Our Shared History...what went wrong?

[54/102 CEF]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
friendly and  respectful salute. Since our  flag won't be
dipped  to dignataries  or  institutions  of other  countries, it
should come  as no surprise  that a lot  of the citizens  of this
country,  mainly poor  citizens, should  also be  ignored by  the
rich.

Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

DG

 

[manhole]

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]

Okay, you win I give

 

[DG-41]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.