From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 15:14:29 GMT

In article <16070@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>Robin Collins asks about the origin of the term "collective rights." I'm not
>sure...might be a trickle-over from Marxism, but the best account I've seen
>of the term comes from the black American academic Shelby Steele. See his
>article "The New Sovereignty" in the July 92 Harpers, and his essay
>collection The Content of Our Character. The Harper's piece made all kinds of
>problems click into a new perspective for me, and now that I have the book
>I'm finding even more (alarming) parallels between the predicament of
>American blacks and various Canadian groups.
>
>Now that we have the term "entitled collective," we can at least begin to
>grapple with the problems such collectives present to their societies. When
>the Canada Clause explicitly approves of collective rights, I know I can't
>vote for the deal; it's the first step toward a caste society.



What is the title of the new book? (I have read Content of Our Character
and also recommend it -- it is a convincing refutation of affirmative
action programs.)  

I also recommend Eric Hobsbawm's book, Nations and Nationalism Since 1789
and the several books by Hans Kohn on nationalism. Both explore the history of the
two forms of nationalism: ethnic/tribal  and constitutional (although they emphasize
different aspects) from the French revolutionary tradition through German romanticism
to the present.) I urge you to at least read the Hobsbawm book, newly published 
in Oxford's (?) Canto series. The conclusion I have come to (and especially from the
Steele piece you mentioned) is that equal rights and constitutional provisions
that guarantee them, are worth the effort of our time. The alternative is
exclusion and division under an illusion of "diversity". In fact they mean the 
opposite of diversity; they constitutionalize segmentation and pigeon-holing
of cultures and differences.

I also cannot vote for the deal, but frankly, I am a bit worried about
the consequences _regardless_ of the outcome of the vote.
What do you think of the fact that the sole political party that opposes 
this deal on the basis of solid principles (The Reform Party) is also
a relatively fringe rightwing organization with a questionable hidden
economic/political  agenda? 

If the "left" has abandoned the principles it was originally built on
(equality, fraternity and liberty), what will this mean if the populist right 
fills the gap?   We know what that has meant historically, in other parts of the
world.  If a marginal party says something that everyone knows is true, and
the customary parties claim otherwise, what is bound to happen?
The debate is healthy; but there is plenty unhealthy here too.

Your suggestion about the origins of the "collective rights" concept may have
validity. At the same time, the "old left" always opposed this concept, of
collective rights based on "race" while the "new left" (of the 60s) embraced it. 
While the old left certainly had its own  problems 
(Stalinist coercion to name just one), it also upheld constitutional
nationalism as a _principle_ : 
in other words, equal rights for all, regardless of race,
national origin, language etc (in practice, we know what happened to the minority
languages in the USSR, and the deportation of nationalities and how Stalin
"solved the nationalities problem", etc, etc...)   

So to a certain extent, I don't know if Marxism is the real origin of the idea.
Perhaps the idea of social classes and certain "justifications" then used for the 
abrogation of individual rights  and liberties (by Marxist regimes) 
is where this started.  However I don't think that recognition of
the oppression of some classes by others (economically) necessarily 
justifies the  negation of basic equal human rights defined constitutionally. 


Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics