Re: More future history questions - USA

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Interesting stuff, as you say... following those links also led me to
this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America
>
> How relevant do folks think these thoughts (from a 1981 book) are to
> the situation now and in the near future?
>
>
He is fairly accurate culturally, though he couldn't foresee the
division
that grew in the last decade between Canada and the U.S.

As they say, "9/11 changed everything". The U.S. response to 9/11 under
Bush brought Britain closer to the U.S. politically under Blair, but at
the
same time it distanced Canada. At one point a Canadian could drive into
the
U.S. from Canada with just your birth certificate, and often they
wouldn't
ask for that, even. Now you need a full passport. That may be a minor
thing, but there is no political will in the U.S. to give that up now or
in
the foreseeable future. That alone kind of negates the idea of a
Canada-U.S. union between certain provinces and certain states.

The response to 9/11 and the early 21st century financial crisis has
laid
out the differences between the U.S. and Canada fairly starkly. There's
actually been a loosening of what few gun control laws exist in the U.S.
There's been a massive ideological fight in the U.S. over health care
reform, in spite of the fact that the reform put in place is not a whole
lot closer to the Canadian model, and could well be overturned. While
Canada and the U.S. are very similar culturally -- sports,
entertainment,
consumer goods, etc. -- the last decade has strengthened a Canadian
identity while more clearly delineating the differences between the two
countries. More than any time since World War II, there's a greater
feeling
of "us" and "them" among Canadians and Americans.

One area where the two countries are getting closer is the division
between
left and right wing politics in Canada, which is becoming as polarized
as
it is in the U.S. In Canada, like the U.S., the division is largely
regional, but it's not quite as cut-and-dried as in the U.S. (Though the
U.S. isn't as cut and dried as U.S. media, and their love of the Red
State/Blue State concept, like to pretend.) The U.S. agricultural states
run conservative, while the prairie farmers in Canada may be socially
conservative but lean more to the left politically. If the polarization
becomes more acute, there could well be closer ties between various
North
American regions. British Columbia has more in common with Oregon than
it
does with Alberta. Likewise, Alberta has more in common with Montana and
Idaho (and, oddly enough, the U.S. South; Alberta is kind of like Texas
North).

The author makes the argument that North America is more culturally
connected in regions than the political divisions would indicate. With
what
I said above about the divide between the U.S. and Canada taken into
account, he's fairly accurate.

Now, I don't think those nations could ever form, but from a cultural
standpoint he is correct about their connections for the most part. For
instance, his New England nation has five of the 10 most indebted states
in
the Union, and most of the poorest Canadian provinces. Culturally it
makes
sense, but unless something were to change economically, it would have a
hard time functioning as an independent nation.

There are a number of oddities due to the 30 years of history since the
book came out.

At one point Detroit was the 4th largest city in the U.S. Now good
chunks
of it are a ghost town. The idea that Detroit would be a "regional
capital"
(culturally, if not politically) makes no sense now. The capital would
most
likely be Chicago, with Toronto a second place contender.

I think he underestimates the feeling of "nationhood" that the people of
Texas still have to this day. I'd be very tempted to split Texas off
into a
nation of its own, rather than lumping parts of it into the Dixie
section.

Mexamerica is spot on, though he didn't count on the illegal immigration
backlash that's seen in places like Arizona. Whether or not such a
backlash
spreads is open to debate. Arizona's laws have had a negative effect on
the
economy. So have similar laws in Alabama. (One of my employees got back
from a training trip to Alabama. He noted that there were a lot fewer
people around in the town where he was training. The locals agreed,
stating
that it's starting to hurt the local farmers and local small businesses.
The laws have driven a lot of illegal immigrants out of the state, but
they
also drove out a lot of legal immigrants and Hispanic American
citizens.)

The Empty Quarter is just... odd. It's like the author didn't know what
to
do with that part of the continent and just decided to throw it into a
catch-all. Saskatchewan, for instance, should be part of the
Breadbasket.
The population of this region is relatively small, so I guess that's
what
he was getting at, though but I have a hard time reconciling the culture
of
Nevada with Idaho or Manitoba. This region is probably the best off,
economically, what with the oil in the Arctic and Alberta, and the
diamonds
in the Canadian far north.

-- 
Allan Goodall		 http://www.hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com
agoodall@hyperbear.com