Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Robert Fisk's World: It’s been 250 years, but war still rages on the Plains of Abraham

The Québecois produce the most remarkable stories. I’m only here a couple of days and – bingo! – old Bill Fisk’s ghost awakes me once more. From the age of five, I would be forced to listen to Bill’s recitation of English history and, far too often, of the courage of General James Wolfe.

I think that the idea of a battle called the Plains of Abraham sounded somehow romantic to him – it certainly did when Wolfe died there while defeating the French outside Quebec in 1759 – though Bill had never been to Canada in his life. It didn’t matter. I was forced to learn Wolfe’s last words as he learned he had defeated the French army of the Marquis de Montcalm and consolidated British rule in North America. “Now God be praised, I will die in peace,” he murmured. (At least, murmuring is how he faded away in Churchill’s The Age of Revolution.) Montcalm was also mortally wounded.

But I should have guessed that the 250th anniversary of this death blow to French rule would not pass without controversy in the Canadian province of Quebec. The National Battlefields Commission, a federal agency – and thus, in the eyes of the Québecois, General Wolfe’s personal public relations outfit – had scheduled a re-enactment of the Plains of Abraham battle for this summer, all feathered hats and muskets pop-popping and cannons roaring and kids licking ice cream. I find these things stiflingly awful, but they are popular. We stage the same shenanigans at Hastings and Naseby and various other bloody battlefields in Britain. Needless to say, William always comes out on top at Hastings and Cromwell has a habit of winning the English civil war.

Alas, things are not that simple on the Plains of Abraham. For the Parti Québecois and the Bloc Québecois successfully demanded that the whole three-day fandango be cancelled because they regarded it as a federalist effort to humiliate Quebec by celebrating the end of French rule in Canada.

It makes you feel sorry for Montcalm, let alone Wolfe. The series of re-enactments of America’s Seven Years War has already included a French victory (with another one to be commemorated at Ste-Foy). Besides, many of the “English” and “French” soldiers who would have turned up for the Abraham shoot-out are actually US citizens who also enjoy restaging Gettysburg every summer (where, needless to say, the Confederates always lose and the Union always wins).

Canada being Canada, of course, all the usual suspects lined up to shout for their cause. The Toronto Globe and Mail – whose writers sometimes give the impression that they would like to ship all non-Anglo-Saxon Canadians back to where they came from – announced that the show must go on and “that separatists would block the show only illustrates the depths of their insecurity.” The Quebec mayor, it should be added, realised that the battle’s re-enactment was about history rather than politics. “I’m a little tired of hearing talk of defeat,” he said.

Needless to say, the imperishable complaints of the politically correct opponents made it almost worth the row. One, a member of Quebec’s anglophone minority, announced that the tourist version of the Abraham battle this summer would re-enact “military dominance over a historically oppressed group”, an act which “is both morally reprehensible and likely to cause anger, division, resentment and possibly violence”.

Wow. Who knows what Saxon sensitivities will be awoken when William of Normandy next lands on Sussex’s beaches? Or when the Orangemen and Catholics next clash at the Boyne – I absolutely assure both sides that King Billy will win – what sectarian battles will restart in Belfast? Maybe the next re-enactment of the American civil war’s most decisive battle will be staged without the Gettysburg address. There’s even a regular restaging of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo in which French dragoons always get trounced by the Brits. But year after year, each June, the French come back for more.

Of course, there are limits. The re-enactment of Waterloo leaves out the scenes of carnage when the French corpses were shipped off to England as fertiliser for East Anglia. And if the Boyne is fair game, no one in Ireland is recommending the restaging of the siege and massacre of the civilians of Drogheda. Seventeenth century it may be – but it’s still a little close for comfort. Let’s keep Cromwell for the English civil war.

Naturally, most re-enactments are left to the cinema or television or the stage or to novels. The Second World War is still out of bounds. We might re-enact Dad’s Army for local theatre, but restaging the Normandy invasion would still be inappropriate. No one expects the Russians and Germans to gather for a bit of theatrical re-biffing at Stalingrad. The capture of Singapore, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are out of bounds. And I doubt if anyone wants to fly an old Lancaster down the Elbe so that the citizens of Dresden can enjoy a day out pretending to die in the 1945 firestorm.

But the Plains of Abraham? This is preposterous. Montcalm no doubt regretted that Wolfe found a way of leading his 5,000 Brits up the sheer face of the Heights – where he least expected them – but it was a fair fight. Not so the battle to restage it. The Canadian National Battlefields Commission caved in and cancelled the lot. There will be no re-enactment, no banging cannons and ice creams. Now there are demands to rid Quebec of its James Wolfe statues. What next? The Québecois just don’t want Wolfe to rest in peace. Maybe they should do what the French used to do at Waterloo: pretend that they won.

More from Robert Fisk

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

"Wolfe leads his Brits up the sheer face of the Heights"
[info]newscotiana wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 02:17 am (UTC)
Delightful article. I am not a serious student of history, but I understand the soldiers who scaled that wall were not Brits.
They were highlanders, possibly the Fraser Highlanders. Surely an Irishman can appreciate the difference.
And if the much quoted response by Wolfe when asked about the danger of that route is true, then it calls into question his "leading" the way. At least one Canadaian novelist used the quote: "No great mischief if they fall".
Re: "Wolfe leads his Brits up the sheer face of the Heights"
[info]frankburnside wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 05:44 pm (UTC)
If they were Fraser highlanders then they would have been Brits, Brits are the British (English, Scottish, Welsh and the Irish (at the time)). you probably mean they weren't English, which is different.
Sick
[info]ejh16 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 02:31 am (UTC)
War is bad enough the first time around. Why do these fools want to do it all again? I realize they leave out the gruesome parts and just keep the glorious parts, but it all seems rather sick to me.

http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
Wolfe on the Plains
[info]clearphish wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 03:26 am (UTC)
Dear General James and his army probably wouldn't have made it up the path to Abraham's field if some local inhabitant hadn't showed him the way. In addition Montcalm was under-equipped due to the fact that the servants of the King of France had pocketed a large amount of the funds designated for the army. So we have the Scots under and English general confronting a poorly furnished French force.
Ultimately the corrupt administrators were happy to get out of this "France Arctique" as Montaigne called it and return to the comfort of their homeland while abandoning the ordinary people to their fate. After that hardly any of the governors sent out to British North America were actually English. Those tasks were often left to the Scots and the Irish.
The other reenactment battles described in the article don't celebrate victories over people who feel that they are minorities under threat. This is the case with many of the Québecois who see themselves as an island of French in a sea of North-American English speakers. For them "You learn French and catch English"
The reflections about Ireland are appropriate though not so extreme in Quebec. In both cases you find minorities within majorities which often seems to engender these sorts of tensions. As an an Anglo-Scots-Irish-German French speaking Quebecker I am in total agreement with the cancellation of the battle reenactment. Maybe our friendly American history buffs who wish to come and help out in Quebec would like to redo Custer's last stand at Little Big Horn instead.
good for the potatoes
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 06:52 am (UTC)
Well spotted Mr Fisk. One group in the world faces its history and is then free to examine its present and future. Everyone gathers round to seek any error no matter how small or anything that can be peverted into meaning the opposite (usually by making the requirement perfection while those criticising do nothing)

The other group is in denial. From Congo to Versailles to Vichy to Algeria to Vietnam to Rwanda to Iraq to today in Afghanistan.

By denying their past they are, of course, excused from the present. Afghans will be perhaps be acknowledged as equal humans in 60 or so years by France (assuming everyone involved now is dead, the essential precondidtion for any Francosphere acknowledgement of their frankly disgusting history of selfish conquest and harming of other people for commercial gain.) And Georgians? Well that may take longer.

I suggest we all ignore the Francosphere and instead hate the people who tell the truth and try, and sometimes fail, to do what they think is right. Lets constantly tell stupid self serving stories about how they are in fact the bad guys (stealing they are oh yes. No idea how but thats what they are doing oh yes yes yes) and would be much better if they did like France (signed exploitative contracts with useful dictators who keep their populations subdued and imprisoned in returen for a UN vote or six)! Oh, of course you do already!

Still, my East Anglian potatoes are coming up nicely and I havent wasted any good horse sh*t on it either.

Who would defend the liberty of a French man? Why? I wouldnt. I would rather sit outside and watch my spuds grow against the background of a nice Waterloo Sunset. Can you see the color of the sky turning? Maybe its the scales over your eyes? Take a look. When the evil US empire (LOL, pathetically childish world view) was supposed to fall it is in fact old Europe that is dying. Expect much more hateful nastiness as they fall.
Wolfe leads his Brits up the sheer face of the Heights
[info]cancretin wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 07:19 am (UTC)
What we have here is the spectacle of two european rapists fighting over spoils. Not very glorious nor very interesting. It wouldn't have mattered who won. As an individual with french canadian, mohawk, english, portuguese and spanish heritage, I can only be glad that both Wolfe and Montcalm finished their days on THE PLAINS OF ABRAHAM. Enough of attaching glory to military slugs.
History should be fun
[info]49niner wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 07:41 am (UTC)
Historical fiction is hugely popular and not taken too seriously as it is based on events long past. This spat over the Plains of Abraham is fascinating as it shows up the insecurity of the present day Quebecois. They can't change the events of 250 years ago and more than we can change the result of the American War of Independence which came a few years later.

Wolfe was in fact a native of Westerham in Kent, so perhaps for old Bill Fisk was particularly attached to another native of Kent. I have a particularly good history of the 7 years war written by an American, Francis Parkman called "Montcalm and Wolfe" which would put the battle in its historical context.

The French can be bad losers at times, as can we all and this strikes me as a particularly bad case of sour grapes. Montcalm and his troops lost in 1759 - fact. Get over it.
A Mohawk View
[info]edwin23 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
Oh it all gets so complex. I remember an angry letter in the Vancouver Sun from a Mohawk in Quebec complaining about having to learn French - for him the French were and remained the old enemy.
Wolfie
[info]edwin23 wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
Oh and the Wolfe 'No mischief' quote comes from a 1753 Banff letter to a fellow officer:

'I should imagine that two or three independent Highland companies might be of use; they are hardy, intrepid, used to a rough country and no great mischief if they fall. How can you better employ a secret enemy by making his end conducive to the common good'.

The backstory to this is that Wolfe had served 8 years before at Culloden, and believed, as did other Hanoverian officers (Scots and English), the untrue rumour that the Jacobite troops had been ordered to give no quarter (Wolfe is supposed to have refused a direct order at Culloden to kill a wounded Highlander.)

In 1758, however, he wrote to Lord Halifax expressing his deep admiration for Highland troops and their officers - 'very useful serviceable soldiers, and commanded by the most manly corps of officers I ever saw'.


250 years??
[info]famulla wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC)
A Nation of Cowards?
No, I guess it is the Ego that is playing the part. This too will wear out one day.
We have come a long way to remember the past have we not. I read the comment on one Irish. At that time did we have the Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and English separate or have we divided ourselves to give the new world America a unity with our division? I wonder. I am not in England but when I read the history, it is the English who made America. I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Why not WWII?
[info]infosaturated wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 04:57 pm (UTC)
Why not a re-enactment of the Holocaust? Why not a restaging of the Normandy invasion? After all, aren't these issues all settled? While the majority of Quebecers want to remain a part of Canada a significant number of Quebecers desire separation from Canada. The Bloc Quebecois (a federal party that runs only in Quebec) still win the majority of seats in Quebec and separatist provincial parties still win substancial support. Quebecers view themselves as a nation. What nation re-enacts their greatest defeat? What next, the seperatists would say, is to separate from Canada. While I do not support the separatist movement I do understand the sensitivity. The moment I heard about it my first thought was "what an idiotic idea! Of course this will cause offense?". The desire for autonomy from Canada is not entirely without merit. Politically Quebecers are farther left of the rest of Canada. We have fewer marriages (more Quebecers live together and have children without marriage), we are more anti-war, we are more supportive of social programs such as national daycare and more supportive of rights for gay people etc. We have the lowest tuition fees for university. Your article illustrates that you don't understand Quebec any more than the rest of Canada understands us, and that is coming from an anglophone Quebecer.
[info]p_ovidius_naso wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 05:59 pm (UTC)
What nation re-enacts their greatest defeat?

The Serbs.
Another view of the Plains
[info]lorcandonkey wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 07:39 pm (UTC)
Great article by Mr. Fisk, as always. I must say though, last year (the year of Samuel de Champlain's founding of Quebec - a much more momentous occasion that no one re-enacts) I was in Quebec City in February. I trudged up the hill through the snow in the approximate area that the Imperial troops climbed (I know - not in the snow) and thought "Wow, what a climb!". But when I reached the top and staggered out onto the Plains what did I behold? The Winter Carnival in full swing! Children, adults, seniors of all languages and backgrounds having the time of their life. And the Canadian Armed Forces having a tug of war with the Coast Guard (Army won). As I sipped my "caribou" out of my ice glass, standing at a bar made completely of ice, issuing forth "salut!" with every passerby, I thought this is a much more fitting celebration on the Plains. And it probably would make a much finer re-enactment.
Plains of Abraham
[info]thisboytv wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 07:52 pm (UTC)
Quebec City is a great tourist trap all summer long and I love the place. This would have added millions of dollars and lots of good tips for many student workers. What a shame that it was cancelled. What do I know as I am only one of the 30 million Canadians who do not live in Quebec.

There is a group of key players in this battle that are seldom remembered. If it had not been for the Native (Aboriginal) Canadians it is unlikely the British would have ever found their way up those cliffs. We did learn about it in school back when textbooks were still in use.

As to the question "What nation re-enacts their greatest defeat?". Quebec is not a nation! Quebec is only able to survive, because it is a Province in Canada, with all their money coming from the rest of us.
Re: Plains of Abraham
[info]daizawa wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 05:50 pm (UTC)
All the money in Quebec comes from Canada?
Can you provide evidence of this please. As far as I know, Quebec gets slightly more than it gives in terms of Federal public funds. That's just a fraction of the Quebec economy though, which includes a number of vibrant industries as well as its own (provincial) public sector.
Oh, and if Quebec got all its money from Canada, why separate? Why would so many people want to cut off the source of their (alleged) wealth?
With comments like this, it's no wonder so many Quebeckers feel no sympathy for English Canada.
hilarious
[info]artsit_e wrote:
Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 09:06 pm (UTC)
Hilarious
The Quebecois career-nationalists are at it again. Last summer they objected to a performance of the perfidious Anglo imperialist Sir Paul McCartney to celebrate their Quebec "400 Years" quadricentennial. Everybody inside Canada and out laughed at them, ordinary Quebecois expressed their desire to see Sir Paul - and the protesters (a singularly grim-faced and killjoy lot) sloped away mumbling something about a bit of a mistake, just trying to make a point etc.
By cancelling the re-enactment they sure aren't going to rewrite history, just once again kill a fun day out for the people they profess to stand up for.
Makes you want to weep.

I myself have no time for re-enactments, but they are harmless and sportive. And by the way, the poster who rhetorically asked "What nation re-enacts their greatest defeat?" the answer is, MANY, since it's actually a GAME - and all kinds of battles are popular in both the UK and USA.

Patriotism - pride in your community, town and country and wanting to work hard for it, IS beautiful. Nationalism is always ugly,somehow...

How not to learn from history
[info]sinlao wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 03:29 pm (UTC)
Has not the reenactment of the Boyne battle been the cause of many deaths, mischiefs and misery ? It even came to Montreal in the late 1800 when the joy of reenactment provoked unuseful death in the streets.

sinlao
The Plains of Abraham
[info]jltrudel wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 04:52 pm (UTC)
Brits talks about funny french. And french talk about funny brits. Where are coming those old prejudice? From the past, from fights, from wars. It's still present as mild hurt.
But what I can see in some of the comments here: the resentment are still alive against frencophone in Canada. And the comments are not mild. And you still have this vigorous acrimony in the Anglo-canadian press.
No wonder why some quebecers remember the Plains and have, 250 years later, hard feelings.
Some are still denying the status of nation to Quebec. Some are still talking about beggers... We are far from a peaceful celebration and a fun day. For a francophone this re-enactement is the re-enactement of something not resolved.

Preposterous. Yes. But Canada is, in some way, preposterous.
Re: The Plains of Abraham
[info]thesavageirish wrote:
Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 05:57 pm (UTC)

Though old hatreds have cooled somewhat with the help of recent controls (necessarily forceful and acrimonious) installed, I see no academic virtue or tourist producing worth in the dozens of the monthlong annual Orange gloatfests in every town in Northern Ireland. Their incessant marching and baying of victory at those they once oppressed through the neighbourhoods of the irish underdog. Skinheads and thugs flying in from jolly old england to cause havoc at the 'celebration of remembrance', year in, year f***** out, for a battle fought in 1690.
Reenactments or celebrations of old and currently irrelevant victories are driven by snide racist pomposity and serve no worth in the betterment of relations between the once conflicted. Why not meet up every year with the knuckledragger from the schoolyard who beat the crap out of you one long ago lunchtime. Go buy him a few drinks to celebrate the lesson he once taught you. Yea right. Let's ship a bunch of weekending impotent freaks in dress up with their little wooden rifles running up and down a hill shouting victory for the english every freakin year.
Oh sure, that's very educational for the kids. Love ya Fisky but on this one, Je suis un Quebecois!!!!
[info]eclgw wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 05:44 pm (UTC)
I am surprised that I need to point this out, but the term 'Brit' refers to somebody from Great Britain, which includes Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Engalnd. A 'highlander' is a Scotsman and thus a Brit.

Also, the battle to which Mr Fisk is referring was one of many during the Seven Years' War, which was a war (do I really need to say this?) between England and France. It had nothing to do with Canada, a nation formed nearly 110 years later and, I might add, a nation formed by both Francophone and Anglophone contingents. Whether or not Quebeckers like it, they are not French, they are Canadian, and to complain about the reinactment of a battle in which a bunch of geeks get dressed up in period costume for a bit of fun is ridiculous.

I'm surprised too...
[info]jltrudel wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 07:22 pm (UTC)
I don't know why I should point this out. I was talking about Brits and French from Great Britain and France as an image.
I'm amazed by your comment, by somebody who makes a point to mark the difference between groups as Brits, Scots, Irish, and etc. and doesn't be aware of difference of perception in this issue. It's something quite remarquable.
It's fun to read History from an other point of view. Instead to re-enact and confuse people with false facts and ridiculous people, History would have benefited from good discussions about this battle, the past and present of Canada.
Unfortunately, some students would not have had their tips from tourists. I'm sorry if it's bugging you.

(I'm sorry but I use the word French to talk about a francophone, the same for English and it's may be misused in english)
Understand Quebec
[info]hellpharmacist wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 08:53 pm (UTC)

In fact, what the ROC (Rest of Canada) is actually unable to understand is WHY there is such controversy over this event. Well, no, it's not because we're insecure (I learned French and catched English so, why should I worry ;). It's not either because we don't accept the defeat and want to live in a dream where we were successful. It's more about respect. At beginning, everybody wanted that reenactment for tourism, help kids to learn history of North America and many other reasons. We, Quebecer, were actually seeing it as a way to bury the axe of war once and for all with Canadians from every provinces coming to Quebec. But here's what happened: some British and Canadian advertisers started to sell trips to Quebec by telling people : Come and see how England get rid of the French presence in America and other awful slogans like that. It's like if Russia and Germany decided to reenact Stalingrad. But then, 6 months before the show, the Germans starts advertising : Come and see how we killed and kicked the ass of the Russians in Stalingrad. It wouldn't take more than a couple of hour to see Pres. Medvedev at the TV telling Germany to go f*** herself.


@freedommonger

Why are you talking about France and Afghanistan? It's not the point in here. You are totally out of subject. And if you really knew about Quebec, you would know that we don't give a damn about France. Australians are not British anymore, Quebecers are not French anymore.

@infosaturated

Clever :). Great text, explains everything. Compliments from a French-Spanish-English-Russian speaking Quebecer.

@thisboytv

Prove your point about the fact that Quebec needs your money. As I see it, in a not so far future, we'll all be paying for the reconstruction and decontamination of the mess you did in Alberta. Also, if you think Quebec costs you money, why don't you separate from it? I't like keeping a wife that is spending all your money and want to divorce from you? Right? But reality is much more complex than that. We paid for Alberta and Newfoundland for 20 years, but now they are the rich one. That's the way a Confederation works. You help the weak when you're strong and 'vice-versa'. Maybe, I'm not an economist, we didn't helped you a lot, but if one day we have enough money to do so, we'll do it (I'm not separatist, as you can see). We are good people on both side, just separated by language. And this Berlin Wall inside Canada is falling appart, as more and more kids from the two sides learn the two official languages. And if you ever come to Quebec City, just call me, we'll drink a Molson Canadian in an Irish pub with fiddlers singning old french songs :)

Jean-Christophe Tremblay, pharmacist
jicitremblay@hotmail.com

From the colonies...
[info]jlee3793 wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 09:01 pm (UTC)
It is not just a reenactment of the glorious victorious Battle that forged our great country and beat those nasty little oinkers. The reenactment didn't take into account any of the current political sensibilities here in Canada. There are some of us Anglos who aren't Franco-phobic, and who actually think that our French component is a valuable part of our heritage and our current fabric and our future. But along side of us there are many Anglos who somehow think that they themselves won the glorious Battle and that the French component of our country doesn't exist, doesn't have any value or rights. They were supporting the reenactment as a way of vindicating their nasty thoughts. An act of provocation that isn't needed.
Re: From the colonies...
[info]hellpharmacist wrote:
Sunday, 22 February 2009 at 11:09 pm (UTC)
You're totally right. In fact, the same kind of extremist views exist in Quebec, some people thinking the British stole the land and that the English component of the country should not exist and are vulgar stealers. And there are people, like you and me, that believe that having the two languages is the best thing ever. That's what I think personnaly. When you learn a language, meet the resident of the place, you open your mind to a new culture (food, litterature, traditions, music). This is a chance we have to learn both cultures. I don't rememer who said that (sorry :(), but he said: speaking multiple languages is like living multiples lives at once. And to the ones too stuborn to understand that, you really don't know all you're missing in your life.

Greetings for Quebec City
Treatment of French dead
[info]pieblad wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 07:50 pm (UTC)
I'm not a bit of history, it was only when reading Robert Fisk's article on the Wolfe saga that I first heard of the corpses of the French dead being shipped from Waterloo to England. I had heard of teeth being removed from the corpses to be used as dentures but never of the dumping of the French dead in East Anglia.
Is there any information out there about this? The thought has left me feeling green a bit green round the gills but I'd like to find out more about this!
When I'm on the subject of the macabre and gory - any chance of the re-enactors having a bit of authentic 18th century battlefield surgery with no anaesthetics? Nope, thought not!
Sanitised re-enactment makes war seem like painless fun.
Well . . .
[info]24_feb_2009 wrote:
Tuesday, 24 February 2009 at 10:02 am (UTC)
Let's put it like this. The Saxons really, really lost Hastings. The French Quebecois, on the other hand, are one referendum away from independence, if they choose, and in the meantime enjoy a level of self-determination and government that the constituent members of the United Kingdom don't.

The Quebecois don't have to 'pretend that they won'; they're still trying to win, and making a damn sight more headway than most breakaway nationalities, a damn sight more peacefully. They wouldn't have stopped the re-enactment if they couldn't, but they could, and they won't get rid of the Wolfe statues if they can't, but my guess is they can.

So I really don't understand what you're calling preposterous, or why you're adopting this whiny tone. Would you rather the situation was oppressive and violent? Would you rather the Quebecois had no voice? Would you rather they stopped being stroppy and just lapsed into contented province-hood? What's your point? And - honestly - how is it your business?
Re Enactment of Wars & Battles Around the World
[info]asteriemichell wrote:
Tuesday, 24 February 2009 at 03:42 pm (UTC)
There has to be more people than just myself, a simple American woman who adores history, anthopoloy, archeology, art etc, who find these things an intolorable waste of time, money and aggrandizement of human killing! Wasn't it bad enough the first time....shouldn't all of this insanity 'be off limits'.

Isn't the original idea of 'history' to teach the mistakes of the past so that we do not repeat them in the future? When I was a young girl, I looked so forward to becoming an adult, studious as a child I saw nothing but a bright future. Learning from the past to make things better for all of us. I truly had no idea, and am still stunned by the fact, we have seemed to have learned almost nothing. The desire to make things better for the future has been overcome by greed, consumerism, false national prides, devaluation of people different from ourselves and the belief that taking a life, any life is justifiable. As a spiritual being I so looked forward to the joy of this journey of being a human BEING....what a disappointment we all are.....Sincerely Asterie Michell
Re: Re Enactment of Wars & Battles Around the World
[info]ejh16 wrote:
Thursday, 26 February 2009 at 06:04 am (UTC)
yes
[info]high5pirit wrote:
Friday, 27 February 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
I agree
from Culloden to the Plains of Abraham
[info]abrahammartin wrote:
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC)

Well, this Scottish-Canadian - and believe me, there are a lot of us - is quite happy that this event was cancelled.

Some facts to ponder:
The plains are named after Abraham Martin, a Frenchman of Scottish origin.
Scots fought on both sides of this battle between those two fading empires.
It was the Highlanders scaling those cliffs who won the battle for Wolfe.

Most Scottish-Canadians are not particularly proud of that fact.

When my ancestors left the Highlands of Scotland during the Clearances to settle in the woods of Canada some 200 years ago, they wanted no more of battles between empires. They wanted to settle down and build a new life in the new land.

And that is what they did.

By the way, we haven't forgotten Culloden.
Just in case you were wondering.

Most popular in Opinion