I’m an American, I don’t know what a grit is either. I know it’s a side dish, and it kind of looks like rice or oatmeal from the pictures I’ve seen, but I’ve never seen one in real life, let alone taste one(for the record I’ve never eaten hogs intestines, nor seen them up close and personal, either). Therefore, I’d conclude that being unfamiliar with “southern” food is not a Canadian trait 
I think grits are like “Cream of Wheat” but maybe with cornmeal instead?
It really depeneds where you go in the US on the friendliness factor. Some Americans are so friendly that it’s kind of unnerving. I was talking to a Swedish friend that had a hard time getting used to the American’s gregarious nature and was more comfortable with reticant Canadians. But she could have gotten the exact opposite opinion if she had gone to different cities in each country.
While Canadians on the whole are fairly hard workers, I think work is taken much more seriously in the US, maybe because they have less of a social safety net.
I concur. The only thing I think you left out was that Most of English Canada was made up of Loyalists who either fled or were forced out of the 13 Colonies during the revolution which is a strong reason for the lack of enthusiasm for revolution. Ours is a history of mainly political compromises rather than conflicts to resolve or differences (Though we have had two rebellions, one uprising, a quiet revolution, nad home grown terrorism). Also our beginings perhaps fueled the resistance to all things American until the early 20th century.
Canada up to the end of the American Revolution was considered the former New France. I think that factor has had a strong influence on our history.
It is also no mere Coincidence Confederation became popular after the US Civil war. There was a fear of the Large modern army to the south. The idea of politically linking the English colonies as an independant State seemed the only way to continue the existence of a semi British Presence in North America.
As for those who see Canadians as meek peacful folk there is another side to us as well. When we do fight our repuatation is quite different. In WWI we were used as Britain’s answer to the German Stormtroopers, we were known for our daring raids and gallentry and innovation on the field. (The Battle of Vimy Ridge is still heralded by Canadians as one of our great Accomplishments).
Likewise with WWII we had our great moments Soem were losses but the men who fought them had no shame in their part: The defence of Hong Kong, The Battle of Britain, The Battle of the Atlantic, the horror of Dieppe, the success of Juno Beach and so on. Sorry I am Rambling but I do want to point out our proud Military tradition. And I may be wrong but we have not yet lost a war (we are either good at picking our sides or our battles)
As you can see there is a great deal of pride in our nation by the average Canadian.
I know several seriously devoted Kings fans, here in L.A., of all places! Their fan loyalty seems to approach that of the Raiders football team.
It seems to me that Canadian governmental policy is less influenced by conservative Protestant Christianity. I think a big reason why certain lifestyle acts–such as gay sex, using marijuana, and so on-- are illegal is because many American cultural conservatives consider them immoral per se, apart from what the demonstrable harm of allowing such behavior might be.
I’ve been reading over this thread with interest, being pretty passionate about history and literature. I see alot of things being left out, and a lot popular assumptions being taken as fact.
We actually have a very different history from the US, and unfortunately, most of the important details of Canadian history aren’t taught at the high school level, including many of the details that shaped us as a society. I get the impression that Americans in social-studies/history courses spend an endless amount of time dissecting their own history, right down to the battles of the civil war. My social studies courses were internationally focused – I only got a good grounding in Canadian history at university.
Some of the details left out:
[ul][li]**English versus Scottish/Irish: ** I’ve seen often repeated here th traditional trope of “English” Canada being predominantly Loyalists. It is true these people formed the core communities of Ontario and some parts of the Maritimes. However, probably the majority of so-called “English” Canadians are actually Scottish and Irish Canadians, who were driven off their land by the Enclosure Acts, and later by the Irish Potato Famine, looking for a better chance in a place where the land was easy to come by, though hard to work. [/li]
The British had been slowly converting feudal “common lands” (held by the King for God, but to which all classes had certain natural rights and responsibilities) into “private property” (to which the owner, by virtue of a piece of paper, has absolute right to use the land as he pleased). The destructions of traditional farms and communities in Scotland left a significant mark on the emigrants, and I would argue that our healthy suspicion of laissez-faire capitalism and our traditionally mixed economy are outgrowths of our having seen the ugly side of private property.
A History of Compromise: When the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763, New France – renamed the Province of Quebec --was ceded to Britain. Britain and the British merchants in Montreal hoped to assimilate Quebec to British institutions, law, and religion. They were resisted by the British governors of Quebec – their own people! – first James Murray, and then Guy Carleton. Carleton reinstituted French civil law, and I think it was Murray who risked his job to get a priest named Bishop of Quebec, thus keeping the structure of the “papist” religion in a British colony. Britain finally gave up with the Quebec Act of 1774. It’s difficult to imagine how significant all this was back then, but the abolition of English civil law in favour of French civil law is named in the Declaration of Independence as a reason for the American colonists to break away. The major difference is that French civil law places less importance on private property, and more on ensuring that people are provided for (for instance, land could not be confiscated by a creditor if a wife and child needed that land for their livelihood; English law at the time made no such exception).
These first compromises set the tone for the rest of the country’s future. The necessity of careful compromise in such a diverse country has helped us to avoid the grand, sweeping economic and political ideologies that have wreaked havoc in Europe and the rest of the Western world. The few times we’ve failed to compromise (such as when Borden introduced conscription), the scars left have been deep.
[li]The Land Itself: This has been alluded to in other posts, but always as a negative. America is a very simple land of flat plains and some forests and fertile territory, with only a couple of small deserts and two mountain ranges in the way. It has a fairly temperate climate. By contrast, most of Canada is rocky and cold, or just cold, with the singular exception of British Columbia. This has made life harder for us, and Canada poorer, but it’s had positive consequences as well.[/li]
It is much harder for Canadians to fall under the delusion that human beings are separate from Nature, that we can somehow stand alone. We have had to live with Nature at her harshest. We know we are a part of it. This is probably why evnvironmentalism is stronger here, why Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation were both founded here.
Nature has also taught us that “no man is an island.” The harsh conditions have forced us to work together. While modern technology has made it easier to ignore the weather – at least in major cities, every once in awhile (such as during the Ice Storm that shut down all of Montreal), Nature gives us a swift kick in the butt to remind us who really controls this country
Many Canadians still pursue a very traditional way of life that brings them very close to Nature – hunters, trappers, fishers – particularly in some of the farther reaches of the nation.
[li]The place of the First Nations: In both America and in Canada, there was a policy of cultural/actual genocide against the native people. The difference is, Canada’s came much later. The people of New France traded extensively with the First Nations, helped fight their wars, and even intermarried with them, forming a new tribe that mixed the two cultures, the Métis. The English originally signed treaties with these peoples, dealing with them as separate nations – treaties which are still in effect, and now form the basis of the Land Claims Settlements. Meanwhile, one of the objections of the American colonists who broke away was Britain’s compromises with the peoples who would later be called “American Indians.” By the time the “reserve systems” and the policies of assimilation began, some of the cultural assumptions, ideas, stories, and technologies of the First Nations had already filtered into the European population. The two groups were less separate, and the genocide less absolute. Today, First Nations people make up a much larger percentage of the population here than in the US. IIRC, it was 1% of America, and about 10% of Canada.[/li]
[/ul]
That’s all I can think of for now, but I know there’s more. We’re actually very different countries, once you scratch the surface.
This thread has been very interesting reading, and I must applaud Rickjay’s very succinct post.
Actually, IIRC, worship of the Canadiens is covered in the provincial “notwithstanding clause.”
Another difference, which I think many Americans underestimate, is that the predominate religion in the US is Christianity, while in Canada it is hockey. No, I am not kidding (for once). Hockey is truly the one unifying force which binds us together as a nation. Celebrations of our two Olympic Goldswent on for days throughout the country. Hockey brings us together on Saturday nights, it dominates our sports pages, winter or summer, and it is the source of innumerable discussions and arguments. Most critically, the government does nothing to help keep our NHL teams competitive with their American counterparts, because they belive in separation of church and state.
I’ve hear the same sort of thing. Ya know, Texans being rather ignorant and rude, and not very welcoming of other that are not Texans. (Now I know it’s just a stereotype, but it’s the one thing that pops into mind when hearing the word “Texan”.)
But, one morning, I came into work and had a voice message on my phone. Here is how it went (Word for word and even tried to nail down the accent.):
Getting this really brightened my day! Think about it! Ya hear that “Canadians are polite, Americans are rude, and Texans are the rudest Americans.” and then ya get a voice mail message like that?
It was the talk of the office for the day!
It just goes to show, “Beware the generalizations.” (Yes, thats a “Zed” not an “S”. :D)
That’s the same 403; it just coincides with the QEW between Hamilton and Oakville.
The ‘4’ prefix actually indicates that the highway is limited access and the responsibility of the province. There are major municipal highways, as well as federal. Oh, and the QEW does not have a 400 number, except where it coincides with the 403.
Shame you missed out on the great food in Canada. Better luck in the future.
I concur with what kingpengvin said. One of the least-considered aspects of Canadians is that we are tough people. It’s cold up here. Our military has always been one of the best in the world. Canada recently had the highest kill ratio of any country in afganistan. The U.S. wanted to pin five bronze stars on Canadians over there. The U.S. ‘Top Gun’ international fighter jet competitions are dominated by Canadians. The NATO tank games in Europe used to be called “The Canada Cup” because of Canada’s tendency to win it. Our special forces (JTF-2) are among the best in the world.
Canadians own almost as many guns per capita as Americans do, and we probably use them more.
Hmm? Texans the rudest Americans? Whoever said that obviously has never been to New York. I have always thought the stereotype was ignorant and generous with a little arrogance thrown in like a cowboy or a rich oilman, but never rude. It’s also completely untrue. In my opinion Texas for the most part are pretty pleasant campared to some places. Like 75% of the state is from somewhere else (I can name only a dozen people whos parents are native Texas, and I live in the Capital) I can’t imagine that stereotype of hating all things outside of Texas even possible. What Texans are though is full of themselves. Texas this Texas that blah blah were the lone star state ad nauseum. But the xenophobic and rude stereotype isnt common at least as far as I know.
From a British point of view I have always found Canada fascinating. Our previous Dominions tend to fall into three distinct camps; those we dominated where our influence is now quite small eg India, black Africa. THose we set up where the British influence is still strong eg Australia New Zealand and those who went their own way eg The Caribbean.
Canada should be similar to Australia etc, being a dominion rather than a territory, yet it is closer to the US, and there is very little discernable British influence.
We are still very fond of Canada though, as the recent Queen’s visit shows. MOre so than The USA.
In the context of the OP, I’m not sure how this is relevant. As a former Canadian soldier, I can’t honesty say Canadians are unusually good soldiers as opposed to Americans. You can pick and choose your international exercises; I know I and my buddies had our asses handed to us in a FIBUA exercise against elements of the 101st Airborne. I also had the opportunity to work with a number of U.S. Army EW units, all of whom were the equal of any Canadian equivalent in terms of training, toughness, skill and dedication. Those gentlemen were highly motivated individuals to say the least, the equal of anyone Canada has and better than many. They could drink like crazy bastards, too (an important bonding skill in the armed forces. Until you’ve chugged beer out of a freshly carved Thanksgiving-display pumpkin you stole from the restaurant with Airborne soldiers, you just aren’t a real soldier.)
It is certainly true that Canada has a very honored and distinguished military record, but I am sure you and I could come up with scores of occasions on which Americans have served their country with the same bravery and ferocity we have come to expect of Canadian warriors.
I can’t see much objective evidence Canadians are inherently better soldiers than Americans, so it’s not really a difference. Nor, for that matter, is it a notable similarity, since much the same could be said of Russian, French, British, German, Australian… well, so many countries I couldn’t list them all.
It wasn’t a comparison thing I was bringing up. I was only clearing up any misconception others (especially younger Candians) have that we are only a nation of peace keepers. That our past was sterile and clean.
Our Military record shows that is not the case.
I was by no means trying to compare the US with Canada as to who has better soldiers. Just that we have bloodied our knuckles in the past and if called upon again we could do it again. If any one is deluded in thinking this country is incapable of it need only look at our mobilization in 1939. Our military was in worse shape (funding wise) than today and when called up for action we rose to the occasion.
I can’t speak of the difference in tactics or training but perhaps RickJay you may want to comment on any differences or silmilarities that you know of. Are the philosophies the same or are there subtle differences aside from the fact we know how to pronounce Lieutenant ;)?
Thanks for the incite. 
I guess it just goes to show just how much a stereotype can change as ir moves around.
Salute.
Come on; their government is bad, but not THAT bad!
And the British have some pretty good know-how.
I could come up with a lot of minutiae, but in terms of substantial differences there aren’t any that aren’t a product of the relative SIZES of the armed forces, which are obviously quite significant. I mean, the U.S. has to have doctrine around things like nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers that Canada does not possess. In terms of fundamental tactics and strategy, all modern, mechanized armies follow pretty similar approaches. The doctrine of modern warfare is universally applied in more or less the same fashion any country you go to. I know guys who have trained and even fought in the British Army and served alongside the french in Bosnia, and they don’t do anything all that different either. Training is pretty similar, too. It’s not as if anyone has any original ideas as to how to fire a rifle.
Historically, of course, there are lots of differences you could point to, but during the two World Wars, Canada (by choice in WWII) usually put most of their units into larger British formations beyond the corps level. This was a conscious decision made to avoid duplication of effort and confusion of command. During WWII, some Canadians wanted a completely separate army; others argued that this was a waste of resources and that defeating Germany trumped nationalist concerns. You can find editorials in Canadian newspapers of the time debating this. Anyway, as a consequence, there is not much in the way of a uniquely Canadian doctrine in either World War that you can compare to American doctrine. Our war approach was 98% British. That is no longer the case, but we have not recently fought a war on a large scale.
As good as Canadian soldiers are, their leadership is, to be quite frank, of highly questionable quality at the present time. At this point I sincerely doubt that Canada could effectively engage in battle in division strength. A brigade is pushing it. So, beyond the level of regiment and (charitably) brigade, we really don’t HAVE an effective doctrine you could compare to American practices. But in all honesty, I don’t think either country has a really different approach at any equatable level of military doctrine. We don’t have a radically different idea of how to use artillery.
As the old saying goes, it’s amateurs who discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics. Tactical differences are insignificant from army to army at any level below corps. When I studied tactical intelligence, we studied Canadian tactics - not because we planned to fight Canadians, but because the fundamentals of tactics don’t differ enough from army to army enough to be all that concerned about it in an overview course. If you get there the firstest with the mostest, you win. A nation’s STRATEGIC approach to war is the relevant comparison, and the current difference betwene Canada (hardly an army at all) and the USA (large, powerful army) is pretty obvious. Of course, this is a recent change; prior to WWII, the United States did not always maintain large peacetime armies.
Our drill looks better. There’s something.
[slight highjack] Grits are generally a Southern dish, though they can be found outside the South. Grits are to Southerners as cream of wheat or oatmeal are to Yankees. 
However, unlike cream of wheat or oatmeal, grits are seldom eaten alone. Grits are ground corn (maize, to any Euros who may be reading this). Preparation is simple: boil them with some salt, add some butter or margarine when served. I find them bland; without salt and butter (I generally add pepper) they would be almost tasteless. Today, grits are a breakfast food, served as a side dish with eggs and bacon, sausage or ham. However, in the past grits were often served at meals other than breakfast because grits were cheap and Southerners were often poor–in poverty sticken regions of the South during (for example) the Great Depression, a meal of hog jowls, grits and turnip greens was not uncommon. [/slight highjack]
I’d like to hear some details about “the horror of Dieppe,” if you don’t mind. I know you Canucks acquitted yourselves nobly during the First and Second World Wars, and I have some awareness of Juno Beach and all the others, but Dieppe escapes me. Some enlightenment, please?