The page you requested is still being published. It should be available soon.


I’ve been trying to become acquainted with Canadian history. Unfortunately, I cannot remember much from my grade school studies. As well, good discussion on Canadian history doesn’t seem to come up clearly in general discourse, the media, etc.

I’ve come to a conviction that I should know my country. And that I should be able to comment on it with at least some amount of intelligence. I think that will lead me to be able to be a better citizen and lover of the people of my nation.

So I’ve been readinging Peter H Russell’s Canada’s Odyssey: A Country Based On Incomplete Conquests. The book spans the course of Canadian history from pre-Confederation to post World War II. And it looks at this history with a fascinating thesis in view: that French-speaking as well as First Nations Candians

“... do not accept that the tide of history has somehow washed away these nations of their first allegiance or diluted their constitutional significance. Their enduring presence as ‘nations within’ Canada is fundamental to understanding Canada, as is the often troubled, uncomfortable accommodation of these ‘nations within’ by the country’s English-sepaking majority” (Russell, page 1).

Russell builds the case that to understand Canada in a fundamental way is to realize that there are somehow three nations within one and the English-speaking hold the most power due to their being the majority.

I don’t yet know if his case is compelling, as I need to research more thoroughly and ponder more deeply. I do think I’m more sympathetic than I was before - not to his thesis (at least, not yet), but especially to the peoples of the First Nations.

I am beginning to clue into the fact that Russell is reading history within a certain framework of thought. And this drives is hopes for what Canada should. This rationality also impacts his religious and moral vision.

FIRST, about Russell’s hope for Canada’s political makeup:

Russell believes that Canada should be more like the European Union, or like the United Nations, where there are different sovereign nations that come to the table under a certain system of equity, discussion, regulations, etc.

My proof for this is his approval of some thoughts of Lord Acton:

“He contended: ‘The coexistence of several nations under the same state is a test, as well as the best security of freedom.’ In the middle of the nineteenth century, and for a long time afterwards, Acton’s was a liberal voice crying in the wilderness. But in the long run it is Acton’s ideal of the peoples of a multinational state sharing a liberal democratic civic culture that charts the path along which Canada would develop and flourish” (page 112).

SECOND, Russell’s religious and moral vision is also driven by a particular view:

I believe Russell to be an advocate for religious pluralism. That is, he not only believes that a nation should be open to a variety of religions, but that no religion is true. I’m sure that those who were founding Canada did not believe the same to be true.

This pluralistic thinking necessarily affects the way Russell thinks about Christianity - which is a monotheistic religion, claiming that Jesus is the only way to the Father.

Here is example #1:

“Also, an assimilationist purpose underlay Christian efforts to help native peoples. Christians of this era assumed they had a lock on religious truth, and consequently lacked respect for Amerindians’ spiritual traditions and were intolerant of their spiritual pluralism” (page 88).

And here is #2:

“Fervent belief in Christianity’s lock on spiritual truth imbued imperial rule over native peoples with moral passion” (page 181).

Russell might very well be right on the hopes, purposes, and tactics of these Christians. Yet his use of words reveals an underlying disdain.

From the first example, the words “assumed” and “lock” provide the keys to the kingdom of his heart. Russell could have easily written: “Christians of this era were under the conviction or believed that they had a lock on religious truth.” (It must be added that this is a properly Christian belief.) To write “assumed” implies that they most certainly didn’t have such a “lock” on truth.

And what does it mean that the Christians should “respect” the “Amerindians’ spiritual traditions”?

Of course, Christian beliefs must be faithfully and lovingly worked out in particular circumstances in different ways. But if by “respect” Russell means “accept” or “affirm,” then that would be quite wrong. Yet if Russell means that Christians should not be deceitful or something like that, then Russell is quite right. Or if he means that Christians should understand the earnestness and deep-rooted nature of the spiritual traditions of the Amerindians, then he is quite correct as well.

Yes, Christians have the firm conviction that Jesus Christ is Lord of all creation and is to be worshipped. And, of course, there would be an accompanying passion and a desire for all peoples to worship the one true God. These are necessities. What is not a necessity is exactly how this truth is to be lived out in the context of others who do not hold the same beliefs. That is, one can hold these properly Christian beliefs and feelings and yet act on them in different ways.

I hope I am not being over-sensitive. But I think I correctly detect Russell’s scorn of exclusivist religion in the second example as well. Why else use the words “fervent” and “lock” and possibly “moral passion”? He seems to be trying to gather people to his opinion by emphasizing the folly of exclusivist religion by clothing it with these words.

Maybe Russell is doing his best to simply state a fact. But then he could have written something more like: “They believed that their monotheistice faith necessitated imperial rule over the native peoples.”

Russell very much seems to be charging this kind of belief - that Jesus is Lord - with being simply wrong. And that is interesting in itself, for that means he is not being genuine in his pluralism. Or, perhaps, this is just a case which shows up pluralism’s assimilationist and imperial purposes.

In fact, I wonder if the two example quotes highlighted above might be rewritten for our own age:

“Also, an assimilationist purpose underlay pluralist’s efforts to help Christians. Pluralists of this era believed they had a lock on religious truth, and consequently lacked respect for Christians’ spiritual traditions and were intolerant of their spiritual exclusivism.”

And, the other:

“Fervent belief in pluralism’s lock on spiritual truth imbued imperial rule over Christian peoples with moral passion.”