U.S.-Canada merger (crime, life, place, jobs)

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

These examples I've given certainly comport with your point that by the post-Civil War period the threat from the US going north was greater than the British going south. However, I believe the British understood by the 1840s and probably much earlier, such as during the War of 1812 when they had great tactical victories but no real hope of a strategic victory at a reasonable cost, that the best way to secure Canada was to not antagonize the United States. The British did that with a textbook policy of territorial appeasement. Apparently appeasing democratic republics works, but it doesn't work with fanatical 20th century fascist dictatorships to their eternal regret.

While those were definitely very good examples of Canadian/British vulnerabilities and failures in North America, they don't really speak to the anti-American hostility of the British Monarchy following American independence, and then, of course, their subsequent conspiracies against the U.S. for nearly a century afterward. Canada was the Monarchy's single most valuable asset when it came to maintaining the British Empire's influence in North America, which appears to be something that Canadians are quite proud of (just look at their embarrassingly nostalgic reflections pertaining to the War of 1812).

And the British desire to dissolve the U.S. was very much alive and well during the 1860s Civil War-era. It should no longer be any secret that British interests (as well as many French interests) directly and indirectly supported Confederate secession.

[Caleb Longstreet]

Only if they rejuvenate John Candy, bury Ann Murray, and get me a date with Celine Dion am I interested........what? Too soon?

[danielj72]

The idea of US-Canadian unification actually makes sense from a practical point of view. The two nations are the most similar on the planet as far as people and culture and sharing the burden of governence would save alot of money and resources. One military, one goverment and one currency/economy. This North American nation could not do anything but be successful as its advatage in natural resources and human resources are obvious. The reason however this will not likely happen is political. US residents fancy themselves as rebels, as rugged individulistic folks who tossed off the British crown and carved a nation out of the wilderness. We distrust goverment, we do have a cowboy outlook toward foriegn policy and we are a very extrovert nation. Canada is different from us in the respect that they DO trust in goverment, and they respect the queen we took up arms against. Rebellion is not thier way and they are a much more restrained people. There is a good reason for this, a large part of thier population decends from the tories that fled the new United States after the British defeat. The war of 1812 did not help the cause of political union between the US and Canada either. In the US the war of 1812 is portrayed as a British attempt to un-do the revolution. British forces used Canada as a base to invade New York and parts of the upper midwest. Many politicians in the US also believed we had a chance of capturing Canada in this war. Military defeats made this impossible and the war was a waste on both sides with it ending in the Treaty of Ghent, which put the borders back to thier pre -war locations. In Canada this war is even more important to that nations identity as the war is seen as simply a US invasion that was twarted. Canadian school children are taught about this American invasion and for this reason many Canadians today see the US as an aggressive neighbor looking to control them. Both sides believe they won the war, but in my opinon that war was a total waste for all involved. Americans/irish immigrants involved themselves in a rebellion in Canada a few decades later, only increasing a distrust of Americans by our northern neighbors. Today there is not that level of tension, but there is that lasting difference in our view of what goverment is and should be. Canadians, not being rebels see goverment as promoting a good society. Goverment is trusted and not something that is feared. They trust the goverment with thier healthcare, control of the media (some) and trust in thier govement to regulate the economy to a greater degree than we do in the US. Here in the US we are a nation born in rebellion against goverment controll and taxes, and that explains our differnece with our Canadian brothers. We resist large goveremnt, we resent taxes and in general we are fearful of any large goverment operation. The US was built largely by first rebellion and then further war, and for that reason we are a bit more aggressive when it comes to our dealings with the world. Conseqently we have found ourselves at war alot more than our Canadian brothers.
Canada and the US are very similar, Im not saying they are not but we do have major political differences that will likely keep us apart. Union would mean US residents would have to accept more goverment involvement in thier lives and maybe not be so "cowboyish" when it comes to our foriegn policy. Canadians would have to give up some of that govement they seem to be so comfortable with. They may have to accept some of those coyboy ways of ours that they are always making fun of us for. Canada and the US are like two brothers that bicker, so similar they are always butting heads. Thier heritage is nearly the same, histories intertwined so deeply that they cannot be seperated, and economic ties that almost amount to an economic union even now, but that does not mean there should be a true political union. Things do work fine the way they are now. I wouldnt mind seeing those stupid border crossings made less intimidating however, IMO we dont even need them. Free trade should mean free passage. I live in a border state however and out here people do not like all the 9-11 restrictions on crossing. Its bad for business and tourism on both sides. Most of it is the fault of the US, post 9-11 overeaction.

[lucknow]

Originally Posted by Montguy

I recently came across a NPO website called unitednorthamerica.org, which, from what I found, is run by a man out of Winnipeg who advocates the geographical/political mergence of the U.S. and Canada (Mexico, oddly, isn't included in a "united North America," apparently for "cultural" reasons).

As if it weren't bewildering enough that ANY Canadian would ever suggest such a thing, the author of this website actually believes that Canadian provinces should apply for U.S. statehood--in other words, have themselves "annexed" into U.S. territory, thus submitting themselves to U.S. political authority.

Annexation of Canada by the U.S. has long been the boogeyman of many a Canadian paranoiac, so naturally I was dumbfounded when I learned that "United North America" is a Canadian-based NPO.

But anyway, here's my question: would the addition of Canadian provinces to the U.S. actually be a good thing for our country?

My short answer: Absolutely not.

Any thoughts, people?

We are NOT amused!!!!!!

[eskercurve]

Canada wouldn't want to merge with the USA because of many reasons (primary one being they don't want 25% of their taxes going towards a military that is very interventionist).

America would love to absorb Canada though. Rich oil fields, a well educated and cosmopolitan society, along with technical know-how. I'm sure we could learn to tolerate the British English way of spelling things, the metric system (so long as it stayed in Canada), and we didn't have to support the social health care system.

I speak in general terms of how Americans would like it. I personally would NOT want it to happen because I like Canada just the way it is, funny spellings, units, and all.

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by lucknow

We are NOT amused!!!!!!

Trust me, neither am I.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Canada wouldn't want to merge with the USA because of many reasons (primary one being they don't want 25% of their taxes going towards a military that is very interventionist).

No, they'd much rather have their tax dollars funneled to an equally interventionist IGO known as the United Nations. Apparently military aggression is perfectly acceptable so long as the UN Security Council says so.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

America would love to absorb Canada though. Rich oil fields, a well educated and cosmopolitan society, along with technical know-how. I'm sure we could learn to tolerate the British English way of spelling things, the metric system (so long as it stayed in Canada), and we didn't have to support the social health care system.

The U.S. doesn't need to absorb Canada for its energy resources--the U.S. has domestic energy resources of its own that could be utilized for the attainment of energy independence, economic growth, etc. Unfortunately, though, the U.S. is more than happy to lock itself out of its own resources and maintain its independence on foreign energy supplies (like that which is imported from Canada), which isn't even to mention the fact that swaths of our domestic oil and natural gas deposits have now been purchased by Chinese corporations (oh but don't worry Canada, China will never pursue your resources...better get them in on that pipeline).

As for Canadian society being "well-educated" and "cosmopolitan," I have never found the average Canadian to be superior to the average American in terms of basic intelligence, nor do I find that Canadian society has a generally cosmopolitan worldview. Canadians probably adhere to nativist sentiments much more than they would ever admit to.

And as for the metric system and traditional British vocabulary spellings...NO!

Originally Posted by eskercurve

I speak in general terms of how Americans would like it. I personally would NOT want it to happen because I like Canada just the way it is, funny spellings, units, and all.

So you wouldn't want a U.S.-Canada merger for the sake of Canada's preservation?

God, you really are a Pac-Northwesterner.

[eskercurve]

Originally Posted by Montguy

Trust me, neither am I.



No, they'd much rather have their tax dollars funneled to an equally interventionist IGO known as the United Nations. Apparently military aggression is perfectly acceptable so long as the UN Security Council says so.

Hey, at least the UN takes things to a vote on the world stage. Canadians would much rather have the world agree that some regime or country is a viable threat to all, and then take concrete action.

(though quite a few are seeing the cracks, considering what is going on in Syria right now).

The U.S. doesn't need to absorb Canada for its energy resources--the U.S. has domestic energy resources of its own that could be utilized for the attainment of energy independence, economic growth, etc. Unfortunately, though, the U.S. is more than happy to lock itself out of its own resources and maintain its independence on foreign energy supplies (like that which is imported from Canada), which isn't even to mention the fact that swaths of our domestic oil and natural gas deposits have now been purchased by Chinese corporations (oh but don't worry Canada, China will never pursue your resources...better get them in on that pipeline).

Canadians would be loathe to be annexed by the US precisely because of the oil sands. It provides a large export value to them.

As for Canadian society being "well-educated" and "cosmopolitan," I have never found the average Canadian to be superior to the average American in terms of basic intelligence, nor do I find that Canadian society has a generally cosmopolitan worldview. Canadians probably adhere to nativist sentiments much more than they would ever admit to.

Eh, whatever. Nationalism is fine and dandy and they have quite a lot of it. But they also generally know more about world events with a much more balanced outlook. And when I went to Canada, I saw a lot more mixed-race folks in the second or third generation of the mix going on. That may not seem like much, but to me it speaks volumes of the tolerance to others in our species. Much more so than USA folks have historically. It's changed dramatically since the 60s, I know, and I'm proud of that. But we have a long way to go.

And as for the metric system and traditional British vocabulary spellings...NO!

Umm ....... I think you mis-read my sentence. I said they can keep their spelling and metric system. At least that's what I meant.

So you wouldn't want a U.S.-Canada merger for the sake of Canada's preservation?

God, you really are a Pac-Northwesterner.

Best area in the US. And I've been to all of them.

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Hey, at least the UN takes things to a vote on the world stage. Canadians would much rather have the world agree that some regime or country is a viable threat to all, and then take concrete action.

(though quite a few are seeing the cracks, considering what is going on in Syria right now).

What sane country would want their military subordinate to the whims of some creetinous international body like the United Nations? Why should the schmucks in the UN general assembly and security council be the highest authority on what is and is not justifiable military action?

Case in point (as you yourself recognize): Syria. And lets not forget Libya...and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Canadians would be loathe to be annexed by the US precisely because of the oil sands. It provides a large export value to them.

Good point, but I still think that opposition toward a U.S.-Canada merger (and opposition to such a thing is by no means bad) would be rooted in something much, much deeper than financial security.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Eh, whatever. Nationalism is fine and dandy and they have quite a lot of it. But they also generally know more about world events with a much more balanced outlook. And when I went to Canada, I saw a lot more mixed-race folks in the second or third generation of the mix going on. That may not seem like much, but to me it speaks volumes of the tolerance to others in our species. Much more so than USA folks have historically. It's changed dramatically since the 60s, I know, and I'm proud of that. But we have a long way to go.

I tend to have quite a healthy respect for nationalism; however, nationalism isn't exactly my idea of healthy sentiment when it's rooted in some bizarre insecurity-complex that, somewhere along the line, exploded into a resentful, condescending superiority-complex (in a Canada vs. U.S. context, of course). That, in my view, is the essence of Canadian nationalism.

And yes, I do realize that Americans can be quite obnoxious in their expressions of nationalism, but I've never personally found American nationalism to be nearly as hateful as its Canadian counterpart.

As for Canadian multi-ethnicism and their supposedly more impressive knowledge of global affairs, again, I've never experienced any sort of profound worldliness from an average Canadian, and no statistical analysis that I've ever seen shows Canada to be ahead of the U.S. in terms of non-white ethnic populations.

Even if the U.S. weren't as ethnically diverse as it is, why does that matter? Because multi-ethnicism is the be-all and end-all of moral decency? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Umm ....... I think you mis-read my sentence. I said they can keep their spelling and metric system. At least that's what I meant.

I know this--I was agreeing with you.

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Best area in the US. And I've been to all of them.

The PACNW is quite nice, yes, but I'll always prefer the Rocky Mountain region.

And besides, haven't most of you (Washingtonians and Oregonians specifically) deluded yourselves into thinking you're British Columbians?

[eskercurve]

Originally Posted by Montguy

What sane country would want their military subordinate to the whims of some creetinous international body like the United Nations? Why should the schmucks in the UN general assembly and security council be the highest authority on what is and is not justifiable military action?

Case in point (as you yourself recognize): Syria. And lets not forget Libya...and Afghanistan.

The concept of having not one nation dictate the direction of military power, of financial power, etc. and acting like a democratic assembly is a very mature one. It is a step in the right direction. When you have a single country moving to overthrow individual governments, you have an empire, which is what the US is. I wouldn't have a problem with that if we were truly after righteous and humanitarian goals, but we aren't. We never intervene when a much larger conflict can arise or when it is not in our best interests. Hardly humanitarian. Hardly for world peace. It's always for something like power or retribution.

May as well call it like it is. An empire. Canadians recognize this as former vassals under a former empire. Also has something to do with not being strong enough to act on their own, which gives a unique perspective to things.

The real problem with the UN is it was formed ideally to make sure world wars didn't happen again. But it isn't democratic, and thus it is flawed.

Good point, but I still think that opposition toward a U.S.-Canada merger (and opposition to such a thing is by no means bad) would be rooted in something much, much deeper than financial security.

Cultural identity. They recognize they are our cousins but pride themselves on various things, like free health care for all and freedom to love and declare marriage in accordance with widely held ideals of human rights.

I tend to have quite a healthy respect for nationalism; however, nationalism isn't exactly my idea of healthy sentiment when it's rooted in some bizarre insecurity-complex that, somewhere along the line, exploded into a resentful, condescending superiority-complex (in a Canada vs. U.S. context, of course). That, in my view, is the essence of Canadian nationalism.

And yes, I do realize that Americans can be quite obnoxious in their expressions of nationalism, but I've never personally found American nationalism to be nearly as hateful as its Canadian counterpart.

As for Canadian multi-ethnicism and their supposedly more impressive knowledge of global affairs, again, I've never experienced any sort of profound worldliness from an average Canadian, and no statistical analysis that I've ever seen shows Canada to be ahead of the U.S. in terms of non-white ethnic populations.

Even if the U.S. weren't as ethnically diverse as it is, why does that matter? Because multi-ethnicism is the be-all and end-all of moral decency? Give me a break.

Canadian nationalism combined with a bit of self-righteousness is bad. That's one thing I don't like about Canada in general. They do it to point out how different they are from us, I think.

I didn't say that ethnic diversity is the end all and be all of tolerance. Nor acceptance. Diversity of thought, and accepting others for who they are. And I don't know about the ethnic diversity aspect of it all, but just from my own case studies, it did seem like there were more people willing to take in other peoples' perspectives up there.

The PACNW is quite nice, yes, but I'll always prefer the Rocky Mountain region.

And besides, haven't most of you (Washingtonians and Oregonians specifically) deluded yourselves into thinking you're British Columbians?

LOL! We wish. If only we could join a country that was as accepting of others and not as willing in many areas to legislate who we can have sex with for god's sake! If only we could be a part of a country where it wouldn't matter how much money you had, you could get health care, and people didn't mind paying a little extra tax to ensure that was the case, and kept the food and pharmaceutical companies (amongst others) in check for the welfare of the people.

[nzrugby]

Kansas becoming a Royal Realm, no HM would not be amused.
It seems a lot of Americans are confused about the measuring system they use, it is the Brtish Imperial system, would you not be better going with your allies from 1776 the French and their metric system and come into the 21st century ?