Whats Being Canadian Worth to You?

[CanadaRocks]

Not so long ago, we increased foriegn ownership of Canadian assets to 60%. This move gave a controlling interest of the Canadian economy to outsiders. Man who has the gold makes the rules right?

A number of years back, Canadians were offered a HUGE amount of cash, (wasn't it about 30 trillion? Does anyone recall the exact amount?) to sell Canada outright, the monies obtained from the transaction to be divided equally among existing Canadians.

Considering these two statements, and that one province or another is always considering separtism, perhaps its time Canadians did consider selling our country if our top priority really is the almighty dollar.

Far better to sell Canada and each of us have a equal share of the profits, than to simply let our politicians and businessmen give it away?

How about we set the inital bid for soveriegn rights to own/rule Canada at 2.5 million per existing Canadian Citizen and see how high the bidding would go?

We would definitely find interested buyers in the U.S., China, Arabia and several other countries. Canada is roughly half a continent of resources poised on the U.S border. Somehow I don't think we'd have much trouble selling despite that we are often told how little Canada has to offer.

Once we did sell our soveriegn right to govern ourselves we would each have about 2.5 mill to invest. Enough to look after ourselves for quite some time, and no Canadian would be poor.

If the U.S. bought us, we'd be likely divided into states and automatic citizens, not to mention millionaires.

Point is? Lets not give Canada away the way Manhatten was stolen for a handful of beads.

Lets either assert our soveriegnty and find our common destiny as a People, or lets quit beating around the bush and all get something out of it, not just our businessmen.

So tell me? Where do you stand on selling Canada?

Do you vote for the Judas plan,

or,

Do you vote for Patriotism?

[August1991]

CanadaRocks, for someone who appears to be a patriot, you have a strange view of your homeland.

Seen from a satellite, there is no border between Canada and the US. What is this "thing" you call Canada? How would "you" (or the State) sell it? Do you mean I would be forced to sell my home to a foreigner? Would I be forced to sell myself, and become a slave?

You note the price of $2.5 million/Canadian. What if I think that price is too low?

Lastly, you mention something about 40% Canadian content. Such regulations have nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with keeping competitors out. If I run the only fast-food joint in town and I manage to keep competitors out by law, who wins and who loses?

Canada is NOT the Canadian government. Canada is all the people who live here, their history and beliefs, their hopes and dreams and skills, the land and resources they own. Musicians have a much better sense of what Canada is than politicians.

[CanadaRocks]

Lastly, you mention something about 40% Canadian content. Such regulations have nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with keeping competitors out. If I run the only fast-food joint in town and I manage to keep competitors out by law, who wins and who loses?

Suppose sir, that Canada ticks off a country or countries which operates 60% of our business. These countries ban their citizens from doing business in Canada. The investors close up shop accordingly. Sixty percent of Canadian employee's now have no jobs. Pray tell what happens to the Canadian economy then? I can tell you, we'd crumble like a house of cards.

I do not believe wars of the future will require armies, instead, they will be managed through economies. If Canadians do not run our own economies then we will indeed become slaves to those who do.

Canada is NOT the Canadian government. Canada is all the people who live here, their history and beliefs, their hopes and dreams and skills, the land and resources they own. Musicians have a much better sense of what Canada is than politicians.

A romantic notion to be sure. In truth Canada is a geographical land mass within political boundaries under soveriegn rule by representatives of those who inhabit it. Its culture and heritage is shaped by the combined cultures, heritages and experiences of those who have, do and will inhabit it. Canada is a commodity and if we don't protect it, we'll lose it.

CanadaRocks, for someone who appears to be a patriot, you have a strange view of your homeland

Yes, I suppose I do. When I was a kid I learned to appreciate Canada, the values of family, of community, of folks bonding together to look out for each other. The more I learned of the world around us, the more I grew to appreciate our special strenght. The strong are not those who can look out for themselves, the strong are those who look out for the other guy as well as themselves.

Somewhere along the way, we've lost that. Somewhere along the way we began selling out bits and pieces of who and what we were, until Canadians now accept our politicians making cuts to single mothers nutrient allowances saying they'd probably spend the money on beer. Or politicians telling us we all have to tighten our belts to the point we close hospitals and throw persons out of mental homes onto the streets while the politicians themselves vote unaimously for a raise. Somewhere along the way Mr, its my opinion that we sold out our humanity for a handful of silver.

Do I believe in Canada and Canadians? Damn right I do. I just keep hoping we'll wake up in time to save what once was worth believing in.

[Fortunata]

Canada - one of my favourite topics How do we keep us Canada, both economically and culturally? All it takes is people wanting it enough to make it happen. This starts with what we teach our kids at home (by this I do not mean to teach them anti-other nationalities). Our values as a society has been one of collectiveness; of the whole being more important than the individual. I see this eroding as we more and more take on the "me" syndrome. This goes for entities as well as people, for example, Ralf Klein and Steven Harper and the Alberta firewall. We as a whole are stronger than each individual.

[CanadaRocks]

This starts with what we teach our kids at home

Can it be simply a failure of giving our children good values? Somehow I don't agree with that. Often children do recieve good values, at home and at school. Likely more so now than ever what with greater communication on all levels of societal contact.

No, I think instead, values are being tossed by the wayside. How many of the values you had as a child, have you sacrificed to put bread on the table and keep it there? How much have you changed since you played as a child and your parents told you to "be fair."

Who gives candiates the most contributions? Individual constituents hoping for a better, more fair world, or business's hoping to change laws to make more profits? Who do you think the elected politician is more concerned with pleasing?

Jonny and Jackie and Suzie give you a vote and a dollar to represent them, Charlie gives you a vote and 100,000 dollars with the promise of a job once you're term ends to see he's represented. Jonny, Jackie, Suzies interests wind up conflicting with Charlies. When it comes time to cast your vote, in whose favor do you vote?

Abraham Maslov through his hierarchy of needs expressed the thought that the more stressful a Persons existence is, the less likely he (or she) is to care about anyone but their own situation, and the less stressful a Persons situation is, the more likely they will expand the limits of their caring outwards.

Well folks, being brotherly and cutting your fellow Canadian a break, encourages unity on a personal level. But on a societal level thats the job of government, part of whose job is the redistribution of wealth through social programs.

The more these programs, available to all, are cut? The more likely that Canadians stop caring about being Canadians.

Bit by bit, we'll be nibbled away, until one day we wake up, and everything we've grew up with, everything we've cherished, has been washed away ..for a few dollars more.

Its not worth it. Our forefathers and foremothers had the guts to say the things we share in common are worth something and insist on it, do we?

It's not what makes us different that makes us Canadians, it's what we share in common.

Soveriengty is only of value if you have the guts and the ability to exercise it. Other than that, its just a fancy word.

[August1991]

No, I think instead, values are being tossed by the wayside. How many of the values you had as a child, have you sacrificed to put bread on the table and keep it there? How much have you changed since you played as a child and your parents told you to "be fair."

Do children learn that it's OK to take things from other people without their permission? Would any child sat "that's fair".

Well folks, being brotherly and cutting your fellow Canadian a break, encourages unity on a personal level. But on a societal level thats the job of government, part of whose job is the redistribution of wealth through social programs.

What would a child say to you if you told the child to go into the house of another kid with more toys and take some? Have you ever told a kid to do such a thing?

Maybe the values we knew as children are more complex and valid than you pretend.

[CanadaRocks]

Do children learn that it's OK to take things from other people without their permission? Would any child sat "that's fair".

Please be more clear with what you are talking about theft? By whom? For what purpose?

What would a child say to you if you told the child to go into the house of another kid with more toys and take some? Have you ever told a kid to do such a thing?

That child would hopefully say its wrong to steal. I don't encourage any child to steal. On the other side of the coin however, I would encourage a child to share what they have with those who are less fortunate and to realize that not everyone has the same starting points, nor advantages. I would also encourage the child to think that "there but for the grace of God go I."

[August1991]

I don't encourage any child to steal. On the other side of the coin however, I would encourage a child to share what they have with those who are less fortunate and to realize that not everyone has the same starting points, nor advantages.

What does the government do? "Encourage to steal" or "encourage to share"? It is one thing to encourage a child with many toys to share and another thing to encourage a child to take toys from other children who happen to have many. Would you teach a child that is "good"?

Please be more clear with what you are talking about theft? By whom? For what purpose?

You posted in this thread the idea that children have basic values (or as children we had basic values) that somehow adults lack. I thought I would take your idea and see where the problem lies.

I tend to agree with your original idea. Children often have a refined sense of "fairness" or values. I'm not so certain government, as you present it, is an extention of these values.

Compared to today, Canada was a very different country when it was first founded. It was even different as recently as 60 years ago. Aside from all the modern technology we enjoy, is it better now?

[PS. The hierarchy is purely Maslov's - and no one else's. Each person is different, thank God. Does rich Conrad Black care less about himself but a stressed air traffic controller more?]

[Hugo]

I tend to agree with your original idea. Children often have a refined sense of "fairness" or values.

I don't think you speak from a great knowledge of children or psychology. Children are born completely selfish and only learn tact, grace and selflessness with time, sometimes never.

Freud held that the infant began with the id, the competely selfish and self-serving inner self, which is why children up to the age of 2 or so are completely self-centered, and care not a whit for the desires of others. The over-riding and more developed ego and superego develop later, not automatically, but as a result of human interaction and learning.

Even up until quite an advanced age, children remain selfish at least in large part. When you hear an elementary-school-age child say, "It's not fair", what they mean is "I didn't get my own way." They never complain that it's unfair if they get the larger portion of ice-cream or the new toy, they only complain if they believe that somebody else has.

If you took most children under the age of 10 or so and told them to go into another kid's house and take his toys, they would go ahead and do it without a second thought. After that age, doubts begin to set in, but nevertheless, if an authority figure tells the child it is alright to do that, they will usually go ahead anyway. Questioning authority in the name of superior morality or justice doesn't really appear until teenage years.

The idea that children are born loving and sharing, without any racial or gender prejudices, is absurd. Anyone believing such a thing has not been to many playgrounds and observed how mercilessly cruel children are to each other, because of skin color, clothing, intelligence, athletic ability, gender, appearance, even name. Even in schools where parents and teachers strive to avoid any hint of discrimination, children still bully and tease for any reason they can find. Most children will join in with this even if they are not the instigator. I find it very hard to believe that children have a "refined sense of fairness or values" when they delight in reducing each other to tears or in seeing others so reduced.

If you want to appeal to common wisdom, think of the connotations of the words childish, immature, puerile, and infantile. Do they conjure up images of selflessness, fair play and morals? None of those words are morally loaded. They all simply describe a child-like state.

I do hold a qualification in psychology, specialised in child development, and I am a father of three.

[August1991]

if an authority figure tells the child it is alright to do that, they will usually go ahead anyway

I was more interested in what children think unadvised.

When you hear an elementary-school-age child say, "It's not fair", what they mean is "I didn't get my own way." They never complain that it's unfair if they get the larger portion of ice-cream or the new toy, they only complain if they believe that somebody else has.

Precisely. Children have a refined sense of fairness.

But please, Hugo, don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting children have some insight to ethics that we adults lack.

I was thinking rather that parents don't advise children to go and take toys from another child simply because the other child has more toys. In my experience, even very young children know it's wrong to take something without permission - although you might say they have learned this.

We encourage children to share, play together, be friends, "socialize" I guess is the word. If an other child is selfish and won't share, we don't encourage stealing toys as the solution.

[CanadaRocks]

Anyone believing such a thing has not been to many playgrounds and observed how mercilessly cruel children are to each other, because of skin color, clothing, intelligence, athletic ability, gender, appearance, even name

A great deal of what you've said does have a true ring to it. That being said .. I don't think children are mercilessly cruel unless either that is that persons *nature* or their *nurture*.

Nature we cannot help, we're born predisposed to certain things and it will always hold a sway if not dominance.

On the other hand nurture embraces our ability to update ourselves based on situations, modifying our perceptions of new experiences.

If among primary caregivers there is a nuturing attitude and tolerance/understanding/acceptance is taught with actions as well as words, that child will most likely have a predisposition to be tolerant, understanding, acceptant of others.

I've been a parent who with my child unknowingly used the Authoritative approach to child rearing. Despite claims of other parents that THE STORM IS COMING, .. as a parent I have never seen the "terrible twos" "traumatic three's" "Rebellious teens" or any other of the phases commonly associated with raising children.

What I have seen has been a beautiful guiding freindship shaped much like a funnel in terms of guidelines, where my daughter has grown into a Person I respect and love tremendously wether we agree or not (we love debating based on our percieved merits of a given situation) . She often made sound logic even as a child, and that ability grew to teach me, easily as much as I have ever taught her.

All that said? Government is to constituents, what parents are to families. While families teach more to children by example than they ever do with words, so too does government teach constituents more with examples, than by laws.

Every time those in government get away with scandalous or even outright corrupt acts in an "above the law" fashion, this teaches constituents that its only illegal if you get caught, and therein I feel, lies the reason why though children may learn good values growing up, they may have a survival tendency to use those values only when its convenient or advantageous, and to discard them when its not.

[August1991]

Government is to constituents, what parents are to families.

I mean this very honestly CR. Did you ever tell your daughter that she should take toys from "rich" kids because she was "poor"? Did you ever encourage her to take toys from "rich" kids and donate them to "poor" kids?

CR, you think the government should make me (a constituent) do something that you don't encourage your own daughter to do.

Apparently, these words "freedom" and "share" have elastic meanings.

This is no "head-game". I simply think that Canadians have lost their moral compass. This thread's title is "What's Being Canadian Worth to You". I have a clear idea. It involves sharing. And I think my idea will stand the test. What's your idea, CR?

[CanadaRocks]

Did you ever encourage her to take toys from "rich" kids and donate them to "poor" kids?

In the families model we've used, the government are the parents, not the child. I think thats where you're becoming confused.

In that model it would be the parent, who tells their child with 5 toys not to be so damn greedy and to give their brother with no toys a few to play with.

And yes, the government dang well should be redistributing societies wealth. Either that, or we should forget teaching our children values and simply concentrate on teaching them to succeed at any cost, and that .. is simply not acceptable.

[CanadaRocks]

". I simply think that Canadians have lost their moral compass. This thread's title is "What's Being Canadian Worth to You". I have a clear idea. It involves sharing. And I think my idea will stand the test. What's your idea, CR?

To me, being a Canadian, means looking out for each other. It means being tolerant. It means standing up for what we believe in. It means avoiding violence to resolve our issues. It means social programs. It means recognizing that someone who is different, is also a Person who hurts and bleeds and loves and cares. Being Canadian, means being humane in a world where doing that may not always make the most business sense.

When we stop doing these things, when we stop treating fellow Canadians humanely, as we would want to be treated, then I say to you, we have no danger of losing Canada, for it will already be lost in all but name.

[willy]

And yes, the government dang well should be redistributing societies wealth. Either that, or we should forget teaching our children values and simply concentrate on teaching them to succeed at any cost, and that .. is simply not acceptable.

If the answer is simply sharing, and individual values, how does government forced compliance foster that in our kids. The only value that fosters to me is a lack of personal responsibility. Laws restrict us, but they do not compel us to change our values. If they did, communism would have been a wonderful experiment and not a disaster to personal freedom and rights.

[August1991]

In the families model we've used, the government are the parents, not the child. I think thats where you're becoming confused.

Do you mean I'm a 6 year old, and you're my 4 year old sister and Paul Martin is Dad? WTF? Is that Canada? (Holy bejeezzers as a friend from Nova Scotia used to say.)

To me, being a Canadian, means looking out for each other. It means being tolerant. It means standing up for what we believe in. It means avoiding violence to resolve our issues. It means social programs. It means recognizing that someone who is different, is also a Person who hurts and bleeds and loves and cares.

I agree completely. But what do you mean by "social programme" (Canadian spelling)? Does that mean a person in Saskatchewan has the right to walk into someone's home in Ontario and take a chesterfield? (Well, you know, times are tough in Saskatchewan and those Ontario types are rich...)

Would you teach your daughter to do that?

PS. Your last comment, "It means recognizing that someone who is different, is also a Person who hurts and bleeds and loves and cares.", is the one I treasure most from having Canada make me.

[udawg]

Going back to the original discussion in this thread... hope no one minds...

In answer to the title of the thread, I'd have to say, there is no price. BEING Canadian is a collection of mores and values that we share with other Canadians. Canada itself, on the other hand, is simply a definition of latitude and longitude. You can BE a Canadian living elsewhere, likewise, you don't have to BE Canadian to live here. I think we need to make that distinction before having a discussion on *Being* Canadian.

If there were a way to retain our morals and values that we recognize as Canadian, living as citizens of another nation, I think perhaps we should consider selling the LAND we call Canada... but not the ideas. I don't think, however, that being assimilated into whatever country buys the land would allow us much of an opportunity to retain our unique values.

Look at Quebec. The French lost the 7 Years War, but over 200 years later, Quebec still exists, very much their own identity. How did they do it? A series of benevolent federal governments, who allowed them to keep their identity for fear of an uprising, which very well could have succeeded, back when they had a population equal or greater to that of the rest of Canada. The provincial government in Quebec controls a lot more than do most other provincial governments, relative to federal control. And, we're a democratic nation, who would, if the time came, let them secede from Confederation.

All of the luxuries that Quebec enjoys in the nation of Canada, Canada would not likely enjoy under whatever nation bought our land. We do not have the population (or, really, the guts) to run a successful uprising, if it became necessary. Odds are not good that any controlling government would be particularly benevolent. We would surely lose all control of our land and resouces, and would be lucky to have any form of our own government. We'd be lucky to be bought by a democratic nation.

All this leads to my point, which is, there is no price you can put on BEING Canadian. Being Canadian, and having control of our own land, to do with as we see fit, are inseperable. If we lose the landmass that we have sovereign control of, we lose control of our goverment, our decisions as a nation (which doesn't exist anymore), and our affairs. Our collective sense of nationality is weak enough as it is. We couldn't possibly survive as a province of a foreign nation with no power over ourselves.

If being Canadian is reliant on Canada existing, which I believe it is, under no circumstances can we sell our country. Wholesale or nickel-and-dime.

[August1991]

Quebec still exists, very much their own identity. How did they do it? A series of benevolent federal governments, who allowed them to keep their identity for fear of an uprising, which very well could have succeeded, back when they had a population equal or greater to that of the rest of Canada.

I suspect, udawg, that you are a fine person and you mean well. Your post implies that.

Unfortunately, your post and the quote above are about as close to Canadian history as most Hollywood westerns are to American history.

Starting with the Acadians through the Conquest, the Durham Report, Louis Riel, Clifford Sifton and so on, the basic aim of British North America was to get rid of the French minority either by assimilation or by deportation.

In 1759, when Wolfe burned and destroyed buildings up and down the St. Lawrence River, the population of French Canada was some 60,000 people. During the 100 years after Wolfe, there was no immigration (in fact no boats at all) from France.

The only reason anyone speaks French today in Canada is because, starting from the early 1800s, French Canadians had extremely large families and did so for several generations. (Modern Quebec has very few family names; to my knowledge, French Canada had the highest population growth rate ever recorded.) This did not happen because the federal government was benevolent.

As to the rest of your post, it seems to fall into a kitschy mish-mash discussing "Canadian Identity". Margaret Atwood has raised this to an art form. I think Milan Kundera said that kitsch is any idea void of meaning so that it can be all things to all people.

Maybe we should be happy. Nationalism is a dangerous thing in my mind. Canadian kitsch nationalism is of no danger to anyone.

[KrustyKidd]

Two and a half million? As long as it's real money sign me up! Family comes before country everytime and this would set them up for generations. I'll invest half, move to Montana and buy a ranch and drink beer with Albertans on the weekend when we go to Rodeos. Or, apply for Citizenship and move back into my house. Hide the money, get a grant and start a taxi cab business. Heck with it, go on welfare.

[udawg]

I suspect, udawg, that you are a fine person and you mean well.  Your post implies that.

Unfortunately, your post and the quote above are about as close to Canadian history as most Hollywood westerns are to American history.

Thanks, August... I think...

You'll have to excuse my apparently poor understanding of Canadian history, as apparently our schools are not teaching us the right material. If I recall my grade 12 Canadian History class, British efforts after the Seven Years War switched back and forth between assimilation and accomodation... usually depending on the governor of the time. I seem to recall that in the mid-1800s there was a series of perhaps 3 governors who, following the lead of their predecessors, found it easier to simply accomodate the French... hence the benevolent fed. government...

[August1991]

Thanks, August... I think...

I truly meant no harm. Maybe I'm wrong???

I seem to recall that in the mid-1800s there was a series of perhaps 3 governors who, following the lead of their predecessors, found it easier to simply accomodate the French

Right! Lord Elgin was the best. His statue is on the front of the National Assembly in Quebec City. (To the left of the main entry, I think.) If you say the two words "Lord Elgin" to any francophone, you will speak well.

Quebec license plates have "Je me souviens". So, you have a right to ask, in English, do you remember "Lord Elgin" to any Quebecer. If a separatist Quebecer doesn't know who "Lord Elgin" was, then you have every right as an English-Canadian to not feel guilty.

PS. Do you know who Lord Elgin was? (Greek stones and a Ottawa hotel complicate web searches. How about Lord Dufferin? All Quebecers know his terrace. Few know how he saved their capital.)

[CanadaRocks]

Look at Quebec. The French lost the 7 Years War, but over 200 years later, Quebec still exists, very much their own identity.

a bit off topic, but perhaps you would indulge me?

Are you saying that Quebecers are not really Canadians but are outcast French holding Canadian soil?

[odie441]

We sold our country a long time ago and not to the Americans as most would believe. We sold out ourselves with our lax criminal laws, our non-existant foreign policy, our non ability to defend ourself, an immigration policy that has no meaning except to those who can pay. I our haste to prove how un-American we are we sold out who we were/are. many will disagree but this is after all a democracy and I can say what I like and to hell with the politically correct who are the most to blame for selling out Canada!

[silent bob]

well said Odie. This era of political correctness has done more to harm this country than any other challange we as a nation have faced. In our haste to please everyone we have sold out that elusive Canadian identity that Sheila Copps was searching for a few years back. The biggest threat to canada is our rush to protect every immigrants rights over the rights of our own people. Am I a biggot? I can honestly say no, and I sleep well at night. I am just sick and tired of catering to every special interest group or ethnic minority at the expense of my nation. The kader family comes to mind. You can't tell me they are real Canadians. They openly spout off the virtures of Osama bin Laden yet we go out of our way to bring them to Canada. That does not sit right with me. I am a 7th generation CANADIAN and this IS MY COUNTRY! Not a place to conviently hide and heal until the next battle. As Odie stated, this is an example of how we are selling out!

[Hugo]

Well said, Odie. I think that it is very telling that Canadian culture is mostly defined in terms of what it is not rather than what it is. When talking about Canadian culture, the conversation will inevitably be about the differences between Canada and America, but despite all this (and I say this as a foreigner) the rest of the world cannot tell the difference between Canadians and Americans. What does that say, I wonder?