Hey Canadians

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Nikolai Tesla day?
Robert Goddard day?

While I'm short on names on the account of not wanting to think very hard when I should be winding down to go to sleep, we could presumably find another scientific or exploratory name to replace Columbus given last I checked that was the purpose of Colombus Day; some sort of celebration of expanding horizons in exploration, science, and the fact the Americas exist as a Westernized identity.

@Dinh AaronMk

Amerigo Vespucci.

The debate isn't a very big one because nobody really does anything on Columbus day. Like, its a bank holiday so that is nice, and it is an excuse to have sales in early October, but there isn't really much attached to it for normal folk. Italian-Americans see it as their day though, so they are the demographic who takes offense at having Columbus Day replaced. Whereas it is Native Americans, the people who Columbus tortured, that find it offensive that he is celebrated at all. The way it is always proposed is "We should renamed Columbus Day 'Native American Day'" or something like that. And that makes the Italians mad, so nothing goes anywhere.

Amerigo Vespucci is Italian, and he lent his name to the continent and by proxy the country, so I think he fulfills that role. Then we could make a second bank holiday that celebrates Native Americans. Italians get theirs, Native Americans get theirs, and the rest of us get double the bank holidays which is nice for those of us who get paid days off for those.

[Jotunn Draugr]

I have heard stuff like that from other parts of the Commonwealth, and I admit it's something my Americaness makes impossible for me to wrap my head around. Like, the thing you are most proud of is another country's tourist attraction? And why would take pride in the fact you used to not even be a country? It's a little depressing. I mean, come on Canada, you can do stuff for yourself now. Put poutine on the Canadian dollar! That's yours. You made it. Take a little pride in yourselves. You won't be in the history books 1000 years down the line with an attitude like that.

@Vilageidiotx

I get where you're coming from. It might make more sense if you think of the Queen as being part of Canadian culture. Part of our national pride comes from being a subject of the British Crown. The Queen is to the average Canadian, what the hamburger is to the average American. Both come from a different country (Germany, in the case of the hamburger), but both are a distinct part of the nation's identity. Or what about Christopher Columbus? He was Italian, not American. Americans find their identity in being unlike the rest of the world. Canadians find their identity in exactly the opposite way, by having the culture of the world contained within our borders, and by believing that the strength of the British Empire is still behind us.

Plus, our laws kind of reinforce the practice. New immigrants still have to swear an oath of lifelong servitude to the Queen, before they're allowed into the country (lol, tell that to all those butthurt Democrats, threatening to move to Canada if Trump wins).

Also, it's hard to explain what a huge chip Canada has on its shoulder, about not being like America. Being American is almost a bad word up here, depending on who's using it. If the Queen makes us less like America, that's enough of a reason right there, for a lot of people. In fact, the whole notion of national pride, as Americans do it, is kind-of considered un-Canadian. If we had a politician come into the spotlight, shouting "Canada first. Make Canada great again", he'd be laughed off the stage. We don't do that up here. Being so in-your-face is too American to be Canadian, if you know what I mean.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I wish we were a bit more American with our display of national pride, but we just aren't. We take pride in being modest about our national pride (unless it makes America look bad, then we love pointing it out).

[The Nexerus]

Canada's national identity has never had anything to do with being subject to anything or anyone. That isn't what the monarchy is about now and it wasn't what the monarchy was about in 1867. Remaining a member of the Commonwealth and maintaining the country's monarchy is less like staying in your parents' basement and more like keeping the surname with which you were born. The monarchy is Canada's surname, and just like how having the last name Johnson does not mean that your entire identity revolves around being the son of someone named John, remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations does not mean that Canada's national identity is grounded in servitude (or in 'Britishness').

[Jotunn Draugr]

Canada's national identity has never had anything to do with being subject to anything or anyone. That isn't what the monarchy is about now and it wasn't what the monarchy was about in 1867. Remaining a member of the Commonwealth and maintaining the country's monarchy is less like staying in your parents' basement and more like keeping the surname with which you were born. The monarchy is Canada's surname, and just like how having the last name Johnson does not mean that your entire identity revolves around being the son of someone named John, remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations does not mean that Canada's national identity is grounded in servitude (or in 'Britishness').

@The Nexerus

I suppose, but she is still technically the head of the state. We still have her sitting in a position of theoretical power. And while born-Canadians don't have to swear an oath to her, all immigrants do (literally swearing servitude). The government's legal cases are still called "The Crown Vs ______". Not to mention Trudeau's trip to England, where he praised the Queen for signing our Charter of Rights in the 1980's. I'd say all that makes her more than just a last name. We're still an active member of the British "family", and still go to all the family reunions.

[NotAMouse]

And here I was thinking Canadians were all cool, all the time, and never argued.

I blame South Park.

[Jotunn Draugr]

And here I was thinking Canadians were all cool, all the time, and never argued.

I blame South Park.

@Taaj

Nope, this show is completely accurate...

[The Nexerus]

We're still an active member of the British "family", and still go to all the family reunions.

@Jotunn Draugr

Right. Completely unlike people who share a last name.

There are two reasons to preserve the current system. The first is cultural, which I have already laid out the case for, and the second is practical. The constitutional monarchy system works, excellently so; nearly every single one of the most democratic and otherwise most capably governed countries in the world follows the same example followed by Canada. It is an effective system, legally and politically, and any replacement is more likely to be inferior than superior.

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

Right. Completely unlike people who share a last name.

There are two reasons to preserve the current system. The first is cultural, which I have already laid out the case for, and the second is practical. The constitutional monarchy system works, excellently so; nearly every single one of the most democratic and otherwise most capably governed countries in the world follows the same example followed by Canada. It is an effective system, legally and politically, and any replacement is more likely to be inferior than superior.

@The Nexerus

What exactly does the Queen do for the system though? Surely you could just have a parliamentary Republic and it would achieve the same thing, plus you'd have your own identity.

[Jotunn Draugr]

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

Right. Completely unlike people who share a last name.

There are two reasons to preserve the current system. The first is cultural, which I have already laid out the case for, and the second is practical. The constitutional monarchy system works, excellently so; nearly every single one of the most democratic and otherwise most capably governed countries in the world follows the same example followed by Canada. It is an effective system, legally and politically, and any replacement is more likely to be inferior than superior.

@The Nexerus

Yes yes, and I share a last name with the guy who invented this
.
Doesn't mean that his family actually has any relation or association with my family, or that I am even remotely associated with this


On the other hand, I have dinner more often with family members who have a different surname. Almost as if our relationship, and familial ties, are deeper and more meaningful than a last name.

I agree with you for the most part, but I do think you're underselling the importance of imperial culture, in the face of basic politics and law. I think our culture is a bit more nuanced than that, and we don't just celebrate the queen on a purely obligatory and functionalistic level.

[Jotunn Draugr]

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

What exactly does the Queen do for the system though? Surely you could just have a parliamentary Republic and it would achieve the same thing, plus you'd have your own identity.

@Vilageidiotx

Some Canadians have their own identity, free from Britain. They're called French-Canadians, and everyone hates them.

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Some Canadians have their own identity, free from Britain. They're called French-Canadians, and everyone hates them.

@Jotunn Draugr

surely there must be middle ground, between the queen and the french

[The Nexerus]

What exactly does the Queen do for the system though?

@Vilageidiotx

What exactly does abolishing the monarchy do for the system?

Any new basis for Canada's cultural identity that arrives to replace the actual history of Canada as that basis is a) going to be completely contrived and b) probably going to be some fucking modernist abortion of a concept, like multiculturalism. Fuck that a thousand times over.

@Jotunn Draugr You got so caught up in the metaphor that the point went right over your head. Congratulations, that level of tunnel vision is probably a new record.

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

What exactly does abolishing the monarchy do for the system?

@The Nexerus

Create the impression that Canada is made for and by the Canadians, and not for and by a foreign entity.

The way you guys talk about it creates this impression that Canada's only achievements are somehow A: Being a former British Subject, and B: Being the northern neighbor of the United States, and that in order to keep your identity from being B you must whole-hardheartedly embrace A.

So getting mad at your PM because he dares associate Canada with an existence independent of those two things seems.... well, it's rather depressing.

[The Nexerus]

Neither example A nor B is now or has ever been even tangentally related to Canadian national identity.

Abolishing the monarchy because "it will give off a good impression" is comedically ridiculous. Who is Canada supposed to be trying to impress?

[Vilageidiotx]

Neither example A nor B is now or has ever been even tangentally related to Canadian national identity.

Abolishing the monarchy because "it will give off a good impression" is comedically ridiculous. Who is Canada supposed to be trying to impress?

@The Nexerus

How is still holding a foreign monarch as your monarch not tangentially related to prior British subjugation? That's where that came from. And I know B shouldn't be the case, but seriously that is the vibe I am picking up from this conversation, that the Queen is the tender thread that keeps you from being an extension of Minnesota.

And I'm not saying you need to have pride in your own achievements for my sake, or the sake of outside judgement. I'm saying you should have pride in your achievements for your own sake.

[Wade Wilson]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

I remember there was a petition to change the national anthem to "Party in the USA", it'd either go terrifically horrible or horribly terrific.

@ClocktowerEchos

I thought this was your national anthem?

[The Nexerus]

How is still holding a foreign monarch as your monarch not tangentially related to prior British subjugation? That's where that came from. And I know B shouldn't be the case, but seriously that is the vibe I am picking up from this conversation, that the Queen is the tender thread that keeps you from being an extension of Minnesota.

And I'm not saying you need to have pride in your own achievements for my sake, or the sake of outside judgement. I'm saying you should have pride in your achievements for your own sake.

@Vilageidiotx

There are a few different points here for me to take issue with, and I'm going to be approaching each one individually.

1. "holding a foreign monarch"

Queen Elizabeth II is not a foreign monarch. She is the Queen in Right of Canada. Canada is not currently and has not since its confederation in 1867 been a British possession—a territory over which, as a part of the legal domain of another country, a foreign ruler presides. Victoria through to Elizabeth II have all been monarchs of Canada, independent of their status as monarchs of the rest of the British Empire and Commonwealth. If you'd like an example of a country which is a territory of another country and thus presided over by a foreign ruler, take a look at Puerto Rico.

2. "British subjugation"

Canada has never been subjugated by Britain. North America was, and it was under this state of British subjugation that the Dominion of Canada was eventually born, but that subjugation was ended by the arrival of the Dominion of Canada, not continued through it. Read up on the Chateau Clique and the Family Compact and Lafontaine and Baldwin and responsible government. I don't intend to recite that entire period of history to you.

3. "That's (British subjugation) where that (British monarchy) came from"

Yes, in a similar way to how the borders and names of the Thirteen Colonies all originated from British subjugation, as did the colonists themselves. A historical connection isn't a good reason to excise something from the national consciousness. For the Dominion of Canada this is doubly true, as it is, as much as anything else, what distinguishes us from the rest of the entire Western Hemisphere. Rather than our historical ties being violently severed (at great loss of life), and their cultural impacts ignored, the ties persisted. They were simply peacefully altered to accommodate self-government. I don't see how being the only one of the nations of the Americas to achieve democracy through democracy is something deserving of shame. May peace forever be our lot and all. Hell, that's even one of the few actual historical aspects of Canadian identity that fit the contrived multicultural Canada that the Trudeau family invented.

4. "Have pride in your own achievements"

We do. That isn't mutually exclusive with the monarchy. Canadians are obnoxiously proud of their country's achievements, even really mediocre achievements like the country's healthcare system.

[Vilageidiotx]

Those are mostly semantic and completely immaterial arguments.

1: She is a foreign Queen. She lives in the United Kingdom. She is the heir to a British monarchy that was put in place by the British. On paper all things might have an equitable wording, but in practice she isn't Canadian.

2: Again this is a semantic distinction. The United States used to be the Thirteen Colonies of British North America. Sure, on paper we are a nation that came about in 1788 with the constitution and therefore have never technically been British subjects, but in practice we are the heirs to the Confederated government, which was in turn heirs to the Thirteen Colonies. In the same way, Canada was British North America. Sure, Canada itself might have on paper never been a part of the British Empire, but it is the direct heir to British North America. When Canada was born, it had the grand majority of the same people that British North America had the year before.

3: But that's it, isn't it? You achieved democracy democratically, go with that! The United States didn't ignore its British heritage, it's still very much there, in our legal system and our economic system. You don't need to hold onto a foreign monarchy to retain your British heritage.

Of course it's all symbolic, but we go back to point one: there isn't any need to get offended of the government decides to renounce an irrelevant monarchical tie and instead decide to be wholly Canadian.

[The Nexerus]

There isn't any utility whatsoever in abolishing the monarchy or writing a new title for the BNA Act or renaming Dominion Day or any of the other examples of historical revisionism that the Trudeaus peddle. These aren't troublesome political bodies or legal documents or holidays that are somehow holding us back from the future. There are simply no practical benefits to removing them, meaning that there is nothing at all being gained by their systematic destruction, only history being lost.

If abolishing the monarchy magically erased the national debt or axing Victoria Day somehow fixed the asymmetry of Canadian federalism, I'd get behind them. But they don't. It's all just history being shunned for no good fucking reason.

[Chapatrap]

The Queen is just there. She doesn't do or say anything of importance and that's why I like her. I can guarantee if we all had Presidents, it'd be politicians we hate. I don't hate the Queen, I'm just not fond of what she represents. She does her job very well.

Now, Prince Charles, I hate the man and I'm not fond of what he represents. Will that make me a Republican when he dies or will I wait for him to abdicate and be replaced by King Billy? Who knows. At the end of the day, whether it's some old woman or old man on my money doesn't matter, as they literally effect my life in no way.