Writing Feedback / Musqueam and UBC Golf Course Research Paper, Part 2 [3]

Another big problem with this deal is how secluded it is. Nobody knows much about it until the deal was officially released in November 2007. As mentioned before, the lack of representatives from any party other than the government and Musqueam Band makes the deal suspicious and unsettling. In June 2007, a petition was passed around the neighbourhoods, and on the internet, calling for transparency, or even some 3rd party representatives, in the negotiations. Sadly, no one seemed to have thought much of the petition at that time and the negotiations carried through, without anyone knowing the inside details, until its official release on Nov. 9th, 2007.

The provincial government seems to be overstepping its boundaries and perhaps even ignoring a few laws. The president of the University Endowment Lands says that the government has a statutory requirement, an obligation, to listen to them as the advisory body of UEL if there is going to be any changes in land use. However, the UEL was completely cut out from the negotiations and was just as clueless as everyone else in regards to the negotiations. Perhaps something one should consider here is the fact that money is replaceable, and land is not. We have only so much space to offer. Already four golf courses have been closed in the past 75 years, and out of those remaining, quite a few are private golf clubs, like the Shaugnessy golf club, which members are only accepted through invitation.

And not long after the Agreement was made public, the city of Metro Vancouver rose to challenge the Province once more. The city questioned whether the Province actually had the authority to give land, especially regional government property, to negotiate Aboriginal land claims, which, as I mentioned earlier, falls under the Crown's jurisdiction. Yet, from a strictly legal standpoint, the Musqueam Reconciliatory Agreement was not a treaty, and not perhaps even a legal settlement. It was just a gratuitous amount of land and money granted to three tenuous claims by the Musqueam Band. But then, why would Premier Gordon Campbell, in all his infinite wisdom, proceed with a settlement, even if it was politically unpopular and he was not obliged to do so? One plausible answer would be that he wants to gain the Musqueam Aboriginal's favor. He had told the Musqueam people "Trust me-let's find a solution that will settle the problems of the past and allow us to move forward together." Indeed he has earned the Musqueam Aboriginal's favor. But was it worth exploiting the trust that many people placed in him?

In Campbell's question #4 of his Elections 2005 Referendum, it read "Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians;" 94.5 percent of British Columbians had answered yes, which made it legally binding. Section 5 of the Referendum Act states that "If more that 50% of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a question stated, that result is binding on the government that initiated the referendum." But by signing the Musqueam land deal, Campbell completely ignored that rule and what is even more surprising is that it took a month before a citizen in Vancouver actually realized that. The province is playing the British Columbians for the fools that we are, for we continuously vote for Campbell and his party, despite all the disasters they have led, and will probably lead us to.

The Musqueam Band, through this negotiation, is nowhere nearer, and arguably further away from making an actual treaty. This negotiation does not help the process of treaty making nor makes things any easier for the BC treaty commission. In fact, this agreement makes a credible legal precedent that will cause quite a lot of trouble and much more land claims to deal with in the foreseeable future. But by then, Campbell would probably be retired and it would be someone else's problem. But the problem is: The Musqueam will grow greedy soon and will want to seize more land, and legal precedence will just make their case stronger. The original Musqueam traditional territory spanned a good part of Greater Vancouver. Nothing will stop them from grabbing a piece of Richmond, then another off North Vancouver. Also what about Aboriginal tribes who will rise up and claim more of land that is considered their traditional territory after seeing what the Musqueam got out of their deal? When will it end?

This is the second and final part of the research essay. Once again i left out endnotes cause I was simply just too tired. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

(And if you know anything pertaining to the topic, please do no hesitate to tell me, i would jump at the opportunity to get more information. But please cite your sources, MLA preferred.)

Writing Feedback / "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" History Research Essay [2]

#37: Describe the background for the slogan "54 40 or fight". How was this issue settled? How did it affect American, Canadian and British relations?

Okay as you can see, this is the question for my research essay. Please help me improve this cause I really want to get a high mark for this essay after messing up on my Musqueam one(another essay which I posted here as well)

But anyways, enjoy(but don't enjoy too much to forget editing it!) Help me think of a title as well, "54 40" or fight just isnt gonna cut it.

"Fifty-four forty or fight!" is a campaign slogan that mutated from a slogan targeted to manipulate voters into a nationwide cry for more land. The "fifty-four forty" refers to the latitude line of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes north. The intent of the slogan was to fuel Americans to declare drawing a line along the state of Oregon, which was jointly occupied by the Americans and the British, at the fifty-four forty latitude line. However, this would mean that the British lose the entire state of Oregon, something they would never agree to. The Anglo-American relations worsened during this time because the British made a few diplomatic mistakes, which worsened American hostility against the British. The issue was eventually settled by drawing the boundary at the forty-ninth degree boundary line, but America and its Congress was in hot debate for nearly six months. However, the main reason the boundary issue was settled peacefully was the fact that Americans began to overcome their natural patriotic passion and their hostility against the British to make a logical analysis that fighting for Oregon was simply not profitable.

Why was Oregon the object of so much debate? The state of Oregon has fertile soil for agricultural development, a great market for farm surpluses, and for Americans who were hostile towards the British, it was just a way to cause trouble and gain economical advantages over Britain. Polk's precedent, Tyler, proposed to place the boundary at 49 degrees north but in exchange allowed the British free navigation of the Columbia river. In 1845 James K. Polk , who succeeded Tyler as the next president, renewed this proposal, but removed the section pertaining to free navigation. This was not a really good idea, for the Americans did not lose much from allowing the British to sail through the Columbia River. In fact, free navigation might even bring in revenue from trading along the river banks. One of the few possible reason for removing free navigation was the paranoia that the British might make use of this route to attack America.

The British made a serious diplomatic mistake that made the negotiations of the Oregon state take a turn for the worse. Because the terms Polk proposed was less favorable than what the Tyler government proposed, the minister in London, Richard Pakenham, rejected it without even presenting the proposal to the government in London. Publicly humiliated and deeply hurt, Polk withdrew his proposal and ended all negotiations with the British. Polk then immediately requested the Congress to pass a resolution that would notify the British of the termination of the joint occupation. The British realized Pakenham's mistake too late and could not persuade Polk to come back to the negotiation tables. Pakenham's unwise decision of immediately rejecting Polk's proposal was not something diplomats are supposed to do. Even if the terms are unsatisfactory to Pakenham's standards, he should have still taken them to the government in London and see what they think.

The American community was outraged at Pakenham's outright rejection of Polk's proposal,. The natural distrust towards British people worsened. As a result, radical voices began appearing in Congress debates, voices that call for no compromise, voices that revived the notion of fifty-four forty or fight. One of these voices, McDuffie, stated that he would "Rather make that territory of his fellow citizens and color the soil with their blood than to give in one inch." In modern times, McDuffie would surely have been censured for uttering such words. However, in the first few months after Pakenham's rejection of Polk's proposal, patriotic and passionate voices, however illogical and thoughtless, were commonly accepted and looked upon favorably.

As the months passed, the talk of war and defending Oregon from possible invaders began to fade in Congress. Both America and Britain would not desire a war for it would seriously damage the economy of the two countries. As America slowly realizes this, logic and careful analysis began to show during Congress debates. Yancey, who was originally a proponent of war, stated that America was in the midst of purchasing California, which would provide grandeur and economical importance. If America enters a conflict with Britain, not only would they jeapordize the purchase of California, but the costs of maintaining this war would cost at the very least another $500 million worth of debt. Another Congress member, Evans, also argued that what lies between 49 and 54 degrees and 40 minutes north was simply a stretch of land no larger than 58000 miles square. Fighting for Oregon above the 49 degree latitude was not really worth anything except to mend some broken pride. But the loss of California and the debt on the country imposed on the country would surely be too much for the country to handle.

Eventually, the Congress voted in favor of "preserving peace of country honorably and of settling the question (of Oregon) peacefully... as a suitable and proper and honorable mode of settling national questions." The question of "Fifty-four forty or fight" was finally settled in the treaty of 1846 by drawing the boundary at the forty-ninth degree north latitude line. However, this boundary dispute should not have been such a serious crisis. Firstly, James Polk should not have withdrawn the article regarding free navigation of the Columbia River, seeing that it did not good and eventually in the treaty of 1846 free navigation was given to the British. Secondly, it was unwise for the British minister Richard Pakenham to act on his own and reject Polk's proposal. Being the ambassador of Britain, he was supposed to represent Britain's interest in those affairs, not his own. Even if he did not like the proposal, he was supposed to bring it back to London and let the Parliament debate over it. Lastly, patriotic passions blinded many Americans from the true implications of a war with the British. Such an act would undoubtedly damage the country as they might lose a lot more than the piece of land they might obtain. The shibboleth "fifty-four forty or fight" was an extremely important feature of the Oregon boundary dispute for it expresses the feelings of radical Americans who sate debating in the comfort of the Congress halls, who thought nothing of the loss of live and economy but only of the small portion of land gained in exchange.

For those people with no idea what shibboleth means, search it up on dictionary.com

Writing Feedback / Responce towards Iron Dice by John G. Stoessinger (Essay about cause of WW1) [2]

Basically this is a response towards John G. Stoessinger's essay "Iron Dice: The causes of WW1" In case you haven't read this passage before, his main thesis is that

"The notion that WW1 is beyond men's control is wrong: Mortals made these decisions. They made them in fear and in trembling but they made them nonetheless. In most cases, the decision makers were not evil people bent on destruction but were frightened and entrapped by self-delusion. They based their policies on fears, not facts, and were singularly devoid of empathy. Misperception, rather than conscious evil design, appears to have been the leading villain in the drama."

My Essay:

Although Stoessinger's essay was well thought out and well written, I am afraid that I do not agree with his thesis. To say that World War 1 could have been caused by just the misperceptions of a few certain individuals is to undermine its significance. The war is not just caused because of a few certain individuals, but also many other extraneous factors, such as the general public opinions and the illusion of a short term war. Many of these factors could not be simply controlled by a few men, no matter how much power or authority they have.

The blame placed on the leaders of the countries is very much misplaced. Although they had a great deal of power, they were still influenced by what the citizens and what other government officials think about the war. Stoessinger blames the Kaiser for his paranoia and hatred of Slavs which had clouded the Kaiser's judgment and prompted him to lead German to strike first. But the Kaiser was not the only one in Germany who wanted to wage war. Many government circles also thought that the time was propitious for a European war. [Fischer, p. 72] The decision of waging war, contrary to Stoessinger's view, was not orchestrated single-handedly by a paranoid and arrogant Kaiser, but rather backed by many government officials as well.

All the European countries had good reasons for wanting a war as well. "Serbia was right in wanting to expand, Austria in wanting to survive. Germany was right in fearing isolation, Great Britain in fearing German power." [Remak, p.62] All these countries needed to wage war since the balance of power was no longer balanced. All of these countries had good motives for a war, therefore, it is illogical to place the blame just upon the leaders of those countries, rather than analyzing the circumstances that made the countries want to wage war.

Furthermore, no one thought that the war would drag on for more than a couple of weeks. As Stoessinger himself wrote, the Germans thought that their soldiers would be home "before the leaves have fallen from the trees." The Russian Imperial Guard even considered brining their dress uniforms along with them for the parade in Berlin. Everyone thought that this war would be over in a matter of weeks. This illusion made them more eager to accept a war, since it was supposed to be over shortly after it starts.

It is easy to place the blame of the entire war on a selected few individuals. We would all like things to be simple and finding a couple of unfortunate leaders in power guilty seems to be the easiest solution. However, the truth is just not that simple. The truth is that everyone was to blame, the circumstances that created the need for war, the short war illusion that everyone entertained, and the governments who felt the need for a war. The responsibility of preventing World War One rests not solely upon the shoulders of a few selected individuals.

ANY ADVICE, EDITS AND SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE THIS ESSAY IS GREATLY APPRECIATED xD