the fate of Canada...
is at stake. but it's more than just the toppling of the Liberal party (which is sure to happen and how thankful we are about it). it's not at stake in electing the next party, which i'm hopeful and optimistic to be the Conservative Party--even for the sake of the Liberal Party (but that's another discussion). it's at stake in how and why whatever the party that is elected is elected. have we become convinced that electing a political party is how we "unite" our country; how we show that we're really "not that different;" that there is a "centre" and "unity" to political (read, communal) thought in our country?
if it takes electing a political party to do this, then our future is already sunk. if a political party is the source of national identity (whether it be Liberal, NDP, or Conservative), then communal identity is not something this generation has discovered and subsequently added to, but something it has made from its own creativity. evidence is one of the national parties that simply exists for separation. the Bloc Quebecois gives space for a separatist identity in the House of Commons and becomes the federal **identity** of Quebec's disenfranchised. if there is more than one identity in a nation, then can it be a nation? (this is a bigger question than just about Canada, but about the nation-state in general.)
there has to be something deeper to form a national identity. there has to be something pre-political (political in the more recent liberal sense), otherwise, Canada is simply a social experiment and bound for disintegration into what appear to be genuine communities: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes (I am not as familiar with B.C. and the rest of the Prairies--if they have an identity similar to one of the regions mentioned above or their own). this doesn't mean that there is always agreement in these regions. these places are not defined by the answers they come up with, but by the questions they ask. (e.g., i am Quebecois in a way that many of my non-Quebecois friends are not simply that asking the question of separation is one I have lived my entire known life with, whereas they have not. In other words, I share something with separatist Quebecois that I do not with nationalist Ontarians.) is Canada a nation of people who ask different questions? methinks....perhaps.
if it takes electing a political party to do this, then our future is already sunk. if a political party is the source of national identity (whether it be Liberal, NDP, or Conservative), then communal identity is not something this generation has discovered and subsequently added to, but something it has made from its own creativity. evidence is one of the national parties that simply exists for separation. the Bloc Quebecois gives space for a separatist identity in the House of Commons and becomes the federal **identity** of Quebec's disenfranchised. if there is more than one identity in a nation, then can it be a nation? (this is a bigger question than just about Canada, but about the nation-state in general.)
there has to be something deeper to form a national identity. there has to be something pre-political (political in the more recent liberal sense), otherwise, Canada is simply a social experiment and bound for disintegration into what appear to be genuine communities: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes (I am not as familiar with B.C. and the rest of the Prairies--if they have an identity similar to one of the regions mentioned above or their own). this doesn't mean that there is always agreement in these regions. these places are not defined by the answers they come up with, but by the questions they ask. (e.g., i am Quebecois in a way that many of my non-Quebecois friends are not simply that asking the question of separation is one I have lived my entire known life with, whereas they have not. In other words, I share something with separatist Quebecois that I do not with nationalist Ontarians.) is Canada a nation of people who ask different questions? methinks....perhaps.
posted by Aaron Perry at
7:22 PM
11 Comments:
Your best post in weeks (did I use the correct geek speak?). No comments. Guess you know how much people care about corruption at the highest levels of their government. Steal my money. Just don't take away Tim Horton's
we've got 56 days to do our part. here's a post on a website by a former Liberal advisor. he gets it right. especially at the end.
http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm
i have a future post coming up on the lack of response to this post. let's see how it goes!
i thought about commenting, but then realized i'm not canadian, and i really shouldn't. but it was interesting.
i comment on US blogs, although i'm not american. feel free to blog, jo.
i thought about commenting but then realized i really have no clue what half of your post meant. i'm one of those lousy canadians who have never voted. and now all voting canadians who read this have disowned me. i've never known enough to make an informed decision. guess i'm passive. guess that's not a good thing, eh?
I am not sure if this relates totally, but other goverments that have tried to build a national identity around themselves have had terrible results. Think of the Nationalsozialistische party of Germany in the 30-40's. Identity's that are based on political idealogues can only oppress those that don't fall in line with it. Because now to be out of line with the "community" is to be "un-canadian" and that can quickly become unlawfull.
Bottom line: avoid politically induced national identities.
I think martin will frame this election in exactly the terms you have stated. He will paint a picture of two Canada's and ask "which one do you live in" and most people will identify with his Canada because he and the liberals have been building it since I was a kid. I have absolutely no clue where you came up with this notion that people elect a political party to unite the country. I don't think anybody goes to vote asking "will this bring us all together" If that was the case that people in "Upper Canada" would have put the Reform party in power years ago. If that were the case than the west never would have created that party in the first place. I would say the exact opposite is true. People go to the ballot box asking what's best fro me and my neighborhood and as long as this country has the bulk of it's population in Ontario and Quebec the rest of us are just going to have to suck it up. The only people who are seriously asking the unity question are a) people in Quebec because they can't move on and b) the politicians themselves, not because they are deeply concerned about western alienation or maritime subjugation but because they want votes. They don't want to unify the county around itself they want to unify the voters around themselves. To say Canadians are voting to bring unity overlooks the fundamental human condition - selfishness. Will I vote this year? Of course, and I plan to vote Conservative although Harper scares me a bit. Will I vote conservative because I think it will create national unity by bringing the west back into the fold – heck no. I’ll do it because I think it serves my personal agenda the best.
lor--i think the resurrection demands political (not in the Modern liberal sense--i.e., that agreement on behalf of individuals to band together, giving up some rights in order to receive others from the hands of appointed authorities, but in the root sense--concerning the city, community, etc.) activity. this necessarily involves such a society's leaders. think about why herod gets in a panic when he thinks John has been raised from the dead. what more can gov't authority do than kill? if someone can raise teh dead, then rulers are in trouble. we live on the other side of Jesus' resurrection, this side of the general resurrection and need to show that the resurrection means authority isn't what they think it is.
dwayne: perfect. you aren't the only person on this site to draw connections between the most recent Cdn gov't and the Nazis. Some guy in MB...anything to add?
AJ: i think you should re-read what i wrote. part of what you wrote is right on; part of it is simply misreading what i wrote...Dwayne got it right.
i would have to ask though, "Maritime subjugation" by the rest of the country? i hardly know how to respond.
also, why afraid of harper? he is hte one who promised to let the maritimes keep all fishing revenue in the last election! frankly, this ubiquitous fear of harper is nothing more than an ingrained doctrine of the CBC.
Some Guy Says:
I write at the invitation of AP. My thoughts are my own. Not his. Please don't get upset with him if you disagree with me.
(1) The Liberals are not Nazis. Yet.
(2) The Liberals are now in the process of buying Canadians with their own (Canadians') money. Inspiring leadership. "I'll steal your money when I'm in power and if you re-elect me I may return some of it over the next 5 years." That they can say this openly and people believe it is an example of truly inspiring, if Machiavellian, leadership.
(3) We have no idea whether Stephen Harper will be a good PM because nobody tells the truth about him. Personally I think it's a beau risque.
(4) Subjgation of Atlantic Canada? Show me a region that has benefitted more from federal Liberal largesse. Show me a region that is more economically stunted because of such largesse. Atlantic Canadians should, as much as if not more than Quebecers, be willing to turf the Liberals for the way they have mismanaged that region and condemned it to underdevelopment, unemployment, and stagnation. Harper has the courage to say so and Maritimers crucify him. Talk about loving your abuser! But hey, there's a Tim's on every street corner from Saint John to Saint John's. So it's ok.
(5) If you believe in big government, vote for the NDP. If your cause is the environment, vote for the Greens. I have no idea how anyone--especially any Christian--can reward proven criminal activity. If you vote Liberal in the next election, that's exactly what you're doing. This is not about a party. It is about the future of a viable democracy in this land. Yes. It is THAT serious.
Rant Over
Some guy
I'm not saying that the maritimes has been conquored I'm saying we sort of get the shaft in that big sense our votes don't matter. You could win a majority gov in Canada without getting a single vote in the maritimes. And while you hear everyone talking about winning upper canada and the west you almost never hear anyone say "we must win the maritimes". Maybe marginalization would be a less inflamitory term.
The only province that doesn't have that problem is Ontario. ontario gets 106 seats. quebec gets 75--and has felt that it gets such little recognition that it created its own nationalist party. both of these provinces have significant amounts of seats--and are the highest populated provinces.
i believe the maritimes get 32 seats altogether--which is four more than Alberta gets. Manitoba and Saskatchewan get 28 seats combined. BC gets 36. it seems that the maritimes have pretty close to equal representation that other parts of the country do. marginilization either shouldn't be considered, or it works for everyone--and (sadly) proves the question of my original post. if everyone is marginalized except ontario, then we don't have a country.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home