Thursday, March 31, 2011
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Canadian Tenors
I was watching Oprah today - yes, it happens. Celine Dion was on and performed with The Canadian Tenors. They performed "Hallelujah" - click on the title for the youtube link to hear the performance. The group sings a mix of classical and pop songs. I enjoyed their singing and thought I would share it, but after listening to a few other available links I just have to share "Adagio" which is richer in the classical vein. If you prefer soft ballads try "I only know how to love" or the upbeat "Your moment is here" - the song they sang for the Olympics. Enjoy =).
Monday, April 19, 2010
Canada in Canadian literature
Explicit mentions of what it means to be Canadian in Canadian literature are not that common but they can be found. Here is one from Kelley Armstrong, the author of Bitten, part of her Women in the Otherworld series:
"At first, I was polite. Really. I said 'excuse me', tried to squeeze through gaps, even apologized for stepping on some toes. What can I say, I'm Canadian. After a few elbows to the chest and more than a few obscenities shouted in my ear, I gave up and cut my own path. When one hefty bruiser tried to shove me back, I grabbed him by the collar and showed him the express route to the door. Things got a bit better after that."
(Bitten, 2001: 141-42)
Where does the scene take place? Across the border in the US of course. =)
"At first, I was polite. Really. I said 'excuse me', tried to squeeze through gaps, even apologized for stepping on some toes. What can I say, I'm Canadian. After a few elbows to the chest and more than a few obscenities shouted in my ear, I gave up and cut my own path. When one hefty bruiser tried to shove me back, I grabbed him by the collar and showed him the express route to the door. Things got a bit better after that."
(Bitten, 2001: 141-42)
Where does the scene take place? Across the border in the US of course. =)
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Can you name a Canadian woman playwright?
If you are going to Toronto this summer you may want to visit the Nightwood theatre. Its mission is to produce theatre by women and to provide a space for women directors on the Canadian stage.
Yes, this is a plug. Why? Because when I listened to Fiorenza Dossetto at the BACS conference I was fascinated by her description of Nightwood and its work, and because I couldn't name a single Canadian women playwright or director...
If you won't be visiting Toronto this summer, then why not join me and read Sisters by Wendy Lill or Wanted by Sally Clark?
Yes, this is a plug. Why? Because when I listened to Fiorenza Dossetto at the BACS conference I was fascinated by her description of Nightwood and its work, and because I couldn't name a single Canadian women playwright or director...
If you won't be visiting Toronto this summer, then why not join me and read Sisters by Wendy Lill or Wanted by Sally Clark?
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Does Canada have a national history?
Does Canada have a history? Do Canadians care? 100 or so scholars of Canadian culture had an opportunity to think about these issues when Andrew Cohen of Carleton University lamented the lack of a unified Canadian national history at the British Association of Canadian Studies conference in Cambridge this past week (April 6-8). It was a provocative talk that I've since had time to think about.
Cohen cited surveys suggesting that Canadians are very interested if not always knowledgeable about their history - with the marked exception of the Quebecois who enjoy a strong relationship with their provincial history. Hmm... perhaps this is true of other groups. Newfoundlanders at any rate have a conflicted relationship with their history.
The answer to the first question - does Canada have a history - is yes, but not a history that is easy to relate. Canadian history is complex and multi-faceted. It depends on who you ask. To only talk about a 'national history' is to assume that Canada was always one nation. For Canada as an idea that is possible (though relatively brief), for Canada as a material place, it is not. The place was there before Canada was 'born', and the First Nations had a history on what is now Canadian soil long before the Europeans came.
Canada as a unified territory is very young. The last province to join was Newfoundland in 1949. The beginning of confederation was in 1867, but boundary issues and frictions regarding who 'owns' the land have always been part of Canadian history. For one thing, regionalism is strong across Canada, and the idea of joining the union was not a given for European descendents or First Nations so agreeing on a joint history is difficult.
Furthermore, tensions have existed between First Nations and Europeans since the 11th century when Leif Erikson (Leif the Lucky) and the Vikings landed on Vinland - what is now L'ans aux Meadows in northwestern Newfoundland. The Beothuks were already there. The Metis are divided by the border to the States as well as provincial lines - though the latter is perhaps less felt than the former but is probably not always uncomplicated. A case to receive more media attention is the land dispute between the Mohawk Nation and the city of Oka in Quebec in the summer of 1990.
When Cohen raised the issue of what the master narrative of Canadian history should be, feelings ran high. Many objected to the idea of a national history because who would tell the story? European descendents of the promoters of confederacy? The white majority? The argument for a unified history is that it would increase the sense of what it means to be Canadian and increase national pride. Yet, a unified history isn't possible without reduction and marginalization of some rather large groups in Canada.
Perhaps the question needs to be raised to the level of historical concepts, that is perhaps it is the idea of a national history that needs to be rethought rather than Canada's history determined and agreed upon. A national history suggests a master narrative, a unified timeline of important events that subsume and elide regional, local and minority histories. If we can rethink gender as femininities and masculinities and think of this pluralism as an emancipatory move that allows for individual freedom and determination, then perhaps we can rethink the idea of what a national history is or should be. Perhaps it is time to envision and teach a democratic plural history of Canada.
Talking about Canadian histories rather than a reduced Canadian history can be Canada's way of presenting itself and would be an ever-changing monument to be proud of. Canadians are appreciated as level-headed, democratic and open outside Canada so there is no need for Canadians to be self-conscious about Canada's lack of a master narrative to define itself. It's a good thing to not pretend you can speak for everyone.
Cohen cited surveys suggesting that Canadians are very interested if not always knowledgeable about their history - with the marked exception of the Quebecois who enjoy a strong relationship with their provincial history. Hmm... perhaps this is true of other groups. Newfoundlanders at any rate have a conflicted relationship with their history.
The answer to the first question - does Canada have a history - is yes, but not a history that is easy to relate. Canadian history is complex and multi-faceted. It depends on who you ask. To only talk about a 'national history' is to assume that Canada was always one nation. For Canada as an idea that is possible (though relatively brief), for Canada as a material place, it is not. The place was there before Canada was 'born', and the First Nations had a history on what is now Canadian soil long before the Europeans came.
Canada as a unified territory is very young. The last province to join was Newfoundland in 1949. The beginning of confederation was in 1867, but boundary issues and frictions regarding who 'owns' the land have always been part of Canadian history. For one thing, regionalism is strong across Canada, and the idea of joining the union was not a given for European descendents or First Nations so agreeing on a joint history is difficult.
Furthermore, tensions have existed between First Nations and Europeans since the 11th century when Leif Erikson (Leif the Lucky) and the Vikings landed on Vinland - what is now L'ans aux Meadows in northwestern Newfoundland. The Beothuks were already there. The Metis are divided by the border to the States as well as provincial lines - though the latter is perhaps less felt than the former but is probably not always uncomplicated. A case to receive more media attention is the land dispute between the Mohawk Nation and the city of Oka in Quebec in the summer of 1990.
When Cohen raised the issue of what the master narrative of Canadian history should be, feelings ran high. Many objected to the idea of a national history because who would tell the story? European descendents of the promoters of confederacy? The white majority? The argument for a unified history is that it would increase the sense of what it means to be Canadian and increase national pride. Yet, a unified history isn't possible without reduction and marginalization of some rather large groups in Canada.
Perhaps the question needs to be raised to the level of historical concepts, that is perhaps it is the idea of a national history that needs to be rethought rather than Canada's history determined and agreed upon. A national history suggests a master narrative, a unified timeline of important events that subsume and elide regional, local and minority histories. If we can rethink gender as femininities and masculinities and think of this pluralism as an emancipatory move that allows for individual freedom and determination, then perhaps we can rethink the idea of what a national history is or should be. Perhaps it is time to envision and teach a democratic plural history of Canada.
Talking about Canadian histories rather than a reduced Canadian history can be Canada's way of presenting itself and would be an ever-changing monument to be proud of. Canadians are appreciated as level-headed, democratic and open outside Canada so there is no need for Canadians to be self-conscious about Canada's lack of a master narrative to define itself. It's a good thing to not pretend you can speak for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)