The Icelandic Canadian - 01.03.2004, Side 7

Vol. 58 #3
THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
101
human nature. Although we may do so
unwittingly, we tend to deal with “truth”
as secondary to our emotional and person-
al agendas - in history as in other things. In
this case, facts were no match for a defen-
sive ego. Not even the original document
would convince the yarn’s owner that it
could not be true. Truth, admittedly, is not
always this simple as it relates to history
and human behaviour, but in this context it
was straightforward.
This sort of delicate situation, in which
personal feelings and emotions compete
with rationality and fact, poses somewhat
of a dilemma. When is “discretion the bet-
ter part of valour” and when is truth
important enough to be an issue?
Who hasn’t seen a film in which small-
town prairie folk hop about in their over-
alls and plaid shirts to a rendition of some-
thing like “Turkey in the Straw”? Having
grown up in rural Manitoba at a time when
dances in the local hall or country school
were still common, and when well-dressed
adults glided gracefully around the floor to
waltzes or fox trots in perfect time to the
orchestra, I find myself resenting this
“hokey” portrayal of prairie people. It
seems to me an easy enough thing to “get
right” - if only filmmakers bothered to do
a little checking. In this case the damage
done is arguably minimal, perhaps not
worth making an issue of, but what this
does clearly illustrate is how readily even
the simplest things are misunderstood and
misrepresented.
Not all popular misconceptions are
harmless. Significant historical errors can
and do have major ramifications, especially
when they find their way into popular
media where they are repeated so often
they eventually become accepted as truth -
a phenomenon we have come to know as
the “big lie”. Distortions in history can not
only defame people no longer here to
defend their names, errors can colour pub-
lic perception of groups and events in the
present and future, influencing significant
decisions and policies - sometimes even
becoming the basis for false memories and
unjustified legal or political claims.
A sterling example of the potential
hazards of getting history wrong is the
often repeated claim that Icelandic settlers
on the shores of Lake Winnipeg established
the “Republic of New Iceland”! This is not
only the most vainglorious and obnoxious
“big lie” to emanate from the Icelandic
community, it is one of the most mislead-
ing and potentially damaging. Not long
ago, the New Iceland Heritage Museum at
Gimli received overtures from a separatist
interest in Quebec that had learned about
“the republic” via the museum’s website.
That organization was seeking a legal
precedent for political sovereignty.
Of course New Iceland was never a
“republic”, in any way, shape, or form.
The Icelandic Reserve, one of the cradles of
Canadian multiculturalism, was envisioned
as a cultural enclave where the Icelandic
language and identity could be maintained
within Canada, and it did have its own con-
stitution - just as did every Icelandic read-
ing society, ladies aid, etc. Never at any
time, however, did the settlement on Lake
Winnipeg have anything approaching the
status of “republic” - in concept or in
effect. It is inconceivable that the Canadian
government would facilitate the spawning
of a foreign political state (i.e. republic)
within its bosom - especially in the wake of
armed insurrection in Manitoba just a few
years before. In fact the creation of an
autonomous political entity by our immi-
grants forefathers would have been tanta-
mount to treason! Claims of a “republic”
ignore not only historical fact, but the spir-
it and character of our “founding fathers” -
who are thus cast in the light of men with-
out honour, prepared to accept what
Canada offered but unwilling to acknowl-
edge their new responsibilities. History, of
course, shows that the opposite was true of
these men.
Why and how, then, do blatant fallaci-
es of this ilk keep rearing their heads? One
school of thought forgivingly labels this
sort of thing “mythmaking”, which appar-
ently excuses any and all variations on the
theme of misstating the truth, whether
knowingly or out of ignorance. In truth,
“mythmaking” in this context is little more
than a euphemism for “running off at the
mouth”. The ad nauseum repetition of fal-
lacies such as this often boils down to what