(I had most of a reply to this all typed up this morning, when a crash did it in; wail and weep with me, and gnash your teeth!)
I was interested in forcemajeure's commentary, though I also found it mostly wrong-headed and occasionally factually incorrect, in a way I find disturbingly typical of neo-con/neo-liberal types (an assumption about forcemajeure, as I have so far read only the material of his that you have provided).
To start with the factual problems, forcemajeure said, "No less than four of the ten provinces have active secessionist movements, and a very soft majority in one favors independence..."
While it may be true that four provinces have "active secessionist movements", I am only aware of one (in Quebec) which is active in the sense that it runs candidates in elections, or otherwise partipates in politics. Grumbling into one's beer with cronies at the local tavern doesn't count.
He also said, "...that Canada is, just barely, a democracy." I suppose this could fall into the wrong-headed column, but at the very least I would like him to expand on this idea. What country does he point to as a democracy that is more than "barely" a democracy?
Those issues aside, it is with forcemajeure's interpretations of Canadian history and politics that I take serious issue.
Where he see Canada as a "loveless marriage", I see it more as a quarrelsome extended family that nevertheless has chosen to stay together despite differences among them and despite the bright-lit pull of their neighbours to the south.
Canada doesn't have a Big Idea and I believe this is a Good Thing. Big Ideas tend to lead to rigid, ideological thinking, which tends to lead men and women to eschew compromise and the ability to "imagine the other" (to quote the philosopher and husband this country's former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, John Ralston Saul).
Rather than uniting behind any Big Idea, the Canadian historical experience has been one of grass-roots, pragmatic co-operation, which has resulted in the sort of society forcemajeure finds frustrating, but which I consider to be one that thrives on the dynamic tension of never-ending (though always changing) debate and argument.
As Ralston Saul pointed out, Canada took this path before it existed as a state, with French and British and native people living and learning together (and yes, sometimes killing each other as well, but not often, compared to most places in the world), often despite the will of their political masters.
Where forcemajeure sees weakness, I see strength and an essentially democratic and respectful mindset that is open to other points of view and even to changing its own.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Too Late
Date: 2006-01-24 11:25 pm (UTC)I was interested in
forcemajeure's commentary, though I also found it mostly wrong-headed and occasionally factually incorrect, in a way I find disturbingly typical of neo-con/neo-liberal types (an assumption about
forcemajeure, as I have so far read only the material of his that you have provided).
To start with the factual problems, forcemajeure said, "No less than four of the ten provinces have active secessionist movements, and a very soft majority in one favors independence..."
While it may be true that four provinces have "active secessionist movements", I am only aware of one (in Quebec) which is active in the sense that it runs candidates in elections, or otherwise partipates in politics. Grumbling into one's beer with cronies at the local tavern doesn't count.
He also said, "...that Canada is, just barely, a democracy." I suppose this could fall into the wrong-headed column, but at the very least I would like him to expand on this idea. What country does he point to as a democracy that is more than "barely" a democracy?
Those issues aside, it is with forcemajeure's interpretations of Canadian history and politics that I take serious issue.
Where he see Canada as a "loveless marriage", I see it more as a quarrelsome extended family that nevertheless has chosen to stay together despite differences among them and despite the bright-lit pull of their neighbours to the south.
Canada doesn't have a Big Idea and I believe this is a Good Thing. Big Ideas tend to lead to rigid, ideological thinking, which tends to lead men and women to eschew compromise and the ability to "imagine the other" (to quote the philosopher and husband this country's former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, John Ralston Saul).
Rather than uniting behind any Big Idea, the Canadian historical experience has been one of grass-roots, pragmatic co-operation, which has resulted in the sort of society forcemajeure finds frustrating, but which I consider to be one that thrives on the dynamic tension of never-ending (though always changing) debate and argument.
As Ralston Saul pointed out, Canada took this path before it existed as a state, with French and British and native people living and learning together (and yes, sometimes killing each other as well, but not often, compared to most places in the world), often despite the will of their political masters.
Where forcemajeure sees weakness, I see strength and an essentially democratic and respectful mindset that is open to other points of view and even to changing its own.