Aw, Canada: I like Canada

Aw, Canada
: I like Canada for the same reason Canadians do: It’s not America. That’s what makes it interesting, charming, eccentric, entertaining.

The truth is that Canadians spend too much time worrying about how they’re not American.

Robertson Davies, one of the greatest Canadians, used to deflect this national identity crisis by saying that in fact, Canada had less in common with America than with Scandinavia. And he had a point. Scandinavia combines the convenience of America with the deep roots of Europe. I’d say that’s true of Canada, too.

But I’m coming to think that Canada’s real inferiority complex is not directed at America but at England. Canadians keep complaining that they don’t have their own culture or that what they have is overshadowed by ours.

Well, the truth is that America doesn’t have its own native culture, either. Our culture is the product of all our people and our people come from everywhere. Our nation is a melting pot (or actually a think, chunky, steaming stew) and so is our culture.

Canada needs to admit that it, too, is a melting pot/stew and so its culture will have elements of the many, many ethnic immigrants who now call it home. No, Canada does not have a Shakespeare to brag about like Mother England; it’s too young. We don’t have one either. Doesn’t bother us. Keeps bothering them.

Note, then, this essay by Brian Johnson in Maclean’s, the Canadian newsmagazine [via Zoombafloom], complaining about culture and about cultural complainers as well.

Canada is a fiction, a make-believe nation. We have the all trappings of a modern state — our parliamentary floor show, our sad little army, and now our very own poet laureate. We have a few precious sacraments: our health care, our hockey, our beer, our news. But as much as we might like our country, we don’t love it, at least not with the Biblical devotion that seems hard-wired into the American psyche. A passion for Canada requires a delicate suspension of disbelief. We’re not just post-colonial, we’re a post-modern nation held together by speculative patriotism, a country forever trying to make cultural ends meet as it debates its own existence. A necessary fiction.

That is what I love about Canada: that national sport of icy self-deprecation (though one could argue that this is actually a national self-obsession, since one does hear Canadians talking quite a bit about what Canada isn’t or is). In any case: Listen to the angst: “We’re not real.”

Yes, you are, Canada. You have great literature (though there’s a complaint in the essay that so much of the literature is by immigrants and “our authors have become world-famous by setting their novels anywhere but in Canada”), great comedy, great musicians, greatly livable cities, damned good beer, and nice people. What’s not to love? Why can’t Canada love Canada? Beats me. I do.

Anyway, Johnson tries wisely to redefine Canadian culture not as stuff about Canada in Canada starring Canadians but, instead, a Canadian viewpoint: the Canadian perspective. It works.

What if real national maturity means that Canadian content can’t be measured by tallying up local references? Perhaps there’s such a thing as a Canadian point of view, and what makes it Canadian is its lack of national ego, and the transparency with which it filters the rest of the world, America in particular. That’s why we export so many comedians and journalists. Mike Myers deals in farce, Peter Jennings in news, but both mediate the world from a bemused distance. That same playful approach to the chemistry of communication is what made Glenn Gould, Norman McLaren, Pierre Trudeau and Marshall McLuhan so much more than simply a pianist, an animator, a politician and an academic. They were all media visionaries, transforming the art of communication….

McLuhan, of course, was the ultimate media guru, a prophet of globalization at the dawn of the computer age. Envisioning the “global village,” he asked this pointed question: “When everybody becomes totally involved with everybody, how is one to establish identity?” Canada has found a self-effacing identity as the Media Nation. Sitting backstage of America, we comment from a safe but intimate distance, with no need to applaud.

: As an aside, Johnson makes one very odd comment that I’m hoping is the product of wry irony only members of the Empire would understand; if it’s not, it is deeply offensive and stupid.

We’re not American. We can’t believe Letterman keeps making racist cracks about Manhattan taxi drivers in turbans without seeing the connection to planes flying into buildings. We’re onto that.

: Update: Marc Weisblott has more to say on the Maclean’s story and suggests the Canadian government would be wise to encourage Canadian Blog Content with a Canadian Blog Fund.

8 responses to “Aw, Canada: I like Canada”

  1. Canadian Reader Avatar
    Canadian Reader

    Er, thank-you… I think!
    It’s true that one of our national sports is angsting every so often about not having a proper national identity. But don’t believe Brian Johnson when he says we don’t love our country. We don’t make much noise about it, principally because we’re well aware that, given the relative sizes, Canadians trying to out-shout the Great American Patriotism Machine would only make us look ridiculous, and hey, who wants to look ridiculous? So as a rule we don’t talk very much about it. Nevertheless, the love is there. Once in a while, it shows.
    There’s a nuance lost, too, I think; we don’t spend as much time worrying about how we’re not American, as privately consoling ourselves that… well ok, but at least, we’re not American.

  2. marc weisblott Avatar

    |?|
    &?nd, Jeff, that this article appeared in Maclean’s, a generally mediocre newsweekly (although it’s gotten a bit better of late) that, while owned by a publicly traded (on both sides of the border) communications monolith, Rogers, has received a total of $2.5 million of taxpayer cash over the past two years as part of a fund dedicated to producing the sort of flag-waving editorial content that you’re praising. And, oh yes, to discourage companies like Conde Nast from setting up offices here. (It does not, however, deter Canadian newsstands from selling more copies of Vanity Fair or The New Yorker than they apparently do of Maclean’s.)

  3. Eric Avatar

    Hi Jeff,
    Nice post–I feel all warm ‘n fuzzy too. Makes me almost feel bad for the swipes I keep taking at Bush on my site.
    I do feel bad, though, that I was still in blog-skeptical mode and didn’t get out of the apartment to wander down to the law school and check out the conference–great coverage, BTW…

  4. Zathras Avatar

    One thing I noticed about your Canadian essay, as well as much Web writing about Canada by Canadians, is that it did not mention Canada’s military history at all.
    This history is not inconsiderable. Relative to the size of its population Canada paid as great a price during the World Wars as other members of the British Empire, and in WWI a greater price than the United States. Canadian troops fought ably in all their country’s wars, often in memorable engagements and always on the right side (at least after 1814). This history seems to mean remarkably little to Canadians, and to an American this is a little hard to understand.

  5. Zach Avatar

    Wow . . you bring up so many interesting things in this post of yours that I don’t know where to begin. I’ll just comment on a few things mentioned which, as a Canadian, I think really get to the heart of our current cultural crisis:
    No, Canada does not have a Shakespeare to brag about like Mother England; it’s too young. We don’t have one either. Doesn’t bother us. Keeps bothering them.
    This is partly true in sofar as it does bother us. Though we have many talented writers (R. Mistry, the late M. Richler, Robertson Davies,(as you point out)) we lack something approximating a coherent literary tradition. What I mean is that whereas neither of us can lay claim to Shakespeare, Americans have a well defined tradition which includes Twain, Harte, Mellville, Dreiser and on and on until Hemingway, Bellow, Updike etc. etc.
    Now I’m not suggesting that a clever Canadian literary scholar would be at a loss to define a parallel development over here, but he would never be able to claim that this hypothetical tradition occupies as tangible a position as it does in the American popular psyche. Just think of how central the Huck Finn story is to American culture; its abolutely amazing. This central mythology is something which we undeniably lack and as a result it causes us a lot of agnst when we begin to ask ourselves who we are. And unfortunately, in this vacuum of self-worth, many Canadian’s choose to define themselves as “not like Americans” and many even stoop to a broad-spectrum policy of America bashing (though this is by no means indiginous to Canada). Just consider the recent “Moron” situation.
    The hypocrisy in this is overwhelming, considering the sheer truckloads of American culture we gleefully consume.
    And it is this hypocrisy that is the “what” in your question, “what’s is not to love”, the same hypocrisy which Johnson is criticizing.
    And you’re correct in saying that Johnson’s Letterman comment is both offensive and stupid. Johnson is in effect committing the same critical mistep he is accusing Canadian America-bashers of. The pomposity of such a statement is unfathomable but it nicely encapsulates the point I’m trying to make: that we’ll buy your films, music, books, news and magazines yet at the same time we’ll assert that “we’re onto” something in your culture that is somehow beneath us.
    Of course you are right about Canada being a great place to live (given our subsidized health care and relative lack of violence – though both these things are constantly in peril). It’s just that Canadian television is so goddamn bad.

  6. usa butch Avatar

    canada you think too much.follow dubbya and youll be okay G bless you.

  7. zach Avatar

    Holy shit your right!

  8. zach Avatar

    I mean “you’re” . . . damn! There it goes again.