The failure of Bernier to gain any form of momentum during this past election illuminates the complicated relation that Canadians have with there racist past and attitudes. During the recent election Maxime Bernier and his Peoples Party campaigned on ideas and policies that were similar to those that many other populist and right leaning politicians would agree with. However long these ideas of immigration and national identity may have circulated in the spheres of other populist parties they had thus far avoided Canadian politics and with the resounding defeat of Bernier and his party will remain absent from mainstream politics for the current future. While this could be seen as a rejection of those kind of ideas by the Canadian people this idea of Canadians being unwilling to as publicly discuss and views towards racism and immigration has in many ways been along standing aspect of Canadian politics and ideas. Even within the last hundred years the government and with popular support banned all immigration from all Asia with the preteen of protecting people from race related riots and to maintain a white nation. Beyond that there is the other major issue of the treatment of natives and residential schools, issues the government and public are more than happy to allow to be kept quiet and instead discuss the greatness of Canadian multiculturalism and inclusiveness. However when push comes to shove the government have shown many cases of an unwillingness to acknowledge or apologize for these acts unless there is a great deal of public pressure and when members of the government or community leaders make strides to mend these issues they get called for apologizing to much and this is seen as an issue and a weakness. But when someone comes into the front and is more willingly to publicly to speak of these values and aspects of the Canadian past they are shunned and turned against by the public. How come Canadians are willing enough to practice and allow these values away from the light. As even to the present-day discrimination in employment and recognition are still rife in many sectors of daily life. Despite this coloured past and legacies Canadians remain proud of the fact that they steer clear of the more overt forms of racism as seen in the US or some central European countries such as Hungary, under there current presidents, however much it may continue to simmer under the surface. The reluctance to admit and resistance to this more overt form of racism show that despite the legacies and continual attitudes, especially in certain parts of the country, mean that hopefully leaders and the brand of far right populism promoted by the Peoples Party will remain as outsiders, and there ideas dwindle with the embracement of the multicultural past of Canada.
The article by Sofia Lopez, relates the role that women played in the Nationalist Fifth Columns and the way that the government formally recognized them after the war. The nature of the Civil War lead to many collaborators and agents in the zones of the country controlled by the opposing side, the article focuses on the role of women in nationalist zones of the country. The article focuses on the differences between the way that Nationalists portrayed the role of women in the movement, but the article points to specific examples where the catholic traditional values of there women were extolled. The way that this propaganda was used to portray the role of women, in many cases that the article points to the roles are downplayed by the official records and the numbers of members that were officially recorded was kept suppressed. The article though shows how that many women participated in many varied roles to support the movement. The portrayal of women I find interesting as the use of the way that the narrative became so tied to the use of the traditional roles of women, as homemakers and wives, compared to what the republicans, in the article held as values of being tied to equality and freedoms for all, an image that the nationalist government after the war in 1939 would want to quash and quell the ideas that the republicans were tied to. The article talks to this that the nationalists didn’t credit many of the women who participated and only those that had already originally registered with the Falanigst parties before the war and that for many of them they were relegated back to there traditional roles by the state.
The ways that the differences between sexuality and gendered nature were treated by the authoritarian regimes in the early 20th century show how effective that they could be as tools in the control of people and the building of a so called united people.
The articles regarding Germany and Russia, show that despite fairly diverse opinions on sexuality and gender in the Russian revolutionary period, before Stalin, or the Wiemar republic became fiercely quashed and controlled by the regime with the rise of authoritarianism. Though in both cases was mainly targeted against male homosexuality and subversion, with female equivalents even in the more influential circles was not seen as a threat due to the lack of influence and power attributed to females.
Though that in the examples of the soviet gulag and gestapo investigation the state was mainly indifferent to female homosexuality and the case of the soviets saw it as a passive benefit to the maintenance of order. The wider society was less willing to be so with other citizens being willing to use there distrust of such activity as evidence of subversive activity against the state. This was seen by despite the openness of such relations in private circles or the prisons, but in wider society and upon reintegration these relations and attitudes were again buried to ensure less of a prejudice and suspicion in normal life