SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Controversial Idea: The US as (Anglo-)Canada's Mother Country? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=240642)

MonctonRad Oct 16, 2019 3:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6 (Post 8718314)
Certainly the personal and family ties between Canada and the U.S. were considerably closer in 1900 than they are today. Just thinking of my own 5 great-grandparents who were Canadian born (mainly in the 1850s) or came here before marriage, each of them had at least one sibling who moved to the United States, and all but one had several. I think that was true of almost everyone in Canada back then -- even in French Canada, where most people would have had a sister or an aunt in Woonsocket or Pawtucket or some place like that. Today that is less common other (perhaps) than among upper class people with siblings in the professional classes.

Indeed - the ties that bind are rapidly disappearing. It used to be so easy to cross the border to find work. Many people used to do in in the late 1800s and early part of the 1900s.

My own mother was born in Rumford ME in 1917. My grandfather moved down there to work in the pulp mill.

The family ties are disappearing. The feel of our cities are different (ours are better). The cultural and ethnic differences are increasing with time (more south and east Asians in Canada, more blacks and Hispanics in the States). Our political philosophies and the nature of our social welfare states is becoming entirely dissimilar - we are nordic Europe, they are a world unto their own.

Only the business ties really remain to bind Canada and the US together.........

someone123 Oct 16, 2019 3:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6 (Post 8718304)
True, like all the peripheral colonies (Quebec, Bermuda, Georgia) Nova Scotia was not really on the radar screen of the revolutionary hotheads and, as a less economically mature colony, didn't really have an established hierarchy of men of independent wealth and independent minds who might have been inclined to spearhead a political rebellion. There was also the massive British military presence at Halifax to disincentivize any revolutionaries. On top of that, because the Great Awakening had a very powerful hold on Nova Scotia at the time, religious fervour (rather than the revolutionary kind) consumed the minds of many of its residents, who readily fell under the spell of the great evangelist Henry Alline and his New Light movement.

The US colonies were also a lot more homogenous. Massachusetts had an old established settler population and a few British newcomers. Nova Scotia was roughly equal parts British newcomers, foreign Protestants, New England Planters, Acadians, and natives. All of the wealthy and powerful would have been connected to the British colonial system and navy. Almost everybody lived in a seaside town that would have been easy for British ships to attack.

There was an attempt at getting the revolution started in Nova Scotia; Jonathan Eddy attacked Fort Cumberland near the present-day NS/NB border with around 400 militiamen. They dispersed when a British ship arrived. Later on in the war a lot of the military activity decamped from New York to Halifax and at that point there was no way that Nova Scotia could have participated. It was probably 25% British soldiers in total at times.

I think it is easy to get carried away hand waving about how the character of different groups shaped culture hundreds of years later but I do think it made a difference that Canada was so cosmopolitan early on. In 1800, there would have been more demographic variety in Halifax or Quebec City than Boston.

urbandreamer Oct 16, 2019 4:00 AM

I thought the media's been saying Canadian millennials live at home?
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...1003_3-eng.cfm

Andy6 is right: people moved between borders more easily in the 19th century. Some of my American ancestors originally were Canadians; some of my Canadian ancestors were originally American. But no one really considered themselves American until recently: just look at census data. You were Italian, German, Polish, Yankee, Southerner first. (The original Canadians were from Quebec; then Upper and Lower Canadian became a thing.)

Probably Canada's equivalent to the Spanish Americans are the French Canadians. Imagine more of them lived in the ROC. Texas and Quebec have kind of similar histories of being indigenous first, Spanish/French second then war giving it to the Scots/Irish/German/English; now swinging in favour of the Spanish/French and new immigration. (Texas like Quebec would love to be its own country.)

MTLskyline Oct 16, 2019 4:03 AM

Thinking about it more, I do not think you are far off, however, I would say the US is only part of it.

It's clear that Anglo-Canada would not exist as is if it wasn't for the initial wave of Loyalist immigrants. They established the entity of English Canada.

However, I would say Anglo-Canada has another parent: Scotland. Anglo-Canada had a disproportionate amount of Scottish influence compared to say the US or Australia, both of which had much more English (from England) influence than Canada.

The people traditionally thought of as "Les Anglais" in Quebec were actually largely Scots. Think of some of the prominent anglo Montreal establishment names from the 19th century, and it is clear they were disproportionately Scottish: McGill, McTavish, Drummond, Redpath, etc And the English that were in Quebec were probably more likely of Loyalist background as opposed to immigrants directly from England (although the Molsons are an exception).

Interestingly, nowadays, there are probably just as many Quebec francophones of Scottish background as Quebec anglophones.

Bcasey25raptor Oct 16, 2019 4:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck (Post 8718272)
[English] Canada and America are rapidly diverging - or at least as rapid a divergence as one could imagine in an era of the internet, globalization and given all the other things we share.

On the urbanization front, this is obvious, as you mention: 25 years ago, the average Canadian 30-something would buy a suburban tract house for their starter home just like their American peers. American millennials still buy suburban tract homes en masse; Canadian millennials - if they can buy at all - live in condo neighbourhoods which are quite different even from the new-build midrise rental apartment neighbourhoods that their millennial professsional counterparts in the more expensive coastal American cities would live in if they can afford decent housing.

The other, huge difference is the presence of Hispanics/Spanish in the US, which is essentially nonexistent in Canada. The Spanish/Hispanic influence is enormous; basically the only thing close to it is the presence of all Chinese languages and cultures combined in Metro Vancouver, and even there it feels like a smaller, more scattered presence than in the more Hispanic metros of the US. The effect this is having even on white American culture is enormous; if you go to a house in the US for a football party, you're served chips and salsa and most Americans have a lexicon of Mexican foods that would completely stump your average Canadian (most Americans of all classes and backgrounds know the difference between an enchilada, a gordita and a chimichanga). Then there are Anglo Americans in lines of work like construction, social work and agricultural management who have mastered Spanish to a level beyond the French capabilities of an Ontarian who took French Immersion to at least grade 10.

I did some comparisons between the 2011 census versus the 2010 American census, and I found that there were about 200,000 Canadians who had Latin American origins - or fewer than the Hispanic population of Metro Sacramento, CA.

I'd also add the history and influence of the black population in the united states that Canada lacks. only 2% of Canada is black compared with 13% in the US, and the cities in the uS with the smallest black populations still hover around 7% which is the same level as the Canadian city with the highest population of blacks, Toronto.

The US and Canada are very different due to demographics and migration trends, the uS is far more germanic, black and latino whereas Canada is far more british isles, french, and asian in it's demographic makeup.

Canadian cities showing this where the inner cities in canadian cities are associated with wealth and are desirable whereas in the US this hasn't been the case due to the existence of white flight, something Canada didn't have as we didn't have the demographics that lead to it.

hipster duck Oct 16, 2019 4:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 8718309)
It's a lot like how if you make a list of metros with transit use or cycling and pedestrian commuters you get a list that includes cities like Boston and San Francisco mixed in with Victoria and Halifax. You don't see cities like Eugene or Charleston on those lists.

Another fun fact: there is an IKEA in Halifax, but not in Cleveland or Nashville.

I think every Canadian metro of over 200k has at least an IKEA “collection point” or better.

urbandreamer Oct 16, 2019 4:26 AM

Yeah but IKEA is trash so that's not a good indicator of wealth.

As for 19th century black history in Upper Canada, I'm currently reading https://www.amazon.ca/Queens-Bush-Se.../dp/1896219853
(Queen's Bush Road is the main highway through Wellesley Ontario.)
http://ontarioplaques.com/Plaques/Pl...lington31.html

Bcasey25raptor Oct 16, 2019 4:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbandreamer (Post 8718355)
Yeah but IKEA is trash so that's not a good indicator of wealth.

As for 19th century black history in Upper Canada, I'm currently reading https://www.amazon.ca/Queens-Bush-Se.../dp/1896219853
(Queen's Bush Road is the main highway through Wellesley Ontario.)
http://ontarioplaques.com/Plaques/Pl...lington31.html

indicator of wealth? No. But i still love ikea, I buy all my furniture there.

urbandreamer Oct 16, 2019 4:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor (Post 8718357)
indicator of wealth? No. But i still love ikea, I buy all my furniture there.

Ugh we all go through that phase I guess.

Ontario, Manitoba, BC, NS and increasingly PEI have many folks of German heritage--from Mennonites to post ww2 immigrants.

To really understand where Canadians immigrated from, I find it interesting reading the histories of small town Canada.

What I'm getting from this thread is a controversial conclusion: French Canadians don't really have a clue who us Anglos really are.

urbandreamer Oct 16, 2019 4:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTLskyline (Post 8718337)
Thinking about it more, I do not think you are far off, however, I would say the US is only part of it.

It's clear that Anglo-Canada would not exist as is if it wasn't for the initial wave of Loyalist immigrants. They established the entity of English Canada.

However, I would say Anglo-Canada has another parent: Scotland. Anglo-Canada had a disproportionate amount of Scottish influence compared to say the US or Australia, both of which had much more English (from England) influence than Canada.

The people traditionally thought of as "Les Anglais" in Quebec were actually largely Scots. Think of some of the prominent anglo Montreal establishment names from the 19th century, and it is clear they were disproportionately Scottish: McGill, McTavish, Drummond, Redpath, etc And the English that were in Quebec were probably more likely of Loyalist background as opposed to immigrants directly from England (although the Molsons are an exception).

Interestingly, nowadays, there are probably just as many Quebec francophones of Scottish background as Quebec anglophones.

The Scots have been in Canada for 1000 years.:)
https://celticlife.com/canadas-scottish-roots/

400 year's later the English and French still can't get along:
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/kirke_david_1E.html

SpongeG Oct 16, 2019 5:22 AM

oh I did that ancestry DNA thing and I found out I have a lot of American relatives, mostly 3-6th cousins who at some point came over from England.

whatnext Oct 16, 2019 5:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CityTech (Post 8718107)
Canadians of Scottish & Irish descent, combined, are more numerous than Canadians of English descent. Most of those of English descent have roots in northern or western England. Very few people in Canada have roots in Southeast England, despite that being the dominant region economically & culturally within the modern day United Kingdom.

I believe this is the case with all of Britain's settler colonies. Of the 15 million people who emigrated from the British Isles in the 19th century, about half were from Scotland or Ireland, despite those regions having much smaller populations than England. The fact that in today's times England is far more densely populated than Scotland or Ireland and dominates the UK population-wise is primary the result of this phenomenon. In 1841, Scotland & Ireland, combined, had about the same population as England; by 1901, England had three times more than both combined.

Then as now, people immigrate to Canada from the "shithole" areas. Very few, % wise, leave a prosperous area for Canada.

LakeLocker Oct 16, 2019 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor (Post 8718339)
I'd also add the history and influence of the black population in the united states that Canada lacks. only 2% of Canada is black compared with 13% in the US, and the cities in the uS with the smallest black populations still hover around 7% which is the same level as the Canadian city with the highest population of blacks, Toronto.

The US and Canada are very different due to demographics and migration trends, the uS is far more germanic, black and latino whereas Canada is far more british isles, french, and asian in it's demographic makeup.

Canadian cities showing this where the inner cities in canadian cities are associated with wealth and are desirable whereas in the US this hasn't been the case due to the existence of white flight, something Canada didn't have as we didn't have the demographics that lead to it.

You're talking about something that largely becomes irrelevant a few generations after it occurs. We can't predict future immigration patterns and there is no reason to think these trends will occur. And again you're playing with averages in a way that makes no sense. Countries are not monolithic. People are repeatedly trying to skirt the fact there is more difference between Minnesota and California than there is between Minnesota and east of Ottawa.

I live in London and day to day I meet far more Latinos than any other group of people, when I lived in Toronto I knew tonnes of Italians and Germans, and when I am in BC it is quite obviously cascadia.

Acajack Oct 16, 2019 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbandreamer (Post 8718360)

What I'm getting from this thread is a controversial conclusion: French Canadians don't really have a clue who us Anglos really are.

That's not controversial - it's unquestionably true.

But it's not true of the OP (me) and I am pretty much the only francophone who has posted on this thread.

Could it be that you're trying to divert attention from an interesting topic that makes you uncomfortable? ;)

esquire Oct 16, 2019 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbandreamer (Post 8718355)
Yeah but IKEA is trash so that's not a good indicator of wealth.

I don't think it's meant to be an indicator of wealth so much as it speaks to a broadly urban-focused lifestyle that you don't necessarily see quite as much of in the US outside of the largest cities.

Who buys IKEA in North America? Mainly people in apartments, condos, or urban areas. I'd wager that it isn't the people in semi-rural areas that so many US suburbs occupy, whether at the high end (McMansions filled with huge Ashley Furniture pieces) or at the low end (old ranch houses filled with discount furniture).

OldDartmouthMark Oct 16, 2019 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbandreamer (Post 8718360)
Ugh we all go through that phase I guess.

Oooo... furniture snobbery. What a strange tangent for this thread. :rolleyes:

You must be great fun at parties. :burstbubble:

esquire Oct 16, 2019 2:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olddartmouthmark (Post 8718581)
oooo... Furniture snobbery. What a strange tangent for this thread. :rolleyes:

You must be great fun at parties. :burstbubble:

let me demonstrate my superior taste by belligerently disrespecting your preferred furniture brands in this online discussion forum

OldDartmouthMark Oct 16, 2019 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8718596)
let me demonstrate my superior taste by belligerently disrespecting your preferred furniture brands in this online discussion forum

:haha:

Doug Oct 16, 2019 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8718533)
I don't think it's meant to be an indicator of wealth so much as it speaks to a broadly urban-focused lifestyle that you don't necessarily see quite as much of in the US outside of the largest cities.

Who buys IKEA in North America? Mainly people in apartments, condos, or urban areas. I'd wager that it isn't the people in semi-rural areas that so many US suburbs occupy, whether at the high end (McMansions filled with huge Ashley Furniture pieces) or at the low end (old ranch houses filled with discount furniture).

IKEA also represents disposable culture at its worst, so the brand's relative lack of success in the US is somewhat surprising. I have noticed that Americans tend to spend big on high quality (not necessarily high design) furniture and keep it for a long time. Houses tend to be bigger and moving costs lower.

esquire Oct 16, 2019 3:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 8718612)
IKEA also represents disposable culture at its worst, so the brand's relative lack of success in the US is somewhat surprising. I have noticed that Americans tend to spend big on high quality (not necessarily high design) furniture and keep it for a long time. Houses tend to be bigger and moving costs lower.

Hence my reference to Ashley Furniture. It's somewhat bland, unadventurous stuff that is generally well built by modern standards, and it fills a lot of space in a big house.

IKEA is pointless if you live in a 2,000-3,000 square foot home as many Americans do... on the flipside, IKEA is perfect for 600 square foot apartments where you really need to maximize space with compact furniture. As far as I can tell, Americans outside of the dozen or so biggest east coast cities tend have a lot of space unless they're really, really hard up... for example, I recall visiting a neighbourhood in Rocky Mount, NC that looked very down at the heels, but was still filled with 1,500 sf and up 1950s and 60s ranch houses that would go for a million dollars in Toronto.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.