Left-wing nationalism tends to be a feature of post-colonial states, where the fight for independence or liberation from oppressors forms the nationalist narrative.
Not to apologize for wrongs is precisely the immature and offensive attitude of a Trump clone. If Canadians are to take credit for the many admirable features of the society we have both crafted and evolved, we must also take responsibility, as a nation, for the torts we committed in the process of doing so, admit those responsibilities, and make a serious effort to mend the damage.
Making an apology is a mature thing to do, and if it is to have any real meaning, some forms of atonement or compensation should accompany it.
When the Government of Canada makes an apology for historical wrongs but does nothing about the wrong it has committed, it's a shallow effort and suggests hypocrisy. When Canadians imagine we have done NO wrongs historically, we're simply stupid in a stubborn, defensive posture that is disappointingly naive.
We have plenty of reasons to be proud of Canada. Being blind to our faults isn't one of them.
Great article. Trudeau denigrates Canada every chance he gets, no other nation in the world tolerates this.
As far as apologies go we make a distinction between China and the Chinese gov't. "Canada" didn't intern Japanese Mackenzie King did. Trudeau should criticize him not Canada.
Yes - the first column that got me to subscribe - was very thoughtful one so I thought that’s what I was signing up for. This column really is just silliness. I probably would not have responded but my father had very strong views about the Canadian flag - he would have been horrified by its abuse in Ottawa.
Your comment about Trudeau persuading leftists to dislike Canada struck a cord with me. I think that’s what has soured my view of Canada. How can you help but get that view when your Prime Minister actively seeks out the bad in Canada rather than the good. And I regard myself as a centrist. Definitely not a leftist.
The famous Parliamentary apology for residential schools was, yes, made by Harper in 2008. Of course, a year later at a presser after a G20 meeting he remarked that Canada had "no history of colonialism". Clearly reflecting the curious compartmentalization of historical facts in his brain, and Canada's colonial mentality, but nevertheless.
Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous lands. The British Crown is not indigenous to North America. Nor the French Crown which preceded it. The British Crown's unilateral assertion of sovereignty and the introduction of immigrants under that authority represents the process, economic and political, of colonization. In 1867 the new Confederation claimed to be a transfer of that legal authority from the British Crown.
Just to add, Canada has also colonized the minds of its citizens. Because Canadians generally don't understand their own history. The colonial education system teaches the colonial story, a very shorthand version of it, as if it's the true and uncontested story.
"Conservatives are as close to white supremacy as they can come w/o actually declaring it."
WTF? Do you include MPs Ziad Aboultaif, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Tim Uppal, Melissa Lantsman, and Leslyn Lewis in that belief? Clearly Trudeau has no problem accusing a Jewish woman of siding with people carrying swastikas, so perhaps you are suffering from the same internal issues.
Are you sure you aren't just projecting your own tribalist "us vs them" psychology onto other people? You seem to have have a highly distorted "us" = good, "them" = evil belief, which is highly indicative of evoked ingroup-outgroup psychology. It causes people to be dismissive of others and even de-humanize them, instead of addressing actual issues.
Or, can point to specific policy that they have put forward that fits your description? Or does "w/o declaring it" mean that you are mindreading and there's no external basis for such a claim. I was at the 2019 leader debate and watched Trudeau "thought policing" Scheer in that same way.
I have no love nor hatred of either the Liberals or Conservatives (or NDP, Green, Bloc), but that bizarre claim just rings so hollow.
Terry, I am not sure what you mean by being a classical centrist Liberal. My understanding of classical liberal is that it is not part of a political party as you indicated by capitalizing Liberal it is instead an ideology that respects many different ways of living and thinking. I am an evangelical Christian who identifies similar to you as a classical liberal (not the Liberal party of Canada). The Liberal party of Canada is not friendly to my thoughts and beliefs. They are annoyed by it. Liberal party of Canada has a tendency to be illiberal when it doesn't agree with a citizen's ideology.
Including the right to chose medical treatment? Including the right to protest? Including the same response from government toward protests.
Does it include right to beliefs and expression of those beliefs? Even ones you don't like, or even detest?
I'm an atheist. I don't have a party. The Liberal Party is probably the most religiously driven these days, and least tolerant of dissent. Religion does not require a deity; a faithful belief in an ideology (such as "wokism") and punishment for dissent and heresy is still an oppressive religion. Even calling it a "religion" is not the issue; any "approved" belief system requiring conformity and quashing dissenting views is the very problem you point out with the societies you mention. It's just really hard to see that is what you are doing when you are the one doing it, or supporting it.
That's the nastiness of ingroup-outgroup psychology. Small-L liberalism means caring about the rights and freedoms of people you disagree with to make their own choices and express their own views.
What escapes the tyranny of oppressive ideology is that famous paraphrasing of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It".
we aren't so bad Terry. we really just want to love our neighbour as ourselves. I hope one day to meet you. BTW my husband who believes as I do voted Liberal as did my son. Many political stripes in my one faith family. Lots of fun discussions.
This piece attempts to grapple with some large trends of our current historical moment, but in the end simply betrays a partisan preoccupation by asserting that the prime mover at work in all of it is simply Justin Trudeau.
The trucker convoy was apparently launched by Justin in 2015 when he made the decision "to make denigrating Canada central to his Liberalism". And yet, the author is going to note connections with far right movements elsewhere, most significantly in the U.S. Did Trudeau launch these global movements at the same time, as well?
Various apologies to Indigenous Peoples are cited as central to this "deliberate strategy" of treating Canadians as a "fallen people" of "dumping on Canada" such that, in the process of "persuading leftists to dislike their country", Trudeau has "unleashed" the right-wing forces of nationalism we now face.
Presumably the author does not favour these colonial acknowledgements. How then are we to understand the project of reconciliation, as called for by the Supreme Court of Canada, which acknowledges the need to reconcile, within our legal and political system, the prior occupancy of First Nations with the assertion of Crown sovereignty. Is Trudeau responsible for these calls by the SCC, also? Justin's been one busy little bee!
Presumably the author does not favour the reality of Indigenous prior occupancy and prefers the colonial fiction of 'terra nullius', that the land was empty when colonials unilaterally asserted Crown sovereignty. But then, how do you explain those treaties? The Crown does not do treaties with its subjects? And why would you do treaties if the land was empty? I guess it's better just not to think about such things, right SCC?
It remains unclear and unexplained why such acts of recognition can not make Canada stronger? Rest upon a more solid foundation. Unless of course, the old colonial Canada is the nationalist vision to which you are univocally clinging. Are we supposed to embrace residential schools, murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, or the graves of Indigenous children as all part of the glorious project of building a better Canada? This obvious rejoinder goes by as if unnoticed.
Are we all supposed to wait for Old John Eh to step out of that photo of himself and his Confederation buddies at the Charlottetown Conference and pull down his own statues to British colonial triumphalism? Is it not the task of each generation to deal with the contradictions of its inheritance? Nope, under the rug you stay!
The author concludes one does not need a weather vane to see which way this wind is blowing, and rest assured the wind be blowing pretty hard at this point: "the assimilation of Canada into the United States". The evidence for this curious conclusion is apparently that the folks at the convoy rally seemed utterly confused about what country and political system they are living in. Too much American tv? Or is right wing nationalism (how ironic) a globalist phenomenon which transcends borders? But hey, Justin's still singularly responsible!
Rather than suggesting these folks need to go back and upgrade their education, apparently Justin simply needs to be held responsible for unleashing their ignorance. Even though education is a provincial responsibility. Not unlike responsibility for most of those mandates those convoy folks seemed equally confused about.
Brilliant evaluation. I cannot help but wonder how many of North America's present ails were also enabled by the rise of Trumpism?
Economically, you can argue we have already been assimilated into the US. Just look at the names on the stores around town. But it's still a massive step to merge....well, be occupied by the US.
Scary yes, but remember the 1990s when our economy was the shits and there were serious voices on the right urging that we adopt US currency and also that the Americans be allowed to buy our banks? Thanks god the Liberals turned that down flat; we'd have been screwed in '08, plus have lost or sovereignty. (I also remember the free trade concerns in the 1988 election, with Turner's great nationalist debate line that free trade would mean our social services would decline to American levels for reasons of competition.)
Are you aware that when Europeans established trading posts in North America, the indigenous people engaged with them voluntarily and even set up abode near them? Can you explain their concept of sovereignty?
Treaty making was part of the the Indigenous traditions into which Europeans were included. The first 200 years of treaty making are often referred to as the era of 'peace and friendship' treaties. They were not treaties of conquest.
Within that 200 year tradition there were 2 major treaties that established such relations between various First Nations and newcomers. The Great Peace of Montreal 1701 established a relationship with the French Crown, it is now commemorated on a Canadian stamp. Then after the French Crown (in North America) was defeated by the British Crown, the British Crown made a proclamation in 1763 to outline the new arrangements. I would argue (based on the scholarship of others) it is addressed to colonials, not Indigenous Peoples, however, it is sometimes referred to as the Magna Carta of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. It provides the basis for Indigenous reserve land and the need for treaties for colonials to acquire parcels of such reserve lands.
However, the next year a great treaty is signed, the Treaty of Niagara 1764, which involved First Nations from all over North America which allied these nations with the British Crown. Again, it was not a treaty of conquest.
A debate is possible about the proclamation versus the treaty. The proclamation is seen by some as a unilateral assertion of sovereignty. And yet, a treaty is negotiated the following year. One does not negotiate a treaty with subjects, but with allies or conquered peoples. At any rate, this is where the foundation debate can be located about the assertion of sovereignty, whether it's a unilateral act or a negotiated relationship. [I, for what it's worth which is not much : ), would argue that sovereignty in Canada flows from the treaty relationship, it is a negotiated and shared sovereignty that resides at Canada's foundation, not a unilateral assertion of sovereignty by the Crown - although the latter is colonial Canada's official story.]
As a result, I would argue this treaty relationship forms the constitutional foundation of sovereignty in Canada. Not any kind of unilateralism on the part of a European Crown.
By the way, the Treaty of Niagara forms the basis for the alliances which defend Canada in the War of 1812. Again Indigenous autonomy not subjugation is the basis of that alliance, and thus the basis of Canada's own autonomy following that war.
Unfortunately, in 1867, John Eh and the gang tried to pretend such a constitutional foundation did not exist and unilaterally asserted in S91.24 that the new federal government would have legislative authority over "Indians and lands reserved for Indians". No treaty was ever signed to authorize this claim. The Indian Act, an act of colonial legislation in 1876, flows from this unilateral legislative claim attempting to control 'Indians and lands reserved for Indians'.
In 1982, when Justin's dad patriated the constitution from Britain, Indigenous People's fought to have S35 included which "recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights".
I would argue this represents an unreconciled contradiction in Canada's constitution where S91.24 1867 claims legislative authority over Indigenous Peoples while S35 1982 recognizes the treaty relationship in that same constitution.
So are Indigenous Peoples legislative subjects of the Crown or autonomous allies who defended Canada in the War of 1812?
Anyhoo, that's my short version of the concept of sovereignty in Canada as it pertains to Indigenous Peoples ; )
I forgot to include in my reply that the Crown gave title of Rupert's Land to the Company of Adventurers, from whom Canada was compelled to purchase it.
Just remember at the time, the only folks living in 'Rupert's Land' were Indigenous Peoples. So what does 'title' mean in such circumstances? So what did Canada purchase in 1870, a fur trade monopoly or sovereignty? Can you buy the United States from Walmart?
It means that in 1670 the Crown considered itself to be the owner of the land. Others may have had their own claims in their own legal systems, but it was the British that prevailed.
Prevailed? Not in S35 1982. Not in the minds of the SCC calling for reconciliation. Not sure you're aware, but the injuns are still here, it's the Brits who are long gone.
Not having read all the treaties, I don't know whether or not all indigenous signees considered themselves to be "nations" in the sense of having the monopoly on violence, but consider that the first phrase in the Friendship Treaties contains these words:
"do acknowledge the jurisdiction and Dominion of His Majesty George the Second over the Territories of Nova Scotia or Accadia and we do make submission to His Majesty in the most perfect, ample and solemn manner."
Well the English text may not appear that ambiguous but given that Indigenous Peoples typically could not read the text, then the text is not the basis of a treaty agreement.
The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear on this, oral understandings with Indigenous Peoples take precedence over textual interpretations they could not have reasonably been expected to understand. Treaties are agreements. An agreement can not be valid if both parties do not share the same understanding of what the agreement is about.
Long story short, the technical English legalese is irrelevant. The more legalistic the terminology the more irrelevant it becomes. Yup a sad day for lawyers.
Did the Supreme Court conduct or reference an empirical study that showed oral legends do not bias over time, especially in favour of the society propagating it?
—There were very few treaties signed with BCs indigenous peoples. To this day only 8 or 10 have been drawn up:
When British Columbia joined Canada in 1871, the Province did not recognize Indigenous title so there was no need for treaties. However, the Province did accept the rights of Indigenous people as written in the Canadian Constitution and recognized the federal government’s authority to make laws for Indigenous people and their lands.
—And how well did that work out for PCs 1st Nations?
In 1991, the British Columbia Claims Task Force, which established the B.C. treaty process, recommended the creation of a British Columbia Treaty Commission to facilitate the negotiation process.
—This was BC Liberals, not to be confused with any other Liberals.
Neil, you can get a brilliant explanation here. It's a free online course, and I highly recommend it if you want to learn more, directly from the source.
Laura, thanks for that link. I watched the video in section 3 on treaties. It seems to be told from the indigenous perspective. Is that the purpose of the course?
I've only finished the first few modules, and I've already learned a ridiculous amount of history I never even knew about (from going to school in Alberta), but the short answer is yes.
Which is kind of beautiful, and also necessary imo.
Andrew, I am intrigued by your contention that acknowledgement of historical wrongs makes Canada "risible." Does nationalism depend, in your view, of ignoring historical reality? Is it wrong to apologize for past atrocities? If there is a problem here, and I think there is, it is that the recognition of past wrongs has not gone alongside working actively to right the wrongs, but rather a digging in of the heels, being forced to deal with the problems rather than proactively taking on the work. For instance the reluctance to deal with the Indigenous Child and Family Services CHRT ruling - putting off the problem over and over until forced to deal with it.
I would greatly appreciate a response from you. I find your assertions very troubling.
Ron, I don't think that Mr. Potter's noting of JT's [the Prime Idiot's] apologies of historical wrongs makes Canada "risible." Rather, I think that the PI's concentration on that sort of thing is what makes Canada "risible."
If one truly wants to look at the good in a country then one must also consider and admit those things that are wrong. Now, having said that, if there was a wrong done, it always should be admitted and dealt with properly and promptly. But, but, but, that doesn't negate the good things that do occur.
In the case of the PI, however, he has concentrated on the ill of the past and nothing of the good. That, of course, has been effective [but abominable] politics with his particular woke, left of center enthusiasts, folks with whom I have nothing in common.
Thanks Ken. I agree with you. Our historial leaders did the best they could given the times they were living in and the challenges they faced. If we are such a terrible country (currently and historically) then why do so many people want to immigrate here. What irks me is that our PM keeps apologizing and apologizing. It never ends. And when the USA demonstrates and screams Wrong, we immediately get on the same bandwagon. We're incapable of comparing the differences in our own history to that of the USA. I'm 73 and I left the left and moved to the centre a few years ago. I can't stand this constant Wokeism, oil& gas are evil when it will take decades to get us to net zero emissions, etc. etc. I will stop here as I just get angrier and angrier at the very low standard of political leadership we have in all of our political parties. I realize it's a very tough job now with 24/7 internet/media reporting. But if I as a regular Canadian can spend time learning about American Black History from Thomas Sowell, about Communism in all of it's forms from Stephen Kotkin, and Australian Professor Robin Batterham on the challenges of achieving net zero emissions, why can't more Canadians and ALL of our politicians?
" Our historial leaders did the best they could given the times they were living in and the challenges they faced."
This is ahistorical. Even in the early 20th Century, there were those in Canada who were repelled by what Canadian officials were doing to indigenous peoples (and also to the Metis in Manitoba). Peter Bryce, for example, spoke out against the horrific conditions in residential schools. His reward was forced retirement from the public service.
While it is true that many people (including some indigenous leaders) believed in the late 19th Century that these schools would enable indigenous children to learn skills that would enable them to enjoy rich lives, Bryce and others discovered (quite early on) that this was not the case.
JT has apologized 6 times. One was because Harper gave a half-hearted apology at an event, not in the House where they actually carry some weight so JT had to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident. Four apologies were to do with injustices First Nations peoples suffered in the past 150 years. Another apology in the House Canada’s decision in 1939 to reject an asylum request from more than 900 German Jews, 254 of whom died in the Holocaust. Heartbreaking that these apologies had to make and were made too late for so many.
Trudeau does not keep apologizing and apologizing. But where should it end? Canada is a young country and our history has some serious black stains. Best we attend to them now. We share too many similarities to the US. Not identical but very close. We marched with BLM because blacks in Canada & US suffer many the same fates. We march for injustices in other countries. We march so the US can march with us.
Do you know what "wokism" is? So many do not. It should not be capitalized in any case. Oil and gas aren't evil but it is going to be a problem for both us and the US. The environment is something we share with the US. We should care much less about what the US thinks, especially on SoMe. Should we not strive for net-zero because it'll take years and you and I won't benefit?
You do get angry and then you type out a laundry list of complaints only some have anything to do with any other.
We don't have a very low standard of political leadership in Canada. I could wish the Harper Cons would sit out. I'd also like to see them actually working to solve some of our problems rather than having the cushiest gig in gov giving nothing but opposing everything!
Sowell I've read and Kotkin but not Batterham. Thanks.
Some of our vaunted historical leaders were pigs, jerks and a-holes. They are always with us. We should apologize.
Sandra, you ask, "... why can't more Canadians and ALL our politicians?"
Wellllll.... the answers are (at least!) two-fold.
First off, the population is simply lazy and dislikes thinking and doesn't want to take the time to research, let alone truly consider, various issues. That leaves them taking the popular view of the day, no matter it's validity or (so commonly) non-validity.
Secondly, the politicians suffer from the same disease / affliction as the population at large but, very importantly, they pander to the then current popular sensibility (an oxymoron so commonly) with, again, no real thought other than what gets more approving tweets, etc.
Allow me a move into a dangerous area to illustrate mu point. The issue of climate change is a religion. No one is allowed to criticize it, not even to question it. If you seriously believe that climate is changing I respond that you are correct simply because it is always changing. If you then argue that it is catastrophically changing and assert, as some do, that we have an "existential crisis" and we must do SOMETHING by 2030 but then get in your SUV and drive to the grocery store, I don't have much patience.
People want "the government" to do SOMETHING but are not willing to consider the cost or implications on their lives. Laziness. No consideration that the popular theme might be wrong or that, if it is right, how proposed changes would truly affect them - and accept such changes. The population is far too lazy and lacking in consideration to realize that "the government is us" when it comes to paying for things, making sacrifices, etc., etc.
All of the above is why I want out of Canada - the insufferably smug "knowledge" that we are better than them there 'muricans and the rest of the world. The truth is that we are not at all better and suffer the same stupidity and then add our smugness.
Ken, I agree with you. I started following Peak Oil/climate change 20+ years ago. It's a joke when Green Energy supporters eat imported tropical foods, buy an excessive amount of clothes/furnishings, and then drive their cars, fly on planes, take public transport and make excessive use of cell phones (requiring rare metals from around the world) to attend protests, then return home to their highly mortaged large homes while being hard done by if they can't take a winter vacation in a warm climate. At least I'm honest to myself when I fly and consume more than I need.
I'm also an English as Second Language teacher and it amazes me that new Canadians don't know before coming here that most immigrants gravitate to our major cities, adding to the now shockingly high price of housing; and the spill over affects smaller communities further away. A house/apartment used to be a home, not abreathtakingly expensive financial investment.
Re your wanting out of Canada. I don't know a place that is better. My friend from The Netherlands says life there has similar issues. My sister and I have both travelled a lot. She lived in Mexico for 13 years and I lived in Egypt for 4 (not that I'm saying Egypt is a sane place to live). But I don't know of any other country that provides stability and modern facilities that are an improvement over other 'western' country. They're all waiting for nirvana to arrive via Wokeism and 100% Green Energy, and best of all.... endless "Sunny Days, Sunny Ways".
Didn't know who Andrew Potter is & started to read what appeared to be a knowlegeable analysis...quickly degenerated into the usual anti-Trudeau screed albeit without the name-calling.
Any law that divides people into "free" and "convicts" is the most-divisive of all. I spent four decades under a cannabis law that would have clapped me in jail, and we were a good 10% of the population, estimates say. The proponents of this divisive law knew well they were marginalizing youth and ethnic groups, which is why they preferred the Spanish word for the leaf, to associate it with "Mexican rapists". Man, that was divisive. AND they knew it was unscientific, less-defensible than alcohol prohibition, that's why their laws prohibited medical research into it.
And, while it wasn't so much law, as who got fired from their teaching job, the overall right spent decades divisively dividing society into the 90% that were sane and healthy, and the 10% that suffered from the perversion/illness of homosexuality. I spent the 90s reading about the stealthy, child-endangering "gay agenda" in Alberta Report, and watching high politicians give the belief system cover and sympathy.
Those provide a pretty huge contrast to Mr. Potter's concern that liberals were "divisive" by passing mask mandates. The contrast being that those were quite old, invented decades ago, we were just, ahem, conserving, old, proven wisdom for plague-fighting. Scientifically-proved to save lives, and therefore extremely popular (84% last Feb 2) once that message got around, the old people I know are overboard on them, wearing them outdoors sometimes. But they are very, VERY unpopular with about 10% of the population, who then cry that these 84% popular rules are "divisive".
I'll tell you this for nothing: if that 10% ever got their hands on power, they'd forbid research into whether masks or vaccines even work, just like their righty predecessors did with cannabis.
So, to sum up: the utterly unscientific prohibition of cannabis from our homes, and gays from jobs of trust, were long-held right-wing positions. They were both suddenly abandoned by the right in just the last decade, and those former positions never spoken-of any more, are never called "divisive" about those 10% groups.
There must be something special about this 10% that entitles them to call 84% of us "divisive".
What is it, Mr. Potter?
Oh, and as for crapping on Canada, nobody craps on Canada like right-wing commentators who constantly call the country weak, ineffectual, unable to fight, unable to command respect on the "world stage", and, of course, divided.
Thank you. I remember the Alberta Report, but not clearly so I googled images...WOW, I DO remember the Alberta Report.
There is one issue headlined "The Safety Nazis"—The Death of Freedom in the Age of Big Sister." And another, "Canada's Mythical Holocaust: Ottawa's $350 million apology for the 'horrors' of Indian residential schools is rooted more in fiction that fact."
They have always been among us. I guess they always will be. It's just that now they're so in our face!
I completely disagree that Trudeau has taught Canadians to "dislike their country". Winners write the history, and until the last 20 years, the reality of how Canada came into being was cloaked in secrecy, less we learn that our birth wasn't all peaceful and that we didn't run around sharing food and singing Kumbaya. I still believe this is the greatest country in the world, but I'm glad I know the truth of our beginnings., Now I expect my governments to do something about it.
Compared to what is happening in Ukraine, every single one of our major concerns is little more than petulant whining. We need to get our collective heads out of our rear ends and come to terms that there are more important things than needing to wear a mask. The worst thing I can imagine is having to call myself "American".....and that thought in itself is entirely petty. Trudeau is, and has been a terrible PM. Our "loyal opposition" has been equally useless, and divisive.
I wonder if we can find a way to return to the idea that Canada matters. Who we are, and why we can travel anywhere in the world and be welcomed. If we could only treat each other the same way at home.
I'm not sure Trudeau has ingratiated himself to anyone. The former president holds him in utter contempt ( as he does everyone without his last name), and the current one isn't doing a whole lot to help us out. But I'm quite curious about the book.
So the number of protesters wrapping themselves in confederate CSA flags must mean that the protesters showed a lot of love for slaveholding? And those that "proudly" displayed Nazi symbols were showing their love for, well you know what? (In the latter case I'm afraid the answer is "yes".) I didn't see the not-really-truckers show much love for their fellow Canadians who live in Ottawa (really they are Canadians) and who they were only too eager to harass and threaten. Perhaps they could show their love of Canada by learning just how the governments of Canada work.
Anti-Americanism is simply a distraction tool that has been used by Canadian politicians to suite their own agendas since our Confederation.
Fear and disrespect of the US has been engrained into our culture by those seeking to mask mediocrity of their own leadership.
The result has been the rise of an anti-American bigotry that is a stain on our national character.
We have benefitted immensely by our proximity to the US and have shared North America peacefully for close to a century.
Given that the US defends the free world, we have been able to divert the wealth that results from our trade with America from funding our own security to providing the social benefits we enjoy.
In spite of the relationship that has been so positive for us, our propensity to disdain America, its culture, its governance and its people gives rise to constant predictions that the situation is going to change to the point where we become enemies.
The fact remains, however, that the US is largely unaware of this sentiment - they are largely indifferent to our politics and the use bigotry against them plays.
Recently progressive Canadians have been celebrating what they have convinced themselves of is the the downfall of America as the world’s most powerful nation.
As well, they appear to welcome their notion that Red China will be their successor.
The prospect of the potential subjugation of the Free World is, however, beyond their vision.
The demise of the US is their fond hope but what transpires after that is a blank.
The United States nor its politics is anywhere near the threat that the collapse of that nation would entail for Canada and its freedom.
Canadians must understand that their relationship with the US is their best hope of preserving their democracy rather than a threat to it.
The Liberal progressive notion that we can cast ourselves into a world in which American hegemony no longer exists yet retain our freedom is logically inexplicable.
Our only option at this point in time is to accept the fact that the US is not the ogre we have been indoctrinated to believe it is and to rehabilitate our attitude towards maintaining the relationship with them that has served us so well.
What we have to fear south of the border is far less the hazard than what is building outside of North America.
Canada essentially exists because the folks here circa 1812 -- British, French, Indigenous, Loyalists -- all didn't want to be American. Beyond that, arguably, they didn't agree on very much, but they agreed on that. And from that shrugging ambivalence, a great nation was born!
Kidding aside, that history means that a strain of anti-Americanism is in our national DNA. I agree, it sometimes works to our detriment. Might we have a better healthcare system (or COVID-19 response) if we weren't so smuggly focused on how much better we've done than the Americans -- if we actually benchmarked ourselves against jurisdictions that did this stuff well?
As you point out, we've benefitted greatly from our proximity and relationship with the US. But, at some point, I'd love for Canada to define itself as something beyond a British colony or the US's kid brother ... but we seem to struggle to think of ourselves outside the context of others.
I would suggest that one reason we have so much trouble with our identity is because the colonial story of a unilateral assertion of Crown sovereignty does not have a true or coherent foundation. The true foundation is not a unilateral assertion of Crown sovereignty but treaties with First Nations, in other words, a negotiated or shared sovereignty. The colonial state does not want to tell this story. Which is sad, because it's actually a pretty cool story. But sharing power, for some, is hard to do. So we live inside a false, shallow, incoherent story as best we can. Which is not very well.
I had to toss what I started to write because I kept writing rude things.
"Recently progressive Canadians have been celebrating what they have convinced themselves of is the the downfall of America as the world’s most powerful nation."
Uh, No. Conservatives in Canada have always been pro-Canadian nation, right back to Sir John A MacDonald. Stephen Harper regularly said this was the best country in the world. While I agree that Justin Trudeau has made a critical error in adopting the narrative that Canadian institutions and history are bad and has shown very little aptitude for uniting Canadians, this won’t stick. The Liberal Party will return to a more traditional pro-Canada stance. And the MAGA folks at the barricades didn’t even constitute a majority there.
Whatever people think of Andrew Potter's opinion piece, they must surely agree that it sparked an interesting exchange of comments. To answer Andrew's question, I suspect that Justin Trudeau, for one, loves Canada. However, he probably realizes that he would be roundly criticized, mocked, vilified and worse for saying so. I also think that he sincerely regrets the many wrongs perpetuated upon indigenous people here and elsewhere, and probably believes that it is appropriate for him to acknowledge that fact and apologize. Again, he would be right to think that if he said nothing, he would be roundly criticized, just as he is for saying something. By the way, I'm not a fan of 'nationalism' as in 'my country, right or wrong', or 'my country is better than your country'. And I don't believe the prime minister should be a cheerleader nor that we need one; just get on with helping the country be as good as it can be.
YES! Horsefeathers and every other Trudeau cultist should ask themselves: Would Ukrainians be fighting so hard if their government spent years teaching them to hate themselves? This was never true of Liberals in the past, who still acknowledged the residential schools, Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion act, Komagata Maru Incident, etcetera.
When progressive Twitter wrung its hands about whether the trucker protesters had sullied the Canadian flag beyond purpose, my reaction was: "How can it be more sullied than after five years of Trudeau shitting on it?"
I've voted Liberal or NDP since Pierre T.'s first election, but I can't vote any longer for parties or leaders who treat our country as nothing but a racist, genocidal hellhole (which leaves me politically homeless). We have work to do -- every human being and country ALWAYS has work to do -- but anyone who travels knows to be grateful for what we have and what we've accomplished. It's stunning to me that after five years of Trudeau, the proudest and most patriotic Canadians are those who've come from abroad, from virtually every continent and region of the world.
I'm 59. Residential schools were little more than background noise to be ignored until the realities of the TRC came out. I cannot disagree strongly enough that "Liberals in the past, who still acknowledged the residential schools, Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion act, Komagata Maru Incident, etcetera". No words were ever spoken.
I think most agree now that Trudeau's time is long past its due date. And as furious as I was at his lack of actions around the nonsense in Ottawa, today I am incredibly proud of my government, my country, and the entire western world for their response to the greatest crisis we've faced since at least 1962...and maybe 1941. That doesn't change the black marks on our history are gone or forgotten but is it ever nice to leaders...everywhere.... rise to the occasion. And maybe having discovered that they can actually do it, maybe we'll see some of that at home as well once this nightmare passes.
Sorry. I'm 71. We knew about schools and graves in the 1990s. George Ryga wrote about MMIWG in 1967 (The Ecstacy of Rita Joe) which went on at the National Arts Centre in centennial year and played across the country first as a play and then as a ballet.
Sharon Pollack wrote "The Komagata Maru Incident' which played across the country in the late 1970s. Joy Kogawa wrote her bestseller Obasan about the internment in 1981, which was around the time Tomson Highway's The Rez Sisters and others made their mark.
Just because you weren't following things at the time doesn't mean they weren't happening.
I can accept some of that. Not a single word of it was ever mentioned in my schooling...ever. That someone wrote a book, or a ballet is hardly what I would describe as a public examination...or teaching of our history.
The Komogata Maru has nothing to do with the colonization of Canada, nor does Japanese internment.
History is NOT simply taught in schools; that's a weird way to think of education, as if it's in this thing that only exists when we're young and seated behind desks. (I have no way of knowing what was taught in your school; very little Canadian history was taught in my schooling besides the explorers.)
We continually learn about our national history, as with most things, from life outside the classroom, and especially from the broader culture, which reflects our interests and concerns.
The Komagata Maru Incident and internment are two of the many things Trudeau has apologized for and are relevant to this discussion. And to dismiss The Ecstacy of Rita Joe as simply a ballet or a book betrays enormous ignorance of material that was featured in broad-based magazines and newspapers and spawned innumerable think pieces. (The ballet was an offshoot, with adaptation by Joseph Boyden; Ryga's work was seminal.) See also Arthur Hailey's early CBC play Indian.
Contra Trudeau cultists, we didn't suddenly wake up to our past when Himself descended from on high to enlighten us.
Knowledge of your country starts in the school system, and with your family. In Ontario, we were taught nothing of Canada's history before grade 10. Not a word about Canada, but we did the feudal system 3 times. I know crop rotation like you can't imagine. I learned we had a military history from my uncles....who wouldn't talk about their war experiences anywhere but at the Legion. Then came "The National Dream" where I got more Canadian history in 8 weeks on CBC than I got in any school.
But nowhere, ever was their discussion of how we kidnapped children or starved tribes on the Prairies.
I agree with you that we continue to learn our history as time passes, but I think it's a stretch to suggest that most Canadians' knowledge of Indians was that they were a "problem" and a "drain on the taxpayer". How were ignored the treaties we signed and the promises we made somehow escaped the conversation more often than not. Certainly, that's how most governments dealt with it.
I have never heard of the Ecstasy of Rita Joe before today; I'd be really curious how many other readers have. But I was born in Ontario, not BC. I do believe it is the state's job to lay some groundwork in its children as to the country's history. For me, that led me to the wars and the building of the CPR. That led me to Louis Riel, but none of it led to what happened after the railroad was built. Some of that is on me. But I also believe there is a large majority of Canadians who were shocked when the bodies were found, and all those long-ignored rumours proved true. I'm glad you were exposed to it. I wish I had been. Ignorance is rarely bliss.
Fair enough. I'm from Ontario, too. I think the difference may also be generational. Concerns go in and out of season. What we call woke today was pc in the early nineties and was similar to late '60s when we took over deans' offices in campus sit-ins and when the civil/gay/women's rights movements were strong with Black Panthers = BLM, and a lot of students carried around Mao's Little Red Book during the Cultural Revolution etcetera. ('70s was also when Indigenous leaders stood up to Pierre and Chretien's desire to get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs and leaders like Ovid Mercredi were big players in the Indigenous movement.) Thirty years before that in the 30s, progressives were joining the Comm unist Partry and supporting Stalin. 30 year cycles, things gert forgtrten and rediscovered.
A certainty...but only a minority. If he's gone, it's a landslide. I'm becoming curious how long it will take the CPC to figure out why they keep losing.....assuming that they want to win?? Maybe splitting the 15% of the far right with the PPC will help them turn the ship around. I still think ditching the evangelical base, and coming out with a fiscally conservative platform that believes climate change would put them in charge. But I wonder if they just prefer asking questions as opposition so they don't have to make any actual decisions.
The problem with all the breast-beating apologies is that it looked bad, by comparison, when Trudeau refused to have ANYTHING to do with the truckers.
I know, I know. Commenters will say I'm comparing apples and oranges, but the fact is it looked as though Trudeau had no time for a group of people who felt aggrieved enough to drive all the way across the country to make a point. Our colourfully be-socked (but morally benighted) leader has always made it very clear where his sympathies lie, and it's not with the working class in Canada.
That so many Canadians are on board with this thinking really makes me wonder: just who do you think is delivering your Amazon packages?
Yes, I suppose the apologies were historically significant, but there were so many that after a while I and a lot of others started to roll our eyes every time our MSM covered yet another one. Is that insensitive? Oh probably. But again, there were so just so damned many.
I work in an institutional environment where leftist thinking dominates. We recently had three days of professional development offered to all employees. Out of 40 workshop offerings only two did NOT focus on colonization or some aspect of it.
At a time when a lot of my peers could really do with upping their tech skills--trust me, I know!--the institution I worked for put together this totally lopsided package. Only one colleague noticed it.
This kind of "we're all misogynist, racist, right-wing bastards here in Canada" thinking really has become the water in our fish-tank. Anyone who doubts this needs to work in leftist environment for a while. It's impossible to un-see it.
I see a lot of people in the comments calling themselves centrist.
Joan, you note that, "... a lot of people in the comments [call] themselves centrist."
I would use that phrase in describing myself except when I comment various and sundry of the commentators accuse me of being right-wing, a Trump supporter (ug!) and so forth. The truth is, most people think of their own views as being eminently reasonable; it is "those others" who are off-side.
Therefore I must self-describe as somewhat on the conservative side of things - please note, small "c" not large "C" - perhaps even somewhat libertarian insofar as I think that people should largely be able to make choices for themselves.
Of course, that means that I am a "centrist" (in my own eminently reasonable mind), right?
...Wow. There's so much context missing from this article that it's almost painful to read.
For one thing, both Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper apologized for everything from the Komagata Maru incident to the residential school system and the abuses committed against Japanese Candians, as well as providing reparations to the Ukrainian Canadian community.
As for the idea that left-wing nationalism was dominant right up until 2017, what about all the criticism Indigenous and other activists were directing at Canada 150?
Some of these things have been festering for a pretty long time, and they've only come to the forefront in the last couple of years. Justin Trudeau is, however clumsily, trying to follow in Mulroney's and Harper's footsteps in making things right. You can judge how well he's doing it, but he's at least trying to look like he's addressing these problems. He's not actively encouraging Canadians to "hate" themselves.
But while Andrew Potter is wrong in attributing all these things to Trudeau Junior, he's right about the bigger problem developing. In some circles, showing any kind of pride in or love for Canada seems to equate to condoning everything from residential schools to the racist treatment of Japanese, Jewish and Indian people. We've gone from being Canada The Good, the friendly Peaceable Kingdom, to Canada The Bad, a malicious place with no redeeming value.
Apparently it's impossible to support things like Indigenous rights and restitution *because* you love Canada, and want to be able to fly your flag and listen to your national anthem with pride. No, either you have to uncritically cheer everything about Canada or you have to hate the entire thing and want it all burned down. I say bullshit to that.
Not to apologize for wrongs is precisely the immature and offensive attitude of a Trump clone. If Canadians are to take credit for the many admirable features of the society we have both crafted and evolved, we must also take responsibility, as a nation, for the torts we committed in the process of doing so, admit those responsibilities, and make a serious effort to mend the damage.
Making an apology is a mature thing to do, and if it is to have any real meaning, some forms of atonement or compensation should accompany it.
When the Government of Canada makes an apology for historical wrongs but does nothing about the wrong it has committed, it's a shallow effort and suggests hypocrisy. When Canadians imagine we have done NO wrongs historically, we're simply stupid in a stubborn, defensive posture that is disappointingly naive.
We have plenty of reasons to be proud of Canada. Being blind to our faults isn't one of them.
Great article. Trudeau denigrates Canada every chance he gets, no other nation in the world tolerates this.
As far as apologies go we make a distinction between China and the Chinese gov't. "Canada" didn't intern Japanese Mackenzie King did. Trudeau should criticize him not Canada.
To paraphrase Andrew Potter,
a) Liberals believe Canada is ludicrous;
b) So Liberals set out to denigrate Canada beginning in 2015;
c) Liberals thereby persuaded progressives to dislike Canada because it is a nation of racists and bigots;
d) Leaving it open for the right to promote U.S. assimilation of our country.
Tripe, from start to finish.
Yes - the first column that got me to subscribe - was very thoughtful one so I thought that’s what I was signing up for. This column really is just silliness. I probably would not have responded but my father had very strong views about the Canadian flag - he would have been horrified by its abuse in Ottawa.
Your comment about Trudeau persuading leftists to dislike Canada struck a cord with me. I think that’s what has soured my view of Canada. How can you help but get that view when your Prime Minister actively seeks out the bad in Canada rather than the good. And I regard myself as a centrist. Definitely not a leftist.
Who made a comment about Trudeau persuading leftists to dislike Canada?
The famous Parliamentary apology for residential schools was, yes, made by Harper in 2008. Of course, a year later at a presser after a G20 meeting he remarked that Canada had "no history of colonialism". Clearly reflecting the curious compartmentalization of historical facts in his brain, and Canada's colonial mentality, but nevertheless.
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100015644/1571589171655
https://vancouversun.com/news/community-blogs/really-harper-canada-has-no-history-of-colonialism
what has Canada colonized?
Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous lands. The British Crown is not indigenous to North America. Nor the French Crown which preceded it. The British Crown's unilateral assertion of sovereignty and the introduction of immigrants under that authority represents the process, economic and political, of colonization. In 1867 the new Confederation claimed to be a transfer of that legal authority from the British Crown.
What has 𝘾𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙙𝙖 colonized?
Canada inherited all that the Crown claimed (and all of its obligations, as well).
Hmmm. Same question? Same answer?
However, I have a longer response here, if you care to consult it, regarding 'Canada' and its relation to colonialism: http://treatypeople.ca/Indigenous%20Topics/assertion-of-crown-sovereignty-in-canada.php
Just to add, Canada has also colonized the minds of its citizens. Because Canadians generally don't understand their own history. The colonial education system teaches the colonial story, a very shorthand version of it, as if it's the true and uncontested story.
"Conservatives are as close to white supremacy as they can come w/o actually declaring it."
WTF? Do you include MPs Ziad Aboultaif, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Tim Uppal, Melissa Lantsman, and Leslyn Lewis in that belief? Clearly Trudeau has no problem accusing a Jewish woman of siding with people carrying swastikas, so perhaps you are suffering from the same internal issues.
Are you sure you aren't just projecting your own tribalist "us vs them" psychology onto other people? You seem to have have a highly distorted "us" = good, "them" = evil belief, which is highly indicative of evoked ingroup-outgroup psychology. It causes people to be dismissive of others and even de-humanize them, instead of addressing actual issues.
Or, can point to specific policy that they have put forward that fits your description? Or does "w/o declaring it" mean that you are mindreading and there's no external basis for such a claim. I was at the 2019 leader debate and watched Trudeau "thought policing" Scheer in that same way.
I have no love nor hatred of either the Liberals or Conservatives (or NDP, Green, Bloc), but that bizarre claim just rings so hollow.
Terry, I am not sure what you mean by being a classical centrist Liberal. My understanding of classical liberal is that it is not part of a political party as you indicated by capitalizing Liberal it is instead an ideology that respects many different ways of living and thinking. I am an evangelical Christian who identifies similar to you as a classical liberal (not the Liberal party of Canada). The Liberal party of Canada is not friendly to my thoughts and beliefs. They are annoyed by it. Liberal party of Canada has a tendency to be illiberal when it doesn't agree with a citizen's ideology.
As an evangelical Christian, how would you suggest we take the words of Pat Robertson yesterday?
"I believe in full equality for ALL citizens."
Including the right to chose medical treatment? Including the right to protest? Including the same response from government toward protests.
Does it include right to beliefs and expression of those beliefs? Even ones you don't like, or even detest?
I'm an atheist. I don't have a party. The Liberal Party is probably the most religiously driven these days, and least tolerant of dissent. Religion does not require a deity; a faithful belief in an ideology (such as "wokism") and punishment for dissent and heresy is still an oppressive religion. Even calling it a "religion" is not the issue; any "approved" belief system requiring conformity and quashing dissenting views is the very problem you point out with the societies you mention. It's just really hard to see that is what you are doing when you are the one doing it, or supporting it.
That's the nastiness of ingroup-outgroup psychology. Small-L liberalism means caring about the rights and freedoms of people you disagree with to make their own choices and express their own views.
What escapes the tyranny of oppressive ideology is that famous paraphrasing of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It".
Will you do that for people you disagree with?
WTF is wokism and when did it become a religion?
we aren't so bad Terry. we really just want to love our neighbour as ourselves. I hope one day to meet you. BTW my husband who believes as I do voted Liberal as did my son. Many political stripes in my one faith family. Lots of fun discussions.
This piece attempts to grapple with some large trends of our current historical moment, but in the end simply betrays a partisan preoccupation by asserting that the prime mover at work in all of it is simply Justin Trudeau.
The trucker convoy was apparently launched by Justin in 2015 when he made the decision "to make denigrating Canada central to his Liberalism". And yet, the author is going to note connections with far right movements elsewhere, most significantly in the U.S. Did Trudeau launch these global movements at the same time, as well?
Various apologies to Indigenous Peoples are cited as central to this "deliberate strategy" of treating Canadians as a "fallen people" of "dumping on Canada" such that, in the process of "persuading leftists to dislike their country", Trudeau has "unleashed" the right-wing forces of nationalism we now face.
Presumably the author does not favour these colonial acknowledgements. How then are we to understand the project of reconciliation, as called for by the Supreme Court of Canada, which acknowledges the need to reconcile, within our legal and political system, the prior occupancy of First Nations with the assertion of Crown sovereignty. Is Trudeau responsible for these calls by the SCC, also? Justin's been one busy little bee!
Presumably the author does not favour the reality of Indigenous prior occupancy and prefers the colonial fiction of 'terra nullius', that the land was empty when colonials unilaterally asserted Crown sovereignty. But then, how do you explain those treaties? The Crown does not do treaties with its subjects? And why would you do treaties if the land was empty? I guess it's better just not to think about such things, right SCC?
It remains unclear and unexplained why such acts of recognition can not make Canada stronger? Rest upon a more solid foundation. Unless of course, the old colonial Canada is the nationalist vision to which you are univocally clinging. Are we supposed to embrace residential schools, murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, or the graves of Indigenous children as all part of the glorious project of building a better Canada? This obvious rejoinder goes by as if unnoticed.
Are we all supposed to wait for Old John Eh to step out of that photo of himself and his Confederation buddies at the Charlottetown Conference and pull down his own statues to British colonial triumphalism? Is it not the task of each generation to deal with the contradictions of its inheritance? Nope, under the rug you stay!
The author concludes one does not need a weather vane to see which way this wind is blowing, and rest assured the wind be blowing pretty hard at this point: "the assimilation of Canada into the United States". The evidence for this curious conclusion is apparently that the folks at the convoy rally seemed utterly confused about what country and political system they are living in. Too much American tv? Or is right wing nationalism (how ironic) a globalist phenomenon which transcends borders? But hey, Justin's still singularly responsible!
Rather than suggesting these folks need to go back and upgrade their education, apparently Justin simply needs to be held responsible for unleashing their ignorance. Even though education is a provincial responsibility. Not unlike responsibility for most of those mandates those convoy folks seemed equally confused about.
How risible.
Brilliant evaluation. I cannot help but wonder how many of North America's present ails were also enabled by the rise of Trumpism?
Economically, you can argue we have already been assimilated into the US. Just look at the names on the stores around town. But it's still a massive step to merge....well, be occupied by the US.
Scary yes, but remember the 1990s when our economy was the shits and there were serious voices on the right urging that we adopt US currency and also that the Americans be allowed to buy our banks? Thanks god the Liberals turned that down flat; we'd have been screwed in '08, plus have lost or sovereignty. (I also remember the free trade concerns in the 1988 election, with Turner's great nationalist debate line that free trade would mean our social services would decline to American levels for reasons of competition.)
Are you aware that when Europeans established trading posts in North America, the indigenous people engaged with them voluntarily and even set up abode near them? Can you explain their concept of sovereignty?
Well it's kind of a long story, but.
Treaty making was part of the the Indigenous traditions into which Europeans were included. The first 200 years of treaty making are often referred to as the era of 'peace and friendship' treaties. They were not treaties of conquest.
Within that 200 year tradition there were 2 major treaties that established such relations between various First Nations and newcomers. The Great Peace of Montreal 1701 established a relationship with the French Crown, it is now commemorated on a Canadian stamp. Then after the French Crown (in North America) was defeated by the British Crown, the British Crown made a proclamation in 1763 to outline the new arrangements. I would argue (based on the scholarship of others) it is addressed to colonials, not Indigenous Peoples, however, it is sometimes referred to as the Magna Carta of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. It provides the basis for Indigenous reserve land and the need for treaties for colonials to acquire parcels of such reserve lands.
However, the next year a great treaty is signed, the Treaty of Niagara 1764, which involved First Nations from all over North America which allied these nations with the British Crown. Again, it was not a treaty of conquest.
A debate is possible about the proclamation versus the treaty. The proclamation is seen by some as a unilateral assertion of sovereignty. And yet, a treaty is negotiated the following year. One does not negotiate a treaty with subjects, but with allies or conquered peoples. At any rate, this is where the foundation debate can be located about the assertion of sovereignty, whether it's a unilateral act or a negotiated relationship. [I, for what it's worth which is not much : ), would argue that sovereignty in Canada flows from the treaty relationship, it is a negotiated and shared sovereignty that resides at Canada's foundation, not a unilateral assertion of sovereignty by the Crown - although the latter is colonial Canada's official story.]
As a result, I would argue this treaty relationship forms the constitutional foundation of sovereignty in Canada. Not any kind of unilateralism on the part of a European Crown.
By the way, the Treaty of Niagara forms the basis for the alliances which defend Canada in the War of 1812. Again Indigenous autonomy not subjugation is the basis of that alliance, and thus the basis of Canada's own autonomy following that war.
Unfortunately, in 1867, John Eh and the gang tried to pretend such a constitutional foundation did not exist and unilaterally asserted in S91.24 that the new federal government would have legislative authority over "Indians and lands reserved for Indians". No treaty was ever signed to authorize this claim. The Indian Act, an act of colonial legislation in 1876, flows from this unilateral legislative claim attempting to control 'Indians and lands reserved for Indians'.
In 1982, when Justin's dad patriated the constitution from Britain, Indigenous People's fought to have S35 included which "recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights".
I would argue this represents an unreconciled contradiction in Canada's constitution where S91.24 1867 claims legislative authority over Indigenous Peoples while S35 1982 recognizes the treaty relationship in that same constitution.
So are Indigenous Peoples legislative subjects of the Crown or autonomous allies who defended Canada in the War of 1812?
Anyhoo, that's my short version of the concept of sovereignty in Canada as it pertains to Indigenous Peoples ; )
There is a longer version of this story (http://treatypeople.ca/Indigenous%20Topics/assertion-of-crown-sovereignty-in-canada.php), feel free to consult it if you're having trouble getting to sleep some night.
I forgot to include in my reply that the Crown gave title of Rupert's Land to the Company of Adventurers, from whom Canada was compelled to purchase it.
Just remember at the time, the only folks living in 'Rupert's Land' were Indigenous Peoples. So what does 'title' mean in such circumstances? So what did Canada purchase in 1870, a fur trade monopoly or sovereignty? Can you buy the United States from Walmart?
It means that in 1670 the Crown considered itself to be the owner of the land. Others may have had their own claims in their own legal systems, but it was the British that prevailed.
Prevailed? Not in S35 1982. Not in the minds of the SCC calling for reconciliation. Not sure you're aware, but the injuns are still here, it's the Brits who are long gone.
Not having read all the treaties, I don't know whether or not all indigenous signees considered themselves to be "nations" in the sense of having the monopoly on violence, but consider that the first phrase in the Friendship Treaties contains these words:
"do acknowledge the jurisdiction and Dominion of His Majesty George the Second over the Territories of Nova Scotia or Accadia and we do make submission to His Majesty in the most perfect, ample and solemn manner."
I don't see any ambiguity there.
Well the English text may not appear that ambiguous but given that Indigenous Peoples typically could not read the text, then the text is not the basis of a treaty agreement.
The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear on this, oral understandings with Indigenous Peoples take precedence over textual interpretations they could not have reasonably been expected to understand. Treaties are agreements. An agreement can not be valid if both parties do not share the same understanding of what the agreement is about.
Long story short, the technical English legalese is irrelevant. The more legalistic the terminology the more irrelevant it becomes. Yup a sad day for lawyers.
Did the Supreme Court conduct or reference an empirical study that showed oral legends do not bias over time, especially in favour of the society propagating it?
Irrelevant. Treaties are agreements, in order to be valid they need to be 'agreed to'. Full stop.
—There were very few treaties signed with BCs indigenous peoples. To this day only 8 or 10 have been drawn up:
When British Columbia joined Canada in 1871, the Province did not recognize Indigenous title so there was no need for treaties. However, the Province did accept the rights of Indigenous people as written in the Canadian Constitution and recognized the federal government’s authority to make laws for Indigenous people and their lands.
—And how well did that work out for PCs 1st Nations?
In 1991, the British Columbia Claims Task Force, which established the B.C. treaty process, recommended the creation of a British Columbia Treaty Commission to facilitate the negotiation process.
—This was BC Liberals, not to be confused with any other Liberals.
" the Province did not recognize Indigenous title "
Thank you.
Neil, you can get a brilliant explanation here. It's a free online course, and I highly recommend it if you want to learn more, directly from the source.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada
Laura, thanks for that link. I watched the video in section 3 on treaties. It seems to be told from the indigenous perspective. Is that the purpose of the course?
I've only finished the first few modules, and I've already learned a ridiculous amount of history I never even knew about (from going to school in Alberta), but the short answer is yes.
Which is kind of beautiful, and also necessary imo.
Cheers.
Andrew, I am intrigued by your contention that acknowledgement of historical wrongs makes Canada "risible." Does nationalism depend, in your view, of ignoring historical reality? Is it wrong to apologize for past atrocities? If there is a problem here, and I think there is, it is that the recognition of past wrongs has not gone alongside working actively to right the wrongs, but rather a digging in of the heels, being forced to deal with the problems rather than proactively taking on the work. For instance the reluctance to deal with the Indigenous Child and Family Services CHRT ruling - putting off the problem over and over until forced to deal with it.
I would greatly appreciate a response from you. I find your assertions very troubling.
Ron, I don't think that Mr. Potter's noting of JT's [the Prime Idiot's] apologies of historical wrongs makes Canada "risible." Rather, I think that the PI's concentration on that sort of thing is what makes Canada "risible."
If one truly wants to look at the good in a country then one must also consider and admit those things that are wrong. Now, having said that, if there was a wrong done, it always should be admitted and dealt with properly and promptly. But, but, but, that doesn't negate the good things that do occur.
In the case of the PI, however, he has concentrated on the ill of the past and nothing of the good. That, of course, has been effective [but abominable] politics with his particular woke, left of center enthusiasts, folks with whom I have nothing in common.
Thanks Ken. I agree with you. Our historial leaders did the best they could given the times they were living in and the challenges they faced. If we are such a terrible country (currently and historically) then why do so many people want to immigrate here. What irks me is that our PM keeps apologizing and apologizing. It never ends. And when the USA demonstrates and screams Wrong, we immediately get on the same bandwagon. We're incapable of comparing the differences in our own history to that of the USA. I'm 73 and I left the left and moved to the centre a few years ago. I can't stand this constant Wokeism, oil& gas are evil when it will take decades to get us to net zero emissions, etc. etc. I will stop here as I just get angrier and angrier at the very low standard of political leadership we have in all of our political parties. I realize it's a very tough job now with 24/7 internet/media reporting. But if I as a regular Canadian can spend time learning about American Black History from Thomas Sowell, about Communism in all of it's forms from Stephen Kotkin, and Australian Professor Robin Batterham on the challenges of achieving net zero emissions, why can't more Canadians and ALL of our politicians?
@SandraMB: You wrote:
" Our historial leaders did the best they could given the times they were living in and the challenges they faced."
This is ahistorical. Even in the early 20th Century, there were those in Canada who were repelled by what Canadian officials were doing to indigenous peoples (and also to the Metis in Manitoba). Peter Bryce, for example, spoke out against the horrific conditions in residential schools. His reward was forced retirement from the public service.
C.f.: Entry on Peter Bryce, Wikipedia, Accessed 28 February 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bryce
While it is true that many people (including some indigenous leaders) believed in the late 19th Century that these schools would enable indigenous children to learn skills that would enable them to enjoy rich lives, Bryce and others discovered (quite early on) that this was not the case.
Entry on Residential Schools in Canada, The Canadian Encyclopedia, Published 10 October 2012, Last Edited 1 June 2021, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/residential-schools
Suffice it to say that the times do change and sensibilities (and expectations) have changed with them.
JT has apologized 6 times. One was because Harper gave a half-hearted apology at an event, not in the House where they actually carry some weight so JT had to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident. Four apologies were to do with injustices First Nations peoples suffered in the past 150 years. Another apology in the House Canada’s decision in 1939 to reject an asylum request from more than 900 German Jews, 254 of whom died in the Holocaust. Heartbreaking that these apologies had to make and were made too late for so many.
Trudeau does not keep apologizing and apologizing. But where should it end? Canada is a young country and our history has some serious black stains. Best we attend to them now. We share too many similarities to the US. Not identical but very close. We marched with BLM because blacks in Canada & US suffer many the same fates. We march for injustices in other countries. We march so the US can march with us.
Do you know what "wokism" is? So many do not. It should not be capitalized in any case. Oil and gas aren't evil but it is going to be a problem for both us and the US. The environment is something we share with the US. We should care much less about what the US thinks, especially on SoMe. Should we not strive for net-zero because it'll take years and you and I won't benefit?
You do get angry and then you type out a laundry list of complaints only some have anything to do with any other.
We don't have a very low standard of political leadership in Canada. I could wish the Harper Cons would sit out. I'd also like to see them actually working to solve some of our problems rather than having the cushiest gig in gov giving nothing but opposing everything!
Sowell I've read and Kotkin but not Batterham. Thanks.
Some of our vaunted historical leaders were pigs, jerks and a-holes. They are always with us. We should apologize.
Sandra, you ask, "... why can't more Canadians and ALL our politicians?"
Wellllll.... the answers are (at least!) two-fold.
First off, the population is simply lazy and dislikes thinking and doesn't want to take the time to research, let alone truly consider, various issues. That leaves them taking the popular view of the day, no matter it's validity or (so commonly) non-validity.
Secondly, the politicians suffer from the same disease / affliction as the population at large but, very importantly, they pander to the then current popular sensibility (an oxymoron so commonly) with, again, no real thought other than what gets more approving tweets, etc.
Allow me a move into a dangerous area to illustrate mu point. The issue of climate change is a religion. No one is allowed to criticize it, not even to question it. If you seriously believe that climate is changing I respond that you are correct simply because it is always changing. If you then argue that it is catastrophically changing and assert, as some do, that we have an "existential crisis" and we must do SOMETHING by 2030 but then get in your SUV and drive to the grocery store, I don't have much patience.
People want "the government" to do SOMETHING but are not willing to consider the cost or implications on their lives. Laziness. No consideration that the popular theme might be wrong or that, if it is right, how proposed changes would truly affect them - and accept such changes. The population is far too lazy and lacking in consideration to realize that "the government is us" when it comes to paying for things, making sacrifices, etc., etc.
All of the above is why I want out of Canada - the insufferably smug "knowledge" that we are better than them there 'muricans and the rest of the world. The truth is that we are not at all better and suffer the same stupidity and then add our smugness.
Unfortunately.
Ken, I agree with you. I started following Peak Oil/climate change 20+ years ago. It's a joke when Green Energy supporters eat imported tropical foods, buy an excessive amount of clothes/furnishings, and then drive their cars, fly on planes, take public transport and make excessive use of cell phones (requiring rare metals from around the world) to attend protests, then return home to their highly mortaged large homes while being hard done by if they can't take a winter vacation in a warm climate. At least I'm honest to myself when I fly and consume more than I need.
I'm also an English as Second Language teacher and it amazes me that new Canadians don't know before coming here that most immigrants gravitate to our major cities, adding to the now shockingly high price of housing; and the spill over affects smaller communities further away. A house/apartment used to be a home, not abreathtakingly expensive financial investment.
Re your wanting out of Canada. I don't know a place that is better. My friend from The Netherlands says life there has similar issues. My sister and I have both travelled a lot. She lived in Mexico for 13 years and I lived in Egypt for 4 (not that I'm saying Egypt is a sane place to live). But I don't know of any other country that provides stability and modern facilities that are an improvement over other 'western' country. They're all waiting for nirvana to arrive via Wokeism and 100% Green Energy, and best of all.... endless "Sunny Days, Sunny Ways".
Could we pick a day where we won't use the now derogatory term "woke?" So lazy and unnecessary.
It's six syllables shorter than "political correctness"; only one to go.
Didn't know who Andrew Potter is & started to read what appeared to be a knowlegeable analysis...quickly degenerated into the usual anti-Trudeau screed albeit without the name-calling.
Any law that divides people into "free" and "convicts" is the most-divisive of all. I spent four decades under a cannabis law that would have clapped me in jail, and we were a good 10% of the population, estimates say. The proponents of this divisive law knew well they were marginalizing youth and ethnic groups, which is why they preferred the Spanish word for the leaf, to associate it with "Mexican rapists". Man, that was divisive. AND they knew it was unscientific, less-defensible than alcohol prohibition, that's why their laws prohibited medical research into it.
And, while it wasn't so much law, as who got fired from their teaching job, the overall right spent decades divisively dividing society into the 90% that were sane and healthy, and the 10% that suffered from the perversion/illness of homosexuality. I spent the 90s reading about the stealthy, child-endangering "gay agenda" in Alberta Report, and watching high politicians give the belief system cover and sympathy.
Those provide a pretty huge contrast to Mr. Potter's concern that liberals were "divisive" by passing mask mandates. The contrast being that those were quite old, invented decades ago, we were just, ahem, conserving, old, proven wisdom for plague-fighting. Scientifically-proved to save lives, and therefore extremely popular (84% last Feb 2) once that message got around, the old people I know are overboard on them, wearing them outdoors sometimes. But they are very, VERY unpopular with about 10% of the population, who then cry that these 84% popular rules are "divisive".
I'll tell you this for nothing: if that 10% ever got their hands on power, they'd forbid research into whether masks or vaccines even work, just like their righty predecessors did with cannabis.
So, to sum up: the utterly unscientific prohibition of cannabis from our homes, and gays from jobs of trust, were long-held right-wing positions. They were both suddenly abandoned by the right in just the last decade, and those former positions never spoken-of any more, are never called "divisive" about those 10% groups.
There must be something special about this 10% that entitles them to call 84% of us "divisive".
What is it, Mr. Potter?
Oh, and as for crapping on Canada, nobody craps on Canada like right-wing commentators who constantly call the country weak, ineffectual, unable to fight, unable to command respect on the "world stage", and, of course, divided.
Thank you. I remember the Alberta Report, but not clearly so I googled images...WOW, I DO remember the Alberta Report.
There is one issue headlined "The Safety Nazis"—The Death of Freedom in the Age of Big Sister." And another, "Canada's Mythical Holocaust: Ottawa's $350 million apology for the 'horrors' of Indian residential schools is rooted more in fiction that fact."
They have always been among us. I guess they always will be. It's just that now they're so in our face!
Bravo!!!
I completely disagree that Trudeau has taught Canadians to "dislike their country". Winners write the history, and until the last 20 years, the reality of how Canada came into being was cloaked in secrecy, less we learn that our birth wasn't all peaceful and that we didn't run around sharing food and singing Kumbaya. I still believe this is the greatest country in the world, but I'm glad I know the truth of our beginnings., Now I expect my governments to do something about it.
Compared to what is happening in Ukraine, every single one of our major concerns is little more than petulant whining. We need to get our collective heads out of our rear ends and come to terms that there are more important things than needing to wear a mask. The worst thing I can imagine is having to call myself "American".....and that thought in itself is entirely petty. Trudeau is, and has been a terrible PM. Our "loyal opposition" has been equally useless, and divisive.
I wonder if we can find a way to return to the idea that Canada matters. Who we are, and why we can travel anywhere in the world and be welcomed. If we could only treat each other the same way at home.
I'm not sure Trudeau has ingratiated himself to anyone. The former president holds him in utter contempt ( as he does everyone without his last name), and the current one isn't doing a whole lot to help us out. But I'm quite curious about the book.
So the number of protesters wrapping themselves in confederate CSA flags must mean that the protesters showed a lot of love for slaveholding? And those that "proudly" displayed Nazi symbols were showing their love for, well you know what? (In the latter case I'm afraid the answer is "yes".) I didn't see the not-really-truckers show much love for their fellow Canadians who live in Ottawa (really they are Canadians) and who they were only too eager to harass and threaten. Perhaps they could show their love of Canada by learning just how the governments of Canada work.
Typo in the article: "A makor catalyst" s/b "A major catalyst"
That’s not the only mistake with this article
Shit thx
Anti-Americanism is simply a distraction tool that has been used by Canadian politicians to suite their own agendas since our Confederation.
Fear and disrespect of the US has been engrained into our culture by those seeking to mask mediocrity of their own leadership.
The result has been the rise of an anti-American bigotry that is a stain on our national character.
We have benefitted immensely by our proximity to the US and have shared North America peacefully for close to a century.
Given that the US defends the free world, we have been able to divert the wealth that results from our trade with America from funding our own security to providing the social benefits we enjoy.
In spite of the relationship that has been so positive for us, our propensity to disdain America, its culture, its governance and its people gives rise to constant predictions that the situation is going to change to the point where we become enemies.
The fact remains, however, that the US is largely unaware of this sentiment - they are largely indifferent to our politics and the use bigotry against them plays.
Recently progressive Canadians have been celebrating what they have convinced themselves of is the the downfall of America as the world’s most powerful nation.
As well, they appear to welcome their notion that Red China will be their successor.
The prospect of the potential subjugation of the Free World is, however, beyond their vision.
The demise of the US is their fond hope but what transpires after that is a blank.
The United States nor its politics is anywhere near the threat that the collapse of that nation would entail for Canada and its freedom.
Canadians must understand that their relationship with the US is their best hope of preserving their democracy rather than a threat to it.
The Liberal progressive notion that we can cast ourselves into a world in which American hegemony no longer exists yet retain our freedom is logically inexplicable.
Our only option at this point in time is to accept the fact that the US is not the ogre we have been indoctrinated to believe it is and to rehabilitate our attitude towards maintaining the relationship with them that has served us so well.
What we have to fear south of the border is far less the hazard than what is building outside of North America.
Canada essentially exists because the folks here circa 1812 -- British, French, Indigenous, Loyalists -- all didn't want to be American. Beyond that, arguably, they didn't agree on very much, but they agreed on that. And from that shrugging ambivalence, a great nation was born!
Kidding aside, that history means that a strain of anti-Americanism is in our national DNA. I agree, it sometimes works to our detriment. Might we have a better healthcare system (or COVID-19 response) if we weren't so smuggly focused on how much better we've done than the Americans -- if we actually benchmarked ourselves against jurisdictions that did this stuff well?
As you point out, we've benefitted greatly from our proximity and relationship with the US. But, at some point, I'd love for Canada to define itself as something beyond a British colony or the US's kid brother ... but we seem to struggle to think of ourselves outside the context of others.
I would suggest that one reason we have so much trouble with our identity is because the colonial story of a unilateral assertion of Crown sovereignty does not have a true or coherent foundation. The true foundation is not a unilateral assertion of Crown sovereignty but treaties with First Nations, in other words, a negotiated or shared sovereignty. The colonial state does not want to tell this story. Which is sad, because it's actually a pretty cool story. But sharing power, for some, is hard to do. So we live inside a false, shallow, incoherent story as best we can. Which is not very well.
I had to toss what I started to write because I kept writing rude things.
"Recently progressive Canadians have been celebrating what they have convinced themselves of is the the downfall of America as the world’s most powerful nation."
What a load of crap is the best I can offer.
Uh, No. Conservatives in Canada have always been pro-Canadian nation, right back to Sir John A MacDonald. Stephen Harper regularly said this was the best country in the world. While I agree that Justin Trudeau has made a critical error in adopting the narrative that Canadian institutions and history are bad and has shown very little aptitude for uniting Canadians, this won’t stick. The Liberal Party will return to a more traditional pro-Canada stance. And the MAGA folks at the barricades didn’t even constitute a majority there.
On Canada's history, it is one of the few areas where's he's actually told the truth. But spot on.
Whatever people think of Andrew Potter's opinion piece, they must surely agree that it sparked an interesting exchange of comments. To answer Andrew's question, I suspect that Justin Trudeau, for one, loves Canada. However, he probably realizes that he would be roundly criticized, mocked, vilified and worse for saying so. I also think that he sincerely regrets the many wrongs perpetuated upon indigenous people here and elsewhere, and probably believes that it is appropriate for him to acknowledge that fact and apologize. Again, he would be right to think that if he said nothing, he would be roundly criticized, just as he is for saying something. By the way, I'm not a fan of 'nationalism' as in 'my country, right or wrong', or 'my country is better than your country'. And I don't believe the prime minister should be a cheerleader nor that we need one; just get on with helping the country be as good as it can be.
YES! Horsefeathers and every other Trudeau cultist should ask themselves: Would Ukrainians be fighting so hard if their government spent years teaching them to hate themselves? This was never true of Liberals in the past, who still acknowledged the residential schools, Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion act, Komagata Maru Incident, etcetera.
When progressive Twitter wrung its hands about whether the trucker protesters had sullied the Canadian flag beyond purpose, my reaction was: "How can it be more sullied than after five years of Trudeau shitting on it?"
I've voted Liberal or NDP since Pierre T.'s first election, but I can't vote any longer for parties or leaders who treat our country as nothing but a racist, genocidal hellhole (which leaves me politically homeless). We have work to do -- every human being and country ALWAYS has work to do -- but anyone who travels knows to be grateful for what we have and what we've accomplished. It's stunning to me that after five years of Trudeau, the proudest and most patriotic Canadians are those who've come from abroad, from virtually every continent and region of the world.
I'm 59. Residential schools were little more than background noise to be ignored until the realities of the TRC came out. I cannot disagree strongly enough that "Liberals in the past, who still acknowledged the residential schools, Japanese internment camps, Chinese exclusion act, Komagata Maru Incident, etcetera". No words were ever spoken.
I think most agree now that Trudeau's time is long past its due date. And as furious as I was at his lack of actions around the nonsense in Ottawa, today I am incredibly proud of my government, my country, and the entire western world for their response to the greatest crisis we've faced since at least 1962...and maybe 1941. That doesn't change the black marks on our history are gone or forgotten but is it ever nice to leaders...everywhere.... rise to the occasion. And maybe having discovered that they can actually do it, maybe we'll see some of that at home as well once this nightmare passes.
Sorry. I'm 71. We knew about schools and graves in the 1990s. George Ryga wrote about MMIWG in 1967 (The Ecstacy of Rita Joe) which went on at the National Arts Centre in centennial year and played across the country first as a play and then as a ballet.
Sharon Pollack wrote "The Komagata Maru Incident' which played across the country in the late 1970s. Joy Kogawa wrote her bestseller Obasan about the internment in 1981, which was around the time Tomson Highway's The Rez Sisters and others made their mark.
Just because you weren't following things at the time doesn't mean they weren't happening.
I can accept some of that. Not a single word of it was ever mentioned in my schooling...ever. That someone wrote a book, or a ballet is hardly what I would describe as a public examination...or teaching of our history.
The Komogata Maru has nothing to do with the colonization of Canada, nor does Japanese internment.
History is taught in schools; not in the theatre.
History is NOT simply taught in schools; that's a weird way to think of education, as if it's in this thing that only exists when we're young and seated behind desks. (I have no way of knowing what was taught in your school; very little Canadian history was taught in my schooling besides the explorers.)
We continually learn about our national history, as with most things, from life outside the classroom, and especially from the broader culture, which reflects our interests and concerns.
The Komagata Maru Incident and internment are two of the many things Trudeau has apologized for and are relevant to this discussion. And to dismiss The Ecstacy of Rita Joe as simply a ballet or a book betrays enormous ignorance of material that was featured in broad-based magazines and newspapers and spawned innumerable think pieces. (The ballet was an offshoot, with adaptation by Joseph Boyden; Ryga's work was seminal.) See also Arthur Hailey's early CBC play Indian.
Contra Trudeau cultists, we didn't suddenly wake up to our past when Himself descended from on high to enlighten us.
Knowledge of your country starts in the school system, and with your family. In Ontario, we were taught nothing of Canada's history before grade 10. Not a word about Canada, but we did the feudal system 3 times. I know crop rotation like you can't imagine. I learned we had a military history from my uncles....who wouldn't talk about their war experiences anywhere but at the Legion. Then came "The National Dream" where I got more Canadian history in 8 weeks on CBC than I got in any school.
But nowhere, ever was their discussion of how we kidnapped children or starved tribes on the Prairies.
I agree with you that we continue to learn our history as time passes, but I think it's a stretch to suggest that most Canadians' knowledge of Indians was that they were a "problem" and a "drain on the taxpayer". How were ignored the treaties we signed and the promises we made somehow escaped the conversation more often than not. Certainly, that's how most governments dealt with it.
I have never heard of the Ecstasy of Rita Joe before today; I'd be really curious how many other readers have. But I was born in Ontario, not BC. I do believe it is the state's job to lay some groundwork in its children as to the country's history. For me, that led me to the wars and the building of the CPR. That led me to Louis Riel, but none of it led to what happened after the railroad was built. Some of that is on me. But I also believe there is a large majority of Canadians who were shocked when the bodies were found, and all those long-ignored rumours proved true. I'm glad you were exposed to it. I wish I had been. Ignorance is rarely bliss.
Fair enough. I'm from Ontario, too. I think the difference may also be generational. Concerns go in and out of season. What we call woke today was pc in the early nineties and was similar to late '60s when we took over deans' offices in campus sit-ins and when the civil/gay/women's rights movements were strong with Black Panthers = BLM, and a lot of students carried around Mao's Little Red Book during the Cultural Revolution etcetera. ('70s was also when Indigenous leaders stood up to Pierre and Chretien's desire to get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs and leaders like Ovid Mercredi were big players in the Indigenous movement.) Thirty years before that in the 30s, progressives were joining the Comm unist Partry and supporting Stalin. 30 year cycles, things gert forgtrten and rediscovered.
A certainty...but only a minority. If he's gone, it's a landslide. I'm becoming curious how long it will take the CPC to figure out why they keep losing.....assuming that they want to win?? Maybe splitting the 15% of the far right with the PPC will help them turn the ship around. I still think ditching the evangelical base, and coming out with a fiscally conservative platform that believes climate change would put them in charge. But I wonder if they just prefer asking questions as opposition so they don't have to make any actual decisions.
The problem with all the breast-beating apologies is that it looked bad, by comparison, when Trudeau refused to have ANYTHING to do with the truckers.
I know, I know. Commenters will say I'm comparing apples and oranges, but the fact is it looked as though Trudeau had no time for a group of people who felt aggrieved enough to drive all the way across the country to make a point. Our colourfully be-socked (but morally benighted) leader has always made it very clear where his sympathies lie, and it's not with the working class in Canada.
That so many Canadians are on board with this thinking really makes me wonder: just who do you think is delivering your Amazon packages?
Yes, I suppose the apologies were historically significant, but there were so many that after a while I and a lot of others started to roll our eyes every time our MSM covered yet another one. Is that insensitive? Oh probably. But again, there were so just so damned many.
I work in an institutional environment where leftist thinking dominates. We recently had three days of professional development offered to all employees. Out of 40 workshop offerings only two did NOT focus on colonization or some aspect of it.
At a time when a lot of my peers could really do with upping their tech skills--trust me, I know!--the institution I worked for put together this totally lopsided package. Only one colleague noticed it.
This kind of "we're all misogynist, racist, right-wing bastards here in Canada" thinking really has become the water in our fish-tank. Anyone who doubts this needs to work in leftist environment for a while. It's impossible to un-see it.
I see a lot of people in the comments calling themselves centrist.
Right.
No pun intended.
Joan, you note that, "... a lot of people in the comments [call] themselves centrist."
I would use that phrase in describing myself except when I comment various and sundry of the commentators accuse me of being right-wing, a Trump supporter (ug!) and so forth. The truth is, most people think of their own views as being eminently reasonable; it is "those others" who are off-side.
Therefore I must self-describe as somewhat on the conservative side of things - please note, small "c" not large "C" - perhaps even somewhat libertarian insofar as I think that people should largely be able to make choices for themselves.
Of course, that means that I am a "centrist" (in my own eminently reasonable mind), right?
...Wow. There's so much context missing from this article that it's almost painful to read.
For one thing, both Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper apologized for everything from the Komagata Maru incident to the residential school system and the abuses committed against Japanese Candians, as well as providing reparations to the Ukrainian Canadian community.
https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/a-timeline-of-official-apologies-from-the-federal-government
As for the idea that left-wing nationalism was dominant right up until 2017, what about all the criticism Indigenous and other activists were directing at Canada 150?
http://activehistory.ca/2017/04/canada-150-whats-to-celebrate/
Or how about Chief Dan George's "Lament For Confederation" back in 1967?
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/a-lament-for-confederation-a-speech-by-chief-dan-george-in-1967/
Some of these things have been festering for a pretty long time, and they've only come to the forefront in the last couple of years. Justin Trudeau is, however clumsily, trying to follow in Mulroney's and Harper's footsteps in making things right. You can judge how well he's doing it, but he's at least trying to look like he's addressing these problems. He's not actively encouraging Canadians to "hate" themselves.
But while Andrew Potter is wrong in attributing all these things to Trudeau Junior, he's right about the bigger problem developing. In some circles, showing any kind of pride in or love for Canada seems to equate to condoning everything from residential schools to the racist treatment of Japanese, Jewish and Indian people. We've gone from being Canada The Good, the friendly Peaceable Kingdom, to Canada The Bad, a malicious place with no redeeming value.
https://jared-milne.medium.com/reflections-on-canada-day-2019-two-sides-to-the-coin-6c9bad8afa1e
Apparently it's impossible to support things like Indigenous rights and restitution *because* you love Canada, and want to be able to fly your flag and listen to your national anthem with pride. No, either you have to uncritically cheer everything about Canada or you have to hate the entire thing and want it all burned down. I say bullshit to that.
https://jared-milne.medium.com/reflections-on-canada-day-2018-the-meaning-of-true-patriot-love-44d5d3762955