Carolyn Parrish is a big, fat idiot (on anti-Americanism in Canada)

Carolyn Parrish is a Member of the Parliament of Canada.  Last year, she called Americans "bastards."  On Wednesday, she called them "idiots."   

Ms. Parrish offered her recent slur while commenting on a missile-defense treaty.  In the words of the National Post, she believes that "participating in missile defense [with the US] would make Canada a terrorist target.”" 

May I take this opportunity to apologize to American friends and readers?  I am guessing the typical reaction is, first, "What?"” and, then, "Whatever.”"  And indeed Ms. Parrish deserves the dismissal we reserve all for kooks and cranks.  The trouble is that there are millions of like minded kooks and cranks in my fair country. 

Anti-Americanism is rampant.  Many Canadians now make free with the most derogatory comments about their southern neighbors.  They are pleased to call Americans stupid, aggressive, and vulgar.  They are quick to say that Bush is a moron.  (And here I have to bite my tongue to keep from saying, "well, he may not be Stephen Hawking but he is almost certainly smarter than you.”")  Want an easy laugh at a gathering of Canadians?  Say something anti-American.  No sooner have you spoken than the room is awash in self congratulation.  American bashing is now a Canadian pastime, as passionately pursued as road hockey and Tim Horton do-nuts. 

Indeed, I have not heard prejudice as unabashed as this since I spent a summer in the south of France and listened to locals let fly with anti-Semitic sentiments.  (I do not mean to compare anti-Americanism to anti-Semitism, but merely the unapologetic ease with which both sentiments are, in this case, offered.)  Canadians pride themselves on being open minded and cosmopolitan.  But here they are stupid, aggressive, and vulgar. 

This is a classic "clique effect,"” according to which the members of a comparison set who are judged and found wanting have two choices: to accept the judgment or to cultivate values that release them from the comparison.  This is a kind of "you can’t judge me, I march to a different drummer"” strategy. 

In some ways, this is apt.  Canada is a country trembling on the verge of Second World status.  Its health care system is crumbling.  Its economy is underpowered.  Its education system, merely ordinary.  Its contribution to global culture, modest.  But let’s take the most immediate case in point, the Olympics.  So far, Canada has a score of 9 in the medal race.  The Netherlands, with a population of 16 million (Canada has 25 m.) is well ahead with 21.  (Naturally, everyone is thrilled we continue to outpace Estonia which has 3 medal points.)

Really, there is no comparison.  The US leads in scientific accomplishment (see Nobel lists and patents awards), athletics (see Olympic wins), education (see Ph.D.s produced), business innovation, technological innovation, and cultural innovation.  Oh, Canada.  Poor Canada.  Your neighbor outstrips you on every dimension.

But I have never heard a Canadian admit to admiration or even acknowledgement of this difference.  Instead, the strategy is to claim moral superiority.  Canadians are better, they suppose, because they have better social programs, pay more taxes, and do not go to war.  Why is that, I wonder?  The reason that Canada does not go to war is because it lives within the protection of the US.  This is the reason it has an Armed Force that would be hard pressed, if transplanted to Eastern Europe, to defend itself from an attack by Estonia. 

And this brings us to the question of terrorism and Ms. Parrish’s conviction that a missile defense treaty with the US would expose Canada to an attack.  It is hard to know whether this is naiveté or cowardice.  But it certainly smacks of ingratitude.  To accept American protection and then, in the American hour of urgency, to refuse to do what little we can, is wrong. 

It compounds the error made by former Prime Minister Chrétien when he refused to send Canadian troops to Iraq.  Chrétien claimed that there was insufficient evidence of weapons of mass destruction.  What in God’s name prompted him to think this was the point?  Plainly and simply, our neighbour needed us to close ranks, show solidarity, and present a single face to the dithering world community.  If friendship was not enough, surely the opportunity to repay the "protection" debt” should have been.  If you can'’t act from honor, you might at least think about acting out of reciprocity. 

Ms. Parrish calls Americans "bastards”" and "idiots"” because she would otherwise be obliged to accept a pressing reality: that Canada is no longer the "sleeping giant"” but a continental embarrassment, the little brother who turns out to be slow at learning, bad at sports, incapable of protecting himself, inclined to incoherent outbursts, and, in spite of this, insufferably smug, self important, and ungrateful.  Ms. Parrish, please, for the love of God, just shut up. 

References

Curry, Bill. 2004.  Liberal Insults U.S. Again.  National Post.  August 26, 2004.

Comments

[nymous]

"clique effect," eh... that's a new one. By the way, I enjoy your blog. It is one of the two blogs I read regularly.

[grant]

Nymous, thanks for reading and for posting, some people are so pissed off with this post they are withholding public comment and sending me deeply felt emails instead. Best, Grant

[fouroboros]

So, Canada (and Ms. Parrish) are Fives on the politico-cultural Gaze-o-Meter?

Harsh? Perhaps. Didn't I hear somewhere that you guys have been arguing about sovereignty and national identity or something? That's gotta wear a tribe out. Referenced against earlier comments about swinging at outside "others"--chopping you off at the knees to make me feel taller--well, there's plenty of that down here too. Take heart, Liberals are America's "Canadians," as Conservatives seem to be Canada's "Americans."

Not sure if that last bit made sense, but I do know the cod is a proud and noble fish!

My name is fouro! And I is a Newfie-by-proxy!

[Grant]

Fouroboros, Characteristically brilliant, I'd say. And very Newfie (the wittiest people in Canada. Thanks, Grant

[james wilson]

What you are describing is the feminization of politics. It brings entitlements to replace marriage and responsibility, gun prohibition so it is clear the state is supreme, and promotes the posture of a school of fish in evading danger- swirl in a bunched mass and hope the main body will not be affected by predators while hoping it is some other individual who will be food.

[Jeff Porten]

Grant -- been reading your blog for a few weeks, and this is the first time you've missed the mark. I'm an American living in Washington, DC, and I welcome your countrymen's criticisms of our country.

We can leave aside the personal slurs against Mr. Bush if you like, although certainly they become relevant when one is desperately looking for an explanation for what my country has done in the past three years. We can even skip his desire to meet with Prime Minister Poutine at his first opportunity. But I'd like to know what definition of the term "intelligent" includes an unwillingness to revisit assumptions and admit fault.

Here's the situation, in a blog-comment nutshell: Americans have an obligation to involve ourselves with politics because the people we elect affect the entire planet. But Canadians have their own obligation -- your country is the one most suited to act as a mirror to our own. You are the proof that the American way of doing things is not the only way of doing things.

So when we do things that you find appalling, I think it's quite worthwhile for you to stand up and say so. Some of us will notice. And many of us will not smack down your parliamentarians for reminding us that we've changed our methods, as you seem happy to do.

[Grant]

Jeff, thanks for your thoughful, lucid comment. My frustration is perhaps a little like your own: there are certain realities that do not ever seem to come to light. But your realities _are_ realities, however they are seen, and those of Canadians, the anti-American ones anyhow, are simply delusional, or at least illusional. I would like to think that Canada can serve as a mirror, but moral superiority so misunderstands the American necessity and Canadian irrelevance as to distort much more than it reflects. We could serve in the capacity you suggest, but we are too busy protesting our significance! But thank you, again, for your thoughts. Best, Grant

[Joe Grossberg]

"I do not mean to compare anti-Americanism to anti-Semitism, but merely the unapologetic ease with which both sentiments are, in this case, offered."

Well, yes, but if having a missile defense treaty with the US makes Canada a terrorist target, imagine how dangerous it is to have all those Jews around.

It's only a natural extension of Parrish's "logic".

[The Owner's Manual]

I lived in Mississauga during the 1970s. I couldn't imagine the citizens there supporting someone as ill spoken as Parrish. They tell me the demographics have changed there severely in the intervening years, though, that Mississauga has gained a heavily minority complexion.

[Michael]

Well the only problem I have with this reaction is that missile defense is ummm... idiotic?

First, nukes are expensive and rockets are unreliable. Far better to put the thing on a ship (or in a shipping container) and deliver it that way. In fact, there wasa CIA report that said that a missile attack was unlikely.

Second, the missile defense envisioned (shooting the missle down) is inherently hard. They've missed in a lot of their tests, and these are rigged for good odds. You probably wouldn't have a lot of confidence in this system even if they said it worked.

Lastly, it's too easy to counter. Add some computer-controlled randomness into the path of the missile (something that cancels out overall to avoid missing your target) and you've got a missile that's impossible to hit. Add some chaff and decoys, and you've got something impossible to track.

I really can't escape the conclusion that missile defense is pork for defense contractors (the best kind, since it will never be used!) or a sop to people who think the U.S. is already safe from missiles (surveys say large numbers think this.)

Canada should say things like this though, not that Bush is just an idiot. After all, it was Edward Teller's idea. Now there's an idiot!

Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Ms. Parrish
last week.

Dear Ms. Parrish,

Thank You. It is my hope that this time your latest remarks may garner more attention in the home of the bastard idiots. Allowing your neighbors to the south to get a closer look at what has of late been Canada's number one export, moral superiority espoused in a rather churlish manner. Fortunately for you, Canada is not needed for much of anything so it does not appear you will have to sully your hands.

Your latest remarks have made me ponder the word idiot and its many applications. Offending your largest trading partner once could be construed as candor in a heated moment. Doing it a second time could be construed as (dare I say it) idiotic.

I'm truly sorry Mr. Hussein is no longer in power. The world has now been deprived of the prospect of his two late sons running the family business. Pity. Yet here is another example where Canada is not relevant. The examples of canada's irrelevancy are too numerous to mention here.

The continued sniping by yourself and other luminaries to our north will not go unnoticed in perpetuity. Americans will let it roll off our backs, to a point. I would politely suggest you stop trying to find where that point is.

Ms. parrish perhaps you should focus your energies and sharp wit on trying to help run the mom and pop store that is Canada. On second thought I should refer to Canada as a boutiqe.I wouldn't want to offend the people of Quebec, rumor has it they are looking for any excuse to jump ship.

Yours truly,
Bastard Idiot

[Stef]

I think you're being too harsh on the Canadians. Maybe they're taking the opportunity to say what the rest of the world is thinking? Anyone caught publicly saying such things in "the land of the free" is cut down immediately; I've long given up on the ideal of true freedom of speech in the USA. There are a good many people that believe Bush is an idiot (myself being one of them) and I applaud anyone that's willing to say it somewhere that could possibly make a difference.

I believe that some nations are superior to the USA in certain ways (healthcare, foreign policy) and the more people that begin to believe that their relationship with the US is not the be all and end all, the better.

[Grant]

Joe: thanks, let's hope it doesn't come to that. Canada has a shameful record of anti-Semitism. In World War II, at the direction of a man called Massey, it refused harbor to Jews attempting to escape Europe. There's a good book on the topic called None is too many: Canada and the Jews of Europe 1933-1948, Irving Abells, and Harold Troper, Toronto: Lester, 1997. So much for moral superiority. Grant

The Owner's Manual: Certainly, there are Canadians who are not anti-American, but in the present climate, they are very _quietly_ anti-anti-American. It is just not done to voice admiration or even simple respect. So much for freedom of speech (see Stef's comment and my response below.) Thanks, Grant

Michael: I sounds like you know more about this issue than I do, and if what you say is true, we must wonder why this, and not simple minded, vote getting bigotry, was not the stuff of Parrish's argument. Thanks. Grant

"Bastard Idiot": Thanks for writing Ms. Parrish. She does not to hear from the world. And I wish she had been with me in a taxi in Rochester in the early days of the Iraqi war. The driver quietly observed his disappointment that Canada had chosen not to participate. There was a long pause. And then he looked at me in the rear view mirror, and said, "It will not be forgotten." Nor should it be. Thanks, Grant

Stef: I share your concern that freedom of speech is now curtailed, but isn't this what happens in a time of war? People circle the wagons, they marshall their resolve. Freedom of speech isn't "optional," of course, but it does contract in time of war. Thanks very much, Grant

[Joshua Macy]

Stef,

interesting idiom, I don't think I've run across it before. From context I'm guessing that "cut down" means "makes the New York Times best seller list."

[Fred Boness]

Americans have historically made a habit of angering the world. The Nazis hated the U.S. The communists hate the U.S. The Arabs hate the U.S. The North Koreans hate the U.S.

America has always found a way to piss off the scum of the Earth. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Canada is somewhat different. What's left of Canada after decades of losing the best and brightest people to the United States is unbalanced and not as much anti American as childishly contrary.

[Eric Mortensen]

Hi Gary, well said. What's really really sad is that you could replace "Canada" with almost any country in Europe (eg Norway, where I live) and everything you said would still be 100% accurate. There is something about homogenous social democracies, small and large, that makes them all fear the heterogenous America's cultural and economic power. It has always been like this. It has nothing to do with Bush or Iraq.

Regards,
Eric

[Grant]

Gary, that's a good point, and a kind of tragic one. America has a way of drawing away all the people who share its values and could be replied to "talk down" the anti-American sentiments of their fellow countrymen/women. Thanks, Grant

Eric, Very interesting. Canada likes to think it has something in common with Scandinavian countries, and I am deeply depressed to think that this might be one of them. It must be true that global anti-Americanism increased with the fall of the Soviets. America was now the one great power. But this really is too strange when you think about it. Best, Grant

[greg]

I lived up in Ottawa for a couple years back in '94 and I must say that the anti-USA feeling you've described was widespread back then. Seems to me that current events have simply magnified what was always lurking. My folks both have fairly recognizeable Bostonian accents and part of the reason they decided to move back to the states was the incessant moral superiority of our Canadian brethren. That said, I had a blast living up there and I was grateful to be in town during the resurgence of the Sens.

[Grant]

Greg, thanks for the ethnographic data. Parochial even in the nation's capital! Thanks, Grant

[Jeff Licquia]

Anyone caught publicly saying such things in "the land of the free" is cut down immediately; I've long given up on the ideal of true freedom of speech in the USA.

Yes, it is a pity that Michael Moore is in jail, his family penniless, after the blowback from his ill-fated movies hit.

But hey, he should have paid attention. Who could have ignored the ruthlessness shown at Al Franken's trial? Barbra Streisand left that courtroom in tears. (Fortunately for her, she was still savvy enough to toe the line, lest she risk her own "extended vacation".)

[Ilkka Kokkarinen]

"Really, there is no comparison. The US leads in scientific accomplishment (see Nobel lists and patents awards), athletics (see Olympic wins), education (see Ph.D.s produced), business innovation, technological innovation, and cultural innovation. Oh, Canada. Poor Canada. Your neighbor outstrips you on every dimension."

Well, Blue America clearly does. Red America clearly does not. I can't name very many scientific accomplishments or business or cultural innovations coming from Kansas or Mississippi or Alabama, even though I can name a few coming from Canada. Can you?

I doubt that very many people in Canada or Europe hate the Blue America. I'd even go as far as to say that if the whole USA was Blue, USA as a nation would be universally beloved and admired. (Some good examples of this phenomenon include Hollywood and New York.)

But since all Americans are lumped into a single monolith, the blues also become targets for the hatred and hostility that really belongs to the reds.

[Grant]

Ilkka, thanks for the observation. I bet that red American supplies its sons and daughters who, through the exercise of their Americanness and regional value, make signals contributions to all the fields mentioned. But in any case, this colourful distinction is not well understand by Canadians and expect their prejudice would not discriminate in any case. Thanks! Grant

[Grant]

Jeff, I will let Stef defend himself on this one. (Clever, though!) Stef, how about it? Grant

[Tom West]

I strongly suspect that most foreigners, when confronted with their own statement on the USA would backtrack and criticize the American government rather than Americans as a whole.

Given that, I'd say that the level of rhetoric coming from other countries is pretty much exactly what is coming from Americans with similar political beliefs (generally to the left of the Democrats). The rhetoric found in NYC against the American governmemt this weekend was not weaker than Parrish' outburst.

As for comparisons between Canada and the United States, I'm rather happy that both countries are the way they are. The idea that there is only one society that is "right" for every person is abhorrent. Those that are more individualistic can migrate to the USA where there is higher reward for accomplishment (and punishment for failure to achieve). This allows Canada to maintain a unique character (character that I suspect Mr. McCracken does not particularly care for, I suspect...) rather than being driven to become a clone of the United States.

[Grant]

Tom, everyone is entitled to their opinion and their character. I just wish the Canadian position came from worthier motives. Thanks, Grant