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.
