These are a few of the highlights for what comes up when you google "Canadia":
http://www.pigdog.org/categories/canadia_sucks.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=canadia
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DF5z_YfB1JkQ
Hint to the Foursexymen: Rockapella did NOT write "O Canada".
And, of course, the requisite Wikipedia disambiguation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia_%28disambiguation%29
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Bummer ´bout Sarko
Isn´t it nice to see that France, like Canada and the U.S., has finally joined the Controversial Conservative Governments club. I´m sure that Parisians felt a lot safer with 3 000 police officers on-duty, working to keep the peace, on election night.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Letter to the Globe and Mail
A large stack of the newly revamped Globe and Mail sat unclaimed on the newsstand when I came in for work at 3 p.m. today. My co-workers and I all agreed that what was once the classiest and smartest paper around now looks significantly less appealing.
It seems to me the Globe has fallen victim to the kind of market-driven thinking described in Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘Blink’: the paper wanted so badly to be noticed, to be liked, to be read by a wider audience – that they re-evaluated everything. They changed the banner, but tried to keep it familiar (adding a maple leaf for good measure). They reduced the page width – presumably to save paper, and to make for more manageable page turning. They cleverly made the new design more space efficient, so that no space is wasted, no words omitted, and no information lost. They even commissioned their own typeface. Still, after all that, something is off.
The new paper just doesn’t look right. It doesn’t even look like a newspaper anymore: the layout suggests it has more in common with a tabloid, or a cheap throwaway – the kind of news-byte publication that is given away for free on every street corner and at every subway or bus stop in Toronto.
It saddens me that in trying to keep up with current trends, the Globe has failed to see the forest for the trees. The new design tries hard to be sleek and easily digestible – but the opposite effect is rendered. The pages are so cluttered that the advertisements stand out more than anything else does. The new font looks cramped and small, and the headline typeface diminishes the importance of the content, instead of enhancing it. Even the ink job looks shoddy compared to the week before.
The old Globe and Mail was always a beautiful, luxurious paper – and one that I was proud to enjoy. Its grand, oversized section headings, with their strong black and maroon lettering – its crisp type, its clear, justified columns, each front page’s generous white space – all this made reading the Globe a rich and thought-provoking experience. It helped make the paper more like what a newspaper ought to be – a conversation. The revamped version feels more like a silent exchange between strangers – a quick, no-nonsense business transaction. I always thought of the Globe as a paper with integrity; I miss that paper already.
It seems to me the Globe has fallen victim to the kind of market-driven thinking described in Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘Blink’: the paper wanted so badly to be noticed, to be liked, to be read by a wider audience – that they re-evaluated everything. They changed the banner, but tried to keep it familiar (adding a maple leaf for good measure). They reduced the page width – presumably to save paper, and to make for more manageable page turning. They cleverly made the new design more space efficient, so that no space is wasted, no words omitted, and no information lost. They even commissioned their own typeface. Still, after all that, something is off.
The new paper just doesn’t look right. It doesn’t even look like a newspaper anymore: the layout suggests it has more in common with a tabloid, or a cheap throwaway – the kind of news-byte publication that is given away for free on every street corner and at every subway or bus stop in Toronto.
It saddens me that in trying to keep up with current trends, the Globe has failed to see the forest for the trees. The new design tries hard to be sleek and easily digestible – but the opposite effect is rendered. The pages are so cluttered that the advertisements stand out more than anything else does. The new font looks cramped and small, and the headline typeface diminishes the importance of the content, instead of enhancing it. Even the ink job looks shoddy compared to the week before.
The old Globe and Mail was always a beautiful, luxurious paper – and one that I was proud to enjoy. Its grand, oversized section headings, with their strong black and maroon lettering – its crisp type, its clear, justified columns, each front page’s generous white space – all this made reading the Globe a rich and thought-provoking experience. It helped make the paper more like what a newspaper ought to be – a conversation. The revamped version feels more like a silent exchange between strangers – a quick, no-nonsense business transaction. I always thought of the Globe as a paper with integrity; I miss that paper already.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
I trust I can rely on ... your vote
I thought I'd muse for a moment about the election going on in France right now. My sister is living there and god, am I jealous. Canadian elections happen so often (it seems, lately) that they do not have the same kind of pomp and circumstance that an American or French election commands. In Canada, an election can be called anytime within a time frame of four to six years, whenever the government in power decides it ought to do one. Consequently, an election can be called, and over and done with in less than a month. Two years ago, they had the brilliant idea to begin campaigning over the Christmas holidays. Canadians were not impressed.
Two and a half years ago, I got to experience a U.S. election firsthand -- boy, was it an event. The lights, the buzzers, the commentary ... In the U.S., everyone stays up all night to see how the different states will rise or fall like dominoes for the party for which they stand; in Canada, people might watch the news, hope that their guy makes it, talk a bit about what they think'll happen ... then go to bed, and just read the paper in the morning.
My guess is that France's system, with its history, prestige, and three-party system, is somewhere in between the two. Being a more-than-two-party system must help make Canadian and Francophone electioneering slightly less of an all out tug o' war, the way the American system seems to go. I find that a third party -- an alternative -- always makes things more interesting. In addition to the centre-left (Liberal), centre-right (Conservative), and third alternative (in Canada's case, left -- the NDP) parties, Canada also has the added monkey-wrench of the Bloc Quebecois, a national political party founded on the premise that Quebec, it's main constituency, ought not to be part of this country at all (ironic, really...but go figure -- they often hold a third of the seats in the House of Commons, and consequently also the balance of power).
Though my psyche always hopes that the third alternative will get the attention it deserves, and my heart goes out to the hard-core socialist principles behind Segolene Royal's campaign, my logical mind concludes that, at the end of the day, it is Sarkozy who will likely win. Not because he is the best, but he is definitely the man we know most about -- and if my experience as a casual outside observer of the 2004 U.S. presidential election is any measure, it is the politician that he hear and we know the most about who often takes home the prize. Even though we fear them, even though we don't fully trust them, we still choose them. Perhaps it is the only devil we know; perhaps it is human nature to gravitate towards the thing that most interests and compels us, rather than what is best for us.
Or, as I think is true in Canada and the U.S., perhaps we are just entering into a more conservative time. The Bush Administration's success over the last seven years certainly attests to that. And Canada's current government -- minority or not, since their consolidation with the old Reform and Alliance members, Stephen Harper's Conservatives are perhaps the most right wing conservative party that Canada has ever had.
Whatever happens in France over the next few weeks, it's clear that political tides in the West have turned. But nevertheless, this too shall pass, and like all things, eventually the pendulum will swing back.
Two and a half years ago, I got to experience a U.S. election firsthand -- boy, was it an event. The lights, the buzzers, the commentary ... In the U.S., everyone stays up all night to see how the different states will rise or fall like dominoes for the party for which they stand; in Canada, people might watch the news, hope that their guy makes it, talk a bit about what they think'll happen ... then go to bed, and just read the paper in the morning.
My guess is that France's system, with its history, prestige, and three-party system, is somewhere in between the two. Being a more-than-two-party system must help make Canadian and Francophone electioneering slightly less of an all out tug o' war, the way the American system seems to go. I find that a third party -- an alternative -- always makes things more interesting. In addition to the centre-left (Liberal), centre-right (Conservative), and third alternative (in Canada's case, left -- the NDP) parties, Canada also has the added monkey-wrench of the Bloc Quebecois, a national political party founded on the premise that Quebec, it's main constituency, ought not to be part of this country at all (ironic, really...but go figure -- they often hold a third of the seats in the House of Commons, and consequently also the balance of power).
Though my psyche always hopes that the third alternative will get the attention it deserves, and my heart goes out to the hard-core socialist principles behind Segolene Royal's campaign, my logical mind concludes that, at the end of the day, it is Sarkozy who will likely win. Not because he is the best, but he is definitely the man we know most about -- and if my experience as a casual outside observer of the 2004 U.S. presidential election is any measure, it is the politician that he hear and we know the most about who often takes home the prize. Even though we fear them, even though we don't fully trust them, we still choose them. Perhaps it is the only devil we know; perhaps it is human nature to gravitate towards the thing that most interests and compels us, rather than what is best for us.
Or, as I think is true in Canada and the U.S., perhaps we are just entering into a more conservative time. The Bush Administration's success over the last seven years certainly attests to that. And Canada's current government -- minority or not, since their consolidation with the old Reform and Alliance members, Stephen Harper's Conservatives are perhaps the most right wing conservative party that Canada has ever had.
Whatever happens in France over the next few weeks, it's clear that political tides in the West have turned. But nevertheless, this too shall pass, and like all things, eventually the pendulum will swing back.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Let's All Hate Toronto
A good friend of mine send me this review of a new documentary film called, "Let's All Hate Toronto." I agree with most everything here, except the author's use of Washington, D.C. as a 'colonizer' capital city -- careful Vaughan, where I come from (--naturally...Toronto), that statement borders on treason.
However, the main reason I'm including this, is that I do agree with the film's premise -- that rural and other city-dwelling Canadians love to hate Toronto because it is bigger, and (according to Torontonians) better. The interesting thing is that Torontonians in particular, and Canadians in general, love to hate the United States for exactly the same reasons! Read the article and you'll see what I mean.
----------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070413.hate14/BNStory/Entertainment/home
----------
Toronto: Love it? Hate it?
R.M. VAUGHAN
If, as the makers of a new documentary claim, everybody hates Toronto, why does everybody live here? I mean, everybody who matters?
Let's All Hate Toronto, premiering next week at — where else? — Toronto's internationally acclaimed Hot Docs documentary film festival, tries to uncover the reasons for the rabid hatred that TROC (The Remaindered of Canada) feels for Toronto, the nation's cultural and commercial capital.
Directed by transplanted Montrealer (transplanted to — where else? — Toronto) Albert Nerenberg, the film shows what happened when Mr. Nerenberg and a pal posing as “Mr. Toronto” drove across the country setting up fake “Toronto Appreciation Day” booths. The results are not pretty — for the also-ran cities. People kick the signs down, attack Mr. Toronto verbally and physically, and make really ugly anger faces into the camera. What a load of jealous, whiny, unresolved-childhood-issues-carrying ingrates.
People in Montreal appear mostly bemused by Mr. Toronto's antics, probably because bemused is their default reaction to everything.
Related to this article
Follow this writer Follow this writer
* Add R.M. VAUGHAN to my e-mail alerts Globe Insider
Latest Comments Comments
* Dan - I'll give you your point... I'll admit though that I've...
* Q T - fair point - though take notice its the first time its...
* Pik Scott: "This post proves toronto is a joke and most of it...
* I find TO to have a falsified "trendy" feel to it. The attitude...
* 192 reader comments | Join the conversation
The Globe and Mail
Montrealers are too lazy to lift an eyebrow. Mount Royal could suddenly turn into a smoking tower of bubbling lava and the nicotined boulevardiers of St. Laurent would only shrug, blame the federal government, and get back to the vital work of sneering over their federally subsidized pints of Maudite. A life without aspirations must be such a comfort.
Vancouverites, people who spend a suspiciously Macbeth-ish amount of time protesting their calm, forgiving natures, turn positively apoplectic at the very sight of the word Toronto. I suspect this is largely because Vancouver is where failed Torontonians go to die. They have good reason to be bitter, stuck as they are, huddled and wet under the ass end of a mountain, forgotten and lonely, with only the faint hope of a devastating avalanche to get them through the night.
Other cities weigh in on the Toronto issue as the film chuckles along, but they are places too small and of too little consequence to mention. You know the cities I mean — the kind that people get away from.
When I first moved to Toronto in the early nineties, from no less a sludgehole than Saint John, N.B., which bears the questionable distinction of not being “the cute St. John's” (i.e., the one in Newfoundland), I was instantly entranced.
I remain so today, because all the bad things the rest of the country says about Toronto are so wonderfully, refreshingly true: It's trashy, dirty, dangerous, rude and full of itself. In other words, it's a big city. If Toronto suddenly turned quaint, clean, secure, polite and ingratiating, it would be Victoria, or Fredericton, and the last thing this country needs is another scone-hoarding mini-Rhodesia wrapped in a dusty doily. One per coast, please.
Toronto is big and, like all big things, except Saskatchewan, complicated. When you go big, you accept a certain amount of mess, and expect to leave a trail.
So, yes, Toronto has homeless people, street preachers, beggars and streetwalkers sporting thigh-high boots, just like in the movies. Movies about cities.
Yes, Toronto has lots of people from lots of different places who don't always understand or like each other. Some of us find the confusion entertaining, a live screwball comedy with a multiracial cast. Another benefit is the happy truth that a great number of Torontonians, coming from elsewhere, are, blessedly, folks who have never heard of Nickelback, sung that god-awful Barrett's Privateers song in a fake Irish pub, found curling anything but weird, or revered the stale stylings of Michael Bublé. They bring their own bad art to town, and are happy to share.
And, yes, Toronto has snooty restaurants manned by crabby underwear models — if by snooty one means that every entrée is not served on white toast and slathered in canned gravy (unless you ask, and pay extra).
But best of all, Toronto does not care about you, about what you do, about where you're going or what you're wearing. In Toronto, nobody is watching from behind their kitchen window curtains, nobody knows your parents, grandparents and dentist, nobody remembers where you went to school or how bad your hair was in Grade 11, and nobody is cluck-clucking about your divorce, weight gain, poor investment strategy or binge drinking. Until they get to know you.
You are alone here, anonymous. You have no history, owe no social debts, sing no little-town blues. For as long as you like, you can be one of the crowd — because we actually have crowds.
To anybody who has ever lived in a small Canadian town, one of those finger-wagging gossips' warrens run by the United Church and unburdened by genetic diversity or stylish clothing, the averted gaze of the preoccupied, uncaring Toronto subway rider buried in his BlackBerry is a benediction.
What, then, is the problem with TROC (The Refuse of Canada)? The simple response is that they're just jealous, but jealousy is often a symptom of deeper unresolved issues.
Post-colonial studies teaches us that citizens of colonies (or, in Canada's case, former colonies) suffer from a psychological condition that causes them to constantly perceive themselves as being outside the centre, as living on the margins.
Subsequently, the actual centres of colonized countries (in our case, Toronto) are resented via displacement, because hating the colonizer is too big a dilemma to face, and we're conflicted in our emotions about our former masters. It's a bit like being mad at your boss for no good reason because you're really mad at Mommy and Daddy. Toronto is the scapegoat for the nation's buried resentment of London, Paris or Washington (pick your colonizer).
Fair enough, and almost forgivable — Vancouver and Montreal and Halifax can't help it because they're mentally ill. If the nation can only cope with its inadequacies by projecting its disappointments onto me and my city, I'm willing to play therapist. But I want compensation.
At Toronto rates, please. Wellness, like success, ain't cheap.
I learned that here.
Special to The Globe and Mail
However, the main reason I'm including this, is that I do agree with the film's premise -- that rural and other city-dwelling Canadians love to hate Toronto because it is bigger, and (according to Torontonians) better. The interesting thing is that Torontonians in particular, and Canadians in general, love to hate the United States for exactly the same reasons! Read the article and you'll see what I mean.
----------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070413.hate14/BNStory/Entertainment/home
----------
Toronto: Love it? Hate it?
R.M. VAUGHAN
If, as the makers of a new documentary claim, everybody hates Toronto, why does everybody live here? I mean, everybody who matters?
Let's All Hate Toronto, premiering next week at — where else? — Toronto's internationally acclaimed Hot Docs documentary film festival, tries to uncover the reasons for the rabid hatred that TROC (The Remaindered of Canada) feels for Toronto, the nation's cultural and commercial capital.
Directed by transplanted Montrealer (transplanted to — where else? — Toronto) Albert Nerenberg, the film shows what happened when Mr. Nerenberg and a pal posing as “Mr. Toronto” drove across the country setting up fake “Toronto Appreciation Day” booths. The results are not pretty — for the also-ran cities. People kick the signs down, attack Mr. Toronto verbally and physically, and make really ugly anger faces into the camera. What a load of jealous, whiny, unresolved-childhood-issues-carrying ingrates.
People in Montreal appear mostly bemused by Mr. Toronto's antics, probably because bemused is their default reaction to everything.
Related to this article
Follow this writer Follow this writer
* Add R.M. VAUGHAN to my e-mail alerts Globe Insider
Latest Comments Comments
* Dan - I'll give you your point... I'll admit though that I've...
* Q T - fair point - though take notice its the first time its...
* Pik Scott: "This post proves toronto is a joke and most of it...
* I find TO to have a falsified "trendy" feel to it. The attitude...
* 192 reader comments | Join the conversation
The Globe and Mail
Montrealers are too lazy to lift an eyebrow. Mount Royal could suddenly turn into a smoking tower of bubbling lava and the nicotined boulevardiers of St. Laurent would only shrug, blame the federal government, and get back to the vital work of sneering over their federally subsidized pints of Maudite. A life without aspirations must be such a comfort.
Vancouverites, people who spend a suspiciously Macbeth-ish amount of time protesting their calm, forgiving natures, turn positively apoplectic at the very sight of the word Toronto. I suspect this is largely because Vancouver is where failed Torontonians go to die. They have good reason to be bitter, stuck as they are, huddled and wet under the ass end of a mountain, forgotten and lonely, with only the faint hope of a devastating avalanche to get them through the night.
Other cities weigh in on the Toronto issue as the film chuckles along, but they are places too small and of too little consequence to mention. You know the cities I mean — the kind that people get away from.
When I first moved to Toronto in the early nineties, from no less a sludgehole than Saint John, N.B., which bears the questionable distinction of not being “the cute St. John's” (i.e., the one in Newfoundland), I was instantly entranced.
I remain so today, because all the bad things the rest of the country says about Toronto are so wonderfully, refreshingly true: It's trashy, dirty, dangerous, rude and full of itself. In other words, it's a big city. If Toronto suddenly turned quaint, clean, secure, polite and ingratiating, it would be Victoria, or Fredericton, and the last thing this country needs is another scone-hoarding mini-Rhodesia wrapped in a dusty doily. One per coast, please.
Toronto is big and, like all big things, except Saskatchewan, complicated. When you go big, you accept a certain amount of mess, and expect to leave a trail.
So, yes, Toronto has homeless people, street preachers, beggars and streetwalkers sporting thigh-high boots, just like in the movies. Movies about cities.
Yes, Toronto has lots of people from lots of different places who don't always understand or like each other. Some of us find the confusion entertaining, a live screwball comedy with a multiracial cast. Another benefit is the happy truth that a great number of Torontonians, coming from elsewhere, are, blessedly, folks who have never heard of Nickelback, sung that god-awful Barrett's Privateers song in a fake Irish pub, found curling anything but weird, or revered the stale stylings of Michael Bublé. They bring their own bad art to town, and are happy to share.
And, yes, Toronto has snooty restaurants manned by crabby underwear models — if by snooty one means that every entrée is not served on white toast and slathered in canned gravy (unless you ask, and pay extra).
But best of all, Toronto does not care about you, about what you do, about where you're going or what you're wearing. In Toronto, nobody is watching from behind their kitchen window curtains, nobody knows your parents, grandparents and dentist, nobody remembers where you went to school or how bad your hair was in Grade 11, and nobody is cluck-clucking about your divorce, weight gain, poor investment strategy or binge drinking. Until they get to know you.
You are alone here, anonymous. You have no history, owe no social debts, sing no little-town blues. For as long as you like, you can be one of the crowd — because we actually have crowds.
To anybody who has ever lived in a small Canadian town, one of those finger-wagging gossips' warrens run by the United Church and unburdened by genetic diversity or stylish clothing, the averted gaze of the preoccupied, uncaring Toronto subway rider buried in his BlackBerry is a benediction.
What, then, is the problem with TROC (The Refuse of Canada)? The simple response is that they're just jealous, but jealousy is often a symptom of deeper unresolved issues.
Post-colonial studies teaches us that citizens of colonies (or, in Canada's case, former colonies) suffer from a psychological condition that causes them to constantly perceive themselves as being outside the centre, as living on the margins.
Subsequently, the actual centres of colonized countries (in our case, Toronto) are resented via displacement, because hating the colonizer is too big a dilemma to face, and we're conflicted in our emotions about our former masters. It's a bit like being mad at your boss for no good reason because you're really mad at Mommy and Daddy. Toronto is the scapegoat for the nation's buried resentment of London, Paris or Washington (pick your colonizer).
Fair enough, and almost forgivable — Vancouver and Montreal and Halifax can't help it because they're mentally ill. If the nation can only cope with its inadequacies by projecting its disappointments onto me and my city, I'm willing to play therapist. But I want compensation.
At Toronto rates, please. Wellness, like success, ain't cheap.
I learned that here.
Special to The Globe and Mail
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Jean Charest is so yesterday's Premier
There is a revolution going on in Quebec, right now.
The first flames of revolutionary zeal were seen in last night's provinical election results. A new, slightly right-of-centre, 'Separatist-Lite' party, the ADQ (Action Democratique du Quebec), has gone from being a small, independent third party to now becoming the official opposition. The Parti Quebecois, defender of the bastion of Quebec Separatism and advocate of a free and independent Quebec nation, has been relegated to third place. Jean Charest, the Liberal premier, almost lost his seat in the National Assembly. And the question of separatism in Canada and Quebec will never be the same again.
The first flames of revolutionary zeal were seen in last night's provinical election results. A new, slightly right-of-centre, 'Separatist-Lite' party, the ADQ (Action Democratique du Quebec), has gone from being a small, independent third party to now becoming the official opposition. The Parti Quebecois, defender of the bastion of Quebec Separatism and advocate of a free and independent Quebec nation, has been relegated to third place. Jean Charest, the Liberal premier, almost lost his seat in the National Assembly. And the question of separatism in Canada and Quebec will never be the same again.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
U.S. Tax Madness
Taxes are always overwhelming, for everyone -- everywhere -- but trying to find answers to questions about the U.S. tax code is like trying to reason with HAL. "... I'm sorry, Dave ... I can't do that, Dave. ... Dave..." says the automated receptionist in my mind ...
In the process of trying to get my tax refund direct deposited in my Canadian-based, U.S. Dollar bank account, I did have an interesting chat with the Royal Bank customer service representative. He couldn't help me with the direct deposit business; in order to transfer funds to my account, you need first a three-digit institution number, then a five-digit branch transit number, then my seven-digit account number. However, the U.S. tax form asks first for a nine-digit routing number (my parents and I got into a lively discussion about the pronunciation of rOOting-vs.-rOWting -- apparently one pronunciation is Canadian and the other American, though I suspect it's simply regional), and then a seventeen-digit account number. Norman, my customer service representative, was able to get the routing number (money from the U.S. comes through JP Morgan Chase first, before going on to RBC Financial), but the seventeen digit account number remained a mystery -- to both of us. Norman suggested I 'simply call them up' and ask if they will do direct deposit to a Canadian bank (I'm sure there are other people who do this; I'm not the only Canadian who's ever worked in the U.S.) ... but alas, ... HAL...
Norm and had a good little conversation about my experiences as a Canadian in the U.S. though. Of course, he asked me the age-old question (the one everyone always asks me when I tell them I went to school in the states): what's it like? His kids were thinking of going to school in the U.S., and he wanted a blind, unbiased opinion from a stranger (...). I said, it's almost like here [Canada], only fewer things are free (i.e. health care, social services, a good public library) -- and only the strong survive. I found living in the U.S. to be fairly cut-throat -- not in the sense that anyone is out to get you, but in the sense that, in the U.S., one must raise raise one's voice in order to be heard. You need to be a vocal, pro-active personality in order to be successful and find what you want -- and in order to get what you want, you have to be able to ask for it.
Besides the challenge of living in a nation of extroverts after growing up in a nation of introverts, I told him that the second challenge was this: everyone assumes that, because Canada and the U.S. are neighbouring North American cultures, most things are exactly the same -- and that most institutions are completely compatible, when they most certainly are not. (Case in point -- the very difference and incompatibility between Canadian + American direct deposit information and routing (or Routing?) number practices. The irony that this customer service representative had no idea whether or not they could or would wire my cheque from the U.S. to the Canadian bank that he works for, and how, being a customer service representative, he might help me to arrange that -- I think the irony was lost on him.)
I told him how, when I first moved to Rhode Island, I had another banking problem, when my small-town Rhode Island bank branch failed to process a transfer of funds because the computer system was not set up to recognize foreign currency (transferred from my same Canadian bank -- an institution that also primarily deals in Canadian funds, but also in U.S. dollars!) . Norm tried to sell me on another bank service, RBC Centura -- which has branches in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. But what good would that do me, way up in Rhode Island?
I think I'll just do it the old fashioned way, and wait for my cheque to arrive in the mail -- like everybody else.
In the process of trying to get my tax refund direct deposited in my Canadian-based, U.S. Dollar bank account, I did have an interesting chat with the Royal Bank customer service representative. He couldn't help me with the direct deposit business; in order to transfer funds to my account, you need first a three-digit institution number, then a five-digit branch transit number, then my seven-digit account number. However, the U.S. tax form asks first for a nine-digit routing number (my parents and I got into a lively discussion about the pronunciation of rOOting-vs.-rOWting -- apparently one pronunciation is Canadian and the other American, though I suspect it's simply regional), and then a seventeen-digit account number. Norman, my customer service representative, was able to get the routing number (money from the U.S. comes through JP Morgan Chase first, before going on to RBC Financial), but the seventeen digit account number remained a mystery -- to both of us. Norman suggested I 'simply call them up' and ask if they will do direct deposit to a Canadian bank (I'm sure there are other people who do this; I'm not the only Canadian who's ever worked in the U.S.) ... but alas, ... HAL...
Norm and had a good little conversation about my experiences as a Canadian in the U.S. though. Of course, he asked me the age-old question (the one everyone always asks me when I tell them I went to school in the states): what's it like? His kids were thinking of going to school in the U.S., and he wanted a blind, unbiased opinion from a stranger (...). I said, it's almost like here [Canada], only fewer things are free (i.e. health care, social services, a good public library) -- and only the strong survive. I found living in the U.S. to be fairly cut-throat -- not in the sense that anyone is out to get you, but in the sense that, in the U.S., one must raise raise one's voice in order to be heard. You need to be a vocal, pro-active personality in order to be successful and find what you want -- and in order to get what you want, you have to be able to ask for it.
Besides the challenge of living in a nation of extroverts after growing up in a nation of introverts, I told him that the second challenge was this: everyone assumes that, because Canada and the U.S. are neighbouring North American cultures, most things are exactly the same -- and that most institutions are completely compatible, when they most certainly are not. (Case in point -- the very difference and incompatibility between Canadian + American direct deposit information and routing (or Routing?) number practices. The irony that this customer service representative had no idea whether or not they could or would wire my cheque from the U.S. to the Canadian bank that he works for, and how, being a customer service representative, he might help me to arrange that -- I think the irony was lost on him.)
I told him how, when I first moved to Rhode Island, I had another banking problem, when my small-town Rhode Island bank branch failed to process a transfer of funds because the computer system was not set up to recognize foreign currency (transferred from my same Canadian bank -- an institution that also primarily deals in Canadian funds, but also in U.S. dollars!) . Norm tried to sell me on another bank service, RBC Centura -- which has branches in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. But what good would that do me, way up in Rhode Island?
I think I'll just do it the old fashioned way, and wait for my cheque to arrive in the mail -- like everybody else.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Canadian Music Update
Two new, interesting, highly-anticipated albums have come out in the past week. One is the legendary Neil Young 1971 Massey Hall concert recording; the other is the Arcade Fire's "Neon Bible".
You may be thinking, what business do these albums have with this blog, or with Canada-U.S. relations, for that matter?
Well, for starters, both albums are from Canadian artists with international recognition -- and both are seen as being somehow particularly "Canadian".
The Arcade Fire are an eclectic, indie rock band from Montreal, and while their lead singer is originally from down south, most of the band members are Canadian. Neil Young was born and raised in Winnipeg and Toronto.
The Arcade Fire are pretty new on the scene, but they have rapidly ascended to 'indie superstar' status. At this moment, they could arguably be considered one of the biggest bands in the world. "Neon Bible", their current (and only their second) album, is #1 on the billboard charts in Canada and Ireland, #2 in the U.S. and the U.K., and #7 in Australia. Seeing major articles written about them in The Toronto Star and The New York Times Magazine ("One Very Indie Band," Sunday March 4th, 2007) has hammered this reality home: two years ago, they were a mostly unknown, funky, alternative art-rock group. Now, they are huge.
Why are they considered Canadian (or 'more Canadian' than other, less successful, Canadian artists)? I don't know. Maybe they aren't (chances are, many American fans of their music wouldn't take any notice of where they're from, unless they are expressly interested). But, being an avid follower of the Canadian music scene, I started listening to them two years ago, when their debut album "Funeral" began selling. Back then, they were being considered the next big (indie) thing in Canada -- and now, they are the next big ("indie") thing everywhere. So for Canadians like me, they feel like homegrown rock stars that have hit the big time.
Neil Young is a different kind of story; like many musicians of his generation (Joni Mitchell, The Band) when his career took off in the 1960s, hitting the big time meant moving to the U.S. and making his career as a musician there. Having lived most of his life in the U.S., he is probably just as often considered a classic American artist as a Canadian one. And because of his place as a major influence in the worlds of folk, rock, and singer/songwriting -- regardless of any nationally-influenced persona -- he retains a universal appeal.
But -- take Neil Young's work as an article of Canadiana, and you get a very different take on it.
When Neil sings the line, "Now I'm going back to Canada / for a journey through the past / And I won't be back till February comes" in the third verse of "Journey To The Past", you can hear the crowd at Massey Hall in Toronto swell with pride and applause.
And when The Arcade Fire's Win Butler croons, "I don't want to fight in a Holy War / I don't want the salesman knocking at my door / I don't want to live in America no more" (instead of the song's repeated refrain, "I don't want to live in my father's house no more") at the climax of "Windowsill", I am sure he is singing not only to the disaffected youth of America, but to a sentiment common among Canadians just north of the border.
And to tell the truth, there is a kind of pride in seeing this quirky, half-Canadian, art-rock collective attempting to take on such a cultural behemoth and a mammoth political foe.
Even if they are just a rock band -- it will be interesting to see how they fare.
You may be thinking, what business do these albums have with this blog, or with Canada-U.S. relations, for that matter?
Well, for starters, both albums are from Canadian artists with international recognition -- and both are seen as being somehow particularly "Canadian".
The Arcade Fire are an eclectic, indie rock band from Montreal, and while their lead singer is originally from down south, most of the band members are Canadian. Neil Young was born and raised in Winnipeg and Toronto.
The Arcade Fire are pretty new on the scene, but they have rapidly ascended to 'indie superstar' status. At this moment, they could arguably be considered one of the biggest bands in the world. "Neon Bible", their current (and only their second) album, is #1 on the billboard charts in Canada and Ireland, #2 in the U.S. and the U.K., and #7 in Australia. Seeing major articles written about them in The Toronto Star and The New York Times Magazine ("One Very Indie Band," Sunday March 4th, 2007) has hammered this reality home: two years ago, they were a mostly unknown, funky, alternative art-rock group. Now, they are huge.
Why are they considered Canadian (or 'more Canadian' than other, less successful, Canadian artists)? I don't know. Maybe they aren't (chances are, many American fans of their music wouldn't take any notice of where they're from, unless they are expressly interested). But, being an avid follower of the Canadian music scene, I started listening to them two years ago, when their debut album "Funeral" began selling. Back then, they were being considered the next big (indie) thing in Canada -- and now, they are the next big ("indie") thing everywhere. So for Canadians like me, they feel like homegrown rock stars that have hit the big time.
Neil Young is a different kind of story; like many musicians of his generation (Joni Mitchell, The Band) when his career took off in the 1960s, hitting the big time meant moving to the U.S. and making his career as a musician there. Having lived most of his life in the U.S., he is probably just as often considered a classic American artist as a Canadian one. And because of his place as a major influence in the worlds of folk, rock, and singer/songwriting -- regardless of any nationally-influenced persona -- he retains a universal appeal.
But -- take Neil Young's work as an article of Canadiana, and you get a very different take on it.
When Neil sings the line, "Now I'm going back to Canada / for a journey through the past / And I won't be back till February comes" in the third verse of "Journey To The Past", you can hear the crowd at Massey Hall in Toronto swell with pride and applause.
And when The Arcade Fire's Win Butler croons, "I don't want to fight in a Holy War / I don't want the salesman knocking at my door / I don't want to live in America no more" (instead of the song's repeated refrain, "I don't want to live in my father's house no more") at the climax of "Windowsill", I am sure he is singing not only to the disaffected youth of America, but to a sentiment common among Canadians just north of the border.
And to tell the truth, there is a kind of pride in seeing this quirky, half-Canadian, art-rock collective attempting to take on such a cultural behemoth and a mammoth political foe.
Even if they are just a rock band -- it will be interesting to see how they fare.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Maher Arar 's insane war with the United States
Ok, what the hell is this?
Here's what gets me the most:
Only two U.S. senators have come out to say anything about this case that makes any sense; they are Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Shout-outs to them for speaking up ... but come on guys, what's going on there now?
It seems childish an immature, but I think that this is a typically American attitude that is at work: stick with your original story. No matter how hairy things get. Then they can never accuse you of changing your mind or making a mistake. (Wouldn't want to seem too human, now, would we?)
I'm too upset to lecture on this topic; it's been all over the Canadian media for months (partly because the Canadian authorities actually had the guts to admit that they screwed up), but I'm sure it hasn't made nearly as much of a splash in the U.S. For more info on the Maher Arar Case, check out some of these links.
To read the Canadian Government's Official Maher Arar Commission: http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/index.htm
For a summary of Maher Arar's story, check out the Maher Arar website: http://www.maherarar.ca/index.php
For an intelligent and poignant interview with Arar on CBC Radio's The Current, go to http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/podcast.html, subscribe to the Current podcast in iTunes (it's free), and download the September 19, 2006 podcast.
I don't know about you, but I was always taught that it is more graceful to admit when you've made a mistake than to continue to pretend that you are in the right when you have been proven wrong.Arar case closed, U.S. ambassador saysMar 01, 2007 03:11 PM
The U.S. ambassador to Canada says there won't be another review of Maher Arar's place on a security watch list for the time being.David Wilkins said today that his government completed a review of Arar's case a few weeks ago and stands by its actions.
He said the matter is now closed.
Arar can't fly into the United States even though he was exonerated of any terrorist ties by a Canadian inquiry.
He also received $10.5 million in compensation from the federal government and is currently suing U.S. officials.
The engineer was detained by U.S. officials in New York in 2002 and deported to Syria, where he was tortured while imprisoned for 10 months.
Here's what gets me the most:
So, what? They have a difference of opinion? The U.S. definition of "public safety" is more far-reaching and invasive to individuals than the Canadian one? Or perhaps Chertoff and Gonzales have another 'secret file' on Arar, and when they connect the dots between this file and that file, they can see that his family vacation in 2002 was indeed a terrorist operation; with his four-year old daughter as the possible point-person -- but of course, they aren't going to share that information with the Canadian government. That would just be silly.In January, U.S. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said a secret file on Arar showed their decision was “appropriate.”
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said that Canadian officials looked at the file and found nothing to suggest Arar was a safety risk. (http://www.metronews.ca/story.aspx?id=33502)
Only two U.S. senators have come out to say anything about this case that makes any sense; they are Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Shout-outs to them for speaking up ... but come on guys, what's going on there now?
It seems childish an immature, but I think that this is a typically American attitude that is at work: stick with your original story. No matter how hairy things get. Then they can never accuse you of changing your mind or making a mistake. (Wouldn't want to seem too human, now, would we?)
I'm too upset to lecture on this topic; it's been all over the Canadian media for months (partly because the Canadian authorities actually had the guts to admit that they screwed up), but I'm sure it hasn't made nearly as much of a splash in the U.S. For more info on the Maher Arar Case, check out some of these links.
To read the Canadian Government's Official Maher Arar Commission: http://www.ararcommission.ca/eng/index.htm
For a summary of Maher Arar's story, check out the Maher Arar website: http://www.maherarar.ca/index.php
For an intelligent and poignant interview with Arar on CBC Radio's The Current, go to http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/podcast.html, subscribe to the Current podcast in iTunes (it's free), and download the September 19, 2006 podcast.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
BDH on Canadia and Canucks on life at Brown
In the fall, there was an article published in the Brown University's daily newspaper about how Canadian students at that American Ivy League university had to adjust to college in the United States. It validated some of my own experiences as a student there: that many Americans (yes, even the smart ones) are woefully ignorant of their northern neighbour -- and that other Canadians also tend to quietly but fiercely defend their country and culture from the usual fare of ignorance and oversimplification when in the U.S.
The author and I had a lively online exchange about the meaning, purpose, and effect of his article ... I'm including it below.
Oh, Canada!
They're friendly, they can drink at a younger age than you can and they actually care that hockey season began Wednesday night. Still, students from Canada - the foreign country most represented at Brown - have had to adjust significantly to life in Providence despite being America's next-door neighbors.
"I genuinely find people here surprisingly ignorant," said Sarah Andersen '07 of Victoria, British Columbia. "(Brown students) have no idea if we're governed by the Conservative Party or the Communist Party."
Andersen is one of many Canadian Brunonians who believe their neighbors to the south know hardly anything about Canada. "Everyone should know about their neighbors," she said. "When you move into a new neighborhood, you bring cookies to your neighbors. That totally doesn't happen here."
Vernissia Tam '09, a native of Toronto, Ontario, and "co-prime minister" of the Canadian Club at Brown, agreed that her classmates demonstrate minimal knowledge of Canucks. "I've been asked, 'do you have Internet in Canada?'" she said. "I'm from Toronto, and they think I live so far away." She said Californian students are amazed that she's come all the way from Ontario to attend Brown, without realizing that the mere 424 miles she has traveled pale in comparison to their 3,000-mile journey.
However, despite the geographic and cultural distance between Canada and Providence, most Canadian students interviewed by The Herald said they feel welcomed by their American peers, uninformed as they may be.
"I feel pretty at home here," said Matt Dennis '09 of Toronto. He added that Brunonians' open-minded views have eased his transition to American college life.
Professor of Economics Peter Howitt, who is originally from Guelph, Ontario, but has lived in the United States for 12 years, agreed with Dennis. "There are cultural differences (between the United States and Canada), but less in Rhode Island than just about anywhere in the States," he said.
Though Rhode Island may feel close to home for Howitt in some ways, he said he misses Canadian health care, which is publicly funded. "Canadians are proud of their health care system," he said, adding that universal health care seems to him much less likely to be implemented in the United States. "A lot of people think that (universal health care) is the first step towards socialism," he said.
Howitt is not the only Canadian expatriate who prefers the simplicity of health care in his native country.
"I miss the health care system," Tam said. She recalled getting a simple throat swab and culture, a procedure that would have been free in Canada, at University Health Services. By the time she received the test results, she had recovered - but had paid a whopping $200 for the process. "I think I just had a sore throat," she said.
Health care is but one topic on which Canadians and Americans might disagree. Andersen also said Canadians may be more likely to show concern for the environment and that her British Columbian neighbors ride their bikes for miles rather than driving short distances, as Americans do.
"(In Canada), there's more awareness of preserving the outdoors and the environment," Andersen said. "Plus, we have more nature-y stuff in Canada. Like the Marijuana Party."
However, Andersen and others said the most obvious difference between the two neighboring countries is neither health care nor an approach to the environment: it's language.
"Most people treat you exactly the same (as other students), except for making fun of the way you talk," Andersen said. "People always ask me to say 'about.' I do say 'zed,' and of course I say 'eh.'"
Howitt joked that 'eh' is a crucial part of Canada's cultural identity. "Don't you know?" he said. "That's how Canada got its name! 'C, eh, N, eh, D, eh.'"
Among other linguistic oddities in Canada are British spellings like centre, favourite, judgement, haemophilia and cheque. But Canadians are quick to defend their idiosyncratic spelling. "We're in the Commonwealth of England - the country that invented English," Tam said. "I think we'd know.
But one aspect of Canadian culture that incites even more fervor is hockey, which was declared Canada's national sport (along with lacrosse) in 1994 by the National Sports of Canada Act.
Edmonton, Alberta native Jordan Pietrus '10 said he came to Brown to play varsity hockey. When asked about the significance of Oct. 4, the start of this year's NHL season, he responded instantly. "Best day of 2006," he said.
Looking to the future, most Canadian Brown students said they expect to stay in the United States for many of the same reasons they came in the first place.
"There's a kind of prestige you'll get here that you just can't get in Canada," Tam said. Dennis added the flexibility of American higher education appealed to him because it provides similar professional clout but doesn't require that its students specialize as early in the process.
In Canadian universities, he said, "You apply to a program, and from day one, you're in that program."
Tam said she hopes her fellow Canucks make their presence known on campus as much as she does. "I have a huge flag up in my room, I have badges on my backpacks and I have shirts that say 'Canadians girls are the best.'"
"We have to display our Canadian pride," Tam said.
But I digress. Firstly, I would inform Gerussi that this was not an editorial, but a feature. My opinion was not expressed in this article, but rather the opinions of Canadians at Brown. If I did not address reasons for American ignorance, it is either because my interviewees did not give noteworthy answers to my questions about American ignorance, or because--given that the article was a profile of Canadians--Americans were not interviewed.
Secondly, as a Torontonian himself, I am somewhat surprised at the class of Canadian miscellany that Gerussi deems "trivial"--namely hockey and health care.
Hockey is a staple of Canadian culture. It has enough clout to have a formal act (the National Sports of Canada Act referenced in the article) dedicated to its establishment as Canada's national sport. Hockey players appear on Canadian stamps, and according to the CBC's "The Greatest Canadian" series of programs in 2004, two Hockey icons appear in the final list of the top 10 Greatest Canadians ever (Don Cherry at #7 and Wayne Gretzky at #10). Maple Leafs Gardens is so beloved by the city of Toronto that campaigns have sprung up to protect it from being sold. In 2002, after Canada took the gold medal at the winter Olympics, national pride skyrocketted and cheers were heard throughout the country. "Canada is hockey and hockey is Canada" is a quote that has been used many times, by many reputable sources (FOX Sports: http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/5621790).
Public health care is also far from "trivial." In the same CBC feature "The Greatest Canadian," Tommy Douglas claimed the *#1* spot as the Greatest Canadian ever. Douglas was known by many as the "father of medicare," championing public health care and leading the federal New Democratic Party as well as being Premier of Saskatchewan. In 1946, he passed the Sakatchewan Hospitalization Act, which guaranteed free hospital care for the province. Later, he pressured the federal Liberals to pass the Canada Health Act, which sought to establish "that continued access to quality health care without financial or other barriers will be critical to maintaining and improving the health and well-being of Canadians." He also pressured the same government to pass the Medical Care Act, the final step in assuring public health care for all the provinces of Canada. Public health care is certainly not trivial. It is a source of great pride for Canadians, as Professor of Economics Peter Howitt (it should be noted that I did not even ask about health care, but Professor Howitt felt it was important enough to mention, as did Tam) pointed out in the article, and deserves to be included.
Once again, the views expressed in the article are the views of Canadian interviewees, and are not my own--such is objective reporting. Had I been writing an editorial, perhaps I would have addressed some of the points Gerussi does, but those points are outside the scope of the article, which was an innocent and fun profile of Canadians at Brown.
The author and I had a lively online exchange about the meaning, purpose, and effect of his article ... I'm including it below.
Oh, Canada!
Canucks reflect on life at Brown
Chaz Firestone
Issue date: 10/6/06 Section: Features
http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/10/06/Features/Oh.Canada-2336493.shtmlThey're friendly, they can drink at a younger age than you can and they actually care that hockey season began Wednesday night. Still, students from Canada - the foreign country most represented at Brown - have had to adjust significantly to life in Providence despite being America's next-door neighbors.
"I genuinely find people here surprisingly ignorant," said Sarah Andersen '07 of Victoria, British Columbia. "(Brown students) have no idea if we're governed by the Conservative Party or the Communist Party."
Andersen is one of many Canadian Brunonians who believe their neighbors to the south know hardly anything about Canada. "Everyone should know about their neighbors," she said. "When you move into a new neighborhood, you bring cookies to your neighbors. That totally doesn't happen here."
Vernissia Tam '09, a native of Toronto, Ontario, and "co-prime minister" of the Canadian Club at Brown, agreed that her classmates demonstrate minimal knowledge of Canucks. "I've been asked, 'do you have Internet in Canada?'" she said. "I'm from Toronto, and they think I live so far away." She said Californian students are amazed that she's come all the way from Ontario to attend Brown, without realizing that the mere 424 miles she has traveled pale in comparison to their 3,000-mile journey.
However, despite the geographic and cultural distance between Canada and Providence, most Canadian students interviewed by The Herald said they feel welcomed by their American peers, uninformed as they may be.
"I feel pretty at home here," said Matt Dennis '09 of Toronto. He added that Brunonians' open-minded views have eased his transition to American college life.
Professor of Economics Peter Howitt, who is originally from Guelph, Ontario, but has lived in the United States for 12 years, agreed with Dennis. "There are cultural differences (between the United States and Canada), but less in Rhode Island than just about anywhere in the States," he said.
Though Rhode Island may feel close to home for Howitt in some ways, he said he misses Canadian health care, which is publicly funded. "Canadians are proud of their health care system," he said, adding that universal health care seems to him much less likely to be implemented in the United States. "A lot of people think that (universal health care) is the first step towards socialism," he said.
Howitt is not the only Canadian expatriate who prefers the simplicity of health care in his native country.
"I miss the health care system," Tam said. She recalled getting a simple throat swab and culture, a procedure that would have been free in Canada, at University Health Services. By the time she received the test results, she had recovered - but had paid a whopping $200 for the process. "I think I just had a sore throat," she said.
Health care is but one topic on which Canadians and Americans might disagree. Andersen also said Canadians may be more likely to show concern for the environment and that her British Columbian neighbors ride their bikes for miles rather than driving short distances, as Americans do.
"(In Canada), there's more awareness of preserving the outdoors and the environment," Andersen said. "Plus, we have more nature-y stuff in Canada. Like the Marijuana Party."
However, Andersen and others said the most obvious difference between the two neighboring countries is neither health care nor an approach to the environment: it's language.
"Most people treat you exactly the same (as other students), except for making fun of the way you talk," Andersen said. "People always ask me to say 'about.' I do say 'zed,' and of course I say 'eh.'"
Howitt joked that 'eh' is a crucial part of Canada's cultural identity. "Don't you know?" he said. "That's how Canada got its name! 'C, eh, N, eh, D, eh.'"
Among other linguistic oddities in Canada are British spellings like centre, favourite, judgement, haemophilia and cheque. But Canadians are quick to defend their idiosyncratic spelling. "We're in the Commonwealth of England - the country that invented English," Tam said. "I think we'd know.
But one aspect of Canadian culture that incites even more fervor is hockey, which was declared Canada's national sport (along with lacrosse) in 1994 by the National Sports of Canada Act.
Edmonton, Alberta native Jordan Pietrus '10 said he came to Brown to play varsity hockey. When asked about the significance of Oct. 4, the start of this year's NHL season, he responded instantly. "Best day of 2006," he said.
Looking to the future, most Canadian Brown students said they expect to stay in the United States for many of the same reasons they came in the first place.
"There's a kind of prestige you'll get here that you just can't get in Canada," Tam said. Dennis added the flexibility of American higher education appealed to him because it provides similar professional clout but doesn't require that its students specialize as early in the process.
In Canadian universities, he said, "You apply to a program, and from day one, you're in that program."
Tam said she hopes her fellow Canucks make their presence known on campus as much as she does. "I have a huge flag up in my room, I have badges on my backpacks and I have shirts that say 'Canadians girls are the best.'"
"We have to display our Canadian pride," Tam said.
[Anonymous]
posted 10/06/06 @ 8:15 AM ESTCanadians are always saying please and thankyou, whats up with that. OH and in America Canadian Beer is better because its an IMPORT!
Liam Gerussi
posted 10/06/06 @ 1:33 PM EST
Chaz Firestone has put together an interesting article explaining what many Canadian students experience at Brown, but he misses an important point. The reason Brown students (and Americans in general) are woefully ignorant about Canada is partly because they simply aren't interested, or else haven't yet made the effort to learn more about their northern neighbours.
What doesn't seem to help, it seems, is the prevalence of trivial knowledge and stereotypes associated with Canada and Canadians (such as hockey, health care, and always saying 'eh'). Anecdotal explanations of how Canada is different from the U.S. only perpetuate the idea that Canada is a nicer, less glamourous and more liberal America, and unfortunately, such an oversimplification prevents any true understanding of what it means to be Canadian from getting through.
By highlighting the few things that they already know (that Canadians are nice, polite, and environmentally conscious) we can only further alienate Americans from a gaining true understanding of the Canadian experience.
What doesn't seem to help, it seems, is the prevalence of trivial knowledge and stereotypes associated with Canada and Canadians (such as hockey, health care, and always saying 'eh'). Anecdotal explanations of how Canada is different from the U.S. only perpetuate the idea that Canada is a nicer, less glamourous and more liberal America, and unfortunately, such an oversimplification prevents any true understanding of what it means to be Canadian from getting through.
By highlighting the few things that they already know (that Canadians are nice, polite, and environmentally conscious) we can only further alienate Americans from a gaining true understanding of the Canadian experience.
Chaz Firestone
posted 10/06/06 @ 5:29 PM EST
I am glad Mr. Gerussi took the time to read my article, but am sorry he feels the way he does about its portrayal of Canadians. Perhaps if he had returned my e-mails asking him for an interview, his opinions would have been expressed in the article.But I digress. Firstly, I would inform Gerussi that this was not an editorial, but a feature. My opinion was not expressed in this article, but rather the opinions of Canadians at Brown. If I did not address reasons for American ignorance, it is either because my interviewees did not give noteworthy answers to my questions about American ignorance, or because--given that the article was a profile of Canadians--Americans were not interviewed.
Secondly, as a Torontonian himself, I am somewhat surprised at the class of Canadian miscellany that Gerussi deems "trivial"--namely hockey and health care.
Hockey is a staple of Canadian culture. It has enough clout to have a formal act (the National Sports of Canada Act referenced in the article) dedicated to its establishment as Canada's national sport. Hockey players appear on Canadian stamps, and according to the CBC's "The Greatest Canadian" series of programs in 2004, two Hockey icons appear in the final list of the top 10 Greatest Canadians ever (Don Cherry at #7 and Wayne Gretzky at #10). Maple Leafs Gardens is so beloved by the city of Toronto that campaigns have sprung up to protect it from being sold. In 2002, after Canada took the gold medal at the winter Olympics, national pride skyrocketted and cheers were heard throughout the country. "Canada is hockey and hockey is Canada" is a quote that has been used many times, by many reputable sources (FOX Sports: http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/5621790).
Public health care is also far from "trivial." In the same CBC feature "The Greatest Canadian," Tommy Douglas claimed the *#1* spot as the Greatest Canadian ever. Douglas was known by many as the "father of medicare," championing public health care and leading the federal New Democratic Party as well as being Premier of Saskatchewan. In 1946, he passed the Sakatchewan Hospitalization Act, which guaranteed free hospital care for the province. Later, he pressured the federal Liberals to pass the Canada Health Act, which sought to establish "that continued access to quality health care without financial or other barriers will be critical to maintaining and improving the health and well-being of Canadians." He also pressured the same government to pass the Medical Care Act, the final step in assuring public health care for all the provinces of Canada. Public health care is certainly not trivial. It is a source of great pride for Canadians, as Professor of Economics Peter Howitt (it should be noted that I did not even ask about health care, but Professor Howitt felt it was important enough to mention, as did Tam) pointed out in the article, and deserves to be included.
Once again, the views expressed in the article are the views of Canadian interviewees, and are not my own--such is objective reporting. Had I been writing an editorial, perhaps I would have addressed some of the points Gerussi does, but those points are outside the scope of the article, which was an innocent and fun profile of Canadians at Brown.
Liam Gerussi
Posted 10/16/06 @ 4:33 PM EST
It is a shame that Mr. Firestone and I were unable to connect in time for the publication of his article. I did in fact respond to his e-mail and volunteer to be interviewed, but I did not receive the follow-up responses he claims to have sent.
The fact that the article was not an editorial but a light-hearted feature about Canadians at Brown is a fair point. In this limited context, it is a successful article, and I enjoyed reading it. There is nothing wrong with highlighting 'Canadian miscellany', as he calls it, such as hockey and health care, and indeed, in some cases doing so might even improve Brown students' awareness of Canada and Canadians. I also respect Mr. Firestone's efforts to seek the highest standard of objective journalism possible – and in doing so, he is right to withhold his own opinions.
Where I find fault with Mr. Firestone's article is in the depth given to its subject, rather than the breadth of his reporting and his investigation.
As a Torontonian, I recognize that a city is much more than its icons – likewise, Canada is much more than hockey and health care. Toronto is a city of neighbourhoods. As the largest urban centre in Canada and the fifth largest in North America, it is home to over 5 million people, half of whom are foreign-born. These facts make it one of the most cosmopolitan and diverse cities in North America. Now, Toronto is also known for its skyline, which includes the world's tallest freestanding structure: the CN Tower. But if you were to interview residents of Toronto, I would think that the CN Tower would be one of the lasts things that they would ever use to define themselves – and if they did defer to the tourist monument, it would signal perhaps that their image and understanding of the city they live in is a rather shallow one.
What I lament is the fact that the first substantial article in a Brown publication about Canada – the U.S.'s closest neighbour and largest economic partner – necessarily needs to focus on such cultural clichés. This kind of approach ensures that non-Canadians will see only a caricature of the country and its people. Can one not be Canadian, and still find themselves an opponent of Canada's bureaucratic, expensive, and constantly under-funded system of universal health care? Can one not be Canadian and still show distain for Hockey Night in Canada and the way it seemingly replaces all other cultural exports?
Certainly, Canada's health care system is not a trivial matter -- nor is its most beloved national sport, hockey. But I deplore the author's reliance on such archetypal staples of Canadian culture.
A quick search of the BDH's website revealed that Firestone's article was perhaps the first and only article to focus on Canada in Brown's recent history. If an American college newspaper, over the course of the last three years, publishes only one article that deals directly with anything related to the country that is its national neighbour, cultural cousin, and the birthplace of its largest contingent of international students, then what does this tell us about the surrounding culture? I believe it speaks mountains about the ignorance, inward focus, and the tragic un-cosmopolitan nature of the surrounding campus. Despite our best efforts to cultivate diversity, we fail to take advantage of the diversity that is all around us, because we are too busy thinking about ourselves to take an interest in getting to know our neighbours.
There is a lot more one can say about Canada besides the stereotypical elements Mr. Firestone's article focuses on. Perhaps the Canadians whom he interviewed at Brown ought to take their responsibility as cultural ambassadors more seriously by taking some time to look beyond the obvious about the country where they come from, while journalists such as Mr. Firestone should perhaps spend more time looking beyond their school and country's sheltering borders.
The fact that the article was not an editorial but a light-hearted feature about Canadians at Brown is a fair point. In this limited context, it is a successful article, and I enjoyed reading it. There is nothing wrong with highlighting 'Canadian miscellany', as he calls it, such as hockey and health care, and indeed, in some cases doing so might even improve Brown students' awareness of Canada and Canadians. I also respect Mr. Firestone's efforts to seek the highest standard of objective journalism possible – and in doing so, he is right to withhold his own opinions.
Where I find fault with Mr. Firestone's article is in the depth given to its subject, rather than the breadth of his reporting and his investigation.
As a Torontonian, I recognize that a city is much more than its icons – likewise, Canada is much more than hockey and health care. Toronto is a city of neighbourhoods. As the largest urban centre in Canada and the fifth largest in North America, it is home to over 5 million people, half of whom are foreign-born. These facts make it one of the most cosmopolitan and diverse cities in North America. Now, Toronto is also known for its skyline, which includes the world's tallest freestanding structure: the CN Tower. But if you were to interview residents of Toronto, I would think that the CN Tower would be one of the lasts things that they would ever use to define themselves – and if they did defer to the tourist monument, it would signal perhaps that their image and understanding of the city they live in is a rather shallow one.
What I lament is the fact that the first substantial article in a Brown publication about Canada – the U.S.'s closest neighbour and largest economic partner – necessarily needs to focus on such cultural clichés. This kind of approach ensures that non-Canadians will see only a caricature of the country and its people. Can one not be Canadian, and still find themselves an opponent of Canada's bureaucratic, expensive, and constantly under-funded system of universal health care? Can one not be Canadian and still show distain for Hockey Night in Canada and the way it seemingly replaces all other cultural exports?
Certainly, Canada's health care system is not a trivial matter -- nor is its most beloved national sport, hockey. But I deplore the author's reliance on such archetypal staples of Canadian culture.
A quick search of the BDH's website revealed that Firestone's article was perhaps the first and only article to focus on Canada in Brown's recent history. If an American college newspaper, over the course of the last three years, publishes only one article that deals directly with anything related to the country that is its national neighbour, cultural cousin, and the birthplace of its largest contingent of international students, then what does this tell us about the surrounding culture? I believe it speaks mountains about the ignorance, inward focus, and the tragic un-cosmopolitan nature of the surrounding campus. Despite our best efforts to cultivate diversity, we fail to take advantage of the diversity that is all around us, because we are too busy thinking about ourselves to take an interest in getting to know our neighbours.
There is a lot more one can say about Canada besides the stereotypical elements Mr. Firestone's article focuses on. Perhaps the Canadians whom he interviewed at Brown ought to take their responsibility as cultural ambassadors more seriously by taking some time to look beyond the obvious about the country where they come from, while journalists such as Mr. Firestone should perhaps spend more time looking beyond their school and country's sheltering borders.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Ottawa is Canadian
I am going to Ottawa this weekend!
I love Ottawa. As a pure-bred Torontonian, you may well ask why. Ottawa is no world-class city (as Toronto so often aspires to be, but is rarely recognized as such ... but that's a separate post altogether). Ottawa is nice, clean, and cold -- hella cold. I was told once by a friend who lived there that it is the coldest capital city -- colder than Moscow. (Actually, this is not quite true. But it is among the top-seven coldest capital cities in the world -- see here for more info.)
But Ottawa is much more than simply nice, clean, and cold (ah, ...the archetypal Canadian stereotype); and the reasons why I love Ottawa are more complex than that. Like the country it governs, Ottawa is many things -- some great, some not memorable. But (perhaps unlike the country it governs, some would argue), Ottawa does seem to have a clear sense of identity. Ottawa knows what it is, and it embraces that.
Ottawa is a political town. It is colloquial; robust; sturdy; a little bit British. Ottawa is parliamentarian. The parliament buildings overlook the Ottawa river (keeping an eye on Hull, Quebec). Ottawa is towering, and strong -- a capital city this far north will never fall. Ottawa is, to me, somehow quintessentially Canadian.
Ottawa is where ambition goes to retire; it is no Wall Street or Washington, D.C. -- but neither is it a city so far gone into the world of politics (as many American state capitals are) that they have lost sight of what life outside of politics is all about. Real people still live in Ottawa. It has all the trappings of a modest cultural centre -- if not the 'buzz' of being the 'it' place to be.
In southern Ontario -- and especially Toronto, which the closest place in Canada to the states without actually being part of or in America -- Ottawa is the closest that one can get to the Canadian North without going too far from home. Just as the United States' capital, Washington, D.C., sits between the northern and southern states as if holding them together with a thumb-tack, Ottawa sits at one of Canada's many fault lines. It is a sign post to the north; it is the pulley that anchors our clothesline of Canadian cities, most of which are less than 200 miles from the American border. It is an officially bilingual city (on a continent of unofficially multilingual cities), and it is that vital link between the English Canadian establishment and the ever-politicized French Canadian homeland, culture, and way of life.
Ottawa is eating Beaver Tails (or "Queues des Castor") on the Rideau Canal (I considered going to school in Ottawa for the sole privilege of being able to skate to class or work every day).
I have not spent as much time there as I would like. Hopefully this weekend will become part of a remedy for that.
I love Ottawa. As a pure-bred Torontonian, you may well ask why. Ottawa is no world-class city (as Toronto so often aspires to be, but is rarely recognized as such ... but that's a separate post altogether). Ottawa is nice, clean, and cold -- hella cold. I was told once by a friend who lived there that it is the coldest capital city -- colder than Moscow. (Actually, this is not quite true. But it is among the top-seven coldest capital cities in the world -- see here for more info.)
But Ottawa is much more than simply nice, clean, and cold (ah, ...the archetypal Canadian stereotype); and the reasons why I love Ottawa are more complex than that. Like the country it governs, Ottawa is many things -- some great, some not memorable. But (perhaps unlike the country it governs, some would argue), Ottawa does seem to have a clear sense of identity. Ottawa knows what it is, and it embraces that.
Ottawa is a political town. It is colloquial; robust; sturdy; a little bit British. Ottawa is parliamentarian. The parliament buildings overlook the Ottawa river (keeping an eye on Hull, Quebec). Ottawa is towering, and strong -- a capital city this far north will never fall. Ottawa is, to me, somehow quintessentially Canadian.
Ottawa is where ambition goes to retire; it is no Wall Street or Washington, D.C. -- but neither is it a city so far gone into the world of politics (as many American state capitals are) that they have lost sight of what life outside of politics is all about. Real people still live in Ottawa. It has all the trappings of a modest cultural centre -- if not the 'buzz' of being the 'it' place to be.
In southern Ontario -- and especially Toronto, which the closest place in Canada to the states without actually being part of or in America -- Ottawa is the closest that one can get to the Canadian North without going too far from home. Just as the United States' capital, Washington, D.C., sits between the northern and southern states as if holding them together with a thumb-tack, Ottawa sits at one of Canada's many fault lines. It is a sign post to the north; it is the pulley that anchors our clothesline of Canadian cities, most of which are less than 200 miles from the American border. It is an officially bilingual city (on a continent of unofficially multilingual cities), and it is that vital link between the English Canadian establishment and the ever-politicized French Canadian homeland, culture, and way of life.
Ottawa is eating Beaver Tails (or "Queues des Castor") on the Rideau Canal (I considered going to school in Ottawa for the sole privilege of being able to skate to class or work every day).
I have not spent as much time there as I would like. Hopefully this weekend will become part of a remedy for that.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Supplies from Seattle?
So. I work at a Starbucks in downtown Toronto. Earlier today, my manager is expecting a shipment of stock and supplies to arrive. It hasn't. He makes some calls and asks around over the course of the early afternoon.
Now, I am only a barista ... but over the next few minutes, I continue to overhear bits of a conversation between my Store Manager and Assistant Store Manager, both of whom are trying to solve this quandary of the MIA supplies. Between making change for over sixty people's twenties and trying my best to properly call each decaf, triple, tall, one-pump, nonfat, hazelnut americano (or other complicated, personalized, foreign Starbucks-language-coded drink), I may have missed out on some of the details. However, I know that by 3:30 pm, enough concern had been generated over the undelivered goods that my managers decided that a call to Seattle -- to Starbucks' head supply office -- was in order. Apparently, we were not the only store in the GTA not to have received its shipment this weekend. None of our local superiors could give us any more information; so, we took our query right to the source.
As I sit there in the back room, counting my till, I hear the following exchange between my manager and the person on the other end of the line:
"Oh ... it's not coming today? ...
"Oh ... not tomorrow? ...
"Ok. Thank you ..."
Apparently, they're not working at the Seattle supply office this weekend. Some sort of holiday.
Why aren't they working, my Assistant Manager asks out loud? The answer, of course, hits me: Presidents' Day.
This weekend is Presidents' Day weekend in the US -- the amalgamation of two holidays that were historically meant to honour Lincoln and Washington's birthdays, and in some states, Jefferson's birthday as well. (For any clueless Canadian readers, Presidents' Day is the American catch-all equivalent of our May 24 long weekend, Victoria Day).
The fact that, for whatever reason, our Toronto Starbucks' location did not know that Presidents' Day would put a wrench in their supply schedule is somewhat amusingly ironic to my ears. Apparently, Canadian operations were too clueless to realize that an American holiday even existed this weekend, or managers and suppliers in Seattle did not think to notify Canadian operations that this would be the case (or perhaps -- a bureaucratic nightmare -- both). And this from a company that is easily the most successful coffee chain in the world -- a corporation that ought to be renowned for its efficiency!
The whole thing reeks of Canadian and American miscommunication.
I think Canadian and American businesses -- especially American businesses -- assume that the culture on either side of the border is so similar, that they can treat the foreign Canadian or American market as simply an extension of their home country's operations without thinking of the logistic, cultural, and technical consequences of doing business internationally.
One thing is for certain: I won't be coming in specially to receive a shipment of supplies on May 24th. If Starbucks and other like-minded corporations want their international operations to run smoothly, they'd better take the time to learn something about the country they are doing business in, and they'd better learn to coordinate information and operations between those countries.
And if they were really smart, they would learn to use the local vernacular, too (See "Sacred Milk" blog entry, 02/08/07).
Now, I am only a barista ... but over the next few minutes, I continue to overhear bits of a conversation between my Store Manager and Assistant Store Manager, both of whom are trying to solve this quandary of the MIA supplies. Between making change for over sixty people's twenties and trying my best to properly call each decaf, triple, tall, one-pump, nonfat, hazelnut americano (or other complicated, personalized, foreign Starbucks-language-coded drink), I may have missed out on some of the details. However, I know that by 3:30 pm, enough concern had been generated over the undelivered goods that my managers decided that a call to Seattle -- to Starbucks' head supply office -- was in order. Apparently, we were not the only store in the GTA not to have received its shipment this weekend. None of our local superiors could give us any more information; so, we took our query right to the source.
As I sit there in the back room, counting my till, I hear the following exchange between my manager and the person on the other end of the line:
"Oh ... it's not coming today? ...
"Oh ... not tomorrow? ...
"Ok. Thank you ..."
Apparently, they're not working at the Seattle supply office this weekend. Some sort of holiday.
Why aren't they working, my Assistant Manager asks out loud? The answer, of course, hits me: Presidents' Day.
This weekend is Presidents' Day weekend in the US -- the amalgamation of two holidays that were historically meant to honour Lincoln and Washington's birthdays, and in some states, Jefferson's birthday as well. (For any clueless Canadian readers, Presidents' Day is the American catch-all equivalent of our May 24 long weekend, Victoria Day).
The fact that, for whatever reason, our Toronto Starbucks' location did not know that Presidents' Day would put a wrench in their supply schedule is somewhat amusingly ironic to my ears. Apparently, Canadian operations were too clueless to realize that an American holiday even existed this weekend, or managers and suppliers in Seattle did not think to notify Canadian operations that this would be the case (or perhaps -- a bureaucratic nightmare -- both). And this from a company that is easily the most successful coffee chain in the world -- a corporation that ought to be renowned for its efficiency!
The whole thing reeks of Canadian and American miscommunication.
I think Canadian and American businesses -- especially American businesses -- assume that the culture on either side of the border is so similar, that they can treat the foreign Canadian or American market as simply an extension of their home country's operations without thinking of the logistic, cultural, and technical consequences of doing business internationally.
One thing is for certain: I won't be coming in specially to receive a shipment of supplies on May 24th. If Starbucks and other like-minded corporations want their international operations to run smoothly, they'd better take the time to learn something about the country they are doing business in, and they'd better learn to coordinate information and operations between those countries.
And if they were really smart, they would learn to use the local vernacular, too (See "Sacred Milk" blog entry, 02/08/07).
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
What state should you live in?
. . . and of course, the U.S.-equivalent quiz (as with everything, there's always a U.S. equivalent -- though it is always markedly different).
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=24094
Apparently I ought to live in Louisiana (although, Florida was pretty close. Funny that, especially since many Canadians migrate there this time of year).
FYI, the tie-breaker for Louisiana vs. Florida for me was a choice of either "YOU LIKE TO PARTY GET DRUNK AND SHOW PEOPLE YOU BOOBS/ OR LOOK AT BOOBS", or "YOU LIKE SPRING BREAK". I went with boobs; where I come from, it's pronounced "March Break".
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=24094
Apparently I ought to live in Louisiana (although, Florida was pretty close. Funny that, especially since many Canadians migrate there this time of year).
FYI, the tie-breaker for Louisiana vs. Florida for me was a choice of either "YOU LIKE TO PARTY GET DRUNK AND SHOW PEOPLE YOU BOOBS/ OR LOOK AT BOOBS", or "YOU LIKE SPRING BREAK". I went with boobs; where I come from, it's pronounced "March Break".
What canadian province are you?
Just do it.
http://www.quizilla.com/users/hannibalrector/quizzes/What%20Canadian%20Province%20Are%20You%3F/
And post your results!
http://www.quizilla.com/users/hannibalrector/quizzes/What%20Canadian%20Province%20Are%20You%3F/
And post your results!
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Canadian Update
Ok, this is the digest-version of my daily post. Clearly, I need to do my homework more if I want to be able to come up with interesting things to post every day. But failing that, I at least want to not fall out of the essential habit of keeping this blog feeling 'current'.
So, to start, here's a few fun things to check out.
1. Rick Mercer's blog - Believe it or not, Rick Mercer posts on a plain old Blogger blog, just like mine (though i think he may be soon moving to a better one, on his snazzy new website). Though I truly enjoyed his Liberal leadership convention coverage, and hearing about his christmas trip to Afghanistan, the most fun you'll have on his blog these days is definately the photo challenge. There are some classics ... don't forget to check out 2005-2006: there are some great entries, and some especially potent commentary on Canada-U.S. relations (such as Harper and Bush smoking hookah together; or my favourite Michael Ignatieff with his finger in bush's ear).
2. canadia-eh - This is a great blog by a Canadian from Edmonton. It chronicles her own adventures, amusing moments, and frustrations living south of the border. I'll credit this as an official inspiration for my own CanadiaBlog. It is quite a gem -- something I aspire towards; unfortunately, she is no longer maintaining it and seems to be planning on taking it offline soon (so check it out now, while it's still exists...)
3. My band! Why not? I need three things to make it a list, anyway. And my band is pretty awesome. Definitely have a listen. Canadian music at its best! (haha - www.myspace.com/threeseasonsandthemove).
4. There are a ton of other Canada and "Canadia"-themed sites and blogs out there ... but, some of them are stupid or offensive, and none of them are as good as this one, anyway. I'd like to provide a comprehensive Canadia-site-guide for you some time, but I think that is a project for another day.
It is pretty late right now so I will sign off!
ttfn,
-L
So, to start, here's a few fun things to check out.
1. Rick Mercer's blog - Believe it or not, Rick Mercer posts on a plain old Blogger blog, just like mine (though i think he may be soon moving to a better one, on his snazzy new website). Though I truly enjoyed his Liberal leadership convention coverage, and hearing about his christmas trip to Afghanistan, the most fun you'll have on his blog these days is definately the photo challenge. There are some classics ... don't forget to check out 2005-2006: there are some great entries, and some especially potent commentary on Canada-U.S. relations (such as Harper and Bush smoking hookah together; or my favourite Michael Ignatieff with his finger in bush's ear).
2. canadia-eh - This is a great blog by a Canadian from Edmonton. It chronicles her own adventures, amusing moments, and frustrations living south of the border. I'll credit this as an official inspiration for my own CanadiaBlog. It is quite a gem -- something I aspire towards; unfortunately, she is no longer maintaining it and seems to be planning on taking it offline soon (so check it out now, while it's still exists...)
3. My band! Why not? I need three things to make it a list, anyway. And my band is pretty awesome. Definitely have a listen. Canadian music at its best! (haha - www.myspace.com/threeseasonsandthemove).
4. There are a ton of other Canada and "Canadia"-themed sites and blogs out there ... but, some of them are stupid or offensive, and none of them are as good as this one, anyway. I'd like to provide a comprehensive Canadia-site-guide for you some time, but I think that is a project for another day.
It is pretty late right now so I will sign off!
ttfn,
-L
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Sacred milk: linguistic Manifest Destiny
This is an article written by my witty and incredulous sister, Michaela Gerussi. Of all the articles posted on this blog, this one has by far the most spirit and panache.
If you care at all about local businesses, cultural and linguistic freedom, or calling a spade a spade, read on.
Coffee Talk
If you’re interested in becoming a ‘Barista’ at Starbucks, apply now. They’re mass hiring right now, and have plans to open five hundred new cafes in Canada. Starbucks is taking over the country.
Starbucks’ success in Canada is undeniable. It’s the trendy place to go for coffee, tea, and reduced fat, vegan brownies.
Many of us feel that it’s important to support Canadian, if not local businesses. Unfortunately, most accessible restaurants and cafes in Toronto are American owned chains. Even your friendly neighborhood Second Cup, which at least started out in Canada, is now owned by an American company. Lately, Second Cup has been overshadowed by the merciless Starbucks.
A recent recruit shares his experience of being thrust into the world of Starbucks:
“I was surprised at how seriously they take working at Starbucks. I have a huge textbook to read through about making coffee. I’ve realized that it’s not an evil company, they’re just incredibly successful. They’ve thought of everything. They use fair trade coffee beans, and invest in community centers in the areas where they get the beans. Their prices are high, but what you’re paying for is a drink that you can customize to be exactly what you want. The high costs also let them treat their employees very well. Nine dollars an hour and free drinks on every break is enough, but after six months, I actually get health benefits, and the company will help contribute to my RRSP account.”
Starbucks has swooped in on us, and we willingly agree to order deliciously artificial American drinks using words like ‘venti’ and ‘macchiatto’ as if we’re in an Italian espresso bar.
To be honest, this is not a problem for me. They are not ripping off any coffee farmers in South America or testing their products on baby Rabbits. I have no problem with the company; in fact I hear good things. My issue with Starbucks is the effect it has had on our culture so far.
Starbucks is not only oozing onto every street corner in Toronto; it is slowly but surely breaking down the sacred tradition that is Skim milk.
I can’t figure out how they got away with ‘non-fat’ milk. In Canada we say skim milk, obviously, and have been saying it for who knows how long. All of the workers and customers are Canadian, so the only ones forcing ‘non-fat’ on us is those little stickers on the milk jugs. ‘Skim’ even takes less time to say (and of course we all know that Starbucks is for busy, busy people) but the Americans up in the offices don’t know what that means, and it confuses them.
If you think about how many people go to Starbucks and are exposed to the ‘non-fat’ phenomenon, it’s easy to see how it has really impacted the milk world.
Caitlin has been working at Second Cup for a few months now. For a little experiment, I asked her about the milk situation at good old second Cup. By the way, Second cup has been in Canada since the seventies, and has been ‘Skim’ from the beginning. Caitlin told me that they still label the milk ‘Skim’, but almost all of the customers order ‘non-fat’ milk. It’s pretty amazing how ‘non-fat’ spread like wildfire.
I think it’s just plain rude to disregard our cultural language the way Starbucks has. Little by little, America is molding us. I would hate to see it get so bad that we call toques ‘knitted ski caps’.
Michaela Gerussi
If you care at all about local businesses, cultural and linguistic freedom, or calling a spade a spade, read on.
Coffee Talk
If you’re interested in becoming a ‘Barista’ at Starbucks, apply now. They’re mass hiring right now, and have plans to open five hundred new cafes in Canada. Starbucks is taking over the country.
Starbucks’ success in Canada is undeniable. It’s the trendy place to go for coffee, tea, and reduced fat, vegan brownies.
Many of us feel that it’s important to support Canadian, if not local businesses. Unfortunately, most accessible restaurants and cafes in Toronto are American owned chains. Even your friendly neighborhood Second Cup, which at least started out in Canada, is now owned by an American company. Lately, Second Cup has been overshadowed by the merciless Starbucks.
A recent recruit shares his experience of being thrust into the world of Starbucks:
“I was surprised at how seriously they take working at Starbucks. I have a huge textbook to read through about making coffee. I’ve realized that it’s not an evil company, they’re just incredibly successful. They’ve thought of everything. They use fair trade coffee beans, and invest in community centers in the areas where they get the beans. Their prices are high, but what you’re paying for is a drink that you can customize to be exactly what you want. The high costs also let them treat their employees very well. Nine dollars an hour and free drinks on every break is enough, but after six months, I actually get health benefits, and the company will help contribute to my RRSP account.”
Starbucks has swooped in on us, and we willingly agree to order deliciously artificial American drinks using words like ‘venti’ and ‘macchiatto’ as if we’re in an Italian espresso bar.
To be honest, this is not a problem for me. They are not ripping off any coffee farmers in South America or testing their products on baby Rabbits. I have no problem with the company; in fact I hear good things. My issue with Starbucks is the effect it has had on our culture so far.
Starbucks is not only oozing onto every street corner in Toronto; it is slowly but surely breaking down the sacred tradition that is Skim milk.
I can’t figure out how they got away with ‘non-fat’ milk. In Canada we say skim milk, obviously, and have been saying it for who knows how long. All of the workers and customers are Canadian, so the only ones forcing ‘non-fat’ on us is those little stickers on the milk jugs. ‘Skim’ even takes less time to say (and of course we all know that Starbucks is for busy, busy people) but the Americans up in the offices don’t know what that means, and it confuses them.
If you think about how many people go to Starbucks and are exposed to the ‘non-fat’ phenomenon, it’s easy to see how it has really impacted the milk world.
Caitlin has been working at Second Cup for a few months now. For a little experiment, I asked her about the milk situation at good old second Cup. By the way, Second cup has been in Canada since the seventies, and has been ‘Skim’ from the beginning. Caitlin told me that they still label the milk ‘Skim’, but almost all of the customers order ‘non-fat’ milk. It’s pretty amazing how ‘non-fat’ spread like wildfire.
I think it’s just plain rude to disregard our cultural language the way Starbucks has. Little by little, America is molding us. I would hate to see it get so bad that we call toques ‘knitted ski caps’.
Michaela Gerussi
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
'When Maps Fail'
When Maps Fail: Straight Line Metaphors and the Borders and Regions of the Canadian American Plains -- by Peter S. Morris
I found this paper on the web by chance, during a random search. I feel like I've stumbled on a goldmine; it addresses many of the main issues I'm interested in for my "Canadia" project. I recommend reading the whole thing -- it's not too long, and for an academic paper, remarkably un-stuffy and well-written.
But ... just in case you're in a hurry, I'll talk about a few highlights.
The question here is, where does one culture end and another begin? Is it ever that cut-and-dried? Can you differentiate between people who have more in common terms of economies, trade, and way of life than those who share currency, a flag, and nationalistic values, but perhaps little else?
Morris rightfully mentions how little scholarship there is on Canada-U.S. relations and our "shared borderland". Canadian and American scholarship, as he says, is mostly divided along nationalistic lines:
I found this paper on the web by chance, during a random search. I feel like I've stumbled on a goldmine; it addresses many of the main issues I'm interested in for my "Canadia" project. I recommend reading the whole thing -- it's not too long, and for an academic paper, remarkably un-stuffy and well-written.
But ... just in case you're in a hurry, I'll talk about a few highlights.
One could talk at length about the significance of the international border to this agricultural trade dispute of a few years ago. . . . But the only point I wish to make at the moment is this: quite simply, the Canadian-American border matters. It has not been an invisible line—an irrelevant piece of geographic trivia in North American history. No less so than the U.S.-Mexico boundary, we must conceive of the 49th-parallel border as a significant and ever-evolving component of historical-geographic change in the North American West (my emphasis).Morris goes on to discuss how little scholarship has focused on the 49th parallel as a boundary and a borderlands area -- a place where there are conflicting views about who is the "Other"; where neighbours on either side of an international border line may have more in common than those who are citizens of the same nation, but live on opposite sides of a continent. Within both counties, there are those whose lives and values reflect a difference in culture much greater than the difference between the cultures on either side of the border line. Farmers in the Midwest and the Canadian prairies are bound to have more in common than those same farmers will have in common with people growing up in urban New Orleans or native people living in Iqaluit.
The question here is, where does one culture end and another begin? Is it ever that cut-and-dried? Can you differentiate between people who have more in common terms of economies, trade, and way of life than those who share currency, a flag, and nationalistic values, but perhaps little else?
Morris rightfully mentions how little scholarship there is on Canada-U.S. relations and our "shared borderland". Canadian and American scholarship, as he says, is mostly divided along nationalistic lines:
That this would be true for scholars from south of the border should be no surprise. It is virtually a national pastime in the United States to ignore our northern neighbors—Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood once referred to the border as a “one-way mirror.”As much as I enjoy the validation Morris gives to the non-visibility of Canada in the Unites States, it's important to understand Morris's next point, which is the astute observation that, while Americans and American scholarship have predictably often ignored Canada and how Canadian borderlands history relates to it's own, Canadian scholarship has also tended to have a nationalistic focus: Canadians also "limit their studies to the people, places, and events on just one side of the border." He also offers a good reason for this, with which I agree:
Canadians, like most peoples, have sought a distinctive national identity in the histories they have written, and perhaps the strongest and most enduring bond linking the various Canadas together—West to East, French-speaking to English-speaking—has been a common desire to not be “American.”Morris does well by paraphrasing former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's famous quip (also, coincidentally, quoted at the bottom of this blog) that being next-door neighbour to the United States is like sleeping with an elephant: the enormous bunkmate is impossible to ignore -- and every insignificant twitch and grunt that the elephant makes is felt in Canada tenfold. Therefore, it is by necessity, and because of the U.S.'s overbearing presence, that Canada has always focused on creating a strong nationalistic vision that is separate and different from the history of America, rather than being a part of it. (As for why the U.S. has made a national past time of ignoring Canada ... well, no excuse is given.)
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
About the name "Canadia"
I should probably explain a bit about the title.According to Wikipedia disambiguation, Canadia is, "Another, generally humorous, name for Canada, by back-formation from "Canadian".
It's usually used in reference to Canada by Americans, with the implicit joke that they themselves know little or nothing about Canada (as in the 'Family Circus' comic strip, above). Alternatively, I've seen and heard it used by Canadians poking fun at that same American stereotype.
After spending two-and-a-half years living in the United States attending an American University, I have amassed a lifetime's worth of anecdotal evidence which helps illustrate the Canadian-American cultural divide. This is what the blog -- and my film -- are supposed to be about, though the analysis will be more in-depth than just that.
I chose the title "Canadia" not only because it is a quirky cultural joke; a quaint product of the iGeneration's sense of humour. As the fictitious name of an imagined country, Canadia is a fantastic name. It implies mystique; fantasy; adventure. Americans who are aware of their ignorance about Canada see this as a fitting description. To them, Canada may as well be Narnia; they have heard stories of it's unlivable climate, it's wilderness, it's magical mystery, it's 'mounties' and 'igloos'; but they have never been through the looking glass to see it for themselves. (Or, even if they have, they have not seen the real Canada -- all they have seen is a North American society, much like a mirror image of themselves. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)