|
|
|
Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Its got nothing to do with cultural accommodation. French Canadians have been accommodated, from the beginning, to a degree unparalleled in the rest of the world. Most anglos are ok with that, and don't really think much of it. This is about politicized historical revisionism though. Its the same reason people get annoyed when Japanese textbooks don't acknowledge war time atrocities. History is supposed to exist irrespective of political fads, and the Plains of Abraham is an historical fact.
As has been pointed out numerous times before, people stage numerous types of reenactments for nearly every type of event. We have countless rehearsals of WW1 & 2 not to denigrate Germany but to raise knowledge of what happened. Reading through the actual itinerary of the (canceled) Plains of Abraham reenactment, it was not some kind of bellicose "federalist propaganda." The reenactment was to be followed by a vigil for those who died in the conflict, as well as several academic activities to raise the level of awareness. Most people are annoyed because some separatists would rather opt for some fabricated version of history to suit their aims, open education be damned.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Don't you think that your rather sweeping statement concerning Anglo-Saxons is insensitive? I do, and I'm not even an Anglo.
Given that this reenactment is supposedly so offensive, maybe all historical references of this battle should be eliminated so as to cushion such delicate sensitivities. But then, of course, there would be nothing to complain about.
The "defeat" was not suffered by people living today. In fact, there was no Canada at the time to defeat New France, and both the British and French empires are long gone. Moreover, neither France nor New France were democracies, nor was the future of New France as an independent nation ever assured (as in it's never been an independent nation - ever).
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
History is constantly being "fabricated" though ... and rewritten. It was when Benjamin West's famous painting The Death of General Wolfe was painted in 1770. A version of it, in the ROM's Sigmund Samuel Gallery, forms the basis for a lively reinterpretation of this historical event, from several contemporary perspectives - including that of Canadian Indian artist Jeff Thomas. There's no reason why seperatists shouldn't be given a kick at the can too. Would Wolfe even recognize "his" Quebec today? Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games, isn't the only way to commemorate historical events.
Anth
Active Member
Sober analysis is one thing--and I do appreciate the desire to make history come alive--but making a festival out of this in particular strikes me as inflammatory. And a politically correct vigil makes a poor salve.
Positioning the British victory on the Plains of Abraham as the pivotal founding event of this country carries with it the implicit assumption that the Canada we know today is inherently better than the "Canada" that would have resulted had fortunes been reversed and France had a greater role in shaping this part of the world.
Positioning the British victory on the Plains of Abraham as the pivotal founding event of this country carries with it the implicit assumption that the Canada we know today is inherently better than the "Canada" that would have resulted had fortunes been reversed and France had a greater role in shaping this part of the world.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Revisionism is a lively field of historiography, and there are proper ways to go about it. A classic example would be interpretations of the origins of WW1, which have been revised numerous times since 1918. The various interpretations weren't "fabricated", they were just revisions of already existing knowledge.
This isn't historiographic revisionism though, in that there is nothing historical about the Separatist argument They aren't reinterpreting accepted events, or discovering previously unknown aspects of them. They are simply picking and choosing what is acceptable history based off of a political ideology. It reeks of the nationalists pseudo-histories that were produced in the 19th century.
More, nobody is denying separatists their kick at the history can. Anybody is free to write whatever they want and try to get it published in a journal. The situation is quite the reverse, actually, in that people are being threatened with violence for reenacting a commonly accepted historical account of a battle. Would I take part, no. But you can't just brush over this by dismissing the actors as "playing silly games" and, hence, not worthy of basic rights.
This isn't historiographic revisionism though, in that there is nothing historical about the Separatist argument They aren't reinterpreting accepted events, or discovering previously unknown aspects of them. They are simply picking and choosing what is acceptable history based off of a political ideology. It reeks of the nationalists pseudo-histories that were produced in the 19th century.
More, nobody is denying separatists their kick at the history can. Anybody is free to write whatever they want and try to get it published in a journal. The situation is quite the reverse, actually, in that people are being threatened with violence for reenacting a commonly accepted historical account of a battle. Would I take part, no. But you can't just brush over this by dismissing the actors as "playing silly games" and, hence, not worthy of basic rights.
Anth
Active Member
Would "Anglosphere" be more palatable? I meant it in the collective civilizational sense, referring to the common assumption that its cultural norms (e.g. common law, individualism) are inherently superior to those of others, likely rooted in the relative geographical isolation of the countries in question.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
This just ties into this perpetual catering to Quebec's "sensitivities." Its one thing to occasionally complain, on behalf of a larger group, that you find certain practices inflammatory. At the rate some separatists are claiming they have been slighted though, nobody cares. These are the same people who found it insensitive that Paul McCartney played at the 400th Quebec Anniversary, that cutting arts funding was some Anglo slight against Quebec's feelings, that Sarkozy supporting a unified Canada was some "stab in the back", that a sugar shack serving Halal food (to cater to Muslims) was an insult to Quebec cuisine, that business operating in any language other than French are a threat. It is just crying wolf. Nobody is so sensitive.
It was a pivotal event in the founding of Canada. You don't have to make some kind of good/bad judgment in order to see that without the British victory Canada as we know it would not exist. There really isn't a question about that. Without the British victory, a bit of counter factual wrangling would suggest that New France would have been sold off to the USA by Talleyrand and turned into some kind of Louisiana North. I'm not exactly what one would call patriotic, but I generally think Canada is a pretty decent place that is worth celebrating (or at least allowing others to celebrate) once in a while.
DavidJamesTO
Active Member
Wasn't sensitive the last three or four times they held a reenactment.
Isn't that what they did in the 30s with logging and mining? IIRC, that was a big part of the not-so-quiet phase of the Quiet Revolution--getting all the industries back in the hands of Quebeckers.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
No, Anglosphere would not be any more palatable. You're just repackaging your prejudices. You are operating on the basis of an assumption that you know what all members of a group you specifically define are thinking. It's a rather totalitarian stance. Are you assuming that position to be more superior?
Criticize this re-enactment all you want, but be careful how you swing your definitions around.
Anth
Active Member
It has nothing to do with prejudice; this usage is quite common and uncontroversial, especially in parts of the world (e.g. Europe) where no one cultural group dominates and mutual understanding is key to good relations between ethnicities or nation states.
This may be difficult to experience living in North America, but it is possible to compare national and civilizational characteristics and analyze their complex interactions with each other.
This may be difficult to experience living in North America, but it is possible to compare national and civilizational characteristics and analyze their complex interactions with each other.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Most former British colonies have done much better than most former French colonies. Would you rather live in Haiti or Barbados? Cambodia (albeit improving now) or Malaysia? Algeria or Egypt? The British Empire wasn't perfect and was definitely exploitative as any empire is, but it left in its wake a strong sense of commerce, law and structure that the French usually were unable or unwilling to implement.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/K-12/French_16178.html "The actual empire-builders in the French Empire were from the outset, military men. British expansion was conducted primarily by commercialists and resulted in more solid economic potential than the French endeavor."
Transportfan
Senior Member
I wonder why the conquest of Quebec didn't include all of New France?
Whoaccio
Senior Member
^
They sort of did. Not the British themselves, but Louisiana became a territory of Spain following the Treaty of Paris. That lasted until Napoleon got it back, just to sell it to the USA.
They sort of did. Not the British themselves, but Louisiana became a territory of Spain following the Treaty of Paris. That lasted until Napoleon got it back, just to sell it to the USA.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
France was fighting a defensive war against the English that lasted for decades. They were outnumbered and ceded parts of their empire as they were progressively defeated. As in any ongoing war, the loss of one territory wouldn't have automatically led to throwing in the towel elsewhere.