imprint@watmath.UUCP (02/21/87)
Canadian Culture:
What is it? A definition.
If a bird and a fish were in conversation, and the fish were
asked "What is the difference between your medium and that of the
bird?", he wouldn't be able to answer, at least not unless he had
visited extensively with the birds. The fish doesn't know he's in
water! He takes it quite for granted. But if he is dragged unwittingly
into the air, he dies.
What is Canadian Culture? What is American Culture? Space
limitations being what they are, here are a few elliptic suggestions.
Paul Revere, the American Revolutionary Hero warns: "The Redcoats
are coming! The Redcoats are coming!" I keep having to point out to my
American friends, "I am a Redcoat!"
Think about that. The RCMP, still wearing the old standard
British Army Scarlet are heroes of Canadian folklore. But in America,
the same institution of Imperial authority is anathema. Americans
worship freedom, Candians look to peace order and good government.
(P.O.G.G.)
Canadians tend to respect authority. (In sociological studies,
more so than almost any nation except USSR) Americans lionize the
rebel, the savagely independent hero. While you will find numerous
individual exceptions, this is the tendency.
That is a part of Canadian Culture.
Culture concerns values, attitudes, morals. Harold Innis
described culture as (this must be a paraphrase) doing that which we
don't like to do well.
Compare the Canadian attitude to social services to that of
America. Look at Medicare and Unemployment Insurance, for which the US
has no equivalent. That is an expression of a cultural value. Compare
the CBC, for which America has no equivalent, that is an expression of
a cultural value. Compare the crime rates and the rates of ownership
of handguns, and again you see cultural values being manifest.
Underlying these surface manifestations are deeper ideas about what a
society is, what a man is, and what a leader is. Underlying that is an
idea about what a man (or woman 8-)) owes another.
Compare the foreign policy posture of Canada and the US, re:
South Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua, and you will find cultural differences.
Compare the educational system in the two countries. In American
schools they teach American History. In Canadian schools you find the
teaching of History. There is a difference. America is unique in the
family of nations in boasting of its ignorance of foreign countries.
Most other places in the world are eager to find out about their
neighbours. Most Americans know next to nothing about Canada. Yet most
Canadians have travelled more extensively in the US than Americans
have!
Canadians are travellers, second in the world after New
Zealanders. Sixty per cent of Americans, on the other hand, have NEVER
LEFT THEIR HOME STATE!!!! I know it's hard to believe, but it's true!
Look at post-secondary education. In America there is the rivalry
of the public vs. private schools. Private for the rich, public for
everyone else. In Canada the universities are all publicly subsidized
because education is a priority. Universal Accessibility is sacrosanct
-- and whether you like it or not, this represents a real cultural
difference.
Just take a stroll in ANY American city after 10:00 p.m. and
compare that with a comparable stroll in ANY Canadian city at the same
time. This might well blow your mind (be careful).
To top it all off, remember that the Americans ELECT JUDGES!!
Can you believe it? The Judiciary is elected. This just blows my mind.
As for the question of censorship and cultural self-defence, and
all those awkward concepts, it is my feeling that we are very
fortunate to have defeated the American invasions during the
Revolutionary War and during the War of 1812. Another sort of invasion
is occurring now and appears to be as dangerous as the others. If we
could be assured of burning the White House yet again -- well -- maybe
it should be considered. But then, like the last time, the Americans
would just whitewash the whole affair and it would be forgotten. (By
the way, the White House, and much of Washington D.C. was burned by
Canadian and British forces in retaliation for the plunder, rape and
pillage of York (Toronto now) by American troops in what even US
historians call "a black day in American History".
Free trade, too, it must be remembered, has been flirted with
periodically since this country was established. It appeals to
mercantile sentiments who see the success of US enterprises and wish
to emulate. What the merchants forget (though the rest of us
remember) is the cost. "For what does it profit a man to gain the
whole world, and forfeit his soul?" [Mk 8:36] Free Trade has always
died a death of American insensitivity. They just don't understand.
Should the day ever arrive when we fail to understand ourselves,
then that won't matter anymore. But I have this hunch that the day has
not yet arrived.
Now, as for Brad Templeton's fear of Cinematic Censors -- Brad,
move to New York, if they'll have you :-) And remember that shortly
before the Battle of Waterloo, after which your city is named, America
declared war on Canada. Had the Battle of Waterloo and the War of 1812
not been won, you wouldn't have to worry about being forced to watch
Canadian media. It would not exist. There would be no choice.
Doug Thompson
These views are not necessarily those of Imprint Publications
-------------------------------Imprint--------------------------------
| CSNet: imprint@math.waterloo.edu CC 140 |
| uucp: {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utzoo} University of Waterloo |
| !watmath!imprint Waterloo, Ontario |
| CDNnet: imprint@math.waterloo.cdn N2L 3G1 |
| arpa: imprint%math.waterloo.edu@ (519) 885-1211 x 2332 |
| csnet-relay.arpa (519) 888-4048 |
------------------------University of Waterloo------------------------
Imprint is the student newspaper of the University of Waterloo.jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/24/87)
In article <5292@watmath.UUCP> imprint@watmath.UUCP (Imprint) claims: > > Canadian Culture: > > What is it? A definition. Finally, we start to deal with specifics. > What is Canadian Culture? What is American Culture? Space >limitations being what they are, here are a few elliptic suggestions. > > Paul Revere, the American Revolutionary Hero warns: "The Redcoats >are coming! The Redcoats are coming!" I keep having to point out to my >American friends, "I am a Redcoat!" > > Think about that. The RCMP, still wearing the old standard >British Army Scarlet are heroes of Canadian folklore. But in America, >the same institution of Imperial authority is anathema. Americans >worship freedom, Candians look to peace order and good government. >(P.O.G.G.) Somehow, I don't think free trade will require the Mounties to trade in their uniform (:-). I also do not see why free trade would change the Canadian tendency to POGG as opposed to freedom worshipping. Since we are already inundated with US TV, such a change would have happened a long time ago if it was ever going to occur. [BTW, am I the only one that's wondered what's happened to the GG part of POGG for the last 10 or so years] > Canadians tend to respect authority. (In sociological studies, >more so than almost any nation except USSR) Americans lionize the >rebel, the savagely independent hero. While you will find numerous >individual exceptions, this is the tendency. Same rebuttal as before. If Rambo couldn't change things then *nobody* can :-). > Compare the Canadian attitude to social services to that of >America. Look at Medicare and Unemployment Insurance, for which the US >has no equivalent. That is an expression of a cultural value. Compare >the CBC, for which America has no equivalent, that is an expression of >a cultural value. Compare the crime rates and the rates of ownership >of handguns, and again you see cultural values being manifest. >Underlying these surface manifestations are deeper ideas about what a >society is, what a man is, and what a leader is. Underlying that is an >idea about what a man (or woman 8-)) owes another. The US does have unemployment insurance. It may be that they are smart enough to not make it available to seasonally unemployed - but that's a different story altogether. They do also have a form of medicare for seniors at the federal level, and I believe that some states have medicare programs for their poor. Needless to say, the Canadian medicare system is far more comprehensize and would thus be deemed "better" by many people (including me). At any rate, there is *absolutely* no chance whatsoever that the PCs will trade away medicare for a free trade agreement. Medicare is very highly ingrained in the Canadian psyche and only a government that wished to be banished to opposition status forever would even consider getting rid of it. Yep, there is no American equivalent to the CBC. So far nobody has suggested (including the US) that the CBC should be on the bargaining table. (Note that PBS does receive grant money from the US government). Handguns are effectively illegal in Canada so it seems rather unlikely that Canadians would magically develop an affinity for them due to free trade; especially since this country was not borne out of a revolution nor did it have a "wild west" frontier type past. I would also imagine that as long as a reasonable social safety net is kept in place there is no reason to believe that free trade would increase the crime rate. > Compare the foreign policy posture of Canada and the US, re: >South Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua, and you will find cultural differences. And now we come to an apparent paradox. Free trade would probably *strengthen* Canada's ability to form an independent foreign policy. Under a free trade agreement there would be no linkage of trade with foreign policy. I.e. it would not be possible for the US to tell us that we had better toe the line with our foreign policy or expect to suddenly find out that our steel (for example) was not going to be allowed into the country. Under the present system there is nothing to stop such linkage. I wouldn't doubt that Trudeau went along with Cruise missile testing because of such threats of economical reprisal. > Compare the educational system in the two countries. In American >schools they teach American History. In Canadian schools you find the >teaching of History. There is a difference. America is unique in the >family of nations in boasting of its ignorance of foreign countries. >Most other places in the world are eager to find out about their >neighbours. Most Americans know next to nothing about Canada. Yet most >Canadians have travelled more extensively in the US than Americans >have! Due to the fact that Canada is a middle power there can be no doubt that Canadians will always learn History and not American and/or Canadian History in their schools. Smaller countries do not have the luxury of being ignorant of the rest of the world. > Canadians are travellers, second in the world after New >Zealanders. Sixty per cent of Americans, on the other hand, have NEVER >LEFT THEIR HOME STATE!!!! I know it's hard to believe, but it's true! Again, I see no reason why free trade would encourage Canadians to refrain from travelling. > Look at post-secondary education. In America there is the rivalry >of the public vs. private schools. Private for the rich, public for >everyone else. In Canada the universities are all publicly subsidized >because education is a priority. Universal Accessibility is sacrosanct >-- and whether you like it or not, this represents a real cultural >difference. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but why would free trade change this? The real difference between the US and Canada is that in the US university education is state funded whereas in Canada it's primarily federally funded. Thus, it depends on the individual state how much resources are devoted to higher education. The result is that some states have not so wonderful universities, whereas others, such a California, have excellent public systems. [BTW as an exercise get out your latest university calendar and see how many of your Canadian professors went to a private US university - kinda seems unlikely that they were all rich.] > Just take a stroll in ANY American city after 10:00 p.m. and >compare that with a comparable stroll in ANY Canadian city at the same >time. This might well blow your mind (be careful). No doubt about it - large US cities have a much higher crime rate than large Canadian cities. How would free trade change this? > To top it all off, remember that the Americans ELECT JUDGES!! >Can you believe it? The Judiciary is elected. This just blows my mind. Horrors upon horrors!! I bet those savages elect their leaders too!! You know, the ones that *make* the laws that the judges *interpret*. Nevertheless, you can rest assured that an elected judiciary is not on the bargaining table. > Free trade, too, it must be remembered, has been flirted with >periodically since this country was established. It appeals to >mercantile sentiments who see the success of US enterprises and wish >to emulate. What the merchants forget (though the rest of us >remember) is the cost. "For what does it profit a man to gain the >whole world, and forfeit his soul?" [Mk 8:36] Free Trade has always >died a death of American insensitivity. They just don't understand. Now I know I must seem a bit dense to some of you people, but I just don't see why free trade will increase our crime rate, cause our educational system to deteriorate, turn Canadians into gun-toting fanatics, result in the loss of medicare, and force us to stop travelling. Could it be that anyone who suggests this is being just a touch paranoid? Prove to me that the cultural differences described above will likely disappear due to free trade and I'll change my opinion. So far the only things I see that might go as a result of free trade are mediocre Canadian films and TV shows, which I can easily live without. J.B. Robinson
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/25/87)
>In article <5292@watmath.UUCP> imprint@watmath.UUCP (Imprint) WRITES: [a definition of Canadian culture] In article <2751@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: ["why would free trade change any of this?"] My old friend JBR has once again missed the point entirely. We were talking about how including the media in free trade would make the American media and culture more influential in Canada. The response (from him among others) was "who cares, American culture is so similar to Canadian that it wouldn't matter anyway, right?" So the responses have been definitions of Canadian culture and its distinctness from American culture. Now he seems to be admitting that there are differences but now also arguing that the massive influx of American media would not affect Canadian culture in this way. I think he either forgot his previous position or is just retreating to what he thinks (in his foolishness :-)) is a more tenable position. --Jamie. ...!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "The university, to me the most congenial of lives"
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/26/87)
In article <865@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >>In article <5292@watmath.UUCP> imprint@watmath.UUCP (Imprint) WRITES: > [a definition of Canadian culture] > >In article <2751@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > ["why would free trade change any of this?"] > > My old friend JBR has once again missed the point entirely. >We were talking about how including the media in free trade would >make the American media and culture more influential in Canada. >The response (from him among others) was "who cares, American >culture is so similar to Canadian that it wouldn't matter anyway, >right?" So the responses have been definitions of Canadian >culture and its distinctness from American culture. Once again my old Beer Garden buddy, Jamie, has chosen to distort what I was saying. I *never* claimed that there were no major differences between Canadian and American culture. What I did say was, basically, that I would rather, on my own volition, adopt American culture, if I so desired, than have Canadian culture *forced* on me by a bunch of bogon-flux sources in Ottawa. If the Canadian people make such a choice voluntarily then who are you to say they're wrong. > Now he seems to be admitting that there are differences but >now also arguing that the massive influx of American media would >not affect Canadian culture in this way. I think he either forgot >his previous position or is just retreating to what he thinks (in >his foolishness :-)) is a more tenable position. To be precise, what I said was that the only changes I foresee is that we'd no longer have the opportunity to watch (and subsidize) wonderful Canadian movies such as "My Bloody Valentine" and "Shivers". A loss that suits me fine. J.B. Robinson