Before Moving To Canada....

[dizzy]

It's never been a question of good or bad (for me), just the stand-alone definition of such attributes without defaulting to the US as a foil.

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.

Yes and no...The US fundamentally represented a repudiation of the British Empire and its Commonwealth. The US is an amalgam of other cultures and empires that Canada has never intersected (e.g. Spain)

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?

I think your premise is somewhat flawed at the start...as "non-colonial small power" is little consolation for those cultures and peoples still impacted by Canada's actions made in consort with Mother Britain, UN, NATO, etc.

This is true but irrelevant. We're discussing self-perception, not the perception of others.

I guess I am puzzled by your example of "former black slaves", as I would not exist on this continent without this legacy gift from Great Britain.

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?

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

The real world is less the case of "evolving" than embracing (and rejecting) other cultural elements into existing frameworks. The Americans are famous for this without the need for a manufactured label like "multiculturalism".

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?

Ultimately it begins in Africa, but that isn't the point here. Regardless of the constituent elements or contributions, Canada has historically struggled to define an identity in the wake of all/any influences. This is not an original thought on my part, as you are well aware.

This is true but irrelevant. We're discussing self-perception, not the perception of others.

No, I am discussing both. You cannot divorce your experience from the larger context, even as a worldly "nomad" who is above such things.

"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?

This idea is simplistic at several levels, if only because the process is dynamic within the constraints experienced by individuals or their human condition. There is no obligation to accept or continue the trend. Ultimately, personal identity is a large set of attributes that define uniqueness apart from others (by definition)....from rebelling teens to old tattooed bikers. A national identity is formulated and projected in much the same way.

Edited December 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

The real world is less the case of "evolving" than embracing (and rejecting) other cultural elements into existing frameworks. The Americans are famous for this without the need for a manufactured label like "multiculturalism".

Ultimately it begins in Africa, but that isn't the point here. Regardless of the constituent elements or contributions, Canada has historically struggled to define an identity in the wake of all/any influences. This is not an original thought on my part, as you are well aware.

No, I am discussing both. You cannot divorce your experience from the larger context, even as a worldly "nomad" who is above such things.

This idea is simplistic at several levels, if only because the process is dynamic within the constraints experienced by individuals or their human condition. There is no obligation to accept or continue the trend. Ultimately, personal identity is a large set of attributes that define uniqueness apart from others (by definition)....from rebelling teens to old tattooed bikers. A national identity is formulated and projected in much the same way.

You are a good writer Mr. Kent.

[dizzy]

The real world is less the case of "evolving" than embracing (and rejecting) other cultural elements into existing frameworks. The Americans are famous for this without the need for a manufactured label like "multiculturalism".

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.

Ultimately it begins in Africa, but that isn't the point here. Regardless of the constituent elements or contributions, Canada has historically struggled to define an identity in the wake of all/any influences. This is not an original thought on my part, as you are well aware.

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.

No, I am discussing both. You cannot divorce your experience from the larger context, even as a worldly "nomad" who is above such things.

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.

This idea is simplistic at several levels, if only because the process is dynamic within the constraints experienced by individuals or their human condition. There is no obligation to accept or continue the trend. Ultimately, personal identity is a large set of attributes that define uniqueness apart from others (by definition)....from rebelling teens to old tattooed bikers. A national identity is formulated and projected in much the same way.

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?

Edited December 7, 2010 by dizzy

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Agreed...I think we are diverging from the point of national identity toward individuals.

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.

That's fine, but we are still left with the author's oft repeated observation that "Canadian" is often defined and/or communicated in terms of not being equal to "American".

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.

Again, we are mixing two different ideas. I am an advocate for "nationalism" as a social and political construction in the pursuit of a goal regardless of personal identity.

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?

See the video reports of the first Chilean miner after he reaches the surface.

[dizzy]

Agreed...I think we are diverging from the point of national identity toward individuals.

.

That's fine, but we are still left with the author's oft repeated observation that "Canadian" is often defined and/or communicated in terms of not being equal to "American".

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?

Again, we are mixing two different ideas. I am an advocate for "nationalism" as a social and political construction in the pursuit of a goal regardless of personal identity.

Wouldn't you agree that national identity can not exist without its absorption into personal identity?

See the video reports of the first Chilean miner after he reaches the surface.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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?

The same way that Mexico, Bermuda, Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic see themselves without such an identity crisis. It has nothing to do with the kind of power you refer to. Another member (MH) helped me reach the conclusion that the Americans fill a cultural and media vacuum with both contrast and definition for Canadians to communicate with each other across regions that otherwise do not share a strong common identity. You can see it in posts here at MLW...the States become a common reference datum.

Wouldn't you agree that national identity can not exist without its absorption into personal identity?

Not necessarily....national identity is the alamgam of traits and cultural customs projected by individuals but amplified and reinforced by the much larger population.

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.

[dizzy]

The same way that Mexico, Bermuda, Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic see themselves without such an identity crisis. It has nothing to do with the kind of power you refer to. Another member (MH) helped me reach the conclusion that the Americans fill a cultural and media vacuum with both contrast and definition for Canadians to communicate with each other across regions that otherwise do not share a strong common identity. You can see it in posts here at MLW...the States become a common reference datum.

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.

Not necessarily....national identity is the alamgam of traits and cultural customs projected by individuals but amplified and reinforced by the much larger population.

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.

[bloodyminded]

Of course there is some anti-Americanism among many Canadians; predictably, it is often informed by ignorance of Americans (who are, unremarkably, just like everybody else), and also by a poor assessment of Canada's own international behaviour.

However, this Canadian anti-Americanism, so far as it exists, is a trivial matter. Not important.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

But Canada is not just English, nor has it always had the US as it's sole neighbour (UK possessions).

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.

Again, you cite "small power" relative to what? ....America?

I don't think we are in disagreement here. We agree that personal identity and national identity inform each other?

Yes, one begets the 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.

But it is/was very important for Chile to celebrate the way it did given recent setbacks. Could have just as well been Spain after the World Cup.

[Oleg Bach]

Any one who exchanges ideas and has dialogue with Bush Cheney..is very wise...To bad there were not MORE highly informed and truely educated Americans such as he....that's it BC- one honest compliment...is all you are getting for Christmas.

[bush_cheney2004]

....However, this Canadian anti-Americanism, so far as it exists, is a trivial matter. Not important.

Probably, except for the resulting paralysis for domestic policy as described by the author. As a practical matter, I recently witnessed a large order fulfillment ruse that shipped product to a Winnipeg plant, but the order was actually destined for Quebec. It seems that an American origination address is bad for business in parts of Canada!

Edited December 8, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Probably, except for the resulting paralysis for domestic policy as described by the author. As a practical matter, I recently witnessed a large order fulfillment ruse that shipped product to a Winnipeg plant, but the order was actually destined for Quebec. It seems that an American origination address is bad for business in parts of Canada!

On the contrary, nobody cares.

[bush_cheney2004]

On the contrary, nobody cares.

Somebody cares...it's a large additional expense.

Edited December 8, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

The media does "help," as does the internet. No one ever claimed the media was above reproach. I think the media has become more a source of entertainment than a source of accurate news reporting. Furthermore, what you "notice" isn't necessarily the way things are.

I agree with you here. Things are not what we think they are. If I have a view and you have a view and we end up to be both wrong... what happens next?

Yet so many Canadians claim to be oh-so-tolerant, and therefore end up "tolerating" the intolerable. I think if a lot of Americans are Ugly, a similar percentage of Canadians, Brits, Aussies, whatever, are just as Ugly. But one difference is the U.S. is a superpower, with 300 million people, and with that comes some resentment and feelings of 'holier than thou' to make it feel better. It's often a natural human inclination to 'hate the man at the top.' We can accept it if we convince ourselves our lives are so much better. But in the end, we're all just people living in countries that all basically act the same way for the same reasons.

In the end I agree with you. We are influenced and media reinforces our thoughts. In the end we are quite similar, but the powers that be love to pit us against one another so we have this kind of divide. Like some huge social experiment.

So Canada's superior tolerance/love/caring/acceptance isn't the reality. It's a myth. And that's the point of the OP. The Canadians I'm speaking of go out of their way to judge an American just for being an American, while they go out of their way to excuse just about any other behavior. Their "tolerance" and understanding is selective, as they pat themselves on the back. And again, I'm not referring to the whole country/all Canadians by any means. But the myth of "lovable Canada/Canadians" is a myth, and again, that's the point of the OP.

Well, it could be a few singled out examples that do show intolerance. Being an English speaker, I find some intolerance towards me when I am in Quebec. She may have just run into a few jerks. And those kinds of jerks exist everywhere.

I honestly don't know what you're saying here.

I'll clear that up for you. Mention American in Canada and you get opposition. Mention Muslim in the US and you get opposition.

I obviously took the reference in the wrong context.

No worries, I have problems reading some posts as well. It's part of being human.

I guess errors like that are a good reason to proof-read. I've already made the correction.

I find myself proof reading my posts several times before actually posting. It does help.

[dizzy]

But Canada is not just English, nor has it always had the US as it's sole neighbour (UK possessions).

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.

Again, you cite "small power" relative to what? ....America?

Yes, America. And Great Britain, France, Russia, relative to Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands. etc.

But it is/was very important for Chile to celebrate the way it did given recent setbacks.

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.

Could have just as well been Spain after the World Cup.

Indeed. Or like Canada after winning a major international hockey event.

[Guest American Woman]

I just have to say that I found this thread priceless. We've got a Canadian saying "Canada is an increasingly stupid and shitty place to live," while accusing me of hating Canada/Canadians because I said Canada/Canadians are just like every other country/everyone else. I guess if Canada isn't put on a pedestal, one's guilty of hatred. We've got another Canadian who's telling me that the whole world has the same anti-American attitude that the author has encountered in Canada putting me on "ignore" for saying Candada/Canadians aren't any more tolerant than any other nation. And we've got yet another Canadian saying all the Americans on this board are boring and repetitive -- as he constantly spends his time reading said Americans' posts and responding to them. Then we've got another chiming in with totally meaningless comments about us. I'd say y'all added validity to what the author was saying.

**************************

Dizzy -- I think we're just coming from different places regarding this topic. I'm coming from the point of view of an American who for some time believed as the author did -- that Canada is just a kinder, milder, more caring place to live; and I think Americans have moved there, just as the author did, to escape what they believe is wrong with the U.S. only to find that living in Canada isn't all that it's cracked up to be either. As I see it, that's the point of the OP. And since there are Americans who believe the stereotypes/myths, she's simply trying to tell others who believe as she did to think twice before making the move. Canada's reputation and the reality aren't necessarily the same thing. Especially when it comes to Americans. That's what she's saying, and she's basing it on experience.

I realize Americans say/do this-that-and the other thing too, but again, we don't have the reputation of Canada/Canadians, so it's really not relevant to this topic.

[ironstone]

Unfortunately,there are many Canadians who are very anti American.I think this feeling may come from a feeling of inferiority or perhaps jealousy.Most Canadians who feel this way are left leaning of course.There is an enormous amount of baggage that comes with being a superpower,something that Canada cannot experience.Damned if they do,damned if they don't.Right now,it seems there is less venom directed at the US from the Canadian media,no doubt because of America's first socialist leader.

Say what you want about US governments,but the people are the nicest you will ever meet.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I realize Americans say/do this-that-and the other thing too, but again, we don't have the reputation of Canada/Canadians, so it's really not relevant to this topic.

But that is the crux of the matter...because the Canadian identity is so often associated with and defined by not-American, the resentment is unavoidable. So the idea of more tolerance and "multiculturalism" begs the question of "compared to what?", and too often the "what" is implicitly (and explicitly) America and Americans. Anti-Americanism is lost in translation because it is a given in the equation.

[dizzy]

But that is the crux of the matter...because the Canadian identity is so often associated with and defined by not-American, the resentment is unavoidable. So the idea of more tolerance and "multiculturalism" begs the question of "compared to what?", and too often the "what" is implicitly (and explicitly) America and Americans. Anti-Americanism is lost in translation because it is a given in the equation.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

...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.

....and this is just as her piece reports.

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.

Nope...I would just think you were Canadian!

[dre]

Unfortunately,there are many Canadians who are very anti American.I think this feeling may come from a feeling of inferiority or perhaps jealousy.Most Canadians who feel this way are left leaning of course.There is an enormous amount of baggage that comes with being a superpower,something that Canada cannot experience.Damned if they do,damned if they don't.Right now,it seems there is less venom directed at the US from the Canadian media,no doubt because of America's first socialist leader.

Say what you want about US governments,but the people are the nicest you will ever meet.

no doubt because of America's first socialist leader

[dre]

I just have to say that I found this thread priceless. We've got a Canadian saying "Canada is an increasingly stupid and shitty place to live," while accusing me of hating Canada/Canadians because I said Canada/Canadians are just like every other country/everyone else. I guess if Canada isn't put on a pedestal, one's guilty of hatred. We've got another Canadian who's telling me that the whole world has the same anti-American attitude that the author has encountered in Canada putting me on "ignore" for saying Candada/Canadians aren't any more tolerant than any other nation. And we've got yet another Canadian saying all the Americans on this board are boring and repetitive -- as he constantly spends his time reading said Americans' posts and responding to them. Then we've got another chiming in with totally meaningless comments about us. I'd say y'all added validity to what the author was saying

The most hilarious thing though is retards taking one womens anecdotal experience and using it to make broad generalizations about a country with 30 million people. Your average elementary school student could explain to you why thats ridiculous.

That would be no different than citing this as proof that Americans LOVE living in Canada. That would ALSO be an example of intellectual fallacy.

Canada is a wonderful place.... This country is endearing and civilized and charming, and I am very, very fond of it. I hope I can convey some of that fondness in these pages.

http://americansguide.ca/

I guess if there was a study that surveyed the thousands of Americans living in Canada about how civilized and tolerant Canadians are then that might make for an interesting discussion.

Edited December 12, 2010 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

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.

That's a matter of opinion. As far as Americans living in Canada, she most definitely gives food for thought, which is the intention of the OP as I see it.

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.

As has been pointed out already, her expectations were based on more than her "imagination." If it were just her expectation, based on just her imagination, there would be no need for the OP and I doubt it would have been written.

Her clichéd view of Canadians is evidence that a 'positive' stereoptype can be as disabling as a negative one.

I think it's more like it's evidence that a positive stereotype can be just as incorrect 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?

Again, you miss the point. If that is indeed how the U.S. is perceived, if that's how America/Americans try to present it, I know of no one who would leave Canada in disgust and move to the U.S. because Americans are "glory whores" and "black people are inarticulate." But. If there were such Canadians, if they did move to the U.S. hoping to find that, and they knew of other Canadians who wanted to move to the U.S. hoping to find that, then I would have no problem with someone writing an OP telling Canadians to think twice before moving to the U.S. for those reasons -- because it's not the reality. And I wouldn't think the author was an asshole for doing so.

The woman moved to Canada for a very specific reason. To escape what she didn't like about the U.S. She thought Canada would be a haven of sorts in comparison, based on the stereotypes. She didn't expect to encounter the attitude she did to the degree that she did, so she's telling other Americans to think twice before moving to Canada for the reasons that she did. And you think that makes her an asshole?

I can't understand why Canadians in this thread are so upset that I'm saying I find Canada to be no different from the U.S./any other nations. The fact that they are seems to prove that they want Canada to have the reputation that it is. Seems to me they are quite content to push the idea, except when it comes to Americans. And again, that totally and completely backs up the author's point. I think it's a good thing to "think twice" before believing stereotypes and making a move based on those expectations. No matter who/what country is involved.

This woman was disappointed in the reality of living in Canada based on the reasons she moved there and she wrote about it in hopes that other Americans like her would not blindly make the move as she had. Furthermore, many, many Canadians speak their minds regarding their thoughts on Americans based on nothing. At least her thoughts are based on her experiences. Yet she's being portrayed as an "asshole." Again, it just adds validity to what she is saying.

Edited December 12, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think it's more like it's evidence that a positive stereotype can be just as incorrect as a negative one.

Hence it being a stereotype.