What really gets my goat about the Trudeauian idea of a Post-National State with no identity: my parents came on the boat from Holland and Italy in the 50's with the explicit goal of shedding their Dutch/Italian identities and becoming Canadian. "We came to Canada to become CANADIANS!!", my Opa would say. Now, to have smug Laurentians and progs decide to pull the rug out from under me and say ackshually there's no such thing as a Canadian...well so what am I then? I get to enjoy all the negative identitarian trappings as the supremely evil cis straight huwhite male colonizer, but otherwise I'm just a blank?
I think everyone who claims there's no such thing as Canadian culture is wrong, there totally is, even if it's not as obvious as other, much older ones. This claim is just self-hating progressivism, and it's obvious when you see people make the same claim about England, a 1000 year old culture with many much more obvious and flamboyant features
There absolutely is such a thing as Canadian: Fur traders and filles de roi; Simcoe, Brock, and Tecumseh; Mackenzie and Papineau; Macdonald and the last spike; Vimy and Juno. Some good things, some bad - like any nation. Just our nation. Just us.
Foreigners can join, as your Opa did.
But they have to want to join. And become Canadian, not try to tear Canada down.
Tecumseh was American Shawnee, actually. His death at Moraviantown ended the dream of an Indian Confederacy that would, with British string-pulling, challenge American hegemony in the Upper Midwest. Just because the battle was fought on what became Canadian soil, there is nothing Canadian about him.
The other men you mentioned except Macdonald and Papineau were British. The performance of actual Canadian senior military commanders in WW2 was disappointing. Good troops, sometimes, generals not so much.
My mistake, yes he was born in Scotland. (I guess I'm succumbing to the cultural imperative to memory-hole him!) So he was British too. If English Canada was always about the Britons who came here, how does that make us distinctly Canadian? And Papineau's political activities in the Lower Canada Rebellion long preceded Confederation. At least he was born in Canada. It's not really clear that you can call Canada as we know it Canada before 1867. Part of our history, sure, but functioning as a coherent country, no. (Of course we haven't functioned as a coherent country since the 1990s I would say.) Ironic: among all the people you mentioned, including many of the railway workers and financiers who drove in the Last Spike and commanded troops at Vimy, the only actual Canadian was Papineau.
That's an assertion. How do a bunch of British ex-pats become "the Canadian people"? Especially when people of British stock have been declining as a proportion of the population for decades. I suppose it's when they realize their fortunes are irreversibly tied to this new land they now call home and have to make a go of it. Did people who lived in Nova Scotia pre-confederation consider themselves to be people of Canada? It was a thriving prosperous little colony with a healthy resentment toward the Québec colony. Canada to them was faraway Upper and Lower Canada. For a while it was the united colony of Canada, which didn't work out so well. We consider Nova Scotians today to have been "people of Canada" but they (and New Brunswick and PEI, and Nfld.) were separate colonies with their own Governor and legislative councils. No connection with "Canada" at all, other than the Union Jack. It wasn't even clear that the new country would even be called Canada. Many names were proposed, some silly. (I think Utopia was one suggestion.) It was just convenient for the British government to stick with Canada because the name was already in common use for what became the two big provinces, and may have dated from Jacques Cartier's voyages when he was told what the locals called this place they lived. (The joke is that "Ca nada" is pidgin for "No gold here.")
You can argue that Canada as a people pre-dates Confederation but Americans don't argue that the United States was a thing before 1783. It wasn't even a sure thing that all 13 were going to form one single country. The "Federalist Papers" were a serial of newspaper articles written anonymously by the Founding Fathers urging the now independent colonies to federalize. Americans learn about their colonial history of course but the colony of Georgia didn't have much commonality with Massachusetts. Were they "Americans" then, before they got together to revolt? I guess you'd have to ask them.
It's an interesting question as to what constitutes the "Canadian" people or nationality when the only people who have lived here more than a couple of centuries are the indigenous, but we don't consider them to be the dominant defining Canadian nationality and aren't about to.
There is most definitely a creature known as a Canadian. I am truly unsure what Trudeau meant by that statement. I don't think that he meant that there is no such thing as a Canadian. I think (hope?) that he meant that a Canadian is not defined by ethnicity, religion, or race, but adherence to a shared set of values and principles.
Red Alert on a minor detail, the detail that overturns the Trudeau cart. Justin Trudeau DOES NOT THINK, and he has proven it at least once a week for many many years. That bafflegab he came out with re. Canadian identity etc. is but one example.
Yes, it probably just came out of his mouth, like when he talked about peoplekind --yes perhaps he was trying to make a joke -- and speaking "moistly". It might be that while his English is obviously fluent it is his second language and his vocabulary may not be up to the task of speaking off the cuff on topics he hasn't been prepared for.
You took the long way around to get there, but your point is well taken. As soon as Trudeau and that ilk is gone the healing will begin. I am 77, I grew up in a Northern Ontario mining area where the miners were from Europe. The Russians and Ukraines hated each other, poles hated whoever, etc. Now three generations later, Russian boys meets Ukrainian girls, next generation not so much hate, then next generation, the nationality lines are so blurred that only the great, great, great grandfathers care. Now the people of the area of all ethnic origins, get together and share their wonderful cultures of their fabulous cooking that has survived all this hate for all to enjoy!
I think of the 1916 incarceration of East European men who lived on “the other side of the tracks” near me. This roundup snared Poles, Ukrainians and Russians whose biggest concern was bigotry and trying to eke out a living in a recession but were deemed a threat to a Country at war.
It takes a long time for just desserts to manifest itself. An astute young man with political ambitions took his Ukrainian heritage through City Council all the way to the Mayoralty. He never said “take that you WASPs”, but I would understand if he thought it.
OK, fair enough. That was one of Wilson's "self-determination" principles, was that the Poles would get their country back. I didn't know the Empire kept track of ethnicity.
This column succinctly catches the zeitgeist for our time, complete with the contradictions and absurdities that are playing out with "the pasties", the "abnegationist's" and the "pretendian's" views of Canada. The next federal election has the potential and could be the coming out party for the new nationalism of 'the fourth way'. Just think what Canada could do if we stopped dividing ourself by race, religion, etc. and doubting our right to exist and focused instead on our rights and responsibilities to each other, our nation and the World.
Agree 100%. I personally would also the new nationalism the fourth way but add “of July” after fourth. That would be an awesome revolution against the divide and conquer structure of the current elites.
How utterly ironic if that erratic leader south of the border compels Canada's government and citizens to shake off the malaise, wake up and get on with building a signular and genuinely inclusive "nation".
I was listening to NPR (which is what CBC would be if it ever grew up, complete with funding appeals) and heard a super comment. “Democrats take what Donald Trump says seriously and ignore him personally, while Republicans take Donald Trump seriously and ignore what he says”.
My own view is that Canadians are taking both the man and what he says seriously. If I wanted to find a recipe for a nervous breakdown, this would be it. Become more like Republicans, people.
As soon as Canada stops dividing itself into Indigenous and "everybody else" there will be hell to pay. Some roads have a point of no return, which we have passed, I think.
Perhaps I missed reading it, but we may have to account for a pride factor that was overlooked.
In Manitoba there has been a huge surge in people claiming Metis status. I suppose that some of these ancestral claims are to enable access to generous benefits that Metis leaders have put in place. However, you don’t have to look hard to find people claiming Metis heritage because of new found pride. After years of suppressing Metis ancestry out of fear of discrimination, now it’s cool to admit it. The Metis leaders are disciplined, organized and motivated to make life better for everyone and lead by example, embracing their culture and traditions and asserting their rightful place in Manitoba’s history. People see positive change and want to participate.
Meanwhile “whiteness” and the heritage that comes with it has become subverted by self flagellating types who, as Ms. Gerson said like to moan and groan about how privileged they are in order to keep their spot in the privileged pecking order. I call that out for the bullshit that it is.
In the end, we all need to accommodate each other and respect other’s culture and traditions. I’m not going to apologize for my ancestors who came here from a variety of countries and through hard work and a ton of good luck made a path for me to live a good life in a great country. I don’t want anyone else to apologize for their genealogy either. And if someone wants to monetize their genealogy they better have the facts straight.
What does it take to have your facts straight about being of mixed race. That seems like a hard claim to disprove. Randy Boissonault is trying the Métis card now.
As I read the first few columns of Ms. Gerson's column, I was thinking that there is a fourth way ... and then she wrote about that fourth way. Great column.
Interesting and good article. I think you are too kind to Boissonneault, however.
I am a person of Scottish, Irish and English ancestry. None of them had any privilege from that fact. Their backgrounds were a mix of poor rural/ village Ireland, the slums of the east end of London and poor rural and impoverished tenements/ slums in Glasgow. They were the oppressed and I doubt any benefit sifted down onto them from the fortunes made from slavery in the UK. I have not a molecule of shame for my background or who I am.
Trudeau has been a disaster from the beginning. How dare he say, with all of his smugness and overblown ego, that Canada is a post national state without any national identity.
He meant, of course, those of us who live outside of Quebec or the Laurentian areas, have no identity.
He has encouraged racial, ethnic and cultural division and disrespect for those like Mac Donald and others who came from a much earlier time and thus could not possibly be as enlightened as his good self and those he has encouraged in this damaging campaign.
I would like to know, just what is the definition of a settler. What is the year, or decade or century, when immigrants are no longer settlers.
When my paternal grandparents came to Canada in 1910 in hopes of a better life than the poverty of east end London, Canada was well settled by then. Not settlers then? Any answers?
I come from a similar background as you but with enough French to make me unacceptable to both “founding nations” . As a child and young teenager the Canadian Laurentian view of the world was the English were the owners, the Irish the foremen and the French the workers preyed upon by the Catholic Church. At the time the European colonizers ie the French Belgians Dutch English were abandoning the colonial business in the third world with the resulting savageries from people who had no clue about self government but knew revenge and retribution quite well.
Then in Quebec the French nationalists took over with the resulting English exodus out of Quebec and we had the term “Westmount Rhodesian” to describe the Anglos who remained. Then Quebec became more like Zimbabwe and fast forward a few decades in an ever growing part of Quebec we have Anglos who can’t get help in a medical emergency and the proposed criminalization of public prayers which will presumably lead to the confiscation of Muslim prayer rugs and the arrest of anyone who says grace before a meal in a restaurant.
Contrast this with the USA where on entering customs at least in New York snobs the agents you will see head coverings and skin colors from all over the world and everybody is American and proud of it . This is the new reality and I can never understand why Canadians seem unable to even understand what it means. Is it that the concept doesn’t translate into French?
Your guess is correct: the concept does not translate into French. The concept is incompatible with Quebecois type of Frenchness. The French French, as we know, most resolutely refuse to recognize the Quebecois as French.
PS. Thank you for a new-to-me term “Westmount Rhodesian”. I met one, and he was a white Anglo born in Jamaica. A very decent guy.
Insightful article. Somewhat ironic that white people pretend to be something other than white in order to gain an advantage otherwise not available to them with their white privilege.
Is one result of the Discrimination-Ignorance-Exclusion matrix of hard-core racism as constructed by wokey hard-leftists and allied race-grifters. Their main goal is to kill colourblind merit.
Oh Jen. I think you are incorrect here. I think Randy Boissonnault knew exactly what he was attempting to do. I think he grabbed hold of the indigenous line to get ahead of the crowd without actually earning it. Hence, his lukewarm, hesitant and likely forced apology of not exactly striking the right balance (does that sound familiar) in his 'lack of clarity' around his bloodline. So he is out of cabinet but not out of government. To let this creep get away with this is just not right. He should have totally resigned from government...or at least own up to who and where is the 'other' Randy as a start.
Other than that keep on keeping on...love your podcast.
Out of caucus, maybe, but only the voters can turf an MP out of his seat.
The Liberals have enough seats with the NDP propping them up that they could afford to lose an MP from the government benches. Besides, RB would almost certainly vote with the Liberals, if for no other reason than in hopes of remaining in the boss's good graces to get put back in Cabinet if the Libs win the election. Remember he is a prominent homosexual, not just a crooked Pretendian.
"I don't believe Boissonnault was motivated to lie solely to get the inside track on government contracts."
I would suggest stepping back and taking a look at Boissonnault in his entirety. His attacks on Jody Wilson-Raybould in 2019 were despicable. He turned her testimony into a disgustingly rude interrogation. There is no doubt in my mind he is guilty of everything he is accused of and that he is capable of much, much worse.
I know this is the wrong place to put this comment but I just want to say that Jen hit it out of the park on the last podcast with the term Griftaucracy. I felt something was wrong with the latest apparently successful IT company being given millions of our tax dollars to set up an AI center that they should be able to fund themselves. But it is Griftaucracy! Leaves a greasy feeling in the pit of your stomach like you ate too much fried chicken (not that there is anything wrong with fried chicken - the dose is the poison remember). So thanks for that one Jen. I’ll be using that.
Absolutely correct, and after she finishes her first book (we know you will, Jen) she has a ready made title and an almost inexhaustable supply of content for her follow up release.
I wonder how many Canadians, white or otherwise, are sick of this whole narrative? You wrote. "we can all acknowledge the errors of our history,". It is time to start reacknowledging the successes of our forefathers. The vast majority of Canadians come from simple, oft times impoverished circumstances. Nothing was given to them. They worked hard to establish themselves and our families. These progressive thinkers have done a great disservice to generations of Canadians who have made this country one that was once envied. That is the Canadian "culture" and it is well worth defending from those who say otherwise.
I was going to start my comment with the phrase as a white person. Then I thought that kinda goes against what is being presented in the article. Usually I just yell at what I see as flaws in the latest version of Canadian history. I’m old. Very little Canadian history was taught when I was going to school and I’m sure there is even less now. I did not yell at this article and I’m still thinking.
Fantastic piece. What a treat to read - and so soon after seeing the video making the rounds today of Junior shitting on the Americans for having the temerity to YET AGAIN not vote for a woman President. At this point there are simply no words left to describe this man. The day he proclaimed "There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada" ought to have been the day he hit rock bottom but no, he keeps plunging new depths and at an increasingly frequent rate.
Anyway, this really should be the last word on the subject:
We can simply reject this framework. Any ideology that assigns social value to immutable characteristics is a dead end. It just doesn’t get us anywhere useful.
Bingo. Not only does it not get us anywhere useful it gets us to a lot of very bad places.
A couple of random observations. First, I agree that white identity is a fiction. This is also true for "black identify" or indeed any other "[immutable characteristic] identity". Cultures matter, not immutable characteristics. "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by the magnificent Thomas Sowell is a good read on this subject.
Second, among the three groups Jen identifies I actually think the first group (the actual white supremacists who have embraced the change for all the wrong reasons) is the group more likely to intentionally misrepresent their identities for the specific purpose of acquiring privileges meant to be afforded to (in Jen's example) Indigenous people. They seem to be motivated by a purely malevolent "I'll get them" attitude.
In contrast, the Boissonnaults and Elizabeth Warrens of the world seem to me to be primarily motivated by a desire to affiliate as closely as possible with the so-called oppressed - to somehow be more than just an ally (dammit do I hate what has happened to that word). I don't think it even occurs to them at first instance that they are essentially ripping off the oppressed group they have falsely joined. It's really no different than the land-owners faithfully reciting the land acknowledgments like trained seals without ever dreaming of the implications (i.e. that if they truly believe this BS they ought to be returning their ill-gotten gains rather than mouthing ridiculous platitudes).
Great column, and something we need more and very public discussion on.
Love this:
'We can simply reject this framework. Any ideology that assigns social value to immutable characteristics is a dead end.'
This is exactly what I've been trying to explain to my 17 year old daughter and her three older brothers. Recalling my youth in the 1980s, I maintain we were way closer to Dr. King's dream that we should strive to judge and be judged by content of character rather than skin color (colour). Not that it was perfect back then (we definitely had a ways to go on acceptance of gays/lesbians in the 80s), but at that time we were encouraged to LOOK PAST or IGNORE our own as well as others race, and regard everyone as fellow humans. For those of my age, remember? We were encouraged to be COLOUR BLIND. I preferred that societal trajectory to today's insanity.
Until we come to our senses and remember how to do as I describe above, Jen has provided some helpful phrases in her piece.
Phrases from Jen's wonderful mind I will be using until Colour Blind times return(with appropriate credit & kudos to our Line Editor):
- person who burns easily in summer (me)
- non-melenated (mostly me, with a few random melanated splotches and freckles)
- pale (me, except after multiple burns and gradual tanning over summer)
- pasties (people like me, I guess, except i originally thought these were tiny scraps of self-adhesive coverings for glands/naughty bits)
Phrases I would suggest Jen add to her white-descriptor lexicon:
- non-swarthy
- pallid
- PLC (People Lacking Colour) (People Lacking Color - for USA)
- undertinctured
- whey-faced
Just one more question for Jen: which Randy were you referencing in this column?
Randy Boissonnault. He claimed to be Indigenous based on his grandmother or great-grandmother. The National Post discovered that this woman was rather more Germanic than Aboriginal.
Something is contradictory when a government claims Canada has no identity while at the same time positioning itself as the protector of identity through, for example, imposing local content rules (ie. CanCon), protecting certain industries and promoting use of French.
What really gets my goat about the Trudeauian idea of a Post-National State with no identity: my parents came on the boat from Holland and Italy in the 50's with the explicit goal of shedding their Dutch/Italian identities and becoming Canadian. "We came to Canada to become CANADIANS!!", my Opa would say. Now, to have smug Laurentians and progs decide to pull the rug out from under me and say ackshually there's no such thing as a Canadian...well so what am I then? I get to enjoy all the negative identitarian trappings as the supremely evil cis straight huwhite male colonizer, but otherwise I'm just a blank?
I think everyone who claims there's no such thing as Canadian culture is wrong, there totally is, even if it's not as obvious as other, much older ones. This claim is just self-hating progressivism, and it's obvious when you see people make the same claim about England, a 1000 year old culture with many much more obvious and flamboyant features
There absolutely is such a thing as Canadian: Fur traders and filles de roi; Simcoe, Brock, and Tecumseh; Mackenzie and Papineau; Macdonald and the last spike; Vimy and Juno. Some good things, some bad - like any nation. Just our nation. Just us.
Foreigners can join, as your Opa did.
But they have to want to join. And become Canadian, not try to tear Canada down.
Tecumseh was American Shawnee, actually. His death at Moraviantown ended the dream of an Indian Confederacy that would, with British string-pulling, challenge American hegemony in the Upper Midwest. Just because the battle was fought on what became Canadian soil, there is nothing Canadian about him.
The other men you mentioned except Macdonald and Papineau were British. The performance of actual Canadian senior military commanders in WW2 was disappointing. Good troops, sometimes, generals not so much.
English Canada was always about the Britons who came here.
And Macdonald was British.
My mistake, yes he was born in Scotland. (I guess I'm succumbing to the cultural imperative to memory-hole him!) So he was British too. If English Canada was always about the Britons who came here, how does that make us distinctly Canadian? And Papineau's political activities in the Lower Canada Rebellion long preceded Confederation. At least he was born in Canada. It's not really clear that you can call Canada as we know it Canada before 1867. Part of our history, sure, but functioning as a coherent country, no. (Of course we haven't functioned as a coherent country since the 1990s I would say.) Ironic: among all the people you mentioned, including many of the railway workers and financiers who drove in the Last Spike and commanded troops at Vimy, the only actual Canadian was Papineau.
Canada is a people. It predates 1867 by a long shot.
We can add Arthur Currie and Sam Steele, if you like.
That's an assertion. How do a bunch of British ex-pats become "the Canadian people"? Especially when people of British stock have been declining as a proportion of the population for decades. I suppose it's when they realize their fortunes are irreversibly tied to this new land they now call home and have to make a go of it. Did people who lived in Nova Scotia pre-confederation consider themselves to be people of Canada? It was a thriving prosperous little colony with a healthy resentment toward the Québec colony. Canada to them was faraway Upper and Lower Canada. For a while it was the united colony of Canada, which didn't work out so well. We consider Nova Scotians today to have been "people of Canada" but they (and New Brunswick and PEI, and Nfld.) were separate colonies with their own Governor and legislative councils. No connection with "Canada" at all, other than the Union Jack. It wasn't even clear that the new country would even be called Canada. Many names were proposed, some silly. (I think Utopia was one suggestion.) It was just convenient for the British government to stick with Canada because the name was already in common use for what became the two big provinces, and may have dated from Jacques Cartier's voyages when he was told what the locals called this place they lived. (The joke is that "Ca nada" is pidgin for "No gold here.")
You can argue that Canada as a people pre-dates Confederation but Americans don't argue that the United States was a thing before 1783. It wasn't even a sure thing that all 13 were going to form one single country. The "Federalist Papers" were a serial of newspaper articles written anonymously by the Founding Fathers urging the now independent colonies to federalize. Americans learn about their colonial history of course but the colony of Georgia didn't have much commonality with Massachusetts. Were they "Americans" then, before they got together to revolt? I guess you'd have to ask them.
It's an interesting question as to what constitutes the "Canadian" people or nationality when the only people who have lived here more than a couple of centuries are the indigenous, but we don't consider them to be the dominant defining Canadian nationality and aren't about to.
There is most definitely a creature known as a Canadian. I am truly unsure what Trudeau meant by that statement. I don't think that he meant that there is no such thing as a Canadian. I think (hope?) that he meant that a Canadian is not defined by ethnicity, religion, or race, but adherence to a shared set of values and principles.
Nonsense. Does that mean people born here but who don't share those values should be deported?
Trudeau thinks Canadians are defined by a passport. By paperwork.
Red Alert on a minor detail, the detail that overturns the Trudeau cart. Justin Trudeau DOES NOT THINK, and he has proven it at least once a week for many many years. That bafflegab he came out with re. Canadian identity etc. is but one example.
Yes, it probably just came out of his mouth, like when he talked about peoplekind --yes perhaps he was trying to make a joke -- and speaking "moistly". It might be that while his English is obviously fluent it is his second language and his vocabulary may not be up to the task of speaking off the cuff on topics he hasn't been prepared for.
You took the long way around to get there, but your point is well taken. As soon as Trudeau and that ilk is gone the healing will begin. I am 77, I grew up in a Northern Ontario mining area where the miners were from Europe. The Russians and Ukraines hated each other, poles hated whoever, etc. Now three generations later, Russian boys meets Ukrainian girls, next generation not so much hate, then next generation, the nationality lines are so blurred that only the great, great, great grandfathers care. Now the people of the area of all ethnic origins, get together and share their wonderful cultures of their fabulous cooking that has survived all this hate for all to enjoy!
Great observations!
I think of the 1916 incarceration of East European men who lived on “the other side of the tracks” near me. This roundup snared Poles, Ukrainians and Russians whose biggest concern was bigotry and trying to eke out a living in a recession but were deemed a threat to a Country at war.
It takes a long time for just desserts to manifest itself. An astute young man with political ambitions took his Ukrainian heritage through City Council all the way to the Mayoralty. He never said “take that you WASPs”, but I would understand if he thought it.
Poland didn't exist in 1916 and Russia was still our ally against Germany. Something might have been lost in repeated telling of that story.
We certainly did intern German and Italian nationals (not Canadian citizens) during the wars as security threats.
Polish ethnicity did exist, for many hundreds of years. Ethnicities were recorded on ID papers, at least in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
OK, fair enough. That was one of Wilson's "self-determination" principles, was that the Poles would get their country back. I didn't know the Empire kept track of ethnicity.
This column succinctly catches the zeitgeist for our time, complete with the contradictions and absurdities that are playing out with "the pasties", the "abnegationist's" and the "pretendian's" views of Canada. The next federal election has the potential and could be the coming out party for the new nationalism of 'the fourth way'. Just think what Canada could do if we stopped dividing ourself by race, religion, etc. and doubting our right to exist and focused instead on our rights and responsibilities to each other, our nation and the World.
Well said, crossing my fingers
Agree 100%. I personally would also the new nationalism the fourth way but add “of July” after fourth. That would be an awesome revolution against the divide and conquer structure of the current elites.
How utterly ironic if that erratic leader south of the border compels Canada's government and citizens to shake off the malaise, wake up and get on with building a signular and genuinely inclusive "nation".
I was listening to NPR (which is what CBC would be if it ever grew up, complete with funding appeals) and heard a super comment. “Democrats take what Donald Trump says seriously and ignore him personally, while Republicans take Donald Trump seriously and ignore what he says”.
My own view is that Canadians are taking both the man and what he says seriously. If I wanted to find a recipe for a nervous breakdown, this would be it. Become more like Republicans, people.
Right? Its unreal. Sometimes I feel like I live in a terrible dream. Then I shake it a few times and nope its still real.
I do not divide myself and others by race nor by skin colour. The "progressive" trash like Justin Trudeau and his lot are doing it to me and others.
As soon as Canada stops dividing itself into Indigenous and "everybody else" there will be hell to pay. Some roads have a point of no return, which we have passed, I think.
Perhaps I missed reading it, but we may have to account for a pride factor that was overlooked.
In Manitoba there has been a huge surge in people claiming Metis status. I suppose that some of these ancestral claims are to enable access to generous benefits that Metis leaders have put in place. However, you don’t have to look hard to find people claiming Metis heritage because of new found pride. After years of suppressing Metis ancestry out of fear of discrimination, now it’s cool to admit it. The Metis leaders are disciplined, organized and motivated to make life better for everyone and lead by example, embracing their culture and traditions and asserting their rightful place in Manitoba’s history. People see positive change and want to participate.
Meanwhile “whiteness” and the heritage that comes with it has become subverted by self flagellating types who, as Ms. Gerson said like to moan and groan about how privileged they are in order to keep their spot in the privileged pecking order. I call that out for the bullshit that it is.
In the end, we all need to accommodate each other and respect other’s culture and traditions. I’m not going to apologize for my ancestors who came here from a variety of countries and through hard work and a ton of good luck made a path for me to live a good life in a great country. I don’t want anyone else to apologize for their genealogy either. And if someone wants to monetize their genealogy they better have the facts straight.
A nugget of gold : "And if someone wants to monetize their genealogy they better have the facts straight."
What does it take to have your facts straight about being of mixed race. That seems like a hard claim to disprove. Randy Boissonault is trying the Métis card now.
The Manitoba Metis Federation have pretty strict guidelines about who qualifies for Metis status.
As I read the first few columns of Ms. Gerson's column, I was thinking that there is a fourth way ... and then she wrote about that fourth way. Great column.
Interesting and good article. I think you are too kind to Boissonneault, however.
I am a person of Scottish, Irish and English ancestry. None of them had any privilege from that fact. Their backgrounds were a mix of poor rural/ village Ireland, the slums of the east end of London and poor rural and impoverished tenements/ slums in Glasgow. They were the oppressed and I doubt any benefit sifted down onto them from the fortunes made from slavery in the UK. I have not a molecule of shame for my background or who I am.
Trudeau has been a disaster from the beginning. How dare he say, with all of his smugness and overblown ego, that Canada is a post national state without any national identity.
He meant, of course, those of us who live outside of Quebec or the Laurentian areas, have no identity.
He has encouraged racial, ethnic and cultural division and disrespect for those like Mac Donald and others who came from a much earlier time and thus could not possibly be as enlightened as his good self and those he has encouraged in this damaging campaign.
I would like to know, just what is the definition of a settler. What is the year, or decade or century, when immigrants are no longer settlers.
When my paternal grandparents came to Canada in 1910 in hopes of a better life than the poverty of east end London, Canada was well settled by then. Not settlers then? Any answers?
Great column. Thank you.
I come from a similar background as you but with enough French to make me unacceptable to both “founding nations” . As a child and young teenager the Canadian Laurentian view of the world was the English were the owners, the Irish the foremen and the French the workers preyed upon by the Catholic Church. At the time the European colonizers ie the French Belgians Dutch English were abandoning the colonial business in the third world with the resulting savageries from people who had no clue about self government but knew revenge and retribution quite well.
Then in Quebec the French nationalists took over with the resulting English exodus out of Quebec and we had the term “Westmount Rhodesian” to describe the Anglos who remained. Then Quebec became more like Zimbabwe and fast forward a few decades in an ever growing part of Quebec we have Anglos who can’t get help in a medical emergency and the proposed criminalization of public prayers which will presumably lead to the confiscation of Muslim prayer rugs and the arrest of anyone who says grace before a meal in a restaurant.
Contrast this with the USA where on entering customs at least in New York snobs the agents you will see head coverings and skin colors from all over the world and everybody is American and proud of it . This is the new reality and I can never understand why Canadians seem unable to even understand what it means. Is it that the concept doesn’t translate into French?
TIL 'Westmount Rhodesian'. Catchy, although I suspect their was an ocean of difference between Cecil Rhodes and whoever was running Bell at the time.
Your guess is correct: the concept does not translate into French. The concept is incompatible with Quebecois type of Frenchness. The French French, as we know, most resolutely refuse to recognize the Quebecois as French.
PS. Thank you for a new-to-me term “Westmount Rhodesian”. I met one, and he was a white Anglo born in Jamaica. A very decent guy.
More "likes" for this, people.
Insightful article. Somewhat ironic that white people pretend to be something other than white in order to gain an advantage otherwise not available to them with their white privilege.
Is one result of the Discrimination-Ignorance-Exclusion matrix of hard-core racism as constructed by wokey hard-leftists and allied race-grifters. Their main goal is to kill colourblind merit.
Oh Jen. I think you are incorrect here. I think Randy Boissonnault knew exactly what he was attempting to do. I think he grabbed hold of the indigenous line to get ahead of the crowd without actually earning it. Hence, his lukewarm, hesitant and likely forced apology of not exactly striking the right balance (does that sound familiar) in his 'lack of clarity' around his bloodline. So he is out of cabinet but not out of government. To let this creep get away with this is just not right. He should have totally resigned from government...or at least own up to who and where is the 'other' Randy as a start.
Other than that keep on keeping on...love your podcast.
Totally maybe. JG
I think the Randy's should get together and write a book with all the time they're about to have on their hands. I even have a suggestion for a title.
Conjoined: Me, Myself, & I
Jail time would be the case down south. But this is Canada. So we have the equivalent of a “Trudeauvian pardon”
If the Liberals were in a majority, he would have been kicked out.
Out of caucus, maybe, but only the voters can turf an MP out of his seat.
The Liberals have enough seats with the NDP propping them up that they could afford to lose an MP from the government benches. Besides, RB would almost certainly vote with the Liberals, if for no other reason than in hopes of remaining in the boss's good graces to get put back in Cabinet if the Libs win the election. Remember he is a prominent homosexual, not just a crooked Pretendian.
Not a chance. Is a perfect fit to the Liebranodip "team".
"I don't believe Boissonnault was motivated to lie solely to get the inside track on government contracts."
I would suggest stepping back and taking a look at Boissonnault in his entirety. His attacks on Jody Wilson-Raybould in 2019 were despicable. He turned her testimony into a disgustingly rude interrogation. There is no doubt in my mind he is guilty of everything he is accused of and that he is capable of much, much worse.
Maybe! JG
Canada is better off with JW-B out of government, especially out of Justice.
Yes.
I know this is the wrong place to put this comment but I just want to say that Jen hit it out of the park on the last podcast with the term Griftaucracy. I felt something was wrong with the latest apparently successful IT company being given millions of our tax dollars to set up an AI center that they should be able to fund themselves. But it is Griftaucracy! Leaves a greasy feeling in the pit of your stomach like you ate too much fried chicken (not that there is anything wrong with fried chicken - the dose is the poison remember). So thanks for that one Jen. I’ll be using that.
Absolutely correct, and after she finishes her first book (we know you will, Jen) she has a ready made title and an almost inexhaustable supply of content for her follow up release.
I wonder how many Canadians, white or otherwise, are sick of this whole narrative? You wrote. "we can all acknowledge the errors of our history,". It is time to start reacknowledging the successes of our forefathers. The vast majority of Canadians come from simple, oft times impoverished circumstances. Nothing was given to them. They worked hard to establish themselves and our families. These progressive thinkers have done a great disservice to generations of Canadians who have made this country one that was once envied. That is the Canadian "culture" and it is well worth defending from those who say otherwise.
Agreed.
I just, as always, reject the framework.
Good article.
I was going to start my comment with the phrase as a white person. Then I thought that kinda goes against what is being presented in the article. Usually I just yell at what I see as flaws in the latest version of Canadian history. I’m old. Very little Canadian history was taught when I was going to school and I’m sure there is even less now. I did not yell at this article and I’m still thinking.
Fantastic piece. What a treat to read - and so soon after seeing the video making the rounds today of Junior shitting on the Americans for having the temerity to YET AGAIN not vote for a woman President. At this point there are simply no words left to describe this man. The day he proclaimed "There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada" ought to have been the day he hit rock bottom but no, he keeps plunging new depths and at an increasingly frequent rate.
Anyway, this really should be the last word on the subject:
We can simply reject this framework. Any ideology that assigns social value to immutable characteristics is a dead end. It just doesn’t get us anywhere useful.
Bingo. Not only does it not get us anywhere useful it gets us to a lot of very bad places.
A couple of random observations. First, I agree that white identity is a fiction. This is also true for "black identify" or indeed any other "[immutable characteristic] identity". Cultures matter, not immutable characteristics. "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by the magnificent Thomas Sowell is a good read on this subject.
Second, among the three groups Jen identifies I actually think the first group (the actual white supremacists who have embraced the change for all the wrong reasons) is the group more likely to intentionally misrepresent their identities for the specific purpose of acquiring privileges meant to be afforded to (in Jen's example) Indigenous people. They seem to be motivated by a purely malevolent "I'll get them" attitude.
In contrast, the Boissonnaults and Elizabeth Warrens of the world seem to me to be primarily motivated by a desire to affiliate as closely as possible with the so-called oppressed - to somehow be more than just an ally (dammit do I hate what has happened to that word). I don't think it even occurs to them at first instance that they are essentially ripping off the oppressed group they have falsely joined. It's really no different than the land-owners faithfully reciting the land acknowledgments like trained seals without ever dreaming of the implications (i.e. that if they truly believe this BS they ought to be returning their ill-gotten gains rather than mouthing ridiculous platitudes).
Great column, and something we need more and very public discussion on.
Love this:
'We can simply reject this framework. Any ideology that assigns social value to immutable characteristics is a dead end.'
This is exactly what I've been trying to explain to my 17 year old daughter and her three older brothers. Recalling my youth in the 1980s, I maintain we were way closer to Dr. King's dream that we should strive to judge and be judged by content of character rather than skin color (colour). Not that it was perfect back then (we definitely had a ways to go on acceptance of gays/lesbians in the 80s), but at that time we were encouraged to LOOK PAST or IGNORE our own as well as others race, and regard everyone as fellow humans. For those of my age, remember? We were encouraged to be COLOUR BLIND. I preferred that societal trajectory to today's insanity.
Until we come to our senses and remember how to do as I describe above, Jen has provided some helpful phrases in her piece.
Phrases from Jen's wonderful mind I will be using until Colour Blind times return(with appropriate credit & kudos to our Line Editor):
- person who burns easily in summer (me)
- non-melenated (mostly me, with a few random melanated splotches and freckles)
- pale (me, except after multiple burns and gradual tanning over summer)
- pasties (people like me, I guess, except i originally thought these were tiny scraps of self-adhesive coverings for glands/naughty bits)
Phrases I would suggest Jen add to her white-descriptor lexicon:
- non-swarthy
- pallid
- PLC (People Lacking Colour) (People Lacking Color - for USA)
- undertinctured
- whey-faced
Just one more question for Jen: which Randy were you referencing in this column?
Randy Boissonnault. He claimed to be Indigenous based on his grandmother or great-grandmother. The National Post discovered that this woman was rather more Germanic than Aboriginal.
are you trying to get Jen to bring up Cocahontas again?
I meant which of the 'two Randy's' ;) just a bit of sarcasm. Thanks, though!
Something is contradictory when a government claims Canada has no identity while at the same time positioning itself as the protector of identity through, for example, imposing local content rules (ie. CanCon), protecting certain industries and promoting use of French.