quote:

---

Let's be clear — the attitude of those people reflected support for the war against Iraq. Cheered on by the likes of Ralph Klein and Ernie Eves, they were part of a small but vociferous pro-war pep rally. They were no allies of mine, or of the Democrats I knew.

But I felt equally out of place at the anti-war rallies in Toronto.

There was that knee-jerk anti-Americanism, the kind that closes its eyes to the existence of passionate, articulate critics of the war who live south of the border, of dissenting magazines, newspaper columnists, public radio and TV outlets that are small compared to Fox but that reach millions, along with lively Internet sites like Truthout.org.

Even the current slate of contenders for the Democratic candidate for president has a front runner, Howard Dean, who owes his success to his attacks on current U.S. policies.

But acknowledging such snowballing dissent in the U.S. makes many Canadian critics uncomfortable. It deprives them of the gratification of simple-minded, feel-good superiority.

---

quote:

---

...infantile anti-Americanism
...by-product of the Canadian inferiority complex
...Is the put down of Americans, the main route to Canadian identity?
...this toxic brew of shaky sanctimony spiked with envy and resentment
...that day seared the message into our collective skin. Americans were attacked — because they were Americans.
...In the sombre aftermath of those events, we sought other Americans, for only they could understand.
...deprives them of the gratification of simple-minded, feel-good superiority.
...they don't have to face their own problems, from pollution to ports, from too little affordable housing to too few people owning the media.
...you express that kind of fatuous gratitude about living in Canada, you'll be welcomed here with exuberant, U.S.-bashing arms.

---

I suppose Jacqueline Swartz believes a proper response to a perceived injustice is to sound arrogant, insulting, hysterical, whiny and angry all at the same time. That's so Ameri.....er, anyway, good luck with that, Ms. Swartz. I hope someday every last Canadian will have the emotional and intellectual fortitude to discern the complexity of the American character in all its personal, political and regional diversity to transcend a visceral dislike for an administration and its boneheaded and potentially disastrous policies (supported by at least a slim majority of Americans) in order to never cause you a minute's worth of grief again.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

If you move anywhere else, you will encounter people with small minds and many prejudices - god, I've lived in France and encountered snotty Parisian types for whom words I'd use every day - and I don't mean anglicisms - aren't "real French". And the just silly notions I'd hear in Italy.

I know few Québécois (who read English) or English-speaking Canadians who aren't pleased to read progressive news sources from the States or look with admiration at important struggles south of the border, from the old Freedom Riders in the South to the new ones for immigrant rights ... Admittedly, talking about "Americans" is shorthand for talking about imperialism: imperial might and power and imperial arrogance. Too bad the person in the Star piece comes across as very arrogant indeed.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: lagatta ]

Ms. Swartz doesn't like being exposed to this in Canada, but how would she see the reverse? Every time I've been in the States - yes, every time - I've heard Americans saying dumb stuff about Canada and Canadians. The usual assumption is that "Canadians are just like Americans" but that Americans are better.

Better yet, let's just arrest her for no reason, and deport her to Israel with a short stop over in Syria!!

quote:

---

Better yet, let's just arrest her for no reason, and deport her to Israel with a short stop over in Syria!!

---

Cougyr, if their money's unacceptable to you, just send it my way.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: DownTheRoad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DownTheRoad:

I assume you're alluding to the Maher Arar case. Where does Israel fit into that picture? Or this discussion for that matter?
[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: DownTheRoad ]

---

If we do something similar to what the Americans did to Arar, then we will just assume Jacqueline Swartz, with I assume a Jewish name, is Israeli and ship her back to the country WE feel is her home country and ignore her American citizenship.

The stopover in Syria will be to expose her to the some of the same tretment Mr. Arar received, and to which Miss Swartz seems to believe is nothing compared to the "rudeness" she encounters in Canada!!

If you can point me to her letter to the Editor of the Star where she chews out Americans for the treatment of Mr. Arar and Arabs and Muslims in general, then I would be happy to apologise to Miss Swartz in the name of my fellow "rude" Canadians!!!

quote:

---

After war, there is always a greater need for reconciliation, and that can never happen while one is triumphalist, arrogant, self-righteous, or incapable of recognizing complexity, disagreement, or misunderstanding. Bush is inviting America to engage in a perpetual witch-hunt, always looking for the next devil to defeat. In this way, Bush's approach is eerily similar to the Ayatollah and his obsession with the Great Satan.

---

The US Administration had a whole propaganda effort dedicated at branding the French as "surrender monkeys". They trashed the UN as being "irrelevant", and wilfully ignore international law because it suits them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

If we do something similar to what the Americans did to Arar, then we will just assume Jacqueline Swartz, with I assume a Jewish name, is Israeli and ship her back to the country WE feel is her home country and ignore her American citizenship.

The stopover in Syria will be to expose her to the some of the same tretment Mr. Arar received, and to which Miss Swartz seems to believe is nothing compared to the "rudeness" she encounters in Canada!!

If you can point me to her letter to the Editor of the Star where she chews out Americans for the treatment of Mr. Arar and Arabs and Muslims in general, then I would be happy to apologise to Miss Swartz in the name of my fellow "rude" Canadians!!!

---

No Yards, I recognize that you were being sardonic, but even in jest, analysing the ethnicity of people's surnames is, IMHO, one step too far on babble.

quote:

---

Nonetheless, individual Americans are welcomed in Toronto, and in Canada generally.

---

quote:

---

They sense that American progressives are not the be-all and end-all of progressivism, and this offends their inbred sense that Americans are automatically the best at everything.

---

I grew up in the maritimes, where many feel a kinship with New England, a history of trade, a shared sea, and many common interests.

My reaction to the attack on New York and Washington was visceral.

While I often find much to disagree with in the policy of the U.S. government, anti american I'm not.

From the earliest possible age, most Americans are fed a diet of undiluted American boosterism from their education systems to their media outlets and anywhere else that they can be expected to pick up the national myth, which runs roughly as follows: America is the biggest, the best, the brightest, the tallest, the fastest, the smartest, the kindest, the strongest, the freest, the wisest nation that ever existed. We have the tallest trees in the world, and the grandest canyon and the biggest cites and the fiercest wild animals. In most cases, if it happened outside of the US borders, it is of less importance, simply by definition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
.

By far the hardest transition for me to make when I moved here as a youngster was the creeping realization that the US is just another country, it isn't the centre of the universe.

---

quote:

---

My reaction to the attack on New York and Washington was visceral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Ignorant stereotype? Perhaps you've not spent any time in the US. I'm American, so allow me to enlighten you.

From the earliest possible age, most Americans are fed a diet of undiluted American boosterism from their education systems to their media outlets and anywhere else that they can be expected to pick up the national myth, which runs roughly as follows: America is the biggest, the best, the brightest, the tallest, the fastest, the smartest, the kindest, the strongest, the freest, the wisest nation that ever existed. We have the tallest trees in the world, and the grandest canyon and the biggest cites and the fiercest wild animals. In most cases, if it happened outside of the US borders, it is of less importance, simply by definition.

By far the hardest transition for me to make when I moved here as a youngster was the creeping realization that the US is just another country, it isn't the centre of the universe. I fought this tooth and nail - sometimes literally. I was absurdly hyper-sensitive to slights whenever the US was brought up in conversation, just as this poor deluded person is. Way back when, I was actually pissed off that Toronto was building a tower that was taller than the WTC, and I disparaged the thing for its lack of offices much to my classmates bemusement. Believe me, I am not alone in this. Most of the Americans I know suffer from the "pledge of allegiance" syndrome. as those of us self aware enough to recognise the problem like to call it. We really are brainwashed in a way that Canadians cannot comprehend, and many of the most intelligent Americans never escape their programming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

No Yards, I recognize that you were being sardonic, but even in jest, analysing the ethnicity of people's surnames is, IMHO, one step too far on babble.

No, I don't agree that Canadians should turn into the kind of creepy jerks who deported Maher Arar -- although I certainly think that they are creepy jerks.

---

Why should analysing ones ethnicity be "one step too far"??

If I'm wrong and she's Italian, then ship her (sardonically) back to Italy via Syria . . . I really don't care what ethnicity she happens to be, she's obviously been drained of any ethnicity she might have had anyway.

Yet, I can't help but think that at least some of her perceptions are based in paranoia. For example, her interpretation of the word "individualist" seems unfounded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EarthShadow:

Quite right. Everyone knows that Toronto is the Centre Of The Universe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
You should have prefaced that with "Speaking for all Westerners..."

---

I never said that that ALL westerners aren't anti-American. But outside some areas immediately surrounding universities, where might one find a western bastion of anti-Americanism??

Everything's a contest, and they are the best. Try telling them that they are just another country and they look hurt, then they get belligerent.

quote:

---

But her aggrieved "why do they hate us" tone might be lessened if she read her own article from the viewpoint of a Toronto resident...

---

quote:

---

I never said that that ALL westerners aren't anti-American.

---

Perhaps the most outrageous statement was that “if the same kind of expressions were directed at people from other parts of the world, it would be considered racism.” Swartz might wish to consider that racism is more complex and powerful than mere negative stereotypes, rather it is forces embedded in dominant culture with the intent to humiliate , dehumanize , oppress and exploit another group for social or economic gain, hardly the experience of Americans in Toronto

Also if she wasn’t so quick to embrace victim status she might realize that Toronto is made up of thousands of citizens who have escaped extreme and prolonged trauma such as war, famine , drought and poverty in their own countries , conditions that render her own tenuos connection to events on Sept 11 2001 somewhat irrelevant.

One might also note that “our problems” that Swartz comments on , lack of affordable housing, pollution, and the concentration of media ownership are the result of neo-lilberal economic policies imported from the U.S.

I also don't understand what it is with writers who always refer to envy when speaking of hostility towards the U.S. The argument seems so puerile, like the highschool jock who thinks people who hate him are envious of course they don't hate him because he's shallow , self absorbed, contemptible of others and oozing righteous entitlement, no it must be envy.

She said the first week she was at Queen's she attended a pyschology lecture where the prof made the following statement:

"The American national bird is the eagle but really it should be the pigeon because they're all over the place and no matter how many you kill there are always more of them".

At that point she decided to not tell people where she's from.

I think a lot of Americans are shocked when they leave the US bubble and find out what the rest of the world really thinks of them. It's perhaps especially disturbing when they come to Canada because we're supposed to be so much like them and we're traditionally the US' closest ally. If Canadians are contemptuous of the US how must the rest of the world feel?

[ 16 October 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]

The passive/aggresive, love/hate, superior/inferior polarities don't really get beneath the surface of the dynamic. They only describe certain characteristics of the relationship. Rather like the blind man's elephant.

quote:

---

She said the first week she was at Queen's she attended a pyschology lecture where the prof made the following statement:
"The American national bird is the eagle but really it should be the pigeon because they're all over the place and no matter how many you kill there are always more of them".

---

Anyone old enough to remember the Anglo-Celtic dispensation, though, which held (culturally, if never entirely demographically) well into the post-WWII years, imbibed something of a similar impervious cultural smugness, some of which was definitely turned against the U.S.

If arrogant Brits annoyed us when they came here and condescended to us (or did the same when we went over there), many of us were brought up to ape the Brits in condescending in turn to USians, and mainly in cultural terms -- they have all that lovely money, don't you know, but isn't it a pity how they use it? -- that sort of thing.

I got over my own imperial training partly by thinking but mainly by coming to love what was happening to Canada as the Anglo ascendancy, ah, descended. I have to admit that some of the old prejudices the other way, though, against USian pop culture especially, still prod away at me -- for better reasons now, I hope, than sheer snobbery.

When I think of the disgusting old Brit snobbery and the dreadful new USian swagger in comparative terms, although I see so many similarities, there is one major difference that strikes me, and that is USian insularity. One of the few virtues of the Brit Empire was that it taught so many Brits about so much of the rest of the world, and that shows still, even in the high-street culture of the poorest towns in England.

Yet we keep hearing that even in the CIA and other USian intelligence services -- which hire the best and the brightest Hahvahd grads -- there is a continuing (and counter-productive, I should think) failure to cultivate agents adept in non-European languages, knowledgeable about non-European cultures, maybe even charmed by one.

quote:

---

One of the few virtues of the Brit Empire was that it taught so many Brits about so much of the rest of the world,

---

Ok, I have some more words for you: broadcast news.

My impression of of the British Empire at its height is that while its educated elites may have been slightly (and this is arguable, Richard Burton aside) more aware of the world at large than its modern US counterpart, its working class was immeasurably worse off in every concievable way including awareness of the outside world - unless by working class we include those poor bastards who were press ganged into seeing the world from the deck of a Britsh man-o-war. In spite of the British fads for tea and chutney and paisley, I'm not at all sure that the average British subject was at all deeply impressed by the cultures of their colonies until well after the decline. Now of course, they are inundated by them.

quote:

---

In the present case the better and brighter are not moving overseas to work

---

Sure they are. They're just not "our" best and brighter going overseas. We're getting quite a number of the best and brightest from other countries coming overseas to North America.

quote:

---

As for jingoism, nothing in the American canon quite beats "Into the valley of death..."

---

Sorry, cain't resist:

quote:

---

Back at home a young wife waits
Her Green Beret has met his fate
He has died for those oppressed
Leaving her his last request

“Put silver wings on my son’s chest
Make him one of America’s best
He’ll be a man they'll test one day
Have him win the Green Beret”

---

First, of course, an aw, shucks, thanks for being used as one Thoughtful American counter-example. From what I've read of josh's posts, it's an honour to be in the same category.

Spinning off from there, I'll point out that just being American doesn't prevent me from being called anti-American all the time. I'm sure you know this, having heard the frothings of our Fearless Leaders. It's a sad old story: if you don't wear the colours, you're out of the gang.

Now, I have a kind of love-hate relationship going with the abstract of "America" myself. There are aspects of it I adore, and aspects I loathe. At the moment, I consider myself a member of a very large dysfunctional family; it's the best analogy I've come up with. I love my multitudinous cousins, but if I were prepping an outsider to attend a family gathering, I'd also give 'em a very long list of Things To Watch Out For. You know. Don't mention the French to Cousin Sally or she won't shut up for hours and will get very offensive. ForGodsSake don't bring up religion, or we'll never get home with all our bits intact.

I suspect any thoughtful person has a similar view of their home nation, seeing its flaws and taking pride in its virtues and loving it all the same with the strange, painful love we have for anything we see too clearly and know too well.

This means that I make rather a lot of jokes that can be called anti-American, much as I make jokes about my actual family. ("Very loving - and very loud.") I joke about USian ignorance, in the same way I'll grin and tell you my folks are plain weird. I seethe about USian prejudice, just like I fume at my family's bone-headed stubbornnes - I hate the way these things hurt those I love, plus everyone unlucky enough to be around 'em. Don't make me dig up more examples to stretch this analogy still further.

In a sense, then, one reason that I don't worry so much about what's normally called anti-Americanism is that I'm liable to join right in. "April, your folks are weird and boneheaded." "Tell me about it. Why, this one time..."

Another reason is that I'm perfectly capable of separating out criticism of policy from criticism of persons. I know that when someone says, "Do you Americans think you rule the world?" they're talking about that government that laughingly calls itself mine, not about me. (Which is ironic, as I sometimes have trouble making these distinctions in other contexts, as "Do you women think...?" I never claimed to be consistent, but I try to work on that, at least.)

There is, however, a point where anti-Americanism does become exactly that, and something very like racism. That point is nowhere on Babble that I've seen. You can tell, though, when someone really cannot separate the behavior of individuals A-E, ascribed to group Alphabet, and carried by implication to individual Z. That's when it really hurts. When someone is sitting there and saying you are stupid, you are selfish, even though they know zero about your personal history. It does happen. People get blinded easily by their zeal - it's so much easier to reduce the world to simple terms, good guys and bad, that the tendency strikes people of all political hues on occasion. I'm sure I've done it to some poor sod myself, sometime.

What makes me pound my head against the table is when people shout "anti-American!" to block off perfectly legitimate criticism of things many Americans take for granted. It only cheapens the term. More nebulous, but still liable for a few forehead bruises, is the pople who take everything said about Americans very personally. Since I incline to this flaw in other areas, though, I can't entirely condemn them for it, now can I? So they have my sympathies, and a suggestion that we all work on our various oversensitivities.

And on the other, other hand... how many hands have I passed through?... it also doesn't hurt for people making jokes about groups to be a little more sensitive about how this might sound to someone who doesn't take the stereotype as humorous. You can get into real trouble making jokes about Irish and alcohol around my father, who considers that to be a really vicious stereotype. Nevermind that most of the jokes I've heard come from Irishmen; he's still hurt by it, every time. So, well, the ignorant American jokes are all in good fun, and I know that, but keep in mind there could be some kid from Randomlocale, USA, who feels deeply hurt by it.

When all the jokes come to a halt, countries cannot be "ranked" for virtue in any meaningful sense. Canada suits me in so many ways better than the US does, but I sure would miss the US First Amendment, I tell you that. Sure, the US Brainless Leaders are a bunch of fascist bastards. And so are the Moralless Leaders of 60 other countries and more, whose residents will tell you so as long as they're sure no one will find out and shoot their families.

The US military's just the Big Thug on the Block at the moment, whom everyone loves to hate. Fair 'nuff, since they insist on using it for thuggery. But let's not fool ourselves - and I think most Babblers don't. Nobody's winning the Near-Perfect Government Award this year, and probably not for many years to come. The lesser damage of the other 60 nations' governments is as much about relative weaknes as it is about more sensible policy, let alone more humanitarian practice.

But in the end, the jokes do not come to a halt, because people need priorities. When fighting thuggery, you take on the Big Thug first, and when someone else becomes a worse thug, you'll switch to him. Jokes are, as much as anything else, a weapon, useful for conveying information in swift, pointed packets that break through the armour of complacency to sting a bare conscience now and again. I'm overdoing another metaphor, ain't I. Well, anyhow. There's a grain of truth to many of the jokes, which is partly why they sting. There's a grain of falsehood to their over-application, which is why they sting like a mothuh. It's all down to where you strike the balance: between compassion and the need to make a pointed observation in a way that'll stick; between being able to laugh at oneself and standing up for oneself and one's neighbors.

Americans are like Canadians, is that what you're saying?

Why I oughta, what the....
Listen guys, do we have to take this from a Yank?

Splutter, cough, gag, retch...

Why, I never...
You're talking to my lawyer, thats it!

[ 18 October 2003: Message edited by: EarthShadow ]

I have a maternal aunt, born here, who married a US citizen lo these many moons ago. They live in Iowa. Retired. He was a minister in his working life, she never had a job per se beyond that of minister's wife which is one of those fundamentally un-doable jobs.

Anyway, she's historically never been willing to tolerate any kind of criticism of the US since she became a citizen. Not even mild critical statements about health care or gun control both of which are issues about which she has strong opinions. (US health care should be more like ours, gun control only makes sense.) Those opinions are fine for her to have and express but woe betide a Canadian nephew who holds or expresses them. That's what she calls anti-American.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Isn't "litigious" on grade 2 spelling lists in the USA, April? I heard it was.

---

Yeah, yeah. (OK, I could have used the on-line dictionary, but it was more amusing to just leave it as 'twas.

A Canadian pal was very, very amused - far out of proportion, I think - by the fact that I consistently misspelled "intelligence". (I spelled it "intellegence".) Le sigh. At least the jokes taught me, somewhat belatedly, the proper spelling. But I have this sneaking suspicion that this isn't an American thing, just an April thing - 'cause I'm too darn lazy to use that on-line dictionary.

But all y'all consistently misspell words like "color" and "honor"! So there!

Oh yeah, there's a topic here, isn't there... so about what banquosghost said. (N.b.: love the nickname. I'm a big Bard fan.) We're all products of our preconceptions. People coming to Austin, Texas are often amazed: quite a number of its residencts are sophisticated and urbane, liberal and well-educated. In, mind you, Texas. Fellow-Americans are often astounded by this, and have to console themselves with the fact that there are slightly more cowboy hats per capita.

The rest of Texas, of course, conforms more or less to stereotype... I'd so better not let my husband see that, since he's from a small Texas town. (That's, ah say, that's a joke, son.)

So yes, ronb's account of the Daily School Brainwash is quite accurate. It's not fun when you're getting different messages at home, either... However, more subtle inculcations (ha, used the dictionary that time) of cultural assumptions may if anything be more insidious. As my dad always said, the most dangerous assumptions are always the ones you never even think to question. So at the risk of sounding overly moralistic: yes, the Daily Brainwash is a rather overt thing for many American kids. But it doesn't hurt anyone, anywhere to be aware that they too are getting Messages all the time.

I was really only making a joke about "litigious" because it seems to me to be a word that Americans would need to use on a daily basis, judging by how many lawsuits youse guys seem to generate down there, so you likely have to learn it young. Hee hee.

[ 18 October 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]

We are nice. Even our soldiers are nice. Our soldiers are peacekeepers, and that's all they do is go and keep the peace nicely. They don't smoke and they don't chew, and they don't go out with the local girls who do. For sure they don't drink, or torture Somali teenagers to death.

We are probably more recently multicultural than are at least some parts of the U.S., but we are noisier about how multicultural our multicultural parts are, and many Canadians are surprised to hear that parts of the U.S. are multicult as well. But we are convinced that becoming multicult has made us even nicer than we were, and to a degree, I would say, that is true. It has certainly made us more interesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

And we all love the North.

---

I grew up in a community where anti-Americanism was fairly widespread, but was pretty foolish and mostly benign (it never carried through to actually treating individual Americans badly). I think this was because, since I lived in a mining town in the wild north, all I ever saw were American mineral resource experts and bear hunters (when they used to bait dumps to attract the bears...an ugly practice). Judging by the cowboy boots and Stetsons, they must have all come from Texas (..and I'm sorry, there is a Texas stereotype that still sets my teeth on edge).

But I dropped this kind of pettiness one time, much later on, when I was working in Toronto and had to host a software vendor from Georgia. Being a petty anti-American, I held the prejudice of thinking that everyone from the South was stupid, but this woman was so bright and funny and easy-going that you couldn't help but like her. It was near the end of her visit that she told me a bit sadly that she felt she might've gotten treated badly by a few people, and she couldn't understand that because she felt she had been, as she said, "as nice as I know how to be". I decided that I wasn't going to run the risk of offending people like her in the future, so I tend not to indulge so much in the snarkiness and jokes as much, at least not in public, and they have to be pretty humourous to begin with.

quote:

---

I think now, more than ever, it is important to make the distinction between state government and its policies and behaviors, and the private citizens of that state

---

Lately I have been thinking the exact opposite. Isn't this precisely the problem with American foreign policy? If a country is a democracy, why shouldn't its citizens be held responsible for the actions of its govt?
This divide in accountability between a public and its government is why the govt can do the things they do in the world. This means there is no way to hold america accountable for its foreign policy internationally, not as long as they buttress themselves in UN vetoes.
If you leave violence as the only avenue of discourse, as the only way to hold the American public accountable for their foreign policy, then what?
This idea that a people are not responsible and accountable for their govt is exactly why govts can act like dicators in their foeign policy. Peace and fairness in foreign policy can only be achieved if someone is held accountable for the dictorial foreign policies of the state. There has to be an international mechanism to hold a public accountable for their govt. Right now, violence is the only mechanism to force accountability on a people for their foreign policy.

Let the slings and arrows begin.

[ 20 October 2003: Message edited by: Tackaberry ]

But how do you hold accountable the percentage of people who neither voted for the man nor the party.

Yes, some citizens are responsible for either active or passive compliance with the Bushies. No argument there. But whether or not people vote is, shall we asy, a dubious measure of their degree of compliance.

I always ask complainers whether they voted and if they say 'no' I basically say 'then shut up'.

Y'know...there comes a point where either it is or isn't worthwhile to continue supporting a democratic way of life. If, for some people, the simple act of getting out to vote has become such a difficult and complicated hardship, what do we make of the complications of those people educating themselves about the issues or of the even more complex task of considering the consequences of policy on people other than themselves. Like as not neither of those things ever enter their minds if getting out to vote is beyond their capacity to self-organize.

They're no doubt better off and maybe even happier with a governor like Arnold Schwarzenegger who professes a desire to tell people what to do.

No decisions to make, no thinking required, no actions need be taken.

quote:

---

They're no doubt better off and maybe even happier with a governor like Arnold Schwarzenegger who professes a desire to tell people what to do.

No decisions to make, no thinking required, no actions need be taken.

Democratic traditions...feh...who needs 'em. Too burdensome.

---

banquosghost, I suspect that many, if not most, voters want a "Lone Ranger" to ride out of the plains and save them by shooting a silver bullet through all their problems. It's the old desire for a Messiah.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banquosghost:

They're no doubt better off and maybe even happier with a governor like Arnold Schwarzenegger who professes a desire to tell people what to do.

No decisions to make, no thinking required, no actions need be taken.

Democratic traditions...feh...who needs 'em. Too burdensome.

---

My point is that the trappings of democracy do not democracy make. There are "elections" in an number of autocracies - in some, it's illegal not to vote. And yet the vote is, effectively, meaningless.

(I am not yet fully convinced that the vote is completely meaningless in the US, but I do rather lean in that direction. I vote just in case, but with a heavy heart each time.)

If the vote is completely meaningless, then "the trappings of participatory democracy" become mere mockeries of what they're supposed to - heh - represent. If, for instance, you knew that a vote was rigged to begin with, would you vote anyway? Would you deride those who announced, "This vote's rigged. I'm not playing that game,"?

AF, it is that simple. Either we value what generations of our forebears struggled to achieve or we don't. Either we're going to continue those traditions or we're not. Surrendering to the despairs of this or that political era and thereby declaring the entire democratic exercise as folly or farce is, to me, an unacceptable denial of those centuries of struggle.

I recently read Winston Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples". You have to pardon me. I'm re-impressed with how hard and painful it has been to get to this imperfect system.

quote:

---

Isn't this precisely the problem with American foreign policy? If a country is a democracy, why shouldn't its citizens be held responsible for the actions of its govt?

---

I agree. To the extent that democracy works, a population is responsible for the government they've elected. Note that I qualified this because honestly, in most cases democracy doesn't work all that well. The press fails to give the population full information, the FPTP systems distort the election results and debate is limited to an extremely narrow latitude.

quote:

---

When a presidents approval ratings can zoom to 90% and above after attacking some helpless third world country, there is something seriously wrong with the country.

---

Agreed.

If you honestly think the people of a nation are responsible for all their leaders do, just because the nation carries the 'democracy' brand label... well, when y'all start getting screwed over by this Martin fella, I'll remind you that you said that.

(Edited to remove superfluous self-pity. )

[ 21 October 2003: Message edited by: April Follies ]

Check Bowling Alone. It's an interesting theory.

I, personally, believe in voting, as it happens - I see it as a route toward building the expectation of democracy, which can be followed by the popular demand that actual democracy be practiced.

quote:

---

”Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measurement ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote (speck) that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and them shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:1-5

---

Schwartz is just being judged based on her own standards!!

April Follies, on the other hand comes out pretty good under this form of judgement!!

Seriously, now that I've quit devil's-advocating, the amount of apathy on the popular level worries me. However, since I'm prone to fits of despaaaaaaair myself, the verse No Yards quoted there does apply; having a good measure of the flaw, I'm hesitant to criticize it too dramatically in others.

quote:

---

well, when y'all start getting screwed over by this Martin fella, I'll remind you that you said that.

---

As we've been quite thoroughly screwed over by this Martin fella already, during his reign as Minister of Finance, I'll just grudgingly say "Point taken, AF."

I think we all-too-easily forget that true democracy requires an effective educational system, a relatively transparent and accountable (mutually exclusive attributes, to some extent) government, an at least casual relationship between electoral platform and subsequent legislative activity and some notion of the public good over personal profit as criteria for legislative activity.

As to Canadians vs. Americans. My experience is that, if you want to meet the most eloquent, vocal and determined "Anti-Americans", you'll find them in the USA -oddly enough, they'll often claim to be patriots . I have found myself in the surrealistic situation of trying to defend the US to her own citizens .

As for us Canucks, it's been said that Canadian patriotism consists simply of a rather smug pride at simply not being American.

[ 21 October 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

[ 21 October 2003: Message edited by: flotsom ]

World History 101 - Mid-term exam

This test consists of one (1) multiple-choice question (so you better
get it right!) Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed
since >the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999

----------------------------------------------
NOW HERE IS THE QUESTION:
In how many of these instances did a FREE government, respectful of
human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose one of the following:

Of course, my reaction afterwards was, "And this is as bad as it gets here, is it?"

It's truly amazing to me.

quote:

---

You're free to say such things. We do so at our peril.

---

I don't think Canadians as a whole are so self-critical, in fact I think we're sorta complacent. Sure our right-wingers like Harper, Klein and Manning try to get us to lie back and close our eyes for the US, and every cultural icon we have has taken a stab at trying to define the Canadian Identity. I see us as North American, really. But in North America we have degrees of cultural identity, for which the 49nth parallel is somewhat irrelevant. Texans, Quebecois, Acadians, Maritimers, Newfies, Hoosiers, Six Nations'Members are just a few of the cultural groups that exist on this continent. There are many others. Our only distinction (rapidly eroding) is administrative (political, legal). Most of Canada's industries and businesses are American-owned. Our independence is largely illusory and hanging by a thread, particularly under NAFTA and FTAA agreements.

Honestly, as a proud Canadian, I have to say that I see the writing on the wall and I think keeping a close eye on our Southern neighbour is only practical. I'll fight assimilation tooth and nail, but I think the battle's almost over and Paul Martin isn't on our side.

A cold consolation is that these trade agreements are probably making nation-states irrelevant anyway and they'll probably remain for local administrative busywork and as entities the big corps can use to dump responsibility for the welfare of their workforces on.

On that cheerful note, I'll end here,

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

My experience, both following my own utterances as well as following various op-ed pieces and the ensuing letters, is that strongly positive statements about Canada lead immediately to nay-saying if not cat-calling.

quote:

---

I hope I'm wrong about Martin, Free Trade agreements and the power that overwhelming US ownership of our natural and industrial resources has over our political culture, eh!

---

quote:

---

I hope I'm wrong about Martin, Free Trade agreements and the power that overwhelming US ownership of our natural and industrial resources has over our political culture, eh!

---

I don't know whether you're wrong about Martin but I get a little less concerned about him the more I notice that public resistance to the agenda of the right is generally stiffening. PM has always been more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. If it becomes clear enough to him that he becomes more unpopular the further right he moves, he'll shift back. Besides, his anointing in the press has very likely led them to be rather selective in their reportage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DownTheRoad:

If the target of this comment were any other race/nationality/religion, babblers would rightfully pounce on them. The fact that the target is American (USian if you prefer) does not make it ok.

---

quote:

---

I was going to say this myself. There seems to be two remaining allowable prejudices 1) anti Americanism 2) anti Christianity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by celtica:
I was going to say this myself. There seems to be two remaining allowable prejudices 1) anti Americanism 2) anti Christianity

---

Allowed by whom? I'm under the distinct impression that outspoken anti-Christianity will get condemnation from almost all quarters, while genuine anti-Americanism will certainly draw vitriol from a number of persons, not the least those who are often accused of being anti-American!

quote:

---

What really should be concerning us, IMO, is not trying to stop the expansion of free trade, but trying harder to see to it that the raison d'etre of free trade is not simply lucre but rather quality of life.

---

quote:

---

We're a stupid species in so many ways.

---

Homo Saps

[ 24 October 2003: Message edited by: Cougyr ]

quote:

---

I don't know whether you're wrong about Martin but I get a little less concerned about him the more I notice that public resistance to the agenda of the right is generally stiffening. PM has always been more of a pragmatist than an ideologue. If it becomes clear enough to him that he becomes more unpopular the further right he moves, he'll shift back.

---

I agree absolutely that Martin is the quitessential Political Animal, but I'm less... sanguine (o gory-lock'd one), than you about how this will play out in terms of policy. We know:
a) Liberals campaign Left;govern right

b) Martin is beholden to Big Money for what are large contributions in Canuck terms.

c) As a pragmatist, Martin need only satisfy voters in the sixth months prior to an election. Lobbyists are satisfied the rest of the time.

d) Corollary to c): unlike lobbyists, the electorate can be largely mollified by what the Liberals call "campaign promises". There's an oxymoron waiting to happen in that phrase!

e) We seem to be heading for a federal deficit this year. We still have a few social programs left, but Paul Scissorhands will be ready, no doubt.

As to the "free trade economics" stuff...I'm an unabashed one world/one people kind of ghost. Somehow it's gotta come about. The transitions from tribalism/regionalism/nationalism have always been messy and aren't likely to become times of flowers and blessings any time soon. But that doesn't mean the transition isn't going to happen or as I say necessary. It'll be generations beyond my lifetime before it's even close to a liveable planetary reality. But if we don't actively work to move our consciousness of ourselves as a species beyond our geographical localities/requirements/differences/defences and toward a planetary species awareness, we're probably doomed anyway.

quote:

---

I agree absolutely that Martin is the quitessential Political Animal, but I'm less... sanguine (o gory-lock'd one)

---

Sisyphus, you dwarfish thief! I've been waiting in the weeds for just the right opening to say something about his gory locks, and you, foul usurper hast beat me to the puch.

quote:

---

and you, foul usurper hast beat me to the puch.
Fie on thee!

---

What, you egg! You fry of treachery! [Is yours]a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

quote:

---

Surely all that eternal rock rolling has given you a wider view of time than merely one human span, uncomfortable as it may be.

---

Well, it does give one time for reflection. At first, though, it's all physics and engineering but once you realize that the damn rock is just going to keep rolling back down no matter what you do, those lines of thought start to seem kinda pointless. That's not not to say that there are no epiphanies."A rolling stone gathers no moss", comes to mind...

I wasn't being facetious about the Baha'is, actually. My children will become Baha'is when they're old enough and my mate is probably going to accept the faith. Alas, my "levity before the Gods" remains unperturbed, but they're a tolerant lot. Their central teaching is the unity of all mankind and encouraging unity of all races and religions is the central spiritual task set for Baha'is by Baha'ulla.

I couldn't agree more that nationalism and sectarianism of all sorts is primitive and destructive, though I forsee a united world as comprising many smaller communities bound together by choice (Ratas in Kansas; Acadians in Belize?), but linked by larger administrative groupings for resource allocation, trade and educational purposes.

Free Trade in its current incarnations puts me more in mind of a global police state crushing rebellion of the destitute majority against an unimaginably wealthy minority. No water, no medical care, rampant pollution and warring factions everywhere, fighting over toxic land and paltry scraps.