Today: about Canadian nationalism and identity, how Canadians perceive themselves and how their perception changes due to both domestic and foreign affairs. English-Canadian nationalism :

Today: about Canadian nationalism and identity, how Canadians perceive themselves and how their perception changes due to both domestic and foreign affairs.
English-Canadian nationalism: intelligentsia's reaction to Americanization and the attempt to reclaim Canadian sovereignty during the 1960s and 1970s.
This non-european nationalism was indeed an issue of colonialism, not only because nationalism was born in Europe but because much of non-European world was colonized. When British investment and trade with Canada decline, Canada diverted its focus from cross-Atlantic relations to that with its neighbor, the US, trying to catch up with it, while also pursuing sovereignty from Britain through the very institutions it had inherited.
Now British preferences were replaced with American ones, and the WWII created “special relationship” between the 2 countries due to political and economic integration.
However the Cold War had much of a different effect. Even though its tensions increased the need for close American-Canadian relationship in order to ensure prosperity and stability, such alarming American actions as McCartyism (which played the role in death of Canada’s ambassador, Hebert Norman, in Egypt), the increase in militarism and pressure on Canada to adopt nuclear weapons, were creating a budding hatred for the US.

English-Canadian new nationalism started in 1965 with George Grant’s Lament for a Nation: The Death of Canadian Nationalism. In this book he attacked Liberal continentalism, Conservative weakness, and aggressive American liberal ideology as well as technology and resource exploitation for "the end of Canada as a

sovereign state" and the loss of a British-Canadian national project north of the 49th parallel. This masterpience shook the minds of many Canadians who referred to it as the most important book they ever read in their life. And it is really incredible because by saying that Canada is dead, Grant was creating a new country with a new consciousness and feeling of united identity.
60s were the time when the Peaceful Kingdom of Canada was heavily influenced by the American investment. They WERE beneficial but American corporations took too much control over vital areas of Canadian economy, its media, films, music and TV programs prevented Canadian producers from having access to their own marketplace. " Canadian standards and values" were threatened. "By 1964, 80 per cent of long-term foreign investment in Canada was American’’

Foreign control accounted for approximately "60 per cent of Canada's manufacturing industry, 75 per cent of her petroleum and natural gas industry and 60 per cent of her mining and smelting industry "

To give you a more understandable example: there was an influx of American faculty who obviously reflected American interests: from 50 papers on race relations, only 5 dealt with distinctly Canadian racial difficulties, while all the others covered the topic of the American Negro.

Unhappy with the government's failure to enact moderate reforms and increasingly concerned about the 1oss of sovereignty, sorne English-Canadian nationalists attempted to consolidate popular nationalism into political activism: Canada was to be a better America. People were gathering in Montreal to celebrate Expo 67 and "it became fashionable to have a few Canadian books on the coffee table, or to casually mention the latest Atwood or Aquin in conversations"

The US were increasingly seen as "Master State' of "overt totalitarianism," a machine for greed" driven by its "instinct for continental domination" and "general imperial... cast of mind"
Having mentioned Atwood, its interesting to see how she depicted the US: (slide)

However, its interesting to note that in this whole atmosphere of Anti-Americanism, Canadians themselves were actually the part of what they were reproaching: Canadian production and sale of weapons to the US, made Canada e great benefactor of and contributor to the Vietnam war, for example. So actually, the only rationale for this new nationalism was not to be Anti-American but to be pro-Canadian!
And here it was Trudeau who played a great role in trying to prevent Canada from bending to American pressures, while turning to his own country in order to solve its internal controversies. Elected in 1968 as a leader of the Liberal Party, Trudeau had a clear idea of how to “fix” the problems of Canadian nationalism. He saw the division between French and English Canadians as a result of their disparate nationalisms – one focused on Quebec's unique history and culture, the other – on cultural and historical links to Britain. Both were indeed legitimate but by the 1960s it was clear that something had to bring the two founding peoples of Canada together by eliminating the two nationalisms in Canada and advocating for multiculturalism. Such acts as the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution and the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were also meant to focus Canadians' identity on themselves, rather than on international or regional identities.
By the end of his time as Prime Minister in 1984, though Canada was a very different place than it had been fifteen years earlier, it was still one divided between French and English. By and large, English Canadians seem to have adopted his idea of multiculturalism but integrated it into their own national identity rather than step away from it as Trudeau had hoped. Quebec had narrowly avoided voting in favour of leaving Confederation in 1980 and still remained perilously separated from the rest of the country. Trudeau had remade Canada but was unable to unite it. Nevertheless, he was successful in undoing the British-Canadian identity and replacing it with something perhaps more uniquely Canadian.

However, it was also another impetus for Canadians to rethink their identity. It happened after 9/11 and this date signified a beginning of another round for Canadian nationalism.
What is interesting is that there are two opposing view about Canadian attitude to the Americans after 9/11. The first one claims that the Canadians saw it coming and that the tragedy entailed great Anti-Americanism instead of sympathy, while the second view claims that the Canadians became referring to the Americans as their brothers (by saying “We are all Americans now”), having understood that they can also become victims of a terrorist attack.

So, talking about the first position, its important to mention that Canadian sympathy was indeed sincere. Canadians immediately responded to the emergency needs of those Americans whose flights were diverted and they were personally upset about the tragedy.
Nevertheless, as I said, there were also completely different views, advocating for the fact that Americans are reaping the fruits of their crimes against humanity. THAT was a phrase by Saddam Hussein himself, however there was no need to go to Bagdad to hear such a view: anti-american sentiment was around any colledge campus and was as popular with Canadians as Starbucks lattes. Anti Americanism became as much a fashion as wearing jeans.
And although there were a few Canadian intellectuals, whose views reminded that of Noam Chomsky, there was little evidence of anti-americanism in the media coverage during the first few weeks of the catastrophe, what ones again underlines Canadian tolerance and sympathy. People mainly believed that terrorism should be stopped and there were even special student support seminars organized for those who felt especially traumatized by these emotional news.

And here, exactly as it happened in the 60s, the government had to step in in order to cognitively mobilize people. Chretein’s government decided to adopt US intelligence and security standards. Canada started advocating for the engagement of the US in the war on terror, however, Canadian leaders understood the necessity to put canada’s interests foremost.
Even though there is a tendency for Canada to picture itself as a moral superpower, it came to realize that on major issues its more beneficial for it to follow Washington, however, it doesn’t mean that Canada will lose its voice on such issues as global warming or racism, Canada just has to raise its voice!
9/11 Indeed marked a change in Canadian-American relationship: instead of hating America for its self-imposed patronage, Canada understood that even though self-interests of the two countries can not be called identical, there is a number of certain shared values (take for instance security), and instead of being consumed with anti-americanism, it might be woth turning to “pro-canadianism”.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-04