Canada: the world's first post-national state?

Last year, Canada was being lauded as the world's first post-national state. A Guardian article led the trumpeting:

"When Justin Trudeau said ‘there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada’, he was articulating a uniquely Canadian philosophy that some find bewildering, even reckless – but could represent a radical new model of nationhood."

Complaining that countries were participating in a "global reflex appeal to fear", as well as lamenting the rise of 'nativism' and 'nationalism', praise was heaped on Canada for its immigration policies. But, not so fast. Further down the real reasoning for such policies is made clear:

"There are practical reasons for keeping the doors open. Starting in the 1990s, low fertility and an aging population began slowing Canada’s natural growth rate. Ten years ago, two-thirds of population increase was courtesy of immigration. By 2030, it is projected to be 100%."

Getting to the heart of the issue, it's important to note that this acceptance isn't based on kindness or moral superiority, but a literal need to keep the population at sustainable levels. As usual, the truth is hidden in plain sight.

"The prime minister, Justin Trudeau, articulated this when he told the New York Times Magazine that Canada could be the “first postnational state”. He added: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” 

And Trudeau can be commended for at least his honesty. As anyone intimately acquainted with Canada knows, there is NO cultural identity here. There is a complete lack of culture, inspiration, cultivation of the arts and social institutions, or any uniting themes or achievements of the nation.

"The remark, made in October 2015, failed to cause a ripple – but when I mentioned it to Michael Bach, Germany’s minister for European affairs, who was touring Canada to learn more about integration, he was astounded. No European politician could say such a thing, he said."

It failed to cause a ripple, because Canada is insignificant internationally. And no doubt the minister was astounded, because European states are filled with long, historied cultures resplendent in the arts. Europeans, never having had to reside in Canada cannot fathom the notion of its cultural poverty - as I've come to describe it.

It is very telling that such a majority of Canadians embraced this notion. Not having any unifying culture - they've come to believe that being a 'postnational state' is actually some type of achievement. In this way, they love to disingenuously conflate individual cultures and nationalism with 'racism', or rejection of modern progressive values.


Looking up the exact definition of "national" in the Merriam-Webster, it is defined as:

of or relating to a nation

comprising or characteristic of a nationality

belonging to or maintained by the federal government


I can see nothing inherently wrong with any of these things. It is possible to be an individual nation state with its own culture that still accepts diversity, immigration and international cooperation. These things are not mutually exclusive.

If I go to the United States - I expect to enjoy American culture: country, hip hop, west coast liberalism, freedom of speech and second amendment rights.

If I go to France, I want to enjoy the culture there: its arts, cuisine, French language and so on.

In England, they have an increasingly diverse population (especially in London), yet have managed to retain a unifying culture that is distinct in it's "Britishness". Even within the umbrella of the United Kingdom, its nation-states have their own individual cultures: Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.

But again, in order for the term 'postnational' to retain some kind of intrinsic value, it has to be made synonymous with the ideas of no racism, no warfare, no inter-conflicts. And it simply can't be, since these things would and will continue to exist even if there were no borders and we amassed a coagulated international system of living.

Conflict would continue over religion, gender, money, land, resources. Even if we can resolve these issues, who wants to live in a post-national world? When I go to Mexico I want Mexican culture and the Spanish language, not a crass bland place indistinct from elsewhere.

Ultimately, this term is flexible depending on which view you take. Quebec never signed the national constitution and views itself as a 'nation' within Canada. Now, plenty can be said about the Quebecois, but they're to be given credit for trying to obtain and keep some semblance of 'cultural identity' within Canada. Some could argue that this is a 'subculture' however. (The province has held two referendums on the question of separating from Canada.)

Indigenous people cover the country and often have the legal right to govern themselves and act as individual 'nations' within the broader country. And, as citizens under the 'Indian Act' they are formally and legally distinct from other Canadian citizens.

So are these groups a part of Canada? If yes, the claim to a post-national state is incorrect and redundant. Considering the long history of inter-conflicts in Canada with the Aboriginals and Quebecois - the idea that somehow this nation has surpassed identity politics is absurd at best.

They can call it 'nativism' or 'populism' in a derisive manner, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a unifying culture - which is ever evolving and adaptable.

One of Canada's largest problems is that it has no culture, no formal identity; nothing to bond its residents or attract bright minds. It simply exists in banality.

It truly figures that 'postnational' is a title Canadians would accept and even embrace. Lest you think I exaggerate when describing issues, take note that the country's own prime minister essentially stated that the nation has no core identity or culture.

It doesn't. Canada is like purgatory - a place to wait, a place to exist without truly experiencing anything.