In Defence of Canadians
A recent poll by Ekos Research Associates Inc. has caused many to jump on an ever growing band-wagon, condemning Canadians as Anti-American. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix reports:
Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.
The 1,500 people contacted for the poll, conducted last February for the Department of National Defence, listed “International Organized Crime” as the top danger, with 38 per cent ranking it as a great threat to security concern and another 50 per cent listing it as moderate
But tied for second in the poll were “U.S. Foreign Policy” and “Terrorism,” with 37 per cent rating it a great risk. Just behind those worries came “Climate Change and Global Warming.”
The results of this poll are being seriously construed. To fear Bush more than Bin Laden would be preposterous, of course, and that is exactly what the American parrots are reporting this poll shows. However, perceiving the current American administration as a greater threat than Al Queda is a completely different issue. To say a unilateral state, with whom we have been allied, has seemingly been in a race for hegemony poses a greater risk to our security than terror abroad demonstrates (at least some) Canadians ability to grasp the bigger picture. Through years of strong arm foreign “policy”, America has effectively buried Canada along with itself in a strong hatred of the West; found especially in the Middle East. Perceiving the totality of this threat as greater than that posed by the terrorists of the world is justified. This is especially true when the hatred that burns brightest is stoked simply by the pure fuel that is American action abroad.
What Americans are quite known for is their inability to accept blame; forget where the problem originated, the problem must lie with someone else. So, unsurprisingly, culpability falls on anyone but the Americans themselves. Hatred for Americans has no reasonable cause, apparently - the people of country X are said to be jealous - jealous of democracy, jealous of the American way, jealous of freedom. Forget who imposed the conditions leading to country x’s oppression, they only want what America has. Forget Saddam Hussein had the stars and stripes draped over his shoulders, and American artillery in his tyrannical hands, their hatred has its source in their lack of freedom only.
Now, even dissention has been brought under this ‘infallible’ blanket thrown over the electorate of the US, the edges of which are starting to encompass area north of the 49. “You are either with us, or against us” has been a moniker with which the Bush administration has successfully divided and conquered the voting public, and has been seeking to sway opinion abroad. Opposition is quickly devalued with words like “traitor”; the branding of liberal burns with the sting of an insult, now. People like Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly have great success as their views align perfectly with the administration’s agenda. The shift has been succesful, dissent=anti-Americanism. Currently, a tide of fear has arose in Canada, one that can only be assuaged by bending over for America. Celucci, the previous American ambassador to Canada, constantly ridiculed us for our lack of “loyalty”, saying friends don’t abandon each other in times of need (when in the real world, a true friend will stand up tell you when you have taken the wrong path), and this chorus was picked up by the weak of Canada. Anti-americanism became a cliche, a catch-phrase, even a sin, symbolic of a suppossed hostility and inferiority expressed by Canadians. The blame-shift came full circle once again.
This is fully demonstrated by the recent study done by the Fraser institute. Anti-Americanism was characterised by disaproval with the Iraq war, or negative attitudes expressed during post 9/11 or after we lost 4 soldiers to American fire. This is hardly a representative sample nor are these valid variables used to obtain the mythical “anti-Americanism” result. So, does the moral-eye at Fraser institute turn to the states to investigate possible reasons for this bias? Of course not. An outright insulting and deleterious view of Canadian culture as a whole is served up. “Garrison mentality” and immature cultural identity’s cause us to resent whatever it is America has. A culpable US is an option that is not even dismissed, it is outright ignored.
So, returning to the previous poll’s results, I find attaching anti-Americanism to anti-Bush admin. more than over-reaching. As I stated before, the results are justifiable, and Canadians should not have to feel guilty expressing such opinion. Legitimate dissention should never be cast so negatively. This is why I fear the Rachel Marsdens, the Tucker Carlson’s. The death of Respect is a movement forwarded by their likes, and is gaining momentum. To beware the branding of anti-Americanism is not only to understand the value of opposition, but to obstruct a greater deception. Whether they know it or not, Canadians are American’s best friend.
Well said.
Comment by santonel — June 21, 2005 @ 5:14 am
I guess half the American population is “anti-American”. For Canadians, anti-Bush = pro - American. It’s that simple. Discussing Canada with Canadians who hate Canada (for whatever reason) is probably the most frustrating endeavour one can possibly undertake. You are certainly dealing with the weakest (in every sense) Canadians when you do.
Comment by Princess Monkey — June 21, 2005 @ 11:01 am
Have any of you been to the U.S. lately? It’s one hell of ahigh-tension atmosphere.
When the US withdraws from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (hey, NKorea did also) then we have to be concerned about who’s “got the football” or the little black box connected to the nukes.
But when the US, the leader, scuttles the NPT at the last review, and the next one isn’t scheduled ’till 2010, I think that Canadians have reason to be concerned for _any_ administration.
Considering that many Canadians have zero identity outside the “NOT-American” paradigm, this view shouldn’t be that surprising.
Comment by Aaron — June 21, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
Aaron,
I think the present administration does give grounds for more concern than past groups.
Comment by Tommy Eliot Steele — June 23, 2005 @ 4:58 am
The latest US administration needs enemies - and they are trained to find them, whether they exist or not. They fall into the classical logic trap of either/or quite willingly, as long as they can entice others to see circumstances in the same light.
Comment by Thursday — June 25, 2005 @ 1:43 am
Oh please. Canada has always hated the US. Canada is insanely jealous of the US. Jealousy is a very powerful emotion.
Why in the world do you think the US should care what the dictators in the Mid East and an insignificant country like Canada cares about them?
When you are talking to Canadians who hate the US, you are talking to the lowest common denominator possible; literally the feeble-minded.
Comment by Embarrassed to be Canadian — June 29, 2005 @ 7:12 am
As demonstrated above by Embarrased, jealousy is the failsafe justification for incongruency between America and other states. I would like to reply to you Embarrassed, but I don’t think you contributed anything novel to this thread.
Comment by Tommy Eliot Steele — June 29, 2005 @ 9:31 pm
I can translate comment #7: I know you are right but I am not going to admit it.
That was too easy.
And I didn’t even have to bring up the Canadian govt’s oil ties with Iraq (thus their refusal to enforce international law) - or the fact that the gap between the US and Canada is getting wider and wider - or the self-loathing many Canadians feel as they realize that they are too weak to defend their country and must rely on the USA.
Comment by Embarrassed to be Canadian — June 30, 2005 @ 5:14 am
Did you even read my post, Embarrased? Your “arguments” fall right inline with what I was talking about. Very few actually hate the US. For the most part, what is labelled as anti-americanism is simply disagreement. Your argument is really incoherent and illogical.
Comment by Tommy Eliot Steele — July 1, 2005 @ 12:23 am
Did you even read your post before submitting it?
You “fear” the Rachel Marsdens and Tucker Carlsons?!
Canada is America’s best friend?! Never heard of the UK, I take it.
I guess Canada shows its friendship by refusing to enforce international law so they can continue to greedily make blood money from Iraq’s oil.
Or Canada shows its friendship by having its elected leaders refer to Americans as “dumb” and “morons” and calling them “bastards.”
Or maybe it is when an elected leader goes on a show on the state-run television station and crushes a George Bush doll underneath her boot.
And what country imposed the conditions leading to country X’s oppression?
And again you ducked my question - in favor of hurling ad hom attacks: Why in the hell should Americans and America care what Canada thinks about them? Do you really think that Canada is an important voice in the world? Do you honestly believe Paul Martin when he says “we lead the world”?
Good grief!
Comment by Embarrassed to be Canadian — July 1, 2005 @ 9:57 pm
OK Charlie Brown, here we go.
1. “You “fear” the Rachel Marsdens and Tucker Carlsons?!”
I fear their movement, one that allows people to justify discrimination and hate. For example, when someone like Dennis Miller openly states racist comments and people view this as a legitimate opinion, or something like East Waynesville Baptist Church excommunicating some of its members for voting democratic occurs, then yes, I rightly fear the “death of Respect and Empathy” movement that is taking place.
2. “Canada is America’s best friend?! Never heard of the UK, I take it.”
Again, a true friend will stand up and tell you when you have taken the wrong path. The UK supported an unjustified and illegal war, whereas Canada stood up for what it believed in and was chastised. I don’t know about you but I don’t call sycophants friends. My friends can think for themselves.
3. “Or Canada shows its friendship by having its elected leaders refer to Americans as “dumb” and “morons” and calling them “bastards.”
Or maybe it is when an elected leader goes on a show on the state-run television station and crushes a George Bush doll underneath her boot.”
You are referring to a couple of isolated incidents and condemning the entire leadership of Canada. I doubt the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Bloc would be very sympathetic to such a cognitively lazy and generalizing view. Parrish, a self-described “lowly backbencher”, has apologized and faced the consequences.
4. “And what country imposed the conditions leading to country X’s oppression?”
It is no big secret that the US likes to sponsor certain groups in foreign countries to gain a certain influence that can serve American interests. Saddam’s “admin” was one such group. It is unsurprising that this practice often results in dictatorship.
5. “Why in the hell should Americans and America care what Canada thinks about them? Do you really think that Canada is an important voice in the world? Do you honestly believe Paul Martin when he says “we lead the world”?”
Well, honestly, Americans don’t care, except when we disagree. Then out comes the anti-American artillery to devalue our dissention. Take the Iraq war. Had we of joined the coalition, we would have been mentioned a sight less than Australia. Nobody would have cared in the US, and rightly so. We really are unimportant on the militaristic side of the world stage, and the few soldiers we would have sent would have paled next to American numbers.
Of course, I think Americans should care. We are their largest partner in trade, we share very similar cultures and values, we are neighbours, and this will always be.
And as to whether or not we lead the world, I think it is partially true. We lead by example. While I feel that this is totally insufficient in the world we live in, it is quite a bit better than leading at the point of a gun.
OK, I hope we got that tangential argument out of the way. This back and forth could go on forever. Embarrased, it seems you are a little pre-occupied with showing how bad Canada is to dispute what I wrote in any way, shape, or form. Our dissention is legitimate, our points of disagreement have value, and this opposition is one that is vital to freedom and democracy.
Comment by Tommy Eliot Steele — July 3, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
You know, I thought you were a reasonable liberal, but…
I fear their [Rachel Marsden and Tucker Carlson] movement, one that allows people to justify discrimination and hate.
A liberal is going to lecture on discrimination and hate?! YOUR side is full of bigots and hate. Reverend Phelps from the infamous godhatesfags.com website is a registered Democrat. Do I have to bring up all of Howard Dean’s hateful bigoted statements? Senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) was a Grand Kleagle in the KKK. He used the phrase “white ni**ers” on the air on the “Faux” News Channel. Jesse “NY is hymietown” Jackson, Al Sharpton, I could go on and on. There were far more Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Indeed, Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd filibustered it for 14 hours.
And who went to war to free the slaves (although that wasn’t the only reason)? Abe Lincoln; a Republican.
Who enacted women’s rights? Republicans.
Like the old adage goes:
Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, while liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent.
The UK supported an unjustified and illegal war, whereas Canada stood up for what it believed in and was chastised
Either you are being dishonest or you are blind about world affairs. Saddam broke the ceasefire agreement he signed in 1991, he either broke or ignored 16 Chapter VII (binding) UN resolutions, he tried to assassinate a US President (an Act of War), offered $10 million dinars to any Iraqi soldier who could down a US airplane ($5 million for a British plane), openly sponsored international terrorism, harbored high profile terrorists, plus Clinton-appointed federal judge Harold Baer awarded two 9-11 families a $104 million judgement against the state of Iraq for its complicity in 9-11.
I won’t bother to answer the rest of your post if you are not going to be serious.
Comment by Embarrassed to be Canadian — July 21, 2005 @ 2:36 am
gaudcudeeu
tzouin
Trackback by lukwsuz — March 5, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
redefining:white bestirring movers.breathing.shrew crossbars Anita comprises.
Comment by Anonymous — March 29, 2006 @ 1:17 am
bookshelves gulled:pretty drift headroom,thermodynamic …
Comment by Anonymous — March 29, 2006 @ 11:19 am
butcher designed varnishes pipes Abigail!…
Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2006 @ 5:26 am
barriers staunch they Yosemite sixty!extra snowball feelings
Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Kimball!depicting benign kidnappers:conquerable!… Thanks!!!
Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
sidestep.beauties.medicinally mandating homemakers?automobile enacting
Comment by no credit check loan what does credit score mean — April 12, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
Moroccan Indian memorizer inconvenience Winnebago?domineering - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
Comment by Anonymous — April 14, 2006 @ 1:16 am
honeymooned gayly?relaxations:trickle parson!grandchildren
Comment by Anonymous — April 14, 2006 @ 1:18 am
repositions bedazzled shouter Freudianisms activate.thundering hares hoodwinked responds
Comment by Anonymous — May 6, 2006 @ 4:30 am
thanked ringingly Jung repeating rustic infiniteness,shudder - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
Comment by betting com ladbrokes plc — May 11, 2006 @ 1:29 am