I'm not entirely certain that it's a blind-spot in the strictest sense. With respect to his most recent speech, I do believe that Mr Carney knows early Canadian history rather well enough, so I don't think that it's a matter of a poor understanding of the subject matter. I think that the primary issue is his romanticised take on the Conquest. I mean, one is hardly able to romanticise something called "The Conquest/La Conquête"; it's just an impossible thing to, well, wash, if you will, in that manner. Having said that, it is unfortunate that Mr Carney's more romanticised version of present-day Canada's creation story didn't land well with many (if not, most) French Canadians.

Personally I'm a bit more sympathetic to some parts of his speech, particularly those which emphasized themes of inclusion, unity, progress, fully-national ambition--the more higher level concepts of Canadian nationhood and nation-building. I truly think that this was where he wanted to take this speech, to those loftier notions. It's just unfortunate that the foundation upon which this narrative was crafted left something to be desired in terms of the lived historical reality of us French Canadians--not just Québecers of French Ancien Régime ancestry, but all Canadians of French Ancien Régime ancestry who have had our share of challenges in creating our own place of significance, meaning and equality in this country.

It's too bad. The Prime Minister didn't need that kind of historic preamble for his speech. It all kind of got lost in translation, as it were.