Compromise -The Essence of Canadian Political Philosophy

[Guest TrueMetis]

OK...I'll break it down for you. Another member has espoused the virtues of Canadian "multiculturalism", but discriminates against "trolls". This is inconsistent and a classic example of trollophobia. Oh the humanity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultures_of_present-day_nations_and_states

Point out trolls on this list.

[bush_cheney2004]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultures_of_present-day_nations_and_states

Point out trolls on this list.

....Culture of Norway:

Also of importance to the Norwegian literary culture is the Norse literature, and in particular the works of Snorre Sturlason , as well as the more recent folk tales, collected by Asbjørnsen and Moe in the 19th century.

...this includes trolls.

[Smallc]

Is all of this supposed to prove something?

[bush_cheney2004]

Is all of this supposed to prove something?

No...nothing is proven here...not even by you.

[Shwa]

We avoid civil wars.

We did? Huh. Then what are these?

Lower Canada Rebellion

Upper Canada Rebellion

Northwest Rebellions

OK, that they are called "rebellions" are beside the point. And yes, we did not have the same level of carnage as the ACW. But it goes to show that some compromises in Canada were forged with bayonet and lead musket ball.

As for the ACW, well, that was more than 30 million people fighting it out using old-school tactics that didn't match the new school technology such as rifles and rifled cannon. (The tactics did not meet up with the technology until later in the war.) Comparatively, Canada's population in 1861 was about 10% of the US.

[M.Dancer]

We did? Huh. Then what are these?

Lower Canada Rebellion

Upper Canada Rebellion

Northwest Rebellions

OK, that they are called "rebellions" are beside the point.

No it is not beside the point. A civil war is a conflict between two (or more) political entities. That is the meaning of the "civil" part of the phrase, Civil War. Hence Watt Tyler's peaseants rebellion was an uprising while the Wars of the Roses was a civil war.

Where are the parallel governments? Parallel infrastructures? Parallel claims of supreme sovereignty? Did Papineau or MacKenzie make claims to be political leadership of canada that historians don't know about?

[bush_cheney2004]

No it is not beside the point. A civil war is a conflict between two (or more) political entities. That is the meaning of the "civil" part of the phrase, Civil War. Hence Watt Tyler's peaseants rebellion was an uprising while the Wars of the Roses was a civil war.

Well if that's the case, then there was another Canadian "Civil War" in the American Revolutionary War.

[M.Dancer]

Well if that's the case, then there was another Canadian "Civil War" in the American Revolutionary War.

No..that was a revolution...which is a rebellion that succeeds....which is why we refer to France's experiance as the French revolution and not the French rebellion....

[Shwa]

No it is not beside the point. A civil war is a conflict between two (or more) political entities. That is the meaning of the "civil" part of the phrase, Civil War. Hence Watt Tyler's peaseants rebellion was an uprising while the Wars of the Roses was a civil war.

Where are the parallel governments? Parallel infrastructures? Parallel claims of supreme sovereignty? Did Papineau or MacKenzie make claims to be political leadership of canada that historians don't know about?

Let's see if the rebellions can satisfy your requirements:

Lower Canada - Patriote Party majority in the Assembly of Lower Canada vs The British Crown (political entities & {roughly} parallel governments. By certain acts the majority in the Assembly demonstrated sovereignty until put down.

Upper Canada - MacKenzie's Reformers versus the Family Compact Loyalists.

Mackenzie persuaded the radicals on Nov 16 to issue a draft constitution for Upper Canada, modelled on that of the US, and to attempt to seize control of the government in early Dec.

Red River Rebellion - Metis versus Canadian Government

The legislative assembly of the provisional government organized the territory of ASSINIBOIA in Mar 1870

Northwest Rebellion - Metis vs Canadian government.

On March 18 and 19, the Métis formed a provisional government and an armed force at Batoche, with Riel president and Gabriel DUMONT military commander.

When I say 'beside the point' I simply mean a matter of scale:

A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state, or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the nation or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of large resources.

So while the term rebellion could be considered correct on the issue of scale, in all of these conflicts there was a measure of opposing political views, the establisment of governing bodies - either existing or being created.

Saying 'political leadership of Canada' is no more true than saying the Rebels, in the War Between The States, had the goal of overthrowing the US government in favour of their rule. Note that during the actual ACW, the term rebellion was frequently used to describe the conflict:

The American Civil War has been known by a number of different names since it ended in 1865. These names reflect the historical, political, and cultural sensitivities of different groups and regions...

And:

War of the Rebellion

During and immediately after the war, U.S. officials and pro-Union writers often referred to Confederates as "Rebels" and to the war itself as "the Great Rebellion." The earliest histories published in the northern states commonly refer to the Civil War as "the Great Rebellion" or "the War of the Rebellion," as do many war monuments.

The official war records of the United States refer to this war as "The War of the Rebellion", and are a chief source of historical documentation for those interested in Civil War research. They are compiled as a 70-volume collection published by the U.S. War Department as The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, U.S. Government Printing Office, 18801901. Present-day historians usually refer to this collection as the Official Records.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Shwa

[Guest TrueMetis]

We did? Huh. Then what are these?

Lower Canada Rebellion

Upper Canada Rebellion

Northwest Rebellions

OK, that they are called "rebellions" are beside the point. And yes, we did not have the same level of carnage as the ACW. But it goes to show that some compromises in Canada were forged with bayonet and lead musket ball.

The first two weren't civil wars because they were colonials vs the colonial powers of those places. A civil war is a fight between two political entities in a country that's not what the first two were.

The third one is debatable, but I would say is not a civil war.

Edited March 8, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shwa]

The first two weren't civil wars because they were colonials vs the colonial powers of those places. A civil war is a fight between two political entities in a country that's not what the first two were.

The third one is debatable, but I would say is not a civil war.

What definition of 'civil war' are you going on? Merriam-Webster has a very succinct definition "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Wiki's definition is simply a matter of scale.

All three were fought between different 'political entities' of citizens of the same country whether there was any colonial attachment or not.

[August1991]

We did? Huh. Then what are these?

Lower Canada Rebellion

Upper Canada Rebellion

Northwest Rebellions

OK, that they are called "rebellions" are beside the point. And yes, we did not have the same level of carnage as the ACW. But it goes to show that some compromises in Canada were forged with bayonet and lead musket ball.

As for the ACW, well, that was more than 30 million people fighting it out using old-school tactics that didn't match the new school technology such as rifles and rifled cannon. (The tactics did not meet up with the technology until later in the war.) Comparatively, Canada's population in 1861 was about 10% of the US.

The Upper Canada Rebellion, by any report, were a few drunken hotheads. The Lower Canadian Rebellion (Les Patriotes de 1837) was arguably larger and its Catholic/Irish menace probably inspired the creation of Britain's Durham investigation. Neither of these rebellions can be compared to the American Civil War.

IMV, Louis Riel's commune, his evasion to the US, return to Canada and hanging are comparable to Waco Texas. The significance is not the event but in its effect on the perception of English-French relations. (Compare that with say the Dred Scott decision, or better the skirmish at Harper's Ferry.)

----

Shwa, you miss two really big examples (for example) where "Canadians" (northern North Americans) did not opt for compromise.

First. In 1759, the British sent troops to New France to forcibly make its people subjects of the British crown. There was no compromise involved; Wolfe burned and destroyed homes and buildings up and down the St. Lawrence river. As evidence, there is very few vestiges left today in Quebec from the French era because Wolfe's troops destroyed most of them.

Second. How did the French (or Europeans in general) compromise with native people when they first arrived?

Yet, all things considered, we in northern North America have largely and successfully applied compromise in our affairs. The French Europeans in the 17th century negotiated with the Hurons and both compromised. The Quebec Act was a generous compromise.

We northern North Americans have lived together in peace, compromised and avoided civil war.

Edited March 10, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Yes, if it happened in Quebec, it was a big deal, but in Manitoba, well, that's like Waco....

[Guest TrueMetis]

What definition of 'civil war' are you going on? Merriam-Webster has a very succinct definition "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Wiki's definition is simply a matter of scale.

All three were fought between different 'political entities' of citizens of the same country whether there was any colonial attachment or not.

This is the same basic definition I used in the first two Canada was not a country hence it was not a civil war. The third is debatable.

[August1991]

Yes, if it happened in Quebec, it was a big deal, but in Manitoba, well, that's like Waco....

What was the population of Manitoba in 1871? How many people died in the Red River Rebellion? How much property destroyed? What were the consequences?

How many people died in 1759? How much property destroyed? What were the consequences?

----

Smallc, my simple point is that violence has not been a large part of "Canadian" history. We northern North Americans have largely compromised, and for centuries. We have compromised across racial, linguistic and religious divides. (As Iraqi politicians seem to be learning to do now.)

Quebecers are cheerful Latins, and English-Canadians add "eh" to every question. The worst aboriginals (Iroquois, Mohawk) are pathetic bullies compared to people in other continents. Most aboriginals living in Canada (Cri, Montagnais, Innu) are peaceful.

Edited March 10, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

What was the population of Manitoba in 1871?

We're not talking about 1871, we're talking about 1869.

What were the consequences?

The creation of Manitoba.

Smallc, my simple point is that violence has not been a large part of "Canadian" history.

And then you go on to imply that violence that happened anywhere outside of Quebec was unimportant.

We northern North Americans have largely compromised, and for centuries. We have compromised across racial, linguistic and language divides. (As Iraqi politicians seem to be learning to do now.)

Yes, we have.

Quebecers are cheerful Latins, and English-Canadians add "eh" to every question. The worst aboriginals (Iroquois, Mohawk) are pathetic bullies compared to people in other continents. Most Canadian aboriginals are peaceful (Cri, Montagnais, Innu).

You stereotype and generalize far too much.

[Bonam]

You know if you guys think we're lacking in civil wars, you could always go endeavor to start one...

[Smallc]

WE aren't lacking in any. We haven't had any, but we still aren't lacking.

[Shwa]

This is the same basic definition I used in the first two Canada was not a country hence it was not a civil war. The third is debatable.

Ah, I see your point. You see the word "country" as synonymous with "nation." Fair enough.

[Shwa]

Neither of these rebellions can be compared to the American Civil War.

Of course not, but that is only defined by scale. The point is that Canadian "compromise" has also been suggested by lead musket ball and bayonet. We have our rebellions, some worse than others; we have had our internal wars and conflicts; how many times have we thrown off the Yanks? We didn't compromise with them in the Revolutionay War or the War of 1812, we shot them.

Smallc, my simple point is that violence has not been a large part of "Canadian" history. We northern North Americans have largely compromised, and for centuries. We have compromised across racial, linguistic and religious divides. (As Iraqi politicians seem to be learning to do now.)

I think this is a titch idealist. I think if you do a careful read of Canadian history, you will find that we have had our comparable share of violence, violent repression and conflict especially in the middle 19th century. Sure mob violence at Union elections is not civil war, but is that what you mean by "compromise?" Did the Family Compact compromise?

Quebecers are cheerful Latins, and English-Canadians add "eh" to every question. The worst aboriginals (Iroquois, Mohawk) are pathetic bullies compared to people in other continents. Most aboriginals living in Canada (Cri, Montagnais, Innu) are peaceful.

Yikes!

[M.Dancer]

Of course not, but that is only defined by scale.

That and a legitimate parrell government that was even recognized by the US government.

The point is that Canadian "compromise" has also been suggested by lead musket ball and bayonet.

Yes I remember the masses of troops on hand for Meech lake and the Charletown accords

We have our rebellions, some worse than others;

Mostly piffles...

we have had our internal wars

how many times have we thrown off the Yanks?

ZERO....

We didn't compromise with them in the Revolutionay War or the War of 1812, we shot them.

The paris treaty and the treaty of Ghent happened in another time continuem?

Did the Family Compact compromise?

Yes.

[Wilber]

What definition of 'civil war' are you going on? Merriam-Webster has a very succinct definition "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Wiki's definition is simply a matter of scale.

All three were fought between different 'political entities' of citizens of the same country whether there was any colonial attachment or not.

Depends how you define country. The 1837 Rebellions were pre Confederation, the Northwest rebellions were post. All were put down by miltias and troops under Imperial leadership.

[Shwa]

That and a legitimate parrell government that was even recognized by the US government.

What parallel government in the Costa Rican Civil War was 'recognized' by the US government?

Yes I remember the masses of troops on hand for Meech lake and the Charletown accords

Irrelevant. " "

Mostly piffles...

Except for those families who lost sons and fathers, had their farms burned out or their town burned down.

ZERO....

You don't know Canadian history very well.

The paris treaty and the treaty of Ghent happened in another time continuem?

Were those before or after many Americans (and Canadians, Indians & British) were shot?

Yes.

When?