Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcr!hcrvx2!jimr
From: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian Identity
Message-ID: <2749@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Feb-87 17:02:33 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2749
Posted: Fri Feb 20 17:02:33 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 10:06:44 EST
References: <12419@watnot.UUCP> <1469@hcrvx1.UUCP> <542@geac.UUCP> <2313@watdragon.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: HCR Corporation, Toronto
Lines: 30
Summary: 

In article <2313@watdragon.UUCP> hwarkentyne@watdragon.UUCP (Kenneth Warkentyne) writes:
>In article <542@geac.UUCP> david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes:
>>
>>Anyone want to come up with a working definition of ``Canadian Cultural
>>Identity''?
>>
>
>Part of the Canadian cultural identity is worrying about our Canadian
>cultural identity.
>
>Certainly Canada is too diverse a nation to have a single identity
>so why bother trying to pigeonhole ourselves ?  I think that we should
>stop worrying about defining things and get on with doing things and
>this will prove to be a better definition of a Canadian identity than
>any essay you care to write on the matter.

Nothing personal, Ken, but the above seems like a lot of hand-waving to
me. You and the other nationalists want to preserve, enhance,
subsidize, and protect an entity which you refuse to define. If I tried
to start a widget manufacturing company I imagine that I wouldn't be
able to squeeze a dime out of any potential investors (all levels of
government excepted) without a precise definition for said widget.
Yet, you people expect  to take my tax dollars and merrily prop up
various industries without having such a definition. Seems to me that
you can't seriously expect to strengthen something when you can't even
define it. At best, you'll obtain meagre results; at worst, no results
at all. 

J.B. Robinson