Cabin v. Cottage Edition

Vernacular is an amazing thing. I say Toronno, Americans (very correctly) call it Toron-toe. I say univer-city, Americans say college. But, I say cottage and I am corrected to cabin/lake house. Take your pick.

For Americans cottages are not little homes by a lake. They are monstrosities by a waterway, many of which are owned by the very rich or have been converted into romantic country inns. The differential is key.

Americans know to size me up and think to themselves "This ain't no rich girl - she's off to a cabin." Or simply a house by a lake. A lake house.

For Americans with cottages or lake houses (probably not cabins), the power of American muscle extends to the care and control of the wilderness. They are all about their powerboats, their SUVs (yes, even in a gas crisis) and monstrous homes. The wilderness exists as their play ground. They control it. It is for their pleasure.

Canadians, in the tradition of the Wacousta Syndrome, are taught to tip toe around it. We are of the canoe, the kayak and the sailboat. We don't go too far into the woods (you never know if there will be a bear there) and are careful not to disturb the birds, insects and animals of the forests. Of course, as those students of Wacousta will know, we are also taught we never really penetrate the woods. We exist instead on the periphery. Our view into the woods is haphazard, and they are often misunderstood.

Cottages (and camping) in Canada as our singling chance to come close to the great abyss of the woods. We flirt with a misunderstood entity each time we visit. We defy the odds, the advice of the elders, and stand on the brink of the great unknown.

Americans, in the tradition of James Fenimore Cooper and the Leather Stockings Tales, have been progressively mowing over that abyss for the past hundred years or more. Americans do not fear the wilderness - they own it and will destroy it if they must.

Cottages/Lake houses/Cabins are just en extension of their city life. They exist for their own pleasure, so if the anything causes their life to be anything less than commodious, well they just get rid of it. And that includes the woods.

The Olympics - Perhaps the Ultimate Test Case for Canadian Complacency?

As I sit here in my living room glued to NBC (not unlike any other good American) watching the success of Phelps, Torres, Liukin and Johnson, I can't help but wonder about the differential in success between these American athletes and...well...no one from Canada.


No for Canadians, fifth is the new first. As my dad sarcastically noted on the first week of the Olympics and the lack of success for Canadians "Oh, no these guys don't have to try too hard. I mean they got to the Olympics - that's good enough. Now it's time to have fun."

And its true. How many times did I hear Canadian swimmers finishing fifth say into the camera "You know, I tried really hard. Its a tough competition - everyone is on their game. I had a good time though and that's all that really matters."

And how many times did Phelps say that? NONE!!!

Why? Because he ISN'T there to have a good time. This is the Olympics - not Spring Break!

Why is it so many of the American swimmers can swim multiple races, but we have to give Brent Hayden a break from his 3 events, which was dropped to 2 because he was spent? And to what avail? Well, so he wouldn't make it to the finals in his premier event.

Which brings me to the larger point - Canadians are so damn complacent about things, and the Olympics just brings out the best in that complacency. I'm making a general point here, not one specific to the Olympics, but the event is a great test case.

Canadians are obsessed with the status quo, with not rocking the boat, with leaving things the way they are. Their own personal happiness should come first - not sacrifice, tenacity or even strife. Competition takes second fiddle to personal contentment and satisfaction. Its all really, really nice.

And unfortunately not the rest the way of the world works. Case in point - the Olympics. Its like some misguided notion has risen to the fore, and allows Canadian athletes to believe that some Swede (out of the goodness of their heart) will allow them to pass and win a medal because, hey, we all wanna just pass the love around don't we world?

Actually no. That's not the way things work.

Not that we were always like this. Mark Tewksbury didn't just let Jeff Rouse win. Kerrin Lee-Gartner did give it her all in Albertville. So what happened?

Weirdly, I'm going to argue this is some odd offshoot of the true hearted Canadian belief that our brand of national socialism (health care, immigration, etc) is REALLY the best in the world. That by being nice people will like us. That we are secure in the fact that we are absolutely right even if everyone else is passing us in the race. It's reticent of that odd smug look Stephen Harper gets at G8 events. That "It's so right that I'm here! Look at me with all these important people. I'm important too because I'm from Canada!" look.

And its so not true.

And complacency of this level will hurt us in the end. Not just in Beijing but elsewhere. And it will hurt more than loosing a couple of first place finishes. When the mines and the metals and the forests and the oil dry up, we won't be left with a thing. Or even a good idea of how to fix it all. Because none of us are fired up. Because we are all just letting it go by. Because we aren't thinking of the next big thing. Because it's so much easier to just let things be. Because we need not be good, or even great - just good enough. Oh yeah - and have fun.