OH! How impolite.
Posted on 10/29/2005 12:08:55 AM PDT by goldstategop
One of the many earnest intellectuals who write in Canada's national media shared with the country last week his perception of the liberal paradise that Canada is becoming. It's the only country in the world, he writes, "where women can live in real equality, where it's OK to be gay, and where people pick up after their dogs."
This was the vision of John Ibbitson, a columnist for Toronto's Globe and Mail, who ran in that newspaper a precis of his new book on the Canada that is to come. It's titled "The Polite Revolution," politeness being Canada's "secret recipe." It is "the core of what we are, the means by which we accommodate each other."
In effect, the Globe and Mail allowed him to review his own book, a favor it bestows on very few authors – none whatever in my memory – and an indication of how wholly the newspaper endorses his vision.
What made the article noteworthy, however, was not its fundamental absurdity – i.e., that what ostensibly distinguishes Canada can also be found in virtually every country in the Western world – but rather two curious aspects. One was the complete absence of religion in the social composite of the envisioned country. It is mentioned only as a detriment currently preventing the election of the Conservative party, and obviously something that must be abandoned.
The other is the assumption that the real builders of the New Canada will be the Asian and African immigrants, "the millions of new arrivals who have landed at our docks and airports," and are already "transforming us." In other words, the force that will fuel this ultra-polite utopia of serial marriage, gay pride parades, childless households and godless hedonism is the immigrant.
A couple of developments seem to have escaped Mr. Ibbitson's notice. One is the fact that church attendance in Canada, for the first time in four decades, is rising. The second is that the chief factor making it rise is the overwhelming devotion to Christianity of the immigrants, particularly those from Asia and Africa.
Canadians must learn to see themselves, writes Mr. Ibbitson, "through the eyes of a young woman arriving here from Manila." One wonders: Has he ever actually met any young women arriving here from Manila. I've known at least a dozen. They are, every last one of them, either devout Catholics, or Protestants with a strong Evangelical bent. At least half have married Caucasian Canadians and have been raising relatively large and delightful families, with all the children going to church.
To my knowledge, none has ever taken part in a gay pride parade – in fact, they regard such things as objects of horror – though several are active in the pro-life movement. A number are professional women who have raised families and regained a career, but I don't think any would comfortably describe herself as "a feminist."
Perhaps Mr. Ibbitson has not noticed other things – for instance, the fact that the downtown Catholic Cathedral in Vancouver is crowded every Sunday with "people of color," and I suspect the same thing is true of the cathedral in Toronto. But on the other hand, if he examines the faces at human-rights seminars, judicial conferences or academic colloquies, the groups that are advancing this mythical New Canada, he will observe one dominant skin color and that is white. For the truth is the immigrant, far from being the engine of their social revolution, is already becoming its biggest obstacle.
And here is the point. Don't think that the builders of New Canada won't try to overcome that obstacle. They will, of course, be subtle. They will never attack Christianity per se, but they will stress that in Canada religion is a "personal thing" and doesn't really have a role in shaping their country. They will offer courses on "becoming Canadian" whose central intent will be to divorce them from their faith and instead embrace "Canadianism," in which the religious element is as non-existent as it is in Mr. Ibbitson's article.
Above all, Canadians who have "made it" will be grandiloquently featured in the media. These will invariably be people who have "matured" beyond the antiquated simplicities of their former culture with its out-dated dogmas and taboos. They will have become thoroughly Canadian. That is, they will have three ex-wives, two sexual orientations and an unrestricted tolerance of every perversion known to man. But – most important – on all occasions they will be unfailingly polite.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Nam Vet
Canadians are the most servile people on the face of the earth.
Your servant is polite to you but not because he wishes you well.
OH! How impolite.
The same Canadians who's government official called Bush an "idiot" among other things?
Their delusions run deep I see.
Boring pussies who rely on the USA for national defense. Yeah, I wanna be just like that.
Ping!
In the manner of new thinking paradigm coined by George Orwell, most peoples are more equal than some others. For Canada, this means everyone except Americans, Australians, Japanese, Poles, Israelis, etc are worth respect.
no kidding. I've been to canada many times. Polite is not the term I would use. Maybe to each other out in the boonies, but in the cities, no way.
I find Vancouver to be a beautiful looking city, the same way you see San Francisco when you first look at the city, but when you get on the streets of the city, there is not a cop to be found, and you have teens sitting on street corners smoking pot, agressive panhandlers everywhere, and hookers everywhere at night.
Considering that the west side of that country in now HongCouver and the east side is filled with socialist assholic french wannabees who spend every moment trying to find new ways to bash the US, I would say they are not the sweet little innocent polite people that they are always trying to hype themselves as. 75% of the entire canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border. For a country that has developed a culture of anti-americanism, they sure like to be close to us.
When it comes to polite factor, its the ol "they are legends in their own minds".
How come the Brits aren't included? They are part of the coalition of the willing? Perhaps Canadians are royalists at heart.
The Canucks decide to "forgive" Mother Britain, thinking that "it was deceived by the rebellious son - after all it is still our mother country. But there is hope - actually it seems they are fast coming to our side of understanding things and it will be dawn again for us when that Bush-poodle Blair goes because either their Tories or the socialists agree with our position!"
(The above description isn't entirely fictitious. I read a lot from sites like the Monarchist League of Canada. This is almost to the word of what the good ol' monarchists say - bemoaning why Mother Britain and Australia decide not to stand by them and oppose BushitlerTM together)
ping
Would you believe a Canadian once told an Aussie that the Aussies wouldn't know how to fight as they are descended from convicts. Seems they don't like Aussies any more than they like Americans.
In Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, and especially the United States!!!!
What's happened to my beloved Anglosphere?
I would be quite surprised by this. The most common phrase I hears back at the beginning of 9/11 from bragging Canadians is that "Our Australian brothers can also fight like no others. British-cultured armies are second to none as history has proven, and the Yanks...they were just lucky that circumstances have pushed them to be the most powerful in the world!". Speaking in the manner like sneering British High Tories like Sir Max Hastings. But given that Canadians have since learned that at heart, Aussies are more like Americans, they might have now switched their tunes to the ones you heard.
I think Australia and Canada each has inherited one side of Britain's national characteristics. Britain is like a two-headed beast that has extreme opposing ideologies. Australia has inherited the side of Britain with individualist, and common sense beliefs while Canada has inherited the side of Britain with High Tory tendencies, fondness for social cohesion and "concerns for the needy". Looking at how the two countries' national characteristics diverged over the past 150 years, I would say Australians have got the better side of the deal.
I do believe that when dealing with their neighbours, the US could take a few lessons in Aussie satire.
|
|
 |
The Prairies Think: the Bible belt, but duller Populated by: shotgun-toting, rodeo-loving cowboys |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
