[screye]

Has anglo-Canada ever been meaningfully distinct from the US ?

It is as tightly bound to the US as Puerto Rico. I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, military or cultural policies that favor US enemies without being strong-armed out of it by the US.

It is a charged question, and I mean it as a hypothetical. But countries form through common language, culture, religion, geography, interests or trauma/war. Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart.

At times, Anglo-Canadians feel more distinct from French-Canadians than they do most Americans.

Ofc, if you've been a stable nation for century+, then there's no good reason to fix what's not broken.

[rerdavies]

French-Canadians are not anything like English Canadians, except in the minds of English Canadians who don't know any better. English Canadians like to think we are one great nation, but we are in fact two great nations, deeply divided (more than that if you include indigenous peoples, which you should).

French-speaking Quebecers self-identify as follows:

- Canadians first, and Quebecois second.

- Quebecois first, and Canadian second.

- Quebecois, and not Canadian at all.

The majority of French-speaking Quebecois do not self-identify as being in the first category, and a very significant percentage identify as being in the third category, with a plurality falling into the second category. I think it's safe to say that almost all French Canadians in Quebec identify as culturally Quebecois.

I lived in Quebec during the Cultural Revolution in the 80s, and was there for the first referendum, but I left because it became clear that Montreal was a bad place to be if I wanted to raise English-speaking children. In the end, I didn't feel any great need to pay for the sins of centuries of Quebec Anglophones that weren't my ancestors.

Once you wander outside of Montreal, into the countryside, dislike of Anglophones is common to the point that it feels almost dangerous, and gets even worse the closer you get to Quebec City.

In my experience, tolerance of Anglophones in Montreal has decreased dramatically in recent years. I was in a clothing store on St. Catherine, neer Bishop Street (once the heart of Anglophone Montreal). When two American tourists came in, and asked for help, the young shopkeeper responded: "On ne parle pas Anglais ici" (one does not speak English here).

A friend of mine graduated from a high school in Westmount (home to the Anglophone elite, most pointedly hated by Francophones). He said that of his friends in high school, none had remained in Quebec, because even though all of them spoke fluent French, being Anglophones, they were not able to find jobs.

[belval]

The first part of your comment was pretty spot on, but the rest I think is biased from living here in a different time, the populated areas around Montreal (Brossard, Laval especially) all have significant English-speaking-only populations. In downtown during lunch time it's pretty much 50/50 whether the fast food/cafe worker will speak French at all.

[rerdavies]

Not so much the suburbs as the countryside. I live in Ottawa these days, where you don't have to go far across the Quebec border at all before you end up in Pur Laine country.

[macNchz]

> the young shopkeeper responded: "On ne parle pas Anglais ici" (one does not speak English here)

A point of translation nuance here: in American English “one does not speak {language} here” carries with it an overt sense of pretense or unpleasantness, whereas in French “on”/one is very commonly used as an alternative to “we” in informal conversation, and does not carry any of the same tone as using “one” does in English. While the translation is correct at a literal level, idiomatically it’d just be “we don’t speak English here”.

[sbsudbdjd]

"English is not spoken here" would work well.

The "on" is impersonal and quite different from "nous". I think a translation should reflect the universality of the statement.

[macNchz]

“On” really is more casual/conversational than “nous”–I think both the original and your versions would seem stiff or impersonal coming from a shopkeeper in English, whereas the original French would not be confrontational in its word choice alone. Admittedly my reference point is modern conversational language in France and Switzerland, though.

https://www.commeunefrancaise.com/blog/on-or-nous#:~:text=%E....

[aubanel]

As a native French speaker (maybe you are too), I think GP understood the nuance you mentioned but still proposes a good translation to reflect less pressure.

[sbsudbdjd]

(Native level two romance languages. Very poor French, but I can obviously read it with two Latin languages and 8 years of schooling)

Oh I agree that the translator understood the nuance and I agree why "we" was proposed. The translation is correct, as is the original one.

I was proposing another alternative that incorporates the cold impersonality of "on" whilst not sounding pompous. The server was being viscous, not pompous.

I don't think my translation is "correct"; it hinges on my reading that the server was rude and nasty. A reading based on living in latin countries but also one based on my English Canadian prejudice that French Canadians all speak English but resent having to (don't fault them for it either)

I find translations fascinating as a subject. While there can be a bad translation, there is never a perfect one.

[aubanel]

I see, thank you for the explanation! I agree your translation is better for removing the pompous aspect of the very original translation.

[not_your_mentat]

I grew up in Ontario and did French immersion schooling with two of my siblings. One year our family drove across Quebec to summer with grandparents in Maine. Along the way we stopped at a McDonalds for lunch. My siblings and I excitedly ordered in French: "Puis-je avoir un hamburger?" Our orders were taken no problem. Our New England anglophone parents then went to order: "May I please have a hamburger?" "Désolé; je'n comprends pas l'Anglais," they were told. The kids ended up ordering two "amburger"s for our parents. We've been laughing about it ever since. Good on em for caring about identity I guess? The stereotype of francophone rudeness is still a running joke in our family 30 years later.

Note: there are some wonderful French Canadians out there. Just not that day at that register in that Macdonalds.

[ramchip]

In Quebec French "on" is often used instead of "nous"; a closer translation would be simply "we don't speak English".

[yurishimo]

What are some more resources you would recommend to learn more about this topic? A documentary or book would be awesome (or youtube channels, blogs, etc)!

[sbsudbdjd]

As a separatist-sympathizer, I get it.... but instead of obsessing over teaching French to English kids, you'd think they could set up programs to teach their own kids to speak French!

French Canadian is the cruelest sounding language I have ever heard.

[qball]

>if you've been a stable nation for century+

Quebec has tried to separate twice in the past 50 years, and comes within a Brexit's margin of actually getting it done (and if it wasn't for Montreal, they'd already be gone).

The seed of that separation was, naturally, caused by a military conflict between what would become Western Canada and what used to be Upper Canada.

Canada isn't actually as stable a country as Ottawa might have you believe.

[alephnerd]

This might make you feel old, but the referendum was 30 years ago, and Black October was 55 years ago.

The whole Quebec movement is basically dead in the water now.

An entire generation of Canadians didn't exist or don't remember that.

I'd argue the GWOT, the Great Recession, and COVID have had a stronger impact on modern (2020s) Canadian politics and discourse than the Quebec Independence Movement.

[qball]

>The whole Quebec movement is basically dead in the water now.

Quebec's Separatist party has complete electoral dominance (except for Montreal, but Montreal is the least Quebec part of Quebec) and has the ability to force the government's hand on most things.

If the Eastern Big City Party loses the next election as is projected (and the Bloc correspondingly loses all of its power) they'll be back.

[alephnerd]

PQ has largely transitioned away from soverignity and largely campaigns on culture war issues like Bill 21 and immigration.

Only voters who are 65+ are split on soverignity. Every other age demographic overwhelmingly supports remaining in Canada [0]

This can be seen with the CAQ, which has poached most of the PQ's leadership and campaigns almost entirely on Bill 21 and immigration [1], not on "Quebec Libre"

[0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/17/quebec-francois-leg...

[1] - https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bill-21-groups-f...

[philistine]

Are you completely out of the loop that much? The PQ is first in the polls, and has promised a referendum within a first mandate. It's a whole fucking big deal that they managed to lead in polls right now while promising that.

[alephnerd]

Polling does prove that it's driven by immigration and culture war concerns, not Sovereignty [0]

[0] - https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/mai-2024/sondage...

[boringg]

It isn't as homogenous a society as an outsider would think but I can assure it’s quite stable as a country.

Quebec exiting anytime soon would be annoying for the country but a tragic mistake for quebec especially in seeing how poorly it has workout for the UK which had been an economic engine. Quebec has been sputtering since the 80s after their last referendum vote and since montreal lost its status as a city of import to Toronto. They would go from a poor economic performer to exceptionally poor.

[shiroiushi]

>Quebec has been sputtering since the 80s after their last referendum vote and since montreal lost its status as a city of import to Toronto.

City of import? Speaking as a tourist at least, Montreal is a much more interesting place to visit than Toronto. Toronto might be larger and have a bigger economy with more industry, but for a tourist I can't think of any reason to visit offhand.

>Quebec exiting anytime soon would be annoying for the country but a tragic mistake for quebec especially in seeing how poorly it has workout for the UK which had been an economic engine.

Separatists might not be that worried about economic power. Are all the Brexit voters unhappy with their vote now? A few maybe, but most probably are happy to be out of the EU, and blame their continued economic problems on immigrants, the EU, etc.

[neom]

Your Toronto/MTL tourism comparison isn't wrong, Toronto is ugly and boring, MTL is beautiful and fun.

People love to talk about Quebec and separatism, they can go if they want, but they owe us $300B, so I doubt they are going any time soon, their "country" would likely fall over on go.

[philistine]

What a great way to make me feel Canadian unity. Guess the country's not as stable if fear and threats are how you keep the minorities in line.

[boringg]

Huh? A bit of a stretch there.

[boringg]

Oh I agree - Montreal is definitely a nicer city from at tourist perspective and frankly from a live-ability most likely. However tourism doesn't really translate to economic power - and most of that is predicated on government decisions and perceived instability from the separation vote. and in the 80s all the banks HQ's relocated to Toronto. Montreal was the most important city in Canada in the 80s for minute ... now it trails behind Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver.

I don't disagree - separatists don't care because they would be trying to grab power at all costs. The rest of the population would be the ones along for the ride.

Also worth reminding Brexit was reverting to a former country state, quebec separatism would be wholly new uncharted waters.

[Scoundreller]

The separation vote wasn’t sanctioned by the Feds, so even if they got a majority, it would probably get shut down by the courts.

Did you mean Lower Canada instead of Upper Canada?

[TMWNN]

>The separation vote wasn’t sanctioned by the Feds, so even if they got a majority, it would probably get shut down by the courts.

Had Quebec voted Yes, Quebec City would have immediately declared independence. <https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/tkg5gf/who_has_...>

[amanwithnoplan]

I have no idea what "a military conflict between what would become Western Canada and what used to be Upper Canada" refers to unless you meant the northwest and Red River rebellions, in which case it really stretches my (anglo) mind how that has more to do with Quebec separatism than any of the other grievances.

[qball]

Closing off any future French-speaking (read: sharing more Quebec values) Western expansion was (and really, still is) actually a big deal.

[waldohatesyou]

Wait isn’t it the opposite? Manitoba was founded as a French Canadian province wasn’t it?

[sbsudbdjd]

but because the natives (metis) spoke French by the time the Brits got there.

[boringg]

I mean it was a smart move for the brits to retain control of language and culture whether you agree with them or not.

I don't know how that still is a problem?

[mbg721]

To me there's an uncanny-valley effect. Maybe it's the Looneys or the kilometres on the road signs, but it definitely feels the tiniest bit different.

[t-3]

Even the "standard Canadian accent" is nearly indistinguishable from the "standard American accent" except for the o's and a few words that have a more British emphasis.

[api_or_ipa]

Respectfully, the Canadian accent (really, Canadian English) is noticeable and distinct from US English, in its pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Yes, there is a lot in common with US English, but calling them the same loses an enormous amount of nuance.

On the other hand, the difference between a dialect and a language is an army and a navy, neither of which Canada has much of.

[PawgerZ]

The "standard Canadian accent" is pretty close to the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota dialects -- sometimes called North-Central American English. Nowhere else in America really talks like that, though, and no one would call it the standard accent. I would say less than 4% of Americans speak with that accent.

Midland American English is what we would call the standard American accent. Most of Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and parts of surrounding states speak in this.

[t-3]

What I was referring to with the standard accent is the TV/phone/public speaking accent. The one everyone adopts when you want to sound as "normal" as possible. Colloquially known as "white people voice" among various racial minorities. Local dialects definitely exist, but they're mostly used locally. Cross-region communication is usually "standard".

[JumpCrisscross]

> Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart

We tried to annex them in 1812, but they were technically British so it doesn't count.

[mikrl]

>Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart.

It was on the table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

From the Canadian perspective too, don’t think an American annexation of our landmass would go smoothly… Russians and Ukrainians are indistinguishable to an outsider and are currently unleashing centuries of built up ethnic turmoil on each other.

Anecdotal: I used to work with very right wing Canadian guys who cursed the name of the last president and called him all manner of names because of the trade war. These were the kind of guys who south of the border would have voted for him and bought the hat.

It’s not as simple as shared heritage == shared values.

[mandevil]

The Canadian's had their own counter plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1 It would have been a gigantic failure. The plan was to try and mobilize quickly, seize Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle, and hold on for dear life until the BEF arrived. But the British were clear from the beginning that they were never going to send significant reinforcements to Canada: the ocean was too large, the USN too strong, and the Canadian plains too vast for the British army to be able to effectively defend. At most they might try and send some troops to defend Halifax as a key naval base. So the Canadian plan ensured that their best troops would be lost quickly, that the Americans would be super-pissed off and unified, all for an ending that would never come. So while it might have made sense militarily, it could never have worked politically.

The US war plan for the UK was similarly weird: according to Miller, _War Plan Orange_ War Plan Red was the result of a deal between the US Navy and Army. The Navy wanted War Plan Orange (war with Japan) and so they let the Army write War Plan Red (the UK). Which was why a war between the two mightiest naval powers on the planet in 1925 called for the US Navy to be on the defensive, at most seize the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Halifax to try and deny them as bases to the RN, and then the US Army would invade a separate nation (Crimson aka Canada) that would probably try and be neutral in the war!

Basically, from what I can tell, the US, Canada, and UK were putting their best war planners on the likely threats, and putting their less experienced and good planners on these war plans. Because War Plan Orange was, at least if you squint, how the US defeated Japan. And the Canadian and UK's war planners for mobilizing in World War Two and sending them to France did a bang-up job. It was just these plans that were not thought through and would have been disasters if implemented.

[beloch]

Any war between the U.S. and Canada would play out in strange, unpredictable ways just due to how closely intertwined pretty much every critical capacity of our two nations are.

Both the West and East coasts would immediately have their power grids upended by the loss of Canadian hydro. Fuel supplies (and practically everything else in both countries) would be disrupted as Canadian suppliers turn off the taps and American refineries go dark. Pipelines would, in all likelihood, be sabotaged so that they can't be started up quickly even once controlled. Large parts of Canada would go on a sudden bread and meat diet, since they rely almost entirely on imported fruit and vegetables.

Neither side would likely have the element of surprise, since both sides would be compromised by a large number of people in their command structures who are either from the other nation or sympathetic to it. A significant portion of U.S. forces would likely refuse to follow orders unless there was a damned good reason to invade Canada. Civil unrest in the U.S. itself would be a huge problem for the same reason. U.S. rivals such as China would pounce on the opportunity to take advantage of things while all this is going on. If the U.S. rolls into Canada then nobody is going to give a fig about Taiwan.

Occupation would be another matter entirely. The territory is massive and the enemy indistinguishable from yourself. Canada would present many of the same difficulties with terrain as Afghanistan, but with a populace that can tell which end of a toaster to plug in.

[fingerlocks]

Since when does the US west coast depend on Canadian hydro electric generation? WA state has so much hydro the price goes negative every spring when the snow melts. There’s a half dozen LNG generators state wide for supply stabilization, several wind farms and solar arrays.

And the line loss would be too great to economically ship canadian electricity to California

[beloch]

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...

[fingerlocks]

Imports and exports are nearly balanced when you consider that is 1% of the total TWh produced on the west coast.

[mandevil]

I mean, this is all true for a war today. But the economies were not intertwined as tightly in 1925, which is when these war plans were being drawn up. The US and Canada had had a pretty nasty border dispute (at least from the losing Canadian side) just twenty years earlier, well within the memory of most politicians running Canada. (I suspect that most Americans had forgotten about the Hays-Herbert Treaty of 1903 by 1925, but it would have been far more prominent in Canadian minds.) With the passage of another century I would be honestly shocked if such plans existed today on either side.

[gen220]

Respectfully, I don't think Canadian <> American cultural exchange is anything like the Russian <> Ukrainian cultural exchange; beyond potentially passing the "indistinguishable to an outsider" test.

The modern and even pre-modern history of Ukraine is inseparable from a degree of violence that only existed in north america when directed towards slaves and indigenous population. There are not centuries of built-up ethnic/nationalistic turmoil between the U.S. and Canada, although I'm sure you could find some crazies who've convinced themselves there must be.

[mikrl]

It’s because when the US thought it could invade and conquer, they were thoroughly trounced and had their original White House burned down. The strategic calculus never made annexing Canada a viable proposition beyond then, and there are enough cultural differences to prevent a peaceful annexation.

Similarly, Poland once occupied Moscow in the distant past and has managed to persist as a distinct nation, though the Russian calculus sometimes worked out against Poland such as during Russian-Prussian or Soviet-Nazi alliances.

Ukraine and Russia have their own history yet Ukrainians have managed to valiantly persevere as we can witness today. Unfortunately for geographic reasons the strategic calculus there is much tighter than US-Canada or Russia-Poland.

[TMWNN]

>It’s because when the US thought it could invade and conquer, they were thoroughly trounced and had their original White House burned down

By the British, not by "Canada" (which didn't exist).

To put another way, even had the US not invaded British North America, the UK would still have attacked Washington as part of the overall war. The one did not cause the other.

[mikrl]

Did the landmass change? Canada is a successor nation to British North America.

The strategic reasons for a potential attack are similar, and the same risks remain.

The US invaded and failed. Had they succeeded I doubt the British would invade Washington vs strengthening their position in the remaining colonies.

[gnu8]

> It was on the table.

I think this is a misconception. It is the responsibility of the general staff to have a plan for any eventuality. The existence of such a plan does not imply that the political leadership has seriously considered launching military operations against a friendly neighboring country.

[smcin]

South Park says otherwise.

[throwup238]

> no war/trauma keeping them apart.

Just this little hiccup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Invasions_of_Canad...

Although with our cooperation at D-Day maybe Canada considers that water under the bridge.

[stackghost]

Technically we weren't a country in 1812, so if there was bad to be had it'd be with the Brits.

[ojbyrne]

Also this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Quebec_(1775)

[SECProto]

> I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, military or cultural policies that favor US enemies without being strong-armed out of it by the US.

I'd say Cuba is the exception that proves this rule

[hluska]

> I can't imagine Canada adopting economic, military or cultural policies that favor US enemies without being strong-armed out of it by the US.

Are you familiar with NATO? Clearly Canada wouldn’t do that - Canada can’t. But the existence of a treaty organization does not change how distinct we are.

As an example, school shootings. They’re far more rare here than population would dictate.

[Tiktaalik]

Every once in a while I come across some early mid century book that is handwringing about the increased "Americanization" of Canada so I think at some point perhaps there was more distinction. A lot of the anxieties around the free trade debates in the 1980s were about this.

But in general the relationships in NA work more North/South than East/West and the construction of Canada is fairly contrived. So while Canadians have a lot in common with Americans just across the border, this may be more regional cultural relationships. I would posit that your typical Seattle area Washingtonian has a more common culture with a nearby Vancouverite than they would with someone from Florida, Texas or New York.

[sbsudbdjd]

(Raised (fake) Canadian, living in the US)

I was in Canada last week and I saw a bunch of (real) English and (real) French Canadians. It dawned on me that the French Canadians resemble "redneck" Americans quite a lot more than the English whilst speaking a language that resembles French

The English Canadians (I wasn't in a major urban area, so these are what I call "real" Canadians) were quite different. Very reserved, low key and "proper". Unbearably stuffy.

[TMWNN]

>But countries form through common language, culture, religion, geography, interests or trauma/war. Anglo-Canada and the US have all the good things in common and no war/trauma keeping them apart.

Canada is indeed an anomaly. I can't think of another circumstance in which two countries that

* share land borders

* are 95% culturally, economically, and politically identical

* do not have longstanding historical grievances against each other

have not unified after two centuries; if anything, this fact implies that annexation is more likely than not to occur, perhaps sometime this century.

Americans on either side of politics think that Canada is full of super-leftists (and there is no shortage). But were Canada a part of the US in 2016, Trump would have won AB, SK, and quite possibly enough of the GTA (the parts that loved Rob Ford, and as "Ford Country" has repeatedly won the province for Doug Ford) to win ON, the province most resembling MI/WI/PA, the three states that Trump unexpectedly won the election with.

[philistine]

My existence as a Québécois helps explain why it hasn't happened. We collectively know that our language and culture are on shaky foundations with the Canadians; we know quick and painful assimilation would await us with the Americans. Canada is a country containing at least two nations, not just one.

[TMWNN]

Sorry; I meant to say "except Quebec" in the "95% identical" line, but it somehow got omitted.

When annexation happens I do not expect the US to be interested in Quebec because of language. I suppose that means that sovereignists ought to be in favor of US annexation.

[philistine]

That’s a giant if. How can you be so sure the US would have no interest in Québec? We’re not just a bunch of loser people. We have incredible talent in multiple high-investment fields, we’re the bedrock of hydro power on the continent, and we have the cool city all the Yankees want to see to pretend they went somewhere exotic.

The Americans know as much as me that quick and painful assimilation is possible. Why wouldn’t they wish to impose it on my nation?

[TMWNN]

Puerto Rico is still 100% Spanish-speaking, 125 years after annexation by the US.

It's possible that the US would annex Quebec and similarly keep it as a territory, but more likely is the US not bothering with it at all; why bring within itself an ethnic conflict that has bedeviled Canada for 250 years?

[philistine]

Your negative bias towards my people is showing; most raw raw Canadian federalists insist the mixture of both nations benefited the country, not made it more difficult to manage.

[Der_Einzige]

If you're advocating for Annexing Canada, or at least Quebec, there's a meaningful amount of support for this within Canada.

The only real opposition to this in the USA will come from conservatives who are upset at the large amount of "New Democratic" voters.

[mbg721]

Didn't Doug Ford get elected repeatedly?

[TMWNN]

He has.

Americans on either side of politics think that Canada is full of super-leftists (and there is no shortage). But were Canada a part of the US in 2016, Trump would have won AB, SK, and quite possibly enough of the GTA (the parts that loved Rob Ford, and as "Ford Country" has repeatedly won the province for Doug Ford as mentioned) to win ON, the province most resembling MI/WI/PA, the three states that Trump unexpectedly won the election with.

[486sx33]

Once, and once during Covid I mean Trudeau got reelected during Covid too because he temporarily relaxed restrictions, just to crank them back into high gear after winning again.

Also, Doug ford is no conservative, he’s just liberal lite. A pathetic spineless being