- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Eaglelord17 said:
Informative article, didn't know any of that. Thanks for the share!
"Canadian Forces warns members affiliated with radical groups"
- Thread starter gryphonv
- Start date
Informative article, didn't know any of that. Thanks for the share!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
EpicBeardedMan said:
I'm a bit torn on this "monument removal" business, but in general I don't agree with it.
On the one hand, I understand that no public figure of any significance is painted with one brush, and that people who did great things for our country may also have done negligent or even harmful things. I also get it that First Nations want their story to be understood, beyond the level of a John Wayne western. Seen.
On the other hand... A few weeks ago I drove past the Sir John A. statue in City Park here in Kingston, only to see that it had been defaced with red painted slogans. Now, I am maybe what some people on this site might call "a useless liberal flopper", but the sight of that defacement made me furious. I saw no useful purpose to it at all, and no moral superiority over any equivalent "right-wing" stupidity such as La Meute might dream up. Whatever we may want to say about Sir John, we would probably not be a country without him, and arguably we would have fallen under the spiked wheels of Manifest Destiny. Trashing him in a blind, dogmatic way (while shouting down any dissenting opinions or reasoned questioning as "racism" or "colonialism") leads us nowhere good. Backlash may be inevitable.
Where, exactly, does this stop? Who gets to pull down what monument to whom? I mean, we all get offended by something, right? Let's tear down the South African War monuments! The Boers don't like them! (And, really, in honesty, that war WAS little more than naked imperial aggression dressed up in Imperial jingoism, but, anyway...). And what about all those WW1 and WW2 monuments: what do Germans and Italians and Japanese feel about those? But I think you get my point.
So what? So first of all stop drawing direct moral equivalencies between public figures who offend us, and, let's say, Hitler or Saddam Hussein or other monsters. There are degrees of evil and harm. Apply some reasonable balance between positive and negative achievements. And, if after proper research we find verifiable historical fact that a public figure really did bad things, then by all means City Council can post a historical information plaque nearby stating these historical facts. No worries there, if it's true.
But let's stop this silly nonsense of trying to rewrite history by tearing down the statues of people who helped us become the country we are, warts and all.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,599
- Points
- 1,160
pbi said:
[quote author=pbi]
But let's stop this silly nonsense of trying to rewrite history by tearing down the statues of people who helped us become the country we are, warts and all.
[/quote]
This is exactly how I feel and the point I was trying to make. Where does it stop? Do we rename Kingston because it sounds too much like Kings Town? And that's not gender neutral?
I just seen (saw?) a video where a woman speaking to our PM was making a passionate question about something and when SHE said mankind the PM interrupted her to say "We like to say People-kind". Which is ridiculous because no one uses that except for Tumblr wackos. Same sort of virtue signalling IMO.
Instead of tearing down statues put up a plaque explaining how much of an asshole someone was or whatever. Build on the truth and impartialness (is that a word?) of our history, don't whitewash it.
I'm surprised we haven't started talking about trashing our Afghanistan monuments because of Islamophobia.
My personal view is that we should evaluate these sort of monuments based on why/how we remember that individual and the historical context of the monument. For example, I think the POTUS comparing statues of George Washington with those of Confederate generals is specious. George Washington is revered as a founding father and the first President. The fact that he and other leaders of the era were slave owners is not why he is celebrated. The statues of him have generally been the products of patriotic fervour.
Confederate generals were leaders in a rebellion against the legitimate government, a rebellion mostly seated in the desire to maintain the institution of slavery. Many of the statues commemorating these men were also created at times when the African American population were pushing for more rights, so I don't think that it is unfair to believe that at least part of the purpose was to remind "those people" of their proper place, and to celebrate a time and place where people were possessions.
I can completely understand how these statues can be a painful thorn in the side in the sides of modern minorities. Cornwallis's story is not clear-cut and maybe the best place for him is in a museum with all the facts laid out, the good beside the ugly.
My :2c:
Confederate generals were leaders in a rebellion against the legitimate government, a rebellion mostly seated in the desire to maintain the institution of slavery. Many of the statues commemorating these men were also created at times when the African American population were pushing for more rights, so I don't think that it is unfair to believe that at least part of the purpose was to remind "those people" of their proper place, and to celebrate a time and place where people were possessions.
I can completely understand how these statues can be a painful thorn in the side in the sides of modern minorities. Cornwallis's story is not clear-cut and maybe the best place for him is in a museum with all the facts laid out, the good beside the ugly.
My :2c:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Jarnhamar said:
Or stop recalling our exploits in the War of 1812 because that will offend...That Unnamed Country That Didn't Conquer Canada.. :tsktsk:
On a similar dismal note, a well-known pub downtown recently renamed itself from "Sir John A's" because that might offend people (there was actually some sort of demonstration earlier, against the pub's name). Don't frequent it myself, but from what I've seen of the clientele most of them probably didn't support that move, but maybe I'm stereotyping.
I would say though, that maybe we are walking along the edge of a slippery slope here with our views. Some people would tag our expressions as racist, or colonialist or part of the "settler narrative". I don't believe any of that, but I also have no time for the part of society represented by La Meute, the Klan, StormFront, the jabbering Islamophobes, or any of that lot of gutter fascists.
I don't want to automatically align myself with one side just because I question the other: that is bumper-sticker thinking of the worst variety. It's a question of reason and balance, like most important things in life.
- Reaction score
- 1,320
- Points
- 1,260
pbi said:
I think there is one that Japanese-Canadians should feel proud of:
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=mMl5WqFRjN-OBMDgiIAK&q=%22Japanese+Canadian+War+Memorial%22&oq=%22Japanese+Canadian+War+Memorial%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i7i30k1j0j0i30k1l3.4354.7874.0.8347.2.2.0.0.0.0.416.553.0j1j4-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.549...0i22i30k1.0.lYuLVv5QI_c
AK said:
Gettysburg is a good example on how they handle history. Everything is in context. Confederate statues and flags fly there. Most if not all is explained. No one has to go there if they are offended by the sight of those things. It is a place of history and more importantly it tries to be a place of reconciliation. I recommend anyone go and give it a visit if they happen to be nearby.
The things is that people don't know their history from propaganda. What happens when we look at history through unbiased eyes and scientific discovery? What happens when we find out heroes are villains and villains are heroes? Do we have a responsibility to correct that? Or just carry on in ignorance?
Take General Custer. That man was a hero for decades until a more careful look beyond the propaganda actually makes him out to be an idiot. A brave idiot who got himself and his men killed. But for the longest time he was a brave symbol of American courage in taming the west.
I look at the whole statue from a more clinical view. It was put up in 1931 during the depression as a means of reinforcing British Imperialism. He was pretty ineffective and was removed from his post. No one is denying he founded Halifax but I doubt he needs a statue to commemorate that and really his statue wasn't really put there for that reason either. I think in a museum or at the citadel they have there in Halifax with a plaque stating he founded Halifax and was a controversial figure etc etc is fine.
Most people have no idea who he is/was anyways. it's local politics really.
History is always complicated but until 1931 no one felt the need to commemorate him in any real fashion and even then it was a fringe group asking for it, so meh...
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
AK said:
That's a very good, insightful post and I agree with it ...
The problem is that many and sundry progressives do not. They are not interested in having "all the facts laid out," in fact they want none of the facts at all because they have a legend based narrative which, they hope, they can repeat over and over and over again until we all come to accept it as true.
Museums and scholars are the bitter enemies of the progressives because all those pesky facts get in the way of the new "revealed truth."
We have law-courts that have, in good faith, bent over backwards to accept some legends as historically near enough to being factual in order to provide some sort of framework for providing redress for things that happened centuries in the past. That's not enough: we are required, now, to accept that whatever certain groups say is gospel truth, even when it is, demonstrably, historical rubbish. But the progressive narrative, for now, posits that everyone (except those brought here as slaves) whose ancestors were not settled here, in Canada, before 1608 (as aboriginal people, in other words) shares, somehow, in being guilty of a monstrous crime against humanity. No other view can be tolerated.
Does that mean that all First Nations' claims that are based on their own oral history are invalid? Of course not. We must accept three things:
First, some French and Brits and Canadians did quite dreadful things to our First Nations and some redress is owed for legitimate grievances;
Second, some oral history is, almost certainly, grounded in historical fact; and
Third, 250 years ago First Nations and Europeans were, still, talking at one another, talking past one another not talking with one another.
First Nations have a right to believe that they have been lied to, cheated and robbed ~ deprived for centuries of what was promised to them. What, in my opinion, they do not have a right to do is to revise history without some reference to the actual facts.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,426
- Points
- 1,010
E.R. Campbell said:
There, I slightly modified your text and it fits perfectly with all religious based faith and imposition on the world, especially the Christian one with the stupid concept of original sin passed down the line for ever (eating from the fruit of knowledge, for those who don't know: knowledge and science are crimes as far as the catholic/christian faiths are concerned).
But this is digression. I believe that there is at least one College/University in the US that adopted a very interesting process, with proper historian and similar scholars, amongst others, siting in judgement, so to speak, and reviewing requests for historical "erasures' before they are made, and providing guideline for where and when it is appropriate for such historical figures to be removed from public view. Those guidelines balance the good and the bad about such historical figures in coming to a decision.
In view of the increase in such requests in Canada and the number of time local (and even National) leaders decide to act without consultation just to be either seen to be doing something "progressive" or to avoid the public hounding of those seeking the redress (however small a minority they may be), perhaps it is time to have a debate and actually come out with an Act of Parliament on setting a proper process that will give due credit to ALL facts before coming to a conclusion on erasure or removal.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,309
- Points
- 1,160
Remius said:
I agree with much in the last few posts and this element goes a long way to prove the point when you look under the surface.
Custer was actually a fairly good officer recognized for his competence and bravery during the Civil War. After his death at The Little Big Horn he was nearly deified by the writings of his widow Libbie. There were, of course, early questions about his tactics there (mostly fueled by the Reno advocates) but in general he was viewed very favourably by the public.
That heroic status stayed in the public eye for nearly a century as shown in such films as the 1941 "They Died With Their Boots On." But starting in the late 1960s and 1970s a change came about when he became the poster boy for the anti-war movement as the symbol of military arrogance and ineptitude. Such films as the 1970 "Little Big Man" portrayed Custer in a very negative light.
I've studied the Black Hills Expedition campaign, and the Battle of the Little Big Horn which was a part of it, and while one can criticise aspects of both, they were not out of line considering the quality of the troops, the tactics in use and the intelligence available at the time.
One can have lengthy academic arguments about whether Custer's arrogance caused a large part of his command to die on the bluffs overlooking the Little Big Horn or whether it was simply overcome as a result of circumstances and a better opponent but I think what is really clear is that Custer's decline in reputation was not as a result of studied academic debates but from a much wider propaganda/revisionism/anti-establishment movement that occurred in America during the Vietnam War where numerous once revered government and public institutions and personalities were being torn down.
The problem we are seeing now in the case of Cornwallis and John A is of that nature. Small vocal groups push and push their personal/group agendas and governments without spines follow the path of least resistance. The trouble is that as a society we have become uneducated. We no longer remember what these symbols meant or how hard it was at the time to build this nation. We no longer know what is worth fighting for and we are too easily led astray by populist jingoism that circulates in the main stream media as well as on the web. We, collectively, are entirely too influenced by the most recent "outrage" that is pushed to our attention and then, without thinking it through, we react.
I often think that things were better when communications moved slowly and opinions didn't build to a critical mass overnight.
:cheers:
I agree with FJAG, especially his last paragraph. Remember, among others, the bogus attack on the schoolgirl in Toronto and the rapid, and incorrect, reaction to it by people who should have known better.
I have also studied Custer's last campaign and visited the battleground. He was audacious and a bit of a gambler. Custer's Luck was a well-used saying of the time. He had gambled and won on a number of occasions in the Civil War and in the west, but this time the odds caught up with him. Because of the shape of the ground he rode into a trap of his own making and the five Troops (tactical term) with him were largely unable to support one another and were overwhelmed in turn.
I have also studied Custer's last campaign and visited the battleground. He was audacious and a bit of a gambler. Custer's Luck was a well-used saying of the time. He had gambled and won on a number of occasions in the Civil War and in the west, but this time the odds caught up with him. Because of the shape of the ground he rode into a trap of his own making and the five Troops (tactical term) with him were largely unable to support one another and were overwhelmed in turn.
Those are good points FJAG.
Maybe idiot is too harsh a term for me to use. The point is that his legacy benefitted from strong and good propaganda, propaganda he himself set up. Journalists loved him and he loved having them with him. He also wrote a lot of his own stuff, not unlike Julius Caesar did during his campaigns in Gaul.
His defenders at the time had the benefit of popularity.
Your point about the anti war sentiments of the 70s is valid and yes, we have to guard against that sort of revisionism but there are many works after that period that are just as critical.
Grant and Sheridan at the time thought he was at fault. That the last stand was brought on by him and completely unnecessary and that his actions lead to the deaths of his men.
But that kind of description flies in the face of the propaganda.
Maybe idiot is too harsh a term for me to use. The point is that his legacy benefitted from strong and good propaganda, propaganda he himself set up. Journalists loved him and he loved having them with him. He also wrote a lot of his own stuff, not unlike Julius Caesar did during his campaigns in Gaul.
His defenders at the time had the benefit of popularity.
Your point about the anti war sentiments of the 70s is valid and yes, we have to guard against that sort of revisionism but there are many works after that period that are just as critical.
Grant and Sheridan at the time thought he was at fault. That the last stand was brought on by him and completely unnecessary and that his actions lead to the deaths of his men.
But that kind of description flies in the face of the propaganda.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,309
- Points
- 1,160
Old Sweat said:
Off on one of my usual
ff topic: diversions.Little Big Horn is one of those battles where you really can't understand it unless you have seen the ground. Movies always make it look like a prairie when in fact the various bluffs are massive, the gullies deep chasms and the lines of sight in the low and mid ground obscured by the terrain. (It's also the only place where I've been where there's a sign beside the path that says "Rattlesnakes: Stay on path!" which is immediately followed by a sign that says "Rattlesnakes like to sun themselves on the path!")
There are untold books about the battle that come out on both sides of the debate but for my money, one of the best and most even-handed is Richard A. Fox's Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined. (1993)
https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-History-Custers-Last-Battle/dp/0806124962/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1517945853&sr=8-15&keywords=little+big+horn+books
Fox's premise is that the archaeology strongly suggests that the defeat wasn't so much arrogance or bad tactics on Custer's part but a sudden company by company disintegration of tactical stability within Custer's five company battalion which was grounded in several factors.
:cheers:
FJAG said:Off on one of my usual
Little Big Horn is one of those battles where you really can't understand it unless you have seen the ground. Movies always make it look like a prairie when in fact the various bluffs are massive, the gullies deep chasms and the lines of sight in the low and mid ground obscured by the terrain. (It's also the only place where I've been where there's a sign beside the path that says "Rattlesnakes: Stay on path!" which is immediately followed by a sign that says "Rattlesnakes like to sun themselves on the path!")
There are untold books about the battle that come out on both sides of the debate but for my money, one of the best and most even-handed is Richard A. Fox's Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined. (1993)
https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-History-Custers-Last-Battle/dp/0806124962/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1517945853&sr=8-15&keywords=little+big+horn+books
:cheers:
If you want as unbiased account as you might be able to find, The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero by James S. Robbins is pretty good. Took me a while to get through, not because it was particularly hard but I have a tendency to read too many books at once.
Off topic as well, sorry but I think these discussions and recommendations are healthy given the current debate on history.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,599
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=pbi]
I would say though, that maybe we are walking along the edge of a slippery slope here with our views. Some people would tag our expressions as racist, or colonialist or part of the "settler narrative".[/quote]
That's pretty much debating SOPs. Hitler racist settler blah blah
I would say though, that maybe we are walking along the edge of a slippery slope here with our views. Some people would tag our expressions as racist, or colonialist or part of the "settler narrative".[/quote]
That's pretty much debating SOPs. Hitler racist settler blah blah
The first 3 of 4 examples you give have pretty straight forward beliefs and views. Islamophobia is a BS scare tactic. The word doesn't even have an official meaning and is so ambiguous it can include simple (and legitimate) criticism.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Jarnhamar said:
Seen. But I think you see where I was trying to go with that. Just because I want to ask reasonable questions or challenge positions held by a certain group or community, doesn't mean I automatically side with their opponents.
For example, if I question corrupt, disgraceful, stupid and brutal behaviour by certain police officers, it doesn't mean "I hate the police". After all, I'm a middle-aged, middle class, property-owning, Scotch-drinking white male. I pretty much like law and order. I support the police: I just want them to behave.
Or, on the other end, if I question why a certain community in a certain city seems to account for 98% of its gun homicides and drive-by shootings, and I don't automatically accept the premise that it's because they're "oppressed", now I'm a "racist".
Where is wisdom and judgement in all this?
- Reaction score
- 1,320
- Points
- 1,260
pbi said:
It can get expensive for taxpayers.
From 2013,
Toronto police paid $27 million in lawsuit claims
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/10/11/toronto_police_paid_27_million_in_lawsuit_claims.html
- Reaction score
- 21,777
- Points
- 1,090
See also: Baltimore.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,599
- Points
- 1,160
pbi said:
Unequivocally agree. I do see where you were going with that. People that ask legitimate questions are quickly called out for being racist, prejudiced, nazi etc.. Facts are racist.
The new CANFORGEN that just came out on this stuff was an interesting read for sure.
Similar threads
