N.A.U.

[djolds1]

But if Europe can do it, North America certainly can.

The EU exists because it was given an artificial hothouse of calm and post-suicidal idealism to grow in, protected behind US military and commercial guarantees. Much as the Royal Navy provided the shield behind which the US matured 1820-1880. I doubt events will provide North America with another 60 year period of artificial calm to marinate an NAU in. Not in this millennium at any rate.

Here's a problem. We (canada) can barely hold onto Quebec, BC and the maritime provinces as is. I don't think they'd amalgamate easily...

It takes wars to bind different ethnicities into one people. And even then you need an implicit agreement to dissolve previous cultural allegiances into the new host culture. Multicultural "nations" cannot exist; a nation is its culture.

The "Melting Pot" and "Salad Bowl" models are distinctly different, and only the former actually works.

But if Europe can do it, North America certainly can.

They haven't managed a constitution yet though. All in all, the current EU system is pretty crappy. But I'm rooting for them. Sooner or later they'll get a constitution and expanded federal powers, then, who knows how far they'll go? Maybe someday it'd be something the US could join, with or without an NAU.

European "Constitutions" have been laughable. Several hundred pages, 100,000+ words? ROFL!

And no guarantee that the Europeans ever achieve a central powerful government. There are centrifugal forces at work right now amplifying nationalism. More probable we see fission, not fusion.

Duane

[djolds1]

In any case the best Europeans are voting with their feet. They come to America - the land of opportunity. We are draining Europe's most spirited brains. I have met more than a few British expats in America's high tech industries.

There has been flight from Europe, but I doubt much of it ends up in the US. More likely the more amenable Anglo Settler Colonies.

Canuckland
Oz
Kiwiville

Not Dumbfuckistan

America has always drained Europe's most spirited people. In fact we get the world's most spirited people. It makes us what we are. America is where the cowboys of the world come to find a home. Yeee Haaa!

IIRC, a French politician once said that Europeans are Americans who wouldn't take the boat. Always rang true with me.

Duane

[JohnSmith]

Heh. In school, they always use the terms 'melting pot' and 'cultural mosaic.' I think I like 'salad bowl' better.
We don't want to break up everybody's culture. Sure, it makes the country about as cohesive as a ball of mud, but we get along. It's not 'not working.' Just not working well.
And in the end, countries as large as ours never govern all that well.

[djolds1]

Heh. In school, they always use the terms 'melting pot' and 'cultural mosaic.' I think I like 'salad bowl' better.

Yugoslavia worked well enough. Until it didn't. So did Austria-Hungary.

Both were multicultural states. Neither were nations.

Multicultural states are not one people, one nation. And they do not survive.

The national motto is "e pluribus unum," NOT "e unum pluribus."

Immigration means assimilation, you adapt your values to those of your new host culture, while adding bits of yourself as well. Maintaining your old country culture regardless in your new home is called colonization. And that is a very different thing.

Melting pot: Start with the English settler colony tomato base. Add some ground dried Irish potato, a few pinches of dried ground German hopps, some other "spices," etc. But the base remains the critical and cementing component.

Salad bowl? Little bits, nothing stick together, and you can separate everything easily in a salad spinner.

We don't want to break up everybody's culture.

Why? Become one with us, or go home.

Real easy to understand and do.

Sure, it makes the country about as cohesive as a ball of mud, but we get along. It's not 'not working.' Just not working well.
And in the end, countries as large as ours never govern all that well.

Governing is a matter of state apparatus.

National identity is something else altogether.

States rise and fall, but the peoples remain.

Duane

[Mike Holmes]

I'm really not seeing anything damning in your comments, Duane. For one, we wouldn't be allowing complete "labor mobility," it'd still be restricted to North America. And while, yes, Mexico isn't as economically powerful as we are, our economy is powerful enough to absorb theirs.

China? No. We couldn't swing them or India. Not yet. Mexico, pretty easy. How many have we already absorbed? There are about 100,000,000 people in Mexico. What percentage of that is workers? We've absorbed some 12,000,000 already? Depending on who's count you go by?

Canada? Their economy is so similar to ours already, no change by bringing them in.

I'm not saying it would be entirely painless. Just not all that painfull at all in the long-run. Again, it's not like we'd have to split up the GDP by another 30%. We already have a demand for these workers, and GDP would expand with them.


As for the Multiculturalism clauses that I'm referring to, they're not very strong (or wouldn't have to be written strongly to accomodate most - read what's in their constitutions at the moment), really, and amount mostly to reinforcing freedom of religion. You're not against that, are you? Nobody is saying we'd have to allow self-governing Sharia Law enclaves or anything. Just that people can celebrate Kwanza if they want instead of Christmas. Again, if the Quebecois don't like it, they don't have to join. Not that their culture is so different, actually.

Not to be insensitive or anything, but I've never understood that particular movement.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I'm thinking about the multi-cultural thing. I've often said that America has no culture of it's own... we just have the cultures that people have brought. But as a political organization, at best you could say it's an evolution of the British parlimentary system? But it's more than that.

I propose that the USA is a "post-cultural" nation. We've synthesized a form of government that lies on top of whatever cultural artifacts are practiced by it's people. I think we all agree that the important thing about America is that the goverment, in fact, is not allowed to decree culture upon us. It can't tell us what to believe is the right way to live, other than to ensure each of us our liberties by protecting us from each other.

I'm fine with advocating that ideal instead of multi-culturalism, where that term means having to identify certain groups as needing special protection. Historically we've had to go out of our way to enfranchise specific races, women, and racial groups, since these were prevented from being full members of society. But as long as the document simply says that everyone, but everyone shares the same rights to belief, I think that culture is covered.

Language is only imporant insamuch as it pertains to how government does business. It has to provide information to people on policies in ways that are interperable to them. Cost is really the only reason we don't publish everything in every language. Given the amalgamation of Mexico, I think it's not unreasonable to post things in Spanish. Most Mexicans in the US do eventually learn English, and many Americans know Spanish.

In any case, you know, they were here first, so shouldn't we convert to Spanish? It sounds better anyhow. Just kidding. Sorta. Here in Milwaukee, if we wanted to have the official language be synonymous with our heritage, we'd all still be speaking German. No English settlers here (some Irish, tho). The first newspapers were published in German...

Culture is fine, to me, when it inspired. But more often it seems to be about creating divisions in identity. And, yeah, that's a bad thing. To that extent, I think everyone should declare themselves to be beyond that sort of culture. Instead being citizens of the world, first. If you must, members of the culture of humanity.

You know, but I've probably read too much sci-fi in my life. Can't believe I opened my mind up like that. What was I thinking?

Mike

[MirariNefas]

The way I see it, different languages keep cultures and identities seperate. That's why I'd want everyone on the same page with a manufactured language. Teaching everyone to speak Spanish and English would work too, it's just less expandable.

Yes, I certainly read a lot of sci-fi. But I don't really see why Esperanto is any more silly than an NAU. Neither can really happen in any foreseeable political/social climate, but both are technically possible and would be a good thing. And hey, at least there are people who learn and speak Esperanto. I don't know anyone who is a citizen of the NAU.

[MSimon]

English is the manufactured language. It has German and French roots. Spanish additions. A smattering of Yiddish and of course loads of other additions.

Now all this is why English has no regular structure. But even people who do not speak it well can get along in it. Nothing like the French chauvinism with respect to language for instance.

And it has become the lingua franca (heh) of the world. English is the world wide language of air traffic control for instance. No need for Esperanto. In fact it would be a step backwards. If we want to advantage the new additions it is best they learn American.

[djolds1]

I'm really not seeing anything damning in your comments, Duane. For one, we wouldn't be allowing complete "labor mobility," it'd still be restricted to North America. And while, yes, Mexico isn't as economically powerful as we are, our economy is powerful enough to absorb theirs.

China? No. We couldn't swing them or India. Not yet. Mexico, pretty easy. How many have we already absorbed? There are about 100,000,000 people in Mexico. What percentage of that is workers? We've absorbed some 12,000,000 already? Depending on who's count you go by?

Canada? Their economy is so similar to ours already, no change by bringing them in.

I'm not saying it would be entirely painless. Just not all that painfull at all in the long-run. Again, it's not like we'd have to split up the GDP by another 30%. We already have a demand for these workers, and GDP would expand with them.

Sounds like the Technocracy Movement's "North American Technate."

Given a global economy, the wage floor needs must be global. Harare, Zimbabwe seems to be the current lowest-low.

It should be entirely possible to create an economically prosperous Continental Trade Bloc. NAFTA, Central America, the Caribbean, and perhaps the northern tier of South America. Requires the political will to impose sanctions for out of Bloc trade to lower level economies, or we're back to the global race to the bottom.

As for the Multiculturalism clauses that I'm referring to, they're not very strong (or wouldn't have to be written strongly to accomodate most - read what's in their constitutions at the moment), really, and amount mostly to reinforcing freedom of religion. You're not against that, are you?

Nobody is saying we'd have to allow self-governing Sharia Law enclaves or anything. Just that people can celebrate Kwanza if they want instead of Christmas.

That's not multiculturalism. That's the acquisition of a few new quaint ethnic celebrations and associated tasty foods. For instance, Hanukkah and Saint Paddy's Day have been around for quite awhile, and Hanukkah is a Christmas variation.

The US has historically been mutiethnic but not multicultural. Multiethnic can easily tolerate various different celebrations and new types of restaurants, so long as they subordinate themselves to the dominant traditions and standards.

Again, if the Quebecois don't like it, they don't have to join. Not that their culture is so different, actually.

Or consider Mexico. Mexicans are strongly nationalist, more ruthless than modern Americans, and have a population one-half that of the US. Anschluss of any sort is improbable given that scale of population. An NAU would be another Austria-Hungary at best.

Duane

[rcain]

But if Europe can do it, North America certainly can.

They haven't managed a constitution yet though. All in all, the current EU system is pretty crappy. But I'm rooting for them. Sooner or later they'll get a constitution and expanded federal powers, then, who knows how far they'll go? Maybe someday it'd be something the US could join, with or without an NAU.

The Euros are too socialist for Americans. But economically they are starting to move in the American direction. So maybe some day. Like in a hundred years or so.

perhaps it had escaped your notice, but America have just nationalized their banking system and elected a left-wing president. i think it is America (and Europe) who are coming round to the Chinese way of thinking.

In any case the best Europeans are voting with their feet. They come to America - the land of opportunity. We are draining Europe's most spirited brains. I have met more than a few British expats in America's high tech industries.

America has always drained Europe's most spirited people. In fact we get the world's most spirited people. It makes us what we are. America is where the cowboys of the world come to find a home. Yeee Haaa!

this is all absolutely true.
we love America for its spirited 'optimism' and home cooking.
we hate it when they go 'YEEE HAH!' - a term originally used to round up stray cattle for the slaughter. words such as 'splendid' or 'tallyho' would be much more acceptable, even more so if they were actually true.

why shouldn't America have an NAU anyway? everyone else has got one.

don't trust the Canadians - half of them still think they're the French Resistance.

[djolds1]

I'm thinking about the multi-cultural thing. I've often said that America has no culture of it's own... we just have the cultures that people have brought. But as a political organization, at best you could say it's an evolution of the British parlimentary system? But it's more than that.

I propose that the USA is a "post-cultural" nation. We've synthesized a form of government that lies on top of whatever cultural artifacts are practiced by it's people. I think we all agree that the important thing about America is that the goverment, in fact, is not allowed to decree culture upon us. It can't tell us what to believe is the right way to live, other than to ensure each of us our liberties by protecting us from each other.

The US is based on English Settler Protestant Work Ethic culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations

The rest is spices added to that base.

I'm fine with advocating that ideal instead of multi-culturalism, where that term means having to identify certain groups as needing special protection.

Break a people down into ever smaller groups and eventually it disintegrates.

Historically we've had to go out of our way to enfranchise specific races, women, and racial groups, since these were prevented from being full members of society.

Race, Blacks, is the 800kg gorilla of American history.

Most new groups have taken 3 generations to integrate into the American nation, blacks were kept out for 15 generations, and only an extra-constitutional "cheat" was going to break that deadlock. No other group deserves that level of accommodation.

Given the amalgamation of Mexico,

???

The absolute best case is British nationality, which encompasses various distinct sub-nationalities.

Scot: "I may be British, but I am not English!"

And that is improbable. Probable best case in an American-Mexican syncretism is Austria-Hungary, worst case the Soviet Union, trending downward after that through Yugoslavia and various post-colonial African "states."

I think it's not unreasonable to post things in Spanish. Most Mexicans in the US do eventually learn English, and many Americans know Spanish.

Spanglish is coming in by default.

Culture is fine, to me, when it inspired. But more often it seems to be about creating divisions in identity. And, yeah, that's a bad thing. To that extent, I think everyone should declare themselves to be beyond that sort of culture. Instead being citizens of the world, first. If you must, members of the culture of humanity.

That's what the Communists tried. It failed spectacularly, because its a utopian delusion.

Humans identify with identity groups. Kin, community, nation. And we identify by opposition. We are us because we are not them. Nation (and more nebulously, perhaps culture) is the largest supportable group on one planet. We won't see "Earthers" until we're facing off against the Romulan Star Empire.

[Mike Holmes]

I myself said that this is all very unlikely. I'm only speculating on what it would look like. Not trying to convince people that it's going to happen next week.

Mike

[djolds1]

perhaps it had escaped your notice, but America have just nationalized their banking system and elected a left-wing president. i think it is America (and Europe) who are coming round to the Chinese way of thinking.

Tend to agree. At the very least, blind faith in the goodness of the unrestricted market is collapsing. Something more dirigiste will become the norm.

we love America for its spirited 'optimism' and home cooking.
we hate it when they go 'YEEE HAH!' - a term originally used to round up stray cattle for the slaughter. words such as 'splendid' or 'tallyho' would be much more acceptable, even more so if they were actually true.

Yee hah! is part and parcel of the American individualist ideal. You don't get to break it without breaking humpty-dumpty.

why shouldn't America have an NAU anyway? everyone else has got one.

The EU is a union of several moderately large nation-states and a range of smaller nation-states that can cooperate to be a 'virtual' big boy. An NAU would be entirely subordinated to the monster first-among-equals of the United States.

The question isn't could it be done. The question is would the minor partners want to lock themselves in to that level of explicit submission to the US? Yes much of the Western Hemisphere is already essentially subordinate to the US, but current fictions allow a degree of flexibility that a formal NAU would eliminate.

And to really work, an NAU would need to extend from the Yukon to Venezuela.

don't trust the Canadians - half of them still think they're the French Resistance.

Canadians seem to spend an inordinate amount of time insisting that they're not Americans. I think the psychologists call that denial.

Duane

[rcain]

The US is based on English Settler Protestant Work Ethic culture.

i don't think that is entirely true - i think the 'work ethic' thing is much more of a German thing and a Chinese thing and an African thing if under physical duress. Certainly a Japanese thing and probably an American thing. But the english (along with the Belgians, and the Italians) are not so hot on it.

certainly we should not be given all the credit for it

perhaps I should update wiki.

[rcain]

Canadians seem to spend an inordinate amount of time insisting that they're not Americans. I think the psychologists call that denial.

only 'superior' American ones.
such people should remember that Canada is part of the commonwealth and as such has the ear of Her Majesty on matters such as Gunships and Diplomacy. They mostly speak in french cipher I believe.

We have had run-ins with the Spaniards as well in the past. So we know where we both stand. (nowadays we mostly enjoy our holidays together).

its true, no one is wanting to join a club if there are no benefits. or were you suggesting forcing them to join? i dont think that would be wise.

could i suggest America consult Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías for his views?