Nicolas: Ô Canada… quoi?

2023/02/24 Leave a comment

Of interest:

La star du R&B canadien Jully Black refusait de chanter l’Ô Canada dans des événements sportifs depuis déjà quelques années. En entrevue à la CBC, elle raconte avoir été profondément ébranlée par les nouvelles entourant la découverte présumée de tombes non identifiées d’enfants autochtones sur les terrains d’anciens pensionnats. Depuis, les mots ne venaient plus.

Le week-end dernier, elle a toutefois accepté d’interpréter l’hymne national pour un match des étoiles de la NBA… à sa façon. Plutôt que de prononcer les paroles anglaises habituelles « our home and native land » (« notre maison et terre natale ») , elle y est plutôt allée d’un « our home on native land » bien senti. Notre maison en terre autochtone. Il n’en a pas fallu plus pour que tout le pays réagisse.

D’un côté, sur les médias sociaux, son geste a suscité beaucoup d’admiration, notamment de plusieurs personnalités autochtones. De l’autre, des Canadiens très attachés à l’Ô Canada ont cru qu’elle avait outrepassé son rôle. La division dans les réactions n’est pas sans rappeler la tempête qu’a déclenchée le genou à terre de Colin Kaepernick en 2016. L’ex-joueur étoile de la NFL avait ainsi voulu attirer l’attention sur le problème de la brutalité policière aux États-Unis.

Sauf que nous ne sommes pas aux États-Unis. Et ici, l’hymne national a une histoire très particulière. On a presque envie de sourire devant un chroniqueur conservateur de Toronto qui croit qu’on ne peut pas toucher aux paroles de l’Ô Canada.

On a envie de lui rappeler que la musique originale est de Calixa Lavallée, et que le poème est d’Adolphe-Basile Routhier. Que l’hymne a été chanté pour la première fois le 24 juin 1880, pour les fêtes de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Que le mot « Canada », à l’époque, était encore largement synonyme du Canada français. Et que les traductions anglaises (oui, au pluriel — il y en a eu plusieurs) constituent déjà une forme de récupération politique d’un chant qui a été conçu pour parler de tout autre chose que ce qu’il représente aujourd’hui.

Au fond, le geste de Jully Black représente l’appropriation d’une appropriation d’une oeuvre. En en modifiant les paroles dans son interprétation, Black a posé un geste politique sur un chant dont la trajectoire est déjà liée intimement à l’évolution sociale du pays.

Ce n’est qu’en 1980, juste avant le rapatriement de la Constitution par Pierre Elliott Trudeau, que l’Ô Canada est devenu par loi l’hymne national du pays. Avant, des générations d’enfants avaient dû entonner God Save the Queen (ou King) dans les écoles du Dominion. Et en 2018, les paroles anglaises ont été modifiées par le Parlement, pour que le « true patriot love in all thy sons command » devienne un « true patriot love in all of us command », moins genré.

L’Ô Canada porte donc en lui les traces du nationalisme canadien-français du XIXe siècle, de l’autonomisation progressive du pays par rapport à l’Empire britannique au cours du XXe siècle, et de l’égalité des genres du XXIe siècle.

La réflexion sur la place des peuples autochtones au pays et sur l’histoire de la colonisation, qui a pourtant largement avancé dans les dernières années, se trouve encore absente du texte. Par son interprétation, Jully Black a repris une suggestion qui avait d’ailleurs été faite à maintes reprises auparavant, notamment sur nombre d’affiches dans les manifestations des dernières années.

Reste à savoir si, au-delà du moment viral, quelque chose de concret restera de son geste.
• • • • •
La réflexion ci-haut pourrait apparaître à première vue complètement futile. En effet, il y a mille et une crises urgentes dans le monde : un hymne national n’est certainement pas une priorité. Et même modifiées, les paroles d’un chant symbolique restent nécessairement symboliques. « Our home on native land » entonné avec la plus belle voix du monde ne fait absolument rien, concrètement, pour changer les rapports de force entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones au pays. On aurait raison, donc, de pointer du doigt les limites des discussions sur des sujets aussi complexes que la colonisation qui portent seulement sur des questions de représentations abstraites.

Ce qui est intéressant ici, c’est que le débat sur l’Ô Canada advient parce qu’il y a eu transformation — ou du moins, évolution — des mentalités canadiennes. C’est parce qu’il y a une réflexion de plus en plus répandue sur le rapport de l’État canadien à ses territoires que le geste de Jully Black trouve un écho. Ce qui est intéressant ici, c’est donc moins la modification des paroles elle-même que la manière dont elle résonne.

La politique québécoise a longtemps été principalement divisée entre souverainistes et fédéralistes. Et le « fédéralisme », dans ce contexte, sous-entendait une défense du statu quo.

Le Canada qui a organisé le love-in de 1995 était un Canada convaincu de ses propres vertu, grandeur et perfection. Pour bien des Canadiens, dont Black s’est en quelque sorte fait la voix le week-end dernier, ce Canada-là n’existe plus.

La critique du nationalisme canadien n’est plus, depuis plusieurs années déjà, une question politique qui émane presque exclusivement du Québec. Bien sûr, les peuples autochtones ont aussi critiqué le pays depuis sa fondation même. Mais il se trouve aussi maintenant de plus en plus d’alliés sensibilisés à ces perspectives qui utilisent leur voix (ici, littéralement) pour remettre en question des idées pourtant centrales à l’édifice idéologique sur lequel le Canada s’est construit.

Parfois, cette évolution politique s’exprime sous forme de débat sur les statues présentes dans l’espace public ou sur le nom d’un édifice. Maintenant, c’est de l’hymne national dont il est question. Mais l’important, dans ces moments d’éclat, ce n’est jamais la statue, l’édifice ou le chant. L’essentiel de l’affaire réside toujours dans le récit qu’on se raconte, comme société, pour faire corps.

Source: Ô Canada… quoi?

Filed under Aboriginal Tagged with , , ,

‘O Canada’ without the cross – why it’s time to revisit the lyrics of the national anthem

2021/02/01 Leave a comment

Highly unlikely change, given the debates and polarization that would result:

On Jan. 1, Australia – a country whose history and governance have great similarities to our own – revised its national anthem, Advance Australia Fair. The phrase “young and free” was updated to “one and free” to acknowledge the presence of First Nations and the land’s history prior to the arrival of the first European settlers.

Like Australia’s anthem, the English lyrics of O Canada have evolved to reflect contemporary attitudes. When O Canada was adopted by Parliament as the national anthem in 1967, one of the “we stand on guard” phrases in the original 1908 version was replaced with “from far and wide,” to reflect our vast geography and the increasing diversity of our population. In 2018, Parliament enacted a law changing the line in the English version “true patriot love in all thy sons command” to “true patriot love in all of us command,” to render it gender-neutral and therefore inclusive of half of our population.

In my view, the French and bilingual lyrics of O Canada now need revision. The bilingual version uses two lines from the French version. First, “ton histoire est une épopée des plus brillants exploits,” officially translated as “your history is an epic of brilliant deeds.” I embrace this line as an eloquent evocation of the best moments of our history and an aspirational goal for the future.

The second line, however, gives me pause: “car ton bras sait porter l’épée, il sait porter la croix,” translated as “for your [Canada’s] arm knows how to wield the sword, your arm knows how to carry the cross.” These words, of course, reflect the importance of the Catholic church in 19th century Quebec, the context in which O Canada was written. But to me, as a Jew, they now sound non-inclusive and obsolete.

The 2011 census, the most recent to ask about religion, reported that 67 per cent of Canadians identified as Christian, 9 per cent as other religions (Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, etc.) and 24 per cent gave no religious affiliation. Is it appropriate to include in the national anthem a religious symbol with which a third of our population (and possibly more in the coming 2021 census) does not identify?

Some religious and ethnic groups – Jews, Muslims, First Nations and Black people – have deeply unsettling historical memories of Christians carrying crosses, evoking recollections of their ancestors being victimized through conquest, forced conversion, or pogroms and violence.

Consider Quebec, the province in which O Canada was written and where it was first sung. In 2019, Quebec’s Laicity Act banned the wearing of religious symbols, including the cross, by public servants. Simultaneously with the proclamation of the Laicity Act, the Quebec National Assembly removed the cross that had hung there since 1936. If the Government of Quebec has taken these two dramatic steps to remove this symbol of Christianity from public life, then it would be consistent for it to advocate its removal from the national anthem.

My argument, addressed to all Canadians, but particularly to francophones, is that a reference to a religious symbol with which a substantial minority of Canadians do not identify, and which some in that minority find aversive, is no longer appropriate within a national anthem that we have continually revised to be inclusive for all Canadians.

If “la croix” were to be removed from the French version of O Canada, what would replace it? Here is a simple and inclusive replacement that contains two syllables and rhymes with “exploits.” It is “nos fois,” or “our faiths or beliefs.” The revised phrase of the French version would translate as “your arm knows how to wield the sword, your arm knows how to carry our faiths.” This revision would mean that our country knows how to respect or support the faiths or beliefs of all Canadians. It would apply to the faiths of those who affiliate with organized religions and the beliefs of those who don’t. I invite other readers to come up with alternative inclusive revisions.

The time has come for another revision to O Canada that eliminates the exclusivity of a reference to one religion’s symbol and replaces it with a more inclusive reference to religiosity or personal belief.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-o-canada-without-the-cross-why-its-time-to-revisit-the-lyrics-of-the/

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Fort McMurray creating multilingual national anthem for Canada Day

2020/06/08 Leave a comment

Not sure this is the best way to celebrate multiculturalism as the two official languages are part of integration (have more sympathy in case of Indigenous languages). Similarly, I would not be in favour of taking the citizenship oath in a non-official language, Indigenous possibly excepted:

The Multicultural Association of Wood Buffalo is making a multilingual version of O Canada to celebrate Canada Day.

The idea was born in part from the fact there are 50 languages spoken in Wood Buffalo, says executive director Therese Greenwood.

“It’s not something that people are generally aware of when they think of Fort McMurray,” Greenwood said.

Given the community is currently faced with an economic downturn, flood recovery and a pandemic, the association wanted to do something that would bring the community together, she said.”What we’re asking people to do is show your Canadian pride by being creative. Have your kids draw Canadian flags, dress in red and white, do whatever you want to do to celebrate the day,” Greenwood said.

“Eat a butter tart while you’re singing.”

Greenwood said there are already two submissions, one in Cree and one in Russian, with many more coming in.

Daisy Mella, 16, is sending in her submission; she’s singing in Tagalog.

Mella, who moved to Fort McMurray from the Philippines five years ago, said the strong Filipino community makes it easy to stay connected to her culture, while projects like this help.

“It’s really important to celebrate where you come from,” she said.Rory O’Hearn, a music teacher in Fort McMurray, has been trying to find ways to get his students excited about music class from home.

He’s putting a call out to his more than 400 students hoping for a few dozen kids to sing O Canada in Cree, French and English.

“I like to give them some kind of challenge and something to look forward to,” O’Hearn said. “A lot of them are bored at home.”

O’Hearn said he’s excited to celebrate Canada Day even if the traditional celebrations aren’t an option this year.

“I’m hoping this can bring some kind of joy.”

Galina Bala submitted her Russian version of the anthem. She was excited about the project, because she wanted to celebrate multiculturalism.”The closer we get, the greater life is,” Bala said.

Bala said she likes the feeling she gets when people speak to her in Russian in her day-to-day life, even if they only know one word. And to her, this multilingual anthem project is meant to give people the same feeling, but on a larger scale.

“Different languages with the same meaning… That’s what’s great about it.”

All of the videos will be posted on the association’s YouTube page. It will create one version of O Canada using all of the submissions for Canada Day.

“This kind of project is not a hard sell. People are all over this kind of thing,” Greenwood said.

The deadline for submissions is June 14.

Source: Fort McMurray creating multilingual national anthem for Canada Day

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

The Tenors sang ‘All Lives Matter’ in ‘O Canada.’ They were wrong.

2016/07/15 Leave a comment

One of the better commentaries – Adrian Lee provides one of the clearest expressions of why the critics of ‘Black Lives Matter’ have it wrong:

In place of the lyrics “With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free,” the group sang instead: “We’re all brothers and sisters/All lives matter to the great,” raising a marker-scrawled sign “All Lives Matter,” before returning to the standard lyrics in French. (A note of pity here for Michael Saunders, the Toronto Blue Jays’ Canadian-born outfielder, who stared blankly into the sun as the camera panned to him during this moment.)

Let’s leave aside what they could have meant by “to the great,” and take a moment to explain why the statement “All Lives Matter” alone here is thoughtless, at best. As a dismissal, or even a response to the statement “Black Lives Matter”—a movement and rallying cry for black communities in America, Canada and beyond who have witnessed, experienced and felt acts of discrimination (both overt and subtle) and are refusing to accept societal norms that have produced police brutality and other acts of violence—it is unworthy. It is a statement that salves the oppressor; it is a sentence that erases the pain by equating that pain to those experienced by everyone. It is, as the popular argument goes, the equivalent of telling a neighbour whose house is on fire that all houses matter. It is, as my colleague Jason Markusoff noted on Twitter, the rhetorical equivalent of interrupting those solemnly pausing on Remembrance Day to say “Never forget” with a haughty “No, it should be ‘Never forget all genocides’.” Never mind that taking vitriolic offence to the brusque response one often receives to “all lives matter” takes away from the actual issues at hand. “All Lives Matter” is, at best, unhelpful because it refuses to acknowledge that people are different, and some people are hurting right now.

Some may point to U.S. President Barack Obama’s more diplomatic note at the recent NATO summit in Warsaw: “When people say ‘black lives matter,’ that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter. That just means all lives matter.” This, it’s worth noting, is a different point than merely saying “All Lives Matter.” That’s because saying “Black Lives Matter” does not mean “only black lives matter”; that’s a flawed premise too, and it’s a defensive reading that refuses to acknowledge that those lives actually do. The conceit of “Black Lives Matter” is about focus, and not about exclusion; the reality that most of North American society has focused expressly on lives that are not black makes this urgent, and makes “All Lives Matter” particularly cruel.

Source: The Tenors sang ‘All Lives Matter’ in ‘O Canada.’ They were wrong.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Changing O Canada: Is God next?

2016/06/13 Leave a comment

Unlikely that any MP will press for this in the near future but in the longer term, the demographic trends suggest that it may happen.

Or not – after all, it is the French version that has the stronger religious references, and Quebec, despite its overall secularism, remains attached to religious symbols as the reasonable accommodation debate over the Cross in the Assemble national (in turn balanced against Quebec nationalist opposition to Canada):

Router’s [author of the French version of O Canada] world was Roman Catholic as far as his eye could see. But, according to the 2011 census, there are almost as many non-Christians — close to 11 million — as there are Roman Catholics in Canada. Catholics are officially nearly 13 million — although a lot fewer than that show up for Mass.

So it’s not just the Pagans who might complain about the holy bits in the anthem — although Pagans are not to be dismissed as a tiny band of malcontents. The census found more than 25,000 of them, including 10,000 Wiccans.

And they’d presumably be less than thrilled if you asked them to carry even the tiniest Christian cross.

The problem multiplies

But then you have to add a vast rainbow of other religions and non-religions. Among the faithful, the census turned up 900 Shinto followers, 1,050 Satanists, 1,055 Rastafarians, 3,300 Jains, 3,600 Taoists, 6,000 Zoroastrians and nearly 19,000 Bahai. No doubt, many of these folks might not mind if a generic, interfaith god keeps our land glorious and free — but are they supposed to revere the crucifix? The central icon of Christianity?

The problem multiplies much more rapidly when you begin to count the mainstream religions for whom the Cross of Jesus is irrelevant or worse. There are more than 300,000 Jews in Canada. The Hindus and the Sikhs are each approaching half a million. Muslims are well over a million.

Next, consider those who don’t want any religious label at all. Add up all the atheists, the humanists and agnostics, then throw in all those who just said, ‘No thanks, no religion’ … and you quickly reach nearly eight million Canadians. And what will the 2016 census show when it’s out? After another five less-than-glorious years for religious faith, it’s hard to believe those numbers won’t grow.

These faithless millions might well begin to wonder, then, if they should remain politely mute about the godly content of the national anthem. There’s plenty to pick on. The antiquated French lyrics go on:

“Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.”

So, roughly: “thy valour, steeped in faith, will protect our homes and our rights.” And what if we’re not steeped in faith? Don’t our rights get protected? What if we think religious faith is often a dangerous thing?

Defenders of the faith

But don’t wait for some Christian soldiers to saddle up for the defence of the one true faith. They’re doing it already.

“Members of Parliament are being hypocritical by attempting to change Canada’s English national anthem,” thunders Charles McVety, of the Institute for Canadian Values. We notice at once that “Canadian values” are meant to be Christian values — and McVety leaves no doubt of this when he warns that, if we change “sons” to “us,” it’s a slippery slope to hell.

“The next step for revisionists will be to remove ‘God,’ ‘wield the sword,’ ‘carry the cross’ and ‘valour steeped in faith’ from the anthems,” McVety predicts. “Canada’s national anthems are precious to the foundation of the country and should not be changed.”

And if the country includes millions of unbelievers — and millions more who recoil from the image of Christians carrying swords and crosses — too bad. The party of God is suiting up.

Source: Changing O Canada: Is God next?: Terry Milewski – Politics – CBC News

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Jonathan Kay: ‘In all thy sons command’ has had its day | National Post

2013/10/03 Leave a comment

Good commentary by Jonathan Kay on the campaign (Restore Our Anthem) to make our national anthem gender neutral, given the reality of today’s military and society. The government clumsily floated this idea a few years ago, but perhaps this time can manage the pressure from the traditionalists (who forget that the “sons” reference dates from WW 1) was in fact an addition deemed appropriate to the times.

A way for the government to reinforce its attachment to all things military while showing a more contemporary perspective on gender.

Jonathan Kay: ‘In all thy sons command’ has had its day | National Post.

Filed under Citizenship, Government Tagged with , , ,