Scan barcode
A review by brenticus
A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada by John Ralston Saul
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.0
This book is a bit tricky.
On the one hand, Saul "gets" the political foundation and cultural zeitgeist of Canada in a way that I'm not sure I've ever seen a politician able to express. The idea that we, as a people, are concerned about the well-being of our fellows but our politicians are concerned about ensuring an ordered society resonates strongly. The way this is argued, from our early political relations and philosophies, is interesting and able to identify many points where we've gone off track. While there are a lot of issues with the concept, I think the idea of Canada as a Metis nation is one that is more true than it may seem and also not as true as it should be. And it's an idea that I think is once again becoming more true as we slowly advance on reconciliation with Indigenous people.
At the same time, Saul makes a lot of statements that don't feel like they're quite backed up well enough. He says the right things, and then supports them with shaky foundations. As said above, he makes interesting connections, but he also makes weird connections that don't quite seem to follow.
The third section of the book feels disconnected from the rest - it has little to do with the political and cultural foundations of Canada and more to do with complaining about our government's priorities and organization. And, I mean, fair enough. I'm a public servant, I know there's a lot to complain about. His comments on departmental budgets don't even begin to get at how messed up funding is. But it's also only tangentially related to everything else, which makes it a bit weird to read.
Saul wavers between optimistic and pessimistic views of Canada, and wavers between well-supported and dubiously-supported arguments on both sides, regardless of how well they resonate at first glance. I think a lot of the ideas in this book are worth examining, and I think there's a lot to think about in regards to how well or poorly we match these ideas, but I also have a lot of issues with the way it's written.
Very interesting thoughts with a flawed presentation, is I think how I'd sum this up.
On the one hand, Saul "gets" the political foundation and cultural zeitgeist of Canada in a way that I'm not sure I've ever seen a politician able to express. The idea that we, as a people, are concerned about the well-being of our fellows but our politicians are concerned about ensuring an ordered society resonates strongly. The way this is argued, from our early political relations and philosophies, is interesting and able to identify many points where we've gone off track. While there are a lot of issues with the concept, I think the idea of Canada as a Metis nation is one that is more true than it may seem and also not as true as it should be. And it's an idea that I think is once again becoming more true as we slowly advance on reconciliation with Indigenous people.
At the same time, Saul makes a lot of statements that don't feel like they're quite backed up well enough. He says the right things, and then supports them with shaky foundations. As said above, he makes interesting connections, but he also makes weird connections that don't quite seem to follow.
The third section of the book feels disconnected from the rest - it has little to do with the political and cultural foundations of Canada and more to do with complaining about our government's priorities and organization. And, I mean, fair enough. I'm a public servant, I know there's a lot to complain about. His comments on departmental budgets don't even begin to get at how messed up funding is. But it's also only tangentially related to everything else, which makes it a bit weird to read.
Saul wavers between optimistic and pessimistic views of Canada, and wavers between well-supported and dubiously-supported arguments on both sides, regardless of how well they resonate at first glance. I think a lot of the ideas in this book are worth examining, and I think there's a lot to think about in regards to how well or poorly we match these ideas, but I also have a lot of issues with the way it's written.
Very interesting thoughts with a flawed presentation, is I think how I'd sum this up.