"How the British Lost America" on PBS

[smee]

Mornin' John - Did you happen to see this program on PBS?

I watched three episodes - and I thought it was very well presented, interesting and it was from a perspective of the English. I've not spent a lot of time on this period, I know the rudimentary facts, figures and events. However, this was a really good show.

[Sponsored Links]

[John Bridge]

Hi Linda, :)

It ran here a couple months ago, and I probably watched about three episodes too, or at least parts of them. I think it's well presented and balanced. Nothing I could find to argue about, even. ;)

[jjwq8]

how the wha?
we lost nothing..............we wuz robbed:) :tongue:

[branty1uk]

Not lost, you're just looking after it. :tongue:

[jjwq8]

and none too well we might add. From anarchy to hedonism with no intervening period of civilization :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

[John Bridge]

The History Channel will be presenting a new mini-series on the War of 1812 beginning in a couple weeks, but if you can't wait, I can give you my rendition right now. :)

What it boils down to is that the Brits didn't get enough of a nosebleed the first time around so they returned for more. Made a mess of our capitol and all (even sat down in the White House and ate the president's dinner the way I hear it), but ended by getting their asses whacked at New Orleans, whereupon they tucked tail and headed home. End of story. :D

[branty1uk]

Sounds about right. :uhh:
But we still had the rest of the world in our grasp.

[COBALT]

Sounds about right. :uhh:
But we still had the rest of the world in our grasp.

The keyword in that statement is "HAD". *cough cough*

;)

[branty1uk]

No other empire was as big or will ever be. Mind you saying that I dont think its really something to be to proud of, taking all the resources of less developed lands to fund our own progress.

[flatfloor]

Any chance of getting Lawrence back on the job? Bet he'd make short work of these sand jockeys. ;)

[branty1uk]

Any chance of getting Lawrence back on the job? Bet he'd make short work of these sand jockeys. ;)
What, of Arabia?

[Shaughnn]

No other empire was as big or will ever be. Mind you saying that I dont think its really something to be to proud of, taking all the resources of less developed lands to fund our own progress.

Just give the man "four more years", Branty. The word "Empire" won't be expancive enough to explain what he's got in store. :wtf:
Shaughnn

[branty1uk]

Just give the man "four more years", Branty. The word "Empire" won't be expancive enough to explain what he's got in store. :wtf:
Shaughnn
What man? have i missed something here?

[flatfloor]

Yes Branty, Lawrence of Arabia. :yeah:

Don't mind Shaughnn he's just being :topicoff: bashing Bush again, his favorite pass time. :rolleyes:

[branty1uk]

I dont mind a bit of bush bashing myself. :tongue:

[flatfloor]

I would think Tony Blair should keep you busy enough. :D

[John Bridge]

How did you guys manage to destroy a perfectly good thread about the War of 1812? Linda's going to have a fit when she returns and sees this.

;)

[flatfloor]

I'm gettin outta here before she gets back and does something I'll regret.
:uhh:

[Derek & Jacqui]

We were having trouble getting decent beer.So we decided to leave until such time.!!!!!

[jjwq8]

"The" War of 1812.

Tsk Tsk to all you Colonials. :uhh:

"The War of 1812" was of course waged in Europe against one Napoleon, and in respect of which one Peter Tchaikovsky quaffed much vodka and composed some memorable pieces for drum, fife and wash-tub bass.

The Redcoats foray across the pond must therefore be seen in context for what it in fact was; a diversionary tactic poorly planned and improperly executed :cry: written off as an away loss before it started simply to lull ze leettle Twerp acroos the channel into a false sense of seecuritee, nest pas?
:tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

[smee]

I knew this would draw jeremy out of his corner of the globe....

Now, where were we....oh, yes - we were talking about George III and his purple pee, right? :tongue:

oh an yes, what did shrek say "Rulers of the biggest empire that ever was" headed by a King half mad, a cupcake of a son - a future polygamist plotting for the throne his secret catholic wife in tow - and then there were 8 or 9 or was it 12 other little Georges running around *crazy daddy* He was probably saving America for them - and I'm sorry, It escapes me, did he speak English?

I say, if we're going to get this thing off track - then let's be off with it - just for the crack.

how about this -

Was the English Empire the biggest empire ever?
How about Alexander?
that obscure guy, Ceasar?
Oh, and the Beast from the East - Ghengis Khan.
let's see...The Sultan Turks - rulers of the Ottoman Empire
who did I forget?

Are we talking size here?

[Steven Hauser]

Psst... size matters:D

If Jeremy comes out to play then so will I.


:twitch:

[branty1uk]

Was the English Empire the biggest empire ever?
How about Alexander?
that obscure guy, Ceasar?
Oh, and the Beast from the East - Ghengis Khan.
let's see...The Sultan Turks - rulers of the Ottoman Empire
who did I forget?

Are we talking size here?

Medo-Persia (Alexander The Great), Macedonia (Greece), The Middle East, NE Africa and North India.

Roman Empire, Most Of the above Including North Coast of Africa, Greece, Italy, Spain, France and Britain.

Not Sure about Gengis or the Turks.

Then Britain, India, North America, Australia and a fair slice of Africa, they ruled them all at one time, ''the sun never set on the British empire.

But I suppose in a modern context the USA has the biggest empire, their powerful influence is felt worldwide..

[smee]

Yes, Danny - I know it. I was just threading along...

I happen to be a devoted anglophile of epic proportions. I've read a disproportionate amount of english (et al) history.
I've been a few times - visited almost every anglo saxon\early\mid\late medieval and some civil war battlefields - I just love the wallace museum, one of my favorite museums in London.

I was just arguing the same thing with someone over the weekend about Britain having had the greatest empire in History - I think it began with the person picking on women rulers.

I'm just playing devils advocate.

Often wonder what america would be like today had we'd stayed in the fold - at least for some time - I'm not sure it would have been a bad thing.

[jjwq8]

I don't know what it says about the vitality of the Royal Male but the periods of our history generally looked upon as being the most glorious and remembered with the greatest fondness were overseen by a Queen.

As to staying in the fold, we're glad to be rid of you, it's hard enuff to rite proppah jinglish fer crissakes wivout yer bluddy orrful amerkanizmz :crazy:

[smee]

phooy - youz guys are still smarting - that's why you came back and tried again (1812) and got sent back home....again.

so you don't want us? huh, maybe we should join the EU?

[Steven Hauser]

Linda honey,

The EU is there because of us. ;)

As to bastardization, I should think Jeremy should be happy to have americanisms around to draw the critical eye of linguists else:
cabbaged - used for tired or stoned - eg. "I feel totally cabbaged". Can also be used for drunk.

cack - faeces, rubbish. eg "What a load of old cack you talk sometimes !".

cakehole - mouth. eg "Shove that in your cakehole !", "shut your cakehole !".

caned - drunk or stoned. A popular 90's term.

miffed - fed up, non plused. e.g.. "I was really miffed when he didn't turn up".

mince pies - Rhyming Slang for 'eyes'. Normally used in it's full form.

minge - (pron. minje) a fairly common term for vagina.

minger - an unattractive person (usually female). e.g.. "Look at those right minger's over there !".

minging - drunk, painful, disgusting. e.g.. "I was totally minging last night" or "My head is really minging".

mint - excellent. A popular 90's term.

missus - bit of a lad's term for the wife, usually 'the' missus. i.e. "I can't come dahn the pub, the missus will go mental".

mitts - hands. e.g.. "Keep your mitts off of my money".

Do you see my point :yeah:

[smee]

Now Steven dear, I was being ironical.

slightly sarcastical.

[John Bridge]

I would like to get back to the point if that's at all possible around this place, and if I can't, I would like to at least approach it. (I SHOULD like to approach it.) :D

You may have had your little to-do going on with Bonaparte over there, but I SHOULD like to point out that your foray to this side of the pond was a bit more than diversionary and had more to do with mercantilism in the West Indies (and other places) than it did with anything happening on the Continent. Fact is, you made a bloody mess of our capitol, embarrassed the hell out of President Madison, showed the colors/colours up and down the Atlantic Seaboard and bombed out in Florida and Louisiana. I'm not as astute as Steven with Anglo terms, but I think we could safely say you put on one hell of a good show before you "muffed it." :D

Linda,

You know something I don't know. I can't imagine how we might have remained in the fold. A while longer, perhaps, but not nearly as long as Canada, even. :)

[branty1uk]

Linda honey,

The EU is there because of us. ;)



mince pies - Rhyming Slang for 'eyes'. Normally used in it's full form.



Do you see my point :yeah:

Sorry to be picky, but you're on my territory now, that my friend is cockney rhyming slang, cockney being east london, so the above term, with a whole host of others is used really only in London. :)

[Steven Hauser]

Well Danny,

You apply the maxim of American being uniform, why should I not?

Blinkered - Someone who is blinkered is narrow minded or narrow sighted - they only see one view on a subject. It comes from when horses that pulled carriages wore blinkers to stop them seeing to the side or behind them which stopped them from being startled and only let them see where they were going.

Bloody - One of the most useful swear words in English. Mostly used as an exclamation of surprise i.e. "bloody hell" or "bloody nora". Something may be "bloody marvellous" or "bloody awful". It is also used to emphasise almost anything, "you're bloody mad", "not bloody likely" and can also be used in the middle of other words to emphasise them. E.g. "Abso-bloody-lutely"! Americans should avoid saying "bloody" as they sound silly.

Blooming - Another alternative to the word bloody. You might hear someone say "not blooming likely" so that they don't have to swear.

Blow me - When an English colleague of mine exclaimed "Blow Me" in front of a large American audience, he brought the house down. It is simply an exclamation of surprise, short for "Blow me down", meaning something like I am so surprised you could knock me over just by blowing. Similar to "Well knock me down with a feather". It is not a request for services to be performed.

Blunt - If a saw or a knife is not sharp we say it is blunt. It is also the way most of us speak! In America the knife would be dull.

Bob's your uncle - This is a well used phrase. It is added to the end of sentences a bit like and that's it! For example if you are telling someone how to make that fabulous banoffee pie you just served them, you would tell them to boil the condensed milk for three hours, spread it onto a basic cheesecake base, slice bananas on top, add some whipped double cream, another layer of banana and Bob's your uncle!

Bodge - We bodge things all the time here. I'm sure you do too! To do a bodge job means to do a quick and dirty. Make it look good for the next day or two and if it falls down after that - hey well we only bodged it! Applies to building, DIY, programming and most other things.

Anyway Danny, I believe I will stand by my point for a while longer. :yeah:

[Steven Hauser]

John,

:D

[smee]

Sorry John - what was the bleedin' point ?
I've somehow forgotten - however, I SHOULD like to know.

:)

I was joking about the staying island side - we had a destiny...Canada, well if that isn't the dogs bollocks....eh steven.

[branty1uk]

Well Danny,

You apply the maxim of American being uniform, why should I not?


When did I do that?
Nearly all those other expressions are used all over the UK, I was just pointing out that the rhyming slang you refer to is 'Cockney' Ryhming slang, which originates from east London. I love the variations of English, it's what makes english such a colourful (colorful) language.
I have no beef with you on the issue, just thought you might have found it intersting, sorry if i offened you. :)

[smee]

Danny love - don't be apologizin' - can't imagine you offended anyone.

I am a fan of the English accent of all kinds - except maybe New Yorkers ( hee hee hee)

One of my favorite shows is Eastenders. Here we are about 4 yrs behind in episodes - but it's still good. Would that be considered Cockney accent?

You did see the movie Snatch, right. THAT is hilarious and colourful !!!

[branty1uk]

Yes smee that is a cockney accent. Brad pitt's irish gipsy is very good in that.
Have you seen oceans 11, the latest one? the black guys london accent is the worst ever, even worse than dick van dyke in mary poppins.

[Steven Hauser]

Danny,

I was just funnin' with ya!

Your'e too big a bloke to upset.



Linda,

You know I like you all edgy and sarcastic. It makes me tingle.

:eek: :devil::rofl:

[branty1uk]

Tis ok Steve, just didnt want to offend anyone myself. Now I see you Americans can do irony, I'll not be so worried to offend in future. :tongue:

[John Bridge]

Anyone but me notice how quiet and reserved Jeremy has become? ;)

[flatfloor]

Oh yes, I noticed ever since he was over here. Hope everything is OK with his family. Another possibility is censorship, ya think?

Danny, Jeremy (Q8) is a real Brit rabble rouser. He could start a riot in a monastery. But he's our Brit. :D

[branty1uk]

If Jeremy is the only other Brit, then we're gonna have to stick together. But hold on there a minute, you say he lives in Kuwait? Then he's not getting enough rain to be a true Brit, unless he gets some shipped over.

[smee]

yes, I have noticed how mellow jeremy has been.

He's usually as good as ole faithful for a spout off :)

I think all you have to do is mention anything about Bush, Blair or amero-anglo relations and he'll have a go.
~~~~~~~~~

anyway - now back to the REAL subject of this thread - I did see an advert on the History Channel about the show - the "War of 1812". Honestly, it looked a little hokey. I'll check it out, however. I was hoping they would do it justice on PBS.

So, we should all watch it and, here's a novelty, talk about history on the here in the *history* thread.......hee hee

[flatfloor]

It starts this Sun. in my neck o the woods. I never watch Sun night football anyways, sfter Kathleen's Jets and my Giants thats enough.

[Bri]

Oh yeah, 1812...we kinda kicked your butts in that one didn't we? :)

[flatfloor]

Oh, you did, did you? Stop popping up and down for a second and that yankee Patti will show you what a cast iron skillet is for. :crazy:

[Bri]

So?..you re-wrote history again then? ;)

[John Bridge]

Canadians never kicked anybody's butt. Oh well, there was that one time when we got run out of Quebec, but are we counting that? :D

Not in 1812, though, unless you're playing Red Coat now. ;)

[Bri]

Hey, ain't you half canuck? :)

[John Bridge]

Only when I think it's an advantage. :D

Besides that, the half of me that is Canadian is French, not Brit.

[Bri]

Ok....let me get this straight. The British/Canadian/Indian forces took more land, had 1000 fewer deaths(including the 2000 that died in the battle of new orleans..which was after the war had ended), and a treaty was signed ending the war, with everyone giving back everything to pre-war stats.....and the USA won the war? :confused:

[John Bridge]

Truthfully, I can understand why you might not view the culmination of the War of 1812 as a decisive American victory, but you have to remember who declared war on whom. Also, certain British practices, i.e., embargo, impressment and general harrassment on the high seas was effectively ended by the American action.

There is no question we took a beating in winning this war :D, but win it we did. What persuaded the Brits to give it up was their defeat at the Battle of Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain. By this time the Americans and Brits were negotiating a settlement at Ghent. News of the loss at Plattsburg hastened the Brits to reach a settlement. We call this a victory. :)

Forces on both sides converging on New Orleans could not be reached with the news a settlement had been reached, and the battle commenced. And even though the war had technically ended, the battle raged and resulted in a stunning loss to the Brits.

Why it was an American victory. The Brits agreed to end all the hostile actions that had prompted the United States to declare war. European trade was resumed, and everybody was happy. :D

I don't see how you can not call that a victory. :D

[Bri]

I don't see how you can not call that a victory.


I see...this explains why Gore isn't President. ;)

[flatfloor]

No, but it might explain why I got run out of Montreal once. :noid:

[Bri]

From the New York Times:


The War of 1812 has lain mostly dormant in the American imagination for generations, its memory invoked only rarely, as in Johnny Horton's 1959 hit version of "The Battle of New Orleans" ("we fired once more, and the British kept a-comin' ") or in periodic retellings of the story of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Otherwise, the war remains an overlooked episode in American history, perhaps because it ended in a draw.

But the History Channel has been doing its best to make Americans remember the conflict, heavily promoting "First Invasion: The War of 1812," a two-hour documentary that it will show at 9 tomorrow night. Why this obscure war now? The key lies in the first part of the title. It is the documentary's contention that the War of 1812 teaches a lesson about the invasion of the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

That connection is explicitly drawn in the opening moments of the documentary when the words "September 11" fill the black screen over the sound of explosions and alarm bells and the voiceover intones ominously, "America is on the brink of annihilation." The screen then brightens to show cannon and soldiers in period costume, and the title changes to "September 11, 1814" - the date British forces advanced on Baltimore after burning Washington.

According to the documentary's view of the war, the fledgling republic perseveres against the enormous odds stacked against it by the powerful British military and its own disorganization. And if "First Invasion" backs off the Sept. 11 parallel soon after the opening, it does see the war as an inspiring lesson for Americans in a time of crisis.

"It is a story of courage, endurance and a little bit of luck," the narration says. "Forged by fire, united by will, a young nation defied the odds - and won."

But the documentary, from Native Sun Productions, tells the story of the War of 1812 selectively, leaving out large portions that would show American conduct in the war in a less successful and less glorious light.

"First Invasion" details the British seizure and impressment of American seamen into the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars, a direct casus belli for the United States. But it only fleetingly mentions American designs on Ontario and Quebec and efforts to drive Indian tribes allied with the British out of the western Great Lakes. It discusses New England's opposition to the war because of its commercial ties to Britain, but fails to discuss Southern congressmen's staunch support for the war, perhaps tied to fears that abolitionist Britain might curtail the slave trade.

And while the documentary goes into great detail about the destruction wrought by British forces on Washington and Baltimore in 1814, it glosses over the unsuccessful and bloody American campaign in Ontario in 1812 and 1813, which included the burning and sacking of several towns. (The British burning of Washington was retaliation for the Americans' burning of York.) Indeed, the narration refers to the American incursion not as an invasion but as merely an attack.

In the end, as much as anything about the war that is its subject, "First Invasion" teaches a lesson about the uses to which history can be put.

"In Canada, we learn that we successfully resisted your invasion, and that laid the groundwork for what would eventually become our nation," said Jack Granatstein, the former director of the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. "We won the War of 1812 by not losing."

Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto, remembers being surprised the first time he encountered the American view of the war. "A student showed me an American book on it about 15 years ago," he said, "and it conveyed the idea that it had been this glorious victory when, in fact, it was a defeat in an attempt to conquer Canada."

While the American failure in the north meant that the United States would never seriously threaten British interests in North America again, it also meant that Washington would direct its expansionist energies more fruitfully westward and southward against the Indians, Spain and Mexico.

"The war confirmed certain American messianic views about the continent, views the U.S. still holds," Professor Clarkson said.

[John Bridge]

Well, let's get serious, then. :)

'"In Canada, we learn that we successfully resisted your invasion, and that laid the groundwork for what would eventually become our nation," said Jack Granatstein, the former director of the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. "We won the War of 1812 by not losing."'

This is the only statement I partially agree with, and it pertains to Canada, not to England itself. I've already joked about our never having been able to invade Canada successfully, or at least we were never able to sustain an invasion over a period of time. I don't agree with the tone of the New York Times' account of the war, maybe of the TV program but not of the war. And I don't really think the War of 1812 had a lot to do with Canadian independence.

Overall, I really believe it was an American victory, even though it ended in a draw as it were. Everybody got his original territory back, and no one accrued capital gains or anything of the sort. Like many wars, it was a waste of time and of resources. But in the end the Brits did abandon the practice of impressing American seamen on the high seas, a gross violation of the Law of the Sea (International Law).

It is no secret the New York Times is what we call a liberal newspaper. Search for such accounts in papers like the Washington Times or even the Philadelphia Inquirer. You won't find them. Everybody has his own impression of historical events. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us the American Revolution never really happened, that it didn't amount to much and that the British let us win.

[Bri]

You know John, there was a time you didn't believe what I had to tell you about Ditra either. ;) :)

[branty1uk]

I must say I think the comparison to the invation of 1812 to that of 9/11 is a bit much, I would say its more like the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. What do I know, I'm just a Brit who's fully aware that his country did some pretty bad things in the past and a few good ones, just as America did and will do.

[tileguytodd]

For certain our hands are not clean.I'm not sure who has made more Gross errors in judgment over the years,Britain or The USA,suffice it to say weve both made a good plenty.Call it growing pains for the US and shrinking pains for "the empire"

I do know that Canada is financially dependant on the US and generally aligns with US Policies(not always,but generally) which isnt much differant than many of our states.Our state governments dont always agree with the feds.So in this light,Canada is much like an undeclared State.Now the undeclared part is what keeps Canada unique and independant to a point but it doesnt change the fact that the financial dependance isnt any differant than a States financial dependance.
This of course doesnt even touch on the dependance for protection.Canada enjoys a unique position in that they dont need much of a standing army with its big brother ally right next door.
If we didnt need our huge military,we too could have a nationalised health program.
If Canada and The US didnt have a good relationship,Canada would not have a nationalised health plan.They would be spending billions more on military expenses to remain autonimous.And the exchange rate would be even worse than it is today.
Personally, I am glad that the Canadians have remained independant to the point they have and have managed to hold on to thier own unique culture.
I have found Canadians to be laid back,friendly and unpretentious.They make great neighbors and gracious hosts for the most part.I have heard things get a bit differant the further east in canada you go.I cant say if this is true or not.I dont do East .North of me,I call many canadians friend and i dont expect they'll be invading through Northern Minnesota any time soon :D

As to the war of 1812,as military actions throughout history go,it was a pissing match started by a Bully in its death thoes(due to an inept king) and any pissing match that isnt Lost, can be considered a victory.
Its likely that had the US not had a civil war,Canada would have been the next to find itself a victim of Eminent Domain,the catch phrase of the time used by our leaders to justify expansion.By the mid 1800's it would have been unlikely that britain could have stopped a united US so far from home and beset with its own military problems elsewhere in the world.
Just think Bri,ya'll could be speaking with a texas accent !! SCARY!!!!:D :D

[John Bridge]

Man, talk about a skewed sense of history. I now find myself having to defend the Brit point of view. :D

At the time of the American Civil War, Britain was still the most powerful country in the world. Naval power was still supreme, and no one could touch them, certainly not the U.S.

The term was not "eminent domain"; it was "Manifest Destiny." Manifest Destiny pertained to expanding westward to the Pacific Ocean. If there were designs on acquiring Canada, they had nothing to do with moving westward.

Our dealings with Spain and with Mexico had little to do with our dealings with England. In fact, for most of our history England and Spain were enemies.

I, too, am glad it all came out in the wash and that all English-speaking people are now allies and friends. One of these days we may all get together and agree on a common historical "myth," but it sure won't be as much fun as this is. :D

Bri, I give you credit for influencing me in the use of Ditra, and you're still the Ditra Kid, but that doesn't make you a better historian. ;)

[Bri]

Now you see, I didn't say I was better :twitch: ...I was pointing out that you have to look at both sides and make your own opinion. Jeez, even I don't believe everything Micheal Moore says. :rolleyes:

Todd, if the US were to invade us, I hope it is winter...that would be one hell of snowball fight. :) Our underground would give the US troops Canadain beer, and then 90% would defect . Of course if there was a summer invasion, Canada would still win...pretty difficult fighting, with the US troops wearing snow shoes and everything. :laugh2:

[branty1uk]

There's only one thing I really know about history, that is, its history. :tongue:

[flatfloor]

Brian, if it was summer Pres. Kerry would issue flip-flops. :D

[Bri]

Kerry/flipflops haha ....now that was a good one! :laugh2:

[Raymond S]

BRIan,
CHORUS:
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

[Bri]

Not exactly The Beatles is it? ;) :)

[John Bridge]

That would be Johnny Horton, a great historian if there ever was one. ;)

The program aired last night, and I must confess I couldn't keep myself awake 30 minutes into the thing. Really doesn't matter, though. I know the story. ;)

[Bri]

I wonder if he's related to Tim in any way? ;) :laugh2:

[John Bridge]

Johnny Horton was also the "North to Alaska" guy. He was pretty popular for a few years. I heard his younger brother Tim started a donut shop somewhere. ;)

[flatfloor]

I watched all of it long on the military short on the politics.

[John Bridge]

The question is who the hell won? :D

[jjwq8]

Ivan the terrible :yeah:

[flatfloor]

Well, since the Brits were going to stop impressing our seamen anyway, I guess the Canadians did. :)

[Bri]

Oh oh! I see the problem here now...John, you were right, the US did win the war against the BRiTISH...but us Canucks gave you a woopin! :tongue: Then summer came and we had to take off our hockey equipment ..and you know we don't know how to fight unless we're wearing skates. ;)

[flatfloor]

The 2004 N. American riots are about to begin. :D

[John Bridge]

Now you're getting the idea, Brian. Took you long enough. ;) I never did claim to have whooped up on any Canucks. In fact, one used to whoop up on me pretty regularly when I was a kid. She hit me on the shoulder with a bread board when I was about 16. My mom was short. She was aiming at my head but couldn't reach it. :D

So it was the Brits we whooped up on. Sure hope they're weren't any stray Canucks amongst them. ;)

[branty1uk]

And now you send us in first to start the whooping off for you. :tongue:

[jjwq8]

Jeez John,
I knew you were old but did you really take an active role in the 1812 fol-de-rol? :yeah:

[John Bridge]

Danny,

Here's how it works. First we send in the diplomats and other government types to stir things up and get everybody pissed off. Then we send the British troops to soften them up so we can go in and mop up. Then the civilians go back in and start re-building the country, at which time the locals become pissed again and . . . . . :D


Jeremy,

I want to, but I was too young to serve. ;)

[Unregistered]

If I may add a coment,

Surley this war was a war between British and European settlers in America and British and Europeans who had alliances with British and European settlers in America?