BellaOnline Forums Education History Ask the expert....

I may not know everything about history, but I know alot...

Have a burning question? Need Homework help?

That's why we're here!

Ask away!

In his 1870 novel "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", in describing Ned Land, Canadian harpooner, Jules Verne says 'He who considers himself a Canadian also considers himself a Frenchman.'

In light of the lack of French influence and sparcity of colonization in Canada during the latter half of the 19th century, would you view this statement as a mischaracterization peculiar to Verne, one influenced by chauvinistic French nationalism or as some thing else entirely?

Wow!! Good question. Let me give it a shot�

I�m not sure that I would characterize the comment as either a mischaracterization or chauvinistic French nationalism, and here�s why. In Verne�s 1889 political novel �Famille-sand-nom� or �Family Without a Name,� he uses the 1837 rebellions as the backdrop for his action � and his sympathies very obviously lie with the Patriotes. In doing a little looking around, I found some info on those rebellions. Most of my research shows that the violence erupted due to differences in culture:
�The Government in Lower Canada favoured the business interests of the English over the farming interests of the French population. The farmers objected to the use of tax money for canal building, which favoured the businessmen more than farms. Farmers needed roads more than canals. The French in Lower Canada were also concerned about losing their French culture and language, and the privileges given to the Anglican church when most of the population were Catholic.�
-- fromBellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Any other questions? I've got some down time right now... I'd love to have a reason to research!

I think you finally left Frank speechless. Frank usually comes into these forums to stir up tro...er...controversy, it would seem and it would also seem that you answered his question and he never expected such a lucid, well thought out response. Kudos, Cindy. lol.

Heh! Well, I never meant to shoo anyone away (even if they were just stirring the pot!)

It's been a long time since I really had to do research to answer a question -- verify facts, but actual research is way beyond normal.

Still -- it brought to light a serious deficiency in my knowledge of Canadian History! I've been doing some catch up since then!

In your opinion what would you say was the first major turning point against the Nazis in World War II? In other words what would your consider to be the Nazis first major defeat?

You know, there are so few times when � even through the filter of time � you can step back and say: This was the moment that won the war. True, there are battles that become more significant than others, but it has always been hard for me to quantify when a war becomes �a win� or �a loss.� It seems that, with a few exceptions, battles tend to have dynamic meanings.

When considering the American Civil War, for example, it�s easy to say �The Union troops won the Battle of Gettysburg� which, they did. General Lee�s troops trudged back to the South to regroup, while General Meade regrouped in the North. President Lincoln was furious at the time because he saw it as a missed opportunity to squelch the rebellion. Had Meade given chase to Lee�s heavily reduced forces, it could have ended the war far sooner. At the same time, it was the biggest battle fought so far north. Many in the North who had escaped much of the war without personal affects were dealt a crushing blow to their morale while having to deal with the aftermath. So, huge battle? Yes. Did they win? Yes. Turning point? could have been. Good thing? Depends on who you ask.

Now, as for defeating the Nazis, again, it depends on who you ask. Some might argue it was the Battle of Britain, when someone finally stood up to the German forces. Some might say the Attack on Pearl Harbor ensured the final demise. If pressured to pick, I�d probably have to go with either The Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of El Alamein� Both were significant losses for the Nazis.

But, I�m open to suggestions� Anyone know a more pivotal battle in WWII?

Hi Cindy,

What are your thoughts on the media (excuse me, should that be capitalized?)? When do you think they gained so much power in persuading people and when and why are they allowed to present their own opinions on, say, presidential elections, and try to persuade people who is right and who is wrong? My opinion is that the media should report facts and not their persuasive personal opinions in such matters.

When I look back in history, the majority of media people only reported the facts. Or, am I wrong? It just seems that the media of today is not doing what it should be doing and is the root of a lot of problems.

Hi Cindy and all:

As far as Phyllis's question... I think it might have been when cable TV began and news programs were fighting for air time and decided to start airing news programs 24/7. They have way too much time. Facts only take so long to tell and they had to find something to fill up the other endless hours, so they brought in experts to 'discuss' the issues.. it was only a short leap from there before they decided to give their own opinions.
I don't watch the news anymore. I get my news from the radio where they still only have a short alloted time to get the facts out there without the fluff.

Bylen

Now that makes sense, Bylen - Thanks! I get so frustrated when I hear their personal opinions and the fact that each network seems to have their favorite candidates that they promote and degrade the ones they do not like.

Listening to radio news is a better way to go.

Hello,
I am in search of the words of a poem called "A Letter to Daddy" from I Never Saw Another Butterfly, the collection of holocaust children's art and poetry. I need those words today if possible for a project. Thank you so much. Wanda

Cindy, What is your favorite period or periods of history that you most enjoy studying or reading about?

My favorite periods to study are
1. World War II - 1931 to 1945
2. The development of the U.S. Constitution, 1787
3. Colonial America
4. Late 19th and 20th century America
5. Origins of Man (but that's more Anthropology)

I don't have any questions, Cindy, but I'm impressed with your answers. I'll be sure to return to this thread if I come up with something to ask...

Oh my goodness!! I get busy and forget to check for a week or two, and, of course, it's the one when you guys have all the questions!!

Ok, so, let me take a crack at this...

On the Media: I think the switch to 24/7 news was definately a contributing factor. I also think that it has a lot to do with the way our society deals with television in general -- we tend to look for the sensational. Advertisers tend to place ads where people will look (ie, the most sensational channels/programming.) So, if you're not making enough to meet your fiscal goals, one sure way to up the ante is to increase your visibility. And, I also think people "feel better" about what they're hearing if it matches their own view of the world. You feel better hearing that Obama is connected to a terrorist if you don't want him to win. You feel better hearing that Palin is a huge idiot if you don't want her to win. And, I agree -- radio news (and public broadcasting for that matter) rock!

Letter From Daddy: What a great poem. I'm sorry that I didn't check this in time to get the quote to you... But, for future reference, I think most libraries have a copy.

My favorite periods of history: WOW! That could spawn the longest answer EVER! But, here's the short version: it depends more on the subject than on the period. I love all things medieval, renaissance, regency, Federalist, victorian, American Revolution, Civil war, WW I and II. Actually, I'm spending a good bit of time on the history of Turkey/Byzantium right at the momement. But, I think I have to say that what I like studying the MOST are the cultural and human aspects of history. Learning the facts and figures are great, but if you've got a great story about a person -- even better if there's a personal connection, or an artifact that can be marvelled at -- I can't help my facination. (And, I consider Anthro and History as being two different words for and ways of studying the same topic, just in case you were wondering!!)

Yea!! Keep the questions coming!! I love 'em!

I think there is a difference between reporting the news and shows featuring opinion. Unfortunately, there are few shows reporting unbiased news and way too many celebrity columnists presenting their opinions. Twenty-four hours of talk shows creates a lot of blab.

So true Angie So true. The 24-hour news cycle, talk radio and cable news create a lot more opinions from, so-called, experts than factual information. More than 90% of my news I get from NPR. I don't trust much of anyone else. They are the least biased news source I know of. All the tv and radio news is usually biased to the left or to the right. Maybe the majority of Americans near to read more. I dont mean just read the daily newspaper, but history, world culture and much more.

Not only that, even when they have a so-called conversation with a guest, the guest is only permitted to say what the host wants people to hear. If the guest begins to veer off the host's line, he's cut off.

The same is true when a non-conservative is on conservative cable news programs or talk-radio. Just try and get a non-conservative or non-republican idea on Cincinnati's WLW 700am radio. It won't happen. To the talk radio hosts on WLW Reagan, Bush Sr. and George W. Bush could do nothing wrong. Carter, Clinton or any Democrat could never do anything right. The right-wing conservative bias on WLW is very obvious if not outright blatant. It is so blatant I sometimes think they are really just a branch office of the GOP.

Absolutely. I was being non-partisan in my comment.

I was considering writing about news coverage on the BBC and other British news organisations. When I lived in the States, there was the ITN news from Britain. Are they still showing that? What do you think of the BBC news in general? Can you access it and do you look at their website? Does it seem unbiased or not?

Hi Joanna, I check out the BBC homepage every day and I like BBCA news and a couple of the other shows in the evening. I like the different news perspective. American news is so over the top with sound bytes and hysteria. British news gives you a more worldly view - what is happening around the world. I like Matt Frei.

Here's another fan of the BBC news. I check their website daily and listen to BBC World Service on the radio every night if I wake up between midnight and 5 AM which is when it is on my local station. I only wish that it was carried here at a more convenient time! Its a sort of reality check, although I notice that sometimes the Brits can get just as wrapped up in celebrity hysteria as we Yanks do.

Celebrity mania is rampant everywhere. I'm with you about the BBC page but I have not listened to the radio show.

Oh we definitely get caught up in the whole celebrity thing. The BBC should be more careful and objective but they are not always. I will be interested to see how they cover the G20 meeting in London tomorrow. Obama is greatly loved here (and a big celebrity) so it will be interesting. In general, the BBC is trusted to tell the truth I think.

What did you think of the events in London today? Breaking windows, rioting, not good.

It was directed against banks, it wasn't genereal rioting - most people were not too concerned as we have a history of a certain amount of civil disobedience. People were more focused on the G20 outcome. Michelle Obama was a big hit...

Why?

Good question. There was some focus on what she was wearing but I think the main thing is back to the celebrity question- she is someone new, different so a matter of interest. She seems measured and tolerant which goes down well in a country that hates extremism and fanaticism. She appears to have no chip on her shoulder and she got to where she is by her own efforts and not any advantages of family. She spoke at an inner city girls' school in London (the only speech she gave) and it was well received as it seemed so genuine. She is also extremely tall - which everyone commented on. Her warmth towards the Queen was taken well - the last person to touch her like that was the Australian Prime MInister 10 years ago and he got a frosty look and was dubbed the 'lizard of oz' by the press. All in all, she (and he ) conducted themselves very well. Look out for my article on the British Television page tomorrow.

Where is the British Television page?

British Television at BellaOnline

British Television Forum at BellaOnline

Well, I'll be. I thought I looked there but I must need new glasses.