What are the important cultural differences between Canada and the US?

[taxme]

I fail to see why that would be a problem. Perhaps no whites in the world, anywhere, would mean a better world? Maybe it would be less warlike, more just, smarter, more ethical? Maybe whites are the reason why the world is such a terrible place for so very many other people, and animals. Maybe white people are the true spawn of the devil, and we're the the ones who need to be cleansed from the earth. I mean, you never know right? Could be us that's the problem.

Well, if you are non-white, well ya, they would most likely say who cares if whites disappear. Caucasians are no better or worse than any other race of people on earth. You just have to watch what goes on in most of those non-white third world countries to see that they are far better at killing their own people and keeping them in poverty and slavery than whites do. All the technology that surrounds us all today was pretty much invented by white people. White people are a creative,inventive,artistic people and have done a lot to improve people from around the world. The only reason why whites can be very evil at times is not because of the ordinary white working man and woman but because of the globalist white elites who are the problem and who are the greedy money grabbing warmongering batards that keep causing chaos and havoc around the world all for money and power. Sadly, most of them are white. When whites came to North America we pretty much civilized the North American native Indian, and stopped them from killing each other like they did before Europeans came along. They should have been thankful for that but instead they show us hatred. I personally would not want to be the last of the few white people around because all I believe that I would see is war famine and poverty and slavery.

A world without white people would be a disaster. Just my opinion of course. Works for me.

[dialamah]

Well, if you are non-white, well ya, they would most likely say who cares if whites disappear. ......

A world without white people would be a disaster. Just my opinion of course. Works for me.

I am Caucasian, from a long line of Caucasians. I don't see that Caucasians are any less violent than any other skin color, personally. Taking our lily-white asses into countries and telling them they need our military help isn't exactly pacifist. Regularly killing off our co-Caucasians in our own countries also doesn't speak to our non-violent nature. A lot of the technology in use in the world today was invented or improved upon by the yellow-skin toned people. A lot of brown people from India are taking over technology in our modern age.

What else ya got?

[eyeball]

I'm an Earthling and yeah, we can be real sphincters when we put our minds to it.

[taxme]

I am Caucasian, from a long line of Caucasians. I don't see that Caucasians are any less violent than any other skin color, personally. Taking our lily-white asses into countries and telling them they need our military help isn't exactly pacifist. Regularly killing off our co-Caucasians in our own countries also doesn't speak to our non-violent nature. A lot of the technology in use in the world today was invented or improved upon by the yellow-skin toned people. A lot of brown people from India are taking over technology in our modern age.

What else ya got?

Ok , here is something else I got. Why do we always see more non-whites immigrating into white countries by the millions, and not the reverse. I believe it is because non-whites want to be among people that are very civilized very intelligent and very techno savvy and see potential in making big bucks by going to live in a first world white country. Some will even immigrate to a white country just to be able to take advantage of all the free goodies like their social and medical services and free money that they like to give away to strangers for free. Personally, I think that white people are the real chosen people because we did go around the world and brought civilization and progress to many races of people who really did need it.

I don't really know as to what the yellow skin toned people may have invented, maybe you can tell me, but I am pretty sure that they did not invent all the modern things that are presently surrounding you in your home or the modern transportation that gets you around today. They may have copied and improved on some things but they sure as hell did not invent them. They were to backwards for that until the white Europeans came along and showed them all the goodies and how they worked. The brown people in India are just coping and maybe helping in the improvement of making a product more easy to use but that is about it, they certainly did not invent it.

What else do you got?

[dialamah]

Where would the Whites be without gunpowder, the compass, paper and the printing press, all invented by the Chinese? Arab Muslims created algebra, the magnifying glass, coffee; they also created and developed the idea of the modern hospital, found around the world today. Indian contributions to world knowledge and progress include math, medicine and agriculture - all of which the White's have used and built upon. Civilization itself began in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Egypt.

It may be true (and I'm not convinced) that the inventions and discoveries of the last 100 years have come largely from European countries, but prior to that we were essentially nothing in the world - it was the non-Whites who were moving the world toward our modern civilization through inventions and discoveries. We built upon their work, and the people who come after us - whatever their color of skin - will build upon what we've done.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Please stay on topic.

[Scott Mayers]

I missed all the infighting here. But to the topic, there is NO actual difference in people in general from ANY different country. What MAKES us different is to the LAWS established. Canada is MORE conservative in ALL aspects because

(1) we are defaulted to be founded on a country that derived its constitution by specific colonial interests who represented people who resisted self-definition, as the U.S. did. The English Loyalists of a 'dictatorial' (in principle) Monarchy by those who most selfishly profited by their Nationalistic belief in their 'superiority' over the average person suggests they are NOT in principle 'democratic' and their own 'superiority' complex is based on irrational cultural identity.

(2) The French Catholics who were abandoned by France via their own "Republican" revolution that resisted religious intolerance via similar 'dictatorial' beliefs in Kings and Queens AND their strict adherence to a Church organ that also believed they have a supreme authority granted by their god through their 'supreme' Pope.

(3) The utility of supporting a distinct 'respect' for differentiating Aboriginals as though they were at least a distinct 'natural' essence, but as animals; the English and French only utilizes granting them similar position of the same kind of Nationalism they believe of themselves as it functions to CONTROL all others to be committed to their own ESTABLISHED power through the years.

Our Constitution, through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically has been designed to permanently SAVE these main three selective groups under the guise of Multiculturalism but ONLY for the sake of those English and French 'aristocratic' established in Ontario and Quebec mainly. Their use of (3) above is NOT out of respect for Aboriginals as it is NOT for ALL other cultures nor differences in other similar ethnic definitions (like sex or gender). The utility is to falsely create an illusion of friendly love for all cultures ONLY to SAVE their own from being naturally defeated.

In contrast, the Americans have the First Amendment clause which though is still NOT sufficient due to similar culturally discriminating groups there who have reinterpreted less significance to the role of religion. Yet, while the U.S. is most apparent to seem more discriminating in ethnic differences, this is ONLY by default of the very fact that the world DOES look at them most closely. They are MORE apparent for their system and so appears to be most troubled in regards to Nationalistic fervor. The reality is just the opposite though. It is the effect of the world who IS more discriminatory who notices them precisely because they are most relatively "honest" about their differing views. But where problems get actually solved, being most apparent IS the first step. All other countries hide their own more hateful discrimination through their less 'free' media. It makes them actually MORE liberal than any other country.

Canada is WAY more conservative by contrast in terms of economics AND social concerns. It just has measures to both hide them through more deceptive means of propaganda. It props up interest group issues as more prevalent with laws that enable ease at censuring. Our media in the 'free' arena is also a very REAL monopoly (by the actual owners) and use tactics that in the U.S. get exposed more readily --- making the U.S. appear more troubled than they actually are.

[Rue]

Full of dubious generalizations Mr. Mayer but none the less an interesting perspective. Imagine I complemented you.

[Bonam]

I fail to see why that would be a problem. Perhaps no whites in the world, anywhere, would mean a better world? Maybe it would be less warlike, more just, smarter, more ethical? Maybe whites are the reason why the world is such a terrible place for so very many other people, and animals. Maybe white people are the true spawn of the devil, and we're the the ones who need to be cleansed from the earth. I mean, you never know right? Could be us that's the problem.

Trying substituting "whites" with any other race/ethnicity name like "blacks", "Asians", "Jews", or whatever and see how it sounds.

[dialamah]

Trying substituting "whites" with any other race/ethnicity name like "blacks", "Asians", "Jews", or whatever and see how it sounds.

True enough, but in the context of a race dying out over time because they failed to produce more of their kind just seems like natural selection. Being deliberately eliminated through active aggression is a little different, IMO. Active aggression does not include living in the same country and going about your daily business.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Active aggression does not include living in the same country and going about your daily business.

That would be after the "country" is colonized and conquered, right ?

[Bonam]

True enough, but in the context of a race dying out over time because they failed to produce more of their kind just seems like natural selection. Being deliberately eliminated through active aggression is a little different, IMO. Active aggression does not include living in the same country and going about your daily business.

We can all look forward to the days when white people live on reserves where they can preserve their quaint cultural practices and be prevented from dying out.

[Moonlight Graham]

I fail to see why that would be a problem. Perhaps no whites in the world, anywhere, would mean a better world? Maybe it would be less warlike, more just, smarter, more ethical? Maybe whites are the reason why the world is such a terrible place for so very many other people, and animals. Maybe white people are the true spawn of the devil, and we're the the ones who need to be cleansed from the earth. I mean, you never know right? Could be us that's the problem.

Do you really think if Africans or Chinese or Arabs or any other race/civilization were the most technologically advanced and most powerful that they would have behaved more peacefully and civil? Wanting power and self-interest isn't a Caucasian-only thing.

Western civilization won the race to the top and I'm glad we did, simply because I don't to be on the bottom.

[dialamah]

Do you really think if Africans or Chinese or Arabs or any other race/civilization were the most technologically advanced and most powerful that they would have behaved more peacefully and civil? Wanting power and self-interest isn't a Caucasian-only thing.

Western civilization won the race to the top and I'm glad we did, simply because I don't to be on the bottom.

I was responding to taxme's white-supremacist statements with my own over-the-top statements. I don't think Caucasian people are inherently better than other races, nor do I think other races are inherently better than Caucasians. I used to think that if women were in power, they would be less warlike than men, but that's been disproven.

As to being on "top", we seem to take turns. Right now our Western civilization is indeed on top. But we haven't always been, for a long while it was the Arab-types who ruled the world - or at least as much of the world as they knew. Same with the Chinese. Not sure about Africans or Indians, but perhaps their time is coming.

Although, if Caucasian is used in it's original taxonomic sense, instead of referring to skin color, we white-colored people are the same as many brown-colored people:

The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid^[1] or Europid^[2]) is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, including some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.^[3] The term has been used in biological anthropology for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone

Then again, there isn't much difference among people once things like location and culture are removed:

By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.

A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.

[JamesHackerMP]

Getting back on topic...doesn't this depend on what one calls "culture"? People throw the term culture around a lot, sometimes improperly, sometimes not.

[Michael Hardner]

Thank you James, I think this could be an interesting topic.

[dialamah]

Getting back on topic...doesn't this depend on what one calls "culture"? People throw the term culture around a lot, sometimes improperly, sometimes not.

Culture is defined by Merriam Webster as "the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time"

Don't know if this has been covered yet, but for me, one important cultural difference between ourselves and the States is related to gun ownership and use. In the States a main reason for owning a gun seems to be self-protection (either from bad guys, or the government); in Canada, the main reason for owning a gun seems to be actual hunting of animals, or as a hobbyist. In the States, there is a much made of 'standing one's ground' and 'self-defense'; in Canada, I don't hear that much at all. I don't know if gun ownership is more prevalent in the States (by capita) than in Canada, or if it's just more obvious, but I know more Americans who own guns than I do Canadians.

[eyeball]

I think culture is largely shaped by ideology and economics now - human culture is eroding and being subsumed under the culture that's developed around our institutions, mostly corporate and government.

[taxme]

Some I can think of:

Canada, English-French.

US, English-Spanish.

Canada, monarch, parliament

US, President, republic.

Canada prefers multilateral international relations.

The US tends to prefer bilateral relations.

Canada, culture tends to be defined by governement (e.g. CBC-SRC, culture and arts funding, Official Languages Act, etc.)

US, culture is defined mainly by the individual.

The only thing that makes Canadians different from Americans is that we use the metric system and they don't. Otherwise we are all of one. Now if Canada would only get rid of that foreign measurement system and bring back the imperial measurement system. A measurement system that worked well for Canadians at the time. The metric system was forced on Canadians who never asked for it or were given a chance to vote on it.

It amazes me as to how Canadians can just sit back and watch and allow our politically correct politicians to keep trying to change this country from our past way of life and doing things to a new way of doing things without Canadians permission. Canada does not look like the old Canada anymore.

The new Canada is fast becoming a third world country and is being allowed too without Canadians consent. We still are and have been conned.

[JamesHackerMP]

Culture is defined by Merriam Webster as "the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time"

Don't know if this has been covered yet, but for me, one important cultural difference between ourselves and the States is related to gun ownership and use. In the States a main reason for owning a gun seems to be self-protection (either from bad guys, or the government); in Canada, the main reason for owning a gun seems to be actual hunting of animals, or as a hobbyist. In the States, there is a much made of 'standing one's ground' and 'self-defense'; in Canada, I don't hear that much at all. I don't know if gun ownership is more prevalent in the States (by capita) than in Canada, or if it's just more obvious, but I know more Americans who own guns than I do Canadians.

Good dictionary definition. But also, I think most Americans who own them do use them for hunting. You're looking at a minority of Americans and what they are saying, rather than the "silent majority" on that issue. There's a dichotomy between what is obvious and what is true. You hear the NRA mouth off, and other sources, but they are the people who are "louder" than the rest of us, and have bigger microphones, figuratively speaking, than the rest of us. And I think the former (NRA, etc. that I mentioned) are more widely quoted in the world media than the latter (silent majority). The former looks more interesting in print (or on TV) than the latter. Open up to the fact that the people controlling the flow of information (in any society) are often wrong and the "picture" you get of your neighbors south of the border might not always be an accurate one.

But that, I think, is getting WAY off topic. Then again, the dictionary definition you quoted could be expanded to include political culture and corporate culture and "culture" within the context of various situations, not just social culture.

I'm willing to bet, that the person who started this thread meant social culture not corporate or political culture. And with that in mind, are there really that many sociocultural differences between our two countries?

Edited August 29, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[dialamah]

Good dictionary definition. But also, I think most Americans who own them do use them for hunting. You're looking at a minority of Americans and what they are saying, rather than the "silent majority" on that issue. There's a dichotomy between what is obvious and what is true. You hear the NRA mouth off, and other sources, but they are the people who are "louder" than the rest of us, and have bigger microphones, figuratively speaking, than the rest of us. And I think the former (NRA, etc. that I mentioned) are more widely quoted in the world media than the latter (silent majority). The former looks more interesting in print (or on TV) than the latter. Open up to the fact that the people controlling the flow of information (in any society) are often wrong and the "picture" you get of your neighbors south of the border might not always be an accurate one.

But that, I think, is getting WAY off topic. Then again, the dictionary definition you quoted could be expanded to include political culture and corporate culture and "culture" within the context of various situations, not just social culture.

I'm willing to bet, that the person who started this thread meant social culture not corporate or political culture. And with that in mind, are there really that many sociocultural differences between our two countries?

Good point about gun ownership in America, I freely admit to having been at least somewhat misled by media.

I think Americans feel more entitled in satisfying their personal desires, regardless of how it may impact others. When I was dating, American men were more pushy and a lot quicker to call me down if I didn't meet their expectations. Also, I have a dog who is afraid of people. One thing I have never had to really worry about is people approaching my dog without permission. But on the multiple dog-reactivity lists I'm on, Americans complain about this regularly. There seems to be more of an attitude of "If I want to do it, everyone should simply go along with it". I know, it's pretty anecdotal evidence but I think it illustrates that sense of "I'm an American, therefore I come first" kind of behavior.

[JamesHackerMP]

Hmm, have to disagree with that last sentence. Maybe that's a cultural difference that involves Canadians' perceptions?

[Goddess]

When I lived in the US, I was surprised to experience "cultural shock" to a certain extent. It was hard to put my finger on it, but it was there....they just "think" differently than we do on a lot of things.

I missed Canada very much. I travelled back at one point to go to the Grey Cup and I cried when "O Canada" was played.

[bush_cheney2004]

At some levels, certainly economic levels, American "culture" is very appealing to many Canadians. Far more Canadians emigrate, travel, or work in the United States than do Americans in Canada, even though the U.S. has ten times the population. Canadian authors have long described Canadian culture by defining it as "not American".

Edited August 31, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[?Impact]

The only thing that makes Canadians different from Americans is that we use the metric system and they don't.

...

Now if Canada would only get rid of that foreign measurement system and bring back the imperial measurement system.

Well, at least that is a giant evolutionary step forward from

White people are a creative,inventive,artistic people and have done a lot to improve people from around the world.

We don't need a logical decimal system of measurement based on natural units invented by a Frenchman, much better to have a chaotic system standardized by an Englishman. I miss the rod, furlong, finger, hand, palm, cubit, fathom and barleycorn.

Interesting side note, the Anders Celsius (Dutch) temperature scale is almost as old as the Daniel Fahrenheit (Swedish) scale but was used more commonly in scientific communities and didn't become part of mainstream society until the 1960's/70's. Fahrenheit's original scale was based on the temperature of a brine (salt water) solution freezing at 0° and water freezing at 32°, human body temperature was assigned 96° as this made divisions on the thermometer easy (64 divisions between water freezing and body temperature). It was later decided to set the boiling point of water as 212°, which meant a slight revision was necessary for the body temperature. Celsius's scale started from day one with water freezing at 0° and boiling at 100°, no revisions were necessary.

What I miss in all of this is what system is not foreign?

Edited August 31, 2016 by ?Impact