Canadian Stereotypes Debunked

No Hosers Here, eh? Canadian Stereotypes Debunked

Canada is often pictured as a uniformly cold, multicultural, socialist paradise full of beer-swilling ice hockey fans. But a close look at the evidence reveals some very different truths—good and bad—about the Great White North

By Richard Whittall | 16 January 2017

It’s pretty easy to conjure an idea of a Canadian. As one young paramour looking to marry an American told a dating website: “She must be willing to become a hockey fan and eat maple syrup and Beaver Tails in my igloo.”

There’s more to the stereotype, of course. Canada’s universal health care and gun-control legislation are frequently namechecked by American politicians (often disapprovingly), while the country’s adventurers have a long-standing tradition of stitching tiny Canadian flags into their backpacks.

But while some of these cliches are true—Tim Hortons really does sell more of its hot brown drink (they call it “coffee”) than any other restaurant chain—a deep dive into the actual statistics suggest that much of the country’s image is just that.

Some of the most common misconceptions about Canada include:

Canadians live in the wilderness

Pierre Berton once declared: “A Canadian is somebody who knows how to make love in a canoe.”

But there are a few problems with this all-Canadian adage, beyond the obvious issue of tipping. For one, Berton never actually said it. For another, the image of Canadians as a wilderness-dwelling people is not borne out by research: as of 2011, a full 81% of Canadians resided in a “population centre”, census speak for urban area.

In fact, about 35.2%, or one in three Canadians, lives in either Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver alone.

And if you think the vast majority Canada’s city-dwellers love nothing more than to race to the countryside, you’d also be wrong: a 2010 poll found that only 23% of Canadians see their ideal vacation as a visit to a cottage or a lake.

Read the rest of this article at The Guardian:



Threats to Archaeology and Heritage


Threats to Archaeology and Heritage—Free Journal Access

Publisher Routledge/Taylor & Francis is offering free access to fourteen articles on the theme Threats to Archaeology and Heritage. The offer expires 30 April 2017.

The publisher writes:

From the devastating war in Syria and the destruction of Palmyra, the impacts of climate change and natural disasters to issues of governance and policy, threats to archaeology and heritage come in many forms. This article collection presents papers which examine some of those threats and provide potential solutions or policies to help us protect our pasts.

The articles are:

Commentary: ‘I Dwell in Possibility’ — Ethical Futures for Heritage and Archaeology
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa | Link
Tracy Ireland

Protecting a Moveable and Immoveable Feast: Legal Safeguards for Yemen’s Cultural Heritage
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | Link
Stephen Steinbeiser

A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability of Archaeological Sites to Climate Change: Theory, Development, and Application
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | Link
Cathy Daly

Managing, Valuing, and Protecting Heritage Resources in the Twenty-First Century: Peatland Archaeology, the Ecosystem Services Framework, and the Kyoto Protocol
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites | Link
Benjamin R. Gearey, William Fletcher & Ralph Fyfe

Adaptation to Climate Change at UK World Heritage Sites: Progress and Challenges
The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice | Link
Helen Phillips

Looting and vandalism around a World Heritage Site: Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
Journal of Field Archaeology | Link
Clive Vella, Emanuela Bocancea, Thomas M. Urban, Alex R. Knodell, Christopher A. Tuttle & Susan E. Alcock

Excavation is Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice
Journal of Field Archaeology | Link
Christopher H. Roosevelt, Peter Cobb, Emanuel Moss, Brandon R. Olson & Sinan Ünlüsoy

Cultural Heritage at Risk in the Twenty-First Century: A Vulnerability Assessment of Coastal Archaeological Sites in the United States
Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology | Link
Leslie A. Reeder-Myers

Vandalised and Looted, Rock-Cut Toombs of the Roman and Byzantine Periods: A Case Study from Saffa Village, Ramallah Province
Palestine Exploration Quarterly | Link
Salah Hussein Al-Houdalieh

The Values of Archaeological and Heritage Sites
Public Archaeology | Link
Arjo Klamer

Threats to the Archaeological Heritage in theLaissez-Faire World of Tourism: The Need for Global Standards as a Global Public Good
Public Archaeology | Link
Douglas C. Comer

Preservation as ‘Disaster Capitalism’: The Downside of Site Rescue and the Complexity of Community Engagement
Public Archaeology | Link
Anne Pyburn

Heritocide? Defining and Exploring Heritage Crime
Public Archaeology | Link
Louise Grove

Gridlock: UNESCO, Global Conflict and Failed Ambitions
World Archaeology | Link
Lynn Meskell

Is Canada the World’s First ‘Postnational’ Country?

The Canada Experiment: Is this the World’s First ‘Postnational’ Country?

When Justin Trudeau said ‘there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada’, he was articulating a uniquely Canadian philosophy that some find bewildering, even reckless – but could represent a radical new model of nationhood

By Charles Foran | The Independent | 04 January 2017

achs_maple-leafAs 2017 begins, Canada may be the last immigrant nation left standing. Our government believes in the value of immigration, as does the majority of the population. We took in an estimated 300,000 newcomers in 2016, including 48,000 refugees, and we want them to become citizens; around 85% of permanent residents eventually do. Recently there have been concerns about bringing in single Arab men, but otherwise Canada welcomes people from all faiths and corners. The greater Toronto area is now the most diverse city on the planet, with half its residents born outside the country; Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa and Montreal aren’t far behind. Annual immigration accounts for roughly 1% of the country’s current population of 36 million.

Canada has been over-praised lately for, in effect, going about our business as usual. In 2016 such luminaries as US President Barack Obama and Bono, no less, declared “the world needs more Canada”. In October, the Economist blared “Liberty Moves North: Canada’s Example to the World” on its cover, illustrated by the Statue of Liberty haloed in a maple leaf and wielding a hockey stick. Infamously, on the night of the US election Canada’s official immigration website crashed, apparently due to the volume of traffic.

Of course, 2016 was also the year – really the second running – when many western countries turned angrily against immigration, blaming it for a variety of ills in what journalist Doug Saunders calls the “global reflex appeal to fear”. Alongside the rise of nativism has emerged a new nationalism that can scarcely be bothered to deny its roots in racial identities and exclusionary narratives.

Compared to such hard stances, Canada’s almost cheerful commitment to inclusion might at first appear almost naive. It isn’t. There are practical reasons for keeping the doors open. Starting in the 1990s, low fertility and an aging population began slowing Canada’s natural growth rate. Ten years ago, two-thirds of population increase was courtesy of immigration. By 2030, it is projected to be 100%.

The economic benefits are also self-evident, especially if full citizenship is the agreed goal. All that “settlers” – ie, Canadians who are not indigenous to the land – need do is look in the mirror to recognize the generally happy ending of an immigrant saga. Our government repeats it, our statistics confirm it, our own eyes and ears register it: diversity fuels, not undermines, prosperity.

But as well as practical considerations for remaining an immigrant country, Canadians, by and large, are also philosophically predisposed to an openness that others find bewildering, even reckless. The prime minister, Justin Trudeau, articulated this when he told the New York Times Magazine that Canada could be the “first postnational state”. He added: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”

The remark, made in October 2015, failed to cause a ripple – but when I mentioned it to Michael Bach, Germany’s minister for European affairs, who was touring Canada to learn more about integration, he was astounded. No European politician could say such a thing, he said. The thought was too radical. …

Read the rest of this article at The Independent:


Trudeau More Dangerous to Heritage than Harper?

Trudeau, More Dangerous to Environment than Harper?

By Damien Gillis | 02 Dec 2016

Sometimes it’s no fun being right. Case in point: Three-and-a-half years ago I wrote a piece titled “Why Justin Trudeau may be more dangerous than Harper.”

Flash forward to today, and barely a year into his reign Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is batting almost a thousand when it comes to approving controversial energy projects, from liquefied natural gas plants in Squamish and Prince Rupert to permits for the Site C dam — and now Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and Enbridge’s Line 3.

In that 2013 editorial, my main concern about the new Liberal leader was that his energy and trade policies were nearly identical to those of former prime minister Stephen Harper — they just looked and sounded better coming from Canada’s prodigal son.

Moreover, I already had the sense Trudeau wasn’t guided by a clear set of values, making him vulnerable to persuasive political advisors and powerful lobbies. With Harper, I noted three years ago, at least we had “a sense that his zeal for expanding Canada’s fossil fuel industries through foreign ownership is something in which he believes on a deep, ideological level.” With Harper, you knew exactly what you were getting — he loathed environmentalists and didn’t care much for “radical” First Nations either….

Read the rest of this article at The Tyee:

Five Myths Rehashed in Kinder Morgan Pipeline Approval

Five Myths Trudeau Rehashed in Kinder Morgan Pipeline Approval

By Carol Linnitt | 02 Dec 2016

Most Canadians weren’t surprised to hear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approve the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline this week.

Yet Trudeau’s announcement was so thoroughly cut through with political spin and misinformation some have described it as “Orwellian.”

So where did the Prime Minister rank highest on the spin-master index?

Here are our top five myth and misinformation moments from Trudeau’s Kinder Morgan announcement:

>>Kinder Morgan Pipeline Approval Based on ‘Science’
>>Kinder Morgan Pipeline and Tankers ‘Safe’ for B.C. Coast
>>Kinder Morgan Pipeline a Part of Canada’s Climate Plan
>>Pipeline Will Help Usher in Clean Energy Transition
>>Pipeline Approval Doesn’t Violate Indigenous Rights

Read the rest of this article at DeSmog Canada:

Kinder Morgan Pipeline Approval Insults Democracy and Economic Logic

Kinder Morgan Approval Insults Democracy, Science and Economic Logic

By Andrew Nikiforuk | 30 Nov 2016

By approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has undermined democracy, ignored science, trashed all economic logic and put his government on a collision course with First Nations and British Columbia’s coastal communities.

Although the prime minister claimed that his decision was “based on rigorous debate on science and on evidence,” the approval remains, say economic and petroleum experts, an irrational political decision that sacrifices the best economic and environment interests of the country.

Let’s begin with the insult to democracy.

From the beginning, countless citizens identified the National Energy Board review process that approved the controversial $6.8-billion pipeline earlier this year as a travesty, unjust or a sham.…

Read the rest of this article at The Tyee:

CFP: Critical Heritage Studies in Canada: What Does Heritage Do?

Critical Heritage Studies in Canada: What Does Heritage Do?
Deadline to Submit: December 22, 2016

Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue d’études canadiennes

Drawing on the debates of the June 2016 Association of Critical Heritage Studies (ACHS) Conference in Montreal, this theme issue seeks contributions (articles and review essays) that reflect on the state(s) of heritage in Canada – both tangible and intangible – from critical perspectives. Contributions to this special issue will focus critically on ‘What Does Heritage Do?’ in Canada. What have been its limitations and what might be its possibilities? This special issue of JCS/REC seeks to reflect upon, analyze, expand and critique heritage perspectives in Canada. We call on academics, cultural producers and heritage practitioners to contribute to critical heritage discussions in Canada through this special issue.

Authors must submit a 500-word abstract and 50-word bio to Susan Ashley at in English or French by December 22, 2016. Key for us will be how you conceptualize the word heritage in your proposals.

To read the full Call for Papers, please visit For further information, please contact JCS/REC Guest Editors, Susan Ashley ( or Andrea Terry (

Appel D’Articles
Études critiques du patrimoine au Canada : un patrimoine, ça fait quoi?
Date limite de soumission : le 22 décembre 2016

Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue d’études canadiennes

Ce sujet s’inspire des débats qui ont marqué le troisième congrès bisannuel de l’Association of Critical Heritage Studies, organisé en juin 2016 à Montréal. Pour ce numéro thématique, nous sommes à la recherche de contributions (articles et revues de littérature) qui réfléchissent sur l’état ou les différents états du patrimoine canadien – aussi bien tangible qu’intangible – d’un point de vue critique. Les contributions à ce numéro spécial tâcheront de répondre de façon critique aux questions suivantes : « Le patrimoine, ça fait quoi? Quelles ont été ses limites et quelles pourraient être ses possibilités? » Ce numéro spécial de la RÉC/JCS souhaite repenser, analyser, élargir et critiquer les perspectives de la critique dans le champ patrimonial au Canada, en demandant ce que la notion de patrimoine accomplit effectivement au Canada, et ce qu’elle pourrait accomplir. Nous invitons les universitaires, les créateurs du milieu culturel et les intervenants actifs dans le domaine du patrimoine à apporter leur contribution aux échanges critiques sur le sujet en participant à ce numéro spécial de la Revue.

Les auteurs doivent fournir un résumé de 500 mots accompagné d’une notice biographique de 50 mots, en français ou en anglais, à Susan Ashley,, au plus tard le 22 décembre 2016. Nous accorderons une attention particulière à la façon dont le mot patrimoine sera conceptualisé dans les propositions.

Pour lire l’Appel d’articles complet, veuillez consulter Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez contacter les directrices invitées de la JCS/REC, Susan Ashley ( ou Andrea Terry (