What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[mongers]

Will Trump become the 'Lance Armstrong' of US presidents?

[Valmy]

Will Trump become the 'Lance Armstrong' of US presidents?

No because at least there was a moment when Lance Armstrong was almost universally admired.

[Malthus]

To give an example chattel slavery never took off in Canada. There was slavery early in the colonial period, but it was relatively easily displaced. The reasons are no doubt in part due to geography - chattel slavery was mostly an entrenched thing in the US south because of its use in growing certain cash crops. Having slavery as a major aspect of one's past creates an obvious cultural difference.

Is not having chattel slavery more virtuous? An argument can be made that virtue has nothing to do with it, that it is all economics. Though I think that such reductionism may be too simple.

Your example rather overwhelmingly undermines your point here. I am not sure you could have chosen a better example to demonstrate that it IS about virtue. Our culture has been stained by the evils of slavery.

Well, I think you must argue that point out with BB. He's the one with the problem with claims that one culture is more virtuous than another.

I was totally agnostic on that score. Whether mass chattel slavery was a result of geography and economic forces, or a result of differences in virtue, is irrelevant to my argument, which is that the presence of it in one country and absence of it in another created a significant cultural difference between them.

[Malthus]

Both nations treated natives (and others) shabbily it is true.

The claim that the two nations have important cultural differences isn't based on an assertion that Canada never treated any of these groups shabbily.

Except the whole basis was going over how differently the non-white non-majority cultured people were treated as a cause or effect of those differences. I don't think they were that different.

How could they not be different, when one nation had mass chattel slavery based on race (even fighting a terrible war over that issue) and the other did not?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I didn't make any claim based on virtue. 

Though I will say this: geography can create incentives for vice.

To give an example chattel slavery never took off in Canada. There was slavery early in the colonial period, but it was relatively easily displaced. The reasons are no doubt in part due to geography - chattel slavery was mostly an entrenched thing in the US south because of its use in growing certain cash crops. Having slavery as a major aspect of one's past creates an obvious cultural difference.

Is not having chattel slavery more virtuous? An argument can be made that virtue has nothing to do with it, that it is all economics. Though I think that such reductionism may be too simple.

It's fairly obvious to me geography overwhelmingly determined the adoption of chattel slavery in the New World. With its practice being ubiquitous across the European colonies in the regions where it made the most economic sense, and it being much rarer in the regions where it did not. I don't really think there's any evidence at all that the profiteers that established the Massachusetts Bay Company and its associated Colony were more virtuous than the men who established the London Company and the Jamestown Colony. But even as early as then, slavery was already being practiced more in the South than in the North, in fact we kind of know the men involved weren't really different in virtue--the London Company had a New England colony as well that didn't utilize many slaves for the same economic-based reasons the Massachusetts Bay Colony didn't. [It should be noted for information and warding off historical sticklers, that African slaves in the early southern colonies were usually under a form of indenture, as slave codes formalizing permanent slave status didn't really exist in the colonies until they were passed in the period 1640-1660.]

There's also obviously more slaves even very early on, going to the places where slavery made the most sense. In the 17th century the North American colonies in general (even the Southern ones) had relatively few slaves when compared to the British West Indies, where heavy use of slave labor was an economic necessity for the profits needed to justify those colonies to be sustained. The growth of profitable trade in the American colonies lead to a more robust slave trade and greater slave numbers in the early 17th century. Meanwhile in the northern colonies which eventually came to include modern day Canada, slavery remained very rare and you even saw the first moral oppositions to it. John Adams opposed slavery his entire life, even some of the very limited forms of slavery that existed in Massachusetts in his day, he refused to do business with. For example there were businesses at the time that would hire out slaves to New England farmers for brief periods of the year where they might need the cheap short term labor. Adams proudly wrote that even when other men around him would make temporary use of these workers, Adams refused to have any unfree person work his fields. It's easy to say John Adams is more virtuous than Thomas Jefferson, and I guess by many measures he is, but I don't really believe it's do to some genetic difference between them based on their location of birth. It seems much more likely that due to the geographic particulars of their birthplaces, slavery was much less common in Adams life, it was far easier to become prosperous without owning slaves, and subsequently it was far easier to develop a strong moral opposition to slavery. The British holdings in Canada had essentially the same situation.

Moving on to more modern issues, I largely agree with BB that Canada benefits immensely that it doesn't have to deal with a huge border to its South through which very low-skill, non-Anglo immigrants cross into the country illegally at very large numbers, and have done so for generations. Whether the resentment people feel towards these immigrants is right or wrong, and it's a complex issue, it's just not the same set of particulars facing Canada. Canada certainly has faced cultural/social challenges, but being able to "pick your immigrants" is going to in my opinion make it a lot easier for society to tolerate and embrace them.

One thing not yet mentioned is Canada also has benefited from more or less having to solve an important cultural issue: namely, is Canada an Anglo country with a majority-Francophone province, and if so is that country able to maintain itself as a unified entity? The way Canada went about it was to basically elevate French and protect the ability of the Francophone population to protect its cultural and linguistic traditions. While we can all agree Quebecois are subhuman monsters, and there have been rough spots, at the end of the day it looks like it's mostly worked. But it's only worked because the Anglo Canadians were willing to basically accept some reduction in their "primacy." The White Anglo Americans have never had to really do that, in fact most of the history of the United States has been us successfully bending immigrant groups to being "like us." Our Germans and Italians learned English--or else, and they adopted a great many of our traditions and phased out a great many of their own.

[Malthus]

I didn't make any claim based on virtue. 

Though I will say this: geography can create incentives for vice.

To give an example chattel slavery never took off in Canada. There was slavery early in the colonial period, but it was relatively easily displaced. The reasons are no doubt in part due to geography - chattel slavery was mostly an entrenched thing in the US south because of its use in growing certain cash crops. Having slavery as a major aspect of one's past creates an obvious cultural difference.

Is not having chattel slavery more virtuous? An argument can be made that virtue has nothing to do with it, that it is all economics. Though I think that such reductionism may be too simple.

It's fairly obvious to me geography overwhelmingly determined the adoption of chattel slavery in the New World. With its practice being ubiquitous across the European colonies in the regions where it made the most economic sense, and it being much rarer in the regions where it did not. I don't really think there's any evidence at all that the profiteers that established the Massachusetts Bay Company and its associated Colony were more virtuous than the men who established the London Company and the Jamestown Colony. But even as early as then, slavery was already being practiced more in the South than in the North, in fact we kind of know the men involved weren't really different in virtue--the London Company had a New England colony as well that didn't utilize many slaves for the same economic-based reasons the Massachusetts Bay Colony didn't. [It should be noted for information and warding off historical sticklers, that African slaves in the early southern colonies were usually under a form of indenture, as slave codes formalizing permanent slave status didn't really exist in the colonies until they were passed in the period 1640-1660.]

There's also obviously more slaves even very early on, going to the places where slavery made the most sense. In the 17th century the North American colonies in general (even the Southern ones) had relatively few slaves when compared to the British West Indies, where heavy use of slave labor was an economic necessity for the profits needed to justify those colonies to be sustained. The growth of profitable trade in the American colonies lead to a more robust slave trade and greater slave numbers in the early 17th century. Meanwhile in the northern colonies which eventually came to include modern day Canada, slavery remained very rare and you even saw the first moral oppositions to it. John Adams opposed slavery his entire life, even some of the very limited forms of slavery that existed in Massachusetts in his day, he refused to do business with. For example there were businesses at the time that would hire out slaves to New England farmers for brief periods of the year where they might need the cheap short term labor. Adams proudly wrote that even when other men around him would make temporary use of these workers, Adams refused to have any unfree person work his fields. It's easy to say John Adams is more virtuous than Thomas Jefferson, and I guess by many measures he is, but I don't really believe it's do to some genetic difference between them based on their location of birth. It seems much more likely that due to the geographic particulars of their birthplaces, slavery was much less common in Adams life, it was far easier to become prosperous without owning slaves, and subsequently it was far easier to develop a strong moral opposition to slavery. The British holdings in Canada had essentially the same situation.

Moving on to more modern issues, I largely agree with BB that Canada benefits immensely that it doesn't have to deal with a huge border to its South through which very low-skill, non-Anglo immigrants cross into the country illegally at very large numbers, and have done so for generations. Whether the resentment people feel towards these immigrants is right or wrong, and it's a complex issue, it's just not the same set of particulars facing Canada. Canada certainly has faced cultural/social challenges, but being able to "pick your immigrants" is going to in my opinion make it a lot easier for society to tolerate and embrace them.

One thing not yet mentioned is Canada also has benefited from more or less having to solve an important cultural issue: namely, is Canada an Anglo country with a majority-Francophone province, and if so is that country able to maintain itself as a unified entity? The way Canada went about it was to basically elevate French and protect the ability of the Francophone population to protect its cultural and linguistic traditions. While we can all agree Quebecois are subhuman monsters, and there have been rough spots, at the end of the day it looks like it's mostly worked. But it's only worked because the Anglo Canadians were willing to basically accept some reduction in their "primacy." The White Anglo Americans have never had to really do that, in fact most of the history of the United States has been us successfully bending immigrant groups to being "like us." Our Germans and Italians learned English--or else, and they adopted a great many of our traditions and phased out a great many of their own.

Needless to say, I don't disagree ... aside from the "subhuman monsters" part.  This acts as a description of why cultural and institutional differences developed.

Though personalities do have something to do with it as well - for example, in Upper Canada, the influence of Simcoe was vital in eliminating slavery (he personally hated slavery, and had the power to force through legislation to that effect).

[grumbler]

I was totally agnostic on that score. Whether mass chattel slavery was a result of geography and economic forces, or a result of differences in virtue, is irrelevant to my argument, which is that the presence of it in one country and absence of it in another created a significant cultural difference between them.

I believe that the cultural differences created by the existence of strong African cultural influence in the US are even more significant than the mere existence of slavery (and the resultant racism).

[Malthus]

I was totally agnostic on that score. Whether mass chattel slavery was a result of geography and economic forces, or a result of differences in virtue, is irrelevant to my argument, which is that the presence of it in one country and absence of it in another created a significant cultural difference between them.

I believe that the cultural differences created by the existence of strong African cultural influence in the US are even more significant than the mere existence of slavery (and the resultant racism).

Fair enough - even in such matters as music, the culture of the US was hugely shaped by that. But the two are difficult to disentangle, as the African presence was largely because of slavery, and the African-American experience shaped by racism.

[Razgovory]

I was totally agnostic on that score. Whether mass chattel slavery was a result of geography and economic forces, or a result of differences in virtue, is irrelevant to my argument, which is that the presence of it in one country and absence of it in another created a significant cultural difference between them.

I believe that the cultural differences created by the existence of strong African cultural influence in the US are even more significant than the mere existence of slavery (and the resultant racism).

God, I hope so.

[crazy canuck]

I was totally agnostic on that score. Whether mass chattel slavery was a result of geography and economic forces, or a result of differences in virtue, is irrelevant to my argument, which is that the presence of it in one country and absence of it in another created a significant cultural difference between them.

I believe that the cultural differences created by the existence of strong African cultural influence in the US are even more significant than the mere existence of slavery (and the resultant racism).

Agreed. And those strong cultural influences did not stop at the border.

[Zoupa]

But it's only worked because the Anglo Canadians were willing to basically accept some reduction in their "primacy."

They have?

Bonne nouvelle les gars! La lutte est finie, on a gagné!

[Sophie Scholl]

I really worry that the Democracts are making the mistake of the UK Labour party and choosing this vital moment to rush left and let our country be gravely injured. There are these kind of voters out there who would love to help us boot Trump out but might hesitate with all 10,000 unicorns for every fairy princess stuff.

So... let's disregard the "lesson" of 2016 in our country for the "lesson" of 2019 in another?  I think Hillary and Corbyn as leaders and targets have more in common and are connected to one another in their failures than any drift to the left in the UK or US in terms of their success.

[Valmy]

I think that is a perfectly fine view that might have some merit, don't go all self pity on me. I have said before that this is a time of radical politics so maybe that is indeed the winning formula. But sometimes my hands wring a bit when I hear these proposals

[viper37]

But it's only worked because the Anglo Canadians were willing to basically accept some reduction in their "primacy."

Only because they feared the American monsters more than the French Canadian ones

[HVC]

The US fear of "losing relative power" is because the US has a long history of having disadvantaged groups (and treating them badly), and a lot of the immigrants that are coming aren't integrating that well into "white" society and culture.

This is the point I was getting at: that the two nations are, in fact, culturally different in some fundamental ways.

Here's the problem I have with that.  You make it sound like Canada's culture is better, more virtuous.  I think we're just geographically lucky.

I didn't make any claim based on virtue. 

Though I will say this: geography can create incentives for vice.

To give an example chattel slavery never took off in Canada. There was slavery early in the colonial period, but it was relatively easily displaced. The reasons are no doubt in part due to geography - chattel slavery was mostly an entrenched thing in the US south because of its use in growing certain cash crops. Having slavery as a major aspect of one's past creates an obvious cultural difference.

Is not having chattel slavery more virtuous? An argument can be made that virtue has nothing to do with it, that it is all economics. Though I think that such reductionism may be too simple.

we did and do have tobacco farms up here. guess just not as cash crop-y as cotton to "justify" slavery