58 replies to this topic

[scouterjim]

Nope. I am no armchair (or stadium seat) athlete.

Just not interested.

Edited by scouterjim, 23 February 2011 - 09:32 AM.

[Black Dog]

This is the result of a national identity built around what August1991 refers to as "kitsch".

We're a country with no common ancestry, no common culture, increasingly little common history...

and in an effort to invent some sort of national identity in the absence of these things, people grasp at meaningless symbols-- kitsch.

Canadians love hockey, maple syrup, donuts, coffee, toques, flannel, Cape Breton fiddle music, bad sketch comedy, and public broadcasting. That's Canada! That's kitsch.

-k

Yes, if only we were more like the mother country with its non-kitschy signifiers of national identity like football, tea, fish'n'chips, the Queen, bowler hats, stiff upper lips, bad sketch comedy and public broadcasting. Or our neighbours to the south with their baseball, Ford trucks, apple pies, bald eagles, jazz music, McDonald's, bad situation comedy and guns.

The implication that "kitschy" or popular symbols of national identity are illegitimate is demonstrably wrong.

When I watch a Canucks home game and see all the brown faces cheering the Canucks, to me that's the benefit of something like hockey. It's meaningless, it has nothing to do with what our country really stands for... but it's something for everybody to rally around. A common cause, a shared experience, something that transcends differences. I think there's some value in that.
-k

What do you mean by "it has nothing to do with what our country really stands for"? I don't think anyone pretends that it is anything but "a common cause, a shared experience, something that transcends differences." Therein lies its value.

[scouterjim]

Yes, if only we were more like the mother country with its non-kitschy signifiers of national identity like football, tea, fish'n'chips, the Queen, bowler hats, stiff upper lips, bad sketch comedy and public broadcasting. Or our neighbours to the south with their baseball, Ford trucks, apple pies, bald eagles, jazz music, McDonald's, bad situation comedy and guns.

The implication that "kitschy" or popular symbols of national identity are illegitimate is demonstrably wrong.




What do you mean by "it has nothing to do with what our country really stands for"? I don't think anyone pretends that it is anything but "a common cause, a shared experience, something that transcends differences." Therein lies its value.

Well, I guess I am a "poor Canadian" since I am bored stiff by the game.

[Black Dog]

Well, I guess I am a "poor Canadian" since I am bored stiff by the game.

How you got that from all that you quoted is beyond me.

[scouterjim]

How you got that from all that you quoted is beyond me.

that whole "common cause" thing.

[Black Dog]

that whole "common cause" thing.

It's not compulsory.

[scouterjim]

It's not compulsory.

It seems to be, according to some.

[Shwa]

It seems to be, according to some.

According to some yes. But no different than the arm-chair generals, the arm-chair politicians, the arm-chair journalists, arm-chair historians and any other person who observes and comments on events of one kind or another. Hockey is just another series of events to follow, like other sports, news, television programming, film or whatnot. Heck some would even suggest comic books and their portrayal of events.

Criticise our requirement for sending our young men and women to their deaths in Afghanistan and see how the arm-chair generals question your Canadian-ness. Etc.

Edited by Shwa, 24 February 2011 - 05:12 PM.

[Smallc]

Yes, if only we were more like the mother country with its non-kitschy signifiers of national identity like football, tea, fish'n'chips, the Queen, bowler hats, stiff upper lips, bad sketch comedy and public broadcasting. Or our neighbours to the south with their baseball, Ford trucks, apple pies, bald eagles, jazz music, McDonald's, bad situation comedy and guns.

The implication that "kitschy" or popular symbols of national identity are illegitimate is demonstrably wrong.




What do you mean by "it has nothing to do with what our country really stands for"? I don't think anyone pretends that it is anything but "a common cause, a shared experience, something that transcends differences." Therein lies its value.

Very, very nicely put. The idea that symbols and shared experiences are ludicrous are meaningless. The idea that Canada has to make anything up in order to have an identity is also ludicrous. This country has a unique identity, just like every other country in the world. People trying to criticize their own symbols aren't going to take away from that.

[jefferiah]

I have never been a hockey fan, or a fan of any sport for that matter. Recently, I was told I am a "poor Canadian" because I don't watch hockey. A poor Canadian?

I don't know the details of the situation you are relating here. But if somebody said something like that to me, I wouldn't take it very seriously. I happen to be a hockey fan, though. To me it seems reasonable that someone could jokingly say "What kind of Canadian are you, you dont like hockey?"

Edited by jefferiah, 25 February 2011 - 05:42 AM.

[scouterjim]

I don't know the details of the situation you are relating here. But if somebody said something like that to me, I wouldn't take it very seriously. I happen to be a hockey fan, though. To me it seems reasonable that someone could jokingly say "What kind of Canadian are you, you dont like hockey?"

It was said seriously. He said,"You don't like hockey? You must be a poor Canadian to not like hockey! All true Canadians like hockey." Well, I am a great Canadian, but I don't care for hockey.

[Black Dog]

It was said seriously. He said,"You don't like hockey? You must be a poor Canadian to not like hockey! All true Canadians like hockey." Well, I am a great Canadian, but I don't care for hockey.

Cool story bro.

[Jack Weber]

It was said seriously. He said,"You don't like hockey? You must be a poor Canadian to not like hockey! All true Canadians like hockey." Well, I am a great Canadian, but I don't care for hockey.

I can say with certainty that I have had to deal with this attitude more than a few times...

These are usually simpletons that require extreme public shaming...

And I'm just the guy to do it!!!

[scouterjim]

I can say with certainty that I have had to deal with this attitude more than a few times...

These are usually simpletons that require extreme public shaming...

And I'm just the guy to do it!!!

Bravo!

[August1991]

This is the result of a national identity built around what August1991 refers to as "kitsch".

Surely Canada is more than kitsch. At least, we're "rocks, trees and endless sky."

I have never been a hockey fan, or a fan of any sport for that matter. Recently, I was told I am a "poor Canadian" because I don't watch hockey.

I stopped watching hockey when I saw the 1972 Russia-Canada Series on a DVD. But I'm old.

----

I sometimes skate on frozen ice with young kids, who shout to me - an incompetent, "Passe-moi la donc."

No joking.

Edited by August1991, 27 February 2011 - 05:04 AM.