Things Canadian.

@HLD DMR and @Sam The Bam

looking at your discussion on the pot thread, there is another good one if your interested. A small town near me called Caledonia has had the main through highway cut off for nearly 18 months over a land dispute. This has happened before and the town was / is essentially held hostage. I don’t understand what possible reason the OPP find to let the situation continue but there it is. Grand River land dispute - Wikipedia
I am quite familiar with the situation there, and have had discussions with an OPP inspector about it. He was quite frank about it, they know it would end in another armed standoff as the natives are well tooled up but unlike Oka, are keeping weapons out of sight.

Edit: I remember the first time l went up on the Bruce peninsula and having to stop at a checkpoint set up by natives and pay a toll, wasn't impressed, but was in no position to argue.
 
Last edited:
That is pretty funny. :p:p Who is Mike Parry?
According to the Internet he's an English journalist and radio presenter. He's got nothing to do with Canada other than apparently someone gave him a t-shirt with the Canadian flag on it. I've no complaints about the video being in this thread but I'm sure it's a lot funnier for people who have some idea who he is.
 
A really interesting video by an American Havard professer about the American Loyalists in the American Revolution. Who they were, there reasons for being loyalists and what happened to them. Obviously as is well known most went to Canada although others went to the West Indies and the Bahamas.

She gives three examples of American Loyalists, a white women, the Mohawk leader Joseph Brandt and a slave who was granted freedom if he fought for the British. Britain comes out of it quite well according to her in the way it treated the Loyalists after the war.

 
"The COOLEST history professor who just happens to be studying the American War for Independence? Doesn't sound good. What kind of agenda is she championing?
 
A really interesting video by an American Havard professer about the American Loyalists in the American Revolution. Who they were, there reasons for being loyalists and what happened to them. Obviously as is well known most went to Canada although others went to the West Indies and the Bahamas.

She gives three examples of American Loyalists, a white women, the Mohawk leader Joseph Brandt and a slave who was granted freedom if he fought for the British. Britain comes out of it quite well according to her in the way it treated the Loyalists after the war.

Considering how the French treated their loyalists after the British took Canada we were paragons of virtue.

The French wanted to leave its citizens there to rot as they had 'Lost New World' and such failures' would never be allowed home. The pope intervened because it was an offence to God to leave Catholics at the tender mercy of protestants so they were shipped off south and dumped in French Guiana to populate a colony no one in their right minds would emigrate to, and the majority died of disease and starvation.
 
A really interesting video by an American Havard professer about the American Loyalists in the American Revolution. Who they were, there reasons for being loyalists and what happened to them. Obviously as is well known most went to Canada although others went to the West Indies and the Bahamas.

She gives three examples of American Loyalists, a white women, the Mohawk leader Joseph Brandt and a slave who was granted freedom if he fought for the British. Britain comes out of it quite well according to her in the way it treated the Loyalists after the war.

I've just finished listening to it, and it seems like a fairly balanced presentation overall. If you are listening to the first part where she mentions several examples of Loyalists and wonder why she picked them out as representative, it becomes clear at the end when she describes a contemporary painting (a portrait of the head of the Loyalist Claims Commission) and shows how they fit into the portrait's background there. I thought it was a rather effective if unexpected way of tying together the beginning of the presentation and the end.

I think the talk could have been more effective if she had mentioned the longer term story as well as the consequences of the spread of the Loyalist diaspora.

One obvious example is that although she mentions Joseph Brant, she doesn't mention that he is considered to be a significant historical figure in Canada and has a city named after him (Brantford, south west of Toronto).

She mentions that some of the black loyalists went off to Sierra Leone, but doesn't mention that significant numbers remained in Canada and as they were members of the militia (as were all settlers) their existence formed part of the continuing grievances the new US had with British North America (oh noes! they is arming black people with guns!).

She mentions the Loyalists going to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (the latter by the way being split off from Nova Scotia as a separate colony after the large influx of Loyalists) but makes little mention of them in Canada (what is now Ontario and Quebec). This latter however was to be hugely significant for the US in the coming War of 1812 as well as for British North America in general. Loyalists were the founding settlers of Upper Canada (now Ontario) and their point of view was to dominate the political life there for the next century, as well as for the combined post-confederation direction of BNA. The fact that the Loyalists had so recently been made refugees from the revolutionary USA meant that when the Americans attempted to invade Canada they found the population hostile to them whereas they had expected to be welcomed with open arms. This played no small part in their defeat there.

In general she seems a bit confused about what Canada was at the time and its relationship with the rest of British North America. Perhaps she simply doesn't know or perhaps she thought it would be too difficult to explain it to an American audience in the time she had available.

I also think that she makes too much of the notion that future governance of other British colonies and the expansion of the British Empire was influenced by the successful American revolt. I have to question that as I'm not aware of significant changes in government in other British colonies which were caused by that, as opposed to being driven by other local events. My own impression is that the British fairly quickly put the loss of their American colonies behind them and moved on to bigger and better things, although that was mostly by accident rather than due to any great plan.

Overall she seems reasonably knowledgeable of the Loyalists when they were within what was to become the US, but when she talks about what happened to them after they left she appears to be less well informed.

Overall, I think it's worth listening to provided you keep the above caveats in mind.
 
They tend to get upset these days if slighted, if you lived here you’d have them setting up a teepee in your front garden and threatening to burn your house down for equating them with the white devils.....
That's a plan...
 
They tend to get upset these days if slighted, if you lived here you’d have them setting up a teepee in your front garden and threatening to burn your house down for equating them with the white devils.....

Just give them some shiny beads and fire water to go away.
 
I've just finished listening to it, and it seems like a fairly balanced presentation overall. If you are listening to the first part where she mentions several examples of Loyalists and wonder why she picked them out as representative, it becomes clear at the end when she describes a contemporary painting (a portrait of the head of the Loyalist Claims Commission) and shows how they fit into the portrait's background there. I thought it was a rather effective if unexpected way of tying together the beginning of the presentation and the end.

I think the talk could have been more effective if she had mentioned the longer term story as well as the consequences of the spread of the Loyalist diaspora.

One obvious example is that although she mentions Joseph Brant, she doesn't mention that he is considered to be a significant historical figure in Canada and has a city named after him (Brantford, south west of Toronto).

She mentions that some of the black loyalists went off to Sierra Leone, but doesn't mention that significant numbers remained in Canada and as they were members of the militia (as were all settlers) their existence formed part of the continuing grievances the new US had with British North America (oh noes! they is arming black people with guns!).

She mentions the Loyalists going to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (the latter by the way being split off from Nova Scotia as a separate colony after the large influx of Loyalists) but makes little mention of them in Canada (what is now Ontario and Quebec). This latter however was to be hugely significant for the US in the coming War of 1812 as well as for British North America in general. Loyalists were the founding settlers of Upper Canada (now Ontario) and their point of view was to dominate the political life there for the next century, as well as for the combined post-confederation direction of BNA. The fact that the Loyalists had so recently been made refugees from the revolutionary USA meant that when the Americans attempted to invade Canada they found the population hostile to them whereas they had expected to be welcomed with open arms. This played no small part in their defeat there.

In general she seems a bit confused about what Canada was at the time and its relationship with the rest of British North America. Perhaps she simply doesn't know or perhaps she thought it would be too difficult to explain it to an American audience in the time she had available.

I also think that she makes too much of the notion that future governance of other British colonies and the expansion of the British Empire was influenced by the successful American revolt. I have to question that as I'm not aware of significant changes in government in other British colonies which were caused by that, as opposed to being driven by other local events. My own impression is that the British fairly quickly put the loss of their American colonies behind them and moved on to bigger and better things, although that was mostly by accident rather than due to any great plan.

Overall she seems reasonably knowledgeable of the Loyalists when they were within what was to become the US, but when she talks about what happened to them after they left she appears to be less well informed.

Overall, I think it's worth listening to provided you keep the above caveats in mind.
This video is more in depth and was to a Canadian audience 11 years ago. I thought she was very fair minded bearing in mind the anti colonial retoric in Universities in both North America and the UK. Her heritage is that she has an American father and Indian mother (from India, not first nation).

 
How can a Native American be a colonial?
I'd say that the Iroquois who migrated north from the 13 colonies after 1783 and settled in the Haldimand Tract along the Grand River can be as justifiably called colonialists as the United Empire Loyalists.
 
Top