FYI

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Richler laments Canada as 'war-fighting nation'

  • Print

Title aside, this densely written commentary is about more than war. While its main focus is the "mythology" built around Canada as "warrior nation," its core relates to identity and what it means to be Canadian. A caution: one must pause from time to time to fully digest its theme.

Noah Richler, notwithstanding his famous namesake (novelist Mordecai was his father), is a man of ideas in his own right. A public intellectual known to provoke a debate (that apple fell close to the tree), Richler is a documentary writer, columnist, editor and award-winning author of This is My Country, What's Yours? Splitting his time between Toronto and Digby Neck, N.S., Richler has established himself as a leading critic and polemicist.

What We Talk About When We Talk About War emerged from his 2010 Antonine Maillet-Northrop Frye Literary Festival lecture. He says that talk was "short," so this book expands considerably on his original thoughts.

Richler's critique strikes at the Canadian historical narrative, specifically the "vigorous trend" of a "war-fighting nation." He doesn't just disagree with this, he feels its "jingoistic schema" has seriously altered Canadian policy and might similarly transform the national identity.

A crude chauvinistic epic has replaced Canada's once complicated "humanism." Now "vile enemies are necessary," and "heroic sacrifices" are venerated. Troublingly, anyone can be a hero now.

Richler has particular disdain for a band of conservatives: various journalists, academics and public figures, including historians David Bercuson and Jack Granatstein, former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier, newspaper columnist Christie Blatchford, and (egad!) CBC-TV comedian Rick Mercer (who is depicted in a recurring role as a military propagandist).

These, among others, he suggests, have so effectively pitched Canada's military identity that the true record has been marginalized, while policy has likewise realigned.

This is no small claim. Canada's new military image, Richler contends, "rides roughshod over history," and was a factor in the Conservative Party's "phoenix from the ashes." It has diminished Canada's real identity and peacekeeping tradition.

This tectonic shift in the Canadian "self" occurred between 2001 and 2006 -- from 9/11 to the robust mission in Kandahar. By then, he says, the groundwork was complete for a refurbishment of identity and policy.

Richler makes a good case for the peacekeeping tradition in Canada, but some of his critiques are stale. To wit: Canada's peacekeeping contribution "plummeted" to 33rd internationally by 2001 (then 57th by 2010). True, but not the whole story: after the Cold War, the number of peacekeeping missions grew from around five to more than 40, requiring thousands of new soldiers, and many new players joined the contributing field.

The UN pays peacekeeping soldiers, so heavy contributions came from developing states such as Bangladesh, Pakistan or Ethiopia. Regardless of military cutbacks or a new focus on war fighting, then, Canada's relative contribution inevitably would have dropped.

Richler does not disregard Canada's past military operations. But he says the "Vimy effect" and other presentations of militarism are "propaganda" used as part of a "national purpose" to create a martial identity. On Afghanistan, Richler argues the war was never about improving Afghan lives, or building schools for girls.

Rather, the war is about alliances with the U.S. and a stable environment for global trade. Not exactly shocking, but realistic, when one seriously considers that Canada's policy is actually rooted in self-interest, not global philanthropy. (Richler suggests that Canada's policies may have a compassionate attribute, but are disturbingly narcissistic: "Look what a good and proud nation we are").

Richler's style can be off-putting. His broad sweep may lose readers in poetry, Canadian-American relations, historicism or Ghanaian proverbs. Literary and popular cultural references dot the landscape -- Greek epics, television, film and science fiction. His title riffs off American short story master Raymond Carver's 1981 collection, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.

With rich references to ideological theory, religion, literature, academia and journalism, it's nonetheless frustrating for such a thoughtful position undermined by needless name-calling such as "channel for propaganda" (Canadian journalists), "laughable" and "ridiculous" (historians) and "professional imbecile" (Don Cherry).

Richler must have anticipated polarizing his readers. Even so, while his facts are generally solid, there are oversights: for instance, Operation Enduring Freedom was not a "precursor" to the International Security Assistance Force; the JTF 2 weren't fighting "clandestinely" (Canadians were told they were there); and it's the Munk Centre for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto.

Moreover, one can't agree with everything in it, but with its challenging ideas and provocative theme, it's worth the effort. If this book does not fire a debate, then it will be because we are not up for it.

 

George A. MacLean is associate dean in the faculty of graduate studies and professor of political studies at the University of Manitoba.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition May 26, 2012 J12

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes

    No

  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.