Skip to main content

What are the major sociological differences between America and Canada?

1) In America, the role of government is seen as enabling/not getting in the way of:
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

In Canada, the role is often described as:
"Peace, Order and Good Government"

This doesn't always happen, in either nation, but that is the mentality. The difference says a lot about how differently citizens view the government and what they expect it to do.

2) In Canada, liberal isn't a bad word. One of the main parties is called Liberal and you can't attack someone by saying they are 'too liberal'. To a Canadian, too liberal means too much in the center and not going out on a limb in either a conservative or progressive direction.

3) In Canada, our politicians don't talk about their religious beliefs...ever. It is seen as bad form and completely irrelevant. We've had quite a few Prime Ministers over the last 30 years who were Catholic, even devoutly Catholic all during the time we legalized abortion and gay marriage.



And even more information:   Canada is a soft power nation - influence on the world is a product of respect for politics and principles. Canada can't really MAKE anyone do anything, but nations often consider Canada's opinion, because we seem to do a pretty good job setting a decent example for how to run a country, and we've done some nice things in the past (including peacekeeping, and playing a key role in the establishment of the United Nations).

America is a hard power nation, in fact, THE hard power nation. While there are many advantages the USA has, the first is that the government has been long willing to put military and intelligence forces into maintaining economic power and political interests. In short, people do what the US wants because you need to have them on your side. If countries do not do what the US wants, regimes are toppled, wars are started, allies are turned against you.

This mindset informs how the populace thinks. Combative vs Persuasive. Multiculturalism vs Assimilation. Canada is somewhat inherently focused on the collective, both as a nation, and as part of the world. We see ourselves as part of a vast cooperative. America sees itself, from the outside, at least, as a singular nation that is responsible for controlling and shaping the world. Scaled down, the prototypical US citizen is driven by self-interest, and what benefits them / their family the most.

(This is also why most Canadians see universal healthcare as an obvious thing that any civilized nation would have, while many Americans seem to see it as a mechanism for have-nots to leech off society.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.