![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
something I am grateful for today
Canada, celebrating its 145th birthday today.
If I'm being ruthlessly honest, I'll admit that I am less proud of my country today than I have ever been before -- and I attribute this entirely to the [IMHO] un-Canada-like doings of our current federal administration -- but I am still grateful for all the good that comes of being able to live here. I pray that the aforesaid administration is only a bump in the road, and that the core of our national identity will endure.
If I'm being ruthlessly honest, I'll admit that I am less proud of my country today than I have ever been before -- and I attribute this entirely to the [IMHO] un-Canada-like doings of our current federal administration -- but I am still grateful for all the good that comes of being able to live here. I pray that the aforesaid administration is only a bump in the road, and that the core of our national identity will endure.
no subject
How would you define that?
no subject
Yup. Less than proud of our Federal government is a nice way to put it.
no subject
Wow, the Canadian version of this must be quite different from the version American schoolchildren are taught.
In our rendition, Canada had no sovereignty in 1812, or anything resembling it. You were an English colony, and didn't have so much as your own prime minister for another fifty years.
This (in our rendition) is why America invaded Canada: it was the local version of England. We were tired of your country (England) sticking its nose in our trade practices and impressing our sailors into your military.
no subject
Historically, there were a lot of issues at play. The actions of the Royal Navy being one, Fenian raids across our borders being another. As for the trade embargoes, the US had as much trouble from France as England and the state of affairs had everything to do with doing business in a time of war and nothing to do with Canada. We were just a soft target... or so it seemed.
From Britain's pov, the invasion of Canadian colonies was a thorn in their side. They had to divert troops, more needed (from their pov) in Europe in Napoleonic Wars. Colonial militias had to be formed to support the British Regulars - the roots of our own regular army and navy.
From the Canadian pov, it was an attack on our homeland. A significant proportion of the population of Upper Canada (now Ontario) were Empire Loyalists. If they wanted to be American, they would have stayed in the States. Considering the American response to 9/11, you should understand that we didn't appreciate the political message Americans were apparently sending to the British government.
no subject
Another way of phrasing this is that in 1812, "Canadians" seemingly wanted "their homeland" to be a sovereign nation -- not an English colony, not an American state either, but its own thing.
Of course, that would mean the same thing it did in our case -- a Revolutionary War against England.
And that would be far too impolite.
Here we do indeed see the kernel of Canadian identity beginning to form.
no subject
In fairness, more American colonists fought with the British than against it. In a very real sense, the War of Independence was the First American Civil War.
If the British government had been smarter and less stubborn at the time, if the Franklin hadn't convinced the French government to send troops (which my mother always said was the unkindest cut of all) the United States might have been part of the Commonwealth today.
The Canadian reputation for being polite, I believe, is the natural result of navigating through history while tied to two empires and hemmed in by a third.
no subject
Yes, we call them conservatives today -- the people who resist rapid change on the grounds that it's unfamiliar, scary, and seems impractical, and therefore instead cling to a subopimal past.
Back then, I'm sure some of them wrote General Washington at Valley Forge along these lines:
"How's that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?"
The Canadian reputation for being polite, I believe, is the natural result of navigating through history while tied to two empires and hemmed in by a third.
Is America meant to be one of these empires? It really has never been one, which is why Canada was never invaded and annexed once we'd settled our grievances with the British.
(Notice also that following WW II, instead of annexing the rest of Earth, as an empire would have done, and as it had the power to do, America launched the Marshall Plan and led the creation of Israel.)
Personally, I think Canadians are polite for a very simple reason: you were raised properly.
no subject
What do you mean the US isn't an empire? Having an empire doesn't automatically mean you are intent on annexing the world (for one thing, it's not practical). You have military bases throughout the world. Your military has invaded Iraq and let's not forget Vietnam. The US has a world-wide economic empire... and now your government, with the shameful collaboration of ours, is paving the way to allow an military invasion of Canada. Which is where this discussion started.
no subject
Well, among other justifications...
1. There is no monarch/emperor, and never has been one; it's a founding principle of the US that there is no hereditary aristocracy. You can't really have an empire without anybody who can play an emperor-like role.
2. America is wildly influential, but "empire" certainly implies more than influence; it implies direct control. There is just no such thing.
3. I agree with you that Iraq is a horrible, groundless war that never should have happened. But can you imagine any empire in world history -- the British, the Romans, the Mongols -- spending a trillion dollars to install and then withdraw from a self-governing democracy that paid no taxes? It's amazing to me that so-called fiscal conservatives lined up behind this plan.
4. "Economic empire" is a casual and toothless term. It would be about as reasonable to talk about America's "cultural empire," derived from America's dominant role in the entertainment industry. (Give it twenty years and see what you make of China's economy.)
The nearest example of genuinely empirical behavior in America's history that I can think of was indeed very shameful -- the geographical usurpation of territory and subjugation of native populations we excused with the charming term "manifest destiny."
However, it has an extremely close historical parallel here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Canada
now your government, with the shameful collaboration of ours, is paving the way to allow an military invasion of Canada
This sounds promising. Can I get dibs on Banff National Park and enslave Amanda Tapping?
no subject
Oxford Dictionary: 1. an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state
I won't argue direct control because I think we'll having a meeting of minds.
I won't argue about the subjugation of native peoples either because I completely agree with you.
And no, you can't have Banff. But I'll let you have Amanda Tapping. ;)
no subject
no subject
To me, it comes down to national policy; America just hasn't got the juice to make other countries create new policy to suit itself.
America is more like Facebook (an organization that I loathe) in that it extends its tentacles in myriad overt and subtle ways and it can squeeze with more or less force. But it cannot dictate terms to other nations in the same way that Facebook cannot actually tell Amazon what to charge for a new Kindle, or the NY Times what it can and can't publish.
The other thing is that because political power is constantly changing hands in America, it's hard for empire-like growth and control to be maintained through consistent policies.
In recent history, the foreign policy Bush wanted is not remotely what Obama wants, so while America's military bases remain, what they are used to do is night-and-day different.
Contrast the Iraq War with Gaddhafi's ouster in Libya and you will see what I mean -- tyrants dethroned in both cases, but the cost in blood and money, to all parties concerned, was dramatically lower under Obama's influence.
If we invade Canada under Obama, I think the main thing we will steal is your healthcare system.
no subject
To be honest, these days I worry more about what Harper is doing than Obama. (And why would I stop being honest now?:))
no subject
no subject