Hyperbole among Canadians?

[DogOnPorch]

.

Edited August 16, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Guest TrueMetis]

True, funnily enough, after months on fur traders and other boring stuff, Canadian involvement in WWI was literally given 10 minutes of one class. And WWII wasn't mentioned at all in the required courses (world 20th century after WWI is taught as a separate, elective, grade 12 course). That being said, I've learned a fair chunk of Canadian history since leaving high school, just for my own interest, and "boring" remains an adequate adjective in my opinion. Our role in the world wars is "the guys that helped out and did a pretty good job", solid, can't say we didn't pull our weight, but not particularly exciting.

Really? From what I've read our role in the wars was "guys sent as shock troops who could always be expected to get the job done better and faster than anyone else." Our guys always went way above and beyond Second Battle of Ypres, The Battle of the Somme, The Battle of Vimy Ridge, The Battle of Passchendaele, Hundred Days Offensive (AKA Canada's hundred days) in WW1. In WW2 there was D-day when Canada was farther into France than any other Allied force, many battles of the Italian campaign where the Canadians had to "mousehole" to continue advancing, The liberation of the Netherlands. If you consider all that boring we are to very different people.

This quote sums it up. "The Canadians played a part of such distinction that thenceforward they were marked out as shock troops; for the remainder of the war they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst." -Prime Minister Lloyd George after the Battle of the Somme

[Shwa]

Thank you..I will give you credit in my doctoral thesis titled, "Canada, the other Americans". So we have American pop culture filling a void in Canada by design. If I type "Gilligan", you know exactly what I mean, and own it with equal measure.

Not quite little buddy. For one, "equal measure" would require an equal frame of reference which is different enough between Canadians and Americans to render your prognostication error prone. Secondly, in your "American pop culture" reference you are ignoring the contributions of the Canadian sensibility in that culture, which have occurred in film and television since the beginning including production, direction, writing and acting. Eg. without Lorne Michaels and his exposure to a different sensibility of humour, there would have been no Saturday Night Live. If I type "The Dead Parrot Sketch" do you "know exactly what I mean" and own it with equal measure? Beyond that, how many people in your neighbourhood would?

Why? Or more accurately, why don't such Canadian-centric films exist in wide commercial release. Even the Americans spent money on Dudley Do-right (cartoon and feature length film). I know that Quebec does better than this.

Meh, other than self-referential iconography, what have American-centric films given the world and who would understand them? Errol Flynn as English folk hero Robin Hood?

Be careful...Canadian nationalism is a bad word areound here...too much like...gulp...Americans!

Well actually you do, but just don't want to admit it. That's why you call it "peacekeeping". I think that is just another symptom of the larger issues...Canadian identity....definition without America as a foil....and the internal tug-o-war in two languages.

I admit BC, you are one of the more interesting posters and I have a good idea as to why you stick around here and derive so much fun. And I am all for it. But when you post stuff like this your point starts to head south, so to speak and you begin to lose credibility.

We all know that it is only recently that America has stopped using Europe as their "foil" in many aspects of culture, but it still exists in other aspects, especially art, haute couture, physics and math even. I am sure a detailed survey would show more American covetness over European things. And why is that - has that ever been asked of you even on this forum? Why America will never have a Rembrandt, a Mozart, a Spinoza or even an Oppenheimer? Sure there are great works of American art and science, but everyone knows they can only achieve second rate - you know? Even Canadians are aware of that.

The problem, with placing oneself second to European (or Chineses - give it a few decades) culture, is that one's national myth does not penetrate deep enough to render outside references in a particular field as irrelevant and cannot be subsumed into 'American' culture. And what I mean by this is that the American National Myth - where it is most useful - doesn't make any outside references and, where it does, they are secondary references. Jean Laffitte for instance - a second rate Frenchman, but an American hero for sure.

Because the American National Myth is such an exercise in meaning-by-self-reference, it is, by definition, a work of fiction. So when Canadians use America as a "foil" guess what we are referring to? Canada's National Myth must - and always does - refer to entities outside itself. Why do you think many Canadians consider our "history" boring compared to American history? Because in works of fiction, the license for drama is greatly increased and the effects of that dramatization only increase the worth of the story for nationalist - and entertainment - value.

(And I will say it again, there is no people on the earth that like to have fun (and be entertained) as much as Americans. That to me is the greatest gift Americans have given the world, that is second to none throughout all history to date.)

That is not to say that Canada has not attempted, during one phase or another, to construct a self-referencing national myth, but it almost always meets with failure because of the multi-cultural nature of our beginnings. Not just English, but French and Aboriginal. Those entities - Britian, France or the Indians could never be fully subsumed in a wholly 'Canadian' myth-narrative. General Brock was a hero, but he was (and still is) foremost a Brit. Tecumseh was still an Indian and Les Voltigeurs were fighting for a "Canada" much different that they could have ever imagined at Chateauguay.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Shwa

[Argus]

Satan, Argus and you said Satan.

So are you guys for real - Satan?

I said the US was the Great Satan to the Left. You find that a controversial statement?

[Smallc]

Sorry but more Canadian history is the last thing we need in schools. God damn, grade 10 and 11 history, 100% focused on Canada, was B O R I N G as hell. .

Are you kidding? Canadian history is far from boring. The fur trade for example, was far from boring. Understanding ones country and its history is important in identifying with it and understanding who we are. It doesn't really matter whether or not you thought it was boring.

[Keepitsimple]

.....

Edited August 16, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

I said the US was the Great Satan to the Left. You find that a controversial statement?

No, I find it ridiculous. For starters the US is definitely not so great anymore, it wasn't the left who coined the phrase the Great Satan and of course there is no Satan.

[eyeball]

I hear there are bigger trees in the US.

Yup, the biggest softwood.

[g_bambino]

Sorry but more Canadian history is the last thing we need in schools. God damn, grade 10 and 11 history, 100% focused on Canada, was B O R I N G as hell. Canadians identify with US historical and political references more because there's actually interesting things there to refer to.

That has to rank up there with some of the stupidest posts on this forum. Forget your history and you're nobody, lobotomised, devoid of character. Do so willingly because you believe your background is shameful next to the cool kid's and not only do you make yourself into an ignoramus but expose yourself as a coward as well.

[Wild Bill]

That has to rank up there with some of the stupidest posts on this forum. Forget your history and you're nobody, lobotomised, devoid of character. Do so willingly because you believe your background is shameful next to the cool kid's and not only do you make yourself into an ignoramus but expose yourself as a coward as well.

Hey, he did say the Canadian history he received in high school was boring. This is NOT the same as Canadian history! It is merely the history his school gave him.

We've all known too many teachers and school boards setting cirriculum that could make even sex classes boring!

[Smallc]

Hey, he did say the Canadian history he received in high school was boring.

No he didn't. I'd read it again, if I were you.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

Hey, he did say the Canadian history he received in high school was boring. This is NOT the same as Canadian history! It is merely the history his school gave him.

The key part of his statement was: "more Canadian history is the last thing we need in schools." So, he is, at best, supportive only of the present abysmal amount of Canadian history taught to students in this country. He didn't justify that lamentable position with an explanation of how boring his personal experiences with Canadian history were; he said Canadian history itself was inherently too boring to bother teaching.

[Michael Hardner]

Harper is a fairly moderate fellow, as is the Conservative party. Ignatieff is a fairly moderate fellow as well, as is the Liberal party.

Just a word to Num13ers - you are absolutely right.

The so-called left and right are so close in policy these days, but the divisiveness continues. In my opinion, this happens because we need to be entertained, and our new media encourage engagement and - well - fighting. It's fun !

That's fine, as long as people don't start confusing the political movie we continue to watch with real life.

In the meantime, I believe our public forum should be used to focus discussion on the details of service delivery, so that the public can ensure that necessary services are delivered efficiently.

We fought some big fights in the 20th century. I think we should be making the 21st century the time when we make our government work properly.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Just a word to Num13ers - you are absolutely right.

The so-called left and right are so close in policy these days, but the divisiveness continues. In my opinion, this happens because we need to be entertained, and our new media encourage engagement and - well - fighting. It's fun !

That's fine, as long as people don't start confusing the political movie we continue to watch with real life.

In the meantime, I believe our public forum should be used to focus discussion on the details of service delivery, so that the public can ensure that necessary services are delivered efficiently.

We fought some big fights in the 20th century. I think we should be making the 21st century the time when we make our government work properly.

Damned well said Sir.

[Michael Hardner]

Damned well said Sir.

[GostHacked]

Damned well said Sir.

Agreed.

Left and right are both part of the same problem. They are more similar these days than ever, and they play the crowd and divide them. When you have so many 'sides' and views, then it becomes difficult for progress to actually happen. It makes it easier to confuse the issue and to cloud the real purpose of it.

[Shady]

Just a word to Num13ers - you are absolutely right.

The so-called left and right are so close in policy these days, but the divisiveness continues. In my opinion, this happens because we need to be entertained, and our new media encourage engagement and - well - fighting. It's fun !

That's fine, as long as people don't start confusing the political movie we continue to watch with real life.

In the meantime, I believe our public forum should be used to focus discussion on the details of service delivery, so that the public can ensure that necessary services are delivered efficiently.

We fought some big fights in the 20th century. I think we should be making the 21st century the time when we make our government work properly.

I disagree. The left and right are not very close in policy. Take taxes, foreign policy, and healthcare reform. There are wide differences in policy regarding all of these issues. In fact, there are even differences in what one considers so-called necessary services that have to be provided by government. Not to mention differences in the idea that government (large bureaucracies) by defintion, can't work very efficiently in the first place.

What you say sounds great. And I'm sure it'll make everyone nod in approval, in a kumbaya moment. But it's not reality.

[Smallc]

I disagree. The left and right are not very close in policy. Take taxes, foreign policy, and healthcare reform.

Really? Lay out the major differences between the Conservatives and Liberals on foreign policy, or taxes. Lay out the major differences between any of the parties on healthcare. You are part of the problem that is being talked about....the part that calls the NDP socialists for example.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree. The left and right are not very close in policy. Take taxes, foreign policy, and healthcare reform. There are wide differences in policy regarding all of these issues. In fact, there are even differences in what one considers so-called necessary services that have to be provided by government. Not to mention differences in the idea that government (large bureaucracies) by defintion, can't work very efficiently in the first place.

How about in the 1960s and 1970s when Conservative parties opposed socialized healthcare, and the NDP was pushing for the nationalization of industries ?

Maybe there's more animosity today than differences, hmm ?

What you say sounds great. And I'm sure it'll make everyone nod in approval, in a kumbaya moment. But it's not reality.

Layton's corporate tax proposals were (I think) in the low 20 percents last election. The Conservatives haven't proposed anything altogether revolutionary since coming to power.

No need to kumbaya, we're already there. We're just rearranging chairs on the patio at this point. `

Of course, if you have a counter example I'd much enjoy reading your link, and would engage in a polite rebuttal with your approval.

[dre]

Just a word to Num13ers - you are absolutely right.

The so-called left and right are so close in policy these days, but the divisiveness continues. In my opinion, this happens because we need to be entertained, and our new media encourage engagement and - well - fighting. It's fun !

That's fine, as long as people don't start confusing the political movie we continue to watch with real life.

In the meantime, I believe our public forum should be used to focus discussion on the details of service delivery, so that the public can ensure that necessary services are delivered efficiently.

We fought some big fights in the 20th century. I think we should be making the 21st century the time when we make our government work properly.

The so-called left and right are so close in policy these days, but the divisiveness continues. In my opinion, this happens because we need to be entertained, and our new media encourage engagement and - well - fighting. It's fun !

I think its more than that. Our obsession with this false dichotomy makes us very easy to control. It almost makes us totally irrelevant in our own political process because no matter how sick liberals get of a liberal government and no matter how sick conservatives get of a conservative government only a small percentage of people will actually stop voting along party lines.

Its taken philosophers many of hundreds or even thousands of years to come up with a system that marginalizes the voters to the degree ours does. My guess that the manner in which LEFT VS RIGHT is used to control us will be taught in philosophy classes for centuries to come.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I disagree. The left and right are not very close in policy. Take taxes, foreign policy, and healthcare reform. There are wide differences in policy regarding all of these issues. In fact, there are even differences in what one considers so-called necessary services that have to be provided by government. Not to mention differences in the idea that government (large bureaucracies) by defintion, can't work very efficiently in the first place.

What you say sounds great. And I'm sure it'll make everyone nod in approval, in a kumbaya moment. But it's not reality.

The way I read that post, the coming issue is service delivery and NO partisan faction seems to be on the right band wagon. The citizen want to see their money well spent. It also speaks volumes about the governments desire to hush up MP spending habits by doing a proper audit, an actual accounting to the people.

[bush_cheney2004]

Eg. without Lorne Michaels and his exposure to a different sensibility of humour, there would have been no Saturday Night Live.

Michaels came to America...like all those before and after. Please cite an equivalent American Michaels or opportunity in Canada. This is the point you are missing.

Meh, other than self-referential iconography, what have American-centric films given the world and who would understand them? Errol Flynn as English folk hero Robin Hood?

Somebody is buying all those tickets and DVDs in Latvia, Japan, and Australia.

I admit BC, you are one of the more interesting posters and I have a good idea as to why you stick around here and derive so much fun. And I am all for it. But when you post stuff like this your point starts to head south, so to speak and you begin to lose credibility.

Oh please....your favorable rating is not a high priority. "stuff like this" has been kicked around in Canadian circles long before I showed up on MLW. And yes, I am not "Canadian Content".

We all know that it is only recently that America has stopped using Europe as their "foil" in many aspects of culture, but it still exists in other aspects, especially art, haute couture, physics and math even. I am sure a detailed survey would show more American covetness over European things. And why is that - has that ever been asked of you even on this forum? Why America will never have a Rembrandt, a Mozart, a Spinoza or even an Oppenheimer? Sure there are great works of American art and science, but everyone knows they can only achieve second rate - you know? Even Canadians are aware of that.

Do you mean that Canadians are aware of even a larger deficit in this regard?

The problem, with placing oneself second to European (or Chineses - give it a few decades) culture,

The point here is Canada stuck in America's gravity, a circumstance that even Mexico does not experience to the same extent. Broader global relationships are a different matter altogether, and the Americans have made their mark despite your opinion otherwise, particularly when it comes to applications for ideas, not just "great thoughts".

Because the American National Myth is such an exercise in meaning-by-self-reference, it is, by definition, a work of fiction. So when Canadians use America as a "foil" guess what we are referring to? Canada's National Myth must - and always does - refer to entities outside itself. Why do you think many Canadians consider our "history" boring compared to American history?

Because it is?

Because in works of fiction, the license for drama is greatly increased and the effects of that dramatization only increase the worth of the story for nationalist - and entertainment - value.

No, you have left out the other aspects of production and distribution...something that America excels at.

That is not to say that Canada has not attempted, during one phase or another, to construct a self-referencing national myth, but it almost always meets with failure because of the multi-cultural nature of our beginnings. Not just English, but French and Aboriginal. Those entities - Britian, France or the Indians could never be fully subsumed in a wholly 'Canadian' myth-narrative. General Brock was a hero, but he was (and still is) foremost a Brit. Tecumseh was still an Indian and Les Voltigeurs were fighting for a "Canada" much different that they could have ever imagined at Chateauguay.

Canada is less "multi-cultural" than the United States by definition. This tired excuse ignores some practical and historical realities of how the US came to be and expanded across the continent.

[Michael Hardner]

I think its more than that. Our obsession with this false dichotomy makes us very easy to control. It almost makes us totally irrelevant in our own political process because no matter how sick liberals get of a liberal government and no matter how sick conservatives get of a conservative government only a small percentage of people will actually stop voting along party lines.

Its taken philosophers many of hundreds or even thousands of years to come up with a system that marginalizes the voters to the degree ours does. My guess that the manner in which LEFT VS RIGHT is used to control us will be taught in philosophy classes for centuries to come.

Sounds like Toynbee's challenge and response. And the answer is: the fusion of left and right. Fed Reserve Conspiracy types joining hands with 9/11 Conspiracy types. Wait, isn't that the Tea Party ?

[Remiel]

(And I will say it again, there is no people on the earth that like to have fun (and be entertained) as much as Americans. That to me is the greatest gift Americans have given the world, that is second to none throughout all history to date.)

While possible, how do you figure? If it were so, why would anyone say the difference between the American philosophy and the Australian philosophy is one of living to work versus working to live?

[Wild Bill]

No he didn't. I'd read it again, if I were you.

Ok! Here it is, from msg #48 - Bonam:

"God damn, grade 10 and 11 history, 100% focused on Canada, was B O R I N G as hell."

Still means the same to me! Perhaps you follow a different sense of grammar...