[Action-Jackson]

You could also add Thomas Scott, the common labourer Louis Riel's provisional government executed at Fort Gary. He was an Orangemen from Ontario. I don't think MacDonald himself was an Orangeman, but Orangemen were a vocal part of public opinion in Ontario that had to be satisfied. This probably lead to MacDonald's hardline against Riel in the second rebellion.<br /> <br /> To a large degree, I think, this was the tenor of the times. Such beliefs as Orangism, have been called "negative nationalism" by John Ralston Saul. I think the same thing was also happening in Quebec with the ultramondists. Faith, family and race were the bywords. <br /> <br /> With Laurier taking power in 1896, things began to change. He defanged the clergy in Quebec, and managed to defuse Orangism in Ontario. Immigration was encouraged and a multicultural West began to balance the sabre-rattling of Ontario.<br /> <br /> The Orange lodges in Ontario might have done some local charity work, but as an idea or political force, they caused nothing but trouble in Canadian history. Good riddance.

[Perturbed]

Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie Bowell was the Grand Master of an Orange Lodge in Ontario. He helped get the one-third of Ontarians who were Orangemen to vote Conservative....you can check him out on CPAC's "The Prime Ministers." His transcirpt is on the site with all the others. It's funny how Bowell eventually agreed to give Catholics their own schoolboard, and he was also the only PM who was a trademen, though he was apparently not the most popular, and was deserted by his party.<br /> <br /> According to the series on CPAC, the Orange Order, a rabid anti-Catholic (among other things) movement still has 20,000 members in Canada, and many Orange lodges are still operating....I have no idea how ideological they still are.

[Marcarc]

The orangemen were pretty much responsible for the rebellion of 1837 and remained thugs far into this past century. I think it is their 'type' of influence that many, such as myself, rebel against. If you've read any history there were considerable skirmishes in Lower Canada and elsewhere helped by the 'new great republic' who basically saw Canada as a place which had to be freed from the yoke of british oppression much as it had done. Remember, at that time america was a new place, far different than it is now. It's interesting how we have come to believe that our 'country' (then just a british outpost) was 'saved' from americans by our soldiers, when in fact most of the rebellions in our past were fought by residents of canada who were quashed by force-often orangemen force. So the real difference between canada and the US- we lost our revolution. Here's three quotes to conclude- the first from a newspaper in 1837, the second and third from the resolutions passed in the township of Yarmouth which were later thwarted in the rebellion of 1837:<br /> 1"...and it appears to me that our new parliament will be little better than an orange lodge with a new name" <br /> 2"that there is established in the province a branch of that association called orangemen...that numerous interests prove they are encouraged by men in authority to shed the people's blood...and therefore to preserve the peace and defend her majesty's subjects from assassination it is absolutely necessary to form armed associations and determinedly oppose force by force"<br /> 3 "That we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that whenever government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute a better system" <br /> <br /> (sound familiar?)<br /> <br />

[gaulois]

Thanks to all. It irritates me greatly that radical fundamentalism type of people (whether religious or ideological) keep damaging countries beyound repair, specially when it happens to be my own country. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'> <br /> <br /> These ethnic things do simmmer and do tend to come back. SAme happened with the First Nations. One would hope that the current period of relative accalmy (cold war?) in the nationhood relationships could be better used to heal things up. I also wonder what these Orangemen have reincarnated themselves in if ever the "dead ducks" ever reincarnate. Are these ugly closet skeletons properly burried? Normand Lester in his black book seem to suggest otherwise.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The orangemen were pretty much responsible for the rebellion of 1837 and remained thugs far into this past century. I think it is their 'type' of influence that many, such as myself, rebel against. If you've read any history there were considerable skirmishes in Lower Canada and elsewhere helped by the 'new great republic' who basically saw Canada as a place which had to be freed from the yoke of british oppression much as it had done. Remember, at that time america was a new place, far different than it is now. It's interesting how we have come to believe that our 'country' (then just a british outpost) was 'saved' from americans by our soldiers, when in fact most of the rebellions in our past were fought by residents of canada who were quashed by force-often orangemen force. So the real difference between canada and the US- we lost our revolution. Here's three quotes to conclude- the first from a newspaper in 1837, the second and third from the resolutions passed in the township of Yarmouth which were later thwarted in the rebellion of 1837:<br /> 1"...and it appears to me that our new parliament will be little better than an orange lodge with a new name" <br /> 2"that there is established in the province a branch of that association called orangemen...that numerous interests prove they are encouraged by men in authority to shed the people's blood...and therefore to preserve the peace and defend her majesty's subjects from assassination it is absolutely necessary to form armed associations and determinedly oppose force by force"<br /> 3 "That we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that whenever government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute a better system" <br /> <br /> (sound familiar?)<br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> America was a new country officially, but come on, they were expansionist long before then.<br /> <br /> As for saying that Canada "lost its revolution," --there was no Canadian revolution. British North America was controlled by British loyalists, but not by Great Britain itself. <br /> <br /> It WOULD be accurate to say that the British lost their civil war with what is now the U.S.A., and that the southern U.S. lost their civil war with the north. However, despite losing the civil war, loyalists regrouped and won enough battles with the U.S. and still managed to get their own country--Canada eventually.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] Thanks to all. It irritates me greatly that radical fundamentalism type of people (whether religious or ideological) keep damaging countries beyound repair, specially when it happens to be my own country. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'> <br /> <br /> These ethnic things do simmmer and do tend to come back. SAme happened with the First Nations. One would hope that the current period of relative accalmy (cold war?) in the nationhood relationships could be better used to heal things up. I also wonder what these Orangemen have reincarnated themselves in if ever the "dead ducks" ever reincarnate. Are these ugly closet skeletons properly burried? Normand Lester in his black book seem to suggest otherwise. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I think that if you see any new ethnically-based nationalism, it will be a broad-based white backlash against visible minorities. It's already happened in Quebec nationlist circles--it could happen in the ROC if it hasn't already.<br /> <br /> White people used to fight amongst themselves, and only a few decades ago, a catholic would never be mayor of Toronto--let alone a Jew. Canada hung the Jews out to dry in W.W. II. Now they control much of the media, so I doubt we'd return to broad-based hatred of people like Jews, Catholics, Ukrainians, etc....visible minorities I'm not so sure.

[Marcarc]

Well, it's my turn to say 'come on', if you think british loyalists and not Great Britain controlled what was BNA then you've got to retake some of your history courses. The only place in 'the canadas' that was given 'home rule' (which still has pretty stringent limits) was Newfoundland and that was only for a very short time. Great Britain controlled the entire process of the creation of Canada, and we're talking about fifty years before that. There's no doubt that often the representatives (which were chosen by G<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> had to make decisions on their own because an ocean and a harsh winter separated them from their bosses, however, that's incidental. After joining Canada Nova Scotia had an election where almost every member voted in campaigned to reject the earlier entry into canada (which of course wasn't decided by referendum). The matter was finally settled by an increase in transfer payments and Great Britains insistence that there was no way in hell they were getting out. Since they didn't have the desire for force it was settled. Look at the details of virtually every province's entry into the country, even as late as Newfoundlands where the choice was to join Canada or else remain an immediate colony-Great Britain rejected Newfoundlanders desire that another choice be given on the referendum-creation of their own country. <br /> <br /> Canada has in fact had many 'revolutions'. Like I said, the issue is not whether the US was expansionist or not (I will grant that americans weren't thinking of dying for canadians freedom but by more baser instincts-though that's not certain of the people involved), but by the fact that the revolutions were carried out by CANADIANS not americans. Those quotes in my earlier message were by Ontarians not americans. There's a good book called "Movements of Political Protest in Canada 1640-1840" that has lots of relevant reading. The rebellion of 1837 against the colonial government is fairly well documented and there are others.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Well, it's my turn to say 'come on', if you think british loyalists and not Great Britain controlled what was BNA then you've got to retake some of your history courses. The only place in 'the canadas' that was given 'home rule' (which still has pretty stringent limits) was Newfoundland and that was only for a very short time. Great Britain controlled the entire process of the creation of Canada, and we're talking about fifty years before that. There's no doubt that often the representatives (which were chosen by G<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> had to make decisions on their own because an ocean and a harsh winter separated them from their bosses, however, that's incidental. After joining Canada Nova Scotia had an election where almost every member voted in campaigned to reject the earlier entry into canada (which of course wasn't decided by referendum). The matter was finally settled by an increase in transfer payments and Great Britains insistence that there was no way in hell they were getting out. Since they didn't have the desire for force it was settled. Look at the details of virtually every province's entry into the country, even as late as Newfoundlands where the choice was to join Canada or else remain an immediate colony-Great Britain rejected Newfoundlanders desire that another choice be given on the referendum-creation of their own country. <br /> <br /> Canada has in fact had many 'revolutions'. Like I said, the issue is not whether the US was expansionist or not (I will grant that americans weren't thinking of dying for canadians freedom but by more baser instincts-though that's not certain of the people involved), but by the fact that the revolutions were carried out by CANADIANS not americans. Those quotes in my earlier message were by Ontarians not americans. There's a good book called "Movements of Political Protest in Canada 1640-1840" that has lots of relevant reading. The rebellion of 1837 against the colonial government is fairly well documented and there are others.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Well sure, the Americans chanted "liberty or death," so everyone was fighting for their version of history.<br /> <br /> Canada is now functionally free of Great Britain, without even becoming a republic. What's the problem? People like Macdonald wrote that Canada could become "greater than England." To suggest that Canada was British controlled at first, well, give it some time.

[Marcarc]

If you, I, the majority of Canadians, or even the government wanted to have more senators we'd have to go and ask the queen for permission. That doesn't sound like 'functionally free' to me. It's a british system of government, just like it's a british system of jurisprudence, which means as long as you stay within the system then you're fine. It's when you want to deviate that problems occur. Apart from Mulroney going to the Queen in 87 to get more senators to pass the GST, Canada has never tried, or desired, to change the system. Ask a native person, the problem is not the individuals, they change every passing decade, the system doesn't.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] If you, I, the majority of Canadians, or even the government wanted to have more senators we'd have to go and ask the queen for permission. That doesn't sound like 'functionally free' to me. It's a british system of government, just like it's a british system of jurisprudence, which means as long as you stay within the system then you're fine. It's when you want to deviate that problems occur. Apart from Mulroney going to the Queen in 87 to get more senators to pass the GST, Canada has never tried, or desired, to change the system. Ask a native person, the problem is not the individuals, they change every passing decade, the system doesn't. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> It may be a British system, but senators rarely do anything. I'd worry more about parties and party leaders controlled by the increasingly selfish and foreign-owned merchant class, and that would exist in any other system, unless we abolished capitalism, which wouldn't be easy to do or succeed at.<br /> <br /> I think the fact our system is "British" is the least of our problems.

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] <br /> ...<br /> I'd worry more about parties and party leaders controlled by the increasingly selfish and foreign-owned merchant class, and that would exist in any other system, unless we abolished capitalism, which wouldn't be easy to do or succeed at.<br /> <br /> I think the fact our system is "British" is the least of our problems.[/QUOTE]<br /> Going off main topic again...<br /> <br /> No you do not need to abolish capitalism. You just make sure that the Regulators (&Legislators) are driven by the People rather than by the special interests. The "British" system has these provisions and we just need to "evolve" them toward DD. <br /> <br /> Back to the topic, I see on the Orange web site "mission":<br /> "Democratic Government - For the People and by the People"<br /> <br /> I get the feeling that Orangemen reincarnated themselves into the old Reform party. Perhaps their DD needs some enlightnement on the tyranny of the majority? I see irony again that they still gripe over the Francophones acting unfairly as the majority and abusing our Democracy... Check Normand Lester's Black Book on this.<br /> <br /> I sure would like to bury these old ugly closet skeletons for good. But then we would hear about the tyranny of the minority. Déjà vu ou entendu???<br />

[Marcarc]

First, this is off topic, sorry, but that kind of ignorance just can't be passed on to viewers. The Senate has to ratify EVERY bill that comes through Parliament, so they are far from powerless. Whichever party is in power rushes to fill up the senate with their own nominees. The liberals in fact could not have gotten out of Nafta or gotten rid of the GST (during their first term) simply because the senate had a slim majority of conservatives. Go read newspapers from the eighties when Mulroney was in power, he had a rough time because since the liberals had been in power so long the senate was stuffed with liberal nominees. This has almost always been the case so basically you see them 'doing nothing' when the liberals are in power, but suddenly becoming the conscience of the canadian people when the conservatives get in and challenging everything. But NEVER think of them as powerless, they hold an equal amount of power to Parliament, they are 'the chamber of sober second thought' or some such rubbish. There is a damn good reason why westerners (and in fact a majority of canadians) want an elected senate.<br /> <br /> Anyway, sorry about that. As far as the Orangemen go, at the risk of being unpopular, I would equate what they did with sovereigntists. As the earlier quote suggested, the government was set up to reflect those 'british' institutions that are now the status quo. Some here may think that the system is fine and just needs different 'leaders'. That's just plain silly. The leaders in canada right now are doing what they've always done in canada, which is look out for the monied interests. It is the system which keeps us from making any of the changes that are proposed even at this website. You can barely even get elected with our First past the post electoral system, every bill that protects media interests favours the corporate media so you can't get your message out, and of course even if you got a majority of plain old canadian folk as representatives who wanted to protect canada you'd have a senate that would laugh at every bill you attempted to pass. <br /> So the ideals of the orangemen certainly came to fruition when the dominion of canada was born, so they certainly wouldn't have any need of 'reform'. The reform party really was a grassroots organization initially so I think it would be presumptuous to call, say, a ukrainian immigrant in Saskatchewan who was a reform party member an 'orangeman'. Now, whether Preston Manning or other leaders were orangemen I don't know, I do know that he wouldn't have gotten far if he wasn't representing his constituents.

[Marcarc]

This is from a paper I found on the net:<br /> <br /> The Decline of the Orange Order in Canada<br /> <br /> By the third decade of the new century, Order membership growth in Toronto was failing to keep pace with the city's skyrocketing population. (Houston & Smyth 1980: 154-7, 162-80) And from the 1950s, the Orange Order began to lose political influence, a change symbolised by the fact that John Diefenbaker proved to be Canada's last Orange prime minister. Its male membership in 1984 stood at just over 14,000 in 616 lodges, a significant drop from the more than 58,000 members and 4000 lodges which made up Canadian Orangeism in 1955. (GOLOWret 1985; ICGW 1955) Thereafter, particularly in its Ontario heartland, a slow but steady decline set in. Today, the organisation is dwindling and is viewed as an interesting survival from another age. (Houston & Smyth 1980: 162-3) <br /> <br /> By contrast, owing to stable or rising membership, the Order’s presence in Northern Ireland neatly parallels its former influence in Ontario. Thus the Order maintains an influential presence in both civic and provincial politics, with many Belfast city councillors (including mayor Stoker), and nearly all Ulster Unionist Party MPs counting themselves as members. In addition, its 200-year history, 43,000-strong Ulster membership, and its position on the Ulster Unionist Council ensure that the Orange Institution is a significant political and social player in Northern Ireland. This is highlighted annually during its more than 4,000 July Twelfth parades - including the highly controversial Garvaghy Road route at Portadown. Such a profile provides a definite contrast with Ontario, where the Order's July Twelfth parades arouse little excitement, while few of those under fifty are familiar with the organisation.<br /> <br /> Therefore, the Order’s elderly Canadian alumni hold the key to a puzzle of cultural modernisation: what caused the decline of the Orange Order, a structural backbone of Anglo-Canadian dominant ethnicity? Secularisation would appear to be a promising explanation, and it is among the factors listed by Houston and Smyth in their speculations about the reasons for the Order's demise. (Houston & Smyth 1980: 170-71) Yet this can serve at best as a partial answer, since Orange decline preceded the decline in Canadian Protestant religiosity by some twenty to forty years. Value change, in a liberal-egalitarian direction, offers a competing explanation behind the decline, as does a more general decline in the prestige of British Loyalism. To some extent, this has been borne out by recent research concerning the decline of Loyalism in Canada. (Schwartz 1967: 74-6, 106-123; Cheal 1980)<br /> <br />

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Now, whether Preston Manning or other leaders were orangemen I don't know, I do know that he wouldn't have gotten far if he wasn't representing his constituents. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Representing the constituents could very well be the tyranny of the majority as we have heard before. Francophones splitting out in Quebec where they remain somewhat the majority is the counter-action but also a tyranny of the respective majority. Political parties do know very well how to cater to this. An increase in the PC (or neo-Reform) vote in the ROC translate somehow magically in an increase in Bloc vote in Quebec.<br /> <br /> Shall we then all live in our respective ethnic reserve or undergo ethnic cleansing treatment in order to better fit or deep-integrate? There goes the value of multiculturalism I would expect then. While we are at deep integration, may we just as well join the US and then China?<br /> <br /> I do respect Manning's Reform Party in regards to Government of the People by the People however subject to minority rights. Mix the GOP with these neocon/libs ideologies of unregulated markets, and you end up with a real toxic mix. What was this Americanization of Canada about anyhow? <br /> <br /> Back to topic, orangeism was about deep integration in the WASP world as a subject of the Queen. And it did not work well for Canadian Sovereignty. Do we ever learn?

[lesouris]

As an Irish Catholic by descent, I have to say that I find it despicable that people in this thread are glorifying a racist organization. The Orange Order is like the Ku Klux Klan, except they target mainly Irish Catholics. In Northern Ireland they were the KKK in the 60s; they enforced segregation, supported unionist terrorist organizations, and spread anti-Irish Catholic propoganda through the Northern Irish school and Protestant Church systems.<br /> <br /> In Canada, especially in Ontario and PEI, the Orange Order oppressed Irish Catholic immigrants deprived of everything by the Great Starvation. Have you ever wondered who made those "Irish Need Not Apply" signs on all the businesses. Irish immigrants settled in their own rural communities in Ontario, something unique within the Irish Diaspora of the 1840s and 1850s. Why? The Orange Order made it impossible for Irish immigrants to settle in the cities and established towns. Ontario was de facto segregated: the Protestant English and Catholic Irish had their own towns, schools, hospitals, and neighbourhoods. Both communities also had their own community governments: the Protestants had the Orange Order, and the Catholics had the Ancient Order of Hibernians. The Protestants were Conservatives, the Catholics were Liberals (later, more radical Protestants like Methodists would support the UFO). Intermarriage was unheard of.<br /> <br /> On a side note - the Orange Order has many marching days. Those days are the anniversaries of battles in Ireland which resulted in an English Protestant vicotry, and the slaughter of hundreds of Irish Catholics, many of whom were just innocent villagers inhabiting lands that were theirs' for centuries. I mean, to me and many of my countrymen celebrating this victory is like celebrating the capture of Quebec by the British, except that most of the people in Quebec were allowed to live, their homes were not burnt down, and their land was not taken away. I'm not saying that the capture of Quebec wasn't disgusting, but the English in Ireland actually attempted the genocide of the Irish people.