1983747t903

EdThomas wrote:Wyrm, do you say "eh" a lot.

I'm English, so no. However, I've got family who emigrated to Ontario, so I've picked up a bit of the local history.

n7axw wrote:What he did get right, though, was that in large part Eire's neutrality in WW2 was indeed due to the memory of British occupation being pretty raw. Valera, in particular, hated the British.

I think that is best summed up by the fact that de Valera congratulated Subhas Chandra Bose when he set up the Japanese puppet Azad Hind (Free India), and offered his condolences to the German embassy in Dublin on the death of Hitler, but failed to congratulate de Gaulle on setting up the Free French, and failed to offer the US embassy his condolences upon the death of Roosevelt.

wyrm wrote:

n7axw wrote:What he did get right, though, was that in large part Eire's neutrality in WW2 was indeed due to the memory of British occupation being pretty raw. Valera, in particular, hated the British.

I think that is best summed up by the fact that de Valera congratulated Subhas Chandra Bose when he set up the Japanese puppet Azad Hind (Free India), and offered his condolences to the German embassy in Dublin on the death of Hitler, but failed to congratulate de Gaulle on setting up the Free French, and failed to offer the US embassy his condolences upon the death of Roosevelt.

All understandable, I think. I've heard him accused of being a Nazi symp. But that really wasn't it at all. He saw the entire world through the lens of the British-Irish conflict. That was what was real to the man.

Don

That's probably because there wasn't one. The Yanks [and in this case, I'm using the term fairly accurately, the South wasn't all that interested in the War of 1812] seem to have expected a Francophone revolt, although why, when they'd been shown the door in very short order in 1777, escapes me. They didn't get one, and were frogmarched back over the border yet again.

There was a rebellion in Lower Canada in 1837, but it was accompanied by one in _Upper_ Canada as well, and the result was what should have happened in response to the unrest of 1773-5: responsible government and a fair bit of autonomy. Unfortunately, as the history of Ireland shows, it wasn't because they'd learned any lessons from the American revolt. It happens that the UK was in the first throws of the reforms that culminated a century later with universal suffrage, and the radicals running things at the time saw no reason not to apply the model they followed overseas. IIRC, that's actually what happened after the conquest of Quebec in 1760 - the initial policy was set by a rather radical government that had fallen and been replaced by North and his idiots. It didn't occur to them to reverse the decisions made WRT Quebec, but they weren't brooking any hint of challenge to their authority from the colonies. Reminds me rather forcefully of Trynair and Clyntahn, now that I think about it.

EdThomas wrote:

wyrm wrote:In many ways, I would suggest that the treatment of Corisande is more like the treatment of Lower Canada by the British. Recognising the differences, and handling them with kid gloves.

Wyrm, do you say "eh" a lot. Google and Wikipedia told me some on Lower and Upper Canada. Like most amurricans, my knowledge of Canadian history is virtually non-existent. Our history of the war of 1812 gives short shrift to the invasion of Canada and (assuming the US history taught in NY in the 60's is pretty much the same for all US kids, even today) makes no mention of a related rebellion in Lower Canada.
Question for folks who live or lived in states bordering Canada, did you learn anything on Canadian history in high school?