Parochialism

 

I wrote the following letter to the Globe and Mail. As you may expect, the newspaper chose not to print it. The original letter writer who I was responding to, as you can see, was not happy with the choice of the new Governor-General.

“The letter writer bemoans the fact that the new Governor-General is from Quebec and asks whether there were no candidates from the western provinces. Let me first point out that since 1950 there have been no Governors-General from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. Vincent Massey, in the 1950s, was the first Canadian who became Governor-General.

But can’t we get over the parochialism of labeling everything by province and realize that we are Canadians. The Governor-General represents Canada, not any one province.  Provinces have Lieutenants-Governor for that. Louise Arbour is the best candidate for Canada that I can think of at this time.  Her outstanding service in the Supreme Court of Canada plus her service in the International Court of Justice speaks to her competence and respect for the law. In both situations she represented Canada.

As an immigrant at age five, I was brought up in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen and served in the Royal Canadian Navy. I have lived in three provinces but always considered myself Canadian.  Why can’t others?”

Too many people today seem more interested in their province than their country. This parochialism has alienated provinces from each other and with the country.  How else do you explain so much talk of separation?

The US has this fixation with the state. Ask an American where he is from and he/she will invariably say what state.  In the UK, they will tell they are English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, although you had probably already figured this out from their accent. In Europe, South American, Australia and New Zealand, people tell you what country they’re from.

Those in Canada who demand a Governor-General from a region (the West, the Maritimes) have not suggested an outstanding person from their region as a good candidate for the job.  Can you?

Government Housing

 Military people might call these married quarters or PMQs. But government owned housing comes in many ways, and for different reasons. The Governor-General and the Prime Minister live in government housing.  Military people live in them. There is government housing on almost all military bases. It is common in almost every military in the world. In some countries, government houses come in the form of palaces or castles. But it is all government housing.

If you were assigned to one of these places, like married quarters (it is unlikely that any of my readers would live in palaces or castles), you would not think of making unilateral changes to the structure by yourself. You wouldn’t think of tearing down a wall or wing of the house or doing any significant modification without some type of official authorization.

The US White House is government housing.  It is meant to house the President of the United States and provide a workspace for his/her immediate staff. So, what gives the current president the idea that he can tear down an entire wing at the east end of the building?  Why does he think he has the right to build a garish “ballroom” on this site? Such permission is supposed to be approved by congress with the recommendation of a heritage counsel. Although the heritage body has condemned the plan (it was never asked about tearing down the old structure), the congress has never been asked to vote on it.  And what started off as vanity project to be paid for by donors has now to be funded by taxpayers’ money to the tune of one billion dollars.

Can you imagine getting away with that in married quarters? But Donald Trump does not believe in rules and laws. If that applied to us, wouldn’t be wonderful/horrible world!

“When a man is wrapped up in himself, he makes a pretty small package.”

  - John Ruskin

“No man is exempt from saying silly things; the mischief is to say them deliberately.”

  - Michel de Montaigne