identity

After my recent post about the banning of religious tribunals in Ontario, a great discussion about the pros and cons of the decision ensued. The discussion morphed into one about Canada's national identity - whether such a thing exists, and if so, what it is.

This is a big topic about which there is no definitive answer, but here are some random thoughts.

First, what do we mean by national identity? Is it a shared history? A shared culture? The first thing people think of when they think of the country? A collection of myths? What the country has contributed to the world?

Kyle_From_Ottawa offered Wikipedia's definition, and answered the question this way. Rob, wmtc's Resident Conservative, believes Canadians don't have a national identity.

The historian Gerald Early has said the United States' three great contributions to the world are baseball, jazz and the Constitution. I really like that. But does this constitute the US's national identity? I don't think so.

If national identity is a set of recognizable traits - a kind of free-association, the first thing that comes to mind - then the answer will always depend on who you ask. If you ask most Americans about a country other than their own, you're going to hear some ridiculous reductionism, because they know very little about the world around them. Even if you ask an American about the US, you're going to hear widely different answers, probably based on the person's politics.

Ask an American the first thing they think of when they hear the word "Germany" and they'll undoubtedly say Hitler or Nazis. They won't say Goethe or Beethoven or beer gardens or the Autobahn.

What would happen if you say the word "Israel"? Think of the words you'd hear depending on who you ask. This is why national identity can't be equated with a "most recognizable" list.

In our discussion, Rob also mentioned history, which (I believe) he feels Canada lacks, or perhaps Canadians lacks a proper understanding of their own history. (Rob, just correct me when I'm trampling on your ideas here.) I don't think history can be a good basis for deriving national identity - at least not for Americans, because Americans are so ahistorical. We are not taught much history, and what we are taught is only about the US, from a very skewed point of view.

My own knowledge of history has come from my own interests and obsessions - either with places (New York City, Ireland) or with people's movements (civil rights, American labor, women's) - or from writing research. As for what I was taught in school - and I went to a good school and was a decent student - squat.

Plus, Canada is a very young country. If identity is bound up in history, the country's relative youth must come into play.

So with all these caveats, and the general warning that I'm not sure what any of this means, here are my free-associations of the word Canada:
peaceful
universal health care
hockey
wide open space and lots of natural beauty (such as Rockies and beautiful seacoasts)
bilingual (in fact, most Americans have the impression Canada is more bilingual than it really is)
cultural diversity
very livable cities
maple leaf
maple syrup
beer
nice people who mind their own business
safe haven (underground railroad, Vietnam)
cold and snow (most Americans' first association, I'd bet)
and a bunch of famous Canadians who have become famous: Wayne Gretzsky, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, lots of comedians, Alex Trebek, Peter Jennings, Margaret Atwood, Bill Reid, Pierre Berton, lots of hockey players... This list could go on and on. There are dozens of websites dedicated to famous Canadians, and one might say that making lists of famous Canadians is part of the national identity.
Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth. I look forward to lots of comments.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

april 28: day of mourning for workers killed and injured on the job

welcome to toronto, where everything is 1½ hours away

what i'm reading: the sword and the shield: the revolutionary lives of malcolm x and martin luther king jr.