As I am currently fussing about USA, I have found recent posts over at michelle kasprzak blog quite stimulating. Nice history of passports and also this "says-it -all" quote, both from MK: "It is interesting, the idea of moving to a place being equated with approval of what that nation stands for. It does seem like a vote of some kind. I know a lot of Canadians in America that worry about these things, and the reflection their choices make on them. Sometimes opportunities are too good to pass up, wherever they are located. My cousin is currently working as an airline pilot in the United Arab Emirates. Does he support their goverment? I'm not sure, but I do know he was offered considerably more money to fly for an airline based there than he was making here, so he went. We tend to ask these questions a lot more when someone settles in America, which I think is a good examination of conscience, but a move sometimes simply means an opportunity for change, money, personal growth, or any combination of these things.
Where one chooses to settle, either temporarily or permanently, can sometimes be quite arbitrary. A generation or two ago, some Eastern European immigrants had to choose between places they didn't know very well - Australia and Canada, in one story that I remember. I think Canada was chosen because it seemed not so far away from Europe, and yet offering a blank slate. Not a compelling "vote" in favour of Canada, it's true. But interesting to think about the misperceptions, fantasies, and other reasons for choosing a place to immigrate to - the American dream being the strongest example I can think of.
I take MK's point, but at the same time I can't help but worry about when to draw the line...when is another country's foreign (or domestic) policy soooo bad, that to even be associated by geography is to be too complicit?
"associated by geography"
I should ad to this that I find our (Canada's) proximity and compromised political positions visavis the USA to be confusing and frustrating as well. What can be done with this powerless, culturally complicit, yet outside sceptical stance? Maybe it's enough to simply vocalize the existence of a cultural framework that is similar but based on a fundamentally different structure (ie; no nuclear weapons, as my friend B* would hasten to point out) to that seemingly all-encompassing, mythological supernarrative that is USA.
*B said last night that when he recently saw a picture of an American friend's baby, the first thought that popped into his mind was, "how many dollars worth of national weaponry is alloted to the protection of that child?"
When to draw the line is a tricky question. I find, perhaps irrationally, that it's the little personal things not the big things that make me the most nervous. The partriot act is bad, and I know it, but the posters in the subway that read "If you see something, say something" I find way scarrier. Does an obvious yet unintentional 1984 reference mean it's time to leave the country?
The Patriot Act *is* bad, but since it hasn't applied to you in a way that directly impacts your life, it remains a bit of an abstraction. It's possible to forget about it from time to time for this reason. But the things that exist in your daily, personal space, like the subway poster that you cite, are derivative effects of things such as the Patriot Act and manage to hit home more effectively. All that to say - it seems these derivative effects need to happen to inspire people to pick up a placard and speak out. I'd strongly recommend that you stay put and speak out, rather than leave the country. If everyone with sense acted as you did, all that would be left would be Christian Fundamentalists and the Army. I think it's important to stay put and not leave the hawks with the weapons in hand and no opposition to stay their itchy trigger fingers.
As for your point, Sally, I think the uncomfortable proximity is interesting, it has certainly spawned numerous organizations and governing bodies (CRTC, Canada Council, and others) in an effort to reinforce our own voice and stem the tide of influence from the South. Now whenever someone carps about taxpayer's dollars going to fund CanCon in whatever form, I think of the unfunny shots taken at Quebecois culture by Triumph the Insult Dog - Toronto spent a heap of money ensuring Conan O'Brien would visit Toronto, only to have a vibrant and integral part of CDN culture ridiculed and we are supposed to be grateful that O'Brein deigned to set his foot on CDN soil? Long live CanCon, I say.
our best and bravest Cancon migrates
"Because the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has issued a list of swear words no longer permitted on radio and television south of the border, and because most of those words, and worse, are staples of Trailer Park Boys, the swearing will be bleeped out during the U.S. broadcasts."
Well isn't that just fucking great.
that's gonna be a lot of bleeps.
Those cock suckers don't even say what channel it's going to be on here. Fuckers
fuck
just spilled my R&C.
It's on after The Office. That's NBC right? What were they thinking? "Let's try it out on a network that will destroy it with Christian-protecting bleeps." Fucking great.
Hmmm trailer park boys without swearing, could be interesting. If they are substituting other words like 'forget' instead of 'fuck' it could be really funny. As in a scene from 'Blue Velvet' which I once saw on CTV sanse swearing. Dennnis Hopper: "Forget you! Forget you! I'll forget anything that moves!"
re:
"Let's try it out on a network that will destroy it with Christian-protecting bleeps."
Lets not paint all Christians as republicans. How Canadian of me but I mean it.
Do you mean "Lets not paint all Christians as fundamentalists?" Fair enough, but liberal-to-moderate Christians rarely speak up--they seem content to let the fundies speak for them, or drown them out, on censorship issues. It's hard to imagine someone writing a letter that said, "I'm a moderate Episcopalian but unlike my Bible-thumping brethren I think TV shows should be aired as originally written, drug references, swear words, and all."
|
As I am currently fussing about USA, I have found recent posts over at michelle kasprzak blog quite stimulating. Nice history of passports and also this "says-it -all" quote, both from MK: I take MK's point, but at the same time I can't help but worry about when to draw the line...when is another country's foreign (or domestic) policy soooo bad, that to even be associated by geography is to be too complicit?
- sally mckay 4-14-2004 8:55 am
"associated by geography"
I should ad to this that I find our (Canada's) proximity and compromised political positions visavis the USA to be confusing and frustrating as well. What can be done with this powerless, culturally complicit, yet outside sceptical stance? Maybe it's enough to simply vocalize the existence of a cultural framework that is similar but based on a fundamentally different structure (ie; no nuclear weapons, as my friend B* would hasten to point out) to that seemingly all-encompassing, mythological supernarrative that is USA.
*B said last night that when he recently saw a picture of an American friend's baby, the first thought that popped into his mind was, "how many dollars worth of national weaponry is alloted to the protection of that child?"
- sally mckay 4-14-2004 4:30 pm
When to draw the line is a tricky question. I find, perhaps irrationally, that it's the little personal things not the big things that make me the most nervous. The partriot act is bad, and I know it, but the posters in the subway that read "If you see something, say something" I find way scarrier. Does an obvious yet unintentional 1984 reference mean it's time to leave the country?
- joester 4-14-2004 8:34 pm
The Patriot Act *is* bad, but since it hasn't applied to you in a way that directly impacts your life, it remains a bit of an abstraction. It's possible to forget about it from time to time for this reason. But the things that exist in your daily, personal space, like the subway poster that you cite, are derivative effects of things such as the Patriot Act and manage to hit home more effectively. All that to say - it seems these derivative effects need to happen to inspire people to pick up a placard and speak out. I'd strongly recommend that you stay put and speak out, rather than leave the country. If everyone with sense acted as you did, all that would be left would be Christian Fundamentalists and the Army. I think it's important to stay put and not leave the hawks with the weapons in hand and no opposition to stay their itchy trigger fingers.
As for your point, Sally, I think the uncomfortable proximity is interesting, it has certainly spawned numerous organizations and governing bodies (CRTC, Canada Council, and others) in an effort to reinforce our own voice and stem the tide of influence from the South. Now whenever someone carps about taxpayer's dollars going to fund CanCon in whatever form, I think of the unfunny shots taken at Quebecois culture by Triumph the Insult Dog - Toronto spent a heap of money ensuring Conan O'Brien would visit Toronto, only to have a vibrant and integral part of CDN culture ridiculed and we are supposed to be grateful that O'Brein deigned to set his foot on CDN soil? Long live CanCon, I say.
- MK 4-15-2004 2:06 am
our best and bravest Cancon migrates
- sally mckay 4-15-2004 4:49 am
"Because the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has issued a list of swear words no longer permitted on radio and television south of the border, and because most of those words, and worse, are staples of Trailer Park Boys, the swearing will be bleeped out during the U.S. broadcasts."
Well isn't that just fucking great.
- tom moody 4-15-2004 4:59 am
that's gonna be a lot of bleeps.
- sally mckay 4-15-2004 5:16 am
Those cock suckers don't even say what channel it's going to be on here. Fuckers
fuck
just spilled my R&C.
- joester 4-15-2004 5:59 am
It's on after The Office. That's NBC right? What were they thinking? "Let's try it out on a network that will destroy it with Christian-protecting bleeps." Fucking great.
- tom moody 4-15-2004 7:33 am
Hmmm trailer park boys without swearing, could be interesting. If they are substituting other words like 'forget' instead of 'fuck' it could be really funny. As in a scene from 'Blue Velvet' which I once saw on CTV sanse swearing. Dennnis Hopper: "Forget you! Forget you! I'll forget anything that moves!"
- mnobody (guest) 4-17-2004 1:29 am
re:
"Let's try it out on a network that will destroy it with Christian-protecting bleeps."
Lets not paint all Christians as republicans. How Canadian of me but I mean it.
- Robert C (guest) 4-17-2004 11:36 pm
Do you mean "Lets not paint all Christians as fundamentalists?" Fair enough, but liberal-to-moderate Christians rarely speak up--they seem content to let the fundies speak for them, or drown them out, on censorship issues. It's hard to imagine someone writing a letter that said, "I'm a moderate Episcopalian but unlike my Bible-thumping brethren I think TV shows should be aired as originally written, drug references, swear words, and all."
- tom moody 4-18-2004 12:29 am