• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

The Future of North America

How many country should there be in North America?

  • One : The United States (annexing everyone else).

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • One : A fair and equal union of the North American States

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Two : The United States of Canada and Mexico

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Two : The United States and Mexinada

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Two : The United States of Mexico and Canada

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Three : As it stands now (Canada, Mexico, States)

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • Three : United States of English North America, Mexico, Québec

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Three : Another combination involving two present state merging and one splinter state.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Three : Canada+Blue States, Red States and Mexico

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Four : Canada, Blue States, Red States, Mexico.

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Five : Canada, Québec, Red States, Blue States, Mexico

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Some other combination

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • I don't care, as long as my present State/Province/Territory remain part of its current Nation

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • I don't care, as long as my current State/Province/Territory gets to be independant

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Ninety-two (Ninety-four counting Hawaii and PEI)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    19
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,778
Reaction score
1,046
North America : 3 countries. 4 major cultures (5 if you count the natives), 92 political subdivisions (94 if one counts Prince Edward Island and Hawaii).

Are the current political divisions of North America appropriate, or not? Independance movement (of varying strength), and strong regional autonomy movement exists in several of the states and provinces. Are you in favor of any of them? Would you like to rearrange the map of North America? Vote now!
 
Last edited:
I would say a five country system could work. While, a break up of the United States is not desired, I wouldn't stand in its way. And I'd support Quebec indipendance if they voted for it.
 
Four major founding cultures? Which are you counting?

(Still hoping for Massachusetts independence... I do NOT like/trust the federal government, nor do I see what good it still does us, though I see a lot of restrictive policies undermining our ways for red-state morality.)
 
A Figment said:
North America : 3 countries. 4 major founding cultures (5 if you count the natives), 92 political subdivisions (94 if one counts Prince Edward Island and Hawaii).
Click to expand...

Wait...does the Caribbean not count as part of North America? Cause if not, then how many continents do we have again?

Birdboy2000 said:
Four major founding cultures? Which are you counting?
Click to expand...

He should be referring to English, French, Spanish, and...Dutch? Who am I forgetting? I know I got the big three that were the basis for the three major countries in this continent. The Dutch certainly played their role. The Portuguese had no role. The Norse had a small impact, but nothing substantial. The Russians are the same as the Norse unless there's some piece of Canadian/Alaskan history I'm forgetting. The Chinese had a fairly big role on the west coast, but that was after immigration. The Germans were too busy with Africa. The Austrians...I dunno what in the hell they were doing. The Polish were between being conquered. I guess African could be a possible fourth, but...that's debatable. And you'd HAVE to throw in the Native cultures before them.

But personally, I'm all about eliminating borders wherever possible. Borders only serve to divide people, and when people are divided, hate arises.
 
Yeah, but when no borders mean one government, and when that one government has an electorate big enough to not need votes from certain areas, those areas can be neglected and even have their own democratically-chosen laws overrode.
 
African is the group I ranked as fourth.

The reason why they sneak in ahead of the Natives is a simple case of there not really being a unified American Native culture, whereas there can be said to be such a thing as an African-American culture.
 
Not really. I mean, it was only through being shoved together for 200 years that you had an African culture. And it was only until this past century that there was any REAL influence. Natives have been influencing our culture since the beginning. The Boston Tea Party (to use the most obvious and easiest example), the evolution of Mexicans (they're the result of natives interbreeding with Spaniards) and their culture, and the countless still-practicing Natives of Canada. And, when you're fighting someone for 200+ years, it's hard to NOT be influenced by them. True, there was no REAL unfication (outside of the countless alliances and the REALLY big one that was here when the first settlers arrived, but whose name I can't remember and don't feel like getting up and looking for), but without them, most of the settlers died within their first year. Plus, the first slaves were natives. Africans were brought in later, when they realized that you can't imprison a person in their own land and hope to keep them. And I'll stop there before I go off on a REALLY long tangent that will end with me sounding insane.
 
The problem is that it is not NATIVE culture that influenced them, but Mayan culture, Aztec culture, Iroquois culture, etc, depending on where in N-Am you are. Grouping them as "Native Culture" is like grouping Fr-Sp-En as "European Culture", when the distinction between the three major culture is very clear.

Opposedly you can't split up the African-American culture like that. You can't identify Ashante culture or whatever in N-Am, except from very recent immigration, and then only in minute amount - what african influence there is come from the mishmashed whole that can best be termed as African culture.
 
Cause if not, then how many continents do we have again?
Could this be considered an invitation to post the geography debate from AIM, Damian? ;-)
 
Oh God.

The Carribeans are islands and not part of any continents :-p
 
I was unaware of the states even being in danger of being split up.
 
A Figment said:
Opposedly you can't split up the African-American culture like that. You can't identify Ashante culture or whatever in N-Am, except from very recent immigration, and then only in minute amount - what african influence there is come from the mishmashed whole that can best be termed as African culture.
Click to expand...

True, but if you can't divide African culture, then how can you really count it on the same level as French, English, Spanish, etc? Just because we're not sure where, specifically, some of these cultural elements came from doesn't mean that we can just lump them together and call it a day. I'm certainly not trying to ignore the cultural significance of the African slaves, because it's very clear and very tangible, and historical significance is even more so. BUT, you can't just lump all these tribes together just because there's no way to separate them, and NOT lump all the Native American tribes together because we CAN separate them.

There was plenty of intermingling between Native American tribes before the Europeans came or after they were here. No random person walking down the street could say tell you that the League of the Iroquois was a major influence on the system of government that the US employs. Just like no random person could tell you where, exactly in Africa, voodoo comes from (sorry, can't think of anything better to use as an example).

And I apologize for taking this off-topic, but you just hit one of the areas I get overly-defensive about.
 
I did say "five if you count the natives". To me, the natives are arguable for the reasons I mentioned above : the Africans, far less so. If you count the Natives as a single culture, yes, it's definitely five and not four.
 
A Figment said:
I did say "five if you count the natives". To me, the natives are arguable for the reasons I mentioned above : the Africans, far less so. If you count the Natives as a single culture, yes, it's definitely five and not four.
Click to expand...

So it's purely semantics. Ok, I can live with that.
 
If you voted "Something else", it would be appreciated if someone described it.

Mozz and I voted Something Else because I stupidly forgot to include "Four : Québec, Canada, United States, Mexico."

Not that I'm a staunch independantist, just that I get the feeling nothing will ever get done in Québec until we're independant because until then, way too much energy is wasted on the sterile provincial-federal bitch fights.
 
I like the idea of the blue states seceding. I dunno about Canada and Quebec, I don't live there so I figure it's their decision, not mine.
 
I voted for this one "Three : Canada+Blue States, Red States and Mexico" but forgot about Quebec. I don't know much about the issue, but I really don't see why they shouldn't have independance. Perhaps someone could summerize both sides of the argument for me?

Actually I changed my mind again. Maybe Canada and the Blue States shouldn't be together. So Canada, Blue States, Red States, Mexico and maybe Quebec.
 
As warm and fuzzy as dividing the blue states and red states is, I don't think it works out that well. First of all, the blue states are divided on opposite coasts for the most part. I can't think of any other country that's got a different huge country right in the middle. Secondly, as this pretty purple map shows, the lines aren't clear cut. Somehow drawing a line and saying Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other so move it or lose it doesn't seem practical at all. And while I know next to nothing about the subject, I can't help but think it will be an economic disaster.

But heck, if anyone has any practical thoughts on the division of red states and blue states, I'm quite happy to hear them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom