Thank you for writing this article. It gives me hope particularly in Alberta where I believe the We is the way to having the important conversations which lead to solutions.
Interesting history. In a growing and increasingly complex world, 'we' vs 'I' will always be a stronger position - sometimes for learning and sometimes for defence.
I have noticed that your intelligent, level-headed analysis of bigger-picture politics is worth reading. Be that as it may, it seems to me that you could have chosen "patriotism" instead of "nationalism," and I wonder why you didn't.
Good question. Likely because I had just finished re-reviewing George Grant's Lament for a Nation. I used "nationalism" in his sense. I cited him in one of the links. I could well have chosen "patriotism" instead, but for different reasons.
Grant defines nationalism as the political will of a people to maintain their sovereignty and distinct identity in the face of external pressures, particularly from larger and more dominant powers. In Lament for a Nation, he sees nationalism as the conscious effort to preserve Canada's cultural, economic, and political independence, rooted in traditions, collective memory, and a shared vision of the common good.
However, Grant argues that true nationalism requires more than sentiment; it must be backed by political and economic independence. By the 1960s, he believed Canadian elites had abandoned this ideal, allowing Canada to become culturally, economically, and militarily subordinate to the United States. In this sense, Lament for a Nation is not just a critique of policy but a broader meditation on whether a small nation can resist the forces of globalization and liberal modernity.
Thank you for writing this article. It gives me hope particularly in Alberta where I believe the We is the way to having the important conversations which lead to solutions.
Sharon
In Alberta I sadly see the conservatives moving to the far, far right.
CPC, UCP
They use the “c” word but I don’t understand why we still call them that, when both parties are anything but conservationist.
Interesting history. In a growing and increasingly complex world, 'we' vs 'I' will always be a stronger position - sometimes for learning and sometimes for defence.
https://youtu.be/_OzbmriDgQc?si=W7Pe7TEQOgW7sHJZ
I have noticed that your intelligent, level-headed analysis of bigger-picture politics is worth reading. Be that as it may, it seems to me that you could have chosen "patriotism" instead of "nationalism," and I wonder why you didn't.
Good question. Likely because I had just finished re-reviewing George Grant's Lament for a Nation. I used "nationalism" in his sense. I cited him in one of the links. I could well have chosen "patriotism" instead, but for different reasons.
https://www.mqup.ca/lament-for-a-nation--40th-anniversary-edition-products-9780773530102.php
Grant defines nationalism as the political will of a people to maintain their sovereignty and distinct identity in the face of external pressures, particularly from larger and more dominant powers. In Lament for a Nation, he sees nationalism as the conscious effort to preserve Canada's cultural, economic, and political independence, rooted in traditions, collective memory, and a shared vision of the common good.
However, Grant argues that true nationalism requires more than sentiment; it must be backed by political and economic independence. By the 1960s, he believed Canadian elites had abandoned this ideal, allowing Canada to become culturally, economically, and militarily subordinate to the United States. In this sense, Lament for a Nation is not just a critique of policy but a broader meditation on whether a small nation can resist the forces of globalization and liberal modernity.
That's how I used "nationalism" in the title.