Dissenting self conceptions of citizens in the United States and Canada

In my essay I would like to shine some trifling light onto the most obvious traits that differentiate the U.S. American and the Canadian citizens. To European folks perhaps these differences are absolutely invisible at first glance and by no means qualified as distinctions. But most certainly both nations would be offended upon confusing or misperceiving one for the other. So what is it that really sizzles such a blazing issue between these people? Are history, politics, laws, religious beliefs and other organizing principles the only factors responsible or is there a psychological twist to the story? In my view: yes, there is, there has to be. People are sentimental creatures thus human feelings are the most dominant decision making senses (or rather organs) that influences all of us. The surrounding environment creates unutterable, subconscious impressions deep inside each and every one of us. And what are these impressions in comparison between the US and Canada? Let me try to reveal the people behind the events…

If a Canadian is asked what nation does he feel he belongs to, his answer is likely to name a minority - nationality group. Whereas (even a non-aborigine, by that I would mean an Indian or an Eskimo originated) American will definitely shout out loud: “American, but of course, buddy”. But just what ideology has brought things onto this path? Let me draw a simple example with two children being born in the two separate countries, the US and Canada. The first couple of years - ‘till reaching their state of consciousness - can easily be disregarded, but what happens after that? In my assumption, their childhood’s environments are typical for each of their countries. Then the American child goes to an American kindergarten, an American elementary school and is exposed to a typical “American environment”. Here the samples he/she sees are the most dominant values of the American creed. As early as possible he/she is taught, from the TV cartoons and commercials about a great phenomenon all big “heroes”, GI Joe, the Mutant Turtles, Barbie and Kent, Spiderman, Ronald McDonald, the Jolly Green Giant and others are all American. The country he/she lives in is loaded with heroes, make-beliefs and real ones (sport and movie celebrities for example) surround him. His/Her image of

the world is limited to the 51 states, but those states surely make up the country of “greatness” and “victory” in his/her eyes. Why? Simple, he/she is thought and raised in this belief. Celebrating numerous national holidays are reminders of what greatness, what mighty achievements have been made already. In school everyone is taught of the slogan: “You can be anything if you fight hard enough for it.” “This is a free country, the country of opportunities”. Ensuring the national pride is the Pledge to the Flag, the National Anthem, the American flag in every classroom, the cute red, white and blue stripes and stars and symbols all around. These celebrations in a year (Veteran’s Day, President’s Day, Thanksgiving) really focuses on the Great American Country. Who wouldn’t like to be part of it? The parents are – even if not necessarily financially – balanced. Their role in the social life circle, their rights are guaranteed, the pursuit of happiness is an entitled law. Naming exactly what is waiting for their children. The open opportunities are regardless of class, race, gender or color, every child is encouraged to be a hero, a millionaire, the success story is on the streets, or so they say. In contrast to this, of course I could also list the great pressures on teenagers, the objections and rejection of the American Dream (Catcher in the Rye) the slum areas and a vast number of conflicts that black (Harlem, Bronx) and female persons encounter daily. But it is not my aim to judge the “in practice” issues. Regarding the children however, I must add that all of them are fed and brought up in the American Dream. In the big average, most certainly my point is true, that Americans are proud of this Dream, whether they achieve it, or not.

For a second now, let’s drop that thread and glance back at our Canadian child. He/She is most probably born at the southern stripe of Canada, exposed to a constant influence of the Great Neighboring Elephant Nation: the US. The Canadian child’s life is rather loaded with contradictions, learning French perhaps at school, adapting to British and European conventions (the educational system, religious influence and basic household manners, just to name a few). Most of all, recognizing the fellow American Greatness is conceivably the most difficult. Perhaps the juvenile phrase: “If you can’t be part of it, then hate it” says too much already. In Canada of course some celebrities, heroes are detectable just as well but the proportion is an enormous conflict. The national anthem, the parent’s everyday encounters to the nation, the child’s classmates and their brought

cultures and religions are all conservative and British. (Though, the two most materialistic values of a nation: the anthem and the flag were just recently – within 50 years – “modernized”.) Canada as a nation have always been (and perhaps to some, still is) regarded as British North America, simply an extension of the Queen’s dominion. The children in school are thought about British or French (or both) cultures, history and literature. Even if “original” Canadian literature is thought, let’s consider the symbols of their identities. The US has been respected as the frontier nation, while Canada as the surviving nation. The literature styles and themes also place a deep impression in our precedent children. Canadian literature looks backward in sorrow, opposes the American myth, and emphasizes minorities, conservatism and composure. (But of course exceptions of French-Canadian and feminist literature is a confutation on this point.) American children read books about the fighting, battling past (the Indian stories for example) and about a future that is only waiting for them. (Exceptional confutations are mentionable here too, like the Catcher in the Rye, again) My point is, that basic, overall literature children will read in the two countries – if they read literature written by their own nationality- are very typical impacts about their countries.

Now, jumping to the teenage years and the adulthood in a single bound, the two kids will face the ideology, the national culture straight from the horse’s mouth. Until this point they have only experienced the second row effects through parents, teachers, people from the street or the denomination. Now the time has come for them to stand out as individuals, as citizens. What really does citizenship mean? Is allegiance compulsory? In a way, yes. The citizens of the US and Canada are the same originated immigrates, yet still some kept their original allegiance feelings and some grew accustomed to their new country. The American dream is/was so powerful, so tempting that not too many could refuse. In Canada, they were more conservative to stick behind the British Empire. They didn’t want individualism, venturesome people, independence to rise to the surface. (This issue was partly solved by itself – immigrating to the US – and partly by internal regulations, breaking down of smaller riots.)

I must mention the historical, organizing principle theories for the mentioned bending of the national feelings in the two countries. We must think of such policies as the labeling of the Revolution Nation

(US) and of the Counter Revolution Nation (Canada), the effect of the French Revolution in 1789, the anti-state movement and the great influence of the free religion demand, the faithfulness to the British Crown (religion again), the federalist’s political actions and the list goes on. But as I have stated before I would just like to focus on the psychological sides of the two nations.

Returning to citizenship, let’s shred the real meaning behind the term. A full right citizen is entitled to all relevant laws and benefits, as well as responsibilities, he or she must obey them at all terms and also bear the sufficient consequences in case of violation. Contribution to the success of the nation is therefore laid down by simple principles. This same rule applies in every country on Earth, yet the reaction to it is so different everywhere. In the US, people feel it as a close personal issue, they contribute to almost every decision (the huge importance, portion of electoral and presidential votes for example). In Canada, the story is a bit different due to the different voting system, but the “freedom” of the people is still there and the chance for the influence is just as powerful. The two sets of people envisage their societies in contrast. The US has kept up a constant hunt for a perfect society and done everything in its power to establish it. Canada on the other hand just tried to survive. Tried to bear the great weight of the neighboring winner nation and in it’s own conservative way slowly establish a bit individual and longer navel string from Britain. (In defense of Canada, I must also note, that Canada is lagging behind regarding time as well, considered to the 225 years the US had to accomplish it’s current state.) The two nations also have had different goals through all these years. The US emphasized its greatness (NASA projects, labeling Russia as the eternal enemy, taking part in wars, peacemaker roles), while Canada only fought (silent dispute) for slowly detaching. All these factors have sunken deep into the people’s minds and hearts and one way or the other, they too have influenced their ideals and self-conceptions.

Through my essay I have tried to look and make visible a different way to differentiate the citizens of these “almost similar” countries, without labeling or condemning in favor of either. Both nations (and citizens) have succeeded in numerous achievements and thus must be given due credit, unconditionally.