"Douglas D. Anderson" wrote in message news:...
>
>But it goes back to the colonial days. The early colonists still identified
>themselves as part of their "mother country", similar to how Alaska and
>Hawaii are considered part of the United States despite being physically
>separated. The United States was the first of the colonies, north or south,
>to even think of becoming an independent country. After The US did it,
>the rest of the American colonies, whether French or Spanish or English,
>saw it as a good idea and became hell-bent in that direction. Today the
>only colony left is Canada. They think they are independent, but under
>their constitution the British monarch still has last say in their executive
>office. We set the example of what "America" is all about, so there is no
>conflict there.
Was it called the United States at the time, or was it called something
else, like the 13 colonies? The Queen's role is mostly symbolic in Canada.
She has about as much power in Canada as she does in the USA. The elected
government in Canada has the real power. She can't determine who is going
to be Prime Minister's Office, which is the executive office in Canada.
Read the third paragraph in this URL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada
USA decided to break away from the motherland because of disputes they
had with the mother country over taxation. If the Brits were a little
bit wiser, they would have held on to the USA longer, but eventually,
USA probably would have been an independent nation, it just would have
happened at a later point in history. Canada had no such issues with
the British, plus you have to account for the fact the US population
has always been much greater than Canada's. It would have been much
more difficult for Canada to break away from the powerful British than
the Americans. The Americans also had the help of the French, not to
mention the Spanish to defeat the British as well. If Canada wanted to
break away from the Brits prior to the signing of the Constitution in
1982, they would likely need the assistance of at least one other
country. Even though the Brits aren't quite the world power they once
were, they still are very important in terms of the world stage.
http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/vital.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/whatif/what_if_20030417.shtml
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/franceus/history/histo3.asp
>
>No offense taken. You are right. The US population consists of layers
>of immigrants who came here to build a better life, even if it was in their
>own imaginations. And we can never be separated from the world at
>large, as became patently evident when such idealists as Jefferson and
>Monroe attempted to do so, and it became absurd.
Isolationism, which was being debated in the USA around the time of WW2,
really would not serve the purpose of the US, if they wanted to be
considered a major force. All the world powers before them, played
active roles throughout the world. Besides, trade and emigration/
immigration benefits the USA as well as the countries they engage in
trade with. For example, why would US companies bother looking
abroad for talent, or foreign talent who trained in the USA, if
there wasn't enough domestic talent available to fill the positions? |