There are times when I think I genuinely understand Marxists more than modern-day liberals. I don't agree with their ideology at all, but at least when Marxists reject traditional notions of belonging (culture, religion, etc) they seek to replace it with class. 21st century liberals like Trudeau Jr (as opposed to 20th century liberals like Trudeau Sr) seem to have no answer to this.
I have posted this here before. You could not be more wrong about Pierre Trudeau 'Sr.'
Pierre Trudeau especially hated ethnic nationalism:
Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We
should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let
alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more
disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. There is no
such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the
concept of an “all-Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is
one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average
citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what
in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human
values: compassion, love, and understanding.
~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Remarks at the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress,
October 9, 1971.
And Pierre Trudeau on multiculturalism (whatever he may have meant by that.)
National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense must be
founded on confidence in one’s own individual identity; out of this can grow respect
for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes, and assumptions. A
vigorous policy of multiculturalism will create this initial confidence. It can form
the basis of a society which is founded on fair play for all.
~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in the House of Commons, October 8, 1971
Pierre Trudeau was a great believer in individual rights. And I think he would have realized this for the obvious contradiction it is:
conservative: Canadians should be free to do what they want (within the law)
Also conservative: immigrants must assimilate to Canadian culture/we need to enforce? a Canadian culture.
John Turner in the 1988 free trade debate also backed this up when he argued against free trade on the basis that countries that are north/south are more likely to be culturally 'homogenous' than countries, like Canada, that are east/west.
"We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States."
You are correct that Trudeau 'Sr' did not really have any answer to the lack of a national Canadian identity. Trudeau 'Sr' was a person who in today's parlance was an 'anywhere' (the so-called somewheres vs. the anywheres') and his solution was bilingualism so that Quebecers could be comfortable in the rest of Canada, and English speaking Canadians comfortable in Quebec. Of course, for 'somewheres' who have an attachment to their community, that was hardly a top concern.
However, the problem for a Canadian 'identity' is that British Columbians have more in common with Washingtonians than with Ontarians who similarly have more in common with Michiganders.
Mind you, there is also the notion that the world (or at least the big cities in the world) are all becoming homogenized.
Yes, but nobody here wants ethnic nationalism. People are ok with people preserving their diverse heritages, but also acknowledging that there is a national Canadian identity we are a part of.
I think Canada already has that.
This was Trudeau's thinking on ethnic nationalism summarized by Ron Graham:
"Deep at the core of his (Trudeau's) position was an abiding hatred of all ethnic nationalism, the belief that the people of a particular race or culture should lay exclusive and collective claim to a political territory. Trudeau saw this as a primary cause of many of the great atrocities of human history, from the tribal battles of Africa to the gas chambers of Nazi Germany. Even an ethnic nationalism based on language and customs rather than blood could never be, in his view, a truly positive or progressive force. It would always attempt to coerce the individual into the group and attend to the welfare of some of its citizens over the welfare of all. "A state that defined its function in terms of ethnic attributes would inevitably become chauvinistic and intolerant," he wrote. And since very few (if any) political states are perfectly homogeneous, persecution by the majority would compel every minority to demand a political state of its own, and on and on, until the whole world was engulfed in liberation movements and "the last-born of nation-states turned to violence to put an end to the very principle that gave it birth." Instead, different peoples, different cultures, different languages, and different religions had to learn to live side by side as individuals who freely consent to come together with equal rights and equal opportunities. And if a particular set of circumstances should make a unitary state either impractical or undesirable, he extolled the inherent diversity of federalism."
