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.
"The lack of domestic production throughout much of the industry’s history can only be understood against this economic backdrop, where the major distribution and exhibition outlets have been owned and controlled by foreign interests."
It used to be almost impossible to show a Canadian film in a major cinema.
I am aware that that is the status quo and has been for a very long time, but how did it come into being?
I don't necessarily believe that Canadians were powerless in the face of this situation.
CanCon rules for the radio in particular have prevented the music industry from becoming completely American-dominated and allowed a dynamic and unique homegrown music industry to flourish.
As for movie distribution, the only part of the country where Hollywood interests do not almost completely control it is Quebec. This does not mean that Hollywood films do not have an impact. They still do. But it means that they usually have a 75-80% market share as opposed to a 99% market share.
That non-Hollywood share doesn't sound like much but it's enough to have Quebec and also overseas (usually French) movies top the box office fairly regularly, and gain some mainstream traction and awareness.
Do you think it might be because Canada is a northern country, with much arctic territory, while Oz & NZ are tropical/subtropical? Maybe you need to look at a map.
This is a pretty isolated example, OP. Can you come up with more? Compared to US culture, Canada is more Brit. This is especially played up in British Columbia's capital, Victoria, where teatime with crumpets is a big thing, especially for tourists.
NZ is not subtropical but quite temperate actually.
The ONLY reason Canada hasn't become a Republic is because the Americans are.
Canada has never been as culturally and socially tied to the UK as Aus/NZ. We were the first to form independent government, first to create idea of Commonwealth as opposed to The Empire and of course got rid of the Union Jack from our flag 50 years ago. Canadians share similar values as the UK in many ways but also align themselves more with the Continent and especially the Nordic countries.
Interestingly, Americans are FAR more enamoured with the UK than Canadians are and far more interested in UK culture than Canadians who tend to be more diverse in their outlook and more Nordic in their values. Poll after poll have consistently shown that Americans view the British as their closest ally and not Canada. Canada has a basic distrust of all things American but still view them generally positively although with some unfathomable cultural norms and tend to view the British with mild indifference.
Canada is kind of odd because we are good friends with so many countries but the best of friends with no one.
The ONLY reason Canada hasn't become a Republic is because the Americans are.
Canada has never been as culturally and socially tied to the UK as Aus/NZ. We were the first to form independent government, first to create idea of Commonwealth as opposed to The Empire and of course got rid of the Union Jack from our flag 50 years ago. Canadians share similar values as the UK in many ways but also align themselves more with the Continent and especially the Nordic countries.
Interestingly, Americans are FAR more enamoured with the UK than Canadians are and far more interested in UK culture than Canadians who tend to be more diverse in their outlook and more Nordic in their values. Poll after poll have consistently shown that Americans view the British as their closest ally and not Canada. Canada has a basic distrust of all things American but still view them generally positively although with some unfathomable cultural norms and tend to view the British with mild indifference.
Canada is kind of odd because we are good friends with so many countries but the best of friends with no one.
You are aware that Australia didn't even exist before 1901, but that its to be states were self governing from the 1850s which predates Canadian confederation? Created the idea of Commonwealth? You'll need to explain that a little as the concept of Commonwealth dates back to American colonial times, hence the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and "Commonwealth of Virginia".
Aside from Quebec, Canada seems to have been as close to Britain as was Australia. In some ways, and at some times, closer. The founders of Anglo Canada were after all Empire loyalists who valued loyalty to the Crown above democracy, while Australia's earliest arrivals were largely at odds with, or openly hostile to the British social order and government. So while Canada introduced conscription to support britain in WWI, Australians refused.
But, Rugby Union is a comparatively minor sport even in Queensland and New South Wales, and pretty much unheard of outside those two states. You won't find many outside those two states who are even aware of Rugby League. And what's "British" about AFL? Canada has curling, which is a British (Scottish) sport.
Queensland and New South Wales account for half the population and the Wallabies are a world famous Rugby team, who often play in international competitions and often grace Twickenham.
Other British sports include Golf, Cricket and Tennis (Real Tennis and British Lawn Tennis), whilst Boxing was reformed by the Marquess of Queensbury Rules and Britain played an instrumental role in passtimes such as Snooker and Darts as well as the sport of motor racing (Brooklands has a good Museum), whilst Newmarket is the home of British Horse Racing.
Many of these sports are now universal, and therefore British Sporting Culture has been exported throughout the world, including to Canada.
Whilst US Sports such as American Football drew heavily on British Sports such as Rugby League and indeed Baseball was first mentioned in a British publication in 1744 and drew influence from Stoolball, Rounders and other such games. Whilst the game of Basketball was invented by Canadian Dr. James Naismith.
However US Games such as Baseball and American Football are limited in their cultural impact and appeal, and are mainly the preserve of North America, Japan, Cuba and other such parts of the world, so American sporting prevalence has not spread as sucesfully as other parts of US Culture.
Quote:
"The British showed a more profound interest in sports, and in greater variety, that any rival. They gave pride of place to such moral issues as sportsmanship and fair play.
Cricket became symbolic of the Imperial spirit throughout the Empire. Football proved highly attractive to the urban working classes, which introduced the rowdy spectator to the sports world. In some sports, there was significant controversy in the fight for amateur purity especially in rugby and rowing.
New games became popular almost overnight, including golf, lawn tennis, cycling and hockey. Women were much more likely to enter these sports than the old established ones. The aristocracy and landed gentry, with their ironclad control over land rights, dominated hunting, shooting, fishing and horse racing. Whilst many modern olympic sports trace their roots back to Britain.
Cricket had become well-established among the English upper class in the 18th century, and was a major factor in sports competition among the public schools. Army units around the Empire had time on their hands, and encouraged the locals to learn cricket so they could have some entertaining competition. Most of the Empire embraced cricket, with the exception of Canada. Cricket test matches (international) began by the 1870s; the most famous is that between Australia and Britain for "The Ashes." "
Scan the Olympic program, and British-codified, British-influenced sports are legion. They include track and field (known here as athletics), swimming, boxing, rowing, sailing, soccer, badminton, tennis and even table tennis, which provided London’s irrepressible Mayor Boris Johnson with source material at the Beijing Olympics.
“Ping-pong was invented on the dining tables of England in the 19th century,” Johnson said in a speech. “It was called ‘wiff waff.’ And there you have one of the essential differences between us and the rest of the world. Other nations — the French — looked at a dining table and saw an opportunity to have dinner. We looked at a dining table and saw an opportunity to play wiff waff.”
“And that is why London is the sporting capital of the world,” he added. “And I say to the Chinese, and I say to the world: Ping-pong is coming home. Athletics is coming home. Sport is coming home.”
There could have been even more sports coming home if the timing had worked out differently. Golf and rugby — two more very British diversions — already have been added to the program for the 2016 Games in Rio de Janeiro.
The ONLY reason Canada hasn't become a Republic is because the Americans are.
Canada has never been as culturally and socially tied to the UK as Aus/NZ. We were the first to form independent government, first to create idea of Commonwealth as opposed to The Empire and of course got rid of the Union Jack from our flag 50 years ago. Canadians share similar values as the UK in many ways but also align themselves more with the Continent and especially the Nordic countries.
Interestingly, Americans are FAR more enamoured with the UK than Canadians are and far more interested in UK culture than Canadians who tend to be more diverse in their outlook and more Nordic in their values. Poll after poll have consistently shown that Americans view the British as their closest ally and not Canada. Canada has a basic distrust of all things American but still view them generally positively although with some unfathomable cultural norms and tend to view the British with mild indifference.
Canada is kind of odd because we are good friends with so many countries but the best of friends with no one.
That's true I have noticed that, though their interpretations of the UK are highly inaccurate. They seem to think that the UK is all about London and some random monument in the Midlands that no one in England actually visits (Stratford Upon Avon).
You are aware that Australia didn't even exist before 1901, but that its to be states were self governing from the 1850s which predates Canadian confederation? Created the idea of Commonwealth? You'll need to explain that a little as the concept of Commonwealth dates back to American colonial times, hence the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and "Commonwealth of Virginia".
Aside from Quebec, Canada seems to have been as close to Britain as was Australia. In some ways, and at some times, closer. The founders of Anglo Canada were after all Empire loyalists who valued loyalty to the Crown above democracy, while Australia's earliest arrivals were largely at odds with, or openly hostile to the British social order and government. So while Canada introduced conscription to support britain in WWI, Australians refused.
Canada had very bitter, divisive conscription crises during both WWI and WWII. In both cases Anglo-Canada was strongly in favour, and Franco-Canada was strongly against.
Canada had very bitter, divisive conscription crises during both WWI and WWII. In both cases Anglo-Canada was strongly in favour, and Franco-Canada was strongly against.
So Franco Canada was strongly against helping the French, which was what the British were doing in both WW1 and WW2.
Actually Britain didn't want to go to War in 1914, and was forced in to a war situation by an aggressive Germany and a pact with France and Russia.
Whilst in terms of WW2 it was not an option for Canada until 1944, the War ending in 1945. Perhaps the Franco-Canadians weren't bothered about liberating France.
As for the caauses of WW2, the Treaty of Versailles was a major cause, indeed it was a treaty Britain never wanted to impose, the only part Britain really supported was that the German Navy should be reduced in size and that some German Colonies would become British but otherwise the treaty in terms of making Germany pay it went too far, and indeed helped caused WW2 by impoverishing the German people and led to the rise of fascism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treaty of Versailles
Summary
Clemenceau liked the harsh things that were in the Treaty, especially reparations, because they would harm Germany. He liked the tiny German army, and the demilitarised zone in the Rhineland, because he though that this would protect France from attack in the future. Also, he was pleased that France got Alsace-Lorraine, and German colonies. But he wanted the Treaty to be harsher.
Wilson got self-determination for the peoples of Eastern Europe, and a League of Nations, but he hated the Treaty because few of his ‘Fourteen Points’ got into the Treaty. Worst of all, when Wilson went back to America, the Senate refused to join the League of Nations, and refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles!
Lloyd George hated the Treaty, He liked the fact that Britain got German colonies, and the small German navy helped British sea-power. But, although many British people wanted to ‘make Germany pay’, Lloyd George thought that the Treaty was too harsh, and that it would start another war in 25 years time.
The Treaty of Versailles was a compromise, and it satisfied nobody.
Even Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France, did not get everything he wanted out of the Treaty. He was satisfied with clause 231 (which blamed Germany for the war), the disarmament clauses of the Treaty (army at 100,000, only 6 battleships, no airforce or submarines), getting back Alsace-Lorraine, and being given Germany colonies as mandates on behalf of the League of Nations. But even this did not go far enough.
Clemenceau had wanted Germany weakened to the point where it would never be a danger to France ever again. He was angry that France got the Saar coalfields for only 15 years, and he was angry that the Rhineland was merely demilitarised – France had wanted it made into a powerless independent country, and Germany split up. Also, reparations were not high enough for Clemenceau. He wanted reparations so high that Germany would be crippled and paying for ever – when the Germans defaulted in 1923, France invaded and took them in kind.
On the other hand, Wilson was dissatisfied also. He was pleased to get the League of Nations accepted, and the map of eastern Europe was mainly drawn according to his principle of self-determination. But he found most of the rest of his 14 points ignored or rejected. Italy had to be given land given her in the secret treaty of 1915. Only the defeated powers were disarmed. Britain refused to accept freedom of the seas, and neither Britain, France nor Belgium would allow self-determination to the colonies in their empires.
Self-determination was not allowed elsewhere – Wilson had wanted Anschluss between Austria and Germany, but this was denied; in 1919 the Czechs took over Teschen by force; and in 1920 Poland attacked and took land inhabited in Russia and Lithuania. All this Wilson had to accept. Finally, when he went home, the Senate refused either to accept the Treaty or to join the League.
Wilson tired himself out trying to persuade Americans to accept what he had negotiated, had a stroke and died a broken man.
Lloyd George of Britain was also dissatisfied by the Treaty. He liked the reduction of the German navy, for it ensured that Britannia ruled the waves. He also liked being given German colonies as mandates. But he thought Wilson’s League of Nations was a ‘dead duck’, he opposed self-determination and was sure that putting 3½ million Germans into Czechoslovakia would caused great problems there. And, although he, too, had promised to ‘make Germany pay’, he was horrified when he learned what Clemenceau wanted.
He opposed Clemenceau’s harshness. In the end, Clemenceau wanted revenge against the Germans, and Wilson was prepared to sacrifice them to principle, so it was Lloyd George who fought most for Germany’s interests at the Conference. When the Treaty was eventually signed, the British delegates were very depressed. Harold Nicholson thought the Treaty ‘neither just nor wise’, and Lloyd George declared: ‘we will have to fight another war in 25 years time, and at three times the cost’.
I'd also add that my sense is that (Anglo-)Canada is probably slightly more favourable to the monarchy than Australia is.
I would say you can more easily find youngish, educated, worldly, savvy Canadians who will express pretty strong support for their country retaining the monarchy than Australians who would say the same thing for their country.
The monarchy in Canada is seen by many as a force for stability, especially when compared with you-know-who's democracy which is seen as unstable, flawed and even outright insane.
Symbolically, it's also an important distinguishing "Canadian" feature vis-Ã -vis the U.S.
Canada would likely never hold a referendum on abolishing the monarchy IMO, but if it did, once everything was on the table and debated to death, in Anglo-Canada you'd likely get quite a bit higher than 54% (Australia, 1999) in favour of retaining it.
(You'd probably get 80-90% in favour of abolishing it in Quebec, which explains why we'll never get to vote on this...)
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.
