For a person may labour with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then they must leave all they own to another who has not toiled for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. - Ecclesiastes 2:21

Current global upheavals can serve as a reminder of how vulnerable modern social expectations are. Looking back at past leaders of present western nations and the social engagements at those times can give great context to their place in political history. In the 1830s such social upheaval was happening at monumental proportions in what would later be called the second great awakening.

It may be hard to believe that the concept of childhood didn't exist prior to this time, poverty was largely seen as a punishment from God, or that some humans were seen as fit to enslave due to their racial heritage, but this was the state of many societies within the anglosphere and parallel european societies. Why it seems that societies and human nature tend to fall toward cruel and degenerate institutions, I do not know. What I do know, however, is that the moral and religious values or lack thereof have always been a bedrock of the way people view and consequently treat each other. 

Within immense despair there seems to be a cycle of defiant love and hope that can wade even the most indignant forms of human conditions.

Names like Henry and Harriet Beecher and William and Catherine Booth come to mind when considering such figures in this recent history. Mr Beecher radically spun the views of a society that held onto a notion of a judgemental, indifferent God towards One whose essence is love.This was a revolutionary message to an American society that saw its most vulnerable members as those who deserved their lot in life and to whom scarps were given begrudgingly. Harriet Beecher’s spiritual life and hernest christian devotion allowed her to write a fictional book, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, from the realistic perspective of an enslaved man of african descent. A member of society whose hypothetical life outcome had no bearing on her own. 

Individuals like William and Catherine Booth, founders of “The Salvation Army” dedicated their lives to reaching out to those on the margins of English society. They believed folks who suffered from things like alcoholism and child trafficking were never beyond the reach of God’s divine love and practical care.

So where does that leave us today? In these uncertain times, can such tender hearts and willing souls be found? 

Until next time

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the Word was God…In Him was life, and that life was the light of mankind.The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

     - John 1:1, 4-6

War in Europe? Threats of Annexation in North America? Surges in Nationalism? - What’s new?

In light of Trump’s tariff threats it may be tempting to throw one’s hands up in frustration. If it's any consolation, for better or for worse, the fate of border and economic security has long been a war of egos and national gravitas. The Corps of Discovery comes to mind during these times. A daring Alexander Mackenzie of British North America overcame family poverty  and personal trials to become a career explorer. He made the expansive, seemingly endless land that was to become Canada quantifiable. Through his successful map taking endeavours, he gave British North America and its friends and foes alike, the outlines to begin dreaming up a settler future for this once elusive land.

To be specific, the interests of the US, France, Spain, Russia and Britain were peaked-and largely for competing interests with the exception of Britain. To the detriment of British North America, Britain had its hands full fighting France during their revolution. This also means that a depleted France had to sell Louisiana (previously owned by Spain) to the U.S. News of the successful expedition piqued the particular interests of United States president Jefferson, Spain (protecting the remainder of their possessions in western America) and Russia -who had Alaska in their possession through previous Arctic expeditions through Siberia.

This breakthrough on the part of a prudent, historically innocuous population, would rouse the audacious spirit of a newly independent USA wading a deep, largely self-inflicted, depression. The Lewis and Clark (aka The Corps of Discovery) expedition began in 1804 and concluded in 1806 with a better understanding of the “unsettled” (by Europeans) lands, its native peoples who lived there and efficient avenues for future trading prospects. This audacity and lack of esteem toward British North America (later to be known as the Dominion of Canada) would culminate during the war of 1812 during the six years war, during which time the US attempted to annex portions of British North America.

To cut a long story short, this war ended up costing the lives of over 20000 people and producing the only instance in which the white house has been set on fire. After everything was said and done, there was no clear winner.

So what are some take away lessons from these events?

1. US identity has traditionally depended on its ability to outdo and surpass others-not excluding populations of closest extraction and at the price of economic strait  

2. Canada has proven to be capable of punching above its weight when push comes to shove.

3. One the bloodiest wars for the USA and Canada ended in letting bygones be bygones and going back to business as usual

Do with this information what you will.

" Voting is the foundation stone of political action"- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ---- Very wise words, but who gets to vote? Has it always been this way? :Thoughts on the era that shaped the American founding fathers

During this current time of international partisan politics and whispers of WW3, it’s easy to view such conditions as a regression to past, less civilized ways. Although it is fair to assume societies and technological advances can and should continually progress, people are more or less the same as they’ve been for the past several millennia. As a consequence, one’s and by extension humanity’s ability to progress is determined by the ability to preserve and choice to acknowledge and understand the past. 

The beginnings of what are now the sovereign nations of Canada and the United States of America started out as a collection of settlements and colonies eventually called British America. One of the first and longest lasting interests was the business of fur trade. But along with this was an economy that survived off of labour (paid and unpaid) from farming and natural resource extraction. When the American war of independence began, the agitators had had enough of their seemingly lopsided economic relationship with Britain. The founding fathers signed the constitution for a collection of former colonies that were founded around business and enterprise and united by a fervent belief in the potential for a ‘more perfect union’. A belief that they believed was no longer viable under British rule. 

This knowledge lends itself to a view of voting rights very different to the ones we’ve come to accept and expect today. One thing that has held true from this earlier time till today is that corporations favour or outright limit voting rights to shareholders. Meaning individuals and groups with direct stakes in companies are trusted to vote for decision makers of businesses. What is also of significant importance is the idea of a union that could be perfected over time. We may never know how the founding fathers believed this would be achieved if they believed they knew at all. What was clear was a belief that expanding the proportion of property ownership was paramount to a long standing society in which the average man felt his freedom and autonomy was respected. 

During this time British North America (now Canada) continued to centre much of its economy around the fur trade via The Hudson's Bay Company. Its population also received a wave of immigrants who settled there precisely because they wanted to remain a part of the British colonial dynamic in North America.

So how did we get to today’s concept of voting rights and does the order in which this process unfolded matter?

To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that enhances the freedoms of others.

• Nelson Mandela

Stay tuned for more of my thoughts

Canada-US Tensions: Exploring history to face the debacle that is Trump

To many the recent antagonistic threats made by the US president have been a joke at best and shocking at worst. But any history buff would betray their profession if they didn’t admit that the common, modern tendency to tout that these two countries share the longest undefended border in the world is…well…modern. The sentiment that one often fights hardest with those they’re closest to has held true in many instances for the history of the peoples occupying this territory over the past 500 years. If the average person was more privy to the knowledge that much of Canadian history and identity was born out of NOT being American, like border issues around the war of 1812 or the 1867 US purchase of Alaska from Russia, what may initially produce confusion and fear may alternatively bring calm in the midst of chaos and clarity in the midst of confusion.

There are many time periods, political reactions and segments of society that are involved when talking about social change. In this series of examinations, I will begin with 7th  American president Andrew Jackson and eventually expand to events before and after his terms.

The choice to focus on this man is unequivocally because he is the closest former US president to whom modern president Donald Trump can be compared. Jackson to some was seen as a quintessential, American rags to riches story. He also grew up during an era when the right to vote, arguably the barrier between first and second class citizenship, was primarily born out of one’s ability to acquire and/or maintain a considerable amount of wealth. It is important to note that this means that there were women and African-Americans (however small a proportion) who could legally vote before many white men across America. By the end of his presidency, the latter had gained voting rights at the direct price of the disenfranchisement of the former. For the mayhem-driven, allegiance-demanding, partisan president, this was no coincidence.