The Absurdity of a Canadian Nationalism

This will be a relatively short one.

I recently came across something that was rather bizarre to me.

I was watching a YouTube video made by a news outlet. It was tackling the topic of migrants in Canada, most notably talking about the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

It was broadly talking about the experiences of people on work visas in Toronto and what that has meant for the economy in recent years. I won’t really go into that here.

Anyway, there came a point where they were interviewing a white man who was born and raised in Canada. Needless to say, he wasn’t too fond of immigrants.

He said the usual things expressed by those with xenophobic sentiments. Immigrants are lazy and unskilled. They’re flooding the housing markets and increasing our rents. They’re taking our jobs and depressing our wages.

But there’s one thing he ranted about that really stood out to me.

He said that Canada as a nation is threatened by increasing levels of immigration. That if we keep letting people in, we risk losing our national identity and way of life. He was expressing a need to preserve Canada’s supposed heritage and culture.

He was essentially arguing in favour of a Canadian nationalism. A nativist project.

You may suspect that this man has participated in far-right gatherings, protests, or groups. You would be correct as that was shown in the video. But that’s beside the point.

I simply found this notion, to say the least, utterly ridiculous. And I’m sure any reasonable fellow Canadian can guess why.

The following claim may come dubious to some, though plausible to others:

Canada is considered a nation-state in North America and though it is certainly a State, it is not really a nation.

Canada is and has always been a land occupied by people from different backgrounds and ancestries, before and after Confederation.

It’s not a nation like Italy, Poland, Japan or others.

It is a country not united by heritage. Nor by collective memory.

Everyone draws their lineage and their family history from different places. Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Central America.

Nor is it united by language. Depending on what city or neighborhood you are in, the languages one can hear in public vary widely.

Canada is certainly not united by the soil. Unlike many other countries, the dominant group is not the natives here.

In fact, the people native to the land are at best marginalized and at worst made invisible.

Indigenous peoples were systematically subjugated, disregarded, and even killed.

When Confederation happened in 1867, Canada’s citizens were not natives. Rather, the natives were othered and largely excluded from political decision-making.

The natives were not allowed to vote in federal elections without conditions until 1960.

Before that, we had a process of Enfranchisement. The natives would have to directly serve the State of Canada, or largely give up their identity and culture in order to have a say in the State’s actions. To consent to a Canadian constitution that they didn’t have much say in creating.

This brings me to the one and only thing that can define a uniform Canadian identity:

One is a Canadian simply because they have consented to the Canadian Constitution.

They are united with others because they all are all subject to Canada’s laws and institutions.

Their association with one another is legal in nature, nothing more or less.

The State is the one that grants this shared Canadian identity. Either one is given it at birth, or acquires it through legal process.

That is all to say: there is no shared national history or identity in Canada; hence, to try to advocate for a nationalist project on such a boundary is nonsensical.

I certainly don’t think this is a bad thing.

I don’t find much in much utility or justification for being nationalistic. Trying to hyper-focus on a national identity can distract oneself from their own personal identity.

However, I can see scenarios in which nationalism is appropriate. Situations where you’re responding to another group’s nationalism. One that is violently imposing itself on you and deeming you as less worthy of moral consideration.

Algerian nationalism in the face of French Colonialism. Irish nationalism in the face of British Rule. Palestinian nationalism in the face of Israeli occupation.

Nationalism as a form of resistance against group-based oppression.

Otherwise, nationalist projects do not have much positive moral value, and they are not useful in protecting individual rights.

Hence, I think it’s a good thing it has been relatively uncommon for a Canadian to think in incredibly nationalist ways (or at least it should be).

It allows one to focus more on the people in their lives that directly and more substantially play a role in shaping their identity.

Their family, friends, peers, and community members.

Understanding oneself outside of a mere national identity can be rather liberating and permit one to focus on their own struggles and self-actualize more effectively.

From that, it can also lead to a person holding more authentic and well-guided politics that are rooted in understanding people’s real and material circumstances, ones that transcend national origin.

Basically, what I want to say is: Nationalism is, by and large, a useless distraction to the individual; however, even if it wasn’t, it would make no sense for a Canadian, out of all people, to advocate for it.