Again, you're misreading what was written. Neither Piet nor I blames all Americans, or even most Americans, for what we perceive to be emanating from America. We don't tar everyone with the same brush. An innate distrust of how the American government is going to treat Canada when it can get away with it, combined with an innate dislike of being ignored/looked down upon/overrun by the media in the U.S., mean that we bring a certain point of view to the table when discussing our two nations' interactions. It's somewhat prejudicial, yes. But you could say that about any negative reaction to repeated stimuli. "Once bitten, twice shy" is, in essence, a reaction based in prejudice - a prejudice that was formed when first one was bitten. Just because it's prejudice doesn't mean it's wrong or illogical - it just means that someone's had reason to be cautious.

It becomes damaging when one refuses to acknowledge the prejudices (we've acknowledged them) and then refuses to accept individuals as they find them without counting the prejudice against them (we do accept individuals as we find them) and then refuses to revise the prejudice upon examination of further facts. The third - well, that's what the post was about. The result: we're still cautious in how we view America's interactions with Canada on a national and media level, because the evidence gives us reason to be. Individually, there is no prejudice.