2 ms·

If I’m Canada I look for a trade agreement rather than associate membership - no reason to put your eggs in one basket. As an American, I continue to be sad an

If I’m Canada I look for a trade agreement rather than associate membership - no reason to put your eggs in one basket. As an American, I continue to be sad and tired that our current president is somehow allowed to unilaterally destroy a very successful and thriving trade partner via arbitrary tariffs that have already been ruled illegal and while it doesn’t make a damned bit of difference I’m sorry about it.

cmrdporcupine 10d ago
We have that trade agreement (CETA). Negotiated by the Trudeau gov't a long time ago. Notably many member states (incl. France) have not fully ratified it. The majority of its benefits are in place but not all. Which doesn't bode well for the actual on the ground reality of any "associate member status." I expect it will be mostly symbolic/diplomatic. (Which is also fine)
gostsamo 10d ago
funnily, they already have a trade agreement, though not fully ratified.
diego_moita 10d ago
> I continue to be sad Don't be. Trump is a necessary and welcome wake up call. We Canadians needed Trump's shock of reality. The truth is that, for more than a century, the main trait of being Canadian was simply not being American and not trusting Americans. In 1775 George Washington ordered the invasion of southern Quebec and we resisted. After the American revolution we received an huge influx of Loyalists, the Americans that didn't want to be part of the U.S.; we say the American Revolution created 2 countries: yours and ours. In 1812 Americans raised war against us, as a continuation of the Napoleonic wars. Although we were still a British colony, we fought back, invaded Washington DC and set the White House on fire. In 1890, the McKinley Tariffs were meant to subjugate us, the same way Trump wants to do now [1]. They backfired, made us stronger. But in the 80's the Reagan-Mulroney trade agreement fooled us. We became too reliant, friendly and confident to the Americans. It was a dangerous illusion. The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans. Luckily for us, Trump reminded us that lesson on time, before it would be too late. [1] https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-u-s-tariff-act-of-1890-was-meant-to-hurt-canada-instead-it-made-us-stronger/ https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-u-s-tariff-act-of...
- cmrdporcupine 10d ago
  > The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans The Haudenosaunee Confederacy probably learned this the strongest. And more even than the Loyalists help build this country. Or I'm more conscious of this as I live in a place where Joseph Brant's (Thayendanegea) name is all over the place. But they -- and Britain's other indigenous "allies" in the US interior -- also learned the hard way that the British couldn't be trusted either. The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them ; which the British were formerly allied with. And while the Iroquois were granted all extensive lands along the Grand river as reward for helping fight the Americans in 1784 (Haldimand proclamation) -- they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be. No good guys.
  - llm_nerd 10d ago
    > The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them The British tried to create a native "buffer" zone. The Americans refused, and the British were ultimately in no position to make this happen. Instead they implemented article IX that demanded that the US return all entitlements, possessions, lands, and so on to natives as they were in 1811. The US agreed. And then ignored it. The British were in no position to "let" or "prohibit" anything within the US or its territories. > they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be. They literally sold it off, for their own benefit, as a free peoples with agency. There is extraordinary little controversy about this. And FWIW, the British bought that land from another tribe, and then moved a tribe -- one that had slaves, btw, and Joseph Brant was a notorious slaver -- in basically as refugees. There are tiny areas where there is a contention that whatever band leader was in charge was illegitimate, but the vast majority of the transactions are settled historic record that absolutely no one has under doubt. A group of people had a lot of land and not much to do with it, so when other groups made offers for it they were onboard. "Chipped away" is quite a hilarious misrepresentation of this. It actually sounds comically racist, like you're the "good guy" who is here to tell them that what they did with their own stuff was wrong. It's interesting how patronizing both your points are. The British were both responsible for American actions, and then in the future were responsible for Mohawk actions. All lesser peoples have no agency or self-control, and need to be limited and directed by the apparently superior, all-knowing British. My ancestors here in Ontario owned large tracts of land. Over centuries they sold it off. "Chipped away". No good guys, right? Give me back my land. The British should have stopped them from selling, because surely hundreds of years later it might be worth more?

cmrdporcupine 10d ago

We have that trade agreement (CETA). Negotiated by the Trudeau gov't a long time ago. Notably many member states (incl. France) have not fully ratified it. The majority of its benefits are in place but not all. Which doesn't bode well for the actual on the ground reality of any "associate member status." I expect it will be mostly symbolic/diplomatic. (Which is also fine)

gostsamo 10d ago

funnily, they already have a trade agreement, though not fully ratified.

diego_moita 10d ago

> I continue to be sad Don't be. Trump is a necessary and welcome wake up call. We Canadians needed Trump's shock of reality. The truth is that, for more than a century, the main trait of being Canadian was simply not being American and not trusting Americans. In 1775 George Washington ordered the invasion of southern Quebec and we resisted. After the American revolution we received an huge influx of Loyalists, the Americans that didn't want to be part of the U.S.; we say the American Revolution created 2 countries: yours and ours. In 1812 Americans raised war against us, as a continuation of the Napoleonic wars. Although we were still a British colony, we fought back, invaded Washington DC and set the White House on fire. In 1890, the McKinley Tariffs were meant to subjugate us, the same way Trump wants to do now [1]. They backfired, made us stronger. But in the 80's the Reagan-Mulroney trade agreement fooled us. We became too reliant, friendly and confident to the Americans. It was a dangerous illusion. The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans. Luckily for us, Trump reminded us that lesson on time, before it would be too late. [1] https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-u-s-tariff-act-of-1890-was-meant-to-hurt-canada-instead-it-made-us-stronger/ https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-u-s-tariff-act-of...

cmrdporcupine 10d ago
> The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans The Haudenosaunee Confederacy probably learned this the strongest. And more even than the Loyalists help build this country. Or I'm more conscious of this as I live in a place where Joseph Brant's (Thayendanegea) name is all over the place. But they -- and Britain's other indigenous "allies" in the US interior -- also learned the hard way that the British couldn't be trusted either. The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them ; which the British were formerly allied with. And while the Iroquois were granted all extensive lands along the Grand river as reward for helping fight the Americans in 1784 (Haldimand proclamation) -- they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be. No good guys.
- llm_nerd 10d ago
  > The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them The British tried to create a native "buffer" zone. The Americans refused, and the British were ultimately in no position to make this happen. Instead they implemented article IX that demanded that the US return all entitlements, possessions, lands, and so on to natives as they were in 1811. The US agreed. And then ignored it. The British were in no position to "let" or "prohibit" anything within the US or its territories. > they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be. They literally sold it off, for their own benefit, as a free peoples with agency. There is extraordinary little controversy about this. And FWIW, the British bought that land from another tribe, and then moved a tribe -- one that had slaves, btw, and Joseph Brant was a notorious slaver -- in basically as refugees. There are tiny areas where there is a contention that whatever band leader was in charge was illegitimate, but the vast majority of the transactions are settled historic record that absolutely no one has under doubt. A group of people had a lot of land and not much to do with it, so when other groups made offers for it they were onboard. "Chipped away" is quite a hilarious misrepresentation of this. It actually sounds comically racist, like you're the "good guy" who is here to tell them that what they did with their own stuff was wrong. It's interesting how patronizing both your points are. The British were both responsible for American actions, and then in the future were responsible for Mohawk actions. All lesser peoples have no agency or self-control, and need to be limited and directed by the apparently superior, all-knowing British. My ancestors here in Ontario owned large tracts of land. Over centuries they sold it off. "Chipped away". No good guys, right? Give me back my land. The British should have stopped them from selling, because surely hundreds of years later it might be worth more?