Had the Mounties’ image been defended as part of Canada’s "British" heritage, however, there would have been denials, protests, accusations of colonialism or demands for the removal of this "foreign" element from Canadian life. Since the 1950s confusion, misunderstanding and plain lies have surrounded the "British" character of Canada. For thirty years Canadians have been taught to neglect, ignore, forget, reject, debase, suppress, even hate and certainly treat as foreign what their parents and grandparents, whether spiritual or blood, regarded as the basis of Canadian nationhood, autonomy and history.
Full article: http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/britchar.htm
The British Character of Canada
... Continued
http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/britcha2.htm
Why has the anti-British case been swallowed so easily by many people in Canada? There is no doubt that it has. There are Canadians living today who in the 1940s or 1950s waved their Union Jacks enthusiastically but now disparage this banner of their history as a “foreign” flag -- and not just foreign in the meaning of outside and benign, but foreign in the sense of hostile and hated. Not long ago in an Ontario community which has a sense of its roots, a community where the population is still largely Anglo-Celtic ethnically, and where the city hall flies the Union Jack together with the National Flag, a passerby entered the city hall and demanded that “that foreign flag” be taken down. Cowed by his vehement attitude, city officals removed it, only to experience protests from the community as soon as its absence was noted until they put it back.
What has been the result of downplaying or rejecting legitimate pride in Canada’s "British" heritage? There can be little doubt that it has caused a general weakening of the country. For one thing Canadians are no longer allowed to feel proud of the only history they have. They cannot draw upon the great figures of their past for strength and inspiration. Brock or Macdonald or Salaberry are now not considered to be real Canadians either because they were not born here or because they belonged to one of the “occupying powers”, e.g. Britain or France. Who could today sing the Canadian words about the Battle of Queenston Heights written for the tune The British Grenadiers without being made to feel embarrassed and awkward?
Full article: http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/britcha2.htm
Note: http://www.monarchist.c...
http://www.monarchist.c...
http://www.monarchist.c...
http://www.monarchist.c...
The "British" Character Of Canada
Posted on Tuesday, May 31 at 11:51 by jensonjContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
<br />
From <a href="http://www.mountieshop.com/faqs.asp">http://www.mountieshop.com/faqs.asp</a> :<br />
Question: Doesn’t Disney own the rights to RCMP merchandise?<br />
<br />
Before 1995 there was no licensing program and the RCMP had little control over what products were made in their image. When the Mounted Police Foundation was set up, they soon realized that they didn’t have the knowledge or experience in product licencing and marketing. Clearly they needed outside assistance to set up their program. Disney was chosen because they had an international presence, superior licensing knowledge, and an appropriate corporate image that meet the RCMP’s requirements. Disney was given a 5 year contract to handle the marketing and licencing of RCMP products on behalf of the Mounted Police Foundation (Disney never owned the rights, they just acted as an agent on behalf of the RCMP). That agreement has now expired, and although there was some controversy over the decision, the experience Disney offered set the licensing program on smooth path which now is fully operated by the Foundation.<p>---<br>Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.
The British were no more brutal than the Chinese government is today, or any other third world country for that matter.
To suggest being related to the most powerful empire in the history of the world is something to be ahamed of is laughable, except to a pacifist anarchist.
As for upper class Brits showing contempt for us--Winston Churchill was an important exception to that rule. He recognized our ability and showed us respect.
---
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
---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.
---
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
---
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
I would point out that the British were one of the first empires to not only ban slavery, but to police known trade routes that involved the slave trade. Let us not forget that the British led the fight against Hitler and Napolean while other nations remained silent. And most importantly in our eyes as Canadians they defended this country twice from American aggression. So you'll see that the British were capable of contributing positively to world events.
The British have made countless other contributions to world culture. There are the advances made by men such as Newton and Darwin in science and technology. There is an enormous body of work by English writers, poets, and dramatists. There were the advances in democracy from the early concept of individual freedom, through the time of the English Revolution and Oliver Cromwell, all the way up into the early 20th Century and the Women's Suffragette movement that helped bring about equal rights for women. There was the transformations of Singapore and Hong Kong and the creation of nations of such as Australia, New Zeland, South Africa, India, the United States, and Canada. Simply put these nations and several others wouldn't exist today in their current forms if it weren't for the British. All of these contributions were either influenced in part by the Empire or took place during its existence, and all the while Canadians played a part.
Despite these accomplishments there were 700 years of brutal rule in Ireland and an equally brutal 300 year rule in India. There were the highland clearances in Scotland, the Opium Wars in China, and the rape, plundering, and murderings of indigenous peoples. There was even the unfair capitualtion in the Oregon Dispute that handed over legitimate parts of Canada at the time (the states of Oregon and Washington) to the United States in the 19th Century.
It all depends on what side of history you view. If you view the former positive history mentioned above than you're like my grandfather, and would have a hard time viewing the darker more disturbing parts of the Empire's history and you would clearly be in the wrong. However like many people in this country today, if you only see the negative aspects of this history, you're failing to miss the positive role the British played in shaping this country. Not only that, you ignore the role British Canadians are playing in present day Canada.
We do have a British character to ourselves in English Canada and it's being sold off and replaced by a cheap plastic American brand. It's unfortunate because this character has shaped and continues to shape many things from our sense of humour to our language and the arts just, and that's only to begin with. We're set apart from the Americans because of it, and given something in return by having a common similarity or passing familiarity with people from places like Australia, South Africa, Jamaica, Scotland and countless others. I noticed these things in my travels abroad as coming from a Commonwealth country helped bring people like Australians, Canadians, Brits, or Indians together and it was largely due to our shared identies and histories.
Our British character in English Canada (like the French character of Quebec and the First Nations peoples) should be enshrined and protected as being a part of our national heritage. And it begins with a balanced and honest view of history. After all, for those of us who oppose American imperialism and influence in Canada these two cultures are the the starting points.
---
"I pick the bones of what's been done. I'm the revolution when the door is shut. I bite the hand that slaps me senseless. I am far too Canadian" -SotW
Democratically we are a hundred years behind the states, with NO voting powers except to choose which party will rule us. Party representatives aren't even OUR representatives, something that few canadians are aware of but would conclude with just a little following of political actions in Parliament and Legislatures. That, again, is our british heritage.
Capitalism had it's most profound 'experiment' in Britain in the 1800's, not the US, and the US 'empire' is basically copying what all empires have done before it. Britain was no enemy of slavery, they just invented the 'free market' alternative to it which was 'indentured servitude'-in other words 'wage slavery', the system many claim we are under now. Many had their passage paid to get here, so long as they were virtual slaves for X number of years. The misery of many europeans guaranteed a steady crop of landless workers. There is far less chance of revolution so markets are more secure.
Most of those wonderful 'concessions' mentioned above ARE worth noting, there is no reason to deny them. What is far more to the point is WHY those concessions were granted, and it's no surprise that the main impetus behind most british 'progressions' was the French Revolution. English labourers and the poor were far worse off in Britain than they were in France, so when one looks at a neighbour and sees the graphic results of government's inattention to the poorer classes, well, that can really wake one up!
In Canada we see it the disbanding of british familiarity already, and trying to 'enshrine' it some way would be difficult at best. We know more about the US, they are our largest trading partner,etc., whereas without the media trumpeting it and paying for organizations and seniors to show up I doubt more than a few would bother showing up to see the Queen. I even know seniors who claim "we left britain to get away from that shite". Personally, apart from the musical ride the RCMP doesn't even exist as a 'cultural entity' for me-they are a police force like any other and it's very rare that I even think of the musical ride.
I can't think of anything in Canada that 'reminds me of britain' except our political system, which could use far more democracy and less 'parliament'. I am only expressing my opinion here, I'm not saying the majority share it or anything like that. The amount of british yearnings will depend on where you go in Canada and the numbers of english or perhaps scottish communities. To try to transfer that to a national stage will get harder and harder I think.
To say the U.S.A. is "100 years ahead of us", despite the fact they are less democratic federally is absurd. What matters is if it works in practice--the U.S.A. works worse than we do. Nothing except war gets accomplished.
A democratic country can go to war just as easily as a dictatorship, and there's no doubt that I am not painting the US as a desirable society to follow. However, for democracy, they are light years ahead. This is also why so much energy is committed to propaganda in the US, because citizens actually do have some limited power. Watch the end of "The Corporation" and you will see some amazing examples of 'people power'. In California Wal Mart was kept out of a community by a citizens initiative which the people voted on, in Guelph, millions of dollars is being expended simply because once local reps are bought off it is virtually impossible for 'the people' to do anything about it. Whether the Wal Mart goes up is still up in the air because its becoming a public relations war.
As far as Quebec goes, there's a difference between 'home rule' and 'provincial autonomy'. Like canadian provinces Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc., have their own burrough seats which decide local matters. I do agree that Quebec is more autonomous, but Quebec is hardly the norm in Canada-they have a different political structure, and are not part of our charter. They are also autonomous because of the separation issue which keeps the federal government on its toes because any mistake can come back and bite them on the butt because of a very vigourous opposition. However, there are nine other provinces and three other territories. Most canadian provinces are so dependant on transfer payments that real challenges to Ottawa are scarce. Plus, the economic system pretty much has provincial authority and federal authority 'on the same page'.
Home rule has also meant proportional representation in those two areas. I do agree that this is a slight missive, Great Britain is obviously not the society that I would nominate when talking about democracy, they are a very elite society and much of their political manouverings have been to avoid letting the 'layman' have any political power. However, the point is that PR is considered to be more representative, which I would take to be more democratic. British Columbia almost got there, but 'close calls' are not the same thing as actualities. Canada is now the only country in the democratic world which uses first past the post, single candidate representation at ALL levels of government. This makes us the least democratic country in the democratic world.
People can claim that we are less imposing on a world stage than the americans-although we aren't with the power we do have. That does not make us democratic. A dictatorship or monarchy can be run like the kingdom of heaven-that doesn't make it democratic. In fact, if this were the sixties or seventies I would agree that our system is far superior to the states, however, it is not, and I don't. I'd go even further and state that from what I know of canadians that if we had their system of government we'd be far ahead even of europe socially, economically and environmentally. But I may give canadians too much credit, since most of the democracy in the states came about because people demanded it, whereas in Canada we're yet to see that happen.
A good example is a recent one I've heard. If you read the papers you'll see the stories about the study the newspapers did of access to information requests. The province I'm from ranked as one of the worst. You couldn't even find out about class sizes. Right next door is Maine where they not only have citizen initiatives state wide, but also education initiatives at the local level. In New Brunswick, as class sizes expanded, people couldnt' even find out the numbers and even if they could there was virtually nothing they could do. That pretty much is the case across the country. Next door in Maine my sister was put in charge of the local petition to limit class sizes and it was successful, hence, no increase. That's a remarkable display of democracy that occurs nowhere in Canada except in Mohawk reservations in Quebec.
One of the tenets of democracy is of course the level of openness of the government. In the states it is remarkably open, even Noam Chomsky, hardly a fan of US policy, has talked about that. When you can't even find out the most basic information of how government is running your society I fear democracy is still a long way off ideal.