# Canadians losing knowledge of military history



## spud (10 Nov 2006)

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20061110%2fremember_quiz_061110&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True

This is bad:


> In a multiple choice quiz, only 33 per cent of those quizzed identified First World War commander Sir Arthur Currie and legendary flying ace Billy Bishop as Canadian military heroes from a list of only four. The other two names on the list belonged to U.S. Civil War leader Ulysses S. Grant and American Gen. Douglas MacArthur.



And this is even worse:


> And one quarter of those surveyed picked MacArthur as a Canadian war hero.



What a shame. 

potato


----------



## Inspir (10 Nov 2006)

Going through junior and senior high we were all required to have a basic understanding of Canadian military history. I'm not sure if they even do that anymore  ???


----------



## Korus (10 Nov 2006)

I got in trouble in the sixth grade for drawing a cartoon tank. I guess for my schooling at least, all my schools and teachers figured that we didn't really need to learn about anything to make us proud of our military history, or even much about the specifics of our military history. (Mostly just general history of the wars)

Then I joined the Army. Go figure.


----------



## Jantor (10 Nov 2006)

I'm not that surprised. When I went to school, the seventies, I learned more about our military history in an evening at the city library than I ever did in school.


----------



## McG (10 Nov 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061110/remember_quiz_061110/20061110?hub=TopStories


			
				spud said:
			
		

> "If you compare them with similar polls in the past, there is a decline in knowledge and a decline in Remembrance Day commitment," Griffiths told The Globe and Mail.
> 
> "This is a dangerous moment [for Remembrance Day], as we move from a society that still has living links to the experience of war to generations who no longer have that direct, living link."


It seems to me that we are establishing "living links" in Afghanistan today.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Nov 2006)

I pissed off the teacher by pointing out erors in the text book! My daughter is goingto learn about Vimy, Ortano, korea, Medak pocket and Panajiwal (sorry if I got the spelling wrong) and how to use a gun safely.


----------



## pipesnake (10 Nov 2006)

The point should also be made that there needs to be as an objective teaching of the history as possible. This seems obvious however the Boer War may be an example of this perhaps not being the case. When I was in the RCR we used to celebrate Paardeberg day. It wasn't until I left and did some reading on my own that I found out the British Empire essentially invaded to take the gold in South Africa, that we practised a scorched earth policy of utter destruction to deny the Boer's natural resources, and that we, being the British Empire, established concentration camps where thousands of men, women and children died of starvation and disease. Not exactly the kind of information you learn in history class and somewhat humbling to know that we may have been in some sense, "the bad guys" (admittedly debateable). 

Anyways just another perspective which I hope does not offend but perhaps enlightens...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War

Pro Patria


----------



## Journeyman (10 Nov 2006)

pipesnake said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War


While I'm not going to debate the topic itself, I'd like to point out that your source has been "edited" 58 times in the past 30 days - - obviously a contentious issue. Wikipedia may not be the best source for history.


----------



## pipesnake (10 Nov 2006)

That wasn't my original source. I read a book some place, can't remember the name, and saw an excellent documentary on TV. I just posted that link so people could get some more info.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Nov 2006)

pipesnake said:
			
		

> The point should also be made that there needs to be as an objective teaching of the history as possible. This seems obvious however the Boer War may be an example of this perhaps not being the case. When I was in the RCR we used to celebrate Paardeberg day. It wasn't until I left and did some reading on my own that I found out the British Empire essentially invaded to take the gold in South Africa, that we practised a scorched earth policy of utter destruction to deny the Boer's natural resources, and that we, being the British Empire, established concentration camps where thousands of men, women and children died of starvation and disease. Not exactly the kind of information you learn in history class and somewhat humbling to know that we may have been in some sense, "the bad guys" (admittedly debateable).
> 
> Anyways just another perspective which I hope does not offend but perhaps enlightens...
> 
> ...



Of course the blacks there considered everyone else to be the bad guys, Were the british any better or worse to the blacks than the Boers?


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Nov 2006)

Pipesnake,

In very general terms you are correct, except that the Boers initiated hostilities by means of an ultimatum followed by an invasion. The removal of the population from the veldt along with the confiscation of the livestock and destruction of the crops was a standard counter-insurgency practice of the time. That it raised the ire of the 'western' was because the Boers were white, not because they were victms. It was a nasty time and one that operated by rules we would have trouble understanding, but the British were by no means the worst transgressors of the late-nineteenth century in this regard.

In my opinion the overall cause of the war was strategic. The Boers posed a threat to British control of the Cape of Good Hope with all that that meant for naval domination. Gold and diamonds may have come second, but there also was the Imperial imperative of creating a 'red' corridor up the length of Africa. Why? Maybe just because they could.


----------



## Trinity (10 Nov 2006)

Oh...

its all my fault.

I dropped my OPME this term on Canadian Military history.

 :-[


----------



## Armymedic (10 Nov 2006)

My take...

Yeah, whatever.

Its something that is a nice to know, but not a must know. It's like listing the winners of the Stanley Cup...does it make me less of a Canadian if I don't know who won it in 1956 (Montreal...ok poor example)?


----------



## ex-Sup (10 Nov 2006)

I guess it just depends on who your teacher is. As a teacher and dept head, I have many different teachers with very different backgrounds in my history dept. Not all of them are like me; ex-reservist and decent background in military history (plus I'm a bit of an enthusiast). Most teachers will cover the basics, but I don't think they have enough knowledge to be any sort of expert. On a personal note, I do the best that I can within the constraints of the curriculum.


----------



## ex-Sup (10 Nov 2006)

St. Micheal's Medical Team said:
			
		

> Yeah, whatever.



Sounds like some of my students!


----------



## Trinity (10 Nov 2006)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> I guess it just depends on who your teacher is. As a teacher and dept head, I have many different teachers with very different backgrounds in my history dept. Not all of them are like me; ex-reservist and decent background in military history (plus I'm a bit of an enthusiast). Most teachers will cover the basics, but I don't think they have enough knowledge to be any sort of expert. On a personal note, I do the best that I can within the constraints of the curriculum.



I wish i was taking it at RMC at class... I was doing the WEB CT program.

Didn't work well with my style of learning... (you mean I have to READ??)

Life got to busy to do all the readings.


----------



## ex-Sup (10 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I wish i was taking it at RMC at class... I was doing the WEB CT program.
> 
> Didn't work well with my style of learning... (you mean I have to READ??)
> 
> Life got to busy to do all the readings.



I'm there right with you...I've taken 6 university classes in the past 3 years, all of them web ct (Lakehead & Laurier). It's a real pain trying to do tht all while working full-time, having a family, running a huge dept and coaching football. All so I can get qualified to do the job I've BEEN doing for the past 3 years. Never mind the $$$$ that I spent.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Nov 2006)

Dugout Doug, Victor of Vimy
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/11/dugout-doug-victor-of-vimy.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2006)

This problem extends to Remembrance Day 

http://ve1jh.blogspot.com/2006/11/remembrance-day-who-owes-who.html



> *Remembrance Day, who owes who?*
> 
> As published in the Miramichi Weekend, 10 November 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## Cliff (10 Nov 2006)

Jantor said:
			
		

> I'm not that surprised. When I went to school, the seventies, I learned more about our military history in an evening at the city library than I ever did in school.



That's because many of the WW2 vets were still around in the 1970's and there was a deep appreciation for the miltary. Somehow, things took a turn for the worse.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (10 Nov 2006)

My experience in being taught Canadian History in the '80s taught  me very little with regards to Canadian military history. I was interested, I read it on my own,
It is not surprising that there is ignorance. One wonders if Alexander the Great would gain a few percentage points as a Canadian war hero if the choice was offered.


----------



## ex-Sup (10 Nov 2006)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> My experience in being taught Canadian History in the '80s taught  me very little with regards to Canadian military history.



I think this once again comes back to my point about who the teacher is. Not every teacher is prepared or willing to emphasize that aspect of our history. What students should know is specifically laid out in the curriculum and some teachers will do the bare minimum.
http://www.curriculum.org/csc/library/profiles/10/html/CHC2DC.htm

Why? Maybe they don't have the background; most of my background is in international/military history. I feel quite comfortable teaching this material. As a former reservist, I feel that the military aspects of our history are just as important as the economics, politics, etc. If your background is elsewhere, then you will not be as comfortable dealing with this material. The teacher might be some left-wing, peacenik type that shuns the whole conflict idea (even though conflict is one of the most prevalent topics in human history).

Some of it might just be apathy. Some students don't care about anything (if it doesn't involve booze/smoking/drugs/sex/et al then it isn't exciting). Some of them want to be entertained. Heard a great one from a colleague this week. Student asked him if they could do something "fun" (some come in and ask to do nothing...everyday). His response to the student was to go to their part-time job and ask the manager if he could do something "fun" at work (McDonald's btw). I thought it was funny...maybe it' s just teacher humour. 

Anyway, my $0.02 worth.


----------



## ex-Sup (10 Nov 2006)

> The survey by the Dominion Institute found that only 42 per cent of Canadians received a passing grade on a simple test of First World War knowledge.



I'd like to find the actual survey itself and try it...I wonder how my students would measure up. Question is, do I really want to know?


----------



## Nieghorn (10 Nov 2006)

I echo ex-Sup's sentiments.  I'm a history teacher with a strong interest in the military aspect, though not working at the moment.  

I'm not really sure what text books were like in the 60s-80s, but I have Ontario texts from the 30s and 40s.  If you look at the content of those, and the content of the ones now, you'll see that today's texts are very watered down.  I have a new one where WWII is covered in six pages, which has much larger print than the old books and are filled with images, charts, inserts, etc.

It's largely up to the teacher to bring anything 'extra' to the table.  A good dept. head helps, who can assist those not up to snuff on those subjects - as my history teacher in school was, and as I'm sure ex-Sup is!  

Curriculum restraints are also an issue.  There's a lot of info that has to be crammed into that one (it's still one mandatory course that covers the 20th C, right?) course.  It'd be nice if kids were required to take more.


----------



## ex-Sup (10 Nov 2006)

> It's largely up to the teacher to bring anything 'extra' to the table.  A good dept. head helps, who can assist those not up to snuff on those subjects - as my history teacher in school was, and as I'm sure ex-Sup is!



Thanks for the plug Nieghorn!  

The only thing I can add to this my own personal experience. As a dept head, I'm just another teacher who makes a bit more $$$, does piles of extra work and has no authority (yes, I know how dumb this sounds). I can only "suggest" and "recommend" materials and techniques to other teachers. I have no real control over what they do in their classrooms. It is on the individual teacher to make sure they are following the curriculum.



> the content of the ones now, you'll see that today's texts are very watered down.  I have a new one where WWII is covered in six pages, which has much larger print than the old books and are filled with images, charts, inserts, etc.


Gotta make it look good; aesthetics over content.  



> it's still one mandatory course that covers the 20th C, right?


Yup...1914 to present (I never get past the '70's...besides, nothing exciting happened in the 80's except bad clothes and bad hair!)


----------



## peaches (12 Nov 2006)

On Friday night I caught a story on CBC The National about a High School history teacher in I think Port Perry On.  He wanted to take his student to Vimy Ridge.  It idea grew into a national movement and the plan is know to take around 4000 Canadian High School students (one fro each solider that died on Vimy) to France to see it, and touch it.  Each student involved (from schools across Canada) has been given the name of a solider that died on Vimy, they have to learn all they can about him, then go to Vimy to visit the place he served and died in.  The teacher is looking for donation's and sponsors.


----------



## Mike Baker (12 Nov 2006)

peaches said:
			
		

> On Friday night I caught a story on CBC The National about a High School history teacher in I think Port Perry On.  He wanted to take his student to Vimy Ridge.  It idea grew into a national movement and the plan is know to take around 4000 Canadian High School students (one fro each solider that died on Vimy) to France to see it, and touch it.  Each student involved (from schools across Canada) has been given the name of a solider that died on Vimy, they have to learn all they can about him, then go to Vimy to visit the place he served and died in.  The teacher is looking for donation's and sponsors.


Now that i would love to do. Isn't it great being in highschool?  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Nov 2006)

Saw that clip also, noticed that it was mainly girls taking part. apparently he was not getting a lot of support from other schools, guess it's not PC enough!!


----------



## a78jumper (12 Nov 2006)

Then  there was the ad for a well known tour company in the Globe and Mail hyping (I kid you not) a Battlefield Tour of "Vimmy" Ridge. In all fairness they got the text spelled correctly, BUT..........!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TCBF (12 Nov 2006)

"That's because many of the WW2 vets were still around in the 1970's and there was a deep appreciation for the miltary. Somehow, things took a turn for the worse."

- The generation that won WW2 is the same generation that ran our country into the 1980s.  If they de-constructed the rememberance of their own accomplishments, they must have had their reasons.

Tom


----------



## RangerRay (12 Nov 2006)

I remember in high school, I had to teach the history teacher history!  Great guy, but I was appalled at his lack of knowledge, and more appalled at the crappy and inaccurate text books that we had to use!


----------



## Drummy (12 Nov 2006)

Hi,

Guess I was lucky in the schooling department. When I was in High School in the mid 50s, my math teacher had been in the RCAF (Nav), and spent time in Colditz. My History teacher was infantry, and wounded twice. The Music teacher has been a Royal Marine Commando, and survived the St Nazaire raid(sp).  All three of them used to tell us stories of things that had happened (unofficially/as not on the curriculum), and why it was important to remember.

I managed to pass grade 9 (Ont) but flunked out of grade 10 twice, and that was when I decided to join the Army. Those teachers said that there were worse things to do, and thoroughly approved.

All the best   Drummy


----------



## rick7475 (12 Nov 2006)

Just to support the other teachers here, I am also an ex-reservist with an interest in military history. It all depends on the teacher. I have a Spitfire model hanging in my classroom and for DEAR (drop everything and read) times I have a good selection of books on military history topics (not just WW1, WW2, but W of 1812, 7 Years War, etc). There are a few other odds and ends in the classroom that always bring up questions about Canadian military history which I answer for anxious ears with many stories and anecdotes.

Language Arts reading and writing assignments can have various topics. For example, we did a shared reading week on the the Berlin Wall that included aspects of WW2 the kids loved. There are interdisciplinary projects, current event themes, social studies themes that can all be very flexible with the topic according to the teacher's interest. But it does depend on the teacher, and not a lot of teachers have the background in military history. This is not necessarily the fault of the teacher (the majority of teachers in Elementary school are women, sometimes 10 to 1, who usually don't show an interest in this area), but even the universities, particularly the history programs, have few courses in Canadian military history, if any at all (unless you are at RMC . In university Canadian history courses are often survey courses with specialization in certain areas through essays and seminars chosen by the student. Again, if you have an interest in the military, you may choose a specialization. And then how many of these students in university that choose a Canadian Military history specialization become teachers? 

And how many high school or elementary students are interested in military history given the choice? I recall a weekend field trip we took to Ottawa a few years ago when I was in high school. The War Museum (the old one) was on the list of things to see. But a majority of the students on the trip (almost all the girls) voted to change the plans to include a trip to several of the large malls instead. The teacher, who was a good history teacher, went with the majority, unfortunately.

Now, however, with Afghanistan and the number of casualties there may be more interest.


----------



## Suck_it_up_buttercup (12 Nov 2006)

Hey Everyone...I sent this yesterday to CTV.ca when I saw the poll on State Funerals for the last Surviving Vet of WWI

*I am writing in regards to your recent poll on whether or not to hold a state 
funeral to honor the last surviving solider of World War One.  These three 
surviving men are equally important to the history and legacy of our country as 
are all of our Veterans.  They are now representatives of all who fought for 
our country during that time.   

Why single out the Veteran who survives the longest, honoring his memory in 
such a way to almost disrespect or disregard the honor of all the other 
soldiers who have passed?  I believe that once all three of these heroes have 
passed away, a Ceremony in Honor of the Memory of all those who fought in the 
First World War should be held.

The best way to honour these men is to educate our children.  Parents should 
not rely on the ever changing education system in this country to teach our 
children about the History of the great men and women who have made the 
ultimate sacrifice.   As the poll on the War History of Canada earlier in the 
week proved, we can all stand to learn something about Canada's past and 
present conflicts.  If we don't Remember and have the knowledge to teach our 
future generations who will?  

Let us never forget the sacrifices of our Canadian War Heroes.*


----------



## Nieghorn (13 Nov 2006)

ex-Sup, if I ever end up doing that Gr. 10 course again, I'm tossing some Boer War in there!  

Regarding the make up of a department, I guess it can't be full of us military history nerds (as interesting as those discussion groups would be!).  I'd need to lean on someone who can explain to me basic economics, and another colleague to keep me awake when talking about politics.   

I do enjoy social history, though, and think it's kind of fun to hit kids with examples of what young people were into in different time periods.  When I was in teacher's college, my instructor told me about her friend who based his entire course on a series of biographies.  Largely tossed the text out and created a whole year based on the lives of several real people, and looking at what life was like, and the important events, in their time.   I'd like to tackle something like that if I get back into it full time.

... I'm off to New Zealand for a year in 2007.   8)


----------



## ClaytonD (13 Nov 2006)

I am an avid studier of Canadian Military history (Esp. in World War II). The other day in history class my teacher asked something about WWI. And when I mentioned the Schlieffen Plan. She said, "I'm not interested in the military tactic stuff. I'm more interested in the Political aspect." 

To be frank it pissed me off. Why not both aspects? She's a history teacher and she should be teaching everything she knows about history. And if she doesn't KNOW the military aspect she should LEARN.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Nov 2006)

ClaytonD: "Keep the right wing strong!"
http://www.worldwar1.com/tlwplans.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MP101 (13 Nov 2006)

It is sad, so many people are stupid and ignorant about their history. In my high school, there is only 3 people and myself that know alot about the boer war, wwI, wwII and other wars like vietnam and korea. 

I was watching a newscast on TV and they were doing a live survey about WWI and they asked the question: Where was one of the most known battles of WWI? (And they gave a hint, THAT IT ENDED IN "RIDGE") and some people still did not get it. If it was up to me, i could describe it.


----------



## ex-Sup (13 Nov 2006)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> but even the universities, particularly the history programs, have few courses in Canadian military history, if any at all (unless you are at RMC .



It is getting better. I just finished a pile (6 to be exact) of university classes at both Lakehead and Laurier. At Laurier, I took two classes online; History of WWII & Canadian Army in NW Europe 44-45. The WWII course was very general, but the Cdn Army was great. It was taught by Mike Bechthold who is an author and director of the Laurier Centre for Military Studies. There were a few things however that were over my head...maybe they would make more sense if I had a better background in tactics. The LU course was taught by an officer from my reserve days...Capt Dave Ratz. It was good to catch up with him; he's now CO of A Coy, LSSR. Anyway, this is my long-winded way of saying there's more out there.


----------



## ex-Sup (13 Nov 2006)

Nieghorn said:
			
		

> ex-Sup, if I ever end up doing that Gr. 10 course again, I'm tossing some Boer War in there!


Nieghorn,

Hate to throw cold water on your idea...they changed the curriculum. The course (as of last year) is Canadian History since 1914. I always do a few days of review, but there's no time to do anything in any detail.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr.pdf


----------



## ex-Sup (14 Nov 2006)

ClaytonD said:
			
		

> The other day in history class my teacher asked something about WWI. And when I mentioned the Schlieffen Plan. She said, "I'm not interested in the military tactic stuff. I'm more interested in the Political aspect."


Not something I would say in my classroom. A bit on the "unprofessional" side, but who I am I?

Certainly the von Schlieffen plan was instrumental in the beginning of the war as it was Germany's only strategy for a two front war. I think not covering it (you don't need to get super detailed into the nuts and bolts) is a HUGE omission in the teaching of WWI. My $0.02 anyway.


----------



## Nieghorn (14 Nov 2006)

I figured as much, ex-Sup.  I was in England last year and worked at a private school this past year.  I'm way out of touch with the new guidelines.

But I'm probably heading toward tertiary education anyway.  Thanks for the heads up re: Laurier. (my friend would love to see me there, so I can join their rugby program   )   I also found UNB has a sizeable amount of military history courses.   You can also get a good assortment at Carleton, where the History Dept is good, but can also add courses that deal with the origins and politics of war in the poli sci department.  I'm looking into finishing up 4th year at CU, and applying for MA at UNB.

I took a great War in Africa course when I went to Carleton that didn't cover so much the battles, etc, but really gave you a great perspective of why such things happen.  It was especially enriching as many of my classmates were from Africa, including some with conflicting perspectives - like the Ethiopian youngsters and the old Eritrean war vet.  Debates were often passionate, but never vicious though, and it was probably the course that most opened my eyes to the world.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Nov 2006)

I have read that some universities have not been filling their military history chairs and not many people are getting the chance to get a higher education in this field. Yet when they do run the course, subscription is high as they are popular, guess mil history does not fit well with PC crowd unless you are dissing the military.


----------



## ex-Sup (14 Nov 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have read that some universities have not been filling their military history chairs and not many people are getting the chance to get a higher education in this field. Yet when they do run the course, subscription is high as they are popular,


When I attended LU from '92-'96 there was nothing. They just started running the Canadian military history course this past year? due in part to Capt Ratz. I took the only two offered online from Laurier (WWII and Cdn Army NW Eur). I can't remember how many people were in the courses, but they seemed popular. I had a colleague's daughter in the class at LU; she was okay with the content, but didn't like the format (online...quiz every week). I would think that as more courses are available online, there will be more interest. There are probably many people out there like me that have issues with geography or time and this suits the bill. I just found the courses to be a lot of work...tons of reading! I commented to someone that I probably did more work taking six classes part-time than I did in four years full-time.  :'(


----------



## Nieghorn (15 Nov 2006)

Take anything at Carleton with Y. Aleksandra Bennett.  She's like your delightful old English/Welsh aunt, but knows much more about tanks and battle plans than any grey haired lady.  Great prof.  I took a course I didn't need in third year just to be in her class.

(she used to have a website link on the Dept homepage with all her pictures of tanks, monuments, etc ... can't find it, though    )


----------



## lyned (15 Nov 2006)

"My daughter is going to learn about Vimy, Ortano, korea, Medak pocket and Panajiwal (sorry if I got the spelling wrong) and how to use a gun safely."

Way to go Colin. I've done the same with my son. Unfortunately it's up to us individuals these days to teach our kids Canada's military history. Schools don't do it. Now and then a history teacher will do it on his own but not often enough.


----------



## ex-Sup (15 Nov 2006)

lyned said:
			
		

> it's up to us individuals these days to teach our kids Canada's military history. Schools don't do it. Now and then a history teacher will do it on his own but not often enough.



Whoa...slow down there a bit! Hopefully you've read all the previous posts. You have to remember that military history is only part of the curriculum. Here in Ontario, our compulsory high school history course is Gr. 10 Canadian History since 1914, not Cdn military history. As teachers we only have >90 days to cover almost 100 years of history. I'd love the spend the whole semester talking about Ypres, Verrieres, Kapyong and all the others. The 1920's & 30's don't really excite me, but the gov't *REQUIRES* me to teach it. As I've mentioned before, not all teachers have the background or the comfort level to be able to tackle these topics to their fullest extent. I'm not great with economics or some other topics, but I do my best. Most teachers try...this is a good opportunity for parents to get involved and fill in the gaps. We're teachers, not miracle workers...there's only so much we can do.


----------



## Long in the tooth (15 Nov 2006)

Yesterday I mentioned to my supervisor (at 1 Cdn Air Div HQ) that in WWII the allies put one model of aircraft into poduction from design in only 30 days.

She said "Why would they need to do that?"!!

Let alone the vacant stares when I mention Agincourt or Trafalgar.  Let's face it folks, we're in the business.  Most people don't have a clue.


----------



## Nieghorn (15 Nov 2006)

I guess the discouraging side is that even when you do teach it, many of the kids will forget it anyway.  When one circles back to the original topic, unless people have an interest in it you're not going to find many who can name five important battles in our nation's history.  Sad, but true.

Don't the Yanks push this stuff more in elementary school and then repeat in secondary?  The Brits seem to cover it a little better from my experience.  History is a thicker subject than it is here.


----------



## rick7475 (16 Nov 2006)

If you want more military history taught in the schools, write your Minister of Education and have it increased in the curriculums. Teacher resources are based on curriculums. If I want to teach about ancient civilizations or the Solar System, which is in the curriculum, I can get charts, posters, books, slide shows, all the background info I need from teacher stores and Scholars Choice so that I can 'ramp up' and get the knowledge for my lesson plans. Not so for Canadian military history, WW1, WW2, etc. 

And kids do remember things. I remember clear as day my grade 5 teacher telling us about the Battle of Seven Oaks in Winnipeg 30 years ago. And kids can share their Canadian Military History through projects and other ventures. For example, I am teaching a grade 5 class about Power Point and how to make a presentation. One girl is using this to make a presentation on World War 2, and it is amazing! She is using animations and visuals that would put even a Nortel manager's presentation to shame.

As they say in the leadership courses, use your initiative! If you are a parent, write to the ministry, bug your teacher, suggest to your child military history topics for their projects if they want ideas. I would rub my hands in glee at a chance to teach even 1 week of just WW2!! To show a movie like "Great Escape" or "The Devil's Brigade", "Battle of Britain" ...


----------



## ex-Sup (16 Nov 2006)

> As they say in the leadership courses, use your initiative!



Some of us try. When I teach WWII, I do a section on the Battle of Verrieres Ridge (just watched an great program on History TV about it). I find it interesting because there is little mention of it outside military and historical circles and it isn't something the kids will find in the textbook. I actually use the battle as the basis for part of my WWII culminating activity. They have to write a letter home (gotta promote that literacy!) on the day following the battle and describe the events they witnessed. As part of the assignment, I have put together part of WWII battledress; steel pot w/scrim, webbing and blouse...complete with BW flashes and corporal chevrons (still missing 2nd div patch...if anyone has some!). I take their picture in the uniform and make copies for the student and myself. The kids love it!



> bug your teacher


Let's work on the "bug" the ministry part first!



> To show a movie like "Great Escape" or "The Devil's Brigade", "Battle of Britain" ...


Hate to burst the bubble, but most would probably sleep through these movies. "Too old!"...especially if you're teaching applied level. I show a bit from SPR, Band of Brothers and surprisingly Memphis Belle (don't know why the kids love this movie?). I know that these are all on American themes, but there isn't anything recent, non-US that is worth showing (my opinion anyway).
*edited for grammar


----------



## rick7475 (16 Nov 2006)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> Hate to burst the bubble, but most would probably sleep through these movies. "Too old!"...especially if you're teaching applied level. I show a bit from SPR, Band of Brothers and surprisingly Memphis Belle (don't know why the kids love this movie?). I know that these are all on American themes, but there isn't anything recent, non-US that is worth showing (my opinion anyway).



Yeah, bet you're right, tried to think of movies with Canadian Military History content. I think if I showed segments it would be better. The BoB air sequences are still really good, especially the scenes with the air combat and background classical music. I bet the kids would still love the scene in the Devil's Brigade with the Canadians marching to camp with all the Americans fighting (though that part isn't really accurate).


----------



## ex-Sup (16 Nov 2006)

I try to supplement the Hollywood movies with Canadian programs. As I mentioned I just saw a great program about the BW and Verrieres Ridge on History TV. Also, they had a 3 part series on Korea with Norm Christie. I really enjoyed his series on WWI (King & Empire) and use it in my classes. It was good to see as there are very few videos out there about Korea, especially from the Cdn perspective. The only problem I have sometimes with teaching history is there are actually TOO MANY videos around; if I showed all the videos I wanted, I wouldn't have any time to teach.  ;D


----------



## MOOXE (16 Nov 2006)

Why is it important to learn military history? There are many more things that make us Canadians and proud citizens, arent there? A general knowledge of it is not bad. Universalized health care also makes us proud Canadians. I had no idea who created that untill I watched the Greatest Canadian tv show. I am equally ignorant. I am sure you can all think of a few other reasons why we are proud citizens, and what makes Canada, Canada. I bet just as many Canadians would be ignorant to the facts behind them as they are to military history.

I challenge those here in this thread that are giving examples of teaching specific battles like Verriers Ridge, or the Somme. What goal is accomplished by teaching someone about a single battle? I have read the books, seen the movies, seen the documentaries, taken the courses including the HIE208 and I see nothing anywhere that sets our military histories importance above certain other accomplishments of Canada and Canadians. (I have a strong, strong interest in our military history, and my family is military to way back when) We have a long proud history that has many different aspects to it, all of which make us what we are today.

I seen the polls online and in the papers and TV during Remembrance Week. Why would anyone care what Douglas McCarthur looks like, why should anyone be able to pick his picture out from others? (CTV Poll)  Is his picture important.. nope.

What is important about our military history? Not the battles, not the countless Generals and Majors, Privates and.... Germans. Whats important is why we fought, why the men and women before us volunteered to put thier life on the line for Canada and quite literally, strangers. What makes us pick up arms against our foe? And why we should tailor a world to avoid war. A battle may teach someone that the casualties suffered is bad - war is bad, but I dont think thats the point of telling someone how Verriers Ridge went down. I think the point of teaching battles are generally to glorify them, and the people involved. Glory ends on the battlefield. Respect and understanding of how and why the big picture happened is whats important to know.


----------



## ex-Sup (16 Nov 2006)

Well, where to start? Lots of things to tackle.



> Why is it important to learn military history? There are many more things that make us Canadians and proud citizens, arent there?


Agreed. However, the topic of this post was that many Canadians lack a general knowledge of events and/or people in our military history. It seems at times that these things are overlooked. Is it the end of the world if they don't know these things? Not really. I think the general point was that we often don't regard ourselves as a militaristic people and tend to forget the sacrifice that was made by many thousands of Canadians.



> I challenge those here in this thread that are giving examples of teaching specific battles like Verriers Ridge, or the Somme. What goal is accomplished by teaching someone about a single battle? I have read the books, seen the movies, seen the documentaries, taken the courses including the HIE208 and I see nothing anywhere that sets our military histories importance above certain other accomplishments of Canada and Canadians. (I have a strong, strong interest in our military history, and my family is military to way back when) We have a long proud history that has many different aspects to it, all of which make us what we are today.


I don't want to get snippy here, but you seem to have hit a nerve. I'm assuming that this comment was directed at me. As is often said on this site, "stay in your lane!" Nowhere in your profile does it indicate that you are a teacher. Does taking some history classes and watching some programs on TV suddenly make you a history teacher? Your comments reflect your own opinion. As teachers we don't decide what we want to teach. There is a curriculum that we must follow...check it out:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr.pdf
What goal is accomplished? To begin with, it's our job. "...describe Canada’s and Canadians’ contributions to the war effort overseas during World War I and World War II (e.g.,Ypres,Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, Hong Kong, Battle of the Atlantic, Dieppe, Sicily, D-Day)." Secondly, these battles add context to the war. You cannot teach the significance of a war without examples of the conflict. Does it not make sense when teaching students about the costs of war, to state how mistakes lead to massive loss of life ie. Somme, Dieppe? Why Verrieres? I choose to add this topic because it is a tragic event in the larger battles for Tilly-la-Campagne that is never mentioned. How better to illustrate how destructive a war can be when an entire battalion is annihilated. Examining events without grasping the larger picture is fragmentation and a disservice.



> What is important about our military history? Not the battles, not the countless Generals and Majors, Privates and.... Germans. Whats important is why we fought, why the men and women before us volunteered to put thier life on the line for Canada and quite literally, strangers. What makes us pick up arms against our foe? And why we should tailor a world to avoid war. A battle may teach someone that the casualties suffered is bad - war is bad, but I dont think thats the point of telling someone how Verriers Ridge went down. I think the point of teaching battles are generally to glorify them, and the people involved. Glory ends on the battlefield. Respect and understanding of how and why the big picture happened is whats important to know.


No, the battles are not the most important part, yet an examination of the war cannot be done without them. Students today are so far removed from the war that the battles are a way to make your point. For them, war is something they see in a movie or in a video game. No one attempts to glorify war. I spend a lot of time before we even start into the events of WWI talking about why we study war. It is a constant in human history...in the nearly 10,000 years that civilization has been around conflict has always been present. It is important to understand why it happened, what happened and what we learned from it. I tell them that it isn't exciting or cool. Watching our friends die and taking other people's lives is not something we do or take lightly. We are lucky that we don't have such conflicts and we should be thankful for those that give them the opportunity to live where they do with the life that they have. Telling them that the British suffered 57,000 casualties in one day at the Somme or that only 15 members of the Watch were unscathed after Verrieres drives the point home.

I hope that every student who leaves my classroom has a greater appreciation for history, including the conflict. That includes all parts of conflict; the causes, the events, the impact and the results. This is how we approach history. You speak of the big picture; you cannot get a sense of the big picture by omitting parts of its foundation. Yes, there are many other things that Canadians can be proud of. We have been able to accomplish many important things outside the realm of conflict. However, we cannot and should not dismiss the impact the wars have had on our history. They are part of our collective history and shape the Canada that we live in today.


----------



## MOOXE (16 Nov 2006)

My point is this...

The posters in this thread have generally made the point that Canadians should learn about our battles. Nobody says why or what purpose that would serve. Some only wish to compel other people to show respect to our veterans for what they did by learning 50 men died to take this house. But why is that important to understanding our military history? You say you need to teach battles because they build context. I suppose you are part right_ but it sounds as if thats the focus on our military history._ From what I understand from you, all the reasoning as to why war is bad comes after learning about battles. Do you teach why Canadians volunteered to fight? I feel thats most important. The school boards obviously have a different opinion.

Why should you respect a veteran?  I do because I try to understand the frame of mind and culture during the teens and 40s that compelled these people to join and fight, to take up the cause. Others think battles justify respect, I think thats respecting for the wrong reason. That kind of respect is only properly shown among those who were present during the act, and should be reserved for them only. Ever heard the saying that goes something like, "You dont know man!! You werent there!" 

_You cannot teach the significance of a war without examples of the conflict._

I believe its possible. For example.... WW2 was significant because 50 million plus people died. The entire world was affected in every way you can think of. Economically and emotionally just for 2 examples. The after effects were devastating. The hatred that people showed for each other was horrid. NATO and the UN were formed not long after WW2. These example make WW2 significant. How does what happened in Dieppe add significance to the war? It only adds context IMO. For example, "During WW2 50 million people died, in Dieppe, a few thousand of those died." Thats just context, Dieppe was not a very significant battle if you look at the entire war. You can use "other than conflict" examples to portray the significance of war.

_How better to illustrate how destructive a war can be when an entire battalion is annihilated._

For one you can talk about how certain religious groups and ethnic minorities were almost wiped out and secondly you can talk about how cities were flattened.

My example of Verriers Ridge was just as example for a battle. I know about V.Ridge so the name stuck in my mind when reading this thread.


----------



## TCBF (16 Nov 2006)

" "Too old!"...especially if you're teaching applied level. I show a bit from SPR, Band of Brothers and surprisingly Memphis Belle "

- Memphis Belle has good effects for air combat.  Show Wyler's wartime 'Memphis Belle' right after it.



Tom


----------



## Nieghorn (16 Nov 2006)

Undoubtedly, the teachers here provide a full balance to the lessons they teach.  You can't properly teach about Canada's involvement in WWII by battles alone, but you can't ignore the battles.  If you exclude all of us who are passionate about history, particularily military history, many people have little to no concept of what warfare is like aside from saying 'It's bad.'  And yet they still happen, and with certain films and video games, some people even still, like the boys who headed to South Africa and France, think there's fun and adventure involved.

I think aside from honouring the efforts and sacrifice, it serves the purpose of reminding the next generation how awful war really is.  I don't think the facts and figures sink in until you see how brutal combat can be.  It's then hoped that not only will we remember what happened, but have a clearer view of what it's like so we can avoid it in years to come.  When you tell the story of Dieppe or V Ridge, and show something like the first big scene in SRP or Enemy at the Gates (not films I use, mind, but ones with vivid pictures of the horrors of war), you don't find many of the 'Call of Duty' playing boys still talking about how 'cool' it'd be to be there.


----------



## ex-Sup (16 Nov 2006)

Mooxe,

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to understand where I'm coming from.



> You say you need to teach battles because they build context. I suppose you are part right but it sounds as if thats the focus on our military history. From what I understand from you, all the reasoning as to why war is bad comes after learning about battles.


No that's not what I'm saying. We need to focus on all aspects of war; including the battles. The course is Canadian history, so we need to address what Canada did in the war, including the battles. The curriculum (dictated by the ON gov't, not by school boards) is a bit of a compromise. In a previous post I mentioned the fact that we only have 90 days to cover 100 years of Cdn history. We can't possibly cover every aspect of the wars, including battles. We do our best to cover all areas; military, political, economic and social.



> I believe its possible. For example.... WW2 was significant because 50 million plus people died. The entire world was affected in every way you can think of. Economically and emotionally just for 2 examples. The after effects were devastating. The hatred that people showed for each other was horrid. NATO and the UN were formed not long after WW2. These example make WW2 significant.
> For one you can talk about how certain religious groups and ethnic minorities were almost wiped out and secondly you can talk about how cities were flattened.


We do cover all of these things...or at least as many of them in the limited time we have available. I'm not suggesting that the only important thing are the battles and that is the only thing that we focus on. My point is that we need to cover all aspects of the war, battles included. Why? A) because I feel that they are part and parcel of the conflict and they are significant to the overall picture. B) because the powers that be tell me I need to. 



> How does what happened in Dieppe add significance to the war? It only adds context IMO. For example, "During WW2 50 million people died, in Dieppe, a few thousand of those died." Thats just context, Dieppe was not a very significant battle if you look at the entire war.


Well, if you're looking at the war from a world perspective, maybe not (although the impact on D-Day can not be understated). However, this is a Canadian history class. Dieppe WAS a significant event in Canada's participation in the war.

The thing that you need to keep in mind is that you are speaking from your own perspective and background. You are obviously a well educated adult; I'm talking about 14 and 15 yo teenagers. They lack the experience and background to grasp some of the ideas you speak of. Remember, these students are there because the gov't says they need a Cdn history credit to graduate. You can expect that at least 50% of your class has no interest in history, and many don't give a rat's a**! We hope that at least something will make an impression on them, whether it be 1000 dead at Dieppe, 6 million Jews or tens of millions people worldwide. The end goal is to have students with some understanding and appreciation of what happened during the various wars of the 20th century...whatever helps them do this is great.


----------



## ex-Sup (16 Nov 2006)

Nieghorn said:
			
		

> Undoubtedly, the teachers here provide a full balance to the lessons they teach.  You can't properly teach about Canada's involvement in WWII by battles alone, but you can't ignore the battles.I think aside from honouring the efforts and sacrifice, it serves the purpose of reminding the next generation how awful war really is.  I don't think the facts and figures sink in until you see how brutal combat can be.  It's then hoped that not only will we remember what happened, but have a clearer view of what it's like so we can avoid it in years to come.  When you tell the story of Dieppe or V Ridge, and show something like the first big scene in SRP or Enemy at the Gates (not films I use, mind, but ones with vivid pictures of the horrors of war), you don't find many of the 'Call of Duty' playing boys still talking about how 'cool' it'd be to be there.


Well said!


----------



## Nieghorn (16 Nov 2006)

And just quickly while I'm thinking of Dieppe, I DO think it's a significant battle if you're teaching Canadian history.  There are some very important reasons as to why we signed on for it, and how we felt after it failed.  I always think it's good to paint the clearest picture possible to allow your students to understand it as best they can ... on one level you can say 'it happened, here are the key players and figures' but I think once you give more details as to what the plan was, what happened, and why it didn't work, then you've just gone up another level or two of understanding.


----------



## MOOXE (17 Nov 2006)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> The thing that you need to keep in mind is that you are speaking from your own perspective and background. You are obviously a well educated adult; I'm talking about 14 and 15 yo teenagers. They lack the experience and background to grasp some of the ideas you speak of. Remember, these students are there because the gov't says they need a Cdn history credit to graduate. You can expect that at least 50% of your class has no interest in history, and many don't give a rat's a**! We hope that at least something will make an impression on them, whether it be 1000 dead at Dieppe, 6 million Jews or tens of millions people worldwide. The end goal is to have students with some understanding and appreciation of what happened during the various wars of the 20th century...whatever helps them do this is great.



You know I think I'v actually made the same point in other conversations with friends. Basically, providing a basic framework is what high school is all about.


----------



## Nieghorn (17 Nov 2006)

I often pull that one out the bag when I need to.  "But it's not like I'm going to remember this next year!"    Well, school isn't always about what you learn, but also about 'learning HOW to learn', make consise arguments, analyse data, etc. etc..    I also use that defence when people say a degree is a waste of time.


----------

