I like Stephen Taylor a lot. If I ever vote Tory it will be in large part due to his sensible arguments - even when he is rabidly partisan and a big time man hugger of our Prime Minister. But today he fell off a ledge and found himself in a nowhere land where factual history morphs into branding in the most bizarre way:
Conservatives would remind Canadians that our country was born out of a pioneer spirit, hundreds of years ago, of brave individuals that carved out the wilderness and thrived in it. The Hudson’s Bay ad echoes this traditional vision of Canada. Of Canada, Conservatives emphasize it’s history of fighting for King and country through early wars in Africa in the late nineteenth century and in Europe in the first great war. As Conservatives, we remember and acknowledge that we answered the call among nations to fight tyranny and totalitarianism in the second world war. Today, we recognize that the peace cannot be kept if it is not first made. Our vision of Canada is one of individual determination and achievement over mushy collectivism. It was roughneck young explorers that mapped out the great expanse in the northwest of our country in search of new capitalist opportunities in fur, timber, ore and minerals.
This is one of the silliest things about Canadian history that I have ever read but, because it is Mr. Taylor, one that I am more disappointed in than I can just dismiss. He argues, as the current crop of partisan Federal Tories do, that the world toggle switched with the election of Pierre Trudeau and that Mr. Harper is simply putting the toggle switch back in its original resting position. That is silly.
While some of it is true, much is not because we do not live in a land whose history is drawn in the crayon. It ignores that Canada's pioneers were given free land grants as part of state development and population of vast areas. Exploration, as with the Lewis and Clark expedition to the south, was a state process of asset identification. We had servitude under absentee landlords. Early Canadians huddled near military and civic installations safe in the knowledge both that the Empire would provide and that peace order and good government was the way forward. We relied on racism, wobbled on fighting the tyrants and the effect of totalitarianism before we took on the Nazis. By times, we did not believe that much in freedom for all.
It is true that there was a lot good before 1967. In that first 100 years of Canada, the Conservative Party ruled for 45 years including the 4 year coalition period. It was hardly an era defined by Tories. Like reality, it was mixed and complex and not easy to put your finger on. Great country. Ugly and troubled past. Just like anywhere.
Comments
David Janes - October 2, 2009 8:40 PM
Oooo, I'll be back tomorrow to comment on this one lol
Alan - October 2, 2009 11:32 PM
Have a good slug of maple syrup and put on your tweed vest.
PofK - October 3, 2009 10:42 AM
WL MacKenzie King brought Canada in and out of the fight against naziism.
St. Laurent brought Canada into Korea.
Chretien sent us into Afghanistan.
Borden was there for WW1 but was was that really about?
As for that vision against mushy collectivism; thank you Mr. Taylor for clarifying that the neo-conservatives do not subscribe to the values of citizenship and samaritanism that built Canada as distinct from the USA.
Alan - October 3, 2009 10:44 AM
Not to mention distinct from Peru.
I think the silliest thing is the degree of abstraction from the details of history it takes to even assert such a take on history.
PofK - October 3, 2009 1:37 PM
Yes Peru and many others whose systems of values led to conquest rather than treaty and trade.
David Janes - October 4, 2009 3:04 PM
Now this is just weird.
I love PofK's accusations of un-Canadianness, plus the use of the scary "neo-" prefix. Woooo, is it Halloween already?
The only way history can be viewed, I think Al, is an abstraction. Otherwise it's just a bunch of stuff that happened, or a map as big as the geography.
Alan - October 4, 2009 5:23 PM
Degrees of abstraction are one rhetorical tool but have to be handled with skill. The current CPC line that they are the party of "history" while the Grits are the party of Trudeau and ahistory is bizarre and transparent. If Ottawa had not been marginalized over the last few decades, this would appear popularly as something of a national joke.
But I agree - there is no such thing as unCanadian. That is another construct only the current crop of Tories seem to be able to use with a straight face.
Ben (The Tiger) - October 5, 2009 2:48 AM
The Tories were the natural governing party until (a) they hanged Louis Riel and (b) they took down and destroyed Sir Hector-Louis Langevin, their Public Works minister, who hoped to succeed Macdonald. (And probably was best-qualified to do so.)
Borden won with an alliance with Quebec nationalists. Diefenbaker won large enough in English Canada not to need it in 1958, but he allied with the Duplessis machine. And Mulroney won as a native son and with Quebec nationalists.
I'm not quite sure what Harper is up to -- he may now be trying to win without more of Quebec than he now has. And with the Beatles vote.
And who knows? Anything can happen.
Hans - October 5, 2009 9:07 AM
Its part of the Tories latest attempts at revisionist history. See the book from which Taylor gets his talking/blogging points, from a top Harper adviser: http://www.amazon.ca/Fearful-Symmetry-Canadas-Founding-Values/dp/1554701880. Its all part of Harper's plan to mane Canada more "conservative", whatever that is....
PofK - October 5, 2009 12:27 PM
Well the last time I checked the conservatives are neither the PCs nor the Reform Party so I think neo is a reasonable prefix.
Mr Taylor begs to imply that the CPC value set is aligned with that "pioneer spirit" that built Canada. I didn't say that the CPC is uncanadian, just that Mr. Taylor's hearts and minds soundbite is dubious when you look at the history of Canada that has been guided by a lot of mushy collectivism and much less nationalistic yee-ha!