Thoughts on a national identity

It has been said, more than a few times, that the Battle of Vimy Ridge marked the birth of our nation as an independent country and not simply an autonomous British colony.

Dr. John Cowan, Principal of the Royal Military College of Canada, believes another moment was actually the seminal one.

For me, the moment of Canadian independence lies between July 7 and July 10, 1917. LGen Arthur Currie, who had been Byng's chief planner for Vimy in April, had succeeded to command of the Canadian Corps in June and a distinct Canadian way of war was beginning to evolve.

On July 7, Horne ordered Currie to take Lens. Currie declined. For a regular British corps commander to do so would have been a ticket for a quick trip home in disgrace. But Currie had high credibility with Byng, with Haig, and to some extent with Horne. And currie was convinced that Lens was a killing ground, as long as there were German guns on Hill 70, a feature to the northwest which dominated Lens and the Douai plain. He wanted to take Hill 70 first.

On July 10, Horne issued a most extraordinary order. It is directed to the I, II, and XIII British Corps, the Canadian Corps, and the 1st Brigade of the RFC.

It begins, "As a result of discussion with the GOC Canadian Corps, and of the allotment of additional heavy artillery to the First Army, the Army Commander has decided to amend the objectives laid down for the Canadian Corps."

...

After Lens, the Corps had much more autonomy, an autonomy which, after the battle of Amiens, grew steadily throughout the 100 days. This military relationship, in which Canada became an ally and not merely a source of colonial troops, translated in the postwar era into nationhood and identity.

Personally, I still think the 'moment' was the battle for Vimy, since without that singular success, Currie's opinion wouldn't have held enough weight to sway Horne et al in July. But all that is actually beside the point I'm trying to make here.

Dr. Cowan's remarks were made in the context of a convocation address delivered in May of this year to the graduates of RMC. His theme was "The Profession of Arms and the Canadian Identity," and it was meant to inspire the young officers in the audience to ponder their responsibility to and influence upon Canada. In his speech, Cowan quickly dismissed the idea that Medicare is the single tie that binds us together (a myth that has more lives than the proverbial cat), and laid out a case that military actions, and the Canadian soldiers that fought them, have had a greater influence on the idea of what it means to be Canadian than any Trudeaupian social program.

It's a Canadian axiom that our best scientists, writers, artists, entertainers and athletes are virtually ignored until they achieve foreign recognition, after which we make a big fuss over them.

This propensity to see ourselves only through our reflection in an international mirror extends to our image of Canada as a nation. Indeed, it has largely dictate the evolution of Canadian nationhood and the Canadian identity.

Canada became a nation through its engagement abroad, and its sens of self is still hugely influenced by what our friends abroad think of us. And it's the Canadian profession of arms which has always been at the leading edge of that view of Canada from abroad.

I find myself largely in agreement with Dr. Cowan: Canadians tend to use the rest of the world as a mirror. All too often, we define ourselves in terms of others (most regrettably but notably, that we're not American). But in much of the world, Canada's image has been formed by the soldiers who represent us. Ask a young Dutchman what significance Canada holds for him, or a young Cypriot, or a young Afghan. Events spanning sixty years may colour their answers, but the one factor common to each will be the Canadian soldier.

Currie and the Canadian Corps he led forced the world to notice Canada in a way it hadn't previously. Subsequent military action in the Great War, in WWII, in Korea, in peacekeeping missions and trouble spots around the world, has given Canadians a rising or falling voice in world affairs that has had great effect on how we view our Canada. Whole generations of Canadians over the past hundred years shared military experiences that changed their view of what it meant to be Canadian, and also changed the way that they managed this great country upon their return to civilian life. The Canadian Forces and its antecedents have had a huge effect on the development of our nation.

In that light, I wonder if General Sir Arthur Currie is as much a father of this nation as Sir John A. Macdonald. Far less arguable is that today's soldiers, sailors, and airmen both shape and reflect our national identity in a way that few Canadians recognize.