Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

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

It was a double post.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

Do these groups also often excommunicate members of their own ethnicity/people who "look like them" but whose views they disagree with?

Because if that happens enough, then you might eventually have bitter factions even within minority groups that claim to represent the true intent of "my group X".

[Capsicum]

Ethnic minority groups have often been splintered between more "assimilationist" and/or "integrationist" and more "separatist" or "reactive ethnicity" views (defining oneself in opposition to the dominant culture).

This has been true for all kinds of minority groups, right -- like French Canadians, Black Americans, Indigenous people, newcomer immigrants who want to carry their culture etc., haven't they?

Often some more "separatist" members of an ethnic group will call more "assimilationist" ones traitors or sell-outs who are kissing up to the dominant culture (eg. native people who live on reservations vs. those who go live in the cities, certain groups of black Americans and "acting white" etc.). More "assimilationist" groups might see the "separatists" as misguided and think that they're not helping their cause and only hurting themselves by refusing to compromise.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

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.
.

Yes, they most definitely do exist.

I've run into the "Québécois should just go back to France" crowd in my lifetime. It's not so much immigrants as it is the children and grandchildren of immigrants who are often born or at least raised in Canada but who didn't receive much in terms of Canadian historical information or socialization. Basically brought up with a hybrid of the old country's ways mixed in with contemporary American pop culture with (being metaphorical here) that Canadian flag packing tape they use at airports wrapped around it to hold it all in place.

[lrt's friend]

Canadians view of history is different from the United States because of the Revolution. While Canadians view its history back to its origins, well before Confederation, hence the significance of the War of 1812, whereas Americans view history (other than the Mayflower) pretty well only starts with the Revolution. Nothing before is important other than the offences of the British. Since Canada evolved, we view all our history as legitimate and important in how our country developed.

[GlassCity]

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.?

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

I think about this often. Some of my white friends talk about the need to accommodate immigrants more by, for example, having more public signage be multi-multi-lingual. As in, not just English or French but Mandarin, Punjabi, Tagalog, etc.

My response to this is how do you know that's what those immigrants want? For example, I know immigrants who ask their children to speak English with them so they can practice. Or that complain that there are too many people like them in the workplace so their English doesn't improve there. Would additional accommodation not run counter to those peoples' wants?

I know minorities stick up for themselves all the time, but I do find it funny when non-immigrants try to come up with solutions to problems that they decided were important themselves.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Canadians view of history is different from the United States because of the Revolution. While Canadians view its history back to its origins, well before Confederation, hence the significance of the War of 1812, whereas Americans view history (other than the Mayflower) pretty well only starts with the Revolution. Nothing before is important other than the offences of the British. Since Canada evolved, we view all our history as legitimate and important in how our country developed.

This doesn't jive with what people have been saying here or my own impressions.

Americans will talk about Pilgrim type stuff and Thanksgiving history much more than Canadians talk about similar stuff.

Canadians mostly don't really know about the Seven Years' War at all and think the War of 1812 revolved around Queenston Heights and Toronto. But Ontario was not a viable place on its own without access to the Atlantic, and was pioneer country in those days. The biggest battle in Canada was the 1758 siege of Louisbourg. Louisbourg was about 30,000 troops while the Plains of Abraham were 8,000 and Queenston Heights was about 5,000 (50 years later). I would guess that most Canadians have never heard of Louisbourg.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Canadians view of history is different from the United States because of the Revolution. While Canadians view its history back to its origins, well before Confederation, hence the significance of the War of 1812, whereas Americans view history (other than the Mayflower) pretty well only starts with the Revolution. Nothing before is important other than the offences of the British. Since Canada evolved, we view all our history as legitimate and important in how our country developed.

I have to disagree with this. The Revolution looms hugely in the American historical consciousness but they pay lots of attention to what happened before that: Plymouth Rock, the Mayflower, Jamestown, etc. Obviously there is very little prior to the beginning of European colonization but that's typical of most of the new world as indigenous peoples by and large did not have recorded histories at the time.

Canada is much more, IMO, "ahistorical" - to use kool maudit's term.

We have the same blind spot as the rest of the new world in terms of indigenous history though we're trying to make amends with that now, even if it's pretty tough sledding for a variety of reasons.

But even the French aspect of Canada's history is often shoved aside, as is that of the Maritimes and even to some degree the country's British heritage in general. If it's convenient to do any or all of this to support a narrative (ie "Canada's been multicultural from day one - it was never really British and French, or even British-French-Aboriginal") people will do so without hesitation and in many instances no one calls them on it.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, they most definitely do exist.

I've run into the "Québécois should just go back to France" crowd in my lifetime. It's not so much immigrants as it is the children and grandchildren of immigrants who are often born or at least raised in Canada but who didn't receive much in terms of Canadian historical information or socialization. Basically brought up with a hybrid of the old country's ways mixed in with contemporary American pop culture with (being metaphorical here) that Canadian flag packing tape they use at airports wrapped around it to hold it all in place.

I find that people overestimate the amount and quality of this type of historical knowledge that people receive in school, and I've been guilty of this as well. Before I became the type of person that talked about Canadian identity and the relationship of its people on an online forum, I was the type of person that payed absolutely no attention in class and never did the "forget everything after you write the test" strategy; I just never bothered to learn anything at all.

I was a terrible high school student, but I was definitely not unique in this! It comes as no surprise to me that people far-removed from Quebec have little understanding of why it is the way it is.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, they most definitely do exist.

I've run into the "Québécois should just go back to France" crowd in my lifetime. It's not so much immigrants as it is the children and grandchildren of immigrants who are often born or at least raised in Canada but who didn't receive much in terms of Canadian historical information or socialization. Basically brought up with a hybrid of the old country's ways mixed in with contemporary American pop culture with (being metaphorical here) that Canadian flag packing tape they use at airports wrapped around it to hold it all in place.

That's interesting -- I grew up in Toronto, and have not really heard the sentiment that "Québécois should just go back to France" specifically all that much during my upbringing there.

Curiously enough the people who think "what's so special about French Canadians, they're just one culture among many" I have encountered seem much more likely to be Western Canadians (BC and Alberta). I wonder if it's the history of the bloc settlements out west, and the lack of geographical reach of Francophone culture (eg. Torontonians may have made the road trip to Montreal a few times but perhaps Vancouverites may not) that makes many westerners think or equivocate the enclaves there to the entirety of Quebec and French Canada.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

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.

The sketch not the show.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Canada is much more, IMO, "ahistorical" - to use kool maudit's term.

We have the same blind spot as the rest of the new world in terms of indigenous history though we're trying to make amends with that now, even if it's pretty tough sledding for a variety of reasons.

But even the French aspect of Canada's history is often shoved aside, as is that of the Maritimes and even to some degree the country's British heritage in general. If it's convenient to do any or all of this to support a narrative (ie "Canada's been multicultural from day one - it was never really British and French, or even British-French-Aboriginal") people will do so without hesitation and in many instances no one calls them on it.

Re: Canada's been multicultural from day one, and being "ahistorical". What about, as I mentioned in previous posts here already, the musical Hamilton that recasts the Founders of the US as being people of colour, and while some of the Founders in the US may have been slave-owners, people haven't reacted in the way that "take down the statues of John A. MacDonald" or "take down Confederate monuments" have triggered, but instead it has just found a way to recast the Founders in a positive light that appeals to minorities?

What about Britain recasting itself as a nation of immigrants and the controversy that for instance ensued from say the BBC depicting a Black British person in Roman Britain in a kids cartoon or even just recasting the idea of past migrations (eg. Saxons, Celts, Vikings etc.) as "immigration" to fit the "nation of immigrants" narrative that was originally much more New World.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Re: Canada's been multicultural from day one, and being "ahistorical". What about, as I mentioned in previous posts here already, the musical Hamilton that recasts the Founders of the US as being people of colour, and while some of the Founders in the US may have been slave-owners, people haven't reacted in the way that "take down the statues of John A. MacDonald" or "take down Confederate monuments" have triggered, but instead it has just found a way to recast the Founders in a positive light that appeals to minorities?

What about Britain recasting itself as a nation of immigrants and the controversy that for instance ensued from say the BBC depicting a Black British person in Roman Britain in a kids cartoon or even just recasting the idea of past migrations (eg. Saxons, Celts, Vikings etc.) as "immigration" to fit the "nation of immigrants" narrative that was originally much more New World.

It's funny that this is done in general, in that states resort to appeals to tradition in their mission to improve the public's attitude towards immigrants. Even the actually-true neoliberal argument is more likely to be accepted in my opinion.

[Capsicum]

Yeah, it does seem like people do bring up "oldness" and antiquity to bolster diversity, even when it's about trying to make the newest groups to arrive feel welcome.

For example, bringing up how much of the land of the Southwest in the US was once New Spain, or Mexico and how Spanish settlers pre-dated Anglo ones, when discussing first generation immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanics feeling welcome or not.

Or bringing up 1800s Chinese railway workers in the province in the context of first generation Chinese immigrants in Richmond, BC.

Or even bringing up the small (but still historically attested) presence of say Black people or Asian people in Medieval Europe to make newcomer African and Asian Parisians and Londoners feel like they belong.

So at the same time, it's saying that all groups belong whether new or old, but also trying to make "new" groups feel like they belong in the nation by showing that the "new" groups had a deep presence (even if that presence was really small and even if only a small percentage of people in the contemporary population have any links to them), thus inadvertently re-enforcing the idea that deep ancestry matters..

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Yeah, it does seem like people do bring up "oldness" and antiquity to bolster diversity, even when it's about trying to make the newest groups to arrive feel welcome.

For example, bringing up how much of the land of the Southwest in the US was once New Spain, or Mexico and how Spanish settlers pre-dated Anglo ones, when discussing first generation immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanics feeling welcome or not.

Or bringing up 1800s Chinese railway workers in the province in the context of first generation Chinese immigrants in Richmond, BC.

Or even bringing up the small (but still historically attested) presence of say Black people or Asian people in Medieval Europe to make newcomer African and Asian Parisians and Londoners feel like they belong.

So at the same time, it's saying that all groups belong whether new or old, but also trying to make "new" groups feel like they belong in the nation by showing that the "new" groups had a deep presence (even if that presence was really small and even if only a small percentage of people in the contemporary population have any links to them), thus inadvertently re-enforcing the idea that deep ancestry matters..

Interesting, I never thought of this as a motive. The "we're all immigrants" thing to me has always just about trying to quash anti-immigrant sentiment, not welcome newcomers. Newcomers seem to get a more generic "we love multiculturalism" thing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Yeah, it does seem like people do bring up "oldness" and antiquity to bolster diversity, even when it's about trying to make the newest groups to arrive feel welcome.

For example, bringing up how much of the land of the Southwest in the US was once New Spain, or Mexico and how Spanish settlers pre-dated Anglo ones, when discussing first generation immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanics feeling welcome or not.

Or bringing up 1800s Chinese railway workers in the province in the context of first generation Chinese immigrants in Richmond, BC.

Or even bringing up the small (but still historically attested) presence of say Black people or Asian people in Medieval Europe to make newcomer African and Asian Parisians and Londoners feel like they belong.

So at the same time, it's saying that all groups belong whether new or old, but also trying to make "new" groups feel like they belong in the nation by showing that the "new" groups had a deep presence (even if that presence was really small and even if only a small percentage of people in the contemporary population have any links to them), thus inadvertently re-enforcing the idea that deep ancestry matters..

In the case of the SW US the presence of Spanish speakers as a foundational group long ago is often used to justify the provision of Spanish language services today, even if anyone whose family was in the region when it was controlled by Spain/Mexico hundreds of years ago, regardless of origin, is almost certain to speak fluent English today. And may not even speak any Spanish at all.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Interesting, I never thought of this as a motive. The "we're all immigrants" thing to me has always just about trying to quash anti-immigrant sentiment, not welcome newcomers. Newcomers seem to get a more generic "we love multiculturalism" thing.

Isn't it kind of the same? Unless I am missing something.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Do these groups also often excommunicate members of their own ethnicity/people who "look like them" but whose views they disagree with?

Because if that happens enough, then you might eventually have bitter factions even within minority groups that claim to represent the true intent of "my group X".

Isn't that sort of a two line explanation of the history of Christianity?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Re: Canada's been multicultural from day one, and being "ahistorical". What about, as I mentioned in previous posts here already, the musical Hamilton that recasts the Founders of the US as being people of colour, and while some of the Founders in the US may have been slave-owners, people haven't reacted in the way that "take down the statues of John A. MacDonald" or "take down Confederate monuments" have triggered, but instead it has just found a way to recast the Founders in a positive light that appeals to minorities?

What about Britain recasting itself as a nation of immigrants and the controversy that for instance ensued from say the BBC depicting a Black British person in Roman Britain in a kids cartoon or even just recasting the idea of past migrations (eg. Saxons, Celts, Vikings etc.) as "immigration" to fit the "nation of immigrants" narrative that was originally much more New World.

I don't have strong feelings about it but I admit to sometimes finding it all a bit surreal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

That's interesting -- I grew up in Toronto, and have not really heard the sentiment that "Québécois should just go back to France" specifically all that much during my upbringing there.

Curiously enough the people who think "what's so special about French Canadians, they're just one culture among many" I have encountered seem much more likely to be Western Canadians (BC and Alberta). I wonder if it's the history of the bloc settlements out west, and the lack of geographical reach of Francophone culture (eg. Torontonians may have made the road trip to Montreal a few times but perhaps Vancouverites may not) that makes many westerners think or equivocate the enclaves there to the entirety of Quebec and French Canada.

The notion that French in Canada = Hungarian in Canada = Punjabi in Canada = Mandarin in Canada = Greek in Canada is definitely present in the GTA and elsewhere. (Even here on SSP Canada every once in a while when there is a rare post in French in the national threads some bozo will post in Greek or Chinese to "make a point".)

"Québécois should go back to France" is definitely an extreme manifestation of the mindset. If I'd heard it only once in my 40-odd years on this earth I'd put it in the margin of error and call it an extreme outlier. But I've heard it at least two or three times. So it does exist even if not common.

It's kinda the Canadian equivalent of ignorant racist white Americans who view African-Americans as "wilful immigrants" to the U.S. and think they should just go back to Africa. These types used to appear on U.S. shock talk shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich a few years ago.