dizzy

Relax, BC. I explained the comment. I certainly didn't take offence to your response. FTR I'm interested in having a discussion/debate and not turning this into a courtroom. But I'll retract the 'asshole' comment, reluctantly, because I do think being surprised when black people are articulate (as some whites do in america) or being surprised when americans are not glory whores (as some people in the rest of the world do) are both very, very small-minded ways to view another group of people.

Yes, some aren't directed at you, and I sympathize with your frustration. I haven't seen any posts from you that would suggest you are even remotely anti-canadian and some people are ignorant to suggest that you are. But my reference to BC is also evidence that what the author says is not unique to canada.

I think you're stretching here. She's only under scrutiny because someone dredged out a 6 yr old article. Where does the reference to one muslim voice come from? If i pick one muslim-canadian voice in america, it's Irshad Manji http://www.irshadmanji.com/about-irshad . Yes, this was the author's reality. As it stands, no one has proven that her reality is the normal experience for americans living in canada or, more pointedly to the OP, that it defines the canadian reality. She didn't trigger this OP. Someone else did. It's the OP I'm addressing, with reference to the article. Her experience is valid. It is not the common reality as suggested by the OP. Agreed. And I welcome her opinion. I just don't think anyone should consider it the rule. As I've mentioned earlier, I have many american friends and family. I work in america at least a few times a year (albeit as a visitor). I don't have one experience with the people with whom I interact; I have many. Further, in my social circles here, you can bet that the US comes up in conversation, mainly around international issues or, more recently, healthcare. But I don't hear what I would consider american bashing. If there are disparaging comments, I regard them the same as I do the ones I hear about canadians by americans; as a reflection of cross-national rivalry.

All of the above I won't go through the entire thread, but I think some of these people have also made productive comments. And I noticed you didn't add BC's chirps about canada to your list? I'm not offended, because I recognize, for some, name-calling is just a part of the play in debate.

I don't question that it provides one perspective. I'm challenging the OP that this presents the reality. When I say "imagined", I'm talking about the stereotyped expectations she came with into Canada. I certainly don't believe she alone holds them or that there isn't some truth to them. The best lies always hold a kernel of truth. In this case, I believe it may be more than a kernel, but considerably less than she or BC claim. Either way, my point remains. Stereotyping provides us with a tool to make a functional reference when detail is not required but, when one of our stereotypes fails, it's usually evidence that we didn't evolve our thinking to meet the situation required. I didn't miss the point. I was simply providing another example to demonstrate that a complement can be an insult when it forces someone to conform to an stereotype. She, herself, admits that she actually came for a job, but used that opportunity to build the pretense that she was escaping the big bad bush. I think that captures a little bit of the person behind the article. FTR, I put the word asshole out there to reference the stereotypes I was presenting. There certainly was no anger in this or my other statements here. Minus one or two contributors, I think this is healthy debate... even BC is moving beyond his normal trolling tendencies in favour of thoughtful opinion I certainly don't think that the writer nor any of the contributing americans here are assholes. We have no disagreement that Canadians are just like Americans on this front (i.e self-aggrandizing, demeaning of the other) and that most countries that share borders project the same kind of rhetoric. It's part of the fun of being neighbours! It's also the crux of my point, that this is a normal experience, so she was short-sighted to not expect it.

Except that she assigns herself no fault for engaging in the very same stereotyping she claims herself to be a victim of. That's the weak link in her argument. And in doing so, you would prove my point!

Neither tolerance nor multiculturalism are 'philosophies' requiring comparison to another. 'Kinder, gentler, MORE tolerant' do. But, in the ways they are intended in the Canadian context, they were not disproved by the writer of this op/ed piece. The real point here is that we have a person who was somehow surprised that her leftist peers disliked the US and that they were not the genteel people she imagined. Her clichéd view of Canadians is evidence that a 'positive' stereoptype can be as disabling as a negative one. If I were to move to the US and be surprised to meet americans who were NOT glory whores, or black people who were ariticulate, wouldn't you think I was an asshole? I would. All of these statements rely on two-dimensional imagery. We live in a three dimensional world.

Sorry, I'm sure most of you have seen it, but I had it for those who haven't:

Most people who 'ridicule' christians here are former christians themselves, seeking to confront issues from their lives and to shed the religious skin that covers their society. For example, it's organized christian organizations, not muslim or buddhist or hindu groups, that control the anti-abortion lobby and have influence in government here. If you want to see the fight for evolution against islam, I suggest you investigate a muslim society and the work of groups like RAWA in afghanistan.

I made the distinction because Québec has no notable identity issues with respect to the US (other than their obsession with RVs). We share a neighbourhood with France via and St. Pierre et Miquelon and Denmark (Greenland), too. But I'm sure you can understand why I didn't bother to bring these up previously. Yes, America. And Great Britain, France, Russia, relative to Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands. etc. I understood why Chile celebrated the way they did. Like many, I was glued to the news portals feeding info on the rescue efforts and, like many, I celebrated alongside them. Is there a lesson for me as a Canadian in this? I can certainly tell you that growing up with a lot of chileans and other south americans here informed my experience. Indeed. Or like Canada after winning a major international hockey event.

To answer your question: 1. English canada shares parallel ethno-cultural, linguistic and intertwined political histories with the US. 2. Canada has no other neighbours. To answer mine: Canada's position as a small power is an important stand alone factor in its identity. But, more importantly, the function of national identity is more important in terms of its ability to serve the needs of the people than it is its ability to create a feeling of common experience. I don't think we are in disagreement here. We agree that personal identity and national identity inform each other? Yes, this is a beautiful moment. I would not think any less of the moment if this happened in Canada and the miners chose a quiet moment in tears with their families in place of this joyous display of nationalism.

I think I have a different understanding of good intentions than you. For me, 'good intentions' are plans not pursued. One thing I will not accuse religious moderates engaged in goodwill of is not following up their concern for their fellow humans with real support. A democracy is not valuable if absent of the free exchange of ideas. I reject more than I accept, but I want them all accessible for my perusal. No, I'm not a muslim nor is my family. I am an atheist. We are catholics for 3 hundred yrs and before that hindu brahmin. I can also trace my family history back two thousand yrs, but I'm only concerned with the man I am today. Question: Why are you asking me if I'm soft hearted, when I'm the one who's not afraid of others' opinions being 'gently forced' upon me?

. I don't dispute this. Two countries live side by side and share a large, unprotected border, evidence of a lack of historical hostility. The US is the most powerful nation of the present day. Canada is a small power. In what possible world scenario would canada NOT be defined by its presence next to the nation state that every other country in the world sees in its own shadow? Wouldn't you agree that national identity can not exist without its absorption into personal identity? Not to be lazy, but I'd appreciate if you could provide a link. I'm contributing in between shoots and don't have time to dig around the internet.

Are you surprised that islam is a proseltytizing religion? Yes, much like other proselytizing religions (christianity being the notable other), it's true that they would like you to worship their brand of god, for your sake and their own. As long as they do so through charitable acts and reasoned discourse, what's the problem?

Pluralism existed in canada before multiculturalism policy. One does not depend on the other. And the policy has little bearing on the experience I'm describing. I agree that Canada has failed to solidify a patriotic identity. We have neither 1000 yrs of common history nor a system like hollywood to rally the people. But I have no confusion about what it means to be Canadian. Besides, the only ideals I truly require from a society is a commitment to the notions of liberal democracy. I have no issue with you discussing the external impacts of identity, but your statement didn't recognize the most critical aspect of identity, i.e. self-perception. I would welcome you to provide a fuller response that incorporates both. So, there is no parallel movement, no common bond? If you believe this to be true, then what is the value of this 'national identity' that you keep preaching?

You are talking about Ahmadiyyans. They are no different than many christian sects. Sincerely invested in peace, sincerely concerned about others' welfare but, unfortunately, caught up in the notion that people need to think alike in order to agree. Nothing new or threatening about them.

Yes, I'm aware that this is your schtick here. But in the real world, where I'm sure you think bigger thoughts, do you have an opinion? I'm suggesting that open societies evolve from the experiences of others, both good and bad. Politically and to some degree culturally. But the US did so as a consequence of western european enlightenment thought and with the mechanisms provided from their british tradition. So, europe has a claim on america's accomplishments. and Muslims and 'easterners' have a claim on european accomplishments. Shall we discuss inflation caused by a mali king that led to the italian renaissance? Where exactly do you want this ride to begin? This is true but irrelevant. We're discussing self-perception, not the perception of others. let me clear the slate and reiterate the clarifying point on its own merits: "Identity is the sum of an equation that includes the historical contributions of others and our own ability benefit from them. Nowhere in the rules does it say we have to be obeisant to the political classes and innovators that gave us the goods. The only inherent obligation is that we continue the trend." Your thoughts?

I think Canada has benefited from having british roots and america as a neighbour. Remember, canada was born of purely pragmatic means, not lofty ideals. This informs the canadian identity in ways that could be judged as both good and bad. The opposite reality presents the same challenges and opportunities for americans. I could write a book regarding the nuances based on these different histories, but I wouldn't necessarily read one. Like it or not, the US joins Canada, Australia and others as benefactors of the british legacy. You base this on what, exactly? It's an undeniable fact that canadians and a few european liberal democracies have both exceptionally high levels of socio-economic well-being AND a history as non-colonial small powers. You think that experience comes with no beneficial characteristics? None? Once again, I feel you are in accordance with my point but too stubborn to agree. Identity is the sum of an equation that includes the historical contributions of others and our own ability benefit from them. Nowhere in the rules does it say we have to be obeisant to the political classes and innovators that gave us the goods. The only inherent obligation is that we continue the trend.

Yes, it is not unique. That is my point. The US is the modern day roman empire, preceded by the modern day greek empire of Great Britain. Apply anxieties/concerns regarding the impact of those labels accordingly, based on where you live. FYI I share from personal experience often, but only because I think truth can not exist without accountability. I've never traveled as an american, so I can't speak to that experience, but I have traveled with americans and also to places where I made acquaintance with americans. In most places, I'd rather hang with a yankee than a frenchman or an italian. My worst ugly american experience was in central america with an asshole that was only moments of lucky from not meeting my fist because of his drippy superiority. But it was another american who ended up 'repudiating' him. Both were californians... the latter is now a friend... and the experience is evidence to me that there is no ideological consensus connected to flag. What you might not understand is the beauty behind the canadian identity crisis. Properly harnessed, it's a strength. My gf, son and I are perfectly benign when we are abroad. That no one sees us as a threat makes it so much easier for us to be evaluated as individuals. We share this privilege with nordic countries and few others. At home, we benefit from both canadian and american influences interchangeably. If we're discussing identity and not limiting to political class, I could argue that you do the same every time you listen to a music genre invented by former black slaves. Get my point?

Interesting that you reference a frenchman's work on european anxieties as reference for this uniquely canadian brand of anti-americanism? I can't speak for all canadians, simply because there is no unified voice. I know we seem small in the american eye, but a population of 33 million means that 33 million people live here, not a group so small that they can easily be typecast. I am from a family of multi-planted south asian immigrants. I grew up in toronto. What do I have in common with my own son, who is growing up as a franco living and studying in québec, and is also the child of a mother who is multi-generation ontarian? I can answer the question, but it evades the things that rank high in your assessment of difference. Maybe that is the privilege of being a nomad? Canadian 'anti-americanism' is no different than American 'anti-mexicanism'. It is a touch romantic, a touch xenophobic, unchangeable and, ultimately, irrelevant because we all know it would be harder to fulfill our quality of life without the other.

No, it wouldn't be irrelevant because it would express intent. If your only objective is to celebrate difference for the sake of history, what is there to discredit in canadian-born 'anti-americanism'?

Well, your continued participation in this forum is evidence that the tribalism works both ways. I'm curious, with all of the time you've invested here, have you ever said anything nice about canada or canadians?

Sure thing, I'll PM you with deets. Again, this is maybe a question of definition. I consider people I regularly dine or attend parties with or work alongside 'friends' in this context. I should be more specific and state, "friends, colleagues and other people I like to spend time with". And that's also my point. Neither you nor BC seemed surprised that negative attitudes toward the US exist. Nor frankly are most of the Canadians posting here. How did she somehow miss a cue that most other americans seem able to acknowledge? Did she think that, by pretending to move because of her disdain for Bush, she would more easily make friends here? Did she buy into the kind of two-dimensional rhetoric that lefties like Michael Moore propagate about Canada (doors unlocked, no racial tension, high functioning healthcare system)? Either way, she would have done herself a disservice by purchasing a caricature and thinking it was an idea. If this is true, then she did not understand canadian tolerance. We are caught up in many polarized internal conflicts, around québec sovereignty, immigration/multiculturalism, same sex rights, etc. What makes the country 'tolerant' is not that everyone respects others, it's the practice of putting pragmatic ends before ideology. For example, many people were openly opposed to gays and lesbians getting married, but they chose not to make it a ballot issue because they knew their beliefs would not be able to overwhelm the resident philosophy of 'live and let live'. But she is still only one person. The data presented elsewhere in this thread suggests that, despite the bickering and chest pumping, we actually like and respect one other. I'd like the opportunity to provide her and any other americans with the clarification listed above. 'Kinder, gentler', 'pluralism', etc. exist but they are something different than she wanted to believe.

I've been to afghanistan a half dozen times, most recently this past august, very much in support of our troops (and the afghani people), but no, I'm not a member of the canadian forces. I'm just a dumb civie photographer. I chose the word 'ribbing' because it is a reflection of how I receive it, not necessarily how it's delivered. I would share the Ms. Jacobson's observation that the comments directed at me are, among other things, often smug and absurd. I just choose to take it less seriously than her. They are, after all, friends and family, there are more interesting matters surrounding us than their opinions about my country of residence. And, as I've said, this tension is not unique to canada and the US. For example, I was near harassed by my cousin's swiss wife about the quality of my french and all of the other failures of north america during a visit to switzerland a couple of years ago. The difference between people like me and people like Ms' Jacobson is that people like me don't lose sleep over minor irritants, especially ones that I have every opportunity to prepare for. She's a scientist, so she shouldn't be surprised to learn that humans are tribal.

I'd certainly agree with your assessment of Texans. I spent some time in San Antonio and have met a fair number of them in Afghanistan. They are quite hospitable and gracious. But I think you also highlight The writer's problem. There are a lot of americans who have the same two-dimensional view of Texans as the one you've seen here. Like them, she is confusing a nation's political stance with it's people. For instance, while I recognize that the US is a powerful and innovative country, most americans I've met embody neither (in the sense that they're living moderately productive lives that look much like those in any other western democracy). Further, I get ribbed all of the time by my many of my american friends and family, who hold some fairly two-dimensional views of our healthcare, lack of military might, canadian obsessive politeness, etc. Should I ever decide to move to the US, I'll be prepared for more of the same, for the following reasons: 1. It's part of my due diligence to understand the mindset of a group of people before I choose to spend a chunk of my life with them. 2. I know something this woman doesn't, that cross border ribbing is an international hobby. It's not unique to Canada and the US.