OT: Happy Canada Day!
daytripper
Great White North!
/daytripper (you guys "legalize it" yet, or what? ;-)
Tim Lysyk
Tim Lysyk
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a4h9e0p4ca176lo8d...@4ax.com...
daytripper
>
>"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:a4h9e0p4ca176lo8d...@4ax.com...
>> Celebratory greetings to our friends of the Canadian persuasion up der in
>The
>> Great White North!
>>
>> /daytripper (you guys "legalize it" yet, or what? ;-)
>
>Nope, but I did vote marijuana party in the last election.
>
>Tim Lysyk
That might explain the drubbing the Liberals took...
/daytripper ("Don't vote while stoned" ;-)
Kevin Vang
> Nope, but I did vote marijuana party in the last election.
>
And they might have won, if the pizza guy hadn't shown up
when the ballots were only half counted.
Kevin
Wayne Harrison
"Kevin Vang" <va...@misu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b4ea463d...@10.0.0.1...
hilarious; unconditionally.
yfitons
wayno
Peter Charles
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>Celebratory greetings to our friends of the Canadian persuasion up der in The
>Great White North!
>
ta, and a happy 4th to all you rebels, eh!
>/daytripper (you guys "legalize it" yet, or what? ;-)
apparently, the government issue tastes like shit and has no buzz --
we're workin' on it
Peter
turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html
Peter Charles
<x119u...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:15:24 -0400, Peter Charles
><minib...@mailhot.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>ta, and a happy 4th to all you rebels, eh!
>>
>>>/daytripper (you guys "legalize it" yet, or what? ;-)
>>
>>apparently, the government issue tastes like shit and has no buzz --
>>we're workin' on it
>
>
> Well, that's why we dumped it in the harbor....
LOL
w're too cheap for that -- we'll just find a new market for it . . . .
hey Tripper. need some grass? Good shit man! Cheap too . . .
Peter Charles
<x119u...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:15:24 -0400, Peter Charles
><minib...@mailhot.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>ta, and a happy 4th to all you rebels, eh!
>>
>>>/daytripper (you guys "legalize it" yet, or what? ;-)
>>
>>apparently, the government issue tastes like shit and has no buzz --
>>we're workin' on it
>
>
> Well, that's why we dumped it in the harbor....
btw, speaking of that harbour - - - I have two books for you to read
rw
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 20:07:06 -0400, Greg Pavlov
> <x119u...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:15:24 -0400, Peter Charles
>><minib...@mailhot.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ta, and a happy 4th to all you rebels, eh!
>>>
>>>
>>>>/daytripper (you guys "legalize it" yet, or what? ;-)
>>>
>>>apparently, the government issue tastes like shit and has no buzz --
>>>we're workin' on it
>>
>>
>>Well, that's why we dumped it in the harbor....
>
>
>
> btw, speaking of that harbour - - - I have two books for you to read
It wasn't the tea. It was the tax. More specifically, it was the
taxation without representation.
I don't know why they dressed up like Indians, but it's apparently true.
Whatever, it must have been a helluva party.
--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
Peter Charles
Sorry, it was none of the above -- but you'll have to read the books.
Hint -- the taxed tea was actually cheaper and everyone was drinking
it. In fact the untaxed tea was also taxed, but it was an excise tax
that was levied in England as the tea was transhipped to the colonies.
The "taxed" tea had no excise tax but was subject to the Tea Tax. A
fucking fine distinction at the time. When the Tea Party occurred,
public enthusiasim for the Whig cause was flagging. The "Sons of
Liberty" needed to stir up some shit and they indulged in their tea
party. The Bostonians were horrified and most would've happily strung
up the Tea Parti-ists but the British governement, in a fit of
stupidity, punished all Bostonians rather than the guilty Whigs, by
closing the harbour and levying other punishments. The rest is
history.
The whole shit was more about the Whigs being out of power and
therefore out of the revenue stream plus the Quebec and the Royal
Poclamation of 1763 fucking up the land speculation schemes that
Franklin, and many of the other Virginian Whig leading lights indulged
in. Up until those two "Intolerable Acts", dear old Ben Franklin was
a loyal subject of the crown. Nothing like taking a whack in the old
bank account to change one's allegiances.
The current Iraq war should've finally shown you that there are always
two sets of reasons for an aggressive war, the public propaganda
reason(s) and the real reason(s).
The original causes were a mix of pure financial self interest plus
the conflict between English, Protestant "rights and liberties" as
expressed in Whig philosophies and the corporate, inclusive, "British"
need for management of an empire that had previously grown without any
management. It was a conflict between "Protestant Englishness" and
corporate, inclusive "Britishness". As an example of this conflict,
the Quebec Act gave access land to Catholic Frenchmen in Quebec rather
than English Protestants in the Colonies. The Royal Proclamation
protected Indians from Protestant English exploitation. The British
coroporate view included Frenchmen, included Cathoilics, included
Indians, included freeing African slaves -- and these inclusions
infuriated the English Protestant Whigs in the colonies. It was
inevitable that "Britishness" would collide with "Englishness" and
that the 18th century concept of "colony" would colide with the
realities that the 13 colonies were no longer economically functioning
as colonies. This fact also coincided with a long period of Tory
Parliaments in Britain that made them resistant to Whig argument.
BTW, your current religious right is merely the 21st century extension
of these English Protestant Whigs.
Just as a teaser, reflect on the "liberty and tyranny" discourse at
the tiime and square that with the rising of the first Loyalist
militia regiment to oppose the rebels. This loyalist regiment came
from the frontier Ninety-Six district in North Carolina. The regiment
wasn't organized by the British, rather it's formation was an
internal, spontaneous reaction to the rebellion. Scottish Highlanders
formed a regiment and marched in support of Parliament (and into an
ambush as it turns out). These Highlanders were Catholics --
Jacobites -- men and women whose relatives had been butchered by a
combined English/Scots Protestant army at Colluden in 1746. These
were people who had fled Scotland after the battle in search of a
better life in the Americas. Some of them who had survived the
battle, served in this Loyalist regiment. If all the talk of "tyranny
and liberty" reflected reality rather than just the normal extremes of
18th century English political discourse, why on earth would these
Jacobities voluntarily and spontaneously support the cause of the
British parliament over that of the rebels?
While you're considering this question, why did all of the Indian
nations except for the Oneidas and the Catawbas support the British?
Why did African slaves flee to the British in the tens of thousands?
Why did the French Canadians turn their backs on the rebels when they
came knocking?
And finally, who were the "British" and who were the "Americans" and
who beat who?
rw
>>taxation without representation.
>
>
I know that. It's those pussy Canadian tories I'm after. :-)
Peter Charles
<x119u...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 20:35:21 -0400, Peter Charles
><minib...@mailhot.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>btw, speaking of that harbour - - - I have two books for you to read
>
>
> I hope they're no more than 400 pages each and
> that they have a lot of pictures...
Right on both counts but they both have the same title so it does get
confusing . . .
Jeff Miller
...and lots of those scots remain on the south side of grandfather
mountain. listened to one feller of about 85 call pj "honey"... might
explain some of your questions...<g>
jeff
Peter Charles wrote:
>
<complex history lessons and teasers snipped)
Peter Charles
<jl...@mindspring.com.valid> wrote:
>ever been to spanish town, above governor's harbor, in eleuthra?
>
Nope, never had the pleasure.
>...and lots of those scots remain on the south side of grandfather
>mountain. listened to one feller of about 85 call pj "honey"... might
>explain some of your questions...<g>
>
>jeff
>
Musta been a combination of pj's pony tail and the skirts those fellas
tend to wear. . . . that'll confuse any 85 year old.
Mark H. Bowen
MAN. He does Revolutionary War Rendevouzs (?), tears down and relocates
original log cabins, collects flintlock rifles and other arms of the period,
works with leather, and gosh knows what else. He calls other men honey all
the time. I guess it's a mountain thang?
Mark --oh yeah, he's quite married with two young'uns--
"Jeff Miller" <jl...@mindspring.com.valid> wrote in message
news:poSFc.21397$mN3.2641@lakeread06...
Peter Charles
<white...@bbubba.net> wrote:
>There's a fella in my shop, he is 50y.o., and considers himself a MOUNTIN
>MAN. He does Revolutionary War Rendevouzs (?), tears down and relocates
>original log cabins, collects flintlock rifles and other arms of the period,
>works with leather, and gosh knows what else. He calls other men honey all
>the time. I guess it's a mountain thang?
>
>Mark --oh yeah, he's quite married with two young'uns--
Must be lonely at times, up on the mountains. :)
It's interesting how the usage of such words enter the idiom.
Wayne Harrison
"Jeff Miller" <jl...@mindspring.com.valid> wrote in message
news:poSFc.21397$mN3.2641@lakeread06...
>
> ...and lots of those scots remain on the south side of grandfather
> mountain. listened to one feller of about 85 call pj "honey"... might
> explain some of your questions...<g>
my bet is that he never saw 86...
yfitp
wayno
Jeff Miller
Peter Charles wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:02:14 -0400, Jeff Miller
> <jl...@mindspring.com.valid> wrote:
>
>
>>ever been to spanish town, above governor's harbor, in eleuthra?
>>
>
>
> Nope, never had the pleasure.
it's a small island on the north end of eleuthra, originally settled by
tory loyalists from the carolinas. when i visited in the 70s, it was
still populated by whites. rumors of lots of in-breeding...
jeff
>
>
>
Willi
Peter Charles wrote:
> And finally, who were the "British" and who were the "Americans" and
> who beat who?
Is this what you were taught in school?
Willi
gol...@frii.com
daytripper
>
>Peter Charles wrote:
>
>
>> And finally, who were the "British" and who were the "Americans" and
>> who beat who?
>
>
>Is this what you were taught in school?
Not sure where you're leading you chin to, willi, but one thing I learned
quickly was not to challenge Peter on history...
/daytripper (Kick his ass flyfishing - sure! *Everyone* does that ;-)
Willi
daytripper wrote:
Not challenging him. I find it interesting how differently American
history is taught in other countries. I was just wondering if the things
he posed were the "accepted" view of American history as presented in
Canadian schools. I sure didn't get the stuff he posted presented to me
in grade school or high school (or even college for that matter.)
If I purposefully "lead with my chin" it's usually a "rope a dope" but
there are some heavy hitters around here so things don't always work out
as planned and then there those times when my writing says something
other than what I intended.
Willi
gol...@frii.com
rdean3...@flash.net
>
>And finally, who were the "British" and who were the "Americans" and
>who beat who?
Somebody got beat? I thought it was a negotiated settlement...
DO I WIN? DO I WIN?
TC,
R
rdean3...@flash.net
>Not challenging him. I find it interesting how differently American
>history is taught in other countries. I was just wondering if the things
>he posed were the "accepted" view of American history as presented in
>Canadian schools. I sure didn't get the stuff he posted presented to me
>in grade school or high school (or even college for that matter.)
>
>If I purposefully "lead with my chin" it's usually a "rope a dope" but
>there are some heavy hitters around here so things don't always work out
>as planned and then there those times when my writing says something
>other than what I intended.
>
>Willi
>gol...@frii.com
Hate to tell ya, Willi, but it isn't how history is taught in other
countries, it's how history ISN'T taught in the US. If you think the
"Revolutionary War" was about the inalienable, God-given rights of the
common man and all that other noble stuff, you probably believe the
Civil War occurred because ol' Honest Abe was so aghast and against the
poor blacks being slaves...
TC,
R
...funny thing - when I said about the same thing regarding "rights,"
causes, etc., a coupla-three years ago, I got jumped upon...
Jeff Miller
rdean3...@flash.net wrote:
> ...funny thing - when I said about the same thing regarding "rights,"
> causes, etc., a coupla-three years ago, I got jumped upon...
>
>
don't go gettin all sensitive on us, you just bounce better, aruh.
Peter Charles
None of this came from my schooling though my Anrthropology degrees
have sharpened my critical view of any historical/political/social
work.
The vast majority of my schooling took place in Canada and by the time
I was paying attention to history in school, Canada was firmly
entrenched in the American cultural orbit. As such, all of my
historical studies that touched on the Revolution or the War of 1812,
tended toward the American view. I can recall two snippets from
school texts on the Revolution that were obviously Hollywood
influenced: one castigated Burgoyne unfairly regarding his building a
road and marching his troops in formation down it, during his march to
defeat at Saratoga. The other concerning British unpreparedness at
Ticonderoga when Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys easily took
it. Both passages were sneeringly critical of the British position.
Burgoyne richly deserves a whole heap of criticism for his stupid
handling of that campaign but he wasn't guilty of trying to march his
troops in formation through the bush (the Hessian commander was
though). The tiny garrison at run-down Ticonderoga were so cut off
from things they barely aware of what was going on Boston so they were
totally taken by surprise. Hardly their fault. Yet my school texts
took the Hollywood propaganda version virtually verbatim and added
their own particularly little sneer as flavour. The authors had
obviously forgotten that Canada was on the other side in that war.
The vast majority of Canadians are so overwhelmed by the American Myth
that they have little concept of their own history. Today, our
schools barely teach any history from the Canadian perspective and
what little they do teach is so watered down, it's nearly worthless.
The average Canadian school kid knows far more about the Hollywood
version of U.S. history and government than he/she does of their own.
A few years back, one of my then ready-to-leave high school aged kids
referred to our Prime Minister as "President Chretien". Could you
imagine a 17 or 18 year old American kid making an equivalent error?
My personal moment of historical revelation took place while watching
the Saturday morning cartoons when I was around 12 or 13. I had been
a faithful watcher of these cartoons plus shows like Daniel Boone and
Walt Disney. I accepted their presentation of the Revolution and
history as fact. That Saturday morning I watch a historical vignette
in cartoon form on the Revolution, presented as a commercial. Though
my historical knowledge was typically thin for a kid my age, I knew
for a fact that this vignette was total bullshit. It was my first
awareness of propaganda and the indoctrination of children (though I
wouldn't have used those words) and it set me on a path to do my best
to see through the propaganda, whoever presents it. While the
American Revolution is a very rich field for the myth buster but I
don't limit myself to it.
I have believed for decades that the American Myth both helps and
hurts America. On the one hand, it's a tremendous unifying and
motivating force. By appeals to "patriotism" and "freedom", Americans
can be rallied to a worthwhile cause. The Myth provides for
tremendous national self-confidence that translates into all sorts of
great accomplishments -- moon landings for instance.
OTOH, it cuts Americans off from alternatives and leaves them ignorant
of solutions beyond the context of the Myth. I've listened to many
U.S. politcal debates and I've always been struck by how the Myth
always confines the participants to a narrow range of argument and
possibility. It's also scary how the Myth can be used to motivate the
country into the situation like the current mess in Iraq.
Canada OTOH has never had much of an opportunity to build a Noble Myth
for itself. By the end of WWII and with the beginning of the fifties,
Canada was leaving the British culural orbit just as the British were
busily getting started at hacking down their mythology. Given the
almost total control of our entertainment media by American companies,
there was no mechanism or opportunity by which a Canadian Myth could
emerge from the wreckage of the dying British one. Today, we're way
too far down the post-modern path to ever attempt to create one now,
even if we were somehow magically able to regain some semblence of
control over our entertainment media.
If you want to indulge in some interesting perspectives on the
Revolution I'd suggest three books.
"Rebels & Redcoats: The American Revolution Through the Eys of Those
Who Fought and Lived It " by George F. Scheer and Hugh F. Rankin.
This books is a classic myth builder -- while historically faithful,
it makes no attempt to challenge or question any aspect of the Myth.
Rather, it builds the sense of a noble national purpose and Myth
through a doting husbandry of the facts. For example, it contains a
decent passage on the Highlanders I wrote about previouly but never
once mentions that they are Jacobites. By leaving this tidbit out of
an otherwise accurate portrayal, the reader is never tempted into
wondering why Jacobities would support Parliament and the Crown, and
in the process, expose the Myth to the risk of erosion..
My myth busting quest has been a tough one as, until now, I have never
found a historical work devoted to it. I've always had to content
myself with picking little nuggets of evidence where I could find
them, but "Rebels & Redcoats: The American Revolutionary War" by Hugh
Bicheno has done it all for me. Bicheno solidly sets up his works as
dedicated to the ripping down of America's "Foundation Myth".
I recommend reading R&R by Scheer & Rankin before tackling R&R by
Bicheno. Scheer and Rankin have spun this wonderfully noble, positive
book where even the British villians are portrayed as noble, likeable
but slightly misguided fellows. OTOH, Bicheno not only savages the
American Myth, he also savages the British political and military
leadership of the time. They're savaged not only at a professional
level but on a personal one as well. While S&R spin this wonderful,
warming tale of nation building through noble war, Bicheno rips it all
to shreds, and in doing so, he lays out the baring of a national
psyche that leads the reader all the way to Baghdad.
The last book is "The Loyalists: Revolution, Exile, Settlement" by
Christopher Moore. This books details the story of the forgotten
Americans, those that sided with Parliament and the Crown. While not
as graphic as Bicheno's portayal of the various massacres of
Loyalists, it does give the reader some sense of what it was like to
try and survive the war as a Loyalist.
Peter Charles
>
>>
>>And finally, who were the "British" and who were the "Americans" and
>>who beat who?
>
>Somebody got beat? I thought it was a negotiated settlement...
>
>DO I WIN? DO I WIN?
>
AWWW, JEEZ, and you were so close too. Wanna consolation nickle? I
here Wolfie has loads. :)))
rdean3...@flash.net
<minib...@mailhot.com> wrote:
>A few years back, one of my then ready-to-leave high school aged kids
>referred to our Prime Minister as "President Chretien". Could you
>imagine a 17 or 18 year old American kid making an equivalent error?
Er, well, yeah...if you could find one of the 6 17 or 18 year old
American kids who a) knew the term "Prime Minister" (well, unless Puff
Diddley Dee or whatever has changed names again), b) knew of Chretien,
and c) the real killer, had the foggiest notion of how to pronounce
"Chretien"...now, see, if you guys had a couple of Princes (no, not the
artist formerly known as...) running around trying to boink American
pop-tarts, at least the girls (and a few of the, er, boys) would know
SOMETHING about Canadian government...<G>...
TC,
R
PS - is the email legit (other than the reversal of the domain name)?
Peter Charles
Ya, we've always been short on Princes . . .
>TC,
>R
>
>PS - is the email legit (other than the reversal of the domain name)?
Yup
Conan The Librarian
> [snip of interesting stuff]
>
> I have believed for decades that the American Myth both helps and
> hurts America. On the one hand, it's a tremendous unifying and
> motivating force. By appeals to "patriotism" and "freedom", Americans
> can be rallied to a worthwhile cause. The Myth provides for
> tremendous national self-confidence that translates into all sorts of
> great accomplishments -- moon landings for instance.
>
> OTOH, it cuts Americans off from alternatives and leaves them ignorant
> of solutions beyond the context of the Myth. I've listened to many
> U.S. politcal debates and I've always been struck by how the Myth
> always confines the participants to a narrow range of argument and
> possibility. It's also scary how the Myth can be used to motivate the
> country into the situation like the current mess in Iraq.
Bingo. If nothing else, the myth is always available as a fallback
position, and Dubya certainly hasn't hesitated to use it. (Can't seem
to find any WMD's? No matter, we're there to set the Iraqi people
free. People don't buy the 9/11 connection? No biggie, we're
bringing democracy to the Iraqis. And of course anyone who does
question our involvement is unpatriotic and doesn't support our
troops.)
It's also how someone like Reagan thrived in the presidency. No
president in my lifetime got more mileage out of the myth and all its
trappings. (Just think of "morning in America".)
> Canada OTOH has never had much of an opportunity to build a Noble Myth
> for itself. By the end of WWII and with the beginning of the fifties,
> Canada was leaving the British culural orbit just as the British were
> busily getting started at hacking down their mythology.
One of the first things that struck me as I learned more about
Canuckistani culture was the lingering fascination with matters of the
Crown. It's as if y'all don't really want to make a complete break
with Mum England.
> Given the
> almost total control of our entertainment media by American companies,
> there was no mechanism or opportunity by which a Canadian Myth could
> emerge from the wreckage of the dying British one. Today, we're way
> too far down the post-modern path to ever attempt to create one now,
> even if we were somehow magically able to regain some semblence of
> control over our entertainment media.
Ah, but you do have your own national myth. You appeal to
politeness ... and hockey ... not necessarily in that order.
Chuck Vance (sorry, I couldn't resist)
daytripper
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:20:42 GMT, daytripper
><day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Not sure where you're leading you chin to, willi,
>>but one thing I learned
>>quickly was not to challenge Peter on history...
>
>
> Yeah, this guy's fought the revolution more
> times than any other man dead or alive... :-)
I think it's cuz he didn't like the original ending.... ;-)
Peter Charles
<x119u...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:20:42 GMT, daytripper
><day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Not sure where you're leading you chin to, willi,
>>but one thing I learned
>>quickly was not to challenge Peter on history...
>
>
> Yeah, this guy's fought the revolution more
> times than any other man dead or alive... :-)
Hey, lookit, I've spent the last two weeks of gorgeous fishing weather
laying patios, laying walkways, gardening, painting decks, doing
plumbing, washing windows, trimming shrubs, repairing lawns,
inspecting floors, etc. etc. so forgive me if I need a little war to
work off some agro.
And BTW, those damn Bostonians live the friggin' thing every second of
every minute of every day of every year since 1775. I only live it in
response to smart arse comments on ROFF. :)
Peter Charles
Hell, if Hollywood gets to rewrite every historical ending it doesn't
like . . . .
Willi
Peter Charles wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 07:24:22 -0600, Willi <gol...@frii.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>And finally, who were the "British" and who were the "Americans" and
>>>who beat who?
>>
>>
>>Is this what you were taught in school?
>>
>>Willi
>>gol...@frii.com
>>
>>
>>
>
> None of this came from my schooling though my Anrthropology degrees
> have sharpened my critical view of any historical/political/social
> work.
Thanks for the detailed, insightful answer.
I take it from your answer you've seen Canadian culture become more
and more "Americanized" in your lifetime? Does this also apply to the
way your government is being run? I still see your government being run
with more of the concept of "for the good for the people" in mind than
in the US.
Willi
gol...@frii.com
Peter Charles
>
>I take it from your answer you've seen Canadian culture become more
>and more "Americanized" in your lifetime?
Yes, most definitely. The usual icons of Canadian culture have
virutally disappeared and most Canadians today, especially the youth,
are unable to distinguish or identify any Canadian historical or
cultural component worthy of note. What little of our media that is
still Canadian owned, has been complicit in this erosion of Canadian
values. Apparently, ratings are more important than patriotism in
Canada.
>Does this also apply to the
>way your government is being run?
About eight years ago, we elected a Progressive Conservative
government in Ontario that was neither progressive nor conservative.
It was a classic neo-con, modern American Republican style government
with the usual unpleasant consequences (big deficits, tax cuts for big
corporations and the rich, neutered environmental laws, neutered
labour laws, wrecked health care and education systems, deregulation
with the attendant chaos and high prices, etc.) Recently, we nearly
had the same sort of party elected federally. Classic Canadian
conservatism no longer exists in the Canadian political arena. I had
to hold my nose, take some Gravol, and vote Liberal this time.
> I still see your government being run
>with more of the concept of "for the good for the people" in mind than
>in the US.
>
As long as we keep the new, Republican style right out of power, that
will remain true -- but for how long, who knows. The spreading
popularity of the American right in Canadian politics is just one more
example of the success of the Myth.
Jeff Miller
Peter Charles wrote:
>
> Hey, lookit, I've spent the last two weeks of gorgeous fishing weather
> laying patios, laying walkways, ... trimming shrubs,
damn... i knew those long winters had to be tough, but...
jeff (who'll take a good ol us of a lay anyday...)
rw
>
> As long as we keep the new, Republican style right out of power, that
> will remain true -- but for how long, who knows. The spreading
> popularity of the American right in Canadian politics is just one more
> example of the success of the Myth.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that it's OUR fault that
Canadian politics devolving into right-wing lunacy? Believe me, Peter,
plenty of people in the US are feeling the same pain, but we don't blame
it on Canada.
The most unattractive part of Canada's otherwise admirable culture, IMO,
is its relentless victimhood.
--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
Peter Charles
No you have it wrong, I don't *blame* the US for the descent of our
conservative movement into the bowels of the neo-con movment. I was
explaining process not assigning blame. We're big boys and if we
allow our Conservative party to by hijacked by these mindless
ideologues, then that's *our* fault.
William Claspy
Before your exceptional posts on this topic appeared, the book "The American
Revolution" by Gordon Wood made it to the top of my "to read" pile. Can you
comment on it?
Bill
Peter Charles
Bill, I haven't read that one yet -- I'll look it up.
William Claspy
"Peter Charles" <minib...@mailhot.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:12:04 -0400, William Claspy
> <NOwp...@cwru.edu> wrote:
>
>> Peter-
>>
>> Before your exceptional posts on this topic appeared, the book "The American
>> Revolution" by Gordon Wood made it to the top of my "to read" pile. Can you
>> comment on it?
>>
>> Bill
>
>
> Bill, I haven't read that one yet -- I'll look it up.
Wood won the Pulitzer in 1993 for "The Radicalism of the American
Revolution." He is on the faculty at Brown. The above mentioned book is a
tight (on the order of 200 pages) overview that, by many accounts, is an
excellent summary for a non-specialist. Such as myself :-) Since I "know"
a specialist (er, you!) I thought I'd get his (er, your!) opinion. If you
can recommend a similar quality overview of the topic, that would be fine as
well.
From the stacks,
Bill
Peter Charles
<NOwp...@cwru.edu> wrote:
>On 7/7/04 9:27 AM, in article kgune0pr69d3c51ka...@4ax.com,
>"Peter Charles" <minib...@mailhot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:12:04 -0400, William Claspy
>> <NOwp...@cwru.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter-
>>>
>>> Before your exceptional posts on this topic appeared, the book "The American
>>> Revolution" by Gordon Wood made it to the top of my "to read" pile. Can you
>>> comment on it?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>
>> Bill, I haven't read that one yet -- I'll look it up.
>
>Wood won the Pulitzer in 1993 for "The Radicalism of the American
>Revolution." He is on the faculty at Brown. The above mentioned book is a
>tight (on the order of 200 pages) overview that, by many accounts, is an
>excellent summary for a non-specialist. Such as myself :-) Since I "know"
>a specialist (er, you!) I thought I'd get his (er, your!) opinion. If you
>can recommend a similar quality overview of the topic, that would be fine as
>well.
>
>From the stacks,
>Bill
I'll have to check out Wood's books. BTW, I'm no specialist, I just
enjoy the subject.
The American Revolution by Bruce Lancaster is a very conventional
overview that is not in the least controversial. Unlike R&R by Scheer
and Rankin, Lancaster mercifully doesn't indulge in all of the "look
how noble we are" sort of crap -- it's a straightforward but not
particularly revealing book. It does have some bits of juicy gossip
to liven it up and it does go into a bit of detail on the
screwing-over some of the scummier politicians in London, were giving
the colonies. Like most works of it's type, the Loyalists weren't
given much of a mention. Given that by the 1780's many if not most of
the British Army regiments were made up of Americans, including a unit
of Continental Army deserters (which, embarressingly for Washington,
were scooped up with Cornwallis at Yorktown) this omission is
indefensible.
What I'd really like to find is a book that covers the political
dog-fighting that went on between the French & Indian wars and 1775.
Britain had a just reason for wanting the colonies to pay their way
and the colonies had a just reason to ensure that they were adequately
represented. It should've been no problem, just a matter of
reasonable negotiation. But with demagogues, radicals,
double-dealing, and corruption on both sides, reasonable negotiation
never stood much of a chance.
The actions and impositions of Parliament plus the vigourous and
justfied reaction of the colonies have received a helluva lot of ink
over the centuries but the supporters of the colonies in Parliament
and the corrupt, self-serving antics of some of the colonial
demagogues (now historical saints in the US), have seen little
coverage. It would be nice to find a balanced book that covered all
these aspects with due weight given to all sides.