The Wars of America--By Robert Leckie

[Pielorinho]

Allow me to defer to Leckie's own use of the word, quoted from above:

Nevertheless, the were savages, and if some well-manicured moderns may be able to rationalize their cruelty as being nothing but the ungentle customs of primitive peoples, those who suffered under it had a different explanation.

I suppose this could read that he's equating "savage" to "primitive peoples." However, it reads to me that he's equating calling them savages because of "their cruelty" and "their ungentle customs." Given that, I'd expect him to play fair and apply it to those hardy torturing scalping Canadians while he's at it.

Okay, I wouldn't expect that. I'd expect an intellectually honest historian to do that.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

You would only use an article if you were referring to specific woods, e.g. Les Coureurs des Bois de l'Estrie, not to rangers in general. Coureurs de bois is an established term. Here's one encyclopedia entry on-line: http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/coureurs.html

I stand corrected. Thanks for teaching me something, mmadsen!

Daniel

 

[HeavyG]

You would only use an article if you were referring to specific woods, e.g. Les Coureurs des Bois de l'Estrie, not to rangers in general. Coureurs de bois is an established term. Here's one encyclopedia entry on-line: http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/coureurs.html

Dude, coureurs des bois de l'Estrie doesn't refer to specific woods.

It's the first time I've ever heard the expression coureurs de bois.

 

[mmadsen]

Dude, coureurs des bois de l'Estrie doesn't refer to specific woods.

I guess I'm confused now. I've seen coureur de bois multiple places now, but a quick search (and a quick glance) only showed up coureur des bois followed by a location name -- a location that seems to apply to the coureurs and the bois.

Mais je ne suis pas Canadien.

It's the first time I've ever heard the expression coureurs de bois.

I can't expect it comes up often in modern conversation, but you can even find coureurs de bois miniatures for gaming.

 

[Pielorinho]

Interesting -- I just googled both terms, and found 131 references to "coureurs du bois" and 1,990 references to "coureurs de bois". Some of the sites for each spelling were in French.

It looks as if both terms are in use. However, "coureurs des bois" got 2,090 hits -- and of the first ten, all of them were in French.

I still stand corrected, but less-so: I was wrong to accuse Mr. Leckie of not knowing his French, but not wrong about my own French. Still, since it came up in my dissing Leckie, mea culpa.

Daniel

 

[HeavyG]

I couldn't tell you why one expression is more valid than another, gramatically. I mean, for all I know, one or both alternate expressions could be perfectly valid.

They just look... wrong ... to me, but I couldn't say why. And I know that in the french canadian history I took in 11th grade, and in all the canadian history vignettes I saw on tv, they're always referred to as coureur des bois.

I searched french-language pages on Google.ca and came up with :

"coureur du bois" : 4 hits (all referring to a specific wood like "Coureur Du Bois De La Missouri Valley")

"coureur de bois" : 368 hits

"coureur des bois" : 1610 hits

It looks like some people really use "coureur de bois" to mean the same thing after all. And as I said before, this could well be a perfectly valid, yet uncommon, use of the language. It wouldn't even surprise me if it was the correct form of the term and the popular use was the wrong one. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[jgbrowning]

thanks

to all the guys out here willing to spend more time than i am to let others know a bit of difference between good history and popular history.

if popular history isnt accurate it isnt history, its fiction.

thanks again guys and fight the military-minded revisionists!

 

[jhilahd]

Sounds like a great book! Especially the Colonial period.

Thanks!

-Jhilahd

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Bookstores are full of history books that are sappy, mushy-minded, politically-correct exercises in revisionism.

It's always good to avoid those like the plague.

Thankfully, The Wars of America, by Historian Robert Leckie, isn't one of them.

There are different approaches and styles in writing books, and it is especially important to write a good history book that is approachable by the average person. Books written specifically in mind for the ivory-tower scholar aren't often interesting, and unlike the best-selling Historian Robert Leckie, they don't tend to sell well, either.

In addition, popular history books, though they can often eschew pedantic baggage, can also be accurate on the essential historical narrative. The fact that they are written to be accessible for the general reader does not mean that they must therefore be fiction.

For those who don't appreciate Mr. Leckie's writing style, don't read any of his books. Though I might suggest that before one smugly rests inside the throne of the ivory white tower and dismiss his very popular, very successful books, that they actually read the particular book in question before making judgments.

As for others, I highly recommend The Wars of America. It is an excellent book, evocative, and for those that have actually read it to learn, quite accurate on all essential aspects of the historical narrative. There are, of course, much room for debate for such minor details as the entymology and usage of de, des, or du , among other such minutae.

A fine book.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Pielorinho]

For those who don't appreciate Mr. Leckie's writing style, don't read any of his books. Though I might suggest that before one smugly rests inside the throne of the ivory white tower and dismiss his very popular, very successful books, that they actually read the particular book in question before making judgments.

Oh, c'mon. Surely it's possible to object to his books without "smugly resting inside the throne of the ivory white tower," ain't it? I mean, I'm objecting to them, and I haven't seen the inside of an ivory tower for years. Working schmoes like me can still hold our nonfiction to rigorous standards.

As I said, the writing style objection is a personal taste thing. I don't much like collard greens, but I wouldn't say anything about a meal of them.

It's the factual problems, and his blithe dismissal of the need to have transparent research, that I object to. And getting the "essential historical narrative" right is just about the most postmodern sentiment I've read on these boards. The devil, someone said, is in the details.

I've got no problem with your liking the books, Shark. No need to misrepresent why I'm leery of them.

Daniel