🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fawzi-1710961404460001@news1.vir.com>, fawzi@vir.com (Fawzi) writes:
>In article (Dans l�article) <DzBz2A.7uH@blaze.trentu.ca>,
>rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote (�crivait)�:
>> Oh....that's nasty!  Firstly, since you really know very little about me, I
>> suggest you rethink your remark that I am a "sharing member of a world
>dominant
>> culture."  Secondly, this is not only insulting to me- it's insulting to every
>> Canadian.  No Fawzi, despite your assertion that are no different than the
>> Americans, Brits, Aussies and the like, most of us not only recognize our
>> distinctions...we are quite proud of them.  The equivalent for me would be to
>> say that the next time I'm looking for a TRUE Quebecer, I'll email someone in
>> Normandy!
>
>When you decide to interpret something the wrong way, you don't go half
>way about it.

Of course not....I feel it's my duty to see it to the end :).  Relax
though....I am in a better mood tonight :).

>What I'm saying is that you share your culture as are all other english
>canadians, with the american culture.  I'm not saying that it's
>identical.  But you basicaly share the same music, the same literature,
>the same cinema...  Not in the sense that one is identical to the other,

Same literature?  No....the tradition is very different- Canadian literature is
almost always survivalist, while American tends to be decidedly homo-erotic
(for those that do not understand, homo-erotic in this context does not mean
that all Americans are gay, or that the literature is about homosexuals) in
content.  Now it may be true that we read Stephen King, or watch "Seven," but
that does not mean anything the context of what you're saying because
Australians, Brits, New Zealanders and the like also do all of those things. 
So up to this point, your remarks are not really clear.

>but that one can access the other indiscriminately, without distinction,
>unless you read the credits...

I can tell Farley Mowatt from Stephen King....if that's what you mean,
according to the content in the book.  British literature seems much more
political to me than Canadian or American literature.

>In that sense, I don't believe I'm being wrong in saying that english
>canadians are sharing members of a world dominant culture.
>I never included what you call Brits and Aussies, that is your own doing.
>
So are they part of this "dominant culture" or not?  You see, you cannot go
halfway here....because the fact of the matter is that in doing so, you are not
evaluating it "fairly-" Aussies, Brits and Kiwis all read American literature
as well.  As accents go....no one would mistake a Southern Ohio accent for an
Ontario accent, or a Newfoundland accent from a Rhode Island accent- perhaps
you should experience it a little more before you jump to conclusions here.

><...>
>> >Language is the principal element of culture, I'm not saying it is the
>> >only one, and it is not an exclusivity of Quebec.
>> 
>> It isn't widespread....I can tell you that- or do you also fail to recognize
>> distinctions between Austrians and Germans?  Between Swiss and Austrians? 
>> Between Germans and Leichtensteiners?  Between Croats and Serbs?  Bosnians and
>> Serbs?  French and Walloons?  French and Quebecers?  English and Americans? 
>> English and Aussies?  Canadians and Aussies?  North Koreans and South
>Koreans? 
>> Singaporeans and Taiwanese?  Indians and Pakistanis?  Mexicans and Cubans? 
>> Zairians and Rwandans?  The list can go on and on....the fact remains that
>> there are many groups in the world who speak a common language, and yet are
>> still very different- more often than not this is the case.
>
>I agree, but I believe very few are as close as canadians and americans. 
>And I'll say it again since you seem to have ignored what I've said. 
>Language is the principal element of culture, I'm not saying it is the
>only one.
>
And I'm saying it's a far from conclusive element of culture....and all you've
really proven here is that the English language is the world's dominant
reflection of culture- not that Canadian books can be interchanged with
American books, or Canadian comedies can be interchanged with American comedies
(ie. Air Farce or This Hour are far from what you'd find on Saturday Night Live
or the like).  A Canadian family epic would appear very different from an
American family epic- the values of Loyalism are firm in most older generation
Canadians....and they simply don't prevail in Americans in the slightest.

>> The first impulse
>> in culture is not to protect it- to recognize it is in a weak position is to
>> smother it with concern!
>
>I'm sorry, could you rephrase that.  I don't know if it's my english or
>yours, but I don't understand...
>
What I mean is simply that culture is healthiest in environments in which there
is no suffocating paternalistic impulse to "protect" it at all costs.  Acting
in such a way often serves to create a pseudo-culture that doesn't accurately
reflect upon differences between cultures because what is created is
manufactured under unrealistic conditions.  Canadian (Anglophone) culture has
been under such a strain without protection for a long time....and thus English
Canadian films are one such sacrifice.  However, if you find Anglophone
Canadian film students, I bet they could identify very easily the
characteristics found in Canadian film- often such characteristics are
prevalent in the literature.
>                           
>> >
>> This is very generalized....and we are referring to language in a different
>> way.  Or perhaps more accurately, you are utilizing two variants to look at
>> language- as a source of cultural survival for Quebec (vis a via maintaining
>> French) vs. the method of basic communication for the rest of the world.  Yes,
>> and if I look at things so generally, I can also say that culture is
>> irreversably linked to ideology as well.
>
>I agree, thus we differ on ideology...
>And whatsmore, the north american language and ideology is vehiculated
>through movies, television, literature and music, thus the adjective of
>"world dominant culture".  Not only in basic world communications.
>
Yes....but there is a socialist element in Canadian works that cannot be found
in the US projects- that is a fact.  Ideologically, Canadians are VERY
different from Americans- that much is for certain.

>
>> >And it is only the chauvinism of an american anglophone citizen of a world
>> >dominant culture that can argue that language is not the principal
>> >vehicule of culture.  Ask any one who is not part of that culture, ask any
>> >swede, any french, any german, any japanese, and let me know if one of
>> >them tells you seriously that his language is not the principal vehicule
>> >of his culture.
>> >
>> Are you serious?  You basically just shit all over my culture, my
>identity, and
>> then you have the nerve to try and chastise me for doing similar to yours? 
>> Look, I am of German descent- and I know for a fact that there is a
>> CONSIDERABLE difference that is independent of language!  
>
>After you calling me arrogant, self-centered, suffiscient, stubborn,
>condescendant, narrow minded, I thought that chauvinism was the least of
>your worries...
>And if you decide to percieve it as shiting all over you, you're the one
>stinking your self up.  That's not what I've said.

No, but that's the way it is perceived....and you should first and foremost
consider that before you make such a remark!

>From what you've said before, negating that language is the principal
>element of culture.  I'm saying that only someone coming from a world
>dominating culture can say that.

And I'm saying that I am not of the world dominating culture.  I say this
because the only basis for your remarks would be to capitalize on the
assimilation of some parts of Canadian society (ie. film)- only in such a
condition can one fairly say that Canadians and Americans comprise the same
dominating culture.  

>Because with culture and language, you said it yourself, comes ideology (I
>wouldn't have dared to bring that up my self, but since you did...). 

And when one compares Canadian and American ideology, the difference is very
obvious.  I've studied Canada for many years now....and anyone who would remark
that the two are ideologically similar is likely to make the same comparison
between Japan and France.  Just examining the behaviour of Canadians vs.
Americans- the faith in gov't, the level of insecurity, the reaction to
specific defined ideologies, etc....reveals a fundamental difference between
the two identities.

>Because of the sharing of cultural references, movies, books, etc.
>And I'm not chastising you, and I've never said you're chastising my
>culture.  I think you misunderstand it, and what makes it what it is, and
>what makes it different from yours other than by folkloristic differences.
>And I'm also from german descent and I don't see what this has to do with
>your knowledge of the CONSIDERABLE differences that are independant of
>language ...cousin.
>
Well, you said it yourself- ideology.  I've already talked about literary
tradition, and the conditions under which your interpretation of my culture
"makes sense."  If you accept that Canadians have been assimilated, then
perhaps that is your conclusion- but having studied Canada for the period I
have, I know differently.  And I don't wish to go on too much longer here
because I am celebrating the birth of my nephew....and would also like to
hammer Riess a little more for his trouble.
>
>> And you know, I would go on and continue with this thread...answer all of your
>> charges and the like- but I don't want to "burden" you with such chauvinism. 
>> After all, using one of your favourite points, you know me, my culture, my
>> language and the like much better than I know myself, right?  What more is
>> there to discuss?
>
>
>I just used one charge that has upset your susceptibility.
>And "par la force des choses" because of the omnipresence of the north
>american anglophone culture, I dare say that I know your culture better
>than you do mine.  And I don't pretend to know it better than you, but I'm

Yet you cannot confirm this because you really don't know what I do or don't
know about your culture.  I too have Quebecois family- bloodlines on my
mother's side which extended into Quebec and England (what an odious
combination, n'est pas?).  

>saying that as many anglophone americans, you seem to percieve elements
>that are outside of your culture as not more important than your own
>folkloristic regionalities; thus the attribute that I've used.
>
Not at all....I don't challenge the validity of such elements outside of my
culture- this entire post has switched towards something entirely different
from the "Quebec as nation" argument.  The issue is this: if my "culture" is
consistant with the world's dominant culture for all the reasons you revealed,
then why is it a) I do not reflect upon this tradition as a part of my culture,
or b) that Australia, England, New Zealand, etc...are not also a part of this
culture.  Surely you cannot expect me to accept that simply because American
movies, music and the like make it into Canada, that thus it reflects upon my
culture.  Your proofs are too broad to ever expect me to accept them as a
adequate reflection of any links between Canadian and American culture.