Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

whowhere · February 25, 2009

If France could not retake Canada with the Continental Army on its side,

What are you talking about? Do you even know the history? France supported American by providing money and military supplies all the while lying to the British as their involvement. France supported the Americans in Secrets.

what makes you think they could have done it on their own considering the British would now be able to concentrate on fighting only the French instead of the Americans as well?

Napoleon was imagination? Hitler and the gassing of the Jews never happened either? What history are you reading. The only reason Britain was safe from Napoleon because they had a channel of water protecting them. Napoleon was a force to reckon with and he dominated Europe for 30 years. Had Napoleon used the Resources of France to Bitch slap the US for bankrupting France and throwing France into Revolution events today would be different. France has long history of Conquest.

The hole you keep digging just gets deeper. As CANADIEN has pointed out it was Louis XVI but you are right in that there was no opportunity for France to remedy this, so game over.

Hmmm, Fact Louis the XV or XVI not sure which but when the revolution went down in France in 1789 he was executed by the French revolutionaries. US achieves indepedence in 1778, 1789 France errupts into violent bloody revolution which would rock Europe to its core for 30 years. Why because King Lousi XV, XVI whatever raise taxes to unbearable level to pay for this support. Europe could not stand against the wrath of France's military power. It took an Act of God to bring napoleon down. Napoleon entered Russia with largest army ever amassed to then be defeated by the weather not combat. Napoleon retreated, yet he was able to remobilize a new army and go on the offense once again. He was formidable. If Europe could not against France's military machine there is no well in hell the United States of the day would stand snowballs chance in hell. Learn History buddy.

If France was to ever regain their North American colonies it would have been because the Americans might have been in a position to return them, not because of what France could have done. In other words the Plains of Abraham was a pivotal event in the history of todays Quebec, which some Quebecois chose to ignore because they have yet to grow up, like the mature societies of the world who recognize all their history when it comes to who and how they got to where they are, not try and rewrite it as they go along.

You know nothing of History. What is Quebec and Ontario was 1604 Canada: a French Colony. 1604 Canada fell under British Ocupation in 1759. 1774 France provided the money and muscle to liberate the United States from Britain. France did this to regain Canada. There is plenty of supporting documentation to corroborate this. 1789 The cost of supporting the United States was be placed on the French and they in turn broke into a violent revolution which brought about the collapse of the Christian Kingdom of Europe where Kings and Queens were alluded to be ruling by devine right.

The stakeholders of 1759 is the British, France and 1604 Canada (Quebec). Quebec's history is not 1867s Canada's History. 1867 Canada can eff off.

whowhere · February 25, 2009

Double post

Edited February 25, 2009 by whowhere

whowhere · February 25, 2009

You got it... this time, unless your last posting in which you said, and I quote:
And thank you for reminding us of something already well known, which is thatit took more than 50 yeears after the Statute of Westminster for us to patriate the Constitution, and why.

BTW, If you look at the actual text of the Constitutional Act, 1982, you will notice that ALL amendments require the signature of the GOVERNOR GENERAL. Not the Queen, even though the Governor General could reserve the matter to her. Most certainly not the British Parliament.

And who appoints the Governor General and who does the Governor General represent? Rhetorical of course.

whowhere · February 25, 2009

As a matter of fact because of this I am in favour of reforming Canada's Constitution. Canada should convene a Constitutional Assembly and draft a new Constitution making it totally independent of Britain and create especially checks and balances restraining the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government along with other reforms.

To little to late. The Boomers and and their parents used the 1982 Constitution to sell Canada out to feather their own nests. Canada has increased its population from 20 million to 34 million through Immigration since 1982. The people in Canada today do not reflect Canadian Heritage and they are here in Canada for their economic gain. Canada's quality of life is not what the Boomer's parents enjoyed.

The fact is the Canadian people were denied a voice before 1982. The Queen gave us a voice and the boomer trash and their parents took it away from us through their corruption and greed. 1867 Canada chose to use that constitution to unravel Canada where Canada is now a cultural wasteland.

What you want is never going to happen and if anything Canada will likely face some political Invervention by the Queen's office and Britain to remedy Canada's political abuse and destruction of Canada.

Britain Fought, defended, and populated Canada prior to 1982 with other Commonwealth countries people. Britain gave Canada the tools to makes it own decisions and to do right by Canada but the corrupt chose to use this to ruin Canada.

whowhere · February 25, 2009

:lol: Are you trying to compete with whowhere as to who will write the most stupid statement on this thread. Says a lot about him that even that sentence of yours does not come close to his ranting.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/citizenship/cit-ceremony.asp

Oath of citizenship
This is the oath of citizenship:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

People should learn to love their Queen. Dreaming and fantasizing her away is not going to Change the fact she is the sovereign of Canada.

Wilber · February 26, 2009

You know nothing of History. What is Quebec and Ontario was 1604 Canada: a French Colony. 1604 Canada fell under British Ocupation in 1759. 1774 France provided the money and muscle to liberate the United States from Britain. France did this to regain Canada. There is plenty of supporting documentation to corroborate this. 1789 The cost of supporting the United States was be placed on the French and they in turn broke into a violent revolution which brought about the collapse of the Christian Kingdom of Europe where Kings and Queens were alluded to be ruling by devine right.

I know that Quebec exists today and the fall of Quebec City in 1759 was a pivotal point in Quebec's history, only someone who was immature would ignore that because of some percieved insult. It happened, deal with it like an adult. As far as kings rulling by devine right, the Brits settled that issue 110 years before when they offed Charles I head in 1649. They managed to do it without lopping off the heads of the rest of their aristocracy however and after Cromwell croaked, Charlie's son actually made a better king than his old man. The French were just getting caught up with the times. No wonder they couldn't hang on to Canada.

capricorn · February 26, 2009

People, I hate to interrupt this illuminating discussion. It seems the embattled Battlefields Commissioner is prepared to step down. I think that would be a good idea. The Bloc and the PQ were looking for publicity to beat the drum of separation and boy did they fall on a dandy opportunity. I'm sure Juneau could do without all the aggravation that goes with his job.

Del Mastro said that Juneau received more than 150 threats of personal violence against him for the decision, even though there were previous re-enactments in 1999 and 2004.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0225?hub=Canada

M.Dancer · February 26, 2009

I think a reenactment of the battle of Ste Eustache might be funny...complete with the obligatory deportations and hangings.

capricorn · February 26, 2009

Right. Those dudes that met Obama in the Centre Block could loan the actors their Quaker-like costumes.

Oleg Bach · February 26, 2009

People, I hate to interrupt this illuminating discussion. It seems the embattled Battlefields Commissioner is prepared to step down. I think that would be a good idea. The Bloc and the PQ were looking for publicity to beat the drum of separation and boy did they fall on a dandy opportunity. I'm sure Juneau could do without all the aggravation that goes with his job.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0225?hub=Canada

I guess they won't have the little drummer boy to kick around anymore. I gave this a little thought and I really don't understand where the seperatist get the authority to take authority in this matter of tradition? If they are truely seperatists they have no moral or legal right to oppress or address anything that is part of the union of provinces -----apparently they want their cake and want to eat it also. How does this happen in Canada? For all intent and purpose it would be like France calling us up and insisting that we stop doing what we have always done. For the Commissioner to step down....what did he do - and anti-franco slur..did he use the word frog instead of fog of war?

Visionseeker · February 26, 2009

Interesting editorial in the Post this morning on this subject. I wonder how many others are losing patience with Quebec's endless snivelling, whining and victimhood status.
Editorial: Tell Quebec where to get off

I’ve never had much by way of a favourable opinion for the National Post. But still I couldn't believe that they published this screed. “Tell Quebec where to get off”??? I mean really. Is this inflammatory title indicative of mature political discourse? No, both the title and the substance of the editorial (including the manufactured statistics) are the product of a petty, vindictive, ignorant and infantile mind.

If you wanted to find a ceremony that approaches an analogous level of offence, you need look no further than the Orangemen’s parade in Belfast. That the author omits this contrarian example suggests a heavy mark of ignorance; wilful or otherwise. But I will not give the author the benefit of ignorance on this score, no. The omission was deliberate because the author carries within his or herself the full tradition of the Orangist movement: the subjugation of the conquered - those whose exclusion justifies the continuation of the Order.

I, for one, am sick of it. Sick of this mindset that presupposes that an opinion from Quebec must be contrary to their own; that the emotional lessons of history must be homogeneous; that the answer to grievance is to give new reason to grieve.

The distressing part of this whole affair is that the one ceremony that is inarguably the most fitting for this celebratory occasion has had so little exposure:

Bury the hatchet on Plains of Abraham

CANADIEN · February 26, 2009

People, I hate to interrupt this illuminating discussion. It seems the embattled Battlefields Commissioner is prepared to step down. I think that would be a good idea. The Bloc and the PQ were looking for publicity to beat the drum of separation and boy did they fall on a dandy opportunity. I'm sure Juneau could do without all the aggravation that goes with his job.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0225?hub=Canada

Good riddance. From the start, his handling of the whole thing, in particular the way he was selling the event, was dismal.

CANADIEN · February 26, 2009

I’ve never had much by way of a favourable opinion for the National Post. But still I couldn't believe that they published this screed. “Tell Quebec where to get off”??? I mean really. Is this inflammatory title indicative of mature political discourse? No, both the title and the substance of the editorial (including the manufactured statistics) are the product of a petty, vindictive, ignorant and infantile mind.
If you wanted to find a ceremony that approaches an analogous level of offence, you need look no further than the Orangemen’s parade in Belfast. That the author omits this contrarian example suggests a heavy mark of ignorance; wilful or otherwise. But I will not give the author the benefit of ignorance on this score, no. The omission was deliberate because the author carries within his or herself the full tradition of the Orangist movement: the subjugation of the conquered - those whose exclusion justifies the continuation of the Order.

I, for one, am sick of it. Sick of this mindset that presupposes that an opinion from Quebec must be contrary to their own; that the emotional lessons of history must be homogeneous; that the answer to grievance is to give new reason to grieve.

The distressing part of this whole affair is that the one ceremony that is inarguably the most fitting for this celebratory occasion has had so little exposure:

Bury the hatchet on Plains of Abraham

I have been one who, from the startm had said the re-enactment should be viewed by everyone as what it was, an occasion for week-end would be historians to play soldiers. The accusations that the whole thing was yet an other attempt by the "big bad Anglo government in Ottawa" to humiliate Quebecers are non-sense. And it would be nice if the fixation on the Conquest was put on the back burner.

And then, there are things like that National Post piece of trash of an editorial. What a better reminder that there are people who view events such as re-eneacting the Battle of the Plains of Abraham as a way of reminding Quebecers of "who is the boss". Then of course, some of those same people will tell opponents of the re-enectment to mature while showing they themselves don't have the maturity necessary to go above good 'ole francophobia. While they say :it's just a re-enactment of a battle from long ago, get over it", people like the Post editorialists act like hard-core Orangists on the eve a new parade season.

How Qyebecers and French-speaking Canadians see the past is their own business, and they do not need lessons on that from those who, through their bigoted words and actions, are doing their outmost to prove the "the Anglos still try to dominate us" crowd right.

Edited February 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

g_bambino · February 26, 2009

Yes, actually, I was incorrect.

No, Smallc, you were correct; the Constitution Act 1867 specifically states (s. IV.17) that "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons."

Smallc · February 26, 2009

No, Smallc, you were correct; the Constitution Act 1867 specifically states (s. IV.17) that "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons."

Oh, well...I guess that means I was incorrect later...I've heard them say Crown and Monarchy and Queen...come to think of it, I suppose it really doesn't matter. The Governor General represents the Queen, the Crown, and the Monarchy....whenever she greets a foreign leader they are said to have gotten a 'Royal Welcome'.

Wilber · February 26, 2009

If you wanted to find a ceremony that approaches an analogous level of offence, you need look no further than the Orangemen’s parade in Belfast. That the author omits this contrarian example suggests a heavy mark of ignorance; wilful or otherwise. But I will not give the author the benefit of ignorance on this score, no. The omission was deliberate because the author carries within his or herself the full tradition of the Orangist movement: the subjugation of the conquered - those whose exclusion justifies the continuation of the Order.

Just as a matter of curiosity, what "Order" is there in the ROC that celebrates this battle or the conquest of New France by Britain? What "Order" is it that celebrates this event with a parade through the center of the city?

Visionseeker · February 26, 2009

Just as a matter of curiosity, what "Order" is there in the ROC that celebrates this battle or the conquest of New France by Britain? What "Order" is it that celebrates this event with a parade through the center of the city?

Thank you Wilber for inviting me to respond.

The "Order" has long since dissolved (WWI has something to do with this but I digress), yet the mentality endures. The National Post editorial illustrates just how that mindset exists today. The "parade" element is manifest in the expectation that the re-enactment proceed.

tango · February 26, 2009

I remember reading, back when this first blew up, that an organizer said there were already many tickets sold and people coming from Britain.

Get the visual ... brits in hats with handkerchiefs, sweating and celebrating Britains great victory in 'the colonies'.

I can understand how that would make Quebecers' skin crawl.

It makes me wince too.

g_bambino · February 26, 2009

It makes me wince too.

Yes, but the question is: why? Are all non-Quebecers supposed to feel some kind of collective guilt for what transpired on the Plains of Abraham and thereafter? If so, why continue to self-inflict this anguish and not just right these supposed wrongs by letting the seprtatists have what they want?

jbg · February 26, 2009

As far as kings rulling by devine right...

Only in Saskatechewan from 1982 to 1991. :lol:

jbg · February 26, 2009

I’ve never had much by way of a favourable opinion for the National Post. But still I couldn't believe that they published this screed. “Tell Quebec where to get off”??? I mean really. Is this inflammatory title indicative of mature political discourse? No, both the title and the substance of the editorial (including the manufactured statistics) are the product of a petty, vindictive, ignorant and infantile mind.

Maybe people are fed up with this BS "political correctness"?

CANADIEN · February 26, 2009

Thank you Wilber for inviting me to respond.
The "Order" has long since dissolved (WWI has something to do with this but I digress), yet the mentality endures. The National Post editorial illustrates just how that mindset exists today. The "parade" element is manifest in the expectation that the re-enactment proceed.

The problem with the position examplified by the National Post is not that its proponents want the re-enactment to go ahead, but the reason why they want it to proceed. It is one thing to say "it's just a re-enectment" or "that battle was 250 years a go, get over it:, It's quite different when a newspaper editorial wants the re-enectment to go ahead as a way to remind people of who is the boss.

CANADIEN · February 26, 2009

Yes, but the question is: why? Are all non-Quebecers supposed to feel some kind of collective guilt for what transpired on the Plains of Abraham and thereafter? If so, why continue to self-inflict this anguish and not just right these supposed wrongs by letting the seprtatists have what they want?

Nobody here is talking about anyone having to feel guilty about an event that took place 250 years ago. If anything, there is an expectation by some that Quebecers should feel ashamed for not viewing the past the way other Canadians see it. I for one am not a big fan of using the past as a way to play the victim, but how they view their past is their business.

CANADIEN · February 26, 2009

Maybe people are fed up with this BS "political correctness"?

And I am fed up eith the "you shall view the past as we see it, or else" and the "we are the boss and don't you forget it" BS.

g_bambino · February 26, 2009

Nobody here is talking about anyone having to feel guilty about an event that took place 250 years ago. If anything, there is an expectation by some that Quebecers should feel ashamed for not viewing the past the way other Canadians see it. I for one am not a big fan of using the past as a way to play the victim, but how they view their past is their business.

Then, if there's no reason to feel guilty about it, why either pretend it never happened or re-cast it in a villified light? You see, the separatists are playing victim, and rewriting history in order to do so; convincing Quebecers that they and their ancestors have been continuously oppressed by a larger, foreign, and invading group not only attracts persons to their cause of fighting these oppressors, but is intended to simultaneously condem that larger group as overbearing tyrants. It is only with that separatist view in mind that one could see a re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham as a way for Anglophone Canadians (the careless overlords) to communicate their continued power to Quebecers (the imprisoned underlings). But, was the battle actually the beginning of the subjugation of the Quebecois, as Marois and her ilk would like to have not only Quebecers, but the entire world, believe? Or, was it simply a battle in history that ended with Quebec existing within the protective fold of the Crown, where the language, legal, and religious rights of the Francophone inhabitants have been enshrined for centuries, much unlike their cousins in Nouvelle Orleans (which is most likely the fate Quebec would have shared had the British not been there to defend the territory from the Americans). So, what a re-enactment of the battle represents depends wholly on the truth of what actually transpired following its end - if the Quebecois have suffered for twenty five decades under their invaders, then yes, the re-enactment would be a vainglorious reminder to the province of who's boots it is they must lick. However, if Quebec and its culture flourished within the British Empire and later Canada, then what's to make anyone - Quebecer and non-Quebecers alike - feel ashamed about if not celebrating, at least acknowledging without additional meaning, what transpired in 1759?

_copyedited

Edited February 26, 2009 by g_bambino