Interesting debate

I just read a post on my friend Pat's blog and it got me thinking. I also managed to stumble upon a particular series in the " Great Debates Series which highlighted again some of the same issues. Now I am not one to necessarily agree with Ignatieff on everything, particularly since his support of the Iraq war (which he sort of maybe recants here and his somewhat failed entry into Canadian politics, but he has a good point in this instance.

Igantieff simply asks the question "Whose history are we talking about?" in response to Jack Granatstein's contention that we don't teach enough history to Canadian and that Canadians do not know their history. Now the larger point they both agree with but Granatstein seem to imagine that there is this central "Canadian" history that emerges, and needs to be taught, and dismisses to large degree the movement towards social history.

Now I am a person who focuses mostly on economics and politics and so even though I think these are important there needs to be a role for social history. For what is history but the story of a people? The move towards social history also adds colour and diversity to the understanding of Canada. We need to appreciate that the history of Canada is not only the history of the white Canadians.

My issue with Pat's posting is that he falls into a similar as many who in general tend towards the Conservative side of the political spectrum. He suggests that the reverence Americans have for the office of their Presidency is something to which Canada should aspire. I profoundly disagree. We have never had the temerity to imagine that we have a manifest destiny, that somehow we are a chosen people, like our friendly (most of the time) neighbours to the South. Pat is right however to link his ideas to imperialism. I would imagine that most Canadians would shrink away from any attempt at overt Canadian imperialism. Canada as a country with Colonies? How is that compatible with democracy is the first question one must ask. (whether Canada fits into the American imperialism or is itself an imperial power today I leave to the Marxists)

As John Ralston Saul writes in Reflections of a Siamese Twin" The United states ... is the natural prolongation of the European idea. It is the European state personified. It has become what France, Germany, England and Spain dreamt they might become if only they had had the space", this is compared and contrasted with the Canadian nation state. In fact the central argument of his entire book, or at least a large portion of it, is that we have to understand that Canada is not in the European model. It is not, and cannot and has never been an example of a tradition European based nation state. He argues that this is our central strength. And while I certainly do see things that can be improved upon and things that are done better outside our borders, to ignore that central reality is to betray our Canadian identity.