Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to have >finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article written in
response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was interrupted to
announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing on Israel. The
crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the article.)
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
racists. Look where that's gotten us!
He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be a
good start. A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of any >naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
deporting them too. There would obviously need to be very serious
discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
to start to move on this.
Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to have >finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article written in
response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was interrupted to
announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing on Israel. The
crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the article.)
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
racists. Look where that's gotten us!
He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be a
good start.
A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of any >naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
deporting them too.
There would obviously need to be very serious
discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
to start to move on this.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was >interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the >article.)
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
racists. Look where that's gotten us!
The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.
Many
immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution and
war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had
essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't want
to go to.
But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to the "melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th century
and much of the 20th century accused Catholics -- especially Irish
ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and therefore disloyal.
This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous administration to put in his own clan.
That and certain very public
celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no
reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the
Americas).
Not everything melted. But what everybody found in America, at least
after the first generation which may have organized gangs for, er,
community protection, was that everybody got along because they never
gave a shit about European national rivalries to begin with (except
for soccer). Norwegians and Swedes get along. Pakistani and Indians
get along. We managed to find new rivalries but artificial attempts to preserve old world culture couldn't possibly counteract that.
He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed >ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be
a good start.
Of course I agree.
A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of
any naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then >deporting them too.
Conviction of a felony, lying on immigration papers about having
committed felonies in the old country (for crimes that would have been
crimes in the new world, not just laws oppressing citizens), the usual reasons.
There would obviously need to be very serious
discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
to start to move on this.
Aren't these laws already on the books?
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was
interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the
article.)
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
racists. Look where that's gotten us!
The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.
Many
immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution and
war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had
essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't want
to go to.
But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to the
"melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th century
and much of the 20th century accused Catholics -- especially Irish
ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and therefore disloyal.
I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all >Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
true?
This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous
administration to put in his own clan.
Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.
That and certain very public
celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no
reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the
Americas).
Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s; prior
to that, there were a variety of Italian states. (Much the same was the
case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of the >Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)
The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to
Christianity to fit it. Whatever concerns they must have had about >persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
still felt they could practice their religion here.
Not everything melted. But what everybody found in America, at least
after the first generation which may have organized gangs for, er,
community protection, was that everybody got along because they never
gave a shit about European national rivalries to begin with (except
for soccer). Norwegians and Swedes get along. Pakistani and Indians
get along. We managed to find new rivalries but artificial attempts to
preserve old world culture couldn't possibly counteract that.
I think this was largely true in Canada too, but with some exceptions.
First, tensions between francophones and everyone else seem to have
been a feature of life in this country since the British took over by
the end of the Seven Years War. The francophones were never really >assimilated but that's a delicate topic in our history so I honestly
don't know to what extent the British even tried. I suspect they didn't
think they could force assimilation too readily when the majority of
the population were francophones.
Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in BC
blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely people
from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the Golden
Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an independent
Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions between Sikhs and
Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a source of tension
between Canada and India given that Modi deplores the idea of an
independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to defend the right of
Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.
Yes.He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be
a good start.
Of course I agree.
A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of
any naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
deporting them too.
Conviction of a felony, lying on immigration papers about having
committed felonies in the old country (for crimes that would have been
crimes in the new world, not just laws oppressing citizens), the usual
reasons.
There would obviously need to be very serious
discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
to start to move on this.
Aren't these laws already on the books?
These laws may exist but the politicians and/or courts are extremely >reluctant to invoke them. As Horny Goat pointed out, they were used to
deport Ernst Zundel, a neo-Nazi, back to Germany when he was a pain in
the ass here, and they also TRIED to use it to deport some alleged
Holocaust perpetrators back to Germany but largely failed. (For
instance, Helmut Oberlander, a successful property developer in my
hometown was supposed to be stripped of his citizenship and sent back
to trial in Germany but he fought it in the courts; the legal
precedings were still ongoing despite years of efforts when he finally
died here in Canada at 104.
I think our courts are reluctant to prosecute things that risk
citizenship becase their political masters are inevitably going to be >extremely cautious about the consequences. I don't think they're going
to want voters to worry that the citizenships they earned are going to
be forfeit for any but the most serious offenses. We have a very large >percentage of naturalized citizens and residents that are going through
the naturalization process. A party that seems ready to toss people out
of the country after they've undergone the dislocation involved in >immigrating, probably learning a new language, probably struggling to >requalify in their old profession or often taken on a whole new one
would risk grave issues at election time!
Any legislation that proposed stripping people of citizenship would
have to be the result of a strong concensus of practically everyone if
it isn't going to become an anchor around the neck of just the dominant
party in Parliament.
Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was >>>interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the >>>article.)
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as >>>racists. Look where that's gotten us!
The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.
That's an interesting thing to say. I've never heard it stated that
way but it's important to say it to make clear that the melting pot
idea was an expectation of many Americans but not something mandated by
the federal or state governments.
Many
immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution and
war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had >>essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't want
to go to.
But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to the >>"melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th century
and much of the 20th century accused Catholics -- especially Irish
ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and therefore disloyal.
I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all >Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
true?
This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous >>administration to put in his own clan.
Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.
That and certain very public
celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no >>reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the >>Americas).
Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s; prior
to that, there were a variety of Italian states.
(Much the same was the
case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of the >Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)
The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to
Christianity to fit it.
Whatever concerns they must have had about
persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
still felt they could practice their religion here.
. . .
Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in BC
blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely people
from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the Golden
Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an independent
Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions between Sikhs and
Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a source of tension
between Canada and India given that Modi deplores the idea of an
independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to defend the right of
Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.
. . .
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all >>Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
true?
It's an insult, accusing Catholics of being disloyal, having a higher >allegiance to the Church and its head of state the Pope than to their
own country. Have you ever heard a Catholic describe himself that way?
This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large >>>numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous >>>administration to put in his own clan.
Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.
That and certain very public
celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no >>>reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the >>>Americas).
Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s; prior
to that, there were a variety of Italian states.
Right. Columbus was from Genoa and as far as I know, when he set sail
isn't celebrated there with a national holiday.
(Much the same was the
case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of the >>Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)
Lied der Deutschen (Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles), the national >anthem, was originally expressing a desire for a free German people to
unify in a free republic in a liberal society. They were calling the >remaining princes and others opposed to unification selfish, putting
their own interest above society. Of course, the way Germany united --
under a strong man after yet another war -- wasn't what they had in mind,
It was a nice sentiment before it was perverted, and you can't go wrong >setting your national anthem to the music of Haydn rather than a
drinking song.
The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to >>Christianity to fit it.
But that would have been un-American. We may have had cultural assimilation >to a greater or lesser extent, not religious assimilation. Which >Protestantism anyway? There are lots of choices, and some are very
different from each other.
No national church and no king are two of the greatest gifts our
Founding Fathers gave us.
Whatever concerns they must have had about
persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
still felt they could practice their religion here.
It was nothing like Europe.
. . .
Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in BC
blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely people >>from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the Golden
Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an independent
Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions between Sikhs and
Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a source of tension
between Canada and India given that Modi deplores the idea of an >>independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to defend the right of
Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.
He does? That worked out just great in Yugoslavia. He should keep his
mouth shut.
. . .
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was >>>interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were
landing on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video
included in the article.)
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as >>>racists. Look where that's gotten us!
The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.
That's an interesting thing to say. I've never heard it stated that
way but it's important to say it to make clear that the melting pot
idea was an expectation of many Americans but not something mandated
by the federal or state governments.
Many
immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly >>motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution
and war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had >>essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't
want to go to.
But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to
the "melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th >>century and much of the 20th century accused Catholics --
especially Irish ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and
therefore disloyal.
I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all >Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
true?
It's an insult, accusing Catholics of being disloyal, having a higher allegiance to the Church and its head of state the Pope than to their
own country. Have you ever heard a Catholic describe himself that way?
This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large >>numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous >>administration to put in his own clan.
Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.
That and certain very public
celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's
no reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the >>Americas).
Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s;
prior to that, there were a variety of Italian states.
Right. Columbus was from Genoa and as far as I know, when he set sail
isn't celebrated there with a national holiday.
(Much the same was the
case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of
the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)
Lied der Deutschen (Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles), the national anthem, was originally expressing a desire for a free German people to
unify in a free republic in a liberal society. They were calling the remaining princes and others opposed to unification selfish, putting
their own interest above society. Of course, the way Germany united --
under a strong man after yet another war -- wasn't what they had in
mind,
It was a nice sentiment before it was perverted, and you can't go
wrong setting your national anthem to the music of Haydn rather than a drinking song.
The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to >Christianity to fit it.
But that would have been un-American. We may have had cultural
assimilation to a greater or lesser extent, not religious
assimilation. Which Protestantism anyway? There are lots of choices,
and some are very different from each other.
No national church and no king are two of the greatest gifts our
Founding Fathers gave us.
Whatever concerns they must have had about
persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
still felt they could practice their religion here.
It was nothing like Europe.
. . .
Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in
BC blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely
people from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the
Golden Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an >independent Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions
between Sikhs and Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a
source of tension between Canada and India given that Modi deplores
the idea of an independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to
defend the right of Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.
He does? That worked out just great in Yugoslavia. He should keep his
mouth shut.
Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:13:00 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was >>>>interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the >>>>article.)
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as >>>>racists. Look where that's gotten us!
The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.
I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has always
been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many more
states than Canadian provinces.
. . .
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:13:00 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has always
been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many more
states than Canadian provinces.
No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
federation like the United States.
. . .
Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has always
been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many more
states than Canadian provinces.
No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
federation like the United States.
Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
history of British Columbia, my home province.
Got the same impression
when I visited the PEI Legislature back in 2004. The difference
between BC and PEI is that BC started small (population-wise) and
became relatively big (at least by Canadian standards) at 5 m vs PEI
which started small and remained small (population roughly 130k) - one
grew, the other really didn't. Land size wasn't really a factor in BC
as 90+% of the population is within 100 miles of Vancouver (which
happens to be the largest Canadian port not only on the west coast but
in Canada - and larger than #2, #3, #4, and #5 combined at least in
terms of annual tonnage moved)
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has
always been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many
more states than Canadian provinces.
No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary >>federation like the United States.
Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
history of British Columbia, my home province.
I stand corrected. Your province voluntarily federated with the
Dominion of Canada. Of course the price was construction of the
Canadian Pacific Railroad on that useless all-Canada route instead of
heading toward St. Paul to get to Chicago, which is what would have
happened if they'd federated with the United States instead.
Got the same impression
when I visited the PEI Legislature back in 2004. The difference
between BC and PEI is that BC started small (population-wise) and
became relatively big (at least by Canadian standards) at 5 m vs PEI
which started small and remained small (population roughly 130k) -
one grew, the other really didn't. Land size wasn't really a factor
in BC as 90+% of the population is within 100 miles of Vancouver
(which happens to be the largest Canadian port not only on the west
coast but in Canada - and larger than #2, #3, #4, and #5 combined at
least in terms of annual tonnage moved)
Ok. I just read the brief political history of Prince Edward Island on
its Wikipedia page. Federation into the Dominion of Canada wasn't
desired on the terms offered and they remained a colony and briefly
explored federation with the United States. Basically, they had a
series of financial scandals, starting with all of its land having
been gifted to political supporters of George III who intended to run
the place under feudal law. They were all bought out over close to a
century. Then they had an unaffordable debt for railroad construction.
They joined Canada and not the United States not as a voluntary
association of equals nor in the best interest of both parties, but
having been bought out. This is comparable to the purchases of
Louisiana and Alaska by the United States and not voluntary
federation.
It set the stage for bailing Newfoundland out and its joining Canada,
which was not voluntary in any way.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:21:50 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has
always been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many
more states than Canadian provinces.
No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
federation like the United States.
Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
history of British Columbia, my home province.
I stand corrected. Your province voluntarily federated with the
Dominion of Canada. Of course the price was construction of the
Canadian Pacific Railroad on that useless all-Canada route instead of
heading toward St. Paul to get to Chicago, which is what would have
happened if they'd federated with the United States instead.
Got the same impression
when I visited the PEI Legislature back in 2004. The difference
between BC and PEI is that BC started small (population-wise) and
became relatively big (at least by Canadian standards) at 5 m vs PEI
which started small and remained small (population roughly 130k) -
one grew, the other really didn't. Land size wasn't really a factor
in BC as 90+% of the population is within 100 miles of Vancouver
(which happens to be the largest Canadian port not only on the west
coast but in Canada - and larger than #2, #3, #4, and #5 combined at
least in terms of annual tonnage moved)
Ok. I just read the brief political history of Prince Edward Island on
its Wikipedia page. Federation into the Dominion of Canada wasn't
desired on the terms offered and they remained a colony and briefly
explored federation with the United States. Basically, they had a
series of financial scandals, starting with all of its land having
been gifted to political supporters of George III who intended to run
the place under feudal law. They were all bought out over close to a
century. Then they had an unaffordable debt for railroad construction.
They joined Canada and not the United States not as a voluntary
association of equals nor in the best interest of both parties, but
having been bought out. This is comparable to the purchases of
Louisiana and Alaska by the United States and not voluntary
federation.
It set the stage for bailing Newfoundland out and its joining Canada,
which was not voluntary in any way.
I think you're missing some facts. Newfoundland got independence from
the British in 1907 and was a full Dominion. Then the Great Depression
came along and Newfoundland couldn't make a go of things and returned
to being dependent on the British.
After WWII, Britain encouraged
Newfoundland to stand on its own two feet again. Three different
ideas materialized: become a standalone country again; join Canada or
join the US. A referendum was held offering all three options and the >"standalone country" option won. Since none of the choices got 50%
of vote, a second referendum was held offering only "standalone
country" or "join Canada", which were the two most popular options
from the 1st referendum. This time, "join Canada" won. If the referenda >results had been different, presumably Newfoundland's fate would also
have been different. I'd call that democracy in action!
Let's see if Quebec asks to leave Canada and federate with the US. I'll
bet London wouldn't care at this point.
Tue, 16 Apr 2024 05:04:13 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Let's see if Quebec asks to leave Canada and federate with the US. I'll
bet London wouldn't care at this point.
Likely true though even more likely Washington would never in a
gazillion years accept the Charter of the French Language. The US
would be far more likely to accept Scotland (EU and all) than Quebec.
(sarcasm off)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 300 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 70:21:03 |
Calls: | 6,712 |
Files: | 12,244 |
Messages: | 5,356,840 |