C
cacruden
Guest
ok, ok, be technical -- I know they are part of asia (persia).... but they are closer culturally (now) to the arab world (but with a longer more varied history).
|
|
|
C
Canuck 36
Guest
Indeed, I read that book too and was quite surprised to see the difference; especially considering our two nations are moving further apart.
M
matt77gr1
Guest
tell that to some of my iranian friends and there will be a scene "arab"s beating up a canadian
! its interesting how the western world sees that war thou, since racism was a huge part of the 8yr war, at least on iraq's part.
B
building babel
Guest
Canuck 36:
Thanks for your summary of where we all fit in. It explains a lot of things!
Thanks for your summary of where we all fit in. It explains a lot of things!
C
cacruden
Guest
" Canadians collectively are Libertarian Left while Americans are collectively Authoritarian Right and the difference is growing not contracting."
The problem with that statement is that you are taking Canada as a whole, and United States as a whole. Or you are taking a state that is 3000 miles away from another. Additionally, you are taking polling samples at a time when the US is "pissed" after being directly attacked, whereas Canada was not directly attacked. When you are attacked, your views tend to harden. This changes things for a medium amount of time (maybe as long as 10 years). An Albertan is much closer (politically) to Montana -- than Toronto, A Nova Scotian is closer to Maine than Toronto. The North American continent is a constant blending of shades, but if you fold the map to bring far distances together -- it looks like a sudden change in colour.
Lets face it when you "write a book" -- you already have in mind what you want to write. Then you go out and find facts that support your position while "playing down" facts that do not. Texas is in the bible belt -- i.e. Christian Evangilist area..... something that we do not have much of up here -- and also is not a big force in Northern United States.
I have worked in Toronto (13 years), Chicago (6 months), Denver (2 months), San Diego (1 year), and London England (1 year). When moving from Toronto to Chicago (in the same socio-economic class)... I found very little difference between the people I worked with in Chicago -- and in Toronto. The political systems tend to swing between polar positions (within a limited political spectrum) in both countries -- so yes when you have the Republicans (large influence from the Christian Right) in power in the United States and the Liberal party in Canada.... it seems far apart.... but people within given geographical areas are not.
You will also find that the politicians tend to be on the authoritarian side of the line, and the general public more libertarian (at least in Canada).
The problem with that statement is that you are taking Canada as a whole, and United States as a whole. Or you are taking a state that is 3000 miles away from another. Additionally, you are taking polling samples at a time when the US is "pissed" after being directly attacked, whereas Canada was not directly attacked. When you are attacked, your views tend to harden. This changes things for a medium amount of time (maybe as long as 10 years). An Albertan is much closer (politically) to Montana -- than Toronto, A Nova Scotian is closer to Maine than Toronto. The North American continent is a constant blending of shades, but if you fold the map to bring far distances together -- it looks like a sudden change in colour.
Lets face it when you "write a book" -- you already have in mind what you want to write. Then you go out and find facts that support your position while "playing down" facts that do not. Texas is in the bible belt -- i.e. Christian Evangilist area..... something that we do not have much of up here -- and also is not a big force in Northern United States.
I have worked in Toronto (13 years), Chicago (6 months), Denver (2 months), San Diego (1 year), and London England (1 year). When moving from Toronto to Chicago (in the same socio-economic class)... I found very little difference between the people I worked with in Chicago -- and in Toronto. The political systems tend to swing between polar positions (within a limited political spectrum) in both countries -- so yes when you have the Republicans (large influence from the Christian Right) in power in the United States and the Liberal party in Canada.... it seems far apart.... but people within given geographical areas are not.
You will also find that the politicians tend to be on the authoritarian side of the line, and the general public more libertarian (at least in Canada).
N
nicetommy2002
Guest
Here are my results. Does this mean I'm a lefty? I hope not
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36
B
building babel
Guest
I'd say you're teetering on the brink...
C
Canuck 36
Guest
cacruden: The book Fire & Ice is written by Michael Adams, who is the President of the Environics group of research and communications consulting companies. His entire job revolves around conducting and interpreting polls. The research he used in writing the book is at a minimum based upon polls conducted over the period of a decade.
That said you did raise one point he also makes in his book: namely parts of Canada are closer to parts of the US than they are to other parts of Canada. Another major issue he points out is that although we in Canada focus on our regional differences (Quebec/Western alienation, etc.), there's actually much greater regional variances in opinions and societal structure found in the United States.
But the main point the book reveals, is that the views of Canadians and Americans (on a whole) are actually diverging over time, a view radically different from those who fear Canada is on its way to becoming the 51st State and/or that there are no differences between 'us' and 'them'.
[BTW: I highly recommend Mr. Adams' books: Sex in the Snow, Better Happy Than Rich, and Fire and Ice, for all to read.]
That said you did raise one point he also makes in his book: namely parts of Canada are closer to parts of the US than they are to other parts of Canada. Another major issue he points out is that although we in Canada focus on our regional differences (Quebec/Western alienation, etc.), there's actually much greater regional variances in opinions and societal structure found in the United States.
But the main point the book reveals, is that the views of Canadians and Americans (on a whole) are actually diverging over time, a view radically different from those who fear Canada is on its way to becoming the 51st State and/or that there are no differences between 'us' and 'them'.
[BTW: I highly recommend Mr. Adams' books: Sex in the Snow, Better Happy Than Rich, and Fire and Ice, for all to read.]
B
boiler2000
Guest
Clearly, your understanding of the second world war is rudimentary at best.
Russian military casualties numbered between 8 and 9 million, whereas Russian civilian casualties are closer to 17 million (at least twice as many). Had the Russians "not fought", things would have been a lot worse for them, as Hitler has plans to depopulate most of Eastern Europe. The Einsatzgruppen (death squads in the East) were the beginning of this general policy, and they were very effective in killing millions (by shooting and in mobile gas vans) on newly occupied Russian territory, burning thousands of villages, etc...
C
cacruden
Guest
>I'd say you're teetering on the brink...
I'd say a little more than teetering...... I would think that to be considered a centerist you have to be at LEAST between -2 to 2 (probably a little less).
I'd say a little more than teetering...... I would think that to be considered a centerist you have to be at LEAST between -2 to 2 (probably a little less).
C
cacruden
Guest
>The book Fire & Ice is written by Michael Adams, who is the
>President of the Environics group of research and
>communications consulting companies. His entire job revolves
>around conducting and interpreting polls. The research he
>used in writing the book is at a minimum based upon polls
>conducted over the period of a decade.
Does not mean that he does not have bias which filters into the book or polling..... even if you are aware of it it is hard to be "totally objective" -- of course you always think you are (that applies to all)
>That said you did raise one point he also makes in his book:
>namely parts of Canada are closer to parts of the US than
>they are to other parts of Canada. Another major issue he
>points out is that although we in Canada focus on our
>regional differences (Quebec/Western alienation, etc.),
>there's actually much greater regional variances in opinions
>and societal structure found in the United States.
So some parts of the US are closer to some parts of Canada; The US spectrum is WIDER than the Canadian spectrum (which probably means all of the Canadian spectrum is contained within the US spectrum -- just varying porportions).... but if you use an arbitrary line in the sand (the border - drawn arbitrarily by a war 200+ years ago) the viewpoints are moving farther apart. But could you not say the same if you "draw" another arbitrary line through just the United States -- I mean they cover a spectrum that is inclusive of Canada.
>President of the Environics group of research and
>communications consulting companies. His entire job revolves
>around conducting and interpreting polls. The research he
>used in writing the book is at a minimum based upon polls
>conducted over the period of a decade.
Does not mean that he does not have bias which filters into the book or polling..... even if you are aware of it it is hard to be "totally objective" -- of course you always think you are (that applies to all)
>That said you did raise one point he also makes in his book:
>namely parts of Canada are closer to parts of the US than
>they are to other parts of Canada. Another major issue he
>points out is that although we in Canada focus on our
>regional differences (Quebec/Western alienation, etc.),
>there's actually much greater regional variances in opinions
>and societal structure found in the United States.
So some parts of the US are closer to some parts of Canada; The US spectrum is WIDER than the Canadian spectrum (which probably means all of the Canadian spectrum is contained within the US spectrum -- just varying porportions).... but if you use an arbitrary line in the sand (the border - drawn arbitrarily by a war 200+ years ago) the viewpoints are moving farther apart. But could you not say the same if you "draw" another arbitrary line through just the United States -- I mean they cover a spectrum that is inclusive of Canada.
C
cacruden
Guest
>Clearly, your understanding of the second world war is
>rudimentary at best.
>Russian military casualties numbered between 8 and 9 million,
>whereas Russian civilian casualties are closer to 17 million (at
>least twice as many). Had the Russians "not fought", things
>would have been a lot worse for them, as Hitler has plans to
>depopulate most of Eastern Europe. The Einsatzgruppen
>(death squads in the East) were the beginning of this general
>policy, and they were very effective in killing millions (by
>shooting and in mobile gas vans) on newly occupied Russian
>territory, burning thousands of villages, etc...
The 17 million casualties that were Russian civilians were because they felt they were caught between a rock and a hardplace. i.e. Stalin said if you retreat you would be executed (and that included civilians -- drafted for the defense of the city). On the other side some of the (forget the grouping) were hung from lightposts when the Germans won (as a terror like threat to the general population) which caused the opposite effect since the civilian population felt there were no good options other than to fight. The externination camps were mainly focused on the Jewish population (of which Poland had the largest jewish community).
If there was a mass surrender, there would be less civilian deaths -- (jewish would still be dead). If we decided -- hey lets surrender Kuwait... there would be less dead.... Also Iran.... but arguing shades of grey after millions are killed is sorta stupid anyways (which is the point I was trying to make). Left or right, tyrants have killed millions -- Cambodia, USSR, Iraq, etc.
>rudimentary at best.
>Russian military casualties numbered between 8 and 9 million,
>whereas Russian civilian casualties are closer to 17 million (at
>least twice as many). Had the Russians "not fought", things
>would have been a lot worse for them, as Hitler has plans to
>depopulate most of Eastern Europe. The Einsatzgruppen
>(death squads in the East) were the beginning of this general
>policy, and they were very effective in killing millions (by
>shooting and in mobile gas vans) on newly occupied Russian
>territory, burning thousands of villages, etc...
The 17 million casualties that were Russian civilians were because they felt they were caught between a rock and a hardplace. i.e. Stalin said if you retreat you would be executed (and that included civilians -- drafted for the defense of the city). On the other side some of the (forget the grouping) were hung from lightposts when the Germans won (as a terror like threat to the general population) which caused the opposite effect since the civilian population felt there were no good options other than to fight. The externination camps were mainly focused on the Jewish population (of which Poland had the largest jewish community).
If there was a mass surrender, there would be less civilian deaths -- (jewish would still be dead). If we decided -- hey lets surrender Kuwait... there would be less dead.... Also Iran.... but arguing shades of grey after millions are killed is sorta stupid anyways (which is the point I was trying to make). Left or right, tyrants have killed millions -- Cambodia, USSR, Iraq, etc.
B
boiler2000
Guest
Everything you've said is wrong.
Partisan fighting and retributions against quislings account for a tiny portion of civilian casualties. Killing was not confined to Jews, but included communists, the intelligentsia, professionals, and in some parts (like Belarus), it seems it was open season on everyone - thousands of villages were entirely liquidated and burned down (often with villagers still in them). This had nothing to do with the war effort, or fighting the resistance. As with the extermination of the Jews, Germans often prioritized extermination operations even when they were detrimental to the war effort (IE, providing cargo train cars for transport into extermination camps when they were much needed for supplying front lines).
Your notion that a Russian surrender would have improved the situation for civilians there and elsewhere would be laughable if it wasn't disturbing.
Partisan fighting and retributions against quislings account for a tiny portion of civilian casualties. Killing was not confined to Jews, but included communists, the intelligentsia, professionals, and in some parts (like Belarus), it seems it was open season on everyone - thousands of villages were entirely liquidated and burned down (often with villagers still in them). This had nothing to do with the war effort, or fighting the resistance. As with the extermination of the Jews, Germans often prioritized extermination operations even when they were detrimental to the war effort (IE, providing cargo train cars for transport into extermination camps when they were much needed for supplying front lines).
Your notion that a Russian surrender would have improved the situation for civilians there and elsewhere would be laughable if it wasn't disturbing.
C
cacruden
Guest
So where back to the simple point.... what makes Saddam better than Hitler -- because he only killed x million instead of 30 million? I am saying that more people got killed because they fought -- simple ok so it might have been 20 million not 30 million (now we are closer in numbers).... but again it still comes down to left or right -- killing millions is just shades of evil .... whether the dictator is on the left or right. Trying to say Saddam was less evil is just stupid....
B
boiler2000
Guest
Then, you must agree that Truman and Churchill belong alongside Hitler, Stalin and Saddam. Between the incendiary and atom bomb attacks on Japan and the fire-bombing of German cities, we have a million or two civilian victims, not counting anything else.
Also, Johnson presided over hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese killed.
How do you justify that?
From your wild assertions about history, backed up by nothing but vague notions based in ideology, I am confident you'll come up with a great rationalization.
Also, Johnson presided over hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese killed.
How do you justify that?
From your wild assertions about history, backed up by nothing but vague notions based in ideology, I am confident you'll come up with a great rationalization.