Un document intense, On les appelait les marraines. Des groupes ethniques et religieux vivaient sur le Levant pendant des Comment se rendre invisible en ? Chronique d'une petite entreprise pas comme les autres. Depuis , aux quatre coins de la France, on frappe des monnaies locales.
Ils ont entre 20 et 27 ans. De sortir de blocages physiques ou psychologiques devenus trop lourds dans notre vie Le Tribunal pour enfants de Coutances, en Normandie, nous ouvre ses portes. Que deviennent ces mineurs? Dis-moi qui te coache et je te dirai qui tu es.
Oh no, there's been an error
Ce documentaire doit permettre Je suis journaliste. Un soulagement, mais surtout, une angoisse. Voici les histoires de Bernard, Michel et Albert, leurs Le film retrace ce voyage de deux mois : une immersion en profondeur dans un univers complexe et difficilement accessible. Et avant la frite, il y a la pomme de terre. Ils viennent des 5 continents. Ils partagent une passion commune, la cuisine. Nous allons les suivre plusieurs semaines dans ce grand nord au large du cercle polaire loin au Signes particuliers : Atypique, subversif, productif pas moins de films au compteur.
Il est purement Quel charisme! Qu'est ce qu'un zombie? Que faire en cas d'attaque? C'est une occasion rare, qui nous permet de rencontrer les stars du monde Leur passion : le chant des oiseaux. Le Tribunal pour Enfants de Coutances, en Normandie, nous ouvre ses portes. Que se passe-t-il en France? Comment accepter Le business de la Pour les adoptants comme pour les Ils cherchent des solutions. A quoi ressemble la vie de ces petits cracks? Ilan Zajtmann a 10 ans. Morgan Detrez a 11 ans.
Ils ont 15 ans nous font partager leur quotidien, leurs joies et leurs peines. Au Zimbabwe, la croissance des black bass est exceptionnelle. Le Zimbabwe peut-il accueillir le prochain record du Monde? Les deux ont une passion commune : la chasse. Un petit Un carnet de voyage qui donne la parole aux chasseurs, aux scientifiques et aux protectionnistes.
Ce film raconte les souvenirs et le quotidien de cinq paysans des espaces de Arnaud de Gascogne est un film portrait, un Guillaume Durand a 28 ans. A travers ses Ce film tout de mouvements, est cousin du road movie. On dit souvent que le sanglier est une chasse clanique. Les trois hommes ont leur bateau dans le port d'Hendaye, dernier port de la Veneur et cavalier? Les liens entre le cheval de sport et le cheval de chasse sont plus rares qu'on ne pourrait le penser. On ne les voit que la nuit, dans les phares, ou le matin, quand ils rentrent se remiser.
Comment font cerfs, sangliers et chevreuils pour vivre sur de plus petites surfaces, aux abords des Nous suivons Marc Monnet Ecoles de chasse, La Bielorussie est devenue le nouvel Eldorado des amateurs de battues. Film de querelles bon enfant, de mots choisis, de chamaillerie fine, Eric contre Jean, dans cette ambiance Ce pays aux dimensions vertigineuses, offre tous les paysages.
Ce film nous propose un Un tableau de chasse Un bel animal. Quatre amis. Mais son entourage lui a fait confiance. Il est de ces hommes qui se sont construits seuls. Comment faire passer le cheval de partenaire de loisir, en partenaire de travail? Une haie de 1, Ce film est aussi Franck, Giuseppe In order to provide an answer, the content and meanings of the three main models or varieties of the modern ethnic show —commercial ethnological exhibitions, colonial exhibitions and missionary exhibitions— will be studied.
Commercial ethnological exhibitions were managed by private entrepreneurs, who very often acted as de facto owners of the individuals they exhibited. With the seemingly-noble purpose of bringing the inhabitants of exotic and faraway lands closer to the public and placing them under the scrutiny of anthropologists and scholarly minds, these individuals organised events with a rather carnival-like air, whose sole purpose was very simple: to make money.
Such exhibitions were held more frequently than their colonial equivalents, which they predated and for which they served as an inspiration. Even in the case of overseas superpowers, commercial exhibitions were held more regularly than the strictly-colonial variety, although it is true that they sometimes overlapped and can be difficult to distinguish from one another. Almost all of these exhibitions attracted their audiences with a clever combination of racial spectacle, erotism and a few drops of anthropological science, although there was no single recipe for a successful show.
Dances, leaps, chants, shouts, and the blood of sacrificed animals were the fundamental components of these events, although they were also part of colonial exhibitions. For decades the most admired shows on European soil were organised by Carl Hagenbeck — , a businessman from Hamburg who was a seasoned wild animal showman Ames, His greatest success was founded on a truly spectacular innovation: the simultaneous exhibition in one space a zoo or other outdoor enclosure of wild animals and a group of natives, both supposedly from the same territory, in a setting that recreated the environment of their place of origin.
The first exhibition of this type, organised in , was a great success, despite the relatively low level of exoticism of the individuals displayed: a group of Sami Lap men and women accompanied by some reindeer. They tended to combine displays of people and animals and took place in zoos, so the analogy could not be clearer. Furthermore, the performances of the exhibited peoples were limited to songs, dances and rituals, and for the most part their activities consisted of little more than day-to-day tasks and activities. Therefore, little importance was attached to their knowledge or skills, but rather to the scrutiny of their gestures, their distinctive bodies and behaviours, which were invariably exotic but not always wild.
In fact, the natives were always employed and seem to have received fair treatment. Likewise, their display was based upon a premise of exoticism rather than savagery, in which key ideas of difference, faraway lands and adventure were ultimately exalted. In some instances for example, with people from India and Ceylon their greatest appeal was their almost-fantastic exoticism, with their rich costumes and ritual gestures being regarded as remarkable and sophisticated.
Nevertheless, on many other occasions, people were displayed for their distinctiveness and supposed primitivism, as was the case on the dramatic tour of the Inuit Abraham Ulrikab and his family, from the Labrador Peninsula, all of whom fell ill and died on their journey due to a lack of appropriate vaccination. This is undoubtedly one of the best-documented commercial exhibitions, not because of an abundance of details concerning its organisation, but owing to the existence of several letters and a brief diary written by Ulrikab himself Lutz, As can easily be imagined, it is absolutely exceptional to find information originating from one of the very individuals who featured in an ethnic show; not an alleged oral testimony collected by a third party, but their own actual voice.
The vast majority of such people did not know the language of their exhibitors and, even if they knew enough to communicate, it is highly unlikely that they would have been able to write in it. All of this, coupled with the fact that the documents have been preserved and remain accessible, is almost a miracle.
However, in spite the tragic fate of Ulrikab and his family, other contemporary ethnic shows were far more exploitative and brutal. This was the case with several exhibitions that toured Europe towards the end of the s, whose victims included Fuegians, Inuits, primitive Africans especially Bushmen and Pygmies or Australian aboriginal peoples. Some were complex and relatively sophisticated and included the recreation of native villages; in others, the entrepreneur simply portrayed his workers with their traditional clothes and weapons, emphasising their supposedly primitive condition.
A highly-lucrative business camouflaged beneath a halo of anthropological scientifism, the exhibitions were organised by the director of the Jardin himself, the naturalist Albert Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire Coutancier and Barthe, ; Mason, 19—54 ; David, n. This purported scientific and educational institution enjoyed the attention of French anthropologists for a time; however, after , the Anthropological Society in Paris distanced itself from something that was little more than it appeared to be: a spectacle for popular recreation which was hard to justify from an ethical point of view.
In the case of many private enterprises from the s and s, in particular, shows can be described as moving away from notions of fantasy, adventure and exotism and towards the most brutal forms of exploitation. However, despite what has been said about France, Qureshi — highlights the role that ethnologists and anthropologists and their study societies played in Great Britain in approving commercial exhibitions of this sort. This enabled exhibitions to claim legitimacy as spaces for scientific research, visitor education and, of course, the advancement of the colonial enterprise. Formal contracts did exist and legal control became increasingly widespread, especially in Great Britain, Qureshi, as the nineteenth century progressed.
It is also evident, nevertheless, that this contractual relationship could not mask the dominating, exploitative and almost penitentiary conditions of the bonds created. Whether Inuit, Bushmen, Australians, Pygmies, Samoans or Fuegians, it is hard to accept that all contracted peoples were aware of the implications of this legal binding with their employer. Whilst most were not captured or kidnapped although this was documented on more than one occasion it is reasonable to be skeptical about the voluntary nature of the commercial relationship.
Moreover, those very same contracts which they were probably unable to understand in the first place committed the natives to conditions of travel, work and accommodation which were not always satisfactory. Very often their lives could be described as confined, not only when performances were taking place, but also when they were over. Exhibited individuals were very rarely given leave to move freely around the towns that the exhibitions visited.
The exploitative and inhuman aspects of some of these spectacles were particularly flagrant when they included children, who either formed part of the initial contingent of people, or swelled the ranks of the group when they were born on tour. On the one hand, the more primitive the peoples exhibited were, the more brutal their exhibition became and the circumstances in which it took place grew more painful.
This was true of certain African groups who were particularly resistant to colonial domination, with the Ashanti being a case in point. In spite of this, their subordinate position did not change. There was, however, a certain type of commercial show in which the relations between the employer and the employees went beyond the merely commercial.
More professionalised shows often required natives to demonstrate skills and give performances that would appeal to the audience. This was the case in some of the more serious and elaborate circus contexts and dramatised spectacles, the most notable of which was the acclaimed Wild West show. Directed by William Frederick Cody — , the famous Buffalo Bill, the show featured cowboys, Mexicans, and members of various Native American ethnic groups Kasson, This attraction, and many others that followed in the wake of its success, could be considered the predecessors of present-day theme park shows.
Many of the shows which continued to endure during the interwar period were in some measure similar to those of the nineteenth century, although they were unable to match the popularity of yesteryear. Whilst the stages were still set with reproduction native villages, as had been the case in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century, the exhibition and presentation of natives acquired a more fair-like and circus-like character, which harked back to the spectacles of the early-nineteenth century.
Although it seems contradictory, colonial exhibitions at this time were in fact much larger and more numerous, as we shall see in the following section. It was precisely then, in the mids, that Nazi Germany, a very modern country with the most intensely-racist government, produced an ethnic show which illustrates the complexity of the human zoo phenomenon. The Deutsche Afrika-Schau German African Show provides an excellent example of the peculiar game which was played between owners, employees and public administrators, concerning the display of exotic human beings. Originally a private and strictly commercial business, it soon became a peculiar semi-official event in which African and Samoan men and women, resident in Germany, were legally employed to take part.
Complicated and unstable after its Nazification, the show aimed to facilitate the racial control of its participants while serving as a mechanism of ideological indoctrination and colonial propaganda. Incapable of profiting from the show, the Nazi regime would eventually abolish it. After the Second World War, ethnic shows entered a phase of obvious decline. They were no longer of interest as a platform for the wild and exotic, mainly due to increasing competition from new and more accessible channels of entertainment, ranging from cinema to the beginnings of overseas tourism within Europe and beyond.
While the occasional spectacle tried to profit from the ancient curiosity about the morbid and the unusual as late as the s and even the s, they were little more than crude and clumsy representations, which generated little interest among the public. Nowadays, as before, there are still contexts and spaces in which unique persons are portrayed, whether this is related to ethnicity or any other factor.
These spectacles often fall into the category of artistic performances or take the banal form of reality TV. Whilst these native peoples sometimes gave demonstrations of their skills or produced manufactures for the audience, more often their role was simply as exhibits, to display their bodies and gestures, their different and singular condition.
Figure 8. The Festival of Empire was organised in London to celebrate the coronation of George V, thus also being known as the Coronation Exhibition. For more information about these and other British colonial exhibitions, or exhibitions which had important colonial sections, organised between and , see Coombes 85— and Mackenzie Human zoos: When people were the exhibits Annika Zeitler Dw.
From the German Empire through the s, humans were locked up and exhibited in zoos. He is the youngest son of a Cameroonian who left the then German colony at the turn of the century to live in the German Empire. The only available way of making a living was through ethnological expositions, also called human zoos.
Maupassant in the Hall of Mirrors | SpringerLink
At the time, performers of a human zoo would tour through Europe just like rock bands today. They were scheduled to do several presentations a day while visitors would gawk at them. Another group of Sioux Indians died of vertigo, measles and pneumonia. The first big ethnological exposition was organized in by a wild animal merchant from Hamburg, Carl Hagenbeck. The concept already existed in the early modern age, when European explorers brought back people from the new areas they had traveled to. For Theodor Wonja Michael, it was torture.
Just like fans want to see stars up close today, visitors at the time wanted to see Fuegians, Eskimos or Samoans. When one group decided to stay hidden in their hut during the last presentation of a day in a Berlin zoo in November , thousands of visitors protested by pushing down fences and walls and destroying banks. Theodor Wonja Michael was nine years old when his father died in , aged He only has very few memories of him left. Several human zoos stopped running after the end of World War I. Memoires of an Afro-German.
The Strange Case of Dr. The enigmatic showman Martin Couney showcased premature babies in incubators to early 20th century crowds on the Coney Island and Atlantic City boardwalks, and at expositions across the United States. A Prussian-born immigrant based on the East coast, Couney had no medical degree but called himself a physician, and his self-promoting carnival-barking incubator display exhibits actually ended up saving the lives of about 7, premature babies.
This extraordinary story reveals a great deal about neonatology, and about life. Drawing on extraordinary archival research as well as interviews, her narrative is enhanced by her own reflections as she balanced her shock over how Couney saved these premature infants and also managed to make a living by displaying them like little freaks to the vast crowds who came to see them.
It was there he fell in love with preemies and met his head nurse Louise Recht. But was it? In the 21st century, hospital incubators and NICUs are taken for granted, but over a hundred years ago, incubators were rarely used in hospitals, and sometimes they did far more harm than good. Premature infants often went blind because of too much oxygen pumped into the incubators Raffel notes that Stevie Wonder, himself a preemie, lost his sight this way. The reason?
Couney was worried enough about this problem to use incubators developed by M. Alexandre Lion in France, which regulated oxygen flow. Today it is widely accept that every baby — premature or ones born to term — should be saved. She does not shy away from people like Dr. Harry Haiselden who, unlike Couney, was an actual M. She dispassionately explains the theory of eugenics, how its propaganda worked and how belief in eugenics manifested itself in 20th century America. He gave them a chance at the lives they might not have been allowed to live.
Couney used his showmanship to support all of this life-saving. He put on shows for boardwalk crowds, but he also, despite not having a medical degree, maintained his incubators according to high medical standards. Babies were fed with breast milk exclusively, nurses provided loving touches frequently, and the babies were held, changed and bathed.
Yet the efforts of Dr. Julius Hess, who is considered the father of neonatology, the majority of the medical establishment patronized and excluded Couney. His was a single-minded focus: even when it financially devastated him to do so, he persisted, so his preemies could live. Couney gives Couney his due as a remarkable human being who used his promotional ability for the betterment of premature infants, and for, 7, times over, saving the world.
On te manipule. I ncapables et pour cause! Kero, Au vu de ce triste constat, nul ne peut pavoiser. Ce qui ne sert ni la connaissance historique, ni la lutte contre les discriminations. Souvenez-vous de la radio Mille collines au Rwanda. Et elle fut entendue. Et cela marche. Attention: un Grand Pardon peut en cacher un autre! Kapralos Herald February 19, Members of the Lienau family of Camano Island have walked hundreds of miles, over the course of four years and on four continents, to say those words.
Day march in Everett that same year. It was in that filmmaker Michael Lienau and his family first joined Lifeline Expedition, an England-based organization dedicated, for the past seven years, to traveling the world and apologizing for the part of white Europeans and Americans in the African slave trade.
The expedition has attracted a loyal group concerned with the long-term effects of slavery on relations among whites and blacks. In historic slave ports in the United States, South America, Caribbean islands, Great Britain and Africa, members of the group, including several Lienau children, allow themselves to be chained and yoked together in a jarring acknowledgment of the practice of human trade.
Sorry is often said to be the hardest word but Andrew Hawkins felt compelled to apologise to a crowd of thousands of Africans. His regret was not for his own actions but offered on behalf of his ancestor, who traded in African slaves years ago. Sir John Hawkins was a 16th Century English shipbuilder, merchant, pirate and slave trader. He first captured natives of Sierra Leone in and sold them in the Caribbean.
His cousin was Sir Francis Drake, who joined him on expeditions. Hawkins is famed for reconstructing the design of English ships in the s and commanded part of the fleet which repelled the Spanish Armada in As a boy I used to be pleased to see it and to think I was related to him. This event, which runs for several weeks, encourages Africans to discover their ancestral identity. They made their way to the stadium by walking through the streets laden in yokes and chains, before eventually speaking their words of atonement. Andrew estimates the 25,capacity stadium was about two-thirds full, with delegates from African nations, Gambian vice-president, Isatou Njie-Saidy, and Rita Marley, widow of reggae legend Bob Marley, among the crowd.
Some were looking at us, others were reading through their programmes to work out what we were doing. The group apologised in French, German and English — the languages of the nations responsible for much of the African slave trade. Andrew Hawkins The apology had not been rehearsed. I did say that as a member of the Hawkins family I did not accept what had happened was right. But does Andrew really believe it was worth apologising for events that happened more than four centuries ago, on behalf of a relative who is so very distant?
The March of the Abolitionists Can reconciliation and forgiveness be achieved by wearing the yokes and chains of imprisonment? The abolition marchers believe their mile walk will go at least some way toward promoting a greater understanding of our role in the slave trade. Image: Lifeline Expedition website Beginning in Hull on Friday 2nd March, hundreds of people will don yokes and chains and attempt the mile journey from Humberside to London — the gruelling route taken by enslaved Africans during the period of the Atlantic Slave Trade.
In Cambridgeshire, these include Wisbech, the birthplace of abolitionist Thomas Clarkson; Cambridge, where both Clarkson and William Wilberforce were educated; and Soham, where the African abolitionist Olaudah Equiano was married. Why and who? Image: Lifeline Expedition website Marchers include a number of children aged between five and 15, two of whom will occasionally wear the yokes and chains.
The organisers stress that these children are aged 12 and 15 and have chosen to wear the yokes after seeing pictures of enslaved children. The march of the Abolitionists aims to bring about an apology for the slave trade, and especially the role of the Church, and so help people deal with its legacy; to raise greater awareness of the true history of both slavery and abolition; remember and celebrate the work of both the black and white abolitionists; and promote greater understanding, reconciliation and forgiveness.
Mille et une nuits, Anne-Sophie Nogaret est enseignante. Certains sont docteurs en sociologie ou en sciences politiques. Parmi ces derniers figurent Fabrice Duhme et Abdellali Hajjat. Et pour cause! Contact : front2meres gmail. The War on Dignity. I think its [sic] hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes [sic] gonna be a good Republican bitch. This is disgusting, misogynistic, and apparently something the admins of this page think is a perfectly acceptable sentiment. The Rise of Victimhood Culture makes the case that incentives at the modern American university have created a new moral culture, one where victimhood is granted a special moral status.
Awarding status to victims has in turn led to hoaxes, false accusations, and, in some extreme cases, moral panics. The diagnosis is put forward by sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, and they make their case convincingly. The argument is that college campus is ground zero for this new culture, but its rules of conduct are starting to leak into mainstream institutions. Campbell and Manning did not start their careers investigating microaggressions and trigger warnings.
Campbell had been studying the sociology of genocide at California State University, and Manning had been studying suicide at West Virginia University. They came together to consider the questions of how groups manage conflict and how grievances are handled in different cultural contexts. A dignity culture, they explain, has a set of moral values and behavioral norms designed to promote the idea that each human life possesses immutable worth.
If an individual has been brutalized or exists at the bottom of a social pecking order, she still has human worth. By contrast, in an honor culture, being on the bottom of a social pecking order is associated with great shame. Victims are tainted and often punished for bringing dishonor to their families. In some extreme circumstances, they may even be killed. A victimhood culture departs from both by inverting their norms. On a university campus, for example, victims are not shamed but are instead fiercely protected, and now awarded status. It consisted of her carrying her mattress around the Columbia University campus, including to class, under the condition that her accused rapist needed to be expelled in order for her to stop.
For this performance, she was widely criticized, but she was also heralded as a feminist hero. That such awards and accolades might incentivize vexatious or false complaints in a student body seemed not to matter to adults in charge. In the most disquieting chapter, Campell and Manning predict that victimhood culture will eventually spread from elite colleges into the mainstream.
In making this prediction, they note the significance of the fact that victimhood culture has emerged among the wealthiest schools in America. Oberlin and Brown, for example, have led the microaggression movement, while Claremont has been a pioneer in safe-space demands, microaggression protests, and the banning of speakers. That income level is double that of Saint Louis University, where Murray spoke to an attentive audience. The book thus highlights a peculiar fact: The students most obsessed with their own oppression are some of the most pampered individuals in the world. Unlike victimhood culture, dignity culture did not arise from pampered pupils at American schools and universities.
It did not even originate with the upper classes. Campbell and Manning explain that it was first established in the class of yeoman farmers, master craftsmen, and artisans of Northern Europe. Since its members had goods to sell, they had a lot to gain from general tolerance of the foibles of others and a lot to lose from engaging in reckless violence. When institutions such as courts matured and the authority of nobles was weakened, the upper classes adopted dignity culture as well.
So while dignity spread upwards from the middle classes to the social elite, Campbell and Manning warn, victimhood culture will likely spread downwards from the social elites to the middle classes—as those wishing to be upwardly mobile will try to emulate upper-class moral norms. While the culture is likely to spread downwards, it is also likely to inspire resentment. Campbell and Manning warn that the narratives of privilege deployed by the culture, which target white men in particular, are just as likely to inspire hostility as deference, especially in those who feel that they are unfairly targeted as oppressors:.
If whites and males increasingly face a moral world divided between those who vilify them and those who glorify them, we should not be surprised if many find the latter more appealing than the former. Victimhood culture deviates from this moral equality by producing a moral hierarchy with white males at the bottom; the reaction it provokes may be the resurgence of a moral hierarchy that places them at the top. Paradoxically, the backlash against political correctness is likely to make the situation worse. Conservatives are quickly learning to ape victimhood, too.
You can side with the left and hope to be allowed to exist like a domesticates [sic] lap dog like David Brooks or Bret Stephens…. The logic of victimhood culture, then, is escalating grievance and retaliatory aggression. When slights cannot be neutralized with a dignified turn of the cheek, the prognosis looks grim. What the purveyors of victimhood culture do not seem to grasp is that in weakening dignity, and in undermining the principles that deem all men and women to be moral equals, they unwittingly destroy the safeguards that prevent bad actors—such as hoaxers and narcissists—from climbing the social hierarchy through dishonesty and manipulation.
In incentivizing weakness and reliance on third parties to intervene in disputes, students invite a paternalistic authoritarian apparatus to develop. While they seem comfortable with an authoritarian apparatus on their university campus today, we should not be surprised if they demand an authoritarian state to police the citizenry tomorrow. The logical endpoint of a victimhood culture will not be a progressive utopia. On the contrary: The further this culture radiates outward, the more likely it will make victims of us all.
The two sociologists have aimed to supply us with an empirical sociological analysis of the recent moral conflicts that have erupted on U. After reading the book, I reached out to the American sociologists to interview them about some of the key themes of their book, and also to gain insight into some recent cultural trends that were not covered. What follows is a transcript of our interview conducted via email. In dignity cultures, there is a low sensitivity to slight. People are more tolerant of insult and disagreement.
Taking the law into your own hands with violent vengeance is itself a serious crime and generally looked down upon. Insults demand a serious response, and even accidental slights might provoke severe conflict. Having a low tolerance for offense is more likely to be seen as a virtue than a vice. Letting yourself be slighted without seeking justice is shameful. And seeking justice is more likely to take the form of violent vengeance. Appealing to authorities is more stigmatized than taking matters into your own hands.
These two kinds of cultures emphasize different sources of moral status or worth. It depends on reputation. And while a lot of things might go into making this reputation, the core of classical honor is physical bravery. Tolerating slights is shameful because you let someone put you down without defending your reputation by force. It suggests cowardice. Appealing to the authorities is shameful for the same reason. Virtue means being bold and forceful, aggressively defending your reputation against any challenges, and being vigilant for signs that someone else is probing you for weakness.
Dignity is a kind of inherent and inalienable moral worth. What we call victimhood culture combines some aspects of honor and dignity. People in a victimhood culture are like the honorable in having a high sensitivity to slight. Insults are serious business, and even unintentional slights might provoke a severe conflict.
But, as in a dignity culture, people generally eschew violent vengeance in favor of relying on some authority figure or other third party. They complain to the law, to the human resources department at their corporation, to the administration at their university, or — possibly as a strategy of getting attention from one of the former — to the public at large. The combination of high sensitivity with dependence on others encourages people to emphasize or exaggerate the severity of offenses. People who air grievances are likely to appeal to such concepts as disadvantage, marginality, or trauma, while casting the conflict as a matter of oppression.
The result is that this culture also emphasizes a particular source of moral worth: victimhood. Victim identities are deserving of special care and deference. Contrariwise, the privileged are morally suspect if not deserving of outright contempt. Privilege is to victimhood as cowardice is to honor. We can see examples of honor cultures around the world and throughout history. They tend to have relatively high rates of violence, including such distinctive forms as dueling and feuding. Much of the premodern West can be understood as an honor culture.
European elites used to preserve their honor by fighting duels to the death; in the US South, fatal duels continued up until the American Civil War. By the 20 th century, though, dignity culture had largely supplanted honor culture in the West. Writing in , sociologist Peter Berger called the concept of honor obsolete, saying it had little resonance with modern people. People no longer lived in mortal fear of having their honor damaged. And duels to the death were a strange curiosity of the past. We argue that victimhood culture, at least in its more extreme forms, is new.
We see it in its purest form on contemporary college and university campuses. Manifestations of victimhood culture include complaining about and punishing microaggressions, demanding and creating safe spaces, requesting and requiring trigger warnings, and banning or disinviting speakers who might offend designated victim groups. Other kinds of status have other sources, so in any complex society not only are some people more respectable than others, but some are also wealthier, more socially integrated, or more culturally conventional.
Your position on these and other social hierarchies affects how people treat you. If you testify in court, for example, people are more likely to believe you if you are wealthy, respectable, and so on. So respectability — moral status — acts like other kinds of status. And since moral judgments give rise to it, it takes different forms depending on the moral culture. One culture might see obedience and self-control as key virtues, while another might see them as vices if they mean less individuality and authenticity.
This is what happens in an honor culture. Courage, and one aspect of it in particular — physical bravery — is elevated over other virtues. It also leads to a moral hierarchy with brave, strong, and violent men at the top and the cowardly and the weak at the bottom. Honor is one type of moral status, one revolving around a particular virtue.
It arises under particular social conditions such as the absence of a government monopoly on violence, so we certainly understand why honor cultures exist and the logic of their moral system. But we agree with the critics of honor cultures throughout history who have objected to the conflict and violence those cultures produce. We also object to the moral hierarchy of those cultures.
Emphasizing one virtue over many others leads to perversities: Cruel men and hotheads can end up being esteemed while peacemakers are denigrated. The moral hierarchy of victimhood culture has some of the same problems, and it introduces others. Like honor cultures, victimhood cultures emphasize one set of vices and virtues over others.
They are concerned with eradicating oppression and privilege, and this single-minded moral obsession can lead to the similar kinds of perversities that come from neglecting other virtues in honor cultures. Honor cultures incentivize bravery while neglecting other virtues. But if you want esteem in a victimhood culture, what can you do?
Victimhood culture incentivizes bad behavior. The idea is that all members of certain groups are victims, but that no one else is. Activists even argue that whites cannot be the victims of racism, or men the victims of sexism. Likewise, whether people can be victims of new offenses like cultural appropriation or microaggression, depends on their identity. A white person wearing a hairstyle associated with African Americans would be cultural appropriation, for instance, but an African American wearing a hairstyle associated with whites would not be.
Likewise, those who have pioneered the concept of microaggression have made it clear that not all slights count. Under this schema even many minority groups, such as Evangelical Christians, fail to qualify, and any discrimination against them is ignored or celebrated. We have two problems with this. The first is a fundamental moral objection. We believe in the ideals of dignity culture — that all human beings have an inherent worth and should be treated accordingly — and we object to the new hierarchy of victimhood just as we would any racial and ethnic hierarchy.
The second problem is the reactions it may produce. We find the recent prominence of alt-right white nationalists alarming, and we worry there will be more of it in reaction to the spread of victimhood culture. CL: You wrote your book before the explosion of the MeToo movement. From your perspective, and your knowledge about the spread of moral cultures, do you believe that the MeToo movement represents a significant shift in victimhood culture into the mainstream? When we look at the full-blown victimhood culture among campus activists, the moral logic at work is starkly different than what we see in other contexts.
The degree to which victimhood is a kind of status is variable, so even where dignity culture is still dominant, we might see some tendencies toward victimhood culture. In the book we talk about the movement against campus rape, and we point out that the movement has support from journalists, members of Congress, and others who are not part of the campus victimhood culture.
But what we do see is that an effort to honor victims leads to credulity even in cases like the rape hoaxes at Duke and at the University of Virginia where it should have been clear that the accusers were lying. It also leads to efforts to weaken the due process rights of the accused. And alongside the more mainstream elements of the movement are the campus activists and others enmeshed in victimhood culture who make more radical arguments — that accusers should always be believed, for example. The MeToo movement may be similar. The movement as a whole appears not to have relied on accusations of new victimhood offenses and has focused instead on things like rape, groping, and other kinds of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
The accusations against Weinstein, for example, include 19 coerced sexual acts and many more instances of unwanted touching and sexual exhibitionism. Much of the MeToo movement might be seen as an expression of dignity culture — an appeal to ideals already widely held in the culture but commonly violated in practice. But the MeToo movement is large and has less mainstream elements as well, so some of the accusations have indeed drawn from victimhood culture in various ways.
We might think of the most prominent accusations existing on a continuum from Harvey Weinstein to comedian Aziz Ansari. The accusations against Weinstein, which deal with clear-cut cases of violence, coercion, and harassment, are understandable in terms of mainstream morality, while the accusation against Ansari is understandable only in terms of victimhood culture.
The same perspective that leads to the labeling of uncomfortable conversations as a kind of aggression, or conservative political speech as violence, leads here to the labeling of boorish behavior on a date as sexual assault. To the extent that the MeToo movement accords a special status to victims, to the extent that it establishes victimhood solely based on whether someone is a woman or man, and to the extent that it blurs the distinction between serious offenses like what Weinstein has been accused of and the kind of noncoercive sexual advances on a date that Ansari is accused of, it will indeed lead to the spread of victimhood culture.
Another thing the Ansari case illustrates is something we have thought of as moral emaciation. Both tablets were placed in position on the 29th of December, , just two days before the th anniversary of the assault. In the present connection all that is necessary is such a brief general sketch of the operations at Quebec as will give the reader some idea of the  reasons for the erection of the tablets and for the special wording of the two inscriptions. From there he followed the road to Levis, where he arrived in full view of Quebec on the 8th of November, after his long and arduous march.
Having crossed the St. Lawrence in whatever canoes could be found he appeared on the present Cove Fields on the 14th, was fired on, and at once retired up to Pointe aux Trembles, where the arrival of Montgomery from Montreal was awaited. Montgomery carried all before him, taking Sorel, Montreal and Three Rivers. Carleton, who was in Montreal, knowing the importance of Quebec, and that for divers reasons Montreal could not then be defended, destroyed the Government stores and started with several schooners to descend the St.
Being held up by head winds he took a boat, and, being paddled past the enemy's batteries at Sorel in the dead of night, arrived on the 19th November at Quebec, where Colonel MacLean, who had preceded him, was actively preparing for defence. He at once issued orders that—"the suspected and all who are unwilling to take up arms in its  defence must leave the town within four days. On the 30th of November there were only British regulars in garrison.
But these—together with the crews of two small men-of-war, the Lizard and Hunter , and of several merchantmen that happened to be in port, as well as "Royal Emigrants" and the loyal inhabitants, who willingly enrolled themselves—raised the force at his disposal to men. The Quebec merchants, to their lasting honour, were the first to volunteer; and no one did better service among the citizen soldiery. Montgomery arrived on the 1st of December with his army, which raised the attacking force to men.
The enemy then proceeded to take possession of St. Roch's, and erected batteries on the high ground commanding St. John's and St. Louis' Gates. The town was well provisioned for the winter; so Carleton, profiting by Murray's experience, would run no risk. The siege began with a considerable amount of daily bombardment and shooting at our sentries.
But Montgomery, finding his guns did little harm, resolved to storm the town by night. This decision was reported to Carleton by a prisoner who escaped from the besiegers, so the garrison kept continually on the alert for the expected attack. To frighten the inhabitants, but without avail, Montgomery's general orders of the 15th of  December were sent into the town.
A copy is now to be found in the Dominion Archives at Ottawa Q. Parole —Connecticut. Countersign —Adams. The General having in vain offered the most favourable terms of accommodation to the Governor and having taken every possible step to prevail on the inhabitants to desist from seconding him in his wild scheme of defence, nothing remains but to pursue vigorous measures for the speedy reduction of the only hold possessed by the Ministerial troops in the Province. The troops, flushed with continual success, confident of the justice of their cause, and relying on that Providence which has uniformly protected them, will advance to the attack of works incapable of being defended by the wretched garrison posted behind them, consisting of sailors unacquainted with the use of arms, of citizens incapable of the soldier's duty, and a few miserable emigrants.
The General is confident a vigorous and spirited attack must be attended with success. The troops shall have the effects of the Governor, garrison, and of such as have been acting in misleading the inhabitants and distressing the friends of liberty, to be equally divided among them, each to have the one hundredth share out of the whole, which shall be at the disposal of the General and given to such soldiers as distinguished themselves by their activity and bravery, and sold at public auction. The whole to be conducted as  soon as the city is in our hands and the inhabitants disarmed.
Those who were to make the attack by the suburbs of St. Roch's, headed by Arnold, were about strong. Another party, under Livingstone, was sent to make a feint against the walls south of St. John's Gate, and try to force the entrance; but these soon withdrew. A heavy north-east snowstorm was raging at four o'clock that dark morning when Montgomery descended the cliff and advanced along the narrow ledge which was flanked to the left by the perpendicular crags of Cape Diamond and to the right by the St. Coffin; 50 in all. This post was on the alert and saw the head of the column approach and halt some fifty yards  from the barricade.
A man then came forward to reconnoitre. On his return the column continued its advance, when it was received by cannon and musketry. The first discharge killed Montgomery, his aides-de-camp, and ten men. Thereupon the rest of his turned and fled, pursued by the bullets of the Canadians till there was nothing more to fire at. The story of carpenters sawing the pickets, which Montgomery then tore down with his own hands, took shape in the imagination of a Major Meigs, who was one of Arnold's party. No one behind the leading sections knew what had happened.
The slain, left as they fell, were buried by the drifting snow, whence their frozen bodies were dug out later in the day. Arnold's column penetrated the barricade across Sous-le-Cap street, situated beneath the Half-Moon battery; but was stopped by the second barricade, at the end of that narrow lane, quite close to where Molsons' Bank is now. This second barricade was defended by Major Nairne, Dambourges and others, who held the enemy in check until Captain Laws, coming from Palace Gate with a strong party, took them in rear and caused the surrender of in all.
This completed the victory of the British arms. Arnold was put out of action early in the fight by a ball from the ramparts near Palace Gate, and was carried to the General Hospital. General Wooster took command, and the besiegers were reinforced to over their original strength; but no further assaults were made. Batteries were erected at Levis, but did little damage. A fire-ship was sent against the shipping in the Cul-de-Sac, the site of the Champlain market,  but without effect.
The blockade lasted until the arrival of the British man-of-war Surprise on the 6th of May, , when the garrison, thus reinforced, at once made a sortie, only to find that the Americans had already decamped in the utmost confusion, leaving their dinners, artillery, ammunition and baggage behind. On the arrival of more vessels and troops Carleton advanced to Three Rivers, beat the enemy there, and then continued his march without a check to Montreal. In a few more days the last of the invaders had been driven off the soil of Canada for good and all.
Both inscriptions were approved by the Society's Patron, the then Governor-General, the Earl of Minto, who took the keenest personal interest in the whole undertaking, from first to last. The tablets, in shield form, are of statuary bronze, with the lettering in relief.
Table of contents
The large one, on the rock under Cape Diamond, measures six feet three inches by five feet nine inches, and weighs about pounds. It is thus inscribed:. The wording is designed to bring out the notable fact that there were only fifty men on the British side, defending this barricade against Montgomery, who had a force at least ten times as strong. These fifty are described as "undaunted," because, apart from their gallantry in repelling the assault, they had been long exposed to the invaders' threat of treating them with the utmost rigour of war if they persisted in their allegiance.
They are also said to have been "safeguarding Canada," because, although they could not have foreknown so great a destiny, they were then a part of the real and the only safeguard of the Dominion we live in now. The tablet on the Molsons' Bank measures two feet ten inches by two feet six inches and weighs about pounds. Its inscription is as follows:. And on this sacred spot each and all of these widely different ancestors of the present "Canadians" took their dangerous share of empire-building, in the very heart of a crisis which must then have seemed to offer them no other reward than the desperate honour of leading the forlorn hope in a great cause all but lost for ever.
The Indian made a stronghold at Quebec before the white man came. The white man has been building forts there in five different centuries already. And he is still building forts there to-day. Jacques Cartier was the first of the whites in fort-building, as he was first in everything else. His first fort was a mere stockade beside the St. Charles, where he and his men spent the miserable winter of Overlooking this stockade was the Indian town of Stadacona, on the Quebec cliffs of the valley of the St. Cartier took possession for the Crown of France, sailed home with Donnacona, the Indian Chief, and left a cross standing, to mark the French claims, with the inscription—.
Five years later Jacques Cartier built another fort, this time at Cap Rouge, nine miles above  Quebec. The next year Roberval wintered here, as miserably as Cartier had beside the St. Two generations passed before the French again took possession and began another fort. In Champlain built his famous Abitation de Quebecq on the narrow piece of flat ground under the present Terrace. This tiny fort could hardly hold a hundred men, women and children, even as a tenement house.
And it probably never had a fit-for-duty garrison of more than twenty men. But twenty men with muskets and a few small cannon could hold out well against mere bows and arrows. For the Abitation de Quebecq had some pretensions to scientific construction. Champlain was a naval officer and knew what he was about.
The guns were well placed at the salients, and, as a gallery ran round the upper story, two tiers of fire could be brought to bear. In Champlain began his Fort St. Louis in the Upper Town, on the site of the present Terrace, and overlooking his old Abitation. For six years he persisted in making the little Colony work at this fort in order to assure its safety.
Like many a leader of far vaster numbers he found plenty of Colonists ready to be content with much less than real safety. In there was a little hard feeling between the old Company of Rouen and the new Company of Montmorency. Champlain then put an officer and some men into the fort as a garrison. Thus M. On his return in , after an absence of two years, Champlain was disgusted to find his forts exactly as he had left them, except that they were out of repair.
He immediately knocked down the fort of and began a much larger and better one. This new fort was the Fort St. Louis which surrendered to the Kerkes in , which was held  by Charles I in pledge for the dowry of Henrietta Maria, which was restored to the Crown of France in , and which was used by Champlain himself from till his death there in Louis in stone. Before that it was only in "fascines, terres, gazons et bois. Louis" was used as the English equivalent.
But the old name persisted locally. So that, up to the time of Frontenac, the fortifications of Quebec consisted of a fortified Governor's residence inside of a stone fort, situated about where the Terrace  and its immediate hinter-ground lie to-day, and also of a "strong place" in the Lower Town, beside the St. Lawrence, and occupying the ground on each side of the present Sous-le-fort Street. In the great Colbert recommended the re-fortification of Quebec.
But in vain. In the Quebecers of the day became so alarmed that they proposed building walls on their own account. The authorities in France at once seized the opportunity of overworking the willing horse, with the usual disastrous results. There was no "frowning citadel" and only the worst of walls when Phips came thundering at the gates. It was only in that Frontenac's great scheme was put in execution by the dilatory Government at home.
Frontenac's walls were the first that ever encircled the Upper Town. They crowned the water front for nearly three-quarters of a mile. They started from the present Frontenac Hotel, along almost the whole length of which they ran. Then they crossed the top of Mountain Hill and followed the present Ramparts to Palace Hill, where they stopped in the westward direction. On the landward side, starting again from the Hotel, they ran westward between Mount Carmel and St.
Louis Streets, crossed Haldimand Hill, and then curved into St. Louis Street on reaching the corner of Ste. Ursule Street. Thence, running north-westward, or down, inside the line of Ste. Anne and Ste. Stanislas Street, whence they curved towards Palace Hill, where they joined the circuit again. The total circuit was about a mile and a half.
The area enclosed was about half as much as is enclosed by the present walls, exclusive of the Citadel. The landward faces were weak; but the seaward ones were fairly strong against the armaments of the time. Frontenac was a born soldier and leader of men, brave to a fault, yet of consummate skill in action and the necessary preparation for it. He threw himself heartily into the great work. But he was absolutely incorruptible—and the contractors were not.
From this time on there is one long tale of growing corruption, which eventually culminated under Bigot and hurried New France to her ruin. The great commanders, Frontenac and Montcalm, and indeed all the leading soldiers and military engineers from France, stand out in honourable contrast to the whole vile brood of jobmasters in the Civil Government. The deviosities of Public Works in Canada can claim a quite respectable antiquity—not quite, perhaps, "from the earliest times," but certainly down "to the present day.
By , when Frontenac's scheme had been finally carried out in a perverted and dishonest way, new walls were beginning to be required. But it was not till that another scheme was put in operation under the malign influence of bad  engineers and worse Intendants. The works were done badly and bit by bit. They never provided for any real "citadel," but only for a citadel redoubt.
And, as already stated elsewhere in this book, they never extended to the up-river face of Cape Diamond. The cliff faces followed the lines of Frontenac's scheme; naturally so, as there was no other line to follow. The land faces were extended beyond Frontenac's line, and eventually reached, in many places, the extent of the walls that are standing to-day.
But not one French stone remains in place. The work was too badly done for that, even if there had never been any wars at all. Patchwork went on till , when both the French Government and the people of Quebec got tired of expensive works that were of no earthly use, except to the pockets of the contractors, engineers and administrative middlemen. An order came out to discontinue everything. Then the Canadian Government, with its middlemen, contractors and engineers, returned to the charge and contrived to get several estimates passed, which were moderate in amount, but exorbitant with respect to the work which resulted from them.
Franquet, a good French army engineer, came out and saw at once that the Canadian engineers were almost as great fools at their work as they were knaves in charging for it. Later on, after the war which ended with the conquest of Canada had been raging for some time, Pontleroy, another excellent French army engineer, came out. But the works  of the Canadian engineers, bad as they were, had taken shape too definitely, even in Franquet's time.
And all that he and Pontleroy could do was to put the best finish possible on bad works made with bad material by bad and corrupt engineers, who were on the side of Vaudreuil, the spiteful owl of a Governor, and Bigot, the knavish fox of an Intendant, and who consequently were against Montcalm, the ablest hero that ever drew sword for France across the sea.
Murray had no more faith in the French walls than Montcalm had. But the British Home Authorities were almost as dilatory as their rivals were before them. So from to Quebec had to stand a French and an American siege with temporary British works thrown up well outside of the old French ones.
And so it would have been, had they not been far more stoutly opposed by flesh and blood than by the rotten walls. After four years' work a British scheme of re-fortification was finished in But it was by no means complete. The citadel was only a makeshift, and some parts elsewhere could not be thoroughly done for lack of funds. This was the time at which the so-called "old French works" on  the Cove Fields appeared. Their remains are easy to make out to day, following the contours of the up-river face of Cape Diamond. They entirely disappear from the great permanent plan of During this period the Martello Towers were built.
And it should be remembered that this sum represents only a small fraction of the more than a hundred millions sterling which were spent by the Imperial Government at different times to keep Canada both British and Canadian. Not a shot has ever been fired against the present walls, and they are now quite obsolete. But on at least two occasions they played a principal part as a deterrent in preventing any idea of attacking them from being converted into deeds. All that is best in Quebec, in Canada, and indeed in the whole Empire, takes pride in these splendid monuments of watch and war.
They  have the priceless advantage of making Quebec absolutely unique among the cities of America, where sameness and tameness are only too common. And yet there are people mean-spirited enough to want to throw them down! It may be that if Quebec were to lose all claim to be the one walled city of this New World she would still remain a queen among her sisters.
For she was throned here in beauty by Nature, ages long ago. But it was Man who came and crowned her. So it would be a double desecration to discrown her now. Her walls are more than meets the eye. They saw no mighty wars themselves; but they serve to recall great deeds and the great men who did them. And their own mute appeal is more eloquent of living honour than all the vain words that could record them after they had gone for ever. With the progress of military science it was found necessary to begin building much further away from the central point to be defended.
Three large forts were therefore built on the South Shore, facing south and east. They have a magnificent natural glacis for many miles; and they were good forts in their day. They were the last legacy of the Imperial Government. When they were finished and paid for Canada undertook her own defence, got them for nothing, and has left them unarmed ever since.
Forty years later military science has changed still more. Now, instead of rising above the  ground, the engineer tries to burrow into it. There are excellent new works down at Beaumont, on the South Shore, eight miles below Quebec, and they would, if properly manned and armed, command the South Channel of Orleans in a way which would make it exceedingly hard to pass, even if the enemy was in great force, well handled, and trying to run through at night.
Quebec has already lived so many hours of glorious life that she can no longer make new history except on old historic ground. But, even in Quebec, there could hardly have been a stranger coincidence than that the first men to represent the Dominion in an all-Imperial war beyond the seas should have sailed from the very spot where their racial ancestors first united to keep Canada within the Empire.
But the attention of the expectant patriots thronging the Esplanade was wholly centred in the moving present. The one historic fact they thought of was that Canada's first Imperial thousand had mustered, armed and sworn allegiance in the world-famous Citadel, and that no knight of old had ever made his vows at any shrine more sacred  to the God of Battles than their own Quebec. The war had kindled the fire of their new national pride.
The start of the First Contingent fanned it into flame. Every part of Canada was represented in arms; and every form of her national life was equally represented by those who had assembled at Quebec to give the Contingent a befitting farewell. All four addressed the troops in stirring words, and the General rightly reminded them that they were expected to wipe out the shame of the surrender after Majuba. It was certainly one of the greatest, and perhaps one of the most significant, scenes ever witnessed in Quebec.
But, for me, it was, and always will be, little more than the setting of another scene, which holds only the single figure of my greatest chum. Jack Ogilvy had already done well in the Yukon Field Force, which was sent up to keep order in the mining camps during the first great gold-fever in the Klondike. He had returned just in time for the war, and was appointed Assistant-Adjutant, a greater honour than such a very subordinate position would have been under other circumstances.
There were more than ten covetous applicants for every vacancy, and at least twenty officers anxious for each appointment; and Jack was only a junior subaltern of twenty-five,  with barely six years' service. There was no mistaking his delight at going on his first campaign; for he was every inch a soldier, through and through his whole six feet of eager youth. When the column marched on to the wharf he laughingly pointed his sword at the Sardinian and said, "It's—.
How often its resounding chorus had floated in to shore on moonlight evenings, or echoed along the overhanging crags of Cacouna Island! All Canada remembers Paardeberg, and how well her men upheld her honour there and wherever else they fought till the end of the war. Jack marched on to his first battlefield as Adjutant, his predecessor having been invalided some time before. He did his duties thoroughly, and coolly as any veteran. The Canadians were keen for close action and not easily held in leash.
So the men and moment were well mated when the time came for a rush, and Jack sprang to the front with an inspiring "Come on, Canada! By the end of his first campaign  he had undoubtedly won his honours well. He was one of the first two Canadian officers recommended for the D. And he was the first Canadian in the world to receive a direct commission as Captain into a regiment of the Imperial Army.
No touch of distinction was wanting, for the regiment was no other than the famous Gordons; and every Lieutenant in both of its battalions had written to the Colonel to say how pleased they would be to have Jack come into it over their heads. After spending his leave in England and Canada he went back to the front, this time as a Major in the South African Constabulary. He was now twenty-seven; with both feet on the ladder of promotion and every promise of a successful career.
His letters kept showing his anxiety to "do something," so that he might justify the confidence which had been shown in him. But an accident that had nothing to do with the war very nearly cut him off before his opportunity. One wild night his scared riderless horse galloped madly up to his quarters; and his men naturally thought this told the usual tale of a good life stealthily taken by a sniper's bullet. But they presently found him lying dazed, though unwounded, where a stroke of lightning had hurled him from the saddle. At last his chance came, and he took it with both hands.
He found out that a slippery and mischievous little commando was in the neighbourhood; and he immediately set to work to get within sure striking distance and make a complete round  up. His scheme was carefully planned and skilfully executed. His widely extended line was riding warily through sparse scrub when it began to close in on the Boer position.
This, as so often happened, was well concealed and placed considerably in front of where an attacking force would have naturally expected to find it. But the sudden sharp crackling of hidden Mausers did not take him unawares, when it burst out just in front of where he was leading his centre. Some of the Boers began to bolt, others were evidently determined to stand their ground.
In the twinkling of an eye Jack chose the only proper course. Rising high in his stirrups he shouted the one word " Charge! He saw the enemy divided in opinion and lost. He felt his charge would carry home, while his wings would certainly outflank and perhaps envelop them. Now he knew he had "done something. For one vivid moment his ardent spirit blazed with the joy of triumph. The next, he and his horse crashed prostrate against the little stone sangar, both shot by the same bullet.
An old grey-bearded Boer had marked him down as the leader and let him get so close that the bullet went mortally deep into his groin after passing through his horse's neck. The Boer ran for cover as soon as he had fired. But one of Jack's subalterns was too quick for him, riding him down and shooting him straight through the heart.
The doctor shook his head when he saw where  Jack was hit, and at once pronounced the wound fatal. But the heroic heart still beat with the wings of victory. Then his mind turned to her who was giving up a newly-won but assured career as one of the world's great singers to marry him, a junior Captain, as poor as he was gallant. And, with the words of this dying message on his lips, the last spark of his conscious life went out. None but a very few have ever heard of Klipgat in the Transvaal.
It is, indeed, no more to the world at large than any other obscure, outlandish name that appears among other minor items of war news, and is forgotten as soon as read. And, even of those who followed the fortunes of the war at the time, how many remember now what happened there on the 18th of December, ?
Only a handful of friends know this for the place and date of that far-off little skirmish.
- Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre..
- Coopération pour le développement : Rapport 2010 (DEVELOPPEMENT I) (French Edition)?
- Muskoka Monster (Monsters of Canada Book 1).
- Curso básico de cristianismo (Spanish Edition).
But these, who feel, most of all, that their loss was untimely, are yet the very friends who can never regret the manner of it. For this was Jack's own battlefield. And he fell victorious. At the time of his death Jack held commissions in three different corps, all of which paid his memory such honour as they could.
The South African Constabulary escorted him to the Gordon Highlanders, who buried him at Pretoria, in the plot of ground where so many more of their officers were laid to rest with the wail of the pibroch for their requiem. And the Royal Canadian Artillery in Quebec wore mourning for a month. But he received even greater distinction on the 15th of August, , when the Quebec South African Soldiers' Monument was unveiled by Lord Grey, the Governor-General of Canada, in the presence of Prince Louis of Battenberg and the officers and men of his Cruiser Squadron, of the whole garrison of Quebec, and of a concourse of people as great as that which had bidden the First Contingent farewell on the same spot six years before.
Here the last honours were paid to one officer and eleven men, who, in life, would have saluted and waited for the orders of anyone of the leaders present—naval, military or civilian; but who, by the transfiguration of heroic death, had now won the unquestioned right of themselves receiving the salute of the greatest in the land.
And I wrote the four words at the head of the other, which was the roll of honour containing the names of the twelve who died:—. A century hence, when Canada will be celebrating her four hundredth birthday, our successors will undoubtedly quote the precedents established at the Quebec Tercentenary, and recognize, better than we can to-day, the profound significance of that unique event. I shall use the word unique several times this evening; and I beg leave to assure you that I shall use it only in its proper meaning, by confining it strictly to those facts in the story of Quebec which are entirely unparalleled either in Canadian, Imperial or universal history.
To begin with what was unique in Canada. This was the first time that both races and all Provinces free-willingly united to make the history of one place the centre of a Dominion celebration. Next, it is not too much to say that here, for the first time, Canada stood forth in the eye of the world as a nation self-realized, from past to present and from sea to sea. Then, thirdly, the first organized Canadian army that ever gave any promise of preparing for war in time of peace was the one at the Royal Review on the Plains of Abraham.
To these  three unique Canadian features we may add two of Imperial extent. The Quebec Tercentenary was the first celebration of its kind in all Greater Britain: it was the coming-of-age of the eldest daughter-nation of the Empire. It was also the first occasion on which the whole Empire joined in commemorating the deeds that shaped the destiny of any one part.
The King was the Patron, and took an active personal interest both in the preparation and the execution of this most complex undertaking. The Vice-Patrons were the Heir to the Throne, whose presence emphasized the true greatness of this epoch-marking celebration in the opinion of every British subject, the Duke of Connaught, who wears a medal won in defence of Canada, and his son, Prince Arthur of Connaught, who went over the whole scene very thoroughly two years before.
The President, always foremost among the hardest workers, was Lord Grey. And the Vice-Presidents, who were by no means a mere collection of figureheads to swell the list with conventional prestige, included all our own Provincial Governors and the Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition in every part of the Empire that has a parliament. Among them are names familiar to anyone who ever followed a public question of Imperial interest:—Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Borden, Mr. Jameson and General Botha. We shall hear more of General Botha later on.
But even more striking are the two points which are equally unique in universal history.