Why Doesn't the US Respect Canada More?

[WestViking]

France like Germany doesn't have the luxary of an ocean to cross or a 1000 miles of steppes to traverse, all of her fighting has been up close and personal, so maybe they can be forgivin for a little pride in having stepped up and fought invaders not once, not twice but three times in 100 years.

France was once an imperial power - the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was towards the end of the seven year war with Britain. France was also a heavy in Algeria for decades and once held a large part of Viet Nam. They were also heavily engaged in parts of Africa beyond Algeria. Where do you get your history from?

[jbg]

France like Germany doesn't have the luxary of an ocean to cross or a 1000 miles of steppes to traverse, all of her fighting has been up close and personal, so maybe they can be forgivin for a little pride in having stepped up and fought invaders not once, not twice but three times in 100 years.

France was once an imperial power - the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was towards the end of the seven year war with Britain. France was also a heavy in Algeria for decades and once held a large part of Viet Nam. They were also heavily engaged in parts of Africa beyond Algeria. Where do you get your history from?

You're not here enough, but whenever you are you make good points.

[Wilber]

France like Germany doesn't have the luxary of an ocean to cross or a 1000 miles of steppes to traverse, all of her fighting has been up close and personal, so maybe they can be forgivin for a little pride in having stepped up and fought invaders not once, not twice but three times in 100 years.

France was once an imperial power - the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was towards the end of the seven year war with Britain. France was also a heavy in Algeria for decades and once held a large part of Viet Nam. They were also heavily engaged in parts of Africa beyond Algeria. Where do you get your history from?

150,000 dead in the Franco Prussian War. Over a million in WW1. Almost all on French soil. That's a start.

[Leafless]

The 22nd is a regiment. A regiment can contain several battalions. During wartime it is quite usual for a regiment to raise extra battalions. Even if the 22nd was a four battalion regiment during world WW1 and all of them went overseas, that could mean every member of those four battalions who originally went to France would have become a casualty. Nothing to sneeze at.

This all stems from what WestViking was saying in post #35 and was asked simply to provide proof to back up his assertions relating to Quebec's involvement with two battalions and resulting casualties.

So maybe now you can provide proof to the actual number of casualties (dead and wounded) the 22nd suffered compared to everyone else who fought in that war?

[Wilber]

The 22nd is a regiment. A regiment can contain several battalions. During wartime it is quite usual for a regiment to raise extra battalions. Even if the 22nd was a four battalion regiment during world WW1 and all of them went overseas, that could mean every member of those four battalions who originally went to France would have become a casualty. Nothing to sneeze at.

This all stems from what WestViking was saying in post #35 and was asked simply to provide proof to back up his assertions relating to Quebec's involvement with two battalions and resulting casualties.

So maybe now you can provide proof to the actual number of casualties (dead and wounded) the 22nd suffered compared to everyone else who fought in that war?

More or less, I don't know

[Peter F]

The 22nd is a regiment. A regiment can contain several battalions. During wartime it is quite usual for a regiment to raise extra battalions. Even if the 22nd was a four battalion regiment during world WW1 and all of them went overseas, that could mean every member of those four battalions who originally went to France would have become a casualty. Nothing to sneeze at.

This all stems from what WestViking was saying in post #35 and was asked simply to provide proof to back up his assertions relating to Quebec's involvement with two battalions and resulting casualties.

So maybe now you can provide proof to the actual number of casualties (dead and wounded) the 22nd suffered compared to everyone else who fought in that war?

More or less, I don't know

What it says (the link) is that 5,919 served in the Regiment during WWI. Of wich 1,074 were killed in combat or died of wounds recieved and 2,887 were wounded for a total killed and wounded of 3,961. That is a casualty rate of 67%.

[Peter F]

Won or lost is not the issue, it's about pride in what your fellow countrymen past and present have been prepared to do for their country. No big loss to you? Perhaps it would be, but for them.

and they have a lot to be proud of. But still no big whup since I have risked nothing nor sacrificed anything on the scale that they have. Should I ride thier coat-tails and claim thier courage and dedication for myself?

[Wilber]

Won or lost is not the issue, it's about pride in what your fellow countrymen past and present have been prepared to do for their country. No big loss to you? Perhaps it would be, but for them.

and they have a lot to be proud of. But still no big whup since I have risked nothing nor sacrificed anything on the scale that they have. Should I ride thier coat-tails and claim thier courage and dedication for myself?

Like it or not you are riding their coat tails because you are the beneficiary of their sacrifices. You have inherited the freedoms they paid for. You can't claim their courage and dedication but acknowledging and taking pride in those sacrifices is part of paying your respect to them. You don't think they want their country to be proud of them?

[Wilber]

What it says (the link) is that 5,919 served in the Regiment during WWI. Of wich 1,074 were killed in combat or died of wounds recieved and 2,887 were wounded for a total killed and wounded of 3,961. That is a casualty rate of 67%.

I realize that, I just don't know how it compares to other regiments which served in WW1.

[M.Dancer]

France like Germany doesn't have the luxary of an ocean to cross or a 1000 miles of steppes to traverse, all of her fighting has been up close and personal, so maybe they can be forgivin for a little pride in having stepped up and fought invaders not once, not twice but three times in 100 years.

France was once an imperial power - the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was towards the end of the seven year war with Britain. France was also a heavy in Algeria for decades and once held a large part of Viet Nam. They were also heavily engaged in parts of Africa beyond Algeria. Where do you get your history from?

All that is true and irrelevant at the same time. It has nothing to do with when and how many times France fought on her own soil. Colonial wars involved small numbers of troops projecting power over a technologically backwards people, the franco prussian wars and the two world wars were total war involving the entire society. When France feels martial pride, it is for the battles 1870-71, 1913-18 and 1939-45.

[ScottSA]

When France feels martial pride, it is for the battles 1870-71, 1913-18 and 1939-45.

It's nice that they feel proud of abject routes, but it would be nicer still if they could feel proud about actually winning some of those battles. I'm not sure there's a lot to be proud of about staring over the walls of Paris at Prussian Hussars surrounding the city, or giving the Nazi salute to the Vichy government. I'm trying to think of a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066...hmmmm...still thinking...

Go to google and type in "French military victories", then hit "I'm feeling lucky". In fact, try it on google itself too, just to be perfectly clear.

[M.Dancer]

When France feels martial pride, it is for the battles 1870-71, 1913-18 and 1939-45.

It's nice that they feel proud of abject routes, but it would be nicer still if they could feel proud about actually winning some of those battles. I'm not sure there's a lot to be proud of about staring over the walls of Paris at Prussian Hussars surrounding the city, or giving the Nazi salute to the Vichy government. I'm trying to think of a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066...hmmmm...still thinking...

Go to google and type in "French military victories", then hit "I'm feeling lucky". In fact, try it on google itself too, just to be perfectly clear.

......the halting of German troops moving on Paris comes to mind...inmspite of google bombs

[M.Dancer]

When France feels martial pride, it is for the battles 1870-71, 1913-18 and 1939-45.

It's nice that they feel proud of abject routes, but it would be nicer still if they could feel proud about actually winning some of those battles. I'm not sure there's a lot to be proud of about staring over the walls of Paris at Prussian Hussars surrounding the city, or giving the Nazi salute to the Vichy government. I'm trying to think of a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066...hmmmm...still thinking...

Go to google and type in "French military victories", then hit "I'm feeling lucky". In fact, try it on google itself too, just to be perfectly clear.

Interesting though, you would think if a nation had an inept military, why are all the important military word French?

aide-de-camp, bayonet, brigade, cadre, cartouche, Colonel, combat, corps, détente, enfilade, envoy, infantry, lieutenant, marines, mêlée, pioneer, platoon, sergeant, sortie, terrain, epaulet, soldier, general, army, garrison, regiment and volley.

[ScottSA]

When France feels martial pride, it is for the battles 1870-71, 1913-18 and 1939-45.

It's nice that they feel proud of abject routes, but it would be nicer still if they could feel proud about actually winning some of those battles. I'm not sure there's a lot to be proud of about staring over the walls of Paris at Prussian Hussars surrounding the city, or giving the Nazi salute to the Vichy government. I'm trying to think of a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066...hmmmm...still thinking...

Go to google and type in "French military victories", then hit "I'm feeling lucky". In fact, try it on google itself too, just to be perfectly clear.

......the halting of German troops moving on Paris comes to mind...inmspite of google bombs

I'm still trying to think of "a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066".

[Wilber]

It's nice that they feel proud of abject routes, but it would be nicer still if they could feel proud about actually winning some of those battles. I'm not sure there's a lot to be proud of about staring over the walls of Paris at Prussian Hussars surrounding the city, or giving the Nazi salute to the Vichy government. I'm trying to think of a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066...hmmmm...still thinking...

France had over 400,000 military and civilian dead in WW2 and that doesn't include Jews deported to extermination camps. Germany's population was 69.6 million at the time. France's was 41.7 million. Wonder why they were underdogs?

The French did finally throw the British out of France by force. Napoleon won quite a few battles. Certainly more than he lost and those he lost to allied armies. During the Revolutionary wars the French were fighting most of the rest of Europe's monarchies all at once. In spite of that and in spite of some defeats, France is still a republic.

It's easy to be critical when your nearest enemy is on the other side of an ocean, not the other side of a field.

[ScottSA]

It's nice that they feel proud of abject routes, but it would be nicer still if they could feel proud about actually winning some of those battles. I'm not sure there's a lot to be proud of about staring over the walls of Paris at Prussian Hussars surrounding the city, or giving the Nazi salute to the Vichy government. I'm trying to think of a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066...hmmmm...still thinking...

France had over 400,000 military and civilian dead in WW2 and that doesn't include Jews deported to extermination camps. Germany's population was 69.6 million at the time. France's was 41.7 million. Wonder why they were underdogs?

The French did finally throw the British out of France by force. Napoleon won quite a few battles. Certainly more than he lost and those he lost to allied armies. During the Revolutionary wars the French were fighting most of the rest of Europe's monarchies all at once. In spite of that and in spite of some defeats, France is still a republic.

It's easy to be critical when your nearest enemy is on the other side of an ocean, not the other side of a field.

I'm still waiting to hear about a war the French actually won without help. I'm sure those Frenchmen are snortingly mean hombres, and it's good I'm sure that they are over there and not here, but really...there must be one war they fought since 1066 that they won without someone trotting along to help them?

[Wilber]

I'm still waiting to hear about a war the French actually won without help. I'm sure those Frenchmen are snortingly mean hombres, and it's good I'm sure that they are over there and not here, but really...there must be one war they fought since 1066 that they won without someone trotting along to help them?

Come on Scott, do a little research on your own before you make those kinds of statements. To start with, Napoleon won several wars which resulted in peace treaties favorable to France with no one trotting along to help him. Britian's foreign policy was always to form alliances with the weaker Continental powers in order to maintain a balance of power and prevent any one country from dominating Europe. With the Netherlands and France against Spain. With Prussia and the Netherlands against France and Spain. With Spain against France and with France against Germany. How many times have we gone to war without allies? So don't talk about France never doing anything on its own.

[jbg]

More or less, I don't know

Do you have a non-gibberish source for that?

[jbg]

I am staying in Niagara Falls, and just finished an intelligent, though slightly liquor-stoked conversation with an Ontarian. He asked why Americans in general and Bush in particular doesn't show Canada and Canadians more respect.

I think these are entirely the wrong questions. I pointed out that I met a Peterborough, ON school teacher who did not know what happened at the Plains of Abraham and didn't know who Montcalm and Wolfe were. I also asked why, if Canadians are not proud of Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach (Normandy), why should Americans show more respect for Canada than it does for itself.

Thoughts?

More from that conversation.

The guy at the bar stated that he was sure he knew more US history than I did, and certainly more US history than I knew about Canadian history. He asked me to test him. I asked him which two elections were decided by the House of Representatives and not the usual way, by the Electoral College. He answered, wasn't it the "Taft" election.

I responded that the Taft election, in 1912, was one of the few where a major party, the Republicans, got less votes than a third party, in tihs case Ted Roosevelt's "Bull Moose Progressives". I said "sort of like your 1993 and 1997 elections where the Bloc and the Reform got more than the Progressive Conservatives.

He said "I rest my case", and said he was astounded an American could quote Canadian elections from memory.

P.S. - The two elections that were decided by the House of Representatives and not the usual way, by the Electoral College were the 1800 election, where Thomas Jefferson beat John Adams and 1826, where John Quincy Adam, John Adams' son, defeated Andrew Jackson. Adams' peaceful sulk away from Washington, D.C. after his 1800 defeat established the tradition, in the US, of civilized transfers of power after electoral defeat.

[g_bambino]

Indeed, the topic predates Bush by many decades going back to the Revolutionary War and fleeing loyalists! Add the remnants of monarchy, Commonwealth... [and] some "respect" exists, [but] it is not as strong as it could be or in the form that Canadians appreciate (e.g. much respect for Mapleleaf flagged coffins from Afghanistan vs. same gender marriage).

No, but you point to one of the underlying issues. Canada cannot shake the monkey of Crown and Commonwealth weighing down on such matters.

Am I reading you wrong, or are you attempting to argue that Canadians don't get as much respect from Americans as they could partly because we're now a kingdom in the Commonwealth and the US is a republic that eschews international ties based mostly on history/culture? From that I infer you believe that to gain more respect in the eyes of Americans, Canadians have to abandon their ways and become more American. That's hardly respectable at all.

[Leafless]

This thread has strayed. The original question related to current Canadian self-respect of the lack thereof. I think most would agree that the French-Canadians contributed to both World Wars, but not in proportion to their numbers.

Here is a little more on that aspect:

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/disp/dis001_e.html

[jbg]

Only a figure of speech. Kind of like a pool shark going into a pool hall, and challenging someone to a game of pool. And then he hits you with the ol the US doesn't respect Canada enough arguement, and you counter with a topic changeup, why should they if Canadians don't respect themselves. This probably left the poor barfly clueless as how to defend against a pro, instead of countering with the 'what does that have to do with' arguement. It is the same thing as beating him up.

I'm hardly a "pool shark" or a skilled debater.

I had an interesting discussion in that hotel bar in Niagara Falls, Canada later than the one referenced in my opening post.

The person, a Canadian, I was talking to said, "I bet you I know more American history than you do", and he said to "challenge him". I said, OK, what two elections were decided by the House of Representatives rather than the Electoral College"? The right answer is the 1800 election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and 1824 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. He said, "wasn't it the Taft Election". I said "that was the election, like your 1993 and 1997 election, where the Republican Party was outpolled by a third-party candidate, i.e. the same as the Reform and Bloc outpolling the PCPC. He said "you win, I've never known an American to know anything about Canada". I told him I was making the stuff about Canada up. He didn't buy that.

[Mad_Michael]

I am staying in Niagara Falls, and just finished an intelligent, though slightly liquor-stoked conversation with an Ontarian. He asked why Americans in general and Bush in particular doesn't show Canada and Canadians more respect.

I think these are entirely the wrong questions. I pointed out that I met a Peterborough, ON school teacher who did not know what happened at the Plains of Abraham and didn't know who Montcalm and Wolfe were. I also asked why, if Canadians are not proud of Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach (Normandy), why should Americans show more respect for Canada than it does for itself.

Thoughts?

I'm not trying to 'diss' Americans at all - only I would observe that Americans pay little or no attention to any nation on the planet (let alone Canada). That is because they believe the USA is the greatest nation on earth and thus, no other country matters very much. That is to say, Americans don't show much respect for ANY nation on the planet save their own. Nothing new or unusual here.

This is not a critique, just an observation.

[Mad_Michael]

He said "I rest my case", and said he was astounded an American could quote Canadian elections from memory.

I've impressed Americans with my knowledge of American history, though I don't memorise election results. Heck, I've impressed Brits and Scots with my knowledge of their history. I can be weak on Canadian history.

It is a subjective thing. Some people are into history, others aren't. And substantive knowledge of history is lacking EVERYWHERE.

[jbg]

I'm not trying to 'diss' Americans at all - only I would observe that Americans pay little or no attention to any nation on the planet (let alone Canada). That is because they believe the USA is the greatest nation on earth and thus, no other country matters very much. That is to say, Americans don't show much respect for ANY nation on the planet save their own. Nothing new or unusual here.

If you're correct the lack of interest is wrong. We may well, by many definitions, be the greatest or one of the greatest nations on Earth. I certainly think it is.

That doesn't dull my interest in Canada or many other countries.