Author Topic: Review of Canadian History & Emphasis of Canadian Military Heritage  (Read 33651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 186,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,401
Re: Review of Canadian History & Emphasis of Canadian Military Heritage
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2015, 22:03:31 »
Media continued to take a few shots on this over the weekend, and the laments continued into today.
Quote
Canada's flag debate flaps on, 50 years later
Now the question is whether Ottawa is spending enough to mark the flag's anniversary

Terry Milewski, CBC News
15 Feb 2015

For Robert Labonte, there is no flag debate.  Labonte, who proudly wears the title of Flag Master on Parliament Hill, slogs up the steps inside the Peace Tower every weekday to make sure a fresh flag flies straight and true. No wrinkled or tattered flags allowed.

"It's an honour," he says. "It's the shot you will see everywhere: the Peace Tower with the flag on top. Coast to coast, people will identify themselves with it."

Don't tell John Diefenbaker. As opposition leader, Diefenbaker fought long and hard to stop his Liberal rival, Prime Minister Lester Pearson, foisting the new-fangled Maple Leaf upon the nation.

But Dief didn't have enough votes. The battle ended on Feb. 15, 1965, when Gov.Gen. Georges Vanier, elegant in tails and covered with medals, urged Canadians to take the new flag to heart.

"Our flag," said Vanier, "will symbolize to each of us — and to the world — the unity of purpose and high resolve to which destiny beckons us."

Pearson was up next. He'd won the vote, but the wounds were still fresh. He announced that, on that frigid day, "Our new flag will fly for the first time in the skies above Canada."

Then, glancing at the well-dressed crowd seated in the Centre Block beneath the Peace Tower, Pearson went magnanimous.

"There are many in this country who regret the replacement of the Red Ensign by the red maple leaf, and their feelings and their emotions should be honoured and respected."

Debate lingers

In the years since, of course, those emotions did subside. Young Canadians sewed the maple leaf onto their backpacks and the red maple leaf came to be one of the most recognized flags in the world.

And yet, something lingers. The man who wrote the book on the flag has no doubt about it.

Rick Archbold detects a lack of enthusiasm in the present government for the 50th anniversary of the supposed end of the flag debate. Actually, he says, it's still on.

"I'm actually saddened by what the government isn't doing — which is celebrating, in a meaningful way, one of the great accomplishments of nation-building that we can look back on," says the historian.

Archbold says the government has poured money into ad campaigns about the War of 1812 and the 200th birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald. The 1812 campaign cost more than $5 million; the Sir John A. ads cost more than $4 million. For the celebrations of the flag's 50th, there's a much more modest $50,000, plus another $200,000 for provincial celebrations.

Archbold says, "One can only conclude that it's for purely partisan reasons that they are ignoring the flag anniversary — and it's just because it was brought in under a Liberal administration."

A symbol for Canada

The heritage minister, Shelly Glover, scoffs at the charge.

"The flag doesn't belong to any party," Glover insisted. "In fact, the flag is a symbol for Canada that all of us are proud of ... whether they are Conservative, Liberal or NDP, I know they're celebrating. That doesn't have to cost money. I don't think who we are as Canadians, and our pride in the flag has anything to do with how much money is put out."

At least one Liberal MP agrees. Mauril Belanger, MP for Ottawa Vanier, has been going around to schools and talking up the importance of the flag and its history — but he is reluctant to accuse the government of playing political games.

"Some people have said they are not doing enough," says Belanger, "but I think the community is picking it up. I've seen it in schools now, I've seen it in the media. It's happening, I think, because Canadians realize this is our flag, we should be proud of it.

"Perhaps the government could have done some more, but, you know, things are what they are and we just move on."

So it's not exactly a five-alarm fiesta of rabid partisanship. Rather, the parties seem unwilling to do battle over this — and united in using the flag any way they can.

Does Stephen Harper use a huge flag as a backdrop for his political rallies? Of course he does. And does the Liberal Party have a handy "Donate" button on its web page promoting the anniversary? Of course it does. Does the maple leaf find its way into all the party logos? Oh, yes.

So call it a unifying influence. And Happy Flag Day!
Quote
Our flag deserves a party
Times Colonist
17 Feb 2015

On Sunday, Canadians celebrated the 50th birthday of our Maple Leaf flag. Although the current federal government has tried to ignore the anniversary, Canadians have embraced the flag as a symbol of their nationhood.

In the debate over the new flag, veterans and many who valued Canada's ties to Britain were outraged that the Red Ensign, under which, they said, Canadian soldiers had fought in two world wars, would be cast aside.

In fact, the ensign was never Canada's official flag, despite its common use. Until the Maple Leaf was raised on Feb. 15, 1965, Canada's official flag was the Royal Union Flag, usually called the Union Jack.

As Canada's centennial year approached, prime minister Lester Pearson wanted the country to have a flag that was unmistakably its own. The red Maple Leaf was not his favourite design, but it was the recommendation of an allparty committee of Parliament.

With the controversy largely forgotten, Canadians have poured into that simple flag their identity as a nation. Its adoption helped to define us as something more than a colony; we were a country with our own values and goals. It helped us stake out our place in the world.

Beneath it, generations of Canadians have grown up and tens of thousands of new Canadians have been welcomed into the family.

Perhaps when the 100th birthday rolls around, the federal government of the day will spend more than $50,000 on a party.


... but the real entertainment in all this was brought to us in a crazy idea from Colwood:

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,415
Re: Review of Canadian History & Emphasis of Canadian Military Heritage
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2015, 21:29:04 »
From USask "Images of a Country Gallery"


""In Miami they call it Dora - here we call it the Flag Debate"
Len Norris - The Vancouver Sun; 10 September 1964
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 186,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,401
Time for the pendulum to go to the other extreme?

Quote
Liberal minister hints citizenship guide’s trumpeting of War of 1812 victory will be pared down
Tristin Hopper
The National Post
29 Feb 2016

There is a lot of overlap between the guides the U.S. and Canada give new citizens; both tell newcomers the countries are built on native land, people can choose any religion they want and nobody is “above the law.”
 
But in one glaring difference, they both proudly claim they were victorious in the War of 1812.
 
“The Americans won the war,” declares a 34-page civics guide issued to prospective citizens by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
 
The Canadian guide notes the pre-Confederation British colonies “defeated an American invasion.”
 
“Believing it would be easy to conquer Canada, the United States launched an invasion in June 1812,” reads page 17 of Discover Canada.
 
“The Americans were mistaken.”
 
On the weekend, Immigration Minister John McCallum hinted the Canadian citizenship guide’s retelling of the War of 1812 would be pared down.
 
“If you ask an average Canadian what Canada means, maybe they’ll say hockey, maybe they’ll say something else, they’re not likely to say the War of 1812,” he told CBC’s The House on Saturday.
 
Saying that the guide was threaded through by an “ideological element,” McCallum added, “I’m not anti-military, but I do think it was a little heavy on the military.”

Altogether, military matters — including the First World War, the Second World War, and details of the Canadian Forces — take up about 1,500 words of the guide’s 40,000 words.
 
American proclamations they triumphed in the War of 1812 is nothing new — they have long fuelled the myth that, before Vietnam, the United States had never lost a war.
 
Alan Taylor, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at the University of Virginia, says both countries are right.
 
While the Canadian provinces successfully repelled a much larger U.S. invasion force, the United States arguably held its own in the wider conflict, which included naval battles and British actions against the American South.
 
“The war is much more than just the American invasion of Canada,” said Taylor.
 
Still, it’s a rare victory where a country gets much of its capital burned down and enters peace negotiations with enemy troops on its soil — as the United States did in 1814.
 
“The great majority of American academic historians would say it’s a war that went very badly for the United States and they were lucky to get such a favourable peace treaty,” said Taylor, who wrote a 2010 book on the conflict.

Eliot Cohen, a Johns Hopkins University professor, goes even further. In a 2011 book he wrote that “ultimately, Canada and Canadians won the War of 1812.”
 
McCallum not only took issue with mentions of Canadian military might in the citizenship guide. He also said that the guide was heavy on “so-called barbaric cultural practices.”
 
He was referring to a passage asserting that “Canada’s openness and generosity” do not extend to “barbaric cultural practices,” such as spousal abuse and female genital mutilation.
 
In 2011, Justin Trudeau was just a Montreal MP when he faced criticism for opposing the guide’s use of the word “barbaric.”
 
Trudeau later retracted, writing in an online post “all violence against women is barbaric. If my concerns about language led some to think otherwise, then I gladly apologize.”
 
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberal-minister-hints-citizenship-guides-trumpeting-of-war-of-1812-victory-will-be-pared-down

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 186,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,401

It would seem the National Post thinks the pendulum has swung back to the other extreme.
Quote
The Liberals don’t own our history
National Post View
07 Mar 2016

The Conservative government of Stephen Harper attracted considerable criticism when it elected to spend $28 million celebrating the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.
 
It was noted that the war happened a long time ago, before Canada was even a country, and few Canadians know much about it. Liberals charged that Conservatives were keen on commemorating wars, but had skipped the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights. While Ottawa was spending money on parades and ceremonies, it was cutting funding on other fronts, and laying off public servants. It was hinted that the celebration reflected some weird fetish Harper had about boring old Canadian history.
 
Something of the same attitude appears to reside within the new Liberal government. Immigration Minister John McCallum indicated an overhaul of Canada’s guide for new citizens — updated just six years ago by the Conservatives — is planned because the current version is “a little heavy on the War of 1812 and barbaric cultural practices.” As the National Post’s Chris Selley has pointed out, the 68-page guide carries a single mention of “barbaric practices,” in a section indicating Canada does not tolerate spousal abuse, honour killings or female genital mutilation. McCallum did not explain why Liberal sensibilities would be offended by a warning to new citizens that Canadians abhor such abuses.

The eagerness to erase one of the few references to Canadian history is equally mystifying. Canadian leaders — teachers, academics, politicians and authors — regularly lament Canada’s lack of interest in, and widespread ignorance of, its own history. Ask an average Canadian to spell the last name of the country’s first prime minister, and odds are they’ll respond with the spelling of a hamburger joint. It’s Macdonald, not McDonald. Ask them to name three other prime ministers — other than those in their own lifetime — and you’ll often draw a blank. Canadians mock Americans for their acute patriotism, as if disregard for the past is a more desirable trait. How can a country hope to progress if it doesn’t even know where it came from?

Celebrating the War of 1812 was a worthwhile endeavour precisely because so few Canadians understand the role it played in making us who we are. It was a key moment in the struggle to avoid being swallowed by the United States. More than 10,000 First Nations people joined British forces in the struggle, a rare moment of harmony and hope that — had it been maintained in ensuing years — might have prevented many of the tragic events that continue to sour relations today. It similarly underlined the stark divide on colour: while slavery was still legal in the U.S., Upper Canada had abolished it 20 years earlier — the first British territory to do so — and Canadian troops included a “corps of men of colour” who fought to keep it that way. Black troops joined the fight after U.S. Gen. William Hull crossed the Detroit River in July 1812, and received land grants in gratitude for their service. Some of Canada’s first heroes emerged from the war: Gen. Isaac Brock, who was killed in battle leading the defence against the invasion; Laura Secord, who walked 30 kilometres to warn that U.S. troops were planning a sneak attack; Chief Tecumseh, who allied his native troops with the British to repel the Americans.
 
Canadians continue to celebrate the people and events of the time despite the Liberal government’s apparent perplexity. Re-enactments are held each summer. Streets, schools and universities have been named in commemoration of its key figures. Reminders of the war are dotted across regions that are among Canada’s most popular tourist areas.
 
There is an unfortunate and dispiriting tendency in current culture to try and re-interpret the past. Oddly, it is deemed inappropriate to honour the events that made Canada a country and set the foundation for the culture we’ve become. We would prefer to condemn previous generations for lacking our own views, as if 19th century Canadians should somehow have shared the perspective of a future society they could never imagine.

The Liberals have shown an eagerness to roll back any initiative they view as too reflective of their Conservative predecessors. McCallum would do well to recognize that Canada’s history does not belong to any particular political party. He should be expanding efforts to acquaint Canadians with their history, not trying to erase it from guidebooks for the sake of a cheap political snub.
     
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-the-liberals-dont-own-our-history

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 454,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,056
It would seem the National Post thinks the pendulum has swung back to the other extreme. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-the-liberals-dont-own-our-history


The Liberals are still campaigning. Team Trudeau ...



... built around Gerald Butts and Katie Telford, is damned good at campaigning; they's smart, tough, quick, witty and driven. And Stephen Harper was a "soft target" after nine years in office.

But, governing is about making (often hard) choices and that appears, to me to be something that Team Trudeau would rather defer ~ until 2019 is they can manage it. Going after this sort of partisan, political "administrivia" is easy and popular amongst the Laurentian Elites who want al traces of "Harper the Barbarian" erased.

                         

I don't know how long the Liberals can avoid governing, but I expect to see more of this sort of thing throughout 2016.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 361,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,537
Every government spends their first mandate blaming the last government and their second (and following) mandate(s) blaming the world economic situation.

And none are ever particularly keen on actual governing...
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 186,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,401
Every government spends their first mandate blaming the last government ...
A little more than a year later, and it still looks like you are right.

In other news, looks like someone is attaching their CAF credentials (limited as they may be) to a political suggestion for the restoration of the Red Ensign as an official flag (though now subordinate to the National Flag).  Does the PRes put everyone through a course on pining for symbols of our colonial youth?
Quote
The maple leaf flag embodies Canada's national amnesia
Unlike Canada’s original flag—the Canadian Red Ensign—the maple leaf tells no story of our country. The Red Ensign, by comparison, vividly embodies Canada’s rich history
C.P. Champion
National Post
29 Jun 2017


There is much to celebrate on Canada’s 150th, and there will be no shortage of Canadian flags fluttering about. But the maple leaf flag is also the perfect embodiment of our national amnesia.

Unlike Canada’s original flag—the Canadian Red Ensign—the maple leaf tells no story of our country. The Red Ensign, by comparison, vividly embodies Canada’s rich history, inclusive of First Nations, the fleur-de-lis, and the diversity represented by Scottish, English and Irish symbols.

This history dates back much further than 1867. Canada’s traditions were shaped by the first colonists, the Conquest of 1759, the policies of Lord Dorchester, the resilience of His Majesty’s new French Catholic subjects, generations of American and British immigrants, and First Nations who prospered in the pre-Industrial era and understood themselves as proud, though cautious, allies of the King.

When these old colonies were reimagined and set on a new footing in the 1860s, four distinct Provincial shields were combined on the Red Ensign, which was flown by Sir John A. Macdonald. Lord Stanley, the governor-general, and Henri Bourassa, a French Canadian nationalist, both recognized the Red Ensign as a distinctive Canadian flag. After 1921, the flag bore the shield from Canada’s new coat of arms.

When Canadian soldiers took Juno Beach on June 6, 1944 (D-Day) they carried this Canadian flag ashore. Through Normandy and the Netherlands, between the Maas and the Rhine, under the Klever Tor at Xanten, in liberated Nijmegen, Arnhem, and Groningen: as the Reich flag was lowered across Western Europe, the Canadian flag was unfurled among the banners of victory. In 1945, there could be no doubt that “Canada had a flag,” as John Diefenbaker later said, “a flag ennobled by heroes’ blood.”

The Red Ensign was replaced by the red maple leaf in 1964, recommended in the sixth report of a parliamentary committee, voted for by 178 MPs in a discordant House of Commons, and implemented by a minority government led by a jittery Lester Pearson. Why the jitters? Because the old flag was so popular. As Senator Marcel Prud’homme, an M.P. in 1964, told me in 2007: “You see, we had to kill the Red Ensign” — so that the fledgling maple would have no rival.

Many celebrated the new dawn. The late Lt. Gen. Charles Belzile, who witnessed the maple’s raising for the first time while serving as a young soldier in Cyprus in 1965, told me: “It sure looked pretty good against those green hills!”

But the new flag also had its critics. Historian Marcel Trudel warned in 1964 that Canada’s new flag had “no historic significance” and was “a lamentable failure.” “I am convinced, for my part,” he said, “that any flag, if it is to be truly significant, must contain or represent the symbols of the nation or nations which contributed to establishing the country.”

First Nations leaders were strongly attached to the old flag. James Gladstone, a Blood (Kainai) appointed to the Senate in 1958 said: “Personally I do not want to see any other flag flying but the Red Ensign.” Many chiefs had received a Union Jack as a ceremonial seal on treaties: “Under these symbols of justice, we feel safe. Take them away from us and it will be another sign that we are not safe.”

While the national flag is obviously here to stay, Ottawa should accord the old flag official status as “The Canadian Red Ensign.” It should fly permanently alongside the Canadian flag at the National War Memorial — after all, it’s the flag our soldiers actually fought under. It should fly at war memorials everywhere, and at obvious locations such as the Canadian War Museum grounds. And finally, a Red Ensign should wave permanently above the East Block of Parliament as a symbol of our heritage of freedom.


C.P. Champion edits The Dorchester Review http://www.dorchesterreview.ca. He has worked as a policy advisor in Ottawa since 1997, and recently completed his Infantry Qualification in the Army (Reserve).

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/beyond-the-duck-the-maple-leaf-flag-embodies-canadas-national-amnesia/wcm/956a04c2-7442-478e-b9b4-b0ba384271a4

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 361,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,537
One of the boys in short pants with the prior government, a PhD in history, and an older Pte.

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/chris-champion-162a5011b
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 361,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,537
One of the boys in short pants with the prior government, a PhD in history, and an older Pte.

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/chris-champion-162a5011b
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Member
  • ****
  • 11,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 240
A little more than a year later, and it still looks like you are right.

In other news, looks like someone is attaching their CAF credentials (limited as they may be) to a political suggestion for the restoration of the Red Ensign as an official flag (though now subordinate to the National Flag).  Does the PRes put everyone through a course on pining for symbols of our colonial youth?

Maybe it is because many people fought and died under the Red Ensign, and historically it is more significant than the Maple Leaf. I personally prefer the Red Ensign, however most in this day and age have grown up and gotten used to the Maple Leaf.

Besides what does him being PRes have to do with him liking a symbol. Last I checked most the new ranks and insignia from our past was being brought back by the Regs, not the PRes. You may have some pushers in the PRes (just as there are pushers in the Regs), but ultimately the Regs have the final decision in what gets adopted and what doesn't.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,652
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,292
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
While I do remember a Red Ensign flying outside my home in Medicine Hat as a kid, my Canadian flag and the flag I've served under overseas is the Maple Leaf.  I don't think there's a great clamour to turn back time to old symbols with most folks today, especially First Nations people whom seem to be particularly sensitive at the moment and pissed off.  The remaining generations that do remember the Ensign are dwindling quickly and will be mostly gone in the not too far distant future,  the youth today aren't interested, I expect. 

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 186,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,401
Last I checked most the new ranks and insignia from our past was being brought back by the Regs, not the PRes.
... or maybe in was a few reservists who, being class A, lobbied directly to the politicians and had a decision imposed when the army internally had said we don't want it.  You seem to have heard a different story than others.

In any case, the country seems to be in the throws of removing/stripping anything that honours significant historical figures who may have done anything that does not fully measure-up by ethical standards of today.  So we probably need some sort of metric by which to decide if stripping a name or removing a statue is really an appropriate course of action.  The Globe and Mail has published about one such system developed in Yale.  It might be something for decision makers to take a look at.
Quote
Langevin, Ryerson, Cornwallis: Is our past unfit for the present?
Peter Shawn Taylor
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Jul. 15, 2017 8:00AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Jul. 17, 2017 5:04AM EDT


Hector-Louis Langevin is gone. So too, Matthew Baillie Begbie. And Edward Cornwallis, Jeffery Amherst and Egerton Ryerson may be living on borrowed time. These once-esteemed Canadian historical figures have either had their names and likenesses ripped from the firmament or are in immediate danger thereof, because of conflict between historical facts and current sensitivities.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau removed Mr. Langevin’s name from the building that houses his office in Ottawa last month because some claim he was an architect of Canada’s notorious residential school system. A statue of Mr. Begbie, the first chief justice of British Columbia, was hoisted out of the lobby of the Law Society of British Columbia earlier this year because he sentenced six Indigenous chiefs to death in 1864. The legacies of Mr. Cornwallis, Mr. Amherst and Mr. Ryerson are similarly threatened by allegations they were mortal enemies of Indigenous peoples or associated with residential schools.

While clearly growing in fashion, the rename or remove movement is troublesomely ad hoc – decisions appear based solely on political calculation and the heat generated by social media. In Halifax, for example, a Facebook campaign calls on supporters to “peacefully remove” a prominent statue of Mr. Cornwallis, the city’s founder, in guerrilla fashion.

But with nearly every major Canadian historical figure somehow implicated in our country’s often-shameful treatment of Indigenous peoples, we need a better way to decide which parts of our past are truly unfit for present-day consumption. Consider the Witt test.

Yale University has long wrestled with similar complaints about Calhoun College, named for benefactor John C. Calhoun, a U.S. senator from South Carolina and outspoken proponent of slavery during the pre-Civil War era. Last year, Yale asked historian John Fabian Witt to resolve the controversy. His response was a unique series of questions meant to gauge the validity of renaming demands. It’s a first stab at a coherent, standardized system for settling commemoration disputes, and other U.S. institutions have quickly grasped its significance. Last month, the University of Mississippi employed Prof. Witt’s test in removing some controversial names from its campus, while letting other remain. In the absence of anything similar in Canada, we should adopt the Witt test to settle our own namesake dilemmas.

Prof. Witt begins with the overarching principle that name changes should be considered “exceptional events” and not frivolous or political acts. “Renaming has often reflected excessive confidence in moral orthodoxies,” he observes, pointing with caution to the Soviet Union. Then again, not every urge to rename is Orwellian: post-Apartheid South Africa or post-Nazi West Germany, for example.

To decide what deserves to be removed and what should stay, the Witt test applies four questions, modified here for domestic use, that weigh the actions and time periods of commemorated individuals.

  • First: Is the principal legacy of the namesake fundamentally at odds with Canadian values? This requires a broad understanding of the life’s work of the individual in question.
  • Second: Was the relevant principal legacy significantly contested during the namesake’s lifetime? Isolated statements or actions considered controversial today may have been conventional wisdom at the time. Context matters.
  • Third: At the time of the naming, was the namesake honoured for reasons fundamentally at odds with Canadian values? Why was this person commemorated?
  • Finally: Does the building play a substantial role in forming community? The more prominent the edifice, the greater the casefor retaining names of historical significance, Prof. Witt says.
Using the Witt test, Yale announced in February the removal of Mr. Calhoun’s name. White supremacy, it concluded, was his principal legacy. Mr. Calhoun claimed slavery was “a positive good” and that the Declaration of Independence erred in stating all men are created equal. For this, he was criticized in his own time and today.

Applying these same standards to Mr. Langevin, however, yields a different result. As an important French-Catholic Conservative federalist in the Confederation era, Mr. Langevin’s principal legacy was building a bicultural Canada, something once considered a great virtue in this country. This is why his name was placed on an important building in Ottawa. Though his name is today often paired with residential schools, Mr. Langevin was primarily involved with constructing the buildings, not championing the policies. The infamous speech he gave in Parliament on the subject was actually parroting what his boss – Sir John A. Macdonald – had said days earlier. While his comments are grating to modern ears, he was merely repeating widely accepted views from his time. The Witt test exonerates Mr. Langevin.

The legacies of Mr. Begbie, Mr. Ryerson, Mr. Cornwallis and the rest of Canada’s historically accused deserve a fair trial as well.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/langevin-ryerson-cornwallis-is-our-past-unfit-for-the-present/article35692106/
+300

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 130,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,853
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
While I do remember a Red Ensign flying outside my home in Medicine Hat as a kid, my Canadian flag and the flag I've served under overseas is the Maple Leaf.  I don't think there's a great clamour to turn back time to old symbols with most folks today, especially First Nations people whom seem to be particularly sensitive at the moment and pissed off.  The remaining generations that do remember the Ensign are dwindling quickly and will be mostly gone in the not too far distant future,  the youth today aren't interested, I expect.

I doubt there would be appetite to change from the Maple Leaf - that is one of the most recognizable symbols of Canada. 
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,652
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,292
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
I doubt there would be appetite to change from the Maple Leaf - that is one of the most recognizable symbols of Canada.

Agreed. 

My Dad flew the Red Ensign at the house as it was the flag he fought and served under during and after the Second War.  It stayed in his den after his death and was still there last time I saw home years later.  I totally understand his personal connection with the flag.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,481
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
... or maybe in was a few reservists who, being class A, lobbied directly to the politicians and had a decision imposed when the army internally had said we don't want it.  You seem to have heard a different story than others.

In any case, the country seems to be in the throws of removing/stripping anything that honours significant historical figures who may have done anything that does not fully measure-up by ethical standards of today.  So we probably need some sort of metric by which to decide if stripping a name or removing a statue is really an appropriate course of action.  The Globe and Mail has published about one such system developed in Yale.  It might be something for decision makers to take a look at.https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/langevin-ryerson-cornwallis-is-our-past-unfit-for-the-present/article35692106/

Welcome to 1984:

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. "Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. "Reality control," they called it: in Newspeak, "doublethink." (1.3.18)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 765
A little more than a year later, and it still looks like you are right.

In other news, looks like someone is attaching their CAF credentials (limited as they may be) to a political suggestion for the restoration of the Red Ensign as an official flag (though now subordinate to the National Flag).  Does the PRes put everyone through a course on pining for symbols of our colonial youth?http://nationalpost.com/opinion/beyond-the-duck-the-maple-leaf-flag-embodies-canadas-national-amnesia/wcm/956a04c2-7442-478e-b9b4-b0ba384271a4
Halfway off-topic, but: I'm fairly certain the fact that he edits a moderately prominent Canadian history review is the bona fide he's relying on to publish opinions about historical symbols. Yes, he joined the CAF late in life. He's a genuinely accomplished guy of the sort we should be doing a lot more to attract.

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,012
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,510
The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas and Daesh blew up Palmyra because of religious intolerance.

We are committing the same thing, on a smaller and less spectacular scale, because of historical intolerance.
+300

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,661
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
I suspect many of the famous Native chiefs could not withstand an honest assessment under the Witt test either. But it seems the most reasonable way to proceed.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,086
  • Freespeecher
I'll go the irish monastery route, and collect old history books so when the pendulum swings back there will be references to build from. Not exactly sure what the cutoff date should be, but probably no later than the mid 1970s for the most part, predating the start of Political Correctness and the rise of Cultural Marxism.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.