Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

First discussion

I'm not qualified to make the alterations, but how can there be an article about Canadian self-image without Quebec being mentioned even once? Quebec and the French-Canadians may not have defined Canadian self-image alone, but they have certainly has played an integral part. -- Tlotoxl 18:11, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Canadians try to avoid controversies! This was probably why Quebec was left out of the original post. Somebody added a mention of Quebec, and sure enough, controversy started, given the sharp differences in viewpoints within different cultural environments. I hope this stays rational and polite, and I dream that it will be better organized. 29 Nov 2003.

Thanks for your contributions on the subject. I was actually born in Quebec myself, but since I live in Japan now I don't feel too much immediate connection. I guess that should give me objectivity, but it also gives me a certain amount of apathy :) Well, cheers to polite discussion. Hope the article continues to improve. -- Tlotoxl 06:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am a little annoyed with whoever decided to add that section about canadian bitching and whining. In populated areas our winter is hardly harsh, and i do believe Mongolia's Ulaanbaatar is the coldest capital. As well, I moved the page from canadian self-image to canadian identity, because that is the actual term, similar to how some people refer to our health care as 'socialized medicine'. --bdiddy 08:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I placed that section about Canadians whining about the cold. I would never have placed it if I had not put it in context, that is if I had not placed above it a section just as big about Canadians perceiving themselves as a hardy breed, enduring formidable winters. You might feel that our winters are not harsh but nearly 30 million Canadians feel otherwise. In other words, nearly the entire population, with the possible exception of those who live in Southern British Columbia. You can consult weather statistics, as I have done, which show that we live in an icebox compared to the rest of humanity. You can also go to other countries, as I have done, and check for yourself that this is true: Supposedly frigid countries like those that make up Scandinavia have on average a balmy weather compared to ours, thanks to the Gulf Stream. I have been reading articles about our self image re the cold for nearly 50 years now. There have been less articles about our whining about it but they are still there nonetheless, as standalone analysis or in the context of the yearly exodus of millions of Canadians to the Caribbean, and other parts South. Bitching and whining are human traits, and what makes Canadians stand apart from others is that they concentrate it on the cold weather. I am sorry if you felt I was insulting, if anyone felt I was insulting, in fact. But think about it, was it my choice of words or was it the reality? Supose I had used less "extreme" words than whining or bitching? And independently of this yearly lament (which some perceive as a good thing since it lets off steam) do you really, really want to say that we are never ever proud of having to cope with the winter? That we are never in any way proud of our sports achievements in the winter Olympic games, and that we never see ourselves as ice champs? Finally, I do not want to pick a fight with a citizen of the Republic of Mongolia, but I work in Ottawa and because of the higher humidity the cold gets in everywhere sure better than in Ulan Bator! 15 Dec 2003

I understand your POV. I may not agree with your idea of how our culture is based on everyone bitching and whining, aswell i found the article offensive. Maybe tone it down a bit, and leave out the words 'bitching' and 'whining', since they aren't generally appropriate for an encyclopedia, which young children may decide to use for resarch. I can just see them handing in their research report in grade 5 about how canadians just bitch and whine about the weather. I agree that some people find the weather horrible, but then again the grass is always greener on the other side. --bdiddy 03:38, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh...and ps, i've lived in places such as venezuela, malaysia, and texas, where the weather is not very chilly. I think the cold is much more bareable than the heat. thats my personal opinion though, and has little relavence here. --bdiddy 03:41, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bitching and whining are human traits, and what makes Canadians stand apart from others is that they concentrate it on the cold weather.
I'm not sure about that. Japanese complain about the cold weather in winter too, though throughout most of Japan it rarely drops below zero (though there is no central heating, so it really is pretty cold indoors). Perhaps bitching about cold weather is a good point for Canadian's self-perception of identity, but it certainly doesn't make them unique within the world. -- Tlotoxl 05:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because someone complains about something, doesn't mean it has anything to do with their identity. --bdiddy 05:45, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are many sections in this article that I disagree with, and which are not, in my experience as a Canadian, accurate. For instance, the section on cold weather, is hardly true. Not only is our weather not extreme in our population centers (which are mostly located along the southern border), but I have never heard any claims that Ottawa is the coldest capital in the World, nor that this is something to be proud of. Further, the section on early years seems to focus solely on the loyalists, and contains little information about Canada from that period. There is no mention of Canadian culture, music, realtions with aboriginals, values or national symbols; all of which make up our national identity. In many ways, this article violates the NPOV policy, by trying to define Canadian identity by how canadians view outsiders and how outsiders view them. In this way, it could be classified as Americo-centric. I have added a NPOV dispute to the article for this reason. -- 20:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is very POV, particularly the "Outsider Perceptions" section. There is plenty of scholarly research on the issue of Canadian self-identity, so it should not be too difficult to properly attribute various POVs. Some discussion of metropolis-hinterland theory would illuminate the various perceptions better than sweeping generalizations and anecdotes. Steve-o

Amen. This is the failing of many of the articles about Canada. They simply retail commonly held prejudices rather than check what actually has been found out about the subject. John FitzGerald 21:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See, this is why Canada wants to annex the Turks and Caicos - so Canada doesn't have to bitch about cold weather on ALL of its territory. Rickyrab 07:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Any discussion on the perceptions of "Outsiders" is subjective, and as such keeps Wikipedia from being simply a source of information and facts. Editorializing should be left to other media. -TC

Unprotection

There's no active discussion going on--shouldn't this page be unprotected (last edit before me was two weeks ago). Just thought I should bring this to somebody's attention--feel free to respond here, or on my talk page. Meelar 05:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The page needs some changes, but I agree, there is no need for protection. Steve-o 14:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC)


"French-speaking residents were more independent-minded, and often called themselves Canadians and wished for a country which would not always depend on Great Britain for political direction or financing."

There is a mistake here. French Canadians where called Canadians by the French during the French regime: Canadian habitants. Later the English Canadians also adopted the name. This is how the country took its name. Canadians where independant-minded during the French Regime, like Americans where. It was not a reaction to the English occupation but to a distant ruler, not worse than the King of France in fact, considering the circumstances. French Canadian identity and consequently Canadian Identity cannot be undertood if the French colonisation before 1760 is erased. It is a determining part of the history of Canada. It is not a parenthesis of some reluctant immigrants in the English colony.

Mach

Two Suggestions

(Hopefully helpful ones!) First, would it not be more realistic to move and rename this article to English Canadian identity, which is what it is, because even the section on Quebec seems preoccupied with presenting English Canadian views of Quebec. That's not a bad thing - we should just recognize it for what it is. I'm sure there's already an article out there somewhere with plenty of hand-wringing about Quebec's own complicated identity. (If somebody finds such a page from fr: and needs a translation, I'd be happy to do it.)

Second, can I moot this provisional compromise language, so we can rid ourselves of the neutrality dispute:

In the country's early years, English-speaking Canadians often emphasized their British roots, shunning the idea that they were anything less than British and had an allegiance to any country other than the United Kingdom [but perhaps we should really say "British Empire", since Canada was British, without actually being part of the UK]. From their days as part of France's colonial empire, French-speaking residents had been more independent-minded, often calling themselves Canadiens (in contrast to Anglais) and wished for a country which would not always depend on Great Britain for political direction or financing.

QuartierLatin1968 03:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion (I'm only repeating what I mentioned in the "Quebec" section below), would be to remove all references to regional cultures from the main page, and move them to sub-pages. It would be impossible to create an "English Canadian identity" page as envisioned, because there is no such entity as English-Canada.

Not only are English-ethnic-origin Canadians an increasing minority in Canada (about 5 million self-identified as such in the 2001 census), they are spread across a few thousand linear kilometers of territory in areas that are culturally distinct from one another. As far as I'm aware, more families come from Gaelic-speaking peoples - Scots, Welsh, and Irish, and a comparable number come from other parts of Western Europe, having emigrated following the two World Wars.

I don't think a single page can begin to cover all the regional cultures that actually exist within the country. To do so, you'd need to add sections on Southern Quebec, Northern Quebec, Acadia, Newfoundland, Nunavut, Manitoba, the First Nations, and Ontario (which is probably the only province in the Confederation that fits the definition of "English-Canada"). And then you'd have to add emerging cultures such as British Columbia - which is distinguishing itself through its unique mix of immigration, and its relations with resident First Nations, and Alberta - which has always been "the Cowboy Province", but is now becoming more distinct politically.

Anyone want to try to maintain that mess?

Colin C. 12:29AM, 16 Dec 2004

Calling for removal of "The snow, the ice and the cold of a long winter" section

I tried to get rid of this ages ago, and reading through it again, I really think it's terrible. Not only is it wildly inaccurate, but it really doesn't seem to have any place here. It's filled with fallacies, although the part that mentions Vancouver as having mild weather is fairly accurate. What an article on Canadian identity has to do with the weather, I can't say. Maybe outsiders get the perception that it's a big issue, but for the most part I think the weather doesn't affect Canadians in a special way. There is nothing particularly defining about the weather in my opinion. The weather doesn't dramatically change once you cross the border or anything.

From what I've read above, it seems that most people would agree with me.

brenden 05:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once you cross that border to the South you are in a land where the average temperature is way higher than ours. As you pass bigger and bigger towns the average temperature is gradually rising. When I drive over to New York City (which is really to the North of most US cities) , I experience just a few degrees of difference, but it is enough to make it impossible to produce and distribute Mallomars in summer. Twice, I drove all the way to Washington DC. The first time it was in summer, and I could understand why most US cars have air conditioning. Mine doesn’t, because summers in Canada are so short. The second time I drove to Washington it was a lot colder, but even if it got a lot more colder you could never skate on the Potomac in a regular fashion. In contrast the Rideau Canal in Ottawa is transformed into a skating trail (the longest in the world, the organizers boast) and becomes the focus of the annual Winterlude festival. If the temperatures in Canada were not really low and if winter was not really important to our culture, to our identity then we would not have that many winter festivals, and we sure would not have one of the most famous Ice hotels in the world. Yes, quite a lot of Canadians spend their winters in denial of the cold and the ice, the snow and the sleet. The more organized among the practitioners of denial spend that period in shopping malls and other enclosed spaces, making believe that they are not in a cold country and shopping in warmth, when they are not cocooning in front of their screens or having fun in well heated bars without ever thinking of a ski, a skate, a snowboard or a shovel. The other denial guys and denial gals just whine for six months, making us wish they would leave for California or Florida. Obviously those who would want to take out the importance of winter from this article are not whiners, since they have nothing bad to say about the ice of the cold. They are a well organized and constructive folk who somehow manage to build a world of sun and warmth around them when it counts. Unfortunately, in doing so, they do not see all those Canadian winter athletes and the number of medals they have won, out of proportion to the population of our country, they do not hear the snow blowers and they forget that the Bombardier industrial empire was built on the success of Snowmobiles. Only Norway and Finland have an identity, a culture so touched by winter as ours. Unlike Canada these countries do not have a significant proportion of their population going into denial about it, because they are not in close proximity to a big warm country like the United States, whose media pour on us a deluge of sunny, snow free and totally artificial images, at every second.

"Once you cross that border to the South you are in a land where the average temperature is way higher than ours. As you pass bigger and bigger towns the average temperature is gradually rising." the reason it is warmer accross the border is because the USA has larger amounts of pollution that traps in all the heat that is being given off by factories, machines and other things.

Blue states paradigm

"Blue states" doesn't say anything about Canadian self-image. Does it belong in an article on U.S. identity? Or maybe it should be more clearly labelled as being about foreigners empathizing with Canada. —Michael Z.

As I understand, this article is about Canadian identity, not merely Canadian self-image. The section is about Americans in the blue states who question if they are not already more characteristically Canadian. As a sort of adopted sense of Canadian identity, it is relevant to this article. If this article is to be merely about Canadian self-image, then it should be renamed thus. - Gilgamesh 02:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. This section has a context shift from the rest of the article, and I was confused at first when I started reading it. Any objections if I renamed it "U.S. blue states paradigm", or "Blue states paradigm in the U.S."? —Michael Z. 03:36, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
If you need to, okay. - Gilgamesh 07:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Quebec

I'm having trouble with a number of the Quebec sections in here (as it appears some of the rest of you do as well), but the paragraph that really bothers me is the one with the anecdote about people from Quebec bearing Canadian Passports. Maybe I'm just not understanding what that is driving at, but it seems to be rather pointless:

Given this and differences in viewpoints on such matters as the relative importance of commercial packaging, language laws and customs, and otherwise trivial cultural things it is not always easy for a French-speaking Canadian citizen to bear a completely Canadian identity, unless one stretches the Canadian identity quite a bit. But this stretching does happen and it does so in the most surprising circumstances. To give but one example: French Quebecers bear Canadian passports, and when they enter really foreign lands in distant places they are very often given a hearty welcome, as Canadians, given the relatively good reputation of Canada in international circles. This kind of repeated welcome is done of course without taking note of personal political choices and it leads persons with open minds to some philosophical musings on the nature of self image.

I would suggest striking this paragraph entirely. --Catullus 08:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be trying to say something, but for the life of me I can't tell what. Something tells me that if we figured out what, it would start a big NPOV dispute. Strike away. —Michael Z. 18:20, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

As Quartier Latin as noted above in the "Two Suggestions" section this article mostly deals with the English-Candian identity, and the above paragraph seems to reflect the unease of having to live with somebody else's identity. --AlainV 02:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While not meaning to be a twerp, I'd like to point something out.

That something is that the idea of the article even properly dealing with "English-Canadian" identity requires a pretty ambitious stretch of imagination. "English-Canada" doesn't exist outside the political mind -- it's a figment created by some politicos presupposing an overwhelming homogeneity of local culture throughout all of Canada, save only for the province of Quebec, and that all these regions are populated (primarily) by English-ethnic families. That very idea is patently, and obviously absurd to anyone who's travelled outside their own neck of the woods. The local culture of Newfoundland, for instance, is not currently covered in any way, shape, or form. Neither is the Gaelic culture of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. And their certainly isn't any mention of the Innu culture of Nunavut, let alone the First Nations tribes - many of whom are completely different from one another!

My stupid take on this: Either a)dump all references to provincial particularities and stick to the things that all Canadians absolutely have in common (ie. complaining about the cold), or b)create a Wiki-link for each regional culture, and add details to those pages. If not, the page will easily quintuple in size, as Wikipedia members from different areas of Canada insist on adding details pointing out that they're not being represented. Adding Quebec, and ignoring Newfoundland (for instance) is a disservice to anyone from outside of Canada who might use the page as a reference source. --Colin C. 11:19PM 15 Dec 2004 (EST)

Heck, Newfoundland was once an independent dominion, just as Canada was. Newfoundland has a rich mix of settlers descending from First Nations, Irish fishermen, Basque settlers, French settlers, and Anglo settlers, among others. I see Canada as a quilt of very different regions sewn together into one sovereign unit. And if not for common purpose, they wouldn't be together. Even the English-speaking regions are different from each other. In fact, British Columbia wasn't willing to consider membership in Canada unless the union were practical — they wanted a railroad link. I think this article should represent all peoples Canadian. (I myself am not Canadian, but I was originally from a very blue blue state so it's kinda like being Canadian. :P And I have done the typically unamerican pasttime of learning international geography, history and culture. :p </stereotype>) - Gilgamesh 04:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As a Vancouverite, I can tell you that complaining about the cold is not something that "all Canadians absolutely have in common." HistoryBA 15:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is a about Canadian identity, not the Culture of Canada. By definition, it's a somewhat self-conscious subject, and the relationship of the official languages and identity of Quebec in Canada are integral to it. Individual regional and cultural groups in Canada deserve separate articles, but I wouldn't go about removing anything that's already here (except for "blue states", which is part of U.S. culture).

—Michael Z. 06:22, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's what I meant. Except the blue states part is a self-image issue, in which Americans in some states have been questioning whether or not they are actually more like Canadians. - Gilgamesh 10:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You have to realize. The blue states issue is about social and cultural alienation and an introspection that sees themselves as closer to Canadian identity than to that of the red states. - Gilgamesh 10:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I get all that. It's a self-image issue of some Americans, in the blue states. They feel different from the ones in the red states, socially and politically. They live in urban areas, vote Democrat and have fewer kids. Canada is sometimes mentioned (but not in the article about the red state-blue state divide).
This article is about the identity of Canada and Canadians. The identity of Canadians living abroad, or ex-Canadians could belong here, as could the identity of immigrants and foreigners living in Canada. It even includes Canadians who don't feel Canadian (some Québecois), and Canadians who feel they are like Americans—they're all part of the Canadian cultural make-up.
Information about the self-image of Americans, whether they feel that they're like Americans, Canadians, Germans, Malaysians, panda bears, or Martians, is about U.S. identity (or perhaps lack of it). At most, "blue states" warrants a "See also" link here.
—Michael Z. 17:11, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the article wouldn't be better served by providing a listing of key subjects that sum to produce that ephemeral thing we call Canadian identity, and working through them, one by one. Currently, a very large amount of space is given to Quebec, but not much of what's given provides a clearer idea of Canadian identity - its mostly political talk.

There is little in the Quebec section that describes something that contributes to the universal Canadian identity - nothing like "One momentous influence made to the concept of Canadian 'self' came about as a reaction to the tide of alienation inside the primarily Francophone province of Quebec... The identification of Canada as a bilingual nation would have tremendous effects on Canadian self-identification. It allowed more Canadians to see themselves as members of an increasingly unique culture, distinct from the influence of Britain, France, or the United States of America."

For the most part, the section has degenerated in flabbling about the peculiarities of politics - heck, last I checked, the origins of Prime-Ministers past didn't enter into my self-perception whatsoever. No *contributions* made by local Quebec culture or identity to the overall Canadian identity are presented.

Colin C. 12:47PM Dec 16th, 2004 (EST)

Shared values going across cultural boundaries

I think there is a canadian identity even if there is not a single canadian culture, but making an encyclopedia article about it is not an easy task. My remark about the English Canadian identity above was related to the fact that both the quotations and the readings at the bottom of the page all refer to english canadian authors and english canadian media events (the "I am Canadian" Molson ads) who are nearly completely unknown in Quebec, and, as far as I know in the French speaking communities of New Brunswick also. Thus they constitute a divide, a split into two identites (or more) rather than a common point, while our shared belief in a universal health insurance scheme and other such matters transcends linguistic and cultural barriers and can be taken as one of the foundations of a Canadian identity. --AlainV 01:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That strikes me as a much better path of thought to follow with the article. By sticking to universal values, and editing out bits and pieces that fall short of that benchmark, the page will achieve better focus, and inspire less debate - or at least focus the debate a little more :).

Colin C. 21:31, 16 Dec 2004 (EST)

NPOV

Can we take the opinions and speculation out of the article?AndyL 23:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I second the motion. This is a place to document the identity of Canadians, not to assert one's own identity. —Michael Z. 2005-03-27 17:22 Z

Canadian gun ownership is at comparable levels with the US. It's just we don't use them to kill people. DJ Clayworth 15:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it is actually a bit more complicated. The percentage of Canadian households owning one firearm or more is about the same as the percentage of U.S. households having one firearm or more. But when you look more closely at the figures you realize that most of the canadian firearms in said households are rifles, and they are ususally kept under lock and key, and they rarely amount to more than one or two. When you look a the US figures you see an overabundance of firearms of all types in those households, from pistols to shotguns and rifles. In fact many of those households in the US have pistols (revolvers, automatics) and no rifles at all, and those pistols are kept ready at hand for "defense" with little or no protection, hence their use in marital squabbles and their theft by beginners in crime. --AlainV 23:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I find it interesting that something as subjective and undefined as a national identity is being debated here. My 2 cents, the regions of Canada differ so greatly they deserve separate consideration.

Necessity of this article

Do we really need this article? Most non-Americans (and non-Canadians) won't know what the heck this article means. This whole article seems like one big insult by Americans to Candians and one big defence by Canadians. This article has no significance outside USA and Canada (== Most of the world). And the whole article talks as if it concerns the entire world. Like the outsider perception section.

I correct myself - this seems like one big insult by Americans against Canadians, that's all.

Let me add: I am from rural Québec north, and moved to Ontario one year ago, partly to discover differences in cultures. Although this doesn't bring me any authority, my position is that this article has no need to be. Canadians in general don't really know who they are as a nation, if not a collection of loosely-sewn communities, with varying interests, ethnic diversity, richness, culture, etc. The people who contribute should start by reading the external links; that's what foreigners would do to make their own subjective opinion about how Canadians feel about themselves; nobody is interested in knowing how we perceive ourselves. Do you ask your neighbors how, in their hearts, they feel? are they jealous of their other neighbor, etc.?, so other countries probably have no interest whatsoever in reading this article, except to say: "look honey, that's just about the best they are able to say about themselves; they probably lack self-confidence"; an immature society at best. Exposing in this article how Canadians view themselves is as pointless as any other "nation self-image" talk, except maybe the US, which is the only country "glamorous" enough to see any point or use in doing so); at best this article in its present form is a very pathetic emulation of the ways of Americans, but about a society which has no credibility to do so. Finally, I think this article only shows the one trait all Canadians share, regardless of their province, language or culture: insignificance. Say something worth of, or say it not. Sorry everyone, I love my country, but its value with respects to the world in which we are living is sometimes... not there at all. le_natch 06:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Strange omissions

It seems very strange that the article goes from "Early Years" to "20th century" without even mentioning Confederation, the Riel Rebellion, or the building of the railway.

I guess such an article would have a huge overlap with those on Canadian history, but I have to agree with others that this article is in serious need of work. --Saforrest 17:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)