A number of English-speaking Canadians have recently upbraided me for alowing emotion to enter into my postings regarding French-Canadians and their relations with the rest of Canada. Which is strange when you think about it, since all forms of attachment, patriotism or nationalism to a language or ethnic group, nation, nation-state or other grouping are necessarily based on emotion. Love of country: Is love not an emotion?
Then I remembered the quote of a European commentator whose name escapes me, but who said that “The English (read also Americans and English Canadians) are among the most nationalistic people on Earth. But they somehow manage to make the nationalism of other groups sound like some form of menal illness.”
So let’s try the nationalism shoe on the other foot.
It was over 200 years ago that Ben Franklin said that the division of North America between the US and Canada was artificial and should eventually end.
Maybe he was right. The majority of Canadians speak the same language as the US, watch almost all the same TV shows, almost all the same movies, etc. etc. English Canadians are so concerned about preserving their identity (there is that horrible emotionalism and paranoia again) against the US colosus that they pass laws restricting freedom of expression to “protect” their culture. For example, what right does the Government of Canada have to tell TV and radio stations that they must have a certain percentage of Canadian content? Should the free market not decide that. As one of my posters on another thread pointed out, money talks!
What right does the governement have to use my tax money (which is what tax breaks amounts to) to support borefests like Macleans Magazine so they can compete against Time and Newsweek.
As a francophone Canadian whose TV, radio, movies and literature survive fine against the US onslaught, I am sick and tired of my tax money being used to protect anglophone Canada’s weakling culture against the American tide.
Canada is a pathetic little brother of the US. Like an ignored little brother, it craves attention. Prime Ministers like “Steve” Harper, Brian Muldoon, John Diefenbokker (all three misnomers have actually been used by US administrations over the years) go to Washington hat in hand to get them to lift restrictions on lumber even though Canada has repeatedly won its case in front of the NAFTA panel.
If we were part of the US, they could not restrict trade with a part of their own country. Quebec would lose its language, but that would hardly be any concern for the English-speaking majority.
The US wold form an Empire stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the North Pole, with over 330 million people!
This ridiculous division along an artificial border has got to end.
If Canada joined the US, each of the 10 Provinces could become a State. Better yet, we could split up some of the more populous provinces into three or four states, and join as say, 18 States. This would give us 36 seats in an 86-seat Senate.
The former Canada would now be 26% of the States and of the US Senate. Since (I stand to be corrected here) you need 75% of the states to pass a constitutional amendment, the former Canada would actually have the power to do that. In other words, a veto over constitutional change (you know, the kind it would be unfair for Quebec to have as part of Canada).
I would be interested to hear the opinions of Anglo-Canadian nationalists on this. But remember, it must be pure reason. No emotion allowed in the defense of your country, your pride and your identity. Just pure facts and logic.