Open for Business: Canadian Politics 2019

They've been reading ilx.

It's barely a parody at this point:

https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/563006/mot-cle-les-excuses-repetees-de-trudeau-suffiront-elles

'Rebuked in the ROC, forgiven in Quebec'

Sad lol at the final paragraph of that Beaverton piece:

“We have confirmed that the subject in question was not an employee of the Quebec government and was wearing makeup,” said Quebec Premier Francois Legault. “Our secular laws are meant to target real people of colour, not fake ones.”

Otoh, here is a completely different take from the francophone press, arguing out that JT should have known better since his father was also the 'father of multiculturalism' and that, as a drama teacher, he should have been aware of the history of blackface. More pertinently imo, though, the author also challenges the argument raised by the pundits in the Le Devoir piece that blackface means something different in Quebec since it has less connection to American cultural history (itself a debatable proposition): she ddiscusses the history of minstrelsy in Quebec and Canada more generally, including Quebecois troupes and even Calixa Lavallée, author of "O Canada".

Here is the piece, sorry: https://www.lapresse.ca/elections-federales/201909/19/01-5242021-il-ny-a-rien-la-.php

En 2001, Justin Trudeau n’était plus un élève du secondaire, mais un enseignant de 29 ans. Et il enseignait… le théâtre ! Il devait bien avoir entendu parler du minstrel show

There's unfortunately less of a causal link there than she'd like.

the history of minstrelsy in Quebec

lasting up to the 1950s, acc. to the piece; Lavallée apparently performed in blackface in an American troupe. xp

https://globalnews.ca/news/5926620/blackface-canada-history/

In a 2005 doctoral thesis, University of Toronto researcher Lorraine Elmire Louise Le Camp documented hundreds of minstrel performances across Canada from the 1840s to 1960s. These include shows mounted by charitable organizations, religious groups, schools and members of the military and law enforcement.

I think this is where I need to confess to my online community that I dressed up as the Iron Sheik for Halloween 1988. It was a different time and I hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive me.

Admittedly, I did not colour my skin, although I did paint on a moustache.

Nobody is arguing that minstrel shows weren’t part of the Quebec cultural landscape, it’s just that even in the 2010s some prominent Quebec comedians argues that painting your face black as nothing to do with minstrelsy. The question really is did Quebec francophone culture took the time to digest the racism of minstrelsy and its consequences and the answer is no obviously not, let’s remember they still call themselves the white n-words of americas.

I dressed up as the Iron Sheik for Halloween 1988

Easiest FP ever.

How do you read Theriault's argument as presented in Le Devoir and quoted below, VHS? I do think he is positing a distance between Quebec's cultural landscape and the practice of performing blackface minstrel shows:

Le sociologue Joseph Yvon Thériault explique ce contraste par l’histoire différente du Québec et du reste du Canada, de même que la proximité culturelle du Canada anglais avec les États-Unis. Le blackface est né au sud de la frontière au XIXe siècle, où les spectacles de minstrels permettaient à des acteurs blancs de se moquer des Afro-Américains avec un accent ridicule ou des comportements enfantins. La société américaine s’est construite autour de l’esclavage et de son abolition et le phénomène du blackface y a été structurant, explique M. Thériault. Au fil des décennies, le Canada et les pays anglo-saxons se sont américanisés. La sensibilité au blackface s’est importée. Mais le Québec s’est davantage construit en miroir à la France, dont le passé colonialiste n’a pas compté le même épisode d’esclavage en terre française qu’aux États-Unis, note M. Thériault. « La notion est moins prégnante » au Québec, dit-il.

My FSL translation:

The sociologist Joseph Yvon Thériault explains the contrast with reference to the different histories of Quebec and the rest of Canada, along with English Canada's cultural proximity to the US. Blackface was born south of the border in the 19th century, where minstrel shows allowed white actors to mock African-Americans with a ridiculous accent and juvenile actions. American society was built around slavery and its abolition and the phenomenon of blackface was one of its structuring elements, explains Mr. Thériault. Over the course of decades, Canada and other Anglo-Saxon countries became Americanized and thus imported a sensitivity to blackface. But Quebec developed more in the image of France, whose colonial past did not include the same kind of history of slavery on French soil as was seen in the US, notes Mr. Thériault. "The idea does not have as much significance", he says.

(Obv, you don't need that, VHS, but some readers might.)

(Or maybe I'm getting something wrong, which you could point out.)

I’ll speak in generalities for the sake of shortness.

I think it’s mostly bullshit, Quebec culture is very aware of many aspects of american culture and most of the time have imported them. After all they are aware enough they compare themselves to slaves as per the moniker I referred to upthread, it’s simply that the only racism Quebec culture and society has ever cared about is the one made against themselves by anglos. + perhaps some aspects of FNIM racism in the margins.

France’s brand of racism is that it does not understand why not everyone does exactly like France’s culture and politics, the Republique values are supposedly unbiased, universal, eternal, so to not subscribe to these sentiments, to not erase your race at the altar of these values, is sin against humanity. I don’t think that sentiment exists in Quebec. I think Quebec’s geographical and cultural isolation made it so they simply didn’t care to download the racism memo that has developed since the 60s, nor did it upload their experience of racism it to the world really, are african americans aware of Quebec’s struggles ? It is important to understand that some quebecers won’t consider themselves ‘white’ as per constructed by recent intersectional thinkers.

None of that explains Trudeau who is the son of famous PM and whose personal experience can’t be understood in those generalities.

I agree that it seems obviously wrong. It's just somewhat incredible to me that a sociologist could make that argument and have it repeated in a respected paper.

Tbf Le Devoir isn't exactly known for its progressive views.

For example, the complete absence of east and south asians (despite large demographics) in Quebec cinema is really because Quebecers are obsessed with telling their own stories as a habit of self-preservation, and if it ignores large swaths of the population then who cares? The priority is self-preservation.

All of that is changing with the narrative of cultural genocide by multiculturalism promoted by Quebecor and les nationalistes identitaires. But I don’t think these two forms of racism, ‘targeted and willful ignorance’ and ‘absolute demographic fear for the future’ are that exclusive to one anothee.

Le Devoir has an old history of violent anti-semitism for which it never apologized. As a newspaper, it is written form of what I described earlier.

I mean, if the gist of the argument is something like 'blackface is always more hurtful in a country with a long traumatic history of slavery than it is in a province that has practiced slavery on a relatively small scale and for a much shorter period of time', it's not wrong per se. But if we're expected to conclude that there's nothing reprehensible about blackface in Quebec or that the Québécois are somehow unaware of basic facts about their southern neighbours' past, that's messed up. I don't think that's what he's saying, though (his line is that 'it's a less entrenched notion') – he just does a very poor job of properly contextualizing and historicizing the practice in Quebec, which is doubly problematic coming from someone in his position.

I hope the quebec dubbing of Eddie Murphy remains a secret amongst card carrying members of L'amérique du nord francophone.

On a slightly unrelated note, I remember reading Tintin au Congo as an eight year-old at the Bibliothèque de Côte-des-Neiges and it was a perfectly normal, educational thing to do at the time.

I mean, if the gist of the argument is something like 'blackface is always more hurtful in a country with a long traumatic history of slavery than it is in a province that has practiced slavery on a relatively small scale and for a much shorter period of time', it's not wrong

I'm not sure why Quebec should be different from English Canada in this regard?

His argument is that English Canada is more Americanized than Quebec. Insofar as much of ROC culture is essentially indistinguishable from American culture (a typical Québécois claim), it more readily parses blackface as inherently racist.

Like Montreal is the first non-american city to have a baseball team and part of it is thanks to Jackie Robinson's one season stay with the Royals, it has the world largest and most beloved jazz festival, it has the brute force of the american film industry exporting films in our cinemas by the thousand, it has a deep understanding of racism towards its own french population, it has the actual minstrelsy history, all the elements are here to clearly understand what blackface is. Not knowing how hurtful blackface is, is a choice. It's not historical circumstances.

Quebec cultural elite can't pretend to be assailed by american and canadian culture and use that excuse to bar religious garments in public service as to self preserve AND suddenly be ignorant of one the most significant aspects of american culture.

On a slightly unrelated note, I remember reading Tintin au Congo as an eight year-old at the Bibliothèque de Côte-des-Neiges and it was a perfectly normal, educational thing to do at the time.

I never read that Tintin when I was a kid (for whatever reason, I didn't like Tintin as a kid) but I did read a lot of Astérix and there was the African character on the pirate ship which was basically the comic book equivalent of black face. I wonder what black kids who read Astérix thought of that character?

Only woke dude on that pirate ship imo

His argument is that English Canada is more Americanized than Quebec. Insofar as much of ROC culture is essentially indistinguishable from American culture (a typical Québécois claim), it more readily parses blackface as inherently racist.

I realize that's the argument. The logical twists required to support it are doing my head in, though.

So much Quebec punditry and social media is about finding excuses for racism and not owning up to the mistakes.

(I’ll soon be done with these rants)

Tbf I think it's fair to say that English Canada occupies a middle ground between Quebec and the US in this regard. It deems blackface highly offensive, but nowhere near as much as in the US (imagine a Dem candidate in Trudeau's shoes right now), and certainly more than in Quebec where it just elicits a collective shrug. So the claim that there are contextual gradations doesn't seem beyond the pale to me. Like I said, what I find unacceptable is the implication that Quebec is ultimately right not to give much of a fuck, which is why we need more articles like Isabelle Hachey's in La Presse.

xp

Tbf I think it's fair

lol I need to stop using 'tbf'.

Yeah, that sounds fair and, as noted above, I don't even consider Trudeau's past actions unforgivable.

Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but Thériault comes across as saying '…and this is fine, so deal with it, anglos!', which just stems from most annoying navel-gazing persecution complex imaginable, especially with Legault at the helm and the motherfucking Loi 21.

ours is a two-party system in all but name

Although I'm not satisfied with our electoral system, it is true that we frequently have minority governments with multi-party confidence and supply arrangements or occasionally coalitions and that multiple parties govern at the provincial level. Are there any countries that actually have something that could be described as a stable multi-party 'system' with regards to the head of government, i.e. where the position of head of government (President, PM, Chancellor, ...) regularly rotates between more than two consistent parties? I've asked this elsewhere and not got an answer. Most countries I can think of have two main governing parties with other parties mostly serving as coalition partners. When a third party wins government, it is usually either a one- or two-term flash in the pan or the beginning of a new two-party system.

I don't think I really understand French parties at all, though.

(And actually, a lot of the cases I thought of where there are not two consistent governing parties come close to being one-governing-party systems with occasional interlopers, like Sweden or Japan. Canada is maybe somewhere between this and a two-party system tbh?)

Are there any countries that actually have something that could be described as a stable multi-party 'system' with regards to the head of government, i.e. where the position of head of government (President, PM, Chancellor, ...) regularly rotates between more than two consistent parties?

Not for the head of government (though see below), but Australia has only had a Prime Minister with a majority once since 1996, and currently has 12 parties represented in the Senate. It's been very unstable for a decade, though!

There's a sooort-of two-party system inasmuch as since 1925, the balance of power in the Lower House has swung between the Labor Party, and a formal coalition of whichever the largest right-wing party is at the time, and whichever the largest farmers'-rights party is at the time. (Since 1998, there has been a coalition of three, with a single-state right-wing-farmers'-rights party added to the mix.

Exceptions are in 1931, when a new right-wing party formed a minority government, before establishing their coalition next time, and 2010, when Labor formed a minority with the support of three independents and one Green.

Since the 1950s, the Senate has traditionally had additional representation, often holding a balance of power, by a left-wing party or two (as well as independents). This largely came from single-party lower-house voters who would vote differently in the upper house on the "keep the bastards honest" principle. In the 50s and 60s this was the Democratic Labor Party, in the 70s and 80s they were replaced by the Australian Democrats, the Nuclear Disarmament Party had some minor action in the 80s, and since 1990 the Greens have been a fluctuating force (becoming more of a middle-class generalist party than a "stop woodchipping" party as the Democrats withered, and the Labor party shifted more and more right-wing.)


Currently the Labor party has 69 seats, and the Liberal (read: tory) party has 45, but by the terms of the formal coalition, the leader of the Libs gets to be PM, and the leader of the larger of the two farmer's parties gets to be deputy, and acting PM when the PM is overseas. So we frequently have the head of a party with 10 (out of 151) seats in Parliament as the PM.

We also have not had an election where the resulting PM served a full three-year term since 2004: in 2010, 2013, 2015 and 2018, the ruling party or larger coalition member has undergone a civil war and kicked out the PM, replacing them with another MP.

I mean, the PM has been either Liberal or Labor for the last 50 years, right? That's what I'm asking about, really; Canada has had various parties come and go too. I'm genuinely curious if there are any cases where the PM could e.g. be Liberal, Labor, or Green, and all three parties regularly take turns heading the government over the course of decade. It seems like people ultimately gravitate towards a binary.

Liberal or Labor except that multiple times a year, it will be a Nat. In a Westminster system, of course, the PM doesn't have many powers.

oops (Since 1998 2008, there has been a coalition of three btw

would italy count?

a stable multi-party 'system' with regards to the head of government

We've got a boatload of different parties in Romania, and they do alternate somewhat (with the notable exception of the ever-ubiquitous Social Democratic Party, ex-'communists' who are in fact a Trojan Horse that does not stand for any left-wing values and whose sole characteristic feature is corruption) but I suspect that this wide array of electoral choices reflects the country's relative instability more than anything.

There's been prime ministers from four different parties in Denmark in the last 50 years. But I don't really think the prime minister position is what's most impacted by a multi-party system, it's more about the different constellations of minority governments being able to govern.

Romania post-89 and Italy post-92 might count, although I would need to be convinced regarding stability in both cases. Based on Wikipedia, Denmark's PM has mostly been Social Democrat or Venstre since WW2 (and exclusively since 93), with two exceptions, one of whom was PM for three years? (11 years of Conservative People's Party does count for something.) I do think that weakening the stranglehold of a couple of party leaders would be a good thing, which could come from greater empowerment of MPs, greater empowerment of smaller parties, or both. It does seem like we'd very possibly still end up in the situation of having to hope for a 'lesser evil' of two main leaders as our head of government (the context in which the comment was made that I responded to), regardless of electoral system. I do find it interesting that any type of democratic system does seem to gravitate towards a binary. I don't know exactly why that should be the case - in principle, it should possible for a polity to organize itself around e.g. the four quadrants of the Political Compass or any number of other sorts of groupings - but it seems widespread.

I think the reason that most countries end up with a two party system is that people tend to vote against a party just as much as they vote for a party and this means that they will often end up voting for whichever party they think has the best shot at beating whichever the party they want to vote against, which makes it very difficult for a third party to gain any ground. I think for a lot of people, when voting for a third party you take the risk of splitting the vote on "your side" and handing over power to the other side.

At least this is what I feel is happening in the Canada and U.S.

already feeling like the brownface scandal isn't moving the needle much

i feel like this being released by the party that has demonized refugees/immigrants/muslims/thegays has taken a lot of the bang of it.

In other news, climate change skepticism appears to be on the rise:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-survey-suggests-canadian-trust-in-science-may-be-eroding/