Review of Canadian History & Emphasis of Canadian Military Heritage

[McG]

I guess universities are joining museums in the group of oppressed historians.

Harper changing Gregg centre's purpose
Re: Military history
The Daily Gleaner
30 Jan 2014

It will surprise nobody to be reminded that the Stephen Harper government does not encourage informed discussion of national policies.

It is, however, disappointing that UNB's Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society, intended "for the study of war and society" should be starved of funds for its intended purpose, but funded to divert its energies into the new rhetoric of military heroism - preparing hagiographies of Victoria Cross soldiers.

For decades the Department of National Defense provided modest funding to universities with scholars using the discipline of historical analysis to discover, record, and evaluate the significance of Canada's military forces as part of the Canadian place in international relations. UNB interpreted its remit as extending from interpretative military history, to the study of terrorism, the laws of military action, and family violence in the military. An annual forum in Ottawa made sure that such findings were known where they could be applied.

All that is swept away now, and the historians are put to work polishing up the military image which Harper finds politically useful.

Nicholas Tracy
Associate, Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

George: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 did in fact extinguish many of those rights in the newly acquired territories after the French defeats in the 7 years war. The same rights were subsequently and in the main re-established in the Constitution Act 1791, including the Seigneurial system and Civil Code and in fact this was an ongoing restoration process right up until the Constitution Act 1982.

Not only is Whiskey601 almost correct (I think he refers to the Quebec Act of 1774, as it is the one that recognized these rights anew for the first time), but in an interesting flip side of the said Quebec Act of 1774 that just shows how everything is connected, the said Quebec Act is one of the unacceptable actions of the English King directly mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence. The Act whereby the King unilaterally "deprived" a "neighbouring British Colony" of the "benefits of English Common Law" is Canada, and the deprivation came from the re-institution of the Customs of Paris civil law (no Napoleonic code in existence yet, Napoleon was 5 years old at the time.)

 

[a_majoor]

The dirth of attention on the flag anniversary is still gathering comment.  I like the idea of investing more in peacekeeping histories; that could be a conduit toward relieving so many Canadians of their misconceptions about the altruistism, means and effectiveness of such missions.
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/andrew-cohen-will-harper-mark-the-maple-leaf-flag-s-50th-anniversary-1.1745570

Sadly, I rather doubt that the bulk of "peacekeeping" historians will focus on the use of peacekeeping missions as economy of force measures to maintain the bulk of our military capability in Germany and to a lesser extent Norway...

 

[Old Sweat]

As I recall, during the sixties, seventies and eighties, other than for Cyprus there was very little combat arms involvement in peacekeeping. There were a few observer missions that drew officers from across the army and later the forces, but most of the peacekeeping forces we provided had logistics and communications roles. The rationale was that we had sophisticated capabilities in those fields, really that was the explanation, that most armies did not.

 

[McG]

The flag flap continues over which elements of Canadian heritage receive or do not receive attention from Conservative promotions.  The upside of the Conservatives not going full-retard on the flag's 50th (aside from saving money) is that we did not have another special, tacky anniversary pin throw onto our service dress uniforms.

This article covers the same ground as previous, but has several embedded videos to entertain (maybe):

Canada flag's 50th anniversary a low-key affair
Government's plans to fete the flag are minimal
By Bruce Chambers, for CBC News
11 Feb 2015

It's the 50th anniversary of the Canadian flag on Feb. 15, but the marketing of this celebration is somewhat muted compared to other recent anniversaries.​

In a 1971 television ad, a group of schoolchildren in red ponchos is singing in sub-zero temperatures. As the camera slowly pulls back, we see that the children form the Canadian flag against the white of a snow-covered field. This commercial was created by a group of Canadian ad agencies to promote national unity in the aftermath of the FLQ crisis.

Fourteen years later, crown corporation Petro-Canada also celebrated the flag, with hundreds of people holding up red and white cards to create the familiar maple leaf.

Even private corporations have, on occasion, enjoyed wrapping themselves in the flag. In 2000 — when Molson was still Canadian — CBC Radio's As It Happens’ host Jeff Douglas delivered the beer company’s famous “I Am Canadian” rant before a huge Canadian flag.

But here on the eve of our flag’s 50th birthday, the celebrations have gone almost silent.

The government has allotted $50,000 for the anniversary, along with another $200,000 to fund celebrations by provincial lieutenant-governors and other organizations.

This is in stark contrast to the splashy commercials and $5.2 million spent commemorating the bicentennial of the War of 1812.

And this year, the government is spending $4 million to mark Sir John A. Macdonald’s 200th birthday.

In addition to several historic moments funded at least in part by the government, there are major birthday events, and Sir John A. is featured on the new Toonie, special gold and silver coins, and a new stamp.

Sure, one previously-produced historic moment is available about the development of the flag, but it doesn’t mention the 50th anniversary.

With so little marketing allocated to our national emblem's 50th anniversary, if we want to see a truly stirring celebration of Canada’s flag we’re going to have to look back at old beer and gasoline commercials.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-flag-s-50th-anniversary-a-low-key-affair-1.2950315

Meanwhile, globe news looks a little deeper at the same:

Are the Conservatives playing politics with the Canadian flag?
By Amy Minsky, for Global News
11 Feb 2015

OTTAWA — The Harper government may not be completely ignoring the 50th anniversary of the Canadian flag, but the relatively modest plans to mark the day have some claiming the flag is getting the shaft.

Technically, plans in the works; one page of Heritage Canada’s website invites citizens to celebrate the flag … by doing their own thing.

“Canadians are invited to join together and celebrate our flag by organizing their own public events or by showing their pride on social media,” Heritage Canada’s website suggests.

Another page on the site offers activity ideas for the proactive patriots among us. Suggestions include: drawing a mural at school, organizing and inviting a veteran to a singing of the national anthem or flag raising ceremony, and hosting a bake sale with a National Flag of Canada theme. 

Is the beaming red and white flag — the one Canadians wave proudly when the country’s athletes win gold, sew to backpacks when touring foreign countries and draw on their cheeks every July 1 — being brushed off?

The Liberals think so.

“It’s unfortunate because Canadians are proud of their flag,” Liberal heritage critic Stephane Dion said in an interview.

It was Feb. 15, 1965 when the maple leaf flag was raised for the first time on Parliament Hill, the successful end to a project Liberal prime minister Lester Pearson spearheaded. Today, the same familiar design tops each of the three main buildings on the Hill. It hangs from buildings and balconies each Canada Day and is lowered to half-mast when the nation mourns the deaths of those who helped shape the country.

As of Feb. 11, the calendar of events on Heritage Canada’s main page listed Sir John A. Macdonald Day (celebrated every Jan. 11) and Winterlude (an annual Ottawa-area winter celebration running Jan. 30 to Feb 16).

The flag’s anniversary does receive billing elsewhere on the site, but clicking a 50th anniversary link only gets a visitor to a page inviting them to do their own thing or to share a photo of the flag on social media.

A spokeswoman for Heritage Minister Shelly Glover wrote that government representatives would attend some events suggested online (flag-raising ceremonies in communities), are “partnering” with organizations like Royal Canadian Legions to promote the anniversary and that there will be a flag-raising and some birthday cake at Winterlude on Sunday.

Additionally, the Museum of History will have an exhibit on the creation of the flag, and the Canadian Mint and Canada Post are introducing commemorative coins and stamps, the spokeswoman wrote.

Though she offered these events, the spokeswoman didn’t comment directly on the comparatively small scope of the celebrations.

“It’s the bare minimum,” Dion said of the Conservatives’ plans for the anniversary. “Why not a national celebration on the Hill? It’s very strange the government is not doing that.”

By contrast, the day last month when Canada’s first prime minister, Conservative John A. MacDonald, would have turned 200 years old attracted the prime minister to Kingston, Ont., as well as former prime ministers Kim Campbell and John Turner, government House leader Peter Van Loan and Transport Minister Lisa Raitt, among other distinguished guests.

A celebration for the War of 1812, meanwhile, warranted its own government website, 1812.gc.ca, and five years’ worth of news releases.

“The Liberals think the flag should have been celebrated at least as much as the War of 1812,” Dion said. “We are very proud of what Sir John A. did for the country. To celebrate him is very important. But it’s also important to celebrate the flag.”

The price tags for the celebrations are also revealing; Ottawa earmarked $50,000 for celebrations for the flag’s birthday, compared to almost $4 million for the celebration of Sir John A.’s birth, and $5.2 million for the bicentennial of the War of 1812.

Asked why he believes the Conservatives are doing only the “bare minimum,” Dion said he didn’t want to “speculate about something that should be so far above partisanship.”

Although a Liberal prime minister was in power when the national flag was born, the flag has come to symbolize the country — not a party or dogma or class of people, Dion said.

“It’s clearly Canadian. It’s beautiful, it’s a celebration of our immense nature,” he said.

By the time Pearson even launched his hunt for a flag, Parliament had been bouncing the idea around for a half century.

It began with a committee struck in 1925 that never finished its job.

Twenty years later, another committee was tasked with researching potential Canadian flags and received upwards of 2,500 submissions. Again, this committee never settled on anything, and Parliament was never called to vote on a favoured design.

Finally, in 1964, Pearson set a goal to adopt a Canadian flag ahead of the centennial Confederation celebrations three years down the road. An all-party committee soon short-listed three designs.

Settling on one of the three wasn’t easy — different influencers preferred different designs. Pearson preferred the blue flag with three red maple leafs on a white square in the middle; others preferred the design similar to the winner, but adorned with a Union Jack and three fleurs-de-lys.

Those embellishments — the triple maple leaf, Union Jack and fleurs-de-lys — were all throwbacks to the Red Ensign, the flag that had long represented Canada though never officially adopted.

Eventually, the committee chose the now familiar flag bearing a red maple leaf on a white square between two vertical red bands. The design was brought to Parliament for a vote, which it passed, 163 to 78.

Liberal stalwart Jean Chretien and party leader Justin Trudeau will host a public event on Sunday afternoon at the University of Toronto Mississauga athletic centre.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1824425/are-the-conservatives-playing-politics-with-the-canadian-flag/

And there are plenty of online comments and letters to editors on the topic.  Some are fairly tame:

CELEBRATING OUR FLAG
Liz Seger, Port Colborne
St Catharines Standard
11 Feb 2015

Feb. 15 marks the 50th anniversary of the adoption of our distinctive red maple leaf flag by the Liberal government of Lester Pearson.

Other countries celebrate their flag with a special day. The government of Canada should have done so as well, especially this year. There may not have been any military battles over our maple leaf flag, but there certainly were personal ones.

I’m proud to have been able to travel throughout the world and that my maple leaf flag, whether on my back pack, my luggage or as a pin on my shirt tab or blazer lapel. Happy 50th birthday to our flag,

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2015/02/11/letters-to-the-editor-for-february-12

but there is a lot more ludicrous (including accusations that the Conservatives want to bring back the Red Ensign). 

 

[McG]

Here is one of the more extreme takes on the lack of attention being given to the Canadian Flag's 50th anniversary and with a CAF connection.  I appreciate this guy's position on cosmetic changes that we are going through, but his arguments suffer from some errors of fact (while the Order of the Bath is an order of knights, the name used below is just wrong) and I think it is a little over the top to suggest that the three maple leaf insignia is less Canadian than the single maple leaf Army insignia (though, I do prefer the look of the single leaf).

Harper purposely aiming for Canadians to ignore flag’s anniversary
John Raulston,  Colwood, BC
The Gateway
04 Feb 2015

If one could almost miss the 50th anniversary of Canada’s distinct Maple Leaf, it is because that is exactly as PM Harper wants it. Unveiled under a Liberal PM, Harper would rather minimize, ignore, belittle or dismiss this national icon from our Canadian history. In fact, he has removed this distinct emblem of national identity from some places already.

After serving for years as the shoulder “pip” in Canadian Army general ranks, PM Harper has stripped the Canadian Maple Leaf from the shoulder of Army uniforms to replace it with the British Star of the Knightly Order. It does not matter that the star represents a class system inconsistent with Canadian values and a British social rank that Canadians are barred from holding. Harper would rather see Canadian officers wearing a British Star before a “Liberal Leaf”.

He has found other places to rub-out that big, solitary Maple Leaf that Canadians have come to so strongly identify with. In the mid to late ‘90s, a revived Canadian Army badge was created. It brought together the historical, heritage badge with the modern single Canadian Maple Leaf. It was the perfect balance of modern and historical identity. But this Army badge, like the strong unitary leaf upon it, was too Liberal for PM Harper. It has been scrapped along with the Maple Leaf rank as some unknown cost to tax payers. The Army is returning the 1950’s badge with three small connected Maple Leafs. Back in the 50’s, those three connected leafs were the only distinctly Canadian thing barely visible at the bottom of the shield in our Red Ensign flag. Today it is the unitary leaf that Canadians define their identity and that is the one that should be in our national symbols.

But maybe that is where PM Harper wants to go anyway. He hopes we all might not notice as the 50th anniversary of our flag passes by because he would rather celebrate the old Red Ensign and Union Jack over any Liberal invention.

http://thegatewayonline.ca/2015/02/print-issue-february-4-2015/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

wasn't there a insignia with 3 branches and maple Leaf on each end?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Here is one of the more extreme takes on the lack of attention being given to the Canadian Flag's 50th anniversary and with a CAF connection.  I appreciate this guy's position on cosmetic changes that we are going through, but his arguments suffer from some errors of fact (while the Order of the Bath is an order of knights, the name used below is just wrong) and I think it is a little over the top to suggest that the three maple leaf insignia is less Canadian than the single maple leaf Army insignia (though, I do prefer the look of the single leaf).
http://thegatewayonline.ca/2015/02/print-issue-february-4-2015/

He's from Colwood.

I can see Colwood right now from where I'm sitting in downtown Victoria.

It's a bit distant, and foggy.

That is all  ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

ah this was what I was thinking of

 

[McG]

wasn't there a insignia with 3 branches and maple Leaf on each end?

ah this was what I was thinking of

You might also have been thinking of the "Pearson Pennant."

 

[McG]

Media continued to take a few shots on this over the weekend, and the laments continued into today.

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!

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:

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

 

[McG]

Time for the pendulum to go to the other extreme?

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

 

[McG]

It would seem the National Post thinks the pendulum has swung back to the other extreme.

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

 

[dapaterson]

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...

 

[McG]

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?

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

 

[dapaterson]

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

 

[dapaterson]

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

 

[Eaglelord17]

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.