No worries about the length and number of the questions - this stuff is what I love to talk about the point I made a career out of it, so I'm happy to see it!
There are some unique dynamics in play when it comes to Canada in the early 1800s. Canada's ruling families (and they really were families at the time; the ruling oligarchies intermarried extensively) are themselves a minority group at odds with much of the population. In what becomes Quebec, they are largely English speaking, protestant merchants living amongst a conquered and disenfranchised French Catholic population. In what becomes Ontario, the ruling clique are mostly the descendants of loyalists from the American revolution, and practice Anglicanism - but the majority of the population, until the latter half of the 1800s, are economic immigrants from the states who practice Methodism (they're also being disenfranchised and oppressed). On top of this, the oligarchs live nextdoor to a vastly more populous nation ideologically opposed to their existence, that has invaded them twice within living memory - once during the Revolutionary War, and the second time during the War of 1812.
As a result, the ruling class in Canada sees the loyalty of minority communities as necessary to secure their continued existence. They are by no means less bigoted than American elites - it is the 1800s and they are colonialists with pretensions of aristocratic status. But they (correctly) identify that in the event of revolution or another breakout of hostility with the United States, their only hope of survival is to mobilize First Nations allies of Canada's growing population of African-American migrants. They are not their only sources of political support, but they're not as reliant on the ballot box as American elites are at this point anyway. Their fears about rebellion and invasion are realized in 1837, and the military support they were seeking among minority populations does end up being what saves them - only for the British to impose democratic reforms and dismantle the basis of the oligarchy's power anyway. Which to be clear I'm not super broken up about. I don't think anyone wants to go back to a Canada where we're openly discussing if we should develop an aristocracy on purpose, which was an actual political debate at the time.
In terms of 'good' elites vs 'bad' elites, the difference is that America's system of government was designed by believers in democracy. Canada's system of government is designed by believers in an ideology called Mixed Monarchy. Essentially, Britain had it's experiment with democracy before America tried theirs - it's called the English Civil War and it ended badly enough people are still arguing about whether things the opponents of the monarchy did constitute genocide. The conflict was caused by the increasing authoritarianism of the monarchy, but the radicalism of the republic that overturned it resulted in mass religious violence, pretty terrible governance, government dysfunction and ultimately the monarchy being brought back by many of the same people who'd shown in the door. Mixed Monarchy is the product of British people trying to learn the lessons of this conflict. What they conclude is basically that society is comprised of various different interest groups, and that the supremacy of any of these groups is going to end very poorly for the others. The solution they come up with is that the power of these groups needs to be balanced to ensure the Monarch, the Church, the Aristocracy and the Commons can't pursue their agendas unchecked. "Bad" leaders in this context aren't worse people, they're just less restrained, able and willing to strive for true dominance in this system (upsetting the balance and, according to the Mixed Monarchists, bringing the horrors of The Revolution back).
This ideology is no longer dominant in Canada, but there are lingering effects of it. There's this vague sentiment up here that majoritarianism or identifying too strongly with a given identity group is somehow sinister and foreign, with the politicians who lean too much into it actually suffering electoral pushback. It's what politicians in *those* countries do, and it puts a significant portion of the population off. A lot of people's ideal political leader up here isn't perfectly in touch with the will of the masses, but rather a person who is able to assure a wide variety of audiences that they're adequately sympathetic to them. The sentiment is reflected in political realities, with a person needing to be able to build coalitions in a very diverse country if they want to make it in politics. It's broadly understood in modern Canada that not being bilingual is electoral poison if you're aiming for the top. You can't be the Prime Minister if you can't find a Sikh willing to sit in your cabinet. Poor relations with First Nations communities have politically wounded not one but two Trudeaus. The trio are in this context leaning into people's biases - they're coalition builders, they're not identified too strongly with the group people in-universe would place them in, and so they feel vaguely safe and virtuous. The Bristows, Mussers and Charles' of the the story though, that are strongly identified with interests of the group they're identified with and ruthlessly pursuing them, do not come off this way. That's not how people's guts tell them things are supposed to be done here. They're alien, they're scary, they remind us most of bad things we've heard happening to other people, somewhere else. The trio supplanting them kind of feels like a return to the way Things Should Be rather than a radical change.
(If you got pinged twice my bad, I forgot to log in and posted this anonymously. Then deleted it because it made my IP address public.)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Thanks and Questions
Date: 2024-10-05 02:55 am (UTC)There are some unique dynamics in play when it comes to Canada in the early 1800s. Canada's ruling families (and they really were families at the time; the ruling oligarchies intermarried extensively) are themselves a minority group at odds with much of the population. In what becomes Quebec, they are largely English speaking, protestant merchants living amongst a conquered and disenfranchised French Catholic population. In what becomes Ontario, the ruling clique are mostly the descendants of loyalists from the American revolution, and practice Anglicanism - but the majority of the population, until the latter half of the 1800s, are economic immigrants from the states who practice Methodism (they're also being disenfranchised and oppressed). On top of this, the oligarchs live nextdoor to a vastly more populous nation ideologically opposed to their existence, that has invaded them twice within living memory - once during the Revolutionary War, and the second time during the War of 1812.
As a result, the ruling class in Canada sees the loyalty of minority communities as necessary to secure their continued existence. They are by no means less bigoted than American elites - it is the 1800s and they are colonialists with pretensions of aristocratic status. But they (correctly) identify that in the event of revolution or another breakout of hostility with the United States, their only hope of survival is to mobilize First Nations allies of Canada's growing population of African-American migrants. They are not their only sources of political support, but they're not as reliant on the ballot box as American elites are at this point anyway. Their fears about rebellion and invasion are realized in 1837, and the military support they were seeking among minority populations does end up being what saves them - only for the British to impose democratic reforms and dismantle the basis of the oligarchy's power anyway. Which to be clear I'm not super broken up about. I don't think anyone wants to go back to a Canada where we're openly discussing if we should develop an aristocracy on purpose, which was an actual political debate at the time.
In terms of 'good' elites vs 'bad' elites, the difference is that America's system of government was designed by believers in democracy. Canada's system of government is designed by believers in an ideology called Mixed Monarchy. Essentially, Britain had it's experiment with democracy before America tried theirs - it's called the English Civil War and it ended badly enough people are still arguing about whether things the opponents of the monarchy did constitute genocide. The conflict was caused by the increasing authoritarianism of the monarchy, but the radicalism of the republic that overturned it resulted in mass religious violence, pretty terrible governance, government dysfunction and ultimately the monarchy being brought back by many of the same people who'd shown in the door. Mixed Monarchy is the product of British people trying to learn the lessons of this conflict. What they conclude is basically that society is comprised of various different interest groups, and that the supremacy of any of these groups is going to end very poorly for the others. The solution they come up with is that the power of these groups needs to be balanced to ensure the Monarch, the Church, the Aristocracy and the Commons can't pursue their agendas unchecked. "Bad" leaders in this context aren't worse people, they're just less restrained, able and willing to strive for true dominance in this system (upsetting the balance and, according to the Mixed Monarchists, bringing the horrors of The Revolution back).
This ideology is no longer dominant in Canada, but there are lingering effects of it. There's this vague sentiment up here that majoritarianism or identifying too strongly with a given identity group is somehow sinister and foreign, with the politicians who lean too much into it actually suffering electoral pushback. It's what politicians in *those* countries do, and it puts a significant portion of the population off. A lot of people's ideal political leader up here isn't perfectly in touch with the will of the masses, but rather a person who is able to assure a wide variety of audiences that they're adequately sympathetic to them. The sentiment is reflected in political realities, with a person needing to be able to build coalitions in a very diverse country if they want to make it in politics. It's broadly understood in modern Canada that not being bilingual is electoral poison if you're aiming for the top. You can't be the Prime Minister if you can't find a Sikh willing to sit in your cabinet. Poor relations with First Nations communities have politically wounded not one but two Trudeaus. The trio are in this context leaning into people's biases - they're coalition builders, they're not identified too strongly with the group people in-universe would place them in, and so they feel vaguely safe and virtuous. The Bristows, Mussers and Charles' of the the story though, that are strongly identified with interests of the group they're identified with and ruthlessly pursuing them, do not come off this way. That's not how people's guts tell them things are supposed to be done here. They're alien, they're scary, they remind us most of bad things we've heard happening to other people, somewhere else. The trio supplanting them kind of feels like a return to the way Things Should Be rather than a radical change.
(If you got pinged twice my bad, I forgot to log in and posted this anonymously. Then deleted it because it made my IP address public.)