Sixty years ago, a philosopher said Canada would be absorbed by America. He could still be right

11 comments

1. In “Lament for a Nation,” George Grant delivered a profound critique of Canada’s political landscape, accusing the Liberal government of the 1960s of compromising national sovereignty by aligning too closely with American interests. He argued that the decision to allow nuclear weapons on Canadian soil marked a significant capitulation, reflecting a broader trend of economic and military integration with the U.S. Grant contended that this integration began with the 1940 Ogdensburg Agreement and accelerated through various Liberal policies, ultimately undermining Canada’s political independence. His insights remain strikingly relevant today as Canada grapples with its identity and autonomy in the face of American dominance, particularly under the Trump administration, which has raised questions about the nature of Canada’s defense and economic relationships. By challenging Canadians to reconsider the implications of their dependence on the U.S., Grant’s call for a radical rethinking of Canada’s economic policies serves as a crucial reminder of the ongoing struggle for true national sovereignty and the need for a cohesive national identity that transcends mere economic integration.

2. You cannot annex 40 million people and walk away scott free. You will face incredible resistance at fanatical levels bogging down in brutal conflict like you see Russia face in Ukraine. and create social hatred against oppression by the people you annex. look at Ireland and UK.

   ​ You give your global opponents moral justification to do the same with much greater potential. China going in to annexation mode has a lot more to gain than the USA such as gaining for China energy and food independence. A key US advantage will be lost.

   Such action would disintegrate the Western alliance and reform EU and Europe as a new opponent of the USA, a 3rd major power in total opposition. The West is able to maintain global Leadership only united. China will overtake the USA militarily and economically very quickly in such a reality.

   The USA may not be more capable than Canada at defending and utilizing the Arctic due to having to finance and somehow integrate 40 million people would drain the US pocket book and leave no funds for the Arctic so it’s a loose- loose situation.

3. Anyone who thinks that America is realistically gonna invade and annex Canada doesn’t know anything about American politics

4. My boss is constantly talking about how Canada is a failed state, it will break up into smaller countries soon, imminently, says there’s no investment in business.

   He also said they want to be annexed.

   Yeah, don’t think so, bud. Canadians are proud to be Canadian. They may face future turmoil but it sounds like fox News talking with my boss’s mouth.

5. Hard to see how Canada could be absorbed into the US when the vast majority of Americans have no interest in absorbing Canada and Canadians have no interest in being annexed.

6. >The still more existential question that Grant asked Canadians 60 years ago, Mr. Trump has put to us once again. He asks, with his customary brutality: Since America protects Canada, and Canada couldn’t survive without U.S. markets and U.S. technology, why keep up the ridiculous fiction of pretending you are an independent country?

   As much as I enjoyed Ignatieff’s insightful essay, I think he himself acknowledges that neither he nor other Canadians can actually answer the above question in his last paragraph when he says that “But a plan beats no plan … may be our best shot”. In other words, not much.

   Ignatieff himself, of course, embodies Canada’s role as a branch plant. With Carney and Ignatieff, two of the three most recent Liberal leaders spent much/most of their careers outside Canada. Ignatieff moved back to Canada from the US to be elected Liberal leader, lost a federal election to Harper, then promptly returned to the US. By taking the BoE job Carney did the equivalent of the well-performing division head being promoted to a job at company headquarters. Further, both Carney and Freeland, the two candidates to succeed Trudeau as Liberal leader earlier this year, are Harvard grads (as is Ignatieff). Put another way, ***neither Carney nor Freeland has a post-high school degree of any kind from a Canadian school***.

   The unbelievably cringy Mike Myers ad with Carney is another example of this, of course. I am not sure what is more sad, that Carney’s campaign thought that there is no stayed-home-and-did-good Canadian that could have been used, or that it was probably correct.

   *Lament for a Nation* regretted the end of Canada’s national identity as “Britain in North America”. The replacement, such as it is, has been “not American”. That was and is never enough for anything more substantial than that, but was viable when the United States was busy enough with other issues to not contemplate annexation. But now that the question has been raised, Canada has no other answer.

7. As someone who grew up on the american side of the border, its definitely a serious possibility. I mean polling shows that ~20% of Canadians think their lives would be better if America annexed them. That isnt a fringe movement. There is an active secessionist movement hovering around 30-40% support that activity wants to join america, and a clone of the US republican party won 20% in a by election in Alberta. If this wasn’t a huge issue then there wouldnt be so much effort by the Canadian government to refute it.

8. I think it’s all bluster to support separatist sentiment in Alberta so we get the oil.

9. A country of 42M people with massive landmass and full of resources, an educated workforce , a strong industrial base, and a fiercely patriotic population yet here are a bunch of idiots acting like it cannot stand on its own. 

10. Doesn’t it seem inevitable, in time? Seems obvious.

11. I’ll let Canada join and be absorbed by America when the orange Taco is 6 ft underground.

Comments are closed.