From: Tom B <kaladorn@g...>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:11:10 -0500
Subject: RE: More future history questions - USA (and Canada apparently)
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative As a Canadian who has lived in Ontario and Alberta, travelled from East Coast to West Coast, worked for a company HQ'd in Montreal, and travelled extensively in Northern and Southern Ontario, the Prairies, and British Columbia, and who has visited ND, MN, MI, MO, WI, NY, PA, CT, MA and FL in the US, I tend to differ a bit with some of his thoughts, if not his general premise. The reality is that North America, if it were divided up by commonality of lifestyle or politics, could be divided up a lot more like what he has (or just longitudinally) versus the latitudinal split that Canada and the US arranged. A farmer in Montana or Alberta has more in common with the other than anyone either with Ottawa or the District of Columbia. I suspect the same would be true of Maritime or New England folk and possibly people in Detroit/Windsor, and Vancouver and Seattle. On the other hand, Canadians take a fairly intense attitude towards not being American. I don't really see an amalgamation selling in most of Canada (Alberta being a possible exception). There is a distinctly more left-leaning (or at least social safety net oriented) culture in most of Canada. This has become more pronounced in the wake of the 9/11 attacks due to America's choices in security that many here find disturbing (I can probably throw in the whole government on the side of corporations not citizens aspect too). That is probably transient historically speaking, but it pertains at the present. But let us assume that the politics of the two countries are less dictated by nationality than similar employment. This totally ignores the fact that US breadbasket states and Canadian prairies are often heavy competitors, and BC with US lumber sources, etc. which is another reason getting together would be hard. But let's sweep that one under the rug too (unlikely, but hey...). I can see Coastal BC and some or all of Washington State being together. Less sure of the BC interior because it isn't so much weed smoking urbanite latte sippers as it is religious fundamentalist communities and conservative old folks tucked into the mountain valleys. Hard to say if CA really fits that mix, but it could. Alberta should be its own Republic. I think that's their goal eventually. Something like what Texas always fancies itself. Very similar cultures I think. Alberta is most similar in its attitude to business, firearms, politics, social safety nets (or the less of them the better), etc. On the other hand, if it spends its resource money well, it will be an economic powerhouse (already is part way there now in Canada on the back of oil and other resources). The Great Plains states and Manitoba and Saskatchewan could integrate. There'd probably have to be a bit more of a leftward shift on the US side and a rightward one on the Canadian side, but its not a huge gulf. Northern Ontario, Oregon, Wisconsin and perhaps parts of Michigan would make sense together. Lots of forests, mining, sparse population, remote areas, etc. Southern Ontario and New York and parts of Michigan would make some sense together. The North would be then considered 'the lefty section' but otherwise economies may be fairly similar. Quebec, if it was an independent Repbulic, would not hold all the land it does now. Sections of it along the Ontario border would want to stay with Ontario for economic reasons and sections along the Gaspe could provoke a fight with Acadian seperatists. Plus lots of natives would want to seperate from a sovereign Quebec. The Maritimes would have a lot of resources from offshore oil, fisheries, and mining in some mix. Like Alberta, if they invest the money well, they'll be well positioned for the future. I assume New England is similar in those regards. But they'd not be getting New York or else if they did, New York would be calling th shots. The South could seperate again into a fairly large block. Texas could be its own Republic. Maybe the Latino dominated section of America could be its own block (hence where CA, AZ, NM, SD, etc. might be). Hawaii is its own entity. It's an oddity for Japan or the US. It might end up independent. The Canadian North and Alaska could probably merge with little difficulty and little notice from the rest of the universe. If the North West Passage softens up due to warming, it might have some good ports built and have a more thriving coastal economy as well as a lot of exploitable resources. The main land mass of the north, if it got warmer, would be a nasty muskeg bog and not much use for anything. I doubt anyplace would call itself "Ecotopia". I doubt places would end up with names like Forge or Breadbasket. You just know the names would be less silly. These are the equivalent of someone naming their country 'Barney'. But that's just a quibble. Still, I don't think any of these are feasible as long as the US retains its distinct national character. Until the US finally decides the great experiment has failed or that being an American is more important than being a (insert regional allegiance), the US isn't going anywhere. For Canada, a merger could happen slowly for economic reasons but a lot of PR work would need to be done and the US would have to stop throwing its weight around in the world (I'm just reflecting the sentiments I see in some urbanites here...not my own view) but that may happen for economic reasons. We're a country that has an odd lack of self confidence noted by one of my American friends; Americans never define themselves as 'not being Canadian' - they use some sort of description of what being American is. Canadians often find themselves defining themselves by how they do not hold some commonality of view with their American neighbours. That's a generalization, but I found some truth to it. I suppose any minority next to a majority will show a bit of that (AUS/NZ for instance, ENG/SCOT for another).