[JBG]

America's national myths are a powerful, unifying force in our country. Freedom, Old Glory, Remember the Alamo, the Bald Eagle, the Grand Experiment in Democracy, the First Republic, etc.

The U.S. works well as a country it's unifying myths are very powerful. Canada does not have those kinds of unifying myths, to my knowledge. The irony, of course, is that Canada often compares itself to the U.S. while disavowing any similarity.

As most will be quick to say, many of the U.S.'s myths are seen through rose-colored or distorted glasses, but do nourish our patriotism. Canadian patriotism seems far more muted and not the unifying force it is in the U.S.

Can it exist where the country is not forged in war, in our case three of them?

Thoughts?

[andyt]

JBG wrote:

America's national myths are a powerful, unifying force in our country. Freedom, Old Glory, Remember the Alamo, the Bald Eagle, the Grand Experiment in Democracy, the First Republic, etc.

The U.S. works well as a country it's unifying myths are very powerful. Canada does not have those kinds of unifying myths, to my knowledge. The irony, of course, is that Canada often compares itself to the U.S. while disavowing any similarity.

As most will be quick to say, many of the U.S.'s myths are seen through rose-colored or distorted glasses, but do nourish our patriotism. Canadian patriotism seems far more muted and not the unifying force it is in the U.S.

Can it exist where the country is not forged in war, in our case three of them?

Thoughts?

I don't know about the underlined part, that may be another myth you tell yourselves. Compare all the socio-economic indicators out there, and the US is never at the top of any of them except number of people incarcerated and gun deaths. For a country that was so rich for so long, you should have been at the top of the pile for pretty well all of them.

As for where we do on the indicators, it's a lot better. But I bet we'd be even higher if we had a better class of neighbors, and our own trolodites didn't just focus on the fact you can get crap cheaper down there and want to imitate you guys.

[Proculation]

Well, we play good hockey..

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Myths? We don' need no steenkeeng myths to make us great

[andyt]

The US seems to have need for national lies, since they can't handle the truth. (Not that we can.)

[martin14]

JBG wrote:

America's national myths are a powerful, unifying force in our country. Freedom, Old Glory, Remember the Alamo, the Bald Eagle, the Grand Experiment in Democracy, the First Republic, etc.

The U.S. works well as a country it's unifying myths are very powerful. Canada does not have those kinds of unifying myths, to my knowledge. The irony, of course, is that Canada often compares itself to the U.S. while disavowing any similarity.

As most will be quick to say, many of the U.S.'s myths are seen through rose-colored or distorted glasses, but do nourish our patriotism. Canadian patriotism seems far more muted and not the unifying force it is in the U.S.

Can it exist where the country is not forged in war, in our case three of them?

Thoughts?

Revolutionary war.
Civil war.

what's the third ? 1812 ?

Anyway, Canadian patriotism is more muted for several reasons.

No war could be one.
Much smaller population another.

Climate another, we actually have real winters. Pretty tough to wage war
in 10 feet of snow. It influences our writing as well.
American literature frequently refers to conquest, whereas ours speaks to survival.

It's still safe to say Canadians have a much better reputation abroad than Americans, so you could argue which is actually the better way to go.

As far as a unifying force goes, this could be right, and the fact that we dont push
patriotism, it may soon start creating problems with our newcomers,
who are not expected to jump into the melting pot.


You should also be careful asking this question on this forum, there
are people here who will not resist any chance to bash the US.

[JBG]

andyt wrote:

JBG wrote:

The U.S. works well as a country it's unifying myths are very powerful.

I don't know about the underlined part, that may be another myth you tell yourselves. Compare all the socio-economic indicators out there, and the US is never at the top of any of them except number of people incarcerated and gun deaths. For a country that was so rich for so long, you should have been at the top of the pile for pretty well all of them.

As for where we do on the indicators, it's a lot better. But I bet we'd be even higher if we had a better class of neighbors, and our own trolodites didn't just focus on the fact you can get crap cheaper down there and want to imitate you guys.

First of all, your standard of living is as high as it is because it has a peaceful, largely cooperative neighbor. Otherwise Trudeau wouldn't have been able to download Canada's defense costs to the U.S..

Second of all, we don't have any Quebecs. We settled that issue between 1861 and 1865.

martin14 wrote:

Revolutionary war.
Civil war.

what's the third ? 1812 ?

Quite right.

Even though we didn't win that war, we fought it to a draw. As a practical matter that was when the issue of our independence was settled vis a vis Britain.

martin14 wrote:

Anyway, Canadian patriotism is more muted for several reasons.

No war could be one.
Much smaller population another.

Climate another, we actually have real winters. Pretty tough to wage war
in 10 feet of snow. It influences our writing as well. American literature frequently refers to conquest, whereas ours speaks to survival.

I think that the cooperative as opposed to individualistic nature of your culture derives from the hard winters more than lack of military acumen. Indeed, Canada had one of the great militaries of the world during WW I and WW II. One of the reasons for Americans’, or at least my pride in our national neighbor was its bravery in combat and its role in saving civilization.

martin14 wrote:

As far as a unifying force goes, this could be right, and the fact that we dont push patriotism, it may soon start creating problems with our newcomers, who are not expected to jump into the melting pot.

Be careful about that. The leaders of France, the U.K. and Germany, with more experience with the multicultural “paradise” are beginning to have their doubts.

martin14 wrote:

You should also be careful asking this question on this forum, there are people here who will not resist any chance to bash the US.

I don’t shrink from a good debate, ever.

[andyt]

JBG wrote:

andyt wrote:

First of all, your standard of living is as high as it is because it has a peaceful, largely cooperative neighbor. Otherwise Trudeau wouldn't have been able to download Canada's defense costs to the U.S..

Well, I think if we lived next to the Scandinavian countries, or a country that organzed themselves as they do, we would be doing even better. Of course then so would our neighbors.

[JBG]

andyt wrote:

Well, I think if we lived next to the Scandinavian countries, or a country that organzed themselves as they do, we would be doing even better. Of course then so would our neighbors.

And Norway's self-defense during WW II ended real well, right?

I think you're better off with neighbors that are both peaceful and powerful.

[andyt]

Any country as large and rich in resources as the US is going to be powerful. The question is, do they have to have such poor social outcomes, along with all the wealth and power?

[martin14]

andyt wrote:

JBG wrote:

andyt wrote:

First of all, your standard of living is as high as it is because it has a peaceful, largely cooperative neighbor. Otherwise Trudeau wouldn't have been able to download Canada's defense costs to the U.S..

Well, I think if we lived next to the Scandinavian countries, or a country that organzed themselves as they do, we would be doing even better. Of course then so would our neighbors.

Sorry, that doesnt make any sense.

Scandinavian neighbors include countries like Russia. The USSR wasn't / isnt
the leading pillar of social services in the world.

The other neighbor is Germany, a country that likes to go on tour every once in a while.

Your argument doesnt stand up to scrutiny. I have said many times
we have no better friend than the US.

[martin14]

andyt wrote:

Any country as large and rich in resources as the US is going to be powerful. The question is, do they have to have such poor social outcomes, along with all the wealth and power?

Andy, we are larger, and probably richer in resources.

[andyt]

martin14 wrote:

andyt wrote:

Any country as large and rich in resources as the US is going to be powerful. The question is, do they have to have such poor social outcomes, along with all the wealth and power?

Andy, we are larger, and probably richer in resources.

We're a fucking frozen wasteland. Our agricultural strength compared to the US is in a whole different league (lesser). And that's what first built US might - that and not having to worry about invasion the way the Europeans did before this era of peace. And having a much lager population for economies of scale for industry. And having shaken off the yoke of Britain much earlier, so they were looking out for their own interests instead of their colonial master. Geographically and by it's historical population (ie British), the US was bound to be a major player in the world. The only question is could they have organized themselves better as a society? Maybe not. If you look at Britain vs other western European countries, Britain also has a huge, permanent underclass, which the others do not. So maybe there's something about the Anglo character that creates powerful nations, but with more social problems. Maybe it's those social problems that in part make the country powerful, as poor suckers are convinced to go to war for the elite, since they don't have other options. Actually sounds a bit like Brock's story.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

But I bet we'd be even higher if we had a better class of neighbors

No, you wouldn't.

Because we're your neighbors you enjoy a 5,525 mile long undefended border and you enjoy the economic benefits of not needing a military to defend that border. If it were Mexico on your southern border you'd currently have death squads invading your cities, millions of their illegal immigrants sucking up your social benefits, and you'd get to deal with their army crossing your border on an average of once a week since 2006.

If it were Russia or China on your southern border you'd simply not exist as a nation. They'd invade on some pretext to take your resources.

If it were the UK on your southern border you'd not even be a dominion. At best you might be like the Scots with a semi-autonomous parliament, but that's about it.

Were France on your southern border they'd be dumping their Algerian problem on you.

In short, we may have our problems, but we're the best neighbors you're going to get.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

But I bet we'd be even higher if we had a better class of neighbors

No, you wouldn't.

Because we're your neighbors you enjoy a 5,525 mile long undefended border and you enjoy the economic benefits of not needing a military to defend that border. If it were Mexico on your southern border you'd currently have death squads invading your cities, millions of their illegal immigrants sucking up your social benefits, and you'd get to deal with their army crossing your border on an average of once a week since 2006.

If it were Russia or China on your southern border you'd simply not exist as a nation. They'd invade on some pretext to take your resources.

If it were the UK on your southern border you'd not even be a dominion. At best you might be like the Scots with a semi-autonomous parliament, but that's about it.

Were France on your southern border they'd be dumping their Algerian problem on you.

In short, we may have our problems, but we're the best neighbors you're going to get.

Perhaps. Of course without the access to the abundant & cheap resources as well as an educated and skilled workforce your lifestyle would also suffer. With Russia or China on your northern border perhaps you would never have existed as they wouldn't have stood idly by as America was founded bit by bit.

Faced with a credible border threat Canada might likely have invested heavily in defence and have become a major power what with having the resources to do so.

Playing what-ifs like this are a little bit like wondering about the girl you never got up the nerve to ask out while lying beside the women you do love.