A Fair Country, Telling Truths about Canada: John Ralston Saul

I suppose my Irish ancestry bristles when I see the word British but he is right abut the aboriginal nature of the country. Yes, the French and British did at times control our country but we are Canadians now - and should respect every ethnic group that has come here. As favourite saying goes, "We may have arrived in different ships but we are all in the same boat now" Alas, It is the SS Harper-Titanic with his arranging the deck chairs with tax credits for niche voters, all of them middle class and with nothing that marks true leadership!

I just reserved this at the VPL; it should be coming out in a few days.

When you think about that statement: if Canada is in trouble, it's because we've become unmoored from our aboriginal roots -- you might scoff. At a surface level it doesn't seem to be true. What has that got to do with driving to work every day?

But on a deeper level, when you think about it, it is true. Aboriginal civilization was and is communitarian, highly skilled and tough as nails. Things that were defining characteristics of Canada for a long time, and hopefully still are.

I just picked up a copy of this book from the library the other day and have once again run into the same problem I have had with Mr. Saul's other books. The ideas and concepts are not the ideas and concepts that I, as a non-academic will come across in my everyday life and certainly not in my education which was technological. Once again I find myself beginning to grasp the concepts, and realize that I have to go back and start over to make sure I "get" all of it. This book ought to be required reading for every thinking Canadian, and most certainly every aspiring politician. It is a clear concise explanation of what we are and how we came to be.
With regard to the above comments, I agree, that the apology was "nice, but" to an extent. On the other hand I think that the apology, in its entirety clearly shows that our government does not understand what it is to be Canadian in the context of what John Ralston Saul is saying. The apology does not go far enough. It doesn't begin to address the problem nor does it show that we understand what the problem is. There clearly needs to be a rethink by Canadians about who and what we are. I agree with him that if we accept that there are three founding cultures at the base of our nation, then we can come to terms with ourselves.
As I have stated above, I have just begun to read this book and will be starting over. My grasp of the concepts are still not clear enough, but this book is clearly a really big light bulb that will illuminate the darker corners of our. understanding of this country.

quote:

---

In this startlingly original vision of Canada, thinker John Ralston Saul unveils 3 founding myths. Saul argues that the famous "peace, order, and good government" that supposedly defines Canada is a distortion of the country's true nature. Every single document before the BNA Act, he points out, used the phrase "peace, welfare, and good government," demonstrating that the [b]well-being of its citizenry was paramount[/b]. He also argues that Canada is a Metis nation, heavily influenced and shaped by aboriginal ideas: egalitarianism, a proper [b]balance between individual and group[/b], and a penchant for [b]negotiation over violence[/b] are all aboriginal values that Canada absorbed.

---

Aren't some of these values CCF values?

The Metis culture is a bit different than either Native or European cultures - a sort of hybrid. Negotiation would help one deal with both mom and dad.

Remember when Air Farce portrayed JRS as a hamster running around in his cage? I think Luba was Adrienne Clarkson.

I'm about a 1/4 of the way through the book when I happen to find a thread on it among you!
Maybe some real discussion can ensue.

It is a very important book. But while it gives expression in its way to much I feel myself, I have nonetheless already encountered much problematic. Maybe I should read it through before saying more, although I could think of much to rebut or clarify or extend already.

i hope some of the following jotted down as i read it over a month ago are useful for some (my library copy not on hand now either), maybe to serve for discussion; forgot about these notes i jotted down until i saw mention of the book on the green party blogsite just today

- i found problematic his assmuptions about education & health care

- good of him to indict pandering to Orange cause in Canada as historically destructive
(this is ongoing as sentiments behind Orangeism are translated into current stances -- att. GPOntario in re ed. policy!)

- his central notion of "fair" was introduced willy-nilly

- overstated import of "welfare"

- overstates national aboriginal content per se, by which there could have pertained an otherwise nationally chaotic situation, which leads to positive reception of "order" that he derides as inappropriate insertion from afar

- overall very good & apt to point finger at elites & to put Métis at alternate core, the pivotal mix of language, religion, origin, cultural intersection & repression being in the Riel-Dumont story

- some ignorant lumping of "Judeo-" in with Christianity & Islam

- good to compare the relative blessedness of France & U.S. climates & lands, so our harsher land & its demands express through native lives & collectivities

- has wrong analysis re re-election of Ont. Liberals, had to do much with xenophobia & stupidity re religion in the public square, so very UN-"fair" & un-Cdn.!!

- his comments on Ont. family law & Islamic law are not well-informed

- he is profoundly wrong re "deeply irresponsible withdrawal of children from the public school system", his comment (& some others', eg CJ SCC) situating him (& them) in a partly deluded yet smug (sub-)elite of his own, he fails to read modernist extra-religiosity as a possible major source failure in itself (this topic in particular should lead to serious orange-green discussion...)

- wrong about Canada being highest immigrant absorber -- cf. Israel

- "the intention is fairer systems" -- settlement, practicality, expansion, but in these regards harmony doesn't necessarily even include "fair" by some senses

- forces issue of "fairness"

- Orangeism central but is exploited for "order" (via disorder/threat); Terrebonne, Riel; poorly understood today how Orangeist-type impulses, even bodily ones, translate into gross behaviour today or at least make for puppets for bad dominant causes

- egalitarian does not always equal fair

- Baldwin reading Leibniz?...maybe indirectly?

- financial elite has its own "orality" (serious dissent from which is always officially suppressed)

- shouldn't use 'Manichean', or at least so much (absurd in some contexts), maybe say 'stark dualities'

- trouble with relation among some basics, honour, fair, just; honour depending on the just, albeit not violating the fair too much, but fair leads to order; order & fairness not so opposed then, he's stepping over some logic

- great merit of book in rehearsal of ignored Cdn. history

- so completely foolish & false re educ.: central, as pointed out in thought of 19th century reformers, is NOT to lump people together as if that is for nation-building but rather to provide fairness of opportunity as basis for public welfare; catholic & protestant need not mix, & so needn't for school purposes (nor traditionalist Jewish/Muslim/Sikh &c now)

- focus on cultural/philosophical underpinnings misses middle operative ground, quietly manipulative financial elite well-integrated into anglosphere so exploitive where it can get away with it NOT REALLY CARING, fairness so long as privilege is little disturbed & fundamental imperial association of Canada is not approached...so is the book ultimately a distraction?

- re Geo. Victor on J.R. Saul's writing generally: for myself I find him very unpoleasant to read, his syntax & manner, I quickly put down other writings of his when I tried, but his one I braved & am glad I did

..............................
sorry for disjointedness, maybe some is of some use to somebody, for discussion or as instilled prejudice as you read this important book, my criticisms notwithstanding (notice awarding of Giller prize to a Métis author...?)

Intermarriage did have a "seminal" effect on Canadian demographics, for sure.

Someone has said that the aboriginal population may, by now, have regained  the number that existed when Cartier arrived (I don't believe it for a moment), but that there are twice as many descendants of French/Scottish/aboriginal intermarriage (say 3,000,000 all together). 

But we certainly did miss the communal boat that was offered to Europeans early on, didn't we?  There, Saul got it right.. with the perfect vision of hindsight.

In the beginning chapters of David Hackett Fischer's wonderful biography of Samuel de Champlain, Champlain's Dream, one is left wondering how his subject, the "good" European explorer, managed some kind of rapport with FN people in opposition to the prevailing opinion. He certainly made himself unwelcome to the Five Nations people - and I wonder what the Huron remnant thought of his generalship a few years after his meeting with them? I've got three whole weeks of reading time to find out. I'm a bit suspicious of Fischer. There's a thesis or two taking shape in his work (he is an academic, after all). But we'll see.

After reading about Ralston Saul's book in the recent Kahnawake thread, I read through this thread and then several online reviews of the book.

Sounds like an intriguing book, where Saul attempts, in part, to answer the ever-vexing question that seems to be somewhat of an obsession for a good portion of my neighbors to the north: What is a "Canadian"???

Well, perhaps, in the spirit of the arse-backwards grammar that is so in vogue today, we could settle on this:

"People of Niceness"

George Victor wrote:

You'll really have to break out the kindle and read the whole book, Sven.

Since you're a person of niceness, perhaps you'd be kind enough to loan me yours, as I don't have one...

Ok, I understand what the "British nation" is and the "French nation" but what the hell is the "aboriginal nation"? Are we to assume that two countries that grew up together, have influenced eachother's language to a high degree and have been trading goods and royalty on and off for 1000+ years are consider each a "nation" in their own right? Yet the hundreds of Indigenous nations that cover an area of land bigger than all of Europe and Asia are the "Aboriginal nation"?

George Victor wrote:

Give it a gander ($22 and change online...

According to abebooks.com, Pooka Books in North Delta BC has a copy for about 15 bucks...