"IF YOU DESTROY YOUR PAST, YOU ALSO DESTROY YOUR FUTURE."
Dr. Zahi Hawass Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments, Egypt
"YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE SAND WILL HIDE IN THE WAY OF SECRETS"
Dr. Zahi Hawass, Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments, Egypt
If Dr.Hawass's words are true, then they don't just apply to Egypt. Canadians must also be vigilant in uncovering and understanding their full heritage -- owning the past we can be proud of and owning the past we would change if we could. (Not picking and choosing aspects of our identity that absolve us of responsibilities.)
Only then can we embrace our full destiny, taking our full place in the world.
Saturday 31 May 2008
Thursday 29 May 2008
Removing Canadian Context in Media
Is it just my perception? Or are our major media outlets are doing all they can to water down Canada's political and cultural uniqueness?
I'd love to hear your perspective on this. If you can think of more instances of the obliteration of Canadian institutions or historical links in the popular media, please add your comments. And include your suggestions for halting this trend.
I plan to add to this list as I see more instances of this watering down of our heritage by the major print, radio and television outlets. Here's what I've come up with in the past hour:
The use of the word “May Long Weekend” instead of "Victoria Day Weekend" in media and advertising. A few newscasts did wish viewers “Happy Victoria Day‘ on Monday 19th May, but advertisers and most news reporters continue to use the bland and meaningless term "May Long Weekend."
Canadian media personalities who use who say ‘Loo tennant” instead of Left-ennant (Yes the word is spelled Lieutenant, and that may confuse a grade two student, but if you are old enough to report on Canadian issues, you should have figured out Canadian English.)
The use of the word ‘officer” instead of 'member' when referring to a member of a Canadian police force. Alternatively, Canadians broadcasters could use rank eg. 'constable', 'inspector', 'commissioner' when referring to individual members.
The use of the generic and vague word 'military' instead of “Canadian Armed Forces” when referring to the Canadian Armed forces.
The fact that two of Canada's three major television networks did not cover Prime Minister Harper’s meeting with the PM of Great Britain. Nor did they cover Harper's audience with the Queen on their National News broadcasts tonight. Only CTV showed video clips of the royal audience and only CTV covered the official London leg of the trip in any detail.
I also can't find much of anything about today's meeting between the Prime Ministers on any of the websites of Canada's national newspapers, although that could change by morning. That's truly puzzling, because the Governor General received ample attention when she met with the President of France a couple of weeks ago.
Is there an agenda here? Or is this just sloppy reporting? What do you think?
I'd love to hear your perspective on this. If you can think of more instances of the obliteration of Canadian institutions or historical links in the popular media, please add your comments. And include your suggestions for halting this trend.
I plan to add to this list as I see more instances of this watering down of our heritage by the major print, radio and television outlets. Here's what I've come up with in the past hour:
The use of the word “May Long Weekend” instead of "Victoria Day Weekend" in media and advertising. A few newscasts did wish viewers “Happy Victoria Day‘ on Monday 19th May, but advertisers and most news reporters continue to use the bland and meaningless term "May Long Weekend."
Canadian media personalities who use who say ‘Loo tennant” instead of Left-ennant (Yes the word is spelled Lieutenant, and that may confuse a grade two student, but if you are old enough to report on Canadian issues, you should have figured out Canadian English.)
The use of the word ‘officer” instead of 'member' when referring to a member of a Canadian police force. Alternatively, Canadians broadcasters could use rank eg. 'constable', 'inspector', 'commissioner' when referring to individual members.
The use of the generic and vague word 'military' instead of “Canadian Armed Forces” when referring to the Canadian Armed forces.
The fact that two of Canada's three major television networks did not cover Prime Minister Harper’s meeting with the PM of Great Britain. Nor did they cover Harper's audience with the Queen on their National News broadcasts tonight. Only CTV showed video clips of the royal audience and only CTV covered the official London leg of the trip in any detail.
I also can't find much of anything about today's meeting between the Prime Ministers on any of the websites of Canada's national newspapers, although that could change by morning. That's truly puzzling, because the Governor General received ample attention when she met with the President of France a couple of weeks ago.
Is there an agenda here? Or is this just sloppy reporting? What do you think?
Wednesday 21 May 2008
What I Sent the Globe and Mail
I never heard back from the Globe and Mail about this submission to their Op-Ed Page. Fortunately, I have a blog.
Is Time Running Out for Canada's Republicans?
Well, this was the week for republican rants in The Globe and Mail. Allan Fotheringham (05 May 08), gave a dubious account of history that linked Canada's Crown to the mess Mugabe's making in Zimbabwe. Then Bloc Leader, Gilles Duceppe, attacked the Governor General for doing her job by representing all Canadians, including Francophones outside Quebec.
So what's causing these outbursts from depression babies like Fotheringham (only six years younger than the Queen) and proto-boomers like Duceppe (who's turns 61 in July)? Could time is running out on their dreams of re-creating Canada/Quebec in their own images?
It appears that, even in like countries like Australia, supposedly way ahead of Canada on its path to a presidential utopia, republicans are in trouble. This showed up in my in-box this morning:
"The West Australian 2006 survey of youth attitudes showed that support for a republic in the 18 to 30 age group had fallen to 38%. Then the Morgan poll of 22 February 2005 found that only 37% of those aged 14-17 were in favour of a republic. Now in 2008, this has fallen to a dismal 23%, with 64% supporting the constitutional monarchy and 13% undecided. Some undecided voters may be just unwilling to reveal their intentions; in any event they tend to vote No in a referendum. And it is not only that young people are disinterested in a republic. It is that they are positively interested in their past and their heritage. The republican attempt to shred our flag has collapsed. It looks now as if the republican attempt to shred our constitution is going the same way. The overall result is equally dismal for republicans. Support for a republic is at 45%, the lowest for 15 years.
There are signs the same trend is showing itself in Canada. For example, a 2005 Globe and Mail poll put support for the Monarchy at an unprecedented 82%. A 2007 Angus Reid poll found that youth supported the monarchy more strongly than Canadians aged 35-54. (This increase in support among youth was evident even though the survey questions have been attacked as biased and confusing. For example, Angus Reid asked Canadians if they wished to end formal ties to the British Monarchy. In fact, the Queen ended formal links between between the Canadian and British Monarchies when she signed the Constitution Act of 1982)
Despite their negative nit-picking at our Constitution for the last 40 years, republicans haven't succeeding in convincing enough Canadians that their vision is best for Canada. They claim to support democracy and accountability. So why is it that they never mention this article in the Constitution Act 1982?
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
In plain English: The Crown's place in Canada cannot be changed without approval from the Senate, House of Commons and every provincial legislature.
Since in some regions, like Atlantic Canada, support for the Crown reaches over 80%, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Besides, on her worst day, the Queen's poll results are usually higher than the Prime Minister's.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the man who reformed of Canada's Divorce Act and legalized homosexuality, presided over the Repatriation of the Constitution. Trudeau was clearly not afraid of unpopularity or change. But in 1982, when he had his chance to weaken the Crown's place in the Constitution, he entrenched it. Why?
Maybe after years of governing this country, Mr. Trudeau came to the same conclusion the Fathers of Confederation came to in 1867: That remaining a Constitutional Monarchy with a shared Head of State is the best path for Canada.
Canada could have become a republic in 1867. It could also have become part of the United States. (Some British bureaucrats wanted to buy peace and trade with the Yanks at almost any price.) But those options were rejected. Not by the British. They were rejected by Canadians.
Canadians, not British bureaucrats, came up with the vision of nationhood for Canada, fully equal to Britain, and a shared Crown. They believed they could retain their cultural, economic, and political connections and still be a sovereign nation. That success of that vision led to the birth of dozens of nations. And eventually to the creation of the Commonwealth. Canadians should take great pride in this.
The guy who convinced Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier to pursue this dream was Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt. In the 19th Century, Galt was as controversial and enigmatic as Trudeau was in the 20th.
By the time Galt died in 1893, this one time annexationist and rebel, was as attached to his radical new vision of reforming the British Empire into a Federation (decades before there was a Commonwealth) as he had been to federating British North America in the 1850's and 1860's.
The Fathers of Confederation considered many options for Canada. But they came to the conclusion that a federated empire with a shared Crown was the best political, economic and cultural path for Canada.
Could they have stumbled on something that took psychologists like Abraham Maslow another 60 years to discover: that self-actualized, creative people flourish in an interdependent state that values relationships and gives them leverage in the world?
Maybe sharing a Head of State isn't a sign of immaturity. If so, then monarchists may have a broader view of Canada's place in the world. And maybe, just maybe, their eyes are more firmly fixed on Canada's future.
-30-
Is Time Running Out for Canada's Republicans?
Well, this was the week for republican rants in The Globe and Mail. Allan Fotheringham (05 May 08), gave a dubious account of history that linked Canada's Crown to the mess Mugabe's making in Zimbabwe. Then Bloc Leader, Gilles Duceppe, attacked the Governor General for doing her job by representing all Canadians, including Francophones outside Quebec.
So what's causing these outbursts from depression babies like Fotheringham (only six years younger than the Queen) and proto-boomers like Duceppe (who's turns 61 in July)? Could time is running out on their dreams of re-creating Canada/Quebec in their own images?
It appears that, even in like countries like Australia, supposedly way ahead of Canada on its path to a presidential utopia, republicans are in trouble. This showed up in my in-box this morning:
"The West Australian 2006 survey of youth attitudes showed that support for a republic in the 18 to 30 age group had fallen to 38%. Then the Morgan poll of 22 February 2005 found that only 37% of those aged 14-17 were in favour of a republic. Now in 2008, this has fallen to a dismal 23%, with 64% supporting the constitutional monarchy and 13% undecided. Some undecided voters may be just unwilling to reveal their intentions; in any event they tend to vote No in a referendum. And it is not only that young people are disinterested in a republic. It is that they are positively interested in their past and their heritage. The republican attempt to shred our flag has collapsed. It looks now as if the republican attempt to shred our constitution is going the same way. The overall result is equally dismal for republicans. Support for a republic is at 45%, the lowest for 15 years.
There are signs the same trend is showing itself in Canada. For example, a 2005 Globe and Mail poll put support for the Monarchy at an unprecedented 82%. A 2007 Angus Reid poll found that youth supported the monarchy more strongly than Canadians aged 35-54. (This increase in support among youth was evident even though the survey questions have been attacked as biased and confusing. For example, Angus Reid asked Canadians if they wished to end formal ties to the British Monarchy. In fact, the Queen ended formal links between between the Canadian and British Monarchies when she signed the Constitution Act of 1982)
Despite their negative nit-picking at our Constitution for the last 40 years, republicans haven't succeeding in convincing enough Canadians that their vision is best for Canada. They claim to support democracy and accountability. So why is it that they never mention this article in the Constitution Act 1982?
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
In plain English: The Crown's place in Canada cannot be changed without approval from the Senate, House of Commons and every provincial legislature.
Since in some regions, like Atlantic Canada, support for the Crown reaches over 80%, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Besides, on her worst day, the Queen's poll results are usually higher than the Prime Minister's.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the man who reformed of Canada's Divorce Act and legalized homosexuality, presided over the Repatriation of the Constitution. Trudeau was clearly not afraid of unpopularity or change. But in 1982, when he had his chance to weaken the Crown's place in the Constitution, he entrenched it. Why?
Maybe after years of governing this country, Mr. Trudeau came to the same conclusion the Fathers of Confederation came to in 1867: That remaining a Constitutional Monarchy with a shared Head of State is the best path for Canada.
Canada could have become a republic in 1867. It could also have become part of the United States. (Some British bureaucrats wanted to buy peace and trade with the Yanks at almost any price.) But those options were rejected. Not by the British. They were rejected by Canadians.
Canadians, not British bureaucrats, came up with the vision of nationhood for Canada, fully equal to Britain, and a shared Crown. They believed they could retain their cultural, economic, and political connections and still be a sovereign nation. That success of that vision led to the birth of dozens of nations. And eventually to the creation of the Commonwealth. Canadians should take great pride in this.
The guy who convinced Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier to pursue this dream was Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt. In the 19th Century, Galt was as controversial and enigmatic as Trudeau was in the 20th.
By the time Galt died in 1893, this one time annexationist and rebel, was as attached to his radical new vision of reforming the British Empire into a Federation (decades before there was a Commonwealth) as he had been to federating British North America in the 1850's and 1860's.
The Fathers of Confederation considered many options for Canada. But they came to the conclusion that a federated empire with a shared Crown was the best political, economic and cultural path for Canada.
Could they have stumbled on something that took psychologists like Abraham Maslow another 60 years to discover: that self-actualized, creative people flourish in an interdependent state that values relationships and gives them leverage in the world?
Maybe sharing a Head of State isn't a sign of immaturity. If so, then monarchists may have a broader view of Canada's place in the world. And maybe, just maybe, their eyes are more firmly fixed on Canada's future.
-30-
Monday 12 May 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)