andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/10/87)
In article <1469@hcrvx1.UUCP> chrisr@hcrvx1.UUCP (Chris Retterath) writes: > ... However, the American South, >and the North-west, and New England, all have a unique culture. These things >have all developed within a union of states. You seem to be presuming that >Canadian culture is weaker then these, a presumption I would challenge. The difference is that all the regions of the U.S. are represented and recognized in the popular culture, whereas most Americans think of Canada as "that place where our winter storms come from". Opening up Canada to the American media would mean opening up Canada to a view of the world in which America is disproportionately more important than Canada. America has vastly superior media resources, and can roll over Canadian culture like a steamroller over a cream puff. I will believe the American media can use its resources in a manner not detrimental to Canada when the American TV networks start situating 10% of (say) their sit-coms in Canada, to reflect the Canadian 10% of their potential market. However, that'll be the day, as Buddy Holly said, when I die. >As for Americans buying out Canadian culture, don't hold your breath. Exactly. Why do that when they can simply up the power on their transmitting stations and widen the distribution of their magazines, and rake in all sorts of extra profit without having to cater to their new market? --Jamie. ...!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "Take my shoes off & throw them in the lake"
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/11/87)
In article <164@idacom.UUCP> danny@idacom.UUCP (Danny Wilson) writes: >I agree that in any agreement forged by the Americans, it will be us ^^^^^^^^^ >who get the short end of the stick. In general, the Americans have >not exactly been 'sensitive' to other cultures around the world. >One only has to travel to other parts of the world to see the reception >Americans get there. The common complaint, in Europe, and the Far East, >we hear from Americans is: "WHAT THE H**L DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T DO THAT!?. >THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE RUN <something> BACK HOME!!" >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >The thing they don't seem to realize is >>They aren't back home<< Naturally, in any agreement "forged by the Americans", Canada will get the "short end of the stick". However, one would like to think that any free(er) agreement that comes out of these talks was forged by *both* countries. A valid complaint is made above that Americans often don't realize that things are run differently in other countries. However, Canadians suffer from the problem that because they perceive themselves (and, in fact, are widely perceived by others) as inoffensive, harmless, and reasonable people, they should be treated with "kid gloves" when dealing with the outside world. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. The vast majority of countries look out for their own best interest and are not interested in being fair (consider Quebec and the CF-18 brouhaha for a domestic example, or France with their outrageous demand for a 200 mile economic zone off their 2 tiny islands). Why anyone should think that the US, of all places, should act otherwise is beyond me. The Canadian government should have anticipated the Americans playing hardball and should have been ready to submit a list of demands that they knew would not be accepted by the US which they could then trade off. E.g., Canada could have demanded the right to bid on, and be considered for, any and all US defence contracts. They were not ready for this and now they're paying for it. Hopefully, they'll get their act together. Personally, I'm not too worried that Canada will agree to a deal that is clearly not in this country's interest. I imagine that unless a clear majority of Canadians give the thumbs up, Brian will say "sorry" and that will be that. (I believe this because Brian is very interested in getting re-elected and a trade deal that displeases a significant percentage of the population will in no way help this cause) What does worry me is that the government's poor bargaining skills will make it impossible for them to submit an acceptable trade proposal to the Canadian people. J.B. Robinson
bjorn@alberta.UUCP (02/11/87)
In article <827@ubc-cs.UUCP>, andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > In article <1469@hcrvx1.UUCP> chrisr@hcrvx1.UUCP (Chris Retterath) writes: > >As for Americans buying out Canadian culture, don't hold your breath. > > Exactly. Why do that when they can simply up the power on > their transmitting stations and widen the distribution of their > magazines, and rake in all sorts of extra profit without having > to cater to their new market? Your statement is contradictory. If simply by making their product more accessible US media vendors will be able to "rake in all sorts of extra profit", they are obviously catering to A MARKET. I have this sneaky suspicion that you would like to define for others how they should be catered to. You don't have to watch US tv and you don't have to read US rags. Cultural control in the form of a force fed "approved" diet coupled with restricted access to, and censorship of "non-approved" material I find rather odious. What I'm seeing is `cultural nationalism' and an inferiority complex. A common phenomenon in some countries, usually directed at the US. I do speak from experience. Shape my mind it's malleable, Bjorn R. Bjornsson bjorn@alberta
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/11/87)
In article <215@pembina.alberta.UUCP> bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) writes: > ... I have this sneaky suspicion that you would like to >define for others how they should be catered to. You don't have >to watch US tv and you don't have to read US rags.... Your argument would make sense if Canadians and Americans were competing on equal footing. They're not, and as I said, the massively more powerful American media is not about to put anything in their programming making it more relevant to Canadians. Look at TIME magazine: the only time they had proportionate Canadian coverage was when they had a Canadian edition, that they could hawk to the Canadians while keeping it out of their American editions. I wouldn't watch US TV, but would (say) my children be able to make the same choice intelligently? How would I feel if 20 years from now I had kids who talked like Americans and thought that the first Prime Minister was George Washington? > ... Cultural >control in the form of a force fed "approved" diet coupled with >restricted access to, and censorship of "non-approved" material >I find rather odious.... There's that word again!! Why is it that whenever anyone suggests that maybe something people see has a negative influence on the society, someone screams "Censorship!!"? > ... What I'm seeing is `cultural nationalism' >and an inferiority complex.... Canadians have an inferiority complex because everyone else thinks we're inferior. A possible exception is Africa, the only region of the world in which we're taken seriously, largely because of our financial aid there. > ... A common phenomenon in some countries, >usually directed at the US. I do speak from experience. What country did you gain that experience in? Iceland? Norway? Sweden? All countries with a unique language, a solid base of cultural tradition, and very little possibility of being totally bombarded with US media images. --Jamie. ...!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "Mayan skies sleeptalk with voices of lovers"
rob@arcsun.UUCP (Rob Aitken) (02/12/87)
In article <2713@hcrvx2.UUCP>, jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > [lots of things...] > > Hopefully, they'll get their act together. Personally, I'm not too > worried that Canada will agree to a deal that is clearly not in this > country's interest. I imagine that unless a clear majority of Canadians > give the thumbs up, Brian will say "sorry" and that will be that. > (I believe this because Brian is very interested in getting re-elected ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > and a trade deal that displeases a significant percentage of the > population will in no way help this cause) What does worry me > is that the government's poor bargaining skills will make > it impossible for them to submit an acceptable trade proposal to the > Canadian people. > > J.B. Robinson I find it hard to believe that Brian is at all interested in getting re-elected, given the way he and his government behave. What worries me is that Brian will decide that since he has no hope of a second term, he might as well get his name in the history books by negotiating a free trade deal - even one where we get the shaft. Rob Aitken ...calgary!arcsun!rob "Canada is a Registered Trademark of the United States of America"
bjorn@alberta.UUCP (02/17/87)
>In article <215@pembina.alberta.UUCP> bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) writes: >> ... I have this sneaky suspicion that you would like to >>define for others how they should be catered to. You don't have >>to watch US tv and you don't have to read US rags.... > > Your argument would make sense if Canadians and Americans >were competing on equal footing. They're not, and as I said, >the massively more powerful American media is not about to put >anything in their programming making it more relevant to Canadians. So what, who ever competes on equal footing with anyone or any time? Your statement as I understand it then is: In the media and cultural markets small companies cannot possibly succeed when competing with larger companies. Even if this were true (which it isn't) another approach is obviously not to compete, but offer something that the giants don't. If Canadians would rather view US programming (and I'm not saying that this is the case) than that supplied by Canadian companies, then I ask you: Whose material is more relevant to (those) Canadians? >Look at TIME magazine: the only time they had proportionate >Canadian coverage was when they had a Canadian edition, that they >could hawk to the Canadians while keeping it out of their American >editions. Why the dirty tricksters hawking a forged edition to Canadians B-). Would you have required TIME to publish Canada specific material, or any material for that matter? If TIME is run for profit (which it is) I presume they had a Canadian edition in order to increase said profits, ie. in order to sell more mags and attract more advertising. If they no longer have such an edition, I again presume that they (TIME) concluded that it was not paying off. What's your gripe? Canada has plenty of news-magazines that compare favorably with TIME as far as quality goes and are devoted strictly (more or less) to Canadian subject matter. I don't suppose you would require them adhere to your editorial policies. > I wouldn't watch US TV, but would (say) my children be able >to make the same choice intelligently? While your offspring are children, you have the option of making that decision, intelligently or not. When they are grown they will make their own decisions. > ....................... How would I feel if 20 >years from now I had kids who talked like Americans and thought >that the first Prime Minister was George Washington? How would you feel? Maybe I can guess? I'll tell my kids that George Washington would have made a fine Canadian Prime Minister. I'll also tell them about P.E.T. for contrast. >> ... Cultural >>control in the form of a force fed "approved" diet coupled with >>restricted access to, and censorship of "non-approved" material >>I find rather odious.... > > There's that word again!! Why is it that whenever anyone >suggests that maybe something people see has a negative influence >on the society, someone screams "Censorship!!"? Whose screaming? Well maybe I could pipe down a little B-). But seriously just because you've seen people cry censorship time and again doesn't mean they weren't right or that people are getting less and less precise in judging what is and what isn't censorship as time goes by. >> ... What I'm seeing is `cultural nationalism' >>and an inferiority complex.... > > Canadians have an inferiority complex because everyone else >thinks we're inferior. A possible exception is Africa, the only >region of the world in which we're taken seriously, largely >because of our financial aid there. Now I'm laughing!! There's nothing like a throwing around a few dineros in order to have people leap to their feet and take notice B-). >> ... A common phenomenon in some countries, >>usually directed at the US. I do speak from experience. > > What country did you gain that experience in? Iceland? >Norway? Sweden? Since you ask I'm intimately familiar with Iceland and somewhat less so with Sweden. Many Icelanders are afflicted with `national inferiority complex'. This is manifest in statements like: Of course Iceland is the best country in the world to live in. Icelands health care system is the envy of the world. ... Sound familiar? Substitute Canada for Iceland? How's it sound now? Guess what they say in Sweden? > ........... All countries with a unique language, a solid >base of cultural tradition, and very little possibility of being >totally bombarded with US media images. What about Quebec? I'd say they fit your statement as well as the (other) countries mentioned. What are they afraid of? Their attitude towards the rest of Canada is as your attitude towards the US. It may surprise you that while you fear US cultural domination, Icelandic cultural nationalists live in holy terror of same. How they they became that way is anybody's guess, I'm not a psychiatrist. They hate all `foreign contamination'. What has me scares the living daylights out of me is their success. Just recently a law was passed in Iceland which makes it illegal to for you to receive in your own home foreign satellite programming unless it's broadcast with Icelandic subtitles, not only that but in order for you to legally enjoy say a live broadcast sporting event it must come either with subtitles (impossible) or running commentary in Icelandic (maybe they'll settle for no commentary). Now it's no secret and clear as mud to everyone that this law is aimed squarely at English language broadcasts, which have some people who want to watch German or Italian programming rather upset. Icelands education system is almost entirely state run, with a curriculum (at the elementary school level) that includes copious amounts of nationalistic indoctrination. You think you have problems? I could say that you are the problem, but of course I won't. Bjorn R. Bjornsson alberta!bjorn
bjorn@alberta.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <828@ubc-cs.UUCP>, andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >In article <215@pembina.alberta.UUCP> bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) writes: >> ... I have this sneaky suspicion that you would like to >>define for others how they should be catered to. You don't have >>to watch US tv and you don't have to read US rags.... > > Your argument would make sense if Canadians and Americans >were competing on equal footing. They're not, and as I said, >the massively more powerful American media is not about to put >anything in their programming making it more relevant to Canadians. So what, who ever competes on equal footing with anyone or at any time? Your statement as I understand it is: In the media and cultural markets small companies cannot possibly succeed when competing with larger companies. Even if this were true (which it isn't) another approach is obviously not to compete, but offer something that the giants don't. If Canadians would rather view US programming (and I'm not saying that this is the case) than that supplied by Canadian companies, then I ask you: Whose material is more relevant to (those) Canadians? >Look at TIME magazine: the only time they had proportionate >Canadian coverage was when they had a Canadian edition, that they >could hawk to the Canadians while keeping it out of their American >editions. Why the dirty tricksters hawking a forged edition to Canadians B-). Would you have required TIME to publish Canada specific material, or any material for that matter? If TIME is run for profit (which it is) I presume they had a Canadian edition in order to increase said profits, ie. in order to sell more mags and attract more advertising. If they no longer have such an edition, I again presume that they (TIME) concluded that it was not paying off. What's your gripe? Canada has plenty of news magazines that compare favorably with TIME as far as quality goes and are devoted strictly (more or less) to Canadian subject matter. I don't suppose you would require them adhere to your editorial policies. > I wouldn't watch US TV, but would (say) my children be able >to make the same choice intelligently? While your offspring are children, you have the option of making that decision, intelligently or not. When they are grown they will make their own decisions (if you don't have your way). > ....................... How would I feel if 20 >years from now I had kids who talked like Americans and thought >that the first Prime Minister was George Washington? How would you feel? Maybe I can guess? I'll tell my kids that George Washington would have made a fine Canadian Prime Minister. I'll tell them about P.E.T. for contrast. Oh and what is it that Americans talk like? Canadians? >> ... Cultural >>control in the form of a force fed "approved" diet coupled with >>restricted access to, and censorship of "non-approved" material >>I find rather odious.... > > There's that word again!! Why is it that whenever anyone >suggests that maybe something people see has a negative influence >on the society, someone screams "Censorship!!"? Who's screaming? Well maybe I could pipe down a little B-). But seriously just because you've seen people cry censorship time and again doesn't mean they weren't right or that such accusations are getting less and less accurate as time goes by. >> ... What I'm seeing is `cultural nationalism' >>and an inferiority complex.... > > Canadians have an inferiority complex because everyone else >thinks we're inferior. A possible exception is Africa, the only >region of the world in which we're taken seriously, largely >because of our financial aid there. Now I'm laughing!! There's nothing like a throwing around a few dineros in order to have people leap to their feet and take notice B-). >> ... A common phenomenon in some countries, >>usually directed at the US. I do speak from experience. > > What country did you gain that experience in? Iceland? >Norway? Sweden? Since you ask I'm intimately familiar with Iceland and somewhat less so with Sweden. Many Icelanders are afflicted with `national inferiority complex'. This is manifest in statements like: Of course Iceland is the best country in the world to live in. Icelands health care system is the envy of the world. ... Sound familiar? Substitute Canada for Iceland? How's it sound now? Guess what they say in Sweden? > ........... All countries with a unique language, a solid >base of cultural tradition, and very little possibility of being >totally bombarded with US media images. What about Quebec? I'd say Quebec fits your statement as well as the (other) countries mentioned. What are they afraid of? Their attitude towards the rest of Canada is as your attitude towards the US. It may surprise you that while you fear US cultural domination, Icelandic cultural nationalists live in holy terror of same. How they they became that way is anybody's guess, I'm not a psychiatrist. They hate all `foreign contamination'. What scares the living daylights out of me is their success. Just recently a law was passed in Iceland which makes it illegal for you to receive, in your own home, foreign satellite programming unless it's broadcast with Icelandic subtitles. Not only that but in order for you to legally enjoy say a live broadcast sporting event it must come either with subtitles (impossible) or running commentary in Icelandic (No I don't think they'll settle for no commentary). Now it's no secret and clear as mud to everyone that this law is aimed squarely at English language broadcasts, which have some people who want to watch German or Italian programming rather upset (They know the market for German etc. isn't large enough to justify the expense of subtitling). Icelands education system is almost entirely state run, with a curriculum that includes copious amounts of nationalistic indoctrination. You think you have problems? I could say that you are the problem, but of course I won't. Bjorn R. Bjornsson alberta!bjorn
taras@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (T. Pryjma) (02/17/87)
In article <827@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > America has vastly superior media resources, and can roll >over Canadian culture like a steamroller over a cream puff. I >will believe the American media can use its resources in a manner >not detrimental to Canada when the American TV networks start >situating 10% of (say) their sit-coms in Canada, to reflect the >Canadian 10% of their potential market. However, that'll be >the day, as Buddy Holly said, when I die. I tend to disagree with you Jamie, American do not have vastly superior media resources than us. Our technicians, actors and writers and directors can do just as well as their American counterparts. Television and film facilities, in this city atleast, are second to none. The problem being, is that Canadian bussinessmen in the media do not have the guts to put thier money in Canadian culture. Besides what is Canadian culture anyways, and how much does it differ from American culture or British from that matter. In any sitcom, strong characterization is very important if the series is going to go the long haul. It is highly imatterial where the series is set, the question is can the series hold the viewer with the character and story presented. One of these days I will attempt to sell a sitcom to an American network or pay service, and I expect to be successfull. BTW, did you know that Toronto is HBO's largest production centre, or where does American Media turn to when their Radio Stations are in trouble? Or that on average we about 6 films in production in the city at any one time, not to mention Amerika was shot here as well. I rather doubt that the Americans have vastly superior media resources. -- Taras Pryjma uucp: taras@utcs.uucp bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto Bell: +1 (416) 536-2821 Ok then, It's settled. I will have my computer call your computer and work it all out. ....... But wait ...... it won't do any good, never mind.
neil@danger.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <228@pembina.alberta.UUCP>, bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) writes: > In the media and cultural markets small companies cannot > possibly succeed when competing with larger companies. > > Even if this were true (which it isn't) another approach is obviously You have to be kidding! In a mature market, the possibility of a small company becoming big is remote. With the television media, big means lots of influence, that means the power to get people to accept garbage. What! You don't think people can be made to accept mediocrity? :-) > not to compete, but offer something that the giants don't. A fine solution, don't compete! The giants institutionalise mediocrity so much that it takes external factors to create change. The US did the world a favour by raising the price of oil to what it was really worth. (actually a bit beyond that but that's another story!) If the US auto industry had been committed to providing a better throughout the '502 '60s and '70s, the Japanese would never have made inroads. > > If Canadians would rather view US programming (and I'm not saying > that this is the case) than that supplied by Canadian companies, > then I ask you: > > Whose material is more relevant to (those) Canadians? You presume that they are making a consious rational choice when in fact it is the product of what is available, and how much of it is there. I'm not saying that people mindless zombies, I am saying that often people people turn on the TV as a "pass-time", they really don'y care what they watch so long as it isn't totally boring for them. In other words, the reasons people watch what they watch are not based on simple choice. > > that it was not paying off. What's your gripe? Canada has > plenty of news magazines that compare favorably with TIME as far > as quality goes and are devoted strictly (more or less) to > Canadian subject matter. TIME is a perfect example of the myopea of American media. It is practically impossible to get any foreign news coverage in any US media. Any foreign coverage is invariable chosen because there is an American interest. Is that wrong you ask? You bet, it entrenches the Americans simplistic view of the world. Why should they hear about these things? First, they have no choice in the matter, the US networks do not have any programs that report them. Second, the attempt of aspiring to a well rounded news system is, in and of itself, a good thing. It is impossible to point to specifics, but the argument is identical to the one use above for the US auto industry. > > There's that word again!! Why is it that whenever anyone > >suggests that maybe something people see has a negative influence > >on the society, someone screams "Censorship!!"? That's not the reason they yell censorship....there are three valued judgements here, (1) people nice of you to include me without asking, (2) negative influences, one man's meat is another man's poison. (3) society, again I'm being included, I probably don;t view society anything like they way you view it!! Canada should, ought must strive for a pluralistic society. It is the freedom to be anything you want in Canada, that sets us apart from the US. IT is that pluralism that ensures a rich vibrant society. That allows people to go to Cuba, to criticise Mulroney, that allows me the privacy of my bedroom. > >> ... What I'm seeing is `cultural nationalism' > >>and an inferiority complex.... > > > > Canadians have an inferiority complex because everyone else > >thinks we're inferior. A possible exception is Africa, the only Nonesense, people don't think Canadian's are inferior, only Canadian's think they are inferior, and they're wrong. Perhaps it's because Americans think they are superior to the rest of the world, they really do too! I suppose when you define your own yard sticks, you'll convince yourself that you are superior, but you'd be wrong. Do you really believe the New York Giants are world champions. They do!! I just wish Canadians would stop apologising for themselves. Funny how Canadians who criticise the US are derisorily labelled anti american, but somehow the sources of the derision aren't called anti canadian. It's almost as if being anti canadian was ok. All sweeping statements above are exactly that, we're dealing in generalities here. Neil McCulloch alberta!ncc!danger
bjorn@alberta.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <466@danger.UUCP>, neil@danger.UUCP (neil) writes: >You have to be kidding! In a mature market, the possibility of a small >company becoming big is remote. With the television media, big means lots >of influence, that means the power to get people to accept garbage. What! >You don't think people can be made to accept mediocrity? :-) No I'm not kidding, the possibility of ANY company becoming big is remote almost regardless of the market. Perhaps you would care to reveal your opinion to Kenneth Olson, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs or the Japanese auto makers, the Koreans etc.. Mature market my, er ahem, foot. Not only can small companies grow big, large companies can easily end up in Drumheller. > ... The giants institutionalise mediocrity No argument on the first part of this sentence. But hey, some people have told me they LIKE TO VEGETATE in front of a TV. >so much that it takes external factors to create change. Such as? Here is the crux of the matter. >If the US >auto industry had been committed to providing a better throughout the >'502 '60s and '70s, the Japanese would never have made inroads. Yes, using your words: "they had institutionalized mediocrity" and of course they lost when someone with a better idea put it into practice. >> If Canadians would rather view US programming (and I'm not saying >> that this is the case) than that supplied by Canadian companies, >> then I ask you: >> >> Whose material is more relevant to (those) Canadians? > >You presume that they are making a consious rational choice when in >fact it is the product of what is available, and how much of it is there. >I'm not saying that people mindless zombies, I am saying that often >people people turn on the TV as a "pass-time", they really don'y care >what they watch so long as it isn't totally boring for them. In other >words, the reasons people watch what they watch are not based on simple >choice. And you care so much about what other people watch that you would like nothing better than to hold their remote control for them. I care too, but I'm not about to force people to watch (swinging into the saddle of a tall horse here) what quality programming there is to be had. My experience is that at times when there's "nothing on" many people will leave their TV on WITHOUT watching it. But then vegetables will vegetate. I've got some ideas on how to survive such hardships some of which require the participation of more than one person. >TIME is a perfect example of the myopea of American media. It is >practically impossible to get any foreign news coverage in any US >media. Any foreign coverage is invariable chosen because there is >an American interest. I suspect that this is a function of the size/population/power (s/p/p) of the country and not a conscious decision to shun foreign coverage. It's obvious isn't it from the relative s/p/p's of the US and Canada that what they do affects you more than what you do affects them. You think you get broad coverage in Canada? I'll offer yet another thesis: The smaller the country the broader the news coverage. There. > ... Is that wrong you ask? You bet, it entrenches >the Americans simplistic view of the world. What is this simplistic [sic] view? Expound please. In what way is this "view" more simplistic than some other (presumably different) view of the world. And who holds these supposedly less simplistic views? > ... Why should they hear about >these things? What things? Tuna Scandals? Ministers in Strip-clubs? The sale of Canadair or de Haviland? Give an example of "foreign" coverage in the Canadian media that is not matched in one way or the other by the US media. Are you hard pressed? Not at all? Good let's hear it. > ... First, they have no choice in the matter, the US networks >do not have any programs that report them. Second, the attempt of >aspiring to a well rounded news system is, in and of itself, a good thing. Tell that to the shareholders. If you don't have the stomach for that, help pay to produce and broadcast your vision. >It is impossible to point to specifics, but the argument is identical >to the one use above for the US auto industry. Yes I know it's impossible to point to specifics if you have no idea how to fix the perceived problem(s). >Canada should, ought must strive for a pluralistic society. It is the >freedom to be anything you want in Canada, that sets us apart from >the US. This statement I'm sure would take must US citizens by surprise as well as some of what follows. > IT is that pluralism that ensures a rich vibrant society. That >allows people to go to Cuba, to criticise Mulroney, that allows me >the privacy of my bedroom. Are you implying that a US citizen cannot go to Cuba or that Americans are not allowed to throw dung at their chief executive? Are you suggesting that you have less privacy in an American bedroom than a Canadian? I know some states in the US have some rather kinky (No I'm not about to apologize) laws on what may and may not take place in a bedroom or otherwise, I will not defend this, it's atrocious. But then again if you would like to avail yourself of certain types of sexually explicit material for whatever reason (fantasy aid, spice, etc.) you are out of luck in Canada and North Carolina. >Nonesense, people don't think Canadian's are inferior, only Canadian's >think they are inferior, and they're wrong. Agreed. And of course this does not include all Canadians. Some Canadians really are inferior (to other Canadians of course B-). >... Perhaps it's because >Americans think they are superior to the rest of the world, they really >do too! Do you have proof positive that they are not? > I suppose when you define your own yard sticks, you'll convince >yourself that you are superior, but you'd be wrong. I'm not going to quibble with this statement, (B-) but of course it's not true in general. > Do you really >believe the New York Giants are world champions. They do!! Who cares. >I just wish Canadians would stop apologising for themselves. Funny how >Canadians who criticise the US are derisorily labelled anti american, >but somehow the sources of the derision aren't called anti canadian. >It's almost as if being anti canadian was ok. I could write a very long essay on this. I'll spare you this time. >All sweeping statements above are exactly that, we're dealing in >generalities here. Precisely B-). Alas, my bark is worse than my bite Bjorn R. Bjornsson alberta!bjorn
pptanner@watcgl.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <233@pembina.alberta.UUCP> bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) writes: >Are you implying that a US citizen cannot go to Cuba Americans are not only not allowed to go to Cuba, but there is a list of countries (always has been) that they are not allowed to go to. Until quite recently an American broke the law of their land if they went to China! China was deemed the enemy, and you were not allowed to find out the truth by going there. Look at some old American books in the library about China, see the descriptions of the 700 million who "are being taught fanatical hatred of the West". Compare these writings with what we are now told about China, then read 1984 again. Certain Americans have very peculiar views of the world brought about by ignorance - sometimes enforced by the government (as in the case of banning travel to other countries or by banning people with different ideas, such as Farley Mowat from travelling to the States), or enforced by the media by a studied ignorance of the outside world. While I do not want these stilted views banned from our country, we require a domestic media to view the world through a differently coloured glass, and we need access to the way people from other countries view the world.
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/21/87)
. . . > of Canadair or de Haviland? Give an example of "foreign" coverage > in the Canadian media that is not matched in one way or the other > by the US media. Are you hard pressed? Not at all? Good let's > hear it. > Ok I can give you an example(s). You *cannot* get anything like an accurate view of world events if your primary source of information is the US media. I will give you an example; I hesitate to use this because I cannot remember the exact source, however... It seems a group of generals from a south american military dictatorship, supported by the US government, spent quite a bit of time touring the US to promote (this is going to be hard to believe) tourism. They spent a lot of their time having/hosting luncheons for US publishers. So far so good. Well it seems this reporter (in Toronto I think) got curious about this a couple of years later and decided to do an online database search. She searched the NY Times database (containg the news from the largest 300 newspapers in the US) for reports of human rights abuse in this country. She found almost nothing in a years worth of data. So to check her procedures she tried it with some innocuous country like Sweden and actually got more articles on abuses there than in this notorious dictatorship. Then she tied searching the Globe&Mail database for the same period and got many (>100) citations of Globe articles dealing with abuses in the S.A. country. Make what you will of it. If anyone has more information about this occurrence feel free to correct my details. If I can remember my original source I will look it up and post any necessary corrections. If you want *good* documented examples of how incredibly biased the US media is (i.e. how often the lie, bend, and otherwise mutilate the truth) you should read one of Noam Chomsky's books, particularily the two volume set "The political economy of Freedom". They deal with the US media's reporting of US activities in South America and Vietnam. One story he tells I can remember particularily well: TIME was going to publish an article on atrocities performed by the vietnamese communists with accompanying pictures. Chomsky somehow got ahold of the pictures before press and recognized the scenes as being in (US backed) Thailand. He called the TIME editor responsible and told him about it - the repsonse was "Well it *could* happen in communist territory too" or something to that effect and they published the original story unchanged. Read the books for a real eye opening experience. . . . > Alas, my bark is worse than my bite > > Bjorn R. Bjornsson > alberta!bjorn john *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***