In Defence of Civic Nationalism ...
Michael Chong resigns his Post over Harper's Quebec gambit citing his belief in Civic Nationalism - and not Ethnic Nationalism.
It's nice to see that there are some (real) tories in the CPC who have retained their conservative conscience and an understanding as to the values that Canada was founded upon.
Kudos to Mr. Chong!
posted by Aeneas the Younger @ 7:59 pm
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Well!
You Johnny One Time!
You've been back a spell and you've not visited me?
I will teach you what it means to trifle with a young girl's heart.
Okay, slight hyperbole on the 'young' part, but nonetheless, I pine for you El Barbudo.
VD
PS New digs, same wanton and lasciviously lewd stroppy cow though.
He didn't tear up his card or give up his seat though did he?
Aeneas,
I find myself being of two minds as regards traditional (read British-inspired) Canadian nationalism. While I'm a great admirer of all traditions dating back to Empire and Commonwealth, I can't help but ponder the ill effects of strident Canadian nationalism.
On a theoretical level, nationalism can serve as a great and positive unifying force among peoples, ethnic groups and lesser political entities within a common political framework.
However, taken to extremes, it becomes a divisive concept -- US vs. THEM, Canadian vs. American, etc. Further along that road, it can potentially take on evil connotations as was manifested by Nazi Germany.
In other words, it is one thing to cherish and respect our fine traditions and heritage. It is quite another to overemphasize the negatives aspects which can also be equated with the Maude Barlow/Mel Hurtig school of pan-Canadian nationalism.
(Perhaps I'm stretching to mix apples with oranges but there you have it.)
Wizard:
You are confusing "ethnic" nationalism with "civic" nationalism - which are quite different things.
The German tradition, which still has force of law today, stresses the common "blood" of ethinic Germanism.
The British and Canadian tradition celebrates the CIVIC values that we subscribe to as citizens. They are: Loyalty, Civil Society, Rule of Law, Liberty, Personal Rights and Obligations, Property Rights, and Representative Democracy. None of these, including the Monarchy, has anything to do with ethnicity or bloodlines. The fact that the Mother Parliament and the Dominion Parliaments have to agree to acclaim a new sovereign means that within the construct of loyalty, the people have the right to approve, dissaprove of the new King/Queen. I use this example as a counter to the republican myth that the Monarchy is an ethnically-biased model. It is not.
James II was by-passed by Parliament in 1689. Edward VIII was forced to Abdicate. The House of Windsor is multi-ethnic, and BOTH the United Kingdom and Canada are multi-cultural societies. This is all part of the British Civic heritage. Which is also the Canadian Civic Heritage.
This heritage is what we were founded upon, and it is what differentiates us from the Americans. It is not a negative nationalism ("Canadians are not American ...") at all; in fact, it is one of the clearest and most indentifible Nationalism of them all. The Liberals have merely allowed Canadians to become confused and ignorant about it since 1956. Ever talk to a Canadian Soldier, Tar, or Airman? They know who they are.
Your link has expired or migrated, Aeneas.
I suspect you'll find there are many CPC MPs who are upstanding citizens of principle. There's a few zealots and a number of old-style Reformers as well. That is the nature of party politics.
If you did a tally of any of political party with elected MPs, you'll find there's a spectrum of opinions and convictions. That's not a bad thing.
Good luck in your battle against the evil NeoCons but when you grow tired of beating your strawman, what bogeyman will you tackle next?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home