Over the last few weeks, I’ve been fascinated by the debate about the scheduled re-enactment of the Battle of Plains of Abraham. I have found myself reading through many of the news articles posted about the event, such as this and this, as well as the (literally) thousands of comments that people have posted in discussion groups about the issue. Clearly, in our country, historical events are not dead and past, and debates about the historical meaning and significance of the “facts” still incite emotion and debate.
The event is the 250th anniversary of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, and while it is this particular re-enactment that is sparking debate, this event is not an isolated one, but rather one in a series of re-enactments of events that occurred between 1754-1763. Interestingly other battles, including the Battle of Sainte-Foy, which I understand was a French victory (the last during the Seven Year’s War) that was much more fatal to both the English and French Armies than the Plains of Abraham that had occurred a year earlier. Also interesting is the fact that the planning for this event is being organized by a federal agency, the National Battlefields Commission, and that the planning for this event goes back at least 5 years.
While reading the articles on this event, I found myself struggling with which side I supported. At first, I thought the voices that were reacting to the re-enactment were over-reacting. There are many nations around the world through frequently re-enact historical events, many which are bloody battles that divided their country. Civil war reenactments are common, and seem to exist without the passionate debate that has accompanied this particular event.
However, after reading through some of the articles and comments, I found my opinions starting to change. I realize that in other nations, such as the USA, the divisions between the historical separate parties are no longer as enflamed (thinking again of the Civil War reenactments). And in those countries where divisions still exist, such as Northern Ireland, the re-enactments (such as the Orangemen marches) as occasionally accompanied by violence and controversy.
As I wrestled with the issue, I also found my own historical understanding was limiting my opinion. I have always viewed this particular battle as “key event” in the creation of our county, which initially led me to disagree with those against the re-enactment. As I researched additional information around the historic event, I realized the complexity of the situation and how this particular event was one among many, as was not the mythical event that led to the “Fall of New France”. I realized that I have taken a “heritage” approach to the event, giving it mythical status, without taking the time to develop and informed opinion. I see now that this particular event was not as central to our history as I once believed, and that I need to continue to develop a mature understanding of the events of the past. I also see that I am being to questions the idea of “our history” at all, whether it is desirable, or even possible to view our nation this way. I have always viewed history as our story of the past – even if the interpretations of the events are malleable. Now I am seeing that “our story” might not exist – that the past is rather a collection of stories – and in the case of Canada, stories being told be a multitude of voices and perspectives.
The larger issue for me is the place of re-enactments in our country. Again, my first opinion was a certain level of comfort with them. Naively, I saw re-enactments as a way to experience the events of the past – but as I spend more time in the study of history, I realize this is impossible. All re-enactments are interpretations, and I after reflection I see creating a detached, objective experience is not possible. What were are left with is the interpretation of the victor. I also thought that re-enactments might be a venue in which to celebrate “our” past and provide a spark of interest and engagement in the study of our past. Like I have written before, I wonder whether heritage has a place in the classroom, as it has the intention purpose of creating feelings of nationalism, patriotism and passion. Could re-enactments play a role?
After reflection, I now see the danger and pitfalls of this attitude. The issues of British/French relations run so deeply through our past, and continue to enflame citizen today. I see that it is impossible to create a politically neutral re-enactment, just as it is impossible to create a historically objective one. I see that re-enactments fall prey to the weaknesses of heritage – and that if they educate at all, the teach a simplified, emotionalize and overly patriotic version of the past. Interestingly, historican Desmond Morton was quoted as saying that re-enactment do little to educate, but rather fail because “the uniforms and drums and gunfire tend to overshadow everything else.”
No comments:
Post a Comment