Canadian Self-Haters Grow Shrill

[maplesyrup]

Canadian self-haters grow shrill

The extremism of the Bush administration has left us, according to polls, more wary than ever of American power and more determined to stick to our way of doing things.

This unexpected Canadian resolve — most openly expressed in the Chrétien government's wildly popular decision not to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq — has left the neo-con crowd fuming.

They got a chance to vent some of their anti-Canadian rage when a number of them were interviewed for a feature article on Canada in the New York Times last month.

The Times presented Canada as a virtual cesspool of despair over the sorry state of the country.

"I'm in almost total despair," University of Toronto historian Michael Bliss told the Times.

What is driving professor Bliss to despair? Could it be Canada's high rate of homelessness, poverty, unemployment? Apparently not.

"You have a country," Bliss continued, "but what is it for and what is it doing?"

What is it for? Couldn't it just be our collective attempt to live well together?

What seems to infuriate Bliss and the other neo-conservatives is the value Canadians attach to social programs, particularly public health care.

"A country is not just a health system," scoffed military historian Jack Granatstein, also quoted in the Times, who apparently feels the size of a country's military is a more appropriate measure of greatness.

True, a country is not just a health system, but how a country organizes something as important as its health system reveals a lot about what kind of country it is.

Canada's system is organized around the principle that everyone should have access and everyone should be treated equally. It may sometimes fail to live up to this ideal, but that is the ideal, and it's an ideal Canadians value.

This sort of talk drives neo-cons to the boiling point.

During the recent political wrangling over medicare, Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson urged everyone to abandon such lofty talk. "Let us agree to de-dramatize all future discussions about health, and ban such words as `moral covenant,' `national identity,' `the fight of our lives...'"

But the health debate is about more than just the technical provision of medical services. It's about the difference between a public system, based on equality and inclusiveness for all, and a private system, where vital health services are available on the basis of market principles.

Some neo-cons appear almost glad to see Canada fail.

The Times reported that David Bercuson, a historian at the University of Calgary, was watching the recent Olympics when Canadian track star Perdita Felicien fell, losing the gold medal she'd been expected to win.

"Mr. Bercuson dashed straight to his computer," the Times noted, "He knocked out a screed declaring that her sad performance, and that of the entire Canadian Olympic team, was just another symptom of `the national malaise' that is making Canada a second-rate, uncompetitive nation."

So, withFelicien lying devastated on the track, Bercuson's response was to seize the moment: Gotcha now, Canada, you medicare-loving bunch of losers!

Meanwhile, Globe columnist Margaret Wente has mocked the Canadian fondness for the U.N., which she recently wrote "allows us to congratulate ourselves that we disapprove of the lone gunslinger approach (unlike you-know-who). It allows us to believe that the world needs us, because even though we are neither powerful nor rich, we are good."

Actually, we are relatively powerful and rich. But what seems to irk Wente and the neo-cons is that Canadians also have a yearning for equality and the rule of law.

It's one of the things I like best about this country

.

I wonder what it is in a person's psyche that leads them to dislike or hate their own country and its values. I think McQuaig has touched a nerve here with her perceptive article. We have a lot of freedom these days, so I don't understand these people who seriously dislike their own country canada, but yet don't move to some other society where they would more obviously fit in. Maybe it is time to call the moving company for these disgruntled Canadians.

[takeanumber]

In Canada, it's the neo-cons who are the unpatriotic ones.

They have no pride in their country, and absolutely no respect for the beliefs of the society, and our traditions.

I suppose, it would take a neo-con to simultaneously hold high the banner of majoritarianism and spit on it.

And Burkey-poo: you're a prof, in CANADA. How much work do you do compared to your American counterparts? Damn straight. YOU'RE NOT JUST PART OF THE PROBLEM: YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Know your place Burkey.

[caesar]

I am very proud to be Canadian. I appreciate our health care system and our world respected fairness. I would be ashamed at this time to be American. Might does NOT make right. We have a beautiful country that we all should be proud of.

[August1991]

Linda McQuaig's article is very short-sighted and simplistic.

The Economist magazine published Canada's New Spirit on its 23 Sept 2003 cover. (Check out the photo in the link.)

Was The Economist cover story part of a widespread neo-con conspiracy to make fools of us?

What happened in the past year?

[maplesyrup]

Linda McQuaig's article, similar to most of her other material is brilliant, and Canada would do well to have many more journalists cut from the same cloth.

This pandering to the US has got to stop.

Let's take the Economist magazine for what it is - a business rag.

Canada is a huge inspiration for many people in the world.

[I miss Reagan]

Canada is a huge inspiration for many people in the world.

It's this kind of attitude that embarasses me to be Canadian. It's a sort of quiet arrogance. We don't shout from the roof tops that we are better than everyone else in the world but it's often implied in our talk. I find it sad that we are not the same country that once had the 5th largest military in the world and that would stand up to tyrants like Hitler. I find it sad that our health care system allows thousands to die waiting in lines for the sake of affordability. (Personally I'd rather be alive and broke rather than dead and wealthy. ) I've heard more than once from visitors from other countries "you have such high taxes, but where does the money go?" "your roads and highways are terrible, your healthcare system doesn't work and I still see plenty of poor people here". What's more, we offer great opportunities for terrorists. Last night on CNN they did a story on our immigration policy that is so liberal that we are a terrorist haven. And as our junk submarines get towed in by the US and Brits and our helicopters fall out of the sky, our PM has the gall to go to the UN and lecture the world about getting involved in crises like that going on the Sudan. I think there are plenty of reasons to be upset with Canada these days.

[maplesyrup]

The reality of course is quite the opposite. In 1976 the world went to shit with the election of ronald reagan some kind of a religious crackpot with a Looney Tunes wife, and we have gone downhill ever since. Hopefully this DARK AGE is about to finally pass with the defeat of Bush in 3 weeks.

Why is Canada full of Americans who are working and earning their livings here, eh?

[I miss Reagan]

MS I don't see what your hatred of conservatives has to do with Canada's problems other than your emotionally charged knee jerk reactions to everything under the sun.

[maplesyrup]

IMR......the reality is the world does not miss reagan they are just glad we surrivred his idiotic terms in power. You just don't get it, that's all.

[I miss Reagan]

IMR......the reality is the world does not miss reagan they are just glad we surrivred his idiotic terms in power. You just don't get it, that's all.

You're right.

I still don't see what that has to do with anything. All I see is either an attempt to draw me into a straw man argument or a feeble attempt to attack me based on my forum nick.

[Guest eureka]

Your embarassment at being Canadian would ring a little less hollow if you ever absorbed the truth about the problems yu think Canada has. Your list is so absurd and the fact that you have been presented with the reality of these many times, makes me wonder whether you have no unused brain cells left to absorb reality.

For example, you have been shown the reality of Canada's taxation levels many times. Canada is not a highly taxed country.

"Canada once had the 5th. largest military in the world" you say. So it probably did at a time when we devoted all our resources and manpower to the military in time of desperate need. An extraordinary feat and one we should not try to relive. Canada is still a small country and shou,ld cut its coat according to its cloth.

The rest of your complaints are pure bunkum and I am not much interested in CNN's view of our immigration policy. Have you forgotten that the "immigrants" who destroyed the WTC were immigrants to America, not Canada?

[I miss Reagan]

I find your reactions amusing considering the above quoted article claimed:

One of our charms as a country is that we take criticism well. It's part of our modest, unpretentious character.

Yet you're so offended you have to resort to:

makes me wonder whether you have no unused brain cells left to absorb reality.

Anyhow

So it probably did at a time when we devoted all our resources and manpower to the military in time of desperate need.

Tell me when were we in such desperate need? When were we personally attacked? Certainly not WW2. If Hitler was the problem today we'd be sitting on the side lines critisizing the US for not minding their own business, being war mongers guilty of targeting civilians with their carpet bombing, and accusing them of deflecting the war to Hitler rather than the Japanese since it was them who attacked the Pearl Harbor not the Germans.

Canada is not a highly taxed country.

lol. If you say so.

[Newfie Canadian]

Well, I have never claimed that Canada was perfect, nor do I believe the doom and gloom reports/comments/statements of various foreign media outlets/personalities.

Could we do better? Sure. I still think it's a great place to live and I can say proudly that I am a Canadian.

I can think of a lot worse places to be living right now.

In regards to taxes and money, I wouldn't mind our taxation level if we would get the proper use out of it, and by proper use I don't mean lavish pensions for politicians, kickbacks to various party friendly ad agencies and so forth.

[August1991]

Let's take the Economist magazine for what it is - a business rag.

So, what did The Economist magazine say about Canada?

This is from the Spetember 2003 cover story:

Indeed, a cautious case can be made that Canada is now rather cool.

Part of what makes it cool is a certain boldness in social matters. Canada's government has recently announced its support for pioneering bills to legalise gay marriage and decriminalise marijuana, both excellent liberal ideas. It has granted home rule and control over mineral rights to some of its indigenous Indians. While other rich countries suffer a racist backlash over immigration, Canadians welcome migrants and are proud of their tolerance and cultural diversity. This has turned Canada's big cities into vibrant, cosmopolitan places. Canadian writers and other cultural figures enjoy unprecedented international success.

That was then. So why is Linda McQuaig talking about Canadian naysayers? Why do the naysayers even exist now?

The simple answer is that Paul Martin became PM.

I don't think The Economist would write the same article now about Canada as they did in September 2003.

[Guest eureka]

It is my impression that the article would support my statements: that it was critical of the neo-cons.

Also, we were in desperate nedd during WWII. What does it matter whether we were "personally" attacked? We were at war in a global struggle. There was no alternative but to pull out all the stops.

Today, Canada is a middle power with less than a middle power"s population. Our capacities are limited. Whether we should be a lillte more militaristic is a different question.

[maplesyrup]

That was then. So why is Linda McQuaig talking about Canadian naysayers? Why do the naysayers even exist now?

You outta know, you are one of them. you and Bliss, and Bercuson, etc. Our country is doing just fine, thank you. and yes we will sort out the submarine problem, and any other problems that come our way.

We don't need more BS brain-dead ideas from South of the border. Canada's biggest problems come from South of the border. We are not Americans, we don't like their values, and we don't want to be part of them. What's it going to take to get these neo-cons to realize that?

[ticker]

Canada is not a highly taxed country.

lol. If you say so.

If you think taxes are high now just wait till Alberta runs out of conventional oil and the socialist need to find a new source of money.

[caesar]

Ticker; don't keep thinking Alberta is the be all and do all of Canada. Others do contribute well. Geesh.

[caesar]

. If Hitler was the problem today we'd be sitting on the side lines critisizing the US for not minding their own business, being war mongers guilty of targeting civilians with their carpet bombing, and accusing them of deflecting the war to Hitler rather than the Japanese since it was them who attacked the Pearl Harbor not the Germans.

Hitler was a serious problem. He was actively invading other countries including our mother country England. He was murdering Jewish people . What was Saddam doing. Mouthing off is about all.

[kimmy]

If Hitler had been swarthy and Muslim instead of white and allegedly Christian, there would probably be apologists coming out of the woodwork to condemn the actions of the Allies in WWII.

However, I do think that somebody who upset the applecart on such a large international scale in today's world would be dealt with by an international effort.

Overall I think the premise of this thread-- that if you think Canada could do things differently or better, you must be anti-Canadian or filled with self-loathing-- is flawed.

If you've watched the US presidential debates, you've heard both men say something along the line of "My opponent and I both love this country very much, but we have very different ideas about what needs to be done." Even after the most bitter exchanges, neither of them is willing to question the other's love of the country. In Canada, though, if you dare question any of a number of sacred cows, you must be anti-Canadian.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

That was then.  So why is Linda McQuaig talking about Canadian naysayers?  Why do the naysayers even exist now?

The simple answer is that Paul Martin became PM.

I don't think The Economist would write the same article now about Canada as they did in September 2003.

Why? Of that list of things that make Canada supposedly "cool", according to the Economist, how many of them have changed since Paul Martin became PM?

Something happened on the gay marriage front that I hadn't heard about?

Has there been some sort of dramatic change in First Nations policy that I wasn't aware of?

Has Martin put in some sort of anti-immigration policy?

Are anti-immigrant racists roaming the streets "backlashing" (?) ??

Are the Canadian writers and cultural figures not "cool" anymore?

Has anything happened on pot-- one way or the other-- since September 2003?

Has any of this actually happened? Are all these things that The Economist say make us "cool" ... not happening anymore? Have we changed? Or has what's "cool" changed?

Or are we not "cool" anymore because that corrupt thug is not running our country anymore?

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

kimmy.......good questions, quite perceptive of you.

Chretien's raison d'etre though was to keep Canada together, everything else was secondary for him. Don't you remember having heard about his cryin' at a cabinet meeting when he thought Canada would come apart?

Yes he was arrogant, but I really don't think he is was in politics to enrich himself. That just comes with the territory.

and yes, Queckers are astute policitians, perhaps the most astute in the land, but Quebec politics is very vicious, with a no holds barred mentaliity. Trudeau and Chretien were tried to be made out as traitors to their Quebecois community by the French separatists.