Musings of A Canadian Nationalist (or, a Prose Poem Attempt)

01 Jul 2013

They say the Canadian nationalist is dead. Or extinct. Or irrelevant. Or plain unnecessary. They say he or she is no longer needed in this globalised age, that at best the Canadian nationalist advocates for what’s impossible, at worst an enemy of diversity. The Canadian nationalist may have been relevant for the sixties and seventies, when this country was just trying to find (again) itself, but no longer so today. Hey, maybe the goals of the Canadian nationalist have been achieved. This country is now distinct from the United States in numerous ways, like in healthcare, importance of military, the “French fact,” our reputation for tolerance and open-mindedness.

Or maybe not.

Well, take a look at it. Most of what we think as “Canadian identity” came from a party that was historically until recently, pro-US. And human rights, individual liberty, all those things? They don’t make this country different from the US. And now, the current Conservatives are implementing emphasis on the military, less government and deregulation – things no different from the Republican party. Some say this country is “America-lite.”

If that’s the case, then why Canada? Why the need for this country to exist? Why not just join Uncle Sam’s embrace? Healthcare? Well, that was a recent phenomenon – not much accepted in the days before Mr. T. Douglas established it (or maybe I’m wrong, but that was piecemeal!). Parliamentary democracy? The monarchy? We don’t think much of them as special, anyway, except on events where they are celebrated. How about Quebec? Its fate different than Louisiana’s? Remember, Quebecois desire to separate is strong.

Why Canada?

I think the Canadian nationalist is still relevant in this day and age. Regardless, arguably, of the ideological leaning – “old” Tories who still see this country as based on the ideas and principles of Sir John A., or those coming from the New Left whose nationalism is of course, more left-leaning. And even those patriots from the Liberal party and other groups.

What matters most here is that, if this country is ever to be truly relevant in this day and age where globalisation has made everything minor and irrelevant that which is not in-tune with it, if Canada is ever to truly assert itself on the crowded stage, the Canadian nationalist, the first defender of this country, its front-line defence, is still important and necessary.

“Just a good place to live”

01 Jul 2013

So said Donald Creighton in an interview with Charles Taylor for the latter’s 1982 book Radical Tories. Though I can’t answer on behalf of all recent immigrants to this country, not even those from my country of origin, I can do say that this phrase best describes my impression of Canada upon arrival – and I think, by extension, of other recent immigrants as well.

What was my impression of Canada? I remember reading a holiday destination guide back home where the section on Canada occupied a single page; it mostly emphasized nature spots in its pictures and destination choices. My mom thought, and still thinks, of Canada as a better place than the United States in terms of its healthcare system and the politeness/respectfulness of its people, and I share the same opinions as well. We thought of Canada as a better place than the United States, not in terms of comparing one country’s greatness with another’s, but on how better Canada is on internal things. We saw Canada as better than the United States in terms of healthcare than on military strength or international influence.

This is the impression that my family still has about this country, and the same can be said as well for other immigrants, especially those from poorer countries. For us, Canada is a land of opportunity, a place where we can do those things and achieve those goals that we’ll never do and achieve had we remained in our homelands. This is a country where one can feel secure, that no one will just barge in on their doors or fire bullets into their houses with impunity. In terms of corruption, Canada is still better compared to the countries where many of us come from. Politically, Canada is enviously stable. Economically, we see it as a First World economy. In societal terms, Canada is populated by people who are, for the most part, respectful, disciplined, polite and tolerant of each other. This country’s tenet of multiculturalism is an envy of the world, an example for countries torn by ethnic and religious strife.

This country is indeed a paradise for us.

Not until some time later did I begin learning more about this country beyond those rosy impressions. From the media and school, I started to learn about the Canada one will never know from the immigration agency’s brochures. True, it is well-off compared to other countries, but it isn’t a reason to rest on maple wreaths. More so than in previous years, Canada has experienced stress and conflict on a variety of areas. Economically, the country still continues to rely on natural resource exports as mainstay of its economy, despite all those “knowledge economy” proclamations – retail exists side by side with oil & natural gas development and export. Politically, scandals & other affairs have gotten worse on all three levels. Then there’s also the social and ethnic tension between the well-off and not, “visible minorities” and those who’ve been here for centuries. And let’s not forget the condition of the Aboriginal peoples.

I also learned about the history of Canada, that there are many interpretations of it and each has it own implications for this country. There are those who tell the Canadian story as a gradual process of independence from Britain and friendship with the US. There are others who talk about the neglected and suppressed voices of this story from minorities of various backgrounds. Then there are those who talk of Canada as an attempt at creating a different society from the US, the opposite of the liberal individualist Union. Each interpretation has its implications about the fate of Canada, the nature of its society and the degree of its independence globally. The story that guarantees the sovereignty and common well-being of Canada must be maintained.

Still, most of us – recent immigrants and those living for generations – see Canada as “a good place to live.” We never think of this country on grand terms, that it can be more than a country of politeness, respectfulness and gentleness. Someday, that day will come, but when, nobody knows.

About this dominion

12 Apr 2013

Courtesy of

The last Other Press article I have for this season deals with Canadian identity, what it was in the past, and what it may be in the future. Hope this furthers discussion about Canadian nationalism in such a globalising age as this.

A couple (relatively) new articles from your favourite college newspaper

03 Mar 2013

Two articles from The Other Press can be accessed here and here, originally titled “In defence of poutine” and “Why nationalism is necessary for internationalism” respectively. Hope you get amused.

On “Tory nationalism”: a (very) belated rebuttal to Mr Bondy

19 Oct 2012

In his 21 July 2011 article in the Guelph Mercury, Matt Bondy spoke about a new type of Canadian nationalism propagated by the Conservative government. This kind of Canadian nationalism, Bondy argues, revolves around three elements- “military, monarchy, and — maybe counter-intuitively — French Canadian nationalism.” The first element is symbolized by the recent government sponsorship of celebrations to mark the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. The monarchist element is represented by recent royal visits, while the inclusion of French-Canadian nationalism can be represented by the Commons-wide resolution to recognise Quebec as a nation within Canada. Bondy finalizes his article with this:

“If the Conservative party is successful, after the next four years these conservative cultural and political values will have so decisively marginalized the alternative, liberal nationalisms made available at election time that the Tories will be the so-called natural governing party.”

The Conservative nationalism described in the article is problematic on all three aspects. On the military aspect, government emphasis on the military’s role in the country is part of the change in our foreign and defence policy from one oriented towards peacekeeping, diplomatic solutions and relative non-taking of sides to one of participation in (mostly US-led) policy initiatives against “enemy states” (like the Islamic Republic), lack of hesitation to use military force if necessary to achieve diplomatic goals, and a renewed alignment towards the West (particularly with the US and Great Britain). There is no problem with the emphasis on the monarchy in Canada – after all it forms a part of the heritage of this country, and one that separates us from the Union – but to elevate one aspect of the Canadian heritage to the relative non-elevation of other aspects of that heritage (not that the government doesn’t talk about it if important) like that of the First Nations and French-Canadians, is one-sided and partial. Yes, those 1812 ads really do include First Nations (Tecumseh) and French-Canadians (de Salaberry), but they are both “unified” under the monarchy. While the monarchy is important, it isn’t the sole important thing in Canada. As for the French-Canadian aspect, that resolution might have been made for political purposes, and in any effect may have lost its importance in the Conservative ladder of nationalist themes after its victory in Ontario during the last federal election.

The type of Canadian nationalism Bondy describes, and perhaps supports, in his article is problematic for Canada. It shifts us away from an independent type of nationalism that puts the needs of country and people first to a type of nationalism that not only is militaristic but also US-inspired. The importance of the military and “monarchy” effectively the Canadian version for “country” in the US – the “Conservatives” of today are bringing us ever closer to become like the US.