Trudeau and Harper: birds of a feather?

[Machjo]

I was quite shocked a few years back when Harper announced at a G20 Summit (in 2009, after he'd just delivered an official statement of apology in 2008 to the survivors of the residential school system) that 'Canada has no history of colonialism'. I could only wonder how ignorant our PM could possibly be of Canadian history.

Anyway, I'm currently rereading Multiculturalism with in a Bilingual Framework: Language, Race, and Belonging in Canada, by Eve Haque (I'd read it quite quickly, almost skimming through it initially). The book outlines some the true motives of the B&B Commission and the passing of the Official Languages Act, mainly to protect Anglo-French hegemony in the form of the 'two founding races' in the face of challenges from 'other ethnic groups' and 'indigenous peoples'. As I was reading, I'd found this quote from Trudeau from 17 October 1968 in the House of Commons while debating Bill C-120 (later to become the Official Languages Act):

'In the past, multi-cultural states have often resulted from conquest or colonialism. In the modern world, many are based on a conscious appreciation of the facts of history, geography, and economics. This latter case of Canada, a country blessed with more prosperity and political stability than most countries, and where we are making our choices methodically and democratically'.

Considering that some Canadians might view Trudeau and Harper as standing on opposite ends of the political spectrum as PMs, were any of our PMs that different from one another?

Just as Harper had made his comments about a year after apologizing to the survivors of the residential school system, Trudeau made these remarks not long after the publication of Book ! of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bilingualism, which states, among many other unsavoury ideas, that:

'We should point out here that the Commission will not examine the question of the Indians and the Eskimos . Our terms of reference contain no allusion to Canada's native populations. They speak of "two founding races," namely Canadians of British and French origin, and "other ethnic groups," but mention neither the Indians nor the Eskimos. Since it is obvious that these two groups do not form part of the "founding races," as the phrase is used in the terms of reference, it would logically be necessary to include them under the heading "other ethnic groups ." Yet it is clear that the term "other ethnic groups" means those peoples of diverse origins who came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian state and that it does not include the first inhabitants of this country.'

So I have to ask the question, in spite of the fact that there some of our PM's have been more economically left-leaning, and some more right-leaning, have there ever been any real difference in the colonialist mindset of any or our PM's?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I was quite shocked a few years back when Harper announced at a G20 Summit (in 2009, after he'd just delivered an official statement of apology in 2008 to the survivors of the residential school system) that 'Canada has no history of colonialism'. I could only wonder how ignorant our PM could possibly be of Canadian history.

Why?

'We should point out here that the Commission will not examine the question of the Indians and the Eskimos . Our terms of reference contain no allusion to Canada's native populations. They speak of "two founding races," namely Canadians of British and French origin, and "other ethnic groups," but mention neither the Indians nor the Eskimos. Since it is obvious that these two groups do not form part of the "founding races," as the phrase is used in the terms of reference, it would logically be necessary to include them under the heading "other ethnic groups ." Yet it is clear that the term "other ethnic groups" means those peoples of diverse origins who came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian state and that it does not include the first inhabitants of this country.'

So the question is: Are we wildlife, or do we not exist at all?

In Canada, I mean. In the U.S., Indians are referred to in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, where we are defined as "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Which is kinda cool.

 

[Machjo]

Bones, I'm not sure. Wildlife perhaps?

Ah our proud constitutions. If you read the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, it's telling that it bases its recommendations for Canada's language policies on those of Apartheid South Africa, and compares the similarities between the two with pride:

'Like Finland, South Africa has made explicit constitutional provision that its .two official languages, English and Afrikaans, "shall be treated on a footing of equality." As in Belgium, the two main linguistic groups of the white population are comparatively well balanced
in size : in 1960, some 58 per cent declared Afrikaans to be the main language spoken in their homes while English was spoken by 37 per cent. This represents a 2 per cent increase of those speaking Afrikaans since 1936 and a corresponding decrease in the numbers speaking English. The remaining 5 per cent of the white population in 1960 spoke both official languages or other languages at home . A further point of similarity between South Africa and Belgium is the international weight of one of its languages and the insularity of the other .
South Africa differs linguistically from the countries so far considered mainly in three respects . First, bilingualism in English and
Afrikaans is widespread : approximately two-thirds of the white population claimed a knowledge of the two official languages in 1960 .'
Second, as in Canada, neither language is indigenous to the area ; both have been introduced or developed by settlers from Europe . Third, -while the regimes-in the preceding three bilingual states were based on the natural or fostered existence of unilingual areas, in South' Africa the two linguistic groups are relatively mixed. Each of the four provinces has a linguistic minority of 23 to 39 per cent of its white population. Whereas only a quarter of the Canadian population lives in census districts with an official-language minority of 10 per cent or more, in South Africa nearly seven-eighths of the white population is so situated.'

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

"Swahili? Bantu? Those aren't languages!"

 

[Machjo]

"Swahili? Bantu? Those aren't languages!"

Nope. They're just tribal dialects I s'pose.

The best part is how the Commission uses census data to advance the cause of French and English. It mentions how many Canadians speak English or French, but nothing of why that is (Residential Schools, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and other discriminatory educational, language, and immigration laws.

Why bother. It might paint Canada in a bad light, and we wouldn't want that eh.