Define Canadian identity.
Maybe in your part of the woods, it's what Don Cherry says it is...but go to Nunavut and ask them what Canadian identity is. Go to Quebec and ask them what Canadian identity is. Come to the west and ask them what Canadian identity is. Canada doesn't have one culture and being Canadian doesn't have a single definition either. It's still in the midst of being developed.
In my "part of the woods"? What part would that be, the wig-wearing, feather-writing, noblesse oblige, English aristocracy checking in from one of several owned plantations, just sailed over from titled lands and castles "part of the woods" that can only fit your abstract?
I'm from Toronto. Got married in Ottawa because the French-Canadian side of my family was closer there than Toronto, honeymooned in Quebec City, returned three times since. Used to visit French-speaking family in Sturgeon Falls as a kid...So, I'm not sure - from experience - what you mean when you attempt to state that to be French-Canadian is to detest Cherry's positions on any number of things.
You think French-Canadians are so dumb as to not be able to separate Don Cherry's generational short-comings (e.g. cumbersome pronunciation, absence of contemporary socially vanguard politically correct terminology, etc...) and emotional outbursts from the integrity of his content and actions?
I'm more than happy to provide some elementary school quotes about the Canadian identity from politicians, authors and cultural darlings if that will confirm your bias, but the lived experience of being Canadian doesn't exclude one truth in order to shoe-horn in a concept that is presently fashionably and abstractly preferred amongst some i.e. Don Cherry is a racist of material effect.
This to say, what Don Cherry is and what he supports is part of that developing Canadian identity in the same way a tree is a developing entity over gradual time. And you can't exclude the present and future actuality from the plainly understandable once and former and future potentiality.
Men like my Great-Grandfather didn't wake up for 60 plus years in the middle of the night screaming from three survived WWI battles and it's horrors, only in the daytime to assure his daughter (my Grandmother) that horrifying as war is that his greatest regret was killing men (i.e. Germans) who could have been his best friend. That man picked shrapnel out of his body for those same 60 plus years...Out of the parts that were whole and out of parts that resembled skin-covered holes.
Point out the intolerance and the prejudice in that man and I'll agree with your characterization of Don Cherry.
Unfortunately you've confused Canadiana with Ontario/Anglo-Saxon/British culture and history. Canada is not Ontario, but rather Ontario is part of Canada. You are more than welcomed to be proud of your history, but to shove this history down Canada's throat (which is what Don Cherry does) rubs the rest of the country off...and claiming it's the "best culture" is frankly ridiculous. And then you all wonder where Quebec separatism comes from or why Western Canada feels alienated from the East.
No, I haven't confused "Canadiana" with Ontario. But you obviously have a prejudice against the role of importance British culture has played in defining a substantial portion of the identity of Canada. Truth of the matter is, you've imported your prejudice into my definition without inquiring if my definition included other elements of the Canadian identity.
I also didn't say English Canadian culture was the "best culture"...I said, "
I don't get this equivocation of cultures. They're not equal. Canada's is better than most." Now...Can you read? Because there's nothing pre-eminent about English Canadian culture in that statement. That's Canada with a capital C and the word "better" doesn't mean "best" in some slap-dash pronouncement. It's a statement bordering on a tautology. If a Canadian living in Canada doesn't in some way shape or form understand it's reasonable to believe his country by objective and subjective analysis is a country and a culture "better than most" than there's a few international polling companies he/she needs to consult and perhaps a few interviews with people waiting to get into the country.
You know as much about my online subscriptions as you do my life's experience and my family's history and my apprehension of what it means to be Canadian.
I don't know how old you are or how young you are, but the presumption of moral high ground without first approaching the dignity and integrity of the individual is typically a young man's error. It's called hubris and attempting to represent a ratings winning segment on Canada's longest running, most successful program and equating it with something prejudicial is nonsense.
Segments on and praise for players like Jordan Tootoo, his obvious affection for Wayne Simmonds and Nazem Kadri or the repeated championing of the AMERICAN developmental system over the years justify Cherry's position from a hockey standpoint. His support for the country and it's values are non-negotiable. His affect and his earned worldview that support such noble causes being drummed as being both acceptable and "racist" is the true cause for alarm, but not for the accused - for the accusers.
Don Cherry in my opinion is an English colonialist in disguise as a "proud Canadian". I have no issues with him honouring soldiers, police officers, fire fighters who have been killed in action...but when he starts going on rants about liberals and leftists, I begin to wonder his mental state of mind. One has an absolute right to ask about why Canadian tax dollars are being used to spread such ridiculous nonsense on a national broadcaster.
I disagree...One doesn't have an absolute right to impose incomplete emotional apprehension and convey them as intellectually minded reasons in order to compel unnecessary efforts into investigating non-threatening situations.
Don Cherry is no more an "English colonialist" than any other man, woman or child of Scottish or Irish descent, which if you've bothered to pay attention, is in fact what Don Cherry is. If you have no issue with what he honours, then what is your actual, verifiable issue? His criticism of the deformed left? Hell...I'm a former Liberal, and I can no loner recognize the party or the political leaning as I once knew it, that suspicion and confusion doesn't make me racist, it makes me a critically minded individual.
Now...In demanding a standard of integrity and consistency from others, do you require encouragement to account for inconsistent positions? Or in the manner you expect others to self-correct, are you going to address your errors and assumptions plainly noted above?