To: Bilow who wrote (112213 ) 8/21/2003 2:30:27 AM From: marcos Respond to Oh, i don't think we ever forgot about being independent, in fact within the empire we were somewhat known for that quality in attitude, but we rarely if ever apply the term 'independence' to this nation ... you may note that the word only appears once in your link there, at the Statute of Westminster, where it gets the adjective 'full', sort of legalspeak .... there is something about the term that suggests that one was previously dependent, and that was not the case, we were full british subjects with the right to go anywhere on the pink bits of the atlas and enjoy the protection of her majesty, and the rule of law .. is that 'dependent', well some saw it that way and most didn't, for many years ... we had an effect on Britain too, and she depended on us at times, can't forget that this stuff works both ways ..... autonomy, which term applies better maybe, had been a steady step by step progression for many years, from at least when Wolfe's soldiers got land grants and stayed, from the start they were edging toward self-rule, which worked fine as long as Pitt the elder was around ..... see, there were whigs in Britain and Canada too, the Lord North government was a bit out of step, and George III didn't really count for that much .... anyway, long story short, your link gives nationhood as happening in 1867 and that's technically true, but it is pretty much understood that Canada became a nation 9-11 April 1917, on a hill in France called Vimy Ridge, and then impressed the fact on Ludendorff in august to november of the following year .... all the dates and events on that link are significant, and much political progress before 1867 too, some of it goes to the letter of autonomy, the important stuff to the spirit long before the letter, but it was a step by step political thing spanning two centuries or so, up to the day we became a 'dominion' within a 'commonwealth'
