# Old wounds slow to heal on Plains of Abraham - CBC News



## Yrys (23 Jan 2009)

Website National Battlefields Commission :
Welcome to the Plains of Abraham/Bienvenue sur les plaines d'Abraham

Commemorative activities  : Québec City, a town under siege, From July 30 to August 2
Free admission

    *  Four days of intensive siege.
    * From 2000 to 3000 re-enactors will set up period camps to be visited by the public.
    * Two showdowns played in front of the generals’ descendants.
    * A spectacular historic gathering, the premiere summer event in Québec City.
    * On the agenda: skirmishes, gun fire and other historical reminders of the siege, in Québec City and 
       its surroundings, ascent of the cliff, military parade, visit of the camps, old-style marketplace, Seven Years’ War 
       museum fair, battles of the Plains of Abraham (1759) and Sainte-Foy (1760). 



*Article* :
Old wounds slow to heal on Plains of Abraham, CBC News

Plans to commemorate a pivotal conflict that shaped Canadian history are stirring up 
political controversy in Quebec.

The National Battlefields Commission is preparing to re-enact the Battle of the Plains of 
Abraham this summer to mark the 250th anniversary of the 1759 British victory over 
the French at Quebec City. The re-enactment, which will take place over a four-day period, 
is expected to draw more than 2,000 history buffs from around the world.

But Quebec sovereigntists consider the battle a humiliating defeat and the start of English 
domination over French-speaking people in North America — and question the government's
role in the re-enactment. "This battle put an end to the New France, as it was known then, 
and it was the beginning of the British experience here," said Bernard Drainville, Parti Québécois
 member of the Quebec national assembly. "We don't think there's any reason to celebrate that."

*Charest won't attend*

Liberal Premier Jean Charest has already indicated he won't attend the event, but federal 
Heritage Minister Josée Verner has said she will, to the PQ's dismay.

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham has a particular negative significance in the French-Canadian 
collective consciousness, and Verner's intention to attend the event is a "terrible mistake," said 
Agnes Maltais, another member of the sovereigntist PQ in the provincial legislature.

The battle is a sensitive subject for Quebecers, she said. "This was a war, and a lot of people were 
hurt," she said. "In our collective memory, [Marquis de] Montcalm represents the defeat. But he 
was a great general."

If the event included other conflicts such as the Battle of Ste.-Foy in 1760, which the French troops 
won over the British, the re-enactment could offer a more balanced history lesson for Quebecers, 
Maltais said. The conquest re-enactment offers an opportunity for Quebecers to revisit and learn 
from their history as a people, said Denis Vaugeois, a former PQ member of the legislature.
"Everything that helps us review the past is useful, in my opinion," said Vaugeois, who is also 
a historian.

The showdown between French and English armies, headed respectively by generals Marquis 
de Montcalm and James Wolfe, was fought on a wide expanse of land outside Quebec City's fortified 
walls that became known as the Plains of Abraham. The battle, involving more than 10,000 troops, 
lasted less than an hour.

Wolfe was killed in the fight and Montcalm died of his wounds the next day.



French thread about the subject here: Commémoration du 250e de la bataille des plaines d'Abraham - PC


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jan 2009)

Do I smell a Revisionist Plot in the back rooms of Quebecois Intelligentsia about to take place?


----------



## Yrys (23 Jan 2009)

The reenactment will happen, whatever some of them like it or not
(some nationalists said it was history, so good to commemorate, to 
help education of history) . 

Whatever revision they would wish to, I think the events in the Battle 
commemorations will make more publicity and noise then them ...


----------



## Love793 (24 Jan 2009)

"This battle put an end to the New France, as it was known then, 
and it was the beginning of the British experience here," 


That's what happens when you lose. Most countries don't get the chance to protect their languages, religions, culture etc when on the receiving end of defeat. :


----------



## Gunnar (24 Jan 2009)

I think a short response is in order:

The re-enactment is for Canadians, as it concerns Canadian history.  Since those of you are offended do not consider yourselves to *be* Canadians, perhaps it were just best if you stayed home and shut your mouths.  This is OUR celebration.  I fail to see how you are involved.


----------



## R. Jorgensen (24 Jan 2009)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> I think a short response is in order:
> 
> The re-enactment is for Canadians, as it concerns Canadian history.  Since those of you are offended do not consider yourselves to *be* Canadians, perhaps it were just best if you stayed home and shut your mouths.  This is OUR celebration.  I fail to see how you are involved.



Exactly, this re-enactment is not to say "Haha! The French can't fight! Nanananana!" No, this is a piece of history that gave birth to Canada. If the French and the British never fought, there would probably be two separate unilingual nations on this land mass rather than one bilingual nation. I know some of the Quebecois are not happy about their loss, but this is not for the French or British Loyalists, this is for CANADIAN citizens to be more interactive with their nation and be more knowledgable when it comes to Canadian History.

In my Grade 10 Social Studies class, we started off the semester with a question: 



> "Who knows how Canada was formed and when it was unofficially officially 100% independent from Britain?"



I was the only one who knew the answer to that question out of a class of 29: 



> "The French and the British fought for years, but eventually came to an agreement and became one nation with both cultures preserved. Canada was given full governship in 1867 with the signing of our 'declaration of independence', we gained further independence when the current national flag was introduced in 1961 but we did not become 100% independent until 1984 when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented to replace the British version of that document."



My teacher was quite surprised that I knew all of that and was even more surprised that nobody else knew that, and this was the academic level not the development level. The point I'm trying to get at is the fact that people (whether you like it or not) need to know our history because very little people know our history and eventually if it's not made mandatory (because I know for a fact that in some schools/provinces Canadian history is not compulsory, but I do believe it is compulsory in Alberta - I'm not sure though) our history will die out and the only way people will ever find out about is to read a book or go to the archives (and some people don't even bother to read books these days, it's truely saddening).


----------



## TCBF (24 Jan 2009)

Big Beef said:
			
		

> ... My teacher was quite surprised that I knew all of that and was even more surprised that nobody else knew that, ...



- And now another surprise: The Maple Leaf Flag was adopted in 1965, not 1961.


----------



## R. Jorgensen (24 Jan 2009)

Atleast I got in the '60's and with in 5 years.


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 Jan 2009)

Big Beef said:
			
		

> Atleast I got in the '60's and with in 5 years.



Sorry to burst your bubble but the only thing you did was get the answer wrong. If your teacher was amazed that you had the "correct" answer I'm afraid that says much about the state of our education system today. :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2009)

Back on track please. This is about the re-enactment, not our education system or someone's knowledge of history.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jan 2009)

Ho hum......standard media hype-crap.

Search high and low for some whiners or politicians looking to score cheap points,[I guess those two are intertwined] give them front page coverage to make it seem like anyone cares and fill some copy space....... :boring:

Anyone who has spent time in beautiful Quebec City knows that the Plains are not hidden away like an old family secret, rather they are open and celebrated. 

Didn't we have the same media trying to raise a stink about Paul McCartney headlining the 400th anniversary party?
Yea, that only drew 270,000 fans.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (26 Jan 2009)

This is all too typical of the debate that constantly takes place within Canadian historical communities.

Whos history, or what history do we teach?  God forbid we tell the truth about the past if it may offend even the smallest of minority.  The better to teach nothing just to avoid offence.  Unfortunately Canadians as a whole and Quebecers in particular (I was born and raised in Quebec) know all too little about Canadian history and even less where military activity is concerned.

I for one am happy the re-enactment is taking place.  The more people know about our history the better.  As for weather we should celebrate the outcome of the battle or not?  Let each individual decide for themselves what they think, lets just get the facts and the story out there.


----------



## Stoker (26 Jan 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Ho hum......standard media hype-crap.
> 
> Search high and low for some whiners or politicians looking to score cheap points,[I guess those two are intertwined] give them front page coverage to make it seem like anyone cares and fill some copy space....... :boring:
> 
> ...



When we went to Quebec city for naval review last year, the British type 23 that attended was the HMS Richmond. People made a stink of it because it was the same name of one of Wolfe's ship that attacked Quebec in 1759.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jan 2009)

"people"??

What, the same "people" we accuse of not knowing Canadian history?  Just curious, how many of the 7,546,131 does it take to constitute "people" anyway?


----------



## Stoker (26 Jan 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> "people"??
> 
> What, the same "people" we accuse of not knowing Canadian history?  Just curious, how many of the 7,546,131 does it take to constitute "people" anyway?



Enough to not feel very welcome in a Canadian city


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jan 2009)

Would that be the same feeling I used to get in Kingston years ago??

We could tap dance about this all day,....I guess we all have our own memories of a certain place.


----------



## Jungle (26 Jan 2009)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Enough to not feel very welcome in a Canadian city


Most people in Québec City are are indifferent about the Military (which is better then 25 years ago, when they hated everything Military, Anglo OR Franco !!) so don't get too wrapped up about this...

The crowd making a stink out of the reenactement are the same people who made a stink about the presence of Paul McCartney last summer: the hardcore separatists. The vast majority of people enjoy a good show on the Plains, whether it's music, comedy or historical reenactement. Chances are this "protest" will be largely ignored and the reenactement will attract large numbers of enthusiasts and history buffs; I know I will attend if I am not out-of-area !!


----------



## ex-Sup (26 Jan 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> This is all too typical of the debate that constantly takes place within Canadian historical communities
> Whos history, or what history do we teach?  God forbid we tell the truth about the past if it may offend even the smallest of minority.  The better to teach nothing just to avoid offence.  Unfortunately Canadians as a whole and Quebecers in particular (I was born and raised in Quebec) know all too little about Canadian history and even less where military activity is concerned.


Totally agree. At times our "political correctness," or our need to adhere to it, does cause some issues. I often try to remind my students that good or bad, it happened and we cannot pretend it didn't just because someone today might be offended. Here's a few examples that I can think of:
1. I teach in a Catholic school. When I taught Gr.11 history (World History to the 16th Century), I didn't leave out the Crusades because the Catholic Church did some not so nice things; I even tell them that. It happened and we can't pretend that it didn't and some terrible things were done in the name of religion (just as they are today). It doesn't please me to teach about those aspects, but unfortunately there were some people who took the faith too far. I think that it is important to know what happened, that mistakes were made and that there are lessons to be learned (as with anything).
2. Just before Xmas, I was speaking to a fellow history teacher at a curriculum workshop. I can't remember how it came up, but he mentioned that he had some aboriginal students take exception (they didn't file a human rights protest or anything) with the fact that he was teaching about the Indian Act (specifically the use of that word). I guess they were concerned about the offensiveness of the term; he quickly pointed out to them that HE wasn't using the word, that it was a historical document and that is what it was called. Now I'm pretty sure the situation stopped there, but it goes to show how ingrained some of this political correctness has become and our need to follow it to the detriment of the truth (I'm sure that this wasn't the case here).
Anyway, the fact remains that whatever the situation, things happened and we cannot change the past. This planned celebration is not about the destruction of a way of life, nor about the death of a culture. It is about the creation of a new country, one with many different cultures and ideas. I would think that most Canadians like myself (I could be wrong) see and understand that our country was founded by both Britain and France, and that is a big part of who we are today. There are always going to be people who are upset about something; you can't please everybody. If that was the way our world was run, nothing would ever be accomplished.
Just my $0.02.


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2009)

Not too sure about it creating all that much of a stink over here..... it made the papers one day... to be replaced by something else the next.

Some people are unhappy - sure, you'll always find grouches in every bunch.  Some have said the reenactment is a celebration of the defeat of the French - when it isn't... it's the 1st act of a New North America.  These same people forget that, when the American Revolutionary army came a visiting / liberating Quebec a short while after their independance - the French canadians gladly and willingly supported the British forces.  If the Americans had succeeded - chances are that everyone here (Quebec) would be talking english OR french with an outrageous Louisiana kind of accent.

Lest we forget


----------



## TCBF (27 Jan 2009)

- New France did not fall in 1759.  It waited to see whose fleet sailed up the St. Lawrence in the Spring of 1760.  After that, it was everything on the table.  Why did France choose those two small fishing island in the gulf over Quebec?


----------



## geo (27 Jan 2009)

Why did France choose those two small fishing island in the gulf over Quebec? 

When it was time to cede North America... France was more interested in hanging onto Martinique.

St Pierre & Miquelon were probably overlooked by both parties


----------



## Jungle (27 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Why did France choose those two small fishing island in the gulf over Quebec?
> 
> When it was time to cede North America... France was more interested in hanging onto Martinique.
> 
> St Pierre & Miquelon were probably overlooked by both parties


Not overlooked, they were part of the negociations; the French wanted to maintain a presence there in order to keep the associated fishing rights around NFLD.


----------



## geo (27 Jan 2009)

That's what is on the books but, at the time, France was up to it's eyeballs in insurection with the Revolution.
Their navy was in tatters & there was no way they could send troops or ships over here to project force.

I would presume the British figured that the two islands were insignificant enough that they could be overlooked ... or taken at a later date.


----------



## wannabe SF member (27 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> That's what is on the books but, at the time, France was up to it's eyeballs in insurection with the Revolution.



I beg to differ, the revolution happened in 1789, you're off the mark by thirty years.
France was still in tatters though but that was because of the 7 years' war, not the revolution.


----------



## je suis prest (27 Jan 2009)

There was, of course, nothing insignificant about France having a permanent base near the Grand Banks. Possession of the French Shore in Newfoundland was the basis for a fair amount of bloodshed in the 17th and 18th centuries.  The French reasonably considered St. Pierre and Miquelon to be of more commercial value than the rest of New France.  There was a considerable amount of horse-trading at the end of the Seven Year's War.  Allowing the French to retain those islands was not a British oversight.

The French population of those islands was deported by the British during both the American revolution and the wars with the French following their revolution.  The French were at pains to ensure they retained sovereignty over those islands after each of those conflicts.


----------



## geo (27 Jan 2009)

Heh... guess I will go to bed a little more knowledgeable than when I woke up.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Feb 2009)

I hope so as I don't see any point to the event anyway.
Instead, take the money and make a documentary that can be used in schools for years to come.



http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/586161

Tories may scrap Plains of Abraham event

Alexander Panetta 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA – Controversy over a planned re-enactment of France's historic defeat on the Plains of Abraham is prompting the federal government to consider scrapping the event.

Political commentators have called the event an insult, sovereigntists are expressing outrage, and even some federalist politicians like Premier Jean Charest are promising to stay away.
Now the government says it might back away from plans to re-enact the 250th anniversary of the Quebec City battle that set the stage for British dominance in North America.

The head of the National Battlefields Commission said there will still be numerous events commemorating the anniversary – but the contentious battle re-enactment is under consideration.
Andre Juneau said Wednesday that changes to the schedule could be announced by next week.

"We've been listening to what people are saying," Juneau, chairman of the battlefields commission, said in an interview.
"We're looking at that (event). We'll be getting back to you shortly – next week at the latest."
With the political sensitivities running high, the Conservative government appeared to have washed its hands of the event.

Some Tories refused to speak about the re-enactment, express support for it, or say how much federal money might be spent on it.
The Prime Minister's Office declined to comment and Heritage Minister James Moore's office referred all queries to the departmental bureaucrats at the battlefields commission.

When asked whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper might attend the event, to be held almost six months from now, a spokesman replied: ``We're focused on the economy."
Quebec sovereigntists have promised to protest outside the event, which they see as an insulting reminder of the defeat of their French ancestors.

While the federal minister overseeing the event refused to discuss it, the minister of national revenue was left defending it.
Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn blamed separatists for trying to stir up a scandal.

"It's the re-enactment of a historical event. It's not a party – nor should it be interpreted as a party," Blackburn said.
"There are people trying to turn this into a political event to help them work toward their ultimate goal of separating Quebec."

The minister cited his own family history as a sign of how people in Canada learned long ago how to live together.
He noted that his last name is descended from a family of soldiers that fought in British general James Wolfe's army – and not the side led by French general Louis Joseph de Montcalm.

Government officials note that the last re-enactment – which occurred a decade ago, when the sovereigntist PQ was governing in Quebec – drew nary a peep at the time.
Another federalist politician accused his sovereigntist colleagues of trying to fan the flames of indignation.

"What I find disgraceful is how the Bloc and their sovereigntist allies want to politicize this. It's cheap," said Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez.
"It's not a celebration. It's just a re-enactment. This kind of thing has happened often, all over the world.
"It's a historical event, it interests some people and others, no."

But the Bloc Quebecois continued demanding that the re-enactment be cancelled.
Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said he was fine with other events related to the anniversary, which include architectural digs, guided cruises and art exhibits.

"If they want to do historical symposiums, I've got nothing against that," Duceppe said.
"But when they say it's not a festive event – and there's a masked ball – I don't know what they do during masked balls when they're not festive."
The masked ball in question is a re-enactment of a party held by residents of New France in an act of defiance against British troops as they prepared a blockade of Quebec City.

It is scheduled in June, one month before the battle re-enactment was slated to begin.
In Quebec's popular lore, the battle of the Plains is considered the end of francophone autonomy in North America.

However, some historians question the importance of that one specific battle and point out that the Seven Years' War raged on four more years, in both Europe and the New World colonies, until 1763.
Others point out that even if France had won that battle, Quebec might have been gobbled up by the United States 40 years later.

Napoleon sold over 2 million square kilometres to the U.S. in the Louisiana Purchase, as part of an anti-British military strategic alliance with then-president Thomas Jefferson.
Unlike Quebec, those territories – which span from Alberta and Saskatchewan, down to the Gulf of Mexico – have largely lost their francophone character.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2009)

From here:  http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokefrenchmilitaryhistory.htm  It's a joke, save the flames.



French Military History in a Nutshell

Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.



I wonder if we were celebrating a French victory if there would be as much stink.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Feb 2009)

Last I heard, Southerners in the US don't get all bent out of shape when Civil War battles they lost are recreated...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Feb 2009)

So you can speak for all of them??

..and I'm sure if was just a new one time thing that hadn't been done before then, yea, darn skippy there would be protests.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2009)

In related news, all British Commonwealth regiments are to immediately burn their colours, and retire their battle honours, in order to not offend those persons defeated in said actions.  Denmark and Sweden have been ordered by the international court to apologize to the rest of Europe for the Viking raids of the 10th and 11th centuries.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2009)

Gdammit.  They should NOT cancel the event.

Instead they should finally get around to disabusing Quebecers (and the rest of Canada) that this was an English-French thing.  IT WAS NOT.

It was an extension of the Huguenot Wars that started in France with some Franco-Spanish borderers (the Bourbons) having a debate with the Belgian Guise clan (backed by Stuarts/Stewarts and Medicis) over the who would get to sit on the throne in Paris.  The Guise pretended they were Catholics, and the Bourbons pretended they were Protestants until they decided it made more sense to pretend to be Catholics.

Between 1525 and 1815 you couldn't tell one army from the other on the basis of nationality.  Frenchmen fought under the Union Jack as did Germans, Swiss, Portuguese and Spanish.  Englishmen, Scots and Irishmen fought under French flags.  And that included at Quebec.

Montcalm's bloody Aide de Camp was a Scotsman.  Johnstone.  Its nae bluidy wunner that the gardes at the tap o' yon hill wernae bothered when the loon that led the first "British" troops up the brae answered their challenge wi' a Scots accent.  They had Scots officers amangst them.  For all I ken the gardes themsel's wur Scots.

And this was nae new thing.  Scots had been serving the French since at least 1445, serving the same role as the Swiss Guard do for the Pope today.  One of the offspring of that crew became governor Ramezay of Quebec under the French regime, building a Chateau in 1715 1705.   

There were Scotsmen in Champlain's crew.  Abraham Martin "called Maitre Abraham, l'Ecossais.  He was a seaman and fisherman of Scots origin who turned up in the port of Dieppe......"  His son Eustache, by Marguerite Langlois, born in 1621 was "the first French baby born in America". (Hackett Fischer: Champlain's Dream p.408)

The deKlerk(Kirke: Scots for Church - dam my memory gives me trouble at times) brothers that captured Quebec from Champlain are widely believed to have been first genereation Franco-Scots from Dunkirk - then a port widely associated with piracy (meaning beyond the reach of Paris).

And to give the other side their dues Paul Mascarene, a francophone Savoyard served in the British army, including a stint with the 40th Foot (Philips) the original territorial defence regiment for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and did a tour as acting British Governor representing the Hanoverians while they governed the Acadiens.  His bete noire was Abbe le Loutre.  He made his home in Boston near to that other well known English family the Faneuil (for whom the hall is named).

Another Savoyard,  Jean Cavalier, after leading a rebellion against the Bourbons, found sanctuary in Britain, served in the British army and ultimately became a Major General and Governor of one of the Channel Islands.

The Duke of Berwick fought for the Bourbons.  Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough, fought for the Bourbons before he fought for the Protestant Stewarts (an early case of a Churchill ratting and re-ratting).

Throughout the history of this period, the common thread was the rallying of ALL protestants against Catholics.  But not all Catholics.  In particular Gallican Catholics - those priests and ministries appointed NOT by the Pope but by the Bourbon Kings to serve their political ends.  The Pope himself "Pope Alexander VIII actually sided with King William of Orange against the Catholic King James II, who was backed by the French. People on all sides might benefit if they knew a little more about the battle’s (here they are talking about the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland 1690) actual significance"

From 1525 to 1815, and arguably long after that (Upper and Lower Canada rebellions, Metis rebellions, Fenian raids, Quebec Papal Zouaves, the Juarista revolution of Mexico, even the Quebec and Manitoba schools acts can best be seen in that light.)

Protestant Dutchmen and Germans on the London throne.  Expatriate Protestant Frenchmen serving in the British Army and governing French and English speaking subjects.  A Belgian Huguenot, Houblon, original Governor of the Bank of England that financed those centuries of Struggle.  Irish and Scots (Including Charles I as Honorary Captain of the Garde Ecossaise) serving the Bourbons.

The Quebec-Canada, French-English argument is stale and wrong and does a disservice to this country.  Historically the discussion was about religion, Protestant Huguenots and Catholics....... and even that was blurred because the Bourbons wanted the control over the church that Henry VIII had gained in England but did everything possible to continue to lay claim to the Catholic brand, even when actively opposed by the Pope.   At one point in time the Brits offered to replace Bourbon appointed French priests, with no Acadien connections with Rome appointed priests.....The offer was rejected.

The Battle on the Plains of Abraham........Abraham Martin dit L'Ecossais   was NOT about anything that our modern polity would vaguely recognize as nationalism.  The battles amongst the Recollets, Jesuits and Sulpiciens were every bit as fierce if less bloody.

Ah'm fair scunnert wi' the hale bluidy mess and ah'm fed up folks telling tales to whip up a crowd..... Sam Johnson would recognize the scoundrels in the PQ/BQ for what they are.  And I don't doubt he would find a fair few wrapping themselves in the Jack as well.

Let the Battle be re-enacted..... and use it to tell the tale as the times saw it.

Don't cave in to that radical fringe of the minority 2,000,000 Quebecers (Parti Quebecois own numbers in a letter to the French Embassy whining about Sarkozy's recent remarks) that want to separate the same way that Erica Jong wanted to have sex (all the advantages and none of the commitment - the Zipless **** as defined in Fear of Flying).

OK,  I'm finished ranting now.  'Strewth.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Feb 2009)

..and now for some sanity,...just how many here are [or were] planning on making a special trip to Quebec City to watch this anyway?

I thought so......


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2009)

I don't plan on going to see the umptieth reenactment of the passion of the Christ in Germany, either.  Doesn't mean I think it shouldn't happen.  I also didn't make it to the latest reenactment of the very first olympic games either, what's the point here?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2009)

The point is my tax dollar$ could be used for something better....like CANADIAN history books for school kids.

But hey, if somebody wants to pony up private money to pay for this than, giddyup.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Feb 2009)

...or a 1-128 basketball team?..........  ;D  By the bye, I thought it WAS Canadian history?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2009)

Much better use...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

And the plot thickens.

Plains of Abraham re-enactment may be cancelled
Updated Sat. Feb. 14 2009 3:10 PM ET

The Canadian Press

MONTREAL -- Montreal media reports say the controversial re-enactment of the 1759 defeat of French forces on the Plains of Abraham has been cancelled. 

Andre Juneau, head of the National Battlefields Commission, refused to confirm the reports, but says that a revised program will be announced next Tuesday. 

According to media reports, the commission cited concerns over violence between separatists and federalists and the subsequent safety of the public as reasons for the program's revision. 

On Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused sovereigntists and the Bloc Quebecois of generating political tension over the re-enactment. 

This year marks the 250th anniversary of the battle in which the British beat the French, putting an end to New France.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Feb 2009)

Organizers cancel mock Battle of the Plains of Abraham
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 | 11:12 AM ET CBC News 






History buffs were to re-enact the Battle of the Plains of Abraham on the site of the battle this summer in Quebec City to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the British victory over the French. (National Battlefields Commission)

The National Battlefields Commission has cancelled a re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham set for Quebec City this summer due to security concerns that the mock battle could turn into a modern-day conflict.

The federal body, which is responsible for the Plains site outside the fortified walls of Quebec City, announced Tuesday that a commemorative recreation of the 1759 battle is no longer welcome on the original battlefield site.

"We cannot compromise the security of families and children that would attend the event," said André Juneau, head of the commission.

The mock battle was supposed to be the highlight of a series of commemorative activities this summer in Quebec City to mark the 250th anniversary of the battle in which the British beat the French for control of what was then called New France.

Over a four-day period in August, the "re-enactors," as they are called, were going to set up period-style camps and a marketplace for the public to visit.

On the final day, 2,000 people in full costume and armed with replica weapons were to march onto the grassy field and re-enact the conquest of the British over the French.

However, with growing controversy and threats of violence from some sovereigntists, the commission decided the site was no longer appropriate for the commemoration.

Political parties criticize event

The controversy began several weeks ago when leaders of the separatist Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois began criticizing the event as a slap in the face for Quebecers of French ancestry.

Sovereigntist groups launched petitions and internet campaigns.

Some of the participants have received threatening letters.

Stéphane Tremblay of the Quebec Historical Corps said the cancellation was unfortunate, but the right move at this point.

"We understand the reasoning behind the cancellation and we fully support the National Battlefields Commission in its decision," said Tremblay.

"The Quebec Historical Corps cannot in good conscience allow thousands of dedicated volunteers not to mention spectators and staff to potentially put themselves in harm's way by participating in an event which has been a subject of threats of disruption and even violence."

The recreation of another battle of the period, the Battle of Sainte-Foy, has also been cancelled.

There is no word if the battles will be staged at a new location.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Feb 2009)

Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled
Updated Tue. Feb. 17 2009 11:09 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff
Following a firestorm of protest, a planned re-enactment of the 1759 defeat of French forces on Quebec City's Plains of Abraham has been cancelled. 

The National Battlefields Commission, the federal agency that helps to preserve the Plains, made the announcement Tuesday while explaining revisions to the programming surrounding the 250th anniversary. 

The decision comes after Quebec sovereigntists denounced the planned celebrations as an insulting reminder of their ancestors' defeat 250 years ago. Many threatened to protest the events. 

Commission chairman Andre Juneau says battle reenactment plans have been scrapped because there are too many safety and security issues to take a chance on holding the event. 

Other events related to the anniversary such as architectural digs, guided cruises, and art exhibits will go ahead, he added. 

The Commission had planned to allow 2,000 re-enactors dress in period clothing and uniforms to recreate events leading to the Plains of Abraham battle, which was pivotal in the Seven Years' War. 

The clash between the British and the French, just outside the walls of Quebec City involved fewer than 10,000 men, but proved to be a deciding moment in the conflict over the fate of New France and helped lead to British dominance in North America. 

Sovereigntist groups found the plans to relive those moments offensive, with one group, Le Réseau de résistance du Québécois, calling the celebrations "federalist propaganda." They threatened to rally hundreds of demonstrators to disrupt the events. 

Horst Dresler, president of the Quebec Historical Corps, a group of historical buffs who planned to lead the simulated battle, has said his group will push forward with the re-enactment at another venue. 

He says his group and others have been staging re-enactments in Canada and the United States over the last four years to mark the French and Indian War - the name some give to the North American portion of the Seven Years War. He said that after 11 years of planning, it wouldn't make sense to stop now. 

Dresler told CTV Newsnet that the re-enactment was never meant to foment anger among Quebec nationalists. 

"In re-enacting history, there are no winners and losers. All we're trying to do is show history. Period. It's non-political. It's just us trying to bring the facts to the forefront," he said by phone.


----------



## danchapps (17 Feb 2009)

Ok, so I'd like to do a little math here, for my sanity....

[begin rant/]The French lose a battle, however the language is still spoken, AND there is still french culture. In fact there is an entire province that has French as a first official language.

I'm of polish decent, we came to Canada about 125-150 years ago (depending on who you ask). Where we settled we have almost no culture remaining, no language, and get this, we don't even have a province to ourselves. We didn't lose a battle and yet we still lost a great portion of our heritage. Do you see us moaning all the time about stupid little things? No, because we love Canada, and were willing to give things up in order to have a better life. I wish the separatists would give some things up, if they can't then they should move to France where all their precious language and culture still thrives. It sickens me to continually see their belly-aching over the same thing. They should be grateful they still have so much language and culture left. [\end rant]



Edit to add: I also feel this re-enactment should take place as it displays Canadian history, not French, not British, Canadian.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Feb 2009)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> if they can't then they should move to France where all their precious language and culture still thrives.



Culture in France and culture in Quebec the same thing are not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2009)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I wish the separatists would give some things up, if they can't then they should move to France where all their precious language and culture still thrives. It sickens me to continually see their belly-aching over the same thing. They should be grateful they still have so much language and culture left. [\end rant]


.and that's what is great about being a Canadian. They can say and peacefully protest as they please, and others can be ignorant and tell them to leave for being proud. Plus neither side need be worried about falling foul to any draconian laws or authorities. Ahh, tis a great country. Just a thought is all. Perhaps you should try having one before typing an intolerant post next time


----------



## danchapps (17 Feb 2009)

I apologize if I seemed intolerant, it just irritates me beyond belief when people complain constantly about how they are losing a language or culture when there are many others who have lost all history when they come to Canada. 

As and example, the french have kept their last name with original spelling. I have a name the vaguely resembles the original, in spelling, and is pronounced very much differently. They still have a very strong language, I have no language. They have a vast culture, my family has been fully assimilated. Pretty much the only thing of my Polish heritage I have left, is an unexplainable taste for perogies. So, as you can see, it ticks me off to no end when separatists complain they are losing everything, when there are those of us that have lost everything, yet carry on. This has been my first venting on the subject, and I did not intend for me to sound like all french should move to France, however I would like greatly for those that continually complain to think of someone other than themselves.

Again, I apologize for my previous comments.


----------



## wannabe SF member (17 Feb 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Culture in France and culture in Quebec the same thing are not.



I concur, being of both cultures, the things they have in common apart from the language are few and far between.
Go ask the average Quebecer about what he knows of french culture and see if he doesn't use cheap sterotypes like the Monalisa or the Eiffel tower.

Go ask a frenchman what he knows about Quebecer culture, he won't know. 

Makes me think a bit of the whole chicken dance they maed Sarkozy do about the whole "Canada is our friend, Quebec is our friend. No wait! Quebec is our brother" business.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> I concur, being of both cultures, the things they have in common apart from the language are few and far between.
> Go ask the average Quebecer about what he knows of french culture and see if he doesn't use cheap sterotypes like the Monalisa or the Eiffel tower.
> 
> Go ask a frenchman what he knows about Quebecer culture, he won't know.
> ...



Go ask a frenchman what he thinks of the Quebec french language. When I was stationed in Europe they said they would rather try speak english, than 'garbage can french'. They are not so similar and intolerant as our Quebecois  and are not neccessarily the friends that others suspect.


----------



## wannabe SF member (17 Feb 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Go ask a frenchman what he thinks of the Quebec french language. When I was stationed in Europe they said they would rather try speak english, than 'garbage can french'. They are not so similar and intolerant as our Quebecois  and are not neccessarily the friends that others suspect.



Yup, I go to a private school that uses the french system and that is frequented by French expatriates. I witness daily the kind of scorn they have for Quebecers. The leading stereotype is of Quebecers as being like Peasants due to their accent being just like 17th century "Bas-Français". In a way it's true since French-Quebecer has stagnated since the British takeover.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> In a way it's true since French-Quebecer has stagnated since the British takeover.



 :rofl:

Sorry. I found that statement quite comical.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Feb 2009)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> Ok, so I'd like to do a little math here, for my sanity....
> 
> [begin rant/]The French lose a battle, however the language is still spoken, AND there is still french culture. In fact there is an entire province that has French as a first official language.
> 
> ...



So, let me see if I got this straight..............you bemoan the fact that you have lost your culture but it pisses you off when others are trying to keep theirs?

Those grapes are pretty sour......


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Feb 2009)

Oddly enough, every few years there is a Battle of Hastings reenactment, and numerous Viking raid enactments take place all over Britain and Ireland,   and those of good Saxon stock hardly ever put up a stink about it.  The people of French extraction in Quebec, until legislated otherwise, are Canadians, and this battle is a pivotal moment in CANADIAN history.  Build a bridge and get over it, it's not like the Anglos have an annual marching season in Quebec City, ferfuxake.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Feb 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> , it's not like the Anglos have an annual marching season in Quebec City, ferfuxake.



Naw, they're too busy being real stupid wanting to march through Catholic dominated areas in Northern Ireland to do this every year.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Feb 2009)

Glad you see my point, and those guys in Ireland are Irish, just like the Catholics they march past.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Feb 2009)

Yea, and the Catholics really get a kick out of having their noses rubbed in it by a bunch of morons who weren't even there.


I guess we can have the same solution I offered years ago to fix that problem,..anyone who is still alive from those battles has complete marching and reenactment rights, everyone else should stop pretend dressing  like a soldier boy and start growing up.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Feb 2009)

Bruce, you seem to delight in trying not pick up what I put down, so you win, I quit, let's stop doing anything anywhere that might remotely upset anyone at any time.  Oh, wait, we're already there.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Feb 2009)

To upset people just to show some form of unearned superiority?.......damn skippy.

I wonder how many Canadian history books this same amount of money could buy us?,... and without being stupid.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Feb 2009)

Where anywhere, ANYWHERE, did I say it should be done to rub peoples noses in anything?  I'll answer for you: NOWHERE.  Reenactments are only offensive to people who look for excuses to be offended, and granted there is no shortage of those.  Should we also close the citadel in Quebec or Halifax, or any other museum because of some imagined slight?  Fuck history, it's just too offensive, even the kind in books.


----------



## danchapps (18 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So, let me see if I got this straight..............you bemoan the fact that you have lost your culture but it pisses you off when others are trying to keep theirs?
> 
> Those grapes are pretty sour......



As I stated in my second post on this I've lost all of my culture. I've gotten over it, I was using my heritage as an example, however I feel I failed in making that point. There are many more immigrant origins that are in the same boat as my heritage when it comes to loss. They have also gotten over it. I'm not terribly sour about this, in fact I love the fact that I am Canadian. All I was hoping for is that the separatists could see another point of view other than their own. I doubt it though. This was the first time I've stated my views on the subject, apparently from the cold reception I received it will be my last.

I still think that they should have the mock battle to act as a living history lesson. I think we all could use a refresher on some history now and then.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> To upset people just to show some form of unearned superiority?.......damn skippy.
> 
> I wonder how many Canadian history books this same amount of money could buy us?,... and without being stupid.



Would those books be for the Canadian school system or the Quebec school system?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Feb 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would those books be for the Canadian school system or the Quebec school system?



Huh?


----------



## wannabe SF member (18 Feb 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would those books be for the Canadian school system or the Quebec school system?



The last problem of the quebec education system is the books. They should start by tearing it down, stop putting all the exams into "check the box for the right answer" format, put in a little bit more supervision and stop letting people get in highly specialized programs at age 17. With this, you end up with a situation where it's customary for kids to spend 3-4 years in Cegep.

The system is broken Kirkhill and the books are the least of our worries.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2009)

With respect to the books I was merely noting that it is difficult to get a single story to tell that would pass muster in both Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Nothing more.  Nothing less.

Now if you, Bruce, were suggesting that the money were to be spent on history books in the plural and the general then I would agree with you.


----------



## ex-Sup (18 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I wonder how many Canadian history books this same amount of money could buy us?


Meh, books are overrated. Probably you're going to see less and less in classrooms in the future. They are getting ridiculously over priced and eventually schools will not be able to afford them. Case in point, the text we use in our school, Making History, costs $78 and rising:
http://www.pearsoned.ca/school/history/start.html
Besides, IMHO, teaching from a book makes for bad pedagogy. That's just my opinion, but after 11 years in the profession, I think I've earned it.
Anywho, apologies for the hijack  

editted b/c the stupid teacher can't spell!


----------



## ltmaverick25 (18 Feb 2009)

The Quebec school system is a HUGE problem all on its own.  I was bred through the Quebec school system when I was younger.  The only Canadian history that is mentioned is the type that galvanizes Quebec against Canada.  The spirit is very much, lets teach our kids how badly Canada has treated us.  That is the singleminded slant that is in the Quebec school system.  Its been this way now for a good 30 years, its no wonder that we continue to have these stupid problems.

And to Bruce, you are way off base.  The day the telling the truth becomes offensive is the day that our society has lost everything that it once stood on.  To avoid any part of our history because it is offensive to some is ignorant to say the least.

Nobody here is talking about rubbing peoples nose in anything and certainly that was not the intent of the people organizing this battle. 

Are you also of the school of thought that says we cant say merry xmas anymore because it could be offensive?  We need to say happy holidays instead?

For the sake of argument, what if saying happy holidays was offensive to me, a white, english speaking male.  Would anyone care?  Probably not.


----------



## slayer (19 Feb 2009)

The showdown between French and English armies


I can't stand when they use the term "English", its "British", the Scottish highlanders played a big role in the victory.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Feb 2009)

But British doesn't make them identifiable by language, therefore not as inflammatory.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Feb 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> For the sake of argument, what if saying happy holidays was offensive to me, a white, english speaking male.  Would anyone care?  Probably not.



Cry me a friggin' river.....




			
				ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> And to Bruce, you are way off base.  The day the telling the truth becomes offensive is the day that our society has lost everything that it once stood on.  To avoid any part of our history because it is offensive to some is ignorant to say the least.
> 
> Nobody here is talking about rubbing peoples nose in anything and certainly that was not the intent of the people organizing this battle.



Bullshit.
  Do you tell your wife she's getting fatter and uglier every year?  I thought not, some truths should just be left as truth.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Feb 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> But British doesn't make them identifiable by language, therefore not as inflammatory.



Now there is something we can agree on.........


----------



## slayer (19 Feb 2009)

British is very identiful.  Im tired of seeing Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, being left out.


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 Feb 2009)

slayer said:
			
		

> British is very identiful.  Im tired of seeing Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, being left out.



Here we go.

Britain was a Roman name for their territory.  It did not include Ireland and most of Scotland.  Is that what you mean?

dilleas

tess


----------



## slayer (19 Feb 2009)

No Brittania was, and Britain is the whole island


----------



## je suis prest (19 Feb 2009)

I believe the point was simply that to describe Wolfe's army as "English" was incorrect, as the army was that of the United Kingdom of England and Scotland.  It also contained Irish, American and, in the Royal American Regiment, German, soldiers.  Describing the army by the ethnic term "English" is simply incorrect.

As to whether re-enactments are a waste of time, as a member of a historic society, the 78th Fraser Highlanders, which, although not re-enactors, does have members who wear historic costumes, I'll simply say that there are a lot of ways to convey an understanding of history.  Books are one way, movies (such as Passchendaele) are another. Providing a visual remembrance of times past through re-enactment is yet another, and, from the reactions I've seen, an effective one for those who take the time to watch and learn.

The cancellation of the encampment is a sad, if somewhat predictable outcome.  Unfortunately the separatists who made this their cause celebre are among those who will never have the chance to meet and speak to those who were going to represent their own ancestors, the Canadiens who fought so bravely and effectively at Quebec.. C'est dommage.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (19 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Cry me a friggin' river.....
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> Do you tell your wife she's getting fatter and uglier every year?  I thought not, some truths should just be left as truth.....



Your ability to form an intelligent argument leaves little to be desired...

As for your cry me a river comment, I can say the same thing about the SEPERATISTS being offended.  But that isnt the way I form my arguments...  The truth is, this battle, for better or for worse was a monumental event in Canadian history and it should not be forgotten.  It played an instrumental role in the creation of our country.  Should we also forget about the Second World War for fear of offending German immigrants?  While were on the topic what other part of our history should be left out?  Should future Canadians conveniently chose to forget Afghanistan many years later because it may offend someone?

Try putting a little more thought into it, and if you have, maybe try expressing it instead of the diatrite above.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Feb 2009)

Good points don't need to be drawn out......

We have lots of monumental battles in Canadian history, and instead of putting on kids costumes and playing pretend hero, we stand side by side with all who fought once a year and REMEMBER that way............and I, for one, have grown to cherish that day.

Those who need to measure their historical dicks may disagree, but.......


----------



## ltmaverick25 (19 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Good points don't need to be drawn out......
> 
> We have lots of monumental battles in Canadian history, and instead of putting on kids costumes and playing pretend hero, we stand side by side with all who fought once a year and REMEMBER that way............and I, for one, have grown to cherish that day.
> 
> Those who need to measure their historical dicks may disagree, but.......



As for rememberance day, fair enough, im right there with you.

But why must this re-enactment be considered a measuring of historical dicks?  What is it that the organizers of this event did to leave you with that impression?

Also consider something else.  While I agree whole heartedly with your statement about rememberance day, there are others, who happen to enjoy making history a larger part of their lives.  Some are history buffs, some, just want to know more, others like me may fall back on it as a career if the CF ever tells me to get lost.  It isnt about measuring dicks, its about understanding our country and knowing where we come from.

The battle is not simply we beat you, neaner neaner neaner.  I am a french Canadian, born in Quebec.  I happen to speak english way more often then french and have been that way for a while now, but my lineage is still very much french, and I just dont find myself being offended by this battle.

If people take the time to understand, or even give a crap, the battle is so much more then who won or who lost.  Hell, many argue that the outcome of that battle never really mattered anyway.  Had the french won in Quebec, but the rest of the war had gone the same, its a good possibility that Canada would still have been given to Britain at the bargaining table.  Lets not forget that this war, is considered the actual first world war by many because it was truly global.  But anyway I digress...

For Canada, the battle represents way more then victory and defeat.  It represents a begining of a nation between two peoples that were bitter rivals and enemies, that had killed each other on more then one occasion.  And yet look at us now.  We have english and french, protestant and catholic co-existing peacefully.  We have those same two peoples who were diabilically opposed to each other come together despite what were obviously huge differences and forge a nation together.

Im sorry, but thats not offensive to me, I consider this one of the greatest aspects of our history and something that both english and french Canadians could benefit from understanding.  Because of the seperatists crying thats not going to happen now.  Instead we have bloggers all over news sites at each others necks and calling each other babies or braggers.  Something that could have been a nation building event was ruined by a minority few that want to do the opposite of nation building in Canada, and THAT to me, is extremely offensive.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Feb 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> The Quebec school system is a HUGE problem all on its own.  I was bred through the Quebec school system when I was younger.  The only Canadian history that is mentioned is the type that galvanizes Quebec against Canada.  The spirit is very much, lets teach our kids how badly Canada has treated us.  That is the singleminded slant that is in the Quebec school system.  Its been this way now for a good 30 years, its no wonder that we continue to have these stupid problems.



This has been documented on W5 or one of the other such programs back in the 1980's.




			
				ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> .............  The day the telling the truth becomes offensive is the day that our society has lost everything that it once stood on.  To avoid any part of our history because it is offensive to some is ignorant to say the least.



Now this I find interesting.  Perhaps you can explain to me how Louis Riel has evolved into a national hero, with statues of him and schools named after him.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (19 Feb 2009)

Dont even get me started on Louis Riel.  I could write volumes about how we managed to mistakenly raise him as a hero.  To be very breif, and overly simplistic, Louis Riel is the result of the intellectual revolution occuring in academic historical circles and its complete BS imo.  This revolution is attempting to reject and eliminate the "great" british white male from historical narrative and replace it with aboriginal, female, ethnic heroes.  They are trying to give voice to those whose voices have not been adequately covered by more conventional forms of history, which is a noble cause and something that needed doing.  But they are taking things WAY too far and Louis Riel is but just one result of this.  The other result even more alarming is the attempt to eliminate Canadian military history as a legitimate field of study for academic historians, and it is unfortunately working.


----------

