From: smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: History of North America Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:10:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: minerva.SMITH.92Aug21111000
	<c291042.713652613@gsb015> <1992Aug17.115351.2264@meadow.uucp>
	<12634@grayt>
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

I said:

| This is laughably disingenuous.  The country of Canada was established
| to protect British interests in North America.  Not even an Englishman
| would be able to keep a straight face if you told him that Canada was
| intended to both ``preserve ... the aboriginal people'' and
| ``traditional lifestyles in a purely European Culture.''

| While the Canadian colonies colonies had legitimate national ambitions
| . . . England recognized that to secure British North America to
| their expanding empire required a stable legitimate government whose
| rule extended across the continent. . . .  In [establishing Canada]
| the Canadian nation builders and the British Empire builders were
| overwhelmingly successful.  It's downright silly or naive or both to
| think that this British orchestrated achievement didn't serve British
| interests.

grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) said:

> Canada was not set up to protect British interests. It was set up to
> preserve the existing cultures. I find Yadallee's assertion plausible.
> Yours I find to be preposterous or as you point out "disingenuous".

> Canada as a British orchestrated achievement- a remarkable insight.
> You discount entirely the work of MacDonald in forging a national
> vision. You discount entirely the work of Cartier in securing
> the rights of the French culture.

> In particular you mention Durham and do not mention that his
> recoomendations [sic] were entirely discounted by the governments of
> the 1840's in the two Canada's [sic]. The principle (and successful)
> effort of these governments was to win the principle of
> "responsible" government from the British.

I made a passing remark contradicting the facile statement that Canada
was founded, inter alia, to preserve ``traditional lifestyles in a
purely European culture,'' with the assertion that this achievement
protected Britain's interests.

You didn't like this assertion.  You said the Canadian founders won
self-government from the British.  You said Cartier secured
fundamental rights.  You said Parliament ignored Durham's
recommendations throughout the 1840's.  But you never refuted the
assertion.  If you think I should have given more attention to the
Canadians who built their country, then okay.  But you go on to claim
that it is ridiculous to think that the British had a stake in
Canada's creation.  Frankly, it's inconceivable to me that one who has
studied history candidly could arrive at such a conclusion.

After the American revolution, the British quickly abandoned the
discredited colonial policies of George III.  As their global power
continued to grow, they knew that maintaining their fledgling empire
would require novel policies.  They could not take their example from
the Romans (who they often indulged in comparing themselves with), nor
the Macedonians, nor the Turks.  Colonial policy was the subject of
intense debate in Britain throughout the nineteenth century.  Canada
was their first guinea pig -- sorry -- ``oldest daughter of the
Empire.''  They succeeded here because they and the Canadians enacted
wise policies mutually beneficial to Canadians and the Empire.
Ultimately, the Durham report and Canadian confederation were not
important just to Canada.  The experience derived from these events
was applied to the entire commonwealth that followed.

> Whatever the British thought they were agreeing to in 1867, the
> framers of the constitution knew that they were creating a political
> system that was independent of British interests.

Canada's independence of British interests after confederation is an
interesting issue.  John A. Macdonald declared ``A British subject I
was born -- a British subject I will die.''  In fact, almost until
this century, many Canadians (and, of course, English) thought of
Canada not as Canada, but as merely a British dependency.  Canadian
loyalty was expected as a matter of fact; Britain regarded her as a
``dutiful imperial daughter.''  In the late nineteenth century,
English intellectuals appealed to Canada to ``end its
apprenticeship,'' look after its own business, and make its own way in
the world.  This anti-imperial sentiment so upset Tennyson, that he
included a poem in his _Idylls of the King_ appealing to Canadians to
maintain their loyalty to Britain and the Empire.  The poem was
enthusiastically received in Canada.  Of course Canada has since taken
her rightful place among nations, but don't think that the Canadian
founders were rubbing their hands and laughing wickedly as the British
handed over the affairs of state.

> Smith in doing so made an outrageous mistake in using the word
> "disingenuous" to mean something like "preposterous" or some other
> meaning that is not usually given to the word.

You presume much.

> Thus Smith while criticizing Yadalle for errors in presentation and
> content made his own errors in presentation and *extremely*
> outrageous errors in content which displayed a fundamental lack of
> understanding of Canadian history. Smith also did this in a
> extremely patronising and supercillious [sic] manner.

Perhaps it is you who lack understanding of British imperial history.

Steven Smith
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada