Comments on: Is Canada An Imperialist State? (Cy Gonick)

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:22:02 +0000

Mr. Sundby, on the contrary, and with necessary caveats, I am not anti-Noel — and I’m not one for “isms.”
I agree that flag burning, dummy burning and just about all burning of semotic representations of hegemony are at best ill-informed. These acts arn’t progressive and are generally a result of ideological paralysis via educational systems built around false idols.
And yes, war can bring democracy to the winning team but it can also bring facism and communism. But democracy can also come from consensus, as the founding bodies of democracy imagined, as represented in numerous state and non-state global bodies.
As for Canada benefiting from its colonial roots and numerous ties to the US, that is far beyond the realm of this comment box. One could argue that those countries who were able to injest, chew and spit out their colonial upbringings are socially and economically progressive.
Why are millions of Latin Americans “risking a great deal to get into the U.S.”? Well, I can only suggest asking them, the well-informed ones, of course. However, having been beat up by American foreign policy for decades does not help their local situation.

By: Noel Sundby

Noel Sundby — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:50:39 +0000

Well said. I believe however that most of what I would call anti-American rhetoric by those out side the U.S. as well as in, is uninformed rhetoric, and is used as political currancy rather than for educational means. For instance, calling Bush a moron is exactly that. Burning American flags in Palistine isn’t going to remove Israel off the map but it gets sympathy through the media all over the world. But most of all, like much of Europe has done over the last few thousand years when the powers that were, were facing a crisis, they would simply blame it on the Jews, and perhaps go slaughter a few thousand. By the same token much of the Anti-American thought is just as obtuse. I disagree with Steven about war not bringing democracy as well, example, Japan, Germany, and yes, good ol’ U.S.of A. are a few obvious example, although I agree it is not war itself but the people left when the dust settles(depending who wins).I also think that democracy may not be applicable to all nations. I am of the opinion that under the Imperial British Empire , Canada has been at an advantage in world affairs rather than a dis advantage. And our linguistic, economic and closs proximity to the U.S. have been the envy of much of the world. Why do you think most developing countries prefer English as a second language. Why are millions of Latin Americans risking a great deal to get into the U.S. Steven you seem well educated and I do see your point of view but I do think for myself and respectfully disgaree about the kneeling jab, which could be interpreted as anti-Noelism.

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:13:31 +0000

I don’t know what it means to say “we do not live in the same world as we did in the seventies.” What’s different? Our gadgets? As for “change,” this word is vacuous without qualification. What qualities of “Canadianism” are changing? “Good” or “bad” change? Who determines good or bad? What is “Canadianism?”

Noel Sundby seems to be in accordance with Oxford Professor Neil Ferguson who argued the benefits of British Imperialism. It’s easier to claim goodness when your team is the winner. The spreading of English, argued Ferguson, was a great triumph for his winning team. Of course, language comes bundled with cultural and political assumptions.

As for “Americanized,” one could argue that Britain is more Americanized than Canada, at least strategically. After suffering major damages, and the States relatively unharmed, Britain had to make a choice after WWII to work with or against the newly emerging world power, the purveyors of English went with the former.

Personally, I’m not embarrassed with “nose thumbing” the Americans during the time period Noel Sundby is referring to. I don’t believe war brings democracy. But of course, I wasn’t nose thumbing the Americans. Mr. Sundby kneels to the rhetorical tools that ideological politicians and pundits use. To use the term “anti-American” is to associate the American public with the White House and its network of power. As polls of the American people illuminates, US foreign policy is out of line with American consensus. Thus it is the White House who is “anti-American.” What this says about an administration spreading Democracy around the world, who is explicitly anti-Democratic, is another story.

By: Noel Sundby

Noel Sundby — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:25:48 +0000

I would have to say I agree with this well writen article in most areas but for the fact that you seem to detest imperialism, as you coined it. We do not live in the same world as we did in the seventies. Change in every aspect of Canadianism is inevitable and if it mirrors the changes in the U.S., I can’t think that that should be surprising. Canada is the most Americanized country on earth. That we should have common destinies may be a good thhing. Where would we be without or close relationship? I’m personally grateful to the Stephen Harper governments approch to our U.S. relations after years of emberrassing, unprofessional nose thumbing and anti-American bigotry.