US and Canada Should Unify
[url=http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/]Spread the word.[/url]
"Ask not what your country can do for you - Ask what you can do for your country. Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." - John F. Kennedy
North Americans in both Canada and the United States are free and prosperous people, proud of their national histories and achievements - so why should we attempt to change things? One could argue the essential question should not be why, but why not? Why not try to create history by enlarging the nation and generating greater wealth, progression and unity within this diverse continent?
At the same time, there are still a number of specific reasons why we should favor this ambitious idea of a United North America. The main arguments can be split up into these five categories: Economics, Defense, Politics, History and Culture.
Economics
The economic case for unity is perhaps the easiest and most obvious argument to make, at least in terms of the sheer practical benefits it would provide to the average North American. According to the Economics Department of the Bank of Montreal, "one of the critical benefits of greater economic integration for Canadians [with the US] is the prospect of higher living standards...". By tearing down obstacles at the Canada-US border put in place by both governments, inevitably this will result in increased trade, which in turn benefits producers and consumers, employers and employees. The main benefactors of borders, by contrast, are those who either profit from lack of competition or those who collect duties, tariffs and other expenses - primarily the governments of Canada and the United States.
Just as decreased taxation can actually result in increased tax revenues for governments, elimination of trade restrictions would actually result in increased trade, economic stimulus, further increased government revenues and most importantly, increased prosperity for the average North American. Overall, the removing of myriads of redundant agencies and consolidating everything from budgets to currencies would eliminate waste and streamline the North American economic engine.
Defense
North American air, space and sea are already under the aegis of NORAD, a permanent agreement binding the security of Canada and the United States together domestically. Abroad, the two countries work together militarily through organizations such as NATO. Such arrangements have helped create an integrated, interoperable and cooperative North American security force within our continent and throughout the world. However, the overall defensive capability of North America is not enhanced, but rather diminished, by the fact that we continue to have two sets of military and government departments dedicated to our joint internal security. The burden of nearly doubling the administrative costs may have a debatable effect on the security of the continent.
Yet, it is clear that we are wasting personnel by spreading our border patrols across the vast 5,500 mile border that Canada and the US share. The potential loss of misusing forces is much more difficult to measure, but just as the 9/11 hijackers revealed, an act of terrorism can severely damage the integrity of the continent. Another incident could easily occur if we are not vigilant and wise in deploying our resources. Security and terrorist threats do not come to Canada from United States or vice-versa, but from overseas. Removing unnecessary land and sea patrols and rather directing them to protecting airports and harbors from outside threats would have the doubled effect of enhancing our security and strengthening the free flow of travel and trade between the regions of North America.
Politics
Democracy is only given meaning through the expressed ideas and visions of the people. A democracy of one person is no democracy at all, but a democracy of a million people is a powerful force. Undoubtedly, the United States holds the greatest political influence in the world largely because of its people power. The added voices of Canadians could only improve democracy by reinvigorating the republic with new thoughts and concepts.
From a canadian perspective, Canadians would gain a seat in the most powerful halls of government and finally have a voice in setting the course for the continent and the world. Economics and security are often discussed in relation to continental integration, and treaties turn these discussions into realities. Yet, too often the political influence of the US over Canada increases as a result of these agreements while Canadians remain helpless to similarly influence the US. The softwood lumber dispute and the mad cow crisis are perfect case examples of such a relationship.
Prosperity and security are almost meaningless if no vehicle exists to make internal changes by democratic initiative; for Canadians, this is increasingly the case. Globalization is not something that can be reversed, but the political gap can be overcome if Canadians make their voices heard by sending Canadian congressmen to Washington DC.
History and Culture
History and culture are often used as tools to segregate people, promote nationalism and encourage division. This has certainly been the case for the past 250 years of Canadian and USAmerican history. In reality, however, it is our shared history and culture that should unite the people of North America together. Unlike the nations of Europe who are divided among deep linguistic and religious lines that have formed over centuries of history, Canada and the United States are relatively new countries that share common languages, religions and people. Indeed, we are a pattern of cultures woven from a common thread.
The border that divides us today was not created out of any interminable or irresolvable issues. It was instead simply a line drawn by an imperial power that has long since left the shores of North America. While the political disputes of the 18th Century have long since disappeared, their legacy continues to live on in the form of the border. A United North America would finally heal the wound of the first civil war that divided the people of North America, and bring about a reunion of historical proportions.
"It has been said that unsettled questions have no pity for the repose of nations." - James A. Garfield
1. Isn't this just an American plan to annex Canada?
No. United North America is a Canadian organization. Both USAmericans as well as Canadians are involved in the effort, not to forcefully annex Canada, but to re-unite the peoples of the former British American colonies under the democratic principles that shaped this continent.
2. Is this organization affiliated with the Security Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force on North America, or the proposed North American Union (NAU)?
No. This is a non-government organization based on grassroots efforts. We fundamentally oppose a European Union-like government in North America and receive no funding or support from the CFR, or any groups that may support such causes. Furthermore, we see United North America as an alternative to the proposed NAU, and do not support Mexico's inclusion in this union due to its substandard economic and social conditions. A mature North American Union already exists, and its name is the United States of America. There need not be a supranational institution in North America working between three different federal governments, when there is already a successful and democratic union of 50 states that Canada's provinces have already been given an open invitation to join.
3. Why isn't Mexico included?
While Mexico is clearly geographically a part of North America, from a social and political perspective it more closely matches Central American nations. Canada and the United States share a great deal because of their common beginnings, common language and culture that were built within multi-ethnic, free and democratic societies. Mexico does share some similarities with Canada and the US, but the differences are still far larger. And from a practical perspective, the enormous cost of Mexico's inclusion would heavily drain the Canadian and US economies.
4. Why should we use the US model?
Although the Canadian Constitution has many great components, it is missing some very valuable ingredients that were crafted long before it. This includes: an elected Head of State, an elected Senate, equal representation in the legislature, separate and equal branches of government, and the separation of church and state. Just as importantly, the US Constitution, unlike its Canadian counterpart, contains no special or extra rights for certain ethnicities, linguistic or religious groups, and lives true to the ideal that all men are created equal. While modern Canada is independent and free, it was not created that way. And so while the founders of the United States declared inalienable rights and a government of the people, by the people and for the people, the same cannot be found within the supreme laws that defines the Canadian system. Some might suggest a new Constitution, but the unique set of circumstances that gave birth to the original US Constitution is not so easily reproduced by modern politicians with the powerful political action groups and lobbies that exist today.
5. Why should the Canadian people give up their sovereignty?
For the same reason that the people of Newfoundland and Texas did; to create something greater than themselves. The simple fact is that true independence cannot be found for anyone who lives in a nation populated by more than one person. While it cannot be denied that sovereignty will be lost through this proposal, it cannot be questioned that another greater one will be created. There is no need to have a line dividing Canada and the United States to ensure Canada's self-determination, anymore than there needs to be a border checkpoint between Alberta and British Columbia to ensure Alberta's self-determination. For the same reason that Canada is more prosperous, free and strong as one nation instead of ten nations, Canada and the United States, combined, will be as well.
6. Why should Canada give up its natural resources including the world's largest freshwater supply?
According to the US Department of Energy, the US imported over 912 million barrels of oil from Western Canada in 2008. Currently, the provinces that hold the oil, receive royalties on all oil extracted and sold on the market. As US states, this situation would not change.
Unlike oil, water is a renewable resource, but due to growing demand it is becoming a more valuable resource. While certain regions of the United States, particularly the southwest, are suffering from water shortages, other regions in the US have an abundance. According to the Program on Water Governance, overall Canada and the United States have roughly the same water availability: Canada 6.5%, US 6.4%.
In fact, if the US was desperate to extract bulk amounts of freshwater, the largest single source of freshwater in North America are the Great Lakes, which contain nearly six quadrillion gallons of water. The majority of this water lies within US territory, but no water diversions to the southwest are occurring nor planned. Indeed, just as in the case of oil, if water were ever exported, it could only be done if the local governments that control the territory approved it.
7. What about people who are proud Canadians?
Undoubtedly, people who are proud Canadians would continue to be proud Canadians within a United North America. In the United States, Texans are proud Texans, Southerners are proud Southerners, etc. Cultures and identities are not swallowed up or obliterated in the United States of America. Quite to the contrary, it could be argued that people throughout the American Union have a deeper sense of their own regional identity than most do in other places. Texas and Massachusetts have been part of the Union for over 150 years and 210 years respectively, yet these two states could never be confused with one another. Indeed, Ontario, Quebec et al will never be confused for other states within the Union after an amalgamation.
8. What about Canadian culture?
Canadian culture, colloquialisms and regional differences would not suddenly disappear with the emergence of a United North America. Billions of dollars have gone into "Canadian heritage", because of the fear that Canadians might lose their identity and be assimilated by American movies and television. However, history has shown that culture is not a static thing that can be defined, shaped or preserved by any government. People are the masters of their own cultural identity; it is they who make up their own ever-changing culture. Canadians will still be Canadians within a United North America, they will merely be able to call themselves American as well.
9. Wouldn't a new flag be more appropriate?
Perhaps. Peoples' well being, freedom and opportunity are far more important than the symbol of their nation. However, to some this reaches the heart of the issue. Humans are not always the most logical creatures, and symbolism does have some importance. Whatever the flag, the Union would have to respect the fact that the United States, as it exists today, is almost nine times larger in population and over eleven times larger economic terms. To imagine this another way, if California, a state which has roughly the same population as Canada, even larger economy and arguably more dissimilar culture, had waited an extra 150 years to join the US, would we now be proposing a new flag? The flag of the United States of America was created in the late 1700s at the birth of the nation, while the present-day Canadian flag was created in the 1960s. Yet, if the majority of North Americans saw fit to change it, there is no reason why that could not occur.
10. What would the name of the country officially be?
Unlike Canada, Germany, France and many other countries the United States of America is merely a generic description of itself. It is after all, a collection of united States that exists within the American hemisphere. The United States of America began as a mere 13 colonies on the east coast of the new world, and have now expanded to over 3 million square miles and contain over 300 million people. Each time the Union expanded, it changed, yet, each time it retained the same name. The United States of America would still be an apt description of the country with the addition of Canadian regions. However, renaming this Union would not be out of the question. The United States of America could change its name to the United States of North America, United North America or even something completely different altogether. It would be up to the democratic will of the people.
11. What would happen to the monarchy and Canada's ties to the United Kingdom?
The entire reason there is a separation between Canada and the United States can be traced back to divisions over the monarchy in the 1770s. While the Patriots of the American Revolution fought for independence and self-rule, the Loyalists fought against their ideas because of a God-like devotion to the Crown. As such, a single path divided into two, and the result ultimately created two countries instead of one. Through the fullness of time these divisions have been washed away, and Canadians have embraced all the main ideals of the American Revolution. Today, Canada, like the US, has a Constitution with enumerated rights, similar to the Bill of Rights, a Prime Minister that acts like a President, and a population that strongly believes in freedom, justice and independence. Rationally, the natural completion of this journey for Canadians is to cut the only remaining vestige of Canada's former subservient state, and heal the disunion created by the Revolution.
Interestingly, July 2009 polling from the Strategic Counsel indicates an all-time high support for ending the monarchy in Canada, with 65% believing that Canada should cut its connection with the monarchy after the current Queen passes. While the monarchy certainly does not exert any negative force in North America today, surely history has shown the Patriots choice was a transcendental cause.
Even though the United States came into existence in resistance to British imperial rule, no animosity exists today. Most people consider the United Kingdom to be the US' greatest ally and friend. Indeed, one could argue the US-British relationship is now stronger than the Canadian-British relationship. Union Jacks can be found all over America, and Canadian States would be welcome to retain their Union Jacks within their own state flags (see Hawaii's state flag), as well as celebrate their British heritage.
12. What about capital punishment, gun restriction, single-payer health care, same-sex marriage etc.?
All these issues can be classified as "state issues". Within the United States, individual states have much greater latitude with regards to local governance. While Texas is well known for its use of capital punishment, Minnesota and many other northern states strictly prohibit its use. It should be noted that offenders can be executed under federal jurisdiction in some circumstances, but this only very rarely occurs. The widely publicized Timothy McVeigh execution was the first ordered by a federal court since 1963.
Gun restriction differs widely from state to state. While many southern states have very little restriction on gun ownership, many northern states have considerable restrictions. Chicago bans handguns all together. The state of New Jersey passed a "smart gun law" that will eventually require new handguns to have a mechanism that allows only their owners to fire them. Accordingly, Canadian states could create gun legislation that best suits their own regional interests.
Health care is an area that is partly controlled and directed by state governments. In 2002 the people of the state of Oregon proposed a referendum to decide on enacting a universal health care system, which if enacted would have seen the state provide health care for every resident. Although the measure lost a state-wide vote, this example serves as a clear example for Canadian states that wish to retain universal health care.
While federal law has made same-sex marriage legal in Canada, in the United States each state has the power to decide whether to legalize gay marriage. As of 2009, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts and New York recognize same-sex marriage.
In all four cases listed above, and any other similar issue, Canadian states would actually enjoy more freedom. It might be argued that the majority of Albertans do not wish to have tough gun restriction, while the majority of Nova Scotians do. Both would be free to follow the best laws for their own people, as state governments are more responsive to their citizens than any federal government.
13. I don't agree with the policies of the current administration, why should I support this idea?
You can change it through your action. In the United States, policies and politicians change with time through the participation of the People, but the Union remains constant. Furthermore, having a voice within the United States instead of outside it, gives you real power over local, regional and global policies.
In the 2000 US presidential election George W. Bush won by a mere 5 electoral votes. If British Columbia, alone, had voted for Al Gore in that election, George W. Bush would not have become President of the United States.
Of course, creating a United North America is more important than deciding who would be the President in the next general election. Those who would discount a Union based on current figures or policies must open their minds, and look beyond the present to the great future of possibilities that could be realized by the unity of our common people.
14. What of the United States' ballooning debt?
As of 2009, the US gross debt totals over $11 trillion dollars, an indisputably giant number. However, once this number is put into relative terms, US debt is comparable to Canadian debt. According to the OECD as a percentage of GDP, US debt is 73% and Canada 63%. The CIA lists it at 61% for the US, and 64% for Canada. Clearly, both countries need to control their spending better, but Canada's challenges are just as great as the US'.
15. The United States is a much more violent country, won't Canada become less safe?
While total crime, including property crime, is comparable between the two countries, there is no discounting that overall the US suffers more violent crime than Canada. Due to different methodologies direct comparisons are difficult, except when comparing homicides. Nationally, the US has just over three times the murder rate of Canada. However, as with many other factors, violent crime varies widely by region. In the United States, the highest murder rates tend to be in the southern states, while in Canada, it is the northern territories. As of 2007, New Hampshire (1.1), Iowa (1.2), Montana (1.5), Maine (1.6), Hawaii (1.7) and Rhode Island (1.79) all have lower murder rates (per 100,000) than the Canadian national average (1.8), and only one US state, Louisiana (14.2), has a higher murder rate than Nunavut (12.7), Canada's most violent region (See Murder Map for more information). Indeed, half of US border states have lower rates than their Canadian counterparts; and so there is little reason to believe that crime would increase north of the border, anymore than south of the border.
16. Canada is a bilingual country; the United States is not, what about those who speak French?
Unlike Canada, the United States has no official language. English, French, Spanish and German have all been used at the governmental level in the United States. No current US federal law prohibits any state or local government from operating in a different language. Thus, Quebec, for example, could legislate French as the official language of the state. Although the US, like Canada, is undoubtedly an English-dominated country, people have the freedom to communicate in any language they wish to speak in, whether that be English, Chinese, Farsi or otherwise. Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits failing to provide meaningful access to individuals who are do not speak English. All federal agencies of the US government must provide information on federal programs and activities in any language, free of charge (read here for more information).
17. What about the northern territories of Canada?
Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories would continue to be territories. Within the United States these territories would gain greater autonomy while continuing to receive the protection and support of the nation. The best analogue to this can be seen by looking at Puerto Rico.
18. Why don't Canadians who like this idea just move to the US?
Moving to the US is not the goal of this website. There is no reason that someone cannot be Canadian and American at the same time, much like how a Quebecois is a Quebecois and a Canadian or a Southerner is a Southerner and an American. We do not wish to move below the border, but simply remove the border itself. It is unnecessary and an impediment to our future success and preeminence on this planet. Moving to the US would still leave a Canada that is divided from the United States for no good reason. Moving to the US is much easier than removing the border, but for those who love Canada and Canadians, just not the redundant government and arbitrary border, the answer is a United North America.
127 Comments • Newest first
Only if it's under Canada's laws and regulations.
@xXGodXx: You're straying way off topic. This is not a "Compare your countries thread".
Would never work, Canada is way too different than the us
@xXGodXx: Yea, it's #11 while Canada is #7. Out of almost 200 nations in the world, that's not a huge difference. Also notice how the city rankings used New York City as a comparison mark, so they essentially defined it out of the competition.
[quote=Obscene]@FantasyDreams: It seems that you're accusing me personally of being a proponent of expansionism, which makes literally no sense. [b]There is nothing to gain if the US was to annex Canada by [i]force[/i]. The effort required would significantly overshadow the benefits. [/b]I never once advocated this as an annexation. In fact I devoted a point specifically to what seperates it from annexation. It seems to be that you are making a gross assumption based off an obscure stereotype that seems to only be present among Canadians who resent [b]American progress[/b]. There is nothing in this thread that suggests anything except a peaceful union, if you find something otherwise, please bring it to my attention so that I can revise it. Two word responses do not provide any constructive criticism.[/quote]
No matter how nicely you try to word this suggestion of an union between Canada and US, many of the things you've written imply that there is some gain for US as Canada is simply "forced" to give up for the "greater cause or benefit of this union". Also, the titles points of 5 and 6 alone sound arrogant.
[quote=Obscene] @[quote=Caelestys]: Thank you! This is what I've been looking for, someone who can point out specific flaws. However I don't agree with all of them.
I mentioned that if Canada had joined 150 years ago, it would have been a state. I did not call Canada a state, I did not say that the US flag will be used, and I never called for annexation.[/quote]
Also...
[quote=Obscene] 5. Why should people give up their sovereignty?
There is no need to have a line dividing Canada and the United States to ensure Canada's self-determination, anymore than there needs to be a border checkpoint between Alberta and British Columbia to ensure Alberta's self-determination. For the same reason that Canada is more prosperous, free and strong as one nation instead of ten nations, Canada and the United States, combined, will be as well.
6. Why should Canada give up its natural resources including the world's largest freshwater supply?
Unlike oil, water is a renewable resource, but due to growing demand it is becoming a more valuable resource.
While certain regions of the United States, particularly the southwest, are suffering from water shortages, other regions in the US have an abundance.
In fact, if the US was desperate to extract bulk amounts of freshwater, the largest single source of freshwater in North America are the Great Lakes, which contain nearly six quadrillion gallons of water. The majority of this water lies within US territory, but no water diversions to the southwest are occurring nor planned. Indeed, just as in the case of oil, if water were ever exported, it could only be done if the local governments that control the territory approved it. [/quote]
In point 5 you mentioned removing the borderlines between Canada and US and in point 6 you mentioned only local governments being able to control the territory containing the much-needed freshwater supply. If you're going to talk about unifying regions/countries together for the benefit of everyone, why don't you focus on unifying the states in US first. Like you've pointed out, some of the regions in US suffer water shortages while other regions have an abundance.
[quote=Obscene] 7. What about people who are proud Canadians?
Undoubtedly, people who are proud Canadians would continue to be proud Canadians within a United North America. In the United States, Texans are proud Texans, Southerners are proud Southerners, etc.
8. What about people who are proud Canadians?
People are the masters of their own cultural identity; it is they who make up their own ever-changing culture. Canadians will still be Canadians within a United North
America, [b] they will merely be able to call themselves American as well.[/b][/quote]
Your comparison is of citizens from a state to citizens of an entire country... That was the arrogant thing I was talking about, or whatever you had meant to imply is projected poorly.
As for the bolded part of point 8... "merely be able to call themselves American..."? Here's a suggestion: You edit what you wrote for that sentence and write this instead, "Canadians will still be Canadians within a United North America, but Americans will also be able to call themselves Canadians." That sounds so much better don'tcha think?
[quote=Obscene]9. Wouldn't a new flag be more appropriate?
The [b]flag of the United States of America was created in the late 1700s at the birth of the nation, while the present-day Canadian flag was created in the 1960s. [/b] Yet, if the majority of North Americans saw fit to change it, there is no reason why that could not occur.[/quote]
In an earlier post [quote=F1nagin] [/quote] brought up the topic of the war of 1812 in which your reply was, "Do you realize how long ago the war of 1812 was?" I have the same question for you. Do [i]you[/i] realize how long ago the late 1700s was? With your wise word choice of "while", it definitely doesn't sound like you are belittling or dismissing the importance of when the present-day Canadian flag was created. No, not at all.
The Canadian flag is just as important as the American flag regardless of when it was created. That's another example of what stands out to me as arrogance in your part.
Well, guess this makes up for my "two word response".
No thanks, I love being Canadian.
I don't want to be American...
or Camerican or whatever.
It's better as it is.
Canada And USA IMHO
This probably sounds good, but there will be a lot of problems with it. Also, I like my Canadian title.
@BlameTruth: I understand your point, however inane it might be. Canadians in this thread seem to be teeming with a mixed up sense of nationalism. I'm just going to post this part of the site here for people like you. Feel free to read it; I did not intend to post it in this thread because I'm currently focused on the feedback for the topics at hand in the OP.
Nationalism
"If we wish to prevent the extension of this (US) influence, it can only be done by raising up for the North American colonist some nationality of his own; by elevating these small and unimportant communities into a society having some objects of a national importance; and by thus giving their inhabitants a country which they will be unwilling to see absorbed even into one more powerful." - Governor General of British North America Lord Durham (1839)
Nationalism unites people of different classes and ideologies. It can create harmony, link our past to our present and give a people a sense of identity. But nationalism is also a tool used by dictators, despots and power-hungry politicians alike. It can create violent and mighty forces as well as divide people from different geographies. It is used to exaggerate differences, foster generalizations and cause discriminatory thinking. These two halves of nationalism can perhaps best be viewed in the context of World War II. Churchill, Roosevelt and King used nationalism to unite their nations against brutal enemies for the preservation of democratic civilization. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo exploited nationalism to fuel an expansionist voracity the likes of which the world had never seen before. Therefore, we observe from history that nationalism can be a force for self-preservation, heroism and honor, or for vengeance, conquest, enslavement and dishonor.
In the context of today's North America, such polarized comparisons are silly. There remain positives and negatives of nationalism in North America that can still be analyzed, but certainly nationalist issues do not rise to the level of real life and death. They are more aptly described as a matter of taste. While nationalism is a strong force in both the US and Canada, the expression of it is quite different on people divided by the arbitrary border line. The difference is not due to ideology or culture, but should be understood in historical and psychological terms. In many ways, the imagined differences are more powerful and divisive than any true realities.
Although Canada did not come into existence as a sovereign state until 1867, what shaped the creation of the country dates back to the American Revolution. If it can be argued that the United States was created out of angst with the British Empire, then it may also be further argued that Canada was created out of angst of that angst. Simply put, Canada was designed to be a "non-American" nation. This design was largely crafted by the British, like Lord Durham, who sought to stem the natural integration of North America. But it was also fully embraced by the Tory Americans who, fleeing from the American colonies of their birth, sought to define themselves as something other than as the Americans that they were. Remarkably, this search for identity that could unite a diverse people divided by language and geography has spanned the centuries right down to our day. Although the Canadian sense of nationalism has changed a great deal over time, it remains essentially a "non-American" sentiment. Ironically, a reason why Canadian nationalism has always seemed so undefinable beyond being "not American" is that Canada still is today, as it was at its birth, a nation of people in denial of their own Americanness.
This non-American attachment and even pride is described by some as an inferiority complex. Dr. Mark Snyder, a Canadian psychologist, puts it this way:
"If you step back, it's very hard in objective terms to plot out what are the true differences between Canadians and Americans... Humans have a strong capacity to construct identities for themselves. It's largely a social process of construction. Some of it is taking small differences and making them seem bigger. A lot of it comes not from the differences, but from feelings of a sense of identity. It's tough to find things on which to hang an identity for all the English-speaking Canadians. It's not really a language that makes them distinct. It only makes them distinct from French-speaking Canadians. It makes them more like the U.S. to focus on language. Food doesn't work very well because, by and large food in Canada is the same as in the United States. What are you left with? Well there's geography. It's clear that if you live in Canada as opposed to the U.S., there's a border between the two. There aren't a lot of things onto which you can pin a distinctively Canadian culture, other than growing up and learning that you're Canadian and not American. It's identity by negation rather than affirmation."
So, in most recognizable ways, in spite of themselves, English Canadians are very much American; from the language they speak, the food they eat, the sports they play, to the philosophies they believe, and ideals they uphold. And besides language, there is little that separates French Canadians from English Canadians or USAmericans. Geographically (by virtue of residing in the same North America), historically and culturally Canadians are American. There are of course many differences between Canadians and USAmericans, but there are few, if any, national differences that one can point to beyond the psychology of understanding that you are Canadian or USAmerican. As noted Canadian journalist and author, David Frum has pointed out:
"What we have here is one large, English-speaking North American culture with a number of components, of which Ontario is one, Western Canada is another. It's true that you can get in a car at Anchorage and drive diagonally southeast until you hit Miami and speak the same language, use the same credit card, pump gas the same way. I think you'd be struck much more by the similarities than the differences. And the places where you would notice dissimilarities would not match the border."
While Canadian nationalism can often be described in these reactive terms, as largely an identity based on non-Americanism, the reverse is not true in the United States. As Canadian poet Margaret Atwood once said, this leaves Canadians looking through a one-way mirror into the United States, with USAmericans largely blind to on goings behind that mirror. USAmericans are far less likely to compare and contrast themselves and their country to Canada and Canadians. If they do, they are even less likely to look at Canada with contempt and righteous indignation. USAmericans largely look towards Canada with friendly feelings, and see Canadians as cousins or even as brothers and sisters, which of course was literally the case before the American Revolution. On the other hand, Canadians are often hesitant to remember the fact that Canada was forged by Americans, and they certainly do not consider themselves as part of the American family today, in spite of shared history. Doing so would force many to view themselves as simply being Americans without US citizenship. Canadians are acutely aware that when they enter the United States, that while they can pretend to be USAmericans, they do not have all the rights of US citizens, including the right to live, work and travel in the United States without restriction.
Since this second-class citizenship is undesirable, and since Canada could never match the United States in measurable terms due to relative size of populations, many Canadians often describe themselves as more civilized, peaceful and kind. Canadian historian George <last name censored by Basil, lol?> notes it in this manner, "Canadians make up for their physical weakness by assuming an air of moral superiority towards the Americans, not unlike that which Scots assumed towards the English". One example of Canadians acting out this idea is the strong Canadian belief that Canada is a nation of peacekeepers. According to the UN, Canada ranks 38th in UN peacekeeping, with 233 peacekeepers abroad working in UN peacekeeping missions as of Dec 2003, supplying less than 1% of international peacekeepers. Ghana commits about ten times the number of peacekeepers, at 2,306 while only having 60% of Canada's population. Many will then go on to contrast their imagined leading role in international peacekeeping against the world policing of the United States. Even though Canadian soldiers have stood side-by-side with USAmericans in nearly every military action (UN-mandated or not) the US has taken. The only two notable exceptions being the Vietnam War and the recent Iraqi conflict, both of which were highly debated in both countries. Many other Canadians have attached themselves to the belief that Canada is "a kinder and gentler nation" (ironically a phrase taken from President George H. W. Bush). Yet, when put to the test in terms of philanthropy "Americans give over two-and-a-half times more of their income to charity than do Canadians", according to a Fraser Institute of Dec 2003 report. The average value of charitable donations in the United States is $3,494 US; the average value of donations in Canada is $998 CDN ($760 US). An argument could be made that this difference is largely due to higher levels of disposable incomes in the US coupled with a less demanding tax burden. However, little can be shown to prove that in contrast to the United States, Canada is a nation consisting of kinder gentler individuals. Finally, United Nations ratings in Human Development have often been used in the past as a basis for Canadians to point out their superiority. Since the most recent report ranks Canada one spot below the United States, this sort of talk has subsided into sullen silence. However, it was not that long ago that many argued loudly that this mere collection of three basic indicators: Life Expectancy, Literacy/Enrollment and PPP, determined which was the greatest nation on earth. The same individuals who trumpet this sort of thing usually ignore reports done by other institutions that put Canada beneath the United States. Of course, this is not a phenomenon unique to Canada. Comparisons such as these, which match up countries often, help fuel nationalism everywhere.
Some Canadian nationalists will point to differences in medical care, gun control, capital punishment, drug laws and more recently gay marriages. But these differences are in governance, not culture. British Columbia and Alberta have made moves to offer privatized medical care, but this makes them no less Canadian. California and Oregon have tried moving towards more universal healthcare programs, but they do not become less USAmerican by doing so. Gun control, while heavily favored by urbanites in Toronto, is widely disapproved of by rural Western Canadians. Likewise, gun control is far more popular in Chicago and Washington DC, where handguns are banned altogether, but detested by people in rural States. Penalties for small amounts of drug possession have been eased in Canada (and increased for large amounts) by federal legislation. However, in the United States, where individual States have power to legislate, there are a wide range of penalties and enforcements. One of the loosest marijuana possession laws in North America exist in Nevada where a simple fine is given to first time offenders. Gay marriage, while recently legalized in British Columbia and Ontario, is still very much illegal in Alberta (which has threatened to override any federal legislation allowing such) and other Canadian provinces. Civil unions between same-sex partners have been legal in Vermont since 2000, and gay marriages are set to become legal as early as May 2004 in Massachusetts. Finally, while many States employ capital punishment, many others have disallowed it. Capital punishment is not an option for any Canadian province due to federal law.
Another argument offered by those who believe that imaginary lines draw real differences, is that Canada is more left wing than the United States. Although a large number of liberals reside in northern North America, describing Canada in ideological terms offers at best a momentary snapshot of an evanescent state of affairs. Just as in the United States, Canada has experienced several shifts from left to right and back again over the course of its political history. Indeed, Canadian politicians in the late 1800s touted Canada's lower taxes in contrast to the tax-and-spend USAmericans. Nearly all the lavish social programs in Canada, that some say define Canada today, were first created by the United States. Still, it is hard to dispute that today there are small differences between the attitudes of average Canadians and USAmericans. To some, these slight differences justify the Canada/US border, and they are able to validate these claims by use of polling data. For example, certain polls have suggested, "USAmericans visit church more regularly than Canadians", "USAmericans believe in a more patriarchal society than do Canadians", etc. These small sample surveys, hardly generated or delivered in an unbiased manner, merely illustrate preconceived notions. Interesting as they are, using them to define Canada is akin to defining the word "Canada" as Canada. They fail to dig deeper by, for example, comparing the diverse regions of North America against one another. Undoubtedly, the southern US skews the polling results to one side, since Canada has no analogous region. Similarly, central Ontario and Quebec are much larger factors since the population of the area that left us the historical accident of Canada is so heavily centered there. A better justification of the border might be possible if one were able to prove the largest differences between populations in North America lay at the 49th latitude as opposed to 99th longitude or any other arbitrary line that could be drawn on the map. For example, it could be argued that, both demographically and ideologically, Northeastern USAmericans share more common values with Southeastern Canadians than either do with Southern USAmericans, or that Western North Americans have more in common with each other than they do with Eastern North Americans.
All the major differences we find between Canada and the United States are regional. For example, the people of Arkansas when compared with the people of British Columbia are vastly different (in North American terms). They speak with a different accent; they have slightly different customs, cuisines and cultures. In short, if you put the average British Columbian in the middle of Arkansas, everyone would know that he/she wasn't from there. But put that B.C.er in Washington State and it would difficult for a native Washingtonian to know he/she wasn't a Washingtonian. One might argue Seattle and Vancouver are virtually identical, especially when compared to Little Rock. The same could be said when comparing Manitoba and Minnesota to Newfoundland, Ontario and Michigan to Wyoming, the Maritime Provinces and New England states to the Yukon, etc. Overall, the differences between the United States and Canada are best seen regionally, not nationally. We do not have thousands of years of differing histories; we do not have generations upon generations brought up to believe completely different societal values; and we do not speak different tongues or exist within confined communities unable to travel outside our own borders.
One such region that does speak a different tongue, and one that some would describe as a nation unto itself, is Quebec. Quebec nationalism is perhaps the biggest irritant to Canadian nationalists, because without Quebec, Canada would be much smaller and much less culturally different from the United States, overall. Quebec is also often used by Canadian nationalists as an example of what makes Canada unique. Although most Canadians outside Quebec know little French, there is a strong tendency for English Canadians to attach themselves to French Quebec as a means of distinguishing themselves from USAmericans. This is directly related to the anti-American sentiments that many have. From time to time Quebec has risen up and attempted to separate from the rest of Canada, but each time the rest of Canada (and in the past Britain) has managed to quell the movements. English Canadians will vehemently argue that Quebec belongs in Canada. Yet, they do so somewhat hypocritically. They rally and cry that the differences between Quebec and English Canada are slight and we ought to be together, yet the differences between Canada and the US are too great, and we ought to be separate. It would appear that based on this view the true defense of the sovereignty of the political entity known as Canada is defined by "the narcissism of small differences" as Sigmund Freud would say.
Indeed, there are many examples of behavior that exude this quality. For example, many are quick to point out things such as "We pronounce Z as zed not zee", "Hockey is our national sport", "We spell color with a U", "Canadian beer is better than American beer", etc...
Ultimately, many of these Canadians are unable to see past the glass itself, and imagine how rivaling self-interests can become common-interests within a stronger Union. As Pablo Casals once said, "The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?" In the case of Canada and the United States, what divides us is artificial, what unites us is real.
Some of the positive aspects of Canadian nationalism include ideas such as freedom, democracy, peace, good government and multiculturalism. Of course, the same ideas also define the United States. Canadian multiculturalism is sometimes distinguished from US multiculturalism as being diversity vs. assimilation. This is reinforced in Canadian minds by the USAmerican habit of describing the US as a melting pot. To many USAmericans multiculturalism and melting pot are interchangeable. Certainly, there is quite a bit of assimilation within US culture. People are encouraged to learn English, and often find it most convenient to conform to North American norms. This isn't really any different from Canada, where the government also awards learning English (and French) and helps people acclimatize themselves to North American lifestyle. A Farsi-speaking Iranian cannot move to Canada, work there and live a normal life without adapting to his surroundings, just as he would have to if he moved to the United States. Both countries welcome diversity. Indeed, the inscription at the foot of the Statue of Liberty says it all: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
The more double-tongued aspect of this Canadian praise of multiculturalism is an openness and tolerance of all peoples and cultures, except if they are USAmericans. This is largely defended by the belief that without some restriction on the 900lb gorilla, Canada would be "swallowed whole". As such, the government has instituted restrictions requiring minimum levels of Canadian ownership and Canadian content in television, radio and print. Subsidies and tax deductions are also given to certain programs, publications and productions in order to (in the words of the Canadian Heritage Department) "promote Canadian culture" and a "national identity". According to C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian federal government spent $1.6 billion CDN on direct subsidies in 1996. The CBC alone receives approximately $1 billion CDN annually for operating expenses. This situation only exists because Canadians themselves do not watch or listen to enough Canadian content (in the eyes of the government) to make such stations commercially viable in the free market. Producers and artists that receive such monies earn a significant portion of their income through government subsidies. In essence, the government makes up for the perceived lack of viewership by forcing the population to pay, through taxes, what it doesn't watch enough of.
Despite the large overall commonalities of North Americans, when contrasting USAmerican nationalism against Canadian nationalism, few parallels can be found. As mentioned previously, these are largely self-made identities created by the human mind. If one accepts this notion, it would be safe to assume that, for example, a US-born flag-waving US nationalist who has a propensity to embellish the greatness of his native USA, if born in Canada, instead would be a flag-waving triumphalist Canadian nationalist, and vice versa.
Growing up and understanding that you are a USAmerican makes one much less likely to compare and contrast themselves to Canadians or denigrate Canada as a whole. Indeed, it may be argued that USAmericans do not even have Canada on their radar screen, despite the close geographical proximity. Some argue US nationalism generally involves a much more introverted outlook on the world, due to the vastness and importance of the United States. Many would point to the US tenancy to seek unilateral solutions in foreign affairs. This can be partially explained by the fact that the US does not require other nations to assist it in many cases, while smaller nations in many instances do require multilateralism. As in Canada, there are those in the United States who are fearful of the loss of cultural identity and cohesiveness, but the United States does not attempt to counter this by enforcing US content rules in TV, radio and print.
Both the US and Canadian identities have changed a great deal since their inception. However, today the Canadian identity remains largely identity by negation. For good or ill, nationalism also remains a powerful force in both countries. What Canadians should perhaps realize, is that they could create a new era of progress for our continent and civilization without having to abandon their cultures or what makes them individuals. Canadians can retain all the positive aspects of the Canadian identities that exist across the land, and move beyond the rather negative ones that have been constructed to contrast themselves from USAmericans. In simpler terms: They can retain regional differences while losing the chip on their shoulders. One might argue, by doing so they will have collectively and progressively dealt with the issues that have defined the national psyche of identity by negation for so very long. For the USAmericans part, they perhaps ought to realize what a united continent could achieve, and recognize Canadians as fellow citizens lost on the road of history.
@ApplesAreOkay: I'm just pointing out that you said Texas and Canada are different and this is very much untrue. Equal GDP's, larger GDP per capita for Texas. If anything, unification with a modern day Texas would cause a bigger commotion than unification with Canada.
Skimmed through it, you have some very good points however, Canada and America are just way too different. America's political view is very right wing while all of Canada's parties are more left-wing than America's. Canadians really detest some choices made by the Americans, therefore they won't be able to work together.
[quote=Obscene]@abilas26: Can you elaborate on what the difference is just so that I know what you're saying?
@ApplesAreOkay: No where in my post do I suggest the USAmerica will not have to change, this makes me feel like you didn't read it or skimmed it at max. I never said that the flag must remain that way. I said that it would be subject to change; the image on the site was [b]one[/b] idea. And just to get things straight, Canada is only 1.4x bigger than Texas by population, and it is smaller than California.[/quote]
Yes, we all know Canada has a small population.
@abilas26: Can you elaborate on what the difference is just so that I know what you're saying?
@ApplesAreOkay: No where in my post do I suggest the USAmerica will not have to change, this makes me feel like you didn't read it or skimmed it at max. I never said that the flag must remain that way. I said that it would be subject to change; the image on the site was [b]one[/b] idea. And just to get things straight, Canada is only 1.4x bigger than Texas by population, and it is smaller than California.
EDIT: I forgot to mention, Texas has about the same GDP as Canada. You're seriously underestimating Texas.
lol i studied half of this in Gr.8 history, therefore i think im qualified to argue with you.
Basically Canada is giving up its Flag Its History, Its Name, Its Political Beliefs, most of its resources, its nationality, and to sum it all up MORE THAN THE US IS GIVING UP.
Its true newfoundland had to give up what we did, but in return we Helped them out, by paying all there Debts, and some other stuff [Forgot xD]
What are we getting in return? Nothing -,-
And i would also like to see a Website Link to where you claimed to get some statistics, or as i like to say, RANDOM NUMBERS.
Im Canadian, Proud to be one to. I dont want to be called an American, or a North American, which is the continents Name not the name of Our country. I also like Our flag, and our Prime Minister. Not President, but Prime Minister.
and also what @anyalista said, is Completly true, you are requesting Canada to become a state.
I'm Canadian and I agree with this.
Although this is very unlikely to happen. Looking back into Canadian history, we are proud to earn our independence. Canada was once a British Colony, and I dont think we'll ever unite with America. Canadians fought to become independent in ww1, why would we give it away? I must say this is a great idea, although don't expect it to happen.
The US had always believed that they were destined to have all of North America. You say it's not Annexing, but it really is. You assumed that Canada will unite with the US without any equal changes, and failed to learn about what Canada wanted. The flag (gif) from the site displays provinces turning into stars in the American flag. That is not acceptable. Texas and Canada are different, as Canada is way bigger, you cannot annex a whole country and not expect major changes (especially in flag, is neccesary)
Yes I would like to drive to the american side without a passport. Yes I would enjoy new brands in stores. But I dont see it happening, and if it does expect MAJOR changes. Not changes like what you described.
@FantasyDreams: It seems that you're accusing me personally of being a proponent of expansionism, which makes literally no sense. There is nothing to gain if the US was to annex Canada by force. The effort required would significantly overshadow the benefits. I never once advocated this as an annexation. In fact I devoted a point specifically to what seperates it from annexation. It seems to be that you are making a gross assumption based off an obscure stereotype that seems to only be present among Canadians who resent American progress. There is nothing in this thread that suggests anything except a peaceful union, if you find something otherwise, please bring it to my attention so that I can revise it. Two word responses do not provide any constructive criticism.
@Caelestys: Thank you! This is what I've been looking for, someone who can point out specific flaws. However I don't agree with all of them.
4. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Canadian Constitution includes nothing about slavery. It is only currently illegal in Canada because it was outlawed in England. The Canadian Constitution does not include several things like this that modern Canadians take for granted.
5. That's the entire point of the thread. Both the US and Canada are to give up their individual sovereignty so that they might prosper as a unified nation. Canadians will now be considered an international force in the modern day globalization. Together, Americans and Canadians will be able to trade freely amond each other, decreasing the number of needed imports and overall creating a better economy for each. The Americans will have easier access to Canadian natural resources which we lack. There are many more reasons, but I don't feel like retyping the thread.
9. Please re-read the post. I said it could go either way. I suggested that there would be more public approval of an alteration of the US flag merely because we outnumber you. I did not say that I advocate it.
8. I did not say that the name of the nation would remain the same. Also, if you read that post, you will realize that I am in no way suggesting that Canadians assimilate their culture, in fact I am encouraging a form of "sectionalism" in culture.
I mentioned that if Canada had joined 150 years ago, it would have been a state. I did not call Canada a state, I did not say that the US flag will be used, and I never called for annexation.
[quote=MarxMaster]This is like two angler fish mating.[/quote]
Ahaha xD *Like*
[quote=Obscene]: Krazywacko: this is not expansion. This is the creation of a new nation.[/quote]
[quote=Humanmango]Well, you're not fooling me.[/quote]
Or me.
No thank you.
As a Canadian I would not want to live under the US system of democracy, I just feel the Canadian one makes more sense to me.
@edisonsan: Thanks for posting.
@Caelestys: Perhaps you'd like to provide some examples of where I ask Canadians to give up their way of life. And how do you get from the Constitution to extreme capitalism? Your post doesn't make sense in general.
[quote=PearlJammin]Ok, I love how the Canadians are crying over this. GOD FORBID THAT AMERICA MIXES WITH CANADA BECAUSE... BECAUSE... BECAUSE... OUR NATIONAL RELATIONS. Seriously? You act like America would smother you with a pillow, or not give you rights. Because you wouldn't have your own political parties, your own officials, your own representatives? Most of you obviously did not read.
Anyways, I wouldn't care if it happened. If it did, that'd be great I could move further north without having to worry about immigration, ect. If it didn't oh well. I think this would greatly benefit all people because our 2 GPD [b]combined, natural resources, trade, military's, and sheer size would make us unstoppable within the world.[/b][/quote]
Lol, "sheer size would make us unstoppable within the world"... that's the kind of American-thinking I would never want to be associated with. EVER.
I've made some awesome American friends on Maple, but no way in hell would I want to unite with US.
I'm fine with being Canarican @^@
or Amerdian~ xD
Not... patriotic enough :o
[quote=nooob]my bad
then again
GO CANUCKS[/quote]
Wewt wewt! Go Canucks go!
@KaiAvalon: It is in quotes because of the sentence that follows it, "...history has shown that culture is not a static thing that can be defined, shaped or preserved by any government", implying that culture is not bounded by government. My point is that Canadian culture has no ties to the political set up and is more about the people. It exists within the people, not the government they submit to.
I sorta dislike how you said "Canadian heritage" in quotation marks (point 8). You may not have intended this, but it sounds like you meant it sarcastically, like it doesn't exist.
@F1nagin: Do you realize how long ago the war of 1812 was?
Ummm no you guys (USA) don't know how to spend money.
Your dept is always increasing while in Canada we are always thinking of making it lower.
USA has to pay others back
Canada has to pay the Canadaians people back.
USA is always about Black vs White or Hespanicans vs Americans
Do you hear that about Canada? No.
USA is all about brainwashing (listen to your national anthem)
Canada is not.
@DarkSamus01: I did take civics, but I was under the imperssion that The prime minister runs canada, but in order to carry laws and stuff like that he would need the signature of the Governor General who is supposed to be the representative of the queen. If her face is on our bills, and coins, in my mind she still runs the country. If some kind of state of emergency happens, I think absolute decisions would fall under the english regime.
@waver66: Our laws serve the same purposes. It's just a matter of working out the details.
@Humanmango: This isn't history class. This is not propaganda... this is my genuine effort to make the world a better place. Propaganda would be if the government was to publish this along with its plans to annex Canada. The numbered section is basically a list of concerns that I expect Canadians to have. I anticipated the questions, and it really is nothing like a melting-pot. Please don't pretend this is your history text book.
Eh, merging of laws might present a bit of a problem.
[quote=Glycys]Canada doesn't even have an army. WE are Canada's army. The only thing joining with Canada would do is widen our natural gas economies and possibly help lower our debt.[/quote]
Main US benefits are economical. Increased trade, lesser taxation over a great people leading to more revenue even with tax cuts.
@HotPockets: If you think there is arrogance, please cite it so I can revise.
1. Obesity has nothing to do with political unification.
2. Red herring. If anything the US has over-assimilated these groups. For example, many public universities must meet certain admission ethnic quotas that are proportional to the population.
3. Irrelevant to political unification and debatable. It can be argued that the reason Canadians can point out America is that we are a more renown nation. But still, irrelevant.
4. So does America, we call him the President.
5. This has not been proven statistically, as far as I'm aware. However, it is irrelevant to political unification.
6. I never claimed that your Special Forces were inferior. But again, I don't see what this has to do with anything? The way you worded it makes it seem like it would be a good thing, proving compatibility in the merge.
7. Extremely subjective. America does not "chose to go to war because we get bored". The counterargument can be applied that Canadians could not go to war if they wanted to because of an inadequate military.
I apologize if any of this sounds like I'm bashing on Canada. I'm merely disputing his point, although I do not believe it actually applies to the topic on hand.
United Provinces of America
yo some treaty or soemthign i forgot speperated us...they wanted to be cut so yeah. i dun think they want to join.
[quote=samwesker]19. Why would you submit this in an online game web page? WIN! [/quote]
I linked you to my actual website. Posting here is just for constructive criticism and maybe a little publicity.
[quote=xxfalconxx30]Why you put this on Basil I shall never know.
But hey, it's more interesting than all those made up classes threads.[/quote]
Because change starts with the youth, plain and simple. If you want a better future, you teach the children the opportunities that can come from change. Current and near future politicians are too stuck in the ways of the old to embrace a change. Most adults, myself included, are as well.
@OnTopic: I'd be all for this. Mainly because it'd save me a couple thousand dollars I'm spending trying to get citizenship in Canada, even though I'm a born and raised American. Gotta say though... it's sad as hell and annoys me to the extreme to know that it's harder for me, a civilized American, to have a harder time gaining citizenship in Canada (America's ally) than it is for someone from say... India.
Why you put this on Basil I shall never know.
But hey, it's more interesting than all those made up classes threads.
I've lived in both Canada and the US, and believe me, they're not very different other than some very minor differences in culture. Cultural differences really shouldn't be a big deal. It's like how people in individual states have their own traditions and mindsets. E.g. Texas and New York.
[quote=andretheman]I'm sorry but youre president will have to take that up with our queen. I'm very sure she would never give up a country such as ours to the dogs of the US. If anything the Us should learn things from canada. We have a better quality of living. Our dollar is still above yours at this point in time. And we have harsh climates so we are cool.
With all the immatureness aside, It will never happen, trust me, although canadians depends on the US, they are too stubborn and patriotic. I think there was a survey, and it said that the most tension that canadians have as rivals etc, are with the US, water and oil [/quote]
canada dose not have a queen have you not taken civics yet the queen is english she donst have power over canada at all at one time she did but she only needed to sign off on laws
OT: its a bad idea and im glad to know it will never happen
19. Why would you submit this in an online game web page? WIN!
I'm sorry but youre president will have to take that up with our queen. I'm very sure she would never give up a country such as ours to the dogs of the US. If anything the Us should learn things from canada. We have a better quality of living. Our dollar is still above yours at this point in time. And we have harsh climates so we are cool.
With all the immatureness aside, It will never happen, trust me, although canadians depends on the US, they are too stubborn and patriotic. I think there was a survey, and it said that the most tension that canadians have as rivals etc, are with the US, water and oil
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho]Watch this before you say anything.[/url]
[quote=CoraKora]So what's the new name for the merged country? Canmerica? Amada?[/quote]
Unitedstates of america.
It is still a united state on the continent North america
[quote=Mynameisgregory]So we call Canada North Montana?:O[/quote]
Meet the Robinsons much?
[quote=Caelestys]no...please no. Canada and the US are waaaay too different. A unification would just cause millions and millions to pack up and move to Norway/Sweden/Australia.[/quote]
They're really not.... If you didn't notice, I wrote an entire wall of text on why they're compatible.
[quote=peter1001]When I travel I make sure I'm wearing Canadian shirt....[/quote]
Most shirts are made in China.
@Humanmango: The government would be severely altered, the current political standings would be meaningless. No political faction stands to gain, thus it would be pointless from an expansionist perspective.
@Krazywacko: this is not expansion. This is the creation of a new nation.
@RedsArmy: I guess. But control F works. Most of the flames in this thread were discussed in my topic post.
@7eleven2007: This isn't a well publicized concept among Americans. This is my proposal for the mutual benefit of both nations. I hold no part in the government, so this thread should have no association with past actions of the USAmerica. This is the future, not the past.
I feel that as a Canadian my only choice now is to brace the inevitable and mobilize my Arctic army. You can take our metric system, but you can never take ma soullll....!
Please read befor you flame.