Most Canadians can't identify the war during which Canadians fought at Vimy
- Thread starter McG
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Shipwreck said:
Sorry, not quite following here. Who placed what deaths in a "good light"?
Reading this post, I have to wonder what you imagine the purpose of the military ultimately is. Let me bring it a bit closer to home for you and rinoakes: what is sonar?
Sonar is the sensor part of a sensor-shooter chain that will ultimately result in a powerful explosive device destroying a subsurface vessel. The sailors in that subsurface vessel will be torn apart, crushed, burnt, suffocated by chemical fumes or smoke or drowned. Many of them will die in absolute blind terror. Unless the sub makes it to the surface, they will all die.
That is what your "job" is ultimately about.
Now, we have to be able to attach some rational meaning to that act, or it becomes a mindless mechanical task of destroying other humans, for no apparent reason. Or, worse, because maybe somebody enjoys killing people.
Or, just as bad, we pretend that somehow we have "clean hands" because it's "just a job" and we're not the ones pulling the trigger or releasing the ordnance or giving the orders. That is a morally bankrupt argument of the very worst sort.
In a professional military (which you have joined) people find that rationalization in understanding why we are asked to do what we do, and why we do it. Part of this understanding means realizing that, whether we like it or not, we live in a world where force is always an option. That, in the end, is why an organized military exists. The Canadian people expect that, if the time comes, Canadian sailors will do what is necessary, just as the RCN has always done so very well.
Using that necessary force, hopefully for the right reasons, normally takes place under stressful conditions of fear, injury, loneliness, confusion, deprivation and hardship. You only need to look at what the sailors of the RCN went through during the Battle of the North Atlantic, or the Murmansk Run, to understand what I mean. To be able to organize hundreds of warships and aircraft, and thousands of sailors, to ensure the safe passage of millions of tons of cargo against a determined and skilled enemy who is trying to kill you, while fighting terrible sea conditions, is actually a pretty "amazing military achievement". I don't know what else to call it. If you can't accept that, just what will you be thinking about on Battle of the Atlantic Day?
If you reject the idea that there can be "amazing military achievements", then maybe you might want to ask yourself what you really think your service is about, and what the military is actually for.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
pbi said:
Of course the chicoutimi fire will lose it's value as an experience. You think these subs will be running in 100 years? They barely run now. What is the big lesson? Fires are...bad? That's some heavy stuff. People should memorize the date the fire happened so they know that.
Emilio said:
I would rather my child forgets WWII and remembers Afghanistan, so at least he knows how to recognize a pointless war. You all mention if you don't know history it will inevitably repeat itself every single time, so I would want my kids to know the failures before the successes.
And well, once you are old I guess it's apparently perfectly okay to have a closed mind. This forum makes that clear.
Journeyman said:So what's actually happening here -- not the specific topic, but the nature of the discussion?
[yes, it's my tired old 'opinions versus informed opinions' hobby-horse]
On the one hand, there is Group A: the majority of respondents, who are saying it's a bad thing that this information isn't common knowledge. A quick look at their profiles and posting history shows them to be older, more experienced members, which suggests that their opinions may be informed by more life experience -- having seen second- and third-order effects of applying diverse 'things learned.' Now Group A may also be an example in dogmatic group-think, but because they've presented evidence to support their argument (in this case, lessons' learned plus the inherent benefits of knowing Canadian history to 'being' a Canadian), I'd personally discount it; it needs to be considered when weighing arguments though.
Group B presently seems limited to Shipwreck and rinoakes -- from their profiles, two young sailors claiming there's little utility in knowing of things "old" -- who have stated little more than that they already know enough to be good at their jobs; they don't know about the topic, and in their opinion see no reason why they should care about it. In effect, they appear to have no thirst for 'knowing'...for learning as broadly and deeply about a wide range of subjects, and how that can improve them as individuals.
From their follow-on posts, it's not merely the absence of such a thirst for knowledge, there seems to be an active shunning of it.
....and that is what's sad about their not knowing of Vimy.
:not-again: I'm done.
Ah yes, group A, the majority, which obviously makes them more credible. No one has ever been in the minority and been right before, especially on a forum consisting of the same demographic of old jaded military members, typically the people most resistant to change or alternative viewpoints.
And Journeyman seems like such a fair moderator, he's clearly not a member of the group "A". He says they have presented evidence to support their argument, but no one has done any such thing. Personal views are not evidence. I doubt you could actually find evidence proving that vimy ridge matters so that whole line is foolish. He also mentioned a reason they are credible as: "the inherent benefits of knowing Canadian history to 'being' a Canadian)"
... the inherent benefits of knowing canadian history to "being" a canadian. Could you please expand on what those benefits are and what a Canadian is?
Oh and moving on to Group B, me and the intelligent rinoakes, well being young automatically makes you less reasonable, as compared to a senior citizen set in their ways, and in fact, although it seemed like you were trying to provide a fair balance, it was in fact a deception to lower my standing. You manage to put me being good at my occupation in a bad light, and you say I have no thirst for knowledge, which is wrong and irrelevant. Just because I think history isn't important doesn't mean I don;t know it better than you.
But he said he was done.
Griffon said:
That sounds like it might be important to the army, even though it's not, but whatever, so why does this matter to a typical civilian? Every job has a history from law to science, but we don't call people stupid for not knowing famous canadian legal precedents or medical advancements. Y'all only think the military is special because you are in it and you want to pretend that your achievements are on the same level as the WWII veterans.
Oh uh George Wallace, if you want to have a discussion about hammers, I am so down for that, but I don't know why it's a big deal in this current one.
And uh, George, people just personally insult me, and you say that is disagreeing with your point of view. I managed to debate with people but I don't tell you that your military service is worthless or that your whole life is a waste. I just meant if you guys don't want to entertain other people you should make people spend thirty years in the military before they can join this forum.
Oh, uh Pbi, I can tell you what I will be thinking of on battle of the atlantic day. Probably my girlfriend and agatha christie novels. I like those books.
- Reaction score
- 1,693
- Points
- 1,090
Shipwreck said:
Pointless to you perhaps, not for many of the rest of us, nor to the majority of Afghans. But what do I know? My opinion is formed by direct observation which I'll admit is no match for third party reporting and interpretation.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
OK....this is turning into pig wrestling. :
I have a feeling all of us are being had by Shipwreck and rinoakes, but being old and stupid (as so many senior citizens are, you know....) I'll give this another shot.
This whole thread has IMHO nothing to do with the dates of anything, or any battle on land or at sea. It has nothing to do with the purpose of the military, or whether there is any human virtue demonstrated in war. It began legitimately enough, with MCG's post, but it has descended since then into a slanging match of generalizations and ad hominen attacks. I don't think you are interested in arguing about military history at all, since you apparently see very little value in it, or it seems, any value in any other kind of history.
So, here's what I think.
I think it's a legitimate practice on this site to ask people to substantiate their opinions or experiences by telling us a little about the background that has shaped them. Happens all the time. I've been called out myself in the past. Look at this:
Aren't you claiming to be in the military too? Don't you think it's special? Or is it just like working at McDonald's?
Call out: I don't believe that you're in the RCN at all, despite your profile claim. In fact, I begin to doubt that you have ever served in the CAF, ever. You spoke earlier about your "medals deployments and sacrifices". I'd like you to state which "medals" you have earned in your service, from what deployments, on what ships or RCN establishments. Apparently you have a total of two years of service. If you would like me to state the same, I'd be happy to do so, as would the other posters here.
I sincerely hope that one of the "medals" you claim to be wearing isn't from the South West Asia Campaign, because that would be wearing a medal from a "pointless war", now wouldn't it?
So, from what informed basis have you made the assessment that the Afghan operation was a failure, since the study of military history apparently holds so little value for you? ? Doesn't that require us to see what lasting results it produces? And, anyway, you just admitted that history might have a teaching value.
You may be quite surprised to discover that many people on this site, me in particular, believe strongly in the study of military failure as a powerful learning tool. "The best mistakes to learn from are somebody else's".
And now this stuff:
See "ad hominen" above. If anybody on this site has specifically and intentionally insulted you just because you are young (relative to whom...?), then I agree that is not fair. But you have certainly done no better. You have very little idea how old anybody on this site actually is, and in any case age doesn't really affect the quality of a person's argument. (It affects trying to remember where you put your glasses...) Very young people can advance very sound arguments. You're just not doing it.
Rubbish. Personal views are evidence of lots of things: primarily they are evidence of how people process the world around them, of what they value, and of how they see others. Just to pick three.
Which all leads us to this interesting statement:
So, what, now? You have invested effort to become an expert in something that you don't think is important? Why did you do that? Is it maybe because actually you know it is important, or you wouldn't be on this thread. Or were you just trolling, as DimSum suggested?
Standing by for a response which will knock me clear out of my walker and make my false teeth fall out into my glass of warm skim milk.....
I have a feeling all of us are being had by Shipwreck and rinoakes, but being old and stupid (as so many senior citizens are, you know....) I'll give this another shot.
This whole thread has IMHO nothing to do with the dates of anything, or any battle on land or at sea. It has nothing to do with the purpose of the military, or whether there is any human virtue demonstrated in war. It began legitimately enough, with MCG's post, but it has descended since then into a slanging match of generalizations and ad hominen attacks. I don't think you are interested in arguing about military history at all, since you apparently see very little value in it, or it seems, any value in any other kind of history.
So, here's what I think.
I think it's a legitimate practice on this site to ask people to substantiate their opinions or experiences by telling us a little about the background that has shaped them. Happens all the time. I've been called out myself in the past. Look at this:
Aren't you claiming to be in the military too? Don't you think it's special? Or is it just like working at McDonald's?
Call out: I don't believe that you're in the RCN at all, despite your profile claim. In fact, I begin to doubt that you have ever served in the CAF, ever. You spoke earlier about your "medals deployments and sacrifices". I'd like you to state which "medals" you have earned in your service, from what deployments, on what ships or RCN establishments. Apparently you have a total of two years of service. If you would like me to state the same, I'd be happy to do so, as would the other posters here.
I sincerely hope that one of the "medals" you claim to be wearing isn't from the South West Asia Campaign, because that would be wearing a medal from a "pointless war", now wouldn't it?
So, from what informed basis have you made the assessment that the Afghan operation was a failure, since the study of military history apparently holds so little value for you? ? Doesn't that require us to see what lasting results it produces? And, anyway, you just admitted that history might have a teaching value.
You may be quite surprised to discover that many people on this site, me in particular, believe strongly in the study of military failure as a powerful learning tool. "The best mistakes to learn from are somebody else's".
And now this stuff:
See "ad hominen" above. If anybody on this site has specifically and intentionally insulted you just because you are young (relative to whom...?), then I agree that is not fair. But you have certainly done no better. You have very little idea how old anybody on this site actually is, and in any case age doesn't really affect the quality of a person's argument. (It affects trying to remember where you put your glasses...) Very young people can advance very sound arguments. You're just not doing it.
Rubbish. Personal views are evidence of lots of things: primarily they are evidence of how people process the world around them, of what they value, and of how they see others. Just to pick three.
Which all leads us to this interesting statement:
So, what, now? You have invested effort to become an expert in something that you don't think is important? Why did you do that? Is it maybe because actually you know it is important, or you wouldn't be on this thread. Or were you just trolling, as DimSum suggested?
Standing by for a response which will knock me clear out of my walker and make my false teeth fall out into my glass of warm skim milk.....
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
As so well stated here by Griffin, it's context gentlemen:
Reply #78 on: Yesterday at 08:54:38 »
Shipwreck asked why it's important to know when Vimy happened. Here's the simple answer: context.
Vimy is a part of a story. That story includes a war and the coming of age of a newly independent nation. It's important to know when it happened so you can see effects of battlefield technology and tactics development on the strategy employed by the Canadians in 1917, how they were a part of a battlefield evolution that broke the trench warfare stalemate. You need to know what war it was in to see that. It's important to Canadians because it was the first operation where all the divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together. That fact on it's own is hardly earth-shattering, but in a political context it's an indicator of the growing maturity of a nation. This view of Vimy is a part of the story of the recognition on the world stage of Canada as an independent nation, or at least that's how some of us choose to see it.
Knowing when it happened allows you to place it in time with other events. It didn't happen in a vacuum.
Reply #78 on: Yesterday at 08:54:38 »
Shipwreck asked why it's important to know when Vimy happened. Here's the simple answer: context.
Vimy is a part of a story. That story includes a war and the coming of age of a newly independent nation. It's important to know when it happened so you can see effects of battlefield technology and tactics development on the strategy employed by the Canadians in 1917, how they were a part of a battlefield evolution that broke the trench warfare stalemate. You need to know what war it was in to see that. It's important to Canadians because it was the first operation where all the divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together. That fact on it's own is hardly earth-shattering, but in a political context it's an indicator of the growing maturity of a nation. This view of Vimy is a part of the story of the recognition on the world stage of Canada as an independent nation, or at least that's how some of us choose to see it.
Knowing when it happened allows you to place it in time with other events. It didn't happen in a vacuum.
- Reaction score
- 21,945
- Points
- 1,360
Perhaps the root issue of the original article post could have been captured with a slight re-titling, "Most Canadians don't feel that Canada's accomplishments at Vimy Ridge were significant."
Regards,
G2G
Regards,
G2G
- Reaction score
- 6,053
- Points
- 1,160
Shipwreck said:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
It's interesting shipwreck that you show such disdain for history, yet on another forum, your signature is
"Remember, remember the 5th of November"
That's a pretty specific and significant date in world history and was certainly much more than 100 years ago.
"Remember, remember the 5th of November"
That's a pretty specific and significant date in world history and was certainly much more than 100 years ago.
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,773
- Points
- 1,110
Good2Golf said:
FTFY...though I was thinking of something more along the lines of "Most Canadians Are Generally Apathetic to Anything That Has Made This Country What It Is"
MM
- Reaction score
- 4,236
- Points
- 1,260
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,773
- Points
- 1,110
Just did the self Heimlich on myself...thanks for that :nod:. It does work too BTW.
MM
MM
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 449
- Points
- 960
pbi said:OK....this is turning into pig wrestling. :
Call out: I don't believe that you're in the RCN at all, despite your profile claim. In fact, I begin to doubt that you have ever served in the CAF, ever. You spoke earlier about your "medals deployments and sacrifices". I'd like you to state which "medals" you have earned in your service, from what deployments, on what ships or RCN establishments. Apparently you have a total of two years of service. If you would like me to state the same, I'd be happy to do so, as would the other posters here.
hmmmm - two years and a sonar. Environment training is 5 weeks and sonar basic is 25 weeks. I am old - how long is basic training these days? Seems to me a good chunk of that two years was used up for training which does validate the question of medals, deployments and ships.
Sadly this was one of my complaints while still young and in school, no modern Canadian history taught. I am not a fan of remembering exact dates on events but it would be good if the schools at least taught the impact of Vimy and WW1 on our country and that the two go together. Thankfully the history channel does a good job on that every year, just have to get the kids to watch.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
2 Cdo said:
As I said earlier, I'm not 100% convinced that shipwreck is in the RCN. If he is, then I agree with you: pretty sad.
CountDC said:
You have the same suspicions I do. My point really isn't that he didn't want to memorize dates: I don't agree with that type of "learning" either. What I was on about was that, as far as I could tell, he didn't GAF about military history at all.
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
So you're saying even you weren't sure what you were on about.....pbi said:
;D
Similar threads
