The paper first defines the words myth,
tradition and legend. Resulting from the definitions, the writer states that the
so-called myths surrounding the Loyalists should more correctly be labeled legend and
tradition. The paper
explains that when the Loyalist was extirpated from American soil for being un-American, the Loyalist, robbed of his identity, and forced to create a new one, insisted he was British. The writer explains the relationship between the Loyalist and Britain to be one of child to parent. The writer explains the development of the Loyalist legend, noting that the natural antipathy many Loyalists felt towards the Americans, mingled with feelings of superiority, always warred with the knowledge that America was, in fact, their true homeland. The writer posits that the delay in Canada attaining independence may also be traced to the Loyalist tradition because English Canadians always seemed nervous about cutting the ties between mother and child. The writer concludes that the Loyalist tradition, although muted, is still a force in Canadian life and that this can be seen in the fact that Canada still belongs to the British Commonwealth.