# Our Shared History...what went wrong?



## MAJOR_Baker (23 Jan 2006)

Been thinking about this for a while and of course the events of the CDN Federal Election brought it to the forefront.  

So I was thinking why the animosity?  Not just the CDN PM, but his ministers and back benchers, the majority of CDN media, and a large portion of the population have sunk very low, some say it is because they don't like President Bush, well frig I don't like Martin, so where does that leave us?   Water diversion and the North West passage conspiracies?  Now, I am not trying to play the anti-american card, just point out a few observations.

Reading through a few posts, there were a few comments about Americans from the south having a gene pool ankle deep, references to cowboys, etc.  I am wondering where most CDNs think the majority of Americans come from?  Certainly not from another planet, if you guessed Western Europe you would be correct, the same place as "CDNs" came from.  Interesting isn't it?  

I sure hope Canada gets the government it deserves, one that doesn't look down it's nose everytime the US doesn't fall lock step with its more LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE agenda.  Good Luck


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (26 Jan 2006)

The anymosity is silly I agree, but just as your supposed gene pool is, our anymosity is only ankle deep. The vast majority of Canadians that are seriously affronted by the Americans very existence, are the same people that would get their panties in a twist if you told them that not all liberals are progressive and that not all conservatives are backward red neck hicks. I wouldn't put too much stock in the words of the few, and take the words of the majority, which, for the most part, are very supportive of the United States and its direction in this world, particularly in relation to the war on terror and its confrontation of nations such as Iran and N. Korea.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (26 Jan 2006)

As far as military and political relations go, J.L. Granatstein's book 'Who Killed the Canadian Military' gives some relevent detail concerning the question you posed.

To give a grossly over-simplified response, I'd say that a large part of the difference is that Americans tend to think in terms of national interest while we, on the other hand, think more in terms of domestic social concerns (or when our politiciens don't want to think at all, they can blame the states).


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2006)

The animosity is mostly confined to the media, politicians and academics (Michael Ignatieff = two out of three. A bad sign?), the classes of people with the most invested in the idea of "Trudeopia". They tore down the symbols and obscured, degraded or denied our history and collective mythology, but discovered Trudeopia was strangly lacking in the above, and substituted anti-Americanism as a cheap substitute.

If Harper wants to chart a new course, he could take the advice posted elsewhere and selectively ressurect the symbols of our past while forging stronger links to the Anglosphere. The Trudeopians and general mob of anti-American fellow travellers will suffer shock and awe at this change in direction, and (being trapped in mental ruts) unable to mount an effective response. Read more about this idea here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38903/post-326060.html#msg326060


----------



## redleafjumper (26 Jan 2006)

A lot of our "shared history" with the United States has involved warfare, both on the side of, in the past hundred years or so, or in opposition to, for the time before that.  We do have one major unresolved conflict with the United States in that the US has never recognized our northern borders.  Canada and the former USSR both subscribed to "polar geography" which means that we see our borders as extending to the geographic north pole.  I believe that the Russians still hold this view.  The issue will become more problematic as more of the Canadian waterways up there become ice-free and there is improved access to the resources of the Arctic and sub-arctic.   The matter came up as it does occasionally when the US ambassador made a negative comment regarding Harper's Arctic sovereignty proposal.  When you are making a defence policy it is always important to consider one's neighbours as potential friends as well as possible enemies.


----------



## GO!!! (26 Jan 2006)

I think our anti-americanism is linked to our not really having any real problems.

Like soldiers, we always need something to complain about, and since most of us are safe, with a warm place to sleep and enough to eat, we keep looking to more and more insignificant things to complain about. 

The US is'nt perfect, so we'll let them have it, after all, George Bush is like, bad and stuff - right?


----------



## DG-41 (27 Jan 2006)

Actually, I'm going to differ with the consensus opinion a little bit.

There has always been a thread of anti-Americanism running through Canadian politics, dating back to when the Colonies got Revolutionary Fever and decided to spread it northwards. We haven't forgotten the various attempts to attack northward up the Richelieu, the War of 1812, or the Fenian Raids.... American Manifest Destiny doesn'tplay well up here.

That's near the root of it, but (and I can say this with some authority, as I live in Canada and work in the US so I am exposed to Americans every day) that there are some serious differences in the national character of Canadians and Americans. Individuals from either country can oftentimes be idealogically identical, but on average, there are certain American traits that conflict with Canadian traits. When events in the US rub Canadians the wrong way, you hear about it.

We *are* a separate country, after all. We are *not* the 51st state of the Union, governed from Washington. We have our own opinions on many issues. Not all Canadians share all these views (some here will disagree with some or all of the points I'm about to bring up) , but enough do that it attracts attention.

In the last little while, you've had:

- the USA failing to recognise the legal authority in the softwood lumber trade dispute, where the governing body has repeatedly found the US to be in violation of treaty, but the US government refuses to enforce the correction of the violations

- the USA claiming that certain sovereign Canadian waters are, in fact, international waters and can be utilized whenever they want

- the USA trying to bully us into participation in an unnecessary white elephant missile defense system

- the disturbing tendency of American ambassadors to lecture Canadian politicians on what the US expects of us, and to interfere in internal politics. (this is just rudeness, and Canadians are big on politeness)

- Much American silliness about the border, including accusing Canada of being a terrorist refuge, and the unilateral declaration that passports will be needed to cross the US border in the near future (much to the detriment of all border city economies on both sides of the line)

- The war in Iraq, which a large number of Canadians feel was at the very least grossly misrepresented, potentially illegal, effectively a disaster for regional stability, and an all-round bad idea. (Note that Canadians are perfectly willing to fight for a just cause - witness Afghanistan - but many feel that the case that Iraq was a "just cause" was never made, and so the invasion of Iraq is just the US acting the unilateral bully again)

- The alarming movement of American politics towards dogmatic partisanship, with the leading party wandering ever rightward and increasingly fundamentallist Christian - witness different attitudes towards gay marriage, the legalization/decriminalization of pot, etc. Plus the vehemence from right-wing demagogues like Anne Coulter and the like against those whose politics are not firmly facing right. Canadians tend to be centrists or slightly left of center - if Stevie Harper were running for office in the US, he'd probably be a Democrat - and so when Americans rant on about the malfeasance of liberals... well... that's *us*, thank you.

In short, a lot of what you're hearing has been brought about by general disagreement with the conduct of the current American regime, mixed in with the usual Canadian tendency to bitch about the US.

I wouldn't see it as *hatred* though. It's not Al-Quaida-flavoured anti-Americanism. It's more like seeing your best friend get drunk off his ass and act like an asshole. Wouldn't you tell him?

DG


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jan 2006)

- Much American silliness about the border, including accusing Canada of being a terrorist refuge, and the unilateral declaration that passports will be needed to cross the US border in the near future (much to the detriment of all border city economies on both sides of the line)



This one has always mystified me.  It's the US customs and Immigration, and the Border Service that lets the terrorists into the US from Canada.  So, why is their incompetence our fault?    ;D > :warstory:


----------



## DG-41 (27 Jan 2006)

*snort* ROFL!

So lemme get this straight - I tell you some of the reasons why *some* Canadians are annoyed with the US, and then you lecture me on why the US is RIGHT on all points, and as a bonus, attack my service history (which you might want to take a closer look at)

Man, nobody is going to believe this. They'll think this is a setup, that we're working as a team or something.

Thanks dude, you made my day.   

DG


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jan 2006)

Know what Major Baker, you self-reflect waaaay too much........stop reading headlines and listening to politicians and things will be fine.


If I went just by headlines no one would want us to try and restore Afganistan........


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jan 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> *snort* ROFL!
> 
> So lemme get this straight - I tell you some of the reasons why *some* Canadians are annoyed with the US, and then you lecture me on why the US is RIGHT on all points, and as a bonus, attack my service history (which you might want to take a closer look at)
> 
> ...



He's taking more of an issue with your wording.  And he's quite right.  I can understand that you're attempting to voice the beleifs of "some Canadians", and that as such those statements might not reflect your personal beleifs.  However, when you use phrases like "current American regime", you give yourself away.  Why are you trying to be sneaky about it?  Ok, you don't like the US.  Don't hide behind what "some Canadians think".

And, even assuming that you really ARE only playing devils advocate, you could have summed up your entire argument by simply saying "some Canadians are ignorant and bigoted, and our media is dishonest".


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Jan 2006)

It seems as if some members of this site are trying to disguise their anti-American bias! Sorry for some peoples attitudes S_Baker, not all of us are anti-American, self-righteous asses!


----------



## DG-41 (27 Jan 2006)

> Ok, you don't like the US.



Where, pray tell, did I say that?

Yes, I have some deep concerns about certain aspects of American governmental policy (as, I might point out, so do a fair number of Americans - I've had about a half dozen co-workers approach me over the past couple of years seeking information on emmigration to Canada) - but I was careful not to characterise my opinions as being universally shared by all Canadians.

And I certainly disagree with your assessment of the Canadian media as being dishonest.

Quick story: I went into a temporary (as it turned out) military retirement for about 8 years, and in that time, I started my own SCCA auto race team. That meant spending a lot of time in the US, given that the race series was based out of the US. September 11, 2001 found me on the racetrack, set up on the apron of Forbes Field (an Air National Guard base) in Topeka, KS. The first plane hit the WTC as I was out driving my heat. I watched the towers collapse on the TV in the team motorhome, parked in the paddock.

I was amongst three thousand scared Americans, one of maybe a half-dozen (at most) Canadians on site. The event was postponed, we couldn't go home anyway because we were told the border was closed, and so we stayed with the entire lot of them as we waited for news as to what was going to happen re: the event (it was the National Championship event, so sort of a big deal, lasted over a week long). So I was "embedded", if you will, in this slice of American culture, during the most shocking domestic crisis since... well... maybe the Kennedy assassination.

As far as they were concerned, I was family. As far as *I* was concerned, *they* were family. We took care of each other.

But getting back to the media.. that night, for whatever reason the local PBS station started carrying CBC news. I got to watch the Canadian media coverage of 9/11 from deep inside the American heartland, after having spent the day in the intimate company of actual Americans, sharing their reactions - even got to watch my old MilStud professor from CMR brought in as a commentator. And what struck me about the Canadian coverage was the degree of empathy and honesty extended towards Americans and the situation in general. There was NO anti-American rhetoric. NONE. Something horrible and unjustified had happened to our neighbours to the South and Canada, as embodied by the CBC, shared in it.

I *like* the CBC. I think the CBC is probably the most truthful news organization in North America. When the US does something stupid, they report on it, truthfully. And when the US has something terrible happen to it, the CBC reports on it, truthfully, and with no anti-American bias. I've seen it first-hand.

If you're going to accuse ME of bias, see to your *own* biases first.

I have the opinions that I do because I have spent 9 years now amongst Americans, I see the way the country is moving, and I am, in many cases, deeply disturbed by what I see. The America of today is not the America of 9 years ago; it is more fearful, more insular, more willing to lash out, more willing to go it alone no matter what the rest of the world thinks. It is increasingly moving in a direction that I see as "anti-American"; farther away from the core American values of justice, freedom, and equal opportunity for all. In an odd sort of way, I am very pro-American - it's just that modern America is less "American" than it was, once.

Now that is my personal opinion, based on my own experience and observations; you, or anyone else, are free to your own opinions, and I'm *certainly* not going to try and change your mind... why waste the effort? But spare me the name-calling; I came by these opinions by actual interaction with Americans, not via Fox News and the National Post.

DG


----------



## rifleman (27 Jan 2006)

Whats actually wrong?


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jan 2006)

DG, I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.  Sure, Canada and the CBC were very empathic when 9/11 happened.  You'd have had to have been a brainwashed savage not to feel their pain, and not to be worried about what it meant for all of us.  But most Canadians, just like the american "progressives", forgot about it way too quickly.  Those images are still fresh in my mind, and I understand that we, wether Canadian or American, cannot continue to live the way we did pre-911.  You think that changing with the times made America become "not-America"?  Bullshit.  You could have made the same argument when they imprisoned their japanese population, or when they dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Did they end up turning into a dictatroial imperialist state because of it?  Hardly.  The US has always been able to change and adapt to the situation, and their core values have survived through every shift.  What makes the new policies any different?  I suppose I was mistaken when I said that you "don't like America", rather, I could accurately say that you don't like America changing.  Which is fine.  Lots of people are afraid of change.

As to our media not being biased, have a look at the thread discussing the US response to our plans in the arctic.  You'll see what our media can pull off when they're determined to create a scene.


----------



## DG-41 (27 Jan 2006)

"Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin

There was no great change in the world in 2001. It wasn't like there was this great terrorist uprising out of nowhere. It was the usual group of assholes who came up with an innovative way to carry out a terror attack (one that was nullified so quickly that the attacks hadn't even FINISHED before the world developed a new strategy for dealing with them*) and in the process, gave the world the justification it needed to crack open the nest and kill the vermin hiding there.

If you get bitten by a snake, you kill the snake, plow up the snake nest, and resume your normal life. You don't dedicate every waking moment to living in fear of snakes. You don't pave your yard and set up razor wire to try and keep the snakes out.

The whole concept of "essential liberty", giving credit where credit is due, is uniquely American. Certainly the American Founding Fathers, for whom I have a great deal of respect, understood that liberty, as a concept, trumped all else. The "adapting" that you talk about, the trading liberty for an illusionary security, is PROFOUNDLY un-American.

I came to work one day to find a group of my American co-workers arranging an after-work group trip to Home Depot, where they were going to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape en masse, with which they intended to seal up their houses against the threat of chemical attack (based on an announcement they saw on TV that morning) When I pointed out 1) the type of volume of agent required to deliver a chemical attack (the approprate unit of volume is "tanker trucks" not "teaspoons") and 2) The complete lack of success of a chemical attack in the Tokyo Subway (the most densely populated enclosed space in the world) they were completely flabbergasted, and, I might add, very upset that they had been so badly misinformed. That kind of institutionalized fear is ALSO profoundly un-American.

Those changes you talk about are NOT a requirement to "change with the times" and are in fact to be resisted whole-heartedly. Fear and paranoia are not American virtues.

DG

* 9/11 was not the first time in history that an aircraft had been hijacked; indeed, aircraft hijackings were endemic in the 70s and 80s. But all the experience with hijackings stated that the idea survival strategy was to lay low, remain passive and unnoticed, and wait for the hijackers to either release you, or for rescue to arrive. At worst, hijackers would kill maybe 1 or 2 of a hundred or so passengers, and there was a strong disincentive for them to kill anyone, as starting to kill usually torpedoed their negotiations. Sitting tight and keeping quiet offered the best odds of survival.

But with 9/11, the passengers were incidental; they weren't even really "hostages". When the hijackers' intention is to crash the plane into a target, the best survival strategy is to defend the plane to the utmost, as passivity will get you killed with 100% certainty. This fundamental change in the dynamics of aircraft hijackings took maybe two hours to dissiminate all around the world, such that a plane that was IN THE AIR, EN ROUTE TO THE TARGET got the news and was prevented from reaching the target.

That trick worked exactly ONCE, and forever changed the dynamics of a would-be hijacking, because from now on, passengers will assume that their best chance of survival will be to mob the hijackers immediately, the risk of personal injury be damned. We will never again see a 9/11 type attack for the simple reason that no passenger will ever allow it to happen again - and that didn't take any hightened security measures or any other government policy change AT ALL.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jan 2006)

The key words there are, ofcourse, "ESSENTIAL liberty".

I don't see any essential liberties being surrendered.

Your mileage may vary.

It still doesn't explain the rampant anti-Americanism displayed by groups of Canadians.


----------



## rifleman (27 Jan 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> DG
> 
> * 9/11 was not the first time in history that an aircraft had been hijacked; indeed, aircraft hijackings were endemic in the 70s and 80s. But all the experience with hijackings stated that the idea survival strategy was to lay low, remain passive and unnoticed, and wait for the hijackers to either release you, or for rescue to arrive. At worst, hijackers would kill maybe 1 or 2 of a hundred or so passengers, and there was a strong disincentive for them to kill anyone, as starting to kill usually torpedoed their negotiations. Sitting tight and keeping quiet offered the best odds of survival.
> 
> ...



Totally agree, - No Box cutter will ever stop passengers from over powering would be terrorists again.


----------



## Glorified Ape (7 Feb 2006)

I see much of the state of relations as being little more than a fundamental difference of opinion and values. What many Canadians like, Americans don't and vice-versa. That being said, there's no shortage of things both people hold in common but it seems to me that differences usually define relations far more than similarities - if only because they're more visible. 

The "anti-American" angle is way overplayed, IMO. It's no more anti-American to criticize US government policy or political climate than it is anti-Canadian to do likewise, such as deriding Canada's liberal leanings, bashing its defence policies (past or present) or criticizing it for not going into Iraq. Those criticisms are entirely valid, depending on your viewpoint, the same way as similar criticisms of the US on their "hot button" issues are just as valid. Ironically enough, I find those making accusations of "anti-Americanism" are usually the first ones to bash the entirety of France. There's nothing funnier than listening to someone bemoan "anti-Americanism", only to crap on France at the first opportunity (I find it's usually right-wingers doing both of these, but I'm sure there are exceptions). To call "anti-This" and "anti-That" everytime someone makes a critique is a ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction often times. If I'm screaming hateful crap against Jews, then calling me an anti-Semite is one thing. Saying that Canadian defence policy since WWII is crap or US foreign policy during the same period sucks are not "anti-Canadian" or "anti-American" statements. Saying "Americans are idiots" or "Canadians are fools" or "The French are cowards", now THOSE are "anti" type statements. 

I think much of the problem between the two countries is that everyone's so damned sensitive - usually the ones with an over-abundance of "patriotism" - a disease everyone seems to suffer from at one time or another but we all need to do a way with. I also think much of the problem really isn't as bad as it's made out to be - we have our differences but we're not India and Pakistan here, for Christ's sake.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (8 Feb 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> No one is trying to bully anyone, remember security tumps trade, everytime, get use to it.



Economics is of prime concern in security questions. Trade represents a substantially larger proportion of cross-border relations worldwide than security initiatives ever will. I'd even go so far as to say that fettering border-crossing at normal points will be massively counter-productive to your security, in convincing the Canadians with something to hide to cross the largest undefended border in the world at alternate locations


----------



## 54/102 CEF (8 Feb 2006)

What`s wrong with the Canadians? At least the posters here? and me?

Only my view - but here goes

Generally they have no idea of the origins of American thought on Foreign Policy which has been determined by Self Interest of the US vs the shared interests of the British Commonwealth. Until 1956 most Canadian Foreign policy and outward looking views was spoon fed to us by London.

Since that time Canada has been its own boss politically and economically. Before that time we were lock stepped with Brit markets.In the 60s we woke up and started receiving the benefits of access to the American Markets and the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that flowed in from stuff as simple as the Auto Pact. $$$$ ='d Social Benefits ----> trust us - we know whats good for you a la BUzz hargrove of you guessed it the Autoworkers

So there`s a huge North South link but we kept - Centralised government.......... all things we need to think come from one source. Maybe no longer but Stooge Martin was trying darn hard to keep that going wasn`t he?

But we still think we know it all vis USA mainly through the media which leads you down a big hole. 

Which leads us back to zero on snakes and ladders

To help fix this - I recommend the books "Promised Land, Crusader State : The American Encounter with the World Since 1776" and "Rise of the Vulcans" - you can get them from http://www.abebooks.com

In short - what you think you know about the USA - you`ll find you have no idea. Get the books - you won`t regret it. Then write your own book on the USA and the world. 

Blurb from Amazon Promised Land, Crusader State - Written by a US ARMY ARTY SGT from Vietnam era now Pulitzer Prize Winner

When the Cold War ended and left the United States without one clear, monolithic enemy or ideology to battle, a hint of confusion and indecisiveness entered U.S. foreign policy, revealing weaknesses in the American diplomatic tradition. However, According to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Walter A. McDougall, this confusion was not a result of the Cold War, but rather made more visible by the absence of a looming conflict. Reaching back to 1776 to analyze the foreign policy decisions made during the U.S. progression to superpower, McDougall reveals the numerous paradoxes present in American foreign policy. 
Beginning with the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and the various interpretations of those ideals over the years, he deconstructs the role of the U.S. in global affairs, questioning both the logic and motives of how the nation deals with friend and foe. One of McDougall's major contentions centers on efforts to affect other countries' policies and governments by projecting U.S. standards or choices on them. He is particularly concerned with what he views as an overextension of resources and wisdom, and the glaring hypocrisy such efforts reveal. He points to several examples of how time and energy was wasted trying to change those who were uninterested or unwilling. As McDougall points out lucidly and convincingly in Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter With the World Since 1776, one nation cannot cure the major ills of another, and the price of such an attempt is too great to risk.

Blurb from Amazon Rise of the Vulcans : The History of Bush's War Cabinet  
While campaigning for president in 2000, George W. Bush downplayed his lack of foreign policy experience by emphasizing that he would surround himself with a highly talented and experienced group of political veterans. This core group, consisting of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, and Condoleezza Rice, has a long history together dating back 30 years in some cases. Dubbing themselves the Vulcans, they have largely determined the direction and focus of the Bush presidency. In this remarkably researched and fascinating book, Mann traces their careers and the development of their ideas in order to understand how and why American foreign policy got to where it is today. 
As Mann makes clear, there has never been perfect agreement between all parties, (the relationship between the close duo of Powell and Armitage on one side and Rumsfeld on the other, for instance, has been frosty) but they do share basic values. Whether they came from the armed services, academia, or government bureaucracy, the Vulcans all viewed the Pentagon as the principal institution from which American power should emanate. Their developing philosophy was cemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001 and is best reflected in the decision to invade Iraq. They believe that a powerful military is essential to American interests; that America is ultimately a force for good despite any negative consequences that may arise from American aggression; they are eternally optimistic about American power and dismiss any arguments about over-extension of resources; and they are skeptical about the need to consult allies or form broad global coalitions before acting.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Feb 2006)

Pte. Gaisford said:
			
		

> Economics is of prime concern in security questions. Trade represents a substantially larger proportion of cross-border relations worldwide than security initiatives ever will.


True in the respect of two or more equal nations, but our trade with the US is not equal - in fact, it is not even close. The US could take drastic action. like closing the border to numerous Canadian goods, or all of them, for security reasons with little or no domestic consequence. Some areas would even benefit due to the lack of competition. Canada would be mortally wounded if this lasted longer than a week or two.

The US takes security seriously because they have been attacked. It is a fact, we are at war. 



> I'd even go so far as to say that fettering border-crossing at normal points will be massively counter-productive to your security, in convincing the Canadians with something to hide to cross the largest undefended border in the world at alternate locations


Do you have any sort of even remotely related evidence to back this up? The idea that law enforcement is counter - poductive is ludicrous. This is a "bury your head in the sand" strategy, which will definitely not work.

By your rationale, we should not enforce any laws, as it will only inspire the criminals to find more evasive ways to break them.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (8 Feb 2006)

Ref economics - trade deficit is pretty steady with the US but DISMAL with Europe 

Keep that in mind every time you hear a talking head say get the Airbus 400

An image follows for those who don`t have it 
In 2004, Canadian merchandise imports from the EU grew at a faster pace than exports (8.9% compared to 6.2%). Merchandise imports from the EU reached $42 billion in 2004, with the main imports being machinery, petroleum products, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, and aircraft. As a result, Canada has a deficit in its balance of trade with the EU, which stood at $19.4 billion in 2004. However, at $77 billion in 2001, sales by Canadian affiliates based in the EU are now more than four times greater than Canadian exports and will continue to grow as investment increases. 												
Source	http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/2005/7_05-en.asp

Summary - Invest in the USA

Forget Airbus - Make nice with USA. Our balance of trade with the Europeans has been out of balance for over 20 years http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/2005/7_05-en.asp compared to the last 5 with the USA and we owe them nothing. See Excel graphs

"there is a divergence in economic performance across world regions, with North America and the emerging economies of Asia outperforming Europe and Japan......." Euro = benefits - USA = production - source Bank of Canada http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/speeches/2006/sp06-2.html


----------



## pbi (11 Feb 2006)

There's some truth to what Recce DG is saying. Stand by: I am going to wax philosophical...

Anti-Americanism has very deep and broad historical and cultural roots in Canada, to a great extent for the reasons that RecceDG points out. We have tended to define ourselves against them, even to the point of not doing things in a certain way because "..._that's too American_.."

One can, IMHO, make a pretty good case that one of the primary motivators for Confederation was an inherent fear that if the separate provinces did not unite, they might get picked off one by one by the US. Not without some reason: IIRC, semi-official rumblings in the US during their Civil War, brought on by Canadian tolerance (if not active support) for Confederate agents on Canadian soil, combined with the Fenian Raids, probably contributed to that fear. That fear, reasonable or not, has never really gone away and is easily mined for political purposes. In fact, not just for political purposes: let's not forget Defense Scheme Number One ("The Buster Brown Plan") drawn up by the Canadian Directorate of Military Operations in the 1920s, that identified the US as the sole credible military threat to Canada, and proposed "General Brock"-style pre-emptive strikes to seize the initiative until the Royal Navy could arrive to save us. Although,to be fair to ourselves in uniform, since WWII IMHO the Canadian military has normally been one of the few Canadian institutional bastions of pro-US feelings, if only based on professional associations with US forces.

Whether we agree with the thinking behind the issues that RecceDG identified as irritants really is neither here nor there: public opinion is usually not a product of logical reasoning but of impressions and irritations, and by "what happens to me". If your  Interior BC lumber mill town is going on the dole, or your Southern Ontario auto engine plant job is disappearing, you blame the US. You might even be right, although IMHO neither Canada nor the US has "clean hands" in the subsidy game, and there is at least as much blue-collar fear of NAFTA in the US (especially the southern US) as there is in Kamloops or Oshawa.

 These things RecceDG listed really piss Canadians off. Even I get pissed off sometimes with things I hear and see coming out of the US. (but, guess what: so does about 50% of the US electorate at any given time...) On top of that effect, America is big, rich, powerful and can be seen as pushy. Perhaps these things are the price of greatness: I think similar charges were probably laid against Imperial Britain at its zenith. Regardless, Canadians often see through these filters. Who doesn't get torqued about big, rich pushy people? I think it may be called jealousy, but that doesn't take away the power of the feeling to inform public opinion.

 We on the other hand are small (politically),  imagine ourselves not quite as rich, not powerful at all, and have tried to make a a rather tiresome fetish of "niceness". (Or at least we pretend we have: I think that perhaps being nice is  sometimes a lace curtain for just being indecisive and relatively powerless, and is undoubtedly chained to domestic political issues). We have been brought up with a discreetly smug sense of moral superiority toward the US, although in my opinion most of the premises that sense is based on are either imaginary or bankrupt. Regardless, that sense informs our thinking about the US. Just as the traits of the US that irritate us may be the inescapable prices of greatness, perhaps our resentments and insecurities are the burdens of a country whose independence is relatively much newer (1931), whose internal domestic problems are real and potentially destructive, and who is only really now beginning to find its own independent way on the world stage, rather than as a loyal subordinate of  Britain. I hope, that as we mature as a nation, some of these insecurities will disappear. But I doubt that friction will ever disappear between us.

But, so what? Is it so bad that Canada has its own opinions and seeks its own way, or that the US takes a dim view of some of these opinions and ways?  I don't think so, as long as we understand that we have much more in common than we have as differences, and that the truth of either country is not really understood in its neighbour's "conventional wisdom" or received knowledge about "what they're like up/down there". Those "American Warmongering Bookburners". Those "Canadian Crypto-Communist Cuba-lovers".

I want Canada to continue to grow up as nation. In so doing, we must learn to make our own decisions for our own reasons, as uncomfortable as this may make us feel. In the course of that, we will not always do what some parts of the US political culture want us to do. But, at the same I want us to retain a healthy, peaceful and constructive relationship with the US as a basic tenet of our policies, foreign and domestic. What other way is there?

IMHO it is impossible to imagine that a country with Canada's circumstances could live beside a country with all the national traits and concerns of the US, as great as many of them are, and not feel some jealousy, resentment and occasionally suspicion. (And if you think we feel that, just ask Mexicans...) Perhaps the fact that we are relatively very close as societies-perhaps the closest of any on the planet-contributes to the problem, just as it does for siblings, who probably have more in common than they admit, but bitch and squabble anyway.

Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2006)

A VERY SMALL, yet shining example of the things that irk some Canadians about the US.  When the national flags are marched past the host nations flag at the Olympic opening ceremonies, they are dipped, as a sign of respect to said host nation.  All but one. Any guesses whos it is?


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Feb 2006)

Kat - Not defending nor supporting, but that is not meant to be a slight, nor is it specific to the Olympic ceremonies.



> 17. When is it appropriate to dip the flag in salute during a parade or procession?
> Never. The US flag should not be dipped in salute to any person or thing.



It is part of the wrtten etiquette applied to the US flag. Apparently this has been creating controversy for a long time - I see some articles regarding a similar furor in the 1908 Olympics! Anyway, I guess my feeling is that this isn't indicative of modern US arrogance - it is part of a written standard that was created a long time ago.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2006)

True, yet also indicative of an inflexible and superior attitude, is it not?  Not that I give an airborne rodents rectum either way, just pointing out an example.  In other words, "we don't care if the rest of the entire planet does it, because our nationalistic xenophobia is more important than their nationalistic xenophobia".  Or, simpler yet, "We're great fug everyone else".


----------



## pbi (11 Feb 2006)

I don't think it's arrogance. It's history. Just as I pointed out earlier that much of Canadians' attitude toward the US is rooted in how we see history, the same applies. The US believes (IMHO) that it became, and remained, an independent  nation by resisting foreign powers. The design of their flag is a reminder of the union of the colonies for just that purpose: to resist a foreign power in order to determine their own destiny. Further, I would venture that many Americans believe that their country has become a great power in the world by refusing to bow down to foreign powers: in fact, often by making _them_ "bow down" to the US. These beliefs (IMHO) have led to an inherent suspicion of the intent of foreign powers and "supra-national" bodies, such as the UN or perhaps even the IOC. (Both of which, I suppose, have earned some of this suspicion...). So-no flag-dipping there.

That the flag is not dipped even to the President is a reminder (IMHO) that no one person is greater than the nation represented by the flag, so that it would therefore be presumptious for the flag to be dipped in the manner we dip the colours if HM or the GG are on parade. No flag-dipping there, either.

Arrogance? No-just history and tradition. But think about what I said in my earlier post: do you see how we tend to view each others' actions through filters?

Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2006)

Okay, but slagging was not my point.  I provided an example of the types of things that make some of us bonkers about the US.  As an aside to that, perhaps if our friends were a little more willing to be flexible, the UN wouldn't be the hollow shell it is today, both Great Misunderstandings may have ended earlier, and we wouldn't have been mired in the Balkans for 7 years longer than necessary.....Flame away, NOMEX longjohns in place.... :warstory: ;D


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Feb 2006)

What it is is most people in the world like Americans but every body hate's your Government and it's arrogant attitude that's the prob.
The World is on the out side looking in at you and seeing but 95% of Americans only see the good old USA but not looking out side at the causes and effect's your Gov. has on the rest of the World and think the world  hate's you.Yes as a Government but not as a people.
Let's be honest you have the Gang who can't shoot straight,right?

The world likes Americans as a people but not your present Politicians or Politics.
The hate with the US ebbs and flows with your administration,plain and simple.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Feb 2006)

You're absolutely right... USA!   USA!!  USA!!  Is that the response you wanted?  The reason our shared history went wonky is obvious, then, isn't it?  It's because we stayed loyal to a tyrant, and you chose to throw off the yoke of oppression,after they spent 200 years subduing your frontiers, of course.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Feb 2006)

Sigh, did you read all my posts on this?  The reason that the US is disliked around the world is the very attitude that seemingly simple acts like this indicate.  Every other country in the world performs this simple act as a show of respect to the host nation.  The US failure to do so indicates that the attitude of "Eff em all, they ain't American"  exists everywhere.  Pride is great, disdain for everyone Else's pride is not.  Again, I merely attempted to give a minor example. If you really believe that is the only reason for your current status in the worlds eyes as a global bully, well......


----------



## DG-41 (17 Feb 2006)

> Who was it that made the rule up that a flag had to be dipped anyway?



It's called manners. It's similar to saluting, as if American Privates only had to salute American officers and not officers of other nations.

That would be rude, n'est pas?



> The rich people of this country have had a large influence on
> how things are done here. One  thing they have influenced is that
> we are the  only nation on the planet that  will not dip its flag
> to  any person  or thing,  even though  this is  merely a form of
> ...



Kurt Vonnegut, _Breakfast of Champions_

DG


----------



## manhole (17 Feb 2006)

FYI : from the Canadian Heritage site


"The National Flag of Canada 






Dipping the flag 



Dipping a carried flag means lowering it from a vertical position to one which is, variously 45 degrees from the horizontal, or, even further, touching the ground.

The national flag, when carried, is never dipped or lowered to the ground"


So, it would seem that we should not dip our national flag either.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Feb 2006)

Okay, you win I give


----------



## DG-41 (17 Feb 2006)

> The national flag, when carried, is never dipped or lowered to the ground"



Hm. That's odd, given that we practiced it as part of a colour party in 2cd year drill, and that it is part of the Rememberance Day ceremony.

Never touched to the ground is right, but "never dipped" seems incorrect.

DG


----------



## manhole (17 Feb 2006)

I, myself, only became aware of this a few years ago.   Go to the Canadian Heritage site and look under"national flag".   I do not know how long this protocol has been in effect.   I notice that most colour parties continue to dip the flag so I guess a lot of people are unaware of the proper protocol as per the Canadian Heritage people.

Anyway, enough about that.   Canadian athletes are doing quite well today.  Go Canada!


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Feb 2006)

Speaking of Flag's.
The U.S. Navy never fly's the host nation's flag above the Stars and Strip's where as other navies do fly the host nation's flag above their's.
Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## redleafjumper (22 Feb 2006)

The dipping flags issue may be getting away from the original point of this thread, but it is an interesting and useful discussion.  The Remembrance Day services are usually  run by the Royal Canadian Legion.  In the Legion's ritual and ceremony manual there is a discussion regarding Flag etiquette and regulations.  At the outset it says that the rules are based on federal traditions and rule of flag etiquette.  I don't have my copy here (I'll grab it from my office), but the section on dipping seems to include the National Flag with the term "colours".  In the section on dipping colours it is implied, though not expressly stated, that the national flag is one of the colours that gets "dipped".  It seems that there needs to be a discussion within the Legion about this dipping of the Canadian flag to bring the practice in line with the rules.  I have already raised it at my branch


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Feb 2006)

I don't know where this thread went off track.  I brought up the flag thing ONLY as a small example of the larger issue.


----------



## redleafjumper (22 Feb 2006)

Oh well, since it got off track, I had a look at my Legion Ritual and Insignia Manual.  In the drill section there is a part called: 

Dip from the Carry at the Halt.  

2317. On the first note of "O Canada", "God Save the Queen", or the "Last Post" commence the DIp slowly, taking the timing from the Canadian Flag.  (emphasis added)

The next section lays how the dip is done.  It looks very like CF drill Manual format, though I don't have one of those handy.  Is dipping the Canadian Flag covered in CFP 201 (or whatever it is called nowadays)?


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Feb 2006)

"I know I am not as sophisticated a world traveler as say someone from Dapp, Alberta.  However being that I am from a small farming community (Bruderheim) east of Edmonton i have a little insight to add to political and world events."


That explains a lot.  We don't cotton to you big city easterners shovin' your newfangled ideas down our throats.


----------



## pbi (25 Feb 2006)

I have been the Senior Subaltern in charge of the Colour Party on public ceremonial parade (3 PPCLI opening of BC Legislature back in the early 1980's), and we not only "dipped" the colours, we laid them (and the national flag) fully flat onto the ground in a spreading motion, with the colour staff tip almost touching the grass. This drill movement (IIRC) is only carried out in the Vice Regal or Royal Presence.

Cheers


----------

