hockey talk

there’s a certain chill across the air this morning; nature’s whispers of national pride. mouths salivating for the glory. swagger reinstated after a near brush with national heartbreak.

our team winning our game on our soil. it’s as if the country can taste it.
canada (as country, as idea, as notion) has been on our mind of late – in part for work, in part just intrigue and curiosity. a cpg-brat throughout our youth (the gypsied transience of the hungry multinational) left us relatively unanchored to a country. we weren’t canadian, british, american, dutch. we weren’t really anything. but then we chose to be canadian.
earlier this week, we engaged on a twitter tussle with a fellow brander. we suggested that perhaps it was ‘more canadian’ for our path to gold to have gone this particular route: as the underdog. a team of davids. the humble, hard working win. our counterpart insisted this was not the exemplary canadian way (nor intention) for this olympics, based on the effort and dollars poured into (the ludicrous, chest beating slogan) own the podium. a rebrand for our country that shit is certainly not.
the debate begs the question: does canada need a clear, sharp identity? does it require a distinct brand? or does its comfort and resilience lie in the country’s quiet pride? vast nature and extreme seasons creating kind and humble people? more awesomeness per square foot than any nation on earth. bras and ranties believes our hockey gold will (will) shine brighter, victory taste sweeter after having to fight a little harder for it.
balls out boys x bras and ranties