Canada might not have a midsection for all we know.

To kick off the new year and easily fill up a solid fifty pages of reading material, the New York Times created a list of "52 Places to Go in 2017." In essence, they found a world map, flung 52 darts at it with abandon, and made a list for you. Sounds researched to me!

From Minneapolis* to Madagascar, Gabon to Greece, the Times rumbles through the list of destinations--one for every week of the year--like a poor man's Rick Steves. Their number one pick was Canada. Nowhere specific in the world's second largest country, mind you, but apparently ALL of Canada in honor of the 150th anniversary of its confederation.

As a secondary analysis of Canada, though, the Times asked four Canadian writers--Madeiline Thien, Cory Doctorow, Kim Fu, and Sarah Nicole Prickett--to reflect on what part of their nation sticks with them, a sort of amateur Fodor's or Lonely Planet guide that's heavy on emotional introspection. The Times called this "My Canada," and the sheer lack of references to hockey or Labatt Blue is startling.

Two of the four writers picked islands near the American border. One picked Niagara, which also happens to be right on the American border. And one writer went crazy and actually ventured inland, picking Dawson, deep in the Yukon Territory--although still within forty miles of the Alaskan border.

Dawson just wants to visit Alaska on the weekends.

While all four grow nostalgic about idealistic childhoods and the wonders of the Earth around them, it seems mildly curious how a citizenry where 80% of the population lives in urban areas seems more beholden with its nature than its cities. Likewise, none of the four writers wanted to venture inland away from the United States border more than forty miles. This is a sort of tourist hand holding little seen outside tour buses packed with senior citizens.

This is akin to cobbling together four American writers, asking them to pick their favorite place in the country, and all of them shudder at the thought of visiting Nebraska--yet they're not too keen on Chicago or Los Angeles either.

In the list description of 52 places to visit, the Times notes that Canada is "also a world unto itself, with cosmopolitan cities [...] and everything in between."

"Everything in between."

A vague statement about the middle of Canada. Does it actually exist? Does anyone know? The evidence would suggest no, not at all.




*Wait--Minneapolis? So Bismarck was not a happening enough place apparently.