Dan Gardner: The next big war museum controversy (Canada)
A lot of people are upset that the Canadian War Museum finally surrendered to the veterans' lobby. Not me. I'm delighted. I've been itching to go through the museum's exhibits with Wite-Out and a magic marker and now, thanks to the veterans' successful campaign to put hurt feelings above scholarship, I should get my chance.
What is it I want to change? I've got a long list but this is a short column so let me skip the first gallery and go straight to the Boer War.
Here's how the museum casts the conflict that pitted the British Empire against the Dutch-descended Boers in South Africa: The Boers "... were not expected to survive for long against the world's greatest power. Pro-empire Canadians nevertheless urged their government to help. The war, they argued, pitted British freedom, justice and civilization against Boer backwardness."
"They argued"? What is the museum saying here? That others saw it differently? That many today may not agree?
It gets worse. Under the title "A War for Civilization?" -- note the outrageous question mark -- the museum tells visitors that "one of the key arguments for the intervention in South Africa was reform of Boer politics and society. It was comforting for Canadians to believe that Britain's war was about values rather than gold or territory."
The Canadian soldiers who sailed from Quebec City for South Africa were all volunteers and it's a safe bet that they believed -- to a man -- that they really were fighting for British freedom, justice and civilization against Boer backwardness. And it's an equally safe bet that at least some of those soldiers would have been offended that a national museum would raise the possibility that they were wrong.
Now, I have to admit that there aren't any factual errors in the museum's presentation on the Boer War. And it's true the museum merely noted that there was, and is, debate about the causes and aims of the war. It did not actually choose sides in that debate.
But exactly the same is true of the exhibit on the Second World War bombing campaign. A panel of historians who reviewed the exhibit found the museum did not make any factual errors. Nor did the museum take a position on the debate about the morality and effectiveness of the bombing campaign. It simply said there is a debate.
So the parallel between the exhibit on aerial bombing and the exhibit on the Boer War is exact. Or rather, it's almost exact. There is one difference.
Unlike veterans of the Second World War, those who fought in the Boer War are all dead. ...
Read entire article at Ottawa Citizen
What is it I want to change? I've got a long list but this is a short column so let me skip the first gallery and go straight to the Boer War.
Here's how the museum casts the conflict that pitted the British Empire against the Dutch-descended Boers in South Africa: The Boers "... were not expected to survive for long against the world's greatest power. Pro-empire Canadians nevertheless urged their government to help. The war, they argued, pitted British freedom, justice and civilization against Boer backwardness."
"They argued"? What is the museum saying here? That others saw it differently? That many today may not agree?
It gets worse. Under the title "A War for Civilization?" -- note the outrageous question mark -- the museum tells visitors that "one of the key arguments for the intervention in South Africa was reform of Boer politics and society. It was comforting for Canadians to believe that Britain's war was about values rather than gold or territory."
The Canadian soldiers who sailed from Quebec City for South Africa were all volunteers and it's a safe bet that they believed -- to a man -- that they really were fighting for British freedom, justice and civilization against Boer backwardness. And it's an equally safe bet that at least some of those soldiers would have been offended that a national museum would raise the possibility that they were wrong.
Now, I have to admit that there aren't any factual errors in the museum's presentation on the Boer War. And it's true the museum merely noted that there was, and is, debate about the causes and aims of the war. It did not actually choose sides in that debate.
But exactly the same is true of the exhibit on the Second World War bombing campaign. A panel of historians who reviewed the exhibit found the museum did not make any factual errors. Nor did the museum take a position on the debate about the morality and effectiveness of the bombing campaign. It simply said there is a debate.
So the parallel between the exhibit on aerial bombing and the exhibit on the Boer War is exact. Or rather, it's almost exact. There is one difference.
Unlike veterans of the Second World War, those who fought in the Boer War are all dead. ...