The Durham Report is often quoted even today by federalist activists trying to demonstrate that the French regime was under British occupation, that the British have "saved" the people of the St Lawrence was "backward" (people in the direction of settlement).
Oddly enough, when Thoreau wrote "A Yankee in Canada" in the 1860s, it is EXACTLY the same criticisms that Durham schools on the St. Lawrence Valley: People of misery, outdated farming methods, population linear along the river, poor cities, not enough cake to the menu (!), etc.. However, these criticisms are directed as much to French farmers than to the British masters, already present a century when he made the trip.
Could it be, therefore, that the British have finally brought nothing superior (in terms of institutions and human development), the slow development of our countries have instead been caused by adverse weather conditions, and the stand-linear (along rivers) has been made to make the most of access roads? Could it be that the Conquest has been ultimately a conquest - a change from colonial rule? And the people here, both francophone and anglophone, have started to really develop until they were able to make their own decisions?
In this case, the identity of the colonial power, the ruler, has little importance. The project of political liberation of Papineau, Lafontaine-Baldwin then, makes sense - be freer to be more prosperous (compared with the "masters in our" Lesage). But does it justify IN NO EVENT revision of history that would give the British colonial military forces a humanitarian role, no offense to Durham.
Oddly enough, when Thoreau wrote "A Yankee in Canada" in the 1860s, it is EXACTLY the same criticisms that Durham schools on the St. Lawrence Valley: People of misery, outdated farming methods, population linear along the river, poor cities, not enough cake to the menu (!), etc.. However, these criticisms are directed as much to French farmers than to the British masters, already present a century when he made the trip.
Could it be, therefore, that the British have finally brought nothing superior (in terms of institutions and human development), the slow development of our countries have instead been caused by adverse weather conditions, and the stand-linear (along rivers) has been made to make the most of access roads? Could it be that the Conquest has been ultimately a conquest - a change from colonial rule? And the people here, both francophone and anglophone, have started to really develop until they were able to make their own decisions?
In this case, the identity of the colonial power, the ruler, has little importance. The project of political liberation of Papineau, Lafontaine-Baldwin then, makes sense - be freer to be more prosperous (compared with the "masters in our" Lesage). But does it justify IN NO EVENT revision of history that would give the British colonial military forces a humanitarian role, no offense to Durham.
0 comments:
Post a Comment