Wow, a totally serious and thoughtful reply to something I've posted. Thank you, Martin Le Acadien!
(btw, shouldn't it be Martin l'Acadien? I'm not a fluent French speaker, only understand a little, and I'm confused
)
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le AcadienPop culture influences a lot of things and how certain segments of North American Culture is viewed is quite different depending on the area/region/country. Most of the people around Toronto/New York area are business types who see borders/boundaries as limits to their commerce activities! My cousins in Toronto/Lower Ontario see the US much like Northern Staters do since they are influenced by the media which crosses the border as well with ease.
Southerners (Below the Ohio River) see that area as one and lump it in as "Northerners".
Yes, to a certain extent I think you're right (re: borders seen as a limit to commerce). I think that is very much a part of the pro-American sentiment. In fact, I think it is the ultimate factor creating pro-American sentiment. For many Canadians, since the toughening up of the border and the way some of us have been treated at the border, that sentiment is changing. The war is highly unpopular here, Bush and his regime is unpopular, and we're being made to feel very separate and foreign from the United States by the U.S. gov't. Ironically, the actions of the American gov't have been instrumental in reasserting a sense of satisfaction and happiness with our gov't. And now that the U.S. seems to be going to Hell in a handbasket, there is cause for greater happiness that we are Canadian by virtue of not being in a sinking ship, too, so now all we have to do is put a foot in the behind of our officials to do a better job to create some positive reinforcement to Canadian nationalism.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le AcadienDepends on the region/state/province/area you are trying to define, social issues even vary from state to state down here! For example, Louisiana and Hawaii have a Public Health Care System much like the Provincial System found in Canada. Gay issues find frienldy reception in some states like Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Hawaii and a few others but not in the Bible Belt areas which is also the case in Canada with some issues in Alberta. Our Social net here in the States is more Federal Driven but States have different levels of Social Help since more power is left to the States. Its hard to bridge the differences between States much less Canada and her Provinces.
Fair enough. The U.S. being as huge as it is population wise, it's only natural that there is variation between states and regions on issues. I actually have some friends I keep in touch with in San Francisco, Houston, and Chicago, so I'm pretty aware through them of how wildly the politics can vary. I suppose I was generalising!!!
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien1. If some type of union was done, just look at Texas when she joined up! Texas kept all of her land under State/Provicial control and kept the right to leave the union, break up into five more states and had all of the Countries' debt assumed by Washington, DC!
Really? I was totally unaware of that. Sounds like an interesting story there- I should look it up. I know that when provinces like Newfoundland joined Canada, Ottawa assumed all of their debt as well. I suppose that's a normal part of joining a union?
As an aside, my mother's family comes from Newfoundland. My maternal grandmother was born in Newfoundland when it was still a British colony (it only joined Canada in 1949). She and my maternal grandfather were fierce British patriots, and were actually quite hostile to Canada. When the issue of joining Canada was brought up there via a referendum, Newfoundlanders had the option of joining Canada or joining the United States in economic union. The overwhelming majority chose Canada because of cultural ties being closer to Britain, so there was more in common. My grandparents, however, voted for economic union with the U.S.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien2. Enviromental laws can be tougher on the State/Provincial Level than the Federal Model. California is an example of how diferent areas can draw up more stringent rules than the Federals!
Yes, the same is true here, too, though the federal gov't's overall rules are tougher on average than what you find in the U.S.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien3. As far as the Congress is concerned, true Canada has 1/10th the population which means only about 45 representatives from the Northern provinces but with the Senate you guys would control the outcome with 13 new Provinces/States/Commonwealths meaning 26 Senators (assuming no new breakups to force more Senators into the fray) The Canadian Content of the Legislative, Senatorial and Supreme Court would force the Republicans from power and the Electorial College would have meant Gore would have won the 2000 elections, NO IRAQ, moderate policies and the Revolution of 1776, War of 1812 would have been for nothing!
The balance of Republicans to Democrats would shift in the House and the Candian Caucus would be in the driver's seat.
Yes, that would be good for the United States, and the world. However, I'm not sure how this would directly benefit Canada. Right now, we're doing quite well, actually. We don't have the deficit and debt issues the U.S. is facing, our territorial security is arguably stronger because we have fewer enemies (despite a weaker military). We're already quite good, generally speaking, at lobbying the U.S. gov't such that issues directly affecting us are usually settled favourably.
And this is part of my problem with the whole idea. If we were to join the U.S., we would be subsumed by the U.S. It would necessitate that we join the American government's constitutional framework, and what follows from that is that our parliamentary institutions would all have to change and our institutions and traditions would come to an end. Frankly, I am not at all convinced that the American democratic system is in any way superior to our own. We've accomplished a great deal for a country of pioneers so scattered across a vast land, and part of that legacy is the institutions we used to accomplish it. We'd have to repudiate our past; it would not be a new order naturally evolving from what already exists. That sort of break from our past would be traumatic, and would necessitate huge benefits to justify it. We're doing so well on our own I just don't see what could justify it. Essentially, we would have to accomodate the U.S., but I doubt the U.S. would do much to accomodate us.
And aside from all that, I am Canadian. From the core, it's who I am. Though I have various criticisms of the U.S. gov't, I have no problems with Americans themselves, but I see them more like cousins or friends. In other words, I'm not one of them. I'm not ready to give up on my country or its unique identity and culture.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le AcadienAdvantages:
1. A North American Currency! No exchange hassles!
The U.S. currency keeps depreciating and ours has been appreciating for quite a while. True that there would be no exchange issues, but we're accustomed to them anyway, and right now the U.S. currency isn't performing so well.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien2. A Moderate goup of Norhern States/Provinces to keep the others from doing something stupid, "Remember Bush?"
That would benefit the U.S., I'm sure, but I'm not sure if it's overwhelmingly in our favour. True, Bush is not good for Canada, but he'll be gone soon, and he can only screw things up so much while he's here.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien3. An Economic Powerhouse to rival Europe and China.
We do have NAFTA already in place, and our economies are fairly integrated now. I'd argue that any economic powerhouse that is ever going to take place between our nations is already there or taking shape.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien4. Thinking Politicians-maybe?
Hah! Being bilingual doesn't make you a thinker.
I'd chock up one point for being amusingly idiotic in two official languages.
However, we've already got that! No advantage for Canada in joining the U.S., here.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien5. Better beer in the lower 48.
Again, good for you, not convinced if it's good for us.
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien6. Better places to spend the Winter for our Francophone coisines-Louisiane. Spending our summers in Acadie!
Hey, why can't they do that now?
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien7. Newfoundland would have Arkansas to look down at!
They probably do already! lol
Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Le Acadien8. Again, No Bush could get elected and PQ could break ties in the House of Representatives!
Well, Bush hasn't invaded Canada, there's only one large sticking point in trade issues between our two countries (softwood lumber), and aside from some hassles at the border, even Bush has largely maintained the status quo between us. So, no Bush wouldn't necessarily mean anything good for Canada, though it would be interesting to see how the House of Representatives would deal with the PQ! And speaking of the PQ and Quebec, they are probably the greatest guarantee that such a union would never occur.
As dissatisfied as they are with the Canadian gov't, I think they wouldn't question that Canada has done much more and is much better at fostering francophone culture than the U.S. gov't would be or has been.
You know, though, I'm entirely for Louisiana becoming the eleventh province. We were stupid to give all you guys up in the first place, and it would be a great coming home of sorts. And of course, there's no doubting Canada's francophone credentials, or its willingness and ability to shore up and support francophone culture there. Think about it- not only state recognition of French, but national recognition as well. There might be something to that!
You all don't get it do ya .There really is no red and blue its all a big pile of bull**** 
