1812 Celebrations: A Bit Much?

[Aylmer]

I'd just like to know if I'm the only one who thinks that all this hullabaloo the government is trying to create over the war of 1812... well, just is a little useless. I mean, it's a war that was entirely political, that wasn't even fought by Canada and resulted in... well, just about nothing.

My favourite quote describing the end of the war is from the Globe&Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-real-legacy-of-1812-it-never-happened-again/article4461387/):

Rather than a stirring Canadian victory, [the war of 1812] ended when the Americans largely lost interest.

And that's just about what happened, as far as I can tell. Ever since the beginning of this year, I've been searching for a reason why we're expected to make such a fuss over this, but even after research and even visiting the exhibits in the War Museum, I've come to the conclusion that there just might not be one.

Not even the minister of Defence seems to care enough to memorize the most basic details of the war, as noted in the Huffington Post
(http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/18/peter-mackay-war-of-1812_n_1683099.html)

Last week during a speech at the French Embassy in Ottawa, the Defence Minister suggested the French supported the British during the War of 1812. The problem? The French backed the Americans [...]

And it wouldn't be so bad if they were just celebrating every little thing that has graced 'Canada''s (or other countries who at some point were in the same general area), but there has been nary a whisper about the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an event of more objective importance than a war fought between the UK and the US 200 years ago largely over the issue of French Napoleonic wars in Europe.

It suffices to say that for an event of such little national importance besides Laura Secord chocolates, $28 Million is quite a bit of money and an entire year is quite a lot of our time wasted.

[flar]

Some kind of misguided attempt to make us all patriotic like Americans or something. Something I could do without.

[Acajack]

I'd just like to know if I'm the only one who thinks that all this hullabaloo the government is trying to create over the war of 1812... well, just is a little useless. I mean, it's a war that was entirely political, that wasn't even fought by Canada and resulted in... well, just about nothing.

My favourite quote describing the end of the war is from the Globe&Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-real-legacy-of-1812-it-never-happened-again/article4461387/):



And that's just about what happened, as far as I can tell. Ever since the beginning of this year, I've been searching for a reason why we're expected to make such a fuss over this, but even after research and even visiting the exhibits in the War Museum, I've come to the conclusion that there just might not be one.

Not even the minister of Defence seems to care enough to memorize the most basic details of the war, as noted in the Huffington Post
(http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/18/peter-mackay-war-of-1812_n_1683099.html)



And it wouldn't be so bad if they were just celebrating every little thing that has graced 'Canada''s (or other countries who at some point were in the same general area), but there has been nary a whisper about the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an event of more objective importance than a war fought between the UK and the US 200 years ago largely over the issue of French Napoleonic wars in Europe.

It suffices to say that for an event of such little national importance besides Laura Secord chocolates, $28 Million is quite a bit of money and an entire year is quite a lot of our time wasted.

The Charter is not being played up because it is seen as a potentially contentious issue: Quebec did not sign on and still has not.

[Aylmer]

I would agree with you, but the Conservative Government has not seemed to give much thought to what might or might not be a contentious issue for Quebec: the other big celebration this year, the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, represents not only a recent and actual issue in Quebec, but a historical one that goes back to 1760.

In many ways, the Charter isn't even a controversial issue in Quebec anymore, most people having largely forgotten what the issue was at all. And even if they did, they'd find that the issue was relatively minor and not of current contention anymore.

[Acajack]

I would agree with you, but the Conservative Government has not seemed to give much thought to what might or might not be a contentious issue for Quebec: the other big celebration this year, the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, represents not only a recent and actual issue in Quebec, but a historical one that goes back to 1760.

In many ways, the Charter isn't even a controversial issue in Quebec anymore, most people having largely forgotten what the issue was at all. And even if they did, they'd find that the issue was relatively minor and not of current contention anymore.

I have it on pretty good authority that one of the reasons the Tories steered clear of the Charter and Constitution is the fact that it might wake the sleeping dog in Quebec. That and the fact that the Charter etc. has Liberal written all over it of course.

[SignalHillHiker]

I hope most Quebecois would not be offended by a celebration of the charter. I assume most of them would support its spirit and intent.

But I would understand not celebrating historic English versus French battles with too much fanfare, etc.

[patm]

Yeah I don't get it either.

It was the british 200 years ago. So stupid.

[manny_santos]

I'd rather see our government keep health benefits for legitimate refugees than blowing money on a celebration that almost nobody cares about.

[The_Architect]

My favourite quote describing the end of the war is from the Globe&Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-real-legacy-of-1812-it-never-happened-again/article4461387/):


That's kind of like saying that the Americans didn't lose in Vietnam, they just lost interest.

The Canadian/British "win" of the War of 1812 was basically defending against an invasion, and actually moving the lines into American territory (to their capital), and then withdrawing. I'm sure that if the British/Canadians kept going it would have undone the Revolutionary War, or at least taken more territory back.

To me the significance of the War of 1812 is "Canada's" first defense against an invasion by another country. It also of course has more significance in Southern Ontario, which was a point of focus of the invasion, and especially Toronto (which was sacked and burned) than the rest of Canada and even the rest of Ontario.

tl;dr It was more of a loss for the US and a successful defense for Canada than a win for Canada.

[RyLucky]

It's propaganda. Educate us, don't indoctrinate us.

[The_Architect]

It's propaganda. Educate us, don't indoctrinate us.

So do you feel the same way about Remembrance Day, Victoria Day and V-E Day as well? (Though admittedly we don't have a holiday for the last one)

[davidivivid]

It's not the historical event that I'm questionning but rather, the reason why the current governement is trying so damn hard to promote it as some kind national glorification day.

[Acajack]

I hope most Quebecois would not be offended by a celebration of the charter. I assume most of them would support its spirit and intent.



Going out on a limb - most people are OK with the general principles of the Charter and Constitution but they think that it goes a bit too far in terms of individual rights vs. collective rights. Which is the reason behind the distinct society clause that was in Meech - to take into account the fact that Quebec, though an integral part of Canada, has some things that it wants to do collectively and not have them legally interpreted through a rigorously individualistic prism.

[Acajack]

But I would understand not celebrating historic English versus French battles with too much fanfare, etc.

While it is true that France did side with the U.S. and therefore against the British (and "Canada" I guess), things are not usually viewed through this angle.

The War of 1812 isn't really in the minds of many people in Quebec.

[The_Architect]

The War of 1812 isn't really in the minds of many people in Quebec.

I find that a bit odd to be honest. I mean, yes it was an "Anglo War", but the easy defeat and sacking of York is essentially the catalyst for the building of the Quebec Citadel. Also one of the fronts was between New York/Vermont and Quebec. Despite the fact that is not French, it is part of Quebec's history.

[Aylmer]

So do you feel the same way about Remembrance Day, Victoria Day and V-E Day as well? (Though admittedly we don't have a holiday for the last one)

I actually agree with him: it's all good and actually very important that people learn their history. For example, some activities to educate and maybe a museum exhibit would have been completely appropriate. However, television ads, historic rifle exhibits at Winterlude and a new monument have no educational value. Their purposes are to appeal to emotions without actually informing us.
Moreover, these gimmicks seem to come at the detriment of actual historical education: cuts in Library and Archives Canada aren't going to help us know our history better if the only thing they'll be able to afford to do is conservation of documents and artifacts instead of sharing their historical value with the public.

History is one of my passions and I believe it's essential for us as people and a society to know it and value it, but this isn't history: it's a circus.

All we're missing is the bread.

[P. Alouishous]

The most important thing about the War of 1812 was how royally screwed over the Native Americans got.

[P. Alouishous]

The War of 1812 isn't really in the minds of many people in Quebec.

...or anywhere in Canada.

[davidivivid]

I actually agree with him: it's all good and actually very important that people learn their history. For example, some activities to educate and maybe a museum exhibit would have been completely appropriate. However, television ads, historic rifle exhibits at Winterlude and a new monument have no educational value. Their purposes are to appeal to emotions without actually informing us.
Moreover, these gimmicks seem to come at the detriment of actual historical education: cuts in Library and Archives Canada aren't going to help us know our history better if the only thing they'll be able to afford to do is conservation of documents and artifacts instead of sharing their historical value with the public.

History is one of my passions and I believe it's essential for us as people and a society to know it and value it, but this isn't history: it's a circus.

All we're missing is the bread.

Right on... du pain et des jeux!

[P. Alouishous]

I have it on pretty good authority that one of the reasons the Tories steered clear of the Charter and Constitution is the fact that it might wake the sleeping dog in Quebec. That and the fact that the Charter etc. has Liberal written all over it of course.

It's not just Quebec. I'm sure Trudeau-haters across Canada would try to find things wrong with it.

[Acajack]

I find that a bit odd to be honest. I mean, yes it was an "Anglo War", but the easy defeat and sacking of York is essentially the catalyst for the building of the Quebec Citadel. Also one of the fronts was between New York/Vermont and Quebec. Despite the fact that is not French, it is part of Quebec's history.

It is indeed odd. Although there are many odd things in this country, especially when it comes to history, culture, heritage, etc.

[whatnext]

I would agree with you, but the Conservative Government has not seemed to give much thought to what might or might not be a contentious issue for Quebec: the other big celebration this year, the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, represents not only a recent and actual issue in Quebec, but a historical one that goes back to 1760.

In many ways, the Charter isn't even a controversial issue in Quebec anymore, most people having largely forgotten what the issue was at all. And even if they did, they'd find that the issue was relatively minor and not of current contention anymore.

The 1812 celebrations are just another plank in the Tories celebration of militarism. And rather than an Anglo war it was an Ontario war. Its been kind of funny watching the Tories try to drum up interest in 1812 in BC (hint: it just doesn't matter).

As to the Diamond Jubilee, is it really a current issue for Quebeckers other than rabid Pequistes? Maybe they should change their provincial motto from Je me souviens to the French equivalent of I Got Over It.

[1ajs]

1812 was a big yr shame they quashed funding for other important historic events that happend that year such as the selkirk setlers in manitoba..........

[SignalHillHiker]

Is it really just an American-style, conservative knee-jerk war glorification? Surely there must be some unique significance to 1812? Some current political appropriateness, perhaps?

[MolsonExport]

waste of time, but beats the fake lake for the G20.

[Acajack]

As to the Diamond Jubilee, is it really a current issue for Quebeckers other than rabid Pequistes? Maybe they should change their provincial motto from Je me souviens to the French equivalent of I Got Over It.

I'd wager that the monarchy in general is less of an issue in Quebec than the fact that the Constitution allegedly does not sufficiently recognize Quebec's distinctiveness and autonomy and that the province has not signed on as a result of this.

[Acajack]

The 1812 celebrations are just another plank in the Tories celebration of militarism. And rather than an Anglo war it was an Ontario war. Its been kind of funny watching the Tories try to drum up interest in 1812 in BC (hint: it just doesn't matter).



You are absolutely right about the reaction in BC (and other parts of the country).

Just wondering though - are people elsewhere like this: this event did not happen in my part of the country so I am unconcerned/don't care/resent having it in my face, or do people have the attitude that, sure it happened in another part of the country, but it's still my country so it's important to me.

What do people think?

[SignalHillHiker]

You are absolutely right about the reaction in BC (and other parts of the country).

Just wondering though - are people elsewhere like this: this event did not happen in my part of the country so I am unconcerned/don't care/resent having it in my face, or do people have the attitude that, sure it happened in another part of the country, but it's still my country so it's important to me.

What do people think?

Totally like that.

"We weren't part of Canada then... Canada wasn't Canada then... Cool..."

[kw5150]

Some kind of misguided attempt to make us all patriotic like Americans or something. Something I could do without.

Totally!

[Blitz]

Brock and Tecumseh played key roles in preventing the U.S. from expanding into extreme southwestern Ontario, and the capture of Detroit was a major event of that year proving that the Americans would not be able to advance as easily as thought they would.

Maybe Canadians don't care because it was very localized but we were taught that if it wasn't for the War of 1812, the Americans would have advanced and this part of Ontario might not have ended up as part of Canada. So the anniversary has been a pretty big deal with celebrations throughout the summer in Windsor and Amherstburg.

[SpongeG]

i haven't heard a thing about anything to do with the war of 1812

[The Jabroni]

Every time I see commercials of that by the GC, I always wondered what was the point of this commercial over what turned out to be a pointless war? All I see is empty pride on our side of the border, and some slight discontent from our American neighbours.

...and technically, we weren't even a country at the time, so the point of the whole thing is moot.

To be fair though, it is part of our Canadian history that shaped up and what led to our confederation. If it weren't for our so-called Canadian heroes and heroine who defended Upper Canada, Southern Ontario would be part of Michigan, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or New York.

[isaidso]

There have been lots of good documentaries about 1812 on recently. Honestly, I didn't know much about it till now. It was a very small skirmish by world standards, but it did change the course of history.

US failure to secure (annex) Upper Canada meant that the remaining colonies in America would remain out of US hands. It set off a chain of events that later led these American colonies to form the nation we now know as Canada.

[vid]

This pretty much sums of what is wrong with the whole thing:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6x5x9m7e11rvkdgto1_400.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/06/14/pol-war-of-1812-bicentennial-federal-events.html

Personally, I give no fucks about the War of 1812, and a lot of fucks about the conditions to which our aboriginal population is subjected. The Harper Government, unfortunately, is my direct opposite. They're behaving more irresponsibly with each year that passes. Harper is so drunk with power it's amazing he hasn't passed out. He's going to have one hell of a hangover after the next election!

1812 was a big yr shame they quashed funding for other important historic events that happend that year such as the selkirk setlers in manitoba..........

He is so serious about this, you guys. :yes:

[Boris2k7]

I'm a social sciences major, and I like historical subjects, but my interest in the War of 1812 really only extends to as far how it related to the larger events going on in the rest of the world (i.e. the Napoleonic Wars). It's important to Canadians that we didn't get annexed by our southern neighbours, but that's about all that can be said for the outcomes of that war. Natives got screwed.

[vid]

Natives would have gotten screwed either way. It is only marginally better in the US, but at least in Canada they form a larger percentage of the population and have a bit more influence. Not that it has gotten them much progress on the whole "the government's unofficial policy is for aboriginals to stop existing" thing.

[Boris2k7]

No, I mean natives got screwed in general, during the war, and even moreso on the American side.

[Blitz]

True, and most Canadians don't realize how big of a role the Natives played in the war of 1812 in SW Ontario (led by Tecumseh). They sided with the British and helped throw off the Americans leading to the capture of Detroit. I don't see a problem with the money being spent to re-enact (and thus educate Canadians about their own history). There are worse things that we can attack the government for spending on.

[RyeJay]

I'd just like to know if I'm the only one who thinks that all this hullabaloo the government is trying to create over the war of 1812... well, just is a little useless. I mean, it's a war that was entirely political, that wasn't even fought by Canada and resulted in... well, just about nothing.

My favourite quote describing the end of the war is from the Globe&Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-real-legacy-of-1812-it-never-happened-again/article4461387/):

As the English and French were at war with each other in Europe, the English and French in the Canadas were unifying to defend each other against American invasions. As Europe was dealing with a Napoleonic France, the remaining colonies of British North America were cut off from British aid.

It was the perfect opportunity for America to expand their control, rid North America of anything British, anything French, anything Catholic -- as America was well into their efforts to rid North America of anything 'Indian'.

The Canadas were an instance of English-French cooperation in stark contrast to what was happening in 'civilised' Europe.

The War of 1812 is when nationalism began to form between two former enemies. As well, The War of 1812 is a time in history when the aboriginal groups were overwhelmingly supporting Upper and Lower Canada, and openly opposing the United States; in fact, the natives were winning battles against Americans, even without the help of Upper and Lower Canadians.

If it wasn't for the help of our First Nations people, the Canadas would have fallen.

The Americans did not lose interest in their war with The Canadas -- but after the Napoleonic Wars ended and British naval forces were redirected to North America....The Canadas were resecured, Washington D.C. was successfully attacked and much of it (including the White House) burned to the ground (as York/Toronto had previously been), and British forces made their way as far south as the Gulf of Mexico -- the Americans returned to their previous activities with the Canadas: Commerce.

So as America and (soon-to-be) Canada eventually retained a successful business of trade, America turned its attention onto stealing the west from Mexico, who didn't have British allies to eventually come to their rescue.

I wonder what California would be like today if it were still Mexican...

[Andrewjm3D]

Yeah I don't get it either.

It was the british 200 years ago. So stupid.

It was the British only because Canada did not yet exist. If things had played out differently we would all be in the US room right now talking about our recession. The war of 1812 is a HUGE deal for this country. In fact we haven't made as much of a deal about it as we should have. Canada, a country with such a short new world history should be marking the occasion with much more celebration. Too many people here don't know the history of one of the worlds most successful nations.

[Aylmer]

It was the perfect opportunity for America to expand their control, rid North America of anything British, anything French, anything Catholic -- as America was well into their efforts to rid North America of anything 'Indian'.

Actually, besides the anything British part, that sounds exactly like what the British were doing, even in 1812.
In fact, I don't quite know where you got the idea that the Americans wanted to rid North America of anything French: not only were the two countries great allies during the American revolution (mostly to spite Britain, I'd imagine), but during and even after their revolution, the US offered to help Quebec rebel against the British. How that would have turned out had it been done, I don't know, but History tells us that the British tried rather hard to get rid of anything French themselves.

As for the First Nations, they were the real losers in 1812. They did play an important part, but we promptly went on with what European colonies seem to do so naturally: take their land, rights and culture. The Americans were doing it too, and much worse in many ways.

But don't pretend that the British were the holy protectors of the French, the Indians, motherhood and apple pie. They weren't. No one was. There was no greater goal in the war than territory and opportunism.

[isaidso]

Yeah I don't get it either.

It was the british 200 years ago. So stupid.

Perhaps you should educate yourself then. Maybe then you'll 'get it'. Stupid indeed.

[vid]

It was the British only because Canada did not yet exist. If things had played out differently we would all be in the US room right now talking about our recession. The war of 1812 is a HUGE deal for this country. In fact we haven't made as much of a deal about it as we should have. Canada, a country with such a short new world history should be marking the occasion with much more celebration. Too many people here don't know the history of one of the worlds most successful nations.

The colonies were called Upper Canada and Lower Canada (collectively, "the Canadas") since the 1700s, and Canadians were British subjects until 1931.

How, exactly, did "Canada" not exist in 1812?

[Aylmer]

Well, "1700's" is a bit misleading -they existed from 1791 to 1840.

[jd3189]

I wonder what California would be like today if it were still Mexican...

I think California wouldn't have fared as good as it did under American jurisdiction if it was still with Mexico. After all, even today, Mexico City is largely Mexico's central of population and economic prosperity. There's a reason why Texas and the rest of the American Southwest at the time had US settlers as well as Mexicans.

[Andrewjm3D]

The colonies were called Upper Canada and Lower Canada (collectively, "the Canadas") since the 1700s, and Canadians were British subjects until 1931.

How, exactly, did "Canada" not exist in 1812?

How? Well if you need a history lesson there are ton of books on the subject. Canada in fact did not exist until 1867, until then it was just a series of colonies and native territory. In fact even after the country was formed it still didn't encompass the entire landmass we know today as Canada. The war of 1812 defined it's border on this continent. To say that all of Canada was called Upper and Lower Canada since the 1700 is wrong. Most of the country was still under British and French Rule and had Canada nowhere in it's name. Who called it the Canada's? They would have only been speaking of portions of Ontario through to the maritime.

1700
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1700.png

1775
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1775.png

1791
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1791.png

1825
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1825.png

1849
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1849.png

1862
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1862.png

1869
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1867.png

1873
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1873.png

1882
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1882.png

1895
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1895.png

1905
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1905.png

1912
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1912.png

1977
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1977.png

1999
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/historical_maps/images/maps/1999.png

[Mister F]

You are absolutely right about the reaction in BC (and other parts of the country).

Just wondering though - are people elsewhere like this: this event did not happen in my part of the country so I am unconcerned/don't care/resent having it in my face, or do people have the attitude that, sure it happened in another part of the country, but it's still my country so it's important to me.

What do people think?
Yeah that's pretty much it. And i really don't get that sentiment. If the Canadas had fallen the history of British Columbia would have been drastically different.

It's important to Canadians that we didn't get annexed by our southern neighbours, but that's about all that can be said for the outcomes of that war.
You're saying that like it's something minor. You don't think that the event that permanently limited the northern expansion of what is now the world's superpower is significant?

That's kind of like saying that the Americans didn't lose in Vietnam, they just lost interest.
The difference is that the US won all the battles in Vietnam and held most of the country. They could have stayed there as long as they wanted. That was never true of the War of 1812.

[SignalHillHiker]

^ Awesome maps but at least partially inaccurate. Newfoundland was certainly not still a British colony in 1977 (we joined Canada in 1949 and were, up until 1934, a Dominion of equal status to Canada/Australia/New Zealand/etc., not just a colony).

Also, the Labrador boundary dispute was conclusively settled in 1927.

[Andrewjm3D]

Fixed it. I thought the PQ still considers parts of Labrador to be in Quebec.

[Architype]

Fixed it. I thought the PQ still considers parts of Labrador to be in Quebec.

The Quebec-Labrador boundary is not considered officially "disputed" by any government.

[SignalHillHiker]

^ I've heard the same thing, Andrew. I remember seeing a news story years ago about maps produced in Quebec that showed an inaccurate border between the two, etc. And it's still in our collective consciousness. Even in folk songs, you'll find lines like, "The French in Quebec want a separate state, including our own Labrador, just you wait", etc. But I think Architype is technically correct.

I think Quebec's official position is that it will respect the verdict of the courts - sort of the same thing many provinces did regarding same-sex marriage.

[RyeJay]

Actually, besides the anything British part, that sounds exactly like what the British were doing, even in 1812.
In fact, I don't quite know where you got the idea that the Americans wanted to rid North America of anything French: not only were the two countries great allies during the American revolution (mostly to spite Britain, I'd imagine), but during and even after their revolution, the US offered to help Quebec rebel against the British. How that would have turned out had it been done, I don't know, but History tells us that the British tried rather hard to get rid of anything French themselves.

As for the First Nations, they were the real losers in 1812. They did play an important part, but we promptly went on with what European colonies seem to do so naturally: take their land, rights and culture. The Americans were doing it too, and much worse in many ways.

But don't pretend that the British were the holy protectors of the French, the Indians, motherhood and apple pie. They weren't. No one was. There was no greater goal in the war than territory and opportunism.

Oh please. Had the Canadas fallen, Quebec would have had the language and religious freedoms of the Cajuns. Essentially, Quebec culture may have been 'free' to survive through an assortment of foods and spices. Puritan, anglophonian America was not very tolerant of Catholicism, nor of an establishment of French usage inside America.

France's aid to America during the revolutionary war certainly did NOT make it a great ally: because French forces arrived at the very end, as Americans were already overwhelming the remaining British camps. Disrupting British activites in North America was the only common goal between France and the United States.

The offer to aid Quebec against the British was nothing more than an attempt to disrupt the three-party alliance of the Canadas. Considering the amount of French farmers who were killed by Americans throughout Upper Canada and the Detroit region, this was evidence enough for Quebec. Even American Loyalists were taking up arms in Upper Canada after their property had been destroyed by invading American forces.

The First Nations people were being killed in massive numbers in America. This was a big driving force behind the aboriginal support of the Canadas. It was not because they had 'blessed' trust in the British and French -- but the British and French were at least co-existing much more successfully with the aboriginals.

In fact, the different aborginal groups were trying to form a union of tribes south of the Canadas. Both Upper and Lower Canadians supported this union of tribes, as it would have been an amazing buffer zone between the Canadas and the United States. This aboriginal union obviously never happened, despite Tecumseh's many attempts.

Before the war of 1812, in fact, Tecumseh and his tribal allies were extremely assertive in their belief that the Americans would attack the Canadas. 50% of the population of Upper Canada during this time consisted of American immigrants, farming off the extremely cheap, British land.

Surely, 'the Americans will not kill their own', was a popular narrative in Upper Canada. Surely enough, though, they did.

I've never once said, nor have I impied, that the British were holy protectors of Quebec. The three-party alliance of the Canadas -- the British, the French, and the First Nations -- happened out of necessity. These three parties had to compromise with each other and work together, against the invading Americans.

[Acajack]

Oh please. Had the Canadas fallen, Quebec would have had the language and religious freedoms of the Cajuns. Essentially, Quebec culture may have been 'free' to survive through an assortment of foods and spices. Puritan, anglophonian America was not very tolerant of Catholicism, nor of an establishment of French usage inside America.



Actually, francophones in all parts of Canada except for Quebec (and to a lesser degree NB) were basically treated like the Cajuns were up until the 1970s.

Quebec's francophones got off easier during this period of history because of demographics and strategic considerations, not because of British or CanadiAn generosity.

[SignalHillHiker]

Actually, francophones in all parts of Canada except for Quebec (and to a lesser degree NB) were basically treated like the Cajuns were up until the 1970s.

Quebec's francophones got off easier during this period of history because of demographics and strategic considerations, not because of British or CanadiAn generosity.

Ugh, that makes me so sad. I wish we in the "West" - in general, in history, from Quebec, to present, in Afghanistan and wherever else... would actually practice what we preach. That's it. I just wish people could look at us and say, "You know, what they say, what they think of themselves, what they actually do... it's all the same."

[Acajack]

^ I've heard the same thing, Andrew. I remember seeing a news story years ago about maps produced in Quebec that showed an inaccurate border between the two, etc. And it's still in our collective consciousness. Even in folk songs, you'll find lines like, "The French in Quebec want a separate state, including our own Labrador, just you wait", etc. But I think Architype is technically correct.

I think Quebec's official position is that it will respect the verdict of the courts - sort of the same thing many provinces did regarding same-sex marriage.

Not sure if this means anything but my old driver's license had a map of Quebec with no other parts of other provinces except for Labrador - but with the border as a white line.

I just renewed and the new DL does not have this.

[RyeJay]

Actually, francophones in all parts of Canada except for Quebec (and to a lesser degree NB) were basically treated like the Cajuns were up until the 1970s.

Quebec's francophones got off easier during this period of history because of demographics and strategic considerations, not because of British or CanadiAn generosity.

:) Why are you trying to correcting me on assertions I have not made? I have not at all been talking about British or Upper Canadian generosity. Where in my comments are you reading this?!...

My comments were regarding an American takeover of Quebec.

And Quebecers didn't 'get off' easy by any means; they've worked hard throughout history to legislate their rights.

[Acajack]

:) Why are you trying to correcting me on assertions I have not made? I have not at all been talking about British or Upper Canadian generosity. Where in my comments are you reading this?!...

My comments were regarding an American takeover of Quebec.

And Quebecers didn't 'get off' easy by any means; they've worked hard throughout history to legislate their rights.

No offence intended but if you look at the discussion you were quite clearly responding to Aylmer with your version of the tired old argument that French Canadians (in general) were lucky to have been under British authority as opposed to American authority.

[RyeJay]

No offence intended but if you look at the discussion you were quite clearly responding to Aylmer with your version of the tired old argument that French Canadians (in general) were lucky to have been under British authority as opposed to American authority.

I looked at my submissions when I was typing them. I don't appreciate you twisting my words with your own paraphrase of my discussion -- especially when you cannot retrieve the parts of my text to back your narrative.

If you wish to bring up Quebec's luck: Quebec was unlucky to have the British show up at all... perhaps just as unlucky as the First Nations people were when French immigrants established Acadia and New France?

If you wish to believe that Quebec would have faired better if the United States successfully conquered the Canadas, then by all means....
If you don't believe this, then I'm not quite sure what you're complaining about. It's not as though I've been professing my love for the British...

I'm not even a fan of the monarch; although, Prince Harry is kinda cute.

[Acajack]

I looked at my submissions when I was typing them. I don't appreciate you twisting my words with your own paraphrase of my discussion -- especially when you cannot retrieve the parts of my text to back your narrative.

If you wish to bring up Quebec's luck: Quebec was unlucky to have the British show up at all... perhaps just as unlucky as the First Nations people were when French immigrants established Acadia and New France?

If you wish to believe that Quebec would have faired better if the United States successfully conquered the Canadas, then by all means....
If you don't believe this, then I'm not quite sure what you're complaining about. It's not as though I've been professing my love for the British...

I'm not even a fan of the monarch; although, Prince Harry is kinda cute.

No need to get your knickers in a knot.

My point was simply that when the British or Canadians felt they had free reign to do as they pleased without political or strategic consequences (as was the case in Quebec where they treated more carefully), they basically treated francophones no differently than the Americans did the Cajuns in Louisiana or the Franco-Americans in New England.

I have at least one of my parents who can directly and personally attest to this, and this happened probably not too far from where you are sitting in Atlantic Canada.

[Kitchissippi]

After the Boston Tea Party in 1773, the British felt the rumblings of the American revolution. The following year, British Parliament passed the Quebec Act of 1774 which re-established French Civil Law, and Catholic and French language rights in the province, to entice its people to remain loyal to the Crown. Through these concessions that protected their French culture, the Canadiens, ironically remained British. If it were not for that Act, Quebec would have been assimilated regardless of which side it took.

[The_Architect]

The difference is that the US won all the battles in Vietnam and held most of the country. They could have stayed there as long as they wanted. That was never true of the War of 1812.

Extremely untrue.

[davidivivid]

War of 1812 tough to recognize, recall for Canadians: survey


There was a war in 1812? Really?

The Harper government has been highlighting a war with our American neighbours 200 years ago, but the relevance of commemorating the event seemed lost on almost all of those who participated in a comprehensive survey for National Defence.

The poll, conducted annually, measures impressions of the Canadian military, its missions, equipment and important events.

Few people who took part in the survey, and in related focus groups, were aware of the anniversary “and even fewer could identify the War of 1812 by name,” said the research conducted by Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc.

“Typically, no more than one or two participants in each group were aware that this year is the bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812, and these people tended to deduce this with simple arithmetic.

“From the year, 1812, they made the logical leap to the War of 1812. Most focus group participants had no prior awareness of this anniversary.”

That may be bad news for the Harper government, which has invested as much as $28-million in historical re-enactments, television commercials, museum exhibits, a $60 commemorative coin, and even a mobile app for smart phones.

[...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/war-of-1812-tough-to-recognize-recall-for-canadians-survey/article4505797/