How to Define a National Identity

    What is a Canadian identity? Historians have long searched for an answer to this question since confederation. Are we closer to our British origins or our American neighbours? Are we something else in between? The first step is typically to determine when and where Canada became a nation. If we can nail that down, they we can figure out what Canada’s national identity is. 

    Historians often look for nationalizing moments. Moments in Canada’s history where there was a clear turning point from disparate colonies towards a clear nation. Some would estimate this occurred as early as the War of 1812, well before confederation. Proponents of this school of thought argue that the War of 1812 was the first military campaign where Canadians showed unity. Except you can hardly call the British settlers living in British North America, Canadians. The War of 1812 had little to do with Canada as a nation since it was more a war between Britain and America fought on what is now considered Canadian lands, but at the time was colonial British lands. More importantly, this moment is exclusionary to much of Canada’s population. The narrative of 1812 favours soldiers and commanders who were predominately white men, and in the case of commanders, they were rich. There has been recent scholarship into the War of 1812 to recognize Indigenous communities’ involvement which has rightly expanded this early definition of a nation. However, women and other communities of colour are greatly excluded from this narrative. One need look no further than the treatment of Laura Secord in the war of 1812 to understand how women were excluded from this narrative. 

Secord depicted here on a Canadian stamp for the bicentennial of the War of 1812

    Laura Secord lived in the small village of Queenston during the American occupation of the Niagara region. She had several children with her husband prior to the war. She continued to run her household during the war even after her husband returned home wounded. She became his primary care giver and even hosted American soldiers as was her duty. On one such evening, she heard the American plans to ambush British soldiers. As her husband was wounded and incapable of making the trek to warn the British, she did it herself. While this story has passed into Canadian legend now, her efforts to the war went ignored for much of her life. Even today, historians often discredit her efforts and argue that the British were already made aware of the impending attack and thus rendering Secord’s efforts irrelevant. My point here is, what does it matter? Evidence from the time tells us its impossible to know who got to the British first, but regardless of the outcome is her feat not outstanding? Why is she discredited from the narrative because the British might have already known? 

    Approximately 100 year later, historians point to another pivotal moment in Canada’s history that has been often understood to be nation building. This is of course, the battle at Vimy Ridge. 50 or so years after confederation, and Canada’s separation from Britain, Canada was engaged in France during the First World War. Vimy Ridge was part of a large offensive in order to take more of the Western front from the Germans. While it is true that British and French troops attempted to take the Ridge but were unsuccessful, the Canadian Expeditionary Force were able to do so. It is still very impressive that a relatively new country, new expeditionary force, was able to take the same territory where the old world giants had failed. However, in the grander scheme of things, the offensive was a failure since no one else captured their objective. It’s problematic to argue that this was the moment that Canada became a nation. Again, this is an exclusionary narrative that emphasizes soldiers that were predominately male and white. Just as with the War of 1812, people of colour and women are largely excluded. How can you say this is when Canada became a nation when only a small section of it population is included? 

    It’s not only wars and pivotal moments that historians point to be nation building but social activities like sports. Surely, Canada’s unofficial national sport, hockey, can be accepted as a national identity. Growing up in Canada, although I never played myself, it was never far off. A classic Saturday night staple like Hockey Night in Canada was always on at dinner in my house and there was always talk of who had won what game and who was to be traded to whatever team. You can’t deny that hockey is deeply connected to growing up as a Canadian as I’m sure many Canadians have similar experiences. 

    However, as a national identity hockey too is problematic. If we look at the origins of the game, a few trends emerge. Just like in the wars, hockey’s first participants were white men to the exclusion of men of colour who were simply not allowed to play the game. Additionally, women were also excluded from playing. It was exclusively a white male dominated game. Moreover, hockey is a costly sport and that is true then as it is today. Indeed, many leagues require participants to pay entry fees for use of the rinks on top of the cost of equipment the various hockey pads, helmets, skates, mouth guards, hockey sticks and pucks. Not to mention the travel fees associated with the various tournaments held on weekends that many Canadian kids attend. These extensive costs makes it hard for families outside the upper and middle classes to participate in Canada’s sport. 

    One of the main issues that comes from these three examples is that a Canadian identity is at conflict with itself. Canada enjoys and propagates a notion of multiculturalism and tolerance. Except, in all three of these examples, white men are the ones included in the narrative. There is little mention of people of colour, of women, or of people outside upper and middle classes. 

    So at the end of all this, what can we point to that exemplifies a Canadian national identity? I would say that there is no singular event or past time that can be universally accepted by nation of 30 million people. The notion that there was one event in our past that made us a nation makes us static, it makes us unchanged. A nation, like its people, is multifaceted and ever changing. It’s not productive to point to a moment 100 years ago that made us a nation. Canada, and the world, is not the same as it was 100 years ago. Canadians value different things and as such the national identity should change to reflect that. It’s important to acknowledge our history and understand where we came from but it’s also important to acknowledge our present and look to the future of what we want our national identity to look like.