City Councils Proclaim Anti-Canada Day

Post-Covid-lockdowns, in 2022 and 2023 Canadian residents of Victoria BC again gathered for Canada Day on July 1st, although it's now considered Anti-Canada Day by some (including Winnipeg -- and Victoria municipal councilors and their "Family"). 

Re-naming Canada's national day in 2024 is being proposed in 2023*, the better to free us to repudiate our founding fathers and cultural mothers (and all of the British Isles), and to make room for maple-syrupy declarations of allyship with the "marginalized and victimized".

That way, we will be able to go on apology-overdrive for being a liberal democracy. 

Apologizing is what Canada does best. Victoria's City Council wants to have a "review", meaning a thinly disguised process to de-platform history with "thoughtful analysis" -- and to enforce compelled speech about it. 

To culturally-correct drumming we will sing the new version of our national anthem: No Ca-nadaaa ...🎶

Participants in Canada Day festivals are asked to leave their maple leaf flags at home, in case the white spaces on them are offensive to vulnerable groups.

In Victoria, statues of colonial figures will kindly stay locked in their crates.

Editorial: Victoria Portrait Facing Uncertain Future Amid Debate About Colonial Symbols (iheartradio.ca)

See below: An old-fashioned insubordination celebration (!)      Canada Day Picnic 2021 in a municipal park, held when Victoria Council decided to "cancel" Canada Day -- but others did not. 

*https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/victoria-considers-taking-lead-on-canada-day-events-again-7366576

The Last Stoics Standing Are the Elderclowns

The CLOWN is an ambiguous figure. S/he goes two ways. The ELDER clown, wearing the famed double mask of theatre, is a seasoned expert at perfecting dual comic-tragic presentation -- being old enough to have seen all sides of life. A clown (also known as the "wise fool" or "holy fool") is a philosopher. Elder ones are often of the Stoic school. 

Do schools of philosophy match phases of the life span (and maybe also the eras of human civilization)? Infants are still at one with nature, and humanity's earliest mind-body lore is pagan. Beyond early childhood, which schools match which phases of life?

Adolescence: Nihilism (Morality has no factual basis.)

Early adulthood: Existentialism (Life has no inherent purpose, it's up to the individual to create meaning. Wear weird clothes.)

Early middle age: Hedonism (Pleasure is tops. Seize - and share - the most you can get while you can get it.)

Later middle age: Empiricism (with a topping of Rationalism. Face facts, be logical. Top up your pension, slim down your diet.)

Senior years: Stoicism (Acceptance, inner balance, calmly knowing what you can and can't control, and seeing the humour in it all even in the face of death).

At the Philosophy Cafe the elder-philosophers consider themselves the Last Stoics Standing -- while also falling down laughing. 

Visit the Cafe at Just Jests:

https://justjests.blogspot.com/2022/12/chapter-one-epictetus-was-street-corner.html

Combatting Systemic Erase-ism

How can the past be future-proofed, if Systemic Erase-ism blanks it out for current and future generations? Erase-ism doesn't see history as a series of events that have happened, but as an assault on the sensibilities of some people in the present. It re-shapes history as parable ("fictitious narrative or allegory") in defense of dominant attitudes of the present. Once it becomes a creature of ideological opinion-shaping, History as a subject is no longer a scholarly discipline but a branch of identity politics. 

The problem is not only that new parables are written to suit contemporary tastes (every generation does that), but that actual historical evidence in the form of documents, memorial sites, graves, archaeological remains, architecture, letters and memoirs are being erased and destroyed.

In every generation, knowledge of the past must survive depredations of the present. If we (the present) suppress parts of our past story considered discriminatory or "unsafe" for some (e.g. "privileged, dominant, colonialist, white, elitist, etc. ...), what will we be leaving descendants and future scholars? The future, where scholarship is concerned, will be blank.

How is this erase-ism accomplished? With displays of diversity-equity. This takes forms we have become used to: statue destruction, vandalism of buildings, removal of inconvenient documents from public archives and libraries, name changes of cities, streets, schools and universities.

This process is common when one regime or zeitgeist replaces another. It can change names and streetscapes, but not the actual facts of what happened in the past, because the past cannot unhappen. It can be unknown however, to an ignorant populace. This is engineered ignorance.

Removing statues of early explorers, politicians, inventors and philanthropists in Canada doesn't remove the fact of their having been nation-shapers. Changing the name of Ryerson University (for example) to Toronto Metropolitan University, doesn't change the fact that Egerton Ryerson the person had enormous effect on Canadian literacy, education, journalism and free speech. It can only erase public knowledge of the fact.

In the past, churches and polite taste muzzled certain expressions of speech, but speech was loosened up during the 20th century -- only to be re-muzzled today. Today we suppress not profanity but ideas that others say make them feel marginalized. 

Now, scholars with a different take on history than the ideologically correct one are banned from campuses (exactly the arena where they would be speaking, in an open society). It only needs someone to call their theories "hate" for them to be sent the way of statues: de-platformed. 

Next, editors of mainstream media accept submissions only from "disadvantaged" groups. Festivals, conferences and theatres only receive funding if they demonstrate the right kind of "diversity" (i.e. non-diversity). We live in paradoxical times. 

Thought can be erased before it even finds expression -- through self-censorship.  This is about freedom of speech, debate and analysis among citizens, academics, writers, bureaucrats and officials. Only if we preserve open expression can the past and present be held proof against future erase-ism.

“If we lose our freedom, it will not be because of invasion from without, but erosion from within; not because of autocratic dictators looking to do bad, but parochial bureaucrats seeking to do good.”
                     — Alan Borovoy, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

The Settler's Ballad for Canada Day

(You know the tune 😊)

Old Macdonald had a farm

E I E I O

and on that farm he made a life

E I E I O

With a bank loan l here and a workforce there,

here a flood, there a fire, everywhere another care,

Old Macdonald settled here

and shaped the countryside

Old Macdonald made the wealth

of Canada though toil,

Old MacDonald fed the crowds

when settling he broke soil,

and Macdonald took a wife

without whom he'd have led no life

Thank Macdonald for our health,

and Mrs. Mac for Canadian wealth

Is it Time to Fly Canada's Flag at Quarter-mast?

 As we approach Canada Day, July 1st, shouldn't Canadians, being the most apologetic nation in history, lower the flag? Isn't keeping it at half-mast (where it's been in some public places for over a year) a flagrantly proud and celebratory act for a country that wallows in supposed past sinfulness? That bright red Maple Leaf is flying too high -- shouldn't it be at quarter-mast? 

A National Day is a good time for citizens called privileged to gather in corrective camps for performative self-criticism. (Maoist China had nothing on 21st century Canada, when it comes to competitive apologizing.) If you're European/colonialist/privileged you can't be in public life without apology-training because of the things your ancestors did -- like settling, farming, birthing new natives, working, nation-building, crafting a democracy under rule of law and equal rights ... 

Apology-training is mandatory vaccination against patriotism -- and even more compelled than pronouns.

Here is one person's experience in the apology game: 

My Apologies

    I want to say I'm sorry for your loss. I heard you'd lost inclusion and respect, and possibly my ancestors were responsible. I'm sure my ancestors would be very sorry had they known more about inclusion back in the day when they were alive and people didn't fret enough about exclusion and such.

    I'm sorry you feel dis-entitled and disrespected -- if you do -- my apologies if I've got that wrong and you're actually perfectly fine. Although it must be a burden if you are being unfairly excluded from victim-hood. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to be insensitive. My mistake: sorry.

    I apologize if my race has had anything to do with it. My race is something I inherited unconsciously, but I know that's no excuse. I apologize for my ancestors having the genes they did, I'm sure if they'd realized all the trouble their genes would cause they wouldn't so thoughtlessly have passed them on. Some of them even had the bad taste to get their names on monuments, not knowing how offensive monuments would become (or even that their names would be on them), but again, that's no excuse. I'm sure they're posthumously regretful and that they’re perfectly okay with having their statues torn down. Sorry about historic names and places. Sorry about history, it should never happen.

    But don't worry, the politicians will apologize for it, they're in training for the Apology Olympics. I'm only a recreational apologist myself. But confusingly, an "apologia" originally meant a speech in defense of something, explaining and vindicating when no offence had been intended. But sorry: I know intent has nothing to do with it and that making amends means you must pretend that offence was intended, even if it wasn't ...

    But sorry, I'm losing the thread, I apologize for not sticking to the point which is my guilt and your victim-hood. Sorry for being obtuse, for it's clear that the insulted have a right to feel insulted and no one can take that away from them, for that would be to pile guilt upon guilt and even all the hand-washing of Lady Macbeth would fail to wash the stain away.

     I'm sorry that that lady was so entitled by the way, she being titled. And not only that but Anglo-Saxon, so her descendants would be settlers of a particularly accomplished, educated colonial type, which is elitist. No wonder she couldn't stop washing her hands.

    But sorry -- let's get back to you. You have every right to feel aggrieved about ... your grievances. I hope you'll forgive me. I'll follow the political leaders in learning what you're aggrieved about – or would that be cultural appropriation? Sorry: by “learning” I didn't mean I'd become in any way elitist-ly "learned". (Mea culpa.)

     I don't know why, since we have a national “day” for everything else, Canada doesn't have an Annual Official Apology Day. We have a day for every disease, we have Oceans Day, Bee Day, Orange Shirt Day, Seniors, Child, Multicultural Day, and dozens more. If we had an Apology Day everyone could celebrate it by surging into the streets and blocking traffic (so the traffic knows we mean it) and waving signs saying I'M SORRY. 

     But wait -- I am begin to feel something new: I believe it's the onset of apology-fatigue. I even foresee the day when I will retire from this tearful wallow. Sooner rather than later, I think. In fact: why not now?! I feel that my sorrow-stamina has suddenly run down. I'm afraid I may not make it to the next national apolog-orgy after all.

     Please accept my regrets.

-------------------------------------------

"Never retract, never explain, never apologize; get things done 

and let them howl" -- Nellie McClung                                                                         

If Canadians want to apologize for things maybe they should apologize to Nature:  

Sorry Forests, for logging you

Sorry Ocean, for filling you with plastic

Sorry Soil, for covering you with concrete

Sorry Wildlife, for stealing your habitats

Sorry Birds, for poisoning you with pesticides

Sorry Fish, for genocidal fishing

Sorry Whales, for stealing your fish

Sorry Factory-farmed and Lab Animals, for false imprisonment and cruelty

Sorry Fur-bearers, for not outlawing leg-hold traps

Sorry Harp seals, for clubbing your babies to death

Sorry Human Children, for reducing your experiences of nature, beauty, and quiet outdoor places 

A Self-Help Room of One's Own

 Virginia Woolf (A Room of One's Own, Hogarth Press, 1929) knew the necessity of solitude, for anyone thinking and working creatively (although it obviously didn't help her in the end). 

In a Self-Help Room of One's Own, one helps oneself to private, quiet solitude. You help yourself to the right lighting, by intuitively opening and closing blinds or, at night, turning on a lamp: simple things, on which simple sanity rests. You access personal agency.

You help yourself to a supply of books, music, pictures on the wall that take you away, suggesting other lands, times and dimensions. Special stones, pottery, shells, driftwood adorn surfaces, arranged for pleasure. There's no need to stress about things, in a private Self-Help zone. The light changes, the atmosphere is elastic. Mother Earth herself is changing her atmosphere and climate, and no doubt has her reasons. Finding balance, is one guess.

One changes the climate in a Self Help Room as if it was a personal planet. It is a personal planet: Planet Helped, where one helps oneself to freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom from "influencers". This kingdom is governed as a Nostrocracy, meaning its laws are nostrums, nostrums being "our own remedies": private helps for self, self-selected.

Seems an over-simplified view? Sometimes simplicity helps.

Manufactured History

Since History has become too incendiary to remain a scholarly discipline, it is now to be done by "public consultation" -- a bureaucratic phrase which borders on meaninglessness yet is laden with shadowy signaling.  

So what does the consulted public think about history? Which parts of the public are being consulted? Who are they being consulted by? Whoever it is, history will go on being itself, already having been itself. We can't change it, we can only either know or not know it. (Are schools still doing anything about knowing it?)

The agendum behind "doing history by public consultation" is to change the "narrative". If once deemed exclusive, privileged or unjust, a slice of history must be suppressed or rearranged, the previous chroniclers fired and a new crew taken aboard.

How is History by public consultation done then?                                                         

First you censor inconvenient documents, removing them from Public Archives.   

Then you remove awkward memoirs, history books and historical novels from public libraries.

You knock down statues and take portraits off walls.                               

You turn heritage buildings and historic houses into convention centres for anti-racism training and corrective re-education.                                                     

You change the school curriculum so as to cover indigenous history, "marginalized" and ethnic history, but not European, Anglo-Saxon, Enlightenment, Age of Reason and industrialization history. Students are taught by influencers, identity groups and therapists from the "correct" segments of the population.                                                                                                              Finally, you change the names of towns, parks, and streets so as to create amnesia about the figures they were originally named after, and the accomplishments for which those figures were commemorated.   

(WARNING for traditional scholarly historians: if you advance alternative non-consultative theories of the past you be may charged with Hate Speech.)

Seriously, the most reliable source of knowledge of past eras is well-written memoir (i.e. written by the literate): the "I was there and this is what I saw" genre.

For example: Daniel Defoe's A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain" (1724-6) which meticulously described landscape and analyzed economic resources and social interaction, taking us there -- 18th century England. For example: 

"Dorchester is ... pleasant, agreeable ... the people seemed less divided into factions than in other places, for though not all of one mind, either as to religion or politics, yet did not separate with such animosity as in other places. I saw Church of England clergymen and the Dissenting minister drinking tea together, and conversing with civility and good neighbourhood ..."

Sounds like we today could learn a lot from their example ...

Too bad anyone recording today, and being read a hundred years from now, won't be able to say the same about our communities as Defoe said about Dorchester, riven as we are by identity politics and the desire not only to dispute the present but to re-package the past, fracturing it on the basis of rival "standpoints".

(Regarding the ancient past, as revealed in archaeology and text analysis, here's one example: the scholar Camille Jullian "devoted himself to classical antiquity and Roman Gaul. He reconstructed the history of this period by cross-referencing human geography, philology, numismatics, epigraphy and archaeology" and "strove to apply science and history to the teaching of the arts ... through thorough observation, research and analysis of anonymous archives.)  He lived 1859-1933. Does anyone still bother with those disciplines??

Camille Jullian (1859-1933) | Aux sources de l'Archéologie nationale (culture.fr) 

Writers: See Our Updated Submissions Guidelines

Dear Writers,

Thank you for contacting our literary magazine; please note our Submissions Guidelines:

In your query letter please declare your/thy/their pronouns at the outset. Consider yourself compelled.

Although obsessed with pronouns we don't really like nouns. They tend simply to name what they name -- nominatively -- and then turn out to be triggering to many readers, sooner or later, leading to excessive online unfollow-hood.

Adjectives might be suspect if they lean toward Wrong-Modifying. Verbs too are problematical what with tenses, indicatives, infinitives, subjunctives and other grammatical micro-aggressions for which we have a zero tolerance policy. (Grammar is colonialist.)

Balanced points of view will not be tolerated, as our literary mission is to save society from itself. We are proud of our appropriate (but never misappropriated) bias, and we deal in nothing non-stigmatized. Write from a margin only. 

To apply for inclusion on our Yu-tube channel, please note we like our Talking Heads to be empty, because Blank Lives Natter and we offer viewers an exciting line-up of natterers displaying identical Protected Characteristics, and possessing a diploma in Advanced Grievance Studies.

We invite youth (anyone under 37 1/2 -- possibly about to Age Out of Care) who wish to instrumentalize opposition to able-normativity, to submit work via their case-workers. Send an Author Bio including a headshot of your/thy/someone's Therapy Animal (unless it's of a European breed).

Editorial response time will depend on the colour of your skin.

What Makes Common Wealth?

When Queen Elizabeth II inherited the British throne, there were only a handful of countries in the British Commonwealth. Now there are 54. Countries with populations of all races and colours clamour to join, while Canada shrinks from participation in what some call "colonialism". 

Britain declared all members of the Commonwealth autonomous in 1926, and Canada joined the structure as a sovereign nation in 1931. Canada had begun life as British North America, and has became progressively more multi-cultural ever since -- a nation of immigrants. We haven't yet repudiated our parentage though, our descent from "the Mother of Parliaments". We've never given up parliamentary democracy, under which political parties are joined by a peace-inducing loyalty to "the Crown". This means that the opposition party in parliament is, although opposing the governing party, nevertheless a loyal opposition under one Crown, which suppresses the "polarizing" aggression we see in political life elsewhere.

Some citizens of Anglo-Saxon background like to celebrate this heritage, as all other cultures in Canada are encouraged to do with theirs -- yet Anglo-Saxon culture is shunned by some as "colonialist". This is ironic, since the Commonwealth originating in Anglo-Saxon (and European Enlightenment) tradition embodies the principles of human rights, gender equality, freedom of expression, sustainable development, and access to health which the "progressive" political classes in Canada now trumpet (although in fact they're a bit shaky of the freedom-of-expression front ...).

Trade, traditions and values, not a formal constitution, holds the Commonwealth together. Members are represented by High Commissioners and the Head of the Commonwealth is not the monarch of Britain. The Commonwealth Charter formalizes the rights-and-freedom values listed above. These things didn't come out of nowhere however. They came through centuries of historical jostling, struggling and philosophizing in Britain, beginning when titled classes whose taxes supported the Crown and its wars demanded power in parliament, and leading to the trading classes who created wealth and industry doing the same, and then the working classes. 

This history used to be taught in schools but few current Canadian politicians, voters and commentators seem to know a thing about it. Schools no longer teach it: History is colonialist. Now we have "history by public consultation", which doesn't work well if equally ignorant and biased participants are committed only to advancing their own self-identity tribe. No wealth of commonality in that. 

In this atmosphere, Canadians did little to mark in 2022 the longest-ever reign of any British monarch, that of Queen Elizabeth II, who is in fact the most well-known person in the world, and who counter-intuitively became such precisely by not marking territory and asserting self.