Star-spangled banner - an English view

[CDNBear]

Thank you, I actually looked for a counter point to your conclusion that comparing Canadians to the Irish under British command being, not quite on par, to some extent I agree.

To answer the question you posted in the OP,,,

I have always taken the Star Spangled Banner as a truly patriotic song. As much as its refference is dated, it is passionate and moving, well to me at least. I have always wished that our National hymn, was a lil bolder then it is, but it is still as beautiful.

See what 3 days away from a fight can do? I say we try this in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to see what happens.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Ah, that old chesnut...

The Indians and Irish are different to the Canadians, they must be. If the irish or Indians (or whatever nation encompassed the british empire then) wanted freedom from Britain, they had a bloody hard time getting it (that is of course if they felt like that to begin with).

But one would suggest Canada (or British North America) was different. If a Canadian wanted nothing to do with Britain, continue to call themselves Canadian and withold their liberty, all they need do is go "down south", but like my Father's (on his mother's side) ancestors (Charles Franklin and the pro-British Franklin's) were in Canada BECAUSE they wanted to stay British.

Canadians weren't shakled by the British Empire, but more than often embrased it. Ok, I know about the Family Compact, but that had little to do with "being British". And Mackenzie's lot should have remembered it was indeed their Scottish ancestory that forced the union that created Great Britain in the first place.

 

[CDNBear]

thanx for putting me on the spot, lol.

By "take exception", what exactly do you mean?

Speaking for myself and most of my family, except those that are members or the Mohawk Warrior Society, we have considered ourselves "uniquely Canadian for as long as I can remember. The originating word actually comes from our language. Ka na ata, or village. If you look closely at my avatar, on the right side, you will see my Cousin Wayne's flag, that flew at Oka, during the "Crisis", lol.

Now this is only an assumption, but I would have to say the civilian population, being "Loyalists" were by-in-large "British". Excluding the French and Native population. And therefore saw themselves as British subjects.

The Natives of the time who had allied themselves to the English, saw the English as "visitors" and not seen themselves as subjects without coersion. Those that were allies, were treated well, and those that had allied themselves to the French, were not. So even then there could have been division. As in the Six Nations, the Mohawk, broke the sacred pot and allied themselves to the French. Where as the rest, allied themselves to the English.

I can not say for certain, but if what is indicative of the many Nations of today and how they see themselves, I would have to say they only saw themselves as the Nations they were before English rule. With the exception of those that accepted a British label, as a way to gain favour.

I guess it is safe to say, much like the Irish, some did and some didn't.

 

[I think not]

thanx for putting me on the spot, lol.

By "take exception", what exactly do you mean?

Speaking for myself and most of my family, except those that are members or the Mohawk Warrior Society, we have considered ourselves "uniquely Canadian for as long as I can remember. The originating word actually comes from our language. Ka na ata, or village. If you look closely at my avatar, on the right side, you will see my Cousin Wayne's flag, that flew at Oka, during the "Crisis", lol.

Now this is only an assumption, but I would have to say the civilian population, being "Loyalists" were by-in-large "British". Excluding the French and Native population. And therefore saw themselves as British subjects.

The Natives of the time who had allied themselves to the English, saw the English as "visitors" and not seen themselves as subjects without coersion. Those that were allies, were treated well, and those that had allied themselves to the French, were not. So even then there could have been division. As in the Six Nations, the Mohawk, broke the sacred pot and allied themselves to the French. Where as the rest, allied themselves to the English.

I can not say for certain, but if what is indicative of the many Nations of today and how they see themselves, I would have to say they only saw themselves as the Nations they were before English rule. With the exception of those that accepted a British label, as a way to gain favour.

I guess it is safe to say, much like the Irish, some did and some didn't.

Sorry I put you on the spot, that wasn't my intent, apologies.

I take exception to the Native Peoples because they are a nation. You can raise any flag you want over Canada, the First Nations will always be identified by their respective nation. Same in the US.

The reason I ask. Down South we always refer to the inhabitants of the US prior to 1776 as colonials or British Subjects (rarely, mostly colonials, although they were British Subjects) hence the colonial army. So I wanted your take on it.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

I know little of the plight of the native American people in Canada. I do know however from first hand the treatment of thoese tribes in the United States, would you suggest CDNBear that the treatment of those above the parallel was any worse than those below them?.

I know most tribes "hedged their bets" and tended to side with the British against the US, for which they have never been truely forgiven. People I've spoken to would suggest this was naivety, would you say this naivety streched so far as to suggest they expected them to leave?.

That shocks me, it really does.

 

[I think not]

Canadians weren't shakled by the British Empire, but more than often embrased it. Ok, I know about the Family Compact, but that had little to do with "being British". And Mackenzie's lot should have remembered it was indeed their Scottish ancestory that forced the union that created Great Britain in the first place.

Are you excluding the French in the "embracement" statement? The First Nations? A series of rebellions squashed by the mighty British Empire? Daz, when you fillup a country with British immigrants, of course they will embrace it!

 

[CDNBear]

ok, i need a nap, im tired,

I deleted this post, cause ITN, is faster then a speeding Bear, lol.

 

[CDNBear]

I know little of the plight of the native American people in Canada. I do know however from first hand the treatment of thoese tribes in the United States, would you suggest CDNBear that the treatment of those above the parallel was any worse than those below them?.

I know most tribes "hedged their bets" and tended to side with the British against the US, for which they have never been truely forgiven. People I've spoken to would suggest this was naivety, would you say this naivety streched so far as to suggest they expected them to leave?.

That shocks me, it really does.

Oh absolutely, the British were much less aggressive with the "quelling" of the Natives. That did change in years to come, and they were never fully accepted as members of "society", but heading north of the 49th, was the safest bet.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Are you excluding the French in the "embracement" statement? The First Nations? A series of rebellions squashed by the mighty British Empire? Daz, when you fillup a country with British immigrants, of course they will embrace it!

Indeed, war was war ITN, you know this, and territorial gains were a factor in the wars, as a US citizen, you know the colonies played their part in fighting the french and the French in Canada were (for use of a better term) an extension of this, and to this point, would you consider the land gained from france in the US now American?.

The first nations, as I've suggested, well, they were casualties of something completly out of their hands, and should not, in my opinion be considered under my "embracing" line.....the natives took their sides, and on some level, because of this you could consider them "British".

I just feel it's up to who you throw your hat in with, of course their are external variables which need to be taken into account, but I think thats beyound the scope of my ramblings.

 

[Colpy]

By "take exception", what exactly do you mean?

The inhabitants that fled the States were "Loyalists" and wre undoubtedly happy to be British or they wouldn't have left the US.

Many members of the Nations that occupied North America had allied themselves to the French or English. They accepted the English as visitors (who knew they wouldn't go home) and accepted (for the most part)British or French law within the confines of their respective controlled territories.

But no, I would not say they were "Canadians" at that point in history.

It all depends on which side of the fence you sit, or which side of the fence the person you ask, is sitting on.

I'm going to split some hairs here on the "Loyalist" thing. A VERY large percentage of the Loyalist didn't voluntarily leave the USA.......they were run out on a rail after the confiscation of all they owned.

A large portion of the Loyalists RETURNED to the USA after things calmed down a bit..........hardly evidence of their desire to remain British.

Many of the "Loyalists" just backed the wrong horse because of family ties, business connections, whatever. A good number of them shared the same ideals as the Revolutionaries..........

 

[I think not]

The only beef I have ever had with you Daz, is that somehow you think the British Empire was an endeavour of nobility. That it never harmed anyone in any of the lands it conquered in the name of the monarch. It's as if when the inhabitants of far away lands saw the mighty war vessels of the British Empire they threw their hands up and praised whichever God they believed in for their arrival. And furthermore, you are under a similar belief that they could have done away with the British Empire by a simple vote.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Ah, but it's only the "wrong horse" now, after 300 hundred years.

In the end, after all the pocrastination and rhetoric, Britain and the US are incredibly similar, always have been, and (if you ignore the propoganda) always will be.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

ITN, if you have a look at a couple of my posts, particulrly my arguements with several others, blackleaf for one. I don't believe the british Empire was all good and not, in a lot of ways, cruel and evil. I agree, when you rule a third of the worlds population but still find poverty and starvation in your own streets, you surely are doing something very wrong.

Britain ruled through force and generally, it wasn't by "very nice" methods. Forgive me, I am of the age that was fanatical about the old WWF of Hulk Hogan nd the Ultimate warrior (don't worry, it is related). I've just finished watching a lecture given by Jim Hellwig (the ultimate warrior) on Youtube. It's people like him and his views that irritate me.

I'll quote him a couple of times:

"the men who invented this country were the greatest men on the face of the earth"

surely you see the similarity in what you've suggested of me? My point is, this happens on both sides, there was a point in history when boths sides were but one, but now each (actually thats not true, the british government generally today acts as if it is ashamed of it's past) provide such propoganda that irritates me.

Both sides, George Washington could tell a lie as well as the British commander who, in more cases than not, was beating him (historical fact). But you see my point?. It's all these "fanatical" or as you would call them "patriots" making such claims about the history of the US, which is about are murky as that of Britain, but you'll never hear anyone admit this.

 

[CDNBear]

I'm going to split some hairs here on the "Loyalist" thing. A VERY large percentage of the Loyalist didn't voluntarily leave the USA.......they were run out on a rail after the confiscation of all they owned.

A large portion of the Loyalists RETURNED to the USA after things calmed down a bit..........hardly evidence of their desire to remain British.

Many of the "Loyalists" just backed the wrong horse because of family ties, business connections, whatever. A good number of them shared the same ideals as the Revolutionaries..........

Like I said though, allies, but you make a valid point. But, most of the ones that returned, did so for financial reasons, not alligences. Those that were ejected, were likely ejected because they did not want to lose their holdings, not because they were not Loyalists. Some of the English side of my family are among both sides of that coin. Greed, patriotism or a loyalty to the Empire, divided many families.

I'm well aware of the land holdings that were expropriated, and followed the legal battle that Canada attempted to start with the States after they began an attempt to punish Canadian firms for profitting from expropriated property in Cuba.

That said, it really doesn't change the fact that these people and Canada in general at this time, were in flux. That makes it difficult to say whether or not the were British or Canadian.

 

[CDNBear]

Ah, but it's only the "wrong horse" now, after 300 hundred years.

In the end, after all the pocrastination and rhetoric, Britain and the US are incredibly similar, always have been, and (if you ignore the propoganda) always will be.

I agree, where Britian began, imperialist America took over. Beginning with "Manifest Destiny". Which they claimed to have abandoned, later apologised to South America for and then took on tour to any global destination that suited their financial whim.

 

[CDNBear]

ITN, if you have a look at a couple of my posts, particulrly my arguements with several others, blackleaf for one. I don't believe the british Empire was all good and not, in a lot of ways, cruel and evil. I agree, when you rule a third of the worlds population but still find poverty and starvation in your own streets, you surely are doing something very wrong.

Britain ruled through force and generally, it wasn't by "very nice" methods. Forgive me, I am of the age that was fanatical about the old WWF of Hulk Hogan nd the Ultimate warrior (don't worry, it is related). I've just finished watching a lecture given by Jim Hellwig (the ultimate warrior) on Youtube. It's people like him and his views that irritate me.

I'll quote him a couple of times:

"the men who invented this country were the greatest men on the face of the earth"

surely you see the similarity in what you've suggested of me? My point is, this happens on both sides, there was a point in history when boths sides were but one, but now each (actually thats not true, the british government generally today acts as if it is ashamed of it's past) provide such propoganda that irritates me.

Both sides, George Washington could tell a lie as well as the British commander who, in more cases than not, was beating him (historical fact). But you see my point?. It's all these "fanatical" or as you would call them "patriots" making such claims about the history of the US, which is about are murky as that of Britain, but you'll never hear anyone admit this.

True, but some will point them out. I agree with that. As much as I do admire Americans because of their patriotism, I roll my eyes at the glaring mistakes and falsehoods, Hollywoods propaganda machine, produces.

It has created a meglomaniacal patriotism or global bigotry, that is generally based on conjecture and shear fantasy. But history is always recorded by its victors.

Britian was guilty of many abuses, as was and is Canada, Australia, America, etc. etc. That does not make one any better then or less complicit then any other.

 

[Blackleaf]

Why it's better to be British than any other nationality.

We have........


Sarcasm.
Interesting weather
An infinite variety of crisp (potato chips) flavours.
A full warm beer in a pint glass.
The nicest and prettiest pubs which also have the best names in the world - The Red Lion; The Hare and Hounds; The Dog and Whistle; The Frog and Flea; The Cricketers; The Railway; The Smugglers' Haunt; The Highwayman.
Furious old women screaming at lampposts in the fog.
Nearly winning a game and being proud of it.
A game that takes five days to play and has to stop for rain and tea is your national sport.
Glastonbury.
Magic mushrooms growing on golf courses.
Tidal waves of tea and pride in equal measure.
Battered sausages.
Middle aged anarchists who live with their mums.
Badgers.
Paedophile DJs.
Self loathing.
The most glorious history of any nation.
More teenage mothers than any other country in Europe.
Strange teenage and youth culture such as the Teddy Boys (1950s), the Mods (1960s), the Punks (1970s), the New Romantics (1980s) and now the Chavs (2000s).
The world's best sense of humor and greatest TV comedy shows.
Prepubescent car thieves, death wish princesses and the best language on earth.
The Monarchy.
More eccentrics and weirdos than anywhere else on Earth.
The best music in the world and the best rock bands.
We rarely get invaded and rarely lose in wars.
We get to beat the French in wars, the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup Final and the 2012 Olympics bid.
We have the best food - fish and chips or steak and kidney pie is much better than frogs' legs in garlic or moose steaks.
Drunkenness and violence is the norm. Britain must be the only country in the world where it's normal to get so intoxicated on a Friday night that hundreds of drunks are in one street at the same time vomiting in the gutter and having meaningless fights. Drunkenness and random drunken violence like this have puzzled foreigners and some fellow Brits for centuries - even the Romans commented on it and Hogarth painted pictures of drunk, violent Londoners in the 18th Century.

 

[cortex]

You forgot ----your smell.

 

[I think not]

Both sides, George Washington could tell a lie as well as the British commander who, in more cases than not, was beating him (historical fact). But you see my point?. It's all these "fanatical" or as you would call them "patriots" making such claims about the history of the US, which is about are murky as that of Britain, but you'll never hear anyone admit this.

Your knowledge of history leaves nothing to be desired. You have been stuck on George Washington's alleged "I cannot tell a lie" phrase for at least the year I have known you on this board and despite my repeated attempts to explain to you that you are incorrect, you keep repeating the same garbage day in and day out.

Parson Weems wrote a fictionalized biography of George Washington because he strongly believed in the moral uplift of children. His biography was taught in the educational system in the 19th century as a work of fiction, including a number of fanciful stories intended to polish George's reputation. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone in the US that even remembers this "I cannot tell a lie" crap, unless they are familiar with Parson Weems.

My Godson is 10 years old and has never once heard of this. I really don't understand why you have become hooked on a single aspect of a past national myth. George Washington doesn't need a mythical status, he's a pretty admirable character in many ways.

 

[CDNBear]

Your knowledge of history leaves nothing to be desired. You have been stuck on George Washington's alleged "I cannot tell a lie" phrase for at least the year I have known you on this board and despite my repeated attempts to explain to you that you are incorrect, you keep repeating the same garbage day in and day out.

Parson Weems wrote a fictionalized biography of George Washington because he strongly believed in the moral uplift of children. His biography was taught in the educational system in the 19th century as a work of fiction, including a number of fanciful stories intended to polish George's reputation. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone in the US that even remembers this "I cannot tell a lie" crap, unless they are familiar with Parson Weems.

My Godson is 10 years old and has never once heard of this. I really don't understand why you have become hooked on a single aspect of a past national myth. George Washington doesn't need a mythical status, he's a pretty admirable character in many ways.

I agree, George was admirable, and a half decent tactician as well. I know, all the neo con haters will say I'm sucking up, but what's not to admire? As much as my opinions about why the founding fathers did what they did, are not all shiny, I think they pulled off a rather difficult task and united a nation.

I just wanna know, on a lighter note, did he really chop down a cherry tree?