5 ms·

“England with its American colonies” as an example of overstretching this limit? Once again, when explaining a historic trend or event in terms of what happene

“England with its American colonies” as an example of overstretching this limit? Once again, when explaining a historic trend or event in terms of what happened in the US, we forget about the existence of the control case: Canada.

b112 4y ago
And even more so, re: distance, Australia.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  The article contends that the reason why the 'month rule' is in play is because of the logistics of ruling over a local population which will attempt to rebel. So I think a mitigating factor for US, Canada, Australia was that the local native population was wiped out by old-world diseases, so there was minimal capability for local population to rebel. This is also the major factor of why those nations' population is largely made-up of the descendent of the colonists. Contrast that with Africa, which suffered from similar attempts at colonialism, was much closer to Europe, but because its native population was not susceptible to European diseases (and in fact, the colonists were decimated by native diseases like malaria), Africa today has a tiny number of colonial descendants (around 5 million European descendants out of a population of ~1 billion) The population of pre-colonized North America was on the order of 60 million (European population was on the order of ~70 million). Had that population been maintained (i.e. not wiped out by old-world diseases), there was zero chance of European powers being able to establish large colonial populations. In that scenario, once the technological advantage was removed (due to trade, for example), I think you would have seen successful native rebellions. I would say South America also follows this pattern. No chance of the Spanish being able to establish large colonial populations or maintain hold over native South American populations had they been not wiped out by old-world diseases.
tgv 4y ago
Or Spain and South America?
- frr149 4y ago
  Evwn better, Spain and the Philipines
macspoofing 4y ago
>we forget about the existence of the control case: Canada. Is it though? England did lose Canada to home-rule. In fact, I contend that a major reason why a newly independent (but also broke and fledgling) Canada was not annexed by the US was mainly because of the American preoccupation with civil war and Reconstruction, and the diplomatic efforts of John A. Macdonald.
- jameshart 4y ago
  Canada was still subject to the legal authority of the UK parliament until 1982, and was certainly considered fully part of the British Empire until WWI
  - mymythisisthis 4y ago
    Canada was essentially independent since WWI.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    I think the article was discussing actual facts-on-the-ground empires, rather than polite legal fictions invented to spare the UK from having to face their loss of global status.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cma 4y ago
  They lost it to home rule only after it took less than a month to travel there with steam ships, right?
  - macspoofing 4y ago
    The point was they couldn't hold the Canadian colony. Britain didn't give home-rule to Canada because of their good-will. American belligerence towards European presence in the New World, and their rise as a major military and economic power, made holding Canada practically impossible by the mid 1800s (for example, it was untannable for Britain to maintain a large military presence in Canada anymore). Britain fully expected Canada to be annexed. Without the civil war and reconstruction preoccupying Americans during the critical early and fledgling years of the Canadian Dominion, I don't think Canada would have survived as a nation. In another thread, I also made an argument for another major mitigating factor with respect to Americas, namely, the native populations were wiped out by old-world diseases which prevented local rebellions from succeeding and allowed Europeans to establish large population centers.
charlieyu1 4y ago
Russia to Far East?
- idontpost 4y ago
  [dead]
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Almost lost it during the russo-japanese war because it was way too far and very hard to deploy troops to, even with the fledgling trans siberian line. Though I agree that it's a good example!
mardifoufs 4y ago
You are right of course but I think Canada is a pretty unique case. Canada exists in huge part because of the american revolution. British-american loyalists have basically founded upper Canada, which is now Ontario, so it makes sense that they were particularly close to the throne and the British homeland and government. French-canada was also just recently conquered and placated by the Quebec Act, but still tried a couple of uprisings during the Patriot wars of 1837-38. I don't think Canada would've stayed british without the loyalist escaping here, since they made it an inherent part of their identity to not revolt against the british as opposed to the americans they left behind. But agreed, there are too many exceptions in general to the article's point.
- masklinn 4y ago
  > You are right of course but I think Canada is a pretty unique case. As opposed to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa?
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    Yes, if you read the rest of my comment I explained why. Canada has had a very big (relatively speaking) influx of deeply loyal british-american refugees that often directly fought the revolutionaries down south. That meant that the early history of english canada was very deeply influenced by an almost identity defining loyalism to britain, because those refugees often left everything behind in the US to stay loyal the crown. In a way, being british was the entire point of early anglocanadian identity. I think that makes it pretty different from Australia, a penal colony and South Africa which was conquered more than colonized (and was very hard to hold on for the british). I was more trying to explain why Canada was an outlier in the Americas, and how Britain managed to hold it very easily for so long, even with a free population and little direct military occupation.
- wintogreen74 4y ago
  I'm a 10th+ generation Canadian of German ancestry, whose relatives had both an affinity for the British Empire (initially fleeing persecution to England) and a practical one: rich farmland in exchange for fighting with the loyalists against the upstart colonists. It's hard to determine which had the bigger impact.
meatyloafy 4y ago
There is quite a difference between conquering (and thereby assimilating) versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers..
- macspoofing 4y ago
  >versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers.. The native population was not killed but rather decimated by disease. Pre-colonial population of North America was on the order of 60 million - there was zero chance European powers being able to hold that size of population over a period of time. Contrast that to Africa, which today has a minimal population of European descendants ... because that native population had immunity.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    That’s a funny definition of ‘not killed’ you’re using.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      They died, but they were indeed not killed. You may say something flowery like "the diseases killed them", or "the arrival of the Brits killed them", but the British empire or its subjects did not kill the vast, vast majority of Native North Americans who died as a consequence of their arrival.
      - meatyloafy 4y ago
        They were killed by what the settlers brought with them. No, it was not deliberate (#), but nevertheless, their arrival is what killed most of the natives. (#) Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities of Africans across the ocean to enslave, but could have just done that with the locals.
        4y ago
SoftAnnaLee 4y ago
I would say that Canada managed to stay loyal to the crown because for two major reasons. The first being the founding "myth" of Canada being the British loyalist colonists of the US migrating as a result of the US' revolution. Them fleeing north to a major seat of political power likely had a strengthening effect on being a willing subject to the crown than most colonies. Secondly, Canada is something of an imperial power unto itself. There are countless stories of armies marching under the crown violently clashing with nations that existed on the continent prior to European colonization. Likewise, even other European descended colonist as well as the Métis were subjugated by British rule as the Anglophone powers expanded across the continent (e.g. Queen Anne's War, Red River Rebellion, and Fenian raids). Gaining the ability to exploit the natural resources that these other nations and colonies held. The crown was a convenient way to gain both legitimacy from the British loyalists who settled in Canadian territory and a reliable trading partner to receive resources from in the British Canadian bids for expansion. Compared to the US, who used democratic rule to gain its own legitimacy; and who's natural resources were abundant enough to be a valuable trading partner.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

b112 4y ago

And even more so, re: distance, Australia.

macspoofing 4y ago
The article contends that the reason why the 'month rule' is in play is because of the logistics of ruling over a local population which will attempt to rebel. So I think a mitigating factor for US, Canada, Australia was that the local native population was wiped out by old-world diseases, so there was minimal capability for local population to rebel. This is also the major factor of why those nations' population is largely made-up of the descendent of the colonists. Contrast that with Africa, which suffered from similar attempts at colonialism, was much closer to Europe, but because its native population was not susceptible to European diseases (and in fact, the colonists were decimated by native diseases like malaria), Africa today has a tiny number of colonial descendants (around 5 million European descendants out of a population of ~1 billion) The population of pre-colonized North America was on the order of 60 million (European population was on the order of ~70 million). Had that population been maintained (i.e. not wiped out by old-world diseases), there was zero chance of European powers being able to establish large colonial populations. In that scenario, once the technological advantage was removed (due to trade, for example), I think you would have seen successful native rebellions. I would say South America also follows this pattern. No chance of the Spanish being able to establish large colonial populations or maintain hold over native South American populations had they been not wiped out by old-world diseases.

tgv 4y ago

Or Spain and South America?

frr149 4y ago
Evwn better, Spain and the Philipines

macspoofing 4y ago

>we forget about the existence of the control case: Canada. Is it though? England did lose Canada to home-rule. In fact, I contend that a major reason why a newly independent (but also broke and fledgling) Canada was not annexed by the US was mainly because of the American preoccupation with civil war and Reconstruction, and the diplomatic efforts of John A. Macdonald.

jameshart 4y ago
Canada was still subject to the legal authority of the UK parliament until 1982, and was certainly considered fully part of the British Empire until WWI
- mymythisisthis 4y ago
  Canada was essentially independent since WWI.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I think the article was discussing actual facts-on-the-ground empires, rather than polite legal fictions invented to spare the UK from having to face their loss of global status.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cma 4y ago
They lost it to home rule only after it took less than a month to travel there with steam ships, right?
- macspoofing 4y ago
  The point was they couldn't hold the Canadian colony. Britain didn't give home-rule to Canada because of their good-will. American belligerence towards European presence in the New World, and their rise as a major military and economic power, made holding Canada practically impossible by the mid 1800s (for example, it was untannable for Britain to maintain a large military presence in Canada anymore). Britain fully expected Canada to be annexed. Without the civil war and reconstruction preoccupying Americans during the critical early and fledgling years of the Canadian Dominion, I don't think Canada would have survived as a nation. In another thread, I also made an argument for another major mitigating factor with respect to Americas, namely, the native populations were wiped out by old-world diseases which prevented local rebellions from succeeding and allowed Europeans to establish large population centers.

charlieyu1 4y ago

Russia to Far East?

idontpost 4y ago
[dead]
mardifoufs 4y ago
Almost lost it during the russo-japanese war because it was way too far and very hard to deploy troops to, even with the fledgling trans siberian line. Though I agree that it's a good example!

mardifoufs 4y ago

You are right of course but I think Canada is a pretty unique case. Canada exists in huge part because of the american revolution. British-american loyalists have basically founded upper Canada, which is now Ontario, so it makes sense that they were particularly close to the throne and the British homeland and government. French-canada was also just recently conquered and placated by the Quebec Act, but still tried a couple of uprisings during the Patriot wars of 1837-38. I don't think Canada would've stayed british without the loyalist escaping here, since they made it an inherent part of their identity to not revolt against the british as opposed to the americans they left behind. But agreed, there are too many exceptions in general to the article's point.

masklinn 4y ago
> You are right of course but I think Canada is a pretty unique case. As opposed to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa?
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Yes, if you read the rest of my comment I explained why. Canada has had a very big (relatively speaking) influx of deeply loyal british-american refugees that often directly fought the revolutionaries down south. That meant that the early history of english canada was very deeply influenced by an almost identity defining loyalism to britain, because those refugees often left everything behind in the US to stay loyal the crown. In a way, being british was the entire point of early anglocanadian identity. I think that makes it pretty different from Australia, a penal colony and South Africa which was conquered more than colonized (and was very hard to hold on for the british). I was more trying to explain why Canada was an outlier in the Americas, and how Britain managed to hold it very easily for so long, even with a free population and little direct military occupation.
wintogreen74 4y ago
I'm a 10th+ generation Canadian of German ancestry, whose relatives had both an affinity for the British Empire (initially fleeing persecution to England) and a practical one: rich farmland in exchange for fighting with the loyalists against the upstart colonists. It's hard to determine which had the bigger impact.

meatyloafy 4y ago

There is quite a difference between conquering (and thereby assimilating) versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers..

macspoofing 4y ago
>versus killing almost all natives and then populating the place with your own settlers.. The native population was not killed but rather decimated by disease. Pre-colonial population of North America was on the order of 60 million - there was zero chance European powers being able to hold that size of population over a period of time. Contrast that to Africa, which today has a minimal population of European descendants ... because that native population had immunity.
- jameshart 4y ago
  That’s a funny definition of ‘not killed’ you’re using.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    They died, but they were indeed not killed. You may say something flowery like "the diseases killed them", or "the arrival of the Brits killed them", but the British empire or its subjects did not kill the vast, vast majority of Native North Americans who died as a consequence of their arrival.
    - meatyloafy 4y ago
      They were killed by what the settlers brought with them. No, it was not deliberate (#), but nevertheless, their arrival is what killed most of the natives. (#) Obviously the settlers would have preferred to keep the natives alive since then they would not have needed to ship vast quantities of Africans across the ocean to enslave, but could have just done that with the locals.
      - 4y ago

SoftAnnaLee 4y ago

I would say that Canada managed to stay loyal to the crown because for two major reasons. The first being the founding "myth" of Canada being the British loyalist colonists of the US migrating as a result of the US' revolution. Them fleeing north to a major seat of political power likely had a strengthening effect on being a willing subject to the crown than most colonies. Secondly, Canada is something of an imperial power unto itself. There are countless stories of armies marching under the crown violently clashing with nations that existed on the continent prior to European colonization. Likewise, even other European descended colonist as well as the Métis were subjugated by British rule as the Anglophone powers expanded across the continent (e.g. Queen Anne's War, Red River Rebellion, and Fenian raids). Gaining the ability to exploit the natural resources that these other nations and colonies held. The crown was a convenient way to gain both legitimacy from the British loyalists who settled in Canadian territory and a reliable trading partner to receive resources from in the British Canadian bids for expansion. Compared to the US, who used democratic rule to gain its own legitimacy; and who's natural resources were abundant enough to be a valuable trading partner.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]