Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

[blueblood]

ctv

apparently according to Duceppe, freedom of expression is only allowed when it agrees with his ideology.

[madmax]

It would be like a Civil War re enactment where only the Union Showed up.

[blueblood]

It would be like a Civil War re enactment where only the Union Showed up.

How so, both sides showed up, however the redcoats gave them a thrashing.

[madmax]

How so, both sides showed up, however the redcoats gave them a thrashing.

I am suggesting that if there was a outcry from the South against historical re enactments, (which provide some of the most popular festivities in the US, creates huge tourism revenues, and provided the realism to create the movie Gettysburg), then there would be no fight.

It would be like the Union Forces showing up and having no one to act with.

It would be like protesting a movie made about the battle.

Its political now, and we see many politicians use events such as this as propoganda for grandstanding and creating a BUZZ when none would have ever happened.

I think its stupid.

[CANADIEN]

ctv

apparently according to Duceppe, freedom of expression is only allowed when it agrees with his ideology.

This has nothing to do with freedom of expression. The event is nothing more and nothing less that a bunch of history buffs re-eneacting a battle.

Politicians should mind their own business, which is to run (or criticise) the government, and let the Battlefield Commission to its job, which includes letting people do historical re-enectments as long as they do it safely and clean after themselves.

On the other end, it is somehow gratifying to see that the Bloc's cause has sunk so low that Duceppe will grasp at any straw. He should get a life.

[CANADIEN]

I am suggesting that if there was a outcry from the South against historical re enactments, (which provide some of the most popular festivities in the US, creates huge tourism revenues, and provided the realism to create the movie Gettysburg), then there would be no fight.

It would be like the Union Forces showing up and having no one to act with.

It would be like protesting a movie made about the battle.

Its political now, and we see many politicians use events such as this as propoganda for grandstanding and creating a BUZZ when none would have ever happened.

I think its stupid.

Hear. Hear. Let's the history buff have their fun day.

[kimmy]

I dunno, the aboriginals were pretty pissed off about the Columbus 500th anniversary thing, weren't they?

-k

[CANADIEN]

BTW, has anyone told the moron (Duceppe0 that the commemoration will include a re-eneactment of both the Battle of the Plains of Abraham of 1759 AND the 1960 Battle of Sainte-Foy (a FRENCH victory)?

(LINK)

[Progressive Tory]

"Some Tories refused to speak about the re-enactment, express support for it, or say how much federal money might be spent on it."

There are two sides to every story.

"This celebration of a military event will just revive old political, religious and ethnic antagonisms. It is the use of history as a political weapon."

Francoise Le Jeune, who heads the University of Nantes' Centre for the Study of Canada, said it is important for a young country like Canada to find unifying landmarks."

This has the potential to be used as a political weapon, that could have a very negative impact on the Conservatives. With bloggers and message boards now suggesting that Harper is actually forcing the re-enactment.

I don't believe that he is, but if Duceppe can manipulate public emotion, it may bring more Quebecers clamouring to the Bloc and protesting the Government's stand on the issue. This presents an opportunity for Harper to mend some fences, but so far he is just staying mum.

[madmax]

I dunno, the aboriginals were pretty pissed off about the Columbus 500th anniversary thing, weren't they?

-k

No idea, I watched "The NEW WORLD", about Pocahauntas. Historically accurate, covered Aboriginals with respect.

Just a boring movie.... unfortuneately.

[Progressive Tory]

No idea, I watched "The NEW WORLD", about Pocahauntas. Historically accurate, covered Aboriginals with respect.

Just a boring movie.... unfortuneately.

It was a boring movie. I really looked forward to watching it but was disappointed.

[85RZ500]

I know this is off topic a bit but isn't the Bloc a blight on our society?

Not a PQ put down, hey it could be any provincial group in the country. These people exist to bust up the nation, and the nation pays them for their efforts.

And language, we are an officially billingual country. In the house of commons the other parties go back and forth with the two languages when their members speak.

Not the Bloc, they persist in flaunting the rules and we bend over , once again , and let them get away with it.

Only in Canada.

Edited February 13, 2009 by 85RZ500

[blueblood]

"Some Tories refused to speak about the re-enactment, express support for it, or say how much federal money might be spent on it."

There are two sides to every story.

"This celebration of a military event will just revive old political, religious and ethnic antagonisms. It is the use of history as a political weapon."

Francoise Le Jeune, who heads the University of Nantes' Centre for the Study of Canada, said it is important for a young country like Canada to find unifying landmarks."

This has the potential to be used as a political weapon, that could have a very negative impact on the Conservatives. With bloggers and message boards now suggesting that Harper is actually forcing the re-enactment.

I don't believe that he is, but if Duceppe can manipulate public emotion, it may bring more Quebecers clamouring to the Bloc and protesting the Government's stand on the issue. This presents an opportunity for Harper to mend some fences, but so far he is just staying mum.

Funny in my link, Liberal MP Pablo Rodriquez, who is from Quebec also supports the re-enactment.

[Progressive Tory]

Funny in my link, Liberal MP Pablo Rodriquez, who is from Quebec also supports the re-enactment.

I read that as well, and I'm sure there are probably other Liberals (who knows, maybe even a few Bloc and NDP) also in favour of it, or at least accepting of it. My point is that the Conservatives have some fences to mend in Quebec after their December Separatist Extravaganza.

It's all about politics. If Duceppe can stir up emotions and rally Quebecers over this issue, it's just one more nail in Harper's coffin when it comes to winning back any support from that province.

This might have been a good opportunity for him to say, 'you know what. If you feel that strongly about this, we'll claw back the funding'. (They can't really stop the event I don't think, can they?)

It would then be a non-issue for Duceppe, who I'm sure doesn't like the idea of the event, but if he can score a few political points over it, all the better.

[Progressive Tory]

Only in Canada.

I do find the whole thing a little odd. But, like you say; Only in Canada.

[whowhere]

Well, That is fine to Reenact the Loss of Quebec/Canada to the English in 1759 to propogate the delusions of Grandeur of British Dominance of North America. British Dominance and abuse of Canada, Yes. British Dominance of North America, No.

The fact is Quebec/Canada was lost during what is known as the Seven Year War in Europe. France was blocked from sending its battleships to protect Quebec/Canada. That is fact. However, those of Quebec lineage have been psychologically abused by the lying English into to believing france abondoned the Colony. Which is not true. 20 years later France provided the military resources and funding to help bring about an Independent United States. This support was contigent on the US regaining Quebec/Canada for France. This did not happen, partly because of Benedict Arnold. The US fought 4 years to regain Canada to only abondon the cause when they secured what they wanted (their independence from Britain). To the non-believers read the documented letters at the library of Congress of George Washington, etc. It's all available on the Internet from the Library of Congress. In 1778 the Marquis Lafayette of France working with US army spearheaded a final campaign to capture Canada but this attempt failed.

So all you English Elitists and even the French for that matter get your own alphabet and quite defiling the Roman God of Jupiters language with your propagating shit. You want to fabricate history to suit your twisted agenda go for it. Jesus wrote about shit branches. They are going to be tossed into the Furnace where there will be gnashing of teeth. The fact is, the Truth of history will come shining through for all to see. The Force of Life and History will move forward in Truth.

If this commission wants to renact this event go for it but this will only get people looking at what France was doing around this time as well. The fact is 1759 and 1812 is British History, Not Canadian History.

So Where's the British Dominance of North America??? Britain held North America for not even 20 years but has emotionally and psychologically abused Quebec for 250 years.

So really, what is the point of this ongoing drama? How does it contribute to making Canada a prospering and productive Country?

[CANADIEN]

The fact is Quebec/Canada was lost during what is known as the Seven Year War in Europe. France was blocked from sending its battleships to protect Quebec/Canada. That is fact. However, those of Quebec lineage have been psychologically abused by the lying English into to believing france abondoned the Colony. Which is not true. 20 years later France provided the military resources and funding to help bring about an Independent United States. This support was contigent on the US regaining Quebec/Canada for France. This did not happen, partly because of Benedict Arnold. The US fought 4 years to regain Canada to only abondon the cause when they secured what they wanted (their independence from Britain). To the non-believers read the documented letters at the library of Congress of George Washington, etc. It's all available on the Internet from the Library of Congress. In 1778 the Marquis Lafayette of France working with US army spearheaded a final campaign to capture Canada but this attempt failed.

And then, there is the text of the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance

ART. 5.

If the united States should think fit to attempt the Reduction of the British Power remaining in the Northern Parts of America, or the Islands of Bermudas, those Countries or Islands in case of Success, shall be confederated with or dependent upon the said united States.

ART. 6.

The Most Christian King renounces for ever the possession of the Islands of Bermudas as well as of any part of the continent of North america which before the treaty of Paris in 1763. or in virtue of that Treaty, were acknowledged to belong to the Crown of Great Britain, or to the united States heretofore called British Colonies, or which are at this Time or have lately been under the Power of The King and Crown of Great Britain.

Sounds clear enough to me.

So all you English Elitists and even the French for that matter get your own alphabet and quite defiling the Roman God of Jupiters language with your propagating shit. You want to fabricate history to suit your twisted agenda go for it. Jesus wrote about shit branches. They are going to be tossed into the Furnace where there will be gnashing of teeth. The fact is, the Truth of history will come shining through for all to see. The Force of Life and History will move forward in Truth.

:lol: :lol:

Edited February 14, 2009 by CANADIEN

[whowhere]

And then, there is the text of the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance

Sounds clear enough to me.

:lol: :lol:

Hmm, I wonder how many times Countries entered into treaties they didn't mean or state they are not involved in something when they in fact were. How many times have countries not honored treaties. It is on Record France denied aiding the American Independence which they did. When France signed this agreement it was under duress as they were financially weakened. Actions is what reveals the truth, not words. To arrive at the truth you have to approach the event from all sides.

You have no interest in truth. You Canadien are a troll of sorts and you actually think whatever it is you propogate on these forums will be accepted as history by the unaware. Maybe the vain who will not research the history for themselves will rely on your vain history interpretation but I am sure in this day and age most will use their brain and look at the facts and not your revisionist agenda.

[Visionseeker]

Hmm, I wonder how many times Countries entered into treaties they didn't mean or state they are not involved in something when they in fact were. How many times have countries not honored treaties. It is on Record France denied aiding the American Independence which they did. When France signed this agreement it was under duress as they were financially weakened. Actions is what reveals the truth, not words. To arrive at the truth you have to approach the event from all sides.

You have no interest in truth. You Canadien are a troll of sorts and you actually think whatever it is you propogate on these forums will be accepted as history by the unaware. Maybe the vain who will not research the history for themselves will rely on your vain history interpretation but I am sure in this day and age most will use their brain and look at the facts and not your revisionist agenda.

Mark of a weak argument: met with evidence, reply with insults.

The French DID give up on New France. While the colony had always done quite well at defending itself, it was increasingly economically dependent on the mother country throughout its existence. Some of this dependency was born from the fledgling population base, but the main causes were the manufacturing prohibitions imposed by the crown, and simple demographics.

From 1713 to 1760, the British colonies had grown to over a million inhabitants. New France counted about 70,000. With British colonials easily outnumbering their French neighbours, the strategic worth of New France had eroded. Indian alliances and small armies would soon be no match to the numbers of British colonials, so it was but a matter of time before the colony was abandoned – as it was in 1763.

That being said, I don't like this re-enactment crap any more than I like the idea of an Orangeman’s parade. Sure you can argue that it’s a historical exercise, but the discipline of history has been poorly served in this country.

The Plains of Abraham was a meaningless, ineptly fought battle. Why would anyone choose to re-enact it?

[CANADIEN]

You have no interest in truth. You Canadien are a troll of sorts and you actually think whatever it is you propogate on these forums will be accepted as history by the unaware. Maybe the vain who will not research the history for themselves will rely on your vain history interpretation but I am sure in this day and age most will use their brain and look at the facts and not your revisionist agenda.

This coming from the one who believe non-existing Roman Gods have a monopoly on the alphabet, and rely on the Bible to prove that argument. :lol:

[Progressive Tory]

The fact is Quebec/Canada was lost during what is known as the Seven Year War in Europe. If this commission wants to renact this event go for it but this will only get people looking at what France was doing around this time as well. The fact is 1759 and 1812 is British History, Not Canadian History.

You're absolutely right. Most written history of Canada only barely reflects our actual history. It started with Francis Parkman, who in the 19th century, was asked to fabricate a chain of events with what written materials he could find, to validate British claims to the country.

Of course, in order to do that, we have to believe that 13 men in Kebec ruled over hundreds of thousands of First Nations; or that 50 men at Port Royal did the same.

The first Europeans to visit Canada were fur traders, cod fishermen, clerics and adventurers; and the early treaties were for trading rights; not land acquisition. Read European history of the period and Canada barely gets an honourable mention. We only became a part of their history later when we were pencilled in.

Re-enactments are a rather silly thing... usually short on history but long on play acting. This one has only gained notoriety because it's been made a political tool.

[CANADIEN]

You're absolutely right.

You'll find quickly enough that this is rare thing coming from him.

Most written history of Canada only barely reflects our actual history. It started with Francis Parkman, who in the 19th century, was asked to fabricate a chain of events with what written materials he could find, to validate British claims to the country.

I would not go that far, but fact is Parkman's writings with his noble Europeans civilizing the land and Montcalm and Wolfe has noble heroic figures has little bearing with reality.

Re-enactments are a rather silly thing... usually short on history but long on play acting.

One more reason to have the week-end "historians" have their fun. Only idiots would see it as an attempt at humiliating anyone.

[whowhere]

Mark of a weak argument: met with evidence, reply with insults.

The French DID give up on New France. While the colony had always done quite well at defending itself, it was increasingly economically dependent on the mother country throughout its existence. Some of this dependency was born from the fledgling population base, but the main causes were the manufacturing prohibitions imposed by the crown, and simple demographics.

From 1713 to 1760, the British colonies had grown to over a million inhabitants. New France counted about 70,000. With British colonials easily outnumbering their French neighbours, the strategic worth of New France had eroded. Indian alliances and small armies would soon be no match to the numbers of British colonials, so it was but a matter of time before the colony was abandoned – as it was in 1763.

abandoned???? New France was lost to the British in 1759 so how can France abondon the colony in 1763. If New France was such a declining colony why did the King of England allow the French colonists to continue on as they did under the French? If the French colony was on the decline why did the British in the 1800s bring in a million people from other common wealth countries to counter Quebec's population increases.

That being said, I don't like this re-enactment crap any more than I like the idea of an Orangeman’s parade. Sure you can argue that it’s a historical exercise, but the discipline of history has been poorly served in this country.

The Plains of Abraham was a meaningless, ineptly fought battle. Why would anyone choose to re-enact it?

Why? reenact it the history it will create tourism for Quebec and make quebec money. It will also start the education process on how North America came to be.

[whowhere]

This coming from the one who believe non-existing Roman Gods have a monopoly on the alphabet, and rely on the Bible to prove that argument. :lol:

Non existing Roman Gods?? Rome endured for a thousand years. The Roman's God was Jupiter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...2&version=9

Matthew 22:21

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

There you have it, Jesus has stated to render onto Ceaser's which is Ceaser and that which is God's God's. This alphabet is of Rome and the Roman's God was Jupiter.

[seabee]

Debate over; on the noon news on Radio-Canada, I saw an interview with the director of the National Battlefield Commission announce that the reconstitution was cancelled.

Radio-Canada

Edited February 14, 2009 by seabee