Canada

It’s Marc Garneau. Just a quick post here on yesterday’s news out of Ottawa that the Liberal party has its first post-Ignatieff candidate for the party leadership, at least for the interim job, anyway.

Garneau was Canada’s first person in space, travelling three times on American space shuttle missions. Garneau was a “payload” specialist with expertise in operating the Canadarm of the shuttle, its famous Canadian content. Post space ventures, he became President of the Canada Space Agency. A scientist, engineer, military officer, it’s quite an impressive background and definitely would be a contrast to other party leaders in Ottawa.

In the past year, he distinguished himself on the F-35 purchase issue (see video here, for example, where he really seemed to be enjoying himself in the political sparring) and in challenging the Conservative decision to axe Canada’s long form census. Both issues were in his wheelhouse, given his background, and he seemed to mature politically due to his involvement in those issues. He’s only been in Parliament since 2008.

He also has a sleeper likability about him as well. Unassuming and solid are two other adjectives I’d use. And see his twitter feed for more of the personality aspect. That May 9th tweet suddenly takes on a whole new meaning.

Interesting that news of his bid came one day after the caucus first met to begin discussions on the interim leadership, among other things. This Canadian Press report indicates the caucus has still not accepted the national executive’s conditions for the person seeking the interim leadership. Meaning he threw his bid out there before the question of whether the interim leader can become permanent leader is resolved (at least, that question is unresolved to the public eye). That’s interesting and it may say something about a selflessness he brings, or, he just doesn’t have any ambition for the permanent slot at all.

There still may be other interim leadership candidates to come, but that’s a brief initial take on Garneau’s bid.

The above picture captures Canada’s Public Safety Minister Vic Toews during a sleepy Sunday afternoon cybersecurity public relations event held back on October 3, 2010. That Sunday afternoon event marked the official announcement of Canada’s cybersecurity strategy. It has turned out to be a rather unfortunate photo-op at the present moment. Canada was hit with major news this past week (that has actually been bubbling for a few weeks now) about a cyberattack against our government systems of Chinese origin. See, for example: “Foreign hackers attack Canadian government,”Chinese hackers targeted House of Commons.”

The talking points were deployed to downplay the attack, as if little of consequence had happened. Prime Minister Harper and Toews spoke on Thursday about the matter, Harper in what seem to be newly perfected dulcet tones that characterize his manner in recent months:

But he said at a press conference in Toronto that he recognized cybersecurity was “a growing issue of importance, not just in this country, but across the world.”

He added that in anticipating potential cyberattacks, “we have a strategy in place to try and evolve our systems as those who would attack them become more sophisticated.”

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said he could not speak about details pertaining to security-related incidents, but he said the government takes such threats seriously and has “measures in place” to address them.

Lulling Canadians to sleep, as they so expertly do. It’s as if nothing, really, bothers these guys. Cyberattacks are everywhere, not just in Canada. What’s more, they explained, a government strategy is in place, the October launched strategy. The Harper government strategy is so successful, in fact, that the computers of Treasury Board, Finance and National Defence have been attacked over the past few weeks and the hackers “also cracked into the computer system of the House of Commons.” The severity of the breach is canvassed in the video report from CBC below, which reports the hackers “trolled government networks for weeks without a trace” for example. See also this expert: “…even in just a few seconds, if it was properly targeted — and it sounds like it was targeted — information of immense value could have been exchanged.” It’s a heck of a strategy that’s in place.

Canadians have been told there will be no effect on the upcoming budget, presently thought to be forthcoming on March 22 or March 29, a budget which will be a confidence vote and could see the defeat of the government, provoking a spring election. How the government is able to assure us, however, that no information pertinent to the budget has been lost is unclear. A security expert cited in the New York Times reporting on the breach was not convinced. We can imagine the fallout if the day after the budget were to be released any suspicious market moves were to occur. That’s a matter of speculation at the moment, given the uncertainty surrounding the hacking and the inability to get definitive information, but it’s something for rational observers to consider. How the government acts now in respect of the budget is something to watch. Indeed, on Friday, the Prime Minister engaged in sudden budget consultations with the leader of the fourth largest party in Parliament, the New Democratic Party. Whether this attack has factored into that consultation to any extent is anyone’s guess, given that there are other major controversies facing the Conservative government at the moment that may just as likely motivate them to stave off an election (they need only the support of one of the three opposition parties in order to survive a confidence vote).

Other points of interest surrounding Canada’s efforts on cybersecurity and this recent attack…

A paltry $90 million has been allocated by the Harper government over a period of five years to the task of cybersecurity. Those funds were allotted in the 2010 budget after their having been in office for four years and represent less than one year’s worth of promotional advertising for the Harper government.

It’s worth wondering what’s been done prior to and since Toews’ hastily arranged Sunday October news conference. Inquiring minds would like to know. Much of anything? It certainly served a useful purpose this week for the government and media to point to the event as an indication of the existence of a government cyberstrategy.

Canada’s Conservative government likes to characterize itself as tough on crime. They budget lots of money to build brick and mortar jails, billions in fact. But the above referenced cyberattack that has come to light fully in the past week, as they say in the online community, looks to be a big fail.

CBC video:

I was forwarded this Michael Geist article {h/t:: LQ} in the TO Star on lawful access legislation being tabled by the Conservatives here in Canada::

“The push for new Internet surveillance capabilities goes back to 1999, when government officials began crafting proposals to institute new surveillance technologies within Canadian networks along with additional legal powers to access surveillance and subscriber information.

The so-called lawful access initiatives stalled in recent years, but earlier this month the government tabled its latest proposal with three bills that received only limited attention despite their potential to fundamentally reshape the Internet in Canada.

The bills contain a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.”

The “trifecta” of bills are listed here and here are links to the first reading versions {C-50, C-51, C-52}. Last year, Geist blogged about Parliamentary reactions to the last round of lawful access bills, with the Liberals taking a stand of “what took you so long?”, while the NDP and the Bloc supported moving the bill {c-46} to committee, but expressed concerns about balancing privacy and security. Earlier in 2009, Impolitical warned of the implications of lawful access granting increased police powers::

“The dangers of such powers being placed with law enforcement and the potential for abuses have been made abundantly clear by the experience Americans have had with the Bush administration and the revelations from whistleblowers in the last year.”

I’m still reading up on the issue, but my immediate concerns, as one in the trenches with Web 3.0 projects, is the implications of warrantless surveillance and data mining, which may not be immediately evident by Parliamentarians or the general public. Algorithms already can mine data to determine the identities of people in social networks despite privacy settings on sites like Facebook.

The telcos are expressing concerns about the costs of compliance with the proposed surveillance, as compensation schemes aren’t well-defined.

While surveillance can sound good in the abstract or the theoretical, the devil is in the details and its implementation. While Google’s Eric Schmidt has a rather unenlightened view of privacy as it concerns “wrongdoing” online, a “don’t be evil” stance, the reality is that breaches of privacy of non-illegal activity can have real and dire consequences and it assumes a benign stance of law enforcement and police powers—without judicial oversight.

Twitterversion:: [blog] “Lawful access” bills in #Canada proposing increased Internet surveillance in emerging era of Web 3.0. @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Greetings from Kingston, Ontario. Happy Civic Holiday/Provincial Day weekend to many Canadian readers.

José’s post on the Democrats and the Voting Income Gap got me thinking about historical unemployment, which was 9.6% in June of 2010. One of the things to recall is that recessions and episodes of nationwide high unemployment tend to be short. Mobilizing lower income voters and increasing numbers of the middle class should be easier for the Democrats over time, if The Big Recession persists. Moreover, it’s not clear that the Republicans are offering platforms that are resonating outside of their base.

Looking at the Canadian unemployment rates, there are lingering eras with years of rates being over 8%. Generally speaking, these eras of high unemployment correspond with the rise of the fortunes of the New Democrats, a left-centre pro-labour party.

The NDP saw surges in Parliamentary seats in the elections of 1984 and 1997, in the midst of eras of high unemployment. Currently, the NDP is polling relatively strongly, although so are the Greens, which may fragment the vote on the left. Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government is hanging on because the Liberal Party is in disarray, with both of the major parties {Liberals & Conservatives} being relatively unpopular.

Lessons for the US?

It’s the economy, stupid. The Big Recession is hitting the middle class and rhetoric is only going to go so far. A big question is whether Democrats are willing move beyond centrist policies and if {a big if} they go towards Keynesianism, how will that be implemented?

Song:: Heaven 17-‘This Is Mine’

Twitterversion:: [blog] The politics of unemployment. Looking at economic eras in Canada & the US #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Notes from north of 49ºN

“Sugar Sammy” is an Indo-Canadian comic with a cultural studies degree from McGill who wants to portray the visible minority experience in Québec. While getting some acclaim in the anglophone realm and even had had a HBO special, the multilingual Sammy {who speaks Hindi, Punjabi, English, and French}, was up for an Olivier award for Québec humour.

A few weeks ago, I blogged about a Wind Mobile ad airing here in Canada that uses cultural stereotypes of south Asians as a part of its humour.  In that post, I brought up the Apu “problem”, where a Simpson’s character also uses cultural stereotypes to get laughs and to shill for 7-11 with a promotional tie-in in 2007. In this stand-up clip, Sammy goes after Apu and how it’s voiced by a non-South Asian {Hank Azaria} and how media portrayals of South Asians tend towards the weird {go to 3:05}::

While using race as fodder for comedy is nothing new, there’s arguably more room for alternative cultural narratives, particularly with the proliferation of social media. Sammy’s experience of being Indian in a francophone region of a predominantly anglophone country is a story of confluences of culture, politics, and power. In Québec, Bill 101/Loi 101 is the law of the land, where the primary language of instruction in the province is French, as part of attempts to make French language the norm in the province.

Mr. Khullar delivers his routines in flawless French, the result of being streamed into French school along with all the immigrant children in his multicultural neighbourhood of Côte-des-Neiges in Montréal. At the time, the lack of choice wasn’t a big hit in the Khullar household.

But today, the thirtysomething comic acknowledges it’s given him his chance at succeeding on home turf.

‘I’m a child of Bill 101,” he says. “I’m happy I went to French school, because my French wouldn’t have been this good. The more languages I speak, the more people I reach.'”

Sammy’s jokes hit themes where many anglophones would fear to tread—at least in front of an audience at a comedy show. He touches on the cultural stereotypes of the Québécois, but he can do so in perfect French::

video [French]:: “Les Québécois” skit, nominee for Olivier Award

While it may seem like a double-standard that Sammy can poke fun of cultural stereotypes of the Québécois and it seems offsides that the dominant culture poke fun of the South Asian stereotypes, one could say it’s a matter of the dynamics of cultural power and which group has it. Arguably, Sammy gets away with his comedic critiques with respect to Québec audiences because {1} he’s not anglo—i.e., he’s not a member of the dominant anglophone Canadian culture that many in Québec see as hegemonic and {2} he speaks perfect French.

Sammy didn’t win the Olivier award, but you’d be hard-pressed to know that if you just followed the anglophone press. I had to dig deep and use my rudimentary French to find the winners on the Radio-Canada {French CBC} site.

When it comes to comedy in Canada, I think it’s safe to say there’s one safe target no matter who you are. Americans. Of course, this a topic for another blog.

Song:: Malajube-‘St. Fortunat’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Multilingual Indo-Canadian comic Sugar Sammy negotiates cult. boundaries in post-Bill/Loi 101 Quebec #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Notes from north of 49ºN

A shorter, more applied version of this appears on rhizomicon.

The above Wind Mobile commercial is for a Canadian cellphone carrier, competing with the big three, Bell, Rogers, and Telus. The humour is derived from characterizing the major wireless carriers as entities that turn a nominal charge into a much larger one with extra fees and charges. Another facet is the use of a South Asian hot dog vendor to make the point, using an accent and cultural stereotypes familiar in North America. The South Asian-Canadian population was 4% of the population in 2006, categorized as visible minorities., i.e., visibly not one of the majority race in a population.

Is this Wind commercial offensive?

This reminds me of a 2007 Guardian UK piece by Manish Vij criticizing the use of The Simpson’s character of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon by 7-11 as part of a tie-in promotion.

“Apu is quite a unique character on The Simpsons. Unlike the show’s parodies of policemen and Irish-Americans, he’s the only character to mock a small American minority relatively unknown in the mainstream, and he’s by far the most visible immigrant. For desis (South Asians) growing up in America, just one eighth as concentrated and visible as in the UK, Apu shadowed us at every turn. Until the rise of American Idol chanteur Sanjaya Malakar, Apu was the most widely-known Indian after Mahatma Gandhi. And he has that fake Peter Sellers simulacrum of an Indian accent: Apu’s voice Hank Azaria, a Greek-American, is a brown man doing a white man doing a brown man.

To be sure, Apu has many redeeming qualities: a loving wife, passive-aggressive cunning, and a Ph.D. Culture-vulture Simpsons fans have felled entire forests in arguing that he’s a parody of a stereotype, rather than the stereotype itself. But the plain fact is that most viewers are laughing at Apu, not with him. They’re enjoying the simple pleasures of a funny, singsong brown man with a slippery grasp of English.”

Manish states that not all South Asians were against the promotion, but quotes a post on an online 7-11 franchise forum::

“This is an absolute embarrassment for our company… The vast majority of franchisees are immigrants… [A]ccepting our portrayal of Apu is nothing less [than] accepting the images portrayed years ago in the US of black people with very black faces, big lips and white teeth… [T]hat image is considered racist, so does Apu [seem] to me… I cannot imagine any store willing to rebrand to Kwik-E-Mart even for a day… I am not proud to be part of this promotion.”

Some commenters on the Guardian’s site and elsewhere this was discussed were quick to say the reaction is overly-PC and that The Simpsons have poked fun of the Scots with Groundskeeper Willie.

It’s easy to get into pissing matches about who one can and cannot make fun of in a post-racial world, isn’t the real issue about cultural power, privilege, and dominant and dominated positions? Does the rise of black cultural power in the US explain why outrageous stereotypes and iconography are now taboo? While some may eyeroll at complaints by groups that point out racism as overly-PC, isn’t protesting/complaining one means of how cultural power is obtained/negotiated?

The problem is that the stereotypes often serve to reinforce unflattering or negative attitudes towards a stigmatized outgroup. So, in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle {2004}, despite Kumar being an upper-middle class medical school candidate who speaks perfect English without an accent, local thugs use cultural power to harass him with the taunt,”thank you, come again.” Later in the film, Kumar used the taunt ironically right back at his harassers::

The lines of cultural power and privilege can get blurry. Media and advertising infuse meaning and shape attitudes, but what’s a marketer/advertiser to do? The use of stereotypes is meant to increase the efficacy of the communication, i.e., ideally the content resonates more with the audience. On the other hand, should marketers and advertisers steer clear of using stereotypes in a non-ironic way, in order to protect the brand from being labelled as insensitive? Some might say that those who take offense need to “get over it,” but before someone goes on the record as saying that, perhaps they should ask themselves how much cultural power they have.

Twitterversion:: Wind Mobile hotdog cart ad in Canada uses stereotypes to make a humourous pt. Is it offensive or benign? #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: M.I.A. -‘World Town’

Notes from North of 49ºN

Charles McGrath in the NY Times wrote a curious and annoying piece on Canada’s quest for gold in the upcoming Winter Olympics in Vancouver {HT: LinnyQat}. I thought his characterization of Canada to be a collection of what I call “university-educated” stereotypes complete with quotes of Canadians, such as Margaret Atwood, that make the country sound like a nation of self-loating and self-deprecating sots. It’s articles like this that remind me that the New York Times often is a purveyor of moderately well-written naval gazing with all the right references to make it seem legit.

I’ve written blogs on Canada’s postcolonial experience, as well as how a trajectory of regionalism may be at play. Reading McGrath made me think about my own blogs. He thinks he’s stumbled on a new Canadian consciousness that cares about Olympic medals that’s out of place in the zeitgeist of the nation::

“They want to rewire the national mind-set and come away with not just a couple of golds but the most medals over all. They have dedicated roughly $118 million to enhancing the performance of Canadian athletes, and have financed something called the Top Secret project, in which teams of scientists have been studying the various winter sports in hope of gaining a technological edge.

The organization in charge of improving Canada’s medal performance has the un-Canadian-sounding name Own the Podium, and its chief executive, Roger Jackson, said: “We’ve never been pressured before to perform to a stated goal. Thirty medals or more is what we’re hoping for this time. I think we can get those.”

Talk like this, so nakedly ambitious, makes some Canadians uneasy. Theirs is a vast country that in many ways is run like a small town, with small-town values, and it has a highly developed culture of modesty, if not a collective inferiority complex. The athletic record in general is a little underwhelming, and some Canadians think that is because their countrymen prefer that, considering a good effort just as valuable as a trunkload of trophies, maybe better.”

McGrath is sounding like an American version of Andrew Cohen in The Unfinished Canadian. While I’ve argued that Canadian identity may be “fuzzy,” that has more to do with its sheer size, distinct regions, and relatively small population. Never underestimate the power of sports to galvanize a sense of identity, as evident in the recent film Invictus::

What McGrath fails to parse is the effects of capitalism and of culture. Hockey galvanizes Canada, solidifying an identity that may be fuzzy. It’s not that Canadians are OK with losing, as McGrath implies, it’s question of economics.  It looks like Canada is willing to invest in its teams and I’ll bet a box of Timbits that if Canada wins medals, there won’t be a collective national sheepishness over the feat. Canadians don’t fear winning, it’s just that Canadian capitalism, to date, hasn’t fostered it. It looks like that’s changing.

The Canadian embracing of funding the medal count may not be without controversy. The Olympics have their detractors because of the astronomical costs involved. So, Canadians may like winning, there may not be a collective willingness to finance it at stratospheric levels.

Some may argue that if Canadians are so into hockey, why did they let the sport become Americanized and lose the Winnipeg Jets and Québec Nordiques in the process? It’s all about capitalism. I’ve blogged about the NHL on Rhizomicon and while the NHL has tried to expand heavily in the US to vie for the sports entertainment dollar, it’s the Canadian fans that are making the Canadian teams the top revenue generators.

Unfortunately, given scarcity of resources, the Canadian biatheletes are out in the cold, i.e., no corporate sponsorships. So, I’ll give them a shout out::

While Zina Kocher is a World Cup bronze medalist from the 2006-7 season, the funding just isn’t there for the biathlon.

Here’s a response to the NY Times pirce from the Toronto Star, which is pretty funny::

“We started talking about what we’re hoping for at the Olympics.

Ned said he hoped Canada would win so many fourths that they’d have to make a special new medal. Maybe a nickel medal. With a beaver on it. But not a cocky-looking beaver. Just a plain work-a-day beaver. We could hand them out after all the foreigners leave – so that no one feels left out.

I said I hoped we might sweep the fourths and fifths. And the odd sixth. But Ned shook his head at me, and I felt awful for a few minutes. And then ashamed of feeling awful.

But it was exciting to talk this way. Maybe the most exciting thing we’ve talked about since they (whimper) let Wayne drift away into that heaven-on-Earth they call California.”

Twitterversion::  NYTimes #fail confuses Canadian culture with capitalism re: Olympic medal push. Hilarious response in #Toronto Star. @Prof_K

Song:: The Besnard Lakes {Montréal, QC} -“Albatross”

Notes from North of 49ºN

This is a follow-up post to:: Postcolonial Canada, National Identity, & the Nature of Hegemony :: The Trajectory of Canada. This post will focus on the political implications of the current postcolonial circumstance.

Around Canada Day last summer, I talked about the role of media in terms of nation and globalization. I was contemplating the concepts of “nation” and “citizen” within the sphere of North American capitalism. If nation doesn’t matter, do we just become consumers?

In my last post, I echo these ideas, but derived my thoughts on the “fuzziness” of Canadian identity by rooting it in its postcolonial circumstance. The concept of Canada as a nation is problematized by its history and trajectory; going from a colony of Britain with a sizeable minority culture {Québec} to being a next-door neighbour to a superpower. This isn’t to say that Canada has no identity. Ask “Joe” from the classic I Am a Canadian Molson ads series.  This one is titled “Rant”::

While within the context of the cultural product of advertising, I find the ad interesting, as it plays upon the notion of Canada as stereotyped and misunderstood by its powerful neighbour to the south. It juxtaposes Canada by delineating what it is not—the United States. The ad inspired several parodies, including this one from a Toronto radio station titled, “I Am Not Canadian”, which illuminates stereotypes of Québec. At any rate, I think there is a Canadian identity, but I’m not sure how unified it is across the country.

Perhaps one of the products of fuzzy identity is a steady trend of increasingly decentralized federalism since WWII. This set the stage for the rise of regionalism, perhaps starting with Québec opting out of federal programmes. Decentralized federalism also means that Canada as an institution will have less and less meaning over time. Pragmatically, it opens the door up for political gridlock::

“There is disagreement not only between the provinces and the federal government, but also among the provinces themselves. Canadians are losing patience with the endless cacophony. They want high-quality services, delivered in ways that are transparent so that they can track results. They are pragmatists. Fix it, they demand. When it doesn’t get fixed, they grow impatient with institutional gridlock.” [1]

Perhaps a product of this impatience is tuning out. Canadian voter turnout has been the lowest it’s been in 100 years, in the low to mid 60s the 00s and dipping to 58.8% in 2008.  Moreover, decentralized federalism could explain the fragmentation of politics we’ve seen of late, which I’ve blogged about over on Rhizomicon, characterized by 35% of the popular vote not going to the major parties. Decentralized federalism forces much of the national political discourse on domestic issues to focus on the provincial or regional implications of policy.  One of my observations is the rise of regional politics in Québec and the West.

Here’s a map of the 2000 federal election, before the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform/Canadian Alliance parties merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada in 2003, but after the formation of the Bloc Québecois in 1991::

In the West, the Canadian Alliance {green} won 66 of 301 seats in Parliament, while in Québec, the Bloc Québecois {light blue} won 38 seats.  The predecessor to the Canadian Alliance , the Reform Party, was a socially and fiscally conservative populist party that had the bulk of the support in the western provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, making inroads into Saskatchewan and Manitoba.  Its policies and rhetoric were, at times, very divisive and anti-Québec, as evident in this ad campaign from the prior election in 1997::

“[Preston] Manning and Reform were roundly criticized by the other candidates when they ran an ad saying politicians from Québec had controlled the federal government for too long.

Chretien [Liberal Party leader], Charest [Progressive Conservative leader] and Duceppe [Bloc Québécois leader] are all from Québec, and the prime minister of Canada for 28 of the last 29 years has hailed from the province. Still, the assertion led to denunciations of Manning as ‘intolerant’ and a ‘bigot,’ though it seemed to play well in his Western base.” [2]

The Reform “style” members of Parliament of the Conservative Party, who are primarily in the West, have effectively formed a Western “Bloc,” as some argue that the policies of the Conservative Party are heavily influenced by the Reform wing. additionally, the Conservative Party has less of a stake in federalism, which frees them to serve regional interests.

Where does this leave Canada in term of its future trajectory? I don’t see identity formation occurring overnight and I see the likelihood of increased political fragmentation based on region and ideology {given the rise in support of the New Democrats and the Greens since 2000}. In light of this, it may be time to think about more centralized federalism, but the challenge will be how to configure it without a serious crisis at hand. On the other hand, what about leadership? Does strong leadership with results give the electorate meaning, a sense of identity, and increased civic engagement?

Twitterversion:: Thoughts on rising politics of region in Canada, stemming fr.”fuzziness” on concept of Canada as a nation #ThickCulture http://url.ie/4r5l #ThickCulture @Prof_K

References::

[1] Stein, Janice G. (2006) “Canada by Mondrian: Networked Federalism in an Era of Globalization.” Banff Forum. Accessed 24 January 2010, http://banffforum.ca/common/documents/Reading_polit_sust_stein.pdf

[2] CNN (1997)  “Canada poised for vote that may deadlock parliament”.  Retrieved 21 January 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9706/01/canada.elex/index.html

Notes from north of 49ºN

José’s post from late November, Exploding Empires, got me thinking about Canada’s postcolonial experience.  While the remnants of the British empire linger with political structures {including the viceregal Governor General} and the Queen on the money, before 1663 most of Canada was a part of New France.  If the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and the siege of Québec City went differently, it would have been interesting to see the trajectory of Canada, if New France stayed under French control or if there was a long protracted war with Britain.  That’s neither here nor there, but the reality is that Canada does have the legacy of being a part of the British empire, while arguably subjugating the First Nations and francophone Québec, which I’ll come back to later.

So, in 1867, Canada became a Dominion in the British Commonwealth with its own Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald {who is on the $10 bill}. This was a trend with its “white settler” colonies. In 1931, The Statute of Westminster made the Canadian Parliament independent of British control and Canada ceased being a colony.  Nevertheless, there were and are ties to Britain. In fact, during WWII, many of the archives for Canada were destroyed in the Battle of Britain, which were housed in London, England, not Ottawa.

The relationship between Canada and Britain has shaped Canada’s character.  The obvious way to characterize the relationship is one of parent and child, but how to characterize it further? Canada as the abused Cinderella? Benign neglect? For decades, the British sought to assert imperial authority and reduce the influence of popular control of the government, which was viewed as a precursor to the American revolution [1]. Once British control began to wane, the rapid industrialization of the United States resulted in a dominant cultural and economic power at Canada’s doorstep.  Many argue that Canada traded one hegemon for another. Many Canadian writers, including Margaret Atwood, saw this pattern and sought to “decolonize” Canada, but what exactly does that entail?  What does a decolonized Canada look like? Is a strong national identity required?

The simmering legacy of the ghost of an old colonialism, i.e., New France, along with First Nations and immigrant communities, serve to further complicate matters by generating tensions from within.   Québec, a province with about 23.9% of the population where 40% of its residents support some form of sovereignty for Québec.  Urbanist Jane Jacobs around 1979-80 even went as far to say::

“Montréal cannot afford to behave like other Canadian regional cities without doing great damage to the economic well-being of the Québécois. It must instead become a creative economic centre in its own right… Yet there is probably no chance of this happening if Québec remains a province.” [2]

Despite hundreds of years passing since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, there is definitely a strong francophone cultural identity in Québec and a resurgence of separatist politics enabled by the Quiet Revolution/Révolution Tranquille of the 1960s.

Add to the mix, globalization and the resultant Appaduraian flows of financial capital, human migration, media, ideologies [3, 4], and brands [5].

I feel all of these four factors::

1. Historical trajectory of British colonialism
2. Proximity to US cultural {media} and economic forces
3. The subjugation of francophone culture under a trajectory of British colonialism
4. Current state of globalization with flows of people, media, capital, ideologies and brands

serve to strongly decentre the very concept of Canada and Canadian identity, i.e., Canada as an “imagined community” in the Benedict Anderson sense [6]. Extending Anderson’s ideas about print capitalism being critical in defining the concept of nation, I would argue that Canadian identity is being undermined because of the dominance of US media, particularly film, television, and Internet content. I’ve argued for increased funding of the CBC and I feel it can and should play a role in defining nation.  This post isn’t meant to be an accusation or to sound an alarm, but open up a dialogue about the future trajectory of Canada.

If Canadian identity is indeed decentred, doesn’t this imply a fuzziness in people’s meaning systems regarding Canada and does this fuzziness lead to less resistance of hegemonic forces?  Does any of this even matter?  Aren’t these just market forces in action?  Antonio Gramsci says hegemony requires acquiescence [7], but as global consumers, aren’t we all willing to submit to hegemony if it strikes our fancy?  Sweet, glorious hegemony. Hasn’t China proven that global consumers are willing to purchase in ways that are detrimental to their own economies?

I think national identity matters, as does resistance to hegemonic forces.  Identity matters, as a shared sense of communitas and comradeship should guide policy and everyday actions. Citizens should derive meaning from the institution and social construction of nation. Resistance to hegemony matters, as this allows for culture to remain dynamic by allowing its redefinition, rather than continually self-replicating in the same fashion in the style created by the powers that be, i.e., the corporation and the state.

My next blog post will extend these ideas to Canadian politics.

Twitterversion:: Thoughts about “postcolonial” Canada given its relationships with Britain, USA, & Quebec. Interplay b/t media & identity. http://url.ie/4q9t @Prof_K

Song:: Weakerthans-“One Great City”

References

[1] Smith, Simon (1998). British Imperialism 1750-1970. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052159930X.

[2] Philpot, R. (2006) “She Stayed Creative Until the End: The Rich Life of Jane Jacobs” counterpunch.org, retrieved 21 January 2010, from http://www.counterpunch.org/philpot04262006.html

[3] Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large. Cambridge, MA: University of Minnesota Press.

[4] Appadurai, A. (1990) “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy” Retrieved 21 January 2010,  http://www.intcul.tohoku.ac.jp/~holden/MediatedSociety/Readings/2003_04/Appadurai.html

[5] Sherry, J.F. (1998) ‘The Soul of the Company Store: Nike Town Chicago and the Emplaced Brandscape’, in J.F. Sherry (ed.) ServiceScapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets, pp. 305–36. Chicago: NTC Business Books.

[6] Anderson, Benedict (1983) Imagined Communities. Verso. http://books.google.com/books?id=4mmoZFtCpuoC&dq=benedict+anderson+imagined+communities&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=cZ9YS–eFcLO8QaZq-jKAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[7] Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Lawrence and Wishart.

Notes from north of 49ºN

In the Twittersphere, this Ottawa Citizen article on green stimulus has been going around, based on a forthcoming UN report.  While 15% of the $3.1T in global stimulus investments are green, Canada, under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is lagging behind {See data below the jump}, barely in the top 10 in amount spent and percentage of green stimulus.  South Korea is leading the way, in terms of both amount spent and percent of stimulus spending, while the US is third in total green stimulus spending.  Not surprising, given news reports up in Canada::

“A common theme, though, appears to be a series of delays in approvals and disbursements, with less than one-quarter likely to be spent in 2009.”

The UN report recommends that G20 countries increase the rates of investments in green infrastructure and stimulus.  Five key areas for focus were identified::

1. energy efficiency in old and new buildings
2. renewable energy technologies such as wind power
3. sustainable transport technologies such as hybrid vehicles or high-speed rail
4. global ecological infrastructure such as forests
5. sustainable agriculture

I haven’t crunched any numbers, but looking at the list, I think there’s an interaction effect with policy support of green initiatives and clusterings of firms with green innovation strategies.  One of the questions I had is whether, thus far, is the idea that “green” is viewed as a luxury.  While imperfect, I wanted to see the relationship between richer nations {higher GDP per capita} and investment in green stimulus {per capita}.  I crunched these numbers (below the jump, with the GDP data taken from the IMF 2008 data}.  While there are not enough data points to make strong inferences about the data relationship, the following graph tells a story.  South Korea skews the curve::

Taking the US & South Korea out, increases in green stimulus increases at a decreasing rate with respect to higher levels of GDP::

So, looking at the data, South Korea and China are investing in green technologies, despite having lower average national incomes.  It would be interesting to monitor which technologies are being invested in the various countries and track the outcomes.  Canada should heed what’s going on, as they try to shift towards innovation and away from natural resource extraction.

Twitterversion:: #PMHarper’s #Canada lagging #G20 in green stimulus innov. spendng. Richer tend2 spend+, but China& S.Korea making a play. http://url.ie/2ihx @Prof_K

Song:: Everythings Gone Green (Edit) – New Order

more...