On November 11th, 2009, the Royal Ontario Museum held a debate about the impact of one of Canada's most significant battles. The debate, between Bernard Landry (former Premier of Québec) and Jack Granatstein (Canadian historian), examined whether Britain's victory over France on the Plains of Abraham in 1759 was ultimately good for New France, its inhabitants and their descendants.
The event didn't spur much curiosity in local and national media. The National Post did publish an interesting overview of the Battle before hand, but nothing afterwards. The radio of Radio-Canada sent Mark Starowicz to cover the debate. His report is available in French here.
Over 500 Torontonians attended. It unfortunately was more or less a rehash of many clichés, Mr. Granatstein denouncing the cash pipeline from Ottawa to Québec and Mr. Landry puffing up the vision of a paradisiacal New France. He did however take the opportunity to outline that his support for sovereignty is not driven by resentment towards Canada, but rather by a concern to give a worthwhile culture the leverage to fully control its destiny.
According to the reporter, there was no clear winner. But the former Premier's eagerness to participate did inspire some respect from the audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I Found Landry very weak in his reply to Jack Granatstein's suggestion that the Québécois are playing the "victimization" game.
Imagine ! A Jew !
Probably also because Granatstein is jewish Landry refused to talk about economic situation just before the british invasion of Nouvelle France. Or maybe Landry is ignorant on the subject before 1763 ?
Canada's economy in the 1750's was all in the hands of jews in Bordeaux and they had associates in London so they knew what was preparing. That is why, with the help of intendant Bigot they sabotaged Canada's economy, shippements of goods and military equipement to help the british. They had taken their side long before.
Granatstein would have certainly accused Landry of antisemitism and called for his apology to all the victims of the holocaust.
Wow, another person wanting to blame it all on the Jews. How sad to see the seeds of the Holocaust still exist.
Jack Granatstein may or may not have it done intentionally. But by highlighting the sovereigntists' defenselessness when facing suggestions of racism, Gébé makes a very valid point. Since Parizeau's 1995 faux pas (see Parizeau is racist), federalist English circles have successfully cultivated an image of intolerance by sovereigntists toward immigrants (see Québec's ethnocentric nationalism - Part 2).
Exactly, M. Bolduc.
And again this success in cultivating a intolerance image was only possible by that same weakness.
Federalists have no problem expressing their intolerance of sovereigntists, and they are perfectly entitle to it ! Sovereignists feel shame of doing the same !
The Anonymous comment is good example of that. He has no problem expressing his intolerance.
Why tolerate what we think is intolerable ?
Post a Comment