|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Before you indulge such a point, consider thathe said Canada "rolled over" indigenous peoples... |
I rely on Prof. Alfred Crosby's research and findings here -- see Ecological Imperialism. According to Crosby, Eurasia's "portmanteau biota," once unleashed, that is, unconsciously unleashed, rolled over everything in its path in the Americas, including Canada.
In the northern extreme, Canada was home to various hunter-gatherer bands in the Arctic and many collections of tribes on the plains.
The U.S. was home to many tribes, chiefdoms, confederations, and protoempires like those who inhabitted the Mississipi Valley and the Pacific Northwest -- where the food production packages supported levels of civilization, government, and abilities to wage sustained warfare not possible in pre-Contact, colonial, and, of course, national Canadian times.
Mesoamerica and the Andes contained huge empires with vast reaches, comparable to Classical Greece and Rome and/or ancient Egypt, albeit with only Stone Age technology.
The Caribbean Basin housed many tribes and chiefdoms, who went extinct in the Contact era.
South of the Atacama, in the so-called southern cone, Chile reverted back to chiefdoms and tribes. Argentina had little more than a collection of tribes.
The Amazon held something approaching what we saw in Mesoamerica and the Andes, but coastal Brazil held only tribes, who went extinct in the Contact era -- for more on Brazil, see John Hemming's Red Gold.
This pattern was mostly determined by environmental and climatological factors and not human decisions.
So, when Western Europeans colonized this hemisphere, we saw the same portmanteau biota, including destructive Eurasian weeds and grasses, rampage or roll over the Americas, and rather quickly. Disease caused the most devastation, however, and this, too, was unconsciously transmitted.
Leaving Mesoamerican and Andean events out of this, as they are not relevant, we then saw govts in the United States, Canada, and Chile wage Indian campaigns, mostly in the nineteenth century. These campaigns were different, depending on local, cultural, and probably several other conditions. They were much more fierce in the United States and Chile than in Canada, for aforementioned reasons.
Like it or not, then, there is nothing here that would establish Canadian moral superiority over the United States (or Chile), and neither is there anything -- much as it may displease you -- to establish that the United States is exceptionally abusive or evil. So there is no moral to this story.
Except possibly one: we, as a species, should exersize extreme caution if we embark on a course to colonize other planets, which is something talked about more and more these days. It is way too destructive when two or more alien cultures and, more important to my point, biologies contact each other.
Which brings up a point that might interest Rapier: these events brought about irreversible outcomes in the western hemisphere, Australia, and South Africa. But not in subSaharan Africa, and they couldn't touch highland New Guinea. See Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel for an expanded discussion on why this was so. Thus, when it became politically expendable to do so in the twentieth century, white colonists were forced to evacuate many parts of Africa but not North America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gord,
I think you are looking at US census reports and not seeing hispanic categories immediately prior to 1970 and assumed they didn't exist.. which isn't true, its just they weren't recorded (as hispanic) in the census during 1950-1960. Prior to that they were. Look at this Census data page which has that category recorded in 1940:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056.html
1940 Texas
whites: 4,751,112
blacks: 924,391
hispanic: 736,433
asian: 1,785
american indian: 1,103
1940 New Mexico
whites: 270,431
hispanic: 221,881
american indian: 34,510
black: 4,672
asian: 324
1940 Arizona
whites: 324,890
hispanics: 101,902
american indian: 55,076
blacks: 14,993
asian: 2,400
1940 California
whites: 6,181,650
hispanics: 415,113
asians: 167,643
black: 124,306
american indian: 18,675
1940 New York
whites: 12,750,475
blacks: 571,221
hispanics: 129,071
asians: 19,724
american indian: 8,651
Anyhow, even back in 1940.. immediately after the Great Depression (back when no one in their right mind would be jumping borders to the United States for economic reasons, there was a significant hispanic presense.. meaning many of those same families have been here generations and continue to expand just like everyone else.
Thats not to say there aren't a lot of illegals this day and age.. 10 million documented on the census page were illegal.. let alone how many more aren't recorded and have no desire/interest to be tracked. But at the same time, many many many are well-established in the US for generations with a very legal right to be here and all extensive purposes are 100% American.
------------------------------
Two other large latino groups with a strong presense are Cubans and Puerto Ricans.. both legally allowed to live anywhere in the US from their countries.. (well everyone except Castro himself I suppose). Just to give a sense of their presense:
2000 MIAMI
Total Miami Population: 2,312,991
Latino Population in Miami: 1,563,389
Breakdown of top Latino population numbers in Miami:
701,512 Cubans
135,265 Puerto Ricans
100,216 Colombians
72,562 Nicaraguans
57,546 Mexicans
46,952 Dominicans
449,336 (all the other latinos not listed here)
Mexicans make up 3.68% of the 1,563,389 Latinos in Miami. 96.32% are of other non-mexican nationalities.
2000 New York
New York City Latino population: 3,852,138
Breakdown of top Latino population in New York:
1,325,778 Puerto Ricans
551,538 Dominicans
343,137 Mexicans
173,966 Ecuadorians
172,274 Colombians
134,973 Cubans
1,150,472 (all the other latinos not listed here)
Mexicans make up 8.91% of the 3.85 million latinos in New York. The other 91.09% made up of non-mexican latinos.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/m5600/chart_ancestry.html - New York stats
http://www.censusscope.org/us/m5000/chart_ancestry.html - Miami stats
Just wanted to throw out those cities and their data.. as too often Hollywood movies and the media seems to just focus on latinos as all Mexicans flooding California type of things.. the nation is much more vast and expansive than that.. and quite a large number of vastly different things happening in a lot of different places.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher, be very careful who you regard as major and minor Native civilisations. You'll be talking out of some very swollen lips if you go to the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Tiger Beer, please prove that Canada encourages immigration from white countries over non-white. You've been rootless for so long, you've started to hate white people.
Today's Vancouver weather, clear with overcast skies.
Last edited by Pyongshin Sangja on Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| Gopher, be very careful who you regard as major and minor Native civilisations. You'll be talking out of some very swollen lips if you go to the Queen Charlotte Islands. |
I don't doubt that in Canada this kind of logic wins the argument. Also known as "stick your head in the sand" syndrome.
So, OK, sure. You're right and I'm wrong. Here it is: pre-Contact Canada was home to large-scale, heavy density, major native civilizations.
And the reason that there was less warfare in Canada than the U.S. was because Canadians are peaceable negotiators and Americans are racists -- the Indians were the same in both countries; it's just that each country, based on its own moral compass, treated the Indians differently.
And the reason America had slavery was because Americans don't like black people, so they enslaved them. Canadians, of course, aren't racists, they are much more transcultural, so Canada never created slavery.
While we're at it: "Manifest Destiny" had nothing to do with Mexico or Cuba. It was mostly directed against Canada, like in the War of 1812, where the U.S. declared war against Canada in order to take Canadian lands (we all know it really had nothing at all to do with the Napoleonic Wars; it was about the U.S. vs. Canada). Although Canada had the U.S. on its knees in this war, burning down the capital, and again during the U.S. Civil War, where, incidentally, peaceable Canadians just shook their heads at what was going on, Canada chose to let the U.S. develop an empire in the subsequent century, while Canada eschewed said empire, because, again, Canadians are only interested in peaceful coexistence and diplomacy, and they just don't want anything to do with military power.
So, am I in tune with Canadian historiography now? Good enough? Thanks. Have a nice day.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:57 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not going to hit you. You have to take Natives' viewpoints into consideration. Without going into Plains, Northern and Eastern Canadian Natives, the Haida, Tlingit, Kwakiutl and Coast Salish cultures were fascinating, produced highly advanced art, had chiefs, slaves, warriors, hunting parties, war canoes, hunted whale, harvested salmon, deer, fruits and vegetables, lived in organised villages in large wooden longhouses, worked wood masterfully, had highly developed clan systems, an elaborate cosmology and engaged in organised warfare against other Native bands and occasionally against the whites.
This is minor?
| Quote: |
| So, OK, sure. Pre-Contact Canada was home to major native civilizations. |
See above.
| Quote: |
| And the reason that there was less warfare in Canada than the U.S. was because Canadians are peaceable negotiators and Americans are racists. And the reason America had slavery was because Americans don't like black people, so they enslaved them. |
I don't know if they don't like blacks, but there seems to be a...disconnect?
| Quote: |
| Bare statistics tell the story. Black life expectancy is six years shorter than that of whites. Black unemployment is twice as high. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to die from disease, accident or murder at every stage of their lives. About 24 per cent of black families live below the poverty line, compared with 8 per cent of the white population. |
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1588158,00.html
| Quote: |
| Canadians, of course, aren't racists, so they never created slavery. "Manifest Destiny" had nothing to do with Mexico or Cuba, it was directed against Canada, in the War of 1812, where the U.S. declared war against Canada in order to take Canadian lands (we all know it really had nothing at all to do with Napoleon). |
The War of 1812? Please, I haven't gone that far back yet. The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with Canada?
| Quote: |
The phrase "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" was a campaign slogan of United States President-to-be James K. Polk.
In the Anglo-American Convention of 1818, the Americans and the British chose a joint sovereignty of the Oregon Country, which consisted of what is now the Pacific Northwest of the United States and southern British Columbia, Canada. The northern boundary of the jointly controlled area was the parallel 54�� 40�� north, with Russian claims on Alaska to the north. By the election of 1844, this Anglo-American agreement was growing shaky, with western settlers wanting the land for the United States.
Polk was ready to go to war to claim all the land, and used the slogan "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" to help win the election. The Democrat Polk beat the Whig Henry Clay 1,337,243 to 1,299,068; in the electoral college, Polk won 170 to 105. Following the election, fortifications like Fort Wayne (in present-day Detroit) were built along the U.S.-Canadian border in anticipation of combat. However, the dispute was settled diplomatically, with the Oregon Treaty of 1846. The border was set at the 49th parallel, which already served to mark much of the border between the contiguous 48 states United States and Canada. 54�� 40�� remains the southernmost latitude of the state of Alaska. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-Four_Forty_or_Fight |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| The War of 1812? Please, I haven't gone that far back yet. The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with Canada? |
Absolutely. Thanks for bringing that up.
American historiography, warped as it is, presents Monroe's message to Congress in the context of the Latin American independence movements, where former and potential colonial powers were maneuvering for a series of reconquests in the aftemath of the Napoleonic Wars -- namely the very conservative, monarchical Russia, France, and Spain. Americans are brainwashed that the Monroe Doctrine was Monroe's message to these powers that the western hemisphere was a place of republican govts and not monarchies, that the western hemisphere was no longer open for colonization or reconquest by said monarchies, and that the United States would enforce this henceforward.
As you point out by implication, though, the Monroe Doctrine was really directed against Canada, where, as always, the aggressive and warlike U.S. govt made known by various means, subtle and direct, its intention to take Canadian lands by force -- which Canada, of course, thwarted by superior diplomatic skill.
So you're absolutely correct in bringing up the Monroe Doctrine in any discussion that touches on Canadian-U.S. relations or any comparison between Canada and the U.S. Indeed, just look at all of the references there are to Canada and Canadian lands in this document...
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm
Are we finished now?
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja wrote:
| Quote: |
I don't know if they don't like blacks, but there seems to be a...disconnect?
Quote:
Bare statistics tell the story. Black life expectancy is six years shorter than that of whites. Black unemployment is twice as high. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to die from disease, accident or murder at every stage of their lives. About 24 per cent of black families live below the poverty line, compared with 8 per cent of the white population.
|
Statistics Canada informs us:
| Quote: |
In some parts of urban Canada, life expectancy is as high as anywhere in the world, but for aboriginals in the North, the average life is as short as in many Third World countries, Statistics Canada said Tuesday.
The country's national life expectancy figure is 79.5 years for both sexes, the ninth-highest in the world. The bright spot is Richmond, B.C., where the life expectancy of 83.4 years is higher even than the Japanese average of 81.4 years, the highest national figure in the world.
But for the Nunavik region of northern Quebec, the figure is only 66.7 years.
"This places Region de Nunavik between the Dominican Republic (67.0 years) and Egypt (66.5 years), ranked at 111 and 112 out of 191 countries," Statistics Canada said.
For the territory of Nunavut, which covers the eastern part of the North, the figure is 68.7 years.
|
| Quote: |
Stacey Todd, a researcher with the statistics agency, said she and her colleagues have yet to delve into the reasons for the lower life expectancy in the North, but she said some are obvious.
"Up North, suicides and accidental injuries are very, very high compared to the other regions," she said.
The National Aboriginal Health Organization points out that in 2002, the national suicide rate was 13 for every 100,000 people. In Nunavik, the rate was 82 for every 100,000 and in Nunavut it was 77.
"The number of suicide deaths in Nunavut and Nunavik have more than doubled in the past decade," the organization said.
|
So I don't know if Canadians hate First Nations people but there seems to be a...disconnect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| And the reason that there was less warfare in Canada than the U.S. was because Canadians are peaceable negotiators and Americans are racists. And the reason America had slavery was because Americans don't like black people, so they enslaved them. |
What is your interpretation for slavery in Brazil, the Carribean, Gran Colombia, Bolivia, Mexico, or even in the British/French regions on what later became Canadian soil? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| And the reason that there was less warfare in Canada than the U.S. was because Canadians are peaceable negotiators and Americans are racists. And the reason America had slavery was because Americans don't like black people, so they enslaved them. |
What is your interpretation for slavery in Brazil, the Carribean, Gran Colombia, Bolivia, Mexico, or even in the British/French regions on what later became Canadian soil? |
Tiger Beer: I wrote those words, not her. You're missing the point. "Brazil," "the Caribbean," Gran Colombia," etc. What the hell is that? What are these words you are speaking?
There is only the U.S. and Canada, and Canada is just better than the U.S. There really is nothing else to know about the western hemisphere. Didn't The Economist say that Vancouver (and several other Canadian cities) are better to live in than anywhere in the U.S.? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| And the reason that there was less warfare in Canada than the U.S. was because Canadians are peaceable negotiators and Americans are racists. And the reason America had slavery was because Americans don't like black people, so they enslaved them. |
What is your interpretation for slavery in Brazil, the Carribean, Gran Colombia, Bolivia, Mexico, or even in the British/French regions on what later became Canadian soil? |
Tiger Beer: I wrote those words, not her. You're missing the point. "Brazil," "the Caribbean," Gran Colombia," etc. What the hell is that? What are these words you are speaking?
There is only the U.S. and Canada, and Canada is just better than the U.S. There really is nothing else to know about the western hemisphere. Didn't The Economist say that Vancouver (and several other Canadian cities) are better to live in than anywhere in the U.S.? |
Oooops.. apologies to Pyongshin Sangja.. just ignore that.
Somehow I saw the quoted section.. erased everything else.. and accidently attributed it to Pyongshin as the author..
Anyhow.. disregard it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Differing U.S. and Canadian approaches to the hemisphere were evident as early as 1903, as demonstrated by the following two quotations:
In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt said:
"There is a homely old adage which runs: speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far. If the American nation will speak softly, and yet build ... an ... efficient Navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far."
In that same year, 1903, a song called "Canadian born" was popular in our country. The final stanza includes:
"The Dutch may have their Holland, the Spaniard has his Spain, the Yankee to the south of us must south of us remain."
As the century progressed, Canada remained ill at ease with the security dimension of the OAS, the so-called Rio Treaty.
For example, the United States cited this treaty as justification for a number of interventions in Central America and the Caribbean. In Canada there was significant public opposition to this "gun boat diplomacy".
These latter day manifestations of the Monroe Doctrine had consequences for Canada's approach to the Americas. They inhibited our enthusiasm for inter-American institutions. And they prompted Canadian policy makers to be "strategically ambivalent" on the Americas.
Canada was naturally reluctant to foment unnecessary tensions with the United States. This was particularly true for hemispheric situations in which Canada had limited influence and less vested interest.
As one Canadian academic put it, we were "too close to America and too far from the Americas."
But later on, as our late Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said:
"Sharing the continent with the United States is rather like sleeping with an elephant -- he may not know you're there, but you must be sensitive to his every twitch." |
Remarks delivered to the Meridian International Center, Washington, D.C.
Speech by Michael Kergin, Ambassador of Canada to the United States at the Meridian International Center
Washington, D.C.
May 10, 2001
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/ambassador/010510-en.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
Differing U.S. and Canadian approaches to the hemisphere were evident as early as 1903, as demonstrated by the following two quotations:
In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt said... |
I'm not sure what you believe you are proving with this quote, but, in any case, it does reaffrim my conviction that Canada's antiAmericanism runs far deeper than disatisfaction with the current administration.
Still, I'll bite:
We know what the Bolivarian Dream was, as far as visions of Latin American unity go...and we also know what Blaine's vision of U.S.-led Pan-Americanism was.
What, praytell, was Canada's vision for the hemisphere -- apart from the evident fact that Canada and Canadians don't like the U.S. vision? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| The War of 1812? Please, I haven't gone that far back yet. The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with Canada? |
Absolutely. Thanks for bringing that up.
American historiography, warped as it is, presents Monroe's message to Congress in the context of the Latin American independence movements, where former and potential colonial powers were maneuvering for a series of reconquests in the aftemath of the Napoleonic Wars -- namely the very conservative, monarchical Russia, France, and Spain. Americans are brainwashed that the Monroe Doctrine was Monroe's message to these powers that the western hemisphere was a place of republican govts and not monarchies, that the western hemisphere was no longer open for colonization or reconquest by said monarchies, and that the United States would enforce this henceforward.
As you point out by implication, though, the Monroe Doctrine was really directed against Canada, where, as always, the aggressive and warlike U.S. govt made known by various means, subtle and direct, its intention to take Canadian lands by force -- which Canada, of course, thwarted by superior diplomatic skill.
So you're absolutely correct in bringing up the Monroe Doctrine in any discussion that touches on Canadian-U.S. relations or any comparison between Canada and the U.S. Indeed, just look at all of the references there are to Canada and Canadian lands in this document...
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm
Are we finished now? |
Just one more thing to add. The Monroe Doctrine, while it was indeed a unilateral declaration by the United States, was originally proposed by Great Britain to the United States as a possible bi-lateral treaty. Monroe, in a move sometimes admired by American historians, decided to go ahead and assert the doctrine alone, knowing that as long as they didn't cross British interests the British would back it up. So given that the British ruled Canada until the mid-19th century, and from then on had strong ties with it due to its commonwealth status, it is rather unfair to suggest that the Monroe Doctrine, at least, shows anything about American imperial interests in Canada. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will say this to everyone that has something to say about racism in America, including Americans:
Unless you have spent more thatn 5 years in an area that was more than 40% minority, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Your thoughts and opinions are nothing more than idealist, uneducated, and unexperienced drivel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The U.S. was home to many tribes, chiefdoms, confederations, and protoempires like those who inhabitted the Mississipi Valley and the Pacific Northwest -- where the food production packages supported levels of civilization, government, and abilities to wage sustained warfare not possible in pre-Contact, colonial, and, of course, national Canadian times. |
Good job totalling ignoring my statement about tribes of the Canadian Pacific Coast.
 Nootka house, 1770's.
From James Cook, A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean. London, 1801. Sketch by John Webber. (Courtesy Special Collections Division, University of Washington Libraries.)
From Alejandro Malaspina, Vaije Politico-Clientifico Albredor del Mundo.. Madrid, 1885. f.p.120. Sketch by Jose Cardero. (Courtesy Special Collections Division, University of Washington Libraries.)
| Quote: |
| Nonetheless, the anthropologist Robert Boyd suggests that between 1774 and 1874 the population of natives along the Northwest Coast—the area stretching roughly from the 60th parallel (southern Alaska) to the 42nd parallel (the Oregon-California border)—declined by 80%, from roughly 200,000 to about 40,000. |
So, that's 200,000 people from Alaska to Oregon. 800 kms of that coast is now in BC. Nobody lived there?
| Quote: |
| At the national level, too, there existed a desire to stake a stronger claim to the Pacific Northwest. Britain and the U.S. had remained in communication about the Northwest boundary, with both sides generally unyielding in their desire to control Puget Sound. Some Americans grew impatient with the dispute, so much so that James K. Polk, when running for president in 1844, declared that he wanted the U.S. to acquire "all" of Oregon, i.e., the entire region between California and Alaska, including present-day British Columbia. Another campaign slogan to the same effect, "Fifty-four Forty or Fight" (which meant that if the British did not yield the entire Oregon Country, up to the parallel at 54 degrees, 40 minutes, the Americans would go to war for it), summarized the aggressiveness of some Americans in this era of "Manifest Destiny." |
| Quote: |
Thus James R. Gibson, a Canadian geographer, writes in Farming the Frontier: The Agricultural Opening of the Oregon Country 1786-1846 (1985):
The Oregon Treaty was not a fair compromise; there was no division of the 'Oregon triangle' [the disputed lands in Washington state], all of which went to the United States....Canadians have valid reasons for regretting and even resenting the Oregon settlement, since the British claim to the territory north of the Columbia-Snake-Clearwater river system was at least as good as, if not better than, that of the United States on the grounds of discovery, exploration, and settlement, and since the future Canadian Dominion was deprived of any harbour on Puget Sound....Canadians should not forget that they were dispossessed of part of their rightful Columbia heritage, a heritage whose economic potential in general and agricultural possibilities in particular were initially and successfully demonstrated by the Hudson's Bay Company. They should also remember that whenever it is tritely declared that Canada and the United States share the longest undefended border in the world, it is so mainly because the stronger American republic won its northern boundary disputes at the expense of its weaker neighbour, just as it southern boundary was gained at the expense of a weaker Mexico. |
http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/hstaa432/lesson_1/hstaa432_1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
