Toronto First Parliament Site | ?m | ?s

[Edward Skira]

How is the site of Canada's first parliament not a goddamn federal issue?

Its not Canada's first Parliament. It's Ontario's first Parliament site. The fed's should be involved because of the War of 1812.

 

[GraphicMatt]

See, I wouldn't make mistakes like that if there was some sort of monument on the site that could teach me things.

 

[Big Daddy]

Absolutely right Graphicmatt. The whole 'but who will build the hospitals?' argument is a strawman. The lack of heritage/historic preservation is due to a lack of advocacy that results in a lack of funding at any level of government... and not to say there aren't some who do advocate tirelessly for these things. Only that it falls on deaf ears among a populace that is characterized in its apathy by the likes of Big Daddy.

Ouch.

 

[Mongo]

Its not Canada's first Parliament. It's Ontario's first Parliament site. The fed's should be involved because of the War of 1812.

Actually, Ontario's Parliament was originally in Niagara-on-the-Lake (1792), and was moved to Toronto in 1797.

 

[Tewder]

Yes, how can you separate the history of what unfolded in the late 18th centurey/early 19th century in what is today Ontario with that which would evolve acrossthe nation as a whole? It's like a Texan arguing that the past history of Boston is 'regional' in importance and of little concern to the nation as a whole.

 

[Big Daddy]

Yes, how can you separate the history of what unfolded in the late 18th centurey/early 19th century in what is today Ontario with that which would evolve acrossthe nation as a whole? It's like a Texan arguing that the past history of Boston is 'regional' in importance and of little concern to the nation as a whole.

Hey, we get it already, it's important.

I still say negotiate with the landowner and we come away with a "win - win".

 

[toraerach]

Actually, Ontario's Parliament was originally in Niagara-on-the-Lake (1792), and was moved to Toronto in 1797.

This site is the first purpose-built home of Upper Canada's Parliament (called the Palace of Parliament, hence ). Parliament originally met in a tent in Niagara-on-the-Lake (then Newark) and then moved to Navy Hall. The original Navy Hall was destroyed by the Americans in the War of 1812, but it was rebuilt by the British shortly thereafter. Navy Hall is now a National Historic Site managed by Parks Canada. It remains closed to the public due to a lack of funding.

This site is also where Upper Canada's second Parliament building briefly stood before it burnt down. The third Parliament building at Front and Simcoe was where the Parliament of the Province of Canada met both times Toronto served as its capital in the mid-19th Century. The original Parliament of the Province of Canada met in a building on the site of today's Kingston General Hospital (another National Historic Site, though for unrelated reasons).

With the opening of whatever eventually gets built here, I think it'd be fitting to rename Front St. E (either as a whole or in part) back to its original name - Palace Street.

 

[gristle]

Its not Canada's first Parliament. It's Ontario's first Parliament site. The fed's should be involved because of the War of 1812.

The Feds have shown interest in helping to commemorate the War of 1812. The city has been lethargic in its planning and the province is rather silent on the topic.

 

[Tewder]

... makes the heart swell with pride.

 

[Ramako]

I wouldn't lay all the blame on the government. It's a fundamental cultural attitude. It seems like Canadians tend not to pay much reverence or attention to our nation's history, whereas Americans tend to build vast and romantic mythologies around their history and historical figures. Is it that we lack a similarly glorious past or is it that we are reluctant to acknowledge one, and if so, why?

I think it has something to do with Canada never truly breaking cleanly from the orbit of Britannia. Canadian history often comes off as feeling like a footnote in the history of a far more storied nation. The War of 1812 seems to be a perfect example of this. Our involvement in World Wars I & II is another. There's no doubt that we played our parts well, and of that we should be proud, but that's just it - we always seem to be playing a bit part in a larger production. When has Canada been the headliner in its own history? What are our glorious nation-defining moments?

Getting those patriotic juices flowing is how you get the tax dollars flowing for a project like this.

 

[Tewder]

I wouldn't lay all the blame on the government. It's a fundamental cultural attitude. It seems like Canadians tend not to pay much reverence or attention to our nation's history, whereas Americans tend to build vast and romantic mythologies around their history and historical figures. Is it that we lack a similarly glorious past or is it that we are reluctant to acknowledge one, and if so, why??

It is not just America that builds romantic mythologies. All nations/societies do this and it is the norm. The basic components of understanding, simplistically, are thought to be logos and mythos. One reinforces the other. One identifies and one teaches. Canada is abnormal in its lack of mythology, even if we do see it more on a regional level... who would claim that Quebec was without its fundamental myths?

I think it has something to do with Canada never truly breaking cleanly from the orbit of Britannia. Canadian history often comes off as feeling like a footnote in the history of a far more storied nation. The War of 1812 seems to be a perfect example of this. Our involvement in the World Wars I & II is another. There's no doubt that we played our parts well, and of that we should be proud, but that's just it - we always seem to be playing a bit part in a larger production. When has Canada been the headliner in its own history? What are our glorious nation-defining moments?

One might argue that Canada's colonial or loyalist past was once part of its mythology with the loyalist pioneer as founding archetype evolving into Canadian defender/nationalist in the post War of 1812/Confederation period, and I would be curious to know how strong these myths remained for the generations of WWI and WWII given that hey have since all but completely disappeared. The simple answer to why they have disappeared altogether, however, is likely shifting government policy. Banal, but likely.

 

[Ramako]

The simple answer to why they have disappeared altogether, however, is likely shifting government policy. Banal, but likely.

I find that answer difficult to accept, only because it is so easy for politicians and governments to stir support for various endeavours by invoking nationalistic myths. It is in the government's interest to do so. Is it that the government has failed to promote our history or is it that Canadian society is not lured by such bait?

 

[Tewder]

Immigration is a government policy that has had an enormous influence on the demographics of the nation, but in latter years - since WWII more specifically - the Canadian government officially adopted a policy of Multiculturalism rather than assimilation. In this sense, yes, the government has foresaken many policies and programs that other countries use typically to encourage unity and nationalism in the face of a need for immigration and given the natural trends in the West towards diversity and plurality.

Remember, Canada's approach to Multiculturalism was always understood as a bit of an experiment in comparison to other nations, and a supposedly enlightened one. This was government propoganda, obviously, as we are only really just now starting to understand the realities, good and bad, of state-sponsored Multiculturalism so as to even be able to start to assess in earnest whether it was enlightened or not.

My sense is that we threw the baby out with the bathwater, which was a bit of an overzealous and reactionary impulse, but that it suited the politics and agenda of the time and in the short term at least. Most other nations in the West, however, managed to find a way to adapt their founding mythologies to include and embrace pluralism and diversity in a way that Canada didn't, ultimately leaving a void where Canadian identity would have evolved naturally... and I do personally think it is a cop out to claim that Canada's identity is in fact the absence of one, which is sort of the rote response of Multiculturalism. Just my opinion though.

Anyhow, just some of my thoughts but yes, I do think it is at heart as banal as government policy.

 

[gristle]

I find that answer difficult to accept, only because it is so easy for politicians and governments to stir support for various endeavours by invoking nationalistic myths. It is in the government's interest to do so. Is it that the government has failed to promote our history or is it that Canadian society is not lured by such bait?

Interesting. If its history is not part of the national mythology that defines the nation in some respects, then exactly what defines Canada?

 

[Ramako]

Interesting. If its history is not part of the national mythology that defines the nation in some respects, then exactly what defines Canada?

Tewder gives an interesting explanation. It makes sense to conclude that the embrace of mullticulturalism, in and of itself, has literally replaced Canada's history as the primary means by which Canadian society identifies itself. Though, I still wonder if that process was only encouraged by the fact that we ultimately don't have as romantic or storied a history as many other nations. It's not so easy to forget about revolutions, civil wars and lost empires... things lacking in our history.