On Victoria Day, my roommate turned to me and said, 鈥淚t鈥檚 weird to think that when the heir is born, his or her grandfather still won鈥檛 be on the throne.鈥� Since we鈥檇 just been talking about Lord of the Rings, it took me a minute to realize that she meant the future King of sa国际传媒, not Gondor.
It was a justifiable lapse 鈥� how many Canadians do you know who think of themselves as belonging to a monarch? So I think Victoria Day is a great time to sit back and take stock of what we celebrate as a country, and why.
This past week, for example, has seen the growing popularity of a petition to change 鈥淰ictoria Day鈥� to 鈥淰ictoria and First Peoples鈥� Day.鈥� Reactions are varied: Some think it鈥檚 a great idea, while others are unequivocally opposed. Some are wondering why we don鈥檛 make Aboriginal Day on June 21 a national holiday instead.
Reworking Aboriginal Day into a national holiday in its own right seems to me to be the better option. This isn鈥檛 because I鈥檓 terribly fussed about maintaining the integrity of Victoria Day; it鈥檚 no secret that I鈥檓 a bit of an anti-monarchist. (To borrow from Tolkien: 鈥渟a国际传媒 has no king 鈥� sa国际传媒 needs no king.鈥�)
I have no affection for Victoria Day beyond my love of three-day weekends, and I鈥檓 continually dumbfounded by the anachronism of sa国际传媒鈥檚 monarchy. But an independent, nationwide First Peoples鈥� Day makes a lot of sense to me.
A joint holiday also makes sense, however. Aboriginal history reaches back far beyond the existence of a Canadian state, and mainly occurred independently of it. sa国际传媒鈥檚 treaties with first peoples were mainly agreements between tribes and the Crown, rather than the monarch鈥檚 representative body.
First Nations and M茅tis are understood to have a unique relationship with the reigning Canadian monarch. The idea of combining Victoria Day with First Peoples Day seems appropriate in that sense.
The one perspective that absolutely flummoxes me, though, is the one that states 鈥淰ictoria Day is Victoria Day. Period.鈥� Yes. Because if there鈥檚 one thing studying history has taught me, it鈥檚 that nothing ever changes. Yet the idea of tampering with Victoria Day is apparently too ghastly for some people to bear. I don鈥檛 get it.
Even for those who aren鈥檛 disloyal radicals like me, the petition to change Victoria Day should elicit a more sophisticated reaction than 鈥淣o way.鈥�
In arguing about Victoria Day, we鈥檙e actually talking about who has the power to regulate its meaning. When people state that Victoria Day is Victoria Day and so there, they鈥檙e saying that it鈥檚 OK to celebrate an imperial ruler, but we can鈥檛 mention the people who were affected by this imperialism in the same breath.
My point is, nothing about our country鈥檚 conflicted, complicated history should be immune to discussion and interrogation, because history isn鈥檛 鈥渘eutral.鈥�
Even at street level, social and political power is manifested throughout our cityscape. Sutlej Street, for example, is named after a British warship involved in the Chilcotin War. That decision clearly wasn鈥檛 made by a person of Tsilhqot鈥檌n descent, and that matters.
We tend to see things like Sutlej Street or Victoria Day as 鈥渘eutral鈥� historical hand-me-downs, but nothing about our history is neutral, and it never has been. These decisions have always been contested and contestable, and we are not defiling something sacrosanct by questioning them: We are continuing that process of negotiating meaning that is at the heart of history, of nationhood, of our personal identities.
If Victoria Day is a day to think about who and what we are as a nation, then we should ask ourselves why we feel more comfortable romanticizing and sanitizing the legacy of a 19th-century imperial ruler than sharing 鈥渉er鈥� day with the descendants of the people directly affected by her government鈥檚 imperialism.
