P
pitfever
Guest
Most beloved building cause that's the ONLY building they have that's famous. Oh, and it's an ugly boring totally over-rated too!
|
|
|
A
adma
Guest
My feeling about the Chateau Frontenac as it stands is that it inherently transcends such solitudes...
A
adma
Guest
Now, if Asian tourists would pick Green Gables, dumb American tourists (and P.J. O'Rourkean cynics) would pick *that*.
Though speaking of domes: I'll betcha this'll make it into the Top 10...
Another interesting thing: sporting facilities, and all those stadiums on the American list. Can you see the Big O or even Skydome on ours? Even our Fenway/Wrigley "vernacular" creations (like, say, Ivor Wynne) haven't engendered much in the way of physical mythology.
I guess our top sporting venue on such a list might be MLG--and curiously, I can also see Calgary's Saddledome there. (Remember, it's "the people" voting.)
R
rousseau
Guest
I think this hearkens to the old saw: we don't have much in the way of shared mythology when it comes to anything, living as we are in the shadow of the U.S. Sad but true. Well, except for hockey, of course. But try to conjure up anything iconic for Canada, and you come up blank. Except for Wayne Gretzky, or just about anything related to hockey. Again, of course.
The ESB has a long history, and is iconic. Among many, many iconic buildings in the U.S. But try to name one iconic building in Canada? Parliament? I daresay that even for many Canadians the White House resonates more immediately. I don't think my experience is necessarily representative, but I did not have an image in my head of the parliament buildings until I first visited at the age of 25. I would not have been able to pick them out in an uncaptioned photo before then, and even now I wouldn't be able to conjure them up into my imagination the way I can the White House. Again, said but true.
I agree that regionalism would reign in a similar poll
taken in Canada.
The ESB has a long history, and is iconic. Among many, many iconic buildings in the U.S. But try to name one iconic building in Canada? Parliament? I daresay that even for many Canadians the White House resonates more immediately. I don't think my experience is necessarily representative, but I did not have an image in my head of the parliament buildings until I first visited at the age of 25. I would not have been able to pick them out in an uncaptioned photo before then, and even now I wouldn't be able to conjure them up into my imagination the way I can the White House. Again, said but true.
I agree that regionalism would reign in a similar poll
taken in Canada.
T
tudararms
Guest
"... try to conjure up anything iconic for Canada, and you come up blank. Except for Wayne Gretzky, or just about anything related to hockey."
I sense that most of us who are immigrants ourselves, or the first generation children of immigrants, or married to immigrants, or who have lived and traveled extensively abroad, would feel that this observation is simply not true...
Yet, the idea that Canada's national identity is a lack of a national identity? Interesting. National identities and mythologies emerge and are used as political tools; for assimilation, for unity, for propoganda, for manipulation. The fact that our particular political powers opt not to recognize/promote one is surely as potent a political tool as any.
I sense that most of us who are immigrants ourselves, or the first generation children of immigrants, or married to immigrants, or who have lived and traveled extensively abroad, would feel that this observation is simply not true...
Yet, the idea that Canada's national identity is a lack of a national identity? Interesting. National identities and mythologies emerge and are used as political tools; for assimilation, for unity, for propoganda, for manipulation. The fact that our particular political powers opt not to recognize/promote one is surely as potent a political tool as any.
R
rousseau
Guest
.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying it's unlikely that those people would be less likely to see hockey as iconic to Canada? I don't see why that would be so. It was for my parents and all of my aunts and uncles, some 30 in total with spouses (big farm families on both sides), who were the children of immigrants back in the 1950s.
I lived abroad for many years. Why would that make hockey less iconic to Canada? If anything, my experience was that the iconic nature of hockey in Canada was reinforced as thoughts of home turned rosy, as they often do for expats (though I'm actually not a hockey fan at all).
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
I think national identity and myths can certainly be used for propaganda purposes, but they don't necessarily always have to be. They often arise organically in the form of apple pie and baseball, say...the "top-down" ones often fizzle, and don't catch on. In a free society, anyway.
And again, I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but far from not opting to "recognize/promote" identity or myth, the Canadian government is and mostly always has been involved in attempts to foster and/or preserve Canadian identity. An obvious example is the CBC, which we have no choice but to pay for through our taxes*.
*Off-topic: I cannot reconcile the contradictions for myself in terms of how I view the CBC, specifically the radio broadcaster. I love many of the programs and personalities, and detest/loathe advertisements, yet I cannot philosophically or politically justify government-run media. Same thing for the BBC. I love it as well, but the nature of the beast disturbs me profoundly.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying it's unlikely that those people would be less likely to see hockey as iconic to Canada? I don't see why that would be so. It was for my parents and all of my aunts and uncles, some 30 in total with spouses (big farm families on both sides), who were the children of immigrants back in the 1950s.
I lived abroad for many years. Why would that make hockey less iconic to Canada? If anything, my experience was that the iconic nature of hockey in Canada was reinforced as thoughts of home turned rosy, as they often do for expats (though I'm actually not a hockey fan at all).
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
I think national identity and myths can certainly be used for propaganda purposes, but they don't necessarily always have to be. They often arise organically in the form of apple pie and baseball, say...the "top-down" ones often fizzle, and don't catch on. In a free society, anyway.
And again, I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but far from not opting to "recognize/promote" identity or myth, the Canadian government is and mostly always has been involved in attempts to foster and/or preserve Canadian identity. An obvious example is the CBC, which we have no choice but to pay for through our taxes*.
*Off-topic: I cannot reconcile the contradictions for myself in terms of how I view the CBC, specifically the radio broadcaster. I love many of the programs and personalities, and detest/loathe advertisements, yet I cannot philosophically or politically justify government-run media. Same thing for the BBC. I love it as well, but the nature of the beast disturbs me profoundly.
B
building babel
Guest
Re: .
I don't consider it a "sad but true" negative that Canadians can't conjure up images of strongly iconic buildings to - supposedly - give us a sense of cultural self-worth as a nation.
We live next door to brash and aggressive America, a country founded by puritans and famous for a popular culture that has for generations spewn out and promoted endless, hard-edged, iconic imagery. Why should the fact that we don't play by their rules be considered a negative? We aren't Americans. Ours is a country founded on the accommodation between two founding and once-warring cultures - Britain and France, we were part of a huge empire for decades after that, and we have learned to deal with American culture in a fairly sensible way without swallowing it hook, line and sinker.
With respect to buildings, our defining architectural styles are quiet, modest and contextual rather than iconic. Again, we play by our own rules, and the lack of "loud" foreign style architecture in Canada doesn't negate values which define us.
The CBC is hardly Pravda.
I don't consider it a "sad but true" negative that Canadians can't conjure up images of strongly iconic buildings to - supposedly - give us a sense of cultural self-worth as a nation.
We live next door to brash and aggressive America, a country founded by puritans and famous for a popular culture that has for generations spewn out and promoted endless, hard-edged, iconic imagery. Why should the fact that we don't play by their rules be considered a negative? We aren't Americans. Ours is a country founded on the accommodation between two founding and once-warring cultures - Britain and France, we were part of a huge empire for decades after that, and we have learned to deal with American culture in a fairly sensible way without swallowing it hook, line and sinker.
With respect to buildings, our defining architectural styles are quiet, modest and contextual rather than iconic. Again, we play by our own rules, and the lack of "loud" foreign style architecture in Canada doesn't negate values which define us.
The CBC is hardly Pravda.
T
tudararms
Guest
Re: .
"Are you saying it's unlikely that those people would be less likely to see hockey as iconic to Canada?"
Not at all. I'm saying that those people would in fact be less likely to reduce Canadian identity to hockey; Canada's identity 'crisis' is domestic, not imported.
"I think national identity and myths can certainly be used for propaganda purposes, but they don't necessarily always have to be. They often arise organically in the form of apple pie and baseball, say...the "top-down" ones often fizzle, and don't catch on. In a free society, anyway."
Agreed, and I'm not implying that those things are necessarily bad. On the contrary, all cultures, societies or groups have them. Canada has them too, except they operate in a different way.
"I don't consider it a "sad but true" negative that Canadians can't conjure up images of strongly iconic buildings to - supposedly - give us a sense of cultural self-worth as a nation."
The function of Mythologies is to teach and define the shared values of a group, and icons are simply symbols of those mythologies.
"Are you saying it's unlikely that those people would be less likely to see hockey as iconic to Canada?"
Not at all. I'm saying that those people would in fact be less likely to reduce Canadian identity to hockey; Canada's identity 'crisis' is domestic, not imported.
"I think national identity and myths can certainly be used for propaganda purposes, but they don't necessarily always have to be. They often arise organically in the form of apple pie and baseball, say...the "top-down" ones often fizzle, and don't catch on. In a free society, anyway."
Agreed, and I'm not implying that those things are necessarily bad. On the contrary, all cultures, societies or groups have them. Canada has them too, except they operate in a different way.
"I don't consider it a "sad but true" negative that Canadians can't conjure up images of strongly iconic buildings to - supposedly - give us a sense of cultural self-worth as a nation."
The function of Mythologies is to teach and define the shared values of a group, and icons are simply symbols of those mythologies.
D
Darkstar416
Guest
Re: .
It's not government-run. It's publically run. Most governments of the day hate the beast, so it's nothing approaching a state broadcaster. What is more disturbing is the complete lack of diverse opinions in the mdiea in nations that don't have a significant public broadcaster.
wyliepoon
Senior Member
Speaking of the CBC, they have started a Seven Wonders of Canada poll...
Link
Seven Wonders of Canada
Do you have a favourite place in Canada? Do you have a treasured spot our listeners should see?
The National and Sounds Like Canada are searching for the Seven Wonders of Canada and we need your help.
We want you to nominate what you consider to be the most wonderful place and tell us why it's so special.
Maybe it has a natural beauty. Perhaps it's because of the wildlife. It could be the people who live there. It's up to you. In short, tell us why your special place should be one of the 'Wonders of Canada.'
The list of potential Canadian wonders is wide open. You can pick an awesome natural wonder, a beautiful building, that quirky little park at the end of your street, a rock shaped like your favourite prime minister, or even a regular weather phenomenon. any physical feature in Canada. All we ask is that other Canadians be able to see it somehow.
Seven wonders will be featured in on the National and Sounds Like Canada. Make one of them yours!
How it works
The competition begins Monday April 23rd. You have two weeks to send in your nominations.
Starting May 7th a panel of judges will narrow the field, and then you get to vote online on which should be THE Seven.
So, get your nomination in. We look forward to hearing from you.
Just fill out the nomination form below (click link at top) or phone us 1-866-722-2752.
Link
Seven Wonders of Canada
Do you have a favourite place in Canada? Do you have a treasured spot our listeners should see?
The National and Sounds Like Canada are searching for the Seven Wonders of Canada and we need your help.
We want you to nominate what you consider to be the most wonderful place and tell us why it's so special.
Maybe it has a natural beauty. Perhaps it's because of the wildlife. It could be the people who live there. It's up to you. In short, tell us why your special place should be one of the 'Wonders of Canada.'
The list of potential Canadian wonders is wide open. You can pick an awesome natural wonder, a beautiful building, that quirky little park at the end of your street, a rock shaped like your favourite prime minister, or even a regular weather phenomenon. any physical feature in Canada. All we ask is that other Canadians be able to see it somehow.
Seven wonders will be featured in on the National and Sounds Like Canada. Make one of them yours!
How it works
The competition begins Monday April 23rd. You have two weeks to send in your nominations.
Starting May 7th a panel of judges will narrow the field, and then you get to vote online on which should be THE Seven.
So, get your nomination in. We look forward to hearing from you.
Just fill out the nomination form below (click link at top) or phone us 1-866-722-2752.