How to do feel about swearing an oath to british crown that caused so much misery in your homeland?

[jonnclk22]

I've been struggling with this one. I grew up in India and one of my ancestors was a famous freedom fighter who was murdered by the British. I am very conflicted about having to swear an oath to the "kings and queens" of the british crown who also happen to sit on the canadian "throne". I have a strong distaste for the institution that stands for superiority of one human over another, birthright privilege, and all the suffering caused across the world, from India to Africa to Caribbean to Oceania by the forces of the crown. I am having trouble palating the fact that we are forced to swear an oath to these parasites as a condition of participating fully in the Canadian life. The irony of the fact that by moving to canada, I am benefitting from the results of same colonization of Indigenous lands of north america, isn't lost on me. However, Australia has done away with the oath to the Crown but somehow Canada hasn't. How do my fellow canadian immigrants who were born in lands colonized by the british feel about this issue? Does it weigh on your consciousness?

 

[Seym]

As a practical matter, have a look at this : http://disavowal.ca/

It's largely symbolic, sure, but it's all you have for now, and it's not changing anytime soon, unfortunately.

 

[johnjkjk]

Your choice. I am no one to comment on your point of view, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Now some facts:

By law, it's Canadian Crown, and they are Canadian monarchs (and not British monarchs) - they simply happened to be same persons.
This is called "personal union".
Also, following same definition of Canadian Crown, Canadian monarchs never had a colony.

We do it would appear, live in a post-truth world.

The Canadian provinces in confederation were Crown colonies under the British Crown. Even as a dominion, Canadians were indeed British citizens until the the late 40s. They remained British subjects until 1982, when the monarch's title only changed, when Canada became a constitutional monarchy. To deny this would mean to fail on the citizenship exam.

 

[wink]

I've been struggling with this one. I grew up in India and one of my ancestors was a famous freedom fighter who was murdered by the British. I am very conflicted about having to swear an oath to the "kings and queens" of the british crown who also happen to sit on the canadian "throne". I have a strong distaste for the institution that stands for superiority of one human over another, birthright privilege, and all the suffering caused across the world, from India to Africa to Caribbean to Oceania by the forces of the crown. I am having trouble palating the fact that we are forced to swear an oath to these parasites as a condition of participating fully in the Canadian life. The irony of the fact that by moving to canada, I am benefitting from the results of same colonization of Indigenous lands of north america, isn't lost on me. However, Australia has done away with the oath to the Crown but somehow Canada hasn't. How do my fellow canadian immigrants who were born in lands colonized by the british feel about this issue? Does it weigh on your consciousness?

Just a rhetorical question.

When something weighs on your consciousness, what you usually do? I would suggest you to do the same for one more time.

 

[Mounat]

I've been struggling with this one. I grew up in India and one of my ancestors was a famous freedom fighter who was murdered by the British. I am very conflicted about having to swear an oath to the "kings and queens" of the british crown who also happen to sit on the canadian "throne". I have a strong distaste for the institution that stands for superiority of one human over another, birthright privilege, and all the suffering caused across the world, from India to Africa to Caribbean to Oceania by the forces of the crown. I am having trouble palating the fact that we are forced to swear an oath to these parasites as a condition of participating fully in the Canadian life. The irony of the fact that by moving to canada, I am benefitting from the results of same colonization of Indigenous lands of north america, isn't lost on me. However, Australia has done away with the oath to the Crown but somehow Canada hasn't. How do my fellow canadian immigrants who were born in lands colonized by the british feel about this issue? Does it weigh on your consciousness?

Many struggle with this but don't struggle for too long. And I do understand, and sympathize with, your dilemma. You are already cognizant of the irony of your being in Canada so it shouldn't cause you a moral meltdown. So, recite the oath with a stiff upper lip and move on.

 

[akbardxb]

I've been struggling with this one. I grew up in India and one of my ancestors was a famous freedom fighter who was murdered by the British. I am very conflicted about having to swear an oath to the "kings and queens" of the british crown who also happen to sit on the canadian "throne". I have a strong distaste for the institution that stands for superiority of one human over another, birthright privilege, and all the suffering caused across the world, from India to Africa to Caribbean to Oceania by the forces of the crown. I am having trouble palating the fact that we are forced to swear an oath to these parasites as a condition of participating fully in the Canadian life. The irony of the fact that by moving to canada, I am benefitting from the results of same colonization of Indigenous lands of north america, isn't lost on me. However, Australia has done away with the oath to the Crown but somehow Canada hasn't. How do my fellow canadian immigrants who were born in lands colonized by the british feel about this issue? Does it weigh on your consciousness?

Weigh on my consciousness? Absolutely not. Coming from India, which is no longer the country, I grew up in.
I cannot live in the past as it cannot be undone. There are lessons to be learnt from the past but you can't drive forward by staring at the rear view mirror. You glance occasionally to check, but look ahead.
If one feels too strongly about the Oath, it's very simple. Don't take it. Decline. IMHO, all immigrants choose to come to Canada. All of us applied for PR knowing the background. Canada didn't go looking for immigrants in different countries or give away visas without anyone applying.
Maybe in the next few decades, there will be a significantly more diverse Canada, with more diverse representatives who feel on similar lines about the oath.
Don't overthink this one.

 

[johnjkjk]

Weigh on my consciousness? Absolutely not. Coming from India, which is no longer the country, I grew up in.
I cannot live in the past as it cannot be undone. There are lessons to be learnt from the past but you can't drive forward by staring at the rear view mirror. You glance occasionally to check, but look ahead.
If one feels too strongly about the Oath, it's very simple. Don't take it. Decline. IMHO, all immigrants choose to come to Canada. All of us applied for PR knowing the background. Canada didn't go looking for immigrants in different countries or give away visas without anyone applying.
Maybe in the next few decades, there will be a significantly more diverse Canada, with more diverse representatives who feel on similar lines about the oath.
Don't overthink this one.

Whilst I agree that people have left their countries of origin behind, they don’t need to leave behind their values, morals and ethics. The monarchy does represent historic injustices and the last opinion poll noted that a majority of Canadians want the oath to the monarchy to be removed (link below). So it would seem that this historic anomaly is incompatible with prevailing public opinion and indeed the Canadian charter and our commitment to Indigenous reconciliation. In other words, it's un-Canadian.

See the poll for yourself
https://globalnews.ca/news/8952431/canada-oath-of-allegiance-queen-poll/

Edit: polling also shows that a clear majority of Canadians want to ditch the monarchy altogether.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8418373/can-canada-become-a-republic/

 

[Ese2014]

Weigh on my consciousness? Absolutely not. Coming from India, which is no longer the country, I grew up in.
I cannot live in the past as it cannot be undone. There are lessons to be learnt from the past but you can't drive forward by staring at the rear view mirror. You glance occasionally to check, but look ahead.
If one feels too strongly about the Oath, it's very simple. Don't take it. Decline. IMHO, all immigrants choose to come to Canada. All of us applied for PR knowing the background. Canada didn't go looking for immigrants in different countries or give away visas without anyone applying.
Maybe in the next few decades, there will be a significantly more diverse Canada, with more diverse representatives who feel on similar lines about the oath.
Don't overthink this one.

Well said.

 

[akbardxb]

Whilst I agree that people have left their countries of origin behind, they don’t need to leave behind their values, morals and ethics. The monarchy does represent historic injustices and the last opinion poll noted that a majority of Canadians want the oath to the monarchy to be removed (link below). So it would seem that this historic anomaly is incompatible with prevailing public opinion and indeed the Canadian charter and our commitment to Indigenous reconciliation. In other words, it's un-Canadian.

See the poll for yourself
https://globalnews.ca/news/8952431/canada-oath-of-allegiance-queen-poll/

Edit: polling also shows that a clear majority of Canadians want to ditch the monarchy altogether.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8418373/can-canada-become-a-republic/

My only argument is that it does not weight on MY consciousness because it happened before my time. Injustices of the past cannot be corrected by extracting revenge from present generations, like it is happening in India.
Long debate but probably the wrong forum for it.

 

[johnjkjk]

My only argument is that it does not weight on MY consciousness because it happened before my time. Injustices of the past cannot be corrected by extracting revenge from present generations, like it is happening in India.
Long debate but probably the wrong forum for it.

Did you see the note about indigenous reconciliation? For them, it isn't a long dead past to "move on" from. They're living it every day. Canada has acknowledged the need for reconciliation. I suggest looking into this further as it is part and parcel of being Canadian.

Also there are certain Canadian values as espoused by the Charter etc, in other words, it stands against what it means to be Canadian.

 

[grapehair]

Whilst I agree that people have left their countries of origin behind, they don’t need to leave behind their values, morals and ethics. The monarchy does represent historic injustices and the last opinion poll noted that a majority of Canadians want the oath to the monarchy to be removed (link below). So it would seem that this historic anomaly is incompatible with prevailing public opinion and indeed the Canadian charter and our commitment to Indigenous reconciliation. In other words, it's un-Canadian.

See the poll for yourself
https://globalnews.ca/news/8952431/canada-oath-of-allegiance-queen-poll/

Edit: polling also shows that a clear majority of Canadians want to ditch the monarchy altogether.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8418373/can-canada-become-a-republic/

I'd support that too!

 

[armoured]

The monarchy does represent historic injustices and the last opinion poll noted that a majority of Canadians want the oath to the monarchy to be removed (link below). So it would seem that this historic anomaly is incompatible with prevailing public opinion and indeed the Canadian charter and our commitment to Indigenous reconciliation. In other words, it's un-Canadian.

You're aware that there are other interpretations, right? Have you read about those?

I mean, you can choose to go with your interpretation, but you can also choose to listen to other interpretations and go with the ones that fit your values. And where things don't - commit to change them as a citizen of a free society. (Because of course no single interpretation is correct in all senses, and Canada - like other societies - is a mass of contradictions and anachronisms, too).

One interpretation - for example - is that since the Magna Carta, the history of the monarchy has been one of 'the people' - slowly - asserting its rights and consent to govern and be governed (simultaneously), by means of representative democracy. Initially, by imposing limits on the power of the monarch and eventually wresting that power away, reducing the role of that monarchy to a primarily symbolic one, with some residual powers , and even those residual powers can be taken and stripped away at any time. And that this happened by evolution over time, with each generation adding and changing some aspects.

I'd also add that in the Canadian context, even though we were different colonies, the history didn't start or end in 1867, with responsible government / home rule years before that - 'independence' was not granted nor simply taken, but a mix of the two.

I don't think that mix is 'un-Canadian' at all.

And neither do I think this is incompatible with indigenous reconciliation or public opinion. Public opinion can xpress what it doesn't like, but anti-monarchist sentiment falls apart on the slightest prodding with the question "replace it with what, exactly?" - as there is absolutely no consensus on that (and it's quite Canadian to be a bit cautious or conservative about jettisoning a system that mostly works).

On indigenous reconciliation: I'm guessing you're not one, and I for one would be cautious about speaking for them on the topic. The indigenous people I know don't have monolithic views on the monarchy either.

Up to you to decide though of course. If you can't get to a version of it all that makes you comfortable with swearing the oath - then don't. Canada will be a little worse off for it, and the rest is your own affair.

 

[SszZTkmZ]

vote for Indian maybe

 

[johnjkjk]

You're aware that there are other interpretations, right? Have you read about those?

I mean, you can choose to go with your interpretation, but you can also choose to listen to other interpretations and go with the ones that fit your values. And where things don't - commit to change them as a citizen of a free society. (Because of course no single interpretation is correct in all senses, and Canada - like other societies - is a mass of contradictions and anachronisms, too).

One interpretation - for example - is that since the Magna Carta, the history of the monarchy has been one of 'the people' - slowly - asserting its rights and consent to govern and be governed (simultaneously), by means of representative democracy. Initially, by imposing limits on the power of the monarch and eventually wresting that power away, reducing the role of that monarchy to a primarily symbolic one, with some residual powers , and even those residual powers can be taken and stripped away at any time. And that this happened by evolution over time, with each generation adding and changing some aspects.

I'd also add that in the Canadian context, even though we were different colonies, the history didn't start or end in 1867, with responsible government / home rule years before that - 'independence' was not granted nor simply taken, but a mix of the two.

I don't think that mix is 'un-Canadian' at all.

And neither do I think this is incompatible with indigenous reconciliation or public opinion. Public opinion can xpress what it doesn't like, but anti-monarchist sentiment falls apart on the slightest prodding with the question "replace it with what, exactly?" - as there is absolutely no consensus on that (and it's quite Canadian to be a bit cautious or conservative about jettisoning a system that mostly works).

On indigenous reconciliation: I'm guessing you're not one, and I for one would be cautious about speaking for them on the topic. The indigenous people I know don't have monolithic views on the monarchy either.

Up to you to decide though of course. If you can't get to a version of it all that makes you comfortable with swearing the oath - then don't. Canada will be a little worse off for it, and the rest is your own affair.

I find your comments on indigenous reconciliation to be quite upsetting. I do have indigenous ancestry and I have worked very closely with many native Elders in North America. At the official level, addressing issues such as the monarchy is a significant issue for every single elder that i am aware of, and has been publicly declared and accepted by the Canadian government. in other words, it's what's called a settled matter. The issue is that the government hasn't acted on the reconciliation measures.

 

[armoured]

I find your comments on indigenous reconciliation to be quite upsetting. I do have indigenous ancestry and I have worked very closely with many native Elders in North America. At the official level, addressing issues such as the monarchy is a significant issue for every single elder that i am aware of, and has been publicly declared and accepted by the Canadian government. in other words, it's what's called a settled matter. The issue is that the government hasn't acted on the reconciliation measures.

Here's what I said on the matter:
-that I don't think addressing reconciliation is (inherently) incompatible with the monarchy; and,
-that I don't think views on the matter (the monarchy and reconciliation) are monolithic amongst indigenous peoples.

These are both opinions of mine, but sorry - there is absolutely nothing in those opinions that even could be remotely upsetting. (I mean, the second point is so innocuous it can hardly be otherwise - unless you believe that all indigenous peoples must have identical views).

Please explain what specific view on the monarchy is 'settled.' I missed that memo.

Unless you were upset by me suggesting you are not indigenous. Perhaps I have misunderstood, are you claiming you are Canadian indigenous?