Why did a united North America not form?

[notyoueither]

We're holding Jimmy hostage. Our demands are that three different Americans must salute the Governor General.

[vomitus]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Vomitus, please, no generalisations. There has been reasoning above which answered your question: "same language, same culture", and that's the point to start. The Balkans have many different peoples and cultures and can't be compared with North America. Or why did East Germany join with the west? Why does Austria not?

The USA has given an example on how to integrate many different nations and cultures. Now they have to find a way to continue, having gone down the wrong way for several decades. USA c19 USA c20 USA c21

"Balkanization" refers to countries being separated; I'm not trying to talk about the Balkans. Let me describe it a different way. There is no reason why separate countries that share culture should become unified. Countries prefer to remain independent. Unifying is traditionally what countries do NOT do.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by vomitus
There is no reason why separate countries that share culture should become unified.

Yes there is. It's called nationalism, the belief that the same people should be united under one state, their own state.

[Richelieu]

Conneries...

[Seeker]

The reason that a united BNA (British North America) did not form is because of short-sighted money-grubbing shopkeepers in London who failed to invest the required money and backbone into breaking the spirit of the Americans, protecting the rights of property, and enforcing the law.

Such a relatively small effort and we could've headed off the whole abortive american experiment, there would be no civil war, no indian wars (or not as much) and probably no world wars given such massive Empire superiority. The failure of the backstabbers in london thwarted a golden age of anglo-saxon civilization, and lead directly to our present vulgar age.

[Tingkai]

I've often wondered why the U.S. hasn't joined Canada.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I've often wondered why the U.S. hasn't joined Canada.

you've never invited us!

[Ecthy]

vomit

che

[techumseh]

How could you post a thread like this while I'm gone for the weekend?

The easy answer is "We won the War of 1812."

A better answer is that we've built a bi-national, multicultural, socially progressive, peace loving and tolerant society on the northern half of this continent, and the majority of our population looks at American society and says, "No thanks!"

[MrFun]

Re: Why did a united North America not form?

Originally posted by Gangerolf

Same language, same culture, why not the same country.

Talk about a grossly, oversimplifying statement.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes there is. It's called nationalism, the belief that the same people should be united under one state, their own state.

Which is why 19th c German nationalists, no pansies, were gung ho to annex Switzerland?? Not.

Nationalism usually leads A. The co "nationals" to appeal across borders for help from their national big brother - and B. Big brother to come feel obliged to come and help. Where no one among the conationals calls to big brother, big brother is not inclined to help.

This means that nationalism is much more powerful when the conationals are living as a minority, and big brother acts as protector. It SOMETIMES means the annexation of smaller conational states - the principal examples are 19th c Italy, 19th c Germany, the German-Austrian Anschluss, and the reunification of Germany in 1991.

Note that three of the four examples involve Germans.


In the case of Italy, the existing small states were undemocratic and illiberal, esp Naples and the Papal Staes, and the House of Savoy could appeal on liberal, as well as national grounds. Venice and Milan were under Austrian (foreign) rule. Even so the "nationalism" of Italians beyond a limited class sector was meager, accounting for much of Italys troubled political history.

Germany first round of unification (the north) was similar to Italy's. The second round was pulled off only during a war against France, and had elements of middle class coup against the existing regimes.

Austria - German nationalists in Austria had appealed to Germany when Austria was just part of a sort of non-nationalist (but also sort of German-Magyar condominium) AH. When little Austria was left on its own most Austrian voters supported one of two internationalist ideologies = catholicism, or Marxism. The German nationalists there were not enthused about little austria, and disliked both the Marxists and Catholics. Even so the appeal from the "conationals"probably wouldnt have led to anschluss if Germany in 1937 had a democratic regime.

1991 - east Germany was an creation of the disliked Russians, and so had little loyalty as such. Even so it might have survived had not many east Germans expected reunification to lead to economic benefits.

Much more overwhelming are the cases where common language and religion, though politically important, do NOT lead to state unifications - Latin America and the Arab world stand out.

Canada, unlike East Germany was a creation of a well liked country (britain) and was economically relatively strong. Canada, from 1837, and esp 1867, was relatively democratic, so there was no need for liberal Canadians to look south for help against an illiberal regime. And the US was never economically so ahead that their was real economic reason to join. And of course open migration served as a reinforcer of differences to some degree - Canadians who were especially drawn to the US way of life had the tendency to move to the US, and a good proportion of the ones who moved the other way, from united empire loyalists to 1960s draft evaders were making a concious decison NOT to be part of the US.

It is a fact in 1775 there WERE Canadians who supported the US invasion - a minority (?) of French canadians who helped the Continental army, and settlers of New England origin who launched their own little rebellion in Nova Scotia. This corresponds to the large number of UELs in the 13 colonies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Seeker
The reason that a united BNA (British North America) did not form is because of short-sighted money-grubbing shopkeepers in London who failed to invest the required money and backbone into breaking the spirit of the Americans, protecting the rights of property, and enforcing the law.

Such a relatively small effort and we could've headed off the whole abortive american experiment, there would be no civil war, no indian wars (or not as much) and probably no world wars given such massive Empire superiority. The failure of the backstabbers in london thwarted a golden age of anglo-saxon civilization, and lead directly to our present vulgar age.

why would there have been no civil war? UK abolished slavery easily, in 1832, cause the Sugar islands didnt have enough clout in London post reform act, and were too small and vulnerable to rebel. If 1832 presents London with Sugar islands, the slave owning mainland colonies, AND a very discontented New England there might well have been new fire works. In fact its not clear there would have been a reform act of 1830. In fact, the entire course of the French revolution might have gone differently, if it happened at all.


as for the Indians, there would likely have been wars when the lands west of the Appalachians were opened up. If theyre NOT opened up, you dont get the same empire superiority.

Lots of other things go off in different directions, from the nature of imperial rule, to the brit presence in India, to migration patterns and patterns of economic development.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Who says in of themselves either Canada or the USA are currently united?

[lord of the mark]

short answer

1812
Uncle Sam to Canada - we share language culture and religion, shouldnt we all be on one state
Canadian son of a loyalist to Uncle Sam - Precisely - isnt that what we said 35 years ago? For which, you tossed as out? NOW, you say otherwise?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Which is why 19th c German nationalists, no pansies, were gung ho to annex Switzerland?? Not.

The problem here is that you make the assumption that the German-speaking Swiss were more attracted to German nationalism than to Swiss nationalism. That would be a mistake. The Swiss are an example of nationalism that is contra to the German and Italian experiences, with mulitple language groups thinking of themselves not as three seperate nations (ala the Walloons and Flemish in Belgium) but one nation, the Swiss.

Tell a German-speaking Swiss that he's a German and you will not have made a friend, let me assure you.