12 ms·

Has anglo-Canada ever been meaningfully distinct from the US ? It is as tightly bound to the US as Puerto Rico. I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, milit

by screye 2y ago

Has anglo-Canada ever been meaningfully distinct from the US ? It is as tightly bound to the US as Puerto Rico. I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, military or cultural policies that favor US enemies without being strong-armed out of it by the US. It is a charged question, and I mean it as a hypothetical. But countries form through common language, culture, religion, geography, interests or trauma/war. Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart. At times, Anglo-Canadians feel more distinct from French-Canadians than they do most Americans. Ofc, if you've been a stable nation for century+, then there's no good reason to fix what's not broken.

qball 2y ago
>if you've been a stable nation for century+ Quebec has tried to separate twice in the past 50 years, and comes within a Brexit's margin of actually getting it done (and if it wasn't for Montreal, they'd already be gone). The seed of that separation was, naturally, caused by a military conflict between what would become Western Canada and what used to be Upper Canada. Canada isn't actually as stable a country as Ottawa might have you believe.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  This might make you feel old, but the referendum was 30 years ago, and Black October was 55 years ago. The whole Quebec movement is basically dead in the water now. An entire generation of Canadians didn't exist or don't remember that. I'd argue the GWOT, the Great Recession, and COVID have had a stronger impact on modern (2020s) Canadian politics and discourse than the Quebec Independence Movement.
  - qball 2y ago
    >The whole Quebec movement is basically dead in the water now. Quebec's Separatist party has complete electoral dominance (except for Montreal, but Montreal is the least Quebec part of Quebec) and has the ability to force the government's hand on most things. If the Eastern Big City Party loses the next election as is projected (and the Bloc correspondingly loses all of its power) they'll be back.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      PQ has largely transitioned away from soverignity and largely campaigns on culture war issues like Bill 21 and immigration. Only voters who are 65+ are split on soverignity. Every other age demographic overwhelmingly supports remaining in Canada [0] This can be seen with the CAQ, which has poached most of the PQ's leadership and campaigns almost entirely on Bill 21 and immigration [1], not on "Quebec Libre" [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/17/quebec-francois-legault-referendum-00040228 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/17/quebec-francois-leg... [1] - https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bill-21-groups-for-and-against-quebec-secularism-law-react-to-ruling https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bill-21-groups-f...
      - philistine 2y ago
        Are you completely out of the loop that much? The PQ is first in the polls, and has promised a referendum within a first mandate. It's a whole fucking big deal that they managed to lead in polls right now while promising that.
        alephnerd 2y ago
        Polling does prove that it's driven by immigration and culture war concerns, not Sovereignty [0] [0] - https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/mai-2024/sondage-souverainete-parti-quebecois/ https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/mai-2024/sondage...
        philistine 2y ago
        > PQ has largely transitioned away from soverignity[sic] and largely campaigns on culture war issues like Bill 21 and immigration. Your initial point was not that people chose the PQ over language concerns, but that the party had transitioned. The party has done no such thing. It's doubling down on separatism if anything. It's crazy.
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  The separation vote wasn’t sanctioned by the Feds, so even if they got a majority, it would probably get shut down by the courts. Did you mean Lower Canada instead of Upper Canada?
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    >The separation vote wasn’t sanctioned by the Feds, so even if they got a majority, it would probably get shut down by the courts. Had Quebec voted Yes, Quebec City would have immediately declared independence. <https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/tkg5gf/who_has_more_autonomy_canadian_provinces_american/i1s9jgh/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/tkg5gf/who_has_...>
- amanwithnoplan 2y ago
  I have no idea what "a military conflict between what would become Western Canada and what used to be Upper Canada" refers to unless you meant the northwest and Red River rebellions, in which case it really stretches my (anglo) mind how that has more to do with Quebec separatism than any of the other grievances.
  - qball 2y ago
    Closing off any future French-speaking (read: sharing more Quebec values) Western expansion was (and really, still is) actually a big deal.
    - waldohatesyou 2y ago
      Wait isn’t it the opposite? Manitoba was founded as a French Canadian province wasn’t it?
      - sbsudbdjd 2y ago
        but because the natives (metis) spoke French by the time the Brits got there.
    - boringg 2y ago
      I mean it was a smart move for the brits to retain control of language and culture whether you agree with them or not. I don't know how that still is a problem?
- boringg 2y ago
  It isn't as homogenous a society as an outsider would think but I can assure it’s quite stable as a country. Quebec exiting anytime soon would be annoying for the country but a tragic mistake for quebec especially in seeing how poorly it has workout for the UK which had been an economic engine. Quebec has been sputtering since the 80s after their last referendum vote and since montreal lost its status as a city of import to Toronto. They would go from a poor economic performer to exceptionally poor.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Quebec has been sputtering since the 80s after their last referendum vote and since montreal lost its status as a city of import to Toronto. City of import? Speaking as a tourist at least, Montreal is a much more interesting place to visit than Toronto. Toronto might be larger and have a bigger economy with more industry, but for a tourist I can't think of any reason to visit offhand. >Quebec exiting anytime soon would be annoying for the country but a tragic mistake for quebec especially in seeing how poorly it has workout for the UK which had been an economic engine. Separatists might not be that worried about economic power. Are all the Brexit voters unhappy with their vote now? A few maybe, but most probably are happy to be out of the EU, and blame their continued economic problems on immigrants, the EU, etc.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - neom 2y ago
      Your Toronto/MTL tourism comparison isn't wrong, Toronto is ugly and boring, MTL is beautiful and fun. People love to talk about Quebec and separatism, they can go if they want, but they owe us $300B, so I doubt they are going any time soon, their "country" would likely fall over on go.
      - philistine 2y ago
        What a great way to make me feel Canadian unity. Guess the country's not as stable if fear and threats are how you keep the minorities in line.
mikrl 2y ago
>Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart. It was on the table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red From the Canadian perspective too, don’t think an American annexation of our landmass would go smoothly… Russians and Ukrainians are indistinguishable to an outsider and are currently unleashing centuries of built up ethnic turmoil on each other. Anecdotal: I used to work with very right wing Canadian guys who cursed the name of the last president and called him all manner of names because of the trade war. These were the kind of guys who south of the border would have voted for him and bought the hat. It’s not as simple as shared heritage == shared values.
- mandevil 2y ago
  The Canadian's had their own counter plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1 It would have been a gigantic failure. The plan was to try and mobilize quickly, seize Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle, and hold on for dear life until the BEF arrived. But the British were clear from the beginning that they were never going to send significant reinforcements to Canada: the ocean was too large, the USN too strong, and the Canadian plains too vast for the British army to be able to effectively defend. At most they might try and send some troops to defend Halifax as a key naval base. So the Canadian plan ensured that their best troops would be lost quickly, that the Americans would be super-pissed off and unified, all for an ending that would never come. So while it might have made sense militarily, it could never have worked politically. The US war plan for the UK was similarly weird: according to Miller, _War Plan Orange_ War Plan Red was the result of a deal between the US Navy and Army. The Navy wanted War Plan Orange (war with Japan) and so they let the Army write War Plan Red (the UK). Which was why a war between the two mightiest naval powers on the planet in 1925 called for the US Navy to be on the defensive, at most seize the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Halifax to try and deny them as bases to the RN, and then the US Army would invade a separate nation (Crimson aka Canada) that would probably try and be neutral in the war! Basically, from what I can tell, the US, Canada, and UK were putting their best war planners on the likely threats, and putting their less experienced and good planners on these war plans. Because War Plan Orange was, at least if you squint, how the US defeated Japan. And the Canadian and UK's war planners for mobilizing in World War Two and sending them to France did a bang-up job. It was just these plans that were not thought through and would have been disasters if implemented.
Der_Einzige 2y ago
If you're advocating for Annexing Canada, or at least Quebec, there's a meaningful amount of support for this within Canada. The only real opposition to this in the USA will come from conservatives who are upset at the large amount of "New Democratic" voters.
- mbg721 2y ago
  Didn't Doug Ford get elected repeatedly?
  - 486sx33 2y ago
    Once, and once during Covid I mean Trudeau got reelected during Covid too because he temporarily relaxed restrictions, just to crank them back into high gear after winning again. Also, Doug ford is no conservative, he’s just liberal lite. A pathetic spineless being
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    He has. Americans on either side of politics think that Canada is full of super-leftists (and there is no shortage). But were Canada a part of the US in 2016, Trump would have won AB, SK, and quite possibly enough of the GTA (the parts that loved Rob Ford, and as "Ford Country" has repeatedly won the province for Doug Ford as mentioned) to win ON, the province most resembling MI/WI/PA, the three states that Trump unexpectedly won the election with.
throwup238 2y ago
> no war/trauma keeping them apart. Just this little hiccup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Invasions_of_Canada,_1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Invasions_of_Canad... Although with our cooperation at D-Day maybe Canada considers that water under the bridge.
- ojbyrne 2y ago
  Also this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Quebec_(1775) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Quebec_(1775)
- stackghost 2y ago
  Technically we weren't a country in 1812, so if there was bad to be had it'd be with the Brits.
mbg721 2y ago
To me there's an uncanny-valley effect. Maybe it's the Looneys or the kilometres on the road signs, but it definitely feels the tiniest bit different.
- t-3 2y ago
  Even the "standard Canadian accent" is nearly indistinguishable from the "standard American accent" except for the o's and a few words that have a more British emphasis.
  - api_or_ipa 2y ago
    Respectfully, the Canadian accent (really, Canadian English) is noticeable and distinct from US English, in its pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Yes, there is a lot in common with US English, but calling them the same loses an enormous amount of nuance. On the other hand, the difference between a dialect and a language is an army and a navy, neither of which Canada has much of.
  - PawgerZ 2y ago
    The "standard Canadian accent" is pretty close to the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota dialects -- sometimes called North-Central American English. Nowhere else in America really talks like that, though, and no one would call it the standard accent. I would say less than 4% of Americans speak with that accent. Midland American English is what we would call the standard American accent. Most of Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and parts of surrounding states speak in this.
    - t-3 2y ago
      What I was referring to with the standard accent is the TV/phone/public speaking accent. The one everyone adopts when you want to sound as "normal" as possible. Colloquially known as "white people voice" among various racial minorities. Local dialects definitely exist, but they're mostly used locally. Cross-region communication is usually "standard".
rerdavies 2y ago
French-Canadians are not anything like English Canadians, except in the minds of English Canadians who don't know any better. English Canadians like to think we are one great nation, but we are in fact two great nations, deeply divided (more than that if you include indigenous peoples, which you should). French-speaking Quebecers self-identify as follows: - Canadians first, and Quebecois second. - Quebecois first, and Canadian second. - Quebecois, and not Canadian at all. The majority of French-speaking Quebecois do not self-identify as being in the first category, and a very significant percentage identify as being in the third category, with a plurality falling into the second category. I think it's safe to say that almost all French Canadians in Quebec identify as culturally Quebecois. I lived in Quebec during the Cultural Revolution in the 80s, and was there for the first referendum, but I left because it became clear that Montreal was a bad place to be if I wanted to raise English-speaking children. In the end, I didn't feel any great need to pay for the sins of centuries of Quebec Anglophones that weren't my ancestors. Once you wander outside of Montreal, into the countryside, dislike of Anglophones is common to the point that it feels almost dangerous, and gets even worse the closer you get to Quebec City. In my experience, tolerance of Anglophones in Montreal has decreased dramatically in recent years. I was in a clothing store on St. Catherine, neer Bishop Street (once the heart of Anglophone Montreal). When two American tourists came in, and asked for help, the young shopkeeper responded: "On ne parle pas Anglais ici" (one does not speak English here). A friend of mine graduated from a high school in Westmount (home to the Anglophone elite, most pointedly hated by Francophones). He said that of his friends in high school, none had remained in Quebec, because even though all of them spoke fluent French, being Anglophones, they were not able to find jobs.
- yurishimo 2y ago
  What are some more resources you would recommend to learn more about this topic? A documentary or book would be awesome (or youtube channels, blogs, etc)!
- belval 2y ago
  The first part of your comment was pretty spot on, but the rest I think is biased from living here in a different time, the populated areas around Montreal (Brossard, Laval especially) all have significant English-speaking-only populations. In downtown during lunch time it's pretty much 50/50 whether the fast food/cafe worker will speak French at all.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart We tried to annex them in 1812, but they were technically British so it doesn't count.
SECProto 2y ago
> I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, military or cultural policies that favor US enemies without being strong-armed out of it by the US. I'd say Cuba is the exception that proves this rule
sbsudbdjd 2y ago
(Raised (fake) Canadian, living in the US) I was in Canada last week and I saw a bunch of (real) English and (real) French Canadians. It dawned on me that the French Canadians resemble "redneck" Americans quite a lot more than the English whilst speaking a language that resembles French The English Canadians (I wasn't in a major urban area, so these are what I call "real" Canadians) were quite different. Very reserved, low key and "proper". Unbearably stuffy.
hluska 2y ago
> I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, military or cultural policies that favor US enemies without being strong-armed out of it by the US. Are you familiar with NATO? Clearly Canada wouldn’t do that - Canada can’t. But the existence of a treaty organization does not change how distinct we are. As an example, school shootings. They’re far more rare here than population would dictate.
TMWNN 2y ago
>But countries form through common language, culture, religion, geography, interests or trauma/war. Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart. Canada is indeed an anomaly. I can't think of another circumstance in which two countries that * share land borders * are 95% culturally, economically, and politically identical * do not have longstanding historical grievances against each other have not unified after two centuries; if anything, this fact implies that annexation is more likely than not to occur, perhaps sometime this century. Americans on either side of politics think that Canada is full of super-leftists (and there is no shortage). But were Canada a part of the US in 2016, Trump would have won AB, SK, and quite possibly enough of the GTA (the parts that loved Rob Ford, and as "Ford Country" has repeatedly won the province for Doug Ford) to win ON, the province most resembling MI/WI/PA, the three states that Trump unexpectedly won the election with.
- philistine 2y ago
  My existence as a Québécois helps explain why it hasn't happened. We collectively know that our language and culture are on shaky foundations with the Canadians; we know quick and painful assimilation would await us with the Americans. Canada is a country containing at least two nations, not just one.
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    Sorry; I meant to say "except Quebec" in the "95% identical" line, but it somehow got omitted. When annexation happens I do not expect the US to be interested in Quebec because of language. I suppose that means that sovereignists ought to be in favor of US annexation.
    - philistine 2y ago
      That’s a giant if. How can you be so sure the US would have no interest in Québec? We’re not just a bunch of loser people. We have incredible talent in multiple high-investment fields, we’re the bedrock of hydro power on the continent, and we have the cool city all the Yankees want to see to pretend they went somewhere exotic. The Americans know as much as me that quick and painful assimilation is possible. Why wouldn’t they wish to impose it on my nation?
Tiktaalik 2y ago
Every once in a while I come across some early mid century book that is handwringing about the increased "Americanization" of Canada so I think at some point perhaps there was more distinction. A lot of the anxieties around the free trade debates in the 1980s were about this. But in general the relationships in NA work more North/South than East/West and the construction of Canada is fairly contrived. So while Canadians have a lot in common with Americans just across the border, this may be more regional cultural relationships. I would posit that your typical Seattle area Washingtonian has a more common culture with a nearby Vancouverite than they would with someone from Florida, Texas or New York.

by screye 2y ago

qball 2y ago

>if you've been a stable nation for century+ Quebec has tried to separate twice in the past 50 years, and comes within a Brexit's margin of actually getting it done (and if it wasn't for Montreal, they'd already be gone). The seed of that separation was, naturally, caused by a military conflict between what would become Western Canada and what used to be Upper Canada. Canada isn't actually as stable a country as Ottawa might have you believe.

alephnerd 2y ago
This might make you feel old, but the referendum was 30 years ago, and Black October was 55 years ago. The whole Quebec movement is basically dead in the water now. An entire generation of Canadians didn't exist or don't remember that. I'd argue the GWOT, the Great Recession, and COVID have had a stronger impact on modern (2020s) Canadian politics and discourse than the Quebec Independence Movement.
- qball 2y ago
  >The whole Quebec movement is basically dead in the water now. Quebec's Separatist party has complete electoral dominance (except for Montreal, but Montreal is the least Quebec part of Quebec) and has the ability to force the government's hand on most things. If the Eastern Big City Party loses the next election as is projected (and the Bloc correspondingly loses all of its power) they'll be back.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    PQ has largely transitioned away from soverignity and largely campaigns on culture war issues like Bill 21 and immigration. Only voters who are 65+ are split on soverignity. Every other age demographic overwhelmingly supports remaining in Canada [0] This can be seen with the CAQ, which has poached most of the PQ's leadership and campaigns almost entirely on Bill 21 and immigration [1], not on "Quebec Libre" [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/17/quebec-francois-legault-referendum-00040228 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/17/quebec-francois-leg... [1] - https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bill-21-groups-for-and-against-quebec-secularism-law-react-to-ruling https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bill-21-groups-f...
    - philistine 2y ago
      Are you completely out of the loop that much? The PQ is first in the polls, and has promised a referendum within a first mandate. It's a whole fucking big deal that they managed to lead in polls right now while promising that.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        Polling does prove that it's driven by immigration and culture war concerns, not Sovereignty [0] [0] - https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/mai-2024/sondage-souverainete-parti-quebecois/ https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/mai-2024/sondage...
        philistine 2y ago
        > PQ has largely transitioned away from soverignity[sic] and largely campaigns on culture war issues like Bill 21 and immigration. Your initial point was not that people chose the PQ over language concerns, but that the party had transitioned. The party has done no such thing. It's doubling down on separatism if anything. It's crazy.
Scoundreller 2y ago
The separation vote wasn’t sanctioned by the Feds, so even if they got a majority, it would probably get shut down by the courts. Did you mean Lower Canada instead of Upper Canada?
- TMWNN 2y ago
  >The separation vote wasn’t sanctioned by the Feds, so even if they got a majority, it would probably get shut down by the courts. Had Quebec voted Yes, Quebec City would have immediately declared independence. <https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/tkg5gf/who_has_more_autonomy_canadian_provinces_american/i1s9jgh/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/tkg5gf/who_has_...>
amanwithnoplan 2y ago
I have no idea what "a military conflict between what would become Western Canada and what used to be Upper Canada" refers to unless you meant the northwest and Red River rebellions, in which case it really stretches my (anglo) mind how that has more to do with Quebec separatism than any of the other grievances.
- qball 2y ago
  Closing off any future French-speaking (read: sharing more Quebec values) Western expansion was (and really, still is) actually a big deal.
  - waldohatesyou 2y ago
    Wait isn’t it the opposite? Manitoba was founded as a French Canadian province wasn’t it?
    - sbsudbdjd 2y ago
      but because the natives (metis) spoke French by the time the Brits got there.
  - boringg 2y ago
    I mean it was a smart move for the brits to retain control of language and culture whether you agree with them or not. I don't know how that still is a problem?
boringg 2y ago
It isn't as homogenous a society as an outsider would think but I can assure it’s quite stable as a country. Quebec exiting anytime soon would be annoying for the country but a tragic mistake for quebec especially in seeing how poorly it has workout for the UK which had been an economic engine. Quebec has been sputtering since the 80s after their last referendum vote and since montreal lost its status as a city of import to Toronto. They would go from a poor economic performer to exceptionally poor.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Quebec has been sputtering since the 80s after their last referendum vote and since montreal lost its status as a city of import to Toronto. City of import? Speaking as a tourist at least, Montreal is a much more interesting place to visit than Toronto. Toronto might be larger and have a bigger economy with more industry, but for a tourist I can't think of any reason to visit offhand. >Quebec exiting anytime soon would be annoying for the country but a tragic mistake for quebec especially in seeing how poorly it has workout for the UK which had been an economic engine. Separatists might not be that worried about economic power. Are all the Brexit voters unhappy with their vote now? A few maybe, but most probably are happy to be out of the EU, and blame their continued economic problems on immigrants, the EU, etc.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - neom 2y ago
    Your Toronto/MTL tourism comparison isn't wrong, Toronto is ugly and boring, MTL is beautiful and fun. People love to talk about Quebec and separatism, they can go if they want, but they owe us $300B, so I doubt they are going any time soon, their "country" would likely fall over on go.
    - philistine 2y ago
      What a great way to make me feel Canadian unity. Guess the country's not as stable if fear and threats are how you keep the minorities in line.

mikrl 2y ago

>Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart. It was on the table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red From the Canadian perspective too, don’t think an American annexation of our landmass would go smoothly… Russians and Ukrainians are indistinguishable to an outsider and are currently unleashing centuries of built up ethnic turmoil on each other. Anecdotal: I used to work with very right wing Canadian guys who cursed the name of the last president and called him all manner of names because of the trade war. These were the kind of guys who south of the border would have voted for him and bought the hat. It’s not as simple as shared heritage == shared values.

mandevil 2y ago
The Canadian's had their own counter plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1 It would have been a gigantic failure. The plan was to try and mobilize quickly, seize Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle, and hold on for dear life until the BEF arrived. But the British were clear from the beginning that they were never going to send significant reinforcements to Canada: the ocean was too large, the USN too strong, and the Canadian plains too vast for the British army to be able to effectively defend. At most they might try and send some troops to defend Halifax as a key naval base. So the Canadian plan ensured that their best troops would be lost quickly, that the Americans would be super-pissed off and unified, all for an ending that would never come. So while it might have made sense militarily, it could never have worked politically. The US war plan for the UK was similarly weird: according to Miller, _War Plan Orange_ War Plan Red was the result of a deal between the US Navy and Army. The Navy wanted War Plan Orange (war with Japan) and so they let the Army write War Plan Red (the UK). Which was why a war between the two mightiest naval powers on the planet in 1925 called for the US Navy to be on the defensive, at most seize the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Halifax to try and deny them as bases to the RN, and then the US Army would invade a separate nation (Crimson aka Canada) that would probably try and be neutral in the war! Basically, from what I can tell, the US, Canada, and UK were putting their best war planners on the likely threats, and putting their less experienced and good planners on these war plans. Because War Plan Orange was, at least if you squint, how the US defeated Japan. And the Canadian and UK's war planners for mobilizing in World War Two and sending them to France did a bang-up job. It was just these plans that were not thought through and would have been disasters if implemented.

Der_Einzige 2y ago

If you're advocating for Annexing Canada, or at least Quebec, there's a meaningful amount of support for this within Canada. The only real opposition to this in the USA will come from conservatives who are upset at the large amount of "New Democratic" voters.

mbg721 2y ago
Didn't Doug Ford get elected repeatedly?
- 486sx33 2y ago
  Once, and once during Covid I mean Trudeau got reelected during Covid too because he temporarily relaxed restrictions, just to crank them back into high gear after winning again. Also, Doug ford is no conservative, he’s just liberal lite. A pathetic spineless being
- TMWNN 2y ago
  He has. Americans on either side of politics think that Canada is full of super-leftists (and there is no shortage). But were Canada a part of the US in 2016, Trump would have won AB, SK, and quite possibly enough of the GTA (the parts that loved Rob Ford, and as "Ford Country" has repeatedly won the province for Doug Ford as mentioned) to win ON, the province most resembling MI/WI/PA, the three states that Trump unexpectedly won the election with.

throwup238 2y ago

> no war/trauma keeping them apart. Just this little hiccup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Invasions_of_Canada,_1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Invasions_of_Canad... Although with our cooperation at D-Day maybe Canada considers that water under the bridge.

ojbyrne 2y ago
Also this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Quebec_(1775) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Quebec_(1775)
stackghost 2y ago
Technically we weren't a country in 1812, so if there was bad to be had it'd be with the Brits.

mbg721 2y ago

To me there's an uncanny-valley effect. Maybe it's the Looneys or the kilometres on the road signs, but it definitely feels the tiniest bit different.

t-3 2y ago
Even the "standard Canadian accent" is nearly indistinguishable from the "standard American accent" except for the o's and a few words that have a more British emphasis.
- api_or_ipa 2y ago
  Respectfully, the Canadian accent (really, Canadian English) is noticeable and distinct from US English, in its pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Yes, there is a lot in common with US English, but calling them the same loses an enormous amount of nuance. On the other hand, the difference between a dialect and a language is an army and a navy, neither of which Canada has much of.
- PawgerZ 2y ago
  The "standard Canadian accent" is pretty close to the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota dialects -- sometimes called North-Central American English. Nowhere else in America really talks like that, though, and no one would call it the standard accent. I would say less than 4% of Americans speak with that accent. Midland American English is what we would call the standard American accent. Most of Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and parts of surrounding states speak in this.
  - t-3 2y ago
    What I was referring to with the standard accent is the TV/phone/public speaking accent. The one everyone adopts when you want to sound as "normal" as possible. Colloquially known as "white people voice" among various racial minorities. Local dialects definitely exist, but they're mostly used locally. Cross-region communication is usually "standard".

rerdavies 2y ago

French-Canadians are not anything like English Canadians, except in the minds of English Canadians who don't know any better. English Canadians like to think we are one great nation, but we are in fact two great nations, deeply divided (more than that if you include indigenous peoples, which you should). French-speaking Quebecers self-identify as follows: - Canadians first, and Quebecois second. - Quebecois first, and Canadian second. - Quebecois, and not Canadian at all. The majority of French-speaking Quebecois do not self-identify as being in the first category, and a very significant percentage identify as being in the third category, with a plurality falling into the second category. I think it's safe to say that almost all French Canadians in Quebec identify as culturally Quebecois. I lived in Quebec during the Cultural Revolution in the 80s, and was there for the first referendum, but I left because it became clear that Montreal was a bad place to be if I wanted to raise English-speaking children. In the end, I didn't feel any great need to pay for the sins of centuries of Quebec Anglophones that weren't my ancestors. Once you wander outside of Montreal, into the countryside, dislike of Anglophones is common to the point that it feels almost dangerous, and gets even worse the closer you get to Quebec City. In my experience, tolerance of Anglophones in Montreal has decreased dramatically in recent years. I was in a clothing store on St. Catherine, neer Bishop Street (once the heart of Anglophone Montreal). When two American tourists came in, and asked for help, the young shopkeeper responded: "On ne parle pas Anglais ici" (one does not speak English here). A friend of mine graduated from a high school in Westmount (home to the Anglophone elite, most pointedly hated by Francophones). He said that of his friends in high school, none had remained in Quebec, because even though all of them spoke fluent French, being Anglophones, they were not able to find jobs.

yurishimo 2y ago
What are some more resources you would recommend to learn more about this topic? A documentary or book would be awesome (or youtube channels, blogs, etc)!
belval 2y ago
The first part of your comment was pretty spot on, but the rest I think is biased from living here in a different time, the populated areas around Montreal (Brossard, Laval especially) all have significant English-speaking-only populations. In downtown during lunch time it's pretty much 50/50 whether the fast food/cafe worker will speak French at all.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart We tried to annex them in 1812, but they were technically British so it doesn't count.

SECProto 2y ago

> I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, military or cultural policies that favor US enemies without being strong-armed out of it by the US. I'd say Cuba is the exception that proves this rule

sbsudbdjd 2y ago

(Raised (fake) Canadian, living in the US) I was in Canada last week and I saw a bunch of (real) English and (real) French Canadians. It dawned on me that the French Canadians resemble "redneck" Americans quite a lot more than the English whilst speaking a language that resembles French The English Canadians (I wasn't in a major urban area, so these are what I call "real" Canadians) were quite different. Very reserved, low key and "proper". Unbearably stuffy.

hluska 2y ago

> I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, military or cultural policies that favor US enemies without being strong-armed out of it by the US. Are you familiar with NATO? Clearly Canada wouldn’t do that - Canada can’t. But the existence of a treaty organization does not change how distinct we are. As an example, school shootings. They’re far more rare here than population would dictate.

TMWNN 2y ago

>But countries form through common language, culture, religion, geography, interests or trauma/war. Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart. Canada is indeed an anomaly. I can't think of another circumstance in which two countries that * share land borders * are 95% culturally, economically, and politically identical * do not have longstanding historical grievances against each other have not unified after two centuries; if anything, this fact implies that annexation is more likely than not to occur, perhaps sometime this century. Americans on either side of politics think that Canada is full of super-leftists (and there is no shortage). But were Canada a part of the US in 2016, Trump would have won AB, SK, and quite possibly enough of the GTA (the parts that loved Rob Ford, and as "Ford Country" has repeatedly won the province for Doug Ford) to win ON, the province most resembling MI/WI/PA, the three states that Trump unexpectedly won the election with.

philistine 2y ago
My existence as a Québécois helps explain why it hasn't happened. We collectively know that our language and culture are on shaky foundations with the Canadians; we know quick and painful assimilation would await us with the Americans. Canada is a country containing at least two nations, not just one.
- TMWNN 2y ago
  Sorry; I meant to say "except Quebec" in the "95% identical" line, but it somehow got omitted. When annexation happens I do not expect the US to be interested in Quebec because of language. I suppose that means that sovereignists ought to be in favor of US annexation.
  - philistine 2y ago
    That’s a giant if. How can you be so sure the US would have no interest in Québec? We’re not just a bunch of loser people. We have incredible talent in multiple high-investment fields, we’re the bedrock of hydro power on the continent, and we have the cool city all the Yankees want to see to pretend they went somewhere exotic. The Americans know as much as me that quick and painful assimilation is possible. Why wouldn’t they wish to impose it on my nation?

Tiktaalik 2y ago

Every once in a while I come across some early mid century book that is handwringing about the increased "Americanization" of Canada so I think at some point perhaps there was more distinction. A lot of the anxieties around the free trade debates in the 1980s were about this. But in general the relationships in NA work more North/South than East/West and the construction of Canada is fairly contrived. So while Canadians have a lot in common with Americans just across the border, this may be more regional cultural relationships. I would posit that your typical Seattle area Washingtonian has a more common culture with a nearby Vancouverite than they would with someone from Florida, Texas or New York.