Category Archives: Freedom

Freedom to read

Freedom to Read

 

Richard Ovenden’s 2020 book, Burning the Books, delves into the history of destroying knowledge, but he told IDEAS that “with events like Afghanistan, Ukraine, and the book bannings now, I should be doing another edition of the book. It’s not a historic topic anymore. It’s a very current one.”

 

From a Florida state law that requires school librarians to remove contested books from classrooms under threat of imprisonment, to Ukrainian librarians risking their lives to save materials targeted by Russian missiles, Ovenden says “unfortunately, there are many new aspects to the threat to knowledge coming about all the time.”

 

Ovenden’s public lecture in Toronto outlined what he characterizes as “five freedoms that libraries defend for us, and why we must, in turn, defend libraries and archives, as they are at the heart of open, democratic societies.”

 

Ovenden began with this claim: “By defending libraries and archives we are defending the very idea of a free and open society.” On May 10, 1933 there was an intense attack on libraries in Nazi Germany. In Berlin a bonfire was held and in the presence of nearly 40,000 cheering people a group of students marched up to the bonfire carrying the bust of a Jewish intellectual, Magnus Hirschfeld. The bust was tossed on top of the fire created by the burning of thousands of books from the library of the Institute of Sexual Sciences. The bonfire consisted of books from Jewish and other “ungermane writers” including gays and communist. It is notable that these same groups are currently under attack in America by American Conservatives including neo-Nazis. The fascists are never permanently defeated. They are always around the corner, ready, willing, and able to blossom when conditions are ripe. The greatest fertilizer for the blossoming is always fear and hate. These are the greatest enemies of civilization.

The were eager to impress the new Nazi government in Germany. “According to Ovenden, “the book burning was a carefully planned publicity stunt.”[2]  The Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbells, was there on behalf of the Nazi government to give a speech to thunderous applause, in which he advocated Germans to say

“no to moral decadence and moral corruption; yes to decency, morality, family, and state. The future German man will not just be a man of books, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you. You do well to commit to the flames the evil spirits of the past.”

 

The speech was heard around the world to widespread support and also widespread fear of what was to come. These words did not seem threatening to many people. Autocrats frequently use words and phrases that comfort them. It often seems like they are speaking in favor of civilization and yet they often have a powerful deeper meaning that warns of dangers to freedom. Masses are often persuaded by the opposition to common enemies, such as communism, perversity, or immoral conduct. In our day liberal weakness. Who wouldn’t support that?

But there is an ominous underbelly to the words that makes it clear to those who pay critical attention to them that they succour powerful feelings of illiberal yearnings.

Conservative and Leftist Attack on the Freedom to Read

Freedom to Read

 

Richard Ovenden gave a talk at the Toronto Library entitled Libraries as Defenders of Open Society in February 2023 as part of its Freedom to Read Week.  His talk was called “Libraries as Defenders of Open Society.” That talk was recorded by CBC radio and formed part of an Ideas radio show hosted by Nahla Ayed who said the following in her opening statement: “Libraries are no longer just book lenders. They’re targets. In the literal and ideological crosshairs.”  During that talk, Richard Ovenden said, “That is an attack on knowledge and free expressions.” This makes it part of the attack on truth-seeking and democracy led by misguided American and Canadian left-wingers and  conservatives.

Sadly, in recent years libraries have become victims in the cultural wars of North America. Manitoba libraries have been also been attacked, but thankfully, so far have not fallen victim to the braying crowd’s assault as so far, brave Manitoba librarians and boards, have protected them and citizens have largely supported them in their battles against protesters from the right. But how long can they withstand those attacks?

As Richard Ovenden said,

“We’ve become too complacent. We’ve allowed these institutions to become battlegrounds for other political motivations. And we need to take to the barricades…Knowledge is under attack. Whether through malice or neglect society today faces profound threats through attacks on knowledge. Attacks that are happening all around us. Libraries and archives, institutions developed over thousands of years, to protect knowledge, and to help society benefit from it, are today a front line of defence against those attacks. That is why we in return must defend libraries and archives as they are at the heart of open democratic societies.”

 

Public support is absolutely crucial for the continued life of libraries under the present circumstances where many on the right are attacking them relentlessly. Library defenders must make sure their voices are heard when the braying attackers arrive at their library as otherwise the officials defending them may be overwhelmed. Allies must speak bravely, quickly, firmly, and loud enough to be heard by the public and officials in positions of authority over libraries. All must become cognizant that there are defenders of civilization ready to ward off enemy attacks.

Freedom to read is not only important in its own right, it is also essential to the other freedoms we enjoy. For example, they are essential to exercising the freedom to learn.

The current attacks on libraries and archives are coming from both the left and the right. The left attacks them on the basis of its woke ideology.  For example some on the left have asked for the censorship of great novels like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because of it use of admittedly hurtful language.  The right attacks libraries on the basis of its anti-woke ideology. For example, they oppose works of KGBTQ literature.

I would submit that both attacks are pernicious. We must insist that we can read whatever we want.

His 2020 book described historical examples of book burnings and trashed archives, but Ovenden notes that events involving libraries in the last few years have “been a stark reminder of the threats to institutions that most people take for granted.”

 

Its time for friends of the libraries to speak up.

Libraries are for fun

Freedom to Read

When I was Chair of the Steinbach Public Library in the 1980s I always worried that we would be attacked by citizens for some of the books we housed. Some of them were quite radical. After all, Steinbach is the home of the eastern Bible Belt. As a result, we worked diligently to prepare a statement of intellectual freedom of which I was quite proud. But during my tenure we never once had need to use it, but it was always a comfort to know it was there so that we could always, if needed launch a principled defence of the books in our library.

Most people have a preconceived notion of what librarians are like.  Many see them as Professional introverts, dull, school marmish, and walled off behind a stack of intimidating books. Most of us grew up thinking of librarians as stern-faced  monitors of their sanctuaries and constantly shushing all who ventured into their domain, particularly young people.

Richard Ovenden is trying to get people to ditch their stereotypes of librarians. He is the 25th Bodley’s Librarian, director of libraries at the University of Oxford, one of the best libraries in the world,  and as well the author of Burning the Books: A History of the Deliberate Destruction of Knowledge. He gave a very interesting lecture at the Toronto Library which was aired by CBC radio on its flagship show Ideas. At least I think it is their flagship show. I have been listening to it for decades. In fact, I have been listening to it since 1974 when I moved back to Steinbach with my lovely bride Christiane, after I graduated from Law School. We did not own a television set as we borrowed a small portable TV set from my sister.  So I decided to listen to CBC radio because it had no commercials. I loved that.

Recently, I listened to that Ovenden talk and it brought me back to those heady days at the Library.  Since I was a wee lad I had loved to read. Reading was fun and entertaining and in the process, imperceptibly, I learned a few things.

“Richard Ovenden”, according to Nahlah Ayed, the host of Ideas. ” is quietly impassioned about the crucial role libraries play and have always played in free and democratic societies.” In recent years, libraries have been under attack. I thought the danger had long since past. I was wrong about that.

I think it is worth thinking about libraries and books and reading and intend to blog about it.

Freedom Maintenance Engineer

2024 Trip to South West United States, Freedom

 

When we were leaving Salina Kansas at the spectacularly early time (by our low standards) at 7:45 a.m. we had breakfast in the room provided by the hotel where we saw a heavily bearded man who looked a lot like a 60s hippie.  He was wearing a T-shirt with the words “2022 Freedom Maintenance Engineer” written on the front. This phrase puzzled me. Does he really believe in freedom or is he one of the Trumpsters more than willing to give up his freedom to follow the ravings of their  spiritual leader-Donald Trump? Or was he like the Canadian Convoy truckers who believe freedom means they can do whatever they want? Or was he like the  Covid refuseniks who believed they had the right to gather in public places such as churches when public health experts warned this would permit the virus to spread wildly?  Or was he like members of aHome Owners’ Associations like the one we lived in at San Tan Valley Arizona  where residents believe freedom means allowing the association to make a vast array of rules on everything about their home, from colours, to plants, to siding materials in order to ensure as much boring homogeneity as possible so that it is very difficult to find the house you are staying in?

In modern North American society freedom has a thousand faces many of which bear no resemblance to each other. Or to real freedom for that matter. There were words on the back of the man’s shirt that I could not read because he passed by me too swiftly. That sucked because I might have gained some wisdom. I felt I might have learned something. As it stood I could only speculate.

I  like Kris Krisotopherson but freedom really is more than word for nothing left to loose.

 

Coddling the Youth

Alienation, Decline of the west, Free Speech, Freedom, Health, Social Issues, Social Media

 

Well before the recent reports by the CDC and the US Surgeon General,  about the shocking rise of suicides among youth, in 2018, Jonathan Haidt a social psychologist appeared on various television shows to flog his book about his ideas of what happened to American youth, particularly American teenage girls. One of those shows was Real Time with Bill Maher. The book is called The Coddling of the American Mind: How good intentions and Bad Ideas are setting up a generation for Failure co-written by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff.

The book has its origins in an observation by Lukianoff that in 2013 for the first time it was students asking for protection from words and books and ideas and speech. All of which should be protected by the Constitution. Students had protested speakers before, but they never before medicalized it. They said that if this person says something I will be harmed or damaged and people will be traumatized. Therefore, schools like universities should protect them from hearing such speech. This was something new and when they put it in terms of safety to their university officials those officials had no choice but to respond.

As Haidt said, “This brought with it a whole package of innovations: micro-aggression training, safe spaces, trigger warnings, all this stuff appears from out of nowhere from around 2013 and 2014.”This made Haidt realize that this new generation of campus students are even more fragile than the millennials. And they wanted protection. Free speech be damned.

This drove both conservatives and liberals nuts, though liberals had a harder time deflecting these claims.

Haidt pointed out that kids born around 1995 had a very different childhood than children born before them. They don’t get driver licenses as much, they don’t drink as much, they don’t go out on dates, and they don’t have sex as much. What are they doing? They sit at home on their devices often with each other and this seems to be changing social development.” Haidt asserted, “As a result the rates of anxiety disorders, depression, self-cutting, and suicide are way, way up.”

This is particularly true for girls, and it all begins around 2011. In 2013 this generation entered colleges. And that is when these attitudes came out. In part this is because their parents insist on watching them all the time. Instead of helicopter parents they call it bull dozing parenting. They clear out all obstacles for their children. Their children are prepared to face no troubles at all. To put it bluntly, they have been coddled.

The main proposal made by Haidt and Lukianoff is anti-fragility. As Haidt said,

“Some things are fragile like a wine glass. You knock it over it breaks. Nothing good happens. If something is plastic, you knock it over nothing gets damaged. It doesn’t get better. But some things have to be stressed or challenged. Your immune system for example.  If you constantly protect your kid’s immune system, use bacterial wipes constantly, you are actually hurting them. Then you are preventing the system from getting the information it needs. The same thing is true with social life. If you protect your kids from being excluded, from being insulted, from being teased when they grow up it’s like the Princess and the pea. Any little thing they encounter on campus now becomes intolerably painful.”

 

It doesn’t help that parents try too hard to be their kid’s friends. They negotiated too much. They say, ‘Hey buddy isn’t it time to go?’ According to Haidt, “Kids need instruction and authority.”

This is a very new phenomenon so scientists don’t yet have a lot of data about it. Yet Haidt was prepared to say this in 2018 (later he went even farther and I will get to that in later post): “The preliminary data suggests that the anxiety, the fragility, the mental illness, that is across the country, across social class and across races. And that’s why social media use is starting so early. That seems to be the most likely culprit of several likely culprits.  Just that  week (Oct/2018) students at the Munk University Debates in Canada were demanding that Steve Bannon not be allowed to debate David Frum. That would be a travesty if the organizers gave in.  The Munk debates in Canada went ahead after the same debate had been cancelled in the US by The New Yorker magazine who chickened out because of the uproar.  I lost a lot of respect for the magazine then. I was a subscriber at that time.

Bill Maher had a good point about this. He said allowing the kids to shout down debates is like allowing the kids to take over in their homes. And, of course all of this gives fodder to the right who blame the left wing for the coddling. And there is some truth to that.  In civilization this authority should never be given up to the youth. You don’t stop giving them guidance. On this the right is clearly in the right, in my view.

In 2018 Haidt was worried about what was happening on line. The boys were mainly playing games on the Internet.  They may be killing people but they talk to each other and they co-operate. So, it is not all bad. But the girls were doing something else. They were putting something out and then waiting anxiously for comments from others. They are governed by social comparison and the fear of missing out. With boys bullying is mainly physical. With girls it is relational. So, girls can never get away from it. That is why the suicide rate for boys is up 25%, which is bad, but it is up 70% for girls! This is serious stuff.

And he had more to say about it later. I will get to that.

 

The Left Conservatism of John Dutton

2023 Grand Finale Tour, Capitalism, Decline of the west, Freedom, Left Conservative, Television Shows

Someone using the house we rented in Arizona had recorded some episodes of the latest season of Yellowstone.  They were interesting. I could not watch the entire series because it is no longer offered on our TV. Unlike some of my friends, I am not a huge fan of the TV series Yellowstone, but I do like parts of the shows. It has some diverse and interesting characters.

In Arizona I think most people identify with the patriarch of the Dutton family, John Dutton. He is very conservative and around here that is a very popular ideology. I don’t agree with all of his philosophy either, but I have some sympathy for some of his philosophy which I have called left conservatism, after the philosophy of the novelist Norman Mailer.

At the end of Season 4 of the series Yellowstone, John Dutton decided to run for Governor in Montana and got elected.  His opening statement to the people was interesting and revealed his essential conservatism that is very different from the conservatism of most of the current American right: “I am the opposite of progress. I am the wall it bashes against, and I will not be the one who breaks.”

This is much more closely aligned to what Norman Mailer called “Left Conservatism” than modern Republicanism. Mailer said he wanted to “think in the style of Marx to achieve the values of Burke.” That was the essence of his philosophy.  Burke was the leading conservative thinker in England during the time of the French Revolution. I remember first hearing that expression from Mailer 50 years ago and always thought it was a remarkable political philosophy. I found much attractive in it then, and I still find much attractive in it today.

In season 5 of Yellowstone, in his victory speech, Dutton told his supporters,

“We have a lot of work to do, and a lot to undo.  The question we all have to ask ourselves and one that I will look to everyday, is what will Montana look like in 100 years? Much of that is dictated by the way the world sees us today. Right now, we are seen as the rich man’s playground. We are New York’s novelty and California’s toy. Not anymore. You have elected me to be a steward of the state, and the land, and its people, and that is exactly what I will do. You know environmentalists just love to debate what’s Montana’s most valuable resource. Is it the water? Is it the wolves? Is it the trees? The answer is actually pretty simple.  It’s you! The farmers and the ranchers who live with the land not on it. When protecting you now is how Montana still looks like Montana when none of us here tonight are here to see it.”

 

That’s a real conservative attitude, but no one with which I entirely agree. He wants to protect the land and the people as they are now. He wants to conserve that. That is what conservatism is all about. But we must remember that we don’t just conserve what rich men like. The rich are happy and contented. With their wealth they can buy privileges. They can buy the government that acts in their interests and not in the interests of ordinary people who can’t afford to buy their political leaders. That should not be preserved.

 In the TV series Dutton wanted to conserve the largest ranch in the state. It was worth millions. It was his ranch. Who would not want to conserve that?  But how does that help the single mom on social assistance? How does that help the Uber driver? Or the bar tender at the local bar? Ordinary people are important too. Most conservatives don’t understand that at all. They just think soon they will be one of the rich people.

For a man like Donald Trump the only people that count are his rich buddies and the people who support him in power and then only as long as they continue to support him no matter what he does?  He appreciates only absolute loyalty to himself. Many conservatives are exactly like that. Those  are not my kind of conservatives.

Conservatives also claim to stand for freedom. At least for the freedom to do as they please. They are not as concerned about the freedom of working-class people to get the health care they need. Or schools. Somehow often that does not count. John Dutton said freedom was important to him. This is what he said:

“Freedom. I’ve been thinking a lot about that lately. The word. What it means. The dictionary thinks that it means “the right or power to think, act or speak as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” As governor of the state, I’m sworn to protect that right. Building a city in the middle of the most pristine wilderness strips you of that freedom. It eliminates your freedom to breath clean air and drink clear water. It strains this ability. It strains the ability of our hospitals and our schools and our police. It requires an increase in our taxes which in turn strains our families, forcing you to decide if you can afford to live in a place that you call home. That’s no progress in my mind. It’s an invasion. And today the invasion is over. Today I’m signing an executive order that ceases funding for the paradise Valley development and the Paradise Valley Ski resort.”

 

John Dutton’s philosophy of what I would call left conservatism is far from perfect. It contains in my view many grave inconsistencies, but it does contain some important insights into things that are worth preserving. Like freedom for everyone not just freedom for the wealthy to do whatever they choose whether that is good for most people or not. Left conservatism is an anti-dote to the shallow modernism of so much contemporary thinking. That sort of “freedom” is not worth preserving.

The Land of the Free because of the brave

2023 Grand Finale Tour, Freedom

Hans wants to be brave

The sign out front of the house we rented in Arizona said: “Land of the Free because of the brave.”  I actually agree with this sentiment, but this is not just because of the military. I admit a brave military is important. We all need a military to defend us in case of attack. This year Russia under Putin proved that there are still predatory countries out there willing to take astonishingly aggressive measures to exploit other countries. It is naive not to have any defence.

However, I believe domestic enemies actually pose a larger threat than foreign enemies to countries such as the USA and Canada. Many of those domestic enemies falsely claim to be inspired by the ideal of freedom, but actually they actively work against freedom. To them freedom means the freedom to do anything they want. That is not freedom; that is anarchy. It takes even more courage to confront domestic enemies. For example, it takes a great deal of courage to speak up against our neighbours when they are speaking nonsense. Our domestic enemies must be resisted. The domestic mob is as dangerous as any foreign enemy  and is often even more difficult to oppose. These domestic mobs typically demand conformity to their tarnished and narrow views. We must dissent from the views of those around us when they are based on fear and ignorance rather than critical thinking. Such oppression is every bit as bad as anything our foreign enemies could impose on us.

As the patriots say, “Freedom isn’t free.”  I agree with that too.

Women Talking (the Movie)

Exploitation, Freedom, Movies

 

 

I have already blogged about the book. I loved the book. Now I want to blog about the film. I loved the film too. I know this sounds like I am a homer. But I like Cactus Jack Wells a Winnipeg Blue Bomber football announcer always said, “this is a true and unbiased report.” This is like that. Biased in other words.

I admit it, I am proud that woman from Steinbach, who I know a little bit, wrote a novel that was the basis of a movie nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. As I would have said in my lawyerly days, “I am not in a conflict of interest.”

We also must remember that the film is not the book. It doesn’t have to be. It is an independent nation.  But, of course, they are closely related. They are different interpretations of the same thing. This time I will just talk about the film.

The film is about oppression and what to do about it. If that is not a universal theme there are no universal themes. And it is a big and important theme.  It is worth our attention. Not because it deals with Mennonites.  That is irrelevant. It could have dealt with the Taliban. Or Roman Catholics. Or your place of employment. Or your home.

The film involves discussion among the Mennonite women in a South America where they have discovered that they have been sexually assaulted by the men of the colony. the men accomplish this by drugging the women so they don’t realized what was happening. After it is discovered the women must decided if they should leave the colony, stay and submit, or leave. Each choice involves terrible risks.

One of the women in the film says:

“Boys have learned from their father how to oppress.

And women have learned from their mother how to submit.

Both have learned well.”

 

 

There is another element I can’t resist talking about. The religious element. After all the central characters are Mennonites in a strict conservative Mennonite colony. As a result, here is a conversation between Ona and Scarface:

ONA Are we asking ourselves what our priority is? To protect our children or to enter the kingdom of heaven?

SCARFACE JANZ  Does entering the kingdom of heaven mean nothing to any of you? After all we have suffered? ANNA Are you really willing to give up what we have always lived for?

ONA Surely there is something in this life worth living for, not only in the next.

 

That is an issue worth wrestling. Is it more important to save your child’s life than it is to save your immortal soul?

The women are told by the men of the colony that they are mistaken about their allegations of sexual abuse. The allegations are the product of the wild imaginations of women or of Satan. They can’t be true.

Later there is another interesting conversation (there are many):

SALOME … The only certainty we’ll know is uncertainty, no matter where we are.

ONA Other than the certainty of the power of love.

Yup, but is that enough to save the conundrum at the heart of the film?

 

Ona also asks an incredible question: “How would you feel if in your entire lifetime it had never mattered what you thought?”  This is the ultimate question. The women want to think! And that is not permitted.  

The women have been taught that they have a religious duty to always forgive. So they must forgive the men, they think, or risk going to hell. But as Agata said, “Perhaps forgiveness can, in some instances, be confused with permission…”

There is much worth talking about in this film. Watch and participate in the conversation. That’s what we all should do.

I am giving a true and unbiased report here. Therefore I say, this is the best film of the year and it will win the Academy Award for Best Picture because the academy will do the right think. But perhaps like the women in the film, I am just a dreamer. But sometimes a dream is all you get.

Confronting Truth and finding spiritual freedom

Classic Books, Fellow Feeing, Freedom, Rebel

 

Authorities have known for a long time, at least since the time of Plato, that the rebellion of poets and artists is dangerous to established authority and power. Their alternative reality is also one that is deviant and defiant. The members of the Republic of the Imagination are always prepared to dissent. That makes them uncompliant to power that wants to dominate. That makes them subversive and hostile to arbitrary authority. Not all authority.

 

One can only belong to such a subversive group if one has not only the courage of one’s convictions, but as Nietzsche said, “the courage to attack one’s convictions.” No truths are too sacred to be attacked or challenged. Even those we hold most dear. There should be no barriers to pursuing truth. One should be free to challenge all conventional wisdom. Even the truths of patriots are open to question. The country cannot demand absolute obedience or obeisance. Great literature is always ready, willing, and able to attack any sacred cows. That is why, as Nafisi said, “If we need fiction today, it is not because we need to escape from reality; it is because we need to return to it with eyes that are refreshed, or as Tolstoy would have it, “clean-washed.”

We must recognize that there are more freedoms than one. Nowadays the idea of freedom has been besmirched. In Canada we recently had the freedom convoy in our nation’s capital. The members of that convoy basically demanded the freedom to do whatever they wanted. They really recognized no limits on freedom, which of course, means they advocated for anarchy which is not freedom at all. It is an illusory freedom that they urge upon us. It is not the freedom to light out for the territory of Huck Finn.

Once again, Azar Nafisi made this point eloquently:

“But of course, there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious, you will not hear much talked about in the great outside world of wanting and achieving and displaying.  The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty, unsexy little ways, every day.  That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.

 This is the freedom of Huck Finn. He was willing to sacrifice not just his life, but put himself in peril of eternal damnation, to save his friend, a black slave. That was the freedom he wanted. And he would do anything to achieve it. It was not a selfish freedom; it was real freedom. It was not the freedom of the convoy for whom freedom was all about me.

In its essence this is the freedom to think. Even if it’s a “long think.” The freedom to think for oneself, not chained to the conventional wisdom. It takes courage to be free. And no one had more courage than Huck Finn. After, all he was willing to risk eternal damnation. This is the freedom of Huck Finn!

 That is what a spiritual declaration of independence is all about.

We need a Spiritual Declaration of Independence

Classic Books, Freedom, Religious Quest in the Modern Age

 

The original American dream was a dream of freedom. Sadly, that dream is often for sale or forsaken.  Many Americans have given up on that dream. They are willing to turn their lives over to a strongman, no matter how foul. They have traded their freedom for the perceived belief that only a strong man can save them from the carnage. Instead of freedom these paltry Americans (just like their equally paltry Canadian cousins) want security or wealth or fame or grimy tax breaks.

 

The members of the fictional world, epitomized by Huck Finn who would not give up his freedom for anything, are the real heroes of the American and Canadian dreams. As Azar Nafisi said,

“We must remember that, despite the prevailing attitude today that arrogantly defines success as money, the real heroes of this nation’s fictional landscape are vagrants, marginal, and subversive, from Melville’s Bartleby, the scrivener whose mantra is “I would prefer not to,” the heroines of Henry James and Edith Wharton, Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, Zora Neal Hurston’s Janie, Bellows Herzog, Philip Roth’s Sabbath   or Omar Little of The Wire, who reminds us of the importance of a code of honor. All seek integrity and listen to their hearts’ dictates, cautioning us against our willingness to betray the American dream when it is, as Fitzgerald put it, besmirched with the “foul dust that floats in the wake” of our dreams.”

 

That is why Nafisi said “we must make a new declaration of independence, a spiritual rather than a political one this time.”

 

Like young but brave Huck Finn, all must be able to enjoy “a freedom to turn their back on society and what is expected of them, and to forge their own lonely path.”

Like Huck we must be free to abandon conventional wisdom or morality and “light out for the territory.” If Huck can do it, we can do it. The American dream, which really is also the Canadian dream, may be besmirched but it is not dead—yet.

 I would go so far as to say that is a religious quest in the modern age.