When the metaphorical dust has settled on the Plains of Abraham—metaphorical dust being the only kind you’re allowed to kick up on the sacred sod a quarter-millennium on—the larger question remains:
What’s the future of the past?
That’s to say, the lesson of the last few weeks is that the latter depends on the former. In 1759, General Wolfe won a decisive victory that led to the end of French rule on this continent: that is what we used quaintly to call a “fact.” To take another unfashionable word, the “reality” of North American life today derives explicitly from that fact.
Once upon a time they used to teach Wolfe in schools. I don’t suppose, between diversity studies, anger management classes and Ritalin shots, he gets much of a look-in these days. Yet it is still startling to discover that to observe 2½ centuries of this transformative event would be a ghastly social faux pas (pardon my French) in the province (pardon my English) of Quebec. When I first heard that the long-scheduled re-enactment of the battle had been cancelled on “public safety” grounds, I roared my head off: the notion of a warrior nation now too fainthearted even to stage re-enactments seemed too obvious a parody of Canadian squishiness. But it turned out to be true. The British won the battle but the French won the re-enactment—which may yet be what counts. As the separatist bruiser Patrick Bourgeois couldn’t resist crowing, it was a glorious victory over the old enemy.
I say “separatist bruiser” but, of course, the pseudo-separatists never do separate and M Bourgeois will end his days a subject of the same Crown that has already inflicted 250 years of humiliation on him. “Je me souviens,” as the licence plates say, although given Quebec’s advanced state of societal dementia maybe they could switch quotations to: “a British subject I was born and a British subject I will die.”
In other countries, they épater les bourgeois. But in Canada les bourgeois épater everybody else. I warmed up to Quebec’s newest hero after listening to everybody else’s response to him. The British victor’s successor as gauleiter of Quebec, the federal government, turned out to be a Wolfe in sheep’s clothing, and abandoned the National Battlefield Commission to its fate. The commission chair, André Juneau, conceded that it is “an ex-tremely painful page in our history,” apparently mostly for the winning side, but he said a commemorative book would still be issued, and—who knows?—it may even be legal to distribute it in Quebec. A spokesman for the organizing group, the Quebec Historical Corps, said they might go ahead and hold the re-enactment in Ontario, which would be as funny as it gets, short of moving the venue to the garden of Buckingham Palace, where presumably it would fall foul of European Union “xenophobia” laws.
Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff displayed the characteristically bold leadership we’ve come to associate with him since he momentarily wandered off the Liberal reservation and accidentally supported the Iraq war. The leader of the Opposition declared that he wasn’t saying he was for or against the re-enactment per se but that any commemoration of this “defeat and tragedy” ought to be respectful. You remember Lord Nelson at Trafalgar? He put the telescope over his eye patch and said “I see no ships.” That’s Iggy. He put a patch over both eyes, swivelled in all directions, and declared, “I see no re-enactment, but if it’s out there I hope it’s sober and dignified.”
Speaking of Trafalgar, couldn’t we have opted for the solution adopted by the British on the bicentennial in 2005? Worried that the French and Spanish dignitaries would be embarrassed at seeing their side routed, they decided to stage the re-enactment not as a battle between Britain and the French and Spanish navies, or even between “the good guys” and “unspecified shifty foreigners,” but instead between “the Red Team” and “the Blue Team.” And just to be on the safe side the commemorative booklet referred not to “the Battle of Trafalgar” but only to “an early 19th-century sea battle.” It doesn’t exactly fire the blood—“the Red Team expects every man to do his duty”—and I’m not sure whether the dying Nelson turned to Hardy and said, “Kiss me, fellow Red Team member.” But surely the same dodge might have worked in Quebec? The Red Team battling the Blue Team, with perhaps an Orange Team led by Jack Layton coming in at the last minute to do all the commemorative TV interviews about how this battle establishes the Orange Team as the real choice of working families.
But no. Instead, General Wolfe’s historic victory is history in the robust sense of that useful Americanism: aw, he’s history—as in fuhgeddabouttim; he’s gone, he’s over, put a fork in him—he’s done. John Robson wrote a splendid column arguing that not even Quebecers should be dumb enough to want to exchange 250 years under the British Crown for 250 years under absolute monarchy, the Revolution, the Terror, Napoleon, the Second Empire, the Fourth Republic, etc, etc. As for France, she was happy to trade “quelques arpents de neige” (a few acres of snow) for the security of her Caribbean colonies. How’d that work out? See the riots in Guadeloupe the other week? I mean, real riots, not just a staged re-enactment of riots from hundreds of years ago.
Pages: 1 2
Print
Comment
Facts are quaint indeed:
-
“You remember Lord Nelson at Trafalgar? He put the telescope over his eye patch and said “I see no ships.””
-
Er, that would be at the Battle of Copenhagen and he didn’t say “I see no ships,” he said “I really do not see the signal.”
-
Bigots these days! They just aren’t interested in history.
I thought you were interested in history.
sf, Jack is pretty much the exact opposite of a bigot. I’m not sure if Jack’s comment was fair but I know that yours definitely wasn’t. We shouldn’t throw around a word like “bigot” lightly. An apology may be in order.
Also, Jack, I think that if you’re going to throw inflammatory words like ‘bigot’ at Steyn you should be prepared to back it up with specific evidence. Just my two cents, sf and Jack.
Way to phone it in, Steyn! Did you, perchance, try to understand what the problem was? Did you, say, ask anyone who was against the re-enactment WHY they were against it?
No, instead you managed to blame the First Nations people for the cancellation! I’ll say this much; that is a unique perspective.
Mark is an opinion journalist, not a fairy-tale writer.
The fairy tale is the Zionist take on the Middle East that dominates the Canadian news media. Think CanWest for example.
This comment was a response and has been orphaned now that the comment I was responding to has been placed in moderation.
OK, now the reply function seems to be broken, which is causing my comments to make no sense. Seems there are a few kinks with this newly organized site.
You’re absolutely sure that that’s what causes your comments to make no sense, and not that they generally lack sense?
Now that is funny cwe
[...] In Macleans: ‘Facts.’ Such a quaint notion now. [...]
Dude
Live in Quebec for 2 weeks and you will figure it out.
So, my earlier comment is “awaiting moderation” because I pointed out that Steyn is wrong about Nelson! How great is that? Thank you, Steyn Fan Club.
A bunch of people must have clicked “Report Abuse”, and your comment was automatically placed in the moderation queue. Maybe you could just repost your Nelson correction – it’s a good one! Clearly Steyn’s attention to detail is on par with his tastefulness.
You know the real reason it was placed in moderation.
Ah yes, censorship. How sickly-sweet the fragrance of that bouquet. I can at least thank you for showing what utter garbage pro-Steyn free-speechers have been peddling these past 18 months.
Look, I do believe you see the difference between censorship and Maclean’s running a blog the way they like. Or maybe you’re not smart enough.
that would be the latter
It’s interesting to see how you can get so uppity over your ability to hurl vulgar epithets at the magazine’s journalists. Maybe you should take this to court.
It wasn’t the magazine that hit “report abuse” on my witty comment, it was YOU, baby-faced little sf. I’m just noting the irony of your desire to delete your opponents instead of answering them, given the HRC brouhaha. It’s not just the legal action of censorship that is disgusting, it’s the emotional impulse behind it.
-
Anyway, calling someone a bigot is not to “hurl vulgar epithets.” Most of Steyn’s readers can’t even spell the word.
Ah yes, thank you for attempting to make the term “free-speechers” a pejorative. Tells me all I need to know about you in one sentence. J@ackass.
M. Steyn asks the question, would Canada have been better off under French rule than under British rule over the last 250 years. A fair question I suppose. But what about today – which one would you choose? In Britain, the values M. Steyn admires so much have been abandoned. Sharia rules, mobs rule, Hezbollah rules, Imams rule. In contrast, France is still fighting to preserve it’s society. It still bans muslim face masks in its public schools, for instance. If I had to choose today, I’d pick France. What about you, M. Steyn?
Ever heard of the french ‘youths’ burning hundreds of cars a night all over Fance. Of course those youths are all Muslims.
The French are dirigiste idiots whose culture has now collapsed under the weight of its own flatulence.
Ever since traitor Pierre rose to the helm of head honcho in Canada, naive Canadians have been mislead into adopting a completely contrived and fictional version of our history.
Wars are seldom a pleasant event and sometimes even the outcomes are less than clear. However, such is definitely not the case in the battle fought on the Plains of Abraham. In that battle, the English effectively won total ownership and control of all of Canada.
The weakness was the English victors allowing the French to maintain their language, culture, and so forth in Quebec. This was exacerbated further by failing to instill absolute acceptance of the outcome of the war in both Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
As a result, both French groups now base their version of Canadian history completely on their own self-pitying myths. As an example, the Acadians celebrate their plight each year based on a fictitious story written by an author who had not even visited the region and gathered the material for his fictionalized story from a friend. However, many French decedents refuse to allow facts to ‘get in the way’ of a good story.
Their propaganda perpetuates itself year after year and is increasingly forced on Canadians as the ‘new’ not-to-be-questioned version of history.
We should be ashamed of ourselves for permitting this nonsense while at the same time allowing English rights and our true history to be totally undermined.
My father once said, “The French will someday win Canada back without so much as firing a single shot.” Unfortunately, our silicone backbones seem to be proving him to be absolutely right!
It is to laugh. As much as I’m not supposed to judge a book by its cover, I take one look at that photo of Steyn trying oh-so hard to look serious, and I’m quite convinced that he is not. I start reading the article and it’s obvious he doesn’t have enough discipline to stay on topic for long enough to make it a readable piece, but there’s still enough unsubstantiated shots at the school system and Muslims for his fanboys to pick up and run with.
Steyn’s a pot-stirrer who fancies himself a thinker. There’s not anything inherently wrong with being a pot-stirrer, but he ought to respectful enough of himself and his audience to admit that that is what he is doing. As opposed to thinking, seriously.
Attacking Steyn for his headshot when you’re using a gopher/squirrel/dog/whatever for yours is a little pot calling the kettle black isn’t it? Or are you a part squirrel? Bit of a reach there my friend.
As for your other remarks, I know you haters love to accuse him of every offense under the sun, but I think he was pretty on-topic- obviously you don’t agree with the substance of what he was saying, which is fine (doesn’t matter to me, or likely to Steyn), but I find the accusation a little weird. I had no trouble seeing the main threads of his argument throughout the column and found it quite readable. He does like to dot his writing with little quips and wisecracks, but anyone familiar with his books and columns knows this is his style. He has remained remarkably consist in that regard and, in my view, it’s what makes his stuff an enjoyable read. He has a sense of humour and it shows. Of course, to his detractors (generally, a bit of an uptight, humourless bunch) wouldn’t agree- there too busy taking offense and calling him names.
I also don’t really see where you get the ‘unsubstantiated’ accusation either. He listed clear examples of some school traditions in Europe that we’re being altered or eliminated. I suspect Maclean’s would have trouble publishing outright lies in one of its columns, so unless you have other information, I’ll take Steyn at his word. Not sure where the Muslim smears are either. I do recall him mentioning that some school districts in England were becoming more Muslim in terms of the demographics, which from what I’ve read is actually true. Is mentioning Muslims in a column considered a ’shot’ in your book? Guess so.
Again, I enjoy his writing- generally- and I think he has a point about certain aspects about the changing nature of many Western societies. In America Alone, his most recent book, he actually draws on many verifiable sources of information to buttress his arguments with. Now, I can accept some may not agree with the inferences and conclusions he draws about all of these statistics, but there are some which are hard to dispute. Not sure if you’ve read the book or not, but it is an interesting read. It might also change your position that he doesn’t think about what he’s saying. I think his writing actually provides ample proof that he’s done plenty of thinking about his subjects.
I mean, I could say on the Star website that I think Linda McQuaig and David Olive aren’t really thinkers either because they produce reams of copy (McQuaig especially) that is littered with wisecracks, insults and cheapshots that are almost always directed at the same targets. Do we really need another rant against the US or corporate CEOs? Talk about a broken record. She’s been recycling the same rants for years, and while she tends to be wrong frequently, it doesn’t bother me much at all. I actually make a point of reading her stuff on a regular basis- usually when I need a diversion from reality. I wouldn’t say they aren’t thinkers though (McQuaig is actually quite thoughtful in person), their thoughts just tend to lead them to the wrong conclusions, in my view.
Something to think about, eh?
A good column. The puffed-up outrage here is funny, but then again, this is often the sort of ‘criticism’ Steyn columns attract. Rather than looking at the entire breadth of what he’s saying, countering the larger points he’s trying to make (ie- abandoning traditions throughout the West in order to avoid offending anyone might not be such a good idea), his critics chose to smear him with ripped off insults, bitch about minor details and charge him with imagined sleights.
I tend to agree that the cancellation of the Plains of Abraham recreation is a bizarre decision that was designed to appease a vocal, but small minority in Quebec. This battle has been recreated before, and the reasons for staging it this year were sound, it’s the 250th anniversary of a decisive battle in Canada’s history and it had been 10 years (I think) since the last recreation.
As someone who enjoys studying and learning about history (ours and others), it pains me to see those charged with preserving it choosing to actively suppress it out of fear of offending a small group of people. The decision to cancel the reenactment to me, is almost like an attempt to erase the battle from our history. As Steyn mentioned, I doubt the battle gets much coverage in school, although I did learn about it when I was a middle-school student in the mid-80s. The cancellation may make the battle seem even less relevant in today’s history textbooks and curriculums, as squeamish school boards seem to be increasingly averse to anything that could be perceived as controversial. This is a shame, for it does absolutely nothing to change what occurred, and it gives small opposition groups disproportionate power and influence in our society. Today the Plains of Abraham, tomorrow it will be something else. What about Louis Riel. I suppose we shouldn’t be learning about him anymore either, given how he died. As Steyn mentioned, history is being edited in Europe already. It could certainly happen here too.
Re Nelson turning a blind eye: It was at Battle of Copenhagen and Nelson saw no signals. Facts
The British Empire’s main fault used to be nationalism: my country right or wrong. This led to revisionist history for the purpose of demonizing Catholics. Eventually the idiocy of nationalism became apparent to everyone, but as often happens when someone comes off a bender the Empire went whole-hog to the contrary vice: self-hatred. Now the revisionist history is on the other foot, as it were, making every British hero out to be a villain.
Some day it will swing back, but whether it swings to the mean or the opposite extreme ultimately depends on virtue. Love of country requires love of self, love of self requires moral character, and moral character requires a modicum of unselfishness. In the age of “my body my choice” and “if it feels good do it” this is unlikely without a sea change in societal thinking.
That Nationalistic, “the British way is the only way” kind of thinking is where we were when most of our history books were written. That’s why the War of Independence from the American view is almost unrecognizable to those of us who first learned the British view in school.
And so, were we to do a Plains of Abraham re-enactment, what version would we use? The British one? The French one? The truth? Some silly one-big-happy-family-out-for-a-picnic version? You can see if the British version is used, the French-Canadians will be furious, and if the French or even truth version is used, those English Canadians who were taught the same thing I was will cry foul at the obvious French revisionist history.
What we need to do is get together and document a Canadian version–one as close to the truth as humanly possible. Then we all need to learn THAT version, and the rest of our Canadianized history while we’re at it. It’s been a number of years now. We aren’t British and we aren’t from France. It’s time we wrote (and read) our own history.
The “truth” or “the facts” are exactly what Steyn is advocating. The fact is that there was a major battle, and the French had their collective derierres kicked. Even they do not deny this. Yet they do not want it reenacted, not because it is untrue, but because it is unpleasant. They are not arguing about whether particular details are correct, but about whether the battle should be reenacted at all. The revisionists would have us forget that such a battle ever took place.
Life is tough. History is worth learning and reenacting even when it is unpleasant.
cwe, have you tried stand-up? Go for it. You have a rapier wit. LOL
cwe, have you tried stand-up? You have a rapier wit. Go for it.
99% of the time, I’m in the Steyn camp. This time, not so much. The orange parades in Belfast should be enough to discourage us from marching around bragging about battles fought centuries ago. Accurate history books yes, reinactments no.
What are the chances of being allowed to discuss the quebec Zombies of the Second World War?
I always found it a bit odd that they refused to fight for the liberation of France because that was ‘an English war’.
They had no problem watching others go and die in their places.
That’s another story that has been whitewashed from our past.
Aussies would have a simple comment on Steyn. Bloody pommie
[...] ‘Facts.’ Such a quaint notion now. [...]
I am completely disgusted at the way this country has ethnically cleansed the British identity and history from this country. Immigration policy has mainly done this and this reminds me about how we are rewriting the history of BC. Asian history here is exagerated as the large new immigrant population dominates the British identity and history that was the huge majority before the 1990’s.
The US had a bloody civil war which they reenact not to “celebrate” but to commemorate their history. You can go to Quebec City in the summer and see the British regiment that fought on the Plains of Abraham marching through the streets as a point of interest for tourists and no on minds that!
I just read the article The silence of the Canadian lamds and I must say to you Mr. Steyn bravo. More people should be talking about all the loosers on that bus who choose to run off the bus with their tails between their legs like the dogs that they all are. From that day forward every Canadian should be a little ashamed. There were definatly no heoroes that day just 3 dozen loosers who I hope hear the screams of Tim McLean for the rest of their lives. The bus company should be suing the passengers for being total cowards. Shame on you shame on you passengers of bus 1170. 3 dozen people couldn’t have taken down one man and at least gave Tim a chance.
I remember having learned that the battle occured. Later, having actually read a canadian history text just for the fun of it, I realized that this action occurred before the American revolution. According to the text, the wars that happened caused such a financial strain on England, that they had to raise taxes, everywhere but Quebec, or they may have revolted. This did inspire America to revolt. But Quebec was placated. The greater, global, environment that all this occured in was the seven years war in Europe (I freely admit I have a euro-centric education) Quebec, or Canada, was really not more than a “few acres of snow”, a small pawn in the world scheme. Similarly, a minor ally of England at the time was the small state of Prussia, who held out for the full length of time against the massive Austro-Hungarian empire, until the English had properly walloped France, the Austrians’ ally. At which time everyone got down to peace again. At that time, 1765 or so?, Canada became a part of the English domain. My personal pride comes from most of Canada’s battles being won by ‘farm boys’ be it to repulse the Finians, the aggressors in the war of 1812, ww1, ww2, etc.
I fear that the world is heading back to 1939 for the sake of political correctness. Whatever happened to the understanding of… “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it”? Respectful of each other and history sure, but true history should be told popular or not. Do not censor history!
Robert Fulford put it best: Steyn violates everyone’s sense of good taste.
I suppose good taste is code for pretending something didn’t happen that did, and for God’s sake don’t hurt anyone’s feelings, unless they are white and English speaking, this is Canada the politically correct don’t you know! Critical Reasoning, I don’t think so.
Not mine and not his millions of readers. He is by far the most widely-read journalist writing for Maclean’s.
I like Robert Fulford, great writer. Not as readable as Steyn but nonetheless, if he indeed said what you attribute to him , then it would be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen him say in print. Steyn has a fan base that is almost unheard of for any writer these days…and for good reason.
You would be hard pressed to tell all those people (who, of course, would have to be included in ‘everyone’) that it is a “fact” that what they are reading is violating their sense of good taste.
And if the multi-culti free speech haters want to imagine that it’s nothing but old white men reading Steyn, they might want to check out some of his college speeches that are packed to the rafters, with students watching on the monitors in the hallway because they couldn’t get a seat.
Oh, how cute, you come in pairs.
Where have you two been, sf and DT? I think I can speak for most of the MacLean’s regular posters (I can speak for me for sure) when I say Jack Mitchell is generally regarded as the brightest bulb of us all. Many may disagree with his opinions, but not his smarts.
JM
I’m curious myself to know if many of the so called defenders of free speech are in fact the very first ones to hit the button? Of course, if true that would rather upset Steyn’s pre-packaged litte world – liberals being such fascists and cons the defenders d the good!
Once again, your reasoning is lacking. Why on earth would I reply to a post and then subsequently “report abuse”? I did not touch that button. And I’ve had it out with you numerous times, yet here you claim I will not answer. Why can’t you be honest for once?
Personally, I only hit the button when I see spam. I suppose I would push the button if I noticed something grotesquely obscene, but I’ve never noticed anything like that on these blogs.
I shouldn’t have said anything, really, it’s just that sf gets my goat as no one else can! It’s almost endearing. Actually I’m always impressed by how few comments get disappeared — generally the “Report Abuse” button isn’t abused, which is quite something given how heated things can get.
-
But Steyn, as always, is an exception. His followers are fanatics. My guess is that no one would have noticed my post — which wasn’t exactly a work of art, I just pointed out that Steyn’s facts were wrong about Nelson and threw in a variation on “Kids these days!” tailored to the subject — if it hadn’t happened to be the first comment posted. Anyway, it’s the fanaticism of Steyn & the Steynettes that I can’t stand — the whole “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” line. I suppose the fanatic’s logic is that in the defense of principle no tactic is too unprincipled; Steyn is Free Speecher-in-Chief, so we must censor his critics; he ridicules our foes, therefore he must be kept free of ridicule. In the end I fear it’s mostly sad life experiences that drive people to Steyn — a bad divorce, a fear of difference — and really one should take a medical, not a combative, approach when dealing with them.
KC: Based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, it’s just endearing (lovely word) that somehow you have formulated the theory that perhaps many of the so called defenders of free speech are in fact the very first ones to hit the button.
I would claim the opposite in fact. But what’s the point? Neither of us have the slightest idea who pushes these buttons except for the rare circumstance when Paul Wells annihilates all posts from a particular individual.
And you people have the whole concept backwards. Steyn and Ken Whyte went to court because they wanted to defent their right to put whatever they like in their own magazine, which would include deleting whatever you write if that is what they want.
Jack’s always up for a good discussion, if he finds the topic interesting. He’s a persuasive arguer, but he’s also open to persuasion by others, which is refreshing. Many commenters simply refuse to back down or change their minds on any issues, because they’ve got it all figured out.
Jack is an a** who called Steyn a b***t. He is also incapable of formulating a coherent, logical argument.
Thanks for the (far too) kind words, Jenn & CR — lots of brightness all around, lots of persuasion — but I fear sf will soon rip me a new one on this thread. Anyway, sorry for starting a meta-thread; I much prefer Jenn’s excellent point about the need for Canadian history. Total counterpoint to Steyn!
I never called Steyn a bint; and just because he’s incapable of formulating a coherent, logical argument is no reason to dump on the man. Thanks for the “ace” label, though.
A classic but rarely seen manoeuvre: the “indefinite pronoun” comeback. :)
Actually, it’s the “ambiguous pronoun” comeback.
It’s clear you don’t like Steyn, and there are journalists I do not like. But when you call people “fanatics”, and when you start insulting the journalists, you are crossing a boundary that should not be crossed, it belies your inability to stick to the arguments.
And then you write something you think is clever but is usually completely irrelevant to the debate at hand, for no particular reason whatsoever. You are the king of straw men arguments.
Case in point: your post was deleted because you insulted the journalist with a nasty epithet. Now, I’m sure the result would be the same on most blogs, whether it be Wells or O’Malley or Potter, if you did the same and called someone else a b***t your comment would be deleted, probably by someone at Maclean’s.
Now you have attempted to twist this very simple fact into some kind of competely irrelevant tangent involving free speech and Mark Steyn fans.
Whatever.
You see, this is why I get your goat, because what I just said makes sense and you feel the strongest urget to rebut such a coherent argument. You don’t like it when people don’t fawn over your sophisticated diatribes.
Steyn has more fans than the rest of the journalists combined, although Coyne and Wells have a lot of fans too, and O’Malley may be getting more and more popular, for all I know.
KC: Based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, it’s just endearing (lovely word) that somehow you have formulated the theory that perhaps many of the so called defenders of free speech are in fact the very first ones to hit the button.
I would claim the opposite in fact. But what’s the point? Neither of us have the slightest idea who pushes these buttons except for the rare circumstance when Paul Wells annihilates all posts from a particular individual.
And you people have the whole concept backwards!!!
Steyn and Ken Whyte went to court because they wanted to defend their right to put whatever they like in their own magazine, which would include deleting whatever you write if that is what they want, whatever Jack writes, and whatever I write.
I am skeptical that by simply hitting “report abuse” a person”s entry disappears completely. So on this entry: sf says:
Mar 13, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I will try.
sf, I wasn’t offering it as my opinion that Steyn fans are fanatics, I was simply stating what I took to be an a priori truth. I wasn’t aware that anyone disagreed with that, but if you glance at the comments to his last few columns you’ll see what I mean. You may not be a card-carrying fanatic, but it’s just absurd to compare Steyn’s fanbase with Kady O’Malley’s or Paul Wells’. It’s more like Leonard Nimoy’s, minus the worship of logic.
.
I wasn’t saying anything about this article beyond the fact that Steyn was 125% wrong about Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen. He was wrong about the battle, he was wrong about the details, and he was wrong about the implication that Nelson would ever shirk battle. It’s staggering that somebody could be that wrong in one paragraph, in the course of an article denouncing our ignorance of history. He is wrong in the big things, the little things, and the in-between things. He is 125% wrong.
.
You’re blaming me for not feuding with everybody, only with you? I’m not trying to be clever, just to keep up with the standard of wit around here, which is high. So I like coming up with funny lines every now and then, who doesn’t?
.
Finally: I’m afraid that “bigot” is not an epithet, it’s a noun.
wtf – it’s still there!
It’s like we’re lab rats trying to figure out a new maze.
I’m always honest, sf; but with Steyn I can’t resist being facetious. Why should one repay Steyn’s tendentiousness with ingenuousness? If there’s one writer in the world who doesn’t deserve an even break, it’s Steyn.
.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of respectful civility, here’s an example of Steyn’s indifference to truth:
.
“Michael Ignatieff displayed the characteristically bold leadership we’ve come to associate with him since he momentarily wandered off the Liberal reservation and accidentally supported the Iraq war. The leader of the Opposition declared that he wasn’t saying he was for or against the re-enactment per se but that any commemoration of this “defeat and tragedy” ought to be respectful. You remember Lord Nelson at Trafalgar? He put the telescope over his eye patch and said “I see no ships.” That’s Iggy. He put a patch over both eyes, swivelled in all directions, and declared, “I see no re-enactment, but if it’s out there I hope it’s sober and dignified.”
.
Here goes:
1. Nelson didn’t pull this stunt at Trafalgar, it was the Battle of Copenhagen.
2. He didn’t say “I see no ships,” he said “I really do not see the signal.”
3. Steyn, bless his heart, is implying that Nelson’s gesture was some kind of evasion of his duty (!!): Iggy just one-upped him. Otherwise the whole reference to
TrafalgarCopenhagen makes no sense at all. How anyone on earth could think that Lord Nelson would shirk engaging the enemy is beyond me — no, I guess if you don’t actually know anything about Nelson and yet you want to pretend you’re the upholder of Grand British Tradition, you can just make stuff up. Anyway, Nelson never shirked a battle in his life, quite the opposite, as at Copenhagen: his admiral felt obliged to order Nelson’s squadron to retire, and Nelson deliberately didn’t take the easy way out, he roared in and won the battle.4. Iggy was not denying that the reenactment controversy was taking place, he was merely articulating the only sane view of the controversy from an anglo POV: it’s not up to us to decide how Quebec commemorates the battle, but whatever happens should be respectful of Quebec’s feelings. What else? March in under armed guard and hold a reenactment in defiance of virtually the whole of French Canadian public opinion? Is that seriously what Steyn wants? No no, he doesn’t want anything in particular, he just wants to needle his enemies with absurdities, playing to his fan club of Steynettes; “Let’s see, how can we wrap up our petty little disgruntlements this week? How can I ‘tell it like it is’ with today’s headlines? How can I bang the big drum again while making it sound new?” There is no point to a Steyn column. It has as much to do with rational argument as porn0graphy has to do with procreation.
Sorry I singled you out as the one who informed on me to the moderation queue. I guess it was somebody else.
I’ve tried replying to this post with a long, cordial screed but for some reason it’s not taking. Sorry I wrongly accused you of informing on me to the moderation queue. I guess we live to fight another day.
OK, no problem. I’m having the same problems. I ended up with two identical posts above because the first one took 5 minutes to show up, while some others never show up at all. Yes, I agree, best to live to fight another day.
Fulford did say it (you can google it). I’m sure he meant it as a backhanded compliment, given that he and Steyn are friends.