The Way We Weren't

 

Marguerite de Bourgeouys sculpture, downtown Montreal

I am currently forced to homeschool my daughter. It is just as well. We’ve been going through the prescribed text for Canadian history together. It’s alarmingly bad.

Most recently, it includes a chapter of detail about everyday life in New France. This is, to begin with, not a proper subject for history. We have apparently forgotten why we study history in the first place: to learn the lessons of the past. People’s everyday lives do not, on the whole, provide such lessons, for they had little chance to make choices that might alter the course of history. History properly has to do with matters of government policy, for the most part. Life lessons are important too, no doubt, but these we get from tales of saints and heroes and villains; not the lives of average persons in aggregate.

As to government policy, the book asserts, several times, that the French government saw their North American colony as something to exploit “to make the home country rich.” They did this through the mercantile system, forcing the colony to trade with the motherland. This seems a distortion of history. It should go without saying that a colony needed to pay for itself—that the cost of defending and administering it must not be higher than it returned in taxes. But there is every evidence that the French government saw themselves as also being in North America for the benefit of the natives: in order to convert them to Catholic Christianity and teach them how to improve their lives. And the mercantile system equally committed the mother country to trade with the colonies; trade is not exploitation.

As to the lives of ordinary people, the book goes on at some length over just how exploitative the seigneurial system was, whether there was class mobility, and how large was the pre-conquest middle class. Such class analysis tends to presuppose Marxism; otherwise it is of little interest. In any case, the written records are not sufficient to draw any conclusions. It is all conjecture tainted by political agendas. And such an excursus kills any narrative flow; it is the narrative flow that makes history interesting.

The text also diverts from any narrative continuity to point out that torture was used in the Quebec courts—30 times over a century. It goes into the methods in some detail. This may entertain adolescent boys, but it is not relevant to history. It seems little more than an opportunity to gossip unfavourably about our ancestors.

As is the two pages spent on slavery in New France. This seems disproportionate for a practice that was more common almost everywhere else except continental Europe, and which had no economic impact in New France. It seems mostly, again, a chance to find fault with our ancestors.

The book is openly hostile to Catholicism. It suggests that the average habitant was really more pagan than Christian, because “Canadian children heard tales of flying canoes, werewolves, and encounters with the devil.” Even though the same could be said of Canadian children today, or children at any time or place. 

Most disturbing to me is that the book spends only a half a page on women in New France, under the segregated subhead “Women in the Workplace.” It is not just that this ignores the work of women in the home, despite the concentration on ordinary people and ordinary lives. It also omits much of the history I read and heard as a student in Quebec half a century ago. Then, we knew of Madeleine de Vercheres, who defended almost single-handed against an Iroquois attack; of Marie de l’Incarnation, who founded the first school on the continent; Margeurite de Bourgeouys, who co-founded Montreal, built the first church, and started the first school; Jeanne Mance, who started the first hospital, which grew to a string of hospitals across Eastern Canada; Marie-Marguerite d'Youville, who built the first orphanage and hospice, the origins of the Canadian social security system; and St. Kateri Tekakwitha. 

Now all we get is brief sentences about some woman running a mill, or continuing their husband’s business after his death.

Why this radical devaluation of women? In part, I imagine, because it is now politically incorrect to say anything that sounds good about Catholics or the religious; and most of these women were nuns. In part, I imagine, because it is politically incorrect to admit that women had important roles before Betty Friedan. They were supposed, after all, to be oppressed.

It would all have been a terrible miseducation for my daughter.

A Musical History of Canada

 

In the spirit of the stage play “Oh, What a Lovely War,” Here is a musical tour through Canada’s military history:

Begin with the Seven Years War. “Evangeline,” tells the story of the Acadiens:

An English soldier’s song from the same period: “The Girl I Left Behind Me”:

The Girl I Left Behind Me

“I'm lonesome since I crossed the hill,

And o'er the moor and valley,

Such grievous thoughts my heart do fill,

Since parting with my Sally.

I seek no more the fine or gay,

For each does but remind me,

How swift the hours did pass away,

With the girl I left behind me.

Oh, ne'er shall I forget the night

The stars were bright above me,

And gently lent their silvery light,

When first she vowed to love me.

But now I'm bound to Brighton Camp

Kind heaven, then, pray guide me,

And send me safely back again

To the girl I left behind me.”

Then “Brave Wolfe” for the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. 

A chorus of “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” and the flag of the incipient USA.

“The Rebels,” a Loyalist song of the time.

Ye brave honest subjects who dare to be loyal,

And have stood the brunt of every trial,

Of hunting shirts and rifle guns;

Come listen awhile and I'll tell you a song;

I'll show you those Yankees are all in the wrong,

Who, with blustering look and most awkward gait,

'Gainst their lawful sovereign dare for to prate,

With their hunting shirts and rifle guns…

Cut the triumphalism with a round of “Barrett’s Privateers.”

Guns are heard. The voice of Thomas Jefferson: 

“The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching; & will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, & the final expulsion of England from the American continent.”

Segue to the War of 1812: “Come All Ye Bold Canadians,” 

and “The Lower Canadian Militia Song.” Can’t find the music.

Le matin, des le point du jour,

On entend ce maudit tambour,

Maudit tambour et maudit exercice,

Toi, pauvr' soldat, tu en as d'la fatigue.

Ils nous font mettre dans les rangs,

Les officiers et les sergents,

L'un dit: recule et l'autre dit: avance!

Toi, pauvr' soldat, t'en faut de la patience.

Nos sergents et nos officiers

Sont bien traites dan leurs quartiers,

Nos capitain' boiv' le vin et la biere

Toi, pauvr' soldat, va boire a la riviere.

Qu'en a compose la chanson

C'est un tambour du bataillon

C'est un tambour en battant sa retraite

Toujours regrettant sa joli' maitresse

“Over the Hills and Far Away” for the British Regulars:

The lyrics might be modified to fit Canada—instead of “Flanders, Portugal and Spain,” “Queenston, Montreal, and Maine.”

Here's one for Laura Secord:

Next, the rebellions of 1837. A few good songs came out of that rebellion. “I’ll be a Tory,” 

then “Up and War Them All, Willie!” Second song here.

Then “Un Canadien Errant.” 

“The Battle of the Windmill” was a popular folk song around Prescott for a century. 

Next, the Fenian Raids. For context, “The Bold Fenian Men.” 

A Fenian Song:

An Anti-Fenian song:

The Riel Rebellion: “C’est au Champs de Bataille.” Lyrics supposedly written by Riel himself. 

https://books.google.fr/books?id=ntkFn3f3OC8C&pg=PA467&lpg=PA467&dq=C%27est+au+champ+de+bataille,++louis+riel&source=bl&ots=XlhmfRl6Ka&sig=acdm4DFvI3Y2GednKtYrtmTaPPw&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=DqH4UvqMGMua0AXUz4C4DA#v=onepage&q=C'est%20au%20champ%20de%20bataille%2C%20%20louis%20riel&f=false

First World War: we have an embarrassment of riches. “Vive la Canadienne,” definitely. 

“Why Can’t a Girl be a Soldier” for the feminists. 

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/915511363578/

"The Recruiting Sergeant":

"The Princess Pat.”

And here’s an authentic 1915 war song from a Canadian collection that would be nicely multiculti. No idea of the tune, though.

“They Say that in the Army.” Verses can be inserted to reflect the Indian soldiers who were present, if not in the Canadian regiments. For example, “You ask for a biryani, and they give you intes-tine.”

Balance it out with “Wo alle Strassen enden” for the Germans.

Second World War: there’s a nice bit by the Happy Gang, to the tune of Colonel Bogey’s March: “Good Luck—And the Same to You.”

https://wartimecanada.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Good%20Luck_0.pdf

The D-Day Dodgers:

“North Atlantic Squadron,”

Stompin Tom had a clean version:

Afghanistan: Bryan Adams’ “Ric-A-Dam-Do”

And end with “Highway of Heroes”

Macdonald Down

Yesterday a mob pulled down the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald in Montreal.

I am pleased to see that most online reactions condemn this. We are perhaps not fully mad yet. Premier Legault immediately said the statue must go back up. Jason Kenney said if Montreal does not want it, Edmonton does, for the provincial legislature. Erin O’Toole showed his bona fides by condemning it, praising Macdonald, and saying politicians need some spine.

Someone, however, posted a link to this justification for the action. It is interesting to see how mad at least some Canadians have become.

Let’s look at some of the points:

“The myth of Macdonald as the pillar of Canadian nationhood and a paragon of integrity seems rock-solid.”

It has never been common to see Macdonald as a paragon of integrity. More common are tales of his drinking, and of his wheeling and dealing.

Nevertheless, his accomplishment of uniting Canada, extending it across half a continent, from sea to sea to sea, then binding it with a railroad over muskeg and mountains, is worthy of commemoration. To topple Macdonald’s statue is an attack by proxy on the very idea of Canada itself.

“The Empire’s vast colonial projects were aimed at assimilating subject Indigenous populations (generally non-white) and, of course, exploiting their natural resources. This was argued to be something beneficial to the ‘civilizing’ of such ‘inferior’ peoples; in short, the racist notion of the ‘White Man’s Burden.’

This institutionalized racism underlay the all-White immigration policy of South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand which spanned the last six or seven decades of the nineteenth century extending well into the twentieth century.”

The author contradicts himself. If the British Empire was about assimilating indigenous populations, how is this accomplished by an all-white immigration policy?

In fact, the British Empire was strikingly disinclined to assimilate indigenous populations. Compare India to Goa, Macao to Hong Kong, the US to Mexico. Other nations assimilated. The British simply ruled. Assimilating the small indigenous population of Canada could only have been a minor consideration in any case. Most federal policies seemed to prevent such assimilation: hiving them off on reserves. Of course, “exploiting” Canada’s natural resources, or those of other parts of the British Empire, was part of the plan: people are inclined to make a living. Refuse to exploit your natural resources, and you will probably freeze to death before you die of thirst.

European empires generally were intended to civilize the people subjugated—in other words, to improve their lives, by introducing the benefits of European technology. This does not look venal, and it does not obviously look misguided. At least, a contrary case must be made. Would the Canadian Indians be better off without wheels, or houses, or electricity?

Canada did not have an “all-white immigration policy” during the last six or seven decades of the nineteenth century. Canada actually had an open door policy until 1885. In that year, restrictions were placed on Chinese immigration. The 1910 Immigration Act later allowed the government to restrict immigration of groups that might find the climate unsuitable. In terms of racial discrimination in immigration, that’s about it.

The climate concern may look racist to us today, but it does have a scientific basis. We are genetically adapted to our environment. People coming from generations living in tropical countries face some health issues in Canada. The recent COVID crisis revealed one: blacks and Hispanics are far more likely to die from it in the US, because with their darker skin they are almost always deficient in vitamin D. And, as I can personally vouch, and as the Brits all used to know well in the days of Empire, pale-skinned Europeans face health issues in the tropics. This may seem relatively trivial now, but people were more sensitive to this when medical science was not so advanced.

As to the restrictions on Chinese immigration, this was at the insistence of B.C. workers and trade unions, who felt they could not compete with them as cheap labour. Perhaps ungenerous, perhaps not, when you are poor and barely getting by; but not racist.

“Although the subject of limiting Chinese immigration to Canada has been covered, few Canadians know of the $500 ‘Head-Tax’ levied on would-be Chinese immigrants via the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885.”

The head tax imposed in 1885 was $50. It was raised to $500 some years later.

“Macdonald had made it clear that Chinese immigration was necessary for the building of the national railway. However, he considered the Chinese a ‘foreign race’ that ‘could not be expected to assimilate with our Aryan population.’

Hitler, no less an admirer of Aryan purity than Macdonald, would make a similar statement regarding Jews some four decades later.”

Macdonald used the term Aryan. Hitler used the term Aryan. Therefore, Macdonald was a Nazi.

When Macdonald used it, “Aryan” was a neutral scientific term. It is still used in linguistics.

Macdonald was being sensible; Chinese culture is different from European culture. Chinese do not assimilate well abroad. They tend to form “Chinatowns” and keep to themselves for generations.

“In 1923, Canada put in place laws meant to limit immigration from eastern Europe.”

The only immigration legislation passed in 1923 was a new Chinese Immigration Act. Canada was actively promoting immigration to the Prairies from Eastern Europe at this time.

Although there were no restrictions on others, Canadian governments always actively promoted immigration from the United Kingdom. This stands to reason: just as current Canadian governments tend to be more concerned with the welfare of Canadians than of foreigners. Canada was part of the British Empire.

“The flagship of Canadian institutionalized racism was, and remains, The Indian Act (1876) adopted in 1876 and amended several times since.”

Agreed. But the Canadian government is not responsible. The essential features of the Act were forced on Canada by the requirements of the Indian Treaties. Canada tried to abolish the Act in 1969. Our treaty partners, the Indian bands, refused. It is at their insistence that it remains in force.

“Canada was built on the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous populations.”

If ethnic cleansing was intended, it was a historic failure. There are far more treaty Indians in Canada today than at Confederation, and they are among the fastest-growing segments of the population.

Nor have they been dispossessed. Eighty-nine percent of Canada is still Crown land, and, by treaty, the aboriginal people still have a right to hunt and scavenge there at will. Should any really want to, they could continue their life just as it was before the first Europeans arrived. The rest of Canadian lands, they have usually ceded for an agreed compensation. Ceded, in effect, to themselves, as Canadian citizens.

“Macdonald started Residential Schools, the odious and dehumanizing institution to which Indigenous children, torn away from their families, were sent to be assimilated and brutalized, to be ‘civilized’ in the White European way.”

The residential schools were demanded by the Indians by treaty, not the federal government. The federal government would no doubt have preferred to spend less money by sending Indians to the regular schools, or by simply leaving them to their families to educate. Moreover, if the intent were to turn Indians into “civilized Europeans,” the way to do this would again have been to send them to the regular schools, to learn the same things European children learned, along with them. The residential schools, misguided as they might have been, were an expensive way to preserve a distinct Indian culture.

“In 1873, Macdonald created the North West Mounted Police, today the RCMP, whose mission was to harass and control Indigenous peoples in the Prairies.”

The impetus behind the founding of the NWMP was the Cypress Hills massacre of 1873, in which twenty Assiniboine Indians were murdered by American traders and bison hunters. In other words, the primary mission of the NWMP, certainly in the popular mind, was to protect Indians. Secondarily, it was to establish Canadian sovereignty and forestall American incursion.

“Macdonald subsequently undertook a policy of starving the Métis and First Nations out of the Prairies. This was done to build a railway through their dispossessed lands – by killing off their principal source of food, the bison, much as the Americans were doing in the United States to Indigenous peoples there.”

Even if Macdonald had wanted to kill off the bison, he did not have anything like the manpower on the Prairies to do so. There are claims that some American authorities had this idea, but if so, they too probably could not have done so. And Macdonald had no control over them. The buffalo were depleted by overhunting—and probably overhunting primarily by the Indians, now that they had rifles and horses.

“In 1882, Macdonald confirmed his policy of genocide against Indigenous peoples by way of starvation in Canada’s House of Commons:

‘I have reason to believe that the agents as a whole … are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense.’

David Mills, a Liberal MP, followed Macdonald’s ode to genocide with the complaint that they were not being starved enough:

‘No doubt the Indians will bear a great degree of starvation before they will work, and so long as they are certain the Government will come to their aid they will not do much for themselves.’”

The quotes disprove what they claim to prove. Macdonald, despite political pressures, would not let the Indians starve.

Some context is in order. In the latter half of the 19th century, the Indians of the Northwest faced general starvation. This was not primarily due to the decline of the buffalo, either. It was because of the decline of the beaver. The Indians had been making a good living by selling pelts to the Hudson’s Bay and Northwest Companies. Through over-exploitation, the beaver population had gone into severe decline—a process seen in eastern Canada centuries earlier. Having lost the greater part of their livelihood, the Indians might have gone back to hunting and scavenging; but that way of life always involved periodic mass starvation.

Accordingly, the government plan was to settle them on reserves with basic agricultural supplies, and show them how to farm. This may or may not have been done inefficiently and with supplies gone missing—this was government, and in a remote area.

The Indians, on the other hand, had the idea that, with transfer of sovereignty in the treaties to their “Great Mother,” the government had taken responsibility for their welfare as if a parent. This came up often at the treaty negotiations: “if there is famine, will the government feed us?” Although they took care not to put anything in the treaties, the federal negotiators, tended to reply that, if there was a general famine, the government would of course do what it could. They could not let the Indians starve.

So, many Indians calculated that they did not need to farm or otherwise work any longer.

In a time when there was no sort of welfare for the general population, the resultant need to support the Indians, while their neighbours needed to farm their land, did not sit well with government or public.

This Indian assumption more or less prevails into the present. The Indians have been trapped in poverty by it ever since.

“Riel was demonized by the English-Canadian press while Macdonald was credited with being a saviour of the nation.”

This, by careful omission, is the opposite of the truth. Riel was lionized by the French-Canadian press. While there was a strong lobby against him personally in English Canada, the Metis uprising was also widely romanticized, as it still is today. It became the subject of popular novels, in which the heroes were always Metis. Macdonald lost a great deal of popularity by allowing the hanging of Riel. Some say his Conservative Party has never recovered.

“In 1885, concerning the execution of Louis Riel for treason, Macdonald states, confirming his contempt for the Métis and French Quebec: ‘He shall die though every dog in Quebec bark in his favour.’ Macdonald’s reference to ‘dogs in Quebec’ did not have anything to do with our four-footed canine friends. The racism is explicit.”

This reveals how popular Riel was in Quebec. If there was any racism in Macdonald’s famous comment, it was only implicit. Quebecois are not dogs—the present author shockingly asserts that they literally are. They are also not of a different race than Macdonald.

The obvious interpretation of the word “dog” is that the word “dog” means “dog.” Any other interpretation is on this author, not Macdonald.

“Again, in 1885 … Macdonald hanged eight Cree warriors who had dared to resist the destruction of their way of life”

The eight were hanged for murder, explicitly unconnected to any military objective. Even if their rebellion was not treasonous, they were war criminals.

“In 1885 Macdonald also passed The Electoral Franchise Act which limited the rights of Blacks, First Nations and other visible minorities to vote.”

Macdonald proposed in 1885 to extend the vote to both treaty Indians and unmarried women. He was, sadly, too far ahead of his time, and parliament refused this. However, the act they passed still had no restrictions on voting by blacks. It did not introduce any new restrictions on the franchise.

Why would someone write such a series of falsehoods? I do not think incompetence is sufficient to explain it. Rather, this is the fruit of postmodernism. Truth has no value: one simply constructs the “narrative” one prefers.

And any great man is vulnerable to the envy of others.

James FitzGibbon

James FitzGibbon might have saved Canada on at least two occasions. He foresaw and advocated confederation, well before Macdonald. He ought to be a great national hero.

Has anyone heard of him?

The first time he saved Canada was in 1813. The Americans had invaded. FitzGibbon led a hand-picked guerilla band known as “FitzGibbon’s Green ‘Uns,” or "FitzGibbon’s Tigers,” who harassed American forces from a dangerously advanced position in the Niagara Peninsula, preventing them from pushing farther. Then he won the Battle of Beaver Dams, against a vastly superior American force, almost without a casualty. He convinced them they were surrounded, and they surrendered.

De-commissioned after the war, he joined the civil service, in various capacities. But what he did best was keep the peace. Whenever there was a report of conflict in the far-flung province, Colonel FitzGibbon was sent out. He never used force; he negotiated, and managed to defuse the tensions every time. At the same time that factional strife was raging in Ireland, and Canada was being flooded by Irish Catholics and Protestants in about equal numbers, and even though the Orange Order was actually stronger here in Canada than back in Ireland, there were surprisingly few open conflicts. FitzGibbon probably had everything to do with this. An Irishman, he spoke fluent Gaelic. And he was immensely intelligent, scrupulously honest, generous, open-minded, and a born leader. Both sides came to trust him.

Then in 1837, when Mackenzie rose in open revolt, it was FitzGibbon who foresaw the danger, organized the defense, saved the government, and dispersed the rebel force. His influence also ensured, no doubt, that despite their own desire for reform, and lack of special love for the British crown, neither the Protestant nor the Catholic Irish would have anything to do with the rebellion. Had it been otherwise, there might well again have been no Canada today.

Why is such a man not honoured and remembered, while Mackenzie, who led the rebels, is honoured? Why for that matter is such a man not honoured for winning the Battle of Beaver Dams, while Laura Secord, who merely warned him of the American approach, is honoured?

Because FitzGibbon had the dire misfortune of having to deal intimately with a narcissist. Looking at his story may illustrate just how devastating that can be. It is a sad but common tale.

The narcissist in question being Sir Francis Bond Head.

Bond Head was named Governor-General of Upper Canada at a time when the population was already restive, and demanding responsible government. He had little administrative experience; but in this romantic period, he had portrayed himself as a romantic hero, and in this romantic period, that was enough. He had written books about his supposed exploits on the pampas. The British government was taken in; as people often are by a self-publicist.

Arriving at post, he began to behave exactly as a narcissist would. He made promises to the reformers, then changed his mind. Promises were inconvenient to keep. They tended to restrict one’s freedom. The Legislative Assembly, frustrated, refused to pass money bills. So Head dissolved the legislature and campaigned aggressively for the “constitutionalists,” the small-c conservatives, playing favourites.

In his own mind, I suspect, he was acting the hero, saving the day with the sheer strength of his personality and indomitable will. And showing everyone that the people loved him. What he had really done, narcissistically, was make it all about him. In so doing, he had jeopardized the future of the monarchy, the British connection, and the civil peace, which he had been appointed to protect. There is a reason why the Queen does not involve herself in politics.

The people, told any other vote was treason, obediently elected Head’s majority. The more radical reformers, predictably, concluded that their only recourse now was open revolt. There could be no more question of “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.”

FitzGibbon, always informally in charge of public order, saw this danger. Moreover, as an honest man, employed by government directly under Bond Head, he was in a morally impossible position. Loyalty and public order were his credo; he had devoted his life to them. Now the government itself was acting erratically, disloyally and for public disorder.

This lesson from history illuminates the moral dilemma of any conscientious and intelligent child saddled with a narcissistic parent. It is the same dilemma: he wants to follow the rules, and he wants the good of all, and the parent, who sets the rules, wants the opposite. Where is he to turn? An earthquake has upended the bedrock of the universe. Any action becomes wrong. This is the fatal sense of lack of direction at the core of depression.

Bond Head, typical of a classic narcissist, went on to adamantly deny the real situation. Rather than take any precautions against revolt, he sent the entire local garrison off to Lower Canada to help with unrest there. He even seemed to advertise this fact, releasing statements to the newspapers. It was essential to prove that the entire population adored him.

FitzGibbon took measures on his own authority; he recruited a group of trustworthy armed citizens ready for action at the sound of the church and school bells. Reports of organizing for unrest poured in from the surrounding countryside. Still Head refused to take any action. At last, as the rebel force was gathering eight miles away in Montgomery’s Tavern, planning to attack that same night, the Governor-General summoned the militia to prepare for possible service, and named FitzGibbon acting adjutant-general.

But Head still refused to allow FitzGibbon to move. At this point, FitzGibbon thought the rebels could be scattered by a small attack. The rebels ended up delaying their own assault, thinking they would be stronger in a few days. The government gathered forces too, but this meant what might have been a light skirmish became more serious. So much for preserving the peace. It took three days for FitzGibbon to convince Head to sanction action; when he did, Head gave command of government forces to the Speaker of the House, Alan McNab. And did not tell FitzGibbon.

This seemed, and seems, odd. It looks like a deliberate stab in FitzGibbon’s back. Not only because FitzGibbon outranked McNab in the militia, not only because he had long been in charge of public order, but also because FitzGibbon was a seasoned military commander with crucial victories to his credit, while McNab had no experience of military command.

Why this reckless decision by Head when the fate of Upper Canada hung in the balance?

Narcissism, surely. FitzGibbon had been right, and Bond Head had been wrong. It was essential to punish FitzGibbon for this.

Worse, now FitzGibbon was liable to achieve another crucial victory, and outshine him. This was intolerable. In comparison to this risk, the actual fate of Upper Canada meant nothing to Head. By giving command instead to McNab, he could remain the centre of attention. If McNab won out, the victory could be credited to his choice of commander; and McNab could then be manipulated because of the perceived favouritism.

Better to risk the fate of Upper Canada than to look diminished. Even if McNab won through, he would owe his position, and so his possible victory, to Head. That was better.

FitzGibbon, however, put up a fierce argument. Also characteristic of a narcissist, Bond Head buckled at this point. As with bullies, who are a type of narcissist, if stood up to energetically enough, a narcissist will back down. They are always calculating what is best for self, and so will take the easier road. Nothing is ever worth too much effort. FitzGibbon was allowed the command, with hours if not only seconds to spare. He mustered the men available with desperate speed, and advanced on the tavern. The rebels, unexpectedly demoralized by a lack of leadership, still awaiting their expected commander, scattered.

Head then ordered Montgomery’s Tavern set on fire, for the crime of acting as rebel headquarters. Then the burning of David Gibson’s house, then countermanded his order, then ordered it again. Gibson was not a leader of the rebellion, but he participated in it; and he was a prominent citizen, a member of parliament.

This was gratuitous, and calculated to ensure hard feelings persisted. FitzGibbon protested, but felt compelled to obey this command. He then went home and had a nervous breakdown.

As do so many children or partners of narcissists. This is where it comes from. It is from a betrayal by someone to whom you have been scrupulously loyal; and it is from being forced into a moral double-bind, in which every choice you make is wrong.

This collapse into depression is why in turn FitzGibbon is not better remembered. He manfully pulled himself together and went back to work within a week or two, but he was never the same. Bond Head was recalled, but of course his reports to London made him the great hero, and did not mention FitzGibbon. McNab was given a knighthood, for the cleaning-up operation.

From this point, FitzGibbon became obsessed with having been mistreated, and with his personal debts. He developed a reputation for being neglectful of duty. At one point he dropped everything and sailed to London to make personal representations—leaving his accounts in disarray. In the end he was removed from his official position and put on pension by the Assembly. He simply was no longer doing his job.

This later period is no doubt why he is not better remembered. It left a mixed legacy.

He was obviously suffering from severe depression. This is the inevitable effect of dealing with a narcissist.

FitzGibbon deserves a far better fate from all of us.

Dollard des Ormeaux

One of the great Canadian hero tales is how young Adam Dollard des Ormeaux and 21 Canadiens held out for five days without food or supplies against a force of 700 Iroquois warriors at Long Sault.

Many will hasten to point out that there were also 40 Huron and a few Algonquins in the battle. But their role is ambiguous. They started the fight on the side of the French, but apparently most deserted to the Iroquois during the battle, leaving the Canadiens almost entirely on their own. Dollard and all his men were killed in the battle.

Some question the sense of Dollard in venturing up the Ottawa for battle in the first place. It looks like a suicide mission. Nevertheless, his expedition had the official approval of Governor Chomedey, so it was not a case of some brash young officer going off half-cocked. The strategic goal seems to have been to prevent two separate groups of Iroquois from joining forces for an attack on Montreal. Some too say Dollard had no idea that the opposing force would be so large.

If the intent was to forestall an attack on Montreal, it worked. The two Iroquois parties did join up, at Long Sault, but the punishment they took from Dollard and his little band was apparently enough that the attack on Montreal was called off. So some Iroquois themselves later testified.

And no, this was not some colonizer attacking a local indigenous population. The Iroquois were a war party invading from their home south of Lake Ontario in New York State.

It was the summer of 1660.

At the Long Sault
Under the day-long sun there is life and mirth  In the working earth, And the wonderful moon shines bright  Through the soft spring night,  The innocent flowers in the limitless woods are springing  Far and away  With the sound and the perfume of May,  And ever up from the south the happy birds are winging, The waters glitter and leap and play  While the grey hawk soars. 

But far in an open glade of the forest set  Where the rapid plunges and roars,  Is a ruined fort with a name that men forget,-- A shelterless pen  With its broken palisade,  Behind it, musket in hand,  Beyond message or aid  In this savage heart of the wild,  Mere youngsters, grown in a moment to men,  Grim and alert and arrayed,  The comrades of Daulac stand.  Ever before them, night and day,  The rush and skulk and cry  Of foes, not men but devils, panting for prey; Behind them the sleepless dream Of the little frail-walled town, far away by the plunging stream, Of maiden and matron and child,  With ruin and murder impending, and none but they  To beat back the gathering horror  Deal death while they may,  And then die. 

Day and night they have watched while the little plain  Grew dark with the rush of the foe, but their host  Broke ever and melted away, with no boast  But to number their slain;  And now as the days renew  Hunger and thirst and care  Were they never so stout, so true,  Press at their hearts; but none  Falters or shrinks or utters a coward word,  Though each setting sun  Brings from the pitiless wild new hands to the Iroquois horde,  And only to them despair. 

Silent, white-faced, again and again  Charged and hemmed round by furious hands,  Each for a moment faces them all and stands  In his little desperate ring; like a tired bull moose  Whom scores of sleepless wolves, a ravening pack,  Have chased all night, all day  Through the snow-laden woods, like famine let loose;  And he turns at last in his track  Against a wall of rock and stands at bay;  Round him with terrible sinews and teeth of steel  They charge and recharge; but with many a furious plunge and wheel,  Hither and thither over the trampled snow,  He tosses them bleeding and torn;  Till, driven, and ever to and fro  Harried, wounded, and weary grown,  His mighty strength gives way  And all together they fasten upon him and drag him down. 

So Daulac turned him anew With a ringing cry to his men In the little raging forest glen, And his terrible sword in the twilight whistled and slew. And all his comrades stood With their backs to the pales, and fought Till their strength was done; The thews that were only mortal flagged and broke Each struck his last wild stroke, And they fell one by one, And the world that had seemed so good Passed like a dream and was naught. 

And then the great night came With the triumph-songs of the foe and the flame Of the camp-fires. Out of the dark the soft wind woke, The song of the rapid rose alway And came to the spot where the comrades lay, Beyond help or care, With none but the red men round them To gnash their teeth and stare. 

All night by the foot of the mountain The little town lieth at rest, The sentries are peacefully pacing; And neither from East nor from West 

Is there rumour of death or of danger; None dreameth tonight in his bed That ruin was near and the heroes That met it and stemmed it are dead. 

But afar in the ring of the forest, Where the air is so tender with May And the waters are wild in the moonlight, They lie in their silence of clay. 

The numberless stars out of heaven Look down with a pitiful glance; And the lilies asleep in the forest Are closed like the lilies of France. 

-- Archibald Lampman

Canadian Politicians I Remember

I'm getting on in years, and I remember quite a few.

John Diefenbaker. A real character, and great political entertainment. But a charlatan, and self-absorbed. He specialized in fake outrage. Not a helpful presence on the political stage.

Lester Pearson. He was a career bureaucrat, and he ran the country for the benefit of the career bureaucracy.

Tommy Douglas. A pipsqueak, the typical little guy with a chip on his shoulder.

Real Caouette. Seemed to be sincere in caring about the little guy. Unfortunately, he was crazy.

Robert Stanfield. They say he was a nice guy personally. Who knows? He did not seem to stand for anything. Cannot forgive him for endorsing “deux nations” and presenting himself as a prime minister for English Canada only, with a “Quebec lieutenant.”

Pierre Trudeau. A real leader, with real principles. Most vitally, he was a hero of the cause of federalism. Unfortunately, on other matters, he was authoritarian. He brought in the hate speech laws, he brought in “multiculturalism,” he suspended civil liberties in the October Crisis.

David Lewis. Had to support his “corporate welfare bums” campaign, an issue that made sense whether you are right or left. Genuinely bright, and I believe a man of principle. He spent much of his life fighting on the left against the communists and for democracy.

Joe Clark. Pure mediocrity. A political hack.

John Turner. Looked good on paper; probably suffered unfairly by following the charismatic Trudeau, after whom he came across as hopelessly inarticulate. Just an empty suit. But his leadership marked a watershed in Canadian political history: he turned the Liberals against free trade. He ended liberalism in the Liberal Party.

Ed Broadbent. One of the most viscerally insincere politicians ever. You always knew, when he began a sentence with “let me be frank,” that he was about to tell another whopper.

Brian Mulroney. Too interested in deal-making, without enough regard to the result. It was politics for the sake of politics, without a higher purpose.

Audrey McLaughlin. Achieved the NDP leadership for no reason other than that she was a woman. She might as well have been picked out of the phone book at random.

Jean Chretien. Likeable, but all tactics, no strategy. Dangerously unscrupulous. He broke a lot of china.

Paul Martin. A great finance minister, a lousy prime minister. Turned out to be as unscrupulous as Chretien, but without the likeability.

Preston Manning. Not sure what he accomplished for anyone but himself by splitting the conservative vote for a decade or so. It was not about ideology. He had none. In the end, with the Alliance, he simply wanted to re-form the Progressive Conservatives under his own leadership.

Alexa McDonough. She was somewhat more qualified than Audrey McLaughlin. I think maybe her breasts were larger.

Stockwell Day. Who cares? He gives the term “lightweight” a bad name.

Kim Campbell. She had no chance, given the unpopularity of Mulroney and how late in his term she took over. Her selection was a Hail Mary pass. A gimmick. Was she up for the job? Who knows?

Stephen Harper. Good, solid, reassuring but unspectacular. Sorry to see him go. A steady hand.

Stephane Dion. A good, honest man. Not a politician by nature. Which is to his credit.

Michael Ignatieff. Like Dion, cast off too soon by his party. Either might have matured into a fine leader, but the Liberals had become too prone to infighting. The legacy of Jean Chretien.

Jack Layton. Viscerally did not like him, seemed too slick. Deserves a lot of credit from fellow Canadians, however, for crushing the Bloc.

Tom Mulcair. Also cast off too soon by his party. He was the best they had. They’ll be sorry. In general, a leader should not be cast off after only one campaign.

Justin Trudeau. An embarrassment. Nothing commends him for leadership. We threw over Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair, and Michael Ignatieff for this?

Sir John A. Macdonald and Hitler

The old worthy, Kingston city park.

Recently, a proposed sculpture park project to include bronze statues of all of Canada's prime ministers (with funding raised privately) was cancelled by Waterloo's Wilfrid Laurier University. The first statue, of Sir John A. Macdonald, had already been installed. The project had previously been rejected, at public insistence, by the city of Kitchener. One marvels, when public money is wasted on such unattractive and absurd art installations as it is, that this is the one that stuck in everyone's craw.

The stated reason is that it was “politically insensitive (if not offensive) to celebrate and memorialize all Canadian prime ministers … on land that traditionally belongs to the … Anishnaube and Haudenausanee peoples...” The city of Kitchener backed out on the grounds that it did not reflect the “diversity”of the region.

As defaced.

Tellingly, the online petition opposing the installation refers readers to a web page outlining similar protests in the US, against statues of Southern Civil War figures. This helps to explain the otherwise seeming non sequitor of statues of our prime ministers being somehow offensive to aboriginals: if something is happening in the US, we have to imitate it in Canada, whether the case is comparable or not. A recent example is the current push to put a woman on the banknotes. There is an online call for nominations. This follows the current American push to put a woman on the banknotes—there is an online call for nominations. It repeatedly and studiously ignores the awkward fact that, very unlike the case in the US, there has almost always been at least one woman on the Canadian banknotes, and more often women than men.

In the Waterloo statue case, most and probably all Canadian prime ministers have been pretty easygoing and ethnically inclusive in their attitudes and policies. This is part of the bedrock of Canadian history, if only due to the circumstance of being a half Anglophone, half Francophone, half Catholic, half Protestant nation run as a democracy. While politicians are by their trade not entirely to be admired, it is absurd to see Kim Campbell or John Turner as some kind of war criminals. This is beyond anything Godwin foresaw. But then, it is absurd to blame Sir John A. Macdonald. These are not the sort of people who went to war to defend slavery. 

WLU statue

Let's take Sir John A. He, after all, seems to be singled out for special condemnation by the social justice league of Canada. In Waterloo, it was his statue alone that was physically removed. In Kingston, last January 11, Macdonald's 201st birthday, somebody working in the night slashed the tires of the man organizing a commemorative ceremony, as well as splashing his car with red paint. Presumably symbolizing blood. They also apparently, in eerie if unintentional echo of KKK traditions, burned a Canadian flag on his lawn. One of the local “activists” (what would you prefer to call them?) is quoted by the papers referring to Macdonald as a “genocidal maniac.” In previous recent years, the anniversary had been celebrated by nocturnal spraypainting—again with red paint—of the John A. statue in Kingston's city park with the phrases “This is stolen land,” “murderer,” and “colonizer.” An Idle No More protester explained: “Would people commemorate the crimes that Hitler did? Because this is basically the same principle.”

No wonder this sort of thing happens again every year. Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it.

An oddly suitable memorial

Macdonald's unspeakable crimes are apparently these: 1. as per the Kingston graffito, that he stole Indian land; 2. that he killed Indians by deliberate starvation, 3. that he was responsible, as longtime Superintendent of Indian Affairs, for the setup of the residential schools system, which constituted “cultural genocide” as well as enabling widespread child abuse 4. (per Timothy J. Stanley at Active History) that he made war against the Indians in 1885. That seems to be the basic bill of indictment. Lets deal with the charges in turn.

One: he stole Indian land. This seems to be another case of apishly following trends in the US. The truth is, the history of aboriginal-government relations is very different in Canada and the US. Which is why the US-Canada border was known among plains Indians as the Medicine Line. Which is why, in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, aboriginals flocked to British/Canadian colours in great numbers. The favourable treatment of Indians, in fact, protecting them from wildcat European settlement beyond the Appalachians, was one of the causes of the Revolution, cited obliquely in the Declaration of Independence. Here was no Trail of Tears. Here was no Wounded Knee. Here, negotiated settlements, notably the numbered treaties that began under Macdonald, preceded any incoming settlement, along with the NWMP/RCMP to ensure peace and order—another initiative of Sir John A.'s. Their first mandate was to protect the natives against the predations of dubious non-aboriginal traders.

NWMP officers, 1898

This insistence on proper treaties and native compensation for any lands deeded to non-native Canadians was largely due as well to Sir John A. Not everyone at the time felt it necessary. After all, Indians held and used land in a manner very foreign to European norms. They were nomadic, in a sense never more than visitors, and their use of and therefore natural claim on any particular parcel of land was ephemeral. Boundaries between tribes were constantly shifting. Oliver Mowat, premier of Ontario for much of Macdonald's tenure, held that the Indians had no strictly legal rights in the matter, and their claims were purely moral. A celebrated Ontario court judgment of the time held the same. Macdonald and his governments instead insisted on earlier British policies, respecting native ownership, setting a precedent honoured by future Canadian governments, and future Canadian prime ministers, without exception.

If someone sells you his house, you did not steal it. If he comes back a few years later and demands more money, he is not a moral fellow. He certainly has no say if you choose to put a statue of anyone on your lawn.

Some natives have recently insisted that the Indian oral understanding of the original treaties was different from the government's written documents, that they, being non-literate, were lied to and conned by the government agents. They had intended to cede ownership of the land "only to the depth of a plough blade.” Their fellow Canadians therefore owed them trillions in past resource revenue.

Idle No More protestor. Oddly not considered hate speech.

There are several problems with such claims. First, there is a reason for the invention of writing. The original reason was to keep accurate records in case of dispute. Oral records can be quite reliable, if it is in everyone's interest to preserve them intact. But they can also be altered at any time by either party, and therefore are not of great evidentiary value. Written evidence preserves the matter beyond dispute. As a result, there is every reason to give written records absolute priority. Second, this claim goes emphatically against the written text. In the words of Treaty Three, which become legal boilerplate for subsequent agreements: “[the Indian signatories] do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included.” There is no ambiguity there. To accuse the government agents of misleading the natives on this point requires accusing them of a truly breathtaking act of mendacity. Third, a large part of the very point of the treaties from the government's point of view was to allow for unhindered mineral extraction. To go back on that now would be unfair to that signing party. Fourth, the native cultures were still in the stone age. They did not mine any metals. They would have had little idea of value of any sort buried below ground, little use for it, and little reason to even think what was down there. It seems unlikely they would have made any such reservation, even in their own minds. Fifth, this being so, the government agents would have gained nothing by having lied on this point. It would have done nothing to improve their bargaining position. Sixth, the intrinsic unlikeliness of the native claims is itself evidence that their “oral understanding”of the agreements has been altered for their benefit, and is indeed not to be trusted.

Two: Macdonald killed Indians by deliberate starvation. The essential piece of evidence here is Macdonald's boast in the Commons, “[We] are doing all we can by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation...” Note this: “on the verge.” At worst possible interpretation, Macdonald is saying that to the best of his knowledge, nobody is starving. Nevertheless, Dennis Gruending, writing for Rabble, accuses Kingston's favourite son of creating “the conditions for a tuberculosis epidemic in aboriginal communities.” This is a bit of a stretch, since tuberculosis has been a major problem in aboriginal communities both before and after Macdonald. It is currently 31 times the rate among the general Canadian population. In any case, how can Macdonald's food policies be to blame? Everyone knows it is the residential schools that are at fault here.

Medal struck by Canadian government to commemmorate the signing of Treaties 3-7

Now, the words immediately before that “on the verge” are significant. A fuller quote is “We cannot allow them to die for want of food. We are doing all we can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense.”

That gives a little context. Simply on the face of it, there was no policy to starve the Indians, no genocide. Canada was in recession, and the opposition was challenging the government policy of sending food aid to the Indians as extravagant. Macdonald was defending against this attack, and perhaps using hyperbole in the effort. Politicians have been known to do this. Note that Canada at this time had no social safety net, no welfare, no disability, no child allowance, no old age pension. Other Canadians were left to sink or swim, as far as the government was involved. Yet this group was being helped out, in part by taking funds from fellow Canadians who might have needed it badly themselves. Note too that there was no actual obligation on the government to send food. Treaty One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Seven say nothing about the government being responsible for sending aid in any circumstances. Aboriginals were given seed, large tracts of land, and farm implements, and expected thenceforth to look after themselves, like every other Canadian. Integration was the aim. The wording of Treaty Six alone, of all the treaties in effect during Macdonald's time, gives a mandate, but is ambiguous and leaves lots of wiggle room:

That in the event hereafter of the Indians comprised within this treaty being overtaken by any pestilence, or by a general famine, the Queen, on being satisfied and certified thereof by Her Indian Agent or Agents, will grant to the Indians assistance of such character and to such extent as Her Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs shall deem necessary and sufficient to relieve the Indians from the calamity that shall have befallen them. (Treaty Six)

Very much at the discretion of the government, although it would have violated the spirit of Treaty Six to have done nothing. Treaty Six covered a large chunk of central Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The Qu'Appelle Residential School

Three: Macdonald was guilty of “cultural genocide” for founding the residential schools system.

All of the numbered treaties included the requirement that the government set up schools and pay for teachers.

And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain a school on each reserve hereby made whenever the Indians of the reserve should desire it. (Treaty One, Treaty Two)

And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada may seem advisable whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it. (Treaty Three)

Further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain a school in the reserve allotted to each band as soon as they settle on said reserve and are prepared for a teacher. (Treaty Four)

And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her Government of the Dominion of Canada may seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it. (Treaty Five, Treaty Six)

Further, Her Majesty agrees to pay the salary of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians as to Her Government of Canada may seem advisable, when said Indians are settled on their Reserves and shall desire teachers. (Treaty Seven)

Classroom, Fort Albany Residential Scvhool

At whose insistence? Not the government's. Their priority was to spare expense, and this was an added expense. It was at native insistence, and was one of their chief goals in signing the treaties. They could see that their traditional way of life was unsustainable and far less desirable than that of the European settlers. They wanted the next generation to learn to farm or follow a trade, and to integrate. The treaties specified that schools would be built only where and when the Indians wanted; the vast majority of aboriginal children were always educated at day schools. The residential schools were for children whose homes were too remote to support a local school. The government did not want to pay for a residential school if they did not have to: it greatly increased their costs per student. The fact that only a small proportion of native children were ever educated in residential schools makes ludicrous the claim, often heard, that the residential schools are to blame for all the ills of Indian society even today.

The basic idea of the residential schools, from the start and at native insistence, was to promote integration. Objectively, the government probably did not particularly care: integration or segregation was all the same to them. It was, in fact, and transparently, the same programme advocated by Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the US South. If this was “cultural genocide,” King is a leading criminal against humanity.

Not his natural skin colour. Which was red.

As for child abuse in the schools, it is a tragic certainty that those inclined to bully are inevitably going to have an incentive to choose careers, like teacher or palliative care nurse, which make this avocation easier to pursue. They will seek defenseless prey. They will, if possible, sign up for locations, like remote residential schools, where supervision is minimal. More remote day schools might have been worse. Pedophiles are going to look for jobs that put them in close contact with children, ideally without much supervision, for long periods of the day or night, ideally with the pedophiles in some kind of formal relationship of control. There are few ways to protect against this tendency; probably the best is to turn such positions over to those who have an apparent and stated religious or moral reason for being there, as this may explain their presence instead of predatory instincts. Better still if they have some sort of moral supervision by a religious society and superior. Probably a vow of celibacy is even better.

But this is exactly the path the residential schools took. It was not one hundred percent efffective, but nothing is. In recent years, we have been coming to a growing realization that this problem is pandemic to schools of all sorts; there is nothing special, and certainly nothing intentional in the design of residential schools, in this regard. Ironically, the very richest strata of society have traditionally insisted on paying great sums for the privilege of sending their children into the same circumstances considered abusive when the students are aboriginal. Heads you win, tails we lose.

In 2006-2007, a settlement of $2 billion was mandated by the courts--the largest class action settlement in Canadian history--to anyone who had gone to a residential school. Not just those who could demonstrate abuse. Anyone. This was a huge transfer of wealth to a privileged group from fellow Canadians. Who obviously had nothing to do with the residential schools, whether the latter were good or bad.

Discipline in the residential schools, they say, was strict. No doubt. It was strict everywhere. Some of it, there as elsewhere, was surely bullying. Welcome to school. On the other hand, there is an entirely forgotten reason for the good old hickory stick, quite apart even from discipline, and in the best interests of the students. For thousands of years, in essentially all cultures, it has been realized that our ability to remember is tied to some sort of emotional association with the thing remembered—Aristotle, for example, wrote that every memory involved an emotion. It follows that the ever-present fear of punishment helps us remember. “[P]hysical methods were thought to ensure that knowledge was securely impressed into the memories of schoolchildren” (Mary Carruthers and Jan Ziolkowski, The Medieval Craft of Memory, p. 21). What we do not remember, we have not learned.

Battle of Fish Creek.

Four: Macdonald made war on the Indians, in 1885.

He did not. This seems to be another slavish imitation of American models. Macdonald is perhaps being confused with Andrew Jackson. The reference is to the Northwest Rebellion. The Indians, or rather a very small group of Indians, made war on him, in violation of treaty. They may have had real grievances, they may not, but this was not the way to address them. He had the natural right of self defense, as well as the public duty to keep the country together and in full possession of its territory.

It was all a comic opera affair, and few actually got killed. After a conventional trial and benefit of law, eight aboriginal ringleaders were hanged, along with Louis Riel. Maybe they did not deserve it; but it was not really Macdonald's call. Poundmaker went to prison for less than a year. The chief government response in the aftermath—which was Macdonald's call--was to send more food aid to the Western reserves.

If this is the worst that can be brought against any of Canada's leaders, Canada stands alone as the most tolerant of nations,  We ought to be celebrating this.

How about a sculpture park?