# Review of Canadian History & Emphasis of Canadian Military Heritage



## Canadian.Trucker (17 Jun 2013)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/14/f-sunday-edition-government-history.html

Was reading through cbc.ca (something I try to not do a regular basis anymore as it grates on me), but I found this article interesting as I did not know the Federal Government was doing a review of Canadian history.

I do agree with the statement in the article "whereas trained historians ask questions about the past" when focusing on the research of history, I wholeheartedly disagree with the cries that are coming out of the article that there is too much of a focus being placed on Canada's military past.  For almost our entire history the role of the Canadian military seems to be downplayed and not celebrated with significant earnest because we didn't want to be viewed as "war mongering" or any other buzzwordical nonsense. (yes, I did just make up a word)

We should be proud of our achievements and if that means honest truth about the accomplishments that were done during war time, and the subsequent effects on our Nation come to light then I'm all for it.  I don't believe that the review should be only military in nature, but I for one feel that our military accomplishments are not well known beyond the military community.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Jun 2013)

The first few comments with the CBC story were enough to ruin my day. More importantly, for the past few decades history had been moving away from leaders and events and emphasiing social history. This could also have been said to have caused the boom in victims' studies. From my point of view there is nothing wrong for questioning this approach, which after all grew out of discomfort with the traditional point of view.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jun 2013)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/14/f-sunday-edition-government-history.html
> 
> Was reading through cbc.ca (something I try to not do a regular basis anymore as it grates on me), but I found this article interesting as I did not know the Federal Government was doing a review of Canadian history.
> 
> ...




History is all about asking questions but, as Margaret MacMillan has pointed out it is also about facts and order - facts matter, even when they are uncomfortable - and the order of events matters, too. For example: Canada's naval and military performance in World War II were not always "glorious." The RCN was poorly trained, badly equipped and, with a handful of exceptions, not very well led. The Canadian Army suffered from similar problems. Those are facts; another "fact" is that Canada slashed and burned its national defences in the 1930s because, quite simply, the _Great Depression_ was a far, far greater and much more immediate problem than was the rise of fascism; a final fact is that we, a small nation of only 12 million souls, put over 1 million of them - mostly men aged 18-35 - into uniform. That we had leadership and management and equipment problems is hardly surprising. The historical lessons might be harder to remember.

In my experience the "military community" is not well informed about our military history. We are, mostly, well schooled in our regiment's, our corps' or branch's or our service's version of its slice of history but that's a far cry from what one gleans when reading the full historical record.

History is, also, always biased. I don't care how ancient it might be. Herotodus had his biases, ditto Tacitus, the Venerable Bede and Harold Innes; so do Niall Ferguson, Margaret MacMillan and Jack Granatstein. I am biased and my biases extend to what and even _how_ I read.

Finally all history is always _revisionist_, we cannot change history be we can, and constantly do reinterpret (revise) it.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (17 Jun 2013)

CBC ruined my day twice now.

Having not been out of school for too long now. There was not a huge emphasis on our combatant military history. We really focused on Trudeau and peacekeeping. For some reason they (teachers) have this idea that Canada has a long and lasting "history" of peacekeeping. We did touch on WW1 and WW2. And a little on upper and lower Canada.
As for the war of 1812, where would we be if we lost?


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (17 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> History is all about asking questions but, as Margaret MacMillan has pointed out it is also about facts and order - facts matter, even when they are uncomfortable - and the order of events matters, too. For example: Canada's naval and military performance in World War II were not always "glorious." The RCN was poorly trained, badly equipped and, with a handful of exceptions, not very well led. The Canadian Army suffered from similar problems. Those are facts; another "fact" is that Canada slashed and burned its national defences in the 1930s because, quite simply, the _Great Depression_ was a far, far greater and much more immediate problem than was the rise of fascism; a final fact is that we, a small nation of only 12 million souls, put over 1 million of them - mostly men aged 18-35 - into uniform. That we had leadership and management and equipment problems is hardly surprising. The historical lessons might be harder to remember.
> 
> In my experience the "military community" is not well informed about our military history. We are, mostly, well schooled in our regiment's, our corps' or branch's or our service's version of its slice of history but that's a far cry from what one gleans when reading the full historical record.
> 
> ...


Agreed, so why not tell the truth no matter how difficult it may be regardless of if it was glorious or not.  Sometimes the best lessons learned are from failure and not achievement.  The old adage "if we don't learn from history we're doomed to repeat it comes to mind".  And while we as a military community might not be well informed, we're still ahead of the game when it comes to the general public.  I too have a bias, everyone does, but knowledge is knowledge so why not include more of it for the benefit of all.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> CBC ruined my day twice now.
> 
> Having not been out of school for too long now. There was not a huge emphasis on our combatant military history. We really focused on Trudeau and peacekeeping. For some reason they (teachers) have this idea that Canada has a long and lasting "history" of peacekeeping. We did touch on WW1 and WW2. And a little on upper and lower Canada.
> As for the war of 1812, where would we be if we lost?


The same can be said of my history lessons in school.  As for where we would be, I think we all know the answer to that, singing the Star Spangled Banner vice Oh Canada.


----------



## Staff Weenie (17 Jun 2013)

Old Sweat - These days, I actually prefer many aspects of social history.  I can, if needs be, find out the key names, dates, places, and factors involved in an event such as a battle.  What I like to read now, are books that are more focused on the participants, their thoughts and perceptions, etc.  I've been able to find a number of books compiled from diaries and letters, etc, from WWI and WWII soldiers/sailors/aircrew. It rounds out the picture for me.

My concern, is when social historians attempt to apply blame to my generation for events that are far in the past.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Jun 2013)

Indeed, and personal accounts help bring the dryness of the official record to life. One methodology, however, cannot stand alone. I was once asked to comment on a draft regimental history made up of transcritps of "oral" accounts only. It was impossible to put it in any sort of context and even to follow the campaign. When I suggested to the author that the apporach was not working, he got most annoyed and that, fortunately for all concerned, was that.

In a piece I did on the Boer War back in the nineties, I cautioned the reader to avoid judging the Canadians who fought in South Africa by today's social standards. I wrote something along the lines of "Most believed anyone who was not a white male, English speaking citizen of the British Empire to be an inferior being, and that was probably among the more liberal of their attitudes." And to be brutally frank, the Canadians had far from the reddest necks on the veldt.


----------



## Danjanou (17 Jun 2013)

Well there's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back.  The PCs are trying to change something and the CBC is agin it and manages to trot out a talking head from Patrice Lumumba oops sorry York University to rile up the masses with thier laptops in Starbucks to flood the information superhighway with poorly written, mundane, self righteous "sky is falling" comments. In other breaking news the sun will set in the west this evening and rise tomorrow in the east. If for some reason it fails to, blame Harper.   :


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jun 2013)

Edward is right about hstory constantly being "revised".

I have an interesting book about the Gettysburg campaign in my library (The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command by Edwin B. Coddington), which was written before social history was in vouge. Comparing it to more "modern" studies you would have a hard time recognizing this is the same battle.

An amusing side note about bias; I also have books by Strome Galloway and Farly Mowatt in the library, covering the same period of history. Once again, reading accounts of the same battle by the two authors are difficult to reconcile as the same event. Galloway would describe an action by saying "The Hasty P's tried a right flanking, but were held up until the RCR made a bold frontal assault and saved the day" while Mowatt would say "The RCR attempted a frontal, but were stopped by heavy fire until the Hasty P's made a daring flanking and saved the day..."

I have personally seen heads spin when I gave talks in my daughter's school about my experiences abroad; very little of my experience was "peacekeeping" yet decades after the fact that is still the meme that teachers and students know and accept.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (17 Jun 2013)

If only schools would bring in guest speakers. 

Eg Someone who served in a "peacekeeping" role in say bosnia. Come to the school and give a personal account. I'm sure there's plenty of current ex or serving members who are intelligent enough to talk to a highschool class. History/social studies would be more entertaining and personal. Though somehow the program would have to keep the journalists out. 

Then again schools don't like teaching the truth. I think my teachers enjoyed indoctrinating students to advance their own agendas.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jun 2013)

Please don't blame schools, much less individual teachers. The curriculum is set by _educrats_ in each provincial capital. They decide what and how much history is taught, they commission text books and set the course outlines. The _educrats_ work for the Minister of Education ... who *we* elect.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> History is all about asking questions but, as Margaret MacMillan has pointed out it is also about facts and order - facts matter, even when they are uncomfortable - and the order of events matters, too. For example: Canada's naval and military performance in World War II were not always "glorious." The RCN was poorly trained, badly equipped and, with a handful of exceptions, not very well led. The Canadian Army suffered from similar problems. Those are facts; another "fact" is that Canada slashed and burned its national defences in the 1930s because, quite simply, the _Great Depression_ was a far, far greater and much more immediate problem than was the rise of fascism; a final fact is that we, a small nation of only 12 million souls, put over 1 million of them - mostly men aged 18-35 - into uniform. That we had leadership and management and equipment problems is hardly surprising. The historical lessons might be harder to remember.
> 
> In my experience the "military community" is not well informed about our military history. We are, mostly, well schooled in our regiment's, our corps' or branch's or our service's version of its slice of history but that's a far cry from what one gleans when reading the full historical record.
> 
> ...



I was reading somewhere that McKenzie King was instrumental in modernizing the fleet prior to WWII, but my knowledge of the ship pre-war is sparse.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jun 2013)

The pre-war RCN was tiny, ill-equipped and its welfare was far from the top of McKenzie King's priorities. There was an increase in the defence budget circa 1937-1938 and most of it went to the RCN and RCAF, but it was too little and far too late.


----------



## Danjanou (19 Jun 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> If only schools would bring in guest speakers.
> 
> Eg Someone who served in a "peacekeeping" role in say bosnia. Come to the school and give a personal account. I'm sure there's plenty of current ex or serving members who are intelligent enough to talk to a highschool class. History/social studies would be more entertaining and personal. Though somehow the program would have to keep the journalists out.
> 
> Then again schools don't like teaching the truth. I think my teachers enjoyed indoctrinating students to advance their own agendas.



Some schools in my area ( East York) actually do this, mind it's only during the first week of November.  Our local RCL branch gets swamped with requests for speakers WW2 up to the most recent deployments.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (19 Jun 2013)

That's good. But yes it would be nice if they used the wealth of knowledge year round when it pertained to the class.


----------



## Danjanou (20 Jun 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> That's good. But yes it would be nice if they used the wealth of knowledge year round when it pertained to the class.



Agreed, but small steps and all that, after all it is East York/Danforth/East Toronto Saint Jack of the Soundbites former riding/neighbourhood


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> That's good. But yes it would be nice if they used the wealth of knowledge year round when it pertained to the class.




I'm less sure. Student's knowledge of history may, or just as likely may not be served by _Old Bill's_ recollections of Hill 187 or the Medak Pocke or Panjwai. Perhaps it is more important to understand _how_ countries, Canada especially raises and maintains (or fails to maintain) the armed forces it needs for crises. Maybe an accountant or and academic can shed more light on military history than any admiral or sergeant.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (20 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm less sure. Student's knowledge of history may, or just as likely may not be served by _Old Bill's_ recollections of Hill 187 or the Medak Pocke or Panjwai. Perhaps it is more important to understand _how_ countries, Canada especially raises and maintains (or fails to maintain) the armed forces it needs for crises. Maybe an accountant or and academic can shed more light on military history than any admiral or sergeant.


I agree overall with your statements regarding how a country deals with history, but the stories and personal experiences that were dealt with by the person on the ground in the air or on the sea help to lend context to the event.

Overall I simply feel that we as Canadians and our education systems needs to get better at informing subsequent (and current for that matter) generations about their nations history.  Does every piece of history need to have a military viewpoint or context placed into it?  Absolutely not, but from the article the discussion that our history might become too focused on military aspects is laughable.  Seeing as how we have done a horrible job passing on the lessons learned or even the basic information of what happened throughout the major conflicts of Canadian history, I see it being important to improve this passage of knowledge and information.  I'm also quite aware that there is only so much time in a school day to cover all the topics needed, but history is something that can capture the imagination and feed into so many more topics and fields of study for people.


----------



## Danjanou (20 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm less sure. Student's knowledge of history may, or just as likely may not be served by _Old Bill's_ recollections of Hill 187 or the Medak Pocke or Panjwai. Perhaps it is more important to understand _how_ countries, Canada especially raises and maintains (or fails to maintain) the armed forces it needs for crises. Maybe an accountant or and academic can shed more light on military history than any admiral or sergeant.



I see your point Edward, and I agree to an extent, however I'm in no way suggesting that this be the sum total of teaching Canadian History, but merely one part.  I spent some dreary years being bored to death by some very dull and dry pompous Professors while obtaining my History degree ( I survived by mentally grading their  lack of M of I skills and how long it took them to violate all 6 princlples of instruction ICEPACin a given lecture ). 

History can at the purely academic level be rather dry reading. This would be maginifed by in this case  a rather youthful audience, especially one with  today's rather limited attention span (twitter). Some form of personal or social history can be a useful gateway into  the subject.  I always thought Pierre Burton's books would have  made good intro history texts at the junior highschool level. Yes they are short on a lot of the analysis  and deep thoughts and read more like some good adventure story, but there is nothing intrensically wrong with that as a starter.


----------



## McG (8 Aug 2013)

This has been a popular theme with a number of media outlets over the past month.  I think it is hard to accuse the Conservatives of being the ones to “politicize history” – it seems the telling and presenting of history has probably always been manipulated by political, academic and special interest agendas.  The question needs to be the role and extent to which each of these groups should influence the collective interpretation of history.  All three need to be involved, because nobody else is going to do it.

I do find interesting the theory that the Conservatives are seeking a new national identity to replace multiculturalism – something to bring us together focusing on the shared symbols and identity as opposed to the differences.



> *Critics accuse the Conservative Party of ‘politicizing history’ as national museum mandates change*
> National Post
> Joseph Brean
> 31 July 2013
> ...


  http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/30/critics-accuse-the-conservative-party-of-politicizing-history-as-national-museum-mandates-change/



> *Canada and the New Colonialism*
> ActiveHistory.ca
> Jon Weier
> 23 July 2013
> ...


 http://activehistory.ca/2013/07/canada-and-the-new-colonialism/



> *Canadian Museum of History plans revealed
> More focus on politics, conflict and First Nations*
> CBC News
> 30 July 2013
> ...


 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/29/ottawa-canadian-museum-of-history-plans-come-out.html

[Note: The re-royalization of the CF and rank change discussion have a home in another thread.  Despite the extensive reference in one article, lets try not to go down that hole in this thread.]


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (8 Aug 2013)

The flaw I potentially see in some of these arguments is where the authors talk about and condemn how the Conservatives are trying to change how we view ourselves, but in the same breath talk about how Canada has changed over the last few decades and we need to be open and aware of this.  Change is change, and we as a nation have grown and developed beyond what we were and how we thought of ourselves over the last 20 years.  What is so wrong with being proud of our military accomplishments while simultaneously sharing and discussing the trials and issues that Canada faced during the same period?

Call me naive (sp?), but I believe history and the facts associated with history should be pure information so we can learn about where we came from.  Take the bad with the good.  I know history is written by the victorious, and that history is anything but pure fact because it's told from the slant of the person/group/government that is writing it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I guess in the end we should always be wary and question why change is taking place, but we should also keep an open mind and understand that Canadians are not the same people they were 20 years ago and we quite possibly identify ourselves very differently than we did back then.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Aug 2013)

Armed forces like tradition - the older, the better.  I see the Indian Army manages with its own variation of pips and crowns, and is a far, far more multicultural institution in a far, far more multicultural country than Canada.

The further up the nose of the cultural transformationists this stuff goes, the more I like it.


----------



## McG (11 Aug 2013)

Here is a more rounded view of the situation:


> *How Stephen Harper is rewriting history
> Starting with a $25-million museum overhaul, the Conservatives want to change the way Canadians perceive their past*
> Maclean’s Online
> John Geddes
> ...


Full article at:  http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/29/written-by-the-victors/


----------



## observor 69 (11 Aug 2013)

Thanks for the link MCG. Nice to hear differing perspectives; and that includes the comments section of the article.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2013)

>Finally all history is always revisionist, we cannot change history be we can, and constantly do reinterpret (revise) it.

This is the stake that is really being argued - control of the narrative, and its influence over people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2013)

There were few better 20th century historians than Hugh Trevor-Roper.

Trevor-Roper wrote, in his essay _The_ Idea_ of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_*, "What was the lesson which Gibbon learned from Montesquieu? Briefly, it was that human history is . . . a process, and a process governed, in its detail, not by a divine plan . . . but by a complex of social forces which a 'philosophic historian,' that is, a historian who looked behind mere events for fundamental ideas, causes and connexions . . . could isolate and describe."

So, history is, as Margaret MacMillan said, about "facts and order" and it is also, as Hugh Trevor-Roper suggests, about _isolating_ and _describing_ the "complex of social forces" that act on people in any given time and space. How we interpret the facts, in their proper order, and how we interpret the many social forces that impacted them, is how we write, rewrite and continuously revise history. Facts can be unpleasant, especially when they interfere with our beliefs, and _revisionist historians_ are always valuable because they make us reevaluate the "facts and order" and the "social forces" and allow us to draw new conclusions in light of all the available evidence. And history is, like the "hard" sciences, an "evidence based" field, you cannot make up history just because you believe something should be true, or not.

_____
* Which is found in the posthumous collection of his essays entitled _"History and the Enlightenment"_, which is one of my favourites from Trevor-Roper for both its erudition and the elegance of its prose.


----------



## pbi (28 Aug 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> If only schools would bring in guest speakers.
> 
> Eg Someone who served in a "peacekeeping" role in say bosnia. Come to the school and give a personal account. I'm sure there's plenty of current ex or serving members who are intelligent enough to talk to a highschool class. History/social studies would be more entertaining and personal. Though somehow the program would have to keep the journalists out.
> 
> Then again schools don't like teaching the truth. I think my teachers enjoyed indoctrinating students to advance their own agendas.



This was never my experience when I was in uniform (up until 2012), no matter where I served in Canada. I found  that schools (at all grade levels and including post-secondary)were constantly looking for military speakers. The demand was higher around Remembrance Day, but it existed all year long. I always tried to take advantage of as many of these opportunities as I could, and encouraged the folks who worked for me to do the same.
When I did speak, I almost always found the students to be attentive and genuinely interested in Canadian military history. Neither they nor their teachers were very well informed, but at least we can give them credit for trying.

IMHO, the CF  (particularly at the senior levels) over the decades must share a large chunk of the historical blame for this misunderstanding. We have, at times, been only far too happy to cultivate our image as peacekeepers when it suited us to do so. When you tell people you are something that you aren't,  don't be surprised at what happens when you reveal who you really are.


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2013)

Seems Quebec is getting in on the same act.


> *PQ wants to improve teaching of “national history”*
> Monique Muise
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 03 September 2013
> ...


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/wants+improve+teaching+national+history/8860329/story.html


----------



## pbi (11 Sep 2013)

> “This will help produce open-minded students, action-oriented citizens and Quebecers with more self-confidence.”



Whatever might be the outcome of any effort by the Marois government, "open-mindedness" is not likely to be a result. So far they seem to be demonstrating a narrow, ethnically-based version of nationalism that is designed to appeal to a rather ugly strand in Quebec sociey: xenophobia fuelled by ignorance. It's quite telling that the City of Montreal (by far the most diverse city in Quebec) recently passed a resolution countering the thrust of the "Charte".



> The government’s release does not specify if the teaching of “national history” at these levels refers to the whole of Canada or just to Quebec.



Really? Want to hazard a wild-assed guess what it's about?



> “defend and promote Québécois identity and make Quebec a *French and democratic* country”



I have to wonder if the Marois' government's worldview doesn't risk making these two things incompatible with each other..

I'm not any fan of the hard Right, but this is the Left at its worst, drifting into "correct thinking".


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm not any fan of the hard Right, but this is the Left at its worst, drifting into "correct thinking".



Yes, doctrinaire Libertarians (with a big "L") can be annoying at social events.  

The correct political form for the PQ at this time is "National Socialism", where correct thinking gate the backing of State power, and the State distributes the spoils of taxpayer money according to their own narrow ethnic definitions.


----------



## pbi (12 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yes, doctrinaire Libertarians (with a big "L") can be annoying at social events.
> 
> The correct political form for the PQ at this time is "National Socialism", where correct thinking gate the backing of State power, and the State distributes the spoils of taxpayer money according to their own narrow ethnic definitions.




Hmmmm...yesss..."National Socialism"....ethnic purity....state power-why do these phrases seem to ring a bell?
?


----------



## McG (17 Oct 2013)

Not sure what is involved in a "rededication."  I wonder if this will see "Afghanistan" added to the list of wars carved into the monument.


> Veterans groups dismiss war memorial rededication as ‘fluff’
> Robert Sibley
> OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 16 October 2013
> ...


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/Veterans+groups+dismiss+memorial+rededication+fluff/9045278/story.html


----------



## pbi (17 Oct 2013)

> “We’ve got a government that likes to fly the flag, but look what they are actually doing. It’s all fluff. It’s not in response to the real needs of veterans.”



Patriotism: the last refuge of the scoundrel. And of the politician. People may have faulted Pat Stogran's aggressiveness when he was Ombudsman, but it's interesting to note that his successor is identifying very similar things.


----------



## McG (14 Jan 2015)

Proof that you can't ever please everybody - as the government continues to receive criticism for excesses spent on 1812, WWI, WWII, and Confederation anniversaries, they are simultaneously receiving the opposite criticism of not spending enough for the Canadian flag anniversary.


> As Maple Leaf approaches 50, some in Canada wonder: Where's the party?
> CTV News
> 13 Jan 2015
> 
> ...



http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/as-maple-leaf-approaches-50-some-in-canada-wonder-where-s-the-party-1.2186902


----------



## McG (2 Feb 2015)

The dirth of attention on the flag anniversary is still gathering comment.  I like the idea of investing more in peacekeeping histories; that could be a conduit toward relieving so many Canadians of their misconceptions about the altruistism, means and effectiveness of such missions.



> *Will Harper mark the Maple Leaf flag’s 50th anniversary?*
> Andrew Cohen
> Times Colonist
> 29 January 2015
> ...


http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/andrew-cohen-will-harper-mark-the-maple-leaf-flag-s-50th-anniversary-1.1745570


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Feb 2015)

My French-Canadian girlfriend got mad at me for talking about Napoleon, she said "I don't care about that English history"  :

I found French-Canadians were either very very interested in the world around them or very very insular, not a lot inbetween.


----------



## krimynal (2 Feb 2015)

sadly us french Canadian , have little to no knowledge of history , wether it's because of school system or whatever .... 

I remember back in high school were the only history class we had was about Quebec , How it was discovered , How it was built , etc.

It's sad that we are very closed minded , and that our school system is actually happy about having the students completely shadowed to what is going on outside of Quebec .... If you had decent teachers , they would go out of the "norm" to give you info on World History / World Geography ... but sadly a lot of teachers were simply giving us lessons on what was in the book ....


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2015)

krimynal said:
			
		

> sadly us french Canadian , have little to no knowledge of history , wether it's because of school system or whatever ....
> 
> I remember back in high school were the only history class we had was about Quebec , How it was discovered , How it was built , etc.
> 
> It's sad that we are very closed minded , and that our school system is actually happy about having the students completely shadowed to what is going on outside of Quebec .... If you had decent teachers , they would go out of the "norm" to give you info on World History / World Geography ... but sadly a lot of teachers were simply giving us lessons on what was in the book ....



Sadly, I remember a CBC documentary that showed that even the teaching of Quebec history was contrary to what other provinces were teaching.  The documentary showed a Quebec teacher actually teaching that the English conquest took away the Rights of the French to their French language, the Catholic Church, the Seigneurial System, and Civil Law.  All false.  Quebecers still have the right to speak French, attend the church of their choice, and they are the only province to use Civil Law.  The Seigneurial System is probably the only thing that has changed, more due to the passage of time than English conquest.


----------



## krimynal (2 Feb 2015)

Yeah I remember being told the same in my history class back in high school !  But yeah good thing that a year later I had the chance to get a "out-of-the-box-thinker" teacher that basically told us , that we had been brain raped last year , and here are the real facts , and by the way , here is some part of history that you guys never heard before !

that teacher was awesome sadly , he was in a "one-of-a-kind" group , you can count those type of teacher on your finger !


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Feb 2015)

George: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 did in fact extinguish many of those rights in the newly acquired territories after the French defeats in the 7 years war. The same rights were subsequently and in the main re-established in the Constitution Act 1791, including the Seigneurial system and Civil Code and in fact this was an ongoing restoration process right up until the Constitution Act 1982. 

The same Royal Proclamation is also the legal basis on which many present day Indian land claims and other perceived injustices to first nations are founded. If anybody was screwed by the British, it was the Canadians as we have come to know ourselves today. At least the Brits got it right when they left India, not that they had any real choice in that case anyway.


----------



## McG (5 Feb 2015)

I guess universities are joining museums in the group of oppressed historians.


> *Harper changing Gregg centre's purpose
> Re: Military history*
> The Daily Gleaner
> 30 Jan 2014
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Feb 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> George: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 did in fact extinguish many of those rights in the newly acquired territories after the French defeats in the 7 years war. The same rights were subsequently and in the main re-established in the Constitution Act 1791, including the Seigneurial system and Civil Code and in fact this was an ongoing restoration process right up until the Constitution Act 1982.



Not only is Whiskey601 almost correct (I think he refers to the Quebec Act of 1774, as it is the one that recognized these rights anew for the first time), but in an interesting flip side of the said Quebec Act of 1774 that just shows how everything is connected, the said Quebec Act is one of the unacceptable actions of the English King directly mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence. The Act whereby the King unilaterally "deprived" a "neighbouring British Colony" of the "benefits of English Common Law" is Canada, and the deprivation came from the re-institution of the Customs of Paris civil law (no Napoleonic code in existence yet, Napoleon was 5 years old at the time.)


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The dirth of attention on the flag anniversary is still gathering comment.  I like the idea of investing more in peacekeeping histories; that could be a conduit toward relieving so many Canadians of their misconceptions about the altruistism, means and effectiveness of such missions.
> http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/andrew-cohen-will-harper-mark-the-maple-leaf-flag-s-50th-anniversary-1.1745570



Sadly, I rather doubt that the bulk of "peacekeeping" historians will focus on the use of peacekeeping missions as economy of force measures to maintain the bulk of our military capability in Germany and to a lesser extent Norway...


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Feb 2015)

As I recall, during the sixties, seventies and eighties, other than for Cyprus there was very little combat arms involvement in peacekeeping. There were a few observer missions that drew officers from across the army and later the forces, but most of the peacekeeping forces we provided had logistics and communications roles. The rationale was that we had sophisticated capabilities in those fields, really that was the explanation, that most armies did not.


----------



## McG (12 Feb 2015)

The flag flap continues over which elements of Canadian heritage receive or do not receive attention from Conservative promotions.  The upside of the Conservatives not going full-retard on the flag's 50th (aside from saving money) is that we did not have another special, tacky anniversary pin throw onto our service dress uniforms.

This article covers the same ground as previous, but has several embedded videos to entertain (maybe):


> *Canada flag's 50th anniversary a low-key affair*
> Government's plans to fete the flag are minimal
> By Bruce Chambers, for CBC News
> 11 Feb 2015
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-flag-s-50th-anniversary-a-low-key-affair-1.2950315

Meanwhile, globe news looks a little deeper at the same:


> *Are the Conservatives playing politics with the Canadian flag?*
> By Amy Minsky, for Global News
> 11 Feb 2015
> 
> ...


http://globalnews.ca/news/1824425/are-the-conservatives-playing-politics-with-the-canadian-flag/

And there are plenty of online comments and letters to editors on the topic.  Some are fairly tame:


> *CELEBRATING OUR FLAG*
> Liz Seger, Port Colborne
> St Catharines Standard
> 11 Feb 2015
> ...


http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2015/02/11/letters-to-the-editor-for-february-12

but there is a lot more ludicrous (including accusations that the Conservatives want to bring back the Red Ensign).


----------



## McG (12 Feb 2015)

Here is one of the more extreme takes on the lack of attention being given to the Canadian Flag's 50th anniversary and with a CAF connection.  I appreciate this guy's position on cosmetic changes that we are going through, but his arguments suffer from some errors of fact (while the Order of the Bath is an order of knights, the name used below is just wrong) and I think it is a little over the top to suggest that the three maple leaf insignia is less Canadian than the single maple leaf Army insignia (though, I do prefer the look of the single leaf).



> Harper purposely aiming for Canadians to ignore flag’s anniversary
> John Raulston,  Colwood, BC
> The Gateway
> 04 Feb 2015
> ...


http://thegatewayonline.ca/2015/02/print-issue-february-4-2015/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2015)

wasn't there a insignia with 3 branches and maple Leaf on each end?


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Here is one of the more extreme takes on the lack of attention being given to the Canadian Flag's 50th anniversary and with a CAF connection.  I appreciate this guy's position on cosmetic changes that we are going through, but his arguments suffer from some errors of fact (while the Order of the Bath is an order of knights, the name used below is just wrong) and I think it is a little over the top to suggest that the three maple leaf insignia is less Canadian than the single maple leaf Army insignia (though, I do prefer the look of the single leaf).
> http://thegatewayonline.ca/2015/02/print-issue-february-4-2015/



He's from Colwood.

I can see Colwood right now from where I'm sitting in downtown Victoria.

It's a bit distant, and foggy.

That is all  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2015)

ah this was what I was thinking of


----------



## McG (13 Feb 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> wasn't there a insignia with 3 branches and maple Leaf on each end?





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> ah this was what I was thinking of


You might also have been thinking of the "Pearson Pennant."


----------



## McG (17 Feb 2015)

Media continued to take a few shots on this over the weekend, and the laments continued into today.


> *Canada's flag debate flaps on, 50 years later*
> Now the question is whether Ottawa is spending enough to mark the flag's anniversary
> Terry Milewski, CBC News
> 15 Feb 2015
> ...





> *Our flag deserves a party*
> Times Colonist
> 17 Feb 2015
> 
> ...




... but the real entertainment in all this was brought to us in a crazy idea from Colwood:


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2015)

From USask "Images of a Country Gallery"





""In Miami they call it Dora - here we call it the Flag Debate"
Len Norris - The Vancouver Sun; 10 September 1964


----------



## McG (1 Mar 2016)

Time for the pendulum to go to the other extreme?



> *Liberal minister hints citizenship guide’s trumpeting of War of 1812 victory will be pared down*
> Tristin Hopper
> The National Post
> 29 Feb 2016
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-minister-hints-citizenship-guides-trumpeting-of-war-of-1812-victory-will-be-pared-down


----------



## McG (7 Mar 2016)

It would seem the National Post thinks the pendulum has swung back to the other extreme. 


> *The Liberals don’t own our history*
> National Post View
> 07 Mar 2016
> 
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-the-liberals-dont-own-our-history


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> It would seem the National Post thinks the pendulum has swung back to the other extreme. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-the-liberals-dont-own-our-history




The Liberals are still campaigning. Team Trudeau ...






... built around Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, is damned good at campaigning; they's smart, tough, quick, witty and driven. And Stephen Harper was a "soft target" after nine years in office.

But, governing is about making (often hard) choices and that _appears, to me_ to be something that Team Trudeau would rather defer ~ until 2019 is they can manage it. Going after this sort of partisan, political "_administrivia_" is easy and popular amongst the _Laurentian Elites_ who want al traces of "Harper the Barbarian" erased.

                         
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I don't know how long the Liberals can avoid governing, but I expect to see more of this sort of thing throughout 2016.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Mar 2016)

Every government spends their first mandate blaming the last government and their second (and following) mandate(s) blaming the world economic situation.

And none are ever particularly keen on actual governing...


----------



## McG (29 Jun 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Every government spends their first mandate blaming the last government ...


A little more than a year later, and it still looks like you are right.

In other news, looks like someone is attaching their CAF credentials (limited as they may be) to a political suggestion for the restoration of the Red Ensign as an official flag (though now subordinate to the National Flag).  Does the PRes put everyone through a course on pining for symbols of our colonial youth?


> *The maple leaf flag embodies Canada's national amnesia*
> Unlike Canada’s original flag—the Canadian Red Ensign—the maple leaf tells no story of our country. The Red Ensign, by comparison, vividly embodies Canada’s rich history
> C.P. Champion
> National Post
> ...


http://nationalpost.com/opinion/beyond-the-duck-the-maple-leaf-flag-embodies-canadas-national-amnesia/wcm/956a04c2-7442-478e-b9b4-b0ba384271a4


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jun 2017)

One of the boys in short pants with the prior government, a PhD in history, and an older Pte.

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/chris-champion-162a5011b


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jun 2017)

One of the boys in short pants with the prior government, a PhD in history, and an older Pte.

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/chris-champion-162a5011b


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Jun 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> A little more than a year later, and it still looks like you are right.
> 
> In other news, looks like someone is attaching their CAF credentials (limited as they may be) to a political suggestion for the restoration of the Red Ensign as an official flag (though now subordinate to the National Flag).  Does the PRes put everyone through a course on pining for symbols of our colonial youth?



Maybe it is because many people fought and died under the Red Ensign, and historically it is more significant than the Maple Leaf. I personally prefer the Red Ensign, however most in this day and age have grown up and gotten used to the Maple Leaf. 

Besides what does him being PRes have to do with him liking a symbol. Last I checked most the new ranks and insignia from our past was being brought back by the Regs, not the PRes. You may have some pushers in the PRes (just as there are pushers in the Regs), but ultimately the Regs have the final decision in what gets adopted and what doesn't.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jun 2017)

While I do remember a Red Ensign flying outside my home in Medicine Hat as a kid, my Canadian flag and the flag I've served under overseas is the Maple Leaf.  I don't think there's a great clamour to turn back time to old symbols with most folks today, especially First Nations people whom seem to be particularly sensitive at the moment and pissed off.  The remaining generations that do remember the Ensign are dwindling quickly and will be mostly gone in the not too far distant future,  the youth today aren't interested, I expect.


----------



## McG (23 Jul 2017)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Last I checked most the new ranks and insignia from our past was being brought back by the Regs, not the PRes.


... or maybe in was a few reservists who, being class A, lobbied directly to the politicians and had a decision imposed when the army internally had said we don't want it.  You seem to have heard a different story than others.

In any case, the country seems to be in the throws of removing/stripping anything that honours significant historical figures who may have done anything that does not fully measure-up by ethical standards of today.  So we probably need some sort of metric by which to decide if stripping a name or removing a statue is really an appropriate course of action.  The Globe and Mail has published about one such system developed in Yale.  It might be something for decision makers to take a look at.


> *Langevin, Ryerson, Cornwallis: Is our past unfit for the present?*
> Peter Shawn Taylor
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> Published Saturday, Jul. 15, 2017 8:00AM EDT
> ...


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/langevin-ryerson-cornwallis-is-our-past-unfit-for-the-present/article35692106/


----------



## dimsum (23 Jul 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> While I do remember a Red Ensign flying outside my home in Medicine Hat as a kid, my Canadian flag and the flag I've served under overseas is the Maple Leaf.  I don't think there's a great clamour to turn back time to old symbols with most folks today, especially First Nations people whom seem to be particularly sensitive at the moment and pissed off.  The remaining generations that do remember the Ensign are dwindling quickly and will be mostly gone in the not too far distant future,  the youth today aren't interested, I expect.



I doubt there would be appetite to change from the Maple Leaf - that is one of the most recognizable symbols of Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jul 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I doubt there would be appetite to change from the Maple Leaf - that is one of the most recognizable symbols of Canada.



Agreed.  

My Dad flew the Red Ensign at the house as it was the flag he fought and served under during and after the Second War.  It stayed in his den after his death and was still there last time I saw home years later.  I totally understand his personal connection with the flag.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... or maybe in was a few reservists who, being class A, lobbied directly to the politicians and had a decision imposed when the army internally had said we don't want it.  You seem to have heard a different story than others.
> 
> In any case, the country seems to be in the throws of removing/stripping anything that honours significant historical figures who may have done anything that does not fully measure-up by ethical standards of today.  So we probably need some sort of metric by which to decide if stripping a name or removing a statue is really an appropriate course of action.  The Globe and Mail has published about one such system developed in Yale.  It might be something for decision makers to take a look at.https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/langevin-ryerson-cornwallis-is-our-past-unfit-for-the-present/article35692106/



Welcome to 1984:

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. "Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. "Reality control," they called it: in Newspeak, "doublethink." (1.3.18)


----------



## Monsoon (25 Jul 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> A little more than a year later, and it still looks like you are right.
> 
> In other news, looks like someone is attaching their CAF credentials (limited as they may be) to a political suggestion for the restoration of the Red Ensign as an official flag (though now subordinate to the National Flag).  Does the PRes put everyone through a course on pining for symbols of our colonial youth?http://nationalpost.com/opinion/beyond-the-duck-the-maple-leaf-flag-embodies-canadas-national-amnesia/wcm/956a04c2-7442-478e-b9b4-b0ba384271a4


Halfway off-topic, but: I'm fairly certain the fact that he edits a moderately prominent Canadian history review is the _bona fide_ he's relying on to publish opinions about historical symbols. Yes, he joined the CAF late in life. He's a genuinely accomplished guy of the sort we should be doing a lot more to attract.


----------



## Loachman (25 Jul 2017)

The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas and Daesh blew up Palmyra because of religious intolerance.

We are committing the same thing, on a smaller and less spectacular scale, because of historical intolerance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2017)

I suspect many of the famous Native chiefs could not withstand an honest assessment under the Witt test either. But it seems the most reasonable way to proceed.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2017)

I'll go the irish monastery route, and collect old history books so when the pendulum swings back there will be references to build from. Not exactly sure what the cutoff date should be, but probably no later than the mid 1970s for the most part, predating the start of Political Correctness and the rise of Cultural Marxism.


----------

