But it is refreshing to see the last few postings convey the intended message without name calling and sarcasm. I plead guilty to the sarcasm charge and for overzealousness toward my country.

Nothingman ( I got the sarcasm of “squinting” and found it funny, not offensive. :)

As an American, I congratulated my fellow North Americans on Canada Day. Perhaps I was being childish to think it would be reciprocated. Instead we get the same anti=american screed as if American citizens have never done anything good in this world. It’s always the negative here.

Until we learn to sit and listen instead of hectoring, we’ll never get anywhere.[/quote]

Robert, I agree with you that respect is paramount to having a healthy debate about important issues. Sarcasm gets flung around as an expression of peoples frustration. It’s all over this site and in no short supply in your own posts. So… I take it for what it is, frustration. Nothing personal.

Putting all Americans in the same package and calling them bad is wrong, the same as it would be wrong to classify anyone into a common group and make assumptions about all of them based on the actions of some.
This site deals with a lot of negative issues. They are important and need to be discussed. Since the US government holds the power to make decisions for the whole world then the decisions they do make are bound to be a huge part of these discussions.

The actions of a nations government often get interpreted as the ideas of the common people in that nation. I believe that your average person is reaching for the same goals, as you said. But, I don’t agree that the government is reaching for the same goals as the average person. That is why it is important to have sites like this no matter how negative it may seem. There will always be posts from people who are simply out to bash someone else. That shouldn’t happen so I say to you sincerely Happy (belated) Independence Day.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have used sarcasm at all; it just takes away from the sincerity of the rest of the post.

Oh, I have to admit that I actually didn’t see that sarcasm in your comment - I really thought you meant what you wrote. And I obviously disagreed. Damn, I read through it 3 times… ;D
Sorry then, I still have my problems with detecting rhetoric devices in the english language.

Except that Matt’s Canada Day entry was just as critical towards our own nation. But I agree, yes, if you ignore all the entries that have criticized Canadian policies, along with several other nations, ignore all the comments where Canadians and Americans seem to co-exist peacefully, and squint your eyes just enough, the site clearly looks like an Anti-America hate fest.
[/quote]

It’s amazing. Confusing criticism towards Us american politics with “anti-american hate speech” seems to be somewhat in fashion.
I agree that there are people (also on this site) who do it vice versa - pretending to criticize politics while it’s just false patriotism driving them. But alledging this site to be a single “hate fest” is sheer generalization and exaggeration.
Yeah maybe there IS some antpathy towards the US not only in Canada. I see such tendencies here in Europe as well. But one should also ask in how far this is legitimated by the very behaviour the US have been exhibiting for decades. There’s a direct consistence.

Showing disgust over the policy of a country does not mean one “hates” it in general let alone the people living in it. That’s a killer argument in my view.

Except that Matt’s Canada Day entry was just as critical towards our own nation. But I agree, yes, if you ignore all the entries that have criticized Canadian policies, along with several other nations, ignore all the comments where Canadians and Americans seem to co-exist peacefully, and squint your eyes just enough, the site clearly looks like an Anti-America hate fest.

I’m the first to admit that Canadian kids today seem to love to hate America. For some reason, it seems to have become part of popular teen culture. I’m also the first to admit that most of the hatred is unjustified and taken too far. Some could argue that my last statement is incorrect, but you need only listen to the statements made by many of our youth to see that it’s not. Even on this message board you can occasionally see insults to American people as a whole. Many Canadians have gotten it into their head that we are somehow smarter and morally superior. Perhaps it’s partly a cultural retaliation for all those years of Canada being the butt end of so many jokes on American television? Who knows, that’s not my point, and it’s not a topic that I really care enough to debate on.

My point is that I can somewhat empathize with you that Canada is ripe with Anti-American sentiment that has no basis whatsoever. When I see or hear a comment like “Americans are so fucking stupid,” or “American are hatemongers,” I’m just as amused by the irony as you probably are. That said, there is absolutely no reason that Canadians cannot be critical of American policies, especially when the same criticism is expressed towards our own nation and others. Matt’s entries aren’t just childish jabs at our neighbours across the border, nor is he responsible for any such jabs that appear in the comments section. Political criticism is not the same as unfounded anti-Americanism, and I’m starting to believe that the majority of your posts are rooted from an inability to tell the difference. If I criticize Zimbabwe’s recent election, does that mean that I hate Zimbabweans? Of course not. Just as if I criticize something that the Bush administration does, it doesn’t mean that I am showing any animosity towards Americans. Perhaps criticisms seem more insulting because they are harder to simply disregard. Once again, it’s a topic for another debate.

I think that you and I agree on one thing: Americans and Canadians are essentially the same. They are far more alike than many of them are willing to admit. I’ve never personally been down the the States, but that is from financial limitations rather than some objection towards what seems like a beautiful country. Given these similarities and the fact that Canadians are often greatly affected by American political policies, I see no reason why our nation should be denied the right to discuss the past and present of our southern neighbours. If you interpret Matt’s posts as Anti-American than I pray that your never suffer the misfortune of entering a Canadian high school.

As an American, I congratulated my fellow North Americans on Canada Day. Perhaps I was being childish to think it would be reciprocated. Instead we get the same anti=american screed as if American citizens have never done anything good in this world. It’s always the negative here.

Until we learn to sit and listen instead of hectoring, we’ll never get anywhere.

I will tell you what to think.
I will tell you what to wear.
I will tell you what to feel.
I will tell you what to see.
Don’t worry. Everything is just fine.
Shhhhhhh
Sleep Now.[/quote]”

Well, as a Democratic-Republic, we the people still hold the keys to the car. The recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd amendment being an individual right will ensure that it remains so. Unlike Canada, the citizens are the boss in the relationship between governed and government. We just need to take back power from the Federal level and give it back to the State and local level. The spilt in the US now is not one of Democrats v. Republicans or Liberals v. Conservatives as much as it is Big Government v. Small Government.

Most americans want the same things; we disagree on how to get there. Talk about abolishing slavery was always on the table in the US. The founding fathers, both slave owners and non-owners were against slavery, but felt powerless to end it at that time. In an effort to strengthen the Union as a whole, compromises were made. (As compromises are still made).

If people are interested in solving societal problems, they quickly find that refusing to compromise and demonizing their “enemies” is not the most productive way to effect change. Working together works better than showing up at a Presidential appearence and shouting incoherently. Calling Americans names and implying we are all idiots is not really believable. I mean, what are we up to now, 350 million? That’s a lot of different viewpoints. Besides, the Canadians on this site are lucky, they need not visit or live here if they don’t want to. Peace and love, brothers and sisters.[/quote]

The “enemies” live within each of us as individuals. When is it ever OK to compromise your values? My comment was about society in general, not a US vs Canada thing. The idea being to think for yourself and stand up for your values, assuming what you put forth as your personal values are true and not just a PR move. What’s the use in having the keys to the car if your just going to leave it in the garage.
My mother is American and my father is Canadian by the way.
If you say you are against something then do not participate. That is the most productive way to effect change. It may not be the easy road but a person’s values should not be disposable. For example: If all the people who said they were against slavery actually chose not to keep slaves, can you imagine the kind of powerful message that would have been. I don’t remember saying that shouting incoherently was a productive way to solve anything.

Could you please list a source for the slaves building the White House? I need to look into that more.[/quote]

Robert, there was even a memorial for them in discussion in the congress some years prior.
http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs/04_a02_e03.html

Slaves having helped to built up the White House and Capitol is consensus among historians.

Could you please list a source for the slaves building the White House? I need to look into that more.[/quote]

The fact that you would call that book a work of fiction says pretty much all I need to hear. When you’re a globally celebrated historian than can contradict what is viewed as one of the most quintessential works in American historical literature then maybe I’ll listen to you. Until that time arrives, I’ll not waste my time.

And cut the shit with “mean spirited”. You leave comments on this website on a routine basis that are little more than childish jabs. I tend to deal with children like they’re children. If you want to be taken seriously, then start participating seriously rather than feigning interest at times and being an ass for the remainder.

That said; I’ll not entertain a discussion on the matter, it’s not open for one.

Not true. The Constitution guarantees the “right to pursue happiness”, it does not guarantee Happiness.[/quote]

It’s the same for me actually. I did not mean to alledge a constitutional guarantee of a certain happiness for everyone. I just wanted to turn attention to the point that the american consitution as the only one in the world mentions a “unalienable right” of being happy to everyone.
That’s in so far questionable as there are much more imaginations of personal happiness than a social community can take without collapsing inevitably.

Not true. The Constitution guarantees the “right to pursue happiness”, it does not guarantee Happiness.

Could you please list a source for the slaves building the White House? I need to look into that more.

Say what you will about growth and time and the eventuality of equality, but the reality remains that African Americans in the Southern States still had to use segregated toilets, water fountains, and areas of restaurants. They attended segregated schools, and rarely received anywhere near the same level legal status as whites. That, whether you like it or not, is an American reality, and a blight on all those lofty principles on which the nation was supposedly founded.

Speaking of equality and segregation, what are your thoughts on the afro-centric school that will be opening in Toronto in the near future? Is this a step forward for black students?Or is this segregation all over again?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080130/Black_schools_080130/20080130?hub=Canada

Stepping back, while those in your area might have peacefully coexisted with Native American communities upon their arrival, the reality remains that over time they were diminished and, ultimately, succumbed to the same fate as every other American aboriginal group. Of course, while your ancestors were having dinner parties with the locals, outright aboriginal genocide was taking place up and down the southern coast of the United States. I would suggest that you spend some time, starting with Howard Zinn’s ‘A People’s History Of The United States’, and actually allow yourself to become open to a version of history that isn’t replete with rainbows and unicorns.

Your assertion that everyone involved at the Constitutional Convention was opposed to slavery is incorrect. In truth, had the matter seriously been addressed on the floor, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and even Virginia may very well have opted out of the Convention altogether. Their economies relied on the existence of it - we are, at the end of the day, talking about rich men that had their own interests in mind as well as revolutionary wants. In truth, one of the securities provided by the disassociation between the colonies and the Empire was the securing of the continuation of slave practices. Those that represented the Northern States were not in a position to seriously broach the subject without plummeting the entire Convention into turmoil and thus decided against even tabling the subject.

There is no question that the abolitionist movement existed for many years prior to the adoption of the 13th Amendment, and even long after it was adopted. But that is not to say that it was at all a significant movement during the decades between independence and the 1850’s. Even then, and despite the social implications of the actions of the likes of John Brown and the impact that it had on creating tensions in the South, the impetus of the Civil War had to do with State’s rights, though one could argue that one of those ‘rights’ included the continued acceptance of the practice of slavery.

After Antietam, Lincoln was given the perceived victory he needed to exploit the slavery issue, making abolitionism a Union objective, despite the fact that many who fought for the Union were enraged by the Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, Lincoln himself had always been an abolitionist at heart, but his correspondence with Horace Greeley clearly demonstrates that his primary objective was securing the Union and that if he could do it without freeing a single slave that he would. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to ennoble the war and, in one fell swoop, ended the possibility of foreign recognition of the Confederacy as an independent entity.

Of course, while individuals such as Greeley, Douglas, and others saw the Emancipation Proclamation as a temporary victory, the realities of the Jim Crow South would result in the continuation of massive inequalities between whites and African Americans, ones that would not be confronted and amended for over another century.

Say what you will about growth and time and the eventuality of equality, but the reality remains that African Americans in the Southern States still had to use segregated toilets, water fountains, and areas of restaurants. They attended segregated schools, and rarely received anywhere near the same level of legal status as whites. That, whether you like it or not, is an American reality, and a blight on all those lofty principles on which the nation was supposedly founded.

Sure, there are examples to the contrary, but they, in no way, remotely equal the massive inequalities faced by millions of African Americans prior to, and following, the adoption of the 13th Amendment.

During both major world conflicts fought by the United States in the 20th Century, the role of African Americans in the US Armed forces was massively limited. It would not be until Korea and Vietnam that African Americans would begin to serve in truly mixed race units. The reason? Because given the nature of those conflicts, and the much smaller scale of the military resources used to fight them, the draft was aimed more at exploiting economically disparaged segments of the population. It would not be until the draft was extended during Vietnam that white middle and upper class kids were targeted, an occurrence that played a significant role in helping turn the tide of public support against the war.

The colonial exploitation of North America, not to mention Africa and Asia, produced unspeakable results. Even today, outside of major urban centers (and even within them), xenophobia is alive and well in the United States, just as it is to a degree in Canada. If someone of Middle Eastern descent walks into a Super Market in some small American or Canadian town, the looks that they will automatically receive will be the same. There is a reason for that, one that is historically engrained within us, one that exists because of a deep seeded sense of moral entitlement and superiority, whether we recognize it, or are willing to admit it, or not.

For centuries, immigrants have come to North America seeking a better life, one of opportunity. And, with the exception of the Irish in some cases, most that are non-whites have had to struggle to attain even the appearance of that ‘promised’ dream. Pointing to social diversity is all well and good. But the fact remains that while such social diversity amongst Caucasians from various parts of the world is viewed as proof positive that the dream itself exists and has been successful, those from other parts of the world are commonly left out of the lofty promotion of that achievement. In fact, if anything, they have been promoted as an unwelcome weight on societies that bask in the fact that their existences are ones of cultural diversity and cooperation.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/90379/?ses=05d0af5ddbdd6ce1a8b2a9f8656a64a2