Order_of_Monkey

I was just wondering if anyone had read George Grants Lament of a nation ? I am reading right now for my Canadian studies class and im not sure if the man was a genius, insane or both . Im really on the fence right now and was wondering what other peoples thoughts of the book were.

__________________
Have a day

JJRousseau

Now there's a book that I read a long time ago. Tho remembering back, I find his ideas more interesting today than they were a decade ago.

Like most philosophers/historians/futurists judged in hindsight, I think he had some good insights while others were off the mark. I certainly respect his love and defense of this country.

IMO, he saw the effects of globalization before most people had heard of the word but I think he missed the boat with cultural homogenization (Is that a word?) of the English and French Canadians in the past and of the Americans in the future.

I seem to remember that he also had some interesting ideas on the effect of the competing political movements. But I can't remember the details. And certainly my personal political beliefs have changed since I read it so I doubt I would see his argument the same way. I'll have to read it again some day.

What is your take?

Order_of_Monkey

Im pretty much losted. Im just a history major who got stuck with a canadain studies course. I find some of his ideas to be real insightful while other seem just plain insane. The one i have a major issue with is how he keeps on refering to Canada as a dead country and how we now just serve as a satellite country to the states.

My poly sci background is pretty weak so I feel the book is doing me some good, but i think i need to really let it set in before i can fully judge the book and all its merits or lack there of.

__________________
Have a day

JJRousseau

Well consider this... (Warning, I'm stepping out of my league here) The essay was written in the mid 60s and was a response to the Liberals coming to power under Pearson. The USA was at it's height of cultural cool. The post war kids were much less conservative than their parents. JFK was and Marilyn were their idols. Many Canadians had stars in their eyes when they looked south.

AND the cold war was pushing us to integrate (assimilate) our military with the US.

AND the UK was moving toward economic integration with Europe - which further increased our dependence on the US as a trading partner.

The previous conservative PM, Diefenbaker, had tried to maintain older (read English) values and resisted the ties with the USA. It is believed that the CIA was involved in his government's defeat.

George Grant saw the election of Pearson as an embrace of all things American and thought that this association would necessarily result in our loss of identity.

JJRousseau

Come on Yakk, weigh in here. I'm just about to go off on my rant about the American peoples' rejection of their founding values....

Order_of_Monkey

its an interesting point ill give me that. This is far before my time so its really hard for me to get an image of the Canada of the day.

However as i read his essay the more he sounds like a crazy old man unwilling to change. At the start of chapter five he refers to how man is using science to perfect himself and how it will soon be the tool of the politicans. I find that he goes off at certain points from his essay and he really lowers the quilty of his essay. Again however i do understand that im looking back at time while he had to look forward at the progress of science at the time must have been terrifying

__________________
Have a day

Order_of_Monkey

I guess my major problem with him telling me Canada is dead is that Im a proud Canadian. With the current events in the world Canada has taken a stance that I am proud of. So when I read an essay that tells me that Canada has died far before i was born saddens me greatly. I dont know thats just my general thoughts

__________________
Have a day

JJRousseau

With regard to science, remember that this was written only a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don't remember the "perfecting himself" part. Does sound strange.

I think he was a proud Canadian too. But the country he relished was one of wool suits, tea at noon and God save the Queen. He couldn't envision a "Canada" with out that. I wonder how he felt years later.

Yakk

Sorry mate -- haven't read the essay.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

JJRousseau

Man the fish aren't biting today...

The author was a Red Tory (social conservative) who believed (wrongly) that the American ideals of liberty (see my angle) would subvert the Canadian way of life... No reading required...

Order_of_Monkey

my prof just spent the class explaining how all the terms of the book need to be up dated. It makes a lot more sence now i know what the heck his talking about. It seems less strange now that his refering to the liberals as the ones who wanted to sale out Canada once you get the full backgroud of the events

__________________
Have a day

JJRousseau

"Sell out" is a strong term. "Reject the ways of the British Empire" or "Embrace a new path"

Yes it is interesting that the Conservatives of the time were somewhat socialist and the Liberals were more individualists. Those are the same wing of Conservatives who left the party when they united with the Alliance.

pinoychink790

i have read that book, and the guy was both insane and genius. trust me on this one

Order_of_Monkey

The only reason im using the word "sell out" is because thats what the author viewed what the Liberals were doing.

Yeah it is interesting to see the shift in the parties. It makes you wonder what the political sence will look like in another 20 years

__________________
Have a day

vox_rox

The funny thing about that was that he was, at least to a point, sympathetic to the Marxist dogma, and Karl Marx talked about Globalization in its inherent dangers to the lower and working class, and he did this in 1800's. I think that Grant definitely borrowed some stuff from Marx.

Yet, he was absolutely a product of his time, and the Cold War paranoia is there as well. Strangely, although dated, he still seems to make a good case for a strong Canada.

When I read this, I was strongly reminded by some of things that were mentioned in Swift's scathing essay "A Modest Proposal." You may not see the parallels right away, but let it sink in a little, and you'll get the feeling he borrowed from that as well.

Peace,

Pierre

__________________
---
There is no such thing as strong coffee - only weak people.
---

JJRousseau

Intersting point. I have read very little about or by Marx

I do remember this title but nothing about it comes to mind. I'll have do do a bit of searching.

JJRousseau

Did some surfing for "A Modest Proposal". Yikes! I'll have to let that one sit for a while...

Yakk

Look for a commentary if it is scary. =p~

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

vox_rox

Yup, Yikes is right. Swift was a strong Irish Nationalist, even though he did work for the English in England for many years. If you read "Gullivers Travels" and really analyze it, most of the truly negative characters/creatures can be linked to personalities and groups that he dealt with during his time in England. It's absolutely amazing that he managed to do this. In fact, Lewis Carroll followed in his foot steps quite nicely with "Alice Through the Looking Glass."

But a modest proposal, although dripping with sarcasm, has one main point. If the Irish made things for the Irish, bought things made in Ireland, and had a better sense of the stength of a nation that supports itself, then that country will remain viable and healthy, regardless of external economic pressures. Whether or not he was right in any absolute sense is debatable, but "A Modest Proposal" stands as one of the first and still one of the best political parodies ever penned.

By the way, this is an awesome thread! Is it just me that thinks so?

Peace,

Pierre

__________________
---
There is no such thing as strong coffee - only weak people.
---