Damn Americans

This weekend, my wife and I were eating breakfast at a local cafe and chatting with a couple sitting next to us about the World Cup. At some point, we got around to talking about Team USA, and the general sentiment could only be described as “Thank god they didn’t win. We’d never have heard the end of it.” Later, once we had left the cafe, my wife expressed dismay at the way that Canadians openly show disdain for their American cousins.

My wife is American, and she’s encountered this anti-American sentiment quite often in Canada. I’ll freely admit that, personally, I’m not too fond of the Americans. They’re nice as individuals, but as a society they leave much to be desired. The question is: what drives the Canadian need to sneer at the US?

Where to begin? Well, I suppose the first thing that rubs any Canadian the wrong way is the consistency with which we get the short end of the stick in dealing with Americans. Take the current trade relations between Canada and the US in the areas of softwood lumber and agriculture. The US suspects that Canada is illegally (under WTO rules) subsidizing its softwood lumber industry through the mechanism Canada uses to collect fees from logging companies for the use of public land. The US responds to this injustice by launching a dispute with the WTO and slapping a 30% tariff on any softwood lumber coming from Canada that results in an immediate and serious impact to the industry (BC in particular). Jobs are lost, and Canada’s only option is to fight the dispute through the WTO, a process which could take years, by which time it won’t matter if it wins or not. US 1, Canada 0.

With the tables reversed in the case of US farm subsidies, you’d expect that the same rules that allow the US to beat Canada in softwood lumber would allow Canada to easily fight the US on similar grounds. Nope. Sure Canada can launch a dispute, but it can’t cripple the US agriculture industry in the same way that the US crippled the Canadian softwood lumber industry. After all, how much food does Canada import from the US? US 2, Canada 0.

It’s this continuous pattern of defeat that makes Canadians bitter towards the US. While the US claims to be committed to the highest morals of equality and justice, the actions of the US tell a different story. Whenever the interests of Americans are at stake, the rules of the game change. The Kyoto Protocol? Sounds like a great idea! It’s going to cost the US money? Then forget it! Israel and Palestine fighting? Solve the problem diplomatically! Some terrorists flew some planes into the Twin Towers? Bomb Afghanistan and overthrow the government!

The actions of the US government on behalf of the American people reveal the true soul of the country: a greedy child that takes his ball home when things aren’t going his way. For Canada, a society of people trying to work for the benefit of all to ensure equality and justice, the double standard employed by the US is infuriating.

More frustrating than having to deal with this child are the consequences of not dealing with it. While we may resent the sucking maw that is American consumerism, just about every industry in Canada (and the rest of the world for that matter) is focused on serving the US market. To add insult to injury, the people who receive accolades as Canada’s top talent are usually receiving it not because they became successful in Canada, but rather because they went to the US to gain their fortune. Every band, every author, every enterprise, everyone’s success is chained to this village idiot as it lumbers across the land, taking what it likes, sitting on what it doesn’t.

It’s not just Canada’s reliance on the US market that irks us, it’s the fact that the US is everywhere we look. The US is like the car salesman who’s always “on”, never quite knowing when to shut up and act like a normal person. Regardless of whether it’s movies, music, television, the American influence permeates every corner of the planet. We have no culture of our own.

We are American. Resistance is futile.

The most saddening part of Canada’s desire to put down Americans is that it reveals much about the country’s own insecurities, its sense of inferiority. Even Canada’s perception of our place in history is skewed, as if to make us feel better about ourselves.

Consider Alexander Graham Bell. Though Canadian Heritage Minister Sheila Copps may insist:

“(Bell) is an inspiring example of a Canadian inventor who, by his ingenuity and his perseverance, contributed to the advancement of knowledge and the progress of humanity”

The suggestion that Bell is a Canadian inventor is a slight exaggeration. While it is true that Bell, born in Scotland in 1847, immigrated to Canada in 1870, what often isn’t mentioned is the fact that he immigrated again to the US in 1871. Though the first successful test of the telephone occurred in Brantford, Ontario, Bell’s status as a “Canadian inventor” is tenuous at best. Sadly, Bell’s path seems parallel to every other Canadian success story that followed him. Though Canada’s sons and daughters, both natural-born and immigrant, may find success, it seems inevitable that finding success will always mean leaving Canada for the US.

What about basketball? The game was invented by James Naismith, born in Canada in 1959. Unfortunately, Naismith invented the game in 1891 in Springfield, Massachusetts, and spent the majority of his life in the US. Again, we call him a Canadian, but it was in the US that created the game for which he is famous, and there he lived until his death in 1939.

Perhaps this is the reason for our bitterness. All of our achievements have always been varnished by the touch of others, predominantly the US. Nothing is truly ours. While it may seem inevitable at this point that the US is the de facto ruler of the world and Canada may eventually join it, if not formally, then in every way except in law, we feel the need to fight the inevitable.

We are Canadians. We’re not Americans. Not yet. And not if we can help it.

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

The media industry’s assault on fair use is now entering its final Orwellian chapter with the MPAA‘s latest suggestion to plug the “analog hole” by legislating manufacturers to incorporate watermark detection technology into analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). ADCs are hardware components that convert analog signals (such as the input into a soundcard) into digital signals suitable for storage on digital devices. By requiring devices to refuse to convert analog signals containing a watermark, the media industry would achieve complete control over all digital content and effectively eliminate consumer’s right to fair use of copyrighted material. As pointed out by John Gilmore, the consumer may have the protected right to fair use of copyrighted material but not the technological means to extract and reuse copyrighted material.

This move by the media industry should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. For those who haven’t been paying attention, here’s what you’ve missed:

  • The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA): Designed to update copyright to address the new challenges posed by digital technology, the DMCA included provisions making it illegal to circumvent copyright protection technology. While this may sound reasonable, opponents of the law note the media industry is using the law to squelch legitimate security research. Front and center, the case of the RIAA versus Dr. Richard Felten, a case that illustrated the law’s deadly double-edge. Most disturbing is the fact that other countries, including Canada, are looking to adopt legislation similar to the DMCA.
  • The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Act of 2002 (CBDTA): Introduced as a bill in March by Senator Hollings, the “Senator from Disney”, the CBDTA seeks to force all software and hardware to incorporate copyright control technology. This bill is a re-tooled and re-named version of a previous bill introduced by Hollings, the “Security Systems Standards and Certification Act”. The bill requires manufacturers to create a standard within 18 months of the bill becoming law; if manufacturers fail to agree on a standard, it will be up to the US government to set the standard.

With this latest suggestion, the media industry is illustrating how small changes, each perfectly logical, can result in a society where civil liberties and free will are next to non-existent. What’s to prevent the media industry to seek mandatory implantation of copyright protection mechanisms in humans once the appropriate technology is available? Sure it sounds crazy, but think of the advantages for media industry if every human’s sense of touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight were regulated to squeeze out every last cent of profit from copyrighted material:

  • “Premium” experiences: While you may pay for food or clothes, the implanted technology could be used to prevent you from fully experiencing the taste of your food or the sensation of your clothes. Want that extra experience? It’ll cost you.
  • Don’t whistle while you work: Say you’ve got a cool song in your head, so you decide to whistle it. By doing this you’re reproducing a copyrighted work, so the implanted technology prevents you from doing so without paying a royalty. Even once you pay the royalty, the implants force the sounds you produce to contain an embedded watermark forcing anyone around you to pay a royalty to listen to you. Good-bye impersonations and catch phrases.
  • So much for casual teenage sex: Want to enforce teen abstinence? Install NetNanny software into the implants that prevent the teens from experiencing sex in any way!

Is this stuff far-fetched? Sure, but as pointed out in The Age of Access this culture of paid-for experiences is already exists today, even without the benefit of copyright control technology. If we give companies the tools to commodify our culture, our experiences, our very lives, they will use it. Companies exist for one purpose: to make a profit. And in the war of business, everything is fair game.