I’d like to make the argument that the world is much better, right now, for having two nation states in North America rather than one. (1)

I could say that for a number of reasons, but here I’d like to look at just one.

The United States welcomes all peace-loving immigrants, as does Canada.

But, after that, there’s a slight change in nuance, which makes a difference. When I grew up and studied history, we were taught that America was a “melting pot.”  People who came left their culture more or less behind and became “American.” That was the way things were represented, whether it was true or not.

The Europeans who came to what became Canada were said to have created a different paradigm for their society.

From the beginning, French had to live with English and so there would be no unicultural melting pot in what became Canada. That option was off the table from the start.

Now add to that the evolving nature of the British Empire. It of itself was multicultural and even more so when it became the British Commonwealth of Nations.

At least the part of it we were allowed to see. No one knew about the darker part. If we stumbled across it, we’d scurry away. The authorities would take care of it.

And I grew up thinking multiculturally. I belonged to the British Commonwealth of Nations and was very proud of it. So did the Nigerian and the Bharatiya (East Indian) and the New Zealander I met at university or working in a pub. We all had a sense of belonging to the same group.

But the Commonwealth in no way played any part in our governance, save the deep-state part which is now being revealed and had nothing to do with the Commonwealth I knew throughout my life. The Crown did not own us and could not somehow sell us to the U.S., as has been recently suggested.

The deep state is a global problem, not restricted to any country and practically no one was aware at that time of what was really happening.

Back to our original subject, if someone moved here from another country, I wouldn’t automatically have expected them to drop their culture and assimilate.

And what arises thereafter is a fundamentally different experience, which I believe contributes to the world and deserves to continue to exist, uniquely.

***

Our choice to be multicultural sets up differing attitudes, desires, and expectations.

Let me give you what I think is one example and I ask you, please, not to be offended but to hear it with tolerance and a greatness of heart. We all have our role.

But if you asked a Canadian what they wanted Canada to be? I don’t think they’d say “great.” That’s not our role and probably not a role we seek.

I think they’d say “decent.”

In my mind, from having grown up in this culture, working for a living, and going through all the experiences we all go through? The word that I think describes Canada best (and there are exceptions) and arises in my mind and heart is “decent.”

Yes, we’ve had outbreaks of anti-Orientalism, upon which I reported as a historian, coincidentally, (2) and now we hear of utterly terrible, ghastly things that have been done to native children. It breaks my heart.

America is great. You’re the leader of the free world. Your situation as a military leader probably makes uniculturalism important. I don’t know. I leave that to others.

Hopefully you’ll lead us to peace. And, for the most part, we follow your lead. All praise to America.

Nevertheless, Canada has her own role to play and her own contribution to make. It doesn’t lie in the military area. We may contribute to this area but it isn’t where we place all our chips (not saying you do either).

It lies not only in the area of multiculturalism leading to unity of heart, but in other areas I could mention on other occasions. Ask me about “responsible govt. vs. checks and balances” another day. Ask me about the refugee system as I knew it at the turn of the century. These and other initiatives reflect the Canada I know.

Canada’s role is not America’s role. America’s role – if you asked Canadians, I think they’d say – is not Canada’s. … And that’s OK.

If we stopped being aggressive in our trade policies and negotiation styles and approached things win/win, us-and-others rather than us-against-others, we might get away with free trade. (3)

Footnotes

(1) That doesn’t mean no unity forever. The galactic civilizations who are waiting to meet us undoubtedly would not abide meeting with nation states rather than with representatives of the world. So unity is coming. But while we’re focused on taking down the deep state is just not the time for union, in my view. Later would be a different matter.

(2) S.M. Beckow, “Keeping British Columbia White”: Anti-Orientalism in the West, 1858-1949. National Museum of Man/National Film Board, 1974. On English-Canadian racism in general, see “Beckow, S.M., “From the Watchtowers of Patriotism: Theories of Literary Growth in English Canada, 1864-1914.” Journal of Canadian Studies, no. 9:3-!5.

(3) Kevin O’Leary’s idea.