Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

[M.Dancer]

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

for JBG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saint-Eustache

[Leafless]

UPDATE:

Plains of Abraham boss willing to resign over battle flap

OTTAWA - The federal bureaucrat responsible for the Plains of Abraham says he's prepared to resign over a battle re-enactment controversy - but only if the government asks him to leave.

The Conservatives appeared particularly eager to lay blame for the debacle at the feet of the Bloc Quebecois.

They noted that the Bloc and its provincial cousin, the Parti Quebecois, are the biggest advertisers in a sovereigntist newsletter that raised the prospect of violence if the event went ahead.

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre made the link repeatedly, accusing the Bloc Quebecois again and again of "financing" a newspaper that endorses violence and racism.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/...8533461-cp.html

[Wilber]

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.

As I thought, there is no such "Order". No doubt in years gone by there was an element of "who's the boss" from some Canadians but in fact a majority of Canada's population today is of neither British or French origin and I doubt those Canadians are interested in bragging rights over the outcome of a 250 year old battle between the French and the English, nor do they feel insulted by the result. That doesn't change the fact the Plains of Abraham was a defining moment in the history of the country they live in, whether that is Quebec or the ROC. It's too bad many Quebecois are unable move on and treat it as such, instead of regarding it as some sort of personal insult.

With regard to the Post editorial. It's title was unfortunate and antagonistic but it makes some valid points, expresses some of the frustration many other Canadians feel when it comes to Quebec and asks an important question. Why have the people of other countries been able to get past similar events in their history and just look at them for what they are, while we cannot seem to?

[Leafless]

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'.

"The Canadian Parliament is composed of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Monarchy. In theory, for a law to come into effect, it must be approved by all three parts of Parliament."

The Monarchy & the Canadian Parliament

The Canadian Parliament is one of the fundamental institutions in Canadian government, and is responsible for the development and enactment of federal laws. The Canadian Parliament is composed of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Monarchy. In theory, for a law to come into effect, it must be approved by all three parts of Parliament.

The House of Commons is the elected legislative body of Parliament. Members of the House of Commons (called Members of Parliament or MPs) are elected by Canadians to serve five-year terms, although these terms often end up being shorter. These elected representatives deliberate and pass government legislation. It is also important to note that the government of the day is represented by the political party with the greatest number of elected representatives in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party with the most elected representatives.

For more information on the House of Commons:

Parliament of Canada: Guide to the Canadian House of Commons

Mapleleafweb: Who’s Who in the House of Commons

The Senate is the non-elected legislative body of Parliament. Members of the Senate (called Senators) are not elected directly by Canadians, but appointed by the federal government. The Senate was designed to act as a counter-balance to the democratically elected House of Commons (as a body of “sober second thought”) and as an avenue of regional representation in Parliament. Each region of Canada is represented by a given number of Senators in the Red Chamber. In theory, no law can pass without approval by the Senate; however, in practice, the Senate very rarely exercises this power and generally approves all laws passed by the House of Commons.

For more information on the Senate:

Mapleleafweb: The Canadian Senate – History and Structure

Mapleleafweb: Senate Reform in Canada

The third component of Parliament is the monarchy. Again, in theory, no law can be passed without approval by the monarchy (before a bill officially becomes law in Canada, it must be given Royal Assent). The monarchy also has the power to appoint the Prime Minister, and to summon and dissolve Parliament. In practice, however, the monarchy rarely exercises these powers independently. The monarch (or its representative in Canada, in the form of the Governor General) automatically gives Royal Assent to all legislation passed by the House of Commons. The actual decision to summon and dissolve Parliament is made by the Prime Minister. Its execution by the monarchy is almost always a formality.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/monarchy-canada

Notice bambino hardly ever supplies links or proof to support his statements.

[g_bambino]

Notice bambino hardly ever supplies links or proof to support his statements.

Nice try.

[Argus]

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.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, of course, except where you term the statistics "manufactured". Would you care to inform us what statistics the story manufactured, and how they were manufactured. This would, of course, neccesitate providing alternate statistics which contradict whatever ones in the editorial you disliked.

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.

Nonsense. The historical reinactment was designed for the battlefield where the battle was fought. The orangemen didn't content themselves with celebrating a particular victory at the place where they won, but insisted on parading through Catholic neighborhoods for days before the anniversary every single year. This often also involved destroying Catholic tenaments, and throwing stones and pennies at the Catholics. Their parades were a deliberate statement of power and control. No one but an imbecile would conclude the reinactment would be anything like that.

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 don't see how reinacting a miltary battle here is any more of a "subjugation" than reinactments of the Napoleanic war battles which appear to be regularly undertaken in France.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

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.

Very few of the people who dislike Quebec - and I count myself among them - dislike Quebecers simply because they speak another language. Your term "francophobia" was invented by people determined to see themselves as victimized somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary. No, there are all kinds of reasons for intense dislike of Quebec and Quebecers in general, starting with their bigotry - with a pronounced appreciation for ethnic cleansing - narcisisism, arrogance, dishonesty, sense of entitlement, and general unappreciative begging and whininess. There is simply nothing about Quebec or Quebecers that most Canadians would have any cause to want much exposure to.

How Qyebecers and French-speaking Canadians see the past is their own business

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is NOT simply french history, it is part of English Canada's history, too.

[Argus]

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.

Yeah, but fortunately, only raving paranoids would believe that.

[Argus]

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.

Oh really? How many Anglos have threatened violence over this affair? That kind of primitive, backward, ethnic nationalism seems to be something we see mainly from the quebecois - a people akin to Eurotrash at their worst, but without the education and cultural sophistication.

[CANADIEN]

nsense. The historical reinactment was designed for the battlefield where the battle was fought. The orangemen didn't content themselves with celebrating a particular victory at the place where they won, but insisted on parading through Catholic neighborhoods for days before the anniversary every single year. This often also involved destroying Catholic tenaments, and throwing stones and pennies at the Catholics. Their parades were a deliberate statement of power and control. No one but an imbecile would conclude the reinactment would be anything like that.

Except that now the Post has made it clear that they think Quebecers has to be reminded of who is the boss.

Edited February 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Very few of the people who dislike Quebec - and I count myself among them -

I wouldn't have guessed.

(..) dislike Quebecers simply because they speak another language. Your term "francophobia" was invented by people determined to see themselves as victimized somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary.

And I believe in Santa Claus... I know from experience that most of time it reverts back to one thing...The fact that French-speaking Canadians speak French.

No, there are all kinds of reasons for intense dislike of Quebec and Quebecers in general, starting with their bigotry - with a pronounced appreciation for ethnic cleansing - narcisisism, arrogance, dishonesty, sense of entitlement, and general unappreciative begging and whininess.

This coming the the chief islamophobe anti-immigrant poster on this site, who advocates a return to slavery. :lol:

There is simply nothing about Quebec or Quebecers that most Canadians would have any cause to want much exposure to.

My feeling about you exactly.

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is NOT simply french history, it is part of English Canada's history, too.

And who claim to say the contrary. Certainly not me. Nor would I tell you how to view it. So don't go tell others how they are supposed to view it.

[CANADIEN]

Yeah, but fortunately, only raving paranoids would believe that.

Now that I think about it, paeanoid is an apt decription for the National Post.

[guyser]

There is simply nothing about Quebec or Quebecers that most Canadians would have any cause to want much exposure to.

True enough...except for...

Culture

Food

The Habs (only winner in the east)

Scenery

Architecture

Carnivals

Just for Laughs

Skiing

X country Skiing

Bike Trails

Amazing small towns

Geography

History

...cant think of any other reasons right now, so yeah, not a place for anyone to visit.

Edited February 26, 2009 by guyser

[CANADIEN]

Oh really? How many Anglos have threatened violence over this affair? That kind of primitive, backward, ethnic nationalism seems to be something we see mainly from the quebecois - a people akin to Eurotrash at their worst, but without the education and cultural sophistication.

Yes really. You will notice that I have not said, nor as anyone claimed, that any English-speaking Canadians have threatened violence. But there are some, here and elsewhere, who have made it clear that they want to use the whole episode to remind the "Frogs" that they are the boss and kick them out if necessary. Feel free to lower yourself by ignoring or siding with them if that suits you.

And yes, I have enough of it. And the hypocrisy of those who complain about Quebec's language laws then whine there's too much French. And the morons who call people names, insult them, threatened they have the audacity of speaking French in public. The unsophisticated and uneducated idiots.

And spare yourself the embarassement of wiriting "that's what Quebcers do too". First, what I wrote is also what I think of any imbecile who goes nuts every time they see English on a business sign. Second, it would only show your hypocrisy.

Edited February 27, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Wilber]

But there are some, here and elsewhere, who have made it clear that they want to use the whole episode to remind the "Frogs" that they are the boss and kick them out if necessary.

They have?

[CANADIEN]

They have?

Some of the gems I saw a few days back on the Globe and Mail and CTV Websites, and elsewhere:

"Maybe it is time that La Belle Province fall off of our wonderful Canadian map."

"Perhaps the separatists need to be reminded of the outcome of that battle?"

"It's time to end official bilingualism".

Far from me to claim they represent anything but the opinion of a few people, but that opinion exists nonetheless and I do not have to, nor will I, take it.

[WestViking]

I am going back to my Post 132 on this topic.

I will disagree with that assessment. The residents of New France resisted 'Anglicization' mandated by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and onward. The Treaty of Paris cut them loose from France, but they remained true to their heritage and with the aid of Governor James Murray, and later by his replacement Sir Guy Carlton, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act in 1774. Residents of what had been New France, or Canada were given the right to maintain their language, religion, culture and system of civil law. This resistance did not come from a 'humiliated' people.

While the Battle of the Plains of Abraham marked a significant change in the course of Canada’s history, it also marked the start of a unique history of our French speaking people. Western Canada is speckled with towns and cities founded by Quebec clerics and initially populated by Quebecois. The unique character and culture of Quebec and in particular Quebec City has survived for two and a half centuries and shows no sign of diminishing. Quebecers have thrived in every field of endeavour.

While the French loss of the Seven Years War may have humbled an empire and a king, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham did not humble the people of New France. Cast adrift from France by the Treaty of Paris, the original French Canadians have built a unique monument to their heritage. With so much to celebrate, and a vibrant, modern French speaking capital to showcase to the world, cancellation of the Plains of Abraham re-enactment is as sad and misguided as the threats that were made by a small group intent on wallowing in unwarranted self-pity.

I recognize that there is a small group of Quebecois who have illusions of grandeur and who agitate for a separate Quebec at every opportunity. They do not represent anyone except themselves. They do not speak for Quebec or Quebecers. They have no elected office and no authority.

Much of the animosity generated in response to the Plains of Abraham issue has to do with the threats to use physical violence to disrupt activities if the reenactment proceeds. We are a peaceful people and do not react well to threats of violence whether from criminal gangs or separatist megalomaniacs. Threatening the peace and order of our society is not an acceptable tactic in political debate. We can never allow any group to win thir point by threatening peaceful citizens and visitors.

In return, we have to confine out vitriol to the people who issued threats to win a point and accept that they do not represent Quebec or Quebecers any more than a criminal gang represents anyone other than its members.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Charles Anthony
fixed link; N.B.: in the post editor, you have to use BBcode instead of standard HTML tags

[Wilber]

Some of the gems I saw a few days back on the Globe and Mail and CTV Websites, and elsewhere:

"Maybe it is time that La Belle Province fall off of our wonderful Canadian map."

"Perhaps the separatists need to be reminded of the outcome of that battle?"

"It's time to end official bilingualism".

Far from me to claim they represent anything but the opinion of a few people, but that opinion exists nonetheless and I do not have to, nor will I, take it.

Who here is asking you to take it? I don't think most Canadians feel that way but it is not unusual for people to say dumb emotional things in situations like this. Are you a separatist? If so why would you be offended if La Belle Province did "fall off our wonderful Canadian map"? Too bad there are some Canadians on both sides of this issue who aren't able to treat our history as just that and nothing more, rather than taking it personally. Insisting on playing the victim will not get you people's respect. Quite the contrary.

[Smallc]

True enough...except for...

...cant think of any other reasons right now, so yeah, not a place for anyone to visit.

I can't wait until I'm done my course...I'm going to visit Quebec. I'm trying to learn a little French to get ready.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Smallc

[CANADIEN]

Who here is asking you to take it?

Did I say anyone here said I should take it? Nope, although Argus seem to have a problem with me not taking it.

Are you a separatist?

You read my postings on this and other threads, and you tell me.

[g_bambino]

Some of the gems I saw a few days back on the Globe and Mail and CTV Websites, and elsewhere:

"Maybe it is time that La Belle Province fall off of our wonderful Canadian map."

"Perhaps the separatists need to be reminded of the outcome of that battle?"

"It's time to end official bilingualism".

Far from me to claim they represent anything but the opinion of a few people, but that opinion exists nonetheless and I do not have to, nor will I, take it.

Frankly, I don't see any of those as necessarily expressing a need for Quebecers to be further subjugated (as though they were already). What I see, instead, is a sign of frustration on the part of non-Quebecers in Canada, that after all this time of trying to be as accomodating as demanded, it is never, ever enough for the petty Quebecois nationalists, and, despite the best intentions of working together and compromising, the reaction is always the same: you're an evil, imperial people who are strangling the life out of the poor, innocent, and hapless Quebecois nation. In a round about way it gives the separatists what they want: "English" Canada ceasing to give a toss about whether or not Quebec stays in Confederation, while simultaneously providing a display the separatists can point to as an illustration of how unwanted Quebec is. That people are losing patience with this kind of manipulative charade is hardly surprising, and it would seem to me that telling someone to shove off is quite the opposite of wanting to remain their boss.

Actually, after reading WestViking's post above, I wanted to add that it is indeed unfortunate that the loud-mouth souveraintistes are the ones who become associated with "Quebec"; I doubt that any significant number of people in the RoC have anything in particular against the inhabitants of Quebec as a whole, but, rather, it is specifically those hard-line, whining, manipulating sepratists that most have an issue with.

_{ed. to add}

Edited February 27, 2009 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

While you guys squabble, I'm looking forward to the re-enactment....in the state of New York, USA:

MONTREAL -- The organizer of the re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham says the event will likely go ahead this summer, but not in Canada.

Horst Dresler, president of the Quebec Historical Corps, says he has rejected several offers to stage the re-enactment of the 250th anniversary of the historical battle in Ontario.

Efforts are now being made to organize the re-enactment in upstate New York this summer.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0226?hub=Canada

[Visionseeker]

As I thought, there is no such "Order". No doubt in years gone by there was an element of "who's the boss" from some Canadians but in fact a majority of Canada's population today is of neither British or French origin and I doubt those Canadians are interested in bragging rights over the outcome of a 250 year old battle between the French and the English, nor do they feel insulted by the result. That doesn't change the fact the Plains of Abraham was a defining moment in the history of the country they live in, whether that is Quebec or the ROC. It's too bad many Quebecois are unable move on and treat it as such, instead of regarding it as some sort of personal insult.

With regard to the Post editorial. It's title was unfortunate and antagonistic but it makes some valid points, expresses some of the frustration many other Canadians feel when it comes to Quebec and asks an important question. Why have the people of other countries been able to get past similar events in their history and just look at them for what they are, while we cannot seem to?

Whoa there Wilber, the order may not exist today. But that's not the same as saying it has no influence. Sure, the proportion of the population claiming a British origin has diminished, but the Orangist brand of exclusionary nationalism has gained adherents from non-British decedents.

Some of the strongest anti-Quebec language now comes from English speaking Canadians with Scandinavian, Polish, or Ukrainian last names. But the arguments are same as they were a hundred years ago: imperialist sentiments shrouding the intent to subjugate another group. You need look no further than this editorial for an example.

How the Plains of Abraham defines “our” history is not understood the same way in Quebec as it is in the rest of Canada. This is largely because that “history” has taken the shape of propaganda in both communities. Quebeckers are taught that the Conquest was rape, Canadians outside Quebec are told it was the first step towards a glorious democratic polity we now call Canada. Both interpretations are full of it.

As for how people in other country’s can look past re-enactments, you need to look at the specific circumstances. Waterloo commemorates Napoleon’s defeat in BELGIUM and, besides, Napoleon was a dictator that the French ultimately repudiated. The re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg has always been an exercise in reminding the South who won.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Visionseeker

[CANADIEN]

Frankly, I don't see any of those as necessarily expressing a need for Quebecers to be further subjugated (as though they were already). What I see, instead, is a sign of frustration on the part of non-Quebecers in Canada, that after all this time of trying to be as accomodating as demanded, it is never, ever enough for the petty Quebecois nationalists, and, despite the best intentions of working together and compromising, the reaction is always the same: you're an evil, imperial people who are strangling the life out of the poor, innocent, and hapless Quebecois nation. In a round about way it gives the separatists what they want: "English" Canada ceasing to give a toss about whether or not Quebec stays in Confederation, while simultaneously providing a display the separatists can point to as an illustration of how unwanted Quebec is. That people are losing patience with this kind of manipulative charade is hardly surprising, and it would seem to me that telling someone to shove off is quite the opposite of wanting to remain their boss.

Actually, after reading WestViking's post above, I wanted to add that it is indeed unfortunate that the loud-mouth souveraintistes are the ones who become associated with "Quebec"; I doubt that any significant number of people in the RoC have anything in particular against the inhabitants of Quebec as a whole, but, rather, it is specifically those hard-line, whining, manipulating sepratists that most have an issue with.

_{ed. to add}

The line about reminding the sovereignists about who won the battle looks pretty clear to me.

As the two others, and that detritus of a Post editorial, no need for separatists to do anything to get that kind of answer. The simple continuous existence of French language is enough for some to demonstrate their frustration that French-speaking Canadians are now their equals. Note that I said some, not all. But there is no doubt in my mind the Post is in this case continuing its "fine" tradition of strident, arrogant and unjournalistic attacks - it started years ago when Dianne Francis was wiritng things like "they can speak English anyway" about French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec.

I have said in the past, and I will make clear again, that the separatist movement is misguided, and that some in particular need to get a life. But those who whine "kick Quebec out" are equaly misguided. If their frustration is justified, so is the frustration of those who after 200 centuries of being treated as second class citizens had enough of Canada (and I don't think either is justified). And those who scream "bloody murder" about a bunch of would be historians re-enacting an old battle are not that much worse, threats of violence aside, than those who whine about French on their cereal boxes or it being spoken in goivernment offices.

Edited February 27, 2009 by CANADIEN

[jbg]

While you guys squabble, I'm looking forward to the re-enactment....in the state of New York, USA:

MONTREAL -- The organizer of the re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham says the event will likely go ahead this summer, but not in Canada.

Horst Dresler, president of the Quebec Historical Corps, says he has rejected several offers to stage the re-enactment of the 250th anniversary of the historical battle in Ontario.

Efforts are now being made to organize the re-enactment in upstate New York this summer.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0226?hub=Canada

Take Autoroute 15, which becomes Interstate 87 at the point where the signs go from gibberish to English. Edited February 28, 2009 by jbg