certainly informs my own views on how I should consider our supposed allies - the arguments I've seen here essentially amount to the idea that the need for this national myth of the US as a enemy to be feared is so important to current, modern Canadians that they are perfectly content to have their society and government intentionally muddle history to portray the US as a national, even potentially existential threat, at least historically.

That says a lot about views of the US north of the border, and none of it healthy.

And your post says a lot about the importance to you of feeling hard done by.

Oh please. Take a break from playing the martyr for a day or so.

[Jacob]

Oh please. Take a break from playing the martyr for a day or so.

Yes Berkut, that is exactly what you should do.

[garbon]

Oh please. Take a break from playing the martyr for a day or so.

Yes Berkut, that is exactly what you should do.

Is he playing a martyr here though? You opened up the can when you said that it might just be mythologizing that posts Canadian identity forming as the result of perceived threats from America. Nothing wrong with contesting that perhaps Canada shouldn't be forcing that myth on its new citizens.