NCC apologizes and removes portrait that offends Francophones

[Leafless]

The idea was to mark the 150th anniversary of the selection of Ottawa as the capital with a display on the Sparks Street Mall.

Among the portraits put up were those of Queen Victoria, Sir John A. Macdonald and Lord Durham, the British colonial governor who recommended the union of Upper and Lower Canada and representative democracy.

Certainly seems like an inspiring thing to do.

But poor Lord Durham's portrait was removed because of Francophone objections that:

Francophones might be offended by the inclusion of Durham, a man who argued that French Canadians had no history or culture and should be assimilated into the English-speaking population.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...f3-fa4f152a18f4

The point is Lord Durham was a very important English statesman who gave his name to the famous 'Report on the Affairs of British North America.

This report, one of the greatest state papers in the English language, laid down the principles, then unrecognized, which have guided British colonial policy ever since.

Perhaps Lord Durham's assessment of Quebec was correct and the French in Quebec had were basically left overs from the 'Battle of the Plains of Abraham' and could not linguistically evolve by themselves.

I think Lord Durham's portrait should definitely be put back with the other portraits as a reminder of a great man who helped shape Canada.

Francophone's should be reminded the portraits are hung in Ottawa, Ontario, Capital of Canada and NOT Quebec where everything associated with English history has been torn down or removed including the English language.

Do you think Lord Durham's portrait should be put back with the others?

Edited November 6, 2007 by Leafless

[M.Dancer]

This report, one of the greatest state papers in the English language, .........

Really? What are the other 1000 state papers?

[Leafless]

Really? What are the other 1000 state papers?

You mean 'where are the other state papers'. In Britain, you know the country that won the 'Plains of Abraham' battle for Canada and gave us GAVE US the BNA Act, which forms the major part of our constitution.

The other part (amendment) of our Canadian constitution, the 'Charter' inspired and created by Quebec politicians and unfortunately ratified by inept provincial politicians (all but Quebec, who did not sign) and who could have no idea at the time what they were actually signing due to the discriminatory and undemocratic and dictatorial actions that have evolved under that 'Charter since it's ratification.

[M.Dancer]

You mean 'where are the other state papers'. In Britain, you know the country that won the 'Plains of Abraham' battle for Canada and gave us GAVE US the BNA Act, which forms the major part of our constitution.

The other part (amendment) of our Canadian constitution, the 'Charter' inspired and created by Quebec politicians and unfortunately ratified by inept provincial politicians (all but Quebec, who did not sign) and who could have no idea at the time what they were actually signing due to the discriminatory and undemocratic and dictatorial actions that have evolved under that 'Charter since it's ratification.

No I mean if the 'Report on the Affairs of British North America was one of the greatest state papers in the English language.....what are the others...I want to klnow how you are ranking them and what metric is being used? The Prose perhaps or maybe a mind numbing word count?

[Leafless]

No I mean if the 'Report on the Affairs of British North America was one of the greatest state papers in the English language.....what are the others...I want to klnow how you are ranking them and what metric is being used? The Prose perhaps or maybe a mind numbing word count?

Beats me.

What I wrote are part of the words used describing Lord Durham achievements in Canada from Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 7, pg. 758.

I guess my advice to you is to go and talk to the Queen or one of her historians.

You are totally off subject matter and stop your nonsense and address the subject matter of this thread.

[M.Dancer]

Beats me.

What I wrote are part of the words used describing Lord Durham achievements in Canada from Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 7, pg. 758.

I guess my advice to you is to go and talk to the Queen or one of her historians.

You are totally off subject matter and stop your nonsense and address the subject matter of this thread.

Oh so you plagiarized the passage.....and lo...so you did.

This report, one of the greatest state papers in the English language, laid down the principles, then unrecognized, which have guided British colonial policy ever since

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/John_Georg..._earl_of_Durham

[Leafless]

Oh so you plagiarized the passage.....and lo...so you did.

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/John_Georg..._earl_of_Durham

1911 edition, I don't think so.

What I used were historical facts complimenting the achievements of Lord Durham which he badly needs when combating the decision of a 70% Francophone N.C.C. employment rate.

It should be remembered that Ottawa the Capital of Canada is the Capital of NINE OTHER PROVINCES whose input whether Lord Durham's portrait should be removed WERE NEVER CONSULTED.

Who the hell does N.C.C. think they are representing Quebec political interest ONLY.

[M.Dancer]

1911 edition, I don't think so.

I don't think you think so......word for word copy without a citation......what do you think that's called?

[guyser]

I don't think you think so......word for word copy without a citation......what do you think that's called?

"Leaflessprose"

[Leafless]

I don't think you think so......word for word copy without a citation......what do you think that's called?

I was making reference to your 1911 edition, which mine is not.

I could not care less whether you consider it plagiarizing or not.

What are Dancers 'language police', going to do about it?

Funny thing, Dancer has nothing to say about Quebec politically plagiarizing Canada.

[guyser]

I could not care less whether you consider it plagiarizing or not.

What are Dancers 'language police', going to do about it?

From Forum "Rules and Guidelines"....

"Please do not try to pass someone else’s work as your own. Anyone caught committing plagiarism will be dealt with severely. "

[Fortunata]

Francophones might be offended by the inclusion of Durham, a man who argued that French Canadians had no history or culture and should be assimilated into the English-speaking population.

Hmmm, that's kinda funny since Quebecers have been saying for a long time English Canada has no culture. I guess if you don't have a Celine Dion you don't qualify.

[guyser]

Hmmm, that's kinda funny since Quebecers have been saying for a long time English Canada has no culture. I guess if you don't have a Celine Dion you don't qualify.

True.

But I guess I can see how what he said is insulting because it truly is. But that was then and to still be upset , well seems kind of dumb.

But as the link says, schoolkids are taught that he said insulting things . So no worries , remove his photo and put one in the vault for payback in the future.

[Leafless]

True.

But I guess I can see how what he said is insulting because it truly is. But that was then and to still be upset , well seems kind of dumb.

But as the link says, schoolkids are taught that he said insulting things . So no worries , remove his photo and put one in the vault for payback in the future.

How can you possibly consider what Lord Durham said is insulting, especially in Durham's time, and especially when it is absolutely factual.

After the war of 'Plains of Abraham' and the French elite had all returned to France and mostly all that was left in Quebec were farmers and labourers with certain rights given to Quebec from Britain and France gave up all other rights to British North America with the 'Treaty of Paris'.

It is Quebec that refuses to admit the truth.

[M.Dancer]

How can you possibly consider what Lord Durham said is insulting, especially in Durham's time, and especially when it is absolutely factual.

After the war of 'Plains of Abraham' and the French elite had all returned to France and mostly all that was left in Quebec were farmers and labourers with certain rights given to Quebec from Britain and France gave up all other rights to British North America with the 'Treaty of Paris'.

It is Quebec that refuses to admit the truth.

Well first I applaud you for managing to write that yourself...even if it is only barely literate, at least it's your own.

And secondly, what unmitigated hogwash......you clearly have a postage stamp knowledge of history and obviously very limited exposure to the era of Durham. Suffice to say the Durham like most english aristocrats of his day was a chauvinist and a snob. His personal views are illustrative of the time but beyond that are of little merit. He is one of thos unfortunate figures in Cananadian history who are best exposed without romance...

[Moxie]

Hmmm, that's kinda funny since Quebecers have been saying for a long time English Canada has no culture. I guess if you don't have a Celine Dion you don't qualify.

LOL we have Gordon Lightfoot, who needs a skinny shrew.

[kengs333]

Well first I applaud you for managing to write that yourself...even if it is only barely literate, at least it's your own.

And secondly, what unmitigated hogwash......you clearly have a postage stamp knowledge of history and obviously very limited exposure to the era of Durham. Suffice to say the Durham like most english aristocrats of his day was a chauvinist and a snob. His personal views are illustrative of the time but beyond that are of little merit. He is one of thos unfortunate figures in Cananadian history who are best exposed without romance...

Oh, listen to the pre-Confederation history scholar speak; he clearly has a thorough knowledge of social attitudes of the time from his (her?) years and years of diligent study and reading on the topic...

If his "personal views are illustrative of the time" then they in fact have much "merit". How else are we supposed to understand the politics of the day? Most historians who specialize in pre-Confederation history, Canadian political history, etc. view it as significant.

Whatever the case, the portrait was included simply because of his role in Canadian history--good or bad, it doesn't matter--and the fact that it would be removed because of hypersensitive ultrapatriotic Quebec nationalists is absurb. Thus is the level of historical debate in this country.

[kengs333]

From Forum "Rules and Guidelines"....

"Please do not try to pass someone else’s work as your own. Anyone caught committing plagiarism will be dealt with severely. "

From Forum "Rules and Guidelines"....

"POSTING CONTENT

"All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted. In addition, use the search feature to ensure that the topic you are posting is not already being discussed somewhere else in the forums.

"It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact the Admin and request a new thread."

[M.Dancer]

Oh, listen to the pre-Confederation history scholar speak; he clearly has a thorough knowledge of social attitudes of the time from his (her?) years and years of diligent study and reading on the topic...

If his "personal views are illustrative of the time" then they in fact have much "merit". How else are we supposed to understand the politics of the day? Most historians who specialize in pre-Confederation history, Canadian political history, etc. view it as significant.

.

His personal views are illustrative of the time but beyond that are of little merit

.

I suppose a conditional statement like same sex marriage is a concept for too advanced for you.

Whatever the case, the portrait was included simply because of his role in Canadian history--good or bad, it doesn't matter--and the fact that it would be removed because of hypersensitive ultrapatriotic Quebec nationalists is absurb. Thus is the level of historical debate in this country.

Yeah yeah yeah...so every misogynistic, inbred tool every who has ever made an impact in history is worthy of having a portrait....make room for Camille Houde, make room for Frank Controni, make room for Mom Boucher....they made history and we got a nice gilded frame....

Edited November 7, 2007 by M.Dancer

[guyser]

From Forum "Rules and Guidelines"....

"POSTING CONTENT

"All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted. In addition, use the search feature to ensure that the topic you are posting is not already being discussed somewhere else in the forums.

"It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact the Admin and request a new thread."

I can only assume you have a point? Which is?

[Leafless]

And secondly, what unmitigated hogwash......you clearly have a postage stamp knowledge of history and obviously very limited exposure to the era of Durham. Suffice to say the Durham like most English aristocrats of his day was a chauvinist and a snob. His personal views are illustrative of the time but beyond that are of little merit. He is one of thos unfortunate figures in Cananadian history who are best exposed without romance...

Canadian history...surely you are not making reference to non-existent French Canadian history that went out the window with the 'Treaty of Paris' and is now only memories that Quebecers (refugees with no political history) relish starting in Canada with the Quebec Act.

Durham is an important figure relating to Canadian history and the Queen is more Canadian then you Dancer boy.

[Argus]

I don't think you think so......word for word copy without a citation......what do you think that's called?

I'm a little confused here. You started out mocking him for calling Durham's report "one the greatest state papers" and now that you've discovered he took that from an encyclopedia you're abandoning that tack and instead accusing him of plagerism. Have I got that right?

So do you have any actual opinion on the topic - which is Lord Durham's portrait being taken down?

[Argus]

Well first I applaud you for managing to write that yourself...even if it is only barely literate, at least it's your own.

And secondly, what unmitigated hogwash......you clearly have a postage stamp knowledge of history and obviously very limited exposure to the era of Durham. Suffice to say the Durham like most english aristocrats of his day was a chauvinist and a snob.

Well... yes, by our present standards, of course. And by our present standards virtually every French Canadian of the time was an ignorant, superstitious, illiterate peasant.

So what's your point again?

His personal views are illustrative of the time but beyond that are of little merit. He is one of thos unfortunate figures in Cananadian history who are best exposed without romance...

Was what he did important? Apparently so. As for his "personal views", I agree, there is no particular reason to look into them. But you're ignoring the fact it is because of his personal views that his portrait was taken down - despite his contributions to Canada's history.

[Borg]

QUOTE

Francophones might be offended by the inclusion of Durham, a man who argued that French Canadians had no history or culture and should be assimilated into the English-speaking population.END QUOTE

Great line - true as can be.

However Canada will deny history and change history to placate the kebekers.

If only they would leave - take their debt with them.

Unfortunately NCC lacked the gonads to tell them to screw off. No surprize there. Canada panders to kebek at every turn.

Borg

[August1991]

From link above:

But it seems it never occurred to anyone at the National Capital Commission, which put up the display, that francophones might be offended by the inclusion of Durham, a man who argued that French Canadians had no history or culture and should be assimilated into the English-speaking population.

This is the remarkable fact - that no one at the NCC put a stop to this earlier. What were they thinking?

One imagines a future NCC in the year 2127 putting up a portrait of Jacques Parizeau to celebrate Canada's unity or a portrait of Louis Riel to recognize respect for minorities.

Edited November 7, 2007 by August1991