I understand the author's general point: that Canada Day masks a history of colonialism. Absolutely. I'm onboard with that, and recognizing that the wonderful 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' so beloved of the mainstream is imposed upon the original indigenous peoples of this land without their consent. Broken treaties, an Indian Act system that creates incentives to remain on tiny reserves.
I do not understand this statement, though:
"If you have benefitted from colonialism in one way or another, than those responsibilities are yours to own"
So if someone in Asia has opened a can of maple syrup, they are somehow now responsible for colonialism?
You can't possibly trace every benefit from colonialism and impose some sort of obligation on the recipient. Imagine a person in Spain who invested in a lumber mill in BC (buying 10 shares) in 1880. Their grandchildren use the proceeds to buy a house. Their children live in the house. Did they benefit from colonialism?
In other cases (such as the Oppenheimer's and their ownership of the diamond mines in South Africa, or the Sassoons and their control of the opium trade), it is pretty easy to tell.
Recent Comments
I do not understand this statement, though:
"If you have benefitted from colonialism in one way or another, than those responsibilities are yours to own"
So if someone in Asia has opened a can of maple syrup, they are somehow now responsible for colonialism?
You can't possibly trace every benefit from colonialism and impose some sort of obligation on the recipient. Imagine a person in Spain who invested in a lumber mill in BC (buying 10 shares) in 1880. Their grandchildren use the proceeds to buy a house. Their children live in the house. Did they benefit from colonialism?
In other cases (such as the Oppenheimer's and their ownership of the diamond mines in South Africa, or the Sassoons and their control of the opium trade), it is pretty easy to tell.