...for some of us, than to find oneself living in a Philip K. Dick fiction.
Jumat, 22 Juni 2012
Rabu, 20 Juni 2012
Senin, 18 Juni 2012
Happy War of 1812 Bicentennial Day!
I guess it's happy!
Jumat, 15 Juni 2012
So much for the laws of arms
The Chronicle of the Good Duke reporting on the English siege of Nantes, 1380-1:
And some of those in the [French] garrison were wounded but none of them died and none was taken except Robert Guy of Riom and when he was disarmed the English were bemoaning their loss and did not put a guard on him so Robert Guy left them and went to the ditches where he rejoined the companions who began to laugh about it. And the English were very discomfited by the deaths of their barons and their loss of their people in skirmishes so they did not know what to do. Things went from bad to worse as they caught dysentery.
Congratulations, students!
Let me express my regrets for not being at yesterday's NU convocation, the one for historians. I was out of town (and still am). Earning a university degree requires a lot of work and a lot of determination. For all the current cynicism about the value of higher education, it can be a rich experience -- inside and outside the classroom. I hope it was for you.
Rabu, 13 Juni 2012
Upper Canada before 1812
Some more analysis by Alan Taylor of Upper Canada "before the war."
To suppress sedition,, the government sought to control the flow of public information. In a stark contrast with the republic, the British restricted Postal Service in Upper Canada to official dispatches and to the letters of favored merchants. An American settler described Upper Canada as the land of "no mail, no post-offices, [and] no post riders." ... A Local schools worried officials, who feared that a little knowledge was dangerous in common minds, particularly when their teachers came from the United States. ... Distrusting local, common schools, officials preferred to fund only a few elite schools, one per district ,to educate the sons of gentlemen. ... Britons defined Upper Canada as a set of absences: as free from the social and political pathologies attributed to the United States. They celebrated the colony for lacking the land jobbing, Indian warfare, African slavery, Republican electioneering, libelous newspapers, majoritarian intolerance, and mob violence that blighted the republic.In 1792 Patrick Campbell boasted that the settler in Upper Canada could get "get lands for nothing, be among his countrymen, and run no risk of being ever molested by Indians, tarred or feathered." The British promoted Upper Canada more for what it was not, than for what it was.
Selasa, 12 Juni 2012
Results of that nasty little war
Of 1812, that is.
Nasty or not, it was important.
Before the war, the geographical and legal boundaries of the Anglophone world were ambiguous; lots of people were more concerned about the radical Democratic-Republican or conservative Tory or Federalist next door than they were about people who lived on the other side of the ill-defined border. Not to mention all those radical Irishmen who could be anywhere, as indeed could Irish conservatives. How different were American farmers in New York State from "Late Loyalists" in Upper Canada (i.e. Americans who had moved north to buy cheap land)? Not much, though some were more radical than others, or perceived as such. Geography did not determine this.
But after the war, the border (the UC-USA border) meant a lot. On the other side, whichever side you lived, were people who had burned your houses and wrecked your farms and maybe unleashed scary Indians on you. They were now The Enemy in a way that they had not been before. Migration was not welcome; the policy in Upper Canada became one of recruiting settlers direct from Britain.
I also get from Alan Taylor the notion that Britain came very close to winning the war outright. The treaty of Ghent of 1814 gave the USA very little of what it had fought for, and with Napoleon out of the way, Britain could have crushed the broke, divided States like so many bugs, even while observing the treaty. Instead, the imperial government took a rather minimalist view of its role in North America. In particular the traditional alliance with the Indians south of the lakes was abandoned.
Why? The empire had been fighting a world war for a long time and was TIRED. And the Battle of New Orleans made the point that hegemony in America would probably not be cheap.
Nasty or not, it was important.
Before the war, the geographical and legal boundaries of the Anglophone world were ambiguous; lots of people were more concerned about the radical Democratic-Republican or conservative Tory or Federalist next door than they were about people who lived on the other side of the ill-defined border. Not to mention all those radical Irishmen who could be anywhere, as indeed could Irish conservatives. How different were American farmers in New York State from "Late Loyalists" in Upper Canada (i.e. Americans who had moved north to buy cheap land)? Not much, though some were more radical than others, or perceived as such. Geography did not determine this.
But after the war, the border (the UC-USA border) meant a lot. On the other side, whichever side you lived, were people who had burned your houses and wrecked your farms and maybe unleashed scary Indians on you. They were now The Enemy in a way that they had not been before. Migration was not welcome; the policy in Upper Canada became one of recruiting settlers direct from Britain.
I also get from Alan Taylor the notion that Britain came very close to winning the war outright. The treaty of Ghent of 1814 gave the USA very little of what it had fought for, and with Napoleon out of the way, Britain could have crushed the broke, divided States like so many bugs, even while observing the treaty. Instead, the imperial government took a rather minimalist view of its role in North America. In particular the traditional alliance with the Indians south of the lakes was abandoned.
Why? The empire had been fighting a world war for a long time and was TIRED. And the Battle of New Orleans made the point that hegemony in America would probably not be cheap.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
Recent
Weekly
-
This announcement speaks for itself: Dear Colleagues, After two decades teaching medieval art history and doing photography for my own use,...
-
From the Guardian: Leading foreign academics from the LSE acting as expert advisers to the UK government were told they would not be asked ...
-
A new translation of this fascinating treatise on horsemanship by a fifteenth-century king. This interview with Jeffrey Forgeng comes from...
-
Byron York talks to dedicated, long-time Romney supporters right after the concession speech: A few hours earlier, across the street at the...
-
...if you are very, very rich. (Most mss. of this age and quality are in national or university libraries and are not for sale at any price...
-
Two experts in the Middle East have been more useful to me than most of the more prominent ones. They are Juan Cole and Joshua Landis. If yo...
-
I have always loved maps and history. Growing up in the USA in the early 60s, the Southeast Asian war gave me the opportunity to learn geog...
-
I just discovered this book, which came out a couple of years ago, thanks to Brad DeLong, who provided a link to a pre-print to chapter 9, ...
-
I have been reading the magazine Foreign Policy recently, and despite the fact that is understandably American-centric, it does tend to take...
-
No punk about it--the National Railway Museum in York. And free admission!