This thread is meant as the third installment in a series dealing with the cancellation of a reconstitution of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham that was originally scheduled to be held, on the plains themselves, to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the famous battle. What I intend to do, beyond discussing the à propos of the ill-fated reenactment, is to spark a debate about how Canadians view their history and the very nature of their country.
To recall the facts, sometime last year, a group of military reenactment enthusiasts decided that they would like to reenact the Battle of the Plains of Abraham on the site where it happened in 1759. Their goal was apparently both recreational, them being hobbyists, and educational, to allow Canadians to learn more about an important event of their history. But the talk surrounding the planned event soon turned political, people disagreeing about how to discuss an event the meaning and consequences of Canadians can’t agree on. In particular, the rumoured appearance of actors impersonating generals Montcalm and Wolfe and performing a lighthearted musical comedy number was seen as setting the wrong tone for the commemoration of an event many, especially on the francophone side, see as a dark time in our history with long-standing consequences. Politicians got involved, Quebec premier Jean Charest saying his government wouldn’t have anything to do with the event while federal Heritage minister Josée Verner announced she would attend. The event was ultimately cancelled amid vague threats by radicals. The mood in the anglophone media appeared to be that the cancellation was caused by whining and threats from “separatists”. In place of the reenactment, something called the Moulin à paroles, featuring public personalities reading historically significant texts on the Plains of Abraham for 24 hours was held last week. This also caused controversy over the planned inclusion of the Manifesto of the Front de libération du Québec, read by singer Luck Mervil (link to what appears to be his Myspace page). The Quebec government also dissociated itself from this event. No incidents were reported during the Moulin à paroles; boos were heard when Lord Durham’s 1839 report was due to be read but that was it.
As I’ve said, two threads were started on the SDMB regarding the ill-fated reenactment. [thread=507154]The first one[/thread], by Leaffan, featured an interesting discussion regarding whether the event was appropriate. I tried to explain why it was controversial; participants to the discussion disagreed over whether a 250-year-old event can still have relevance today and over whether the Battle of the Plains of Abraham even was a history-changing event deserving of its mythical status with Canadians. It should be said that some historians disagree that it was all that important. [thread=521583]The second thread[/thread], whose OP was Valteron, started ugly and was ultimately killed by tomndebb after IMO failing to lead to any high-minded discussion. Still, in a sense we could say that Valteron’s thread was actually the more interesting of the two, because in the presence of a less-reasoned debate we got more emotion, and this allowed us to experience the differing ways in which Canadians perceive their history and the role of this battle in it, and what it means about Canadian national identity. This is what I intend to discuss here.
The prevailing viewpoint among francophones, in Quebec at least, is that the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, or more accurately the Conquest, was a dark event that lead to the subjugation of francophones in Canada. There may be disagreements on how dark it was exactly, but it’s definitely not seen as a joyous event. Valteron jumps straight there by comparing the Plains of Abraham to the Battle of the Boyne, a well-known symbol of Protestant supremacy in Ireland that is similarly still a sticky point today. [post=11257750]Later in the thread[/post] he mentions that this battle as a symbol of English supremacy over French in Canada is still alive, among francophones and anglophones alike.
The prevailing viewpoint among anglophones is completely different. To start with, a smaller proportion of them consider the Battle of the Plains of Abraham to be a defining event in Canadian history, or are even aware of it. A 2003 Environics Research survey commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies showed that 20% of francophones considered the battle the defining moment of Canadian history, compared with only 8% of anglophones, while 22% of anglophones considered Confederation in 1867 to be the defining moment (only 10% of francophones thought so). And among anglophones who are aware of this battle or of the Conquest, the consensus seems to be that it can be seen as the “birth” of Canada by bringing about the cohabitation between the two main language groups. And that it should be seen as a joyous event by all Canadians, including francophones, who were [post=11258078]saved from the Americans[/post] and whose culture was afterwards forever defended by the British Empire and Canada alike. According to Maclean’s editorial from March 2, 2009,
And let’s not forget [post=11258139]this post[/post] by Little Nemo which is so amazing that I will quote it here, as I believe it encapsulates this whole philosophy:
Little Nemo seems to conflate Britons and Canadians, possibly out of the belief, common among anglophones, that Canada “didn’t exist” at the time and was born sometime later, the Confederation being, as I’ve shown above, a popular choice. In any case, his point is that the Conquest was a victory for Britain and ostensibly for Canada which it birthed.
My point is that both of these philosophies, while having facts as their basis, are part of Canada’s national myths and definitely aren’t objectively true. The Conquest-as-symbol of subjugation is based on the indisputable fact that francophones, up until recently, were less educated and less paid than anglophones, and often couldn’t even work in their language, even in Quebec. There were even businesses who just wouldn’t hire French-Canadians. This is of course what happens when you’re not in control of the political and economic power in your country. Even today, the English language is as great if not greater a force of integration for immigrants in places like Montreal. But on the other hand, the Conquest wasn’t all that bad: the liberal nature of British rule compared to ancien régime French rule cannot be denied, and there are still francophones in Canada today. It’s not even a dying culture. These facts are the basis of the anglophone viewpoint, but about that one, we can complain that it’s revisionist history. It pretends that Canadians’ current concern for their bilingual and bicultural/multicultural nature has been a constant in Canadian history. It also ignores actual attempts to assimilate francophones in different places in Canada, the result of which is the fact that French is nearly inexistant in Western Canada and declining elsewhere except in Quebec, as well as the fact that Canada has actually seen very little dialogue between both main official language communities. We still don’t know each other today.
My intent here is to force both communities to think about how they perceive Canadian identity and culture, and make them realize that it is not true that one side is “right” about it and the other wrong, or mislead by elites intent on gaining power, and in need of being set right. As a francophone, I get this attitude from English Canadians, but I don’t believe that it’s only one-way. And of course, if we want to build an actual Canadian identity all Canadians can identify with, we’ll have to understand that there are many ways to see the same events from our history. If you see the Battle of the Plains of Abraham as a joyous event that marks the beginning of a Canada where many communities have existed peacefully and as equals for the last 250 years, a vaudeville theatre with Montcalm and Wolfe impersonators is probably appropriate. If not, then it probably isn’t.
I’m interested in knowing why all I’ve said here is wrong. 
