Canucks view U.S. through skewed eyes

A interesting analysis of the Candian view of the USA.

Canucks view U.S. through skewed eyes
By SALIM MANSUR – For the Toronto Sun, Wed, December 1, 2004

"A poll done just before U.S. President George Bush’s first official visit to Canada yesterday informs us that nearly three-quarters of Canadians view America as our “closest friend.”

But the same poll also indicates Canadians in equal number dislike Bush.

There is something wrong when Canadians proclaim friendship for their most important trading partner and traditional ally, then distance themselves from the democratic choice of Americans, with whom their common continental destiny is joined.

The answer lies somewhere in the reality of an America that challenges Canadian self-identity, is unnerving and, hence, many Canadians indulge in caricatures of an America that Bush supposedly represents – bellicose, simple-minded, uncouth, reactionary.

Following last month’s election, with Bush winning his second term and Republicans making gains in the Congress as the majority party, it is time Canadians showed maturity in appreciating the reality of America as it is, rather than seeking comfort from the polemics of self-loathing Americans such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and their followers."(excert from article)

  1. So it’s OK to paint all Canadians with the same brush, but try and do it to the US and you get the Republican Army leaping on you.
  2. Um, so apparently you’re not allowed to like a country but dislike it’s politicians? Man, I better starting hating Taiwan, New Zealand, the UK, Australia, America… Where is it written that we have to agree on everything again? I must’ve missed that memo.

[quote=“Tetsuo”]1) So it’s OK to paint all Canadians with the same brush, but try and do it to the US and you get the Republican Army leaping on you.
2) Um, so apparently you’re not allowed to like a country but dislike it’s politicians? Man, I better starting hating Taiwan, New Zealand, the UK, Australia, America… Where is it written that we have to agree on everything again? I must’ve missed that memo.[/quote]
I have a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head.

thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten … 1424211688

[quote=“Linwood Barclay, Toronto Star”]What is lacking in our national character that we cannot turn out enough people who can figure out how to take off their clothes? Are we so lacking in skills that we do not know how to pull down a zipper, unhook a bra, unsnap a garter, or roll down a stocking? Is it not a source of national shame that we must import people to do this kind of work? What does this say about us?

Nothing good, I think.[/quote]

Barclay’s opinion-piece is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it does make one wonder: what is it about Canada that they are so sex-obsessed as to import impoverished, desperate women as “sex workers”? And why is the culture of “be nice to everyone” willing to allow – even formally legalize – the international trafficking in women?

Mapo, have you been using maple syrup to beat off with again? :unamused:

I feel a Mod Lang analysis of Canada’s national character coming soon. Brace yourselves…

Cowboy,
Interesting how someone who challenges the government, a proud American tradition (indeed Jefferson felt it was an act of patriotism) is somehow a ‘self-loathing American.’ Other than simply using an opportunity to insult people you disagree with, what basis do you have for feeling that they loathe our country? I think Chomsky and Moore have done far more to improve our country than Bush has even thought of doing.
As for the Canadians, why not simply accept their dislike of Bush? About half of the US hates him, and the other half thinks he’s simply a useful monkey. You really don’t need to read into it that much. I don’t like many countries’ leaders, but I still have an overall positive opinion of the countries themselves. Because my countrypeople elected an ass doesn’t mean I expect other countries to like him.

[quote=“sbmoor262004”]Cowboy,
Interesting how someone who challenges the government, a proud American tradition (indeed Jefferson felt it was an act of patriotism) is somehow a ‘self-loathing American.’ [/quote]Wrong. Gov’t needs to be challenged…continuously. I distrust ALL politicians. If you/someone has a question/beef/complaint about a governmental ruling then use the system as it was designed to be used and challenge the item. The definition of a 'Self-loathing American is well defined. Besides, their inherent whininess gives them away quite easily. Big difference between an SLA and a person, American or otherwise with a logical sound position.[quote=“sbmoor262004”] Other than simply using an opportunity to insult people you disagree with, what basis do you have for feeling that they loathe our country?[/quote] Sorry…is this rhetorical question? Need some specific instance here to speak to. Or is this just a general ‘victo-crat’ play? [quote=“sbmoor262004”] I think Chomsky and Moore have done far more to improve our country than Bush has even thought of doing. [/quote] Good for you. Very revealing of either your depth of political thinking or the lack of it.

Completely irrelevant comment. At this point I should probably ask…uhh…did you actually read the article? Or are you simply using this space to do your …“Bush Sucks” and “all who dis-agree with that are stupid” rant. As I said, lose the cliche’s, read the articles, form a coherent line of opposition to the articles content and then post in the thread.
I happen to strongly dis-agree with President George W. Bushs position on the illegal alien invasion to name just one area. But you can damn sure bet that any position I take will be supported with facts and sound reasoning. It helps to make the point.

Thanks, Cowboy, for proving my point, which is that you have no point. You cannot define ‘self-loathing American’ or point to any source defining it, and simply qualify your ignorance by stating that people you disagree with “are just whiny.” Did you listen to Republicans during Clinton’s tenure? By whiny you apparently mean a dissenting voice that contradicts a widespread belief. You somehow accuse Moore of ‘not using normal political channels’ for expressing his views. Again, you fail to support this. You state that I am politically misinformed because I disagree with you; how ironic. You clearly have a Tom-and-Jerry complex perhaps nursed by a history of sexual abuse by your family rottweiler. There are ways of working through this, but first you need to stop projecting ‘the enemy’ (i.e. your salacious dog) onto others.

sbmoor:

What have michael moore and noam chomsky done to make America better? better in the world? a better country? etc.?

Simply put, they have expanded ways of understanding US foreign policy beyond the black-and-white version of history. Chomsky is a highly esteemed critic of US foreign policy whose arguments thankfully attack the dumbed-down view of politics passed on by political spinmeisters to a gullible public.
Well-supported assertions have, no matter whether conservative or liberal, a good influence on political discourse since they broaden it. Can you challenge any of Chomsky’s assertions? I would love to read them so long as they are backed by a rational argument and not insults.

Well I am not going to go tracking down all these things since they were already presented in an earlier thread but Chomsky compared the American bombing of Afghanistan with our mining of Nicaraguan harbors with the terrorist bombing on 911. I would think that would be a pretty dim statement. He also said that our bombing of Afghanistan would create 7 to 9 million refugees and cause 4 to 5 million people to starve. In fact, that is not what happened but in fact 4 million Afghan refugees have returned and the country has had its first ever election. Did Chomsky act in a way that resulted in positive results for either Afghanistan, its people or American and its citizens? He was quick to urge the US to disengage from Vietnam and then very silent when the Boat People fled the country, 2 to 3 million Vietnamese died or were exiled and 2 to 3 million Cambodians died during Pol Pot’s regime. I believe he mentioned that a bit of blood is always spilled during a power transfer. Should we then quote him on this and take him at his word with regard to the US power transfers in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I really can understand why someone with a basic knowledge of politics and morality would find Chomsky interesting and persuasive. BUT if we actually look at what would happen with a Chomskyite approach to world affairs, what do we find? We would find that very little to no action would be possible since civilians would die.

Therefore, given that America can never act in a perfectly moral way, should America never act at all? And which is worse, attacking Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban even though some civilians will die but to see 4 million refugees go home and its first ever election take place? What are the moral wages of NOT acting? What about with Iraq? To date, 30,000 Iraqis have died. Many of those were deliberately placed in dangerous areas by Saddam, more were killed by terrorists and insurgents and some were actually fighters killed by US troops. Some others were in fact collateral deaths from US actions. Then, using Chomsky’s moral turpitude to examine the situation, can we say that the US was wrong to act to rid Iraq of Saddam? or were we even more wrong not to have acted and to allow Saddam to kill and rape and threaten and torture? and if we act, but others kill civilians to deter us by throwing these moral issues in our faces, then by not acting do we not in fact encouage this as a form of deterence by evil dictators that will be used with even greater frequency in the future and won’t this result in even more civilian deaths and suffering?

This is where I have a hard time with Chomsky. He is quick to point out that America is not perfect and I completely agree, but then outside of his ivory tower academic moral perfection, what exactly are we supposed to do in terms of setting policy? I really struggle to remember where Chomsky even once outlined a policy that the US should adopt that would outline concrete measures and standards for measuring those measures. Can you?

So to me Chomsky is all idealistic kant but his kant results in people fighting the US and opposing its aims because the US is not perfect and because it has done bad things in the past. But if those people are turned against the US which is relatively high in morality, who is left to protect the world from the Saddams? Osamas? and others who are very adept at picking up the language of moral equivalence, nihilism and defeatism that the Left and its protesters use to throw it back against us?

Some pictures of the lovely welcome our “friends” the Canadians gave our President:
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 666013.jpg

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 0111302343

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 0212011747

Caption: Peaceful demonstrators walk from an anti-Bush protest in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Wednesday Dec. 1, 2004. U.S. President Bush was on a two-hour visit in Halifax to thank people for their help during the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks. (AP Photo/CP, Jacques Boissinot)

Hmm. So, President Bush was in Halifax to thank the locals for their help? I’d like to add my thanks as well. Thanks.

No, not really. I’ll be more nuanced and complex than that. Thanks to the kind, decent Canadians who helped us when we were hurting. And a big XXXXXXX to the protestors.

The top banner was disgusting. The second was funny, and the bottom one I agree with. Bush is an extremely frightening man.

[quote=“MaPoSquid”]Some pictures of the lovely welcome our “friends” the Canadians gave our President:

Hmm. So, President Bush was in Halifax to thank the locals for their help? I’d like to add my thanks as well. Thanks, assholes.

No, not really. I’ll be more nuanced and complex than that. Thanks to the kind, decent Canadians who helped us when we were hurting. And a big fuck off and die to the protestors.[/quote]
They may well have been the same people. This kind of attitude is one of the reasons many people around the world don’t like America. Would you prefer that the Canadian government, on Sept. 11, 2001, had told the pilots of the planes diverted from American airspace to fuck off and die, assholes?
It is possible to like a country, or the citizens of a country considered in general, and not like its government. So some Canadians don’t approve of the war in Iraq? Well, that’s the majority opinion in the world today.

By the way, the Toronto Sun is the equivalent of the National Enquirer; I wouldn’t go looking for insights into Canada-US relations in either, frankly.

I even agree with you, at least so far. It doesn’t change the fact that these protestors are primarily anti-American, and are only anti-Bush insofar as he represents a strong America, ready to go to war to protect the Western world, instead of a Carteresque America, worming onto its back and peeing on its belly in terror.

Ok…we have discussed Chomsky…but what about Moore? sbmoor has said in regards to the two men in question, “simply put, they have expanded ways of understanding US foreign policy beyond the black-and-white version of history.” In my opinion, Moore has expanded ways of understanding U.S. foreign policy beyond the black and white version of TRUTH. How does stretching the truth in a slanted documentary amount to bettering America? And what else has Moore done to truly improve the lives of others? :s

I agree with you Tom Tom:

I think that Michael Moore has done more than anyone else in the last five years to propagandize against America and to stir up hatred against the US for reasons that are not in fact based on fact.

I do have to admit to being utterly shocked however to find out that he was the director of Canadian Bacon, a movie that I absolutely loved so I guess I have found even one good thing to like about Michael Moore.

I do truly believe however that he has an inferiority complex and he is a bit of the clown debasing himself to get laughs and adulation from others. Who was that fat actor that was always screaming George Carlin? He reminds me of that kind of individual, desperate to debase himself to get a few laughs and thus approval from others. Sad.

Tomtom, imagine that you think Michael Moore is basically correct (big picture) in his view on Bush and on Iraq. You now have a messenger who is opening people’s eyes to what’s really going on in the world. Many people are dying senselessly, and the world is being made more dangerous so that a few Saudi-connected oil barons (or a Jewish Neocon cabal or whoever is the ultimate bad guy in his movie – I haven’t seen it) can profit.

If that’s the way you look at it, then your question becomes amazingly easy to answer: Moore betters America by opening people’s eyes to the underlying truth – the fact that his “documentaries” themselves contain exaggerations and falsehoods is a minor complaint compared to the overall good he does by working to change US policy.

If you think that Moore basically has it wrong, then you could still argue that it is good for the system to have an open and vibrant political debate, with opinions heard from all sides. In that sense you could say that, like neo-Nazi websites or other forms of political speech that you disagree with [color=darkred]“It is good that the system promotes the expression of a wide range of positions – but in my opinion that particular position, if enacted as policy, would be bad for America.” [/color]

This is, however, more an argument that free speech and political debate betters America, rather than the speakers themselves. On the other hand, I suppose one could maintain that without the speakers there would be no speech. I can see this point to a certain extent, but I have trouble applying it to groups with whom I disagree. Can I really state, for example, that neo-Nazi websites and pamphlets have “bettered America”?

Anyway, for most people I doubt any of this analysis figures in the equation. I suspect most Moore supporters feel that he betters America because he is basically communicating an underlying truth, even if he has to stretch the facts in his films to get the message across. Most Moore critics probably feel that he harms America not so much by using deception in his medium, but rather because his underlying message is wrong, and if adopted as policy, would make the world a worse place.

In the end I doubt [color=blue]“Has MM bettered America?” [/color]is fundamentally any different from asking [color=blue]“Is MM’s message essentially correct[/color]?”. If there is a difference between these two questions (i.e. if someone believes that he is fundamentally wrong but still betters America by adding to the political debate), then maybe that person is the one who can help me accept that neo-Nazis better America as well.
-H


It’s not good to let any kid near a container that has a skull and crossbones on it, because there might be a skeleton custume inside and the kid could put it on and really scare you. – Collected Wisdom of Jack Shushu

How are theories harmful? Wasn’t it Bush’s theory that Iraq had WMD? Yet most war supporters now feel that it didn’t matter if there were any - Iraq somehow posed a direct threat (rabid camels? sand fleas?) to the US and therefore required invasion. Do theories really threaten you that much? As for Bowling for Columbine, you feel that the information presented were lies? So he basically paid of bunch of actors to make up the whole thing? Interesting fantasy. I think that movie has done a great job of opening people’s eyes to one of the absurdities of our country, and you feel that people who support lowering the murder rate as unpatriotic. You guys are sad sad sad fools.

The girl holding the Bush Scares Me sign, does anyone else think she’s cute? She sorta lookz Korean, any guesses how old she is?

Dang, any gurl afraid of having bush must be pretty clean… :wink: