Language Laws in Quebec: Bill 96

21 Tuesday Jun 2022

Posted by michelinewalker in Bilingualism, Britain, Canada's Great Ministry, Canadian Confederation, France, Quebec history

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Canadian Confederation, John Ralston Saul, Language Laws, Rights of Englishmen, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Separate Schools, Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, The Quebec Question, Uniform Schools

—ooo—

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-96-explained-1.6460764

Less than two weeks from now, Canadians will celebrate what is viewed as their birthday. In 1867, the Province of Canada, future Quebec and Ontario, and two maritime provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, confederated. This year, Canada’s birthday follows the passage of language laws in Quebec. Bill 96 was voted into law on 24 May 2022 and took effect on 1^st June. It has generated controversy, so details cannot be revealed accurately. English-speaking Quebecers will lose “rights.”

In earlier posts, I noted that Canadian Confederation eliminated instruction in the French language in Canadian provinces outside Quebec. One often reads that Confederation ended Catholic public schools, but the French were Catholics. They were the product of French absolutism, a form of centralisation demanding that the French speak one language, practice one religion, and be governed by one king: Louis XIV. After the fall of Nouvelle-France, the French language and devotion had waned in a province that would later be described as “priest-ridden,” but remedies were at hand.

First, the Quebec Act of 1774 restored former Seigneuries, and Catholics had to pay tithe (la dîme) to the clergy, which “habitants” protested. However, the Quebec Act allowed French-speaking Canadians to enter the civil service and run for office without renouncing their faith. Second, England asked the bishopric of Québec to welcome émigrés priests. Fifty-one (51) priests travelled to the former New France (See French immigration in Canada, The Canadian Encyclopedia). I have mentioned l’abbé Sigogne in an earlier post. L’abbé Sigogne was an émigré priest who worked in Acadie, the current Nova Scotia. He was rather harsh on Acadians, his flock, but very loyal to Britain, the country that spared him the guillotine. He spoke English and befriended Thomas Chandler Haliburton. After the French Revolution, Lower Canada also welcomed a few émigrés families and Count Joseph-Geneviève de Puisaye attracted forty people to York, north of the current Toronto, Upper Canada. (See French immigration in Canada, The Canadian Encyclopedia.)^[1]

**Arrival of the Brides (Filles du roi)** A view of women coming to Quebec in 1667, in order to be married to the French-Canadian farmers. Talon and Laval are waiting for the arrival of the women (Watercolour by Eleanor Fortescue Brickdale, 1871-1945.) (Photo credit: The Canadian Encyclopedia)

Séminaire de Nicolet (The Canadian Encyclopedia)

Émigrés priests revitalised waning Catholicism in the former New France and they founded colleges (Séminaires). Many graduates of these colleges became priests. Others usually entered a profession. They were lawyers, notaries, medical doctors, and teachers. The majority of graduates were conservative, but higher learning often leads to liberalism. (See L’Institut Canadien, Britannica.) Liberal-minded graduates of colleges opposed Ultramontanism, but ultramontanism remained the dominant ideology in the province of Quebec until the late 1940s. It ended with the publication of Refus global (1948), a manifesto written by artists, and the Asbestos strike (1949). Refus global and the Asbestos strike were the turning point.

Throughout the 19^th century, as industries developed, the Church in Quebec recommended compliance on the part of workers. So, factory workers, including the Irish, lived on a small salary and were not promoted. In the eyes of the clergy, living in poverty could guarantee salvation. Jansenism exerted considerable influence in Quebec. The more one suffered, the better.^[2]However, during the Asbestos strike, the archbishop of Montreal, Joseph Charbonneau, sided with the strikers, some of whom were severely beaten. This had not happened before. Monseigneur Charbonneau was “exiled” to Victoria (B. C.), by Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis. Monseigneur Charbonneau died a year before the beginning of Quebec’s Quiet Revolution, la Révolution tranquille.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to Raymond Tanghe^[3], Canadian Prime Minister (1896-1911) Sir Wilfrid Laurier tried to pass a motion favouring a degree of tolerance regarding instruction in the French language. Sir Wilfrid Laurier‘s motion was defeated and Sir Charles Tupper called for an election. Priests told Quebecers not to vote for Liberal candidates (the party). If they did, they would commit a “mortal sin.” Rome ruled in favour of a separation between Catholicism and politics.

Canada was very British. Its national flag, the Canadian Red Ensign, represented Canada as a nation until it was replaced by the maple leaf design in 1965. (See Canadian Red Ensign, Wikipedia.)

The Canadian Red Ensign, the national flag of Canada from 1957 to 1965. (See: the Canadian Red Ensign on the Register of Arms, Flags and Badges)

Confederation

Let us return to Confederation (1867). To a vast extent, Quebec’s language laws stem from John A. Macdonald’s categorical refusal to allow the creation of “separate” schools, i.e. French-language instruction outside Quebec. However, Quebec had not entered Confederation unreservedly. It was allotted a province where French-speaking Canadians could maintain their language and their faith, which Québécois remember. Moreover, an alliance with Britain could preclude annexation by the United States. Living in the British Empire promised safety and the prospect of election to the Assembly. Confederation would stretch Canada from sea to sea, a lovely vision. Railroads were being constructed.

However, in 1867, when British North America became the Dominion of Canada, several anglophones, many of whom were former citizens of the Thirteen Colonies, still entertained such notions as the Rights of Englishmen.

The Rights of Englishmen is an assumed group of rights that had its roots in the basic rights granted in the Magna Carta. The idea reached its peak during the British settlement of North America. By this time colonial Englishmen felt they were entitled to certain additional rights and liberties.
(See Rights of Englishmen, Wikipedia.)

During the late 18^th century and most of the 19^th century, the British Empire was at its zenith, which reinforced placing the British in a superior position. The Rights of Englishmen was a concept that could justify seeking independence from Britain, the motherland. The American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) created the independent United States of America, a republic. However, the same motivation, the Rights of Englishmen, could lead the inhabitants of the former Thirteen Colonies to move to a British Colony where they expected to be treated as Englishmen. United Empire Loyalists left the United States to settle in British North America where they were given large lots:

The Crown gave them land grants of one lot. One lot consisted of 200 acres (81 ha) per person to encourage their resettlement, as the Government wanted to develop the frontier of Upper Canada. This resettlement added many English speakers to the Canadian population. It was the beginning of new waves of immigration that established a predominantly English-speaking population in the future Canada both west and east of the modern Quebec border.
(See United Empire Loyalists, Wikipedia.)

The Manitoba Schools Question

As of Canadian Confederation (1867), Quebec would have French-language and Catholic Schools, as well as English-language Protestant schools. But as immigrants settled in other provinces, they had to attend non-confessional English-language schools. Outside Quebec, most French-speaking Canadians were assimilated. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then prime minister of Canada, oversaw the “addition” (The Canadian Encyclopedia) of Alberta and Saskatchewan to Confederation. The only compromise he could reach was the Greenway-Laurier Compromise (Manitoba), which wasn’t much.

The Laurier-Greenway compromise was a regulation on schools named after Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier and Manitoba Premier Thomas Greenway. This compromise came after the adoption in 1889 of the notorious Official Language Act, which made English the sole language of Manitoba government records, minutes, and laws. Other laws abolishing French in all legislative and judicial spheres followed, leading to the disappearance of Catholic schools.
(The Greenway-Laurier Compromise, 1896.)

The compromise is described as follows:

The Laurier-Greenway compromise contained a provision (section 2.10) allowing instruction in a language other than English in “bilingual schools,” where 10 or more students in rural zones and 25 or more in urban centres spoke this language.
(The Greenway-Laurier Compromise, 1896.)

Thomas Greenway would be the Premier of Manitoba in 1888, three years after Louis Riel‘s execution on 16 November 1885. Thomas Greenway had been a friend of Sir John A Macdonald in the earlier years of his career. He

is remembered, however, for the elimination of minority educational rights for Roman Catholics; the MANITOBA SCHOOLS QUESTION dominated provincial and federal politics during his years as premier. He remained leader of the provincial Liberals until his election as MP for Lisgar in 1904.
(See Thomas Greenway, The Canadian Encyclopedia.)

The Manitoba Schools Question & the Quebec Question

the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963-1969)
the Official Languages Act of 1969

The MANITOBA SCHOOLS QUESTION migrated to provinces other than Manitoba and it resulted in a mostly unilingual Canada. In fact, the “schools question” became “la question du Québec,” the Quebec question. As I noted above, immigrants to Canada who settled outside Quebec were educated in “uniform” schools, or schools where the language of instruction was English. Therefore, outside Quebec, most Canadians were anglophones. This created a malaise in Quebec and this malaise led to both the Quiet Revolution and the establishment, by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, of a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (19 July 1963-1969).

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism

The mission entrusted to the royal commission was

to inquire into and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution.
(See Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Wikipedia.)

The Commission was co-chaired by André Laurendeau, publisher of Le Devoir, and Davidson Dunton, president of Carleton University. The Commission recognized, officially, that Canada was a bilingual and bicultural country. Canada’s founding nations, other than its First Nations, or Amerindians, were France and Britain. The work of the Commission led to the Official Languages Act of 1969. However, its findings could not justify the creation of French-language schools across Canada. These were created in Acadian communities and in certain districts. During the century separating Confederation (1867) and the Official Languages Act (1969), Canada became a largely English-language country. Yet, in the 1970s, French immersion schools were created, as well as summer immersion programmes. English-speaking Canadians also formed an influential association: Canadian Parents for French.

Bilingualism has its advantages. It can lead to a fine position in the Civil Service, in the Military, in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and elsewhere. I taught French to civil servants. At first, some expressed reticence. French was being “thrown down their throat.” Two weeks later, or by coffee break, these students enjoyed learning French.

History could not be rolled back, but the Official Languages Act of 1969 was a blessing. It recognized that Canada’s founding nations, other than its First Nations, were France and Britain. However, French-speaking Canadians had been recognized earlier. Governor James Murray refused to assimilate Britain’s new subjects and, as noted above, Sir Guy Carleton negotiated the Quebec Act of 1774 which restored the Seigneurial System. Habitants would work for their seigneur and provide tithe (la dîme) to the clergy. The Test Act was no longer required for an applicant to join the Civil Service or to run for office as a member of Parliament. The arrival of the United Empire Loyalists in British North America changed matters. So did Confederation. French-speaking Canadians were a minority and most lived in Quebec.

Quebec’s Language Laws

Five years after the passage of the Official Languages Act of 1969, Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa‘s Liberal Government passed Bill 22. In 1974, Quebec declared itself a unilingual province. In 1977, Quebec passed Bill 101, the Charter of the French language. Bill 101 dictated unilingual posting and the enrolment of immigrants in French-language schools. English-speaking Canadians of British ancestry could be educated in English-language schools. Other English-speaking Canadians could not. (Education is a provincial portfolio.) Bill 22 did not please English-speaking Montrealers, nor did Bill 101. Many anglophones left Montreal and Toronto gained status. Moreover, Quebec’s language laws often affected the life and the career of French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec. These individuals had to explain Quebec and compensate for language laws. Teachers had to create French-speaking Canadians. Besides, where would immigrants find refuge? Most immigrants are seeking a peaceful environment. During WW II, several French-speaking European royals lived in Quebec.

Bill 22 and Bill 101 created tension, and so did Quebec’s two referendums on sovereignty: the 1980 Referendum (20 May 1980; defeated by a 59.56% margin) and the 1995 Referendum (30 October 1995; defeated by a 50.58% margin). The first referendum took place four years after René Lévesque‘s Parti Québécois was elected (1976). Both referendums proposed sovereignty (independence), but the wording of the 1995 referendum included a reference to a “partnership” with Ottawa:

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?
(See Quebec Referendum (1995), The Canadian Encyclopedia)

Conclusion

I wish Sir John A. Macdonald had not created the “schools” question. Sir Wilfrid Laurier might have been able to support the re-introduction of French as a language of instruction had the French not linked language and faith inextricably. But I doubt that religion played as important a role as the language of instruction:

Despite Macdonald's reluctance, Manitoba entered Canada as a province. English and French-language rights were safeguarded in the new legislature and the courts. Protestant and  Roman Catholic educational rights were protected, but the right to education in either English or French was not.(See Manitoba and Confederation, The Canadian Encyclopedia.) Bold characters are mine.

As you know, I spent forty happy years in English-language provinces and had decided never to return to Quebec because of disputes between anglophones and francophones. I knew I could not survive in such a climate. Truth be told, I am not doing very well.

Canada’s two founding nations were separated for a century to the detriment of French-speaking Canadians and Canadian unity. How would French-speaking Canadians save their language? Quebec passed language laws, and these have generated acrimony. I have heard Canadians express pride because a family member was educated at an English-language Quebec University without learning French. Anglophones can live in Quebec without using French. The Eastern Townships is a bilingual region of Quebec because it was settled by United Empire Loyalists. My grandfather, who was born and raised in the Townships, could not speak a word of French. However, Quebec’s language laws erode what English-speaking Canadians view as their rights. As for Québécois, they monitor the survival of the French language, which they view as their right. They pass abrasive language laws. Quebec is a unilingual province inside a bilingual Canada.

It could be that such a notion as the Rights of Englishmen had survived in the collective memory of Quebecers of British origin. As for French-speaking Canadians, I would not exclude the negative consequences of being “conquered.” They may look upon themselves as a defeated people.

I have a photocopy of Hubert Aquin‘s article entitled L’Art de la défaite, published in Liberté, 1965. Aquin writes that the Rebellion of 1837-1838 is irrefutable proof that French Canadians are capable of anything, including stirring up their own defeat.^[4]

La rébellion de 1837-1838 est la preuve irréfutable que les Canadiens français sont capables de tout,voire même de fomenter leur propre défaite.

Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine built a bilingual and bicultural Canada. English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians are compatible and equal. English-speaking Quebecers do not have to learn French. Fortunately, many anglophone Canadians have attended and still attend a private French school or are sent to a French school in Switzerland. Enrolment in a private school can be costly. These individuals have “grace.” I’ve known many and married one.

John Ralston Saul attended an Alliance Française school. He wrote a book on the Great Ministry of Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine. (See John Ralston Saul, Wikipedia.) Many share the view that Canada was born before Canadian Confederation.

He argues that Canada's complex national identity is made up of the "triangular reality" of the three nations that compose it: First Peoples, francophones, and anglophones. He emphasizes the willingness of these Canadian nations to compromise with one another, as opposed to resorting to open confrontations. In the same vein, he criticizes both those in the Quebec separatist Montreal School for emphasizing the conflicts in Canadian history and the Orange Order and the Clear Grits traditionally seeking clear definitions of Canadian-ness and loyalty. (See John Ralston Saul, Wikipedia.)

Isn’t it possible to study French or English at school, as a second language? It is not that old-fashioned an idea. After all, Quebec managed the Pandemic in both French and English.

But I must go … This post is too long.

RELATED ARTICLES

Canadiana 1 (page)←
Canadiana 2 (page)←
Alexis de Tocqueville & John Neilson: a Conversation, 27 August 1831 (13 May 2021)
Alexis de Tocqueville & John Neilson (13 May 2021)
La Question des écoles / The Schools Question. 2 (28 April 2021)
La Question des écoles (24 April 2021)
Would that Robert Baldwin and Sir Hippolyte La Fontaine … (22 October 2020)
La Saint-Jean-Baptiste & Canada Day (6 July 2015) ⬅️

____________________

^[1] Micheline Bourbeau-Walker, « Le Récit d’Acadie : présence d’une absence », in Édouard Langille et Glenn Moulaison, éditeurs, Les Abeilles pillotent: mélanges offerts à René LeBlanc, Revue de l’Université Ste-Anne, Pointe-de-l’Église, 1998, pp. 255-275. ISBN 2-9805-909, ISSN 0706-8116

^[2] Denis Monière, Le Développement des idéologies au Québec des origines à nos jours, Montréal, Éditions Québec/Amérique, 1977, p. 209.

^[3] Raymond Tanghe, Laurier, artisan de l’unité canadienne, MAME, Figures Canadiennes, 1960, pp. 48-49.

^[4] Hubert Aquin, « L’Art de la défaite », Liberté, Volume 7, numéro 1-2 (33-38), janvier–avril 1965, p. 33.

See https://stikeman.com/en-ca/kh/canadian-employment-labour-pension-law/quebec-s-bill-96-takes-in-effect-as-of-june-1-2022-what-quebec-employers-need-to-know

—ooo—

Love to everyone 💕

John Ralston Saul

Cameron of Lochiel *(Les Anciens Canadiens)* [EBook #53154]

The Shipwreck of the Auguste, cont’d

30 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by michelinewalker in Britain, New France, Quebec history, Quebec literature

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

James Murray, Jeffery Amherst, Les Anciens Canadiens, Philippe Aubert de Gaspé, Pierre de Rigault, Siège de Louisbourg

Vaisseaux français en feu ou capturés au Siège de Louisbourg en 1758. This image is also known as a depiction of the life of Sir Admiral George Young. (Google)

*Burning of the French ship* Prudent and capture of Bienfaisant, during the siege of Louisbourg in 1758, Richard Paton (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

—ooo—

Le Puissant Protecteur / The Powerful Protector

Monsieur de Saint-Luc arrives at the d’Haberville’s home
He survived the sinking of the Auguste
Jules’s Father learns that Cameron de Lochiel is helping the family

Chapter XIV/XIII of Les Anciens Canadiens‘ also spelled Les anciens Canadiens, is very long. However, the superior of the Hospital, Jules’s aunt, allows Cameron de Lochiel to see Jules d’Haberville. The friendship is renewed, but Jules’s father will not accept that Jules’s aunt forgave Cameron de Lochiel. Cameron of Lochiel is Arché, Jules’s best friend, but Arché fought in the British Army, when Jules fought in the French army.

In Chapter XV/XIV, entitled Le Naufrage de l’Auguste (The Shipwreck of the Auguste), an exhausted survivor, comes to the d’Haberville’s door. At first, no one can recognize this emaciated figure with a long beard, but le capitaine d’Haberville can tell that the voice is that of Monsieur de Saint-Luc. After Monsieur de Saint-Luc says that the Auguste sank, he surprises le capitaine d’Haberville by telling him that the d’Haberville’s return to France was postponed because Arché, Cameron of Lochiel, intervened on behalf of his friends, which is a revelation he can substantiate.

– Sais-tu, d’Haberville, dit M. de Saint-Luc en déjeunant, quel est le puissant protecteur qui a obtenu du général Murray un répit de deux ans pour te faciliter la vente de tes propriétés ? Sais-tu à qui, toi et ta famille, vous devez aujourd’hui la vie, que vous auriez perdue en toute probabilité dans notre naufrage ?
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: p. 357)
[“Do you know, D’Haberville,” said M. de Saint-Luc at breakfast, “who was the friend so strong with Murray as to obtain you your two years’ respite? Do you know to whom you owe to-day the life which you would probably have lost in our shipwreck?”]
Cameron of Lochiel (XIV: 222-223)

When le capitaine d’Haberville learns he is still furious at Arché.

– Non, dit M. d’Haberville ; j’ignore quel a été le protecteur assez puissant pour m’obtenir cette faveur ; mais, foi de gentilhomme, je lui en conserverai une reconnaissance éternelle.
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: p. 357)
[“No,” said Captain D’Haberville. “I have no idea what friend we can have so powerful. But whoever he is, never shall I forget the debt of gratitude I owe him.”]

– Eh bien ! mon ami, c’est au jeune Écossais Archibald de Locheill que tu dois cette reconnaissance éternelle.
[“Well, my friend, it is the young Scotchman Archibald de Lochiel to whom you owe this eternal gratitude.”]
– J’ai défendu, s’écria le capitaine, de prononcer en ma présence le nom de cette vipère que j’ai réchauffée dans mon sein! [“I have commanded,” almost shouted Captain D’Haberville, “that the name of this viper, whom I warmed in my bosom, should never be pronounced in my presence.” And the captain’s great black eyes shot fire.]
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: p. 357-358)
Cameron of Lochiel (XIV: 222-223)

When all is told, Monsieur de Saint-Luc and le capitaine d’Haberville are soon reconciled. They were childhood friends. and War, the duties of officers, separated the former friends. Jules and Arché have resumed their friendship.

Arché’s men burnt down the d’Haberville’s manoir, and Captain D’Haberville now looks older than his age. He has fought in many conflicts between Amerindians who were friends of the British and the Huron-Wendat, the Wyandot people and the Iroquois confederacy. These wars were taxing, but we find confirmation of the wars the French entered when Champlain fought on behalf of Amerindians, the Wyandot people. It began in 1609. In Les Anciens Canadiens. Mon oncle Raoul is running the seigneurie, not his exhausted brother.

Cameron of Lochiel and James Murray

Arché is offered a promotion by James Murray
Arché will resign
Monsieur de Saint-Luc and James Murray

In fact, Arché would have resigned had James Murray not allowed him to help his friends. During the Battle of Sainte-Foy, Arché demonstrated to James Murray that he was an extraordinary Highlander. Arché knew the terrain, the lay of the land, and he spoke French.

But to save his friends from a hasty departure, Arché has told James Murray that he would resign unless he could protect his friends. Those who had to sell their belongings hurriedly lost nearly everything.

Capitaine de Locheill, lui dit alors Murray en lui présentant le brevet de ce nouveau grade, j’allais vous envoyer chercher. Témoin de vos exploits sur notre glorieux champ de bataille de 1759, je m’étais empressé de solliciter pour vous le commandement d’une compagnie ; et je dois ajouter que votre conduite subséquente m’a aussi prouvé que vous étiez digne des faveurs du gouvernement britannique, et de tout ce que je puis faire individuellement pour vous les faire obtenir. 359
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: p. 359)
[“‘Captain de Lochiel,’ said Murray, handing him the brevet of his new rank, ‘I was going to look for you. Having witnessed your exploits on the glorious field of 1759, I hastened to ask for your promotion; and I may add that your subsequent conduct has proved you worthy of the favor of His Majesty’s Government, and of my utmost efforts on your behalf.’]
Cameron of Locheill (XIV: 223-224)

Votre Excellence sait que je dois beaucoup de reconnaissance à cette famille, qui m’a comblé de bienfaits pendant un séjour de dix ans dans cette colonie. C’est moi qui, pour obéir aux ordres de mon supérieur, ai complété sa ruine en incendiant ses immeubles de Saint-Jean-Port-Joli. De grâce, général, 360 un répit de deux ans, et vous soulagerez mon âme d’un pesant fardeau !
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: p. 360)
[Your Excellency is aware how much I owe to this family, which loaded me with kindness during my ten years’ sojourn in the colony. It was I who, obeying the orders of my superior officer, completed their ruin by burning their manor and mill at St. Jean-Port-Joli. For the love of Heaven, general, grant them two years, and you will lift a terrible burden from my soul!’]
Cameron of Locheil (XIV: 224-225)

– Je suis heureux, monsieur le général, répondit de Locheill, que votre recommandation m’ait fait obtenir un avancement au-dessus de mes faibles services, et je vous prie d’agréer mes remerciements pour cette faveur qui m’enhardit à vous demander une grâce de plus, puisque vous m’assurez de votre bienveillance. Oh ! oui, général, c’est une grâce bien précieuse pour moi que j’ai à solliciter.
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: p. 360)
[“‘I am most glad, sir,’ answered Lochiel, ‘that your recommendation has obtained me a reward far beyond anything my poor services could entitle me to expect; and I beg you will accept my grateful thanks for the favor, which emboldens me to ask yet one more. General, it is a great, an inestimable favor which I would ask of you.’]
Cameron of Lochiel (XIV: 223-224)

– Capitaine de Locheill, fit le général Murray d’un ton sévère, je suis surpris de vous entendre intercéder pour les d’Haberville, qui se sont montrés nos ennemis les plus acharnés.
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: p. 360)
[“‘Captain de Lochiel,’ said Murray severely, ‘I am surprised to hear you interceding for the D’Habervilles, who have shown themselves our most implacable enemies.’]
Cameron of Lochiel (XIV: 224-225)

– Que Votre Excellence, reprit de Locheill avec le plus grand sang-froid, daigne accepter ma résignation, et qu’elle me permette de servir comme simple soldat : ceux qui chercheront, pour le montrer du doigt, le monstre d’ingratitude qui, après avoir été comblé de bienfaits par toute une famille étrangère à son origine, a complété sa ruine sans pouvoir adoucir ses maux, auront plus de peine à le reconnaître dans les rangs, sous l’uniforme d’un simple soldat, qu’à la tête
d’hommes irréprochables.
(XV: p. 362)
[“‘Will Your Excellency,’ repeated Archie coldly, ‘be so good as to accept my resignation, and permit me to serve as a common soldier? They who will seek to225 point the finger at me as the monster of ingratitude, who, after being loaded with benefits by a family to whom he came a stranger, achieved the final ruin of that family without working any alleviation of their lot—they who would hold me up to scorn for this will find it harder to discover me when buried in the ranks than when I am at the head of men who have no such stain upon them.’ Once more he offered his commission to the general.]
Cameron of Lochiel (XIV: 225-)

– Capitaine de Locheill, fit le général Murray d’un ton sévère, je suis surpris de vous entendre intercéder pour les d’Haberville, qui se sont montrés nos ennemis les plus acharnés.
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: 360)
[“‘Captain de Lochiel,’ said Murray severely, ‘I am surprised to hear you interceding for the D’Habervilles, who have shown themselves our most implacable enemies.’]
Cameron of Locheil XIV:

– J’apprécie, capitaine de Locheill, les sentiments qui vous font agir : notre souverain ne doit par être privé des services que peut rendre, dans un grade supérieur, celui qui est prêt à sacrifier son avenir à une dette de gratitude ; vos amis resteront.
Les Anciens Canadiens (XV: p. 362)
[“‘I appreciate your sentiments, Captain de Lochiel. Our sovereign must not be deprived of the services which you can render him as one of his officers, you who are ready to sacrifice your future for a debt of gratitude. Your friends shall remain.’]
Cameron of Lochiel (XIV: 225-230)This is an exceptional exchange: brief, to the point, and polite.

Conclusion

James Murray was a good man. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 protected Amerindians, but it ordered the assimilation of the French. Yet James Murray “allow[ed] French law and custom in the courts” (see James Murray, The Canadian Encyclopedia). James Murray was recalled, but he “retained nominal governorship until April 1768.” He paved the way for Guy Carleton‘s Quebec Act of 1774. By virtue of the Quebec Act, English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians were equal.

After the siege of Louisbourg, in 1758, the French could no longer hope for a victory in North America. L’Auguste will sink near Louisbourg located on l’Isle Royale, the current Cape Breton Island. the French could no longer hope to win the war. (See the Siege of Louisbourg, Wikipedia). Later, the shipwreck of l’Auguste, near Louisbourg, would earn a reprieve to families returning to France. the French all the prevented too hasty a return to France. But Monsieur de Saint-Luc and a few others survived the sinking of l’Auguste. They met good Amerindians. ames Murray was a good man and Cameron of Lochiel, a genuine “bon Anglais.”On 8 September, 1760, Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil de Cavagnial capitulated in Montreal. The French won the Battle of Sainte-Foy, but reinforcement could no longer be expected. Militarily, the British were winning the war. In 1658, Louisbourg had fallen to the British on l’Isle Royale, the current Cape Breton Island. (See the Siege of Louisbourg, Wikipedia). But Monsieur de Saint-Luc and a few others survived the sinking of l’Auguste. L’Auguste sinks, but Monsieur de Saint-Luc and others survived.

Similarly, although Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil signed the capitulation of Montreal. Yet, although the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which protected Amerindians and ordered the assimilation of the French in Camada, James Murray did not assimilate the French in a defeated New France. Nor would Guy Carleton.

—ooo—

« Quel est celui qui n’a jamais commis de faute à la guerre ? » Vae victis !
Les Anciens Canadiens (XIV: p. 314)
[“Who is he that has never made a mistake in battle?” Vae victis!]
Cameron of Lochiel (XIII: 198-199)

RELATED ARTICLES

An Update: the French and Indian War (26 July 2021)
Last Words on the Battle of Jumonville (25 July 2021)
The Battle of Jumonville Glen 24 July 2021)
The Good Gentleman (9 July 2021)
The Order of Good Cheer (19 June 2021)
La Débâcle/The Debacle (13 June 2021)
Jules d’Haberville & Cameron of Lochiel (12 June 2021)
Les Anciens Canadiens/Cameron of Lochiel (9 June 2021)

Nouvelle-France’s Last and Lost Battle: The Battle of the Plains of Abraham (24 March 2012)
The Battle of Fort William Henry & Cooper’s Last of the Mohicans (26 March 2012)
Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Gozon, Marquis de Saint-Veran (25 March 2012)

Sources and Resources

Wikipedia, The Canadian Encyclopedia, & Britannica
Les Anciens Canadiens (ebooksgratuits.com). FR
Cameron of Lochiel (Archive.org ), Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN
Cameron of Lochiel is Gutenberg [EBook#53154], Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN

https://www.nfb.ca/film/dreams_of_a_land/ (video)

The Battle of Quebec 1759

Last Words on the Battle of Jumonville

25 Sunday Jul 2021

Posted by michelinewalker in Britain, France, Nouvelle-France, The French and Indian War, The United States

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Aubert de Gaspé, Conflicting information, Fort Duquesne, Fort Necessity, Jumonville Skirmish, Tanacharison, Washington

Writing the Battle of Jumonville Glen was very difficult. I had conflicting sources. For instance, I could not determine whether Coulon de Jumonville was killed as the skirmish ended, or later, at Fort Duquesne.

Moreover, my text kept being revised (dialogs). So, I nearly destroyed the post. It seems that Coulon de Jumonville was killed by Tanacharison.

Our only certainties are that Jumonville was killed. Was it immediately after the skirmish or later, at Fort Duquesne. Moreover did Tanacharison kill Jumonville, and where.

I should have mentioned that George Washington (February 1723-December 1799) was only 22 at the Battle of Jumonville Glen. Tanacharison was 54. He died soon after Jumonville Glen, an ambush and skirmish. It is now called a skirmish.

My conclusion is that wars are absurd. The people of New France are still fighting to retain their identity. As well, France lost the Seven Years’ War. Yet, the starting-point was an ambush.

Moreover, my memory is deteriorating. I am perfectly lucid, but it may take me a few minutes to indicate the page or segment I am quoting and I may repeat a word or a sentence. I make spelling errors. So, I will be closing my weblog in the not-too-distant future or discuss fables, or write shorter posts. However, that an ambush should lead to wars, including a world war, is disorienting. So is an entry stating that Washington started the wars. As noted above, Washington was 22 or 23 years old, probably 22, in 1754.

WHEN YOUNG GEORGE WASHINGTON STARTED A WAR.

I inserted a source, but I could not separate the source and videos it shows. It is a learned source and the gentleman we hear does not throw stones. The link is the Jumonville Skirmish, but I am now shown Error 404 and information given readers is in French. If one speaks French, the site is available. I’ll search again. The following link may take a reader to information. One mut pay.

George Washington in the French & Indian War on Vimeo

Washington was ordered to remove the French from the Ohio Country, which may have given him latitude.

Aubert de Gaspé is not a Malraux. Nor is he a Camus. But Aubert de Gaspé is pointing out the absurdity of war. France lost New France and New France lost its motherland. These consequences are not glitches. The Battle of Quebec 1775 was an early battle during the American Revolutionary War.

Many seigneurs were sent back to France, but Aubert de Gaspé was not. He had descendants.

Through his novel Aubert de Gaspé suggests that one can adjust to changes. Jules did. Aubert de Gaspé also suggests that the enemy may be one’s adopted brother. Jules and Arché are reunited. It is as though, the seigneurs of New France had been in the military. Jules’s father looked old because he had fought battles.

The George Washington in the French & Indian War on Vimeo is a fine link. So is Tanacharison. No one looks very good, except Aubert de Gaspé. I have ordered two books so I can learn more.

Sources and Resources

Bluhm, Raymond K.. “Battle of Jumonville Glen”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 21 May. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Jumonville-Glen. Accessed 25 July 2021.
Jumonville Glen Skirmish · George Washington’s Mount Vernon

Love to everyone 💕

A Letter to Prince Harry

13 Monday Apr 2020

Posted by michelinewalker in Britain, Covid-19, Pandemic

≈ Comments Off on A Letter to Prince Harry

Tags

Covid-19, Duty, Prince Harry, Royal

PrinceHarry-xlarge_trans++piVx42joSuAkZ0bE9ijUnFGe0z9p1LAF7TfYUjaG654

Prince Harry of the United Kingdom

Harry (left) talking to an injured soldier at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 15 May 2013 (Wikipedia)

I have been in love, so I understand that Meghan is everything in your eyes and that you want to be at her side and near Archie. Meghan is now in her country and among actors, and other celebrities. But she may follow you. Your country is Britain and Britain needs you. You are a British Prince and you are Archie’s father. He too is royalty and your family would love to see him.

May I urge you to go to Britain. The Palace is safe and your country needs you. I haven’t kept up with the Sussexes, but I know that you are in Malibu, California, which is quite a distance away from Britain. William and your entire family need you more than ever. You are in the military and so is William. The two of you are young and strong and both have duties.

Please fly home immediately and take Archie. He is British Royalty. It could well be that Meghan will accompany the two of you. She married a Prince of the United Kingdom. You also have a home: Frogmore. I heard that Meghan was taking acting lessons. These can be postponed. Britain needs your energy, your smile, and your love. Remember that you are an accomplished Prince. That is your job. Remember as well that today is the first day of the rest of your life. You are William’s brother and he needs you. Imagine how awful it is for him to be alone.

Your grandmother is showing considerable courage and leadership at this very dark hour, but she and your grandfather are ageing.

We have a monster to beat.

Purcell‘s Trumpet Voluntary
Budapest Brass Quintet Petz Pál, Palotai István – trumpet Füzes Péter – horn Farkas István Péter – trombone

Prince Harry

Theresa May, Britain’s Prime Minister

12 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by michelinewalker in Brexit, Britain, EU Referendum

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Brexit, Colonialism, Jeremy Corbyn, Leadership, Theresa May

Theresa May (Photo credit: EN Wikipedia)

In my last post, dated 6 July 2016, I expressed alarm because, with the exception of Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, British Leaders were resigning when in fact the country was in dire need of leaders who could deal with the result of the Brexit vote. It seems Jeremy Corbyn’s fate is being decided as I write by members of the Labour Party.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jul/12/labour-nec-jeremy-corbyn-leadership-from-labour-leadership-ballot-would-be-sordid-fix-politics-live

In other words, Brexit is not over, but Parliament is nearly functional, which is how it should be. Prime Minister-designate Theresa May (née Brasier; born 1 October 1956) will be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, beginning Wednesday evening, 13 July 2016. Theresa May was Home Secretary.

British Prime Minister David Cameron would not take into consideration a petition signed by 4,000,000 Britons. It could be that Mr Cameron had to respect the letter of the law or be perceived as inconsistent. But 1,000 lawyers are now saying that the Brexit result “is not legally binding.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-result-not-legally-binding-lawyers-letter-a7129626.html

Britain as a colonial power

The Brexit decision was surprising. Britain was a formidable colonial power, but would Amerindians return the descendants of Pilgrim Fathers and Puritans to their ancestors’ native land, England? No. They wouldn’t and couldn’t. Yet, European colonial powers made themselves at home on territory they had merely discovered. In the Americas, they nearly wiped out American “Indians,” north and south. Many were displaced and many starved. A large number died because they had no immunity to the diseases of Europeans, such as smallpox. Several were otherwise eliminated.

“Current estimates are that the epidemic killed up to 90 percent of the Native population in the Massachusetts Bay area. When the Pilgrims arrived in 1620, they saw evidence of massive depopulation and attributed it to the “good hand of God . . . that he might make room for us there.” Another epidemic—this time smallpox—hit in 1633–1634.” [1]

As practised by Europeans, both genocide and settler colonialism have typically employed the organizing grammar of race.” [2]

Not that anyone should feel guilty and atone. These events belong to the past. But times have changed and one should respect all members of the human race and particularly the citizens of countries one colonized.

Countries have the right to limit immigration, but the “Yes! we won! Now send them back” is rather ugly. If British political leaders used the EU referendum as a platform to lure voters into thinking that voting to leave the EU would justify their getting rid of “them,” they acted irresponsibly. Just who is “them?”

Moreover, thinking and stating that Britons would be “better off on their own” may not be the case in a global economy and so many years after entering into a partnership with the EU.

Theresa May speaks to reporters after being confirmed as the leader of the Conservative Party and Britain’s next Prime Minister outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, central London, 11 July 2016. (REUTERS/Neil Hall)

Conclusion

Britons need not put themselves through the agony of another referendum. They have shown that they were divided in nearly equal halves, which probably suffices. But the matter of a second referendum is under discussion.

I didn’t intend to write another post on Brexit, but Britain has a new leader in Theresa May.

Love to everyone ♥

P. S. Jeremy Corbyn will be on the Labour leadership ballot, NEC rules.

RELATED ARTICLES

Thoughts on Brexit (6 July 2016)
Brexit. The Day after the Vote (30 June 2016)
Musing on Brexit (28 June 2016)

Sources and Resources

See United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, Wikipedia

____________________

[1] See Jeffrey Ostler, “New England and the Pequot War,” in Genocide and American Indian History (Oxford Research Encyclopedia).

[2] Patrick Wolfe, Settler colonization and the elimination of the native, Kooriweb.org

The EU (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

More Thoughts on Brexit

06 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by michelinewalker in Britain, EU Referendum, Terrorism

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Bregrets, Brexit, Immigration, Literal Reading, Mandate unclear, Resignations, Sovereignty, Suspected Political Manoeuvring

imagesCB877O39

Total number of voters: 33,577,342
In favour of leaving: 17,410,742
In favour of staying: 16,141,241
Bregrets: 1,200,000

A Teacher’s Reading of the Brexit Vote

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36692990

Most teachers consider a mark of 51.89% on a quiz or test a very low grade. It usually indicates that the student is likely to fail the course. Moreover, in certain Canadian universities, teachers are asked not to give a final mark between 45% and 50% to a student who is graduating or finishing his or her degree. Marks between 45% and 50% are lowered or raised, depending on the student’s overall performance and, occasionally, on his or her circumstances.

Therefore, according to classroom standards, if 51.89% (17,410,742) of Britons agreed to leave the European Union, and 48.11% (16,141,241) voted to stay, breaking away from the European Union is not warranted. It is too literal a reading. The spirit of the law negates its letter. (See United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, Wikipedia.)

“Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language.” (See Letter and spirit of the law, Wikipedia.)

If we delete Bregrets (1,2 million) from the “leave” voters, the gap is even narrower. Bregrets may feel they did not know precisely what they were voting for or against. They may also feel they were not sufficiently informed regarding the consequences of their vote.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-second-eu-referendum-leave-voters-regret-bregret-choice-in-millions-a7113336.html

Using numbers instead of a percentage, 17,410,742 million Britons (51.89%) voted to leave the EU and 16,141,241 million (48.11 %) voted to stay. If Britain leaves the European Union, it would be by too small a majority. Although Bregrets voters (1,2 million) cannot be counted officially, they cannot be ignored. Nor can one ignore the demonstrators in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere in Britain. I dare not subtract 1,200,000 from 17,410,742, and add 1,200,000 to 16,141,241.

Misrepresentation

sovereignty
immigration

The plot thickens. According to professor Michael Dougan, there was misrepresentation on the part of Brexit advocates.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-michael-dougan-leave-campaign-latest-a7115316.html

One issue was sovereignty. Some voters believed, or were made to believe, that the UK would regain its independence if it left the European Union. Such a view is puzzling. Britain was one of the foremost colonial powers in history, if not the foremost. It is independent.

Propaganda (Photo credit: Google images)

Another issue is immigration. Some “leave” voters thought they were voting to exclude certain immigrants from entering England or to send them back.

Countries do regulate the number of immigrants they accept, but we cannot assume that migrants who are risking their lives to enter Europe are terrorists. Migrants flooding Europe are fleeing terrorism, war, and repressive autocracies. They are the victims of Isil or Daesch, the Syrian Civil War, and autocrats who violate human rights. Some countries cannot accommodate immigrants at this point because they are still recovering from the breakdown of the Soviet Union.

Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly refused to step down. (Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

For instance, Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, now regrets using the words Hamas and Hezbollah. However, is anyone suggesting Mr Corbyn is an anti-Semite? If Mr Corbyn is an anti-Semite, so is Noam Chomsky. YouTube has several videos featuring Noam Chomsky discussing various subjects, including Israel and Palestine.

There is sympathy for Palestinians, and many countries recognize the State of Palestine. Nearly 50 years after the Six-Day War, Israel still occupies Palestinian territory and it is building a wall part of which is located in the occupied territories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/jeremy-corbyn-grilled-by-mps-on-labours-anti-semitism-problem/

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/labour-resignations-continue-as-mps-try-to-force-out-jeremy-corbyn

The problem at this point would be Islamophobia.

Conclusion

clarity
leadership

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/len-mccluskey-plays-peacemaker-between-corbyn-and-watson

http://uk.businessinsider.com/deutsche-bank-second-referendum-brexit-eu-europe-2016-7

I will conclude borrowing several words from my last post. I then wrote that it may be in the best interest of Britons not to break from the European Union at this point. My opinion has not changed. John Kerry, the United States Secretary of State, has suggested Britain could walk back its decision, which may be a good idea. Should Britain leave the EU if its population does not express itself clearly? There is no consensus at the moment.

In my opinion, the EU referendum failed to give British Prime Minister David Cameron a clear mandate to either leave or remain within the EU. One must also consider that although a decision made on so tiny a majority would be legally acceptable, it may be too literal, in which case it may not “sit well” with Britons, a factor that cannot be dismissed.

Moreover, can Britain leave the EU if there was misrepresentation? If voters believed, or were led to believe, that once it was “independent,” Britain could close its door on Muslims or certain other immigrants, or send them back, there may have been unsavoury political manoeuvering. However, I will not go further regarding this matter for lack of information. What we know is that there was no planning.

We also know that Britain is experiencing a leadership crisis. Prime Minister David Cameron plans to resign in October and Mr Corbyn has been asked to resign but has resisted such requests. A nation cannot be without leaders. Whether or not Britain wants to leave is not clear; yet its leaders are being asked to resign.

This is my last post on the of Brexit “incident.”

The Canadian experience may be worth looking at. The 1995 Quebec Referendum nearly broke Canada (49.42% voted in favour of separation and 50.58% voted against), which led to the passing of the Clarity Act. If a province, Quebec or another province, wishes to leave Confederation, the decision will not be based on a 50 – 50 vote, i.e. 49.42% (leave) versus 50.59% (stay). Such a result showed division.

Love to everyone. ♥

RELATED ARTICLES

Brexit. The Day after the Vote (30 June 2016)
Musing on Brexit (28 June 2016)
Walls and Bridges (21 February 2016)

Sources and Resources

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
various newspaper articles
Noam Chomsky
Montesquieu: L’Esprit des lois (1748)

imagesCB877O39

Brexit. The Day after the Vote

30 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by michelinewalker in Brexit, Britain, Sharing

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

A Consensus, Brexit, David Cameron, John Kerry, The Day After, Walking back

David Cameron

British Prime Minister David Cameron as he speaks in the House of Commons on June 29, 2016 (Home Office / Parliamentary Recording Unit via Agence France Presse Photo)

The day after the vote…

I remember the Quebec Referendums, the 1995 referendum in particular. There was so much fear.

Would older Quebec citizens get their pension cheques?
How would Quebecers purchase groceries?
Could they still use Canadian currency?
Would the Canadian armed forces still protect them?
Would Desjardins be the only bank?
Just how would they pay the rent or make their mortgage payments?
Would they need a passport to visit friends and family in Ottawa, Toronto and provinces west of Ontario or east of Quebec?
What would happen to Acadians and other French communities living outside Quebec?
Would Canada cease to be a bilingual country?
Could Quebec count on its immigrants to remain in Quebec?
Would there be yet another exodus of its more affluent population? (This is what happened when the Parti québécois was first voted into office (1976).
Would Quebecers leaving Quebec sell their home in American currency? Some still do.
etc.

These may seem picayune details, but they are not, which is why the Clarity Act was passed. Canada had to made sure no province could walk away from Confederation in a precipitous manner thus creating considerable anxiety, disorder and years of instability.

Britain

As it turns out, those who advocated leaving did not have a plan. What would happen the day after the vote?

Countries that have not joined the EU

https://www.quora.com/What-European-countries-are-not-in-the-EU

Not all European countries have joined the European Union. But the countries that did not join knew that the next day would not differ from the day before. Their decision not to join was not made overnight and could not plunge millions of citizens into years of detrimental uncertainty. As for other countries denied membership, they simply remained as they had been.

There is nothing wrong with not belonging to the EU, but the decision to leave must reflect the will of the people.

main-qimg-fe80efe6f6037d279682792861074c30

Countries belonging to the European Union. This map still shows Britain as a member. (Photo credit: Google)

A Consensus

It would seem imprudent for countries to leave the EU overnight and do so after a mere referendum. Important decisions, such as leaving the European Union require more than a referendum. There has to be a consensus. Too many citizens are opposed to leaving the European Union. The referendum showed that nearly half of Britons opposed leaving the European Union. Therefore, there is no consensus.

A “Dangerous Mindset”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/after-orlando-president-obama-denounces-donald-trump-on-policy-towards-muslims-where-does-it-stop-a7082446.html

After Donald Trump attacked President Obama for not blaming Muslims for the Orlando massacre, President Obama stated that Mr Trump, the Republican presidential presumptive, had a “dangerous mindset.” I believe the gentleman shown in the photograph below also has a “dangerous mindset.”

Yes! We won! Now send them back. (Diamond Geezer via Associated Press)

John Kerry’s Suggestion

John Kerry, the United States Secretary of State, has suggested that Britain could “walk back” its decision. The British Government held a referendum, but there is dissent and a “dangerous mindset.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/29/john-kerry-brexit-could-be-walked-back-david-cameron

Brexit.30

Protesters gather against the EU referendum result in Trafalgar Square on June 28, 2016 in London, England. There is still the possibility that the British government will disregard the referendum result. (Jeff J Mitchell / Getty Images)

Britain could still ignore Brexit referendum result. It wouldn’t be the first time in EU’s ‘sorry history’

—ooo—

In short, it may be in the best interest of Britons not to break from the European Union at this point. Not if there isn’t a consensus. Not if the motivation was even remotely racist. And not if there wasn’t a plan.

Love to everyone ♥

Beatrix Potter (The National Trust)

Musing on Brexit

28 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by michelinewalker in Britain, Middle East

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Brexit, European Union, inconclusive results, racism

Brexit

One is surprised and one isn’t. During difficult periods of history, folding back has occurred, and we are at a difficult moment in history.

However, given that the results of the Brexit vote were very close and that the “leave” vote was followed by a wave of racist comments directed at Muslims and at members of the Polish population of Britain, I wonder whether or not Britons want to leave the European Union.

The reaction of many Britons brings to mind Donald Trump’s hasty determination that ISIL terrorists were the perpetrators of the Orlando Massacre. It appears the LBGT were targeted even though the suspected killer was an American citizen of Afghan origin.

A man wearing an anti immigration T-shirt walks during Armed Forces Day Parade in Romford, England, on Saturday. (Diamond Geezer via Associated Press)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brexit-parliament-cameron-merkel-corbyn-1.3655607

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-racial-racism-abuse-hate-crime-reported-latest-leave-immigration-a7104191.html

Canada: The Clarity Act

Quebec has held referendums regarding a possible separation from the rest of Canada. For all practical purposes, the answer to the last referendum was both a “yes” (49.42%) and a “no” (50.58%). (See Quebec Referendum, 1995, Wikipedia.) As a result, the Clarity Act was passed by the House on 15 March 2000, and by the Senate, in its final version, on 29 June 2000. (See Clarity Act, Wikipedia.)

During the political campaign that led to the election of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Mulcair, the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, asked the current Prime Minister of Canada what his number was regarding the Clarity Act, or Bill C-20. Mr Trudeau waited a little and then answered that his number was 9. “Nine Supreme Court justices said one vote is not enough to break up this country.”

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2015/08/12/trudeau-mulcair-clarity-act/

Back to Britain

I realize that British prime minister David Cameron is opposed to another referendum, but it would be my opinion that the results of the British referendum are inconclusive. Nearly half of Britons voted against leaving the European Union and it turns out that among those who voted in favour of leaving, several misinterpreted the question. (See United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, Wikipedia.)

The Brexit question was not whether or not Britain should exclude Muslims and Poles from entering their country. If “leave” supporters misread or misunderstood the question, democracy may not have been duly served.

The refugee crisis is a destabilizing factor in Europe, particularly in those countries that have yet to recover from the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Moreover, there have been dreadful terrorist attacks. One lives in fear of another. But Muslim refugees are the victims of terrorists and autocrats.

In short, if Britain leaves the European Union, Britons would be making a numerically democratic choice, but if nearly half of Britons voted not to leave and if the “leave” vote reflects a perceptible degree of racism, it could be that the results of the referendum are both too close and too tainted for Britain to act.

I am not suggesting that the United Kingdom pass a “clarity act,” but if it is ascertained that racism played a significant role in the “leave” vote, it could well be that the tail is wagging the dog.

Love to everyone ♥

http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/brexit

Lucy Madox Brown by Ford Madox Brown, courtesy The National Trust

William Morris & Walter Crane: Socialism

17 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by michelinewalker in Britain

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

Arts and Crafts Movement, Haymarket Affair, Industrial Revolution, Japonisme, May 1st, Socialism, Walter Crane, William Morris

The Poppy Tile by Walter Crane (Photo credit: Google Images)

The Industrial Age and Socialism

In our discussion of art in Britain during the 19th century, I mentioned that William Morris and Walter Crane were socialist activists. The Industrial Revolution (beginning in the middle of the 18th century) led to an abuse of workers. Workers were often very young, they worked 60 hours a week over 6 days, the noise produced by machines was deafening, repeated movements, crippling, not to mention other detrimental consequences.

William Morris was born to a wealthy family and Morris & Co. was a successful business venture. By and large, employees of Morris & Co. (now Liberty of London and Sanderson [the designs]) were craftsmen, as was William Morris himself. The Kelmscott Chaucer, printed at the Kelmscott Press, named after Morris’ Kelmscott Manor, which he rented, was a modern illuminated manuscript. Morris was a calligrapher and painter as was his friend Sir Edward Burne-Jones. When the Kelmscott Chaucer was published, in 1896, it was as a joint effort and the first two copies were presented to William Morris and Edward Burne-Jones.

However, the work differed from a craft in that it was printed, which made it accessible to several individuals. The books produced by the Kelmscott Press are ancestors to books produced by the current Folio Society. In particular, the paper will not age into a brittle and yellow paper. It is acid-free paper or nearly so. It is the paper used by waltercolour artists and printmakers. An artwork will not otherwise survive.

Such were the books printed by the Kelmscott Press, established in 1881. Liberty of London has to use mechanization or it could not offer fabrics, etc. in bulk. But times have changed. The forty-hour week is no longer a rarity and workers use headphones to deafen the sound. However, the abuse has not ended and the working environments where abuse occurs are not restricted to factories.

Neptune’s Horses by Walter Crane (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Walter Crane

the arts domesticated
Arts & Crafts exhibition in the US

To keep this post brief, I will focus on Walter Crane’s activities as a member of the Socialist movement (socialism) to which he was introduced under William Morris‘ influence. As an artist, both he and Morris tried to “bring art into the daily life of all classes.” (See Walter Crane, Wikipedia.) The products of today’s Liberty of London can be described as carriage trade). For instance, the lovely tote bags it sells are not available to the poorer classes, poverty still exists, but it is art domesticated. There is truth however to the saying that no one is sufficiently rich to buy a product that will not last or to overindulge in the trendy.

Crane was not an anarchist, but when domestic and other art designed by members of the Arts and Crafts movement were exhibited in the United States, Walter Crane attended a social in Boston and said that the “Chicago four,” who had been executed, were wrongfully convicted. No sooner did he voice his opinion that he was shipped back to London. Workers were agitating in the hope of bringing the work week down from 60 hours to 48 hours.

The Haymarket Affair & May 1st

On 4 May 1886, during a demonstration, in favour of the 48-hour week, someone threw a dynamite bomb at the police. People then start to shoot. Seven (7) police officers and four (4) civilians died and many more were wounded. The Demonstration took pace at Haymarket Square in Chicago. (See Haymarket Affair, Wikipedia). The Chicago four were the four men who were hanged. Although none had thrown the bomb, one or more of the seven men who who were convicted had built it. One of the convicted men was sentenced to life imprisonment, but seven men were condemned to death. Among the seven, four were hanged, the death sentence of two workers was commuted to life imprisonment, and one committed suicide. Prisoners were pardoned in 1893 by governor John Peter Altgeld. Because of the Haymarket Affair, May 1st became the International Workers’ Day.

According to Wikipedia, “[f]or a long time he [Crane] provided the weekly cartoons for the Socialist organs Justice, The Commonweal and The Clarion. Many of these were collected as Cartoons for the Cause. He devoted much time and energy to the work of the Art Workers Guild, of which he was master in 1888 and 1889 and to the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, which he helped to found in 1888.”

However, Walter Crane is best known for his illustrations and, in particular, for his illustrated edition of Edmund Spenser‘s Faerie Queene (1894-96). But he was a socialist activist. William Morris was a card-carrying member, as may have been Walter Crane.

Britomart viewing Artegal

Holiness defeats Error

Florimell saved by Proteus

Conclusion

William Morris and Walter Crane were both associated with at least two of the art movements of 19th-century English. Crane started out with the Pre-Raphaelites as did William Morris. Both were members of the Arts and Crafts Movement, and both were socialist activists. As for the movements, all culminated in the aesthetic movement and art produced as the 19th century drew to a close often displays the curvilinear Art Nouveau style. The borders of Walter Crane’s illustrations for Spenser’s Faerie Queene are an example of Art Nouveau. So are the borders of the Kelmscott Chaucer (see Sources and Resources).

Morris was the giant, the businessman, the coordinator, and immensely eclectic. In Walter Crane, we have the most prolific illustrator of his times. But both realized the industrial revolution had brought misery to workers and, therefore, to the lower classes. Awareness of this misery is associated mostly with William Morris and Walter Crane, but the Arts and Crafts Movement was nevertheless a statement.

Flora’s Feast by Water Crane, 1889 (Photo credit: Google Images)

RELATED ARTICLES

William Morris’ Red House (8 December 2015)
Art in 19th-century England (19 November 2015)
The Golden Age of Illustration in Britain (30 October 2015)
Johann Amos Comenius: Word and Art (7 November 2015)
Word and Art (6 November 2015)

Sources and Resources

Kelmscott Chaucer at the British Library
William Morris, The Arts and Crafts Movement
The Victorian Web

Windrush by William Morris (ink and watercolour for fabric), 1881-83

Walter_Crane_-_The_Lady_of_Shalott_-_Google_Art_Project

The Lady of Shalott by Walter Crane

William Morris: Art Domesticated

11 Friday Dec 2015

Posted by michelinewalker in Art, Britain

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Arts and Crafts Movement, Eclecticism, Glass, Home as Art, Kelmscott Press, Sir Edward Burne-Jones

(Photo credit: Google Images)

William Morris: a Legendary Figure

In a much earlier post: The Columbine Tile: William Morris (November 2011), I associated William Morris (24 March 1834 – 3 October 1896) with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and the Arts and Craft Movement (1880-1910). He founded the latter. However, William Morris straddles the four ‘movements’ we have been discussing, except that he is a medievalist. Our four movements are:

the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (1848)
the Arts and Crafts Movement (1880-1910)
the Anglo-Japanese style (c. 1850)
the Aesthetic Movement (c. 1850)

Many of the artists associated with the above movements knew one another and were members of more than one movement. For instance, William Morris was a medievalist yet he was a member of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood as a painter. Morris and employees of Morris & Co., William Morris’ company, designed and made furniture. It may not have been in the Anglo-Japanese style, but it was furniture.

Moreover, not only was Morris the founder of the Kelmscott Press, but he was also a calligrapher and illuminator. He and Sir Edward Burne-Jones produced the Kelmscott Chaucer, a 19th-century illuminated manuscript, reviving a medieval practice. Production began in 1892 and the book was published in 1896, four months before William Morris’ early death.

It would be difficult to associate the Kelmscott Chaucer with the Arts and Crafts Movement. The Kelmscott Chaucer is unique, but if it has to be classified, it would be considered a product of the Aesthetic Movement, the movement associated with Sir Edward Burne-Jones. He and Morris met as students at Oxford University and their friendship endured.

Burne-Jones contributed paintings and stained glass to the Red House, Sir Burne-Jones reinvented the medieval art of staining glass but he is usually associated with the Aesthetic Movement. In fact, all four movements culminated in the Aesthetic Movement and eclecticism is a characteristic shared by several artists belonging the above-named movements.

His medievalism is William Morris’ contribution to the art of the Pre-Raphaelites, but it is not ‘grotesque’ (from grotto: cave). Architects used the grotesque, such as gargoyles (water spouts), as well as stained glass windows. Both originate in the Middle Ages. Some Victorian houses have beautiful stained glass windows.

SOL by Edward Burne-Jones, 1878 (from the Franklin Collection, 1970) (Photo credit: see Sources and Resources below)

Domesticity

“If I were asked to say what is at once the most important production of art and the thing most to be longed for, I should answer, a beautiful home.”

William Morris quoted in the Guardian, 8 December 2015
Turner Prize winner Assemble debt to William Morris

The Arts and Crafts Movement‘s main characteristic is its domesticity. Artists and artisans made ceramic tiles, wallpaper, cushions, textiles, prints. Moreover, they were architects, cabinet-makers and interior designers. Although a piece of furniture such as Arthur William Godwin‘s sideboard, shown in an earlier post, would be very expensive, it could be said that it belongs to a democratization of the arts.

The Emery House (Photo credit: The Guardian, UK)

William Morris: A Renaissance Man

Morris (24 March 1834 – 3 October 1896) was a renaissance man. He is described as:

“an English textile designer, poet, novelist, translator, and socialist activist. Associated with the British Arts and Crafts Movement, he was a major contributor to the revival of traditional British textile arts and methods of production. His literary contributions helped to establish the modern fantasy genre, while he played a significant role in propagating the early socialist movement in Britain.”
(See William Morris, Wikipedia.)

The Arts and Crafts Movement was an international movement. Swedish artist Carl Larsson (28 May 1853 – 22 January 1919) was an interior designer. He also worked as an illustrator and made paintings portraying his home, his wife and his children.

Artists associated with the Arts and Crafts Movement often used the curvilinear and international Art Nouveau style. After World War I, it would be replaced by Art Deco, but fine styles resurface or leave an imprint. Morris’ socialism will not be discussed here. We have pictures to look at.

My kindest regards to everyone. ♥