<i>This week we conclude our three part series looking at the issue of <b>"Canada v Cascadia"</b> and asking where the loyalties of Whitecaps fans lie and where Vancouver fits in to both sets of rivalries.
<b><a href="http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/content.php?2517-Canada-v-Cascadia-Where-Do-Whitecaps-Fan-Loyalties-Lie" target="_blank">Part One</a></b> and <b><a href="http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/content.php?2586-Canada-v-Cascadia-The-Maple-Leaf-Forever" target="_blank">Part Two</a></b> have certainly provoked a lot of excellent discussion, as we looked at what games and what rivalries are most important to us Whitecaps fans. It’s been great to hear what non west coast fans feel about this issue too. That why we ran the series.
Personally, we at AFTN would like nothing more than for the Canadian rivalries to have that extra edge. If the comments section here has been anything to go by, then we’re off on a sound footing. I can’t wait for all the regular season and Cup games between the three Canadian MLS sides next year. The intensity will only surely grow in the years to come.
Today, in the final part of the series, it is the turn of long time Southsider, and Cascadian advocate, Devon Rowcliffe.
We wanted to know what Cascadia and Canada mean to him, as he looks at the history of the Cascadian region, what feelings Seattle, Portland, Montreal and TFC each bring out in him and why, despite everything, the Voyageurs Cup is still so important to him....</i>
<center><b>********************</b></center>
As a long-time member of the Vancouver Southsiders, I have been asked to explain why I feel much more passion about our Cascadian rivalries (against Seattle and Portland) than I do for our Canadian quarrels (versus Toronto and Montreal).
The main reasons are: a shared Cascadian culture, football history, and derby proximity.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
<b>SHARED CASCADIAN CULTURE</b>
A lot of people - including many Vancouverites - simply cannot fathom what all this recent "Cascadia" business is about. It's a region that, officially, doesn't even exist. So why are a considerable chunk of Vancouver Whitecaps supporters (not to mention Seattle and Portland supporters) so enthusiastic about it?
First of all, Cascadia (or the Pacific Northwest, if that carries less political connotation for you, dear reader) is arguably a distinct part of North America. It has embraced a counter-culture that just doesn't "click" elsewhere on the continent.
For example, Vancouver is viewed by fellow Canadians as a rather loopy place full of hippies, potheads, yogis, and eccentric politicians (such as Amor De Cosmos, British Columbia's second Premier). Seattle and Portland are similarly quirky in their own ways, and are culturally distinct places that seem incongruous with most of the USA.
Whether it's a love of Birkenstocks, farmer's markets, craft beer or bicycle lanes, we as Cascadians seem to enjoy our distinct way of life – and we share many common characteristics with each other that we do not share with our fellow Canadians/Americans. We cherish living in a temperate rainforest; and while people from other parts of the continent pity us because of our "depressing" rain, we appreciate our region's year-round warm temperatures and the thriving greenery that allows our cities to be outdoor playgrounds.
And although Cascadia boasts the sheen of Electronic Arts, Microsoft and Starbucks, so too does it have a rough underbelly. It's a region of "crunchy granola": hipsters and homeless living side-by-side; vegans co-existing with gruff "lumberjacks".
It's this shared character and culture that makes Cascadia a distinct region, even though the 49th parallel politically bisects it. I would argue that the fact that the US-Canadian border runs through the middle of Cascadia is irrelevant. Adding a political division does little to diminish the region’s commonalities and identity.
<b>CASCADIA’S UNITED POLITICAL HISTORY – COAST SALISH AND THE COLUMBIA DISTRICT</b>
Critics of the concept of Cascadia point out that it doesn’t exist politically, that B.C. is on the other side of an international border from Washington and Oregon, and that Vancouverites share a common culture and history with fellow Canadians. They seem to think that Canadian identity is real, whereas "Cascadia" belongs in the land of make-believe. To them, Cascadia is a synthetic identity that has little grounding; it is "Canada" that’s stamped on the passports of Vancouverites.
However, Cascadia doesn’t just exist in a conceptual, cultural context. Historically, it has been a politically united region, separate from the rest of Canada and the USA.
Some patriotic Canadians rejoice in the historical narrative of British soldiers warring with Americans over Fort York in 1812, and paint it as a "Canadian" event. It is the history of Upper Canada, and thus (to a lesser degree) Canada as a whole; but British Columbia didn’t even exist as a colony at that point in history. Nor were Washington and Oregon part of the United States of America back then.
In fact, a less biased view of the past only serves to strengthen the concept of a politically united and distinct Cascadia. Not many of our Canadian history books mention how the Treaty of 1818 between the USA and Britain gave both powers shared access to a united Columbia District (also known as the Oregon District) – which included the entire region of British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. Yes, you read that correctly – the area known as "Cascadia" today did indeed exist politically in the past. It wasn’t until the Treaty of 1846 that the 49th parallel crept west and divided the Cascadian area into two separate countries.
Going even further back into history, we continue to see a united region, emphasizing just how recent of a division the 49th parallel is. Coast Salish territory extended (and still extends, as it is unceded land) from the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon, north to Bute Inlet in British Columbia. Cascadia was historically united, under both Aboriginal and early colonial rule.
<b>WEAVING THE CANADIAN NARRATIVE</b>
While I am generally proud of Canada, and consider it to be a success in most aspects (while admittedly also being a profound failure in others, such as shameful attempts to eradicate Aboriginal culture and language), I am also fully cognizant that Canada is an artificially-created, political construct. And while that realization doesn’t lessen Canada’s legitimacy or accomplishments, the fact that Canada is a political construct means that it often does not have the gravitas to supercede how people located at its peripheries feel in terms of their natural, regional identities. Having a Cascadian (or British Columbian) identity is every bit as natural as having an Acadian or Inuit identity.
Most countries are nation-states: relatively humble in size, and based around a shared language, culture, and region. Canada is not a nation-state; in fact, it is a unique country in terms of its plurality and inclusiveness. This is one of the reasons why it has been such a success, and has been able to bring people from rivalling regions of this world to live side-by-side in harmony. However, this same character means that regional identity within Canada is very prominent. After all, just like the USA, Canada is a federation - not a unitary state. Both countries are a large collection of significant differences.
Canada is a massive construct that spans three oceans. Should a Vancouverite feel a natural bond with someone from Nunavut, and with someone from Labrador? Should we perceive people from these far-away places to genuinely be "family", simply because some politicians decided to lump all of us together into an uneasy federation? Should we feel any less familial with the people of Washington and Oregon, simply because an arbitrary, political boundary today divides us? Does such an artificial construct have any actual bearing on our regional, Cascadian culture – on either side of the 49th parallel?
To me, naïvely accepting every region of Canada as "family" means swallowing the Canadian narrative without any critical thought. Conversely, relegating any part of (what is today) within the USA as being merely a neighbour, and inherently different, is prioritizing politics (and its often arbitrary borders) over regional culture. And personally, I don’t let politicians dictate to me who my family is.
Having a shared (recent) political history with the rest of Canada does nothing to lessen the obvious cultural relevancy that Vancouver shares with the rest of Cascadia. Surely I wasn’t the only Vancouverite who often felt that Seattle-based television show <i>Almost Live!</i> was much more representative of Vancouver’s lifestyle and culture than <i>Royal Canadian Air Farce</i>, or <i>This Hour Has 22 Minutes</i> (and their predominantly Newfie accents).
I should stress that being a Cascadian and being a Canadian are not mutually exclusive. But which of these two identities someone chooses to prioritize is strictly a matter of preference. Personally, I feel a stronger sense of identity as a Cascadian, than as a Canadian. I’m a Vancouverite first, a British Columbian second, a Cascadian third, and a Canadian fourth. Spheres of influence, if you will.
<b>CASCADIA’S FOOTBALL HISTORY</b>
It was perhaps football supporters who first began to realize just how much we all have in common with each other here in Cascadia. Football was the only sport in which all three cities (Vancouver, Seattle and Portland) shared a presence in the same league, encouraging us to each travel to each other’s communities on a regular basis. We began to realize that the national narratives that we were fed growing up are, in some ways, a myth – or are at least less relevant than we were led to believe. Recognition of our profound commonalities quickly gave credence to the Cascadia movement. And here we are today, informing other Canadians who instead grew up watching hockey or baseball or throwball that yes, Dorothy… Cascadia does exist. Head down to the Emerald City or PDX and witness the similarities for yourself.
As Cascadians, we don’t really care about political secessionism – instead, we’re interested in celebrating our shared regional identity, and part of that is our shared footballing history.
Cascadia boasts a long and storied history as a hub of club football here in North America. While most other parts of the continent go into a deep freeze during the winter, our supposedly "dreary" weather enables us to continue playing outdoor football throughout the coldest months (and in fact, many of our leagues are proudly winter-based).
When the North American Soccer League (NASL) arrived in the 1970s, Vancouver, Seattle and Portland were quick to embrace the sport. The Whitecaps, Sounders and Timbers were three stable clubs within a sea of turbulent "franchise" expansion, contraction and relocation.
Once the NASL folded, this Cascadian history readily spilled into the second-division A-League and United Soccer Leagues - and arguably became much more fervent. While most North American cities could only attract modest crowds with D2 football, Cascadia's tier-two clubs often led the league in support. And they certainly led the sport in terms of passion - often having larger and more zealous supporters groups than Major League Soccer cities.
The passion created by the Whitecaps-Sounders-Timbers rivalry is unprecedented in North American football. This was even the case back when the clubs were all competing in D2. They hate each other. These are THE derbies north of Mexico.
Some people suggest that, as fellow Canadians, Vancouverites "should" care more about rivalries against Toronto and Montreal. But when we've shared more than three decades of football rivalries with our Cascadian brethren, why should we be bothered about cities on the other side of the continent? Why should I take any significant interest in Toronto FC - an entity in which the club is younger than the franchise? (A "club" was only formed after Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment had purchased a spot in Major League Soccer.) To me, that's not history - that's a manufactured existence. So why would we care more about TFC than rivalries that are natural, local, and historic?
<b>DERBY PROXIMITY</b>
A genuine derby has to be within a reasonable travelling distance. If attending an away match requires an airplane, I don't really consider that to be a derby. Or at least, it's certainly not worthy of the title "local derby" – which are far more intense creatures.
While Vancouver has historically played against teams from Toronto <i>(remember Nicole Hartrell's cuddly and kid-friendly Toronto Lynx, who couldn't make the playoffs if their lives depended on it?)</i> and Montreal, it's difficult to develop a natural rivalry when the other team is three time zones away. Additionally, because Toronto has historically been viewed by 86ers/Whitecaps supporters as "another dull three points" (at least prior to the MLS era), there wasn’t very much to get excited about.
When you can hop on a bus, quickly travel down to a rival's city, take in a passionate football match, and return home - all in the same day - it creates a fantastic atmosphere. These Cascadian derbies are so special that many Whitecaps supporters spend months looking forward to them.
If the continent's hockey authorities pulled their collective heads out of their arses and established a multi-divisional, knock-out competition (similar to England’s FA Cup), and if the result was the Vancouver Canucks travelling down to play against the Seattle Thunderbirds or Portland Winterhawks, I'm sure the atmosphere would be tremendous. Even a friendly, pre-season encounter would likely prove boisterous. Quite simply: geography matters.
<b>YET, THE VOYAGEURS CUP MATTERS MORE</b>
Despite explaining why the Cascadian derbies are more important to me and many Southsiders than the Canadian rivalries, I admit that I rate the Voyageurs Cup (the Canadian Championship) as being a bigger priority than the Cascadia Cup.
Why?
Firstly, the Voyageurs Cup is a proper, knock-out cup - featuring clubs from more than one level of the football pyramid. There aren't many of these competitions here in North America. Those of you who cheer for the lower-division underdogs in the early rounds of the FA Cup can relate to how special these tournaments can be, and how exciting it is when smaller clubs somehow manage to knock out the more storied names.
As a Whitecaps supporter, the Voyageurs Cup has (as of 2008) been Canada's version of this prized competition. Seeing the D2 Whitecaps travel to Toronto and handing the new MLS team their first-ever loss at BMO Field was something I will never forget. Our 2009 home win over Toronto FC - a 2-0 victory watched from Swangard's creaky Southside bleachers, which were heaving with supporters ecstatic at the prospect of another giant-killing - was equally memorable. (And the way Vancouver nearly won the 2009 competition as a D2 club, were it not for Montreal shamefully playing their "B"-squad and losing 1-6 at home to Toronto, was yet another enthralling chapter in Voyageurs Cup lore.)
The competition doesn't carry quite so much excitement for me now that the Whitecaps and Impact have joined TFC as top-flight clubs, but thankfully the giant-killing role has been inherited by FC Edmonton. Additionally, Ottawa intends to join the NASL (and presumably also the Voyageurs Cup) in 2014, and so the growth of Canadian club football will ensure that the Canadian Championship remains an exciting knock-out competition featuring a variety of clubs.
Conversely, while the Cascadian matches are intense, the Cascadia Cup itself simply piggy-backs on top of league matches - it does not feature separate cup games. Nor are Cascadian clubs from more than one division involved, and so the Cascadia Cup has never featured the giant-killing aspect that the Vees Cup boasts.
Secondly, the Voyageurs Cup is the only method of entry into the CONCACAF Champions League for Canadian clubs.
<b>COULD THE CASCADIA CUP USURP THE VOYAGEURS CUP?</b>
So how could the Cascadian Cup become more interesting? How could it supersede the Voyageurs Cup as the competition of choice for Vancouver supporters? The answer is simple: involve clubs from the lower divisions.
Sadly, there are no longer any Cascadian clubs in D2 and D3. However, the D4 USL Premier Development League (PDL) has become a hotbed of lower-division club football here in Cascadia. It currently features eight teams, with strong rumours that it will expand for 2012.
Realistically, given the problem of fixture congestion for MLS clubs, the Cascadia Cup isn't likely to become a cup competition entirely separate from league play. But what if in addition to the three Cascadian MLS clubs playing each other in regular league matches, the previous year's PDL Northwest Division winner also became involved, by playing home and away to all three MLS clubs? It would require only two extra (local) matches for all three MLS sides, and would allow the Cascadian Cup to offer the prospect of potential giant-killings. Such cup matches would create large attendances for the PDL club, giving it a significant financial boost. And an opportunity for smaller teams to host the region’s giants would help to promote club football across the entire region in a way that is only possible when the big boys come to smaller towns for competitive (i.e. not friendly) matches.
One of the highlights of Cascadian football in 2011 was the fourth-division Kitsap Pumas scaring MLS’ Seattle Sounders in a tightly-contested US Open Cup match. Why not re-create this sort of excitement in the Cascadia Cup?
A spectacular Cascadian football culture and history already exists; all the Cascadian Cup would need to become so much more exciting would be that extra touch of cup magic by involving the smaller clubs.
I can’t envision the PDL nor its Northwest Division member clubs rejecting such an opportunity. But would Cascadia's MLS clubs each be willing to play two more competitive matches?
If Vancouver, Seattle and Portland care about growing the sport across the entire Cascadian region, rather than simply furthering the interests of their individual clubs, they should support the prospect of bringing PDL teams into the Cascadia Cup as a way to give the competition even more excitement.
<center><b>********************</b></center>
<b><i>Devon Rowcliffe has supported Vancouver Whitecaps since 2000, and has stood with the Southsiders since 2002. A three-year stint in England turned him off the professional game in Europe, but introduced him to the wonders of non-league and supporter-owned football clubs. He is a member of VISTA (Victoria Independent Supporters' Trust Associated) [<a href="http://twitter.com/#!/VictoriaISTA" target="_blank">twitter.com/VictoriaISTA</a>], the first supporters' trust in Canada to promote fan ownership of a football club. Devon enjoys visiting new football grounds, and launched Groundhopping Canada [<a href="http://groundhoppingca.wordpress.com" target="_blank">groundhoppingca.wordpress.com</a>] this past summer. His upcoming book, "Who Ate All The Squid? Football Adventures in South Korea" [<a href="http://whoateallthesquid.co.uk" target="_blank">whoateallthesquid.co.uk</a>], is due to be published in the UK in late 2012.</i></b>
<p>