Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada Day: Another good reason to despise liberals


Recommended Posts

All I'm saying is if Canada Day is going to be about patriotism and nationalism, it should be about our own country. There should be events set aside for multiculturalism, but it shouldn't be the entire focus, as I've noticed it is in many places. It seems there's less and less "Canadian" things at these events, other than celebrating diversity. That's only one small aspect of Canada. It should be an opportunity to entertain and inform Canadians about Canadian history, not entirely about partaking in the dances, food, and ceremonies of other cultures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is a consequence of leftist policies that are "post-nationalistic" and "post-patriotism. In other words, this ambiguously-defined national identity is what you get with "multiculturalism". When all else fails, however, the Canadian left can always define itself as "not American".

Not entirely true, while your point about what I presume to be Trudeau's introduction of multiculturalism is indeed valid. The Sentiment of "not American" by far and in large predates that by quite a bit. Actually this notion would truly have started with the erstwhile right, the then Tory party of which Sir John A MacDonald was a prominent member. The very notion of the Colonies banding together in the face of manifest destiny and American Imperialism is the reason Canada even exists today. The threat of American invasion was a rather unsavory notion to the loyal British colonies. The British were far to busy was a myriad of other imperial problems to be of any real assistance should an invasion occur so we had only each other to rely upon.

It's also interesting to note that this could be said to go back even further to a radically conservative political element from the US. The politely termed Royalists (though now they are considered traitors to the US) who fled to the colonies, fleeing persecution or possible execution by the American revolutionaries. The Loyalists as they were called in the Maritimes, founded a number of towns the most famous of which is Saint John NB, still termed to this day the Loyalist City.

One further interesting note, in their infancy the Americans were very much defined by the notion "we're not British", since that time they have outgrown this. Whereas our ancestors wished to maintain their British heritage and this likely contributed to the rather slow development of our own culture. The slow and steady dismantling of our British heritage began before Trudeau, though many agree he marks a certain tipping point. All subsequent PM's (yes even the right wing PMs) have slowly but surely obfuscated the primacy of the crown and vacuumed up much of the crown's powers. Surprisingly Mr. Harper is one of the exceptions if only on a surface level. The reintroduction of Royal to several areas from whence it was stripped has been a nice touch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As a Canadian-born Indo-Canadian, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to see as 'my Canadian culture' vs 'other people's cultures' in this case. Am I supposed to consider poutine less foreign than curry? Is haggis non-Canadian? The Queen is still our head of state, right?

Oh, lord. There's that "foreign queen" myth again. :rolleyes:

Canadian culture is rooted in other countries' cultures, just as in many other countries founded on colonialism by a European power (do people in South America speak Spanish and Portugese and have the architecture and the national dress they do by coincidence?). But, as with those other countries, what's considered ours now has been here so long it's evolved and morphed to become unique to us; there's no poutine in France (and, yes, it is more Canadian than either haggis or curry (isn't curry Britain's national dish now?)).

Culture is a messy thing; hence, we tend to try to simplify it. That's likely whay "Canadian" is now symbolised by things like a certain leaf, crowns, mounties, syrop, and poutine. And, from my perspective, many of those things do dominate on Canada Day. Multiculuralism gets itself in there, too; but, it's harder to represent, so newly imported "ethnic" culture is put on display.

I can't say I mind its inclustion; so long as it doesn't become the dominant feature of the celebrations.

Btw, I've never seen a beaver in its natural habitat, despite living in Canada for all but three years of my life.

That seems odd. Among other places, I've seen them on the Toronto Islands.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites
The slow and steady dismantling of our British heritage began before Trudeau, though many agree he marks a certain tipping point. All subsequent PM's (yes even the right wing PMs) have slowly but surely obfuscated the primacy of the crown and vacuumed up much of the crown's powers.

I'm not sure how much that has to do with national identity and patriotism rather than a simple power grab. This country's Crown, after all, became fully Canadian in 1931 and there was thereafter a concerted effort to make it visibly so. One of the main purposes behind the 1939 royal tour of Canada and the state visit to the US by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth was to assert Canada's new status as an independent kingdom, despite this being pre the 1960s "new Canada". This was why the itinerary included the King giving Royal Assent to bills in the Canadian Senate, and Mackenzie King was adamant in making it known that the King was visiting the US as the King of Canada, not King of the UK (though the American media failed - as it still does - to understand the distinction and the British fought tooth and nail against the project). Further, it isn't just the Crown that has had its power vacuumed up by the PMO, but that also of parliament, the nationality of which nobody seems confused about (despite it too being built upon a model inherited from our former colonial master).

But, I take the point about the dismantling - I'd more say hiding - of Canada's British heritage. Odd (or perhaps not) that the same never occurred against our French inheritances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the main purposes behind the 1939 royal tour of Canada and the state visit to the US by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth was to assert Canada's new status as an independent kingdom, despite this being pre the 1960s "new Canada". This was why the itinerary included the King giving Royal Assent to bills in the Canadian Senate, and Mackenzie King was adamant in making it known that the King was visiting the US as the King of Canada, not King of the UK (though the American media failed - as it still does - to understand the distinction and the British fought tooth and nail against the project).
Do I recall correctly the Liberal lie argument that they were strengthening the monarchy by making it "Canadian" rather than British?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do I recall correctly the Liberal lie argument that they were strengthening the monarchy by making it "Canadian" rather than British?

I've never seen any indication that the Liberals at the time were making the Crown what it was not. In fact, Mackenzie King was openly acknowledging what it had become; as I said, after the Statute of Westminster, Canada had its own crown; it was (and is) the Canadian Crown.

I can only think it was post-Pearson that the Liberals started "lying" about the Crown, when the fact of the Crown's Canadian-ness was forgotten (perhaps deliberately) and it was misrepresented as British and therefore an affront to Francophones and the influx of new, non-British immigrants (somehow more than any of the previous hundreds of thousands of non-British immigrants to this country) that needed to be done away with, surreptitiously, since removing it via the proper constitutional channels was near impossible. (How much the "offence to Quebecers and immigrants" "argument" was a front for a plan by the politicians to eliminate an apolitical constitutional check against them is another question.) That trend seems to have reversed somewhat over the past six or so years, with the government and, notably, the Department of Canadian Heritage, now openly acknowledging that the monarchy in this country is Canadian and all the embarrassed cringing by many (though certainly not all) Liberals away from the Crown over the past 40 years stemmed from a combination of ignorance and knee-jerk emotionalism.

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed...and this was by design. Trudeau sacrificed Canadian identity on the alter of "multiculturalism" for narrow political purposes. The resulting vacuum was/is filled with reflexive contrast to the American hegemon.

unfortunately there was no 'identity' to sacrifice thus no sacrifice took place

Link to post
Share on other sites
unfortunately there was no 'identity' to sacrifice thus no sacrifice took place

I'm not so sure about that. Back at the end of the First World War, Canadians seemed to think of themselves as distinctly Canadian enough to start pushing for greater independence from the UK and, concurrently, our own, more conspicuous voice in international dialogue. Canadian nationalism has only grown since then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shocked to see that Argus was the author of this thread. He normally doesn't seem to get involved with this sort of silliness. Maybe the thread was just a gag on his part. I'm not sure. It does kind of seem like a dumb thing to get annoyed about though. We're Canada. We're not the Dominion of Canada. I owe zero allegience to the Queen (realistically) or to Great Britain and I don't want to think of Canada as anyone's dominion but our own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We're Canada. We're not the Dominion of Canada. I owe zero allegience to the Queen (realistically) or to Great Britain and I don't want to think of Canada as anyone's dominion but our own.

You're clearly a confused person. You've managed to, in a couple of sentences, mash together misunderstandings of history, nomenclature, sovereignty, and civics. It's almost impressive.

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately there was no 'identity' to sacrifice thus no sacrifice took place

This is absolutely untrue. The lack of a coherent or cohesive Canadian identity is a function of recent decades, and a consequence of leftist policies. Primarily, this is due to "multiculturalism", which is tragically enshrined in Canada's core laws. As bush_cheney2004 has already said, this is by design.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The lack of a coherent or cohesive Canadian identity is a function of recent decades, and a consequence of leftist policies. Primarily, this is due to "multiculturalism", which is tragically enshrined in Canada's core laws.

I'm no fan of what official multiculturalism came to be. But, aren't you forgetting that Canada was multicultural before official multiculturalism was instituted, even before Europeans landed here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of what official multiculturalism came to be. But, aren't you forgetting that Canada was multicultural before official multiculturalism was instituted, even before Europeans landed here?

I'm not forgetting it (mind you I wasn't really there at the time, of course), but that's a much different type of multiculturalism than official "multiculturalism policy" as it exists today. Of course culture is an inherently amorphous concept that ebbs and flows over time, and it's difficult to determine a role for government to play in its preservation and/or development. What we have being practised today, however, is an absolute perversion and amounts to what the infamous Anders Breivik accurately described as "cultural Marxism".

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely untrue. The lack of a coherent or cohesive Canadian identity is a function of recent decades, and a consequence of leftist policies. Primarily, this is due to "multiculturalism", which is tragically enshrined in Canada's core laws. As bush_cheney2004 has already said, this is by design.

Liar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not forgetting it (mind you I wasn't really there at the time, of course), but that's a much different type of multiculturalism than official "multiculturalism policy" as it exists today. Of course culture is an inherently amorphous concept that ebbs and flows over time, and it's difficult to determine a role for government to play in its preservation and/or development. What we have being practised today, however, is an absolute perversion and amounts to what the infamous Anders Breivik accurately described as "cultural Marxism".

An excellent citation. We couldn't ask for a more eminent and thoughtful personage than Breivik.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...