Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Friday, December 08, 2017
november blog
November blog post american perspective
this blog is about the American perspective on the war of 1812. in class we learn about how during the war of 1812 how we "Canada" needed to win and how much better we are then them. it seems as we are taught that we were right but the Americans were just doing the same, trying to find a trading route, and land. schools in America are probably taught about how they were right.
American traders wanted to trade but had problems with Britain so to solve there problems they were going to fight the closest thing, which being Canada. America lost they fight. Britain was also fighting the Napoleonic wars, while also battling with the Americans in the new world. the Americans weren't just fighting British since they wanted land they were fighting the First Nations as well. remember when i said Americans are taught different they are taught they fought with British not Canada. but makes sense because Canada was mostly British and First nations. they are also taught it was fought on American soil. but both countries teach that they were they won and that they were right.
Reference:
http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/american-perspective/
this blog is about the American perspective on the war of 1812. in class we learn about how during the war of 1812 how we "Canada" needed to win and how much better we are then them. it seems as we are taught that we were right but the Americans were just doing the same, trying to find a trading route, and land. schools in America are probably taught about how they were right.
American traders wanted to trade but had problems with Britain so to solve there problems they were going to fight the closest thing, which being Canada. America lost they fight. Britain was also fighting the Napoleonic wars, while also battling with the Americans in the new world. the Americans weren't just fighting British since they wanted land they were fighting the First Nations as well. remember when i said Americans are taught different they are taught they fought with British not Canada. but makes sense because Canada was mostly British and First nations. they are also taught it was fought on American soil. but both countries teach that they were they won and that they were right.
Reference:
http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/american-perspective/
Friday, December 01, 2017
In another persons shoes. Nov blog post
In todays blog post I'm am going to be talking about the event at Seven Oaks. On June, 1816 there was a bloody battle between the HBC and the NWC. In 1814 Miles MacDonnell governor of the red river colony, he issued the pemmican proclamation which banned the HBC from selling pemmican to anyone who was outside of the region, this was because of they didn't have much food to support there own people. The NWC company didn't like this because they valued the pemmican because of its high protein content. IN 1816 a group of mainly metis which included some French-Canadians and English led by Cuthbert grant. They stole some pemmican to sell though the NWC they encountered a small group of HBC settler along the red river at seven oaks a gun fight broke out between the two groups. Early reports suggested that the French fired the first shot at the HBC. the Metis were very good shots and they have a lot more people then the HBC by around three times as many men. one that day 22 HBC men were killed and one First nations Person. Since then everyone has been debating whether you would called this even either a battle, massacre or incident.
A man by the man of Coltman portrayed the event as a battle. I think this because the metis didn't fire the first shot. IF they were planning on massacring them they would've shot them. I thing it was portrayed as a massacre throughout history because it was such a one-sided for the Metis. This also could be used as propaganda against the Metis so they can make a lot of people not like them. When you would say massacre pretty much everyone would think of a big bloody battle wit heavy casualties on one side and a significantly less on the other side. But for a battle you'd think it be more one sided and more planned out and formal. What I think is that it was an incident like the one HBC guy had a miss fire killing one and then the Metis killed them all.
How I think each of these groups would have portrayed this event are for the Metis they call it and incient because only one of them died in this battle. But for the HBC they could use the word massacre for make the metis sound bad, they could say that they were ambushed after they stole there pemmican from them.
This is a painting by a C.W. Jerfferys about the event at seven oaks. From what I think telling from his name he was a British man most likely, and how he portrayed this event in his art was in favoring the HBC. he used art to make the metis seem like "savages" and very intimidating which could influence people on there thoughts about what they think about them. This would for the most part make people scared or distrustful of them because they "massacred" there people who didn't stand a chance against them. HE mad them see more scary because there were massive numbers of them and they look like there a lot bigger then the HBC and it doesn't show many of them injured. But for the HBC there are all huddled in a small group, there are not even close to the same amount as there was for the metis, an there all crouching making them appear small compared to the towering metis men.
Links: picture https://www.bing.com/images/searchview=detailV2&ccid=pnVa2ACY&id=A518ECD4365CBA8ED14D112C6164B8098DC3FEEA&thid=OIP.pnVa2ACYfjO3A5HmhjUwmgEsC1&q=seven+oaks+massacre+painting&simid=608046738274189745&selectedIndex=2&ajaxhist=0
Info: http://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/seven-oaks-incident/
A man by the man of Coltman portrayed the event as a battle. I think this because the metis didn't fire the first shot. IF they were planning on massacring them they would've shot them. I thing it was portrayed as a massacre throughout history because it was such a one-sided for the Metis. This also could be used as propaganda against the Metis so they can make a lot of people not like them. When you would say massacre pretty much everyone would think of a big bloody battle wit heavy casualties on one side and a significantly less on the other side. But for a battle you'd think it be more one sided and more planned out and formal. What I think is that it was an incident like the one HBC guy had a miss fire killing one and then the Metis killed them all.
How I think each of these groups would have portrayed this event are for the Metis they call it and incient because only one of them died in this battle. But for the HBC they could use the word massacre for make the metis sound bad, they could say that they were ambushed after they stole there pemmican from them.
This is a painting by a C.W. Jerfferys about the event at seven oaks. From what I think telling from his name he was a British man most likely, and how he portrayed this event in his art was in favoring the HBC. he used art to make the metis seem like "savages" and very intimidating which could influence people on there thoughts about what they think about them. This would for the most part make people scared or distrustful of them because they "massacred" there people who didn't stand a chance against them. HE mad them see more scary because there were massive numbers of them and they look like there a lot bigger then the HBC and it doesn't show many of them injured. But for the HBC there are all huddled in a small group, there are not even close to the same amount as there was for the metis, an there all crouching making them appear small compared to the towering metis men.
Links: picture https://www.bing.com/images/searchview=detailV2&ccid=pnVa2ACY&id=A518ECD4365CBA8ED14D112C6164B8098DC3FEEA&thid=OIP.pnVa2ACYfjO3A5HmhjUwmgEsC1&q=seven+oaks+massacre+painting&simid=608046738274189745&selectedIndex=2&ajaxhist=0
Info: http://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/seven-oaks-incident/
Thursday, November 30, 2017
When being taught about the war of 1812, we focus primarily on the perspective of the British and Americans. But does anybody ever stop to think about what this war would have looked like for the First Nations people of Canada?
In this blogpost, I will highlight what I think the First Nations point of view would have looked like during the time of the war of 1812. I will also share what I believe their feelings and opinions towards the battles would have been, and how they benefitted form partaking in the war.
Going into the battles that made up the war of 1812, the First Nations people wisely sided with the British who were fighting to keep the land that is now Canada, safe and in their possession. Both the First Nations and the British wanted to keep the Americans from expanding up into what’s now modern day Canada. The First Nations people wanted to keep the Americans from taking over their ancestral land. In order to keep this land protected, more than 10000 First Nations warriors help to fight in almost every major battle, during the war of 1812. Not only did the First Nations increase the British’s army sizes, but they also offered exceptional fighting abilities. As a First Nations person, I would feel very honoured to be able to offer so much to the British army. It would make me fight with pride knowing that my contribution was making a big difference in protecting my ancestors lands.
There were three main areas that the war was fought on: the Western Great Lakes region, the Niagara region and the St. Lawrence region. In all three of these places, First Nations warriors helped to keep the American warriors from invading, and taking over the land. I imagine the First Nations saw this as a very important job, as the work they were doing was helping to keep their ancestral lands protected from being over taken.
The First Nations played a very key part in the victory at the Battle of Detroit. If it hadn’t been for the Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, and his great deception and bluffing techniques, the outcome of the Battle of Detroit may have been very different. Even thought the British went into the fight with less men, they were able to use strategic planning and deception methods to trick the Americans into surrendering. Once again, as a First Nations person, I would take much pride in the fact that it was because of not only our great efforts that the Battle was won, but also our traditions and practices that played a huge part in the British victory.
Overall, I think that the First Nations people fought the battles involved in the war of 1812 with a lot of heart and a lot of drive. This drive came not only from the fact that they were protecting their ancestral land, but that they were also protecting their ties with the British.
These ties with the British helped to provide them with jobs and equipment they wouldn’t otherwise have. If it wasn’t for the British people living in “Canada” the fur trade would not have existed. And to the First Nations people the fur trade was very important, as it provided many of them with a source of income. They were able to trade the pelts and furs they hunted for valuable things that they needed. This included things like pots, pans, weapons, metals... So by fighting along side the British, they helped to not only keep the fur trade alive, but also strengthen their ties with the British, and keep their ancestral land safe and out of the hands of the Americans.
1812 The War That Saved Canada(2012)Uploaded By: Canadian War Museum.
Available online at: https://legionmagazine.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1812Lead.jpg
Websites used:
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
American perspective
During the war of 1812, we are taught the reasons we fought. Why the Americans needed to be defeated, and why we were superior. We have a self-centered focus on all of our history. It normally depicts as right, and the opposing force is making the mistake, not us. We can not do bad, unless it is covering inter nation issues. Such as mistreating first nations, and immigrants. That we have learned we have to tell the truth, but vs. other countries, we are always right. If you sat in a american classroom and learned about 1812, it would be depicted very differently. it would probably look a lot more like they are doing the right thing, fighting for their countries land, and trading. We are told that the Americans want out land, which is true, but not are only motivation. They were also looking trading routes to Europe.
The Americans wanted to do over sea trading, but have already burnt bridges with Britain. (solid pun right there, burnt bridges, overseas, classic) Britain controls most of the water ways and america wanted to get through. The easiest way to hit Britain, attack Canada. In the end this did not work because Canada actually held its ground this was one of the few times America actually didn't win a war. The treaty of Ghent had nothing in it about maritime issues, so it is often not discussed but most scholars agree they believe that was indeed a motive.
During this time Britain was also facing the Napoleonic wars, while also battling with the Americans in the new world. The U.S. also had to deal with the native Americans, battling for there own land. not wanting to lose the great lakes, Alabama or Michigan. When reading up on important 1812 battles for Americans,they do not have the same ones a Canada view. Many are even including the British, they focus on the native Americans and the land the fought for with them. Also most are on american soil. From what I'm reading they don't actually associate the war to Canada. while at the time we weren't a country, and Britain did most of the fighting. But I'm sure those people that fought probably became Canadians, and it is all whats now Canada. Former president Obama even said "It's now been 200 years since the British came here to the White House under somewhat different circumstances. They made quite an impression. They really lit the place up! But we moved on." The British prime minister was in town when he made that remark, but I'm sure Canadians have been in the white house and they made no such remarks.
In the end both countries teach that they were superior, and had there motives, and they were the good guy. Which is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, nut for the most part neither side had to many differences in battle stories, just details.
Websites of use:
http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/american-perspective/
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/2167359-the-u-s-perspective-on-the-war-of-1812/
The Americans wanted to do over sea trading, but have already burnt bridges with Britain. (solid pun right there, burnt bridges, overseas, classic) Britain controls most of the water ways and america wanted to get through. The easiest way to hit Britain, attack Canada. In the end this did not work because Canada actually held its ground this was one of the few times America actually didn't win a war. The treaty of Ghent had nothing in it about maritime issues, so it is often not discussed but most scholars agree they believe that was indeed a motive.
During this time Britain was also facing the Napoleonic wars, while also battling with the Americans in the new world. The U.S. also had to deal with the native Americans, battling for there own land. not wanting to lose the great lakes, Alabama or Michigan. When reading up on important 1812 battles for Americans,they do not have the same ones a Canada view. Many are even including the British, they focus on the native Americans and the land the fought for with them. Also most are on american soil. From what I'm reading they don't actually associate the war to Canada. while at the time we weren't a country, and Britain did most of the fighting. But I'm sure those people that fought probably became Canadians, and it is all whats now Canada. Former president Obama even said "It's now been 200 years since the British came here to the White House under somewhat different circumstances. They made quite an impression. They really lit the place up! But we moved on." The British prime minister was in town when he made that remark, but I'm sure Canadians have been in the white house and they made no such remarks.
In the end both countries teach that they were superior, and had there motives, and they were the good guy. Which is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, nut for the most part neither side had to many differences in battle stories, just details.
Websites of use:
http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/american-perspective/
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/2167359-the-u-s-perspective-on-the-war-of-1812/
In Today's News
In Today's news
Today we just learned about the struggles the colonial government in governing it's own citizens pitted between English and French constant arguments would arise and eventually leading sometimes governments being defeated all because of the Act of Union of 1841 that united Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Québec) into Canada West and Canada East. A coalition would be formed by Robert Baldwin in the West and Louis Lafontaine in the East.
A major issue leading into confederation was the railways the question was the Premier at the time was debating on how to pay for it and these disagreements lead to political deadlock where votes were tied and nothing could actually be done(very frustrating I would imagine. See why I don't like politics?). A second Coalition was from by John A. Macdonald leader of the conservatives party and George Etienne Cartier who had French support (very important.). The opposition was George Brown leader of the Liberal Opposition and founder of the Toronto Globe. Both people would oppose each other on a personal level resulting in Brown many times calling John A. a devil. They would bump heads many times sometimes John A.'s government being defeated and sometimes George Brown being defeated.
A major step was John A.'s scheme that Queen Victoria herself chose Bytown(Ottawa) as Canada's capital because Canada had no permanent capitol going from Québec to Toronto and back again. Later Macdonald and Cartier chose to work together and managed to gain support from George Brown who even openly supported them. This is our birth story.
quotes from John A.
- If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect, I would leave them this legacy: ‘Whatever you do, adhere to the Union. We are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken.’
- My sins of omission and commission I do not deny; but I trust that it may be said of me in the ultimate issue, ‘Much is forgiven because he loved much,’ for I have loved my country with a passionate love.
posted by George journal.
unknown author
online at:John A quotes
Uploaded by Wikipedia last edited on November 23 2017 at 12:17
available online at: Original flag of Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)