3 ms·

I wouldn't draw such a conclusion just from this article. One of the things it highlighted, and that I feel as well as a Canadian, is that to a certain extent t

I wouldn't draw such a conclusion just from this article. One of the things it highlighted, and that I feel as well as a Canadian, is that to a certain extent the sponsors acted in ways that benefited themselves over the refugees. Like the lady who wouldn't show them how to use the bus, because she's wealthy and doesn't ride buses. Or when the sponsors refused to let the kids' parents work through a simple issue like the school bus not showing up, and instead injected themselves into situations they didn't belong in. That was selfish and self-aggrandizing. People are people. I think there are many Americans who would be happy to sponsor a refugee family (and indeed many have donated towards sponsorship costs for Canadians), but their government doesn't let them. Likewise there are a lot of Canadians that are virulently opposed to refugees coming here and getting government assistance after their private sponsorship assistance runs out. In fact our own government put the brakes on the sponsorship program early this year.

zzalpha 10y ago
Or when the sponsors refused to let the kids' parents work through a simple issue like the school bus not showing up, and instead injected themselves into situations they didn't belong in. That was selfish and self-aggrandizing. I think that's incredibly unfair and I'm frankly astonished you'd interpret their actions that way. How many people step in when their loved one is failing because they care about them and want to help, and don't want them to be discouraged if things go poorly? That's exactly the dynamic at play, here. In fact the article goes out of its way to point that out. It's such a common human experience that I can't help but wonder if you're going out of your way to view their actions in a negative light. As for the rest, well, these are my own impressions based on my life as a Canadian, and my extensive exposure to American culture... take them with a hefty grain of salt. shrug
- eigenvector 10y ago
  My comment is not intended to portray the sponsors as bad people. I am sure they want to help the refugees succeed in their new life. My intention is to demonstrate that this is not as simple as Canadian collectivism vs. American individualism. A strong dimension of this story is empty-nesters essentially adopting a new family, which is great, but then proceeding to treat them - although with the best intentions - in a somewhat condescending, parochial way, as if the adults of the family aren't grown people who've already survived a thousand times more hardship than the sponsors have ever known in their lives. I think the sponsors are good people. But I disagree that they're good in some kind of uniquely Canadian way. These are empty-nesters searching for a new family just like these ones right across the border in Buffalo or Bellingham or Burlington. Just look at overseas adoptions in the United States.
yawaramin 10y ago
You've misunderstood these people and why they're doing what they're doing. Here's a passage (from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/world/americas/syria-refugees-arrive-in-canada.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/world/americas/syria-refu... ) that may clarify it for you: > Mr. Nunn, 65 and recently retired, said he was looking for “an indulgence” to mark the event. In Huntsville, an ad on a bulletin board for a motorboat caught his eye. Along with the boat ad, he also took a flyer from a refugee group. > After reading both on a flight to Florida, Mr. Nunn decided to make the donation rather than purchase the boat — even though it “looked pretty cool,” he said. > “A fancy trip, a car or boat, kind of diminish and memories fade,” said Mr. Nunn, who had never supported any refugee group. “This refugee effort will have effects that go on for generations. Where is the best value, where is the best return? I threw away the boat ad.” These are wealthy people looking for the most meaningful and impactful way to spend their time and money. It's not about self-aggrandisation and it's astonishing to me that someone could interpret it as such. By the way, about: > I think there are many Americans who would be happy to sponsor a refugee family (and indeed many have donated towards sponsorship costs for Canadians), but their government doesn't let them. Likewise there are a lot of Canadians that are virulently opposed to refugees coming here and getting government assistance after their private sponsorship assistance runs out. Well, back in 2015 when the Conservatives were in power in Canada and the Syrian crisis brought fresh horrors every day, it turned out that the Conservative government denied a lot of refugee applications, including that of Aylan Kurdi's family. Canadians said enough is enough and voted in someone who promised to bring in a lot more refugees--which he promptly did. Americans, in contrast, and with the full benefit of seeing the Canadian refugee situation, decided to go the other way. I think it's quite clear what message they sent.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  My parents are weathy and retired. One of the many "Keeping up with the jonses" money expenditures are symbolic philantropic excersizes with dubious impact. This just seems like another. I am not sure if that goes with or against either of your points but seems relevant nonetheless.
  - wavefunction 10y ago

zzalpha 10y ago

Or when the sponsors refused to let the kids' parents work through a simple issue like the school bus not showing up, and instead injected themselves into situations they didn't belong in. That was selfish and self-aggrandizing. I think that's incredibly unfair and I'm frankly astonished you'd interpret their actions that way. How many people step in when their loved one is failing because they care about them and want to help, and don't want them to be discouraged if things go poorly? That's exactly the dynamic at play, here. In fact the article goes out of its way to point that out. It's such a common human experience that I can't help but wonder if you're going out of your way to view their actions in a negative light. As for the rest, well, these are my own impressions based on my life as a Canadian, and my extensive exposure to American culture... take them with a hefty grain of salt. shrug

eigenvector 10y ago
My comment is not intended to portray the sponsors as bad people. I am sure they want to help the refugees succeed in their new life. My intention is to demonstrate that this is not as simple as Canadian collectivism vs. American individualism. A strong dimension of this story is empty-nesters essentially adopting a new family, which is great, but then proceeding to treat them - although with the best intentions - in a somewhat condescending, parochial way, as if the adults of the family aren't grown people who've already survived a thousand times more hardship than the sponsors have ever known in their lives. I think the sponsors are good people. But I disagree that they're good in some kind of uniquely Canadian way. These are empty-nesters searching for a new family just like these ones right across the border in Buffalo or Bellingham or Burlington. Just look at overseas adoptions in the United States.

yawaramin 10y ago

You've misunderstood these people and why they're doing what they're doing. Here's a passage (from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/world/americas/syria-refugees-arrive-in-canada.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/world/americas/syria-refu... ) that may clarify it for you: > Mr. Nunn, 65 and recently retired, said he was looking for “an indulgence” to mark the event. In Huntsville, an ad on a bulletin board for a motorboat caught his eye. Along with the boat ad, he also took a flyer from a refugee group. > After reading both on a flight to Florida, Mr. Nunn decided to make the donation rather than purchase the boat — even though it “looked pretty cool,” he said. > “A fancy trip, a car or boat, kind of diminish and memories fade,” said Mr. Nunn, who had never supported any refugee group. “This refugee effort will have effects that go on for generations. Where is the best value, where is the best return? I threw away the boat ad.” These are wealthy people looking for the most meaningful and impactful way to spend their time and money. It's not about self-aggrandisation and it's astonishing to me that someone could interpret it as such. By the way, about: > I think there are many Americans who would be happy to sponsor a refugee family (and indeed many have donated towards sponsorship costs for Canadians), but their government doesn't let them. Likewise there are a lot of Canadians that are virulently opposed to refugees coming here and getting government assistance after their private sponsorship assistance runs out. Well, back in 2015 when the Conservatives were in power in Canada and the Syrian crisis brought fresh horrors every day, it turned out that the Conservative government denied a lot of refugee applications, including that of Aylan Kurdi's family. Canadians said enough is enough and voted in someone who promised to bring in a lot more refugees--which he promptly did. Americans, in contrast, and with the full benefit of seeing the Canadian refugee situation, decided to go the other way. I think it's quite clear what message they sent.

Neliquat 10y ago
My parents are weathy and retired. One of the many "Keeping up with the jonses" money expenditures are symbolic philantropic excersizes with dubious impact. This just seems like another. I am not sure if that goes with or against either of your points but seems relevant nonetheless.
- wavefunction 10y ago