Actually we don't even know now. Publius:
...Our historical amnesia is not the product of an administrative accident. Mistakes like these are never accidental. If people don't remember what Canada was like before, say, 1963 it becomes much easier to redefine Canadian identity......little Johnny Canuck leaves school wondering why people make such a fuss over John A. Didn't he just stagger around drunk and hang Louis Riel? Once upon a time grandma and grandpa might have corrected Johnny by mumbling something about a railroad and nation building. Unfortunately this "killing" of Canadian history has been going on so long most people don't remember the other bits...
And then .... and then, they made Louis Riel a hero.
No talk about a bunch of drunk Indians riding around with guns, killing people. Okay, okay, half-breeds (sorry, Metis)at least we acknowledge that some of them had white blood in them.
One of my favorite topics is the thief and murderer Riel. In 1870 Riel and the Red River Metis were murderers who received property or cash settlements to be nice. When the same people who cashed in their chips in 1870 to follow the buffalo ended up demanding a cash or land encore at Batoche in 1885 they were SOL.
Note that those who did not settle in 1870 were settled in 1885. Gabriel Dumont's application at Batoche was accepted because he hadn't settled in 1870 but the ba$tard still fought. The Alberta Metis found the federal government to be quite cooperative and marched the St. Albert Mounted Rifles off to what could have been war. Gentleman Joe McKay, a Metis scout with the RCMP, fired the first 2 shots of the war killing a Metis and an Indian. Considering many of the teamsters were Metis and the Edmonton and Victoria Home Guards contained many Metis, there were more Metis with the government than with the bad guys. The Metis in Alberta were right pissed that Riel encouraged the Indians to rise up as they were part of white society.
All of this has been redone not only to make Riel a hero of the Metis but a hero in general. It's all a crock.
For socialists history starts new every morning. Historical ignorance is a feature, not a bug.
Step right up and get your public school intellectual lobotomy.
Socialists believe humanity is evolving. History to them is redundant. The new man or superman will make all before defunct.
The myths and historical cleansings also affect incidents within recent memory.
It is an accepted fiction that Trudeau 'wanted' property rights included in The Charter but, he was forced to back off off because 'the provinces' objected.
As a matter of fact, it was the Conservative Party under the hapless Joe Clark who advocated the entrenchment of property rights, but the Liberals rejected this proposal because of the opposition to it by their allies, the NDP.
It's the same everywhere. Do you think children anywhere in the West are taught how their forefathers gave the world what little civilization it enjoys (not to mention the good news of our Lord)?
If they were, they might object more forcefully than they do to the attempts by the agents of the Father of Lies to abolish Christian civilization and replace it with something more to their master's liking.
(I'll spare you the harangue on the teaching of Irish history. Suffice to say the Church of Rome taught the communists everything they know about the re-writing of history to conceal or excuse treachery.)
If Canada as a nation will keep ignoring homegrown terrorist indoctrination courtesy East End Madrassah et al, there will be not much left to be proud about soon.
It gets no better if they take Canadian "history" in university. I had a student with me who had majored in Canadian history in university. When we needed one of the six nations of the Iroquois to solve a cryptic crossword, he was clueless -- couldn't name one of them, not even the Mohawks for Pete's sake. Other points of native history -- Joseph Brandt, Tecumseh -- never heard of them. Then I started grilling him about Vimy Ridge, Andy McNaughton etc -- nada. I recommended to him that he ask for his money back.
The Blubb and Wail are always going on about PMSH and his government is reshaping Canada's sense of identity - they are blatantly ignorant of what that sense of identity was. Stephen Harper is recognisable to older Canadians; Thomas Mulcair, Bob Rae, Count Michael etc. are resident aliens - de facto, although, unfortunately, not de jure.
Never mind MacDonald,the drunk and Metis school teacher killer, what about a statue to Saint Jack Layton,the man who saved us all from..........um......you know......
I used to enjoy telling kids on the construction sites that I was a veteran of the Boer War. Only the old guys laughed.
In particular, it is Anglo-Canadian history that has been (deliberately) forgotten. This works, in part, because there is so little history taught in the schools. I am glad Harper is reconnecting our country to its roots.
I posted thia over at Publius's site:
The purpose of state schooling is not education, it is child minding and indoctrination; also if I can coin the concept "pacification", introducing humans at an early age to obeiscence to state authority.
I had an elementary school teacher in grade 8...1983.... that told us Canadian history in schools was abysmal. He showed us a few examples.
I have taken it upon myself to self learn as much as I can. The best thing that teacher did was to open my eyes to the world and ask questions.
Say what you want about school teachers. There are a few out there that are better than most.
Robert of O:
It's not pacifi-cation. It's pussi-.
What I can't stand is kids telling me Canada has 'always' stood for peacekeeping. I ask them who had the 3rd biggest navy in the world in WWII. They don't know. Who entered WWI first, Canada or the US? They all think it was the Americans. Same with the Second.
American kids know their country's military history, while ours are sheltered from Canada's by today's "educators".
'American kids know their country's military history, while ours are sheltered from Canada's by today's "educators".'
One thing you never get, at least in Nova Scotia that I've ever seen, is signage pointing out 18th c. battle sites and so on (of which there are quite a few). English, French, Indian. I think I'm right in saying that in America that isn't the case. I guess Canadians are supposed to think war is just icky, and we should all be very embarrassed about that sort of thing.
Hello,
Is this the same website where, a day or so ago, commenters were sneering at the study of history?
My biggest anger is at the myth from whole cloth that we have been "traditionally" peacekeepers. I had a co-worker (sans any military experience) claim this one coffee break. "When was the first peacekeeping mission?" asked I. He did not know. When I pointed out the first UN mission was 1956 and at our height of peacekeeping missions in the mid-1960s we had maybe 4 battalions in the Sinai, Cypress, the Congo plus some odds and sods in such places as Viet Nam (ICCS) whereas we had an infandry division plus an air group and several capital ships assigned to NATO with the army and RCAF stationed IN West Germany. Most of the RCAF was assigned to NORAD. We had maybe 4,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen assigned to peacekeeping and the other 150,000 assigned to stop the Warsaw Pact.
My training was about 2 weeks on peacekeeping, 2 weeks on riot training (prior to the Montreal Games) and the other 9 years (1975-84) on how to stop an attacking Warsaw Pact Motor Rifle Regiment!
But we've ALWAYS been a nation of peacekeepers.
Sorry Mark, "Nation Building" is frowned upon. Exploits indigenous populations, destroys natural environments, etc don't ya know! Also frowned upon are the Manifest Destiny that built the greatest nation of the modern era, the Imperialism that brought western ideas, ideals, accomplishments, and advancements to the far corners of the world, capitalism, and freedom to succeed or fail on your own merits/actions.
The "peacekeeping" myth with which our students are inculcated deliberately hides the realities of our military history in the second half of the 20th century (and there was also the Korean War).
In fact our army, air force and navy had NATO roles as major missions. Substantial army and air force units were based in Europe from the early fifties until the end of the Cold War; their function was to fight the USSR and its Warsaw Pact satellites should that ever become necessary. Moreover, something that is almost never remembered today, is that our forces in Europe were even equipped with U.S.-supplied nuclear weapons. The navy’s main commitment was an anti-submarine NATO assignment in the North Atlantic and it was equally prepared to fight.
The Canadian Forces did take on occasional UN peacekeeping missions but these were distinctly subsidiary in Ottawa’s defense policy to the NATO commitments, and to the NORAD alliance with the U.S. for North American air defense (our forces also had nuclear-tipped air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles for that purpose). It is a great pity history is so rapidly forgotten–and twisted.
Three other things should also kept in mind regarding the great Canadian peacekeeping myth. First, the UN force for which Pearson won the Nobel Prize–the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in which Canada participated–was in the end a complete failure. It did play an important role in ending the 1956 Suez Crisis; however
Egyptian President Nasser kicked UNEF out of Egypt, where it was stationed, in 1967. That was one of the key events precipitating the preemptive Israeli attack that began the Six Day War of 1967. Some peacekeeping.
Second, until the 1990s our only major, on-going UN blue beret mission was in Cyprus which lasted 29 years. While the mission did help to keep the peace, it also did nothing to achieve a political solution to the division of the island between Greeks and Turks. That still remains to be found. Some conflict resolution.
Third, our largest peacekeeping effort ever was in Croatia/Bosnia. But up to 1995 that UN mission hardly kept the peace and during that time many thousands of people were killed. The killing only stopped when NATO used air power against the Serbs, and the Croatians (assisted substantially by the U.S.) launched a successful counter-attack against Serbian forces. So much for the value of that UN peacekeeping. Meanwhile the Canadian Forces stayed on and helped, as part of a new NATO–not UN–force, to keep the real peace that military action by others had finally established. Blue berets certainly failed miserably in resolving that conflict.
Note the Liberals' key role in the two decades after 1945. Pearson, as external affairs minister, helped PM St. Laurent make Canada a founding member of NATO, in response to the Soviet threat both to Europe and North America. He remained a strong supporter of the alliance.
The St. Laurent government also initiated after the Korean war broke out a re-armament program exceeded in Canadian history by only the world wars. Pearson himself was the PM who in the 1960s accepted the American nuclear weapons that were needed at that particular juncture of the Cold War and technology.
UNEF and Cyprus were side-shows for the (much larger, close to twice today's CF) military then. How the party has changed.
Mark
Ottawa
nick,
we don't sneer at the study of history. We sneer at the people who think the mere act of studying really hard for a while and getting a degree should mean you're set for life. If there's no demand for your knowledge gained from 10 years of studying, suck it up, learn a lesson about your decision making skills, and GET A JOB!
nick said: "Is this the same website where, a day or so ago, commenters were sneering at the study of history?"
No, we were sneering at somebody who sucked at it so bad she was on food stamps.
I can name every WWII aircraft and tank by sight and quote vital statistics. Unlike that woman I don't expect to make a living off it.
Regarding Canada's 'Peacekeepers', here's an article, from 2004, by Sunil Ram:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/article946814.ece
I see. It's OK to study it, but not to teach it. I think there may be a flaw in that reasoning.
Canada has a rich proud and exciting history, one that unfortunately has been neglected and even apologized over. I think one of the reasons is the difference in opinion of our two founding nations.
The Quebecker sees our founding history through a completely different lens than does an upper Canadian. Prime Ministers from Quebec have never felt predisposed to promote Canadian history, in fact the opposite is quite true.
Until Harper came along we were more comfortable looking the other way. Name a PM who would have promoted the 200 year centenial of the war of 1812 the way the present Conservatives are. It wouldn't happen.
So while we haven't done a good job reading our history I think there has been some improvement in recent years. It's not great but getting better.
There is a new history publication in the country called the Dorchester Review. While only in it's 3rd printing it is a good start.
Canada is a reluctant bride when it comes to promoting it's rich history.
Yes, if only Canada could be like it was before 1963! I want to live in a racist and homophobic society!
Who said there was anything wrong with teaching it? Tell her to get a job as a teacher like all the other teachers do. Or get a job at Starbucks like my sister did until a spot opens up. And volunteer at the school too so they like her, and want to hire her over the art history and philosophy graduates also applying....
abtrapper, is there any difference between the Dorchester Review and the old Hudson's Bay "Beaver", now known as Canada's History?
I have been a subscriber to Canada's History (Beaver) for a number of years and it is a great magazine. The magazine to this point has been non-political, but lately there have been letters to the editor attempting to get the editor to revise and rewrite articles.
The two most historically destructive Canadian PM's, Pearson and that colossal A-Hole Trudeau started the deconstruction and distortions of Canadian history while they imposed a selective amnesia that cast this nation adrift from it's past and estranged the populace from it's roots, and did so with a reckless, passionate deliberateness. The real history of British North America was replaced with manipulative, mythical narratives like "two founding nations" and "peacekeeping". Historic symbols and traditions were destroyed and burned from the memory (Red Ensign, RCN,RCAF) and replaced with something less contentious and contradictory to the new historical narrative. A country forcefully removed from it's historical conscience is far easier to manipulate in the future. Pearson and Trudeau forced this country into a lobotomized, zombie like amnesic state of ignorance and denial with the inevitable results inherent with the imposition of cultural marxism and historical revisionism.
Nick said: "I see. It's OK to study it, but not to teach it. I think there may be a flaw in that reasoning."
Its ok to teach it too. But gee, its possible there might be limited opportunity for a medieval history scholar in Prescott Arizona. Which is the size of Brantford Ontario. Particularly a -mediocre- one, yes?
Nice try though.
Your state history commissariat has been relentless in scrubbing the national historic record of all mention of the decadent capitalist hosebag McDonald - Exploiter of aboriginals, racketeer of railway expansionist imperialism. We will not rest until all thinking is cleansed of the memory of imperialist Canada before fearless leader appeared in 1967. Fear not comrades your history commisariat will achieve the politically corrected Kanadianski soviet people's state.
I do like the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. When last I visited it about four years ago there was a prescribed walk-around route,
which began with a placard saying, more or less, "Canada has been formed by 5000 years of war" and then follows with a note on the Indian Art of War.
There wasn't very much political correctness (the section on Japan in WWII included images of balloons such as were used to waft high explosive devices to BC).
I hope it hasn't changed.
Another not-very-politically-correct place in Ottawa is the Cenotaph. Very unromantic, it shows men dragging an artillery pice through Flanders mud. There are statues of various military history around it, some perhaps not too heroic, but Gen. Sir Arthur Currie is depicted there (physically a large man), and Gen. Charles de Salaberry, who beat the Yanks at Chateauguay.
Nick:
In addition to the other comments, there's nothing wrong with studying history, and nothing wrong with teaching it. There is, however, something very wrong with a group of self-selected teachers who are teaching REVISIONIST history - to wit, Canada has no military tradition.
There are fields and fields in northwest Europe of simple white tombstones that speak volumes to the contrary. But, as my two high school daughters can attest, these have NEVER been mentioned in any class or Remembrance Day ceremony in all their years at public school.
On the other hand, at the oh-so-traditional boys school I attended in Toronto, on November 11, our cadet corps participated in the laying of the wreaths at St. Paul's in Toronto, and our attention was drawn to the list of Old Boys who had given their lives in the two great wars - names that were written in gold on our walls, and that we all filed past every day. Occasionally, a classmate would point out an uncle or grandfather on that list.
So please excuse me, and many others here, if our collective noses are put a bit out of joint by people who are re-writing history and making 'unpersons' of those who sacrificed their lives, all in pursuit of some 'anti-militarist' agenda that was never publicly proclaimed or asked for.
Ken:@9:31
I too subscribe to Canada's History magazine. While I enjoy it, I am finding that it is becomming a bit too 'pop history' which I guess is better than no history at all. It's gotten a bit too Pierre Berton to suit me.
The Dorchester Review is much more serious and has a depth to it. It isn't totally focused on Canadian history though as it calls itself a historical and literary review.
For example the latest edition has articles on the Falklands war,John A. Macdonald, three articles on Canadian history, Politics etc. If you are a history buff it is worth supporting. You can also get an on-line edition.
Those of us who are old enough to remember what Canada was like prior to 1963 including having been taught our actual history are a thorn for the progressive who have tried to re-invent Canada. By the way for Jeff, it was not a racist and "homophobic" (were there such a thing) country. True like almost all countries sodomy was a criminal offence. I don't think it should be and am glad that it is no longer criminalised, but we have now gone from one extreme to another.
KevinB@10:26:
I agree with you, entirely. My beef was something else: I was picking a nit with those, like the guy who calls himself "The Captain", no less, who like to sneer at occupations other than their own.
Isn't it a type of goose?
Thomas">http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/04/02/thomas-barnes/">Thomas G. Barnes, Ph.D., a great Canadian historian, a great patriot, and a great friend.
I miss him at the Nimitz Lectures. I miss his Makers Mark parties. I miss his endless optimism in the midst of hostile territory as he protected the long and honourable military tradition at UC Berkeley.
R.I.P. 2010
abtrapper, thanks. I will take a look.
Well thanks to Trudeau's unification of the armed forces I received a history lesson from an old army type who enlightened me on the Riel Rebellion. According to him (a proud member of the PPCLI) the Royal Canadian Regiment marched west to fight the Indians. They couldn't find any so they hung a half breed.
"If you think Canada is important, a nation worth surviving and growing into the future, then promoting Canadian history is the first step."
Frankly, it is far more important that people remember what freedom is all about than that they know Canadian history inside out.
"Nation-building", for those who don't know, really means socialism-building, and is incompatible with freedom.
I agree with the comments re the alleged "tradition" of peacekeeping. This is pure revisionism. So is the notion that medicare or the welfare state in general "defines Canada".
They don't want reminders that we used to win fights.
Didn't history begin in 1982 when P. Elliot Himself repatriated the Constitution and tacked onto it his Charter of Rights? At least that is what the lame-stream media were hinting at a few weeks ago at the 30th anniversary. Before P. Elliot there was darkness on the face of the land. Then there was light and we were free.
I'm not usually this contrarian, but MacDonald was Prime Minister (and a good one, I'll aver) 120 years ago. It stands to reason that many people know only a few things about him. To those who think teh stupid is a recent thing, I offer a retort: how many citizens of 120 years ago could identify John Graves Simcoe (who was a pretty good Lieutenant Governor)?
None of the foregoing is to argue that the historical narrative being taught in schools is poop (but as I recall, me and most of my fellow students weren't paying attention anyway - like most people who care about this sort of thing, I learned the important stuff elsewhere).
They also blame the white man for shooting all the buffalo while forgetting to mention the Red River wagons who by the thousands marched west each year to kill buffalo by the thousands. Oh yeah the people who owned and drove these wagons were the.....Metis.......
The termination of history is straight out of 1984 and I can't believe more people aren't seriously disturbed by this trend. Our education system is a form of child abuse.
nick,
"The Captain" doesn't sneer at those with occupations other than his own. You still don't get it. He's sneering at the people who choose to major in a degree that is very likely to provide no employment opportunities once it's been obtained. For instance, how many jobs do you think there are that require a PHD in Medieval History? You're spending $10K plus per year for 7 years in order to have almost zero employment opportunities open up for you? Not a wise choice at all. By all means, if you WANT to major in one of these choices, and you're spending your own money, go ahead. But don't complain about the lack of job opportunities when you're done, don't complain about the cost of tuition while you're doing it, and don't complain about a mountain of student loan debt when you're done. The purpose of higher education isn't the higher education itself, it's applying the education in the real world after you've completed it. Engineering degrees are therefore a worthwhile investment of time and money; Philosophy, Art History, Medieval History, and many others, not so much...
pete - yes. It's worth adding that universities don't teach subjects like "Philosophy, Art History, Medieval History, and many others" (let's not even get into Black Studies etc.) very well at all these days. Students go into debt to waste years on subjects which are either intrinsically worthless (Wymyn's Studies), or rendered worthless by low standards and political correctness (Philosophy...). After which process they are unemployable. Nice.
You'll forgive me if I don't share the general sentiment. I certainly do think history is important, but I do not at all believe "Canadian history" is important, and I'm glad that it isn't studied or promoted. The less crap about the Plains of Abraham I hear, the happier I am. And the sooner John A. MacDonald is regarded as a nonentity, the sooner we'll have a sane appreciation of John A. MacDonald.