Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[grumbler]

Grumbler said that Canada formed itself because the colonists felt they were different than the people of Great Britain.

In fact, I said the opposite.  The argument that you are disagreeing with is my argument that the development of a  distinct Canadian identity was more a result of the confederation than a cause of it. 

That's not true at all.  He said he took his argument from a book, wich was quoted to say what everyone was saying: namely, Canada formed itself out of fear of the US, not because they were unhappy with the British Empire.

That's not true at all.  I never said that I took my argument from Careless.  I just said that Careless was a good source for reading about Canadian history.  Careless does NOT say that "Canada formed itself out of fear of the US."  In fact, he notes that, while there was anti-American sentiment as a result of the War of 1812, this was too narrow a base on which to build a national identity.

And then he comes, and says he was saying that all along, that Canada formed itself out of fear of US expansionism.

Yet another strawman.  I have never held in this discussion, and do not hold now, that "Canada formed itself out of fear of US expansionism."  The initial impetus towards Canadian unity came from the Maritimes, who wanted, I argue (and Careless supports this I believe, though, again, I read him many years ago), to strengthen their hand in relationship to Britain; specifically, to get the British to negotiate the same sort of free trade agreement with the US that Britain had negotiated for the United Province of Canada (modern-day Quebec and Ontario).

I haven't argued that the war of 1812 and the Fenian raids (or other, more generalized fears of being annexed by the US) played no role in Canadian history or the development of a Canadian identity. I have merely argued that they were not central to the process, and that the process of creating Canada would have gone on about the same in their absence.  I argue that the substitution of the more "heroic" "self-defense against the US" motive for the more prosaic self-interest motive for the confederation and the subsequent development of a Canadian  identity is a retcon.  Both the timing of the confederation, and the existence of very similar movements in places like Australia (never threatened by the US in any way, nor indeed threatened by anyone else) would support my contention, i believe.

If you are going to debate the issue, at least debate the argument I am actually making, instead of creating arguments I have never made and then arguing against those.

[grumbler]

You don't have intellectual discussions.  You pick a side (occasionally at random) and then fling poo and adhoms until people get tired of arguing with you.  You're just a sophisticated version of Raz.

Please try to be a little more subtle and a little less Raz in your trolls.   

[Berkut]

Berkutthurt.

:confused:

[Razgovory]

Seems I'm not so different after all.  Everyone is like me these days!

[Malthus]

I haven't argued that the war of 1812 and the Fenian raids (or other, more generalized fears of being annexed by the US) played no role in Canadian history or the development of a Canadian identity. I have merely argued that they were not central to the process, and that the process of creating Canada would have gone on about the same in their absence.  I argue that the substitution of the more "heroic" "self-defense against the US" motive for the more prosaic self-interest motive for the confederation and the subsequent development of a Canadian  identity is a retcon.  Both the timing of the confederation, and the existence of very similar movements in places like Australia (never threatened by the US in any way, nor indeed threatened by anyone else) would support my contention, i believe.

In summary, where Jon Latimer says "... These tensions and its own increasing self-reliance helped bring into existence the Dominion of Canada ... ", you are more inclined to reverese the significance of "tensions" and "self-reliance". 

I disagree, and I think the timing of the move demonstrates that tensions with the US were more central to the process. For example, the fact that confederation took place very soon after the US Civil War (which saw tensions ratcheted up to new heights) and after the initial Fenian raids (themselves allowed exactly because of those tensions) were surely of great significance.

Maybe confederation would have happened anyway if no such tensions existed, arguing from counterfactuals is a trifle difficult to refute, but it would have been for different motives. The example of the federation of Australia isn't really evidence of your point - given that it was, at least in part, motivated by the already existing example of Canada as a self-governing "White dominion". If Canada can do it, why not Australia?

I don't think that the Canadian identity is a "retcon" or "subsequent" to confederation. No doubt confederation played a role in developing Canadian identity, but it too was in large part a development of the fact of an already-existing identity, albeit centered on seperate colonies, that was shaped in large part by decades of concern about the ambitions and aggressions of its southern neighbours.

[viper37]

I'd say there were no clear Canadian identity until WW1, when Canada fought with its own army, and it further moved that way with WWII, again for the same reasons.

There you see Canadians moving toward the "we are Canadians", rather than "we are British citizens of Canada".

[PDH]

MB is gonna be so drunk after this.

[Admiral Yi]

 

[viper37]

Interesting text here about the name of the new country, its foundation:

During the Charlottetown Conference of 1864, John A. Macdonald, who later became the first Prime Minister of Canada, talked of "founding a great British monarchy", in connection with the British Empire. He advocated, in the fourth Canadian draft of the British North America Act, the name "Kingdom of Canada,"[21] in the text is said:

    "The word 'Parliament' shall mean the Legislature or Parliament of the Kingdom of Canada.
    "The word 'Kingdom' shall mean and comprehend the United Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
    "The words 'Privy Council' shall mean such persons as may from time to time be appointed, by the Governor General, and sworn to aid and advise in the Government of the Kingdom."[22]

Canada's founders, led by Sir John A. Macdonald wished their new nation to be called the Kingdom of Canada, to "fix the monarchical basis of the constitution."[23] The governor general at the time, the Viscount Monck, supported the move to designate Canada a kingdom;[24] however, officials at the Colonial Office in London opposed this potentially "premature" and "pretentious" reference for a new country. They were also wary of antagonizing the United States, which had emerged from its Civil War as a formidable military power with unsettled grievances because British interests had sold ships to the Confederacy despite a blockade, and thus opposed the use of terms such as kingdom or empire to describe the new country.[25]

New Brunswick premier Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley suggested the term 'Dominion',[26] inspired by Psalm 72:8 (from the King James Bible): "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."[27] This is also echoed in Canada's motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for "from sea to sea").[28]

The term had been used for centuries to refer to the lands held by a monarch,[29] and had previously been adopted as titles for the Dominion of New England and the Dominion and Colony of Virginia. It continued to apply as a generic term for the major colonial possessions of the British Empire until well into the 20th century,[30] although Tilley and the other Fathers of Confederation broadened the meaning of the word 'dominion' to a "virtual synonym for sovereign state".[31] Its adoption as a title for Canada in 1867 served the purpose of upholding the monarchist principle in Canada; in a letter to Queen Victoria, Lord Carnarvon stated: "The North American delegates are anxious that the United Provinces should be designated as the 'Dominion of Canada.' It is a new title, but intended on their part as a tribute to the Monarchical principle which they earnestly desire to uphold.".[32]

[crazy canuck]

He'll agree claiming it's what he said all along.

Lol, and that is exactly what he did.

Are you really pleased that you were able to accurately predict that grumbler would say that is what he was saying all along, when in fact YOU repeated his own argument back to him?

Did you even read the thread?

[Ed Anger]

I'm too drunk to read the thread.

[11B4V]

I'm too drunk to read the thread.

The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'

[Ed Anger]

I'm too drunk to read the thread.

The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'

I'm following the rules of the Languish Drinking Game.

[Berkut]

I'm too drunk to read the thread.

The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'

I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."

I don't understand that kind of small mindeded insecurity, but I can certainly LISTEN to it.

[11B4V]

I'm too drunk to read the thread.

The usual. Everbody talkin', no one listenin'

I think I am listening. The Canucks are all "No, really, hating the US really is what defines our nation! Yes, even today! And if we have to make up a history to justify it, then that is the price we have to pay..."

Yeah, they're (Canada) like the prude yuppie couple living above a rowdy biker bar.