|
Does 'Canada' end at Lake of the Woods?
I say this as someone who traditionally thinks Alberta has more in common with Ontario than Idaho or even Montana. Last week's federal election results really started me on a train of thought, questioning if this part of the literal Canadian nation-state that I live in is apart of a figurative Canada that fits the narrative of what Canada is.
If you look at Western Canada's election results, a large chunk of people, especially in Saskatchewan and Alberta, voted overwhelmingly for the CPC, despite their track record spanning 9 years. They also took up a decent number of seats in BC and Manitoba, though obviously less so.
But, if you hear the rhetoric being pumped out by many centrist or left-leaning Canadians following Trudeau's win, the impression is that the Harper years were an anomaly and that Canada will go back to itself and introduce policies that fit better with supposedly core Canadian ideals. Yet, many Western Canadians, including a majority in two of the provinces, voted against the Trudeau (or Mulcair) platform.
That being said, many did vote for the Liberals out west, including most of Winnipeg, and some urban ridings in Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, etc, not to mention the Lower Mainland. Which is why the election results were just the thing to kickstart this train of thought.
I also started looking into the political history of the country, finding that nearly all Prime Ministers have hailed from Ontario or Quebec, which does lend support for the rhetoric of 'the East' calling the shots.
Looking further, the Liberal party has been called Canada's "natural governing party", a party which is very Eastern-focused and whose values don't always align with Western Canadian ones. Hell, Edmonton was specifically chosen as the capital for Alberta over Calgary specifically because we were more Liberal-leaning.
Digging a bit further, growing up, we were told that (Anglophone) Canadians were the Loyalists, the ones who were pro-British, juxtaposing the Americans. This is a tale that is built up as if to be something to have defined us as a nation.
But really, what is now Western Canada was far more indifferent to what the Americans were doing. The West had a good relationship with the US and probably would have been fine ending up as part of their country. The main reason why Western Canada isn't apart of the Western US (or its own country) is because of early Canadian expansionism and wanting to secure this territory for its natural resources and keep it out of American hands. We were (some would argue that we still are) mere resource colonies for Ontario and Quebec to sink their teeth into, or so it would seem.
Another thing is that a lot of 'distinctly' Canadian things seem to have less relevance out here. The French-English divide, which many would argue is very central to Canada's existence as a country, isn't really a thing out here. A lot of culinary items specifically billed as Canadian seem to have stronger backings or origins in Eastern Canada, especially Quebec. Hell, maple trees aren't even native to Western Canada and yet they are on our flag!
Yes, one could argue that regional differences can and often do exist in nation-states, and that doesn't take away from still being a unified entity. But, the impression it feels like is that Western Canadian-derived things aren't as wholeheartedly embraced as distinctly Canadian things in the same way Eastern Canadian-derived things are.
It is hard for large countries to remain intact and united, especially on the cultural front, especially when population is so concentrated in one corner, so I guess sentiments of Western alienation and the like were inevitable. The only larger country that seems to this well is the United States, for obvious reasons.
Now, I'm not saying that Western Canada doesn't belong in Canada, or that it necessarily makes sense to have it as part of the United States. Western Canada seems like something in-between Eastern Canada and the United States, in my opinion.
Food for thought.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
