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