chapman@fornax.uucp (02/25/87)
and smell the coffee. > I found it interesting to note that several of Mr. Chapman's examples > of Canadian Culture are direct results of our close relationship with > the US of A! A general comment first: it may surprise you but not all (not even most) of the good things in the world are attributable to the 5% of the world that lives in the US. > In article <192@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > > > >1. Canada is one of the few (perhaps only) countries which has had > > the ability to become a major nuclear power and yet we have > > resisted the temptation to stockpile or even manufacture nuclear > > weapons. > > We have no need, because we have all the nukes we need nearby. You mean it isn't because there is no one who's going to attack us? Let's face it the only real danger to Canada is the US/USSR conflict. Personally if I get nuked it's not going to make me feel better that it had a stars and stripes on it. > > > > >2. Health care is of good quality and access is almost universal (you > > still have to have some money). It is unlikely you would have > > your dialisys (sp?) machine turned off because you are broke. > > Most of the innovative health care is imported from our near neighbour. > (The techniques, not the actual practice) I seriously doubt you could prove that assertion - things *are* developed in the rest of the world you know (e.g. pacemakers by canada). However even if that were so the commetn is how that medical ability is put to use here. Only three provinces (BC, Alta, Ont) even charge for their health plans. Just like in England - not like in the US. > > > >3. Canada has not (recently anyway) attempted to force it way of > > life (or advance it's economic and political interests) on other > > countries through military force - covert or otherwise. > I guess Korea isn't that recent. thats what I figured. 30 years is a lot longer than the states has managed i.e. 0 days. > > > > Ditto for economic force. > Like the calls for sanctions on South Africa, and our many tariffs. I fail to see how tariffs (or to a large extent even sanctions) can be considered forcing ourselves on another country. If I refuse to buy software from your company am I forcing myself on you? Even if the reason had nothing to do with it's quality or suitability? > > > >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is > > "best" for the rest of the world. > This I doubt. Some Canadians sure think they know (and should force) what > is "best" for the rest of Canada. Given the authority they would surely > do the same to the world. That is quite a big jump from our backyard to the rest of the world. If people set up rules for their family it doesn't mean they are going to go out into the street and try and enforce them on others. > > > >5. Canada lets itself be pushed around a fair bit by other countries. > > We seem to have a foreign policy of being "nice guys". > Give me a break. This is not a foreign policy. I don't think anybody > lets themselves get 'pushed around.' The you don't have much experience. > > > >6. We apparently have a reasonably high regard for the worth of human > > life in general as evidenced by our broad system of "safety nets" > > in the social services area. > Did you know that the U.S.A spends a greater percentage of its G.N.P. > on social services than Canada does? Of course, they mismanage it to > the same level we do. They must mismanage it to an even greater extent then since we provide services they don't. > > > >7. Canadians are quite self critical and self effacing as can be seen > > in our media, and we are capable of admitting to the world when > > we make mistakes. > What a great definition of national identity. I think it beats going around chanting "we are the best, we are the best" not to mention a whole lot less dangerous to bystanders. Would you like to live with someone who was completely and vocally egocentric? > > > >10. There seems to be a smaller distance, economically, between the > > rich and poor than is the case of a lot of other countries. > Not from what I have read in recent articles about the Conrad Blacks and > the Bronfmans and Irvings and McCains etc. Then you shoud spend some tme visiting large US cities and see the extent of poverty and ghetto-ization. > > > >11. Political and economic decisions seem less tied to military > > interests in Canada. > Only because we are in the uniqe position of not needing a military because > of our strong neighbour. Or because we aren't planning on fighting anybody. could really do without this "protection" (see I didn't even put in the word "racket"). > > > >12. Education through to post secondary is generally available to > > all who desire it at relatively low cost (however this has been > > changing -particularily in BC). You do not have to be upper > > middle class or above to be able to attend university. > State schools are available in the USA at a cost near to the cost of > our schools. Of course, the most respected schools, like Stanford, MIT, > Carnagie-Mellon, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc. are all private and in > the USA. Many of our best students go there. Even NSERC recognizes this > by having multiple scholarship levels. Average scholars have to stay here. > The best get to go to places like Stanford. Really? When I read the NSERC guidelines it seems to me it stated that NSERC scholarships were only tenurable at Canadian universities. Postdoc fellowships are another matter. Tuition at american universities is phenomenally high - even the state universities charge large out of state fees. The scene is different at graduate school since funding packages are usually arranged. I have been told by american faculty that, for example, at MIT there is quite a difference between the undergraduate and graduate populations. The undergrads are (excepting a few tokens) upper class economically but there is more diversity in the graduates (particularily due to things like foreign graduates). > > > >13. We seem fairly federally oriented - the balance of decision > > making and enforcement powers between the federal and provincial > > governments is in the federal government's favour. > This is really a comparison to the USA only, since most countries aren't > large enough to have a serious federal/provincial distinction. The USSR > is, and boy is that federally oriented! China, Australia, India.....? > > > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Call me MR. CHAPMAN (TIBBS)! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
brad@looking.UUCP (02/25/87)
In article <202@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >and smell the coffee. >> We have no need [for nukes], because we have all the nukes we need nearby. > >You mean it isn't because there is no one who's going to attack us? >Let's face it the only real danger to Canada is the US/USSR conflict. >Personally if I get nuked it's not going to make me feel better that >it had a stars and stripes on it. Indeed, but it doesn't change the fact that Canadians perceive themselves to be in an unusual situation, militarily. We don't fear attack for a very good reason. Sorry I don't have the exact sources, but if my memory serves me correctly there have been several polls in which large numbers of Canadians have stated we don't need a military or nuclear force because the Americans have no choice but to defend us. This is the real cause of Canada's so called 'non-military' cultural identity. > >> >> Most of the innovative health care is imported from our near neighbour. >> (The techniques, not the actual practice) > >I seriously doubt you could prove that assertion - things *are* developed >in the rest of the world you know (e.g. pacemakers by canada). However >even if that were so the commetn is how that medical ability is put to >use here. Only three provinces (BC, Alta, Ont) even charge for their >health plans. Just like in England - not like in the US. > Do you make the assertion that the USA does *not* lead the world in health care research and the development of new health care techniques? They do pay a lot for it, and one of those costs is a private health care system, but *somebody* has to do it. The public health care systems exist on the backs of the private ones -- that's the point I was making. >> > >> > Ditto for economic force. [we don't use it on other countries] >> Like the calls for sanctions on South Africa, and our many tariffs. > >I fail to see how tariffs (or to a large extent even sanctions) can be >considered forcing ourselves on another country. If I refuse to buy >software from your company am I forcing myself on you? Even if the >reason had nothing to do with it's quality or suitability? We forbid (or hinder) free trade and exchange between Canadian residents and foreigners. This is as much a restriction on the foreigners as it is on the Canadians. These restrictions are put in place for various reasons, including control of the Canadian economy, volleys in trade wars and control of foreign economies. You don't think our tariffs affect the US economy when we are its largest trading partner. You don't think quotas on Toyotas (that rhymes!) apply force to Mr. Toyoda? (The Japanese Jedi Master!) > >> > >> >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is >> > "best" for the rest of the world. >> This I doubt. Some Canadians sure think they know (and should force) what >> is "best" for the rest of Canada. Given the authority they would surely >> do the same to the world. > >That is quite a big jump from our backyard to the rest of the world. If >people set up rules for their family it doesn't mean they are going to >go out into the street and try and enforce them on others. It is quite a leap from Halifax to Vancouver, or even from Toronto to Montreal. The point I'm making is that your whole definition of Canadian culture stems from the idea that Canadians are more collectivist. That's another way of saying that we like to meddle in other's affairs. Why should this stop at the border if you feel it is right for those in Halifax to control those in Vancouver? >> > Anyway, the main point still remains -- many of the examples of Canadian National identity given on the net are results not just of Canada and its peoples, but of the relationship between Canadians and the USA. Even the definition 'Part of our identity is not knowing what our identity is' stems from the association with the USA. We have trouble distinguishing our culture from theirs. Even if you ask a fervent nationalist how he is a Canadian, the answers all come back in ways he is different from an American. Our relationship to the USA is one of the biggest parts of Canada and Canadian life. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/25/87)
> In article <202@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >and smell the coffee. > >> We have no need [for nukes], because we have all the nukes we need nearby. > > > >You mean it isn't because there is no one who's going to attack us? > >Let's face it the only real danger to Canada is the US/USSR conflict. > >Personally if I get nuked it's not going to make me feel better that > >it had a stars and stripes on it. > > Indeed, but it doesn't change the fact that Canadians perceive themselves > to be in an unusual situation, militarily. We don't fear attack for > a very good reason. Sorry I don't have the exact sources, but if my > memory serves me correctly there have been several polls in which large > numbers of Canadians have stated we don't need a military or nuclear force It seems to me that in polls for quite some time Canadians have expicitly stated that they do not want nukes in our country - either ours or theirs. This is why the Genies (I think it was) were removed from Comox base. > because the Americans have no choice but to defend us. This is the real > cause of Canada's so called 'non-military' cultural identity. As I said getting killed by a "defensive" nuke isn't any better than getting killed by an offensive nuke. We don't need nukes etc. because we are not going to attack anybody and it is exteremely unlikely that anyone would attack us except perhaps as a byplay in attacking the US/USSR at which point the nukes would not do us a hell of a lot of good would they? > > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/25/87)
> > > >I seriously doubt you could prove that assertion - things *are* developed > >in the rest of the world you know (e.g. pacemakers by canada). However > >even if that were so the commetn is how that medical ability is put to > >use here. Only three provinces (BC, Alta, Ont) even charge for their > >health plans. Just like in England - not like in the US. > > > Do you make the assertion that the USA does *not* lead the world in health I don't have to - you are the one making the unsubstantiated assertion. > care research and the development of new health care techniques? They > do pay a lot for it, and one of those costs is a private health care system, > but *somebody* has to do it. The public health care systems exist on the > backs of the private ones -- that's the point I was making. The British public health ystem would probably find it surprising that they exist only because of the US. Regardless you continue evading the point: the US government could certainly afford to provide adequate levels of health care to every resident of the US. This does not however seem to be a priority to them - the well off get good health care and the poor get sick. Health care in Canada is inexpensive (absolutley, not just to the patient) and I would wager that this is in large part due to the profit motive being removed and/or suppressed in it. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/25/87)
> > We forbid (or hinder) free trade and exchange between Canadian residents > and foreigners. This is as much a restriction on the foreigners as it is > on the Canadians. These restrictions are put in place for various reasons, Everything you do affects someone else - the point being that our motives are rarely to interfere with another country's internal life. This is hardly true of the US. Somehow I can't see us saying to New Zealand "you won't let us dock our nuclear ships (if we had any) there so we won't buy your lamb" . . . > >> >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is > >> > "best" for the rest of the world. > >> This I doubt. Some Canadians sure think they know (and should force) what > >> is "best" for the rest of Canada. Given the authority they would surely > >> do the same to the world. > > > >That is quite a big jump from our backyard to the rest of the world. If > >people set up rules for their family it doesn't mean they are going to > >go out into the street and try and enforce them on others. > > It is quite a leap from Halifax to Vancouver, or even from Toronto to Montreal Apples and oranges. Halifax and Vancouver both voluntarily argreed to join confederation and abide by it's rules. > The point I'm making is that your whole definition of Canadian culture stems > from the idea that Canadians are more collectivist. That's another way of > saying that we like to meddle in other's affairs. Why should this stop at Big Big hole in logic. How on earth do you get collectivism=>meddling in others affairs? Our (communal) house has some rules about what goes on in it, guests coming over, finances etc. but last I heard we weren't planning on forcing our neighbours to live by them too! > the border if you feel it is right for those in Halifax to control those in > Vancouver? See point re confederation. > >> > > Anyway, the main point still remains -- many of the examples of Canadian > National identity given on the net are results not just of Canada and its > peoples, but of the relationship between Canadians and the USA. Yes our neighbours do effect the way we define out identity; I don't find that unusual - you have to have a reference point. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (02/27/87)
In article <203@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >It seems to me that in polls for quite some time Canadians have expicitly >stated that they do not want nukes in our country - either ours or theirs. >This is why the Genies (I think it was) were removed from Comox base. Although it is true there aren't any nuclear weapons at Comox any longer I am not convinced it is because of polls. I think it is more because we got rid of our aging fighter planes and replaced them with the CF-18 making the existing weapons useless. I seem to recall a few years back a big "blowout" in the press about Canada agreeing to store nuclear depth charges up here if hostilities against North America looked imminent. This would seem to suggest that the federal government is not easily swayed by public opinion on this issue or related ones. (At the moment I am thinking about the 5 year extension just granted to cruise testing.) However, another thing I want to point out is that Canada's air defences on the West Coast are non-existant. When the CF-18s were delivered the fighter squadron at Comox was moved to Cold Lake leaving the West Coast without any ability to even identify aircraft moving in our air space let alone shoot anything down. This is another example of where we are allowing the Americans to do our "dirty work" so to speak. Donald Acton
cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (02/28/87)
In article <745@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: (Just the > and >>> lines) >>> Most of the innovative health care is imported from our near neighbour. >>> (The techniques, not the actual practice) OK, 51% qualifies as most. Big deal. A 10-to-1 population ratio has something to do with it. >Do you make the assertion that the USA does *not* lead the world in health >care research and the development of new health care techniques? No, you did, using the old rhetorical-question ploy. >They do pay a lot for it, and one of those costs is a private health care >system, but *somebody* has to do it. The public health care systems exist on >the backs of the private ones -- that's the point I was making. And a bogus point it is, too. There are at least two reasons that health care costs are much higher in the US than in Canada: 1) The outrageously high cost of malpractice insurance (Due to excessive malpractice settlements), which ends up making a doctor's visit expensive. 2) Private-hospital profiteering. (You know, the old excessive tests to increase hospital revenues routine). Neither of which has very much to do with medical R&D, except that the funding of such R&D (if it comes from private hospital revenues at all) comes at the expense of individuals who happen to get sick. I think that the private hospital situation in the US sucks, simply because it makes individual victims pay through the nose for innovations that end up benefitting all. As far as this crap about "public health care systems exist on the backs of the private ones" ..is concerned, I suspect that most (more than 75%) of US medical R&D money comes from the feds and private funding organizations anyway. In any case, funding the public good off the backs of those experiencing individual hardship is grossly unnecessary in a land as prosperous as ours (or theirs). >We forbid (or hinder) free trade and exchange between Canadian residents >and foreigners. This is as much a restriction on the foreigners as it is >on the Canadians. These restrictions are put in place for various reasons, >including control of the Canadian economy, volleys in trade wars and control >of foreign economies. You don't think our tariffs affect the US economy... "Affect" does not equal "control". The original point Chapman was making was that Canada does not try to control foreign economies, while the US does. Witness the United Fruit Company's dealings with certain Central American countries from the 1880's to the 50's. US foreign policy manouvers from the time of President Monroe have been predicated on the furthering of US commercial concerns. Such a policy has more often than not resulted in interference and intervention in foreign affairs. >>> >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is >>> > "best" for the rest of the world. >>> This I doubt. Some Canadians sure think they know (and should force) what >>> is "best" for the rest of Canada. Given the authority they would surely >>> do the same to the world. Lets's speak about the observable facts rather than your unfounded speculation, Mr. Templeton. >The point I'm making is that your whole definition of Canadian culture stems >from the idea that Canadians are more collectivist. OK, go on... >That's another way of saying that we like to meddle in other's affairs. No it isn't. This is a gross misreading of the term "collectivist". Mr. Templeton, you should really take the time to develop some intellectual rigor about political issues. (Otherwise, your breathlessly-awaited book will come off as mere cant). What I mean is that it takes a certain amount of blindness to see collectivism as "meddling in others affairs". This blindness is perhaps caused by your habit of wearing glasses with a heavy Libertarian tint. Marxists have the same problem, except their colour is red. The point I'm trying so desperately to get to is that as far as Canadian social policy is concerned, most people here accept the idea that we are all in this together. So social programs such as medicare are seen as benefitting all while "meddling" in no-one's affairs. >Why should this stop at the border if you feel it is right for those in >Halifax to control those in Vancouver? Only someone who has lived all his life in Ontario could say this with a straight face. But that's a whole different kettle of fish. (regionalism, I mean). Anyway, I submit that Canadians don't feel they have the "right" to fiddle in foreign affairs the way that American foreign policy manifestly does. >Our relationship to the USA is one of the biggest parts of Canada and >Canadian life. True. But that doesn't make us "Nice Americans" per se. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !