Subject: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 31 May 2001 12:39:13 -0700 From: saeedik@hotmail.com (k312) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if From the recent OT postings on Quebec, the only clear item emerging is that Canada is a fragemented, region-based state, with no agreement as to what the country as a whole is[1]: a compact between two nations, a grouping of 10 equal provinces, a country of 30 million equal citizens, or something else entirely. Contrast this to the U.S where, although split on certain hot-button issues, has a consensus on what the country broadly stands for. So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??), and the rest have a single vision of what their country is? Or, put another way, was there any possible set of decisions that Canadian laeders could have taken that would have resulted in a unified Canadian National Identity, from the Saguenay to the Okanagan? Alternatively, is a Canadian National Identity and ASB proposition? No points for Bassior-type PODs (e.g. Mass-killing of all Francophones, Anglophones, Catholics, Natives, or anyone else), or for PODs that have "Canada" consist of three square miles on the Ottawa River. [1] All Canadians can agree on what the country isn't: it isn't the United States. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 07:58:36 GMT From: "Brent McKee" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 k312 wrote in message news:a250ae2f.0105311139.78f1a3f4@posting.google.com... > > So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result > in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), > Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??), and the rest have a single vision of > what their country is? Or, put another way, was there any possible > set of decisions that Canadian laeders could have taken that would > have resulted in a unified Canadian National Identity, from the > Saguenay to the Okanagan? > > Alternatively, is a Canadian National Identity and ASB proposition? There are a number of possibilities. The most obvious dates from around 25 years before Confederation in Lord Durham's report in which he basically calls for the assimilation of French Canada by English Canada. After Confederation you have to look for something that makes Quebec less resentful of English Canada. A starting place might be for Ontario not to insist on the arrest of Louis Riel following the Red River Rebellion of 1869-70. That would require that Ontario not be an outpost of the Orange Lodge. After all one of the things that led to the 1885 rebellion was the inability of Riel to take the parliamentary seat to which he had been elected (twice) and act as an advocate for his people. And that led MacDonald to say that Riel would hang even if "every dog in Quebec howl" for his release. A second departure, harder to pull off, would be for Laurier to not acquiesce so readily to Anglo demands, starting with the battles over the Manitoba schools, where not only was a single non-sectarian school system imposed but teaching in French was totally banned. Then there was the Boer War question, where Laurier authorised sending troops largely because Ontario demanded it. This led to the breach between Laurier and Henri Bourassa. And there was the Navy issue of 1910 which satisfied no one. Laurier created a Canadian navy but Quebec saw it only as an adjunct to the Royal Navy and likely to get Canadians to fight England's wars while Anglo Imperialists saw it as not being enough of a contribution. When their champion Borden came to power he cut funding to the Canadian Navy and offered funding to the British for three new battleships (the bill providing this funding was defeated in the Senate, and not reintroduced before the war began). Ironically if Borden had been as nationalistic in 1911 as he became by 1918 the nation might have held together a bit better. A final notion might be if the Quebecois population became a more urban one in post-Confederation period. This seems to have been a deliberate policy of Church and Government. Greater urbanisation might well have given the population more cosmopolitan outlook, one that doesn't think that the second referendum was defeated by "money and the ethnics" to quote Jacques Parrizeau, and which has recently shown itself in the murder of a teenage Cuban-born girl by a "pur laine" Quebecois teenage boy because she was an immigrant. Intermarriage works too. While I'm a McKee, my Great-Grandmother was a Pelletier. -- Brent McKee To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from the email address "If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly, in one which is infinitely worse." - Margaret Atwood Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 05:25:55 GMT From: Lyle Craver Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 07:58:36 GMT, "Brent McKee" wrote: >There are a number of possibilities. The most obvious dates from around 25 >years before Confederation in Lord Durham's report in which he basically >calls for the assimilation of French Canada by English Canada. After >Confederation you have to look for something that makes Quebec less Do you really think that given the mood in Britain in the late 1830s that might have actually been carried out? Perhaps if the 1837 rebellion had been a lot more bloody than it was - that's the only scenario I can think of where Durham's plan might have been carried out. >resentful of English Canada. A starting place might be for Ontario not to >insist on the arrest of Louis Riel following the Red River Rebellion of >1869-70. That would require that Ontario not be an outpost of the Orange >Lodge. After all one of the things that led to the 1885 rebellion was the >inability of Riel to take the parliamentary seat to which he had been >elected (twice) and act as an advocate for his people. And that led >MacDonald to say that Riel would hang even if "every dog in Quebec howl" for >his release. This scenario is quite a bit easier - it only requires one of two things: (1) Riel to have avoided hanging Thomas Scott or (2) Riel getting himself captured during his first (1870) rebellion rather than escaping to the United States. The first option (avoiding Scott's hanging) gives Riel a good chance of gaining provincial status for Manitoba on Riel's terms while the second leads to the hanging of Riel while making it completely obvious to Quebec that Riel had essentially lynched Scott and thus didn't deserve their support. >A second departure, harder to pull off, would be for Laurier to not >acquiesce so readily to Anglo demands, starting with the battles over the >Manitoba schools, where not only was a single non-sectarian school system >imposed but teaching in French was totally banned. Then there was the Boer An essential part of the Manitoba problem in 1890 when the 'Schools Question' came up was that Quebec still thought of Manitoba as predominantly French speaking whereas the vast majority of the French-speaking population of Manitoba (predominantly Metis in any case) had left Manitoba to follow Riel in 1885. In case you've forgotten, Riel's 1885 campaign was fought in modern day Alberta and Saskatchewan NOT in Manitoba. 1890 was only 5 years after 1885 and there was a strong feeling that at least as far as Manitoba was concerned that "French = Traitor" and I believe that was a strong part of the unwillingness to allow publicly funded Roman Catholic instruction in French. By 1890 the Manitoba francophone community had pretty much shrunk to its present boundaries - basically within 1/2 mile of Provencher Avenue in Winnipeg (well, St. Boniface actually) Here I do NOT see a credible "soft" solution to the schools question given it was only 5 years after 1885 with a lot of bad blood still around. >A final notion might be if the Quebecois population became a more urban one >in post-Confederation period. This seems to have been a deliberate policy >of Church and Government. Greater urbanisation might well have given the >population more cosmopolitan outlook, one that doesn't think that the second >referendum was defeated by "money and the ethnics" to quote Jacques >Parrizeau, and which has recently shown itself in the murder of a teenage >Cuban-born girl by a "pur laine" Quebecois teenage boy because she was an >immigrant. But wasn't that murder in the Montreal area? It definitely wasn't in the Gatineau or any of the rural communities between Montreal and Quebec City. Other than that I agree with you - and that murder was a pretty appalling case of how things HAVEN'T changed in a long time. >Intermarriage works too. While I'm a McKee, my Great-Grandmother was a >Pelletier. Yup - my great-grandmother was an Alsatian (no really!) who always thought of herself as French despite having been born shortly after 1871 and having a family name of Schmidtz. And having emigrated to the United States in her early teens. Go figure! ------------------------------------ To reply to me remove 1 from address Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 22:56:47 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Lyle Craver wrote: > > [deletia] > > Here I do NOT see a credible "soft" solution to the schools > question given it was only 5 years after 1885 with a lot of bad > blood still around. Agreed. > >A final notion might be if the Quebecois population became a more urban one > >in post-Confederation period. This seems to have been a deliberate policy > >of Church and Government. Greater urbanisation might well have given the > >population more cosmopolitan outlook, one that doesn't think that the second > >referendum was defeated by "money and the ethnics" to quote Jacques > >Parrizeau, and which has recently shown itself in the murder of a teenage > >Cuban-born girl by a "pur laine" Quebecois teenage boy because she was an > >immigrant. > > But wasn't that murder in the Montreal area? It definitely wasn't > in the Gatineau or any of the rural communities between Montreal > and Quebec City. Other than that I agree with you - and that > murder was a pretty appalling case of how things HAVEN'T changed > in a long time. Sadly, murders of immigrants have a long history across Canada continuing to this day. Reena Virk's sad death in British Columbia comes to mind. And at least Québec has immigrants -- PEI, with 0.5% of Canada's population, keeps only 0.07% or so of them. :-( Anyway, I _can_ imagine Lower Canada becoming a multiethnic melting pot given certain conditions, like (for instance) greater anti-Catholic sentiment among British Protestants that forces the Irish immigrants of the 19th century to meld even more tensively with the French Canadians. In this TL, there wouldn't be any bifurcation of Québec's Catholic public school system between Anglophone and Francophone networks; rather, all Catholics would be automatically assumed to be Francophones-in-the-making and accordingly be absorbed. This would also force a change of attituds in Québec's French Canadian population towards something more explicitly multicultural. > >Intermarriage works too. While I'm a McKee, my Great-Grandmother was a > >Pelletier. > > Yup - my great-grandmother was an Alsatian (no really!) who > always thought of herself as French despite having been born > shortly after 1871 and having a family name of Schmidtz. And > having emigrated to the United States in her early teens. Go > figure! Ethnic identity is quite a lot more fluid than many people imagine, particularly in pre-modern situations, and it doesn't necessarily correspond to state identity as the case of Alsace proves. > ------------------------------------ > To reply to me remove 1 from address -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 04:38:11 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Randy McDonald wrote: > > Lyle Craver wrote: > > > > [deletia] > > > > Here I do NOT see a credible "soft" solution to the schools > > question given it was only 5 years after 1885 with a lot of bad > > blood still around. > > Agreed. There's a similar tale to the Anti-Oriental Riots, i.e. bad blood, that I was actually drafting a reply to in response to correcting your (wrong) assumptions about my politico-ethnic leanings; it's out of date by now (not quite finished, as I was writing it in fits and starts) but if you'd like to see the account I can send it via email...... > > > >A final notion might be if the Quebecois population became a more urban one > > >in post-Confederation period. This seems to have been a deliberate policy > > >of Church and Government. Greater urbanisation might well have given the > > >population more cosmopolitan outlook, one that doesn't think that the second > > >referendum was defeated by "money and the ethnics" to quote Jacques > > >Parrizeau, and which has recently shown itself in the murder of a teenage > > >Cuban-born girl by a "pur laine" Quebecois teenage boy because she was an > > >immigrant. > > > > But wasn't that murder in the Montreal area? It definitely wasn't > > in the Gatineau or any of the rural communities between Montreal > > and Quebec City. Other than that I agree with you - and that > > murder was a pretty appalling case of how things HAVEN'T changed > > in a long time. > > Sadly, murders of immigrants have a long history across Canada > continuing to this day. Reena Virk's sad death in British Columbia comes > to mind. And at least Québec has immigrants -- PEI, with 0.5% of > Canada's population, keeps only 0.07% or so of them. :-( I don't recall that Reena Virk's death was racially motivated; others in the group were ethnic themselves; it was more an issue of bullying, and Reena trying to "fit in" to a bunch of kids who disdained her; and she slept with the wrong guy, or was accused of doing so. In BC at least, many immigrant and immigrant-offspring killings are done by ethnics, IIRC the majority of them; much as "white" killings are done by "whites". It's worth noting that violent crime in Canada tends to be within the family or extended family...... > > Anyway, I _can_ imagine Lower Canada becoming a multiethnic melting pot > given certain conditions, like (for instance) greater anti-Catholic > sentiment among British Protestants that forces the Irish immigrants of > the 19th century to meld even more tensively with the French Canadians. > In this TL, there wouldn't be any bifurcation of Québec's Catholic > public school system between Anglophone and Francophone networks; > rather, all Catholics would be automatically assumed to be > Francophones-in-the-making and accordingly be absorbed. This would also > force a change of attituds in Québec's French Canadian population > towards something more explicitly multicultural. This paradigm would work well in the Prairies, where it was already happening between Scots and Natives, i.e. in the form of the Metis; introduction of more Irish into the mix could strengthen the Metis legacy/influence there (there's actually a fair bit of Irish in Prairie Metis IIRC; I was told this by a McArter who was a Metis; or was it McCarter?). > > > >Intermarriage works too. While I'm a McKee, my Great-Grandmother was a > > >Pelletier. > > > > Yup - my great-grandmother was an Alsatian (no really!) who > > always thought of herself as French despite having been born > > shortly after 1871 and having a family name of Schmidtz. And > > having emigrated to the United States in her early teens. Go > > figure! > > Ethnic identity is quite a lot more fluid than many people imagine, > particularly in pre-modern situations, and it doesn't necessarily > correspond to state identity as the case of Alsace proves. Ethnic identity is a product of nationalism; before the mid-19th Century and even after it many subjects of the "multiethnic empires", e.g. the Ottomans or the Habsburgs, felt their primary loyalty to the dynasty rather than their own ethnicity..... MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:06:37 GMT From: Blaine Manyluk Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On 31 May 2001 12:39:13 -0700, k312 promulgated: >From the recent OT postings on Quebec, the only clear item emerging is >that Canada is a fragemented, region-based state, And highly polarized, especially by geography. >Contrast this to the U.S where, although split on certain hot-button >issues, has a consensus on what the country broadly stands for. The U.S. is not so much polarized by geography and language, but by class and race. Arguably, even its Civil War was not so much geographic, but cultural, and perhaps economic. But you're right about the U.S. consensus. >So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result >in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), >Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??), and the rest have a single vision of >what their country is? Is, or should/could be? >Or, put another way, was there any possible set of decisions that Canadian >laeders could have taken that would have resulted in a unified Canadian >National Identity, from the Saguenay to the Okanagan? More an American-style grass-roots consciousness, with more American- style decentralization, and fewer "remittance men" and transplanted British institutions. This does not necessarily mean weaker government, or fewer government services, except at the federal level. It does mean a smaller role for the "ministry of culture". Perhaps if Canada had its own Revolution in the 1840s, from the Mackenzie/Papineau revolts, and became an independent nation? That would make it more like the States, in having the same dynaism, but fiercely independent, and perhaps being even more anti-American than in OTL. (I've already discussed something like this with Walter Strapps, many months ago.) Maybe also an alternate 1867 Confederation? Even at this stage, there was considerable polarization especially WRT Quebec and the Anglo/Franco split. If there was some way to manage this better... If Canada settles the west earlier and faster, with freer immigration, that would build up the economy faster, and prevent the Ottawa government from being too entrenched (and centralized). A Canada/US settlement race? This would be worse for the Natives than in OTL. >No points for Bassior-type PODs (e.g. Mass-killing of all >Francophones, Anglophones, Catholics, Natives, or anyone else) I'm a moderate libertarian, or maybe a Classical Liberal with some libertarian ideas. I'm not Jordan Bassior or Robert Kolker. >or for PODs that have "Canada" consist of three square miles on the >Ottawa River. In some ways OTL is like that. "Canada" is the Ottawa region and perhaps the rest of Ontario. The "colonies" are the other provinces and territories. ====================================================================== [To reply, remove the S's from my address, and change the R's to N's.] An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters will eventually come up with a good _Voyager_ script. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:24:00 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 "k312" wrote in message news:a250ae2f.0105311139.78f1a3f4@posting.google.com... > From the recent OT postings on Quebec, the only clear item emerging is > that Canada is a fragemented, region-based state, with no agreement as > to what the country as a whole is[1]: a compact between two nations, > a grouping of 10 equal provinces, a country of 30 million equal > citizens, or something else entirely. > > Contrast this to the U.S where, although split on certain hot-button > issues, has a consensus on what the country broadly stands for. > > So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result > in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), > Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??) Damn and he spelled my name right and everything. You would be amazed how many people misspell the first name. Though the misspelling of the famliy name is forgivable.. ;-) , and the rest have a single vision of > what their country is? Or, put another way, was there any possible > set of decisions that Canadian laeders could have taken that would > have resulted in a unified Canadian National Identity, from the > Saguenay to the Okanagan? > > Alternatively, is a Canadian National Identity and ASB proposition? > > No points for Bassior-type PODs (e.g. Mass-killing of all > Francophones, Anglophones, Catholics, Natives, or anyone else), or for > PODs that have "Canada" consist of three square miles on the Ottawa > River. Ok lets have WWII be a big fiasco. America stays out of Eurpope for a couple more years and ole mustache breath keeps the peace with the Russians. British troops get slaughtered. Then the pillaging of England goes on. Perhaps losing the country perhaps just messing it up but good. Have the royal family (or whats left of it) flee to Canada. Along with tens of thousands of refugees over the war years. The royal family is set up the streams of refugees (they wouldnt all go to the US now would they?) find homes in CAnada, This results in a very interesting Canada. Canad heir apparent to England. Let the tearing to shreds begin.... -- --- a. pagan fire dancing b. gay sexual inuendo c. poutine d. freakish personal grooming e. obsession with conquering new england f. bizarre plots to rebuild ancient rome Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:23:28 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Allan Mac Donald wrote: > > "k312" wrote in message > news:a250ae2f.0105311139.78f1a3f4@posting.google.com... > > From the recent OT postings on Quebec, the only clear item emerging is > > that Canada is a fragemented, region-based state, with no agreement as > > to what the country as a whole is[1]: a compact between two nations, > > a grouping of 10 equal provinces, a country of 30 million equal > > citizens, or something else entirely. > > > > Contrast this to the U.S where, although split on certain hot-button > > issues, has a consensus on what the country broadly stands for. > > > > So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result > > in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), > > Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??) > > Damn and he spelled my name right and everything. You would be amazed how > many people misspell the first name. Though the misspelling of the famliy > name is forgivable.. ;-) No, it isn't. I'm _Mc_Donald, McDonald, dammit! ;-) > [deletia] > -- > --- > a. pagan fire dancing > b. gay sexual inuendo > c. poutine > d. freakish personal grooming > e. obsession with conquering new england > f. bizarre plots to rebuild ancient rome -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:24:21 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Randy McDonald" wrote in message news:3B16B650.6BCB@isn.net... > Allan Mac Donald wrote: > > > > "k312" wrote in message > > news:a250ae2f.0105311139.78f1a3f4@posting.google.com... > > > From the recent OT postings on Quebec, the only clear item emerging is > > > that Canada is a fragemented, region-based state, with no agreement as > > > to what the country as a whole is[1]: a compact between two nations, > > > a grouping of 10 equal provinces, a country of 30 million equal > > > citizens, or something else entirely. > > > > > > Contrast this to the U.S where, although split on certain hot-button > > > issues, has a consensus on what the country broadly stands for. > > > > > > So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result > > > in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), > > > Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??) > > > > Damn and he spelled my name right and everything. You would be amazed how > > many people misspell the first name. Though the misspelling of the famliy > > name is forgivable.. ;-) > > No, it isn't. I'm _Mc_Donald, McDonald, dammit! ;-) And im Mac Donald. ;-) -- --- a. pagan fire dancing b. gay sexual inuendo c. poutine d. freakish personal grooming e. obsession with conquering new england f. bizarre plots to rebuild ancient rome > > > > [deletia] > > -- > > --- > > a. pagan fire dancing > > b. gay sexual inuendo > > c. poutine > > d. freakish personal grooming > > e. obsession with conquering new england > > f. bizarre plots to rebuild ancient rome > > -- > Randy McDonald > > Charlottetown PE > Canada > > > Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:45:05 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Allan Mac Donald wrote: > > "Randy McDonald" wrote in message > news:3B16B650.6BCB@isn.net... > > Allan Mac Donald wrote: > > > > > > "k312" wrote in message > > > news:a250ae2f.0105311139.78f1a3f4@posting.google.com... > > > > From the recent OT postings on Quebec, the only clear item emerging is > > > > that Canada is a fragemented, region-based state, with no agreement as > > > > to what the country as a whole is[1]: a compact between two nations, > > > > a grouping of 10 equal provinces, a country of 30 million equal > > > > citizens, or something else entirely. > > > > > > > > Contrast this to the U.S where, although split on certain hot-button > > > > issues, has a consensus on what the country broadly stands for. > > > > > > > > So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result > > > > in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), > > > > Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??) > > > > > > Damn and he spelled my name right and everything. You would be amazed > how > > > many people misspell the first name. Though the misspelling of the > famliy > > > name is forgivable.. ;-) > > > > No, it isn't. I'm _Mc_Donald, McDonald, dammit! ;-) > > And im Mac Donald. ;-) > Is them fightin' words? MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:32:32 -0400 From: "Walter R. Strapps" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Well, while we're at it, please state the broad consensus for what the US stands for.... Then ask yourself, no matter what your answer is : How broad do you think that consensus actually is about what the US stands for. The fact of the matter is that except for certain hot-button issues, there is just as much of a Canadian identity. You don't see it or know what it is? Guess what, I bet there are several million Americans who feel the same way about their country, does that make them right? Cheers, Walter R. Strapps Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:27:45 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Walter R. Strapps" wrote: > > Well, while we're at it, please state the broad consensus for what the > US stands for.... Then ask yourself, no matter what your answer is : > How broad do you think that consensus actually is about what the US > stands for. > > The fact of the matter is that except for certain hot-button issues, > there is just as much of a Canadian identity. You don't see it or know > what it is? Guess what, I bet there are several million Americans who > feel the same way about their country, does that make them right? We haven't been able to do this within British Columbia, by itself; not just geographic regionalism (formerly much stronger, about 30 years ago) but also cultural and socio-political; by socio-political here I mean factionalism; the difference between the architect-designed villas of the North Shore and the grey mass of stucco and concrete bungalows and condos of the East Side and the nearer suburbs; and the different politicizations of different workforces and professions. I know this sounds like anywhere else but BC is fraught with a peculiar sense of polarization in all things; the psychological distance between The Drive and West Fourth is vast; but between either and Kerrisdale or Dundarave it might as well be in different universes. Throw in the Interior, the Islands and the First Nations..... There is one unifying element, however, except for the no-fun types like the born-agains and the policing zealots; a paradigm I heard long ago: Maritimers work because they have to; Montrealers (anglo in this reference) work for status/class, Torontonians work for success, Calgarians work for money - and Vancouverites work so they can play tennis and go skiing. Doesn't matter if you vote NDP or Socred/Grit, the work ethic here is leisure-based; or used to be......now it's mortgage-based.... MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:03:14 -0700 From: Conrad Hodson Organization: Oregon Public Networking Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Mike Cleven wrote: > There is one unifying element, however, except for the no-fun types like > the born-agains and the policing zealots; a paradigm I heard long ago: > Maritimers work because they have to; Montrealers (anglo in this > reference) work for status/class, Torontonians work for success, > Calgarians work for money - and Vancouverites work so they can play > tennis and go skiing. Doesn't matter if you vote NDP or Socred/Grit, > the work ethic here is leisure-based; or used to be......now it's > mortgage-based.... No wonder I always feel so at home in BC. Here in Eugene the local joke runs: Q: why did all the hippies move to Eugene? A: they heard there was no work here! Conrad Hodson Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:21:52 -0400 From: "Walter R. Strapps" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Mike Cleven wrote: > > "Walter R. Strapps" wrote: > > > > Well, while we're at it, please state the broad consensus for what the > > US stands for.... Then ask yourself, no matter what your answer is : > > How broad do you think that consensus actually is about what the US > > stands for. > > > > The fact of the matter is that except for certain hot-button issues, > > there is just as much of a Canadian identity. You don't see it or know > > what it is? Guess what, I bet there are several million Americans who > > feel the same way about their country, does that make them right? > > We haven't been able to do this within British Columbia, by itself; They haven't been able to do it anywhere, not in the United States either, the original poster started off with a flawed premise and went from there. Not that this means that the US doesn't have a national identity by any means, but by the same token it doesn't mean that Canada lacks one. Cheers, Walter R. Strapps not > just geographic regionalism (formerly much stronger, about 30 years ago) > but also cultural and socio-political; by socio-political here I mean > factionalism; the difference between the architect-designed villas of > the North Shore and the grey mass of stucco and concrete bungalows and > condos of the East Side and the nearer suburbs; and the different > politicizations of different workforces and professions. I know this > sounds like anywhere else but BC is fraught with a peculiar sense of > polarization in all things; the psychological distance between The Drive > and West Fourth is vast; but between either and Kerrisdale or Dundarave > it might as well be in different universes. Throw in the Interior, the > Islands and the First Nations..... > > There is one unifying element, however, except for the no-fun types like > the born-agains and the policing zealots; a paradigm I heard long ago: > Maritimers work because they have to; Montrealers (anglo in this > reference) work for status/class, Torontonians work for success, > Calgarians work for money - and Vancouverites work so they can play > tennis and go skiing. Doesn't matter if you vote NDP or Socred/Grit, > the work ethic here is leisure-based; or used to be......now it's > mortgage-based.... > > MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 21:32:24 GMT From: Blaine Manyluk Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:27:45 GMT, Mike Cleven promulgated: >Maritimers work because they have to; Montrealers (anglo in this >reference) work for status/class, Torontonians work for success, >Calgarians work for money - and Vancouverites work so they can play >tennis and go skiing. What about Edmontonians? I would think, money, just like Calgarians. > Doesn't matter if you vote NDP or Socred/Grit, >the work ethic here is leisure-based; or used to be......now it's >mortgage-based.... It always comes down to paying those bills. ====================================================================== [To reply, remove the S's from my address, and change the R's to N's.] An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters will eventually come up with a good _Voyager_ script. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:09:46 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 "Blaine Manyluk" wrote in message news:IRTR6.1186$v4.52423@www.newsranger.com... > On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:27:45 GMT, Mike Cleven promulgated: > > >Maritimers work because they have to Explain what you mean by that? Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:30:35 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Allan Mac Donald wrote: > > "Blaine Manyluk" wrote in message > news:IRTR6.1186$v4.52423@www.newsranger.com... > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:27:45 GMT, Mike Cleven promulgated: > > > > >Maritimers work because they have to > > Explain what you mean by that? A more recent version might be "work when they can"; the reference is to economic desperation; works better when told live, I suppose.... MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 1 Jun 2001 16:22:23 -0700 From: bguerrero@askallied.com (Bernard Guerrero) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Mike Cleven wrote in message news:<3B17DEB7.7198FBEB@bigfoot.com>... Doesn't matter if you vote NDP or Socred/Grit, > the work ethic here is leisure-based; or used to be......now it's > mortgage-based.... > > MC Ain't that the truth. I just spent the last week of vacation terraforming my lawn.... The bit about "working for leisure" out West rings true, to a certain extent. One of my brothers-in-law moved out to Oregon to work in a chip fab specifically so as to be near good hiking and skiing. Bernard Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 1 Jun 2001 10:54:21 -0700 From: maurer@itam.mx (Noel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 "Walter R. Strapps" wrote in message news:<3B16B870.153FE7C3@sentigen.com>... > Well, while we're at it, please state the broad consensus for what the > US stands for.... Then ask yourself, no matter what your answer is : > How broad do you think that consensus actually is about what the US > stands for. > > The fact of the matter is that except for certain hot-button issues, > there is just as much of a Canadian identity. You don't see it or know > what it is? Guess what, I bet there are several million Americans who > feel the same way about their country, does that make them right? ---Gosh darn it, Walt, you always bring out the pugilist in me. The U.S. has an ideologically-based nationalism. So does Canada. The problem is that the ideologies are pretty much identical, and so white-bread as to be utterly uncontroversial. In a way, you could say that every modern democracy has this "problem," but in Canada it's become a complex, for two reasons. One, (as Randy pointed out) the country is so diverse. Two, it's right next to the United States, with a history that has created an ingrained and slightly irrational streak of anti-Americanism in the largest province. This leads to a rather intense desire to distinguish Canada from the U.S. The countries are certainly different --- but the silliest difference is how many Canadians feel the need to scream how loudly how different they are. "My name is Joe, and I'm not American!" Some Canadians have tried to deal with complex by elevating things like Medicare to the status of national icons. That's the equivalent of an American saying that in order to be a real American you need to support the death penalty. Flimsy base for a national identity. I've seen you do that, Walt. Others, like Randy (at least that's the impression I get), or 90 percent of the people I know in Alberta and B.C., are perfectly happy with the "not the United States" definition. I sure would be. Parliamentary government, more federalism, no need to put up with the stupidity in Congress, more immigration, better food -- well, except for Calgary --- I mean, what's not to like? Except the Expos, which suck. Canadian nationalism, like American nationalism, rests solely on accepting democracy and the rule of law. Plus not bothering with those idiots inside the Beltway. Unfortunately, too many Canadians have a defensive streak about their country. So they try to invent a "Canadianess" which makes no sense. At best, they come up with the equivalent of a regional political culture --- only being from New York, it doesn't sound all that different from the one I grew up in. The U.S. ain't all Texas, y'know. Only plenty of Albertans sound like Texans with a Western New York accent, so the invented political culture isn't one-size- fits-all. This the leads to the peculiarly bitter tone of certain political debates on this NG. (I mean you, Mike Cleven!) The reason is that people (like Mike) seem to resent being made to feel un-Canadian for holding certain political beliefs on relatively minor issues. Being someone who lives in a country that only just adopted electoral democracy and still has serious problems with the rule of law, lemme tellya, ALL other issues are relatively minor. Or at least that's the view from a foreigner. If you have a sense of humor, I will reveal an awful line I couldn't resist saying in a long customs line with a group of Canadians. But you have to promise that you have a sense of humor. Interesting WI, by the way, Noel Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:23:36 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Noel wrote: > > "Walter R. Strapps" wrote in message news:<3B16B870.153FE7C3@sentigen.com>... > > Well, while we're at it, please state the broad consensus for what the > > US stands for.... Then ask yourself, no matter what your answer is : > > How broad do you think that consensus actually is about what the US > > stands for. > > > > The fact of the matter is that except for certain hot-button issues, > > there is just as much of a Canadian identity. You don't see it or know > > what it is? Guess what, I bet there are several million Americans who > > feel the same way about their country, does that make them right? > > ---Gosh darn it, Walt, you always bring out the > pugilist in me. > > The U.S. has an ideologically-based nationalism. > So does Canada. The problem is that the ideologies > are pretty much identical, and so white-bread as to > be utterly uncontroversial. In a way, you could say > that every modern democracy has this "problem," but > in Canada it's become a complex, for two reasons. One, > (as Randy pointed out) the country is so diverse. Two, > it's right next to the United States, with a history > that has created an ingrained and slightly irrational > streak of anti-Americanism in the largest province. > > This leads to a rather intense desire to distinguish > Canada from the U.S. The countries are certainly > different --- but the silliest difference is how > many Canadians feel the need to scream how loudly > how different they are. > > "My name is Joe, and I'm not American!" > > Some Canadians have tried to deal with complex by elevating > things like Medicare to the status of national icons. That's > the equivalent of an American saying that in order to be a > real American you need to support the death penalty. Flimsy > base for a national identity. > > I've seen you do that, Walt. > > Others, like Randy (at least that's the impression I get), > or 90 percent of the people I know in Alberta and B.C., are > perfectly happy with the "not the United States" definition. BC doesn't really need that because we're really in our own category/ies, but it's true that's one of the only available written definitions; we're pretty unique and distinct from our WA and Alaska neighbours, and that's by temperament and also _their_ opinion of _us_. Being on the butt end of I-5 gives us a sense of being sheltered from the depravities further south along the Golden State Freeway; while allowing us to drive down and envy and enjoy it.... > > I sure would be. Parliamentary government, more federalism, > no need to put up with the stupidity in Congress, more > immigration, better food -- well, except for Calgary --- > I mean, what's not to like? Except the Expos, which suck. Your innocence is _so_ refreshing. The stupidity in Congress? Don't you understand that the "more federalism" part means that we have instead the stupidity in the provincial legislatures and cabinets, which are far more powerful (proportionately within Confederation) than States are (within the Union). And as far as Congressional stupidity goes, it's too bad you haven't had a chance to watch the broadcasts of the Canadian Commons and provincial legislatures, which are downright embarrassing; at least your guys know how to debate, instead of just heckle..... > > Canadian nationalism, like American nationalism, rests solely > on accepting democracy and the rule of law. Plus not bothering > with those idiots inside the Beltway. Instead, we've got the idiots on the Ottawa River and Bay Street..... Unfortunately, too many > Canadians have a defensive streak about their country. So they > try to invent a "Canadianess" which makes no sense. At best, > they come up with the equivalent of a regional political culture > --- only being from New York, it doesn't sound all that different > from the one I grew up in. The U.S. ain't all Texas, y'know. The feds have tried since the spawning of the new flag back into the '60s to generate the same kind of fervent zeal for nationhood which Americans annually display on the 4th; we get a watered-down jingoism that's at best embarrassing, at worst shameful..... > > Only plenty of Albertans sound like Texans with a Western New > York accent, so the invented political culture isn't one-size- > fits-all. This the leads to the peculiarly bitter tone of certain > political debates on this NG. (I mean you, Mike Cleven!) The > reason is that people (like Mike) seem to resent being made to > feel un-Canadian for holding certain political beliefs on > relatively minor issues. And I'm a mild-mannered British Columbian, believe you me; there's MUCH worse. Political debate within BC is inherently bitter, based as it is in the politics of revenge; vis a vis the rest of Canada it's the politics of irritation with distant irrelevancies thousands of miles away.......I _used_ to be a staunch federalist and cultural small-l liberal; but having policy shoved in your face once too often can change all that, and quickly. It's not as if we had decent leadership or ideas here to replace what's sent us from the Mysterious East; that's part of the frustration......but we do worry most about what _our_ politicians are up to, to the point where franco-anglo national debates are just distractions. As a sample of the politics of revenge, by the way, here's something from today's Vancouver Province that's kind of blood-curdling: MOOSE JAW, Sask. -- As Gordon Campbell and Ralph Klein continued playing kissy-face in public yesterday, it was sickeningly obvious that it's a case of true Love. Rod Love, that is. Love is the bare-knuckled political brawler from Alberta who steered Klein to the premier's office and near-mythical popularity with voters. He's also the brainiac who ran Stockwell Day's bungled Canadian Alliance campaign federally. But forget that stinker. Love still thinks he's the greatest political mastermind since Machiavelli. Now it turns out Klein's mustachioed muscleman has been pouring his unique brand of political poison into Campbell's ear. Love just penned an outrageous column for the Calgary Herald in which he revealed he's been quietly advising Campbell (who's attending the Western Premiers Conference here). Love's prediction for a Liberal-governed B.C.: "Hope. Despair. Intrigue. Change. Destruction. "The circus has come to town." And you thought B.C. politics would be boring without Glen Clark! The "despair" and "destruction" Love talks about will be visited upon anybody who dares to stand in Campbell's way. Love says the first to feel the new boss's wrath will be the NDP hacks infecting "the most politicized public service in Canadian history, Quebec excluded." Advises the Lover-man: "What must be done? Does the phrase 'nuke it' come to mind?" After the mushroom clouds clear -- and every NDP civil servant sent to the anti-radiation showers -- Love says Campbell's reign of terror will widen. "Next, organized labour: The mob which has been calling the shots since 1991. "If labour is smart (a stretch, I know) they would accept the fact that their time is over for the forseeable future. "If not, Campbell has a mandate from the people of British Columbia to crush them like a bug." Other insects in line to be squished by Campbell's Gucci heel: "The environmentalist, aboriginal, poverty-activist groups, etc." Just call him The Exterminator. Campbell acknowledged yesterday that Love was retained to advise the Liberals' transition team. He said he didn't know about Love's column in the Herald. And he laughed when told of Love's loveless vision of a nuclear bug-crushing future. "So this was a moderate column he was writing?" Campbell deadpanned. "He wasn't trying to be provocative, was he?" A smiling, beatific Campbell denied any union leaders, Indian chiefs or food-bank operators will be nuked or crushed on his watch. But one thing's clear: After going to Love for advice, and snuggling up to the King of Alberta for the last couple of days, our Gordo is now the biggest Ralph Klein wannabe this side of Mike Harris. It's worth mentioning that Campbell and his party avoided any discussion of policy or platform during the recent election, which saw them taking nearly all the seats in the Leg (now 77 out of 79, the NDP having lost two recounts; the Grits are attempting to deny them Official Opposition status, which is actually unconstitutional, but.....). Since election day, it's come out that they're going to be opening up offshore oil drilling, water exports, and all kinds of hot-button issues that would have lost them the election if people had been told; including this thing about hiring a Klein-ite fanatic to direct policy in "the new BC"........French is the least of our worries...... > > Being someone who lives in a country that only just adopted > electoral democracy where? and still has serious problems with the rule > of law, lemme tellya, ALL other issues are relatively minor. > > Or at least that's the view from a foreigner. > > If you have a sense of humor, I will reveal an awful line I > couldn't resist saying in a long customs line with a group > of Canadians. But you have to promise that you have a sense > of humor. Oh but we do; especially about Canada Customs.... MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 4 Jun 2001 16:34:02 -0700 From: maurer@itam.mx (Noel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Mike Cleven wrote in message news:<3B184E3F.1ABF9D4F@bigfoot.com>... > Noel wrote: > > Being someone who lives in a country that only just adopted > > electoral democracy > > where? ---Mexico. Although I'm in Los Angeles at the moment, but some people might say that L.A. still lacks electoral democracy and the rule of law. Noel Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 07:55:29 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Noel wrote: > > Mike Cleven wrote in message news:<3B184E3F.1ABF9D4F@bigfoot.com>... > > Noel wrote: > > > Being someone who lives in a country that only just adopted > > > electoral democracy > > > > where? > > ---Mexico. Although I'm in Los Angeles at the moment, > but some people might say that L.A. still lacks electoral > democracy and the rule of law. > At comparable levels to PRI-era Mexico, perhaps... MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:56:08 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Noel wrote: > > [deletia] > > Others, like Randy (at least that's the impression I get), > or 90 percent of the people I know in Alberta and B.C., are > perfectly happy with the "not the United States" definition. You have me pegged correctly. I'm confident enough in my personal identity and in my cultural preferences and nationalist orientations not to worry about it. I _like_ American popular culture and American literature, even if American foreign policy and socioeconomic structure (no medicare, a prison system that only brutalizes, et cetera) can worry me. > I sure would be. Parliamentary government, more federalism, > no need to put up with the stupidity in Congress, more > immigration, better food -- well, except for Calgary --- > I mean, what's not to like? Except the Expos, which suck. Since I'm not a baseball fan, that isn't an issue. > [deletia] > > Noel -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:18:55 -0400 From: "Walter R. Strapps" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Noel wrote: > > "Walter R. Strapps" wrote in message news:<3B16B870.153FE7C3@sentigen.com>... > > Well, while we're at it, please state the broad consensus for what the > > US stands for.... Then ask yourself, no matter what your answer is : > > How broad do you think that consensus actually is about what the US > > stands for. > > > > The fact of the matter is that except for certain hot-button issues, > > there is just as much of a Canadian identity. You don't see it or know > > what it is? Guess what, I bet there are several million Americans who > > feel the same way about their country, does that make them right? > > ---Gosh darn it, Walt, you always bring out the > pugilist in me. Gosh darn it, then shouldn't you oppose what I say instead of agreeing with me? :) > > The U.S. has an ideologically-based nationalism. > So does Canada. The problem is that the ideologies > are pretty much identical, and so white-bread as to > be utterly uncontroversial. In a way, you could say > that every modern democracy has this "problem," but > in Canada it's become a complex, for two reasons. One, > (as Randy pointed out) the country is so diverse. More diverse than the US? But the US is the most diverse nation on earth!! I know it's true because people on Usenet always say it is :) Two, > it's right next to the United States, with a history > that has created an ingrained and slightly irrational > streak of anti-Americanism in the largest province. One could say that there is an ingrained and slightly irrational ignorance of Canada in the United States though, couldn't one? > > This leads to a rather intense desire to distinguish > Canada from the U.S. The countries are certainly > different --- but the silliest difference is how > many Canadians feel the need to scream how loudly > how different they are. Do you have any brothers? If so, do you enjoy it when people think you are your brother and constantly refer to you by your brother's name? Do you enjoy it when your brother simply treats you like a little version of himself while not bothering to try and understand that maybe you're a bit different and a distinct person? > > "My name is Joe, and I'm not American!" > > Some Canadians have tried to deal with complex by elevating > things like Medicare to the status of national icons. That's > the equivalent of an American saying that in order to be a > real American you need to support the death penalty. You know what? A lot of them would :) Flimsy > base for a national identity. > > I've seen you do that, Walt. Uh, I haven't used it as a basis for a 'national identity'. Perhaps you could provide a cite? What I have said it is that it is important to virtually all Canadians, but that's hardly the same thing, now, is it? > > Others, like Randy (at least that's the impression I get), > or 90 percent of the people I know in Alberta and B.C., are > perfectly happy with the "not the United States" definition. I'm sure that a lot of Americans would answer the exact reverse, meaning of course, that the US must have no national identity? > > I sure would be. Parliamentary government, more federalism, > no need to put up with the stupidity in Congress, more > immigration, better food -- well, except for Calgary --- > I mean, what's not to like? Except the Expos, which suck. Let's see, could it be that these things, rather then being 'different than the US' are the national identity of Canada?!?!??!? Wait, that's it!!! Maybe the US having a different form of governemnt, less federalism, no need to put up with a stupid Parliament, less immigration, fattier, richer foods ( I mean what's not to like? Except the Red Sox, which suck) just means that Americans are simply 'not Canadians'. :) You see what my point is? You define Canada by how it is different than the United States, but you don't define the United States as being different than Canada, and therein lies the rub. > > Canadian nationalism, like American nationalism, rests solely > on accepting democracy and the rule of law. Plus not bothering > with those idiots inside the Beltway. Unfortunately, too many > Canadians have a defensive streak about their country. Yeah, I wonder where that comes from? :) American - 'So Canadians don't really have a national identity, they're just like Americans. How is Canada *really* different from the US?' Canadian - 'Well, we have a different form of government, a Queen, a different system of law and federalism... American - ' SEE!!!, you can only define yourself as being different from Americans!!!! Canadian - 'Yeah, that was the question you asked.' So they > try to invent a "Canadianess" which makes no sense. At best, > they come up with the equivalent of a regional political culture > --- only being from New York, it doesn't sound all that different > from the one I grew up in. The U.S. ain't all Texas, y'know. > > Only plenty of Albertans sound like Texans with a Western New > York accent, so the invented political culture isn't one-size- > fits-all. But all Vermonters sound exactly like Texans, so obviously, the United States is just Canada writ large and lacks a national identity separate from Canada. This the leads to the peculiarly bitter tone of certain > political debates on this NG. (I mean you, Mike Cleven!) The > reason is that people (like Mike) seem to resent being made to > feel un-Canadian for holding certain political beliefs on > relatively minor issues. Of course, this doesn't happen in the United States, right? I mean no large political party would call someone who supported (say) universal health care un-Amercican would they? :) > > Being someone who lives in a country that only just adopted > electoral democracy and still has serious problems with the rule > of law, lemme tellya, ALL other issues are relatively minor. > > Or at least that's the view from a foreigner. > > If you have a sense of humor, I will reveal an awful line I > couldn't resist saying in a long customs line with a group > of Canadians. But you have to promise that you have a sense > of humor. I have a good sense of humo(u)r (:))) Hit me with it! Cheers, Walter R. Strapps > > Interesting WI, by the way, > > Noel Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:18:21 GMT From: Noel Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 In article <3B17EA9F.C1D5595E@sentigen.com>, Walter R. Strapps says... > > > >Noel wrote: >> >> "Walter R. Strapps" wrote in message news:<3B16B870.153FE7C3@sentigen.com>... >> > Well, while we're at it, please state the broad consensus for what the >> > US stands for.... Then ask yourself, no matter what your answer is : >> > How broad do you think that consensus actually is about what the US >> > stands for. >> > >> > The fact of the matter is that except for certain hot-button issues, >> > there is just as much of a Canadian identity. You don't see it or know >> > what it is? Guess what, I bet there are several million Americans who >> > feel the same way about their country, does that make them right? >> >> ---Gosh darn it, Walt, you always bring out the >> pugilist in me. > >Gosh darn it, then shouldn't you oppose what I say instead of agreeing >with me? :) ---Man, that's good to know! These damn arguments, they go so tiring after a while... :) >> >> The U.S. has an ideologically-based nationalism. >> So does Canada. The problem is that the ideologies >> are pretty much identical, and so white-bread as to >> be utterly uncontroversial. In a way, you could say >> that every modern democracy has this "problem," but >> in Canada it's become a complex, for two reasons. One, >> (as Randy pointed out) the country is so diverse. > >More diverse than the US? But the US is the most diverse nation on >earth!! I know it's true because people on Usenet always say it is :) ---More agreement. This is rather annoying, when I was trying to pick a fight. > Two, >> it's right next to the United States, with a history >> that has created an ingrained and slightly irrational >> streak of anti-Americanism in the largest province. > >One could say that there is an ingrained and slightly irrational >ignorance of Canada in the United States though, couldn't one? ---Okay, a point of disagreement! There's an ingrained ignorance of Texas in most the of U.S. too. It's the problem of being a small country next to a big one. It's not irrational for me not to know much about Texas or Mexico if I don't live there or interact much with it. Hey, a Canadian could know zip about the U.S. of A. and still be rational. >> This leads to a rather intense desire to distinguish >> Canada from the U.S. The countries are certainly >> different --- but the silliest difference is how >> many Canadians feel the need to scream how loudly >> how different they are. > >Do you have any brothers? If so, do you enjoy it when people think you >are your brother and constantly refer to you by your brother's name? Do >you enjoy it when your brother simply treats you like a little version >of himself while not bothering to try and understand that maybe you're a >bit different and a distinct person? ---Youngest of three, actually. At the risk of provoking disagreement where there isn't any ... it's just strange how sensitive (some) Canadians are about the differences. People are different every- where (that's your point), political jurisdictions are also different everywhere, all true ... and in 99% of the things that matter there just aren't all that many differences between Canada and the U.S. of A. anymore. >> "My name is Joe, and I'm not American!" >> >> Some Canadians have tried to deal with complex by elevating >> things like Medicare to the status of national icons. That's >> the equivalent of an American saying that in order to be a >> real American you need to support the death penalty. > >You know what? A lot of them would :) ---Not in New England, New York, the West Coast, or most of the Midwest. So to be a real SOUTHERNER, yeah, then you gotta support the death penalty. :) But those people are weird, and thank God they didn't get their own country. Just not normal, like us Yankees and Canucks. >> Others, like Randy (at least that's the impression I get), >> or 90 percent of the people I know in Alberta and B.C., are >> perfectly happy with the "not the United States" definition. > >I'm sure that a lot of Americans would answer the exact reverse, meaning >of course, that the US must have no national identity? ---Hey, if we ever thought about Canada, we would. Joke. Joke. Seriously, let me make my point with an anecdote. While I was in Alberta, I read a column in the Globe and Mail that was incredibly steamed up that the U.S. devoted way more time and energy to Mexico than to Canada. This was the silliest thing I'd read in a while. After all, the only bad things to come out of Canada are cold fronts and Celine Dion. But this columnists had this strange hunger for recognition, this weird need for approval from the older brother. Most of the Albertans I know --- biased sample, because they're my friends --- thought this was a silly as I did, but it shows a streak you see through- out Canada. >> I sure would be. Parliamentary government, more federalism, >> no need to put up with the stupidity in Congress, more >> immigration, better food -- well, except for Calgary --- >> I mean, what's not to like? Except the Expos, which suck. > >Let's see, could it be that these things, rather then being 'different >than the US' are the national identity of Canada?!?!??!? Wait, that's >it!!! Maybe the US having a different form of governemnt, less >federalism, no need to put up with a stupid Parliament, less >immigration, fattier, richer foods ( I mean what's not to like? Except >the Red Sox, which suck) just means that Americans are simply 'not >Canadians'. :) You see what my point is? You define Canada by how it >is different than the United States, but you don't define the United >States as being different than Canada, and therein lies the rub. ---Hey, man, I'm from New York. Of course the Red Sox suck. You just made a friend, dude. But I agree with you entirely here. Americans are just not- Canadians. That's the point. With most things that matter, the countries are identical. Since Canada is smaller, and the War of 1812 forgotten, most Americans don't even think about it. When we do think of Canadians, we (rightfully, I believe) instinctively think of it as another bunch of regional cultures not that much different from the ones at home. (Those of us who have been to the Maritimes have, of course, been disabused of that notion ... but it holds from Ontario on west.) We agree! I have only two points. One, on the things that matter, the national cultures are pretty close to indistinguishable, with less variation between them than exists within the two countries. (Canada having more internal variation than the U.S., of course. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet...) And two, Canadians are defensive about their non-Americaness, while Americans don't are about their non-Canadianess. That, while understandable, is still silly. Canadians shouldn't care either. Living in Mexico makes this clearer. When I hang out with Brad and Saki, it doesn't really matter that Brad's from B.C., Saki's from Montreal, or that I'm from New York. What really matters is that Saki and I are ethnic types from big Eastern cities while Brad's just one of those crazy white people from out West. What binds us is that we all dislike Ujjal Dosanjh, Lucien Bouchard, and Pete Wilson. You expected me to say that the U.S.-Canada differences seem really small when you're in Mexico, right? That too. Our agreement is becoming really scary here, Walt. Okay. >> Canadian nationalism, like American nationalism, rests solely >> on accepting democracy and the rule of law. Plus not bothering >> with those idiots inside the Beltway. Unfortunately, too many >> Canadians have a defensive streak about their country. > >Yeah, I wonder where that comes from? :) ---Hey, my ancestors were in Spain and Russia when that little dust-up took place. Not my fault! There was a pretty interesting WI No War of 1812 thread, the jist of which seemed to be that without that Canadians would be more relaxed towards this whole issue. >American - 'So Canadians don't really have a national identity, they're >just like Americans. How is Canada *really* different from the US?' > >Canadian - 'Well, we have a different form of government, a Queen, a >different system of law and federalism... > >American - ' SEE!!!, you can only define yourself as being different >from Americans!!!! > >Canadian - 'Yeah, that was the question you asked.' ---Nicely put! > So they >> try to invent a "Canadianess" which makes no sense. At best, >> they come up with the equivalent of a regional political culture >> --- only being from New York, it doesn't sound all that different >> from the one I grew up in. The U.S. ain't all Texas, y'know. >> >> Only plenty of Albertans sound like Texans with a Western New >> York accent, so the invented political culture isn't one-size- >> fits-all. > >But all Vermonters sound exactly like Texans, so obviously, the United >States is just Canada writ large and lacks a national identity separate >from Canada. ---Damn, we do agree completely! Maybe we should just merge and get it over with. If you agree to dump the notwithstanding clause and go with an elected Senate that can block the P.M.'s legislative initiatives but plays no role in electing him or her, I'll go with your constitution over ours. After all, the new provinces could opt out of Medicare and U.I., and AFAIK guns and spelling are provincial issues, right? I won't accept your flag, either. Looks too much like a corporate logo. :) Maybe if you'd gone with the blue stripes instead of the red ones... > This the leads to the peculiarly bitter tone of certain >> political debates on this NG. (I mean you, Mike Cleven!) The >> reason is that people (like Mike) seem to resent being made to >> feel un-Canadian for holding certain political beliefs on >> relatively minor issues. > >Of course, this doesn't happen in the United States, right? I mean no >large political party would call someone who supported (say) universal >health care un-Amercican would they? :) ---Damn Communists. >> Being someone who lives in a country that only just adopted >> electoral democracy and still has serious problems with the rule >> of law, lemme tellya, ALL other issues are relatively minor. >> >> Or at least that's the view from a foreigner. >> >> If you have a sense of humor, I will reveal an awful line I >> couldn't resist saying in a long customs line with a group >> of Canadians. But you have to promise that you have a sense >> of humor. > >I have a good sense of humo(u)r (:))) Hit me with it! ---Okay, you asked. I'm standing in a long customs line at the Mexico City airport with a bunch of American business people. We've been drinking during the whole flight from Detroit, so we're all being very loud, making bad jokes, I'm sure you've seen this phenomenon. Ahead of us in the snaky, but stationary, line are a bunch of Canadian tourists. And like Canadian tourists everywhere, they've stapled the Maple Leaf to every garment, bag, and item in their possession. I swear one of 'em had it tattooed on their forehead. Well, one of us, after four hours of pounding tequila shots in a low-pressure enviroment, turns and asks 'em, "Hey, why do you guys put the flag on all your clothes?" The young Canadian fella he asked this gave the predictable response: "Well, we don't want to be mistaken for Americans." To which I, with the typical diplomacy and intercultural grace for which New Yorkers are noted around the world, responded: "Yeah, that would be a hard image to live up to!" To their credit, the Canadians laughed. Best, Noel Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:58:12 -0400 From: "Walter R. Strapps" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Noel wrote: > > In article <3B17EA9F.C1D5595E@sentigen.com>, Walter R. Strapps says... > > > > > > > >Noel wrote: > >> > >> "Walter R. Strapps" wrote in message news:<3B16B870.153FE7C3@sentigen.com>... > >> > Well, while we're at it, please state the broad consensus for what the > >> > US stands for.... Then ask yourself, no matter what your answer is : > >> > How broad do you think that consensus actually is about what the US > >> > stands for. > >> > > >> > The fact of the matter is that except for certain hot-button issues, > >> > there is just as much of a Canadian identity. You don't see it or know > >> > what it is? Guess what, I bet there are several million Americans who > >> > feel the same way about their country, does that make them right? > >> > >> ---Gosh darn it, Walt, you always bring out the > >> pugilist in me. > > > >Gosh darn it, then shouldn't you oppose what I say instead of agreeing > >with me? :) > > ---Man, that's good to know! These damn arguments, > they go so tiring after a while... :) Thick skins, thin skins, it varies from day to day. Though since I finished grad school, I'm a whole lot more relaxed :). > > >> > >> The U.S. has an ideologically-based nationalism. > >> So does Canada. The problem is that the ideologies > >> are pretty much identical, and so white-bread as to > >> be utterly uncontroversial. In a way, you could say > >> that every modern democracy has this "problem," but > >> in Canada it's become a complex, for two reasons. One, > >> (as Randy pointed out) the country is so diverse. > > > >More diverse than the US? But the US is the most diverse nation on > >earth!! I know it's true because people on Usenet always say it is :) > > ---More agreement. This is rather annoying, when I > was trying to pick a fight. Ah-hah!! See, I didn't even rise to the bait. Three months ago, I would have and this would have turned into a long tedious thread of American-bashing/Canadian-bashing, but now it's just a freakin' love-in :). > > > Two, > >> it's right next to the United States, with a history > >> that has created an ingrained and slightly irrational > >> streak of anti-Americanism in the largest province. > > > >One could say that there is an ingrained and slightly irrational > >ignorance of Canada in the United States though, couldn't one? > > ---Okay, a point of disagreement! There's an ingrained > ignorance of Texas in most the of U.S. too. It's the > problem of being a small country next to a big one. It's > not irrational for me not to know much about Texas or > Mexico if I don't live there or interact much with it. > > Hey, a Canadian could know zip about the U.S. of A. and > still be rational. I know that was just a little dig, largest trading partner and all that. > > >> This leads to a rather intense desire to distinguish > >> Canada from the U.S. The countries are certainly > >> different --- but the silliest difference is how > >> many Canadians feel the need to scream how loudly > >> how different they are. > > > >Do you have any brothers? If so, do you enjoy it when people think you > >are your brother and constantly refer to you by your brother's name? Do > >you enjoy it when your brother simply treats you like a little version > >of himself while not bothering to try and understand that maybe you're a > >bit different and a distinct person? > > ---Youngest of three, actually. > > At the risk of provoking disagreement where there isn't > any ... it's just strange how sensitive (some) Canadians > are about the differences. Well, some people just get fed up being called their brother's name and after a certain point you get really pissed about it. That's the middle phase of course, the last phase being 'Whatever, I'm too tired to go through this again.' :) People are different every- > where (that's your point), political jurisdictions are > also different everywhere, all true ... and in 99% of > the things that matter there just aren't all that many > differences between Canada and the U.S. of A. anymore. > > >> "My name is Joe, and I'm not American!" > >> > >> Some Canadians have tried to deal with complex by elevating > >> things like Medicare to the status of national icons. That's > >> the equivalent of an American saying that in order to be a > >> real American you need to support the death penalty. > > > >You know what? A lot of them would :) > > ---Not in New England, New York, the West Coast, or most > of the Midwest. So to be a real SOUTHERNER, yeah, then > you gotta support the death penalty. :) > > But those people are weird, and thank God they didn't get > their own country. Just not normal, like us Yankees and > Canucks. Everyone is normal compared to Southerners (just kidding Southerners, you know I mean Texans) :) > > >> Others, like Randy (at least that's the impression I get), > >> or 90 percent of the people I know in Alberta and B.C., are > >> perfectly happy with the "not the United States" definition. > > > >I'm sure that a lot of Americans would answer the exact reverse, meaning > >of course, that the US must have no national identity? > > ---Hey, if we ever thought about Canada, we would. > > Joke. Joke. > > Seriously, let me make my point with an anecdote. While > I was in Alberta, I read a column in the Globe and Mail > that was incredibly steamed up that the U.S. devoted way > more time and energy to Mexico than to Canada. This was > the silliest thing I'd read in a while. Well, I can understand the impulse, I mean we are the largest trading partner, but of course, since for the most part things chug along pretty smoothly, it's really not something to get upset about. But I have to tell you, it's weird to hear about the Mexico-US NAFTA agreement on the radio in the US... After all, the > only bad things to come out of Canada are cold fronts and > Celine Dion. Well that's another thing. The cold fronts *don't* come out of Canada!! Look at a map of the jetstream... for recognition, this weird need for approval from the > older brother. Most of the Albertans I know --- biased > sample, because they're my friends --- thought this was > a silly as I did, but it shows a streak you see through- > out Canada. If it wasn't written in at least a sort of tongue-in-cheek way it is rather ridiculous. Of course, if it was written because a particular issue was being heavily debated, with some case pending before the adjudication board with billions at stake and the Americans were talking about rufis being smuggled across the Mexcican/US border, that's another thing. However, I strongly suspect it was just some guy with a burr up his arse. :) > > >> I sure would be. Parliamentary government, more federalism, > >> no need to put up with the stupidity in Congress, more > >> immigration, better food -- well, except for Calgary --- > >> I mean, what's not to like? Except the Expos, which suck. > > > >Let's see, could it be that these things, rather then being 'different > >than the US' are the national identity of Canada?!?!??!? Wait, that's > >it!!! Maybe the US having a different form of governemnt, less > >federalism, no need to put up with a stupid Parliament, less > >immigration, fattier, richer foods ( I mean what's not to like? Except > >the Red Sox, which suck) just means that Americans are simply 'not > >Canadians'. :) You see what my point is? You define Canada by how it > >is different than the United States, but you don't define the United > >States as being different than Canada, and therein lies the rub. > > ---Hey, man, I'm from New York. Of course the Red Sox suck. > You just made a friend, dude. Well, I wasn't really going out on a limb there.... > > But I agree with you entirely here. Americans are just not- > Canadians. That's the point. With most things that matter, > the countries are identical. Since Canada is smaller, and > the War of 1812 forgotten, most Americans don't even think > about it. When we do think of Canadians, we (rightfully, I > believe) instinctively think of it as another bunch of regional > cultures not that much different from the ones at home. (Those > of us who have been to the Maritimes have, of course, been > disabused of that notion ... but it holds from Ontario on west.) Great, so the original poster was wrong. That was exactly my point. > > We agree! I have only two points. One, on the things that > matter, the national cultures are pretty close to indistinguishable, > with less variation between them than exists within the two countries. > (Canada having more internal variation than the U.S., of course. Don't > believe everything you read on the Internet...) Well, don't know if the variation thing is exactly true. I think that there's about the same bell curve, just shifted to the right in the US. And two, Canadians are > defensive about their non-Americaness, while Americans don't are about > their non-Canadianess. That, while understandable, is still silly. > Canadians shouldn't care either. Well, we wouldn't if we weren't complimented on our ability to speak English :). > > Living in Mexico makes this clearer. When I hang out with Brad > and Saki, it doesn't really matter that Brad's from B.C., Saki's > from Montreal, or that I'm from New York. What really matters > is that Saki and I are ethnic types from big Eastern cities > while Brad's just one of those crazy white people from out > West. What binds us is that we all dislike Ujjal Dosanjh, > Lucien Bouchard, and Pete Wilson. > > You expected me to say that the U.S.-Canada differences seem > really small when you're in Mexico, right? That too. Yeah, the differences seem bigger when you're in either of the two countries themselves though, especially when you're in the one that you're not a citizen of. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I mean, I don't think you know how weird it is not to be able to go the doctor without even thinking about it. It's the little things I guess. > > Our agreement is becoming really scary here, Walt. Okay. > > >> Canadian nationalism, like American nationalism, rests solely > >> on accepting democracy and the rule of law. Plus not bothering > >> with those idiots inside the Beltway. Unfortunately, too many > >> Canadians have a defensive streak about their country. > > > >Yeah, I wonder where that comes from? :) > > ---Hey, my ancestors were in Spain and Russia when > that little dust-up took place. Not my fault! Sure, sure, I *know* you were in on it!! :) > > There was a pretty interesting WI No War of 1812 > thread, the jist of which seemed to be that without > that Canadians would be more relaxed towards this > whole issue. Yep, so that, don't know that I fully agree with it, I'm sure we'd find something else... :) > > >American - 'So Canadians don't really have a national identity, they're > >just like Americans. How is Canada *really* different from the US?' > > > >Canadian - 'Well, we have a different form of government, a Queen, a > >different system of law and federalism... > > > >American - ' SEE!!!, you can only define yourself as being different > >from Americans!!!! > > > >Canadian - 'Yeah, that was the question you asked.' > > ---Nicely put! Been through it *way* too many times. > > > So they > >> try to invent a "Canadianess" which makes no sense. At best, > >> they come up with the equivalent of a regional political culture > >> --- only being from New York, it doesn't sound all that different > >> from the one I grew up in. The U.S. ain't all Texas, y'know. > >> > >> Only plenty of Albertans sound like Texans with a Western New > >> York accent, so the invented political culture isn't one-size- > >> fits-all. > > > >But all Vermonters sound exactly like Texans, so obviously, the United > >States is just Canada writ large and lacks a national identity separate > >from Canada. > > ---Damn, we do agree completely! Maybe we should just > merge and get it over with. If you agree to dump the > notwithstanding clause Hmmm, I bet a fair number of states would be *very* happy with that clause. and go with an elected Senate > that can block the P.M.'s legislative initiatives but > plays no role in electing him or her, I'll go with your > constitution over ours. Other than I think that the parliament should approve new senators (like Federal judges in the US) for a 10 year term so that there is no direct election of them, I'd agree. After all, the new provinces > could opt out of Medicare and U.I., and AFAIK guns and > spelling are provincial issues, right? > > I won't accept your flag, either. Looks too much like > a corporate logo. :) Maybe if you'd gone with the blue > stripes instead of the red ones... > See that's the thing. The maple leaf makes my heart jump a little when I see it, and I get a lump in my chest when the anthem starts playing, so I can't give it up :) > > This the leads to the peculiarly bitter tone of certain > >> political debates on this NG. (I mean you, Mike Cleven!) The > >> reason is that people (like Mike) seem to resent being made to > >> feel un-Canadian for holding certain political beliefs on > >> relatively minor issues. > > > >Of course, this doesn't happen in the United States, right? I mean no > >large political party would call someone who supported (say) universal > >health care un-Amercican would they? :) > > ---Damn Communists. See :) > > >> Being someone who lives in a country that only just adopted > >> electoral democracy and still has serious problems with the rule > >> of law, lemme tellya, ALL other issues are relatively minor. > >> > >> Or at least that's the view from a foreigner. > >> > >> If you have a sense of humor, I will reveal an awful line I > >> couldn't resist saying in a long customs line with a group > >> of Canadians. But you have to promise that you have a sense > >> of humor. > > > >I have a good sense of humo(u)r (:))) Hit me with it! > > ---Okay, you asked. I'm standing in a long customs line > at the Mexico City airport with a bunch of American business > people. We've been drinking during the whole flight from > Detroit, so we're all being very loud, making bad jokes, > I'm sure you've seen this phenomenon. Ahead of us in the > snaky, but stationary, line are a bunch of Canadian tourists. > And like Canadian tourists everywhere, they've stapled the > Maple Leaf to every garment, bag, and item in their possession. > I swear one of 'em had it tattooed on their forehead. I doubt it, but if they had been former members of the national swimming team, they probably had one on their left chest. The fact is though, it's a lot safer to be a Canadian than an American in some parts of the world. (THAT'S it, THAT'S our national identity!! 'Canadians, not likely to be targeted by international terrorists!') > > Well, one of us, after four hours of pounding tequila shots > in a low-pressure enviroment, turns and asks 'em, "Hey, why > do you guys put the flag on all your clothes?" The young > Canadian fella he asked this gave the predictable response: > "Well, we don't want to be mistaken for Americans." To which > I, with the typical diplomacy and intercultural grace for > which New Yorkers are noted around the world, responded: > "Yeah, that would be a hard image to live up to!" > > To their credit, the Canadians laughed. Oh, I assure I would have to, and then come back with a wisecrack of my own (For Example, if indeed you were being as loud and obnoxious as you describe I would have said "Of course, we needn't have worried." :) I think that if people can't laugh at themselves they're going to have a long, painful life :) Cheers, Walter R. Strapps Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 5 Jun 2001 11:26:04 -0700 From: res05k58@gte.net (David Walker) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 > After all, the > > only bad things to come out of Canada are cold fronts and > > Celine Dion. > > Well that's another thing. The cold fronts *don't* come out of Canada!! > Look at a map of the jetstream... Cold Fronts rather regularly drop out of Canada in the Winter. They don't call those storms 'Alberta Clippers' because they originated in the Western Pacific... Its because the barrel down out of Canada. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:00:33 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 David Walker wrote: > > > After all, the > > > only bad things to come out of Canada are cold fronts and > > > Celine Dion. > > > > Well that's another thing. The cold fronts *don't* come out of Canada!! > > Look at a map of the jetstream... > > > Cold Fronts rather regularly drop out of Canada in the Winter. They > don't call those storms 'Alberta Clippers' because they originated in > the Western Pacific... Its because the barrel down out of Canada. Arctic winds blowing into the US out of Canada wouldn't come off the Western Pacific, which provides moist, warm air rather than dry and cold ones; typically after crossing the Rockies these warm winds enter the Plains/Prairies as the famous "snow eater" Chinook wind. They are also generlaly more westerlies than northerlies; the one set of Pacific winds that are northeasterlies when hitting North America are the big Gulf of Alaska storms which make coastal BC even wetter than the "Pineapple Express" winds aforementioned; but they're not exactly Arctic either. Arctic winds (and highs) are very dry, very cold, and come out of the High North; we get them out here in BC, too, and they either come down the Plateau from the Yukon or cross the Rockies from the _real_ cold country on the other side. When these hit the Western Pacific airmass in BC/the Northwest, this causes huge snowfalls from the combination of Arctic cold and Pacific humidity. The Jet Stream influences them but IIRC the Jet Stream is a high-altitude airstream that only shapes the weather below it, not takes direct part in it. MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:27:32 GMT From: Mike Cleven Organization: Iron Mountain Creative Systems Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Noel wrote: > > In article <3B17EA9F.C1D5595E@sentigen.com>, Walter R. Strapps says... > > > > > > > > >Do you have any brothers? If so, do you enjoy it when people think you > >are your brother and constantly refer to you by your brother's name? Do > >you enjoy it when your brother simply treats you like a little version > >of himself while not bothering to try and understand that maybe you're a > >bit different and a distinct person? > > ---Youngest of three, actually. [sort of x-rated]: I knew a guy who shared a place with his younger brother for a while; they were both sexually active/overt to the point of occasionally sharing now and then. But one thing the younger one couldn't quite get over was his girlfriend referring to his equipment by his older brother's name.... MC Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 01 Jun 2001 20:37:06 GMT From: congyoglas@aol.comgentboss (President Chester A. Arthur) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity >From: Noel nospam@newsranger.com >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 3:18 PM >Message-id: > > (Those >of us who have been to the Maritimes have, of course, been >disabused of that notion ... but it holds from Ontario on west.) Actually, Maritime Canada _really_ reminded me of western North Carolina. President Chester A. Arthur, the anti-Rutherford Hayes Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:02:00 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in message news:20010601163706.19040.00000319@ng-fi1.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity > >From: Noel nospam@newsranger.com > >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 3:18 PM > >Message-id: > > > > (Those > >of us who have been to the Maritimes have, of course, been > >disabused of that notion ... but it holds from Ontario on west.) > > Actually, Maritime Canada _really_ reminded me of western North Carolina. Your saying i remind you of a coralinian? -- --- a. pagan fire dancing b. gay sexual inuendo c. poutine d. freakish personal grooming e. obsession with conquering new england f. bizarre plots to rebuild ancient rome Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 01 Jun 2001 22:13:27 GMT From: congyoglas@aol.comgentboss (President Chester A. Arthur) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity >From: "Allan Mac Donald" Allan001@ns.sympatico.ca >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 5:02 PM >Message-id: > >"President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in message >news:20010601163706.19040.00000319@ng-fi1.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity >> >From: Noel nospam@newsranger.com >> >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 3:18 PM >> >Message-id: >> > >> > (Those >> >of us who have been to the Maritimes have, of course, been >> >disabused of that notion ... but it holds from Ontario on west.) >> >> Actually, Maritime Canada _really_ reminded me of western North Carolina. > >Your saying i remind you of a coralinian? I think it was something along the lines of: Scotch-Irish population in a historically less than prosperous area, relatively remote area. Convergent evolution and all that. President Chester A. Arthur, the anti-Rutherford Hayes Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:31:36 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in message news:20010601181327.12015.00000629@ng-fc1.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity > >From: "Allan Mac Donald" Allan001@ns.sympatico.ca > >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 5:02 PM > >Message-id: > > > >"President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in message > >news:20010601163706.19040.00000319@ng-fi1.aol.com... > >> >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity > >> >From: Noel nospam@newsranger.com > >> >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 3:18 PM > >> >Message-id: > >> > > >> > (Those > >> >of us who have been to the Maritimes have, of course, been > >> >disabused of that notion ... but it holds from Ontario on west.) > >> > >> Actually, Maritime Canada _really_ reminded me of western North Carolina. > > > >Your saying i remind you of a coralinian? > > I think it was something along the lines of: > > Scotch-Irish population in a historically less than prosperous area, relatively > remote area. > > Convergent evolution and all that. Im gonna have to go to that corolina place some day -- --- a. pagan fire dancing b. gay sexual inuendo c. poutine d. freakish personal grooming e. obsession with conquering new england f. bizarre plots to rebuild ancient rome Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 01 Jun 2001 22:36:33 GMT From: congyoglas@aol.comgentboss (President Chester A. Arthur) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity >From: "Allan Mac Donald" Allan001@ns.sympatico.ca >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 5:31 PM >Message-id: > >"President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in message >news:20010601181327.12015.00000629@ng-fc1.aol.com... >> >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity >> >From: "Allan Mac Donald" Allan001@ns.sympatico.ca >> >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 5:02 PM >> >Message-id: >> > >> >"President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in >message >> >news:20010601163706.19040.00000319@ng-fi1.aol.com... >> >> >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity >> >> >From: Noel nospam@newsranger.com >> >> >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 3:18 PM >> >> >Message-id: >> >> > >> >> > (Those >> >> >of us who have been to the Maritimes have, of course, been >> >> >disabused of that notion ... but it holds from Ontario on west.) >> >> >> >> Actually, Maritime Canada _really_ reminded me of western North >Carolina. >> > >> >Your saying i remind you of a coralinian? >> >> I think it was something along the lines of: >> >> Scotch-Irish population in a historically less than prosperous area, >relatively >> remote area. >> >> Convergent evolution and all that. > >Im gonna have to go to that corolina place some day And it's Carolina President Chester A. Arthur, the anti-Rutherford Hayes Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:59:52 GMT From: "Allan Mac Donald" Organization: MPowered-Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in message news:20010601183633.14764.00004449@ng-md1.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity > >From: "Allan Mac Donald" Allan001@ns.sympatico.ca > >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 5:31 PM > >Message-id: > > > >"President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in message > >news:20010601181327.12015.00000629@ng-fc1.aol.com... > >> >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity > >> >From: "Allan Mac Donald" Allan001@ns.sympatico.ca > >> >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 5:02 PM > >> >Message-id: > >> > > >> >"President Chester A. Arthur" wrote in > >message > >> >news:20010601163706.19040.00000319@ng-fi1.aol.com... > >> >> >Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity > >> >> >From: Noel nospam@newsranger.com > >> >> >Date: Fri, Jun 1, 2001 3:18 PM > >> >> >Message-id: > >> >> > > >> >> > (Those > >> >> >of us who have been to the Maritimes have, of course, been > >> >> >disabused of that notion ... but it holds from Ontario on west.) > >> >> > >> >> Actually, Maritime Canada _really_ reminded me of western North > >Carolina. > >> > > >> >Your saying i remind you of a coralinian? > >> > >> I think it was something along the lines of: > >> > >> Scotch-Irish population in a historically less than prosperous area, > >relatively > >> remote area. > >> > >> Convergent evolution and all that. > > > >Im gonna have to go to that corolina place some day > > And it's Carolina You people have entirely too many states.. ;-) -- --- a. pagan fire dancing b. gay sexual inuendo c. poutine d. freakish personal grooming e. obsession with conquering new england f. bizarre plots to rebuild ancient rome Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 22:13:01 GMT From: Noel Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 In article <3B1801E4.95C08059@sentigen.com>, Walter R. Strapps says... >I doubt it, but if they had been former members of the national swimming >team, they probably had one on their left chest. The fact is though, >it's a lot safer to be a Canadian than an American in some parts of the >world. (THAT'S it, THAT'S our national identity!! 'Canadians, not >likely to be targeted by international terrorists!') ---Oh, man, I busted a gut here. Noel Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:53:09 GMT From: genew@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 Noel wrote: >In article <3B1801E4.95C08059@sentigen.com>, Walter R. Strapps says... > >>I doubt it, but if they had been former members of the national swimming >>team, they probably had one on their left chest. The fact is though, >>it's a lot safer to be a Canadian than an American in some parts of the >>world. (THAT'S it, THAT'S our national identity!! 'Canadians, not >>likely to be targeted by international terrorists!') > >---Oh, man, I busted a gut here. It's more than that. It's a conspiracy. There has been newspaper coverage about how it's supposedly easy for crims to get into Canada. In exchange, we . . . The biggest difference between us Canadians and the USians is that we're a quieter, politer version. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:09:47 -0400 From: "Walter R. Strapps" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > Noel wrote: > > >In article <3B1801E4.95C08059@sentigen.com>, Walter R. Strapps says... > > > >>I doubt it, but if they had been former members of the national swimming > >>team, they probably had one on their left chest. The fact is though, > >>it's a lot safer to be a Canadian than an American in some parts of the > >>world. (THAT'S it, THAT'S our national identity!! 'Canadians, not > >>likely to be targeted by international terrorists!') > > > >---Oh, man, I busted a gut here. > > It's more than that. It's a conspiracy. There has been > newspaper coverage about how it's supposedly easy for crims to get > into Canada. In exchange, we . . . > > The biggest difference between us Canadians and the USians is > that we're a quieter, politer version. > And, apparently, more libertarian... bud. :) Cheers, Walter R. Strapps > Sincerely, > > Gene Wirchenko > > Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: > I have preferences. > You have biases. > He/She has prejudices. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:08:07 -0400 From: "Walter R. Strapps" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 Noel wrote: > > In article <3B1801E4.95C08059@sentigen.com>, Walter R. Strapps says... > > >I doubt it, but if they had been former members of the national swimming > >team, they probably had one on their left chest. The fact is though, > >it's a lot safer to be a Canadian than an American in some parts of the > >world. (THAT'S it, THAT'S our national identity!! 'Canadians, not > >likely to be targeted by international terrorists!') > > ---Oh, man, I busted a gut here. Told ya I had a sense of humour :) Cheers, Walter R. Strapps > > Noel Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:33:30 -0400 From: "Walter R. Strapps" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 To be clear the previous post was intended to be addressed to the original poster, not to Allan. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:31:22 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 k312 wrote: > > [deletia] > > So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result > in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), > Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??), and the rest have a single vision of > what their country is? Or, put another way, was there any possible > set of decisions that Canadian laeders could have taken that would > have resulted in a unified Canadian National Identity, from the > Saguenay to the Okanagan? > > Alternatively, is a Canadian National Identity and ASB proposition? > > [deletia] One that everyone would agree upon, regardless of ethnic background or linguistic preferences or regional history? Yes. Canada is -- and was -- simply too diverse for any such arrangement to come into being. -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PE Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: 1 Jun 2001 00:29:49 -0700 From: kevrob@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Randy McDonald wrote in message news:<3B16FE7A.791A@isn.net>... > k312 wrote: > > > > [deletia] > > > > So the challenge is this: is there a post 1867 POD that would result > > in Randy Macdonald (PEI), Mike Cleven (BC), Blaine Manyluk (Alberta), > > Allan Macdonald (Cape Breton??), and the rest have a single vision of > > what their country is? Or, put another way, was there any possible > > set of decisions that Canadian laeders could have taken that would > > have resulted in a unified Canadian National Identity, from the > > Saguenay to the Okanagan? > > Here's a dystopian POD: During the early days of the U.S.A., it was never a certainty that the new republic would survive as one nation, be reabsorbed by the British Empire, fracture into Eastern, Southern & Western confederacies. The War of 1812 could have gone worse for the States than it did, a "Burr conspiracy" or other filibuster could have split Louisiana from the U.S., as Texas was hived from Mexico, and, of course, the War Between the States could have ended in C.S.A. independence. Suppose that President Madison could not keep the New England States in the Union, by peaceful means, after the Hartford convention. If and when peace with Britain was concluded, the U.S. would be more under the sway of The Slave Power than it was in OTL. Imagine a Reconstruction of the New England States, the Constitution amended to guarantee the protection of human property in all states, the repeal of the 3/5 compromise, resulting in greater representation of the Slave States in the House of Representatives. The U.S.A., from sea-to-sea, and border-to-border, becomes a Slaver's republic, as abolitionism is strangled in its cradle. The U.K. outlaws slavery everywhere in the Empire (in OTL, India excluded, in 1833.) The enemy who had lately humiliated the U.S. even claims the right to stop U.S. ships suspected of continuing the slave trade. Fugitive slaves try to make it to Canada or other British territory. (Interesting if the U.K. holds onto one or both Floridas in this TL.) Abolitionist New Englanders might even emigrate to Canada as the Loyalists after 1781 did. Imagine William Lloyd Garrison, living in exile in Toronto or Halifax orr Niagra Falls, trying to smuggle copies of the relocated Liberator into New York State. So, the distinguishing mark of "Canadianism" in this scenario is opposition to human slavery. With an aggrieved U.S. that has settled the slavery question in the worst way sitting on their Southern border, the several Provinces of British North America may even confederate sooner than they would have in OTL. "Manifest Destiny", tinged with revanchism, along with slave-catchers crossing international borders should do the trick. Kevin Robinson Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Canadian National Identity Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 17:30:37 +0300 From: Jon Ivars Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 1 Jun 2001, Kevin Robinson wrote: > Randy McDonald wrote in message news:<3B16FE7A.791A@isn.net>... > So, the distinguishing mark of "Canadianism" in this scenario is > opposition to human slavery. With an aggrieved U.S. that has settled > the slavery question in the worst way sitting on their Southern border, > the several Provinces of British North America may even confederate > sooner than they would have in OTL. "Manifest Destiny", tinged with > revanchism, along with slave-catchers crossing international borders > should do the trick. Basically there will be another war in the 1830's, then perhaps yet another war a couple decades later unless Britain gets a bit flexible with its attitudes against the slavery trade. -- Jon Ivars Visit my webpages at http://www.abo.fi/~jivars/ "When I am right, I get angry. Churchill gets angry when he is wrong. So we were often angry at each other." De Gaulle