Canada, to America: I’m not too patriotic. You’re just projecting.

Also Canada:

When your extroverted friend forces you to go somewhere

I wouldn’t say based, but it’s always been there lol.

If you look at fan requests, especially in the Holiday Events, fanservice makes a good chunk of them. Even more recently, you still have the Italy’s Chest Test, Damaged, and Naked Waiter series [x]. [x]

Damaged:

Naked Waiter:

Misconception: He’s a critical asshole.

Reality: He’s a critical asshole with low self-esteem. This
criticism isn’t only directed at others; he directs it at himself just as much.
As such, he knows he’s misunderstood by others for his actions but doesn’t care
enough to do anything about it.

“He’s quite bad at expressing himself. He himself knows that people often misunderstand him, he uses this fact for self-depreciating jokes.”

Ex: The most common trope for this is how critical he is of
America’s movies.

Ex: England is described as simultaneously self-deprecating
and condescending.

England also has a notable sweet, compassionate, and sentimental
side.

True to his tsundere
character-type, he’ll get flustered and play off his acts of kindness.

Ex: Usually, he detaches himself and claims that he’s not
doing a favor because it’s in his self-interest.

He will also verbally refuse to do things for others yet
still do them anyway.

Ex: He helps France find a hotel to stay.

Ex: After learning that Japan took strides to learn parts of
his culture, England returns the favor by drawing him a portrait… It’s the thought
that counts.

Misconception: He’s a horrible parent and is, therefore, a
terrible person.

Reality: He’s a horrible parent figure that loves his
colonies deeply but had a poor way of expressing it.

England grew up alone. The only parent figures that he had
were France and his other three brothers, those of whom all teased him. England’s
brothers would even go so far as to send him hexes.

Since isolation is how he
was raised and it’s all he knows, this explains why he repeats these same parenting
patterns on his colonies.

Ex: He doesn’t see anything wrong with leaving America for
long periods of time, as this was something that he had endured in his own childhood.
He’s wrongfully normalized it.

Ex: When England lost America after the Revolutionary War,
he grieved with anger. His temper is described to have become particularly
stormy in the years following America’s independence. It’s also alluded that
the 100 years of heartbreak that England once suffered from was due to this
separation (Source: 2007 Christmas Event).

In the present, the two have shifted more to a teasing
relationship.

Misconception: He hates France.

Reality: As lifelong rivals, France and England both despise
and respect each other. They get on each other’s nerves more than they get
along. Nonetheless, this shouldn’t negate the fact that when the time requires
it, the two will stand together in solidarity.

Ex: The two team up against Finland when the latter proposes
the possibility of becoming America’s older brother by virtue of his similar looks.

Ex: England took France in after the Germans occupied the
latter during WW2.

Misconception: He’s antisocial.

Reality: England’s rude behaviour has frequently isolated him
from others, hence the nickname of “the Black Sheep of Europe.”

On the other hand, he’s a gentleman that knows how to
socialize. More than that, he enjoys it.

Ex: He engages in a discussion on gardening with Netherlands
and Japan.

Ex: He has tea with India.

Ex: He bonds with Norway over their affinity for magical
friends.

Bonus facts:

He acts as both the representative for the UK and England [x].

On the topic of where England’s hypothetical tattoo could
be, Himaruya points…

He’s very passionate about steampunk and once gave America
an entire lecture on the subgenre when he learned that they shared a common
interest.

America: *does something*

England:

One thing I’ve noticed is that fans approach and analyze
relationships between the nations from a human perspective. The problem with
this is that it doesn’t capture the elasticity and interchangeability of
titles of beings who are immortal– not mortal– go through. In other words,
aside from direct biological relations which don’t change, you can’t apply
words of human organization to immortal beings who routinely change how and who
they relate to.

For example, just because a nation lives with another
nation, doesn’t automatically make them family. In the case of a nation, they
don’t live with other nation(s) by choice but rather circumstance. Often
enough, it was the product of being conquered.

Some nations living together will choose to identify as a family,
as their bond as a unit most closely resembles one. Nonetheless, these
families, or households rather, are temporary.

Ex: Hungary refers to Holy Roman Empire’s household as a
family [x].

Ex: Having lived with France in Rome’s household
for some time, young Italy referred to France as big brother.

Out of respect, some nations will continue to refer to the
other nations they lived with as an older brother. In Japanese, “onii-chan” is
a term coined out of affection and adoration for a figure. It doesn’t mean
older brother in a blood sense.

Ex: France claims to be the older brother figure of the
world. Meanwhile, only Italy and Monaco choose to refer to him with this title
of affection [x]. Again, not to be mistaken with a relation.

A nation can be a guardian for several centuries and later
evolve into a companion, friend and/or mentor figure.

This is best seen with America and Canada, biological
brothers who temporarily held a family unit with their colonizers. Although,
they didn’t physically live together, settling for occasional visits instead.

For one thing, it’s important to distinguish the fact that biological relations are inherently sensed by the nations.

There’s a difference between Iceland, who senses Norway to
be his brother from birth [as does Norway]… [x].

…and England and France, who make America and Canada their
family [x].

Ex: America doesn’t inherently sense a brother among his
colonizers, Finland, France, and England.

Instead, they fight over who will assume the role of
America’s brother [x].

As mentioned, it’s difficult to apply human words for
relationships to capture relationships between immortal beings. It doesn’t
quite fit. Think of it this way: The nations have unique experiences that we as
humans will never have. So, why are we using words that describe our
experiences to describe theirs?

Respectively, England has trouble deciding what America
should call him.

Again, notice America’s choice of the word onii-chan.

Titles like guardian and older brother, two very different
terms, are loosely thrown around. Of course, older brothers can be guardians, but you’ll see what I mean by this muddled distinction in a moment.

It’s hard to make sense of a relationship
using words that don’t describe but instead confine and water down the
complexity of the colony-colonizer and simultaneous guardian-adoptive
relationship they’ve established.

This uncertainty and fumbling to find words that best
describe their relationship is seen again when America declares his
independence. Even he doesn’t know if what they had entailed a parent-child or
sibling relationship [x].

Nonetheless, he cuts off these ties and no longer views
England as this type of figure for him.

The point I want to emphasize is that due to political
circumstances, the nations’ relationships with each other are dynamic. It’s not
as rigid as human forms of organization; therefore, it doesn’t make sense to
approach these family-like dynamics from a human perspective. It’s like
comparing apples and oranges.

Lastly, to avoid falling into a trap of reasoning, there’s a
stark difference between conquering/ colonizing a nation and living together and
willfully forming a union [economic or political] and living together.

Ex: Switzerland adopted Liechtenstein into his household and
the two consider each other to be siblings. Because this is how they presently
identify and relate to each other, they are siblings.

Oh yeah, REAL menacing.

What this post will explore is the impact of England’s
parenting style on Canada. There is no good and bad here. All I aim to do is
give reason and meaning to the problematic behaviour and relationships that are
depicted in the series. The characterization is done for a specific purpose. What
I seek to do is bring several parallels to light to prove this.

Horney’s Theory of
Parenting and Its Relation to Hetalia:

One of psychologist Karen Horney’s theories explored how
problematic parent-child relationships often result in the child developing
neuroses (mental health complications), such as anxiety or depression.

However, rather than assert all the blame on the parent, she
went on to explain how parents who have been reared in an environment void of
love, care, and affection are incapable of raising their kids in any other
manner.

Put another way, parents pass on their neuroses to their
children. You can’t expect someone to provide the care, warmth, and love that
they’ve never experienced and learned themselves. On the other end of the
spectrum, these problematic parent-child-relationships and parenting techniques
are learned and repeated through generation-to-generation. It’s a cyclical process,
that, unless consciously recognized, results in all sorts of emotional trauma.

What Horney believed to be the Basic Evil of these problematic parenting styles is Parental Indifference, which can also
include a hostile or rejecting attitude of the parents toward the child. This
parental indifference can cause the child to develop feelings of Basic Anxiety or Basic Hostility – both of which, if not attended to, can lead to
mental health issues.

For the purposes of this post, I only need to focus on Basic
Anxiety. Basic Anxiety occurs when the child develops feelings of loneliness
and helplessness in a world that they perceive to be hostile and dangerous.

That said, what I’ll now analyze is how England’s own
upbringing and resulting mental health issues were passed down to
Canada.

Let’s tie this back to the strips.

Exclusion + Black Sheep Syndrome: Parental Indifference

England’s isolated upbringing as the Black Sheep of Europe
leads him to unconsciously replicate this isolation in how he raises Canada.
Since he grew up alone, he doesn’t see a problem in leaving Canada for long
periods of time.

He even admits to America that this is what he had to go
through as a child.

Thing is, while this is normal for England, it’s obviously
an abnormal parenting practice. The point to stress here is that England is
repeating the problematic parenting styles of his older brothers, who played no
part in raising him. They would send him hexes or drive him away with
arrows if he got too close for their liking [x].

The parallels of loneliness and helplessness are quite
clear.

Ex: England feels
isolated in Europe, often a result of his hostile attitude toward other
nations.

Ex: He feels
helpless when he realizes that everyone has turned against him during the
American Revolution [x].

What hurts Canada is that when England does visit, most of
his attention is devoted to America.

In another post [x], I’ve explored how Kumajiro acts as a mouthpiece
for Canada; he voices the feelings that Canada doesn’t dare to say out loud.

Ex: Kumajiro
tells Canada to stand up for himself. At the time, he wanted to ask England to
have lunch with him.

Ex: Kumajiro uses
stuffed animals to draw an analogy concerning how excluded Canada feels.
England neglects Canada in favor of America. Nonetheless, England still cares about Canada [x].

Canada experiences his exclusion in that he’s not memorable
to other nations and is often forgotten and rendered invisible.

Ex: The remaining
G8 members don’t recall him during a meeting [x].

Ex: He’s often
mistaken as America, especially by Cuba.

Self-Deprecation and Poor Self-Esteem: Basic Anxiety

Constantly being ostracized and insulted by other nations
has had a devastating impact on how England views himself. Those who are hurt, hurt others [x] [x].

Canada too suffers from self-esteem issues.

Ex: He doesn’t believe that he’s handsome [x].

Ex: He believes that America is disinterested in him [x].

This escalates in Canada being too shy to speak to America
directly. He uses England as a mouthpiece instead. All of this is reflective of
his low sense of self-worth [x].

Sensitivity: Basic Anxiety

While this side of England isn’t revealed often, he’s an
incredibly sensitive person.

Ex: Visiting America – a child that loved him
unconditionally – helped England cope with his anxiety over being excluded from
European circles.

Ex: He tears up when Canada comes to his aid during the
American Revolution [x].

Ex: He drunkenly sobs in front of America, revealing how he
wishes that their relationship had turned out better [x].

Ex: He tears up after watching a fantasy movie, lamenting
over how harsh reality is in comparison [x].

Canada’s sensitivity relates more to his fragile sense of
self and identity.

Ex: He cries when Seychelles remembers that he’s part of the
G8 [x].

Ex: He cries when England falls ill after the American
Revolution and worries about whether he’ll be able to successfully nurse the
latter back to health [x].

Bonus: Hot tempers

We all know how hot-headed and temperamental England
can be. There is no question about that. It’s what he’s most known for [unfortunately].

On the other hand, what most don’t recognize about Canada is
that he also has quite the temper.

The only difference is that Canada has much more patience
than England. It takes a lot to make him angry. Regardless, Canada will still
stand up for himself if his buttons are pushed too far.

Ex: Canada once spent three hours pointing out America’s
faults, causing the latter to cry [x].

Throughout his and America’s independence arcs, Canada on
several occasions calls out America for his self-righteousness and hypocrisy [x] [x]

In sum, I highly recommend looking into the similarities
between England and Canada’s sense of self. While their personalities may be
different, they uncannily suffer from the same mental health issues.