Wolfe & Montcalm are fictional.
ManifestDestiny @ Wed May 18, 2005 3:53 pm
So you are saying James Fenimore Cooper is a liar? LMAO
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:00 pm
W.Bush Esquire W.Bush Esquire:
How about American History? Is that a conspiracy?
Conspiracy sounds like a CIA plot.
Look at it like this.
An old guy lives in a neighborhood; a bit of a curmudgeon. He dies. Everyone in the neighborhood says "He was a nice guy." ---Conspiracy like this.
Sure. American History, too. Had they lost the Revolution, they would have been hung as traitors and nobody remember their names.
History in particular as those stories, legends, and myths that are the stories that define national identity are especially fictionalized. They even change over time. Less than a century ago, people celebrated the Confederation negotiations as the beginning of Canada. That story began to be seen as not meeting the needs of a more independent Canada. Thus the more recent emphasis on the War of 1812 or other matters.
W.Bush Esquire W.Bush Esquire:
History as a whole is not real?
Of course not.
You're a grown up. You're entitled to your own opinions of Wolfe, Montcalm and MacDonald and Cartier.
(Notice, he did not say "events" are not real. He said "history" not real.)
.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:02 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
... But YOU wrote that Montcalm and Wolfe were COMPLETE CREATURES OF FICTION. ...
Name one thing you know about them that didn't come to you via someone else's stories.
.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:05 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
What are you? Some shitty imitation of the Emperor from Star Wars?
No. I'm the guy who outed you as a liar in the thread "A new Canada."
.
Tman1 @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:05 pm
$1:
That's not what I said.
All events are created. They're all fictionalizations. That doesn't mean that things don't happen. Take the Plains of Abraham. Had the French landed 60,000 troops the next year, Montcalm would have been just a 'temporary setback' the year before.
I never said Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED. That's what Mustang1 accuses me of, but he's too stupid to understand anything beyond utter literalism. (I have no obligation to defend a position he wants to force on me.)
But anything we know about them is created story. Even if someone were to hand you a pair of shoes and said to you that they were Montcalm's shoes, how can you know that that's true? There's plenty of 'actual artifacts' in archives and museums that are fakes. The best you could do is some CSI-type research and find that they have a manufacture of other mid-1700's shoes, et c., et c. That it was possible or not.
The moment you get to characterization of an event : good, bad, right, wrong, intelligent, stupid, it's all just fiction.
If Wolfe had come back that night abord ship and wrote "I have defeated the French." Is that fact he's reporting, or story he hopes will be true?
Not : nothing happened.
Not : it is impossible to characterize what happened.
But : all characterization is story and fiction.
All events are created. They're all fictionalizations. That doesn't mean that things don't happen. Take the Plains of Abraham. Had the French landed 60,000 troops the next year, Montcalm would have been just a 'temporary setback' the year before.
I never said Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED. That's what Mustang1 accuses me of, but he's too stupid to understand anything beyond utter literalism. (I have no obligation to defend a position he wants to force on me.)
But anything we know about them is created story. Even if someone were to hand you a pair of shoes and said to you that they were Montcalm's shoes, how can you know that that's true? There's plenty of 'actual artifacts' in archives and museums that are fakes. The best you could do is some CSI-type research and find that they have a manufacture of other mid-1700's shoes, et c., et c. That it was possible or not.
The moment you get to characterization of an event : good, bad, right, wrong, intelligent, stupid, it's all just fiction.
If Wolfe had come back that night abord ship and wrote "I have defeated the French." Is that fact he's reporting, or story he hopes will be true?
Not : nothing happened.
Not : it is impossible to characterize what happened.
But : all characterization is story and fiction.
$1:
All events are created. They're all fictionalizations. That doesn't mean that things don't happen. Take the Plains of Abraham. Had the French landed 60,000 troops the next year, Montcalm would have been just a 'temporary setback' the year before.
All events are created yet they are lies... Fictionalizations. BUT it doesnt mean it DIDNT happen... Is that not a contradiction? Created, yet not created...
$1:
I never said Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED. That's what Mustang1 accuses me of, but he's too stupid to understand anything beyond utter literalism. (I have no obligation to defend a position he wants to force on me.)
I never stated that YOU stated that Wolfe and Montcalm existed, I said EVENTS. YOU say these events are fictionalized, I say the proof is due to soldiers experiences. They fight blood and toil, death near nigh and YOU think they will Fabricate some battle? Fictionalize it?
$1:
But anything we know about them is created story. Even if someone were to hand you a pair of shoes and said to you that they were Montcalm's shoes, how can you know that that's true? There's plenty of 'actual artifacts' in archives and museums that are fakes. The best you could do is some CSI-type research and find that they have a manufacture of other mid-1700's shoes, et c., et c. That it was possible or not.
No its not a created story. You cant learn from mistakes from a fictional story. That is what History is, a learning process. Why would Montcalms shoes be handed to me? leather doesnt last that long. Besides, dont they have DNA tracing now or something? Thats exactly what archaeologists DO, CSI type investigating.
Believe me Jaime, I think I see where you are going with this(is it real or not real, is it true) but as a Historian, I must take this side of the issue. That is the primary job of a historian is FINDING the truth.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:15 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
That's not what I said.
All events are created. They're all fictionalizations. That doesn't mean that things don't happen. Take the Plains of Abraham. Had the French landed 60,000 troops the next year, Montcalm would have been just a 'temporary setback' the year before.
I never said Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED. That's what Mustang1 accuses me of, but he's too stupid to understand anything beyond utter literalism. (I have no obligation to defend a position he wants to force on me.)
But anything we know about them is created story. Even if someone were to hand you a pair of shoes and said to you that they were Montcalm's shoes, how can you know that that's true? There's plenty of 'actual artifacts' in archives and museums that are fakes. The best you could do is some CSI-type research and find that they have a manufacture of other mid-1700's shoes, et c., et c. That it was possible or not.
The moment you get to characterization of an event : good, bad, right, wrong, intelligent, stupid, it's all just fiction.
If Wolfe had come back that night abord ship and wrote "I have defeated the French." Is that fact he's reporting, or story he hopes will be true?
Not : nothing happened.
Not : it is impossible to characterize what happened.
But : all characterization is story and fiction.
All events are created. They're all fictionalizations. That doesn't mean that things don't happen. Take the Plains of Abraham. Had the French landed 60,000 troops the next year, Montcalm would have been just a 'temporary setback' the year before.
All events are created. They're all fictionalizations. That doesn't mean that things don't happen. Take the Plains of Abraham. Had the French landed 60,000 troops the next year, Montcalm would have been just a 'temporary setback' the year before.
I never said Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED. That's what Mustang1 accuses me of, but he's too stupid to understand anything beyond utter literalism. (I have no obligation to defend a position he wants to force on me.)
But anything we know about them is created story. Even if someone were to hand you a pair of shoes and said to you that they were Montcalm's shoes, how can you know that that's true? There's plenty of 'actual artifacts' in archives and museums that are fakes. The best you could do is some CSI-type research and find that they have a manufacture of other mid-1700's shoes, et c., et c. That it was possible or not.
The moment you get to characterization of an event : good, bad, right, wrong, intelligent, stupid, it's all just fiction.
If Wolfe had come back that night abord ship and wrote "I have defeated the French." Is that fact he's reporting, or story he hopes will be true?
Not : nothing happened.
Not : it is impossible to characterize what happened.
But : all characterization is story and fiction.
All events are created. They're all fictionalizations. That doesn't mean that things don't happen. Take the Plains of Abraham. Had the French landed 60,000 troops the next year, Montcalm would have been just a 'temporary setback' the year before.
All events are created yet they are lies... Fictionalizations. BUT it doesnt mean it DIDNT happen...
Fictionalization doesn't mean lie. Lies are intentional distortions. Postmodern history recognizes that unintentional distortions happen to everything.
---And I'm not saying events didn't happen. Right a few lines above that, that's exactly what I say. ---And that's what I say here next.
Tman1 Tman1:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
I never said Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED. That's what Mustang1 accuses me of, but he's too stupid to understand anything beyond utter literalism. (I have no obligation to defend a position he wants to force on me.)
I never stated that YOU stated that Wolfe and Montcalm existed, I said EVENTS. YOU say these events are fictionalized, I say they are not due to soldiers experiences. They fight blood and toil, death near and YOU think they will Fabricate some battle? Fictionalize it?
Fabricate=make up.
Fictionalize=alter through their memories and even the act of recording, much less trying to understand 250 years later
Fabricate? No. Fictionalize? yes.
Shoes? There's 2,000 year old shoe leather preserved in museums, and far older as well.---but maybe not the best example.
.
Mustang1 @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:25 pm
DODGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s # 2! Keep it up, loser, as your pathetic attempt at cowering behind semantics won’t save your historically unaware ass. I won. Dayseed won. Tman1 won. Hell…who hasn’t beat you like a rented mule. This is the intellectual equivalent of a gangbang, but you’ll be the only one hurting in the morning.
Let’s revisit some of your finer, glowing achievements in idiocy:
You wrote, ““I'll say it again: Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. They are complete creatures of fiction.” You didn’t intimate anything other than they are imaginary figures – you chose the words, dummy, not me. You tried, poorly I might add, your hand at the philosophy of history and got your ass schooled by me. Don’t believe me? Who cares?!?!?!? Just look at the myriad of relevant posts I’ve launched at you and all you do is whine like a little suck. Keep dodging – you have a host of others that are waiting for you to address you moronic assertion.
$1:
“But let me repeat, this does not mean that nothing happened. It does mean that ---from the very first thought about an event--- people necessarily alter what it is they think about.”
You said Wolfe and Montcalm were fictional. You didn’t say anything about the events being open to subjective errors (I have written numerous times that, “He, in is infinite ignorance, has likely erred in misunderstanding the differences between objective and subjective components of historical model construction. He probably wanted to say that there are SOME subjective elements present in the Wolfe/Montcalm model (again, I already inquired about this, but was rebuffed by the dullard through ignoring), but its core is objective truth and just because some components are skewed, it doesn’t render the entire model erroneous – it doesn’t sign the death warrant for the discipline of history – it merely outlines a rudimentary issue with historical model construction and interpretation (one that first-year history students are already aware of).” Why not comment on this? Hmm…this seems to be addressing the fact that when someone of your limited intellect tries to wax philosophical about something beyond his meagre understanding, he often falls flat on his face. Keep it up, dullard – you are making me look great!
$1:
“Unless, of course, you're Mustang1 and Dayseed, who are completely convinced of their own total knowledge.”
All I’m sure of is that you don’t know your ass from a hole in ground when it comes to historical discourse. Don’t believe me? Who cares? Your garbled, aped posts speak for themselves (and that language is “dummy”, by the way)
$1:
“Do you realize that every time you start a post with
DODGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that it's a perfect indicator of when you don't understand something?”
DODGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that it's a perfect indicator of when you don't understand something?”
Then stop running away from the salient points, you chicken shit. Besides, what don’t I understand? This is coming from the intellectually stunted dullard that Xeroxes other’s work and then is so academically incompetent that he can’t even make the link to his original assertion that, “Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. They are complete creatures of fiction.” This reeks of projection.
$1:
“Every time you accuse someone of dodging, it's always because the issue is over your head. If you can't follow the posts, you shouldn't interrupt with accusations.”
Damn, you can’t even follow your circuitous, mangled logic. Why hold me to a higher standard? You won’t debate me on point – you won’t concede the fact that you messed up in your original assertion that Wolfe/Montcalm don’t exist and you won’t admit (although your actions do speak louder than words) that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about, what your posts are talking about, what your Xeroxes are talking about or what the voices in your puny pinhead are talking about.
$1:
“Follow your hate, Mustang1”
Thanks, Palpatine, but it was better when Lucas wrote it. Besides, my little faux Jedi, I don’t hate you – I just help you matter here. I’m here to give you relevance. Damn, where’s my “Forum Public Service” medal? I literally provide a reason for this little turd to exist on this forum – without me; he’d slip back to relative obscurity.
$1:
“ I never said Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED. That's what Mustang1 accuses me of, but he's too stupid to understand anything beyond utter literalism. (I have no obligation to defend a position he wants to force on me.)
Uhhh…what is, “Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. They are complete creatures of fiction”?!?!?!?!? You clearly intimated that they were imaginary or why chose those specific words??!??!???!!? Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Bob Barker, can someone please help this poor stupid creature learn how to articulate himself! Please.
Again, dodge this, coward.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:25 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
Believe me Jaime, I think I see where you are going with this(is it real or not real, is it true) but as a Historian, I must take this side of the issue. That is the primary job of a historian is FINDING the truth.
I think that your instinct is good.
The best that postmodern theorization can do is place a huge qualifier on what we CAN know about the past.
It can also lop off a huge part of debate, in, I think, a good way.
"Who won on the Plains of Abraham and how?" is a good historical question.
"Do French-canadians DESERVE independence today based on what happened on the Plains of Abraham 250 years ago?" is tantamount to insanity.
.
Mustang1 @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:33 pm
Again, I challenge Jaime_Souviens to back up his original assertion that Montcalm and Wolfe are fictional characters.
I consistently asked him to address the following (it’s a fair historical challenge),
“You actually believe that there are alleged truths in history? EVERYTHING is open to interpretation? Perhaps the Franco-Prussian war didn’t happen, according to your erroneous logic? Maybe there was a WWII, but some are still looking into it? Canada “might have” landed on the beaches of Normandy in 1944? Holy Christ – why don’t you demonstrate how any of those events didn’t occur? Why not enlighten the rest of us (I’m sure historians are keen to see objective relativism at work in their discipline) as to how one can explain away Wolfe and Montcalm’s engagement on the Plains of Abraham on September 13, 1759. Evidently, you think it could be a fictional event?”
Secondly,
“Stop aping other’s work and demonstrate exactly how Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED!!!!!!!!! Again I wrote, “According to your attempt at pseudo-intellectualism, countless historians have erred in concluding that a battle occurred on September 13, 1759 on the Plains of Abraham. Renowned historians from Stacey (Quebec, 1759: The Siege and the Battle – look it up, dullard) to Chartard, Parker and Colton have all erred in their conclusion about the existence of the battle, the war, the individuals and the aftermath? You are right and orthodox history is wrong? Prove it. The onus is on you to demonstrate your erroneous supposition that Wolfe and Montaclm’s engagement was a fictional event (I hope you aren’t mixing this up with historiographical analysis as that result in a further humiliation for you). You demonstrate the major flaws in the standard historical narrative” Stop hiding behind other’s work and make your moronic assault on orthodox history – we’ll all wait as this is like watching an academic train wreck – we just want to see you squashed like the insignificant bug that you are.”
He dodges with such regularity that it’s second nature, but I’ll hold him to his original assertion. I won’t let him squirm away. I won’t let him obfuscate the issue with his garbled logic. I won’t let him sully good historical study with his bastardization of its historiographical elements. In essence, I won’t let this worm get away with his disingenuous garbage until he admits his litany of errors. Until then, I’ll provide a forum public service and allow him to have relevance (just a little, though) 
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:38 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Again, I challenge Jaime_Souviens to back up his original assertion that Montcalm and Wolfe are fictional characters.
Nope. Never said that. You're deliberately misrepresenting the debate.
And you must know better, therefore...
You're as dishonest as Dayseed.
.
Mustang1 @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:47 pm
Yet another Dodge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s #3
$1:
“Why those exact words? 'Cause I know it aggravates you.
I've been pushing your buttons for a week and you're too stupid to figure it out.”
I've been pushing your buttons for a week and you're too stupid to figure it out.”
Nope. Nice try – you tried your hand at intellectual discourse (well, you stumbled about at any rate) and got thoroughly schooled by me in the process. Rationalize it any way you want, I’ve made you look like a first-rate hack (well, you did most of the work) and now you are desperately trying to salvage your crumbling point (hell, that’s being generous). Won’t work. Your juvenile tactics are rather transparent – you can’t beat me, so you’ll resort to the “I-always-meant-to-appear-stupid-and-ignorant” defence as a fallback? Jesus, Joseph, Mary and Bob Barker, do you honestly believe people will fall for that? Damn – I guess that’s how you pitiful excuse for an intellect operates. Sad. Hey, how’s the nosebleed? Dummy.
Besides, others have questions here as well – why not address them too? Poor dummy is becoming overwhelmed and can’t keep up? Well, too bad because no one cares. Damn I’m good – I’m kicking ass and changing lives (in your case, I’m also making you matter).
Mustang1 @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:51 pm
Again, I challenge Jaime_Souviens to back up his original assertion that Montcalm and Wolfe are fictional characters.
He initially wrote, “Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. They are complete creatures of fiction.”
I consistently asked him to address the following (it’s a fair historical challenge),
“You actually believe that there are alleged truths in history? EVERYTHING is open to interpretation? Perhaps the Franco-Prussian war didn’t happen, according to your erroneous logic? Maybe there was a WWII, but some are still looking into it? Canada “might have” landed on the beaches of Normandy in 1944? Holy Christ – why don’t you demonstrate how any of those events didn’t occur? Why not enlighten the rest of us (I’m sure historians are keen to see objective relativism at work in their discipline) as to how one can explain away Wolfe and Montcalm’s engagement on the Plains of Abraham on September 13, 1759. Evidently, you think it could be a fictional event?”
Secondly,
“Stop aping other’s work and demonstrate exactly how Wolfe and Montcalm NEVER EXISTED!!!!!!!!! Again I wrote, “According to your attempt at pseudo-intellectualism, countless historians have erred in concluding that a battle occurred on September 13, 1759 on the Plains of Abraham. Renowned historians from Stacey (Quebec, 1759: The Siege and the Battle – look it up, dullard) to Chartard, Parker and Colton have all erred in their conclusion about the existence of the battle, the war, the individuals and the aftermath? You are right and orthodox history is wrong? Prove it. The onus is on you to demonstrate your erroneous supposition that Wolfe and Montaclm’s engagement was a fictional event (I hope you aren’t mixing this up with historiographical analysis as that result in a further humiliation for you). You demonstrate the major flaws in the standard historical narrative” Stop hiding behind other’s work and make your moronic assault on orthodox history – we’ll all wait as this is like watching an academic train wreck – we just want to see you squashed like the insignificant bug that you are.”
He dodges with such regularity that it’s second nature, but I’ll hold him to his original assertion. I won’t let him squirm away. I won’t let him obfuscate the issue with his garbled logic. I won’t let him sully good historical study with his bastardization of its historiographical elements. In essence, I won’t let this worm get away with his disingenuous garbage until he admits his litany of errors. Until then, I’ll provide a forum public service and allow him to have relevance (just a little, though)
Mustang1 @ Wed May 18, 2005 4:55 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Again, I challenge Jaime_Souviens to back up his original assertion that Montcalm and Wolfe are fictional characters.
Nope. Never said that. You're deliberately misrepresenting the debate.
And you must know better, therefore...
You're as dishonest as Dayseed.
.
Wait a second, didn’t he write “Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. They are complete creatures of fiction.”?!??!?!?!?!?
How am I being dishonest? Go ahead; let’s see you diffuse this potential bomb!
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 18, 2005 5:03 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
...(multicolored nonsense)...
Look, you already lost this debate, pages ago.
Time to realize that it's over.
.
Jaime_Souviens @ Wed May 18, 2005 5:04 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Again, I challenge Jaime_Souviens to back up his original assertion that Montcalm and Wolfe are fictional characters.
Nope. Never said that. You're deliberately misrepresenting the debate.
And you must know better, therefore...
You're as dishonest as Dayseed.
.
Wait a second, didn’t he write “Wolfe and Montcalm were fictitious. They are complete creatures of fiction.”?!??!?!?!?!?
How am I being dishonest? Go ahead; let’s see you diffuse this potential bomb!
The two sentences don't say the same thing, idiot.
Read them.
.