Canadians are not a race. USians are not a race. The influx of one or the other is not a racial event. It would be just an issue of whether or not Canadians wanted USians to be added in large numbers to their population.
America After MAGA
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
Lexicus
Deity
"Canada" is an equally illegitimate genocidal settler regime, if you're talking about ideal political settlements in North America then it's gotta be indigenous sovereignty all the way dawg
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Ah, yeah, because depriving the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of any say or sway over the place they lived worked so well the first time we should do it again. Or were you planning to let evil settlers have a say in indigenous government (in which case it is indigenous in name only)?
Fixing a wrong with another wrong has a long and proud history of producing more wrongs and no rights. The abolishment of Canada may well be necessary, but if we're not going to make things worse, we need a solution based on the reality of what did hapoen and what the situation is now, going forward from there; not on the ideal of what we wish had or hadn't been done in the five centuries before,mor trying to take back history.
As to Akka's eyeroll-worthy little comment, I will point out that annexing vast territories full of people who outnumber you by a lot, along with their existing political structures and fully settled social systems is not meaningfully comparable to taking in refugees or anything of the sort, and otherwise not further engage with the nonsense.
Fixing a wrong with another wrong has a long and proud history of producing more wrongs and no rights. The abolishment of Canada may well be necessary, but if we're not going to make things worse, we need a solution based on the reality of what did hapoen and what the situation is now, going forward from there; not on the ideal of what we wish had or hadn't been done in the five centuries before,mor trying to take back history.
As to Akka's eyeroll-worthy little comment, I will point out that annexing vast territories full of people who outnumber you by a lot, along with their existing political structures and fully settled social systems is not meaningfully comparable to taking in refugees or anything of the sort, and otherwise not further engage with the nonsense.
Last edited:
The red ones would never go for it, and have no reason to in the first place. My initial thought included only the states that have (collectively) a contiguous border with Canada, lean blue, and happen to have blue or at least purple state governors and legislative majorities (which is why I didn't include NH, as it tends purple with a moderate GOP gov, red senate, and almost 50-50 split house of representatives).
Lexicus
Deity
I too am a settler so the way I see it it isn't really up to me.
In any case I said "ideal political settlements" for a reason...
He is rather ingenious at figuring out spurious ways to analogize immigration to various historical crimes against humanity.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Any scenario where "the way I see it isn't up to me" when it comes to the question of what political system one should be ruled by be in place is by its inherent nature not ideal. An underclass - no matter how large, no matter their past - who is at the power of another class is inherently not ideal. Not when settlers do it to indigenous people, and neither when the reverse is true.
What-should-have-been about the past, much like strange ladies lying in ponds, are no basis for a system of government.
What-should-have-been about the past, much like strange ladies lying in ponds, are no basis for a system of government.
Last edited:
Akka
Moody old mage.
Are you saying that people from a nation are legitimate in refusing the entry of people who want to moves there to improve their life ? Because I'm pretty certain I was told that was not the case and it was all bigotry or somesuch.
Well yes it's different in that they already have a culture that is much closer to yours, are already pretty wealthy and won't even need to be settled as they come with their own land already. So yeah it's different in that it causes much less friction, and should actually be even more acceptable.
For the rest it's the exact same point of simply not wanting a massive arrival of a lot of people who aren't already part of your in-group. But hey, I understand that denial is easier. Keep dismissing away, it certainly will change the underlying facts (or not).
You're faaaaaar better than me at this, like right now. I'm pointing at how strange it's suddenly becoming acceptable that the members of a nation refuse to accept the massive infux of people from outside a nation, and you're blathering about "crime against humanity". Talk about "spurious" right here.
Similar threads
