In case you couldn't notice from my comments in class....the idea of being "Americanized" bugs me. There are so many reasons. First of all, we aren't only Americanized, but Europized? and Asiaized? Many people in Canada own Toyotas, Honda's, buy Ikea furniture, wear designer clothing, etc. In fact, if we looked at the labels of most of the stuff in our life I think it is safe to say that very few of it says "made in Canada". So, we aren't just Americanized, but globalized and I think that it is the nature of the world. It's just getting smaller. Secondly, if people are upset about being taken over by the US, perhaps Canadians should start marketing Canada better. The olympics was a great show of that. I'd say we promoted Canada pretty well, so why not all year, every year. A friend of mine is a film maker. He's won several international awards at film festivals, won grants to make more films, etc. However, if I tell you his name I can guarantee nobody will know him. That is because he doesn't market himself as a film maker. There's never been any articles in papers about him, nor has there been any commercials about him or his films, so why would we expect him to be bigger than a Hollywood film maker who spends a ton of money marketing their work. So maybe Canadians deserve to be taken over (I'm don't honestly believe that, I'm just playing the other side)
The last statement I'd like to make about being Americanized is about curriculum (and that's what I should be commenting about). I'm obviously not knowledgeable enough about how all of this works (hence the reason I'm in school) but are the curriculum documents that we use not made in Canada by Canadian stakeholders (teachers, administrators, consultants, politicians)? And is the curriculum content not based on Canada? I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand what is Americanized about our curriculum? Can someone help me out with that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Lana, there seems to be a paradox between globalization and a fear of loss of national identity, hence perhaps the outpouring of nationalism seen at the Olympics. Minority groups within the hegemony of a country have been living with this concept for a long time. As the world moves towards a globalized hegemony, the scale of this phenomenon increases and perhaps it is possible that an entire country can feel what minority groups have felt for ages.
ReplyDeleteAs to curriculum, science for example is very much informed by research done in the USA. In fact the whole management by objectives approach originates in the States I believe. As Pierre Trudeau once said living next to the States is a bit like sleeping with an elephant. We can't but help be influenced by every twitch it makes.
I like the phrase "think globally, act locally." As we become more of a global village we need to think about our responsibilities to the rest of the world. Since technology allows us to know about the earthquake in Chile, must we now donate money to assist in relief efforts? If we don't are we being irresponsible? The more we know, the more responsibility we have. As well, the more we focus on global issues, the more we forget about what is happening within our own community. As people dole out hundreds of dollars to help out Haitian earthquake victims, the shelves of Winnipeg Harvest go bare. Where do our loyalties lie in a global village? How does being aware of international issues improve our lives, while still addressing local issues?
ReplyDeleteIf Canadians are concerned about the problems facing our society, they should seek means to limit the effects of globalization. For example, we need to adopt the 100 mile movement, that is now considered a fringe movement, but in my grandmother's house it was just life as usual. Why do we need mangoes in Manitoba in March?
To connect back to Lana's question, I see our curriculum being Americanized through research and innovation. Canada seems to lack the funds to meaningfully advance research and innovation in many fields to promote it globally. I'm sure that much of our curriculum documents are based on research conducted by Americans, which raises good questions, such as:
1. Who funded the research?
2. What were the intended goals of the research for the American context?
3. Can the research be meaningfully translated into a Canadian context?
In the end I guess it doesn't really matter where curriculum research originates, as to gain credibility it will need to be based on principles that promote free-market capitalism. Maybe if Canada came up with something different we'd have something to talk about. Until then, we can teach our science curriculum whose underlying philosophies might have been develoepd by an American researcher who was funded by a grant from Cargill.