It’s Time To Go Back to Blending, in Our Age of Extremes

We need to challenge the current wave of division with a return to the truly inclusive, diverse values that once defined us

Oddly vivid in my memory, for reasons that will soon become equally clear, is a discussion I had with my parents, brother, and sister-in-law about “The Interview” - a black comedy about journalists recruited by the CIA to assassinate North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un - shortly after its release.

You might recall that Sony delayed said release, reportedly re-editing the film to appease North Korea following a hack of their computer systems by a North Korean group.

Initially, I approached this conversation as light chit-chat, simply expecting all of us to agree that such an aggressive effort in favour of censorship was unacceptable. I just assumed that, as Canadians, we all valued free speech.

So, I was rather taken aback when my brother and sister-in-law defended North Korea.

Especially when my sister-in-law said, “just imagine how the US would react if someone mocked Obama like that”. In response, I pointed out that people did indeed do this, all the time, and that the strength of countries like ours and theirs lies in their ability to withstand mockery and challenges, without the need for censorship. There was some muttering about never being disrespectful…

I've reflected on this interaction quite a bit, since then. 

I've been on record saying that we desperately need change, in many ways. However, in an evolving world, I think it’s also crucial to consider how we can preserve the aspects of our society that are most valuable and which we don’t want to lose. Moreover, it's vital to distinguish between necessary corrections and actual regression.

Relating this to a more recent, and much graver, instance of a similar culture shock, I now find myself in a state of existential disbelief as I witness people in my country and across the Western world rallying in response to Hamas's recent terrorist attacks.

Characterized by monstrous acts of rape, slaughter, torture, and abduction of civilians, these attacks were made all the more horrific by being committed with gleeful pride.

Astonishingly, many espousing a pro-Palestine “progressive” stance, instead of grappling with the sheer brutality of these acts, have become mired in minutiae. They engage in obscuring or outright denying specific elements, such as whether “only” some babies were beheaded, or even dismissing the details of the events altogether as “misinformation” from the “Zionist lobby”. This fixation on particulars obscures the wider truth that the totality of these terror attacks was atrocious, regardless of individual aspects.

Even if many rally participants are simply expressing support for Palestine, rather than explicitly endorsing Hamas's atrocities, the fact remains that these demonstrations were prompted by recent violent events. They were, without a doubt, a reaction to the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. There weren't massive pro-Palestine rallies in our streets prior to the attacks.

Further, pervasive references to and iconic use of the paraglider image, reminiscent of Hamas militants' attack on an Israeli music festival, illustrate that Palestine supporters are aware of the savagery they are, by implication, endorsing. This isn’t simply a matter of being uninformed, but a troubling rationalization of terror as a form of resistance.

It's crucial to recognize that this response is far from normal. It's a significant departure from how we typically react to such events, even in recent times. Russian Canadians, for instance, didn’t pour into the streets in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - not even (ostensibly) to support Russians not involved in the conflict, let alone brandishing images of open pits reminiscent of the mass graves in Bucha while insisting on the need to contextualize the massacre.

However, I believe we would lose the plot if we allowed ourselves to become similarly mired in punishing or preventing expressions of support for even the most repugnant beliefs. Suppressing vile views only obscures them from public view, where they can and should be confronted.

Our focus should remain on what the public celebration of certain perspectives reveals about our society, especially when those perspectives are laced with hatred, discrimination, or the glorification of violence.

There is a difference between allowing the expression of individual views and, through inaction, tacitly endorsing the active celebration or gradual normalization of collective viewpoints that should not be empowered.

Our strength lies in our tolerance of diverse views and beliefs, but our weakness is our failure to effectively communicate the importance of our foundational societal values. To preserve our shared principles, we need a collective commitment to understanding and valuing them more deeply.

Unfortunately, at best, it seems that some may not care about these principles at all, and at worst, too few of us appreciate their value enough to bother to stand up for them when it really counts.

I find this revealing of how many people don't really believe in anything. It seems a lot more people than I thought have no internal moral compass and rely completely on an externally imposed sense of morality. If the majority approves it, they'll do it.

This reminds me of a time when someone discovered I wasn’t religious and asked, “so why don’t you go around killing people, then?”. Blending incredulity with a hint of alarm, I responded, “is religion really all that’s holding you back?”. It’s disconcerting to think that, for more people than you'd expect, the answer may be “yes”.

That's the reason the narratives we choose to champion in our society are so vital. A not insignificant portion of the population, perhaps more than we're ready to acknowledge, truly rely on such stories to discern right from wrong. Without appropriate morality tales, they may stray into wrongdoing without a second thought - not out of ignorance, but due to a lack of sincere concern for what is right or wrong.

This apathy towards genuine moral understanding explains why we're now seeing individuals from across the political spectrum cheer when their adversaries are “cancelled”, but screech injustice when their allies suffer the same fate. 

They don't really care about rights, on principle; they care about fitting in to get ahead. This is why they support issues like free speech whenever they serve their interests, but abandon these principles whenever they become inconvenient to their personal or group goals.

Fitting in and getting ahead here used to involve adopting an attitude of tolerance and letting go of old prejudices, rather than fostering long-standing grudges linked to historical grievances.

I am drawn to the example set by my (favourite) older relatives, whenever I think of the value of tolerance. 

When my maternal grandparents married, my grandfather's mother threw herself on the altar, upset because my grandmother was Polish and they were Ukrainian. My grandparents simply ignored her, making it clear they were not going to even acknowledge, let alone continue, such “old world” nonsense. Instead, they embraced being Canadian, preserving only the fun parts of their heritage. 

That's why I hold pierogi parties, and don't hold a grudge against someone whose ancestors came from a village at odds with my own.

This style of Canadianism may be frowned upon today, but I remain unconvinced that holding age-old disputes as unquestionable excuses for current bad behaviour is a step forward. To me, progress means setting our sights on the future, not being sucked into the wrongs of the past.

I disagree with quite a bit of what we are now supposed to call progressive, and I suspect many more than are comfortable saying so agree with me. 

For example, I believe that disregarding the positive contributions of historical figures, simply because current progressive narratives often reduce complex events to a simplistic dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, has contributed significantly to our current existential crisis in the West.

This crisis, marked by a loss of shared values and identity, could be better addressed by acknowledging and even praising the humanity of those who chose to do good, despite having the power to act otherwise, rather than solely focusing on their negative actions. 

Similarly, I don't think anyone who does bad in our time should be held to any less of a standard because they have been given the (condescending) excuse of being oppressed. I hold all people to a higher standard than that, and pay everyone the respect of expecting the same responsibilities of them.

I will also pay everyone the respect of fighting against questionable views with equal veracity, no matter who it is that is pushing them. I don’t think any group of people is lesser than me, such that I need to tone down my rhetoric in deference to their weaker status.

The point of a country like Canada, to me, lies in its commitment to human values that extend to everyone equally, not different values for different groups. I am concerned about the compromises we have made in order to accommodate emergent ideologies that assert otherwise. 

Criticizing behaviour that contradicts our collective sense of right and wrong is not only acceptable, but necessary - even when such behaviour originates from minority cultures or beliefs. 

Everyone should be free to call out anything we see as nonsense, indiscriminately - albeit politely, if possible, in keeping with a quintessential Canadian value or stereotype that I've always liked.

There is more to this than just integration. All family members in The Interview incident were Canadian-born, going back multi-generations. It comes down to truly understanding why we have certain norms and the importance of working to keep them, because they were not easily formed and could be easy to lose. 

This is why I think it is vital to reaffirm that all rights and responsibilities apply equally to everyone, regardless of race or religion. Anything less is exactly how you end up with people celebrating a pogrom against Jews by Hamas, miscast as a form of “resistance” by the “oppressed”. 

It's also exactly why I oppose the concept of a post-national state, which risks placing “old world” affiliations above our shared Canadian identity. As a nation of immigrants, our collective identity should take precedence. Being multicultural should not diminish our commitment to Canada.

I understand the diverse reasons people have for coming here, and I'm not shy about voicing my criticisms of our country, as evidenced by this stream-of-consciousness rant masquerading as a post.

However, while it's vital to critique our society to avoid stagnation, it's just as crucial to recognize and highlight its positive aspects. This includes our freedom to engage in such critiques, reflecting the strength and progress of our shared nation. 

We should learn from grievances but not let them define us; they should be considered in context with our current achievements and used to inform future potential, not foster grudges.

As an example, I believe Canada has historically moved in a positive direction, offering a more desirable living environment than places like North Korea, Gaza, or Russia. However, when I share this view in real-life conversations, it often meets pushback, reminiscent of my sister-in-law’s demands for respect towards Kim Jong Un.

Respecting individuals is one thing (when those individuals are not brutal dictators), but I also see the need to challenge harmful collective ideologies and oppressive regimes - a crucial right that should not be lost to a misplaced sense of reverence.

This right becomes harder to exercise in public forums, where extremists from both ends of the spectrum often hijack the discourse. Some divert the conversation towards xenophobic rhetoric, while others confuse criticism of authoritarian regimes with racism against their citizens.

In more intimate settings, these discussions usually become more productive. Yet, even there, the loudest voices often drown out the more balanced ones. Both self-proclaimed liberals and the so-called free-speech-loving “far right” have created an atmosphere where slight deviations from their ideologies are immediately seen as outrageous.

If left unchecked, these circumstances will only amplify extremist voices - the only ones bold and motivated enough to speak up, despite such labels.

I realize this might sound overly simplistic or naive to some, but I often think that a solution to much of our societal strife could be as straightforward as more medium people, with moderate views, coming forward. They need to reclaim their voice, challenging the dominance of extreme ideologies.

Medium people, typically the go-along-to-get-along types, need to realize that we are not getting along anymore. It’s high time for them to step up, even if it’s just a small step, to reaffirm the norms they once quietly supported.

Medium people, in my memory, were always the kind who would host pierogi parties for Canadian friends from all over the world, embracing the fun of experimenting with something like samosa filling instead of the traditional. To them, trying new things was always worth a shot. These are people who love hummus - no matter what village it came from - not Hamas, to paraphrase a Canadian MP.

They embrace the best from various cultures without seeing cultural adoption as oppressive; instead, they view it as celebrating the diversity of human traditions.

Medium people understand that racism is unacceptable, regardless of the target, including when it's directed at white people. They advocate for equal standards for everyone, refusing to accept different rules for some based on past actions of other people from long ago.

They firmly believe that past grievances do not justify current acts of violence.

This commitment to standards is particularly crucial when considering Israel's response to Hamas. Whatever their response may be, it won’t change the fact that Hamas's actions were abhorrent and universally unacceptable. No action by Israel can retroactively justify such atrocities; at most, it could result in another condemnable act.

I certainly expect Israel to adhere to international law in said response, upholding the high standards we value. Should they deviate, I am ready to call them out, reaffirming my commitment to fairness and justice.

Consistency in defining what's right and wrong in our society, in carefully considering the stories we tell, and the narratives we embrace, is incredibly important. These choices shape our collective conscience and, ultimately, our future.

Concerning speaking out - sometimes, even I question why I choose to write anonymously. It's not like I shy away from expressing my opinions in person. Perhaps it's more about a reluctance to add public statements to an already lengthy list of family disagreements; we disagree enough about my words, without worrying about their wider audience. But, in all honesty, I've always felt a deep compulsion to share my thoughts, often to the point of pain.

As you might have noticed, I tend to do this by sharing little stories, connecting bigger, abstract ideas to my own life experiences.

This approach sometimes annoys people. Comments like, “it's not all about you or the people you know; this issue is bigger than your family stories”, are not uncommon. And they're right, of course.

However, I think that if you don't connect the bigger picture to your personal experiences, you risk losing sight of the significance of human experience as a whole. Everyone has their own stories, and pondering over them helps us figure out where we fit in the larger narrative.

Ultimately, I want to understand how I can best contribute to ensuring that our collective arc bends in a positive direction - and, just maybe, inspire others to join me in shaping it.