# A students view on our history...



## Coniar (26 Aug 2002)

I have been reading up on Canadas military historys, mostly in the 1st and 2nd world wars. I just thought I would say that it is a shame that more Canadian history is not taught in schools. In Social Studies this year (for the second year in a row) we studied the Middle ages Egypt Rome and Greece all good subjects but ones we already covered several times in elemetary, we did not onec talk about Vimy Ridge, Paschendale, Deppie or Juno beach we did not talk about Canadian politics, issues or problems. The history of Canada military or otherwise was never mentioned once all year we had Social Studies every other day for an hour and a half and I never heard a word about our fomer Primeinisters our founding the Natives of our country or the wildlife. I find it sad that the school system deems the crop rotation system of the French 700 years ago more importants than the people who gave there lives for Canada. Most if not all of my friends have never heard of Vimy Ridge or Juno beach some have heard of D-day in general but not of the Canadian part of it. Does everyone know about this and not really care? or is this a shock to you? Is it schocking that our school system has decided to forsake patriotism for world history? The US high schools call the class History not Social Studies, probably because theres actually teaches American history, The reviloutinary war the founding fathers the civil war. I know this because I have many American friends. Does everyone know about this and not really care? or is this a shock to you?

Coniar


----------



## Linc (26 Aug 2002)

No, not shocking at all.  

I had history class in an Ontario High School, and the Canadian content portion was the weakest section, and other than a very quick general overview of the wars, probably less than one day on each, very little was mentioned of these great Canadian battles.  I think the name Vimy Ridge were dropped maybe once, but no real information was given on them, other than it had something to do with Canadians.  My best recollection of Canadian War history in school was when the teacher turned out the lights and played some kind of national Film Board Video about Cdns in WW1.  Of course, nobody was paying attention, most of the kids were sleeping or doodling or talking.  Very little if any Cdn war history was on the tests or exams, and I can recall no projects assigned for that unit.  I have complained about this alot on other sites, and wished I had confronted my teacher about it back then, but of course I was young and didn‘t care.  Also there are many around in positions of authority who feel that teaching about war is the same as glorifying war and therefore should be discouraged.

If I were you, I would ask what your teacher had to say about the matter.

Canadian content in general is very poor in Canadian education, I beleive I read somewhere that only 2 provinces have a set curriculum for Canadiana and that 2/3 Canadians can‘t even name a single Canadian invention or inventor!


----------



## logistik (26 Aug 2002)

In grade 9 I got taught about the railroads and the creation of canada ALOT. IN grade 11 we had like 2-3 months about Canada in ww1. And we learned about Vimy, Pachendale, Ypres, etc. However, we never learned anything about ww2 untill grade 12 history.
This was in BC btw.


----------



## silverhorse86 (26 Aug 2002)

in my grade 10 history class we covered both world war 1 and 2 and covered each for a month each. This is ontario by the way. We learned a lot about what happened amd i really enjoyed the class.


----------



## Linc (29 Aug 2002)

Defence Minister Ignorant of Dieppe:
‘I never learned any of this in school,‘ McCallum says of 1942 battle

Chris Wattie  
National Post 

John McCallum, the Minister of National Defence and titular head of the Canadian Forces, has conceded that until last week, he had never heard about the 5,000 Canadian troops who stormed ashore for the Dieppe raid, one of the greatest military disasters in Canadian history.

The former banker, who was appointed Defence Minister last May, has no military experience beyond four years in his private school‘s Air Cadet corps and says he has a lot to learn. He replaced Art Eggleton, who was fired.

"I had a pretty good -- you could even say a privileged -- education," Mr. McCallum said during his visit to the French port last week to mark the 60th anniversary of the raid. "But I never learned any of this in school. I haven‘t even been to Vimy Ridge ... yet.

"This is, in a way, a sort of crash course in the military and military history," he said. "So I‘m getting everything all at once: from the [liberation of] the Netherlands or Dieppe to Afghanistan."

Duane Daly, the dominion secretary for the Royal Canadian Legion, was saddened by the Defence Minister‘s ignorance.

"It‘s really unfortunate," he said yesterday. "But it‘s not just McCallum: It‘s all MPs and Cabinet ministers. So few have any military experience or even knowledge of our history."

Mr. Daly said the ignorance of Canada‘s leaders reflects broad and long-standing flaws in the teaching of history in Canadian schools, but wished Mr. McCallum well in his "crash course" on military history.

Peter Stoffer, the NDP defence critic, said: "It‘s incredible that he wouldn‘t know that. No one can expect him to know about every battle in every war, but Dieppe was one of the most important battles in our history. You would think the Defence Minister would know that."

Leon Benoit, the Canadian Alliance defence critic, said Mr. McCallum‘s ignorance of things military is in character for the entire federal Cabinet.

"This government shies away from things military," he said. "They feel uncomfortable talking about anything to do with the military, particularly the combat capabilities of our military.

"So I‘m not surprised."

Mr. Benoit said he takes some comfort from the Minister‘s apparent interest in learning about the soldiers, sailors and airmen under his command. "I think he‘s finally starting to realize the importance of a strong military. And that‘s a good thing."

To help him make up for lost time, the Minister has arranged for National Defence historians to give him private tours whenever he visits such historic sites as Dieppe.

Last week, an historian walked Mr. McCallum and a handful of aides along the stony beach where Canadian soldiers stormed ashore in 1942, showed them the seawall and the wide esplanade where the town‘s German defenders mowed down the men, and patiently explained the progress of the battle.

As crowds of French sunbathers stared curiously and gulls wheeled and shrieked overhead, Mr. McCallum was told about the 907 who were killed and nearly 2,000 who were captured, and was given a brief prÈcis of the causes of the disastrous operation.

"It was amazing to me ... It was very moving," he said after his tour. "I have a new respect for the military.

"You can draw a parallel between what these 80-year-old [veterans] did in Europe and what the 18-year-old [Canadian Forces soldiers] did in Afghanistan."

However, the Minister‘s grasp of historical parallels is not yet perfect. In a speech to veterans of the raid and government officials in Dieppe last week, he vowed: "to do the best I can ... to see that our modern generation of soldiers and airmen and seamen have the same resources to fight for freedom and democracy that you did."

The Canadian army, navy and air force was tiny, ill-equipped and underfunded when the Second World War broke out in 1939.

"I sure hope they‘re better prepared than we were," one veteran said with a chuckle.

And in an interview shortly after his visit to Dieppe, the Minister evoked the disastrous raid in musing about possible Canadian participation in any U.S. attack on Iraq.

"One thing we can learn from Dieppe is we must not rush into combat. We must be very careful," he said after a ceremony to honour the Canadians killed during the 1942 raid.

Mr. McCallum, whose father was a decorated veteran of the Second World War, is being given the benefit of the doubt by many members of the Canadian Forces and appeared to impress most of the veterans of Dieppe he met last week.


----------



## Nunquam Retrorsum (29 Aug 2002)

I know it‘s not the topic, but as feedback from the events concerning the 60th anniversary of the Raid of Dieppe was one of the most touching events i‘ve ever experienced.  Old people coming to shake your hand and thank you!  Kids, adults, people of all ages are showing a great respect of canadian military.  It‘s weird to see that this respect isn‘t even partially present here, in our own country.  It was a great event, and i‘m lucky to have went to Dieppe and remembered them of this event.


----------



## silverhorse86 (29 Aug 2002)

ok pardon my franch but John McCallum is a ****ing idiot and should be kicked from his position right now. A man with very little knowledge of military history (especially ours) should not have that extremely important responsability.


----------



## SNoseworthy (29 Aug 2002)

Like i just posted on another board, it‘s truly sad when someone with such a "privilaged" education doesn‘t know F*** all about the history of Canada militarily.

Here in Newfoundland, we learned about the Canadian contribution to WW1 (army mainly since that really was the only considerable contribution that stood out) and the navy‘s contribution in WW2. We learned about it in two courses, Canadian History 1201 and World History 3201 (both of which I‘ve done in my newly ended high school life).

I don‘t recall us learning about Canada‘s army much in WW2, and that was disappointing. Luckily, I was probably the only person in the class who knew a lot of Canadian Military History (my favourite reading subject) so I managed to teach them a few things when I got the chance. I will agree that it is disappointing to see the provinicial history curriculm to become more and more ignorant of the great Canadian battles and our armed forces as time passes. It does pride me though to see many of my age group and the younger ones attending events like Memorial Day on July 01st, however, due to the lack of education on military history in schools, those crowds grow smaller and smaller each year unfortunately.

Let‘s face it, history courses are becoming downright boring. There‘s rarely any interest in the courses and I personally think that learning more about Canada‘s miltiary heritage would increase interest in those courses. If there is one thing that teenagers in high school finding interesting, its hearing stories about the past wars. It‘s really the only interesting part of a historical cirriculm in high school, yet it is very vague. 

I recommended a few books to my class last year to read if they wanted to learn more about Canadian Military History, too bad most will never even look at the cover of those books. One of the better books I‘ve read is "A Military History of Canada" by Desmond Morton. I think that that book should be a course onto itself in Canadian schools, it is very informative and, unlike history books now, it presents the ups and downs of the battles more so and the situation of the Canadian Military at the time. History books in schools tend to repeat wartime propaganda which inflates everything about the military events like WW1, and WW2, while not providing a proper, informative, critique and overview of military events.

I‘ll stop my rant there, I‘m sure there are points where I‘m incoherant, if so, don‘t hesitate to ask questions, I have a habit of going off on a tangant when I am ranting


----------



## SNoseworthy (29 Aug 2002)

Linc said:
Canadian content in general is very poor in Canadian education, I beleive I read somewhere that only 2 provinces have a set curriculum for Canadiana and that 2/3 Canadians can‘t even name a single Canadian invention or inventor!

I have to agree with you there. In our high school we had a Canadian Studies course, basically for the rompers while the rest of us did French. The teacher had a loud voice so you could listen to his lectures throughout the school and one day he asked them who the current Prime Minister of Canada was...two people raised up their hands of the class of 20, only one of them got the answer right. That is just shameful don‘t you agree? We really do need to have more Canadian content in our courses as well as more public knowledge of Canada.


----------



## rolandstrong (29 Aug 2002)

Since the 1970‘s, the canadian secondary education system has taken a "revisionist" approach to history. Most history before that period was military and empire oriented, particularly after WWII. Sadly canadians (in general) took on the american impression of Vietnam, and decided that we need to focus on "social" history, having the battle orientated stuff left in the closet. I know this as I tutor History 12 and throughout my university degree I had the frustration of trying to pursue course work geared to military endeavours. It sux, but is true. here in Vancouver, my regiment has a storied history, and has been a landmark for most of the 20th century. I mention that I am a reservist to people at parties, etc., and somehow they think i am a baby killer. Great. Not that that will stop me in doing what i believe and trying my best to support Canadian sovereinty. We can thank the feds for this kind of respect of our great achievements in the past, and lack of recognition. The reallity is that Canada‘s independence was formed on the battle fields of WWI and WWII, not during the Trudeau era...dang, I am starting to get mad and on a roll....


----------



## rolandstrong (29 Aug 2002)

...and another thing...most of the university profs and second ed teachers are a bunch of ex-hippies anyway.....blah blah blah


----------



## SNoseworthy (29 Aug 2002)

Haha, great to know that I‘ll have a bunch of hippies teaching me my minor in history, LOL!


----------



## rolandstrong (30 Aug 2002)

I think a Noufoundland hippie is different than a British Columbia Hippie...   

So I speak tongue in cheek here, and biased probably because I don‘t (and will not ever) wear birkenstock‘s......but I do have a Volkswagen Westphalia...I kinda look like this in it...  :tank:


----------



## SNoseworthy (30 Aug 2002)

haha. Newfoundland hippies weren‘t pot smokers, they were alcoholics in most cases according to my parents. I had some "Newfoundland Hippies" in high school for teachers, it was pretty comical.


----------



## portcullisguy (2 Sep 2002)

Coniar, although I agree with your general sentiment that Canadian schools do not go far enough in teaching Canadian history, I wish to point out a couple of things:

- French crop rotation 700 years ago is actually probably crucial stuff to know.  It is a basic progression of agricultural techniques, which revolutionized productivity.  In a more refined form, it continues today, and the end result is you have food on your table. It may not be the sort of "practical" knowledge you will need to apply in your everyday life, it nevertheless will expand the character of your wisdom to understand a little of basic farming back then, and your knowledge of how it‘s done now.  If you should ever find yourself a general one day, commanding an army in some far away place, it is entirely possible that your troops may have to educate a fractured populace in basic farming principles, if for no other reason than to feed your troops.  But, I digress...

- Much of what Canadian history I learned in school, I have since learned is probably a result of some revisionism, or at least, ignorance of other issues (perhaps for political reasons?).   For example, I had always heard in school that Louis Riel was a pretty important guy, along with his co-conspirator, Gabriel Dumont.  If I were Metis, I‘d surely agree that yes, these folks did a lot for my people.  Perhaps, if I were even from the Praries, I‘d even say they were significant folks.  But, the historical truth is closer to this: They were rebellious criminals who led an uprising and were eventually exiled/arrested, but that eventually the government gave in to some of their demands in order to avoid a wider uprising.  The same could be said for the Republican agitator, William Lyon McKenzie, who led the Upper Canada Rebellion, such as it was, and would eventually become Mayor of Toronto, bringing disrespect to that position, in my opinion.  But never mind, Toronto‘s present Mayor does a fine job of continuing the tradition of bringing disrespect to that title.

- I never learned in school that, in fact, it was British regulars and Loyalist irregulars who fended off the impetuous attacks from south of the border during the War of 1812.  All I knew was that a fellow named Brock was killed by an American sniper, and that eventually Canada won the war.  Not entirely accurate, the latter, but I got the gist.  Thanks to self-study, and a course in Ontario Frontier history at the university level, I now know that the defence of Upper Canada would probably have been impossible if not for chance, and a few hundred Indians following Tecumseh‘s leadership.  Britain‘s pressure on America‘s navies certainly helped, and most of all, when Britain concluded it‘s war with France and had thousands of veteran troops suddenly available for a new campaign, this could have persuaded the Americans to agree to a settlement as well.

Embarassingly enough, you are certainly right about more modern Canadian history.  I am ashamed to repeat that, when the movie "Dieppe" was being filmed in my old neighbourhood, I had believed that we Canadian‘s had kicked *** .  Lo, I was brought back to reality!  School never taught me!

For me, history is almost a passion now.  I read till my eyes are blurry, in particular about the Royal Navy in the Med and West Indies during the Napoleonic period, as I can trace ancestors to that time and place.  History with a connection hold my interest much better than history taught in school ever did.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (3 Sep 2002)

Hello all. I‘m new to this site, and an American to boot, so I hope no one will take offense to what I‘m about to say, but... 
CANADA WON THE WAR OF 1812?!?!?
[suppressed laughter]
I‘m sorry, but is that what they teach up there? I mean, how do you define your victory? That the Canadian militia was able to fend off a few weak attacks by a disorganized US Army which the American militia refused to support? Or are you counting the burning of Washington by your (then) Imperial masters as your own win? I‘m not trying to dump on you guys, I‘m genuinly interested in how it‘s taught there. The war in usually ignored here because: 1) it was unpopular to start with, 2)it really didn‘t accomplish much and had minimal impact on American history and 3) it really was a stupid war. As far as who won it...well, yes, Canada fended off several American attacks, but we fended off every Canadian excursion onto US soil. The British blockaded the US coast and burned Washington, but the US Navy outpreformed the Royal Navy in many one-on-one engagements. And to top it off, Andrew Jackson kicked British ***  at New Orleans...after the war was over. So it‘s pretty hard for anyone to claim a win. So seriously, how‘d Canada beat the US?


----------



## Suffield (3 Sep 2002)

Sgt Smedley writes:
_______________________________________________________________________
"The war in usually ignored here because: 1) it was unpopular to start with, 2)it
really didn‘t accomplish much and had minimal impact on American history and 3) it really was a stupid war."
_______________________________________________________________________
Something like Vietnam? Just because the US didn‘t gain anything (except maybe some humility, no matter how short lived), does‘nt mean it was an insignifigant action (war) to the other side.


----------



## Coniar (3 Sep 2002)

It was a war and the Canadians won. As hard as that is to belive for a self absorbed american like yourself Sgt Smedley  it actually did happen. It wasnt a big war but we did win and it is most certainly signifigant. It is not talked about much in the US because you LOST and from my limited experince most Americans dont like admitting that they have ever lost anything. Ive actually had friends of my parents from Washington State explain to me how the Americans never really lost Vietnam and there just waiting for the right time to go back and win!
I just finished reading "A Military History of Canada" by Desmond Morton and it is an excelent book probably the best book I have ever read about the whole of the Canadian military.
French crop rotation may very well be a relevant subject for a week or two but by the end of grade eight we had spent 2 weeks studying the specifics of it and besides that we had already learned all about the middle ages Rome and eqypt in grade 6 and 7 so we where just covering old ground. Its very nice you like to read about history portcullisguy but most kids in highschool dont (I do but thats just me) and Instead of re-learning old boring subjects I think it would be better if we studied more Canadian history and less french farming techniques. World history is certainly important but so is Canadian history and I would like to see at least a 50/50 split rather than 95/5 like it is now.

Coniar


----------



## Zoomie (3 Sep 2002)

The British did not just attack and burn Washington from the water.  Militia Units from Ontario made their ways south through Enemy lines and proceeded to burn the White House (then PINK) down.


----------



## ArmyAl (3 Sep 2002)

Umm did we not also take detroit without firing a shot only to give it back for some lame reason.
You can have New Orleans and all that french because we have enough of it up here!


----------



## Korus (3 Sep 2002)

I highly recomend downloading "the war of 1812" by the arrogant worms... A very patriotic song.


----------



## Andrew (4 Sep 2002)

The War Of 1812 was between the U.S. and Canada(Great Britain). 

Official British Account of the

Capture of Washington D.C.
As reported in The Columbian Centinel December 7, 1814

Great Britain London Downing Street, Sept. 27
I have the honor to communicate to your Lordship, that on the night of the 24 th inst. After defeating the army of the United States that day, the troops under my command entered and took possession of the city of Washington. It was determined between Sir A. Cochrane and myself, to disembark the army at the village of Nenedict, on the right bank of the Patuxeut, with the intention of Co-operating with Rear-admiral Cockburn, in an attack upon a flotilla of the enemy?s gun boats, under of the command of Com. Barney. On the 20th instant, the ar-my command its march, having landing the previous day without opposition: on the 21st it reached Nottingham, and on the 22nd moved on to Upper Marlborough, a few miles distant from Pig Point on the Patuxent, where Admiral Cockburn fell in with and defeated the flotilla taking and destroying the whole. Having advanced to within 16 miles of Washington, and ascertaining the force of the enemy to be such as might authorize an attempt at carrying his capital, I determined to make it, and accordingly put the 1200 men appeared to oppose us but retired after firing a few shots.

On the 24 th the troops resumed their march, and reached Bladensburg, a village situated on the left bank of the eastern branch of the Pofowmac, about five miles from Washington. On the opposite side of that river the enemy was strongly posted on very commanding heights formed in two lines, his advance occupying a fortified house, which, with artillery, covered the bridge over the eastern branch, across which the British troops had pass. A broad and straight road, leading from the bridge to Washington ran through the position, which was carefully defended by artillery and riflemen. The disposition for the attack being made, it was commenced with so much impetuosity by the list brigade, consisting at the 85th light infantry and the army, under the command of Col. Thornton, that the fortifired house was shortly carried, the enemy retiring to the higher grounds. In support of the light brigade I ordered up a brigade under the command of Col. Brooke, who with the 44th regiment, attacked the enemy?s left, the 4th regiment pressing its right with such effect as to cause him to abandon his guns. His first line giving way, was driven on the second, which, yielding to the irresistible attack of the bayonet, and the well directed discharge of rockets, got into confusion and fled. The rapid flight of the enemy, and his knowledge of the country, precluded the possibility of many prisoners being taken, more particularly as the troops had, during the day, undergone considerable fatigue.

The enemy?s army amounting to 8 or 9000 men, with 3 or 400 cavalry, was under the command of Gen. Winder, being formed of troops drawn from Baltimore and Pennsylvania. His artillery, ten pieces of which fell into are hands, was commanded by Com. Barney, who was wounded and taken prisoner. The artillery I directed to be destroyed. Having halted the army for a short time, I determined to march upon Washington, and reached that city at 8 o?clock that night. Judging it of consequences to complete the destruction of the public buildings with the least possible delay, so that the army might retire without loss of time, the following buildings were set fire to and consumed- the capitol, including the Senate house and House of representation, the Arsenal, the Dock-Yard, Treasury, War office, President?s Palace, Rope-Walk, and the great bridge across the Potewmac: In the dock-yard a frigate nearly ready to be launched, and a slope of war, were consumed. The two bridges leading to Washington over the eastern branch, had the enemy been destroyed by the enemy who apprehended an attack from that quarter.

The object of the expedition being accomplished, I determined, before any greater enemy force could be assembled, to withdraw the troops, and accordingly commenced retiring on the night of the 25th. On the evening if the 29th we reached Benedict, and re-embarked the following day. In the performance of the operation I have detailed, it is with the utmost satisfaction I observe to your Lordship that cheerfulness in undergoing fatigue, and anxiety for the accomplishment of the object, were conspicuous in all ranks

An attack upon an enemy so strongly posted could not be effected without loss. I have to lament that the wounds received by Col. Thornton, and the others officers and soldiers left at Bladensburg, were such as prevented their removal As many of the wounded as could be brought off were removed, the others being left with medical care and attendants. The arrangements made by Staff Sueg?n Baxter for their accommodation have been as satisfactory as circumstances would admit of. The Agent for British prisoners of war very fortunately residing at Bladensburg, I have recommended the wounded officers and men to his particular attention, and trust to his being able to effect their exchange when sufficiently recovered. -- Robert Ross, Major General

Andrew


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (4 Sep 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zoomie:_ The British did not just attack and burn Washington from the water. Militia Units from Ontario made their ways south through Enemy lines and proceeded to burn the White House (then PINK) down


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You are kidding right? (about the ontario militia not the color.) See this is what I mean; what do they really teach up there, or more to the point what is believed?  

Seriously, how is it that Canada defines it‘s victory? 

It is not ignored here because we ‘lost.‘ It was just plain insignificant. And the Mexican War, which was a resounding victory and gained much territory for the US is also overlooked. As for Vietnam, the US was never defeated on the battlefield, it was the politicains who lost that one.

Yes, US forces performed pooly in the War of 1812. So did Canadian forces. Both sides were about equally sucessful on the frontier. And the bulk of the fighting on your side was by British regulars with considerable assistance from the Indians. The most significant American defeat, the burning of Washington, was an entirely British affair, and had as much to do with irresponsibly shortsighted defense policies of the government as the skill of the British forces.

I‘m not trying to take anything away from you guys, or diminish the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers of all wars who have so bravely defended freedom.  But please explain to me how 1812 was a Canadian victory. At best it was a tie.


----------



## Linc (4 Sep 2002)

Ha ha!  Nothing will generate more posts on a Canadian website than an Ugly American with his misplaced anti-everybody Yank patriotism!  To my knowledge, there were no accounts of Canadian, Canadien (French) or British troops refusing to fight while their comrades were butcherd by the enemy, as many American militia and Volunteer units refused to cross the Niagara river and watched thier comrades butchered at Queenston.  

The war could only be consedered a tie if the British/Canadian goal was to invade and conquer the US and was prevented from doing so, however this was never the case.  Also, keep in mind that when the peace treaty was signed, Britian had just defeated Napoleon in Europe and massive amounts of available British troops had been shipped to Lower Canada (Quebec) and were poised to strike south and sever a sympathetic New England from the Union.  If they wanted American territory, it was theirs to have.

Let me dumb it down for you:

AMERICAN OBJECTIVE: Capture Canada
OUTCOME: Failed, on three seperate occasions

CANADIAN OBJECTIVE: Defeat Invading Army
OUTCOME: Victory, on three seperate occasions

True, the US did prove more successful at sea than the all-British Royal Navy (there was no Canadian ‘sea militia‘). But Canadians and Brits won most of the land battles: Ogdensburg, Oswego, Queenston Heights, Lundy‘s Lane, Detroit, Washington DC, Frenchtown, Ft. Mackinac, Chrysler‘s Farm, La Colle Mill, Chateuguay, Seige of Ft. Meigs, Stoney Creek, etc, to name but a few.

The reason why Yanks don‘t like to talk about the war of 1812 or the Mexican war is that they were both wars of American expansion (imperialism), and Americans dont like to acknowledge the fact that at one time in thier history, they wanted to invade and conquer all thier neighbours (like that German guy with the Charlie Chaplin mustache         )


----------



## Jungle (4 Sep 2002)

Posted by Army-al: "You can have New Orleans and all that french because we have enough of it up here!"
Well, I would like you to explain what you mean by that comment. Do you think there is no place in Canada for French-canadians ??? Are you too stupid to learn french as a second language, and take your frustration out on others ? I think that sounded like a racist comment, and there is no place in the CF for people like you. If you really are a Sgt, then you are a disgrace to the rank and to the senior NCO corps. Just my very      opinion.


----------



## portcullisguy (4 Sep 2002)

Plainly it is quite evident why I will never raise children in the American school system, when the day comes that I should have them to raise!

I won‘t argue points that others have already, but I will add that, for the newfound Republic, the War of 1812 was very significant on the grand scale.  Several reasons:

- Manifest destiny: It had always been the desire of the Americans to expand their influence throughout the entire continent, by force if necessary.  To this end, land was taken from the Natives, deal were broken, etc.  British North America sought to stand by their agreements with Natives and allow them all the land which had not been bought for the Crown.  Natives harassed expanding U.S. pioneers west of Detroit from camps and villages in Canadam which the Americans grieved.

- The Royal Navy frequently pressed American sailors into service, which the U.S. took as harmful to their rights on the high seas, and to their expanding trade across the Atlantic.  Despite protests, the practice continued.  Taking Canada was a bargaining chip, since the British were too busy with their Peninsular War to send troops to help Canada - or so they thought.

- The Americans, being a relatively new power on the world scale, desired a chance to flex their muscle to Britain in order to perish any ideas of further British involvement in their affairs.

- Madison was an arrogant idiot.

Also, someone mentioned that Canada took Detroit without a shot being fired, and gave it back under similar circumstances.  I also recall territory further west that was held until the end of the war by Canada (or technically, Indians loyal to the Crown).  And the American fort opposite Niagara was also still held by Canadian militia at the close of hostilities.

It stands that when British troops were suddenly available for use in Canada, and once the production of lake ships was well underway and financed at Kingston, the Americans were eager to end hostilies, as they realised they had bitten more than they could chew!


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (4 Sep 2002)

First of all, you assume that all Americans wanted to take Canada. This is the same as the assumption that the war was/is unpopular because we ‘lost.‘ In fact, the war was never popular in the US and was only pushed (and mostly supported) by Westerners who 1) did want land in Canada, and 2) were being harassed by British supported Indians operating out of Canada. The impressment of American sailors by British men-of-war was also a major contention, and really the only reason the government was able to get the Atlantic coast to go along. Whereas Canada was not taken, the Indians who had been a problem were broken, Tecumseh killed, and British impressment of American seamen ended. It should be noted that the reason given by the British as justification for impressing citizens of a soverign nation was that the United States were not a soverign nation and still possessions of the Crown. In that regard, the war was as much about the US defending its soverignty and proving its right to exsist as a free nation as territorial expansion. As the British never again tried to claim American sailors as subjects of the Crown, it can only be viewed on that front as an American victory. 
It should be remembered that Britian was America‘s largest trading partner, and a vast number of Americans were engaged in overseas trade. These people (mostly along the coast and in New England) clearly had more to lose than to gain from a war with Britain. They never wanted a war, and never really supported one when it happened. At the Hartford Confrence, delegates from the New England colonies seriously considered making a seperate peace with  Britain. This was not their war. This only goes to show how out of touch Madison‘s government was.
As for the performance of the American Army, in perticular the militia, here we see the results of the disasterous policies of Jefferson and Madison. Jefferson‘s idea of national defense was to rely on the patriotic fervor of the common citizen serving in the militia to carry the day. He and his followers were so scared ot the threat of a standing army to liberty as to never build any kind of professional force. Hence the abysmal performance of the American army as it had to learn the art of war on the battlefield. It should not be believed, however, that the war was simply a list of American defeats. The army did learn and by the latter campaigns, were standing toe-to-toe with the British regulars. At the Battle of Chippeway, US regulars under GEN‘s Brown and Scott drove the British from the field. COM Perry won a resounding victory on Lake Erie and COM MacDonough captured the British fleet on Lake Ontario thus thwarting the 1814 attempt on Plattsburg.
In any case, a careful reading of the campaigns in the north will show that neither side won an overwhelming victory and in fact both were fairly evenly matched.
As this post has already grown too long, I‘ll leave it at that for now. Just one other thing; where have I displayed the arrogance or "ugly Americanism" of which I have been accused?


----------



## Korus (4 Sep 2002)

*sgt.shmedly102*,

Keep in mind that when you keep on saying "Is that what they teach you up there?" that the problem may be what they are teaching you down there.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (4 Sep 2002)

Good point Korus, but like I‘ve said, it‘s really not taught here at all. In fact, in my high school history class, it was covered about as much as the quasi-war with France. Of course learning does not stop at graduation.


----------



## ArmyAl (4 Sep 2002)

To Jungle Veteran

Am I racist...... no, because I hate everybody, so how does that make me a racist?

Am I stupid..... well we all are in some shape or form.

Am I a disgrace to the Snr Nco corp...... nope!

I say what I think and I do what I say, I don‘t have to kiss people‘s A‘ss to make them happy, if they don‘t like it then oh well, it‘s my problem not yours.
I have a question for you, people that can‘t speak english, are they stupid?


----------



## ArmyAl (4 Sep 2002)

Jungle Vet

P.S.
I would be amazed to believe that you have never made a racist or derogatory remark in your life, ie f**king f*g
because if you haven‘t then your a‘ss must be so tight it could snap wire!


----------



## Korus (4 Sep 2002)

sgt.shmedly102, to be perfectly honest they also barely taught anything about the war of 1812 in my jr and sr high schools up here in Canada. It was briefly skimmed over, but not in any detail. I‘m not sure what other schools where like, though.


----------



## Coniar (5 Sep 2002)

Yes we Ive never heard it mentioned I just know about it from my own research and CBC documentarys that ive watched. But it is definitley signifigant to americans and Canadians...

Coniar


----------



## Linc (5 Sep 2002)

Actually, as a point of fact, the British ended their maritime acts long before the war broke out.  First of all, the Brits were grabbing sailors they believed were actually deserters from the Royal Navy, they were not just openly kidnapping Americans for the sake of it.

Second of all, when the British Prime Minister died, his successor ended Britian‘s maritime ‘hostilities‘, and payed reparations to the US for the "USS Chessapeke incident" in 1811, before the war even broke out, yet congress was already on the war path and would not take yes for an answer. 

 As was alread mentioned, the North American war was a distraction for the British, who were at the same time fighting their main threat, Napoleon, in Europe.  Once Napoleon was defeated, the Duke of Wellington shipped his remaining troops fresh from victory in Europe to North America, where they would have been able to march south unrivaled.

Finally, while the Yanks will forever claim that 1812 was a ‘moral‘ victory, for the simple fact that they were not annihlated and re-conquered (again this was never the aim of the Brits) it can not in any way be seen as an American military victory.


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (5 Sep 2002)

Good points Linc. I‘ll have to check when the Brits stopped kidnapping our sailors. Yes they  _claimed_  the seamen were British deserters, but how would one prove otherwise back them when most Americans were of British ancestory and probably still talked like Brits?

As far as the moral victory, we can claim that because after the war, our sovereignty was never again challanged. Yes we didn‘t kick the Brits ^ss or take Canada, but it was more analogous to standing up to the bully in the school yard. You don‘t actually have to beat him, just proving you can stand up for yourself is a win. And if you don‘t believe that, you need to spend more time in schoolyards.


----------



## Coniar (5 Sep 2002)

lol anyone else find it ironic an American is calling SOMEONE else the school yard bully???

Coniar


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (5 Sep 2002)

Hey now, we weren‘t always on top.


----------



## sgtdixon (5 Sep 2002)

Well its like this. if you can styand toe to toe with the bully good for you, but when he throws a burner, ie. burns your capital and takes detroit w/out a shot, and knocks you flat on you prverbial ^ss then its not really a victory Moral or otherwise. and to the others i had the privelage of aquiring some american curriculum guides and their gov‘t has to a large extent attempted to brainwash their students into the "US is the Police force of the world" mentality.
Dixon 55-22
out


----------



## Coniar (6 Sep 2002)

Well I just got back from the american recruiter chat, I was interested in what was going on over there and i had some questions like "are there any restictions for former Canadian citisens" and "Is dual citisenship allowed" as soon as I mentioned the words "Im Canadian" One of the recruiters booted me from the chat. Now if that isnt American ignorace I dont know what is. I had honest questions about enlisting, because my family may be moving to Seattle and I may be geting duel citisenship but after that little incident I think ill live mith my grandparents    Well Im a student and theres my view so technically im not of topic   

Coniar


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (6 Sep 2002)

???    ???
I knew there was a reason I hated recruiters. US citizenship is not a requirement for enlistment in the US Armed Forces. As an example, in my squad we have one soldier who is Cambodian (not a US citizen), one who is Canadian (I think he may have dual citizenship), and the other team leader just recently became naturalized meaning he served about four years as a Polish citizen. That was terribly unprofessional of the recruiter to kick you off, and he was nothing a moron anyway not to answer your questions.


----------



## Linc (6 Sep 2002)

To answer your question, to *enlist* in the US military, you must have a green card.  However, to be a commissioned officer, you must be a citizen.  

As for the dual citizenship, the US only allows Americans to acquire a secondary citizenship elsewhere, but does not allow foreign citizens (including Canadians) to acquire a secondary American citizenship.  In other words, the only way a non-American can get US citizenship is to renounce his home country and have his origional citizenship revoked.

Back to the main debate, while its true that British troops never again attacked US soil, they did continue to screw the US, fo example by training, arming, and supplying the rebel army during the American Civil War.  I suppose anytime you face a larger foe and are not annihlated you gain some points.  Egypt considers itself to have won the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1952 war, even though they were in full rout by war‘s end in both cases, because they had a ‘moral‘ victory that was ultimately to their benefit.  The ‘52 war made Britian, France, and Israel look bad and all parties were ‘forced‘ to withdraw under US and UN pressure, Egypt got to keep the canal.  In ‘73, the surprising speed and success of the initial Egyptian assault, although ultimately repelled (with a lot of American emergency aid), ultimately resulting in Israel returning the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in 1980.  However only arabs seem to consider these Egyptian successes, the rest of the outside world considers them to be defeats.


----------



## echo (12 Sep 2002)

in regarding my education of world war one and two from my grade 10 year. i have no complaints.my teacher tried to make the war come into more depth with our class by having us be ONE of the soldiers who went overseas."and no birds sang" and a few other books were required reading if you wanted to get your mark into the high ninties.
my teacher spent about a month on each war and covered a great deal on the battles,watching many a video,and taking a couple of trips downtown  and seeing where munitions plants used to be and how much has changed in the some 50-60 years since the last world war.

my two cents.


----------



## Harry (12 Sep 2002)

DON‘T even think about putting a spin on this comment, especially WRT where it was spoken and the audience.

I found it ironic that US Gen Meyers (?) made light of of the Sep 11 battle on Lake Champlain and how it was a US Victory ???  Well, how about that-play up one proverbial hill taking to the loss of a war.  That would be the same as rewriting the Viet Nam War as a string of Hill Victories and down playing the actual end result.

Battle of Plattsburgh - Lake Champlain 

We are neighbors at peace, brothers at arms, but we did beat them at their own game.  War.  The Yanks call it a stalemate.  Hmm, they invaded and never did seize any of Canada.

P.S.  For the Yanks amongst us, don‘t tell anyone but we can‘t defend ourselves right now.  SHHHH, Don‘t tell the 10th Mountain Div that no one stands between them and Alaska     

UBIQUE


----------



## boot (14 Dec 2004)

Hi 
I am new to this place. I have to do a school report on African Americans in WW1, and i would like to know were can i find out about blacks in WW1 and how they were treated differently through artillery, if they had different artillery than the whites. And if they did was it worse or the same. 

Thank you,
Chris


----------

