![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/thickculture\/files\/2010\/01\/CanadaPC.jpg\" "\\"CanadaPC\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Notes from north of 49\u00baN<\/em><\/p>\n Jos\u00e9’s post from late November, Exploding Empires<\/a><\/strong>, got me thinking about Canada’s postcolonial experience. \u00a0While the remnants of the British empire linger with political structures {including the viceregal Governor General<\/a><\/strong>} and the Queen on the money<\/a><\/strong>, before 1663 most of Canada was a part of New France<\/a><\/strong>. \u00a0If the Battle of the Plains of Abraham<\/a><\/strong> and the siege of Qu\u00e9bec 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. \u00a0That’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<\/a><\/strong> and francophone Qu\u00e9bec, which I’ll come back to later.<\/p>\n So, in 1867, Canada became a Dominion<\/a><\/strong> in the British Commonwealth with its own Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald {who is on the $10 bill<\/a><\/strong>}. This was a trend with its “white settler” colonies. In 1931, The Statute of Westminster<\/a><\/strong> made the Canadian Parliament independent of British control and Canada ceased being a colony. \u00a0Nevertheless, 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.<\/p>\n The relationship between Canada and Britain has shaped Canada’s character. \u00a0The 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?\u00a0For 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\u00a0British control began to wane, the rapid industrialization of the United States resulted in a dominant cultural and economic power at Canada’s doorstep. \u00a0Many argue that Canada traded one hegemon<\/a><\/strong> for another. Many Canadian writers, including Margaret Atwood, saw this pattern and sought to “decolonize” Canada, but what exactly does that entail? \u00a0What does a decolonized Canada look like? Is a strong national identity required?<\/p>\n The simmering legacy of the ghost of an old colonialism, i.e<\/em>., New France, along with First Nations and immigrant communities, serve to further complicate matters by generating tensions from within. \u00a0\u00a0Qu\u00e9bec, a province with about 23.9% of the population where 40% of its residents support some form of sovereignty\u00a0for Qu\u00e9bec. \u00a0Urbanist Jane Jacobs<\/a><\/strong> around 1979-80 even went as far to say::<\/p>\n \u201cMontr\u00e9al cannot afford to behave like other Canadian regional cities without doing great damage to the economic well-being of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois. It must instead become a creative economic centre in its own right\u2026 Yet there is probably no chance of this happening if Qu\u00e9bec remains a province.\u201d [2]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Despite hundreds of years passing since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, there is definitely a strong francophone cultural identity in Qu\u00e9bec and a resurgence of separatist politics enabled by the Quiet Revolution\/R\u00e9volution Tranquille<\/a><\/strong> of the 1960s.<\/p>\n Add to the mix, globalization and the resultant Appaduraian flows of financial capital, human migration, media, ideologies [3, 4], and brands [5].<\/p>\n I feel all of these four factors::<\/p>\n serve to strongly decentre the very concept of Canada and Canadian identity<\/a><\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, Canada as an “imagined community” in the Benedict Anderson<\/a><\/strong> 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<\/a><\/strong> and I feel it can and should play a role in defining nation. \u00a0This post isn’t meant to be an accusation or to sound an alarm, but open up a dialogue about the future trajectory of Canada.<\/p>\n 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? \u00a0Does any of this even matter? \u00a0Aren’t these just market forces in action? \u00a0Antonio Gramsci <\/a><\/strong>says hegemony requires acquiescence [7], but as global consumers, aren’t we all willing to submit to hegemony if it strikes our fancy? \u00a0Sweet, glorious hegemony. Hasn’t China proven that global consumers are willing to purchase in ways that are detrimental to their own economies?<\/p>\n I think national identity matters, as does resistance to hegemonic forces. \u00a0Identity matters, as a shared sense of communitas<\/a><\/strong><\/em> 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.<\/em>, the corporation and the state.<\/p>\n My next blog post will extend these ideas to Canadian politics.<\/p>\n Twitterversion:: <\/strong>Thoughts about “postcolonial” Canada given its relationships with Britain, USA, & Quebec. Interplay b\/t media & identity. http:\/\/url.ie\/4q9t<\/a> @Prof_K<\/a><\/p>\n Song:<\/strong>: Weakerthans-“One Great City”\n
\n
![Queen on the money<\/a><\/strong>, before 1663 most of Canada was a part of New France<\/a><\/strong>. \u00a0If the Battle of the Plains of Abraham<\/a><\/strong> and the siege of Qu\u00e9bec 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. \u00a0That’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<\/a><\/strong> and francophone Qu\u00e9bec, which I’ll come back to later.<\/p>\nSo, in 1867, Canada became a Dominion<\/a><\/strong> in the British Commonwealth with its own Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald {who is on the $10 bill<\/a><\/strong>}. This was a trend with its “white settler” colonies. In 1931, The Statute of Westminster<\/a><\/strong> made the Canadian Parliament independent of British control and Canada ceased being a colony. \u00a0Nevertheless, 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.<\/p>\nThe relationship between Canada and Britain has shaped Canada’s character. \u00a0The 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?\u00a0For 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\u00a0British control began to wane, the rapid industrialization of the United States resulted in a dominant cultural and economic power at Canada’s doorstep. \u00a0Many argue that Canada traded one hegemon<\/a><\/strong> for another. Many Canadian writers, including Margaret Atwood, saw this pattern and sought to “decolonize” Canada, but what exactly does that entail? \u00a0What does a decolonized Canada look like? Is a strong national identity required?<\/p>\nThe simmering legacy of the ghost of an old colonialism, i.e<\/em>., New France, along with First Nations and immigrant communities, serve to further complicate matters by generating tensions from within. \u00a0\u00a0Qu\u00e9bec, a province with about 23.9% of the population where 40% of its residents support some form of sovereignty\u00a0for Qu\u00e9bec. \u00a0Urbanist Jane Jacobs<\/a><\/strong> around 1979-80 even went as far to say::<\/p>\n\u201cMontr\u00e9al cannot afford to behave like other Canadian regional cities without doing great damage to the economic well-being of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois. It must instead become a creative economic centre in its own right\u2026 Yet there is probably no chance of this happening if Qu\u00e9bec remains a province.\u201d [2]<\/p><\/blockquote>\nDespite hundreds of years passing since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, there is definitely a strong francophone cultural identity in Qu\u00e9bec and a resurgence of separatist politics enabled by the Quiet Revolution\/R\u00e9volution Tranquille<\/a><\/strong> of the 1960s.<\/p>\nAdd to the mix, globalization and the resultant Appaduraian flows of financial capital, human migration, media, ideologies [3, 4], and brands [5].<\/p>\nI feel all of these four factors::<\/p>\n\nHistorical trajectory of British colonialism<\/li>\nProximity to US cultural {media} and economic forces<\/li>\nThe subjugation of francophone culture under a trajectory of British colonialism<\/li>\nCurrent state of globalization with flows of people, media, capital, ideologies and brands<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nserve to strongly decentre the very concept of Canada and Canadian identity<\/a><\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, Canada as an “imagined community” in the Benedict Anderson<\/a><\/strong> 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<\/a><\/strong> and I feel it can and should play a role in defining nation. \u00a0This post isn’t meant to be an accusation or to sound an alarm, but open up a dialogue about the future trajectory of Canada.<\/p>\nIf 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? \u00a0Does any of this even matter? \u00a0Aren’t these just market forces in action? \u00a0Antonio Gramsci <\/a><\/strong>says hegemony requires acquiescence [7], but as global consumers, aren’t we all willing to submit to hegemony if it strikes our fancy? \u00a0Sweet, glorious hegemony. Hasn’t China proven that global consumers are willing to purchase in ways that are detrimental to their own economies?<\/p>\nI think national identity matters, as does resistance to hegemonic forces. \u00a0Identity matters, as a shared sense of communitas<\/a><\/strong><\/em> 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.<\/em>, the corporation and the state.<\/p>\nMy next blog post will extend these ideas to Canadian politics.<\/p>\nTwitterversion:: <\/strong>Thoughts about “postcolonial” Canada given its relationships with Britain, USA, & Quebec. Interplay b\/t media & identity. http:\/\/url.ie\/4q9t<\/a> @Prof_K<\/a><\/p>\nSong:<\/strong>: Weakerthans-“One Great City”\n](\"http:\/\/www.allcanada.com\/html\/images\/Canadian20.jpg\"){kind=link}
![$10 bill<\/a><\/strong>}. This was a trend with its “white settler” colonies. In 1931, The Statute of Westminster<\/a><\/strong> made the Canadian Parliament independent of British control and Canada ceased being a colony. \u00a0Nevertheless, 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.<\/p>\nThe relationship between Canada and Britain has shaped Canada’s character. \u00a0The 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?\u00a0For 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\u00a0British control began to wane, the rapid industrialization of the United States resulted in a dominant cultural and economic power at Canada’s doorstep. \u00a0Many argue that Canada traded one hegemon<\/a><\/strong> for another. Many Canadian writers, including Margaret Atwood, saw this pattern and sought to “decolonize” Canada, but what exactly does that entail? \u00a0What does a decolonized Canada look like? Is a strong national identity required?<\/p>\nThe simmering legacy of the ghost of an old colonialism, i.e<\/em>., New France, along with First Nations and immigrant communities, serve to further complicate matters by generating tensions from within. \u00a0\u00a0Qu\u00e9bec, a province with about 23.9% of the population where 40% of its residents support some form of sovereignty\u00a0for Qu\u00e9bec. \u00a0Urbanist Jane Jacobs<\/a><\/strong> around 1979-80 even went as far to say::<\/p>\n\u201cMontr\u00e9al cannot afford to behave like other Canadian regional cities without doing great damage to the economic well-being of the Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois. It must instead become a creative economic centre in its own right\u2026 Yet there is probably no chance of this happening if Qu\u00e9bec remains a province.\u201d [2]<\/p><\/blockquote>\nDespite hundreds of years passing since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, there is definitely a strong francophone cultural identity in Qu\u00e9bec and a resurgence of separatist politics enabled by the Quiet Revolution\/R\u00e9volution Tranquille<\/a><\/strong> of the 1960s.<\/p>\nAdd to the mix, globalization and the resultant Appaduraian flows of financial capital, human migration, media, ideologies [3, 4], and brands [5].<\/p>\nI feel all of these four factors::<\/p>\n\nHistorical trajectory of British colonialism<\/li>\nProximity to US cultural {media} and economic forces<\/li>\nThe subjugation of francophone culture under a trajectory of British colonialism<\/li>\nCurrent state of globalization with flows of people, media, capital, ideologies and brands<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nserve to strongly decentre the very concept of Canada and Canadian identity<\/a><\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, Canada as an “imagined community” in the Benedict Anderson<\/a><\/strong> 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<\/a><\/strong> and I feel it can and should play a role in defining nation. \u00a0This post isn’t meant to be an accusation or to sound an alarm, but open up a dialogue about the future trajectory of Canada.<\/p>\nIf 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? \u00a0Does any of this even matter? \u00a0Aren’t these just market forces in action? \u00a0Antonio Gramsci <\/a><\/strong>says hegemony requires acquiescence [7], but as global consumers, aren’t we all willing to submit to hegemony if it strikes our fancy? \u00a0Sweet, glorious hegemony. Hasn’t China proven that global consumers are willing to purchase in ways that are detrimental to their own economies?<\/p>\nI think national identity matters, as does resistance to hegemonic forces. \u00a0Identity matters, as a shared sense of communitas<\/a><\/strong><\/em> 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.<\/em>, the corporation and the state.<\/p>\nMy next blog post will extend these ideas to Canadian politics.<\/p>\nTwitterversion:: <\/strong>Thoughts about “postcolonial” Canada given its relationships with Britain, USA, & Quebec. Interplay b\/t media & identity. http:\/\/url.ie\/4q9t<\/a> @Prof_K<\/a><\/p>\nSong:<\/strong>: Weakerthans-“One Great City”\n](\"http:\/\/sensorymetrics.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2007\/01\/bill_currency_10.jpg\"){kind=link}