Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could tell you about what my North Face jacket logo *really* means, but then . . .
North Face is an American VF Company founded in 1966 in Berkley, California and now headquartered in Denver, Colorado. It only has 3 distribution centers. I'm not sure what North Face has to do with Canadian fashions in general but considering who the founders were and where the headquarters are established now I know what the jacket logo looks like to me but I doubt it means the same thing to me as it means to you. So, after your above lead in ...... what does it mean to you?
There was also a form of CanCon Lite with magazines for a while, IIRC. "Canadian" magazines were eligible for subsidies of some kind, and so certain U.S. magazines (thinking of Time, which definitely did) produced so-called Canadian editions at one point, with often little to no Canadian content except for the Canadian ads that replaced the American ones.
I remember that. Time and Reader's Digest were fine. Reader's Digest had absolutely no problem, as it published a uniquely Canadian edition featuring condensations of items from Canadian sources, among others, and had a Canadian head office in Montreal; while Time's Canadian edition often had an item on what happened over the past week in Ottawa, or a visit by a member of the royal family, or perhaps a review of a Canadian book, or some other kind of reporting on Canada. But for the most part, Time was news and commentary through American eyes, on parts of the world that were not Canada; but by including something Canadian in every issue, it qualified as Cancon.
Other publications were not about to produce special Canadian editions, even by including small items related to Canada, but Canadians wanted them anyway. Eventually, the Canadian government gave up, and "Cancon Lite" ended. (And thanks, Acajack, for that phrase.)
Interestingly, Time stopped producing a Canadian edition in about 2009 or so. I've subscribed for years, and got the notice, which said I could continue with the American edition, or cancel. I opted to continue receiving the American edition, and don't really notice much difference from the days of the Canadian edition. Heck, I'd rather read all that Time has to say about a newsworthy world event, rather than have that edition edited down just to squeeze in something Canadian.
I remember that. Time and Reader's Digest were fine. Reader's Digest had absolutely no problem, as it published a uniquely Canadian edition featuring condensations of items from Canadian sources, among others, and had a Canadian head office in Montreal; while Time's Canadian edition often had an item on what happened over the past week in Ottawa, or a visit by a member of the royal family, or perhaps a review of a Canadian book, or some other kind of reporting on Canada. But for the most part, Time was news and commentary through American eyes, on parts of the world that were not Canada; but by including something Canadian in every issue, it qualified as Cancon.
Other publications were not about to produce special Canadian editions, even by including small items related to Canada, but Canadians wanted them anyway. Eventually, the Canadian government gave up, and "Cancon Lite" ended. (And thanks, Acajack, for that phrase.)
Interestingly, Time stopped producing a Canadian edition in about 2009 or so. I've subscribed for years, and got the notice, which said I could continue with the American edition, or cancel. I opted to continue receiving the American edition, and don't really notice much difference from the days of the Canadian edition. Heck, I'd rather read all that Time has to say about a newsworthy world event, rather than have that edition edited down just to squeeze in something Canadian.
Chevy, that goes to support my opinion that you don't maintain a culture through legislative ordered censorship. That is the crux of limiting what might be deemed foreign content in everything from news to science.
I remember that. Time and Reader's Digest were fine. Reader's Digest had absolutely no problem, as it published a uniquely Canadian edition featuring condensations of items from Canadian sources, among others, and had a Canadian head office in Montreal; while Time's Canadian edition often had an item on what happened over the past week in Ottawa, or a visit by a member of the royal family, or perhaps a review of a Canadian book, or some other kind of reporting on Canada. But for the most part, Time was news and commentary through American eyes, on parts of the world that were not Canada; but by including something Canadian in every issue, it qualified as Cancon.
Other publications were not about to produce special Canadian editions, even by including small items related to Canada, but Canadians wanted them anyway. Eventually, the Canadian government gave up, and "Cancon Lite" ended. (And thanks, Acajack, for that phrase.)
Interestingly, Time stopped producing a Canadian edition in about 2009 or so. I've subscribed for years, and got the notice, which said I could continue with the American edition, or cancel. I opted to continue receiving the American edition, and don't really notice much difference from the days of the Canadian edition. Heck, I'd rather read all that Time has to say about a newsworthy world event, rather than have that edition edited down just to squeeze in something Canadian.
Now that I think of it I believe Sports Illustrated did have a Canadian edition as well for a short time. Like Time, it also had very little Canadian editorial content.
And if I am not mistaken, you couldn't actually get the original American edition of Time shipped to a Canadian address during that period.
I agree about Reader's Digest. Its Canadian edition did and still does have a lot of Canadian content. It's a fairly distinct national publication just like the many others they produce all around the world. Reader's Digest also has a French Canadian edition (called "Sélection") which is distinct as well, and not the same edition you'd get in France, and not simply a translation of the CanadiAn or American versions either.
Now that I think of it I believe Sports Illustrated did have a Canadian edition as well for a short time. Like Time, it also had very little Canadian editorial content.
Well, if it didn't have an official Canadian edition, it had an unofficial one during hockey season.
Quote:
And if I am not mistaken, you couldn't actually get the original American edition of Time shipped to a Canadian address during that period.
No, you couldn't, and I say that as a longtime subscriber. As I recall, I started my subscription using one of those business reply mail "blow-in" cards that was in an issue I bought at a newsstand. The card went to a Canadian address, and the resulting invoice came from a Canadian address, had a Canadian postage meter stamp, and a Canada Post cancellation; and was payable in Canadian dollars. Time must have had at least some business presence in Canada--maybe not that of Reader's Digest, but certainly more than Field and Stream, or Mad Magazine, or Golf Digest.
At any rate, if the delivery address was in Canada, the Canadian edition of Time would be sent. But Time has had (and perhaps still does have) different editions for different regions of the world. I was surprised to find Time for sale at a newsstand in Australia, maybe twenty years ago, but a close look at the cover told me that it was the Asia-Pacific edition. I suppose without any Cancon Lite regulations, sending the American edition to Canadian subscribers saved them some money; and thankfully, I'm still billed in Canadian dollars. No idea if they're still publishing an Asia-Pacific edition though.
Quote:
I agree about Reader's Digest. Its Canadian edition did and still does have a lot of Canadian content. It's a fairly distinct national publication just like the many others they produce all around the world. Reader's Digest also has a French Canadian edition (called "Sélection") which is distinct as well, and not the same edition you'd get in France, and not simply a translation of the CanadiAn or American versions either.
Interesting! I always wondered about French Canadian editions, especially as Reader's Digest was published in Montreal. Thanks for the info!
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons
Later, there was discussion about whether Sirius and XM satellite radio services would be allowed in Canada, since they had little to no Cancon. They responded by including Canadian channels in their lineup (mostly news and public affairs), and were allowed to broadcast to Canadian subscribers. Plus, they made an effort to include internationally-known Canadian artists (Gordon Lightfoot, the Guess Who, Rush, for example) on their other music channels.
.
XM also has Canadian English language country music and Franco-phone pop / traditional / country music.
I did not read the thread, but the answer is absolutely not. But that is because most of Canada dresses for the elements rather than for fashion. It's cold in wide swaths of the country, and even at its absolute very best appearance here you're looking at what... A Canada Goose parka? Moncler puffer? Bogner ski jacket? And in Vancouver, an Arc'teryx Veilance rain jacket? And the fact that Blundstones are considered a fashionable piece of kit - akin to wearing black belugas on your feet - really speaks to how desperately Canadians - even wealthy and fashion conscious ones - dress just to protect against the dour weather.
As well, critical mass of population, celebrity culture and higher wealth disparity gives the US far more of a propensity and leisure to spend more time and money on dressing frivolously and fashionably. I mean as a whole the US dresses pretty badly because the terrible dressers in ill fitting jeans, slacks and matted t shirts - nevermind the 30% obesity rate - will far outnumber those that do dress well. But the upper crust jet set crew of Manhattan/Los Angeles/Boston/Silicon Valley will usually look - with the money to afford it and the time to spend to dress well - like they belong on the world's fashion runways, easily.
For the record I think some of the best dressed of any single country are actually on the streets of Tokyo. Never have I seen such effortless cool some a wide array of backgrounds and economic classes.
Pardon me, this is going to be long-winded, my sister goes to Pace in New York, and she's instilled in me an interest in fashion design, I love to discuss the topic...
One, the US is undeniably a fashion capital, Canada is undeniably not. In terms of subcultural diversity, heritage, cultural distinction in general, and the economics and industry behind fashion, the US obviously out-competes Canada in regards to fashion. It's not even an argument. On top of that, look at the list of fashion designers from each country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fashion_designers), then consider designers of shoes and jewelry - America outpaces most if not all countries in terms of the success of it's fashion industry, outside of the considerations most would give France and Italy for their fashion heritage, and their classic couturiers. I think this concludes the debate - "Americans", whether on average or at median, are "more fashionable" than Canadians.
If you're saying "Canadians are more fashionable" based on some weird, Europhilic assumption that Europeans, continent-wide, are entirely fashionable, and some even weirder desire to compare or associate Canada with Europe, then I'm afraid you don't have much of an argument - especially because the fashion industries of Europe are much more linked to America's also robust fashion industry and luxury market. Take it country by country - unless you're making a really skewed comparison vis a vis metropolitan fashion markets and scenes to force a Canadian win (Toronto vs Omaha, Seattle vs Montreal, rural vs metropolitan), then the answer is the US without question.
So in those ways, I'd agree with you, Svelten.
Your slights of the US are a little odd though. I don't know how you can judge that the "US as a whole dresses pretty badly", or assume that Americans wear, specifically, "ill fitting jeans and slacks and matted t shirts" - what constitutes ill-fitting? I think Europe, with it's metropolitan propensity for super tight jeans, and male capris, in the last decade, ticks off the "ill fitting jeans" part of your post more than America does.
And what does the obesity rate have to do with anything? Obesity as defined under BMI incorporates quite normal, even visibly healthy body types - it's a deceptive measurement, and the thresholds for overweightedness or obesity are set low enough that, for example, most countries have a much higher than 50% general overweight rate, putting those who are overweight or obese within the "global average body type" - most athletes on any given high school or college sports team will register as overweight or obese - include the fact that no two ethnic groups have the same Percentage Body Fat / Body Adiposity for the same BMI (ie, African vs Asian Americans, or the fact that white Europeans have higher %'s of body fat per the same BMI than do white Americans - you've never seen obesity and fashion mix badly until you've seen the pub-going men in England wearing fitted t-shirts, revealing their notable beer guts), differences in survey method per country, plus the locational and regional nature of the issue across such a large landmass and population, and "obesity rates" are often deceptive, misleading, and useless in an international, and even national, context. It wouldn't reveal anything about how well-dressed an individual (let alone a nationality, large and diverse as they usually are) is or not. Obesity only becomes a visible, non-ambiguously bad thing once one reaches sufficiently high BMI's of at least 50, or well above that (the point at which, for example, your mobility might become impaired due to excess fat) - and less than 1% of Americans have BMI's higher than that.
Deliberations like this are always hard - fashion, like all art, is subjective, and I suppose it's down to personal opinions whether one culture dresses better than another - if the two culture's being compared are on equal footing. I wouldn't compare France to Thailand in terms of strength of fashion, nor would I compare Canada to the US in regards to the same competition. It's just not a reasonable comparison given the facts pertaining to the strength, size, and heritage of the US or France's fashion industry.
Japan is a fashion capital, and Tokyo is Japan's largest market for fashion - therefore, it should be compared to NYC or London, not "anywhere in the US or the UK" per se. I also think Tokyo's fashion scene is an acquired taste. It manages to be both too staid and conservative (Japanese men's fashion) and too silly and campy (female fashion and subcultural elements that are active in Japan). America is more, well, "hip" (while France nails "elegance", the UK nails "quirkiness", with a thrifty sensibility, Germany nails practicality and edginess, etc...). But, of course, if that's your thing...
I find that the major fashion countries of the world (Italy, France, the UK, and the US, all of which house the 4 major fashion capital cities) often have a gendered element, as well as an informal/formal element to their traditional fashion scene. Does anyone else find this? Italy, to me, is associated with the 'feminine informal', while France is associated with the 'feminine formal'. The UK has long been associated with the 'masculine formal', while the US is often favored for the 'masculine informal'.
Japan is kind of known for the 'masculine formal', like the UK, while Germany is more known for the 'masculine informal', like the US. Because of the continental nature of the American country and economy, there's also subregional variations - NYC is associated with the feminine formal, high fashion and couture, Los Angeles is associated with the feminine informal and street wear, Chicago is the center on the continent for sports wear, Boston and the wider New England region are known for the masculine formal, tailors, prep clothing, etc, Miami for swimwear and resort wear, and then the big cities of the South (Dallas, Charleston, Atlanta) for cosmetics - Charleston and Savannah are really good fashion and design cities for their size in North America.
Last edited by mapofthestars; 03-14-2021 at 08:40 PM..
Just the fact that we are talking about Americans, i predict this thread will get very popular.
Just the fact that it's another one of those STARTED BY AN AMERICAN threads suggesting some form of Canadian superlative that will invariably result in fractured egos and the usual nonsense from the usual quarter - - - - is that what you mean't to say way back when - Invince?
Pardon me, this is going to be long-winded, my sister goes to Pace in New York, and she's instilled in me an interest in fashion design, I love to discuss the topic...
One, the US is undeniably a fashion capital, Canada is undeniably not. In terms of subcultural diversity, heritage, cultural distinction in general, and the economics and industry behind fashion, the US obviously out-competes Canada in regards to fashion. It's not even an argument. On top of that, look at the list of fashion designers from each country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fashion_designers), then consider designers of shoes and jewelry - America outpaces most if not all countries in terms of the success of it's fashion industry, outside of the considerations most would give France and Italy for their fashion heritage, and their classic couturiers. I think this concludes the debate - "Americans", whether on average or at median, are "more fashionable" than Canadians.
If you're saying "Canadians are more fashionable" based on some weird, Europhilic assumption that Europeans, continent-wide, are entirely fashionable, and some even weirder desire to compare or associate Canada with Europe, then I'm afraid you don't have much of an argument - especially because the fashion industries of Europe are much more linked to America's also robust fashion industry and luxury market. Take it country by country - unless you're making a really skewed comparison vis a vis metropolitan fashion markets and scenes to force a Canadian win (Toronto vs Omaha, Seattle vs Montreal, rural vs metropolitan), then the answer is the US without question.
So in those ways, I'd agree with you, Svelten.
Your slights of the US are a little odd though. I don't know how you can judge that the "US as a whole dresses pretty badly", or assume that Americans wear, specifically, "ill fitting jeans and slacks and matted t shirts" - what constitutes ill-fitting? I think Europe, with it's metropolitan propensity for super tight jeans, and male capris, in the last decade, ticks off the "ill fitting jeans" part of your post more than America does.
And what does the obesity rate have to do with anything? Obesity as defined under BMI incorporates quite normal, even visibly healthy body types - it's a deceptive measurement, and the thresholds for overweightedness or obesity are set low enough that, for example, most countries have a much higher than 50% general overweight rate, putting those who are overweight or obese within the "global average body type" - most athletes on any given high school or college sports team will register as overweight or obese - include the fact that no two ethnic groups have the same Percentage Body Fat / Body Adiposity for the same BMI (ie, African vs Asian Americans, or the fact that white Europeans have higher %'s of body fat per the same BMI than do white Americans - you've never seen obesity and fashion mix badly until you've seen the pub-going men in England wearing fitted t-shirts, revealing their notable beer guts), differences in survey method per country, plus the locational and regional nature of the issue across such a large landmass and population, and "obesity rates" are often deceptive, misleading, and useless in an international, and even national, context. It wouldn't reveal anything about how well-dressed an individual (let alone a nationality, large and diverse as they usually are) is or not. Obesity only becomes a visible, non-ambiguously bad thing once one reaches sufficiently high BMI's of at least 50, or well above that (the point at which, for example, your mobility might become impaired due to excess fat) - and less than 1% of Americans have BMI's higher than that.
Deliberations like this are always hard - fashion, like all art, is subjective, and I suppose it's down to personal opinions whether one culture dresses better than another - if the two culture's being compared are on equal footing. I wouldn't compare France to Thailand in terms of strength of fashion, nor would I compare Canada to the US in regards to the same competition. It's just not a reasonable comparison given the facts pertaining to the strength, size, and heritage of the US or France's fashion industry.
Japan is a fashion capital, and Tokyo is Japan's largest market for fashion - therefore, it should be compared to NYC or London, not "anywhere in the US or the UK" per se. I also think Tokyo's fashion scene is an acquired taste. It manages to be both too staid and conservative (Japanese men's fashion) and too silly and campy (female fashion and subcultural elements that are active in Japan). America is more, well, "hip" (while France nails "elegance", the UK nails "quirkiness", with a thrifty sensibility, Germany nails practicality and edginess, etc...). But, of course, if that's your thing...
I find that the major fashion countries of the world (Italy, France, the UK, and the US, all of which house the 4 major fashion capital cities) often have a gendered element, as well as an informal/formal element to their traditional fashion scene. Does anyone else find this? Italy, to me, is associated with the 'feminine informal', while France is associated with the 'feminine formal'. The UK has long been associated with the 'masculine formal', while the US is often favored for the 'masculine informal'.
Japan is kind of known for the 'masculine formal', like the UK, while Germany is more known for the 'masculine informal', like the US. Because of the continental nature of the American country and economy, there's also subregional variations - NYC is associated with the feminine formal, high fashion and couture, Los Angeles is associated with the feminine informal and street wear, Chicago is the center on the continent for sports wear, Boston and the wider New England region are known for the masculine formal, tailors, prep clothing, etc, Miami for swimwear and resort wear, and then the big cities of the South (Dallas, Charleston, Atlanta) for cosmetics - Charleston and Savannah are really good fashion and design cities for their size in North America.
I mean, I've traveled across the US fairly extensively to both urban Alpha world cities and smaller rural towns so I've been there and seen it with my own eyes. A sleeveless tee, crocs, cargo pants on an overweight individual, is not fashionable nor aesthetically pleasing, but that, +/- a few changes is what you get in wide geographic swaths of America. Of course, like I said, most of what you'll find posted on Instagram from the major entertainment capitals look great - some of the best anywhere in the world, especially in youth and street fashion - but there is a lotttt of the USA that just dresses absolutely terrible. And by terrible, I mean in a generally agreeable sense to most people who notice fashion...if "fashion" is entirely subjective to each individual there isn't a point to even discuss it in terms of being "more/less". As for the skinny jeans thing, well, for starters it's hardly in fashion anywhere anymore, it still looks a lot better than what I just described as usually whoever wears it is matching the rest of their outfit like they put more than 30 seconds of thought into it, and last I've been to Europe it wasn't what most people wore anymore anyway.
Now I've been to just a small handful of Western European countries in my travels and all to major capitals with a couple of small towns, but I find as a whole, outside of the cruise ship tourists, they are far less...forgiving? of anyone stepping out of their homes looking like they're deliberately protesting the very idea of dressing up, like what I see in a lot of North America outside of the high street.
I mean, I've traveled across the US fairly extensively to both urban Alpha world cities and smaller rural towns so I've been there and seen it with my own eyes. A sleeveless tee, crocs, cargo pants on an overweight individual, is not fashionable nor aesthetically pleasing, but that, +/- a few changes is what you get in wide geographic swaths of America. Of course, like I said, most of what you'll find posted on Instagram from the major entertainment capitals look great - some of the best anywhere in the world, especially in youth and street fashion - but there is a lotttt of the USA that just dresses absolutely terrible. And by terrible, I mean in a generally agreeable sense to most people who notice fashion...if "fashion" is entirely subjective to each individual there isn't a point to even discuss it in terms of being "more/less". As for the skinny jeans thing, well, for starters it's hardly in fashion anywhere anymore, it still looks a lot better than what I just described as usually whoever wears it is matching the rest of their outfit like they put more than 30 seconds of thought into it, and last I've been to Europe it wasn't what most people wore anymore anyway.
Now I've been to just a small handful of Western European countries in my travels and all to major capitals with a couple of small towns, but I find as a whole, outside of the cruise ship tourists, they are far less...forgiving? of anyone stepping out of their homes looking like they're deliberately protesting the very idea of dressing up, like what I see in a lot of North America outside of the high street.
But you keep on comparing a continent of cultural norms to a country. It doesn't make sense.
Have you seen the British youths in Adidas tracksuits? The overweight British or German men wearing polos buttoned up to the collar? The suburban German dads, with their block-y sneakers or socks and sandals? I'm not seeing the differences you see. Those who dress down tend to wear sports jerseys, sweat pants, and hit-or-miss sneakers in both Europe and North America - there's no difference there. Overweight individuals in either continent tend to look frumpy in much that they wear.
It should be said that I think Americans look better dressed down, and American men, in particular, dress simpler and better imo. I'm not a fan of the peacockish style of dress in the UK, for example, with the bowl-cut fades, collars buttoned up to the neck, ridiculous quiffs, goofy Nike TN's, ridiculously fitted tees...give me an American man in a T-shirt and boot-cut jeans or kakis, a flannel, a backwards baseball cap, normal, un-styled, short hair etc, any day over that.
And I haven't seen anyone in the US wearing "cargo pants"? Cargo pants have not been popular for a couple decades. Cargo shorts are somewhat common among men, but I don't find them resolutely unfashionable. Sleveless tee's are not themselves unfashionable, your qualification is that the person is "overweight", which makes it unfashionable. So this has nothing to do with fashion. You're playing games here to deliberately disadvantage the US.
I don't know anyone in an urban environment in the US who would wear crocs - unless it was raining or they were doing so ironically. I've seen people in crocs sparingly in the suburbs of the US - I've seen people in crocs in rural and small town Europe as well, notably, on an overweight middle aged couple just outside Gothenburg. Aside from young children and those wearing them for function, I'm not sure you could say crocs are more of an American staple or constitute an important element of American fashion or street style, lmao. Clogs are not attractive shoes, and Europeans wear them far more.
That's the point: different countries have different cultural norms surrounding dress, and different trends, some of which are fashionable, some of which are not.
You cannot claim to be the arbiter of what's "terrible" or not. You're trying to claim, I suppose, that American's dress down more, and European's dress up more. This is, of course, not true.
In both places, there tends to be more people who dress for comfort and function in rural areas and smaller towns, and people who dress for business in larger cities and suburbs - that's, of course, mixed in with personal exceptions, such as people who dress for disability or weight issues, on top of differing habits of dress for ethnic minority groups and immigrants.
Consider all these factors, and I don't see the differences. Certain European countries have a heritage in the fashion industry that invites fashionable suppositions and expectations, but then again, considering the American role in street style for the past 100 years, America is similarly fashionable in the modern era. Americana also has a prized fashion aesthetic that designers love, and that's a rural style...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
