Reflections On Canada Day: Two Sides To The Coin

I’m writing this on the morning of Canada Day 2019, thinking about all the fascinating things I’ve read and the people I’ve met.

One thing I’ve been thinking about a lot is the dark side of Canada’s history, and the increasing criticism that’s come with it being brought more and more to light. I think about the criticisms not just of Canada’s racism, but of the very idea of Canada itself, as if there’s nothing we can morally celebrate about that.

Where does that leave us as settler Canadians, then? I think of all the love and friendship I’ve experienced growing up, the joy of everything from birthday parties to school graduations to family gatherings at Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas. I think of the hard work my loved ones put into making a better life for me, and the way they fought for my freedom. I think of the opportunities I’ve had to meet and learn from Canadians from every walk of life, whether they were older or younger than me, Indigenous or settler, Eastern or Western, Francophone or Anglophone, immigrant or native-born, and the friendships I’ve been lucky enough to form with many of them regardless of how much I agree or disagree with what they might believe. Can I morally feel a positive connection to them?

And I think about the larger events in Canadian history. What about cultural and scientific achievements like the Log Driver’s Waltz, the Group of Seven’s paintings, or Canada’s international sporting success, particularly in hockey? Achievements like the discovery of insulin, the invention of basketball or the electron microscope? Many of these things are recognizable Canadiana, so according to the critics apparently Am I morally allowed to have a positive opinion of them, or does doing so make me a bad person?

Some of the critics might reply that these things are not Canada. But if that’s the case, then are the racism and violence that repeatedly show up in our history themselves part of Canada? Why are the positive elements of who we are ‘not Canada’, while the negative ones are? That kind of definition of Canada seems pretty narrow and specific, not to mention more than a little dishonest and self-serving.

Even if the critics don’t intend it that way, they come across as attacking that personal heritage, those positive memories and the cultural identifications settler people have formed living on these lands. These lands are the only ones I can possibly call home, and this heritage is the only one I can call my own. The lands and histories of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany mean nothing to me. The black and brown people who now live in those countries have a far more legitimate claim to those lands and heritages than I do.

It’s perfectly alright to show the dark side of our history, to illustrate all the flaws in our national myths, and to make people aware of the shit that’s still going on today. That’s what’s motivated a lot of people, including me, to take a longer look at our heritage and try to do better. But it’s quite another to attack the idea of Canada as a whole-and that’s how some of the critics come across these days. Unfortunately, in the quest to undermine the image of ‘Canada the good’, some of the critics have arguably gone too far the other way, simply replacing it with an equally facetious image of ‘Canada the bad’.

Canada is not simply racism, violence or oppression-it’s also friendship, compassion and art. While all the former things were happening as Canada developed, the latter things were also happening at the same time.

It’s been in learning about that darker side of our history that I’ve learned more about the positive stories that different groups have experienced, even when they the targets of racism and oppression. Stories of families that held together, that built new lives for themselves, that flourished in poetry and art despite what mainstream society put them through. Those stories of resistance and thriving are as much a part of who they are, and of the larger Canadian history, as they are of what they suffered. That same strength and compassion kept them going in spite of it all.

If we’re going to tell the Canadian story, then let’s tell the whole story. The stories of love, of friendship and of culture as much as the violence, oppression and racism. Many of the more thoughtful critics want to do that, and I don’t have a problem with them. My issue is more with the critics who seem to refuse to see anything at all positive about Canada, and want to see it gone. Whether they realize it or not, those critics aren’t just attacking what they see as Canada’s racism or oppression-they also come across as attacking the positive memories, attachments and identities of settler Canadians as a whole. They aren’t doing anyone, either themselves or their targets, any favours with that.

Vive le Canada uni!

Keep in mind these same "critics", who also have a problem with Sir John A McDonald because of his attitude towards native people, hail Tommy Douglas as a national hero, despite being a deeply religious homophobe who thought all gay people should be lobotomized.

It's the leftist mindset of moral and emotional relativism that's the cause of this tunnel vision. However that tunnel vision is NOT equally applied to their "heroes".

What I find interesting though is how the left has re-defined racism so that it excuses their own inherent racism.
The entire concept of humans consisting of several races is a 17th Century European artificial social construct dreamed up by a bunch of racists. That fact that this racist and false construct is continually pushed by the left proves their own racism.

To put it bluntly, if you push the concept of racism then you're a racist. Pure and simple.

Here's an interesting question. Many years ago the town of Goderich was predominantly English, with some Scottish and a few begrudgingly welcomed Irish. When the first Dutch people moved into the area they had their barn burnt down by some of the locals. Now, considering that everyone involved was White, was that "racism"?

Seriously, you can't have light without some darkness. The missteps we've made are learning experiences and I doubt we'll ever see another residential school or interment camp. The thing about applying a modern lens to history is that every decision looks bad.

The decisions that Cornwallis, and Sir John A. made were, by today's standards barbaric, but within the context of 18 and 19th Century society were in line with the society-- AT THAT TIME. We've progressed past that.

The Decision to round up all the Germans, and later the Japanese because we were at war with them was equally misguided. We've moved past that.

There is literally no country with a perfect history, most have a far worse history. The US is still grappling with its history of Jim Crow Laws, Segregation and Slavery. China, Japan, Germany, Russia, Turkey, have worse skeletons in their closets.

By comparison I'd say we're doing fine.

Use history to see how far we've come, not how bad we fucked up by modern standards.

The last residential school closed in 1996. The same year Independance day, Twister, and the first Mission Impossible. It wasn't that long ago.

I agree however, I don't see the point in going after stuff from hundreds of years ago. I mean unless it was objectively bad. I feel like it wouldn't go over well for Germans to be like "Can we move past the whole Hitler thing? We've progressed so much!"

There comes a point when you must. Moving past something does not absolve or allow you to forget what you've done, but it does allow you to move forward and not constantly look back.

'96 I was 16 or 17, I'm 40 tomorrow. It's a long time ago.

I ask, because of the antics of The Donald. Now he wants tanks rolling through DC streets day after tomorrow.

"Are we really that far removed from fascism?" Is my rhetorical question.