Thank you for a very informative post.
Likewise. I wish I had more to contribute myself, but I started this thread primarily to learn from others.
This actually happened to me recently.
We were hanging out at Indian Wells between tennis matches, sharing a table under a shade tree with another couple, strangers. We had introduced ourselves while drinking beverages and staying cool, and were chatting friendly. Not unexpectedly, we all lived in SoCal.
At some point, they asked “where are you from originally”, but were looking at me, not my spouse. My spouse gets that question occasionally, but they were asking me specifically. It turns out that they were from Michigan and went to U of M, while I was from Ohio and went to OSU. Somehow they had sussed out that we were both Midwesterners, but rivals. It’s our mutual duty to rib each other, of course.
I wouldn’t consider the American Midwest (or California either) a nation, but I think a similar sort of group identity is at play.
My spouse, who is originally from Korea, sometimes get asked “where are you from”, usually from a Chinese speaker wondering what language is preferred (English, Mandarin, Cantonese). Korean speakers will simply ask “are you Korean”. Vietnamese and Filipinos seem to be able to recognize without asking Koreans as not knowing their languages.
When I visit friends in Maine, their friends who don’t know me often assume I’m Canadian. I think they’re more used to visiting Americans having an East Coast accent and my Ohio accent sounds like Ontario to them. There might be other cues as well.
Korean society is similar. My spouse lived in Korea until about age 25, but immigrated to America to “escape expectations”. The culture can be stifling, depending on one’s personality.
Wow, thanks for taking the time to write that very interesting and informative post!
It seems to me that “nation” is being used synonymously with “ethnic group.” Humans are pretty good at maintaining multiple identities, and also at code-switching. So if you’re Zimbabwean, you’re probably also something else, and there are times and places where Zimbabwean identity is primary or dominant, and times when it’s not.
It’s rare for a whole ethnic group to be performing its identity at once, but that’s one of the things holidays and festivals do: they give a chance for the group to come together. If a group is large enough, it might actually be impossible.
Another thing people do is offload their identity: plenty of Irish people don’t speak Irish, but nevertheless feel some connection to the language, and appreciate that other people speak it, even if they don’t. There are always people further at the center of the ethnic identity (=at the heart of the nation), and people further on the periphery. The core is clearer than the outer boundary.
Immigrants and ex-pats changes the balance, too. My great-grandparents immigrated to the US: we’ve retained their ethnicity, but it’s changed pretty dramatically each generation, and nothing quite captures it. I think “Heavily Americanized Italian” is better than “Italian-American,” though I usually just say “Italian.” (And because I’m only part Italian in ancestry, I am frequently told “I don’t look Italian”—don’t do that, people. Rude.) I know perfectly well that I don’t share an ethnicity with the people of Italy, but it’s not a foreign culture, either. It’s something in between, and “nation” doesn’t really have that level of subtlety. I’d consider myself a member of the Italian nation in diaspora. Some Italians would agree, but most wouldn’t, and quite a few would reject my claim vociferously. Because Italy is also an ethnicity-based nation state (sort of), with jus sanguinis, in this case there’s an active test, which I fail: I am not eligible for heritage citizenship (probably).
Like most Americans, I have other heritages that I could claim. I’m clearly a product of the Irish diaspora, but although I’m intersted in Irish culture, it does feel foreign. I would not identify as a part of the Irish nation, though two of my grandparents emphatically did—not ones I knew well growing up, though, in those crucial years mentioned above when identity is formed.
There’s also shades of ethnic and regional. Clearly Russians and Ukrainians are two distinct nations, with their own languages, etc. But 500 years ago, it wasn’t as clear, and 1000 years ago, they were one nation. You could say the same with less time depth for British and Americans. Things that affect that are different histories and experiences, different geographies, and all sorts of different identities that aren’t ethnic in origin (regional, occupational, technological, religious, what have you), but contribute to it.
My 2ȼ
And I think it’s also quite clear that English-speaking Canadians like you also don’t consider me to be part of the Canadian nation.
I don’t think that’s clear at all. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve never considered French Canadians any more or less Canadian than anyone else. I’m not discounting the evidence that there are large numbers of bigoted idiots in either language group, but the way you phrased it suggests that this attitude is general, and I don’t think it is, at least in my experience (almost all Western Canada).
Did you hear @Hari_Seldon? We’re the bad ones. We reject everyone. Do you really want us in your otherwise perfect nation? Or what about that post by @wolfpup:
Yeah, bunch of nonchalant yahoos we are, in addition to smoking all the time (and also committing near-constant sexual harassment!) as other people in the thread claim. And that’s not even anywhere near @wolfpup’s worst post, I guess I just noticed it because that’s what I expect from the guy. (In fairness, I think even Justin Trudeau once told a German diplomat that we couldn’t expect Canadians to be great builders like the Germans because “lol the French 
”. Albertans may have been offended by Trudeau saying he’d prefer Canada to be like Quebec than like Alberta, but what I say is, that guy sure loves his ethno-regional stereotypes.)
Also that whole thread about experiencing culture shock in one’s own country seems to have devolved into “I lived in the deplorable parts of the country. The people there were so deplorable.” Which is why I didn’t post in it, despite the fact that yes, I also have experienced culture shock in my country. I didn’t want it to be taken as “I have experienced culture shock because they are bad”.
So what is it, @Dr.Drake? What are we? Are we racists who sully an otherwise great country as @Hari_Seldon keeps reminding us? (Also not his first post about this.) Are we serial sexual harassers who smoke cheap cigarettes and drink cheap beer? What is the problem with me (us?) that I (we?) need to solve before we can be thought of as real Canadians? And also, how can I expect to be treated if I meet you in person?
In places where there is a language issue, it often points to a constitutional problem with the nation state. There will be a political group that wants to break away and create their own independent nation state, usually carving off a good bit of territory. Language becomes a way of separating those who are in favour from those who are against.
In Canada there are the Quebecois, who are an echo of the wars and rivalry between the French and the English for control over North America. Those wars were won by the English speakers, but those struggles left behind section of the population who would much rather have their own French independent speaking state and this remains a challenge for the Canadian federal system.
In Ireland, the Irish language is encouraged, kids are sent to summer schools to learn it. The Republic of Ireland feels it is important that all documents relating to the EU are translated into Irish, despite the fact that few people actually speak and read the language on a regular basis. This is because of its political significance, it is a mark of nationhood in a nation state that has been dominated by the much bigger English speaking nations and whose politicians were keen to foster a separate national identity. Something similar exists in Spain with the Catalans versus the Spanish speakers.
In Estonia, the Estonian language has a special political significance. You cannot be an Estonian national unless you speak the language competently. There is a similar situation in Latvia and Lithuania. I have met Russian speaking Estonians who have been rendered stateless by this policy. I have also met Estonian speaking Estonians who consider the policy essential to their countries survival. That contention is exploited from time to time by Putin on behalf of Russian speakers.
The reason is because these small nations must assert their nationhood and independence or risk being absorbed by bigger nation states. The Baltic countries have had it worse than most, having been invaded by the Germans and Russians in WW2 and having to suffer mass deportations. There were also alternately campaigns to Germanify or Russify the population by eliminating any rival language or culture. Poland, a much larger country, had the same, severe treatment.
The Soviets deported huge numbers of people in cattle trucks to Siberia and replaced them with Russians. This was a pattern that was repeated all over the Soviet Union. Not least in Crimea to the Tatars. Judging by recent events, things have not changed much. Ukraine has much to fear from Putin’s invasion. He would destroy the Ukraine as a national state and ensure it made into part of Russia…one way or another.
These examples all arise from the problems with the constitution of a nation state that may split into parts and the predations of larger rival states creating empires.
Europe is a complex patchwork of language groups, cultures and minorities. National identities seldom correspond with a discrete territory required by a nation state. Sometimes politicians, anxious to consolidate power, decide to marginalise and then deport or even exterminate sections of the population who are thought not to accept their authority.
The Yugoslav wars and the ‘ethnic cleaning’ that was perpetrated in the 1990s by politicians carving out their territory are reminder that these horrors could return.
Nations, minorities, groups of all kinds can exist harmoniously within a nation state if they agree to a constitution. That and the integrity of the national borders are recognised and not challenged by neighbouring states.
In Europe, the European Union has been successful in encouraging this stability, and the economic benefits are widely recognised. It is good for smaller nation states, as long as the larger ones are content to pay more.
It is careful not to encourage separatist movements for fear of compromising existing members. But it does provide for languages to be recognised and some groups see this as an essential stepping stone towards statehood.
If it there was not language to identify a group, it would probably be religion or race. Politicians will always find someway to separate their sheep from a rivals goats.
I shudder to think of what might come next in an Internet connected world swept by culture wars between political tribes.
I’ll just respond to this part. You are Canadians, as am I.
I presume your rate of sexual harassment is more or less on a par with the rest of the country: things have changed dramatically in the last 50 years, so maybe you’re behind the curve, maybe we are; I don’t know. There are plenty of egregious examples to show that not everyone has got the memo, in any case, and I don’t think that’s limited to one subculture or another.
I don’t care about your recreational substances (I mean, I’d prefer people didn’t smoke, because it’s gross, but that varies pretty widely across geography and class and occupation within Anglo-Canada, so I presume you’re somewhere in that range, anyhow).
I already think of you as real Canadians, and always did; I’m pretty sure everyone else of my acquaintance does, too, so I can’t help you with that.
You can expect to be treated as a fellow Canadian. Happy to talk to you in English or French. Sorry about the bad experiences.
I’m sorry that you found my post offensive. Yes, it was snarky, but not meant to be offensive; it was in the same spirit as Dave Barry describing a boat trip from Florida to Bimini, where he described everyone as being so laid back that he called it the “lethargy zone”. Different regions have different cultures. As someone who spent the entirety of my younger years in Quebec, and then moved to Ontario, I was making an observation on cultural differences which I think I’m quite qualified to do based on lived experience.
Had I stated it more diplomatically, probably many Quebeckers would agree, expressing the sentiment that “we like our culture, and the ways that it differs from English formality”. Which is fine. My only real problem with Quebec, frankly, is the extent to which franco-nationalism has become a real threat to the basic civil rights of the anglophone minority.
All cultures have irrationalities and illogical ideas and notions, but membership in a particular group tends to blind one to those. The problem that returning Japanese face is that they can now see that the emperor has no clothes and have difficulty in quietly going along with the crowds.
Going back to this:
Japan in the mid 90s had the second largest economy in the world. The workforce was highly educated and competent. Yet, for certain reasons, the belief was these skilled workers couldn’t possibly insert an adapter the size of a small paperback book between a fax machine and the phone socket.
It makes no sense and there was logical reason that it couldn’t have been done. But the culture was such that they simply wouldn’t touch it.
Outsiders, either foreigners or returnees are left with the option of either screaming in frustration while tearing out one’s hair or somehow adopting a zen-like attitude of acceptance of the inevitability of group think.