[nephihaha]

My perspective is from Scotland, and what annoys me is the vanilla press continually going to the Copenhagen government and even the Danish royal family for quotes. Greenland is a Danish colony/overseas territory (delete according to view), and I'd prefer to hear from Greenlanders. I'm sure the average Dane rarely thinks about Greenland, or didn't until recently. (Much like most British never thought about the Falkland Islands until Argentina invaded.)

We had a similar scenario during the Scottish independence referendum with the international media going to London to talk about the matter.

As for the Manifest Destiny thing, maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm thinking more Monroe Doctrine. Manifest Destiny was heading westward, and grabbing Greenland, or even Venezuela, seems more aimed at those who would influence them from outside the Americas.

[cmrdporcupine]

Monroe Doctrine I think has always been considered to apply to Latin America. But probably mainly because the US has almost always (in the 20th century) had a subservient "partner" here in Canada.

But we were invaded (twice) here in Canada (or what became Canada) by the US. The only people to have ever invaded us. And when they did so, their leaders at the time were definitely flying the Manifest Destiny rhetoric. So much so they could not even imagine why the Quebecois and others didn't just welcome them with open arms.

So, no, I think it definitely applies northward too, not just westward. Or at least some of the ideological underpinnings of it.

[nephihaha]

Greenland, and Canada are in the Americas, as are Venezuela and Cuba. Three of these are independent nations while one is more or less a European colony. Venezuela and Cuba have strong ties with Russia that the USA resents.

Yes, I'm aware of the US attempts on Canada. I think US pop culture, and TV has done a better job of Americanising Canada than the military... Same with Europe.

[cmrdporcupine]

I tend to think of it more like this: There is a North American culture and then subcultures. "Canada" is in large part contiguous culturally with two North American cultural regions -- the midwest [hi there Minnesota, we love you!] and (at least parts of) New England.

This isn't really because of TV or cultural export but because of real population origins and movements. We say "pop" and have "Canadian raising" in our speech, and so do people from Minnesota or Wisconsin and that doesn't come from TV or radio or movies. It comes from being neighbours and descended from the same population groups. The border also used to be a lot more porous. My mother's mother were (German descendant) North Dakotans who just basically popped across the border and started farming and lived in Sask and Alberta... without a lot of legal hassle at all.

Overtop of that, yes, there is a whole set of other cultural/legal/economic overlays, and media is a big part of that.

But this is still a regional story-- there's I think more in common culturally between e.g. regular families in Ontario and Wisconsin than there is between Wisconsin and Florida.

From that perspective, I have rarely fallen back to Canadian nationalism. I would in fact have been more in favour of a stronger union between some US states and the US economy and Canada -- in the past. But events of the last year have made clear what many our Loyalist ancestors already tried to warn us about 200 years ago: there is a dark and frankly kind of insane undercurrent in American political culture, and the foundations of the Canadian state are anything but artificial, they are based on an entirely different perspective on governance and culture because there's something kinda messed up in the kernel of the American conception of governance.

Which I think the people of Minnesota are seeing right now.