mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (12/20/85)
> > Gee Tim, you forgot... > > The Military Invasion and Subjugation of Canada. > > The Invasion of Mexico by armored units in 1968 to crush open rebellion. > > The building of the notorious Toronto Wall to prevent Canadian > Citizens from escaping U.S. domination, complete with machine guns > and land mines. > > --Carl Rigney > Anyone who thinks this needs a :-) needs one themselves! :-) The Mexicans remember the gringo invasion every year. The Nicaraguans have such a long history of US intervention, armed and otherwise, that they act totally paranoid. And then there is the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Guatemala, Canada (we lost,) Chile, Grenada, the Phillipines, and on and on and on. Of course, all of these events were entirely justified :-) -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!comm!mark)
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (12/20/85)
>> Gee Tim, you forgot... >> The Military Invasion and Subjugation of Canada. >> The Invasion of Mexico by armored units in 1968 to crush open rebellion. >> The building of the notorious Toronto Wall to prevent Canadian >> Citizens from escaping U.S. domination, complete with machine guns >> and land mines. >> --Carl Rigney >> Anyone who thinks this needs a :-) needs one themselves! :-) > >The Mexicans remember the gringo invasion every year. The Nicaraguans >have such a long history of US intervention, armed and otherwise, that >they act totally paranoid. And then there is the Dominican Republic, >Cuba, Guatemala, Canada (we lost,) Chile, Grenada, the Phillipines, >and on and on and on. > Mark Roddy At least some of these don't seem comparable to the Soviet actions alluded to. Cuba: I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the Spanish-American War, it was a war against Spain, and Cuba got its independence shortly afterwards. If you mean the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban government obviously opposed it but that says nothing about what the Cuban people thought about it. Canada: What do you mean, we lost Canada? If you mean the War of 1812, it was against Britain. Furthermore, our border with Canada is open. We don't post guards to shoot people escaping to Canada. We don't build a wall to prevent such escaping. And Canada has no reason to worry about the US sending tanks in. For that matter, I've never heard of Canadians being against Americans because of the War of 1812. Mexico: Again, look at the border. There aren't barriers to keep people in the US. And despite the "gringo invasions" in the last century, Mexico doesn't worry about the US sending in tanks or armies. Grenada: Come on, who are you trying to fool? Are you trying to argue that most Grenadans actually did not support the US invasion? Disclaimer: This does not mean I support _all_ of these US actions. (If you want to reply, please mail a copy. I will be going home for about a month and by the end of that time the news will probably have expired.) -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
brown@utflis.UUCP (Susan Brown) (12/23/85)
In article <1483@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: >>> Gee Tim, you forgot... >>> The Military Invasion and Subjugation of Canada. >>> --Carl Rigney >>The Mexicans remember the gringo invasion every year. The Nicaraguans >>have such a long history of US intervention, armed and otherwise, that >>they act totally paranoid. And then there is the Dominican Republic, >>Cuba, Guatemala, Canada (we lost,) Chile, Grenada, the Phillipines, >>and on and on and on. >> Mark Roddy >Canada: What do you mean, we lost Canada? If you mean the War of 1812, it >was against Britain. Furthermore, our border with Canada is open. We >don't post guards to shoot people escaping to Canada. We don't build a wall >to prevent such escaping. And Canada has no reason to worry about the US >sending tanks in. For that matter, I've never heard of Canadians being >against Americans because of the War of 1812. Probably because Americans are only taught one side of the War of 1812 (as would be true of most wars in most countries of course) and are generally extremely ignorant of Canadian history of all kinds. Of course it was a long time ago and the last 100 years of peace have outweighed it as a factor in modern politics, but *historically* it was very important. Canada retained a link with Britain longer than they might otherwise have done because they had been massively invaded by their much larger neighbor *several* times between 1776 and 1869. The War of 1812 is the best example. Yet Walter Cronkite et. al. go on saying that "The United States never lost a war until Vietnam." I was born and raised in Columbus, Ohio and spent four years studying history at OSU before I came to Toronto, and have taught both American and Canadian history here for several years. Canadians' (mild) irritation with American ignorance and presumptuousness is one of the things with which I sympathize most. It quite amazed me at first. Of course I was younger then. :-) sympathize most
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/25/85)
> >For that matter, I've never heard of Canadians being > >against Americans because of the War of 1812. ------- > Probably because Americans are only taught one side of the War of 1812 > (as would be true of most wars in most countries of course) and are > generally extremely ignorant of Canadian history of all kinds. Of course > it was a long time ago and the last 100 years of peace have outweighed it > as a factor in modern politics, but *historically* it was very important. > Canada retained a link with Britain longer than they might otherwise have > done because they had been massively invaded by their much larger neighbor ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > *several* times between 1776 and 1869. The War of 1812 is the best example. > Yet Walter Cronkite et. al. go on saying that "The United States never lost > a war until Vietnam." -------- Perhaps Walter et. al. go on saying it because it is true. Not winning is not the same as losing. We (the U. S.) didn't really win in Korea either. By the way, I am not aware of any massive U. S. invasions of Canada other than during the Revolutionary War and during the War of 1812. (In both wars, the invasions went in BOTH directions.) If there were any others, I would appreciate being enlightened. I know there were several boundary disputes (northern Maine - New Brunswick, for one), but massive invasions? Sounds like your biases are showing. 54-40 or fight!-)-) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/25/85)
> The War of 1812 is the best example. > > Yet Walter Cronkite et. al. go on saying that "The United States never lost > > a war until Vietnam." > -------- > [Me] > Perhaps Walter et. al. go on saying it because it is true. Not winning > is not the same as losing. We (the U. S.) didn't really win in Korea > either. ----------- It just hit me that someone is bound to leap on my mention of the U. S. and the Korean War as another example of American arrogance and ignorance. "Doesn't that yahoo know that Korea was a United Nations effort, and not just an American one?" Yes, I know, but we were talking only about whether the U. S. had lost a war. Funny that Australians, New Zelanders, South Koreans, and Filipinos don't complain too loudly when VIETNAM is called an American war! -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/27/85)
In article <640@utflis.UUCP> brown@utflis.UUCP (Susan Brown) writes: >Canada retained a link with Britain longer than they might otherwise have >done because they had been massively invaded by their much larger neighbor >*several* times between 1776 and 1869. The War of 1812 is the best example. >Yet Walter Cronkite et. al. go on saying that "The United States never lost >a war until Vietnam." Did the U.S. really invade Canada after the end of the Revolutionary War, with the exception of the War of 1812? Please supply instances if this is true. I don't think it is appropriate to count events in the American Revolutionary War as invasions of Canada. That war was a rebellion by England's North American colonies; the distinction between those that became part of the United States and those that eventually became part of Canada was a consequence of that war, not a precondition. As for the War of 1812, that was a war between the U.S. and England, and Canada was English territory at that point. The U.S. invaded Canadian territory, and were driven out; England invaded U.S. territory, and was driven out. I don't think it is accurate to say either side really won the war. (In some sense, that means both lost; but that isn't the way these things are usually counted.) I am quite prepared to believe that fear of a U.S. invasion delayed Canadian independence. On the other hand, I suspect that without the successful American Revolution, England would not have voluntarily granted independence to the rest of her colonies. I do agree that the degree ignorance of history among Americans is shocking. Let's do our bit to counteract that by talking about it here. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
lkk@teddy.UUCP (12/28/85)
In article <1483@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: >Cuba: I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the Spanish-American >War, it was a war against Spain, and Cuba got its independence shortly >afterwards. If you mean the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban government obviously >opposed it but that says nothing about what the Cuban people thought about >it. By this statement you belie your ignorance of American history. Sure Cuba got a form of independence after we kicked the Spaniards out. They got a constitution that was written in the United States Senate which included language allowing the US to intervene at will if it felt that American interests were endangered. What resulted was half a century of corrupt American gangster dominated government, setting the state for the understandably self-righteous but arrogant and heavy handed Fidel Castro to take over. -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (12/30/85)
Frank Adams (franka@mmintl.UUCP) writes: > As for the War of 1812, that was a war between the U.S. and England, and > Canada was English territory at that point. The U.S. invaded Canadian > territory, and were driven out; England invaded U.S. territory, and was > driven out. I don't think it is accurate to say either side really won > the war. (In some sense, that means both lost; but that isn't the way > these things are usually counted.) But there should be a "then" after the semicolon. The thing is, the U.S. started the war (admittedly under serious British provocation, since the British Navy had been interfering with U.S. merchant shipping). The U.S. decided to invade "Canada" (meaning Upper Canada, now southern Ontario, and Lower Canada, now southern Quebec, both British colonies)... AND ANNEX CANADA to the U.S.! The British forces in Canada naturally did not confine themselves to fighting within Canadian territory once a state of war existed, but they never aimed to reconquer the U.S., only to avoid being conquered. In other words, the U.S. tried to take over Canada, and didn't. The forces in Canada tried not to be taken over, and weren't. Conclusion: Britain (not England, please) won, and the U.S. lost. If you still think this is a "tie", you might consider the Falklands War. The boundaries are the same now as they were before the war, and the resignation of the Argentinian government was not at Britain's demand. But I don't think there's any doubt that Argentina lost that one. > I am quite prepared to believe that fear of a U.S. invasion delayed > Canadian independence. Or *caused* Canadian independence. The Canadian colonies had been quite friendly with the States, especially the more northerly ones (indeed, a considerable amount of commerce with New York State continued through the war). If Ontario had joined the U.S. before Britain got around to granting partial independence in 1867, the other colonies might never have joined together, and most of them might well have been absorbed by the U.S. one by one. Of course, this is all conjecture. > On the other hand, I suspect that without the > successful American Revolution, England would not have voluntarily granted > independence to the rest of her colonies. Could be. Or maybe India would have been the first, and the rest following! A good reference on the War of 1812 in North America is Pierre Berton's 2-volume book, "The Invasion of Canada" plus "Flames Across the Border". Like all of Berton's histories, it is well researched with lots of references, and quite readable. It does not try to cover all events of the war, preferring to go into a subset of them in more detail. Berton does not refrain from giving opinions on matters like the conjectures above, but the bulk of the volumes deal in facts. Mark Brader, Toronto, Canada P.S. Toronto (then York) was burned by the Americans. I think it was in retaliation for this that the British burned Washington (sparing the Patent Office) -- and thus led to the Presidential Mansion being named the White House when the smoke marks were painted over.
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/02/86)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 6:05 am Dec 27, 1985 */ >I do agree that the degree ignorance of history among Americans is shocking. >Let's do our bit to counteract that by talking about it here. Why "shocking?" Foolish perhaps, but why "shocking?" >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Mike Sykora
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (01/02/86)
In article <1004@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: >> Canada was English territory at that point. The U.S. invaded Canadian >> territory, and were driven out; England invaded U.S. territory, and was >> driven out. I don't think it is accurate to say either side really won > >But there should be a "then" after the semicolon. > >In other words, the U.S. tried to take over Canada, and didn't. >The forces in Canada tried not to be taken over, and weren't. >Conclusion: Britain (not England, please) won, and the U.S. lost. > >Could be. Or maybe India would have been the first, and the rest following! > >Mark Brader, Toronto, Canada >P.S. Toronto (then York) was burned by the Americans. > I think it was in retaliation for this that the British burned > Washington (sparing the Patent Office) -- and thus led to the It is very interesting to see history from someone knowledgeable from the other side. I wish there were much more of this sort of information on this net particularly from people from a much wider range of countries. richard foy, redondo beach, california, us
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/03/86)
In article <1004@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: > >Frank Adams (franka@mmintl.UUCP) writes: > >> As for the War of 1812, that was a war between the U.S. and England, and >> Canada was English territory at that point. The U.S. invaded Canadian >> territory, and were driven out; England invaded U.S. territory, and was >> driven out. I don't think it is accurate to say either side really won >> the war. (In some sense, that means both lost; but that isn't the way >> these things are usually counted.) > >But there should be a "then" after the semicolon. > >The thing is, the U.S. started the war (admittedly under serious British >provocation, since the British Navy had been interfering with U.S. merchant >shipping). The U.S. decided to invade "Canada" (meaning Upper Canada, now >southern Ontario, and Lower Canada, now southern Quebec, both British >colonies)... AND ANNEX CANADA to the U.S.! Yes, but was the war fought for the purpose of taking over Canada, or was that an additional objective? The U.S. had as one of its goals in the war to get the British to stop interfering with U.S. merchant shipping, and in this was successful. (A treaty which would have accomplished this was signed before the war broke out, but news thereof did not reach the U.S. before fighting broke out.) To argue that the U.S. lost, it is insufficient to note that the U.S. decided to invade Canada; you must argue that that was the primary American objective. I am not convinced that that was the case. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (01/07/86)
Regarding the question of who won the War of 1812 in North America, I wrote: > >The thing is, the U.S. started the war (admittedly under serious British > >provocation, since the British Navy had been interfering with U.S. merchant > >shipping). The U.S. decided to invade "Canada" (meaning Upper Canada, now > >southern Ontario, and Lower Canada, now southern Quebec, both British > >colonies)... AND ANNEX CANADA to the U.S.! And Frank Adams replied: > Yes, but was the war fought for the purpose of taking over Canada, or was > that an additional objective? The U.S. had as one of its goals in the war > to get the British to stop interfering with U.S. merchant shipping, and in > this was successful. (A treaty which would have accomplished this was > signed before the war broke out, but news thereof did not reach the U.S. > before fighting broke out.) To argue that the U.S. lost, it is insufficient > to note that the U.S. decided to invade Canada; you must argue that that was > the primary American objective. I am not convinced that that was the case. Rather than arguing that it was the primary objective, I argue that it was the only objective that still mattered at the end of the war. The thing is, the reasons Britain wanted to interfere with the U.S. ships in the first place was to strengthen their side against France in the coming War of 1812 in Europe. (And, of course, it was remembered that France supported the U.S. in the American Revolution.) Well, before the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 in North America, Britain had already defeated France, and therefore they had no more need to interfere. (You are correct about the other treaty, but it only affected one of the two forms of interference that were going on -- I'll spare the net the details.) So the only thing left was the attempt to annex Canada. And we know what happened to that. Well, having stated my case, I'll back down a little. Pierre Berton puts it this way: "Having won the last battle, the Americans were convinced that they won the War of 1812. Having stemmed the tide of invasion and kept the Americans out of their country, Canadians believed that THEY won the war. Having ceded nothing they considered important, the British were serene in the conviction that THEY won it. ... But the real losers were the Indians." And elsewhere, he calls it "the war that Canada won, or more precisely DID NOT LOSE." His emphasis in each case. But with all due respect for the great Mr. Berton, I prefer my line of reasoning. "We" won... if only by a score, so to speak, of 21-20. I don't think I'll post any more on this. Mark Brader