Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

[Argus]

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

Yes, by all means, go to Quebec, get your car keyed by some Quebecois high school dropout who hates Les Maudits Anglais, then have a wide bellied cop with gravy in his moustache write you up for imaginary offenses.

[Argus]

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.

I disagree. There are reasons why Quebec society gives rise to these sorts of threats but other cultures do not. You'd never get the same thing happening in English Canada because our cultural value set is different. We're a more confident, outward looking people, while Quebecois are sullen, inward looking, defensive, and bristle angrily at anyone who dares to queston their notions of racial and ethnic supremacy.

[g_bambino]

You better tell the US government to change their information

Why? They make no mention of whether or not the monarch is British, Canadian, or Jamaican. So, you're still wrong. Sorry.

[Argus]

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.

An editorial which says we're tired of Quebec's endless whining and snivelling? What has that got to do with a desire for subjugation? It's an expression of disdain for a province which constantly snivels about how mistreated it is, and no matter how much extra it gets it continues to snivel - while all the time believing it's better than anyone else, and that it's somehow being ripped off by not getting more of other people's money.

[Argus]

Or course. As long as the Frenchies understood that once they stepped outside of Quebec they and their Canadian language had second-class status.

Isn't that what they demand for other languages inside Quebec?

[g_bambino]

French-speaking Canadians are Canadians because of the battle and things that have happened since. As for us enjoying full rights now, it can easily be argued that it has occured despite the battle, or more exactly despite the attitutde that we should be treated as conquered people and be assimilated.

There will be some who will "but if it has not been for the British, Quebec would today be part of the United States and be a second Lousiana." The problem with this statement is not that it is an impossible scenario, but that it's presented as the only one. There are many other scenarios, equally plausible.

I'm not sure that this does stray from the topic of the thread. As I'm sensing it, the hubub around this now cancelled event started because Quebec separatists - who notoriously represent themselves as the champions of an oppressed people - said that this re-enactment was just another way for the federal government to not only oppress, but also humiliate Quebecers. The matter, which itself represents a larger pattern, thus comes down to whether or not the separatist's story is right.

Indeed, possible future outcomes are always infinite; you're right that American absorbtion was only one alternative. However, as part of finding the answer to the above question about the sovereigntist story, we have to ask: what is the likelyhood that Quebecois culture would have survived as it has in any plausible alternate scenario? Another question to be asked is: when was the last time there was an organised movement to eliminate Quebecois culture through forced assimilation? I'm certainly not saying the road to the present was always lined with buttercups and covered with rainbows, but, for the few steps back, hasn't movement always ultimately been in the forward direction?

If we can answer those questions with honesty, then we can come to the point of saying what the Battle of the Plains of Abraham represents: the beginning of centuries of struggle for survival against a careless overlord for the Quebecois, or the beginning of a generally peaceful and stable existence for a tiny minority within an entire continent.

_[copyedited]

Edited February 28, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I am not going to respond to your post which tends to encourage hatred and ridicule of an identifiable group.

It's becoming quite evident to me that this is generally the way to respond to Whowheeee. It's become too obvious that the majority of his statements here are just attempts at convincing not us, but himself, of his own delusions. Why participate in such nonsense?

_[copyedited]

Edited February 28, 2009 by g_bambino

[whowhere]

Why? They make no mention of whether or not the monarch is British, Canadian, or Jamaican. So, you're still wrong. Sorry.

What part of Queen Elizabeth II did you not see. Is there another Queen Elizabeth out there. This posts demonstates you are not working with full deck of cards. Lying is not ok. You made an oath of allegiance to your Queen.

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

In turn your queen was sworn in and she pledged allegiance and defense of the faith. That book the King James Version. I suggest you get acquanted with it because your blasphemy towards your Queen which you pledged allegiance to is surely direct path to the furnace of hell where you will be obliterated along with your buddies Canadien and JBg..

[whowhere]

An editorial which says we're tired of Quebec's endless whining and snivelling? What has that got to do with a desire for subjugation? It's an expression of disdain for a province which constantly snivels about how mistreated it is, and no matter how much extra it gets it continues to snivel - while all the time believing it's better than anyone else, and that it's somehow being ripped off by not getting more of other people's money.

This is the kettle calling the kettle black. It appears English Canada is the whiners who is also obscessed with Quebec to the point of harrassment and ridicule.

[g_bambino]

What part of Queen Elizabeth II did you not see. Is there another Queen Elizabeth out there.

Irrelevant to what I said. You claim the British monarch is Canada's head of state. Your only evidence presented was a US government website. Yet, that website says nothing about the British monarch being Canada's head of state, merely that Elizabeth II serves as head of state for Canada. That Elizabeth II is also Queen of the UK while she is Queen of Canada doesn't support your lunatic assertions in any way what-so-ever. You would have us believe that the Jamaican monarch serves as Britain's head of state!

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited February 28, 2009 by g_bambino

[jbg]

Yeah why would the blacks in the US want to forget slavery. Maybe the US should hold parades celebrating this part of history. Maybe they could reenact a slave getting whipped for not getting the work done.

We have a black President. You have had French-speaking Prime Ministers (including one who deliberately made his English incomprehensible though he could speak perfect English).

All you people are trying to do is posture yourself as better then Quebec. This is your attempt to marginalize and degrade Quebec and the people of Quebec. The fact is 1759 is still not your history. It's not even American History because what was the loss of 1604 Canada to them? Other than it provided the motivation for France to help the American Colonies to become free from the British Monarch.

Americans would not care about this reenactment. The only stakeholders in this history is 1604 Canada, Britain and France. 1867 Canada can eff off and get its own history.

It is very much American history, and at the time there was no political division between "Canada" and the U.S. What do you mean by "1604 Canada"? Jamestown was settled in 1607 and I believe the first British permanent settlements in what is now "Canada" were later. Edited February 28, 2009 by jbg

[jbg]

I disagree. There are reasons why Quebec society gives rise to these sorts of threats but other cultures do not. You'd never get the same thing happening in English Canada because our cultural value set is different. We're a more confident, outward looking people, while Quebecois are sullen, inward looking, defensive, and bristle angrily at anyone who dares to queston their notions of racial and ethnic supremacy.

Exactly.

Successful cultures don't have time for "resentments" and "insults".

[CANADIEN]

It's becoming quite evident to me that this is generally the way to respond to Whowheeee. It's become too obvious that the majority of his statements here are just attempts at convincing not us, but himself, of his own delusions. Why participate in such nonsense?

_[copyedited]

Because readiing him is cheapest than going to Yuk Yuk

[CANADIEN]

The message I got from the Post editorial was that we should stop giving the whiny baby of confederation special treatment. It never shuts the baby up, never satisfies it, and angers the rest of the children.

One thing is sure, YOU are a child. Whining that equality of rights is some sort of special treatment, whining about immigrants.

[g_bambino]

Because readiing him is cheapest than going to Yuk Yuk

Well, true. Maybe sometimes there are benefits to feeding the trolls.

[CANADIEN]

Superficial people might think that, just as they thought the Irish problem was about Catholics not liking Protestants, and vice versa. But it really had nothing to do with religion except that the opponents happened to be Catholic and Protestant. It was a handy identifier, just as English-French is a handy identifier. But nobody dislikes people simply because they speak a different language. There are deeper reasons, and in this case, most of them are political and economic.

Thank you. I'll remember this next time someone tells me to speak Canadian.

There is much to dislike about Islam and the followers of it, all based on basic common sense, just as there is much to dislike about Quebec and Quebecers - or Quebecois, if you prefer, based on the same reasoning. Their own cultural value set is quite different from ours. The Islamists are dangerous, while the Quebecois are just stupidly annoying and cost us a ton of money. It has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with judgement.

Deluding yourself in thinking your prejudice is some sort of good judgement, I see.

Edited February 28, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Yes, by all means, go to Quebec, get your car keyed by some Quebecois high school dropout who hates Les Maudits Anglais, then have a wide bellied cop with gravy in his moustache write you up for imaginary offenses.

Or go to New Brunswick and have your car vandalized because it has Quebec license plate. Go to a Toronto restaurant and have deliberately slow service because you and your dinner partner converse in French. Go to Vancouver and have not only your car, but yourself as well, attacked. Real events, with real people.

[g_bambino]

Thank you. I'll remember this next time someone tells me to speak Canadian.

I certainly imagine that you don't let any individual who says such a thing speak on behalf of more than themselves. To do otherwise would be akin to labelling all Quebecers as annoying bigots because the separatists in that province are.

Deluding yourself in thinking your prejudice is some sort of good judgement, I see.

Canadien, judgement does not always equal prejudice. I fear when valid criticism is silenced under the guise of tolerance.

[CANADIEN]

I disagree. There are reasons why Quebec society gives rise to these sorts of threats but other cultures do not.

Could it be the same reason why Holocaust deniers and white supremacists find themselves at home in some English-speaking Canadian circles?

You'd never get the same thing happening in English Canada because our cultural value set is different.

See above. And my previous posting. Attacks and threats motivated by hatred occurs west of the Ottawa River and east of Gaspé too. Unlikely you, I have enough judgement not to blame those on an entire society.

We're a more confident, outward looking people, while Quebecois are sullen, inward looking, defensive, and bristle angrily at anyone who dares to queston their notions of racial and ethnic supremacy.

Lack of confidence, false notion of supremacy, That explains your anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Quebecer rants.

Edited February 28, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I certainly imagine that you don't let any individual who says such a thing speak on behalf of more than themselves. To do otherwise would be akin to labelling all Quebecers as annoying bigots because the separatists in that province are.

Exactly.

Canadien, judgement does not always equal prejudice.

I believe prejudice is a demonstration of lack of judgement.

I fear when valid criticism is silenced under the guise of tolerance.

As you should. But "criticism" that's starts with "they're all the same" and demonstate the same attitude as those who are being denounced is not criticism, it is nihotry mixed with hypocrisy.

I would be the last person to claim that there no bigoted, intolerant, racist currents in Quebec's society that are given far too wide a berth. But they exist in other provinces too. And what a rag like the National Post or web posters known for their prejudice tar the whole of Quebec population (or any society as a whole for that matter) with the same brush, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

[CANADIEN]

I'm not sure that this does stray from the topic of the thread. As I'm sensing it, the hubub around this now cancelled event started because Quebec separatists - who notoriously represent themselves as the champions of an oppressed people - said that this re-enactment was just another way for the federal government to not only oppress, but also humiliate Quebecers. The matter, which itself represents a larger pattern, thus comes down to whether or not the separatist's story is right.

The cry of "the bad Anglo government is trying to humiliate us" is a form of bad victimhood not founded in the intent of the organizers of this year's re-enactment. That being said, one has to wonder why two previous re-enactments, in the past 10 years, attracted no attention and no condemnation. Could it be because the organizers of these two other events planned and publicized them in a more intelligent fashion?

Indeed, possible future outcomes are always infinite; you're right that American absorbtion was only one alternative. However, as part of finding the answer to the above question about the sovereigntist story, we have to ask: what is the likelyhood that Quebecois culture would have survived as it has in any plausible alternate scenario?

Who knows? Which is why, while I am a huge fan of alternate history scenarios, I stay away from them as a tool to debate today's issues.

Another question to be asked is: when was the last time there was an organised movement to eliminate Quebecois culture through forced assimilation?

I would say by the time Lord Durham's dream fell apart, around 1850. Now, if you we talking about Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, the Métis of Manitoba, I'd say assimilationist policies, such as mandatory English education, lasted well passed the middle of the 20th century. And these had an impact on how French-speaking Quebecers saw Vsnsfs..

I'm certainly not saying the road to the present was always lined with buttercups and covered with rainbows, but, for the few steps back, hasn't movement always ultimately been in the forward direction?

Indeed.

If we can answer those questions with honesty, then we can come to the point of saying what the Battle of the Plains of Abraham represents: the beginning of centuries of struggle for survival against a careless overlord for the Quebecois, or the beginning of a generally peaceful and stable existence for a tiny minority within an entire continent.

_[copyedited]

Yhe problem is... it's both of them, and none of them, and one or the other at the same time.

[g_bambino]

I believe prejudice is a demonstration of lack of judgement.

I would be the last person to claim that there no bigoted, intolerant, racist currents in Quebec's society that are given far too wide a berth. But they exist in other provinces too. And what a rag like the National Post or web posters known for their prejudice tar the whole of Quebec population (or any society as a whole for that matter) with the same brush, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

I might venture to say that the Post's headline is what should attract criticism, as it did imply that the entire province needed to be told to quit its whining, and thus did not reflect the actual content of the article, which, by my memory (feeble as it may be), focused more on the sovereigntists who were banging their drums again. So, the Post gets a (typically Canadian) median thumbs up and thumbs down from me; the authors' points were, I think right, but they were not careful enough to avoid slipping into the territory of stereotypes.

[whowhere]

Irrelevant to what I said. You claim the British monarch is Canada's head of state. Your only evidence presented was a US government website. Yet, that website says nothing about the British monarch being Canada's head of state, merely that Elizabeth II serves as head of state for Canada. That Elizabeth II is also Queen of the UK while she is Queen of Canada doesn't support your lunatic assertions in any way what-so-ever. You would have us believe that the Jamaican monarch serves as Britain's head of state!

_{[ed. to add]}

What part of the 1982 Constitution being signed by the Queen did you not get. What part of the Queen being represented by the Governor General do you not understand? What part of the Governor General having to sign legislation to make into Law do you not understand?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwe...leinCanada.aspx

I will not dispute she more ceromonial Queen however when push comes to shove she could in principal grind Canada's parliament to a halt by blocking a vetoing legislation and budgets. If the queen did this what could be done about it and who would the politicians raise the matter with?

First Step is Canada Supreme Court; then from there would be the International Court. The fact 1867 Canada in undemocratic manner used the Queen and the Supreme court to impose the 1982 Constitution on Canadians shows the world she is in Fact the Sovereign of Canada.

You would have a tough time convincing the world otherwise given what happened in 1982. Keep living in your fantasy it alters nothing.

[g_bambino]

Yhe problem is... it's both of them, and none of them, and one or the other at the same time.

Then, why the fuss about this re-enactment being a sign of the federal government's intent to humiliate the inhabitants of Quebec? If the thing was presented as a faithful re-enactment of an historical event, which nobody could doubt was pivotal in the history of North America, all the emotional meaning is simply laden on by those who want to see the results of the battle in some particular way. Yes, your examples of certain policies that followed in the centuries after 1759 are valid, and they were exactly what I was alluding to when I spoke of some steps backwards; but, you agree with me that, in the whole, movement of Quebecois' rights, and consequently their culture, has been mostly on the up. If that is the case, then surely you realise that those who say the Quebecois have continuously been oppressed and denied their right to cultural survival by English-speaking overlords do so only for their own self-interests and are totally in the wrong. Certainly, history is rarely as tidy as black and white, but we are all perfectly capable of looking back and seeing generally the circumstances in which a people existed; is what Marois and all those separatists who shot down this re-enactment are telling the world about what this battle represents even remotely close to the general truth?

_[copyedited]

Edited March 1, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

_{[double post removed]}

Edited March 1, 2009 by g_bambino