This week I’m writing several shorter pieces on politics/current affairs and on two books I have just finished and recommend.
Mob Rule has Infected Canadian Journalism
Like many of you I suspect, I’m suffering from Jody Wilson-Raybould/SNC fatigue so I’m going to keep this first piece short. I’m amazed that almost all Canadian journalists of note are piling on with increasingly dire and hysterical warnings on the JWR/SNC non scandal (although Barbara Yaffe came out of retirement to write an excellent piece in today’s Globe). Their language suggests an imminent apocalypse. Some confess to being ashamed of being a Canadian; others warn the very essence of Canadian law has been undermined; still others, that the government has wrecked our democracy and on and on. No wonder ordinary Canadians are alarmed but, really, what poppycock.
All the while the beatification of JWR continues apace with nary a question of the veracity of her claims or at least the possibility the facts lead to other conclusions. I expect this from the usual suspects (I’m talking about you Conservatives and New Democrats) but from the entire commentariat? They act as if JWR descended from Mount Horeb carrying stone tablets instead of acknowledging that the issues are complex and the various participants almost certainly have legitimately held different impressions of what actually transpired and, most importantly, what it meant.
And of course the letters to the editor and social media posts pick up where the columnists leave off, proferring ever more indignation and fury. Where does this atavistic need to tear down come from? It’s as if there was a pent up wish to destroy the positive image the government has cultivated of Canada over the past four years, an image most Canadians have luxuriated in by the way.
Just to be clear, we haven’t heard everything yet and when we do I suspect it will be much more nuanced than the view being espoused by today’s columnists and their acolytes on social media. But don’t expect any mea culpas.
Which Side are You On?
Several weeks ago I wrote a piece on China and specifically its crude over reaction to the arrest of the Huawei executive on an extradition warrant. At the time I said I would come back to the behaviour of some Chinese new Canadians around this issue.
Let me start by saying I am the son and grandson of immigrants. I support and am proud of Canada’s relatively generous approach to immigration and I welcome new Canadians to this country. Also, I have lived in Vancouver for nearly sixty years and in the downtown core of the city for nearly fifty. Those of you who know Vancouver will know what a culturally and ethnically diverse neighbourhood that is. I’m used to daily interractions with people who are new to Canada. In fact, on those rare occasions I find myself in a community where everyone looks and talks like me I find it unsettling and weird. Over the years I have had great personal and professional relationships with Chinese Canadians and have felt them excellent citizens. I still do.
So, it is hard for me to acknowledge my dismay when I saw protestors who were obviously Chinese new Canadians demanding that Canada bow to Beijing on the extradition dispute and ignore our treaty obligations with the United States. One of the things that makes Canada an attractive place to live is that it is a country where the rule of law is paramount, where our courts are free of political taint. When a person swears a citizenship oath to Canada that should include a commitment to support and uphold the rule of law and its independence in this country.
I’m not saying the protestors don’t have the right to protest. They certainly do and that is a big difference from what their rights would be in the People’s Republic of China, but frankly the optics in this case are terrible. If I was a Chinese Canadian I would be very concerned about the impression they are creating, particularly at a time when a significant number of Canadians are questioning the country’s openness to immigration. It would be nice to hear other views expressed by Chinese Canadians but I suspect they are fearful of repercussions from the PRC.
There has been some subsequent investigative journalism into the groups behind the protestors and it seems possible their leaders are being directed by Beijing. Even if that isn’t the case, this behaviour should prompt Canada to take a careful look at the system it uses to select new Canadians to ensure to the extent possible their first loyalty will be to Canada and not a foreign power.
The Legacy of Slavery
Julian Castro is running for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 Presidential Election in the U.S. He has opined that it would be useful to discuss the possibility of reparations to the descendents of slaves in America. Other candidates have since joined him with varying degrees of support for the idea. While I get that certain issues must take precedent over political necessity and this may be one, I wonder at the wisdom of the Democrats launching into these perilous waters when the paramount concern must be replacing Donald Trump. Also, most Americans are not descendents of slave owners.
I thought Bernie Sanders gave the best response. He noted that millions of Americans live in poverty for a variety of reasons including the legacy of slavery and that problem should be addressed as a whole. He would have been more effective had he been less curmedgeonly as he said this but it did contain the germ of a better idea.
Slavery is called America’s “original sin” and it has never been effectively expiated. While it is true millions of Americans live in poverty, a response that didn’t focus exclusively on the legacy of slavery would fail to atone for that sin. Many African Americans have a living standard below the rest of society and it’s probably correct to connect that to some degree to the legacy of slavery and its aftermath in the Jim Crow era. However, some descendents of slaves have prospered so I don’t think proposals for a blanket payment to all descendents of slaves would be appropriate or effective. What would be effective is to commit resources to be uniquely available to the descendents of slaves to help them participate fully and successfully in American society. Creating and supporting educational opportunities is one area that could help but I expect there are many others.
Itt would also help if concrete measures were combined with an apology. I often feel Canada’s endless apologies to groups mistreated in the past go overboard but the case of slavery is sufficiently different and acute to be worthy of an apology.
Books I’m Recommending
I’ve recently finished two books that I want to recommend: “February House” and “The Man in the Glass House”.
February House
February House was recommended to me by our guide in the walking tour of Brooklyn I described in an earlier blog, Ron Janoff. It details an extraordinay experiment in communal living in Brooklyn for two years up to the entry of America into the Second World War. What makes it so extraordinay is the list of tenants and visitors who lived in or attended the old Victorian house in Brooklyn Heights: W.H. Auden, Benjamin Britten, Peter Pearce, Gypsy Rose Lee (yes, that Gypsy Rose Lee), Carson McCullers, Paul Bowles, Jane Bowles, Aaron Copland, Truman Capote, Salvador and Gaia Dali, Janet Flanner, Christopher Isherwood, Lincoln Kirstein, Louis McNeice, Erika Mann, Anaiis Nin and Lotte Lenya, amongst so many others. Some were refugees from Nazi dominated Europe, others from the war where the Nazi’s had not yet triumphed.
The house was named “February House” by Anaiis Nin because so many of its inhabitants had birthdays in February. It was torn down to make way for an expressway but old photos show a building distinguishable from its neighbours by a faux Tudor facade. (see the photo at the head of this blog).
There was also an off-Broadway musical based on the story of the house. Apparently it used rhyming couplets. It was at the Public Theatre in New York but doesn’t seem to have achieved much traction with Ben Brantley of the Times reviewing it and saying “When the gang decides to give a party, its constituents sound like Judy and Mickey preparing to put on a show in the barn.” Ouch!
The book, however, is another matter. It doesn’t just record events in the house but places them in the context of a world moving inevitably towards cataclysm as well as providing deep dives into the intellectual development of the main characters.
If you are interested in the intellectual history of the West in the first half of the Twentieth Century this is a must read. Its author is Sherrill Tippins.
Man in the Glass House
The second book I’m commenting on is “The Man in the Glass House” by Mark Lamster. It is the most recent biography of Philip Johnson who was probably the pre-eminent architect in mid twentieth century America. His most famous buildings are what was the Seagram Tower in New York, where he collaborated with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe who was the principal architect and his home in New Canaan Connecticut, described as “The Glass House”. The Glass House is now owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and is open to the public. The other great public institution he is associated with is the Museum of Modern Art in New York which he supported and worked at for decades.
As with “February House” this biography provides significant insight into mid century America and Europe. It provides a detailed portrait of Johnson, warts and all. The most startling thing for me was the extent to which Johnson was an anti semite who sympathized with Fascists and, particularly, the Nazi’s. It is even suggested he may have been an agent of Nazi Germany although he was not prosecuted after the war.
And what is even more astonishing is how seemingly easily he was forgiven for his pre-war and wartime trangressions after the war, especially by a number of prominent Jewish people. First amongst these, would be the Canadian Bronfman family who engaged him as an integral part of the Seagram Building project. He worked closely with Phyllis Lambert, the daughter of Samuel Bronfman, on this project and they continued to have a professional and personal relationship until his death at New Canaan in 2005. One of the fun tid bits in the book describes how he tried to work a gay bar into the design for the Seagrams Building. He didn’t succeed. He was also a friend of Shimon Peres after he designed a Synagogue in Israel and the building housing Israel’s nuclear program. He wasn’t paid for either and they were seen as acts of expiation for his earlier heresy.
Delving into his activity in the pre-war and war periods gives the book’s title ambiguity, drawing on the old adage that “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. I came away from the book with a view of Johnson that was mostly negative but complicated. His legacy lives on in buildings he designed or influenced all over New York (btw he designed the remake of Times Square, something more to hold against him) and around North America. A good read.
Just sayin
A request to readers of this BLOG: Facebook has made it more difficult to automatically circulate the blog using Facebook (not just for me but for all bloggers in case you were wondering). If you enjoy reading the blog I urge you to sign up as a “follower”. All it takes is a couple of clicks on the “follow” button at the end of the blog and you will then receive an automatic notification whenever one is posted, as well as a link to the blog.
Also, if you enjoy the blog, please share it with your friends.
G
Geoff's Blog 