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.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
In IglooDame's scenario, we are talking about a political union as a single country between two entities, one, the northern United States, larger and more populous, and the other, Canada, smaller and less populous. In this scenario, the northern states become the new demographic, political and cultural core of the resulting nation, with Canada becoming backwater provinces. Their political and social organizations also stay entirely intact, including their state level political parties, state NRA, etc, which become instantaneously larger and more powerful than any preexisting political parties in Canada - in a flash, "Canadian" politics realign around Democrats and Republicans being the two dominant parties, despite having little to no presence or support in the existing Canadian provinces.Note also that in this scenario, while these states lean Democrats, a lot of them have strong Republican - and MAGA/Trump minorities. It's not just people fleeing that political movement! They get added anyway, and suddenly "Canada" has more Trump supporters than Canadians living in it.
Materially, the only difference between political merger with the Northern States of America and political merger with the United States of America here is the ratios of Trumpians to no Trumpians. And maybe the location of the capital.
Which is wholly different from any gradual arrival of disorganized fleeing people, and merit no further comparison.
Materially, the only difference between political merger with the Northern States of America and political merger with the United States of America here is the ratios of Trumpians to no Trumpians. And maybe the location of the capital.
Which is wholly different from any gradual arrival of disorganized fleeing people, and merit no further comparison.
Klaus Hergersheimer
Emperor
You're talking about annexing beleaguered places versus accepting refugees (or whatever you wish to call them) therefrom. No it's not the same construct, but opposing the former yet supporting the latter is not being consistent. I'm of the mind that we've a duty to fix problems where they lie rather than extirpating people out of them for the convenience of the state; barring some natural disaster or whatnot. Rome tried that under Diocletian. India and Pakistan did it last century, and boy was that a relief as we've seen recently [not]!
Lexicus
Deity
Recent events compel me to add to the list:
-purge the military of fascists.
-purge the military of fascists.
NO YANKS IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM is just common sense really
Canadian Bluebeer
Prince
Well, from that wiki map, you better put Alberta and Saskatchewan into the red section.
(there was one with just alberta already, but Sask has changed. They not be happy. )
Manitoba? dunno, BC again, dunno.
Like I said, the map would be ... weird.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
What Alberta and Saskatchewan would do is the single most supremely irrelevant part of this scenario. If Canada - or eight, or seven, or six provinces thereof, it doesn't matter - merge with the Blue STates, Canada cease to exist and become just a handful of backwater states. Whether some of those states are merged with Red instead of Blue is utterly void of any importance. Red or Blue, they still get assimilated into America.
So, as answer to all your posts past, present and future about "But Alberta would leave": I don't care, because in a scenario where Canada cease to exist anyway, it doesn't matter if Alberta cease to exist at the same time or on its own.
So, as answer to all your posts past, present and future about "But Alberta would leave": I don't care, because in a scenario where Canada cease to exist anyway, it doesn't matter if Alberta cease to exist at the same time or on its own.
Last edited:
Akka
Moody old mage.
Not that I disagree with any of the facts here, but you seem to not realize they are actually just furthering my point.
All your arguments are about explaining why such merger would completely change the situation in Canada for current Canadians, with altered politics, new values, etc. - but said arguments only work if you consider that such changes are actually undesirable, don't they ?
So, basically, it's all about rejecting a massive arrivals of out-group in your in-group due to how they would alter the pre-existing situation for the existing citizens. Does this remind you of something ?
As an interesting aside, this entire argument rely on the premise that people of a country have a legitimate right in denying the entry of others in their country.
Whatever helps you cope with the cognitive dissonance, I guess.
Because despite what you want very hard to believe, it's actually the exact same process, the exact same reasoning and the exact same principles.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Your inability to tell things apart is a deficiency on your part, not mine. I won't be entertaining you further.
What's fun is old mate French nativist here just sounds like le Trump.
But at any rate, this isn't a thread for anti-immigrant monomania, there are other maga threads for that. We're here planning the dismemberment and partitioning of the former United States
But at any rate, this isn't a thread for anti-immigrant monomania, there are other maga threads for that. We're here planning the dismemberment and partitioning of the former United States
Last edited:
Voidwalkin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2024
- Messages
- 1,592
You are correct to notice inconsistency.
Double standards based on power differentials is consistent. Tends to subvert consistency of application of all other principles, though.
America after MAGA will 100% have anger over that as a feature. A new movement would arise within ten years with it as the foundation.
Akka
Moody old mage.
---
It's not really a double standard when it's just about taking degree into account, though. "We need glucose but not too much" is not a double standard.
The problem here is that the underlying principle is simultaneously used as the main argument while being denied as unacceptable - and when the discrepancy is pointed, then it's time to attack the messenger due to the inability to deal with the argument.
Last edited:
What is racist about not wanting a large influx of foreign population?
I'd say it's a very normal thing to want (or not want).
Similar threads
