Indian Nations - Not Happy Campers

Bergen said:
Passed-over_Loggie said:
Not making a point but asking a question; how does this measure against the Canadian treatment of Indians?[/quote]

Generally better; the treatment of the Indians in the USA with the documented intent of genocide forced many tribes to escape north into Canada. The invasion of Canada by the USA in 1812 was largely due to the fact that the US thought that the British were treating the Indians too well and also allowing them arms. Certainly Canadian Indians fought well with the British under Maj-Gen Isaac Brock in the opening battles of the war.

Modern day abuse of the Indians has been endemic in Canada with an ongoing scandal of sexual abuse of Indian kids at residential schools...... run by.......... no surprise here....... priests :thumright:

What may surprise many people is that the USA was still planning to annex Canada right up to the late 1930's and that if it were not for WW2 then this would have been attempted.


In February 1935, the War Department arranged a
Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to
build three border air bases for the purposes of
pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The
base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a
civilian airport and was to "be capable of dominating the
industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula" from p.
61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee
on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air
Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony
was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See
the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.



Frightened of the British Empire it reads! Such happy times long ago.


I thought that this was pretty funny:-

Invading Canada is an old American tradition. Invading Canada successfully is not.

During the American Revolution, Benedict Arnold -- then in his pre-traitor days -- led an invasion of Canada from Maine. It failed.

During the War of 1812, American troops invaded Canada several times. They were driven back.

In 1839, Americans from Maine confronted Canadians in a border dispute known as the Aroostook War.

"There were never any shots fired," said Etzinger, the Canadian Embassy spokesman, "but I think an American cow was injured -- and a Canadian pig."

In 1866, about 800 Irish Americans in the Fenian Brotherhood decided to strike a blow for Irish independence by invading Canada. They crossed the Niagara River into Ontario, where they defeated a Canadian militia. But when British troops approached, the Fenians fled back to the United States, where many were arrested.

After that, Americans stopped invading Canada and took up other hobbies, such as invading Mexico, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, Grenada, Afghanistan and, of course, Iraq.

But the dream of invading Canada lives on in the American psyche, occasionally manifesting itself in bizarre ways. Movies, for instance.

In the 1995 movie "Canadian Bacon," the U.S. president, played by Alan Alda, decides to jump-start the economy by picking a fight with Canada. His battle cry: "Surrender pronto or we'll level Toronto."

In the 1999 movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut," Americans, angered that their kids have been corrupted by a pair of foulmouthed, flatulent Canadian comedians, go to war. Canada responds by sending its air force to bomb the Hollywood home of the Baldwin brothers -- a far more popular defensive strategy than anything Buster Brown devised. Moviegoers left theaters humming the film's theme:

Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

With all their hockey hullabaloo

And that bitch Anne Murray too!

Blame Canada! Shame on Canada!

But it's not just movies. The urge to invade Canada comes in myriad forms.

In 2002, the conservative magazine National Review published an essay called "Bomb Canada: The Case for War." The author, Jonah Goldberg, suggested that the United States "launch a quick raid into Canada" and blow something up -- "perhaps an empty hockey stadium." That would cause Canada to stop wasting its money on universal health insurance and instead fund a military worthy of the name, so that "Canada's neurotic anti-Americanism would be transformed into manly resolve."

And let's not forget the Web site InvadeCanada.US, which lists many compelling reasons for doing do: "let's make Alaska actually connected to the U.S. again!" and "they're just a little too proud" and "the surrender will come quickly, they're French after all."

The site also sells T-shirts, buttons, teddy bears and thong underwear, all of them decorated with the classic picture of Uncle Sam atop the slogan "I WANT YOU to Invade Canada."


This I didn't find so funny:-

In 1934, War Plan Red was amended
to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against
Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax
if it could not be captured.



War Hero
I was aware of the plight of the Indian Nations, and the result, but not the details. The rest - had entirely passed me by until now.
Thanks for a brilliant post Bergen, and for some very constructive and informative posts from others. Fascinating reading.
Keep it going lads - you're educating at least one silly old b****r.



Book Reviewer
Halifax? When I was there as part of STANAVFORLANT for the Canadian Bicentennial the joke was 'the US dropped an atom bomb on Halifax and did $18 worth of damage'. Of course the place had been blown to bits by an ammunition ship exploding in 1918 ..

US knowledge of Canada perhaps epitomised by a barber in San Diego in 1968 - snip, snip, chat, chat, clearly works out that I'm some sort of foreigner. Wheels go clunking round inside his head and works out that I'm probably not Mexican. 'Gee, are you from Canada?'

Not sure why either US or Canada should be so keen to keep the Indians in a dependency culture. Perhaps the level of graft is now such that those who shy out the taxpayers' money can't afford to stop. Also of course there would be a cloud of PC protest by left-wing liberal nincompoops if the gravy train derailed. Personally I think the best thing for the Indians as individuals is to get a grip and get jobs and join in the 21st century.
I shall not be there,I shall rise and pass.
Bury my heart at Wounded Knee
Stephen Vincent Bene't

Do you think we will ever see an Native American as President of the USA?
Seaweed. As a lad, I took a lot of interst in Red Indians (as we knew them) and what had been their way of life (thanks Hawkeye, Range Rider and the Lone Ranger. From what I can remember, there were many similarities with Budhism. Such things as honour, respect of ancestors and care for the world around them. I think before they join even the 20th Century, there are a few things they could teach us.


Book Reviewer
Personally I don't buy into this Rousseau-esque Noble Savage stuff. Driving herds of bison over cliffs just to get the odd steak doesn't strike me as conservation (although it pales before the mechanised slaughter of the late 19th century). And Grey Owl, before he comes on stage was born in Hastings. What I do see is the savagery, cruelty and superstition of a Stone Age people with customs of which present-day Indians are well shot. btw my wife had a distant cousin who was kidnapped as a child in Chihuahua (a dit on its own) by Apaches, we think in order to make up numbers in a good year - in a bad year they practised infanticide instead. Further north one might recall the scene in 'Nanook of the North' where Granny is plonked on an ice floe to wait for the bears.

On the other side of the coin there is of course the well documented series (see 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee') of atrocities by the US Govt but very many present-day Americans' forebears weren't even in the US then. In the end I see integration as the answer, not Reservations which to my mind trap these people in a timewarp and exclude them from the rest of society. What if the descendants of the 17th century agricultural Indians on the East coast wanted THEIR land back??? Why give mineral rights to aboriginal people who had no use for those minerals in their culture? etc etc.
Its all part of the colonisation process

Expansion of European based settlers -------as in Australia New Zealand etc. the natives are still living and doing their own thing within a European type off constitutional government. .

However in the African states all the do gooders decided that the natives could run the countries themselves and that ''fair'' elections should be held
apartheid was a dirty word . Rhodesia and South Africa prime examples
The Uk and friends decided that the mainly white administrations were
unfair -------- :bball: :bball: The do gooders are still unhappy --cos now its the Natives not playing fair!!

America seems to have a colonise ''mania'' at the moment possibly dreaming of the old Brit Empire in Victorian times . Snag is nowadays the native populations have out grown spears and bows and arrows.

The Romans started it ----- they called it ''civilising'' barbarians however it was a means of enslavement of the native populations. Changing their ways of life and milking them -- all profits ending up in the Empires coffers!!

And life goes on

:nemo: :nemo:
Greenie, you make some interesting points.

When Dr Verwoerd introduce apartheid, it had a noble cause. Unfortunately, it was a hundred years too late. The native Sud Afrikan had already grasped the ways of the interloper. Then your average trek boer was too greedy to resist cheap kafir labour. An abject lesson in how not to colonise a Country 100 years after it had been colonised.

The Americans truly hate colonisation. Perhaps it reminds them of their own origins. They now use colonisation without occupation; or at least did. They resented British colonial power and made sure it was removed with all haste. That is part of the reason why much of the former pink bits on the map are now in sh**sville!

Latest Threads

New Posts