What does it mean to be Canadian?

bush_cheney2004 · July 27, 2009

For me there's little difference once the currency is exchanged and the border crossed. Now who in the hell made it so damn hard to cross again? Oh right....those guys.

It's not that casual for many Americans, who are keenly aware that they are foreigners in Canada, ready to field the obligatory questions, criticisms, and sprinkles of praise. Must be the stars and stripes tatoo!

Shraytus · July 27, 2009

If I remember history correctly - and I always do - the USA has the international reputation for entering wars when they're needed, too late and starting wars that aren't necessary, too early. WWI, they entered in 1917, only after two American vessels were sank, in WWII, they only entered after Pearl Harbour in 1941 (the brave American volunteers before that tragedy are obviously an exception.) The Afghanistan Invasion, yes, according to our principles is what you call a "legal war," as we all know the perks one gets from joining NATO. Iraq, however, is far from the same, and we can ask the families of US servicemen and women what they think of that illegal war and the former Bush administration. Thank God for Obama.

And for the USA gaining independence more peacefully than Canada - please, get a refresher on grade three history. A needless war with tens of thousands dead and hundreds of millions of costs. We all know who has the better international reputation. Our countries need each other to live yes, but it's ignorant people like these that give foreigners reason to loathe the USA.

bush_cheney2004 · July 27, 2009

If I remember history correctly - and I always do - the USA has the international reputation for entering wars when they're needed, too late and starting wars that aren't necessary, too early. WWI, they entered in 1917, only after two American vessels were sank, in WWII, they only entered after Pearl Harbour in 1941 (the brave American volunteers before that tragedy are obviously an exception.)

Obviously.....as far more Americans died in total. Canada did not play a major role in the Pacific at all. Americans note the fickleness of Canadians wishing us to join their wars in a hurry, even when they have not been attacked.

The Afghanistan Invasion, yes, according to our principles is what you call a "legal war," as we all know the perks one gets from joining NATO. Iraq, however, is far from the same, and we can ask the families of US servicemen and women what they think of that illegal war and the former Bush administration. Thank God for Obama.

They mostly think their lost service members did their duty, just as they were supposed to do.

g_bambino · July 27, 2009

You gained your independence peacefully because you waited until England was ready to grant you independence. Americans didn't want to wait 200 years. As for your participation in WWII, England was involved, and you were part of the commonwealth.

Ahem... You may want to check some of your "facts". Throughout the development of the British Empire, Canada was always at the forefront of change: it was the first Dominion in 1867, the first of those to demand a seat at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the first to agitate for equal status with the UK in the mid 1920s, one of the first to adopt the Statute of Westminster in 1931, and was the first of the remaining original Commonwealth realms to patriate its constitution from the UK in 1982. Given that the Statute of Westminster was in effect by the time WWII erupted, "England" (I think you meant the UK) wasn't involved in the Canadian decision to enter the conflict; in fact, George VI declared war on Nazi Germany as King of Canada, on the advice of his Canadian Prime Minister, a full week after he did the same as King of the United Kingdom, on the advice of his British Prime Minister.

g_bambino · July 27, 2009

Much of our history is based on differing ourselves from you and that is a simple fact.

And much of their health care debate is based on differentiating themselves from us; and that is a simple fact! :lol:

jbg · July 27, 2009

A big reason for us getting independance was are actions in WW1 not exactly the most peaceful thing in the world.

Are you talking independence in the 1867 sense, the 1931 sense, the 1944 sense or the 1982 sense? As a practical matter AW is right. The British experience with the U.S. led them to grant Canada its freedom 84 years later since they knew that trying to run a self-sufficient and prosperous country as a colony is almost impossible.

As for WW2 we did not have to go. We were part of the commonwealth which means we were equal to britain

All English-speaking countries, even the non-Commonwealth, non-royal U.S. "had to go" to fight the Germans. Our bonds are thicker than blood.

It is praiseworthy that Canada went more than two years before the U.S. did. It is a blot on the U.S. that we were not there sooner, especially given Germany's and Japan's damnable policies.

Edited July 27, 2009 by jbg

jbg · July 27, 2009

I find it interesting that more than one American on this board always finds it necessary to inform the Canadians about how their definition of their own country isn't good enough. Much of our history is based on differing ourselves from you and that is a simple fact. We live besides the most powerful country in the world, and we're supposed to ignore them?

I have not particularly made that point. Do not make those accusations in an oblique manner please. If you have a beef with me say it.

As far as your point though, Canada has not done enough to strengthen its self-definition, for fear of "offending" various minority constituencies whose time to integrate into the life of the country is long past.

bush_cheney2004 · July 27, 2009

Are you talking independence in the 1867 sense, the 1931 sense, the 1944 sense or the 1982 sense? As a practical matter AW is right. The British experience with the U.S. led them to grant Canada its freedom 84 years later since they knew that trying to run a self-sufficient and prosperous country is almost impossible.

Agreed.....Canada swims in this historical convenience better than Mark Spitz.

All English-speaking countries, even the non-Commonwealth, non-royal U.S. "had to go" to fight the Germans. Our bonds are thicker than blood.

Beg to differ here...the US could have joined the Central powers depending on economic interests in the silliest catastrophic war caused by alliances and blood lines. Thank you British Empire...guess what we got for our trouble? An even bigger mess in Europe.

Edited July 27, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

July 27, 2009

Are you talking independence in the 1867 sense, the 1931 sense, the 1944 sense or the 1982 sense? As a practical matter AW is right. The British experience with the U.S. led them to grant Canada its freedom 84 years later since they knew that trying to run a self-sufficient and prosperous country is almost impossible.
All English-speaking countries, even the non-Commonwealth, non-royal U.S. "had to go" to fight the Germans. Our bonds are thicker than blood.

It is praiseworthy that Canada went more than two years before the U.S. did. It is a blot on the U.S. that we were not there sooner, especially given Germany's and Japan's damnable policies.

My thought is an idependance in a we are our own people sense. Which lead to the statute of westminster.

WW2 we did not have to go, but of course we would were not a country that lays back while everyone else fights.

Edited July 27, 2009 by TrueMetis

jbg · July 27, 2009

Beg to differ here...the US could have joined the Axis powers depending on economic interests in the silliest catastrophic war caused by alliances and blood lines. Thank you British Empire...guess what we got for our trouble? An even bigger mess in Europe.

I have a firm difference of opinion with you on that one. Values have to play a role somehow, somewhere. I supported Bush on Iraq for that reason; my views do not switch whether Bush-Cheney or Roosvelt-Wallace are in power.

Smallc · July 27, 2009

And much of their health care debate is based on differentiating themselves from us; and that is a simple fact!

So true :lol:

Shraytus · July 27, 2009

"Obviously.....as far more Americans died in total. Canada did not play a major role in the Pacific at all. Americans note the fickleness of Canadians wishing us to join their wars in a hurry, even when they have not been attacked." - bush_cheney2004 (sorry for this format, I was just getting the quotation fundamentals worked out)

I respect and enjoy debating your point bush_cheney2004, while I disagree with it. I would, however along with the other Canadians on this forum, appreciate it if you refrain from insulting the quality of our soldiers, especially those dead from past conflicts. And had the Nazi Germans and the Japanese not attacked your vessels and naval bases in WWI and WWII respectively, we all know that your nation would of sat nice and tight while Canada helped decide the fate of the world. Ask an intelligent non-North American that, and you'll see what I mean, go to Vimy Ridge maybe, or Ypres, or la Somme, then come back and we'll have some more friendly debates.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Shraytus

bush_cheney2004 · July 27, 2009

I have a firm difference of opinion with you on that one. Values have to play a role somehow, somewhere. I supported Bush on Iraq for that reason; my views do not switch whether Bush-Cheney or Roosvelt-Wallace are in power.

Then we are in agreement....there was no clear moral values champion in that very stupid war. American public opinion at the time was not so clear cut, necessitating a little PR help and Zimmerman telegram, eh?

Edited July 27, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

jbg · July 27, 2009

Then we are in agreement....there was no clear moral values champion in that very stupid war. American public opinion at the time was not so clear cut, necessitating a little PR help and Zimmerman telegram, eh?

What pray tell is the Zimmerman telegram?

bush_cheney2004 · July 27, 2009

What pray tell is the Zimmerman telegram?

It was the "last straw".....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

Smallc · July 27, 2009

I have not particularly made that point. Do not make those accusations in an oblique manner please. If you have a beef with me say it.

You aren't one of the Americans that I was speaking of.

As far as your point though, Canada has not done enough to strengthen its self-definition, for fear of "offending" various minority constituencies whose time to integrate into the life of the country is long past.

But perhaps you should have been. Canada has an identity, and those immigrants and their unique heritage are part of it. This isn't the United States.

bush_cheney2004 · July 27, 2009

....This isn't the United States.

We know what Canada is not...so tell us what Canada is. That's the riddle.

jbg · July 27, 2009

Then we are in agreement....there was no clear moral values champion in that very stupid war. American public opinion at the time was not so clear cut, necessitating a little PR help and Zimmerman telegram, eh?

The start of WW II, or rather the Battle of Britain, was as great a "moment of moral clarity" as September 11 was.

Shraytus · July 27, 2009

You aren't one of the Americans that I was speaking of.
But perhaps you should have been. Canada has an identity, and those immigrants and their unique heritage are part of it. This isn't the United States.

Well said, and this was the entire goal of Trudeau's law on multiculturalism. It's amazing that you can learn about almost every global culture by walking down the street in Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver to name a very few. No disrespect intended, but I find such a phenomenon difficult in most southern US cities, hopefully that's changing however.

jbg · July 27, 2009

You aren't one of the Americans that I was speaking of. But perhaps you should have been. Canada has an identity, and those immigrants and their unique heritage are part of it. This isn't the United States.

I am quite well aware of Canada's greatness. My point is it could be even greater.

jbg · July 27, 2009

Well said, and this was the entire goal of Trudeau's law on multiculturalism. It's amazing that you can learn about almost every global culture by walking down the street in Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver to name a very few. No disrespect intended, but I find such a phenomenon difficult in most southern US cities, hopefully that's changing however.

I'm from New York. Even though we're a melting pot rather than multicultural we have the same experience in New York City; and Port Chester, New York.

Smallc · July 27, 2009

I am quite well aware of Canada's greatness. My point is it could be even greater.

Maybe, but making it look different from what it is isn't going to make it better.

benny · July 27, 2009

The start of WW II, or rather the Battle of Britain, was as great a "moment of moral clarity" as September 11 was.

Canadians are not as eager as Americans to seek for such so-called "moments of moral clarity".

Smallc · July 27, 2009

We know what Canada is not...so tell us what Canada is. That's the riddle.

I thought I did that pages and months ago, but I can make a list if you'd like.

Shraytus · July 27, 2009

I'm from New York. Even though we're a melting pot rather than multicultural we have the same experience in New York City; and Port Chester, New York.

I absolutely agree, New York is amongst the best locales to discover the many cultures in North America. My point however, is the South States, their past excluded, as, in my experience of Las Vegas and Dallas, the only other culture, probably, you'd have a chance of witnessing is Latin American, and few others as in the northern USA and all of Canada.