Toronto First Parliament Site | ?m | ?s

Ramako said:
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.
Click to expand...

The thing is, multiculturalism as a policy is itself a product of the preceding values that were evolved in Canada. These ideas, and the circumstances that lead to their generation, are then part of the history of multiculturalism, and an essential part of the Canadian story. I would agree that paying lip service to the policy without understanding how it came to be is very unfortunate.

In assessing a national history, there is no need to restrict the "storied" part of Canadian history to any revolutions, wars or lost empires. At the same time, these events can't be neglected. Canada came into existence as a direct product of the expansion of empires. It's peaceful evolution away from that past is very much worth telling and knowing. With respect to the War of 1812, the end of that conflict resulted in a treaty that gave rise to the longest undefended border in the world. While this might be symbolic, it does carry considerable cultural weight on both sides of the border.
 
I think we have to be careful to make a distinction between the facts (logos) and the interpretation of those facts (mythos), which is to say the meaning we choose as a society to confer. If we view our history as boring, and I am not sure this was always the way Canadian history was viewed by Canadians, then we in fact choose to view it that way. Remember, the fact is that when the Bastille was captured there was only one lone prisinor there. The myth of the storming of the Bastille and the Quatorze Juillet and so on is so much more meaningful to the French than the simple facts. Then again, the myth translates far better the meaning of Bastille Day than do the facts. In this case they work together. In Canada, the War of 1812 is our nation-building moment in terms of myth, even if the boardroom deal that is Confederation is the reality.

... and as for Multiculturalism it is absolutely part of our history but it is too modern to be myth, and when we are talking about founding myth and identity in a bigger sense we typically have to look back to the origins and working diversity into it so as be inclusive.
 
gristle said:
In assessing a national history, there is no need to restrict the "storied" part of Canadian history to any revolutions, wars or lost empires. At the same time, these events can't be neglected. Canada came into existence as a direct product of the expansion of empires. It's peaceful evolution away from that past is very much worth telling and knowing. With respect to the War of 1812, the end of that conflict resulted in a treaty that gave rise to the longest undefended border in the world. While this might be symbolic, it does carry considerable cultural weight on both sides of the border.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that these events in our history are important and should be valued and widely known. My point is that these events aren't very "sexy" or emotionally inspiring, so it's easy for the general public to become apathetic to them, despite the fact that they are, in reality, incredibly impactful aspects of our history. What events in our nation's history can we, as a people, rally around? What's our rallying cry? Given how easily American politicians are able to manipulate voters with such myth-based rhetoric, perhaps it's a good thing that we're not, as a society, so blindingly passionate about our history. For example, whereas Americans promote strict constitutionalism, we have a "living tree"... I think I prefer the latter.
 
Ramako said:
There's no doubt that these events in our history are important and should be valued and widely known. My point is that these events aren't very "sexy" or emotionally inspiring, so it's easy for the general public to become apathetic to them, despite the fact that they are, in reality, incredibly impactful aspects of our history. What events in our nation's history can we, as a people, rally around? What's our rallying cry? Given how easily American politicians are able to manipulate voters with such myth-based rhetoric, perhaps it's a good thing that we're not, as a society, so blindingly passionate about our history. For example, whereas Americans promote strict constitutionalism, we have a "living tree"... I think I prefer the latter.
Click to expand...

... which is why it is 'safer' to stick to the basics of founding myths than to veer off into areas like 'Multiculturalism', areas that are so highly politicized and so highly charged that they would never be embraced by all Canadians... and after all to be a 'myth' it must resonate with all, reasonably, and it must be embraced or it will ultimately be rejected.

I don't know, I think the War of 1812 has all the necessary ingredients to make a for good story. We just haven't learned how to tell it in a meaningful way.
 
Tewder said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your idea of Canadian history and historical mythos is very much Ontario-centric. A history of Loyalism does not define vast parts of the country, nor is it particularly relevant to various segments of the population that have been here just as long or longer than Loyalists and their descendants. Take Acadians for example - who were here long before the Loyalists and whose historical mythos is defined by their resistance to that same kind of loyalty. Other parts of the country and segments of the population priviledge very different historical events as defining moments in history. In Manitoba, for example, the mythology of the Red River Rebellion is far more immediate and relevant than the settlement of parts of Eastern Canada by Loyalists.

Since Multiculturalism has become state policy (and not necessarily because of it) we've reimagined and re-evaluated our history. Different events are now important, or the same events are important in different ways. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is no longer the tale of "Wolfe the dauntless hero," but the beginings (and not necessarily *good* beginings) of our modern bilingual country. Louis Riel is a folk hero instead of a traitor. The Rebellions of 1837 are grounded in legitimate unsatisfaction with the undemocratic elite instead of an unfortunate outbreak of American-style mob rule. The extinction of the Beothuk has entered our collective imagination. The list goes on and on.

That said, I don't think we should dismiss the Loyalist narrative completely, but instead work towards a more ecumenical history of the country. For example, I see the Loyalist settlement as the begining of centuries of refugees finding a new home and new hope in this country (followed by the Underground Railroad, Scots fleeing the Highland clearances, the Irish fleeing the Famine, Jews escaping pogroms, Sri Lankan Tamils seeking an escape from violence, etc.). Beyond that, we can pull back from Loyalists in specific and focus on the profound affects the American Revolution had on what is now Canada - we can read Loyalism as part of an epic that includes the Quebec Act, the invasion of Quebec and its resistance by French Canadians, etc. A wider reading of the American Revolution beyond Loyalism allows us to elevate the histories of the Six Nations, Black Loyalists, etc. to the level of national epic.

The War of 1812 is also one of these moments where we see various historical mythologies intersecting - Loyalists, Francophones, otherwise apathetic or hostile American settlers, and Aboriginal groups both North and South of the border fend off an attack that an arrogant American (a key figure in all Canadian mythologies apparently) thought would be "a mere matter of marching." To bring this back on topic, that history deserves to be commemorated as it does mark, in many historians' eyes, the beginings of a uniquely Canadian nationalism that crosses linguistic and racial lines. Admittedly, there are issues that exist to this day that complicate a reading of Canadian history as inclusive - but we can read the War of 1812 as a moment where Canadian history is not entirely exclusive.
 
lesouris said:
Your idea of Canadian history and historical mythos is very much Ontario-centric.
Click to expand...

I don't mean it to be. I'm talking in very vague generalities here, and to be fair it is hard when talking about founding myths in Canada to not be talking a great deal about events in Ontario and Quebec, or the 'Canadas'. As mentioned earlier, a conversation about origins that overlooks this would be like a Texan overlooking the 13 colonies.

lesouris said:
A history of Loyalism does not define vast parts of the country, nor is it particularly relevant to various segments of the population that have been here just as long or longer than Loyalists and their descendants. Take Acadians for example - who were here long before the Loyalists and whose historical mythos is defined by their resistance to that same kind of loyalty. Other parts of the country and segments of the population priviledge very different historical events as defining moments in history. In Manitoba, for example, the mythology of the Red River Rebellion is far more immediate and relevant than the settlement of parts of Eastern Canada by Loyalists.
Click to expand...

I think there is room within the tapestry of identity for different threads of myth, and a myth that is national in scope does not abolish regional ones. If it did the myth would be wrong and not accepted becaue it would not resonate within the regions that make up the nation. Again, the myth is just a story. The society will define the story over time and it should evolve to be inclusive and reflective... or at least it should.


lesouris said:
Since Multiculturalism has become state policy (and not necessarily because of it) we've reimagined and re-evaluated our history. Different events are now important, or the same events are important in different ways. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is no longer the tale of "Wolfe the dauntless hero," but the beginings (and not necessarily *good* beginings) of our modern bilingual country. Louis Riel is a folk hero instead of a traitor. The Rebellions of 1837 are grounded in legitimate unsatisfaction with the undemocratic elite instead of an unfortunate outbreak of American-style mob rule. The extinction of the Beothuk has entered our collective imagination. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

Myths have to be big enough to transcend politics. The American myth transcends a civil war, even if regional myths still endure in certain contexts.


lesouris said:
That said, I don't think we should dismiss the Loyalist narrative completely, but instead work towards a more ecumenical history of the country. For example, I see the Loyalist settlement as the begining of centuries of refugees finding a new home and new hope in this country (followed by the Underground Railroad, Scots fleeing the Highland clearances, the Irish fleeing the Famine, Jews escaping pogroms, Sri Lankan Tamils seeking an escape from violence, etc.). Beyond that, we can pull back from Loyalists in specific and focus on the profound affects the American Revolution had on what is now Canada - we can read Loyalism as part of an epic that includes the Quebec Act, the invasion of Quebec and its resistance by French Canadians, etc. A wider reading of the American Revolution beyond Loyalism allows us to elevate the histories of the Six Nations, Black Loyalists, etc. to the level of national epic.

The War of 1812 is also one of these moments where we see various historical mythologies intersecting - Loyalists, Francophones, otherwise apathetic or hostile American settlers, and Aboriginal groups both North and South of the border fend off an attack that an arrogant American (a key figure in all Canadian mythologies apparently) thought would be "a mere matter of marching." To bring this back on topic, that history deserves to be commemorated as it does mark, in many historians' eyes, the beginings of a uniquely Canadian nationalism that crosses linguistic and racial lines. Admittedly, there are issues that exist to this day that complicate a reading of Canadian history as inclusive - but we can read the War of 1812 as a moment where Canadian history is not entirely exclusive.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above! We have to put a little effort and creativity into interpreting our story as a nation, evolving it along and making it inclusive in its message.
 
Ummm, what does Mods mean? Maybe I'm a Mod and I don't know it LOL. As far as this piece of land goes, I just want the best possible outcome for the area. Something that adds to it, hopefully for generations to come.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Yes, the current conversation totally ignores and disrespects the storied history of this thread.
Click to expand...

LOL, yes and discussing Canada's relationship to its history, or lack thereof, is completely extraneous to the issue of building a condo on the First Parliament site. Our bad! Now lets get back to more engaging speculations on how tall this one might get!!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top