Most Canadians can't identify the war during which Canadians fought at Vimy

[The Bread Guy]

Oh of course, my deployments and medals are family life sacrifices are all meaningless because I said remembering specific dates don't matter. Which by the way, human experience has nothing to do with. Remembering useless facts you read in a book is the opposite of getting the human factor.

I may regret this, but here goes ....

Since you mention family, do you know the story of your relatives?  Things about what your parents, aunts/uncles, grandfathers/grandmothers, so on did?  Why are those stories important?  Because they help you understand how you got to be who you are.

The lessons your family's stories teach you about yourself are the kinds of lessons history is supposed to teach you about Canada/the CF/the Navy/whatever larger group you're a part of.

 

[pbi]

Oh of course, my deployments and medals are family life sacrifices are all meaningless because I said remembering specific dates don't matter. Which by the way, human experience has nothing to do with. Remembering useless facts you read in a book is the opposite of getting the human factor.

OK now you are just shamelessly whining. We aren't belittling your medals and sacrifices (or those of your family): anybody on this site who has ever worn a uniform understands those things very well. Some people here have made just as big, or maybe much bigger sacrifices than you have in your short time in the service, but I don't see them waving it around.

The problem here isn't so much what you say, but the way you come across. Not a good start. Maybe you should put engines astern full,  reduce speed, come about, and try this evolution again.

 

[cupper]

Personally I'd like to see Shipwreck have this same conversation with his divisional officer come November when he gets tasked to a Remembrance Day Parade.

Would at the very least provide decent entertainment for the rest of the ship's company.

op:

 

[Griffon]

Oh of course, my deployments and medals are family life sacrifices are all meaningless because I said remembering specific dates don't matter. Which by the way, human experience has nothing to do with. Remembering useless facts you read in a book is the opposite of getting the human factor.

The personal sacrifices that our troops have made in recent years have been significant, and the nature of war and it's new environment make day-to-day life harder.  But the losses pale in comparison to those suffered in the two world wars.

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history”


― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

This is the important part.  What you say is supported by what Hegel said, but he said it as an impetus to study history and try to learn from their lessons.  Remembering the sacrifices of those that fought in wars much, much more terrible than anything we have seen in recent years should provide the drive to avoid the circumstances that led to them in the past.  But if we choose to forget, we are dooming ourselves to repeating them again and again, just as we always have.  We have the opportunity to stop the cycle, and that's why it is so important to keep ourselves educated on how atrocious war can really be.  Learning history, while not a lucrative pursuit in itself, is not useless.

 

[cupper]

To add to what has been said, it is not just war that we have lessons learned.

An excellent example that fits well with your career in the navy is all of the training you received at the Damage Control School is a result of hard experience through out the years.

I believe as part of the training you either get a lecture from or view a video of interviews with some of the survivors of the Kootenay Explosion in 1969. These aren't some old codgers that were the same age as your grandparents were when they were shagging in the back seat creating your parents. And it isn't ancient history that really has no bearing on today. They were proud members of the same service you are in now, doing the same jobs as you and your shipmates. And they had families and friends back home.

The lessons they learned in the aftermath, during the investigation and inquiry are still in practice today. Much of the training that members of the Protecteur received in their career development that saved their lives and minimized injuries and impacts were hard lessons learned by members of the Kootenay. And other incidents since then have added to the base of knowledge you received when you went through the school.

As well, policies in place today with respect to how the death and repatriation of our fallen comrades is dealt with are a direct result of the outdated policies in place when the Kootenay's crew lost their shipmates.

As an engineer myself, I have a base of knowledge that was built on the successes and more importantly the failures of those who came before me.

So next time you ask, "Who cares about when some old battle occurred?", or "Why do I need to know of some seemingly insignificant event in history?" STOP. Think about the context in which it has come up, and what was learned as a result of that battle or that event.

 

[kratz]

Personally I'd like to see Shipwreck have this same conversation with his divisional officer come November when he gets tasked to a Remembrance Day Parade.

Would at the very least provide decent entertainment for the rest of the ship's company.

op:

I'd like to see Shipwreck's excuses used to evade the Battle of Atlantic parade coming up in three weeks.  op:

 

[rinoakes]

This argument's getting pretty pretentious. It's nice everyone is feeling all important about themselves because they can identify battle dates. Maybe if I was in the army I'd care about Vimy ridge, but I'm not so I don't. Not everyone is interested in canadian history. I'm sure shipwreck is an expert on other useful things that none of you guys care about.
I know alot about incidents that relate more to my job such as the chicoutimi fire. But 100 year old battles? Not interested.

 

[cupper]

This argument's getting pretty pretentious. It's nice everyone is feeling all important about themselves because they can identify battle dates. Maybe if I was in the army I'd care about Vimy ridge, but I'm not so I don't. Not everyone is interested in canadian history. I'm sure shipwreck is an expert on other useful things that none of you guys care about.
I know alot about incidents that relate more to my job such as the chicoutimi fire. But 100 year old battles? Not interested.

If you are not interested in 100 year old battles, then why did you even bother reading this thread, let alone making a post that essentially supports the original thesis, that there is a lack of understanding of Canada's history in today's society?

I don't believe anyone who has replied to Shipwreck's post could be considered as making themselves sound more important than they are. And no one has stated that they are an expert on anything, let alone Canadian History.

 

[pbi]

This argument's getting pretty pretentious. It's nice everyone is feeling all important about themselves because they can identify battle dates. Maybe if I was in the army I'd care about Vimy ridge, but I'm not so I don't. Not everyone is interested in canadian history. I'm sure shipwreck is an expert on other useful things that none of you guys care about.
I know alot about incidents that relate more to my job such as the chicoutimi fire. But 100 year old battles? Not interested.

Please don't parade your ignorance: that is far more "pretentious" than trying to get somebody to understand their own history.

One day the Chicoutimi fire will be 100 be years old. Will it lose its value as an experience worth learning from?

If you, or Shipwreck, or anybody else can simply dismiss Vimy Ridge (of all Canadian battles...) as "some 100 year old battle", then you probably don't have much sense of the things that have shaped this country. It isn't about some dumb "Army" thing: it's about an amazing military achievement that (among other great sacrifices in that War...) arguably led to Canada finally becoming a country in 1931, instead of a semi-autonomous colony. Don't worry about the colour of the uniforms involved: worry about the human experience that you can learn from.

I'm an infantryman, but I can look at Nelson or Beattie or Farragut or Scheer and see great leaders. Any soldier can learn things from the human experiences of the Battle of The Atlantic: I doubt you will hear any of the Army types on here saying that they couldn't care less about "some 80-year old naval battle".

You are bit young to have such a closed mind.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This argument's getting pretty pretentious. It's nice everyone is feeling all important about themselves because they can identify battle dates. Maybe if I was in the army I'd care about Vimy ridge, but I'm not so I don't. Not everyone is interested in canadian history. I'm sure shipwreck is an expert on other useful things that none of you guys care about.
I know alot about incidents that relate more to my job such as the chicoutimi fire. But 100 year old battles? Not interested.

Brave enough to tell an old sailor who's been through WW2 that you're "not interested" face-to-face if you're at a Battle of the Atlantic ceremony next month?  Or is 100 years where you draw the line?

 

[Tyson Fox]

It's amazing how convincing you can make an argument when you change what your point of view is halfway through. No one has told me why knowing when something happened is important, but I sure get a lot of responses about the school systems, how to use hammers, and vindictive comments about writing essays.

And how silly of me to think that when someone tells me I am not truly in the military, to take that as belittling my service record? And apparently the way I speak is incorrect. I have not broken any forum rules, the only thing I am doing differently is disagreeing with the majority opinion. It would seem that you guys should call it something else if you don't want this site to be a public forum.

And there is mention of discussing this with my DivO, which, doesn't affect anything at all, because people in the military are still allowed to have opinions.

You keep trying to convince everyone that a hundred years ago isn't a long time ago, as well, how much more preposterous can you get?

Oh and it's an "amazing military achievement", well I guess I just answered my own question. No military achievement is amazing, it's depressing that you place these deaths in a good light.

So yeah, keep clouding the issue, probably the only  way you guys can think you're right.

 

[Emilio]

It's amazing how convincing you can make an argument when you change what your point of view is halfway through. No one has told me why knowing when something happened is important, but I sure get a lot of responses about the school systems, how to use hammers, and vindictive comments about writing essays.

And how silly of me to think that when someone tells me I am not truly in the military, to take that as belittling my service record? And apparently the way I speak is incorrect. I have not broken any forum rules, the only thing I am doing differently is disagreeing with the majority opinion. It would seem that you guys should call it something else if you don't want this site to be a public forum.

And there is mention of discussing this with my DivO, which, doesn't affect anything at all, because people in the military are still allowed to have opinions.

You keep trying to convince everyone that a hundred years ago isn't a long time ago, as well, how much more preposterous can you get?

Oh and it's an "amazing military achievement", well I guess I just answered my own question. No military achievement is amazing, it's depressing that you place these deaths in a good light.

So yeah, keep clouding the issue, probably the only  way you guys can think you're right.

You want a straight forward and simple answer? Well here it is.

History is not about always remembering the exact month or date of an event, It's about learning the significance behind the event which lead to its name being placed in History. It's understanding how and why the event played out, and how we can recognize the signs of a similar event playing out today.

And in the case of Vimy Ridge, It was the first time our identity as an independant country outside of the commonwealth was created, It should be seen as an event of pride and admiration for the lives layed down in establishing our nationality.

To be a Canadian and misunderstand or not know of that, well that's just a plain shame.

You keep trying to convince everyone that a hundred years ago isn't a long time ago, as well, how much more preposterous can you get

100 years ago is a long time, but so is 80 and 60, how long does it have to be before your grandchildren forget what happened in WW2, or Afghanistan?

 

[Tyson Fox]

You want a straight forward and simple answer? Well here it is.

History is not about always remembering the exact month or date of an event

Okay good, I agree. Topic title references Canadians inability to remember exact dates.

 

[lethalLemon]

Okay good, I agree. Topic title references Canadians inability to remember exact dates.

The topic title does nothing to indicate failure of recognising exact dates. It identifies that most Canadians don't even know that the Battle of Vimy Ridge occurred during the First World War let alone 1917...

 

[Goose15]

Okay good, I agree. Topic title references Canadians inability to remember exact dates.

:facepalm:

The topic is about Canadians not knowing what "WAR" Vimy Ridge was fought in. The article is not about specific dates. Knowing something is in a particular war is a lot different than knowing a battle's exact date.

 

[The Bread Guy]

No one has told me why knowing when something happened is important....

Ok, how many times did the word "school" appear in this one?

Since you mention family, do you know the story of your relatives?  Things about what your parents, aunts/uncles, grandfathers/grandmothers, so on did?  Why are those stories important?  Because they help you understand how you got to be who you are.

The lessons your family's stories teach you about yourself are the kinds of lessons history is supposed to teach you about Canada/the CF/the Navy/whatever larger group you're a part of.

Also, knowing history isn't just about when something happened, but why it happened and why it's important.

 

[Journeyman]

So what's actually happening here -- not the specific topic, but the nature of the discussion?

[yes, it's my tired old 'opinions versus informed opinions' hobby-horse  ]

On the one hand, there is Group A: the majority of respondents, who are saying it's a bad thing that this information isn't common knowledge. A quick look at their profiles and posting history shows them to be older, more experienced members, which suggests that their opinions may be informed by more life experience -- having seen second- and third-order effects of applying diverse 'things learned.'  Now Group A may also be an example in dogmatic group-think, but because they've presented evidence to support their argument (in this case, lessons' learned plus the inherent benefits of knowing Canadian history to 'being' a Canadian), I'd  personally discount it; it needs to be considered when weighing arguments though.

Group B presently seems limited to Shipwreck and rinoakes -- from their profiles, two young sailors claiming there's little utility in knowing of things "old" -- who have stated little more than that they already know enough to be good at their jobs; they don't know about the topic, and in their opinion see no reason why they should care about it.  In effect, they appear to have no thirst for 'knowing'...for learning as broadly and deeply about a wide range of subjects, and how that can improve them as individuals. 

From their follow-on posts, it's not merely the absence of such a thirst for knowledge, there seems to be an active shunning of it.


....and that is what's sad about their not knowing of Vimy.


:not-again:  I'm done.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

So what's actually happening here -- not the specific topic, but the nature of the discussion?

[yes, it's my tired old 'opinions versus informed opinions' hobby-horse  ]

On the one hand, there is Group A: the majority of respondents, who are saying it's a bad thing that this information isn't common knowledge. A quick look at their profiles and posting history shows them to be older, more experienced members, which suggests that their opinions may be informed by more life experience -- having seen second- and third-order effects of applying diverse 'things learned.'  Now Group A may also be an example in dogmatic group-think, but because they've presented evidence to support their argument (in this case, lessons' learned plus the inherent benefits of knowing Canadian history to 'being' a Canadian), I'd  personally discount it; it needs to be considered when weighing arguments though.

Group B presently seems limited to Shipwreck and rinoakes -- from their profiles, two young sailors claiming there's little utility in knowing of things "old" -- who have stated little more than that they already know enough to be good at their jobs; they don't know about the topic, and in their opinion see no reason why they should care about it.  In effect, they appear to have no thirst for 'knowing'...for learning as broadly and deeply about a wide range of subjects, and how that can improve them as individuals. 

From their follow-on posts, it's not merely the absence of such a thirst for knowledge, there seems to be an active shunning of it.


....and that is what's sad about their not knowing of Vimy.


:not-again:  I'm done.

I would say I'm definitely part of Group A in your example in regards to the belief that history is a very important thing so that no matter what in life we do we learn and move forward to not repeat those same mistakes.  Whether this be in the context of military operations, or in the regular routine of life.

I don't consider myself an old person, hell I am just around the corner from 30.  However in my short time on this ball of craziness we call Earth I have had many experiences that some at age 50 have probably not experienced, most of them not pleasant, but from those unpleasant experiences I have grown and developed as a person and have looked back to ensure that what I have gone through does not happen to my kids.

The sad reality is that a lot of good advice and reasoning has come out in this thread to try and explain why knowing and learning from history is important, but some people just cannot be swayed.  And it's been stated multiple times not only in this forum but elsewhere that the sacrifices made at Vimy, or Monte Casino, or Hill 553, or Medak, or Panjwai allow Canadians to think and live (within the confines of the law) however they please.  If that means they want to think that history is irrelevant and Vimy was too long ago to matter, then such is life.  It might be foolish and juvenile, I know I certainly can't understand it, but such is life.

Also if you want to think my post is inflammatory or calling those individuals out as being juvenile, so be it.  Because it's been made quite apparent that us in Group A thinking that history needs to be taught and learned from so we can continue to move forward in the future, is silly and outdated to the point of being archaic based on some opinions shared.  Some people just won't change their minds on both sides of the discussion.

 

[Griffon]

Shipwreck asked why it's important to know when Vimy happened. Here's the simple answer: context.

Vimy is a part of a story. That story includes a war and the coming of age of a newly independent nation. It's important to know when it happened so you can see effects of battlefield technology and tactics development on the strategy employed by the Canadians in 1917, how they were a part of a battlefield evolution that broke the trench warfare stalemate. You need to know what war it was in to see that. It's important to Canadians because it was the first operation where all the divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together. That fact on it's own is hardly earth-shattering, but in a political context it's an indicator of the growing maturity of a nation. This view of Vimy is a part of the story of the recognition on the world stage of Canada as an independent nation, or at least that's how some of us choose to see it.

Knowing when it happened allows you to place it in time with other events. It didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[George Wallace]

If I may, as part of Group A, point out a few things.

It's amazing how convincing you can make an argument when you change what your point of view is halfway through. No one has told me why knowing when something happened is important, but I sure get a lot of responses about the school systems, how to use hammers, and vindictive comments about writing essays.

No one has changed their point of view halfway through more than you.  As for telling you why knowing when something happened is important, such as how to use a hammer; it is more about why something happened and the results of that.  From your comments, I take it your "Past" is almost IMMEDIATE.  It would appear to me that to you, as soon as something has passed, it is in the Past and no longer important.  It was only a day or so ago that I made the comment of the "hitting yourself with a hammer and learning not to do so again" and now only a few days in the future you comment that the "how to use hammers" comment is not important.  I find this incomprehensible.

And how silly of me to think that when someone tells me I am not truly in the military, to take that as belittling my service record? And apparently the way I speak is incorrect. I have not broken any forum rules, the only thing I am doing differently is disagreeing with the majority opinion. It would seem that you guys should call it something else if you don't want this site to be a public forum.

Ummmmm?  So, if we disagree with your point of view; we then are in the wrong? 

......., because people in the military are still allowed to have opinions.

Don't you think this discussion proves that point?  Or is it, as mentioned earlier, that we are all wrong because we don't see any relevance or legitimacy in your points?

You keep trying to convince everyone that a hundred years ago isn't a long time ago, as well, how much more preposterous can you get?

It is a lot less preposterous than your not learning not to hit yourself with a hammer, mentioned a day or so ago. 

Oh and it's an "amazing military achievement", well I guess I just answered my own question. No military achievement is amazing, it's depressing that you place these deaths in a good light.

So yeah, keep clouding the issue, probably the only  way you guys can think you're right.

Now this makes me wonder why you have chosen to join the military, if you don't realize the fact that we don't glorify killing, but we do recognize the sacrifice that many before us have made in the service to this nation to give us the freedoms and rights that we enjoy as Canadians today.

As has been a recurring theme throughout this discussion; if you can't learn from the past, you are doomed to make the same mistakes over again.  I wonder how often, you personally make the same mistakes over and over again and don't learn from them.  That would be a sad commentary of your life and future.