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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor (Post 8718357)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by urbandreamer (Post 8718355)

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

Originally Posted by urbandreamer (Post 8718360)

Ugh we all go through that phase I guess.

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:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8718596)

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

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).

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.