Who wants a UNITED north america?

[Rosbjerg]

but not necessarily a "we are all as one" unity..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i read something somewhere that discussed the concept of being united, but not "as one". it particularly cited this as the ultimate downfall of all civilizations that fail. maybe it was something done by the guns, germs and steel author. i can't remember, i'll look it up.

 

the basis was that societies need a cohesive "one" concept otherwise their own diversity will rip them to shreds. taking a look around the world, right now, nearly all domestic upheavals are due to cultural differences within individual countries. mexicans protesting in the US (er, illegal immigrants, most of whom are mexican), muslims refusing to assimilate in france, three different groups in iraq (sunni, shiite, kurd), etc. everyone wants their own identity, while expecting everyone else to accept them for who they are regardless of human nature which almost instinctively fears that which is different... perhaps the idea is not as far fetched as it may seem?

 

anyway, that's where my comments came from. i'm not sure if i agree or not yet. it needs more thought.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, if we started viewing ourselves as Europeans rather than Germans/French/Danes etc this would probably be a problem .. as we would want our particular individual culture to be the canon for the rest of Europe / or at least be accepted and acknowledged .. but since we don't regard ourselves as one nation but rather a group of nations working closely together I don't see this problem .. there is no one European culture and we don't want a particular European culture.. but we do want peace, friendship and trade on this continent!

[taks]

there is no one European culture and we don't want a particular European culture.. but we do want peace, friendship and trade on this continent!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which is what i alluded to earlier - treaty.

 

such an arrangement is actually preferred for the entire globe i think, with member nations capable of making a choice as to their involvement with everyone else. you don't like the treaty arrangement, back out, stick to yourselves.

 

taks

[alanschu]

I just wish the Quebeckers would realize that if they separated, they would still be surrounded by 300 millions english speaking people. It would make no difference. Everyone there would still have to learn how to speak english to be able to communicate with their neighboring nations. I wish they could just embrace being french-canadian. And they are french-canadian, not french. Quebec films have to be subtitled in France because they can't understand what people are saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Errr, the whole situation is a lot bigger than just learning the English language....

Edited April 30, 2006 by alanschu

[WinterSun]

I thought French-Canadians could speak English, but they pretend not to.

[astr0creep]

I just wish the Quebeckers would realize that if they separated, they would still be surrounded by 300 millions english speaking people. It would make no difference. Everyone there would still have to learn how to speak english to be able to communicate with their neighboring nations. I wish they could just embrace being french-canadian. And they are french-canadian, not french. Quebec films have to be subtitled in France because they can't understand what people are saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Errr, the whole situation is a lot bigger than just learning the English language....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Indeed

 

The early history of Canada I found was particularly interesting. From the first settlements to the "peaceful revolution" after which the politics become a confused mess and really nothing special.

 

As I understand it, Western Canada is populated by descendents of American deserters(Loyalists)?

[Arkan]

I didn't read the whole thread, but didn't they forget Mexico?

[~Di]

Wow. On another forum, we got a lecture on how we stole half the country from Mexico. Now we're getting a lecture about how we stole Alaska from Canada. Who knew? LOL. I maen, didn't the world just emerge from the cosmos with country-lines already drawn up, neat and tidy? It's not like Europeans fought each other, invaded each other's territory and redrew boundaries over the centuries...

 

... oh, wait...

 

Always interesting to see how various countries educate their own to differing versions of history. (Yes, yes, ours included.)

 

As for annexing Canada... no. Thanks anyway.

 

 

P.S. I'd sure like to know which six states have a Hispanic majority population. I think the US census bureau needs to know that too, lol... BTW, Hispanic is not included with Caucasian on the official census documents. They are quite separate, as are Asian, Native American, South Pacific, etc., etc., etc.

[taks]

there's like 30 differentiations now...

 

taks

[Jedihuh?]

Thats just a dumb idea

[metadigital]

there is no one European culture and we don't want a particular European culture.. but we do want peace, friendship and trade on this continent!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which is what i alluded to earlier - treaty.

 

such an arrangement is actually preferred for the entire globe i think, with member nations capable of making a choice as to their involvement with everyone else. you don't like the treaty arrangement, back out, stick to yourselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Taks is an anarchist! :D

[metadigital]

I just wish the Quebeckers would realize that if they separated, they would still be surrounded by 300 millions english speaking people. It would make no difference. Everyone there would still have to learn how to speak english to be able to communicate with their neighboring nations. I wish they could just embrace being french-canadian. And they are french-canadian, not french. Quebec films have to be subtitled in France because they can't understand what people are saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Errr, the whole situation is a lot bigger than just learning the English language....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed

 

The early history of Canada I found was particularly interesting. From the first settlements to the "peaceful revolution" after which the politics become a confused mess and really nothing special.

 

As I understand it, Western Canada is populated by descendents of American deserters(Loyalists)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haven't started this book yet, but I can't wait:

Synopsis

A remarkable new book on a crucial moment in British and world history. Although 1759 is not a date as well known in British history as 1215, 1588, or 1688, there is a strong case to be made that it is the most significant year since 1066. In 1759 - the fourth year of the Seven Years War - the British defeated the French in arduous campaigns in India and the West Indies, in Germany and Canada, and also achieved absolute mastery of the seas. As Thackeray famously remarked in Barry Lyndon, it would take a theologian, rather than an historian, to unravel the true causes of the Seven Years War in Europe, but the spine of the wider conflict was the struggle for global hegemony between Britain and France. Drawing on a mass of primary materials - from texts in the Vatican archives to oral histories of the North American Indians - Frank McLynn shows how the conflict between those two countries triggered the first 'world war', raging from Europe to Africa; the Caribbean to the Pacific; the plains of the Ganges to the Great Lakes of North America. It also brought about the War of Independence, the acquisition by Britain of the Falkland Islands and, ultimately, the French Revolution.

[taks]

Taks is an anarchist! :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehe, on a national, not individual, level.

 

taks

[Ellester]

P.S.  I'd sure like to know which six states have a Hispanic majority population. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It just happened to Texas this year, after their 2005 census. New Mexico is another one. I don't remember the rest, but I'm pretty sure they are the southwest states. You know those states we stole from Mexico. "

Edited May 2, 2006 by Ellester

[blu_pheonix]

A united north america is bs because it won't really be "united". The US governemnt will be the ones controling everything and the other people will just be ignored. I'm pretty sure this would happen because we all know what happened with NAFTA and the softwood lumber dispute. I don't agree with it...it's not going to happen.

[Darque]

Taks is an anarchist! :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehe, on a national, not individual, level.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anarchy is cool.

[astr0creep]

A united north america is bs because it won't really be "united". The US governemnt will be the ones controling everything and the other people will just be ignored. I'm pretty sure this would happen because we all know what happened with NAFTA and the softwood lumber dispute. I don't agree with it...it's not going to happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So the world is united! Yippee!

 

 

"

[Rosbjerg]

Hmm.. that actually sounds like a pretty interesting book MD .. is it released already?

[metadigital]

Hmm.. that actually sounds like a pretty interesting book MD .. is it released already?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeedy.

 

It has quite a sordid history with me: I saw it in a bookshop aaaaaaaaaages ago, and then I couldn't find it, and I couldn't remember what it was called (as it is just titled with the date); I was bleating about it here on the forums months ago. Then, as I always do, I was checking yet another bookshop, on the off-chance that I might find it in the history section, and there it was!

 

ISBN 0-7126-9418-8

 

12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

 

5 out of 5 stars An obscure year that comes to life, September 7, 2005

 

This book does more than simply narrate a series of facts that leads the author to the conclusion inferred by the title. It provides a superb background to the political and social conditions and attitudes that prevailed at the time. It brings together an array of historic events and the characters behind them and binds them into a single global perspective, placing them in a context that makes the outcome far more understandable. The author manages to breathe life into a bewildering number of facts, all without losing the reader. I found this book to be an extremely enjoyable read and very illuminating at the same time. Highly recommended.

 

 

I also couldn't help myself and bought this book, as well:

 

(w00t)