Possibly not a healthy relationship...

[bcholmes]

An alternative path would be for [Canada] to simply remain committed to the values we hold -- and to try to advocate them in the world -- regardless of the contrary direction the United States might take. [Canadian Ambassador to the US Allan] Gotlieb rejects this approach, suggesting instead that we avoid taking positions aimed at creating "counter-weights to U.S. power." Rather, Canada should simply accept U.S. power as "the dominant feature of the contemporary international order" and avoid asserting positions -- even on morally important issues -- that put us at odds with Washington. Even when the U.S. does things that offend our sensibilities and our sense of justice, Gotlieb would apparently have us keep our eyes cast demurely downward.

So if the United States chooses to invade Iraq, to launch a lawless "war on terror," to start an arms race in space or to obstruct worldwide efforts on climate change, Canada should quietly stand by her man. Similarly, we should avoid supporting causes -- like banning land mines or protecting children in combat zones -- for fear that this sort of "sanctimonious" behaviour might annoy Washington. If we want to disagree with our powerful boyfriend, we should whisper softly in his ear, not embarrass him in public. We should confine ourselves to being the manipulative little woman behind the scenes, using our wiles to get what we want from him and using our position of influence over him as our ticket to status in the outside world.

Leaving aside for a minute any skepticism about the effectiveness of such a role -- whether the manipulative little woman really does manage to influence her man -- there is the aching question of what it means for us as a nation to take on this role.

It is hard to imagine a more demeaning vision for a woman -- or a country.

— Linda McQuaig, Holding the Bully's Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire

I'm enjoying this book, although I think it suffers from an unwillingness to view Canada as a nation that pursues an imperialist agenda over those nations (such as Haiti) where it has the strength to play that role. In McQuaig's worldview, when we're good, it's because Canada is Good! And when we're bad, it's because we're being sycophantic puppets of the U.S.

Comments

[sarah-dragon.livejournal.com]

I really need to read this book. I am sure I would probably disagree with many of her opinions but it has to be a good read. For me I have never seen Canada as more than a good neighbor and good ally. Perhaps thats a bit naive of me but we have such a cross-pollination of society that it never occurs to me worry over the relationship. I assumed Canada did what Canada wanted. I mean, even in the present admin the concept that America is going to "lean" on Canada seems absurd. Its not like we can really do anything, and I doubt we would ever consider "effin nukin Canada back to effin Lord Stanley's day" kind of behavior. I figure the most we would do is steal another hockey franchise.

However, thats my prejudice in taking Canada for granted and my naivete' with regard to the relationship between the two nations.

One thing though, and this could just generally be the fact that I have only seen snippets of the book on your journal, is that she sounds... nationalistic? And I mean in the same vein as the Kaiser, not run of the mill national pride. I have to be wrong about that but maybe the nationalistic undertone is part of the unwillingness you mention.