CRINGEWORTHY? HELL, YEAH, HE'S CRINGEWORTHY.

Many people find him off-putting. They call him and his wife cringeworthy. And he is, without a doubt. His trip to India a few years ago, complete with family dress-up as a well-to-do Indian family going to a wedding was, frankly, embarrassing. He has a tendency to smile too much, to pose for selfies with people, to sound giddy and over-joyed when conversing with others. His speeches, especially in the early years of his government, were often too much laced with hyperbole and over-praising ( remember his toast to the Queen in year one of his government?). Opponents take these things and claim that he is too child-like and just "not ready" to govern.

Recent incidents are more serious. His "brownface" photos, taken 18 years ago when he was dressing up for a costume party, were offensive to most. He shouldn't have done that, but I won't say more at this point for risk of becoming a hypocrite myself. And the SNC-Lavalin affair was a very serious mistake, although to call the incident a "scandal" is far too extreme. ( If it is scandalous, let the RCMP investigate and bring charges: hasn't happened yet. ) The departure of high profile female cabinet ministers and a MP didn't help his cause.

He flipped on the issue of electoral reform. He infamously claimed that the 2015 election would be "the last under the First Past The Post" system. Then, he dropped electoral reform like a hot potato without much explanation. People have, quite correctly, pointed out this as a serious error in judgement. He should not have said what he said, but, when the phrase was out there, he should have at least had the pretense of investigating electoral reform instead of shelving it completely.

And his government claims to be in favour of action on climate change and the environment. Yet, his government bought the floundering Trans Mountain pipeline project, in which an existing pipeline would be doubled in capacity. Environmentalists and many First Nations howl with anger at this, claiming that he can't be serious about climate change and still own a petroleum pipeline.

All these seem to suggest that this man should not get any support in this upcoming election. We should not vote for him. We should send him packing.

I say that this is utter nonsense. He should be given one more chance. We should vote for him and his party. Why? Let me explain.

On the issue of his cringeworthiness. Yes, it's embarrassing, but so what ? Others dress up to try to curry favour with various groups at various times. Have you seen photos of the other politicians at the Calgary Stampede ? Or when they are being accorded a high honour by a First Nation ? Or attending an international conference or summit. Trudeau tends to be a bit over the top, but that's because he likes costumes. How many of you like costumes? Sure, there's a line to be drawn and he's gone over it, but that's not enough to hang him. And smiling and selfies ? Come on …. he's friendly and a "people-person" … nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's a strength.

On the issue of his "brownface" photos. They were apparently taken in 2001 … 18 years ago. He was 28 years old, not a kid to be sure, but still a young man. He probably only had a vague idea that he was going to go into politics back then, and probably didn't have a firm idea that he would eventually become Prime Minister. He was determined to win a costume party contest. He was single and posed with several nice looking young women: was he hoping to get laid? Without a doubt. Attitudes toward such costumes weren't as firm almost 20 years ago as they are now. I did it back in the 70's with the same intent as Trudeau probably had. Was he ( and I ) trying to provoke some white supremacist agenda? Hell, no. Should he ( or I ) have done it back in the day. Also, hell no. But he ( and I ) did and apologies have come out and embarrassment has been registered. Will it happen again ? Hell no, it won't. So, move on.

On the issue of the SNC-Lavalin affair, I have already written. To summarize, he did something that has been done before ( trying to get a "deferred prosecution agreement" ) for SNC in order to help that company stay in Quebec and preserve jobs. Should he have pressured his Attorney-General to assist in getting the dpa ? Well, no, although I suspect that this has happened before and will happen again. What role did Jody Wilson-Reybould play in the subsequent embarrassing situation ? A HUGE role, and I assert that she and her friend Jane Philpott and others did so with Machiavellian political motives to upset and replace Trudeau as leader. So, again, we must move on …. unless, down the road, there's an RCMP investigation. More will be written later, perhaps.

On electoral reform. This one is something he'd like to have back for sure. Any kind of electoral reform must surely have some amendment to the Constitution, and every government since Pierre Trudeau has learned NOT to open up the Constitution again, for fear of every wing-nut with a cause or issue to come forward and demand that it be included in any Constitutional consideration. As Mulroney learned, to his cost, with Meech Lake, try this at your peril. Trudeau promised too quickly and then had to backtrack, a correct move, but handled clumsily. Again, we move on.

On the issue of the pipeline, and the environment in general. The pipeline, first of all, is NOT a new pipeline. It already exists. This initiative is twinning the existing pipeline in order to double its capacity of delivering Alberta crude to tidewater for export. It makes sense, even though it is very expensive and potentially damaging to the environment should a spill take place. But Trudeau killed all new pipeline plans … also correctly. And his government has stated that, while environmental reform is necessary, it simply can't proceed as quickly as people like Elizabeth May have suggested. We need time to make the transition. Meanwhile, other pro-environmental initiatives move forward. Trudeau's Liberals have a good, not great plan, and unlike the Green plan, it will work. Will it work in time ? We all have to hope so. And, unlike Andrew Scheer and his colleagues, Trudeau has a plan. Scheer does not.

Relations with First Nations are strained. They always have been. They always will be. I say this without being cynical. First Nations are NOT one homogenous group. There are several First Nations, each with their own agendas, each with their own demands, all legitimate. And the First Nations are skilled negotiators and skilled in public relations. Progress must be made, but, like the environment, progress is painfully slow. Trudeau has acknowledged the Report on Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls … has Scheer ? No. Trudeau has pledged to continue to work on Indigenous issues. Scheer has not.

In his favour are several things: first, the economy is moving along nicely. Unemployment is down to historic lows. Real estate continues to move along nicely. The stock market is performing as "normal", whatever that means. How much credit should Trudeau take? None, actually, but no other government should either, but they all do. So, he gets to claim that the economy is doing well under his watch. Secondly, he delivered on his pledge to legalize the sale, distribution and ownership of marijuana. The roll-out in Ontario has not been smooth, but that's a provincial error, not Trudeau's.  Third, he said he'd move ahead on doctor-assisted death, a sensitive issue, but one which most Canadians wanted, and he delivered. Third, he has moved to assist in the settling of refugees in Canada, a noble and justified act. Many don't like this, but that's another issue that reflects more on the critics than it does on Trudeau. Despite the critics' fears, there's been no parade of ISIS fighters down my town's Main Street, and I doubt it's happened in yours either. In other words, we HAVE NOT been "swamped" by these people. We can take them in and help them. We're a big, rich country. Fourth, he was blind-sided by the madman who occupies the White House on the issue of NAFTA. Trudeau was handed a difficult and time-consuming assignment: negotiate a new NAFTA that somehow appeases Trump, but doesn't harm Canada. His government did so, with patience and class. Great credit goes to Chrystia Freeland for this, but Trudeau was the Prime Minister, and nothing happened without his knowledge, input or permission. He did well. Finally, despite what Jody Wilson-Reybould and Jane Philpott claim, Trudeau IS a feminist, and he supports equality of the genders in government as far as he is able and espouses feminist causes internationally and domestically. He walks the walk.

Therefore, he deserves a second chance at being Prime Minister. It may be because the alternatives are not palatable or possible. That's fine. Better the devil you know. But it is also because Trudeau has, despite his many flaws, a good track record and will continue to have one.

But, because of his flaws, he now has a short shelf-life. If he wins, even a short minority, he has to govern wisely. And then, he has to leave. No third term for him. His flaws have made him less "sunny" to Canadians.

And the next Prime Minister has to be female. No if's, and's, or but's. It has to happen.

THE BIG TENT ?

Trying to understand Canadian Conservatives today is a lot like understanding an iceberg. You see some of it clearly and above the surface and you think, "yeah, that's it … I've got it. I understand what an iceberg is." But, of course, most of the iceberg is below the surface, menacing, dangerous and beyond what we can see. I'm pretty sure the captain of the Titanic thought he understood icebergs before that fateful voyage in April of 1912: how did that work out for him?

Conservatives like to refer to themselves as a "big tent." The meaning is pretty clear. The big tent has plenty of room for everyone, no matter who you are. It sounds inviting, doesn't it ? Lots of nice people, gathering together, keeping warm, sharing some stories and laughs. Rather like a great big sleep-over.

Well, let's open the flaps of this big tent and see who's inside.

The notion of the "big tent" began to take shape in Canada with the merger of the old Progressive Conservative party and the upstart Reform Party in the 1990's. The former party was fairly traditional, popular with many Canadians, mostly because of its rather oxymoronic name. How you could combine "progressive" and "conservative" into one phrase defies logic, but somehow, the PC's managed to make it work. It was the party of John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, John Robarts and Bill Davis. Bland, dull and steady, they formed governments that, mostly, worked well. But they weren't conservative enough for many in western Canada, who were tired of the PC's losing more than they were winning. Hence, the birth of the Reform Party of Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper. But there was a problem: as long as two conservative parties ran candidates in federal elections, the Liberals cleaned up. So, conservatives did what they do best: they had a nasty internal civil war in which the Reformers beat up the PC's and created the new and quite successful Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), inviting Reformers and PC's and anyone else who wanted to join their "big tent". Who came in?

Traditional capitalists and the business class are in there. No surprise here: going back to the days of

Sir John A. Macdonald and the original Conservative Party, the business class has had their interests looked after by politicians on the political right. Business favours politicians who don't rock the boat, who are steady and unchanging, and who generally believe that government should get out of the way of business and let economy chug along unhindered, or at least with a minimum amount of political interference. Yes, capitalists are in the big tent.

But look ! Alongside the business class are rural Canadians, those noble folk who till the land and tame the beasts and provide us with our food. Living out in the hinterland, they have always been conservative in nature out of suspicion of city slickers, fast talkers and flesh merchants. Actually, rural Canadians have legitimate grievances against their urban cousins, mainly because they are outnumbered by the city folk, and because they feel urbanites don't pay attention to their concerns. Farmers have always been in the big tent, and they always will be.

Let's see … who else? Ah, religious fundamentalists are here too, mostly Christian, but not exclusively so. Well, God and Jesus must've been conservative, right? Well, not Jesus surely …. a bit of a radical. Oh wait, we're not talking about the actual Jesus of the New Testament, we're talking about the Jesus of evangelicals. Those who don't need any intermediary to understand the will of God because God actually talks to them. Evangelicals have a complete monopoly on morality and proper behavior and shrink away from liberals, intellectuals and non-believers as though they were Satan himself. Gays and transgendered people are obviously sinners and the spawn of the devil. Minorities are inferior because they don't look like the pictures of the Jesus that THEY see: pale white skin, blondish hair, blue eyes, smiling despite the wounds. Yep, religious fundamentalists are in there all right.

And lookee this ! Xenophobes are here. Like their evangelical cousins, they don't like people who don't look, sound, act or think like them. Forget about the possibility that other ideas or cultures might be rich and beautiful: if it's different, they don't want it. They don't understand how people can be different. Xenophobes do NOT want minorities to be in the big tent, but understand that some of them have to be there because they might vote conservative for various (mostly economic) reasons: just keep them in a different corner of the tent, please.

There's something moving in the darkest corner. Ah, we can see them: militarists, gun lovers, militia members, lonely men who can't get laid, violent video game players. There they are, skulking in the shadows of the tent. Why are they here? No one else would have them, and they can't stay in their parents' basement forever. The big tent has mostly males anyway, so, as long as they don't have to interact with the few women or minorities, they're happy to stay there and play until they get really angry and decide to shoot something: hopefully, just on their video games.

Are there any women in the tent? Well, look around and you'll see …. lots of men. Wait, there's a

woman …. and over there, another one. Oh, and a few more scattered here and there. Hmmm, they don't seem happy somehow. More like "content" to be here. As long as there are strong, wise men, these women are content to be here, making about 80% of the money the men make, letting the men decide all the nasty stuff regarding reproductive rights because these women hate their own nasty bodies and don't want to get upset having to decide all that stuff. Besides, the tent needs some hostesses to serve drinks and food, right?

Who else do we have ? Well, over by the big group of capitalists are workers who look up to their bosses because they believe that, one day, these workers will be bosses too, or at least rich when their stock portfolios finally pay off. No unions for these folks ! And even if they don't become the next Donald Trump, it doesn't matter: they've got jobs and are just thankful to have them. Um, they still have jobs, don't they ? Oh, the jobs are going oversees ? Or taken over by machines ? Ah, who wants to work anyway? Their stock portfolios are just about due to come in big.

Hmm, we've seen enough of this. Time to get out of the tent and get some air. Why?

Because modern Canadian Conservativism isn't a big tent after all.

It's a hot mess.

BEST FOOD IN ONTARIO

Many years ago, Lou and I were given a wonderful gift. We had an opportunity to attend a special tasting session at DISH café and cooking school. The evening featured a multi-course meal prepared by the young executive chef David Chrystian. Chrystian was something of a wunderkind in the culinary world of Toronto in those days. He had, in his twenties, become the executive chef at Accolade Restaurant, in the old L'Hotel on Front Street. From there, he went on to cook at the Drake Hotel, Victor Restaurant and was a contestant on Top Chef Canada. When we attended his evening at DISH, he was just starting out.

It was a fun evening, as I recall. Chrystian was accompanied by a sommelier from Accolade, and the two of them provided an amusing and informative running commentary all the way through the event. There may have been 10 of us sitting around a circular countertop, overlooking the cooking area and we watched intently as a master craftsman went about his task. There were about 5 courses in all, and we not only watched and interacted intently with him, but we devoured the food that was presented to us. It was absolutely delicious and we had so much fun. But what I remember most of all was this.

At the height of the main course, which was a delicious rack of Ontario lamb, wonderfully garnished and roasted to absolute perfection, Chrystian was asked a question as to what he considered to be the best food experience and value in Toronto. We were visiting in mid summer, with ingredients and choice at their height, so we listened intently for his answer. He thought about it for a moment and then said, "The best value and the best food for flavour right now is an Ontario barbeque." We were a little amazed and surprised by this answer …. I guess we were hoping for some miraculous pearl of wisdom, some inside information on a new restaurant or dish, some brand new cuisine to be shared. But a barbeque ?

In the years since that visit, I've thought about Chrystian's words carefully and have come to the conclusion that he's absolutely right. In the height of summer, why would anyone pack themselves off to a restaurant to enjoy someone else's cooking and food when the bounty of our rich province is literally at our fingertips? Take a little drive to any local farmers' market and just look at the variety and seemingly endless supply of fresh, colourful, absolutely delicious food. Buy some. Take it home, prepare it carefully and then do your best at the barby.

I've taken Chrystian's words to heart. I love to cook and consider myself to be a pretty good amateur. A few years ago, I got rid of my gas grille ( I refuse to call it a "barbeque" ) and got a simple Weber pot charcoal barby. And the results, if I say so myself, have been pretty good. I always barbeque on Sundays in the summer, and we invite my mom over. Last night's menu was simple, but pretty darn good: barbequed pork chops, pureed sweet potato, roasted heirloom carrots ( oiled and herbed ) and fresh steamed green beans. That was followed by wonderful Ontario sweet yellow corn. Strawberries ( from an "ever-bearing" bush ) with maple walnut ice cream and some whipped cream was our dessert.

We're lucky to live where we do. Ontario is blessed with some of the best farmland to be found anywhere in the world. The only problem is that our growing season is relatively short. But that makes it more worthwhile when it's available.

Do yourselves a favour: forget the restaurants until the fall, winter or spring, or unless you're travelling. If you're home, get to the farmers' markets, and dust off the barby ….. and get cookin' !!

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

I follow many people on social media and one of those whom I respect a great deal is Robert Reich, an American academic, author and political figure. Reich's facebook page and twitter account is a rich source of humour and insight, particularly on the current political, social and economic situation in the United States. I find Reich's views to coincide with my own: hence, my appreciation of his ease in expressing these views and the accuracy of his observations. I'm not suggesting, by any means, that Reich is completely correct in his musings, but I agree with most.

Reich's credentials are impressive. He has degrees in law and economics from some of the most prestigious universities in the world. He served as Secretary of Labour ( Canadian spelling mine ) under President Bill Clinton, and has served in advisory capacities to President Obama. He is a regular contributor to some of the best publications in the world and on television. And, as mentioned above, is a regular contributor on social media.

Today, Reich tweeted a satirical piece directed to the people of Denmark, apologizing for Trump's recent musing about the purchase of Greenland from the Danes and ending with the phrase that most Americans "care deeply about the world." I came to that phrase with a jarring thud and quickly composed a polite and careful rebuttal on the thread, in which I expressed my view that, while Reich and his twitter followers may indeed "care deeply about the world", the vast majority of Americans did not. I cited my own experience with American travelers in several countries and of American travelers visiting Canada. If you log on to Robert Reich's twitter or facebook accounts, you can read my comment for yourself: I was pleased to have inspired a lengthy discussion, all of it quite civil and most agreeing with me and apologizing for the American attitude to the world, and some disagreeing, but in a most polite and interesting way. I enjoyed the discussion.

But the discussion has got me to thinking. Why do I and so many others believe that Americans have a woeful lack of knowledge of the world ? Why do Americans have the general perception that the world is, as I described it, "droll … amusing … inferior" in comparison to the United States? Why do so many Americans not bother to get passports and go to explore other parts of the world? Why do Americans fear the world so much? The answer to these questions lies in the concept of "American Exceptionalism."

American Exceptionalism ( hereafter cited as AE ) is a concept as old as America itself. The earliest settlers to America were largely Puritans, whose beliefs and world view was very Calvinistic. The framers of the US Constitution were influenced by a belief in AE. But the term really gained significance in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries. Alexis de Tocqueville used the term to try to explain why the emergent American nation was so different to most of intellectual and enlightened Europe. Later, Joseph Stalin was credited with using the term in order to describe why the United States would never be a convert to Marxism. And, most recently, President Ronald Reagan used the term several times in an effort to give voice and vision to the "Reagan Revolution" sweeping America and lasting into our present time.

Reagan's vision was taken from Lincoln and many other writers and thinkers. He was fond of using phrases like "a beacon of hope", "a shining city on a hill", and "the world's last best hope" in describing what America was and what its mission on earth was to be. It swept him into office and kept him there for two terms, and allowed for his successor, George HW Bush, to be president for one more term: an astonishing 12 years for the "Reagan Revolution" and AE to take hold. So popular and so pervasive was AE that even more liberal or moderate presidents, such as Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama, have cited AE as a reality.

The modern interpretation of AE is as follows: America is NOT simply another nation among many on earth. America is NOT just one member of the international family of nations. It IS, in fact, the best of nations. It does more, it creates more, it thinks more than any other nation. It is inherently greater than all other nations. Its opinion matters more than any other nation. It's strength is unrivalled by others, and others must fear its power and wrath. It is a belief in the almost infallible nature of American thought and deed. And it has a divinely inspired mission to convert the rest of the world to its belief system and way of life.

That, of course, is a very broad stroke with a heavily opinionated brush. But there are those who will, I'm sure, nod their heads in full agreement with my description. In fact, my former students might remember a unit in a course I taught at GL Roberts. The course was the old ELI or English Literature course at the OAC level. One of the units in that course was entitled "The Wilderness and the Promised Land." It featured a general survey of the so-called "Covenant Theology" pervasive in American Literature as it originated from the Old Testament and in early Puritan Colonial writing right up until the modern period, with novels such as "The Great Gatsby" and "The Grapes of Wrath." I was inspired to teach this unit because of two sources: first, a course I took as an undergrad at the University of Western Ontario taught by the wonderful professor Dr. Geoffrey Rans. And second, as a collaboration with my colleagues at Roberts, notably Larry Simpson ( from whom I stole the title of the unit ), Ross Garnett and the late Geordie Guile. Those fine teachers helped my formulate the unit, and, as most young teachers do, I ran with their ideas and added my own.

Essentially, the unit's thesis was that Americans, right to the present day, consciously or unconsciously, subscribe to the notion of Americans being exceptional, indeed "chosen" for greatness. The AE allows Americans to advance, exploit and rule. They become rich, they become powerful, they become admired because of this AE. Or so they think.

There's no doubt that America has done and created many marvelous things. They are, indeed, a great nation. But they are not the only great nation on earth. And they are not the only ones who have done and created marvelous things. The world tends to shake its head when it hears Americans speak of their AE. And, in these charged times, AE has never been louder, never been more brash, never been more of a threat to the peace and stability of the whole world.

Thus, Robert Reich's promise that most Americans "care deeply about the world" rings hollow. It's interesting that Mr. Reich himself has not commented on the thread on his own tweet or facebook post. It would be most interesting to hear what he might have to say about all this AE stuff. And I would be immensely flattered if he had something to say in response to my post. I respect Mr. Reich very much …. but even he is victim of the AE.

BORROWING BEAUTY

One of the most popular musicians of the 80's and 90's died recently. Johnny Clegg was a co-founder and performer in the South African bands Juluka and Savuka. Clegg gained international fame with his music, which was a fusion of modern pop and rock with traditional Zulu "konga" music. The blend was musically catchy, but, more importantly, the lyrics contained in the songs were significant. South Africa was in the last throes of apartheid, and Clegg was on very shaky ground with South African officials. His first band, Juluka, was formed with his good friend Siphu Mchunu, a Zulu. Just associating with Mchunu and being seen in the largely Zulu townships was breaking the law. Juluka was a multi-racial and multi-gender band and could not get air play in South Africa. It wasn't until the world became aware and offened by apartheid that Juluka's music gained popularity, particularly in the UK ( where Clegg was born ) and in North America. I remember listening to "Scatterlings of Africa" and being enthralled and impressed by the music. Juluka began to tour internationally, with Clegg and Mchunu performing traditional Zulu dance with the songs. When Mchunu left the band, Clegg formed another fusion band, Savuka, and continued to tour until illness forced him to stop two years ago. Cancer claimed him at age 66.

Clegg was not without his detractors. Early in Juluka's success, the noted African jazz musician Hugh Masakela referred to Juluka as "poppycock" because it was not genuinely African. From that moment, Clegg had to constantly fight off criticism of "cultural appropriation", a new phrase that heaps scorn on those who borrow elements of another culture to produce art, literature, music or fashion. Clegg's critics pointed out that Clegg was not born in South Africa, although his family emigrated there when Clegg was a boy and Clegg had South African citizenship. Critics wondered why an "Englishman" wanted to lead the fight against South African apartheid. Worse than this, however, was the fact that Clegg and many of his bandmates were white, but dressed in traditional Zulu warrior attire and wrote, sang, performed and danced to Zulu music. Critics also blasted Mchunu and the black bandmembers for allowing this appropriation to occur and called them stooges of the white majority. Without doubt, those criticisms stung and may have been a contributing factor in Mchunu's departure from the band.

In Canada, the author Joseph Boyden came under heavy fire for cultural appropriation for his highly successful novels, the most famous of which was "The Orenda". In Boyden's case, the appropriation was problematic because Boyden claimed to be a mix of white and Indigenous ancestry, and tried to be an advocate of Indigenous causes. It later came out that his claims of Indigenous ancestry were highly doubtful and he has changed his explanations many times, walking back Indigenous claims. Despite all that, his novels are enjoyable to read, extremely well-written and historically accurate, to a degree common with all historical fiction.

The cases of Clegg and Boyden raises some troubling questions in the discussion of cultural appropriation. The main question is this: "how far does one go in attempting to create art with elements of a foreign or different culture to one's own." Clegg and Boyden are modern artists and, it goes without saying, that we live in highly charged times, with sensitivity to such things reaching extreme levels. Clearly, in Boyden's case, he was misrepresenting himself as Indigenous and trying to speak on Indigenous issues as an Indigenous person. He was wrong to do so. But his literature is wonderful to read. And his intentions were and are good. Clegg's case is similar. He did not claim to be Zulu, but claimed, rightly, to be African even though he was born in the UK. He spoke out against apartheid, an evil system widely condemned. And he could claim, with merit, that his international success hastened the end of

the ugly system that entrapped and demeaned millions of people in his adopted homeland.

If we apply a rigid standard of cultural appropriation, then who is safe from it ? The noted American contralto Marion Anderson, hailed as one of the greatest operatic voices in history, should never have studied opera. She should have restricted herself to singing the spirituals that were the staple of music in the Philadelphia black neighbourhoods where she was born and grew up. Opera is a European cultural achievement, and Anderson and other black artists were "appropriating" it for their own creations. Similarly, one of the greatest conductors in the history of classical music is the Japanese maestro Seiji Ozawa. Ozawa was born in modern day Manchuria, which was under the occupation of the Japanese before World War Two. He studied piano until an injury forced him to study composition and conducting. His long career ( including a stint as the artistic director of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra ) has earned him accolades, all well deserved. But his native Japan has its own musical forms and, as we know, classical music is a European creation.

There is no doubt that some forms of cultural appropriation are indeed demeaning and insulting: at worst they are blatantly racist. Sports nicknames such as Redskins, Indians, Eskimos, Seminoles and others are completely unacceptable because in some cases they are obviously pejorative. And dressing up as an "Indian" or using blackface at Hallowe'en is wrong. These are obvious and generally agreed infractions.

But borrowing from other cultures to create art must be seen as acceptable. Anderson and Ozawa are among the great gifts to the world, even though they created in art forms not original to their own cultures. Where would we be without Elvis Presley or the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, who essentially sang rythmn and blues, a product of American black culture? Golf fans the world over celebrate and admire the achievements of Tiger Woods, a mixed race sportsman playing a Scottish game. Denzel Washington has played Shakespeare, and Eminem is still considered a master of hip hop.

Are these people wrong to do these things? Of course not.

The world hungers for beauty. Art, literature, music help provide beauty in our often harsh lives. And artistic creation is still considered one of the highest things to which people can aspire. If beauty can be borrowed with respect and reverence, then it should be borrowed and used.

For that, we should all be grateful to the late great Johnny Clegg …. may he rest in peace.

THE CULT

And the world, the world drags me down ….
Inside her, you will find sanctuary ..
She sells sanctuary.

In 1979 and 1980, two seemingly unrelated events changed the course of the world for the last two decades of the 20th century and into the first two decades of the 21st century. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher emerged from the internal chaos of the UK's Conservative Party. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the presidential election in a landslide, heralding the start of the "Reagan Revolution." Neither Reagan nor Thatcher were particularly well known or well thought-of before their accession to power. But their time in office spawned a dramatic shift to the right, politically and economically, that gave rise to the lunatic fringe of right-wing politics and social attitudes of today. In many ways, the current iterations of this right-wing revolution has taken on the characteristics of a large and well-entrenched cult.

In the UK, Thatcher was a hard-line conservative who scorned her colleagues in the Conservative Party led by Edward Heath. Thatcher found Heath and his colleagues too weak, too eager to compromise with unions and Europeans. When she became Prime Minister in 1979, she made it a personal crusade to "bring Britain back" from what she saw as the chaos of the post war years and through the 60's into the 70's. Britain was going through a prolonged experience of rising unionism, culminating in the Coal Miners' Strike led by Arthur Scargill, and many Britons, who saw the rise of the welfare state begin crumble, feared that civil authority was being replaced by a type of workers' revolution led by the coal miners. Thatcher saw this as the cause of the wide-spread economic malaise that plagued Britain for decades after the war. She pledged to stop it, and enough Britons felt that she deserved a chance to establish order.


In the US, Reagan was seen by Americans as a folksy, pleasant, quiet-spoken man who represented a vague idea of "old" American values. The US had been badly shaken by the experience in Vietnam, and by the "counterculture" of youth, drugs, rock music, hippies, civil rights and feminism that had characterized the 1960's. As in Britain, a type of fatigue had set in because of the rapid pace of social change that made mainstream Americans look for a leader to establish order. Added to the failure of the American war in Vietnam and the loss of international prestige and leadership, this yearning for a strong leader became visceral. The assassination of John Kennedy, the failure of Lyndon Johnson, the corruption of Richard Nixon with Watergate, and the too-nice and ultimately weak persona of Jimmy Carter made the election of Reagan inevitable.

Together, Thatcher and Reagan found each other as types of "soul mates" and began to imprint their vision of how the world should be on the two leading countries in the English-speaking world. They both espoused "supply side" economics, and a belief that government should get out of the way of the business class and allow business people to create wealth, with many benefits "trickling down" to the masses below. De-regulation, union busting, tax cuts ( particularly to corporations ) followed. As Thatcher broke the will of the coal miners in the UK, Reagan took on air traffic controllers in the US when a strike broke out there. Reagan refused to back down to union demands and beat the unions, who mistakenly believed that because of the perception of unsafe skies the US government would eventually give in to their demands. Both union defeats bolstered Thatcher's and Reagan's approval with a general public that, again, was fatigued with the strenuous and far-reaching of the previous efforts to enact social change. And a cult was born.

Over the next almost 40 years, the world has seen the effects of Thatcherism and the Regan Revolution. Two generations have grown up in this environment. Attitudes are entrenched and the way of life envisioned by Thatcher and Reagan have become a stone-cold reality. To be fair, many nations have turned to more centrist or even left-leaning governments in this time, but those governments are often seen as being either one-offs, or a temporary break from the more "natural" governments of the right-wing. Mitterand, Clinton, Blair, Obama and others have come and gone, only to be replaced with the Chiracs, Camerons, Bushes, Mays and Stephen Harpers of the world.

The pendulum has swung far to the right. But, as with all pendula, it only goes so far before it begins to swing back. The election of Obama in the US, Emmanuel Macron in France, and Justin Trudeau in Canada have signaled the beginning of the swing back. And this is where the cultish aspect of the right wing becomes most noticeable.

Obama's win in 2008 frightened conservatives to the core in the US. Those conservatives saw the swing to the left as the onset of socialism and an all-out assault on their more "American" values and beliefs. The rise of the Tea Party, and the hijacking of the established Republican Party by the Tea Partiers signaled that the right wing was becoming more narrow, more entrenched against the swing of the pendulum. The rise of political figures with extreme, evangelistic, xenophobic and ultra capitalistic views was striking to see: Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Dick Chenney, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and the ultimate personification of this entrenchment, Donald Trump, became a parade of populist leaders, full of bombast and strident pronouncements against those who quickly morphed from political opponents to full-blown enemies. They found a core of supporters who similarly morphed from voters to followers. The cult had arrived.

In Britain, the full expression of resistance to the emerging swing to the left of the pendulum found its voice in Brexit. The fact that Britain is still in the existential throes of the Brexit conundrum shows that the leftward pendulum swing was more advanced in Britain than the US, but the likes of Nigel Farage and his followers keep the xenophobic forces of pro-Brexit alive and well.

In Canada, the resistance to the left swing of the pendulum found its most active voice in the western provinces, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan ( ironically the birthplace of Canada's version of socialism, the CCF party which became the left-leaning NDP). In the prairies, a populist voice was heard in the person of Preston Manning and his disciples Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper. As the Tea Party did in the US, Manning's Reform/Alliance party hijacked the more moderate Progressive Conservative party of Joe Clarke and Brian Mulroney to create the much more hard line right wing Conservative Party of Canada, led by Harper and now Andrew Scheer. The CPC has similar iterations across Canada: the so-called "Progressive" Conservatives of Mike Harris, Ernie Eaves and now Doug Ford in Ontario; the United Conservative Party of Alberta led by former Harper cabinet minister Jason Kenney ( which emerged from the infighting between the very conservative Progressive Conservatives of Alberta and the very, very, very conservative Wildrose Party); the mayoralty in Toronto of Rob Ford; the emergence of the Saskatchewan Party of Brad Wall and now Scott Moe; and many other examples.

What becomes clear in all of this, from the days of Thatcher and Reagan until the current time of Trump, Harper, Scheer, Ford and Kenney, is that there are common characteristics of the leaders, the parties, the supporters and their beliefs. Consider the following commonalities:

1) BOMBASTIC WORDS AND PHRASES

While Reagan and Manning were given to speak in a rather pleasant and "gentlemanly" fashion,
most of the others are given to angry, inflammatory and simplistic words and phrases. The worst example of this is Trump, but others are close to his style. Saying words or phrases in an angry tone, or being constantly offended by the effrontery of the "others" is a hallmark  of this style. Threatening harm or violence to the "others" is the most extreme example of those like Trump.

2) REPETITIVE SLOGANS AND UNTRUTHS

It has become necessary and commonplace to track the words of Trump, Ford and other right-wing leaders to discover where their words are deliberately misleading. And the common slogans ( "Make America Great Again", "For The People", "Britain Out of Europe" ) are easy to project and easy to hear and believe. Slogans are catchy and require no elaboration or intellectual justification: hence, they are fodder for those who want to believe and those who see the efforts to enact social change as evil. Any effort to engage the cult in rational discussion is met by stock talking points, false equivalencies, denials, and ridicule.

3) ACTIVE CREATION OF ENEMIES AND DEMONIZATION OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN THE  CULT

This takes many forms. If you don't look like the leader or most of their supporters, you are not in the cult. If you question the authority of the leaders, you are a trouble maker. If you attempt to confront the lies or partial truths of the leaders, you are a rebel and dangerous ( the media is particularly "at fault" here ). If you disagree with anything the leader or his followers stand for, you are an enemy. And there are now so many enemies ( journalists, academics, scientists, women, minorities, non-believers ) that the cult members close ranks more vigorously to protect their values.

4) AN EVANGELISTIC ZEAL TO FIGHT FOR AND SPREAD THE CULT'S BELIEFS

Because there are so many "enemies" out there, the members of the cult must be devoted to two things: their own ideals and the destruction of the ideas and activities of the enemies. Thus, people on the other political or social side are derided as being "kooks", "lefties", "dummies" and being weak, effeminate, brainwashed by the writings of intellectuals, and thieves who are determined to take the hard-won wealth and values of the cult members and distribute them to the less-deserving "lazy" elements of society, the people Thatcher once derided as the "underclass". And the devotion is often cloaked in religious terms. Pastors and televangelists are often eager to discuss politics and policy, or economic trends as they are to discuss their faith in God or Jesus. Their flocks are persuaded not only to do good Christian works, but to strive for wealth and vote for the leaders who embody these beliefs. The link between church and state is firmly and completely cemented by this.

5) MEMBERS OF THE CULT MUST WORK TOGETHER AND AUTOMATICALLY SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER

Thus, Stephen Harper can show up at the annual Ford Family Barbeque and speak of a "hat trick" of him being Prime Minister, Rob Ford being mayor of Toronto, and everyone working to make Tim Hudak the Premier of Ontario. ( It didn't work, but came close ) Or Donald Trump can endorse Boris Johnson to be the next Conservative Prime Minister of Britain. Or Trump can speak fondly of Vladimir Putin or Kim Jung Un. Or Duterte, Bolsinaro or Orban can look to Trump as a model. Or Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, Scott Moe and others can work to make Andrew Scheer the new Prime Minister of Canada, ending the cursed reign of the weak, effeminate, flighty and left-leaning Justin Trudeau. It is partisanship carried to absurd lengths. It's why Fox News and Rebel Media and the Toronto Sun exist. It is now a never-ending war of victory for the right wing, and the complete and utter destruction of the left and its views of progressivism, inclusion, equity, empathy, and distribution.

Thus, the emergence of what I call the "modern CONservative".  The letters "CON" are deliberately capitalized to denote that the beliefs, strategies and activities of this group is a colossal con. It is the effort of a devoted and disciplined cult to define itself, promote itself, recruit new members and win. That's the only thing that matters to the modern CONservative: winning. Governing is actually a boring, convoluted and threatening thing, something that might actually make the cult begin to see that their values are wrong or destructive. Win an election, gloat, run down your enemies and plan for the next election. Lie, deny and obfuscate.

We can only hope that the rest of society can see past these cult members. And we can only hope that the pendulum will continue to swing back from the narrow deception of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 4

We have now come to the point where we have declared the "experiment" called Canada complete. All the prevailing hypotheses have been examined and found wanting. The final thesis has been reached: that Canada is a failed experiment, ungovernable, subject to much fractional bickering, a "dinosaur" ready to be consigned to a museum. What, then, should be the final outcome?

In previous parts of this series, I suggested that several provinces had historic experiences with separation from Confederation, even going back to the very origins of Confederation itself. I have also suggested that there might be two ways for a province to separate and end the experiment once and for all. In the case of Quebec, or other "original" entities which existed as colonies or dominions before Confederation, it could be done voluntarily, through the will of the people in ways such as referenda or elections fought on the idea. In the case of Alberta, or other entities created by the federal government, it could be the federal government itself that could terminate the participation of that entity in Confederation: a type of eviction or divorce, if you will.

Should such things occur, it would be difficult for Canada to continue in the form we now know it. Certainly every part of the country would be plunged into a type of existential crisis not seen for decades or even more than a century. But there are scenarios to consider:

Should Alberta be evicted, or leave voluntarily, the rest of western Canada would be tempted to go with it. Thus, Canada would be divided like conjoined twins, and live as separate entities, east and west, into the forseeable future.

Should Quebec secede, the rest of Canada would have to decide on its future. Could the Atlantic region remain within Confederation despite being physically cut off from the rest of Canada? Could Ontario live peacefully with its western sisters, despite the ideological and economic differences ? Would the west even wish to remain with Ontario, given the fact that Ontario is part of the "eastern bastards" mentality some Albertans still harbor, and given that the federal capital is physically located in Ontario ?

Would Alberta prefer to live as a separate entity unto itself ? Or would it seek admission into the United States, a country that it professes to have much in common, politically, economically and culturally?

What of Ontario or British Columbia ? Both are large enough entities and lucky enough to possess much economic clout. Would they attempt to exist as lone entities, or would they be persuaded to seek union with either the United States as a whole, or with the geographic regions of the US that are adjacent to them?

And what of the United States itself ? Witnessing the divorce and fracturing of Canada, would it stand idly by, letting things evolve organically ? Or would the United States, an even more disunited and fractious country, be swept up in the drive to separate and reorganize along more common or organic lines?

In 1981, a book called "The Nine Nations of North America" was written by the journalist Joel Garreau. It was a landmark book, thought-provoking and revolutionary for its time. In it, Garreau posited that the traditional political boundaries of North America, featuring 3 large nation-states ( Canada, the United States and Mexico ) were meaningless lines drawn on a map, and made little to no sense. I blogged about such a book many years ago, outlining my agreement with Garreau's thesis. In the intervening years, others have made similar assertions and have re-drawn Garreau's map of the continent to create more than 9 nations.

For example, the west coast of North America, running in a Chile-like appearance along the Pacific coast eastward to the Rockies, has been named "Cascadia". It encompasses the south coast and panhandle of Alaska, coastal British Columbia, coastal Washington and Oregon states, and northern California to just south of San Francisco. That region shares common geographic, climatic, economic and cultural aspects and the north-south commerce and communication has, in the present and the past, made complete sense.

Similarly, an area known as "Laurentia" comprises land that is in the watersheds of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. This comprises all of Ontario south of the "height of land", eastern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, the very northern tips of Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, most of northern New York state and all of Michigan. Whether Quebec would choose to join this entity or go it alone as a separate nation is debatable.

Similar expressions would include a union of New England states and Atlantic provinces: a new "confederacy" of southern US states in a renewed "Dixie": a carving of several states that currently refer to themselves as "Appalachia": a union of plains states and prairie provinces in the geographic centre of the continent: an amalgamation of southwestern US states with significant Hispanic population and culture with the current nation of Mexico. And what of large states like California or Texas, which were at one time independent republics on their own before union with the US? Would they prefer to leave any large union and exist as single countries with large populations? And what becomes of the huge swath of Boreal forest north of the Arctic watershed and continental plains/prairie? Could that exist as a huge but mostly empty entity?

My guess is that all of the above can and will happen in the fullness of time. Fracturing of nations has happened throughout history, sometimes peacefully, most times violently. Few nations survive completely unbroken and in its original state. Evolution is a natural human activity. Perhaps this is how the Canadian experiment will evolve. It seems logical along all reasonably measurable lines. Perhaps the time is now for it to begin.

Our Canadian experiment is close to an end. How soon until the new experiment begins ?

MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 3

If a person joins a club, or an organization, and discovers that the club doesn't meet the person's requirements or expectations, the person undoubtedly will choose to leave the club. Hopefully, he/she will explore every possible way to make the club fit into the expectations. And equally hopefully, the club will recognize that there are issues and will make reasonable accommodations to encourage the person to remain. Only when all possibilities are exhausted will the person leave, and most other people would say that the person has done the right thing and the parting of the ways was necessary.

The same concept applies to families, although here the possibility of some type of split is far more serious. Spouses, siblings, parents and children …. there are often situations when things get so toxic, so stressful, so potentially violent and harmful that family members must part ways. Again, others would say that, if all other avenues of reconciliation have been exhausted, separation and estrangement and divorce are sad but necessary outcomes.

In the previous two parts of this series of blogs, I've attempted to explain how the Canadian experiment has evolved historically and politically. The Canadian family has existed for more than 150 years now. It is no longer a "young" country: in fact, in terms of political unions and consistent government structures, it is one of the oldest countries. It is older, for example, than Germany, France, Italy and Russia. Eyebrows may be raised by that statement, but if one looks up the dates of origin of the current political structure of those countries, Canada's 1867 outdates them all. ( Italy was unified in 1867, but subsequent wars have altered its structure. )

I point this out in order to give some context to what I'm about to propose in order to arrive at a final thesis about this country. We have seen the country grow, evolve and develop. We have seen it struggle with self-identity often, and we have come to the brink of disaster on a few occasions. We have come to the proverbial fork in the road many times. In fact, it seems that we stand at a perpetual fork in the road, and are frozen, not knowing what path to take. Such paralysis is not healthy for anyone. It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Canada is a difficult country to govern, and that there are more things that divide us than unite us. In fact it is reasonable to conclude that Canada is a failure, and that the experiment needs to end. But how? How best to bring about the much needed divorce? How do we reconcile ourselves to the certainty that all that we have been taught, all that we have been encouraged to believe, all the mythology that has been built up about this country has been false? How do we mend broken hearts and dry weepy eyes when people are confronted with these unpleasant truths?

There have been break-ups of countries before. Most have been violent, fraught with crises and uncertainty. The breakup of the former Soviet Union comes to mind. So, too the breakup of Pakistan from West and East Pakistan to the creation of the new entity of Bangladesh. But there have been peaceful breakups as well. The best example is that of the former Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, headed by the playwrite and intellectual Vaclav Havel. I believe that Canada, given its history, would fall into the latter example. And here's how it could be done.

The two provinces that have, in modern times, shown a vocal and marked propensity for separation are Quebec and Alberta. Quebec, being linguistically and culturally unique, and also being an original province ( arguable the oldest entity in Canada: Newfoundland could argue a good case for being "oldest", too ) has attempted to separate twice, through referenda. Close results have kept it in Canada. Theoretically, it could separate any time it wanted to, although it has never been fully put to the test, but few would argue that it couldn't do so if it passed a definite referendum on the plain question of separating.

What might drive Quebec out this time is the recently approved policy of outlawing any symbols of religion worn by public servants. This has been done in order to move Quebec further into secularism, which is thought to be the marker of a truly modern society. That would be scanned. Throughout its modern history, there has been a rather unpleasant thread of racism woven into its scheme of things. Mordecai Richler wrote about it extensively, mocking the "pur laine" belief of what constitutes a "real" Quebecer, and, really, nobody is fooled that the targets of this policy are those who wear head scarfs or cover themselves completely, in other words, Muslims. Catholic Quebec had previously targeted  Montreal's orthodox Jews and their yarmulkes and phylacteries: now Muslims have come under the gaze of Richler's "Pure Woolies."

Are these the beliefs of the rest of Canada? Do they line up with the long-held notions of acceptance, tolerance and multiculturalism ? Of course not. Does this put the federal government in a difficult position with Quebec vis-à-vis the Charter of Rights? Of course it does. Does the federal government have a moral and legal obligation to intervene if it can proven that Quebec's policy is discriminatory? Yes, it does. Will Quebec invoke the "notwithstanding" clause of the constitution to override any federal intervention? Undoubtedly it will. So, where does this put the federal government? Should the federal government choose to intervene, it would have to do so using the long-dormant option of "disallowance", which is still in the constitution, and which gives the federal government the right to override any provincial statute or regulation. It has not been used in more than 70 years and there are all kinds of concerns as to what it might actually mean to disallow Quebec's secularist policies.

It could indeed precipitate a crisis with Quebec. And Quebec, as an original colonial entrant into Confederation, would be perfectly within its rights to say that the federal government has no right to intervene into an "internal" matter, and begin the process, once again, of legitimizing its withdrawal from Canada.

Then, there is the curious case of Alberta. As discussed previously, Alberta's problems with the federal government come from three main sources: oil, distance from Ottawa, and ideology. Alberta is constantly at odds with the federal government on so many issues, it would be difficult and time-consuming to mention them here. Alberta is a relatively small province: 4 million out of the 36 million in Canada as a whole, which is less than 1/7th the size of the country. Yet, politically, Alberta punches above its weight. It's "natural" conservatism means that it sends nothing but Conservatives to the federal parliament ( there have been some exceptions ). This means that Alberta is almost perpetually in Opposition to the federal government, or, when Conservatives form a government, it means that a province of only 4 million sets a national agenda for the other 32 million of us. It is the classic case of the "tail wagging the dog."

The federal government, when it is Liberal, has registered frustration with Alberta many times. Quebec, which has much federal influence, has had it with Alberta. Alberta has had enough of Quebec. Ontario has swung back and forth on these feelings. Urban Ontarians tend to side with the federal government on most issues: rural Ontarians tend to side with Alberta in their distrust of both Quebec and the federal government. Atlantic Canada tends to be federalist, but only because their economic survival largely depends on federal transfer payments from … well, mostly from Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. Manitoba ? Again the urban/rural divide works here too, but it is in the west, so it tends to side with Alberta. Saskatchewan ? Increasingly more conservative and anti-federal than Alberta.

Dysfunctional ? This is the very definition of dysfunction. What to do ? The prospect of a new Conservative federal government, based largely on Alberta support, is looming. With it, any positive action on climate change or gun reform would be lost. Clearly, we have reached a tipping point in our country's history.

The time has come for the federal government to be proactive. I insist that, since Alberta is a creation of the federal government, the federal government has the right to "uncreate" it. In other words, to remove Alberta from Confederation. Indeed, this is a radical and extreme step. But the past events and possible future recriminations make it feasible and, in my view, desireable to do it. And if Saskatchewan makes lots of noise about this, then out with them too. Same goes for Manitoba, if it lines up with Alberta.

What will come out of this chaos ? What comes out of any divorce? It will be difficult, it will lead to anger and accusations.

But it is necessary. Canada is a dinosaur. Time to put it in a museum.

Some possible future outcomes of the divorces will be explored in part 4 of this series.

MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 2

If an experiment is to be successful, it must test many hypotheses before arriving at an incontrovertible truth. That test may take a long time and go through several iterations, shedding many notions and beliefs. When one arrives at the incontrovertible truth, there is nothing left to test, nothing left to discuss.

This is certainly the case with Canada, which, in my last post, I suggested was an experiment. I traced the evolution of the provinces since the 1867 Confederation, and pointed out that there two types of provinces in Canada: those which existed in either colonial or dominion form pre-Confederation, and those which were created by the Canadian federal government post-Confederation.

One might assume that, after the geographic and political expansion of Canada had been completed in 1949, with the addition of Newfoundland and Labrador, that all would finally settle and that Canada would endure forever as a stable and harmonious entity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Turmoil and evolution have been the hallmark of our country from the beginning, making for a rather rocky and acrimonious co-existence. Consider the following:

Confederation itself was truly an unintended event. Originally, the first conference that ultimately led up to Confederation, held in Charlottetown in 1864, was to be about Maritime Union, a joining of the three maritime provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The Canadas got themselves invited to the conference, originally as observers, then as full participants to discuss a wider colonial union, then completely highjacking the conference. Prince Edward Island decided to withdraw from the discussions. Newfoundland, also attending as an observer, wanted nothing to do with this colonial union. But the skillful negotiations of Sir John A. Macdonald convinced the other colonies to give the union a go. Two more conferences, in Quebec and London, hammered out Confederation.

It was a rocky road. In Nova Scotia, a huge battle emerged between the pro-Confederation forces led by Sir Charles Tupper and the anti-Confederation side, led by Joseph Howe. Howe was a fiery and influential orator, and, for most of his life, he worked tirelessly to get Nova Scotia out of Confederation, coming close to succeeding many times. Nova Scotia was the province least enamored of Confederation, and was its most vocal critic in the early years. But not its only critic.

Ontario usually sees itself as the bastion of Confederation, the home of Macdonald and George Brown and many other "Fathers of Confederation." In recent times, it has been the federal government's best ally on a wide number of issues. It wasn't always thus. Ontario's third premier, Sir Oliver Mowat, was a constant source of opposition to the federal Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. It didn't help that Macdonald was a Conservative and Mowat a Liberal. What is interesting is this. Macdonald, of course, was the driving force behind creating Canada in the first place and envisioned a nation with a strong central government, and the provinces subservient to the federal government. Mowat was the polar opposite and clashed with Macdonald on several issues. Two of these were the boundaries of Ontario and the theory of "disallowance", whereby the federal parliament could disallow any provincial statute it didn't like. Mowat nearly pulled Ontario out of Confederation on a couple of occasions, most notable over the dispute over the boundary of Ontario and the newly-created province of Manitoba. Both provinces actually put their respective police forces in the territory in order to stake its claim. It was up to Macdonald and the federal government to mediate an agreement between the two.

Newfoundland stubbornly resisted attempts to persuade it to join Confederation. It applied for and achieved "Dominion" status within the British Empire in 1907. As a dominion, Newfoundland participated in World War One independent of Canadian forces, and its regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, achieved international fame for its heroic sacrifice at the battle of Beaumont-Hamel. Dominion status remained until 1933, when severe economic hardships led the British to suspend dominion status and rule Newfoundland with a "Commission Government" for 15 years, through World War Two, effectively returning Newfoundland to colonial status. After the war, the British were anxious to solve the Newfoundland situation and pushed for a union with Canada. It took two referenda, both closely contested, before Newfoundland was welcomed into Confederation as Canada's tenth province in 1949, largely due to the tireless work of the pro-Confederation leader Joey Smallwood. To this day, many Newfoundlanders mourn the situation. July 1st, Canada's national holiday, is commemorated in Newfoundland as the day it mourns and honours the sacrifice of its native sons at Beaumont-Hamel.

Quebec is the province best known for being less-than-enthusiastic about membership in Confederation. It is linguistically and culturally so different from the other provinces that it has continuously felt threatened by the larger, more populous, economically more powerful, English-speaking entities of North America. Prior to the 1960's, Quebec was a rather backward province. It was heavily rural and agricultural, completely under the influence of the Catholic church, and undeniably inward-looking. Despite having Canada's only major city, Montreal, it never felt part of Canada. Montreal itself was Canada's economic and cultural powerhouse, but it was the largely Anglo-Scottish sector which controlled this. A large Jewish population actively developed its own cultural entity. The French-speaking population of Montreal was completely marginalized, effectively slaves in its own land.

That all changed with the Quiet Revolution in the 1960's. As Quebec's economy grew, a restlessness within its French majority asserted itself. French culture was celebrated. The influence of the Catholic church in areas like education and health care waned after the corrupt administration of Maurice Duplessis ended. Intellectually and politically, Quebec made more demands to safeguard its culture and institutions, and became more active at both the provincial and federal levels. One of the leading figures of this time was the journalist Rene Levesque, a former Liberal cabinet minister, who became increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of change and what he and his followers saw as a type of betrayal at the federal lever by Quebecers like Jean Marchand, Gerard Pelletier and, most notably, Pierre Trudeau. What followed was, effectively, close to 40 years of a mostly peaceful civil war for the soul of Quebec and its position within Canada. As we all know, on two occasions, referenda were held on the question of Quebec's continuing place in Canada. On both occasions, the federalist side won narrow victories over the sovereignist/independentist side. The debate continues to this day.

And then, there's Alberta. This province, carved out of the NorthWest Territories in 1905, has had a very intense love-hate relationship with Canada. Largely settled by American and East European farmers in the early 20th century, when the federal government was anxious to get people into those largely empty lands ( First Nations peoples notwithstanding ) in order to discourage talk of annexation to the United States, Alberta has always considered itself the swaggering cowboy province. None of that mattered very much until two things happened. Oil was discovered in 1947: lots of it, and Alberta suddenly became very wealthy because of it. And the second thing was a population increase that suddenly gave this province a platform on which to advance its ideas.

Alberta has always been a very conservative province, largely because of its agrarian roots. But the cowboy mentality, however artificial it may be, is a large part of this grassroots conservatism. Huge clashes occur between Alberta and the federal government because of this ideology. But, by far the biggest driver of Albertan discontent with Confederation, is with oil and other natural resources and who actually controls them. In the 1970's, bitter disputes over oil prices led to political conflict between Alberta's premier, Peter Lougheed, and the federal prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, that opened wounds felt today. In the 1973 international oil crisis, the dispute reached its zenith, with angry Albertans sporting bumper stickers on their cars that read "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark." Hardly the spirit of national unity.

To this day, the political and economic divide between Alberta and the federal government festers.When the largely Alberta-supported Conservative government of Stephen Harper took power in Ottawa in 2006, Alberta rejoiced that, finally, they had achieved power in Canada and would set the national agenda. That lasted until 2015, when the Liberals under Justin Trudeau came to power, largely based on eastern and urban support.

Thus, the  experiment has endured. It has been difficult, to say the least, and underscores the notion that Canada has been far from a peaceful place. But the experiment goes on. Several hypotheses have come and gone, several versions of Canada have emerged, only to be supplanted by another iteration. Surely, some kind of outcome, some thesis of Canada will be achieved in the future ?

More about this in another blog.