Yeah, just look at this array of proud Black excellence…
That doesn’t logically follow at all. There is absolutely no reason why these values have to be unique to Canada, for Canadians to self-identify with them.
The “unique” part, if unique it is (and again, there is nothing prohibiting anyone else from doing it … ) is that self-identification with such values, alone, together with residence in this nation, and without any requirement for tracing one’s ancestry back to some putative group of forefathers, is sufficient for inclusion as a “Canadian”.
Again, if there is anything “unique” about these values, it is merely that they are emphasized over other values.
For example, the US is said to value “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” (while Canadians are said to value “Peace, Order and Good Government”).
Does this mean that only the US values “liberty” and only Canada values “peace”?
Clearly not … these are values that people all over the world value. Many Canadians value “liberty” and many Americans value “peace”.
What is unique, for the purposes of self-identity, is what emphasis each group chooses from among these values. Americans are fundamentally different from English Canadians, despite many cultural similarities, because America, through its history, has chosen a different set of values to emphasize – and it is the choice of the specific set which makes each of them different.
Someone from another nation could, very easily, ‘believe in’ all of the benign values mentioned in both lists - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, peace, order and good government - and more besides. That doesn’t mean the unique sets adopted by the US and Canada aren’t distinctive.
It’s different from the self-identity “English” Canadians are busy constructing, puts emphasis on valuing different things. This is bound to cause a certain amount of friction - English Canadians tend to see Quebec as being, basically, in love with a specifically tribal identity that English Canada has discarded for itself; Quebec tends to see English Canada as fooling itself about having discarded its own tribal identity.
Hell, this debate is sort of an example of that in miniature.
You start out with your conclusions (“there has to be more to it”). Actually … there doesn’t have to be more. The generality of the self-identity isn’t a problem and is not “unworkable” for the simple reason that there is no “work” that it needs to do, other than to act as a focus of social cohesion … which you yourself note, is exactly what it does: “But I see very few national-level debates or discussions regarding the country’s identity among English Canadians, which from the perspective of a Quebecer is a clear cultural difference.”
The lack of “debate over identity” is a feature, not a bug: you can have whatever “identity” you want … as long as you agree to the vague, benign positive attributes which Canadians have defined as worthy of emphasis, being the attributes of “Canadian-ness”.
You don’t believe that, and see rather a set of “elites” creating a narrative and requiring conformity …
Now, every nation has “elites”, and in every nation elites attempt to have their way, but I see no evidence that those of English Canada are uniquely influential compared with elsewhere.
lol. I can’t tell whether he means “motor sports” or “motor skills” i.e. coordination.
Driving a NASCAR car isn’t shit compared to flying a fighter plane, and there have been more great black fighter pilots than I can count.
I’ll be damned. Looks like my stereotype was wrong.
lol, it kills me that that Wiki has a category for Canoeing.
Okay, so it does also include at least “residence in this nation”. (But then again, there are also Canadians who live abroad, so it’s more complicated than that.)
I guess I value hard work and civility, and I also live in Canada. Do you think of me as Canadian? I’m sure you’ll say you do, or that “I am if I want to”, but as we’ll get to later in this post, you seem to think (or to say that English Canadians as a group tend to think) of my opinions, values, way of life, of my whole identity as “problematic” and in need of being called out, to use some popular modern lingo. So of course I can be Canadian, buuut… you’d like me to change who I am to conform with the role that you perceive “French Canadians” should have in the Canada of 2018.
It’s not only Americans who value liberty and only Canadians who value peace, but Canadians definitely value peace (and order) much more than they value liberty and democracy. I’d say Canada is only incidentally a liberal democracy, while that’s a fundamental property of the US. This is of course due to historical reasons, but given the number of Canadians you hear brag that Canada became independent “because we asked politely” as a dig towards the US that fought for its independence, it’s clearly what Canadians want even today. I’d also say Quebec has a much more “democratic” (and also “republican”) culture of political and social engagement than Canada, which is one of the reasons why I’ll honestly say I prefer it.
Well, English Canadians are wrong. The values are in fact a bit different; I guess you could say, as I did earlier, that in society-wide debates Quebec society values more “democracy” and “republicanism” while Canadian society values more “peace” and “order”, and in personal interactions Quebec society values more “honesty” while Canadian society values more “politeness”. None of these two models is out of line for a modern Western country, so it’s just a matter of personal preference but can lead to some level of cultural shock.
But what is wrong is the idea that “Quebec [is] in love with a specifically tribal identity that English Canada has discarded for itself”. Anyone can adopt the Quebec national identity, provided they think of themselves as such and accept a certain set of values. And they should be able to communicate in French and accept that it is the national language of Quebec. Maybe this is what you’ll call a “tribal identity” and whip out the case of your Ukrainian, barely English-speaking in-laws, but Gyrate’s joke, as well as the recurrent debates over bilingualism in Canada, should remind you that Canada also has a lot of difficulty with large subgroups who “won’t” speak English.
(Yes, I know Gyrate is British and doesn’t know anything about Canadian social debates, but they got that joke from some English Canadian.)
Tabarnak de cuuuuuuuuuuuuulisssse
Not only debate over identity; there is very little debate over anything in English Canada. I’ll give a real-life example. A year or so ago I attended a talk given by an administrator of Manitoba’s Catholic health corporation. He was discussing euthanasia and medical assistance in dying, which is now a guaranteed right in Canada by a decision of the Supreme Court. He was saying that the only jurisdiction in Canada to have held a public debate on the subject had been Quebec. An audience member added that Quebec had been soundly mocked in the rest of Canada at the time, but the result had been that Quebecers knew where they stood on the issue as a society, and the Quebec National Assembly could pass a law about it, while the rest of Canada just had a Supreme Court decision sprung upon it. I guess Canadians have now accepted the decision of the Supreme Court (the “elites” in this case) because if it caused a debate at the time, it seems to have died down now.
I’m not saying Canada is necessarily wrong there. Maybe it’s a good thing, in a very diverse country, to avoid discussing contentious subjects when some of the opinions expressed could offend or exclude someone, and leave the debate to elites, to whose decision everybody is then expected to conform. What I’m saying is that it’s not necessarily “better” than the alternative. Canadians seem to think their country objectively is the best country in the world, and while I agree that some people certainly prefer it to any other country and that’s fine, it’s certainly fine as well to prefer some other way of doing things.
They’re probably getting their history lessons from your President, who told our Prime Minister that the national security tariffs on Canadian steel are justified because Canadians burnt down the White House:
Says a lot about Canadians when they and Donald Trump have the same level of general history knowledge.
Next up Trump is going to say that the Canadian Avro Arrow could have saved the United States Air Force.
Wiki has a category for just about everything.
I’ve been surprised by the “Sorry about dat, eh” stereotype - I can’t recall meeting a Canadian who could be described as the ‘apologetic’ type. They seemed to be quite assertive people, actually.
(Disclaimer: My entire experience with Canadians amounts to little more than a few days in Toronto and interactions with a few other Canadians)
Two nitpicks:
-
I’m British-American - born and raised in the US but have been living in the UK long enough to also pick up UK citizenship as well.
-
I got the main joke from an English Canadian but the Quebec addendum is all my own.
But it is correct to say my knowledge of Canadian social debates is largely superficial.
Yeah I know but specifically that the “Jewish Athletes” category has a subcategory for Canoeing. I’ll leave the rhyming potential of “Jew” and “Canoe” to someone with more comedic talent.
In Pat Conroy’s The Great Santini, a young Jewish character in the Sixties South calls his big boat of a car “the Jew Canoe.”
Pierre Berton said that one of the distinguishing features of Canadians was that they can make love in a canoe without tipping.
Though 15-25% is reasonable consideration for above-average service.
Tabarnak de caaaaaanooooooe
Canadians have lovemaking in a canoe; Americans have Budweiser. They’re both fucking close to water.