Is This What You’ve Become America?

In an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security to Donald Trump, made several statements that went well beyond the question that was about “running Venezeula”, drawing attention back to the new National Security Policy that was issued a couple of weeks previous. If there was any hope that document was only a general statement of principles or a trial balloon, his comments laid that to rest.

Miller described a predatory America that claims hegemony over the entire Western Hemisphere, and that will take whatever it wants from smaller, weaker nations. He justified this as some kind of eternal law or rule that might makes right.

“Jake…we live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time…”

Shortly after, in an interview with the New York Times, Trump dismissed any limitation imposed by international laws or treaties, asserting his only limit was his own morality.

This, as should be clear now, is about much more than Venezuela. It signals that America will take what it wants, when it wants, regardless of another country’s legal and recognized claims of sovereignty, subject only to its ability to resist militarily. It completely ignores the human rights of the people of other nations. Essentially, it is betting that no country, except China and perhaps Russia, can say “no” to American demands.

Although some, myself included, have compared this to the gunboat diplomacy America imposed on much of Latin America in the latter half of the twentieth century, this is much more than that. In fact, a more apt comparison is with the savage imperialism that drove Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin’s soviet empire, Hirohito’s imperial Japan and Leopold’s despoiling of the Belgium Congo, not to mention earlier European empires spanning the globe. And today we have Vladimir Putin’s Russia seeking to absorb Ukraine and pretend it never existed, much as Hitler and Stalin did to Poland during the Second World War. This is the company today’s America has chosen to keep.

While it’s true brute strength and domination have often predominated throughout human history, those periods seldom end well for either the oppressor or the oppressed. And they do end relatively quickly and brutally. But it’s also true that another, completely different, narrative about human and national relations has persisted in response to the explosions of human cruelty and brutality. Although its roots go much further back, what we call “the Enlightenment” emerged in the eighteenth century as a compelling belief that underpinned much of what is Western and democratic today. It sees humans as essentially moral creatures imbued with intellect and a drive to collaborate and cooperate for the good of all. It has been the foundation for much that we now consider progress, whether in peace between nations or collaboration and prosperity.

Ironically, at least in light of Stephen Miller’s views and statements, those beliefs from the Enlightenment are a foundational part of the American experiment. The language of “The Declaration of Independence”, the American Constitution and its first ten amendments that form “The Bill of Rights” all reflect this Enlightenment sensibility. That isn’t to say that in its first two hundred and fifty years America hasn’t strayed from those beliefs. In fact, the original sin of chattel slavery was there at the beginning, as well as other legal structures that valued some citizens more than others. But despite those shortcomings, American democracy could always reach back to those ideals to inspire and motivate its citizens and leaders, whether in the poetic language of Lincoln, Franklin Delano Rooselvelt, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama. It was a touchstone or, to borrow a very American cliche lifted from the Bible, “a shining city on a hill” that allowed correction and progress towards something more perfect.

Stephen Miller and Donald Trump dismiss these ideas and values as irrelevant frippery that has no tangible place in the real world of power and strength. They are wrong. Without the vision America is just another big country, stumbling around in the dark, inflicting damage wherever it goes, sowing seeds of resentment and resistance, and destined for the dustbin of history, perhaps sooner than later. And that would be a tragedy for all of us who believe in mankinds’ better nature.

I would like to believe this is just a passing spasm, that the American people really won’t continue down this path, that it is only a tiny minority that has been horribly empowered by unique historical circumstances and the failures of the American political structures and system. But that wouldn’t be correct. Over seventy seven million Americans voted for this government with at least some understanding what they were voting for, and it’s unclear how much buyers’ remorse there really is out there. Throughout history countries have made choices that, with the benefit of hindsight, look suicidal. Why should America be an exception?

There is one other part of this that should concern people greatly. Of late Donald Trump’s statements have been particularly incoherent and inconsistent. It seems he is increasingly a narcissistic ego stuck in an eighty year old body and mind. This then begs the question who is in charge? Who is charting this disastrous course? Some have described Stephen Miller as the brains of the government and I do wonder whether he and a small coterie of invisible others are taking America and the world down this path to perdition.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the follow button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

The “Truth and Reconciliation” Dead End

It was only a matter of time. The moment when the feel good, wishy washy proclamations and promises were going to bump up against the hard realities of Canada today.

Canada has a population of approximately 42 million, of which slightly more than 1.8 million are indigenous, or about five percent. The rest are either recent immigrants or descendants of Europeans and later Asians who started migrating to what is now called Canada in the sixteenth century. The indigenous societies they encountered were technologically much less advanced than those of the Europeans or Asians, some more so than others. Some, the tribes of the west coast, for example, were relatively sedentary with established villages and hierarchies, while others like the tribes of the prairies, existed in migrating, hunter/gatherer groups. None could withstand the encroachment of the Europeans.

This is the point where most people will pause to assure everyone they are deeply committed to reconciliation with aboriginal peoples, and profoundly regret the countless terrible things inflicted on them by the newer settlers and their descendants. I will not. All those mostly empty words do is reinforce the lazy narrative that everything aboriginal is good and everything else, bad. That most feel this reflects the coercive forces that have shaped this debate in Canada. Step even a little over that line and you’ll be accused of racism or, that newest of online charges, “denialism”.

What happened to aboriginal peoples in Canada replicated what has happened all over the world since time immemorial. Populations move. Borders shift. People get displaced or absorbed. Sometimes it is peaceful but usually there is conflict with the more advanced groupings dominating. I’m sure my Celtic ancestors were displaced multiple times as more powerful groups invaded and occupied the British Isles but it would be absurd for me to demand reparations now from the United Kingdom. And yet here we are in Canada. In fact, it’s certain indigenous people did not all arrive at one time, in one group. Given they eventually populated both South and North American continents from top to bottom, some obviously arrived much earlier than others and, if human history is any guide, the newcomers displaced the earlier settlers as they moved across the continents. So who amongst aboriginal North and South Americans was first and, if that could be determined, do they have superior claims to all others?

Under the disastrous leadership of Justin Trudeau Canada cast itself as somehow different from every other place on earth throughout human history, posing as more virtuous, more just, more feminist, and oh so sorry for the litany of supposed wrongs committed by our European settler forefathers and mothers against a seemingly endless list of offended or “harmed” people. It seemed a month didn’t go by when we weren’t apologizing to some group or other about something; that the Canadian flag was at half mast, and that the steady drumbeat of shame was beaten into us. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. Churches were burned. Statues toppled. Streets and towns renamed. Charges of genocide, not just cultural by the way, were hurled at Canada from around the world as the the Canadian government hid its face in shame or worse, pled guilty. Not surprisingly, pretty soon the very idea of Canada, this remarkably successful country, was devalued, so much so that some preciously referred to it as “so called Canada” while others tried to rewrite the national anthem so it too would reflect our perfidy and shame. A hell of a way to build and unite a country.

In this environment it’s not surprising that the claims by indigenous Canadians should take first place as an original sin that marked the dark path that lay ahead. Canadian governments have been trying to address the role of indigenous people in a modern nation state since before Confederation. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems most of those efforts were misguided and certainly unsuccessful. That’s clear even without assigning dark motives to early Canadians. The modern context begins in 1982 when Pierre Trudeau’s government patriated the constitution from the United Kingdom and added the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The new constitution, at Section 25, affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights for indigenous Canadians including Metis. It also shelters those rights from diminishment through the Charter rights of other Canadians. The meaning of this clause was then left to the courts to determine. That was subsequently further constrained by Canada’s adoption of the “United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples”. So, bit by bit, Canadian Liberal and Conservative governments, as well as NDP provincial governments, entangled the country in a web of uncertainty and conflict, all the time engaging in magical thinking that somehow it would all work out.

On August 8 B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young issued a ruling in the claim by the Cowichan Nation that found it had established aboriginal title to more than 5.7 kilometers of land along the banks of the Fraser River in the city of Richmond, some of which is privately held either by businesses or homeowners. It found public and private titles to the land were “defective” and infringed on the Cowichan title. The ruling has triggered a tsunami of outrage against the judge, great anxiety for the current landowners, and appeals by the City of Richmond, the province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, the local port authority and one other aboriginal group with a competing land claim. I don’t know whether the outrage and shock is genuine or political theatre because it’s been blindingly obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the competing claims that it was going to come to this somewhere. This follows the provincial government voluntarily ceding full control of Haida gwaii to the Haida despite there being privately owned lands on the archipelago. In both cases the native bands have offered assurances they will not interfere in the private holdings but, frankly, that’s only good until they change their minds. Even if they don’t, the possiblity significantly undermines the value of those properties.

None of this happened in a vacuum. The politicans, having set the table over the decades, then stood back as the courts did what they were expected to do: interpret, define and refine the ambiguities in the laws. I don’t fault the judge in the Cowichan ruling. She simply considered the evidence, the law and the precedents and then issued the inevitable outcome. If it hadn’t happened in Richmond it would certainly have happened elsewhere, and soon, given other cases before the courts in B.C.

So, as a result of colossal mismanagement by Canada’s political leaders we now live in an Alice in Wonderland world where two contradictory things are held to be somehow magically consistent. They are not. And many have been complicit. I don’t remember when it became compulsory for every public gathering to begin with an acknowledgement it was taking place on “unceded native land”. Or when many events were preceded by some kind of drum and/or smoke ceremony. Or when aboriginal offenders were given lighter sentences even if they were chronic and violent offenders. Or when every development proposal was subject to endless conflict over claims by indigenous groups that they had to consent before it could proceed. And on that issue we have yet another example of the ambiguous/magical thinking of our political leaders as they created the laws. Some, although fewer and fewer, are willing to stand up and say there is nothing in the constitution that requires consent by native groups before developments can proceed. But there is the need to consult and the courts have added layer upon layer to that process until many, perhaps most, indigenous Canadians believe they have the right of veto. And even when the courts find otherwise in a particular case some engage in acts of civil disobediance and sabotage to block or slow the process.

This is no way to run a country. Five percent of the population cannot trump the rights and interests of the other ninety five percent. I understand indigenous Canadians have not been able to fully partiticipate in the success of this country and I fully support initiatives that will help them do so in the future, initiatives such as ownership of resource projects or developments on their urban lands. But that is a far cry from pouring billions of dollars into a system that infantilizes and traps them. The simple fact is Canada needs to go back to square one on this issue and that may mean amending Section 25 of the constitution as well as repudiating some of the vacuous commitments previous federal, provincial and municipal governments have made. As the Cowichan ruling has shown, a tiger is awakening and it’s the vast majority of the Canadian public, and it will demand radical remedial action on how we all relate to indigenous Canadians. This could get very nasty. Let’s see if any of our politcal leaders have the cojones to lead.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Lament for America

On July 4, 1776 the Continental Congress adopted the “Declaration of Independence” leading to the revolutionary war with Great Britain from 1776 to 1783 that ended with an independent America and the end of the first British Empire. The newly independent Americans adopted a Constitution that placed citizens at the centre of their governance, founded on the belief that government’s legitimacy flowed exclusively from the consent of the governed. This then revolutionary idea allows Americans to claim with some legitimacy their’s is the oldest continually functioning democracy in the world. The constitution was then amended to include “The Bill of Rights” guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion, and the right to publish, possess arms, and assemble.

The framers of the constitution established a tricameral structure of government with Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches, with the Legislative branch as senior, along with checks and balances to ensure none of the three branches usurped the prerogatives of the others or governed contrary to the underlying principles and commitments of the constitution. This form of government has survived for nearly two hundred and fifty years although not without challenges, the most serious being the civil war from 1861 to 1865. In the twentieth century there were at least two crises that tested its durability: the so called “Teapot Dome” scandal during President Warren Harding’s administration in 1921, and the Watergate scandal during President Richard Nixon’s administration between 1971 and 1974. In both cases the framework held and the republic continued, scarred but intact.

There has always been tension between the animating impulses of the American experiment, one celebrating the unfettered rights of the individual and the other seeking to corral, harness and attenuate that innately selfish drive. But the centre has held while still allowing for a remarkable and unprecedented explosion of material well being, innovation and freedom, not just in America but in many other parts of the world as well.

Americans are taught their country is the best in the world, in fact the best ever in the world, even though American history, like that of any nation, has significant blind spots and many dark corners. Since the Second World War it has, sometimes reluctantly, assumed the role of superpower and, for democracies at least, the one essential nation. At the end of the Cold War America stood as a colossus, unequalled in economic and military might. It didn’t always use that power wisely and stumbled, sometimes blindly, into confrontations and entanglements that cost it and others dearly in lives, dollars and political capital.

The success of America propelled excellence on so many fronts, whether scientific, medical, intellectual and the arts, while simultaneously expanding the American family to include groups that were historically marginalized or worse. This, along with the material success, signals the triumph of the ideas that were first expressed in 1776 as the outcome of the Enlightenment but with a uniquely American interpretation. For a time the optimism that followed infected much of the world with an evangelical certainty the right model for human organization had finally been found.

And then everything changed.

I’ll leave it to future historians to parse what triggered a seismic shift in the views of many Americans although some of the more obvious are the rapid embrace of free trade with the resulting loss of manufacturing jobs in America, the near collapse of the world financial system in 2007 with its fallout landing disproportionately on the American public and not the banks and bankers who caused it, the sense the southern border had ceased to exist and that America was being flooded with illegal immigrants, the ravages of the opioid epidemic first unleashed by unscrupulous business people and physicians who seemed to emerge wealthier and unscathed by its fallout, and, of course, the COVID pandemic which brought into sharp focus the competing American narratives, placing medical expertise and science against the ingrained individualism of most Americans. All of these and more contributed to the feeling by many Americans that their country was broken and someone had broken it. And the obvious culprit was the group that had run the country for most of the twentieth and the first part of the twenty- first centuries. This amorphous group was tagged the “liberal elite” or “the coastal elites” and it didn’t help that their more liberal flank simultaneously embarked on an attempt to fundamentally shift the values of the nation on issues like gender, race and the relations between the sexes.

Not only was that leadership seen as responsible for much of the malaise affecting many Americans, but it was viewed as not caring, in fact, as treating those on the out as less worthy. At the same time a small number of Americans began to accumulate wealth on a relative scale not seen since the Gilded Age, wealth they flaunted with yachts, space trips, obscenely extravagant celebrations, and all the lifestyle accoutrements many aspire to. It’s little wonder what began as an inarticulate and largely unformed sense of injustice turned into white hot rage, that rage then solidifying into the absolute binaries of us and them with no space for comity or even communication in between.

Previous generations had their share of conspiracy theorists and malcontents. And they have done damage to America. But, unlike their predecessors, today’s demagogues or wannabe leaders have access to communication tools not even dreamed of by their forebearers. The internet has so transformed human interraction and communication that the tools that were previously available to correct, adjust and engage are worthless. Everyone is an expert and everyone’s opinion, no matter how extreme, is valid.

The view that elites have betrayed America taints many things that have made America great. Its science, its medicine, its institutions of higher learning, its arts, are all thrown onto the bonfire of distrust and dislike along with the most basic tools of scientific research, discovery and understanding. Suddenly up is down, white is black, and, in the words of Kelly Anne Conway, facts can be ”alternative”. Once you cross that line the way back is difficult if not impossible. The normal tools of dialogue, observation and understanding are useless as every attempt to reach out is viewed with suspician and distrust. The late great American writer Joan Didion coined a phrase for a different context that I think describes the world now inhabited by millions of Americans: a world of ”magical thinking”, a kind of childlike belief that anything you think or believe is true and not subject to adult tests of fact and reality.

While it’s possible to understand the roots of the current fury in parts of the right, it is less easy to understand how Donald Trump became it’s avatar. From his initial descent down that gilded escalator to his astonishing victory in the 2016 election and then, even more extraordinary, his re-election in 2024, none of it fits any normal rational framework. A New York developer with, to put it mildly, a rather dodgy past somehow reaching out and connecting with disaffected Americans all over the country and, particularly, in those areas most alienated from everything New York represents. Not only has he connected, he’s become a messianic figure marching towards an ill defined MAGA ”promised land”.

The language of religion is appropriate as millions of evangelical Christians flocked to Trump despite his well known and, one would have thought, disqualifying, life choices and history. Those of us not part of evangelical Christianity or MAGA find this incomprehensible and yet, in two elections, evangelical Christians voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. Their support only solidified after two assassination attempts where, for some, divine intervention saved his life. And this illustrates the near impossibility of having a dialogue between those who believe in science, humanism and verifiable facts, and those who believe in a literal activist deity first described in the Bronze Age.

Unlike the first Trump administration, America now has a government with a plan, a timeline and an implementation strategy. Much of the plan was laid out in the “Project 2025” document that Democrats warned about to little avail during the election. The strategy for its implementation includes undermining the pillars of American democracy and civil society by, amongst other things, removing people from positions of influence and power who might push back or whistleblow; attacking and weakening the crown jewels of the American advanced education system; undermining public confidence in science, medicine and what is described as “mainstream media”; demeaning the courts; politicizing the armed forces and deploying them domestically; and taking a wrecking ball to the norms of civilized discourse between opposing viewpoints, all with the goal of completely disrupting the existing order. This is exactly the strategy that Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s advisor during part of his first term, advocated.

While its “shock and awe” approach to governing has placed most of its opponents on their back heels, there are contradictions within the governing coalition that might cause it to unravel although, thus far, it has been remarkably sturdy. First there is the disparate nature of the coalition, including disaffected and mostly poor white voters, tech billionaires, libertarians, traditional conservative Republicans, survivalists, antisemites and a seemingly endless parade of hangers on’s and opportunists. The one thing that unites them is their anger at, and contempt for, the “elites” even though some would in normal times be part of that group. The second, for many at least, is an unquestioning belief in Donald Trump himself, one that shelters him from criticism or even the consequences of unlawful behaviour. For a minority, the tech billlionaires and elected Republicans especially, the real motivation is almost certainly self interest, whether opportunities for greater wealth or power, or fear of losing what they already have. This sounds a lot like Putin’s Russia.

The greatest vulnerability for Donald Trump and MAGA lies with the President himself. There are two major impulses behind Donald Trump: his unquenchable need for approval and praise, and, in some ways a measure of the first, his insatiable need to accumulate wealth. These are the core motivations in the administration and virtually every major action it takes is connected to them. I’m not a psychologist, but my life and work taught me that deeply insecure people will go to any length to feed their needs and constantly refill the void at the centre of their self-esteem. Place such a person in the Presidency and those needs warp every major choice by him and his government and, combine that with the cult like admiration of millions, and you arrive where we are today.

The Trump administration is likely the most corrupt in the two hundred and fifty year history of the Republic. There have been other corrupt administrations but nothing on the scale of today. And we are only one hundred plus days in. It’s no exaggeration to say the core objective of the administration is the enrichment of the Trump family and its closest friends and allies, and it’s helpful to view most decisions by the government through that lens. By some estimates, the Trump family has already been enriched by at least five hundred to a billion dollars through schemes such as its crypto currency where it is now possible for anyone to buy influence with the President and government without fear of any legal blowback.

Even in a foreign policy supposedly driven by the mantra of “America first”the powerful tools of the U.S. government are being misused to serve the President’s needs. An example is the approval of a golf course in Vietnam where threats of massive tariffs on a much smaller and weaker country caused it to not only approve a Trump golf course and resort but to pay for it. Of course there wasn’t an explicit and public link between the two actions but the government of Vietnam understood what it had to do to get in the good graces of the President and his family. And tracking the many Trump interests throughout the Middle East finds that same logic playing out, influencing and warping America’s policies and actions in the region. That doesn’t mean every decision by the administration is directly related to these self serving goals or that some decisions may not be the right ones by most standards, just that all ultimately are in service of those goals whether through increasing the likelihood of the continued control of government or more directly.

Even on the administration’s signal issue of immigration enforcement there are tracks leading back to the enrichment of members of the family or their close friends and allies. And while this massive grift is going on the normal counter balances from the media, from law firms, from institutions of higher learning and from civil society organizations are muted as they attempt to fend off existential threats from the administration. And the Legislative branch, fully controlled by Republicans, does nothing.

One thing that is striking about this administration is its gratuitous cruelty and anger. Its approach to immigration enforcement is an example where some of the most vulnerable amongst us are treated without any acknowledgement of their humanity. This may be part of a deliberate strategy to frighten would be illegal immigrants and, in that regard, it may be working but, even so, it speaks volumes about those who are devising and implementing it and their supporters. Empathy is completely missing as the targets of these actions are stripped of their humanity if only to isolate them from the sympathies of the broader American public. This is not a new or novel strategy. In fact, it is taken chapter and verse from the playbook of authoritarians throughout history as they mobilized majorities through fear of minorities, and it never ends well. History will judge it harshly but, in the meantime, millions will suffer and many will die.

So, two hundred and fifty years after The Declaration of Independence, the great American idea is at a crossroads. It is turning from an optimistic, outward looking society into one whose characteristics are fear and loathing of the “other”; distrust of science and learning; and isolationism, including turning away from its boundless and hopeful belief in the future. Ironically, this is caused by its own loss of self confidence as it changes into just another big power imposing its will on those who are weaker, all in the service of a short sighted, dark and ultimately self defeating view of its relationship to the world. And this, under the watch of a kleptocratic government whose first interests are never those of the people it governs except so far as is necessary to maintain popular support and power.

America is in a very dark place right now and I don’t know if it’s possible for it to regain faith in itself, and to return to a world where it serves as an example for others. The damage may be irreversible even if the weight of corruption around the current administration finally drags it down. I don’t even know if America will be capable of holding fair and free elections in 2026 and 2028. But I do know it’s in the interests of everyone who cares about democracy, human rights, international stability and the continued progress towards a better, more humane and comfortable world that America pivots back to its role, no matter how hyperbolic, of being “a shining city on a hill”.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Floating Down the Mississippi

I’ve just returned from a trip on a paddlewheeler from Memphis to New Orleans. Given the fraught state of American politics right now, I wasn’t sure what I would encounter in the “Deep South” but assumed I would run into a phalanx of “Trump” supporters and signs. I almost certainly ran into Trump supporters but, as for signs, the only one I saw was in a window in Natchez, Mississippi. Aside from that, there was little if anything to show an election was happening.

Like most people who don’t live there, my views of “the South” were shaped by many myths, whether the horrors of slavery and racial discrimination, or the Disneyeque pictures of the genteel south encapsulated by “Gone With the Wind”, all nicely wrapped in the sorrow of its music. As it turned out, there was some truth to both pictures but it was a lot more complicated than the black and white images I brought with me.

Our starting point was Memphis, Tennessee although, because the Mississippi was so low, we had to be bussed south to a moorage in Mississippi. The two nights in Memphis were less than memorable, with one notable exception. Unfortunately, the cruise line decided to house us in the Graceland Guest House which is right across the street from Graceland but is a long distance from downtown Memphis. I learned that Graceland was the second most visited house in America after the White House although I did not add my number to that count. The most interesting/disturbing occurrence happened at the guest house. On my first night there, I was sound asleep and suddenly my room was filled with light from the enormous flat screen TV opposite the bed and, in the background, Elvis was singing “you ain’t nothing but a hound dog”. It was 1:45 a.m. I raised this with the desk the next morning. They said they hadn’t heard of it and made a note of it. I assumed it was looked after. The next night, this time at 3:45 a.m., the same thing happened although Elvis was singing something else. I left the next day for the cruise and, upon consulting my fellow cruisers, found many had the same experience. Weird.

Downtown Memphis looked interesting although the famous Beal Street during the day was mostly closed or deserted. What’s more, it was effectively only two blocks long and had the feel of a tourist trap. The one unreserved good thing about Memphis was our meal on the second night when we went to a restaurant called “Porch and Parlour” and had an outstanding meal. It was also New York prices.

Our first stop after Memphis was Cleveland. When I heard we were stopping in Cleveland I worried we might be going in the wrong direction but then discovered there is a Cleveland, Mississippi. I gather it is a fairly typical small town in Mississippi, although it’s main street was tarted up to appeal to tourists on the river boats. There wasn’t much there there (apologies to Gertrude Stein), although my rare interractions with the merchants were nothing but polite, indeed as I was looking for shoe laces, they were extremely helpful, offering to phone other stores to see if they carried them. Initially, I did wander into what I thought was a regular bookstore only to find myself in the midst of Christian store with an owner who quickly, and correctly I might add, assessed me as fallen. I fled.

The first of the really interesting stops was Vicksburg. Vicksburg was the site of a major battle and seige during the American Civil War. The fortress/city was under seige for two months in 1863 and eventually surrendered to Union General, Ulysses S. Grant. Most of the plantations surrounding the city were destroyed and, because of the seige, many of the antebellum homes in Vicksburg were also severely damaged or destroyed. During the seige the residents of Vicksburg retreated to caves to avoid the constant bombardments.

The people I met in Vicksburg were very conscious of their civil war history, referring to their great, great grandparents and their experience during it. And yet, they did not fit into the stereotype of the culturally backward southerner. In fact, quite the opposite. At the Old Courthouse Museum there is an extraordinary collection of aritifacts going back several hundred years, including many to do with the Civil War. One of the attendants was a young woman with hair slightly tinted purple and wearing a “Pride” button. When I purchased a cookbook for a friend she asked if I would like it gift wrapped for an extra dollar. I said yes, expecting a bit of paper but, instead, was presented with a package worthy of any Christmas tree (lots of ribbons and curls).

Perhaps my most pleasant experience in Vicksburg happened when I walked into a very old music store named “Michel’s Record Shop”. It was empty when I entered but then I heard the door open behind me and a very pretty elderly lady, with bright blue eyes and a charming southern accent, came in. She was the owner and I would guess was probably well into her ninth decade. It wasn’t clear what, if anything, was for sale as there were used musical instruments everywhere and vinyl records, posters and photographs of shows and musical greats going back more than half a century. At first I was browsing but, fairly quickly, she assumed the role of guide and took me through sixty two years (the shop opened in 1962) of musical history in the south. There were some performers I’d never heard of although I suspect better informed Blues lovers would have recognized them right away. She told stories of Elvis and his gold Cadillac parked outside for two days, of Sam Cook performing in the store, of her husband’s good friend, Willie Dixon, of celebrities like Natalie Cole, Dorothy Moore and Kenny Rogers coming in to sign their records with lineups down the block and, perhaps the crowning piece was an old photograph of a much younger her sitting on the back of a convertible, BB King next to her with his arm around her, as they paticipated in a parade on the street outside. There were black and white photos of juke joints, also known as barrel houses, deep in the Mississippi woods where mostly black audiences enjoyed the blues while partaking in dancing, gambling and moonshine. Michel’s Record shop is named after the lady’s late husband. She is known affectionately as “the music lady” in Vicksburg and I was so lucky to meet her.

The next major stop after Vicksburg was Natchez, Mississippi. Unlike Vicksburg, Natchez was not destroyed in the Civil War so it has a definite antebellum charm. Many of the original townhouses of the plantation owners remain, restored and lived in. The reason Natchez was not destroyed depends upon who you ask. In Vicksburg they told me Natchez was not destroyed because, having witnessed what happened to its sister city, Vicksburg, up the river, Natchez simply surrendered. My guide in Natchez had a different story. He claimed Natchez was neutral during the war, something that is a little hard to credit.

And while I’m on the subject of my guide, he was exactly what a little southern gentleman of a certain age would look and sound like, a bit like Colonel Saunders, but more refined. His family lived in Natchez for many generations and he said his great, great grandfather went to West Point with Ulysses S. Grant who, when the war broke out, sent a clipper to Natchez to rescue his family. They spent the war years in Geneva, Switzerland. And, just to give you a sense of this man, as we drove by a grand old hotel on the river he announced there was a lovely bar on the roof where he used to take his wife for drinks. He then paused and said “when she was someone else’s wife”.

Natchez was also the site of a remarkable building called Longwood, also known as “Nutt’s Folly”. It is octagonal and, from the outside looks like something out of “Kubla Khan”. What now stands was built in fourteen months by slaves. It’s owner, Haller Nutt owned approximately 800 slaves and was building Longwood for his wife when the Civil War broke out. His craftsmen were from the north and left. The building is as it was in 1862 with only the basement level finished. The rest is preserved as a construction site. One of the more poignant moments was when bricks with fingerprints were pointed out. The slaves were illiterate and would mark a brick they made with their fingerprints in the hope their daily output would exceed their quota and they would be given additional food to take home to their families.

The next major stop was the state capital of Louisiana, Baton Rouge. We sailed into Baton Rouge just after dark and saw what I subsequently learned was the Capital Building. In New York, Chicago or Detroit it wouldn’t have been remarkable but in Baton Rouge, standing alone at thirty four stories and lit from all sides, it was remarkable.

Baton Rouge is named after a blood soaked pole that separated the lands of the native peoples who lived there prior to European settlement, the Bayougoula and Houma tribes. There are several things that are remarkable about the city. First, there’s the capital. Built when Huey Long was Governor with the intention of being the tallest state capital in the nation. From the outside it looks similar to early twentieth century highrises in America’s northeastern and mid western cities except, as noted, it stands alone. Huey Long’s grave and monument stand in front of it, the monument being a statue with him looking up at it. I was there on a Sunday and, for some reason, the state Senate was in session so I was limited to the large public rotunda outside the Senate chamber. It was a remarkable room. In fact, I have never seen such detailed and beautiful art deco ornamentation anywhere else.

And on the subject of Huey Long, I have known of him over the years and always had the impression he was a wannabe dictator clothed in populist clothing (like someone else we know today). It seems I was wrong. Huey Long was Governor and then senator from Louisiana. He aspired to be President but was assassinated in the State Capital. He assisted FDR get the Democratic nomination that led to his election but broke with him over the timidity of the New Deal programs in FDR’s first term. In other words, he was a true populist. People in Louisiana speak of him as if he was almost contemporary, referring to him as “Huey” and with considerable affection.

Because of his Presidential ambitions he had the Louisiana Governor’s mansion built to resemble a smaller version of the White House, his belief being once elected he wouldn’t have to worry about getting oriented in the White House. That building stands today although it has been replaced by a much larger residence.

A museum sits opposite the State House. It traces the development of what is now Louisiana from its pre-European days until the present. What is striking is how honestly it confronts the legacy of slavery. One exhibit had a plaque stating slaves where confined into tight quarters at night, quarters with doors that had openings at the top for air. Two examples of these were beside the plaques and, when I leaned into the dark openings, I heard moaning, whispering and humming. Haunting.

The other thing to note about Baton Rouge is Louisiana State University where we went on a bus tour. It’ was enormous and what struck me most was the high profile of all the athletic facilities, including a football stadium that can hold 105,000 spectators, a baseball arena and an arena for basketball, all enormous and all central to the identity of the university. There was no mention of academics although I’m sure they offer good programs in those areas but I couldn’t help contrast this with the two Canadian universities I attended, both of which had major sports teams and facilities, but those were completely secondary to the central role, mission and image of the universities. Sports obviously plays a more important role in American life (okay, yes, we’re crazy over hockey) and I have no idea what, if anything, that means in defining the two cultures.

We also drove past two Civil War cemetaries in Baton Rouge, one the final resting place of Confederate soldiers and the other the final resting place of Union soldiers. They were separated by a narrow street. Both were enormous with headstones stretching as far as the eye could see. The Union cemetary was designed to look like the national cemetary at Arlington across the Ptomac River from Washington.

Our final major stop was New Orleans. By this time I was getting tired and thought I was coming down with a cold (turned out to be COVID) so I didn’t have much energy to explore the city I used to love and haven’t seen in decades. The one thing I did on day one when my companions were off doing something else is go to an old and famous gay bar, Laffitte in Exile. I remember it thirty years ago as large, open to the street, with good music, friendly and with a balcony on the second floor where you could sip your libation and view the spectacle below on Bourbon Street. I nearly walked by it. It seemed to have shrunk. Inside it was pokey, quiet and dark, with only one other customer. I ordered a beer, took two sips and then left. It’s true, you can never go home again.

So what did I learn from my trip through the Mississippi delta? Maybe a little humility. I approached it as if it was something out of “The Heart of Darkness” and, instead, met a world with its own complexities, but populated by friendly and gracious people. They completely negated their stereotypes.

This is a land with a terrible dark legacy, slavery, and its inhabitants don’t shy away from confronting that, but they also seem determined to forge ahead while honouring that of their past that was good or at least heroic. I couldn’t help contrast that with the endless, strangling mea culpas we in Canada indulge in as we “atone” for the sins of our ancestors towards the aboriginal inhabitants of Canada whose treatment was gentle compared to three hundred years of slavery in America.

My guide in Baton Rouge was a woman who was perhaps in her mid forties and whose family had lived in the area for generations. Her accent was certainly southern but nothing like the harsh stereotypes some offer. When the tour ended she said: “We don’t say goodbye in the south because our visitors become our friends.” And then with a slightly wry smile she said: “Y’all come back now. Y’hear.”.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

America: Rushing to the Edge

I just spent five days in America. Actually, to be more precise, five days in New York City which, in so many ways nowadays, seems remote from much of the rest of the country, and trying to gauge the political climate from reactions in the city is obviously fraught, with all sorts of limitations. That said, there were some telling things to note.

Perhaps most significant was the sense of exhaustion coupled with a kind of existential dread that Donald Trump might well return to the White House. And the endless coverage of his every move does nothing to diminish that. My friends in New York certainly despise him and will do everything they can to prevent his election but that bumps up against the harsh reality there are forces at play in the country that may propel him to victory.

This isn’t the first time America has come face to face with its inner contradictions, with the competition between nativism, selfishness, greed and racism, and the ennobling spirit of liberty, equality and human rights. I’m not sufficiently versed in early American history to cite pre-twentieth century examples although I expect they exist. Perhaps the closest parallel to what is happening today is with the 1930’s when the “America First” and isolationist forces led by people like Charles Lindbergh effectively blocked American support for the war against fascism until America itself was directly attacked at Pearl Harbor. This was motivated by an isolationist bent and a not so subtle sympathy for the goals and practices of the fascists. But for the attack on Pearl Harbor, it might have worked and the world order dominated by western liberal values and democracy we have taken for granted for the past eighty years might never have come into being.

There are a number of theories why this conflict is so acute today, but what is indisputable is that it is coming to a head in the 2024 election where some of the ugliest elements of America are going toe to toe with Americans that support liberal democracy. For outsiders like myself, as well as many Americans, it is unfathomable the contest is even close. But it is. Very close. And January 2025 could see the beginning of the end of America as the “essential nation” as well as the world order that has allowed it and so many other countries to prosper and grow.

And it’s not just America’s role that will change. It’s likely that if the MAGA Republicans seize control of the country despite the majority of Americans voting against them, and if they then proceed to implement their radical right wing and corrupt agendas, the country will break. It’s hard to imagine the large, populous and wealthy states like New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, as well as the rest of the west coast, the midwest and the northeast standing idly by as their most cherished beliefs and rights are assaulted. The dictators in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang are smiling.

I’m not sure I share the pessimism of some of my American friends concerning the pending election. That comes partly from my innate trust in the many good people in America, and the desire (wish?) they reflect the majority. Actually, I guess that part is indisputable. There’s little doubt the Democrats will win the popular vote but the details of the American electoral system don’t guaranty majority rule (nor, for that matter, does the Canadian system). One other thing is the emergence of polls showing a significant shift amongst older voters to the Democrats and President Biden. These are his generation and are reliable voters who, typically, support Republicans.

Winston Churchill once said about Americans: “Americans will always do the right thing – after exhausting all the alternatives”. Maybe. But just because America finally joined the allies in what is now regarded as the last “good war” doesn’t mean that will always necessarily be the case. The stakes couldn’t be higher, particularly if you take seriously the threats Donald Trump and his enablers are making on the campaign trail. And the ramifications will reach far beyond America’s borders, perhaps affecting Canada the most although all we, as Canadians, can do is sit and watch and hope.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear on the lower right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Ruffling a Few Feathers

On April 14 the Government of B.C. and the Haida Nation signed an agreement confirming Aboriginal title over all of Haida Gwaii. It grants title to the entire archipelago to the Haida Nation and creates a process and timeline for its implementation. This is one of several such processes the government is engaging in with native bands in B.C. that are outside the treaty negotiation process and that may result in ceding vast swaths of Crown land to the various native bands. The Premier and his ministers repeatedly claim the agreements will have no effect on non native land owners on those lands, although that remains to be seen. B.C. is somewhat unique, given its lack of treaties with native bands, but the steps it is taking may still have significant implications for other provinces.

This process is taking place at a time when Canadians are being inundated with claims their country is, and always has been, deeply racist and, in its past at least, genocidal. This is the culmination of two decades of indoctrination by those advocating for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (“DEI”), backstopped by an anti-colonial/occupier narrative that divides Canadians into “victims” and “exploiters”, the victims being native Canadians who were here prior to European and modern Asian settlement, and “exploiters”, being all of us who are descended from the European and later Asian settlers. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the mythology that has grown up around residential schools in Canada. It has become the almost unchallenged dictum that the schools were created for the express and singular purpose of eradicating Canada’s native population, with the most outrageous claim being that the now empty schools are surrounded by mass graves of native children, each a kind of mini Auschwitz. And there is even support for laws that would criminalize questioning that dogma. George Orwell would have found this completely predictable. I’ve criticized this before and that isn’t the main purpose of this blog, except to note that these beliefs are a barrier to native Canadians becoming full, autonomous, independent, successful and participating members of Canadian society, and not just victims.

If the only criterion for determining who is a victim and who is an oppressor is who got here first then, to pursue that logic, we should delve deeper into the history of native peoples in Canada. I believe it’s a given they didn’t all just appear here at once, and there is historical and archeological evidence they came from Asia in waves, some on land and some by sea, over what was probably centuries. So, which now have first claim on this land? It’s almost certain some groups were displaced, absorbed or worse, while others moved further into the continent. In fact, given B.C.’s geographic location, it’s likely native groups in B.C. were some of the later arrivals.

The absurdity of using the “who got here first” criterion is illustrated further by looking at human settlement all across world. Much of it by today’s standards would be considered oppressive and wrong, fitting nicely into the settler/occupier narrative. That’s true in the British Isles, everything east of the Urals in Russia, not to mention the Caucuses, China, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa and certainly Israel. And those are only the major examples. In fact, all of human history is about population movements, with new groups replacing or absorbing earlier populations. But it is only in the Anglo-sphere where modern societies are tying themselves in knots over it (I guess I should exclude Britain from that as, as far as I know, there is no current movement to return much of England to the ancient Celtic Britons). And, in the Anglo-sphere, Canada seems determined to lead the charge, to go where few if any other nations have gone before, and damn the consequences to the future of this nation.

So why does all this matter? Well, for starters, a country that comes to despise its history probably doesn’t have much of a future and, increasingly, that is where Canada is going. We are constantly inundated with propaganda telling us Canada was a bad idea, that the men who created it were monsters, that the modern state we have built is built on the bones and blood of the native Canadians who were here first. We’ve lost sight of the fact that in one hundred and fifty years Canadians have created a remarkable, prosperous, democratic and free country, one that has few equals in human history. Instead of celebrating that we are told to feel shame and to qualify Canada’s considerable achievements with a “but”.

I fully support measures that will help native Canadians become autonomous, strong, prosperous citizens of this country. But that can only happen if the rights and interests of the other ninety five percent of the population are also respected. And that is not happening. It’s not just that Canadian history is being devalued or that native Canadians are encouraged to play the victim card to avoid any responsibility for their position and actions, but there is now a systematic effort to rearrange the ownership of land in B.C. and Canada in a way that will significantly disadvantage the vast majority of the population.

Some years ago we began hearing “acknowledgements” at the beginning of meetings, speeches, concerts, gallery shows, in fact, in virtually any venue that was publicly funded and, laterally, any that wanted to be considered progressive. You know what they sound like: “We acknowledge that we are on the unceded land of the (insert whatever native group is relevant) and are grateful for…”. Then these same statements began appearing on the letterheads and other stationary of public and private entities, a kind of Scout badge for having completed the task signifying progressive, inclusive, woke. I have always found them irritating, at first because they seemed meaningless or, worse, were holding open possibilities to native communities that could never be realized, and then because they began to move from the zones of gesture to action. And that’s where the land settlements typified by the one for Haida Gwaii enter the picture.

Most Canadians look at these settlements, or proposed settlements, and shrug, generally feeling they are a good thing and, more importantly, have little if any real effect on them. After all, we keep hearing the assurances privately held land will not be affected. All that is being discussed is “Crown Land”, which is a sufficiently obscure term that most don’t give it much thought. They should. Approximately 94% of British Columbia’s landmass is Crown Land, land that is held by the province on behalf of all British Columbians. Native groups are claiming ownership of approximately 95% of all land in B.C., including that which is privately held. So, if indeed the politicians are right and privately held land is not in play, that pretty much accounts for all the Crown Land being available for just 5% of the population.

I understand that the settlement process is at least partially driven by court rulings compelling governments to move them forward. Putting aside for the moment the argument that courts have “made law” with some of their rulings, it remains true that court rulings in Canada rely on laws passed by Parliament and legislatures. Where necessary, those laws can be changed if they result in an obvious injustice or rulings that undermine the essence of what Canada is or should be. And it is probably time to seriously consider that option on the issue of native land claims.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” button that appears at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you open the blog.

Where Did Canada Go?

My paternal grandparents immigrated to Canada at the end of the nineteenth century, one from Scotland, the other from Norway via the United States. They met in Edmonton and homesteaded on a quarter section of land provided by the federal government about a hundred miles southeast of that city. They spent their first winter in a one room shack created by my grandfather pulling two graineries together and covering the roof with sod. That’s the home my father and his twin sister came to after they were born in Edmonton.

They struggled, they persevered and they worked very, very hard. And in the end they prospered, at least by the standards of that time and place. Both their children went to university, a first in our family. They believed in Canada, fully embracing the ideas that shaped this nation, including that, with hard work and perseverance, the future would belong to it. They participated as active and full citizens of what was then The Dominion of Canada. And when duty called, their only son, my father, went off to war, fighting for freedom and the ideas that animated this new nation.

The Canada I was born into in 1949 was still bathing in the afterglow of its heroic participation in the Second World War. It was also a country on the verge. Most of the ties to imperial Britain had been severed and Canada faced the world as a modern, liberal democracy, one that, as the years passed, expanded on that idea , particularly with respect to human rights, civil society and freedom, both at home and in the world. We were taught to be proud of our place in the world, to understand we were a new kind of nation, one that was free of the tribal hatreds of Europe and yet separate from our avaricious and noisy American cousins.

The idea of multiculturalism was formally presented to us by the governments of Pierre Trudeau in the 1960’s and 70’s and, with remarkably little conflict, Canada’s demography began shifting away from British/French/Western European to something else, something that to an increasing degree reflected the second and third worlds. Although many said this experiment would not work, it did to a remarkable and historically unprecedented degree.

I am not ignoring the failures that existed in the emerging Canada, particularly its treatment of its native population and other, under-represented peoples. Nor am I saying there weren’t frictions and eruptions of racism, homophobia and other forms of prejudice. But, as a country, we always aspired to do better, to honour the hopes and plans of our founders and, by and large, we stayed on that track, looking forward with optimism.

But something has changed. At first it was imperceptible to people like me but then, slowly but surely, it intruded into our discourse and our sense of ourselves. Its earliest expression concerned Canada’s native population and its treatment of them. What began as a healthy acknowledgement of past failings and the belief we would do better in the future has metastasized into an endless litany of mea culpas with a stifling drive to devalue the contributions of the very people who created and built modern Canada. In fact, in many circles, it is now a given that Canada was founded and built by genocidal racists, something we should be deeply ashamed of. Statues of the Fathers of Confederation are vandalized and destroyed or, if not destroyed, removed by public officials not wanting to offend the tender sensibilities of complaining constituents. Street names are changed, as are names attached to universities, hospitals, galleries, museums and other public spaces, all in an attempt to erase the history of European and subsequent Asian immigration and its vast contribution to what, to this point, was one of the most successful nations in all of human history. And god help anyone who attempts to apply some context to past government policies and practices that are now reviled.

The native population of Canada is approximately 5% of the total population. I agree there are many failures in Canada’s past approach to this community and future policies should be informed by those experiences. But I do not agree that all discourse should be warped by the sense of victim-hood that is so intensely cultivated by today’s native Canadians and their enablers. The so called “inter-generational trauma” experienced by survivors of residential schools is only the most obvious “get out of jail free card” that resonates across the interactions between native and non native Canadians and, inevitably, builds resentment amongst non natives and passivity amongst natives. It’s a path that leads neither to reconciliation nor to a bright and optimistic future for all Canadians and it needs to be confronted.

Of course part of the challenge is that most elected leaders in Canada, starting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet, have so wholeheartedly embraced the mantra of shame about this country’s past that has poisoned most areas of Canadian society. It has only become clear to me recently that that idea has a much broader political ideology behind it, the ideology that views the world solely through the eyes of those who identify as, or with, the victims of colonialism or, to use the more de trop phrase of university podiums, victims of “settler/occupiers”. And lest you think this really doesn’t apply to Canada, listen carefully to the various native leaders and their supporters as they describe Canada as “Turtle Island” or as “so-called Canada”. In other words, not a legitimate country and, in their wildest of dreams, one that will someday be returned to its native inhabitants.

Given the size of Canada’s population and the fact that 95% of it is non native, the logistics of returning Canada to its pre-European inhabitants, even if that were desirable, are probably insurmountable except for the wildest fantasist, so we revert to a steady drum beat of shaming and demanding whatever the ransom du jour is. It’s not surprising that a negative reaction is growing, just as it is in many other western countries where some other version of this tale is unfolding. In fact, the rise of ugly populism in recent years is at least partly a reaction to the narrowing and cancelling of public discourse on a range of topics including the claims of people who believe they were disadvantaged by colonialism. That said, Canada seems unique in its self flagellation over real and imagined historical wrongs committed by its founders and earliest European settlers.

One especially troubling example of how warped Canadian society has become in response to the settler/occupier narrative is the reaction of large parts of Canadian society to the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israelis on October 7 and the consequent war in Gaza. Instead of placing much of the blame where it clearly belongs with the terrorist organization, Hamas, large segments of Canada’s population have hijacked the narrative by blaming Israel as they chant “from the river to the sea”, a not so coded call for the genocide of non Muslim Israeli citizens. Examples of antisemitism crop up seemingly every day. This would never have been tolerated in the Canada I grew up in and cherished and, yet, in the face of such outrages, our political leaders tip toe around, hoping not to offend Muslim Canadians, and implying, if not outright saying, Hamas’ actions are understandable, if regrettable. I understand there is now a much larger Muslim population in Canada than there was even a decade ago, mostly a result of mass immigration from Muslim countries and that has political consequences. It grieves me, who has supported immigration to Canada all my adult life and who lives in one of the most multi cultural neighbourhoods in the world, to have to say core Canadian values are at risk because of some of that immigration. As a gay man I remember vividly the image a year or so ago of Muslim mothers encouraging their children to stomp gleefully on Pride flags. We like to say there is no place for homophobia in Canada, just as there is no place for antisemitism, but, increasingly, the changing face of our population is putting the lie to those assertions.

I have no idea how we turn this Titanic around but I am sure it begins with recognizing the dangers before it is to late. If we don’t, the future will certainly not belong to Canada.

Just sayin

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” prompt that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your screen when you first open the blog.