Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Tuesday, 6 March 2007

Anglophile and Proud of It

With apologies to James and Beaverbrook.

A look at republican argument will reveal that their idea of a perfect utopia is a government where the race for head of state is all about "cut-throat individualism," personal gain, and the triumph of money and machination over familial bonds and voluntary service; all of which, of course, causes the president to divide the nation rather than unite it.

For those that play the race card, their real issue has nothing to do with Canadian, British or Australian monarchists failing to amply celebrate the diversity of the peoples under the Crown, because, in reality, they do. Their main beef is simple: Their country’s history and traditions are monarchical, and not republican, in nature. Oh, what they would do to erase all that! And so, iconoclast that they are, they devise to undermine the institution, traditions, and trappings by purposefully associating the celebration of those specific countries’ monarchical histories and heritages with cultural and racial-self aggrandisement, using the coincidental fact that those histories are dominated by mostly white, European characters, as “evidence” of an ethnic motive. Thus, the quip about “white pride” and “benign bigotry” being associated with monarchism are hardly off-the-cuff, throwaway remarks, but indeed, examples of a common assertion of that endangered breed known as the Canadian republican; a specifically concocted association that is an easy way for republicans to effectively use the current trend of cultural cringe to denigrate that which they inherently dislike, and the little time needed for a bit of analysis will reveal from behind the eloquent rhetoric the rather distressed need of republicans, in the absence of actual reason and logic, to simply slander and demoralise their opponent, making their cause look better in the process.

It’s certain that celebrating the history and heritage of one’s nation, whether it be monarchical or republican, is not a crime, nor even a demonstration of prejudiced cultural and racial gloating at the expense of others; every country views its traditions and culture in a brighter light than others. And why not? What is a country, after all, without pride in its customs, symbols, cultural paradigms and history to unite it and give it strength for the future? Thus, the hypocrisy of republicans is revealed when we observe that Americans openly display this type of pride in their republic, because they embrace and celebrate their culture - one built on British roots, no less - over any other; because they generally see the United Kingdom (and, by extension, Canada and Australia) as greater nations than Ecuador or Libya (despite their being republics); and because they idolise old, dead white men, some of whom even wore top hats, could they possibly bring themselves to accuse the Americans of upholding “white pride” or practicing “benign bigotry”? No, of course they couldn’t.

How confusing it must be for them. They embrace the modern Liberal-Canadian thinking wherein any remotely British aspect of Canada’s past should be associated with guilt and shame, using this as a justification to rid the country of its crown and all monarchical associations, while all the while claiming to be a conservative and worshiping a country that openly embraces and glorifies the British-descended, imperial, and “white” foundations of their nation, and has only ever seen old white men installed as its leader.

Contributors on this forum seem to celebrate what we are, which, in every sense, includes what we were, the good and the bad. We all certainly have a British past, but I don’t think anyone looks to Britain as an example of how to be anymore. So that silly “apron strings” argument is completely moot; we are all mature nations that stand on our own, but have the luxury – and it truly is a luxury – of being so closely and amicably associated that we can multilaterally share the same person as our monarch. That ability to share, to me shows a mature pride in our heritage, our history, what we are now, and gives me faith in the future. In no way does this mean I believe the cultures and histories of Jamaica or Belize or any other smaller “non-white” nation to be inferior – they are simply different. That’s the beauty of the Crown: difference can exist united under an apolitical sovereign. However, whining about the past, blindly attacking and knocking down everything that reminds you of it, and willingly sounding like a hypocrite in the process, all while seeking inspiration and solace in another country’s customs and culture seems to demonstrate a fearful, timid, lack of confidence. But, then, the narcissistic are often actually rather insecure.

15 comments:

fontaine said...

Once again you guys try to cloud the truth with a puffed up fantasy of what you wish the argument were about. I do not reject history, but I do however reject the notion that our history is inherently monarchist. To the contrary, our history is filled with examples of our elected officials actually achieving things, and the only time the monarchy comes into play is when it tries to get in the way of that, or force Canada's hand where it does not wish to go.

During the Chanak crisis we were expected to immediately run to the aid of Britain. British imperialists like the ones on this blog (and nowhere else really) expected us to throw ourselves into a fight that was not our affair. Prime Minister King rejected that notion and parliamentary debate followed. The Parliament of Canada decided the role that Canada would play in foreign affairs, not a foreign government or a foreign monarch.

Same deal with the King-Byng affair. A British pawn tried to influence the internal workings of Canada and Canadians again defeated that. Democracy prevailed.

Those are the only two times in recent history that I can recall where the government of the United Kingdom or the monarchy played ANY role in Canada. The rest of our national story is written by Canadians. Pearson and the Flag, Trudeau and the Charter, Mulroney and NAFTA, Chretien and the fight against seperatism, and Harper and Afghanistan. These are events that actually affect the lives of individual Canadians, which shape who we are, what we believe in and what we project to the world.

Those examples are the history of Canada, not stuffy Lords sitting in drafty manors pontificating from the dinner table, or an outdated collectivist statist principle that says the Almighty State comes before the individual. The principle of Western democracy is that every man woman and child should be able to do what he or she wants, and that no one, God or government, has any say in that. It's a principle that drives big and small-c conservatives, big a small l-liberals and everyone in between and outward. You guys are the extreme minority, and no one pays you much heed.

So sorry mate, wrong again.

Anonymous said...

Sorry you lost me. How is it better to have some butt kissing journalist appointed to the highest offfice in the land than have the head of state elected by the people of the land? How is it better to have some woman born into the position in some foreign land better than the people of Canada chosing their own head of state from amongst themselves?

canicus said...

I'm not going to jump into the debate (I know very little about Canadian and British politics). I will, however, point out that the "hypocrisy" of America is a little overblown.

We have a rather large segmant of our population that currently seeks to silence any positive statement about western culture (not just Anglo culture) and introduce any sort of multicultural can come to their mind. With it has come, IMO, a cementing of the idea that only whites are truly racist. This segment would rather see the European world overrun, the Muslims take over Britain, the European peoples of the United States placed in a full secondary status, and so on.

We, conversely, have a another large segmant that doesn't view things that way. Instead, they tend to look toward western culture, with a particular nod to Britain as a norm. This segmant is multicultural in that it welcomes all the different cultures, because anyone can learn to be Western. My particular sympathies lie here, and like most in my position, I have a great deal of bad blood with the preceding segment and the following.

There are also the lunatic fringe groups on the right also, who advocate a sort of racial superiority (and whites aren't alone in selling this snake oil).

Right now, most power is divided between the first two groups. I'm not sure where it's going to turn out, but we get mixed results as well as political and cultural trajectories because our terms of power are rather brief. I have a feeling that the first will win, sadly, unless something drastic happens (Hollywood sides with them, and they now have a sort of default power in other media, the educational system, and the current mores of what is politically correct). All these things could change, and while PC is always here, it changes with the party in power.

I apologize for the lengthy post, but I'm not only a Westerner, but an American, and our "hypocrisy" in where our sympathies lie is a lot more complex than it would seem from the outside. I also apologize, because such a short post will inevitably distort things, but it's my best attempt.

James said...

"How is it better to have some butt kissing journalist appointed to the highest offfice in the land than have the head of state elected by the people of the land? How is it better to have some woman born into the position in some foreign land better than the people of Canada chosing their own head of state from amongst themselves?"

Ah, there's that republican utopia again - a place where, of course, every one of our 30,000,000 Canadians, smiling at each other, would wholeheartedly agree on who should lead us, and once in office we'd all join hands around him and sing patriotic songs.

Bah! "Chosing their own head of state from amongst themselves" sounds so lovely and democratic - all full of smiling children and happy families - but, really, "chosing" [sic] here has been used in place of "election," and elections are inherently divisive and combative. Further, Canadians already choose their head of state - not in terms of electing them, but in the fact that they continue to support the constitution, which lays out the rules by which our head of state is chosen.

fontaine said...

Division is part of daily life and something monarchists need to get used to. No one is going to 100% support something no matter what, and it's foolish to pretend that's ever going to pass.

It's not as if monarchy hasn't led to division before, often violent. The English Civil War, Cromwell? The American Revolution?

Division is democracy, and the only alternative is dictatorship. There's still division there, but it's just much less pronounced.

James said...

Of course, througout humanity there will always be division. However, as a nation we should seek to have as little division as possible, not foster more of it.

fontaine said...

As long as that division is peaceful I have no problem with it.

Though this line of discussion leads to a good question. What do we do once the monarchy becomes divisive? Do we find something new or stick to it?

Neil Welton said...

Ahhh, so you now admit the monarchy is not currently divisive as an issue. Good. For only those "in it for themselves" would want to create division concerning monarchy.

Anonymous said...

Divisive is when the executive branch and the legislative branch of government are one and the same with a useless head of state with no real power. How do you think the Liberals were able to steal so much money from ordinary Canadians? PMJC because he had a majority was defacto dictater. Who would oppose him? The press? They want to be appointed to GG or at least senate they aren't going to speak ill of the crook. The majority in the party? Speak against the party and you are unemployed. The Senators? They also owe their jobs to the PM. If we could separate the executive from the legislative and cut off the opportunity to bribe the press Canada would finally grow up as a true democracy.

Neil Welton said...

I thought it was too good to be true.

fontaine said...

I didn't say the crown was not divisive, I think it's the opposite in fact with most polls showing support for it split down the middle. Care to answer the question though instead of employing your typical smoke and mirrors and smug answers?

Neil Welton said...

Certainly - the answer is "stick to it".

fontaine said...

Well that certainly blows any claims that the crown provides stability and unity out of the water.

Neil Welton said...

You misunderstand. Stick with the Crown. Stick to it like glue.

fontaine said...

I'm a nice guy, you guys can have the crown. We'll think of something better here in the New World.