General Chat

Nah, I'm not going to argue the merits or demerits.

I was just glancing at this site's facebook page and read that some members here, in the UK and Australia, aren't aware of the participation of countries in that operation beyond the US and those two countries.

Given Canada's contribution to the effort (and again, regardless of my own opinion about that), I found that a little odd.

Apparently the media in the UK and Australia report only the deaths of members of their own militaries. Well, at least that's better than the US, where such deaths are hushed up. In Canada and the UK and I assume Australia, there are ceremonies and news reports when the remains of military members are returned to the country. In the US, the media are banned from the location where the bodies are returned.

The Canadian media report *all* deaths of members of the militaries of all participating nations. The deaths are often reported immediately, before the country in question has been disclosed, and then updated when full info is available. So we hear when Dutch and German soldiers are killed, for instance.

The most recent Canadian death, last week, has been reported only as being non-combat (I forget the actual wording), so far, leaving the suspicion that it was another suicide. (Actually, I see now from googling news that this is what it was.)

For a long time, the Canadian military has operated in Kandahar, this being the most dangerous part of the country. Canadian casualties have therefore been disproportionately high. And then there's the US military's disconcerting habit of killing Canadians in "friendly fire".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan

"The number of Canadian Forces' fatalities resulting from
Canadian military activities in Afghanistan is the largest for
any single Canadian military mission since the Korean War
between 1950 and 1953. A total of 155 Canadian Forces
personnel have been killed in the war since 2002."

156, now. UK casualties total 368 to date.

So propotionate to population, Canada's casualty rate (population ratio just over 1:2) has been slightly lower than the UK's.

Proportionate to number of troops present -- about 3,000 to about 9,500 -- Canada's casualty rate has beeen considerably higher than the UK's.

Australia (about 1550 troops present) has suffered 26 casualties -- a far lower casualty rate than Canada, proportionate to either population (ratio about 2:3) or troops present. Canada also has more troops present, proportionate to population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#Contributing_nations

-- the figures are out of date but you can see the very long list of countries that are or have been involved.

Now, I could have named the Netherlands, Poland, and a few others. But maybe not Latvia. It's instructive to see the very long list of nations that have sent troops to Afghanistan.

A large number of them (if not all ...) have done it to buy favours from the US, but that's another story.


So -- I'm genuinely surprised at the ignorance of these facts in other countries.

The fact that people in the UK could think that only they and the US have troops in Afghanistan, or people in Australia have never heard reports of casualties suffered by other nations ... I really hate to think that people in other countries are as incurious, or kept as ignorant by their governments and media, as people in the US are.

Interesting. I must confess I never actually KNEW that the Canadian Armed forces were in Afghanistan, but I'm not surprised. I was aware, for instance, that other European countries were out there.

However, this is the British way - or at least the way of the British tabloid media. We the British are the only ones fighting abroad, although, as you mentioned, American 'friendly fire, keeps us aware that they at least have a presence.

Equally, unless one takes the trouble to research the subject, we the British are the only country in Europe who have any asylum seekers, or indeed immigrants. Sadly, the freedom the press does not wholly extend to its readers/viewers.

I think it is partly due to the viewing habits regarding the news, if you've always watched the BBC or ITV 'News at ten' that is what you continue to do. Being short news programmes they inevitably concentrate on UK news, unless there is a major disaster elsewhere in the world ( and even then you can guarantee there will be a comment re the number of Britons affected by it however few).

Maybe partly because 'we' are an island nation , and a little more insular because of that?

I hate to think it's the British way, Fiona! Maybe I'd be wrong, though, for historical reasons. When one was the centre of the universe for so long, as someone living in the seat of the British Empire was, it might become ingrained cultural habit. As it is in the US these days. The world no longer revolves around the UK, but it's hard to break that habit.

RR, I know it's difficult for me to make comparisons -- we watch CBC and CTV news channels, and CNN, with BBC World and a little FoxNews on weekends. The Sun (think dailymail) doesn't darken our doorstep. (Sun media how has a television news channel, fox news north, only, from the 20 minutes I've seen, really really dumbed down, if you can imagine that being possible.) We're not typical. ;)

But the national news programs here do give us international news. Your election campaigns, and of course US elections (and everything else in the US), are big news and covered extensively, for example. We get some coverage if Australia has an election; NZ, not so much. European countries, definitely, to varying degrees. You probably didn't know we had an election last month, except for Deb reporting my displeasure with the results. :)

International coverage comes once they're done with the floods in the east and the fires in the west, anyhow. Sometimes it does seem like 1984. We have always been at war with ...... and there have always been floods in the east and fires in the west.

What we get virtually nothing of, shamefully, is news about our own hemisphere south of the Rio Grande, unless it's another cartel mass murder in Mexico. It's not that we're well informed by our media here, just slightly better informed.

But England insular because it's an island? Well, that didn't work in 1939, did it! And it's hard to be more geographically isolated than we over here are, with nobody but the US to keep us company ...

The Spanish media report the deaths and injuries of their troops in Afghanistan although in all fairness, there aren´t very many of them by comparison.
They rarely mention deaths of other nationalities & I rarely hear Spanish deaths reported by other media.

I think it is good that you get all deaths reported, even if it must be even more depressing than just hearing our own which is bad enough.

I am however aware of the contribution made by the Canadian military as, when we were waiting to fly home from Cyprus two plane loads of Canadian soldiers landed on a stop over, on their way to Afghanistan. So many of them in such a small airport (Pathos) and their behaviour was exemplary.

1939? hmm well yes I was about to put a caveat to that effect . But then, we weren't so far from the glory days of Empire then, when what concerned Europe or the colonies WAS our concern ? ( That of course is in no way to undermine the fact that we DID go into the war in defence of Poland and not waiting until we were directly affected )

I think it may be as simple as having enough to worry about here that makes us incurious ( if indeed we are). I wonder if we will become more or less so since access to satellite news from other countries is in practically every home, now that terrestrial is almost phased out here?

Is it possible that Canada and maybe other countries too, report UK news because there are so many in those countries with a link to UK do you think.

I know we are a bit insular here but when we have been in USA we have noticed that there is rarely any report that refers to the UK.

Ann has just reminded me that when I was in LA in Oct' 1985, we saw the Toxteth ( Liverpool) and London riots on the news there! That was very strange, having been warned to be careful of certain areas in downtown LA, to find them very peaceful and 'back home' burning.

Have to add the exception was Princess Diana's death as we were in Atlanta a couple of days afterwards.

I was a bit obscure, RR. I meant that being "insular", literally or metaphorically, didn't work out in 1939. Lesson learned that one can't be insular in today's world, I was meaning.

Glad to hear our troops were exemplary in their conduct, AnninGlos. That hasn't always been the case, at home or abroad. The Airborne, who abused the hospitality of small communities in the Ottawa Valley for years (I spent a summer there during that time), did far worse in Somalia. Torturing a teenaged looter to death while taking photos ... ours were ahead of the US at Abu Ghraib by years.

Our news focus on the UK isn't so much because of personal ancestral ties there, really. Nobody who isn't a genealogy hound would even think of the UK as the mother country. It is shared politics though -- we are a Commonwealth country with the British monarch as head of state, so legally / historically we are inextricably intertwined. The US has a way more practical effect on us though, economically and politically. The UK actually has, well, none. ;)

But yes, sorry to say, there can simply be none so uninformed and uninterested as USAmericans. It's chicken and egg -- they're uninterested because they are not informed by their media, and their media don't inform them because they're not interested.

The first answer to this question is interesting:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_Americans_seem_to_know_
so_little_about_world_history_and_world_geography_and_
foreign_societies_and_languages

"... There are plenty of reasons for the lack of interest many Americans have in things foreign. An incredibly pervasive and dense popular culture; information systems, electronic and otherwise, totally controlled by commercial interests ..."

and I think that's the huge factor here. The entertainment industry in the US has controlled the US economy and politics and foreign policy to an extent few realize, for decades. And when people are kept busy, day in night out, with the need to have opinions about Michael Jackson's nose, Charlie Sheen's addictions, every minor tic of every momentary celebrity, well, there just isn't room for much else -- on their airwaves or in their heads.

Maybe that applies to the UK too these days. Canadians just aren't as likely to give a toss about what "celebrities" get up to.


Anyhow, some of the things people have said here do confirm a fact that virtually no one, Canadians included, actually realizes, and that is the extent to which Canada and Canadians are the true cosmopolitans, our image notwithstanding. ;)


edit because that link wouldn't break and I broke the thread. ;)

Thanks, Janey

I think I can talk with some confidence about the US as it was ......... and I really have no doubt that it has changed very little!


As you know, we lived in Texas for 1 year, 1967-68 .............. the news about anywhere other than the US was abysmal.

Quite honestly, we came to believe that another world war could have broken out, and we would not have heard about it for days or weeks aftewards.

In fact, we eventually subscribed to an English Sunday paper which arrived on Thursday having gone by air to New York, and then over land to Texas.

It would take at least another week for any of the news items that we had read in that paper to appear in the local paper or on the local radio station (we didn't have TV). And, even then, it was usually the paper produced by the university Journalism students that carried the information before the Austin-American Statesman!


The Texans were truly insular ............... nothing mattered except for Texas, followed by the rest of the US. If you went further south than Austin, interest in Mexico increased.


It was really very strange to be there at that time.

The war in Vietnam was on .................. and we didn't even hear all that much about THAT!


Mind you, Lyndon Johnson was the president, and members of his family owned the newspaper, the radio station and the TV station ...................... the majority of the news was about Johnson and Lady Bird's "doings", and US events.



sylvia

I can't speak for other countries. When sadly one of military is killed in action then the body is sent home with great ceremony - we don't see the whole service but some of it. When the body is brought home we see the arrival of the coffin but never the family members who are there to meet the coffin. We are informed when the body arrives and the air-force base of arrival. We know when the memorial service is. There is also a news conference within hours of the death of the person with no names until all family have been notified. We seem to be included in most of what is going on including how the person died and where. The family are generally spared any media interference unless they choose to make a statement. I always feel it's done with great sensitivity and it's heartbreaking.

Sue

But one of your countrywomen was remarking about having no idea that Canada was in Afghanistan ...

I dunno -- maybe most Canadians have no clue that Australia is, and couldn't name 3 other countries that are there, either!

Sylvia and I just aren't a representative sample. ;)

I can't say that I know all the countries involved in the Afghanistan war but I did know that Canada was involved as are France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. Apart from those countries and of course the USA, Britain and Australia I don't know of any other. Maybe I take a bigger interest because my son was in the Australian Army for nearly 15 years before leaving last year. He was deployed in Timor Leste - but he could just as easily have gone to Afghanistan. He is in the Reserves now so could still be called upon. I would be lying if I said that thought doesn't leave me cold.

Sue

I can understand that, Sue!

I think that our handling of a military death is also handled with great respect.

We do not usually see the funeral though

................ the arrival of the coffin in Canada is always to the same base in Ontario, it is usually televised, and we see the family members as well as the Chief of Defense and (usually) the Minister of Defense in attendance. The coffin is then put in a hearse, and there is a funeral procession along 172 km of Highway 401 to the Coroner's Office in Toronto where an autopsy will be performed.

That stretch of highway has been named the Highway of Heroes. It is lined all along the way, and on all overpasses, by people saluting the dead soldier.


Only a few families have opted for a military funeral, and the others have had private funerals.



EDITED:- to change military family to military funeral



sylvia

I don't want to be tailend "Charlie" but what about us. NZ has our military over there as well.
We are also informed In our "World " section of the newspapers re the rest of the world and their participation in Afghanistan. We have links with Uncle Tom Cobbley and all here so we also get to know about elections in other Nations.

And what Sue says happens in Australia is similar to what happens here re the returning of the body.

They had a poll here on who was the most trust worthy person in NZ and our Victoria Cross recipient Willie Apiata who served in Afghanistan won it. Some of you probably don't know who he is... well he is this good looking chap... :-) :-) :-) :-)

The runner up was a chap that hosts a consumer program on TV.

I agree Sylvia, that the US has a problem not seeing beyond their own backyard - we regularly see their tornadoes but I wonder if they saw ours that happened the other week, School curriculums in the states teach American History, American Problems, American something else etc The only other Nations they may be aware of are those that they are fighting against. Sort of a modern day wild west - where the goodies beat the baddies... maybe I am being cynical here ;-)

Persie

not much, Persie!

Heh, I wasn't meaning to single out the Australians for recognition. :-D

It was just that Australians and Brits seemed to be the ones who had no idea that Canada was in Afghanistan, or what efforts had been made by Canada there. (As Sylvia pointed out on the facebook page, Canada was in charge of the mission for some time, also.)


... Apparently the most trusted Canadian is David Suzuki, Sylvia will be galled to hear. ;-)

Next comes Mike Holmes -- similar to your NZ consumer program host. Mike fixes people's home reno disasters -- he "makes it right" -- and crusades against what they call cowboys in the UK. He built a rather weird new home for a family in New Orleans for a TV special post-Katrina. And third is our federal Auditor General.


Never be afraid to be cynical!

Actually, I got my first real job that way ... I was in first year law, applying for a part-time research job at a very prestigious govt agency, that I bizarrely got. I thought it was because I was taking criminal law and knew SPSS, statistical package for the social sciences, what passed for computer skills at the time. The research director who hired me, a bit of an oddball himself (he was also producing segments at W5 on CTV and a couple of other things, while articling), said he hired me because I was cynical. That was a bit of a blow. I had always thought of myself as, if anything, charmingly naive ...

"... Apparently the most trusted Canadian is David Suzuki, Sylvia will be galled to hear. "


aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh


:-P :-P



Actually, 4 of us sat around on Sunday night. ALL of us had personal experience with him. All of us dislike him to a greater or lesser degree!




Now the Auditor General ................. YES!




sylvia