Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts

That's true: but there's a lot of hypocrisy and finger pointing while trying keep your (our) nation's history under wraps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For one thing we allowed the Americans to gain independence and look what that's resulted in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that is pretty stupid.

 

tell you one thing, i am from south of the border so my ancestors didnt escape britain,

 

get yer ass back here ophi.

 

Saying it was stupid, or allowing it to happen was stupid? Which?

 

allowing what to happen? they LEFT.

 

No, we were distracted by trouble in India and took the eye off the ball otherwise the thirteen states would have remained a colony. (Plus from a US perspective we didn't leave we were kicked out, only regaining our sense of composure when we burnt down the White House.)

Now I have income to generate, so I'm off.

 

I doubt that England could have held onto the U.S. much longer, given its wish to control the U.S.'s money supply, even if it had its undivided attention on the american rebellions.

Anyway, long after the U.S. had seceeded from England, England burnt down the White House because the U.S. was trying to 'liberate' or conquer Canada; since the royalists (the americans who didn't want to seceed from England) went to Canada and, perhaps most importantly, Canada preferred being an english colony to a U.S. one, we fought back fairly vigorously. England wasn't impressed either and decided to remind the U.S. that it wasn't all that powerful yet by sending in some troops to burn some american public buildings down. Here's Wikipedia's take:

Historians assert that the attack was in retaliation for the American looting of York, Upper Canada (now Toronto) after the Battle of York in 1813, and the burning down of the Parliament Buildings of Upper Canada. The British Army commanders said they chose to attack Washington "on account of the greater political effect likely to result,".[3] Governor-General Sir George Prevost of Canada wrote to the Admirals in Bermuda calling for a retaliation for the American sacking of York and requested their permission and support in the form [of a] provision of naval resources. At the time, it was considered against the civilized laws of war to burn a non-military facility and the Americans had not only burned the Parliament but also looted and burned private homes and warehouses. [4] Further proof of the retaliation was that after the limited British burning of some public facilities, the British left. There was no territory that they wanted to occupy and no military facility that they had planned to attack.​

Ofcourse, Canada -did- eventually seceed from England; it just didn't want to simply switch from being the colony of one country to being the colony of another. However, many Canadians did want independence from England, as Wikipedia makes clear in its article on the history of Canada:

In 1837, rebellions against the British colonial government took place in both Upper and Lower Canada. In Upper Canada, a band of Reformers under the leadership of William Lyon Mackenzie took up arms in a disorganized and ultimately unsuccessful series of small-scale skirmishes around Toronto, London, and Hamilton.

In Lower Canada, a more substantial rebellion occurred against British rule. Both English- and French-Canadian rebels, with some U.S. backing, fought several skirmishes against the authorities. The towns of Chambly and Sorel were taken by the rebels, and Quebec City was isolated from the rest of the colony. Montreal rebel leader Robert Nelson read a declaration of independence to a crowd at Napierville in 1838. Les Patriotes, however, were defeated after battles across Quebec. Hundreds were arrested, and several villages were burnt in reprisal.

A new Whig government sent Lord Durham to examine the situation, and his Durham Report strongly recommended responsible government. A less well received recommendation, however, was the amalgamation of Upper and Lower Canada in order to forcibly assimilate the French speaking population; The Canadas were merged into a single, quasi-federal colony, the United Province of Canada, with the Act of Union (1840).​

The rebellion stuff pretty much ended about there for the non native, english speaking part of Canada, because at that point, the British, with their idea of allowing us responsible government, were essentially giving the nod for us to run our own affairs. Ofcourse, Canada was still a bunch of separate colonies, something that finally changed in 1867:

On July 1, 1867, with the coming into force of the British North America Act (enacted by the British Parliament), the Province of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia became a federation, regarded as a kingdom in her own right.[7] John A. Macdonald had spoken of "founding a great British monarchy" and wanted the newly created country to be called the "Kingdom of Canada."[8] Although it had its monarch in London, the Colonial Office opposed as "premature" and "pretentious" the term "kingdom", as it was felt it might antagonize the United States. The term dominion was chosen to indicate Canada's status as a self-governing colony of the British Empire, the first time it was used in reference to a country.​

 

SAM, you also missed this one.

 

Sam I had added this 'Especially one that drew all into war (WW2) and affected them deeply?'
Meaning that the nazi holocaust was deeply wrapped in a personal history and this is why it is remembered more by those in Europe and the States. You don't expect a Dane or an American to have deep feelings about Indian starvation under the British do you? Because many don't and its not out of heartlessness.

 

Granted. But you'd expect the British to remember it at least, except that it was never recognised. Was it good or bad that it wasn't? Would it have changed anything? Has it changed anything now that a book was written about it? Should the Indians demand recognition? Some moolah maybe?

I think the whole idea of "recognition" is about staking claim for a reason and the reason is usually political or financial gain. The victims are rarely given any consideration. Which is why the curators of Holocaust museums make more money than the survivors of the holocaust.

 

This isn't the point Sam. We were discussing why the jewish holocause resonates among europeans and americans.

 

Yeah, because they pay for it. You always care more when money is involved.

When you invest in it, when you give to the cause.

 

What? No Sam they were involved in a world war where everyones personal lives were wrapped up in it, it lives in familiar memory. Money doesn't have anything to do with it, unless of course you think the a crisis in India or concerning Muslims are the only ones worthy of mention. Are you saying the genocide in germany was insignificant? What about all the others in Africa? What of that in Cambodia? We could be here all day creating a list.

 

Yeah, but you'd only find someone who pays for it, having an opinion on it.

Except for armchair philosophers that is.

 

And so? So what.

 

Ok, forget it :bugeye:

 

I'm pretty sure that's a pleonasm..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!