Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Pierre Trudeau primarily responsible for the "liberaltarian" (liberal welfare state, culturally libertarian) ethos that makes up modern Canada's identity?
Trudeau's big claim to fame was multiculturalism, but at the same time his policies did more to divide this country than any other PM before or since, especially when it came to energy. The other stuff you mention was brewing underneath the surface before he came to power.
Trudeau took Quebec's "Quiet Revolution" and made it national.
He was a softie for Marxists. Witness his close relationship with Fidel Castro.
Yes, the United States propped up right-wing dictatorships, but I don't think any of our presidents were close friends with them.
Mikeyc forgot the Shah of Iran.
The US did much more than prop up right-wing dictatorships. The Monroe Doctrine was responsible for much of the mayhem that exists in Latin America today. It is actually possible for a country to decide for itself how it wishes to be governed and other than the fact that the US liked Batista more than Castro, I fail to see what benefit to the Cuban people Batista's regime had over Castro's.
Is Pierre Trudeau primarily responsible for the "liberaltarian" (liberal welfare state, culturally libertarian) ethos that makes up modern Canada's identity?
I guess you'll have to re name it a Conservative welfare state as the Conservatives have been running the country since 2006.
I thought Quebec's Anglophone elite were a target, not the supporters, of Quebec's Quiet Revolution.
.
Yeah, I am not sure that Quebec's anglo community and its thinkers really influenced Trudeau in his formative years. The anglo community of Quebec/Montreal was very conservative and stodgy (sometimes quite rabidly anti-French) during the era where Trudeau was a young man, and not exactly worldly.
Young Trudeau's influences were very much on the francophone side, which in Quebec at the time also tended to be conservative, stodgy and non-worldly, but also happened to be bursting at the seams and prime for a huge change of direction - which eventually happened in the 1960s.
Trudeau did have anglophone influences in his thinking, but these he got these later in London and Boston (Harvard), not in English-speaking circles in the Montreal of the 50s and 60s.
Eventually, the wave of new thinking in Quebec engulfed the anglo community there as well, and when he was Prime Minister of Canada in the 70s Trudeau actually had quite a number of like-minded Anglo-Quebecers in his circle of influences (ministers, advisors, etc.).
He was half francophone through his father, and half anglophone through his mother Grace Elliot.
I have studied the person a little bit and it seems to me that he saw himself as the embodiment of the ideal Canadian. Remember - he had a huge ego.
If you read between the lines of what he said and did, I think it comes through that Trudeau felt French Canadians were fun, creative, open to trying new things, culturally interesting, but also too prone to irresponsibility and non-democratic leanings.
On the other hand, English Canadians were somewhat dour and culturally bland, but were dutiful and responsible.
His vision was of a Canada that could capitalize on the positive elements of both groups.
After all, that particular mix did wonders for him, didn't it?
Trudeau and his "legacy" are commonly looked upon as either progressive or destructive depending on region.Out here in the West he is looked upon as the worst Prime Minister(next to Chretin) ever.He forced an energy policy on everyone that sent interest rates sky high in the early eighties.In Alberta there was talk of naming a mountain after him that was VERY quickly quashed.He will forever be a loser in my and many westerner eyes.I even have to spit when I say his name.Just a disgusting aftertaste.
I'm inclined to view his legacy as one of arrogance and fiscal mismanagement.
His attempts to wrest control of natural resource revenue from the provinces will forever tar him in the West, and is something I don't think his reputation will ever recover from. Nor, I think, will it recover from his implementation of the war measures act in Quebec.
Trudeau and his "legacy" are commonly looked upon as either progressive or destructive depending on region.Out here in the West he is looked upon as the worst Prime Minister(next to Chretin) ever.He forced an energy policy on everyone that sent interest rates sky high in the early eighties.In Alberta there was talk of naming a mountain after him that was VERY quickly quashed.He will forever be a loser in my and many westerner eyes.I even have to spit when I say his name.Just a disgusting aftertaste.
And on the contrary, I see Trudeau and Chretien as two of the best Canadian PM's ever, because they truly embodied and put forth an idea of Canada. I don't feel that with Harper, nor the Conservatives who, pretend as they might, don't really stand up for Canada in any meaningful way. One of my proudest moments as a Canadian was when Chretien refused to go to Iraq. Remember all of the veiled threats from the US Ambassador? Chretien basically told him to go to hell. Harper, on the other hand, probably would have lead the charge into Baghdad.
And on the contrary, I see Trudeau and Chretien as two of the best Canadian PM's ever, because they truly embodied and put forth an idea of Canada. I don't feel that with Harper, nor the Conservatives who, pretend as they might, don't really stand up for Canada in any meaningful way. One of my proudest moments as a Canadian was when Chretien refused to go to Iraq. Remember all of the veiled threats from the US Ambassador? Chretien basically told him to go to hell. Harper, on the other hand, probably would have lead the charge into Baghdad.
People still believe Canada never participated in the Iraq war?
And on the contrary, I see Trudeau and Chretien as two of the best Canadian PM's ever, because they truly embodied and put forth an idea of Canada. I don't feel that with Harper, nor the Conservatives who, pretend as they might, don't really stand up for Canada in any meaningful way. One of my proudest moments as a Canadian was when Chretien refused to go to Iraq. Remember all of the veiled threats from the US Ambassador? Chretien basically told him to go to hell. Harper, on the other hand, probably would have lead the charge into Baghdad.
You seem to be claiming that a leader only puts forth a Canadian Identity when it's one you agree with.
Not to turn this into an argument in regards to the Conservative party, but they have taken meaningful stands on the international stage - particularly in regards to the Kyoto Accord, the UN small arms treaty etc. While I'm not taking a position on those actions, they can't really be considered anything but "standing up for Canada".
I understand that they don't represent many people's idea of Canada, and that's fine. But it makes little sense to claim that Trudeau represented any more of a unified idea of Canada, when in truth he was among the most divisive leaders in our history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
