Good point! First thing I will note, which I mentioned in a previous response — my main target audience is (left leaning) Americans, as I was trying to disabuse them of the fairytale vision of Canada. When I was writing about being subservient to the US and Britain I knew I was over-simplifying, but I let it slide for the sake of cleaner writing.

I am quite aware of the French/English tensions in Canada. I actually grew up close to Ottawa, and both my parents grew up in Quebec. Now, I live outside Sudbury, which is one of those random pockets through the country with a large French population, while both my siblings are living in Quebec. I share all this not because I think my biography is interesting, but rather that I don’t think I have a good handle on all the English/French tensions despite a lifetime of experience. It is deeeeeply complicated, and I was not confident I could write about it in a fashion that was clear or interesting.

Ultimately, I decided I needed to keep the article focused. Explaining “what is up with Quebec” to a predominately non-Canadian audience was not going to fit into the article. If I was writing a full length book on “White Supremacy in Canada” I think it would be interesting to approach the subject.

My quick take: White supremacy is fundamentally about stacking humanity into a pyramid of worth, where white cis able-bodied wealthy men are at the top. Mostly, divisions between French and English people are a distraction, where working class English and French people are made angry at one another as a diversion from a larger hierarchy. This isn’t to say that oppression isn’t real, but rather if we lived in a more egalitarian society it wouldn’t be as much of a concern.

(There was a while where I was researching Pierre Trudeau, and wanted to talk about the historic meaning of his confrontation with separatist extremists as a strange echo when compared to Justin’s confrontation with Trump. Ended up going in a different direction on the article for the sake of brevity/focus)