There is no denying the singular character of Americans.  Yet it is arguably no more unique a distinction than that allowed the populace of France, Greece, China, Thailand or New Zealand for example.  Basically they’re all different.  What however makes the American way particularly unique in my mind is its obvious differences from that of immediately adjoining Canada, a country where one might be excused for imagining there to be a great similarity. But there isn’t. At least apart from the weather and much of the topography.

The differences are significant because Americans and Canadians (whether Pilgrims, United Empire Loyalists or immigrants of any persuasion) have predominantly the identical ancestry.  But the differences prevail loudly and clearly. Nor is it especially difficult to identify these dissimilarities.

Before stepping off this potentially precipitous slope toward the differences (good and bad) between Americans and Canadians it is appropriate to confess that any such differences are predictably treacherous. The mere act of attributing – sight unseen – a catalogue of behaviour to one nationality or another is fraught with peril of every description, both logical and evidentiary. It is an adventure which gives new meaning to inductive leap.

The only character of any worth attributing to one or the other is that of dynamic proportions and overall broadly based elements. This means for example that there can be no useful discussion of such infinite and profoundly psychological and spiritual features as morality, productivity, sexuality or family.  These are all highly individual traits which vary or resemble those of others equally no matter where they live. If there is any universality at all to human behaviour it is more likely than not that the same could be said of anyone anywhere anytime. We’re not as different or singular as we may prefer to believe. Beneath the cutaneous mask we’re all pretty much the same.

Accordingly the scope of this monologue is restricted to the less individual and more abstract particles of American and Canadian identity. For example, Americans tend to be more binary than Canadians who by contrast tend to be more inclusive. The binary nature of Americans reflects their longstanding binary political system which, although it admits so-called independents, the latter seldom gain any traction and are normally associated with one or the other of the two primary factions.

This polarized binary conflict contrasts with the Canadian political system which has long supported three parties (in addition to independents) and all three with notable differences and popular allegiances. In the result the Americans tend to diverge collectively in sink with their predominant binary political ambitions.  This is especially notable at the moment when the superficial political differences are astronomic, as broadly distinguished as oligarchy and democracy. The American political way at the moment appears to be energized by radical left and extreme right propaganda. It is hardly likely that either superlative will ever see the light of day but the absurdity and demarcation of these polar contradictions fuels the resource of popular media and attracts the amusement of the public.  The Canadian way is seemingly diluted from these antithises by the platforms of the intervening third party which if nothing else threatens a minority government for the larger two parties thus tranquillizing the extraordinary differences between them.

The American population is enormous compared to that of Canada.  The Canadian landscape has in many areas (such as the east coast, throughout the wide prairie provinces and within the vast northern communities) preserved its perhaps enviable relationship among all members of their inhabitants. Development of Canada is frankly archaic compared to the American model. This means that by virtue of mere numbers the predominance of the overwhelming population has come to characterize the American way while Canadians continue to accept the natural and commercial differences between themselves. It is not uncommon for example for a local Canadian politician or a successful entrepreneur to live in the same arrondissement as those who are less socially distinguished. Americans by contrast tend to prefer gated communities and visible marks of isolation and elevation (as well as indisputable protection). In the result the American way is notorious for its conspicuous differences for rich and poor, black and white, hillbillies and urbanites, east and west and of course left and right. At the same time the American way predominantly invokes a semblance of commonality and dilution arising from the mass control and appeal. Americans on the whole tend to be less socially restrained than their apologetic and reserved Canadian cousins.

One cannot overlook the reality of the influence upon the American way of the Roman Empire. While this comment smacks of mere pleasantry, the inescapable truth of global comparisons is that the United States of America – at least until recently when China has begun to threaten the denomination – is the modern Roman Empire. But one does well to recall that there once was a Byzantine Empire as well.

The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire primarily in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople. It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453.

For the moment however the American way is commonly associated with a national pride exceeding that of any other nationality. Not unnaturally this well deserved entitlement induces a moderation of arrogance or superiority. Without meaning to appear presumptuous, I think it may be fairly observed that Canadians do not on the whole harbour a similar ascendency although it is undeniable that many Americans have lately expressed the unrepentant desire to migrate to Canada. Such is the shifting face of the American way.

Just as this commentary began with an acknowledgment that whatever is said about one country or another, we’re all essentially of the same constitution. By extrapolation this speaks to the global phenomenon that there is in the minds of some a translation from democracy to oligarchy (or what others have labelled as the overrun of the right). There is at the very least the appearance of the dominance of the rich over all others. Personally I would have no objection to an oligarchical government if it were not at the expense of those less privileged. I say this without intending to sound wistful only; I maintain that it has always been so that the improvement of the weakest link in the chain is a good thing.  This in turn promotes possible further discussion of the differences between the American way and the Canadian way when it comes to education and health care.  For the time being I’ll abandon that debate as possibly axiomatic.

Snopes.com