3 ms·
It's funny that they mention a Canadian climber being a threat to the Crown getting the Everest mantle. Pretty sure in the 1940s Canadians were still British su
by Staple_Diet 2y ago
It's funny that they mention a Canadian climber being a threat to the Crown getting the Everest mantle. Pretty sure in the 1940s Canadians were still British subjects, much like Kiwis (of which Hillary was one). So, a Canadian summiting would have been the same as a Kiwi summiting.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- afavour 2y agoIt’s all a matter of perspective. Despite being British subjects Canadians still had their own sense of identity, as did Kiwis.
- dorfsmay 2y agoEven though Canadian citizenship first appeared in 1947, athletes were recognised as Canadian as soon as the country was created in 1867. The first Canadians to win a anything were the "Paris crew" who won a regatta days after the constitution. Canada started to be represented in the Olympic Games in 1900. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/paris-crew https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/paris-crew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_at_the_1900_Summer_Olym...
- verve_rat 2y agoAnd NZ competed at the Olympics in 1920. If Canada counts as not the Crown, then so does NZ. It's a major oversight for an article on this subject.
- ctippett 2y agoI was waiting for the article to acknowledge that Hillary was from New Zealand, but it's never mentioned.
- sandworm101 2y ago1931. Not 1940s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931 >>Most of the remaining colonies in North America – everything north of the United States with the exception of Newfoundland – were merged into a federal polity known as "Canada" in the late 1860s and early 1870s. Canada was termed a "dominion", a term previously used in slightly different contexts in English history, and granted a broad array of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments. Australia was similarly deemed a dominion when it federated in 1901, as were Newfoundland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the Irish Free State in the first decades of the 20th century. >> No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof. In that language was/is Canadian independence from britain.
- verve_rat 2y agoAnd NZ adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947, so was on the same footing as Canada with respect to claiming the "first to the top" title.
- soperj 2y agoNah, you're wrong. There was a reason they waited a day to declare war on Germany in WWII, where as in WWI they were automagically at war.
- kemiller2002 2y agoI remember that in Canadian history. They did not go to war because England did, but I think it was they went to war because the monarchy declared it (?) (Please don't knock me too hard Canadian history was over 25 years ago for me.)
- verve_rat 2y agoYeah but New Zealand also separately declared war in World War II, so if that is your yardstick then there is still no difference between a Kiwi and a Canadian getting there first.
- verve_rat 2y agoI've replied to a few comments here pointing out why NZ and Canada would be considered both on the same footing as part of the Empire but also not at the same time. Unlike, say the US, independence for the former Dominions isn't something you can pin point to one event. It is mostly a slow evolution of the legal environment and cultural separation over the course of more than a century. (In NZ's case you could argue that it took 163 years, or is not done yet because reasons.) The actual difference between the Canadian "expedition" and the one that included Hillary is that the Canadian one was just some dude. One guy that wanted to try his luck, whereas the British one was organised (and I believe paid for) in Britain. It just happened to have a Kiwi on it.
- Staple_Diet 2y agoThanks, that explains it well. It seems it's less about who climbed but more so who funded the climb. I daresay though they'd still have claimed the Canadian as a Commonwealth victory if he'd summited and likely knighted him too like they did Hillary.