From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada - One American's Opinion
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 12:05:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.033158.1658@honte.uleth.ca> buchignani@hg.uleth.ca writes:
>rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe), Message-ID: <sPNuVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>,
>notes: 
> 
>>
>>     The most direct cause of Canada's problems today can be traced to a
>>distinct lack of national identity, and that in turn can be traced to the
>>decentralization that has occurred over the last few decades.  In some
>>ways Canada today resembles the U.S. during the period of the Articles of
>>Confederation.  It is a loose union of provinces which are more concerned
>>with provincial concerns than any sort of national solution.  In effect,
>>the representatives to the federal goverment have become ambassadors and
>>the provincial delegations have become embassies.
>>
I am pleased with this indivduals concern for Canada. As an economist I see
the benefits of having public goods provided by the provinces where the
homogeneity of the people will lead to some agreemnet as to what public
goods are appropriate. Part of the problem with the federal government
providing those goods is that the federal government in trying to appease
the hetergeneous population is defeating itself by alienating itself from
others. I  used the example of beaver hats once in a written piece I did. If
the federal government wanted to force eevryone to wear beaver hats for
awhile because it would provide a common culture and jobs, they could do so
but those of us who would rather wear cowboy hats or other kinds of hats
would be out of luck. We need choice but we also need to get together on
matters of trade and defnce.>>     The main question that continues to come up is how to go about
>>arriving at a statement of national identity and purpose that won't
>>offend anyone.  This is *never* going to happen.  No matter what happens,
>>someone will be offended.  But that is the heart of democracy.  The
>>purpose of a central government is to review those competing demands and
>>arrive at a solution that is the most equitable to all.  But in Canada
>>today, equitable has come to mean that each regional bloc has to gain
>>more than the others or there is no equity.  Along with this is a
>>distrust of the federal government which suggests that each region or
>>province is more capable of deciding what is in its best interests than
>>Ottawa, while showing little concern as to whether those interests are
>>detrimental to the nation as a whole.
>>
>>     This cannot continue if Canada is to maintain any sort of national
>>cohesiveness.  A decision on what constitutes the Canadian national
>>identity and social and political culture has to be made, and that
>>decision must be implemented.  The other alternative is the Balkanization
>>of the nation, with all the attendent problems that will come with it.
>>
>>     To a certain extent that has already begun.  The west demands
>>control of decisions regarding its natural resources; Quebec demands
>>control of virtually everything.  Quebec and Ontario demand that they be
>>the first among equals in political matters.  It can't continue, folks,
>>if you think the country is worth saving.  There has to be some sort of
>>consensis regarding your national identity, and it has to be allowed to
>>take hold.  If Quebec decides to leave, so be it.  Within a decade it
>>will be so thoroughly dominated by the U.S. that it will have no desire
>>to maintain an independent stance; or if it does, it will give up
>>everything it fought so hard to attain.
>>
>>     One of the main battles fought by this country under the Articles of
>>Confederation dealt with states staking claims to large areas of the
>>"west", as it existed in those days.  But one by one they agreed to drop
>>those claims and settle into established borders.  In the same way,
>>Canada's provinces must agree to compromise in order to form a stronger
>>union.  If that is not done, the country will wind up fragmented, and
>>complete and final domination by the U.S. will occur.
>>
>>     It's up to you; there's not a lot we down here can do about it
>>except watch as you tear yourselves apart.  Either get with the program
>>and discover why you care about your country as a whole, or it will
>>disintegrate from under you.  And as far as I'm concerned, that would be
>>a serious loss to the world.  You've got a damn fine country; stop the
>>bickering and work to bring it together.
> 
>This response is well though out, as long as you by the unspoken
>axioms about what a state 'ought' to be like, and as long as one
>doesn't confuse ideological statements about state unity with
>practical measure of how much unity there actually is around.
>Clearly, this analysis is predicated on a highly idealized
>analysis of the US as the paradigm model for a state. There are,
>however, no strong reasons to take this as the ideal, certainly
>not in a future where for many reasons state borders don't quite
>mean the same things as before. No doubt, practical
>implimentations of this vision of the state had considerable
>utility when state elites needed the tools for mass mobilization
>of effort and sentiment, as in times of war. But today many of
>those 'functions' of a strongly centralized state (which of
>course were 'functional' only to some of the state's citizens)
>have been aprropriated by other institutions and processes. In
>this light, perhaps Canada is, rather than being on the brink of
>'disintegration,' in the vanguard of where at least rich states
>are heading. Indeed, I just ran across an international
>conference announcement (British assn of Cdn Studies?) indicating
>that someone out there is thinking this way; it's theme: Canada
>as the first postmodern state.
> 
>I might also add that symbolic unity and practical unity are
>quite different things. I think that practical unity in Canada, as
>expressed in political planning and consensus building, is
>probably greater than it is in the US, all that centrist
>symbolism in the latter notwithstanding.
> 
>    Norm Buchignani/University of Lethbridge/BUCHIGNANI@HG.ULETH.CA
>"If we have been accustomed to deplore the spectacle...of a workman occupied
>during his whole life in nothing else but the making of knife-handles or pins'
>heads, we may find something quite as lamentable in the intellectual class, in
>the exclusive employment of a human brain in resolving some equations, or in
>classifying insects. [This] occasions a miserable indifference about the
>general course of human affairs, as long as there are equations to solve and
>pins to manufacture."                                      Auguste Comte


Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals