Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOh, Canada
Happy Canada Day, formerly Dominion Day, marking the joining of the British North American colonies into a federation; remarkably, the motherland didn't wholly relinquish political control until 1982, by which time Canadians were some fed up with her. Along with the usual burgers and fireworks, Canadians are celebrating with yet more probing questions about their Canadian-ness. Among the findings on multiculturalism, bilingualism, seal meat (5% eat it) and hockey (52% play it), it turns out 85% "see themselves as fundamentally different from Americans." Only 13 percent "see a future scenario where Canada becomes part of the U.S."
"That's about the level of support for a flat Earth or believing Elvis is alive," says Peter Donolo of The Strategic Counsel.
57 Comments so far
Show AllRegarding the 'suspension' of Canadian parliament (there's discussion further down below :) I can't believe Wikipedia actually has an article on this episode:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-2009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute
(if the link is broken, just search with "2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute").
So, the Governor General was actually in some foreign country, and she had to cut short that trip and returned to Canada on December 3, 2008 - when all this was going on. The Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a meeting with the GG on Dec. 4 - for about 2 hours. She doesn't meet with the opposition to hear their side. And the parliament is 'prorogued' until January 26, 2009. Interesting.
Also, according to Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008#Timeline),
elections were not due in Canada until October 2009 - that's right, 2009! But Stephen Harper called the election early - even earlier than the November 4 U.S. elections - maybe because he didn't want whatever "silliness" taking place south of the border - what with everyone chanting "hope", "change" and what not - affect Canadian politics? Interesting indeed. I wonder if the results could have been different if Canadian elections were held after the U.S. elections.
What many Americans wish for is a universal health care plan like Canada has.
Why it is taking the US so long to develop good health insurance for its people is probably because of the entrenched interests (insurance and drug companies and the AMA) that have prevented the natural progression in a western society to universal health care.
Canada developed its health care program because of one man in particular... Tommy Douglas and he is much beloved by Canadians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
Any health plan though will have some problems imo. There will be a stretch of resources because of the aging population and the obesity and drug problems.
Where I am in Canada, on the Niagara peninsula, there is a plan to close some hospitals and to centralize medical resources in St Catherines. The group that has made this decision was chosen by politicians and there has been a great outcry from the small cities and some doctors that are having their hospital programs reduced. Now people are asking to have these groups that decide where to place medical resources... elected by the people.
America can learn from Canada..if we paid any attention...
Canadians believe they are different from, and by definition, better than the Yanks. As a Canadian living abroad, and seeing things from a distance, I think Canadians who believe themselves different from Americans are partly right. Universal health care, better education, and a well maintained infrastructure are three things that show Canadians have got their main priorities right. In fact, politically, socially, and even culturally, Canada is closer to the EU than the US. Have Canadians ever thought about joining the EU. Europe may give them a better deal than NAFTA!
Canadians can't claim the mantle of superiority over their southern neighbor if they continue to embrace a Bush wannabe like Harper. Anyways, Happy Canada day and I hope Canadians will make better choices in choosing their leaders in the future.
Siountris
You are honest. I am an American who has been living in Canada for about 3 years now. Imo there is hidden hostility towards the US that most Americans are not aware of.
For example:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/06/mayors-resolution.html
Canadian mayors pass anti-'Buy American' resolution
And local Canadians where I am are connecting Obama with protectionism. There was a John Deere plant that closed here recently and someone (and a Canadian) wearing a Deere shirt was booed in a local restaurant. Deere is connected in their minds with the US
I think your advice of broadening Canadian trade to the EU is good ...and also trade more with China. Canada should also develop more industry independent of the US.
The US is a difficult nation with a lot of forces colliding and people arguing etc..but it does have a very creative culture. Canadians seem more dependent on other cultures for creativity..but I think that may change as Canada accepts more immigrants and that new influx of people with many values and cultures will create an environment that will foster creativity.
I've known a few Canadians. I spent my junior year of high school in Three Hills, Alberta, back in 1958. I hitch hiked across Ireland with a Canadian boy (back in 1970). Most of the English Canadians I met had a real inferiority complex when it came to the United States. The French Canadians I met were usually very angry with and resentful of their English counterparts.
Except for the climate, I like Canada very much and there are many things in Canada I'd like to see down here. I never understood why Canadians should feel in any way inferior to their neighbors. It really annoyed me. Canada has done its share of bad deeds (I had to take Canadian History and learned of the treatment of Indigenous Tribes, for instance), but it's avoided many of the outrageous crimes committed by the United States (such as slavery). I'd love to have its Health System. I'd love to have it's prison system. In general, Canadians treat each other better than we do. When I used to hear the phrase 'a kinder, gentler society' I though of Canada. I'm not sure what Canada is like in the new century. I hope it's citizens have lost their complex, and that the French have been included as first class citizens.
"Except for the climate,"
Actually most Canadians live in the southern regions of the country along the Canada- US border...The climate for most Canadians is similar to that of Americans who reside in Boston, New York City, Detroit, Chicago..etc. Warm summers and cold winters.. (Beautiful autumns)Northern Americans and southern Canadians share the same or a similar climate.
If you are from the American south the climate would not appeal to your liking. (Certainly not in winter) But...either would the climate in Boston or New York...Detroit...etc.
"and that the French have been included as first class citizens."
I am a french Canadian by birth and I have never felt like a second class citizen in Canada. Today I hold dual United States/Canadian citizenship.
I don't understand all the fuss about "Americans". The USA is the only country that has "America" in its official name - as far as I know. I've seen some people insisting on "USAns" (pronounced "yoosans"?) - come on - I don't think it will ever catch on. This is a totally misplaced resentment - when there is so much ELSE to resent about the USA.
I haven't seen many Native Americans object to the use of "Indians" to refer to hundreds of native ethnic groups and tribes, when everyone knows that the idiotic blunder made 500 years ago never got corrected. Heck, even for the cow's flesh that people eat, you've got
Steak, Round Steak, Flank Steak, Ribs, Flanken Ribs, Back Ribs, Tenderloin, Sirloin, Short Loin, Chuck, Round, Flank, Fore Shank, Hind Shank, Rump, etc....
depending on what part of the cow the meat comes from. But "Indians" for the people of two entire continents? Come on! I know Canada uses "First Nations" as an umbrella term. But one of their official agencies (ministry?) is called "Indian and Northern Affairs Canada". Some Native Americans themselves talk about "Indian-ness" when referring to their culture.
And lots of people use the term "Asians" basically to refer to people from East Asia and South East Asia, while technically, India, Pakistan - even Afghanistan - are all in Asia. Is it worth fighting to include the "Indians" among Asians? I think they have accepted that they are the "East Indians", while people from the Carribean nations are the "West Indians", and the Native Americans are just "Indians". I don't see these people objecting over these misnomers.
If people from the USA are "USAns", then are the people from the UK "UKians" (pronounced "yuck-ians")? I know UK is a messed up case - with England, Britain and UK all thrown around as if they are the same (I know the difference, btw :).
"Yoosans" ? Whew! I don't see it catching on. I repeat - it's a misplaced and an unnecessary resentment.
"
And lots of people use the term "Asians" basically to refer to people from East Asia and South East Asia, while technically, India, Pakistan - even Afghanistan - are all in Asia. Is it worth fighting to include the "Indians" among Asians? I think they have accepted that they are the "East Indians", while people from the Carribean nations are the "West Indians", and the Native Americans are just "Indians". I don't see these people objecting over these misnomers."
Actually, it is not "worth fighting" to include Indians among Asians because they are already included among Asians. Just because there are some, typically Chinese Americans, who sometimes act as if the term Asian belongs to them, doesn't mean Indians aren't Asians, or are not considered Asians, worldwide.
No, it's not just Chinese Americans - I think it's much more in the mainstream. Do this experiment - ask 20 people - as to how they use the term "Asians". Or be more specific - ask them what they think of when you say "an Asian woman" - I'm pretty sure most of them would be thinking of the East Asians - Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. I know for a fact that when a guy talks of his "Asian girlfriend", 90% of the time, it's someone from Japan, Korea, Philippines or some Chinese (incl. from Taiwan, Singapore, etc.). Maybe Europeans would use "Asian" to include all of Asia...not sure...
If it is an Indian, Sri Lankan, or Pakistani, the term is "South Asian".
Then why do all Latin Americans - hundreds of millions of them, call us "Estadounidese" (in english, "Unitedstatesian" or better, USAn) or "Norteamericano"???
They NEVER call us "Americano"
And believe me, if yo go down there, they WILL correct you if you call yourself "Americano".
I think that with all the well-earned resentment the USA has earned around the hemisphere, it would be a nice gesture to use the same term for ourselves that our neighbors do.
You mean 'dirty fucking gringos'?
lol
"Yoosans" sort of rhymes with "nuisance" - which may be a more appropriate term for the USAns? ;)
Maybe:
ooosans...
or "from the United States"
Or just "North American" Yes, that could also mean Canada or Mexico, but it will be obvious from your appearance and/or bad or nonexistent Spanish that you aren't a Mexican, and the Canadian population is so tiny that it can be safey assumed that a North American is a USAn.
I think we have beat this topic to death. In writing I'll continue to use "USAn" - it is both culturally sensitive and saves typing.
Hey, I know that you wanna be Canadian . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWQf13B8epw
or just in case the link doesn't work for you,
"Canadian, please"
Canada, never been there but would love to go some time. My Dad and Mom had their honeymoon there back in the 60's and he would tell me storys of high montain peaks and wonderful forests, high montain lakes with great fishing (somthing I love doing). I love storys of the yukon and the small population much like Alaska. I would move to Canada deep in the woods with little contact with other people but I hate the fact that they have Gun Control though.
Happy Birthday Canada
Guess Who,
Canada is most definitely NOT a republic. It's a confederation whose government is based on the principles of the British parliamentary system.
If you think about it, there was a fair bit of hubris involved in claiming the title of United States of "America" for one group of people since there seem to be quite a lot of us occupying the geographic space of the Americas -- and at least one-fifth of the world's population was already living in the Americas with no real need of "discovery" by Europeans. Perhaps THEY are the real Americans!
"If you think about it, there was a fair bit of hubris involved in claiming the title of United States of "America"'
Actually, I disagree. The more I think about it, the more obvious it is. If 13 States form a confederation, they are a united states of what? United States of America fits. And calling its inhabitants 'Americans' is linguistically correct. The same thing in the case of South Africa. South Africans call themselves Africans as Kenyans call themselves Kenyans. And again, what is imperial about Ecuador's name? Again I'm confused at the motivation, as I fail to see any problem at all. And as an American, I find it to be a rather spiteful act of passive aggression.
Keep in mind, too, that "manifest destiny" was expected to prevail far beyond the original "United States of America." Canada was certainly intended to be a part of it and, indeed, "a mere matter of marching" except that the War of 1812 didn't turn out exactly as intended.
With current multinational corporate financial influences and globalized dominance, old geopolitical demarcations and nationalistic designations probably don't matter much anyhow.
In this you are correct.
"America' refers to two huge continents, in which the USA is just one country. So, for the USA to monopolize the term "America" shows a certain arrogance that many other Americans, Latin Americans particularly, find offensive. And in fact, if you travel to latin America, you will encounter people who are offended if you call yourself an "American". They will call you "Estadounidese", "Norteamericano" or "Gringo" but never "Americano". That is what they usually call themselves if they are in mixed-national company.
If South Africans do indeed call themselves "Africans", then that is arrogant too.
So then your grievance is not what Americans call themselves. Your grievance is what my country is named. For, as I've demonstrated, 'American' is in fact correct to call me based on my country's name. Why not be proactive? Campaign to get America to change its name to something else if it bothers you so much.
No. As I explained "America" is the name of two continents comprising a entire hemisphere. The USA has no more a right to call itself "America" than Venezuela has a right to call itself "America" or Mexico to call itself "America".
As far as it's name, "Unites States of America" is probably OK, "Unites States" is also ok (although there are lots of other "united states" in America - the official name of Mexico is "Estsados Unidos Mexicanos") but simply "America" is not.
Tell you what. You can take a half-step and call yourself a "North American" I often do that. I never call myself just "American".
Wrong. North America is a continent. South America is a continent. As I have said. The name of my country is the United States of America. That IS its name. Rather, long form. Short form is, America. Unless Mexicans are going to start calling themselves EUMians, your arguement is absurd. America is the short form of United States of America. It is grammatically and linguistically correct.
You're harping about political correctness. That's something else entirely.
I've always argued that the only country that is both a nation and a continant is Australia, the usa is a part of the Americas. Calling only them 'americans' is inaccurate, and feeds their delusions of grandeur. (god, but my spelling is bad today. Honey, pass me another brewski.)
That is why I've always encouraged the use of "USAn" (pronounced "yoosan") instead of "American". This is in accordance with what Latinamericans call them -"Estadoundese". You need to do the same thing in Canada. Call them "USAn", or "Etats-Unisenne" if you are from that only genuinely progressive Canadian province.
"... that only genuinely progressive Canadian province."
Sadly, but very largely true at present. If Quebec ever does actually separate, the rest of us are in deep trouble. That was my only real disagreement with Rene Levesque. His vision was too narrow. Otherwise, I always admired him as a uniquely principled and honest politician.
Why?
OMG Webber!
You really do need to get out more, son! Try Atwood or Ondatje or Findley or Robertson Davies for authors. (Mind you, unlike Dorothy, Alice or Anne, these books are for grown-ups.) Been to Stratford -- ever? How about Denis Arcand or Cronenberg? The Group of Seven . . . no more time for this -- gotta finish packing for my canoe trip: Quetico for sure, Wabakimi maybe. "You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone."
I'd say "Anne of Green Gables" is cedrtainly on a par with the Wizard of Oz....wouldn't you?
Oh Canada, my home and native land.
Unfortunate that we are so boring and our motto is peace, order and good government. Not sure that we have peace and order, we definitely dont have good government.
Not sure why seal meat would go into the survey--why not ask how many canadians support the bashing in of infant seal skulls with a spiked club to provide russian prostitutes with coats and chinese with seal penis aphrodisiacs to help with their terrible terrible impotency problem? Or that the Canadian coast guard provides protection for the degenerate sealers at tax payers expense?
I wish we had some more jazzy literature. Why is it that the US has Dorothy from Kansas and England has Alive in Wonderland and all we got is Anne of Green Gables?
We never had a Poe, or a Melville.
Most artistic canadians leave the country to establish themselves, and English Canada's top grossing movie is still 1982's Porky's directed by an American.
Especially on the West coast, you sometimes feel people walk around in a drugged up state. They dont get excited about anything, or mad. If you discuss topics that arent in the major media they get this glassy look.
But at least the air is clean--for now.
You use "Dorothy from Kansas" as an example of great USAn literature? You gotta be kidding!
The Wizard of Oz is pretty darn good.....and its a very good example of American literature. It doesn't have to be Gone With The Wing to be "Great" does it?
Well considering just off the top of my head, authors like Twain, London, Sinclair, Steinbeck, Vonnegut, whoever it was who who wrote "The Wizard of Oz" (the novel, not the screenplay) is an absolute unknown.
Dear Webber,
Sorry to hear you dislike Canada so much. It's a shame you aren't more familiar with Canadian culture. It doesn't have the force of our southern neighbour's, but it has lots to offer, especially musically.
You should refrain from the sort of opining you have offered regarding the West coast, it's asinine.
Regarding the seal hunt, indeed a tricky topic: I do hope, at least, that you are a vegetarian. It's always discouraging to see a person cry about the seal hunt (because, in effect, they are cute) whereas the meat industry hums away, systematically producing and then slaughtering millions upon millions of intelligent, but less cute, animals every year.
Canada is boring? Maybe... by the same token, we don't have that many problems. "Boring", in a political aspect, does not make for a bad place to be a citizen.
I'm by no means nationalistic but your post compelled me, today being what it is, to set the record straight.
Regards,
James
Abby,
I'm not sure your remark about the motherland relinquishing control, or the Canadians "being fed up with her" is correct. The Governor General - appointed by the Queen, still has the power to dissolve the parliament and call elections - and came close to doing this just a few months ago.
Actually the GG has the power to disolve parliament at the request of the PM, for her/him to do anything else would be utterly unacceptable. An Aussie GG tried that stunt in the 70s, it's one of the major reasons that Australia has a republican movemtent today. A few months ago there was talk about the opposition parties forming a coalition gov't without going to an election, it didn't pan out. I don't think any opposition leader in his/her right mind would actually do such a thing, it's too far out of what has happened before (precedent is crucial in parliamentary gov't) the talk of a coalition gov't was political theatre.
To be honest the 'motherland' hasn't had control over what Canada did with itself for many many decades. After the experience of the First World War, and the cost of that conflict, Britain didn't have the power to demand anything of Canada.
What many yanks fail to realise is that the Queen is a figurehead, the symbol of nationhood and the continuance of government. She has the power to order lunch, but not much else, the last monarch that wanted more power was Edward VIII (the sob who married that yankee whore) and he was forced to abdicate before that could happen. Before him the only monarch that actually did have the authority to rule as well as reign was Charles I, he had his head cut off for treason against the Crown in the 1640s.
The nastiness of the "motherland's" consititutional monarchy is so deeply ingrained in U.S. colonial/imperial mythology that you'll never succeed in changing it with mere facts. All USAns just know that an unconstitutional "unitary executive" presidency with its combined C-in-C/Head-of-State/Head-of-Government roles and assumed "war powers" is far superior and that no day-to-day parliamentary accountability provides much greater "freedom and democracy" for export to others by force of arms.
Faced with "quaint" notions like Magna Carta and habeas corpus, George III could only dream of things like indefinite detentions without trial, let alone "death-by-drone" on command. He really should have granted George Washington his much sought after king's commission in the regular British army. Instead, the silly fool signed that 1763 proclamation honoring treaties and prohibiting colonial settlement west of the Appalachian mountains in an effort to ease tensions with the native population. That kinda put a crimp in Washington's westward land speculation (among others) and got him really PO'd. Some monarchs just don't seem to understand that treaties and other constitutional "supreme laws" are mere pieces of paper to be dealt with via "signing statements" and "executive findings." Damnable imperial tyrants!
[George III could only dream of things like indefinite detentions without trial, let alone "death-by-drone" on command.]
He probably did dream of stuff like that... The man was mad, he talked to his plants when the yanks had their revolution. He had a few lucid periods, but by in large his son served as Regent for most of the last part of the 18th and first part of the 19th century. It was the British parliament that drove the yanks to rebel, by actually asking them to pay for their share of the seven years war. The nerve of them, eh?
England's George sounds kinda like our George, and I don't mean Washington.
Yes, George III certainly did suffer from hereditary illness, probably porphyria. But, as you correctly point out, it didn't really have much to do with either the "edicts", nor with the colonial revolt in response thereto. It was the imperial government of that day who was actually demanding imperial-colonial protection money. George just signed the papers, but I thought I should probably go along with at least some aspects of popular U.S. mythology about their triumph over monarchical and imperial tyrany.
Today, of course, such demands are issued by a different imperial power with its own protection rackets and nuclear "bombing back to the stone age" enforcement options. Much better.
Poliical theatre? I thought a lot of Canadians were quite seriously supporting a Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition, to break the minority Tory government's continuing deadlock that was preventing anything from getting done. They got quite mad at Harper's suspension of parliament. If there was any political theatre, it was the conservatives accusations of political theater.
And while you stated that a GG dissolution would be unacceptable, you did not establish that it would be illegal. It sounds like real power to me.
Posted as a separate comment - because the width has become too narrow here :)
A coalition with the separatist party is never going to work, the bloc wants to see Quebec leave Canada, they're not going to serve any purpose that doesn't see that happen. So, they're not acceptable to anyone who wants to see a stable gov't in canada. A coalition with the bloc is and would be far worse than a minority tory gov't, hell, it'd be worse than a majority gov't under the idiot stevie boy.
[And while you stated that a GG dissolution would be unacceptable, you did not establish that it would be illegal. It sounds like real power to me.]
The power hasn't been used in ages, so it's defunct. If you have a law that never gets enforced is it really a law? If a gov't has a power that it never uses, does it still have the power? Theoretically the Queen has the 'right' to rule absolutely; but if she ever tried to do that she'd lose her crown.
Harper dodged a bullet, but if the coalition had defeated the government then the GG would have had two choices. She could have dissolved Parliament or she could have asked the leader of the coalition if he could form a government and invite him do do so if he said yes.
Shame you have that attitude about the Bloc. The Bloc Quebecois is the only genuinely leftist party in Canada since the NDP has largely sold out.
And just an observation from down here, but a lot of Canadians seem to harbor an attitude toward Quebecois that practically resembles racism.
My brother and his longtime, now married partner Tim emigrated to Canada as a consequence of the path their former homeland continues to follow. They moved to Toronto and have become quite dismayed at the attitudes there - particularly in the suburbs, attitudes are practically indistinguishable from any conservative part of the US . Canada is following right behind the US, and the spectre of Reagan is stalking the country big time.
But there is one exception - Quebec. As soon as they can they will move to Montreal. Tim is Louisiana descendant of victims of the ethnic-cleansing of Acadia and will in some ways be returning to his homeland, my brother need to get to work on his French.
I don't hate the french, but I do loath the quebecois separatists. Ask any frenchman if the quebecers are french, then you'll see some racism.
Your observations definitely contain some elements of truth, but one shouldn't equate Torontonian attitudes with Canadian perspectives nationally. For that matter, Toronto itself is anything but homogenous. Nor is Canada's francophone community limited to Quebec.
As for Quebec's "leftist" qualifications, it must not be overlooked that they gave the country Brian Mulroney and were quite strongly supportive of NAFTA and other "continentalist" corporate giveaways, including control over Canadian resources. Quebekers may have certain "leftist" leanings, but they're often somewhat parochial and far from being perfectly perceptive in the broader context.
Your brother may also discover that racist tendencies aren't unicultural either.
>>>pjd412 wrote: Canada is following right behind the US, and the spectre of Reagan is stalking the country big time.
I think you may be right on that one - even though most Canadians would never admit that - maybe they don't even realize what's happening in large pockets (so far, in pockets, I think) of Canada. Unless the progressives act now, Canadians won't even know what hit them and it could be too late. The illusion that they are distinct from the Americans is kept alive, while many progressive initiatives from the past are being undermined one by one. I am willing to stand corrected - and learn :)
Seed
Happy 142nd Birthday Canada and Happy Fourth of July to our American friends. May our bonds be respectful and our futures bright. Your skiers are welcome here in July as long as our waitresses can work in Santa Monica and Fort Lauderdale in December. And if you want us to stop piping all that dirty oil down from Alberta...give us back the Stanley Cup. Peace out.
It's a relatively minor matter of nuance, I suppose, but it may be of some significance to USAns due to their obsession with their own revolutionary act of "free and democratic" independence. For Canada, the "motherland's" relinquishment related to a few contitutional vestiges left over from "dominion" status after confederation in 1867 most of which were purely symbolic. Their "patriation" wasn't requested until recently, not because of any British reluctance, but mostly because Canada's provinces and the Feds couldn't agree on a home-grown constitutional amending formula.
As for Canada becoming part of the U.S., it seems doubtful that the U.S. would want it any more than Canadians do. Why should they. The U.S. already owns and/or controls almost all Canadian resources and major corporate interests. Besides, Canada's alleged "independent" status (a joke under its current government) provides a good foil in a wide range of international contexts.
Honestly, what is the deal with this USAn, USian, United Statian etc. etc. business? Is it some kind of passive aggression? Person from the Republic of Canada are called Canadians, not RCians. People from Estados Unidos Mexico are called Mexicans, not EUians. I can go on and on. So calling people from the United States OF America Americans is correct. Mexico is 'united states' as well. And Ecuador is not the only country on the equator, either. So what gives?
Possibly it's to distinguish U.S. citizens from the rest of us "Earthians." In case you hadn't noticed, not all resentment of U.S. titular claims is entirely passive and it's by no means limited to Americans who happen to live northward of the world's boundaries.
I know Elvis is dead, because I was at a motorcycle rally in Canada when he died.Great country, great rally.We had a few extra beers to the memory of Elvis,the young one, not the pill head.