I love sports and I am a big believer in the power of sport. But this is where we see the toxicity of sport and it is truly corrosive. Sporting success cannot be a substitute for national identity, especially when our conception of success is only relative to our southern neighbour.

This is reflected in Canadians' deeply-rooted desire to be seen as competitive in international sport. It's an expression of insecurity regarding our relationship with the USA (and probably England historically). But it's not based on anything real, it's entirely the identity politics of patriotism.

Carney's speech talked about "middle powers", which aren't real. It's political science jargon that has no real-world relevance. But Canadians eat it up; it's political catnip. Since Lester Pearson, Canadians have tied their national identity to Canada's (perceived) role on the international stage.

bsky.app/profile/hano...

And FWIW, I’m ok with the argument that Canada shouldn’t put more money into HP sport because there are more pressing societal issues to deal with. But you get what you pay for, especially in Olympic sport; there’s no point being mad about it.

It’s also worth noting that athletes have been sounding the alarm on the funding model for awhile. Just because you, as a fan, weren’t paying attention doesn’t change the fact that it’s been this way for a long time.

To be clear, it’s very obvious why the conversation has shifted and obviously social media didn’t exist in the same way in 2001. But I do find the social dynamics fascinating… there was no “elbows up” for canadians who looked a certain way during the Bush era, certainly not from our govt.

I continue to find it fascinating that this is a matter of national discourse. Having lived thru post-9/11, we talked about the risks of crossing the border (and ultimately didn’t for nearly a decade). But because of the racial/religious dynamics, it was a strictly en famille discussion.

From a pedagogical perspective, this also highlights the importance of place-based history. If you start talking to me about the seigneurial system, I’m going to jump out a window. But BC is home — even if these events happened a century before my family arrived — this is MY history. #bcedchat

I might have more thoughts later, but this is an excellent book and well worth a read for anyone who wants to understand the history of British Columbia and make connections from the past to the present. /end

5. The colonial apparatus was virtually nil, so Anglican officials played a significant role in the social colonization of BC. Their early role could even be termed as a positive, moderating influence, compared to their later leadership in the genocide of Indigenous peoples.

4. The primary reason to maintain the colony was simply to keep it from the USA. In the end, what most protected BC from becoming American was it's remote location, which speaks to the arbitrary nature of how these borders were drawn and the equally-arbitrary nature of their impact today.

3. BC history is Black. Before BC formally existed, there were the Victoria Pioneer Rifle Corps (aka "African Rifles"), the first military unit in the region's history. The fact that Black people are taught as a footnote of a footnote in BC history speaks to the pervasive desire for a white Canada.

2a. We should learn from the fact that, in this sense, the colonial project has failed: Indigenous peoples are still here, still stewarding their land, still resisting the genocide. If the colonial project, the very basis of our society, is fundamentally flawed, what can we learn about the future?

2. Even as the British colonial office praised James Douglas for his fair dealings with Indigenous peoples, that was simply a function of Britain’s limited manpower: they were counting down the days until Indigenous peoples could be wiped out and BC could be declared ‘whites only’.

1a. That resource extraction has always been a detriment to the province. Prospectors came, extracted gold, paid nothing into the province, and left. The pre-confederation colony was broke. As our water, forests, and land are ravaged by corporations, what happens when we have nothing left to sell?

1. The entire history of BC is stripping the land of everything of value, as quickly as possible. From the initial gold rushes to the modern trifecta of mining, logging, and property development. If we expect to call BC home in the future, we must heed this history and change the future.

It’s too bad because these shows are based on good ideas and have good writers; there’s a reason they become popular. But the conservative network business model just isn’t conducive to a good artistic process.

I just re-watched The Office and around Season 5, they are clearly starting to go around in circles. That manifests in obvious ways — e.g. threatening to close a branch for the umpteenth time — or just changes in characterization that make no sense because they haven’t been planned.