Canada's Panamerica Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

And of course, a lot of the superficial, built form elements are vestiges of our history rather than reflective our of current cultures. After all, there was a time when British North America basically all was mostly the same.

British North America as something including the present-day U.S. and Canada as a single entity barely existed in time as the U.S. became an independent country not long after the British conquered France's North American possessions.

[YoungRepublic]

Originally Posted by Stryker

You guys really don't get it do you?

TO is just as foreign to us newfies, as large portions of the US.

There's very little that is familiar outside of hockey.

I know Toronto seems foreign to people from Newfoundland. That's not what I was referring to. Rereading their post, I now realize that the way they worded their hypothetical- going out for a beer -thing, confused me. I read it as "one [person] from each state (TO crowd, Maritimes, NE)". That could be anyone. If that's what they were in fact referring to, then I'm not sure what one person from the TO crowd, the Maritimes, NE, etc., would look like, but I'm guessing they would be based on a stereotype that doesn’t mean anything.

I think, if we all went out for a beer, one from each state, I sure as hell wouldn't be with the TO crowd. I'd be with the Maritimes, and New England.

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I really don't think so.

It's not that I go to Boston and there's some kinship or friendship as there is Ireland, but there is a familiarity. Boston feels like it should be the largest city in whatever country St. John's is part of.

Boston kicked out the British, Newfoundland still has a strong attachment/connection to Britain/the monarchy. Boston has a 25% African-American population, a large Puerto-Rican and Dominican population, basketball culture, football culture, soul-food, etc,. This doesn't exactly scream Newfoundland to me.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

British North America as something including the present-day U.S. and Canada as a single entity barely existed in time as the U.S. became an independent country not long after the British conquered France's North American possessions.

Yes that was my point. Many parts of Canada share aesthetic vestiges with parts of the US stemming from this common origin even though they're less similar in present day.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes that was my point. Many parts of Canada share aesthetic vestiges with parts of the US stemming from this common origin even though they're less similar in present day.

I guess although some are still left today they tend to wear down over time, but on the other hand Canada tends to take on many contemporary Americanisms (widely defined) and so it kind of evens out anyway.

[Nouvellecosse]

Well no one will deny that there is cross border influence especially in this age of globalism, but the assertion that it balances out to the point where were equally similar compared to when we were all actually the same is where we would disagree.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YoungRepublic

Boston kicked out the British, Newfoundland still has a strong attachment/connection to Britain/the monarchy. Boston has a 25% African-American population, a large Puerto-Rican and Dominican population, basketball culture, football culture, soul-food, etc,. This doesn't exactly scream Newfoundland to me.

That's why he didn't say that Boston was exactly like St. John's.

Big cities by their nature tend to have a good amount of things that their hinterlands don't have yet, or never will have. That doesn't prevent such a place from being "your big city".

Toronto has plenty of things and leanings that Newfoundland doesn't have either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well no one will deny that there is cross border influence especially in this age of globalism, but the assertion that it balances out to the point where were equally similar compared to when we were all actually the same is where we would disagree.

At what point in history were Anglo-Canadians and Americans "all the same"?

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm referring when when we were all British colonies before diverging into separate nationalities, first American and British North American, and then American and Canadian.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I was in South America this summer. It is nothing at all like Canada. It seemed more alien, culturally-speaking, than any of the places I have visited in Europe or in East Asia.

Interesting. How so?

(I've never been to South America but I have visited the other places on multiple occasions... Europe is not quite as familiar as the US, but it never seemed particularly foreign other than the language part. The culture and customs are pretty recognizable for the most part, notwithstanding the occasional surprise. East Asia struck me as decidedly foreign, though.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm referring when when we were all British colonies before diverging into separate nationalities, first American and British North American, and then American and Canadian.

The present-day United States and present-day Canada were never really concurrently British colonies at the same time.

Except for Newfoundland, there was almost no large-scale established British settlement in Canada when the Americans became independent in 1776.

Britain won Acadia and New France in the 1750s-1760s, and the Americans became independent in 1776.

British colonization in Canada only began in earnest *after* the Americans became independent.

[Nouvellecosse]

One must remember the loyalists. There was a significant influx of Americans into British NA following US independence because people wanted to remain under the British crown. Those areas may not have been "large scale" (well even today the Maritimes isn't very large scale when compared to the NE US) but they did exist and so did their culture.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

One must remember the loyalists. There was a significant influx of Americans into British NA following US independence because people wanted to remain under the British crown. Those areas may not have been "large scale" (well even today the Maritimes isn't very large scale when compared to the NE US) but they did exist and so did their culture.

Totally accurate, but the Loyalists were an offshoot of the U.S. Their society didn't grow up in parallel to what was happening south of the border when that area was still under British rule.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by esquire

Interesting. How so?

(I've never been to South America but I have visited the other places on multiple occasions... Europe is not quite as familiar as the US, but it never seemed particularly foreign other than the language part. The culture and customs are pretty recognizable for the most part, notwithstanding the occasional surprise. East Asia struck me as decidedly foreign, though.)

I'm curious as well. I've spent lots of time in South America, and none in east asia, but I certainly wouldn't have thought SA would be more foreign. In these sorts of discussions I often also find Mexico to be really interesting. Despite some obvious latin american commonalities much about Mexico is still very much North American to me.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The present-day United States and present-day Canada were never really concurrently British colonies at the same time.

Except for Newfoundland, there was almost no large-scale established British settlement in Canada when the Americans became independent in 1776.

Britain won Acadia and New France in the 1750s-1760s, and the Americans became independent in 1776.

British colonization in Canada only began in earnest *after* the Americans became independent.

You're forgetting Nova Scotia. It was British since Queen Anne's War in 1713. It quite literally can be thought of as the 14th colony. St. John's Island (PEI) was an immature colony during the American Revolution but was also a British possession at the time. There were in fact 17 British North American colonies at the time of the revolution (19 if you include the Floridas). 13 rebelled. The remainder (for various reasons) did not.

Fun facts:

- The First Continental Congress pre-approved the non rebelling British North American colonies for entry into the union. I wonder if the offer is still good....
- There were revolutionary sympathies in Nova Scotia in 1776. Several skirmishes were fought in the Maritimes between the British army and rebellious locals. The largest of these was the Battle of Fort Cumberland (1776), also known as the Eddy Rebellion. If this had been successful, the Maritimes would now be part of the USA.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

I'm curious as well. I've spent lots of time in South America, and none in east asia, but I certainly wouldn't have thought SA would be more foreign. In these sorts of discussions I often also find Mexico to be really interesting. Despite some obvious latin american commonalities much about Mexico is still very much North American to me.

That's been my experience as well. Many parts of East Asia are affluent and developed, so there's that aspect that is similar. They're not as foreign feeling as Africa, India or even much of the Middle East.

But East Asia is on a different level (think lower) of familiarity for me than Latin America, regardless of affluence and societal (dis)organization.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Totally accurate, but the Loyalists were an offshoot of the U.S. Their society didn't grow up in parallel to what was happening south of the border when that area was still under British rule.

I'm not sure I'd call them an offshoot of the "US" seeing as they were part of what was British NA before the US revolution and left in the 1780s as soon as the revolutionary war was ended. So they never really lived in or took part in the newly created republic. And it does show how we have close ties with other parts of British NA.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But East Asia is on a different level (think lower) of familiarity for me than Latin America, regardless of affluence and societal (dis)organization.

I know that there are some fundamental differences in society and culture, but on the whole I found Japan to be organized in a way that felt very familiar... the streets, the buildings, the cars, media and consumer culture, all that sort of stuff felt like home. Even if people there don't behave exactly the same way they do in North America, it looks a bit like home.

By contrast, China (especially away from the biggest few cities) looked and felt really different, with its own set of byzantine rules for social interaction. Never been to India, but I'd imagine it would be similar. It's hard to imagine anything in South America approaching the level of foreign-ness of those two.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by YoungRepublic

I know Toronto seems foreign to people from Newfoundland. That's not what I was referring to. Rereading their post, I now realize that the way they worded their hypothetical- going out for a beer -thing, confused me. I read it as "one [person] from each state (TO crowd, Maritimes, NE)". That could be anyone. If that's what they were in fact referring to, then I'm not sure what one person from the TO crowd, the Maritimes, NE, etc., would look like, but I'm guessing they would be based on a stereotype that doesn’t mean anything.


Boston kicked out the British, Newfoundland still has a strong attachment/connection to Britain/the monarchy. Boston has a 25% African-American population, a large Puerto-Rican and Dominican population, basketball culture, football culture, soul-food, etc,. This doesn't exactly scream Newfoundland to me.

Boston has a large Irish component, and even aside from that, to Nflders, it would just "feel" like it has familiar origins and energy; more so than most Canadian cities. Those were my impressions upon visiting as well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You're forgetting Nova Scotia. It was British since Queen Anne's War in 1713. It quite literally can be thought of as the 14th colony. St. John's Island (PEI) was an immature colony during the American Revolution but was also a British possession at the time. There were in fact 17 British North American colonies at the time of the revolution (19 if you include the Floridas). 13 rebelled. The remainder (for various reasons) did not.
.

Nova Scotia was British as of 1713 but on paper only. The province was inhabited almost exclusively by Acadians and Micmacs until the 1750s and 1760s when the Acadians were expelled from the best lands in the province which finally allowed for large-scale British settlement of Nova Scotia.

For the first 50 years of the 1700s Nova Scotia was very unstable and although there was a treaty saying it belonged to Britain, Acadians and Micmacs continued to fight the British presence through guerilla tactics for much of that period, which made it difficult for the British to establish its settlers there.

There is a reason that the British "won" Nova Scotia in 1713 but that Halifax was only founded around 1750.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure I'd call them an offshoot of the "US" seeing as they were part of what was British NA before the US revolution and left in the 1780s as soon as the revolutionary war was ended. So they never really lived in or took part in the newly created republic. And it does show how we have close ties with other parts of British NA.

My point is simply that at no point in history were the ancestors of today's Americans and Anglo-Canadians really all living under British rule at the same time in North America on either side of the border as if there was no border where there is one today.