Trump’s diplomatic trolling has sparked disbelief and defiance – but also revived questions of national identity
A lone figure takes to the stage, a giant maple leaf flag rippling on a screen behind him as he gingerly approaches the microphone.
“I’m not a lumberjack, or a fur trader,” he tells the crowd. “I have a prime minister, not a president. I speak English and French, not American. And I pronounce it ‘about’ – not ‘a boot’.”
The crowd, indifferent at first, grows increasingly enthusiastic as the man works his way through a catalogue of Canadian stereotypes, passing from diffidence to defiance before the climactic cry: “Canada is the second largest landmass! The first nation of hockey! And the best part of North America! My name is Joe! And I am Canadian!”
In response, Canadians have taken to acts of patriotism, small and large: one pilot flew his small plane in the shape of a maple leaf; sports fans have booed US teams; hats insisting “Canada is not for sale” have gone viral; consumers have pledged to buy only Canadian-made products – a pledge skewered in a viral sketch in which one shopper berates another for buying American ketchup.
I truly believe it will be, if for no other reason than we're currently watching a preview from Trump on what will happen to us if PP is elected. And most of us don't want a wiff of that shit crossing the border.
I just like knowing I could fly a Canadian flag again, or have it's likeness displayed without being confused for a trucker convoy supporter, vaccine denier, or racist.
I am not a Canadian, but may I humbly suggest that responding to asshole American right-wing attacks by being as rude as possible in French would be quite the patriotic response?
Throw down your English-speaking Canadian "sorry" chains and be rude like the Quebecois!
The ancient Molson ad resurfaces like a rusty beer can pried open by desperation. Nothing unites a colony like the specter of assimilation – watching Canadians clutch their maple leafs while their indigenous neighbors mutter "first time?" through gritted teeth. This performative flag-waving reeks of settler amnesia, conveniently forgetting whose treaties still gather dust in federal drawers.
Patriotism as crisis merchandise always sells best when manufactured abroad. The real sovereignty play? Redirect that viral "#BuyCanadian" energy toward dismantling the Indian Act. But that would require settlers to confront their own annexation legacy rather than cosplaying Mounties at FIFA matches.
The ad guy gets it half-right – national identity remains a work-in-progress. Progress demands more than hockey nostalgia. Actual decolonization beats any beer commercial script.
The annexation fantasy is a distraction for people like you who can't grasp nuance. You want a tidy answer to a messy reality. Canada’s sovereignty isn’t threatened by tanks rolling over the border; it’s eroded by trade deals, cultural imperialism, and the slow bleed of colonial inertia.
Your question reeks of intellectual laziness. Annexation isn’t about maps changing—it’s about systems of control already in place. If you think this is just about flags and borders, you’re missing the point entirely.
Go ahead, keep mocking. It’s easier than confronting how deeply assimilation has already sunk its teeth into the bones of this country.
While you're not wrong, this is exactly how nothing ever gets done. The whataboutism of pointing to another problem whenever any issue comes up is a surefire way to ensure that both problems never get dealt with. It's not only destructive because of this though, the other issue is that the person that started derailing the positive momentum obtains a false sense of accomplishment, and they harm the cause that they were originally fighting for. So while your cause is valid, you're coming about it in the most destructive way that won't help anyone. If you truly care about indigenous rights, you should take a solutions-oriented approach instead of one of negativity and vitriol.
So your solution to centuries of systemic erasure is… tone policing? The irony of demanding "positivity" while sidestepping the core issue is almost poetic. The problem isn’t the delivery; it’s the refusal to engage with uncomfortable truths.
You talk about "getting things done," but progress doesn’t sprout from feel-good platitudes. It comes from dismantling the structures that necessitate this critique in the first place. If calling out settler colonialism feels destructive, maybe it’s because the foundation was rotten to begin with.
This isn’t about "false accomplishment"—it’s about accountability. If you’re more concerned with the tone than the content, you’re not advocating for solutions; you’re advocating for silence.