This topic has come up so many times over the years that I am becoming anti-topic. just wish the people starting these threads would admit they hate all Americans and get over it.:roll:
Are Canadians anti-American?
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
Absolutely, it's all a matter of perception.
Why would anyone that's anti-American VISIT the States? :roll:
Ten years huh? Strange since I have only been posting online for less than three. No you're not all biggots and terrorist lovers, just the fringe left lot of you is all. :lol:
This one bares repeating. :smile:
I've been on 5 American forums and have never see any "Are you Anti Canadian" threads. just something to consider there,eh?
ITN
I am sorry - I think Juan has mixed us up (to your detriment)...I am the ten year survivor of the Juan speechifying and retorical judging of the United States - not you.
Three years of being exposed to it, does not lessen your credibility ITN - only Juan's who has yet to consider his tirade borders on, or perhaps is, in fact: bigotry.
I am sorry - I think Juan has mixed us up (to your detriment)...I am the ten year survivor of the Juan speechifying and retorical judging of the United States - not you.
Three years of being exposed to it, does not lessen your credibility ITN - only Juan's who has yet to consider his tirade borders on, or perhaps is, in fact: bigotry.
Missile:
You could not have put it more honestly and succinctly!
I dislike to see any good forum descend into the muck of this crap.
Thank you!
Bah, I hate this dog gamned topic. It comes up so often.
The inherent problem with anti-Americanism is that theres no common definition, often what one person means is not what another means by anti-Americanism. Being anti-anything first off usually means there is some baggage someone is carrying with themselves.
If you want the broadest definition, that is anti-Americanism is being against anything American, then no, Canadians are not predominantly anti-American. How could we be? We watch American television, we purchase American products. The commonalities are there between the two countries.
It's in the minor details, that minutia where we find disagreement. It only takes one loud mouthed fool to ramp up some other forms of anti-Americanism. Anything Canadian is by some definitions anti-American, whether we all believe that or not. The people so vocal on this are playing on the insecurities we have as a nation. Being so closely related to America over the past two hundred years, there is very little to tell us apart, and that frightens many Canadians, rightly or wrongly.
It's almost like some stupid form of xenophobia, and the causes I think are nearly identical; some loud mouthed fool stoking the flames of intolerance and bigotry with rhetorical nonsense.
The inherent problem with anti-Americanism is that theres no common definition, often what one person means is not what another means by anti-Americanism. Being anti-anything first off usually means there is some baggage someone is carrying with themselves.
If you want the broadest definition, that is anti-Americanism is being against anything American, then no, Canadians are not predominantly anti-American. How could we be? We watch American television, we purchase American products. The commonalities are there between the two countries.
It's in the minor details, that minutia where we find disagreement. It only takes one loud mouthed fool to ramp up some other forms of anti-Americanism. Anything Canadian is by some definitions anti-American, whether we all believe that or not. The people so vocal on this are playing on the insecurities we have as a nation. Being so closely related to America over the past two hundred years, there is very little to tell us apart, and that frightens many Canadians, rightly or wrongly.
It's almost like some stupid form of xenophobia, and the causes I think are nearly identical; some loud mouthed fool stoking the flames of intolerance and bigotry with rhetorical nonsense.
I can understand the current anti-American fad-zeitgeist.
It's there. Many offer good reasons.
But most of all I find it to be a Selective Anger, the kind of selective anger that is easier to
gather a storm of outrage more than other matters equally egregious.
The usual answer to that observation above is that the United States is
1. so powerful that it is more dangerous than other evils
2. so self righteous and therefore should live up to its moral boastings
But this comfortable self-exonerating rationale for judging the United States has the following
downsides:
1. it "can" and often does lead people to believe they could never commit the same sins
2. it can and often does lead people to think they would do better under the same "test".
3. it can and often does lead people to ignore dangers other than the United States.
4. insisting on a higher standard than other nations leads to many hypocrisies
But !!!
This board overall has been one of the best boards I've ever had the privilege to post.
It's there. Many offer good reasons.
But most of all I find it to be a Selective Anger, the kind of selective anger that is easier to
gather a storm of outrage more than other matters equally egregious.
The usual answer to that observation above is that the United States is
1. so powerful that it is more dangerous than other evils
2. so self righteous and therefore should live up to its moral boastings
But this comfortable self-exonerating rationale for judging the United States has the following
downsides:
1. it "can" and often does lead people to believe they could never commit the same sins
2. it can and often does lead people to think they would do better under the same "test".
3. it can and often does lead people to ignore dangers other than the United States.
4. insisting on a higher standard than other nations leads to many hypocrisies
But !!!
This board overall has been one of the best boards I've ever had the privilege to post.
I appreciate that most contributors to CC prefer “short and sweet”, or if you prefer, “concise and germane”. Not everything that needs to be examined and even perhaps discussed can be flipped out in a dozen words….
As a member of a local shooting club I recently had occasion to witness some potentially dangerous activities. I believe that “safety-first” is more than a catchy phrase. I informed the club executive of my concerns and was told, “People do stupid things”. Having only landed last night with the evening rain, this of course never occurred to me!
My interest is in identifying systemic issues that can be addressed and action taken (if demanded) capable of ameliorating the perceived difficulty. The response I received was that no one is “on watch”, so of course no mechanism can be called into play to speak to this issue.
This is of course part of the human condition. For example, although there are posted speed limits, only when an enforcement body is present and prepared to act to ensure that highway safety (as it’s impacted by excessive speed) is monitored. People “do stupid things” like drive well beyond the posted speed limit and insurance premiums and mortuary statistics reflect this behavior.
There’s no formula for predicting who will choose to ignore either firearm safety protocols or highway speed limits….
It would be erroneous to suggest that “People who drive Chevrolets are to blame”, or “Ford owners are at the bottom of this flouting of the law…”
The same thing applies to nationalism and criticisms of behavior witnessed by folk standing beside the great freeway of human behavior.
It’s just as fair to examine the zeitgeist of German folk between World War One and World War Two, or the predominant ethos of the Japanese prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and come to some general “conclusion” regarding the mental make-up and attitude of the whole nation. Populations are subject to the efforts of a minority present within leaderships and governments to take-up the banners of patriotism and ideology of the ruling body. There can be an argument made that the greater mass of Joe and Jane “everyone” aren’t as familiar with or made aware-of the dynamics involved in why a nation goes to war. There may be many reasons why a people choose to ignore corruption and dishonesty within its government and social institutions that aren’t readily apparent to the casual observer.
As individuals we choose (or are compelled/coerced) to conform to a socially appropriate code of conduct and we of course need law enforcement and courts to manage the willingness of some (perhaps many) to abridge the rights of others to live in a society that embraces the “greater-good” that can come through mutuality and cooperation. Some folk it seems are disposed to ignore and deny their responsibility to the social consensus. It’s part of that maelstrom of human ideation and emotion.
Can there be and might it be judicious and reasonable to gauge the predominant character and fabric of a society’s interaction with the greater mass of humanity based on the observed behavior of large numbers of that society?
Are all Moslems terrorists who embrace the notion that “the infidel must die”!”?….or is it reasonable to entertain the idea that the impact of a few misguided radicals within a society behaving in ways that do not reflect the over-all attitude and character of the majority doesn’t fairly represent the fundamental make-up of that society?
How broad can the analysis be? Is how sharply focused the examination is influence the breadth and depth of the perceptions involved in reaching generalizations about this nationality or that religion or these or those “people”?
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. When we examine the history of societies are we being given an accurate sense of what can be reasonably expected from that society in the future?
Is the dynamic of a nation and its people reflected in its Constitution or its Bill of Rights (or Charter) or is it reflected in the willingness of that society to self-examination and acknowledgement of needed revision and greater efforts to actualize the sentiments contained?
Generalizations are fraught with peril and inconsistencies in behavior will impact the analysis.
Large (by population) societies have large governments. Perhaps the seminal issue is that when the topic of Anti-Americanism arises, the enormity of the dynamic is child to the monster dynamic of a perhaps too large and too “bureaucratized” government.
In a democracy the will of the people is the instrument of government…..
Maybe…..
As a member of a local shooting club I recently had occasion to witness some potentially dangerous activities. I believe that “safety-first” is more than a catchy phrase. I informed the club executive of my concerns and was told, “People do stupid things”. Having only landed last night with the evening rain, this of course never occurred to me!
My interest is in identifying systemic issues that can be addressed and action taken (if demanded) capable of ameliorating the perceived difficulty. The response I received was that no one is “on watch”, so of course no mechanism can be called into play to speak to this issue.
This is of course part of the human condition. For example, although there are posted speed limits, only when an enforcement body is present and prepared to act to ensure that highway safety (as it’s impacted by excessive speed) is monitored. People “do stupid things” like drive well beyond the posted speed limit and insurance premiums and mortuary statistics reflect this behavior.
There’s no formula for predicting who will choose to ignore either firearm safety protocols or highway speed limits….
It would be erroneous to suggest that “People who drive Chevrolets are to blame”, or “Ford owners are at the bottom of this flouting of the law…”
The same thing applies to nationalism and criticisms of behavior witnessed by folk standing beside the great freeway of human behavior.
It’s just as fair to examine the zeitgeist of German folk between World War One and World War Two, or the predominant ethos of the Japanese prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and come to some general “conclusion” regarding the mental make-up and attitude of the whole nation. Populations are subject to the efforts of a minority present within leaderships and governments to take-up the banners of patriotism and ideology of the ruling body. There can be an argument made that the greater mass of Joe and Jane “everyone” aren’t as familiar with or made aware-of the dynamics involved in why a nation goes to war. There may be many reasons why a people choose to ignore corruption and dishonesty within its government and social institutions that aren’t readily apparent to the casual observer.
As individuals we choose (or are compelled/coerced) to conform to a socially appropriate code of conduct and we of course need law enforcement and courts to manage the willingness of some (perhaps many) to abridge the rights of others to live in a society that embraces the “greater-good” that can come through mutuality and cooperation. Some folk it seems are disposed to ignore and deny their responsibility to the social consensus. It’s part of that maelstrom of human ideation and emotion.
Can there be and might it be judicious and reasonable to gauge the predominant character and fabric of a society’s interaction with the greater mass of humanity based on the observed behavior of large numbers of that society?
Are all Moslems terrorists who embrace the notion that “the infidel must die”!”?….or is it reasonable to entertain the idea that the impact of a few misguided radicals within a society behaving in ways that do not reflect the over-all attitude and character of the majority doesn’t fairly represent the fundamental make-up of that society?
How broad can the analysis be? Is how sharply focused the examination is influence the breadth and depth of the perceptions involved in reaching generalizations about this nationality or that religion or these or those “people”?
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. When we examine the history of societies are we being given an accurate sense of what can be reasonably expected from that society in the future?
Is the dynamic of a nation and its people reflected in its Constitution or its Bill of Rights (or Charter) or is it reflected in the willingness of that society to self-examination and acknowledgement of needed revision and greater efforts to actualize the sentiments contained?
Generalizations are fraught with peril and inconsistencies in behavior will impact the analysis.
Large (by population) societies have large governments. Perhaps the seminal issue is that when the topic of Anti-Americanism arises, the enormity of the dynamic is child to the monster dynamic of a perhaps too large and too “bureaucratized” government.
In a democracy the will of the people is the instrument of government…..
Maybe…..
I generally find that most Canadians are at least somewhat anti-American, but the anti-Americanism is mainly benign. Anti-Americanism, after all, was one of the reasons for Confederation in the first place, so it shouldn't be surprising there is an undercurrent of it in the culture.
However, apart from the cultural and historical aspects, this mainly benign anti-Americanism arises, I think, out of the Narcissism of Small Differences. Despite what some Canadians may want to believe, the differences between the two countries are fairly small, so Canadians amplify them to differentiate themselves, and out of those differences arises a form of anti-Americanism.
However, apart from the cultural and historical aspects, this mainly benign anti-Americanism arises, I think, out of the Narcissism of Small Differences. Despite what some Canadians may want to believe, the differences between the two countries are fairly small, so Canadians amplify them to differentiate themselves, and out of those differences arises a form of anti-Americanism.
No.
I don't think half of Americans know which side of the border Canada is on, let alone take the time bothering to dislike us.
Ah Curio...you try to make it sound like I've been relentlessly hounding all Americans for ten years with undeserved anti-American sentiment. That has obvious;y not been the case. My main complaint against Americans has been their sorrowful record of foreign policy that appears to condone American troops marching into small countries who are no threat to the U.S., and killing millions of innocent civilians because this action apparently has the affect of buoying up their economy. Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia are prime examples. We might as well add Iraq to that list of disastrous little wars.
The current American regime under G.W. Bush is one of the most hated on the planet. I admittedly don't like American foreign policy but I am certainly not alone in that. Most of the planet shares that sentiment.
I won't go into America's woeful ignorance of the rest of the world in general, or their general ignorance of Canada. That's a whole other topic.
What Toro has contributed is acutely germane. Why would an American who doesn't even know where Canada is be concerned about anything including the attitude of Canadians toward America? If we expand this notion that a great many Americans don't know where Canada is relative to their border with us, how appropriate is it to expect that the average American knows the difference between a Sunni or a Shia or for that matter how impossible it might have been for the Butcher of Bahgdad to invade America? What level of knowledge must one have to accept that being told by your government that Saddam Hussein was sitting on piles of weapons of mass destruction...warranted invading that country in the name of an urgent necessity...a threat to the "peace" of the planet?
Is there any point in discussing international politics with a people who as Toro has suggested aren't aware of what's going on around them or where entire nations exist?
Isn't it more fruitful to simply ignore them? If one can of course....?
It's difficult to embrace the notion that Americans don't know where Canada is...yet are willing to believe that a nation half a world away is a threat to their way of life..
Can Canadians accept the fact that Americans want it both ways?
We don't know and we don't care.....
Is there any point in discussing international politics with a people who as Toro has suggested aren't aware of what's going on around them or where entire nations exist?
Isn't it more fruitful to simply ignore them? If one can of course....?
It's difficult to embrace the notion that Americans don't know where Canada is...yet are willing to believe that a nation half a world away is a threat to their way of life..
Can Canadians accept the fact that Americans want it both ways?
We don't know and we don't care.....
I know enough about Canada to know who your Head of State is, contrary to 95% of your population. :lol:
Phuck off Wolf, I've been around here long enough to resent that remark, whereas you came in here with storming attitude. :roll:
We must have taught you then because 99.999 percent of your brethren sure as hell don't.
I actually learn what I want myself, I have found Canadians (of your ilk) have been incapable of teaching me anything other than hatred and inferiority complexes do indeed exist.
Why do some folks interpret "not in total agreement" or different ways of doing things as anti? The world is NOT black-and-white. They with "Fer-us-or-agin-us" know-it-all mentalities can't be taught a thing without a two-by-four to drive the point home.
Woof!
Woof!