• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian History

Dude, be careful, some people might be offended by the historical truth! ;)

Trigger Reaction GIF by MOODMAN


And this lady would likely consider that a job well done.


Last week, New York resident and “decolonization” expert, Nomma Zarubina was arrested in the United States on suspicion of being an agent of the Russian state. Usually, when we think of Russians interfering in our democracy, espionage immediately comes to mind. This does not appear to be the case with Zarubina. This decolonization expert allegedly aimed to build a network of contacts in the U.S. and elsewhere in order to influence, or, perhaps, “decolonize” North American perspectives.

....

Tinfoil time.

It strikes me that it is generally "white settlers", Brits in particular, that are being delegitimized. If the statue is of a British "hero" or "heroine" it is likely to be hauled down. Now us Brits have made a fair number of enemies over the centuries and some of us are of the opinion that many of those enemies were worth making. The people and ideologies we displaced allowed for the rise of freedom, democracies, the abolition of slavery and authoritarianism. Unfortunately not all of those people and ideologies disappeared. We just managed to push them onto the back burner.

We left a lot of resentment simmering. That resentment was, and is available for exploitation by anybody inclined to exploit it.

In my view the Chinese have means, opportunity and motive for exploiting that resentment to delegitimize the Brits and anyone who has anything to do with them - with a strong predilection for targeting the 5 Eyes in particular and the Commonwealth in general.

And in Canada - we have a number of populations that are disinclined towards anglophilia, people who are more than happy to consider 1982 as year zero.
 
And this lady would likely consider that a job well done.




....

Tinfoil time.

It strikes me that it is generally "white settlers", Brits in particular, that are being delegitimized. If the statue is of a British "hero" or "heroine" it is likely to be hauled down. Now us Brits have made a fair number of enemies over the centuries and some of us are of the opinion that many of those enemies were worth making. The people and ideologies we displaced allowed for the rise of freedom, democracies, the abolition of slavery and authoritarianism. Unfortunately not all of those people and ideologies disappeared. We just managed to push them onto the back burner.

We left a lot of resentment simmering. That resentment was, and is available for exploitation by anybody inclined to exploit it.

In my view the Chinese have means, opportunity and motive for exploiting that resentment to delegitimize the Brits and anyone who has anything to do with them - with a strong predilection for targeting the 5 Eyes in particular and the Commonwealth in general.

And in Canada - we have a number of populations that are disinclined towards anglophilia, people who are more than happy to consider 1982 as year zero.

I believe the term you're looking for is 'useful idiots' ;)


A useful idiot or useful fool is a pejorative description of a person, suggesting that the person thinks they are fighting for a cause without fully comprehending the consequences of their actions, and who does not realize they are being manipulated by the cause's leaders or by other political players.

 
The thing is that these things are never binary - good or bad. People in general seem to forget that all countries have done good and bad things to themselves and others.

The question is how long does it need to take before the citizenry forgives the injustices of the past? Or should it? And how does a government (or society) tell its people to forgive without giving ammunition to the folks who don’t want to forgive?
 
The thing is that these things are never binary - good or bad. People in general seem to forget that all countries have done good and bad things to themselves and others.

The question is how long does it need to take before the citizenry forgives the injustices of the past? Or should it? And how does a government (or society) tell its people to forgive without giving ammunition to the folks who don’t want to forgive?
And what to do when many of the “injustices” are in fact manufactured?
 
Like how Sir John A is the architect of everything wrong with First Nation's today while the likes of Laurier, Mackenzie-King, and Pearson get a complete pass for doing SFA to fix the issue. Hmm, is it because they are Liberals and SJAM was a Conservative?
And what to do when many of the “injustices” are in fact manufactured?
 
Except that Sir John wasn’t the architect of everything wrong with First Nations. He attempted to get them the vote…against the wishes of the Liberals. He fed them when the Buffalo herds failed…against the wishes of the Liberals. He set up school at the request of First Nations…against the wishes of the Liberals.

Seeing a pattern, here?
 
the fault of white men of western European origins.
The opposite of that is angst ridden, guilty feeling WHITE liberal nambie pambies that weep at every injustice ever done - except when its done to white people.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr is rolling in his grave. How long until they turn on him?
 
Diefenbaker - Prairie Populist.


Throughout the federal campaign races of 1957 and the later campaign in 1958, Diefenbaker capitalized on his prairie roots to portray himself as a champion of the average Canadian willing to stand up to the Liberal “Ivory Tower Boys” who, he insisted, had grown arrogant and no longer served the best interests of Canadian citizens. His campaign touted a ‘New National Policy,’ and it served as a rallying cry to citizens across the country. Dedicated to delivering on his campaign rhetoric, Diefenbaker’s Speeches from the Throne solidified his vision for ‘One Canada’ outlining the priorities of his Conservative Party to create a modern nation and a prosperous future through membership in the Commonwealth, the development of the richness of Canada’s resources, and the promotion of an united, un-hyphenated citizenry.


The Making of a Prairie Populist

Since Confederation in 1867, those who have governed Canada have worked to realize a cohesive national identity. Founded on a compromise between largely French-speaking Catholic and English-speaking Protestant values, Canada’s foundational national narrative purposely excluded portions of citizens who populated the vast land. It was Diefenbaker’s personal experience with life on the margins of the ‘two founding nations’ narrative that compelled him to advocate for a more inclusive Canada with protected rights for its citizens. His political journey began in 1920, when he joined the village council in Wakaw, Saskatchewan, but it would be a long and often disappointing road to the House of Commons. He did not succeed in any of federal elections where he was often a candidate until 1940, and then he served as a Tory backbencher for sixteen years before he was finally successful in becoming the party leader.

Before this chapter explores the language of Diefenbaker’s Speeches from the Throne and his Leaders’ Day replies, it is necessary to consider, even if briefly, an overview of the Canadian political and social climate that set the stage for Diefenbaker’s success in the election of 1957. Timing is everything, especially in politics, and this was most certainly true for John Diefenbaker. If he would have won any of the multitude of elections he had contested between 1925, when he first ran for federal office, and 1956, when he became the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, he might not have found his way to the office of the Prime Minister, his ultimate ambition since his humble childhood in Saskatchewan.

As Canada, still a relatively young country in the early 1950s, entered the modern era following the Second World War, there was a “proliferation of writing on the philosophies and principles of Liberalism and Conservatism in Canada” which “reveals the extent to which political thinkers and politicians believed they were in the midst of a period of ideological flux.” Beginning in the 1950s, the Conservative narrative was re-energized, due in part to the new writing of Canadian history, specifically, the publication of Donald G. Creighton’s biography of Sir John A. Macdonald, The Young Politician, and The Old Chieftain, which “defined the conservative view of Canada to a whole generation.”Diefenbaker realized that Canadians, who were no longer British citizens after the passage of the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1947 and under threat of cultural and economic absorption into the fast emerging world superpower the United States, were looking for a home grown narrative with which to identify. Canada was changing and Diefenbaker’s narrative attracted many, specifically Western Canadians but others, too, yearning for a new, modern, inclusive national identity.

In the prosperous years following the Second World War, Canadians did not think of Macdonald as an “architect of genocide” as some do in 2020. Therefore, there was no irony for the public that Diefenbaker harkened to the legacy of Macdonald while espousing a vision and rhetoric for an inclusive Canada which included “unhyphenated Canadians” of varying ethnicities and religions. A cursory glance at the legislation proposed by each federal leader highlights this stark contrast in defining a “Canadian”. Macdonald introduced the Electoral Franchise Act and Chinese Immigration Act in 1885 in an effort to ensure “…that the new polity of Canada was to be for European men who owned property”. By contrast, Diefenbaker assigned his Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (and Indian Affairs), Ellen Fairclough, the first female cabinet minister in the history of Canada’s parliament, to introduce regulations that would eliminate racial discrimination from Canada’s Immigration legislation.

Diefenbaker biographer, Peter C. Newman, remarked at the time that in the post-World War II era of “the easy materialism of the lush Fifties, many Canadians were groping for some deeper national purpose. John Diefenbaker successfully drew upon this widespread frustration to create a shared vision of a more vigorous and more noble future.” The prairie grown populist capitalized on any opportunity to launch into a targeted speech to appeal to his audience. Cara Spittal, in her Ph.D thesis “The Diefenbaker Moment” highlights Diefenbaker’s experience as a successful defence lawyer in which he selected high profile cases where he could represent the underdog. “Experience had taught him that the greatest speeches—political or otherwise— were stories designed in the manner of dramas that involved an introduction, a problem and conflict, periods of rising and falling action, a climax, and a resolution.” In contrast to the Liberal party of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, Diefenbaker clearly understood the importance of rhetoric and speeches, and embraced every opportunity to engage with citizens.

In December 1956, Diefenbaker became the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party after poor health lead to the resignation of his predecessor, George Drew. Drew had played a significant role in the Pipeline Debate of 1956 and Diefenbaker claimed this victory as his. The pipeline debate represents a watershed moment for the long reigning Liberal party because in an effort to begin construction on the pipeline that would carry natural gas from Alberta to Montreal by June of 1956, the Liberal party implemented a time limit on debate for the bill introduced to Parliament. The Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Act, 1956 proposed the creation of a Crown Corporation that would construct the problematic portion of the pipeline through the Canadian Shield. The Crown Corporation was necessary to demonstrate Canadian ownership as Canadians were becoming more aware of the extent to which the country’s economy was owned and controlled by foreign, specifically American companies. Diefenbaker seized the opportunity, citing Liberal arrogance by highlighting the party’s disregard for Parliamentary institutions. The Pipeline Debate played a significant role in the defeat of the Liberal party in 1957, giving Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservatives a minority government.
 
Quite a number of his fellow conservative politicians either didn’t like him or actively hated him. On the other hand, when you see how Trump belittles Canada and, particularly Trudeau, if Dief had been the PM today, he wouldn’t have taken any of that crap. For all his faults he truly loved Canada and being a Canadian.
 
Quite a number of his fellow conservative politicians either didn’t like him or actively hated him. On the other hand, when you see how Trump belittles Canada and, particularly Trudeau, if Dief had been the PM today, he wouldn’t have taken any of that crap. For all his faults he truly loved Canada and being a Canadian.
We won't mention all the wisecracking and bullshit trudeau and his liberals have been tossing at Trump and comparing the Conservatives to him for the last two years then shall we?
 
Very true. On the other hand I haven’t heard of Trudeau dissing the U.S. as a country either.
 
I was listening to a podcast yesterday about - of all people - Drakul Vlad, Son of the Dragon. He did some horrible shit including impaling people as a warning to others. He has been castigated and vilified by some historians.
I also listened to a podcast about Ghengis Khan - castigated and vilified by historians.

I have not listened to a podcast about Saladin - you know that virtuous Muslim leader who drove the evil Christians from the Holy Land? He beheaded Templars and Hospitallers.

My point is all these people mentioned can be vilified or glorified - Vlad is a national hero in Romania and Ghengis is a hero in Mongolia.

It all depends on context - and telling the whole story.
 
Very true. On the other hand I haven’t heard of Trudeau dissing the U.S. as a country either.
He did the other day when he complained they weren't feminine enough to elect a female POTUS and that they were behind the times. Implying they weren't DEI enough because they were smart enough not to elect Harris. Basically calling the US a bunch of misogynist neanderthals when they picked substance over gender.
 
Very true. On the other hand I haven’t heard of Trudeau dissing the U.S. as a country either.

It's in several newspapers so it's unlikely that Trump won't find out about it, which isn't going to be good for Canada...


What was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thinking when, out of nowhere, he criticized Americans for never having elected a female president?

That’s their business, not ours.

Trudeau’s gratuitous shot did nothing to advance Canada’s case in the face of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump’s plan to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports as soon as he becomes president on Jan. 20.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who chairs the premiers’ Council of the Federation, said the premiers let Trudeau know during a virtual meeting with the PM that his comments were “not helpful at all.”

 
It's in several newspapers so it's unlikely that Trump won't find out about it, which isn't going to be good for Canada...


What was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thinking when, out of nowhere, he criticized Americans for never having elected a female president?

That’s their business, not ours.

Trudeau’s gratuitous shot did nothing to advance Canada’s case in the face of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump’s plan to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports as soon as he becomes president on Jan. 20.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who chairs the premiers’ Council of the Federation, said the premiers let Trudeau know during a virtual meeting with the PM that his comments were “not helpful at all.”

Fair enough.
 
I for one can't recall a single time in the last decade the words coming out of that man's mouth could have been considered helpful.

He is the messiah. We are the ungrateful fringe minority, with unacceptable views.
He’s not the Messiah.

He’s a very naughty boy
posts brian GIF
 
Back
Top