The question I ask is who has written, decided, and preserved the prevailing Canadian narrative? Considering the colonial and predominantly white, english, and male control of the Canadian ideal, the national myth is essentially homogenous. However, this homogeneity is hidden behind a strategically woven story, a deceptive narrative neatly integrated into civil structures, institutions and government processes ­ described, listed and lived within the supposed ideals of multiculturalism, plurality and benevolence.

What would be an effective way to rupture this homogeneity? To interrupt the dominant story, and influence the Canadian narrative in a radical and truly disruptive fashion? How can we reveal potential and possibility in Canada and its future without breaking down the barriers that exist within the psychic and physical infrastructure of the nation?

I was paralyzed by these questions when confronted with the task of articulating my vision for Canada over the next 150 years. I felt trapped… as I often do, when considering my place within Canadian national identity and the institutions that govern its natural and cultural systems. It is easy to become apathetic and lost in a situation dominated by a voice that is ignorant to its own prerogative and far removed from personal experience.

I can’t continue to blindly play along, and circle back into the dominant structure of the national narrative. I want to break out of that cycle. As a self identified queer, feminist, white, English, cisgender female, eighth-generation Canadian, I don’t want to continue taking up space. I want others to speak, to vision, to imagine and create a new fantasy we can stumble about in together. Of course I have a voice too, (in this case and in many other opportunities I have been presented,) and my voice is enabled, by its varied privileges, to step aside. To open the dialogue and advocate for a discourse that is created between multiple voices of varied backgrounds and situated circumstances.

Where will Canada be, what should Canada do and how should we proceed should be answered through discourse powered by the voices of the people who currently live in and around the borderlands of the dominant narrative. Search for Canada, the imagined reality, the through the voices of people who already live on the edge of the dominant reality. Who really one could say already live in the realm of fantasy ­ a courageous place of possibility.

Listen to the borderlands. Be present in their imaginings, their desires. Be silent, my privileged voice, and listen…

Helaina Laland:

The year is 2164. The last fifteen decades or so have been rather trying for mankind. Canadians have had an especially hard time of it, what with the beaver fever outbreak of 2081 and the 2142 U.S. invasion of Fort McMurray and ensuing Martial Law. Thankfully, that was put to an end with the development of bovine methane power. This, in addition to greatly lowering greenhouse gas emissions globally, is what has made Canada one of the most influential (wealthy) countries in the world because of its vast expanses of forest and meadow, which have been mowed down to golf course standard and now serve as pasture for billions of cattle.

In the sports world, we have recently been celebrating Quilla daughter of Mabel’s zirconium medal win in four­-armed backstroke at the 2164 Olympic Games. Corporeal enhancements have made it a good time to be in athletics, along with the fact that athletes are now the highest wage earners in the country.

Since paper was banned in 2150 in order to conserve Canada’s few remaining trees, artists have been searching for alternative forms of hard media, which some believe to be more authentic than digital art, however primitive it may seem. Most recently, the trend has been toward lino cut, a technique that has been facilitated in modern times by high-­precision, cutting laser pointers.

Of course, it’s impossible to talk about the state of things without mentioning the latest fad to sweep the nation ­ analog watches. This isn’t the first time an archaic technology has become popular among “mode­-ites”, and it almost certainly won’t be the last. So­-called fad­-augurs are predicting a return to eyeglasses might be next, but really, who knows what the future holds?

Josie Baker:

I am not proud of Canada right now. We seem to be governed by the ideology that government’s role is not to build and maintain a stable, just society, but to facilitate corporate profits and to ensure a compliant workforce ripe for exploitation. As a nation we are actively ignoring the threats posed by climate change and increasingly desperate poverty. We are actively criminalizing First Nations activists, migrants, refugees, immigrants, and environmentalists. Canada today is embodying the worst of what our history has to offer; a history of colonialism, imperialism, and genocide.

The bold vision I would suggest for the future of Canada is to work to truly embody a Canadian ideal – that of democracy. A truly democratic system could nourish vibrant, resilient, communities across Canada. To be truly democratic, we need to fundamentally change the power balance of our society.

We need to reshape our economy–eliminating poverty has been within our power as a country for a long time, but it has not been considered profitable. The economic system that we have creates and profits from poverty. It creates and profits from environmental destruction. Poverty and extreme wealth are not acceptable and demand a price that we cannot afford. No one should have to choose between paying for medicine or buying food. No one needs to stay with their abuser because they can’t afford to leave with their children. No one should work full time and still have to rely on food banks.

We need to take steps to build resilience and abundance in our communities. We need to empower and enable communities to put their human creativity and ingenuity to work to face our common problems. To truly fulfill our democratic ideals, to work towards social and environmental justice, we need to build relationships of trust and collaboration with those on the margins. The voices of a few have dominated for too long. We cannot afford to continue to marginalize people – we need the voices and perspectives of everyone to meet our common problems. The change needs to come through community –we need to do the hard work of recognizing the wounds that we have inherited from our history and build alternatives that don’t repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. Inclusion takes a lot of work, and it is challenging, but in the process we learn about ourselves, about our assumptions, and we build relationships and we build trust. To create a democratic Canada, we need to face the wounds of our history, and we need to recognize the blindspots in our world view. As a nation, we must work towards our common survival and we need a vast spectrum of human creativity and wisdom to succeed.

Merray Gerges: 

Hi Becka,

After I messaged you last, I went back through previous bits of research and transcribed conversations and it became clear to me that I must use this opportunity to give space for someone who’s considerably more frustrated than I am. I spoke with Pamela Edmonds, a Toronto-­based curator of colour, a few months ago for a piece about tokenism in the Canadian art world that I was working on. I selected a few quotes from our conversation that I feel respond to the question at hand far more eloquently than I ever could. Feel free to pick and choose according to your needs. I’ve also attached the resulting piece for context:

“I strived to bring art that connected to different ethnic and cultural communities. I felt somewhat tokenized, and I still do even now, 15 or so years later. But that’s just the place that we’re at. We’re still not there. I learned that you take three steps forward and then there’s two back. But at least you got one ahead. That’s the price that you pay to be within the mainstream. I always try to be somewhat subversive within the programming that I do.

“You can’t just pick and choose and have everyone in this equal place because that’s not how it is in reality. You have to recognize that there’s discrimination that’s not being recognized. It’s sort of disingenuous. People don’t really believe it. I don’t think they really believe the exoticisation of cultures. On multicultural day, you sample the food. It’s not an understanding of that culture in terms of their contributions. It’s a nice idea. I wouldn’t want to give it up. But it has to be a critical multiculturalism somehow.

“It’s important to reach diverse communities but vital to reach the art world too to say, ‘I’m sorry but you’re gonna have to give up some of your power.’ People have to be ready for that dialogue at some point. It’s gotta happen. Recognition of that oppression is not easy to deal with. But I think it will happen because people will change over the generations. Might not be in my lifetime. That foothold of the white middle class male? It can’t keep up. It’s too multicultural of a world for that to stay. I don’t see it staying that way. We have to look at what art is in a different way, because the west­-centric art idea has changed. I don’t want to be in response to you, or intervening anymore. I just wanna go in and do stuff. Why do you have to reinterpret European art? Just forget about it. It’s tired. I don’t wanna respond to that anymore. I just wanna go about my business.”

Talk soon,

M

Diana Hosseini:

The Canada of tomorrow, the one that perhaps my great grand­children will grow up in, will be a place where they will never feel culturally alienated. No one should ever feel ‘other’ and thus strive to strip away and reject their home culture(s). I do not think that our society fully understands the potential social and psychological damage of today’s form of assimilation nor the fact that it even exists. We may not be in a situation where assimilation is forced and the process at hand is different than that of the shameful part of our history. However, it peaks its ugly head when people introduce themselves with alternate names or when a mother tongue is lost from one generation to the next. A name may seem like a very simple thing however they are our very first markers of identity. When a person provides a different name or a different pronunciation of a name, they sense that this is a requirement in our society, which means that their true self is excluded. Step by step, there are changes in the self, some of which are unfortunately irreversible or take years to heal. In terms of the mother tongue, it is a loss of knowledge and a sort of break in communication between parent and child. Remember that a translation may always have deficiencies.

There needs to be a superior level of understanding amongst us. At the end of the day, besides the Native population, we are all immigrants. Some of us can trace our Canadian lineage far back while some of us have just begun creating one. Being Canadian may mean something different for each of us but we are all here because our parents, our ancestors or we sought something better. Let us not be ignorant of differing languages, foods and perspectives on life. Instead, we should embrace the greatest privilege that we have and that is to be able to live amongst a multitude of cultures. We should be aware and respectful of our differences, it is by doing so that no one is excluded or feels ‘other’. In the Canada of tomorrow, I would hope that we have finally reached a stage where we can without hesitation claim to be a true model of multiculturalism.

Mireille Eagan:

“Under the eye of God, near the giant river,
The Canadian grows hoping.
He was born of a proud race,
Blessed was his birthplace.
The sky has noted his career
In this new world.”
–Translation of the original version of “Ô Canada” (1880)

It is said that Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen at the point just before death, under the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at the theme park that bears his name. When science is willing, Disney will be revived. The story may be a rumour, but it is far more interesting to imagine that it’s true. It speaks to the quality of our time – a result of 150 years of fluctuations between the apocalyptic and the romantic.

In Canada, for instance, a robust optimism informed the late­1800s to mid­1900s. It was predicted that Canada, with its harsh climates and vast natural resources, would forge a hardy people, a “True North, Strong and Free.” An indicator of the time is found in its art, in the celebration of (some of) Canada’s rugged landscapes. The whole thing was a myth, of course, intended to provoke a national identity. The next 50 years would assert the errors found in this approach, that just beyond the frame of the painted solitary trees were people ­ among them First Nations, immigrants, and women.

It is the nature of progress that we respond to what came before. Future people will, therefore, find us misguided, confined by the ideologies of our time. It is humbling to consider that all our current predictions, fear stories, and saccharine antidotes may be charming relics.

If all goes well in terms of science and rumour, Walt Disney will be our ambassador to the future. A product of his time in many ways, he adapted old stories and fairytales to eliminate the macabre, and invoked happy endings where they may not have been before. As Disney hobbles around the future in his freezer-­burnt body and antiquated moustache, I hope that he will realize that he has become what he gave us, what we want—a reminder. In his words: “People look at you and me to see what they are supposed to be. And, if we don’t disappoint them, maybe, just maybe, they won’t disappoint us.”

The voices represented by the ­co-authors—Diana Hosseini, Helaina Lalande, Merray Gerges, Marie Fox, Josie Baker and Mireille Eagan—are a small selection of people. I acknowledge that some key demographics/communities are missing including but not limited to francophone, indigenous, senior citizens, disabilities, varied genders… this essay is an attempt to present a theory in practice, and is not claiming to be all encompassing. I actually feel that this essay’s approach is reflected in the A Bold Vision anthology’s structure and very existence.

My vision for Canada over the next 150 years requires that as a nation, we forgive ourselves for eagerly consuming a diluted sense of ourselves. Our story has been simplified to invoke happy endings for a powerful few. A homogenous wash over a complex and difficult history. But this isn’t the end, the Canadian narrative continues, and we all play a part its’ creation. Let us embrace our failures, acknowledge the complexity of a truly multi­-peopled culture, look to the silenced and listen for possibility.

To be Canadian shouldn’t be comfortable. It should be unstable, disruptive, and unrelentlessly challenged by difficult discourses that are propelled by the far reaches of accepted reality.

In many ways, this tiny classroom was just like any other: rows of young students looking up at their teacher, the day’s lesson displayed on the dusty chalkboard overhead. But this day was not about grammar or arithmetic. It was about the long fight for freedom. In South Sudan, it is rarely about anything else.

I watched as a small boy walked to the front of the room. “This is the Leer Primary School Drama Club,” he announced, unexpectedly firm for a child. “I hope you will enjoy.”

Then the teacher took centre stage, behind him, a chalkboard cluttered with notes on the local harvest, Jesus, and salvation. In his hand he grasped the long wooden stick that would act as his conductor’s wand. He thrust it upward and the children rose at its command. The call and answer was about to begin.

An invisible border split the class, forming a group of students on either side. The teacher pointed his wand to one section. “Yes!” the children cried out. Swung now to the other, his wand signalled the reply. “Yes for what?” the students boomed. This time in unison, each child rang the final call. “Yes for separation! Yes for the independence of Southern Sudan!”

The mood was hopeful, but solemn. The children seemed so young and I wondered how much they could possibly understand about the words they dutifully recited. To see a primary classroom charged with nationalist emotion was jarring at first, but in context, not surprising. In late 2010, the same sentiment permeated the entire region, spreading far into remote villages like this one, touching young and old alike. It was a sentiment that had been building for decades.

Starting in 1983, civil war between the central government and the southern-based Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) persisted for more than 20 years, resulting in nearly 2 million deaths and one of the largest and most gruelling displacements of refugees imaginable. A peace agreement ended the war in 2005, but six years later, as its terms came to a close, the South remained one of the most undeveloped regions in the world, and relations with the North had not improved.

Though the roots of Sudan’s problems are complex, for Southerners the solution became clear—secession from the North, independence, and freedom. In hopes of growing up in peace, these children sang for a nation of their own.

On July 9, 2011, that nation arrived. Following a referendum on January 9, 2011, in which a reported 99 percent of South Sudanese citizens voted for their independence, the Republic of South Sudan was born. Celebrations in the new nation’s capital of Juba lasted for days.

Still, the trials are not over for North or South Sudan. Leading up to the split, discourse in the South left room for little more than a simple separatist cry—a resounding Yes for independence. Now, unresolved issues of oil-sharing, citizenship, and border demarcation loom while the Northern government has started a new campaign of violence in its state of Southern Kordofan. The Republic of South Sudan may have gained the independence for which its children sang, but for North and South Sudanese, separation does not yet mean peace.

Hot on the tail of the reinvigorated nationalism left in the wake of the Olympics in Vancouver, parliament reopened yesterday with the speech from the throne given by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean.

Appropriately timed with said nationalism, the country’s National Anthem made its way into the hour-long allocution. The government would like to retool the English language version of O Canada ever so slightly, with the intent on a more gender neutral tone.

The line in question: “True patriot love, in all thy sons command.”

This is a suggestion that is bound to be met with resistance and controversy, but really it’s a non-issue. More symbolic than anything else and arguments can be made over political correctness vs. historic significance, but all in all I don’t really have a problem with a little tinkering. A fuss might be made by so called patriots who feel threatened by minor changes to any nationalistic customs, but supposing the lyrics were changed, a generation from now no one would know the difference and really, isn’t it a good idea to include the entire population?

That being said, it might be a good idea to re-examine “God keep our land…” as well. But that’s another debate.

One reason why this change shouldn’t be met with much resistance is that the original poem the lyrics are lifted from doesn’t include that line in the first place. The original poem, written by R. Stanely Weir and commissioned for the 300^th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City contained the slightly different, and wholly gender neutral, line “True patriot love thou dost in us command.” But even that is not the original version. O Canada began its life as a nationalistic French hymn in 1880, with music by French composer Calixa Lavallée and lyrics by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier, 100 years before it was made Canada’s national anthem. The French lyrics have remained unchanged since they were first written and bear no resemblance to English Canada’s version:

O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.

Ch.
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.

It wasn’t until 1901 that English Canada got its own version with translated lyrics by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson.

O Canada! Our fathers’ land of old
Thy brow is crown’d with leaves of red and gold.
Beneath the shade of the Holy Cross
Thy children own their birth
No stains thy glorious annals gloss
Since valour shield thy hearth.
Almighty God! On thee we call
Defend our rights, forfend this nation’s thrall,
Defend our rights, forfend this nation’s thrall.

Since then there have been many incarnations of the English language translation, some slight, some significant. Weir’s poem, written in 1908, became the favorite, and in 1927 the poem was published as part of the diamond jubilee of confederation.

Even then, it took until 1980 for O Canada to replace God Save the Queen as Canada’s official national anthem.

There is nothing sacred about the words to O Canada—they have been toyed and tooled with for a century now. Perhaps they should be a little fluid, evolving as the country does, changing to fit the nation it represents. If anything it is the melody that Canadians should hold dear.

If the decision is made to alter the anthem, it would be appropriate to reinstate Weir’s original line “Thou dost in us command,” it has historic significance, it’s gender neutral and it gives an element of power to the whole, rather than the individual, our new found post-Olympic national identity should appreciate that.

Of course, the whole thing is just a big distraction tactic by the Tories anyway. Mission accomplished!

In the book, Price courses through the history of scholarly thought on the black American experience. The case of the historically maligned and oppressed minority group has generated a great deal of thought and discussion and, even, potential solutions. Too many to name, the two most pronounced and enduring of them are the Integrationist and the Black Nationalist approaches. The former can be characterized as the prescription for African Americans to include themselves in the body of the American political, economic, and cultural system. The latter prescribes the very opposite: separation, but not segregation, and self-sufficiency. Price provides a succinct definition early on: “support for black self-determination through control of homogenous black institutions, support for black economic and social independence in the form of self-help programs, psychological and social disentanglement from whites and white supremacist notions of black inferiority, and support for a global or Pan-African view of the black community.”

Price’s book does not read as a polemic making the case for Black Nationalism. She does not argue that it is the only way African Americans can shake the spectre of domination they’ll continue to endure unless they create for themselves their own forms of organization. She does not make the argument that it would be a good for the soul and the psyche of the African American community or that Black Nationalism, paradoxically, is the best means towards achieving genuine integration and racial harmony (since real equality must always rest on the foundation of mutual respect for each other’s self-created achievement). Price, instead, tracks the level at which the African American community — broadly speaking — supports Black Nationalist principles. It appears a sizable number do. Perhaps the American public as a whole would do well to finally recognize this serious strand of African American thought.