19
interviewees gave me a laundry list of all different kinds of movies, comic strips and
political satires that make fun of Canadians and their [lack of] identity. But to answer the
question of how the criticism is communicated, it is important to note that it done so in a
very educated and articulate way. This may be because I have been talking with graduate
students, but it was still quite surprising. For example the comic strip was brought up in
which the “I am as Canadian as possible under the circumstances” statement was made.
Also, all three informants wanted to know if I knew where the This Hour Has 22 Minutes
title came from since it is linked to Canada’s “long history of political satire” and it
seemed like these kinds of conversations about Canadian identity and humor were
commonplace for them and that they were accustomed to having to teach people the
basics about Canada. I was also struck by the way my informants articulated their self-
criticism. They mentioned “self-deprecation”, “self-mockery” and “Canadian underdog
mentality” in their talk about Mercer’s questions which I think speaks to the kind of
humor they tend to identify with and most enjoy. This kind of self-criticism seems to be
like second nature to them and they laughed most at the questions like the
“developmentally disabled” one where Mercer is poking fun at Canadians and their
“obsession” with American recognition and appreciation of what it means to be
Canadian.
In response to the “To what ends is the criticism made?” question, I would argue
that it is to convince themselves of their Canadian-ness. It seems that this kind of self
evaluation (i.e.; “self-mockery”, “self-deprecation” and “underdog mentality”) typifies
Canadian humor and identity. By referring to these qualities/descriptors in their discourse
about the show, they are reaffirming that they are Canadian because they appreciate this
Convention