An American's View of Canada

Post Reply New Topic

An American's View of Canada

(This editorial ran in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in August 2003)

It's not just the weather that's cooler in Canada: You live next door to a clean-cut, quiet guy. He never plays loud music or throws raucous parties. He doesn't gossip over the fence, just smiles politely and offers you some tomatoes. His lawn is cared-for, his house is neat as a pin and you get the feeling he doesn't always lock his front door. He wears Dockers. You hardly know he's there. And then one day you discover that he has pot in his basement, spends his weekends at peace marches and that guy you've seen mowing the yard is his spouse.

Allow me to introduce Canada. The Canadians are so quiet that you may have forgotten they're up there, but they've been busy doing some surprising things. It's like discovering that the mice you are dimly aware of in your attic have been building an espresso machine.

Did you realize, for example, that our reliable little tag-along brother never joined the Coalition of the Willing? Canada wasn't willing, as it turns out, to join the fun in Iraq. I can only assume American diner menus weren't angrily changed to include "freedom bacon," because nobody here eats the stuff anyway.

And then there's the wild drug situation: Canadian doctors are authorized to dispense medical marijuana. Parliament is considering legislation that would not exactly legalize marijuana possession, as you may have heard, but would reduce the penalty for possession of under 15 grams to a fine, like a speeding ticket. This is to allow law enforcement to concentrate resources on traffickers; if your garden is full of wasps, it's smarter to go for the nest rather than trying to swat every individual bug. Or, in the United States, bong.

Now, here's the part that I, as an American, can't understand. These poor benighted pinkos are doing everything wrong. They have a drug problem: Marijuana offenses have doubled since 1991. And Canada has strict gun control laws, which means that the criminals must all be heavily armed, the law-abiding civilians helpless and the government on the verge of a massive confiscation campaign. (The laws have been in place since the '70s, but I'm sure the government will get around to the confiscation eventually.) They don't even have a death penalty!

And yet ... nationally, overall crime in Canada has been declining since 1991. Violent crimes fell 13 percent in 2002. Of course, there are still crimes committed with guns - brought in from the United States, which has become the major illegal weapons supplier for all of North America - but my theory is that the surge in pot-smoking has rendered most criminals too relaxed to commit violent crimes. They're probably more focused on shoplifting boxes of Ho-Hos from convenience stores.

And then there's the most reckless move of all: Just last month, Canada decided to allow and recognize same-sex marriages. Merciful moose, what can they be thinking? Will there be married Mounties (they always get their man!)? Dudley Do-Right was sweet on Nell, not Mel! We must be the only ones who really care about families. Not enough to make sure they all have health insurance, of course, but more than those libertines up north.

This sort of behavior is a clear and present danger to all our stereotypes about Canada. It's supposed to be a cold, wholesome country of polite, beer-drinking hockey players, not founded by freedom-fighters in a bloody revolution but quietly assembled by loyalists and royalists more interested in order and good government than liberty and independence. But if we are the rugged individualists, why do we spend so much of our time trying to get everyone to march in lockstep? And if Canadians are so reserved and moderate, why are they so progressive about letting people do what they want to?

Canadians are, as a nation, less religious than we are, according to polls. As a result, Canada's government isn't influenced by large, well-organized religious groups and thus has more in common with those of Scandinavia than those of the United States, or, say, Iran.

Canada signed the Kyoto global warming treaty, lets 19-year-olds drink, has more of its population living in urban areas and accepts more immigrants per capita than the United States. These are all things we've been told will wreck our society. But I guess Canadians are different, because theirs seems oddly sound.

Like teenagers, we fiercely idolize individual freedom but really demand that everyone be the same. But the Canadians seem more adult - more secure. They aren't afraid of foreigners. They aren't afraid of homosexuality. Most of all, they're not afraid of each other.

I wonder if America will ever be that cool.

Stupid generic article. Canada doesnt meet its obligations under the Kyoto treaty anyway. What good is sigining something if you wont follow up on it? The country is also about 90% white, so dont give me this nonsense about its diversity.

If anything, Canadians have a chip on their shoulder about being in the shadow of the US. And pot is already decriminalized in a lot of states. Like NY. It's only a small fine and violation.

Last edited by AutisticOne on 10 Aug 2007, 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

what does it matter what portion is white or not?

Because this article is trying to imply that Canada is as diverse, or more diverse, than the US. Bragging about all the immigrants and what not. Canada is still a small, homogeneous country. And to compare its social problems to that of the US, is disingenuous at best.

Yeah, I hate to be a wet blanket but I'd be a lot more intrigued by facts backed up with documentation and figures.

But then, this piece does abide by the nature of the average editorial: heavy on opinion, light on evidence.

Interesting concept though.

The implication of a diverse society is that you come to accept people noticibly different. You dont bat an eye. It also means that people mingle freely.

This doesnt seem to happen in many parts of the US. Right now, the various minorities comprise a majority against the whites in a lot of places. But instead of happily coexisting, they form little enclaves in their own neighbourhoods. One would think that a commonality of hardship, or the understanding of the experience of emmigrating to a new country would draw them together... whites not even considered. But no, we all see this doesnt happen.

To put a fine point on it, you are entirely right. I was 18 before I met a black person. Where? A party in the bush. He was the only one, but there was no consideration that he was out of place, or off his turf. Nobody wanted to beat him because he was a different colour.

Years later, when I worked at a bar, my home province passed a law enabling gay marriage. That very night, perhaps to celebrate, two gay guys were hugging and smooching in the middle of the bar, full of ranchers and oil rig workers. As the senior bouncer, I would have been the first to deal with any fights over that issue. but you know what? Nobody said boo. Whatever ill feelings happened over that public display of affection, nobody felt it their place to beat the gay out of those gentlemen.

Oddly I dont recall any wiggers getting beaten up either.

The first 2 paragraphs of the article weirded me out. Canadians are creepy. Or, rather, Canada is. I had a good friend who was from there, and I talked to a Canadian girl for two full month through eharmony. Very cute -- a little too idealistic. (She insisted on marrying a virgin -- she could take no less, she said.)

The nature of a diverse society is diversity though just the same. Really, if there are no black people then you won't be prejudiced against them, just like I have never had reason to be prejudiced against pixies. A group must exist in order for it to be scorned, something that does cause problems for your idea. Really, the entire matter of race only is an issue with certain groups in the US, and often then because of the association of blacks with crime. That does not mean that racism doesn't exist, but I haven't met many people who hate black people or who want to beat them because of their skin color.

Dude, seriously, I have walked through the mall and seen gay men walking around holding hands, nobody was harassing them. It wouldn't even surprise me if a significant number of those people thought that gay marriage was wrong as well. Really though, I don't think you can point out a few extreme examples of bad things and claim that such is the entire US.

Really though, I don't find the article given that fascinating. As gwenevyn has stated, it is just an editorial and from reading it, I know it is driven more to push forward a left-wing view point than to necessarily analyze the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Frankly, as a libertarian I could care less about flim-flam statements of superiority as I know America is not as I want it to be but I still do not admire Canada.

Good valid arguments.

However, a lack of non-euro citizenry doesnt mean a lack of exposure to ideas, and our media is inundated by American programming and has been for 40 years. As well, we are well exposed to a wider world view, so we get exposed to the prejudices of other cultures. With 21 out of 33 million Canadians having internet access, we are far more connected than our neighbours to the south, per capita.

And there is a whole in your argument too. Xenophobia. You dont need exposure to hate and fear other cultures, and exposure is the only cure for that.

Huh? When'd that happen?
Last I remember, there was
NO support for this measure
in the govt.

Canada is HUGE. And there are some pretty major
cultural differences, like regions with differing official
languages. Now, I've not been to Western Canada, but
I'd rather suspect that whatever differences are there
from the East are comparable to those in the US. I simply
can't see how you could say this.

I enjoyed reading that. Especially the irony of a man as religeous as yourself finding some one to be even more idealistic. Life is neat like that, though. I assume she was also quite religeous.

Many states are like that. Under a couple ounces is only a small fine, and nothing on your record.
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516

I meant small as in population.

Ok, that is absolutely correct, however, those arguments are significantly weaker. I never said that I even cared about exposure to ideas, if anything the American lack of exposure to other ideas is because on average we don't desire them, not because we lack the implements to get this information. Both nations have the very fruits of western civilization at their grasp and that of other civilizations, found cheaply for citizens in libraries. As such, I am not incredibly concerned.

Ok, xenophobia. What about it? Some level exists, especially towards france, mexico, and islamic cultures. Is it positive? Not really. Do I find the level too high? Certainly. Am I vastly concerned though? Not really. Many people do not see the nation as doing well as we were attacked by muslim extremists, the economic distribution is getting unfavorable to certain groups due to large economic trends in the nature of production, as well Mexican immigrants are coming in and they are often seen as being under-educated and possessing poor values by natives. These trends would contribute to xenophobic attitudes, as well as our basic level of patriotism and desire to walk our own path. Patriotism I do not support too much but do not mind, the desire to go our own way I support so long as we act to be isolationists more so than neoconservatives.

Exposure could be considered a cure by some, but that makes assumptions on the xenophobic impulses, that they are a result of poor education on matters rather than an outright rejection of values and their utility or even a perception of harm caused by a group. If it is the former then exposure will work, if it is the latter then only indoctrination will work. I would not support indoctrination, and to my dismay, I think that most action to attack xenophobia will fall in that category, as the aim is rarely to educate but rather to push someone's agenda somewhere.

Doesn't cover the homogeneity issue though.