July 1st From The Other Side

I love the United States of America.  I love it for its sheer humanity; great dreams and noble intentions coupled with ambitions of imperial dominance set in mind to gain the most glittering crown avarice could ever offer.  I love it for its achievements in human progress which it has come to increasingly display alongside a realistic look at a rather barbaric past of slavery, slaughter, reckless greed, and xenophobia.  I love how the best and worst of humanity are found and acknowledged without pretense here.  Sure, some history books and some pundits gloss over the issues and sugar coat an incredible history.  This, however, is by and large a country wherein memorials to genocide stand out every bit as public as the temples to liberty erected in various capitals both state and Washington alike.  The United States of America, you see, is very human.  I would dare so much as to say that no other country in the world is so unabashedly human. 

I never have left her for very long.  Oh sure, my heart has longed to return to where it thinks it belongs across the northern border.  My sense of adventure and imagination has even called me to Mexico.  Both places are wonderful, quite different bookends to the North American collection.  Canada has, until the last forty years anyway, been a country of diffident conservatism borne from a defensive nationalism.  Mexico, in contrast, again except for the most recent decades, has been a country of reckless liberalism borne from a confused sense of national identity.  The United States of America though?  The United States has had ALL of this about it, with every element of the political battlefield making a mark in the war zone.  The allure of freedom to make a mark in the fight in whatever way one chooses is, well, intoxicating.  The greatest thoughts and ideas come from people looking for action!  And yet...

Something can be said for the place of peace across the northern border.  Maybe there is something to stepping back and taking a look at so many great thoughts and ideas from outside the fishbowl in a state of sobriety.  (Take a look at any post in this blog labeled "Canada" to find out more).  Maybe there is something to a country that, if not for the War of 1812, could have very easily been a part of its southern neighbor and in many ways today does not stand so distant from her in many ways.  There has to be something about Canada in and of itself that makes Canadians want to proudly be what they are, even an expat like myself.  I could probably drone on and on about what such things would be, but I keep finding that as time goes on, learning what it is to be Canadian, or American, or Mexican, well, it keeps unfolding in a truly North American voyage of discovery. 

Canada is a land of the present world still very much connected to a much colder past of thousands of feet of ice.  No political pun intended. 

Canada is a place of incredible wild and scenic landscapes that have managed to remain outside the realm of the salesman or the government clerk, being at once both accessible and inaccessible by the people.  Again, no pun here.

Canada has deserts, prairies, forests, mountains, lakes, tundra, and even rainforests, a diversity just like the United States but with a lot less in the way of pure extremes.  Definitely not a pun in sight, keep moving folks.

Canada is my country, a house that I respect and love from the distance of the louder and interesting house next door.  That said, this is also my country, and when I speak of a view from houses to other houses, I really mean it.  See, I have had problems for some time now in distinguishing one side of the river from the other:

Looking north into Lake Huron from atop the Blue Water Bridge.  On this side is Sarnia, Ontario, and the "far" shore is Port Huron, Michigan.  Except for the lack of Harvey's in Port Huron, they are pretty damn similar. 

The first born used the rivers as highways, not borders.  My French ancestors did pretty much the same thing (they figured mountains made for better borders).  Then the English came along, and you know how they are about the whole liberty equating to property thing.  The Americans are even more keen on it!  Is this what makes Canada Canada and the United States the United States?  Property?  I mean sure, philosophy has a lot to do with it, as does perspective, but I find the differences there to be a matter of degree rather than even sides of a coin.  Maybe one day this bridge will still have a toll booth, but that will be the only stop sign on it.  Maybe then we will know what the meaning of things like July 1st and July 4th really are, understood in a context of a political history but not still mired in it.

At least this July 1st, in 2013, I can say with a bit more confidence than I could on a July 1st, 2002 after a certain September 11th, 2001, that July 1st is not so alien from July 4th.  A sensitive topic, to be sure.  But American Voyages is all about putting sensitive business aside and taking a look at the blood and guts of the continent.  Here's a crazy idea then, how about either tomorrow or the 3rd, you know, just in time for the 4th, we take a look at two things that both of these countries have quite the history with: language and immigration.  Maybe then we can see what these days mean to a lot of people.    

A Border Between Friends: Different Priorities.

In the last post on our current topic of discerning a political-cultural divide between Canada and the United States we visited some primal history regarding the development of a modern notion of liberty in our nations. We opened and returned to a concept of liberty that the political forces of the late eighteenth century were familiar with, one that was intimately bound to the power tied to capitalism (or more specifically, capital).  We also ended on a note of something far more simple and familiar for most of us: the desire to live a life unmolested by those who would seek to impose either economic or religious views on people.

Many of the first Colonists or Habitants were probably primarily after a better existence away from all the conflicts over in Europe.  As colonial Canada and the United States grew in size and economic import, however, men of political ambition followed the early colonists and freedom seekers and tried to create little dominions of their own across the sea.  Likewise, any who came over to read the Bible in peace and quiet found some religious reformers and revolutionaries take the same boat and try to start little religious battles that were clearly making life difficult enough over in Britain and even France.

In the end, the religious and economic revolution was forced out of France by a Louis XVI obsessed with eliminating the resistance of Le Fronde; the country was made forcibly Roman Catholic with conservative and slightly Jansenistic agendas.  In Britain Catholicism was instead ousted, and any particular Protestant factionalism shelved in the face of pursuing economic power for the nation and thus for the individuals of the nation (which was clearly tired of religious-inspired civil war).  The battle cry of Liberty thus was suppressed in France for some time, and embraced in Britain, until in the last half of the eighteenth century, when parlors in France became occupied with nothing other than the talk of freedom.  Likewise, talk of Liberty was popular in Britain even after the outbreak of violence in France during the Revolution, but the talk became far more pressing over in the colonies where new waves of taxation were awakening some very old debates.  Liberty for the reason of economic or personal freedom was starting to become an international affair.

So what was it like for everyone, including and especially the ordinary people?

In the thirteen colonies, Liberty meant not having your property infringed upon, especially in the form of taxation or the quartering of soldiers meant to enforce said taxation.  Liberty also meant being able to freely exploit the land, especially the opportunities awaiting beyond the Appalachians which Westminster was otherwise eager to reserve to the First Born of the continent.  Liberty meant being able to defend one's land against encroachment from any hostile party, First Born, British, or even someone from another colony.

In Canada, Liberty meant being able to speak French, remain Catholic if so desired, and preserve a culture while also enjoying the benefits of English law and British developments in representative democracy which had all but been suppressed in France.  After the Loyalists arrived, it meant holding on to hearth and home, just as it did back in the colonies, but not under threat from Britain and King George... under threat instead from intolerant Yankees.  When free land was offered to Americans interested in resettlement, passions became a little less hostile, but the American invading forces in 1812 were seen as no less hostile by such transplanted Americans who actually enjoyed the stability and, yep, lack of government offered by the ruling British.  Here we start to see the beginning of what the negative definition of Canadian identity: being North American and not American.  When the American threat died down, the Loyalists turned their attention to the French-Canadians, who stared back at them from across the Ottawa River, sometimes even from across the street, as my Franco-Ontarien ancestors did.

The English and French wanted protection from each other, in something of a cultural personality battle, even as some loud-mouth, but minority, factions do to this day.  Liberty started to mean "I have rights as a province".  What rights were focused on, exactly?  Language.  Religion.  Education.  Business was, and in my opinion still is, secondary to the debates of cultural freedom.  This is probably why Canada, while decidedly a capitalist nation, has shown only minor aversion to socialistic intervention by the government, in great contrast to the United States where the opposite has been a point of much political drama in the past decade.

In the United States, of course, the states also wanted protection from one another, but this was largely out of economic issues, most notably the issue of slavery.  While cultural debates have always raged on in American political warfare, notably in the realm of civil rights, the power of the Federal government to mess with what the states are allowed to say goes in regards to property has always been the leading force behind helping to define Liberty.  Why?  The United States had long shared a broad common culture, even as immigrants would later pour into the country and regional cultural identity differences were apparent even before the Revolution.  And what of those immigrants?

Canada has had just as many, in proportion of course, as the United States.  The end of the nineteenth century saw all sorts of nationalities pour into both countries, usually for the general reason of seeking a better life and escaping political garbage back in the mother country.  Both countries proved exceptionally capable to absorbing the entire world into a melting pot, but this is the key point of departure:

In Canada, the differences were not considered crucial in deciding how to make someone a Canadian.

In the United States, the differences were considered crucial in deciding how to make someone an American.

Stop for a moment, before drawing conclusions about both countries, however.  Take a look at something very simple in both places, the concept of official language.  Canada has two.  The United States does not even have one, at least not one ever officially declared.  Canada features petty fights over both tongues.  The United States features a general acceptance that English is the way to go and gets into absolutely huge and dramatic patriotic stand-offs over the matter despite, you know, not having declared English the official language.  Citizens have to take an English test, but an interpreter and a lot of assistance in the process are provided for the newly minted American.  In Canada, this is less the case, and you need to do English or French (unless you happen to be in the far north and want to do Cree or something).  Confused at the irony yet?

And what about the general concept of a melting pot?  In the United States, there is little strange about a Black family sitting down for a spaghetti dinner and not having it mentioned that they are eating Italian food, or everyone in town going nuts on St. Patrick's Day despite being in no way Irish whatsoever.  In Canada, half the town might still be throwing an Orangeman's parade!  Go to Wegman's supermarket in Buffalo and find a huge variety of groceries celebrating every known culture on earth with a Christmas display featuring everything from Mexican goodies to Polish-American toasting wafers.  Go to Loblaws over in Niagara Falls, Ontario and notice prominent displays of traditional British cuisine and a Christmas display featuring those annoying Victorian Christmas crackers that my Mom insists are necessities.  Head over to Quebec and find a different world entirely.  Head out into the prairie provinces and find Ukrainian and Icelandic stuff.  First Born influences are also everywhere.  Multi-culturalism is assured, but the individual influences are very obvious.

This is not to say that you can't find tons of different cultural treasures in Canada, especially in places like Toronto (one of the best places to get a curry outside of India is either in London or Toronto) its just that... well the differences will be highlighted, even as they are diluted in the States.  In Canada, cultural differences are viewed as the purpose behind Liberty, and are given anointed protection even as they cause tension here and there.

We certainly have a different emphasis on democracy, to say the least.  But this is not where the differences end.  Again, we return to perspective.  The history of democratic struggle in the United States has always been one of assertive action, sometimes to the point of raw aggression.  In Canada, political freedoms have gradually evolved, with social action being taken defensively.  Political freedoms in Canada have come about  in a parallel history of development with the United States, sometimes even in reaction or as an alternative.  Again, the Canadian mentality is about the democratic experiment looking at the broader portrait of historical awareness, even perhaps into the fishbowl that is British, American, and French democratic evolution.  The American mentality is about the front line of the struggle, an experiment always in a state of flux and even survival.

This is, of course, all opinion and the viewpoint of this French-Irish-Canadian-American looking at his two nations with the perspective of an expatriate looking at both host and home nation from a standpoint straddling the border.  I remain a Canadian citizen because of perspective, even as I continue to live in the United States because of intense fascination.  If ever the two nations were united...

And what of that?  Could they be?  Definitely, and yet not without some pain and difficulty.  We already share a lot in common.  At the same time, we also hold on to a history of "get off my lawn":

The Isaac Brock monument on the site of the Battle of Queenston Heights, overlooking New York across the Niagara Gorge.  This is probably the most poignant reminder that a border still exists between two otherwise peaceful friends.

Yet we also have a history of being allies and building the way to having the longest undefended border in the world.  Signs leading up to border access points on both sides of the line declare not that a checkpoint is coming up, but that there will soon be a bridge to the other country.

Not too far from that monument are multiple bridges manned by immigration officials more concerned with how much duty-free alcohol you have in your car than with how you intend to spend your time in their country.  Above, pointed at the New York side, is the Rainbow Bridge, along with the American Falls of Niagara Falls.  

When you cross over, you will probably see a McDonald's on both sides, you drive on the same side of the road, and you just feel like you are on the other side of a river... and yet it always feels a little bit different, units of distance measurement aside.

Defining A Border: Why Are We Not One Country?

I was once involved in an interesting debate with an Irish professor of international relations.  This was at the University of London back in 2003, right after Iraq had been invaded by the American alliance, a time when the entire city was abuzz with discussions about the directions being taken in the war on terror, large-scale Muslim immigration to western Europe, and how the United States should now be viewed in the eyes of the rest of the world.  The talking always turned back to nationalism, and the professor and I had a historical sensitivity to the question; an Irishman teaching politics in the capital of the British Commonwealth/Empire was discussing what nationhood meant with a Canadian who had then been living in the United States for roughly a decade.

The crowds outside wanted to focus their anger for having Britain dragged into yet another battle in a conflict that was really getting ugly and being engaged on in a global scale.  They blamed the capitalistic giant across the sea, the United States of Imperialistic Christian Conservatism, and they burned her flag on Parliament square.  They were people of diverse nationalities and cultures, people that would just as soon raise a fist against each other but found common ground in their hatreds for a place they had never been to or had really come to understand.  Iranians, Cubans, Egyptians, Somalians, and so many others were burning a flag and even announcing that their national identity, in an adopted immigrant country no less, was about not being American.  The next day, we asked ourselves what we saw, and how it related to our sense of nationality.

For an Irishman, the answer was relatively simple.  Ireland has a different culture, pace of existence, religious foundation, and even landmass from the rest of Britain.  Her people speak in a different accent, if they even speak the same language that they do in the Sceptered Isle.  For a Canadian, the answer was a bit more complex.  We do share a common landmass with the United States, divided by an extremely straight artificial border for the most part.  Our indigenous peoples existed as the same nations on both sides of this line, except around Lake Ontario.  We both have the same fanatical love of hockey and baseball, we both (believe it or not) generally speak the same language in similar inflections and accents.  And yet...

We don't think alike.  Canadians by and large tolerate democracy with greater government oversight.  Americans generally deplore any level of government oversight, and certainly hate taxes, and yes, this goes for both the left and right, even if the execution does not end up being the same!  Canadians, now and in the past, are all about settlement.  Americans, now and in the past, like expanding all sorts of things, from the size of buildings and drinking cups to the settlement of frontiers both natural and man-made.  In Canada, one is more likely to hear a gun called a weapon.  In the United States, one is more likely to hear a gun being debated in the nomenclature of a tool.  In Canada, the struggle to define a national language has largely been settled in a divided country becoming a country of two national base cultures in recognition, even as the French portion grows smaller.  In the United States, the same struggle has long been quieted in the recognition of a single language (albeit one never actually given official status) both out of cultural pride and simplicity among a nation that would otherwise be a jumble of tongues, even as the Spanish minority grows larger.

Canadians were content to await the recognition of freedoms which had long been practically lived in if not codified.  Americans were unable to accept any alternative other than such a codification, even if the price was war and civil unrest.  Canadians would and do debate the nature of liberty.  Americans know liberty comes at a price, and that while debate can help realize what must be fought for, someone has to lead the charge.  Now this is not to say that Canadians have not crusaded for civil rights, no, quite the opposite!  This is not to say that Americans have never debated rather than come to a stand over issues, no, that is why this nation has such an immense legal tradition and a complex history of political theory.   As it was noted so many times in the nineteenth century, however, the United States of America is the great experiment in modern democracy, an experiment that Britain handed over to the colonies when she had to fight against a French powerhouse that was proclaiming herself to have the same role over in Europe (and we all know how that went for them in the first few decades).  Think of it this way:  The United States is like the fishbowl in which the world watches to see how civil liberty develops.  Canada has the front row seat, maybe even being the second fishbowl right next door.

I say this because in that talk with the professor I concluded that Canadian nationalism really started by us being... not American.  Oh yes, there is that distinct French flavor there, but even by the late 1700's the habitants of the St. Lawrence valley were not thinking in the same terms as the Parisians were, but were embracing a concept of parliamentary representation and coming to cherish things like religious liberty.  Educated men in Montreal were reading the same sort of things that Bostonians were, and the English-speaking leadership was getting nervous.  As it turns out, these educated people were historically-minded enough to know that they had it good under the ruling powers, and that together with the influx of Loyalists, were looking into the fishbowl while seeing where the water came from in the first place.  Canadians saw how the United States was developing, and they learned important lessons from her, and developed accordingly into a parallel but slightly different democracy.

Perhaps the most vivid way to see how this is the case would be a look at the unfolding of subsidiarity in both nations.  These days, Federalism can be an ugly word in both countries, and the desire to have a central government in service to local governments forged our two political systems, even as we both found ourselves really in need of unity in order to not be torn apart at conception.  The thirteen colonies had to "hang together, or surely all hand separately .  The diverse provinces of Canada had to make a stand as one body so as to not be swallowed whole by the Yankee to the south.   In both nations, no one wanted to give more power than they had to to the state or province next door.  In both nations, however, the emphasis on what was important to the states and the provinces rested on different foundations.

English liberty, after all, came first as a question of religion, only to be followed by a second question regarding individual property rights.

In Canada, the first question became the focus of what was truly important to the provinces, whereas in the United States, the second question ultimately took precedence.

Yes, I know we all come to the blog not to hear me rant but to see my pictures.  Here we have Wall Street, the modern heart of the "second question".  Interestingly enough, that is a TD Ameritrade building right there.  TD, of course, is Toronto Dominion.  Here again we see integration on economic and cultural levels, even as two different flags continue to fly on the northern part of our continent. 

This, of course, would be a very important part as to why we are not one country, a look at where our mentalities are truly focused.  We see that we define ourselves in part by not being something else.  Come by next post as we take a closer look at just how this happened, and what it means for us today.