[sthompson]

<strong>Written By:</strong> sthompson
<strong>Date:</strong> 2004-02-19 10:29:00
<a href="/article/102905989-the-canadian-way-colonials-compradors-nationalists">Article Link</a>

It is this colonial way of being Canadian that has taken its exacting toll on many in the True North. Most Canadians are bereft of any sense of moderate pride in the rich and nuanced nature of our national history. Many Canadians know little about the fullness and fitness of our finely textured way, and the struggles we have fought to remain free and independent on a continent that is dominated by the largest empire that has ever existed in human history. Many Canadians tell their tale, often, in a negative and diffident way, as if our drama has little good or gold in it. We fear being nationalist for the simple reason that to be nationalist is either to be imperial (like the USA) or to engage in the worst form of ethnic cleansing. Surely, these models of nationalism are not what we want to be. <p> Hugh Kenner delivered the CBC Massey Lectures in 1998. Hugh Kenner is a Canadian, and he has been compared to Northrop Frye and Marshall McLuhan. The title of Kenner’s Massey Lectures was <i>The Elsewhere Community</i>. There is indeed much to this title. Kenner has spent most of his teaching career in the USA, and, like many Canadians, he has turned to an elsewhere community for his vocation and career. Kenner has done this in a literal way, and his literary studies have taken him in a variety of fascinating directions, but Canadian literature and culture has not played a prominent role in his thought and writings. Northrop Frye delivered the CBC Massey Lectures in 1963. The title of Frye’s Massey Lectures was <i>The Educated Imagination</i>. Frye’s lectures track and trace, across and through a literary landscape, the nature of the educated imagination. And yet, there is nary a word about Canadian literature. How can this be? The Massey Lectures are our annual Canadian lectures that are meant to speak to the Canadian nation and people about important issues, and yet both Kenner and Frye (two important Canadian literary critics) say nothing about Canadian literature (but much about the literature of other nations) in the CBC Lectures. Frye has been on record as saying that Canada "went from a pre-national phase to a post-national phase without ever becoming a nation". What are we to think of such comments? What does such a comment speak about a colonial mindset that refuses to quit? A fine read and counterpoint and corrective to this cultural colonialism of Frye and Kenner is Robin Mathews, <i>Treason of the Intellectuals: English Canada in the Post-Modern Period</i> (1995). <i>Treason of the Intellectuals</i> clearly highlights, proves and illustrates how our intellectual elite in Canada have betrayed our rich and vibrant tradition and culture. It is by this treason that we can begin to understand why it is so hard and difficult to articulate a distinct Canadian identity in opposition to the USA. John McMurtry has argued that, in Canada, there are certain "unspeakable" things. It is seen as neither civil nor polite in respectable public and political company to ask certain unspeakable questions. Mathews, like McMurtry, have dared to speak the unspeakable and been marginalized and banished from our modern liberal family compact for doing so. We do need to raid the unspeakable, and, in doing so, ask hard questions about what it means to be a colonial people with a well entrenched comprador class that lubricate the palms of the imperial centre and core. <p> Hugh Kenner and Northrop Frye are not exceptions to the rule. When our educated class pass on such a tradition, it is little wonder that others follow their lead. Much of the history of the liberal power elite in Canadian political, cultural, educational and economic life has walked the extra mile to both integrate and annex Canada to either the English or American imperial way and sway. Let us all too briefly chart the role of the Liberal party in Canada in this drama. <P> Our first Liberal Prime Minister, Sandy Mackenzie (1873-1878), was keen and eager to open up Canada to the USA. Free trade and closer ties with the republic to the south of us was the text he handed to one and all. Mackenzie was a fan of George Brown who guided the early Grits in a direction that was most open and favourable to a pan North American way of being. Mackenzie was followed by Laurier (1896-1911) who finally fell by staking his future (and Canada’s) on free trade with the USA. Needless to say, the Tories opposed such a misguided way of thinking, and Laurier was dethroned in 1911. The rise and long term rule of the Liberal party under William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921-30, 1935-48) was founded on his contempt of the dissipating English empire and his willingness to fawn at the feet of the American empire. King was close friends of both Rockefeller (who he had worked for) and Roosevelt (who was his model in many ways). Although King had little interest in the competitive liberalism of the 18th century, his emerging social liberalism was patterned on and deeply committed to the USA. When King left the political stage, Louis St. Laurent stepped in to take his place (1948-1957). St. Laurent welcomed the American, C.D. Howe, into Canada, and between Howe and St. Laurent, Canada almost lost any sense of national independence. When the Tory Prime Minister, Diefenbaker, came to power in 1957, 65% of Canada’s economy was foreign owned. 56% of Canada’s manufacturing industry was controlled outside of Canada, 60% of the mining business was dominated by foreign investment, 80% of the pulp and paper was in the hands of other corporations and 90% of Canadian petroleum was owned by foreign investors. It was quite understandable why Canadians, at least for a few fleeting years, rebelled against becoming a colony to the USA. When Diefenbaker fell (he was assaulted from all sides by the media and business elite in Canada), Pearson was put in power by the Kennedy administration for the simple reason that the USA had had enough of the rogue tory (Diefenbaker). The Liberal party, in short, has been a party that has been quite willing to keep Canada in a colonial position before the USA. The brief, thin and inconsistent rebellions by Trudeau and Chretien will be revoked by our new Prime Minster, Paul Martin. Neither Trudeau nor Chretien were as firmly opposed to the USA as was Diefenbaker, and the Howard Green-Diefenbaker brand of High Tory Canadian nationalism has virtually vanished in our day. <p> Donald Creighton, the well known Tory historian, often mentioned the dangers of the liberal reading of Canadian history. Creighton called this the authorized way of interpreting the Canadian tale and drama. The tale unfolds this way. The liberal tradition is the finest and fittest, and the tory tradition is rather repressive and oppressive. This authorized way of reading the text of Canadian history has a way of idealizing the liberal fix and feel of Canadian history and subordinating and denigrating the tory way of telling the Canadian tale. This authorized way of recounting the Canadian drama could not be more lucidly demonstrated then by reading John Ralston Saul’s, <i>Reflections of a Siamese Twin: Canada at the End of the Twentieth Century</i> (1997). Saul, as most know, is the husband of our Governor-General, Adrienne Clarkson. <i>Reflections of a Siamese Twin</i> is a rather simplistic and dualistic read of Canadian history. It’s almost a comic book way of approaching the Canadian way. The Liberals are good, the Tories are bad. The Liberals have won. The Tories have been banished. This is the way it should be, world without end, Amen. <p> It is this simplistic way of reading history that panders to and propagates the colonial way. Albert Memmi once said, "Interrogate the colonial person: who are his popular heroes, the great leaders of his people, the wise people in his culture? He will give you some names with difficulty and in disorder, and he will be able to answer less and less as he tries to move into past generations. The colonial seems condemned to lose his memory progressively". It is this cultural amnesia that defines the colonial. Or, it is this selective way of reading history that defines a colonial. It is sad but true that Saul’s <i>Reflections of a Siamese Twin</i> participates in this selective reading of history, hence the perpetuation of cultural amnesia. Creighton’s rebellion against the liberal authorized reading of Canadian history has done much to highlight the dangers of a one dimensional and single vision way of reading Canadian history. It is pertinent to note that John Ralston Saul, like Kenner and Frye, has given the Massey Lectures. Saul called his lectures, <i>The Unconscious Civilization</i> (1995). Saul, like Frye and Kenner, never really and truly asks the hard and demanding questions about Canadian colonialism. In fact, we could ask Saul this simple question: why have you not dared to ask the unspeakable questions and to what degree are you still unconscious about the civilization of the Canadian way? We do need to realize, though, that the Massey Lectures are usually given to those who are part of the comprador class in Canada, and, as such, unwilling and unable to speak the unspeakable. Can we imagine Mathews or McMurtry being asked to give the Massey Lectures? <p> Compradors, in their original context, were those who were indigenous to a country but who both served another country and had charge over native workers. They were, in short, servants to an imperial power. They had been bought out by a large corporation or state to serve the interests of the state or corporation in the colony. Compradors can play a variety of roles, but Canadian compradors are those who are keen and willing to genuflect to the empire and warm up Canadians to do the same. There are intellectual compradors who are court apologists for the USA, and, as such, they are custodians and stenographers of American power in Canada. Who are some of these Canadian compradors, and how do they act as agents of the USA? <p> Barbara Frum was a well known journalist on the CBC until her death. Frum’s son, David Frum, has become, in recent years, one of the leading compradors in Canada. Frum’s most recent books, <i>An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terrorism</i> (2003) and <i>The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush</i> (2003) speak volumes about his pro-republican leanings and his uncritical adoration of the American empire. <i>An End to Evil</i> was co-written with Richard Perle. Richard Perle was former secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and chairman of the Defense Policy Board in the G.W. Bush years. It does not take a great deal of thought to connect the dots. Frum’s earlier books have been a sustained and unrelenting assault on the Canadian High Tory tradition, the centrist Liberal tradition and social democratic heritage of Canada. He has walked the extra mile to both idealize and romanticize the American republican tradition, and the empire that it embodies. Frum, in earlier works, has made it quite clear that his heroes are well known American republicans such as William Buckley and Russell Kirk. David Frum writes well, charms the unwary and plays the dutiful role of court journalist in the USA to those in power. In Canada, he is a comprador, but he is a comprador of the cruder type. <p> Michael Ignatieff, like David Frum, was born and bred in a well-known Canadian family. George Ignatieff (Michael’s father) played an important role as a peacemaker on the stage of both Canadian and international politics. It has been interesting to watch, in the last few years, Michael Ignatieff, inch by inch, turn into an apologist for the American empire. It is important to note that Michael Ignatieff, like John, Ralston Saul, Northrop Frye and Hugh Kenner has given the CBC Massey Lectures. Ignatieff’s lectures were entitled <i>The Human Rights Revolution</i> (2000), and in these lectures Ignatieff unpacks the tale and drama of the human rights journey (in theory and practise). There is little doubt, thought, where Ignatieff tips his hat in <i>The Human Rights Revolution</i>. The priority, when push comes to shove, as it predictably does, is the individual and liberty wins the day. The common good, the aggregate, the community exists to fulfill and enhance the interests of the individual in their search for meaning and an authentic life. Ignatieff tends to see those who bend the knee to the commons as headed towards totalitarianism. Many of the books Ignatieff has written have tended to deal with the horrors of ethnic cleansing and the worst forms of thinking in a more communal way and manner. Ignatieff’s fine biography on Isaiah Berlin indicates where his true intellectual hearth and home is and why. Berlin was an apologist for liberal individualism, and Ignatieff tends to follow his lead. Where, the curious might ask, can such an ideology be best located, and where, we might further ask, is the finest bastion and bulwark against both ethnic cleansing and totalitarianism to be found? The answer for those like Ignatieff is the USA. Ignatieff is more of a sophisticated comprador than the cruder variety we find in Frum, but he is a comprador none the less. Ignatieff is well aware that the American empire has its faults and failings, but it is the best of the worst. Ignatieff’s recent book, <i>Empire Lite: Nation Building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan</i> (2003) speaks much about the positive and constructive role of the USA in nation building. The USA is seen as a bridge builder and humanitarian imperialist. A light does emanate from the place, and without such a light, much would be cast into chaos and darkness. Ignatieff does acknowledge there is a dark side, a shadow, a nemesis to this, but the good outweighs the bad, hence the green light to the empire. Ignatieff’s support of the American invasion of Iraq yet further placed him in the camp of the dutiful Canadian who serves the interests of the empire. It is in this sense that Ignatieff, lik Frum, is a Canadian comprador, and, as such, he receives all the honors in the USA for being such. <p> The Canadian way, though, has had more than colonials and compradors in its national and historic midst. There have been many a nationalist who has held high a vision of the True North. Such a vision has not bent the knee to either the colonials and compradors in Canada (of whom there are many), but, in the last few decades, the battle to hold high the nationalist vision has not been easy. In fact, the struggle has never been easy. George Grant summed up this dilemma quite well, when he stated, "three Canadian parties destroyed their nationalist wings: the squashing of Walter Gordon by Lester Pearson when the former annoyed the business community; the removal of the Waffle from the NDP when it angered the international unions; the destruction of Diefenbaker and his followers by Dalton Camp and the business Tories". This brief clip from Grant, in summary form, highlights how the nationalist wing in Canada has had a frightful time in all three political parties. <p> The High Tory tradition in Canada has been, historically, the most faithful in upholding the nationalist way, but, by the defeat of Diefenbaker in 1963, the mantle had been passed on to other places. Grant’s well known <i>Lament for a Nation</i> (1965) spoke volumes about the dimming of the nationalist vision in the Tory party. When Brian Mulroney came to power in the 1980s as the Progressive Conservative Party Prime Minister, Canadian High Toryism had all but vanished and disappeared. It as with the coming of David Orchard to the PC party in 1998 that some sort of High Tory nationalist rnewal seemed to be reappearing, but it did not take long before the Blue Tories and Alliance party joined hands to betray Orchard and his nationalist vision. Needless to say, both Blue Tories and the Alliance party are political compradors, and the new Conservative party in Canada is, in reality and truth, an American republican party. <p> The waning of the High Tory nationalist vision in the PC party in the 1960s took place just as the Liberal party was beginning to wax nationalist. Walter Gordon appeared in the 1950s, and many a liberal report in the 1950s and 1960s seemed to point the way to a new nationalism that would be carried forth by the Liberal party. But, it did not take much time for Pearson to cut Gordon off at the knees, and the hopes of many an idealistic and nationalist liberal were dashed by the last 1960s. The telling of this compelling tale by Mel Hurtig (and the response to it by many disenchanted liberals) can be best found in Hurtig’s autobiography, <i>At Twilight in the Country: Memoirs of a Canadian Nationalist</i> (1996). <i>At Twilight in the Country</i> is a must read for those, who have come from a liberal nationalist tradition, but felt betrayed by Trudeau and the Liberal party. The book is slightly marred by the fact that no mention is made in it of Robin Mathews, yet Mathews lived in Edmonton when Hurtig did, he started the nationalist party in Canada before Hurtig, and he has been a nationalist of impeccable credentials. My own book, <i>Robin Mathews: Crown Prince of Canadian Political Poets</i> (2002) seeks to correct this glaring omission not only in Hurtig’s autobiography but in much of Canadian history. Mathews, sadly so, has been ignored in the telling of much of Canadian history, and we do need to investigate and bring back to the fore those we have dared not speak about. In short, there are those in our nationalist history we seek not to speak about, and it is time such unspeakable things were spoken. <p> The NDP, like the Liberals, initiated and launched their nationalist vision in the 1960s, but just as Pearson and Trudeau ended such momenturm in the Liberal party, David and Stephen Lewis nipped the bud from blossoming in the NDP party. The rise of the Waffle movement in the NDP in the late 1960s-early 1970s signalled a turn to more of a nationalist and democratic socialist direction. The NDP has tended, in its history, to shy away from both nationalism and democratic socialism. The social democratic tradition in the NDP tends to view with suspicion those like the Laxers who have tried to steer the party down another path and trail. The Waffle movement, within the NDP, was crushed by the mid-1970s, and many of the disgruntled within the NDP tended to turn either advocacy or protest politics or retreat from the political fray. <P> The nationalist tradition in Canada has, in the last few decades, been resisted from powerful places. All of the major political parties have turned on their nationalists. The compradors and colonials in Canada have been quick and eager to oblate before the empire to the south. Uncle Sam has demanded his due, and he does reward well those who serve him faithfully, dutifully and obediently. We have many the colonial in our midst these days who is suffering from cultural and political amnesia. The great and good place is the USA, and this is where we take our lead. The Massey Lectures given by such Canadian worthies and ikons such as Northrop Frye, Hugh Kenner, John Ralston Saul and Michael Ignatieff shy away from the Canadian nationalist tradition. Those like David Frum are unqualified apologists for the American imperial way. We have been in such places before, and it is in being in such places that we discover who we are and who we might be. The rebirth of the nationalist vision can only take place as we see through both the colonial and comprador way and reclaim our national birthright. Many is the nationalist who has gone before us, and hard has been the battle. The Italian Red Brigade have a saying. La Lotta Continua (The battle goes ever on). It is only as we have the courage and endurance to make raids on the unspeakable that we will be able to challenge the USA whom Berkeley called "Time’s noblest offspring". <p> ---- <p> Ron Dart teaches in the political science/philosophy/religious studies department at University College of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, BC. He is the author of <i>The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes</i> (1999) and the forthcoming <I>The Canadian High Tory Tradition</i> (2004). <p> This article was posted at his request.

[sthompson]

You know, during his speech at the Parkland Conference Jim Laxer said that Canada had a history of jumping sinking imperial ships before they finally went Titanic (paraphrase), and that we should do the same with the U.S. Seemed like a very apt observation. Why are so many people so eager to stay on the US imperial ship as it sinks--or to literally abandon our ship for theirs? <P> And also, as someone with a BA in Honours English, I can tell you that it's very true--there is little emphasis on Canadian lit. It's more like an optional course you take rather than a central core of the teaching. And it's probably better now than it used to be--we have Canadian Studies now.

[Dr Caleb]

<i>My own book, Robin Mathews: Crown Prince of Canadian Political Poets (2002) seeks to correct this glaring omission not only in Hurtig’s autobiography <b>but in much of Canadian history.</b></i><p> To be honest, I didn't know this, and I grew up in Edmonton. I've heard of Mr. Hurtig many times before I became addicted to this site, but never hear of Mr. Mathews (assuming the same writer as on this site) only here.<p> Mr. Mathews: Fire your publicist I guess I have a few more books to read.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

[Jim Callaghan]

Thanks for the history lesson. There are a few gems in there I had not heard of before.

Good stuff.



---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

[4Canada]

What a great article! The first paragraph in this article brought a lump into my throat. I could have wept.

What\'s going to happen to our Canada?

[whelan costen]

\'What\'s going to happen to our Canada\'?

I say, we are going to take it back, the whole thing, all the people and all the resources, we are going to decide our destiny not a much of corporate greedies seeking only to line their pockets!!!! We are alot stronger and more resourceful than we think, we need a healthy dose of self-confidence in this country and a leader to breath it into us, one vote at a time. Just think about it, we live with freezing temperatures 8 or 10(in some cases) months of the year, but we still reproduce, we still eat, party, dance and write fantastic literature, comedy etc. We built the damn Avrow Arrow,(for Dave) we as a country have invented more inventions than most of us will ever know; and why ....well because we had to do it to survive, so now that we are really at the point of our true destiny, we will rise to the occassion and take back our country; we have no choice, it\'s about survival!!!!

I should have warned you comments like that last one really get me going...

[whelan costen]

ok, now you got me started...but consider this...LM Montgomery, a woman writer, at time when women were not considered worthy of writing, writes one book, it gets published and then another and so on...the story is about oppression and frustration, but mostly about overcoming obstacles...an entire tourism industry was created out of that mythical story; people flock to PEI to see an imaginary character, Anne of Green Gables...imagine what we could do with truth!

[4Canada]

whelen costan,

I love to get you going. Know why? Cause I love you when you get going.

[whelan costen]

Thanks 4canada...
but don\'t be getting mushy when I\'m trying to be sentimentally optimistic, and you torment me into ranting like a baby...I\'ll be singing O Canada in my sleep tonight!!

[4Canada]

Ya well, I\'ll be crying like a baby.

[Perturbed]

I wouldn\'t despair. I like positive thinking.

Remember, for any country to join the United States OFFICIALLY, AS IN, NOT LIKE IN IRAQ, BUT TO BECOME part of the Union, we can THANK the U.S. constitution, which demands that the joining territory CHOOSE to join in a referendum. This would never fly in most Canadians\' minds. We sometimes like to pretend we want to be American, but in reality would balk at the idea if it were offered to us. That being said, a referendum is prone to fraud, as was the case in Quebec in 1995, probably.

Point being: it is likely that Canada will remain a sovereign state \"On paper,\" which still leaves us the option of an uprising to create a political revolution, if annexation were open for discussion. The U.S. will fold as an empire before were are annexed, but I\'m still worried about the oil crisis.

-If an uprising were violently defeated, we could always try to get some assistance from the UN, which is imperfect, and dominated by the biggest players, but still would lend credibility to us.

Countries like Canada, mostly. The American know they couldn\'t justify attacking us, so if we created a political uprising, they\'d either have to:

1- stand and watch, or 2-intervene, and lose all credibility.

Only a Quebec sovereignty push would blur the lines, so we must not let this happen. I find it funny how Liberals everywhere speak of the importance of Quebec staying in Canada, while hurting our econoimc soveriegnty. Why don\'t they oush for separation? That will do the same thing. Maybe they do want a sovereign Canada, but one that \"Acts\" like the United States.

There is a French-Canadian continentalist attitude in the Liberal Party, which is bizarre. I mean, screw Laurier, that was a while ago. If there are no Francophone nationalists in the Liberals, and none in the Conservatives, where is the voice of the group of people who considered themselves to be \"Canadian\" before the English did.

Luckily, we no longer have to worry about British interfereance, so the Tory-tradition can easily get along with the French is the tradition is revived. The Tories AND the Francophones have ALWAYS hated the Americans.

[N Say]

Mel says someone can get a PhD in history without doing any Canadian history. I\'m not sure that it should be imposed on a student though.

---
"So many right-wing Christians, so few lions." - t-shirt I saw @ school

[ReynoldR]

Well said. I can\'t tell you how fervently I hope we can take it back.

[N Say]

The Liberals were also formed partly by an organisation called \"Les Rouges\" which advocated union with the USA.

---
"So many right-wing Christians, so few lions." - t-shirt I saw @ school

[Guest]

If the PhD is in History, than Canada is part of that history, particularly if the course is in Canada, second if that history takes into account the last 200 yrs, Canada is a part of history, so how can it not be part of the program???? It most definitely should be part of the program, but not told through the eyes of Americans or American wanna-be\'s!