Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!ubc-vision!alberta!bjorn From: bjorn@alberta.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: 'Free' Trade? Message-ID: <228@pembina.alberta.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 03:36:29 EST Article-I.D.: pembina.228 Posted: Tue Feb 17 03:36:29 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 17-Feb-87 23:14:51 EST References: <12419@watnot.UUCP> <1469@hcrvx1.UUCP> <827@ubc-cs.UUCP> <828@ubc-cs.UUCP> Distribution: can Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Lines: 140 In article <828@ubc-cs.UUCP>, andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >In article <215@pembina.alberta.UUCP> bjorn@alberta.UUCP (Bjorn R. Bjornsson) writes: >> ... I have this sneaky suspicion that you would like to >>define for others how they should be catered to. You don't have >>to watch US tv and you don't have to read US rags.... > > Your argument would make sense if Canadians and Americans >were competing on equal footing. They're not, and as I said, >the massively more powerful American media is not about to put >anything in their programming making it more relevant to Canadians. So what, who ever competes on equal footing with anyone or at any time? Your statement as I understand it is: In the media and cultural markets small companies cannot possibly succeed when competing with larger companies. Even if this were true (which it isn't) another approach is obviously not to compete, but offer something that the giants don't. If Canadians would rather view US programming (and I'm not saying that this is the case) than that supplied by Canadian companies, then I ask you: Whose material is more relevant to (those) Canadians? >Look at TIME magazine: the only time they had proportionate >Canadian coverage was when they had a Canadian edition, that they >could hawk to the Canadians while keeping it out of their American >editions. Why the dirty tricksters hawking a forged edition to Canadians B-). Would you have required TIME to publish Canada specific material, or any material for that matter? If TIME is run for profit (which it is) I presume they had a Canadian edition in order to increase said profits, ie. in order to sell more mags and attract more advertising. If they no longer have such an edition, I again presume that they (TIME) concluded that it was not paying off. What's your gripe? Canada has plenty of news magazines that compare favorably with TIME as far as quality goes and are devoted strictly (more or less) to Canadian subject matter. I don't suppose you would require them adhere to your editorial policies. > I wouldn't watch US TV, but would (say) my children be able >to make the same choice intelligently? While your offspring are children, you have the option of making that decision, intelligently or not. When they are grown they will make their own decisions (if you don't have your way). > ....................... How would I feel if 20 >years from now I had kids who talked like Americans and thought >that the first Prime Minister was George Washington? How would you feel? Maybe I can guess? I'll tell my kids that George Washington would have made a fine Canadian Prime Minister. I'll tell them about P.E.T. for contrast. Oh and what is it that Americans talk like? Canadians? >> ... Cultural >>control in the form of a force fed "approved" diet coupled with >>restricted access to, and censorship of "non-approved" material >>I find rather odious.... > > There's that word again!! Why is it that whenever anyone >suggests that maybe something people see has a negative influence >on the society, someone screams "Censorship!!"? Who's screaming? Well maybe I could pipe down a little B-). But seriously just because you've seen people cry censorship time and again doesn't mean they weren't right or that such accusations are getting less and less accurate as time goes by. >> ... What I'm seeing is `cultural nationalism' >>and an inferiority complex.... > > Canadians have an inferiority complex because everyone else >thinks we're inferior. A possible exception is Africa, the only >region of the world in which we're taken seriously, largely >because of our financial aid there. Now I'm laughing!! There's nothing like a throwing around a few dineros in order to have people leap to their feet and take notice B-). >> ... A common phenomenon in some countries, >>usually directed at the US. I do speak from experience. > > What country did you gain that experience in? Iceland? >Norway? Sweden? Since you ask I'm intimately familiar with Iceland and somewhat less so with Sweden. Many Icelanders are afflicted with `national inferiority complex'. This is manifest in statements like: Of course Iceland is the best country in the world to live in. Icelands health care system is the envy of the world. ... Sound familiar? Substitute Canada for Iceland? How's it sound now? Guess what they say in Sweden? > ........... All countries with a unique language, a solid >base of cultural tradition, and very little possibility of being >totally bombarded with US media images. What about Quebec? I'd say Quebec fits your statement as well as the (other) countries mentioned. What are they afraid of? Their attitude towards the rest of Canada is as your attitude towards the US. It may surprise you that while you fear US cultural domination, Icelandic cultural nationalists live in holy terror of same. How they they became that way is anybody's guess, I'm not a psychiatrist. They hate all `foreign contamination'. What scares the living daylights out of me is their success. Just recently a law was passed in Iceland which makes it illegal for you to receive, in your own home, foreign satellite programming unless it's broadcast with Icelandic subtitles. Not only that but in order for you to legally enjoy say a live broadcast sporting event it must come either with subtitles (impossible) or running commentary in Icelandic (No I don't think they'll settle for no commentary). Now it's no secret and clear as mud to everyone that this law is aimed squarely at English language broadcasts, which have some people who want to watch German or Italian programming rather upset (They know the market for German etc. isn't large enough to justify the expense of subtitling). Icelands education system is almost entirely state run, with a curriculum that includes copious amounts of nationalistic indoctrination. You think you have problems? I could say that you are the problem, but of course I won't. Bjorn R. Bjornsson alberta!bjorn