Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Program on the CBC this evening called "Canadian, SO?"

Dec 4, 2004 10:43AM PST

featuring some of the people from the States who were taken in by the inhabitants of a number of small communities around Gander, Newfoundland when their aircraft were redirected on 9/11.

Gander, while it has a large airport and is a former Canadian and US Forces airbase is a very small community with not a lot of room for overnight guests. People were taken by school bus to nearby communities and given a place to sleep, bedding from the homes of the inhabitants (there being no big stores in the area), food, various necessities tooth-brush, baby-formula, a whole list that I wish I could recall in order to put it down here. The laundry and towels were taken away every day and laundered in their homes and brought back fresh every afternoon. The bus driver was quoted by a lovely woman from Ohio in a very creditable Newfie accent as introducing himself as "Me names Moody, but dat's me name an' not me nature." On the drive to a community 45 miles away which was taking the passengers in, they passed a moose on the roadside and when the passengers remarked on it he stopped, backed up the bus and let people photograph and video the moose and its companion which emerged a few minutes later and then asked, "Has ye all had a good look? Well we'll be gettin aahn (on) den." Newfoundland is a place of rich and vibrant culture. A lot of people there are musicians as they were everywhere 80 or more years ago, and the locals entertained the visitors with folk songs and other entertainment.

The conclusion of the participants in the program was that Canadian cultural values are closely related to small town values of connectedness and participation, and of helping one another.

The reason I write all this is to try to counter Kidpeat's posting of an unpleasant and inaccurate Chicago Sun-Times editorial that is so utterly unlike the Canadians I've met, and the Canadians other Americans have met and been moved to write and speak about. I don't take Speakeasy's rather hard-nosed participants to be representative of the US, or even of the Republican party, please don't confuse Canada's not acting like the 51st state with detestation or despising. It's not that. It's a different and not malign point of view. Just remember that only 53 million out of 280 million voted to support the current administration. That's roughly 25%, although, of course, probably 80 million aren't voters.

Like it or not they (we) are your best friends and are more likely to understand and to help than anyone anywhere.

Rob Boyter

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Ah, Ted Bird, or Tird as he is more commonly known
Dec 11, 2004 9:11AM PST

is the Rush Limbaugh of Montreal. People listen for a laugh and he has a following in the elderly threatened English population of the Montreal area because of the Parti Quebecois anti-english bias.

Not a good source, although he is Canadian. About as persuasive as me quoting Noam Chomsky to you.

I have expressed my dismay and irritation with the original article which I find utterly wrong in whole and in part. But it is the writer's opinion so let's let that go. I just dont' see the dislike, disdain and general nastiness it portrays anywhere except maybe Diane Parrish, the Mississauga MP who doesn't like Bush and says so regularly,just as so many Republican Congressmen do about Canada. The difference is that here there's only the one.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Re: Ah, Ted Bird, or Tird as he is more commonly known
Dec 12, 2004 12:10AM PST
except maybe Diane Parrish, the Mississauga MP who doesn't like Bush and says so regularly, just as so many Republican Congressmen do about Canada

Is this the MP that called Bush an idiot or moron or somesorts? I haven't heard any US Congressmen, Republican or Democrat that have said similar about Canada. Can you name some names and quote some quotes?
- Collapse -
There are none so blind as ye who have eyes and WILL Not see
Dec 12, 2004 2:32AM PST

No, that was an aide to former Prime Minister Chretien who unleashed a firestorm of criticism up here, none of it directed at Bush. And the word WAS moron as you say.

No this is a recently elected MP who is outspoken in her anti-american-ness and which puts her beyond the pale for most, if not all Canadians.

You are probably unaware of the trade disputes between Canada and the US. Apparently as far as the US is concerned the Free Trade agreement only goes one way. anything that a segment of industry or agriculture doesn't like is barred, from lumber to dairy products to pork and beef each goes through a tortuous process of opposition, hearings, bans, more hearings and appeals to the GATT board in Switzerland.

Currently the US is still defying a GATT ruling that says the imposition of duty on lumber is illegal, but the duty is still there. Its been there for 10 years. Apparently the US does not approve of the amount of money charged to he lumber companies for the privilege of cutting timber. Where exactly does the US think its territorial sovereignty ends if it can dictate prices and policies in another country. It is issues like these that alienate Canadians who are otherwise closer to Americans than anyone else on the planet.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
You are probably unaware of the trade disputes between ...
Dec 12, 2004 3:17AM PST

... Canada and the US.

Again, your arrogant assumption that as an American I know nothing. Wrong. I am well aware and would gladly discuss these with you if you could keep your demeaning holier-than-thou attitude at least to a low boil.

So, the current MP isn't the only one that has denigrated our President and/or our country. Surprise, surprise!

I note you fail to cite even ONE Congressman with ONE quote against Canada. Time for you to put up or shut up!

- Collapse -
Did I wrong you in a previous life ???
Dec 12, 2004 4:11AM PST

I meant to write "Perhaps you are unaware", but was too intent on meaning farther along in the sentence. For that and only that I apologize.

If I can find the names of the congressmen I have heard and seen quoted I will post them, frankly I have no idea of how I might find them. But Anti-Canadian sentiment in the US is not just restricted to Newspaper columnists of whatever putative liberality and to the SE crowd.

As for arrogance, I fear it is all in your own mind. Please check earlier where in response to Dr Bill I acknowledged no knowledge and no opinion on islam except what I had been told by religious (Christian) friends. I know of no one else on SE who has backed away from a chance to offer an opinion based on the absence of knowledge.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Sorry, the post to Dr. Bill is in the Religious Bigotry
Dec 12, 2004 4:17AM PST

section, and that should be "I have seen and read quoted" in the post above.

By the way, I regularly say sorry when I make a mistake, and thank you to people who post, and not just when they agree with me. Care to try it?

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Since you nit pick the words of others ...
Dec 12, 2004 5:43AM PST

... PERHAPS you see the error in your ways?

I acknowledge the mistakes I make. The record would be pretty clear in that regard. Any that don't accept my acknowledgement or apology are free to do so, but I'm contnet in letting my posting record speak for itself.

I await the actual links ... if it were so prevalent surely you could provide ONE. Yeah, have fun Rob! (p.s. I'm sure you might find isolated incidents ... not enough to ever support your absurd pronouncement however Sad)

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Unworthy of reply. Don't hold your breath for links.
Dec 12, 2004 6:29AM PST
- Collapse -
RRiigghhtt! When all else fails, blame someone else.
Dec 12, 2004 6:41AM PST

I'm also looking for these links. You have a great tendency to make authoritative pronouncements which you are then unable back up.

- Collapse -
How could you forget so easily? I have called your
Dec 12, 2004 6:38AM PST

attention to your arrogance on more than one occasion. In fact, I once said insufferable arrogance. It is NOT something that is only in Evie's mind. Sad

- Collapse -
KP, I treat you with courtesy except when you attack me.
Dec 12, 2004 2:46PM PST

I think you confuse anger with arrogance. I will continue to treat you courteously and to thank you for your information if you can refrain from phrasing it as an assault. Thank you.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
and you consider a comment that my understanding of history
Dec 13, 2004 4:26AM PST

is sub high school level courteous? BTW, if you ever bothered to read the historical document I referred you to, you would find that it is far more serious than a picture book. I guess drawings of Madison and other famous people mean that the book is not serious history. Right?

- Collapse -
I have been debating replying to this for days, and it looks
Dec 16, 2004 6:42AM PST

like I'm going to.

KP you asserted in another thread that Canada had depended on the US for protection for 200 years, which is patently false, and which most US highschool students wouldn't have suggested. I then gave you a rundown of US Canadian relations which I learned mostly from my highschool history courses in Maryland, with a smattering of input from my son's highschool history here and a little reading to fact check his text books. You claimed my precis was unrecognizable. We then got into a bun fight over the War of 1812. You seem unwilling to accept the US Army's own verdict on the war and prefer the 1869 history you found available on-line. I have no problem with your preferring it, I have a great deal of difficulty agreeing that it should be accepted in preference to the US Army text I directed you to.

There is little in Historical thought that has remained the same since the mid 19th century and the evaluation of the War of 1812 is a prime example. I have also offered you other books on the subject all of which you appear to have refused. I suggest you look for any University level text on American history of the 19th Century and check the parts regarding Canada. The relationship was adversarial. Canadas defence was predicated on its being part of the British Empire.

Canada required no defence from the US until the 1950's and the Soviet threat, but even then the relationship was one of sharing the burden. Canada is a founding member of NATO, and has given land and has constructed the Distant Early Warning radar line which is still the northern-most radar line for the US through Norad. Canada is a founding member of Norad, the North American Air Defence center, and her Armed forces are in many ways integrated into the planning and response of the US to a circumpolar strike. Canada abandoned its own Military Aviation industry and bought American missiles in the late 50's, a circumstance which still rankles with some Canadians. All the major US defence contractors came to Canada to hire workers from Canada's defence industries, in particular Grumman who employed a large number. It was a partly Canadian group who constructed the Apollo capsules, or the LEM i forget which.

I'm sorry if what I say bursts the bubble of American dominance tou seem to carry but your assertions do not hold up under scrutiny. I really don't want to continue this discussion, and that is why I have let this post go unanswered for so long but as an historian albeit a non-practicing one I can't let this misunderstanding of accepted facts rest.

This is however my last word on this particular argument.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
I thought I had closed this subject, but let's recap it
Dec 16, 2004 7:23AM PST

again. Yes, I said Canada hid behind the US skirt for 200 years. That was obviously incorrect. For the first part of that period Canada was hiding behind the English skirt.

You also said that the War of 1812 was caused by the US wanting to seize Canada while the English, with Scottish and Welsh assistance, were fighting Napoleon. I showed from all sources, including the US Army source that you cited, that this was untrue. The war was caused by the British forcing American sailors, captured while at sea, into the British Navy, and by a British refusal to respect American sovereignty particularly with regard to commerce and shipping. The sources all agreed that this was the cause, even the US Army study. You refused to admit your error, and tried to change the subject to US aims once the war was started.

By regurgitating this subject again, you continue to show that you have extreme difficulty admitting error and defeat in a debate. Disparaging a legitimate historical source is not a way to legitimately win a debate. Continuing to act as the historical authority and arbiter is also self defeating. It was your credibility which was at stake in your diatribe against America in history. It was your credibility which went down in defeat even though you refuse to acknowledge that.

If you want me to repost links to demonstrate the veracity of the comments above, I will be glad to do so. Other than that, I consider the discussion closed as a waste of my time and effort.

- Collapse -
Here's to you KP, and there's hundreds more where this came
Dec 16, 2004 6:52PM PST

from.

I have never denied that British high seas policy was one of the causes of the War of 1812, most US historians do not think it the sole cause or even enough of a reason for war. Without Calhoun, Clay and the War Hawks there would have been no war, and their agenda was explicitly conquest of Canada, and the elimination of both British influence in North America and "The Indian Scourge". The sources below are all highschool material from various websites. Only one is Canadian. The US Army history also indicates that conquest of Canada was a prime motivator which you refuse to acknowledge and says that the conflict was "at best a draw". Historians are not supposed to take the best case scenario but to try to be at least mildly even-handed, or neutral. If a draw was the best characterization you could put on the conflict then a neutral characterization would have to be a loss. That has been my point all along. You have chosen your posted evidence in a very restricted manner to prove your case even where the bulk of the evidence would have also supported my contention (I speak here of the US Army material and your "rebuttal"). I have posted all this material in the same fashion in order to highlight the contrary opinion. I doubt you will change your mind but its my last effort.


http://www.gatewayno.com/history/War1812.html

The Congress that was elected in 1810 and met in November 1811 included a group known as the War Hawks who demanded war against Great Britain. These men were all Democratic-Republicans and mostly from the West and South. Among their leaders were John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee. They argued that American honor could be saved and British policies changed by an invasion of Canada.

U.S. forces were not ready for war, and American hopes of conquering Canada collapsed in the campaigns of 1812 and 1813.

In 1814 the United States faced complete defeat, because the British, having defeated Napoleon, began to transfer large numbers of ships and experienced troops to America. The British planned to attack the United States in three main areas: in New York along Lake Champlain and the Hudson River in order to sever New England from the union; at New Orleans to block the Mississippi; and in Chesapeake Bay as a diversionary maneuver. The British then hoped to obtain major territorial concessions in a peace treaty. The situation was particularly serious for the United States because the country was insolvent by the fall of 1814, and in New England opponents of the war were discussing separation from the Union. The HARTFORD CONVENTION that met in Connecticut in December 1814 and January 1815 stopped short of such an extreme step but suggested a number of constitutional amendments to restrict federal power.

http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/flag/1812/page1.htm

The fourth president, James Madison, requested a declaration of war to protect American sailors on the high sea. At the time the United States was very small and by fighting this war, James Madison hoped to expand America by taking control of Canada.

http://www.42explore2.com/1812war.htm

The War of 1812 could be called the "war of poor communication." Two days before the declaration of war, Great Britain agreed to repeal the naval laws which were chiefly responsible for the conflict.
It was also strange that this war over freedom of the seas began with an unsuccessful land invasion of Canada.

http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter7section5.rhtml

The War Hawks
As it became clear that peaceable coercion would not ease the hostilities, Madison faced increasing pressure from War Hawks within Congress. These southerners and westerners, led by South Carolina?s John C. Calhoun and Kentucky?s Henry Clay, resented the post-embargo recession that had plagued southern and western regions from 1808 to 1810, and advocated war rather than disgraceful terms of peace. They also hoped that, through war, the U.S. would win some western and southwestern territories, annex Canada in order to eliminate the British and Native American threat along the frontier, and open up new lands to settlement.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16314.htm

Madison made the issue of impressment from ships under the American flag a matter of national sovereignty--even after the British agreed to end the practice--and asked Congress for a declaration of War on Great Britain on June 1, 1812. Many who supported the call to arms saw British and Spanish territory in North America as potential prizes to be won by battle or negotiations after a successful war.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/wa/War1812.html

Matters came to a head after the battle of Tippecanoe (1811); the radical Western group believed that the British had supported the Native American confederacy, and they dreamed of expelling the British from Canada. Their militancy was supported by Southerners who wished to obtain West Florida from the Spanish .
Course of the War War was declared June 18, 1812. It was not until hostilities had begun that Madison discovered how woefully inadequate American preparations for war were. The rash hopes of the ?war hawks,? who expected to take Canada at a blow, were soon dashed.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=631

(a piece of contemporary source material from 1812)
The conquest of Canada will be of the highest importance to us in distressing our enemy ? in cutting off his supplies of provisions and naval stores for his West India colonies and home demand. There is no place from whence he can supply the mighty void that would be occasioned by the loss of this country, as well in his exports as imports. It would operate upon him with a double force: it would deprive him of a vast quantity of indispensable materials (as well as of food) and close an extensive market for his manufactures. On its retention depends the prosperity of the West India islands. At war with the United States, and divested of supplies of lumber and provisions from Canada, their commerce would be totally ruined; and it is of far more importance to the British government than all their possessions in the East. Besides it would nullify his boast, "that he has not lost an inch of territory."

http://www.hamilton-scourge.city.hamilton.on.ca/history.htm

Congress passed the Embargo Act in 1807, which kept American ships at home, depriving both France and Britain of the American trade of which they had both grown dependent. The Act plunged the country into a depression, and many traders turned to smuggling: goods were illegally traded to Canadians, who, being British, were capable of international trade. These further frustrations and the continued restraints imposed by the British on the Americans contributed to a declaration of War by the United States on June 18, 1812. The Americans sought reprieve from the British restraints by ousting the English from North America altogether.

If I knew how to create bold type I would emphasize those parts which contradict you.


Rob Boyter.

- Collapse -
how to create bold type
Dec 16, 2004 9:07PM PST
- Collapse -
Posts in this subthread are getting too personal
Dec 12, 2004 7:33AM PST