|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Well, since the Cold War is over, and none of these countries are in danger of becoming Soviet satellites, who really cares anymore? |
Actually, I agree with you. Bolivia is a backwater and if it chooses to sink itself by electing a belligerent socialist, its more farce to me than tragedy. |
Bingo.
But besides, if it's not a security concern, I don't think the average American or Canadian will be much affected by who gets elected in Bolivia. They are free to elect whoever they want...more power to them, fine and dandy, do whatever you want, who cares, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| In the 1920s, Mexico went socialist, and nationalized some US properties. In the 30s the two countries were able to settle their differences and negotiate a cash settlement for the expropriated properties. |
Well, I assume you refer to President Lazaro Cardenas's nationalist-driven expropriation of U.S. and British [you're still very U.S.-centric in your historical thinking] oil investments and facilities. Cardenas emerged from Mexico's 1910 Revolution as a strong figure. But after this, he was immortalized as a hero. |
You keep reading weird intentions into my statements. I mentioned that the US and Mexico were able to settle their differences over expropriations through negotiation. If the British and Mexicans did the same, fine, but it still just proves my point.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Even if Chile and Venezuela do the same thing (which I doubt will happen), they can come to a cash settlement as well. As a Canadian, I don't really care if a few banks get burned on overseas investments. Capitalism involves risk, price of doing business. |
Canada projects much less money and influence abroad and, therefore, is a much lower-profile target. Another reason to remember that our situations are, ultimately, entirely different in the world. Perhaps this helps explain why many Canadians fail to understand the U.S. perspective. |
[/quote]
Then why did you mention potential effects to Canadian companies in the first place? If it's not relevant, why mention it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Manner of Speaking"]
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| In the 1920s, Mexico went socialist, and nationalized some US properties. In the 30s the two countries were able to settle their differences and negotiate a cash settlement for the expropriated properties. |
Well, I assume you refer to President Lazaro Cardenas's nationalist-driven expropriation of U.S. and British [you're still very U.S.-centric in your historical thinking] oil investments and facilities. Cardenas emerged from Mexico's 1910 Revolution as a strong figure. But after this, he was immortalized as a hero. |
You keep reading weird intentions into my statements. I mentioned that the US and Mexico were able to settle their differences over expropriations through negotiation. If the British and Mexicans did the same, fine, but it still just proves my point.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Even if Chile and Venezuela do the same thing (which I doubt will happen), they can come to a cash settlement as well. As a Canadian, I don't really care if a few banks get burned on overseas investments. Capitalism involves risk, price of doing business. |
Canada projects much less money and influence abroad and, therefore, is a much lower-profile target. Another reason to remember that our situations are, ultimately, entirely different in the world. Perhaps this helps explain why many Canadians fail to understand the U.S. perspective. |
Yeesh!
Talk about laying a double standard on people.
First you start this thread, after a day and a half of no response, you express your disappointment that it generates no comment. "...it...does not give the Canadians an opportunity to cite their moral superiority to Americans. Therefore it generates no comment."
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why you were met with a day and a half of silence, except one comment by one Canadian (me) to the effect "who cares?", might be because you fail to understand the Canadian perspective on Latin American issues?
If we have different economic and security concerns, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that's why you didn't generate any response? Instead, you concluded that people are only interested in participating in US-bashing.
Now you're complaining that people don't understand the US perspective enough.
Be prepared to walk the walk, if you're going to talk the talk.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
 |
 How true ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why you were met with a day and a half of silence, except one comment by one Canadian (me) to the effect "who cares?", might be because you fail to understand the Canadian perspective on Latin American issues? |
If you are representative of the Canadian perspective on Latin American issues, and I hope you're not, that perspective is best summed up by "who cares?"
I think you've stated repeatedly that clearly enough.
And that still leaves Kuros's question hanging in the air: why would you respond to this thread, then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
There seems to be a love-hate thingy going on here, goph. Are you in love with the region or merely fascinated by it? You know, sort of like a train wreck or car accident? The reason I ask is your own OP. You seem to quite directly make the point that your observation/critique/whatever it is is much related to the anti-Americanism. My queston would be, as stated earlier, why? I guess I just don't get why anti-Americanism offends you. I find it by turn interesting, enlightening, strange, illogical, laughable. I am never offended by it and certainly never feel the need to defend the dear old US of A. However, back in the day when I was of a certain age, i.e., un estudiante de universidad, I did.
Frankly, I'm not sure why I no longer do, but can cite at least two reasons: it's just not a big deal that there are different perspectives; there should be! The criticism is so very warranted at this particular time in our history.
But back to you. I still find it interesting/bemusing that your post so directly commented on the anti-American angle. From your perspective, is that really one of the most salient issues? It would be well down my list except as that particular point affected these leaders' ability to manage their countries and do what is best for their people. If the anti-Americanism seriously affects their ability to take care of their own, well, then now we've got something to talk about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why you were met with a day and a half of silence, except one comment by one Canadian (me) to the effect "who cares?", might be because you fail to understand the Canadian perspective on Latin American issues? |
If you are representative of the Canadian perspective on Latin American issues, and I hope you're not, that perspective is best summed up by "who cares?"
I think you've stated repeatedly that clearly enough.
And that still leaves Kuros's question hanging in the air: why would you respond to this thread, then? |
Because you had expressed such disappointment that it was met with deafining/defining silence.
Gopher.
What's happened is that you've been somewhat broadsided (accidentally) because the responses were not along the lines that you expected. You readily admit that my comment along the lines of, "well since the Cold War is over, who cares how they vote?" threw you for a couple of days. It IS actually a valid opinion on the subject, even if you dislike it.
Some people think that if there is no overriding security concern (the danger of becoming a Soviet satellite), the issues of how Bolivians or Chileans or Venezuelans elect their leaders in open, democratic elections are marginal at best. Or to put it another way, they are worth discussing -- just not for very long.
Besides the security issue, I think the last time I checked, the balance of trade between Canada and Bolivia was somewhere in the area of $239.75.
Like you said, Canadian and American concerns are not always congruent. So for Canadians if there is no security issue, and the economic issues are marginal at best, why wouldn't "who cares?" be a valid opinion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| ...there is no overriding security concern (the danger of becoming a Soviet satellite)... |
When I started this thread it had little to do with "security concerns."
But you know, you're right. You're voicing how much the rest of the world probably feels about Canadian affairs, too. Canada holds an election? So what? No Canadian election affects much of anything in the world. So who cares who gets elected?
Your reaction to that may or may not be the same reaction your "so what?" might provoke in the Andes.
In any case, it would be the wrong reaction. Perhaps you are not aware that ours in an increasingly interdependent world, and what happens in Bolivia, Venezuela, or anywhere else for that matter, is important for the rest of us in one way or another. Saying that it doesn't affect you directly and therefore it's of no concern to you is, well, just ridiculous and extremely narrow-minded.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Like you said, Canadian and American concerns are not always congruent. So for Canadians if there is no security issue, and the economic issues are marginal at best, why wouldn't "who cares?" be a valid opinion? |
Absolutely. From what you're saying, Canadian takes on world politics are strictly isolationist, whereas the U.S. is more global oriented in its concerns.
Perhaps this markedly narrow concern with world events helps explain the tendency for this board to be so U.S.-centric as well. At least I made an honest effort to broaden perspectives on Current Events. And now laoguikin's explanation that Canadians are mostly apathetic is making much more sense to me. Still, I wasn't expecting that to mean the kind of stubborn apathy you are expressing here.
In any case, to each his own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So on the one hand, you state that Americans and Canadians have different concerns. But on the other hand, you're basically complaining that Canadians are not American enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| ...there is no overriding security concern (the danger of becoming a Soviet satellite)... |
When I started this thread it had little to do with "security concerns."
But you know, you're right. You're voicing how much the rest of the world probably feels about Canadian affairs, too. Canada holds an election? So what? No Canadian election affects much of anything in the world. So who cares who gets elected? |
Yup.
| Quote: |
| In any case, it would be the wrong reaction. Perhaps you are not aware that ours in an increasingly... |
But that's not for you to decide, is it. Like you said, different countries and peoples have different concerns, and differing cultures are likely to place differing importance on the same issue.
Not all international issues are of the same importance. Like I said, elections in Bolivia probably deserve discussion...just not much.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Like you said, Canadian and American concerns are not always congruent. So for Canadians if there is no security issue, and the economic issues are marginal at best, why wouldn't "who cares?" be a valid opinion? |
Absolutely. |
I'm glad we were able to work this out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| So on the one hand, you state that Americans and Canadians have different concerns. But on the other hand, you're basically complaining that Canadians are not American enough. |
Actually, it's not about the U.S. or Canada at all, after all. You're just an extremely narrow-minded, odd-ball isolationist, not even in tune with your own govt's and peoples' interests in Latin America...
| Quote: |
Canada-Latin America/Caribbean Defence Relations
Canada currently has six Canadian Defence Attaché (CDA) officers in Latin America and the Caribbean. CDA officers are accredited to Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. The latter four Attachés have responsibilities for more than their host country. The CDA in Buenos Aires, Argentina is also responsible for Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay; the CDA in Brasilia, Brazil also covers Guyana and Suriname; the CDA in Bogotá, Colombia is cross-accredited to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela; and the CDA in Mexico City, Mexico, represents Canada in Belize, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.
In keeping with Canada��s 2005 International Policy Statement, the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces (CF) have been actively expanding their bilateral and multilateral defence and security activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. To ensure continued prosperity and security Canada needs a more expansive relationship with Mexico, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreed between Canada Mexico and the United States in March, 2005 reflects the unique circumstances of our continent, and ensures the highest continent-wide security standards and streamlined risk-based border processes.
Argentina, Brazil and Chile are the focus of most defence relation activity in South America, where we have correspondingly stronger political and commercial ties. We continue to maintain extensive ties with a number of Caribbean nations. Where and when feasible, we remain amenable to exploring further activities, exchanges, and visits with other armed forces throughout the Americas.
Defence relations with Canada's hemispheric partners have often taken the form of joint training, personnel exchanges and visits, bilateral and multilateral meetings, reciprocal visits by ships and aircraft, and high level conferences. Multilateral fora, where DND and the CF interact with a number of Latin American and Caribbean countries at once, include the Conference of Defence Ministers of the Americas (CDMA), the Inter-American Defence Board (IADB), the Inter-American Naval Conference (IANC), the Conference of the Armies of the Americas (CAA), the System for Co-operation Among the Air Forces of the Americas (SICOFAA), and the hemispheric-wide reporting on Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBM's). In addition, the CF participates in wargames, training and operations with armed forces of the region.
Bilateral and multilateral dialogue, amongst Service Chiefs and other senior officers throughout the region, encourages partner nations to become more engaged in common areas of interest such as hemispheric security, analysis of counter-terrorism measures, international peacekeeping, arms control and search and rescue. In addition, exposure to Canada's model of civil-military relations serves to strengthen democracy in the hemisphere, and potentially improve respect for human rights.
Another medium through which DND and the CF have been able to expand defence relationships in the hemisphere is the Military Training Assistance Program (MTAP). This program provides a means through which Canada can broaden its relations with Latin American and Caribbean nations, whilst contributing to the constructive development of their legitimate defence and security needs. Latin American and Caribbean countries currently in the program include Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Jamaica and Barbados, amongst others. The scope of the participation by South American countries is centred upon training at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, where they have the opportunity to send personnel on courses dealing with peacekeeping-related activities. It is noteworthy that an increasing number of Latin American countries are taking part in UN and peacekeeping operations. Caribbean nations and their Regional Security System continue to receive various levels of support.
Defence relations with Latin America and the Caribbean have also involved CF participation in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. Canadian involvement in peacekeeping activities in Central America stems back to the mid-1980s, when the Contadora Group first sought help from Canada, amongst others, in developing a regional peacekeeping framework. Since then, the CF has been involved in several peacekeeping activities throughout the region. Canada also deployed the CF Disaster Assistance Relief Team (DART) to Honduras in 1998 to provide aid and assistance following the devastation left by Hurricane Mitch. |
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/eng/defence/ca_la_relation_e.htm
| Quote: |
Post-war Canadian foreign policy has been characterized by two enduring themes - an ongoing commitment to multilateralism on the one hand, and a substantial commitment to continentalism on the other. In the early 1970s the post-war structures for international politics and economics entered a period that led to a dramatic transformation based on the relative decline of the United States (punctuated by the end of the cold war), the rise of economic interdependence and the new internationalism, and the emergence of citizen-centered foreign policy. These three factors have had a substantial impact on both Canada's role in the world and its relationships with its main political and economic partners.
In Canada, Latin America, and the New Internationalism Brian Stevenson argues that Canada's foreign policy toward Latin America has been profoundly affected by these three factors and has evolved in response to both changing domestic demands and shifting international circumstances. By analysing a pivotal period in Canada-Latin American relations, he shows us how successive Canadian governments made important initiatives toward closer relationships with Latin America and were also pressured by non-governmental organizations to play a bigger role in the region. Canada's increased role can be seen in official foreign policy commitments, such as the decision to join the Organization of American States, and in policy decisions on political refugees. He explains that while the United States has played a key role in sometimes constraining Canadian foreign policy in the region, it is important to realize that Canadian foreign policy has been steadied by a long-standing tradition of internationalism.
Canada, Latin America, and the New Internationalism demonstrates that the tradition of internationalism in Canadian foreign policy as viewed from the perspective of foreign policy analysis provides the framework within which to understand and accommodate changes in its policy toward Latin America. The period which the book explores is critical in order to understand the contemporary nature and future direction of Canada-Latin America relations. |
http://www.mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=173
Also see...
http://www.yorku.ca/cerlac/people.html
And this...
| Quote: |
| A recent AUCC survey identified Latin America as a priority region for the majority of Canada's universities. |
http://www.cbie.ca/news/index_e.cfm?folder=presentation&page=rel_jul2k
| Quote: |
| Canada aims to play an important role in the building of the Americas. |
http://www.uottawa.ca/publications/interscientia/classifieds/aucc.html
And this one, I found just for you, Manner of Speaking...
| Quote: |
| The ability to respond to these challenges is not so much a function of international diplomacy or enhanced foreign policy, as it is a change in mindset at home to consider these issues as an extension of national issues. This new "intermestic" paradigm is required if Canada is to build on its reputation as a sound global partner with strong knowledge skills. That we have not adopted this perspective is problematic, given that the nature of competition is rapidly changing in favour of aggressive users and producers of science and technology, and that Canada is heavily dependent on the world innovation system. |
http://www.uottawa.ca/publications/interscientia/inter.4/dufour/dufour.html
So, in closing, yeah, I'm glad we could work this out. Thanks for providing the opportunity to start to familiarize myself with Canada-Latin American relations, a field in foreign policy history that is presently at least as much of a backwater as you say Bolivian elections are... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh good! So now you no longer think Canada and Canadians are isolationist.
It's amazing how playing a little devil's advocate can do wonders for other people's education. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's also amazing what changing your avatar can accomplish. There's no way I could possibly argue with a satirical Krispy Kreme donut ad staring me down...
Cheers.
P.S. I think the "devil's advocate" thing works well for both of us. This has become a bit tedious, no?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bolivia's Recent "Democratically" Elected President
Any bets on how long until the White House acts to rub him out? 
Evo Morales
Bolivia's FIRST indigenous President in 200 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales
Morales is the left-wing leader of Bolivia's cocalero movement, a loose federation of coca leaf-growing campesinos who are resisting the efforts of the United States government to eradicate coca in the province of Chapare in southeastern Bolivia.
Morales is also leader of the Bolivian political party Movement Toward Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo, with the Spanish accronym MAS, meaning "more").
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
