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
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
