Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you will note the irony that it is American sources that provide you with this information, right?
If they've taken any university-level American history course, then, yes, they've probably heard about the draft riots. There are plenty of other examples that you didn't bring up, such as the Ludlow, Co. Massacre or the Bonus Army. Why do you think American right-wingers rail against the "elitest" eggheads who (supposedly)control the universities? Why do they hate PBS and the Smithsonian?
Can the average Canadian discuss (off the top of my head): Louis Riel? Oka? The Easter Riots? The October Crisis?
My main point: Whether we're talking about U.S. or Canadian history, any discussion about historical events ought to be fully-fleshed out with context, and a consideration of historiography and various methodological debates.
It's good point you make, and sure, we can discuss those historical events that took place within our own borders; here's another:
Funny. Someone trafficking in lazy stereotypes based on what a few nut jobs type on a message board is accusing me of bigotry.
The point of my post went right over your head. What you personally think of "kooks" and "nut jobs" who participate on certain types of discussion boards is irrelevant and I'm not interested in your bigoted opinions towards them or me. The point was that there are indeed people in the south who still refer to the civil war as the war of northern aggression. If you've never heard of it discussed that way then that suggests you have been insulated there in your sweet home Alabama just like many other insular Alabamians that I've encountered. Maybe you need to get out and about a bit more and experience more of the world around you.
I believe that link puts the lie to your claim you've lived all your life in Alabama and never once heard the term as not only is it not an old term dying in favour but it's a decidedly 20th century term even taught in some schools and used extensively throughout the south into the 2,000's
An oldie but always a goodie; The Dukes of Hazard broadcast across the world with the General Lee emblazoned with Lee's Battle Flag on the roof. Haaar, "lazy stereotyping" indeed.
Hell; I've heard it (civil war) often spoken of in that manner by a Vietnam vet buddy in Louisiana
The point of my post went right over your head. What you personally think of "kooks" and "nut jobs" who participate on certain types of discussion boards is irrelevant and I'm not interested in your bigoted opinions towards them or me. The point was that there are indeed people in the south who still refer to the civil war as the war of northern aggression. If you've never heard of it discussed that way then that suggests you have been insulated there in your sweet home Alabama just like many other insular Alabamians that I've encountered. Maybe you need to get out and about a bit more and experience more of the world around you.
.
I love it. A Canadian whose experience in the South could likely fit on the head of a pin is trying to lecture me on what I've heard and dealt with on an every day basis for the past 52 years of my life.
Let me say it again. I know people from all walks of life. People in the cities, people in the country, civil war re-enactors, you name it. And I have never, ever in the countless conversations I've had -- many of which dealt with the Civil War -- ever heard the term War of Northern Aggression bandied about in anything but an ironic manner.
I believe that link puts the lie to your claim you've lived all your life in Alabama and never once heard the term as not only is it not an old term dying in favour but it's a decidedly 20th century term even taught in some schools and used extensively throughout the south into the 2,000's
An oldie but always a goodie; The Dukes of Hazard broadcast across the world with the General Lee emblazoned with Lee's Battle Flag on the roof. Haaar, "lazy stereotyping" indeed.
Hell; I've heard it (civil war) often spoken of in that manner by a Vietnam vet buddy in Louisiana
A lie? Dude, I live here. I think I should know. I have never heard that term said in anything but an ironic way.
Did you really use The Dukes of Hazzard as a basis for your argument? Seriously? I mean, heck, why don't I mouth off about Vancouver or Toronto using John Candy's old skits on Second City TV as my source material? Or, criminee, drag out Dudley Do-Right cartoons while I'm at it? Holy moley. Dukes of Hazzard? I'm really embarrassed for you.
What's more, you cite the Southern Poverty Law Center as yet another source. Well, I'm quite familiar with the SPLC, since it's 90 miles from me. Been to their offices dozens and dozens of times. I know quite a few of the guys there. They've helped me with research projects. Interviewed them. Have good relationships with them. Passionate to a person, but I also know that sometimes they get a little zealous in their writing to the point that they cut lots of corners on research. They've been dinged on it quite a bit over the past few years, stretching the facts to make a point.
Then you managed to dredge up some obscure website, aboutnorthgeorgia.com, that was apparently written and edited by a semi-literate. The piece is so riddled with typos, poor grammar, and even worse syntax that one has to wonder about the author's sobriety at the time it was written. It is hardly what I'd call an authoritative glimpse into the mind of the South. Yet you push it forth as evidence?
Again, I'm not sure where you're from in Canada. But if you herd 1,000 Southerners into a room and ask them what they call the conflict that stretched from 1861-1865, I'd bet my last dollar that 99% of them would call it Civil War. Some would call it the War Between The States. And if one person out of that 1,000 called it The War Of Northern Aggression, I would be totally amazed.
I mean, hell's bells. I don't go popping off with half-baked notions about Canada, even though I've been to the country more than thirty times over the past twenty years, sometimes for weeks at a time. And I've found that the very large majority of Canadians are pretty amazing and very cool people. But every time I'm there, there's got to be one sanctimonious and uninformed nitwit with a chip on his shoulder who thinks watching an In The Heat Of The Night marathon on Nick at Nite and makes him a freaking authority on my part of the country. I guess I found him on this thread.
I love it. A Canadian whose experience in the South could likely fit on the head of a pin is trying to lecture me on what I've heard and dealt with on an every day basis for the past 52 years of my life.
Let me say it again. I know people from all walks of life. People in the cities, people in the country, civil war re-enactors, you name it. And I have never, ever in the countless conversations I've had -- many of which dealt with the Civil War -- ever heard the term War of Northern Aggression bandied about in anything but an ironic manner.
I totally believe you. I never said before that I didn't believe that was your experience. I believe it is your experience and nobody here has said that you are lying nor has anyone made any assumptions about you or your life experiences.
My experience is that I have heard the term war of northern aggression used in a serious manner by southerners. Now if you don't believe that or don't like that well that's your problem, not mine, and I don't care but my experience is no reflection on your own experiences and there's nothing you can say that can change it. And it's no reason for you to get your panties in a defensive wad or for getting unpleasant about other people that you know nothing about just because somebody else's experience is different from yours.
I don't care if you're 52, you're younger than me by enough to be my child and your alleged age and alleged life experiences don't impress me one bit. But it sure doesn't sound like you've learned moderation and maturity after all this time if you're going to get petulant and impolite like a thwarted child having a temper tantrum because you don't approve of somebody else's related experiences differing from your own.
Then you managed to dredge up some obscure website, aboutnorthgeorgia.com, that was apparently written and edited by a semi-literate. The piece is so riddled with typos, poor grammar, and even worse syntax that one has to wonder about the author's sobriety at the time it was written. It is hardly what I'd call an authoritative glimpse into the mind of the South. Yet you push it forth as evidence?
One of the things that bugs me about Internet debates, is that people tend to pull up Internet blogs as authorititive cites. And if they do not do that, then they look at op-ed pieces from respected and not-so-respected news sites (the Toronto Star, the New York Times, ive_got_an_agenda.com, etc.) as some support.
No. We need to look at respected news and history sources; and in this case, we need to look at hard history, and from there, extrapolate on what might happen in the OP's scenario. Not blogs, not opinions, not "my Dad can beat up your Dad" kind of stuff.
Is the OP's question silly? Yes. Will it ever happen? Unlikely, barring some geopolitical crisis where Canada asks the UN to move foreign troops (including US troops) onto Canadian soil to protect Canadian and American interests.
Frankly, I get tired of the Americans who, on this and other forums, say, "We can take Canada any time we want." You wouldn't, and you know it. Americans would unleash a world of hurt from NATO partners. The American so-called "special relationship" with the UK (that so many of you Americans like to mention, having forgotten the "special relationship" with Canada, who bailed your diplomats out of Iran in 1979 and who took in potentially-deadly aircraft on 9/11 after you closed your airspace) would be broken. Americans would alienate most of Europe, who, under the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, would side (indeed, are obligated by the terms of the Treaty) to protect Canada. You Americans may think you have a massive military force, but if you attack Canada, you'd be dealing with forces from pretty much all of western Europe, some of eastern Europe, and countries that had nukes (e.g. the UK), besides. Outside of NATO, Russia might like to be involved (Arctic claims, and all that), and China (just for S&G and to see what it could get out of the resulting mess).
Let's face it; it would be WWIII if the US attempted to take Canada.
The US needs Canada: to act as a buffer state, yes; but also to act as a trusted neighbour in continental defense (i.e. NORAD). I might go so far as to suggest that the US regard Canada as a peaceful nation that can advance North American interests that other world nations might disregard blindly if the same arguments were to come from the US. Such arguments might be better-regarded if coming from Canada. That does not mean that Canada is the US's lackey--we've had our differences, to be sure, and we continue to--but Canada is an independent state, and Canada's and the US's goals and objectives are the same: liberty, freedom, and democracy, as we respectively define it. Certainly, neither the US nor Canada wants to become a Stalin-esqe society; we each believe in freedom of speech and the press, democratic multiparty elections, and the like. A Westminster Parliament and an American Congress are not that different, in the end.
'Nuff said for now. Can we go back to comparing beers?
One of the things that bugs me about Internet debates, is that people tend to pull up Internet blogs as authorititive cites. And if they do not do that, then they look at op-ed pieces from respected and not-so-respected news sites (the Toronto Star, the New York Times, ive_got_an_agenda.com, etc.) as some support.
No. We need to look at respected news and history sources; and in this case, we need to look at hard history, and from there, extrapolate on what might happen in the OP's scenario. Not blogs, not opinions, not "my Dad can beat up your Dad" kind of stuff.
Is the OP's question silly? Yes. Will it ever happen? Unlikely, barring some geopolitical crisis where Canada asks the UN to move foreign troops (including US troops) onto Canadian soil to protect Canadian and American interests.
Frankly, I get tired of the Americans who, on this and other forums, say, "We can take Canada any time we want." You wouldn't, and you know it. Americans would unleash a world of hurt from NATO partners. The American so-called "special relationship" with the UK (that so many of you Americans like to mention, having forgotten the "special relationship" with Canada, who bailed your diplomats out of Iran in 1979 and who took in potentially-deadly aircraft on 9/11 after you closed your airspace) would be broken. Americans would alienate most of Europe, who, under the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, would side (indeed, are obligated by the terms of the Treaty) to protect Canada. You Americans may think you have a massive military force, but if you attack Canada, you'd be dealing with forces from pretty much all of western Europe, some of eastern Europe, and countries that had nukes (e.g. the UK), besides. Outside of NATO, Russia might like to be involved (Arctic claims, and all that), and China (just for S&G and to see what it could get out of the resulting mess).
Let's face it; it would be WWIII if the US attempted to take Canada.
The US needs Canada: to act as a buffer state, yes; but also to act as a trusted neighbour in continental defense (i.e. NORAD). I might go so far as to suggest that the US regard Canada as a peaceful nation that can advance North American interests that other world nations might disregard blindly if the same arguments were to come from the US. Such arguments might be better-regarded if coming from Canada. That does not mean that Canada is the US's lackey--we've had our differences, to be sure, and we continue to--but Canada is an independent state, and Canada's and the US's goals and objectives are the same: liberty, freedom, and democracy, as we respectively define it. Certainly, neither the US nor Canada wants to become a Stalin-esqe society; we each believe in freedom of speech and the press, democratic multiparty elections, and the like. A Westminster Parliament and an American Congress are not that different, in the end.
'Nuff said for now. Can we go back to comparing beers?
" You wouldn't, and you know ", yeah agreed. Why anyways? It's pretty much the fifty-first state in terms of foreign policy and economic relations so if it ain't broke--don't fix it. Also I can't help but looking beyond this kind of typical Canadian whine-fest (and I mean it in serious fun), that you said Americans mention the special relation with the UK a lot. I think you've been hanging around City-Data too long, most (as in 90%+) have no clue what 'special relationship' would be referring to, I would imagine they would guess Canada first--only because of proximity. That's a British trope anyways, "Oh the special relationship", yeah the U.K. says that to comfort themselves the Americans never mention it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
