|
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 |
Draven
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
Uh, okay, note that this thread was a friendly message from an American who LIKES Canada, and it was the Canadians who hijacked it with all this "you Americans just celebrate your bloodlust" stuff. |
I'm with Mithridates. Go back and re-read the first couple of pages to see how this started. Check out shortskirt's avatar while you're at it. Classy. Then quit trying to stir it up some more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your predecessors were sponsoring and abetting the slavers, don't forget that. |
Ummm dont you mean the slaves? Wasnt Canada a haven for escaped slaves from the USA? Sure they came up from the South of the USA but still the USA. Dont you really mean to say that your predecessors were sponsoring and abetting slavery?
American Slavery and Britain's Rebuke of Man-Stealers: An Address Delivered in Bridgwater, England, on August 31, 1846
There were fifteen slave and thirteen free states, meaning that the MAJORITY OF USA endorsed slavery. It wasnt until the states of New Mexico and California were newly acquired that the North came into conflict with the policy of slavery.
Also slaves in Britian were actually treated quite well. It was the big plantation owners in the South that raised slavery to a truly barbaric level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| As for you, Gopher, this is a horse-and-cart argument. We like to think we have made choices freely, you like to think it's because of our relationship to you. Canada has a more equal society than America, economically, educationally, medically and culturally. We're proud of it, you can't just say "What if?" and say we would have been exactly like you. I doubt it. Call it Canadian exceptionalism, whatever. It's the way we are, hypothesising doesn't change anything. |
I'm sorry but sarcasm and scorn are the worst kinds of pseudorefutation. Please go back to your hole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why don't you just admit that you are wrong? I'll accept an apology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thorin
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
There were fifteen slave and thirteen free states, meaning that the MAJORITY OF USA endorsed slavery.
|
"The population of the Free States, by the census of 1860, amounts to 18,950,759; the population of the thirteen rebellious States to 7,657,395—considerably less than half that of their opponents."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/may/slave-free-states.htm
| Grotto wrote: |
Also slaves in Britian were actually treated quite well. It was the big plantation owners in the South that raised slavery to a truly barbaric level. |
England doesn't have too many cotton fields. And as for the English, Bristol was the apex of the most ruthless trading triangle in the history of capitalism. British ships traded mostly cotton goods in west Africa for slaves and dumped them America in exchange for cotton, sugar and rum. Without the Brits, there would have been no slave trade. Plantation owners might have been forced to round up Canadians to pick the cotton! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Very funny, thorin. Slavery is funny. Ha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thorin wrote: |
England doesn't have too many cotton fields. And as for the English, Bristol was the apex of the most ruthless trading triangle in the history of capitalism. British ships traded mostly cotton goods in west Africa for slaves and dumped them America in exchange for cotton, sugar and rum. Without the Brits, there would have been no slave trade. Plantation owners might have been forced to round up Canadians to pick the cotton! |
Without the Brits, there would have been no slave trade? I'm not an expert in history, so please be gentle if I'm wrong, but weren't the Spanish and Portugese avid participants in this business in South America, prior to the British colonies in North America? There are plenty of black and Indian people in the Caribbean and all over the Americans thanks to this practise. Right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thorin
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Slavery is not funny. Didn't I just call the slave trade "the most ruthless trading triangle in the history of capitalism."
Actually it's Canada that's funny. I can't even say "Canada" or "Canadian" with a straight face. I get the same feeling when I say "East Sea" instead of "Sea of Japan". I move that henceforth we refer to each other as what we actually are, Patriots and Tories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, that's too bad. I feel the same way about America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thorin
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
Without the Brits, there would have been no slave trade? I'm not an expert in history, so please be gentle if I'm wrong, but weren't the Spanish and Portugese avid participants in this business in South America, prior to the British colonies in North America? There are plenty of black and Indian people in the Caribbean and all over the Americans thanks to this practise. Right? |
My point was that the Brits were the chief profiteers of the slave trade. And as you point out, they didn't only deliver slaves to what is now the U.S. Didn't I mention the rum and sugar? Anyway, I found a new avatar for you Kermo:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| Why don't you just admit that you are wrong? I'll accept an apology. |
I'm sorry. Did you have some authentic evidence to present on the issue at hand? Are you even aware of the issue I was addressing?
You're consumed by hatred and involved in an argument I consider pointless and don't care to participate in.
I don't have any more emotional attachment to U.S. history than I do to Canadian history. Truth be known, it's the pre-Hispanic period of Latin American history that keeps me up at night.
I'm not caught up in the hyper-nationalism most of the people here are caught up in; and I'm repelled by your anti-Americanism, just for the sake of being anti-American. But, it is what it is, and the world is populated by many people such as you.
If you can show me any evidence that shows that Canada had the opportunity to get into the empire business, and consciously denied this empire for its moral rectitude, I'd be happy to offer you a sincere apology and admit that I'm wrong.
As Mith said in another thread...can I go now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
| thorin wrote: |
England doesn't have too many cotton fields. And as for the English, Bristol was the apex of the most ruthless trading triangle in the history of capitalism. British ships traded mostly cotton goods in west Africa for slaves and dumped them America in exchange for cotton, sugar and rum. Without the Brits, there would have been no slave trade. Plantation owners might have been forced to round up Canadians to pick the cotton! |
Without the Brits, there would have been no slave trade? I'm not an expert in history, so please be gentle if I'm wrong, but weren't the Spanish and Portugese avid participants in this business in South America, prior to the British colonies in North America? There are plenty of black and Indian people in the Caribbean and all over the Americans thanks to this practise. Right? |
Yes there are a huge number of descendants of slaves all over the Caribbean and esp. in Brazil. As many as ten times as many went to Brazil or the Caribbean as into the U.S. South, if you need a comparative figure. There are many excellent studies on the issues and comparisons betweent the different slave cultures. Groto references the brutality of the South. The South was indeed a pretty brutal place for a slave. Spanish slavery practices were less absolute than the practices we see in the U.S. pre-Civil War period (you could buy your way out of your own slavery, for example).
Don't forget the depth of the complexity of this issue as well: for every Portuguese or Spanish captain who purchased slaves along the African coast, there were local elites who gathered and sold them to the Europeans, for their own reasons.
Punishing historical actors (Portuguese, Spanish, British, or American) for not having the good sense to obey the moral imperatives of the present, however, is ridiculous.
Are you ready to be judged by the morality of the twenty-sixth century? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Canada has a more equal society than America, economically, educationally, medically and culturally. We're proud of it, you can't just say "What if?" and say we would have been exactly like you. I doubt it. |
Partly true and partly not true. It deserves a further look. And it's just my 2c.
To me, Americans and upper Canadians have pursued a different kind of equality. Upper Canadians think of equality of living; Americans think of equality of opportunity. America tends to have a wider gap between extreme poverty and extreme wealth than Canada does. But this is also because Americans value the self-made man more than upper Canadians do, and have created a system (at least in theory) which permits ambitious people to get ahead. Canadians frustrate ambition with crushing taxes and regulation, which makes us more equal, but on average statistically poorer and less productive. (North Koreans likely have roughly equal standards of living too.)
This can be seen in our education, where we lack the top universities of the states but don't have ridiculous private colleges that specialize in underwater soap carving. The result is that our universities are more equal, but the overall average is lower access (more Americans statistically have university degrees than Canadians). It also applies in medicine, where more people have access to poor-quality medicare, with long waiting lists for surgery and medical staff leaving for better-paying countries.
Culturally, it's impossible to judge America against Canada. They are both home to a wide variety of peoples and cultures. America is much more than Fox, and Canada is much more than the narrow CBC view of life that Ontario and Quebec represent to be the whole country.
To me, certainly we ought to ask questions about American foreign policy and feel free to disagree, but I feel a little hypocritical when we sermonize about how kinder and gentler our foreign policy is. Canadians do have a role as diplomats, but we also sleep under the blanket of protection the American military gives us. Otherwise we would be defenseless, easy prey to superior armies such as El Salvador's.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In Maine, Kenneth Roberts' "Arundel" is required reading for middle school students, because the Kennebec Expedition (the US Revolutionary expedition led by Benedict Arnold attempting to attack Quebec city and free the Canadians) happened mostly in our state, indeed some of it in my home town. But all in all, I'm glad that it failed. It's nice that we have two countries in N. America that are culturally identical and fairly easy to immigrate between. It means more freedom for both of us, as we each have the option to try the other system, depending on our economic, political, and climactic preferences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ummm dont you mean the slaves? Wasnt Canada a haven for escaped slaves from the USA? Sure they came up from the South of the USA but still the USA. Dont you really mean to say that your predecessors were sponsoring and abetting slavery?
American Slavery and Britain's Rebuke of Man-Stealers: An Address Delivered in Bridgwater, England, on August 31, 1846
There were fifteen slave and thirteen free states, meaning that the MAJORITY OF USA endorsed slavery. It wasnt until the states of New Mexico and California were newly acquired that the North came into conflict with the policy of slavery.
Also slaves in Britian were actually treated quite well. It was the big plantation owners in the South that raised slavery to a truly barbaric level.
|
I just want to throw in my 2 cents on the slavery part of this craziness.
It's true, that slavery wasn't very common or economically important in Britain or Canada. The climate and economy weren't conducive to developing it as an economic model. But slavery was legal and did happen. South of the Mason-Dixon Line (border of Pennsylvania and Maryland) and down into South America the economy was heavily dependent on slavery to produce cotton and sugar for the European factories and markets. The laws governing slavery were all made in London, Paris and Madrid.
The British held a monopoly on the slave trade WITHIN their empire. (That is part of what an empire is for--monopolies for the imperial power.) Under this monopoly, Americans were allowed to operate slave importation businesses. The taxes were paid to London. Liverpool grew rich on the slave trade.
From my reading, the most horrific conditions were in the sugar islands and most especially Haiti. In those places it was cheaper to deliberately work slaves to death and buy new ones. From everything I've seen, there are no Indians left in the Caribbean. The Spanish wiped them out.
During the American Revolution some northern states made slavery illegal. The first was in 1780, I believe. At the Constitutional Convention (1787) the importation of slaves from abroad was to be banned after 1808. That was the best they could come up with given that the goal was creating a union and any stronger stand against slavery would have prevented that.
At the first Congress (1790) Ben Franklin sponsored two petitions from Quaker groups to discuss abolition. After some firey debates it was decided to table all future petitions on this issue. There was a 'conspiracy of silence' about slavery because no one had a solution. This was broken in 1820 when Missouri asked for admission as a slave state. I don't remember a time when the slave states outnumbered the free states.
I find it offensive that someone would use the Civil War to make cheap nationalistic 'points' against the people who died to free the slaves. |
|
| 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
