Your long post needs to be read more carefully than I have been able to do this Sunday morning, but I plan to get back to it soon. Yet, I also didn't want to lose the spark of an idea (or just a fleeting thought) I had while reading it, so I have hastily put this down.
Your piece made me do some comparative analysis. I was thinking of India, post-1947, somewhat smaller than the unified colonized India that came before it, yet extraordinarily diverse.
But first: Your Lawrence of Arabia scene reminded me of what happened to Arab nationalism, an aspiration of so many Arab intellectuals in the early 20th century, yet coming no closer to fruition than Nasser's many half-hearted efforts. A common religion, a common language and yet failure. Then I thought of Latin America: also a shared religion, a shared language, but despite the desires of Bolivar and O'Higgins and countless others after them, simply nothing!
How about a united Europe? Dominant religion, despite the two schisms in the second millennium, but huge ethnic and linguistic diversity. Not a hope!
And yet India, which is exactly like Europe with a dominant religion, but vast ethnic and even racial differences and even vaster linguistic diversity, has been able to forge a national identity that seems at least as strong as that of the US's. Yes, there are sectarian tensions, but not worse than the tribal animosities that exist in the US today and without any trace of a civil war that tore the Union in asunder 160 years ago.
Nationalism is a funny thing! America's melting pot feels like a failure to me. Canada's salad bowl sounds more promising. But India's thali -- the vegetarian plate with its rice and rotis in the middle and a dozen small bowl carved into it to hold the different vegetables and lentils -- deserves not to be ignored.
India is a fascinating story. So much going against it. Wise observers were so pessimistic for so long. Yet there it is today, remarkably unified and soaring. I wish I knew more about
I have saved your article because I know that I will want to read it again.
I remember that when I was growing up in Ontario, that one of the key differences between Canadians and Americans was that unlike them, we did not elevate people who had been heroic, or who had made great achievements to a ‘godlike status’. Then came Gretzky and that dynamic changed and more recently changed again.
Heroes are merely ordinary human beings with ordinary flaws who found something in themselves that was great. The history of a country is like its people- at times it is very flawed or cruel or ugly, and at others it is brave, or inspiring or generous. We do not need a whitewashed, flawless, ‘godlike’ history- we need a history that represents and tells the honest story of Canada- that we are imperfect, but want to be better than we are; we are brave because despite the shocking discovery that we have indeed propagandised our history, we can look that discovery in the eye and work to change our ways of thinking and our perspective; that we can be oblivious to the cruelty and indifference of the policies and actions of our ancestors and governments, but still love, admire and respect a young man like Terry Fox whose lonely, determined journey and sacrifice inspired and continues to inspire us today.
I believe, as you say, that if our history, our story is not told truthfully then we will never truly know ourselves as a nation and we will never learn, grow or become great.
This is impressive work. Thank you for doing it. I have some ideas on how we might respond to the situation, and will lay them out when I have beaten them into semi-coherence
I will say I am less a fan than you are of Jill Lenore’s “These Truths”. I find her work more like cotton candy: visually appealing and gratifying to the taste, but ultimately vanishing.
I’m always amazed at those who so casually denigrate Canada’s modern definition of itself as a “post national” state, all the while displaying not the least familiarity with how that definition came to be and why it is important that our constitutional experiment succeeds.
Since I do not have the luxury of a full article, let me content myself by starting (but not ending) with the first of the four pillars of our national identity: official and constitutional bilingualism.
In 1963, the newly-elected Pearson Government set up the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in response to the burgeoning Independence Movement in Québec. Two years later Pierre-Élliott Trudeau was recruited as Minister of Justice and he quickly laid down the following basic principle : “In terms of realpolitik, French and English are equal in Canada because each of these linguistic groups has the power to break the country.” That principle is as true today as it was when it was written. [Witness in this regard, the results of the 1995 Referendum.]
Unless one is prepared to logically dispute the truth of that principle and then undo the Official Languages Act of 1969 and last year’s Modernization of that Act and, still further, its adoption as a “fundamental principle” of our Constitution Act and Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, one is simply weaving fantasies about a country that is unified by one language. That country is not, and can never be, 🇨🇦.
Official bilingualism established the first of the four pillars that would define Canada as a “post national” state. Its adoption was inevitable given the fundamental principle Trudeau Sr. laid down in 1965.
A state like our Southern Neighbour based on a common language is no longer possible in Canada—nor (as I was about to argue) is a state based on a common culture or religion.
𝑾𝒐𝒘 ... 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒘𝒐𝒘. A very interesting and insightful piece and one within which resides the seeds of a movement which could truly help us all make Canada the 𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝑺𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑭𝒓𝒆𝒆 we glibly sing about. I’m on a search for Jill Lepore’s “These Truths” … my usually reliable Okanagan Regional Library has let me down on this one 🥺
Thank you for this very interesting and very thoughtful piece.
However, I am unable to tell whether your solution allows us to say that we have done great things together in the past and they outweigh our less than noble actions.
If we are not able to be net positive, I don't see us as succeeding.
As I write this, I see that Mr. Churchill has mad somewhat similar concerns.
Great piece. There is a strong analogy to your nation state premise in the business world. Simon Sinek encapsulates it brilliantly in "It Starts With Why" where he argues that you must first know your "Why" and translate that to the culture of your organization and throughout your employees to become a truly successful organization.
Similarly, a nation (like Canada) has torn its "Why", it's common stories, its reason for being, completely apart over the past 10 years and our country has similarly declined.
Whether you are building a business or a nation, you need a unifying culture and purpose to truly transcend all of the petty grievances and work towards a common goal.
a thought-provoking essay. If only we could passionately argue about how history should be written about and taught, without retreating into ideological fox holes. Last night I watched John Sayles fantastic 1996 movie, Lone Star. There's a scene where white and latino teachers are arguing about how the history of Texas should be taught. It's a good illustration how fraught this can be.
Thank you for creating such a wonderful piece about our nation without dramatic presentation. This is how history should be written about - the good, the bad and the ugly - without judgement.
Your long post needs to be read more carefully than I have been able to do this Sunday morning, but I plan to get back to it soon. Yet, I also didn't want to lose the spark of an idea (or just a fleeting thought) I had while reading it, so I have hastily put this down.
Your piece made me do some comparative analysis. I was thinking of India, post-1947, somewhat smaller than the unified colonized India that came before it, yet extraordinarily diverse.
But first: Your Lawrence of Arabia scene reminded me of what happened to Arab nationalism, an aspiration of so many Arab intellectuals in the early 20th century, yet coming no closer to fruition than Nasser's many half-hearted efforts. A common religion, a common language and yet failure. Then I thought of Latin America: also a shared religion, a shared language, but despite the desires of Bolivar and O'Higgins and countless others after them, simply nothing!
How about a united Europe? Dominant religion, despite the two schisms in the second millennium, but huge ethnic and linguistic diversity. Not a hope!
And yet India, which is exactly like Europe with a dominant religion, but vast ethnic and even racial differences and even vaster linguistic diversity, has been able to forge a national identity that seems at least as strong as that of the US's. Yes, there are sectarian tensions, but not worse than the tribal animosities that exist in the US today and without any trace of a civil war that tore the Union in asunder 160 years ago.
Nationalism is a funny thing! America's melting pot feels like a failure to me. Canada's salad bowl sounds more promising. But India's thali -- the vegetarian plate with its rice and rotis in the middle and a dozen small bowl carved into it to hold the different vegetables and lentils -- deserves not to be ignored.
India is a fascinating story. So much going against it. Wise observers were so pessimistic for so long. Yet there it is today, remarkably unified and soaring. I wish I knew more about
It.
This is exactly why I love reading you Dan. Thoughtful, enlightening, infuriating and giving not a fig for anyone’s tender sensibilities. Great piece.
I have saved your article because I know that I will want to read it again.
I remember that when I was growing up in Ontario, that one of the key differences between Canadians and Americans was that unlike them, we did not elevate people who had been heroic, or who had made great achievements to a ‘godlike status’. Then came Gretzky and that dynamic changed and more recently changed again.
Heroes are merely ordinary human beings with ordinary flaws who found something in themselves that was great. The history of a country is like its people- at times it is very flawed or cruel or ugly, and at others it is brave, or inspiring or generous. We do not need a whitewashed, flawless, ‘godlike’ history- we need a history that represents and tells the honest story of Canada- that we are imperfect, but want to be better than we are; we are brave because despite the shocking discovery that we have indeed propagandised our history, we can look that discovery in the eye and work to change our ways of thinking and our perspective; that we can be oblivious to the cruelty and indifference of the policies and actions of our ancestors and governments, but still love, admire and respect a young man like Terry Fox whose lonely, determined journey and sacrifice inspired and continues to inspire us today.
I believe, as you say, that if our history, our story is not told truthfully then we will never truly know ourselves as a nation and we will never learn, grow or become great.
This is impressive work. Thank you for doing it. I have some ideas on how we might respond to the situation, and will lay them out when I have beaten them into semi-coherence
I will say I am less a fan than you are of Jill Lenore’s “These Truths”. I find her work more like cotton candy: visually appealing and gratifying to the taste, but ultimately vanishing.
Today’s two posts were typically excellent.
I’m always amazed at those who so casually denigrate Canada’s modern definition of itself as a “post national” state, all the while displaying not the least familiarity with how that definition came to be and why it is important that our constitutional experiment succeeds.
Since I do not have the luxury of a full article, let me content myself by starting (but not ending) with the first of the four pillars of our national identity: official and constitutional bilingualism.
In 1963, the newly-elected Pearson Government set up the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in response to the burgeoning Independence Movement in Québec. Two years later Pierre-Élliott Trudeau was recruited as Minister of Justice and he quickly laid down the following basic principle : “In terms of realpolitik, French and English are equal in Canada because each of these linguistic groups has the power to break the country.” That principle is as true today as it was when it was written. [Witness in this regard, the results of the 1995 Referendum.]
Unless one is prepared to logically dispute the truth of that principle and then undo the Official Languages Act of 1969 and last year’s Modernization of that Act and, still further, its adoption as a “fundamental principle” of our Constitution Act and Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, one is simply weaving fantasies about a country that is unified by one language. That country is not, and can never be, 🇨🇦.
Next up, multiculturalism
Who… are you responding to?
I am responding to your criticism of “post national” Canada as an unserious country, a difficult task when one is confined by the format.
But I didn’t say anything about bilingualism.
Official bilingualism established the first of the four pillars that would define Canada as a “post national” state. Its adoption was inevitable given the fundamental principle Trudeau Sr. laid down in 1965.
A state like our Southern Neighbour based on a common language is no longer possible in Canada—nor (as I was about to argue) is a state based on a common culture or religion.
I didn’t argue for any of what you appear to be rebutting.
𝑾𝒐𝒘 ... 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒘𝒐𝒘. A very interesting and insightful piece and one within which resides the seeds of a movement which could truly help us all make Canada the 𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝑺𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑭𝒓𝒆𝒆 we glibly sing about. I’m on a search for Jill Lepore’s “These Truths” … my usually reliable Okanagan Regional Library has let me down on this one 🥺
Thanks again for this eye opener …
Thank you for this very interesting and very thoughtful piece.
However, I am unable to tell whether your solution allows us to say that we have done great things together in the past and they outweigh our less than noble actions.
If we are not able to be net positive, I don't see us as succeeding.
As I write this, I see that Mr. Churchill has mad somewhat similar concerns.
Great piece. There is a strong analogy to your nation state premise in the business world. Simon Sinek encapsulates it brilliantly in "It Starts With Why" where he argues that you must first know your "Why" and translate that to the culture of your organization and throughout your employees to become a truly successful organization.
Similarly, a nation (like Canada) has torn its "Why", it's common stories, its reason for being, completely apart over the past 10 years and our country has similarly declined.
Whether you are building a business or a nation, you need a unifying culture and purpose to truly transcend all of the petty grievances and work towards a common goal.
a thought-provoking essay. If only we could passionately argue about how history should be written about and taught, without retreating into ideological fox holes. Last night I watched John Sayles fantastic 1996 movie, Lone Star. There's a scene where white and latino teachers are arguing about how the history of Texas should be taught. It's a good illustration how fraught this can be.
Thank you for creating such a wonderful piece about our nation without dramatic presentation. This is how history should be written about - the good, the bad and the ugly - without judgement.