ative of social reconstruction — then the delegitimization ofnthe traditional symbols, values, and institutions of America isnnot only in order but also long overdue, and the radicalnreconstruction of American society is not only a legitimatengoal but also the principal legitimate goal of our nationalnendeavors.nDr. King understood this well himself, expressing it in thenThe Scoundrels’ RefugenCanada, for most Americans, is angeographical expression that summonsnup images of north woods andnthe greener Scotland of Cape Breton.nThe fact that we are the Americans,nwhile Canadians have to devisenmakeshift terms like NorthnAmerican, is a clear indication thatnCanada — as its official documentsndeclare — is not a nation, only angovernment. In fact, the term Canadiannused to refer, in its Frenchnform, only to the people who nowncall themselves Quebecois. In ThenPatriot Game: Canada and the CanadiannQuestion Revisited (Stanford,nCA: Hoover Institution Press)nPeter Brimelow takes a refreshinglyncandid look at the issue of Canadiannnationality and comes up with answersnthat infuriate Canadians.nIn a nutshell, Brimelow arguesnthat there is no such thing as anCanadian nation. Western Canadanis an extension of the United States;nthe Maritimes, to a lesser degree,nare a continuation of New England;nand Quebec is a nation unto itselfnFor a number of reasons, Quebecnis central to any discussion of thenCanadian question. Most obviously,nthe Quebecois have a strong sensenof their own identity. They werenmore or less the first Canadians,nand despite all the moderation ofnBritish rule the Canadiens regardednthemselves as a subject people. Innthe 60’s they were fond of referringnto themselves as “white niggers,”nand even when they came to thenStates, Canuck intellectuals continuedntheir minority lament. “Youndespise me because I’m French,” anFrench professor from Canada onceninformed his startled friends andncolleagues.nWestern Canadians, it goes with-nREVISIONSnout saying, have learned to loathenthe French and the bilingualism/nbiculturalism that has been imposednupon their anglophone provinces,nand the French card — played forndecades by Liberal Party politiciansn— only drives the Westernersnfarther from the center of Canadiannpolitics. However, as Brimelownpoints out, it is not the Quebecnseparatists who are to blame. Evennthough sentimental Quebecers havenalways dreamed of reclaiming thencontinent for the French, RenenLevesque, as head of the PartinQuebecquois, actually opposed thenwhole idea of bilingualism. Hisnparty stood for home rule, autonomy,neven independence for thenFrench people of Quebec. The PQ,nupon taking power, immediatelyntook steps to hasten the Frenchificationnof even the English-speakingnparts of Montreal. They virtuallynwrote off the French living in othernprovinces, and Levesque repeatedlynexplained to Trudeau and his Liberalsnthat the experiment in biculturalismnwas doomed to failure.nThe imposition of two languagesnupon the whole of Canada strikesnmost Americans as either quaint ornamusing, but it is not amusing tonthe anglophone majority (except,nperhaps, for the large number ofnCanadians who work for the government).nThe French minoritynhas, indeed, played the same role innCanada as other minorities havenplayed in the U.S.: they providencredibility and the trappings ofnmorality to a political establishmentnthat needs to justify its everincreasingngrip upon free institutions.nIt is not the legitimate grievancesnof blacks or French Canadiansnthat attract a John Kennedy orna Lester Pearson: it is the opportunitynto destroy all the old civilizednmillenarian imagery he loved and used so effectively—“Inhave a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted,nevery hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough placesnshall be made plains, and the crooked places shall be madenstraight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and allnflesh shall see it together.” Dr. King, of course, seldomntroubled to inquire into the sources of his dream, and todaynnninstitutions that are barriers to thenFabian revolution.nRene Levesque, much to hisncredit, refused to play that game.nHe wanted a French nation, not annoppressed and manipulable minority.n(In the parallel American case, itnis the black nationalists who, for allntheir eccentricities, have refused tonserve the Democratic Party.) Brimelownpredicts that Quebec nationalismnwill not disappear and pointsnout that within the province itselfnthe debate is not between separatistsnand Canadian nationalists but betweenndownright separatists andnthose who continue to think thatnthe Quebec nation can get a betterndeal from a united Canada. Whennihr^e”^n’–^ ~ .-*-nthe crunch comes, the first loyaltynwill be to the province. Remembernthis: A great many Southern unionists—neven the presidential candidatenof the Constitutional UnionnParty — threw in their lot with thenConfederacy, once President Lincolnndecided to invade the South.nBrimelow’s analysis suggests thatnmost of English Canada would benbetter off in every way as part of thenUnited States. The question remains,nwhat level of distress willnthey learn to tolerate before theynare willing to give up “the patriotngame” of denying their identity asnpart of the North American Britishncivilization that the United Statesnrepresents? By raising again the Canadiannquestion and by raising it inna book that is as entertaining as it isnprovocative, Peter Brimelow (whonhas lived in Britain, Canada, andnthe United States) is a better friendnto Canada than Canadians are likelynto admit. (TF)nMM 1988 I 27n