Let's start at the begining Grumpy. Read the resolution, please! There's a huge difference between Quebec as a nation and the Quebecois as a nation. One's a piece of geography and the other's a group of people. One's defined by lines in the sand and who knows what the other is. The woman I was chatting to yesterday has a Quebec (French) father, her mother was of unknown extraction adopted by a Scottish family. Is she a Quebecoise, and part of the Nation? Perhaps she's 50%, plus possibly a bit more.

Quebec based Chantal Hebert (Toronto Star) is one of the best observers of this file and she thinks the resolution to be very good move, for a united Canada.

I am not totally crazy about this motion but let's say I view it as an "accommodoment raisonnable" after Meech and reaching a deadlocked constitution State.

For those that see this as a "black&white" decision (such as Grumpy), I will point out that the real world is really not all that simple and we have already been to Meech.

Perhaps one could talk about one Canadian nation if we actually truly shared our history, our medias, our culture and our langage, but we simply don't.

At the end of the day, Nation seem to be something that is now bought, sold and traded in a Neocon world, e.g. people holding these nationalities of "convenience" to use the fastest and most convenient queue for health care and airport transit.

Yep, go to Boston and find an Irishman to explain Canada to Canadians.

Gee, thanks, Laura.

Just a thought: Harper is in the process of dissolving the country by economic means, why not add a touch of political skulduggery as well? Not to mention that his minority government is facing an election with many Canadians concerned about environmental issues, our mission in Afghanistan, and an economy that looks to be going into the tank. So why not just change the subject? Harper is anything but stupid: his moves may not make a lot of sense on the surface, but for a man who really wants to be an American, what could be better than a bunch of seemingly scattered policies that pronouncements that have the net effect of blunting initiatives to maintain and strengthen Canadians' sense of sovereignty and solidarity? He is sly, underhanded, mendacious and capable of the lowest strategems to get his way. Just a thought.

You know I as well had to stop and scratch my head somewhat when I read this. We needed to go and ask an Irish American about nationhood? America who has marginalized and assimilated every ethnic group who has sought refuge in thier country? Can there be a better example of the need of a people to define themselves than for those who live here in Canada? We contunue this practise of needing to seek out the minds of Uncle Sam to validate who and what we are. Perhaps one day when we feel we are capable of such things within our boundries are ills will begin to be solved. As for Quebecois as a nation, that cannot be denied if we look at what constitues a nation of people. Certainly if the First Nations, Metis, and Inuit consider themselves as nations of People then the Quebecois should be granted the same rights. This concept does not, nor should it define the issue of Seperation but merely the organics of a people. The issue of Quebec and where it will end up polictially is for Quebec Residents to decide although in my mind I am not certain how Quebec's first peoples play into this equation as they should and must be considered.

Perhaps, before anyone decides that ‘pee wee Rambo’ Harper is a genius on this, or any file, it might be a good idea to look a little more closely at the suppositions behind Richard Kearney's thesis. Kearney appears to have been away from the UK a little too long and his conclusions about the Ireland/Northern Ireland dichotomy as an extension of 'shared sovereignty' may require a little revision.

The Telegraph published a poll at the weekend that indicates the idea of a 'United Kingdom' is not necessarily evidence of the inevitability of Quebec as a sub-national entity within Canada.

Here's the link to the Telegraph article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/26/nunion26.xml

If Scotland is poised to go it alone, (and the majority of Brits seem not to be very exercised about same) the musings aired in this little article are about as useful as spit. In other words, we are - Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and Chantal Hebert notwithstanding - moving into uncharted and, for a united country, dangerous waters.

My view. What is seen as a simple political gambit by some may be taken for something quite different by others. And, this is not to make small talk of the legitimate role of First Nations amd Metis in the affair, as Tom Lal so rightly points out above.

Could it not be possible that the rise of Scots independence, post-devolution has other causes than the devolution? DEvolution of other nations, Calalonia immediately comes to mind, has not resulted in a great rise of independentiste support. There was (and maybe still is) a real split between Scots and English on many issues. Thatcher always won the vote in England, never in Scotland. I bet Blair's War has the same split. Think of the rest of Canada all thinking like Alberta and you would have the same situation visa vis the Quebecois. But of course the ROC isn't that way.

Does the concept of Nation really apply to Canada? What does Nation really mean?

Are we not a Federation of multi-culturists? Why is it that Canada can sign an international agreement or treaty and yet it is the provinces who have to figure out how and if they will implement the agreement or treaty.

What is a Quebecois/se?

I was born in Montreal in 1961 and have always considered myself a Quebecois and Quebecer. Having moved away am I still a Quebecois? I think so but I doubt all would agree.

I think the Bloq pushed the issue and I do not know if the PMs motion was the correct response; one thing (tactical or not) it has taken some of the attention away from the Environment, Climate Change, and the Afghanistan Peace/Miltary Operations/Reconstruction mission!

Our local paper contained a cartoon by Rice depicting Quebec as a nation, with all the other provinces labelled "chopped liver". I thought it was simplistic and tendentious. We have over 200 First Nations which hasn't reduced the rest of us to "chopped liver". It was a gesture with considerable symbolic meaning for the Quebecois without conceding anything constitutionally substantive. Not only that, Harper snookered Duceppe who was going to introduce the same motion, sans the "within Canada" phrase the very next day. I thought it was a pretty astute political move.

Nations, within nations, soon become independent nations. The only reason that the First 'Nations' don't split up is that they recieve huge amounts of Federal cash!

The reo;ution is defacto a declaration of independence from Canada. it is Ducceppe who snookered Harper, who was trying to get Quebec votes for the next election. Remeber Mulroney givng cabimet seats to separtists.

Bye bye Canada!

anarcho wrote,

In fact, much of what is at work today, creating class, ethnic, religious and all manner of social division in current capitalism everywhere, has been this rise of neoconservative capitalist ideology everywhere. It is the evolving train wreck of our time politically and socially.

A nation has generally been defined as a people, sharing a common language, culture and history, a common territory, boundary and economy. And it is in this context, I suggest, that both Natives and Quebec share a common nationhood. Ditto Angl0-Canada. (And though Nana somewhere accused me of being being hoodwinked by Ignatieff, I would suggest that it is quite the reverse. I have been describing and advocating for a three nation country of Canada long before most folks even heard of Ignatieff. He is in fact a Johnny Come Lately to the concept-, more likely adopted it from me. :-)

The simple reality is, historically, this country evolved out of three main "national" founding groups, two of them actually preceding what might be described as Anglo-Canada (Upper Canada) by the way. And it is this tension unresolved in the social and political fabric of the entire country, and a historical failure to give it appropriate state, cultural and economic form, which periodically, especially alongside US Empire dominance and absorption pressures, to which Anglo-Canadians appear as especially willing or unconcerned prey, which periodically breaks out into tensions that threaten to send the entire country flying off into fragments.

If this state of affairs is ever going to be ended, and the sources of the tensions between the three "national" parts of the country at least mitigated, and defused of at least its most threatening and potentially harmful elements, and there is unlikely to ever be total harmony, at least for some time yet, then we must quickly deal with it and secure some greater willingness to compromise between the three constituent parts. (And the "Native" shoe has not really dropped yet in this country. But it is preparing itself, have no doubt.)

For if we do not, and Alberta especially is not quickly brought back into line, like an earlier threatening US Southern Confederacy in Anglo-Canada, increasingly with its own emerging neocon-separatist ambition, emboldened and riding the crest of its oil riches, the seeds of the destruction of the "country" are already germinating, of potential benefit to only the US Empire . Anglo-Canada likely being the first to disappear into that all-consuming maw. (And if made necessary by future development, I would advocate for making it clear to Alberta, that unlike Quebec, they really are just another "inseparable" province of Anglo-Canada, and any rogue behaviour from their Neocon masters will not be tolerated.)

Ignatieff attempted, and Harper moved to quickly undercut him, by likely securing the massive votes of Quebec for himself in the coming election. And for all I despise Harper, and Ignatieff for that matter, it was a brilliant strategical move to secure a majority. Make no mistake. And what has been demonstrated most dramatically here again is, the failure and timidity of "The Left", and its recent history fear of bold strokes and action. This timidity, at least in its NDP manifestations, has likely sidelined it AGAIN.

The irrelevancy of the NDP left, for sure, is further underscored.

Coyote is (mostly) right. Canada was founded on a notion of two founding nations/two founding peoples (I think the part about natives is a modern insertion, nobody thought about it at the time) in a compact to create and develop a nation. Certainly when Lord Durham referred to "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state", nobody questioned his use of "nation". That's the established political theory of Canada which was gratuitously jetissoned in the Trudeau experiment. Rejecting this theory in favour of a bland and undefined notion of "multiculturalism" does violence to our history and assaults the basis of our (joint) nationhood. English Canada is a "nation" in a compact with the French Canadian "nation" (not "Quebec"), as part of a federation. That's it. Harper's formulation is accurate and authentic.

Not sure if this move from Harper will gain him vote at the next spring election. The partial elections did not bring back any improvements as some of you may have noticed. A lot of his alignment with the US (&religious right) have been *most* unpopular in Quebec. With the Libs lingering smells, Québécois do not have much place to vote for and end up BQ; going NDP or Green is perceived as too weak and these two parties are not all that well tuned in Quebec sensitivities.

For those suggesting that Harper brought this up to distract from other issues, I would counter that Canada can in fact now move on with these important issues. Meech and the dysfunctional constitutional deadlocked State are now beyond us. I would hope this is good news for everyone.

What leads anyone to suggest that this is the end of deux nations and the beginning of a new age of enlightenment?

The conservative spokespersons at their press conference yesterday didn't even have a coherent response to the issue of whether or not this new 'nation' is made up of Québécois or Quebecers or both. Definitely an indication that much planning and thought went into this move.

Harper thinks this was smart. I'm not at all sure and I think the fact that Michael Chong is one-half Chinese cannot be ignored.

The Canada of two solitudes is a thing of the past, in my view: How about 5 or 10 solitudes?

I think it's a bit early to start cheering. If (when) the economic slowdown just beginning in the US starts to cut into the Canadian economy - and it will - just watch the splintering begin. At the point that more western Canadian tax money has to start running upstream into the Ontario/Quebec industrial heartland - according to M. Harper's new vision of fiscal balance (which was far more central to the Conservatives increased fortunes in P.Q. in January) there may very well be a lot of Harper's traditional base who decide they'd be just as happy with Quebec as a separate NATION.

Perhaps the Conservative spokespeople were non specific because it is whatever you wish it to be. A multitude of nations is not such a bad idea for Canada and we may be moving in that direction. Harper has been said to embrace the concept of de-centralization and this should please many across the political spectrum.

I cannot imagine any French Quebecers being upset with the declaration and the Liberals must be relieved to have a contentious issue diffused from their party convention. They will probably end it with a big show of solidarity on the issues, which will now be whatever they perceive to be the hot button issues needed to regain power.

Harper has once again confounded his critics. He is certainly not indecisive.

Depends what one is committed to I guess.
Harper is definitely not a democrat and, in my view that will spell trouble sooner and later.

Gee, thanks, Laura. - BC Mary

Valid point. What I would like to know myself, is what international legal experts have to say upon democratic governments passing motions like this in parliments and what this would imply in terms of the international community recognizing Quebec as a nation of its own, with its own right to float its own currency, embassy's, military, institutions and systems of government, the works.

Laura Drake's story tries to connect the dots with an interview discussing international patterns and outcomes of groups separate by language and geography to the nation they are a part of, seeking "nation" status within the eyes of the international community, offering historical and present international examples for Canada and Quebec to compare with.

But once again, what is most important is the legal interpretation such passed motions to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada actually has, within the eyes of the international community. Can, say, Quebec begin to set up an embassy with Europe tomarrow? Is it legally entitled to a chair at the UN?

To that end, this interview offers nothing for us in terms of legal international clarity of this passed motion in parliment, and leaves insecurity and doubts planted within the minds of federalists who believe the legal international interpretations are either not yet fully known, or they are known and unfavorable for a united Canada.

Considering that a separatiste' party initially proposed a similar motion and a western separatist instead countered with essentially the same thing, this can't be percieved as being good for Canada.

South Africa tried this semantic dribble of nations within the nation. They called them Bantustans. They were also called tribal homelands(reserves)if you want to translate the term into Canadian terms.

As long as we make any groups special and expect other(less special) groups to pay the freight for the "special" people, we will never be a nation.

When any one person has an extra measure of citizenship you have apartheid. If we are not all equal Canadians then many of us are legally less and that is not acceptable in a democracy.

All this is semantic BS. It changes nothing. It is just another red herring to distract us from the real issues: the environment, the war, poverty in this wealthy land.

1st nation, 2nd nation, 3rd nation, four... sounds like a bunch of kids picking the person who will be it in a game of hide and seek.

Shame on our politicians for foisting this divisive crap on us.

If I were a separatiste in Quebec, I'd be pushing for a Quebec 'nation' team in the next International hockey championship - just like the English, Welsh, Northern Ireland and Scottish teams play for their 'nations' in the world cup of soccer. And I think I'd try for 'nation' status in the Olympics too.

Wouldn't that be a spectacle in 2010? Prime Minister Harper and Premier Campbell handing flowers to Quebec athletes in free-style and downhill, luge and women's hockey. And none to Canadian athletes! Whoo eee!! Nice image.

Do the Souix Nation or the Navajo Nation have sports teams or seats at the UN?

I don't think so.

No doubt, in the case of Quebec and Natives, another coup by the Campbell Neocons, who are clearly not half so dumb and can see what is coming, more precisely what is meant by "nations within Canada" will be negotiated and evolve. As it should be, chipping away at these major sources of inequality and tension within the larger country. Building a united country, especially when it is complicate by history with more than one nation in the mix, like many a modern state was fought, negotiated and renegotiated out the ancient tribes of Europe, for example, is seldom a singular enterprise, but is a protracted and ongoing process. As hopefully now, the entire country will wake up to realize finally, surmounting the old "Contact" and "Plains of Abraham" national chauvanisms.

There are those, of course, especially in heretofore dominant Anglo-Canada, who will despair and see disaster in this. I do not. I see this, in fact, as cutting much of the legs out from under the old separatist cause in Quebec. They will weep and wail, and thrash about, as will many a national chauvanist in Anglo-Canada. I, however, see it as an opportunity to unify the country and strengthen it, on a firmer and more equal foundation. Which will stand us up, in fact, in my view, better in the contest that is yet to be waged with the US Empire.

The Neocons and the Liberals will attempt to persuade themselves and us that it is nothing but semantics, of course, merely their opportunist maneuvering to secure the vote in Quebec for their own interests. And it may even work for awhile. But in the end, as it is already, it will and already does much, mean more.

Now, we have grievances and a history to finally fairly settle with our Native brothers and sisters too. Quebec as well, is going to have to face up to its own history in this regard, wherein they may yet come to know the discomfort of our old positions.

Dunno realisticman, I can imagine a Huron or Iroquis nation having a pretty fair run at the North American Lacrosse championships.

I'm not sure you have a point - The Act of Union was 300 years ago and Edward subsumed the Welsh into England long prior to that - neither of which events extinguished those 'nations' any more than the Quebec Act did the Canadiens.

The Province of Quebec has the same constitutional powers and position as every other province in Confederation and should not be granted any change except through the will of the people of Canada.

BUT

Just as we recognise Aboriginal rights of First Nations peoples in Canada, so we need to recognise the cultural-linguistic rights of the Francophone Nations of Canada. This needs to include Francophones both within and without the Province of Quebec as well as other Francophone Nations such as the Acadians and Metis peoples.

I'm not sure either Alcibiades. Here in Canada we are more decentralised than perhaps any other federation, perhaps that's the way to go.

Surely nobody still talks of assimilation

It will be interesting to note public opinion both inside and outside Quebec in say, a year from now.

kram and realisticman
Quebec already had semi-autonomous national status at many international tables - recently increased status by Harper since January; they have their own pension plan and EI program; not to mention a unique and very successful child care program and their own system of blood collections and donations.

When the PQ wins its next election, and they will, I hope all the people who said none of this matters will remember. Quebecers certainly do: J'me Souviens.

I am likened to think that we are moreso the opposite, with a parliment that breeds one of the most centralised powers in the world. While it is democratic and muli-leveled with provincial and municiple governments, the power of a majority federal government has centralized powers that are unparelleled in comparison to most democratic nations, including the U.S..

Further, while the Prime Ministers office operates under the constraints of the law and the constitutions and charters that guide to serve it, the PM still, nevertheless, holds the most powerful of all the nation, hardly what one would consider to be a mere figure head.

And just in case your not up to the past and present, few are daring to challenge the system to suit their needs in the form of decentralizing federal powers, or dismantle the very system they were sworn to protect and serve for their "lobby interests", other than the Republicans own Stephen Harper.

At least the Republicans failed to get their latest U.S. import puppet from getting elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Haskett

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Harper! Vous avez un cerveau dans la tête et un sexe entre les jambes!

Viva Québec libre!

lwet's cut to the chase. Over 70 percent of folks outside quebec are against the thing Haro came up with. and since it was passed in the house as a feel good event, the Liberals will not be discussing it during their leadership convention. Steve was looking for votes in Quebec but has upset a lot of folks living there. On TV this evening a group of young women in that province said, they are not incuded. All of voting age I might add.

I would like to congratulate a friend of mine, in Victoria, on gaining Nationhood status. My problem is that I am confused regarding whether he (French Canadian) actually "qualifies and benefits". Reading my morning colonist, The headline "Quebecers granted status as a 'nation"" suggested residents of Quebec would benefit. Other media keeps referring to Québécois as the individuals who would benefit from nationhood status. So the questions begin.

Does my friend in Victoria qualify? What about his non-Québécois wife? Will his potential children qualify? His grandchildren? What length of time did he have to live in Quebec to gain this status? How many generations? What about recent French speaking (regardless of heritage??) immigrants to Quebec? Who will be allowed to move to Quebec, live, learn, love and enjoy the Québécois culture (and gain nation status??)?

And the real question... Who will get the power of the authority to decide?

Was this a political move to create animosity and rivalry amongst the Québécois?

By separating the territoriality of the government of the Province of Quebec from the sociological reality of the existence of several Francophone Nations within Canada we can reduce the threat of sovereignty-independence ( as every MP has sworn to do all to protect the integrity of the Canadian confederation ), protect the rights of non-separatists within the Province of Quebec (Anglo-,Franco- and Allo-phones ) and protect the rights of other Francophone Nations outside the Province of Quebec in every other Province of the Confederation.

Can you even imagine a Canada without Québec? Can you imagine driving across Québec and only seeing Québec flags? Or visiting Québec and feeling like a foreigner? Can you imagine not chipping in to ensure Bombardier stays solvent? Can you imagine a lake as simply a body of water, and not a constitutional crisis? Can you imagine a flight from Vancouver to Victoria without a French explanation of how to fasten your seatbelt?

How many of us can go even a week without Québec television programs or Québecois music? Would the CBC exclude Québec callers from Cross Country Checkup? Would there be any point listening?

Picture a federal election campaign continually rehashing tired arguments about global warming, the economy, poverty or international affairs, instead of focusing on the issue most important to Canadians, that of national unity.

I applaud Stephen Harper for initiating this motion. We can only hope that he can muster the courage to continue to introduce symbolic proclamations. I for one am not prepared to explain to my grandchildren why I did not do everything I could to support him.

kram
I disagree. And apparently the Conservative spokesman and woman who discussed this yesterday afternoon with the press didn't have the same understanding either.

Furthermore, the translated material en anglais does not jive with the French original either.

This will not, repeat not, reduce the treat to Canadian unity. Already you're talking about several 'nations' within the Canadian (and not just the Quebec) context.

This is a ball of worms.

Quote " "It became very clear to us, in time, that to continue to lay claim to Northern Ireland, which was in our constitution, was in effect to cling to a unitary nationhood, a nationalist sense of nationhood, which could not be reconciled with the British unionist claim to a United Kingdom. You can't have a united Ireland and a United Kingdom...if you cling to the notion, as Britain and Ireland did until 1998, that to be British or Irish is to belong to certain national sovereign identity that is one and indivisible. That is the famous definition of sovereignty going back to Rousseau and Hobbes and Godin. Une et indivisible, one and indivisible. Now, if that's the case, you either have a united Ireland or you have a United Kingdom, but you can't have both because two into one don't go " Unquote.
I can see the PQ and Canada in the same situation as Ireland and United Kingdom. Is the acceptable? I think it is.
IT IS LIKE MURPHYS LAW!!

I made it as far as Coyote's first big post, which I'll get back to; BC Mary's post cracked me up, and Danneau's one immediately after that made some points that I think were lost on the later discussion. But what I first wanted to weigh in on was:

In a conversation the other day, the composition of the Irish in different parts of the country came up. The context spun off the Irish presence in Quebec, a Catholic refuge. Few of the early Irish were Catholic, other than American Irish, in early BC, as those that settled were Anglo-Irish and nearly all Protestant (if not all). I'm not sure about Ontario but I gather it's a bit of the same thing, what with the heavy Orange presence - especially around Toronto - and likewise in the Maritimes, although I'm under the impression the population there overall is more of a Catholic-Protestant split.

Please note, it's Scots Gaelic that survives, not Irish, despite the curious pervasiveness of an Irish lilt on the South Shore and generally in the Nova Scotian and of course the Newfoundland accents. I don't know of any overt persecution in Canada, although I wouldn't be surprised to hear there was some. I've never found or delved into further readings on the railway construction eastwards of the Rockies, but long ago one of my instructors commented that many Irish died in the construction of the CPR, and that the Northern Ontario stretch was every bit as dangerous as the Fraser Canyon and the passes.

It's also worth considering that the Irish working on that railway, or settling in Quebec, or who may have come via the United States, either in colonial periods or in a generation or two, were children of the famine, or grandchildren of it (in Ma Murray's case, via Kansas). The history of the railway is now focussed on "immigrant" workers, namely the Chinese, but the reality is that others were immigrants too, and also came from backgrounds of great suffering and, even in Canada, had a hard time of it: hence the refuge in Quebec for Catholic Irish, and also in far-away lands of promise like California and, for a while but only for a few who stayed on after the gold rushes, British Columbia.

When I went to school in Montreal for a winter back in the '70s, I became the weekend houseguest of a family of elderly Franco-Irish ladies, with a huge extended family and an even wider circle of friends; French was as much a language of the house - within the again Irish daughters of the matron, one of whom was my friend for my time there - but there was no trace of Irishness other than their accent; none spoke Irish.

The further rub in the language issue re nationhood is that, in the course of surrendering ground to Quebec, English Canada abdicated its largest and most important city (and it was the most important) and thereby a whole accent as well as the culture that went with it was dispersed. "We" sacrificed a city for the sake of national unity; a city that was vital in the creation of British Columbia, no less, because of the role of the CPR. Montreal is really where Canada was founded, for both sides. English Canada has roots within Quebec. Within the nation of Quebec? We'll see.

On top of that, my maternal family settled in Quebec in the 1840s, two branches of my paternal one (my uncles and their sons) settled tere in the 1930s. Je suis un quebecois, n'est-ce pas?

Apparently not, in the Quebecois way of thinking. Parce que je suis un maudit anglo, ou/et aussi un mort vivant. Either I'm a damned anglo, or I'm a "zombie", an assimilated person.

But if the game of nations must be played in this country, then by descent and thereby nationhood I'm a Quebecker; if a Saguenard or Montrealais living in Whistler or Victoria is still a Quebecker, I would think I am also (one branch of that family being French, by the way).

All polemic of course, but it's the blurring of the idea of nation here that's most distressing. What about the French in Canada who are not part of the quebecois; assimilated or not. From Acadians and Franco-manitobaines and Saskais through the various Metis and native communities who use French, they all share the same ethnic and cultural root but are distinct from the quebecois; and even more distinct, yet integrated into, the anglophone around them. I was amazed driving through northern Ontario by the number of First Nations reserves whose signage was in French; and of course there's Sudbury and the Ottawa-Cornwall-Montreal triangle.

Someone up there, Danneau or Coyote maybe (I'm not going to scroll up to look, I'll get lost...), made mention of the French as one of the two founding nations, although I think maybe "quebecois" was used where it would have been more appropriate to say French.

Also Coyote's equation of Anglo-Canada with Upper Canada, implicitly Ontario (though UELers in the Maritimes were critical in the Confederation equation), points up the existence of a Fourth Nation, focussed largely in the West historically, but fundamental in the burgeoning cities in recent decades: the immigrant population from all over, whether Europe, Asia or wherever, and from them the emergence of a whole group for whom the quarrels of Upper and Lower Canada have little relevance. This is also English Canada, but not the same as Anglo-Canada. Only part of English Canada is Anglo-Canada, because of the newer-immigrant stock and the polyglot intermixing of blood and ethnicity, most of all in the West (which thereby has a sense, also of "nationhood" though as yet undefined or undelcared). Also by and large the First Nations, who are predominantly anglophone in daily life, at least for now, are part of English Canada; but certainly not Anglo-Canada

Then there's all those of us who simply state "Canadian" on the census forms; and there's a theory that many who put "English" mean "English Canadian", as in English-speaking, much the same idea as "Canadian"; an assimilated or mixed-stock person who doesn't identify "offshore".

Ethnic roots don't matter in the Fourth Nation, or aren't supposed to; for all I know I've got half-a-dozen things in the not-far-back family tree; I know my Norwegian side has some Dutch, Scots, Icelandic and there's rumours of post-Armada Spanish blood. But I'm not Norwegian, or even a Norwegian-Canadian; I'm just a Canadian. Not part of Upper Canada, and with more connections to Lower Canada. And, being raised in BC, the ancient quarrels of French and English in the St. Lawrence is a distant and rather noisome bother, given our own particular political milieu's somewhat more pressing priorities. Are we a nation?

Not yet. But we all know this is a very distinct society, and that we have grievances of various kinds that have been shelved for over a century because of the ongoing constitutional fracas between Upper and Lower Canada. Very pointedly, if there enough votes in it, the Land Claims issue, the oldest of those grievances, would have been settled upon the Indians getting the vote back in the '50s or '60s or whenever it was ('61?). It would have been settled a lot faster than the Head Tax, if there were votes involved; and that's why the Head Tax was settled. For political reasons, not reasons of principle.

And should we look to the new cultural enclaves within the country to aspire to recognitionas nations as well, since the French and First Nations also got it? I don't mean things like the plot to create an independent Khalistan in Newton, but constitutional guarantees and language rights.

No, there has to be an English Canada that is NOT defined by Upper Canada, by Upper Canada's history or by its culture. And also not one that is English by language, and not mistaken to be English and/or white by culture. Western Canada, at the family level and at the business level and in daily life and attitude, is a different country from Ontario, a different world; we all know that, although they often pooh-pooh such notions ("Canadians are mostly the same from coast to coast" etc).

{For some reason they find Maritimers less threatening, more folksy (which is why they use them for comedy, even to portray people in smalltown Prairie diners...I have yet to see the Prairie "bohunk" accent portrayed accurately on CBC; probably because it's usually Rick Mercer or his ilk trying to do it....)

The recognition of separate nations within the country is a slippery slope. If the French nation is to be defined to the boundaries of Quebec, then the English-speaking nation needs to define itself, or redefine itself, to recognize the multiplicity of the English Canadian world; which cannot be run with Ontario as the overwhelmingly largest voting bloc over the interests of other regions. Some of which were almost nations - Newfoundland and BC - and others which might as well be (Alberta, maybe Nova Scotia, and certainly the North).

Even if the Quebec thing is somehow solved, with them either in or out or some kind of strange condominium of governments winds up being created, a la "home rule" with Scotland and Wales but a step further, then the disparities in power and values between Lower Ontario and the rest of the Canadian world will finally come into clearer focus. Whether or not the East will ever wake up to the fact that BC is a different place entirely from the Prairies is another matter; although Gordie Campbell seems to be doing what he can for amalgamtion lately (hmmmmm).

One thought while reading the article comes back to me now: the Ulster situation re a territory with shared constitutional interests. This surfaced during the Clarity Act, and in Quebec's English community discourse during referendum debates: that anglophone areas should have the right to secede and be a new province of Canada, including those francophones who wanted to remain Canadian.

This may have to be a model for any devolution (I'm not saying I'm advocating this, so back off from jumping all over me for suggesting it could happen) - that bilingual areas in the respective "nations" be constituted as some kind of shared zone; the West Island and the Ottawa Valley and Gatineau and Sudbury joined at the hip. Quebec has made all kinds of statements about the inviolability of its borders (garnered in the case of Ungava because of the political power of anglophone Quebec), and even while saying that still wants to dispute Labrador's...it's either that or abandon the rights of bilinguality and French identity outside Quebec altogether, and I don't think Quebec wants to see that happen.

It's an extreme case, and Acadians are alread entrenched in their provinces, as are also to a lesser degree of identity and visible culture the franco-ontariens and franco-manitobaines, the next biggest groups. French in BC are often, in fact, from France, Belgium and Switzerland, and there are many African francophones here now; and also many [I]canadiens[/i}, wherever they're from, but despite their own distinctiveness they're part of the general mish-mash that BC has always been about; and this was historically a part of francophone Canada in its foundling years, and has had a francophone presence, visible at the social level, for all of its existence (i.e. you always knew someone with a French accent, likewise a Scots or German or whatever else).

Alcibiades:

The Canada of two solitudes is a thing of the past, in my view: How about 5 or 10 solitudes?

It's the solitude thing that's worrisome. Enclaves within enclaves, ghettos not of the poor but often of the wealthy; ghettoization that's apparent on university campuses, especially when contrasted to those suburbs which are more and more "white trash" (for lack of a better and les racist term): the disenfranchised in the new order, in fact, and with a sense of identity all their own (especially Surrey, of course).

Coyote's theme of the two/three founding nations was to be the theme of this post, and more or less Alci pointed the way to the other concern I've already discussed in the previous posts above: that there is a Fourth Nation, if we can keep it at four that is. It's the combination-generations (mixed ethnicities that developed in Canada, nearly always anglophone by culture but not Anglo-Canada by heritage, i.e. not pre-Clifford Sifton's enlistment of Eastern and Northern Europeans, and Governor Douglas' and other regimes since enlisting (begrudgingly or not, in the case of Chiense labour) people from all over the world to settle in BC. And sure enough we have ethnic mixes, a fudging of family and culture here, more than anywhere else in the country, and of a kind unique for the place (Doukhobor-Chinese-Italian-Shuswap-Scots-Metis, for example, to coin an extreme from thiin air); even more than on the Prairies where the Northern/Eastern European population is slightly higher in proportion than out here. In way Toronto is more multicultural, with more pronounced ghettoized communities, because the historic intermingling which in BC goes back to the 1860s just didn't occur there; nor could have.

But it's the idea that if there's two founding nations, and the First Nations, then everybody else isn't figured in the formula; that's the problem with that equation.

And I agree, I think that's one of the things underlying the Chong resignation. A vision of the country which does not speak to him, a member of the Fourth Nation, was passed by a government he found he could no longer support because of it. This may also be the first notable political-crisis moment involving an MP of Chinese extraction - the Rt Hon Mme Clarkson having been something of an ongoing political crisis in her own right, but not in the real political arena of parliamentary politics. In that, it's more than symbolic, although there's a certain parallel to Elijah Harper and his feather of abstention back during Meech Lake...a voice unheard-of-as-yet in the debate has spoken. It may get louder, and from other members, and I'm sure we'll hear it in any election campaign where the Quebec/nation thing will be the core issue.....oh no, NOT AGAIN!!.

Although I've ventured elsewhere that the third-place Tory finish in London North Centre might have to do with the Quebec-nation thing on an immediate base, but it's surely a denunciation on the Harper government, in favour of an until-now fringe party no less. I'd like to think that "the green right" are jumping from the Tories to the Greens, and that this may become a trend across the country, but it would have to be Elizabeth May in and of herself as to her amazing showing there; and maybe, who knows, she got green conservatives to listen and vote for her. We'll sure find out if the message was clear and can be heard beyond London when the general election dust settles, sometime in the spring.

But if another Chong or two split the Tory benches, the election might well be sooner than the April everyone's been predicting.

Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience. There can be no doubt that Quebecois fall into this grouping. The question to be yet defined is who falls under this umbrella. I would suggest as a former Montrealer that all who can trace familial ties to historic Quebec can lay claim to this. One of the problems that stems from Harper and his neo cons is they seem to jump into the fray for potlical purposes but not look at the long term effects of the actions they take. We will in time I guess find out how this plays both in Quebec and across Canada. The liberals have no taken a similar item of the agenda for the convention now being held. Strangely silent it seems are the NDP in all of this. Usually Jack Would be popping up and down like a Jack in The box but the NDP has yet to come to grips with most things Quebec. Since the 70's when the New Demogogs shot themselves in thier foot over the Two nation and Quebec;s right to self determination issue the NDP has been about as popular in Quebec as George W is in Bhagdad. I would suggest that had the NDP taken a more positive positon in the 1970's that the outcome may have been somewhat different of the last couple of decades with the rise of the PQ and BQ. These two groups in Que often fill the left of center position and its fair comment to say that not all who vote PQ intend or wish Quebec to leave Canada but in fact simply make a choice to vote a Social Democratic party into power. Even here in BC I can recall reviewing the record of the Bloc in Ottawa and wishing it was possible to vote for them based on the parties available to vote for. The choices as a voter are today quite limited. Liberals under Martin were right of center and scandalized, Harper and his Mini Bush agenda. and Jack in the Box with Team NDP are hard to take serious. ONe thing I do wonder about is in all of this Nationhood debate is why Newfoundland does not step up to the plate to be counted as they too would seem to fit the bill of Nationhood

Me too, but for me it was just because I couldn't stand any of the others. The "shadow BQ vote" in BC translated in another election into votes for the Natural Law Party; anybody but the Big Three; which is also why federal Socreds used to make a half-assed showing out here, too, long, long ago.

The Upper Canada reference by myself was partly tongue in cheek, toying with Western prejudices, though in my view of it, essentially the two sharing the same history, language, culture and over time, territory and founding Anglo population base. So-called "Western Canada" was an outgrowth of Upper Canada , an extension thereof. Though, it probably would have been Indian/Metis country, had Riel won that uprising and not the armed forces of Upper Canada. (And Native failure to re-claim the issues of that Riel rising, at least to this point in time, are no less complex, while still cooking beneath the surface appearance of their submission to both Anglo-Canada and Quebec.)

The attempt to muddy the water of what constitutes the nation, and to reduce it to every man jack immigrant and individual is a transparent and deliberate attempt to obfuscate. A Saskatchewan French-Canadian or Francophone community, though it is a descendant legacy of Les earlier Canadiennes, now evolved into Quebecers/Quebecois, are clearly NOT part of "a Quebec Nation", but what is now become Anglo-Canada, whatever sentimentality may exist here, or be individual or even community wishes. There are few such absolutes in real life, and neither here around this issue of who has what nationhood.

Though it is certainly one of those complex, troublesome to define threads of our history, for all sides of the issue.

And for those like Grumpy who feel that we should have become simply the US "single nation" melting pot, one might want to consider the Chicano language and culture dominance/takeover occurring in many parts of the US. They are in no less of a pickle than are we on the complex issues of language, culture, territory, borders and economic issues. Indeed, in many, many regards, their situation is much worse and shaky. Listen to Lou Dobbs on CNN if you have any doubts of this.

We need a made in Canada, not aping the US, reconciliation here to the issues of our complex, what I still insist and am convinced tri-nation country. The alternative to negotiation and compromise here is a violent civil war amongst ourselves, sooner or later. And what will ensure that more than anything is intractability and national chauvinism arising and becoming dominant in any one of the "founding nations" of the country.

My view. The clinging to an outmoded outlook, national chauvinists of some in Anglo-Canada, of which I am a part despite my Scottish/Celtic national immigrant roots, are about to find themselves on an increasingly slippery, losing traction slope.

Even though while I am of the view that this increases the odds of a united country of some configuration yet emerging out of all this, undercutting ALL the "separatists", to secure our safety from the US Empire, which threat of absorption we all face, no less in Quebec, there are never any real guarantees in real life. Only in our imaginations.

But what is clear, a "forced" union can never long be maintained without many severe costs, be it in the case of men and women, or whole complex relationship countries. Even if I do understand the desire to want to over-simplify relationships of all manner and sort.

Regrettably, I am very busy today, and am unlikely to be able to be back here. Though I will try. This is one of the more important debates, up there with the North Amerikan Union, that can occur in this country right now-, for our fate as a country likely hinges upon the outcome of both of them. They are really both, possible civil war issues, dependant upon how they are resolved in the end-, or not.

I must note that saying Natives are outwardly submissive cracked me up! You must not hang out with a lot of Native folks who are certainly not reticient types usually. But thanks for mentioning Riel; my ancestors fought and died for Riel in 1885. Manitoba was created because of Riel.
So you know my bias!

Aboriginal nations do exist and I think trump everyone else's! The Mohawks have their own passports and want to have their own lacrosse team in the Olympics.

As to calling ourselves Nations to get money, boy, am I missing the boat! I do a lot of volunteer work for the Vancouver Metis Community Association, which I am proud to do! It's part of being a Nation!

Manitoba was created because of Riel; but the feds hamstrung that province, limiting it to postage-stamp size at first (dismissing any suggestions that the whole of the Prairies, plus the Lakehead, should be one province, which was the fairer thing to do) and also requiring all Manitoba legislation to have to pass through Queen's Park (not Parliament Hill). The last thing Central Canada wanted to do was to create a new province that might be as powerful, or as populous as the core. Whether francophone - as it might have become - or not.

MetisGirl brings up the point that the Metis are a separate nation from the First Nations (and as I've said before, the First Nations are not one, but many). It's always been ironic that a fair constitutional settlement of the very extensive grievances of the Metis has been upstaged, endlessly, by the obsession with pandering to Quebec - because it was Quebec's hand-sitting that turned its back on the Riel regime and on Riel himself, and Quebeckers who did not take up the challenge to settle the new western territories, thereby leaving the historic francophone communities there high and dry in the rising English-speaking sea (as European immigrants adopted only English, instead of French as might have been had there been more settlers from Quebec, and more interest in the fate of the new provinces).

Coyote's right that the Saskais do not really constitute a nation (except for those Metis francophones who qualify as Saskais, perhaps), but the opposite is true of the franco-manitobaine, who despite a small territory and low numbers maintain a distinct identity and community; formerly more cohesive but still present, with as distinct and authentic an accent from Quebec as the Acadians.

Coyote:

Er, that's not quite right, Coyote. It's true enough of the Prairie provinces, but not true at all of BC. While Ontarians/Upper Canadians were numerous in early BC, the influence of Montreal and of investors and immigrants - and the fact that the British Columbia Act was authored by a Quebecker - don't point towards Upper Canada at all (remember that at the time Lower Canada was also, partly, "English Canada"). Certain areas were settled by Ontarians (the Valley, and Vancouver to some degree) but they were no more preponderant than the Maritimers or Quebeckers, and even the Prairie Metis were present (they were here first, with the Scots; after the First Nations of course). But most predominant of all, and THE major defining element of the province's identity and worldview, were the British, from Britain that is. To this day, most "Anglo-Saxons" (so-called, because included Protestant-flavoured Celts) in BC have immediate family roots in the British Isles, not in Ontario.

Even in regard to Vancouver, various historians (from Morley through Barman) observe that Vancouver is an "alien" element in British Columbia because of its federalist roots and sympathies; it was created as BC's lynchpin into Confederation. The rivalry between BC's "indigenous" colonists (the veterans of the gold rush and early ranching era) and the Ontarian element spilled over in Vancouver's first municipal election, with Ontarian bullyboys backing the MacLean campaign driving away from the polls the Chinese voters hustled up by Oppenheimer (who, with his brother, had made their fortune in the gold rushes and were Gastown stalwarts since the '70s).

Just because there's been a lot of Ontarian carpetbaggers here doesn't mean that we are a spawn from Upper Canada. The more important carpethaggers were often, in fact, from the Maritimes (e.g. Amor de Cosmos, W.A.C. Bennett and others). And the CPR boys were anything but Upper Canadian; they were the Chateau Clique, implicitly part of Lower Canada.

The use of the terms "Western Canada", "the West", and "Westerners", is favoured by Albertans, who see the West as being defined by them, and it's used by Easterners, who took a long time to even begrudgingly conceded that such as place as "the West" even existed; it's still a way of dismissing BC's uniqueness from other western provinces, especially in the national media. Central Canada has surrendered to what it stigmatizes as "regionalism" by only recognizing two outer regions, "the West" and "Atlantic Canada". Both political-media fictions, and irrespective of the distinct histories and cultures of BC and Newfoundland.

BC is not the same as the Prairie provinces in politics or culture, despite the huge chunk of our population that comes from there. Most of that, notably, is European stock (from Europe, not the UK, that is) and has no ties, historically or culturally, to Upper Canada, despite the settlement of major cities and the dominance of Ontarian entrepreneurs in Prairie businesses during the formative years. BC's English-speaking nature is the result of the use of the language as a lingua franca among a babel of peoples; it's not because of a transplantation of Ontarian culture. In fact, dedicated transplantations did happen (the Great Land Sale in Mission City sought to be one of those, which is why houses built for show emulated smalltown Ontario), but they were overwhelmed by the pan-European melting pot here (and it is a melting pot, rather than a mosaic, or was) and by the dominant British-from-Britain element (including Brits from the Raj, Australasia, the Cape, underlined by the original governor being from the British Caribbean).

OK, it has some, but not on a scale where it can be directly shown that English-speaking society in BC is a spinoff of Ontarian/Upper Canadian society. How could this be, given the antipathy towards Upper Canadians in BC since the days of the gold rush right through to fairly recent times (there's so many of them here now that the old distinction is being somewhat wiped away, and few of them who've only been here for a short while have had the time to develop BC's usual prejudices towards Those From East Of The Mountains)

Kearney gave his opinion of nationhood based on his Irish experience - which holds or will hold no similarity whatsoever to the Quebec thing.
My understanding is that Ireland's Gaelic language has, for the most part, died. Quebec's language is its main bitch - even though it realizes that prosperity is in knowing English.

Just wanted to repeat danneau's excellent and highly perceptive comment from the beginning of the thread.

Always remember who we are playing with here...and who backs him...and never count Harper out. He and his snaky neo-con crew are infamous for changing the agenda, deflecting negative attention away at critical moments....(remember the "serendipitious" Ralph Goodale leak that cooled the Liberals momentum in the last election).

Only a week or so ago Afghanistan was hanging like the heaviest of albatrosses around Harper's neck. But geez.. notice how he has levelled the playing field with this Quebec nation issue...and ingeniously placed all of the parties on the hot seat right alongside him. He's playing offense and slyly setting the agenda...when it is he who should be on the defensive over his policies.

If there was a sincere bone in Harper's body this issue would be worth the debate but there are no sincere bones in the body of Mr. Harper...none...and there are no moves of his that aren't manipulated toward a planned end....eg. the exact definition of "nation" sooo conveniently left out of all this... and this issue is about Canadian sovereignty and solidarity...but not in the way most people think. Mr. Harper is hoping our attention will remain charmed enough by this all and thus diverted enough by this latest snakes and ladders manouever of his...that we won't notice how he is attempting to fracture our solidarity, our own image of sovereignty...as he attempts his final slither..."his beastly slouch towards his Bethlehem"...a majority government.

God I love that poem Lynn, thanks for bringing it to mind:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Umslopogaas posted: 1 Day Ago

As long as we make any groups special and expect other(less special) groups to pay the freight for the "special" people, we will never be a nation.

When any one person has an extra measure of citizenship you have apartheid. If we are not all equal Canadians then many of us are legally less and that is not acceptable in a democracy.

All this is semantic BS. It changes nothing. It is just another red herring to distract us from the real issues: the environment, the war, poverty in this wealthy land.

Too true.

Now consider the most recent news: we've apparently spent close to $1 billion (yup, that's BILLION) on treaty negotiations with aboriginal groups... with nary a treaty in sight. Are we prepared to go down this road for other "nations" within our borders? I bloody hope not!

On the other hand, I think Kearney's concluding comments are most useful: "No decision should be made at a higher level that can be made at a lower level."

Thus, if a local community decides that merchants may only advertise in English/French/Salish, then, so be it. That's not a decision of global import and thus one that can be made at the local level. Question of more global impact, such as health care or pension portability obviously need to be made at a higher level.

Kearney again: "I'm all for economic regions like we have in Europe...."

I'd opt for the EU as a model as well.

A propos my comments above, and this article/topic in general, my just-now posts on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Culture_of_Canada#Biased.2Fincomplete_lead might be worth a read (Wikipedia's "Culture in Canada" article's talkpage).

I knew it - he's a jellyfish!! Or a man-o-war, perhaps....

Alcibiades: errrr, this famous poem by Yeats gets so mis-quoted so often it's hard to know where to start; I know it's apt. As it happens he's talking about the Great War (not the Irish Uprising, as some have speculated); and he's talking at a mystical/metaphysical level as well. The "rough beast" alludes to something very much like the Nietzschean uebermensch, the human who is only themselves, no God, no foundation; Yeats' perception of such a new form of being is far more negative than Nietzsche's. But I suppose if Nietzsche had been witness to the Great War he might have been equally apocalyptic in tone.

I'm gonna have to dig out my Kafka Parables and Paradoxes now. There's a couple that are extremely apt, although like your Yeats quotation, he's speaking at a metaphysical level in them; though perhaps by necessary reflection, also of the disorder in the human household, or "the City" as he describes it. Back later with those.

...as if he wasn't already. "Dire" might have been a better adjective; prophetically ominous. Nietzsche was speaking of a new revelation for mankind; Yeats bears witness to the revelation as it unfolded (millions dead for a few yards of ditch and mud, the "best and brightest" of his civilization marched off to glory, and to their dooms...). The Nietzschean "new human" was to moral beyond morals, to rely on his will and wits and inner genius; Yeats' vision was of the barbarity of humanity so painfully on open display during 1914-1918; the breakdown of civilization and the emergence of something ominously new. Nietzsche had not, for the most part, foreseen anything of what followed upon his Gottsterben[/I[ (the death of God, "for I have killed him", as he quips); Rilke and Kafka are his successors, but they lived in a different world/time and their view of human reality is necessarily darker than Friedrich's; their transcendence confronted by the utmost banality of the human world around them, so much so that it drove Kafka mad. cf a really interesting and difficult book, [I]The Disinherited Mind by Erich Heller, which is a history of the German poetic/philophical mind from Goethe through to Kafka and Kraus.

This is a far discussion from the evolution of a Canadian nationality, but the issues raised in it underlay the formulation/evolution of what's going on this country. We need a new way of thinking, a new identity, a "new man/woman" (at the helm or otherwise), we need a new reality. The current one isn't working. The books and ideas rambled through above are only signposts; we have to build our own road (hmm, brings to mind another Kafka parable...).

Yeah! A lot of people make that mistake. I don't think Lynn did though, she knew exactly why she was posting it. He wrote it in either 1919 or 1920 as I recall.

That damn war was unintentionally responsible for a hell of a lot of great poetry...and not enough lessons that have stuck.

I'll pull out my Kafka too.

Have you ever been to Prague?

Actually, back momentarily to the subject at hand, sort of, here's Chantal Hebert today - edited version (too long to post entire):

As they descend on Montreal for the opening of their national convention today, there are three numbers Liberal delegates might keep in mind between now and the time when they cast their final leadership ballot on Saturday.

The first is zero, the sum of the Quebec MPs who voted against a Conservative motion that recognizes that the "Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."

If ex-intergovernmental affairs minister Michael Chong had spent a bit more time listening to his Liberal colleagues from Quebec over the course of the parliamentary debate that led to the overwhelming endorsement of the motion Monday night, he might have remained in Stephen Harper's cabinet.

Chong said he resigned because he could not support a resolution that he described as a vindication of ethnic nationalism. But the people most likely to be adversely affected by such a restrictive reading of Quebec reality had a very different take on the motion.

More so than any other group in the House of Commons, Quebec Liberals MPs can claim to speak for non-francophone Quebecers. Most of them win massive majorities in ridings where francophone voters are largely outnumbered. Those MPs are not in the business of supporting resolutions that treat their constituents as second-class citizens.

In French in Quebec, the word Québécois is commonly understood to be inclusive of the increasingly diverse population of the province. While the common language is different, the nationalism on offer is every bit as civic as Chong's Canadian ideal.

Surely, no one is suggesting that it is necessary to forgo French for English to achieve an inclusive social model.

It is a source of perpetual fascination to most Quebec insiders that when it comes to developments in the province, so many outside it take their cue from the sovereignists who have failed to achieve their goal for decades rather than from the front-line federalists who have kept them in check for all that time, often against very long odds.

The other number is 6 per cent, the Liberal score in Monday night's by-election in the suburban Montreal riding of Repentigny. As Le Soleil columnist Michel C. Auger put it yesterday, more francophone Quebecers believe that Elvis Presley is alive than support the federal Liberals.

The Repentigny results are in line with the dismal showing of the party outside Montreal in the last election. While the leadership campaign has made Quebec federal Liberals feel better about themselves, that has yet to translate into signs of life for the party and its next leader.

The third number is 26 per cent, the Green party score in the by-election that took place in the Ontario riding of London North Centre. It signals that there will be a fourth player vying for the progressive vote in the next general election.

That is particularly bad news for the NDP. Its fourth-place finish, 12 points behind the Greens, has shown its assumption that it could overtake the Liberals and become the default alternative to the Conservatives for what it is: a delusion.

But while the Liberals managed to hang on to their London seat Monday night, a strong Green showing combined with an ongoing weakness in Quebec could deprive them of a shot at victory in the next election.

Yes, I've been to Prague. Even had a meeting in The Castle; corridor after corridor, door after door. Until you've been in the place - the parts the tourists don't get into - Kafka's description in The Castle won't be fully appreciated. Bland and endless....

Looking for my Kafka; the three parables I'm thinking of are The Building of the Tower and the Great Wall, The City, and the last one in the series, the one about preparing for an unknown future (although a young German I read it to said it was about death; I don't think he got it, though).

Just to stretch the paradigm, I averred that Harper was a jellyfish, but given his hard exoskeleton maybe he's a cockroach. "I woke up in bed, and discovered I had been turned into a giant cockroach" etc.

Ah The Metamorphosis. Harper as Gregor? He looks uncomfortable enough in his skin alright.

Did you see the old Jewish cemetary? The Powder Tower?

Before the Law

Before the Law stands a doorkeeper. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at the moment. The man thinks it over and then asks if he will be allowed in later. “It is possible,” says the doorkeeper, “but not at the moment.” Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: ‘If you are so drawn to it, just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the last. …
These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone…

I won't transcribe it all but I'm sure you remember how he stays at the gate for the rest of his life, awaiting admission, until he is a dying man -

...Now he has not very long to live. Before he dies, all his experiences in these long years gather themselves in his head to one point, a question he has not yet asked the doorkeeper. He waves him nearer, since he can no longer raise his stiffening body. The doorkeeper has to bend low toward him, for the difference in height between them has altered much to the man's disadvantage. "What do you want to know now?" asks the doorkeeper; "you are insatiable." "Everyone strives to reach the Law," says the man, "so how does it happen that for all these many years no one but myself has ever begged for admittance?" The doorkeeper recognizes that the man has reached his end, and, to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear: "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."

Yup. Tried to find the golem, too, but after six centuries of dragnetting the river, if the Czech police can't find it, I figured I wouldn't ;-0

Ah, Rudolf II, now there was an Emperor!

can't find my Kafka parables just yet; maybe later...don't think I loaned it out (?).

Got horrendously sick by eating roast duck on top of a thick cabbage/sausage soup; gall bladder attack; felt like I was going to die, desperately wandering through the Town Square looking for somewhere to sit, discovering that sitting made it worse. Heavy food on top of gassy food...never do that again (during my travels I've had at least 20 major bouts of food-related illness).

OK Metisgirl, do some of these nations trump others? Are the Metis trumped too? Do Metis also still hold allegiance to the French King? Lynn thinks Harper was sly in not defining Quebecers. Methinks that they would have been mighty miffed had he attempted too. Better to let them define it themselves; make no difference anyway. This is Canada not Sarajevo. Should we all jump behind our favourite ethnic barricade? As far as I'm concerned it's ancient history. If my neighbour pines for a greater Germany just because he was born there then I'm very suprised. As far as I know he's a proud Canadian as is his part English wife.

Even many of Harper's detractors consider the resolution to be a good one.

Skookum is correct about BC, of course, and I am guilty of my own charge of "over-simplification" of history charge against those Anglo-Canadian national chauvinists, who cannot see, despite the complexities (Native nations claims etc.), the legitimacy behind the "nation" claims of Quebecers/Quebecois (the original Canadiennes) and First Nations collectively taken. (Time and history has not stood still either for Natives, through their modern forms of "national solidarity" structures and joint councils of Chiefs and citizens etc. And it is of course complicated, as were all early European and other global nation building projects of an earlier time, by its still struggling to emerge out of tribalism, in conditions of continuing colonial oppression over them. Which still does not reduce the validity of their claim(s) or aspirations, or distinct population character. It merely remains to be worked and negotiated through by them and us, the form or forms this is to eventually take.)

What is clear though, is that Natives are the fastest growing and youngest demographic part of the Canadian population, confined yet in apartheid-like conditions of poverty to a marginal land base upon remnant fractions of their old territories, which allows them no significant economy with which to be self-sustaining, with consequent deep social and poverty issues that are destined in but a matter of time to drive them towards some manner(s) of open revolt. (And the warning signs are all around us in the many conflicts already going on. If we have but eyes to see.) Whereas, save for huge streams of unchecked, never ending immigration in order to sustain itself and its greed driven economic system, the post Colombian contact "immigrant populations" are an aging and in decline population, scarcely able to maintain themselves by means of their own self-generation.

Certainly the Native claim to "nation(s)" status is as legitimate as our "immigrant driven" population one, about equally for both Anglo-Canada and Quebec. Our populations are no less fractionalized, nor that of "The Amerikans" for that matter.

The reality is, whatever we might wish to think, it still remains for us, unless we really are destined to fall into Balkanized mini-states more equatable to tribalism ourselves, with about as much significance and power, to pull some "main threads" sense out of our history, and interject it into our social and state structures, and social development policies. And the "sense of it" that becomes obvious to me, though the neoconservative right wing clearly has its own Balkanizing agenda here, is that there are three (3) main "nation streams" which make up our history, and which must therefore be resolved into the state and social structures of a new Canada. We will do it voluntarily and through negotiation, or it will be left to be resolved by some future civil war conflict through the forced imposition of a "final solution" by one or other of the parties. With the likely main beneficiary being the still Manifest Destiny driven US Empire.

Continued next post...

From previous post...

For what is, in its current form, in my view, is clearly unsustainable much longer. And I would opt, as a preference at least, for a peaceful solution that voluntarily resolves the "nations within one country" issue-, as the best chance of uniting the entire country, as opposed to driving it further apart. (And this solution, in my view, properly grounded and worked through, has the best chance over extended future history, in fact, of finally moulding and bringing together a single people in fact. Though that I will contentedly leave to future history anyway, so long as in the meantime, with all these North Amerikan Union pressure, we are successful at maintaining the peace between ourselves, our essential unity and shared history and interest, despite it all, and in the case of Natives, resolve the intolerable plight of their daily living conditions.

If this can be secured, what you call this or that organizational form or part of the greater country land mass and its major population segments, I care not a whit. I am able to see the forest-, for all the trees.

And even then, going back to this BC distinct early history issue, which Skookum points to, and which Murdock will dountless soon take up, the Anglo roots or foundations stock of that part of the current country was only little less than Upper (With Anglo-Americans playing a larger part, for sure.) and eventual Western (prairie) Canada. Additionally, BC came voluntarily into, and has remained so ever since, in the larger union with Canada, and is now indistinguishable from it by and large.

That last little piece immediately above, written too quickly, is some muddled of course. But I trust folks can see see the sense in it.

Otherwise, I will elaborate later.

I heard that the New Canadian Government is changing its national symbol to a condom.

This more accurately reflects the government's stance. A condom allows for inflation, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed.

What is the motivation of the current government in allowing, at least, for a "formal" recognition of the nation of Quebec?

To understand this one, I think, one must first appreciate that the Harper governments committment is not so much to the "country" of Canada, but has opted for the North Amerikan Union of Canada. That is their overarching "loyalty" direction, and which we have frequently heard from their US Empire Loyalist supporters here even, on Tyee, in the recent past.

Additionally, if maintaining the unity and peace of the country was the object, there was a way to have done it that brought all parties to the table, engaged a public discussion to enhance understanding of the working issues, and came to it out of and as part of a democratic "constitutional" process.

This issuance of a parliamentary "decree
way they chose to come at it is, in fact, outside of Quebec, likely to feed current divisiveness a national chauvanist sentiment, (Angl-Canada's way or the highway.) and no doubt, Native resentments. The latter, in fact, appropriate to their colonized "apartheid" beset status, have been left entirely out of all winks and nods, and behind the back handshakes going on in Ottawa and Quebec City.

No, the right wing and liberal agenda here (which includes the NDP and Liberals) has been to secure the large voting bloc of Quebec for majority government ambitions, with the Neo-Conservatives having managed to ace the Liberals finally in this regard. The consequence to the entire country and the other two major "nation" consequences group, that it feeds especially now the Alberta/Western Canada separatists, is of no consequence to them. The end product for them all, in any case, is to take us all in the North Amerikan Union of US Manifest Destiny. What matters it if that is achieved piecemeal or in one large gulp then?

That said, the country as a whole may yet see through all this, and rise above it, maintaining its essential unity, upon which all three parts depend, if we are not all to be overwhelmed.

Unity and its content, less than formal "form" and "labelling", is the needed end product here, to ultimately defeat the NAU end game "official" Canada and its elites are near all actually in pursuit of here. As for the rest of it, it is all smoke and mirrors designed to provide cover for the main show going on behind all our backs.

And it is not unknown for condoms to fail, and pregnancy to occur in any case.

In that first paragraph immediately above, it would have of course made more sense to just have said, "... but has opted for the North Amerikan Union..."-, and to have left out "...of Canada...".

Did you notice that the Liberals in convention in Montreal have passed, as a party platform plank presumably, a similar resolution to Harper's relative to 'fiscal imbalance'?

We are seeing - and are about to see if the people don't soon wake up - the dissolution of this country into regional blocks of power and influence while the federal role withers to sending soldiers off to die and making the sell out of our resources more efficient and seamless.

All to inure to the benefit, both short and long term, of a capitalistic elite whose mean-spiritedness will rival anything ever done in the Soviet Bloc.

My fear.

That would be my hope, too.

Much agree, one only has to read the Calgary School doctrine to discover Harper and crew's real feelings about Quebec and First Nations...and about Canadian sovereignty itself.

All to inure to the benefit, both short and long term, of a capitalistic elite whose mean-spiritedness will rival anything ever done in the Soviet Bloc.
Alcibiades

Good-bye Canada. Hello New Orleans.

All to inure to the benefit, both short and long term, of a capitalistic elite whose mean-spiritedness will rival anything ever done in the Soviet Bloc.

And a real enough fear this is, Alicbiades. Much hinges now on how English-Canada reacts here-, especially Alberta under their Neo-Conservatives, who have already stated that they want whatever Alberta gets. Which is the next shoe to likely drop here, in this Neocon and Alberta-centric way in which this important "country unity" issue has been dealt with. And BC has its own separatists here, who may likewise see and have a real opportunity to exploit.

And coincidentally, out of the University of Calgary, Alberta Neocon Think Tank, in which Harper and his US Empire pals are rooted, which Lynn correctly points, this has all been hatched, with Harper and his Neo-Conservatives carrying the ball.

And it is a real danger here, given the anti-democratic way in which this has all proceeded, that a particular national chauvanist tendency deeply rooted in English-Canada, especially Alberta, will erupt into a mass resentment and reaction. Which will deepen the country's crisis and escalate the danger to the whole, by increasing its vulnerability to US Empire schemes.

And make no mistake, they are doubtless aware of what the stakes are here. Amd they certainly have their US Empire Loyalist allies in our midst, in addition to control/influence over our State, security apparatus, national police and military.

A dangerous time for the entire country it is.

And this neocon Ted Morton, currently No 2 in the 'race' to become the next Premier of Alberta, is (was) one of pee wee's main mentors there at the University of Calgary neocon central if I'm not mistaken.

Perhaps, should he win, these two creatures of the right won't acually need to use the phone - so plugged into the central 'brain' of the sellout operation will they both be.

Gawd, I must proof my material more thoroughly. First paragraph above should read, "...especially Alberta under their Neo-Conservatives, who have already stated that they want whatever Quebec gets."

Too much hurry, hurry, makes for a scrambled result.

Coyote, I truly wish there was “…a way to have...brought all parties to the table, engaged a public discussion to enhance understanding of the working issues, and came to it out of and as part of a democratic "constitutional" process”. We've, tried this and, unfortunately, it didn't work. And it's unlikely it ever will.

It's hard to think of a country whose history (and often recent history) does not include determining borders, laws and social structure by means of racial discrimination, corruption, or war. This, of course, includes Canada.

Unfortunately, we can't turn back the clock. And it's impossible now (though we should compensate those who were directly affected) to right these wrongs. There is neither a way to determine nor a means to return to where we are all “supposed” to be. All we can do, is from here forward, create a society of which we can all be proud.

We will not accomplish this by spending endless time and resources decreeing who were our founding nations or what nations currently exist. With regard to the latter, even if we could all agree on what groups currently comprise a nation, these structures are dynamic entities. The forces of immigration, population mobility, intermarriage, and new technology will forever keep us redefining them. And to what ends?

Instead, let's spend our energy reversing global warming, providing basic necessities and real opportunity to those (no matter their race or nation) who were really never given a fair chance to succeed, eliminating the causes of disease, and developing a society that strikes a balance between meaningful work and enjoying our family, friends, hobbies and everything else that we are so fortunate to have.

Most of us now recognize the wisdom in the separation of religion and state. It's not a policy that restricts people’s freedom to - individually or as a group - worship whatever or whomever they choose; it is a common-sense realization that government has no authority, obligation or even ability to have a purposeful opinion on this subject. This is appropriate regardless of what role religion played in the development and history of our country.

Perhaps it is time to embrace the separation of culture and state. This, too, would not be a policy that would restrict people's freedom. Anyone could identify with, celebrate or belong to any culture or “nation” they choose. Government would simply recognize they have no useful role to play in this matter.

Finally, if the citizens of Québec decide that they no longer want to be part of Canada, then they should separate. One can think of many ways that this would be a distinct disadvantage to them. But if this is their choice, then we should wish them well. I can't imagine why we would dissuade them. Our relationship with Québec would not be much different than it is now. It would most likely be better. Free from perpetual talks about the Constitution, both countries should have more than enough extra time to build two of the most hopeful, vibrant, and capable countries in the world.

Excellent commentary John.

I'm in a timewarp...the image of Frank N. Further's "Creatures of the Night" suddenly juxtaposed itself on the discussion. It's first a jump to the left, and then a step to the righ-igh-igh-igh-ight.

I Can't get the image of Ignatieff in a Bride of Frankenstein hairdo out my head (Olympia, the maid's swept-up do), and if I was to cast anyone on the current scene as Brad it would have to be Kennedy. I can't stand the thought of Harper in gold lame briefs as Rocky - but that should be Peter MacKay's job anyway (as it's just a walk-on anyway). The role of Frank N. Furter is still up for grabs...

We will not accomplish this by spending endless time and resources decreeing who were our founding nations or what nations currently exist.... - John Miller

True enough. We must live today and legislate for tomorrow. As an immigrant, what care I for founding nations? English? Not I! French? Not I! Aboriginal? Not likely! Canadian? Yes!

And the reality of Canada is that my people -- the immigrants -- will soon outnumber all those who would claim descent from the founding three nations. For us, talk of "founding nations", with its undercurrent of "pur laine", is simply talk of some citizens being "more" Canadian than those of us who can't boast this pedigree.

We're the Canadians who scoff at silly monarchist notions. We're the Canadians who demand to swear our oaths on books other than the Bible. We're the Canadians who find the notion of bilingualism quite quaint, but don't really want to spend our tax dollars supporting this notion unless similar attention is paid to Mandarin, Hindi, German, or Salish.

Wake up! We are the new Canada. If you don't like us, you shouldn't have let us in. We're the new Canada and we don't give a fig for your old founding nations crap!

Hey Grub

Great to see new immigrants are just as racist as "Canadians." My Aboriginal ancestors were here before anyone and I find you disrespectful. If you're so "Canadian," know whose land you're on!

PS My mom is Metis and my dad is an itlain immigrant who loves to attend Aboriginal events.

So perturbed...I meant to type Italian

Grub provides for us all the more reason to slam the door shut...yes, we were the ones to open the door to you, we who are descended from previous immigrants; but it was our culture of the day that decided to do that, as part of our national image is Dudley-Do-Right, all around nice guy. And what do we get for it? People like grub who tell us they don't care anything about us, or who we are (or increasingly were), and who've decided that it's all just real estate and a place to raise the kids, a vast subarctic suburb and little more.

And I'm not talking from the orientation of the founding nations; I'm talking about the synthesized, coagulating society of multiethnic British Columbia, most 2nd generation from all over; "English Canada" in this sense is not a founding nation; it is the nation that developed out of the fusion and coalescence of different families and personal bonds within towns scattered over the wilderness, or in cities so distant from each other as to nearly constitute separate countries. That people we did a favour to have an attitude towards us like grub's is a slap in the face. Sounds like a passport of convenience, or necessity; not somebody who thought there was somthing to believe in here, or that the people already here had a story and a culture worth respecting.

Grub's attitude I've run into before; on the street and in the net. It says "we don't believe in this country. We just did the paperwork. White people were stupid to let us in, since they're so lazy." Heard it lots. So much so that I have to wonder why the CBC hasn't done an investigative report on it, since they assiduously cover other flavours of racism. Oh I forgot - only white people can be racist, huh? Isn't that an oxymoron or something?

grub is right and so is John Miller.

Metisgirl shows how ridiculous the concept of Nation is by explaining that her father is of Italian extraction! So where does that place her? Part Italian (which could be part Greek, if he's from the south or the east. Or part North African too. Etruscan perhaps. Italy has seen many political divisions, including the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily, the republics of Florence and Venice, the Duchy of Milan, and the Papal States.) Is she also of French Canadian extraction and was that French Breton, Gaul, Frank, Norman, Provencal or perhaps Alsace - and therfore perhaps Germanic? Was her native blood that of the South American Andeans that came up through the Sonoran Desert through Mexico or those that came across the Bering Straight? The membership of a mutitude of Nations is so exotic and silly it is worthless. We all have the same plentiful DNA only in different degrees with very slight variances.

Supposing that differing rights be bestowed on those claiming DNA superiority over others - that's racist!

says realisticman

I disagree. I'm firmly with Skookum1 on this one.
Sorry!

Bring on that CBC investigation.

So, I guess, based on some people's whacky ideas, the USA owns the Moon because they were there first.

Get real!

Yesterday Barbados celebrated 40 years of independance. Who has special rights there? The Portugese discovered it and gave it it's name, the the British had it for a long time. There may have been Arawaks there too at one time. Does anyone imagine that others than the Barbadians of today have 'special' rights there?

Hey Grub

Great to see new immigrants are just as racist as "Canadians." My Aboriginal ancestors were here before anyone and I find you disrespectful. If you're so "Canadian," know whose land you're on!
....

When your aboriginal ancestors arrived, who did they displace?

Metisgirl, you display a naive understanding of history. The history of civilization is the history of the movement of peoples. So much so, in fact, that we'd be really hard-pressed to determine "who got there first".

I say, "I don't know, and I don't care."

I don't care, because it doesn't help me get on with resolving real 2006-like issues.

If you want to see what harboring feeling of injustice and "poor me" looks like, take a look at Palestine. Sure the Palestinians were there first (or maybe not; who knows) and perhaps hard done by and maybe the Zionists don't really belong there. But WHO CARES?! Get over it, and solve the problems you confront today!

How is talk of three (two?) founding nations going to ensure our children get a good education, our elderly are taken care of, and our drinking water is pure?

Exactly.

And before you start throwing around the racist label, let's sit down and share experiences, OK. How many years have you lived on the rez? What have you done to help aboriginal communities?

Your mom is Metis. So? Does that confer special status on you?

Look, Skookum1, from your entire post, we may not be that far apart in our view of this issue.

Where I take issue is the view "all the more reason to slam the door shut". That, to me, represents the red-neck, Merle Haggard, "love-it-or-leave-it" school of citizenship. I'd like to think there's a third option: "work within the system to change it"

So, this Canada that I entered was the Canada that had evolved through the change efforts of previous immigrants, working within the system. Sure, our history informs who we are, what we do, and what we can aspire to. Some of this is good. But much of it is also silly nonsense which each subsequent wave of immigrants thankfully chips away at. I find the fact that a picture of the grandmother of a rather dysfunctional English family graces our currency irritating. I'm not going to waste much time fighting it, as there are more important issues to deal with. Nonetheless, I feel confident that, over time, as the critical mass of "non 3 founding nations" immigrants grows, we'll be rid of the monarchy. As this critical mass grows, the bleating of the pur laine Quebecois sheep will fall on deaf ears -- because it's not relevant to the problems that confront this nation in 2006.

Fundamentally, the notion of "founding nations" is an insult to all immigrant groups. One way or another, it confers a "higher" level of citizenship (some special rights) on those that can claim it. Is that your vision of Canada?

And I actually much, though not entirely, agree with Skookum 1, in his piece which we have immediately above here, 9 hours ago.

No doubt the term, English-Canada, while that is what it has come to be called, is actually more than a bit of a misnomer. Still, though some feign an inability to grasp what is meant here, through all the provinces from the Quebec boundary to the Pacific, and from the border with the US to the NorthWest Territoes and Inuvik, others of us, still the majority, understand very well and have no such confusion. (While recent arrivals may, understandably.)

We have-, certainly I can easily recall, had many waves of immigration in this country, part of the design of capitalist market development needs. And the resentment of these waves towards us who have been here longer, and us towards them no less, have likewise all come and gone and disappeared into a common language, culture, boundries. economy and national sensibility nonetheless.

The whining never ends on all sides, but the fusion reality goes on nonetheless and produces an eventual singular entity in our part of the world. (It all begins to breakdown irretrievably with the second generation, in my observation of it. With exceptions, of course. In which case, certainly by the third generation. :-)

(The Doukhabors from Russia tried about the hardest I have personally seen. Though they too, like we Scots, are now virtually indistinguishable from the whole.)

It has been called English-Canada, as in English speaking, but no doubt it needs a better definition in a new overall three founding nations reality of the country that is emerging.

A stew is a stew regardless of all the separate pieces and spices that go into it. Everything melds in the cooking. As a rose by any other name remains a rose just the same.

It's like if I was to move to India, I would have to realistically expect that however much I might wiggle and squirm, and whine about the unfairness of the majority, my line would sooner or later be swallowed up and become virtually indistinguishable. Maybe just slightly fairer skinned with w higher incidence of blue eyes-, for a time. :-)

Grub

FYI at least 60% of Natives live off reserves and are urban. Metis (except in settlements in Alberta) have no land. My land is currently occupied by Winnipeg!

A whole other can of worms...why do Native people have to prove their Nativeness? Do South Asians have to prove their "South Asianness?" I do a hell of a lot of work in my community because that's what being part of a community means.

Are Natives better than other folks? No. Do we have special rights? Yes! There's those little things called genocide and colonisation. Ironically, one of my ancestors started the North West Company while one died in 1885 fighting for Louis Riel and one was a spy for Gabriel Dumont. My Dad is from near Venice.

Should people feel bad about past injustices? They should be aware of them. For me, it's important to listen to Native people-not many do in a respectful manner. Be aware and acknowledge where the world's riches come from-Indigenous people's land. You only need to feel bad if things haven't improved for Indigenous peoples in 20 years. And many immigrants are fleeing injustices making an understanding of Native issues an easy leap to make.

So, Metisgirl, should the 'real' English - whoever the hell they are, have special rights, as you call them, because of the colonisation of England by the Normans (French, and perhaps some of your ancestors)? How about your father. Does he have special status in Italy with privileges, because he can trace back his origins as a Ligurian or perhaps a Trojan? Afer all these were the first settlers of Venice before Slavs came down. He's probably alone if he does. Venice and Italians have moved on and so should you. The complex and mentality of historical battles and invasions have become a glorious chip on the shoulder to too many. We can all, somewhere in our history, glory in battles won or lost over villages or hamlets or countries. Can't you step aside from the industry of the aggrieved. Move on; most of the people on the planet already have.

There's a difference between battles and genocide. Maybe you should re-read my post. Or is liberal guilt getting the best of you?!

So, Metisgirl, ...The complex and mentality of historical battles and invasions have become a glorious chip on the shoulder to too many. We can all, somewhere in our history, glory in battles won or lost over villages or hamlets or countries. Can't you step aside from the industry of the aggrieved. Move on; most of the people on the planet already have.

Nice summary.

Particularly, MetisGirl might want to look about her community for what you've called "the industry of the aggrieved". Our native communities are hostage to multiple special interest groups sucking at the teat of the Indian Industry; whites and natives alike chasing per diems (albeit more lucrative ones, generally, for the white lawyers,) that come from endless meetings.

MetisGirl suggests I show more respect. That's difficult when a people eschew democracy in order to follow the feudal dictates of self-serving hereditary chiefs. I have no more respect for native governance (including the nasty impositions of DIA) than I do for the governance of tribal chieftains in Saudi Arabia. Absolute power corrupts, whether on the rez or on the desert.

Whatever the "founding nation": Move on; most of the people on the planet already have.

And as to MetisGirl claiming "special rights" for native people. Not for long. I refer you to the ever-increasing critical mass of new immigrants who have little time for such notions. If there are going to be treaties, they'd better be settled soon, because time is running out. These new immigrants often left their homelands because special rights were given to some and not to others. They fully understand the dysfunctional role such notions play in society.

Instead: Liberty, Equality. Democracy.

I notice both grub and realisticman have both studious avoided Metisgirl's reference to genocide.

It makes a big difference. I'm at work right now - but I'll come back to this later.

As far as I know the Normans didn't try to wipe out the population of Harold's kingdom. In fact, if you really want to deal with historical analogies, I think you'll find that William had a pretty decent claim to the crown Harold had set upon his own head.

There is no comparison. Just as America's black citizens have a pretty good claim to special treatment from the majority economy that based its success on their slavery for more than 300 years.

Just as the citizens of Mexico are, more and more, waking up to the kind of deal their ruling elites have been foisting off on them for much of the last 100 years. And, if you’ve been following the news – starting to do something about it.

These things don't go away - they form the foundation (or not) of a fair and equitable society.

In my opinion not something that recent immigrants will necessarily understand but still something that needs attention and will need attention for a very long time to come.

Hang in there, Metisgirl. You are doing just fine against these doofuses-, though you should know these are two wingnuts who are not going to be convinced. They have been around here long enough, and I have come to know them well enough, that I generally do not even bother to engage them.

They hate you. If you do not see it now, you will come to. :-)

A good day to you, sister.

In Solidarity...

Good comments, Alcibiades.

Hey thanks Coyote and Alcibiades!
Nice to know I'm not the lone voice in the wilderness! People like grub and realisticman tend to suck up energy, it is indeed better not to engage with them but it's great to read your postings.

Miigwech!

Coyote:

They hate you. If you do not see it now, you will come to. :-)

Coyote, you're absolutely WRONG! Check the archives. On the majority of issues, we've been on the same side of the fence -- you just somewhat more radical than I.

And I take issue with the notion that I hate MetisGirl (or anyone, for that matter).

I'm for a better society. I just happen to think that compensating people, let alone giving them special rights, for historical wrongs done unto them, is the wrong approach. I believe we start with our 2006 problems and seek ways to resolve them. Now!

It doesn't help to seek to distribute blame for the way things are. Most of the time, the perpetrators of the evil deeds are no longer with us. What good does it do to then seek to punish the descendants of these evil-doers? None. Because doing so solves no problems.

Alcibiades:

Sorry, but no avoidance on my account.

On principle, I'm opposed to compensating people for historical wrongs.

Why?

Because we'd never see the end of aggrieved peoples claiming compensation or, worse yet, special rights for some far-distant historical event, the rights and wrongs of which we'd be very unsure of untangling in 2006. Look, the Romans engaged in genocide against my people. Who do I look to for redress? Or, to complicate matters further, how do I know they were "my people" -- that is, how do I know I'm truly, in a meaningful way, descended from that tribe? The calculus thus soon takes us into the realm of the ridiculous.

Does MetisGirl deserve special rights for the genocide of indigenous peoples? If so, could somebody please explain to me how that genocide somehow debilitates her in 2006? Does she, MetisGirl, that is, deserve special rights? More so than you and I?

Against my better judgement, I weigh in again...

Historical wrongs are tied into the problems of today. Look at the outfall from residential schools with generations of parents not knowing how to parent because their kids were taken away. Taking away kids, who are the centre of Native life, had and have a devastating effect on Native communities. Parents had to give up their children or go to jail. A lot of our people on the streets are directly related to the residential school outfall.

Alcibiades:

And I wish them well in their struggles. Beat down the SOB that's got a stranglehold on your life. Work within the system if you can. If the system is not amenable to your input, take the more Coyote-like solution and revolt.

Do whatever it takes, but don't play the "poor me, I'm a victim" card. That won't solve the problem, it'll only lead to years to pissing and moaning with no resolve to the real problems.

Historical wrongs are tied into the problems of today. Look at the outfall from residential schools with generations of parents not knowing how to parent because their kids were taken away... A lot of our people on the streets are directly related to the residential school outfall.

MetisGirl, I don't think you and I would differ in our assessment of the problems. And I'd be a fool to deny the past and the role the past plays in the current lives of many peoples.

But rather than spending time assigning blame and taking the role of the helpless victim, I'd rather see the community -- all of us -- working on solving the problem. What does it matter that residential schools were the problem (THEY WERE!!!)? What matters is what we do today to undo the damage done yesterday. And helping parents improve their parenting skills is within the purview of any number of agencies. So, let's send parents who need this help to whomever can facilitate the healing and the learning.

But facilitating the learning doesn't require that the historically aggrieved be given special status. To what end? How does special status solve the parenting problem?

MetisGirl, I respectfully submit the following questions:

Do you believe the City of Winnipeg should disband and give that land to the Métis? If so, what authority would receive the land?

You state that you deserve special rights. You also question why you should have to prove your “Nativeness”. How, then, do we determine who is granted these special rights?

Would one have to have Native “blood”? How much?

Assume a certain amount was required. Over time, intermarriage would make fewer people eligible for such status. Would we continually change the percentage that is needed?

How would we determine the percentage? (Inaccurate) genealogical records? Blood tests?

Would it be fair if someone was included but, for example, her half sibling was not?

How would it work if one were adopted? What if it was not an official adoption?

Imagine someone who tirelessly worked for the betterment of the Native community and upheld many of the customs and values of traditional Natives, but had very little Native ancestry. Would an exception be made for this person? Who would decide?

Conversely, imagine people who have a great deal of Native ancestry but know nothing about Native culture, or are even racist towards Natives. Would they be excluded? Again, who would decide?

Would self-governed First Nations be subject to the Canadian Criminal Code? What Canadian laws, if any, would supersede First Nations' law?

We must do everything we can to solve the problems that many Natives face. The above questions illustrate why drafting policy is extremely difficult. I'm interested to know your thoughts.

Thanks,

John

Grub,
I know you're not a traditional neocon, but on this score I think you're behaving like one. Native people need to be able to find ways to solve their own problems and they need to get out of the culture of dependency that the dominant culture has placed them in since the 17th century.

But, that being said, the dominant culture has to recognize how they have victimized and destroyed not just more than 80% of the original population of this continent but, have stolen their land and demeaned their culture, destroyed their families and - for the most part - filled up our jails with their sons and daughters. This isn’t just a question of ‘we’ll all smile and work together now’!

This is an ongoing crime and I don't know how to solve it. I do know that a few parenting courses won't do the trick.

If I were a native guy about 25 years old I'd be making every effort I could to connect with those Mexican peasants in Oaxaca and find out how I could work together with them on strategies to turn this robber society on its head and shake it till all the gold fell out.
Metisgirl – you be strong sister. 

You're right, I'm not a neocon. They wouldn't have me!

I fully agree, "Native people need to be able to find ways to solve their own problems". Over the past few decades, I been around Native bands, issues, politics, economic development, education, etc, enough to comment knowledgeably about some of the problems. And I'm disturbed that when/if one casts a critical eye, all too often the "racist" charge is made. That, in itself, is one of the biggest problems the community faces.

Finding ways to solve the community's problems involves politics. And I mean no disrespect when I truthfully report that band politics -- especially the deference shown hereditary chiefs -- resembles feudal Europe at it's worst. Ask a band member, desperate for housing, how housing allocations are determined. I know it varies from band to band, but the answers will astound. The answers would be unacceptable in any democratic society. I'll not belabor the point, but I could write essays about natives' injustices to fellow natives.

We recognize what "we" have done. But where I disagree with you is "This isn’t just a question of ‘we’ll all smile and work together now’!"

But it is! We have no other option. We have to roll up our collective sleeves and work on the problems -- smiling if need be. Assigning blames serves no purpose. Guilt is not conducive to positive involvement. And special status, for me is simply reminiscent of the bad old days of nobility in Europe or India. Special status just serves to divide people and to create barriers.

"I'm sorry! And now let's get down to work." will have to suffice.

Coyote, to suggest that I hate MetisGirl is absolutely outrageous. I too take serious issue with that statement.

I completely agree with grub. Those comments explain my position better than I.

Your dead deserve the same respect as my dead. No more, no less. Dwelling on them and creating hierarchies of them is a waste of energy. As well, judging any group for wrongs against another whole group is ridiculous.

Courts try individuals not groups.

Well, I'd only say that our system has been more than willing to grant 'special status' to natives in a great many areas - like the prison population; chronic disease and poverty; polluted lakes and rivers; a completely failed approach toward education; substandard housing and the like.

If you're willing to help me fix those 'special statuses' before we do anything else, then we have a deal. Until then, the native peoples of this country need more than just smiles and a helping hand.

They need a system of discrimination in their favour and they need it now or we're all going to have to take up arms and finish the job our grandfathers didn't. Cause that's what it will come to.

I spend a lot of time on the prairies and native populations are exploding across Saskatchewan and Manitoba - in Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg they will soon be the majority. Unless we're prepared to put all of them in jail we have to find a better way, and fast...’cause what's happening now (and the actions of this idiot Harper are making it worse) isn't going to cut it. My view. Oh, and the side deal with certain unelected members of native communities themselves (the kind of thing our Premier loves to get his corporate friends in on) aren’t going to cut it either…on that point (that there are red-skinned villains in this little drama too) I also agree with you.

As to getting the Queen off the currency.

Where do I sign?

Ditto, Alcibiades.

Where do I sign? :-)

Time again, Trudeau, a candy ass Liberal, having shown us the way and simplicity of it, for a Made In Canada solution to our "nation" problems. No one is asking anyone to leave anywhere. I don't get that from Natives at all, though I sure as hell wouldn't blame them. What is being asked is for us "Immigrant Nation" folks to simply back up and honour the treaties we made with Natives, give them the national land base they need to sustain themselves no less than we, to stop the theft of their land and resources at least any friggin' further, and recognize them for what they are, a distinct population sharing a particular history, culture and land from back way before we can scarcely even imagine on this continent. End the apartheid crimes we continue to carry out against them.

And while Natives might understandably wish we were fukin' gone, I have not met a Native in my life, and I have known many, who really expected or was demanding that happen. What the one's I have met were merely expecting and demanding was, that we leave them enough of what was all theirs so that they can continue to exist without hand-outs, and with some semblance of human dignity, and pride as a distinct peoples.

Time to honour our too long broken treaties with them, and if that means a few white asses have to move off of some land parcels, big hairy deal. My view is, consider for a minute what they have had to move off of at our demand.

It is time for us to correct what wrongs of the past can "reasonably" be fixed, or to otherwise compensate them with other lands and resources, through this time, honourable negotiation and with respect -, through negotiation and the final arrival at a place of mutual agreement, hopefully. The alternative is, given our population decline, sustained only by ongoing massive immigration, and the rapid growth of Native populations, that we and what future generation we do manage to advance, may not like what other alternatives may be even less.

We can resolve it peacefully now, or at a time and place of their choosing later-, when they may perhaps be in even less of a mood or need to compromise further. (I may be wrong, but I don't think they fully realize yet, the card hand they hold. :-)

On the other hand maybe they do, and are preparing themselves to play it at a time and place of their choosing already. I would.

Supposing that differing rights be bestowed on those claiming DNA superiority over others - that's racist!

Well, until last week that's what people thought, anyway (DNA being plentiful and only slightly different). I don't have a link to the newly-researched research, which upset THAT whole apple cart. Turns out we have big chunks of genes that might be replicated, or missing altogether; and the variables aren't limited to either gender. I don't know genetics enough to explain it further, but the usual nostrum of DNA being almost totally identical has now been shown to be totally wrong. Genetics has been turned upside down (ref Science magazine this month, but I wouldn't know the title of the article, nor be able to understand it further anyway).

Why don't you read the Canadian Constitution sometime. You might learn something.

I just brought my privileged immigrant ass back from a comfy coffee shop where I glanced through the pages of the recent Georgia Straight. With this thread still rattling around in my brain, imagine my surprise when I spotted this headline: Native writer: "Just do it"

http://www.straight.com/article/native-writer-just-do-it

The book, from which partial proceeds will go to a youth martial-arts school, promotes a business-oriented solution for aboriginal communities. In response to criticisms that economic integration will result in a loss of culture, Helin said the lack of an economy is just as dangerous.

“What culture is there in picking up a welfare check?” he asked during an interview at his Richmond office. “Are Japanese, because they have an economy, less Japanese? The answer is straightforward: it shouldn’t be an issue.”

Hedin's words reminded me of the conversations I had with a former chief of the Sechelts. He used to ask: "What was the absolute worst day in the lives of Coastal Indians?" Without waiting for a reply, he'd give his well-rehearsed answer: "The day the Indian agent rowed ashore with a welfare cheque!" His entire argument was convincing.

My friend, the former Sechelt Chief, used to target the educational system for heaps of criticism. But unlike so may native leaders who claim the system/curriculum lacks relevance and ignores Aboriginal culture and history (correct on all counts, but that's for another discussion), his concern was for the "social passes" granted too many Aboriginal students. He'd admonish teachers and administrators: "If our kids can't cut it, you've got to fail them! Handing them a pass without them having met the expectations of the course does them no good at all."

AMEN!!!!

Helin goes on to say: "He stressed that the issues are not an “aboriginal” problem—rather, they are the result of a history of systemic violence that can apply to any group, regardless of ethnic background. Helin’s analysis applies to other marginalized groups around the world, from North American inner-city communities to indigenous groups in developing nations."

I think this guy's got his head screwed on right. I'm just waiting for the first person to call him a red apple.

Why?

Because we'd never see the end of aggrieved peoples claiming compensation or, worse yet, special rights for some far-distant historical event, the rights and wrongs of which we'd be very unsure of untangling in 2006 grub

That's what you call convenient "all or nothing" thinking, grub.

Instead, why not compensate and address what is still within our reach to do so?

In Coyote's words:

And here I much agree with Skookum 1... you, grub, just "don't believe in this country...yeah, you've done the paperwork"..but you have no intention of honouring the history of this country, or the journeys of those who came before you... what they contributed to make this country what it is.

Not everything began the day you stepped ashore...get used to it, babe. History doesn't begin and end with you.

lynn:

Instead, why not compensate and address what is still within our reach to do so?

I think you and I might find common ground, lynn.

I'm all for addressing those issues which are "within our reach to do." I someone is disadvantaged, I'll be the first to support whatever needs to be done to resolve the issue.

Where we seemingly disagree is on the issue of, by fiat, creating more or less advantaged or privileged groups of citizens. I can't think of much else that could be more destructive to the fabric of a society. I'll not disagree that specific "groups" (for example, Aboriginal peoples) were targeted for harsh, at times, genocidal, treatment. There's no doubt that this has left some people in a disadvantaged position TODAY. But not every person of Aboriginal descent now suffers due to historical wrongs. Why would we grant special status to ALL people of Aboriginal descent if not all of these people have been disadvantaged? Wouldn't it make more sense to target assistance to those who actually need it?

What am I missing in this discussion. I want to help the disadvantaged. Is that wrong? I want this help to be universally available (I am, after all, a left winger). Is that wrong? I'm uncomfortable setting up divisive "classes" of citizens such that some have greater access to programs that I feel ought to be universal. Is that wrong?

lynn

Where you're wrong is in your contention that I don't believe in this country.

I do! Very much so! To the point that I'll work within the framework provided by this country to change what I believe needs changing. That's honoring the history of this country, isn't it? I mean, that's how we got to where we are today: by waves of immigrants using the political process to improve upon what's already here.

And I think getting past the notion of special status for some citizens and not others (notwithstanding what the constitution says) or getting past notions of "founding nations" is important. I'm opposed to divisive notions that create barriers between citizens rather than uniting them.

And, as has been mentioned above, there's also the very practical issue of "how do we define a member of one of the founding nations"? In Quebec, the issue of whether one is pur laine or not, has already raised it's racist head on more than a few occasions. Do we really want more of that sort of thinking?

Grub - what I think you're missing is that much of what you say can and is taken to mean that you're against affirmative action programs and efforts to give to a discriminated or marginalized group the kind of assistance they need to overcome a centuries long 'tradition' of second class status.

Look, in the past 20 years we've established a 'tradition' in this country of saying we're sorry for past wrongs. We've done it for the Japanese and Mr. Harper has just done it for the Chinese and I'll wager somebody's trying to do it for the relatives of the folks on the Komogatu Maru and I know there is a major effort to get some one to apologize to the Ukrainians who were put in camps during the First World War.

But this is the same Prime Minister who dealt with native issues by tearing up the Kelowna Accord; if you don't see the disconnect then you aren't paying attention.

Affirmative action in the United States has made real progress in raising the educational outcomes and standard of living of a great many blacks in that country and on this issue you sound like the Republicans who say that because an occasional white guy didn't get into the university program of his choice that the whole effort ought to be deep-sixed.

I think you need to consider what you're saying a little more carefully - it seems a little person-centric to me.

Some time ago I was doing research on the early days of settlement in that great swath of land they called the Northwest Territory and the Assiniboia Territory. I was going through microfiche of the 1891 census for a place called Maple Creek in the southwest corner of what is now Saskatchewan.

The records showed that the residents of this little town had been very carefully indexed, catalogued and counted. Their ages, sex and addresses were all spelled out in very legible ink script.

At the end of the section devoted to ‘people’ was a list of some 25 or 30 of the First Nations of this country – no names; no addresses; no ages – just brave, squaw and papoose. Nice. Immigrants came and are still coming to this land for a better life than their homelands provided. I think it’s time that their homeland started providing a better life for the folks who’ve been here all along – what’s left of them.

Does that help explain where I come from.

errata:
Last sentence of second last para should read 'our' homeland and not 'their' but I take it you'd understand my meaning anyway.

I doubt we're as far apart as you may imagine, grub.

Does that help explain where I come from.

Bravo! Excellent statement, Alcibiades. You get my respect.

My first memory of the original Natives, as but a boy myself on my bike, was a camp of them, who as part of an ancient pilgrimmage to hunt buffalo around Regina showed up with their tents and Teepees, where they were only allowed to camp at the then City Dump outside of town. Where the curious would go out to see them, a much darker skinned people than Natives today, and pay small amounts to view the native species of wildlife,such as racoons, foxes, porcupines and martin etc. they had in cages. (It was the only way they could then think to make a living, I guess, I don't know, in the cash economy after the extirpation of the buffalo on which they had depended.

Anyway, suddenly one year they failed to appear and never did again. I guess by then they had all finally been confined to their apartheid existences on the "reservations".

That was my first contact with "Indians". Though I had many more over later years as a farmhand and cowboy. At which tasks I came to respect them.

How soon we forget, eh Coyote!
Thanks brother.

Alcibiades:

I think you need to consider what you're saying a little more carefully - it seems a little person-centric to me.

I take your point. And I struggle with the sort of things you discuss. And, as to my perspective being "person-centric", perhaps it is. But my reasons are neither self-centered nor malicious. For me it's a question of the the "greater good" or, more importantly, "the greater harm".

I feel it is the antithesis of whatever citizenship means to grant some citizens -- ANY citizens -- different rights or privileges than others. You see, as best as I can tell, citizenship is "person-centric". I -- me as an individual -- had to go to citizenship court to attain my citizenship. The documents were made out to me. Rights, responsibilities, and obligations were assigned to me.

As far as I can tell, I could not have gotten my citizenship papers as part of a collective application on the part of my ethnic/racial/national group. It doesn't work that way. Canadian law, at least for immigrants wishing to become citizens, dictates that we view citizenship in a person-centric way. And I do.

In other aspects of communal life, we abhor racial profiling. Quite right too! I abhor such profiling in all aspects of life (I've been the victim myself): it can rarely lead to anything worthwhile. Instead, I propose universality -- no special status -- in all laws administered or programs offered by the government. My ability to get health care, education, welfare, etc should not be contingent upon the color of my skin or the blood in my veins (Jeez! Where have we seen ideas such as these? The road to hell is paved with such "good intentions").

To me the greater harm is the divisive nature of what concepts like founding nations imply.

Thanks for the story, Coyote! My grandmother and her grandmother, like many Metis, used to gather Seneca root for pharmaceutical companies to make cough syrup.

My uncle, though it was never specifically said, had to sit at the back of his schoolroom in Richmond with the two black students caue he looked too Native (he's 58 now). I was recently at an international child welfare forum and two woemn from an Aboriginal, who have several degrees, talked about being followed in a store because they are First Nations. It's stories like these that make me bristle at Natives not given their dues.

Well, this has all been food for thought and fodder for my PhD dissertation. Hey, we Indians are smart..who knew! ;-)

Man, I can't type. I meant to say that the two women are from an Aboriginal delegated agency that works with kids. Mom may have been right about taking type in high school...sheesh.

PS Anybody notice Mel Gibson has a movie coming out called Apocalypto dealing with the "end" of the Mayan empire? Uh oh!

grub
Look, obviously, in a perfect world we'd have some kind of nominal equality of opportunity that would ensure the playing field was more or less level, right?

I mean, otherwise, the folks who've ended up with most of the current assets in any country would just get to hang onto them forever. Nevertheless, life's not a monopoly game and we've decided to stack the rules in many ways. Not least the tax system; not that I don't think that system needs a lot of improvement. In a way, it is kind of an embarrassment that the National Hockey league is more concerned with equity and fairness than our governments are, don't you think?

But, added to that is the status of Native Peoples as a hugely disadvantaged minority who've been treated for generations as 'non-persons' - like Coyote says - a system of officially sanctioned apartheid, really.

Just like 300 odd years of slavery in the US, it has created permanent (or nearly permanent) dependence. I agree with your diagnosis but I disagree as to the solution. You can't expect utilitarian ideals to have much meaning in communities where there isn't even enough potable water to wash in, let alone drink and you can't expect normal competitive rules to apply mutatis mutandis in communities where 80% unemployment is the rule and not the exception.

I don't have the answers and I certainly agree with some of the ideas behind Helin's book Dances With Dependency. I heard him speak on the radio the other day as a matter of fact. He's correct to say that much of the hardest work is going to have to be done by natives themselves, just as it has had to be done in a very lonely and personal way by many of the black students in the US who have taken advantage of Affirmative Action.

I agree with all of the things you say about equal access to necessary services but I don't think that means that we, as the dominant culture, can just wash our hands of the historical realities of living in this country and the cost of, in a real way, our current prosperity.

You know, the blacks in the south were all promised 40 acres and a mule after the end of the Civil War in the States - the mule is apocryphal but the 40 acres was a 'real' promise. They never got the land. But can you imagine what a difference it would have made if they had?

In the long run, I think enough Canadians would understand why this is an unpaid debt to our Native brothers and sisters and that even immigrants like you would understand and say well-done when we've made a real effort to pay it. To help those members of our culture whose status is more than a little like American blacks would be a feather in our cap and not a case of racial profiling.

Thanks for listening.

Alcibiades:

No, THANK YOU.

I guess my disagreement with you, grub, is embodied by your exhortation to "Whatever "the founding nation": "Move on; most of the people on the planet already have"... or that you find the notion of "bi-lingualism quite quaint".

In regard to "moving on" ...pretty close (in varying degrees of aggression) to what would have been said by those stepping on these shores three hundred years or so ago..."move on...and move over...we're here now...time to forget your quaint customs and culture....or else." And it's pretty much what Amerika whispers ever louder in Canada's ear now..."move on...it's 2006 and we don't care what the special history of your place is or was...we will all act as one now...which means you will act "like us"... which means, move over darling, Amerika has landed."

I say, "I don't know, and I don't care."

I don't care, because it doesn't help me get on with resolving real 2006-like issues.

But the past is part of 2006...inseparable from it, in fact, and still very real to very many...and should be respected.

I would say it greatly matters in regard also to the means of redress or healing because what happened there must greatly affect native peoples' experience and idea of both what education and the system itself embody and represent. Of the betrayal of the culture of native people inherent in both...and thus naturally influence their level of trust in both. So redress in this regard through a system that has adversely and cruelly affected so many becomes a more complex and complicated issue and may have to be "specially" addressed.

Same as Helin's book that you defend also becomes a more complex and questionable "solution" (integration into the business community)than it first appears..if this "business-oriented, economic integration" approach comes at the expense of culture:

Well, I could be wrong but I would suggest that culture and economy are inextricably linked. That culture is economy. And that the history of First Nations reveals their culture was and is their economy...integrated one with the other, in fact. Not separate. The health of one reflecting the health of the other. The loss of culture...the loss of economy. They may have much to teach us in this regard. Indeed that is the issue for Canada and so much of the world right now.

Actually, Lynn, it was originally I who suggested that MetisGirl should move on. And, in the nicvest of ways too. The same way, perhaps, as Desmond Tutu courageously suggested that South Africa do through their Peace & Reconciliation process. No lingering hate and remorse, just exposing and moving on.

Your second paragraph twists the expression and infers an agressive meaning that you know was never there, unless you too belong to the industry that perpetuates the misery by demanding that pain be felt forever and clinging to the hurts through generations is a good thing.

You may be well intended but be careful that your method of dealing with, and justifiable anger for, past deeds do not prolong the symptoms.

Compassion is an admirable sentiment. Desmond Tutu was internationally commended for his, 'let's get over it quickly and move on', recommendations.

I like and admire Desmond Tutu very much. I like how he has courageously spoken up against the powerful Jewish Lobby, how he has condemned Israel's treatment of Palestinians...and condemned the corporate West's ravaging of Africa. I like how he doesn't cavalierly discount the pain of others.

I don't think he would be the kind of guy who would say "move on"... "let's get it over quickly"....or "I don't know" and "I don't care" about founding nations.

Forgiveness to him was about empowerment through knowing and caring. To forgive was not to forget but to empower. The process was not about forgetting or discounting...or about "getting over it quickly". It was a raw exposing... a painful process of acknowledgment. Both you and grub sometimes cavalierly discount too much in your quest "to move on."

lynn:

My language was somewhat harsh, perhaps because I'm frustrated by so many people (all shades, colors and creeds) seeking redress for one supposed historical harm or another. As I mentioned somewhere above, one of the tribes I'm descended from (given the centuries past, likely one of hundreds of tribes I'm actually descended from) was virtually annihilated by the Romans. From who do I seek redress? It's a silly question, isn't it?

So, when I say "move on", I'm exhorting all peoples to assess their current milieu and to do whatever it takes to solve their problems. I'm suggesting that Palestinians who have lost land to Israelis, "move on", as it's very clear that they're not going to get it back. I'm suggesting that affluent Germans, vacationing in Poland and discovering the land on which Opa used to farm in 1938, "move on" and accept the loss rather than put in a claim for that land (it was likely "stolen" from some Poles a few centuries earlier anyway, and who knows who they displaced to get it). "Move on", to Chinese, or South Asian immigrants who feel slighted by a ship turned out of the harbor decades ago or a tax levied on aspiring immigrants.

We know all these harms were wrong. With our 2006 sensibilities we feel guilty. But why? "We" didn't do these things, and the people that did, weren't educated in 2006-like values. History can't be undone and any attempt to compensate peoples will only result in a rat's nest of claims and counter-claims. It's a scenario only a lawyer could cherish.

"Move on!" Live your life today, not in the past.

lynn, on economy you say:

Well we agree. I too think that "culture and economy are inextricably linked." They sure are for Canada. They sure were for Renaissance "Italy"; what would the art world look like had it not been for wealthy patrons -- wealthy for any number of reasons, including a healthy economy? The music of Bach, Telemann, and countless other "German" composers was also encouraged by wealthy patrons and a wealthy church -- wealth derived from an economic system. Without a healthy economy, we, here in Canada, don't have the tax dollars to support our art galleries, public theaters, planetariums, etc. So, I'm guessing it was/is for First Nations culture. That's hardly news.

realisticman to lynn:

I think you put it well; "demanding that pain be felt forever and clinging to the hurts through generations" It's fairly clear that an entire industry has grown up around perpetuating past grievances (and I'm not talking solely about Aboriginal issues!!!!). If we were to take all of this "clinging to the hurts through generations" out of the context of this discussion and if we were to personalize it, any counselor looking in would tear her hair out screaming: "STOP ENABLING!!!!!!" No healing can occur if those claiming to help constantly engage in enabling behaviors.

Hence my point about "moving on". Our therapy is going nowhere if we allow the patient to keep saying "Yeah. But. It it weren't for...." Even worse, if we elicit such responses.

There's an "Indian Industry" because there are so many vested interests. Interests vested in perpetuating the problem. Anyone who wants to solve the problem gets a label. Racist. Red apple. Or worse.

For example, residential schools were bad. They wrecked families. They destroyed cultural values. They all but eradicated languages. ALL TRUE! But how does bringing that up help the little Aboriginal girl in Grade one with FAS and no breakfast in her belly? How helpful is it for her parents to bemoan the fact that their parents or grandparents were whipped in residential school for speaking their language?! That doesn't get us any closer to helping our little girl; she's still hungry and still has difficulty learning. And the problem is repeated hundreds of times over. Sometimes by kids who come from similar backgrounds, but other times by kids who come from other impoverished backgrounds. As Helin points out, this is not necessarily a Native problem, it's an economic problem.

Lynn, if you and I can agree on that last point, then we can start helping out that little girl.

grub, I have not a lot of time to answer tonight so I will just say for now when I speak of First Nations culture (and its linkage to economy)I am not speaking in terms of the more high falutin end of it (art world/galleries/theatres etc.) more in terms of how First Nations lived and worked, their language, their community structure etc..."their life"...though their art is certainly an expression of this. Basically how a healthy, vibrant, alive community parallels its economic vitality as well.

The rest I will try to answer sometime tomorrow.

lynn, i anticipate your answer but, in the interim:

Do we have to specifically address Aboriginal cultures/economies? Isn't your statement more or less true of all peoples/cultures?

Poverty, deprivation, and despair leave little time for social or cultural niceties. Without a healthy economy -- jobs and otherwise meaningful work -- I think you can kiss the chances of "community structure" good-bye. Isn't that what we argue when we regret the incursion of Mc-Jobs on our society -- jobs that pay so poorly and rob workers of basic dignity. McJobs are signs of a poor economy. And this economy is an economy of broken homes, fractured families, and the diminution of civil community structures.

On the other hand, if you're about to throw up the "noble savage" argument (why do I sense this coming?), then, please re-read your history of our First Nations peoples. If you don't see, in that history, greed, imperialism, slavery, and sundry other unsavory practices, then you're reading the Disney version. And, by the way, it was success at those unsavory practices that paved the way for, to use your words, "the more high falutin end of it (art world/galleries/theatres etc.)" Without monopolies over clam beds, salmon streams, and other hunting and gathering locations, our Coastal Peoples would not have had the leisure time necessary to create the artifacts we now marvel at in our museums. And, clearly, the "community structures" on the coat supported this economy.

So you're quite right: "Basically how a healthy, vibrant, alive community parallels its economic vitality as well."

"Move on!" Live your life today, not in the past. pretty well sums up what I'm hearing GRUB..., and me thinks that your ' enabling ' comments puts this subject matter way way over your head ! INDEED IF ANY THERAPIST LISTENED TO THE SUGGESTIONS YOU ADVOCATE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH TRAUMATISED VICTIMS.., they would simply cringe.

THIS IS ABOUT NOT ONLY HEALING THE PERSON AFFLICTED BUT HEALING THE VERY CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD HAVE PERMITTED THE INJURY TO BE FOISTED UPON individuals or groups , nations and what have you...,to begin with*.

Clearly the question we must ask ourselves is one of : DID WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM PAST ATROCITIES .., and the answer based on your suggestions on how to deal with this kind of horror.. seems indeed cavalier and not really to be taken with any sincere wish to help the '' PATIENT''.... this is all about HEALING isn't it , and above all.., it's about respecting the VOICES that need to not only be heard .. ,but in effect it is very important that we truly listen and hear what is being said by the very people who have endured such atrocities *.. as was visited upon them..., ( historically documented and without a question .. very much part of their collective memories..*.).and if that means revisiting the past ..then so be it *.. as a matter of fact it is essential to revisit that very past , which will provide the conditions and the aberration that could have brought about such an outcome..*

So why shouldn't we hone up to what has been clearly documented and not only that .., help the process by giving a recognition and help.., ( and if that means , dealing with the righting of what was after all,, theft by our ancestors of a land that was clearly SETTLED by others.., then so be it..*..

LAND CLAIMS AND TREATIES are to be honoured and respected .., and if there are none .. then , there is a way at getting at a fair compensation for what has been after all.., a takeover of NATIONS homeland ..and their very own capacity to continue growing as a people and as a contributor to the human families diversity and delight.., in a world that , much like nature's abundant diversity offers up to each and everyone of us.., simple beauty and awe*.., in her CREATIVE CAPACITIES...

THUS LET US GET A HANDLE ON OUR TRUE NATURE.. and get on with doing what needs to be done.., so that we can all become the kind of family.., of beings that can show the world .. what it might mean to reach an EPIPHANY OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS..*

there is much insight to be had by revising an old adage that stated..:
that we often cannot see the forest for the trees.. and the other that suggest that we cannot see the trees for the forest.., but I would like to say that very often.. most who do not want to learn from the past , nor revisit history itself.., CANNOT SEE THE VERY ROOTS.. of both forest and trees.. without which neither forest nor trees could exist..

ROOTS MY Friends.. ROOTS.. the very essence of identity itself.. and the driving source of energy that produces the kind of diversity and abundant creativity that we EXPLORE AND DISCOVER each and everyday of our lives.. would we but be open to that experience!

village: I can't disagree.

And if you've read what I've said, you'd know it.

Of course "roots" as you say. Of course, acknowledge history. Of course, acknowledge pain. Of course, reflect on damage done and own up to wrongs done.

And, as you so very correctly point out, learn from past atrocities.

My take on too many of the issues we keep re-visiting -- to the point where, yes, I call it enabling -- is that all you asked for in your post has happened.

Although you may doubt my counseling skills, I'm fairly confident in my skills that there comes a point in therapy when we have to move beyond all of that. There comes a time to put an end to "Yeah, but...." By now, we all know the underlying problems. We know who was wronged and who did the wronging. But what are we doing to actually change things for the better? After umpteen sessions of recounting past injustices, are we any closer to making life better for the little kids who need our help. Do we do these kids a service by telling them that the way up and out of misery is beyond their ability because, well, "bad things happened in the past to granny and grandpa."

There comes a time to say, "Let's move forward!" We owe it to future generations to speak in a positive voice and to suggest positive options.

I think that's exactly what I addressed in the following comment that I posted a couple of posts above:

I have to say I agree with village above, grub, your comments continue to be cavalier, often discounting the depth of pain when it comes to others suffering. The depth of the meaning of "homeland".... you almost shrug off the Palestinians' plight....as if you are looking at history through a small keyhole as you exhort some to concede "they will never get their land back... so just "move on". While behind that door the grand flow of history is continuously shifting...and the grand flow of human feeling with it.

As I said above it is a mistake, I think, to interpret (as realisticman did) that Desmond Tutu's process of reconciliation is about "moving on". It's about empowerment through acknowledgment. And I'm pretty sure Tutu wouldn't advocate or believe that in order to facilitate a world that wants "to move on", that believes in the instant fix, that neither the healing involved in the process nor the struggle for empowerment will happen overnight.

So I would think more than anything, grub, this is about justice.

lynn:

There is NOTHING cavalier about wishing to affect change. There is nothing cavalier about acknowledging pain (I have). There is nothing cavalier about wanting to move the therapy beyond the recounting of injustices.

Where you're wrong about your assertion that I'm being cavalier is that, not only do I advocate for change, I've spent good chunks of my life actually working toward that change.

Whether the Aboriginal issue or other issues (say, for example, Palestine), there's not much to be gained by wallowing in victim-hood (that's NOT said cavalierly). Or is there? You see, I happen to think that the Palestinians were done a dirty deed. Fact! I feel for them. But now, you tell me, what good does it do for generations of Palestinians to dwell on that dirty deed and to allow their hatreds to fester? It does no good whatever!

On the Aboriginal question, I find it counter-productive to allow the "residential school" issue to be so pervasive as to have become part of the "culture" of impoverishment. In 2006, you'll hear YOUNG natives blame "residential schools" instead of forging a new, positive life for themselves.

Too bad.

[B]Let's see if I get this right GRUB.. , I will attempt to comment on what I believe was an attempt on your part to obfuscate .. as I think COYOTE describes it, in a particular AND clear sentence that got you down to a tee.. . I will do what is called a forensic analysis of your thinking by going over your post and ask certain questions for clarity..and I will also make certain observations surrounding certain assertions you make that are clearly very end game of sorts.. rather then a genuine attempt at defending your stand *.. so please bare with me.., for it will probably take two postings to cover your post .., [/B]

commentor: grubposted: 3 Hours Ago

village: I can't disagree.

YOU CAN'T DISAGREE TO WHAT ? ( MY ENTIRE POST ? )

And if you've read what I've said, you'd know it.

I HAVE READ , GRUB.( I'D KNOW WHAT?, SINCE YOUR QUESTION AND HOW YOU ANSWER THE FIRST PART OF THIS QUESTION I RAISE WILL DETERMINE WHAT I KNOW OR DO NOT KNOW OF .., HOW YOU THINK*.., I'M NO MIND READER AND I FEEL YOUR SENTENCE ABOVE LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED AS TO INTENT AND ACTUAL PURPOSE IN THE POINTS YOU WANTED TO MAKE.., EXCEPT IF ALL YOU REALLY WANTED TO DO IS BLUR THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION ITSELF. AND BLUR YOUR INTENTIONS , OR BLUR THE REASONING YOU WILL ADVANCE.. WHO KNOWS GRUB.. BUT YOU are a VERY INDIVIDUAL , UNIQUE AND COMPLEX MIND and no one can take for granted what another mind is attempting to convey , hence what is required of all of us is a certain clarity of intention ITSELF.. AND THAT IS WHY YOU NEED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY TO YOUR SENTENCE AND TO YOUR SUBJECT MATTER.. , FOR HOW CAN ANYBODY REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY THINK ON ANY ISSUE WHATSOEVER ?...,

TO BE CONTINUED ...

p.s. I will wait for your comments to what I have to say so far before I advance anymore on this journey of EXPLORATION and DISCOVERY.., GRUB...

( ARE YOU UP TO IT ? )

village, I am up to it. I thought it was clear, but as it wasn't, allow me to reiterate.

There was a great deal in what you said in that original post. Much of it I agreed with (some I thought rather fuzzy and difficult to comprehend).

Here's the key areas of agreement, as per my post, "Of course "roots" as you say. Of course, acknowledge history. Of course, acknowledge pain. Of course, reflect on damage done and own up to wrongs done.

And, as you so very correctly point out, learn from past atrocities.

My take on too many of the issues we keep re-visiting -- to the point where, yes, I call it enabling -- is that all you asked for in your post has happened."

Once more, with emphasis, here's what I agree with: Of course "roots" as you say. Of course, acknowledge history. Of course, acknowledge pain. Of course, reflect on damage done and own up to wrongs done.

And, as you so very correctly point out, learn from past atrocities.

In no way have I "blurred intentions". My intention is very clear: to solve problems and move beyond a culture of constant therapy with a re-hashing of past ills that doesn't lead to solutions but simply leads to further employment for enabling therapists and no employment for the needy.

You, lynn, and Metisgirl remind of my days in the late 1960's dabbling in TA. It seems you'd all be happy if we all sat around discussing this issue ad nauseum all the while cluck-clucking "ain't it sad? ain't it sad?"

OF COURSE IT'S SAD!!!! BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT??? PLEASE, give me some positive steps that actually make a concrete difference in peoples' lives.

No, to borrow from the simplistic literature of TA, you just want engage in games (remember "Games People play"?): Over and over we'd all recite: "If it weren't for him...."

But to what end?

Village, do you want to solve problems or do you want to continue to just "talk"?

village says:

OK, village, I've seen the ROOTS. Now what?

Let's leave this discussion with an action plan, OK? What are we going to do that'll make a concrete change in peoples' lives?

( continued from previous post .. )

( I QUOTE YOU ONCE AGAIN AND THEN COMMENT ON THOSE QUOTES ..*..)

After umpteen sessions of recounting past injustices, are we any closer to making life better for the little kids who need our help. Do we do these kids a service by telling them that the way up and out of misery is beyond their ability because, well, "bad things happened in the past to granny and grandpa."

( IT'S NOT ABOUT TELLING BAD THINGS HAPPENED GRUB..IT'S ABOUT GETTING AT THE VERY ROOT QUESTION AND ANSWER OF WHAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN , TO BEGIN WITH.. THEN TO GET AT THE VERY CORE
QUESTION OF HOW DID IT HAPPEN?.. THEN TO GET AT AN EVEN DEEPER CORE QUESTION OF WHAT ELEMENTS PLAYED INTO THIS THAT MADE THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE PERPETRATOR DO WHAT THEY DID TO THE VICTIM THEMSELVES..? ).. ( AND THEN TO FULLY COMPREHEND ALL OTHER CAUSAL FACTORS THAT MIGHT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS HORROR. ) AND THEN , AND ONLY THEN DO WE ATTEMPT TO TELL THE STORY TO THE CHILDREN .., FOR INDEED , IT IS CRITICAL THAT A FULL UNDERSTANDING BE ACCOMPLISHED OF ANY SUCH HORRORS.., AND FINALLY THE MEMORY..BECOMES CRITICAL.. FOR AN INDIVIDUAL , A GROUP , NATION.. OR WHAT HAVE YOU MUST NEVER EVER FORGET THE LESSON LEARNED.., AS WITH THE WORLD AS A COMMUNITY .. MUST NEVER EVER FORGET THE STEPS THAT LED TO THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR.. AND I SAY , that with your kind of reasoning .. it leads once again to the kind of amnesia that we've seen displayed ..,by our neighbours to the south when it came to making a decision on IRAQ.., a decision , now that forces them to pay a price for their loss of memory of another war that they got involved.. called VIETNAM*.

There comes a time to say, "Let's move forward!" We owe it to future generations to speak in a positive voice and to suggest positive options.

( AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT I'M DOING GRUB.. WHY AREN'T YOU TAKING YOUR OWN COUNSEL on this one ? )

village, if you don't think -- EVERYTHING YOU WROTE IN CAPS AND BOLD -- hasn't already happened, you're mistaken.

But where was your positive option? Where's your action plan? Where's your specifics with respect to concrete changes for the better?

No, you're too busy holding the victims' hands cluck-clucking your "ain't it sad" and "it it weren't for this that or the other person or event...". You're a classic enabler.

But I'm not.

Thus, I'll no longer feed your need to spout fuzzy-headed nonsense.

CLICK!

grub - you tried.

realisticman, in the end I wasn't sure if there were just having me on... LOL

We hope so; for their sakes.

And so we have ,right here in our very own province , ( IN BC ) , a powerful COURT CASE coming up... surrounding the PICKTON FARM horror..

AND I QUARANTEE YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMAN THAT THIS PARTICULAR COURT CASE WILL MAKE.., '' THE ECSTASY OF RITA JOE '' play that George Ryga wrote.., a silence that will deadened our ears...

Much of the discussions and the positions of our society will surface at this trial as we , once again , ask ourselves ..how could this be ? How could this have happened ? .. RIGHT HERE .. IN OUR PROVINCE , IN THIS COUNTRY ?

And though it will have taken many years for the courts to hear this case.. there will be many lessons learned from it's actually having been held and reported on by not only our local media but ,by the world MEDIA themselves..

And I would submit ladies and Gentleman , that it is because we refuse to get at the very core rooted and imbedded thinking that has been so deeply ingrained within our social fabric via communicative attributes..and selected amnesia applications within our collective state of minds.. that invariably creates a condition which in turn will inevitably.. make..us realise , [B]ONCE AGAIN THAT WE'VE LEARNED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...

AND MY FRIENDS , I GUARANTEE YOU THAT FOR ALL OF THOSE MURDERED AT THE PICKTON FARM SITE..., the very deeper questions of our so called :'' having understood what the problems were'' , and the illusion of thinking that we need now to simply move on.., will echo and reverberate at our collective consciousness and selective AMNESIA * to the degree that we will , once again , want to forget about these horrors and on and on..,as we repeat the cycle of continuing selective AMNESIA tendencies which will once again guarantee that these discussions will ad infinitum .., be had*

WE WILL BE HAD INDEED.. ONCE AGAIN.. FOR OUR LACK OF TRULY WANTING TO GET AT THE VERY ROOT CAUSES OF THESE PSYCHIC AND PHYSICAL ASSAULTS ON THE AFFLICTED ENTITY/ENTITIES * ..

I LEAVE YOU WITH THESE THOUGHTS and hope that , as we hear of the atrocities of those victims ( of the PICKTON FARM ) .. we will once again asks ourselves why certain groups of peoples are somehow singled out .. for atrocities such as these to be perpetuated on them..and not others ?

WE HAVE LEARNED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.. AND THE QUESTION OF SIMPLY AND VERY QUICKLY THINKING THAT A QUICK RESOLVE TO HELP ANY '' TRAUMATISED VICTIM '' , WITHOUT ANY REAL UNDERSTANDING ON THE CONDITIONS THAT CREATED THE POSSIBILITY AND THE CONDITIONS THAT BRINGS ABOUT SUCH AN OUTCOME..

( IS NOT WAY TO GO.., LADIES AND GENTLEMAN.)

FOR , YES , I AGREE , THAT WE CAN TREAT THE IMMEDIATE INJURY.. BUT THE PLAN WE MUST DEVISE MUST INCLUDE 1)THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SYMPTOMS ( and conditions that are perpetuated by the lingering effects from within the afflicted group themselves.. and from the absence of caring or MEMORY from without.. ( that is from the ENVIRONMENT and the SOCIETY that envelopes the afflicted group.. - usually a minority within a majority - which goes about contributing ( SOCIETY IN GENERAL ) to the conditions I speak of , which in turn creates the moment and the INJURY..

( continued next post )

THE NEXT PART OF THE PLAN ( no. 2) NEEDS TO DEAL WITH THE PREVENTIVE APPROACH THAT NEEDING TO BE PUT IN PLACE.., ( ALL THE WHILE FULLY DESCRIBING A STRATEGY THAT WILL PREVENT THE CONDITIONS FROM TAKING HOLD ON OUR SOCIETY ITSELF *..

AND THE QUESTION TO BE ASKED IS : '' HOW CAN WE THEN COME ABOUT ACHIEVING THIS WITHOUT ANY REAL AND DEEP FULLY COMMITTED AND CARING UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN CONDITIONS themselves..

CONDITIONS , as I was saying , that within our society BRINGS ABOUT THE VERY ACTIONS ......, [U]THE VERY ACTS IN THIS CASE.[/U]., THAT CREATES THE INJURY.) * !

[I]food for thought , contributed with a genuine intent to bring about a deep thinking exploration and probe about our very THINKING ITSELF ! be it individually or as a group collectively ( and how it invariably creates conditions at times ).. that bring about acts and events.. ect. [/I]

Thanks for your attention ..and LET'S NOT TURN OUT THE LIGHTS ON THIS ONE..

village

Getting back to the fullness of the contributions and contributors to this issue of to the probe into the question of whether CANADA IS OR NOT A NATION.. for it is very clear that the underlying and unstated question surrounding the status of QUEBEC AS A NATION within Canada , does bring about this absolute recognition that we have come of age..., as a country , as ..yes a Nation.. , that in effect we've arrived at the climax of our identity voyage.. individual and collective journey.., for all who inhabit this great land.., who by taking this individual and collective MIND exploration and DISCOVERY voyage to the imagination.. TO THE IMAGE STATE if you will of arriving at what I call a territorial communications imperative..

CANADA !

( and so ) When reflecting on what LA NATION implies ,dans la langue de Molière , it is clearly and abundantly clear that when I personally REACH deeper within my understanding and experience of LE FRANÇAIS , that it conveys something more abstract , and yet takes in the idea ..that that particular language has of , for instance ..concepts such as DES PROJETS DE SOCIÉTÉ ,or many other terms and expressions such as L'ASSEMBLÉE NATIONAL in the PROVINCE OF QUEBEC..,

and when ( I translate and wonder what it would sound like in describing the legislature in Victoria ( and in the other official language at that..in ENGLISH)...such as THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA , would become , if I tried to apply the term NATION- even in ENGLISH..- for if I tried to apply it in the FRENCH LANGUAGE .. it simply would not apply..

and I can see that the provincial legislature resonates more truly to it's true identity..

AND YET WHEN I HEAR l'ASSEMBLÉE NATIONAL DU QUEBEC.., there is an instant recognition that clearly fits and yet does not sound pretentious or out of place..linguistically speaking , thus it will be interesting how .., the motion that parliament adopted almost unanimously and by all parties in the house.., IT WILL BE INTERESTING , AS I WAS SAYING TO SEE HOW THAT WILL PLAY ITSELF OUT..,

especially with the election of STÉPHANE DION as the new leader of the Liberal Party itself.. and by extension becoming the leader of the opposition in the house .. ( parliament)

I find also interesting , learning just recently, ( this morning actually ) that he has kept , or rather has two citizenships.., one by connection to his mother OF FRANCE CITIZENSHIP and I guess from having been born in CANADA through his father .. the CANADA CITIZENSHIP papers.. ( anyone know more about this ? )

when I heard he'd been chosen.., having knowledge of his father as a thinker of the CANADA identity - or should I say of the french canadian identity ( as they spoke of these things in the 50's and 60's.. ) .., through his writings.. I , at first thought of the interesting possibility that perhaps we've finally arrived as a county that will be able to clearly provide it's HISTORICAL NARRATIVE.. once the CANADIEN gets factored in*.. for my instincts is that LE QUÉBECOIS though having JE ME SOUVIENS as a defining signature on their licence plates.. , it is my firm conviction that they no longer hold the memory of LE,LA and LES CANADIENS*..,

and as is the case for all other CANADIANS of an absence of exposure of the CANADIENs HISTORY and NARRATIVE..then we are at this moment of epiphany , this moment of EXPLORATION and DISCOVERY of our true story.. ( of how we got from way back then to now.. and by extension , we will have given ourselves a chart and MAPS on how to get to our destination THE FUTURE *.!

(* that remains to be seen .. and I will be watching with great interest and anticipation how this new addition to the political landscape will impact on our national debate and consensus building process )..

Yours in History , ( and especially yours from a land of communications ).
CANADA , for short .

VILLAGE,

Village, aren't you being a little over-zealous by suggesting that there were murders committed at the Picton farm?

So far as I know, that is likely to be one of the key points of evidence in this case.

Human remains were certainly found there - just like you'd find in a cemetery. Nevertheless, that does not mean anyone actually died there.

If I were Willy Picton's legal counsel I know I'd be making that point strong and clear from the very first moment the trial starts.

Very goody points G west. I guess the trial itself will either confirm or prove otherwise . (* One thing is certain , - and I suppose until we hear the facts on this whole sordid matter - no one will ever know .., except as you so well put it , HUMAN REMAINS have been alleged to have been found. And missing people have been reported . ( the rest of the story , or narrative if you will , will unfold before our eyes in the year , ( perhaps years ) ahead.

( in legalese terms and with our system of justice that goes by the MODUS APPARATUS that nothing is proven until proven in the courts through evidence provided, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THAT .., and thanks for bringing it up*..)

The international media that will arrive soon to listen in on how we , in CANADA , go about dealing with such a case , will provide for quite a SENSATION ,and I am certain that mistakes will be made on how the evidence itself will be reported ...,

I suppose that's why no PUBLISHER ,of any PAPERS in CANADA has ever approached me to write a story dealing with the COURT SYSTEM .. ( or for that matter any story.. ) when I think about it..,

Hey GWEST , just out of interest ,what points would you make - strong and clear from the very moment of the trial - IF YOU WERE THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE.?

I'd be very interested in hearing how you think they- THE CROWN - will attack this challenge of making a case against the accuse.. with the kind of evidence they've gathered..

Thanks for dropping by and giving a sign of life.. ( very decent of you )

Village

On that other matter again ( of NATION BUILDING ) and thoughts of this particular article that set off this FORUM*..

Thinking of my 30 plus years in BC itself.. and going back to MON PATELIN.. ( homeland of my youth, would be the closest translation I could give to that thought.).. of what sometimes was referred to as L'ACADIE or at other times NEW BRUNSWICK.., depending I suppose if I was thinking in the FRENCH language or
In the ENGLISH language..,for indeed , having had a bi-lingual experience from a very early age.., there can be said that a child develops a certain approach to trying to make sense of the world that envelops him . ( or her , if that be the case ).

., there emerges a sense , as I was saying ..that in the french language .. meaningsand language techniques .., such as .. attributing gender to things.., creates a fascinating .. ' DIFFÉRENCE '.. and in fact brings about the confusion that often exist when people attempt to translate meanings and words (sentences what have you ) .., from one language to another..,

THIS HAS BEEN MY OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE WHEN COMMUNICATING IN EITHER OF THESE ''OFFICIAL LANGUAGES '' OF CANADA.., AND ALSO WHEN OBSERVING WITH GREAT INTEREST OTHER LANGUAGE GROUPS .., ( IN THEIR BODY LANGUAGE OR WHICHEVER WAY I COULD..- IN CELEBRATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT -.. BEING CONVEYED BY SMILES.., BY JOY, AT TIMES BY FEAR.. OTHER TIMES BY A SCREAM, OR BY PURE EXHILARATION.. ).. ALL , PROVIDING CLEAR AND ABUNDANT JOY TO THE SOARING SPIRIT OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ALIVE..

AIRPORTS are great places to observe the flow of humanity and the EMOTIONS/feelings that are so openly displayed as long lost relatives..or sad rejoinders .. ,,lovers.., coming and going.... great human theatre , at it's very transparent best!

Having said that.., I come away , after having reviewed the thoughts and feelings and comments ,observations, positions taken ETC on this post , and what have you.. ,

I come away , as I was saying .., with a thought that I want to thank SKOOKUM 1, and COYOTE .. for raising the bar .. on many great observations that you made on the question of identity AND CANADA itself..,

There is also a great feeling I have for Lynn who wades in after both Coyote and ALICIADES commented with some powerful and telling observations and comments that contributed to a better understanding , for me , as a reader , of the thinking that exist ..IN THE LAND.*..

I am doubly proud of having experienced METISGIRL's brave and courageous entry into the whole question of this subject matter..,

and yes.. in many ways.., those that offered up many other points of views as they attempted with determination to defend their position.., and did so, I am convinced with convictions of the merit of their experience and logic *

WHAT I AM MOST IMPRESSED WITH IS THE ABILITY OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE SUCH AS THIS TO WEAVE IN AND OUT OF THE DIALOGUE WITH A CLEAR DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE THEIR FELLOW POST PARTICIPANTS..

PROVING , ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT THEIR IS INTELLIGENCE IN THE LAND.. as I call it..

and there is also in this land (HEART ), plus a want and a need to reconnect with our stories , with our NARRATIVE * , and we have the capacity to become a beacon and a light.. on many universal issues.., that takes in the CONDITIONS OF THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS THEMSELVES..on this planet ....

Which are at the very root core frame of referencethat provides a window ( for all of us to look inside of our '' territory '' and also provides that possibility to look outside .. ) which eventualy helps us attempt a step in the right direction :.. when speaking of NATIONS *
., peoples , and their communication tools..which have helped them evolve to the cultures they are ,up to this moment .

village ,

Can't say anything that'd be meaningful really - I don't know enough about the investigation, or the evidence. I think the prosecution is going to have no problem with the evidence, but proving that Willy Picton is the fella who killed all those ladies....very difficult in my opinion.

And you noticed, did you, that Willy picked trial by jury? The ratio always is said to be that guilty folks prefer to have their case adjudicated by a judge and not a jury.

It will definitely be interesting, and likely pretty embarrassing for some in an official capacity.

The Judiciary System along with the Governance attributes that make our System of Government as we know it today will indeed come under the scrutiny of the INTERNATIONAL PRESS, no mistake about that !

They've seen , after all; much greater crime scenes , committed in much greater and more powerful systems ... be they ..., so called '' DEMOCRATIC '', or DICTATORSHIPS , or whichever other GOVERNANCE MODELS that the HUMAN INGENUITY has been able to come up with over millennia..

What I am convinced of ,is that for perhaps the very first time.., we , in this province , and by extension , the country.., but more specifically ..THIS PROVINCE will come under the lights..of an INTERNATIONAL MEDIA.., who will not be easily intimidated..to probe , to investigate and do whatever is needed to GET THE STORY , for lack of a better word..,

( and so , you are correct in thinking that there will be some very embarrassing stories , that will rock the boat , and perhaps , will expose the very hidden / invisible part of our makeup in BRITISH COLUMBIA ).., and that will be an interesting offshoot of this trial no matter what the verdict .

As to taking notice of the strategy taken by the defence as to having decided to go for jury adjudication ,my feeling is that the very , very long delay in coming to TRIAL itself..,would perhaps explain away that choice.

Think about it. Do you know what OTHER procedural delays could have created such a distance and time frame before the actual trial became a PUBLIC DISCOURSE.., you know , when people would actually be able to get any glimpse at all , of not only the evidence , but , the circumstances , the description of how , a long long time ago.., ON THE STREETS , how they'd reported goings on at that property, for instance..,

THAT WILL FACTOR IN ( during the trial itself ) .., AN ATTEMPT TO DESCRIBE THE TRAIL THAT LED TO THIS DISCOVERY OF THE '' HUMAN REMAINS ''.., which in turn , brings up the other challenge of giving a narrative , that will convince a jury .., that any one individual could be found guilty .., of such a horror ..,

So thinking again of your thoughts on how , even guilty folk , would choose their strategy , there is also the other side of that coin , that it perhaps could be more advantageous to distance the crime and all of the stories and evidence.. as distant away , from the actual event as possible.., ( if I was guilty , that would be the strategy of choice , for me )..,

( continued next post )

MEMORY is actually , what's at play here.. as witnesses and the like.. after so many years.., will be challenged on all counts to remember - to get at the kinds of details that could convict a person-, and so , I suppose it's like tossing a coin in the air.., but , you bring up an interesting point.

ANY OTHER THOUGHT ON HOW YOU THINK OTHER FACTORS COULD HAVE DETERMINED THE DEFENCE STRATEGY ITSELF..?

There is also the splitting up of the case in segments , for lack of a better word.., I seem to recall. Who was driving that request? Was it not the CROWN.., as they attempted to narrow their targeted evidence and claims ? ..

Is there not in all of this a certain conclusion that could be reached : , when one thinks of the great amount of distance that has now been allowed to come between the actual event and our COURT JUSTICE SYSTEM.., ( that allows such a time frame to actually permit this kind of ..., delay ?)

Process and Options AVAILABLE AND CLEARLY USED BY MANY LAWYERS to in effect .. have an influence on the outcome of a trial...*

LAWYERS fully understand the fickle nature of the law , and especially the Courts , judges , and the very language THAT'S evolved and that they've created to attempt to deliver JUSTICE itself .., ( this ''other language '' will challenge any person to make any sense of it all...)

MEMORY , MEMORIES.. is what keeps coming up in the back of my mind.. as I think of what is the most important ingredient , the most important factor that will decide a case..

And of course , what amount of money does one have at their disposal to hire the best talent that can be had , to arrive at an acquittal .., also must be factored in ..

Fear also , and how one can either succumb to , or have enough courage to give testimony is another determining factor in this kind of ..., high stakes .. court decision..*..

We've all heard how witnesses mysteriously disappear.., or worst , are found dead. Thus many other factors also.., that will '' deliver '' justice.., all in due time , of course., ( and sometime off course ).*

But ,much like democracy , it's the best of the worst ' I suppose.., as one great poet would say..*

I see a direct correlation with the issues of the existence of NATIONS and how JUSTICE is administered in these governance models ..( and how these factors creates either a sense of belonging or not .. , don't you? ),

as to what it might mean to be included in the definition that describes ... LA NATION , A NATION ,
'' sense of place '' , '' sense of belonging'' , '' sense of identity '' and of course ( not off course ).. a sense of community itself *

these ingredients , in my mind , point to the existence of a vibrant living
nation .

village said to Grub some time back,

Explanation, because, THE GOD DAM BUGS ARE EATING AND KILLING ALL THE TREES.

Hi woody , ( great meeting up with you again ).. and with a name like that , I clearly enjoy the slant you gave on that one....'' of forest and trees.... etc.''

From our past conversations , you displayed a willingness to EXPLORE and DISCOVER the very subject matter that is at hand in this post ..

Any thoughts , any comments ? If I remember correctly your ''road of life '' travelled has given you a unique optic on the question of .., what comprises the description that would best deal with the very roots of the NATION*.., or as some people refer to as LA NATION*.., ( depending on the language they are most at ease with )..

Of course the meanings are very different in both of these languages even if the word is spelled the same !

I also recall that you mentioned that you'd spent many years in this province and though having certain distant roots*.. from over the mountains , you nevertheless have kept a '' MEMORY '' of the fact that you have a connection with - though distant , at best- a group of people who have had to survive amongst a majority population .., (especially out west ), that as I was saying had some impact on that particular '' différence '' , that they experienced upon coming in contact with your ancestors..*

You know my take on the history as I've come to know it .. LES CANADIENS*.., having managed to plant the dream of CANADA to the very limits and edge.
( boundaries ) of what we know her to be today.., and some.. beyond these borders..

And the branches of , again what I call
LE CANADIEN*.., extended far below the 49th parallel.. and through settling in many parts of North America.., left their footprints , ( their signature ) all over the MAPS that reflect their skills as COURREURS DE BOIS ..and VOYAGEURS..*

the trees and forests indeed.. were , like your name suggests..,a very important ingredient of what made them what they were , and to this day ..by extension still are ! ..

TUNED IN TO THE TREES AND FOREST ..and
NATURE herself..

Thanks for the reminder of how the very trees and forest and ROOTS themselves are indeed threatened ...

Take Care...

Village , ( any thoughts on the article as a whole above ? )

Did you read the article entitled ''DON'T FORGET THE COUNTRY ..'' It's a great reminder of how we too often lose contact with the importance of memory itself..,and I sense the article gives many good reasons why we need to go back to our ROOTS , and celebrate the unique contribution that each and every one of our very diverse groups and yes , peoples/nations contributed to the construction thereof and therein*..

Once again .. take care

Village

As to the First Nations languages , we can only attempt at understanding the challenges that it is faced with today in trying to preserve the very tools of MEMORY itself..( the many and varied languages ) that could be transferred to the next generations ...

Hence even more critical , is the very question of ORAL HISTORY TRADITIONS that these PEOPLES had .., along with a powerful connection with NATURE herself.., guaranteeing a survival that has confounded the experts.., as to
how roots are transmitted and kept alive to see another generation .. alive*

Much like how the trees and the forest itself struggles on a daily basis .. to pollinate , to in effect gain a footing with their seeds ingeniously planted in the soil..

Another thought comes to mind WOODY.., as I think of the words in that powerful yearning that came with the song entitled..

LE CANADIEN ERRANT*..,if you've never listened to it , give it a try. It offers up in music , feeling and song the very language of having developed '' a sense of place '', ''a sense of belonging '' and a sense of IDENTITY itself*

Take care ,
Village