Canadian Diversity and Right Wing Hate of Justin Trudeau

Yes, Justin Trudeau is a mediocre Prime Minister, but that is not why the right hates him. Nor is it because of carbon taxes or provincial vaccine mandates or lockdowns. It is because of perhaps the one thing he has excelled at and that is promoting Canadian diversity.

There are those that claim that Canada has no culture and others that claim that Canadian culture is a white European culture and anyone who was here before or came after the colonizers needs to adapt to that culture. But the truth is Canadian culture is a culture of diversity starting before anyone lived on this land and enhanced by everyone who came after.

Canadian diversity starts with it’s geography. We are a geographically diverse country (from sea to sea to sea to American border) and that is reflected in the diversity of our first peoples, from the peoples of the north, to the coastal peoples, the peoples of the prairies and the boreal forest and so on. All of these peoples had their own social systems and systems of government, including legal systems based on healing and restorative justice that were, and still are, centuries ahead of the European colonizers.

Then came the colonizers and immigrants who added to the diversity of the country adding traditions, languages and religions from all over the world. But it is not only ethnic and religious diversity that make us the country we are. We also have a diversity of physical and mental abilities, including neurodivergent people, as well as peoples of different sexual orientations and gender identity, first recognized by Canada’s first people through the concept of two spirit people.

The Prime Minister has recognized that our diversity is our strength and that is one of the main reasons he has become the target of the hate of right wing extremists and white supremacists.

Postscript.

None of this is to deny Canada’s historical mistreatment of our indigenous peoples or it’s discriminatory treatment of newcomers or other vulnerable peoples. That is a whole treatise on it’s own. This is meant to be focused on Canadian ideals and how we move forward in the future.

How Should We Judge Historical Figures

Should historical figures be judged by the best things they have done or the worst. Should they be judged by the standards of today or of their time. Should some things like slavery or genocide be considered evil no matter when they may have occurred. These are legitimate questions to to ask and the answers likely differ according to the circumstances.

Let’s take two examples. One of someone who a few years before the American civil war publicly stated that:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. Source

And what of someone who freed the slaves, even if it just was to “save the union”.

And what if that was the same person. Should he be vilified or celebrated. History has already made a judgment on that question.

The second example is someone whose main claim to fame was to be the first leader of a new country, coincidentally during the same decade as the previous example, but whose administration was plagued by scandals and was responsible for implementing policies of genocide aimed at that country’s indigenous peoples. Celebration or shame ? History is just making that judgment now.

The future of Laurentian University is in the hands of a flawed process and an anti-education government

When Laurentian University was founded it was not to create a profit making enterprise but to create an educational institution to serve the north, one that went on to include an important partnership with the Franco-Ontarian and Indigenous communities.

Using a mechanism (Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act) designed to ensure profit making enterprises can continue to earn a profit as a means to solve it’s financial problems is doomed to failure from the start. I fear greatly that this great institution will be damaged beyond repair by this process as our anti-education provincial government and “businessman first” Premier stand idly by and watch.

We now have a process based on making cuts to ensure profitability and prioritizing revenue earning programs rather than than prioritizing the programs most important to the institution and the community.

The first thing that should have been done to address Laurentian University's future was to identify the most important programs, particularly those that can only be provided by Laurentian University or provided better there than elsewhere.

At this time of reconciliation there is one program at Laurentian University that stands out from all others and that is the Indigenous Studies Program, and supports for Indigenous students and ties to the Indigenous community. This is a program that is historically important not just to Laurentian University but to all of North America.

A plan to save Laurentian University must have its indigenous component at the forefront. The Indigenous Studies Program should not only be preserved with no cutbacks but expanded. Retaining a few courses and slapping them together into a token program is the worst thing that could be done and would be about as disrespectful as could possibly be to the Indigenous community.

That, of course, should not be the only priority. Near the top should be programs and research in the social sciences that focus on Northern Ontario in particular and northern communities in general.

In the sciences and engineering sectors, programs, courses, and research dealing with the ecology and environment of the north should prioritized along with programs and research related to the mining industry.

As well, programs in the health sciences and professional schools designed to meet the particular needs of Northern Ontario, such as social work, nursing and midwifery, also need to be protected.

The traditional arts programs and courses may be easier replaced by programs at other institutions but courses relating to northern history and culture, including francophone culture and history, should be protected.

As an Honours Bachelor of Arts (Political Science) graduate (May 1973) I would be remiss if I did not mention the Political Science program, which in my time provided me with a unique education in both applied and theoretical politics with a particular Northern Ontario focus.

Only after it has been determined what needs to be saved to protect the unique Northern Ontario mandate of the University should an analysis of what should be done to solve the university’s financial problems be undertaken. Gutting the university is not the answer. Strategic investments are more likely to be succesful.

To be done properly this process would require extensive community consultation, impossible with the flawed process that has been chosen that puts the process in the hands of bankers and accountants rather than educators and community representatives.

With the ultimate decision making power in the hands of a provincial government that is anti-education and anti-community I fear for the future of Laurentian University.

COVID-19 and Education in Ontario – An Imaginative Approach

Let me start by saying that I understand that hindsight is a big advantage and some may ask why didn't I think of this sooner and my response is that thinking about education in Ontario is not my full time job but it is for Ontario's Ministry of Education.

While it may be seem late now It seems to me that at some point the Education Ministry should have realized that too much time has passed to do justice to the curriculum for this year and the best solution might be to just start over next fall and use the rest of the school year creatively for students.

The result would be Ontario students requiring thirteen tears to complete their elementary and secondary education instead of twelve. This is something that millions of Ontario students, including myself did before 2003 and we turned out just fine.

Instead of trying to finish the curriculum using what can only be described as rushed into service experimental online methods, why not do something more creative with the online teaching and what little in classroom teaching time may be left in this school year.

Why not let teachers go “off-curriculum” or perhaps more accurately described as parallel to curriculum, by putting a local focus on their teaching. Teach local history, and in particular the history of the indigenous peoples in their area. Teach about the history of their communities and local industries and businesses, community groups, etc. Focus science and geography on the local ecosystem and the scientific principles behind local industries. Go a bit farther afield and teach some of the history of the local immigrant communities, particularly refugees. The opportunities for creative teachers are endless.

Each community and neighbourhood should have it's own focus which is why letting individual teachers go “off-curriculum” is the best way to achieve this.

Use this as an opportunity for these students to finish elementary and secondary school with a greater education than otherwise, rather than a lessor one.

Primitive vs Civilized Societies

As someone born in 1950 and raised and educated in a Eurocentric culture I learned early that civilized societies are intellectually, socially, and technologically superior to primitive societies. This despite the fact that the indigenous peoples of this land I was born on have for centuries had their own distinct languages, long tradition of passing down oral history, sophisticated social structures, and technologies well suited to the land they live on.

Reflection on actual facts indicates the reality is that the real difference between civilized and primitive societies is that one is based on trying to conquer nature while the other is based on living in harmony with it and only one by it's very existence threatens the future of the human species.