I present, Alberta Liberal Senator, Grant Mitchell. Whom, I add, is due to retire in 2026.
I’ve heard it said before, I didn’t believe it, but maybe a modern Liberal’s history really doesn’t start until 1968.
I present, Alberta Liberal Senator, Grant Mitchell. Whom, I add, is due to retire in 2026.
I’ve heard it said before, I didn’t believe it, but maybe a modern Liberal’s history really doesn’t start until 1968.
this isn’t a blonde joke is it?…link keeps arriving before it left…
What? Now the Liberals are worried about the sensibilities of the Americans?
Forgot the flag stomping, Grant?
What a bunch of idiots.
Yeah. I mean if the Conservatives want to concentrate on something of historical value, why can’t they pick something really significant – like the arrival in New France of the first lesbian, or single mom.
This asshole epitomizes everything that is wrong with the Canadian senate. A political “science” graduate who has never had a real job, he wallowed in various troughs until 2005 when he won the lottery with what is essentially a lifetime sinecure in the red chamber. Will Harper’s nine year term limits be retroactive for parasites like Mitchell, or do we have to live with him?
BTW, I agree with him that the planned War of 1812 hoopala is over the top but, for a different reason. Surely, in tough times, the gummint can find better uses for $25 million than spreading around a bunch of Clement-style pork.
The poor boy is obviously unaware that the Americans do not view the war as a loss. True, expansion north was stopped but that was only one, and a relatively minor, aim.
Of much more importance was the British navy essentially blockading trade with France
Can recall a certain Liberal leader who wasted over $1.5 billion dollars over little more
than a personal vendetta. Did this clown get up on his hind legs and start barking then?
.
Since Quebec won’t let Canadians commemorate anything on the Plains of Abraham, why not have a hoopla over 1812? If America can get over that north-south thing called the Civil War, then why would you would think they’d get their knickers in a knot over something that happened years before.
Changing national icons is only allowed if you’re a liberal. Just ask the union jack.
And if that ahistorical twit thinks that only the British interests where served let me go back to the union jack and remind our senator that had we lost he wouldn’t have been able to replace it with liberal red. The flag would be American with 10 extra stars.
J@ckwaggon alert!
If you told me that article had been written by a 14 year-old Toronto girl, I’d have believed it.
I welcome the 1812 celebrations as a way of learning more about our history. Even in tough times — and perhaps especially in tough times — it is good to seek out causes that unify us and bring a mood of celebration.
What really makes me sick is where he is from, bad enough picking Tommy Banks but someone as dumb as Grant even tops Banks, who is nothing but a musician, oh I forgot actors and musicians are the really really smart ones, like Alec Baldwin Robert Redford Lady Gaga etc.
He makes an excellent case for doing precisely what PMSH proposes. That any adult in educated in Canada has as bad an understanding of the importance of 1812 on canadas very existence as he has is proof positive that our education has failed fundamentally to teach this country’s history.
(full disclosure – my family on my mothers side participated in the war – they were UELs who’s settled on top of the escarpment in Stoney creek just a couple of miles from where the memorial is located – their homestead is currently a museum.)
The British and Canadians fought side by side against the Americans at Stoney Creek not far from Grimsby. Had we lost that battle we would probably be American citizens; it is as simple as that.
Sober second thought? Can’t find it there.
Not only does the modern liberal start history in 1968, it is still 1968 and will always and forever be 1968 to the modern liberal.
Gord Tulk said: “He makes an excellent case for doing precisely what PMSH proposes.”
Hear hear! It just shows Harper is smarter than the opposition, he’s attacking them right at their foundation. Liberals have prospered since the 1970’s by dismissing history and flouting traditions, the best way to finally crush these cockroaches is to BRING IT ALL BACK.
Anniversary of 1812 is the perfect occasion to punch a really big hole in the Liberal education system.
My only complaint with Mr. Harper is he goes too slowly to suit me. I’m prepared to trust his judgement on timing, so long as I see results.
The War of 1812 was the most relevant Canadian War ever fought. It was a fight for our existence. I remember this horses ass, part of a string of useless humanity that has led the Alberta Liberal Party.
The US LOST the war of 1812?!?!? Reality check for this geezer.
The War of 1812 was the last attempt by a foreign nation to invade Canada. Doesn’t that, and the fact that we repulsed them, make it of some small significance?
I’d think so, and most particularly to a Liberal Senator from Alberta, who I guarantee would not have his well-paid appointed position if the War had gone differently and turned us into Americans with an elected Senate.
To the left, history cannot start any earlier then immediately after their last screw up. After all they don’t want the voters to remember when they messed up or when times were better. The left have always believed only in selective history.
I agree with Senator Mitch. History is dead and there’s no use looking back if someone might be offended. Lets blow up the Senate fire everybody and put them to work erecting a statue commemorating the dead parrot skit from Monty Python he likes to analogize everything with.
As the old dictum goes:
“Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”
If you don’t understand the mistakes and triumphs of the past, the voters certainly won’t make any informed decisions. Perhaps some quarters are counting on this…
But then if we had an elected Senate perhaps we wouldn’t have to endure such an unenlightened position…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Place this on your calendar. Our troops burned the White House on August 24, 1814. Coming up to the 200th anniversary.
The British and Canadians fought side by side against the Americans at Stoney Creek not far from Grimsby. Had we lost that battle we would probably be American citizens; it is as simple as that.
Correct me if I’m wrong but there wasn’t a Canada in 1812.The territory was called British North America. Canada didn’t exist before 1867.
Personally I’d rather see a recreation of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
Americans don’t forget their history – well not all of it, nor do they completely forget their antipathy to things British, including us. The song “The Battle of New Orleans” has done more to inflame feelings against the US than any other single item. In fact the battle of New Orleans took place after the War of 1812 ended.
Amusingly, the real thing took place at Chateauguay in 1813. To quote Wikipedia, “facing Hampton’s force of 4000 troops and 10 cannon, de Salaberry led an advance guard of 250 Voltigeurs plus 50 allied warriors of the Kaunawakee Mohawk nation. The rest of de Salaberry’s corps, 1500 men, remained in reserve.” de Salaberry’s force routed the Yanks. The events go well to the tune of the “Battle of New Orleans” – “we fired our guns and the Yanks a-kept a coming, not so many as there were a time before; we fired our guns and the Yanks a-started running, all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico” – well, that’s an exaggeration. But it was a clear, decisive win for the Canadians against a force far superior in numbers. The only people who don’t wish to celebrate it are anti-Canadian anti-Canadien pooftas like that Trudeau retread and high-level pogey collector Grant Mitchell.
BTW the Newfoundland fencibles also made a good contribution to the war of 1812.
How is it that the War of 1812 is of any historic significance to Canada?
Well, if you believe Canada’s history should be denied, and “world history” taught instead, then yes, I guess the war of 1812 has no significance to you.
If you live in the real world, you will know that there would not be a Canada if the war of 1812 had been lost in Canada.
Did this waste of a senate seat get riled up when the Americans celebrated their bicentennial in 1976? They were, after all, rubbing the noses of their British friends in a defeat. The War of 1812 was an attempt to stab Britain in the back while England faced Napoleon and Madison could complete the “manifest destiny” of the U.S.A. holding all of North America.
Aviator
“Did this waste of a senate seat get riled up when the Americans celebrated their bicentennial in 1976? They were, after all, rubbing the noses of their British friends in a defeat. The War of 1812 was an attempt to stab Britain in the back while England faced Napoleon and Madison could complete the “manifest destiny” of the U.S.A. holding all of North America.”
Precisely…the US government thought “Now’s our chance”. Canada was lightly garrisoned with a few second rate British regulars and the UEL militia.
Occam
“The US LOST the war of 1812?!?!? Reality check for this geezer.”
The mere inconvenient truth, that the primary US objective was the seizure/conquest of British North American and that failed….that is a victory? Reality Check indeed!
BTW….how could George Washinton chop down his father’s cherry tree when Washington senior never owned any land?
Of course, the British stopped the blockade of Europe because they’d beaten Napoleon, and not because of anything the Americans did.
All that can be said in Sen. Mitchell’s defence is that the War of 1812 isn’t strictly speaking part of his history. It happened in one region and didn’t involve the West at all. I don’t get the impression, though, that he was making that point.
“Correct me if I’m wrong but there wasn’t a Canada in 1812.The territory was called British North America. Canada didn’t exist before 1867”
Sure, I’ll correct you. From 1791 to 1841 there were Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Before 1791 and after 1841 there was Canada. In 1867 it was again split into Ontario and Quebec and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were added under a newly created federal government called Canada.
I have a half dozen books about the War of 1812 and the best one in my opinion is the latest one I acquired and it is Mark Zuelke’s “For Honour’s Sake”. The reason I suggest that it is good is because, while it briefly describes the various battles and the strategic implications,it concentrates on the political background as to why the war was started by the Americans, the political maneuvering by the various political parties in the US and the lengthy peace process.
Dick and John Lewis both have it. The Stoney Creek battle and the Chateauguay were pivotal in keeping Upper Canada in British hands. The loss of either battle would led to the fall of Upper Canada and probably to the fall of Lower Canada as well.
Almost total American military leadership incompetence was also a major factor in the ultimately successful defense of Upper and Lower Canada. The leaders generally were political appointments.
How is that for a brief book review?
And I suppose that the lieberal senator thinks the $2 billion spent on the firearms registry was money well spent (in that the kickbacks to lieberal firms were probably huge).
While we’re on the commemorative kick, let’s do a recreation of the battle of the Plains of Abraham. I suggest the commemoration take place on the same day that PMSH awards BC, Alberta and Ontario the extra HOC seats that their population warrants.
I would have thought that commemorating the War of 1812 was a no-brainer. What future does any country have that will not celebrate its history?
Mitchell’s first and main complaint is that remembering history is “dragging us back into the past.” This is an interesting variant of the usual politician’s doublespeak that they are “leading us into the future.” Easy for anyone to say, but perfectly meaningless—time being one-dimensional, it is impossible to lead anywhere else but into the future. Conversely, it is nonsensical to speak of “going back into the past.” Except in the sense that all knowledge is necessarily a reach into the past, that is, into memory. To be against going back into the past in this sense is simply to be against knowledge. Which may suit some agendas perfectly, of course…
Mitchell then gives his objections in point form:
1. Given that the US is our friend, why would we want to remind them that they lost this war and that our forces set the White House on fire?
First, let’s clear up a common misconception. Canadian forces did not set the White House on fire. The British Navy did, and no Canadians were likely to have been involved. Time to put that old saw to rest.
But as to the larger point, that Canada should not alienate a present friend by celebrating a past dispute: on this advice, Britain had better pull up all those columns with Nelson standing at the top, and rename all those Wellington Streets. After all, France has long been a good friend and important trading partner. And France in turn had best can those D-Day celebrations; Germany is now their closest ally.
But of course, nobody worries about this. It is precisely because these nations are now friends and allies that such commemorations are not provocative. And it is the general course of history, and a good thing, that former enemies usually become friends later. This ought to be pointed out, and celebrated, not suppressed. If it is suppressed, moreover, just about all history is impossible.
2. It bears no real relevance to the development of the Canadian nation.
This claim is a radical bit of historical revisionism. More commonly, it has been felt by historians that the War of 1812 was the true birth of Canada as a nation. In the words of Pierre Burton and the Canadian Encyclopedia, “Canada owes its present shape to negotiations that grew out of the peace, while the war itself – or the myths created by the war – gave Canadians their first sense of community and laid the foundation for their future nationhood. “ By showing they were prepared to fight, even against overwhelming odds, to preserve their independence from the US, Canadians showed their commitment to Canada. Anglophones, Francophones, and aboriginals saw a common cause and fought as one, shoulder to shoulder. If this all bears no relevance to the development of the Canadian nation, one must ask urgently, what does Senator Mitchell imagine the Canadian nation to be? Was it invented by Pierre Trudeau in 1982?
3. It glorifies war when the war was not necessary or justifiable (to the extent that any war ever is).
Is pacifism ever justifiable? It glorifies moral cowardice. The greatest sin of all is to stand idly by and let evil triumph. God forbid that this should ever become the Canadian way, for it never has been.
As to the War of 1812 specifically, from the Canadian perspective, it was a perfect example of a just war. The US declared war on Britain; Britain did not declare war on the US. The US might or might not have had legitimate grievances against Britain that justified this aggression, but if so, these had nothing to do with Canada. The US invaded Canada; Canada did not invade the US. The Canadian strategy at the beginning of the war was purely defensive. If Canadians had refused to fight, the likely result would have been, quite simply, the end of Canada.
Senator Mitchell is saying, in sum, that the existence of Canada is not necessary or justifiable.
4. If it means anything to anyone, it certainly does not have a national resonance of any kind, being pretty much irrelevant to the West.
Right. By that logic, the US similarly has no business commemorating its War of Independence, which involved, after all, only 13 of the present 50 states. We should also chuck out Canada Day and all this fuss about commemorating Confederation in 1867, since it involved only 4 provinces.
Nice to see the Liberals finally acknowledging that Canada has a West, and that America is our ally, though. This could be a breakthrough.
The War of 1812 could be classified as a win for the USA in the following way. By 1812 the new republic was in major difficulty. The economy had soured because trade with Britain had declined, emigration to the north had continued unabated since the revolution and many were having doubts about the new way of doing things. The war renewed the patrotic zeal that had kindled America’s original determination in 1776.
Stephen Roney, you talk as if the idea of chucking Canada Day were somehow self-evidently absurd. What’s absurd or unreasonable about it? Why shouldn’t we do exactly that?
Of course you can justify celebrating Dominion Day as commemorating the founding of the government of Canada, and if that kind of thing turns your crank, there’s no reason not to celebrate it everywhere where Canada governs, regardless of how recently they acquired it. That’s very different from commemorating a purely local event like this particular war. Shall we celebrate the Halifax Explosion in Saskatoon? I’m frankly not holding out much hope of seeing the Seven Oaks Massacre mourned in Newfoundland, or even downtown Toronto.
And I note your assumption that the test of sensible action is what the Americans do. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the American Revolution actually accomplished something, and as a result things are actually different there than here?
EBT: I cited examples from the US, Britain, and France. Odd that you only saw the US examples. A bit of prejudice, perhaps?
As for calling the War of 1812 a “local” event, you merely reassert what I have just refuted.
I guess everyone who knows better than you is just a racist, then, Stephen. Must be tough living in a world with so many racists.
I missed the part where you “refuted” the plain fact that the War of 1812 happened in only one part of the country. I’m sure it was impressive, though.