Look at any map. Then look at a satellite photo of the earth, and see if you can find any national borders etched into the landscape. With the possible exception of some island states, all countries are an act of collective and multi-generational imagination, not just Canada. Why should we feel that it should be any other way?
although, i suppose canada is different than many countries in that we have little in the way of formal or shared history.
by that i mean that, if you take someone from, say, italy, they can explain to you what it means to be italian. almost everyone there is from italy to a bazillion generations back, and speaks italian and looks italian, etc. so while there would certainly be major differences philosophically, politically, etc, there is for the most part an "ethnic" (hate that word) history.
wheras here in canada, being so new, we still all carry our cultural pasts to some degree. most of us identify as being from somewhere else (with the obvious exception of first nations people).
i know... it's the age old navel-gazing question of "what does it mean to be canadian? who are we?". but i think north america is fairly unique as a social/cultural hothouse, where groups from all over the world have moved, settled, and then called themselves a new people.
of course, that's just until the glaciers return and wipe it all out again and we start from scratch.
I think we are currently having a major identity crisis. Constantly defining ourselves by what we are not (U.S.) and clinging to Canadian "cultural institutions"(a donut chain)is pretty weak. Unchecked multiculturism, and the relationship with our First Nations are currently under the microscope. If those are flawed, what`s left? Hockey?
Actually, there are a number of distinct regions in Italy (the same is true of France, Spain, the U.K., Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. etc. etc.) where distinct varieties of language are spoken, with distinct cultural practices, and their own individual history. But, at some point these different regions agreed that they belonged together. That very idea is enough, over time, to cement together a nation despite persistent differences among the regions.
To say that a country like Italy has a shared history, culture, language etc. is only to say that they have DECIDED to share it. Why should someone in Milan necessarily agree that they share all these things with Rome, and not with Cannes in neighbouring France, or Zurich (don't forget that one of the offical languages of Switzerland is Romansch, a Latin-based language)? And why are Vatican City, Monaco, or San Marino NOT part of Italy? Surely the Vatican and Rome share an even more intimate relationship with each other than either one does to Sicily.
Historical choices create bonds, which often only strengthen over time (though of course, there are all too many examples of cases where this does not happen). The strongest bonds seem to occur when there was initially willingness on all sides to imagine together, and not when one side is forced unwillingly into the relationship (as in the case of Tibet within China, for example).
Where does Canada stand in all of this? The relationships between the non-native peoples are rather young in terms of world history, and the previously existing relationships between native groups have suffered tremendous pressure where they have not already been destroyed. But, we should not expect anything like a sense of nationhood to develop in such a short span of time. It might well take centuries for a common sense of Canadianness to pervade our culture - I would guess that it took at least that long in Italy, too.
A Love for Art was a collaborative blog for visual artists, musicians, writers, and social scientists. This blog has evolved into a new blog called BETA, go check it out!
9 comments:
"We are too big and too diverse to ever be a unified people. It is an act of the imagination that holds us together."
--Aretha van Herk
Look at any map. Then look at a satellite photo of the earth, and see if you can find any national borders etched into the landscape. With the possible exception of some island states, all countries are an act of collective and multi-generational imagination, not just Canada. Why should we feel that it should be any other way?
indeed.
although, i suppose canada is different than many countries in that we have little in the way of formal or shared history.
by that i mean that, if you take someone from, say, italy, they can explain to you what it means to be italian. almost everyone there is from italy to a bazillion generations back, and speaks italian and looks italian, etc. so while there would certainly be major differences philosophically, politically, etc, there is for the most part an "ethnic" (hate that word) history.
wheras here in canada, being so new, we still all carry our cultural pasts to some degree. most of us identify as being from somewhere else (with the obvious exception of first nations people).
i know... it's the age old navel-gazing question of "what does it mean to be canadian? who are we?". but i think north america is fairly unique as a social/cultural hothouse, where groups from all over the world have moved, settled, and then called themselves a new people.
of course, that's just until the glaciers return and wipe it all out again and we start from scratch.
I think we are currently having a major identity crisis. Constantly defining ourselves by what we are not (U.S.) and clinging to Canadian "cultural institutions"(a donut chain)is pretty weak.
Unchecked multiculturism, and the relationship with our First Nations are currently under the microscope. If those are flawed, what`s left?
Hockey?
Happy Birthday English Canada!
Actually, there are a number of distinct regions in Italy (the same is true of France, Spain, the U.K., Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. etc. etc.) where distinct varieties of language are spoken, with distinct cultural practices, and their own individual history. But, at some point these different regions agreed that they belonged together. That very idea is enough, over time, to cement together a nation despite persistent differences among the regions.
To say that a country like Italy has a shared history, culture, language etc. is only to say that they have DECIDED to share it. Why should someone in Milan necessarily agree that they share all these things with Rome, and not with Cannes in neighbouring France, or Zurich (don't forget that one of the offical languages of Switzerland is Romansch, a Latin-based language)? And why are Vatican City, Monaco, or San Marino NOT part of Italy? Surely the Vatican and Rome share an even more intimate relationship with each other than either one does to Sicily.
Historical choices create bonds, which often only strengthen over time (though of course, there are all too many examples of cases where this does not happen). The strongest bonds seem to occur when there was initially willingness on all sides to imagine together, and not when one side is forced unwillingly into the relationship (as in the case of Tibet within China, for example).
Where does Canada stand in all of this? The relationships between the non-native peoples are rather young in terms of world history, and the previously existing relationships between native groups have suffered tremendous pressure where they have not already been destroyed. But, we should not expect anything like a sense of nationhood to develop in such a short span of time. It might well take centuries for a common sense of Canadianness to pervade our culture - I would guess that it took at least that long in Italy, too.
Choices also create boundaries.
We are historically young.
We, like everything else, iterates.
I am happy to be Canadian.
I am happy to be of the Nations.
And a doughnut chain is truly pathetic.
Post a Comment