America: *does something*

England:

Pure boy England?

He finds a cat on the street and adopts it.

“Have you done a characterization post on England
yet? I feel like he’s often represented to be either way crueler or way more
timid/uke-ish than he actually is ripperoni”

I’m going to save England’s strength for another post, considering how perplexing his characterization is regarding that, but I can definitely do a characterization post on him.

I’ve discussed his character in full several other times, so this will just be quick and dirty evidence should you ever need it! These will be the most common misconceptions I’ve noticed.

Post coming up tonight!

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.

France and England: We’re
good, responsible parents.

Also France and England:

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.

England: What’s wrong with him? You’d think he’d just been traumatized.

France: He turned on the news.

England: So?

France: It was American news.

England: Oh dear god.

Why do people praise England for being such a good parent when he took advantage of Canada? Canada took care of him when he was sick and he acted so ungratefully tbh.

England isn’t a good parent figure, far from it, but you’re wrong
by saying that he wasn’t grateful for the help Canada gave him. That’s a
misconception that needs to stop being perpetuated.

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