Canadian/American Merger
- Thread starter Sal
- Start date
Even BC is different from Quebec. So, should we all separatre from one another because we're all different from one another?
Also, a merger would necessarily mean a new country. Suppose for a moment that the new constitution were more nuanced than the current US one concerning the carrying of arms. I'd immagine both sides would prefer a new flag.
Obviously much negotiation would be needed for a new country to ensure we all reap the benefits while avoiding the negatives on both sides. However, to support it in principle does not mean supporting it no matter what.
Certainly, just as Canadian confederation was negotiated to benefit all provinces, why not tap into that historical process again?
I would not be against some form of Anglo-Canadian union in principle either.
Because they will never give up their guns and their god. I don't believe in their guns or their god. I don't want to live in a country that once was and strives to be and will once again likely be the greatest most powerful country on earth. That means war, constant war. They pride themselves on it and consider us weak because it is not our mentality. It goes along with embracing the gun. I do not embrace that. I never will embrace that. I don't want guns in my home to protect myself, propped up by the door or in my bedroom night stand.
Their middle class is all but destroyed. It is not like it used to be.
If you think a country of that size would be okey dokey with how we are about guns and god and multiculturalism, then you come from an entirely different perspective to me. Human nature is human nature. They are so far to the right past our conservative government it makes us seem communist. If you want no problems crossing the border negotiate that but don't give away my country.
I could see the benefits of simply a common citizenship and passport. This would still leave them as two separate countries, each with their own constitutions, currency, laws etc. (i.e. a US resident entering Canada would have to leave his rifle at home). However, it would make for a much larger labour, economic and cultural market than we currently have.
It would also make it far more difficult for the US to declare senseless wars since then it would be way too easy for dodgers to just move to Canada. Taxes get too high on either side, again, people would just move. It would put pressure on governments on both sides to smarten up or else people would vote with their feet much more easily.
Or at the very least, a common labour agreement.
You honestly think that your generalization filled post deserved anything other than?
I had to check the avatar to see if I wasn't reading a post by tober.
I've been in countless homes in the US that don't have guns in the home, let alone by the door. Where they believe in nothing, let alone god. Where war is thought to be repugnant. Where a united Canada/US would be embraced with joy.
But hey, you believe what the CBC tells you to believe.
I don't own a firearm either, but I fail to see how a common citizenship and passport would suddenly mean that I'd be forced to own one.
We cannot deny both the economic and the cultural benefits of a common citizenship and passport, even if with nothing else. Though a common decentralized federation would be even better.
We cannot deny both the economic and the cultural benefits of a common citizenship and passport, even if with nothing else. Though a common decentralized federation would be even better.
I can't see those benefits you speak of. I see us giving away Canada as it currently exists. If the border melts there are no longer two separate countries, it is one...you want their benefits you take on their problems, fair is fair...Obama is to the right of Harper I ain't going there...
How does it stop a march into another country for oil or weapons of mass destruction? You want to police the world? No thanks. You can't dodge a war in your own country. A merger is just that.
I think that is your posting style. That's been your experience...you think it is any more valid than mine? I'm okay with that.
You don't like my opinion, I can live with that too. *shrug*
K, I'm off to dinner!!! Enjoy~~
CDn Bear, the Aboriginal population of Canada is larger than it was a\Pre confederation.
The California Indian population is one tenth what it was in 1700.
The California gold rush was underpinned d by the mass slaughter of the California tribes. AFTER the 1848 conquest.
How would that prevent us from negotiating a mutually beneficial merger for the future?
Many indigenous peoples living across the border are merely inconvenienced by a border each time they want to meet across the border.
From that point of view, both nations are artificial constructs developed in colonial times.
Traditionally, many indigenous peoples tended to view North America as one region with multiple nations. Looking at it that way, a unified North America would be more historically and geographically natural.
They got dispossessed and marginalized. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
For the life of me, I couldn't respond in a more fitting way than the following...
That deserved a 1000 thumbs up!
The Indians of California were already virtually wiped out before the Americans arrived in California. The Mission System set up by the Spaniard Father Junipero Serra enslaved them, destroyed their culture and led directly to their demise.
The Ohlone Way details the sequence of events.
The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area: Malcolm Margolin, Michael Harney: 9780930588014: Amazon.com: Books
The Ohlone Way details the sequence of events.
The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area: Malcolm Margolin, Michael Harney: 9780930588014: Amazon.com: Books
VERY well put!
I think you're grossly underestimating the issues. NAFTA was supposed to accomplish much of what you suggest, and didn't. I recall reading a thread where an American was complaining that a Canadian company out-bid him on a highway construction contract, and high Republicans were racing to the rescue that would make sure it didn't happen again. We cannot succeed by asking for a treaty that will give us all the blessings and none of the burdens of the US. We are a distinct society, and if we want to stay that way there are some sacrifices. I think in the long run the benefits of not being American greatly outweigh anything we could gain by losing our Canadian identity.
Some places in America actually have laws that you must own a gun. That is the mindset you are inviting in.
You'd think Americans with that mind set would not move here, any more than francophobes are likely to move to Quebec.
Geographically, not politically or historically. Different legally and constitutionally, too.