Help me understand the phrase, "Elbows up"
I keep seeing this phrase, mostly with relation to USA-Canadian politics right now.
I was curious enough to look this up and it seems this phrase came from a famous hockey player, Gordie Howe.
Now, I want to say that my initial thought before researching this was, "oh, elbows up must be passive resistance, it's like someone folding their arms waiting for you to calm down, it's like putting your elbows up on a table refusing to eat/being rude on purpose to prove a point"
What I found, and the crux of the question, is it seems like a license to practice violence, when you deem it necessary. It seems very, "ends justify the means" -- because it is inherently a very violent rhetoric. I feel the current use of the term is, "don't take shit from anyone if they are bullying you". But this completely disregards its origins.
My further search into the hockey part of it sounds like the player didn't just use his "elbows" in retaliation, it sounds like he was really actively violent (on the ice)...so...I guess I just don't get it, I don't get why a society would glorify such a violent backed terminology, to combat...extremely violent behavior (threats of annexation).
Genuinely interested to hear anyone's opinions on this phrase.
Bonus, I saw one explanation of the player that I thought was funny, his "rational and expert application of violence"
I appreciate the other answers here, but I think that they miss something fundamental. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think Stu or balooga are Canadian; if they are, then my apologies to them. This is what it means to me, as a Canadian.
Elbows up comes from Gordie Howe, also known as Mr. Hockey, who is one of the greatest hockey players of all time. He used it to describe his style of hockey play, which was a more physical one than how people had played the game before him. He could do everything on the rink - he scored, he set up plays, he got in the other teams heads, he was tough, he was rough, he could throw down and protect himself or his fellow players. Elbows Up is about that - whatever you're doing, be prepared to protect yourself and your team. It's not necessarily about violence because he wasn't about injuring other players, but he was physical and commanding and forceful on the ice.
To understand why it is almost a visceral things for Canadians, to understand how it feels when Mike Myers does the Elbows Up motion at the end of SNL like he is talking directly the 40 million people up here in solidarity, you probably have to understand what hockey is to Canadians, culturally. Hockey is big here, and when I say it's big, you might think that we treat it like Americans treat baseball or basketball or football. It's not quite the same; it's a lot more here. It is difficult to put into words how much hockey permeates our culture, and what it means to many Canadians. To put it in perspective, consider this statistic.
29% of NHL players are American (pop: 340M) . 41% are Canadian (pop:40M). Our player pool of all potential players using some really basic napkin math is about 12% of the potential American player pool, but we have 133% as many players at the elite level. That disparity is due to how insane Canadians are about hockey.
It is difficult to say how important Gordie Howe is for people of my age and older. The closest comparison I can think of is Babe Ruth - someone who is so synonymous with their sport that they are remembered and will be revered for many decades, if not centuries. And not to put too fine a point on it, he died before he could shit on his legacy by doing something politically stupid, like Wayne Gretzky did (he's a Trump crony now). So Mr Hockey will be forever sacrosanct to Canadians.
It goes deeper though. As Canadians, we have a pretty big reputation for being nice, polite, kind of blah. Underneath it all, there's a real steel in our spines though. A few years ago Heinz made the decision to close a ketchup plant near where I live, very suddenly and giving no notice their thousand or so employees in the area. Shortly afterwards, French's (another brand) took over the plant, rehired everyone, and made all-Canadian ketchup. Before this, Heinz' market share was 85% in Ontario. Afterwards, it has dropped to something like 75% and in ten years, it has never gone back up. I realize doesn't seem that big, but a permanent 10% market drop is kind of insane. And people still call out other people in the grocery store when they are buying Heinz. Here's some more napkin math - Ontario has about 16M people in it. That means that about 1.6 million people permanently changed brands. Again, that's napkin math, but so many people from all over this province banded together to support the company that supported those 1000 people who lost their jobs. That's an Elbows Up moment.
To tie it all together - Elbows Up is a phrase that combines our love of hockey with our fundamental inability to be trod upon and a quintessentially Canadian tendency to hold a mean fucking grudge forever. We're not going to elbow anyone - outside of the rink where that's just the status quo - but we are going to hunker down and hit where it hurts, metaphorically. It will be decades before bourbon sells well in Canada again, and Tesla will never again do very well here, and we are not going to be going south to spend money for a long time.
It's not about glorifying violence. It's about standing up, shoulder to shoulder with teammates and protecting what is important.
I left another comment to this effect, but I think it has value as an addition here.
Hockey violence isn't something that we parse as "real" violence. That's why there was such an uproar when Bertuzzi really hurt Moore and why everyone hated him as a result. You're not supposed to injure the other players. You can play a game of hockey, throw big hits, have a fight, and then go out for a beer after and hang out with the guy that you just punched in the face, even if you broke his nose or knocked out his teeth. That might seem weird, but it is what it is.
As an example of how it's part of the sport, here is a clip of Laraque asking someone if they want to fight. It's not angry, it's not mean, it's just a part of the sport. Some people don't like that it's a part of the sport, and I think there is value in reducing fights and getting a cleaner game, but it's not about committing violence on the other guy, it's about energy. It's violent in the same way that boxing or MMA is violent; almost entirely about winning and not about hurting. Stylized and controlled.
It's been that many years? This is still a no Heinz household thank you very much.
Absolutely bonkers. Videos of Canada geese standing their ground against fox, or eagle, or a tiger, go viral overnight right now. We're not apex predators: we are herbivores who can hiss and nip and smack with wings when pushed past a certain point, even as we're aware that we're up against fangs and teeth from something even ten times our size.
Funny about Heinz, here in Pittsburgh, it is a Heinz town. During the pandemic when there was nothing on the shelves, all the Heinz ketchup was gone, and the rest of the ketchup looked pristine and fully stocked.
It was a sad thing when they renamed Heinz Field, and I'm sure that will mark a decline, but we still have the Heinz History Center with its iconic Heinz animated sign.
Animated sign?! Like, it pours? I do very much like glass bottle ketchup :) as a Canadian I'm happy for Pittsburgh folks (what's the demonym?) to have Heinz and hometown pride like that.
Here's a video of it, although it's much better in person.
Usually we call ourselves Pittsburghers. It is a pretty great city. I've lived here over twenty years and wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
"Pittsburghers" would follow the traditional English formula, but I believe many locals call themselves "Yinzers" after the second-person plural pronoun peculiar to the region.
???? The regional version of y'all is "yinz"? Please elaborate!
Uh, not sure there's much to elaborate on. "The regional version of 'y'all' is 'yinz'" pretty much sums it up.
I went and did an embarrassingly minute amount of research and got this from Wikipedia:
That makes a lot of sense, as those are precisely the regions from which a large contingent of British colonial migrants to Appalachia and Western Pennsylvania came. [Edit: My understanding is that] Appalachian "Scots-Irish" is really more an admixture of those regions rather than a particular branch of Scottish Protestant transplants to Northern Ireland it often means everywhere else.
The facts you give here are correct, but the English spoken in Pittsburgh today isn't really what most people are referencing when they mention Appalachian English, which is principally spoken in rural areas rather than ant cities as big as Pittsburgh and often has more features that are a lot more distinctive. By contrast, "yinz" in particular is actually very localized to Pittsburgh specifically.
Western PA is a fun area because it's at a confluence of a few cultural and linguistic regions. My own Scots-Irish ancestry passed through that area in the late-colonial to early-Republic eras, though in their case they actually were descendants of those Scottish Protestants that migrated to Northern Ireland as part of the early English colonial programme. That's where I get my German ancestry from as well (good old-fashioned rapacious American mutt, me). My people were decidedly more of the Midwestern flavor than Appalachian, though.
'Yinz' just derives from that cultural wave more popularly associated with Appalachia, which is why I mentioned it, though I guess I should've been more careful to mark a distinction between the regions.
I'm from Northeast Ohio myself, which has some similar influences from the same source, so I getcha! In college my friend from Pittsburgh was my comrade in using the "needs washed" construction lol. I just didn't want people unfamiliar with the area to come to any weird assumptions about Pittsburgh or Appalachian English based on conflating them.
To add another Canadian perspective to your interpretation: I'm not even a huge hockey fan insofar as Im not hugely into most organized sports. my exposure is pretty passive - family or friends who play, or a game being broadcast in the background.
Still, I immediately understood the sentiment, much as you decribe, of 'elbows up' in the context of showing grit, resiliance, and resistance in the face of adverse conditions.
Yet, there's one sentiment I had never personally heard applied to Canadians prior to now, but it's become very common: that Canadians hold a grudge. Perhaps it's simply been a blind spot in my understanding of Canadian identity. Or, perhaps it's growing as an aspect of the Canadian identity just now.
Either way, grudge-holding isn't an attribute I personally consider healthy or would like to see grow in attachment to the national identity. I'd much rather see the focus of similar ideas of taking a stand, resistance, determination, grit, resiliance, etc.
I also think that holding a grudge is not a good thing to do. I almost framed it as being stubborn, or tenacious, or strongwilled, but I think that this in particular is about holding a grudge, especially with regards to Americans.
This is a generalization and like all generalizations there are loads of exceptions. But when Canada is slighted by America, we hold on to that forever. Heck, we still have songs about when we burnt down the white house over 200 years ago, and we celebrate it. I think that it ties into one of our other national identities - we have hockey, we have manners, we have winter, we have the most beautiful landscapes in the world, and we have not being American, and in general the last one is arguably the one we cling to the most. It is due to collective chip on Canada's shoulder.
So we hold a grudge, but I think it's specifically that we will hold grudges against America. We've already moved on from China and India for things done within the last couple of years, but we hold onto things from America for years, decades, even centuries.
Ahh, yea, fair. When you frame it within the specific context of Canada's history with the US, I can see what you mean.
Also for clarity, my comment is in no way a refutation of what you said - I agree. grudge-holding isn't an attribute that's healthy. However, I find myself also grudgy so I am fighting the desire to want to see more of a grudge against our southern neighbours.
I wouldn’t frame it as a grudge but more just an acknowledgement that the relationship we thought we had with America was a figment of our imagination. We now have to ensure that our trade and defence are less intertwined with America, because at any moment they may turn on us. We need to deepen our ties with countries with shared values, and maybe even deepen our ties with countries that are just strategically important even though our values may be less close, if it means we will be more resilient in the face of American aggression.
I spent some time thinking about this response, because I disagreed, but I couldn't tell if it was just a wording thing or a fundamental disagreement. I think it's more fundamental, but this will talk about some specific wording, because that's all we have in these sorts of conversations.
This is the phrase that I am having a really hard time with, because I believe fully that the special relationship, friendship, allyship between our two countries was very real. If we were learning that we were mistaken, then the problem would be our own. It is the fact that this relationship was very real that is the source of the deep feelings of betrayal that many of us are experiencing.
It was a special relationship. It was an example of two of the closest allies could be. And it was less important to half the voters then voting for hate, injustice, shittiness, anger. It was less important that they hold to the idea that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It was less important than being allowed to call people "retarded", just being kind, or reasonable, or working with people across the globe. It was less important than Reagan saying "You can live in Germany, Turkey, or Japan, but you can't become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the earth, can come live in America and become an American". It was less important than the joy that spread pretty far and wide when Obama became president and everyone kind of thought, "oh, those Americans can figure this shit out."
The fact that it was real is what makes this a horrid betrayal that is going to take a long time to work back from. If it even is something that we can collectively come back from.
Perhaps it's not so much real vs fake, it's our imagination that we were ever considered remotely equal. We've never been, but we've acted like we were when they need us.
They don't know anything about us: what's a province, how do our elections work, what's a non confidence vote, do we have a king, why don't we want to be Americans. Meanwhile I think most of us can name darn near 50 states, more than a dozen of their presidents, and follow their elections/midterms every two years. We're aware of our trading co-operation while they think we leech off them; we followed them to war and got a huge percentage of us killed because we thought we're family and they think all we've ever done is benefit from their free protection.
We're small in terms of population, but we're done being insignificant. This betrayal isnt just one mad man decided to be enemies, it's about most Americans not even giving a damn or noticing that betrayal has happened, or why we're even mad since it's such a wonderful offer to join their manifest destiny.
*Foaming at the mouth
To borrow an expression from Sir Terry Pratchett, "not American" is a core part of our collective consciousness, infuses by "Too much ancient politics, too many chips handed down from shoulder to shoulder."(Thud)
I'd like to think it's not pettiness or vengefulness, but rather, a sort of "The North Remembers" watchfulness. Because when we live on the thin ledge between The Largest Armies Ever Amassed By Humanity and The Frozen Tundra, when most of our lit falls between the genres of "man vs man" and "man vs Nature", it's vital to remember certain things that are only passed down as vague ideas, like which way north / which one is the Big Dipper, and when/how to watch for Americans coming through the woods to annex us.
If Americans have grown soft and complacent with the rise of their global power, we've grown also soft and squishy at the same time as ever slightly more on edge about being next to their ever expanding power.
Think of a boxing stance. You lift your arms such that your arms are protecting your vitals - your head and core. Your elbows will be up. It's fundamentally a fighting posture - albeit, one that is as much about defense as offense.
I mean, society is full of violence. Violence is really what a society is all about - who owns the ability to enact violence. We've built abstractions, such that in most cases violence is monopolized by one entity (the state) who uses their implied ability to enact violence to enforce rules, which is a pretty sweet deal, but when things fall apart, who can smash who's head in is what determines human society.
Moreover, the phrase embodies the idea that sometimes you are put in situations where all other levels of social decorum have fallen, and you need to prepare to use the most base of human expressions to defend yourself. Think of the advice often given to bullied children - sometimes you have to stand your ground and start swinging.
That's, in essence, the relation to the current situation; the US is the bully, and Canada is the one that people are advocating for "fighting back".
Back to the origins, basically, the phrase means, shit's going down. Any levels of social decorum above violence in the hockey rink are about to disappear, as it often does - hockey is notoriously a sport prone to descend into temporary actual physical fights.
You need to be in fighting stance because violence will happen, it's just a matter of who it will happen to.
Ah yes, forgot about the boxer’s stance. I also like that rhetoric.
I suppose I could chalk it up to any other phrase that has “lost its roots” in relation to its origin. Or rather, glorifying history or re-writing it. It’s great to talk about when someone uses their elbows to defend themselves, but we are going to downplay when they use their elbows to “dole out punishment”.
So perhaps an addendum to my original question is, how many people using the phrase currently are aware of its full history ? (I say this from my limited one day research into the topic so my statement could be totally misguided).
Uh... pretty much every Canadian. :P It's a very very common hockey related phrase that has been in use for a long long time, and is still in use. It generally means shit is about to go down on the rink, but is also solid advice too. Elbows up is literally how you have to fight when playing hockey since you can't really swing for the fences like you would on solid ground, unless you want to end up on your ass.
BTW, the reason it's become such a popular rallying cry against Trump and the Tariffs here in Canada is thanks to Mike Myers mouthing it on SNL while wearing a "Canada is not for sale" shirt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3R5fVG3hfs
cc: @stu2b50 since I think your comment is missing a bit of context.
So am I missing something, is the messaging that it's both allowed to elbow people in defense as well as offense? I think I just don't understand Hockey, it's becoming aware lol.
This is the part I'm struggling with.
Yes. In hockey fights, elbows up is both a defensive move and offensive too. Elbowing people in the head isn't all that uncommon in hockey fights... and even used to be somewhat common outside fights too. ;) Hockey legend Gordie Howe was well known for doing it to players who pissed him off, and once famously admitted that, "If a guy slashed me, I'd grab his stick, pull him up alongside me and elbow him in the head."
p.s. Regarding its use related to Trump, it essentially means us Canadians are prepared to scrap, and "You aren't getting our country without a fight."
Have you ever been "up in arms" about something? Were you intending to be involved in an armed rebellion?
Literal meaning isn't always the point of an idiom. And a lot of our idioms reference violence - sports teams rarely actually destroy or kill each other, and its definitely not common to be literally kicking their asses, we don't (mostly) die on hills, and while I might say that if someone is mean to my friend they're going to "catch these hands" I'm not necessarily going to fight today...If I did, I may get away with murder, but I will probably shoot myself in the foot.
Within hockey and hockey culture other folks have explained the meaning and fighting is a part of the game, but with phrases intended to inspire people to "fight back" or "don't give up" once again it's not always physical fighting that's actually being referenced or advocated for; no one seems inclined to fight Americans as a people but America, and with metaphorical fists not literal bombs. From the country that sang Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue for at least a solid year post 9/11, this is pretty mild levels of violence being pretty low amounts of glorified.
I think when it's an unusual idiom or directed at "us" (idk where you're from) it stands out but we ignore the stuff we say all the time that's similar.
How so? It means exactly what it did before. I think your own feelings about violence are clouding your view.
Fundamentally, the phrase is an acknowledgement of the primacy of violence - that laws and decorum are nothing more than unstable abstractions layered upon violence, and that when they fall apart like a jenga tower, violence is what's left.
In hockey, it means that when another player is squaring you up, you only have two choices: square up too, or get beaten up. They don't care that there's a "law" about assault and battery. In the proceeding moments they are about to fuck you up, and there is nothing that will protect you other than violence.
So yes, it is a statement that violence is the answer, or at least the willingness to enact violence, in situations. You may not agree with that stance, but most people do. Is what it is.
For me it is important to know if elbows up means defend yourself or elbows up means start some shit.
Squaring up to me sounds like, you are agreeing to fight, so in that situation yes I guess you must fight somehow, there is no leaving the fight.
But from what I have been able to read or find, he was not some gentle player that chose not to fight and only when confronted with fighting, then he fought. That to me is the re-writing -- or willfully ignoring the whole history. He also started fights, and in my opinion, went too far at times, do you need to break someone's nose to win a fight?
I left a lengthy response at the top level, but I think there's something that you are culturally not getting about hockey in Canada, specifically around fights and physicality.
You can play a game of hockey, throw big hits, have a fight, and then go out for a beer after and hang out with the guy that you just punched in the face, even if you broke his nose or knocked out his teeth. That might seem weird, but it is what it is. Hockey violence isn't real violence to hockey players, it's just part of what hockey is.
Hockey culture is notably a bit twisted when it comes to why there is fighting. It doesn't have the hostile implications that it does in effectively every other context. It's often considered a sign of respect, and it's considered rude or disrespectful to refuse to fight someone if you have been badgering them during the actual game. And fights are requested and agreed to beforehand, they're consensual. It's considered extremely bad to start a fight with someone who does not consent to it.
Hockey players fight because it they find it fun, and a form of stress relief. In the recent US vs. Canada game at the Four Nations Tournament, three fights broke out upon the opening faceoff. This wasn't because of any bad blood between the players but rather a display of friendly rivalry.
Even the kindest and nicest players engage in fights in hockey. There's a moment where goalie Marc-Andre Fleury, legendarily one of the sweetest players the NHL has ever had, was disappointed he didn't get to fight another goalie while mic'd up. You can hear him pleading with the refs to allow them to get in on the fun (the rest of their respective teams were already fighting).
The CBC published an article about exactly this just a few weeks ago:
#ElbowsUp: Why have Canadians chosen hockey as the symbol of our national unity?
Of note is this line near the end:
This is largely true, even in combat sports where elbow strikes are practiced. The elbow is a very bad body part to use purely on the offensive. It has a very short, limited reach, is very risky, and there's a high chance of injury if used to charge into offense. It's much better for defense or utility i.e. scratching or shoving away.
That feels a bit whitewashy, TBH. I mean sure... he did use his elbows in fights to ward people off. Every hockey player does. But Howe was also kinda known for skating up to players who had pissed him off and elbowing them in the head. A super famous photo is of him doing exactly that to Quebec Nordiques forward Curt Brackenbury.
I don't know too much about Howe himself, especially his behaviour at the different stages of his insanely long career, but I figure this article is speaking to the spirit of how his famous elbowing move is remembered more than how he actually deployed it since that's what would inform the rallying cry.
I’ve never heard the phrase before so I can’t speak to that. @stu2b50’s explanation makes sense.
But to your question about “why a society would glorify such a violent backed terminology” — the past few years have really disabused me of any belief in modern society’s so-called enlightenment. Sure, there are plenty of individuals who reject violence and have nuanced personal ethics. And there are certain (rapidly disintegrating) norms in the political sphere about what kind of rhetoric is acceptable, and those trickle down to the zeitgeist too.
But by and large, I’m coming to realize, the “brotherhood of man” has always been a myth. The past was no better, we just sanitize it in the retellings. The mass of humanity we call “society” is not, as a whole, striving for knowledge or justice or virtue or empathy or any form of long-term betterment for itself or its planet. Arguments to the contrary are mostly wishful thinking or well-intentioned mythologizing.
While I understand questioning the brotherhood of man in these troubling times, I think that this isn't what elbows up is about. I wrote this above:
There's a lot to be said about what the term means to Canadians, but it's not about violence per se, it's intertwined with our love of hockey, our love of Gordie Howe specifically, standing up with other Canadians and being ready for what's coming. In the context of the current trade war, it's about never buying American, about spending our dollars where they benefit Canadians the most. No more bourbon, no more out-of-season lettuce, no more coke zero, no more coffeemate. We've already diverted $10B that we would have spent on American products towards other places, and billions of dollars in tourism to other locations.
It is about siblinghood, and while I feel for our siblings in other countries and how they're doing and I want things to be better for them, "Elbows Up" is about putting our needs before the needs of our siblings outside Canada, especially the other countries where the leadership is abusive and megalomaniacal.
Rather than a myth, it would be better to say that rhetoric like the "brotherhood of man" was aspirational. It's not the sort of rhetoric you see in reporting. (Or much at all anymore since it's rather sexist )
There are statistics showing that violence is trending down in the US, but violent rhetoric and art are not, based on movies, video games, and music.
There are also lots of violent metaphors like "war on X" that are simply used as metaphors. Many people have become more aware of them, but they haven't become taboo.
I wrote "siblinghood" above a few times. It's clunky, but it works.
In my pessimistic state, I feel this way as well. Your phrasing, “sanitize” history hit especially hard.
It feels like there are no longer any rules(the societal contract, as it were), and that everyone has been selfish all along - pretending not to be. Now the selfishness is out in the open and celebrated.
I feel like the context here is important.
Do you remember what happened when America was under attack by terrorists in 911, and they had to close their entire sky to prevent more planes potentially carrying terrorists and bombs from reaching America? There were hundreds and hundreds of planes already in the sky, where were they supposed to go? We opened up our sky, we took them in despite danger to ourselves, we welcomed international travelers even as we were glued to the television literally weeping for another country. I was in highschool and we just huddled and cried in each other's arms until our parents came got us and went home to watch tv and cry.
And now they're going to annex us, military and economic options on the table.
It's not glorifying violence because we're not known for history of meanness and retaliation against the states normally (our sins lie elsewhere ). Our peace arch says May These Gates Never Close and we mean it.
To finally have Canadians change our attitude completely, perhaps culturally you'd be more receptive to seeing a battered spouse quietly whispering it's time to "lawyer up". Is it glorifying using the courts to punish and take advantage? No. It's about saying Enough.