The difference between clinging to the past and preserving heritage

Disclaimer: This post is not written as an indictment against the many, many wonderful men on this planet.

Growing up we called them pale males, the vanguard of brut ignorance which ruled our daily lives by bullying, intimidating and, mostly, throwing very public tantrums.

For a brief, very brief, moment in time we seemed to shed these dinosaurs and be on track to prove that our species was better than its inheritance suggested.

But, like all horror movies, we missed the few lurking in the shadows and they have come back to haunt us with renewed energy.

I am older now, a wee bit wiser, and I know that things happen in cycles which are dominated by bad behavior interspersed with wispy spirals of rationality.

I know that we will survive this too, but so much poorer - not only materially but also intellectually.

Heritage is a reminder of what we can be both for the good and the bad. These reminders are embedded in books, documents, artifacts and traditions. When we lose these we lose the memory of how to rejoice in each other, and how to protect ourselves from each other. We lose our civility.

Pale males are hot-wired to cling to the past, but disrespect heritage.

Heritage is a reflection of what they never can be.

The past means something very different to them.

The past is always about what they've lost, or what they perceive is about to be lost to their way of life. And they are easily affronted - quick to use force.

In the end they lose the past anyway.

The tragedy is that in the process of losing what was never real they destroy everything else.

This is the difference between them and us.

This is the difference between clinging to the past and preserving heritage - preserving the future.

Toronto's loss may be greater Ontario's gain

Difficult to understand the municipal politics in Toronto right now, but it seems that the answer to the city's budget crisis is to shut down everyone not wielding a hockey stick.

My rather mercenary mind sees this as a benefit to communities such as Niagara-on-the-lake, Stratford, Huntsville, Collingwood or Burlington whose cultural tourism would benefit greatly from the proximity of Toronto's refugee artists, actors, photographers, musicians and all attendant professionals including the culinary specialists attuned to feeding creative types and their audiences.

For example. I envision BIFF not TIFF - the Burlington International Film Festival.

Think of the financial benefits to Burlington and its neighboring towns with facilities which could become world class creative platforms?

If I were in municipal politics in a well-placed Ontario town I would be out there wooing the Toronto disenfranchised. I would be calling upon all my area financiers and other stakeholders to put into place a cultural economic strategy that would place my town on the world map.

This just seems like a one-time opportunity to rebuild communities wrecked by the decline of the motor and other industries.

I say, "Why not step out of the box?"