Our Shared History...what went wrong?

[MAJOR_Baker]

Been thinking about this for a while and of course the events of the CDN Federal Election brought it to the forefront. 

So I was thinking why the animosity?  Not just the CDN PM, but his ministers and back benchers, the majority of CDN media, and a large portion of the population have sunk very low, some say it is because they don't like President Bush, well frig I don't like Martin, so where does that leave us?   Water diversion and the North West passage conspiracies?  Now, I am not trying to play the anti-american card, just point out a few observations.

Reading through a few posts, there were a few comments about Americans from the south having a gene pool ankle deep, references to cowboys, etc.  I am wondering where most CDNs think the majority of Americans come from?  Certainly not from another planet, if you guessed Western Europe you would be correct, the same place as "CDNs" came from.  Interesting isn't it? 

I sure hope Canada gets the government it deserves, one that doesn't look down it's nose everytime the US doesn't fall lock step with its more LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE agenda.  Good Luck

 

[Nielsen_Noetic]

The anymosity is silly I agree, but just as your supposed gene pool is, our anymosity is only ankle deep. The vast majority of Canadians that are seriously affronted by the Americans very existence, are the same people that would get their panties in a twist if you told them that not all liberals are progressive and that not all conservatives are backward red neck hicks. I wouldn't put too much stock in the words of the few, and take the words of the majority, which, for the most part, are very supportive of the United States and its direction in this world, particularly in relation to the war on terror and its confrontation of nations such as Iran and N. Korea.

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

As far as military and political relations go, J.L. Granatstein's book 'Who Killed the Canadian Military' gives some relevent detail concerning the question you posed.

To give a grossly over-simplified response, I'd say that a large part of the difference is that Americans tend to think in terms of national interest while we, on the other hand, think more in terms of domestic social concerns (or when our politiciens don't want to think at all, they can blame the states).

 

[a_majoor]

The animosity is mostly confined to the media, politicians and academics (Michael Ignatieff = two out of three. A bad sign?), the classes of people with the most invested in the idea of "Trudeopia". They tore down the symbols and obscured, degraded or denied our history and collective mythology, but discovered Trudeopia was strangly lacking in the above, and substituted anti-Americanism as a cheap substitute.

If Harper wants to chart a new course, he could take the advice posted elsewhere and selectively ressurect the symbols of our past while forging stronger links to the Anglosphere. The Trudeopians and general mob of anti-American fellow travellers will suffer shock and awe at this change in direction, and (being trapped in mental ruts) unable to mount an effective response. Read more about this idea here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38903/post-326060.html#msg326060

 

[redleafjumper]

A lot of our "shared history" with the United States has involved warfare, both on the side of, in the past hundred years or so, or in opposition to, for the time before that.  We do have one major unresolved conflict with the United States in that the US has never recognized our northern borders.  Canada and the former USSR both subscribed to "polar geography" which means that we see our borders as extending to the geographic north pole.  I believe that the Russians still hold this view.  The issue will become more problematic as more of the Canadian waterways up there become ice-free and there is improved access to the resources of the Arctic and sub-arctic.  The matter came up as it does occasionally when the US ambassador made a negative comment regarding Harper's Arctic sovereignty proposal.  When you are making a defence policy it is always important to consider one's neighbours as potential friends as well as possible enemies.

 

[GO!!!]

I think our anti-americanism is linked to our not really having any real problems.

Like soldiers, we always need something to complain about, and since most of us are safe, with a warm place to sleep and enough to eat, we keep looking to more and more insignificant things to complain about.

The US is'nt perfect, so we'll let them have it, after all, George Bush is like, bad and stuff - right? 

 

[DG-41]

Actually, I'm going to differ with the consensus opinion a little bit.

There has always been a thread of anti-Americanism running through Canadian politics, dating back to when the Colonies got Revolutionary Fever and decided to spread it northwards. We haven't forgotten the various attempts to attack northward up the Richelieu, the War of 1812, or the Fenian Raids.... American Manifest Destiny doesn'tplay well up here.

That's near the root of it, but (and I can say this with some authority, as I live in Canada and work in the US so I am exposed to Americans every day) that there are some serious differences in the national character of Canadians and Americans. Individuals from either country can oftentimes be idealogically identical, but on average, there are certain American traits that conflict with Canadian traits. When events in the US rub Canadians the wrong way, you hear about it.

We *are* a separate country, after all. We are *not* the 51st state of the Union, governed from Washington. We have our own opinions on many issues. Not all Canadians share all these views (some here will disagree with some or all of the points I'm about to bring up) , but enough do that it attracts attention.

In the last little while, you've had:

- the USA failing to recognise the legal authority in the softwood lumber trade dispute, where the governing body has repeatedly found the US to be in violation of treaty, but the US government refuses to enforce the correction of the violations

- the USA claiming that certain sovereign Canadian waters are, in fact, international waters and can be utilized whenever they want

- the USA trying to bully us into participation in an unnecessary white elephant missile defense system

- the disturbing tendency of American ambassadors to lecture Canadian politicians on what the US expects of us, and to interfere in internal politics. (this is just rudeness, and Canadians are big on politeness)

- Much American silliness about the border, including accusing Canada of being a terrorist refuge, and the unilateral declaration that passports will be needed to cross the US border in the near future (much to the detriment of all border city economies on both sides of the line)

- The war in Iraq, which a large number of Canadians feel was at the very least grossly misrepresented, potentially illegal, effectively a disaster for regional stability, and an all-round bad idea. (Note that Canadians are perfectly willing to fight for a just cause - witness Afghanistan - but many feel that the case that Iraq was a "just cause" was never made, and so the invasion of Iraq is just the US acting the unilateral bully again)

- The alarming movement of American politics towards dogmatic partisanship, with the leading party wandering ever rightward and increasingly fundamentallist Christian - witness different attitudes towards gay marriage, the legalization/decriminalization of pot, etc. Plus the vehemence from right-wing demagogues like Anne Coulter and the like against those whose politics are not firmly facing right. Canadians tend to be centrists or slightly left of center - if Stevie Harper were running for office in the US, he'd probably be a Democrat - and so when Americans rant on about the malfeasance of liberals... well... that's *us*, thank you.

In short, a lot of what you're hearing has been brought about by general disagreement with the conduct of the current American regime, mixed in with the usual Canadian tendency to bitch about the US.

I wouldn't see it as *hatred* though. It's not Al-Quaida-flavoured anti-Americanism. It's more like seeing your best friend get drunk off his ass and act like an asshole. Wouldn't you tell him?

DG

 

[Kat Stevens]

 
- Much American silliness about the border, including accusing Canada of being a terrorist refuge, and the unilateral declaration that passports will be needed to cross the US border in the near future (much to the detriment of all border city economies on both sides of the line)



This one has always mystified me.  It's the US customs and Immigration, and the Border Service that lets the terrorists into the US from Canada.  So, why is their incompetence our fault?    ;D > :warstory:

 

[DG-41]

*snort* ROFL!

So lemme get this straight - I tell you some of the reasons why *some* Canadians are annoyed with the US, and then you lecture me on why the US is RIGHT on all points, and as a bonus, attack my service history (which you might want to take a closer look at)

Man, nobody is going to believe this. They'll think this is a setup, that we're working as a team or something.

Thanks dude, you made my day.

DG

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Know what Major Baker, you self-reflect waaaay too much........stop reading headlines and listening to politicians and things will be fine.


If I went just by headlines no one would want us to try and restore Afganistan........

 

[48Highlander]

*snort* ROFL!

So lemme get this straight - I tell you some of the reasons why *some* Canadians are annoyed with the US, and then you lecture me on why the US is RIGHT on all points, and as a bonus, attack my service history (which you might want to take a closer look at)

Man, nobody is going to believe this. They'll think this is a setup, that we're working as a team or something.

Thanks dude, you made my day.

DG

He's taking more of an issue with your wording.  And he's quite right.  I can understand that you're attempting to voice the beleifs of "some Canadians", and that as such those statements might not reflect your personal beleifs.  However, when you use phrases like "current American regime", you give yourself away.  Why are you trying to be sneaky about it?  Ok, you don't like the US.  Don't hide behind what "some Canadians think".

And, even assuming that you really ARE only playing devils advocate, you could have summed up your entire argument by simply saying "some Canadians are ignorant and bigoted, and our media is dishonest".

 

[2 Cdo]

It seems as if some members of this site are trying to disguise their anti-American bias! Sorry for some peoples attitudes S_Baker, not all of us are anti-American, self-righteous asses!

 

[DG-41]

Ok, you don't like the US.

Where, pray tell, did I say that?

Yes, I have some deep concerns about certain aspects of American governmental policy (as, I might point out, so do a fair number of Americans - I've had about a half dozen co-workers approach me over the past couple of years seeking information on emmigration to Canada) - but I was careful not to characterise my opinions as being universally shared by all Canadians.

And I certainly disagree with your assessment of the Canadian media as being dishonest.

Quick story: I went into a temporary (as it turned out) military retirement for about 8 years, and in that time, I started my own SCCA auto race team. That meant spending a lot of time in the US, given that the race series was based out of the US. September 11, 2001 found me on the racetrack, set up on the apron of Forbes Field (an Air National Guard base) in Topeka, KS. The first plane hit the WTC as I was out driving my heat. I watched the towers collapse on the TV in the team motorhome, parked in the paddock.

I was amongst three thousand scared Americans, one of maybe a half-dozen (at most) Canadians on site. The event was postponed, we couldn't go home anyway because we were told the border was closed, and so we stayed with the entire lot of them as we waited for news as to what was going to happen re: the event (it was the National Championship event, so sort of a big deal, lasted over a week long). So I was "embedded", if you will, in this slice of American culture, during the most shocking domestic crisis since... well... maybe the Kennedy assassination.

As far as they were concerned, I was family. As far as *I* was concerned, *they* were family. We took care of each other.

But getting back to the media.. that night, for whatever reason the local PBS station started carrying CBC news. I got to watch the Canadian media coverage of 9/11 from deep inside the American heartland, after having spent the day in the intimate company of actual Americans, sharing their reactions - even got to watch my old MilStud professor from CMR brought in as a commentator. And what struck me about the Canadian coverage was the degree of empathy and honesty extended towards Americans and the situation in general. There was NO anti-American rhetoric. NONE. Something horrible and unjustified had happened to our neighbours to the South and Canada, as embodied by the CBC, shared in it.

I *like* the CBC. I think the CBC is probably the most truthful news organization in North America. When the US does something stupid, they report on it, truthfully. And when the US has something terrible happen to it, the CBC reports on it, truthfully, and with no anti-American bias. I've seen it first-hand.

If you're going to accuse ME of bias, see to your *own* biases first.

I have the opinions that I do because I have spent 9 years now amongst Americans, I see the way the country is moving, and I am, in many cases, deeply disturbed by what I see. The America of today is not the America of 9 years ago; it is more fearful, more insular, more willing to lash out, more willing to go it alone no matter what the rest of the world thinks. It is increasingly moving in a direction that I see as "anti-American"; farther away from the core American values of justice, freedom, and equal opportunity for all. In an odd sort of way, I am very pro-American - it's just that modern America is less "American" than it was, once.

Now that is my personal opinion, based on my own experience and observations; you, or anyone else, are free to your own opinions, and I'm *certainly* not going to try and change your mind... why waste the effort? But spare me the name-calling; I came by these opinions by actual interaction with Americans, not via Fox News and the National Post.

DG 

 

[rifleman]

Whats actually wrong?

 

[48Highlander]

DG, I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.  Sure, Canada and the CBC were very empathic when 9/11 happened.  You'd have had to have been a brainwashed savage not to feel their pain, and not to be worried about what it meant for all of us.  But most Canadians, just like the american "progressives", forgot about it way too quickly.  Those images are still fresh in my mind, and I understand that we, wether Canadian or American, cannot continue to live the way we did pre-911.  You think that changing with the times made America become "not-America"?  Bullshit.  You could have made the same argument when they imprisoned their japanese population, or when they dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Did they end up turning into a dictatroial imperialist state because of it?  Hardly.  The US has always been able to change and adapt to the situation, and their core values have survived through every shift.  What makes the new policies any different?  I suppose I was mistaken when I said that you "don't like America", rather, I could accurately say that you don't like America changing.  Which is fine.  Lots of people are afraid of change.

As to our media not being biased, have a look at the thread discussing the US response to our plans in the arctic.  You'll see what our media can pull off when they're determined to create a scene.

 

[DG-41]

"Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin

There was no great change in the world in 2001. It wasn't like there was this great terrorist uprising out of nowhere. It was the usual group of assholes who came up with an innovative way to carry out a terror attack (one that was nullified so quickly that the attacks hadn't even FINISHED before the world developed a new strategy for dealing with them*) and in the process, gave the world the justification it needed to crack open the nest and kill the vermin hiding there.

If you get bitten by a snake, you kill the snake, plow up the snake nest, and resume your normal life. You don't dedicate every waking moment to living in fear of snakes. You don't pave your yard and set up razor wire to try and keep the snakes out.

The whole concept of "essential liberty", giving credit where credit is due, is uniquely American. Certainly the American Founding Fathers, for whom I have a great deal of respect, understood that liberty, as a concept, trumped all else. The "adapting" that you talk about, the trading liberty for an illusionary security, is PROFOUNDLY un-American.

I came to work one day to find a group of my American co-workers arranging an after-work group trip to Home Depot, where they were going to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape en masse, with which they intended to seal up their houses against the threat of chemical attack (based on an announcement they saw on TV that morning) When I pointed out 1) the type of volume of agent required to deliver a chemical attack (the approprate unit of volume is "tanker trucks" not "teaspoons") and 2) The complete lack of success of a chemical attack in the Tokyo Subway (the most densely populated enclosed space in the world) they were completely flabbergasted, and, I might add, very upset that they had been so badly misinformed. That kind of institutionalized fear is ALSO profoundly un-American.

Those changes you talk about are NOT a requirement to "change with the times" and are in fact to be resisted whole-heartedly. Fear and paranoia are not American virtues.

DG

* 9/11 was not the first time in history that an aircraft had been hijacked; indeed, aircraft hijackings were endemic in the 70s and 80s. But all the experience with hijackings stated that the idea survival strategy was to lay low, remain passive and unnoticed, and wait for the hijackers to either release you, or for rescue to arrive. At worst, hijackers would kill maybe 1 or 2 of a hundred or so passengers, and there was a strong disincentive for them to kill anyone, as starting to kill usually torpedoed their negotiations. Sitting tight and keeping quiet offered the best odds of survival.

But with 9/11, the passengers were incidental; they weren't even really "hostages". When the hijackers' intention is to crash the plane into a target, the best survival strategy is to defend the plane to the utmost, as passivity will get you killed with 100% certainty. This fundamental change in the dynamics of aircraft hijackings took maybe two hours to dissiminate all around the world, such that a plane that was IN THE AIR, EN ROUTE TO THE TARGET got the news and was prevented from reaching the target.

That trick worked exactly ONCE, and forever changed the dynamics of a would-be hijacking, because from now on, passengers will assume that their best chance of survival will be to mob the hijackers immediately, the risk of personal injury be damned. We will never again see a 9/11 type attack for the simple reason that no passenger will ever allow it to happen again - and that didn't take any hightened security measures or any other government policy change AT ALL.

 

[48Highlander]

The key words there are, ofcourse, "ESSENTIAL liberty".

I don't see any essential liberties being surrendered.

Your mileage may vary.

It still doesn't explain the rampant anti-Americanism displayed by groups of Canadians.

 

[rifleman]

DG

* 9/11 was not the first time in history that an aircraft had been hijacked; indeed, aircraft hijackings were endemic in the 70s and 80s. But all the experience with hijackings stated that the idea survival strategy was to lay low, remain passive and unnoticed, and wait for the hijackers to either release you, or for rescue to arrive. At worst, hijackers would kill maybe 1 or 2 of a hundred or so passengers, and there was a strong disincentive for them to kill anyone, as starting to kill usually torpedoed their negotiations. Sitting tight and keeping quiet offered the best odds of survival.

But with 9/11, the passengers were incidental; they weren't even really "hostages". When the hijackers' intention is to crash the plane into a target, the best survival strategy is to defend the plane to the utmost, as passivity will get you killed with 100% certainty. This fundamental change in the dynamics of aircraft hijackings took maybe two hours to dissiminate all around the world, such that a plane that was IN THE AIR, EN ROUTE TO THE TARGET got the news and was prevented from reaching the target.

That trick worked exactly ONCE, and forever changed the dynamics of a would-be hijacking, because from now on, passengers will assume that their best chance of survival will be to mob the hijackers immediately, the risk of personal injury be damned. We will never again see a 9/11 type attack for the simple reason that no passenger will ever allow it to happen again - and that didn't take any hightened security measures or any other government policy change AT ALL.

Totally agree, - No Box cutter will ever stop passengers from over powering would be terrorists again.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I see much of the state of relations as being little more than a fundamental difference of opinion and values. What many Canadians like, Americans don't and vice-versa. That being said, there's no shortage of things both people hold in common but it seems to me that differences usually define relations far more than similarities - if only because they're more visible.

The "anti-American" angle is way overplayed, IMO. It's no more anti-American to criticize US government policy or political climate than it is anti-Canadian to do likewise, such as deriding Canada's liberal leanings, bashing its defence policies (past or present) or criticizing it for not going into Iraq. Those criticisms are entirely valid, depending on your viewpoint, the same way as similar criticisms of the US on their "hot button" issues are just as valid. Ironically enough, I find those making accusations of "anti-Americanism" are usually the first ones to bash the entirety of France. There's nothing funnier than listening to someone bemoan "anti-Americanism", only to crap on France at the first opportunity (I find it's usually right-wingers doing both of these, but I'm sure there are exceptions). To call "anti-This" and "anti-That" everytime someone makes a critique is a ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction often times. If I'm screaming hateful crap against Jews, then calling me an anti-Semite is one thing. Saying that Canadian defence policy since WWII is crap or US foreign policy during the same period sucks are not "anti-Canadian" or "anti-American" statements. Saying "Americans are idiots" or "Canadians are fools" or "The French are cowards", now THOSE are "anti" type statements.

I think much of the problem between the two countries is that everyone's so damned sensitive - usually the ones with an over-abundance of "patriotism" - a disease everyone seems to suffer from at one time or another but we all need to do a way with. I also think much of the problem really isn't as bad as it's made out to be - we have our differences but we're not India and Pakistan here, for Christ's sake.

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

No one is trying to bully anyone, remember security tumps trade, everytime, get use to it.

Economics is of prime concern in security questions. Trade represents a substantially larger proportion of cross-border relations worldwide than security initiatives ever will. 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