Dual.

Champlain, NY

An essay of mine appears in today's Montreal Gazette. I read some of the comments last night, and then stopped; I won't engage in a discussion in the newspaper's comment thread, but please feel free to weigh in if you go over there - and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts here. Although no one likes being misunderstood, I'm still glad the piece was published. In the process I've learned several important things that I'd like to share with you, my faithful and sensitive readers who I am appreciating today more than ever.

First, subtle, lyrical essays do not translate well to newspapers or online websites where people expect a different sort of writing. I had originally written the essay for this blog, and perhaps it should have simply stayed here.

Second, editorial decisions can shift the tone and thrust of a piece. My original title was "Dual" and I had submitted the two photographs above and below. The paper showed me their edits, but not the changed title or photo (congested traffic at a border crossing) until after the piece was published. Part of what I was trying to convey was what it is like to be a dual citizen of an older age, traveling between two cultures, and specifically my own sadness about what has changed in America since 9/11.

Historical memory, of course, is constantly in the process of being created and erased. For me, born in 1952, the fifties are a sort of blur, underlain by the chill of the Cold War, and though I can explain intellectually and with hindsight some of what that time was "like," my own American reality began the year JFK was shot in Dallas. Likewise, someone who was young at the time of 9/11 and is now in their twenties cannot know personally what America was like before the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Al-Qaeda, drone warfare, Guantanamo, Iraq, ISIS, international terrorism, and the rise of social media.

There is more to it than that, though. To some extent, our reality is imposed upon us, but in other ways, we - some of us in the privileged west, at least - choose how to see it, even choose how much to see. What is objective truth, and what is subjective and personal? That is an important question, and it underlies much of the political and social debate in many societies right now. I think it is also a question we have to keep asking ourselves throughout life, because rigidity on that score is an absolute peril.

Ever since I was young, I saw that American culture contained tremendous opportunity and genuine goodness, and at the same time - even in the small peaceful town where I grew up - I sensed the racism and violence that often lurked beneath the surface and sometime erupted. The popularity of Trump is not a surprise to me, and because I have seen the economic and social deterioration caused by globalization, poor government, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and the societal effect of constant wars, among other reasons, I think I understand the anger and hopelessness many people feel, and why some gravitate to a person who cries, "Make America Great Again," and casts blame on The Other.

Canada is not the same. When you move here, you think it is a similar society, but - perhaps particularly in Quebec - the similarities are superficial, the differences immense. I have found that Canadians, unless they have traveled a lot or lived in the U.S. for an extended period of time, simply do not understand what it is like to live in a society where owning guns is normal and violence is much more prevalent. Here are just a few examples: in my small town in Vermont, the neighbor on one side had a shotgun with which he threatened us when, during a flood, we tried to clear the ditch and culvert dividing our two properties. The neighbor on the other side collected pornography, throwing knives, and assault rifles. Our street was once evacuated because wayward teenagers had shot holes in the gas tanks on the side of a house. There were violent crimes, including murder, and women did not feel safe walking beyond the borders of the village at night. And this was mostly before drugs came heavily into that area, spawning whole new categories of suffering. Yet, we all lived our daily lives as "normal" because that was our reality - this is what people do everywhere. I am sure that many of my neighbors didn't know about some of this, because they didn't want to, or because they didn't look. And to a person from a dictatorial, oppressive regime or country torn by civil war, that town would seem like the height of peacefulness and security.

Was I afraid then, and am I afraid when I go to the U.S now? No. I try to be intelligent and reasonable, and not naive. The implication that I was afraid making a routine day trip to little Champlain, New York is ridiculous. What I am afraid for is America itself, and I think that is an anxiety shared by many who look into the current fissures and see an abyss that has actually been there for a long time. What was done to indigenous peoples had an effect. Slavery, racism, unequal opportunity and a refusal to look at this as a society have a lasting effect. Failure to look at what happened in Vietnam had an effect. A decade of war in the Middle East has had an effect. The ballooning of police and border control departments, and increased power of a surveillance state creates an effect. Racial and ethnic profiling create an effect. Terrorism has an effect. The media have an effect. And the longer we turn the other way, the more we allow our governments to do nothing, and the more we accept incursions into personal freedom, because of anxiety about "the other", the more we give away.

Canada is actually different. Yes, there is racism and some police brutality, but it is still questioned and debated by society. It is vastly harder to own a gun here, and violent crime is much lower: in the U.S. the homicide rate per 100,000 people in 2012 was 3.9; in Canada it was 1.4 (0.86 in Quebec in 2014.) To illustrate how absurd the protection of guns can be in the U.S., here's this from a journalist friend in Cleveland, Ohio, where the city is trying to prepare for protests at the Republican National Convention: "On top of it all, the city has banned nearly everything you can think of that is longer than it is wide from the outer 'event zone' in the heart of downtown — lumber, wooden handles for signs, pipes, sticks — but under state law, it cannot ban openly carried firearms."

Canadians complain constantly about the healthcare system, but by law all citizens and permanent residents have access to this basic human need as well as many other social programs that are largely taken for granted. There may be less wealth but there is also less extreme poverty, and there is a "social safety net."

I wish Canadians could see what they have more clearly, because freedom can erode quite quickly. A truth we can all perhaps agree on is that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.

 

Lacolle (hamlet of Odelltown), Quebec. July 8, 2016.

Comments

[Frances/Materfamilias]

Oh dear, Beth! The responses to your gentle, thoughtful, nuanced essay make me so sad about literacy. Yes, The Gazette was clearly at fault for positioning your essay -- by the photograph and the title -- as tendentious, as controversial. But the readers jump to conclusions based on the very large chips on their shoulders, presuming yours must be equally burdened. They completely miss the deep, long-held affection that colours your descriptions of American countryside, of kind-faced postal workers, of certain undeniable efficiencies perhaps, of your memory of a type of border agent you knew well and regret the loss of. . .

And they assume the most superficial and selfish and ill-founded motivations for not only your attitude as they (mis)understand it from the essay, but also for the actions they predict you will take should ill health or other bad luck strike. It's inconceivable that some of us might honestly trade "the best" health care for our few privileged selves for good-enough health care for all. The assumption that noble principles would quickly be abandoned at the first crisis makes me despair. It's discouraging enough to see so many Americans writing it this defensively, but to read Canadians piling on as well underlines your point that we may not know what we had until it's gone (apologies to Joni)

[Vivian Lewin]

Sheesh, Beth, I can scarcely figure out how to reply to the comments in the Gazette. I guess you were asking too much of them to showcase your piece as framed by you--reflective, gentle, the warning that comes from personal experience and out of practiced skill in observing and reflecting reality in all its nuances.. This Either/Or mentality that is infecting the US has obviously strong resonance here among the Gazette readers (not exactly literati, eh?) also. The tribal need for identity by taking sides. And I am doing it myself by joining with you in the glorious tribe of border crossers who can rejoice in seeing things as relative, experiencing more than one way of living in the world. My profound sympathies.

[Martine]

What a misunderstanding! And people who are so quick to comment, proud of their snappy, judgmental retort, with the conversation taking turns that have very little to do with the original piece or its intention...It's terrible, and yet quite fascinating. I wish they could also read the post above. Not that it would change much, but still...

[Duchesse]

I'm not going to read the comments (know I would be terrifically upset) and am mournful that you drew illogical, unfounded attacks. I emigrated to the US from Canada in 1971 (at 22) and had some sense of what I was choosing, but Canada was even better in terms of social consciousness and collective values than I anticipated. I've always been purely grateful to Canada for accepting me, the young woman who was going to be my roommate was refused.

As my Texan nephew said to me recently, "I have elected representatives pledged to ensure I can buy an assault rifle but they can't get me single-payer health care."

[Duchesse]

So I had to go there. A huge amount of misinformation floating about, and plenty of prejudice. Just cross the street, Beth. As my mother used to say, "People, honestly!"

[Leslee]

Honestly, I think the only people who ever write comments to news articles have nothing better to do than troll. On the rare times I read comments anymore on an article I enjoyed, I come away disheartened and vowing never to read comments again. I thought it was a lovely article, and in the context of the sad incidents in the news lately completely understandable.

I slipped into the comments on a FB post my nephew "liked" recently, a simple expression of sorrow from Mitt Romney over one of the recent killings, nothing more (my nephew tends to the conservative). The ignorance and racism in the comments was shocking (not from my nephew, btw). I guess it's important to know about the blindspots or ignorance if not outright racism out there and not have my head in the sand, but I will still try to avoid peaking under the rock to read comments in the future. Hats off to those who patiently responded to the commenters trying to enlighten them.

On the other hand, there are some bright spots. I heard a nice interview with the 3 smart women who founded Black Lives Matter on NPR today. Smart, determined, clear-eyed, persevering, optimistic that things are changing. Admirable.

[Blork]

I will confess that I didn’t find the Gazette comments as troublesome as I’d feared they’d be. Comments are sometimes mind-bendingly awful beyond belief. In this case they were just lame; the knee-jerk reactions of cursory reads.

And you are correct that a newspaper isn’t a very good venue for such pieces. Sadly, too many people read for information only. By that I mean they see the purpose of reading as being for the robotic accumulation of facts, with no consideration for nuance or tone or for the enlightenment that can be achieved when you sink into another person’s point of view. Such people read to have their biases confirmed or to find a can to kick.

Those are also the people who are most inclined to comment, it seems.

On the positive side, I think it is a safe bet that many people (dozens? hundreds? thousand?) read your article with a wider view, and I’m sure many of them were moved by it. But we don’t hear from them. Think of them as the silent undercurrent.

[Blork]

Update: I made the mistake of looking at the comments again. I retract my opening sentence from my first comment.

[Roderick Robinson]

I find that the homicide/100,000 rate for the UK is 1.0 and yet you would not think it was so low if you regularly watched UK TV news. Nor if you tried to read between the lines of those who used "immigration" as the basis for bringing about Brexit (Britain's exit from the European Union). I realised this in-depth coverage of murders is, in fact, something of a luxury. Because the rate is low we can afford to mention all murders even if we run the risk of creating a comparatively false impression to the general public.

This must sound smug but it isn't intended to be. My memories go back a good deal further than yours. Throughout my childhood and teens the idea of police carrying guns was abhorrent, a night-stick was reckoned to be sufficient. On the rare occasions a hand-gun was thought necessary a police officer would have to "sign out" the gun at the police station. As a result, when I now see a policeman carrying a machine gun at an airport or a crowded venue in central London I still feel this is somehow wrong.

I've only visited Canada two or three times but my brief visits were informed by the fact that I'd lived in the USA for six years. The most obvious - and immediate - difference is, of course, bilingualism and I found the signage pleasantly diverting, as if I were experiencing some sort of geographical slippage. But the more I saw the more important that extra language became. I'm not talking Euro-snob here. I'm not - God forbid - pretending that French has in any way elevated the Canadians. To some extent it could have been any other language since there is nothing more pervasive in our everyday lives than speech. I became convinced (with all the typical false confidence of a drop-in tourist) the extra language had had a profound - if vaguely defined - influence, a cultural awareness if you like, that had inevitably taken Canada towards different destinations. Fifty years ago or more this had made Canada (vs. the USA) seem "old -fashioned"; these days the label would be different.

When, several years ago, Canada's top pediatrician (who happened to be a Brit) was denied a permanent post because he refused to learn French (said he was too busy) the tendency in the UK was to say Canada was cutting off its nose to spite its face. To me this seemed a misguided interpretation; Canada was concerned with something far deeper than the destiny of a single doctor.

A Canadian friend says this linguistic rigour is now on the wane. I hope not. As a detached (very detached) spectator I feel that the result will be a loss of national identity and that Canada will succumb to the powerful forces south of the border. And with it, conceivably, Canada's attitude towards guns.

[Anna]

Your examples of small town living in Vermont quite frankly shocked me. I would have have been petrified. England is a mess and very dull but it's still safe in that respect.

[Duchesse]

@ Roderick Robinson: I wonder what parts of Canada you visited? A visitor would be hard-pressed to see bilingual signs outside of Quebec (where both Beth and I live), aside from federal government facilities.

There are pockets of French-speaking communities in other provinces, and quite a bit of French in New Brunswick. Ottawa, the nation's capitol, is quite bilingual because it's the seat of the federal government, but Ontario-like the other provinces excepting Quebec- does not legislate French usage.

I agree with you about the benefits of bilingualism, and F/E bilingualism is not the standard throughout the country. Outside Quebec, Canadian can complete his or her education without being able to understand or speak a word of French.

[Roderick Robinson]

Duchesse: I should have added this was some time ago. My most significant visit (linguistically) was a working trip to Montreal over twenty-five year ago; alas, old age seems to telescope time. (A more recent visit, to the ski-resort Panorama - nearest international airport Calgary - offered very little in the way of French signage.)

I speak French moderately well having owned a small house in Loire-Atlantique for a decade or so (now sold). With a late afternoon to kill in Montreal I decided to do a DUKW tour simply because I was old enough to know what these vehicles do, and was duly gratified when it descended a ramp to provide a water-level view of the city. However I should have been forewarned when I first heard a native pronounce the city's name - Morn-ray-al. Hubris got its own reward and I didn't understand a single phrase of the spoken commentary. Even so, the fact that French seemed to be the default language cheered me immensely on behalf of Canada.

The article about the French-refusenik pediatrician I mention must have appeared within the last ten years in The Guardian, the sort of left-leaning UK newspaper Donald Trump would hate. Again, it seemed to suggest that Canada had principles about its culture and was prepared to endure a certain amount of pain to maintain them.

I'm sure what you say is true and I find this saddening in a year that will surely be remembered for acutely depressing news. And that's not a purely Euro-centric view. I am, of course, Francophile, and sympathise with France's doomed attempts to protect its language, having realised many years ago that the UK is merely a pawn in the gradual anglicisation of Western languages. I take some wry comfort in remembering that part of my job, during six years spent in the US, was to improve the written English of many of the country's academics and that at least a dozen of them (one of them Phi Beta Kappa at Princeton) wrote me gracious letters thanking me for this. Little good it did.

[Hattie]

What you are saying here is remarkable, Beth, and now I am going to look at your article and the comments. As you say, it's hard to see the differences at first, and I don't think I quite "get it" myself. I just spent a few days in Vancouver and, as you say, people there have their worries and complaints, but these strike me as trivial compared to what we're up against in the U.S.