Hmmmm.
Media can only cover so much. I wonder if Musk and POTUS discussed something like
POTUS: Hey Elon muh man, I have to announce XYZ and 123 are going to be cut out from the budget. What is the most outrageous thing you can you do to pull all the mediaâs attention to you that the media will focus on your outrageous act and nobody talks too much about what I am doing with XYZ and 123
Elon: I have just the trolling thing to do and wanted to do this for so long. Ohhh ooohhh oooooohh. Can I do it at your inauguration?
Canadian roots only go back c400 years. Its still a very young country.
In the UK, it is thousands of years. Thats one of the main drivers of UK culture being stronger. Quite a lot of people take that sort of thing seriously.
With the US, its even less in terms of years (<350 years) so they have even less history, which means their culture is much more fluid. This is then magnified by their immigration policies (which creates a melting pot of cultures).
Uhhh⌠how are you defining this?
Both countries have native cultures way older than that. So Iâm guessing youâre defining it by the first permanent European settlements? Or first British settlements?
1565 - first permanent European settlement in present-day USA at St. Augustine, Florida, by the Spanish
1605 - first permanent European settlement in present-day Canada at Port Royal, Nova Scotia, by the French
1607 - first permanent British settlement in present-day USA at Jamestown, Virginia
1610 - first permanent British settlement in present day Canada at Cupers Grove (now Cupids), Newfoundland
So⌠how is Canada 50 years older? Europeans arrived 40 years later and British arrived 3 years later, so what was 50 years earlier???
There wasnât really a US of A in the early 17th Century. It was really just a bunch of small settlements.
I see the US as a bit younger because it was much more politically fragmented, and it took more time to coalesce into what you would define more closely as a country with a shared culture. This is mostly linked to the Canadian population at the time being more heavily concentrated in select areas (vs US which was more dispersed).
You can argue about what the line is in terms of when this happened (country with shared culture) in the US, but the point about them both being a young country (vs UK) seems reasonable to me (long histories tend to drive culture).
You are assigning to me the belief that being proud of culture or identity is xenophobia.
I have no interest in arguing for a position youâve assigned to me when I donât hold that position.
This is just a silly statement IMO. Blended cultures donât just all become some color of greige. There are noticeable subcultures that have formed in the US in different regions as some trends develop and fade away while others tend to become embedded.
Most countries in Europe are about the same size as some of the larger US states with boundaries that establish languages and laws. Cultural differences might be more apparent because you can cross a physical boundary and see immediate change, but the lack of that dividing lines does not mean there is a lack of culture.
Quebecers are an interesting bunch.
I lived next door to them in Ottawa for quite a few years, and their culture stems (initially anyways) from their need to keep their language alive (French).
It really is no different vs Welsh in the UK, or Catalan in Spain.
They all mostly wanted to keep their regional language alive so they became fiercaly nationalistic (this can be good and bad).
Like those places, you also have a slice of people who take this nationalistic streak based on their root language way too far.
They tend to use this as a club now in order to discriminate (I do not personally agree with this), and now they are facing problems with their approach (less people want to learn French in Canada).
It was all about language until French speaking Muslims showed upâŚ
That too. Inject religious belief into a secular state and you are likely to see problems.
Before the EUs Schengen came online, it was a real pain to travel from country to country in Europe so there was quite a cultural demarcation line between the various countries once you passed the border.
This line is a lot fuzzier now as the various countries became borderless. You see more pronounced cultural diffusion now in the settlements closer to the borders.
I disagree, nekaanah.
I wouldnât go that far.
Cultural nationalism (which is effectively what Quebec promotes) only works when the demographics are in your favour.
But when they are notâŚ(like now) you cannot afford to be so discriminative about who you let in or your culture will end up dying off slowly regardless (this is what is happening to Quebec).
Thats the problem Quebec has with most of the western world really. Mono-cultures donât work in the long run. They have to evolve with the times.
We need immigration due to demographics. With that comes a degree of multiculturalism, as while its important for newcomers to integrate into the local culture and language (something the west has not been doing so well in), there is nothing inherently bad about the native culture absorbing some of the cultural aspects of the new people (immigrants).
The US (by its very nature) does this a lot better vs Europe.
Sooooo⌠kind of like Canada in the early 17th Century?
I think my question is what place would be considered the model of what this should look like? Iâd argue that Canadaâs been doing reasonably well now. I know that Newfoundland is finally getting some flavour in their food and is moving away from boiling everything until the flavour and texture is gone.
The churchâs response to Calvin Robinson imitating Musk:
A Statement on Calvin Robinson
At approximately 3:00 pm today (1/29) members of the College of Bishops of the ACC were made aware of a post made on X showing the end of a speech made by Calvin Robinson at the National Pro-Life Summit in Washington, DC. In it, he closed his comments with a gesture that many have interpreted as a pro-Nazi salute.
While we cannot say what was in Mr. Robinsonâs heart when he did this, his action appears to have been an attempt to curry favor with certain elements of the American political right by provoking its opposition. Mr. Robinson had been warned that online trolling and other such actions (whether in service of the left or right) are incompatible with a priestly vocation and was told to desist. Clearly, he has not, and as such, his license in this Church has been revoked. He is no longer serving as a priest in the ACC.
Furthermore, we understand that this is not just an administrative matter. The Holocaust was an episode of unspeakable horror, enacted by a regime of evil men. We condemn Nazi ideology and anti-Semitism in all its forms. And we believe that those who mimic the Nazi salute, even as a joke or an attempt to troll their opponents, trivialize the horror of the Holocaust and diminish the sacrifice of those who fought against its perpetrators. Such actions are harmful, divisive, and contrary to the tenets of Christian charity.
Finally, we pray that God will give us grace to lay aside our unhappy divisions, and we commend our nation and ourselves to his Almighty protection.
Video included. He did the Nazi salute, then smirked at the crowd and walked off.
Was he throwing his heart do you think, or was it a Roman salute?
That hasnât been my experience.
Iâm just impressed with the contortions being made to blame this on wokeness (whatever that means) and multiculturalism while ignoring that this has been happening globally and the role that the internet has played in breaking down barriers between countries.