Canadian patriotism and nationalism

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The problem in Canada is that we are a very diverse nation. The various regions of this huge land all have individual cultures. That is why we are advocates of multiculturalism. Along with this diversity we have economic disparity. Some areas are more industrialy developed than others, and some are more advanteged with resources than others. Canada is almost 10 million square kilometers in size and has a population density of about 3 people per square kilometer. We have the second largest country in the world with the 219th smallest of 230 countries population density. This is an immense nation with very few people and therefore we have a diversity with huge differences in opinion with our citizens. This is not merely a question of urban verses rural opinions, it is far worse than that. We have a language issue, a race issue, an economic issue to go along with all of the location issues.

The citizens of Canada would fight to protect the interests of their fellow citizens in spite of their differences based on a mutual threat to the entire nation. But that simply won't ever happen. We have no enemies that are capable of threatening us given our geograhpic location as a vassal state of America. If nothing else the Americans would protect us in their own self interest.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem in Canada is that we are a very diverse nation. The various regions of this huge land all have individual cultures. That is why we are advocates of multiculturalism. Along with this diversity we have economic disparity. Some areas are more industrialy developed than others, and some are more advanteged with resources than others. Canada is almost 10 million square kilometers in size and has a population density of about 3 people per square kilometer. We have the second largest country in the world with the 219th smallest of 230 countries population density. This is an immense nation with very few people and therefore we have a diversity with huge differences in opinion with our citizens. This is not merely a question of urban verses rural opinions, it is far worse than that. We have a language issue, a race issue, an economic issue to go along with all of the location issues.

Agreed. We were never a 'people', and as a 'nation' we were always an assemblage of folks from other places.

The citizens of Canada would fight to protect the interests of their fellow citizens in spite of their differences based on a mutual threat to the entire nation. But that simply won't ever happen. We have no enemies that are capable of threatening us given our geograhpic location as a vassal state of America. If nothing else the Americans would protect us in their own self interest.

Again, agreed. There's no kind of realistic threat that would force us to 'fight' in the way that we think of these things.

[Wilber]

If nationalism is not needed in Canada why would it be needed in a separate Quebec or Alberta? Why not split them up into city states like ancient Greece?

If there was a common threat to all of the provinces, I believe both the populations of Quebec and Alberta would take up arms to fight together. That is what Europe did in the last century.

With what? Are they all going to maintain their own independent military? A united Canada has enough trouble trying to maintain an effective military. What chance would individual Provinces have? In NATO, some countries pulled their weight and others didn't. Even if they could, do you think they could agree on what constituted a common threat? If it was only one Province that was threatened do you think that the others would support it and who would command? If you have no common country it is much less likely that there will be a common threat or a common interest.

In the last century and the several proceeding it, Europeans spent their time fighting against each other not with each other. Yes they had alliances but they were always changing according to the interests of the nations involved. France and Germany to dominate depending on the era, Britain to maintain a balance that would prevent either one of them from dominating. Their allies and enemies came and went accordingly.

[Charles Anthony]

The bottom line comes down to:

Are we better suited to protect ourselves under several small militaries in several small jurisdictions?

or

Are we better suited to protect ourselves under one large military in one larger jurisdiction?

With what? Are they all going to maintain their own independent military?

Yes.

I will take it one step further: forget about a "military" and let people have the right to arm themselves.

Have you ever seen how farmers across the entire country unite when they are threatened?

I have faith in free people standing up and defending their neighbor against obvious injustice.

A united Canada has enough trouble trying to maintain an effective military.

That is completely different. Canada's military is not defending Canadians. They are akin to foreign mercenaries.

What chance would individual Provinces have?

They would have a better chance than they do now.

Compared to conquering one larger population that already has one great big central command and hierarchy already in place, the argument can be made that historically it has been more difficult to conquer many different smaller tribes or populations with several different governments or commands

Even if they could, do you think they could agree on what constituted a common threat?

They would not have to. They would fight for their own self interest.

People will co-operate in self-defense when competing interests overlap.

If it was only one Province that was threatened do you think that the others would support it and who would command?

Many questions.

Other provinces would support only out of self-interest. Commerce alone would be a driving incentive (it seems to have been for many other wars in the past too!).

Here is a simple example: if a neighborhood is targeted with an increase in burglary, the neighbors co-operate to defend each other better than any "government" can.

If the baker down the street is attacked, the butcher is better off defending his fellow merchant. Thus, they can continue to do commerce after the foreign invasion. The butcher does not want to serve meat and bake his own bread.

In fact, that is the motivation behind a lot of our current wars: securing commerce.

In the last century and the several proceeding it, Europeans spent their time fighting against each other not with each other. Yes they had alliances but they were always changing according to the interests of the nations involved. France and Germany to dominate depending on the era, Britain to maintain a balance that would prevent either one of them from dominating. Their allies and enemies came and went accordingly.

The example of Europe is perfect. The one thing that stopped the ongoing wars and the incredible development of the European Union was commerce. It was simply ridiculously expensive to continue to go to war compared to co-operating peacefully.

Go back one hundred years. Never in your wildest dreams would you be able to say that come hell or high water, France and Germany would create the European Union even if it meant they were the only countries in it.

CAVEAT: I am tickled by the door that is being opened by this thread.

[Leafless]

The US seems to manage just fine. They have two States which are separated from the rest of the country by thousands of miles. They are less than 100 years older than Canada yet none of them have a problem putting their country first.

Canada's problem is that it hasn't been in danger or had to act like a unified country since WWII and most Canadians from that era are no longer with us. Unfortunately, most Canadians don't have a clue what that means.

That doesn't sound like a problem at all to me, but rather a reason why nationalism isn't needed any more. I have read that 'nations' as such were only created in the last 400 years or so, and came out of the standardization of language. If so, that would further justify the idea that it's a fake construct.

Quebec has a very strong sense of nationalism and patriotism to it's province culture and language seen by many Quebecers as a country.

The other provinces in Canada have been around just as long as Quebec.

So, what gives with the ROC????

[Michael Hardner]

Quebec has a very strong sense of nationalism and patriotism to it's province culture and language seen by many Quebecers as a country.

They have many things that the ROC doesn't have:

Examples: a common language, a common culture, a common religion, a history, a sense of 'outsiders' that are perceived to interfere with their affairs, and a land that they've settled and developed all their own. On this last point, people might move from BC to Ontario to Alberta and still be in 'Canada', but there is only one Quebec if you get my meaning.

[Leafless]

Quebec has a very strong sense of nationalism and patriotism to it's province culture and language seen by many Quebecers as a country.

They have many things that the ROC doesn't have:

Examples: a common language, a common culture, a common religion, a history, a sense of 'outsiders' that are perceived to interfere with their affairs, and a land that they've settled and developed all their own. On this last point, people might move from BC to Ontario to Alberta and still be in 'Canada', but there is only one Quebec if you get my meaning.

No, I don't get your meaning and Quebecer's did not develop Quebec's subculture on their own, which they owe Canada, and they do have immigration of different cultures.

Canada does have 'official common' languages all immigrants are supposed to know.

What do subcultures personal preferences including religion have to do with nationlististic feelings and patrotic responses to the country they live and exist in?

Canada does have a history and a majority culture.

What your saying is SOME Canadians feel the don't have to be LOYAL, DEDICATED or PATRIOTIC to Canada because they simply feel they don't have to be.

If you want to live in some HIPPIE COMMUNE I don't and if this what the federal government is preaching let them say it LOUD AND CLEAR preferably in ENGLISH the majority official language.

[Michael Hardner]

No, I don't get your meaning and Quebecer's did not develop Quebec's subculture on their own, which they owe Canada, and they do have immigration of different cultures.

Not anywhere near as much as the ROC.

Canada does have 'official common' languages all immigrants are supposed to know.

Sorry, I meant to say that Quebec has a common language with each other and seperate from the rest of North America.

What do subcultures personal preferences including religion have to do with nationlististic feelings and patrotic responses to the country they live and exist in?

Well, how many examples would you like ? Israel ? Armenia ?

Canada does have a history and a majority culture.

Look, Leafless, you were the one that asked the question. What's YOUR answer then - what IS wrong with the ROC ?

What your saying is SOME Canadians feel the don't have to be LOYAL, DEDICATED or PATRIOTIC to Canada because they simply feel they don't have to be.

No. I'm saying that there's a different cultural topology to the rest of Canada - it's more of a mix, and more integrated with the US. Quebec is the 'outsider' in NA and in Canada, which forments feelings of independence.

If you want to live in some HIPPIE COMMUNE I don't and if this what the federal government is preaching let them say it LOUD AND CLEAR preferably in ENGLISH the majority official language.

I have no idea where this came from.

[Wilber]

The example of Europe is perfect. The one thing that stopped the ongoing wars and the incredible development of the European Union was commerce. It was simply ridiculously expensive to continue to go to war compared to co-operating peacefully.

This is nothing new with the EEC. There has always been commerce. The EEC is an economic union, don't confuse it with a military alliance. All the members maintain their own independent military and have independent governments and foreign policies.

[Charles Anthony]

The example of Europe is perfect. The one thing that stopped the ongoing wars and the incredible development of the European Union was commerce. It was simply ridiculously expensive to continue to go to war compared to co-operating peacefully.

This is nothing new with the EEC. There has always been commerce. The EEC is an economic union, don't confuse it with a military alliance. All the members maintain their own independent military and have independent governments and foreign policies.

That is precisely my point.

Independent militaries can be maintained. When faced with war, they co-operate to defend their own interests.

[Wilber]

Yes.

I will take it one step further: forget about a "military" and let people have the right to arm themselves.

Have you ever seen how farmers across the entire country unite when they are threatened?

I have faith in free people standing up and defending their neighbor against obvious injustice.

Better get out of the 17Th century. A group of farmers would have a snowballs chance in hell against a modern military unless you are talking about guerrilla warfare in which case your country has already been occupied. Look at countries where this is going on. Would you want that for your family? In Canada none of the arms that a military use are legal to own by civilians. Would you change that?

That is completely different. Canada's military is not defending Canadians. They are akin to foreign mercenaries.

That is a matter of opinion. Regardless, it is better to do your fighting on someone else's soil than on your own.

They would have a better chance than they do now.

Compared to conquering one larger population that already has one great big central command and hierarchy already in place, the argument can be made that historically it has been more difficult to conquer many different smaller tribes or populations with several different governments or commands

No it can't. That's how empires were built.

They would not have to. They would fight for their own self interest.

People will co-operate in self-defense when competing interests overlap.

Only if they felt that uniting was in their own self interest, otherwise everyone would be on their own. Even then there would have to be a great deal of coordination in the military's structure and command. Any military person would tell you that anything else would be a recipe for disaster against a well organized opposition.

I would remind you that the biggest reason Canada was formed in the first place was to counter the threat of being taken over by our neighbour to the south who ironically became our greatest protector. Just goes to show that you can't count on things remaining the same.

[Wilber]

The example of Europe is perfect. The one thing that stopped the ongoing wars and the incredible development of the European Union was commerce. It was simply ridiculously expensive to continue to go to war compared to co-operating peacefully.

This is nothing new with the EEC. There has always been commerce. The EEC is an economic union, don't confuse it with a military alliance. All the members maintain their own independent military and have independent governments and foreign policies.

That is precisely my point.

Independent militaries can be maintained. When faced with war, they co-operate to defend their own interests.

Do they? Give me an example. So you believe we would be better off if each Province maintained it's own independent military?