There is an old saying that goes something like this:"It makes a difference whose ox is being gored.”

What I mean by that is that the same event may be different for different people. It depends on your education and your individual interest in the subject.

It is usually easier for a person to be generous and impartial in an issue, as long as they do not get too involved. But what if the problem persists in your garden, so to speak? So you may be inclined to see this in a different light.

Nations are like people in that sense, except that their attitudes affect millions of people and the course of world history. As long as a problem does not directly affect a nation, it can be very noble and generous in your opinion. But when the national interest is directly involved, it can quickly change position.

In this way, two countries can have completely opposite views on the same problem or point in history. However, this does not mean that one (or both) are intentional, even if they can. In fact, they may not even realize that they have almost completely different interpretations of the same events.

A look at some historical situations will reveal that this is true. This will help us understand that misunderstandings between nations are almost inevitable in today's political system. It also highlights how much humanity needs a better system of governance.

Still friends?

The average American citizen knows a few "facts" about Canada, the great northern country. But your information may not go much further than knowing that British, French and American descendants live there, watching the Northern Lights and that the "Mounties" still have their husbands. If you're old enough, you may have heard of Dionne's backyards.

The average American assumes that one of these "facts" is that Canadians as a whole have loved Americans for the past two centuries. In fact, you might think that Canadians would really be willing to join the United States if the British or Canadian governments had allowed it. But, is it really so?

An examination of history from a Canadian perspective reveals many things that are generally unknown or unknown to most Americans. For example, Americans would have a hard time believing that Canadians do not always have such a high opinion of their southern neighbors. In fact, most Americans do not remember, if they ever did, that early English-speaking Canadians were "loyal."

These "legalists" were people who chose to remain loyal to the British government when the thirteen American colonies rebelled against England in the 1770s. While the colonists saw their action as a revolt against tyranny, the "legalists" saw this as a revolt against established "law and order". Again, it was due to the "meat" he imagined.

Anti-British crowds sprayed, soiled and sometimes even killed the "legalists", who were forced to flee, literally for their lives. They went to Canada. In most cases, they lost their personal property and land, which was confiscated and never paid for.

Of course, the roughly 50,000 Americans or more Americans who chose to support the British government did not like the country they fled from. And the events of the next hundred years have not changed his mind. The Americans invaded Canada twice and on at least two other occasions fell victim to US-based attacks. The people who fled, loved and remembered are the ancestors of many Canadians today. Even if they no longer have the same fear, a haze remains.

America invades Canada

During the early years of the American Revolutionary War, it seemed logical to the rebel settlers that the French in the North would like to join them in excluding the British from North America. Then colonial forces invaded Canada. But despite some initial successes, the invasion was a failure.

The biggest obstacle was that the Canadians, French or "believers", did not want to be part of the new American installation. Americans saw it as an example of people who did not know what was good for them. An opportunity to get rid of the British yoke and join the Free Americans! How can Canadians refuse? But they did, and the invasion sparked a long period of bitter sentiment between the two countries.

A few years later, in the world conflict between England and France, the United States and Canada attacked again. Americans learn that the War of 1812 was fought to preserve neutral rights and the freedom of the sea. But many Canadians have looked at the problem from a different perspective. They believed that the War of 1812 began as a pretext for conquering their lands.

Canadians based their conclusions on comments such as Americans Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson. Clay, statesman and orator, said: “It is absurd to assume that we will not do this. I will not stop in Quebec or elsewhere, but I will take the whole continent [England] from you and I will not ask you any favors. "Jackson, a soldier, thought such an expedition would not be without resistance and, in his own words," it will be a military march. "

They suffered a hard blow. The "lawyers" were once again ready to take up arms and defend Canada for England. During the ensuing war, the Americans invaded Canada and set fire to the buildings in the capital in York (now Toronto). But they couldn't really do it. Towards the end of the war, partly in retaliation for the burning of York, the capital of the United States in Washington, to the British. But today, very few Americans know about the American invasion of Canada or what they did in York. By contrast, the Burning of Washington, the defense of Baltimore at Fort McHenry, and the writing of the national anthem occupy a great deal of space in American history books.

Other problems

Another century passed. Therefore, the presidential election campaign in the United States in 1844 led to another confrontation. During this period, the expression "Manifest Destiny" began to be used. The term describes America's belief in the inevitable territorial expansion of the United States and its right to do so.

Some have argued that the fate of the United States will rule all of North America. This led to a border dispute between much of Canada. Although it was ultimately decided halfway, Canadians saw it as another on the list of American attempts to rule all of Canada.

After the discovery of gold in Alaska, a few years later, the United States and Canada entered into a heated border dispute with Alaska. President Theodore Roosevelt said the Canadian statements were "offensive, sincere". On the other hand, Sir Wilfrid of Canada told Parliament:. . "

Why do Americans know and understand so little about this context? The answer lies mainly in the textbooks used to teach students. These glossaries often overlook or ignore the Canadian side and focus on the pride of the country at the expense of historical objectivity. However, Canadian books often do the same from their point of view.

Although both parties report a portion of the truth that is convenient for them, both suffer from long-term ignorance, which can and has caused problems. Yes, "there is a difference that has a masked ox".

Relations with Mexico

In previous generations, the United States also struggled with its southern neighbor, Mexico. Both parties believed that their position was not only justified, but also correct.

The most important thing to keep in mind from a Mexican point of view is that Mexico, like Canada, is not and does not want to be an American complement. Until recently, the history of Mexico's independence from Spain in the early 18th century was one of the United States' continued interventions in Mexican affairs.

Since Mexico's independence, the United States has confiscated about half of its territory. The Texas region was first annexed and a state was created in 1845. After that, everything that is now the southwestern United States was necessary. The result was the Mexican War of 1846-1848, in which American forces invaded Mexico and occupied Mexico's capital. Regarding this war, the World Book Encyclopedia states: "Many historians believe that the war was an unnecessary attack on a weaker nation."

The United States forcibly conquered parts of California, Nevada and Utah from Mexico, most of Arizona and New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. These were in addition to the acquisition in Texas. Everything was a direct result of the American idea of ​​the "manifesto of fate" that prevailed at that time.

Many Americans "remember the Alamo" in San Antonio. There, the entire U.S. garrison was killed by General Santa Ana's Mexican troops, but most Americans forgot or never knew that San Antonio was part of Mexico. Mexico saw the battle as an oppression of the revolt on its territory. The United States used it as a conversation in its campaign against Mexico and seems to justify interference in Mexican affairs.

In the early 20th century, Mexico experienced a series of political upheavals. US economic interests seemed threatened, so in 1914 the US Marines landed in Veracruz and occupied the city. This was in direct conflict with the Treaty, which prohibits such acts. Many Americans were amazed at how much Mexicans hated him. Two years later, President Woodrow Wilson sent an army under General Pershing to Mexico to pursue Pancho's main bathroom, which attacked a city in New Mexico. While the Americans outraged Villa Raid, the Mexicans bitterly did not tolerate another American invasion of their country.

The last few decades have been less challenging, but Mexicans continue to feel pressure from their great neighbor to the north. They certainly want Americans to see themselves as Mexican. Yes, the story is different for people from different countries because "it makes a difference that the meat is gored."

Indian business

Most Americans grew up in an atmosphere that painted them as "savages" who had to be crushed to protect the first settlers. Indians were, with few exceptions, "bad" in movies, books, and magazines.

But a century before the arrival of the white settlers, the Indians inhabited the American continent. Only in relatively recent history, in the 16th century, did white settlers come from Europe, especially England. They began to grow inward, west of the Atlantic coast. And who did they belong to? Everything was an Indian country. From a domestic point of view, therefore, the movement of settlers in the west was nothing more than an invasion and theft of domestic territory.

The destruction and subsequent "resettlement" of Native American tribes is one of the darkest aspects of American history. In Newsweek, Geoffrey Wolff discusses Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and calls it "a bloody case against our national roots of greed, perfection, ignorance and evil." The driving force behind our native country and identity theft was the manifesto of fate, the belief that whites were ordered to rule this continent. Wolff adds: “The books I analyze, week after week, report the destruction of the earth or the air; describe in detail the perversion of justice; they reveal a national absurdity. None of them, no one, smiled at me and embarrassed me for this book.

However, before the arrival of European settlers, were all native tribes peaceful, cooperative, free of blood and pillage? Not at all, as many of them were in constant conflict.

Therefore, the events that took place on the North American continent were very different, depending on who saw them. But is there another way elsewhere? Isn't it true that each nation interprets history according to its own interests? The vision is almost always similar to that explained by a famous American: “My country, you can always be right; but my country, good or bad. "

Such attitudes in all nations have been responsible for much hostility and bloodshed. In fact, history is filled with disgusting memories of such misunderstandings and misunderstandings under human rule. It is evident that human government, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot provide a system that offers true freedom, justice and equality for all.