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).

Tom