"Frankly, ever since we Canucks stopped caring in any way for a national championship in any sport - do we deserve our own country?"

But we still have.. er... wait, I'll think of something. Um. An accent! And, let's see. Gay marriage! We have Chrétien jokes. And Mulroney jokes.

Wait, I've got it. Smug superiority. THAT is what separates us from the United States.

Smug superiority and the Queen.

But then, I'm American, too.

Ben stole my answer.

And to elaborate, if you know you're superior, you don't wish that you were. You simply are.

It is like being omnipotent. You don't sweat little wiseacres trying to challenge you; you already know they have failed. Why get worked up about it?

America is a great, gregarious and robust country. Do I like everything about it? No. do I like everythig about Canada? Also, no. I find the smug superiority schtick adopted by many Canadians toward the USA very annoying i.e. complaining about American cultural imperialism but having a cable TV package that includes CNN and Stephen Colbert. It is possible to tune them out; it is possible not to be fascinated by hatred for George W. Bush. If you really want to. But look in the mirror. More Canadians should do what I'm doing: Embrace America. They gave us federalism and civil rights. The NFL is exciting. They know how to be patriotic. The people are friendly. The geography and history of the place are fascinating. Not to mention the vast array of regional cultures that Alan sometimes writes about. And the interplays between these and the monolithic Americana. Canada is a better place thanks to America and it is only sensible for Canadians to admire the many good things about it.

Really, though, it makes sense.

Anglo-Canadians are Americans who didn't want to be part of the Great Republic, and who did want to stay in the Empire.

Which was a decent choice. Made for an exciting 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Yeah. Empire FTW!

I find that the most disheartening difference between Canadians and Americans is that the former don't always appreciate and prize just how important that unique difference really is, and as a result, may well witness its all too subtle dissipation in the blink of but a generation or two. It's all about a conscious adherence to our core Canadian values - honesty, integrity, kindness, and the degree to which each citizen is willing to express them to another. It's not the external, material glitz that matters, for that, while sadly seductive on the surface, lacks any true, meaningful or lasting substance. The real test is a people who care about, respect, and take care of each other - that's the precious Canadian difference, which if lost, will turn our justly proud Canadian maple leaf from the deepest of red to but a pale shad of gray.

Because everyone knows that Americans don't care about, respect, or take care of each other.

Well, they don't, you know.

The Yanquis Founding Fathers came up with the 2nd Amendment; ours came up with Socialised Medicine.

(I kid because I love.)

Yes, Ben. That is it. We in Kingston are actually Yorkers. In large part from Tryon County, NY. Perhaps if we can just consider 1774-1845 as a blip, we can see ourselves as one. After all, are the Taiwanese any less Chinese? Then, as Les says, we can determine what is actually unique. But we have to admit that we may be no different here in eastern Ontario comparing ourselves to Colorado or Alberta. And that we have much more in common with New York. Isnt't that a natural consequence of regionalism in Canada?

Yes, and just to be clear I find the Americans I deal with personally and professionally far more engaged and polite than most Canadians. We have a relatively chilly disposition and, as one of my forefathers noted, Canadians act as if the governor or the boss or the landlord is supposed to return at any moment and take care of things.

But as someone (who shall remain nameless) always tells us, there is no such thing as regionalism in this federation. It is an artificial construct. It does not exist. =)

Apprehension of regionalistic arguments are sufficient for today's purposes.

1774-1945 a blip? It could be.

We are all part of the same civilization -- the Anglosphere.

Very deft, Alan.

Well. An inauguration does nothing for me, not being of the republican bent. But every time I see a space launch, or read about Hubble charting the depths of the universe, I feel that Canada is sub-optimal, and wish we could have similar motivation and priorities. I wonder why Canadians are so basically, intrinsically uncurious and unadventurous. One of my great frustrations as a youth was the realisation that even if one became a Canadian astronaut, we'd be riding on someone else's hardware, on someone else's schedule. Never our own; how depressing.

If we were the world's number one economy, would we put piles of cash into space exploration? Or would be be cajoled into making our entitlement programs gold-plated? The old "Who needs to go to Mars when there are starving people in Inuktitut?"

If America weren't blowing all this money to advance our frontiers and knowledge, who the heck else would? For that alone, I applaud them. And a tiny part of me occasionally wishes I could be one of them.

[bows]

Do note that is is 1774-1845 that is the blip not to 1945.

Make no mistake about it, the business of America is business. If it's not good for business, it simply won't get done, at least until it turns into a crisis state (which inevitably important things do). Then the response is reactive, expensive, and begrudging - with a huge amount of human collateral damage in its wake. The mark of a stable society is a reasonably equitable distribution of its wealth; a lot to the ambitious, much less to the unambitious, but the bulk of its wealth the large mass or ordinary citizens in between. The distribution of wealth for a peaceful, prosperous society needs to be a relatively normal one, and not unduly bimodal, with extreme concentrations of wealth and poverty at each end. It's too socio-economically unstable, and won't withstand the test of time. The trick is to combine the individual rewards of American competitiveness with the social security of a Canadian commonwealth, and not to throw out the babies with ether's bathwaters.

That is a rather... Canadian take on it.

Where is the business aspect of Hubble? Or Arecibo? Or the Mauna Kea observatories? That's pure science. And not just "hey look at the new improved widget" science, but "fundamentally altering our understanding of the cosmos" science. Our, in this case, being humanity, not merely Americans.

That level of aspiration and self-assuredness is something Canada very often lacks. Canada rarely undertakes grand research with the understanding that we are underwriting it, but all of humanity will have access to and benefit from it. We do a lot of the practical, like Banting or Steacie. Very seldom do we crank out a Gerhard Herzberg.

Science is a point well-taken, but keep in mind that the US has more satellites in orbit than the rest of the world combined, the majority of which are privately owned and commercially oriented, and those that are publicly owned (about 25%) are for military, and not scientific, purposes. Space is, indeed, our last frontier and as such, in my opinion, should not be beholden to any single national interest, but rather an international community of science and commerce. But then again, so should be the more mundane and terrestrial pursuit of world peace.

I am just trying to understand how the presence of American military satellites negates the benefits of American scientific research. You cannot have one without the other. Military technologies have driven Western advancement long before there ever was an American republic, or anyone knew that North America existed. That is, unfortunately, a dynamic of human nature. The only thing unique to the West is that we happened to do it faster than anybody else.

In all likelihood, space is going to become a contested domain like the sea, land and air... If it has to be somebody's spaceborne military apparatus maintaining the Pax Romana, I would prefer America—imperfect though she may be—to any of her likely challengers.

Meh. Obama was the better choice but beyond that he is still closer to Harper than Trudeau, so he is really just a less annoying president to be than the last one. I concur with Chris. I do not like the idea of a republic therefore an inaguration is silly pomp to me. An elected official is merely a good one or a bad one, and should not have emperor like powers of veto and the ability to be a commander in chief in a modern democratic society.

I don't dislike America or americans in general. I see a lot about their society that just makes me shake my head and wonder why the heck they think the way they do but also a lot of good things too. ANd Americans I am friends with seem to be more Canadian than anything else in attitudes etc.

All in all, my family came here as Loyalists from the US back in the late 1700s. I didn't choose to be born here, My wife and I fully plan on moving the kids, cat and cars to Northern England as soon as we are able.

Just to be clear, Canada's Royal Military College out the window performs scientific research, too, as do many Canadian private corporations.

Seanie seems to have a inverted view of where power lays in Canada and the US. The PM is a much more powerful position than President (in majority situations), and Trudeau was certainly the pioneer realizing that if you ignore conventions, power that theoretically is vested in parliament can end up in the hands of a few sitting in the PMO.

I think the issues have pushed way beyond how American we are or are not. We live in a world that is on the brink of complete globalization.

Recent blog post on this:
http://women.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/10/27/generation-x-strikes-back/

Define complete globalization and compare it to partial globalization.

Wasn't the world economy more globalized in 1914 than it is now?

I would think it was more globalized in the days of Empire. 1862 comes to mind. Not to mention 1797.

"We live in a world that is on the brink of complete globalization."

Hence my desire to live in a small village in rural northern england and hiding from the world until I die in a field of sheep, fly fishing in a small pond on a warm summers day.

Fly fishing in a pond?!?

I don't really agree that the cultural distinctions are lacking - they're simply not obvious things like a distinctive national cuisine and the like. (Though I'm not clear on how the French/Quebec/Acadian influence can be discounted. And however much Nova Scotians talk about New England connections, nowhere in Mass ever really makes me think of Halifax.)

For that matter, belittling Banting and Best as focussing merely on the "practical" seems silly given the importance of their work. It might be said that Canadians have generally focussed on the practical - Standard Time, weather/communications satellites, the ol' Canadarm, and, of course, insulin. If we were actually prepared to invest more in such research and "pure science" rather than a point reduction in the GST, I'd be all for it.

Regarding the pending inauguration, I have a distaste for putatively democratic ceremonies which seem more like coronations. Excessive power in the PMO aside, I'd sooner not allot a single man such gross honours. (and I always spell it with the "u")

You are reading too much into it, Josh. No belitting is implied or actual. Practical research pays big dividends too. But it is a different animal from pure science. I have a preference for pure science, particularly space sciences, and that America's economic and political support of it has always been greater than Canada's.

Well goodie for you, Josh. You spelled it with a "u". That is one of the classic boorish Canadian recourses and mirrors what Sammy Johnson said. We know we have different spellings but is there any substantive content to it? Or your distaste for the traditions of others?

"It might be said that Canadians have generally focussed on the practical" - says who? What in the whole range of our activities in sciences like the SNO in any way supports the idea that we approach it differently as a cultural matter. Might it be said zippo?

And being a Maritimer who spends at least a week in southern Maine every year, I think not understanding the connections there are all too typical. You have your story and you are sticking to it: we are 1-5% different, can't explain ourselves well but by gumbo we are better.

I bitterly cling to my "-our" endings and my double-l spelling of various -er words, even Stateside, and I shall continue to do so even if my career should demand that I renounce my allegiance to Her Majesty.

But I've come to see Canada and the United States as people a century ago might have -- sibling branches of the same civilization. Travellers on the same road, if you will.

I spell with "-our", too, but I don't think of it as a cornerstone of identity any more than I think I have lost my identity because I spell it "jail" and not "gaol".

130 years ago, the relationship in this part of the border was much more convivial and rich. Newspapers were full of excursions by boat and people coming here and there for the slightest reason of getting together. The differences were far richer then but they were also enjoyed more. Odd to see that in the 1870s given the hostilities that continued to the 1840s. This 1890s article in the New York Times about it is quite fun.

Fine, a brook.. See, I don't know diddly about flyfishing.. lots to learn.

I purposely set all my software settings to UK English.. hence my 30 minute confusion a while back as to why "logout" became "Log Out" on my facebook page.

Which takes us back to "smug superiority and the Queen" as the primary differences between Americans and Anglo-Canadians.

Zed.

Webster hated the English, so simplified a lot of spellings whilst composing his dictionary. I spell them the hard way just to spite that guy.

I seldom feel Americanified much as I enjoy assorted aspects of the Grand Republic. (I thought the pomp and circumstance of the Inauguration managed to maintain the distinctly 1900 feel which was when much of the current American genius was invented.)

When I was a teenager I used to go and race sailboats in Seattle. I was always struck by how vast and luxurious American bathrooms were in comparison with the small rooms for necessary functions which were the norm in Canadian houses. And I was very aware of the healthy beefiness of the fathers who had been racing boats since they were my age and had the etched laugh lines to prove it.

Each time I've been back I have been pleased to find supermarkets which really are "super" and have a better wine selection than the so-called "Signature" LDBC store here in Victoria. And I am delighted with the rich, robust, intellectual debate - well funded by foundations - which exists in American politics and culture.

But it is not my country any more than France is. Possibly it is the long severance of the British connection, or the absence of sound banks. Or maybe it is the fact it was a really, really, big deal to have a black man elected President. Or the sense of knowing that in any bar in Canada there will be a hockey game on TV - and I don't even like hockey particularly. I very much doubt it's Canadian mainstream beer which is rather like American mainstream beer but with higher alcohol.

I suspect it has something to do with the general egalitarianism of Canada. Or the absence of the whole idea of "Ivy League" schools as must have ticket to success. Or the idea that a permanent underclass is a bad thing which we can and should do something about. Maybe it is the relative modesty of bank presidents' salaries in comparison to their more flamboyant - and rather less successful - American counterparts.

Or maybe it is the fact that my son, at Cubs, still pledges to do his duty to God and the Queen, without reserve. Canada's evolutionary history may have made both concepts anachronisms, but the innately conservative nature of Canadians will keep them going for another generation or two.

And here may lie the essential difference. Canada, at root, is a Tory nation. Even our socialists are profoundly conservative in their respect for their own and our history. Our drive towards progress, bigger and better, is tempered with a desire to preserve. It is a strikingly Canadian trait. I suspect it may come from the sheer difficulty our grandparents faced wrestling a living from the land or fishing amidst the ice chunks or simply surviving a good old fashioned Canadian winter. Whatever it is, it means we value what we have rather than what we might get.

...Or the absence of the whole idea of "Ivy League" schools as must have ticket to success. ..."

As a Kingsman and a law school grad, it may not be required but these things sure still help.

But I do see what you mean in large part but being a first generation Canuck in a border town with a past in the region out east most closely linked to a US region and plenty of friends and family down south...maybe I just don't have the links to Canada that others would.

By "complete globalization" I was making an overly general comment, but basically I meant it in a cultural sense rather than an economic sense. It may not yet be the case - and of course may never happen - but one can foresee a possible future in which discussing one's national characteristics will be obsolete. That is, how Canadian we are or how Americanized we are may already be a dated question. I'm not saying that nationalism will necessarily disappear, but rather they may be displaced by other characteristics which people will use to identify themselves.

correction - it may be displaced by ...

I'll have that jet pack I was promised first.