There was a similar argument some years ago about the Falkland Islands, that every single local could be bought off by Argentina. I think most Americans are much more mobile and not used to the idea that someone could be strongly attached to an area as their home.
Canadian perspective: it seems like many (not all) Americans are also explicitly brought up with, and heavily absorb, "greatest country in the world" rhetoric that also leaves them incapable of understanding that this is not necessarily how people outside of it see the USA.
Trying to be diplomatic? I've seen a lot of really insane shit in comment sections -- and even more insane shit from public officials -- over the last year since these "topics" came up.
Belief in or unconscious absorbance of the concept of "manifest destiny" and American exceptionalism seems to run deep in a portion of the American psyche.
No, it's not "their" continent to take. Might doesn't make right. And it certainly doesn't make for superiority in anything but brawn and bravado.
I'll also add this: the (imho encouraging) trend in the north and with the indigenous populations there has been in the opposite direction from what the Trump regime is proposing: sovereignty and autonomy for the Inuit to run their own lands. Canada carved out new Inuit administered territories, trying in some respect (and inconsistently) to rectify over a century of mis(mal?)governance and exploitation and mistreatment.
From the polls I see the Inuit in Greenland want more self governance, not a new external boss.
From an American perspective, it’s not the “rhetoric,” it’s just “noticing.” My mom is an immigrant who was not brought up here to absorb the rhetoric. But when she went to Canada and Australia to visit family, she came back ranting about how poor everyone was and how small the houses were. (I take it you have fewer suburban McMansions and giant SUVs.) It’s hard not to notice our GDP per capita is 50% higher than yours. It’s big enough now where we notice it just going up there to visit family.
And you can say what you want about safety nets for poor people, but that doesn’t affect most Americans. My parents are on Medicare and they head down to the ER every time have a stomach ache and get a CAT scan. Meanwhile my family is convinced that Canadian healthcare nearly killed my aunt when she had a kidney issue because they didn’t immediately schedule her for a million tests and surgery. (I suspect that isn’t true and the Canadian system reasonably triaged the care.)
And to be clear, I like Canada (and I love Denmark). I’d rather have a more orderly society with an efficient and expansive government that’s focused on comprehensive outcomes across the population, in contrast to our system where you have McMansions but randomly you can fall through a giant crack. But Americans temperamentally are biased towards upside potential and they devalue downside risk. This is a cultural trait that seems very quickly absorbed even by immigrants. My immigrant family isn’t meaningfully American in many respects—they don’t have Anglo sensibilities about things like civic institutions and personal freedoms—but they’re indistinguishable from other americans in their materialistic optimism
> From an American perspective, it’s not the “rhetoric,” it’s just “noticing.”
Yes, but that does not go against the parent comment. When you grow up in it, you have it in you, and it's difficult to question it. If you ask Americans who live abroad, they often have a more nuanced perspective.
Apart from American finding it better in the US than everywhere else in the world (your "noticing"), there is this tendency from Americans to genuinely believe that the rest of the world agrees with that. "Everybody wants to live in the US because it is the best country in the world".
And this is very, very far from true. It's not just about money. The US have a lot of fossil energy, which is good for their economy, which is good for their military. The US is a big and rich country, which makes it powerful. But that is bad for the countries and people who are threatened by the US (and recently the US have been militarily threatening countries who until then were seeing the US as an ally or at least a friend), and it is bad for our survival (through the climate and biodiversity issues).
Tons of people outside of the US wouldn't want to live in the US, even if it meant earning more money. And on top of that, tons of people outside of the US feel threatened by the US, for good reasons.
I honestly can't see a difference in housing sizes between Canada and the United States -- we've got the same McMansion sprawl all over the place here -- so strikes me this person's mother is just like every other human, and bad at statistics and handling their own biases.
The US does have a higher rate of wealth inequality than Oz and here in Canuckistan tho.
The inequality is what she’s reacting to. Most people in my extended family are professionals or business owners. That class has a lot more money in the US. Top 1% in Canada is $315,000 while in the U.S. that’s outside the top 3%.
Yes, it's absolutely the case that people in our profession and adjacent do a lot better in the US than here.
And the situation for working class Canadians isn't great either right now -- housing prices have skyrocketed. Tariffs from economic warfare are destroying the labour market. There are many aspects about our situation that are inferior.
But guess what -- that has fuck-all to do with how we perceive the relative value of our country or the pride or love we have for our homeland and love.
No, the majority of Canadians don't see the US as the world's best country because the wealthiest there make more money than the wealthiest here.
I worked at Google in Waterloo for 10 years. At any point I could have packed up and moved to the Valley and transferred to Mountain View. I had jobs before that that could have taken me to the US on transfer, as well. I chose not to. Why?
During part of that time, after Trump was first elected, I saw lots of expat Canadians who had been working for Google in the US return and transfer back to our office. They came back and earned less, and the choice of projects in our office was slimmer. But they chose to. Why?
Love of country, of culture, of family, of nature, of the land, nostalgia, familiarity. What came up often when I spoke to people coming back was a strong distaste for the idea of bringing their children up in the American education system with its extreme degrees of inequality, status seeking, elitism around "Ivy League" and ranking of schools right from kindergarten. Values on the whole unfamiliar to the same degree among Canadians.
Expats in particular, and immigrants who primarily migrated for economic reasons... yes, I'd naturally expect them not to understand this POV. I even meet plenty of new (often temporary) Canadians using Canada as a convenient springboard before their "final" migration choice which is the US. Not sure I like that, but that's their choice.
My father is also an immigrant, from Germany. He came here for the nature / wilderness. He's intensely critical of the politics and economics here and where he lives in Alberta, and there's many things in those respects he prefers about Germany. But he has love of land, and Canada is his homeland, because of the peace and love he finds in the rivers, the forests, the muskeg.
I love my people and country I imagine in the same way or similar way Greenlanders love theirs. The size of the McMansions has no bearing on it. Canadians by and large don't walk around proclaiming theirs the best country in the world. We are not interested in our superiority. But we will defend our home, same as any other.
The original point stands -- to talk about "greatest country on earth" and then act baffled or smug about why others wouldn't want to join it -- is nothing but schoolyard bully logic. Like picking on the weird or weak kid in the playground, and then proclaiming that as a moral virtue. This Greenland stuff, and the rhetoric heard about Canada this past year as well, has exposed the very darkest underbelly of the US. One we have seen here many times over 200 years, but many Americans seem blind to.
Yes, that's why I found 'house size' a strange complaint. The three countries in question have comparable square footage - the largest-sized houses in the world.
This comment underscores how mono-dimensional some people are.
To Rayiner more stuff, bigger stuff = happier and more fullfilling life. An incredible lack of depth.
That is also the reason why Americans when they go abroad are astonished and always come back saying "people are amazing" somewhere else, well no wonder considering the state of domestic affairs and domestic relationships between people.
Please offer my apologies to your mom , as it's true that our vehicles are dangerously underdimensioned , maybe next time something in the order of 10-15 short tons could be adequate to transport her to the nearest McMansion (or McDonald's rather).
A more diplomatic way to say it would be that it is a different culture. And I would agree that Americans struggle to see that other countries have different cultures and different priorities.
If you believe that the goal in life is to live like an American, then obviously the best at doing that are... the Americans. The mistake is to not recognise that other people may have different beliefs.
> To Rayiner more stuff, bigger stuff = happier and more fullfilling life. An incredible lack of depth
Please read my whole post! I’m a Europoor at heart. I live in a 3BR house with three kids and no yard despite being able to afford a bigger one. I drive an EV, and it’s not a Tesla. I’m just trying to convey my impression of American culture though the lens of my mom, who embodies this aspect of American culture quite strongly.
I take a drive through Detroit and I "notice" entirely different things which somehow your screed above is mostly blind to.
That's about as diplomatic as I can summon up as a reply to your comment, whose substance mostly proves my point about the bizarre exceptionalist world Americans seem to occupy in their heads. It really isn't "noticing"... what you're talking about. It's ideology.
Also GDP per capita is the kind of garbage metric I would expect someone frequent on this forum, and hopefully literate in statistics, to understand the ridiculousness of deploying in conversation.
Also, there's rarely anybody more invested in seeing the superiority of their new (chosen) place other than immigrants, so I don't think that's the argumentative flex you think it is.
As I said, I like Canada! I’m just trying to explain the American point of view. For example, I care about Detroit. But your typical American doesn’t live in Detroit. The average new home is built in a booming, low tax, Sun Belt state like Georgia and Texas, where my cousins bought McMansions in the last few years.
Also, my cousin grew up in Windsor and having been there plenty of times, it’s shit too.
Much of the world would have no problem with americans being in love with their McMansions.
But many would find them wasteful, and a terrible place to live, compared to a decently sized apartment (one 10m² - 100 sq ft - bedroom per person/couple and maybe an extra office) in a walkable town.
Just as we find american SUVs totally inadequate compared to our cars.
And it's not matter of cost, we're perfectly “happy” paying borrowing millions of euro for such apartments, and paying far more for our cars.
My perspective is from Scotland, and what annoys me is the vanilla press continually going to the Copenhagen government and even the Danish royal family for quotes. Greenland is a Danish colony/overseas territory (delete according to view), and I'd prefer to hear from Greenlanders. I'm sure the average Dane rarely thinks about Greenland, or didn't until recently. (Much like most British never thought about the Falkland Islands until Argentina invaded.)
We had a similar scenario during the Scottish independence referendum with the international media going to London to talk about the matter.
As for the Manifest Destiny thing, maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm thinking more Monroe Doctrine. Manifest Destiny was heading westward, and grabbing Greenland, or even Venezuela, seems more aimed at those who would influence them from outside the Americas.
Monroe Doctrine I think has always been considered to apply to Latin America. But probably mainly because the US has almost always (in the 20th century) had a subservient "partner" here in Canada.
But we were invaded (twice) here in Canada (or what became Canada) by the US. The only people to have ever invaded us. And when they did so, their leaders at the time were definitely flying the Manifest Destiny rhetoric. So much so they could not even imagine why the Quebecois and others didn't just welcome them with open arms.
So, no, I think it definitely applies northward too, not just westward. Or at least some of the ideological underpinnings of it.
Greenland, and Canada are in the Americas, as are Venezuela and Cuba. Three of these are independent nations while one is more or less a European colony. Venezuela and Cuba have strong ties with Russia that the USA resents.
Yes, I'm aware of the US attempts on Canada. I think US pop culture, and TV has done a better job of Americanising Canada than the military... Same with Europe.
I tend to think of it more like this: There is a North American culture and then subcultures. "Canada" is in large part contiguous culturally with two North American cultural regions -- the midwest [hi there Minnesota, we love you!] and (at least parts of) New England.
This isn't really because of TV or cultural export but because of real population origins and movements. We say "pop" and have "Canadian raising" in our speech, and so do people from Minnesota or Wisconsin and that doesn't come from TV or radio or movies. It comes from being neighbours and descended from the same population groups. The border also used to be a lot more porous. My mother's mother were (German descendant) North Dakotans who just basically popped across the border and started farming and lived in Sask and Alberta... without a lot of legal hassle at all.
Overtop of that, yes, there is a whole set of other cultural/legal/economic overlays, and media is a big part of that.
But this is still a regional story-- there's I think more in common culturally between e.g. regular families in Ontario and Wisconsin than there is between Wisconsin and Florida.
From that perspective, I have rarely fallen back to Canadian nationalism. I would in fact have been more in favour of a stronger union between some US states and the US economy and Canada -- in the past. But events of the last year have made clear what many our Loyalist ancestors already tried to warn us about 200 years ago: there is a dark and frankly kind of insane undercurrent in American political culture, and the foundations of the Canadian state are anything but artificial, they are based on an entirely different perspective on governance and culture because there's something kinda messed up in the kernel of the American conception of governance.
Which I think the people of Minnesota are seeing right now.
What was arrogant about my post? My point was that Canadians (like you) often exhibit this baffling, unfounded sense of superiority, one completely at odds with cold, hard migration data, as well as the habits of successful Canadians. It's especially baffling in light of Canada's "lost decade" of flat real GDP growth. Canada now has a per capita GDP that's lower than all but one or two U.S. states, and its economic "growth" is just people selling overpriced houses back and forth to each other. Yet the arrogance and condescending attitude towards their southern neighbor remains.
The big difference is the falkland islands are populated by brits loyal to britain whereas Greenland is populated by greenlanders who hate denmark because the danes committed many acts of genocide against greenlanders.
> I think most Americans are much more mobile and not used to the idea that someone could be strongly attached to an area as their home.
You think the people in the falklands are "native" to the falkland islands?
There are people who have been born and brought up in the Falkland Islands and have connections going back generations. They have been there longer than anyone else, and the islands had no previous indigenous population before France first colonised them.
As to whether they are native, that is a whole other can of worms, but they are more rooted to there than people who live in continental South America. Geographically they can't claim to be British but by sympathy they are. Things were shifting in Argentina's favour until the invasion.
By the way, this does apply to a certain percentage of Greenlanders. There are a few European Greenlanders, or people of recent mixed heritage so we could make similar arguments about them.
