- Reaction score
- 5,687
- Points
- 1,060
macleod,
Fix your post re: the childish attack on Acorn's nom de plume. Your online so do it now.
Fix your post re: the childish attack on Acorn's nom de plume. Your online so do it now.
War Museum Controversy and Follow-up Thread [merged]
- Thread starter McG
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,472
- Points
- 1,260
I went back and reviewed this thread, post-by-post, all 17 pages of it.
Like Mr. MacLeod I am a fan of the Imperial War Museum but I am not sure I see how its governance is markedly different from that of our national museums.
The IWM describes its arrangement as:
The Sovereign appoints the President of the Board. The Prime Minister appoints ten members, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs two (Sir Robin Fearn and Sir Thomas Harris), the Secretary of State for Defence one (Mr Andrews) and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport one (Miss Adie). Their High Commissioners represent seven Commonwealth Governments ex officio.
That seems, to me, to be eerily similar to the quasi-arm's length relationship which the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corp. has with the government of Canada. In both cases the government of the day can 'stack' the governing body with political hacks, flacks and bagmen or scholars and managers â “ essentially at the whim of the PM of the day.
I said, early in this thread, that, in my not at all humble opinion, museums are places for scholarship â “ and I think they should be run by and for scholars, which, largely lets out the â ?... Army, Navy and Air Force Benevolent Funds ... all Veterans organizations, public spirited citizens and the private industrial and financial sector.â ? (I believe all Canadian museums, including our regimental museums, have good links to the â Å“private industrial and financial sectorâ ? and are constantly working at improving them â “ there is never, ever enough money.)
On 15 May Mr. MacLeod said, â ?... Museums are used to record real history, not an "interpretation" of history ...â ?
I replied, perhaps a bit testily:
â ? History is always, without fail, interpreted. Peter Wothington and Cliff Chadderton have their individual interpretations as does war artist Gertrude Kearns, and I am certain that her interpretations are different from those of, say, war artist Alex Colville. (The plural matters, I think, because I am fairly certain that Ms. Kearns would interpret different situations in different ways in different time periods.)
My interpretation of events â “ unification for example â “ which took place in the '60s is different, today, 40+ years on, than it was in those same '60s or in the '70s, '80s and '90s for that matter.
My interpretation of World War I differs, I suppose, from, say, Jack Granatstein's or, for all that it matters, from those of any historian â “ although I am close to Niall Ferguson's view â “ in The Pity of War, London, 1998. Am I (and Ferguson) right? Obviously I think I am but I am not so conceited (not quite, anyway) as to expect that others agree.
All interpretations, including those of jmacleod, pbi, and Michael Dorosh, etc, are 'right' in the eyes of those who make them. One of the key functions of any museum is to provide a mechanism through which everyone may make their own interpretations based, hopefully, on an objective presentation of the available evidence and that, presenting the available evidence, with interpretations â “ because it is people doing the presenting, not machines, is, I argue, the work, indeed the duty of scholars, some of whom might, also, be soldiers. In the end scholarship must 'win' because museums are not memorials â “ too many people make the serious mistake of confusing the two. We have ways and means to honour and remember those who fought 'our' wars; we need ways to learn about how wars affect us and how they helped shape our country and our society. Museums are one of the tools in the latter quest.â ?
I stick by that, obviously.
There are a lot of things which need improvement in the CWM â “ I am confident (and in a couple of cases have been reassured) that many are in hand, awaiting those ever scarce resources: money and experts' time. I have some personal views on what's good and bad at the CWM, including some thoughts on the art on display, I expressed my concerns to the museum staff; but my interpretation of history is no better than anyone else's so they will have to have to wait in the queue and some may be addressed, on their merits - if any, in due course.
Mr. MacLeod is adamant that the CWM must have a change in governance â “ to put control firmly in the hands of an, essentially, military Board of Trustees. On 12 May Mr. MacLeod informed us that he, his company and his associates are in the business of providing business plans for museums. He has also told us that his family is deeply and firmly tied to the Liberal Party of Canada. I have to wonder: is Mr. MacLeod angling for some government money, and is he using army.ca to drum up support? Perhaps he plans to do some consulting for his proposed new, Board which would be bereft of the insider knowledge resident in the Board of the Canadian Museum of Civilization â “ of course MacLeod's Board would also be weak in (but not entirely devoid of) scholarship, too, which is why I oppose his proposal.
Like Mr. MacLeod I am a fan of the Imperial War Museum but I am not sure I see how its governance is markedly different from that of our national museums.
The IWM describes its arrangement as:
The Sovereign appoints the President of the Board. The Prime Minister appoints ten members, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs two (Sir Robin Fearn and Sir Thomas Harris), the Secretary of State for Defence one (Mr Andrews) and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport one (Miss Adie). Their High Commissioners represent seven Commonwealth Governments ex officio.
That seems, to me, to be eerily similar to the quasi-arm's length relationship which the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corp. has with the government of Canada. In both cases the government of the day can 'stack' the governing body with political hacks, flacks and bagmen or scholars and managers â “ essentially at the whim of the PM of the day.
I said, early in this thread, that, in my not at all humble opinion, museums are places for scholarship â “ and I think they should be run by and for scholars, which, largely lets out the â ?... Army, Navy and Air Force Benevolent Funds ... all Veterans organizations, public spirited citizens and the private industrial and financial sector.â ? (I believe all Canadian museums, including our regimental museums, have good links to the â Å“private industrial and financial sectorâ ? and are constantly working at improving them â “ there is never, ever enough money.)
On 15 May Mr. MacLeod said, â ?... Museums are used to record real history, not an "interpretation" of history ...â ?
I replied, perhaps a bit testily:
â ? History is always, without fail, interpreted. Peter Wothington and Cliff Chadderton have their individual interpretations as does war artist Gertrude Kearns, and I am certain that her interpretations are different from those of, say, war artist Alex Colville. (The plural matters, I think, because I am fairly certain that Ms. Kearns would interpret different situations in different ways in different time periods.)
My interpretation of events â “ unification for example â “ which took place in the '60s is different, today, 40+ years on, than it was in those same '60s or in the '70s, '80s and '90s for that matter.
My interpretation of World War I differs, I suppose, from, say, Jack Granatstein's or, for all that it matters, from those of any historian â “ although I am close to Niall Ferguson's view â “ in The Pity of War, London, 1998. Am I (and Ferguson) right? Obviously I think I am but I am not so conceited (not quite, anyway) as to expect that others agree.
All interpretations, including those of jmacleod, pbi, and Michael Dorosh, etc, are 'right' in the eyes of those who make them. One of the key functions of any museum is to provide a mechanism through which everyone may make their own interpretations based, hopefully, on an objective presentation of the available evidence and that, presenting the available evidence, with interpretations â “ because it is people doing the presenting, not machines, is, I argue, the work, indeed the duty of scholars, some of whom might, also, be soldiers. In the end scholarship must 'win' because museums are not memorials â “ too many people make the serious mistake of confusing the two. We have ways and means to honour and remember those who fought 'our' wars; we need ways to learn about how wars affect us and how they helped shape our country and our society. Museums are one of the tools in the latter quest.â ?
I stick by that, obviously.
There are a lot of things which need improvement in the CWM â “ I am confident (and in a couple of cases have been reassured) that many are in hand, awaiting those ever scarce resources: money and experts' time. I have some personal views on what's good and bad at the CWM, including some thoughts on the art on display, I expressed my concerns to the museum staff; but my interpretation of history is no better than anyone else's so they will have to have to wait in the queue and some may be addressed, on their merits - if any, in due course.
Mr. MacLeod is adamant that the CWM must have a change in governance â “ to put control firmly in the hands of an, essentially, military Board of Trustees. On 12 May Mr. MacLeod informed us that he, his company and his associates are in the business of providing business plans for museums. He has also told us that his family is deeply and firmly tied to the Liberal Party of Canada. I have to wonder: is Mr. MacLeod angling for some government money, and is he using army.ca to drum up support? Perhaps he plans to do some consulting for his proposed new, Board which would be bereft of the insider knowledge resident in the Board of the Canadian Museum of Civilization â “ of course MacLeod's Board would also be weak in (but not entirely devoid of) scholarship, too, which is why I oppose his proposal.
Well at least you did not insult Clifford Chadderton or Peter Worthington. The rest of your post has
a number of positive points, but my focus is only on a much better facility, we have no commercial
interest in the Museum or this site. But I will say that the Canadian War Museum is medicore at
best and amateurish in execution - far too much public money was spent on the struture, which
will like the Confederation Centre in Charlottetown PEI, be expensive to heat,operate and upgrade
and will require subsidies forever. Industry will step back from a controversial facility, and perhaps
someone can explain to me why paintings of two former Aboriginal Canadian soldiers, of poor
execution and quality are hanging in a multi-million dollar edifice owned by the Government
of Canada, the same Liberal Government constantly attacked by Sussex 11 who provided the
money. The Honorable Barnet Danson PC MP was a Liberal Cabinet Minister - a great friend to
the Canadian Military, and a focal point (the theatre) in the Museum. MacLeod
a number of positive points, but my focus is only on a much better facility, we have no commercial
interest in the Museum or this site. But I will say that the Canadian War Museum is medicore at
best and amateurish in execution - far too much public money was spent on the struture, which
will like the Confederation Centre in Charlottetown PEI, be expensive to heat,operate and upgrade
and will require subsidies forever. Industry will step back from a controversial facility, and perhaps
someone can explain to me why paintings of two former Aboriginal Canadian soldiers, of poor
execution and quality are hanging in a multi-million dollar edifice owned by the Government
of Canada, the same Liberal Government constantly attacked by Sussex 11 who provided the
money. The Honorable Barnet Danson PC MP was a Liberal Cabinet Minister - a great friend to
the Canadian Military, and a focal point (the theatre) in the Museum. MacLeod
I guess I do attack the Grits--for the way they've shortchanged the CF. I rather thought that J. Macleod would agree with such complaints. I also know that Barney Danson was a Liberal--so what? So far as I know, I've not attacked him! (He's a good friend, so I'd not be likely to do so.) I also know there would not have been a new CWM without Danson's efforts.
I don't know what an aboriginal member of the Museum of Civilization Board would say about the 2 Kearns paintings. In my experience at CWM, the Board NEVER meddled in exhibitions; it's job was to help senior management shape policy. That's what a Board does.
Let me explain what the two paintings are doing at CWM, since J. Macleod asks. The Brown piece is in a large grouping showing individuals in war/the military. The Matchee is paired with a painting of Dallaire--showing the stresses of PKOs. They both make good sense to me in context. Both, in my view, are of high quality and well-executed.
Like Edward Campbell, I had begun to wonder about J. Macleod's motives. I was afraid if I said these things, I'd get slammed. So thank you, Mr Campbell, for saying what many must have been thinking.
Whatever else CWM is, it's not mediocre, J. Macleod notwithstanding. No one who has seen it could sensibly say that. Nothing that stirs people as it does could be called mediocre. However, it may be that CWM will require subsidies forever. What national museum imn any country, let alone ours, is self-supporting? Does that mean it shouldn't have been built? Better for the Govt to subsidize CWM, in my view, than advertising firms.
Once again, at last we have a first-rate national military museum. The carping of Macleod, Chadderton, and Worthington does them no credit. And the idea of a bogus CHRC complaint.... Jeesh!
I don't know what an aboriginal member of the Museum of Civilization Board would say about the 2 Kearns paintings. In my experience at CWM, the Board NEVER meddled in exhibitions; it's job was to help senior management shape policy. That's what a Board does.
Let me explain what the two paintings are doing at CWM, since J. Macleod asks. The Brown piece is in a large grouping showing individuals in war/the military. The Matchee is paired with a painting of Dallaire--showing the stresses of PKOs. They both make good sense to me in context. Both, in my view, are of high quality and well-executed.
Like Edward Campbell, I had begun to wonder about J. Macleod's motives. I was afraid if I said these things, I'd get slammed. So thank you, Mr Campbell, for saying what many must have been thinking.
Whatever else CWM is, it's not mediocre, J. Macleod notwithstanding. No one who has seen it could sensibly say that. Nothing that stirs people as it does could be called mediocre. However, it may be that CWM will require subsidies forever. What national museum imn any country, let alone ours, is self-supporting? Does that mean it shouldn't have been built? Better for the Govt to subsidize CWM, in my view, than advertising firms.
Once again, at last we have a first-rate national military museum. The carping of Macleod, Chadderton, and Worthington does them no credit. And the idea of a bogus CHRC complaint.... Jeesh!
Sussex 11 with his significant knowledge of the inner workings of Government is as aware as my
associates and I, long established aerospace and technology consultants (more than thirty years)
that the present Government is moving towards privitization and elimination of subsidies in the
operation of government services, particularly in the DND. Sussex 11 has a great deal of expertise
in a number of areas (read him all the time) but Museums is not one of them. Dr David Baird of
the National Museum of Science and Technology was the foremost expert anywhere on the
operation of Museums. The future of an unsubsidized Canadian War Museum must be predicated
on non-public support - meaning that the facility, like virtually all the Museums in the UK, has to
become a "living museum" - it is after all, and I think Edward Campbell and Sussex 11 will agree
a public resource which must to survive, change it's motivation and direction. Dave Baird was right
when he told me that "we need people to pay to come through the doors" - a significant private
sector operator of Museums is Vancouver based Jimmy Pattison, who operates commercial museums
for the bad word "profit" (Madame Tussaud's London UK, Ripley's Believe It or Not USA) Pattison
has said the same thing (we worked with the Pattison group to bring the Canadian National Aquarium
to Halifax NS, being built at this moment in Niagara Falls ON). The badly planned NS Museum of
Transportation, New Glaswgow NS suffered because not enough money was generated to pay
their Staff - so it had to shut down for months while money was found in the private sector. We
did not like what we saw in Ottawa - why such an ugly, very expensive buildiing? who was that
supposed to impress. It certainly did not impress Treasury Board. Despite what Edward Campbell
thinks we are only interested in a better, long lasting edifice. What we have seen does not fill
any of our guys with a warm fuzzy feeling. MacLeod
associates and I, long established aerospace and technology consultants (more than thirty years)
that the present Government is moving towards privitization and elimination of subsidies in the
operation of government services, particularly in the DND. Sussex 11 has a great deal of expertise
in a number of areas (read him all the time) but Museums is not one of them. Dr David Baird of
the National Museum of Science and Technology was the foremost expert anywhere on the
operation of Museums. The future of an unsubsidized Canadian War Museum must be predicated
on non-public support - meaning that the facility, like virtually all the Museums in the UK, has to
become a "living museum" - it is after all, and I think Edward Campbell and Sussex 11 will agree
a public resource which must to survive, change it's motivation and direction. Dave Baird was right
when he told me that "we need people to pay to come through the doors" - a significant private
sector operator of Museums is Vancouver based Jimmy Pattison, who operates commercial museums
for the bad word "profit" (Madame Tussaud's London UK, Ripley's Believe It or Not USA) Pattison
has said the same thing (we worked with the Pattison group to bring the Canadian National Aquarium
to Halifax NS, being built at this moment in Niagara Falls ON). The badly planned NS Museum of
Transportation, New Glaswgow NS suffered because not enough money was generated to pay
their Staff - so it had to shut down for months while money was found in the private sector. We
did not like what we saw in Ottawa - why such an ugly, very expensive buildiing? who was that
supposed to impress. It certainly did not impress Treasury Board. Despite what Edward Campbell
thinks we are only interested in a better, long lasting edifice. What we have seen does not fill
any of our guys with a warm fuzzy feeling. MacLeod
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I believe we all want exactly that. I for one was not a fan of having those paintings in the museum ( I have stated this in this thread). But, to use the Human rights commission to claim that they are racist, hoping that this angle will have them removed? A bit over the top for me...
What if you succeed? You will do more damage to the museum, as the outside world, motivated by the media will pick up;
"Canadian National War Museum Forced to remove Racist pictures of aboriginals"
Bad move jmacleod
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 6,274
- Points
- 1,360
jmacleod,
Have you been there yet?
Have you been there yet?
- Reaction score
- 20,671
- Points
- 1,260
jmacleod,
You seem to be posting like a drunken sailor - changing tacks without warning and generally sailing all over the place. You seem to have changed your end state several times, or is there more hidden rationale for your actions so far?
You made a rather unusual comment about the fact Matchee has not been convicted (his being mentally incompetant to come to trial seems to make you think that he woudl get off?) and you also posted that you thought that Brown would have gotten off if it had been a civilian court that had tried him. I as a serving soldier both then and now take issue with those statements. Firstly if you feel they should have gotten off, you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the military, the Geneva and Hague convensions and how they relate to the Laws of Land Warfare. They where both guilty of abusing, torturing and killing a prisoner that they where duty bound to protect.
Now you've cast disparaging comments about racism involved with the pictures of Brown and Matchee.
Your diatribe with the board and its composition is another issue where I start to lose you. You seem to spit out streams of 'data' some good some bad - but you dont seem to have compiled in any sort of logical order to allow the readers here to understant exactly what you want - and why. To me this looks like the Exxon Valdez cruising aimlessly looking for a sandbar to hit and spill its load.
Is your endstate the "living museum" concept - why? Just to cut public funding? Any what has your red herrings got to do with this - other than raise controversy and drive people to it like a train wrech that they just cannot turn away.
Cheers
Kevin
edit spelling (I was tired)
You seem to be posting like a drunken sailor - changing tacks without warning and generally sailing all over the place. You seem to have changed your end state several times, or is there more hidden rationale for your actions so far?
You made a rather unusual comment about the fact Matchee has not been convicted (his being mentally incompetant to come to trial seems to make you think that he woudl get off?) and you also posted that you thought that Brown would have gotten off if it had been a civilian court that had tried him. I as a serving soldier both then and now take issue with those statements. Firstly if you feel they should have gotten off, you have absolutely ZERO understanding of the military, the Geneva and Hague convensions and how they relate to the Laws of Land Warfare. They where both guilty of abusing, torturing and killing a prisoner that they where duty bound to protect.
Now you've cast disparaging comments about racism involved with the pictures of Brown and Matchee.
Your diatribe with the board and its composition is another issue where I start to lose you. You seem to spit out streams of 'data' some good some bad - but you dont seem to have compiled in any sort of logical order to allow the readers here to understant exactly what you want - and why. To me this looks like the Exxon Valdez cruising aimlessly looking for a sandbar to hit and spill its load.
Is your endstate the "living museum" concept - why? Just to cut public funding? Any what has your red herrings got to do with this - other than raise controversy and drive people to it like a train wrech that they just cannot turn away.
Cheers
Kevin
edit spelling (I was tired)
Kevin B means "drunken sailor". Former Canadian soldier, Matchee (and an Aboriginal) was not convicted
of any crime. Former soldier, Brown (and an Aboriginal) was convicted in a Military Court Martial, that is
tried for, what in law is an indictable offence before a court of amateurs, that is why most of the
GCM decisions are overturned on appeal by competent lawyers. My point never wavers,
although we go off into other areas of discussion - the paintings of Brown and Matchee should
not be on exhibition in the Canadian War Museum. It appears that Aboriginal soldiers are singled
out for possible contempt and negative opinions by the visiting public - the portraits serve no
useful purpose. That is the view of Mr. Chadderton and Mr Worthington, both distinguisdhed
former Canadian soldiers. Oh, in closing, the supertanker "Exxon Valdez" was not cruising aimlessly
was not "looking for a sandbar", did not in fact "hit" a sandbar, anymore than your comments
have changed my mind or our associates minds. MacLeod
of any crime. Former soldier, Brown (and an Aboriginal) was convicted in a Military Court Martial, that is
tried for, what in law is an indictable offence before a court of amateurs, that is why most of the
GCM decisions are overturned on appeal by competent lawyers. My point never wavers,
although we go off into other areas of discussion - the paintings of Brown and Matchee should
not be on exhibition in the Canadian War Museum. It appears that Aboriginal soldiers are singled
out for possible contempt and negative opinions by the visiting public - the portraits serve no
useful purpose. That is the view of Mr. Chadderton and Mr Worthington, both distinguisdhed
former Canadian soldiers. Oh, in closing, the supertanker "Exxon Valdez" was not cruising aimlessly
was not "looking for a sandbar", did not in fact "hit" a sandbar, anymore than your comments
have changed my mind or our associates minds. MacLeod
- Reaction score
- 20,671
- Points
- 1,260
True a vast amount of Court Martials are overturned on appeal - the Court Martial Appear Board consists of Federal Court Judges (I know two). Be that as it may Brown was convicted, and it was not overturned, and Matchee was determined not to be mentally competnant to stand trial. The fact is they where soliders who comitted crimes - trying to add the race card is a just adding smoke.
I agree with you that I find the inclusion of those painting to be in bad taste, but I think if anything you are creating a larger spectacle.
I agree with you that I find the inclusion of those painting to be in bad taste, but I think if anything you are creating a larger spectacle.
Kevin B: Suggest you go to Worthington today in the Toronto Sun, for another controversy in
the Canadian War Museum - about veneral disease (VD) rates in the 25 Infantry Brigade, which
was the Korean Brigade - as usual Worthington pin points the problem. What all of us are
concerned with is the arrogance of the bureaucrats who run the Canadian War Museum of behalf
of the Canadian Public - who have little or no empathy with the Canadian Military, or real motivation
about focusing Canadian military history which is unquestionably significant. So the fact that the
Aboriginal soldiers were singled out cannot be justified, nor has anyone told us why those particular
paintings are in the Museum, at all. They serve no useful purpose, other than to create controversy
- which could easily be avoided by removing them. MacLeod
the Canadian War Museum - about veneral disease (VD) rates in the 25 Infantry Brigade, which
was the Korean Brigade - as usual Worthington pin points the problem. What all of us are
concerned with is the arrogance of the bureaucrats who run the Canadian War Museum of behalf
of the Canadian Public - who have little or no empathy with the Canadian Military, or real motivation
about focusing Canadian military history which is unquestionably significant. So the fact that the
Aboriginal soldiers were singled out cannot be justified, nor has anyone told us why those particular
paintings are in the Museum, at all. They serve no useful purpose, other than to create controversy
- which could easily be avoided by removing them. MacLeod
- Reaction score
- 5,472
- Points
- 1,260
jmacleod said:
But, maybe a certain amount of controversy is just good marketing. It is, I believe, an old entertainment industry maxim that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
I wonder how many people, who might, otherwise, has given the place a pass, went because there was something controversial in the papers or on TV and then, once there, actually learned something?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
With a tip of the hat to Alex Blair;
" Letter to the editor - RE: Canadian War Museum (CWM) statistics on VD flawed
OTTAWA, July 12 /CNW Telbec/ - One of the several items for concern in
the exhibits in the new Canadian War Museum states that, in the Korean War,
41.4 percent of Canadians who served in that war contracted venereal disease.
Confronted with the information by officials of The Korea Veterans
Association of Canada, Joe Geurts, CEO of the CWM, agreed to remove the
offensive description. On examination, the government officials covered up
only part of the sign with the offensive statistic.
It is known, for example, that, although there was some VD, much of it
was due to prostitution while the veterans were on leave in Japan. Dr. Victor
Rabinovitch, President of the Museum of Civilization Corporation which
operates the CWM, states in a letter to the publisher of the Manitoba Korea
Veterans Association newsletter that the VD information "was taken from solid
scholarly sources, notably the work of Brent Watson."
Watson wrote a 180-page book titled The Far Eastern Tour. He quotes
Private Jacket Coates, whose comments, according to Watson, came from the war
diary of the 2nd Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.
Our research indicates there was no such person in the entire Canadian
Army by the name of Jacket Coates. He appears to be a figment of the
imagination of Rabinovitch and was invented in a novel by the late Lt-Col Herb
Wood, who commanded a battalion of the PPCLI in Korea. Quotes, according to
Rabinovitch, also come from a book titled The Private War of Jacket Coates.
Irrespective of whether Rabinovitch's sources are correct, we must be
critical of the CWM in posting the information in the first place. The
publisher of the Korea Veterans Association web site states that the statistic
is "disgusting, false and maligns every soldier who served."
The matter has reached high echelons. A Past President of KVA wrote to
the Korean Ambassador in Ottawa. We learned that the Korean government,
quietly, we suppose, is raising the issue with the Canadian government.
Retired Major Jacques Boire of the Royal 22nd Regiment wrote to Heritage
Minister Liza Frulla, stating that the signage was "an offense to the courage
and integrity shown by Canadians."
Korean veterans are demanding that the signage be eliminated in its
entirety. As Chairman of the 52-member National Council of Veteran
Associations, we go one step further. There are grounds, in our view, for the
Canadian government to offer an apology.
This kind of scurrilous attack, on extremely weak (if not nonexistent)
evidence of those who have written books on Korea, stands as a significant
insult not only to Korean veterans but to all Canadians who served. To have
contracted venereal disease is hardly concomitant with the purpose of CWM,
which is to tell Canadians the full story of war.
We cite no less an authority than Rudyard Kipling, famous British poet.
He is generally thought to be the author of the description that soldiers are
not plaster saints, but they take up the world's most dangerous profession: to
fight for their country against dictators who would take great joy in
criticizing those of us who are willing to lay down our lives.
Yours sincerely,
(signed)
H. Clifford Chadderton, CC, O.Ont., OStJ, CLJ, CAE, DCL, LLD
Chairman
I woncer if this is typical of the CWM research?
" Letter to the editor - RE: Canadian War Museum (CWM) statistics on VD flawed
OTTAWA, July 12 /CNW Telbec/ - One of the several items for concern in
the exhibits in the new Canadian War Museum states that, in the Korean War,
41.4 percent of Canadians who served in that war contracted venereal disease.
Confronted with the information by officials of The Korea Veterans
Association of Canada, Joe Geurts, CEO of the CWM, agreed to remove the
offensive description. On examination, the government officials covered up
only part of the sign with the offensive statistic.
It is known, for example, that, although there was some VD, much of it
was due to prostitution while the veterans were on leave in Japan. Dr. Victor
Rabinovitch, President of the Museum of Civilization Corporation which
operates the CWM, states in a letter to the publisher of the Manitoba Korea
Veterans Association newsletter that the VD information "was taken from solid
scholarly sources, notably the work of Brent Watson."
Watson wrote a 180-page book titled The Far Eastern Tour. He quotes
Private Jacket Coates, whose comments, according to Watson, came from the war
diary of the 2nd Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.
Our research indicates there was no such person in the entire Canadian
Army by the name of Jacket Coates. He appears to be a figment of the
imagination of Rabinovitch and was invented in a novel by the late Lt-Col Herb
Wood, who commanded a battalion of the PPCLI in Korea. Quotes, according to
Rabinovitch, also come from a book titled The Private War of Jacket Coates.
Irrespective of whether Rabinovitch's sources are correct, we must be
critical of the CWM in posting the information in the first place. The
publisher of the Korea Veterans Association web site states that the statistic
is "disgusting, false and maligns every soldier who served."
The matter has reached high echelons. A Past President of KVA wrote to
the Korean Ambassador in Ottawa. We learned that the Korean government,
quietly, we suppose, is raising the issue with the Canadian government.
Retired Major Jacques Boire of the Royal 22nd Regiment wrote to Heritage
Minister Liza Frulla, stating that the signage was "an offense to the courage
and integrity shown by Canadians."
Korean veterans are demanding that the signage be eliminated in its
entirety. As Chairman of the 52-member National Council of Veteran
Associations, we go one step further. There are grounds, in our view, for the
Canadian government to offer an apology.
This kind of scurrilous attack, on extremely weak (if not nonexistent)
evidence of those who have written books on Korea, stands as a significant
insult not only to Korean veterans but to all Canadians who served. To have
contracted venereal disease is hardly concomitant with the purpose of CWM,
which is to tell Canadians the full story of war.
We cite no less an authority than Rudyard Kipling, famous British poet.
He is generally thought to be the author of the description that soldiers are
not plaster saints, but they take up the world's most dangerous profession: to
fight for their country against dictators who would take great joy in
criticizing those of us who are willing to lay down our lives.
Yours sincerely,
(signed)
H. Clifford Chadderton, CC, O.Ont., OStJ, CLJ, CAE, DCL, LLD
Chairman
I woncer if this is typical of the CWM research?
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 428
- Points
- 760
I do not think tha pictures, the STD reports, should be the main view or display that people take home from the Museum.
I use to visit the old museum every chance I got, not sure i will visit the new one now. I do not think we should only display the good stuff , we should show some of the bad things that happen in wars. A lot of good things came out of wars and peackeeping and peace making missions. The Canadians who faught for peace and helped protect the peace should have a place to show the good and the bad together but I think it should be on a equal footing.
show the food we gave to the people, show the schools and other buildings we provided, show the mass graves that were found after we went in, show the living people we protected. show the paintings , the good ones, the bad ones and the ugly ones. just keep it in context we did not send boy scouts to do the job, we sent soldiers, depending on what side of the story your on, we sent the right unit or we sent the wrong unit.
The writing was on the wall for the Airborne, they were going out no matter what they did, budget cuts, lack of aircraft, lack of understanding by the leaders of the country, they did not know what the army needed to support an airborne unit. needed a mission, needed aircraft that would drop them and most of all needed to be respected. we lost our quick reaction unit, lost the unit we all joked about, but we lost the unit if you were 031 you wanted to be in. you wanted the wings, the smock, and the training.
I always thought no matter the group of people you put together there are going to be some bad apples among the good apples. They killed a person, some carrers were ruined, some Canadian history was made. I think we sent the right men for the job, if the politics would of stayed out of it, I think we would of come out of there smelling like roses.
there is never much said about another unit of paras that were from another NATO country with the same Iltis as us and how they were dealing with looters and tresspassers. they shot a few and story was told they hung them on the fence as a reminder.
But back to the topic, keep the paintings on display, and the std display, but make sure the people when they leave , come away with a positive thought of the men and women who served for freedom of others.
Opie ONe Out
I use to visit the old museum every chance I got, not sure i will visit the new one now. I do not think we should only display the good stuff , we should show some of the bad things that happen in wars. A lot of good things came out of wars and peackeeping and peace making missions. The Canadians who faught for peace and helped protect the peace should have a place to show the good and the bad together but I think it should be on a equal footing.
show the food we gave to the people, show the schools and other buildings we provided, show the mass graves that were found after we went in, show the living people we protected. show the paintings , the good ones, the bad ones and the ugly ones. just keep it in context we did not send boy scouts to do the job, we sent soldiers, depending on what side of the story your on, we sent the right unit or we sent the wrong unit.
The writing was on the wall for the Airborne, they were going out no matter what they did, budget cuts, lack of aircraft, lack of understanding by the leaders of the country, they did not know what the army needed to support an airborne unit. needed a mission, needed aircraft that would drop them and most of all needed to be respected. we lost our quick reaction unit, lost the unit we all joked about, but we lost the unit if you were 031 you wanted to be in. you wanted the wings, the smock, and the training.
I always thought no matter the group of people you put together there are going to be some bad apples among the good apples. They killed a person, some carrers were ruined, some Canadian history was made. I think we sent the right men for the job, if the politics would of stayed out of it, I think we would of come out of there smelling like roses.
there is never much said about another unit of paras that were from another NATO country with the same Iltis as us and how they were dealing with looters and tresspassers. they shot a few and story was told they hung them on the fence as a reminder.
But back to the topic, keep the paintings on display, and the std display, but make sure the people when they leave , come away with a positive thought of the men and women who served for freedom of others.
Opie ONe Out
I keep swearing to withdraw but inevitably something comes along to get me riled.
Let me see if I understand Mr Chadderton's letter. The new CWM had a statistic on VD among Korean War personnel--but it has now covered it up so it is no longer visible. So what's the problem now? Much of the VD was contracted on R&R in Japan. So? Who said it had been contracted in Korea? Third, in my own writing about Korea, I have made good use of the Jacket Coates novel (which I recommend to all, especially vets who will find their experiences faithfully mirrored) because it was written by LCol H.F. Wood who commanded a battalion there and then wrote the official history of Canadian army participation in Korea. I worked for Col Wood at DHist in the 1960s, and it was office gospel that everything that couldn't be put into the official history was in the novel. Clearly Chadderton has never read it.
Finally if, as Chadderton says, CWM's purpose is to tell the full story, how are VD rates not part of that story? If all that was in the Museum about Korea was this STD, then complain. But that's not the case at all.
For whatever reason, some people have launched a campaign to slag the new CWM, focussing on a tiny percentage of the art and exhibits and trying to have the museum tell a story that, frankly, would sanitize Canadian military history. Ours is a good history and it can withstand the exposure of a few warts. It's a great museum too, and it's the best exposition of our military history we will ever have. Stop carping, stop blaming the alleged (unproven) mindset of bureaucrats
and go see it. So far as I know, neither Chadderton nor Worthington has visited yet.
Let me see if I understand Mr Chadderton's letter. The new CWM had a statistic on VD among Korean War personnel--but it has now covered it up so it is no longer visible. So what's the problem now? Much of the VD was contracted on R&R in Japan. So? Who said it had been contracted in Korea? Third, in my own writing about Korea, I have made good use of the Jacket Coates novel (which I recommend to all, especially vets who will find their experiences faithfully mirrored) because it was written by LCol H.F. Wood who commanded a battalion there and then wrote the official history of Canadian army participation in Korea. I worked for Col Wood at DHist in the 1960s, and it was office gospel that everything that couldn't be put into the official history was in the novel. Clearly Chadderton has never read it.
Finally if, as Chadderton says, CWM's purpose is to tell the full story, how are VD rates not part of that story? If all that was in the Museum about Korea was this STD, then complain. But that's not the case at all.
For whatever reason, some people have launched a campaign to slag the new CWM, focussing on a tiny percentage of the art and exhibits and trying to have the museum tell a story that, frankly, would sanitize Canadian military history. Ours is a good history and it can withstand the exposure of a few warts. It's a great museum too, and it's the best exposition of our military history we will ever have. Stop carping, stop blaming the alleged (unproven) mindset of bureaucrats
and go see it. So far as I know, neither Chadderton nor Worthington has visited yet.
- Reaction score
- 6,274
- Points
- 1,360
Quote,
Finally if, as Chadderton says, CWM's purpose is to tell the full story, how are VD rates not part of that story? If all that was in the Museum about Korea was this STD, then complain. But that's not the case at all.
Aww, come on,
Does an adult really need to answer this question?
Sussex,
whether you see it or not, you are the doppleganger of those other two you mentioned. They will find something to criticize, just because.....and you will defend something, just because.
I admited, that once I toured it was a split on the paintings, and that as much as I loved the place there are {naturally}a few warts, you however seem to give off the opinion that the sun shines out the museums ass.
Finally if, as Chadderton says, CWM's purpose is to tell the full story, how are VD rates not part of that story? If all that was in the Museum about Korea was this STD, then complain. But that's not the case at all.
Aww, come on,
Does an adult really need to answer this question?
Sussex,
whether you see it or not, you are the doppleganger of those other two you mentioned. They will find something to criticize, just because.....and you will defend something, just because.
I admited, that once I toured it was a split on the paintings, and that as much as I loved the place there are {naturally}a few warts, you however seem to give off the opinion that the sun shines out the museums ass.
Actually, Journalist Worthington while serrving in Korea under Col Wood proofread the work of
fiction - I wonder how many people have read Col Wood's book? - the reality is that there are
decisions being made in the CWM bureaucracy that are are subject to criticism, because, although
I hate to say this, they are wrong - what a surprise. MacLeod
fiction - I wonder how many people have read Col Wood's book? - the reality is that there are
decisions being made in the CWM bureaucracy that are are subject to criticism, because, although
I hate to say this, they are wrong - what a surprise. MacLeod
Similar threads
