By Beth A. Robertson
If you are a Canadian as obsessed with current U.S. politics as I am, you probably are aware of the strange presidential election south of the border. In fact, even if you are not interested in US politics, the theatrical run-up to the 2016 US election seems hard to avoid. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump has repeatedly filled headlines with his flagrantly racist and sexist views, as well as his fondness of dictators and the use of nuclear weapons. His approach to immigration includes building monolithic walls along first the Mexican, and then Canadian border. With US citizens threatening to move to Canada in droves if Trump is elected, giving rise to “dating sites” attempting to match US citizens with compatible Canadians, this presidential race has become a truly North American preoccupation.

Clinton in Hampton, NH, by Marc Nozell, CC License Attribution Generic
Many peoples’ hope for this election, if begrudgingly, rests on the shoulders of the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state. Although she has by no means courted controversy as much as Trump, she has experienced her fair share of drama. One of the more recent is a video emerging of Hillary Clinton stumbling into her SUV after attending a 9/11 memorial last Sunday. Later in the day, it was revealed by Clinton’s doctor that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. Viewing it as “not a big deal”, Clinton continued with her campaign duties, until the fateful stumble made it apparent she might just have to give herself time to recover. This event was widely touted afterwards by the media as the “health crisis” of Clinton’s campaign that could threaten her bid for presidency. It fuelled conspiracy theories that emerged relatively early in the campaign that the Democratic candidate is in poor health, whether due to a brain injury, a heart condition, Parkinson’s Disease, or even syphilis.
There has been some understandable backlash to such claims, one of which emerged from CNN journalist, Christiane Amanpour, who pithily asked the question, “Can’t a girl have a sick day?” She then invoked history to point out an unfair double standard, listing examples of previous male presidents before Clinton who had some sort of health-related issues, yet were never questioned as to their ability to fulfill their duties as head of state. It seems fair to reason that Amanpour may be correct in thinking that the preoccupation with Clinton’s health is a product of historically ingrained sexism. Continue reading







Over the past year, much has changed at ActiveHistory.ca. Long time editors Ian Milligan and Kaleigh Bradley left the project as their careers have taken them in different directions, while we’ve added three new contributing editors to the team (Welcome Stephanie Bangarth, Erika Dyck, and Colin Coates!). Following 
Until 1887, the national Liberal party of Canada was led primarily from Ontario by statesmen hostile to the fiscal importuning of the other provinces. It bore a heavy impress from George Brown, who had largely based his political career on denouncing Catholics and French-Canadians for holding Canada back from its progressive destiny. But after Edward Blake lost yet another election that he should have won, given the strength of popular opinion against John A. Macdonald in other regions of Canada (especially in Nova Scotia and Quebec), the party leadership reversed its Brownian orientation and installed a Catholic French Canadian as its leader. Many Anglo-Protestant supremacists were shocked and appalled at the choice and they were more shocked and appalled when Laurier won the election of 1896. Sir Charles Tupper won a plurality of the popular vote and he held Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and much of Ontario and Manitoba, but Laurier won an overwhelming victory in Quebec that cemented other successes into a plurality of seats. The country would enter the 20th century, “Canada’s century,” with a French-Canadian Catholic at its head.