Editorial Board / Comité de rédaction

Editor-in-Chief Rédacteur en chef

Robert S. Schwartzwald, University of Massachusetts Amherst, U.S.A.

Associate Editors Rédacteurs adjoints

Caroline Andrew, Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa, Canada Claude Couture, Centre d’études canadiennes, Université de l’Alberta, Canada Coral Ann Howells, University of Reading, United Kingdom

Managing Editor Secrétaire de rédaction

Guy Leclair, ICCS/CIEC, Ottawa, Canada

Editorial Assistant Adjointe à la rédaction

Laura Hale, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Advisory Board / Comité consultatif

Maria Cristina Rosas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico Giovanni Dotoli, Université de Bari, Italie Saturo Osanai, Chuo University, Japan Jacques Leclaire, Université de Rouen, France Bernd Dietz, Cordoba University, Spain Vadim Koleneko, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Michael Behiels, University of Ottawa, Canada Maria Bernadette Veloso Porto, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brésil Wolfgang Kloos, Universität Trier, Germany Myungsoon Shin, Yonsei University, Korea Wilfredo Angulo Baudin, Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Liberator, Venezuela Coomi Vevaina, University of Bombay, India Helen O’Neill, University College Dublin, Ireland Jane Moss, Romance Languages, Colby College, U.S. Jiaheng Song, Université de Shantong, Chine Malcolm Alexander, Griffith University, Australia Ines Molinaro, University of Cambridge, U.K. Therese Malachy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israël Erling Lindström, Uppsala University, Sweden Leen d’Haenens, University of Nijmegen, Les Pays-Bas The International Journal of Canadian Paraissant deux fois l’an, la Revue Studies (IJCS) is published twice a year internationale d’études canadiennes by the International Council for (RIÉC) est publiée par le Conseil Canadian Studies. Multidisciplinary in international d’études canadiennes. scope, the IJCS is intended for people Revue multidisciplinaire, elle rejoint les around the world who are interested in the lecteurs de divers pays intéressés à l’étude study of Canada. The IJCS publishes du Canada. La RIÉC publie des numéros thematic issues containing articles (15-25 thématiques composés d’articles (15-25 pages double-spaced), research notes pages, double interligne), de notes de (10-15 pages double-spaced) and review recherche (10-15 pages, double interligne) et essays. It favours analyses that have a d’essais critiques, et privilégie les études broad perspective and essays that will aux perspectives larges et les essais de interestareadershipfromawidevarietyof synthèse aptes à intéresser un vaste éventail disciplines. Articles must deal with de lecteurs. Les textes doivent porter sur le Canada, not excluding comparisons Canada ou sur une comparaison entre le between Canada and other countries. The Canada et d’autres pays. La RIÉC est une IJCS is a bilingual journal. Authors may revue bilingue. Les auteurs peuvent submit articles in either English or French. rédiger leurs textes en français ou en Individuals interested in contributing to the anglais. Toute personne intéressée à IJCS should forward their papers to the collaborer à la RIÉC doit faire parvenir IJCSSecretariat,alongwithaone-hundred son texte accompagné d’un résumé de word abstract. Beyond papers dealing cent (100) mots maximum au secrétariat directly with the themes of forthcoming de la RIÉC. En plus d’examiner les textes issues, the IJCS will also examine papers les plus pertinents aux thèmes des numéros à not related to these themes for possible paraître, la RIÉC examinera également les inclusion in its regular Open Topic section. articles non thématiques pour sa rubrique All submissions are peer-reviewed; the Hors-thème. Tous les textes sont évalués par final decision regarding publication is des pairs. Le Comité de rédaction prendra la made by the Editorial Board. The content décision finale quant à la publication. Les of articles, research notes and review auteurs sont responsables du contenu de essays is the sole responsibility of the leurs articles, notes de recherche ou essais. author. Send articles to the International Veuillez adresser toute correspondance à la Journal of Canadian Studies, 75 Albert Revue internationale d’études canadiennes, Street, 908, Ottawa, CANADA K1P 5E7. 75, rue Albert, 908, Ottawa, CANADA For subscription information, please see K1P 5E7. the last page of this issue. Des renseignements sur l’abonnement se The IJCS is indexed and/or abstracted in trouvent à la fin du présent numéro. America: History and Life; Canadian Les articles de la RIÉC sont répertoriés Periodical Index; Historical Abstracts; et/ou résumés dans America: History and International Political Science Abstracts; Life;CanadianPeriodicalIndex;Historical and Point de repère. Abstracts; International Political Science ISSN 1180-3991 ISBN 1-896450-24-5 Abstracts et Point de repère. © All rights reserved. No part of this ISSN 1180-3991 ISBN 1-896450-24-5 publication may be reproduced without © Tous droits réservés. Aucune repro- the permission of the IJCS. duction n’est permise sans l’autorisation The IJCS gratefully acknowledges a grant de la RIÉC. from the Social Sciences and Humanities La RIÉC est redevable au Conseil de Research Council of Canada. recherches en sciences humaines du Canada qui lui accorde une subvention.

Cover photo: . Photo de la couverture : . International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

26, Fall / Automne 2002

Performing Canada Le Canada mis en scène

Table of Contents / Table des matières

Coral Ann Howells Introduction ...... 5 Tamara Vukov Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration ...... 17 Johanne Devlin Trew Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate ...... 41 Ryan Edwardson Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History...... 59 Andrea Kunard Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition...... 77 Robert Cupido The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 ...... 101

Forum / Discussion en forum Richard J.F. Day Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Ian Angus ...... 127 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Ian Angus Abyss, or a Located Ethics? Reply to Day...... 133

Review Essays / Essais critiques Daniel Salée Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents ...... 139 Katalin Kürtösi Books on Québec Theatre, Playwrights, and Michel Tremblay...163 Authors / Auteurs...... 169

Canadian Studies Journals Around the World Revues d’études canadiennes dans le monde ...... 171

4 Introduction Présentation

“Performing Canada “evokes « Le Canada mis en scène » images of theatricality and drama, évoque des images de théâtralité et of addressing an audience from de drame, d’acteurs s’adressant au onstage, “where it’s so bright and public de la scène, « là où c’est si so dark at the same time,” to quote brillant et si sombre en même the novelist Ann-Marie temps », pour citer un mot de la MacDonald who is also an actress romancière Ann-Marie and a playwright. All these MacDonald, qui est également performative elements are present comédienne et dramaturge. Tous in our thematic dossier in this ces éléments de la mise en scène volume, where Canada is shown to sont représentés dans le dossier be inseparable from its various thématique du présent numéro, où cultural and historical le Canada apparaît comme representations. These essays offer inséparable de ses diverses a series of shifting scenarios on the représentations culturelles et spectacle of nation-building since historiques. Ces articles offrent the mid-nineteenth century, or toute une série de scénarios alternatively the essays might be changeants sur le spectacle de la read as a dialogue onstage, construction d’un pays qui se “performing Canada” in different poursuit depuis le milieu du voices through various frames of dix-neuvième siècle, ou encore on inquiry and analysis. But whose peut les lire comme un tout, une voices do we hear, and what kind sorte de dialogue qui se of performances are we watching? poursuivrait sur une scène, « le What is illuminated and what is Canada mis en scène », dans des left in the dark? What surprised the voix différentes et à travers des Editors most in the submissions for cadres d’analyse et d’enquête this volume was the emphasis on différents. Mais de qui entend-on history rather than on the present les voix et à quelle sorte de time or on the performing arts. représentation assiste-t-on? Indeed, there is only one thematic Qu’est-ce qui est illuminé et essay which addresses qu’est-ce qui demeure dans contemporary performances of a l’ombre? Ce qui a surpris les national narrative, and that too rédacteurs de la Revue dans la deals with a historical plupart des textes qu’ils ont reçus phenomenon. There are no pour ce numéro a été l’accent mis thematic contributions from a sur l’histoire plutôt que sur francophone perspective, and l’époque actuelle ou les arts du though that absence is recuperated spectacle. De fait, on ne compte in our final review essay on recent qu’un seul article thématique qui theatre studies in Quebec, these porte précisément sur les mises en responses to the topic raise scène contemporaines d’un récit important questions about how national, et même ce texte-là traite

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Canada is being staged and by lui aussi d’un phénomène whom in these first years of the historique. On n’y retrouve aucune twenty-first century. contribution thématique dans une perspective francophone et, même Tamara Vukov’s opening essay, si cette absence est en partie “Performing the Immigrant Nation compensée par l’essai critique des at Pier 21: Politics and études récentes portant sur le Counterpolitics in the théâtre au Québec, ces réponses au Memorialization of Canadian thème suscitent des questions Immigration,” focuses on the importantes sur la façon dont le celebratory performance of Canada est mis en scène et par qui Canada’s immigration history at il est mis en scène dans ces the old immigration centre in premières années du vingt-et- Halifax where over one million unième siècle. people arrived between 1928 and 1971. Inaugurated on Canada Day L’article de Tamara Yukov qui 1999, this multimedia exhibition, ouvre le numéro, « Performing the modelled on New York’s Ellis Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Island Immigration Museum, Politics and Counterpolitics in the offers visitors the virtual reality Memorialization of Canadian experience of being an immigrant Immigration », se concentre sur la back then, so participating in the mise en scène célébratoire de nation-building narrative where l’histoire de l’immigration au immigration is at the heart (so to Canada au vieux centre speak) of “Canada’s National d’immigration de Halifax, là où Historical Soul.” Vukov offers a plus d’un million de personnes revisionary reading of such sont arrivées au pays entre 1928 et memorials, deconstructing the 1971. Inauguré lors de la Fête du complacency of founding myths of Canada en 1999, cette exposition nation by pointing to those multimédia, conçue sur le modèle migrants who were excluded du Musée de l’immigration d’Ellis usually on grounds of race, and to Island à New York, offre aux the marginalization of indigenous visiteurs l’expérience de réalité people within European narratives virtuelle du fait d’être des of settlement and colonization. immigrants à cette époque. Ils Suggesting that such peuvent ainsi participer à un récit memorializing glosses over crucial de la construction du pays à elements not only of Canada’s l’intérieur duquel l’immigration se immigration history but also of situe au cœur même (si l’on peut contemporary immigration dire) de « l’âme historique policies, she introduces an nationale du Canada ». Vukov alternative politics of nous propose une lecture memorialization through the work révisionniste des mémoriaux de ce of independent video artists and genre, déconstruisant la suffisance intercultural filmmakers who tell des mythes fondateurs du pays en more shadowy and fragmented désignant les migrants qui étaient

6 Introduction Présentation versions of non-white immigrants’ exclus, habituellement pour des stories. Those little narratives considérations raciales, ainsi que la buried inside the Grand Narratives marginalisation des Peuples of history point forwards as well as autochtones à l’intérieur des récits backwards, both as reminders of européens de peuplement et de what has been forgotten and also colonisation. Suggérant que ce as warnings against repeat type de ressouvenir maquille des performances under the éléments cruciaux non seulement Immigration and Refugee de l’histoire de l’immigration au Protection Act of 2002. Canada, mais aussi des politiques d’immigration contemporaines, Johanne Devlin Trew’s essay, elle propose une politique “Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, alternative de la mémoralisation en Liberal Nationalism and the se servant des travaux d’artisans Canadian Unity Debate,” treats an indépendants de la vidéo et du entirely different aspect of social cinéma interculturels qui racontent history in its analysis of one kind des versions plus ombrées et plus of performance of Canadianness in fragmentées des histoires the 1960s via a popular music d’immigrations non blanches. Ces programme on CBC radio and petits récits ensevelis dans les television. The author raises the Grands Récits de l’histoire nous question of conflicting cultural projettent vers l’avenir autant values as she investigates possible qu’ils nous ramènent vers le passé, reasons for the demise of agissant tant comme rappel de ce bandleader Don Messer’s qui a été oublié et comme mise en television show, Don Messer’s garde face au risque de répétitions Jubilee, with its old time music, its de mises en scènes anciennes en “trad jazz” and its “down home” vertu de la Loi sur l’immigration et image, arguing that Messer’s brand la protection des réfugiés de 2002. of white anglophone Canadian culture was deemed to be too L’article de Johanne Devlin Trew, old-fashioned and conservative in « Conflicting Visions: Don the new ideological climate of Messer, Liberal Nationalism and liberal nationalism of the late the Canadian Unity Debate », traite 1960s and 70s. The essay raises d’aspects on ne peut plus différents interesting questions about de l’histoire sociale canadienne definitions of Canadian culture and dans le cadre de son analyse d’une the relation between popular and espèce de mise en scène de la high culture, as it does about the « canadianité » dans les années role of broadcasting in the soixante, un programme de construction of a national identity. musique populaire à la radio et à la While making a strong plea for télévision de la Canadian traditional anglo-Canadian rural Broadcasting Corporation. culture and folk music, it is also L’auteure soulève la question de evidence of the importance of valeurs culturelles conflictuelles history as the substratum beneath tout en s’interrogeant sur les

7 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes the heterogeneity which actually raisons éventuelles du retrait à characterizes Canadian identity l’horaire de l’émission télévisuelle today. de Don Messer’s Jubilee, qui se caractérisait par un programme de « Ryan Edwardson’s account of musique du bon vieux temps », de Arthur Lower’s classic school musique de jazz traditionnel et une history textbook Colony to Nation image « péquenaude ». Elle evaluates an academic soutient que le type de culture performance of Canada’s national canadienne blanche et anglophone narrative in the years immediately que représentait Messer a été jugée following the Second World War. trop à l’ancienne mode et trop Published in 1946 when it won the conservatrice dans le nouveau Governor General’s Award for climat idéologique du nationalisme non-fiction, it belongs to the same libéral de la fin des années soixante period as Hugh MacLennan’s Two et soixante-dix. L’article soulève Solitudes (1945), and is perhaps des questions intéressantes sur les the best example of an English- définitions de la culture canadienne Canadian historian’s vision of an et la relation entre la culture integrative nationalism twenty populaire et la culture savante, de years before official policies of même que sur le rôle de la multiculturalism began to be put in radiotélévision dans la construction place. Bicultural and masculinist in d’une identité nationale. Tout en his ideology, Lower uses powerful faisant un plaidoyer appuyé en metaphors of family relations and faveur de la culture rurale et de la blood brotherhood to forge unity musique folklorique between anglophone and anglo-canadienne, l’auteure fait francophone Canadians, appealing également ressortir l’importance de to a shared history to heal the l’histoire à titre de substrat de divisive impact of the war on l’hétérogénéité qui caractérise Canadian society, like his image of effectivement l’identité canadienne war pilots who “took to the air as contemporaine. the coureur de bois had taken to the woods.” Lower’s historio- Le compte-rendu que Ryan graphy constructs an epic drama of Edwardson fait du manuel scolaire culture heroes belonging to the classique d’histoire canadienne “two founding nations” and to an d’Arthur Lower, Colony to Nation, earlier generation of readers, évalue la performance du récit signifying the importance of national canadien dans les années context in Canada’s evolving qui ont immédiatement suivi la narrative of nationhood. Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Publié pour la première fois en 1946, Looking backwards to histories of année où il obtint le prix du settlement in the mid-nineteenth Gouverneur général pour les études century, Andrea Kunard’s essay et essais, cet ouvrage appartient à la on “The Visual Colonization of même période que le roman Two the Canadian West in the 1858 Solitudes (1945), de Hugh

8 Introduction Présentation

Assinboine and Saskatchewan MacLennan, et constitue sans Exploring Expedition” offers doute le meilleur exemple de la another version of nation-building vision, par un historien as theatrical performance, this time canadien-anglais, d’un with the wide prairie landscape as nationalisme d’intégration et ce the stage and the explorers and une vingtaine d’années avant la Native people as the carefully mise en place des politiques posed actors. In her account of the officielles en matière de work of Humphrey Lloyd Hime, multiculturalisme. En partant the first photographer to d’une idéologie biculturelle et accompany a Canadian exploring masculiniste, Lower se sert de expedition (led by the Englishman métaphores puissantes de relations Henry Youle Hind), she familiales et de fraternité du sang investigates the iconography of pour s’efforcer de forger un photographs and the interaction sentiment d’unité entre les between image and text in Hime’s Canadiens francophones et visual accompaniment to Hind’s anglophones, faisant appel à une narrative. These men were both histoire commune pour panser et engaged in constructing a factual guérir les plaies que la Guerre record which was inevitably avait infligées à la société interpreted through a white canadienne : qu’on songe, par European cultural lens and exemple, à son évocation imagée designed for circulation principally des pilotes de guerre « qui se sont in Britain, to appeal not only to envolés comme le coureur des bois scientists and geographers but also partait dans les bois ». to prospective settlers and L’historiographie de Lower investors–which it did. As construit ainsi un drame épique Kunard’s analysis shows, they mettant en vedette des héros were acting from a prepared script, culturels qui appartiennent aux where certain facts and images had « deux peuples fondateurs » et à to be manipulated or rewritten in une génération antérieure de the interests of white colonial lecteurs, ce qui témoigne de projects of expansion in the l’importance du contexte dans Canadian West. l’évolution du récit canadien de la nationalité. The last essay in our thematic dossier, Roberto Cupido’s “The Jetant un regard rétrospectif sur les Medium, the Message and the histoires du peuplement au Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of dix-neuvième siècle, le texte 1927,” returns to radio (at that d’Andrea Kunard, « The Visual early time the responsibility of the Colonization of the Canadian West Department of Marine and in the 1858 Assiniboine and Fisheries) in his analysis of the Saskatchewan Exploring first nationwide broadcast, which Expedition » nous offre une autre was a major dramatic performance version de la construction du pays of pan-Canadian identity. On the considérée comme une

9 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes occasion of the Diamond Jubilee représentation théâtrale, cette of Canadian Confederation, the fois-ci, dans le vaste décor des new communications technology prairies et sur une scène où l’on made it possible for people from retrouve des explorateurs et des sea to sea (and even as far away as Peuples autochtones qui y figurent New Zealand) to listen to comme des acteurs aux poses “O Canada” being played on the recherchées. Dans son analyse du Carillon of the Peace Tower in travail d’Humphrey Lloyd Hime, Ottawa, followed by “The Maple le premier photographe à Leaf Forever” and “God Save the accompagner une expédition King,” together with speeches d’exploration au Canada (soit from the Governor General, the l’expédition dirigée par Prime Minister, and other public l’explorateur anglais Henry Youle men. Cupido explores the Hind), elle étudie l’iconographie implications of this astounding des photographies et l’interaction achievement, while posing some of entre l’image et le texte dans the same questions about the role l’accompagnement visuel de Hime of broadcasting which Drew asks au récit de Hind. Ces hommes in her essay. Given such a public s’étaient tous les deux engagés occasion, his focus is on the dans la construction d’un dossier emergence of a concept of national factuel qu’on a inévitablement identity, where the official voice of interprété à travers des prismes Canada was not single but double culturels européens et qui, de with broadcasters alternating toutes façons, avait été conçu pour between English and French, a circuler principalement en bilingual and bicultural Grande-Bretagne, et attirer performance of Canadianness l’attention non seulement des which continued till the 1960s and scientifiques et des géographes, 70s. In his revisionary reading mais aussi de colons et Cupido contextualizes this official d’investisseurs éventuels – ce qu’il broadcast in relation to those a réussi à faire. Comme Kunard le voices which were off the air démontre, l’explorateur et le waves, through his account of photographe agissaient ainsi à Jubilee celebrations in the West partir d’un scénario convenu à where in Winnipeg that same l’avance, à l’intérieur duquel afternoon a great folk festival was certains faits et certaines images staged, the “Pageant of All devaient être manipulées ou Nations,” celebrating the nascent réécrites dans le sens des intérêts concept of Our Canadian Mosaic des projets coloniaux d’expansion (as one book published in 1926 blanche dans l’Ouest canadien. was titled). It is with that celebratory performance of the Le dernier texte de notre dossier immigrant nation on the day of the thématique, l’article de Roberto Diamond Jubilee that our thematic Cupido intitulé « The Medium, the dossier ends, though the debate Message and the Modern : The centred on Canadian Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 » nous

10 Introduction Présentation multiculturalism is continued in ramène à la radio (qui, dans ses the exchange between Richard Day débuts, relevait du ministère de la and Ian Angus in the following Marine et des Pêcheries). Cupido Forum section. se livre à une analyse de la première émission radio- Day in his interrogative short phonique diffusée d’un océan à piece, “Can There Be a l’autre et qui, en son temps, a Postcolonial Multiculturalism?” is constitué une représentation responding to Angus’s essay on dramatique importante de l’identité “Cultural Plurality and pan-canadienne. À l’occasion du Democracy” in IJCS Vol. 25, by Jubilé de diamant de la challenging his theoretical Confédération canadienne, la argument for a postcolonial nouvelle technologie des democratic politics in Canada communications a fait en sorte que which would “legitimate a des gens d’un océan à l’autre (et plurality of traditions” and open up même aussi loin qu’en Nouvelle- the field of public discourse. For Zélande) ont pu entendre Day as a Foucaultian poststruc- « O Canada » interprété au turalist, Angus’s argument with its Carillon de la Tour de la Paix, à implicitly hierarchical vocabulary Ottawa, suivi de « The Maple Leaf fails to articulate any radical Forever » et de « God Save the political solution to the problems King », de même que tout un of multiculturalism within the programme de discours du Canadian nation(s)-state. In his Gouverneur général, du Premier reply, “Abyss, or a Located ministre et d’autres personnalités Ethics?” Angus sets out to clarify publiques. Cupido s’interroge sur the terms on which his argument les implications de cette was based and the necessarily extraordinaire réalisation, tout en indeterminate conclusions of his posant, au sujet du rôle de la political inquiry, incidentally radiodiffusion, certaines des delivering some sharp rhetorical mêmes questions que Drew blows against Day’s misconstruc- soulève dans son propre article. tions. Through the forum feature, Traitant d’un tel événement public, the IJCS provides a public il se concentre sur l’émergence platform for academic debate on d’un concept d’identité nationale issues of continuing relevance. où la voix officielle du Canada n’était pas unique, mais double, Our first review essay by Daniel tandis que les animateurs Salée provides an overview of five radiophoniques alternaient entre recent books on Aboriginal l’anglais et le français, une peoples and the policies relating to performance bilingue et their social, legal, and political biculturelle de la Canadianité qui rights. Within the contentious field s’est poursuivie jusque dans les of the “question autochtone” Salée années soixante et soixante-dix. charts a judicious path, Dans sa lecture révisionniste, summarizing and critiquing the Cupido contextualise cette

11 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes arguments or approaches of these émission officielle dans ses writers, who represent a wide rapports avec d’autres voix, spectrum of political opinion. As absentes des ondes, par son he argues, the topic relates to basic compte-rendu des célébrations du questions of Canadian democracy Jubilé qui avaient lieu dans and to the wider dimension of l’Ouest, à Winnipeg où, ce même policies of recognition of minority après-midi, se déroulait un grand cultures, though it centres here on festival folklorique, le « Pageant of the degree to which Native peoples All Nations », destiné à faire valoir are to be considered as distinct le concept, alors tout neuf, de Our nations within Canada. Moreover, Canadian Mosaic ( titre d’un all the “solutions” are offered ouvrage publié en 1926 ). C’est within the framework of the donc avec la mise en scène nation-state, where “nous” is “a célébratoire du peuple immigrant priori non autochtone.” Salée’s le jour du Jubilé de diamant que se final observation leads him to a clôt notre dossier thématique, et ce position very similar to Angus’s même si le débat centré sur le theoretical arguments for a multiculturalisme canadien se postcolonial multiculturalism. poursuit dans les échanges entre Richard Day et Ian Angus, dans le The final review essay by cadre de la discussion en forum qui Hungarian scholar Katalin Kürtösi suit la partie thématique. returns to the topic of our thematic dossier with its evaluative analysis Dans un court texte interrogatif, of three studies dealing with recent « Can There Be a Postcolonial theatrical performance and theatre Multiculturalism? », Day répond à history in Quebec and a l’article d’Angus, « Cultural monograph on Michel Tremblay Plurality and Democracy » qui published in Bordeaux. Examining avait paru dans le numéro 25 de la the changing role of theatre in RIEC. Day jette un défi à Quebec over the past two decades, l’argument théorique d’Angus en Kürtösi highlights postmodern faveur d’une politique emphases on intertextuality, démocratique postcoloniale au self-referentiality, and the Canada qui se proposerait de metafictional strategies which are « légitimer une pluralité de features in many of these plays; traditions » et d’ouvrir le champ du she also notes the significance of discours public. Du point de vue du drama festivals in Montreal to poststructuraliste foucaldien qu’est showcase Aboriginal and Day, l’argument d’Angus et son immigrant productions since the vocabulaire implicitement late 1980s. From the monograph hiérarchique ne parvient pas à on Tremblay, which assesses his articuler une solution politique achievements not only as radicale aux problèmes posés par le playwright but also as novelist and multiculturalisme au sein de autobiographer, Kürtösi provides l’État-nation(s) canadien. Dans sa the appropriate closing motifs for réponse, « Abyss, or a Located

12 Introduction Présentation this introduction with her Ethics? », Angus s’efforce de references to his “système d’échos, clarifier la terminologie sur de mises en abymes, et de scènes laquelle reposait son argument et spéculaires,” all of them ways of les conclusions inévitablement figuring those others outside the indéterminées de son enquête bright lights of representation who politique, assénant au passage de both reflect and destabilize any puissants coups de butoir performance of Canada and rhétoriques aux mésinterprétations Canadiannness. de Day. Cette discussion en forum est une formule utilisée à Coral Ann Howells l’occasion par la RIÉC : une Associate Editor tribune publique où des universitaires peuvent débattre de questions d’un intérêt permanent.

Notre premier essai critique, par Daniel Salée, nous offre un survol de cinq ouvrages récents sur les Peuples autochtones et les dimensions politiques de leurs droits sociaux, juridiques et politiques. Dans le champ controversé de la « question autochtone », Salée se trace un chemin judicieux, à la fois résumant et critiquant les arguments ou les approches qui caractérisent les auteurs de ces ouvrages, lesquels représentent un vaste spectre d’opinions politiques. Ainsi qu’il le soutient, le thème se rapporte aux questions fondamentales de la démocratie canadienne et aux dimensions plus larges des politiques de la reconnaissance des cultures minoritaires, et ce bien que l’accent soit ici mis sur le degré auquel on doit considérer les peuples autochtones comme des peuples distincts au sein du Canada. En outre, les « solutions » proposées nous sont offertes dans le cadre de l’État-nation, où le « nous » constitue « un a priori non autochtone » et la remarque

13 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

finale de Salée l’amène à adopter une position très semblable aux arguments théoriques d’Angus en faveur d’un multiculturalisme postcolonial.

Notre dernier essai critique, par la chercheure hongroise Katalin Kürtösi, revient au thème de notre dossier thématique avec son analyse évaluative de trois études portant sur l’histoire du théâtre et des mises en scène théâtrales du Québec, ainsi que d’une monographie sur Michel Tremblay qui a été publiée à Bordeaux. Se penchant sur l’évolution du rôle du théâtre au Québec au cours des deux dernières décennies, Kürtösi met en valeur les accents post- modernes sur l’intertextualité, l’autoréférentialité et les stratégies de métafiction qui caractérisent plusieurs des pièces de théâtre écrites pendant cette période; elle souligne également l’importance des festivals de théâtre organisés à Montréal et qui mettent en valeur des productions d’autochtones et d’immigrants, et ce depuis la fin des années quatre-vingts. S’inspirant de la monographie sur Tremblay, où l’on souligne ses réalisations non seulement en tant que dramaturge, mais aussi en tant que romancier et autobiographe, Kürtösi nous fournit les motifs de conclusions qui conviennent à la présente introduction, à travers ses références à Tremblay et à son « système d’échos, de mises en abymes et de scènes spéculaires », tous autant de moyens de figurer ceux qui se tiennent en dehors des feux brillants de la représentation et qui à la fois réfléchissent et

14 Introduction Présentation déstabilisent toute mise en scène du Canada et de la Canadianité. Coral Ann Howells Rédactrice adjointe

15

Tamara Vukov

Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration

Abstract On July 1, 1999, Halifax’s Pier 21, historic point of arrival for over a million immigrants, became the site of a national memorialization of Canadian immigration. The Pier 21 memorial promises “to do for Canada and Canadians what Ellis Island has done for the United States.” This paper explores what it is precisely that Pier 21 does for Canada, examining how it produces a celebratory performance of the immigrant nation. The latter part of the paper questions the institutional “forgetting” of the settler legacies of racial exclusion that persist in Canadian immigration practices by considering the provocative counterpolitics of memorialization offered by such Canadian independent video artists as Richard Fung, Leila Sujir, and Paul Wong.

Résumé Le 1er juillet 1999, le Quai 21 de Halifax, le point historique de l’arrivée au Canada de plus d’un million d’immigrants, devenait un lieu de commémoration national de l’immigration canadienne. Le monument commémoratif du Quai 21 promet de « faire pour le Canada et les Canadiens ce que Ellis Island a fait pour les États-Unis ». Ce texte explore ce que fait précisément le Quai 21 pour le Canada, en examinant la façon dont il met en scène une représentation célébratoire de la nation immigrante. Dans sa deuxième moitié, le texte interroge « l’oubli » institutionnel des héritages coloniaux de l’exclusion raciale qui persistent dans les pratiques d’immigration canadiennes en considérant la contre-politique provocante de la remémoration historique que nous offrent des artistes indépendants canadiens de la vidéo tels Richard Fung, Leila Sujir et Paul Wong.

On the last Canada Day of “Canada’s Century” and the millennium (July 1, 1999), Halifax’s Pier 21, historic point of arrival for over one million immigrants from 1928-1971, became the site of a national memorialization of Canadian immigration. A private initiative that received significant funding from the Canadian government and the Chrysler Corporation, the Pier 21 memorial promises “to do for Canada and Canadians what Ellis Island has done for the United States” (Pier 21 2000). Yet, as Gérard Noiriel reminds us, national narratives of immigration history are never innocent, for they are always implicated in and tied to the politics of nationality at work in a given moment (Noiriel 1996).

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

This paper explores what it is precisely that Pier 21 does for Canada and “Canadians,” examining how it produces a celebratory founding myth of the immigrant nation. Pier 21’s opening ceremonies offered a performance of the immigrant nation as a spectacular “fairytale” of immigrant inclusion (see below, Abella 1999). In the latter part of the paper, I pursue some of the critical implications of the institutional “forgetting” of the settler legacies of ethnic and racial exclusion that have been and continue to be central to Canadian immigration policy. In order to do so, I focus on a site of contestation that offers a provocative counterpolitics of memorialization to the official histories produced at Pier 21: that of Canadian independent, intercultural video productions of the 1990s by such artists as Richard Fung, Leila Sujir, and Paul Wong. The permanent exhibition at the Pier 21 centre, entitled “The Immigration Experience,” promises to “trace the physical and emotional journey” of immigrants at Pier 21. Installed in the former Pier 21 immigration-processing centre, the exhibit is organized around a series of iconic, dramatized moments in the immigrant journey that visitors re-enact. At the start of the visit, guests are given a Pier 21 passport to be stamped at each station in the “journey.” Filled with imaginative multimedia displays and creative design elements, the vividness and pathos of the journey through Pier 21 is recreated through the exhibition narrative of reenactment, the life-size cutout figures of different immigrant “types” complete with listening stations for their oral histories, and the immigration hall benches equipped with speakers broadcasting new immigrant voices and sounds. The Bronfman “In-Transit Theatre” entrance is designed like the deck of a ship, and inside, a spectacular holographic film called “Oceans of Hope” recounts the story of immigration at Pier 21 through the figure of an immigration officer in a tone of epic melodrama. Once passports are properly stamped at each stage of the route, visitors complete the journey by boarding a stationary CN Rail car with projections of the Canadian countryside in the windows, recreating the train journey immigrants undertook from the pier. In each train compartment, videotaped oral histories of Canadian immigrants are projected. Stepping off the train, visitors face a wall-sized video mosaic of diverse faces and origins projected over Canadian landscapes to the accompaniment of the national anthem. As I follow the journey and get my passport stamped along the way, one particularly curious element in the exhibit strikes me. Passing through the “Crossing the Atlantic” section of the exhibit, a large wall of statistics and graphs chart the “Waves of Immigration” that Pier 21 received. The charts and graphs show how British immigration constituted by far the largest group (1,252,435 according to the chart), over half of all immigrants that passed through Pier 21. Mention is made of the world events that determined who came to Canada, from “economic cycles, war, oppression–as well as government policy and individual choice.” Yet no

18 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration mention is made of how government policy systematically regulated the preferential inclusion of British and Northern European immigrants (Kelley and Trebilcock 1998, 326-329). References to mistreatment and exclusions occasionally surface in the testimonies and oral histories through the individualized voices of personal experience, but they are largely absent from the main exhibition narrative and statistical displays. Such questions are contained within the melodrama of individual struggle andovercoming,ratherthanbeingposedasmattersofsystematicpolicy. One tiny, out of the way section, “Barriers to Immigration,” does mention the history of racial restrictions of Africans, Chinese, Indian, and Jewish immigration, as well as the deportation of political radicals and the medically unfit. Located in an out of the way corner outside the dominant spatial flow of much of the exhibit, the text naturalizes and elides the exclusionary settler colonial structures of Canadian immigration in the following terms: “Until 1961, immigration policies favored immigrants who would blend into the existing population” (emphasis added). The text then quickly jumps to the progressive new point system introduced in the 1960s that “opened the door to immigration from all over the world.” The passage narrative culminates in the customs station, and I watch the lineup of visitors perform their immigration interviews and get their passport cheerfully stamped under the “Welcome to Canada” sign. Needless to say, nodeportationsarereenacted,andnooneisinterrogatedorrefusedentry.

Pier 21’s Opening Ceremonies: The Spectacle of the Open Door The Pier 21 Society was initiated in 1988 as a “non-profit volunteer organization” made up of a consortium of “private citizens” from the governmental, business, and cultural sectors. It modeled its project very explicitly on the Ellis Island Immigration Museum,1 the museum that opened in New York City in 1990 to commemorate the most famous point of entry for over 12 million immigrants to the United States from 1892-1954. Sitting in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, the Ellis Island Immigration Museum sought to enshrine this iconic gateway as “the symbol of America’s immigrant heritage” and “golden door,” strongly influencing the eventual formulation and design of Pier 21. The Pier 21 Society’s goals were two-fold: firstly, transforming Pier 21 into a permanent exhibition and learning resource centre, and secondly, “… interpret[ing] the immigration experience of those who came through Pier 21, and recognizing the important role immigration has played and continues to play in forming our Canadian identity” (Pier 21 2000).2 In June of 1995 at the Halifax G7 summit, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced the donation of $4.5 million in government funding for the establishment of a “permanent monument” to Canada’s immigrants. The funding consisted of moneys from all three levels of government: $2.5 million from the federal government, and the rest from the Nova Scotia provincial and the Halifax municipal governments. In what has become a

19 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes standard neoliberal governmental tactic in the funding of public culture, the other half of the operating budget came from private corporate sponsorships. Chrysler Canada donated $250,000 for the construction of the Chrysler Canada Welcome Pavilion, in what Chief Executive Officer William C. Glaub called a “permanent and living testament to freedom and to Canada” (“Chrysler Canada” 2000). However, such funding strategies also follow a long-standing tradition of Canadian government and corporate sector collaboration in the business of immigration, through joint efforts and policies to attract (historically shifting definitions of) “desirable immigrants.” Most notable given its major historical involvement in Canadian immigration as one of the largest importers and transporters of immigrant labour (and party to the 1925 Railways Agreement), Canadian National Rail’s (CN) donation of $150,000 to Pier 21 was accompanied by a good deal of local media fanfare. Part of the donation went towards the recreated CN railcar complete with a pulsating floor that culminates the immigration exhibition, along with a second restored 1937 railcar for display outside the entrance to Pier 21 (Passages). The strategy for corporate sponsorship was also notable in the way that it linked various themes and sections of the exhibition to particular corporate sponsors. Canada Trust sponsored one section of the exhibit dealing with the historical role of volunteers at Pier 21. A range of corporate bodies (Sobey’s, Nesbitt Burns) have underwritten different parts of the exhibit and national narrative. In this way, the national narrative of immigration offeredatPier21becameadistinctlypromotionalandcommodifiedone. The focal point of the Pier 21 spectacle was the 1999 Canada Day opening ceremonies. Hosted by Hana Gartner of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (the CBC), the opening ceremonies were broadcast nationally and drew thousands of visitors, many of them so-called “Pier 21 alumni, ” who had themselves immigrated through Pier 21. Enactments of remembrance, testimony, and affect were abundant throughout the day. Their continual repetition and circulation was crucial to the performance of the celebratory nation-building narrative of immigration dramatized at Pier 21. As Senator Al Graham declared, “We can hear their voices. We can feel their strengths. The walls behind us whisper” (Jeffrey and Duffy 1999). Proclaiming the opening of the “permanent monument to immigrants,” Prime Minister Jean Chrétien delivered a live video-relayed national address in which he offered the following somewhat less than nuanced analysis of Canada’s settler colonial history: “Canada Day is important for the values that we share. We had first the natives who were here before the French and the English, and after that people came from all over the world to build this nation … Here in Canada we are all equal.”3 At the peak of the ceremony, a specially commissioned Pier 21 musical anthem was performed, proclaiming, “Oh Canada, behind these dockyard walls, there’s freedom to dream … And here on this day, a new life has

20 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration begun, when we first set foot on Pier 21.”4 President Ruth Goldbloom pronounced that, “as one of the greatest symbols of Canada’s national heritage, Pier 21 is a tribute to immigrants, a living icon in the hearts and minds of Canadians, the heartbeat and pulse that makes up Canada.”5 The ceremony was closed with the ceremonial placing of puzzle pieces over images of Pier 21 immigrants so as to complete a jigsaw Maple Leaf flag, in a rather literal display of the founding myth of the multicultural Canadian mosaic. Gartner proclaimed: “As the pieces of our puzzle show, we are one Canada. It doesn’t matter where you are from, we are one people. Pier 21 is a testament to this. Canada’s front-door is now officially open.”6 Yet another pinnacle moment of the opening day took place in the prelude to the official ceremony, when an early morning on-ship reenactment took place performed by 160 former war brides reliving their arrival at the pier (Duffy 1999). The ceremonial landing of the navy’s HMCS Preserver recreated the 1945-1947 arrivals of 48,000 war brides predominantly from the British Isles and Western Europe, along with their (continually emphasized) 22,000 children. Escorted ashore by young men dressed in wartime uniforms and paraded into the opening ceremonies with romantic tribute, the sentimental tone of national love that accompanied the war brides’ performance of sexual citizenship confirmed the extent to which immigration practices are bound up with “the ideology of (white) women as the reproducers of the nation” (Mohanty 1991, 26-27). Yet perhaps the most fascinating component of the celebrations was the avid and active participation of approximately 6,000 people in the opening day ceremonies. Many were (less eminent) Pier 21 “alumni” or relatives of those who had arrived at Pier 21 (including soldiers who had embarked from Pier 21 to fight in World War II). It was among these participants that the sheer intensity and affective power of recognition–recognition of immigrant struggles and pasts clearly not often or consistently available to many of the participants–was most strongly evident and at times very movingly displayed. It was also here that the active interpellation of affect, personal memory, and ritualized testimony into the national narrative proved to be most complex, contradictory, and potent. Such families as the Leegwater’s of Pictou County actively participated in the sentimental staging and reenactments of the day. Having donated the suitcases with which they arrived at Pier 21 to the exhibit display case, the Leegwater’s posed for the media as they watched a National Film Board film of their 1952 arrival and immigration processing (Jeffrey and Duff 1999, A2). Some were more hesitant and uncomfortable with the media attention, while others strongly played into the media spectacle as journalists scrambled to find Pier 21 immigrants to rehearse the stories of their passages and arrival to Canada. This was only one layer in the larger interpellation of immigrant testimony at Pier 21, which includes the oral history component of the exhibition and archives, along with the “Calling

21 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

All Memories” project (the videotaped oral history archives initiated as a joint project between the CBC and Pier 21). The extensive local, national, and international media coverage of the warbridereenactmentandtheopeningceremonieswerekeycomponentsin the wider spectacle of Pier 21, popularly diffusing this promotional rendition of the nation’s history both nationally and internationally. A strategic and “innovative” broadcast partnership was struck between Pier 21 and the CBC, resulting in live coverage of the opening ceremonies and several co-productions that were broadcast on Canada Day (“CBC Television” 2000). Most of the other national media coverage combined the testimony of local immigrants who arrived through the pier with Pier 21’s own promotional rhetoric, as in such headlines as “APier Into the Past” (directly reiterating the Pier 21 slogan) (Jeffrey and Duffy 1999) or “Where History’s Soul Remembers” (Toughill 1999). One of the few articles to circulate widely in the national media coverage of Pier 21 that even alluded to the thorny question of Canada’s exclusionary history reveals how the implications of that history tended to be managed and contained. Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Rosalie Abella delivered a speech at the inaugural dinner of the Pier 21 opening that was widely cited and reprinted throughout the ceremony and the media, particularly with respect to the emotional nature of the speech that drew tears around the room. Abella is well known as an influential figure in the shaping of Canadian public policy, particularly for her role as the head of the 1984 Royal Commission on Equality of Employment (known as the Abella Commission) that led to the Employment Equity Act of 1986. AbellaarrivedatPier21asafour-yearoldJewishD.P.(displacedperson) in 1950, her family having attempted to get into Canada for several years. Although he had worked as a lawyer for displaced persons in Germany, as an immigrant, her father was barred from practicing law in Canada. These tales of hardship constituted the backdrop to Abella’s immigrant paean, as she recounted the significance of Pier 21: The story of Canada is the story of immigrants, and Pier 21 is their proud celebratory symbol … Every immigrant who landed at Pier 21 has two stories–the story they came from and the story they started when they landed in Canada … There was one thought attached to every immigrant who set foot here: gratitude. This country is full of tenaciously grateful immigrants and their descendants who bloomed in Canada’s field of opportunities … This triumvirate of opportunity, generosity, and idealism is what Pier 21 stands for–Canada’s best self. It is the Canada that let us in, the Canada that took one generation’s European horror story and turned it into another generation’s Canadian fairytale (Abella 1999). (Emphasis added) In this way, Abella’s speech offered a literal articulation of Pier 21’s fairytale of inclusion. Yet, unaddressed and unspoken in this story’s

22 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration circulation in the media is the fact that, a few years prior to Abella’s arrival in 1950, her family was likely unable to enter due to the systematic anti-Semitism informing Canadian immigration policy of the day.7 When fragments of Canada’s exclusionary history did surface in the Pier 21 celebrations, they tended to be contained within a rags-to-riches class narrative of progress and triumph against the odds. Tales of immigrant hardship and the real exclusion recounted in stories such as Abella’s served tocreatemelodramatictensionandaffectiveforce.Thestoriesofprominent and successful immigrants and their class achievements were promoted as emblematic of the immigrant experience and the glory of Canada as a nation. While virtually all of the national media closely reproduced such celebratory myths of Pier 21,8 one of the few pieces of mainstream media coverage to offer a more critical and less celebratory assessment surfaced outside the national press in a New York Times/International Herald Tribune article. The headline points to the selectivity at work in the celebratory founding myth of Pier 21: “Canada Celebrates Immigrants, but Which Ones?” With a distinct tone of American condescension, it goes on to legitimately criticize the Pier 21 project for its selective focus on an era of predominantly European immigration to the exclusion of contemporary non-European immigration (De Palma 1999).

Founding Myths of Inclusion: National Celebration, Terms of Recognition and the Politics of Immigrant Affect in Settler Nationalism According to Anne McClintock, “nationalism is a theatrical performance of invented community” (McClintock 1995, 375). If founding myths of Canadian immigration have long served to imagine and enforce the bounds of the settler nation (Anderson 1983), the Pier 21 opening ceremonies constituted a striking contemporary performance of the immigrant nation through the institutional practice of memorialization. In interrogating the links between such founding myths and the contemporary politics of immigration, it is worth considering Bonnie Honig’s claim with respect to the United States that “the myth of an immigrant America serves to renationalize the state and reposition it at the centre of any future … politics” ( Honig 1998, 17). Similarly, Pier 21 spectacularizes national history and dramatizes immigrant inclusion in seeking to recuperate immigrant energies in this recentering of the nation-state. At first glance, such founding national myths of immigration hold out the promise of liberal pluralism and the allure of recognition of the immigrant rootsofthenation(Taylor1992),particularlyincontradistinctiontonations or versions of national history that deny their immigrant pasts and constitution in favour of a homogenized historical narrative.9 Without downplaying its political significance or affective power however, it is

23 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes crucial to interrogate the strategic terms of recognition, when it is offered and how it is performed, in settler nations where “the commemoration of origins is an essential element of strategies of political consensus” (Noiriel 1996, 7). Such strategies demand interrogation regarding the function and circulation ofthesecelebratory founding myths ofimmigration, bylocating the specific and critical role they play in national narratives of settler nations–nations borne of settler colonialism and the dispossession of native peoples. In the so-called “new world,” any retrospective mythology of a primordial or pastoral rootedness in the land is foreclosed or “interrupted” by colonial settlement (unlike for instance, French national narratives based on “a fable of primordial, continuous Frenchness,” Noiriel 1996, vii). Instead, settler nations anchor their mythical origins in the romance of immigration as a historical euphemism for settler colonialism. According to Honig, such a founding mythology is often expressed through xenophilia, the mythic inclusion of the “iconic immigrant who once helped build this nation and whose heirs might contribute to the national future” (Honig 1998, 1). Xenophilia plays a crucial role in settler nations, not just as an arbiter of pluralist recognition and multiculturalism, but as a discourse closely bound up with the strategic interests of nation-building (from founding settler narratives to economic nationalism and population growth). Such xenophilia is closely implicated in a “bootstraps” narrative of class achievement that serves to both flatter the nation’s self-image of tolerance and opportunity, and to distinguish the merits of the “deserving, hard-working immigrant” from anxieties around its mirror-image: the lazy or dangerous immigrant/refugee who is a drain on the system. As Honig cautions, such xenophilic performances are inextricably linked and interdependent on their necessarily xenophobic opposite.10 She argues that “the iconic good immigrant who upholds American liberal democracy is not accidentally or coincidentally partnered with the iconic bad immigrant who threatens to tear it down” (Honig 1998, 3). The national memorialization that Pier 21 performs “for Canadians” functions through certain highly selective iconic moments of xenophilia, while glossing over and suppressing the history and continued social relations of xenophobia that are still central to the regulation of Canadian immigration. It spectacularizes a selective version of immigration history into a celebratory nationalism. For example, a Toronto Star editorial entitled “Wave the Flag for Canadian Mosaic” answers my opening question of what Pier 21 does for Canadians rather candidly: The opening of [this] shrine … will help raise national consciousness about the centrality of immigration to the story of Canada. Pier 21 should do for Canada what Ellis Island has done for America–romanticize and idealize immigration, and put poetry around it (Siddiqui, “Wave the Flag” 1999).

24 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration

This insistence on romantic idealism as way to frame immigration history is crucial. By embedding a celebratory narrative of immigration into the popular construction of the nation, a highly selective version of national identity and history is produced. In this way, the memorialization of this site sanctifies the following narrative of the nation, as displayed in a front-page headline of the Toronto Star: “On Pier 21 Canada opened its doors, and a nation walked in” (Schiller 1999). Such a figuring of immigration history suggests a nation that has been externally preconstituted, in effect naturalizing the exclusionary structures of past immigration policy by celebrating a mythical “openness” of the nation to whomever enters its “doors.” Indeed, the image of the “open door” presents a strongly domestic and domesticated image of the immigration selection process and bureaucracy. This obscures the ongoing reality that the “doors” of the nation have never been open to everyone, and the practices and exclusions that are formative to Canadian immigration are forgotten or effectively erased. In this sense, the public memorialization of Pier 21 serves to both imagine and manage the bounds of a national narrative of immigration through which the founding myth of the settler nation is produced. Such practices of memorialization offer a rich site from which to examine the active performance and governance of memory and forgetting in the official historical narrative of Canadian immigration. They are clearly informed by Ernest Renan’s classic formulation of memory and forgetting as the source of the nation. For Renan, projects of nationhood impose a structural necessity of “forgetting” selective aspects of the violence at the heart of state formation, along with the suppression of disruptive historical memory in the forging of national “unity”–or “unity through brutality” as Renan puts it (Renan 1882,11,14). Pier 21 also faithfully articulates Renan’s linkage of history with the essence of the nation. To cite the famous passage: “A nation is a soul, a spiritualprinciple.Twothingsconstitutethissoulorspiritualprincipal.One lies in the past, one in the present” (19). The main promotional slogan of Pier 21 proclaims it to be “Canada’s National Historical Soul.” Pier 21 literature continually circulates such claims: “[immigration] enriched our social and cultural landscape and uplifted the very soul of the nation forever!” (Pier Into Our Past1999). All of the promotional literature closes with the invocation to visit Pier 21 as a way to “start you national historic soul searching.” In this way, Pier 21’s institutional articulation of the nationalsoulpositionsimmigrationasthecoreessenceofthesettlernation. This evocation of the national “soul” as central to the memorialization of Pier 21 clearly implies an affective if not a spiritual project. Indeed, affect was central to the staging of Pier 21, it constituted its very mise-en-scène.It is through the affective elements of spectacle that the links between institutional or official histories and subjective memories of the nation were sought and regulated. In the opening ceremonies, an affective linking of

25 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes immigration with utopian nation-building and historical progress was repeatedly articulated through Pier 21’s celebratory structure of feeling (Williams 1977). Pier 21’s other key slogan encapsulates this deployment ofnationalhistoryasamatterofnation-building:“Pierintoourpast,andsee the future of Canada.” Yet, if Renan is to be taken seriously, such affective investments in the national “soul” require forgetting as much as they do remembrance. The Pier 21 exhibition is rife with dramatizations of this affect. Atypical case among myriad examples: “If these walls could speak, they would tell powerful stories of fear and anticipation, tears and laughter, of those seeking a new life and the promise of a future in this country” (Passages 1999). The resolution of such public displays of immigrant affect is channeled through melodramatic national feeling. In staging such a celebratory structure of feeling, the more traumatic aspects of immigrant affect are subsumed into sentimental nationalism and the drama of individual struggle. In this way, immigrant dreams, memory, and senses become microcosms of the nation. Immigrant affect is strategically mobilized towards national(ist) feeling. As Pier 21 publicity puts it, “Every immigrant must dream boldly, risk, and dare to create a new life. To achieve greatness, a nation must be equally bold in its dreams. Pier 21 is a testament to Canada’s profoundly emotional immigration experience” (Pier 21 2000). By staging a fairytale of inclusion, the memorialization of Pier 21 provokes “sentimental experiences of the nation through contact with its monumental media” (Berlant 1997, 43). National melodrama was also the privileged genre for the popular memorialization of the settler nation in the media. “Canada’s newest museum is a place where ghosts come alive and memories whisper out loud, a place of pain and nightmares and hope beyondmeasure.TheycallittheNationalHistoricSoul”(Toughill1999). This insistence on celebration as the means of memorializing Canadian immigration history requires an institutionalized forgetting of Canada’s settler colonial legacy and exclusionary immigration practices. The traumatic silences resulting from such exclusionary structures, palpable in many immigrant testimonies, are subsumed by the celebratory impulse of Pier 21. Traumatic immigrant histories are thereby resolved through a progress narrative that recapitulates the glory of the nation. Ultimately, the compulsory celebration of Pier 21 demands a regulated performance of remembrance in which gratitude becomes the obligatory affective response. As recent works on the role of testimony in public culture show (Berlant 1997, Fortier 2001), the public compulsion to testify and the call to manifest one’s national allegiance is disproportionately directed at those who, in the very act of being called to testify or remember, are already marked as alien or suspect of non-allegiance. The very terms of immigrant recognition and inclusion then, are set by this obligatory call to

26 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration demonstrate and perform one’s patriotic allegiance.11 In the governmental- ized terms of recognition offered at the Pier 21 ceremonies, compulsory gratitude was the emblematic affective marker of immigrant patriotism. The insistent rhetoric of gratitude, dreams and a new life, constantly recited byiconic immigrants and“Pier 21Alumni” suchasAbella, serves to usurp the political silences and traumatic histories underlying such affective expression. In these compulsory performances of immigrant gratitude, the requisite suppression of traumatic immigrant memory is institutionally aligned with the official “forgetting” of systematic national exclusions.Celebratorynationalismandliberalmulticulturalism constitute the exclusive and highly regulated frameworks through which immigrant memory is acknowledged, governed and recognized in public culture. In exchange for this limited and regulated recognition, gratitude is upheld as a pledge of national allegiance for immigrants to perform. Such interpellations of immigrant gratitude are further embedded in a whole seriesofrearticulationsof“place”thattheopeningofPier21inaugurated.

Les Lieux de Mémoire: Memorialization as Performance and Practice of Place The official practice of memorialization is an institutional project that effects a redefinition of place. Here I invoke Doreen Massey’s critique of the traditional notion of “place” as a fixed and enclosed, bounded entity (Massey 1995, 53). Massey reformulates “place” to refer to the provisional convergence and intersection of social relations in a particular material location (63). Memorialization is a public practice that seeks to link specific interpellations of social memory with particular places, sites, and historical moments. It entails the designation of a physical place or monument as a repository for particular forms of memory. This social practice links material markers with practices of affective remembrance (such as testimonials or pilgrimages) for the purposes of a specific institutional and/or national project. It redefines and designates the memorialized site as a new place–a new place that channels particular social and cultural meanings or performances of historical memory. Such practices of memorialization mediate between the institutional and the subjective, and between national history and personal memory. Several layers of social relations converge in the Pier 21 memorial as a particular rearticulation of place. The memorialization of the Pier is motivated by clear national imperatives in the redefinition of this site. Like the Ellis Island museum, Pier 21 legitimates its national memorial status through the claim that 1 in 5 Canadians can trace their lineage through the Pier. Indeed, both museums have or are developing interactive genealogy database projects, including ships’ passenger lists and immigration interview archives. In this way, the Pier 21 project seeks to reconstruct itself as a site of national genealogy for the settler nation.

27 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

In addition to the nationalist agenda, there is a local economic agenda of urban “renewal” at work in the creation of a tourist attraction in the context of a larger redevelopment and “upgrading” of the Halifax waterfront over the past decade, spearheaded by the Halifax Waterfront Development Corporation. Halifax Mayor Walter Fitzgerald noted at the opening ceremonies that the Pier 21 project was “the cornerstone of the revitalization of the city’s south end” (Jeffrey and Duffy 1999). This was effected in the context of a regional Maritime economy that has been decimated through the decline and closure of traditional industries such as mining and fishing. The federal government has responded to this economic decline and its own neoliberal withdrawal of social spending in part by funding and promoting heritage and tourist industries. The rearticulation of place at work in Pier 21 thereby plays into an economic progress narrative of the urban regeneration and gentrification of the Halifax waterfront (McClean 2001).12 The memorialization of Pier 21 also seeks to incite performances of pilgrimage, rearticulating the site as a “national shrine” (as it was described by much of the media). Pilgrimages invoke both a physical and affective journey that links the memorialized place with a practice of affective remembrance. Pier 21’s promotional literature repeatedly conjures such a journey, promising to “trace the physical and emotional journey of immigrants and refugees” (Pier Into Our Past 1999). At a time of national uncertainty with respect to the competing claims of Québec, First Nations sovereignty, and regional decentralization, along with the increasingly alarmist association of multiculturalism with fragmentation and threats to “social cohesion,” Pier 21 also responds to the federal government imperative of building unity, of the need to construct places of national pilgrimage as a unifying practice. As an institutional as well as a physical and affective practice of place, the pilgrimage to Pier 21 thereby interpellates (grateful) immigrants as Canadian citizens. Pier 21’s articulation of place crucially implies a practice of borders, linking the physical borders of the nation to the liminal spaces of national identity. This articulation of the institutional to the subjective is achieved through the dramatization of the “First Steps” on Pier 21 (as the first steps in the nation). The Pier 21 theme song is only one of repeated instances in which the “first steps” are dramatized. The romanticization and mythification of this transformational moment is effected through the testimonial focus on sensation and memory. The affective component of this construction of place is continually evoked, not only through explicit appeal to national memory, but to a vocabulary of senses, tastes, smells (memories of the smell of Pier 21, the first food tasted, etc.) staged as the moment of arrival into nationhood.13 The first steps in the new land are mythologized and retraced as a threshold moment, a crossing of borders that signals a ritual of national becoming.

28 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration

If there is one critical function that Pier 21 serves as a particular construction ofplace then, itisintheimage ofthenational gateway asbotha marker of physical geography and national identity. The gateway and border as a place of passage is constantly linked to the iconic moment of assimilation and national becoming. Pier 21 becomes a gateway to a federalist construction of national identity and citizenship. As the title of a Macleans’Magazine column by Peter C. Newman announces, “Pier 21: the place where we became Canadians” (Newman 1996). This is effected through the continual focus on the physical passage through Pier 21 as a romanticized moment of passage from an old life to a new life, from old world to new, mythologizing the moment of arrival into nationhood. Based on the strictures of celebratory nationalism, the narrative of this passage becomes a narrative of national progress, of leaving behind old world oppression, for a new, better life. Rooted in this official state nationalism, Pier 21 offers an institutional articulation of immigrant citizenship as a xenophilic and celebratory myth of national inclusion.

The Closed Door and the Writing on the Wall: The Politics of Forgetting and the Counterpolitics of Canadian Intercultural Video While sites of memory (les lieux de mémoire) are often framed as attempts to “block the work of forgetfulness” (Nora 1984, xxxv), the regulation of memory enacted through official practices of memorialization simul- taneously produce “les lieux de mémoire” as sites of a strategic and highly regulated forgetting. I want to pursue this question of institutionalized forgetting in the celebratory memorialization of Pier 21, a forgetting that Renan argues is so central to the forging of national “unity.” Given that Canada has never just opened its doors and let a nation walk in, as proclaimed in Pier 21’s fairytale of inclusion, what are some of the implications of this selective national memory? And what is strategically forgotten? By historically locating the key narrative of immigration mythology in the era of 1928-71 as the exhibit does, and by geographically locating Canada’s national historic soul in Halifax, Pier 21 centres this narrative of the nation on white European immigration.14 This historical distancing strategy obscures the ongoing structures of systematic exclusion in contemporary immigration policy at the same time that it distances its prior history. In framing this period as a story of Canadian nation-building, of a “Pier Into Our Past” that shows the “future of Canada,” the racial and ethnic legacies of immigration history are also recapitulated in the imagining of the future nation. This founding myth simultaneously naturalizes and “forgets” the legacies of settler colonialism and exclusionary social structures in the national project of immigration. It tells a federalist tale of unity that glosses First Nations perspectives on the roots of Canadian immigration in colonial settlement, as well as the specificities and

29 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes complexities of immigration dynamics for French Canada and the nation-building narratives of Québec. Through this staging of a xenophilic myth of inclusion, the memorialization of Pier 21 as the nation’s gateway obscures the xenophobic exclusions that have been and continue to be central in defining the borders of the nation. It is worth noting here that comparative analyses of memorials addressing the specificities of immigration to Québec remain to be conducted. For instance, in 1998, Parks Canada established a memorial to Canadian immigration at Grosse Île, Québec, the quarantine station for the main port of entry to Canada in an earlier wave of immigration, and the site of a large-scale typhus epidemic that resulted in the death of thousands of predominantly Irish immigrants in 1847.15 In the summer and fall of 1997, the Musée de la Civilisation in Québec City held a major exhibition entitled “Des Immigrants Racontent.” The exhibition focused on immigrant integration into Québec society, reflecting a predominant theme through which immigration tends to be framed in Québec. Recent works by First Nations artists such as Mohawk artist Shelley Niro have also strongly challenged the very terms of settler practices of memorialization. In a November 2002 exhibit entitled “Memory Keepers,” Niro reframes the Statue of Liberty, not as a celebratory symbol of freedom, but as a marker of settler colonization and brutal displacement that brought neither liberty nor freedom to her people. Over an image of the iconic statue that oversees Ellis Island, Niro superimposes her own response: “In my culture, there are no monuments, no man-made structures, no tourist sites; one visits, burns tobacco, says a prayer” (Smoke-Asayenes 2002). While space for the contestation of the dominant national narrative was marginal at the actual physical site of Pier 21, I want to consider an alternative site, a representational rather than a material site, where a critical counterpolitics of national memory and a counternarrative of immigration’s role in the nation is being articulated. Through the works of such artists as Richard Fung, Leila Sujir, and Paul Wong, Canadian independent video productions of the 1990s and 2000s have evolved as a critical ensemble of sites through which the exclusionary histories obscured and buried by Pier 21’s celebratory structures of feeling are directly confronted and explored in terms of their implications for the nation’s imagining of itself. I close by briefly considering how the video practices of these three artists offer a challenging dialogue with and contestationofthefoundingnarrativesofimmigrationespousedatPier21. The works of these artists can be situated within a broader tradition of intercultural cinema and politically committed art video that distinctively emerged in the context of Canadian and Québécois independent video production in the 1980s and 1990s (Gale and Steele 1996). In The Skin of the Film, Laura Marks defines intercultural cinema as an emergent genre of film and video largely based in the practices of diasporic, First Nations, and

30 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration migrant populations in the West. Suggesting a form that cannot be confined to a single culture, intercultural works are often short (due in part to production and funding constraints), formally experimental, often with a distinctly activist bent, that confront the particular crisis arising from the political discrepancy between official national histories and the personal and collective memories of marginalized and racialized communities. As Marks puts it, “Intercultural cinema moves backward and forward in time, inventing histories and memories in order to posit an alternative to the overwhelming erasures, silences, and lies of official histories … that result from public and personal amnesia” (Marks 2000, 25). In this way, intercultural cinema is rooted in acts of historical excavation, interrogating the official archive, mining the gaps and silences of recorded national history. Marks argues that intercultural cinema often employs recollection- images16–visual images, songs, material artifacts, and sensory experiences that index forgotten histories, histories that have been silenced or erased in the official historical archive (Marks 2000, 37, 50; Deleuze 1989, 47-50). Since they cannot directly represent these pasts precisely because the conditions for their direct representation have been politically thwarted or destroyed, recollection-images bear the traces of buried events, occasion- ing a confrontation between that which has not been represented in official histories and the private memories of disenfranchised communities. They are often the basis for imaginative reconstruction and the creative generation of forgotten histories in response to the challenge of representing suppressed pasts for which the official modes of representation have been destroyed or denied. Fung, Sujir, and Wong use intercultural cinema as a way to confront the buried histories of Canadian immigration, the kind precisely glossed over by Pier 21. As space does not permit the kind of fully developed analysis of the complex repertoire of images and themes each of the videos offers, I focus on one particular recollection image each artist employs in a much larger and more complex aesthetics of countermemory, an image that in each case directly confronts the silences wrought in the official historical narrative of Pier 21. In short, these videos constitute a representational site of Canadian immigration history that produces a counterpolitics of national memorialization. Given the challenges that Noiriel notes immigrant populations tend to face in “leaving their own visible trace or forging their own ‘places of memory’” (Noiriel 1996, 8), it is ironic yet somehow telling that these traces are located in a representational site of recollection images rather than a physical place replete with material markers of memory, such as Pier 21. Leila Sujir’s Dreams of the Nightcleaners (1996) employs a unique experimental narrative to delve into the links between historical and family secrets as they play out for three women whose lives have been indelibly shaped by the history of South Asian immigration to Canada, along with the

31 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes ongoing racism confronted by these communities today in immigration, labour, and cultural practices. The video explores how the untold and buried stories of the past reappear, how history repeats itself and its exclusionary legacies. It also considers how immigrant dreams seek to create new stories out of these haunting pasts and the haunted present. One of the characters, Jeanne, quite literally undertakes an act of historical excavation, seeking to understand how the history of exclusionary early twentieth century immigration policies echoes in the present, and how it has shaped her life and the life of her deceased Indian husband. Rummaging through the past, Jeanne scrolls through archival microfilm of newspaper headlines on anti-Asiatic parades and the White Canada policies of immigration. Amidst quotes from Mackenzie King’s Report on Oriental Immigration that decreed the 1908 Direct Passage Ruling as a policy of exclusion towards South Asians (Kelley and Trebilcock 1998, 147-150), Jeanne declares, “It’s still the same story now, the same things people are saying … [we] are finding out how the past is haunting the present, the same stories being repeated again and again.” Out of the perpetual scrolling images of anti-Asian newspaper headlines on the screen, an electronically recreated image of the ship called the Komagata Maru suddenly floats up off the screen and enters the room inhabited by Jeanne. It acts as a recollection image of the infamous ship that challenged the Direct Passage Ruling in 1914 and was forced to turn back after two months moored in the Vancouver harbour–carrying over 300 Indian passengers back with it (Kelley and Trebilcock 1998, 150-152). This electronic likeness is reconstructed in order to speak a suppressed history, reactivating the legacies of these exclusionary policies and reanimating the past to trace their continued operation in the present. In this way, Dreams of the Nightcleaners confronts the celebratory official history of Canadian immigration with the countermemories of those who bear the brunt of what the film’s narrator/storyteller calls the “times of public darkness, where the cameras have not gone.” In response to the suppression of an official repertoire of images of this buried event, the video resourcefully employs such recollection images as the electronic flying Komagata Maru to create the traces of a shadow history of the nation that the official historical narrative of Pier 21 structurally evades.17 Perhaps the starkest way to foreground the very questions that Pier 21 works to suppress is to contrast this so-called “front door” and gateway to the nation with what would by implication be its back door. During the same summer as the opening of Pier 21, this implied back door was the site of a xenophobic counterpart to the xenophilic spectacle of Pier 21: the media panic surrounding the landing of almost 600 Fujian Chinese refugees on the shores of British Columbia (Lai 2000). How can we understand the celebratory narrative of inclusion that played out on the nation’s east coast in relation to the inflammatory xenophobia incited on the west coast? In

32 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration other words, what are the links between xenophilia and xenophobia in the politics of national memory? A telling picture emerges when one sets Pier 21’s Sobey’s Wall of Honour against its shadow counterpart on the West Coast: the Victoria Immigration Building, one of the primary gateways of East and South Asian immigration. At the entrance of Pier 21, the Sobey’s Wall of Honour, like the American Immigrant Wall of Honour at Ellis Island, stands as a memorial vehicle for the inscription of personal histories into officially sanctioned national history. For $200, individuals and families can have their names installed on the Wall of Honour at the entrance of Pier 21, answering the Pier 21 slogan “If these walls could talk” in a promotional register. But which walls speak and which walls are silenced in the politics of national memorialization? In his 1996 independent video Dirty Laundry, Toronto-based videomaker Richard Fung delves into the legacies of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1923) (Kelley and Trebilcock 1998, 203-204). The video opens with historical footage of a Canadian Pacific Railway train entering a mountain tunnel, the CPR constituting the very locus of the “national dream” as well, of course, as a monumental product of migrant labour. Layered over this image of movement is a voiceover by historian Nayan Shah (Shah 2001) that reveals the project of historical excavation about to unfold: “Historical memory is full of mythologies, so its not necessarily a matter of selecting which are the good and the bad ones, or whichistheonetruthandallothersfalse.Itisamatterthoughofdiscovering which mythologies aren’t allowed to speak because of the ways in which conventional history has been written …” The video goes on to retrace a kind of counter-memorialization of Canadian immigration history by offering a lineage of dates of exclusionary legislation and practices: from the 1885 and 1923 Chinese Exclusion Acts, to the 1903 introduction of the Head Tax, to the 1885 criminalization of sodomy and such sexual “vices” as homosexuality and prostitution. These pieces of legislation were all used as tactics for the exclusion of Asian immigrants. Their narrative juxtaposition in the video serves to emphasize the close links between sexuality, labour, race and ethnicity in the exclusionary practices and legacies of Canadian immigration.18 In one of several critical recollection images in the video, Fung reveals the words of Chinese immigrant detainees furtively etched on the walls of the Victoria Immigration Building in the detainment cells, words recountingthemistreatmentandracismtheyfacedinseekingtoenteroneof Canada’s other gateways where the doors were not so open. “What crimes have I committed? Why am I locked up here like a prisoner?” These secret inscriptions form a stark counterpoint to the official inscriptions of the Sobey’s Wall of Honour.19

33 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Confronting the contemporary politics of Canadian immigration, Paul Wong’s Prisoner’s Lament (2000) is a provocative two-minute video produced for an anti-racist campaign by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. The campaign has been broadcast as a series of television commercials since 1999, which in itself is suggestive of the strategies alternative video artists such as Wongare adopting to insert themselves into more “mainstream” media sites and formats. A densely layered video montage, Prisoner’s Lament intersperses close-ups of Canadian high school students who came to Canada as refugees speaking of their hopes and dreams. These mini-testimonials are overlayed with images of historical newspaper headlines suffused with anti-immigrant and specifically anti-Asian sentiments (in a similar aesthetic strategy to Sujir), layered onto media images of the 1999 Fujian Chinese refugees being led into detention by immigration agents. The connecting thread of the video is a haunting recollection image, a song of lament sung by some of the women detainees: To come to this far away land, we suffered and risked our lives. In this civilized country, I could not have imagined that we would end up being treated this way. You saved us to be locked up in your prisons. Is this your justice? I do not understand. How could I not be sad? We are shuffled from here to there, days and nights turn into months. We know no peace. My tears never stop. What is the crime? I do not understand. As a recollection-image of the refugee’s detainment, the prisoner’s lament stands in stark contrast to much of the mainstream media representation of the migrant’s landing, which in many respects strongly recapitulated the historical legacy of anti-Asian racial panics on the West Coast.20 By layering anti-immigrant headlines from these past historical events over the images of the detainees being led away in chains, Wong effectively foregrounds the continuity between these historic and current events. Whereas much of the mainstream media evacuated all traces of the refugees’ subjectivity by framing the event strictly in terms of the panic it raised for the (far from neutrally coded) “Canadian public,” the prisoner’s lament counters this dominant suppression by evoking the impact and recounting the event from the perspective of the refugees themselves through their own available forms of affective expression. As a stark counter-image to the national narrative celebrated the same summer at Pier 21 (the self-proclaimed “front door” of the nation), it offers a very different and far less celebratory trace of the history and current politics of Canadian immigration (at the so-called “back door”). Among the most significant and revealing of the links between official narratives of immigration history and the current politics of nationality, the founding myth of the open front door and the closed back door was central to Citizenship and Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan’s introduction of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Bill C-11, in February of 2001. As echoed in the title’s correlation of immigration with protection,

34 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration this restrictive act constructs immigration as a security risk. Many argue that this overemphasis on “closing the back door” codifies an alarmist criminalization of immigration into official policy (Canadian Council of Refugees 2001), partially in response to the panic mobilized around the Fujian Chinese refugee landings.21 As noted in the overview of Bill C-11: “… the proposed Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations carry a dual mandate: closing the back door to criminals and others who would abuse Canada’s openness and generosity while opening the front door to genuine refugees and to the immigrants the country needs” (Bill C-11 2001). This statement is telling in its structural linkage of the xenophilia of the open front door (as a strategic national interest) to the xenophobia of the closed back door. Perhaps most hauntingly of all given the current political context, the prisoner’s lament in Wong’s video eerily echoes the words inscribed on the walls of the Victoria Immigration Building portrayed in Fung’s video. “What crimes have I committed? Why am I locked up here like a prisoner?” How can we think about the Sobey’s Wall of Honour in relation to the recollection images of the detainee inscriptions and the prisoner’s lament? In contrast to the memorialization of Pier 21 and its Wall of Honour, Fung reveals in Dirty Laundry that the Victoria Immigration Building was demolished in 1977, and its walls only speak through remaining archival photographs and Fung’s video. Yet, ultimately, these walls also speak volumes about the celebratory founding myths and the ongoing exclusionary politics of Canadian immigration.

Notes The author wishes to thank Chantal Nadeau, Monika Kin Gagnon, and Mario DeGiglio-Bellemare for their astute comments and generous critical engagement with the substance of this article. I also want to acknowledge the support of the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture during the period in which this article was prepared for publication. 1. Ellis Island Immigration Museum. Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation. June 26, 2000. and . 2. “About Pier 21 Society”. Pier 21. Ed. Erez Segal. June 21, 2000. Pier 21 Society. June 26, 2000. . For the most recent version of the Pier 21 website, see . 3. Jean Chrétien. Address. Pier 21 Opening Ceremonies, Halifax. 1 July 1999. 4. Lennie Gallant, Michelle Campagne, Connie Kaldor and James Keelaghan. Pier 21. Musical Performance. Pier 21 Opening Ceremonies, Halifax. 1 July 1999. 5. Ruth Goldbloom. Address. Pier 21 Opening Ceremonies, Halifax. 1 July 1999. 6. Hannah Gartner. Address. Pier 21 Opening Ceremonies, Halifax. 1 July 1999. 7. Under Director of Immigration Frederick Blair, it was designed to keep out all “undesirables” (basically any non-British or white American), particularly Jews at the height of the explosive refugee crisis that culminated in the Holocaust and World War II. This exclusionary history is amply documented by Irving Abella (Abella’s husband) and Harold Troper in None Is Too Many: Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933-1948. Furthermore, the Abella Commission’s findings

35 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

clearly demonstrated the ongoing nature of employment discrimination in Canada as historically rooted in its exclusionary legacy. 8. One segment of the CBC Gartner-hosted special “Welcome Home to Canada” did explicitly address the racialized past of Canadian immigration through the stories of Gim Wong and the Uppal brothers, second generation Chinese and Indo-Canadian men respectively. Yet the implications of these powerful stories are contained in two ways: by stressing the successes and achievements of these men (hence reinforcing a “bootstraps” narrative of overcoming), and by locating these stories in the distant (pre-World War Two) past. Similarly, one Toronto Star article also explicitly addresses the racialized history of immigration policy, only to similarly distance it in the era prior to the policy reform of the 1960s (Schiller 1999). 9. See, for instance, Noiriel on French national amnesia about the massive historic role played by immigration in the formation of the French nation (Noiriel 1996). 10. Some argue that xenophilic conjunctures in which “pro-immigration” economic nationalist positions are strongest also occasion some of the most virulent expressions of xenophobia (Biles 1999). 11. More recently, in the post-September 11th (2001) climate, the extremely limited nature of this recognition is all the more evident in the highly intensified and sometimes violent call for non-Western immigrants, particularly North American Muslims, to testify to and declare their patriotic allegiance (see Fortier 2001). 12. Pier 21 had been used as an artistic venue by local artists for exhibition and studio space, as well as a refuge for squatters and the homeless (Peck 1994). Yet promotional literature continually claims that Pier 21 is a former abandoned shed. 13. This emphasis on the physicality of senses, smells, and tastes strategically mobilizes the heightened sense memory that accompanies intercultural migration. As Marks shows, cinematic narratives of migration also tend to rely on sense memories of native cultures to evoke a physical sense of home for diasporic communities. Yet in this case, the sense memories of arrival in Canada are emphasized to evoke a sense of national becoming (for instance, the taste of the white bread served to immigrants on their train rides from Pier 21, from which derives the Italian Canadian idiomatic slang of mangiacake to denote Canadians). 14. For a critique of the racist whitewashing at work in Pier 21’s myth of immigration and its elision of Black Nova Scotian history in particular, see Walcott (2001). Yet even within the strictures of the European immigrant narrative that Pier 21 offers, there is a continual managing and silencing of the cleavages and exclusions that have stratified British, white American, and North and West Europeans settlers as preferred immigrants, while Jewish, South and East Europeans were defined as non-preferred and were at various times and to different degrees excluded from immigration. Indeed, the cohesion of whiteness that defines Canadian national identity requires such suppressions. Such policies as the Railways Agreement of 1925 demand further critical analysis in this regard (Kelley and Trebilcock, 194-199, 210). 15. For more on Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial National Historic Site of Canada, see http://www.parkscanada.gc.ca/parks/quebec/grosseile/en/frame_online_visit_e.htm. 16. The concept of recollection-images is drawn by Marks from Deleuze’s work on cinema, which itself is influenced by Bergson’s theory of sensation and memory. 17. To date, the only official markings of this incident are two memorial plaques in Vancouver, near the Gateway to the Pacific and at the Ross Street Gurdwara. The Komogata Maru incident was the subject of a documentary directed by Ali Kazimi entitled “Passage from India” (1998). It was produced as one episode of

36 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration

the 52-part television series on Canadian immigration entitled “A Scattering of Seeds: The Creation of Canada,” produced by Lindalee Tracey and Peter Raymont. A feature film project on the Komagata Maru is also in development, to be directed by Deepa Mehta (see http://www.komagatamaru.com/). 18. Indeed, the association of undesirable immigration with sexual degeneracy is a deep-rooted one. Valverde has shown how fears of immigration and sexual excess were linked in social purity campaigns against national degeneration (108). Reciprocally, Roberts has shown how the evolving social categories of sexual deviancy (from sexual “promiscuity,” prostitution, to homosexuality) became a central focus of deportation practices in early twentieth century Canadian immigration policy. 19. A similar politics of memorialization vis-à-vis European and Asian immigration to the United States resulted in the establishment of the Angel Island Immigration Station as a monument to Asian immigration in San Francisco in the 1970s. The walls of the station, containing similar inscriptions of predominantly Chinese and Japanese detainees, remain standing and have been transcribed into books of poetry. Angel Island, however, is vastly underfunded relative to Ellis Island, and is the subject of a revitalisation campaign as it has fallen into disrepair. See . 20. Several researchers are conducting comparative media analyses of the historical media coverage of the 1914 Komagata Maru crisis and the 1999 media coverage Fujian Chinese refugee landings. For instance, Biles notes strong connections between the two conjunctures, particularly with respect to the rhetorical imagery of racial panic mobilized in metaphors of immigration as an invasion or flood. 21. In the interim since this paper was first written, the xenophobic panic that followed the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States have rapidly accelerated the push to implement the most restrictive impulses behind the Bill, particularly with respect to security and detention provisions. The new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into effect on June 28, 2002. 22. Fung notes that the archival photographs exist due to a historian who happened to learn of the demolition plans and documented the walls before they were demolished. Pier 21 was, in fact, the last standing immigration shed in Canada.

Bibliography Abella, Irving and Harold Troper. None is Too Many: Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933-1948. Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1982. Abella, Rosalie. “A Refugee’s Triumphant Return to Pier 21.” Toronto Star 1 July 1999: A13. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. 1983. London: Verso, 1991. Angel Island Immigration Foundation Station. Angel Island Foundation. July 15, 2000. . Berlant, Lauren. The Queen of America Goes to Washington City. Essays on Sex and Citizenship. Durham & London: Duke University Press, 1997. Biles, John. “A Ship Off the Old Block: A Comparison of Popular Reaction to the Komagata Maru and the Arrival of Chinese Refugee Claimants in 1999.” Association of Canadian Studies Annual Conference. Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities (Quebec City, Quebec). May 25, 2001. Bill C-11, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Overview. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Government of Canada. June 2001. . “CBC Television and the Pier 21 Society Form Strategic Partnership to Provide A Living Testament to Canada’s Immigrants.” Pier 21. Ed. Erez Segal. June 21,

37 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

2000. Pier 21 Society. June 26, 2000. . Canadian Council of Refugees. “Bill C-11: New Immigration Bill Information Sheets.” July 27, 2001. Canadian Council of Refugees. January 30, 2002. . “Chrysler Canada Becomes Major Sponsor of Pier 21 Project.” Pier 21. Ed. Erez Segal. June 21, 2000. Pier 21 Society. June 26, 2000. . Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 2: The Time Image. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 1986. De Palma, Anthony. “Canada Celebrates Immigrants, but Which Ones?” New York Times 2 July 1999, final ed.: A4. Duffy, Peter. “War Brides Recreate Arrival.” Halifax Mail-Star 2 July 1999: A1. Fortier, Anne-Marie. “Multiculturalism and the New Face of Britain.” Conférence. Centre d’Études Ethniques de l’Université de Montréal. 13 décembre 2001. Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. January 28, 2002. . Gale, Peggy and Lisa Steele, eds. Video re/View. Toronto: Art Metropole and V-Tape, 1996. “History Key in Holiday Celebration.” Halifax Mail Star 2 July 1999: A1. Honig, Bonnie. “Immigrant America? How Foreignness ‘Solves’ Democracy’s Problems.” Social Text 56 (16.3, Fall 1998): 1-17. Jeffrey, Davene and Peter Duffy. “A Pier Into the Past: Families relive experiences at immigration shed.” Halifax Mail Star 2 July 1999: A1-2. Kelley, Ninette and Michael Trebilcock. The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1998. Lai, Larissa. “Asian Invasion versus the Pristine Nation: Migrants Entering the Canadian Imaginary.” Fuse 22.2 (September 2000): 30-40. Marks, Laura U. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Durham: Duke UP, 2000. Massey, Doreen. “The Conceptualization of Place.” A Place in the World? Ed. Doreen Massey and Pat Jess. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995. McClean, Edel. “Voices from the Margin: Social Exclusion and Urban Regeneration in Halifax, Nova Scotia.” Association for Canadian Studies Annual Conference. Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities (Quebec City, Quebec). May 26, 2001. McClintock, Anne. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Conquest. New York: Routledge, 1995. Mohanty, Chandra. Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Indianapolis, Indiana UP, 1991. Newman, Peter C. “Pier 21: The Place Where We Became Canadians.” Maclean’s Magazine 22 July 1996: 56. Nora, Pierre, ed. Les lieux de mémoire. Paris: Gallimard, 1984. Noiriel, Gérard. The French Melting Pot: Immigration, Citizenship, and National Identity. Trans. Geoffrey de Laforcade. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press, 1996. Translation of Le Creuset Français: Histoire de l’Immigration XIXe-XXe siècles. Paris: Seuil, 1988. Passages 1.4 (May 1999). Halifax: Pier 21 Society, 1999. Peck, Robin. “Ghosts: Sculpture Photographed at Pier 21.” C Magazine 4 (Spring 1994):18-25. Pier 21. Ed. Erez Segal. June 21, 2000. Pier 21 Society. June 26, 2000. . Pier Into Our Past and See the Future of Canada. Pamphlet. Halifax, Pier 21 Society, 1999. Renan, Ernest. “What is a Nation?” Nation and Narration. Ed. Homi Bhabha. 1882. Trans. Martin Thom. London: Routledge, 1990. 8-22. Roberts, Barbara. From Whence They Came: Deportation from Canada, 1900-1935. Ottawa: U of Ottawa P, 1988. Schiller, Bill. “On Pier 21, Canada Opened its Doors and a Nation Walked In.” Toronto Star 23 Jan. 1999, metro ed.: A1.

38 Performing the Immigrant Nation at Pier 21: Politics and Counterpolitics in the Memorialization of Canadian Immigration

Shah, Nayan. Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown. American Crossroads; 7. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Siddiqui, Haroon. “A Tribute to our Investment in Immigrants.” Toronto Star 27 June 1999. ––––––. “Wave the Flag for Canadian Mosaic.” Toronto Star 1 July 1999: A14. Smoke-Asayenes, Dan. “In Memorials: Memory Keepers.” rabble.ca. 22 November 2002. http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=17187&url=. Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism and The Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Toughill, Kelly. “Where History’s Soul Remembers.” Toronto Star 1 July 1999: A3. Valverde, Mariana. The Age of Light, Soap, and Water: Moral Reform in English Canada, 1885-1925. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1991. Walcott, Rinaldo. “Remaking History.” This Magazine November/December 2001: 28-29. Williams, Raymond. “Structures of Feeling.” Marxism and Literature. London: Oxford University Press, 1977. 128-135.

Videography Fung, Richard, dir. Dirty Laundry. Video. V-Tape, 1996. Sujir, Leila. Dreams of the Nightcleaners. Video. V-Tape, 1995. Welcome Home to Canada. Narrated by Hana Gartner. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. CBC Newsworld. 1 July 1999. Wong, Paul. Prisoner’s Lament. Video. Video Out. 2000.

39

Johanne Devlin Trew

Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate

Abstract In this paper, the popularity of commercial old-time fiddler Don Messer is explored within the context of the emerging liberal nationalism of the 1960s and the Canadian broadcasting system’s ‘nationalist project’ or mandate of representing, promoting and even performing Canadian identity on the airwaves. The author maintains that in the rush to establish new Canadian symbols as a response to political concerns at home and the threat of Americanization, the abrupt disposal of British symbols and the removal of established media icons from the airwaves, as in the sudden cancellation in 1969 of Don Messer’s popular television programme, left a legacy of conflict which has ultimately resulted in the suppression of traditional Canadian culture in favour of elite culture. The apparent elitism of the CBC has likely driven segments of the Canadian public to seek their viewing options and cultural icons elsewhere, most likely on the American television networks.

Résumé Ce texte se penche sur la popularité de Don Messer, violoneux commercial à l’ancienne, dans le contexte de l’émergence du nationalisme libéral des années soixante et du « projet nationaliste » du système canadien de radio-diffusion, ou le mandat que celui-ci s’était donné de représenter, promouvoir et même de mettre en scène l’identité canadienne sur les ondes. L’auteure soutient que, dans la hâte d’instituer de nouveaux symboles canadiens pour répondre aux inquiétudes politiques intérieures et à la menace de l’américanisation, la disparition soudaine des symboles britanniques et le retrait des ondes d’icônes médiatiqus établies, dont l’annulation soudaine, en 1969, de la populaire émission de télévision de Don Messer, ont laissé un héritage conflictuel qui devait ultimement mener à la suppression de la culture canadienne traditionnelle au profit de la culture d’élite. L’élitisme apparent de la CBC a probablement amené des segments entiers du grand public canadien à se chercher des icônes culturelles et des options télévisuelles ailleurs, soit, plus souvent qu’autrement, auprès des réseaux de télévision américains.

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

A nation is an association of reasonable beings united in a peaceful sharing of the things they cherish; therefore, to determine the quality of a nation, you must consider what those things are.1 St. Augustine, The City of God

Canadian Broadcasting: “The Nationalist Project”2 In Canada, the obsession with national unity dates back to the establishment of the country (1867), and perhaps even earlier. In the nineteenth century, for example, completion of the coast-to-coast railway (by 1885) was perceived as vital to unifying the widely-dispersed Canadian population, thereby providing a sense of Canadian identity.3 By the 1920s and 30s, coast-to-coast network radio broadcasting was viewed as the newest tool for the propagation of national unity.4 It is significant then, that railway companies figured prominently in the first trans-Canada radio broadcast in 1927.5 Canadian broadcasting legislation has from its earliest days put the burden for the promotion of Canadian identity and culture firmly in the hands of broadcasters and most particularly the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the country’s public broadcaster.6 This “nationalist project” of preserving, fostering and promoting Canadian culture via its public broadcaster is deemed by some to be an unfair burden on the CBC and indeed an impossible dream doomed to failure.7 Since at least the time of the Aird Commission in 1928-29, there has been a prevailing question concerning broadcasting’s role in the fate of Canadian culture; will our culture be subsumed by the United States via our own networks? Fear of the dreaded event has caused us to seize upon the obvious culprit, to shoot the messenger, so to speak, as it is indeed the Canadian broadcasting system and its regulating body, the Canadian Radio Television Commission (CRTC), which enable the direct delivery of messages from our neighbour to Canadian homes and Canadian minds. It is most particularly the CBC as public broadcaster which has been cast in the role of either traitor or saviour, this presumably depending on an outcome yet to be determined. Comparisons between the CBC and the often praised British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)–the supposed model for the CBC–have engendered numerous discussions which reveal that despite apparent similarities, the structures, financing and contexts for these two broadcasters have little in common.8 The BBC, for example, has existed in relative isolation from any other external English-language broadcaster, has a single language mandate serving an English-speaking population several times the size of Canada’s, and unlike Canada, this population is contained within a relatively small geographic area. As a former world power with a long history, Britain exudes a cultural confidence not yet found among its former colonies. While the BBC, ITV9 and Sky networks

42 Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate have made certain concessions to minorities in their programming and personnel, British television has not faced serious external competition for its audience.10 It is countries which neighbour world powers, such as Canada and Ireland, that have had to contend with a barrage of available foreign channels in addition to the foreign programming already on their own networks, where even the advertising segments sell products with an imperial accent. External competition from American channels, and Canadians’taste and possible preference for them (Collins 1989, Raboy 1990, Feldthusen 1993, etc.) are factors which have continued to fuel “the nationalist project” over the last forty years, as regulatory bodies have consistently struggled to provideuswiththeillusionthattheCanadianpublicexertssomemeasureof control over its own broadcasting. I would argue that continual changes to Canadian content regulations and Canadian programming occur largely as a reaction against Americanization, rather than out of a concern for public service and cultural democracy. But as Ross Eaman points out in his study of CBC audience research, “The CBC has seldom been associated with the idea of cultural democracy … because cultural democracy is usually identified with the lowest common denominator, which is thought to be alien to the ideal of public service broadcasting” (1994, ix-x). Richard Collins argues that Canadian broadcasting policy may in fact be a process by which “the state institutionalises elite prerogatives under a rhetoric of Canadianisation” and that this “elite capture of Canadian broadcasting institutions” (1989, 48) may have strongly contributed to the high consumption level of American programs by Canadian audiences. During the 1950s and 60s, pre-cable era television network broadcasting took on an important role in producing and reinforcing Canadian culture and identity. The restriction of viewing options on television at that time–usually limited to one or two channels–also guaranteed the pre-eminence of particular programmes. The flood of American television programmes via cable by the late 1960s signalled a change in television broadcasting. Characteristics of American culture were highlighted, especially its futurist orientation with things new and modern highly value.11

Enter Don Messer Canadian fiddler Don Messer (1909-1973) exerted an enormous influence on Canadian culture in the twentieth century as a result of his massive exposure made possible by the development of radio and television broadcasting and commercial recordings. Key to Messer’s success was the creation of an audience across the country. His television show, Don Messer’s Jubilee, was so popular in the 1960s that there was a sense that almost everyone you would want to know was also watching Don Messer. This imagined space or geography created by the Messer broadcasts produced a sort of imaginary “communitas” or sense of community across

43 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes the country. From Nova Scotia farmhouses to middle- class Toronto living rooms, the ratings show that Canadian families all across the country were first listening to, and later watching, Don Messer.12 To believe that Messer’s wide exposure was the only reason for his tremendous popularity is to seriously underrate his appeal; separate from the music was Messer the man. He did not possess the star qualities that one would normally associate with a public figure; indeed, his shyness was almost crippling. Messer was concerned at all times with the public image of his band and, although he was a fair bandleader, he was also uncompromising in the strict discipline he enforced. Band members were neatly but not ostentatiously dressed and were not particularly good- looking. They looked, in fact, just like the people back home. Messer’s personal image as a good, clean, simple and ordinary family man was reflected in the programmes he put together. Singers Marg Osburne and Charlie Chamberlain, for example, sang hymn duets as a regular feature of the programme. Simple down-home goodness with plain music and clean humour was the package Messer offered–one which the Canadian public was only too eager to embrace with tuned-in radio and television sets. Messer’s own qualities as a quiet, unassuming, polite and even boring man matched the stereotypical qualities of the average Canadian as portrayed in even more recent times by popular television series such as Due South.13 AndwhileCanadiansmaychuckleatthecaricature,theyalsorecognizeand are strangely proud of the partial truth of it. Canadians do not give offence; they are tolerant and reasonable, peace-loving people. Or so the story goes. Messer then had exactly the right persona to be a smashing media success in Canada. He may not have fared so well in the United States. Another aspect of Messer’s success was based in the bridging of old-time and modern music, which he achieved in a number of ways (Rosenberg 1994). First of all, his very playing style incorporated classical (e.g. trained, hence modern) techniques into old-time music. Messer carefully balanced the musical content of each programme, regularly repeating older favourites and adding contemporary numbers (Rosenberg 2002). The instrumentation of his band, which in various periods included saxophones, brass, bass and drum kit, and the addition of vocalists enabled the performance of an expansive repertoire of music from old-time to jazz band material. The names of his various groups also bridged the past and the modern (Rosenberg 1994). During the early years, for example, Messer’s group assumed a variety of names; the larger group was known as the New Brunswick Lumberjacks and a smaller touring ensemble was called The Backwoods Breakdown, but they were also occasionally advertised as Don Messer’s Radio Orchestra or Don Messer’s Old Tyme Dance Band, among others. Messer’s various ensembles had names that were made up of three or four significant parts (Rosenberg 1994). The first part indicated the presence of the leader himself (e.g. “Don Messer and his …”); frequently part of the name alluded to an image (e.g. Lumberjacks, Backwoods or

44 Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate

Oldtyme) which linked it with the rural origins of the music and the sense of an idealized past; another part of the name frequently alluded to place (e.g. New Brunswick or Islanders); and lastly, the type of ensemble was sometimes specified (e.g. Orchestra or Band). “Orchestra” implied a more refined and traditional ensemble while “band” denoted a more modern sound. As a commercial figure with the right rural pedigree, Messer successfullymanagedtorepresenttraditionalold-timecultureandvaluesto a large segment of the Canadian public who saw him as one of their own, while continually introducing newer modes and sounds in his programmes. Messer often showcased gifted young performers14 on Jubilee and even the hemlines of the costumes of the Buchta Dancers rose to miniskirt level. “Messer thus continually claimed both sides of the line: old-time and modern” (Rosenberg 1994, 29). His professional demise–signified by the cancellation in 1969 of his popular CBC television programme–was, I believe, largely brought about by the new vision of Canada which emerged during the 1960s as projected by successive Liberal governments of the period; a vision generated not only in response to the threat of Americanization, but also due to new political challenges at home.

Canada’s new image: English-Canadian nationalism and the Quiet Revolution The first steps toward the creation of Canada’s new image were largely influenced by the initiatives of Lester B. Pearson (1897-1972) who, in his role as Deputy Minister (from 1946) and then Minister (from 1948-57) of the Canadian Department of External Affairs, promoted the country as a world leader and was instrumental in Canada joining NATO in 1949. His mostnotableachievementwasinproposingaUnitedNationspeacekeeping force during the 1956 Suez Crisis, a plan that won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957. The presentation of Canada as a world mediator and peacekeeper contributed to a developing sense of Canadian nationalism, particularly in English Canada (McRoberts 1997). The election in Quebec of the Jean Lesage government in 1960 marked the beginning of what became known as the Quiet Revolution (la Révolution tranquille). This new movement of liberal nationalism looked to the creation of a modern society where French-Canadians could take charge of their own economy and cultural affairs, and to this end, successive Quebec governments during the 1960s increasingly demanded rights to administer their own institutions.15 French Canada sought parity of esteem with English Canada, harkening back to Henri Bourassa’s concept of dualism,16 and perhaps ultimately back to the Quebec Act of 1774.17 During Pearson’s reign as Prime Minister (1963-1967), he sought to assuage the demands of Quebec nationalism and thus to moderate tensions which could otherwise strengthen the separatist agenda promoted by

45 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes several political groups. Accordingly, he undertook a series of initiatives in order to create and promote his vision of Canada. The selection of the Canadian flag, approved in 1965 after rancorous debate, was a response to developing Canadian nationalism, while it simultaneously discarded a symbol (the Union Jack) considered offensive by Quebec nationalists. Significantly, the new flag bore no trace of resemblance to the old one. The 1967 adoption of Quebec composer Calixa Lavallée’s song, O Canada as the new national anthem–a song already well-known throughout French Canada by the title Chant national18–put another important national unity symbol firmly in place. Pearson’s most important initiative, however, was the establishment of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in 1963.19 The concept of duality, of two equal founding peoples, was fundamental to the purpose of the Commission which published a series of reports,20 leading to the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969 (Canada 1969).21 In general, successive Trudeau governments steadily continued Pearson’s campaign of reducing the use and visibility of British symbols and replacing them with new Canadian ones where possible.22 The 1960s also witnessed the expansion of the ‘serious’ arts due to the provision of government funding through its newly established Canada Council (est. 1957).23 Arts centres were built24 and many dance companies, theatre groups and symphony orchestras were established across the country. If Canada was to take its rightful place on the world stage–and it had shown its potential to do just that in its leadership role in international politics during the Suez crisis–the old colonial image had to be discarded. Canada was in serious need of a makeover. To this end, the establishment of national symbols and centres of ‘serious’ culture, and the introduction of domestic policies of biculturalism and even multiculturalism were consistent with the new image of Canada envisioned by the Liberal governments of Pearson and Trudeau, perhaps even extending back to the Louis St. Laurent era.25 At the same time, the government of Quebec had firmly embarked on its project of modernity.

The Messer Affair In 1969, Don Messer’s Jubilee was suddenly cancelled. Precise reasons for the cancellation were never made clear. A telegram to Messer from Doug Nixon, Director of CBC entertainment programming, referred to the cancellation as a “necessary change” in order to “inject a fresh new element into the winter time sked and to provide a younger look and younger orientation” (Sellick 1969, 88). The public outcry over the cancellation was unprecedented in the history of Canadian broadcasting. Just one month after the cancellation was announced, the CBC had already received over 21,000 pieces of mail in the form of letters, petitions and protest coupons clipped from newspapers (Sellick 1969).

46 Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate

Two demonstrations took place on Parliament Hill, one in the form of a musical festival led by fiddler Graham Townsend along with a host of entertainers. Placard-waving crowds thronged the Hill,26 enthusiastically supporting the musicians and dancers. Various questions concerning the cancellation were raised in the House of Commons and the issue was discussed at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.27 These events were to no avail as the CBC maintained its decision to cancel the show. The network appeared completely unprepared for the extent of public outrage expressed, however, and only added to its credibility problem when, in a desperate attempt at self-defence, “the Corporation seemed perfectly willing to bend the truth publicly when it claimed ‘diminishing size and nature of the program’s audience’ as the reason for the show’s cancellation” (Pevere and Dymond 1996, 138). While the Messer show was almost immediately picked up by the competing CTVtelevision network, broadcasting the programme out of Hamilton, Ontario, the abrupt cancellation of Messer by the CBC after over thirty years on radio and television networks without adequate explanation was difficult for Messer and many others to accept. Some thirty years later, the issue of the cancellation remains unresolved.28 The idea that there was some kind of movement afoot in the CBC or the government of the time to rid the airwaves of Don Messer has some currency among traditional musicians and the general public.29 The enduring rift between ordinary Canadian viewers and CBC management exemplified by the Messer cancellation is, as Geoff Pevere (himself a CBC radio host) describes, … one of the more revealing contradictions in Canadian TV culture: the fact that while Canada’s viewing public has traditionally had a large rural, conservative and working-class base, most of Canada’s broadcasting executives have been well-heeled, urban hipster wannabees. They work in Toronto with their eyes on L.A. (Pevere and Dymond 1996, 136). Neil Rosenberg, professor of folklore at Memorial University of Newfoundland, has reported a discussion he had in 1974 with a Halifax CBC arts producer who described to him her intense dislike of the Messer programme: I assumed that she shared my belief that Messer was an important symbol of Maritimes folk culture … What she gave me was not an expression of idiosyncratic personal bias but an articulation of the conventional perspective of middle-class Halifax about the hinterland culture of the Maritimes which surrounds and is dominated by it (Rosenberg 1996, 154). The persistent cancellation of popular Maritime “fiddle and twang” programmes such as Don Messer’s Jubilee, 1959-69; Country Hoedown, 1956-65; Singalong Jubilee, 1961-74; Countrytime, 1970-74; The Tommy Hunter Show, 1965-92; and Rita McNeil & Friends, 1993-98, when all were

47 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes highly popular in the ratings, only to be replaced by another program of similar genre due to the persistent demand of the Canadian public, is symptomatic of a “long-running conflict of cultural values … in a certain corner of Canadian popular culture”(Pevere and Dymond 1996, 141); the public’s battle with the CBC continues. In October 1998, Ontario fiddler George Linsey launched a Canada- wide petition and letter campaign reminiscent of the Messer cancellation protest, requesting that the CBC broadcast a one-hour weekly radio programme of fiddle music. The petition led to the formation of a group calling themselves the “Friends of Canadian Old Tyme Fiddle Music” (FCOTFM), which made a verbal and musical presentation in Sudbury, Ontario at the March 1999 CRTC public hearings regarding the renewal of the CBC’s radio and television broadcast licences. In April 1999, representatives of the group met with senior radio producers at the office of the president of the CBC English-language radio network, where they delivered their petition of 11,000 signatures. A few months later, with no positive response received from the CBC, the group decided to direct a postcard/letter campaign along with their petition to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps, again requesting that the CBC broadcast ‘our heritage music’on its networks. In all, some 22,000 pieces of mail were delivered to the Heritage Ministry in addition to the petition. At the time of writing, the campaign is still ongoing with the group currently organizing a fundraising concert for the production of two half-hour television pilot programmes “along the lines of the hugely successful and popular Don Messer show” (Linsey 2000).30 Yet in the particular case of the Messer programme, the question still unanswered is: why was the show cancelled?31 Don Messer and his down-home programme represented a white, Anglophone, conservative, rural, working-class, British Isles-origin culture, which strongly resisted calls to bilingualism, biculturalism and multiculturalism. Messer himself was not in favour of bilingualism and although his programmes were popular among French-Canadians, his extensive Canadian Centennial tour of 1967 included few Quebec dates (Sellick 1969).32 Messer objected to the bilingual posters that Festival Canada had produced for the tour and had English-only posters produced which Festival Canada then refused to pay for (Reynolds 1995). Messer did not support multiculturalism and he was not particularly pleased with the new Canadian flag, preferring the old Union Jack.33 Nor was he unusual in his opinions; he represented, I believe, the consensus of the majority of English-Canadians of the time, and particularly of those who lived in rural areas.34 His views and the image of Canadian life which his programme projected and, arguably, helped to reinforce, were, however, in direct conflict with the new liberal nationalism emerging both in Quebec and the Canadian federal government and its agencies, including the CBC. In short, I believe that his popular programme, Don Messer’s Jubilee, did not project (or perform) the new

48 Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate image of Canada envisioned by the Canadian government and by extension, the CBC.35 Just as the new Canadian unity symbols were put firmly in place, Messer was taken off the airwaves. Viewed from this perspective, it begins to look as though Messer’s tremendous popularity may, in fact, have worked against him and led to the cancellation of his programme.

“Canadian Culture, Colonial Culture”36 The CBC’s lack of support for Messer had been evident throughout his TV years. As Messer’s former manager, Ken Reynolds, has explained, despite Messer’s incredible popularity, the CBC kept him on thirteen-week contracts and when the show was cancelled, Messer received no pension. Similarly, despite record attendance at the shows and the evident popularity of the Messer group, Festival Canada barely subsidized the Centennial tour, while funding 50 percent of the cost for the touring New York Philharmonic Orchestra.37 Seemingly, the Canadian government was more willing to support an American orchestra rather than Messer’s version of Canadian culture. The lack of support for traditional or popular culture and its art forms in Canada is a legacy of the liberal nationalism of the Pearson and Trudeau eras–a casualty of their various attempts at dealing with Canada’s post-colonial situation and the threat of Americanization. In 1992, a year that was to feature intense wrangling over Canadian unity leading to the defeat of the proposed Charlottetown Accord38 in a national referendum, Canadian country musician Charlie Angus, in an article in the Globe & Mail, lamented this legacy: It’sSaturdaynightinToronto.Thedancefloorispacked,thefiddle has just gone into the Saint Anne’s Reel and the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. From my vantage point on stage I look over the crowd of young and energetic faces, hoping for some sign of recognition … Sometimes there is a glint of recognition and sometimes not. And I find myself wondering what kind of a country would fail to recognize its own heritage? (Angus 1992). In December 1997, well-known Quebec writer Roch Carrier, upon his retirement as Director of the Canada Council, stunned the Canadian arts community by stating that the funded arts in Canada are elitist.39 Carrier’s statement was not welcomed by arts organizations but ironically, statements from some arts groups only appeared to support Carrier’s position by the tenor of language they used. In response to Carrier, for example, Keith Kelly, the director of the powerful arts lobbying organization the Canadian Conference of the Arts, was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying, “Certainly, there is a role for arts with broad popular appeal but I think the danger is we flirt with ‘dumbing down’ the arts to the lowest common denominator” (Gessell 1998b). While Carrier’s criticism was apparently unexpected in the cultural milieu, others have voiced these same concerns over the years. In 1981, for example,

49 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

University of Ottawa philosophy professor Leslie Armour in his book The Idea of Canada and the Crisis of Community, made the following observationregardingtheelitisminherentintheCanadianculturalscene: It is important not just to support the most talented creators but also to see to it that it is possible for people to express themselves to each other. We have spent much effort creating a class of professional creators of culture–a class which tends to be drawn from the other professional groups … But we have spent rather less effort in helping people from the more general public to establish their own identity (Armour 1981, 140).40 The criticism of Canada’s cultural policies has not only come from the popular arts sector. Over the years, internationally acclaimed Canadian composer R. Murray Schafer has regularly voiced his concern that Canada’s preoccupation with shedding its colonial image has had detrimental effects on the development of its own culture. He points a finger specifically at the CBC: The discouragement of Canadian music on Canadian radio has been intentional and systematic. The aspirations of Canadian composers and performers have been blocked by a colonial administration that is blind and gutless, and which, like all things colonial, will have a temporary evanescence before it is overturned, perchance violently (Schafer 1994, 230). Schafer blames the colonial regime’s “margin-centre view of culture” (Schafer 1994, 234) as the principle at the base of policy decisions which result in the allocation of federal funding to the largest arts organizations which, in turn, present almost exclusively imported foreign culture in their concert programmes and on the airwaves. And while Schafer cannot be seen as representative of traditional Canadian culture, it is interesting, if rather ironic, that his views from the perspective of a contemporary ‘high art’ composer find resonance among current fans and players of old-time music. In Canada the search for identity continues. The Pearson and Trudeau visions of Canada have not been entirely successful and there is a sense in the country that their continued existence is in question. Canada’s political insecurity is also cultural; it has resulted in the promotion of alien culture over local culture without seriously evaluating the merits of either. The promotion of “world class” imported culture over the past thirty years to the neglect of traditional Canadian culture has, in my view, contributed to the current malaise. After all, at the turn of the millennium, in a world beat environment where cultural heritages can be tried on and discarded at will, “if we need roots, we can take [them] from more exotic locales than Arnprior” (Angus 1992).41 In post-war Canada’s rapidly changing society, Messer bridged old-time and modernin in his performances, and thus successfully reflected and

50 Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate reproduced Canadian values as being firmly anchored in the past but also looking toward the future. This strategy eventually failed to be persuasive with the pundits at the CBC in 1969 who looked only to the new symbols (including a newly elected, youthful “playboy” prime minister) and placed their focus solely on the future. Messer’s modern was no longer modern enough. Thus the new Canada shed its old British symbols, opting for a modern, youthful, urban and, arguably, more Americanized image and delivered this to the people principally via the broadcasting system with its ‘nationalist project’ mandate. But if, as Bruce Feldthusen has so aptly pointed out, “Television is as influential through what it does not portray as through what it does” (1993, 46), then I believe that the Messer cancellation did little to help the cause of cultural sovereignty and Canadian unity. Rather, by so blatantly disregarding public opinion in what was a blow to cultural democracy, the CBC’s apparent elitism served only to alienate a significant segment of the Canadian public and probably drove it to look to other sources (likely American) for its cultural icons. Despite the continued lack of official recognition and support, and perhaps even because of it, traditional culture in Canada continues to thrive due to the meaning it holds for ordinary people. Nonetheless, this does not relieve the various levels of government in the country of their responsibility to preserve, protect and promote it (e.g. via the public broadcasting system). Academic institutions and educational funding agencies also bear a responsibility in this regard. It is to be hoped, therefore, that research in traditional culture will be encouraged and supported in the future, as it has not been in the past.42 I would argue that studying the culture in our own backyard is imperative, for it contributes not only to our understanding of our individual roots and our collective past but also to life lived today and ultimately of the way we envision the future.

Notes 1. Epigraph printed in the report of the Massey-Lévèsque Commission (Canada. Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences 1951, xxiii). 2. So named by Collins (1989). 3. The construction of the coast to coast railway has become almost legendary in the Canadian consciousness, at least in part due to the popular CBC television series, The national dream: building the impossible railway (1974), which was based on Pierre Berton’s popular histories (1970, 1971). 4. In its section on radio broadcasting, the report of the Massey-Lévèsque Commission refers to the railway as key to Canadian unity stating that it has “been generally accepted that Canada’s complex and costly railway system is the essential material basis of national existence” and referring to the report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting [Aird Commission] (edited by John Aird, Ottawa: F.A. Acland, Printer to the King, 1929), it states “… the [Aird] Commission saw in radio a great potential instrument of general education and of national unity” (Massey-Lévèsque Commission, 24). The more recent Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future, Report to the people and Government of Canada

51 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

[Spicer Commission], reported that rail and radio are still perceived by Canadians as fundamental symbols of Canadian identity. “The funding cutbacks in recent years to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and VIA Rail [CN] were raised over and over by many participants as heavily symbolic of the lack of sensitivity to national symbols” (Canada 1991, Part II. 3). See also Martin Stokes (1994), for a discussion of the control of media systems by states as a tool of social control. 5. A transcontinental radio broadcast celebrating Canada’s sixtieth birthday on 1 July 1927. See Robert Cupido’s article in this issue. 6. Broadcasting Act, 1991 (S.C. 1991, c.11), Section 3 (b) states, for example, that the Canadian broadcasting system “provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty …” 7. Boardman and Vining (1984), Collins (1989, 1990), are among those who challenge the validity of “the nationalist project.” Feldthusen (1993) deftly explores the rationale of “the nationalist project” while proposing concrete alternatives. Goldfarb (1997) has shown the extent to which external factors limit Canada’s control in this area, regardless of legislation. 8. An interesting series of articles on the subject has appeared in the pages of Canadian Public Policy. See Hoskins and McFadyen 1982, 1984; and Boardman and Vining 1984. 9. Independent Television Network. 10. While satellite television will ultimately change the landscape of competition for viewing audiences, it is still via cable systems that the overwhelming majority of the Canadian and British public currently receive their television programming. 11. Canadian viewers have complained over the years that Quebec and Canadian television programmes have portrayed reality too closely and come across as old-fashioned and negative. In comparison American television portrays wealth, dreams and hopes for the future (Collins, 1989, 52). 12. During its ten-year tenure on the CBC television network (1959-1969), Don Messer’s Jubilee frequently led the network ratings; for three of its seasons even outranking the enormously popular Hockey Night in Canada. At worst, Jubilee came in at number eleven in the network ranking (Pevere and Dymond 1996). 13. Due South, a popular television series (1993-1998) created and produced by Paul Haggis and starring Paul Gross as Mountie Constable Benton Fraser. Fraser is sent as a special envoy to work out of the Canadian Consulate in Chicago. He is incredibly polite, courteous, chivalrous and even naïve, but armed with fantastic skills which come from his almost mystical knowledge of the natural environment. With the help of his dependable husky dog, Diefenbaker, he is able without the use of guns to always ‘get his man.’ Paul Gross, the series star, in an interview on the BBC webpage for the show, describes typical Canadian characteristics as “polite, honest, deferential, patient, etc.” The series (one pilot plus sixty-six episodes in total) won numerous awards over the years, broadcasting in 160 countries worldwide. At time of writing it is still being shown on the BBC. There is an official website, fan club for Gross and series merchandise (www.duesouth.com/) and, no doubt due to the show’s tremendous popularity in the United Kingdom, BBC2 has its own Due South webpage (www.bbc.co.uk/cult/duesouth/). 14. By way of examples, fiddler Graham Townsend and step-dancer Donnie Poirier. 15. For example, nationalization of the hydro-electric system, administration of its own pension scheme, etc.

52 Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate

16. Henri Bourassa (1868-1952), leading Quebec intellectual and politician, founder and first editor of Le Devoir, was the grandson of Louis-Joseph Papineau (1786-1871), leader of the 1837 Rebellion in Lower Canada (Quebec). Through his newspaper editorials, Bourassa fervently advocated a vision of Canada which portrayed English and French Canadians in equal partnership, remaining distinct, but cooperating in a fruitful alliance (McRoberts 1997). 17. After the British conquest of New France in 1763, the Quebec Act, adopted in 1774 taking effect in 1775, formally guaranteed in law the rights of French Canadians to keep their religion, language, seigniorial system of land tenancy, tradition of French civil law and entitled them to hold public office. 18. First performed in 1880. 19. Co-chaired by leading Quebec intellectual and editor of Le Devoir, André Laurendeau, and the president of Carleton University, A. Davidson Dunton. 20. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, [Reports] (Canada, 1965-70). The last of the Commission’s reports (Book IV), entitled The Cultural Contribution of Other Ethnic Groups (1970), was brought about by the dissatisfaction of non-Anglophone, non-Francophone Canadians with the concept of Canadian duality in which they saw no place for themselves. Pierre Elliott Trudeau (1919-2000), who had taken over from Pearson as Canadian Prime Minister in 1968, responded to this last report by adopting a policy on multiculturalism in 1971. 21. Official Languages Act. 1st session, 28th Parliament, C-120, 1969. 22. Shortly after taking office, for example, Trudeau discarded official use of the designation “Dominion of Canada”; the term heard daily on the CBC radio and television networks until that time, disappeared from the airwaves almost overnight (McRoberts 1997). 23. The Canada Council was established on the recommendation of the Massey- Lévèsque Commission, 1951. 24. For example: Place des Arts in Montreal, 1963, The National Arts Centre, Ottawa, 1967, etc. 25. Another Liberal Prime Minister, Louis St. Laurent (1882-1973) whose term in office spanned 1948-1957. Lester Pearson served in St. Laurent’s cabinet as Minister of External Affairs. St. Laurent’s government instigated important cultural initiatives such as the Massey-Lévèsque Commission, 1949-1951. 26. The placards featured slogans such as “Canada needs Don Messer, not the CBC,” and “Save Don Messer.” 27. A transcript of this meeting is reprinted in Sellick (1969). 28. That nostalgia for Messer remains strong is evident by the newspaper articles which still appear from time to time; witness the headline: “The night the music died: rural Canada has never forgiven CBC for killing Don Messer’s Jubilee” (McDonald 2001). Commemorative musical shows continue to flourish; witness the recent four-year tour of the musical Memories of a Don Messer Jubilee Christmas; and the summer 2000 production of Don Messer’s Violin at the Jubilee Theatre in Summerside, PEI. Well-known playwright John Gray also produced the musical show Don Messer’s Jubilee back in 1985. In a recent documentary about Don Messer in CBC’s Life & Times television series, the issue of the cancellation is glossed over, including only the briefest footage of the protest showing Canadian fiddler Graham Townsend speaking with the media on Parliament Hill. Townsend is not even identified in the footage (Gregg 2001). 29. The CBC, the CRTC and its predecessor the Board of Broadcast Governors (BBG), have all had to carry the heavy burden of defender of our national identity

53 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

and culture in the context of political pressures and partisan politics. And while it is sometimes difficult to document an absolute connection between a programming decision and political influence, as in this case, Frank Peers (1979), Andrew Stewart and William Hull (1994), and David Taras (1997, 1999) have all documented several instances of political interference in CBC programming decisions over the past forty years, including an infamous case having to do with the cancellation in 1966 of the CBC news programme This Hour Has Seven Days. The protest mounted to support Seven Days was driven primarily by professionals (CBC journalists, employees and the Association of Television Producers), and their campaign generated a mailing of some 3800 telegrams; significant, but much less than what the public’s campaign for Don Messer a few years later amassed in just one month. 30. Information on the campaign is available on the website (www.fiddle.on.ca/ federalfiddle.htm). The campaign met with some success recently when a two-hour fiddle special including highlights of the Shelburne Fiddle Contest along with fiddler interviews, was broadcast on CBC Radio One on August 31, 2001. No regular programme of fiddle or “old time” music has yet been promised by the CBC. 31. During extensive fieldwork interviewing carried out between 1994 and 1997 throughout the Ottawa Valley region, almost everyone I came in contact with spoke about the sudden cancellation of Jubilee as if it had happened last month and not thirty years ago. This paper grew out of my informants’ sense of injustice about the cancellation and indeed my own curiosity to understand the reasons behind the decision. 32. Messer himself had apparently contacted the Centennial Commissioner, John Fisher, with the proposal for a Centennial tour. He made a point of including a number of French songs and tunes in his Quebec shows. 33. “The Canadian flag? Well, personally I prefer the Union Jack. I’m not too happy with the design of the present flag” (Messer quoted in Sellick 1969, 137). 34. Arguably, many Canadians still view government multiculturalism policies and programmes in a negative light. The Spicer Commission reports, “While Canadians accept and value Canada’s cultural diversity, they do not value many of the activities of the multicultural program of the federal government. These are seen as expensive and divisive in that they remind Canadians of their different origins rather than their shared symbols, society and future.” (Canada. Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future 1991, Part III.5). Neil Bissoondath (1994), has also criticised the Federal Government’s multiculturalism policies as being tokenistic in nature. 35. As Martin Stokes has pointed out, “Just as musical performance enacts and embodies dominant communal values, it can also enact in a powerful, affective way, rival principles of social organisation. Control of media systems provides the state with the means by which this might be countered” (1994, 13). 36. Title borrowed from Schafer (1994). 37. NYO’s daily cost was $12,000 (Reynolds 1995). 38. The Draft Legal Text, 9 October 1992 [Charlottetown Accord], was a package of constitutional reform attempting to achieve Canadian unity by persuading the government of Quebec to sign the Canadian Constitution (Quebec Premier René Lévèsque had refused, on behalf of the province of Quebec, to sign the 1982 Constitution Act). The Accord also responded to demands from English Canada for reform of the Senate and contained significant changes to the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. It was soundly

54 Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate

defeated in a national referendum held on October 26, 1992 (McRoberts 1997; with Patrick Monahan 1993). 39. “… many Canadians do not benefit from government investment in the arts or from the national talent pool … To date, subsidized art has been mainly elitist. It is time to establish programmes aimed at popular audiences … Subsidized art needs to be less elitist, and the way to do it is to go where it has not yet reached, to places where the practice of art could be socially beneficial” (Carrier 1997,1). Carrier’s statement is backed up by recent statistics. The Culture Statistics Program of Statistics Canada has recently reported, for example, that between 1992 and 1998, classical music, opera and theatre events in Canada have all experienced a significant drop in attendance. By 1998, only 9 percent of the population had attended a classical music concert in the past year, 19 percent a theatre performance, and only 3 percent had been to the opera. Family income spent on attending both commercial and not-for-profit arts events decreased by 13 percent between 1986 and 1996. Figures also show that an average night out at a performing arts event increased in cost by 56 percent during the same decade. The authors suggest that the more well-to-do baby boomers are likely those that have continued to be able to afford to attend performance events (Cromie and Handelman 1999). 40. Armour’s sentiments in fact echo the recommendations of the 1979 Pepin-Robarts Commission report on Canadian unity. Recommendation 11.1 specifically states: “The provinces should take the primary role in supporting local and regional cultural and artistic development, particularly by encouraging the participation of the people generally in cultural activities, and by the establishment where they do not exist of provincial arts councils to assist in this process” (Canada. Task Force on Canadian Unity 1979). 41. Arnprior, Ottawa Valley town, 56km west of the city of Ottawa, population 7113 (1996 Census). 42. The establishment in 2002 of a Canada Research Chair in Traditional Music and Culture of Newfoundland and Labrador at Memorial University, a post recently filled by Dr. Beverley Diamond, is a significant step.

References Alliance Atlantis Communications. 2000. Due South: The Official Website [website]. Due South/Alliance Atlantis Communications Corp. 1999 [cited 17-4-2002]. Available from www.duesouth.com/. Angus, Charlie. 1992. “No one’s fiddling as Canada burns.” The Globe & Mail, March 18, A16. Armour, Leslie. 1981. The Idea of Canada and the Crisis of Community. Ottawa: Steel Rail Publishers. BBC. 2000. Due South [website]. BBC Online Cult TV [cited 17-4-2002]. Available from www.bbc.co.uk/cult/duesouth/. Berton, Pierre. 1970. The National Dream: The Great Railway, 1871-1881. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. ______. 1971. The Last Spike: The Great Railway, 1881-1885. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Bissoondath, Neil. 1994. Selling Illusions: The Cult Of Multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin Books. Boardman, Anthony E., and Aidan R. Vining. 1984. “Canadian and British TV Markets: Why the CBC Should Not Be Like the BBC.” Canadian Public Policy 10 (3):347-352. Canada. 1929. Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting (Aird Report). Edited by J. Aird. Ottawa: F.A. Acland, Printer to the King.

55 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Canada. 1969. Official Languages Act. 1st session, 28th Parliament, C-120. Canada. 1992. Draft legal text, 9 October 1992 [Charlottetown Accord]. Canada. Canadian Radio Television Commission (CRTC). 1991. Broadcasting Act (S.C. 1991, c.11, as amended). Available from www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/LEGAL/ BROAD.htm. Canada. Canadian Radio Television Commission (CRTC). 2000. Radio Regulations, 1986. [website]. 7-1-2002 [cited 17-4-2002]. Available from: www.crtc.gc.ca/ ENG/LEGAL/Radioreg.htm. Canada. Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future. 1991. Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future: Report to the People and Government of Canada [Spicer Commission]. Edited by K. Spicer. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada. Canada. House of Commons. 1952-. Hansard: House of Commons Debates: Official Report. Ottawa: E. Cloutier, Queen’s Printer and Controller of Stationary. Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. 1965-70. [Reports]. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer. Canada. Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences. 1951. Report, 1949-1951. Edited by V. Massey. Ottawa: Edmond Cloutier, King’s Printer. Canada. Task Force on Canadian Unity. 1979. A Future Together: Observations and Recommendations. Edited by J.-L. Pepin and J. P. Robarts. Hull, Qc: Supply and Services Canada. Carrier, Roch. 1997. “The arts in Canada: imagining our future.” Opinion Canada: A Newsletter Published by the Council for Canadian Unity 5 (7 Dec):1-7. Collins, Richard. 1989. “Broadcasting and National Culture in Canada.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 4 (1):35-57. ______. 1990. Culture, Communication and National Identity: The Case of Canadian Television. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Cromie, Mary and Rochelle Handelman. 1999. “Consumption and Participation in the Culture Sector.” Focus on Culture: Quarterly Bulletin from the Culture Statistics Program [Statistics Canada] 11 (3):1-5. Eaman, Ross A. 1994. Channels of Influence: CBC Audience Research and the Canadian Public. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gessell, Paul. 1998a. “Subsidize more ‘popular’ art, Carrier urges.” Ottawa Citizen, January 5, B8, B9. Gessell, Paul. 1998b. “Arts funding not elitist, group says.” Ottawa Citizen, January 6. Gregg, Andrew (producer). 2001. Sit Down, Shut Up, Don Messer’s on, Life &Timesseries. Toronto: 90th Parallel Film and Television Productions, in association with the CBC. Hoskins, Colin G. and Stuart McFadyen. 1982. “Market Structure and Television Programming Performance in Canada and the U.K.: A Comparative Study.” Canadian Public Policy 8 (3):347-357. ______. 1984. “The Role of the CBC in the Canadian Broadcasting System: Revisited.” Canadian Public Policy 10 (3):352-358. Linsey, George. 2000. “Letter to the Author Concerning the Friends of Canadian Old Tyme Fiddle Music Campaign,” 24 January. McDonald, Rod. 2001. “The Night the Music Died: Rural Canada has Never Forgiven CBC for Killing Don Messer’s Jubilee.” The Gazette [Montreal], 15 February. McRoberts, Kenneth. 1997. Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity. Oxford; Toronto: Oxford University Press. McRoberts, Kenneth and Patrick Monahan, eds. 1993. The Charlottetown Accord, the Referendum and the Future of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. The National Dream: Building the Impossible Railway [television series]. 1974. Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Peers, Frank W. 1979. The Public Eye: Television and the Politics of Canadian Broadcasting, 1952-1968. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pevere, Geoff and Greg Dymond. 1996. “Another Fine Messer: The Down-Home Tradition That Will Not Die.” In Mondo Canuck: A Canadian Pop Culture Odyssey. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall Canada.

56 Conflicting Visions: Don Messer, Liberal Nationalism and the Canadian Unity Debate

Raboy, Marc. 1990. Missed Opportunities: The Story of Canada’s Broadcasting Policy. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Reynolds, Ken. 1995. Interview by author, tape recording, Ottawa, Ontario, November. Rosenberg, Neil V. 1994. “Don Messer’s Modern Canadian Fiddle Canon.” Canadian Folk Music Journal 22:23-35. ______. 1996. “Strategy and Tactics in Fieldwork: The Whole Don Messer Show.” In The World Observed: Reflections on the Fieldwork Process, edited by B. Jackson and E. D. Ives. Urbana; Chicago: University of Illinois Press. ______. 2002. “Repetition, Innovation, and Representation in Don Messer’s Media Repertoire.” Journal of American Folklore 115 (456):191-208. Schafer, R. Murray. 1994. “Canadian Culture: Colonial Culture.” In Canadian Music: Issues of Hegemony and Identity, edited by R. Witmer and B. Diamond. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Sellick, Lester B. 1969. Canada’s Don Messer. Kentville, N.S.: Kentville Publishing company Stewart, Andrew and William H.N. Hull. 1994. Canadian Television Policy and the Board of Broadcast Governors, 1958-1968. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. Stokes, Martin. 1994. “Introduction: Ethnicity, Identity and Music.” In Ethnicity, Identity and Music: The Musical Construction of Place, edited by M. Stokes. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Taras, David. 1997. “The CBC and Canadian Television in the New Media Age.” In A Passion for Identity: An Introduction to Canadian Studies, edited by D. Taras and B. Rasporich. Scarborough, Ont.: International Thomson Publishing. ______. 1999. “Chilled to the Bone: The Crisis of Public Broadcasting.” In Power and Betrayal in the Canadian Media. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.

57

Ryan Edwardson

Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History

Abstract Released in 1946, Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation is one of the most popular Canadian history texts ever produced. It informed and educated a generation of English Canadians with its exciting story of heroes and victims, triumphs and tragedies, and a colony that developed into a nation. It was more than an historical text however; it was Lower’s attempt to unite English and French Canadians in a shared, historically-rooted identity. Emplotting a selective nationalist narrative, Colony to Nation was a combination of history, storytelling and manifesto. As a relic of Canadian nation-building, it serves as an example of how history can be used to tell the past while attempting to shape the future.

Résumé Publié en 1946, l’ouvrage d’Arthur R.M. Lower « Colony to Nation », était appelé à devenir l’un des livres d’histoire canadiens les plus lus qui aient jamais paru. Il a informé et formé une génération de Canadiens anglais grâce à ses récits exaltants qui mettaient en scène héros et victimes, triomphes et tragédies, et contait l’histoire d’une colonie qui était devenue un pays. Par ailleurs, l’ouvrage était plus qu’un simple livre d’histoire : Lower tentait, en effet, de réunir les Canadiens anglais et les Canadiens français dans une identité partagée et enracinée dans l’histoire. En employant un discours narratif nationaliste et sélectif, Colony to Nation combinait des éléments empruntés à l’historiographie, au conte et au manifeste. Une relique du développement du Canada, ce livre demeure un exemple de la façon dont l’histoire peut servir à raconter le passé tout en tentant de façonner l’avenir.

“Canadians have little choice; they must either be nationalistic or stand by to wind up the Canadian experiment.”—Arthur R.M. Lower (1967, 139-140)

National historical narratives inform, teach, and provide a sense of place, identity, and belonging. They mythologize and construct but, in their selectivity, they also exclude. Colony to Nation, Arthur R.M. Lower’s 1946 history of Canada, is one of the most popular Canadian historical narratives produced. Exciting and dramatic, it uses literary tropes and techniques to

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes create a story of figures and events, heroism and adventure, struggle and growth. Canada, Lower argued, was the product of an English- and French-Canadian “antithesis,” a division between the two “races,” the “two peoples, [with] two languages, and two predominant religions” (1950, 75; 1946, 66). This division was reinforced by English-Canadian colonialism and the Canadian government’s failure to develop a strong national identity. Lower was determined to unite Canadians through an inclusive national narrative, which moved beyond ethnic and religious loyalties. Containing material that best facilitates national unity and using literary techniques to engage the reader in its conception of Canada, Colony to Nation is a powerful example of how a nationalist narrative history not only constructs a story but can also aim to influence the national direction. This article explores Lower’s nationalism, Colony to Nation as a text, and how, while popular, it existed as an exclusive nation-building narrative, which was not so much the history of the Canadian people as it was the history of Canadian hegemony. Highly acclaimed by both academia and the general public, Colony to Nation affirmed Lower’s place as one of Canada’s pre-eminent historians. In his 1947 Canadian Forum article “A Canadian Philosopher-Historian,” Frank Underhill argued, “one cannot too strongly emphasize that [Colony to Nation] is the most mature and philosophical history of Canada that has yet been written” (83).Time magazine and theCalgary Heraldboth called it “the best Canadian history yet,” a sentiment expressed by numerous popular publications, from the Journal of Economic History to the Globe and Mail (Lower, Box 26, File B691). Colony to Nation won the 1946 Governor-General’s Literary Award for non-fiction, the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire award, and the Royal Society of Canada’s Tyrell Medal (CBC, 1946). Anumber of English-Canadian post-secondary institutions added the text to their curriculum, including Queen’s University, Carleton College, University of Saskatchewan, Acadia University, and Sir George Williams College in Montreal, to name but a few (Lower, Box 26, File B691). Yet Colony to Nation was also tremendously popular outside of academia—the Arthur R.M. Lower archive collection contains numerous letters from citizens across Canada thanking him for writing the book, and the publisher, Longmans Canada, had difficulty keeping up with requests for it (Lower, Box 26, File B691, B692). The book was in such great demand that it was printed five times in three editions within the first ten years of publication (Berger, 202). Historians have more recently reflected on its “resounding success,” and how it “marked [Lower] as a major intellectual force” (Berger, 202; Heick, 19). Appearing at the end of the Second World War, Colony to Nation was a timely release that appealed to an English-Canadian readership emerging from several years of patriotic wartime propaganda and internal ethnic division. The book engaged and reflected upon issues of national identity and gave voice to the concerns and questions of many Canadians. While it

60 Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History did not establish any new forms of historical enquiry or research, and often relied more on passion than on facts–historian and former Lower student Margaret Prang called it the “most opinionated and provocative general history of Canada” (15)–this was part of its appeal. Underhill argued that it was a “noteworthy advance in Canadian history-writing” because it restored to life … the actual human beings who constitute the people of Canada. [Lower] makes their aspirations and strivings, theirlovesandhates,significanttous.…[ColonytoNation]seems to me on nearly every page to say just the things that adult Canadians who seek true insight into the development of the national life should want to have said to them (83). Howard Vernon, a historian at the New York State College for Teachers, expressed the prevailing view of the time when he noted that Lower was “in danger of causing Canadian history to become interesting and alive” (Lower, Box 1, File A29). Colony to Nation was but one of several general Canadian narrative histories published during the mid-1940s, including D.G. Creighton’s Dominion of the North (1944) and Edgar McInnis’ Canada: APolitical and Social History (1947). Yet Colony to Nation stands out because of its humanized and entertaining qualities–many Canadians wrote to Lower in praise of the book’s passionate and nationalist approach (Lower, Box 26, File B691). As Carl Berger noted in The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English-Canadian Historical Writing Since 1900, “some of Lower’s contemporaries tried to mask this personal element with detached irony, an involuted and desiccated prose, or the jargon of scientific objectivity. But with Lower a personal approach to history writing was undertaken without inhibitions, indeed with enthusiasm” (113). Lower readily admitted that he was more concerned with writing a national narrative than he was with historical research. He told one reader that Colony to Nation was not about detailing events or “documented reporting” as much as it was about profiling “the growth of a community” (Box 1, File A28). This approach, however, left the text open to criticism. C.P. Stacey’s 1947 review for the Canadian Historical Review called Colony to Nation “hardly so much a history of Canada as it is a series of reflections upon the history of Canada; the element of commentary is more prominent than that of chronicle, and the author, though always ready to instruct, is less anxious to inform” (194). Stacey found it to be “opinionated,” “a pretty monumental piece of carelessness,” and overly negative about the British connection that Stacey saw as important to Canadian identity (195, 196). He did concede, however, that Lower was tremendously aware of the nation’s problems and was sincere in helping Canadians overcome them. “The book’s great value is its ability to stimulate,” Stacey remarked. “It has made, and will make, many readers think” (196).

61 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Lower’s Nationalism and Sense of Place Born on August 12, 1889, in Barrie, Ontario to English immigrant parents, Lower graduated with his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Toronto in 1914, served in the English Royal Navy during the First World War, and worked as a civil servant in Ottawa. His nationalism was sparked while serving in the navy, a reaction to what he called the “complete indifferen[ce]” England had for Canada (1967, 139). Receiving his doctorate from Harvard in 1929, he accepted a position at United College in Winnipeg and focused on economic history. It was “a reasonably safe field,” Lower recalled, “for few people were going to attack one for discussing the square-timber exports from the port of Quebec in the 1850s” (1967, 180). In less than a decade he produced Select Documents in Canadian Economic History (1929) with Harold Innis, Settlement and the Forest Frontier in Eastern Canada (1936), and The North American Assault on the Canadian Forest (1938). As well, among his articles were “Three Centuries of Empire Trade” (1932) and “Lumbering” (1936). While these works detailed economic elements of the lumber trade, they also reflected an interest in the wilderness as a force of national identity and social democracy. Lower was an avid outdoors enthusiast who felt a tremendous affinity with the land and its impact on the Canadian identity (Berger, 115-121). The divisive impact of the Second World War on Canadian society, especially the English-Canadian pressure for forced French-Canadian enlistment, fostered Lower’s desire to forge a united identity among the country’s citizens. Conscription, a reality in the First World War and a looming threat throughout the Second, ostracized and isolated French Canadians. Forced enlistment infuriated Lower not only because of its damage to Canadian unity, but because it was “the most drastic invasion of civil liberties imaginable” (1967, 261). Acivil rights activist who was made president of the Winnipeg Civil Liberties Association in 1940, Lower described himself as someone “who believes passionately in freedom and justice, and sees the best guarantees of freedom and justice in the unsullied maintenance of the institutional” (Box 26, File B693). The state was to protect the rights of the individual and ensure Canadian unity, but instead allowed colonial sentimentality to further divide Canadians. It is not surprising that Lower turned to history as a way of uniting Canadians in this divided climate. Predating the publication of Colony to Nation by three years, his 1943 Canadian Historical Association presidential address entitled “Two Ways of Life: The Primary Antithesis of Canadian History” was a passionate expression of his desire for a united Canadian identity: “We have not lived together for nearly two centuries merely to see the Canadian experiment fail,” Lower argued (1943c, 60). Characterizing the division as one of English-Canadian materialism and French-Canadian spirituality, he had faith that the two groups could learn

62 Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History from each other and come to accept their shared identity. Differences would remain, but, as in the familial analogies Lower often made, the differing personalities and conflicts between two siblings did not make them any less a family. Canadians needed to focus on what they shared, not on what made them different. As Lower put it in “Two Nations or Two Nationalities,” “[i]t seems to me that the mould of history has shaped what may be called a Canadian people, a people of two wings to be sure, French and English, but nevertheless a people” (1943b, 204). It was an “integrative” nationalism, an attempt to weld two parts together by focusing on the elements that they shared (Smith, 1986, 25). Lower understood Canada, a civic and ethnic national hybrid, evolved from and exclusive to the two founding ethnic groups. While Canada was largely a civic state, it was still tied to the type of lingering ethnic hegemony that sociologist and national identity theorist Anthony D. Smith has called “ethnic moorings” (Smith, 2000, 19). Lower’s English and French dualistic approach was not out of place in a pre-officially multicultural Canada which accepted non-traditional immigrants only as necessary, and which actively sought to assimilate them into the mainstream; their heritage and ethnicity were not to be celebrated but overcome. The language-based “English” and “French” descriptions were not inclusive to all who spoke the languages, of course, but were merely the common way of identifying the dominant Anglo-Celtic and Franco-Canadian populations. Those of other ethnicities—or, in the discourse of the time, “races”—who may have spoken English and/or French were nevertheless largely excluded from these racially-constructed but linguistically-defined groups. Lower’s nationalism was an elitist “top-down” indoctrination of the populace, which reinforced the institutionalized identity and dominant hegemony. He felt it was the duty of the nation’s leaders to teach and integrate Canadians into the national culture—indeed, to teach Canadians what it meant to be “Canadian.” This task was especially important for historians, as “by its history a people lives” (1946, xiii). While, as Smith notes in Modernism and Nationalism, such nationalism “from above” is ineffective if not “complemented by a popular perspective ‘from below’,”(1998a, 95) popular history was a way of engaging and shaping the public imagination towards such nationalist goals. For Lower, nationalism was a functional force which could be used for social good, helping the populace find a sense of place in a confusing, divisive world. Such a nationalist weltanschauung usually involves a series of beliefs which, as a general ideology, holds that the world is divided into nations, each of which has its own character and destiny; that an individual’s first loyalty is to his or her nation; that the nation is the source of all political power; that to be free and fulfilled, the individual must belong to a nation; that each nation must express its authentic nature by being autonomous; and that a world of peace can be built upon a world of nations (Smith, 1995, 55).

63 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Consequently, nationalism often exists as a “taken-for-granted frame of reference,” one that can take the place of religious faith in filling the emotional and communal gap left in the wake of modernity and industrialization (Anderson, 12; Hobsbawm, 46). While Lower disliked “metropolitanism” and the excessive impacts of modernity, (Berger, 120-123) his nationalism did not take the place of religion as much as it operated as one. Berger has noted how Lower “spoke of nationalism in the language of religion, and it is clear he expected that a nationalist faith could be embedded in the consciousness of Canadians as deeply as the old Methodism” (Berger, 135-136). Lower’s skills as a historian merged well with his nationalism. “History for Lower,” as Berger has argued, “became a search for a nationalist creed that would at once satisfy his own deep-seated need to belong to a homogeneous community, a ‘motherland’, and be an instrument that would aid that community in its ongoing process of self-determination” (Berger, 112). It is common for nationalist narratives to emerge from such explorations, as the material provides a sense of “national self” and reassures the collective by laying out a distinctive “tableau of the past” (Smith, 1986, 148, 191, 180). Indeed, as Smith has argued, “nationalism’s peculiar myth of the nation may be see [sic] as a particularly potent and appealing dramatic narrative, which links past, present and future through the character and role of the national community” (Smith, 1998b, 2). Colony to Nation was Lower’s attempt to correct the lack of nation-building historical narratives. Canadian history had been “stodgy,” Lower recalled in 1967, because “those who wrote it had not been completely and unreservedly Canadians” (1967, 265). In Colony to Nation’s introduction, Lower complained that Canadian historical writing, much like the nation itself, had been hindered by division. English- and French-Canadian histories “hardly seem to refer to the same country,” while economic, constitutional, political, and biographical histories, although “useful,” were not “fused into life” (1946, xi). Canadians required a national narrative, which was inclusive and expressed the “colour” of Canadian history. “If people find Canadian history dull,” Lower explained, “it must either be because they are dull themselves or because the Canadian historic scene has not yet been painted in its own bold colours. How could a history full of grandiose projects, startling contrasts, stark antitheses, be dull?”(1946, xii) The Second World War reinforced the need for a unified history, one exciting and passionate enough to grab the readers’ attention and to encourage their nationalism. Lower recalled that Colony to Nation came easily to him, as “under the emotional surge of war, it represented the pitch of my concern for my country, calling out such imaginative and literary powers as I possessed” (1967, 265).

64 Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History

A National History: Creating the Narrative Colony to Nation was a carefully constructed narrative that provided a specific and calculated account of Canadian history. Lower selected certain events and characters and set, or “emplotted,” them into a story with a fluid beginning, middle, and end—an effective way of creating a powerful narrative (see White, 1973). Such selectivity, however, required emphasizingcertainmaterialandinterpretationswhileignoringothers.The past is so “full,” Smith explains, that “nationalists must prune it for their purposes and use a very selective memory for the tale they wish to impart”(1986, 177). The information is then portrayed in specific ways to impart a sense of national solidarity and shared history, what theorist of national identity Benedict Anderson called “reshaping the imagination” and constructing a “reassurance of fratricide,” as in remembering the American civil war as a war “between brothers” rather than “two sovereign nation-states” (199-203). For Lower, the English and French Canadians were the brothers needing to be reminded of their fraternal link, the Conquest the moment of their coming together, and the history which followed their lives together. While Colony to Nation was constructed as a national history, it was inherently limited by its focus on an English-Canadian readership. Yet this was part of the teaching process, as English Canadians had to better understand French Canadians and how the Conquest had been “a type of slavery” (63). Characterizations were an effective way of constructing the players in the saga. The book described English Canadians as aggressive bullies who misunderstood the simple, passionate, spiritual, and sensitive French Canadians. “It is as a very womanly woman that such a feminine people as the French should be treated,” the readers were told. “Such a one could be wooed, but all the English Canadian can do is to shout” (213, 268, 467). These stereotypes and gendering were an attempt to evoke sympathy for French Canadians, as one might for the wife of an aggressive husband. While questionable today, this approach received high praise in Underhill’s 1947 review of the text: “Perhaps it is relevant to inquire at this point how long it will be before a French-Canadian historian appears who shows anything like the same sympathetic understanding of English Canada which Professor Lower shows of Quebec” (84). Ged Martin is quite accurate in noting that “by the standards of 1946,” Colony to Nation is “a sympathetic attempt by an English Canadian to bridge the country’s great internal divide, but it reflects stereotypes of culture and gender which would now be widely regarded as too embarrassing to even discuss” (3). Narratives–historical and otherwise–use literary tropes and techniques, including metaphor, repetition, and questions, to reinforce the story’s direction and efficiency (see White, 1978). Colony to Nation did this quite effectively, engaging the reader in an exciting historical story. Canada was founded through a metaphoric struggle in which “the French attacked the wilderness,” as a harsh frontier like Canada, the book argued, needed “not

65 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes manners but muscle” (43, 41). The Loyalists provided the next influx of population, exchanging their “aristocratic” American homes for new British North American “forest homes” in a difficult transition “of last resort.” “Having been cast out of heaven,” Colony to Nation explained, “men could not at once give their hearts to hell” (120). The book also adopted phrases and symbols of one ethnic group for another as part of portraying a common history. World War One pilots, for example, took “to the air as the coureur de bois had taken to the woods” (457). It is the construction of something new out of parts of the old, emplotting a sense of shared history, an evolution from coureur de bois to airplane pilots. Finally, questions created suspense and drew readers into the narrative: “How were two such different families to live in this one house?”; “Would the English surrenderprovokeanotherPontiac’srebellion?”;“Wouldthefermentinthe old mother country affect its daughter?” (66, 138, 152). “Race,” an outdated term used to express ideas referring to ethnicity and heritage, existed in Colony to Nation as something which could be “disrupted,” provide a “rallying point,” be “betray[ed],” and be a “first loyalty” (77, 233, 402, 450). Likewise, “blood” was a powerful way of expressing symbolic and emotional connections between populations. French Canadians were “a band of blood brothers” with their “first loyalty … to the race and to the church,” while Canadian foreign policy in 1919 “was still the call of the blood”—meaning colonial and imperial (402, 481). Canada was also described in biological terms, with emigration, for example, causing a “blood-letting” that “lowered its temperature, made people more ‘set in their ways,’ less imaginative, less creative” (407). According to Lower’s “maturation thesis” of development argued in Colony to Nation, Canada was a young nation, having recently been “born” (348). A metaphorical child of Britain, Canada was an infant struggling to grow into its own identity, learning from its parent until it became an individual with its own thoughts and direction in life (441). “The French had left children behind them in America,” Colony to Nation explained. “Now with the Revolution, old France was gone. There was no motherland. They were alone” (62, 154). Together the English and French formed a new nation, a new entity, growing into modern Canada. The English-Canadian attachment to Britain, however, especially their British-based foreign policy, perpetuated the division between the “siblings.” Colony to Nation characterized the English-Canadian reaction to the Boer War, for example, as one of the colonial-minded “young lions, bounding to the aid of the old lion without inquiring the cause or justice of the quarrel” (444). While Canadians had shown signs of independence and familial growth in the decades that followed it, they fell back into their role as colonial “children” of the imperial “parent” during the Second World War (557). Concerned about the Canadian government’s unwillingness to develop distinctly national symbols and an independent foreign policy, Lower used Colony to Nation as a forum to express his nation-building interests. In the

66 Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History final section of the book, “Reflections,” Lower attacked the Liberal government for giving into the “spirit of colonialism” and for failing to use the Second World War to promote a distinct national identity (559). “The government of the day, with all its good points, was singularly lacking in the creative imagination which might have given form, balance and purpose to the English Canadian people and encouraged both them and the French to understand their common destiny,” Lower complained. “No Churchillian speeches came out of Ottawa. No national symbols were born from that source, no national pageantry set going” (558). Consequently, the nation lacked what Smith described as the mental rallying-points, which distill a shared sense of history and heritage (1986, 49). Canada was, of course, still a very British country at this time with a strong sense of colonial identity. Lower knew better than most that the attachment was historical, as Canadians “were dependent for so long on the mother country for nearly everything, government, and even to some considerable degree, finance and culture (what there is of it)” (Cook, 27). Lower’s own childhood was shaped by such colonialism, his father being an “English exile” who longed for his British “home” (1967, 4). While colonial affection had hampered the creation of a united Canadian identity, it had, Lower conceded, been beneficial as a counterweight to American influence (1946, 441). As he wrote in a piece of 1947 correspondence, “pushed around by somebody, we shall certainly be. But if we could only find something within ourselves, we might at least resist some of the pressures” (Box 26, File B691). Colony to Nation used the nation-building technique of creating and characterizing heroes and villains, great men and fools, to engage the reader’s interest. Those of power and national consequence were selected and described as characters in a story: General Louis Joseph de Montcalm was “a man of great ability and nobility of soul” while General James Wolfe was “a gallant officer without any great genius”; John A. Macdonald was the “prophet” of the Liberal-Conservative party while Oliver Mowat was “a man of integrity and Christian principles” despite “weakening the structure of the Dominion” (61, 290, 378). Such figures are part of the nationalist “cultofgreatmen,”peopleheldupastheexamplesofcommunalvaluesand achievement, figures to model oneself after, and inspirations for continuing the national project (Smith, 1986, 26, 193). “I don’t want to rob the ordinary man of his honourable share in the big things that have been done in this country,” Lower explained in 1953, “but it was not the ordinary man who worked out our system of government, achieved Confederation, dreamed the C.P.R. into existence. The men who did these things were not second bests–but they were few!” (160). Such elitism was part of Lower’s weltanschauung. Two of his former students, Margaret Prang and Welf H. Heick, described how Lower believed that “cultural philistinism … was one of our country’s worst features,” and that “ninety-nine per cent of … people are Philistine by nature and he, a member of the remaining one per

67 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes cent, sees it as his duty constantly to berate and goad the ninety-and-nine toward higher standards” (Prang, 16; Heick, 29). In the narrative construction of national identity, wars and rebellions can serve as important building blocks of defeat and triumph, struggle and victory. They are valuable as turning-points and stages in national development and as symbols to foster national unity. As Jonathan F. W. Vanceexplained in Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War, “the memory of the war could act as a citizenship primer for children and immigrants, providing a means of Canadianization unlike any other. It could even reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable and forge the basis of unitybetweenCanada’sfoundingpeoples”(227).Indeed,Smithhasargued that war myths “possess a long-term power to shape distant reactions that far outweigh and surpass the episodes themselves” (1986, 38-39). Using military events as signposts of change and national growth, Colony to Nation created a chronological story of a community gradually gaining nationhood through conflict and bloodshed. Upper Canada, for example, “emerged from the war of 1812 a community, its people no longer Americans or solely British subjects, but Upper Canadians. The essence of the war of 1812 is that it built the first story of the Canadian national edifice” (179). The 1837 rebellions followed as “blessings in disguise, the corner stones of Canadian nationhood” (256). By the First World War Canada was still a colony, “a mere piece of Britain overseas,” but “she was forging visibly ahead to a nationhood. It was good to be a Canadian” (457). Canada did not come out of the war still a colony, however: “In the trenches of France and Flanders, the spirit of Canadian nationalism was born. It was carried back to Canada in the knapsacks of Canadian troops and there, takingfirmhold,hastenedtheslowprocessbywhichacommunitycomesto self consciousness” (460). Economic and staples history, dominant in Lower’s earlier work, was still an important part of his approach to Canada as an entity which grew from a colony into a nation through its resources. “The country had flourished on fur, it had flourished on lumber, now it was to flourish on wheat, the third of the great staples,” Colony to Nation explained (423). Harold Innis, F.J. Turner, and Adam Smith figured prominently as influences in the text. Land, however, was not only about resource exploitation–Colony to Nation heralded it as a source of identity that transcended the divisions of “race,” “blood,” and “heritage.” Canadians needed to embrace their geographic “homeland” as a source of identity and uniqueness: “from the land, Canada, must come the soul of Canada” (560). Indeed, in “If We Joined the U.S.” for Maclean’s magazine, Lower credited the land with shaping Canadian characteristics, in effect ‘making’ Canadians,andcalledforlandtoberegardedasacherishednationalsymbol (1948, 199).

68 Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History

Whose National History?: Acknowledging the “Other” Canadians Narrating one historical story inherently requires the exclusion of other possible tellings. By largely excluding the experiences of non-traditional immigrants, workers, women, and natives in favour of the few figures and institutions that dominated the nation, Colony to Nation was more a history of the national hegemony than of the people. This is not surprising, as the celebratory nationalist narrative is designed to reinforce and extend the structures of institutionalized power. In writing National Dreams: Myth, Memory, and Canadian History, Daniel Francis was shocked by the extent to which major Canadian myths were constructed for the benefit of the state and its economic institutions. His experience is worth citing at length: I discovered that the story of Canada, as it was taught to me, was a fraud, or at least only part of the story. Time and again when I traced one of the important narratives back to its source I discovered that it was invented by some large corporate body for its own purposes. The myth of the RCMP, for instance, has been used for years to obscure the coercive power of the state. The CPR turns out to have inflated a railway into a national dream as a highly successful public relations ploy, and incidently to have created the myth of the mosaic to increase its tourist potential. The myth of the North and the myth of the master race were used to secure the pre-eminence of Canada’s British heritage while minimizing the role of other cultural groups. I am not suggesting that these myths were imposed by groups of shadowy conspirators. I recognize that they were willingly embraced by generations of Canadians as our national dreams, the truths of our history. … The master narrative excluded many people, however, who did not see themselves reflected in the stories; or worse, felt belittled by them. These people–Aboriginals, minorities, working people, women–have had to force their way into the story of Canada by inventing narratives of their own (172). Those outside the ethnic mainstreams were largely excluded from Colony to Nation’s narrative. As was common among many in a pre-officially multicultural Canada, Lower viewed them as a barrier to Canadian unity and advocated a melting-pot approach of assimilation. The answer to the nation’s problem laid in homogeneity, not diversity (Corlett, 52; Lower, 1943a, 170). Lower worried that a cultural mosaic would lead to conflicting loyalties; the English-Canadian devotion to Britain was problematic enough. It was a fear of a “dual attachment” or “dual orientation” in which members of a community are torn between identities, a situation that can erupt into a “vicarious nationalism” and disrupt the national project (Smith, 1986, 151, 152). Consequently, Colony to Nation treated non-traditional immigrants–these figures who toiled on Canadian soil, laboured for others, ran small shops and businesses, and died constructing what the “great men” had dreamed up (including the railroad)–as less Canadian than the Anglo-Celtic and Franco-Canadians.

69 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Their part in the Canadian project goes largely overlooked, briefly described as “strangers,” a temporary “cheap labour force” which “built the railroads and they bought the farms. … [and] when, being no longer needed, they obligingly took themselves off again” (424-425). While Colony to Nation made an effort to deal with Asia–perhaps more so than any other text of the period–the open racism in many communities and the legal limitations and discrimination faced by those who came to Canada to settle are largely ignored. In fact, the 1923 Chinese Immigration Act was not mentioned. The “Gentlemen’s Agreement” with Japan, on the other hand, was hailed as a “successful” arrangement and its subsequent renegotiation occurred “without any rude blow between the eyes such as the United States delivered in 1924 with its Japanese Exclusion Act” (479). It is a statement that leaves out just how much discrimination was required to constitute a “rude blow.” Nation-building requires placing the whole before the part, or, in Colony to Nation’s case, the federal before the provincial. Regionalism and provincialism were deemed a threat to the national cause, a barrier to unity and a hurdle that needed to be overcome. The multiple identities were to be merged into a national melting-pot, eliminating “communities” in favour of a single Canadian “community” (108, 403). Oliver Mowat’s fight for provincial rights at the expense of Macdonald’s federalism, for example, was condemned for weakening the nation. The text went so far as to argue that corruption, if it aided federalism, was acceptable, as “there was more hope of [a united Canada] coming about out of the constructive corruption of Macdonaldism than out of the legalism and righteousness of Mowatism” (378-379). The focus on ‘great men’required a superficial treatment of ‘the masses’. Assessments of economic prosperity, for example, focused on national development with little regard for the living conditions many Canadians had to endure to create it. While industrialization had led to cities which were “large and imposing, their level of comfort and civilization high” (342), such a statement is more applicable to the business owners than the working class. Moreover, non-traditional immigrants were excluded from Colony to Nation twice, first because of their ethnicity, and second because of their largely working-class status. Women were also largely excluded from the “great men” narrative. The one lengthy passage that described their experiences was misleading and limited in scope and content: Europeans have always been surprised (and shocked) at the freedomprevailingbetweenthesexesinNorthAmerica.Therehas never been occasion for their being shocked, for freedom is simply a reflection of pioneer simplicity and equality. They might well be surprised, for the reverse has been true in older countries, where woman has had no scarcity value. … In Canada no such “feminist

70 Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History

movement” as later developed in England could get under way, simply because there was not the requisite resistance to it (412). Lower’s statement ignored the 1886 founding of the Toronto’s Women’s Literary League (Canada’s first suffrage organization) and the 1927 “Persons Case” fight, led by Emily Murphy, for women to be identified as “persons” in the B.N.A. Act. The text also ignored women being denied the federal and provincial votes until the 1916-1925 period, and that it took until 1940 to get it in Quebec. The problem with Lower’s antithesis is that it excluded native ‘Indian’ Canadians as a founding people. Focusing on white views of natives but not nativeviewsofwhites,thenarrativewasconcernedwithnativeexperiences only insofar as they involved Europeans. As a history of Canada, Colony to Nation was a history of Europeans arriving in Canada; it was one that “must begin, as it were, pre-natally. The country of today was not born until generations of Europeans had trampled across the face of the New World” (1). While it was a “New World” for Europeans, it was far from new for the previous occupants. Canada existed, then, not as a geographical entity but as a European historical one. Perhaps even more evident was Lower’s dismissal of the possibility of a French-Canadian nation, one as shaped by destiny as the unified Canada he conceptualized. The Conquest was not to be rectified by reversing French-Canadian colonialism but by eliminating the French identity–an even greater form of conquest. Lower did, however, expect English Canadians to surrender elements of their identity to a distinct Canadian one as well. His call for an end to colonialism was certainly one of the major manifestations of this. “As long as French are French and English are English,” Colony to Nation explained, “the memory of the Conquest and its effects will remain. Not until that great day comes when each shall have lost themselves in a common Canadianism will it be obliterated” (64).

Colony to Nation: A People’s History? The exclusion of many Canadians from the narrative, the voicelessness of those who were not the “great men building a nation,” did not damper Colony to Nation’s popularity. One had little expectation for anything other than a grand narrative of Canada’s past at this time in historical writing–the social history of the 1960s and 1970s did not yet exist. Tapping into post-war questions and concerns about national identity, Colony to Nation had what it took to be popularly received. It was comforting, exciting, passionate and, importantly, easily accessible by those without advanced academic reading skills. In a number of ways, Colony to Nation gave shape to a community that many Canadians were trying to “imagine.” Lower explained in his autobiography that a historian “must have some of the gifts of the novelist,” including the “capacity to express himself well, to understand the psychology of his characters, to see the logic of human

71 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes situations.” As well, a historian should be to some “extent a poet,” “since he is fusing dull facts into something new, accomplishing a genuine act of creation, using his imaginative and evocative gifts to fashion a reconstruction of the past” (1967, 295). History was “a branch of literature” which required “a spark of the divine fire” (1975, xii-xiii). Despite its popularity, it did not take long for Colony to Nation’s impressionism to seem outdated. By the 1960s and 1970s a greater emphasis was placed on research, publication, and specific niches of enquiry.IntheforewordtoHistoryandMyth:ArthurLowerandtheMaking of Canadian Nationalism, Lower reflected on this shift in historical research: Today we have the elaborate apparatus of professionalism surrounding the cult of history–vast archives and libraries, historical journals, graduate schools, publishing houses–all the formidable apparatus provided by a society that approves of professional expertise. There is little doubt that as a result the writing of history has moved forward. The past has become much clearer than it was: there are fewer misinterpretations, myths have been disintegrated, truth has come to prevail over wider areas. Those who write history today, and for a good many years past, know how to observe the great canons (the first of which is no falsification), how to do their research, how to tuck their footnotes in, how to dot all the “i’s” and cross the “t’s.” They may not write brilliantly but in general they write well (xiv). Lower warned, though, “not [to] take the scholarly historian or the scholarly anything too seriously” (Cook, 37). There was a difference between a useful historian and an expert one: “if a man comes to be an expert, he is in peril. He may cease to be much else. I hope that our Canadian school of history will not bog down in mere professionalism, mere expertise, but that it will retain the creative spark of life” (1975, xiv). Lower wrote at a time when academic and popular history were often one and the same, with academics producing reader-accessible material, which reached a large audience. The combination of both academic and popular history that Lower achieved in Colony to Nation has since been, more or less, divided into two. Academic historians, Berger noted, have increasingly come to “prize analysis over narrative and description; their most original books do not tell a story but answer questions” (268). In turn, authors and journalists, including Pierre Berton and Peter C. Newman, produce wide-selling narrative stories fused with entertainment, literary devices, and humanized characters which engage the reader’s attention and empathy. There was also a new generation of historians emerging during the 1960s and 1970s as people of diverse social, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds entered academia and brought with them new interests and approaches. More research was done on neglected areas of history, including gender,

72 Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History immigration, and working-class experiences–historian Steven Maynard hasgonesofarastocreditLower’s1958CanadiansintheMaking:ASocial History of Canada as an early manifestation of this change in focus. While the national and political master narratives have declined over the past few decades, not everyone has accepted this change. J.L. Granatstein’s Who Killed Canadian History? is but one recent condemnation of academic historians for using history, “or their version of it, to cure white males of their sense of superiority” (59). The attempt to explore neglected areas, Granatstein complained, came at the expense of national and political history–the “basic nuts and bolts of Canadian historical knowledge”–and nationalidentitysufferedbecauseofit(11-12).Itwasacallforaclearreturn to the earlier nation-building purpose; to have a nation one needs a national narrative, and history should serve that goal. In his 1972 speech “Always the Same and Always His Own Man,” given at a dinner in Lower’s honour, historian Frederick W. Gibson noted that “there are many people who still regard [Colony to Nation] as the most searching and the most sparkling general history of Canada” (2). While the text was largely out of use by then, perhaps Gibson’s acclaim reveals Colony to Nation’s true value. A generation of English Canadians was taught an exciting and gripping story of Canada’s growth from a colony into a nation, with heroes and events they could understand and empathize with. It was a narrative that many Canadians could see themselves in, and it fostered a national sense of place and identity. This appeal, however, was also Colony to Nation’s undoing. Few Canadians at the turn of the twenty-first century can find themselves in the narrative. Indeed, even when it was published a number of Canadians, especially immigrants, women, natives, and workers, had difficulty seeing themselves in it. Yet Lower was driven by a desire for national unity, dreaming of a nation where Canadians felt a sense of security and belonging. His sincerity cannot be doubted. “My concern has been that the Canadian people should be a family,”heexplainedinhisautobiography,“whichtermpredicatesallthose unspoken,unformulated,butpowerfulbondsandmodesofcommunication that knit a family together” (1967, 165). Part history, part storytelling, and part manifesto, Colony to Nation gave life to Canadian history and provided many Canadians with a sense of community and national identity. It was Arthur R.M. Lower’s magnum opus.

References Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, (London: Verso, 1991) Berger, Carl. The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English-Canadian Historical Writing Since 1900, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1986) Calgary Herald, January 16, 1947 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “The Readers Take Over,” Dec. 15, 1946. Transcript. Arthur R.M. Lower Fonds, Box 26, File B693 Cook, Ramsay. The Craft of History, (Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1973)

73 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Corlett, Kristi. “A Dream of Homogeneity: Arthur Lower’s National Vision and its Relationship to Immigrants and Immigration in Canada, 1920-1946,” (Kingston, Ont.: M.A. Thesis, Queen’s Univ., 1995) Francis, Daniel. National Dreams: Myth, Memory, and Canadian History, (Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1997) Gibson, Frederick W. “Always the Same and Always His Own Man,” in Welf H. Heick and Roger Graham eds., His Own Man: Essays in Honour of Arthur Reginald Marsden Lower, (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press, 1974) Globe and Mail, December 28, 1946 Granatstein, J.L. Who Killed Canadian History? (Toronto: HarperCollins Pub. Ltd., 1998) Heick, Welf H. “Character and Spirit of an Age: A Study of the Thought of Arthur R.M. Lower,” in Welf H. Heick and Roger Graham eds., His Own Man: Essays in Honour of Arthur Reginald Marsden Lower, (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press, 1974) Hobsbawm, E.J. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990) Journal of Economic History, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Nov. 1947): 237-8 Lower, Arthur R.M. Collection, Queen’s University Archives (Boxes), (A.ARCH 5072) ————. 1943a. “National Policy … Revised Version,” in Welf H. Heick ed., History and Myth: Arthur Lower and the Making of Canadian Nationalism, (Vancouver: Univ. of Brit. Col. Press, 1975) ————. 1943b. “Two Nations or Two Nationalities,” in Welf H. Heick ed., History and Myth: Arthur Lower and the Making of Canadian Nationalism, (Vancouver: Univ. of Brit. Col. Press, 1975) ————. 1943c. “Two Ways of Life: The Primary Antithesis of Canadian History,” in Welf H. Heick ed., History and Myth: Arthur Lower and the Making of Canadian Nationalism, (Vancouver: Univ. of Brit. Col. Press, 1975) ————. 1946. Colony to Nation: A History of Canada, (Toronto: Longmans, Green, & co.) ————. 1948. “If We Joined the US,” in Welf H. Heick ed., History and Myth: Arthur Lower and the Making of Canadian Nationalism, (Vancouver: Univ. of Brit. Col. Press, 1975) ————. 1950. “Religion and Religious Institutions,” in Welf H. Heick ed., History and Myth: Arthur Lower and the Making of Canadian Nationalism, (Vancouver: Univ. of Brit. Col. Press, 1975) ————. 1953. “Canadians: ‘Good Second Bests’,” in Welf H. Heick ed., History and Myth: Arthur Lower and the Making of Canadian Nationalism, (Vancouver: Univ. of Brit. Col. Press, 1975) ————. 1967. My First Seventy-Five Years, (Toronto: Macmillan) ————. 1975. Foreword to Welf H. Heick ed., History and Myth: Arthur Lower and the Making of Canadian Nationalism, (Vancouver: Univ. of Brit. Col. Press, 1975) Martin, Ged. Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation, 1837-67, (London: Macmillan, 1995) Maynard, Steven. “The Maple Leaf (Gardens) Forever: Sex, Canadian Historians and National History,” Journal of Canadian Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Summer 2001): 70-105 Prang, Margaret. “The Professor and ‘Relevance’,” in Welf H. Heick and Roger Graham eds., His Own Man: Essays in Honour of Arthur Reginald Marsden Lower, (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press, 1974) Smith, Anthony D. Theories of Nationalism, (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1983) ————. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations, (Oxford, New York: B. Blackwell) ————. 1995. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, (Cambridge: Polity Press) ————. 1998a. Nationalism and Modernism, (New York: Routledge) ————. 1998b. “The Myth of the ‘Modern Nation’ and the Myths of Nations,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, Jan.

74 Narrating a Canadian Identity: Arthur R.M. Lower’s Colony to Nation and the Nationalization of History

————. 2000. The Nation in History: Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism, (New England: Brandeis Univ. Press) Stacey, Charles P. Review of Colony to Nation, Canadian Historical Review, vol. 28 no. 2 June 1947 Time magazine, January 13, 1947 Underhill, Frank. “A Canadian Philosopher-Historian,” Canadian Forum, July 1947 Vance, Jonathan F.W. Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War, (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997) White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1973) ————. 1978. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press)

75

Andrea Kunard

Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

Abstract The Canadian government first used photography in the 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition. Humphrey Lloyd Hime (1833- 1903) was hired to accompany the survey team in order to provide images of the area’s land and peoples. The expedition’s leader Henry Youle Hind (1823-1908) published an account of the expedition, complete with illustrations, as he intended his work to have broad public appeal. The 1858 expedition is exemplary for the manner in which both image and text operated in tandem to confirm the values of the dominant British culture in face of an “alien” land and its native people.

Résumé Le gouvernement canadien s’est servi pour la première fois de la photographie lors de l’expédition d’exploration de l’Assiniboine et de la Saskatchewan en 1858. Humphrey Lloyd Hime (1833-1903) avait été embauché pour accompagner l’équipe d’arpentage, et rapporter des images du territoire et des nations de la région. Le chef de l’expédition, Henry Youle Hind (1823-1908) en a publié un compte rendu, assorti d’illustrations, car il voulait que son travail rejoigne un vaste public. L’expédition de 1858 demeure exemplaire, pour la façon dont tant l’image que le texte ont conspiré à confirmer les valeurs de la culture britannique dominante confrontée à un pays « étranger » et à ses peuples autochtones.

Photographic images played a significant role in the opening up of the Canadian West to white settlement. The nineteenth century’s belief in the medium as a neutral and objective transcription of the real supported the interests of a variety of groups who aligned the camera with ideas of technology as progress, and the positivist, material approach to the natural world. Yet even though the camera produced a clear and detailed visual record of its subject matter, interpretation of the image’s meaning was anything but precise. The Canadian government’s1 first use of photography in the 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition provides an excellent opportunity to investigate the complex manner in which photographs generated multiple, sometimes contradictory meanings, and

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes the consequences of such processes within the larger project of white settler colonialism. A close examination of the expedition’s imagery reveals that various forms of cultural expression, especially those drawn from artistic and literary sources, affected both the choice and presentation of subject matter,inparticularthatofnativelifeandculture.Inaddition,interpretation of a photograph’s meaning was influenced by the context in which it was found. The relationship between image and text is especially significant as in some cases interpretation of the image’s meaning was supported by its textual component, and in others, contested. As will be argued, the fluctuationofmeaningoftextandimageisindicativeofBritishcolonizers’2 attempt to articulate their experiences of an unknown area and its culture within the inherited framework of their beliefs. The fit was, by necessity, imperfect and reveals the uncertain and sometimes anxious nature of colonial processes in general. The 1858 Expedition was directed to explore the central and southern regions of what are now the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The expedition’s photographer, Humphrey Lloyd Hime (1833-1903)3 of the Toronto firm Armstrong, Beere and Hime, Civil Engineers, Draughtsmen and Photographists, was hired by the government to accompany the expedition in order to “furnish a series of Collodion Negatives for the full illustration of all objects of interest susceptible of photographic delineation.”4 Although much has been written on the history of the Red River settlement, now the city of Winnipeg, little critical discussion has been had as to how Hime’s images functioned as culturally expressive documents.5 Within the projects of colonial expansion, Hime drew upon numerous sources to make visually intelligible the relatively unknown region of the Canadian interior. For members of the scientific and business community, Hime’s photographs provided factual records of the Red River community and its surrounding area. Yet his work also entered a larger project undertaken by the expedition’s leader Henry Youle Hind (1823-1908).6 Hind reproduced Hime’s work as engravings in his Narrative of the Canadian Red River Exploring Expedition of 1857 and of the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition of 1858. The Narrative, which derived from several government reports,7 was published in two volumes in 1860 by Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts of London, England. Another account, also illustrated by engravings, appeared in The Illustrated London News on 2 October 1858 and 16 October 1858.8 Hind intended that his experiences as an explorer reach a broader audience. In this context, public interpretation of Hime’s photographs was affected by the drama of other exploration images and writings of the time. As cultural documents, Hime’s photographs operated on the level of both objective fact and artistic expression. In terms of their artistic qualities, the formal and iconographic basis of the photographs and engravings aided in luring settlers and investors to the area.9 Through Hime’s choice of subject

78 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition matter and his attentiveness to formal arrangements, subtleties of tone and studioconventions,aBritishaudiencecouldbetransportedtoanareawhich had already been made familiar. The aesthetic appeal of his photographs made them marketable. The J. Hogarth establishment of London reproduced and distributed the photographs as a portfolio of thirty prints.10 Hime’s work was also displayed in the Fine Arts Section of the 1859 Provincial Exhibition in Kingston.11 Artistic traditions were also a factor in the photographs’reproduction as engravings for both the 1860 London publication12 and The Illustrated London News.13 The public viewed Hime’s images within a context of writings dedicated to conveying the immediacy and exoticism of the exploration party’s experiences. Through the hyperbolic language of the written text, the audience could experience the mystery and awe the prairie landscape provoked in an attuned spectator. When the photograph failed to match the imaginative drama of the text, the engravers supplemented the image. Figures were added, or the photograph was redrawn in order to express the necessary symbolism a Victorian audience needed to appreciate the feats of the expedition.14 Hime’s photographs were important elements in the construction of the Canadian West as a new region to settler colonialism. To fully understand how text, photographs and engravings served expansionist interests, it is necessary to provide a brief historical context of both the exploration party and the Red River community. This is particularly useful in understanding Hime’s depictions of the settlement’s churches and his portraits of the native populace.15 Both had an essential role to play in the establishment of government power in the area. By placing the photographs within their larger social context, one can also examine how prevailing attitudes towards the purity of races informed a Victorian audience’s reception of Hime’s images.16 The photographs, in this sense, were not fixed, but rather ambiguous in meaning. Because British society was fractured by the competing interests of various groups, Hime’s work could elicit a variety of responses. On 29 April 1858, the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan exploring expedition set out from Toronto to explore the region west of Lake Winnipeg and the Red River. It collected information about the geology, natural history, topography and meteorology of the area. It also assessed the suitability of the land for settlement, which was considered a priority by the British and Canadian governments in order to establish sovereignty in the west. Several factors pressured the Canadian government to delimit the geography of the region. The western expansion occurring in the 1850s in the United States was a potential threat to the isolated communities of the Western interior. With the increased importance of the west coast to British interests in Asian trade, the Canadian and British governments considered

79 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes links to the area essential.17 Finally, the Hudson’s Bay Company monopoly in the interior was to expire in 1859. The Canadian government, wishing to expand its jurisdiction into the area, challenged the request of the company to extend its monopoly. The appearance of exploration teams in the interior was the result of government and financial interests which demanded measurement of the land; natural phenomena were to be tabulated and organized as data of scientific discourse. The camera provided a practical means to record information about the area’s topography, peoples and patterns of settlement. In this context, Hime was expected to maintain the working standards of his craft. The technical basis of the medium required exactitude in the proper measurement and disposition of chemicals. However, there was the added problem of using the technology in the field. Hime had to cope with the problems of hordes of mosquitoes and flies, the lack of suitable water, and the rigours of exploration which both restricted the number of photographs he could take and imposed time limits on the ones he could manage to set up.18 When he finally settled in the Red River community, during the months of September through November, he succeeded in creating more clear and technically controlled photographs. His work, in this respect, satisfied the demands of government, investors, and a scientific community that would be looking at the images for their exposition of facts. However, both the photographic work of Hime and the writings of Hind represent a dissatisfaction with the limitations of such a materialist approach. Within the project as a whole, expression constantly shifts between fact and metaphor, the two modes of representation being fluidly combined. The role of photography, in this case, was ambivalent. In certain cases, the photograph provided evidence of a relatively unknown area, while in others it imbued a scene with a fictive content. Photography as a medium fluctuated between scientific record and artistic expression; both fact and metaphor were tools of cognition. As Hind intended to popularize the expedition, Hime strove to satisfy the level of metaphor that a Victorian audience expected of art. In one case, Hime staged his photograph with the classical memento mori still-life elements of skull and bone, as seen for example in “The Prairie looking west, September-October, 1858.” In other cases, his skill at manipulating studio conventions served to exoticize the native and mixed-blood populace. Cultural expectations and artistic conventions were further imposed on the illustrations reproduced from the photographs by the engravers of both the London publishers of the report and The Illustrated London News. The engravers, influenced by an academic artistic tradition, represented the subject matter within the parameters of their training. For example, in The Illustrated London News engraving entitled “Ojibway Encampment near

80 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

Figure 1. Ojibway Encampment near the Falls of the Rainy River, May 24, 1858. the Falls of the Rainy River, May 24, 1858” (Figure 1), the Ojibwa appear peaceful, either at work or engaged in civilized conversation. They assume the attitudes of gentlemen and appear very similar to neo-classical representations of Romans in togas as seen in the works of Benjamin West, John Flaxman, Jacques-Louis David and Dominique Ingres. The accompanying account of this scene confirms such a view of “noble savage” propriety: Among them [the Ojibwa] men of tall stature and faultless form are not uncommon. The Engraving represents a part of an encamp- ment at the falls of Rainy River. … On the right a squaw is engag[ed] in suspending sturgeon on poles to dry; and in front is a warrior holding in his hand a stone pipe, and gazing at the white men who are quietly taking his photograph.19 Imperial domination over the land and its native inhabitants was dramatized by visual and verbal means. Even hardships were expressed in a fashion that excited the imagination. The description of natural phenomena emphasized both their beauty and awesome power. Hind’s Narrative offered descriptions of the land and the forces that passed over it: thunder and hailstorms, prairie fires and plagues of insects. The writings and the photographs portrayed the land as open space or as a tangle of alder and poplar wood; it was traversed by horse or canoe. Hail storms appear suddenly and with such violence that the stones seriously damage the canoes.20 Hind compares the “awful splendour” of prairie fires to “a

81 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes volcano in full activity.”21 Clouds of grasshoppers descend upon the party and voraciously consume clothing, saddles and leather bags.22 Hind equates the “infinite army of insects” with the “Egyptian scourges” and the “wonderful exhibitions of Almighty power in the creation.”23 The land was a stage upon which the exploration party, with its latest technological devices, struggled heroically. An audience’s familiarity with both biblical passages and the period’s grandiose landscape paintings allowed them to participate in the epic feats of the expedition.24 Throughout the Narrative, Hind speaks of the land with messianic fervour. For Hind, the forces of the “Almighty,” that move and shape the raw materials of nature to fulfil the greater plan of creation, allude to the powers of Victorian science that will mold the elements to its imperious purposes. The land will be made fruitful with the “coming” of Victorian technology.25 Hime’s exploration photographs also fluctuate between fact and metaphor as seen in “The Prairie, on the banks of the Red River, looking south” and “The Prairie looking west.” The first is a view of the flat character of the land stretching to the horizon. The sky, which occupies two-thirds of the photograph, appears immense. Adirt track cuts across the foreground and indicates human presence. The photograph demonstrates the suitability of the area for agriculture. Rocks, trees and vegetation are not evidentandthelandappearsreadyfortheplantingofcrops.Thephotograph is evocative; it lures the viewer with possibilities of cultivation and the land’s availability for individual development. The Canadian government had in fact asked Hind to assess the agriculturalpotentialofthearea.Hereportedthatwithproperdevelopment, through husbandry informed by Victorian science, government and investors could rest assured that the area would be profitable and thus draw settlers. Even the “plagues” of grasshoppers posed a minimal threat to the area’s few cultivated fields. As he wrote in the first volume: On the night of the 15th September, we stayed at the house of Mr. Geo. Flett. … Mr. Flett’s turnips had been altogether consumed by the grasshoppers, but his wheat was safe and good … On the morning of the 16th we paid a visit to Mr. Gowler. … A small stack-yard was filled with stacks of wheat and hay; his barn, which was very roomy, was crammed with wheat, barley, potatoes, pumpkins, turnips and carrots.26 The land was potentially cornucopian. Hind reinforced this idea by noting that Mr. Gowler had more than enough fields to cultivate but “found it useless to crop it, as no market for surplus produce existed.”27 The area, thus, had need not only of cultivation and settlement, but of investment in transport, such as roads and railways to move the produce to markets.

82 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

Figure 2. The Prairie looking west, September-October 1858.

The photographs and report worked not only as documents and lures to settlers and investors, but also represented the region as firmly imbued with cultural values their viewers would immediately recognize. With such portrayals, values of Western culture were embedded in a landscape few Easterners or Europeans had ever seen or experienced. Hind’s account and the means by which Hime chose what to photograph and how the camera framed the shot, reinforced possession of the land. Public response to Hind’s Narrative confirms this. A reviewer in the Glasgow Herald of 26 December 1860 stated that although this area is unknown, “the day is evidently not far distant when these fertile lands will become the enterprising communities of civilized men.” Yet both Hime and Hind recognized that citing and representing the facts of agricultural potential were not enough to satisfy the Victorian imagination. The second prairie photograph, “The Prairie looking west, September-October, 1858” (Figure 2) is dramatic in its depiction of the land. The photograph contains a human skull and possibly human bone. The skull was probably one that Hime had found during an exploration trip earlier that year in the Souris Valley area, which is now an area of southern Manitoba near the Saskatchewan border. In his diary on 29 June 1858, he wrote “found a skull close to grave on prairie—it was all pulled about by wolves—kept the skull which was apparently that of a squaw.”28 It is likely

83 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes that the photograph represents Hime’s recreation of this scene during his stay in the settlement. As such, the photograph depicted the drama of Hime’s experiences. Yet to a Victorian audience its symbolism was ambiguous. For example, in the engraving made from this photograph, which appears in the first volume of Hind’s Narrative, the skull has been moved down and to the right from its central position in the photograph. The second bone has disappeared. Vegetation is more evident, and clouds have been added to reflect the glow oflightfromthesettingsun.Birdsalsoappear,theirpeculiarv-shapedflight pattern29 designedtodrawtheeyefromthehorizontothetopmiddleground of the print. This combination of skull, cardinal direction of west, and setting sun suggest a powerful evocation of death in European artistic traditions based on Christian iconography.30 Yet the accompanying text conversely expounds the glories and fecundity of the prairie landscape: Here, stretching away, until lost in the western horizon, the belts of wood on the banks of the Assiniboine rise … while … the north is again an uninterrupted expanse of long waving prairie grass, sprinkled with herds of cattle. … The vast ocean of level prairie which lies to the west of Red River must be seen in its extraordinary aspects, before it can be rightly valued and understood in reference to its future occupation by an energetic and civilized race, able to improve its vast capabilities and appreciate its marvelous beauties.31 Hindcontinuesforanotherpageinthisaestheticappreciationoftheprairie. In the Narrative, the engravers reinforced the Christian themes of death present in Hime’s photograph in order to show that the land contained the possibility of reincarnation through nineteenth-century materialism. The textsurrounding“ThePrairielookingwest”representedthelandintermsof a potential which could be fulfilled by a culture which had the necessary means to bring its dormant capacities to fruition. In terms of cardinal directions, the west represented the direction of civilization and development. Biblical passages connected the east with the coming of the Son of man on the Day of Judgement.32 As the exploration team originated from the east, civilization is associated with the power of redemption. The placement of the engraving in this section of the book, and thus the original staging of the elements in the photograph, can be understood as having mythical purpose. The appearance of the skull in the photograph is also tied to the fascination of nineteenth-century society with indigenous methods of burial. However as the photograph’s caption did not establish with certainty that the skull belonged to a native, the image could provide contrary interpretations. On the one hand, there was the risk that viewers, on seeing this work, would anxiously interpret it as representative of a landscape containing the possibility of their own death and hardship. The

84 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

Hogarth Company in London excluded “The Prairie looking west” when it published the photographic portfolio of Hime’s work; the presence of death threatened Victorian faith in the power of their technology. Only the photograph “The Prairie looking South” was made available. On the other hand, for members of a Victorian audience familiar with representations of the native, the photograph would confirm their belief in the intimate connection of the native to the land. Victorians expressed both fascination and horror of the practice of certain native groups which left the body to decompose in the open.33 Hind devoted a section in chapters four and thirty in the first volume to a discussion of native burial rites. Hime photographed two such sites,34 which appeared in the latter chapter, reproduced as engravings. Throughout Hind’s writings, death was associated with the native. He consistently portrayed the native population and culture as being incapable of dealing with the adversities of nature. He reported that the native’s resource-based existence was precarious;35 the nativecouldonlysurvivewithsettlementandproperagriculturaltraining. In this sense, the skull would not be associated with a white person. A Christian would receive a proper burial; his or her body would not be photographed in a state of decomposition.36 Certainly, no Christian grave would be desecrated for the sake of photographic props. Therefore, within the context of the writings, members of a Victorian audience would associatetheskullasrepresentingthepassingofnativeculture.Thedeathof this culture was not to be mourned as it would be reborn through the workings of Victorian progress. Hind had the future interests of business and government in mind when he spoke of the actual and potential agricultural wealth of the prairie. Through metaphor, the text, photograph and engraving assuaged the guilt of the intruding Easterners.37 The realities of development and exploitation by civilization were therefore conveniently tempered by the same civilization’s capacity for aesthetic appreciation. Hime’s photographs also linked colonization and settlement with religious conversion. Victorians would view his images of the human skull and native graves either as curiosities or as evidence that the native had not been completely Christianized. In the latter case, viewers needed to be reassured that their values predominated. The religious assimilation of the native was a priority. The reasons were both spiritual and practical: there was a concern for the salvation of the native soul, and an interest in providing a means to establish a stable and thus economically viable community. In this respect, Hime’s photographs confirmed the presence of European religious values in the Red River community. His five photographs of the main churches in the settlement—St. Boniface (Roman Catholic); St. John’s, St. Paul’s and St. Andrew’s (Anglican); and a Presbyterian church—can be viewed as expressing such intentions. Hime photographed

85 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes the churches in a straight-forward manner, the foreground corresponding to the distance needed to contain the entire building in the viewfinder. In terms ofthesettlement’swhitepopulace,thesolidityofthechurchesandthesense of order and stability they conveyed would indicate that this was not a godless country. The photographs thus substantiated authority for future residents; they set a standard of expected behavior. In this respect, the native had an important role to play. The Christianized native provided evidence of the tempering effect of religion in both the writings and the images. As Hind wrote in his Narrative, the native appeared “subdued” within the context of the church and its rituals.38 With conversion, the native would settle into an agricultural lifestyle.39 Throughout his report, Hind contrasted the unchristianized and Christianized native in order to champion the latter as the progressive and responsible representative of his or her people. The resistance of the native (and thus the threat he or she posed) to the incoming white culture could then be discounted. The role of photography in this latter respect was essential in verifying the power of white values in the area. Hime’s work continued the historical project of white settlers who recounted their efforts in establishing a successful colony. As it is likely that Hime had read such accounts in preparation for his trip to the settlement, his understanding of the community would have been influenced by such writings. He would have arrived with presuppositions that would be further enforced in his photographs. In particular, Hime’s choice of subject matter affirmed the views of Alexander Ross (1783-1856), who had settled in the area in 1825, and published an account of its history in 1856. Ross’s writings on the development of the community included the description and history of buildings and peoples. He recounted with particular pride the establishment of houses built with stone which were more permanent than those of wood constructed in the early days of the settlement.40 Hime’s photographs of the “Quarters of the Expedition at Red River,” the “Residence of Chief Factor (the late Mr. Bird)” and the “Residence of Mr. Bannatyne” represent such structures. In the latter photograph, Mr. Bannatyne sits with his son and native wife in front of his home; its neat thatch roof, glass windows and lime facade connote domestic harmony and civility. Ross also recounted the construction of the Stone Fort (or Lower Fort Garry which was located down river to the north of the settlement), whose acreage, he stated, was comparable to that of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. The fort and its buildings constituted a “neat and compact establishment.”41 Hime’s two photographs of the Stone Fort, and two of its principal buildings (the “Hon. Hudson’s Bay Company’s Officers quarters” and the “Fur Store”) visually reinforce Ross’s account. The windmills of the area, as seen in Hime’s photograph “Farm-houses and windmills, Middle Settlement,” were also

86 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition mentioned by Ross who attributed their construction and maintenance to the “ingenuity” of the workmen of the settlement.42 Yet the Red River community was not as harmonious as either Ross’s writings or Hime’s photographs indicated. It is particularly important to examine the representation of the mixed-blood population, whose community was comprised of two basic groups: those who followed the French Catholic faith and those converted to Anglican and Presbyterian faiths. Religious values had become firmly ensconced in the community through the work of Anglican missionaries. The establishment of schools and churches had imposed a more settled lifestyle on some native groups. White Anglican and Protestant leaders viewed the English speaking Christianized mixed-blood as amenable to further assimilation. They regarded other mixed-bloods, especially the French Catholics, as unwilling to leave their former native ways behind. Their forefathers’hunting rituals were still of primary importance. At certain times of the year, they left the settlement and travelled far into the interior to pursue buffalo herds and engage in the hunt.43 Religious leaders understood such activities as disruptive to community life. With the increased probability that the area would either be annexed to Canada or made into a Crown colony, the confirmation of British-based values was essential. Both Hime’s photography and the writings of Hind served this purpose. Hime’s photographs of churches reflected the power which the Anglican and Protestant clergy and congregation displayed in the area. The other Catholic churches, Saint-François-Xavier (French Métis), and Saint-Norbert, were more modest44 and were not photographed. In the ninth chapter of the first volume of his report, Hind devotes just over a page to a description of the Catholic community. The rest of the discussion centres largely on the Anglican parishes and their success in education, agriculture, and the religious conversion of natives.45 Of the religious split in the community, Hind offers only this understated comment: “There is a distinct and well-preserved difference in faith between the populations of the different parishes into which the settlement is divided.”46 Divisions within the Red River settlement also occurred along class lines. British bourgeois values had created a class system that pivoted on notions of respectability. An individual’s success was determined by his or her social status and material wealth. Increasingly, both officers of the Hudson’s Bay Company and members of the business community justified their affluence and rank against those who had not attained such advantages. The “less respectable” individuals, which included natives and mixed-bloods, were prevented from advancing and worked as labourers, guides and canoemen.47 Thus, although Hime’s photographs presented the mixed-bloods as conforming to white values, their social progress within the community was severely limited. This created consternation for whites who suspected

87 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Figure 3. An Ojibway Woman with Baby, September-October 1858. native parentage, as their native roots could restrict their social mobility.48 Divisions in the community were further upheld by the ethnological literature of the time. White advantage was attributed to white racial “superiority.” Such beliefs affected a larger Victorian audience’s interpretation of Hime’s photographs. For some, the native was seen as being in the process of assimilation to white ways, in this case through inter-marriage. For others, the presence of mixed-blood peoples raised questions as to whether the “purity” of the white race was being maintained.49 Although it is difficult to ascertain whether Hime or Hind subscribed to this view, their representations of mixed-blood peoples reinforced prevalent ethnological theories. Certain members of their

88 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition audience would see the necessity of strengthening a European presence in the area to ensure the proper establishment of the white race. The photographs and their captions, therefore, could both reassure and raise doubts in a larger audience’s mind as to the presence of mixed-bloods with respect to white culture.50 On the one hand, Hime’s photographs depicted the native peoples within a European portraiture tradition, and as such represented their demeanor as conforming to European standards. On the other hand, that same portraiture tradition was reserved for the ennoblement of the white race.51 The photograph, when viewed with this latter idea in mind, would only broaden the schism between the native, mixed-blood and white races. It would more strongly define the white race against the native and mixed-blood races since the two latter groups were never presented as equal to Europeans. Nowhere is this more evident than in Hime’s portraits of Letitia, Wigwam and the unnamed Ojibwa woman and child. The two latter photographs were taken in an improvised out-of-doors studio Hime had set up with a buffalo blanket thrown over an ox cart wheel for a backdrop. The subjects pose in, and thus affirm, the tradition of European portraiture. Yet, the presence of elements associated with the native disputed that same convention. For example, in the photographs “An Ojibway Woman with Baby, September-October, 1858” (Figure 3) and “Wigwam; an Ojibway-Métis, Lake Superior, September-October, 1858” (Figure 4) formal elements firmly anchor the subjects in the picture plane. The natives are centrally positioned. The shallow space created by the improvised studio gives them greater presence within the photographic frame. The dark and sombre colour of the buffalo skin contrasts with the play of light across facial features and articles of clothing. There is also an interplay of texture with the juxtaposition of smooth human skin and rough animal hide. Hime posed the native woman in the tradition of mother and child. She kneels beside and gazes upon her child who is securely wrapped on its cradleboard. Such a sentimental representation would reassure a Victorian audience that the native was conforming to “proper” methods of child raising. But that very tradition would also be challenged by the photograph’s conspicuous rendering of the woman’s facial features and manner of dress which harkened her back to her “savage” roots. The photograph of Wigwam is also ambiguous. Hime represented the mixed-blood with a calm and noble demeanor.52 The combined vertical pose of Wigwam and the placement of his gun across his knees creates a central visual axis. Through such artistic devices, there is an impression of solidity and strength–romantic qualities which Victorians sought in the native or “half-breed.” His race is shown as having subsumed civilizing notions of propriety. His gun decoration and manner of dress, however, denote a mixed-blood heritage. Through portraiture, such elements work

89 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Figure 4. Wigwam; an Ojibway-Métis, Lake Superiror, September- October 1858. both as accents and curiosities, and secure Wigwam’s lifestyle as belonging to that of an “inferior” race. The assimilated native who manifested both “civilized” and exotic qualities was also depicted in Hime’s photograph of Letitia. The caption “Letitia: a Plain-Cree half-breed, September-October, 1858” (Figure 5) established her mixed-blood origins for a European audience who might not have readily associated her facial features with that of a native. She wears a “proper” western dress and is suitably passive in her pose. Resting

90 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

Figure 5. Lelitia, a Cree Halfbreed, September-October 1858. on an animal skin against a tree, in the woods, with native accessories, she doesnotconfrontthecamera;infact,itispointeddownatherandrepresents a compromise of her relation with the photographer. Again, formal elements anchor her presence. The strong vertical cluster of trees counters her horizontal, languid pose. The whiteness and patterning of her dress emerge from the black colour of the hide which, both through its placement and tonality, visually links the animal skin with the darkness of her hair. She is exotic as a native, yet she has acquired enough trappings of white civilization to be seen as non-threatening. The sexual role of such young women in the Red River community was a complex matter. To a male European audience, these women were seen more as a vehicle for fantasy, however their position as wives of respectable members of a community was questionable. At this point in time, Red River society increasingly frowned upon the taking of a native or mixed-blood wife; a Canadian or British white woman of middle-class social standing was preferred as she would both support and entrench the values of a “superior” culture.53 Young white men were encouraged to marry women of their racial and social group in order to affirm their standing and thus respectability within the settlement. As Red River society restricted native

91 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes and mixed-blood women from inter-marrying, their presence and participation in the white community was increasingly marginalized. Although Hime’s photographs indicated the presence of natives within the community, pictorial traditions strategically locked them within the values of white culture. Through such portrayals, Victorians compared and confirmed their culture at the expense of the native culture. The manner in which they were represented imposed silence on their fate even though within the history of mixed-blood and native culture, resistance to foreign incursion took more active forms in rebellion and non-assimilation. The ability of Victorians to colonize, therefore, was not simply a matter of technological prowess. Their success was also a product of long-standing visual and literary traditions that structured both their religious beliefs and scientific inquiry. Hime’s photographs, therefore, are documents of cultural values. When placed within their historic context, they reveal the manner by which Victorian society consolidated its beliefs through its interaction with other cultures. The “objective” nature of photography also entered this project. Through staging or the engraving process, the information the photograph contained was overwritten to both satisfy an audience’s expectation of drama and affirm the presence of a dominant culture. This process was further supported by the narrative traditions of the surrounding text. As the imagery entered a number of contexts, its meaning shifted, thus revealing a society fractured by competing interests and beliefs. Any one interpretation could be destabilized as the image and text moved among various groups. Within such a context, photography and language remain ambiguous in their meaning. Hime’s work, therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation. To do so only ignores the larger historical, political and social processes that intertwined the lives of both the members of the expedition and the Red River community.

Notes 1. Canadian government refers to the single government and legislature established in 1841 which united the former provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. In terms of the exploration survey under consideration, the latter part of the 1850s was crucial. Nation building went hand-in-hand with industrial capitalism. Ties between government and business increased, especially in the construction of railways. The Toronto business establishment, eager for expansion of trade, considered settlement of the North-West a priority. The Canadian government also wished to confirm the agricultural potential of the interior, as shortage of land in Upper Canada had resulted in an exodus of farmers to the United States to homestead. 2. The term “British” is used as most of the people representing both the government and the exploratory team were of British origin. In this respect, they would have brought with them the values of that specific culture. The term “Canadian” is used when the exclusive interests of the Canadian government are being represented.

92 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

3. The photographs referred to throughout this paper are found in the National Archives of Canada, Humphrey Lloyd Hime Collection (1936-273) and the Geological Survey Collection (1970-088). 4. National Archives of Canada (NAC), Record Group (RG)5, C1, Vol. 578-579, No. 761. It should be noted that another expedition into this area, funded by the British Government and under the command of Captain John Palliser (1817- 1887) had commenced a year earlier. In addition, Palliser had applied for a photographer to accompany the expedition. Unfortunately, his request was considered financially excessive and turned down. (Irene Spry, The Papers of the Palliser Expedition, 1857-1860, Toronto: Champlain Society, 1968, 510, n. 3.) 5. The historical circumstances which led to the use of photography in this expedition have been described both by Richard Huyda in Camera in the Interior, and by A. J. Birrell, Into the Silent Land: Survey Photography in the Canadian West, 1858-1900, Ottawa: Information Canada, 1975. Readers wishing to familiarize themselves with the various views on the history of this area can refer to both the articles and bibliographies included in The Prairie West: Historical Readings, 2nd. ed., R. Douglas Francis and Howard Palmer, eds., Edmonton: Pica Pica Press, 1992. 6. Henry Youle Hind was born in England into an upper middle-class family, and arrived in Canada in the winter of 1846-47. His career brought him in contact with many of the powerful political figures of the time such as Sir Sandford Fleming. In 1857, Hind wrote to Sir William Logan, director of the Geological Survey of Canada, to seek support for an appointment on the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan exploring expedition. He was accepted and accompanied the expedition in the role of geologist and naturalist. In 1858, Hind took charge of the second expedition into the area. Hind requested that a photographer also accompany the expedition in addition to the party’s artist John Fleming (brother of Sandford Fleming). For further biographical information on Hind see W.L. Morton, Henry Youle Hind 1823-1908, Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1980. It is interesting to note that Hind’s younger brother was the Canadian artist William George Richardson Hind (1833-88). William accompanied his brother on the Labrador Exploring Expedition of 1860. Henry reproduced his brother’s pencil sketches and watercolours depicting scenery and native life in his Explorations in the Interior of the Labrador Peninsula, the Country of the Montagnais and Nasquapee, London, 1863. 7. The reports were written under the authority of the Provincial Secretary of Canada, T.J.J. Loranger. For a listing of Hind’s reports that comprised this work see Morton, Henry Youle Hind, pp. 147-148 and The Travellers: Canada to 1900: An Annotated Bibliography of Works Published in English from 1577, compiled by Elizabeth Waterston with Ian Easterbrook, Bernard Katz, and Kathleen Scott, Guelph, Ont.: University of Guelph Press, 1989. 8. Yet another unillustrated account, written by an anonymous author (most likely Hind), was published as “A Cruise on the Winnipeg to Red River” in the 14 June 1862 edition of the British magazine The Leisure Hour: A Family Journal of Instruction and Recreation. 9. For a formal analysis of Hime’s work see Peter Galassi, Before Photography: Painting and the Invention of Photography, New York and Boston: Museum of Modern Art, 1981 and James Borcoman, Magicians of Light: Photographs from the Collection of the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1993. 10. Huyda, Camera in the Interior, 26.

93 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

11. Huyda, Camera in the Interior, 25. 12. The Narrative included seventy-six woodcuts and twenty whole-page chromoxy- lographs or coloured plates. Fascination with this particular work continues into the present century. It was republished as the Narrative of the Canadian Red River Exploring Expedition of 1857 and of the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition of 1858, 2 vols., New York: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1969. The Narrative was again republished in 1971 in a one volume edition by the Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc. This edition includes colour plates whereas the Greenwood Press publication does not. 13. The work of the party’s artist, John Fleming, was also included in both the book publication and The Illustrated London News. The practice of employing both a photographer and an artist on one survey expedition was somewhat unusual, and is more associated with the American expeditions of the post Civil War period. For example, the artist Sanford Gifford (1823-1880) and photographer William Henry Jackson (1843-1942) were both employed on Ferdinand Hayden’s 1869 survey of Wyoming. Both Jackson and Thomas Moran (1837-1926) accompanied Hayden’s 1871 geological survey into the Yellowstone area. For more on this subject, see Peter B. Hales, William Henry Jackson and the Transformation of the American Landscape, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988. 14. For a study of the interaction of text and image in nineteenth-century photography see Martha A. Sandweiss, “Undecisive Moments: The Narrative Tradition in Western Photography” in Photography in Nineteenth-Century America, Martha A. Sandweiss, ed., Fort Worth: Amon Carter Museum, 1991, 98-129, and Alan Trachtenberg, Reading American Photographs: Images as History, Mathew Brady to Walker Evans, New York: Hill and Wang, 1989. 15. I use the term “native” throughout this essay in a general sense to describe the aboriginal populace. In some cases, the term also includes the mixed-blood peoples as a British Victorian audience would view such individuals within the larger grouping of the “Indian” race (regardless of the even further tribal divisions the aboriginals had for defining their origins and culture). In other words, although the mixed-bloods had both native and white parentage, they would still be seen by Victorians as non-European or non-white. When specific issues arise surrounding the use of the latter group as photographic subjects, I will use the term “mixed-blood” to establish them as an independent race. 16. For more on the relation between artists, their written accounts of their travels, and the cultural biases expressed in the literature of travel see Ian MacLaren’s article “‘I came to rite thare portraits’: Paul Kane’s Journal of his Western Travels, 1846-1848,” in The American Art Journal, Vol. XXI, No. 2 (1989): pp. 7-21. In this article, MacLaren argues that discrepancies between Kane’s journal and the final version of his book, Wanderings of an Artist (1859) are sometimes so significant that it can only be concluded that Kane had help writing his manuscript. Moreover, changes in the text were often made to affirm the period’s views of the area Kane visited, and its native populace. In terms of the latter, where Kane wrote respectfully about aboriginal peoples, the published text changes his wording to characterize the native in a derogatory manner. 17. Huyda, Camera in the Interior,p.3. 18. Huyda, Camera in the Interior, 18-20. 19. The Illustrated London News, vol. XXXIII, no. 941 (16 October 1858), 366. The whereabouts of this photograph is at present unknown. It should be noted that at this point, the reproduction of photographs in publications such as The Illustrated

94 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

London News could only be achieved through engravings, as the half-tone process had yet to be invented. 20. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 286. 21. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 336. 22. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 288. 23. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 297-98. 24. As seen in the panoramic paintings of American artists associated with the Hudson River School such as Asher B. Durand (1796-1886) and Thomas Cole (1801-48). The works of the Canadian artists Paul Kane (1810-71) and Peter Rindisbacher (1806-34) also dramatized the western interior with their depictions of native life. Kane was especially well known to a Canadian audience as his works had been exhibited in Toronto on 9 November 1848, and in the 1852 Upper Canada Provincial Exhibition in Brockville. Appreciation of Hind’s Narrative would also have been heightened by Kane’s Wanderings of an Artist, published in 1859, in addition to other accounts of the west, most importantly Georges Catlin’s Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Condition of the North American Indians, published in 1841. For more on this subject, see J. R. Harper, Paul Kane’s Frontier: Including Wanderings of an Artist among the Indians of North America, by Paul Kane, Toronto: University of Toronto Press for Amon Carter Museum, 1971. 25. One of the purposes of the expedition was to determine whether the American desert extended into the land of the North-West. Hind indicated on his map that the “Great American Desert” was located in the southern plains area, but that a “Fertile Belt” ran the length of the country to its north. (R. Douglas Francis, Images of the West, 6.) For a further discussion on Hind’s characterization of this area, and its relation to the western expansionist movement, see Chapter 3 of Doug Owram’s Promise of Eden: The Canadian Expansionist Movement and the Idea of the West 1856-1900, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980, 59-78. Both Hind and his audience associated the desert with the wasteland of the Old Testament. For a study of the wilderness and its biblical symbolism see John Rennie Short, Imagined Country: Environment, Culture and Society, London and New York: Routledge, 1991. 26. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 148-49. 27. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 149. 28. Hime diary, N.A.C. MG 24 H87. 29. The birds are flying in a common v-shape, except that there is a sudden ninety degree shift in the flight. Birds do not fly this way as a group. The path depicted is a formal artistic one. 30. The tradition of associating the cardinal direction of west with death began in the thirteenth-century with the building of cathedrals. Gothic architects positioned the portals to the setting sun. Theologians associated this direction with the Day of Judgement. As Émile Mâle explains: “The medieval doctors, with their curiously bad etymology, connected occidens with the verb occidere, and the west became for them the region of death.” Emile Mâle, The Gothic Image: Religious Art in France of the Thirteenth Century, New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row, 1972, 6. 31. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 134. 32. “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall the coming of the Son of man be.” Matthew 24:27. 33. Another example of Victorian anxiety in this respect can be found in the photographs of the Royal Engineers taken during the North American Boundary

95 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Commission of 1872-75 (NAC Beach Collection 1973-011). Several photographs entitled “Dead Crow Indians” appear. The natives who had died in battle were left unburied, and the photographs reveal their bodies in various stages of decay. 34. Plate 30, “Indian graves, covered with split sticks. An enemy’s scalp is usually suspended from the thin poles overhanging the grave, September-October, 1858,” and plate 31, “Indian graves, covered with birch bark (the patch of white in the foreground is snow), September-October, 1858.” 35. Hind reported that the natives were in a state of despair with a poor wild rice and fish harvest. “With a partial failure in the rice, and a great scarcity of fish … the anticipations of the coming winter on the part of those who cared to think of the sufferings of the wretched Indians of the Winnipeg, were gloomy indeed.” Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 119. 36. At this period, photographs of the dead were largely confined to post-mortem depictions. The unburied remains of a dead white person would not be photographed. Such subject matter first entered wide circulation during the American Civil War (1860-65) through the works of photographers such as Timothy O’Sullivan and Alexander Gardner. 37. Hind’s writings display a mixture of concern, criticism, sympathy and paternalism towards the natives. At one point in the Narrative, it is evident that he understands how increased exploration of the interior will directly affect the future of native existence. He quotes a native leader who explained his position with respect to the presence of the white man: “We have hearts, and love our lives and our country. … We do not want the white man; when the white man comes he brings disease and sickness and our people perish; we do not wish to die … we wish to love and to hold the land our fathers won. … Tell men this, and the talk is finished.” Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, 100. Hind also included this section in the government reports. 38. Hind contrasts native and Christian ceremonies in such terms in his first volume when he describes attending a service at St. James Church in the Red River settlement area. Beyond the boundaries of the community, a native ritual is taking place: “A wonderful contrast do the subdued Indian worshippers in this mission village present on Sunday, to the heathen revellers of the prairies, who perform their … ceremonies within a mile and a half from some of the Christian altars of Red River.” Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, pp. 201-02. 39. For example, in the second volume, Hind and his exploration party attend a service at the Fairford Mission (near Lake Manitoba on a tributary of the Little Saskatchewan): “There were forty persons present, consisting of Indians and Half-breeds. … There were one hundred and twenty Christians, adults and children, at this Mission. The houses … are in excellent order. … We were supplied with potatoes, onions, turnips, fresh bread, and butter, and otherwise hospitably entertained. …” Hind, Narrative, vol. 2, 36-38. 40. Alexander Ross, The Red River Settlement and its Rise, Progress, and Present State, With Some Account of the Native Races and Its General History to the Present Day, London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1856, 140. 41. Ross, The Red River Settlement, 142. 42. Ross, The Red River Settlement, 145. 43. In some cases, however, the continuance of hunting rituals was part of a larger social and cultural phenomenon. For example, Gerhard Ens argues that the fur trade had become increasingly profitable after the breakup of the Hudson’s Bay monopoly in the 1840s. The Métis in particular took advantage of this situation,

96 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

leaving the colony for long periods of time in order to hunt buffalo and prepare the hides for market. For more on the relationship between this industry and its affects on the Red River colony see his article “Dispossession or Adaptation? Migration and Persistence of the Red River Metis, 1835-1890, in The Prairie West, Historical Readings, ed. R. Douglas Frances and Howard Palmer, 2nd. ed., Edmonton: Pica Pica Press, 1992, 136-161, and his book Homeland to Hinterland: The Changing Worlds of the Red River Metis in the Nineteenth Century, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. 44. Frits Pannekoek, A Snug Little Flock: The Social Origins of the Riel Resistance of 1869-70, Winnipeg: Watson & Dwyer Publishing, 1991, 36-37. 45. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, p. 209. 46. Hind, Narrative, vol. 1, p. 208. 47. Gerald Friesen, The Canadian Prairies: A History, Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 1984, 95. 48. For a specific study on this subject see Sylvia M. Van Kirk’s “‘What if Mama is an Indian?’: The Cultural Ambivalence of the Alexander Ross Family” in The Developing West: Essays on Canadian History in Honour of Lewis H. Thomas, John E. Foster, ed., Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1983. 49. Such was the view of Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau who wrote Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (1853-55) which was translated into English as The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of the Races (1856). De Gobineau argued that the Aryan race had allowed itself to be “contaminated” through interbreeding with “inferior” races. 50. For more on how images of native peoples in the post-1870 period were manipulated or placed in textual contexts that supported colonial interests, see Sarah Carter, Capturing Women: The Manipulation of Cultural Imagery in Canada’s Prairie West, Montreal & Kingston: McGill University Press, 1997. 51. As seen, for example, in the works of Hill and Adamson. 52. It is very possible that Wigwam viewed himself in such a manner, and had some say as to the final outcome of the photograph. However, what is at issue in this essay is how the general Canadian and British public would interpret his portrait within the context of the period’s understandings of native peoples. In terms of Hime’s photography, it is unknown how he interacted with his native subjects as his diary does not include entries for the period between September and November when these photographs were taken. (His diary does note, however, that an expense of 24¢ was incurred for a “squaw sitting” on 26 October 1858.) 53. See Pannekoek’s fourth chapter entitled, “A Little Britain in the Wilderness,” in A Snug Little Flock, 78-95. Sylvia M. Van Kirk also describes the social significance of the introduction of British women to the colony, and its consequences for native and Métis women, in her article “The Impact of White Women on Fur Trade Society,” in Sweet Promises: A Reader on Indian-White Relations in Canada, J.R. Miller, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991, 180-204. For a more extended study on the circumstances of native women in Western Canada see the same author’s book Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur-Trade Society in Western Canada, 1670-1870, Winnipeg: Watson Dwyer Publishing, 1980. The complex relationship between race, culture and gender is also explored by Erica Smith in her article “‘Gentlemen, This is no Ordinary Trial’: Sexual Narratives in the Trial of Reverend Corbett, Red River, 1863,” Reading Beyond Words: Contexts for Native History, Jennifer S.H. Brown and Elizabeth Vibert, eds. Peterborough, Ontario; Orchard Park, N.Y.: Broadview Press, 1996, 364-380.

97 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Legend of illustrations Illustrated London News, p. 6, Ojibway Encampment near the Falls of the Rainy River, May 24, 1858. Humphry Lloyd Hime, The Prairie Looking West, September-October 1858, NAC C-017443. Humphry Lloyd Hime, An Ojibway Woman with Baby, September-October 1858, National Gallery of Canada (NGC) 30041. Humphry Lloyd Hime, Wigwam; an Ojibway-Métis, Lake Superiror, September- October 1858, NGC 30040. Humphry Lloyd Hime, Lelitia, a Cree Halfbreed, September-October 1858, NAC C-001732.

Bibliography Berger, Carl. Science, God, and Nature in Victorian Canada: The 1982 Joanne Goodman Lectures. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983. Birrell, Andrew. Into the Silent Land: Survey Photography in the Canadian West, 1858-1900. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1975. ————. “The North America Boundary Commission, Three Photographic Expeditions, 1872-74,” History of Photography 20:2 (Summer 1996): 113-121. Blackman, Margaret. “‘Copying People’: Northwest Coast Native Response to Early Photography,” in B.C. Studies No. 52 (Winter 1981-82): 86-112. Borcoman, James. Magicians of Light: Photographs from the Collection of the National Gallery of Canada. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1993. Carter, Sarah. Capturing Women: The Manipulation of Cultural Imagery in Canada’s Prairie West. Montreal & Kingston: McGill University Press, 1997. Dewan, Janet. “The Mourner: ‘Red Man’s Memories’,” in History of Photography, Vol. 15, No. 2, Summer 1991, pp. 135-9. Dippie, Brian W. “Representing the Other: The North American Indian,” in Anthropology and Photography, 1860-1920. Elizabeth Edwards, ed. (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1992): 132-136. ————. Catlin and His Contemporaries: The Politics of Patronage. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1990. Ens, Gerhard J. Homeland to Hinterland: The Changing Worlds of the Red River Metis in the Nineteenth Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. ————. “Dispossession or Adaptation? Migration and Persistence of the Red River Metis, 1835-1890, in The Prairie West, Historical Readings, ed. R. Douglas Frances and Howard Palmer, 2nd. ed., Edmonton: Pica Pica Press, 1992, 136-161. Fleming, Paula Richardson and Luskey, Judith. Grand Endeavors of American Indian Photography. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993. Francis, Daniel. The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1992. Francis, R. Douglas and Palmer, Howard, eds. The Prairie West: Historical Readings. 2nd. ed., Edmonton: Pica Pica Press, 1992. Friesen, Gerald. The Canadian Prairies: A History. Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Galassi, Peter. Before Photography: Painting and the Invention of Photography. New York and Boston: Museum of Modern Art, 1981. Greenhill, Ralph. Early Photography in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1965. Greenhill, Ralph and Birrell, Andrew. Canadian Photography, 1839-1920. Toronto: Coach House Press, 1979. Hales, Peter. William Henry Jackson and the Transformation of the American Landscape. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988. Harper, J. R. Paul Kane’s Frontier: Including Wanderings of an Artist among the Indians of North America, by Paul Kane. Toronto: University of Toronto Press for Amon Carter Museum, 1971.

98 Relationships of Photography and Text in the Colonization of the Canadian West: The 1858 Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition

Hind, Henry Youle. Narrative of the Canadian Red River Exploring Expedition of 1857 and of the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition of 1858. London: Longman, 1860. ————. North-west Territory; Reports of Progress. Toronto: Lovell, 1859. ————. Report on a Topographical and Geological Exploration of the Canoe Route Between Fort William, Lake Superior and Fort Garry, Red River. Toronto: Derbishire, 1858. Huyda, Richard J. Camera in the Interior, 1858: H.L. Hime, Photographer, the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan Exploring Expedition. Toronto: Coach House Press, 1975. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Josephy, Jr., Alvin M. The Artist as a Young Man: The Life Story of Peter Rindisbacher. Fort Worth: Amon Carter Museum, 1970. MacLaren, Ian.“‘I came to rite thare portraits’: Paul Kane’s Journal of his Western Travels, 1846-1848,” in The American Art Journal, Vol. XXI, No. 2, 7-21. McClintock, Anne. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. London: Routledge, 1995. Morton, W.L. Henry Youle Hind 1823-1908. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1980. Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973. Owram, Doug. Promise of Eden: The Canadian Expansionist Movement and the Idea of the West 1856-1900. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980, 59-78. Pannekoek, Frits. A Snug Little Flock: The Social Origins of the Riel Resistance of 1869-70. Winnipeg: Watson & Dwyer Publishing, 1991. Reid, Dennis. ‘Our Own Country Canada’: Being an Account of the National Aspirations of the Principal Landscape Artists in Montreal and Toronto, 1860-1890. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1979. Ross, Alexander. The Red River Settlement and its Rise, Progress, and Present State, With Some Account of the Native Races and Its General History to the Present Day. London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1856. Sandweiss, Martha. “Undecisive Moments: The Narrative Tradition in Western Photography,” in Photography in Nineteenth Century America, Martha Sandweiss, ed. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1991, 98-129. Short, John Rennie. Imagined Country: Environment, Culture and Society. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. Smith, Erica. “‘Gentlemen, This is no Ordinary Trial’: Sexual Narratives in the Trial of Reverend Corbett, Red River, 1863,” Reading Beyond Words: Contexts for Native History, Jennifer S.H. Brown and Elizabeth Vibert, eds. Peterborough, Ontario; Orchard Park, N.Y.: Broadview Press, 1996, 364-380. Snyder, Joel. “Territorial Photography,” in Landscape and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994, 175-201. Spry, Irene M. The Palliser Expedition: The Dramatic Story of Western Canadian Exploration, 1857-1860. Saskatoon: Fifth House, 1995. ————, ed. The Papers of the Palliser Expedition, 1857-1860. Toronto: Champlain Society, 1968. Stanley, George. Birth of Western Canada: A History of the Riel Rebellion. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1960. Stanton, William. The Leopard’s Spots: Scientific Attitudes Toward Race in America, 1851-59. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Trachtenberg, Alan. Reading American Photographs: Images as History, Mathew Brady to Walker Evans. New York: Hill & Wang, 1989. Van Kirk, Sylvia M. “The Impact of White Women on Fur Trade Society,” in Sweet Promises: A Reader on Indian-White Relations in Canada, J.R. Miller, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991, 180-204. ————. Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur-trade Society, 1670-1870. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983.

99 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

————. “‘What if Mama is an Indian?’: The Cultural Ambivalence of the Alexander Ross Family,” in The Developing West: Essays on Canadian History in Honour of Lewis H. Thomas, John E. Foster, ed., Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1983,123-136. Waterston, Elizabeth; Easterbrook, Ian; Katz, Bernard; and Scott, Kathleen. The Travellers: Canada to 1900. An Annotated Bibliography of Works Published in English from 1577. Guelph, Ont.: University of Guelph Press, 1989. Zeller, Suzanne. “Classical Codes: Biogeographical Assessments of Environment in Victorian Canada,” in Journal of Historical Geography, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1998): 20-35. ————. Land of Promise, Promised Land: The Culture of Victorian Science in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1996. ————. Inventing Canada: Early Victorian Science and the Idea of a Trans- continental Nation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987.

100 Robert Cupido

The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927

Abstract The article explores the use of radio by pan-Canadian nationalists to advance the nation-building project of the interwar period through a detailed study of the historic coast-to-coast broadcast of July 1, 1927 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation. The pioneering broadcast, which formed the highlight of the Dominion-wide Jubilee observances, was universally hailed as a triumph of national cooperation and unity. It was lavishly praised by organizers as both a symbol and catalyst of the common, distinctively Canadian national identity they hoped to awaken through the commemorative rituals of the Jubilee. The Jubilee Broadcast, now largely forgotten, represented an important milestone in the growth of “technological nationalism,” defined by Maurice Charland as the construction and legitimation of a nation-state through publicly funded and sponsored transportation and communications systems. An analysis of the planning, organization, content and popular reception of the broadcast, which included the inaugural performance of the Carillon of the Peace Tower and “a great national program” of patriotic ceremonies and entertainments from Parliament Hill, suggests both the possibilities and limitations of radio and other modern mass media as vehicles for nation-building in an intractably pluralist society.

Résumé Cet article se penche sur l’utilisation de la radio par des nationalistes pancanadiens qui voulaient promouvoir le projet de développement du pays de l’entre-deux-guerres. Plus précisément, il s’agit d’une étude détaillée sur la diffusion historique, d’un océan à l’autre, de l’émission de radio du 1er juillet 1927 visant à souligner le Jubilé de diamant de la Confédération canadienne. À l’époque, l’émission d’avant-garde, qui constituait le clou des célébrations du Jubilé partout dans le Dominion, a été universellement saluée comme un triomphe de la coopération et de l’unité nationales. Ses organisateurs ne tarissaient pas d’éloges envers cet événement qu’ils regardaient tant comme un symbole que comme un catalyseur de l’identité nationale canadienne commune et distincte qu’ils espéraient faire émerger grâce aux rites commémoratifs de la célébration du Jubilée. L’émission de radio du Jubilée, aujourd’hui presque totalement oubliée, a représenté une étape importante dans l’essor du « nationalisme technologique » tel que Maurice Charland l’a défini, soit la construction et la légitimation de l’État-nation par des systèmes de transport et de communication financés et parrainés par les pouvoirs publics. Une analyse de la planification, de l’organisation, du contenu et de l’accueil réservé par la population à cette

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

émission, lors de laquelle le Carillon de la Tour de la Paix a retenti pour la première fois, ainsi qu’un « grand programme national » de cérémonies patriotiques et de divertissement en direct de la Colline du Parlement, est révélatrice tant des possibilités que des limites de la radio et d’autres moyens de communication de masse à titre d’instruments de construction d’un pays à l’intérieur d’une société irréductiblement pluraliste.

The radio announcers of the 1920s would have urged listeners to close their eyes and visualize the following scene. The place is Ottawa. The date is July 1, 1927. The time is one minute before noon on a glaringly bright and sultry summer day. An enormous crowd of over forty thousand men, women and children in their holiday finery–photographs show a sea of silk parasols and straw boaters–has gathered on Parliament Hill. A “surging mass of humanity” jostles for a vantage point in the neighbouring streets, and the windows and rooftops of nearby buildings are lined with “eager and curious onlookers.”1 Their attention is directed towards a large temporary podium, festooned with garlands of maple leaves, Union Jacks, the Dominion and provincial coats of arms, and surmounted by the dates 1867 and 1927, that has been erected at the base of the still uncomplete Peace Tower. (The last pieces of scaffolding had been removed on the previous day from the soaringGothicmemorialtothedeadoftheGreatWar.) Thepodiumisfilled withsuch“notablepublicmen”astherecentlyappointedGovernorGeneral Lord Willingdon, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and the Acting Conservative Leader of the Opposition T. C. Guthrie, in morning suits and Windsor uniforms. A festive atmosphere, overlaid by a sense of mounting excitement, prevails. The hands of the four-sided clock at the apex of the tower finally meet, and the deep, reverberating note of a single great bell tolls the hour from the upper recesses of the tower. An expectant hush falls over the crowd, almost instantly shattered by the report of the noonday gun and a blaring trumpet fanfare. Before its last echoes have died away across the river, the tall, patrician figure of Willingdon, with a vice-regal flourish, presses a button presented to him by the Minister of Public Works, sending an electric signal to twenty-five year-old Percival Price, a noted young musician from Montreal, who is sitting hunched over a curious arrangement of keys and pedals in a cramped cubicle just below the workings of the great clock. And the first ethereal notes of O Canada, played for the first time on the fifty-three newly installed bells of the National Carillon–delivered from a Birmingham foundry and hoisted to their perch during the past few weeks of frantic preparations–waft over the forty thousand upturned faces on Parliament Hill.2 The inaugural performance of the Carillon was also registered by specially designed microphones strategically placed on the exterior fabric of the Peace Tower by Bell Company of Canada engineers; was carried to banks of powerful transmitters installed in the antechamber and committee rooms of the House of Commons; and from there relayed through 23,000 miles of telephone and telegraph wires and a hastily improvised network of

102 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 twenty-two private radio stations, to virtually every corner of the Dominion. At precisely the same moment, from Cape Breton to Vancouver Island, in bustling cities and isolated fishing villages, in lonely prairie homesteads and northern mining camps, Canadians clustered around their Marconi radio sets felt a synchronized surge of patriotic emotion at hearing the pure tones of the great bells in their parlours and kitchens, as distinctly, many of them claimed, as if they too were present with the assembled multitudes on Parliament Hill. Such, according to contemporary accounts, was the dramatic impact of the first nation-wide radio broadcast in Canadian history. The Dominion Day broadcast was only one of the more spectacular public events that were staged throughout the country to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation. The 1927 Jubilee represented the first major attempt by the federal state to foster social and political unity, inculcate modern notions of democratic citizenship, and develop a distinct, pan-Canadian sense of national identity through the use of commemorative ritual. Its explicit purpose was to direct the primary loyalty of Canadians to the nation as a whole, to national institutions, symbols and authority structures. In March 1927, a national committee was created by Act of Parliament to develop plans for a Dominion-wide celebration and to encourage and coordinate the efforts of local communities. It was chaired by George Graham, a senior Liberal senator, former Minister of Railways under Laurier and King and a leading figure in the Canadian Club movement. The Committee recruited dozens of experts from business, industry, the federal civil service and the universities to deal with particular aspects of the commemoration. Especially elaborate celebrations were planned for the nation’s capital, in keeping with the determination of the King administration to transform Ottawa into the geographical and emotional focus of national sentiment for all Canadians. However, the commemor- ative ceremonies and patriotic entertainments staged in Ottawa on July 1 could hardly have made a decisive contribution to the nation-building process if their influence was confined to the tens of thousands of local residents and tourists who were physically present on Parliament Hill on July 1. Press reports after the fact, regardless of their thoroughness or vividness, could not hope to reproduce the emotional and psychological impact of collective ritual. At an early stage in its deliberations, therefore, the National Committee decided to arrange a radio transmission that would “allow the citizens of Canada from ocean to ocean … to participate in the altogether worthy and inspiring” Jubilee programme from the capital.3 If the highly experimental attempt succeeded, the Committee predicted it would form “the most interesting and important feature of the celebration.”4 More than any other medium, radio established a peculiarly intimate relationship with individual listeners who, especially in the early years of

103 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes development before much of the novelty had worn off, often referred to the uncanny impression that the disembodied voices emanating from the receiver were speaking directly to them. In 1927, the Dominion government was confident in its ability to exploit the possibilities of this unmediated intimacy between the medium of communication and its audience for nation-building purposes. The Jubilee Broadcast, now largely forgotten, represented an important milestone–the completion of the transcontinental railway was another–in the growth of “technological nationalism,” defined by Maurice Charland as the construction and legitimation of a nation-state through publicly funded and sponsored transportation and communications systems.5 A study of the official “program of commemoration” broadcast from Parliament Hill on July 1, 1927, and the public responses that it generated can illuminate important aspects of the “politics of culture” during the transitional decade of the 1920s, and more particularly serve to reveal both the uses and the limitations of modern media as vehicles of nation-building in an intractably pluralist society.

Live From Ottawa: Transmitting the New Nationality There were few allusions to such limitations in the hundreds of press reports that represented the inauguration of the Carillon, in the most extravagant terms, as a potent symbol of Canadian nationhood. As O Canada was succeeded by the familiar strains of The Maple Leaf Forever and God Save the King, the invisible radio waves forged, in the words of one observer, “a union in spirit and sentiment undreamed of by the nation’s founders.”6 The Toronto Star reporter breathlessly described how, when “the clarion blast of trumpets” suddenly pealed from the heights of the Peace Tower, a momentous hush fell over the waiting multitude, succeeded by the notes of single, “great, deep-toned bell” striking the hour, and at the same time marking the attainment of sixty years of national existence–“an extraordinary living symbol of a united Canada.”7 The music of the Carillon, floating over the crowd with “all the melody and delicate shading effects of a great organ,” was eulogized by Saturday Night as “the paean of a people proud of their country, grateful to the men who laid its foundations, and determined to carry forward their ideals.”8 According to another contemporary editorial, the peal of the great bells represented “the heart throbs of the nation,” heard and felt throughout the length and breadth of the country, “from the furthest east to the furthest west,” forging an instant and common communion. Distance was “annihilated,” geographical barriers “rendered of no account.”9 Or so, at least, the nationalist elites responsible for organizing the broadcast devoutly hoped. Mackenzie King was convinced that the broadcast had contributed decisively to the creation of a modern, overarching sense of national identity, destined to subsume older, more traditional loci of collective allegiance found in the British Empire or the province of Quebec. In a

104 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 speech delivered at the opening of the Canadian National Exhibition in August, King quoted the sceptical views of Christopher Dunkin, expressed during the Confederation Debates, on the dim prospects for the emergence of a new Canadian nationality in 1867: “We have a large class whose national feelings turn towards London, whose very heart is there; another large class whose sympathies centre here in Quebec … But have we any class of people who are attached or whose feelings are going to be directed with any earnestness to the city of Ottawa, the centre of the new nationality that is to be created?”10 Both Mackenzie King and the National Jubilee Committee ventured to believe that such a class of people had been brought into being on July 1, 1927, claiming that “After many years this doubt has been dispelled and the question has been answered by the voice of the Canadian people united in the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation.”11 King exulted in the belief that “on the morning, afternoon and evening of July 1, all Canada became, for the time being, a single assemblage, swayed by a common emotion, within the sound of a single voice …”12 The Jubilee broadcast had supposedly created a public of passive listeners directly and personally connected to the voice of its political leaders in Ottawa: For the first time in the history of Canada the word spoken on Parliament Hill … was carried instantaneously in all parts of this vast Dominion. Never before was a national program enjoyed by the citizens of any land over so vast an area. It is doubtful if ever before … the thoughts of so many of the citizens of any country were concentrated upon what was taking place at its capital, or whether those in authority were brought into such immediate and sympathetic personal touch with those from whom their authority was derived.13 King also candidly expressed his belief in the potential of modern communications technology for legitimizing a new centralist vision of national culture and citizenship, stating that “Hitherto to most Canadians Ottawa has seemed far off, a mere name to hundreds of thousands of our people, but henceforth all Canadians will stand within the sound of the carillonandwithinhearingofthespeakersonParliamentHill.”14 Butwould they choose to listen? The Broadcasting Sub-Committee that was hastily assembled on April 1, a scant twelve weeks before Dominion Day, included the senior executives of leading electrical and communications firms, as well as officials from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which at this time was responsible for the regulation of all forms of radio transmission in Canada. The most active and effective members consisted of the Chairman, Thomas Ahearn, a vice-president of the Northern Electric Company; the vice chairman, J. E. Macpherson, a leading professional engineer and Vice President of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada; and A. R. McEwan, Director of Radio for Canadian National Railways. Commander C. P. Edwards, Director of

105 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

RadiofortheDepartmentofMarineandFisheriesservedasSecretary,anda sub-committee under the chairmanship of John W. Clarke, Chief Transmission Engineer of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, was appointed to survey and requisition the vast extent of uncoordinated telegraph and telephone lines needed for the broadcast.15 A number of major technical challenges had to be overcome, using improvised solutions. The national broadcast was transmitted over the circuits and lines of nine separate systems characterized by incompatible circuits and transmitting equipment. In order to link them all together to form a single temporary nationwide chain, the Committee had to “beg, borrow and steal amplifying and repeating equipment from every available source on the continent.”16 Over 1,100 miles of telephone circuits and 1,200 miles of telegraph wire, out of a total of 23,000, had to be supplied by American companies to span the sparsely populated wilderness of northwestern Ontario between Detroit and southern Manitoba.17 Acircular letter was sent to virtually every municipality in the Dominion, offering to make public address systems available from the Northern Electric Company free of charge for the use of local Jubilee committees that wished to incorporate the national broadcast into their community celebrations. AccountsoftheBroadcastCommittee’sactivitiesrepeatedlystressedthe “extreme difficulty” of its achievement. An immense quantity of intricate amplifying equipment was collected and shipped to Montreal, assembled, mounted and then distributed to dozens of communities throughout the Dominion. The Committee had to coordinate transmitting circuits with widely differing specifications, creating a temporary national network by stringing together available telephone lines from one end of the country to the other. In a number of stretches–between Levis and Moncton, and Sudbury and Winnipeg, for example–where few telephone lines existed, crucial gaps were filled using the resources of the CNR and CPR telegraph networks. The telephone and telegraph facilities of twenty-six different companies were cobbled together to create a makeshift chain of stations stretching across the Dominion, requiring the design and manufacture of special devices for integrating incompatible pieces of the participating systems. A largely female army of telegraphers acted as the nerves of the system. The entire experiment involved a series of “complicated adjustments, balances, coordinations and equalizations,” performed under intensive time pressure, that was acclaimed “a triumph of whole-souled, nation-wide cooperation.”18 Thomas Ahearn received most of the credit for the technical success of the broadcast.19 He was presented as the familiar type of heroic, visionary, strong-willed entrepreneur, who “absolutely refused to recognize obstacles of whatever sort … insisting on the quick accomplishment of the impos- sible.” Through his personal connections and appeals to the patriotism and professional pride of other industry executives, he was able to obtain the required equipment and labour at a minimal cost. Electrical apparatus,

106 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 transmission lines and skilled labour were made available for the broadcast which, if mounted on a commercial basis, would have cost the National Committee a prohibitive $3 million. The “weeks of labour, the sleepless anxiety” of those responsible for the broadcast were triumphantly vindicated by a success that was “beyond their fondest hopes.”20 The conclusion of the brief inaugural performance of the National Carillon was greeted with a royal salute fired by the noon gun, the joyful pealing of church bells, the blast of factory whistles and the thunderous roars of the crowd. The dedication of the Carillon was followed by the more prosaic ritual planting of a “Confederation Maple Tree” on Parliament Hill, on behalf of the women of Canada, by Viscountess Willingdon, and the mass singing of God Save the King by the assembled crowd, as the viceregal couple departed the scene.21 Commentary throughout the day was provided by two experienced announcers,A.W.RyanoftheOttawaCNROstationandJacquesN.Cartier of CKAC in Montreal–a direct descendant of the famous explorer–from their improvised studio in the East Block of the Parliament Buildings. Their detailed script, delivered alternately in French and English, might strike modern listeners as long-winded and dull; it did, however, serve the official purpose of underlining the bilingual nature of the occasion, and by extension of the new Canadian nationality that was being proclaimed from Ottawa.22 The afternoon portion of the program began at three o’clock in front of an estimatedsixtythousandspectators,byfarthelargestcrowdeverseeninthe capital. The participants and special guests, positioned in front of the main entrance to the Parliament Buildings and surrounding the speakers’ pavilion, included units of the Ottawa Garrison, contingents of veterans representing the Canadian Legion and other organizations, Boy Scouts, Girl Guides and high-school cadets, ten thousand schoolchildren in red, white and blue sashes, the Centenary Choir of one thousand voices, and the band of the Governor General’s Foot Guards. Press reports exhausted their store of superlatives in striving to convey “the moving and brilliant pageant of music and oratory,” which “captured the imagination of the entire capital.”23 The proceedings began with imperial pomp and ceremony, with the arrival of the Governor General and his consort in a carriage of state accompanied by a troop of horse guards. Resplendent in his Windsor uniform, Willingdon read the official Jubilee message from George V, carefully worded to avoid bruising nationalist sensibilities, which affirmed the close and imperishable ties of loyalty and affection between the King and his Canadian subjects. Willingdon went on to note with satisfaction that on this day the citizens of Canada–“men and women of many different races”–were gathering together “to proclaim their loyalty to their sovereign King George and their devotion to the land of their birth or adoption.”24 Sir

107 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Lomer Gouin then stepped to the microphone to read the original resolution passed by the House of Commons in February, proclaiming the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation, expressing faith and confidence in Canada’s future progress and prosperity, and its continuing political development as a self-governing member of the British Commonwealth of Nation25:“We trust that this commemoration will lend added inspiration to the patriotic fervour of our people and afford a clearer vision of our aspirations and ideals to the end that from sea to sea there may be developed a robust Canadian spirit and in all things Canadian a profounder national unity.”26 Gouin went on to recite selections in French and English from some of the more explicitly nationalist speeches of the major Fathers of Confederation, including Macdonald, Cartier, Brown and D’Arcy McGee. The dominant nationalist note struck by Gouin was reinforced by the singing of O Canada in both official languages by the Centenary Choir and several thousand Ottawa schoolchildren.27 There followed a “dramatic recitation” by Margaret Anglin, a celebrated actress and daughter of a former Speaker of the House of Commons, of Bliss Carman’s specially commissioned poem, Dominion Day 1927.28 Carman’s verses expressed the pan-Canadian vision of “one sacred land” from Grand Pré “with its brimming tides” to “our Western gate on Georgia Strait” and echoed Mackenzie King’s religious sense of Canada’s destiny as a force for world peace: “The din of nations on the march / Resounds. We wait the Voice / That shall to every living soul / Proclaim the mightier choice / The reign of brotherhood wherein / The man-god may rejoice.”29 Anglin’s “splendidly impressive” performance, described as “one of the supreme moments of the day,” was widely praised for its “majestic diction” and the “rich, cultured and expressive tones” in which she read Carman’s rather cryptic verses. A rendition by massed choirs of the chorus of The Maple Leaf Forever–tactfully omitting its awkward references to Wolfethe dauntless hero–was followed by the speeches of two descendants of well-known Fathers of Confederation, who had themselves achieved prominence in public life: L. P. D. Tilley, a Conservative cabinet minister from New Brunswick, and Thomas Chapais, a Liberal Senator and a former Minister of Public Works under Laurier.30 Chapais, speaking as a representative of Quebec, studiously avoided any reference to the British Empire, dwelling instead on the theme of national unity and Canada’s evolution as a prosperous, wholly autonomous North American nation. After 1867, “a national spirit was born, formed of various elements, and thus this Confederation has grown and become in northern America a political, economic and social entity to be reckoned with by the nations of the two continents … May Canada, our beloved country, gloriously fulfill its destiny and become one of the happiest and greatest nations of the world!” He obliquely defended the national aspirations of French Canada while at the same time reconciling it with the wider horizons of patriotism that opened in 1867: “Everywhere there is the little homeland,

108 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 nearer, more intimate and beloved. But it does not preclude love of country. On the contrary, the first sentiment is the most solid foundation for the other and gives it warmth and force. That is why we have in Canada what I would terma“provincial”anda“federal”patriotism.Botharejustified.Theyneed not clash nor exclude each other. Rather they should unite and harmonize to work together.” His conception of dual loyalties, however, does not extend to British imperialists, who are gently and indirectly chided for their allegiance to Great Britain. Those of the majority of my countrymen come from the old, ever honoured British Isles … But through their free choice and the will of God, they are, they must be, above all Canadians. Our country is not beyond the seas, it is here, on this blessed, Christianized, civilized soil–a soil enriched by our pioneers, our missionaries and our martyrs. Our country is Canada, the land of the maple, of the St. Lawrence, of lofty mountains and giant lakes.31 Chapais’ nationalist confession of faith was countered by Tilley’s reassertion of imperial loyalty, in which Canada was described as a “nation within a nation,” the powerful and united “right arm of the British Empire.”32 The singing of Canada My Home in English and French preceded the keynote speeches of Mackenzie King and Hugh Guthrie, the Leader of the Opposition. King’s long, disjointed keynote speech, criticized in some quarters for excessive length, was praised by Saturday Night for its “eloquence in conveying the nobility of the country’s past and … the glory of its future.”33 King’s potted history of Canada, beginning with the arrival of Cabot and ending with his triumphant assertion of Canadian sovereignty at the 1926 Imperial Conference, tactfully acknowledged the continuing ties of Empire, but at the same time emphasized how attenuated they had become since 1867 by repeatedly referring to the nation-building initiatives of the postwar period. “From a parent state with colonial possessions, the British Empire has become a community of free nations in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs,” united solely by a common allegiance to the Crown.34 He proudly pointed to Canada’s independent participation in the peace negotiations of 1919 and the work of the League of Nations. And the process of nation- building was far from over. Canada’s status as a nation had never been so clearly defined. But problems relating tonationhood andEmpire remained to be resolved by present and future generations. A larger Canada, “emerging from obscurity and shade,” was set to “take her place in the sun among the powers of the world” by–a typical sentiment–losing itself in the service of others. There was inevitably a great deal of fervent and cloudy rhetoric about “the vision splendid” and the “righteousness that exalteth a nation.” King, like every other Jubilee orator, never actually succeeded in defining this vision of Canada that both “the humblest and the highest” had glimpsed, and in the absence of which “the people must perish.” But it

109 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes obviously had very little to do with what remained of the British connection.35 The much briefer address of Hugh Guthrie, the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, described Confederation as a successful experiment in imperial policy and affirmed, despite occasional disagreements and controversies, that the “absolute loyalty of the people to the Dominion and to the British Empire has never for a moment been challenged or doubted.” His peroration pointedly rejected the nationalist interpretation of Confederation as the first step on the road to constitutional autonomy and eventual independence, stating that “These Fathers of Confederation always kept in the forefront of all their efforts British ideals, British institutions, British forms of government and the maintenance of British Imperial ties.”36 Another patriotic anthem written especially for the occasion–Canada Land of My Heart’sAdoration–was succeeded by Raoul Dandurand’s plea for a truly bicultural Canada. Dandurand, a Liberal Senator and executive member of the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Montreal, presented the official francophone view of the Jubilee as a vehicle for finally reconciling and harmonizing the competing nationalisms of French and English Canada. He was followed, appropriately, by a choral version of the popular French- Canadian folk song, Vive la canadienne.37 Theafternoonprogramendedshortlybeforefiveo’clockwithsomebrief concluding remarks by George Graham, the singing of Elgar’s Land of Hope and Glory, and a final chorus of God Save the King.38 The evening segment of the broadcast was largely devoted to “patriotic entertainments,” interspersed with “patriotic orations” by the same cast of political dignitaries who figured in the afternoon program. The Ottawa Jubilee celebration had been advertised as a major showcase of the finest Canadian musical talent. During the interwar period, official commemor- ation drew various levels of government into involvement with the arts as patrons and sponsors, most obviously by providing thousands of commissions to artists, sculptors, stonemasons, metalsmiths and architects for cenotaphs, statues, monuments, plaques and public buildings designed to memorialize the dead of the Great War. Government sponsorship of civic celebrations like the Diamond Jubilee provided yet another vehicle for encouraging, promoting and less frequently directly subsidizing the work of artists, writers, composers and performers. “On no occasion,” according to Maria Tippett, “was it clearer how this sort of activity might stimulate the arts than on the warm July day of 1927 when the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation was celebrated on Parliament Hill.”39 The Jubilee also revealed how the arts might be mobilized in the service of nation building in the decades before the Massey Commission and the creation of the Canada Council.

110 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927

The Carillon opened the proceedings with another selection of “typical Canadian Airs”: O Canada,40 and the “well known patriotic song,” The Maple Leaf Forever were followed by two popular chansons from Quebec, Vive la Canadienne and Un Canadien errant. The musical prologue set the pattern for the remainder of the scrupulously balanced program, in which every announcement was made in both English and French, Anglophone and Francophone speakers alternated with each other on the podium, and medleys of French-Canadian folk songs were invariably followed by traditional British ballads and hymns.41 The Peace Tower was illuminated for the occasion, transforming the grounds of the Parliament Buildings into a brilliantly lit amphitheatre that elicited more than one allusion to “a midsummer night’s dream.”42 A brief welcoming address by Willingdon in both official languages that was warmly praised in press reports for both its brevity and fluency, was followed by a curious musical tribute to the newly appointed Governor General: an instrumental suite of Edwardian popular songs that he had composed as a student at Oxford, performed by the Chateau Laurier Quartette.43 Margaret Anglin, repeating her florid rendition of Bliss Carman’s Confederation Ode, was followed by Eva Gauthier, “the world-famed Canadian prima donna,” singing a selection of five familiar folk songs, representing the various elements that went into the making of the dual nationality being celebrated on Parliament Hill: À la claire fontaine from French Canada, Robert Burns’s Loch Lmond, the famous Welshhymn AllThroughtheNight,theIrishballadTheLastRoseofSummer,andODear What Can the Matter Be, from England.44 Gauthier’s medley neatly demonstrated the official boundaries of cultural pluralism in 1927. Mackenzie King, perhaps at the prompting of organizers anxious about the unexpected length of the program and the lateness of the hour, rushed through a repeat performance of his afternoon speech (and was chided by the Toronto Star “for speaking just a trifle too fast for the comfort of his audience.”45) King’s address was followed by the Hart House String Quartette, a distinguished chamber music group from Toronto, performing three original compositions, by the prominent Canadian composers Sir Ernest Macmillan and Leo Smith.46 The cultural and linguistic balance of the entire program was finely calibrated. Guthrie’s pointedly loyalist remarks, for example, were immediatelyfollowedbyaselectionoftraditionalBritishballadsandmusic hall songs sung by Allen McQuae, an Irish-Canadian tenor, while Raoul Dandurand’s address in French was paired with yet another set of folk songs from Quebec played by the Chateau Laurier Orchestra. For the majority of spectators, the musical highlight of the evening was provided by the popular Ottawa vocal group Charles Marchand and the Bytown Troubadours, who invariably appeared dressed up as lusty lumberjacks or jaunty voyageurs, in plaid shirts, corduroy trousers and

111 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes buckskins, with colourful handkerchiefs knotted around their necks and clay pipes in their teeth. Marchand, a key figure in the nostalgic revival and popularization of traditional French-Canadian folk music, combined ethnographic research with the vulgar showmanship of blackface minstrelsy. The Troubadours regaled the crowd with rousing renditions of the most “characteristic” songs of the habitant–En roulant ma boule, Youp youp sur la rivière, and, inevitably, Allouette.47 The Diamond Jubilee officially incorporated the surviving fragments of Quebec’s folk culture–fitted out in quaint fancy dress for the benefit of Anglophone consumers–into a common, pan-Canadian national identity. Many French-Canadianfolksongshadafterallbecome“aswellknowninEnglish Canada as Quebec … heard in the college halls and practically every public assembly … and were not unknown in the House of Commons of Canada.”48 Marchand’s showstopping performance helped to fulfill Rodolphe Lemieux’s desire for “un grand concert populaire où les vieilles chansons canadiennes-francaises seraient à l’affiche. Il me semble qu’alternant avec les chansons anglaises ces bons vieux refrains canadiens plairaient au publique. Le grand festival aurait un cachet vraiment national.”49 At one o’clock in the morning, as the chimes of the tower clock struck the hour, the Chateau Laurier Orchestra began to serenade the thinning crowds with yet another “selection of patriotic airs,” bringing the historic “national Jubilee broadcast” to a rather anticlimactic end.50

Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Ambiguities of Reception In purely technical terms the Committee had shattered all previous distance records for a single transmission. The broadcast was received from one end of Canada to the other, reaching into remote northern districts, countless points in the United States, throughout Central America and Mexico, in large parts of South America, New Zealand, as well as Great Britain and much of the European continent. An estimated five million people around the world reportedly heard “the sublime sounds of the great carillon from the Peace Tower, the voices of thousands of Canadian children raised in praise, and the several statesmen giving utterance to thoughts worthy of so great an occasion.”51 At the end of the broadcast, the announcers invited listeners to write to the National Diamond Jubilee Committee with their comments on the quality of their reception. The response to the appeal was overwhelming, with over thirty thousand letters and telegrams sent to the National Committee in the weeks following the broadcast. A number of correspondents expressed sentiments that seemed to vindicate King’s feelings of triumph, and his faith in the efficacy of radio as a vehicle for nation building. L. Penny of Summerside, Prince Edward Island wrote that it was “splendid how much radio has done and will continue to do in making

112 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 us nearer to one another.” W. Humphrey of Montreal, who was in his 79th year, described how, “when the great bell began to boom at the noonday hour, the sound gave me a thrill that passed right through my body and I had many more thrills during the playing of the beautiful carillon. It was the most wonderful performance I have ever heard and I did not give it up until it ended at 1:34 in the morning …” J. Liddle of Windsor, Ontario had no doubt that the broadcast had done much “to foster a better national spirit and love of country” and only wished that “we could have more of such national programs …” An anonymous correspondent from Saskatoon tried to convey the “thrilling experience” of being linked up “so audibly though unseen with such a vast multitude in the singing of both our national anthems.” Another native of Saskatchewan could not find the words to express “how much it meant to the people of the west … the first time many of us have heard our premier’s voice … it seemed almost as if we were present in Ottawa.” Many letters from francophone listeners expressed their appreciation for the bilingual aspect of the broadcast. “Vos programmes,” wrote a priest from Lauzon, Quebec, “ont plu tout particulièrement par leur caractère bilingue …”52 “Never before,” confided King to his diary, “was the human voice heard at one and same time over such an extent of the world’s surface and by so many people … The Carillon and the radio broadcast have touched the hearts and minds and homes of the people all over Canada. It is particularly touching to read the notes coming in from outlying parts. We have at last a country of our own which is a nation, one of the powers of the world …”53 Indeed, King was so profoundly impressed by the results of the Jubilee broadcast that, according to E. Austin Weir, it played a key role, a year and a half later, in his decision to appoint the Royal Commission on Public Broadcasting that eventually led to the creation of the CBC.54 Many press commentators agreed with King that the broadcast had been the most memorable and historically significant event of the entire Jubilee year, binding together East and West, French and English Canada, and making them “as one in a common national thanksgiving.” It is necessary, however, to step back from this effusive nationalist rhetoric, inspired by the euphoric afterglow of the Jubilee celebrations, in order to gain a more balanced sense of the popular response to the broadcast. In keeping with the liberal, bicultural convictions of the National Jubilee Committee, the entire programme of patriotic ceremonial and entertainment that was broadcast to the nation on July 1, 1927 was devoted to the political and cultural traditions of the two “founding races.” There was little attempt to appeal or even refer to any other significant group within Canadian society, such as the immigrant communities of western Canadaornativepeople.Regional,provincialandother“limitedidentities” were likewise downplayed. Leonard Tilley’s brief address was the sole contribution from the Maritimes, and there was not a single voice on the programme, either among the official speakers or the performing artists,

113 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes from any province west of Ontario. The official interpretation of the Diamond Jubilee projected by the July 1 broadcast was encapsulated in Graham Spry’s nationalist creed, originally coined in 1927 for the Canadian Club movement: “One nation, two cultures; one nationality, two races; one loyalty, two tongues.”55 The Diamond Jubilee of Confederation thus marked an important milestone in the construction of a pan-Canadian, bicultural national imaginary, which would define Canada’s dominant political identity for the next half century. The persistence of unassimilated ethnic groups was deeply troubling for official nationalism in 1927, because they were assumed to prevent the emergence of a more modern, pan-Canadian notion of citizenship, while perpetuating old sectional conflicts based on race and religion. The National Committee was therefore understandably reluctant to acknowledge the legitimacy of these competing languages and cultures by broadcasting them throughout the Dominion. The emerging liberal nationalism of the 1920s, with its commitment to linguistic and cultural dualism, could not accommodate other ethnicities, which were expected to beabsorbedovertimebyoneofthetwo“chartergroups,”surviving,ifatall, in the private sphere bounded by family and neighbourhood. The attitude of the National Jubilee Committee towards ethnic minorities was informed by a Canadian version of the melting pot, which in the 1920s gradually supplanted the harsh, overtly racist doctrine of Anglo-conformity inspired by the first waves of mass European immigration at the turn of the century. Since hopes for the resumption of large-scale British emigration after the First World War were clearly doomed to disappointment, the proponents of the melting pot made a virtue out of necessity by accepting ethnic and cultural diversity, with the proviso that over time the forces of assimilation, however slowly and imperfectly, would eventually produce a new, homogeneous national type through “the future operations of nature.”56 By 1927 the proliferation of ethnic associations and institutions led a growing number of nationalists to temporarily shelve the ideal of the meltingpotinfavourofthemorerealisticmetaphoroftheculturalmosaic.57 The concept was first popularized by Kate Foster, an executive member of the YWCAwith long years of experience in citizenship work in Canada and the United States, in her landmark survey of “the immigrant question,” entitled Our Canadian Mosaic, published in 1926. Foster hoped to promote “good will and friendliness … between the native born and the foreign born” by familiarizing the former with the rich heritage and desirable traits–the work ethic and social conservatism of eastern European peasant farmers, for example–of the many nationalities seeking to make a new home for themselves in Canada. Mutual respect and confidence would result from the refutation of negative stereotypes. She still believed in the existence of a natural racial hierarchy, with, unsurprisingly, Anglo-Saxons at the apex. But she deplored the intolerance and bigotry of nativists and

114 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 imperialists, offering an alternative, more liberal vision of “a culture based on Anglo-Saxon traditions enriched by other national elements.”58 The idea was subsequently taken up and promoted by the Association of Canadian Clubs which, besides sponsoring lectures and articles on such topics as “Mosaic or Melting Pot?” and “Unity in Diversity,” urged that “the new races” be invited to participate in the Diamond Jubilee celebrations “in their own terms.”59 However, the Canadian mosaic as conceived by the liberal nationalists of the 1920s had only a tenuous connection to the prescriptive policy of multiculturalism introduced by the Trudeau government in the 1970s, which actively sought to encourage and nurture cultural diversity.60 In 1927, not even its most enlightened advocates believed that the image of a cultural mosaic provided a viable permanent basis for a new nationality. The modern Canadian nation had to be greater than the mere sum of its parts. There was a general belief, shared by nationalists of all stripes, that no nation could attain greatness or even ensure its survival in the absence of a “strong national spirit” capable of overcoming political, social and cultural differences.61 The emerging mosaic was thus viewed not as a desirable end in itself, but as a kind of halfway house on the road to the full assimilation implied by the policy of the melting pot. The process was symbolized during the Jubilee year by a float that federal organizers urged western communities to include in their Dominion Day parades, which depicted a group of recently arrived adult immigrants in traditional national dress, with “their children before them clothed as modern young Canadians.”62 On the eve of Dominion Day, John Dafoe, the influential editor of the Manitoba Free Press, described how foreign immigrants, together with the English and French majority, were “becoming one people and making a new nation on the face of the earth,” whose inhabitants would “simply be known as Canadians … a new people, brought into being by the mingling of many peoples.”63 This was about as far as the pan-Canadian nationalism of the Jubilee year was willing to go in accommodating ethnic diversity. In the meantime, the state would try to expedite the workings of the melting pot by inducing New Canadians, through their participation in patriotic festivals like the Diamond Jubilee, to “direct their thoughts to Canada and to their duties, responsibilities and privileges as citizens of the Dominion.” On July 1, 1927, they were expected to gather together “under a Canadian sky, with Canada on their lips and Canada in their hearts.”64 The Jubilee broadcast offered, in the opinion of one leader writer, “an unanswerable reply to all those doubting souls who have declared that with its complexity of racial, religious, geographical and economic problems Canada could never become a united people.”65 “Doubting souls,” however, could point out that the new medium was unlikely to woo unassimilated New Canadians into the melting pot as long as its messages were delivered in languages they might not be able to understand. On the other hand, any attempts to appeal to them in their native tongues would

115 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes have the effect of affirming and legitimating the traditional cultures that the National Jubilee Committee was trying to undermine. The language issue would have mattered little to the residents of many ethnic neighbourhoods, since so few of them owned radios in 1927. The broadcasting industry had made remarkable advances in a few short years–the first two federally-licensed commercial stations had gone on the air in Winnipeg in 1922–but its impact was unevenly diffused throughout the country. By 1927, Canada boasted 73 stations and approximately 210,000 licensed radio receivers.66 However, less than a quarter of a million households, out of a population of nearly ten million people, represented a minority of relatively affluent Canadians. The price of a standard three tube Marconi radio set was between two and four hundred dollars, well beyond the reach of most working class families in this period, when the average industrial wage was around $1300 a year in Montreal and Toronto.67 The radio had not yet evolved from a middle-class novelty into a household necessity.68 In over two hundred communities, those without access to private receivers were able to listen to the broadcast in the open air from loudspeakers provided free of charge to municipalities by the National Committee. Newspaper reports refer to the electrifying effect of the Peace Tower bells playing the opening bars of O Canada on the hushed, expectant crowds gathered in public parks and squares from Halifax to Victoria. However, it is doubtful whether the rest of the programme beamed from Parliament Hill received the same rapt attention as its spine tingling opening moments. Those who experienced the Ottawa program communally in outdoor public spaces, surrounded by friends, relations and neighbours, would have had their attention diverted by crowd noises, bored and unruly children, traffic sounds, poor acoustics, competing attractions, and so on. Their thoughts and emotions were less likely to be focussed on the succession of patriotic speeches emanating from the capital than on their immediate surroundings. The difficulty of assessing popular responses to the broadcast is neatly demonstrated by the behaviour of the twenty thousand Montrealers assembledatthefootofMontRoyal,withinrangeoftheamplifiersinstalled in Jeanne Mance Park near the Cartier Monument. The reading of the King’s Jubilee message by the Governor General evoked, to the satisfaction of one loyal CNR engineer, “great and prolonged applause.”69 He neglected to mention that half an hour later, the same crowd enthusiastically cheered Henri Bourassa’s scathingly anti-imperialist speech delivered on the same spot.70 It must also be remembered that in 1927 radio was a relative novelty, stillcapableofinspiringaweandwonder.Asaresult,itwasnotalwaysclear whether listeners were responding to the actual substance of the programme, or to the almost occult quality of the technical feat represented by the broadcast. Some contemporary official reports pointed to the latter possibility: “The spectator was divided in interest between the thoughtful

116 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927 matter of the addresses and the marvels of modern science, which enabled the great crowd of individuals to listen in comfort to a program being offered at the capital.”71 Students of nationalism in the developing world have argued that the emergence of national identity is a gradual negotiated process. It involves a “dialectic” of local and national values and interests; a process of selectively adopting and appropriating the new national culture imposed by modernizing elites from the centre, without wholly abandoning local and traditional loyalties and identifications.72 Something similar seems to have occurred throughout much of Canada in the Jubilee summer of 1927. Radio was not the exclusive monopoly of modernizing nationalist elites in 1927. New Canadians used every medium available to them, including radio broadcasting, to represent and celebrate their ethnic origins and traditions in the wider public sphere that was opened up to them by the Diamond Jubilee. In Manitoba, for example, ethnic associations produced regular radio reports on the progress of local organizing efforts, which were broadcast throughout the province every day at noon.73 In Winnipeg, two weeks before Dominion Day, the representatives of twenty-one ethnic communities produced “an unusual and interesting demonstration over the radio,” grandiosely entitled “An Oratorical Symposium of All Races.” It consisted of brief addresses by representatives of “the various nationalities which have entered into our Western Canadian citizenship,” delivered in seventeen different languages, and interspersed with “characteristic musical numbers” by ethnic choirs. Ostensibly intended to focus the interest of recent immigrants on the organization and purpose of the upcoming celebration, it also succeeded in proclaiming the virtues of their traditional cultures to radio listeners throughout Manitoba.74 The National Jubilee Committee did not have the power to compel Canadians to tune in to the entire broadcast. On Dominion Day, New Canadians throughout the west reportedly turned out in large numbers to watch Jubilee parades and pageants, listen to patriotic orations, and look proudly on as their children received their commemorative medals from local dignitaries. Afterwards, however, many of them put on their lovingly preserved traditional peasant costumes, tuned their mandolins and balalaikas, and went out into the street to display their transplanted folk cultures in front of admiring or bemused friends and neighbours. In Winnipeg, for example, over 30,000 residents of the city’s ethnic neighbourhoods in the North End gathered at Assiniboine Park on the evening of July 1 to participate in an ambitious “Pageant of All Nations.” Organized by representatives of twenty-five patriotic societies, it included performances of traditional folk dances, choral concerts, community singing, communal suppers and a variety of athletic events, advertised as “a miniature Olympic Games.”75

117 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Meanwhile, in the Orange and imperialist stronghold of Toronto–still proudly advertising itself as the “Queen City”–over 140,000 loyal British subjects were at the same time converging on two city parks to experience a program of “monster military and patriotic tattoos … wonderful spectacles of colour and light and pyrotechnical display … and marvellous ensembles of martial and popular music.”76 Massed army bands–led by the pipes and drums of the kilted 48th Highlanders and the Governor General’s Body Guard in brilliant scarlet–played Rule Britannia, We’ll Never Let the Old Flag Fall, Tipperary and other jingoistic favourites. Community singing of traditional British folk songs, such as Men of Harlech, Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomon, Comin’Thro’the Rye, and John Peel, alternated with Welsh country dances, Irish jigs, sailors’ hornpipes and Highland flings. There were precision drills, demonstrations by naval gun crews, mock infantry charges, massed bands playing regimental marches, and a tableau vivant of Britannia attended by a maidenly Canada and her sister Dominions.77 Long past midnight, Toronto’s Jubilee tattoos came to a close with a spectacular fireworks display, while the crowd joined the combined bands in a final rousing chorus of God Save the King.78 Rather than remain at home listening to the bicultural messages of racial harmony and national unity being broadcast from Parliament Hill, the cheerful, braying multitudes in RiverviewParkpreferredtorevelintheircollectivesenseofBritishidentity through atavistic ritual performances that pointedly excluded their non-English-speaking fellow citizens. It appears, therefore, that in1927 the reach of the National Broadcasting Committee exceeded its grasp. Radio was unable to exert a genuinely national influence during the Jubilee year, despite the brilliant technical improvisations of Ahearne and his colleagues. The Jubilee broadcast, with its almost pedantic regard for the cultural and linguistic sensibilities of the two charter groups, had the unintended effect of reinforcing existing subordinations and exclusions. Only Canadians who owned or had easy access to radio sets, lived in places capable of receiving signals from transmitting stations, and were able to understand one of the two official languages could qualify for full membership in the community of listeners created by the broadcast. Those who, as a result of poverty, linguistic barriers or other causes lacked such access and understanding, were effectively excluded. The Diamond Jubilee of Confederation thus both hastened the emergence of a national political community centred on Ottawa, and contributed to an “intensification of particularities,” as ethnic communities sought to overcome their marginalization by engaging in “a cultural politics of assertion.”79 The reluctance of many minorities to follow the official Jubilee script coexisted with the desire to be politically and economically integrated into the modern nation; however, only on terms that did not require them to wholly set aside their distinctive group identities.

118 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927

The Jubilee broadcast, beamed from the Peace Tower into thousands of homes in every corner of the Dominion, helped Canadians to internalize the idea of the nation, and inaugurated a new, more intimate relationship between the political centre and the periphery. The unprecedented size and patriotic enthusiasm of the radio audience on July 1 convinced Mackenzie King that the people of Canada had been moulded into “a single assemblage, swayed by a common emotion, within the sound of a single voice.”80 Many Canadians undoubtedly did feel an almost mystical sense of communion with formerly remote political leaders speaking to them through the ether from the capital, and with thousands of their unknown fellow citizens, as they all marvelled together at the spellbinding music of the bells floating out of their speakers during the opening moments of the Jubilee broadcast. But neither the medium nor the message was powerful enough to impose a shared, collective understanding of what it meant to be Canadian in 1927.81 Intended by its promoters to unite all classes of citizens under the banner of pan-Canadian nationalism, the Jubilee celebrations were subverted by a complex process of negotiation and reinterpretation, in which the part was empowered, with few questions asked, to stand for the whole. By providing ethnic communities with the opportunity to act out their cultural differences in the public sphere, the Diamond Jubilee tacitly acknowledged and legitimized the intractable pluralism of Canadian society. In retrospect, the most significant achievement of the national Jubilee broadcast may have been its uncanny ability to evoke a widely diffused sense of unity in the absence of genuine consensus on the meaning of Canadian nationhood and citizenship.

Notes 1. Montreal Star, 4 July 1927, 1. 2. Report of the National Executive Committee on the Celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation (Ottawa: F. A. Acland, 1928), 54. 3. NA, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, Cowan to Short, 2 April 1927, RG6 D3, vol. 446, file 7; From Sea to Sea … Canada’s Jubilee Radio Broadcast July 1st, 1927 (Ottawa: s.n., 1927), 11. 4. NA, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, Cowan to Short, 2 April 1927, RG6 D3, vol. 446, file 7. 5. Maurice Charland, “Technological Nationalism,” Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, X, 1-2 (1986). 6. Manitoba Free Press, 2 July 1927, 13. 7. Toronto Star, 2 July 1927, 1. 8. Saturday Night, 12 July 1927, 4. 9. Even King’s ponderous reflections on “The Message of the Carillon” that immediately preceded the inaugural performance of the bells did not, apparently, break the magic spell woven by radio. King explicitly linked the destructive fire of 1916 that had consumed the original tower to the devastation of the Great War. Just as a purified and peaceful world had emerged from the dreadful sacrifices of the war, so did a new, more beautiful tower rise from the ashes of the “old sentinel at midnight.” The striking of the clock at noon, succeeded by the inaugural

119 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

playing of the Carillon, would symbolize more than the restoration of the original Parliament Buildings and, by extension, of the old political order associated with them. They would signal the glorious “resurrection and birth” of a new Canada. The Peace Tower stood as a symbol of “the spirit of this nation, bearing in its breast the sacrifice made by our country for the world’s peace.” The cause of international peace was identified with the values and aspirations of the young Canadian nation that had come of age in 1927. His Dominion Day addresses, together with other speeches delivered during the Jubilee year, were subsequently published in Mackenzie King, The Message of the Carillon and Other Addresses (Toronto: Macmillan, 1928). His remarks on the symbolic meaning of the Carillon are found on pages 3-14. 10. Mackenzie King, The Message of the Carillon, 78-9. 11. Mackenzie King, The Message of the Carillon, 79. 12. Mackenzie King, The Message of the Carillon, 79. 13. Mackenzie King, The Message of the Carillon, 77-8. 14. Mackenzie King, The Message of the Carillon, 79. 15. From Sea to Sea, 15-17. 16. NA, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, Macpherson to Cowan, 27 May 1927, RG6 D3, vol. 446, file 7. 17. NA, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, Minutes of National Executive Committee, Appendix D, Report of Chairman of Broadcasting Committee, RG6 D3, vol. 445, file 5. 18. From Sea to Sea, 15. 19. The Canadian Annual Review of Public Affairs … 1927-28 (Toronto: The Canadian Review Company, 1928), 252. 20. NA, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, Minutes of National Executive Committee, Appendix D, Report of Chairman of Broadcasting Committee, RG6 D3, vol. 445, file 5; The Canadian Annual Review of Public Affairs … 1927-28, 252. 21. Programme of National Celebration, 2. A comically anti-climactic ending to the morning program was provided by the untimely and unannounced arrival, just as the official party was beginning to disperse, of four breathless young runners from Toronto, bearing official messages of greeting from the Premier, George Howard Ferguson, to the intense annoyance of a badly flustered Mackenzie King. King Diaries, 2 July 1927. 22. The role of the announcers was to enable radio listeners to visualize what was happening in Ottawa and to convey some sense of its significance. Both the text and the delivery were distinguished by a ponderous, high-minded earnestness. Here, for example, is how they described Mackenzie King’s speech at the dedication of the Carillon: “You will now listen to an address by the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister will explain the reasons that prompted the Government to install the Carillon in the Peace Tower of the Parliament Buildings and tell you of the spiritual significance of the message that will go forth to the world from these bells …” And later: “At the present time Her Excellency the Viscountess Willingdon, accompanied by His Excellency the Governor General, the Prime Minister of Canada, Members of the Cabinet and other notable personages is planting a Canadian maple tree on Parliament Hill, which will commemorate the 60th anniversary of Confederation. This tree is being planted on behalf of the women of Canada and it will stand as a tribute to the part that women have played in the growth and development of the Dominion …” And so on. NA, Announce-

120 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927

ments–National Broadcast–July 1, 1927, Austin Weir Papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 23. Montreal Star, 2 July 1927, 1. 24. Report of Executive Committee, 82-3. Willingdon’s speech was especially praised in press reports for its brevity, in contrast to the Jubilee addresses of most Canadian politicians who, according to the Montreal Star, “were not as brief as they had promised to be.” 25. The Commonwealth was a distinctly newfangled concept in 1927, which was bitterly resisted by many imperially-minded British Canadians. See, for example, the remarks of G. Howard Ferguson in Echoes, March 1928, 15. 26. Report of National Executive Committee, 83-4. Note once again the vagueness of the rhetoric. A shared vision of the nation’s aspirations and ideals did not yet exist. But nationalists optimistically hoped that it would somehow emerge out of the Jubilee celebrations. Canadian nationalism was an empty gourd that the sense of communion–or communitas–inspired by commemorative ritual was expected to fill. 27. NA, Confederation Diamond Jubilee Broadcast Programme, E. Austin Weir papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 28. It was one of his last works. Carman, a popular lyric poet of the Canadian landscape, whose unfortunate streak of vaguely mystical “Emersonian transcendentalism” recommended him to Mackenzie King, died in 1929. Claude Bissell et al., Literary History of Canada, Vol. I, (Toronto: UTP, 1965), 426-32. 29. Report of National Executive Committee, 84. 30. The last surviving offspring of Leonard Tilley and Jean Charles Chapais. 31. Report of National Executive Committee, 85-6. 32. Report of National Executive Committee, 88. 33. Saturday Night, 5 July 1927, 5. 34. King, The Message of the Carillon, 21-24. 35. Report of National Executive Committee, 87-91. 36. Report of National Executive Committee, 94. 37. Report of National Executive Committee, 96; NA, Confederation Diamond Jubilee Broadcast Programme, E. Austin Weir Papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 38. NA, Confederation Diamond Jubilee Broadcast Programme, E. Austin Weir Papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 39. Maria Tippett, Making Culture: English-Canadian Institutions and the Arts Before the Massey Commission (Toronto: UTP, 1990), 76-77. 40. Carefully described as the “popular Canadian anthem,” to distinguish it from God Save the King, which, as the IODE (Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire) was always ready to point out, remained Canada’s official national anthem. 41. NA, Confederation Diamond Jubilee Broadcast Programme, E. Austin Weir Papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 42. C. J. Hanratty, “World Record Broadcast Made,” Canadian National Railways Magazine, August 1927, 13, 39. 43. The suite consisted of five sentimental popular tunes: Sleep Baby Sleep, Lines to an Indian Air, By the River, Severed and Tell Me Not Now. 44. NA, Confederation Diamond Jubilee Broadcast Programme, E. Austin Weir Papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 45. Toronto Star, 2 July 1927, 4. 46. The “slow movement” from Macmillan’s Quartet in C Minor and his Sketch on a French-Canadian Folk Song; and Leo Smith’s transcription of the French-

121 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Canadian folk song, Dans Paris y-a-t-une brune. NA, Confederation Diamond Jubilee Broadcast Programme, E. Austin Weir Papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 47. Described somewhat bafflingly in the program as “among the most original and typical songs of pioneer life in the world.” 48. NA, Confederation Diamond Jubilee Broadcast Programme, E. Austin Weir Papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 49. NA, Lemieux to Désy, 9 Feb. 1927, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, RG6 D3, vol. 455, file 25. 50. NA, Confederation Diamond Jubilee Broadcast Programme, E. Austin Weir Papers, MG30 D67, reel M-715. 51. Hanratty, “World Record Broadcast Made,” 15. 52. From Sea to Sea, 38-44. 53. William Lyon Mackenzie King Diaries, 7 July 1927. 54. Earnest Austin Weir, The Struggle for National Broadcasting in Canada (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1965), 117. 55. Graham Spry, Passion and Conviction: The Letters of Graham Spry, Rose Potvin, ed. (Regina: Canadian Plains Research Centre, 1992), 47. 56. W. G. Smith, Building the Nation (Toronto: Canadian Council of the Missionary Education Movement, 1922), 170. 57. Howard Palmer, Patterns of Prejudice: A History of Nativism in Alberta (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1982), 79. 58. Kate Foster, Our Canadian Mosaic (Toronto: Dominion Council of the YWCA, 1926). 59. NA, Brooke Claxton Papers, MG32 B5, vol. 3, file “Canadian Club of Montreal, 1914-40.” 60. The modern idea of the cultural mosaic as a desirable end in itself, distinguishing Canadian approaches to foreign immigration from the coercive operation of the American melting pot, emerged in 1938 with the publication of John Murray Gibbon’s Canadian Mosaic, the Making of a Northern Nation (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1938). 61. “A divided nation cannot fulfill its responsibilities with the same energy, the same success as a united nation.” NA, “Special Tasks Assigned to the Association,” Brooke Claxton Papers, MG32 B5, file “Association of Canadian Clubs 1926-1941.” 62. NA, Cowan to Kerr, 23 May 1927, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, RG6 D3, vol. 448, file 20. 63. Manitoba Free Press, 30 June 1927, 19. 64. Manitoba Free Press, 30 June 1927, 19. 65. NA, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, Minutes of National Executive Committee, Appendix E, Newspaper Editorials re Jubilee Broadcast, RG6 D3, vol. 445, file 5. The Broadcast Committee also exploited radio for less spectacular purposes. Bulletins describing the preparations of the National Committee were regularly issued over all Canadian broadcasting stations, which were also urged to provide nightly bulletins on the progress of local Jubilee preparations. Special attention was devoted to children’s programming. From the beginning of May, every station in Canada was supplied with two historical stories a week in English and French versions, written by Norman Cole–a popular early radio performer known as “Uncle Dick”–suitable for airing during “children’s hour.” NA, Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Collection, Minutes of National Executive Committee, 21 April 1927 and 16 June 1927, RG6 D3, vol. 445, file 2.

122 The Medium, the Message and the Modern: The Jubilee Broadcast of 1927

66. The Canadian Annual Review of Public Affairs … 1927-28, 251. 67. Mary Vipond, Listening In: The First Decade of Canadian Broadcasting 1922-1932 (Montreal: McGill-Queens Press, 1992), 41. 68. The transformation of radio into a genuine mass medium of communication occurred during the early years of the following decade, coinciding with the worst years of the Depression. 69. Hanratty, “World Record Broadcast Made,” 11. 70. Montreal Gazette, 2 July 1927, 1; Le Devoir, 2 July 1927, 1. 71. Hanratty, “World Record Broadcast Made,” 11. 72. See, for example, Prasenjit Duara, “Historicizing National Identity, or Who Imagines What and When,” in Geoff Eley and Ronald Grigor Suny, eds., Becoming National: A Reader (Oxford: OUP, 1996), 151-178. 73. PAM, Minutes of Meeting of General Executive, 20 May 1927, Confederation Diamond Jubilee, MG 14 A 10, file “Correspondence.” 74. PAM, letter to Manitoba Free Press from Publicity Committee, 25 May 1927, Confederation Diamond Jubilee, MG 14 A 10, file “Correspondence.” 75. Manitoba Free Press, 14 June 1927, 4. 76. Toronto Star, 4 July 1927, 1; AO, Confederation Diamond Jubilee, Synopsis of Tattoo Programme at Riverdale and Willowvale Parks, Friday Evening 8 p.m., MU 750, file 9. 77. Toronto Star, 4 July 1927, 1. 78. Toronto Star, 4 July 1927, 1. 79. Edwin E. Wilmsen, “Premises of Power in Ethnic Politics,” in Edwin N. Wilmsen and Patrick McAllister, eds., The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 17-18. 80. Mackenzie King, The Message of the Carillon, 79. 81. My argument draws on Benedict Anderson’s familiar notion of the nation as an imagined community. According to Anderson, “the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members … yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” But not, I would add, necessarily the same image. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1990), 15.

123

Forum

Discussion en forum

Richard J.F. Day

Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Ian Angus

Introduction In a recent article in International Journal of Canadian Studies, Ian Angus defends his conception of a multicultural, post-colonial Canada against the critique of multiculturalism as a dividing managerial practice. As part of this defense, he charges those whom he sees as working within a “Foucaultian frame” with refusing to enter “the ethico-political territory of valuations that is inhabited by political actors.” As a result, according to Angus, political action is rendered within this frame as “entirely external to critical intellectual activity.”1 For those of us who are committed to theorizing as an activist political practice, Angus’s contention must be taken seriously. In this response I will argue that: (1) the concept of critique that guides Foucaultian genealogy, while indeed anti-normative, remains ethical and political; (2) while Angus’s argument represents an important advance beyond liberal multiculturalism as state policy and political theory, traces of a hierarchical conceptualization remain in his discourse; and (3) if these traces are to be successfully erased, the matter of the relation of the multicultural context to the system of liberal-capitalist nation-states must be directly addressed rather than left as an undecidable question.

The Normative vs the Ethico-Political Poststructuralist critique, unlike liberal theory and philosophy, makes a distinction between the normative (moral) and the ethico-political. While I cannot enter into an extended discussion of this distinction, I do hope to argue convincingly that a refusal to enter into a normative discourse does not necessarily imply a refusal of ethical and political engagement. First, it should be noted that for writers such as Foucault, the political appears as an unavoidable feature of human interaction, as the inevitable working out of relations of competition, co-operation, ignorance, ambivalence–of relations of power in all of their myriad variations. On this view, it is impossible to avoid the political; all acts, statements, institutions–and philosophical concepts–appear within complex webs of force. To take Angus’s example, if Michel Foucault argues that the concept of ‘justice’ should not be deployed in a popular struggle, this is not because he wants to avoid politics, but because he is of the opinion that deploying this concept in this situation at this time is not the best political strategy. He is pointing out

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes that the decision to deploy a concept (or not) is always itself a political decision. The category of the ethical also operates differently within a Foucaultian frame. Reading Angus’s text carefully, it would seem that he is either not aware of, does not accept, or deliberately conflates the poststructuralist distinction between the ethical and the normative: “One has to enter the ethico-political territory of valuations … both Day and Mackey refuse to enter such a normative discourse.”2 For Foucault, the ethical appears not as submission to a universal duty or command, but as a moment of decision which arises in a context of undecidability and contingency.3 This undecidability haunts the universalizing aspirations of morality by bringing to light the impossibility of an adequate generalization, a sufficient abstraction, a perfect prediction. Just as we are ‘forced’ to be political, then, we are forced to be ethical. On this analysis, recourse to morality (normativity) appears as an attempt to avoid ethics and politics, which is not only impossible, but indicative of an unwillingness to accept the burden of infinite responsibility. What then of engaged critique? How is the poststructuralist intellectual implicated in concrete political struggles? Is this relation purely one of externality, as Angus suggests, or is the internal/external distinction itself questionable? In a 1976 discussion, Foucault and Deleuze argue that theory and practice are mutually interpenetrating; each requires the other, each in a sense ‘is’the other. For them, “practice is a set of relays from one theoretical point to another, and theory is a relay from one practice to another.”4 The ceaseless play of relays confounds the internal/external distinction, and means that the intellectual, like everyone else, is already operating on the field of the political. A further point needs to be mentioned here, a point that is crucial to understanding the position from which one might launch a poststructuralist critique of a discourse like Canadian multiculturalism. For Foucault and Deleuze, as should be obvious, theoretical practices are not, and cannot be, neutral. But they go further than this, claiming that theory–what they are willing to call theory, that is–is precisely a struggle against power as domination. Whereas in practicing liberal theory one takes upon oneself an implicit orientation to finding ways in which existing structures can be reformed without altering the relations of power upon which they are based, in practicing poststructuralist theory one takes upon oneself an explicit orientation to radical social change that involves resistance and reconstruc- tion at all levels. This is what I take to be the goal of a “critical ontology of ourselves”5–nothing other than, but nothing less than, what Marx called a ruthless critique of everything existing.

128 Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Ian Angus

Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? In the spirit of entering into an ethico-political critique of normalizing discourses, I would like to pursue the implications of the mode of cultural pluralism Angus advocates in his article. First I should note that there are many points at which our positions converge. In accepting that actually existing English-Canadian multiculturalism as state policy and liberal theory implicitly legitimates the colonial history of the Canadian nations-state, Angus takes a significant step away from the mainstream discourse. We are also in complete agreement on the point that the distinction between founding group and ethnocultural minority cannot be maintained without “assuming the legitimacy of the Canadian nations-state andtheprocessesthroughwhichitwasfounded.”6 However,agenealogical critique must be suspicious of any move to bracket the question of the historical emergence and contemporary pertinence of English-Canadian nationalism, since this would very likely result in its surreptitious return via an unconscious repetition of the tropes of Empire. Of course, Angus is not unaware of this peril. In defining the characteristics of what he calls a multicultural postcolonial speech act, he accurately identifies the limits of theoretical practices that ignore a multiplicity of traditions of legitimation in order to install a single overarching discourse of integration. The question then becomes: to what extent does Angus’s own language game meet the criteria he has set out? As I have already mentioned, just by acknowledging the existence of postcolonial and poststructuralist critiques, Angus places himself outside mainstream, liberal multiculturalist theory and policy.7 However, his vision may appear to some political actors as being inadequately critical of the status quo. This preserving effect can be seen in the repeated appearance of hedging terms in the section entitled “ANormative Multicultural Theory.” Angus suggests that a claim that emerges from a particular tradition “may” become a context for judging that tradition.8 Atradition in which communal rights is strong “may” lead to the strengthening of non-statist communities in other traditions. One can agree, at the level of theory, that all of these things may happen. But this is to beg the political question of the conditions under which they have happened, or are likely to happen. Angus writes: In principle, postcoloniality … refers not only to the presence of a plurality of traditions in a given context but primarily to the inability of any one of these traditions to monopolize the rules. If no single tradition owns the context, then every speech act functions in a double fashion … . (82, emphasis added). If a multicultural Canada is to be seen as a postcolonial language game, then it must be the case that no one owns its context–that no one can, and more importantly that no one does, categorize, divide, and hierarchize the participants in the game.

129 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

As Angus acknowledges, one of the primary tasks of the English- Canadian nations-state is, and has long been, to implement a claim of ownership of the symbolic and geographic context known as Canada. Thus it is unfortunate that he chooses not to directly engage with the ramifications of this fact for contemporary philosophical-political practice. Instead he suggests that “whether the issue [of the origin of Canadian multiculturalism] pertains internally to inclusion in the Canadian nations-state or externally to a group claiming equal sovereignty must remain an open question.”9 To be sure, with this move Angus succeeds in stepping out of the horizon of the English-Canadian nations-state. But he immediately–and necessarily–steps into the horizon of the system of states upon which English Canada relies for its meaning and being. This is to say that both of the options he presents, inclusion or exclusion, assume a context of nations, states, colonizing and colonized groups, ethnicities, and so on; in other words, they assume the discourse of national sovereignty on the Western model. The implicit recourse to Western concepts and the system of states is also apparent in references to a “civic context” and “universal rights,” neither of which make any sense outside of this horizon.10 But the most worrisome appearance of elements of a hierarchical ordering occurs when a distinction is made between “the nation” and “sub-national group[s] such as linguistic, ethnic, and gender or regional identities.”11 Withtheprefix“sub”itwouldseemthat“thenation,”however it is defined or not defined, is granted a privileged position over these other entities. A hierarchy–and the usual liberal-multiculturalist hierarchy at that–is thus re-installed at the moment the (English-Canadian?) nation (dis?)appears. I would not want to claim that this impasse is the result of an inadequate theoretical understanding or a lingering colonial political will; rather, it is the necessary result of a desire for the preservation, in some form, of an “English Canada.” No nationalist enterprise can be multicultural and postcolonial in Angus’s sense, since the nation(s)-state and the system of states out of which it emerges are based precisely upon the ownership of contexts, i.e. the universalizing and hierarchical apportioning of identities to geographical and symbolic containers known as states, nations, cultures, and ethnicities.

Alternatives Beyond the Nation(s)-State I have suggested that what critics of poststructuralist theory see as a lack of ethico-political engagement is more accurately viewed as an unwillingness to participate in universalizing normative discourses. Yet the question remains: what kinds of alternatives are open to us if we reject identification with nations? And how can meaningful change be achieved except through bureaucratic conditioning of symbolic and geographical territories? A tentative answer to these questions is provided in a footnote to Angus’s text, in which he wonders whether multiculturalism is “necessarily tied to the

130 Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Ian Angus state form.”12 Obviously, multiculturalism has been tied to the state form, has emerged within liberal-capitalist White settler nation-states such as Canada and Australia, and is being advocated as a model for supranational entities such as the European Union. Theoretically, however, there is no reason why what we might call the ‘multicultural imaginary’ could not be broken away from the desire to preserve current relations of power as expressed by distinctions between nations and ethnicities within the system of states. There is also no reason why the links between multiculturalism and capitalism, multiculturalism and racism, multiculturalism and rational- bureaucratic domination, multiculturalism and patriarchy, could not all be broken as well. All of these things, again, are theoretically possible–but they do not seem politically likely. No identity that has achieved hegemony within (or beyond) a nation-state container is presently moving towards what Angus wouldcallapostcolonialsituation.Rather,eachandeveryoneisattempting to maintain its control over the context of cultural interaction, and over relations involving race, gender, sexuality, political economy, and the natural environment. One of the favourite ploys of liberal theory is to pretend that these ‘spheres’ can be treated separately, that we can ‘solve’ problems of cultural interaction without addressing, for example, the racialization of poverty and the political-economic destruction of indigenous societies under colonial relations of power. The term ‘multicul- turalism’is deeply entwined with this liberal ethico-political field. Thus, if the goal is to move towards a non-hierarchical mode of engagement in which no particular identity hegemonizes the space of interaction or the rules of its construction, then it is necessary to abandon multiculturalism in favour of explicitly non-statist, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, pro-feminist, non-heterosexist ways of relating, in theory and practice, to ourselves, and our human and non-human others. Whatever is ‘good’ about (English) Canada, whatever is worth preserving, can surely be maintained or re-invented without perpetuating the reliance on a sovereign nation within the system of states. As many postcolonial theorists have argued, only through painful identification with the symptoms of ongoing colonial relations of power can we be begin to realize, rather than merely hypothesize, a postcolonial context. This, then, is the non-normalizing ethico-political position I am interested in advancing, and it is much to Ian Angus’s credit that he has opened up the possibility of a productive exchange across the abyss that separates liberal multiculturalism from Foucaultian critique. I look forward to continuing this discussion, and hope that others will see fit to join it as well.

131 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Notes 1. Ian Angus, “Cultural Plurality and Democracy” in International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes, no. 25, Spring/ Printemps 2002, p. 77. 2. Angus, p. 77. 3. For further discussion of this point, see Richard J.F. Day “Ethics, Affinity, and the Coming Communities” in Philosophy and Social Criticism 27:1, 2001. 4. Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, “Intellectuals and Power” in Foucault Live, New York: Semiotext(e), 1996, p .74. 5. Foucault’s response to those who said he had abandoned modern critique was to position his project precisely within modernity. This explicit positioning, unfortunately, is often ignored by those who charge Foucault with relativism. See Michel Foucault, “What is Enlightenment?” in P. Rabinow (ed.) The Foucault Reader, New York: Pantheon, 1984, p. 50. 6. Angus, p. 71. 7. James Tully also stands out in this regard. See his Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 8. Angus, p. 80. 9. Angus, p. 71. 10. Angus, p. 79. 11. Angus, p. 82. 12. Angus, p. 84, note 21.

132 Ian Angus

Abyss, or a Located Ethics? Reply to Day

While Day claims to respond to my argument on three points, it seems to me that the first–the polemic regarding post-structuralism–is largely beside the point, except insofar as it seems to have struck a prevailing nerve in which the practice of social critique is supposed to begin and end with Foucault. I admit to using the term “normatively” (but not ‘normalizing’) unselfconsciously to refer to any kind of a direct ethico-political discourse, but surely it is to build too much of a castle in the air to suggest that my woeful ignorance of Foucault’s technical terminology amounts to an ignorance of the distinction to which that terminology points. For example, it is standard phenomenological fare to distinguish between an ‘ethic of rules’ and an ‘ethic of responsibility’ that “is not a matter of formulae. It is a matter of maieutics.”1 If this does not constitute an “undecidability haunt[ing] the universalizing aspirations of morality”2 (which in any case sounds more like Derrida than Foucault) it will take more than a polemic against the easy target of a childlike obedience to “an adequate generalization, a sufficient abstraction, a perfect prediction” to prove it.3 I did not suggest that Foucault’s position was not a politics, but that it was not an adequate politics, because the relation between theoretical critique and the position of political actors was misconceived. There was no general attackonpost-structuralism,norevenonFoucault,butontheinadequacyof this relation between critique and politics in the context of Canadian multiculturalism, such that it served to render the ethico-political dimension of social critique invisible or unnecessary. One will search in vain through the books of Day and Mackey to which I refer for any such discussion.4 Consequently, I do not see that we actually disagree about this, though we obviously disagree as to whether it should be regarded as a good thing. So, let’s get to the substance. Beginning by apparently crediting me with “taking a significant step away from the mainstream discourse,” Day proceeds to claim that my argument must “assume the discourse of national sovereignty on the Western model,” such that, in the end, while I apparently have “opened up the possibility of a productive exchange across the abyss that separates liberal multiculturalism from Foucaultian critique,” my own position is an impossibility.5 Since there are claimed to be only two positions on either side of the abyss, and since I am obviously not in the Foucaultian camp, I am, I gather, in the end consigned to being a liberal multiculturalist who

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes cannot escape his box. A short step indeed. My own preference is rather to be thrown into the abyss. While I admit that contemporary theoretical discourse wants to regard my position as an excluded middle between old-fashionedEnglish-CanadianLeft-nationalismandpoststructuralismor ‘postmodernism,’ I doubt whether it is really excluded on theoretical grounds.6 It may well be excluded on political grounds (though this is impossible to predict), but, even so, this would indicate an unfortunately missed opportunity. Day argues that “traces of a hierarchical conception remain in his [i.e., my] discourse”7 and that erasing these traces would require deciding the question that I argued should remain undecidable—“whether the field of application of multiculturalism is within Canada, within English Canada, or pertains to the founding and/or legitimacy of the nations-state itself.”8 The decision is clear for Day: “Both of the options he presents, inclusion or exclusion, assume the context of nations, states, colonizing and colonized groups, ethnicities, and so on; that is, they assume the discourse of national sovereignty on the Western model.”9 However, he provides no evidence for this claim. He asserts without discussion, let alone proof, that the mere mention of terms such as “civic context” and “universal rights” requires that one assume a model of national sovereignty without noting that the sentence in which they occur attempts to clarify the ‘multi-ness’ of the multicultural context in distinction from ethnic nationalism.10 He quotes my use of the term “sub-national … identities” to claim that I grant the nation a “privileged position over these other entities”11 without noting that in the previous paragraph I explicitly discuss exactly this issue, arguing that the necessary postcolonial supplement to multiculturalism shows that “speech that is barred from touching the rules of interaction becomes a ‘minority’speech precisely through this bar.”12 In other words, my analysis shows the constitution of the distinction and does not assume the distinction asindependentlyvalid.Thequotesarewrenchedoutofcontextandasserted without proof to have undesirable implications. Emphasis is laid on the fact that I use conditional or, if one prefers, “hedging”13 terms to describe the possibly emergent postcolonial multiculturalism which I was trying to articulate as a political theory. Day suggests that in the world of theory any and all variants are possible—an assumption that I will not take the space to deny here. Thus, a theoretical possibility proves nothing in his view; what is important is that “they do not seem politically likely.”14 But how does he know this? It is a political judgment and, as such, accessible to the rationality of political judgment, which is the terrain on which my argument operates. All that is provided is the assertion of the next sentence: “No identity that has achieved hegemony within (or beyond) a nation-state container is presently moving towards what Angus would call a postcolonial situation.”15 I could agree with this statement without it affecting my argument in the least. I am making no assertion about the direction of current history. I am articulating and

134 Abyss, or a Located Ethics? Reply to Day attempting to justify a political goal. Its likelihood is relevant, but not a deciding factor. The conditional phrasing is necessary because I cannot be sure of the political outcome. But notice, further, that this sentence begs exactly what is at issue. Of course, it is not likely that a “hegemonic,” if one means a “ruling,” group would voluntarily relinquish its power—though it would also be unwise to overlook those cases when this has happened. The real issue is whether it is likely that a group that has been assigned a subordinate identity under the current hegemony might, or might try to, use the resources conferred by this location to transform themselves into a postcolonial situation of cultural plurality (i.e. multiculturalism that has foresaken the state-organized monopolization of the rules of interaction). Is this unlikely? I don’t see why. Being subaltern, such groups have motives for social critique; having some social recognition, they have some resources for struggle. I think it likely that this is a politics that current First Nations activists and some Québec sovereignists might find attractive and are probably already engaged in. (Why the conditional? Because I can’t speak for them.) This, again, is the location of my political argument. Does it have a future? Well, that depends on politics and that is why it is undecidable. The future is unforseeable, though a politics that builds on the limited successes of the past seems to me a better bet than one that rhetorically seeks to step out of the continuity of history. Day says that “whatever is ‘good’ about (English) Canada, whatever is worth preserving, can surely be maintained or re-invented without perpetuating the reliance on a sovereign nation within the system of states.”16 But he says nothing about how this can “surely” be done, or with what ideas and historical interpretations this historical task can be accomplished. This was what my argument was about. The apparent compliment that I have “opened up the possibility of a productive exchange across the abyss that separates liberal multiculturalism from Foucaultian critique”17 is to me no compliment at all because it plays no part whatsoever in my theoretical work. I am interested in a critique of empire, colonialism and capitalism. To me liberalism’s moralism and Foucault’s aseptic narratives appear as two sides of the same coin.I’llchoosetheabyssbetweenliberalismandFoucaultifthatistheonly spatial metaphor going, but an adequate politics requires an ethico-political discourse in both the long and the medium term. It is the latter task to which my essay was directed. The critique of Foucaultian approaches was only a step toward making a political argument for a postcolonial democratic politics embracing cultural diversity.

Notes 1. José Huertas-Jourda, “‘You Should Have Known Better!’ A Phenomenological Inquiry into the Mechanics of Ethical Education” in F. J. Smith (ed.) Phenomenology in Perspective (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970) p. 170.

135 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

2. This phrase, used in a positive fashion, seems to suggest that Day believes I have my undecidability in the wrong place. I have it at the point of political action and political thought attuned to such action, whereas he suggests that it should be directed to the universal pretentions of morality. He should note that I have my undecidability where Derrida has his, “a decision, a choice, a responsibility has meaning and a meaning that will have to pass through the ordeal of the undecidable.” Specters of Marx, trans. Peggy Kamuf (New York and London: Routledge, 1994) p. 87. But this undecidability depends on a messianic universal which is deconstruction and justice. Foucault has no undecidability. He rejects it as a serious contemporary problem. See Michel Foucault, “Maurice Blanchot: The Thought from Outside” in Foucault/Blanchot, (New York: Zone Books, 1987) section “I Lie, I Speak.” Day is either on his own at this point, or relying on someone he has not mentioned. This makes it somewhat suspect that he can speak for “the poststructuralist intellectual” (p. 130) in such an unrestricted fashion as he suggests. 3. Richard Day, “Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Angus” in International Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue internationale d’études canadiennes, No. 26, Fall/Automne 2002, pp. 130. 4. Richard Day, Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000); Eva Mackey, The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (London and New York: Routledge, 1999). 5. Richard Day, “Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Angus” in International Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue internationale d’études canadiennes, No. 26, Fall/Automne 2002, pp. 133. 6. The pervasiveness and insufficiency of this polarization between Left-nationalism and postmodernism in Canadian Studies was addressed in Appendix One of Ian Angus, A Border Within (Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1997). My ‘solution’ of “a plurality of dependencies” was presented in the same work, pp. 40-7. Additional evidence of this polarization is that I have also been criticized from the Left-nationalist side. See, Robin Mathews’ review in The Friend: The Red Tory Review, Vol. 3, No. 2 and my reply in the next issue. 7. Richard Day, “Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Angus,” p. 129. 8. Ian Angus, “Cultural Plurality and Democracy” in International Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue internationale d’études canadiennes, No. 25, Spring/ Printemps 2002, p. 72. 9. Richard Day, “Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Angus,” p. 132. 10. Ibid, p. 132. 11. Ibid, p. 132. 12. Ian Angus, “Cultural Plurality and Democracy, p 82. 13. Richard Day, “Can There Be a Postcolonial Multiculturalism? A Response to Angus,” p. 131. 14. Ibid, p. 133. 15. Ibid, p. 133. 16. Ibid, p. 133. 17. Ibid, p. 133.

136 Review Essays

Essais critiques

Daniel Salée

Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents

Alan C. Cairns, Citizens Plus. Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State, Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 2000. viii, 280 pages. Bernard Cleary, Capteur de rêves, s.l., Éditions de la piste et Margot Rankin, 2002. 397 pages. Renée Dupuis, Quel Canada pour les Autochtones? La fin de l’exclusion, Montréal, Boréal, 2001. 174 pages. Tom Flanagan, Premières nations? Seconds regards, Québec, Septentrion, 2002. 304 pages. Patrick Macklem, Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2001. x, 334 pages.

Denys Delâge, le sociologue et historien québécois à qui l’on doit bon nombre de travaux influents sur l’histoire et la dynamique des rapports entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones, se demandait récemment dans un court essai sur l’historiographie des Premières nations « de quel “nous” faisons-nous l’histoire et quelle est la place des Autochtones dans ce “nous”? » (Delâge 2000 : 526). Dans le contexte précis de cet essai Delâge s’interrogeait surtout sur la nature de son objet privilégié d’analyse et sur la manière appropriée de bien le cerner à travers le refus de l’héritage colonial et la reconnaissance des Autochtones comme partie prenante de l’histoire du Canada. Mais son interrogation transcende les frontières disciplinaires et pourrait tout aussi bien s’appliquer aux autres disciplines des sciences humaines et sociales qui, de plus en plus, se confrontent à la « question autochtone ». La Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones, les affrontements violents entre diverses nations autochtones et les autorités étatiques qui depuis plus d’une décennie ponctuent la vie politique canadienne – qu’on se rappelle Oka, Ipperwash, Gustafsen Lake, Burnt Church – et, de façon générale, l’intensification des revendications et mobilisations politiques autochtones interpellent sans équivoque les Canadiens et les forcent à un examen de conscience sur le sens historique de leur rapport avec les Premiers Peuples.

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Cet examen de conscience, pour peu que l’on s’y livre avec intégrité, n’a rien d’aisé et peut s’avérer assez troublant. Car l’Autochtone dérange. À une époque où les discours autour des droits de la personne et de la préservation des identités ethnoculturelles modulent largement l’imaginaire socio-politique, sa présence rappelle les moments les moins glorieux de notre passé et notre absence d’égard à l’endroit d’un groupe ethnoculturel minoritaire délibérément marginalisé; mais elle contraint par-dessus tout à pousser encore plus loin les limites intellectuelles et idéologiques de la démocratie et de la communauté politique canadiennes. Quelles dimensions de notre culture de dominants, de nos valeurs, de nos préjugés, sommes-nous prêts à modifier, voire à abandonner pour favoriser l’expression et le développement inconditionnels de cultures minoritaires? Quel espace institutionnel sommes-nous vraiment prêts à consentir pour que les Autochtones, ou tout autre groupe minoritaire, puissent vivre librement leur différence selon les termes qu’ils auront eux-mêmes définis et dans la jouissance d’une souveraineté dont ils auront eux-mêmes fixé les balises? Jusqu’à quel point, en d’autres mots, sommes-nous prêts à aller pour composer avec l’altérité qui s’incarne de par les revendications autochtones? Au Canada, la question autochtone s’impose désormais, incontournable, au cœur des débats publics sur la nature de la communauté politique nationale. Non pas comme un problème épineux qui se poserait aux formulateurs de politiques publiques – quoique nombreux sont ceux qui la conçoivent ainsi – mais plutôt parce qu’elle met en cause à la fois le type de citoyenneté et la dynamique de cohésion sociale que l’État canadien prétend vouloir instituer. L’avenir politique et la viabilité démocratique de la société canadienne reposent en fait sur la manière par laquelle l’État et, à travers lui l’ensemble des Canadiens, abordent la question autochtone. Autrement dit, tout dépend en bout de piste de leur volonté de s’engager (ou non) à recomposer les paramètres de la coexistence entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones. Étant donné l’importance des défis et des enjeux que suscite aujourd’hui l’affirmation identitaire des peuples autochtones du Canada, on ne s’étonnera pas de ce que la question ait donné lieu à un nombre croissant d’ouvrages percutants dont certains se sont valu l’éloge de la critique et ont été reconnus parmi les plus significatifs à être produits en sciences sociales au cours des deux dernières années. Le présent essai en retient cinq qui, chacun à sa manière, proposent des voies à suivre ou à ne pas suivre quant à la manière d’aborder la question de la reconnaissance identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones. Ils divergent quant à la teneur et à la méthode. Leur lecture permet cependant d’apprécier l’éventail des possibles et de juger de la distance qui nous sépare encore de l’objectif de recomposition de la coexistence que d’aucuns souhaitent si ardemment.

140 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents

Qui a peur du discours autochtoniste? L’essai controversé de Tom Flanagan, Premières nations? Seconds regards, pourra laisser perplexe quant à la probabilité d’un renouvellement du rapport entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones. Ce professeur de science politique de l’université de Calgary qui a aussi conseillé les ténors politiques de la droite canadienne dont Preston Manning, l’ancien chef du Reform Party, et Stephen Harper, l’actuel chef de l’Alliance canadienne (le Reform Party réincarné), poursuit avec zèle dans cet essai paru d’abord en anglais il y a deux ans ce qui pour lui doit prendre la forme d’une entreprise à longue haleine de démythification de la cause autochtone : ses travaux antérieurs sur Louis Riel et la Rébellion du Nord-Ouest en 1885 (Flanagan 1983, 1996) et sur les revendications territoriales des Métis du Manitoba (Flanagan 1991) ne pèchent pas par excès de sympathie pour la perspective autochtone, point s’en faut; ils s’attachent plutôt à en démontrer l’illégitimité, la faiblesse ou l’illogisme supposés. Premières nations? Seconds regards reste fidèle à la pensée que Flanagan développe sur la question autochtone depuis une vingtaine d’années et constitue une sortie en règle contre ce qu’il appelle l’orthodoxie autochtone. Il existerait à ses dires « un accord consensuel en voie d’émergence » qui allie divers « courants de pensée dominants chez ceux qui élaborent la politique autochtone et qui y exercent quelque influence ». Ce consensus que Flanagan apparente à une « doctrine » serait partagé et « largement admis chez les leaders autochtones, les responsables gouvernementaux et les spécialistes universitaires » (14). L’orthodoxie contre laquelle Flanagan s’insurge s’appuie, selon lui, sur huit propositions qu’il s’emploie à récuser en autant de chapitres : « 1. Les AutochtonesdiffèrentdesautresCanadiensparcequ’ilsontétélespremiers à occuper le territoire. En tant que « Premières nations », ils ont des droits particuliers, y compris le droit « inhérent » à l’autonomie gouvernementale; 2. Les cultures autocthones étaient de même niveau que celle des colonisateurs européens. La distinction entre civilisé et non-civilisé est un instrument d’oppression raciste; 3. Les peuples autochtones étaient souverains. Ils le sont encore, même s’ils choisissent de parler de « droit inhérent à l’autonomie gouvernementale »; 4. Les peuples autochtones étaient et sont des nations au sens à la fois culturel et politique du terme. Leur statut de nation coïncide avec leur souveraineté; 5. Les peuples autochtonespeuventexerceravecbonheurleurdroitinhérentàl’autonomie gouvernementale dans les réserves amérindiennes; 6. Les droits de propriété autochtones devraient être reconnus comme des droits pleins et entiers aux termes du droit canadien et être constitutionnalisé, et non éteints, par des ententes sur les revendications territoriales; 7. Les traités de cession territoriale conclus en Ontario et dans les provinces des Prairies ont un autre sens que celui de leur libellé. Leur formulation doit être « modernisée » – réinterprétée ou renégociée – de manière à reconnaître l’existence d’une relation suivie entre nations; 8. Les peuples autochtones,

141 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes vivant et travaillant sur leur propre territoire, atteindront à la prospérité et l’autosuffisance en combinant paiements de transfert, revenus provenant de ressources naturelles et emploi local » (16-17). Sur chacun de ces points, assure Flanagan, l’orthodoxie autochtone a tout faux et ses conclusions ne correspondent pas aux faits. Il reprend à son compte les poncifs convenus qu’utilisent depuis toujours les détracteurs des revendications autochtones pour en délégitimer les fondements : les Européens n’ont fait que développer des territoires inoccupés par les peuples autochtones démographiquement faibles et toujours en mouvement; l’habitat actuel de nombreux groupes autochtones est postérieur à l’arrivée de colons européens; la civilisation européenne s’est imposée par sa supériorité naturelle sur les cultures autochtones; les peuples autochtones ne constituent pas des nations au sens propre du terme et n’ont donc aucune base pour appuyer leur prétention à la souveraineté; l’incompétence administrative endémique des gestionnaires autochtones, leur penchant pour le népotisme et leur tendance à abuser des fonds publics montrent bien que les Autochtones ne sont pas encore prêts à assumer les responsabilités de l’autonomie gouvernementale. Et ainsi de suite. Bref, pour Flanagan, la cause est entendue : les peuples autochtones doivent se rendre à l’évidence : l’amélioration de leur sort dépend essentiellement de leur volonté d’abandonner leurs pratiques culturelles traditionnelles et toutes les revendications vouées à la promotion ou à la défense de celles-ci pour s’intégrer de plain-pied au coeur de la société canadienne et de ses valeurs sous-jacentes. L’idée qu’il existe une orthodoxie autochtone participe d’une stratégie d’argumentation savamment employée par Flanagan pour créer l’impression qu’il nage seul et avec courage à contre-courant d’une pensée unique manifestement mal avisée et injustement dominante. En présentant comme une orthodoxie ce qui n’est en définitive rien de plus que la somme des tentatives répétées des peuples autochtones du Canada d’établir les conditions de rapports égalitaires, équitables et équilibrés avec les non-Autochtones, Flanagan cherche délibérément à discréditer les revendications autochtones. Celles-ci apparaissent déraisonnables et, par l’insidieux travail de déconstruction de l’histoire qu’il opère, elles semblent s’acharner contre la population non autochotone qui, sous sa plume, fait désormais figure de victime d’une supercherie organisée de toute pièce. Ce que Flanagan range sous le vocable d’orthodoxie autochtone ce sont essentiellement des mesures et des politiques littéralement obtenues à l’arraché – et jamais totalement acquises, il faut bien l’admettre – à force de remises en question persistantes et de luttes inlassables contre des pratiques sociales, politiques et institutionnelles historiques déshonorables de la part de l’État canadien et de la population non autochtone. En qualifiant d’orthodoxie les quelques gains qu’ont pu faire les Autochtones, Flanagan signifie sans équivoque qu’il n’apprécie pas le renversement possible de la

142 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents dynamique de pouvoir que cela pourrait représenter et n’accepte pas l’ajout éventuel d’autres gains à ceux déjà acquis. En bon dominant, il préfère sans doute ses subalternes humbles, sans ressource, silencieux et obéissants. Qu’il y ait sur l’échiquier politique canadien un discours autochtoniste, on en disconviendra pas – et il ne faudrait pas non plus en prendre ombrage, pas plus qu’il faudrait déplorer qu’il y ait un discours féministe, un discours ouvriériste ou un discours libéral – mais qu’il se soit érigé en orthodoxie influente, il faut voir dans cette manière de poser les choses une exagération sans laquelle le pamphlet de Flanagan tourne à vide : il lui faut, pour bien marquer le coup, donner au discours autochtoniste beaucoup plus d’ampleur politique qu’il n’a en réalité. Mais songeons-y bien : si le discours autochtoniste avait toute la force d’impact que lui suppose Flanagan, les Autochtones du Canada seraient-ils encore confinés au dernier rang de tous les indicateurs socio-économiques, très loin derrière la majorité de la population? Au fond, la démarche de Flanagan participe de l’inquiétude, maintes fois exprimée dans l’histoire de l’humanité, de groupes ou de populations dont la domination socio-politique et institutionnelle séculaire est remise en question par d’autres groupes ou populations qui ont fait les frais de cette domination et qui tentent maintenant d’en contrer les effets délétères. Comme la plupart des critiques d’une certaine politique de la reconnaissance, Flanagan déplore que l’esprit de la politique autochtone actuelle, qu’il prétend inspirée par le Rapport de la Commission royale sur lespeuplesautochtones,cèdeàtortàunpenchantdeplusenplusprononcéà admettre comme politiquement recevable les revendications identitaires des minorités ethnoculturelles. Cette tendance, évidemment fâcheuse à ses yeux, risque de dénaturer la nature profonde du Canada. Le pays, croit-il, menace d’être « redéfini comme un État multinational comprenant un archipel de nations autochtones qui seraient propriétaires d’un tiers du territoire canadien, exemptes d’impôts fédéraux et provinciaux, économiquement soutenues par des paiements de transfert provenant des contribuables, autorisées à ne plus se soumettre aux lois fédérales et provinciales et libres d’entretenir des relations diplomatiques « de nation à nation » avec ce qui restera du Canada » (15). Flanagan doute que ce soit là une vision du Canada que la plupart des Canadiens soient prêts à entériner. Il estime de surcroît que la mise œuvre d’une pareille vision ne saurait profiter à l’ensemble des Autochtones : « les leaders autochtones pourraient certes mener de satisfaisantes carrières politiques, mais la plupart de leurs commettants resteraient pauvres, dépendants et marginalisés dans des réserves ou autres enclaves territoriales » (15). Flanagan se réclame du libéralisme classique. Croyant avec ferveur aux vertus de l’individualisme, de l’État minimum et de l’égalité formelle devant la loi, il se pare de ces principes qu’il présume moralement supérieurs pour dénoncer les « abus » et les écarts politiques auxquels conduit la satisfaction des prétentions autochtones. Dans sa préface de

143 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes courtoisie à l’édition française, Guy Laforest salue le courage de Flanagan, sa rigueur, sa volonté de « désenchanter le réel », de dire des choses que certains n’aiment pas nécessairement entendre. En réalité, comme la critique l’a déjà évoqué, l’auteur de Premières nations? Seconds regards livre une charge idéologique à fond de train suggérant en remplacement sa propre orthodoxie (Rotman 2001), celle que le néo-libéralisme ambiant impose désormais sans conteste. Loin de désenchanter le réel, il cherche beaucoup plus à constituer un argument en faveur du maintien du rapport de force qui, de tout temps, a été à l’avantage marqué des populations non autochtones qu’à repenser la donne. On pourrait être tenté de croire que les positions de Flanagan sont celles d’un marginal dont on a pas à tenir compte. Rares, après tout, sont ceux qui aujourd’hui osent, comme lui, proclamer ouvertement la supériorité civilisationnelle des Européens et affirmer que le colonialisme de ces derniers ait été une bonne chose. Or, malgré quelques critiques acerbes, la version originale anglaise de Premières nations? Seconds regards (First Nations? Second Thoughts) a connu un succès d’estime remarquable. Publié par l’une des plus importantes presses universitaires du Canada (McGill-Queen’s University Press), l’ouvrage s’est mérité en 2000 le prix Donald Smiley de l’Association canadienne de science politique et le prestigieuxprixdelaFondationDonnerpourlemeilleurlivredel’annéesur un sujet lié aux politiques publiques canadiennes. De telles accolades laissent songeur : beaucoup plus de gens que ne l’admet Flanagan sympathiseraient avec sa vision de la question autochtone. Le fait est qu’on le prend au sérieux. Aussi radicalement anti-autochtone qu’elle puisse être, sa pensée, dit-on, offre matière à réflexion. En tout cas, Septentrion, l’éditeur francophone de l’ouvrage, le croit certainement puisqu’il ajouté au livre quatre textes d’universitaires connus et respectés qu’il a invités à donner la réplique à Flanagan. L’und’eux, Jean-Luc Migué, économiste et membre du Fraser Institute, fait écho en tous points aux positions de Flanagan et l’appuie entièrement. Quant aux trois autres, ils y vont d’interventions plus nuancées. Le constitutionnaliste Ghislain Otis, de l’université Laval, note bien les écarts interprétatifs de Flanagan sur divers points de droit dont, notamment, la question de l’inhérence des droits ancestraux, mais il considère que celui-ci contribue malgré tout au débat sur le bien-fondé de la légitimité de ces mêmes droits. Jean-Jacques Simard, sociologue, de l’université Laval également, prend en défaut Flanagan, particulièrement lorsque celui-ci soutient que les Autochtones n’avaient pas d’institutions socio-politiques développées, mais il partage avec lui sa hantise des droits ancestraux. Finalement, le philosophe Charles Taylor, dont les travaux internationalement reconnus le situent politiquement aux antipodes de Flanagan, salue « la solide dose d’iconoclasme » que ce dernier injecte au débat et souscrit, non sans certaines réserves, à la thèse de l’existence d’une orthodoxie autochtone.

144 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents

Politesse oblige sans doute, aucun de ces auteurs n’ose désapprouver Flanaganclairementetsanséquivoque.Onnepeutplusrévélateur:n’est-ce pas qu’au fond, malgré l’intransigeance idéologique du politologue et le caractère tranché de son point de vue, on estime qu’il n’a pas tout à fait tort? On peut bien vouloir être solidaire de la cause autochtone, mais faut-il que les réparations consenties en compensation d’un passé inique dont on est, dans l’immédiat, guère responsable, s’accomplissent au prix de la dénégation de l’espace civique et institutionnel auquel se rattache notre identité socio-politique profonde? « L’équanimité du public canadien face aux aspirations autochtones », note Jean-Jacques Simard, « trahit surtout (...) une indulgente indifférence. Du moins, tant que ces refoulés ne sortent pas trop indûment de leurs lointaines réserves (...) pour venir troubler la quiétude des honnêtes gens. Car dès que surviennent quelque part des esclandres tapageurs, des barricades dressées en travers des chemins, les sondages subséquents révèlent un durcissement relatif des positions dans le voisinage “majoritaire” » (230). Nous hésiterions donc à condamner carrément les positions d’un Flanagan parce qu’elles ne sont pas sans trouver écho dans notre propre vision des choses, particulièrement lorsque les revendications autochtones nous poussent dans nos derniers retranchements et nous demandent des efforts d’imagination politique et de reconfiguration institutionnelle auxquels nous ne sommes pas préparés.

Repousser les frontières de la citoyenneté : vers une nouvelle donne? En 2000, en même temps que Tom Flanagan, un autre politologue canadien bien connu, Alan Cairns de l’université de la Colombie-Britannique, proposait aussi sa propre lecture de la question autochtone. Son livre, Citizens Plus, ne s’est pas mérité les honneurs auxquels a eu droit Flanagan (il a quand même été également primé par la Fondation Donner, au second rang derrière Flanagan), mais il a été généralement reçu avec plus de sollicitude. Le ton et l’approche de Cairns, exempts du mordant qui caractérise l’ouvrage de Flanagan, y furent pour beaucoup. Apôtre du middleground,delasolutionmitoyenne,Cairnss’estgagnédessympathies beaucoup plus senties tant parmi les Autochtones que les non-Autocthones. Et pour cause. Plutôt que de remettre en question la légitimité des revendications autochtones, Cairns l’admet d’emblée et cherche à combler notre déficit d’imagination politique en appelant à la mise en place d’arrangements institutionnels et constitutionnels qui reconnaîtraient la différence identitaire autochtone et consolideraient la citoyenneté canadienne que partagent Autochtones et non-Autochtones. Pour l’essentiel, Cairns revient aux conclusions et recommandations d’une enquête exhaustive à laquelle il participa sur « Les Indiens contemporains du Canada », commandée en 1964 par le ministère fédéral de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration. Cette enquête, mieux connue sous le titre de Rapport Hawthorn (du nom de son directeur, le professeur Harry

145 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Hawthorn, anthropologue à l’université de la Colombie-Britannique) s’étendit sur près de trois ans et impliqua plus d’une quarantaine de chercheurs qui avaient pour mandat d’étudier « les conditions qui empêchent la concrétisation des aspirations normales et justes des Indiens du Canada vers le bien-être matériel et la santé, et qui leur enlèvent la conviction qu’ils sont traité équitablement et avec dignité dans la grande société canadienne » (Hawthorn 1968 : 1). Cairns joua un rôle clé dans la réalisation de l’étude en tant que chercheur principal et co-auteur de plus de la moitié du rapport. Le Rapport Hawthorn soutenait qu’il ne fallait pas chercher à assimiler ou à intégrer les Autochtones dans la société canadienne contre leur gré ou au détriment de leur identité culturelle particulière. Au contraire, les auteurs du rapport souhaitaient plutôt que les Autochtonessevoientaccordertoutelalatitudenécessairepourprendredes décisions qui regardent la préservation de leur identité. Pour cette raison, ils devraient être considérés par l’État comme des « citoyens avantagés » (citizens plus) qui, en plus des droits et des devoirs qui découlent normalement de la citoyenneté se verraient également reconnaître des « droits supplémentaires en leur qualité de membres privilégiés de la collectivité canadienne » (Hawthorn 1968 : 11). À cette fin, l’État doit veiller à ce que Autochtones et non-Autochtones soient sur un pied d’égalité dans les domaines social et économique, il doit appuyer sans relâche la cause autochtone, lutter contre les tensions raciales qui opposent Autochtones et non-Autochtones et s’assurer que les droits et privilèges des Autochtones soient respectés et que la population et les gouvernements en admettent l’existence. Le Rapport Hawthorn devait rester lettre morte. Quelque temps après sa parution, le gouvernement de Pierre Elliott Trudeau proposait en 1969 son Livre blanc sur sa « politique indienne » qui, tout à fait à l’opposé d’Hawthorn, récusait l’idée d’un statut citoyen différencié pour les Autochtones et estimait que c’était précisément cette approche, à travers le système de réserves et une loi d’application spéciale (la loi sur les Indiens), qui avait empêché les Autochtones de participer pleinement, librement et en toute égalité à la vie sociale et politique de la société canadienne. L’intégration totale des Autochtones, sans statut particulier et avec tous les avantages de la citoyenneté canadienne, constituait pour le Livre blanc la seule solution acceptable, susceptible de favoriser l’émancipation des Autochtones. Derrière cette vision se profilait l’idée qu’il fallait faire table rase du passé, oublier les réserves, oublier les traités et poser les bases d’une dynamique nouvelle en vertu de laquelle les distinctions entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones disparaîtraient. Aux yeux du gouvernement le Livre blanc participait d’intentions honorables : ne proposait-il pas d’éliminer les différences qui faisaient des Autochtones des citoyens de deuxième classe? Toutefois, dans la mesure où il en appelait à la dilution de l’identité autochtone dans le grand tout canadien, on le taxa d’assimilationniste. Il fut l’objet d’un tollé de protestations qui eurent pour effets de mobiliser les forces vives de la cause autochtone et d’en accélérer la politisation. On

146 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents connaîtlasuite:legouvernementcédaauxpressions,retirasonLivreblanc, le statu quo fut maintenu et les tensions entre l’État canadien et les Autochtones s’en trouvèrent ravivées. On ne revint toutefois pas à Hawthorn. L’économiegénérale de la réflexion que propose Citizens Plus repose en grande partie sur le contraste entre les propositions du Livre blanc et celles du Rapport Hawthorn. Cairns appréhende à travers la distance programmatique qui sépare les deux documents la difficulté de repenser la dynamique des rapports sociaux et politiques, de concevoir un modus vivendi entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones en des termes qui satisfassent les uns et les autres sans, surtout, mettre en péril la pérennité de la communauté politique canadienne. Car pour lui c’est là le fin mot de l’affaire. Démocrate et respectueux de l’altérité, il se garde bien de souscrire aux perspectives assimilationnistes du Livre blanc; mais étant aussi profondément attaché à la préservation de la communauté politique canadienne, il ne saurait lui être question non plus de sanctionner des arrangements institutionnels et constitutionnels qui en modifieraient substantiellement l’essence. Aussi, Cairns pose bien le défi politique de la question autochtone : avons-nous la capacité de développer des institutions et un vocabulaire politiques qui affirment la multiplicité identitaire tout en cultivant une solidarité communautaire qui transcende les différences? La question n’est pas tout à fait neuve mais n’en est pas moins centrale ; elle obsède la pensée politique libérale occidentale depuis plus d’une décennie. La réponse que Cairns y apporte montre combien, tout comme la plupart de auteurs qui s’y sont frottés, il glisse lui aussi dans une sorte de clair-obscur de la reconnaissance identitaire : va pour l’expression, voire l’appui institutionnel, d’identités culturelles autres et différentes de celle de la majorité, tant et aussi longtemps qu’elles trouvent à s’accomplir selon les paramètres structuraux et les dynamiques de rapports intercommunautaires pré-établis par la norme dominante de l’État et de la communauté politique qui les accueillent. Son réquisitoire contre l’esprit et les conclusions du Rapport de la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones fixe sans équivoque les limites qu’il croit devoir imposer à la reconnaissance identitaire des peuples autochtones du Canada. Cairns, en effet, en a contre les appels de la Commission à l’établissement de partenariats négociés de « nation à nation » entre les gouvernements canadiens et les peuples autochtones, contre la citoyenneté et le cadre fédéral multinationaux qui en émergeraient, contre les allégeances civiques disparates qui se constitueraient suivant l’appartenance des individus à des nations séparées. À son avis, la reconnaissance recommandée par la Commission des soixante à quatre-vingts nations autochtones dotées de pouvoirs politiques autonomes et de ressources territoriales et économiques appropriées ne ferait que compliquer inutilement la gestion des rapports inter- gouvernementaux au sein de la fédération canadienne, créerait des communautés politiques beaucoup trop petites pour être fiscalement et

147 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes administrativement viables, isolerait davantage les Autochtones vivant en milieu urbain (près de deux tiers de tous les Autochtones du Canada), sans parlerdelamenacequecelareprésenteraitpourl’unitépolitiquedupays. Cairns note que les conditions originales qui ont pu sous-tendre à un certain moment des relations de nation à nation n’existent plus aujourd’hui, tout aussi navrantes que soient les raisons historiques qui ont conduit à cet état de fait. Il préfère plutôt insister sur l’hybridité ethnoculturelle d’un grand nombre d’Autochtones (suite aux mariages mixtes notamment), sur la participation de la plupart d’entre eux aux grands réseaux sociaux et économiques de la société canadienne, sur leur proximité normative et culturelle aux autres Canadiens, bref sur tout ce qui, selon lui, rapproche Autochtones et non-Autchtones dans la même communauté citoyenne qu’est le Canada. Pour Cairns, la clé de la question autochtone tient en définitive dans la recherche de solutions qui, tout en étant adaptées au cadre institutionnel actuel, tiendraient respectueusement compte de ce qui séparent Autochtones et non-Autochtones et préserveraient l’unité de la communauté politique et l’intégrité de l’État canadien.

De la difficile reconnaissance de la différence autochtone Dans les mois qui ont suivi la parution simultanée des ouvrages de Flanagan et de Cairns, les deux hommes ont été conviés à plusieurs reprises à présenter et à débattre de leur position respective sur diverses tribunes. De leurs échanges,1 on pouvait aisément retenir l’impression que la perspective de l’un se présentait comme l’antithèse de l’autre. D’un côté, l’intransigeance assimilationniste, néo-libérale et hargneuse de Flanagan; de l’autre, le respect démocrate et l’ouverture humaniste de Cairns. À y regarder de plus près cependant, la distance qui sépare les deux auteurs est beaucoup moins importante qu’il n’y paraît. Bien que Cairns récuse la vision réductrice de Flanagan, il n’en condamne pas moins le parallélisme socio-politique que supposent les exhortations à la reconnaissance des peuples autochtones comme nations et qui, pour plusieurs, constitue une condition sine qua non de l’émancipation autochtone. Au fond, les deux politologues restent fondamentalement préoccupés par l’unité du sujet politique canadien, par la préservation du cadre institutionnel étatique et par la menace que pourrait constituer des revendications autochtones débridées pour la stabilité constitutionnelle et politique de l’État canadien. Leur inquiétude est la même. Leur opposition apparente est surtout question de degré : Flanagan n’a tout simplement pas la patience de Cairns devant les revendications autochtones, mais Cairns n’entend pas non plus en agréer la pleine légitimité jusqu’à la limite de ce qu’elles peuvent impliquer en termes de restructuration du système politique canadien et de sa dynamique constitutive de rapports de pouvoir. Un critique exaspéré dira d’ailleursdeCairnsqu’ilnedéclameniplusnimoinsqu’uneversionàpeine modifiée de la vieille rengaine assimilationniste (Alfred 2000).

148 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents

Qu’on ait pu présenter le débat entre Flanagan et Cairns comme un affrontement entre deux perspectives contradictoires dans lequel Cairns fait figure d’apôtre de la tolérance et de la réconciliation témoigne en réalité de la résistance inhérente du discours politique dominant à penser la différence identitaire et à imaginer des dynamiques novatrices d’interaction entre majoritaires et minoritaires au-delà du cadre convenu de la communauté politique instituée. La position de Cairns, on en conviendra, n’est pas sans mérite : à tout prendre, elle paraît infiniment plus bienveillante et sympathique que celle de Flanagan. Mais elle repose surtout sur l’espoir nébuleux selon lequel à force de bonne volonté et de respect de part et d’autre s’instaurera bien un équilibre institutionnel mutuellement satisfaisant. Elle fait abstraction – tout comme celle de Flanagan d’ailleurs – des rapports de pouvoir et d’exclusion, des blessures sociales et économiques bien réelles qui n’ont jamais été à l’avantage des Autochtones et qui perdurent malgré la rhétorique officielle au contraire. Il yatrenteans,l’idéedereconnaîtrelesAutochtonescommedescitizensplus pouvait paraître avant-gardiste; aujourd’hui, après trois décennies d’un bras-de-fer incessant entre l’État et les Autochtones, de quelques avancées, certes, mais aussi de constantes remises en question des gains consentis, voiredereculsquiontradicalisécesderniers,ellevienttroptardetoffretrop peu à des gens qui n’ont pratiquement plus rien à perdre et tout à gagner. Pour plusieurs, l’heure n’est plus désormais aux ré-arrangements institutionnels et constitutionnels, aux formules équivoques, mais bien à l’abandon inconditionnel, sans ambiguïté, de rapports de pouvoir par trop inégaux et à la mise en place d’une donne fondamentalement nouvelle. La question reste entière, donc. Peut-on penser le rapport à l’Autochtone au-delà de l’horizon somme toute limité que proposent Cairns et la plupart des penseurs politiques libéraux? Les trois autres ouvrages recensés dans le présent essai critique offrent quelques réponses à cette question et ouvrent des avenues d’analyse un peu plus audacieuses que celle proposée par Cairns. Dans Capteur de rêves, Bernard Cleary pose les conditions essentielles d’un « nouveau contrat social » (165), d’une redéfinition acceptable pour les Autochtones de la relation que ceux-ci entendent établir avec les Canadiens. L’auteur est bien connu au Québec particulièrement pour sa promotion inlassable de la cause autochtone. D’origine innue, journaliste et communicateur de métier, artisan des premiers mouvements de mobilisation politique autochtone au cours des années soixante, il a agi à maintes reprises depuis à titre de conseiller et négociateur pour le compte de plusieurs nations autochtones dans divers dossiers de revendications territoriales, de gestion des ressources naturelles et de partenariat économique. Il a publié en 1989 un livre assez percutant, intitulé L’enfant de 7000 ans, qui connut un certain succès d’estime et dans lequel il trace un portrait troublant des rapports entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones et propose les voies de la reconquête du destin collectif des peuples

149 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes autochtones. Capteur de rêves reprend les thèmes abordés dans ce premier ouvrage, mais n’en a ni la profondeur, ni la qualité. Pour le moins imparfait, le nouveau livre de Cleary est dépourvu de structure cohérente et de toute cohésion d’ensemble. Il est répétitif, rédigé dans une langue brouillonne et victime, selon toute vraisemblance, d’une révision linguistique laxiste. Salmigondis de souvenirs, d’anecdotes, de déclarations pamphlétaires, d’autopromotion, de dénonciations acides et de réflexions éparses, l’auteur y discute sans plan d’exposition précis d’un peu tous les sujets qui se rapportent à la question autochtone. Des négociations territoriales à la mesquinerie des fonctionnaires en passant par les rapports entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones, l’intransigeance des traditionalistes et la spiritualité autochtone, l’auteur dresse le bilan de ses réalisations et défend sans complexe sa conception du dossier autochtone, la seule, s’il faut l’en croire, qui ait quelque validité. Malgré ses faiblesses considérables, l’ouvrage n’est tout de même pas sans intérêt, notamment pour ce qu’il révèle : les clivages socio-économiques, les querelles politiques intracommunautaires, les visions disparates et contradictoires dans la manière d’aborder les problèmes auxquels sont confrontées les communautés autochtones, la mauvaise foi des gouvernements et des administrations publiques dans de nombreux dossiers relatifs à la gestion des affaires autochtones – rien qu’on ne sût ou ne soupçonnât déjà, mais qui, à travers la plume d’un vieux routier de la cause comme Cleary, parvient de première source et confirme ce que l’on appréhendait. D’aucuns prétendront sans doute et avec raison qu’il faille aborder les propos hétéroclites de l’auteur avec un certain scepticisme – l’homme insiste un peu trop sur ce qu’il considère comme ses bons coups et se fait trop souvent la part belle – mais Capteur de rêves n’en constitue pas moins un témoignage instructif d’un acteur clé de la question autochtone. Derrière le fatras, s’articule tout de même une position simple, inébranlable, qui permet de saisir toute la distance encore considérable entre les vœux pieux qui alimentent la voie mitoyenne d’un Cairns et les exigences minimales en-deça desquelles la question autochtone ne saurait se régler à la satisfaction des Premiers Peuples. Cleary n’a rien d’un radical et admet la nécessité de compromis étapistes, mais il est clair qu’une solution à la Citizens plus lui semble tout à fait insuffisante et bien loin de la reconnaissance que les Autochtones sont en droit de réclamer. Il renvoie au projet de Déclaration sur les Droits des Peuples autochtones des Nations Unies, au Rapport de la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones, aux droits collectifs reconnus aux Autochtones par la la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 et par de nombreux jugements favorables de la Cour suprême. Pour Cleary, les gouvernements doivent reconnaître maintenant et sans plus tarder la pleine autonomie des peuples autochtones en tant qu’entités politiques souveraines, socialement et culturellement distinctes. Ces derniers, croit-il, « souhaitent retrouver et actualiser les formes de souveraineté et d’autonomie qu’ils avaient jadis avant l’arrivée

150 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents de l’homme blanc pour mieux se développer selon leurs propres choix de société. Ces choix respecteront la spécificité de leurs cultures, de leurs languesetdeleursmodesdevie»(146).Pareilobjectifn’ariend’insenséou de démesuré : « il ne s’agit pas là de sécession ou d’anarchie, mais bien de l’acceptation d’une organisation politique, sociale et économique qui corresponde à nos traditions et surtout à nos ambitions » (141). Cleary reste ouvert quant aux modalités de reconnaissance de la différence identitaire des peuples autochtones bien qu’il privilégie surtout la voie d’ententes négociées qui permettraient la coexistence harmonieuse des Autochtones et des non-Autochtones en tant que partenaires égaux et de plein droit commis au développement social et économique des peuples autochtones. L’auteur endosse sans équivoque les conclusions du Rapport de la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones et ne cherche rien de moins qu’à établir la relation de nation à nation préconisée par la Commission. En-deça de ce seuil minimum, nul ne saurait prétendre à la mise en place d’un nouveau contrat social. La perspective essentiellement politique que soutient Cleary suppose de la part de l’État canadien et de la population non autochtone en général la volonté de reconnaître inconditionnellement la différence identitaire autochtone. Les ouvrages de Flanagan et de Cairns dont l’influence n’est pas négligeable témoignent clairement qu’à cet égard la cause n’est pas gagnée. En fait, l’exemple récent de l’opposition populaire à l’Approche commune, le projet d’entente territoriale et administrative négocié par les Innus du Lac Saint-Jean et de la Côte-Nord avec les gouvernements du Québec et du Canada, démontre bien que sur le terrain on est encore loin d’avoir agréer l’idée d’un rapport de nation à nation.2 C’est à tort, s’il faut en croire le juriste Patrick Macklem, que certains se refusent encore à admettre la différence identitaire dont se réclament les Autochtones et les revendications politiques qu’elle inspire. Dans son dernier ouvrage, Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada,le professeur de droit de l’université de Toronto soutient qu’il existe une relation constitutionnelle unique entre les Autochtones et l’État canadien, qui pose, de jure à tout le moins, le caractère distinct des Autochtones et force à un traitement différencié de ces derniers. Macklem, qui s’est valu pour ce livre le prix Donald Smiley de l’Association canadienne de science politique et le prix Harold Innis de la Fédération canadienne des sciences humaines et sociales en 2002, défend avec éloquence et conviction l’argument selon lequel l’idéal égalitaire, que plusieurs croient menacé dès lors que l’on admet la différence entre citoyens au point de l’inscrire dans la constitution, se trouve en fait renforcé par la relation constitutionnelle particulière qui lie les Autochtones et l’État canadien. À son avis, la protection constitutionnelle des intérêts qui participent de la différence autochtone3 garantit une répartition juste et équitable des avantages qui découlent du pouvoir social et politique. Ainsi, les cultures des peuples autochtones méritent la protection que leur offre la constitution

151 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes canadienne parce qu’elles font face à des défis formidables qui entravent leur capacité de survie et de reproduction. De même, sans protection constitutionnelle, les peuples autochtones qui, après tout, occupaient l’espace canadien bien avant l’établissement de l’État, n’auraient jamais aucune chance de jouir des droits de propriété admis pour tous les Canadiens. C’est la protection constitutionnelle, également, qui permet d’asseoir le droit des peuples autochtones à un statut souverain en reconnaissance, notamment, du fait que ces derniers étaient des nations au même titre que les nations européennes au moment des premières prises de contact, mais aussi afin de leur permettre de développer les outils politiques et administratifs nécessaires pour juguler les inégalités auxquelles ils sont confrontés. Enfin, la reconnaissance constitutionnelle de la validité des traités signés au cours de années balise les termes et conditions de la coexistence entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones. Bref, les protections qu’accorde la constitution canadienne aux peuples autochtones ne sont que justes remèdes à la dynamique de pouvoir injuste qui a historiquement désavantagé les Autochtones. Bien qu’il soit écrit dans une langue claire, Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada n’est pas un ouvrage facile. Macklem fait montre d’une maîtrise impressionante des aspects techniques de la question et d’une érudition juridique remarquable qui ne laisseront pas d’intimider qui n’est pas rompu, comme lui, à l’analyse jurisprudentielle et à la théorie du droit. Mais justement parce qu’il repose sur des assises solides et difficilement contestables, ce livre fournit des arguments de poids à qui appuie les revendications identitaires et les prétentions politiques des peuples autochtones – ou à qui, plus simplement, cherche à prendre le contre-pied de perspectives qui nient ou minimisent la différence identitaire autochtone. En ce sens, l’approche de Macklem a l’avantage d’opérer au-delà d’objectifs politiques spécifiques. Un militant comme Cleary revendique la différence identitaire pour des raisons politiques évidentes qui ne manquent pas toutefois d’en discréditer la légitimité aux yeux de qui ne les endosse pas. Macklem part de postulats similaires à ceux qu’invoquent Cleary et la plupart des défenseurs de la différence identitaire autochtone – distinctivité culturelle autochtone menacée par les modes de vie non autochtones, occupation continue du territoire qui remonte à des temps immémoriaux, existence d’une souveraineté politique antérieure à la prise de contact avec les Européens, participation active des Autochtones à lanégociationdestraités–maisil lesinscritenboutdepistedansunregistre argumentaire qui dépasse la seule raison politique. Son raisonnement est simple : l’État canadien doit son existence à un projet colonialiste qui a injustement nié la souveraineté pré-existante des peuples autochtones; par ailleurs, il a pris des engagements constitutionnels qui confirment la différence identitaire et civique de ces derniers; ne pas chercher à mettre en place, ou résister à la mise en place d’arrangements constitutionnels et institutionnels qui honorent ces engagements équivaut en quelque sorte à

152 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents nierlesfondementsmêmesdelaconstitutioncanadienneetdesprincipesde démocratie, d’égalité et de justice sociale qui l’animent. En fait, pour Macklem, la survie et la viabilité de la communauté politique canadienne reposent sur la capacité de l’État à reconnaître la différence identitaire autochtone et à lui donner les moyens de s’épanouir selon ses termes propres. Mieux, la légitimité à long terme de la souveraineté de l’État canadien dépend de la reconnaissance constitutionnelle d’espaces territoriaux et juridictionnels autonomes à l’intérieur desquels les sociétés autochtones pourront se développer librement. Cet objectif suppose une conception pragmatique et non absolue de la souveraineté qui laisserait cours à l’existence éventuelle d’une pluralité d’entités disposant chacune d’une autorité souveraine à l’intérieur de l’ordre constitutionnel canadien (7). Macklem met la barre haute : son regard sur la nature et sur l’avenir du rapport entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones au Canada est manifestement exigeant et nous amènerait, s’il se concrétisait, bien au-delà de ce que plusieurs sont prêts à imaginer ou à consentir. Malgré la force magistrale de sa démonstration et de son analyse, la perspective qu’avance Macklem incommode nécessairement ceux qui ne sauraient l’approuver (d’autant plus qu’ils pourront difficilement le prendre en défaut du strict point de vue technique et légal de son argumentation). Dans Citizens Plus, Alan Cairns admet à contrecœur qu’il trouve peu à redire des travaux de Macklem et de quelques autres juristes qui partagent sa manière de voir, si ce n’est qu’il en a contre leur tendance à isoler et à autonomiser l’identité autochtone; contre leur « unremitting focus on one of the communities that make up Canada and an indifference, or at least a lack of attention to, the Canada of which Aboriginal peoples are a part » (179). À l’opposé, d’autres ont soutenu que de conceptualiser les relations entre les peuples autochtones et l’État canadien en termes constitutionnels, comme le fait Macklem, dénature la vision autochtone des rapports sociaux et impose aux cultures autochtones une norme sociale et politique qui leur est fondamentalement étrangère (Turpel 1990). Macklem ne récuse pas cette assertion et admet même que le fossé qui sépare les visions autochtones et non autochtones puisse empêcher qu’émerge la synthèse constitutionnelle qu’il souhaite voir prendre forme. Mais comme il est impossible de savoir d’avance si telle sera l’issue, il préfère penser que la création d’arrangements institutionnels qui prendront véritablement en compte la différence identitaire autochtone ouvriront la voie à la formation d’allégeances interculturelles – une perspective qui lui sourit d’emblée. Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada interpelle la conscience politique canadienne et la confronte implicitement à un choix que d’aucuns trouveront malaisé : ou bien l’État canadien s’engage sans faux-fuyant à mettre de l’avant des arrangements constitutionnels et institutionnels qui admettent sans équivoque la différence identitaire autochtone, quelle qu’assortie qu’elle puisse être d’aspirations

153 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes souverainistes ou autonomistes; ou bien il s’y refuse ou se défile et compromet du coup le renouvellement de la culture démocratique et l’élargissement éventuel de la justice sociale au Canada. Renée Dupuis, pour sa part, n’ergote pas longtemps sur les perspectives qu’offre ce choix. Dans son dernier livre, Quel Canada pour les Autochtones?, cette juriste bien connue au Québec pour ses écrits sur la question autochtone est catégorique : La situation actuelle ne doit pas durer (…). Le maintien du statu quo ne fait qu’accélérer la détérioration de la situation générale des Autochtones et des relations entre ceux-ci et les autres citoyens. S’il persiste, le statu quo finira par révéler la vacuité des droits particuliers qu’on a dit reconnaître aux peuples autochtones en 1982, quand on a officiellement reconnu leurs droits dans la nouvelle constitution. On ne pourra adopter indéfiniment un discours qui semble vouloir changer les fondements du statut des Autochtones au Canada, mais qui, en réalité, n’a provoqué aucun changement fondamental dans le traitement de ces questions par le gouvernement. Des décisions doivent découler de ce discours, sinon le choix politique qui s’est concrétisé en 1982 sera lettre morte (37). Dupuis connaît bien les enjeux de la question autochtone. Depuis 1972, elle a agi à titre de conseiller juridique auprès de divers groupes autochtones du Québec et en tant qu’expert-conseil en matière autochtone auprès des gouvernements du Québec et du Canada. Elle a été commissaire à la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne de 1989 à 1995 et a été nommée en 2001 à la Commission des revendications des Indiens par le gouvernement fédéral. Quel Canada pour les Autochtones?, son quatrième ouvrage sur le sujet en une dizaine d’années,4 s’est mérité le prix du Gouverneur général (catégorie essais) en 2001. Elle présente dans ce court essai visiblement destiné au grand public une synthèse concise mais efficace de la condition autochtone au Canada. Elle rappelle d’abord, chiffres à l’appui, la marginalisation socio- politique des Autochtones et la désorganisation sociale dans laquelle est plongé un trop grand nombre de leurs communautés. Elle explique que l’État canadien est largement responsable de cette situation qui s’est développée au cours d’une longue histoire de rapports intercom- munautaires et interculturels vécue au désavantage évident des Autochtones. Le régime d’isolement mis en place par les réserves, le remplacement forcé des pratiques politiques autochtones traditionnelles, l’interdit d’accès aux institutions politiques canadiennes, le ravalement des Autochtones au rang de pupilles de l’État et leur infantilisation subséquente constituent autant des politiques délibérées qui ont placé ces derniers dans une situation de dépendance et d’incapacité socio-économique chronique. Dupuis note que même si l’État canadien se dit prêt aujourd’hui à reconnaître le traitement inique qui leur a été réservé et à en réparer les torts

154 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents qui en ont résultés, il n’en reste pas moins qu’en raison d’un rapport de pouvoir dont ils n’ont pour ainsi dire jamais contrôlé les paramètres, les peuples autochtones se sont vu assigner une place on ne peut plus défavorable au sein de la société canadienne qui les a littéralement dépouillés de tout pouvoir d’agir sur leur propre destin. Les actes de contrition étatiques n’y changeront rien, d’autant plus que de nombreuses dispositions légales, administratives et juridiques qui ont permis l’assujettissement des Autochtones sont encore en place et continuent d’avoir force de loi. Rien d’étonnant, conclut Dupuis, à ce que les Autochtones aient toujours tenté de résister à cette véritable et intolérable mise en tutelle. L’intransigeance apparente et la radicalisation de certains mouvements actuels de mobilisation politique autochtone ne doivent pas surprendre : elles participent d’un profond et compréhensible élan d’affirmation de droits injustement niés, du désir propre à toute communauté humaine de se gouverner et de contrôler son destin selon des balises qu’elle aura elle-même définies. Rien, en d’autres mots, que la plupart des Canadiens ne devraient comprendre puisqu’ils bénéficient eux-mêmes de ce privilège. Dupuis fait surtout ici œuvre de vulgarisation, ce qui, bien sûr, n’est pas sans mérite, particulièrement dans la mesure où elle réfute bon nombre de préjugés populaires tenaces à l’égard des Autochtones. Toutefois, les spécialistes de la question n’y trouveront guère un discours ou des données qui ne leur sont pas déjà familiers. Le quatrième et dernier chapitre de l’ouvrage présentera sans doute le plus d’intérêt, car il porte la discussion au-delà des constats désolants qu’on a dû trop souvent faire – et refaire, tant les choses évoluent lentement – et appelle à un changement de stratégie, à des actions concrètes, susceptibles de changer la donne dès maintenant. « On ne réglera rien », estime Dupuis, « si l’on continue de voler à vue dans ce domaine comme on le fait depuis longtemps déjà ». « D’un problème à l’autre », renchérit-elle, « on injecte de nouveaux fonds publics et l’on change quelques méthodes ou personnes jusqu’au prochain problème avec le même groupe ou avec un autre. La gestion à la pièce a largement démontré ses limites » (125). Dupuis identifie une demi-douzaine de ces actions concrètes qu’elle souhaite voir prendre forme, à commencer par la révision en profondeur du régime législatif et administratif en conformité avec les droits consti- tutionnels particuliers reconnus aux Autochtones par la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, même s’il faut pour cela abandonner l’autorité discrétionnaire du gouvernement fédéral à l’égard des Autochtones et de leurs terres. Le recours aux tribunaux comme voie privilégiée par les Autochtones pour obtenir satisfaction auprès des gouvernements est également problématique : l’option judiciaire a amené les tribunaux à jouer un rôle dans la formulation des politiques publiques en matière autochtone qui devrait être dévolu à la négociation politique. Non seulement la judiciarisation des doléances autochtones braque-t-elle les parties les unes

155 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes contre les autres et envenime leurs rapports, mais elle entraîne des processus de règlement interminables et coûteux qui, au surplus, ne font que modifier les lois concernant les Autochtones un seul article à la fois, au gré des poursuites judiciaires. C’est donc là une stratégie qui, à long terme, fait assez peu pour modifier et améliorer la situation et dont l’efficacité devrait être sérieusement reconsidérée. Dupuis insiste beaucoup aussi sur la création d’un forum politique et constitutionnel permanent qui engagerait les gouvernements féderal et provinciaux et les peuples autochtones, mais qui, surtout, favoriserait une plus grande participation des Autochtones aux processus décisionnels qui les concernent directement. Dans la vision des changements stratégiques proposés le politique ne doit pas être seul en cause cependant : les institutions d’enseignement supérieur doivent assumer une part importante de responsabilité dans le processus de redressement de la situation des peuples autochtones. Le manque actuel de ressources en matière de soutien et d’intégration des étudiants autochtones aux milieux d’enseignement supérieur de même que le faible appui à l’élaboration de programmes de recherche et de formation destinés à mieux faire connaître la condition autochtone constituent des obstacles importants à la transformation de la situation. Cet état de choses doit changer et ne saurait perdurer plus longuement. Tous ces éléments de la nouvelle stratégie qu’appelle Dupuis de ses vœux n’auront de sens toutefois que si l’on procède à l’établissement de véritables gouvernements autochtones, libérés de la tutelle actuelle et disposant d’une assise juridique qui leur serait propre, voire aussi de capacités fiscales suffisantes. Il faut donc envisager de laisser les Autochtones définir et décider des structures politico-administratives qui correspondent à leurs valeurs et répondent à leurs priorités. Enfin, pour que toutes ces transformations souhaitées par Dupuis se réalisent, il faut, croit-elle, que changent l’esprit et la dynamique qui ont, jusqu’à maintenant, dominé les négociations avec les Autochtones. L’impro- visation, les rapports de force inégaux, les consultations insuffisantes doivent cesser pour que s’opère un changement vers une approche qui implique le public et qui soit fondée sur des objectifs clairement exprimés et compris par tous, de manière à définir des paramètres de négociation plus réalistes. On serait sans doute mal avisé de ne pas se ranger du côté des solutions que suggèrent Renée Dupuis. En fait, certains gouvernements ont déjà commencé à élaborer des politiques qui vont dans le même sens. Le gouvernement québécois, par exemple, opère depuis 1998 à l’intérieur d’une politique cadre qui reconnaît le caractère national des peuples autochtones, cherche à établir avec eux des partenariats et des ententes d’égal à égal dans nombre de secteurs d’activité d’intérêt commun et vise à rehausser sensiblement le degré d’autonomie administrative et gouvernementale à leur disposition. Dupuis, à l’instar de Macklem et

156 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents

Cleary, renvoie aux termes de l’Acte constitutionnel de 1982 et à la jurisprudence qu’il a inspiré pour soutenir qu’au fond les gouvernements n’ont pas le choix. La mise en place d’une dynamique nouvelle et plus juste de rapports entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones est imposée par la contrainte institutionnelle et politico-légale que s’est fixée l’État canadien : ne pas modifier aujourd’hui la logique relationnelle qui a historiquement prévalu irait à l’encontre des paramètres fondamentaux du système politique canadien et en dé-légitimerait à terme l’application générale. À tout prendre, peut-on penser, mieux vaut cette contrainte qui permet malgré tout de faire avancer quelque peu les choses et d’insuffler un minimum d’équité trop longtemps absente dans le dossier autochtone, que rien du tout. Cela ne va pas toutefois sans susciter quelques doutes quant à la possibilité de voir un jour la question autochtone résolue à la satisfaction des premiers intéressés. Ainsi, par exemple, dans la mesure où les actions préconisées par Dupuis restent circonscrites par les règles de l’État canadien, les peuples autochtones pourront-ils jamais tout à fait contrôler la nouvelle donne et l’ajuster à leur priorités? Certains n’y verront peut-être là aucun problème et trouveront à s’accommoder du cadre institutionnel et constitutionnel canadien, mais ce pourrait bien n’être pas nécessairement le cas pour tout le monde. Par ailleurs, la nécessité d’une contrainte, toute éclairée qu’elle puisse être, laisse perplexe quant à la volonté réelle de l’État d’agréer la différence identitaire autochtone et les revendications qui y sont associées. La reconnaissance à laquelle on se dit prêt ne participe pas d’une conscience politique large et généreuse, ni de quelque magnanimité naturelle:qu’enserait-ilvraimentsanslacontrainte?L’histoire,àcetégard, n’offre pas de perspectives bien encourageantes. L’expérience du passé donnerait plutôt à penser en définitive qu’il ne pourra y avoir de reconnaissance identitaire véritable et politiquement satisfaisante pour les peuples autochtones sans une lutte de tous les instants tant et aussi longtemps que leur destinée restera circonscrite par les balises de la communauté politique et de l’État canadiens.

Conclusion : question autochtone ou question de « nous »? L’examen des ouvrages recensés dans cet essai critique permet de dégager aumoinsdeuxobservations.Lapremières’imposed’évidence:ilexistedes écartsimportantsdanslalittératurespécialiséequantàlamanièred’aborder et de concevoir la place que doivent occuper les peuples autochtones au sein de la communauté politique canadienne. La distance qui sépare un Tom Flanaganincapabled’admettreladifférenceidentitaireautochtoneparpeur des conséquences que cela pourrait avoir sur l’unité du sujet politique canadien, d’un Peter Macklem que la coexistence de souverainetés plurielles et différenciées n’effraie manifestement pas, est considérable et n’a, politiquement, rien d’anodin. Elle témoigne de la difficulté qu’il y aura sans doute toujours d’accoucher d’une politique autochtone globale qui fasse consensus. Mais, plus fondamentalement, se profile aussi derrière

157 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes cette distance l’incapacité quasi viscérale de la pensée politique libérale à réconcilier ses prétentions universalistes, nécessairement intégratrices, voire assimilationistes, et sa volonté presqu’intraitable de protection des libertés individuelles et des souverainetés collectives. Les philosophes politiques libéraux les plus avancés ont beau minimiser ce fossé conceptuel, ils ont beau chercher à rassurer les sceptiques que la pleine reconnaissance politique et institutionnelle de droits et revendications identitaires minoritaires ne limite en rien les droits des individus appartenant à la majorité, pas plus qu’elle ne mène à la fragmentation de l’unité de la communauté politique (Tully 2000), il se trouve toujours quelque incrédule que leur démonstration ne convainc pas. La perspective de voir diminuer le pouvoir social réel et symbolique qu’il détient sur les minoritaires l’effraie sans doute et l’empêche d’entendre raison. Quoi qu’il en soit, la persistance de ce contentieux au sein même de la mouvance démocratico-libérale entrave lourdement l’unité de pensée dans la recherche d’une solution à la question autochtone et, partant, l’élaboration même de politiques satisfaisantes. La seconde observation que l’analyse des ouvrages retenus inspire est qu’il y a dans ces textes une constante qui, par-delà les divergences de points de vue, les unit : on semble s’entendre pour que la recherche de solutions se fasse à l’intérieur de l’enveloppe systémique et institutionnelle canadienne. L’horizon politico-institutionnel sur lequel tous paraissent décider à opérer reste celui de l’État canadien, que ce soit pour en préserver strictement l’intégrité (sans compromis chez Flanagan ; avec une ouverture relative chez Cairns) ou pour en améliorer l’essence et la portée démocratiques (c’est ce qui sous-tend les propos de Macklem et Dupuis, et de Cleary également, quoique dans une moindre mesure chez celui-ci). Au fond, le Canada, ou plus précisément une certaine image du pays, reste l’enjeu central de la question autochtone et constitue la principale raison pour laquelle l’imagination sociologique s’y attarde maintenant avec tant d’anxiété. C’est d’abord un regard sur nous – un « nous » a priori non autochtone – qui est posé à travers elle. Que l’urgence de ce regard participe d’une certaine impatience à l’égard des revendications autochtones, d’un sentiment de culpabilité ou d’un authentique désir de changer les choses importe assez peu. Le fait est que la question autochtone interpelle d’abord les Canadiens beaucoup plus qu’elle ne procède d’une véritable préoccupation pour l’Autochtone.5 Elle leur renvoie une image d’eux- mêmes qu’ils ne peuvent plus esquiver et qui demande à être confrontée. Les ouvrages recensés ici révèlent des manières différentes et opposées d’appréhender et, éventuellement, de gérer cette image. Étonnamment toutefois, alors que tous tiennent l’État canadien responsable de l’état actuel des choses (pour des raisons qui varient, il est vrai), personne ne suggère pour autant d’en déborder le cadre précis pour reformuler la donne. Or, le véritable défi qui se pose maintenant à l’imagination sociologique ne consisterait-il pas plutôt à penser la question autochtone en dehors des

158 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents impératifs de correction ou d’ajustement institutionnel de l’État canadien? L’intellectuel kanien’kehaka Taiaiake Alfred a expliqué les limites auxquelles se condamne toute démarche politique autochtone poursuivie à l’intérieur des frontières institutionnelles de l’État : In the midst of Western societies that pride themselves on their respect for freedom, the freedom of indigenous people to realize their own goals has been extinguished by the state in law and to a great extent in practice (...). The problem is that at present Native politics is still understood and practised in the context of the law as structured by the state. Within this context, the state has nothing to fear from Native leaders, for even if they succeed in achieving the goal of self-empowerment, the basic power structure remains intact. From the perspective of the state, marginal losses of control are the trade-off for the ultimate preservation of the framework of dominance. What we need is a nationalist perspective that directly challengesthatframework(…).Wemustdeconstructthenotionof state power to allow people to see that the settler state has no right to determine indigenous futures (Alfred 1999: 47). Alfred laisse entendre sans équivoque que malgré la bonne volonté et les intentions honorables, tant qu’on abordera la question autochtone du point de vue de la norme étatique en place, on peut douter que la dynamique actuelle soit amendée au profit réel et durable des peuples autochtones. Au fond, pour ces derniers, toute la question de la reconnaissance identitaire tient dans ce dilemme : accepter ou ne pas accepter de fonctionner à l’intérieur d’une norme qui leur est étrangère et qui, au surplus, est à la source de bien des maux. Voilà aussi posée du coup, froidement et sans artifice, toute l’exigence de la reconnaissance identitaire : il faut, pour qu’elle soit pleinement authentique, que les cultures minoritaires aient le loisir de choisir sans entrave et sans condition les termes et les moyens de l’expression de leur identité, au prix même de la déconstruction de l’entité politique qui les englobent. Malgré le capital de sympathie considérable à l’égard de la cause autochtone que recèlent certains des ouvrages recensés ici, aucun ne penche clairement dans cette voie. On ne saurait nécessairement en tenir rigueur aux auteurs, mais soyons assez réalistes en contrepartie pour admettre que dans l’éventualité où la perspective d’Alfred mobilisera les peuples autochtones sans trouver en même temps un écho favorable du côté des populations non autochtones, le fossé qui sépare les uns et les autres pourrait bien ne pas être comblé de sitôt.

Notes 1. Pour un exemple du dialogue que les deux auteurs entretinrent, voir leur échange épistolaire dans le numéro 10 (2001) de la revue Inroads (repris dans l’édition de septembre 2001 de la revue Policy Options/Options politiques). 2. Le projet d’entente reconnaît à quatre des neuf communautés Innues du Québec la pleine propriété sur près de 2,600 km2 de territoire (elles en occupent en ce moment 270) et accorde la prépondérance administrative aux Innus dans 17 domaines – dont l’environnement, la formation de la main-d’œuvre et l’éducation

159 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

– et le pouvoir de légiférer dans une dizaine de domaines – produits pétroliers, normes du bâtiments, protection des forêts, etc. Elle prévoit également le versement de plus de $375 millions au moment de la signature et 3% des redevances payées au gouvernement du Québec pour l’exploitation des ressources naturelles. L’approche commune reconnaît les droits ancestraux et le titre aborigène et admet, ce faisant, l’existence des Innus comme groupe national distinct. Bien qu’il réponde à des impératifs judiciaires et constitutionnels auxquels le gouvernement du Québec ne peut se soustraire, le projet d’entente a soulevé de nombreuses protestations remarquées, d’abord au sein de la classe politique – Ghislain Lebel, un député du Bloc québécois et Jacques Parizeau, ancien premier ministre du Québec, s’y sont opposés publiquement avec véhémence – puis au sein des populations non autochtones avoisinant les communautés Innues touchées par l’entente. La Fondation Équité territoriale et la Société du 14 juillet au Lac Saint-Jean et l’Association de défense des droits des Blancs sur la Côte-Nord ont été créées dans la foulée de l’entente. Ces organisations s’emploient à en dénoncer le caractère « injuste », racial et anti-libéral, et remettent même en question le droit des Innus à être reconnus comme nation. 3. Cette protection est surtout assurée à travers l’article 35 (1) de La loi constitutionnelle de 1982 en vertu duquel les droits ancestraux des peuples autocthones du Canada sont explicitement confirmés et formellement reconnus. 4. Voir Dupuis (1991, 1997, 1999). 5. Cette affirmation ne saurait s’appliquer intégralement au livre de Cleary, il va sans dire. Il y a malgré tout chez cet auteur un flou qui persiste. Voué sans contredit à la cause autochtone, il ne renie pas son intégration et sa participation active à la société québécoise et canadienne. Nombre des ses commentaires donnent à penser qu’il reste aussi préoccupé par l’avenir socio-politique du Canada et du Québec.

Références Alfred, Taiaiake (1999). Peace, Power, Righteousness. An Indigenous Manifesto. Toronto, Oxford University Press. Alfred, Taiaiake (2000). « Of White Heroes and Old Men Talking », Eastern Door, vol. 9, no. 19. Cleary, Bernard (1989). L’enfant de 7000 ans. Le long portage vers la délivrance. Québec, Septentrion. Delâge, Denys (2000). « L’histoire des Premières Nations, approches et orientations », Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française, vol. 53, no 4 : 521-527. Dupuis, Renée (1991). La question indienne au Canada. Montréal, Boréal. Dupuis, Renée (1997). Tribus, peuples et nations. Montréal, Boréal. Dupuis, Renée (1999). Le statut juridique des peuples autochtones en droit canadien. Toronto, Carswell. Flanagan, Tom (1983). Riel and the Rebellion: 1885 Reconsidered. Saskatoon, Western Producer Prairie Books. Flanagan, Tom (1991). Metis Lands in Manitoba. Calgary, University of Calgary Press. Flanagan, Tom (1996). Louis “David” Riel: “Prophet of the New World. Édition revue, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Hawthorn, Harry (1968). Étude sur les indiens contemporains du Canada. Besoins et mesures d’ordre économique, politique et éducatif, vol. 1. Ottawa, Imprimeur de la Reine. Rotman, Leonard (2001). « Recension de First Nations? Second Thoughts », Isuma, printemps : 130-133.

160 Enjeux et défis de l’affirmation identitaire et politique des peuples autochtones au Canada : autour de quelques ouvrages récents

Tully, James (2000). « A Just Relationship between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Peoples of Canada » dans Curtis Cook et Juan D. Lindau (dirs.), Aboriginal and Self-Government, Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press : 39-71. Turpel, Mary Ellen (1990). « Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian Charter: Interpretive Monopolies, Cultural Differences », Canadian Human Rights Yearbook, 6: 3-45.

161

Katalin Kürtösi

Books on Québec Theatre, Playwrights, and Michel Tremblay

Dramaturgies québécoises des années quatre-vingt. Jean Cléo Godin et Dominique Lafon. Montréal : Leméac. 1999. 264 p. Le théâtre québécois 1975-1995. Sous la direction de Dominique Lafon. Montréal : Fides. 2001. 527 p. Michel Tremblay, l’enfant multiple. Marie-Lyne Piccione. Bordeaux : Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux. 1999. 197 p.

Le théâtre québécois 1975-1995 is the second volume examining theatre in the series Archives des Lettres canadiennes; the title of each volume makes it clear that by “lettres canadiennes” the research centre responsible for the series means writing in French in Canada. Volume V, Le théâtre canadien- francais, summarized theatrical activities and plays from their origins up to 1975, while the present volume–Volume X in the series–concentrates on the two decades between 1975 and 1995. The size of the two books reflects the dimensions of theatre in their two respective periods: Volume V covered 370 years in 1,000 pages–more than two thirds of which dealt with the mid-twentieth century–while Volume X analyzes twenty years of Québec theatre in 527 pages. The two volumes are structured differently: Volume V contains papers as well as profiles of contemporary playwrights with short excerpts from their plays and a bibliography. Volume X, however, is strictly academic. Editor Dominique Lafon arranged the twenty-four papers around five areas, namely, “État des lieux,” “Dramaturgie,” “La mise en scène,” “Scénographie et écriture scénique,” and “Échanges, diffusion et réception,” followed by a selected bibliography. The two volumes accomplish the mission to which they were dedicated,namelytoofferanindispensablesourceontheatricalactivitiesin the French language in Canada. In both volumes the contributors are outstanding experts in their respective fields–some, including John Hare, Hélene Beauchamp and Josette Féral, participated in both projects. This brief detour was necessary to fully evaluate Le théâtre québécois and to put it in context. Dominique Lafon was able to concentrate on topics strictly connected to the theatre because by the end of the 1990s there were other books dedicated to playwrights and plays. This decision is in line with

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes the latest tendencies in theatre studies: emphasis is put on dramaturgical and semiotic aspects, production and reception, and aspects of the performance text, while the analysis of the play-text is left to literary critics. The two decades under scrutiny mark a significant change in the role and place of theatre in Québec society; after the strong political implications of the late sixties and seventies, the second part of the period examined in Lafon’s volume is more concerned with aesthetic aspects. After 1980, to borrowJeanCléoGodin’sterm,a“richesseintellectuelle”(57)replacedthe conservative, anti-intellectual, nationalist approaches. The new drama- turgies of the last two decades of the twentieth century appeared after the 1980 referendum and underline, une rupture avec le théâtre essentiellement socio-politique de la décennie précédente. Elles [...] privilégient l’onirique, l’hétéro- généité, l’éclatement formel et autoréférentialité. [...] une bonne partie de la production théâtrale de cette période se caractérise par l’emploi de la métafiction. La métafiction signale un théâtre en introspection, qui conjugue la création d’un univers fictif et son commentaire voire sa déconstruction. (Shawn Huffman, 73) The most frequent strategies for these purposes are intertextuality, métissage, and theatre within the play: the majority of important playwrights of the period, for example Michel Marc Bouchard, Normand Chaurette, René-Daniel Dubois, Dominic Champagne, and Michel Tremblay in Le Vrai Monde?, use them abundantly. Dominique Lafon’s own paper looks at plays from a thematic point of view, specifically the family, as shown in the work of Tremblay, Marie Laberge, Pol Pelletier, Jeanne-Mance Delisle, Michel Marc Bouchard, Jean-Pierre Ronfard and others. The family has been of central importance in the dramatic genre since the late nineteenth century, when Ibsen and then Strindberg analyzed the male and female roles in this small unit of society; dramatic conflict was the result of basic differences between husband and wife, parents and children. In the second half of the twentieth century, North American plays seldom show a complete family on stage, and Québec drama is no exception: fathers are mainly absent, mothers dominate or become tyrannical, and frequent incestuous and homosexual relationships prove that in these plays we witness a “renversement de valeurs familiales, leitmotiv du théâtre des années 80.” (108) The first three papers of the “Dramaturgie” chapter, namely “Création et réflexion : le retour du texte et de l’auteur” by Jean-Cléo Godin1, “Les nouvelles écritures théâtrales: l’intertextualité, le métissage et la mise en pièces de la fiction” by Shawn Huffman, and “Un air de famille” by Dominique Lafon address the same topic. Even though the papers adopt different perspectives, they often (unavoidably) overlap and refer to the same works in their analyses. This overlapping occurs in the remainder of the volume as well; the work of Jean-Pierre Ronfard, Gilles Maheu and Robert Lepage are examined from

164 Books on Québec Theatre, Playwrights, and Michel Tremblay the point of view of collective creation (by Jean-Marc Larrue), as subjects of individual chapters (by Paul Lefebvre, Louise Vigeant, Irène Perelli-Contos and Chantal Hébert), or as outstanding directors of the period (by Josette Féral). As previously mentioned, it is unavoidable that a collection of twenty-four papers about the same topic will deal with the same works and the same artists more than once. One shortcoming of this volume (as well as the other two works under review) is the lack of a reference index at the end. Theatre addressing and representation of particular segments of the audience (young people, women, the English minority of Montréal) is introduced and analyzed in separate papers. Claire Dé writes about costume in Montreal theatres, and Marie-Christine Lesage examines the relationship between theatre and the other arts. Two papers are dedicated to theatrical activities in Québec City, provincial towns, and franco-Ontarian theatre; Madeleine Greffard writes about Québec acting companies and the international theatre scene; and Diane Pavlovic researches foreign productions and translations of Québec plays. Alvina Ruprecht’s enquiry into the role of festivals in theatre life not only provides a basic foundation for this generally neglected aspect of the genre, but emphasizes that festivalsleadusbacktotheoriginsoftheatre.Atthesametime,theypointto the future, as many young artists first appear for large audiences as part of festival programmes. In Ruprecht’s paper, the Festival de Théâtre des Amériques is given exhaustive attention; the FTA, particularly in its first decade,introducedthemostremarkableperformances,notonlyfromNorth America, but from Europe and Asia as well, to Montréal audiences, in conjunction with a showcase of Québec and English Canadian plays. Her critical remarks in the conclusion, however, are worthy of consideration: […] ces festivals ne reflètent plus les complexités de la dynamique culturelle actuelle. Ils évoluent comme si le Québec était toujours culturellement homogène, autonome et immuable, non pas multiculturel, migrant, pris entre l’Europe, les Amériques et tous les continents […] le festival ne serait-il pas le moment idéal pour réfléchir sur les discours culturels internes, les rapports avec l’autre parmi nous, où se rencontrent les cultures hôtesses et les cultures transplantées? (440) The latest festival, which was held after the period examined by the present volume (2001) moved in this direction: parallel with the FTA, a festival of smaller scale was dedicated to First Nations plays and theatres with some exciting shows. Le théâtre québécois, however, does not open in this direction; the papers do not look at Aboriginal or immigrant theatre, although from the mid-1980s to the present, they have played an important role in the theatre scene of Montréal. Another research area of modern theatre studies neglected by this volume is the study of audience: who are the patrons of Le Théâtre du nouveau monde (TNM), the FTA events, Le Théâtre de la Manufacture, or of Le Théâtre du Nouvel Ontario? The theatre

165 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes of Québec made many gains during this twenty-year period and these questions may have been worth asking. Dramaturgies québécoises concentrates on the 1980s–a period which was covered in Le théâtre québécois, as well–offering one chapter about outstanding performances and metteurs en scène and four chapters about individual playwrights (Michel Marc Bouchard, Normand Chaurette, René-Daniel Dubois and Marie Laberge). The “Introduction” section outlines the general tendencies of the age, highlighting the move from politically connected theatre towards a more aesthetically conscious concept of the art, with a strong poetic presence both in the texts themselves and in the visual qualities of the shows. In “Du texte emprunté au texte scénique,” Jean Cléo Godin stresses the influence of German writers and directors on the theatre of Québec in the 1980s with its definite theatricality, “combinant la précision méticuleuse du jeu et la profusion décadente véhiculée par la tradition du cabaret berlinois” (27). Another important aspect of Québec theatre was the impact of Shakespeare, both on palimpsests of plays and in staging plays by Robert Lepage, Alice Ronfard and others. The plays and performances of this decade share one common theme–self-reflection at the expense of theatrical illusion. With regard to these elements, both J. C. Godin and Dominique Lafon speak about a new dramaturgy as most typical of the second-last decade of the twentieth century (and they both stress that this approach continues well into the 1990s). This change in focus indicates that the theatre of Québec had come of age by the 1980s. Its innate evolution was accompanied by a sensitive reaction to new tendencies of world theatre, and therefore theatre artists from Québec could actively participate in this process and contribute to the new understanding of theatre as an art form. The chapters analyzing individual playwrights in Dramaturgies québécoises are not only well researched but place Bouchard, Chaurette, Dubois and Laberge in the context of both Québec drama and theatre of the time, and the international theatre scene. The chronology at the end of the volume mentions the most remarkable historical and cultural events of each given year in Canada and Québec, the performances that took place, as well as the publication of play-texts and essays about the theatre. Because of their dedication and accuracy, the authors’works should be recommended to future contributors on this topic. Marie-Lyne Piccione’s book is different from the previous two volumes in several respects: it is a monograph about one author, Michel Tremblay, whose writing reaches beyond the realm of drama and theatre, and Piccione examines this remarkable oeuvre in its totality. The five chapters are arranged around topics and problematics, such as “Menteur-usurpateur,” “La toile et le tricot,” “Quand l’autre est le même,” “Palinodies et palimpsestes,” and finally “Les voies de la création.” The short conclusion is followed by appendices containing the summary of Tremblay’s major works, an exhaustive list of his characters in alphabetical order and the

166 Books on Québec Theatre, Playwrights, and Michel Tremblay works in which they are featured, a “family tree,” a bibliography, essential biographical data and an interview with Tremblay himself. It might be of interest to quickly look back at Renate Usmiani’s monograph of 1982 about Michel Tremblay, which treated him principally and almost exclusively as a playwright; seventeen years later his work demonstrates completely different proportions. (Piccione does not mention Usmiani’s book in her bibliography.) Piccione points at key elements, returning motifs and metaphors of Tremblay’s universe with exceptional sensibility, her phrasing often displaying poetic dimensions. She can convince us that Tremblay is much more than the author of Les Belles-Sœurs; in her view this popular–but not populist–novelist, playwright and “autobiographe” surpasses clichés. With his “système d’échos, de mises en abymes et de scènes spéculaires” (21) he introduces his readers to a Daedalian labyrinth, however one does not get lost in it. She goes beyond the superficial evaluations of Tremblay’s work, which claim it is easy to understand; although the heroines of his best-known plays tend to be against high culture, Tremblay himself frequently uses literary allusions and artistic references “au point d’imprimer parfois à ses ouvrages des allures encyclopédiques” (22). Piccione follows the relationship of Tremblay’s heros with their bodies, their sexual lives, as well as the institution of the church. The framework of his stories–be they novels, or plays–is the family, but “la famille traditionnelle se meurt, entrant dans l’ère de son apocalypse” (51). The crisis of this institution was also the focus of attention in the two volumes of papers about Québec theatre and drama previously alluded to. Piccione emphasizes that this phenomenon is not restricted to one genre of contemporary Québec writing. The third chapter, casting light on the problematics of the “other” and the “same,” situates this typically post-modern feature in the context of the Québec-Canada relationship: Miroir du miroir, le texte fait de la réduplication une modalité essentielle de son appréhension du monde : du travesti au schizophrène, les héros y sont à la fois double et scindés, pris dans le tourbillon d’une dynamique conflictuelle qui reflète, en l’exacerbant, la dialectique indéfiniment recommencée d’un pays voué à une structurelle binarité. (69) The mirror can serve several goals: as a stage prop, it draws attention to theatricality in the play, in novels it may act as a tool for self-admiration, self-hatred or self-correction. In the mirror, objects are doubled–theatre is perhaps the most spectacular vehicle for this duplication and Le Vrai Monde? directs our attention to this eternal question of the art. In Tremblay’s latest works the writer’s interest in complex theoretical questions goes hand in hand with his attraction to ludic solutions, inviting the reader-audience into an intellectual game. Piccione’s book convinces us that Tremblay is not only an “enfant multiple” but also a leading writer of the previous decades, with forthcoming works “in reserve.”

167 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes

Each of the above volumes accomplishes its goal–to supply the reader with reliable systematization, invaluable data about plays, playwrights, and the theatre, or provide information about Québec’s best-known author internationally. Because of their wealth of information, I would strongly recommend these three volumes not only to experts of Québec theatre and literature but also to all who are interested in this particular area of North American culture.

Notes 1. In this volume both the table of contents and the title of the paper itself puts his name with a hyphen, while the title page of Dramaturgies québécoises has his name correctly, i.e. without a hyphen.

Works cited Le théâtre canadien-francais. Évolution, témoignages, bibliographie. Archives des Lettres canadiennes, Tome V. Montréal: Fides. 1976. 1005 p. (Comité de rédaction Paul Wyczynski, Bernard Julien, Hélene Beauchamp-Rank). Usmiani, Renate. Michel Tremblay. Vancouver: Douglas &McIntyre. 1982. 177 p.

168 Authors / Auteurs

Ian ANGUS, Department of Humanities, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, B.C., V5A 1S6. Robert CUPIDO, Professor, Department of History and Canadian Studies, Mount Allison University, Hart Hall, 63D York Street, Sackville, New Brunswick, E4L 1G9. Richard J.F. DAY, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6. Ryan EDWARDSON, Doctoral Candidate, Department of History, Queen’s University, Watson Hall, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 1A5. Andrea KUNARD, Assistant Curator, Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography, 1 Rideau Canal, P.O. Box 465, Station A, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 9N6. Katalin KÜRTÖSI, Egyetem U.2, Szeged, H-6722 Hungary, comparative literature, twentieth-century theatre, with special interest in theatre and drama in Canada. Daniel SALÉE est professeur titulaire de science politique et directeur de l’École des affaires publiques et communautaires, 1455 boul. de Maisonneuve Ouest, Université Concordia, Montréal, Québec, H3G 1M8. Johanne DEVLIN TREW, Research Fellow, School of Music and Department of Folklore, Memorial University of Newfoundland, P.O. Box 4200, Station C, St. John’s, Newfoundland, A1C 5S7. Tamara VUKOV, Doctoral Student, Joint PhD in Communication, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd, Montréal, Québec, H3G 1M8.

International Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue internationale d’études canadiennes 26, Fall / Automne 2002

Canadian Studies Journals Around the World Revues d’études canadiennes dans le monde

The American Review of Canadian Studies. Quarterly/Trimestriel. $60; $25 (Student/Étudiant; retired membership/membres retraités); $105 (Institutions). Association for Canadian Studies in the United States, 1317 F Street NW, Suite 920, Washington, DC, 20004-1105, U.S.A. Editor/Rédacteur: Robert Thacker (St. Lawrence University). The Annual Review of Canadian Studies. Yearly/Annuel. Japanese Association for Canadian Studies, Department of English Literature and Languages, Tsuda College, 2-1-1 Tsuda-machi, Kodaira-shi, Tokyo 187, Japan. Editor/Rédactrice: Masako Iino (Tsuda College). Australian-Canadian Studies. Biannual/Semestriel. Subscription information to be obtained from/Pour tout renseignement sur les abonnements, veuillez contacter: Associate Professor Jan Critchett, School of Australian and International Studies, Faculty of Arts, P.O. Box 423, Warmambool, Victoria, Australia, 3280. Editors/Rédacteurs: Hart Cohen (University of Western Sydney Nepean), Wendy Waring (Macquarie University). British Journal of Canadian Studies. Biannual/Semestriel. Available through membership to the British Association for Canadian Studies/Disponible aux membres de l’Association britannique d’études canadiennes. BACS, 21 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LD, Scotland. Editor/Rédacteur: Colin Nicholson (University of Edinburgh). Interfaces Brazil/Canadá. Anual.15$ Cdn. Revista da Abecan. ABECAN/ Associaçao Brasileira de Estudos Canadenses. Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, Instituto de Letras, sala 114, 91540-000 Porto Alegre (RS), Brasil. Editora: Zilá Bernd, Núcleo de Estudos Canadenses, Universidad Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil). Canadian Issues/Thèmes canadiens. Annual/Annuel. $Can15 per copy/ l’exemplaire (plus 7% GST in Canada/TPS de 7 p. 100 en sus au Canada). Association for Canadian Studies, P.O. Box 8888, Station Centre-Ville, Montreal, Qc, H3C 3P8/Association d’études canadiennes, C.p. 8888, succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal (Qc) H3C 3P8. Études canadiennes : revue interdisciplinaire des études canadiennes en France. Semestriel/Biannual. 45 euros. Association française d’études canadiennes, Maison des sciences de l’homme d’Aquitaine, Domaine Universitaire, 33405, Pessac, France. Rédacteur en chef/Editor-in-Chief: André-Louis Sanguin (Université de Paris-Sorbonne). Indian Journal of Canadian Studies.Yearly/Annuel. Indian Association of Canadian Studies, 32A, Gandhi Road, P.O. T.V. Koil, Tiruchirapalli - 620005 (T.N.), India. Publisher/Éditeur: Chandra Mohan (University of Delhi). The Journal of American and Canadian Studies. Yearly/Annuel. The Journal of American and Canadian Studies. Sophia University, Institute of American and Canadian Studies, 7-1 Kioicho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102, Japan. Editor/Rédacteur: Kazuyuki Matsuo (Sophia University). Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d’études canadiennes. Quarterly/ Trimestriel. $Can35; $Can15 (Student/Étudiant); $Can55 (Institutions). Plus 7% GST in Canada/TPS de 7 p. 100 en sus au Canada. Outside Canada, payment is required in American dollars/À l’extérieur du Canada, les frais sont en dollars américains. Journal of Canadian Studies, Trent University, P.O. Box 4800, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7B8. Editor/Directeur: Stephen Bocking (Trent University). The Korean Journal of Canadian Studies. Biannual/Semestriel. Articles are published in Korean/Publication de langue coréenne. Institute of East and West Studies, Yonsei University, Room 528, Seoul 120-749, Korea. Editor/Rédacteur: Myung Soon Shin (Yonsei University). Korean Review of Canadian Studies. Annual/Annuel. Articles are published in Korean/Publication de langue coréenne. Korean Association for Canadian Studies (KACS), Centre de recherches sur la francophonie, Faculté des Sciences Humaines, Université Nationale de Séoul, 56-1 Shinrim-dong Kwanak-ku, Séoul, Corée du Sud. Editor/Rédacteur: Jang, Jung Ae (Université nationale de Séoul). Québec Studies. Biannual/Semestriel. US$45; US$35 (Student/ Étudiants); US$50 (Libraries/Bibliothèques). Outside the U.S., please add US$6/ Abonné à l’extérieur des É.-U., prière d’ajouter 6$US. Professor Jane Moss, French Department, Colby College, Waterville, ME 04901 USA. Editor/Rédacteur: Patrick Coleman (University of California at Los Angeles). Revista Española de Estudios Canadienses. Yearly/Annuel. 4.000 ptas; 8.000 ptas (Institutions). Asociacion española de estudios canadienses, Espronceda, 40, 28003, Madrid, Spain. Editor/Rédacteur: Kathleen Firth (Universidad de Barcelona). Revista Mexicana de Estudios Canadienses. Biannual/Semestriel. 70$. Asociación Mexicana de Estudios Canadienses. RMEC, Coordinación de Relaciones Internacionales, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Ciudad Universitaria, UNAM, C.P. 04500, México. Directora: María Cristina Rosas (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México). Revista Venezolana de Estudios Canadienses. Biannual/Semestriel. 500 Bs. Asociacion Venezolana de Estudios Canadienses. Subscriptions/ Abonnements: Embajada de Canadá, Torre Europa, Piso 7. Ave. Francisco de Miranda. Apartado 63.302. Caracas 1060, Venezuela. Editor/Rédacteur: Vilma E. Petrash (Universidad Central de Venezuela). Revue internationale d’études canadiennes/International Journal of Canadian Studies. Biannual/Semestriel. $Can40 (Institutions); $Can30 (Regular/ régulier); $Can20 (ICCS Members, retirees and students/Membres du CIEC, retraités et étudiants). Outside Canada, please add $Can5/Abonnés à l’extérieur du Canada, prière d’ajouter 5$can. Plus 7% GST in Canada/TPS de 7 p. 100 en sus au Canada. IJCS/RIÉC, 75 Albert, S-908, Ottawa, Canada K1P 5E7. Rédacteur en chef/Editor-in-Chief: Robert Schwartzwald (University of Massachusetts Amherst). Rivista di Studi Canadesi. Annual/Annuel. 30.000 lire; Foreign/Étranger, 40.000 lire. Rivista di Studi Canadesi, Grafischena, n. 13147723, Viale Stazione 177-72015 Fasano di Puglia, (Br-Italia). Director/Directeur: Giovanni Dotoli (Università di Bari). Zeitschrift für Kanada Studien. Biannual/Semestriel. DM25. Zeitschrift für Kanada Studien, Pädagogische Hochschule, Kunzenweg 21, D-79199 Freiburg, Germany. Editors/Rédacteurs: Udo Kempf (Universität Freiburg), Reingard Nischik (Universität Konstanz). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES

Call for Papers

Health and Well-Being in Canada

Volume 29 (Spring 2004)

The Canadian State has, from time to time, come to the defense of “real” Canadian values, based on public involvement and a sense of community. Over the past several years, however, health care has become an area of confrontation between the federal government and one provincial government in particular. The Government of Alberta has proposed nothing less than attempt to reshape Canadian identity by developing a new health care system patterned on the U.S. model that leans heavily toward private sector involvement. In this confrontation, we see how the issue of healthtouchesonavarietyofcomplexquestionsthatgofarbeyond the specific dimension of managing health care services insofar as two sometimes contradictory logics of Canadian identity are at loggerheads.

The issue of health also extends to the concept of well-being in the broader sense. What do we mean when we say that someone is “doing all right” in Canada? On the other hand, is it possible to speak of Canadian malaises? In what ways do discourses on Canadian rights, immigration, ageing, youth, leisure, women’s health issues, sexuality, and work relate to the overall issue of health in a Canadian context? In what ways are these issues of health and well-being represented through academic, political, and cultural (including literature, the media, and the visual arts) channels?

The IJCS invites submissions that address issues of health and well-being in a variety of dimensions, including comparative studies that evaluate the Canadian experience in relation to other experiences throughout the world.

Please forward paper (and an abstract of 100 words max.) before September 1st, 2003 to: IJCS, 75 Albert, S-908, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1P 5E7. Tel.: (613) 789-7834; fax: (613) 789-7830; e-mail: [email protected]. REVUE INTERNATIONALE D'ÉTUDES CANADIENNES

Appel de textes

La santé et le bien-être au Canada

Numéro 29 (Printemps 2004)

L’État canadien s’est parfois porté à la défense des « vraies » valeurs canadiennes, fondées sur l’engagement public et un sens de la communauté. Or, le domaine de la santé a fait l’objet au cours des dernières années d’un affrontement entre le gouvernement fédéral et une province en particulier, l’Alberta. À l’opposé de la vision du fédéral, le gouvernement provincial de l’Alberta prétend ni plus ni moins renouveler l’identité canadienne en développant un nouveau système de santé inspiré du modèle américain où le recours au secteur privé deviendra une voie importante.

Cette question de la santé touche donc des aspects complexes qui débordent la seule dimension de la gestion des services de santé dans la mesure où deux logiques identitaires « canadian » parfois contradictoires s’y affrontent. Puis elle s’étend au bien- être dans le sens le plus large. Qu’est-ce qu’est « être bien dans sa peau » au Canada? En revanche, y a-t-il des « malaises » canadiens? Comment les discours sur les droits, les loisirs, la jeunesse, le vieillissement, l’immigration, la santé des femmes, la sexualité et le travail visent-ils la santé dans le contexte canadien ? Quels sont les modes de représentation de ces questions de santé à travers la production culturelle (littérature, médias, arts visuels), scientifique et étatique question.

La RIÉC invite donc les soumissions qui s’adressent à la question de santé dans ces multiples dimensions, y compris les études comparées qui mettent l’expérience canadienne à l’épreuve d’autres expériences autour du monde.

S.v.p. faire parvenir votre texte (et un résumé de 100 mots max.) d’ici le 1er mai 2003 au Secrétariat de la Revue internationale d’études canadiennes : 75, rue Albert, S-908, Ottawa, Canada, K1P 5E7. Tél. : (613) 789-7834; téléc. : (613) 789-7830; courriel : [email protected]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES

Call for Open Topic Articles

The Editorial Board of the IJCS has decided to broaden the format of the Journal. While each future issue of the IJCS will include a set of articles addressing a given theme, as in the past, it will also include several articles that do not do so. Beyond heightening the general interest of each issue, this changeshouldalsofacilitateparticipationintheJournalbytheinternational community of Canadianists. Accordingly, the Editorial Board welcomes manuscripts on any topic in the study of Canada. As in the past, all submissions must undergo peer review. Final decisions regarding publication are made by the Editorial Board. Often, accepted articles need to undergo some revision. The IJCS undertakes that upon receiving a satisfactorily revised version of a submission that it has accepted for publication, it will make every effort to ensure that the article appears in the next regular issue of the Journal. Please forward paper and abstract (one hundred words) to the IJCS at the following address: 75 Albert, S-908, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E7. Fax: (613) 789-7830; e-mail: [email protected].

REVUE INTERNATIONALE D’ÉTUDES CANADIENNES

Soumission d’articles hors-thèmes

La Revue internationale d’études canadiennes a adopté une politique visant àmodifierquelquepeusonformat.Eneffet,laRevuecontinueraàoffrirune série d’articles portant sur un thème retenu, mais dorénavant elle publiera aussi des articles hors-thèmes. Le Comité de rédaction examinera donc toute soumission qui porte sur un sujet relié aux études canadiennes indépendamment du thème retenu. Bien entendu comme toute soumission, celle-ci fera l’objet d’une évaluation par pairs. La décision finale concernant la publication d’un texte est rendue par le Comité de rédaction. Une décision d’accepter de publier un texte est souvent accompagnée d’une demande de révision. Une fois qu’elle aura reçu une version révisée qu’elle jugera acceptable, la Revue essaiera, dans la mesure du possible, d’inclure cet article dans le numéro suivant la date d’acceptation finale. S.v.p. faire parvenir votre texte et un résumé (100 mots maximum) au Secrétariat de la RIÉC : 75, rue Albert, bureau 908, Ottawa, Canada, K1P 5E7. Téléc. : (613) 789-7830; courriel : [email protected]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES REVUE INTERNATIONALE D’ÉTUDES CANADIENNES

SUBSCRIPTION/ABONNEMENT Rates per year (for subscriptions in Canada, please add 7 % GST; for subscriptions outside Canada, please add 5 dollars)/Tarif par année (au Canada, prière d’ajouter 7 p. 100 de TPS; les abonnés à l’étranger prièrent d’ajouter 5 dollars: $40 Institutions $30 Regular subscription/abonnement régulier $25 Members of associations affiliated with the Learned Societies/membres des associations affiliées aux Sociétés savantes $20 Members of ICCS Associations, retirees or students, include proof/membres des associations du CIEC, retraités ou étudiants, joindre une preuve Please indicate year of subscription/Veuillez indiquer l’année d’abonnement désirée :

1998 No17 Representation/La représentation No 18 Diaspora and Exile / La diaspora et l’exil 1999 No19 Articles from Foreign Canadian Studies Journals / Articles de revues d’études canadiennes à l’étranger No 20 Rebellion and Resistance / Rébellion et résistance 2000 No 21 Sexuality / La sexualité No 22 Canada and the World in the Twentieth Century / Le Canada et le monde au XXe siècle 2001 No 23 Spirituality, Faith, Belief / Spiritualité, foi et croyance No 24 Territory(ies) / Territoire(s) 2002 No 25 Post-Canada No 26 Performing Canada / Le Canada mis en scène 2003 No 27-28 Transculturalisms / Les transferts culturels (Double issue / Numéro double) 2004 No 29 Health and Well-Being in Canada / La santé et le bien-être au Canada No 30 To be determined / sera annoncé sous peu

Name/Nom ......

Address/Adresse ......

...... o Credit card #/N decartedecrédit:...... MasterCard Visa

Expiry Date/Date d’expiration ......

Signature......

Please return coupon and payment to/S.v.p., retourner ce coupon accompagné du paiement à :

IJCS/RIEC 75 Albert, S-908, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5E7, Canada Ê (613) 789-7830 ¿ [email protected] http://www.iccs-ciec.ca