 |
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS HERALD |
 |
||
|
||||
|
THE GREATNESS OF BEING CANADIAN Will Rogers, the great humorist, always denied having writers. “I just read the newspapers,” he said, meaning that the zany doings found in the news were beyond invention. My son regularly sends me improbable Internet items in the “man dies” genre (“Man dies in fall from roof of own tomb”), or accounts of bizarre accidents that remove fools from the gene pool. (“Man emasculates self by using .22 cartridge in car’s fuse receptacle.”) But I digress. My nomination for the Will Rogers Crazy News Award this week is a letter to the Washington Times. David Smith, a resident of Waterloo, Ontario, differed with some editorial comments the Times had made complimenting the recent move to a conservative government in Canada. To avoid being accused of taking Mr. Smith’s comments out of context I reprint them in their entirety from the Times issue of January 26, 2006: “I must say I am pleasantly surprised that conservative America has realized there is a large landmass directly north of the United States. Yes, Canadians have elected a Conservative government that will last two years at most ("Canada moves to right in vote," Page 1, Tuesday, and "Canada's victory," Op-Ed, yesterday). Once again, though, you have missed the point. The Conservatives gained 36 percent of the popular vote. However, the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Green Party and even Bloc Quebecois — all with strong leftist convictions — took about 63 percent of the vote. Canada is not, as some neoconservatives seem to think, about to swing to the right. We value our social convictions far more than the American right gives us credit for. As for the supposed "warming" of Canadian-American relations, don't count on it, especially in a minority-government situation. If there is one thing on which Canadians can agree, it is our rampant dislike of the Americans — or, should I say, the government of President Bush. The two are interchangeable at the present time. At last count, about 75 percent of the population voiced its displeasure with Mr. Bush's America in a national poll. Therefore, Conservative support for strengthening relations will be lukewarm at best. Canadians realize there are better things on which to spend our tax dollars than a missile-defense program created solely for the glorification of the American military. The ‘warming’ of relations between our two nations will not take place in 2006. Rather, it will be in 2008, when Mr. Bush's term ends. Not a moment too soon.” Turnabout is fair play. Certainly, Mr. Smith is entitled to criticize American political attitudes as much as the Times was entitled to critique Canadian politics. Besides, his knowledge of the political mind of his own country surely exceeds ours. Probably he is right about the leftness of the Canadian people and the unlikely prospect that they will hew rightward any time soon. What most caught my attention, however, were Mr. Smith’s third and fourth paragraphs, where he declares Canadians’ “rampant dislike” for Americans, denounces US missile defense for glorifying the American military, and rejoices that “Canadians realize there are better things” on which to spend their tax dollars than such programs. (Will Rogers would have agreed that no one could make up stuff this good.) “It’s grand to be an Englishman in 1910,” sang Mr. Banks of “Mary Poppins”. Mr. Smith thinks being a Canadian in 2006 isn’t bad, either. His comments about not spending taxes on defense are so right. Published data show that the USA’s 2004 defense budget was $417 billion. For a population of 270 million this works out to $1544 per capita. But in Canada (where they have better uses for tax dollars), the defense budget is only $9.2 billion. For a population of 32 million, this is just $288 per capita. Such a deal! How they do it? Obviously, Canadians can spend that little and stay safe because Americans spend six times as much per unit population. The (hated) barbarians of the USA are picking up the tab for defending Canada. This leaves Canadians free to mock us for not being as smart and socially conscious as they are. Another writer, L. W. Naylor of Stratford, Ontario, says Canadians have hated Americans since 1776. Why this is so – if it is – outstrips my analytical abilities. There could be many reasons, including envy. Or maybe these writers simply see everything through their own peculiar lens, like the deranged play-director in the film “The Goodbye Girl” who thought everyone in history (including Shakespeare) was gay. But where there’s smoke there’s usually fire. Smith and Naylor can’t be totally out in left field (so to speak) about Canadians hating us. Personally, I like Canadians. My Canadian college classmates always seemed like good, solid folks – friendly, likeable, intelligent. (I am indebted to one who indirectly helped me meet my wife.) But that was the early 1960s – less than twenty years on from World War II, when we were all fighting together for England, home and beauty. (I never dreamed they were still mad at us about the Revolutionary War. Talk about holding a grudge.) Over the years we vacationed in the maritime provinces; also, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and the Canadian Rockies. We always found Canadians amiable and disarmingly ironic about their country’s foibles. In 1990, as we visited Jasper, we talked with Canadian westerners about the Quebec separatist movement – then very vocal. They waved it off as just posturing by politicians (sound familiar?) and correctly predicted nothing would come of it. During those visits, I always sensed something faintly unreal about Canada, although I could never quite put my finger on it. Later I realized that being in Canada felt exactly like being with Quakers – people I have had some dealings with in Maryland. The Quakers are also fine people – very earnest humanitarians who do much good in the world. They mean no one any harm, and they go about their work in all kinds of difficult conditions. However, it’s worth remembering that the Quakers are pacifists. No matter the national emergency, they will never fight. They are completely non-confrontational. If there is evil, they will not combat it. If a war is required, they will not take up arms – even if the enemy is coming down the chimney. Rodney King wasn’t a Quaker, but he articulated the Quaker philosophy perfectly – i.e., “why can’t we all just get along?” The great thing about being a Quaker is that you know someone else will get his hands dirty doing the rough work, so you can occupy the high ground. Things being what they are in the world, we couldn’t afford for all Americans to be Quakers. And if we all tried to be, I suspect the Quakers – who are also very pragmatic – would limit the number of converts. (After all, even they know that somebody has to do the fighting.) While Saddam Hussein was still in power, Quakers visited him to confer on humanitarian issues. Saddam made a great public relations show of receiving them, posturing as a fellow humanitarian. Of course, the Quakers had nothing to fear, knowing that the whole strength of the United States stood solidly behind them. They knew there would be hell (or the Quaker equivalent thereof) to pay if Saddam touched a hair of their heads. He knew it, too. Both the Quakers and the Canadians have had much sport deploring the “warmonger” Bush and the “imperialist” USA in recent years. I wonder if they would be so philosophical about Islamist Terrorism if their homes or land were hit by terrorist attacks. But since that hasn’t happened, they believe their “peacefulness” has protected them and that our belligerence is what creates enemies, stirs up fear, and exposes us to attack. We are causing terrorism. If we would just quit fighting them, we could all sit down together and sew quilts. Nothing really can be done about Canada. In a way, it resembles a family’s lazy relative. You can’t make him do anything, but he knows he’ll never starve. He’ll always have the family’s protection, no matter how much he insults it. One wag likened Canada to a hitchhiker who churlishly finds a new ride if his host-driver has a flat tire. He’s sorry about the misfortune, but it’s not his problem. Most of us have had relatives like that. “One of these days,” a lot of exasperated mothers have said to lazy children, “you’ll finally have to buckle down and work.” And sometimes they’re right. But for Canada the good times just keep rolling on, while those dopes to the south pay the bills. Maybe “one of those days” will come round, and Canada will have to grow up. But maybe not. My mother always said, “you can’t choose your family. You’ve got what you’ve got.” We had a relative who spent his whole life looking for the “big score”. He was a charming man, but he was basically a bum all his life. I always felt sorry about him. It was a wasted life. Canada is the North American “family” we’ve got. It is what it is. Its people have chosen the way of the goldbrick. They know we’ll protect them. Nobody said life was fair.
|
|
| ||||||
