Hey All,
I am new here, and I want to start clearing the dust on Canadian culture.8O
Defining Canadian culture in todays Canada first involves clearing away cobwebs and misconceptions. These misconceptions can be either official (ie the fad of multiculturalism) or unofficial (ie cynicism, Americanised media, like Global and CTV).
I hope to present a ''positive criticism" of Canada's cultural malaise. I love Canada. I believe Canadian culture exists.Why? Because no country on the face of the earth is truely without an idenity. So let's consign all this multiculturalism, Americanisation, and Quebecios seperatism non-sense to the rubbish bin!
In order to arrive at our final destination (ie a truely national Canadian consensus), lets look at history to see where we went wrong. It's tempting to blame outside sources, but we are in charge of our own destiny.
Here is my brief thesis; I welcome all comments, whether positive or negative stressed in a civilised manner.
The main time period is the nineteenth century. The idea of Canada developing a truely national consensus on national destiny and culture never attained majority awareness over most Canadians. That is because the debate on the future of Canada was ''hijacked'' by social and cultural radical groups. In English Canada, these ''radicals'' were represented mainly by the Orange Lodge, British imperialism, and anti French/Catholic sentiment. Some figures and events epitomised these positions, namely Dalton Macarthy (I think, I might have his name wrong), George Brown, the hanging of Louis Riel, anti-French language policies in Manitoba and Ontario, and the ''ascendancy temper'' of Anglo-Saxon society. In French Canada, equivalent ''radicals'' existed as well to hijack the national debate: ultramontaine Catholicism, French Canadian nationalism, Honore Mercier, ethno-cultural nationalism, persistent isolationism, and persistent remembrance of the Conquest. These were some of the main contributing factors that undermined Canada's vital ''culture debate' in the nineteenth-early twentieth century.
Instead, Canada should have developed early on a full fledged commitment to biculturalism, and only biculturalism. Multiculturalism (I am not referring to pluralism) is the last bastion of confused commentators in todays Canada. As well, the French/English divide should have become more like a hedge and not a towering wall of ethno-linguistic-religious division...you could still look over it without it being a conscious divider. All Canadians early on should have gotten accustomed to the fact that they are part of a larger bicultural whole---ie " I am English Canadian but my national heritage is also French Canadian." We should have got used to saying something like this, ""I am not owned by my regional boundaries, but transition freely between Canada's French/English identity." By uniting the two cultures, we produce ONE. Even if we stayed predominantly English Protestant and French Catholic, we could be both in a conceptual sense. There is the natural birth of a nation.
This whole process required moderation, vision, and co-operation. Like I said, the Canadian consciousness before the 1960's was fed on sectarianism. I am not downplaying cultural or religious identity, but attitude and behaviour speak louder than beliefs sometimes. So, Canada's national consciousness did not fully and naturally progress. That doesn't mean, however, that the Canadian identity wasn't born and bred throughout history. Indeed, I believe the Canadian identity to be alive and well, only neglected and undernourished.
Here are the figures, events, and groups that represented the Canadian cultural ''pact'' in the nineteenth century..ie, a vision of a united, confidently driven nation: French-English Canadian victory in War of 1812, Responsible Government, Confederation (the obvious one), Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Darcy McGee, Canada First, the National Policy, Henri Bourassa (for a time), and French-English Old World perspectives (ie Catholicism-Toryism-Christianity).There are probably more.
I think I will end with that now, as my fingers are getting tired. I welcome a lively discussion.
Hope to get more conversation going on this topic!
I am new here, and I want to start clearing the dust on Canadian culture.8O
Defining Canadian culture in todays Canada first involves clearing away cobwebs and misconceptions. These misconceptions can be either official (ie the fad of multiculturalism) or unofficial (ie cynicism, Americanised media, like Global and CTV).
I hope to present a ''positive criticism" of Canada's cultural malaise. I love Canada. I believe Canadian culture exists.Why? Because no country on the face of the earth is truely without an idenity. So let's consign all this multiculturalism, Americanisation, and Quebecios seperatism non-sense to the rubbish bin!
In order to arrive at our final destination (ie a truely national Canadian consensus), lets look at history to see where we went wrong. It's tempting to blame outside sources, but we are in charge of our own destiny.
Here is my brief thesis; I welcome all comments, whether positive or negative stressed in a civilised manner.
The main time period is the nineteenth century. The idea of Canada developing a truely national consensus on national destiny and culture never attained majority awareness over most Canadians. That is because the debate on the future of Canada was ''hijacked'' by social and cultural radical groups. In English Canada, these ''radicals'' were represented mainly by the Orange Lodge, British imperialism, and anti French/Catholic sentiment. Some figures and events epitomised these positions, namely Dalton Macarthy (I think, I might have his name wrong), George Brown, the hanging of Louis Riel, anti-French language policies in Manitoba and Ontario, and the ''ascendancy temper'' of Anglo-Saxon society. In French Canada, equivalent ''radicals'' existed as well to hijack the national debate: ultramontaine Catholicism, French Canadian nationalism, Honore Mercier, ethno-cultural nationalism, persistent isolationism, and persistent remembrance of the Conquest. These were some of the main contributing factors that undermined Canada's vital ''culture debate' in the nineteenth-early twentieth century.
Instead, Canada should have developed early on a full fledged commitment to biculturalism, and only biculturalism. Multiculturalism (I am not referring to pluralism) is the last bastion of confused commentators in todays Canada. As well, the French/English divide should have become more like a hedge and not a towering wall of ethno-linguistic-religious division...you could still look over it without it being a conscious divider. All Canadians early on should have gotten accustomed to the fact that they are part of a larger bicultural whole---ie " I am English Canadian but my national heritage is also French Canadian." We should have got used to saying something like this, ""I am not owned by my regional boundaries, but transition freely between Canada's French/English identity." By uniting the two cultures, we produce ONE. Even if we stayed predominantly English Protestant and French Catholic, we could be both in a conceptual sense. There is the natural birth of a nation.
This whole process required moderation, vision, and co-operation. Like I said, the Canadian consciousness before the 1960's was fed on sectarianism. I am not downplaying cultural or religious identity, but attitude and behaviour speak louder than beliefs sometimes. So, Canada's national consciousness did not fully and naturally progress. That doesn't mean, however, that the Canadian identity wasn't born and bred throughout history. Indeed, I believe the Canadian identity to be alive and well, only neglected and undernourished.
Here are the figures, events, and groups that represented the Canadian cultural ''pact'' in the nineteenth century..ie, a vision of a united, confidently driven nation: French-English Canadian victory in War of 1812, Responsible Government, Confederation (the obvious one), Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Darcy McGee, Canada First, the National Policy, Henri Bourassa (for a time), and French-English Old World perspectives (ie Catholicism-Toryism-Christianity).There are probably more.
I think I will end with that now, as my fingers are getting tired. I welcome a lively discussion.
Hope to get more conversation going on this topic!