Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am primarily of Acadian origin. I speak French natively and I know the culture pretty well as it is the culture of both my parents and of the majority of my extended family. Even if I haven't lived anywhere "Acadian" in many years. Charles Lawrence was responsible for an initiative to aimed to "get rid" of the people who represent perhaps 80% of the people I am descended from.

And yet I don't identify with this mindset:

https://this.org/2017/12/01/forgetting-charles-lawrence/

It's also not a big deal to me that lots of other stuff is named for the other architects of the Grand Dérangement, like Murray, Winslow and of course Monc(k)ton for whom the largest city in New Brunswick and the largest Acadian university anywhere are named.

As someone else said - I'd rather Acadians look forward, without forgetting the past. But without being obsessed by it.

I understand how people like Tyler LeBlanc feel. But he doesn't speak for me or most of my family. (At least I hope not.)

I feel like we Canadians, Anglo or French, are a pretty forward- or future focused people rather than past-focused (not necessarily saying that in the sense like we're particularly enlightened or something but just that we seem to not that particularly or obsessively attached to past grievances, or past pride either as a collective).

Even something like the US South's attitude and debate over treatment of the confederate flag or statues seems different from the attitudes about French Canadians and their past. Though French Canadians and American Southerners are among the most "rooted" and "old stock" of European-descent people of their countries respectively, the French Canadian obsession isn't about symbolic statues, monuments, nods to past glory (even if "Je me souviens" has been likened to "the South will rise again), etc. but about actual day to day policy -- how is the modern French or Francophone language and culture being preserved, not past glories. I get the impression that Francophones care little about lip service to ancestors, statues etc. if there's no real, current policies that favor successful cultural preservation for the people alive today and their kids. It's a focus on current nation building looking forward (for the French and English Canadians societies alike), not the past.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I don't agree with the rest of your post, but I think the bolded is a great idea.



I certainly agree that American and Canadian approaches to the idea of "founding fathers" is very different. I personally think that the Canadian approach is significantly better. As but one example, Canada's "living tree" theory of constitutional interpretation is (in my view) much more effective than American "originalism".

I think I and many others brought it up before, but it feels like from the point of view of the "newness" of Canadians' identity, Americans almost seem a bit "Old World".

Like the way Americans might see Europeans (with the old established traditions) and contrast it with their own "newness", Canadians can often point to Americans' old established traditions and contrast it with their "newness".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I feel like we Canadians, Anglo or French, are a pretty forward- or future focused people rather than past-focused (not necessarily saying that in the sense like we're particularly enlightened or something but just that we seem to not that particularly or obsessively attached to past grievances, or past pride either as a collective).

Even something like the US South's attitude and debate over treatment of the confederate flag or statues seems different from the attitudes about French Canadians and their past. Though French Canadians and American Southerners are among the most "rooted" and "old stock" of European-descent people of their countries respectively, the French Canadian obsession isn't about symbolic statues, monuments, nods to past glory (even if "Je me souviens" has been likened to "the South will rise again), etc. but about actual day to day policy -- how is the modern French or Francophone language and culture being preserved, not past glories. I get the impression that Francophones care little about lip service to ancestors, statues etc. if there's no real, current policies that favor successful cultural preservation for the people alive today and their kids. It's a focus on current nation building looking forward (for the French and English Canadians societies alike), not the past.

A prime example: the French Canadians of Quebec shed "Canadien" as their main identity marker in favour of Québécois, in spite of the fact that they were the first people in history of humanity to refer to themselves as Canadians/Canadiens. They created that name and the identity that went along with it. It applied to them and them only for several centuries.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I certainly agree that American and Canadian approaches to the idea of "founding fathers" is very different. I personally think that the Canadian approach is significantly better. As but one example, Canada's "living tree" theory of constitutional interpretation is (in my view) much more effective than American "originalism".

It's also much less dangerous, IMO.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I believe the heroes of Latin American history are somewhat less predominantly Spanish than those of the U.S. are predominantly British. Yes, Simon Bolivar was 100% Spanish IIRC but others biggies like O'Higgins and Belgrano had various origins. There is even some debate about whether José de San Martin, officially Spanish in origins, was in fact a mestizo.

The extent to which Americans downplay their "Britishness" is kind of interesting. When I'm living in the US, as a Canadian, I keep on reminding people that stuff people often call "American culture" is often shared Anglophone or Anglosphere culture. I mean, sure there's lots that's distinctively American (in particular things like Southern US culture, African American culture etc.) but people seem to downplay the British roots of some of American culture.

People bring up stuff like apple pie, meat and potatoes etc. and say it's "American food" (if they want to contrast it with so-called exotic "ethnic" foods), but I tend to just think of it as "Anglo" food, since it's not like its exclusive to the US. Americans say that someone named Antonio going by "Tony" is Americanizing his name, but I would call it Anglicizing, not Americanizing. So many Americans (including African Americans) have British origin surnames like Smith, Johnson etc. (even more than Canada does, since French surnames plus some surnames of immigrant origin show up more on the Canadian top 10 list), yet keep calling those "American" names not British names (by contrast, people still sometimes call French-Canadian surnames "French", even though they're more common in the New World proportionally than English names relative to Britain, and no one, or okay, few people, really call a name a "Canadian" (without qualification) name the way Americans call a name "American")

The revolution has in the minds of many split Britain and the US, but that just means that many Americans just end up calling aspects of their culture that's British simply American (like the apple pie etc.), rather than actually changing the British aspects of their culture.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

The extent to which Americans downplay their "Britishness" is kind of interesting. When I'm living in the US, as a Canadian, I keep on reminding people that stuff people often call "American culture" is often shared Anglophone or Anglosphere culture. I mean, sure there's lots that's distinctively American (in particular things like Southern US culture, African American culture etc.) but people seem to downplay the British roots of some of American culture.

Canadians are confused about this too.

For example sometimes they will say that Canadians burned down the White House (sometimes they say this was in retaliation for the attack on Toronto, which was called York back then). Then Donald Trump complained that Canada did this, and a bunch of people pointed out that it was really the British.

It was a British imperial campaign that predated the existence of Canada. The expedition was led out of Halifax, and would have included a lot of people who today would be Canadians but back then thought of themselves as Britons. Anybody who's so inclined can go visit a bunch of spoils from Washington and the War of 1812 there (lots of stuff in Province House), and visit the tomb of the general who led the campaign. I am not sure how many people would actually find that interesting but I bet a lot of people don't think of Canada as a place with that sort of tangible history.

[elly63]

Off topic. We truly live in a f'ed up world today, I just watched a skit from the Carol Burnette show that made me LOL which doesn't happen too often. That skit could not air today in our sick PC politicized environment. The Carol Burnette Show, FFS.

Also saw a movie trailer for the kids movie Bad News Bears from 1976. That couldn't air either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Canadians are confused about this too.

For example sometimes they will say that Canadians burned down the White House (sometimes they say this was in retaliation for the attack on Toronto, which was called York back then). Then Donald Trump complained that Canada did this, and a bunch of people pointed out that it was really the British.

It was a British imperial campaign that predated the existence of Canada. The expedition was led out of Halifax, and would have included a lot of people who today would be Canadians but back then thought of themselves as Britons. Anybody who's so inclined can go visit a bunch of spoils from Washington and the War of 1812 there (lots of stuff in Province House), and visit the tomb of the general who led the campaign. I am not sure how many people would actually find that interesting but I bet a lot of people don't think of Canada as a place with that sort of tangible history.

What's interesting and what isn't is more often than not determined by the interest of a big-time Hollywood film-maker or a best-selling author to create a popular work about it. Not by its inherent interest value.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

So many Americans (including African Americans) have British origin surnames like Smith, Johnson etc. (even more than Canada does, since French surnames plus some surnames of immigrant origin show up more on the Canadian top 10 list), yet keep calling those "American" names not British names (by contrast, people still sometimes call French-Canadian surnames "French", even though they're more common in the New World proportionally than English names relative to Britain, and no one, or okay, few people, really call a name a "Canadian" (without qualification) name the way Americans call a name "American")
.

In Quebec I can confirm it's common to refer to certain surnames as "Québécois names". Names like Tremblay and Gagnon for sure, but names like Harvey, Ryan and Blackburn would be on the list too.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

. When they told this to the naysayers, the naysayers said, well, people of colour just don't feel safe being in a room full of white people and don't feel like they'd be listened to, so that's why they don't bother.

I have to say I've kind of been "haunted" by this passage since I read it earlier today. But I don't really know what to say about it.

[Capsicum]

It's also interesting the way that many people have taken the war of 1812 to be a marker of Canadian identity, even if they don't care that much about the details of it not being Canada at the time etc. Like if you spend time at the Niagara Falls touristy area, where the tour guide brings up 1812, you will have lots of Torontonians (many of whom are only first, second, third generation Canadians) actually cheering the idea that their side "won" that one.

Does Canada and the US differ a lot in terms of how much later newcomers (who don't have ancestries going far back to the times of various historical events) care about historical events prior to their ancestors' arrivals?

I mean it feels like the Civil War is mainly something "old stock" Americans care about, and 1812 is mostly about Canadians showing off how they staved off being absorbed by the Americans, which is still something relevant to modern (Anglo) Canadian identity.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What's interesting and what isn't is more often than not determined by the interest of a big-time Hollywood film-maker or a best-selling author to create a popular work about it. Not by its inherent interest value.

This is true. Canadians are not as good at creating these types of work about their own history, or maybe they just aren't as interested. The situation has a chicken and egg quality to it.

I think there is another factor at play too, which is that the country is culturally somewhat balkanized. Most English-language media is concentrated in Ontario but the interesting stuff in the first ~2/3 of Canadian history mostly revolved around the Atlantic and St. Lawrence. If Toronto had a history like Quebec City or Halifax I think we'd hear about it a lot more. Alternatively if Atlantic Canada were able to sustain more of its own media then maybe they would have produced more interesting national stuff.

I should also point out that I think we lose some ability to understand our own culture because of this and it has a real impact on the country. I have had conversations here in Vancouver with Canadians who didn't know that Quebec was originally a French colony, for example. They implicitly thought that French Canadians were a fairly recent immigrant group and that they were just more demanding.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is true. Canadians are not as good at creating these types of work about their own history, or maybe they just aren't as interested. The situation has a chicken and egg quality to it.

I think there is another factor at play too, which is that the country is culturally somewhat balkanized. Most English-language media is concentrated in Ontario but the interesting stuff in the first ~2/3 of Canadian history mostly revolved around the Atlantic and St. Lawrence. If Toronto had a history like Quebec City or Halifax I think we'd hear about it a lot more.

Just to be the devil's advocate, the creative nerve centre for the American film and TV industry that has glorified so much of that country's history in its work, is based in Los Angeles which isn't exactly the cradle of that country's birth either.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by elly63

Off topic. We truly live in a f'ed up world today, I just watched a skit from the Carol Burnette show that made me LOL which doesn't happen too often. That skit could not air today in our sick PC politicized environment. The Carol Burnette Show, FFS.

Also saw a movie trailer for the kids movie Bad News Bears from 1976. That couldn't air either.

That's strange because the results of a quick google search suggest that the Carol Burnett Show airs as reruns in dozens and dozens of Canadian and American tv markets.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by someone123

When they told this to the naysayers, the naysayers said, well, people of colour just don't feel safe being in a room full of white people and don't feel like they'd be listened to, so that's why they don't bother. What can you say to this?

You can also say (to the naysayers -- not sure if in this context they were mostly white or non-white but either way...) "what makes you able to speak for all of (group X)" etc.?

There are plenty of people, of any demographic, who care a lot about identity politics. But there are also plenty of people who don't care a lot about identity politics and many minority groups even actually dislike it very much because they dislike tokenism and being chosen to be a "representative" of their group.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/opinion/sunday/speak-for-yourself.html

[Acajack]

..................

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

It's also interesting the way that many people have taken the war of 1812 to be a marker of Canadian identity, even if they don't care that much about the details of it not being Canada at the time etc. Like if you spend time at the Niagara Falls touristy area, where the tour guide brings up 1812, you will have lots of Torontonians (many of whom are only first, second, third generation Canadians) actually cheering the idea that their side "won" that one.

Does Canada and the US differ a lot in terms of how much later newcomers (who don't have ancestries going far back to the times of various historical events) care about historical events prior to their ancestors' arrivals?

I mean it feels like the Civil War is mainly something "old stock" Americans care about, and 1812 is mostly about Canadians showing off how they staved off being absorbed by the Americans, which is still something relevant to modern (Anglo) Canadian identity.

On the contrary, I've always found that Americans of whatever origins and regardless of region tend to embrace their country's history, heritage and traditions way more than people in Canada do.

I mean, they celebrate Thanksgiving with fairly equal enthusiasm in New England, New Mexico and Hawaii.

It seems to me it doesn't take much for Canadians of region X or origin Y to proclaim that Canadianism Z doesn't apply to them and that they're opting out of it. (Often, simply because it's a convenient "out" that allows them to partake in something sexier, generally U.S.-originated, instead.)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Acajack;8279830]On the contrary, I've always found that Americans of whatever origins and regardless of region tend to embrace their country's history, heritage and traditions way more than people in Canada do.

I mean, they celebrate Thanksgiving with fairly equal enthusiasm in New England, New Mexico and Hawaii.

It seems to me it doesn't take much for Canadians of region X or origin Y to proclaim that Canadianism Z doesn't apply to them and that they're opting out of it. (Often, simply because it's a convenient "out" that allows them to partake in something sexier, generally U.S.-originated, instead.)

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is true. Canadians are not as good at creating these types of work about their own history, or maybe they just aren't as interested. The situation has a chicken and egg quality to it.

I think there is another factor at play too, which is that the country is culturally somewhat balkanized. Most English-language media is concentrated in Ontario but the interesting stuff in the first ~2/3 of Canadian history mostly revolved around the Atlantic and St. Lawrence. If Toronto had a history like Quebec City or Halifax I think we'd hear about it a lot more. Alternatively if Atlantic Canada were able to sustain more of its own media then maybe they would have produced more interesting national stuff.

I should also point out that I think we lose some ability to understand our own culture because of this and it has a real impact on the country. I have had conversations here in Vancouver with Canadians who didn't know that Quebec was originally a French colony, for example. They implicitly thought that French Canadians were a fairly recent immigrant group and that they were just more demanding.

Wow, really? Are these Canadians who didn't grow up locally with the Canadian education system (eg. moved as adults?) because I can't imagine anyone missing out on that.

It'd be like a northern American thinking that an American southern accent was actually a foreign accent and not of one's own countryman or countrywoman.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

..................

Is this a response to my post above regarding "how can you speak for group X" etc.?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

You can also say (to the naysayers -- not sure if in this context they were mostly white or non-white but either way...) "what makes you able to speak for all of (group X)" etc.?

I don't think this strategy would be successful. These people start by declaring that they are in the group, and if you disagree they generally insinuate that you must have bad hidden motives, i.e. you are deeply racist and you're strategically revealing the tip of the iceberg to shift things a little bit in the direction you want. Or you just don't or can't understand because you're not in the group.

I think you maybe could make some headway by delivering your own speech in a positive way and talking about inclusion and "growing the tent" while being respectful of everyone. But only the victors got to make the speeches and like I said they were 100% minority this time so the opportunity for that has passed, unless the people in that group want to make that type of speech. Some of them did, sort of, delicately.

A lot of the people in these groups are physically identifiable. And let's remember that even with a seemingly objective thing like skin colour you might have people say that you should not be listened to because you are not "really" behaving like you should for a member of your group. You can always be excommunicated.

In my particular case this was also a casual social thing that was meant to be fun, although it did have a competitive aspect. It's not the kind of thing people will generally fight over tooth and nail.