Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Mike S. et al. I've lived in northern new england twice, and long enough, to have leaned the language (e.g. "'yup, nope' and other Vermont conversations"), so I really don't mind the concise or pithy or even abbreviated in surface structure, especially as I frequently catch emails on the fly and send notes on a Blackberry with that tiny little keyboard. Not that I don't appreciate the longer, more academic posts, I do. As far as references, I would rather use PsychArticles for tracking down detailed information and quotes and finely honed logic on those small number of topics that I am interested in and can devote serious time to. I find that TIPs is at its best for quick tips and pointing people in the direction of more information ... but, as they say, bandwidth is inexpensive. == John W. Kulig, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Director, Psychology Honors Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: "Michael Smith" To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 12:20:04 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance In response to: "It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve" Allen said " I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv" First the first statement isn't really remarkable at all. Of course, if you want to be very literal you can claim Allen's response as being a legitimate interpretation. Of course it isn't, and he knows it I presume (or perhaps I presume too much). An intelligent interpretation would be that the statement presumes the person is interested in the subject. Then to find out what the author is saying, the reader must read all the verbiage. If Allen and Mike P really believe that it's news to people that they don't have to read what they don't want to..well what can you say. Allen's second point. "Second, this is a listserv for professionals (academics, one might say). There are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately in a few concise sentence..." This is clearly wrong. There is no subject no matter how complex that cannot benefit from concision. It also excludes most of the posts here since almost nothing discussed here is "complex". In addition, no one suggested that the response: not be well thought out must be limited to a few sentences. not include references The actual point was: Complete english sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary and so are quotes. Including these actually detracts from the essential points. That is, for busy "professionals (academics, one might say)." --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=6624 or send a blank email to leave-6624-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6703 or send a blank email to leave-6703-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Well, I pay little attention to due dates :-) Hmm. It seems the point, silly as it is, is still not getting across. I'll try to simplify further... My point was: Must a post be in essay format to be well thought out, informative, and properly referenced? Put another way, the Essay Hypothesis: "A post MUST be in essay format to be well thought out, informative, and properly referenced." (must was capitalized incase that was missed before) Is the essay hypothesis true? My correct answer is no. The only way the "essay hypothesis" can be true is if it is impossible to see the above qualities in a non-essay response. This is obviously not the case. Simply strip the essay let's say of descriptives for example (plainly, obviously, elegant, melodramatic, etc.) and there you go. It may not be as easy to read, but all the information will still be there, but it will no longer be an essay. I think the original intention, however, was the objection to verbiage. This is not an insult despite what Stephen may gleem from dictionaries. It does mean an over-abundance of words which implies they are unnecessary. Here is an example of verbiage (from Allen): "This thread is well past its sell-by date, and I had no intention of prolonging it," Here is an example from me "Well, I pay little attention to due dates :-)" Should verbiage (unnecessary words) be eliminated? Definately Yes. If one feels they detract from the post. Definately No. If one feels they don't detract or even enhance the post. So there you have it. I think all who contributed here should be rightly proud of their efforts. I'm sure Monty Python would be :-) --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6702 or send a blank email to leave-6702-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
It is my understanding that products are still effective 10 days beyond their expiration date. Michael - Original Message - From: To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance Despite Allen E's declaration that this thread, with its unlikely subject header, has reached its "sell-by-date" (that's "best by" to Canucks), I can't restrain myself here. I had asserted that the word "verbiage" used by Michael Smith to describe certain TIPS posters carried an insulting connotation. Mike rashly denied this, arguing I disagree. I don't see the word verbiage to be an insult. It means an over-abundance of words. True. But it means more than that. The magisterial Oxford English Dictionary (the OED) says, as part of its brief definition of "verbiage, "Wording...without necessity or without much meaning". That's an insult in my book (well, ok in the OED's book). Lesser lights concur. World English Dictionary verbiage - n 1. The...often meaningless use of words Computing Dictionary verbiage definition This term borrows the connotations of mainstream "verbiage" to suggest that the documentation is of marginal utility and that the motives behind its production have little to do with the ostensible subject. The Oxford Dictionary (another one, I guess) A profusion of words usually of little or obscure content Collins English Dictionary 1. the excessive and often meaningless use of words And finally, my wife agrees with me, so I must be right. So, Mike, I'm willing to admit that some of my posts may be too long if you admit that yours are verbiage. Stephen Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca - --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: msylves...@copper.net. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13424.eb17e1c03643c971ab35c22d86587541&n=T&l=tips&o=6697 or send a blank email to leave-6697-13424.eb17e1c03643c971ab35c22d86587...@fsulist.frostburg.edu No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3271 - Release Date: 11/21/10 17:35:00 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6699 or send a blank email to leave-6699-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Despite Allen E's declaration that this thread, with its unlikely subject header, has reached its "sell-by-date" (that's "best by" to Canucks), I can't restrain myself here. I had asserted that the word "verbiage" used by Michael Smith to describe certain TIPS posters carried an insulting connotation. Mike rashly denied this, arguing > I disagree. I don't see the word verbiage to be an insult. It means an > over-abundance of words. True. But it means more than that. The magisterial Oxford English Dictionary (the OED) says, as part of its brief definition of "verbiage, "Wording...without necessity or without much meaning". That's an insult in my book (well, ok in the OED's book). Lesser lights concur. World English Dictionary verbiage - n 1. The...often meaningless use of words Computing Dictionary verbiage definition This term borrows the connotations of mainstream "verbiage" to suggest that the documentation is of marginal utility and that the motives behind its production have little to do with the ostensible subject. The Oxford Dictionary (another one, I guess) A profusion of words usually of little or obscure content Collins English Dictionary 1. the excessive and often meaningless use of words And finally, my wife agrees with me, so I must be right. So, Mike, I'm willing to admit that some of my posts may be too long if you admit that yours are verbiage. Stephen Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca - --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6697 or send a blank email to leave-6697-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Canada's early intolerance
This thread is well past its sell-by date, and I had no intention of prolonging it, but as Mike Smith has responded to Stephen's comment about the sense of the word "verbiage" in the context of TIPS posts, I note he writes: >I don't see the word verbiage to be an insult. It means an >over-abundance of words. In the same context on 20 November Mike wrote: >The actual point was: Complete english sentences >and paragraphs are unnecessary and so are quotes. That's interesting, considering that Mike's post on 18 April this year was around 360 words longer than my post that set this series of exchanges in motion (the one Chris referred to as an "essay"), i.e., some 30 percent longer than mine – and it comprised almost entirely of an unreferenced quotation from elsewhere. Disclaimer: I was not looking for this (I presumed that Mike practised what he preached), just trying to satisfy my curiosity about which educational establishment Mike works at. (And, please, let's not get into a discussion on that. :-) ) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org From: Michael Smith Subject:Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:48:37 -0600 S. Black responds to this thread with: "...uncharacteristically disagreeable..." I disagree. I don't find the discussion disagreeable, just a discussion. "it's time I expressed an opinion" OK. This must be significant I guess, but I'm not sure why. "'Verbiage' refers to more than just the length of a contribution. It's also an insult, implying that the words are superflous or meaningless" I disagree. I don't see the word verbiage to be an insult. It means an over-abundance of words. Which was the point of the argument: Whether or not essay-type posts have too many words (which was obviously from the very beginning, a personal preference). So. I view the whole point as: Is it a necessity that a post on a list-serv be in the form of an essay in order to convey a well thought out and documented response about a topic? My answer is no. Note that this view has nothing to do with what is preferable or desirable (or required in other contexts). Some Tipsters may enjoy reading essay responses, some may not. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6691 or send a blank email to leave-6691-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
S. Black responds to this thread with: "...uncharacteristically disagreeable..." I disagree. I don't find the discussion disagreeable, just a discussion. "it's time I expressed an opinion" OK. This must be significant I guess, but I'm not sure why. "'Verbiage' refers to more than just the length of a contribution. It's also an insult, implying that the words are superflous or meaningless" I disagree. I don't see the word verbiage to be an insult. It means an over-abundance of words. Which was the point of the argument: Whether or not essay-type posts have too many words (which was obviously from the very beginning, a personal preference). So. I view the whole point as: Is it a necessity that a post on a list-serv be in the form of an essay in order to convey a well thought out and documented response about a topic? My answer is no. Note that this view has nothing to do with what is preferable or desirable (or required in other contexts). Some Tipsters may enjoy reading essay responses, some may not. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6682 or send a blank email to leave-6682-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Canada's early intolerance
On 21 November 2010 Michael Sylvester wrote: >I was educated under the British system in my early youth >and writing full sentences and elaborating on ideas were >compulsory. One was judged by the depth nature of one's thinking. Michael: I fear those more rigorous days have long gone as far as English secondary schools are concerned. (Though I hope the requirement for full sentences remains, even if concern for accurate grammar has lapsed considerably.) >Students were also ranked in the subjects they took and >the GCE exams were sent to England to be graded. Ironically, the English exam boards still publish old-style GCE examination papers, but these are taken by school students in British Commonwealth countries, not in England! Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org From: michael sylvester Subject:Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:52:01 -0200 I was educated under the British system in my early youth and writing full sentences and elaborating on ideas were compulsory.One was judged by the depth nature of one's thinking.Students were also ranked in the subjects they took and the GCE exams were sent to England to be graded.It is interesting to note that V S Naipaul(born in Guyana)the writer, has been ranked as one of the best writers of the English language and Derek Walcott ( my neighbor in St.Lucia) got a Nobel prize for literature. When I came to the U.S I was surprized by all those multiple choice questions and the "sound bites" paradigm. And as a reminder "when everyone is thinking alike,nobody is thinking". Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6668 or send a blank email to leave-6668-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
I was educated under the British system in my early youth and writing full sentences and elaborating on ideas were compulsory.One was judged by the depth nature of one's thinking.Students were also ranked in the subjects they took and the GCE exams were sent to England to be graded.It is interesting to note that V S Naipaul(born in Guyana)the writer, has been ranked as one of the best writers of the English language and Derek Walcott ( my neighbor in St.Lucia) got a Nobel prize for literature. When I came to the U.S I was surprized by all those multiple choice questions and the "sound bites" paradigm. And as a reminder "when everyone is thinking alike,nobody is thinking". Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6644 or send a blank email to leave-6644-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Given that this uncharacteristically disagreeable thread concerning whether Allen Esterson's posts are are too long (although this applies to many others) continues to rage, it's time I expressed an opinion. Recent postings on TIPS are unfortunately beginning to remind me of that famous observation on Canada's national game, "I went to the fights last night, and a hockey game broke out". Except that we seem not to be having hockey games any more, only fights. For what it's worth, I'm with Beth Benoit and others on this matter. "Verbiage" refers to more than just the length of a contribution. It's also an insult, implying that the words are superflous or meaningless. I'm astounded that anyone would say this about Allen's carefully-crafted posts.They are models of scholarship, concise, informative, logical, and exceptionally well- documented. Just what we need on TIPS. It's not for nothing that Allen is recognized as a noted critic of Freud, and now also as an effective defender of Einstein against those who would distort history. As Allen himself as has pointed out, some issues require more words to deal with than others, but this does not make them verbiage. This is a discussion list, not Twitter, for heaven's sake. And as it has also been pointed out, those who are uninterested or who cannot appreciate scholarship, or whose lips must move while they read, don't have to read such posts. I say, bring 'em on. I learn a lot from them. To adapt a famous saying which a famous man never said, "An argument should be made as short as possible but no shorter". (I know. Jim Clark got there before me, without the disclaimer. But as far as we know, Einstein never said it. ) Stephen Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca - --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6647 or send a blank email to leave-6647-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Canada's early intolerance
I don't particularly want to prolong this discussion further, given that some other TIPSters have had their say and evidently no one else wants to come in on this, but Mike Smith's latest post deserves a response. Mike wrote: >In response to: "It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade >through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve" Allen said >"I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, >no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv" >First the first statement isn't really remarkable at all. Of course, >if you want to be very literal you can claim Allen's response as >being a legitimate interpretation. Of course it isn't, and he knows >it I presume (or perhaps I presume too much). Mike: I would prefer that you don't insinuate that I was being disingenuous when there's no substance to the suggestion. If I didn't think my response was a legitimate interpretation I wouldn't have made it. (As did two other TIPSters before me – though as they weren't in yesterday's Digest I hadn't seen them when I sent my post.) >An intelligent interpretation would be that the statement >presumes the person is interested in the subject. Then >to find out what the author is saying, the reader must >read all the verbiage. Obviously we have different notions of "intelligent". If the person is interested in the subject, then reading more that just a few concise sentences shouldn't really be a chore. I have to say that I find it remarkable that you regard an occasional detailed post when it is necessitated for an adequate response as "verbiage", given that such a post is shorter than most articles on serious topics that one might read elsewhere. I'm also surprised that with, for instance, my lengthy reply to Chris Green's four assertions a few days ago, you regard that as verbiage. May I gently suggest that you look to your own possible limitations before criticizing others in such terms. >Allen's second point. "Second, this is a listserv for >professionals (academics, one might say). There >are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately >in a few concise sentence..." >This is clearly wrong. There is no subject no matter >how complex that cannot benefit from concision. It >also excludes most of the posts here since almost >nothing discussed here is "complex". I have to strongly disagree with your rejecting my saying there are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately in a few concise sentences, for reasons I gave in a previous post. (That there's no subject that cannot benefit from concision is one we can agree on, but that's another issue.) In the current context, by "complex" I didn't mean intrinsically difficult, but that an adequate response may involve a number of separate elements. >The actual point was: >Complete english sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary >and so are quotes. >Including these actually detracts from the essential points. >That is, for busy "professionals (academics, one might say)." I'll presume you didn't mean to write that your actual point was that "complete English sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary" – surely? If a quote from an informed source provides backing for a point being made, why shouldn't it be included? To suppose such quotes, when relevant, *detract* from a point being made I find an astonishing contention. If your view of what posts on TIPS should be limited to were to be followed, we would have little better than an exchange of bare assertions between TIPSters on subjects where there is disagreement on matters in which factual aspects are in dispute. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org - From: Michael Smith Subject:Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:20:04 -0600 In response to: "It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve" Allen said " I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv" First the first statement isn't really remarkable at all. Of course, if you want to be very literal you can claim Allen's response as being a legitimate interpretation. Of course it isn't, and he knows it I presume (or perhaps I presume too much). An intelligent interpretation would be that the statement presumes the person is interested in the subject. Then to find out what the author is saying, the reader must read all the verbiage. If Allen and Mike P really believe that it's news to people that they don't have to read what they don't want to..well what can you say. Allen's second point. "Second, this is a listserv for professionals (academics, one might say). There are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately in a few concise sentence..." This is clearly wrong. There is no subject no ma
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Hi "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Personally, I prefer to read thoughts that are expressed as full sentences, whether on-line, in a paper, or in written work of students. Because cryptic, point-form comments work for one's own notes or to prompt fuller spoken expression of ideas (e.g., powerpoint outlines) does not mean that academics should start to write that way to one another. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> Michael Smith 20-Nov-10 11:20:04 AM >>> In response to: "It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve" Allen said " I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv" First the first statement isn't really remarkable at all. Of course, if you want to be very literal you can claim Allen's response as being a legitimate interpretation. Of course it isn't, and he knows it I presume (or perhaps I presume too much). An intelligent interpretation would be that the statement presumes the person is interested in the subject. Then to find out what the author is saying, the reader must read all the verbiage. If Allen and Mike P really believe that it's news to people that they don't have to read what they don't want to..well what can you say. Allen's second point. "Second, this is a listserv for professionals (academics, one might say). There are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately in a few concise sentence..." This is clearly wrong. There is no subject no matter how complex that cannot benefit from concision. It also excludes most of the posts here since almost nothing discussed here is "complex". In addition, no one suggested that the response: not be well thought out must be limited to a few sentences. not include references The actual point was: Complete english sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary and so are quotes. Including these actually detracts from the essential points. That is, for busy "professionals (academics, one might say)." --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=6624 or send a blank email to leave-6624-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6635 or send a blank email to leave-6635-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
In response to: "It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve" Allen said " I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv" First the first statement isn't really remarkable at all. Of course, if you want to be very literal you can claim Allen's response as being a legitimate interpretation. Of course it isn't, and he knows it I presume (or perhaps I presume too much). An intelligent interpretation would be that the statement presumes the person is interested in the subject. Then to find out what the author is saying, the reader must read all the verbiage. If Allen and Mike P really believe that it's news to people that they don't have to read what they don't want to..well what can you say. Allen's second point. "Second, this is a listserv for professionals (academics, one might say). There are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately in a few concise sentence..." This is clearly wrong. There is no subject no matter how complex that cannot benefit from concision. It also excludes most of the posts here since almost nothing discussed here is "complex". In addition, no one suggested that the response: not be well thought out must be limited to a few sentences. not include references The actual point was: Complete english sentences and paragraphs are unnecessary and so are quotes. Including these actually detracts from the essential points. That is, for busy "professionals (academics, one might say)." --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6624 or send a blank email to leave-6624-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Canada's early intolerance
P.P.S. Correction. I wrote: >Mike again: >>Stop it you two! If you don't like each other, take it off list! That should, of course, have been John (Serafin). Apologies to Mike and John. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6617 or send a blank email to leave-6617-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
>>> "Serafin, John" writes: Sheesh, I quit this list once because of crankiness amongst participants. I'm on the verge of doing so again.<<< Every time someone has said "sheesh" to me, I've found them to be cranky. Bill Scott --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6616 or send a blank email to leave-6616-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Canada's early intolerance
A postscript to my last post: John Serafin wrote: >You know, Allen, you regularly remind us not to accept >anything that someone else has written. What I have written before is rather more specific than this, along the lines that one should not accept *assertions" just because one has read them in a book, even by academically well-qualified authors. I've never said that one shouldn't accept "anything that someone else has written". That would be absurd. If someone has written a well-argued, well-documented article or book then there may be good reason to accept a particular view that author has taken. But even then, I make it a principle to only accept the case made for the issue in question tentatively until I have had the opportunity to read a criticism of, or another viewpoint on, the position taken by the author (which, if it is important enough, I then seek out). Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6614 or send a blank email to leave-6614-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Canada's early intolerance
On 19 November 2010 Mike Smith wrote: >It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot >of verbiage particularly on a list-serve. I find that a rather remarkable comment, on two counts. First, no one has to "wade" through any post on this listserv. As far as I'm aware, it is not one of the regulations that TIPSters must read every post – just skip the ones you don't want to read. Second, this is a listserv for professionals (academics, one might say). There are some issues that cannot be dealt with adequately in a few concise sentence – or if this is attempted it only invites a response because of lack of sufficient evidence, so a further response is needed, and so on. I'm not saying, of course, that I couldn't be more concise, but I suppose it's a habit of mind I've developed to try to make a coherent case, deriving from my experience of writing articles that are essentially arguments to support a position taken. In my last substantive post I was responding to one paragraph that contained four supposed facts about Britain's involvement in the American Civil War. Each one required a separate response if an adequate answer was to be given. Which takes us to John Serafin's comment: >You know, Allen, you regularly remind us not to accept >anything that someone else has written. Good advice. >But then you regularly quote what others have written. Yes, I thought that someone might make that point. But I don't just quote at random, as it were. For instance, in the case in question that has precipitated Mike's and John's comments, I quoted from a fully documented 650 page book by an historian totally dedicated to the events in question. If I may say so, there's a contradiction lying within John's comment supporting Mike. I didn't just quote conclusions by the author *for the very reason behind John's comment* -- that it would come across as just one person's *opinion*. I also included (as briefly as I could while making the point adequately) enough to give an idea of the *basis* on which any conclusion was based. Furthermore, so that it is even less a question of just quoting what one other author had written, I included a couple of quotes from other historians. And just to emphasize the general point I am making here, in spite of the length of the post in question, Chris responded by expressing surprise I hadn't dealt with *another* item – which had I done so would have made the post even longer! But, to reiterate, if TIPSters are not sufficiently interested in the topic to follow what by normal standards of reading material are still relatively short pieces, just skip it. Mike again: >Stop it you two! If you don't like each other, take it off list! A request to you, John. When another case of the kind you have in mind comes up, please say this at the time, so that we'll be able to judge whether the difference of opinion is anything to do with the protagonists not liking each other. Frankly, if I were the kind of person to easily take offence, I would take offence at the implication in your remark. As it is, I'll just say that it's without substance. >Sheesh, I quit this list once because of crankiness amongst >participants. I'm on the verge of doing so again. So "crankiness" in this instance (in relation to posts that I have written) consists of my taking up a few issues and treating them seriously enough to devote several paragraphs in order to provide adequate evidence for the position I am taking. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org - From: Michael Smith Subject:Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:45:10 -0600 It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve. Perhaps what Chris meant was, instead of essays: skip the quotes make it point form with concision (of course the same criticism could be leveled at M. Palij who also tends to be an essay writer) --Mike -- From: Serafin, John Subject:Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:00:04 -0500 To be as succinct as possible: I agree with Michael Smith here. Stop the thesis level posts. You know, Allen, you regularly remind us not to accept anything that someone else has written. Good advice. But then you regularly quote what others have written. Mike P, you regularly cite sources, and then point out that the sources are not reliable. WTF is going on here! Stop it you two! If you don't like each other, take it off list! Sheesh, I quit this list once because of crankiness amongst participants. I'm on the verge of doing so again. John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
I second Mike Palij's post. If you don't want to read a long, carefully written post, then don't. No one should chastise a TIPSter who posts an academic, referenced post, because it's "too long." I love the scholarly expertise that some of our more erudite TIPSters offer. I love that Allen Esterson and other select posters give us carefully considered and annotated posts. And we all know who they are! (I started to include the names of those whom I considered to be the best and brightest but decided I'd better not list them because I'd be sure to forget someone who deserved to make "My List." But when we get a post from "Them," our computers light up. Well, mine does. I know whose to skim and whose to read carefully. So, please keep 'em coming Allen et al. Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Mike Palij wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:00:41 -0800, John Serafin wrote: > >To be as succinct as possible: I agree with Michael Smith here. > >Stop the thesis level posts. > > Allen can respond for himself. All I want to say is no one on > Tips is obligated to read all of the posts that are made. If one > does read all of the posts and the only constructive thing that > one can say is "the posts are too long", well, don't read them. > It won't be on the exam. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > m...@nyu.edu > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: beth.ben...@gmail.com. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13105.b9b37cdd198e940b73969ea6ba7aaf72&n=T&l=tips&o=6604 > or send a blank email to > leave-6604-13105.b9b37cdd198e940b73969ea6ba7aa...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6605 or send a blank email to leave-6605-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:00:41 -0800, John Serafin wrote: >To be as succinct as possible: I agree with Michael Smith here. >Stop the thesis level posts. Allen can respond for himself. All I want to say is no one on Tips is obligated to read all of the posts that are made. If one does read all of the posts and the only constructive thing that one can say is "the posts are too long", well, don't read them. It won't be on the exam. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6604 or send a blank email to leave-6604-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
To be as succinct as possible: I agree with Michael Smith here. Stop the thesis level posts. You know, Allen, you regularly remind us not to accept anything that someone else has written. Good advice. But then you regularly quote what others have written. Mike P, you regularly cite sources, and then point out that the sources are not reliable. WTF is going on here! Stop it you two! If you don't like each other, take it off list! Sheesh, I quit this list once because of crankiness amongst participants. I'm on the verge of doing so again. John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu > From: Michael Smith > Reply-To: TIPS posts > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:45:10 -0500 > To: TIPS posts > Subject: Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance > > It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of > verbiage particularly on a list-serve. > > Perhaps what Chris meant was, instead of essays: > > skip the quotes > make it point form with concision > > (of course the same criticism could be leveled at M. Palij who also > tends to be an essay writer) > > --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6603 or send a blank email to leave-6603-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
It is tiring and unnecessary (I think) to wade through a lot of verbiage particularly on a list-serve. Perhaps what Chris meant was, instead of essays: skip the quotes make it point form with concision (of course the same criticism could be leveled at M. Palij who also tends to be an essay writer) --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6600 or send a blank email to leave-6600-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Canada's early intolerance
First a correction to my last post: It was Palmerston, not Lord Russell, who was the British Prime Minister at the time of the American Civil War; Russell was the Foreign Minister. Also: The Google Books edition *Great Britain and the American Civil War* by Ephraim Douglas Adams is dated 2006, but the book was first published in 1925. http://tinyurl.com/36kugjv Now to what Chris wrote on 17 September 2010: >I don't have the time to read another of Allen essays… I have often been only too aware, whether writing on Freud, Jeffrey Masson, or the Mileva Maric "controversy", that erroneous assertions made in a sentence or two quite often take several paragraphs to rebut adequately, especially when quotations and references are supplied. >but skimming through it, I am surprised that there is not >mention of the fact that Britain eventually (1872) did agree > to pay damages to the US in the amount of $15,500,000 >(about $275 billion today) in no small part for their actions >during the Civil War (though, admitted no guilt). Having insinuated that my response was too lengthy, Chris is now expressing surprise I didn't include an item that would have made it even more lengthy! Actually by several paragraphs if the circumstances are to be explained adequately, as shown below. (Adams devotes a whole chapter to just one aspect of the ships issue, that of the "The Laird Rams", chapter 13, which I recommend for Chris to read when he gets the time.) In fact I did devote a lengthy paragraph to the ships issue in my first post on this thread, on 16 November, but since Chris wants me to go into further detail I shall be happy to oblige. The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1861 forbade British subjects to be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming, of any ship or vessel with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of a belligerent, and provided for punishment of individuals and forfeiture of vessels if this prohibition were disobeyed. Such punishment or forfeiture would follow on due proof of the offence. (Adams 2006, p. 446.) The Confederacy sent agents to Liverpool (a part of the country where the Northern blockade had had an adverse effect on the cotton industry) to find ways to circumvent the Act. They were able to get a number of ships built as non-military vessels, which would later be armed once on the high seas, before the efforts (in particular) of Thomas Haines Dudley, the United States consul in Liverpool, to block this subterfuge by legal action was successful. Dudley employed detectives, quizzed seamen and water-front workers, combed newspapers and so on, to gain accurate information. These spying activities were necessitated by the fact that it was the policy of the Confederate purchasing agent, James D. Bulloch, not to tell shipbuilder, carpenters, or crew just what intentions he had for the vessels. (It is also reported that Bulloch gave misleading information as to where the vessels were destined, see references below.) Matters actually came to a head with the building of "The Laird Rams", two vessels that, although without arms at that stage, were built to the specification of warships with iron hulls. It's a long and complicated story (sorry Chris!), but here's a brief summary, if anyone's still with me. :-) The warships were built clandestinely, but the indefatigable efforts of Dudley brought about a successful court action against Laird Brothers, the shipbuilders in question. The Government ordered the "rams" to be seized, but one of them, the Alabama, had managed to make good its escape from Liverpool. It was largely the damage done to United States ships by the Alabama that led to the US later suing the British Government for reparations. An arbitration panel in Geneva awarded the United States $15,500,000 (as Chris cited above). Though admitting no guilt for alleged tardiness in their response to Bulloch's providing evidence of infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, the British government paid up and apologised for the losses caused by vessels built in the Liverpool shipyards. References: http://tinyurl.com/36kugjv (Chapter 13) http://tinyurl.com/3xk4jsj http://tinyurl.com/32jwfac Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org -- From: Christopher D. Green Subject:Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:59:11 -0500 I don't have the time to read another of Allen essays, but skimming through it, I am surprised that there is not mention of the fact that Britain eventually (1872) did agree to pay damages to the US in the amount of $15,500,000 (about $275 billion today) in no small part for their actions during the Civil War (though, admitted no guilt). Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York Univ
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
3) > > (That doesn't mean that English merchants would not (and did not) > attempt to break the blockade, but it was not the policy of the British > government that they should do so.) > > In February 1862, Adams writes, Prime Minister Russell "gave challenge > to pro-Southern sentiment by asserting the effectiveness of the > blockade, a challenge almost immediately made known to Parliament by > the presentation of papers." In response to a motion in Parliament by > sympathisers of the South who argued that the blockade was ineffective, > a supporter of Government policy, W.E. Forster, "showed that nearly all > the alleged blockade runners were in reality small coasting steamers, > which, by use of shallow inner channels, could creep along the shore > and then make a dash for the West Indies… To raise the blockade, he > argued, would be a direct violation by Britain of her neutrality." (p. > 278) > > Adams later raises an issue he says is "vital" to British home > politics, "one the ran like a constant thread through the whole pattern > of British attitude toward America.. This was the question of the > future of democracy. Was its fate bound up with the future of [the > Civil War]? And if so where lay British interest?" (p. 607) > > This aspect of British policy and public concerns is so important that > Adams devotes his last chapter to it. Even in the truncated form on > Google Books it is worth looking through as it illustrates again that > to view British government policy through the lens of commercial > interests does not do justice to the complexity of the actual issues > that contributed to the making of British official policy towards the > American Civil War. > > On the "cotton" issue on which Chris sets so much store: > > Maldwyn Jones (*The Limits of Liberty: American History 1607-1992*) > writes: "Thanks to heavy imports in the previous two years British > manufacturers held large stocks of cotton when the war broke out; > shortages of raw material did not become acute until 1863, by which > time alternative supplies were beginning to arrive from India and > Egypt." (p. 231) Similarly Adams: "There was no immediate shortage of > supply [of cotton] when war came in America, rather an unusual > accumulation of raw stocks…" (p. 333) > > In response to a French suggestion [in 1863] that Britain together with > France break the blockade, Adams writes that Lord Lyons, the British > Minister to the United States, "acknowledged the general pressure for > cotton, but thought there was no need of great alarm as yet and also > advanced the idea that in the end Europe would benefit by being forced > to develop other sources of supply, thus being freed from such > exclusive dependence on the United States." (p. 204) > > Maldwyn Jones again: "At the outset the South confidently expected that > Great Britain in particular would be forced by her dependence on > Southern cotton to intervene and break the blockade… But Southern faith > in King Cotton was misplaced… […] Economic factors do not, however, > explain why in the end neither Great Britain nor France was prepared to > intervene [and break the Northern blockade]" (p. 231) > > Here is an account showing that the Confederacy's two attempts to > persuade the British Government to depart from its policy of neutrality > were failures: > http://tinyurl.com/355wlp2 > > And more generally: "…All kinds of journals [in Britain] expressed > differing views, regardless of their size and circulation. But the > general sentiment backed a British neutrality that in reality favored > the North." (In Robert L. Beisner, *American Foreign Relations Since > 1600: A Guide to the Literature.Vol. 1*, p. 393 note 8: 397) > http://tinyurl.com/ > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > allenester...@compuserve.com > http://www.esterson.org > > --- > > Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance > Christopher D. Green > Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:03:01 -0800 > Allen Esterson wrote: > >> Chris Green writes: >> >> >>> Indeed, if you recall your American history class, you >>> may remember that as long as the Civil War was officially >>> about "union," the British sided with the South (for the cotton) >>> >>> >> That you may recall this doesn't make it true. Britain was neutral >> throughout the Civil War, and certainly didn't "side with the South" >> during any part of it. >> &
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
"vital" to British home politics, "one the ran like a constant thread through the whole pattern of British attitude toward America.. This was the question of the future of democracy. Was its fate bound up with the future of [the Civil War]? And if so where lay British interest?" (p. 607) This aspect of British policy and public concerns is so important that Adams devotes his last chapter to it. Even in the truncated form on Google Books it is worth looking through as it illustrates again that to view British government policy through the lens of commercial interests does not do justice to the complexity of the actual issues that contributed to the making of British official policy towards the American Civil War. On the "cotton" issue on which Chris sets so much store: Maldwyn Jones (*The Limits of Liberty: American History 1607-1992*) writes: "Thanks to heavy imports in the previous two years British manufacturers held large stocks of cotton when the war broke out; shortages of raw material did not become acute until 1863, by which time alternative supplies were beginning to arrive from India and Egypt." (p. 231) Similarly Adams: "There was no immediate shortage of supply [of cotton] when war came in America, rather an unusual accumulation of raw stocks…" (p. 333) In response to a French suggestion [in 1863] that Britain together with France break the blockade, Adams writes that Lord Lyons, the British Minister to the United States, "acknowledged the general pressure for cotton, but thought there was no need of great alarm as yet and also advanced the idea that in the end Europe would benefit by being forced to develop other sources of supply, thus being freed from such exclusive dependence on the United States." (p. 204) Maldwyn Jones again: "At the outset the South confidently expected that Great Britain in particular would be forced by her dependence on Southern cotton to intervene and break the blockade… But Southern faith in King Cotton was misplaced… […] Economic factors do not, however, explain why in the end neither Great Britain nor France was prepared to intervene [and break the Northern blockade]" (p. 231) Here is an account showing that the Confederacy's two attempts to persuade the British Government to depart from its policy of neutrality were failures: http://tinyurl.com/355wlp2 And more generally: "…All kinds of journals [in Britain] expressed differing views, regardless of their size and circulation. But the general sentiment backed a British neutrality that in reality favored the North." (In Robert L. Beisner, *American Foreign Relations Since 1600: A Guide to the Literature.Vol. 1*, p. 393 note 8: 397) http://tinyurl.com/ Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance Christopher D. Green Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:03:01 -0800 Allen Esterson wrote: > Chris Green writes: > >> Indeed, if you recall your American history class, you >> may remember that as long as the Civil War was officially >> about "union," the British sided with the South (for the cotton) >> > > That you may recall this doesn't make it true. Britain was neutral > throughout the Civil War, and certainly didn't "side with the South" > during any part of it. "Sided with" was indeed too strong. It is true that Britain was officially neutral, but they were, shall we say, sympathetic to the South (entirely on grounds of self-interest -- an independent Confederacy would be a very weak country, very much dependent on the British appetite for "CSA" cotton. The remaining USA would be weakened too, to the benefit of Britain). Britain was involved in a number of disputed actions during the war (running blockades, making warships, etc.), each of which "just happened" to favor the Confederacy. US diplomacy throughout the early part of the war was aimed at heading off official British recognition of the CSA, which the British gov't was ever alert for an opportunity to offer. The Emancipation Proclamation served, among other things, to take that option off the table for the duration. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6551 or send a blank email to leave-6551-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Allen Esterson wrote: > Chris Green writes: > >> Indeed, if you recall your American history class, you >> may remember that as long as the Civil War was officially >> about "union," the British sided with the South (for the cotton) >> > > That you may recall this doesn't make it true. Britain was neutral > throughout the Civil War, and certainly didn't "side with the South" > during any part of it. "Sided with" was indeed too strong. It is true that Britain was officially neutral, but they were, shall we say, sympathetic to the South (entirely on grounds of self-interest -- an independent Confederacy would be a very weak country, very much dependent on the British appetite for "CSA" cotton. The remaining USA would be weakened too, to the benefit of Britain). Britain was involved in a number of disputed actions during the war (running blockades, making warships, etc.), each of which "just happened" to favor the Confederacy. US diplomacy throughout the early part of the war was aimed at heading off official British recognition of the CSA, which the British gov't was ever alert for an opportunity to offer. The Emancipation Proclamation served, among other things, to take that option off the table for the duration. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6543 or send a blank email to leave-6543-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Chris Green writes:
>Indeed, if you recall your American history class, you
>may remember that as long as the Civil War was officially
>about "union," the British sided with the South (for the cotton)
That you may recall this doesn't make it true. Britain was neutral
throughout the Civil War, and certainly didn't "side with the South"
during any part of it. There were (it goes without saying) members of
the upper classes, especially those with commercial interests at stake,
who were sympathetic towards the South, but this was not the case with
the British Government. Of course commercial interests (cotton) played
a role in government policy, but to suppose that this determined the
policies of Britain towards the American Civil War is simplistic.
Certainly self-interest for Britain as deemed by the government
determined policy, but commercial interests are by no means the only
consideration, and are not necessarily the most significant. A skim
through pp.62ff in *Great Britain and the American Civil War*, by
Ephraim Douglass Adams gives an idea of the policies of the British
Government at that time:
http://tinyurl.com/36kugjv
One incident I've seen cited as evidence for British support of the
South is the two ships that were built in British shipyards for the
Confederacy. That such evidence does not amount to official support for
the South is shown by this account of the affair:
The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 forbade the construction of
warships for belligerents, but Confederate agents found that the
regulations could be evaded by not actually arming the vessels until
they had left British waters. This loophole enabled the Confederacy to
build or purchase in England a number of fast commerce raiders like the
famous Alabama, which slipped out of the Mersey in July 1862 and,
together with her consorts, harried Northern commerce to such effect
that, because of prohibitive insurance costs, the Stars and Stripes all
but disappeared from the high seas. The efforts of Charles Francis
Adams, the American Minister in London, to prevent the departure of the
Alabama came to naught, but his angry protests at the building of the
'Laird Rams' were more effective. These were not mere commerce raiders
but powerful ironclad steam warships, whose underwater rams could have
crippled the wooden ships of the Union blockading squadron. In
September 1863 Adams solemnly warned Lord John Russell, the British
Foreign Secretary, that if the rams were permitted to sail 'it would be
superfluous in me to point out to Your Lordship that this is war'. The
ultimatum was unnecessary for the government had already ordered their
seizure. (*The Limits of Liberty: American History 1607-1992*, Maldwyn,
A. Jones, Oxford University Press, Second Edition 1995, pp. 232-233.)
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org
---
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Christopher D. Green
Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:15:35 -0800
michael sylvester wrote:
>
> OK,I agree to Canada's positive spin on immigration.However in the
> late fifties and early sixties,a group of Caribbean students staged a
> demonstration at Sir George Williams University in Montreal
protesting
> attitudes and discrimination against the established academic
> community.All of those who protested were deported back to the
islands
> by Canadian authorities.
No one's perfect. Canada certainly isn't. Immigrants from the Caribbean
have a "tradition" of not bothering to acquire Canadian citizenship
(we're all in the "Commonwealth," you know), and the Canadian gov't
periodically takes advantage of this to ship those they regard as
"undesirable" back to the countries of their birth. It still happens
from time to time, though not so much with simple protesters as with
gang leaders and drug dealers. This might seem reasonable to many of
you
("If they aren't Canadian, why should Canada put up with their bad
behavior?), but the "rub" is that many of these deportees have lived in
Canada since they were very small children, and simply dumping them on
the mean streets of Jamaica, where they know no one, is often
effectively a death sentence.
Until the 1960s or so, Canada's immigration history more or less
tracked
that of the US. A huge wave of Irish and Germans in the late 1840 and
early 1850s (actually, on a proportional basis, the Irish immigration
to
Canada's cities was much greater than it was to New York and Boston).
Then Chinese, primarily on the west coast. in the 1860s and 1870s. Then
and even "huger" immigration of Italians, Greeks, and East Europeans
(many Jewish) starting in the 1880s and continuing on until the 1920s
(when the first real immigration laws sta
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
Christopher DThanks Chris for your insightful reply. Haiti is not a part of the Commonwealth.but it does share the same language with Quebec.It is my understanding that the Haitian vote has had some influences on the political situation in Quebec.Obviously it is advantageous for Haitian immigrants to become Canadians. You are right for stating that immigrants from the old British West Indiess(including St.Lucia where I originate) are hesitant to become Canadian citizens.Although most of the ilands are independent countries,some policies may not allow naturalized citizens of other countries to participate in electoral offices ,especially Jamaica.There are also punitive laws re the maintenance of property rights and licenses. Not gaining Canadian citizenship is als an issue for other immigrants.I know of folks from Argentina who will not become U.S citizens because they may lose property rights. Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6539 or send a blank email to leave-6539-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance
michael sylvester wrote:
>
> OK,I agree to Canada's positive spin on immigration.However in the
> late fifties and early sixties,a group of Caribbean students staged a
> demonstration at Sir George Williams University in Montreal protesting
> attitudes and discrimination against the established academic
> community.All of those who protested were deported back to the islands
> by Canadian authorities.
No one's perfect. Canada certainly isn't. Immigrants from the Caribbean
have a "tradition" of not bothering to acquire Canadian citizenship
(we're all in the "Commonwealth," you know), and the Canadian gov't
periodically takes advantage of this to ship those they regard as
"undesirable" back to the countries of their birth. It still happens
from time to time, though not so much with simple protesters as with
gang leaders and drug dealers. This might seem reasonable to many of you
("If they aren't Canadian, why should Canada put up with their bad
behavior?), but the "rub" is that many of these deportees have lived in
Canada since they were very small children, and simply dumping them on
the mean streets of Jamaica, where they know no one, is often
effectively a death sentence.
Until the 1960s or so, Canada's immigration history more or less tracked
that of the US. A huge wave of Irish and Germans in the late 1840 and
early 1850s (actually, on a proportional basis, the Irish immigration to
Canada's cities was much greater than it was to New York and Boston).
Then Chinese, primarily on the west coast. in the 1860s and 1870s. Then
and even "huger" immigration of Italians, Greeks, and East Europeans
(many Jewish) starting in the 1880s and continuing on until the 1920s
(when the first real immigration laws started to close the borders).
In the 1960s, the first sizable immigration from the Caribbean came to
Canada -- largely (though not entirely) Hatians to Montreal, Jamaicans
to Toronto. As with previous large immigrations, things were not
entirely smooth. There were culture clashes, misunderstandings, and
simple racism. Canada was never immune to these things. (On the other
hand, Montrealers are still proud of the fact that, when Branch Rickey
decided to bring Jackie Robinson into the major leagues, he picked the
Montreal Royals as a club where he could get ready with minimal
harrassment from the general public.)
Canada still has its share of these racial/ethnic kerfuffles. There are
a few differences in the way these matters play out in Canada though.
First, race does not hold quite the unique "electrical" status in Canada
that it does in the US. It is *an* issue, but not *the* issue. No doubt
this is because Canada does not have the same history of slavery as the
US. There were slaves in early Canada, but not nearly as many and not
nearly as late. Slavery was abolished in Upper Canada (present-day
southern Ontario) in the 1790s; in Quebec somewhat later; and I'm not
sure about the Maritimes (where the destruction of Halifax's historic
"Africville" in the 1960s is still an issue of some sensitivity). In any
case, slavery was abolished (at least officially) across the entire
British Empire in the 1830s. The US held on for another
generation-and-a-half. (Indeed, if you recall your American history
class, you may remember that as long as the Civil War was officially
about "union," the British sided with the South (for the cotton). It was
only when the British threatened to run Union blockades of Confederate
ports that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Declaration, converting the
war into one officially about slavery. The British would not take the
side of slavers in a war over slavery. Second, Canada does not have a
massive, impoverished country of potential immigrants on its southern
border. Third, although Canada by no means has a perfect record on
social equity issues, on balance it is much easier to live in Canada
than it is in the US. Taxes are higher (though not as high as in
Europe), but social services are much better. It is much less likely
that you or your kids are going to starve and/or die of a preventable
disease if you lose your job in Canada than in the US. (Which is why
Canada has lower infant mortality, better education outcomes, and higher
life expectancy than the US.) Less desperate times also call for less
desperate measures. And so the violent crime rate in Canada is much
lower than in the US as well.
But, Canada is not the land of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness" It is the land of "Peace, Order, and Good Government" (or,
more recently, "Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person"). :-)
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
416-736-2100 ex. 66164
chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
==
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68
[tips] Canada's early intolerance
OK,I agree to Canada's positive spin on immigration.However in the late fifties and early sixties,a group of Caribbean students staged a demonstration at Sir George Williams University in Montreal protesting attitudes and discrimination against the established academic community.All of those who protested were deported back to the islands by Canadian authorities. Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6529 or send a blank email to leave-6529-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
