Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[Jacob]

Is he playing a martyr here though?

Yes. Yes he is. He is alarmed about the terrible things Canadians apparently think about his nation, and the weighty implications thereof.

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.

Yeah, because it's not like the US has a bunch of mythology that casts non-Americans in an unflattering light in the service of its national identity

[garbon]

Yes. Yes he is. He is alarmed about the terrible things Canadians apparently think about his nation, and the weighty implications thereof.

I don't know that he has said there are many weighty implications.

Yeah, because it's not like the US has a bunch of mythology that casts non-Americans in an unflattering light in the service of its national identity

2 wrongs make a right? Besides, I'd wholeheartedly agree with less American mythologizing and more teaching of nuanced history. Makes it more interesting at least.

[grumbler]

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.

Agreed, and that is why I think the ship names are fine; they celebrate what the country believes about itself, just as the equivalent US ship names (Ticonderoga and Bunker Hill, especially) celebrate US stories that are not, strictly speaking, historical.

[jimmy olsen]

Thinking on this further, I think I'm coming around towards Otto's view on what would have happened if the U.S. had managed to fluke its way to victory (in hindsight nearly impossible, I'd imagine Napoleon would have to do better in Europe distracting Britain, but the how doesn't really matter).

I really don't think the U.S. would have annexed the populated territories in Canada, the American government of the time really was not capable of doing so. It would simply not be as easy as the later annexation of the Mexican cession. Unlike the prewar predictions the Canadians did not welcome the Americans as liberators. They fought them wholeheartedly. The Maritimes and Upper Canada are inhabited by white anglo-saxon protestants. They simply can not be oppressed, disposed of their land, etc like the Mexicans and Native Americans. The political culture of the United States at this time would not be able to bear this.

The expulsion of loyalists after the revolution is simply not comparable. For one thing there is no significant class of elites to favor in opposition to the loyalists, they were all loyalists in Canada. Secondly the American political climate had changed since that time. There is not the personal enmity that was characterized by decades of political and open warfare that engendered the reprisals against the loyalists after the Revolution. The New England states which were lukewarm on the war in the first won't support harsh measures that are likely to disrupt trade and I don't think the South could possibly have the stomach for such a widespread usurpation of private property of a white upper class, it sets a very bad precedent. Nor can they be occupied by a standing army for more than a decade after the war like the south after reconstruction, a standing army of such size and power was politically anathema to America at the time, so much so that they went to war with one of the two strongest nations in the world with virtually nothing but state militia.

Simply put the Maritimes and Upper Canada must be given statehood if they come under U.S. rule, and the states having much more sovereign power at that time, what is to stop them from jumping ship and seceding at the first opportunity. How could they be trusted not to conspire with foreign powers to gain their independence, particularly Great Britain? It is a Civil War waiting to happen.

I don't see how these problems could be overcome and the people in charge would understand that. If the US somehow won in 1812 they would at most demand the cession of the Oregon Country and Rupert's Land.

[viper37]

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

I liked the points you made man.

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

I liked the points you made man.

I might have been drinking a lot, wich I'm not supposed to do.

[viper37]

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?"

Your problem is that you see 1867 Canada as being entirely populated by "Canadians", as like today's Canadians.  In 1867, I'm pretty sure there was a strong feeling of Americans being Americans rather than former British, right?  Southerners prossibly felt more attached to their State than America proper, but they were no longer in any position to do anything about it.  I can't see South Carolina in 1867 saying something like "Give us Slavery back or we'll join Mexico".  That's totally unrealistic.

However, in 1867 Canada, you got American immigrants, you got British immigrants, you got Irish, Scots, French & Metis.  Discounting here the Indian populations.
Among the British, some are deeply loyal to the Crown, some start to feel more like something else, most of them kinda like the Queen and feel loyal, but if it's a choice between their own interests and the interests of the Crown, strong-arming the colonial government might not be out of the question. 

Also, if a territory becomes largely populated by American immigrants, whose to say they won't ask the American government to join them as a New State?  And what's Great Britain gonna do?  They already told canadian officials during the Civil War they wouldn't defend them if there was another invasion.

All of this combined to commercial interests makes a stronger case for unity.

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.

No, your reading is wrong.  BB once posted our 'declaration of independance".  I use the quotes, because this word never appears in the statement.  As Jacob & Malthus pointed, it's autonomy within the Empire.  Canada is still a colony.  Its citizens are still British Citizens carrying a British passport.  Canada did not achieve independance before the Statute of Westminster, ca 1931-1932. 

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."

Newfoundland was not settled by Americans.  America had no claims over Newfoundland.  For the western provinces, it was another matter.

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.

In 1865, advocating anything without the Queen's consent was considered treason.  Just being accused of it would discredit you in parliament.
In 1865, a Canadian was a French speaking citizen living in Lower Canada.  John A. McDonald did not call himself a Canadian patriot, nor did Georges-Étienne Cartier.

John A. McDonald is not a Canadian equivalent of George Washington.  As Jacob&Malthus both said, you got to get out of this 'American' mentality when you analyze canadian politics.

Americans started developing as a nation during the Seven Year Wars and it built up to the Revolution, but that process never happenned in Canada.
Laugh if you want, but I'll quote Last of the Mohicans here.  When the British officer is trying to raise his levy, some of the colonials feel they should protect their homes first, to wich the British officer replies: "For you homes, for King & Country".  And then, one of the colonists says "I agree with some of what Nathaniel says [not being much of a subject at all], but I also believe England rules this land".   This is Canada in

People may being to feel different, may beging to feel Canadian, but there's no way they'll reject the Crown at that point.  They are British citizens beyond anything else.  As further evidence, when WW1&WW2 comes, lots of Canadian citizens prefer to enlist in the regular British military rather than the Canadian forces.   It is not the sign of a distinct identity, a rupture, as we saw with the US in 1776.

[viper37]

I really don't think the U.S. would have annexed the populated territories in Canada, the American government of the time really was not capable of doing so. It would simply not be as easy as the later annexation of the Mexican cession. Unlike the prewar predictions the Canadians did not welcome the Americans as liberators. They fought them wholeheartedly. The Maritimes and Upper Canada are inhabited by white anglo-saxon protestants. They simply can not be oppressed, disposed of their land, etc like the Mexicans and Native Americans. The political culture of the United States at this time would not be able to bear this.

My ancestors fought the British too.  Those who did not fight saw all their life burn in front of their eyes.

Yet, we were conquered by the British who left a token force in Quebec city.  And the only attemp at rebellion was more of a "police action" from the British than a proper military campaign.

The expulsion of loyalists after the revolution is simply not comparable. For one thing there is no significant class of elites to favor in opposition to the loyalists, they were all loyalists in Canada. Secondly the American political climate had changed since that time. There is not the personal enmity that was characterized by decades of political and open warfare that engendered the reprisals against the loyalists after the Revolution. The New England states which were lukewarm on the war in the first won't support harsh measures that are likely to disrupt trade and I don't think the South could possibly have the stomach for such a widespread usurpation of private property of a white upper class, it sets a very bad precedent. Nor can they be occupied by a standing army for more than a decade after the war like the south after reconstruction, a standing army of such size and power was politically anathema to America at the time, so much so that they went to war with one of the two strongest nations in the world with virtually nothing but state militia.

There isn't that many Loyalists in Canada at the time.  Once conquered, you offer them a choice of leaving, with some token compensation, free boat to England, many will take it, the other will learn to live under the new rule.

Lots of territories were conquered throughout time, I think genocide was the exception, most populace simply learn to live with the occupying forces.

How could they be trusted not to conspire with foreign powers to gain their independence, particularly Great Britain? It is a Civil War waiting to happen.

Because Great Britain might not think it worth it to reclaim its colonies?  Just as France did not seem it was worth it to keep fighting in Europe to preserve lands in India and Canada a few years earlier.

I don't see how these problems could be overcome and the people in charge would understand that. If the US somehow won in 1812 they would at most demand the cession of the Oregon Country and Rupert's Land.

There wasn't that much people in Ontario at the time.  You case might be good for parts of Quebec and the Maritimes, but the Yanks sure would have gotten Ontario out of the deal if they captured and held it.

The rest, well, it's mostly empty space.  Conquer a fort, you got something to hold, but walk over a prairie and claim it's yours, good luck holding it if the ennemy strikes back.

[grumbler]

Your problem is that you see 1867 Canada as being entirely populated by "Canadians", as like today's Canadians.  In 1867, I'm pretty sure there was a strong feeling of Americans being Americans rather than former British, right?  Southerners prossibly felt more attached to their State than America proper, but they were no longer in any position to do anything about it.  I can't see South Carolina in 1867 saying something like "Give us Slavery back or we'll join Mexico".  That's totally unrealistic.

Your problem is that you are too much in love with strawman arguments.  Nothing you said here responds to any of my points; indeed, they mirror my points.  Instead, you put words in my mouth and respond to that.  1867 South Carolina has no analogue in 1867 Canada.

However, in 1867 Canada, you got American immigrants, you got British immigrants, you got Irish, Scots, French & Metis.  Discounting here the Indian populations.
Among the British, some are deeply loyal to the Crown, some start to feel more like something else, most of them kinda like the Queen and feel loyal, but if it's a choice between their own interests and the interests of the Crown, strong-arming the colonial government might not be out of the question. 

Also, if a territory becomes largely populated by American immigrants, whose to say they won't ask the American government to join them as a New State?  And what's Great Britain gonna do?  They already told canadian officials during the Civil War they wouldn't defend them if there was another invasion.

All of this combined to commercial interests makes a stronger case for unity.

Actually, as we saw with the case of British Colombia, there was no legal way for a non-US territory to p[petition to become a territory or state.  Several bills were offered to try to rectify this in the US Congress, but they all failed.  BC was the only current Canadian territory that was ever in danger of trying to seek to join the US, because of the residual US residents from the gold rush era, but it wasn't part of the original Confederation of canada, only joining in 1871 (after Canada offered to absorb the territory's massive per-capita debt).  Even then, it was no sense of "Canadian identity" that motivated the British Colombians; they seriously threatened several times thereafter to leave the Confederation in those first years over what they saw as broken promises.

Again, we see "Canadian identity" arising from confederation, rather than causing it.  And, again, we see confederation arising not from fear of a US takeover, but from a desire to simplify and strengthen the hand of the locals vis-a-vis London.

No, your reading is wrong.  BB once posted our 'declaration of independance".  I use the quotes, because this word never appears in the statement.  As Jacob & Malthus pointed, it's autonomy within the Empire.  Canada is still a colony.  Its citizens are still British Citizens carrying a British passport.  Canada did not achieve independance before the Statute of Westminster, ca 1931-1932. 

You say that my reading is wrong, and then repeat my points!   

Newfoundland was not settled by Americans.  America had no claims over Newfoundland.  For the western provinces, it was another matter.

Non sequitor.  The US had no claim over the western Canadian provinces. Only BC even had a notable American presence.

In 1865, advocating anything without the Queen's consent was considered treason.  Just being accused of it would discredit you in parliament.
In 1865, a Canadian was a French speaking citizen living in Lower Canada.  John A. McDonald did not call himself a Canadian patriot, nor did Georges-Étienne Cartier.

John A. McDonald is not a Canadian equivalent of George Washington.  As Jacob&Malthus both said, you got to get out of this 'American' mentality when you analyze canadian politics.

Americans started developing as a nation during the Seven Year Wars and it built up to the Revolution, but that process never happenned in Canada.
Laugh if you want, but I'll quote Last of the Mohicans here.  When the British officer is trying to raise his levy, some of the colonials feel they should protect their homes first, to wich the British officer replies: "For you homes, for King & Country".  And then, one of the colonists says "I agree with some of what Nathaniel says [not being much of a subject at all], but I also believe England rules this land".   This is Canada in

People may being to feel different, may beging to feel Canadian, but there's no way they'll reject the Crown at that point.  They are British citizens beyond anything else.  As further evidence, when WW1&WW2 comes, lots of Canadian citizens prefer to enlist in the regular British military rather than the Canadian forces.   It is not the sign of a distinct identity, a rupture, as we saw with the US in 1776.

You are just repeating my points!     You've got to stop thinking provincially and actually read what I write before lecturing me "to get out of this 'American' mentality [sic] when you analyze canadian [sic] politics," because your argument is that I am stuck in some kind of "American mentality" which leads me to conclusions that, it turns out, are pretty much identical to what you argue.  The only arguments you demolish are the strawman arguments like those about "a Canadian equivalent of George Washington," which are entirely fabricated on your part.

[viper37]

Grumbler, you project the American desire for independance in the 18th century to 19th century Canada, and it is there you are making a mistake.

[grumbler]

Grumbler, you project the American desire for independance in the 18th century to 19th century Canada, and it is there you are making a mistake.

No, the mistake is that you are not reading what I actually write, and therefor come up with strawman arguments like the one that I believe that somehow 19th century Canadians got infected with the 18th Century US desire for independence.  There is no parallel between US independence movements and Canadian confederation, so I don't know why you even try to link them into a sentence.

[crazy canuck]

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."

What have you been reading to lead you to this odd conclusion.

[viper37]

Grumbler, you project the American desire for independance in the 18th century to 19th century Canada, and it is there you are making a mistake.

No, the mistake is that you are not reading what I actually write, and therefor come up with strawman arguments like the one that I believe that somehow 19th century Canadians got infected with the 18th Century US desire for independence.  There is no parallel between US independence movements and Canadian confederation, so I don't know why you even try to link them into a sentence.

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.

Then I don't know what that is.  You do make strange readings, for sure.

[grumbler]

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.

Then I don't know what that is.  You do make strange readings, for sure.

My readings are not strange at all.  Your readings of my posts are bizarre, to say the least.  If you don't understand something I write (and that is entirely understandable, given that English isn't your native tongue), it is probably better to ask what it means, rather than claiming that it means that "John A. McDonald is... a Canadian equivalent of George Washington!" 

[grumbler]

What have you been reading to lead you to this odd conclusion.

Books, mostly.  There is nothing odd about the contention that the Maritimes did not fear a US invasion.

[viper37]

The Maritimes wanted to unite to get a better deal in their trade with the US.  One of the reasons they joined Canada is they were promised a Free trade agreement with the United States and the other canadian provinces joining in the Confederation.  Wich did not really happen for another century, and there are still restrictions to inter-provincial commerce.

Anyhow, again, the basic idea of the proposed merger was to create a stronger block toward the United States.  The idea of joining not only the Maritimes, but Upper&Lower Canada also was received with mixed feelings, as the links were never that strong between the various provinces.  Trade has most often been made on a north-south axis rather then east-west.  Even today, in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, you'll find a lot more Bruins fans than Habs or Leafs fans.