Talk:War of 1812/Archive 6

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

I think it's very much US POV - America did this, America felt this etc. No mention of Canada wanting to defend themselves, or of the fact that many Americans thought the war was unjustified. Can we get someone froma neutral country to write it, may be from Switzerland? :-) Deathlibrarian 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be absurd and totally inappropriate to use an identifiably Canadian pov for this article as CANADA DID NOT EXIST AS A STATE. Note that there is as much BRITISH pov in the article as US. This is a natural consequence of the fact that the British empire (not Canada) was in fact the state the US declared war on.
More importantly, please take a quick look at the French and Indian War article. Do you see Any US posters pissing and moaning about the lack of a US pov on that war? And yet while canadians get constant mention in this article there are only references to "british colonists" in the French and Indian War article. Oh no! woe is us poor americans! nobody is presenting our unique US perspective on the french and indian war and instead we must be lumped together with the apron-string clinging canucks! horrors! ;)Zebulin 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Canada did exist as a colony...whether you live in the "colony" of Canada, or the country of "Canada" if your country is being invaded you would be equally as unhappy(presumably). As much British POV as American??? You serious? Have you read this article? As for the French and Indian War article, I can't see how that is relevant. If you have a problem with it being biased or badly written, go over there and re write it....its Wikipedia after all. Thats no reason for this article to be badly written or biased as well.Deathlibrarian 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to point out the most egregious examples of US pov in the article.Zebulin 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Brits saw the US attack on Canada as traitorous as at the time they "had their back turned" trying to fight Napoleon and remove him from occupying Europe. They were pissed big time about this. They also saw no problems in selling arms to the native americans, who were just trying to protect themselves from their lands being overun and being pushed onto disease ridden reservations....is that mentioned in the opening bit? Deathlibrarian 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, when they are that bad instead of posting them here in talk just do us all a favor and scrub them out straight away. I must have been asleep at my watchlist to have missed those. ;)Zebulin 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No!..I am saying this is the British perspective and it *should be* included along with the US perspective that is already in there. Deathlibrarian 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ouch. I thought you were posting the most egregious examples of american pov. well hrmm. The way you phrase it isn't exaclty up to wiki standards IMHO. In any event can you cite any ref for the brits thinking the attacks were even remotely traitorous? that just doesnt make sense. The USA was not in any sense allied with the british empire let alone still thought of as a part of it by the British. How could *anything* it did in 1812 be seen as "traitorous"? Maybe this is just semantics you might mean they saw the attack as shamelessly opportunistic. Of course the Brits were in fact rather divided about the attack by the USA with regards to where the blame lay and to whether it was completely unprovoked. Hardly a case worthy of the generalization that "they were pissed big time" about it. The brits were also divided about selling arms to the natives. What they were not divided about was the importance of not allowing that opportunistic attack to harm the international standing of the empire by weakening it's image.
I think one reason you might find less description of British POV in the article is that it seems to have been harder to pin down. The war had a drastically less jingo-charged effect on them and fewer broad generalized sentiments relating to the war emerged there than in north america. Having said all that, I think descriptions of british attitudes during the war certainly have a place in the article so long as they are either cited or at least nuanced enough to not over generalize british attitudes.
Zebulin 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, traitorous is the wrong word, opportunistic and somewhat sneaky is more correct. I've been trying to find the reference, I read it a while ago online but can't find it. The Brits were well pissed off about being attacked by the US while they were struggling with Napoleon. Certainly UK Hansard would describe attitudes but I don't have access to it. Yes, and good point British attitudes to the war are certainly less prevalent, and there are few books written by Brits on the war of 1812.However, once I find some I will post, at the moment the US viewpoint overshadows this article (coming from my perspective as an Aussie!) Deathlibrarian 05:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read or paged through Winston Churchills "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples"? That's at least one case of a british author examining the war. If you are looking for period primary source material regarding prevalent attitudes towards the war in Britain your hunt may be far more difficult and prone to selection bias as some publishers in britain during the war gave remarkably different perspectives on it than other contemporary british sources. They were indeed divided on (and not terribly pre-occupied with) the conflict. Don't hesitate to contribute anything you find however. We can try to fill in gaps for a more nuanced view later.Zebulin 05:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)