Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[Malthus]

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

I assume it is because the American national mytholgy is so ingrained - that peace and freedom demands defeat of the "colonial masters", as Berkut so eloquently put it. The notion that peace and freedom are better obtained within the Empire is as alien and foreign to this narrative as asserting that Darth Vader was really the good guy in Star Wars. 

Again, the Americans are inclined to view a vicious rebellion, slavery, filibustering, the Civil War, and forcibly crushing the natives as perhaps-regrettible growing pains that lead to present-day peace and freedom they enjoy, and were the (required) price of the same. The notion that one could, and perhaps indeed should, obtain peace and freedom without those costs creates cognitive dissonance.

[garbon]

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

I assume it is because the American national mytholgy is so ingrained - that peace and freedom demands defeat of the "colonial masters", as Berkut so eloquently put it. The notion that peace and freedom are better obtained within the Empire is as alien and foreign to this narrative as asserting that Darth Vader was really the good guy in Star Wars. 

Again, the Americans are inclined to view a vicious rebellion, slavery, filibustering, the Civil War, and forcibly crushing the natives as perhaps-regrettible growing pains that lead to present-day peace and freedom they enjoy, and were the (required) price of the same. The notion that one could, and perhaps indeed should, obtain peace and freedom without those costs creates cognitive dissonance.

I can only think you are willfully creating a strawman American position...at least insofar as the Americans that have participated in this thread.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not getting your point. The whole notion of Confederation was to stay within the Empire. Fostering united ties with other provinces ensured that none would be tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire, looking for purely local advantage - similar to what the dissident US South attempted to do in your very own US of A.

I don't really get this point either.  Are you claiming that *Canadians* were clamoring for Confederation because they were afraid they might be "tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire," or that Confederation was a solution cooked up in Westminster to guard against that threat?

In neither case do I see how you can celebrate Confederation as a victory for Canadian self identity.

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.

[Jacob]

In neither case do I see how you can celebrate Confederation as a victory for Canadian self identity.

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.

So you're saying Confederation cannot be seen as important in creating a Canadian identity while your reading suggests that it was an attempt to create a pan-Canadian identity?

I'm not quite sure I see what you're coming from, nor where you are going... are you, as garbon suggests, saying that there's no such thing as a Canadian identity because of the existence of Quebec? Something else?

[Berkut]

LOL.

So really, you guys have us to thank for your independence?

Without a war between your colonial masters and their former colonial servants, Canada would never have had the idea of independence?

This entire thing is so bizarre. Canadians are so intent on casting the US as the bad guy in the story of Canadian "national identity" which just makes no sense at all - it wasn't the USA that was holding Canada as a colony of a foreign power. And if anything suggested to Canada that perhaps they could be an independent nation, I would guess that the US claiming their own independence from that colonial power might have some teeny, tiny bit of relevance.

I never even used the word independence.

I said 1812 and the ongoing fear of a US invasion was a big part of what led to Confederation - bringing together at first Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into one new Dominion of Canada.  At the time the Fathers of Confederation would have been horrified at the notion that what they were doing was declaring Independence from the Empire.  But what Confederation was about was forming a united Canadian identity within the British Empire.

That doesn't even make sense though - isn't that obvious to anyone thinking about this objectively?

The defense of "Canada" from the largely mythical threat of American conquest is not in a "Confederation" of Canadian disparate peoples under the British Empire. No amount of "Canadian" unity could have stopped the US from taking over Canada absent...the British Empire! Canada was largely invulnerable to US aggression while part of the British Empire, and 100% helpless in the face of US aggression absent the British Empire.

And the War of 1812, if it proved anything, proved that

1. Canada was not vulnerable to takeover from the US as long as the British Empire was willing to protect it, because Canadians themselves had no interest in bailing on the Brits, and
2. The US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.

This idea that AFTER 1812 there was this "ongoing fear" of imminent US invasion just makes no sense, except as a convenient myth. Certainly at the time it was blindingly obvious that the US had zero interest in invading Canada.

I suspect the entire thing, as exemplified by naming these warships, is pretty much a figment of post-Canadian independence imagination. A desirous mythology of strife and struggle to romanticize something that was really quite boring.

I'm not getting your point. The whole notion of Confederation was to stay within the Empire. Fostering united ties with other provinces ensured that none would be tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire, looking for purely local advantage - similar to what the dissident US South attempted to do in your very own US of A.

As you yourself noted:

The US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.

Confederation was designed to prevent groups within what is now "Canada" of seeking just that. What if, for example, Louis Riel approached the US Congress hoping to get a better deal from the US for "Manitoba"?

Ahhh, ok - I see what you mean. I was thinking the claim was that you needed to be united in order to resist a US attempt to conquer Canada. Because, as we know from Beebs expert history, the US was engaged in constant wars of conquest pretty much throughout that entire century.... P

I can certainly see the idea of Confederation as a means to short circuit non-military "takeover"....that is interesting.

[garbon]

I'm not quite sure I see what you're coming from, nor where you are going... are you, as garbon suggests, saying that there's no such thing as a Canadian identity because of the existence of Quebec? Something else?

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.

[Berkut]

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

I assume it is because the American national mytholgy is so ingrained - that peace and freedom demands defeat of the "colonial masters", as Berkut so eloquently put it. The notion that peace and freedom are better obtained within the Empire is as alien and foreign to this narrative as asserting that Darth Vader was really the good guy in Star Wars. 

Again, the Americans are inclined to view a vicious rebellion, slavery, filibustering, the Civil War, and forcibly crushing the natives as perhaps-regrettible growing pains that lead to present-day peace and freedom they enjoy, and were the (required) price of the same. The notion that one could, and perhaps indeed should, obtain peace and freedom without those costs creates cognitive dissonance.

I am going to operate under the assumption that this is as tongue in cheek as my own postings about the Canadian perspective...

[Admiral Yi]

So you're saying Confederation cannot be seen as important in creating a Canadian identity while your reading suggests that it was an attempt to create a pan-Canadian identity?

No.

I think if you cut through the verbiage, it was an attempt to create a single Anglo-majority political unit that would have less tendency to separate from the UK.  For comparison take a look at the only other British colony with a significant non-British white population: South Africa.

I'm not quite sure I see what you're coming from, nor where you are going... are you, as garbon suggests, saying that there's no such thing as a Canadian identity because of the existence of Quebec? Something else?

I think there are broadly speaking two Canadian identities.

[Jacob]

I think if you cut through the verbiage, it was an attempt to create a single Anglo-majority political unit that would have less tendency to separate from the UK.

That's not an unreasonable interpretation.

It seems to me that that attempt was reasonably successful, and that it formed the foundation for the Canadian identity afterwards. So of course we celebrate Confederation as a victory for Canadian self identity.

For comparison take a look at the only other British colony with a significant non-British white population: South Africa.

Not sure what you mean for us to take from that comparison.

I think there are broadly speaking two Canadian identities.

Let me guess: First Nations and immigrant-derived?

[Admiral Yi]

Not sure what you mean for us to take from that comparison.

That Britain felt, with good reason, that non-British white subjects would feel less attached to the mother country.

[The Brain]

CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

[Malthus]

I'm not getting your point. The whole notion of Confederation was to stay within the Empire. Fostering united ties with other provinces ensured that none would be tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire, looking for purely local advantage - similar to what the dissident US South attempted to do in your very own US of A.

I don't really get this point either.  Are you claiming that *Canadians* were clamoring for Confederation because they were afraid they might be "tempted by inter-provincial wrangling to play the US off against the Empire," or that Confederation was a solution cooked up in Westminster to guard against that threat?

In neither case do I see how you can celebrate Confederation as a victory for Canadian self identity.

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.

Confederation in Canada was a complex process, but it was undoubtedly indigenous - it was not something imposed by the Brits.

Part of it was a reaction to the US Civil War. Canadians were horrified by that conflict. It killed dead any lingering notions that joining the US en bloc was desireable.

Part of it was reaction to the post-Civil War Fenian raids. Yes, these were comic-opera in hindsight, but the notion of thousands of Irish-American Civil War vets swarming into Canada bent on pillage and murder (with the US largely indifferent to stopping them, due to anger at the Brits supporting the South in the Civil War) was horrifying at the time.

The Fenian raids caused an increased anti-American feeling in Canada and the Maritimes because of the U.S. government's perceived tolerance of the Fenians when they were meeting openly and preparing for the raids.The raids also aroused a martial spirit among Canadians by testing the militia's strength. Because of their poor performance, the militia took efforts to improve themselves. This was achieved without the huge cost of a real war. The greatest impact of the Fenian raids was in the developing a sense of Canadian nationalism and leading the provinces into a Confederation. This was shown to be necessary for survival and self-defence; the raids showed Canadians that safety lay in unity. The Fenian raids thus should be viewed as an important factor in creating the country we know today as Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_raids#Results_and_long_term_effects

To Canadians, the Fenian raids combined with the War of 1812 demonstrated the necessity of self-defence, even though, as stated, the raids themselves were comic-opera affairs.

Part of it was to discourage local actors from attempting to play the US off against fellow-colonies. Unity was seen as important.

Part of it was simply to obtain comparative advantages for resources and taxation.

[Barrister]

That doesn't even make sense though - isn't that obvious to anyone thinking about this objectively?

The defense of "Canada" from the largely mythical threat of American conquest is not in a "Confederation" of Canadian disparate peoples under the British Empire. No amount of "Canadian" unity could have stopped the US from taking over Canada absent...the British Empire! Canada was largely invulnerable to US aggression while part of the British Empire, and 100% helpless in the face of US aggression absent the British Empire.

And the War of 1812, if it proved anything, proved that

1. Canada was not vulnerable to takeover from the US as long as the British Empire was willing to protect it, because Canadians themselves had no interest in bailing on the Brits, and
2. The US wasn't much interested in conquering Canada absent Canadian interest in separating from the British Empire.

This idea that AFTER 1812 there was this "ongoing fear" of imminent US invasion just makes no sense, except as a convenient myth. Certainly at the time it was blindingly obvious that the US had zero interest in invading Canada.

I suspect the entire thing, as exemplified by naming these warships, is pretty much a figment of post-Canadian independence imagination. A desirous mythology of strife and struggle to romanticize something that was really quite boring.

I wanted to address the bolded part, because it's at least something new to argue.

Canada in the 1860s was very, very concerned about the possibility of a US invasion.

Now you can argue that such fears were misplaced, but that that fear existed should not be doubted.  It was very much one of the prime motivators behind Confederation.

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.

[Malthus]

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.

[The Brain]

The US of the mid-19th century had no qualms about invading their own country. Why would a neighbor feel safe?