Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Keith Beardsley

GET UPDATES FROM Keith Beardsley
 

Hardly a Hidden Agenda

Posted: 08/23/11 09:55 AM ET

I must admit I am enjoying all the debate that Harper's addition of the word "Royal" to our navy and air force has created. One would have thought that the debate would have centered on whether this was a throw back to our monarchist ties or simply a reminder to Canadians and our serving members of the proud history of our armed forces. Instead it has spun off into a much larger debate that reminds me of the old hidden agenda attacks that the Liberals used to throw at us.

I am not a monarchist, but I can appreciate the addition of the word "Royal." My former regiment had "Royal" in its name. Such a designation was earned, usually based on a regiment's performance in a campaign and it was something to be proud of and part of a regiment's history. The addition of the word "Royal" doesn't disturb me, nor do I see some Conservative plot in adding it to our navy and air force.

Some suggest that Harper is trying to recast our history so that it is seen from a conservative slant. Others wonder if we are behaving like colonials. Still others see these moves as part of a larger attempt to play down key Liberal initiatives like the Charter, peacekeeping and multiculturalism. I have even seen speculation that this is all about boxing in the NDP in Quebec, even though many of Harper's initiatives pre-dated the last election.

There is nothing wrong with knowing and understanding our history and that includes our symbols and traditions. We need to promote them so that we have a better understanding of where we have come from and who we are today. But if we are going to promote our history, let's look at it openly, warts and all. Only then will we get a true sense of where we come from and who we are.

Any promotion of our military must include our actions in the First and Second World Wars. But we can not forget Korea, nor gloss over our sacrifices in Bosnia or what happened in Somalia. Our peacekeeping role in the Suez crisis and our resulting peacekeeping efforts around the world can not be glossed over. They are part of the foundation that makes us who we are on the world stage today.

If we want to promote our Canadian connection to the Arctic we need to know more about its original inhabitants, their culture and way of life. We need to know who explored that region -- English, French, Danes, Americans and Norwegians to name a few. If we are to focus on the North West Passage, perhaps Canadians should know about the achievements of the RCMP vessel the St Roch. And we need to know about the darker side of our Arctic history as well -- residential schools, the slaughter of the sled dogs etc.

With the number of court decisions that come down every year I doubt any Canadian will forget that the Charter exists, there is nothing that Harper can do about that. Love it or hate it, it is a fact of Canadian history and our daily life. It needs to be taught and understood. We need to come to grips with whether or not it is the Charter that many of us disagree with or is it the judicial interpretation of the Charter? While we are at it, how about teaching new Canadians and our school-age children about the original Bill of Rights that was brought in by John Diefenbaker in 1960.

And while we focus on present day rights, let us not ignore our past. We need to look at the internment of Japanese Canadians, Ukrainians, Italians and others. We need to look at racism in Canada and know that it is not just an American issue. I would suggest that most Canadians know more about racism in the United States than they do about what happened in our own country. Most Canadians know about the American Klu Klux Klan, but do they have any idea that it existed up here?

I also doubt the Conservatives are trying to bury multiculturalism. It has enriched this country, made us much more cosmopolitan and opened our eyes to many different cultures. All positives in a world that gets smaller with every new advance in technology. But when we accept multiculturalism we should not forget who we are. There is no need to bury our history, our symbols or downplay our special cultural and religious days such as Christmas and Easter. If I were to move to another country I would not expect them to change the way they celebrate their festivals or religious holidays. Anyone wishing to move here and eventually become a Canadian needs to know who we are historically, and who we are now, at home and on the world stage and accept what days we view as important... be they religious or historical in nature. We have become far too politically correct.

Promoting multiculturalism and our European history should not mean that we ignore other rich cultures that existed here long before Europeans had a clue that North America existed. Our First Nations have a rich history that all of us, including prospective immigrants should know more about. If we know more about our historical relationship with the First Nations, we will have a better understanding of the ongoing land claims process, their grievances and some of their objectives. And we can not ignore the events and broken promises that have led to the current impasse and difficulties that exist between the First Nations and any Canadian government, be it Liberal or Conservative.

Good for Harper if he wants to promote our history and symbols and give Canadians and new Canadians a better understanding of who we are and how we got here. I don't see a plot or hidden agenda, but I do say it is up to us to learn from the past, change what we don't like and move forward.

 

Follow Keith Beardsley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Atory01

I must admit I am enjoying all the debate that Harper's addition of the word "Royal" to our navy and air force has created. One would have thought that the debate would have centered on whether this w...
I must admit I am enjoying all the debate that Harper's addition of the word "Royal" to our navy and air force has created. One would have thought that the debate would have centered on whether this w...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 30
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
07:19 AM on 08/24/2011
by re-usung royal --the author suggest it tis the only way to know our history ------

i prefer a different approach ---one that says we used to be a colony and we used to use royal -----we have moved on from that and are all grown up now---leaving the past behind and moving confidently to the future ----no strings attached
12:59 AM on 08/24/2011
Can we just stop getting riled up about this and focus on stuff Harper is doing like having the tar sands oil termed ethical oil. being found in contempt of parliament, wanting canada to be a super power, giving billions to poor third world women and denying them birth control and abortion even if they wil die giving birth or are only nine years old. Or how bout the Fake Lake and Tonly Clement channelling fifty million into his riding in such a way that the auditor wouldn't know about it. How about worrying about the billion spent on the G20 and the police kettling peaceful demonstrators. The list goes on and on - ethic commisioners quitting so they can tell the axpayer the government isn't ethical. Sheesh. The navy is almost non existent though Harper intends to spend making it a little bigger. The airforce - think of the sixty jets which will be obsolete and which are incredibly expensive. Or just think of the debt. I mean what was it spent on other than the fifty million Tony Clement got and the. fake lake and the billion for the G20 or the ssubsidies for the oil companies destroying the Athabasca region?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montezaro
05:01 PM on 08/23/2011
Here I am again. Harper is going a pretty slippery and dangerous road. I couldn't but notice some pretty big number of French names among the members of Canadian forces. What does "Royal" mean to a French Quebecker? To me it sounds very provocative. Reminds me to Orange Protestants marching trough the Catholic part of the city, jut to remind them that they were the ones to win. So, you are French? Too bad, you have to serve the Queen of England.
And no, I am mot French. I am just observing.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
11:53 PM on 08/23/2011
'Royal' means to a French Canadian, the same as it means to an African Canadian or an Asian Canadian - that we are a Constitutional Monarchy - always have been - and will remain so.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Skepticat
Supporting skeptical felines everywhere
04:31 PM on 08/23/2011
Promoting who we ARE has some merit - promoting who we WERE as as former colony - alas not so much, and the supply of monarchists in Canada fortunately dwindles by the day. Canada has paid for its own defence since 1906. For the past 43 years or about twice the career span of many military lifers we were able to get by just fine without Royal" stuck in front of everything military and maybe create our traditions. Our postal service was de-royalized 50 years ago - didn't hurt one bit. I live in Ontario where roads maintained by the province have had since 1912 signs proclaiming them as "the King's highway" - though the king paid not one dime to build or maintain them. Calling them the taxpayer's highways would at least be truthful. My ancestors incidentally were all from Britain, Ireland and France arriving between 1713 to about 1830. If they wanted to be Brits that bad - they wouldn't have moved here.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Johannes Wheeldon
04:04 PM on 08/23/2011
Yes understanding history is important. The failure to appreciate Canadian and Parliamentary history resulted in the 2008 constitutional calamity that was the prorogation.

As Harper relied upon the royal prerogative to over-ride the will of the parliament in 2008, it only makes sense to play up to the senior set, the Royalists, and Crown.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
11:54 PM on 08/23/2011
Johannes.

Harper won he elections fair and square.

A larger portion of Canadians agree with him than agree with you.

Stop making excuses.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SocBeat
Bald and proud
03:21 PM on 08/23/2011
Personally, I like the Royal in the name. I'm old enough to know people who were proud members of the RCAF and the RCN. I'm sorry if some people find it an affront to their non-English heritage. But it is a part - a proud and important part - of our shared Canadian history.
photo
Do The Math
In dog years I'm dead...
02:34 PM on 08/23/2011
The term Royal makes good sense --- if it were 1948. In 2011? It's hard to see how a do-over on this helps anything. And I think a case can be made that there could be situations where taking on this "baggage" could make it more difficult and dangerous for members of our armed forces to do their job.

For example. In the Suez peacekeeping mission in 1956, Canadian troops operating under a UN mandate, who had British helmets, uniforms and designations (including a red ensign flag) found it tougher to gain trust and acceptance from egyptians who looked at the Brits and the Union Jack as colonial interveners and occupiers.

It's not just French in Quebec who are ambivalent about the trappings of pax Britannica. Why take on un-necessary baggage?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montezaro
02:30 PM on 08/23/2011
I can see just another way to say to all non-English descenders: look, you paupers: this is our country, we rule, you have no say in naming our institutions...
I took another look to the world map, and yes, I remembered well - England is far away. Being a grown-up country, I don't think we still need our Mom to look after us.
I do respect my new country laws and holidays (happened to be the same like mines), paying my taxes, but sick and tired to be treated like a retarded child, because I have an accent (and two university degrees under my belt).
Why I am saying this? Because, the only people that treated me in this way were - English. On the other hand, I have English friends that I would trust with my life.
Monarchies at this time and age? No, thank you!
01:55 PM on 08/23/2011
Words are cheap for Harper. But actions speak louder than words. The end of the Canadian wheat board - a criminal act which will favor agri business and make life more difficult for wheat farmers and canada. Lack of ethics - how shameful, how embarrassing to have ethics commissioners quitting so they could speak out about the lack of ethics in the "Harper" government. Contempt of parliament. A new experience for canadians. The Athabasca tar sands now being called ethical oil. Like I said - words are cheap. My family fought in three wars. They ranked from private to major general. They would all have seen the uselessness of using the word Royal to describe the military under Harper. Unless one wants to say that having Harper for PM is a royal boondoggle.
01:16 PM on 08/23/2011
This is but the tip of the iceberg folks.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
11:25 AM on 08/23/2011
I defy you to prove how 'multiculturalism' has improved the country as a whole.

Any well travelling individual will recognize that to all observers - Canada is becoming the 'suburb of the world' - a meaningless, identity-less 'location', where people politely go about their business.

Without a cultural identity we are nothing but a legal contract, subject to interpretation by every subsequent generation who will know less and less about their history, and about who they are.

Canadians fail dramatically on the international landscape in every form of leadership be it innovation in technology, marketing, finance. We are the only prominent Western nation to have only 1 recognizable brand (BlackBerry) and people don't even attribute it to Canada.

We are the joke of the international circuit on all things foreign affairs.

We create no entertainment, film, literature or music that anyone cares to listen to or respects in any way. (Last film produced and made in Canada to feature at Cannes or win an Oscar?).

Because of multiculturalism, we are all forced to shave off inch by inch any semblance of common culture, and we are left with nothing but consumerism.

MULTICULTURALISM IS THE DEATH OF HUMANITY ON THIS PLANET.

WATCH AS WE ALL FADE INTO A STARBUCKS.
02:53 PM on 08/24/2011
I see the origin of multiculturalism as Trudeau's way of getting around the Quebecois founding nation argument. Trudeau was basically saying that Canada is made up of many nations not just two. In a modern global world multiculturalism is the norm and Canada is very privileged to have people that come from all over the world to make here home. Multiculturalism gives us many business opportunities with the rest of the world and allows us way more contacts than they old bi-culturalism ever could. We are much better off now than we were when British was the dominant culture.

Most of what you are mentioning comes from us having a small population - it has nothing to do with multiculturalism. I would rather be in multicultural Canada than a mono-culture country like the US, at least our economy is growing.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
11:19 AM on 08/23/2011
Keith your cynicism is unfounded and unhealthy.

Our forces always were 'Royal' until the disastrous amalgamation of the 3 branches in the 1960's during which several Generals and Admirals resigned in protest. We are not 'renaming' anything, we are correcting an error made long ago.

Keith - we live in a Constitutional Monarchy, and the Queen is our Head of State.

We are thankful and respectful of our political tradition which has evolved for almost a thousand years almost without interruption since 1066. Our relationship to our history enables us an a mature identity and wise perspective wherein we may look onto creation knowing that we are much stronger and more capable.

You need to respect that fact - or leave.

There is a Republic to our South that would be glad to have you.
01:15 PM on 08/23/2011
"or leave", who the hell are you to tell anyone that?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Skepticat
Supporting skeptical felines everywhere
04:52 PM on 08/23/2011
Sorry but one of life's harsh realities is that the rest of us DON"T have to leave for being insufficiently in awe of a colonial past or failure to fawn over a monarchy based 3000 miles away
and the chances of being expelled like the Acadians were back in 1755 are nil. One of the nice things that makes this country better than most others is we can change our future and emphasis of our past or not as we see fit - we can even disagree and we will.
11:08 AM on 08/23/2011
How does the word Royal respect the fact that we have two founding nations? How does the word Royal reflect that there were nations here before the English came and trampled on them? Our history is distorted if looked at from the perspective of flourishing peoples here before the railways and 'progress' decimated them. But what else can we expect from a right winger with beliefs that suggest history is for the guys who make it up.
02:28 PM on 08/23/2011
History is in the eye of the beholder. Your argument suggests YOUR history is right and Harper's is wrong. "Royal" doesn't have to respect all 101 founding nations. Why? Nor was it only the English who "trampled" on the First Nations. Champlain did an awful lot of shooting before Wolfe ever got here. Your argument suggests that if history doesn't meet the current political climate it should be abandon in favour of no history at all. Given that -- YOUR tiny bit of time will be swept away also.
04:07 PM on 08/23/2011
Having studied the process of making history, which is not the actual events themselves but the recording and interpretation of them, I find fault with your rebuttal. Of course everyone, except people who only interpret empirical data, thinks that thier interpretation is the correct one. Most of my post was asking questions and giving an example of the colonization of North America. Adding Royal only addresses a small fraction of that process which is why I asked the question. It is an attempt to slant the history of this country towards that small portion of the story towards England and the English part of the story, which to me, is a distortion that has been promulgated by the proponderance of historians who are of that decent. Having spent much time in other cultures and seeing their perspective on Western Culture's predisposition to see themselves as ascendant, I defer to the idea that histoy is relativistic in nature but may be defined for periods of time by the majority decision to accept certain perspectives based on their ability to confirm their bias.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
11:55 PM on 08/23/2011
We do not have '2 founding nations'.

We have one primary founding nation, one secondary, and many others.
07:20 AM on 08/24/2011
really??
aintnoliberalnow
Old,cranky and retired
11:01 AM on 08/23/2011
What would we do without Liberal and left points of view that seize on every opportunity to blame it all on Harper. Oh I know, complain about the weather. Nope been there, done that, couldn't buy a T shirt anyway. Debate global warming (sorry, climate change), nope, too many experts on both sides and I don't like suzuki at the best of times. Hey, I know, how about something meaningfull like, say how we plan to save health care? Our involvement in U S led wars that can't be won? Hey, how about the cancer rate of 1 in 5 that if it were a flu, government would be spending billions to inoculate and cure? Get over it people. It is just an historic symbol that has been reinstated and if you don't like it then convince the country to elect a Liberal government on the platform of getting rid of it.
10:29 AM on 08/23/2011
Its just another example of Harper picking low-hanging fruit to satisfy his base. Getting tough on crime (when crime rates are dropping) is another example albeit an expensive one - at this one is cheap.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamster88
11:56 PM on 08/23/2011
No, in fact, he is satisfying the majority of Canadians.

Even the latest Globe & Mail informal reader polls indicated that more people were supportive of Harper, Nationalism, Royalty, than the Liberals, Social Policy and Multiculturalism.

And - the online readership of G&M definitely skews liberal, so no doubt Harper has clear support on this issue.
09:48 AM on 08/24/2011
I would love to see that poll. The G&M backed Harper in the last election so I wouldn't necessarily call it a liberal paper.

Conservatism at its ideological level is more emotional than practical, so the practice of tugging at people's heartstrings with emotional arguments of supporting values and tradition goes a long way. An example would be the wheat board where the principle of freedom of choice is more important than the practical issue of farmers getting a fair return for their products.

About 33% of Canadians identify themselves as conservative and Harper got just under 40% of the vote in the last election - not quite a majority.