Ok - I've been to the Museum. I thought the pictures were in poor taste. I frankly don't care why they are there. They represent a time in Canada when the politicians failed the military again. Gee - let's punish a whole regiment for the actions (reprehensible as they were) of a few. I thought that was not doctrine, and I seem to recall the government of the day actually saying they would not punish the many for the actions of a few. Hmph. Guess again.
To go with Sussex's points we should have representations of shootings at dawn of suspected traitors and deserters, shameful acts of prisoner abuse from WW2, retaliations against Germans for their prisoner abuses, a couple of Korean collatorally killed civilians, reported CanBAT issues, Hey - what about the NorthWest Rebellion, Metis killings, et cetera, et cetera... Why pick on this particular shameful act? Are we rubbing the military's nose in the dirt to teach them a lesson? "Bad army, bad army. Naughty soldiers..."
The military and a lot of vets seem to think so. Whether one has altruistic motives and wishes to show Canadian history "warts and all", doesn't abrogate the fact that we, a fair number of vets, feel slighted. It seems to me to be a bit patronising (and perhaps even intellectually arrogant) to dismiss this as "They'll likely change in 6 months and then there'll be something else to take exception to. It's a matter of not seeing the trees for the forest which, again, is a peculiarly Cdn trait". That seems to belittle the real feeling of the other side. An attack doesn't dismiss the fact that there are true feelings on both sides.
You say "The key is an informed, interested public thast is prepared to argue--not vs 2 paintings--but for military history to be treated as central in the nation's past and present, To me, CWM gives a boost to our understanding of the military and it can only be helpful"
I posit that the CWM, the media, and the attention to shameful acts does not raise an informed and interested public. Military History is not treated as central in the nation's past and present when the media and public sees these acts. We do not laud the enough the proud histories of the Canadian Military. I agree with Sussex here. Where we part company is when he defends keeping these paintings which are a sore point to veterans (yes, veterans), and in the eyes of the media, politicans, citizens, et cetera, draws attention from Military History writ large.
Why can't the board of the CWM merely remove the paintings, it has been asked? Seems to me the two sides are entrenched and invested in their positions. The vets feeling poorly treated and humiliated, and the CWM feeling that to change would reduce their impartiality. The one side invested in humiliation, and the other afraid to be seen to knuckling under to pressure.
As for the warning "Everyone who wrote an MP to complain about Matchee-Brown paintings should realize what they're encouraging." I wrote. I know what I said, and what I was encouraging. I was encouraging my MPs, and duly elected representatives to review a situation about which I feel passionately. They don't have to take action. I, frankly, do not expect action. They are my representatives because they were elected to represent me in their best judgement. I don't expect my MP to "poll" (I know, it's not a verb!) me everytime she has a decision to make - I chose her because she has good judgement, and I am prepared to live with the consequences.
Frankly, as soon as the "fourth estate" got involved in the controversy on opening day, Mr. Sussex11, there became, de facto, if not de jure, political interference in the CWM. Any institution which purports to send a message to Canadians will inevitably be used by our political masters to send their message. Period.
Cheers
