Canada: The World's Peacekeeper [Archive]

View Full Version : Canada: The World's Peacekeeper

pinkeye

12-05-2003, 01:23 PM

Canada: The World's Peacekeeper
Owen Wood, CBC News Online | Updated October 30, 2003

Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson hands out new Canadian peacekeeping service medals
The 89 Canadian peacekeeping service awards handed out by the Governor General in September are only the first of many such awards that will honour Canadians who have taken part in the quest for world peace.

Over the years, more than 125,000 Canadian military personnel have served on peacekeeping missions for the United Nations – more than any other country.

Though the term “peacekeeping” didn’t become widely used until 1956, the UN began deploying peacekeepers almost 10 years earlier. And Canadians have been a part of it since the beginning.

In the 1947 United Nations General Assembly, the UN endorsed a plan that would separate Palestine, creating the state of Israel and leaving the rest for the Palestinian Arabs. The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab states, and hostilities broke out in May 1948.

That same month, the UN sent out its first observers to help calm the situation. Under the name the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, UNTSO, their goal was simply to act as an international watchdog, supervising the truce between the two groups.

UNTSO has become the longest-running UN peacekeeping mission. However, its goals have changed over the years. After supervising the General Armistice Agreements of 1949, UNTSO activities spread over territory held by Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syrian Arab Republic. In 1967, following the Arab-Israeli war, the organization watched over the ceasefire in the Suez Canal area and the Golan Heights . Now, UNTSO works along with other UN forces to keep peace in the Middle East.

In 1956, Lester B. Pearson, probably the most important figure in Canadian peacekeeping history, had an idea about how to solve another international conflict in the Middle East.

France, Israel and the United Kingdom had been trying to stop Egypt from taking control of the Suez Canal. Pearson, Canada’s secretary of state for external affairs, proposed an international force under the UN flag be deployed to ease the conflict.

The first UN peacekeeping force, UNEF 1, supervised the withdrawal of armed forces from Egyptian territory and served as a buffer between Egypt and Israel after the withdrawal. Led by Canadian General E. L. M. Burns, who commanded UNTSO, the mission lasted until May 1967 when Egypt managed to compel the UN forces to leave. But in 1973, they returned to the Suez Canal under a second UNEF mission, which lasted for six years.

Pearson’s vision won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957.

In 1988, the Peace Prize went to the United Nations for 40 years of promoting peace. But the best was yet to come.

With the end of the Cold War, the world saw a new era of international cooperation that, among other things, made way for an explosion of UN peace missions. Of the 53 peacekeeping missions coordinated by the UN since its inception, 35 began after 1990. Fourteen, including UNTSO, are still ongoing.

In total, more than 750,000 military troops and police – more than 125,000 of whom are Canadian – and thousands of civilians from around the world have served as peacekeepers.

Considering the volatile conditions peacekeepers are thrown into, only 1,450 have been killed while performing their duties. This includes 107 Canadians.

Canada continues to play an important role in the effort to achieve world peace.

In 1994, the Canadian government established the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Training Centre on the site of a former military base in Clementsport, Nova Scotia. The centre provides research, education and training for peacekeepers from Canada and abroad.

At the 50th annual general assembly of the United Nations in 1995, Canada presented a study on the UN’s rapid reaction capability. The study, Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations, focused how to improve the UN’s ability to react quickly in times of crisis. So far, 19 of the report’s 26 recommendations have been adopted.

The Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal, CPSM, was created to honour the country’s long history of participation in international peace efforts. Those honoured include veterans, police officers, civilians and current members of the armed forces who were deployed on peacekeeping or observer missions outside of Canada for at least 30 days.

The idea for the award came from the UN winning the Peace Prize in 1988, which also inspired the construction of Canada’s National Peacekeeping Monument in Ottawa.

Reconciliation, which served as the backdrop for the presentation of the first CPSMs in September, shows three peacekeepers at the intersection of two stone-clad walls that represent opposing factions. The monument is inscribed with the following words, from a most appropriate source:

“We need action not only to end the fighting but to make the peace… My own government would be glad to recommend Canadian participation in such a United Nations force, a truly international peace and police force.”
– Lester B. Pearson, November 2, 1956

Falco

12-05-2003, 09:38 PM

We've started a great tradition, but unfortunately the army is starting to have some trouble doing that too. :oops:

Vance

12-06-2003, 12:19 AM

If Canada is the world's peacekeeper, than the US can be aptly named the ''World's Defender''.* :D

*this may piss dickmus off

EvanL

12-06-2003, 12:48 AM

If Canada is the world's peacekeeper, than the US can be aptly named the ''World's Defender''.* :D

*this will probably piss dickmus off
If you think it will you should probably just shut up and not say **** thats gonna start an arguement.
Thats a problem with some on this board. verbal Diahrhea. Always talking ****.

wholagun

12-06-2003, 01:31 AM

verbal Diahrhea. Always talking ****.

Thats hilarious, never heard that one before. rofl

Vance

12-06-2003, 01:42 AM

Hey man, I just gave a warning, who knows what might happen.

EvanL

12-06-2003, 01:46 AM

Hey man, I just gave a warning, who knows what might happen.
How is that a warning? its blatantly an instigation. But whatever. Deuce will hopefully look over it so as to not cause any more troubles.

Vance

12-06-2003, 01:59 AM

There. I edited my wording. :P

ßå$tÄ®Ð¢HÏ¿ð

12-06-2003, 06:38 AM

Vance dont try to start ****, many members on this board including myself are quite sick of people trying to start ****. Quite frankly we got better things to do buddy. So next time do us all a favor think before you start typing.
thanks
the bastardchild

mocking_loudly_died

12-06-2003, 07:55 AM

Nothing wrong with starting ****.

Estonia is the world's greatest military power.

Flame on.

Dalleer

12-06-2003, 07:56 AM

Hmm, "peacekeeping service medals"...

I wonder if Finland has received any, since our soldiers have served in various UN missions as well. Anyway....

Btw, it would surely be nice to award one of those medals to us since it's our independence day today.

Vance

12-06-2003, 11:08 AM

Happy Independence Day :D

Dalleer

12-06-2003, 04:20 PM

Thanks.

limbaughfan89

12-06-2003, 08:58 PM

Finnish are cool :D

Skaman

12-08-2003, 09:58 PM

If Canada is the world's peacekeeper, than the US can be aptly named the ''World's Defender''.* :D

*this may piss dickmus off

always intent on out-doing Canada?

-well, Canada has something the USA will never be able to take, respect.

[AFSOC]

12-09-2003, 01:01 AM

Holla

So true....

Seriously Vance why did you even have to say "World Defender" you talk like Canada and United STates are in competition. What competition??? Arent we allies?? Like seriously, sometimes I wonder what you people in the states view Canada and other nations.....

Vance

12-09-2003, 01:05 AM

Sometimes I wonder why you guys are quick to bite someone's head off, while you accuse us of doing it 24/7. It wasn't a damned compliment, and it wasn't a damned insult. I was just stating something. Get the **** over yourselves.

EvanL

12-09-2003, 01:17 AM

Nizark

12-09-2003, 02:26 AM

-well, Canada has something the USA will never be able to take, respect.[/quote]

Don't tempt us, i'm sure we will find a way to bomb it

Skaman

12-09-2003, 02:39 AM

ArmedPacifist

12-09-2003, 02:44 AM

Seiyuuki

12-09-2003, 06:05 AM

Don’t mind Vance, he constantly talks out if his ass. This guy practically breathes bull ****.

As for respect, it seems the USA lacks this important military quality. A great massive material military army is great, but what good is it when it lacks international respect? I am sure my thoughts are subjective, yet this rational concerning military respect seems pretty feasible to me.

You're right, the formulation of this thesis of yours is clearly base on your singular isolated misguide "subjective" opinion. Speaking of "respect," from what I observe on this forum, you have, basically, little to no respect from anyone.

It does not matter whether you serve under the "Union Jack" or "Old Glory" or the "Maple Leaf," etc...when you serve in a profession where you wake up willingly every morning to lay down your life to defend your home, country, those that cannont defend themselves and the noblest of ideas till the last drop of blood, men and women such as these will always have the respect of others and their fellow peers everywhere.

Skaman

12-09-2003, 02:00 PM

What a laugh, to think the USA military is respected world-wide is nonsense! Respect the troops yes, respect the bureaucracy and mentality, no.

I respect US troops from those whom I have trained with. They arefairly switched on guys, except I despise their drill. American drill looks very sloppy, they shuffle too much, and it looks like a saunter. Nonetheless, respect the troops, not the US military itself.

hoganshero

12-09-2003, 02:07 PM

I think you guys fail to understand Vance was just trying to joke and he was not trying to insult anyone (minus decimus)

Yes he may have been talking ****, but what would this board be like if nobody talked any ****?

I have to agree that what Vance did is not a flame.... It is a blatant thread hijack though. I think even Vance is grown up enough to admit what he was doing... This is the exact same thing I used to do start fights with my sister.

Sometimes starting a fight on a forum can be fun as long as it's light hearted. But in truth this attempt to start a good natured pissing match was a little heavy handed. Vance when trolling subtlety is your friend :) all in all 6 out of 10:you lost marks for creativity but don't worry you may get the medal anyway... we are investigating the Russian judge for bribe taking.

Trigger

12-09-2003, 05:42 PM

do-me-in-the-ass19 wrote:
Don’t mind Vance, he constantly talks out if his ass. This guy practically breathes bull ****.
Pot. Kettle. Black. IDIOT! :bash:

As for respect, it seems the USA lacks this important military quality Yeah, no one respects the U.S. military...that's why all the terrorists are all out in the open. That's why the Iraqi air force flew to Iran in GW1. That's why the Iraqi military ceased to be an effective fighting force in a matter of days.. A great massive material military army is great, but what good is it when it lacks international respect? I am sure my thoughts are subjective, No, they're just retarded. yet this rational concerning military respect seems pretty feasible to me. Well, that makes one of you. :fork:

Trigger

12-09-2003, 05:44 PM

My apologies to pinkeye for hijacking his thread, but ducimus' idiocy had to be addressed. :|

budanski

12-09-2003, 06:18 PM

As for respect, it seems the USA lacks this important military quality. A great massive material military army is great, but what good is it when it lacks international respect? I am sure my thoughts are subjective, yet this rational concerning military respect seems pretty feasible to me.

We don't ask to be respected, just feared.

Falco

12-09-2003, 06:56 PM

You can either dominate :hug: by respect or dominate by fear. :bash:

[AFSOC]

12-09-2003, 07:26 PM

We don't ask to be respected, just feared.

Wow.....and then you wonder why people critisize your country.

SFontaine

12-09-2003, 08:49 PM

Countries liberated/saved by the United States:

Germany
France
Belgium
Luxembourg
Holland
(Essentially most of Europe)
South Korea
Japan
Afghanistan
Kosovo
Kuwait
Iraq
Liberia

Prolly missin a few here.

Those countries owe a lot to the US, you think that'd earn the respect of them.

Skaman

12-09-2003, 09:16 PM

Countries liberated/saved by the United States:

Germany-Growing American discontent
France-American Discontent
Belgium-Dont know
Luxembourg-Dont know
Holland-Dont know
(Essentially most of Europe)-5 countries is not most of Europe
South Korea-American discontent
Japan-Dont know
Afghanistan-Not saved
Kosovo-Not saved
Kuwait-American discontent
Iraq-Not saved, Strong American discontent
Liberia-Not saved, American Discontent

Prolly missin a few here.

Those countries owe a lot to the US, you think that'd earn the respect of them.

What the USA did in the past does not make up for today. You are forgetting that the USA did not save the majority of these countries. The USA did not save France etc. in WW2, the USA did not Kosovo, Liberia etc.

ArmedPacifist

12-09-2003, 09:22 PM

The USA did not single handedly "save" all those countries.

Seiyuuki

12-09-2003, 09:50 PM

So, basically, just more usual anti-American rantings from ducimus19.

Seoulstriker

12-09-2003, 09:52 PM

So, basically, just more usual anti-American rantings from ducimus19.

as usual. it's expected. :|

EvanL

12-09-2003, 10:20 PM

Skaman

12-09-2003, 10:37 PM

Belgium and Holland were liberated by Canadians, the americans fought there way into germany through belgium but the countries were liberated by canadians. Kosovo isnt even a country and you guys didnt liberate it anyways. Liberia wasnt liberated you guys just forced the PM to step out.
That list of yours just further proves your ignorance and gives a bad name to americans. Go read some books instead of gloating about how America has singlehandedly saved the world countless upon countless times using McGiver style tactics. :bash:

Took the words right out of my mouth and saved me the trouble. Watch out though, it might comes across as "anti american" despite how factual it may be. :roll:

Nontheless, good post!

EvanL

12-09-2003, 10:42 PM

Seiyuuki

12-10-2003, 12:28 AM

The different between dickimus19 post and EvanLloyd post is that EvanLloyd actually post accurate factual historical references to support his view...

EvanLloyd, let not forget your attempt at disassociation from dicky..."Hey fellas just ignore these little f***, they speak for none of us real canadians." (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4669&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40)

I don't believe in such thing as anti-American until ducimus19 came along and I must ask dicky to refrain from quoting history, you're attempt to pass off as a history major so far is laughable at best, just in one thread alone (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4669&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0), your historical dissertations are erroneous, typical of a middle school student. For someone to use the deads to further one own political view, maybe you shouldn't be talking so much about respect.

Skaman

12-10-2003, 01:13 AM

That list of American hate sites, is hardly historical, rather evidence that American hatred exists. You do know what "HISTORY" is right?

I dare you to challenge my fundamental and "laughable" knowledge of History; your comments are spurious and hardly founded. Evanloyd posted facts that any knowledgeable Canadian would know.

EvanL

12-10-2003, 01:17 AM

I have nothing against Ducimus. I just think that at some times he has put his foot in his mouth. But he has the right to speak as do all the rest of you guys here. Hes no different from the ones on this site who post about how great america is and how nobody can compete with its greatness.
he is after all a serving member of the armed forces unlike most of the people on this site. And it doesnt count if you say ' Well im joining up when im 18, im 15 now" because he is serving and your not. So he has gained respect in other ways.

Ratamacue

12-10-2003, 01:22 AM

Why does every topic to do with Canada or the US become Canada vs. US? I'm getting tired of it. Why don't y'all get along now, y'hear?

Skaman

12-10-2003, 01:30 AM

The evidence I do submit is just labeled "biased". Its not my fault no one acknowledges its validity.

As for my Historical knowledge, I will share some papers with you. Take care to read them and enlighten yourself. These are analytical papers and factual papers.

Nefertiti
Possibly one of the most revered pieces of sculpture known to man, the bust of Nefertiti is an extension of beauty and sexual prominence, unique to the Amarna period of 1349-1336 B.C. Discovered by a German expedition in 1912, Nefertiti portrays distinct character unlike any Egyptian art previously uncovered. Her relevance is divine and her comparisons are stark, the representation of the Pharaohs wife must be examined on many levels if one hopes to gain sufficient insight into this striking work.
The feminine physique had not been repressed in a naturalistic likeness before, typically retaining iconographical and a symbolic nature. Egyptian art retained these likenesses unlike the depiction of Nefertiti, whose unknown sculptor unmistakably broke the norms and preconceptions of Egyptian art, crafting her in an organic, geomorphic, idealized form. The beauty of her facial character has carried on a millennium to retain impact in western society today. Contemporary beauty magazines have embodied her as an image of reverence. The stylistic beauty of her representation has given her the attention the designers had likely wanted. Akhenaten possibly wanted to draw notice to his wife and her divine beauty; the nature of her child bearing fertility which tied hand in hand with her physique that would link his sexual bond with her. Her distinctive beauty is unaffected by a 2d plane as her profile is fully remade in 3d space, further accentuating the naturalism of her physique, leaving little question or speculation or the artists intent. What one should question is the accuracy of the re-creation of Nefertiti, if she was in-fact created in her original likeness. The sculptor could likely have exaggerated her characteristics and modified her likeness to establish the intent of beauty more so than what was “realistic”. Feminine figures had never typically been identified with the sexual idealized manor, rather as a symbol of respect at a pharaoh’s side, complementing his posture or serving some romanticized purpose in a wall painting.
The piece itself is easily identifiable as it retains its original coat of paint intact, unaffected by time or significant weathering. The piece is structured from limestone, a material which is easily crafted to generate the desired form one requires. The use of limestone in turn creates a sleek sharp image, more distinguished than sandstone. The abundance of other mediums would likely not have provided a similar effect. Egypt, unlike Greece and Rome, did not make use of marble and bronze in sculpture as it was not readily available, unlike slate and the commonly used sandstone. The head has additions of plaster and her eye is designed using precious rock crystal, an indication of her elite status and present day intrinsic value. The absence of her right eye suggests it may have been removed by an enemy after her death to punish her, preventing her survival in the afterlife. The eyes were typically embodied as the gates of the soul and held high significance and focus among Egyptian art. Attention is purposely drawn to her face, not her body notably not included in the artists design. Her face is very streamlined, and her style is idealized. The curvature and structure of her jaw is well formed and proportioned to the rest of her face along with ears and nose. Her eyes are highlighted with black shadowing, likely drawing relevance to her eyes, once again, “the window of the soul”.
Nefertiti is represented in the commonly adorned “sheath dress”, a style of clothing worn among the wealthy elites. Paglia draws an important stark contrast between previous representation of the female physique and beauty, directly comparing the Venus of Willendorf to the streamlined bust of Nefertiti. While they both retain intent of fertility, they are represented in a different entirety, where the Venus is more naturally represented in a bulging pregnant state, unlike Nefertiti who remains formed and highly idealized, organically flawless. The portrayal of Nefertiti almost holds psychological value, like the head of Constantine; the emotion of her power is magnified and embodied through her face and eyes. The removal of her eye was likely an attempt to weaken her, removing her status and hierarchical position. Even the name Nefertiti holds true to her form: “the beautiful one cometh”
A greater emphasis is put on Nefertiti than other figure representations of the Egyptian elite. Her facial characteristics are very pronounced and draw comparative influence from the general pre conceptions of Egyptian women during the time. Women were primarily viewed as those necessary to bare children and serve as mothers. The beauty of Nefertiti and Akhenaten’s sexual union with her would lead into her conception and the ideal of birth into this world, and that of the afterlife. This idea of beauty would be incorporated into the important aspect of fertility, an important motif central to Egyptian culture.
It is not difficult to imagine why the bust of Nefertiti is so adored in our contemporary Western society as she embodies and represents everything the average woman yearns for: wealth, status, beauty, and a healthy status of fertility. The significance of this unknown artist’s creation would echo through our ages more so than he could have ever imagined.

African American Slavery post rev.

-The system of bondage that put the African-American populous into a period of discontent and suffering can be analysed by use of primary sources while effectively drawing conclusions obscured by bias or racial pre-conceptions. The American slave owners saw enslavement as a blessing to the African workers because the masters provided what they believed to be decent medical attention, food, and lodging unlike lower class factory workers who might not have had similar attention. Black citizens employed under poor wages of lower level factory work faced awful conditions and the struggle of emotional, physical, racial, and sexual abuses. While the American slaveholders attempted to draw justification in their black enslavement, it is evident the African-American interpretation is in stark contrast to the white norm presented in the pre Civil War period. This assumption is validated through the collection of selected texts and primary resources cohesive to the general argument and in support of the general white/black racial segregation. These African-American arguments formulate the basis in which contemporary history texts model the period of questionable social nature. “…the whole system, the entire network of American society is one great falsehood, from beginnings to end.” It is ironic that the United States was born out of a constitution regarding the nation as a macrocosm of equal representation and liberty, while in reality, a significant number of the American population was omitted - black slaves, born and placed in the shackles of bondage.
Frederick Douglas and Linda Brent are two of the most famous abolitionist personalities that emerged prior and during the Civil War. Each of these individuals has produced chronicles of their experiences and ideologies concerning African-American slavery. Their collective or separate works are important to historians as sources of information on minorities, like the African-Americans who felt the boundary of racial fragmentation during the year’s before and during the Civil War. While the use of their sources sheds important light on the social struggle of African-American slaves, they do not encompass significant alternate detail pertinent to the topic concerning economic, religious, or family structure. As an example, neither provides information regarding the benefits of slavery on the American economy in the post revolutionary period. Historians can conclude that these works are constructed from a biased approach, no matter how relevant and accurate the presentation of these facts may be. It is important that one reading these sources provided by Douglas and Brent do not use their interpretation as the only valid means in portraying this controversial topic.
Outside sources, apart from the contemporary standard approach to black slavery based upon African sources, individuals such as Arthur Zilversmit, use works based upon both white Anglo-Saxon interpretation and the African-American interpretations. These frowned upon white opinions, while controversial because of their biases and seclusionist thought, establish the relevance that a particular period cannot be analysed by a select few as the experiences are often dissimilar. For example, Zilversmit in his article “The Abolitionists: From Patience to Militance,” makes use of sources from newspapers such as the Pennsylvania Chronicle, which, considering the time, is likely disfavourable concerning the movement towards black rights. Other work, such as the Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies, includes the ideas of those societal members of the black and white community who openly challenged the cultural fragmentation of the black community.
Linda Brent’s article establishes some key aspects of black history. In her work, she manages to write under unusual circumstances based on unique encounters and an uncommon black upbringing. She openly speaks of her encounters and intimate relationship with a superior classed white man named Mr Sands. This affair details her parental challenges in being a mother of two-milato children who were born out of the norms of social sexual standards. She can effectively deduce information regarding this shady topic and comments on the struggle of social fragmentation from a well written educated opinion. Additionally, she is writing from a female perspective, which is another reason to receive substantial attention, not because of her ethnicity, but her status as a woman. In her work, Brent hopes to reach out to the African-American community, and ultimately, she wants her work to be recognised as a testimonial of slave experience. This amalgamation of factors under unusual circumstances challenges the pre conception of the slave norm and provides a drastically different record of black enslavement.
Similarly, the works of Douglas entail relevant and new ideas regarding slavery through his own series of works. In particular, Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas, details the rise of a black mans journey in his effort to establish a racially tolerant American society. Douglas identifies the discontent of the black educational position; consequently, he in-turn took on the challenge of educating himself in order to better his social standing in the future. “I was now about twelve years old, and the thought of being a slave for life began to bear heavily upon my heart.” It is obvious that this individual held the inner drive and potential to overcome such ethnical boundaries, establishing himself as an enlightened and educated person. Douglas broke free of the restraints of a limited African education, establishing himself as a moral character.
Many authors have studied Douglas and his like. For example, Douglas is identified in the writings of Donald Spivey,s book, Fire From the Soul. Spivey points out that Douglas sought racial and ethnic change through the means of active political and revolutionary struggle, free of arms and violence, relying more so on his intellect and conscientious fabric. It is evident that authors have taken Douglas’ work as viable testimonial and interpretation: “Individuals like Fredrick Douglas, … were inspirational heroes, not just for the deeds they accomplished but for the moral character and consciousness upon which they called America to account.” Taking both Brent and Douglas’ efforts and accounts into consideration, historians can directly contrast and compare the many variables surrounding black education and their social mobility. These works can also be taken in stride among the works of contemporary white citizens of the time so one can formulate a valid and cohesive interpretation accurate to the pre civil war slave period.
It is essential for historians, as mentioned, to not only study one source when interpreting a historical event. At the same time that Douglas was writing his take on events, others were also working to make the cry for black freedom known. For example, many white northerners took up the cause. In his periodical, The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison fights for black equality. This periodical was well received by northern intellectuals, but many others, mostly in the south, believed that this sort of article was only promoting slave movement that would result in violence in the United States. With the kind of reaction The Liberator received, it cannot be denied that it is worthy as a primary resource among the work of other abolitionist writers. As a historian, it is interesting to compare the abolitionist works of Douglas to that of The Liberator as they are obviously in stark contrast. Douglas promotes a peaceful, intellectual revolt, while The Liberator presents a more extreme and powerful voice, even referring to armed revolt in selected cases in an almost charismatic approach.
The use of quotes, testimonials, and relevant interpretable analysis helps to solidify the general arguments that enslavement in the pre Civil War period is not ‘blind to one side’ and together, one can successfully incorporate these various sources. What must be noted is while an author such as Spivey in Fire From the Soul makes use of primary resources, the use of secondary works is much more prominent. As historians it is best to formulate ones idea based on a selection of viable primary sources, rather than taking interpretations from secondary sources, which in themselves can be obscured by the authors’ own biases. An author may include, or fail to include, what one deems relevant, making the reader more prone to his or her secular analysis. Therefore, it is in the best interest as a historian and/or contemporary reader to analyse primary resources on their own, drawing conclusions, and then by directly comparing those conclusion to that of the authors.
Primary sources shed information on particular periods, such as slavery in the pre-Civil War period. These sources are able to help historians by giving the interpretations, feelings, and thoughts of individuals at a particular time. Though many primary sources may not be well documented, and their authors unknown, it is still important to utilise them for the benefit of history. Frederick Douglas and Linda Brent are two African-Americans who wrote in the pre-Civil War era on their lives. Both give insight into what life and struggle for black independence and freedom entailed. Their actions and writings had direct actions and implications on the road to African-American freedom. Though they are only two small individuals in the larger picture of the freedom movement, their writings had profound effects.

Bibliography

Goldfield, David and Carl Abbott. The American Journey: A History of the United States New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2001

Iversmit, Arthur Z. “The Abolitionists: From Patience to Militance.” The Black Experience in America: Selected Essays Eds. James C. Curtis and Louise L. Gould. London: University of Texas Press, 1970. 51-67

Spivery, Donald. Fire From the Soul: A History of the African-American Struggle Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2003

Wheeler, William Brucu and Susan D. Becker eds. Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002

American Rev.
Stepehn Conway. The War of American Independence, 17775-1783. Great Britain, London.: University College London. 1995. Pp.280. Paperback.

Conway takes an exhaustive approach, detailing every facet of the conflict, some more significant than others. Keeping in mind that Conway establishes conflict was potential since the beginning of the colony, he would intentionally focus on motives, and repercussions, yet he moves beyond this, covering a much broader approach to the colonial struggle. Initial pieces of his work discuss the political situation, examining the various precursors to the struggle. He supports this idea of initial conflict from the beginning by drawing arguments from the remoteness of the colony, misrepresentation of the colonists, taxing and duties, and other such historical provocations to the war. He examines both British and colonial causes of bringing on the conflict, not labeling one side as responsible. Conway discusses the “shot that echoed throughout the colony at the Boston massacre, the growing tension over unjust duties, and fear of economic/ political enslavement which all grew in momentum and accumulated into the revolution, thus complementing his earlier assumption of “early potential conflict”. Reviewing these catalysts, I agree with Conway’s generalized assumption.
Conway goes as far as to offer a comprehensive selection of various ill fated political compromises which eventually mushroomed into war, which present further revolutionary causes important to understanding the lead-up to war. The months of tension which pinnacled to armed resistance are presented through a selection of various small skirmishes with British forces. These incidents are complemented with British/colonial death tolls, and general figures which indicate what was to come in the long struggle ahead. Conway effectively sets up his writing in a cohesive well flowing manner, following the rebellions precursors with the mentality of the war, and the general transition from traditional European combat to guerilla militia warfare. Conway examines Washington’s patriotic speeches, and dissects both British and Colonial militaries. This methodical assessment of the various militaries helps to better comprehend that nature of the conflict on the continent. Examples of this include Conway’s analysis of the British army contingent comprised of foreign soldiers, and mercenaries, united only under a sense of professionalism and their “pay check”. The colonists had a stark difference for fighting in the war-“a united cause” as Washington called it. These details may argue that the British forces were never really determined to fight, that they lacked the fighting spirit of the colonists. This is a very poignant statement in my opinion.
An amalgamation of the various types of warfare described, and their effects on the revolution, both social and physical offer an interesting analysis of the combat. He provides sources from British generals who comment on the growing frustration in dealing with the unconventional fighters, and the general fear militia were inciting into the British regulars. It is easy to discern the difference in the new emerging style of fighting, as Conway often draws comparison from previous campaigns, namely the Seven Years War, where traditional European combat was predominant. One reading Conway’s work can appreciate his small addition of details, which are often compelling to read. By including the information of British soldiers cutting of their thumbs to avoid fighting in the colonies, the reader can really understand how fearful and resistant the troops were in having to fight the colonists. The second chapter offered some interesting insight into the makeup/style/leadership and motives of the opposing militaries, yet this section strays from the general focus of the war itself too much, while a few points would have sufficed.
Conway now moves in the direction of British motives for fighting in the war which in turn support the reasons why the war was to be a failure for the British. His arguments are well grounded and one can see how factors such as immense size of the colony, distance from England, lawlessness, logistically stretched etc. would tie into the outcome of the conflict. By including statistics of British vessels numbers throughout the years of the campaign, casualties, and stats concerning economic loss, Conway creates a strengthened style which complements his arguments. Conway’s work is also very readable as it does not provide a biased opinion to either side of the conflict, examining both militaries on common grounds. He also examines the poor decisions of the continental army, creating mass currency and a horrible state of inflation. A similar process of examining military strategy and make up is done on the part of the British. Thus, Conway never forces and opinion upon you yet lets the reader formulate their own based on his material and “neutral” arguments.
Conway then goes into a chronological process of investigative battle procedure and tactic through the course of the war until its climax at Yorktown. These pages tend to drag on with repetitive figures and statistics which are generally mind numbing to read. While these events are well documented and supported with quotes of key players and dates, too much emphasis and content of the book is placed on the battles, and not the mentality of the war itself. I found this section very arduous to read, and sought more information on the “culture” of the war itself. The Chapter concerning the “war beyond America”, namely the Caribbean, seems disjointed from the North American focus. While overseas conflict turned the attention of Britain elsewhere, and lessened significance in putting down the colonial rebellion of the Americas, an entire chapter concerning this topic is drawn out, particularly after reading a pro longed series of battles.
Conway’s final chapters are perhaps most pertinent to the struggle of the American Revolution as he examines the evidence which shaped and affected both nations in the post war period. From over inflation, a massive American debt, to the loss of thirty seven percent of British exports, the results are clear and concise. He examines an American change in culture and newfound hate or respect for the black, depending on the area of the colonies, Vermont for example, outlawed slavery. Ultimately, Conway undertakes a thorough examination of the post war period for both sides and acknowledges the important effect of the conflict. He argues the war had stronger emphasis beyond the colony, going as far to have the British rethink their colonies, and lead France into a revolution of their own. I see these arguments are well grounded and justified as the evidence is all there to suggest his implications.
In conclusion Conway argues the revolutions impact beyond its physical and economic implications, examining resurgence in social idea, and the aspect of a cultural, united war. Ultimately, this idea of a social movement is very different than his initial arguments, which is quite abstract and astray from his conclusion. He opens the book discussing the war as initial signs from the beginning, and tends to move in a literal fashion, yet the latter portion of his book ends with the legacy of the struggle, sparsely used throughout the book. While his “thesis” seems disjointed, Conway still manages to provide a concrete look into the struggle and provide sufficient information into the conflict that one could easily grasp his work.

Skaman

12-10-2003, 01:33 AM

EvanL

12-10-2003, 01:51 AM

Np man.
Wat regiment r u in anyways? Im planning on joining the Cameron Highlanders. Gotta go bac kto the recruiters in february cus i didnt have a social insurance number when i went in october.

Seiyuuki

12-10-2003, 01:55 AM

That list of American hate sites, is hardly historical, rather evidence that American hatred exists. You do know what "HISTORY" is right?

One of the thread listed is with regard to "ducimus19 hatred," which is also hardly historical and rather evidence that "ducimus19 hatred" exists. The other is thread was originally author by you, also hardly historical, evidence that "your American hatred" exists.

I'm sorry I don't spend my time bragging that I been an SAS, Delta, Ranger, SEAL, Santa Claus, Jesus, God, Neurosurgeon, a History Major, a English Major, a Chemistry Major and did I mention God? etc., etc, etc., after all, I'm too busy correcting your mistakes.

Skaman

12-10-2003, 01:59 AM

hahaha, WHAT MISTAKES?

-my spelling? :roll:

ArmedPacifist

12-10-2003, 02:10 AM

Deciumus why did you post that?

You don't have to try and impress anyone here.

Nizark

12-10-2003, 02:58 AM

did that sucka actually post of his high school papers on here?

****Tell me i didn't...just....see that*****

Vance

12-10-2003, 08:51 AM

It's funny how a flame war starts because certain CANADIANS can't take a JOKE. Kinda funny, since they accuse us Yanks of doing it all the time :roll: Maybe you guys should take your own advice.

Falco

12-10-2003, 09:17 AM

Why does every topic to do with Canada or the US become Canada vs. US? I'm getting tired of it. Why don't y'all get along now, y'hear?

He's got a point. Everybody has a right to have his or her own opinion, that's called freedom of speech (or something like that). Whether or not the US liberated those country is not revelant. What is important is that the US acted that way to garanty that the basic rights (such as freedom of speech) of the people in those countries/regions.

ArmedPacifist

12-10-2003, 01:53 PM

It's funny how a flame war starts because certain CANADIANS can't take a JOKE. Kinda funny, since they accuse us Yanks of doing it all the time :roll: Maybe you guys should take your own advice.

I got the joke, and if you look back a page or two you will see that I wrote just that. :hug:

I guess it's not public knowledge I'm a canuck myself.

hoganshero

12-10-2003, 02:02 PM

Hey Vance is back I was begining to think you were the type of guy to start a riot and then go home and watch it on CNN. Its cute the way you accuse the people of "flaming" you and stating you were making a simple joke.

Like I said earlier it is rather clear what you were doing. the statement wasn't a joke. Jokes have punchlines. You made an overt political statement in thread wer you knew it would have the desired effect of ruffling feathers. Don't get me wrong I laugh too when us Canadians get all riled at that stuff. It really goes to show how insecure we are with our place in the world.

However even funnier than you getting the guys' goats is that now that you have them wriggling on the hook your trying to squirm out of taking the credit for doing it.

Hell when I was your age (14-15?) I used to just openly admit to my sister that I said stuff just to piss her off... made her all the more angrier.

to the rest of you guys. Just cause some kid says it on a message board doesn't make it true. You do not have to single handedly defend the honor of the country. we do that collectivly in the real world. When you see thsi kind of crap... let it slide.

Vance

12-10-2003, 05:05 PM

Don't put words in my mouth. I know what I was doing, and the statement wasn't political at all. If you guys really want me to explain this, then here:

If Canada is the world's peacekeeper, than the US can be aptly named the ''World's Defender''.* :D

^ This was NOT a joke

*this may piss dickmus off

^ This WAS a joke

Hoganshero: I liked your attempt at the 'age' joke. That was pretty cute of you. :cantbeli:

SFontaine

12-10-2003, 11:44 PM

What the USA did in the past does not make up for today. You are forgetting that the USA did not save the majority of these countries. The USA did not save France etc. in WW2, the USA did not Kosovo, Liberia etc.

For the record bud I'm Canadian, not American.

Quick question.. If the US had never gotten involved in WW2 what would happen?? Think D-Day woulda gone off without the US?
No. It couldn't have. Hence the US helped to save Europe from Nazi Tyranny.

And the US removed Charles Taylor from power in Liberia, bud. Remember that? And all those countries you listed with Anti-American feelings (even after the US saved them) just goes to show the US does a ton of **** for the world that gets forgotten years later. The US breaks its back for other countries and then gets **** upon and called warmongers years later because it's the cool thing to do.
Lovely.

[AFSOC]

12-11-2003, 01:16 AM

The US did not remove President Taylor out of Liberia....

He chose to leave for the good of Liberia, its not like the US Threatened him with anything. All they did was show a symbol of FEAR by using there war ships and MARINES.

hoganshero

12-11-2003, 01:54 AM

the "age" joke..... I didn't actually mean it as a joke. my assumption has made an ass out of me. Consider me corrected.

Shake n Bake

12-11-2003, 01:55 AM

The world including Canada is just as bad as the U.S... stop trying to kid yourselves.

ArmedPacifist

12-11-2003, 10:46 AM

MarineDEP4

12-11-2003, 12:41 PM

Belgium and Holland were liberated by Canadians, the americans fought there way into germany through belgium but the countries were liberated by canadians. Kosovo isnt even a country and you guys didnt liberate it anyways. Liberia wasnt liberated you guys just forced the PM to step out.
That list of yours just further proves your ignorance and gives a bad name to americans. Go read some books instead of gloating about how America has singlehandedly saved the world countless upon countless times using McGiver style tactics. :bash:

you're right, i forgot the canadians fought the battle of the bulge, and beat the germans. rofl

pinkeye

12-11-2003, 01:44 PM

Belgium and Holland were liberated by Canadians, the americans fought there way into germany through belgium but the countries were liberated by canadians. Kosovo isnt even a country and you guys didnt liberate it anyways. Liberia wasnt liberated you guys just forced the PM to step out.
That list of yours just further proves your ignorance and gives a bad name to americans. Go read some books instead of gloating about how America has singlehandedly saved the world countless upon countless times using McGiver style tactics. :bash:

you're right, i forgot the canadians fought the battle of the bulge, and beat the germans. rofl

i strongly suggest you finish grade 9 'cause you are pretty damn ignorant...

ArmedPacifist

12-11-2003, 02:33 PM

you're right, i forgot the canadians fought the battle of the bulge, and beat the germans. rofl

Glad we are in agreement :hug:

[AFSOC]

12-11-2003, 07:00 PM

Belgium and Holland were liberated by Canadians, the americans fought there way into germany through belgium but the countries were liberated by canadians. Kosovo isnt even a country and you guys didnt liberate it anyways. Liberia wasnt liberated you guys just forced the PM to step out.
That list of yours just further proves your ignorance and gives a bad name to americans. Go read some books instead of gloating about how America has singlehandedly saved the world countless upon countless times using McGiver style tactics. :bash:

you're right, i forgot the canadians fought the battle of the bulge, and beat the germans. rofl

WOW your a dumbass.....sooo ignorant

I bet he thinks that US won WWI too...

Vance

12-11-2003, 07:21 PM

Listen

The U.S. did alot of stuff to win WWII

Canada did alot of stuff to win WWII

Russia did alot of stuff to win WWII

The UK did alot of stuff to win WWII

The Aussies, Chinese, Poles, Free French, Africans, and any other country I forgot to mention that were on the Allies side, did alot of stuff to win WWII.

END OF DISCUSSION

Seiyuuki

12-11-2003, 07:31 PM

Andrew Higgins won WW2 for the Allies.

Vance

12-11-2003, 07:42 PM

Oh, **** it.

Falco

12-11-2003, 07:57 PM

[AFSOC]

12-12-2003, 12:03 AM

Uh....I said WWI

Vance

12-12-2003, 12:42 AM

Well then I wasn't talking to you.

MarineDEP4

12-12-2003, 03:32 PM

Belgium and Holland were liberated by Canadians, the americans fought there way into germany through belgium but the countries were liberated by canadians. Kosovo isnt even a country and you guys didnt liberate it anyways. Liberia wasnt liberated you guys just forced the PM to step out.
That list of yours just further proves your ignorance and gives a bad name to americans. Go read some books instead of gloating about how America has singlehandedly saved the world countless upon countless times using McGiver style tactics. :bash:

you're right, i forgot the canadians fought the battle of the bulge, and beat the germans. rofl

WOW your a dumbass.....sooo ignorant

I bet he thinks that US won WWI too...

this is sooo true :oops:

SFontaine

12-12-2003, 11:31 PM

Quick question.. If the US had never gotten involved in WW2 what would happen??

Well if the Japanese hadn't have attacked pearl harbour the Americans would have most likely dodged world war 2 as they tried to dodge the original world war.

What would happen if they did? Easy, the Russians would have broked through on the Eastern front and captured Berlin. The US would have likely still supplied both sides in the war so that part of what they did in the war would not have changed. What would happen at D-day? The individual beaches would have been broken through. Did the Americans support EACH individual beach? I think not.

Ah so the British and Canadians would have been able to pull of D-Day alone?
Yes that seems like a plausible situation.

The state of the board is so sad. If anyone posts a Pro-American thread then a bunch of moronic self proclaimed intellectual Canadians will jump on it and insult it, and when a Pro-Canadian thread is posted either 1) A Canadian will knock the US and a bunch of Americans will come in or B) An American will make some sort of joke that the Canadians will then take the wrong way and will go off the deep end.

Well the Canadians are obviously the right guys here, since you know Canada can do no wrong and is the best country ever.

Seiyuuki

12-12-2003, 11:39 PM

Andrew Higgins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without him, D-Day would not have been possible at all, period!!!!

Give some credits to the man!!!!!

MarineDEP4

12-12-2003, 11:40 PM

oh man, how many times have we been over this! :cantbeli: i hate you all. .........aww........i can't stay mad at you! :hug:

RealUltimatePower

12-14-2003, 01:22 PM

I think frankly the fact that the US can transport it's tanks and troops overseas without renting Ukrainian transport planes or American commercial ships gives their military a higher respect than ours.

Also that their military has captured a dictator like Saddam Hussein surely wins the respect of many Iraqis and peoples in the region.

Sure Canada is doing an important mission in Afghanistan protecting the INTERIM government however who is actively fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda there, the US alongside Afghani forces.

Yea Canada has participated in Boznia, so has the US.

So yea Canadian troops are good troops, I'm one of em. But if it came down to the ultimate task of Defending our soil from an invasion the only sure defence we would have is relying on our American, British and other NATO allies to send troops. In a country the size of Canada you'd think we could muster something better than a regular army of 11,500. And in a world with such turmoil overseas you'd think that the average Canadian citizen would want to join up to serve the cause of peace and security. But the day after Sept 11 there were no long line ups at the recruiting center on Slater Street.

Edmund Burke wrote: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Excepting the over 50 000 men and women in the CF our country of Canada really is doing nothing when compared with what potential we have.

ArmedPacifist

12-14-2003, 03:27 PM

I just found myself a sig Thanks guys! :)

Well the Canadians are obviously the right guys here, since you know Canada can do no wrong and is the best country ever.

DE6

12-15-2003, 01:53 AM

Andrew Higgins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without him, D-Day would not have been possible at all, period!!!!

Give some credits to the man!!!!!

Lemme guess...he invented the LCT, or "Higgins Boat"? Do I win something? p-)

stuntman

12-16-2003, 05:45 AM

[b]Look America is perfect and Canada is just mad we invented cadpat won war 1812, ww1, ww2, kosovo, afghanastan, iraq and play hockey way better!

EvanL

12-16-2003, 01:12 PM

[b]Look America is perfect and Canada is just mad we invented cadpat won war 1812, ww1, ww2, kosovo, afghanastan, iraq and play hockey way better!
Now you know thats just not true ;)

MaCV-SOG

12-16-2003, 04:23 PM

Look America is perfect and Canada is just mad we invented cadpat won war 1812, ww1, ww2, kosovo, afghanastan, iraq and play hockey way better!

LOL wow.......

Invented CADPAT??? Won the WAR OF 1812????? WWI, WWII?? LOL.........

Buddy your a fag, read some flippin books you douche bag.

Oh by the way....we burnt the White house down :D cheers

MarineDEP4

12-16-2003, 04:32 PM

Buddy your a fag

bahahahaha rofl

pAt

12-16-2003, 04:55 PM

do you even know what CADPAT stands for? maybe this link will help you out and maybe rethink your opinion http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm

And for your 'Americas better at hockey' comment lets go back in time when they had the Winter olympics? what was the final score for the mens hockey? could you remind me?!

Schuster

12-16-2003, 05:06 PM

can someone say, Joke?

stuntman

12-16-2003, 06:02 PM

can someone say, Joke?
Thank you Schuster! Hey fellas I like Canada God knows we can learn a couple of lessons from you, but its true the anti American stuff is a little much don't you think?
And to MaCV-SOG, Oh by the way....we burnt the White house down cheers no you didnt the british burnt it down! you guys weren't even a country to about the 1830's (BIG) I think so keep dreaming! And like before it was a joke!!!!!!!!

ArmedPacifist

12-16-2003, 06:05 PM

Vance

12-16-2003, 06:23 PM

ArmedPacifist

12-16-2003, 06:26 PM

weren't even a country to about the 1830's (BIG) I think so keep dreaming! And like before it was a joke!!!!!!!!

Try 1867.....

And it was Canadian militamen (as there were upper and lower Canada at the time) that burned down the white house. You say keep dreaming, I say keep studying history buddy.
Every report I've ever read about the burning of the White House clearly say the British were the ones responsible.

Yes, we were under British uniform, but it was Canadaian militamen as most of them were, because the British troops were busy battling Napoleon at this time (1812), so it were Canadian loyalists who were putting on the red uniforms and firing the Brown Bess'. British reinforcements arrived very late in the war.

Vance

12-16-2003, 06:27 PM

So now since you guys pwned our house we are at your service forever.

*Bows*

Vance

12-16-2003, 06:28 PM

Oh and by the way WE BUILT IT BACK UP.

So haha 2 u.

Vance

12-16-2003, 06:32 PM

Sorry for posting 3 times but:

http://www.militaryheritage.com/1812events.htm
April 27: U.S. troops attack and burn York (Capital of Upper Canada).

PWN!

ArmedPacifist

12-16-2003, 06:34 PM

you attacked us, figured you could get the rest of the land we hadn't already ceeded. We pWn3d you guys, then the British got pwned in Louisianna or some place south (But the funny thing was, this victory occured a week after the war ended).

the war of 1812 had lots of pWnage going on.

Vance

12-16-2003, 06:41 PM

We pWn3d you guys
And so did we. So much pwnage, so little time.

ArmedPacifist

12-16-2003, 06:46 PM

We pWn3d you guys
And so did we. So much pwnage, so little time.

Indeed. Like I said in the last line of the above post.

Canadians like myself cling onto 1812 because we haven't pWNed that many people recently.

Vance

12-16-2003, 06:50 PM

But you are with us pwning the Taliban :D

pAt

12-16-2003, 07:30 PM

lol not pwning the taliban just kicking their ass!

Andyman

12-19-2003, 06:01 AM

My school talked with General Mackenzie in 1994. He was the CF General who was in charge of the 14000 UN led team sent into Bosnia. Anyways he said that UN has these sheets they pass around to all the members that has a list of all the countries within UN. And there are litttle boxes beside each country and each of the members checks off which country that they would feel most comfortable having as peace keepers inside their own nation. Anyways he said that each time Canada is the #1 nation that is picked. He then went on to say its not because they like us more than other countries its because our foreign policy has never been imperialistic and because we aren't a boastful nation and the other members of UN fel that we have the right attitude to handle peace keeping situations.

DANJANOU

01-30-2004, 04:19 PM

So what was the original topic again? I kind of forgot after wading through five odd pages of juvenile cross border dick waving there.

Oh yeah it was the Governor General awarding a bunch of CPSMs to various individuals.

To the Finnish poster who asked if any would be awarded to Finnish troops, sorry no. It’s a Canadian decoration for as noted Canadian military and civil pers who’ve served on UN or other (NATO) missions and worn with the respective medal for that deployment(s).

Finnish (and other) troops as I‘m sure you are aware are awarded the specific UN medal for that operation. Awarded to all participants. Actually the medal is identical, but the ribbon is what differs. That’s not to say that the Finnish Government may at some time design and award a similar decoration to honour the excellent and long tradition as peacekeepers.

Now on to the war of 1812. There were no, repeat no, Canadian units present at the battles in and around Washington including the sacking and burning of the White House. Which of course wasn’t called that then. It got the name after they rebuilt it and painted white to hide the scorch marks.

The units that were involved in this campaign were all British, shipped directly from Europe. It may have been possible that a Canadian born soldier was serving in one of these British regiments but not likely.

There were Canadian units both Militia and Regular (Fencible) involved in almost all other campaigns and fronts of this rather pathetic little war.

In Upper Canada (Ontario) at the battles of Michimilanic, Queenston Heights, Fort George, Lundy’s Lane, Fort Eire, Beaver Dams, Stoney Creek, York, Moravian Town, and Chryslers Farm.

In the US at Detroit, River Raisin, Fort Meigs, Fort Stephenson the raid on Oswego, the burning of Buffalo and Black Rock, the capture of Fort Niagara and the battles near Lake Champlain.

In Lower Canada (Quebec) at Chateauguay, and as part of the forces that invaded and captured about 50% of Maine from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Actually for such a small force they were kind of busy.

Canada actually did exist at the time although not in the way we know it now. The BNA of 1867 united the separate British colonies and dependencies of Lower Canada, Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI into one self governing Dominion.

Canada as a name has actually existed since some dumb lost French explorer misunderstood the Algonquin word for “that’s my collection of huts, so stay the hell away from them you strangely dressed ugly foreigner.” At least that’s what the commercial said and we all know that TV never lies right.

Ok sorry for the brief historical factual interruption there. You may now return to name calling and comparing the size of your Johnsons.