History is bunk…

…and we’re condemned to repeat it.

What makes us different?

Recent polls show support for Alberta independence is on the rise. Or steady. Depends on who and how you ask. Just like all polls. What matters is that it’s less than 50%. Still there are vocal proponents. It’s a free world; fight for what you want. I don’t know if Albertans would be better or worse off if they left confederation that’s a discussion for another time. For now I want to address something else, the differences between Americans and Canadians and a little bit of history and nuance.

I read a post by

Bruce Pardy

the other day advocating for Albertan independence and while we don’t necessarily agree on everything, he is, as I said, welcome to fight for what he wants. Bruce is professor of law at Queen’s University and while his post is framed as a declaration of independence for Alberta, a clear nod to the US Declaration of Independence, what it isn’t, is very historically accurate. Yes, Washington’s address to the inhabitants of Canada did take place, and yes the appeal failed but to conclude that “They wanted to be subjects of the Crown,” that “liberty is America’s foundational idea” and “Canada’s is deference to authority” is at best simplistic, at worst ignorant of historical circumstances that explain why only 13 British colonies in North America joined the revolution.

A couple of notes:

1. Canada wasn’t a nation at the time of the American Revolution but a group of colonies not unlike the American ones. Canada consisted of the British colonies of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.

2. The Quebec Act of 1774 gave the province what it wanted, religious freedom and preserved their civil law. The Quebec Act is considered one of the Intolerable Acts that led to the American Revolution. Since the Americans resented the expansion of Quebec's territory and the act’s recognition of the Catholic religion, Quebecers were unlikely to have viewed the Americans as friendly and thus not inclined to join them in rebelling.

   

3. British military strength in Canada was also very strong. The British held Quebec City and Montreal, securing the colony. Some residents of Nova Scotia were sympathetic to the American cause, but the strong British military presence, especially in Halifax, kept it under British control. Halifax was the most important British naval base in North America

4. Newfound land was a small fishing colony, with little political unrest and strong trade ties with Britain and no interest in joining the revolution.

It’s important to point out that due to the way American history has been taught most people view the American Revolution as 13 colonies against the British Empire. This is also a simplification. There were in fact 28 colonies in North America and the Caribbean. The Caribbean ones were the most profitable and like the Canadian colonies also chose not to rebel (for complicated reasons).

Britain was engaged in a global war against France, Spain, and the Netherlands, who joined the conflict in support of the American rebels. Battles took place in Europe, the Caribbean, Africa, India, and even the Pacific preventing the British from turning its full attention to the patriot rebellion. How the British prioritized the different colonies and deployed its forces had some impact on which colonies rebelled. It didn’t come down to “some wanted liberty, and some wanted to be ruled.”

Pardy’s generalization not only neglects the details which explain the different responses to the American Revolution but also entirely ignores immigration since that time. While many loyalists moved to Quebec and Nova Scotia after the Revolutionary War, many more immigrants have come to Canada since then. My family for instance, are Irish Catholics. To assume they moved to Canada because they wished to be “subjects of the Crown” would be ludicrous. The most likely reason that so many landed in Canada instead of the US (or Australia or New Zealand) was the availability of transport at the time they were leaving their home countries. If you were poor and attempting to emigrate, like so many millions did, you went to a port, you got on a boat, and it took you where it took you. Chance likely played more of a role in where you ended up than the politics of the destination nation.

Broad generalizations are also dangerous. “Canadians are…” and “American’s are…” implies we’re all the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if Texans had more in common with Albertan’s than they do with their fellow citizens in Maine. It is true that key differences can be seen in the founding documents of both countries but these say less about the characters of the citizens than they do about the writers. The Canadian Constitution highlights the importance of “peace, order, and good government" while “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is a key phrase in the US Declaration of Independence. We should, however, be careful not to define national characteristics by these phrases lest we assume Canadians don’t value life, liberty, and happiness or wonder why Americans are indifferent to good government, peace, and order.

I understand what Pardy was driving at. It is also likely that he gave little thought to the section that I took issue with since he’s a lawyer not an historian. That said, if you don’t like the politics of your nation or if you feel your “people” are getting the short end of the stick, by all means vote for a change. Hell, even push for separation, if that’s the only solution you see. Knock yourself out. Just don’t assume you understand how someone else thinks because they disagree with you, politics isn’t going your way, or your understanding of history is lacking.

The irony of it all

As I just finished arguing against generalizations, I won’t say “Canadians are angry.” Instead let’s say many Canadians are angry. We’re a smaller country than the US and so what can appear to be the end of the world to us might barely be a ripple in the US. Such appears to be the case with the various and varying tariff threats from Trump. “We must do something” appears to be the general consensus but exactly what is up in the air. While our politicians posture, Canadians have begun to experiment with the types of responses they favour. Booing the US national anthem seems to have caught the attention of many Americans and while I understand the temptation, it accomplishes nothing and is arguably counterproductive. Boycotts on the other hand are a tried-and-true form of protest that have been gaining in popularity.

In the last few weeks there have been calls from social media influencers, business leaders, and politicians to “buy Canadian” and boycott American products. Apparently, there are even apps that can help. Many are also suggesting that Canadians boycott travel to the US. This may not sound like much, but one estimate has calculated that a “10% reduction in Canadian travel could mean 2.0 million fewer visits, $2.1 billion in lost spending and 14,000 job losses.” America’s response? “Who cares?”

Nobody knows implies nobody cares. Not knowing about it might be excusable but I find suggestions that Americans wouldn’t care to be ironic given the country’s long history of using boycotts as both an economic weapon and a form of protest.

Those of us tuned in to the news likely recall the boycott of Bud Light when it’s marketing department made the catastrophic decision of hiring controversial TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney in order to move away from the company’s traditional market. These boycotts led to a 30% sales drop, a $27 billion decline in market value, and resulted in Bud Light losing its #1 spot as the best-selling beer in the US.

Boycotts in fact have a long history in the US, predating the founding of the country. Groups like the Sons of Liberty used boycotts to put pressure on the British and foster a spirt of colonial unity and self-reliance. Examples include:

1. Stamp Act of 1765 – Colonists refused to buy British goods and targeted merchants who didn’t comply. Merchants in cities like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia saw imports drop significantly, with some estimates showing a decline of 50% or more in British goods in 1765-66. The boycotts hit British merchants hard enough to make them lobby Parliament leading to the act’s repeal in 1766.

2. Townshend Acts of 1767 – Colonists pushed non-importation, focusing on goods like tea, glass, and paper. By 1769, imports to major ports like Philadelphia reportedly fell by about 40%, and in New York, they dropped from £490,000 in 1768 to £75,000 in 1769. The success rattled British trade enough that Parliament repealed most of the Townshend duties in 1770, except for the tea tax. Oh, and before you shrug off the “except for the tea tax,” does anyone remember the Boston Tea Party?

Overall, the boycotts didn’t cripple Britain’s economy as trade with the colonies was only about 10-15% of their total exports (today Canada accounts for 18.3% of US exports), they hurt enough to force policy shifts. Their real win was in mobilizing the populace and proving the Patriots could organize resistance, setting the stage for revolution, a revolution that could have been avoided had the British government simply compromised with the colonists.

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s damn is the history we make today."

-- Henry Ford

Ford was a great American but personally, I prefer Mark Twain. I also prefer his take on history: “history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” I sense the beginnings of a rhyme today when I read the news. A rhyme that tells the tale of a nation that chose arrogance over compromise, that extended the fist instead of the open hand. Canada is not an American colony, and America is not an empire. At least not in the original sense of the world. Many, however, would argue that America is a cultural and economic empire, an empire based on trade and brands. If so, then Canada is one of America’s many colonies and like colonies of old today’s colonies can also rebel. Especially against an empire in decline. The US is still the predominant power in the world, but times are changing. This is not 1950 when the US middle class made up 65% of the world’s consumers. That number is barely 10% today. If Canada “rebels” no shots will be fired. What will happen instead is that Canada will turn to other countries and the trade that helped fund the American empire will move elsewhere, pushed away by American arrogance and disdain. If America treats enough of its trading partners in a similar fashion it might find them looking elsewhere as well. If America is not careful it may find that it’s prioritization of military concerns was misguided and that its focus should have been on maintaining its economic ties. If so, it may look on in horror as its jilted allies and trading partners abandon it and its empire ends not be with a bang, but with a whimper.