text:
Boarstall

Boarstall is a village and civil parish in the Aylesbury Vale district of Buckinghamshire, about 12 mi west of Aylesbury. The parish is on the county boundary with Oxfordshire and the village is about 5.5 mi southeast of the Oxfordshire market town of Bicester.

History
According to legend King Edward the Confessor gave some land to one of his men in return for slaying a wild boar that had infested the nearby Bernwood Forest. The man built himself a mansion on this land and called it "Boar-stall" (Old English for 'Boar House') in memory of the slain beast. The man, known as Neil, was also given a horn from the dead beast, and the legend says that whoever shall possess the horn shall be the lord of the manor of Boarstall.

It is certainly the case from manorial records of 1265 that the owner of the manor of Boarstall was the ceremonial keeper of the Bernwood Forest, suggesting a link with the earlier legend. Given the proximity of Boarstall to the king's palace at Brill it would appear that this legend certainly has some basis in fact.

The Magna Britannia of 1806 noted that the current incumbent of the manor, Sir John Aubrey, was in possession of a large horn "'of a dark brown colour, variegated and veined like tortoise-shell. It is two feet four inches in length, on the convex bend, the diameter of the larger end is three inches; at each end it is tipt with silver, gilt, and has a wreath of leather, by which it is hung about the neck'."

The manor was fortified in 1312 by the construction of a defensive gatehouse. The house was demolished in 1778 but the gatehouse, very large and grand for its time, survives relatively unaltered. Boarstall Tower, which was originally part of the 18th century house on the site, was given to the National Trust by the philanthropist Ernest Cook, founder of the Ernest Cook Trust. In the English Civil War this was made into a garrison by King Charles I who was in possession of the nearby village of Brill. When Brill fell in 1643, so did the garrison at Boarstall. However whereas the manor at Brill was destroyed in the fighting, the fortified manor at Boarstall was saved, and used as a garrison by John Hampden's men, from which they were able to attack Royalist Oxford, 8 mi away.

Having no further use for the manor in 1644, Hampden left to go and fight elsewhere. The house was then taken back for the Royalists by Colonel Henry Gage, who it is said launched such heavy fire from his cannons against the house that the incumbent Penelope, Lady Dynham was forced to evacuate and steal away in disguise. Gage left a small garrison in place to defend the house.

In May 1645 the house was attacked again by the Parliamentarian forces, this time led by Sir Thomas Fairfax, but he was unsuccessful. The following year in 1646 Fairfax returned, and the house was surrendered to him on 10 June, after a siege of 18 hours.

Ecclesiastically, Boarstall was originally a chapel of ease for nearby Oakley, and its tithes were granted by Empress Matilda to St Frideswide's Priory in Oxford. The ecclesiastical parish of Boarstall was formed in 1418. The original parish church was mainly demolished in the English Civil War but a replacement was constructed out of funds provided by Lady Denham.

title: Boarstall


text:
List of AMD Athlon XP processors

The Athlon XP microprocessor from AMD is a seventh-generation 32-bit CPU targeted at the consumer market.

Athlon XP "Palomino" (Model 6, 180 nm)

 * CPU-ID: 6-6-0, 6-6-1, 6-6-2
 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!

Athlon XP "Thoroughbred A/B" (Model 8, 130 nm)

 * CPU-ID: 6-8-0 (A), 6-8-1 (B)
 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!

Athlon XP "Thorton" (Model 10, 130 nm)

 * CPU-ID: 6-A-0
 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!

Athlon XP "Barton" (Model 10, 130 nm)

 * CPU-ID: 6-A-0
 * All models support: MMX, Extended MMX, SSE, 3DNow!, Enhanced 3DNow!

Athlon MP "Palomino" (Model 6, 180 nm)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!

Athlon MP "Barton" (Model 10, 130 nm)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!

Mobile Athlon 4 "Corvette" (Socket A)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!, PowerNow!

Mobile Athlon XP "Thoroughbred" (Socket A)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!, PowerNow!

Athlon XP-M "Thoroughbred" (Socket A)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!, PowerNow!

Athlon XP-M "Thoroughbred" (Socket 563)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!, PowerNow!

Athlon XP-M "Barton" (Socket A)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!, PowerNow!

Athlon XP-M "Barton" (Socket 563)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, Enhanced 3DNow!, PowerNow!

Athlon XP-M "Dublin" (K8-based, Socket 754)

 * All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, EVP (Enhanced Virus Protection), PowerNow!
 * Actually renamed AMD Mobile Sempron processors (SMN2600BIX2AY, SMN2800BIX3AY, SMN3000BIX2AY)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: List of AMD Athlon XP processors


text:
Philip Yorke, 3rd Earl of Hardwicke

Philip Yorke, 3rd Earl of Hardwicke, KG, PC, FRS (31 May 1757 – 18 November 1834), known as Philip Yorke until 1790, was a British politician.

Background and education

Born in Cambridge, England, he was the eldest son of Charles Yorke, Lord Chancellor, by his first wife, Catherine Freman. He was educated at Harrow and Queens' College, Cambridge.

On 31 January 1788 his uncle Philip Yorke, 2nd Earl of Hardwicke, as Lord Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire, appointed him as Colonel of the Cambridgeshire Militia, a command which he held for many years, even after he had become Lord Lieutenant himself.

In 1790 he succeeded his uncle to his earldom and estates, including Wimpole Hall.

Political career
Hardwicke was Member of Parliament for Cambridgeshire from 1780 to 1790, following the Whig traditions of his family, but after his succession to the earldom in 1790 he supported William Pitt The Younger, and took office in 1801 as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1801–1806), where he supported Catholic emancipation. He was sworn of the Privy Council in 1801, created a Knight of the Garter in 1803, and was a fellow of the Royal Society.

Family
Lord Hardwicke married Lady Elizabeth, daughter of James Lindsay, 5th Earl of Balcarres, in 1782. They had four sons and four daughters.
 * Philip Yorke, Viscount Royston (7 May 1784-04 Apr 1808), was Member of Parliament for Reigate but was lost at sea off Lübeck (having died without issue);
 * Lady Anne Yorke (1783 – 17 July 1870); married John Savile, 3rd Earl of Mexborough, and had issue.
 * Lady Catherine Freeman Yorke (14 April 1786 – 8 July 1863); married Du Pre Alexander, 2nd Earl of Caledon, and had issue.
 * Charles Yorke (23 August 1787 – 28 December 1791)
 * Lady Elizabeth Margaret Yorke (1789 – 23 June 1867); married Charles Stuart, 1st Baron Stuart de Rothesay and had issue.
 * Lady Caroline Harriet Yorke (15 October 1794 – 27 May 1873); married John Somers-Cocks, 2nd Earl Somers, and had issue.
 * Charles James Yorke, Viscount Royston (14 July 1797 – 30 April 1810); died at Wimpole of scarlet fever.
 * Joseph John Yorke (12 August 1800 – March 1801)

Lord Hardwicke died on 18 Nov 1834, aged 77, and was buried St Andrew's Church in Wimpole, Cambridgeshire, in a tomb by Richard Westmacott the Younger. As he had no surviving male issue, he was succeeded in the earldom by his nephew Charles. Lady Hardwicke died on 26 May 1858, aged 94.

title: Philip Yorke, 3rd Earl of Hardwicke


text:
Talk:Lists of general elections in Canada

are these articles going to have extensive commentary or are they just lists of election statistics? If so, this should be Lists of Canadian general elections and the accessory articles should be lik List of British Columbia general elections, etc. --Jiang | Talk 21:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

how would one go about changing the name from what it is, to what you suggest? Pellaken 22:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I went with Lists of general elections in Canada

Lists of Canadian general elecitons implies that only Canadian, AKA, Federal elections are listed, while 'general elecitons IN canada' could be anywhere within Canada Pellaken 07:41, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't List of Canadian federal elections be a less ambiguous term for the first list? --Jiang | Talk 07:42, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

hummmmmm. I'm on the fence about it personally, but I'll go with you, looks like you've been around longer. Pellaken 07:47, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More Updated on the way Pellaken 14:57, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK... I have made links (mostly red) to all the provincial elections in existance except NWT and NB are incomplete. Earl Andrew 05:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wipe-out results (elections)
Canada seems to have a lot of clean sweep and wipeout results.

E.G New Brunswick 1987 Result  55-0.

Is it good thing for democracy to have no opposition in parliament?

Some people argue that FPTP is necessary to guarantee strong majorities/governments.

But they overlook the need for a voting system that ensures strong oppositions.

Or any opposition.

See Wipe-out results (elections) for a more detailed study.

Syd1435 03:47, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Saratoga campaign

Structure of the Saratoga articles
There are more notes on the Talk:Battle of Saratoga page, but I felt a brief explanation was called for here. I plan to go build and/or update articles on the inividual battles and events of Burgoyne's expedition, updating these sections with appropriate summaries as those articles are finished. As always, any help will be appreciated. Lou I 21:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Great work on all these articles Lou. (I realize I'm writing this more than two years later, so you may not even be watching this page any longer.)

 * There is one major problem that has developed with this structure over the years since you initially wrote the articles. The issue is that of "forking". Suppose that a person wants to add or correct something about the Battle of Bemis Heights. There are several possibilities: he or she might edit the Saratoga campaign article, or the Battle of Saratoga article, or the Battle of Bemis Heights article. That person might not edit all three articles, and may not even understand how the three articles relate. Multiply this by the many editors who contribute to the articles over the years, and you get diverging accounts of the battles and expeditions.

 * One way to avoid this is with "Summary style." Make it clear when the "see main article" notice is used that what follows is a summary of that topic, and that additional information should be added to the "main" article, in order to avoid forking.

 * Additionally, there may not be a need for a "Battle of Saratoga" article at all, since all that information can be divided between the "Saratoga campaign" article and well as the two battle articles. This will prevent confusion and further forking.

 * Because my time is limited, I have no intention of making these changes myself. I hope someone reading this will attempt to reorganize the Saratoga articles to make them easier to understand and edit, and to prevent forking. The fact that I must add this notice to four or five different articles is an illustration of the problem. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC

Merge proposed
I am at a loss to figure out why there are separate articles for Saratoga campaign, Battle of Saratoga, Battle of Freeman's Farm and Battle of Bemis Heights. That is at least one too many. I am inclined to believe that "Battle of Saratoga" is the article that should be merged/deleted, because there was no such thing as a "battle of Saratoga". There were two actions, Freeman's Farm and Bemis Heights, eighteen days apart. I suggest that "battle of Saratoga" be a redirect to the Saratoga campaign article, and that the Saratoga campaign article include links to the battles at Bemis Heights and Freeman's Farm. Vidor (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree. Despite the common view of Saratoga as a single battle, it was certainly a campaign.--201.213.46.44 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Separate but need to be cleaned up. A while back I was confused by the same thing and thought Saratoga Campaign and Battle should be the same.  However I'm now inclined to paring down the campaign page so that it forks to each of the individual skirmishes.  There's a whole bunch of strategy over several months in the campaign including fights at Fort Ticonderoga.   Some of these battles were more than 100 miles apart.  In American Civil War battles the format is to keep the campaigns and individual battles separate.  Americasroof (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Another option would be to retitle the "Battle of Saratoga" article as "BattleS of Saratoga", merge both the Bemis Heights and Freeman's Farm articles into that article in their entirety, and delete the latter two. Vidor (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, that's what I'm going to do. Going to change the title of the "Battle of Saratoga" article right now, and merge the two separate battle articles into it at some future date. Vidor (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that's a good idea -- basically to include all the action the Saratoga National Battlefield. Americasroof (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire
Most lakes are NOT flat; ie, 'most' of the world's lakes are integral segments of valley & river systems that accumulate and deliver water from the uplands to the coastal oceans--downhill all the way! Without this gravity-driven gradient water would not flow down a river--or lake--to the sea. Thus, it is normal, especially within military parlance, to speak of traveling 'up' a lake or 'down' a lake--the same as up or down a river. (Only those lakes with no land-surface outlet exist with 'flat' surfaces, eg, Salt Lake, the Dead Sea.) I have returned the article to the previous phrasing.--Jbeans (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Brant and St. Leger's Expedition
I have removed the sentence "Joseph Brant killed and tortured Indians who did not support the Crown" since the information is not only irrelevant but dubious. While there is an inline citation (Michael Logusz's With Musket and Tomahawk), this accusation is not supported in other reliable and highly-respected sources such as Isabel Kelsay's Joseph Brant: Man of Two Worlds, Barbara Graymont's Iroquois in the American Revolution, or Alan Taylor's The Divided Ground. While I haven't yet been able to access a copy of Logusz's book, I suspect he may have been describing what Patriot propagandists were saying about Brant. Griffin's Sword (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saratoga campaign


text:
Propaganda model

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky to explain how propaganda and systemic biases function in corporate mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social, and political policies, both foreign and domestic, is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda. The theory posits that the way in which corporate media is structured (e.g. through advertising, concentration of media ownership or government sourcing) creates an inherent conflict of interest and therefore acts as propaganda for anti-democratic elements.

First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the propaganda model views corporate media as businesses interested in the sale of a product—readers and audiences—to other businesses (advertisers) rather than the pursuit of quality journalism in service of the public. Describing the media's "societal purpose", Chomsky writes, "... the study of institutions and how they function must be scrupulously ignored, apart from fringe elements or a relatively obscure scholarly literature". The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five classes are: ownership of the medium, the medium's funding sources, sourcing, flak, and anti-communism or "fear ideology".

The first three are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important. In versions published after the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, Chomsky and Herman updated the fifth prong to instead refer to the "War on Terror" and "counter-terrorism", which they state operates in much the same manner.

Although the model was based mainly on the media of the United States, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles that the model postulates as the cause of media biases. Their assessment has been supported by a number of scholars and the propaganda role of the media has since been empirically assessed in Western Europe and Latin America.

Ownership
The size and profit-seeking imperative of dominant media corporations create a bias. The authors point to how in the early nineteenth century, a radical British press had emerged that addressed the concerns of workers, but excessive stamp duties, designed to restrict newspaper ownership to the 'respectable' wealthy, began to change the face of the press. Nevertheless, there remained a degree of diversity. In post World War II Britain, radical or worker-friendly newspapers such as the Daily Herald, News Chronicle, Sunday Citizen (all since failed or absorbed into other publications), and the Daily Mirror (at least until the late 1970s) regularly published articles questioning the capitalist system. The authors posit that these earlier radical papers were not constrained by corporate ownership and therefore, were free to criticize the capitalist system.

Herman and Chomsky argue that since mainstream media outlets are currently either large corporations or part of conglomerates (e.g. Westinghouse or General Electric), the information presented to the public will be biased with respect to these interests. Such conglomerates frequently extend beyond traditional media fields and thus have extensive financial interests that may be endangered when certain information is publicized. According to this reasoning, news items that most endanger the corporate financial interests of those who own the media will face the greatest bias and censorship.

It then follows that if to maximize profit means sacrificing news objectivity, then the news sources that ultimately survive must be fundamentally biased, with regard to news in which they have a conflict of interest.

Advertising
The second filter of the propaganda model is funding generated through advertising. Most newspapers have to attract advertising in order to cover the costs of production; without it, they would have to increase the price of their newspaper. There is fierce competition throughout the media to attract advertisers; a newspaper which gets less advertising than its competitors is at a serious disadvantage. Lack of success in raising advertising revenue was another factor in the demise of the 'people's newspapers' of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The product is composed of the affluent readers who buy the newspaper—who also comprise the educated decision-making sector of the population—while the actual clientele served by the newspaper includes the businesses that pay to advertise their goods. According to this filter, the news is "filler" to get privileged readers to see the advertisements which makes up the content and will thus take whatever form is most conducive to attracting educated decision-makers. Stories that conflict with their "buying mood", it is argued, will tend to be marginalized or excluded, along with information that presents a picture of the world that collides with advertisers' interests. The theory argues that the people buying the newspaper are the product which is sold to the businesses that buy advertising space; the news has only a marginal role as the product.

Sourcing
The third of Herman and Chomsky's five filters relates to the sourcing of mass media news: "The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest." Even large media corporations such as the BBC cannot afford to place reporters everywhere. They concentrate their resources where news stories are likely to happen: the White House, the Pentagon, 10 Downing Street and other central news "terminals". Although British newspapers may occasionally complain about the "spin-doctoring" of New Labour, for example, they are dependent upon the pronouncements of "the Prime Minister's personal spokesperson" for government news. Business corporations and trade organizations are also trusted sources of stories considered newsworthy. Editors and journalists who offend these powerful news sources, perhaps by questioning the veracity or bias of the furnished material, can be threatened with the denial of access to their media life-blood - fresh news. Thus, the media has become reluctant to run articles that will harm corporate interests that provide them with the resources that they depend upon.

This relationship also gives rise to a "moral division of labor" have and give the facts" and "reporters merely get them". Journalists are then supposed to adopt an uncritical attitude that makes it possible for them to accept corporate values without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Flak
The fourth filter is 'flak' (not to be confused with flack which means promoters or publicity agents), described by Herman and Chomsky as 'negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and Bills before Congress and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action'. Business organizations regularly come together to form flak machines. An example is the US-based Global Climate Coalition (GCC), comprising fossil fuel and automobile companies such as Exxon, Texaco and Ford. The GCC was conceived by Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations companies, to attack the credibility of climate scientists and 'scare stories' about global warming.

For Chomsky and Herman "flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. The term "flak" has been used to describe what Chomsky and Herman see as efforts to discredit organizations or individuals who disagree with or cast doubt on the prevailing assumptions which Chomsky and Herman view as favorable to established power (e.g., "The Establishment"). Unlike the first three "filtering" mechanisms—which are derived from analysis of market mechanisms—flak is characterized by concerted efforts to manage public information.

Anti-Communism and fear
The fifth and final news filter that Herman and Chomsky identified was 'anti-communism'. Manufacturing Consent was written during the Cold War. Chomsky updated the model as "fear", often as 'the enemy' or an 'evil dictator' such as Colonel Gaddafi, Paul Biya, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, or Vladimir Putin. This is exemplified in British tabloid headlines of 'Smash Saddam!' and 'Clobba Slobba!'. The same is said to extend to mainstream reporting of environmentalists as 'eco-terrorists'. The Sunday Times ran a series of articles in 1999 accusing activists from the non-violent direct action group Reclaim The Streets of stocking up on CS gas and stun guns.

Anti-ideologies exploit public fear and hatred of groups that pose a potential threat, either real, exaggerated or imagined. Communism once posed the primary threat according to the model. Communism and socialism were portrayed by their detractors as endangering freedoms of speech, movement, the press and so forth. They argue that such a portrayal was often used as a means to silence voices critical of elite interests. Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1991), anticommunism was replaced by the "War on Terror", as the major social control mechanism: "Anti-communism has receded as an ideological factor in the Western media, but it is not dead... The 'war on terror' has provided a useful substitute for the Soviet Menace." Following the events of September 11, 2001, some scholars agree that Islamophobia is replacing anti-communism as a new source of public fear. Herman and Chomsky noted, in an interview given in 2009, that the popularity of 'anti-communism' as a news filter is slowly decreasing in favor of other more contemporary ideologies such as 'anti-terrorism'.

Case examples
Following the theoretical exposition of the propaganda model, Manufacturing Consent contains a large section where the authors seek to test their hypotheses. If the propaganda model is right and the filters do influence media content, a particular form of bias would be expected—one that systematically favors corporate interests.

They also looked at what they perceived as naturally occurring "historical control groups" where two events, similar in their properties but differing in the expected media attitude towards them, are contrasted using objective measures such as coverage of key events (measured in column inches) or editorials favoring a particular issue (measured in number).

Coverage of "enemy" countries
Examples of bias given by the authors include the failure of the media to question the legality of the Vietnam War while greatly emphasizing the Soviet–Afghan War as an act of aggression.

Other biases include a propensity to emphasize violent acts such as genocide more in enemy or unfriendly countries such as Kosovo while ignoring greater genocide in allied countries such as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. This bias is also said to exist in foreign elections, giving favorable media coverage to fraudulent elections in allied countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala, while unfavorable coverage is given to legitimate elections in enemy countries such as Nicaragua.

Chomsky also asserts that the media accurately covered events such as the Battle of Fallujah but because of an ideological bias, it acted as pro-government propaganda. In describing coverage of raid on Fallujah General Hospital he stated that The New York Times, "accurately recorded the battle of Fallujah but it was celebrated... it was a celebration of ongoing war crimes". The article in question was "Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital".

Scandals of leaks
The authors point to biases that are based on only reporting scandals which benefit a section of power, while ignoring scandals that hurt the powerless. The biggest example of this was how the US media greatly covered the Watergate Scandal but ignored the COINTELPRO exposures. While the Watergate break-in was a political threat to powerful people (Democrats), COINTELPRO harmed average citizens and went as far as political assassination. Other examples include coverage of the Iran–Contra affair by only focusing on people in power such as Oliver North but omitting coverage of the civilians killed in Nicaragua as the result of aid to the contras.

In a 2010 interview, Chomsky compared media coverage of the Afghan War Diaries and lack of media coverage of a study of severe health problems in Fallujah. While there was ample coverage of the Afghan War Diaries there was no American coverage of the Fallujah study, in which the health situation in Fallujah was described by the British media as "worse than Hiroshima".

Applications
Since the publication of Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky have adopted the theory and have given it a prominent role in their writings, lectures and theoretical frameworks. Chomsky has made extensive use of its explanative power to lend support to his interpretations of mainstream media attitudes towards a wide array of events, including the following:
 * Gulf War (1990), the media's failure to report on Saddam's peace offers.
 * Iraq invasion (2003), the media's failure to report on the legality of the war despite overwhelming public opinion in favor of only invading Iraq with UN authorization. According to the liberal watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, there was a disproportionate focus on pro-war sources while total anti-war sources only made up 10% of the media (with only 3% of US sources being anti-war).
 * Global warming, a 2004 study found that the media gives near equal balance to people who deny climate change despite only "about one percent" of climate scientists taking this view. Chomsky commented that there are "three sides" on climate change (deniers, those who follow the scientific consensus, and people who think that the consensus underestimates the threat from global warming), but in framing the debate the media usually ignore people who say that the scientific consensus is unduly optimistic.

Reception
On the rare occasions the propaganda model is discussed in the mainstream media there is usually a large reaction. In 1988, when Chomsky was interviewed by Bill Moyers, there were 1,000 letters in response, one of the biggest written reactions in the show's history. When he was interviewed by TV Ontario, the show generated 31,321 call-ins, which was a new record for the station. In 1996, when Chomsky was interviewed by Andrew Marr the producer commented that the response was "astonishing". He commented that "[t]he audience reaction was astonishing... I have never worked on a programme which elicited so many letters and calls".

In May 2007, Chomsky and Herman spoke at the University of Windsor in Canada summarizing developments and responding to criticisms related to the model. Both authors stated they felt the propaganda model is still applicable (Herman said even more so than when it was introduced), although they did suggest a few areas where they believe it falls short and needs to be extended in light of recent developments.

Chomsky has insisted that while the propaganda role of the media "is intensified by ownership and advertising" the problem mostly lies with "ideological-doctrinal commitments that are part of intellectual life" or intellectual culture of the people in power. He compares the media to scholarly literature which he says has the same problems even without the constraints of the propaganda model.

At the Windsor talk, Chomsky pointed out that Edward S. Herman was primarily responsible for creating the theory although Chomsky supported it. According to Chomsky, he insisted Herman's name appear first on the cover of Manufacturing Consent because of his primary role researching and developing the theory.

Harvard media torture study
In April 2010, a study conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School showed that media outlets such as The New York Times and Los Angeles Times stopped using the term "torture" for waterboarding when the US government committed it, from 2002 to 2008. It also noted that the press was "much more likely to call waterboarding torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator." The study was similar to media studies done in Manufacturing Consent for topics such as comparing how the term "genocide" is used in the media when referring to allied and enemy countries. Glenn Greenwald said that "We don't need a state-run media because our media outlets volunteer for the task..." and commented that the media often act as propaganda for the government without coercion.

Studies of media outside the United States
Chomsky has commented in the "ChomskyChat Forum" on the applicability of the Propaganda Model to the media environment of other countries: "That's only rarely been done in any systematic way. There is work on the British media, by a good U[niversity] of Glasgow media group. And interesting work on British Central America coverage by Mark Curtis in his book Ambiguities of Power. There is work on France, done in Belgium mostly, also a recent book by Serge Halimi (editor of Le Monde diplomatique). There is one very careful study by a Dutch graduate student, applying the methods Ed Herman used in studying US media reaction to elections (El Salvador, Nicaragua) to 14 major European newspapers. ... Interesting results. Discussed a bit (along with some others) in a footnote in chapter 5 of my book Deterring Democracy, if you happen to have that around." For more than a decade, a British-based website Media Lens has examined their domestic broadcasters and liberal press. Its criticisms are featured in the books Guardians of Power (2006) and Newspeak in the 21st Century (2009).

Studies have also expanded the propaganda model to examine news media in the People's Republic of China and for film production in Hollywood.

News of the World
In July 2011, the journalist Paul Mason, then working for the BBC, pointed out that the News International phone hacking scandal threw light on close links between the press and politicians. However, he argued that the closure of the mass-circulation newspaper News of the World, which took place after the scandal broke, conformed only partly to the propaganda model. He drew attention to the role of social media, saying that "large corporations pulled their advertising" because of the "scale of the social media response" (a response which was mainly to do with the newspaper's behaviour towards Milly Dowler, although Mason did not go into this level of detail).

Mason praised The Guardian for having told the truth about the phone-hacking, but expressed doubt about the financial viability of the newspaper. "One part of the Chomsky doctrine has been proven by exception. He stated that newspapers that told the truth could not make money. The Guardian...is indeed burning money and may run out of it in three years' time."

The Anti-Chomsky Reader
Eli Lehrer of the American Enterprise Institute criticized the theory in The Anti-Chomsky Reader. According to Lehrer, the fact that papers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have disagreements is evidence that the media is not a monolithic entity. Lehrer also believes that the media cannot have a corporate bias because it reports on and exposes corporate corruption. Lehrer asserts that the model amounts to a Marxist conception of right-wing false consciousness.

Herman and Chomsky have asserted that the media "is not a solid monolith" but that it represents a debate between powerful interests while ignoring perspectives that challenge the "fundamental premises" of all these interests. For instance, during the Vietnam War there was disagreement among the media over tactics, but the broader issue of the legality and legitimacy of the war was ignored (see Coverage of "enemy" countries). Chomsky has said that while the media are against corruption, they are not against society legally empowering corporate interests which is a reflection of the powerful interests that the model would predict. The authors have also said that the model does not seek to address "the effects of the media on the public" which might be ineffective at shaping public opinion. Edward Herman has said "critics failed to comprehend that the propaganda model is about how the media work, not how effective they are".

Inroads: A Journal of Opinion
Gareth Morley argues in an article in Inroads: A Journal of Opinion that widespread coverage of Israeli mistreatment of protesters as compared with little coverage of similar (or much worse) events in sub-Saharan Africa is poorly explained. This was in response to Chomsky's assertion that in testing the Model, examples should be carefully paired to control reasons for discrepancies not related to political bias. Chomsky himself cites the examples of government mis-treatment of protesters and points out that general coverage of the two areas compared should be similar, raising the point that they are not: news from Israel (in any form) is far more common than news from sub-Saharan Africa. Morley considers this approach dubiously empirical.

The New York Times review
Writing for The New York Times, the historian Walter LaFeber criticized the book Manufacturing Consent for overstating its case, in particular with regards to reporting on Nicaragua and not adequately explaining how a powerful propaganda system would let military aid to the Contra rebels be blocked. Herman responded in a letter by stating that the system was not "all powerful" and that LaFeber did not address their main point regarding Nicaragua. LaFeber replied that: "Mr. Herman wants to have it both ways: to claim that leading American journals 'mobilize bias' but object when I cite crucial examples that weaken the book's thesis. If the news media are so unqualifiedly bad, the book should at least explain why so many publications (including my own) can cite their stories to attack President Reagan's Central American policy."

Chomsky responds to LaFeber's reply in Necessary Illusions: "What is more, a propaganda model is not weakened by the discovery that with careful and critical reading, material could be unearthed in the media that could be used by those that objected to 'President Reagan's Central American policy' on grounds of principle, opposing not its failures but its successes: the near destruction of Nicaragua and the blunting of the popular forces that threatened to bring democracy and social reform to El Salvador, among other achievements."

Online videos

 * Manufacturing Consent, The Propaganda Model, 1992
 * "Noam Chomsky - The Political Economy of the Mass Media - Part 1"
 * "The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News"
 * Chomsky "Media" interview by Andrew Marr, The Big Idea, 1996
 * Noam Chomsky in conversation with Jonathan Freedland. British Library exhibition: Propaganda, Power and Persuasion. March 19, 2003.
 * Noam Chomsky: The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine

title: Propaganda model


text:
Boarstall Tower

Boarstall Tower is a 14th-century moated gatehouse located in Boarstall, Buckinghamshire, England, and now, with its surrounding gardens, a National Trust property.

Until March 2020, the National Trust offered tours on Wednesday afternoons. The tower was closed during the Covid pandemic but recently reopened for selective dates in the summer.

History
According to legend King Edward the Confessor gave some land to one of his men in return for slaying a wild boar that had infested the nearby Bernwood Forest. The man built himself a mansion on this land and called it "Boar-stall" (Old English for 'Boar House') in memory of the slain beast. The man, known as Neil, was also given a horn from the dead beast, and the legend says that whoever shall possess the horn shall be the lord of the manor of Boarstall.

Manorial records of 1265 show that the owner of the manor of Boarstall was the ceremonial keeper of the Bernwood Forest, suggesting a link with the earlier legend.

The manor was fortified in 1312 by the construction of a defensive gatehouse. The house was demolished in 1778 but the gatehouse, very large and grand for its time, survives relatively unaltered. In the English Civil War this was made into a garrison by King Charles I who was in possession of the nearby village of Brill. When Brill fell in 1643, so did the garrison at Boarstall. However whereas the manor at Brill was destroyed in the fighting, the fortified manor at Boarstall was saved, and used as a garrison by John Hampden's men, from which they were able to attack Royalist Oxford, 8 mi away.

Having no further use for the manor in 1644, Hampden left to go and fight elsewhere. The house was then taken back for the Royalists by Colonel Henry Gage, whom it is said launched such heavy fire from his cannons against the house that the incumbent Penelope, Lady Dynham, was forced to evacuate and steal away in disguise. Gage left a small garrison in place to defend the house.

In May 1645 the house was attacked again by the Parliamentarian forces, this time led by Sir Thomas Fairfax, but he was unsuccessful. The following year in 1646 Fairfax returned, and the house was surrendered to him on 10 June, after a siege of 18 hours. The Dynham family later recovered possession of Boarstall; they were fortunate in having relatives who were close to Oliver Cromwell.

The Magna Britannia of 1806 noted that the current incumbent of the manor, Sir John Aubrey, 6th Baronet, was in possession of a large horn "'of a dark brown colour, variegated and veined like tortoise-shell. It is two feet four inches in length, on the convex bend, the diameter of the larger end is three inches; at each end it is tipt with silver, gilt, and has a wreath of leather, by which it is hung about the neck'."

Boarstall Tower was given to the National Trust by the philanthropist Ernest Cook, founder of the Ernest Cook Trust.

title: Boarstall Tower


text:
Charles Yorke, 4th Earl of Hardwicke

Admiral Charles Philip Yorke, 4th Earl of Hardwicke, PC (2 April 1799 – 17 September 1873) was a British naval commander and Conservative politician.

Background
Born at Sydney Lodge, in Hamble le Rice, Hardwicke was the eldest son of Admiral Sir Joseph Sydney Yorke, second son of Charles Yorke, Lord Chancellor, by his second wife, Agneta Johnson. He was a nephew of Philip Yorke, 3rd Earl of Hardwicke. He was educated at Harrow and at the Royal Naval College, where he was awarded the second medal.

Naval career
Hardwicke entered the Royal Navy in May 1815 as midshipman on HMS Prince (1788), the flagship at Spithead. Later, he served in the Mediterranean, on HMS Sparrowhawk (1807) (18) and HMS Leviathan (1790) (74) then subsequently HMS Queen Charlotte (1810) (100), the flagship of Lord Exmouth, by whom he was entrusted with the command of a gunboat at the bombardment of Algiers. He later joined HMS Leander (1813) (60) under the flag of Sir David Milne, on the North American station, where he was given the command of the Jane, a small vessel carrying dispatches between Halifax and Bermuda. He was then appointed acting lieutenant of HMS Grasshopper (1813) (18) and after a few months commissioned in the rank of lieutenant in August 1819. The next October, he joined the frigate HMS Phaeton (1782) on the Halifax station, until appointed to the command of HMS Alacrity (1818) in 1823 on the Mediterranean station, in this post he was employed, before and after he obtained the rank of captain in 1825, in watching the movements of the Turko-Egyptian forces and in the suppression of piracy.

Between 1828 and 1831, he took command of HMS Alligator (1821) (28), on the same station and took an active part in the naval operation in connection with the struggle between Greece and Turkey. Lastly, between 1844 and 1845, for short periods, he assumed command of the steam yacht HMS Black Eagle and HMS St Vincent (1815) (120), in which he carried the Emperor of Russia, Nicholas I, to England. He attained flag rank in 1838. In 1849, while commanding HMS Vengeance (1824), he acted as a mediator between the Mazzinian rebel and the Kingdom of Sardinia during the rebellion in Genoa following the defeat during the First War of Independence. For this actions, he was decorated by the Sardinian King Victor Emmanuel II with a Gold Medal of Military Valour, which he was authorized to accept by Queen Victoria only in 1855. In 1858, he retired from the active list with the rank of rear-admiral, becoming vice-admiral in the same year, and admiral in 1863. He retired from the Royal Navy in 1870.

Political career
Hardwicke represented Reigate in the House of Commons between 1831 and 1832 and Cambridgeshire between 1832 and 1834. In 1834, on the death of his uncle, he became the fourth Earl of Hardwicke, and inherited the substantial Wimpole estate in Cambridgeshire. He was a member of Lord Derby's cabinet in 1852 as Postmaster General and as Lord Privy Seal between 1858 and 1859. In 1852 he was sworn of the Privy Council.

Family
Hardwicke married the Honourable Susan Liddell, sixth daughter of Thomas Liddell, 1st Baron Ravensworth, in August 1833. They had five sons and three daughters, including Charles Philip, Elizabeth Biddulph, Baroness Biddulph, Lady Agneta Harriet Montagu, and Lady Mary Catherine, whose daughter Isabel Sophie married Charles Gordon-Lennox, 7th Duke of Richmond.

Hardwicke died in September 1873, aged 74, and was succeeded in the earldom by his eldest son, Charles. The Countess of Hardwicke died in November 1886.

He also supposedly fathered an illegitimate child by one Charlotte Pratt, a serving girl at his Wimpole Hall home. Charlotte got married in 1849, and the following was noted in the marriage register:

''The year before this marriage, 18-year-old servant girl Charlotte gave birth to a son, James Pratt, who was baptised on 2 April 1848. The father was understood to have been her employer, the 4th Earl of Hardwicke. "Charlotte... was a Pratt; and she was a picture. The handsomest woman that I ever remember to have seen. In harvest time to see her swinging along the road with a bundle of corn balanced on her head, both arms akimbo, was a study in colour, figure and poise". - A.C.Yorke''

There is further speculation that in 1856 Hardwicke, again, fathered another illegitimate child. This time by another servant girl, Daphne Whitby, serving at his home, Wimpole Hall. Daphne gave birth to Charles Whitby on 7 February 1856, his baptism was registered at the Estate church, St Andrew's, on 1 June 1856. The entry in the parish register reads... 'Charles Whitby, son of (blank) and Daphne Whitby, spinster of Wimpole parish. [Father not identified, presumably born out of wedlock.]' Daphne went on to marry Job Male, a labourer at Wimpole Hall, in April 1857.

title: Charles Yorke, 4th Earl of Hardwicke


text:
Expulsion of the Acadians

The Expulsion of the Acadians was the forced removal of inhabitants of the North American region historically known as Acadia between 1755 and 1764 by Great Britain. It included the modern Canadian Maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, along with part of the US state of Maine. The Expulsion occurred during the French and Indian War, the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War.

Prior to 1758, Acadians were deported to the Thirteen Colonies, then later transported to either Britain or France. Of an estimated 14,100 Acadians, approximately 11,500 were deported, of whom 5,000 died of disease, starvation or shipwrecks. Their land was given to settlers loyal to Britain, mostly immigrants from New England and Scotland. The event is largely regarded as a crime against humanity, though the modern-day use of the term "genocide" is debated by scholars. A census of 1764 indicates 2,600 Acadians remained in the colony, having eluded capture.

In 1710, during the War of the Spanish Succession, the British captured Port Royal, the capital of Acadia. The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht ceded the territory to Great Britain while allowing the Acadians to keep their lands. Reluctant to sign an unconditional oath of allegiance to Britain, over the following decades some participated in French military operations and helped maintain supply lines to the French fortresses of Louisbourg and Beauséjour. As a result, the British sought to eliminate any future military threat posed by the Acadians and to permanently cut the supply lines they provided to Louisbourg by removing them from the area.

Without differentiating between those who had remained neutral and those who took up arms, the British governor Charles Lawrence and the Nova Scotia Council ordered all Acadians to be expelled. In the first wave of the expulsion, Acadians were deported to other British North American colonies. During the second wave, they were deported to Britain and France, and from there a significant number migrated to Spanish Louisiana, where "Acadians" eventually became "Cajuns". Acadians fled initially to Francophone colonies such as Canada, the uncolonized northern part of Acadia, Île Saint-Jean (now Prince Edward Island), and Île Royale (now Cape Breton Island). During the second wave of the expulsion, these Acadians were either imprisoned or deported.

Along with the British achieving their military goals of destroying the fortress of Louisbourg and weakening the Mi'kmaq and Acadian militias, the result of the Expulsion was the devastation of both a primarily civilian population and the economy of the region. Thousands of Acadians died in the expulsions, mainly from diseases and drowning when ships were lost. On July 11, 1764, the British government passed an order-in-council to permit Acadians to return to British territories in small isolated groups, provided that they take an unqualified oath of allegiance. Today Acadians live primarily in eastern New Brunswick and some regions of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec and northern Maine. American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow memorialized the expulsion in the popular 1847 poem, Evangeline, about the plight of a fictional character, which spread awareness of the expulsion.

Historical context
After the British gained control of Acadia in 1713, the Acadians refused to sign an unconditional oath of loyalty to become British subjects. Instead, they negotiated a conditional oath that promised neutrality. They also worried that signing the oath might commit male Acadians to fight against France during wartime and that it would be perceived by their Mi'kmaq neighbours and allies as an acknowledgement of the British claim to Acadia, putting villages at risk of attack from the Miꞌkmaq.

Other Acadians refused to sign an unconditional oath because they were anti-British. Various historians have observed that some Acadians were labelled "neutral" when they were not. • • • • • Basque and Brun, La neutralite l' epreuve. • • By the time of the Expulsion of the Acadians, there was already a long history of political and military resistance by Acadians and the Wabanaki Confederacy to the British occupation of Acadia. The Miꞌkmaq and the Acadians were allies through numerous inter-marriages during the previous century. While the Acadians were the largest population, the Wabanaki Confederacy, particularly the Miꞌkmaq, held the military strength in Acadia even after the British conquest. They resisted the British occupation and were joined on numerous occasions by Acadians. These efforts were often supported and led by French priests in the region. The Wabanaki Confederacy and Acadians fought against the British in six wars, including the French and Indian Wars, Father Rale's War and Father Le Loutre's War, over a period of 75 years.

Seven Years' War

In 1753, French troops from Canada marched south and seized and fortified the Ohio Valley. Britain protested the invasion and claimed Ohio for itself. On May 28, 1754, the war began with the Battle of Jumonville Glen. French Officer Ensign de Jumonville and a third of his escort were killed by a British patrol led by George Washington. In retaliation the French and the Native Americans defeated the British at Fort Necessity. Washington lost a third of his force and surrendered. Major General Edward Braddock's troops were defeated in the Battle of the Monongahela, and Major General William Johnson's troops stopped the French advance at Lake George.

In Acadia, the primary British objective was to defeat the French fortifications at Beauséjour and Louisbourg and to prevent future attacks from the Wabanaki Confederacy, French and Acadians on the northern New England border. (There was a long history of these attacks from Acadia – see the Northeast Coast Campaigns 1688, 1703, 1723, 1724, 1745, 1746, 1747.) The British saw the Acadians' allegiance to the French and the Wabanaki Confederacy as a military threat. Father Le Loutre's War had created the conditions for total war; British civilians had not been spared and, as Governor Charles Lawrence and the Nova Scotia Council saw it, Acadian civilians had provided intelligence, sanctuary, and logistical support while others had fought against the British. During Le Loutre's war, to protect the British settlers from attacks along the former border of New England and Acadia, the Kennebec River, the British built Fort Halifax (Winslow), Fort Shirley (Dresden, formerly Frankfurt) and Fort Western (Augusta).

After the British capture of Beauséjour, the plan to capture Louisbourg included cutting trade to the Fortress in order to weaken the Fortress and, in turn, weaken the French ability to supply the Miꞌkmaq in their warfare against the British. According to historian Stephen Patterson, more than any other single factor – including the massive assault that eventually forced the surrender of Louisbourg – the supply problem brought an end to French power in the region. Lawrence realized he could reduce the military threat and weaken Fortress Louisbourg by deporting the Acadians, thus cutting off supplies to the fort. During the expulsion, French Officer Charles Deschamps de Boishébert led the Miꞌkmaq and the Acadians in a guerrilla war against the British. According to Louisbourg's account books, by late 1756 the French had regularly dispensed supplies to 700 natives. From 1756 to the fall of Louisbourg in 1758, the French made regular payments to Chief Jean-Baptiste Cope and other natives for British scalps.

British deportation campaigns
Once the Acadians refused to sign an oath of allegiance to Britain, which would make them loyal to the crown, the British Lieutenant Governor, Charles Lawrence, as well as the Nova Scotia Council on July 28, 1755, made the decision to deport the Acadians. The British deportation campaigns began on August 11, 1755. Throughout the expulsion, Acadians and the Wabanaki Confederacy continued a guerrilla war against the British in response to British aggression which had been continuous since 1744 (see King George's War and Father Le Loutre's War).

Bay of Fundy (1755)
The first wave of the expulsion began on August 10, 1755, with the Bay of Fundy Campaign during the French and Indian War. The British ordered the expulsion of the Acadians after the Battle of Beausejour (1755). The campaign started at Chignecto and then quickly moved to Grand-Pré, Piziquid (Falmouth/Windsor, Nova Scotia) and finally Annapolis Royal.

On November 17, 1755, George Scott took 700 troops, attacked twenty houses at Memramcook, arrested the remaining Acadians and killed two hundred head of livestock to deprive the French of supplies. Acadians tried to escape the expulsion by retreating to the St. John and Petitcodiac rivers, and the Miramichi in New Brunswick. The British cleared the Acadians from these areas in the later campaigns of Petitcodiac River, Saint John River, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1758.

The Acadians and Miꞌkmaq resisted in the Chignecto region and were victorious in the Battle of Petitcodiac (1755). In the spring of 1756, a wood-gathering party from Fort Monckton (former Fort Gaspareaux) was ambushed and nine were scalped. In April 1757, the same band of Acadian and Miꞌkmaw partisans raided Fort Edward and Fort Cumberland near present-day Jolicure, New Brunswick, killing and scalping two men and taking two prisoners. July 20, 1757, some Miꞌkmaq killed 23 and captured two of Gorham's rangers outside Fort Cumberland. In March 1758, forty Acadians and Miꞌkmaq attacked a schooner at Fort Cumberland and killed its master and two sailors. In the winter of 1759, the Miꞌkmaq ambushed five British soldiers on patrol while they were crossing a bridge near Fort Cumberland. They were ritually scalped and their bodies mutilated as was common in frontier warfare. During the night of April 4, 1759, a force of Acadians and French in canoes captured the transport. At dawn they attacked the ship Moncton and chased it for five hours down the Bay of Fundy. Although Moncton escaped, one of its crew was killed and two were wounded.

In September 1756, a group of 100 Acadians ambushed a party of thirteen soldiers who were working outside Fort Edward at Piziquid. Seven were taken prisoner and six escaped back to the fort. In April 1757, a band of Acadian and Miꞌkmaw partisans raided a warehouse near Fort Edward, killed thirteen British soldiers, took what provisions they could carry and set fire to the building. Days later, the same partisans raided Fort Cumberland. By November 1756, French Officer Lotbinière wrote about the difficulty of recapturing Fort Beausejour: "The English have deprived us of a great advantage by removing the French families that were settled there on their different plantations; thus we would have to make new settlements."

The Acadians and Mi'kmaq fought in the Annapolis region. They were victorious in the Battle of Bloody Creek (1757). Acadians being deported from Annapolis Royal on the ship Pembroke rebelled against the British crew, took over the ship and sailed to land. In December 1757, while cutting firewood near Fort Anne, John Weatherspoon was captured by Natives—presumably Miꞌkmaq— and was carried away to the mouth of the Miramichi River, from where he was sold or traded to the French, taken to Quebec and was held until late in 1759 and the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, when General Wolfe's forces prevailed.

Approximately 55 Acadians, who escaped the initial deportation at Annapolis Royal, are reported to have made their way to the Cape Sable region—which included south western Nova Scotia—from where they participated in numerous raids on Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. The Acadians and Miꞌkmaq raided the Lunenburg settlement nine times over a three-year period during the war. Boishebert ordered the first Raid on Lunenburg (1756). In 1757, the second raid on Lunenburg occurred, in which six people from the Brisson family were killed. The following year, March 1758, there was a raid on the Lunenburg Peninsula at the Northwest Range (present-day Blockhouse, Nova Scotia) when five people from the Ochs and Roder families were killed. By the end of May 1758, most of those on the Lunenburg Peninsula had abandoned their farms and retreated to the protection of the fortifications around the town of Lunenburg, losing the season for sowing their grain.

For those who did not leave their farms, the number of raids intensified. During the summer of 1758, there were four raids on the Lunenburg Peninsula. On July 13, 1758, one person on the LaHave River at Dayspring was killed and another seriously wounded by a member of the Labrador family. The next raid happened at Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia on August 24, 1758, when eight Miꞌkmaq attacked the family homes of Lay and Brant. They killed three people in the raid, but were unsuccessful in taking their scalps, a common practice for payment from the French. Two days later, two soldiers were killed in a raid on the blockhouse at LaHave, Nova Scotia. On September 11, a child was killed in a raid on the Northwest Range. Another raid happened on March 27, 1759, in which three members of the Oxner family were killed. The last raid happened on April 20, 1759, at Lunenburg, when the Miꞌkmaq killed four settlers who were members of the Trippeau and Crighton families.

Cape Sable

The Cape Sable campaign involved the British removing Acadians from present-day Shelburne County and Yarmouth County. In April 1756, Major Jedidiah Preble and his New England troops, on their return to Boston, raided a settlement near Port La Tour and captured 72 men, women and children. In the late summer of 1758, Major Henry Fletcher led the 35th regiment and a company of Gorham's Rangers to Cape Sable. He cordoned off the cape and sent his men through it. One hundred Acadians and Father Jean Baptistee de Gray surrendered, while about 130 Acadians and seven Miꞌkmaq escaped. The Acadian prisoners were taken to Georges Island in Halifax Harbour.

En route to the St. John River Campaign in September 1758, Monckton sent Major Roger Morris of the 35th Regiment, in command of two men-of-war and transport ships with 325 soldiers, to deport more Acadians. On October 28, Monckton's troops sent the women and children to Georges Island. The men were kept behind and forced to work with troops to destroy their village. On October 31, they were also sent to Halifax. In the spring of 1759, Joseph Gorham and his rangers arrived to take prisoner the remaining 151 Acadians. They reached Georges Island with them on June 29. November 1759 saw the deportation to Britain of 151 Acadians from Cape Sable who had been prisoners on George's Island since June. In July 1759 on Cape Sable, Captain Cobb arrived and was fired upon by 100 Acadians and Miꞌkmaq.

Île Saint-Jean and Île Royale
The second wave of the expulsion began with the French defeat at the Siege of Louisbourg (1758). Thousands of Acadians were deported from Île Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island) and Île Royale (Cape Breton Island). The Île Saint-Jean Campaign resulted in the largest percentage of deaths of the deported Acadians. The sinking of the ships Violet (with about 280 persons aboard) and  Duke William (with over 360 persons aboard) marked the highest numbers of fatalities during the expulsion. By the time the second wave of the expulsion had begun, the British had discarded their policy of relocating the Acadians to the Thirteen Colonies, and had begun deporting them directly to France. In 1758, hundreds of Île Royale Acadians fled to one of Boishebert's refugee camps south of Baie des Chaleurs.

Petitcodiac River Campaign
The Petitcodiac River Campaign was a series of British military operations that occurred from June to November 1758 to deport the Acadians who either lived along the river or had taken refuge there from earlier deportations. Benoni Danks and Gorham's Rangers carried out the operation. Contrary to Governor Lawrence's direction, New England Ranger Danks engaged in frontier warfare against the Acadians. On July 1, 1758, Danks began to pursue the Acadians on the Petiticodiac. They arrived at present-day Moncton and Danks' Rangers ambushed about 30 Acadians who were led by Joseph Broussard dit Beausoleil. The Acadians were driven into the river where three of them were killed and scalped, and the others were captured. Broussard was seriously wounded. Danks reported that the scalps were Miꞌkmaq and received payment for them. Thereafter, he went down in local lore as "one of the most reckless and brutal" of the Rangers.

St. John River Campaign
Colonel Robert Monckton led a force of 1,150 British soldiers to destroy the Acadian settlements along the banks of the Saint John River until they reached the largest village of Sainte-Anne des Pays-Bas (Fredericton, New Brunswick) in February 1759. Monckton was accompanied by New England Rangers led by Joseph Goreham, Captain Benoni Danks, Moses Hazen and George Scott. The British started at the bottom of the river, raiding Kennebecais and Managoueche (City of Saint John), where they built Fort Frederick. Then they moved up the river and raided Grimross (Arcadia, New Brunswick), Jemseg, and finally reached Sainte-Anne des Pays-Bas.

Contrary to Governor Lawrence's direction, New England Ranger Lieutenant Hazen engaged in frontier warfare against the Acadians in what has become known as the "Ste Anne's Massacre". On February 18, 1759, Hazen and about fifteen men arrived at Sainte-Anne des Pays-Bas. The Rangers pillaged and burned the village of 147 buildings, two Catholic churches and various barns and stables. The Rangers burned a large store-house, containing a large quantity of hay, wheat, peas, oats and other foodstuffs, and killed 212 horses, about five head of cattle and a large number of hogs. They also burned the church located just west of Old Government House, Fredericton. The leader of the Acadian militia on the St. John river, Joseph Godin-Bellefontaine, refused to swear an oath despite the Rangers torturing and killing his daughter and three of his grandchildren in front of him. The Rangers also took six prisoners.

Gulf of St. Lawrence Campaign

In the Gulf of St. Lawrence Campaign, also known as the Gaspee Expedition, British forces raided French villages along present-day New Brunswick and the Gaspé Peninsula coast of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Sir Charles Hardy and Brigadier-General James Wolfe commanded the naval and military forces, respectively. After the Siege of Louisbourg (1758), Wolfe and Hardy led a force of 1500 troops in nine vessels to Gaspé Bay, arriving there on September 5. From there they dispatched troops to Miramichi Bay on September 12, Grande-Rivière, Quebec and Pabos on September 13, and Mont-Louis, Quebec on September 14. Over the following weeks, Hardy took four sloops or schooners, destroyed about 200 fishing vessels, and took about 200 prisoners.

Restigouche
The Acadians took refuge along the Baie des Chaleurs and the Restigouche River. Boishébert had a refugee camp at Petit-Rochelle, which was probably located near present-day Pointe-à-la-Croix, Quebec. The year after the Battle of Restigouche, in late 1761, Captain Roderick Mackenzie and his force captured over 330 Acadians at Boishebert's camp.

Halifax

After the French conquered St. John's, Newfoundland on June 14, 1762, the success galvanized both the Acadians and the natives, who gathered in large numbers at various points throughout the province and behaved in a confident and, according to the British, "insolent fashion". Officials were especially alarmed when natives gathered close to the two principal towns in the province, Halifax and Lunenburg, where there were also large groups of Acadians. The government organized an expulsion of 1,300 people and shipped them to Boston. The government of Massachusetts refused the Acadians permission to land and sent them back to Halifax.

Miꞌkmaw and Acadian resistance was evident in the Halifax region. On April 2, 1756, Miꞌkmaq received payment from the Governor of Quebec for twelve British scalps taken at Halifax. Acadian Pierre Gautier, son of Joseph-Nicolas Gautier, led Miꞌkmaw warriors from Louisbourg on three raids against Halifax Peninsula in 1757. In each raid, Gautier took prisoners, scalps or both. Their last raid happened in September and Gautier went with four Miꞌkmaq, and killed and scalped two British men at the foot of Citadel Hill. Pierre went on to participate in the Battle of Restigouche.

Arriving on the provincial vessel King George, four companies of Rogers Rangers (500 rangers) were at Dartmouth April 8 until May 28 awaiting the Siege of Louisbourg (1758). While there they scoured the woods to stop raids on Dartmouth.

In July 1759, Miꞌkmaq and Acadians killed five British in Dartmouth, opposite McNabb's Island. By June 1757, the settlers had to be completely withdrawn from Lawrencetown (established 1754) because the number of Indian raids prevented settlers from leaving their houses. In nearby Dartmouth, in the spring of 1759, another Miꞌkmaw attack was launched on Fort Clarence, located at the present-day Dartmouth Refinery, in which five soldiers were killed. Before the deportation, the Acadian population was estimated at 14,000. Most were deported, but some Acadians escaped to Quebec, or hid among the Miꞌkmaq or in the countryside, to avoid deportation until the situation settled down.

Maine

In present-day Maine, the Miꞌkmaq and the Maliseet raided numerous New England villages. At the end of April 1755, they raided Gorham, killing two men and a family. Next they appeared in New Boston (Gray) and went through the neighbouring towns destroying the plantations. On May 13, they raided Frankfort (Dresden), where two men were killed and a house burned. The same day they raided Sheepscot (Newcastle) and took five prisoners. Two people were killed in North Yarmouth on May 29 and one taken captive. The natives shot one person at Teconnet, now Waterville, took prisoners at Fort Halifax and two prisoners at Fort Shirley (Dresden). They also captured two workers at the fort at New Gloucester. During this period, the Maliseet and Miꞌkmaq were the only tribes of the Wabanaki Confederacy who were able to fight.

On August 13, 1758, Boishebert left Miramichi, New Brunswick with 400 soldiers, including Acadians whom he led from Port Toulouse. They marched to Fort St. George (Thomaston) and unsuccessfully laid siege to the town, and raided Munduncook (Friendship) where they wounded eight British settlers and killed others. This was Boishébert's last Acadian expedition; from there he and the Acadians went to Quebec and fought in the Battle of Quebec (1759).

Deportation destinations
In the first wave of the expulsion, most Acadian exiles were assigned to rural communities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and South Carolina. In general, they refused to stay where they were put and large numbers migrated to the colonial port cities where they gathered in isolated, impoverished French-speaking Catholic neighbourhoods, the sort of communities Britain's colonial officials tried to discourage. More worryingly for the British authorities, some Acadians threatened to migrate north to French-controlled regions, including the Saint John River, Île Royale (Cape Breton Island), the coasts of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Canada. Because the British believed their policy of sending the Acadians to the Thirteen Colonies had failed, they deported the Acadians to France during the second wave of the expulsion.

Maryland
Approximately 1,000 Acadians went to the Colony of Maryland, where they lived in a section of Baltimore that became known as French Town. The Irish Catholics were reported to have shown charity to the Acadians by taking orphaned children into their homes.

Massachusetts
Approximately 2,000 Acadians disembarked at the Colony of Massachusetts. There were several families deported to the Province of Maine, a large, but sparsely populated exclave of the colony of Massachusetts. For four long winter months, William Shirley, who had ordered their deportation, had not allowed them to disembark and as a result, half died of cold and starvation aboard the ships. Some men and women were forced into servitude or forced labor, children were taken away from their parents and were distributed to various families throughout Massachusetts. The government also arranged the adoption of orphaned children and provided subsidies for housing and food for a year.

Connecticut
The Colony of Connecticut prepared for the arrival of 700 Acadians. Like Maryland, the Connecticut legislature declared that "[the Acadians] be made welcome, helped and settled under the most advantageous conditions, or if they have to be sent away, measures be taken for their transfer."

Pennsylvania and Virginia
The Colony of Pennsylvania accommodated 500 Acadians. Because they arrived unexpectedly, the Acadians had to remain in port on their vessels for months. The Colony of Virginia refused to accept the Acadians on grounds that no notice was given of their arrival. They were detained at Williamsburg, where hundreds died from disease and malnutrition. They were then sent to Britain where they were held as prisoners until the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

Carolinas and Georgia
The Acadians who had offered the most resistance to the British—particularly those who had been at Chignecto—were reported to have been sent to the southernmost colonies (the Carolinas and the Colony of Georgia), where about 1,400 Acadians settled and were "subsidized" and put to work on plantations.

Under the leadership of Jacques Maurice Vigneau of Baie Verte, the majority of the Acadians in Georgia received a passport from the governor, John Reynolds. These passports gave the Acadians the legal right to leave Georgia and enter other colonies. South Carolina followed Georgia's example and expediated passports to Acadian exiles in hopes they would move on to other territories. Along with these papers, South Carolina authorities provided the Acadians with two vessels. After running aground numerous times in the ships, some of these Acadians returned to the Bay of Fundy. Along the way, they were captured and imprisoned. Only 900 managed to return to Acadia, less than half of those who had begun the voyage. Others also tried to return home. The South Carolina Gazette reported that in February, about 30 Acadians fled the island to which they were confined and escaped their pursuers. Alexandre Broussard, brother of the famed resistance leader Joseph Broussard, dit Beausoleil, was among them. About a dozen are recorded to have returned to Acadia after an overland journey of 1,400 leagues (4,200 mi).

France and Britain
After the siege of Louisbourg, the British began to deport the Acadians directly to France rather than to the British colonies. Some Acadians deported to France never reached their destination. Almost 1,000 died when the transport ships Duke William, Violet, and Ruby sank in 1758 en route from Île Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island) to France. About 3,000 Acadian refugees eventually gathered in France's port cities and went to Nantes.

Many Acadians who were sent to Britain were housed in crowded warehouses and subject to plagues due to the close conditions, while others were allowed to join communities and live normal lives. In France, 78 Acadian families were repatriated to Belle-Île-en-Mer off the western coast of Brittany after the Treaty of Paris. The most serious resettlement attempt was made by Louis XV, who offered 2 acre of land in the Poitou province to 626 Acadian families each, where they lived close together in a region they called La Grande Ligne ("The Great Road", also known as "the King's Highway"). About 1,500 Acadians accepted the offer, but the land turned out to be infertile, and by the end of 1775, most of them abandoned the province.

Louisiana

The British did not directly deport Acadians to Louisiana. Following the expulsion by the British from their home, Acadians found their way to many friendly locales, including France. Acadians left France, under the influence of Henri Peyroux de la Coudreniere, to settle in Louisiana, which was then a colony of Spain.

Louisiana was transferred to the Spanish government in 1762. Because of the good relations which existed between France and Spain, and because of their common Catholic religion, some Acadians chose to take oaths of allegiance to the Spanish government. Soon the Acadians composed the largest ethnic group in Louisiana. First, they settled in areas along the Mississippi River and later, they settled in the Atchafalaya Basin, as well as in the prairie lands to the west—a region which was later renamed Acadiana.

Some Acadians were sent to colonize places in the Caribbean, such as French Guiana, or the Falkland Islands under the direction of Louis Antoine de Bougainville; these latter efforts at colonization were unsuccessful. Other Acadians migrated to places like Saint-Domingue, but they fled to New Orleans after the Haitian Revolution. Louisiana's population contributed to the founding of the modern Cajun population. (The French word "Acadien" evolved into the word "Cadien", which was later anglicized as the word "Cajun").

Nova Scotia
On July 11, 1764, the British government passed an order-in-council to permit Acadians to legally return to British territories in small isolated groups, provided that they take an unqualified oath of allegiance. Some Acadians returned to Nova Scotia (which included present-day New Brunswick). Under the deportation orders, Acadian land tenure had been forfeited to the British crown and the returning Acadians no longer owned land. Beginning in 1760 much of their former land was distributed under grant to the New England Planters. The lack of available farmland compelled many Acadians to seek out a new livelihood as fishermen on the west coast of Nova Scotia, known as the French Shore. The British authorities scattered other Acadians in groups along the shores of eastern New-Brunswick and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. It was not until the 1930s, with the advent of the Acadian co-operative movements, that the Acadians became less economically disadvantaged.

Historical comparisons
According to historian John Mack Faragher, the religious and ethnic dimensions of the Expulsion of Acadians are in addition to, and deeply connected with, the military exigencies cited as causes for the Removals. There is significant evidence in the correspondence of military and civil leaders for Anti-Catholicism. Faragher writes, "The first session of the Nova Scotia Assembly ... passed a series of laws intended to institutionalize Acadian dispossession" including an act titled "An Act for the Quieting of Possessions to Protestant Grantees of land formerly occupied by the French." In it and two subsequent acts, the Church of England was made the official religion. These acts granted certain political rights to Protestants while the new laws excluded Catholics from public office and the franchise (the right to vote) and forbade Catholics from owning land in the province. It also empowered British authorities to seize all "popish" property (Church lands) for the crown and barred Catholic clergy from entering or residing in the province, as they wanted no repeat of Le Loutre and his type of war. In addition to other anti-Catholic measures, Faragher concludes "These laws—passed by a popular assembly, not enacted by military fiat—laid the foundation for the migration of Protestant settlers."

In the 1740s, William Shirley had hoped to assimilate Acadians into the Protestant fold. He did so by trying to encourage (or force) Acadian women to marry English Protestants and statutes were passed which required the offspring of such unions to be sent to English schools and raised as "English Protestants" (quote from a letter by Shirley). This was linked to larger anxieties in the realm over the loyalty of Catholics in general—as Charles Stuart's Jacobite Rebellion was a Catholic-led rebellion as was Le Loutre's rebellion in Nova Scotia. Shirley, who in part was responsible for the Removals, according to historian Geoffrey Plank, "recommended using military force to expel the most 'obnoxious' Acadians and replace them with Protestant immigrants. In time the Protestants would come to dominate their new communities." Shirley wanted "peaceable [loyal] subjects" and specifically, in his own words, "good Protestant ones."

Faragher compared the expulsion of the Acadians to contemporary acts of ethnic cleansing. In contrast, some leading historians have objected to this characterization of the expulsion. Historian John Grenier asserts that Faragher overstates the religious motivation for the expulsion and obscures the fact that the British accommodated Acadians by providing Catholic priests for forty years prior to the Expulsion. Grenier writes that Faragher "overstates his case; his focus on the grand dérangement as an early example of ethnic cleansing carries too much present-day emotional weight and in turn overshadows much of the accommodation that Acadians and Anglo-Americans reached." As well, the British were clearly not concerned that the Acadians were French, given the fact that they were recruiting French "foreign Protestants" to settle in the region. Further, the New Englanders of Boston were not banishing Acadians from the Atlantic region; instead, they were actually deporting them to live in the heart of New England: Boston and elsewhere in the British colonies.

While there was clear animosity between Catholics and Protestants during this time period, many historians point to the overwhelming evidence which suggests that the motivation for the expulsion was military. The British wanted to cut off supply lines to the Miꞌkmaq, Louisbourg and Quebec. They also wanted to end any military threat which the Acadians posed (See Military history of the Acadians). A. J. B. Johnston wrote that the evidence for the removal of the Acadians indicates that the decision makers thought the Acadians were a military threat, therefore the deportation of 1755 does not qualify as an act of ethnic cleansing. Geoffrey Plank argues that the British continued the expulsion after 1758 for military reasons: present-day New Brunswick remained contested territory and the New Englanders wanted to make sure that British negotiators would be unlikely to return the region to the French as they had done after King George's War.

Other historians have observed that it was not uncommon for empires to move their subjects and populations during this time period. For Naomi E. S. Griffiths and A.J.B. Johnston, the event is comparable to other deportations in history, and it should not be considered an act of ethnic cleansing. In From Migrant to Acadian, Griffiths writes that "the Acadian deportation, as a government action, was a pattern with other contemporary happenings." The Expulsion of the Acadians has been compared to similar military operations during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The French carried out expulsions in Newfoundland in 1697 when they occupied the British portion of Newfoundland during Pierre d'Iberville's Avalon Peninsula Campaign, burning every British settlement and exiling over 500 inhabitants. A.J.B. Johnston notes that in 1767, French authorities forcibly removed nearly 800 Acadian and French inhabitants from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, transporting them against their will to France and compares the expulsions to the fate of the United Empire Loyalists, who were expelled from the United States to present-day Canada after the American Revolution. Another deportation was the Highland Clearances in Scotland between 1762 and 1886. Another North American expulsion was the Indian Removal of the 1830s, in which the Cherokee and other Native Americans from the South-East United States were removed from their traditional homelands.

Further, other historians have noted that civilian populations are often devastated during wartime. For example, five wars were fought along the New England and Acadia border during the 70 years prior to the expulsion (See French and Indian Wars, Father Rale's War and Father Le Loutre's War). During these wars, the French and Wabanaki Confederacy conducted numerous military campaigns in which they killed and captured British civilians. (See the Northeast Coast Campaigns 1688, 1703, 1723, 1724, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1750.)

Acadian historian Maurice Basque writes that the term genocide'... does not apply at all to the Grand Derangement. Acadie was not Armenia, and to compare Grand-Pré with Auschwitz and the killing fields of Cambodia is a complete and utter trivialization of the many genocidal horrors of contemporary history." Concerning the use of 20th century terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" to understand the past, historian John G. Reid states, "I'm not sure that it's the best way to understand 18th century realities... What happened in the 18th century is a process of imperial expansion that was ruthless at times, that cost lives.... But to my mind, you can't just transfer concepts between centuries."

Commemorations
In 1847, the American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow published a long, narrative poem about the expulsion of the Acadians titled Evangeline, in which he depicts the plight of the fictional character Evangeline. The poem became popular and made the expulsion well known. The Evangeline Oak is a tourist attraction in Louisiana.

The song "Acadian Driftwood", recorded in 1975 by The Band, portrays the Great Upheaval and the displacement of the Acadian people.

Antonine Maillet wrote a novel, called Pélagie-la-Charrette, about the aftermath of the Great Upheaval. It was awarded the Prix Goncourt in 1979.

Grand-Pré Park is a National Historic Site of Canada situated in Grand-Pré, Nova Scotia, and preserved as a living monument to the expulsion. It contains a memorial church and a statue of Evangeline, the subject of Longfellow's poem.

The song "Lila" by The Brothers Creeggan was written to commemorate the expulsion of the Acadians, and was specifically inspired by the Evangeline statue in Grand-Pré. The song was included on their 2000 album Trunks.

The song "1755" was composed by American Cajun fiddler and singer Dewey Balfa and performed on his 1987 album Souvenirs, and later covered by Steve Riley and the Mamou Playboys on their 1994 live album.

According to Acadian historian Maurice Basque, the story of Evangeline continues to influence historic accounts of the deportation, emphasising neutral Acadians and de-emphasising those who resisted British America. In 2018, Canadian historian and novelist A. J. B. Johnston published a YA novel entitled The Hat, inspired by what happened at Grand-Pré in 1755.

In December 2003, Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, representing Queen Elizabeth II (Canada's head of state), acknowledged the expulsion but did not apologize for it. She designated July 28 as "A Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval". This proclamation, officially the Royal Proclamation of 2003, closed one of the longest cases in the history of the British courts, initiated in 1760 when the Acadian representatives first presented their grievances of forced dispossession of land, property and livestock. December 13, the date on which the Duke William sank, is commemorated as Acadian Remembrance Day.

There is a museum dedicated to Acadian history and culture, with a detailed reconstruction of the Great Uprising, in Bonaventure, Quebec.

General references

 * English
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * Text of Charles Lawrence's orders to Captain John Handfield – Halifax August 11, 1755
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives
 * and online at Nova Scotia Archives

 * French
 * Sauvageau, Robert (1987). Acadie : La guerre de Cent Ans des français d'Amérique aux Maritimes et en Louisiane 1670–1769. Paris: Berger-Levrault.
 * Gaudet, Placide (1922). Le Grand Dérangement : sur qui retombe la responsabilité de l'expulsion des Acadiens, Ottawa: Impr. de l'Ottawa Printing Co.
 * d'Arles, Henri (1918). La déportation des Acadiens, Québec: Imprimerie de l'Action sociale
 * Gaudet, Placide (1922). Le Grand Dérangement : sur qui retombe la responsabilité de l'expulsion des Acadiens, Ottawa: Impr. de l'Ottawa Printing Co.
 * d'Arles, Henri (1918). La déportation des Acadiens, Québec: Imprimerie de l'Action sociale

title: Expulsion of the Acadians


text:
Bernwood Forest

Bernwood Forest is a forest in England. Historically it was one of several forests of the ancient Kingdom of England and was a Royal hunting forest. It is thought to have been set aside as Royal hunting land when the Anglo-Saxon kings had a palace at Brill and church in Oakley, in the 10th century and was a particularly favoured place of Edward the Confessor, who was born in nearby Islip.

From about 1217 through to the 17th century the forest went through a gradual period of deforestation. King Henry II (reigned 1154–1189) prepared a map of the forest at the time which is an invaluable tool in helping define its ancient boundaries; however, his purpose for drawing up the map was to divide the forest amongst his nobles. By the 16th century, another map of the forest had been drawn up by which time it had been reduced greatly in size. Again, the map was drawn up under the aegis of the Crown as an audit to what revenue could be made from selling off the forest. By the reign of King James I (reigned 1603–1625), the forest had lost its Royal status and had completely disappeared.

Today the name refers to the area of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire where the forest was at the time of King Henry II, covering 400 km². The approximate boundaries of the designated area today fall within the River Great Ouse, the Padbury Brook, the Claydon Brook and the River Thame.

The small modern Bernwood Forest in Buckinghamshire is approximately 1 km² and is contiguous with Hell Coppice, York's Wood, Oakley Wood and Shabbington Wood. A Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) called Shabbington Woods Complex, it supports a wide variety of wildlife and is one of the most important butterfly sites in the United Kingdom. Its manager, Forestry England, originally had a more commercial approach. Aerial spraying of pesticides occurring up until the late 1960s:firstly DDT to control Hylobius abietis then 2,4,5-T to clear broad-leafed plants (including oak saplings) before planting commercial pine stands.

Holly Wood, Holton Wood, Stanton Great Wood and Waterperry Wood, all in Oxfordshire, and Ham Home-cum-Hamgreen Woods in Buckinghamshire, are also remnants of Bernwood Forest which are SSSIs. Another fragment in Buckinghamshire is Rushbeds Wood, an SSSI which is managed by the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust.

title: Bernwood Forest


text:
John Reynolds

John Reynolds may refer to:

Entertainment

 * John Reynolds (actor) (born 1991), American actor and writer
 * John Reynolds (musician), record producer, the first husband of singer Sinéad O'Connor
 * John Reynolds (writer) (1588–1655), English merchant and writer
 * John Hamilton Reynolds (1794–1852), English poet, satirist, critic, and playwright
 * John Lawrence Reynolds (born 1939), Canadian author
 * Jonathan Reynolds (writer) (1942–2021), American actor and writer

Military

 * John Reynolds (Roundhead) (1625–1657), soldier in the English Civil War
 * John Reynolds (Royal Navy officer) (1713–1788), British naval officer and governor of the Province of Georgia
 * John F. Reynolds (1820–1863), American army officer active in the US Civil War
 * John Williams Reynolds (1817–1874), British cavalry officer and researcher into organic chemistry

Politics

 * John Reynolds (1670–1699), Irish Member of Parliament
 * John Reynolds (Canadian politician) (born 1942), Canadian politician from British Columbia
 * John Reynolds (Dublin politician) (1797–1868)
 * John Reynolds (Illinois politician) (1788–1865), American politician, governor of Illinois
 * John Reynolds (Indiana politician) (1814–1890), American politician from Indiana
 * John A. Reynolds (1820–1889), American politician from Pennsylvania
 * John F. Reynolds (politician) (1852–1934), American politician from Wisconsin
 * John Hazard Reynolds (1819–1875), American politician from New York
 * John Merriman Reynolds (1848–1933), American politician from Pennsylvania
 * John W. Reynolds Sr. (1876–1958), American politician from Wisconsin
 * John W. Reynolds Jr. (1921–2002), American politician, governor of Wisconsin
 * Jonathan Reynolds (born 1980), British politician, Labour Co-operative MP for Stalybridge and Hyde

Science and technology

 * John Reynolds (agriculturist) (1703–1779), English farmer and agricultural innovator
 * John Reynolds (astronomer) (1874–1949), British astronomer
 * John Reynolds (ecologist) (born 1959), Canadian ecologist
 * John Reynolds (physicist) (1923–2000), American physicist
 * John C. Reynolds (1935–2013), American computer scientist
 * John Russell Reynolds (1828–1896), British neurologist
 * John Reynolds (neuroscientist), American neuroscientist

Sports

 * John Reynolds (motorcyclist) (born 1963), British motorcycle racer
 * John J. Reynolds (1889–1987), American track and field athlete

Other people

 * John Reynolds (priest), English Anglican priest
 * J.F. Reynolds (John F. Reynolds), American architect
 * John Henry Reynolds (educator) (1842–1927), British champion of technical education
 * John N. Reynolds, banker
 * John W. Reynolds (Oregon attorney) (1875–1942), American attorney and educator

title: John Reynolds


text:
Mayflower Society

The General Society of Mayflower Descendants — commonly called the Mayflower Society — is a hereditary organization of individuals who have documented their descent from at least one of the 102 passengers who arrived on the Mayflower in 1620 at what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts. The Society was founded at Plymouth in 1897.

Organization
A primary goal of the Society is to educate the public about the role of the Pilgrims in the early history of what would later become the United States of America. There are Mayflower societies in all 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and Canada.

Today, it is estimated that up to tens of millions of Americans have at least one ancestor who was among this group of early settlers. Any person able to document their descent from one or more of the Mayflower Pilgrims is eligible to apply for membership in the Mayflower Society. The General Society of Mayflower Descendants is listed as an approved lineage society with the Hereditary Society Community of the United States of America.

List of Pilgrims with known descendants

This is a list of Mayflower Pilgrims who are known to have living descendants:

 * John Alden
 * Priscilla (Mullins) Alden
 * Bartholomew Allerton
 * Isaac Allerton
 * Mary (Norris) Allerton
 * Mary (Allerton) Cushman
 * Remember (Allerton) Maverick
 * Elinor Billington
 * Francis Billington
 * John Billington
 * William Bradford
 * Love Brewster
 * Mary Brewster
 * William Brewster
 * Peter Browne
 * James Chilton
 * Mrs. Chilton (wife of James)
 * Mary (Chilton) Winslow
 * Francis Cooke
 * John Cooke
 * Edward Doty
 * Francis Eaton
 * Samuel Eaton
 * Sarah Eaton
 * Moses Fletcher
 * Edward Fuller
 * Mrs. Fuller (wife of Edward)
 * Samuel Fuller (son of Edward)
 * Samuel Fuller (brother of Edward)
 * Constance (Hopkins) Snow
 * Giles Hopkins
 * Stephen Hopkins
 * Elizabeth (Fisher) Hopkins
 * John Howland
 * Richard More
 * William Mullins
 * Degory Priest
 * Joseph Rogers
 * Thomas Rogers
 * Henry Samson
 * George Soule
 * Myles Standish
 * Elizabeth (Tilley) Howland
 * John Tilley
 * Joan (Hurst) Tilley
 * Richard Warren
 * Peregrine White
 * Resolved White
 * Susanna (Jackson) White Winslow
 * William White
 * Edward Winslow

Notable members

 * Sarah Gertrude Banks, American physician and activist
 * Ada Brown, American judge
 * Anna Matilda Larrabee, American social leader
 * Harriet Wright O'Leary (1916–1999) first woman elected to serve on the Choctaw National Council and one-time governor of the Oklahoma Mayflower Society chapter.
 * Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., American intellectual

Museum
In 1941 the Society purchased the Edward Winslow House in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The mansion home was originally built in 1754 by the great-grandson of Edward Winslow, third Governor of Plymouth Colony. The Society operates the home as the Mayflower House Museum, an 18th-century historic house museum with period decorations and furnishings. The offices and library of the General Society of Mayflower Descendants are located behind the mansion.

title: Mayflower Society


text:
William Cooper (conchologist)

William Cooper (1798–1864) was an American naturalist, conchologist (shell zoologist) and collector.

Early life
Cooper studied zoology in Europe from 1821 to 1824, and afterwards travelled to Nova Scotia, Kentucky and the Bahamas collecting specimens.

Career
Although he was not an author himself his specimens were of great help to others, such as John James Audubon, Charles Lucien Bonaparte and Thomas Nuttall.

Cooper was one of the founders of the New York Lyceum of Natural History (later the New York Academy of Sciences), and the first American member of the Zoological Society of London. Bonaparte named the Cooper's hawk for him, after Cooper collected a specimen of it in 1828.

Personal life
He was father of James Graham Cooper (1830–1902) a physician and famous naturalist in his own right.

title: William Cooper (conchologist)