A Colony Called Canada, Part 1

 

This is only the first of two, possibly three posts on the most overlooked problem area in the Western Hemisphere. This is the part where I do what most commentators rarely do, come clean about the existing biases on the subject in my own past, which are on record and not repudiated. A keyword search here at IPR will show you two recent posts about the recent convulsions in U,S.-Canada relations, but this one might have remained hidden if I hadn’t dug it out from the Internet Archive to show you. That’s where I’ll leave it for now while work continues on researching the present mess.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005 

Canada Day!

One of Canada's remote provinces launches its two fireworks.

REGRET. Yeah, it's a bit late. Canada Day is really celebrated on July 1, but it's impossible to pay attention to it until after the July 4th festivities are over. Even now, I feel kind of guilty discussing Canada Day without having done more to reemphasize the profound significance of the American Independence Day. Yet it may be the case that focusing on the Canadian counterpart will do exactly that. The only possible meaning Canada represents to the U.S., after all, is as a vivid example of "the road not taken." 

There were British North American colonies in the 18th century who revolted against Britain and colonies who didn't. That is the real distinction between our two countries. The Canadian colonies preferred monarchical despotism to freedom if the price for freedom was war. Ever since, the Canadian colonists and their descendants have had to salve their egoes by pretending that they made the better bargain, which can only be true if there is something inherently better about the culture they fell into by refusing to shape their own independently.

The contemporary commentators who are busily looking for the causes of Canada's recent and increasingly strident slanders of their southern neighbor tend to overlook this first, most important explanation of the hostility. It's not that they have become, through a series of passive accidents, more left wing in their politics than the U.S. It's not that their European worldliness and wisdom alerted them in advance to the dangers of a conservative, God-fearing Texan as President of the United States. It's not that their loftier "green" sensibility has given rise to some new conviction of moral superiority over the more densely industrialized nation to the south. It's that Canada has failed in every possible way to prove to us or themselves that they really were smarter to remain in thrall to a king who ruled their lives from an ocean away. And the bitter consequences of that failure are growing more acute and undeniable every day.

What does Canada Day celebrate? Not the fierce announcement of separation from the Crown documented in our Declaration of Independence, but a beneficent act of the British Parliament to set them free from afar:

British North American politicians held the  Charlottetown Conference and Quebec Conference, 1864 to work out the details of a federal union. On July 1, 1867, with the passing of the British North America Act by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, three colonies of British North America (the  Province of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) became a federation styled the Dominion of Canada. It consisted of four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.

There are three additional points of interest about this history. First, Canadians had attempted armed rebellion against the Crown at least twice before in the 1830s but failed. Second, the province of New Brunswick was originally created because of the influx of American Tories who fled or were expelled from America for refusing to back the American independence movement. Third, the "Canada Day" which now celebrates this largely bureaucratic event was called "Dominion Day" until 1982. The word offers an interesting mix of connotations. Does it mean "Release from British Dominion" Day? Or "At Last We Finally Have Dominion Over Ourselves" Day? Actually, neither one is completely correct, because it wasn't until 1931 that another act of the Brit Parliament accorded Canada a national status equal to the U.K., which status was earned by the United States in 1783 with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. It's not hard to see why 'Dominion Day" was officially deep-sixed after a typically Canadian period of inaction.

It's ironic indeed that Canada Day happens to fall three days before American Independence Day on the calendar, as if they somehow preceded us into national adulthood. Is this why the Canadians insist on imitating our means of celebrating our Independence Day, with parades and fireworks? (Unless their firecrackers are intended to duplicate the sound of British MPs snapping their valises shut after the critical session of Parliament...?) There may be many Americans who are fooled by this, especially since we are so used to being regarded as a young country by the nations of the Old World with whom Canada has continued to associate itself. But it's worthwhile to remember that as a nation Canada is only 138 years old compared to our 229, which is, by the way, the oldest continuous government in the world, with the sole exception of the U.K.

Canada is in reality our ne'er-do-well younger brother. Too harsh, you say? Consider that Canada is the second largest country on earth in terms of territory. Yet it has just over a tenth of the population of the U.S. We grew because we were attractive as a home and a way of life to people from around the globe, who flocked here to make this country the richest and most powerful in the history of civilization. During the same period of time, Canada has not only languished in terms of population but lagged in terms of per capita GDP -- just 75 percent of ours -- despite the boasts of its derivative Brit-Labor-Party style government. And much of the income they do enjoy is a by-product of their proximity to us: 90 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the Unites States. Canada is the younger brother we find ways of supporting that he doesn't have to acknowledge so that he can retain his fragile pride.

But little brother also has more problems in his homelife. For a quarter century Canada has teetered on the edge of breakup as its French province Quebec intermittently sues for divorce. Canadian unity has not been annealed by a counterpart to the American Civil War, which may have saved some lives in the short run, but the result is that Canada can never be united by a set of founding ideas, as we have been, because their unity consists principally of the geographic accident that its components were the last leavings of the British colonial experiment in North America. In fact, Canada still styles itself as a "confederation," which is the same loose affiliation tried out by the United States before its failure prompted the writing of the Constitution.

The metaphor of troubled homelife suggests the image of the unhappy wife. Is it mere coincidence that the carefully compiled list of Canadian celebrities includes the likes of k.d. lang, Joni Mitchell, Alanis Morrisette, Sara MacLachlan, Jann Arden, and Nellie Furtado? Probably. But it's hard not to see some basis in Canadian culture for all those intense "songs about myself" offered up by the sad-voiced girls on their acoustic guitars. And it's not just the women. Who sounds more consistently miserable than Neil Young, Gordon Lightfoot, and Leonard Cohen?

Is it any wonder that Canada will seize on every opportunity to badmouth its taller, stronger, happier, and more prosperous older brother? Fredo couldn't help resenting his Godfather brother Michael for dominating his life. He couldn't help betraying him at every opportunity. And when you ally yourselves with the enemies of your friends, some part of their ill intentions will rub off on you. That's the story of one of Canada's more recent betrayals, the subversion of the American military and legal institutions it sponsored during the Vietnam War.

A large number of draft dodgers, young men facing conscription for the Vietnam War, decided to relocate to Canada rather than serve in the armed forces. Concentrated in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, this group was at first assisted by the Student Union for Peace Action, a campus-based Canadian anti-war group with connections to Students for a Democratic Society in the United States. Canadian immigration policy at the time made it easy for immigrants from all countries to obtain legal status in Canada. By late 1967, dodgers were being assisted primarily by over 20 independent and locally based anti-draft groups, such as the Toronto Anti-Draft Programme (http://www.radicalmiddle.com/tadp.htm).

Following the dodgers, deserters from the American forces also made their way to Canada. There was pressure from the United States and Canada to have them arrested, or at least stopped at the border. In May 1969 the Canadian government ceased its active discrimination against deserters after facing extensive criticism.

The population of draft dodgers had an impact on Canadian society. The influx of young, educated, and left-leaning individuals affected Canada's academic and cultural institutions. These new arrivals tended to balance the "brain drain" that Canada had experienced.

Canada resented the American policy in Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson's anger at their dissension from his leadership. So they plighted their troth with a set of fugitives who reminded them of their own Tory origins. Yet they couldn't help remembering that fugitives are losers in the long run. This knowledge only compounded their animus against the U.S., which now has to be continually refreshed and rejustified to smother its unwelcome implications about themselves. 

Can there be any doubt that this is what is going on with the Canadian response to the Iraq War? Nationally, they are so weak they can't field an army of more than 1,000 or so combat troops, and they don't dare test national unity (Quebec!) by attempting a controversial foreign commitment. All that's left is pillorying the United States for its very lack of the weaknesses that so cripple Canada -- particularly the strong national identity shared by Americans.

In the United States we have a pledge of allegiance to the flag. In Canada, the flag is a recently adjudicated compromise, not a symbolic embodiment of the country's defining experience, but an irrelevant homage to a species of tree. 

The red and white used in the National Flag of Canada were proclaimed the official colours of Canada in 1921 by King George V. Although the maple leaf did not have official status as an emblem of Canada until the proclamation of the national flag in 1965, it had historically been used as a Canadian symbol, and was used in 1860 in decorations for the visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada. The 11 points on the maple leaf have no special significance.

Canadians themselves are suspicious about the validity of their flag, which is why they continue to harbor paranoid fears that the more potent American flag is being smuggled into their currency.

It's difficult to maintain a national identity in a country where nearly all of the inhabitants live within a few miles of the USA, so you can hardly blame Canadians for sometimes feeling that Americans are infiltrating every last aspect of their culture. A tangible expression of this feeling occurred during the 1980s, when every time the Bank of Canada introduced currency with new designs, somebody managed to find American flags hidden in the artwork.

 

The fun began with the introduction of a new $5 bill in May 1986...

The introduction of a new $2 bill in September 1986 brought claims that it, too, depicted an American flag flying over Parliament (a claim which continues to circulate widely on one of those ubiquitous Internet lists of unusual "facts")...

Three years later, when the Bank of Canada introduced a new $10 bill, the same old rumor was trotted out yet again (perhaps spurred by the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement earlier that year)...

 

American flag shown on the bill 

The real problem, of course, is the flag itself. Like the weak country it weakly symbolizes, it is, well, weak. There can be no pledge of allegiance to a maple leaf, which is why we have witnessed the sad specter of an unofficial Canadian statement of general national allegiance spawned in a beer commercial:

Every once in a while a bit of I am Canadian! advertising emerges overnight as a definitive piece of popular culture. That was the case with the Molson Canadian commercial "The Rant," (aka "Joe's Rant") which debuted in late March 2000. (Molson is a noted brewer in Canada, and Canadian is but one of this family of beers, which also includes Golden, Brador, Export, Ice, and Dry.)

Molson Canadian, a beer lagging in popularity, (got) an instantaneous boost in sales with 19-to-29-year-old men, but the ad established itself with the non-beer crowd as a passionate declaration of national pride.

Many have come to see The Rant as a Canadian gospel of sorts, and reactions to it range from choked up to shouting along with its script. The ad is deceptively simple, merely featuring an "ordinary Joe" alone on a stage in front of a slide show of various Canadian backgrounds that cycle while he vents a litany of corrections to common misperceptions about Canadians.

The Rant has become a tidal wave of Canadian affirmation. 

What, you ask, could inspire such fevered adulation? Here it is:

    Hey. I'm not a lumberjack, or a fur trader.

    And I don't live in an igloo, or eat blubber, or own a dogsled.

    And I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada, although I'm certain they're really, really nice.

    I have a Prime Minister, not a President.

    I speak English and French, NOT American. and I pronounce it 'ABOUT', NOT 'A BOOT'.

    I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack. I believe in peace keeping, NOT policing. DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation, AND THAT THE BEAVER IS A TRULY PROUD AND NOBLE ANIMAL.

    A TOQUE IS A HAT, A CHESTERFIELD IS A COUCH, AND IT IS PRONOUCED 'ZED' NOT 'ZEE', 'ZED'!!!

    CANADA IS THE SECOND LARGEST LANDMASS! THE FIRST NATION OF HOCKEY! AND THE BEST PART OF NORTH AMERICA!

    MY NAME IS JOE!! AND I AM CANADIAN!!!!!!!!

    Thank you. 

Oka-a-a-ay. All those capital letters are obviously aimed at the citizens of the United States: no need to shout them to a fellow Canadian. The fact that this has been described as a unifying cri de coeur for Canada suggests that we are the only buttress they have for a national identity. They are united by their resentment of us. And unfortunately, because that resentment goes all the way back to the War for Independence they never had, it will never go away.

In a recent article in Maclean's magazine, Fox News anchor John Gibson ascribed Canadian hostility to envy:

When I wrote Hating America, the New World Sport in 2003, the chapter that included Canada (sorry, you shared space with Belgium and South Korea) was called "The Axis of Envy." The Iraq war was fresh. Canadians were sure they only had to yell loud enough to be heard across the border and even the thick-headed Americans would get it. Then came the U.S. election and we notice you haven't had much to say lately.

But as you celebrate your national holiday, I suspect the truth about your innermost sentiment still applies: that precious and delicious pleasure called anti-Americanism is as strong as ever, isn't it?

I thought so.

But I disagree with Mr. Gibson. Envy is about something we think we deserve, or might have had, or should somehow be able to take. The Canadian hostility is deeper than that. The fatal fork in the road was a long long time ago, and there is absolutely no hope that they have the capacity to achieve or steal or blackmail from others (as Belgians and Koreans might still think they can via fair means or foul) what they most lack and most detest in us: Greatness.

Happy Canada Day. Their fireworks are their exploded dreams, which still shimmer and glow before their eyes like a vision of long lost paradise. 

Does all of this tell us anything about ourselves? I believe so. But for the miraculous wisdom and courage of our founding fathers, the United States might be just like Canada, with a population of 30 million enervated Europeans, an incompetent socialist government, a social and cultural history lacking in brilliance or innovation, and a role in world politics as irascible pawn of the United Kingdom. Indeed, we might be several such nations, 7 to 10 million strong (or weak), quibbling and sniping and sneering at one another from sea to shining sea. Look at Canada with fresh eyes. It's what we could easily have settled for, a passive mediocrity destined to be a footnote in the history of man. Thank God for the road we took instead, and the giants who built that road so long ago.

POP QUIZ FOR AMERICANS: Quick. Name a famous Canadian political figure besides Margaret Trudeau (NSFW). Does it matter? No.

 

posted at   4:57 pm  by  InstaPunk

 

That’s what I was thinking 21 years ago. Who else can show you honest observations that old on the subject? Stay tuned…