So are you saying that disapproval is what we should post for or should we all just be rugged individuals and piss in the wind and with no expectations. I like the Jungian stuff.:wave:
The Sickness of Canadian Anti-Americanism
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
So are you saying that disapproval is what we should post for or should we all just be rugged individuals and piss in the wind and with no expectations. I like the Jungian stuff.:wave:
Bingo! And the patriotic majority of the USA echoes those same sentiments every day. That is why we voted as we did last November.
For anyone to say that objecting to Bush's war or to the right winger's plans of world conquest is "America hatred" suggests that the majority of Americans are, somehow, unpatriotic. And that is a totally absurd idea.
What? Losing steam?
Why anti-Americanism is as Canadian as maple syrup by W.T. Stanbury
Mar 31, 2003
There have been two recent, widely-reported examples of anti-Americanism by Canadians of some official stature. According to Francie Ducros, then director of communications for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, U.S. President George Bush is "a moron." Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish's condemnation was far wider: "Damn Americans. I hate those bastards." These comments are not isolated, but are part of a wider and deeper phenomenon.
Anti-Americanism is a sort of "legitimate prejudice" in a world of increasingly stringent political correctness. "Substitute any other group for 'Americans' in Ms. Parrish's comments – "Damn Palestinians – hate those bastards' or Damn Africans – hate those bastards – and imagine the firestorm" (National Post editorial, Feb. 28, 2003). The U.S. is a wonderful whipping-person – so large, so rich, so many nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, such a powerful set of widely-shared values, and such a successful exporter of popular culture. What's not to "hate" (loathe) if one is an insecure Canadian?
In stark outline, here is my theory of the bases of the wide streak of anti-Americanism among some Canadians. The root cause is those Canadians' appreciation of their weakness, a serious inferiority complex if you will. Feelings of weakness or inadequacy – even if inchoate – generate a sense of insecurity and even of fear. Insecurity and fear, in turn, generate hostility to the country against which Canada is so evidently weak – the United States.
The sources of Canada's weakness are several. First, the U.S. has a population of 287 million to Canada's 31 million. Yet Canada's area is slightly greater than the U.S. More importantly, the real per capita GDP of the U.S. is over 20 per cent above that of Canada. This reality breeds resentment and even loathing by some Canadians.
The weakness of Canada is also partly due to its dependency on the U.S. in economic terms. Canada has long been dependent on the U.S. economy and this dependency has grown under the FTA and then, NAFTA. CanWest News Service (owner of the National Post) (Nov. 28, 2002) put it this way: In 1970, 65 per cent of Canada's exports went to the U.S.; today it is 87 per cent. That amounts to over 40 per cent of our GDP. "We trade more with the Americans than with each other," referring to inter-provincial trade. While Canada is the No. 1 export market for U.S. products and services, the relative dependency is highly asymmetric. We need them far more than they need us.
Second, the U.S. is now the only superpower and this fact alone is threatening to many Canadians. Such power is seen as immoral in itself and so its exercise is also immoral in the eyes of many of the critics of the U.S. Prime Minister Chrétien, for example, believes that the United Nations must play an important role in constraining the power of the U.S. Christie Blatchford (National Post, Feb. 14, 2003) quotes Prime Minister Chrétien in a speech in Chicago on Feb. 13, 2003: "The price of being the world's only superpower is that its motives are sometimes questioned by others. Great strength is not always perceived by others as benign. Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith." He clearly implied that Canada was one of those nations.
Being a superpower comes with many burdens and painful decisions. American taxpayers pay a big chunk of their taxes each year to support their military forces. For them, Canada is seen as a carping, free-rider benefiting greatly from the U.S. defence umbrella. Even Canada's role in peacekeeping has shrunken greatly. Jonah Goldberg, writing in the National Review in November, 2002, noted that, "Today, Canada ranks number 37 as a peacekeeping nation in terms of committed troops and resources, and it spends less than half the average of the skinflint defence budgets of NATO."
Since the early 1960s, Canada has systematically chosen to greatly expand social expenditures (health and income transfers including regional development) at the expense of defence and international expenditures. (Canadians should remember that in WWI and WWII, a larger proportion of the population fought and died than was the case in the U.S.) The self-righteousness of much of the elite on the international stage appears to have grown in inverse relationship to the declining relative importance of Canada's defence/international expenditures.
The U.S. is not only powerful economically and militarily, but its people are seen as aggressive, swaggering and self-confident. These characteristics are the antithesis of the Canadians most critical of the U.S.
Americans are also seen as insensitive due largely to having great power, but being inward-looking.
The third source of weakness lies in the easy acceptance/strong desire for U.S.-made products of pop culture by Canadians. For example, U.S.-made shows account for over 70 per cent the TV viewing of English-Canadians; American movies account for over 95 per cent of box office receipts in Canada. The export of U.S. cultural products is seen by Canadian cultural nationalists as a form of "cultural imperialism."
Why do they feel so threatened? They apparently believe that the importation of U.S. popular cultural products will lead eventually to the demise of Canada as an independent nation. According to Canadian playwright, director, and actor Mavor Moore (1997, p. 128), "Modern Americans have made a masterful discovery...a secret weapon enlisted in the Star Wars dialogue: popular culture. Camouflaging its armies as entertainers, America has conquered the world....What American leaders have grasped....is that politics, commerce and war are no longer the most effective methods of gaining or establishing power – and indeed often prove counterproductive."
There is an important element of elitism mixed into the nationalism. To a considerable extent, such elitism reflects Canada's colonial past (based on both the British and French heritage). The elites believe that they have both the right and duty to use the power of the state to guide the "masses" into the light. They implicitly believe that they have the patent on the definition of what Canada ought to be.
Fourth, the feelings of inferiority and insecurity that prompt expressions of anti-Americanism stem in part from a terribly weak sense of national identity among English Canadians. (Quebecers have a much stronger sense of who they are, in large degree based on hostility to the rest of Canada.) Since major changes in immigration policy in the 1960s, anglo identity has been strongly challenged by a long, large wave of non-European immigrants such that over the past six years over one-half of all immigrants to Canada came from Asia. Trudeau's policy of multi-culturalism within official bilingualism (announced in 1971) greatly strengthened the rise of the French fact in Canadian politics. It is possible, that the interaction of the two policies has channelled the frustration of anglos away from domestic targets (because any criticism will be denounced as racism), and onto the United States in a weird form of psychological displacement.
Finally, there seems to be the idea that the poor and weak, by definition, have morality on their side since they do not appear to benefit directly from the stance they take. Deputy Prime Minister John Manley put it this way: "I think it is a sign of our insecurity, that sometimes we feel that we have a moral conviction that we are somehow or another superior [to the U.S.]" (National Post, Dec. 4, 2002). The weak gain a perverse satisfaction from verbal barbs directed at the strong. The strong are inhibited from administering a physical or economic response. The weak see these barbs as "free" – they will not result in retaliation.
In summary terms, Canadians who are strongly anti-American appear to be a) fearful about the influence of the U.S. on Canada, b) insecure as to their own identity – they need reassurance from a variety government-created symbols (such as the CBC), and c) these Canadians are more than a little envious of our rich, powerful, southern neighbour. Contemplation of the American elephant – sadly – brings out the dark side of the character of the Canadian mouse – envy. It is a sort of national penis (genital?) envy wrapped in a blanket of moral superiority that is the natural refuge of the woefully insecure and the truly weak. There are lots of good reasons to criticize various policies of the U.S. government, but surely reflexive anti-Americanism is unworthy of what Canadians want to be.
W.T. Stanbury is professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia.
http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles03310301.asp
Why anti-Americanism is as Canadian as maple syrup by W.T. Stanbury
Mar 31, 2003
There have been two recent, widely-reported examples of anti-Americanism by Canadians of some official stature. According to Francie Ducros, then director of communications for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, U.S. President George Bush is "a moron." Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish's condemnation was far wider: "Damn Americans. I hate those bastards." These comments are not isolated, but are part of a wider and deeper phenomenon.
Anti-Americanism is a sort of "legitimate prejudice" in a world of increasingly stringent political correctness. "Substitute any other group for 'Americans' in Ms. Parrish's comments – "Damn Palestinians – hate those bastards' or Damn Africans – hate those bastards – and imagine the firestorm" (National Post editorial, Feb. 28, 2003). The U.S. is a wonderful whipping-person – so large, so rich, so many nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, such a powerful set of widely-shared values, and such a successful exporter of popular culture. What's not to "hate" (loathe) if one is an insecure Canadian?
In stark outline, here is my theory of the bases of the wide streak of anti-Americanism among some Canadians. The root cause is those Canadians' appreciation of their weakness, a serious inferiority complex if you will. Feelings of weakness or inadequacy – even if inchoate – generate a sense of insecurity and even of fear. Insecurity and fear, in turn, generate hostility to the country against which Canada is so evidently weak – the United States.
The sources of Canada's weakness are several. First, the U.S. has a population of 287 million to Canada's 31 million. Yet Canada's area is slightly greater than the U.S. More importantly, the real per capita GDP of the U.S. is over 20 per cent above that of Canada. This reality breeds resentment and even loathing by some Canadians.
The weakness of Canada is also partly due to its dependency on the U.S. in economic terms. Canada has long been dependent on the U.S. economy and this dependency has grown under the FTA and then, NAFTA. CanWest News Service (owner of the National Post) (Nov. 28, 2002) put it this way: In 1970, 65 per cent of Canada's exports went to the U.S.; today it is 87 per cent. That amounts to over 40 per cent of our GDP. "We trade more with the Americans than with each other," referring to inter-provincial trade. While Canada is the No. 1 export market for U.S. products and services, the relative dependency is highly asymmetric. We need them far more than they need us.
Second, the U.S. is now the only superpower and this fact alone is threatening to many Canadians. Such power is seen as immoral in itself and so its exercise is also immoral in the eyes of many of the critics of the U.S. Prime Minister Chrétien, for example, believes that the United Nations must play an important role in constraining the power of the U.S. Christie Blatchford (National Post, Feb. 14, 2003) quotes Prime Minister Chrétien in a speech in Chicago on Feb. 13, 2003: "The price of being the world's only superpower is that its motives are sometimes questioned by others. Great strength is not always perceived by others as benign. Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith." He clearly implied that Canada was one of those nations.
Being a superpower comes with many burdens and painful decisions. American taxpayers pay a big chunk of their taxes each year to support their military forces. For them, Canada is seen as a carping, free-rider benefiting greatly from the U.S. defence umbrella. Even Canada's role in peacekeeping has shrunken greatly. Jonah Goldberg, writing in the National Review in November, 2002, noted that, "Today, Canada ranks number 37 as a peacekeeping nation in terms of committed troops and resources, and it spends less than half the average of the skinflint defence budgets of NATO."
Since the early 1960s, Canada has systematically chosen to greatly expand social expenditures (health and income transfers including regional development) at the expense of defence and international expenditures. (Canadians should remember that in WWI and WWII, a larger proportion of the population fought and died than was the case in the U.S.) The self-righteousness of much of the elite on the international stage appears to have grown in inverse relationship to the declining relative importance of Canada's defence/international expenditures.
The U.S. is not only powerful economically and militarily, but its people are seen as aggressive, swaggering and self-confident. These characteristics are the antithesis of the Canadians most critical of the U.S.
Americans are also seen as insensitive due largely to having great power, but being inward-looking.
The third source of weakness lies in the easy acceptance/strong desire for U.S.-made products of pop culture by Canadians. For example, U.S.-made shows account for over 70 per cent the TV viewing of English-Canadians; American movies account for over 95 per cent of box office receipts in Canada. The export of U.S. cultural products is seen by Canadian cultural nationalists as a form of "cultural imperialism."
Why do they feel so threatened? They apparently believe that the importation of U.S. popular cultural products will lead eventually to the demise of Canada as an independent nation. According to Canadian playwright, director, and actor Mavor Moore (1997, p. 128), "Modern Americans have made a masterful discovery...a secret weapon enlisted in the Star Wars dialogue: popular culture. Camouflaging its armies as entertainers, America has conquered the world....What American leaders have grasped....is that politics, commerce and war are no longer the most effective methods of gaining or establishing power – and indeed often prove counterproductive."
There is an important element of elitism mixed into the nationalism. To a considerable extent, such elitism reflects Canada's colonial past (based on both the British and French heritage). The elites believe that they have both the right and duty to use the power of the state to guide the "masses" into the light. They implicitly believe that they have the patent on the definition of what Canada ought to be.
Fourth, the feelings of inferiority and insecurity that prompt expressions of anti-Americanism stem in part from a terribly weak sense of national identity among English Canadians. (Quebecers have a much stronger sense of who they are, in large degree based on hostility to the rest of Canada.) Since major changes in immigration policy in the 1960s, anglo identity has been strongly challenged by a long, large wave of non-European immigrants such that over the past six years over one-half of all immigrants to Canada came from Asia. Trudeau's policy of multi-culturalism within official bilingualism (announced in 1971) greatly strengthened the rise of the French fact in Canadian politics. It is possible, that the interaction of the two policies has channelled the frustration of anglos away from domestic targets (because any criticism will be denounced as racism), and onto the United States in a weird form of psychological displacement.
Finally, there seems to be the idea that the poor and weak, by definition, have morality on their side since they do not appear to benefit directly from the stance they take. Deputy Prime Minister John Manley put it this way: "I think it is a sign of our insecurity, that sometimes we feel that we have a moral conviction that we are somehow or another superior [to the U.S.]" (National Post, Dec. 4, 2002). The weak gain a perverse satisfaction from verbal barbs directed at the strong. The strong are inhibited from administering a physical or economic response. The weak see these barbs as "free" – they will not result in retaliation.
In summary terms, Canadians who are strongly anti-American appear to be a) fearful about the influence of the U.S. on Canada, b) insecure as to their own identity – they need reassurance from a variety government-created symbols (such as the CBC), and c) these Canadians are more than a little envious of our rich, powerful, southern neighbour. Contemplation of the American elephant – sadly – brings out the dark side of the character of the Canadian mouse – envy. It is a sort of national penis (genital?) envy wrapped in a blanket of moral superiority that is the natural refuge of the woefully insecure and the truly weak. There are lots of good reasons to criticize various policies of the U.S. government, but surely reflexive anti-Americanism is unworthy of what Canadians want to be.
W.T. Stanbury is professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia.
http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles03310301.asp
ITN
Now you've done it again.....I hoped you'd never find Stanbury's old essay... when it was first published I managed to get through it with a prayer that nobody would reproduce it on a Canadian forum and here it is....
Nothing really new because I think in all of the "debates" and "fights" much of what he writes has been discussed in more personal terms by people on Canadian forums with the various U.S. intruders.... but one line is the thought which concerns me most....
Is it merely envy or fear or disagreement with the path the U.S. has followed in its evolution from the early days of muskets and horseback.... ? Has Canada become the nanny of the western world, constantly serving a plate of bitter oatmeal instead of a fine long table of food and comeraderie celebrating our long peace and trade and sharing of untold benefits over our short histories - putting the Europeans and other nations to shame with their manic wars and land seizing and people capturing....and "colonialization of the savages" in less civilized places of the world.
Whatever the divisive feelings between the two nations is a problem for me because I think it is of great import for both nations to nurture and preserve the long border as one of peace rather than separation. The U.S. is not an elephant and Canada is not a mouse. They are unique, free, prosperous and forward-thinking peoples. For them to be competing is self-defeating.
Reading the commentary here by many however I think there is no compromise allowed and until every last American bone is scraped of substances and chewed upon and spit out... the majority of Canadians will continue this replacement for contact sport.... this "politics" kind of scenario which sadly feeds only the ego - and not the bank account.
A proud a poor but independent nation... is that how Canadians envision their future? The final separation having been served, shut the door, stop the flow of trade, defensive military cooperation, monetary benefits and then what?
Now you've done it again.....I hoped you'd never find Stanbury's old essay... when it was first published I managed to get through it with a prayer that nobody would reproduce it on a Canadian forum and here it is....
Nothing really new because I think in all of the "debates" and "fights" much of what he writes has been discussed in more personal terms by people on Canadian forums with the various U.S. intruders.... but one line is the thought which concerns me most....
Is it merely envy or fear or disagreement with the path the U.S. has followed in its evolution from the early days of muskets and horseback.... ? Has Canada become the nanny of the western world, constantly serving a plate of bitter oatmeal instead of a fine long table of food and comeraderie celebrating our long peace and trade and sharing of untold benefits over our short histories - putting the Europeans and other nations to shame with their manic wars and land seizing and people capturing....and "colonialization of the savages" in less civilized places of the world.
Whatever the divisive feelings between the two nations is a problem for me because I think it is of great import for both nations to nurture and preserve the long border as one of peace rather than separation. The U.S. is not an elephant and Canada is not a mouse. They are unique, free, prosperous and forward-thinking peoples. For them to be competing is self-defeating.
Reading the commentary here by many however I think there is no compromise allowed and until every last American bone is scraped of substances and chewed upon and spit out... the majority of Canadians will continue this replacement for contact sport.... this "politics" kind of scenario which sadly feeds only the ego - and not the bank account.
A proud a poor but independent nation... is that how Canadians envision their future? The final separation having been served, shut the door, stop the flow of trade, defensive military cooperation, monetary benefits and then what?
It is too glib to pass of all Canadian criticism of United States as just jealous envy
or some inferiority complex.
I think it is a natural reaction to living next to a larger than life messy sprawling Giant .
Ever since the German who popularized Amerigo Vespucci's oversized map representing us,
we've had this larger than life gusto enshrouding our natural borne hypocrisies.
But those anti-American Canadians' logic backing up their emotion certainly requires further challenge, for they are quite selective in their indignation and rationalize it because we
are a nuclear superpower.
They feel almost smugly content that this reasoning is solid for their righteousness.
or some inferiority complex.
I think it is a natural reaction to living next to a larger than life messy sprawling Giant .
Ever since the German who popularized Amerigo Vespucci's oversized map representing us,
we've had this larger than life gusto enshrouding our natural borne hypocrisies.
But those anti-American Canadians' logic backing up their emotion certainly requires further challenge, for they are quite selective in their indignation and rationalize it because we
are a nuclear superpower.
They feel almost smugly content that this reasoning is solid for their righteousness.
From several recent posts:
Renė Descartes walked into a bar. The bartender says ‘Hey Renė how you doing. Having a beer today?’ Renė says ‘well, er, um…no. I think not’ and disappeared.
The joke is contained in the book ‘The Know It All.’ Fitting perhaps. Quoting a Canadian professor emeritus at great length is similar to quoting a Canadian senator. Space that could be put to no better use. Not.
I’d say that it’s human nature to seek advantage and avoid disadvantage. I’m not sure it’s natural at all for humans to live in mass society nation states. Nations don’t have
conflicts because they are, well just nations—constructs that only exist in the mind. National leaders have illusions of advantage or disadvantage that frequently produce conflict and war. It’s leaders who have conflicts, perhaps because they believe they lead us and have duties and obligations.
To individuals or small bands advantage has immediacy. We know what we face. We can see what another has that may benefit us, and we also know the potential of injury or death for ourselves if we seek to take what another has. We temper what we want since the cost of it is immediate and apparent. However, we know nothing of immediacy in our national lives. Our individual advantage has all the reality of images of dancing light on phosphorescent screens or black marks machined on white paper. For that is how we participate in our national lives we consume that which has the same guarantee of reality as do fairy tales. Anything is possible in a fairy tale except that which can’t be imagined by the author. In fairy tales there are no guides for right and wrong and there are no reality checks. You just believe. In fairy taales. we allow our lives to be reduced to ‘Please tell me a story before I go to sleep.’ And who, you might ask, would tell those stories and why. Any what you might ask can we possible know of the tellers of stories whom we know only as dancing light or black marks. What can we possibly know of our leaders? What can we possible know of our advantage expressed through our national lives? We may as well dream it—which takes us back to Renė. Oh yes, some of us vote.
For god’s sake just take back ownership of your own lives by living them and being responsible for them. Nobody else can be responsible for them unless life really is just listening to bedtime stories. You’ll likely find that everybody’s life is valid and deserves respect, and our leaders have little more to offer than do each of us. All the anti’s in our national lives are fairly tales until we live them.
For military types who carry on and posture, reading Beowulf might be good. It’s a manly warrior’s tale, and warrior lessons abound. Lessons for us all abound. In its reading, warriors might ponder whether you serve Hrothgar or Beowulf, and what might await you. Some lessons I took from Beowulf were that a leader must lead and a hero must be heroic. Rich kingdoms are beset by nightmares. Rich kings who hire heroes to confront the nightmares loose that which they love best and their kingdoms are never heard of again. Heroes find that they must confront a nightmare themselves. There is no help, and once a nightmare is confronted, then the mother of that nightmare must be confronted. Heroes also learn that ultimately they must do it themselves. Weapons prove unreliable, age is relentless, and eventually there must be new heroes. Ultimately nothing changes. There always rumors of wars.
Beowulf seems the essential handbook for a western warrior. A warrior who can’t find themselves in the tale might do well to seek another occupation. But really, heroes belong in fairy tales. Do we know of any among our present leaders you might ask, or perhaps not ask? Read or perhaps not read. The Seamus Henney translation is good but the Norton Anthology version is OK too. And after Beowulf, The Rite of the Ancient Mariner is good. The literature and poetry from our culture carries more truth than does the network news. The truth is that our national lives remain little different from those of the Norse raiders, but in that view of life nothing eve changes. Wars and rumors of wars persist. Those who serve die and for no good purpose
Renė Descartes walked into a bar. The bartender says ‘Hey Renė how you doing. Having a beer today?’ Renė says ‘well, er, um…no. I think not’ and disappeared.
The joke is contained in the book ‘The Know It All.’ Fitting perhaps. Quoting a Canadian professor emeritus at great length is similar to quoting a Canadian senator. Space that could be put to no better use. Not.
I’d say that it’s human nature to seek advantage and avoid disadvantage. I’m not sure it’s natural at all for humans to live in mass society nation states. Nations don’t have
conflicts because they are, well just nations—constructs that only exist in the mind. National leaders have illusions of advantage or disadvantage that frequently produce conflict and war. It’s leaders who have conflicts, perhaps because they believe they lead us and have duties and obligations.
To individuals or small bands advantage has immediacy. We know what we face. We can see what another has that may benefit us, and we also know the potential of injury or death for ourselves if we seek to take what another has. We temper what we want since the cost of it is immediate and apparent. However, we know nothing of immediacy in our national lives. Our individual advantage has all the reality of images of dancing light on phosphorescent screens or black marks machined on white paper. For that is how we participate in our national lives we consume that which has the same guarantee of reality as do fairy tales. Anything is possible in a fairy tale except that which can’t be imagined by the author. In fairy tales there are no guides for right and wrong and there are no reality checks. You just believe. In fairy taales. we allow our lives to be reduced to ‘Please tell me a story before I go to sleep.’ And who, you might ask, would tell those stories and why. Any what you might ask can we possible know of the tellers of stories whom we know only as dancing light or black marks. What can we possibly know of our leaders? What can we possible know of our advantage expressed through our national lives? We may as well dream it—which takes us back to Renė. Oh yes, some of us vote.
For god’s sake just take back ownership of your own lives by living them and being responsible for them. Nobody else can be responsible for them unless life really is just listening to bedtime stories. You’ll likely find that everybody’s life is valid and deserves respect, and our leaders have little more to offer than do each of us. All the anti’s in our national lives are fairly tales until we live them.
For military types who carry on and posture, reading Beowulf might be good. It’s a manly warrior’s tale, and warrior lessons abound. Lessons for us all abound. In its reading, warriors might ponder whether you serve Hrothgar or Beowulf, and what might await you. Some lessons I took from Beowulf were that a leader must lead and a hero must be heroic. Rich kingdoms are beset by nightmares. Rich kings who hire heroes to confront the nightmares loose that which they love best and their kingdoms are never heard of again. Heroes find that they must confront a nightmare themselves. There is no help, and once a nightmare is confronted, then the mother of that nightmare must be confronted. Heroes also learn that ultimately they must do it themselves. Weapons prove unreliable, age is relentless, and eventually there must be new heroes. Ultimately nothing changes. There always rumors of wars.
Beowulf seems the essential handbook for a western warrior. A warrior who can’t find themselves in the tale might do well to seek another occupation. But really, heroes belong in fairy tales. Do we know of any among our present leaders you might ask, or perhaps not ask? Read or perhaps not read. The Seamus Henney translation is good but the Norton Anthology version is OK too. And after Beowulf, The Rite of the Ancient Mariner is good. The literature and poetry from our culture carries more truth than does the network news. The truth is that our national lives remain little different from those of the Norse raiders, but in that view of life nothing eve changes. Wars and rumors of wars persist. Those who serve die and for no good purpose
Not to mention that the US of A is probably the largest donor of monies to needy countries and builders of natural desastered countries.
We are truly a giving people.
My opinion.
Peace>>>AJ
We are truly a giving people.
My opinion.
Peace>>>AJ
yep!! It's funny how many people confuse Government policies of Nations with the people of the Nation. Are Canadains now more conservative since we have a Conservative Government..Do all the Liberals on these threads believe in everything their Conservative Government is doing....There are More American's who disagree with Bush then Canadians alive!!!
It's also funny of how much U.S. bashing goes on while tons of Canadians head south every winter, watch mainly U.S. tv, adore American actors and singers...glues to American Idol, Cheer the Superbowl while eating a big Mac.. and if offered take the U.S. job and move within the month....
I don't personally think the U.S. is better or worse than Canada..just different.....just different...like the difference between Newfoundland and B.C...
I’m not sure it’s natural at all for humans to live in mass society nation states. Nations don’t have
conflicts because they are, well just nations—constructs that only exist in the mind. National leaders have illusions of advantage or disadvantage that frequently produce conflict and war. It’s leaders who have conflicts, perhaps because they believe they lead us and have duties and obligations.
To individuals or small bands advantage has immediacy.
We know what we face.
We can see what another has that may benefit us, and we also know the potential of injury or death for ourselves if we seek to take what another has.
We temper what we want since the cost of it is immediate and apparent. However, we know nothing of immediacy in our national lives.
Our individual advantage has all the reality of images of dancing light on phosphorescent screens or black marks machined on white paper. For that is how we participate in our national lives we consume that which has the same guarantee of reality as do fairy tales. Anything is possible in a fairy tale except that which can’t be imagined by the author. In fairy tales there are no guides for right and wrong and there are no reality checks. You just believe. In fairy taales. we allow our lives to be reduced to ‘Please tell me a story before I go to sleep.’ And who, you might ask, would tell those stories and why. Any what you might ask can we possible know of the tellers of stories whom we know only as dancing light or black marks. What can we possibly know of our leaders? What can we possible know of our advantage expressed through our national lives? We may as well dream it....
------------------------------------TomG------------------------------------------------
WOW !!
Incredibly insightful.
Absolutely interesting point.
conflicts because they are, well just nations—constructs that only exist in the mind. National leaders have illusions of advantage or disadvantage that frequently produce conflict and war. It’s leaders who have conflicts, perhaps because they believe they lead us and have duties and obligations.
To individuals or small bands advantage has immediacy.
We know what we face.
We can see what another has that may benefit us, and we also know the potential of injury or death for ourselves if we seek to take what another has.
We temper what we want since the cost of it is immediate and apparent. However, we know nothing of immediacy in our national lives.
Our individual advantage has all the reality of images of dancing light on phosphorescent screens or black marks machined on white paper. For that is how we participate in our national lives we consume that which has the same guarantee of reality as do fairy tales. Anything is possible in a fairy tale except that which can’t be imagined by the author. In fairy tales there are no guides for right and wrong and there are no reality checks. You just believe. In fairy taales. we allow our lives to be reduced to ‘Please tell me a story before I go to sleep.’ And who, you might ask, would tell those stories and why. Any what you might ask can we possible know of the tellers of stories whom we know only as dancing light or black marks. What can we possibly know of our leaders? What can we possible know of our advantage expressed through our national lives? We may as well dream it....
------------------------------------TomG------------------------------------------------
WOW !!
Incredibly insightful.
Absolutely interesting point.