Über die Freiheit / de libertate

In the past, most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership. Frederick Hodge (1910) noted that individual private ownership was “the norm” for North American tribes.Likewise, Julian Steward (1938, 253) asserted that among Native Americans communal property was limited, and Frances Densmore (1939) concluded that the Makah tribe in the Pacific Northwest had property rights similar to Europeans.’ These early twentieth-century historians and anthropologists had the advantage of actually interviewing tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society.

By the late 1940s, however, these original and firsthand sources of information had died, and false myths and historical distortions began to take dominant shape. By the mid–1960s, the tone in many college history books, history-inspired films and novels, and even speeches had completely changed (Mika 1995). A typical historical distortion, for example, is found in Baldwin and Kelley’s best-selling 1965 college textbook, The Stream of American History, where they write, “Indians had little comprehension of the value of money, the ownership of land . . . and so land sharks and grog sellers found it easy to mulct them of their property”(208). These myths were further fueled by popular books such as Jacobs’ (1972) Dispossessing the American Indian, which suggested that Native Americans felt that land (and other property) was “a gift from the gods” and as such not subject to private ownership. Gradually more and more people started to honestly believe that the indigenous people of North America had been historically communal, non-property oriented, and romantic followers of an economic system more harmonious with nature.

Read the rest here.

See here.

• In that way, though, Taft fans can claim him as something of a pioneer—reaching for a new understanding of North American relations. University of Toronto historian Robert Bothwell calls Taft “imaginative and accommodating” toward Canada. And though his original motivations were not entirely neighbourly, his essential understanding of the Canada-U.S. dynamic is now one taken for granted as natural and obvious. [Macleans]
• “It’s purely a formality, but one of those significant formalities,” said Robert Bothwell, the director of the international relations program at the University of Toronto, of Mr. Obama’s visit. “Fundamentally, it’s significant for us. I don’t think it has any resonance in the United States.” [Ottawa Citizen]
• “It will be planned within an inch of its life,” said Norman Hillmer, professor of history and international affairs at Carleton University, who recalled how during one visit the Secret Service even brought toy cars to map out the motorcade for the RCMP. [The Globe and Mail]
• During Kennedy’s visit to Ottawa, writes Carleton University history professor Norman Hillmer, the president “seemed to go out of his way to spend time” with the Nobel Prize-winning Pearson, while treating Diefenbaker more brusquely. If that history is a guide, current Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff has an opportunity this week to develop a relationship with President Barack Obama — and score political points. [Toronto Sun]
• “The whole economic picture is so complex, but when the American economy starts to recover Canada’s economy will quickly follow suit,” says Doug Owram, deputy vice-chancellor of The University of British Columbia Okanagan and author of History of the Canadian Economy. [Canadian Business]

 
Source: The Wall Street Journal

And I’m still not voting! I am, however, hoping for a Harper minority government. Socially speaking, I’m not a fan of Harper, but on the economy, he’s most certainly the best choice. (This reminds me a of post by David Boaz, A Libertarian Dilemma. Though I solved the issue by not voting.) I anticipate strong reaction from my Canadian history seminar when they hear I did not partake in the sacred democratic process.

Here is Bourque’s round up of polls:

cp: Con 34% Libs 25% Ndp 19% Bloc 11% Grn 9%
cpac: Con 34% Libs 27% Ndp 21% Bloc 10% Grn 8%
Ctv/g&m: Con 33% Libs 28% NDP 18% Grn 11% Bloc 10%
Ang/Reid: Con 38% Libs 28% NDP 19% Bloc 9%, Grn 6%

Here is a round up of a few historians’ comments on the election:

Robert Bothwell, University of Toronto 

“The Conservative ads continue to be really negative on Dion and they have more or less made his mannerisms and his speech and his appearance the election issue,” said Robert Bothwell, director of the international relations program at the University of Toronto.

[…]

“Coming into an election with a promise to enact something called a tax, no matter if it’s one cent on bubble gum is not a sensible tactic,” Bothwell said.

Stephen Clarkson, a political economy scientist at the University of Toronto, said Canadians may fear a Conservative majority led by Harper.

“He comes from the neoconservative school of thinking represented in the Bush administration,” Clarkson said.

Bothwell said he is an ideologue.

“He’s backtracked to keep himself in power until the right moment has arrived,” Bothwell said. “I don’t see any evidence of moderation. I do see evidence of political calculation.” [Associated Press]

Norman Hillmer, Carleton University 

Norman Hillmer, one of Canada’s foremost political historians, also recites “Hillmer’s law of Canadian politics: Once you are in power for a year, you’re in power for a long time. We have a very stable political culture (and) sitting leaders have a huge advantage.”

[…]

Stéphane Dion, whose entire political career has been defined by low expectations, almost certainly benefited from his surprisingly competent performance against Harper in the televised debates.

“Momentum has a lot to do with expectations,” Hillmer says.

“The media set Harper up as a great strategist. He was ‘the man’ and Dion was just this pathetic little figure. But Dion turned out to be a better campaigner than many expected. He grew stronger as the campaign progressed. He performed well in the debates. It gave him, if not a momentum shift, at least the power to stop the bleeding.” [Winnipeg Free Press]

Political historian Norman Hillmer of Ottawa said the wave of economic anxiety that swept Canada after the U.S. meltdown challenged Harper’s strategy of running on a platform of “more of the same” and forced the prime minister’s team to retool the message. He also threw $25 billion into the pot as late as Friday, money designed to make it easier for Canadian individuals and business to borrow money.

Duncan McDowell, Carleton University

Duncan McDowell, a history professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, said that as long as the Bloc is alive and kicking, it’s almost impossible to imagine a majority federal government being formed.

“You subtract 45 to 50 seats out of 308 and it takes a Nobel laureate in mathematics to try to find a majority in that,” McDowall said in an interview. “That is the new norm.” [The Windsor Star, editors note: there is no Nobel prize for mathematics.]

David Mitchell, Queen’s University

“I really, honestly believe that having the long weekend - the Thanksgiving family oriented holiday across the country before the vote - may be the most decisive part of the campaign,” said David Mitchell, a political historian who is a vice-principal at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont. [The Windsor Star]

Michael Bliss, University of Toronto, Retired.

Historian Michael Bliss says there has been no other time in Canadian history that political leaders have seen such a serious economic crisis break in the midst of a federal election campaign, but he believes Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s “less activist approach” is the winning leadership message in these economically uncertain times.

There are economic precedents that had clear political consequences and carry lessons for today’s leaders, said Prof. Bliss author of Right Honourable Men: The Descent of Canadian Politics from Macdonald to Mulroney.

The closest comparison may be the Great Depression election of 1930, Prof. Bliss said in an interview with The Hill Times. The 1930 election was similar to today, when the seriousness of an economic downturn, sparked in 1929, remained disputed. Sitting prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King went into the campaign denying that the country was headed into difficult economic times, but the strategy didn’t pay off. The Conservative candidate, R.B. Bennett, campaigned on taking a more activist government approach, to tackle economic troubles and fix unemployment. As a result, he won a majority government from Mackenzie King. [The Hill, cached]

Jack Granatstein, York University, Emeritus

But as Canadian historian Jack Granatstein pointed out, Mackenzie King’s loss in 1930 meant his victory in 1935, because Mr. Bennett had to govern over the most difficult period of the Great Depression.

“By losing in 1930 he was lucky because it meant he missed the worst of the Depression. When he came back in 1935, things weren’t all that much better, but he got a huge majority just because he wasn’t Bennett,” Mr. Granatstein said. “If we’re in for a long recession, and Harper gets elected this time, the odds are pretty good that he won’t the next time.”

Just how well the next prime minister fares politically during an economic slowdown will depend largely on their leadership, and they may have something to learn from U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who governed during the Depression. Mr. Granatstein said Mr. Roosevelt was the most successful leader during poor economic times, although it was largely his charisma, inspiration and promises that succeeded. He also utilized the radio-what was then a new form of media. [The Hill, cached]

Often, they [Wilfrid and Zoe] talked of religion. There was no satisfaction in that area for either of them. In his eyes, she was overly zealous in her practice of doctrine and uncritical of what was being asked of her. In return, she deplored his refusal to attend Mass, his ardent and impatient censure of practically all clerics and their practices, and his unwillingness to return to the cradle of his faith. He was often impatient with her over these matters and she retreated, sad and morose, leaving him convinced that she was without “aucune volontè, aucun sentiment*,” as he once wrote to her.

[Laurier L. LaPierre, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Romance of Canada (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd., 1995), 6.

 *lit. “no will, no feeling” - “any willpower or feelings”]