• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Yrys

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
20
Points
430
Website National Battlefields Commission :
Welcome to the Plains of Abraham/Bienvenue sur les plaines d'Abraham

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

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



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

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

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

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

Charest won't attend

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

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

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

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

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

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



French thread about the subject here: Commémoration du 250e de la bataille des plaines d'Abraham - PC
 
Do I smell a Revisionist Plot in the back rooms of Quebecois Intelligentsia about to take place?
 
The reenactment will happen, whatever some of them like it or not
(some nationalists said it was history, so good to commemorate, to
help education of history) .

Whatever revision they would wish to, I think the events in the Battle
commemorations will make more publicity and noise then them ...
 
"This battle put an end to the New France, as it was known then,
and it was the beginning of the British experience here,"


That's what happens when you lose. Most countries don't get the chance to protect their languages, religions, culture etc when on the receiving end of defeat. ::)
 
I think a short response is in order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

;)
 
Big Beef said:
Atleast I got in the '60's and with in 5 years.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the only thing you did was get the answer wrong. If your teacher was amazed that you had the "correct" answer I'm afraid that says much about the state of our education system today. ::)
 
Back on track please. This is about the re-enactment, not our education system or someone's knowledge of history.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
Ho hum......standard media hype-crap.

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

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

Didn't we have the same media trying to raise a stink about Paul McCartney headlining the 400th anniversary party?
Yea, that only drew 270,000 fans.
 
This is all too typical of the debate that constantly takes place within Canadian historical communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough to not feel very welcome in a Canadian city :(
 
Would that be the same feeling I used to get in Kingston years ago??

We could tap dance about this all day,....I guess we all have our own memories of a certain place.
 
Stoker said:
Enough to not feel very welcome in a Canadian city :(
Most people in Québec City are are indifferent about the Military (which is better then 25 years ago, when they hated everything Military, Anglo OR Franco !!) so don't get too wrapped up about this...

The crowd making a stink out of the reenactement are the same people who made a stink about the presence of Paul McCartney last summer: the hardcore separatists. The vast majority of people enjoy a good show on the Plains, whether it's music, comedy or historical reenactement. Chances are this "protest" will be largely ignored and the reenactement will attract large numbers of enthusiasts and history buffs; I know I will attend if I am not out-of-area !!
 
ltmaverick25 said:
This is all too typical of the debate that constantly takes place within Canadian historical communities
Whos history, or what history do we teach?  God forbid we tell the truth about the past if it may offend even the smallest of minority.  The better to teach nothing just to avoid offence.  Unfortunately Canadians as a whole and Quebecers in particular (I was born and raised in Quebec) know all too little about Canadian history and even less where military activity is concerned.
Totally agree. At times our "political correctness," or our need to adhere to it, does cause some issues. I often try to remind my students that good or bad, it happened and we cannot pretend it didn't just because someone today might be offended. Here's a few examples that I can think of:
1. I teach in a Catholic school. When I taught Gr.11 history (World History to the 16th Century), I didn't leave out the Crusades because the Catholic Church did some not so nice things; I even tell them that. It happened and we can't pretend that it didn't and some terrible things were done in the name of religion (just as they are today). It doesn't please me to teach about those aspects, but unfortunately there were some people who took the faith too far. I think that it is important to know what happened, that mistakes were made and that there are lessons to be learned (as with anything).
2. Just before Xmas, I was speaking to a fellow history teacher at a curriculum workshop. I can't remember how it came up, but he mentioned that he had some aboriginal students take exception (they didn't file a human rights protest or anything) with the fact that he was teaching about the Indian Act (specifically the use of that word). I guess they were concerned about the offensiveness of the term; he quickly pointed out to them that HE wasn't using the word, that it was a historical document and that is what it was called. Now I'm pretty sure the situation stopped there, but it goes to show how ingrained some of this political correctness has become and our need to follow it to the detriment of the truth (I'm sure that this wasn't the case here).
Anyway, the fact remains that whatever the situation, things happened and we cannot change the past. This planned celebration is not about the destruction of a way of life, nor about the death of a culture. It is about the creation of a new country, one with many different cultures and ideas. I would think that most Canadians like myself (I could be wrong) see and understand that our country was founded by both Britain and France, and that is a big part of who we are today. There are always going to be people who are upset about something; you can't please everybody. If that was the way our world was run, nothing would ever be accomplished.
Just my $0.02.
 
Not too sure about it creating all that much of a stink over here..... it made the papers one day... to be replaced by something else the next.

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

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