hwarkentyne@watdragon.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <542@geac.UUCP> david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: > >Anyone want to come up with a working definition of ``Canadian Cultural >Identity''? > Part of the Canadian cultural identity is worrying about our Canadian cultural identity. Certainly Canada is too diverse a nation to have a single identity so why bother trying to pigeonhole ourselves ? I think that we should stop worrying about defining things and get on with doing things and this will prove to be a better definition of a Canadian identity than any essay you care to write on the matter. Ken Warkentyne
david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) (02/20/87)
In article <2313@watdragon.UUCP> hwarkentyne@watdragon.UUCP (Kenneth Warkentyne) writes: >In article <542@geac.UUCP> david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: >> >>Anyone want to come up with a working definition of ``Canadian Cultural >>Identity''? >> > >Part of the Canadian cultural identity is worrying about our Canadian >cultural identity. > >Certainly Canada is too diverse a nation to have a single identity >so why bother trying to pigeonhole ourselves ? I think that we should >stop worrying about defining things and get on with doing things and >this will prove to be a better definition of a Canadian identity than >any essay you care to write on the matter. > >Ken Warkentyne Perhaps I was not clear in my previous posting. The question is really this, "How can we decide what is or is not threatening to our Canadian Cultural Identity, if we can not even define it to ourselves?" Mr. Warkentyne states that we should just do things and not worry. I am unclear how this attitude is supposed to fit into the framework of the Canada/U.S. free trade negotiations I set in my previous posting. How is just doing things going to help/hinder our efforts there? What sort of things do you propose we just start doing? How are we protecting our Cultural Identity by just doing? By taking another tack on the problem, perhaps what Mr. Warkentyne is proposing is that by our actions a definition will appear. I guess the problem I have with that is that we have stated very clearly (or, at least, our Federal Government has stated clearly) that Canada's Cultural Identity (heritage??) is *not* on the bargaining table in the Free Trade negotiations. What I was looking for was a clearer definition of what that meant. -david- -- ========================================================================== David Haynes (utzoo!yetti!geac!david) Geac Computers International Inc. +1 416 475 0525 x 3420 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, CANADA, L3R 1B3
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/21/87)
In article <2313@watdragon.UUCP> hwarkentyne@watdragon.UUCP (Kenneth Warkentyne) writes: >In article <542@geac.UUCP> david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: >> >>Anyone want to come up with a working definition of ``Canadian Cultural >>Identity''? >> > >Part of the Canadian cultural identity is worrying about our Canadian >cultural identity. > >Certainly Canada is too diverse a nation to have a single identity >so why bother trying to pigeonhole ourselves ? I think that we should >stop worrying about defining things and get on with doing things and >this will prove to be a better definition of a Canadian identity than >any essay you care to write on the matter. Nothing personal, Ken, but the above seems like a lot of hand-waving to me. You and the other nationalists want to preserve, enhance, subsidize, and protect an entity which you refuse to define. If I tried to start a widget manufacturing company I imagine that I wouldn't be able to squeeze a dime out of any potential investors (all levels of government excepted) without a precise definition for said widget. Yet, you people expect to take my tax dollars and merrily prop up various industries without having such a definition. Seems to me that you can't seriously expect to strengthen something when you can't even define it. At best, you'll obtain meagre results; at worst, no results at all. J.B. Robinson
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <2749@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >Nothing personal, Ken, but the above seems like a lot of hand-waving to >me. You and the other nationalists want to preserve, enhance, >subsidize, and protect an entity which you refuse to define. Er, nothing personal, Jim, but I think you're misrepresenting what Canadian nationalism is. I certainly agree that you're not going to get venture capital for a widget factory without a business plan, but a country is not a business. As Canadians, we have sat on the doorstep of the US for the past 120 years, never quite deciding whether we want a country or not. The US *has* a national identity (and a secular religion, whose major rite is the fervent reiteration of the Pledge of Allegiance), and we've on the one hand wanted to be part of it, and, on the other hand wanted to make our own go of it. As somebody said a while ago, part of a Canadian identity is a quest for a Canadian identiy. From this point of view, Canadian nationalism isn't just a form of reactionary conservation of everything in our past, but also an attempt to define our future, independent of the US (or any other country). There's no way we can develop a business plan for that. Basically, the alternative to Canadian nationalism is not some nice form of internationalism, but acceptance of American nationalism. When you are next to a very powerful neighbour who threatens scorched earth tactics in retaliation for blocking a takeover of a publishing company, or who believes that Canada's concern for acid rain is part of a devious plot to sell Canadian electricity in the U.S., sitting on the fence means caving in. I find it rather astonishing that, of all places, Canadian nationalists can look to ``Amerika'' for some inspiration. The characters there asked, for 14-1/2 hours, ``Do we want a country, and what sort of country do we want?'' I might not care for some of the answers they came up with, but at least they are asking the right questions.