Does 'Canada' end at Lake of the Woods?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

That's what Canadian entertainment does well. But Canadian shows without a direct local connection rarely do well here, or anywhere, right? The Americans do that type of entertaining better.

Maybe so. But for historical perspective, what Canadian show is more Canadian than the Beachcombers (based not only in BC, but the coast of BC)? for my money, it is the most Canadian show of all time. Only in Canada could such a show come to pass.

• Video Link

I've never seen the Republic of Doyle, but the Beachcombers? You couldn't avoid it growing up in the 70s.

I'd nominate the "Littlest Hobo" for 2nd place in Canadian-cheddar lore.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Wooster

I think someone in Calgary's Hillhurst/Sunnyside neighbourhood near downtown is closer culturally to someone living in Toronto's Annex than say someone living in Didsbury, Alberta (about 2500km closer).

Similarly, people in say Calgary's Panorama Hills community are closer culturally to people in say Markham, Ontario than someone in Banff.

In a way, people living in Christianshavn, Copenhagen are closer to Montreal's Plateau than to people in, say, Esbjerg (can certainly feel that way once you get out there) but this is only on one small cultural level.

They don't understand poutine here, sadly, although frikadeller would play well in Quebec.

[TorontoDrew]

If you're going to ask if it ends at Lake of the woods on the east you would also have to say it ends at the Rockies in the west. B.C has little politically in common with Alberta/Sask/Man.

[SignalHillHiker]

Not to mention where it starts.

I suggest Gambo for the obvious reasons.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

If you're going to ask if it ends at Lake of the woods on the east you would also have to say it ends at the Rockies in the west. B.C has little politically in common with Alberta/Sask/Man.

You'll be in for a shock if you visit interior BC.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Maybe so. But for historical perspective, what Canadian show is more Canadian than the Beachcombers (based not only in BC, but the coast of BC)? for my money, it is the most Canadian show of all time. Only in Canada could such a show come to pass.

• Video Link

I've never seen the Republic of Doyle, but the Beachcombers? You couldn't avoid it growing up in the 70s.

I'd nominate the "Littlest Hobo" for 2nd place in Canadian-cheddar lore.

Canada needs more Beachcombers!

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

You'll be in for a shock if you visit interior BC.

That's not entirely true at all. I grew up there. The "interior of BC" isn't just the Central Okanagan. Christ. What is it with outsiders on this forum trying to rewrite BC's identity for British Columbians. We probably know better

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

I wonder if a lot of this can fall into the Population Imbalance East to West. As was pointed out, East of Manitoba STILL has 70% of the population, so naturally a lot of "Canadianism" is going to be concentrated where most of the population is.

We don't see this as much in the States because it has California (and Texas and Washington) to 'weigh down' the West side of the country population-wise. (Plus California has turned itself into such a Cultural generator that it tends to set the tone for USian culture).

In Canada, Toronto still feels like it is our cultural centre, with strong nodes in Montreal and Vancouver, and then flavour nodes in Newfoundland, Halifax, Calgary and so forth. Thus we're still heavily anchored on T.O by just about every means you can measure.

This will probably stay the same until the West can grow enough to balance things out. That means not just population wise (but that is probably the biggest factor and the easiest to grow) but also historical and culturally (which will happen with time at its own speed).

I feel like the population is a big factor for sure. In fact I'm not particularily bothered by the notion that much is currently concentrated in "central canada" because it just makes sense on many levels. I think the population factor is more of a correlation than anything. A place that traditionally has been the "centre" ie. more populated tends to have a stronger role in the history, and a stronger population base that just means it tends to have a louder role in defining the country.

I don't think it's any accident the way we see AB/Sask vote when historically, these two provinces came into existence with less autonomy (control over their resources) then the rest of the country. Now yes, one could argue that at the time there just wasn't the population in place to give the new provinces total control - but that factor has been at play from the beginning. As such these places have been, as a political culture, particularily sensitive about the central canadian establishment and always felt a bit on the outside. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, much of the west still has a strange undertone in its relationship with central canada as if it were an old colonial power.

This all plays together into other nationwide disconnects. How much history that is given nationwide significance really resonates outside of Central Canada? I got this sense when I lived in the maritimes too, the local history is disconnected from much of what is considered Canadian history.

And I just want to point out that I don't think that there is crazy cultural border between east and west. So yes, for the most part we have way more in common than we seem to want to admit and these concepts have very little realistic bearing on the everyday life of most of us. But our relationship to "Canada" and that abstract notion can be quite fragmented. While most us would certainly say "of course we are canadian", most of this country seems to feel somewhat excluded from the notion of Canada on some level. Whether it be language, history, economy, power.There isn't an effective underlying story to transcend that cleavage and so we excuse them with petty regionalism and manufactured cultural differences.

[CCF]

These differences occur at all scales - across broader regions, provinces, intra-provincial, and within cities themselves.

What should I make of the fact that Regina elected MPs from the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives. Does that mean that these three areas of Regina are vastly politically different?

Hardly...think other factors need to be considered as to why voters vote the way they do.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

The Maritimes were still very different, in large part because - at that time - being a Newfoundlander meant I was treated poorly, especially there.

This isn't really a cultural difference though. If anything it's a signifier of closer cultural links. Most people here in BC for example don't really think anything one way or the other about Newfoundlanders.

I also don't think it's standard that people from Newfoundland are treated badly in the Maritimes. When I go back to Halifax, about half of the people I visit are from Newfoundland or lived there for a number of years. There isn't some strange underclass of Newfoundlanders. Just about everybody has friends or family from there.

I never lived in the really Conservative part of NB. I'm curious to know what it feels like there. I imagine comparable to rural Manitoba.

One thing about that part of NB is that it feels almost like it's been excommunicated from the rest of the region, at least if you are in NS. Saint John is a little under 4 hours away but it has an extremely low profile. Moncton is considered the main city in NB and there seem to be far more people in Halifax from St. John's and Newfoundland. Charlottetown and PEI are also more prominent. Basically, SJ is the lowest on the totem pole in terms of cities or larger towns.

Saint John used to come up in the news a lot because of angry people complaining about having "Rue" on their street signs, and because of late-Cretaceous politicians like Elsie Wayne. Not a very flattering image.

I think this has changed over the past 40 years. There was a time when SJ was considered a major city in the Maritimes and, before that, a major city within the context of the whole country. Older people also think of SJ as a polluted industrial city. The reputation is just like Hamilton in Ontario.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Not to mention where it starts.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

I feel like the population is a big factor for sure. In fact I'm not particularily bothered by the notion that much is currently concentrated in "central canada" because it just makes sense on many levels. I think the population factor is more of a correlation than anything. A place that traditionally has been the "centre" ie. more populated tends to have a stronger role in the history, and a stronger population base that just means it tends to have a louder role in defining the country.

I don't think it's any accident the way we see AB/Sask vote when historically, these two provinces came into existence with less autonomy (control over their resources) then the rest of the country. Now yes, one could argue that at the time there just wasn't the population in place to give the new provinces total control - but that factor has been at play from the beginning. As such these places have been, as a political culture, particularily sensitive about the central canadian establishment and always felt a bit on the outside. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, much of the west still has a strange undertone in its relationship with central canada as if it were an old colonial power.

This all plays together into other nationwide disconnects. How much history that is given nationwide significance really resonates outside of Central Canada? I got this sense when I lived in the maritimes too, the local history is disconnected from much of what is considered Canadian history.

And I just want to point out that I don't think that there is crazy cultural border between east and west. So yes, for the most part we have way more in common than we seem to want to admit and these concepts have very little realistic bearing on the everyday life of most of us. But our relationship to "Canada" and that abstract notion can be quite fragmented. While most us would certainly say "of course we are canadian", most of this country seems to feel somewhat excluded from the notion of Canada on some level. Whether it be language, history, economy, power.There isn't an effective underlying story to transcend that cleavage and so we excuse them with petty regionalism and manufactured cultural differences.

Great point up top regarding Western Canada. That history is critical to the current status quo, I imagine. For us, the issue is we used to be a country. Our sense of identity, self-importance, entitlement, and desire for self-determination are so disproportionately loud for that reason. Our relationship with the U.K. was more comparable to the AB/SK relationship with Canada.

[RWin]

Originally Posted by csbvan

That's not entirely true at all. I grew up there. The "interior of BC" isn't just the Central Okanagan. Christ. What is it with outsiders on this forum trying to rewrite BC's identity for British Columbians. We probably know better

I grew up in Vernon. My sense was always (and still is) that Vancouver is to BC what Toronto is to Canada. That is the centre of the universe.

"Where are you from?"
"BC"
"Oh, what part of Vancouver?"

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

I feel like the population is a big factor for sure. In fact I'm not particularily bothered by the notion that much is currently concentrated in "central canada" because it just makes sense on many levels. I think the population factor is more of a correlation than anything. A place that traditionally has been the "centre" ie. more populated tends to have a stronger role in the history, and a stronger population base that just means it tends to have a louder role in defining the country.

This depends on what you mean by "traditionally". I think a lot of Canadians implicitly view this as the status quo that has existed since the beginning of time, or at least since anything important happened, and that is not true. It's also not true at all that the history of Atlantic Canada is its own smaller disconnected thing.

To give one example, we saw a lot of 1812 stuff around 2012. There was some sort of story about how Ontario was invaded by Americans, and that was pushed back, and then Canadians went down in retaliation and captured Washington. This is a very warped portrayal.

Toronto in 1813 was a tiny pioneer settlement consisting mostly of log cabins. About 2,500 soldiers were involved on both sides. That battle is only presented prominently in Canadian history today because Toronto happened to become a large city many years later.

The Washington event was really part of a naval campaign based largely out of Halifax and the original aim was to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. The Canadian story tends not to include New Orleans because it was a loss for the British side. About 15,000 soldiers were involved in that. If you visit Halifax, you can still physically see tons of stuff from the War of 1812. There is much, much more military history there than anywhere else in Canada and it is mostly ignored.

This sort of thing is absolutely standard in Canadian history, and has been happening for many years. The recounting of past events is tuned based on present-day politics.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

In a way, people living in Christianshavn, Copenhagen are closer to Montreal's Plateau than to people in, say, Esbjerg (can certainly feel that way once you get out there) but this is only on one small cultural level.

They don't understand poutine here, sadly, although frikadeller would play well in Quebec.

If you look at psychographic data (which I do in my work) across Canada the neighbourhood one chooses to live says a remarkable amount about who they are, what they believe, political outlook, consumer preferences, etc, etc. It's actually pretty interesting. Doesn't translate well across national boundaries, but does within Canada quite extensively. The similarities aren't as narrow as you might think.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Canadian story tends not to include New Orleans because it was a loss for the British side. About 15,000 soldiers were involved in that.
.

Though many Canadians know the old song by Johnny Horton about that battle!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

I feel like the population is a big factor for sure. In fact I'm not particularily bothered by the notion that much is currently concentrated in "central canada" because it just makes sense on many levels. I think the population factor is more of a correlation than anything. A place that traditionally has been the "centre" ie. more populated tends to have a stronger role in the history, and a stronger population base that just means it tends to have a louder role in defining the country.

I don't think it's any accident the way we see AB/Sask vote when historically, these two provinces came into existence with less autonomy (control over their resources) then the rest of the country. Now yes, one could argue that at the time there just wasn't the population in place to give the new provinces total control - but that factor has been at play from the beginning. As such these places have been, as a political culture, particularily sensitive about the central canadian establishment and always felt a bit on the outside. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, much of the west still has a strange undertone in its relationship with central canada as if it were an old colonial power.

This all plays together into other nationwide disconnects. How much history that is given nationwide significance really resonates outside of Central Canada? I got this sense when I lived in the maritimes too, the local history is disconnected from much of what is considered Canadian history.

And I just want to point out that I don't think that there is crazy cultural border between east and west. So yes, for the most part we have way more in common than we seem to want to admit and these concepts have very little realistic bearing on the everyday life of most of us. But our relationship to "Canada" and that abstract notion can be quite fragmented. While most us would certainly say "of course we are canadian", most of this country seems to feel somewhat excluded from the notion of Canada on some level. Whether it be language, history, economy, power.There isn't an effective underlying story to transcend that cleavage and so we excuse them with petty regionalism and manufactured cultural differences.

I'd say that in the vast majority of countries that having that narrative apply to or embraced by the entire citizenry (across geography, demographics, etc.) is always a stretch there too. Not all French people are descendants of feisty Astérix-style Gaulois for example... in fact few of them are.

But as I've been saying all along, in most countries these narratives are emboldened and even made relevant by folk culture and pop culture reinforcement.

Not so in Canada. At least not to a significant degree.

Of course, Quebec and French Canada have that kind of narrative and the underpinning culture that reinforces it, but somewhat ironically, its existence is actually a barrier to having a coast-to-coast one shared by all Canadians. As opposed to being something that could realistically be made an integral part of a broader Canadian one and even one of its pillars (in spite of efforts by the feds and some others to make it so).

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by someone123

This depends on what you mean by "traditionally". I think a lot of Canadians implicitly view this as the status quo that has existed since the beginning of time, or at least since anything important happened, and that is not true. It's also not true at all that the history of Atlantic Canada is its own smaller disconnected thing.

To give one example, we saw a lot of 1812 stuff around 2012. There was some sort of story about how Ontario was invaded by Americans, and that was pushed back, and then Canadians went down in retaliation and captured Washington. This is a very warped portrayal.

Toronto in 1813 was a tiny pioneer settlement consisting mostly of log cabins. About 2,500 soldiers were involved on both sides. That battle is only presented prominently in Canadian history today because Toronto happened to become a large city many years later.

The Washington event was really part of a naval campaign based largely out of Halifax and the original aim was to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. The Canadian story tends not to include New Orleans because it was a loss for the British side. About 15,000 soldiers were involved in that. If you visit Halifax, you can still physically see tons of stuff from the War of 1812. There is much, much more military history there than anywhere else in Canada and it is mostly ignored.

This sort of thing is absolutely standard in Canadian history, and has been happening for many years. The recounting of past events is tuned based on present-day politics.

I think that's not far from the point I'm trying to make. I don't think Canadians only implicitly assume the status quo has always been, but I think that is what our history books have told us. What is "central" now has been central every since Canada has existed a state. By the fact that it is central now, and has been for some time, our history reflects that. That's not to say that various histories of the entire landmass were not intertwined in many ways... But if we want to talk about Atlantic Canada before it was part of "Canada" it's usually a sidenote to this sense that real "Canadian History" was happening farther west (but not too far west) the entire time.

What I found interesting living in Halifax (and I'm by no means an expert, just an observation) was a strong local sense of "No! we've been a bigger part of the story than we get credit for" and "we weren't always oriented towards Toronto!" That's what I mean in terms of disconnect. The need to find out how the local history ties into the history that has been given national value due to population, politics, etc.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by someone123

One thing about that part of NB is that it feels almost like it's been excommunicated from the rest of the region, at least if you are in NS. Saint John is a little under 4 hours away but it has an extremely low profile. Moncton is considered the main city in NB and there seem to be far more people in Halifax from St. John's and Newfoundland. Charlottetown and PEI are also more prominent. Basically, SJ is the lowest on the totem pole in terms of cities or larger towns.

Saint John used to come up in the news a lot because of angry people complaining about having "Rue" on their street signs, and because of late-Cretaceous politicians like Elsie Wayne. Not a very flattering image.

I've always found it jarring how the SW and SE of NB, despite being only a few hours apart are so ideologically different. Moncton and SJ are like yin and yang. Moncton sometimes feels to me like a tiny Canada-in-a-bottle complete with it's own Quebec (Dieppe)!

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd say that in the vast majority of countries that having that narrative apply to or embraced by the entire citizenry (across geography, demographics, etc.) is always a stretch there too. Not all French people are descendants of feisty Astérix-style Gaulois for example... in fact few of them are.

But as I've been saying all along, in most countries these narratives are emboldened and even made relevant by folk culture and pop culture reinforcement.

Not so in Canada. At least not to a significant degree.

Of course, Quebec and French Canada have that kind of narrative and the underpinning culture that reinforces it, but somewhat ironically, its existence is actually a barrier to having a coast-to-coast one shared by all Canadians. As opposed to being something that could realistically be made an integral part of a broader Canadian one and even one of its pillars (in spite of efforts by the feds and some others to make it so).

Oh for sure, and the narrative doesn't have to be the philisophical type we see in the U.S. Not many countries have that sort of ideological connection. But they often have a historical one that has evolved over time that may be manifested in seemingly superficial cultural links. The silly things that mean nothing, but also mean so much. Canada has tried to create some of these, but they still often become regionalized and feel contrived. Many canadians identify with Canadian symbols, for example, but when pressed will admit "but that is mostly an Ontario thing" or "it's really from *insert region/province here*".