Swaggering Ignorance? Doug Saunders. Globe And Mail

Posted on Wednesday, April 06 at 08:56 by Robin Mathews
Pardon? (Saunders doesn’t write that “they don’t like people like us journalists much.”) When I read the comment by Charles, he was responding to the sick, invasive, hack journalists refusing to let him ski quietly with his sons and their friends on a private holiday. If we are referring to the same incident (and I’m certain we are), Doug Saunders has manipulated it in order to deceive his readers, as if Charles made the remark out of nowhere, out of the blue about all people not aristocratic. “These bloody people,” indeed. They’re the same bloody people - “paparazzi,” in fact - who’ve been accused of hounding Princess Diana to her death in the Paris underpass. Definitely not people like most of us Canadians. But “people like us,” to be sure – meaning Doug Saunders and many of his journalist peers. And what’s the business about implying the Royals lack noblesse oblige? Maybe they have too much of it. Maybe Charles shouldn’t have whispered under his breath (caught by close microphones) about “these bloody people.” Maybe he should have called them, out loud, what they are: blood-sucking, tasteless, exploiting vultures who know they can insult Charles (for instance) and not get the bloody noses they deserve. Why don’t they get the bloody noses they deserve? Because of his noblesse oblige, that’s why. Perhaps some have noticed those same brave journalists never go after Tony Blair in the way they harass Charles. Tony Blair doesn’t feel any noblesse oblige. He bites back – and the journalists cower, afraid, spineless, showing their true nature. With Blair, moreover, there are questions to be asked about Labour sell-out reaching very much deeper than the war in Iraq. Much easier to chase Prince Charles. Then Doug Saunders – having done it to the Royals on manipulated evidence – turns on us Canadians. Just “two generations ago” we were “European outcasts.” We were what? We had “simply British culture, a couple of months late.” Where have you been, Doug Saunders? As early as 1871 John A. Macdonald went – the only Canadian – to the negotiations for the Treaty of Washington. There he held off the U.S. AND the British for the sake of Canadian identity. One major thread in the history of Canada began visibly spinning there – the holding on to some British things to keep the Yankees from our throats, but never believing the British could be completely depended upon to put us first. Writing from England, Saunders glibs about British character, too. “The monarchy, and the state and form of government it represents, makes [sic] no sense, plays no meaningful role, and offers no inspiration to anyone here.” (Notice the absolutes. Doug Saunders, Canadian, speaks for all the British people.) In writing that way he’s playing a predictable media game. Notice him saying in that sentence (despite its grammatical mess) that the government in Britain and the British state play no meaningful role. Such irrational statements become, more and more, common to anti-democratic and (I must add) seemingly stupid, right-wing, journalistic discourse. As a smaller (and recent) example, remember when the Queen Mother died? Much press and media said it was a non-event. The people would ignore it, they said, because, of course, she “makes no sense, plays no meaningful role,” etc., etc. But guess what? British people formed huge, long lines, waiting patiently to pay their last respects to the Queen Mother who never stopped knowing what noblesse oblige is. The press and media – having been hypnotized by their own mantras and suppositions about the pessimism with which the British people treated the Royal Family – were caught out, and were amazed. Just what was the Queen Mother? She was the person who took a role she never intended to have, braved it remarkably well through the Second World War, and refused (unlike the Dutch Queen) to leave her country in very bad times. The Queen Mother met thousands of Commonwealth people who were charmed and engaged by her. And she went on – to the brink of the grave – doing her ”duty” with good humour, charm and wit. Britons recognized that, recognized a meaningful role – a symbol outside politics that tried hard to embody some of the good characteristics of the people – and the British said thanks in long, long lines when she died. That observation is made without any reference to the importance and role of a constitutional monarchy in Britain (as in Canada) which has been debated for centuries in its formation and has given Britain the mixture of written law and traditional practice that has seemed to work for her people. One of its aspects is a monarch who is outside politics (in fact) but not outside social identity. In fact, with the increasing evidence of corporate rule in Britain and a so-called “Labour government” that is complicit, the monarchy may be an institution corporate interests want to break. It may provide a tie and a potential unifier among the people that is dangerous to corporate capitalist plans there. In China at the time of the Boxer Rebellion (1900), just for instance, the uprising began among “the sturdy peasantry,” China having been, in effect, cut into pieces to suit foreign corporate interests. But very soon the famous Empress Dowager (and her army) joined to rid China of “the foreign devils.” She so offended “the powers” (in Europe and the U.S.A.) that she has been accused of every barbarity except eating her young. China was superstition besotted. The “rebellion” was botched. But the “Seige of Peking” - given significant substance by the Chinese monarch – may be seen as the first step in the long march that brought Mao to power in 1949. For the fascist mentality, which is in fact at the basis of globalization and corporate rule, monarchy is a loose cannon. It can blend perfectly with totalitarian rule, or it can see itself as the holder of the values of the past, which may place it as an ally with rebellious and even revolutionary factions seeking liberation. Far-fetched, you will say. Perhaps. But I cannot help wondering why the corporate press and media increasingly undercut the monarchy if they see it as an ally of the New World Order in the hands of corporate barons and their lackey “elected” representatives. A Doug Saunders is surely not an accident. He is serving his employer’s interest. And so we read glib, shallow, false, and uninformed things about the Royals, Canada, and British institutions – all of them stated absolutely. About the European Union, Saunders is even worse, if that is possible. There’s not space here to itemize all the pieces of dirty laundry in the EU's so-called “constitution,” which is falsely propagandized and (in its Market Economy third part) kept as much from ordinary Europeans as its progenitors can manage. (And, you will notice, almost completely kept from Canadians.) Suffice it to say, Doug Saunders gives Globe and Mail readers no inkling of – not a shred of a hint about – the meaning of the deep conflict in Europe over the so-called constitution which is more a Free Trade document written for corporations than a constitution. Many constitutional experts say they’ve never seen a “constitution” like it in all history. The fight in Canada is real and, as I say, must be engaged on the ground, here. We know – while saying so - that the neo-liberal forces are as active in the bureaucracy of the European Union as in the State Department of Washington. We simply don’t know yet what power neo-liberal forces will have in China and the Far East generally. In the fight against corporate rule, however, the slogan has been invented already by the environmentalists: “think globally, work locally.” Saying that forces a brief comment about Canada and what is usually slurringly called “Canadian nationalism” by elements of both the Left and the Right. Concern about the sovereignty of Canada always has to deal primarily with the U.S.A. That is unavoidable because the chief force in the last 200 years wanting to erode Canadian self-determination has been, and is, the U.S.A. Anyone who denies that lives in a world of fantasy and make-believe. “Canadian nationalism,” then, is absolutely essential to any struggle in which Canadians engage to provide room for positive and independent political, economic and social choices for the Canadian population. It follows that Canadians can only engage in the global struggle against globalization, corporate domination, neo-liberalism, and repression of third- and fourth-world populations from a base in Canada provided by a government and a state independent of clogging ties with the U.S.A. The U.S. knows that, the Canadian Toxic Right knows that – which is the reason they work tirelessly to tie Canada closer and closer to the U.S. and U.S. policies. Perhaps a snippet of Mao wisdom is appropriate here. At a time when he was cooperating with very dubious forces to rid China of the Japanese invaders, he was asked how he could co-operate with such ugly, anti-socialist forces. Mao’s reply was: “We can’t have a Socialist China if there is no China.” That’s what Canadian “nationalists” are saying about Canada to those who sneer at the “tiny focus” of Canadians fighting for some democratic viability in this country. Saunders has to clear away Canada/U.S. relations in order to deal with Canada’s relations to Europe. That means he has to attempt to erase recognition of active U.S. imperialism in Canada. One of the experts he quotes speaks frankly, apparently, about U.S. faults. That, Saunders says (he writes for the Globe and Mail, remember), “threatens to fall into annoyingly familiar clichés of Canadian Orientalism.” In other words, don’t criticize the U.S. if you want approval from the Globe and Mail. To show horror at U.S. expansionism as well as lawlessly-based Guantanamo and Iraq torture and other U.S. practices, is “Canadian Orientalism in which our identity must be defined against a dark and menacing other.” The chief surprise of the Saunders column is not that he repeats that shadowy bogeyman to scare off criticism of the U.S., but that he can squeeze as many clichés as he does into one column. Incorrect statements line up with flashy platitudes and corporate, journalistic propaganda. Canada, he informs us, has “open trade” (whatever that means. Is it softwood lumber blocked and tariffed? Is it Canadian beef kept out of the U.S. for lobby group interests? Is it U.S. ownership of Canadian enterprises and resources? Is it the increasingly imported U.S. “administrative” corporations which employ Canadians at near-subsistence levels?) Not only do we have “open trade,” he writes, but also have cut back on Crown Corporations for “progressive European reasons.” Maybe Saunders can tell us the “progressive European reasons” B.C. Rail was sold to CN, or why Ralph Klein and Gordon Campbell want to give the “state-run business” called Medicare to private corporations. Notice that “progressive European reasons” are partnered with arguments for corporate totalitarianism because the attack on social securities is so concentrated in Europe it can now be presented as a progressive movement. Everything written down here about the Saunders column is painful. Why am I writing it? So I can show what the Globe and Mail offers its (apparently) intelligent readers as a serious discussion of ideas. Of course, the Saunders column concludes by getting worse. Poor Canada and Britain are “messed up, ill-defined states.” They are marked by “inconsistency and dysfunctionality.” Who says so? Doug Saunders says so. His experts seem to say so, too, in various ways. One, a Canadian, assures Saunders' readers that “Canadians remain a good deal more European in their sensibilities” than U.S. people. There we go. Canadians may have identity and personality as long as they are really someone else’s, and coming from somewhere else. Could it be possible that our problems are our own and our identity is our own? Could we be suicidally killing off Crown Corporations because our corporate class has become too powerful and should be beaten back into line? Could it be that our national personality has developed (a) to hold off U.S. expansionism; (b) to build a nation habitable by at least three “founding cultures” and a multi-cultural society; and (c) to use what’s good from Britain, and to learn – where desirable – from Europe? Finally, could we ask just one glib, uninformed, smart-ass, ever-so-clever, profoundly superficial, deeply shallow Globe and Mail columnist to spare describing Canada’s condition as “our perpetually unfinalizable project”? Doing so represents one knee-jerk colonial saying – one more time – that Canada is unnatural, not real, less than other “real” countries. But all the European countries are, right now, facing the prospect of taking on a new shape under a new (and highly dangerous) constitution. Doug Saunders even tells us that. That must mean each European country is, in fact, “a perpetually unfinalizable project.” But, of course, all political societies are always just that, moving and developing – not always for the good. But for people like Doug Saunders it’s really only Canada that’s in that condition, or how else would he deal with it as essentially unreal, inferior, faltering, uncertain, not a country – "a perpetually unfinalizable project"? He’d have, instead, to deal with it as a mature country, forming its own identity to suit its own needs up against a huge, perverse, and destructive imperial power, while fighting both inside and outside its borders with enormous private forces that want to render Canada into a rat maze. In that rat maze Canadians are intended to go round and round and round – as a way of life – manufacturing wealth for Capitalist Orientalists – people who want to weigh themselves in gold with ever-increasing frequency, while, as John Milton put it, the hungry look up and are not fed. Doug Saunders can’t say those things because Globe and Mail journalists (a) are not permitted to write honestly about the U.S.A.; (b) cannot be honest about the private capitalist corporations out of control in Canada; and (c) can’t suggest Canada is a tough, mature country that makes its own mistakes, must be responsible for them, and must develop very strong measures to back off U.S. imperialism, to kill dirty capitalism in Canada, and to release Canadian energy and creativity. Doug Saunders probably can’t even conceive of those things. But if he could, the Globe and Mail wouldn’t let him write them. Write those things in the Globe and Mail, Mr. Saunders or whomever, and say goodbye to your paycheque. Even with that being the case, Doug Saunders goes far beyond the call of Globe and Mail duty. In fact, with columns like the one examined here to his credit, he should be elevated – quite soon – to a senior Globe and Mail position. He should be – and, doubtless, will be – unless he is hired away from the Globe and Mail by the slightly more Toxic Right newspaper called the National Post. [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 6, 2005]

Contributed By

Article Rating

 (0 votes) 



  1. Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:21 pm
    Whew! Great rant, Robin! I'm going to be studying what
    you've written here, for a long while ... I just wanted to
    say "Thank You," for the moment.

    [Can't figure out why my replies are tagged as
    "Anonymous" when I have registered and contributed
    two stories as "BC Mary." I don't mean to be secretive.]

  2. by avatar Spud
    Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:03 pm
    Damn you are good Robin!You know what you are writing about,and it is exactly what I feel!Wish I could write like that.
    Saunders thinks Canada and Britain are inconsistant and dysfunctional!Like....like.....the USA!
    Hell thats where they got it from!

  3. Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:39 pm
    Robin, thank you so very much for writing this wonderful article. If only the Canadian media had the insight and the guts to raise and discuss the questions you raise in this article.

    The fact of the matter is to talk about our relationship, or better put our past relationship with Britain has become a taboo in this country. Those who seek to push this country closer and closer to the United States would say that the relationship is history and economically unfeesable for Canada's fiscal future. A relic from a past period of Canadian history.

    And on the other hand there are the problems in Quebec. The moment you mention the dreaded 'B' word (Britain/British) or the dreaded 'M'word (Monarchy) speratists immediately paint you in a (nearly) evil light because talking about these things in anything resembling a positive light hurts their interests in both Quebec and Canada at large. Those in Ottawa and through out Canada who seek to appease and not confront the separatists hate to bring up this topic(s), perhaps to avoid offending those in Quebec, perhaps out of some sense of guilt.

    We're between a rock and a hard place. And as a result you have a nation that is confused about it's past, confused about it's place in the world today, and confused about the state of the nation and which direction it should take for the future.

    Robin hit the nail on the head. This nation exists to counter US imperialism. Which is why we must confront our own past given the fact that Canada was created out of British imperialism. It is especially important for English Canada to confront past misdeeds of English Canadians. Ignoring or debasing this past as is done for example in Canadian classrooms today only furthers to ensure that Canadian remain in the dark. How can we confront US imperialism when we're unable or unwilling to confront our own past imperialism?

    This country has at least four founding cultures (English, French, First Nations, and Celtic). The journey to create a Canadian identity begins with these four cultures. Since the origins of our multicultural society began with these founding cultures, the future success of our country will rely on our ability to preserve, enhance, and maintain unity amongst these four idenities, while at the same time maintaing our multicultural society which is another source of our identity as Canadians.

    It is important as Robin says, to take what we can from Britain, including our past and a quarter of our cultural indentity. While to also learn what we can/should from Europe. This is who we are as Canadians, not a people who would sell out to another country in some bizzare attempt to "maintain our affleuent standard of living". I believe that was Mr. Dithers exact quote? Good article Robin.

  4. Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:53 pm
    "Which is why we must confront our own past given the fact that Canada was created out of British imperialism. It is especially important for English Canada to confront past misdeeds of English Canadians."

    What misdeeds, and what about French imperialism in Canada?

    "How can we confront US imperialism when we're unable or unwilling to confront our own past imperialism?"

    What does that mean? We can confront U.S. imperialism by saying go to hell, it's our country not yours. We want a better life for ourselves. Your attmept to judge history is quite disturbing.

    English Canadians settled the country. What the Americans are doing is quite different. They have a country already.

    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  5. Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:51 pm
    Our policies towards First Nations peoples. The Acadians as well. Louis Reil and the Red River Rebellion. Internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II. Those are just examples of mistakes made.

    France as an imperial power was not responsible for the creation of Canada, England as an imperial power was. This country was founded by and came of age at the height of the British Empire. Of course British imperialism had an influence on this country and its people. But yes, French imperialism played a role in pre-Conquest Canada as well. But that role influenced the development of Quebec, not Canada as a whole because Canada did not exist until after the Conquest.

    We can best confront American imperialism, when we acknowledge and learn from our experience with an imperial power and as a nation born out of imperialism. This is why there is still a divide between English Canadians, French Canadians, and First Nations peoples. What I'm saying is that as English Canadians we can't be held accountable for the actions of our predecessors, but we need to acknowledge the mistakes made and work towards correcting these mistakes.

    What I find disturbing is your assertion that we merely settled the country. We didn't just settle the land, there were people already here! We took the land for ourselves to use. Some might say you obviously have either not read your history carefully enough, or that you have a distorted view of history.

  6. by avatar Spud
    Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:17 am
    Agreed Angus.
    We didn`t really settle anything.
    There were people here long before the Brits and French showed up.Lllloooonnnggggg before.

  7. Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:49 am
    Were you reading the same disjointed, paranoid rant that I was? I hope not. The old gasbag is really losing it.

  8. Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:05 am
    What You Didn't Know About Taxes & The 'Crown'
    - by Mark Owen ©, Jan. 27th, 2005
    There are two Crowns operant in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II. Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament. This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre, independent sovereign state know as The City of London, or simply ‘The City.’

    The City is not a part of England, just as Washington is not a part of the USA. The City is referred to as the wealthiest square mile on earth and is presided over by a Lord Mayor who is appointed annually. When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple (Templar) Bar where she requests permission to enter this private, sovereign state. She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the Mayor. Her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniforms.

    In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world’s trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world’s oceans.

    The Crown reaped billions in profits while operating under the protection of the British armed forces. This was not British commerce or British wealth, but the Crown’s commerce and the Crown’s wealth. As of 1850, author Frederick Morton estimated the Rothschild fortune to be in excess of $10 billion. Today, the bonded indebtedness of the world is held by the Crown.

    The aforementioned Temple Bar is the juristic arm of the Crown and holds an exclusive monopoly on global legal fraud through their Bar Association franchises. The Temple Bar is comprised of four Inns of Court. They are; the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn. The entry point to these closed secret societies is only to be found when one is called to their Bar.

    The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple.

    The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain white, while the Middle Temple has license to steal from America. To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally, Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies). States spelled with a capital letter ‘S,’ denotes a legal entity of the Crown.

    At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown, signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both parties were agents of the Crown. There is no lawful effect when a party signs as both the first and second parties. The Declaration was simply an internal memo circulating among private members of the Crown. Most Americans believe that they own their own land, but they have merely purchased real estate by contract. Upon fulfillment of the contract, control of the land is transferred by Warranty Deed. The Warranty Deed is only a ‘color of title.’ Color of Title is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law. The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent.

    The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of England. Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the Declaration of Independence was created to pacify the populace.

    Another method used to hoodwink natural persons is enfranchisement. Those cards in your wallet bearing your name spelled in all capital letters means that you have been enfranchised and have the status of a corporation. A ‘juristic personality’ has been created, and you have entered into multi-variant agreements that place you in an equity relationship with the Crown.

    These invisible contracts include: birth certificates, citizenship records, employment agreements, driver’s licenses and bank accounts. It is perhaps helpful to note here that contracts do not now, nor have they ever had to be stated in writing in order to be enforceable by American judges. If it is written down, it is merely a written statement of the contract.

    Tax protestors and (the coming) draft resistors trying to renounce the parts of these contracts that they now disagree with will not profit by resorting to tort law (fairness) arguments as justification. Judges will reject these lines of defense as they have no bearing on contract law jurisprudence. Tort law governs grievances where no contract law is in effect.

    These private agreements/contracts that bind us will always overrule the broad general clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English common law). The Bill of Rights is viewed by the Crown as a ‘bill of benefits,’ conferred on us by them in anticipation of reciprocity (taxes). Protestors and resistors will also lose their cases by boasting of citizenship status. Citizenship is another equity agreement that we have with the Crown. And this is the very juristic contract that Federal judges will use to incarcerate them. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, “Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements.” The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, “….citizens shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind…”

    What we view as citizenship, the Crown views as a juristic enrichment instrumentality. It also should be borne in mind that even cursory circulation or commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes effects an attachment of liability for the payment of the Crown’s debt to the FED. This is measured by your taxable income. And to facilitate future asset-stripping, the end of the 14th amendment includes a state of debt hypothecation of the United States, wherein all enfranchised persons (that’s you) can be held personally liable for the Crown’s debt.

    The Crown views our participation in these contracts of commercial equity as being voluntary and that any gain accrued is taxable, as the gain wouldn’t have been possible were it not for the Crown. They view the system of interstate banks as their own property. Any profit or gain experienced by anyone with a bank account (or loan, mortgage or credit card) carries with it – as an operation of law – the identical same full force and effect as if the Crown had created the gain.

    Bank accounts fall outside the umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection because a commercial contract is in effect and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with the execution of commercial contracts. The Crown also views bank account records as their own private property, pursuant to the bank contract that each of us signed and that none of us ever read.

    The rare individual who actually reads the bank contract will find that they agreed to be bound by Title 26 and under section 7202 agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. This written contract with the Crown also acknowledges that bank notes are taxable instruments of commerce.

    When we initially opened a bank account, another juristic personality was created. It is this personality (income and assets) that IRS agents are excising back to the Crown through taxation.

    A lot of ink is being spilled currently over Social Security. Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown’s lex as ‘conclusive evidence’ of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one’s Social Security Number to an employer seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.

    Through the Social Security Number we are accepting future retirement endowment benefits. Social Security is a strange animal. If you die, your spouse gets nothing, but rather, what would have gone to you is divided (forfeited) among other premium payers who haven’t died yet.

    But the Crown views failure to reciprocate in any of these equity attachments as an act of defilement and will proceed against us with all due prejudice. For a person to escape the tentacles of the Crown octopus, a thoroughgoing study of American jurisprudence is required. One would have to be deemed a ‘stranger to the public trust,’ forfeit all enfranchisement benefits and close all bank accounts, among other things. Citizenship would have to be made null and forfeit and the status of ‘denizen’ enacted. If there are any such natural persons extant who have passed through this fire, I would certainly appreciate hearing from them…


  9. Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:38 am
    "The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of England. Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the Declaration of Independence was created to pacify the populace."

    There was a war.....there could be more to the story, but what's the point, and does it really matter? It's not like we've ever had a perfect society.

  10. Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:58 am
    "Our policies towards First Nations peoples. The Acadians as well. Louis Reil and the Red River Rebellion. Internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II. Those are just examples of mistakes made."

    They might be mistakes if they were made today, but who are we to judge what people were feeling in the past? Did it ever occur to you that there was democratic support for these tough decisions?

    "What I find disturbing is your assertion that we merely settled the country. We didn't just settle the land, there were people already here! We took the land for ourselves to use. Some might say you obviously have either not read your history carefully enough, or that you have a distorted view of history."

    My point being, British North America was not Iraq being bombed by the Americans. British North America was very sparsely populated, and was mostly forest. This is a very different scenario than you are painting. Life was tough. 50% of all babies died within their first year of life. British died in large numbers settling Canada. These people were admirable in their bravery and resourcefulness. Let's not reinvent history. It isn't against anybody. What did you expect the British to do, be nice? It was about survival.

    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  11. Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:02 am
    That's right Spud, the Vikings were here first.

    By about us "not settling anything", did Toronto and Vancouver build themselves? :)

    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  12. Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:53 am
    One of the nice things about the internet where I live, is that it sometimes 'goes down'. When that happens, I reach for a book. Lately, it's been Pierre Berton. If anyone wants to get a 'feel' for Canadian history, Berton is a pretty good place to start. Right now I'm reading "The Remarkable Past" a collection of short to mid length stories on Canadian historical events.

    I encourage everyone to get a base of knowledge on Canada's past. Other good authors are Farley Mowat, especially his non fiction circa 1950's.

    Be very careful though, when reviewing the non-fiction at your local library. Avoid the political 'tell all' trashy novels of the 1980's and 1990's put out by Globe and Mail and other mainstream media hackers. IMO, these books pollute much of the shelf space, and are almost as bad as the tonnes of crap published by New York houses, which, incidentally, are given away to our libraries as 'gifts' when really, it's a sly way of getting propaganda out to the sheep.

    Whew, see what a few years of internet reading does to a person? The libraries of the world just ain't what they used to be.....

  13. Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:06 am
    Robin, you know what I've noticed about the Globe and Mail, and other rags like the Canwest bumwad?

    The writers are sounding more like web posters.

    I'd chalk it up to competition.

    What i'm seeing is a type of creeping. For instance, the Canwest crappers are starting to put references to the neo-con blogs and forums, like "Free Republic" Trying to legitimize their attempt at ONE WORLD hegemony, as well as other nefarious schemes like allowing Israel all kinds of free rides, while continue to Fearmonger the 'north american homelanders' out of their networks of social trust.

    I could go on, but I think internet readers understand they have to read national newspapers with a DOSE of salt, y'know, to keep the taste of kosher from spoiling the good stuff in the want ads.

  14. Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:38 am
    Hi anon. Could you name some of the "tell all" books you dislike? Just wondering as I want to get an idea what tyoe of things you think mislead people.

view comments in forum

You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.

Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news