Union of the Americas. Could it work?

[Insaeldor]

No.

The cultural differences between those of Spanish and Anglo descent are pretty much equal, not including Brazil's Portuguese-esque culture. It would not work

This will be a significant shock to the large majority of people who are not Anglo-Americans.

I think I get where they're coming from, but to be fair there is a major difference between south and North America culturally. However the major barrier to the establishment of sure a union is the lacking of a pan-American identity amongst those in the Americas.

[Genivaria]

This will be a significant shock to the large majority of people who are not Anglo-Americans.

I think I get where they're coming from, but to be fair there is a major difference between south and North America culturally. However the major barrier to the establishment of sure a union is the lacking of a pan-American identity amongst those in the Americas.

Which we COULD have had if our founders weren't such pansies.
European Monarchists on MY continent!? It's time to bring some FREEDOM.

[Thermodolia]

I think I get where they're coming from, but to be fair there is a major difference between south and North America culturally. However the major barrier to the establishment of sure a union is the lacking of a pan-American identity amongst those in the Americas.

Which we COULD have had if our founders weren't such pansies.
European Monarchists on MY continent!? It's time to bring some FREEDOM.

All of the Americas or fight!!

[Conserative Morality]

I think I get where they're coming from, but to be fair there is a major difference between south and North America culturally. However the major barrier to the establishment of sure a union is the lacking of a pan-American identity amongst those in the Americas.

Identities are made, not born. Therefore, such a barrier is of little concern - aut viam inveniam aut faciam.

[Genivaria]

Which we COULD have had if our founders weren't such pansies.
European Monarchists on MY continent!? It's time to bring some FREEDOM.

All of the Americas or fight!!

Monroe Doctrine didn't go far enough!
"Okay fine you win you bloody colonials, have your damn 13 colonies."
"Plus Canada."
"Wait what?"
"You heard me, also better give us the Falklands to."

[Chestaan]

Sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice I worry that such a union would just lead to the US having even greater power and influence in a world where it already has too much say in world affairs.

[Pope Joan]

The EU is not worthy of emulation.

I had rather undo NAFTA (make Jershey manufacture its chocolate in the USA again, not in Mexico!) than create any super-governmental monsters.

[Napkiraly]

Sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice I worry that such a union would just lead to the US having even greater power and influence in a world where it already has too much say in world affairs.

I say it doesn't have enough. For instance, Chile is not yet a territory of the USA.

[The Two Jerseys]

Sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice I worry that such a union would just lead to the US having even greater power and influence in a world where it already has too much say in world affairs.

I say it doesn't have enough. For instance, Chile is not yet a territory of the USA.

All it takes is for Trump to "accidentally" refer to Chile as "Chili's" and say that we need to send the Marines in to protect our strategic fajita supply.

[Conserative Morality]

All of the Americas or fight!!

Monroe Doctrine didn't go far enough!
"Okay fine you win you bloody colonials, have your damn 13 colonies."
"Plus Canada."
"Wait what?"
"You heard me, also better give us the Falklands to."

La Argentina es AMERICA

[Rio Cana]

Perhaps between the United States and Canada. Include Argentina since their population is also made up of European descendents, some of whom came from Italy, Germany & Ireland, just like for AmeriCan's. Also, Argentina is pretty rich. I think it was in the top 10 richest countries back in the 70s. Anyway, just make sure it's de-centralized.

First rule when it comes to Argentina. They do not play second fiddle to anyone.

Found this site which compares Canada-Mexico-US culturally. https://www.123teachme.com/learn_spanis ... ted_states

A comparison chart on the differences between Argentina and US culturally -
US left side - https://crossculturalargentina.files.wo ... values.jpg

Seems Argentina has more in common culturally with Mexico then the US.

[Torrocca]

No.

The cultural differences between those of Spanish and Anglo descent are pretty much equal, not including Brazil's Portuguese-esque culture. It would not work

You do realize practically the largest minority group in the US-of-A is Hispanic, right?

Every country in the Americas actually has a lot in common (in regards to government practices, birthright citizenship, etc. not necessarily culture though - that's way more diverse) so people could easily find the common ground needed to make an American Union work.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Ignoring the undeniable fact that republicanism (of which this is an example) serves only the bourgeoisie, why would the mostly good Catholics south of the Rio Grande want to degrade themselves by accepting the Calvinist yoke that domination by Washington would bring?

What's with this anti-Calvinist bigotry?

Because it's apostasy. It turns the source of all love into a cruel psychopath.

[Sovaal]

No.

The cultural differences between those of Spanish and Anglo descent are pretty much equal, not including Brazil's Portuguese-esque culture. It would not work

You do realize practically the largest minority group in the US-of-A is Hispanic, right?

Every country in the Americas actually has a lot in common (in regards to government practices, birthright citizenship, etc. not necessarily culture though - that's way more diverse) so people could easily find the common ground needed to make an American Union work.

Considering that it didn't happen right after latino independence from Spain, and differences and nationalism have obly grown since then, I severly doubt it.

[Torrocca]

You do realize practically the largest minority group in the US-of-A is Hispanic, right?

Every country in the Americas actually has a lot in common (in regards to government practices, birthright citizenship, etc. not necessarily culture though - that's way more diverse) so people could easily find the common ground needed to make an American Union work.

Considering that it didn't happen right after latino independence from Spain, and differences and nationalism have obly grown since then, I severly doubt it.

Just because it didn't happen (except it kind of did for a while with Gran Colombia) before doesn't mean it can't happen now. In fact, it can happen far more easily nowadays since the world is so much more interconnected than it was in the early 19th century.

[The Two Jerseys]

Considering that it didn't happen right after latino independence from Spain, and differences and nationalism have obly grown since then, I severly doubt it.

Just because it didn't happen (except it kind of did for a while with Gran Colombia) before doesn't mean it can't happen now. In fact, it can happen far more easily nowadays since the world is so much more interconnected than it was in the early 19th century.

I'm pretty sure that Bolivia still hasn't gotten over losing its coastline to Chile...

[Sovaal]

Just because it didn't happen (except it kind of did for a while with Gran Colombia) before doesn't mean it can't happen now. In fact, it can happen far more easily nowadays since the world is so much more interconnected than it was in the early 19th century.

I'm pretty sure that Bolivia still hasn't gotten over losing its coastline to Chile...

Or Paraguay being almost made extinct by Brazil and Argentina.

[Sovaal]

Considering that it didn't happen right after latino independence from Spain, and differences and nationalism have obly grown since then, I severly doubt it.

Just because it didn't happen (except it kind of did for a while with Gran Colombia) before doesn't mean it can't happen now. In fact, it can happen far more easily nowadays since the world is so much more interconnected than it was in the early 19th century.

Sure, the world is more interconnected, but there are still divisions. For example, lets have Colombia and Venezuela. They both came from the same nation, but relations between the two are balanced on needle points. Would the more right wing Colombians really want a political union with the socialist Venezuelans?

[Torrocca]

Just because it didn't happen (except it kind of did for a while with Gran Colombia) before doesn't mean it can't happen now. In fact, it can happen far more easily nowadays since the world is so much more interconnected than it was in the early 19th century.

Sure, the world is more interconnected, but there are still divisions. For example, lets have Colombia and Venezuela. They both came from the same nation, but relations between the two are balanced on needle points. Would the more right wing Colombians really want a political union with the socialist Venezuelans?

Well, like I said in my first post, any sort of American Union would have rocky relationships in the short term, but I'm confident in the long-term of such a Union becoming much more stabilized between the countries.

[The Snazzylands]

Union of the Americas? You mean the US and its 21 bitches?
And no, nobody would agree to that. EU-esque free movement would just open the doors to fears that the US and Canada were going to be flooded with immigrants.

Literally every single American country is made up of European descendants.

Unless you don't count the Spaniards and Portuguese as European for some odd reason.

It's because America Is WHITE and so is Argentina

BASED TYRONE

What's with this anti-Calvinist bigotry?

Because it's apostasy. It turns the source of all love into a cruel psychopath.

Have you read the Old Testament?

[Sovaal]

Sure, the world is more interconnected, but there are still divisions. For example, lets have Colombia and Venezuela. They both came from the same nation, but relations between the two are balanced on needle points. Would the more right wing Colombians really want a political union with the socialist Venezuelans?

Well, like I said in my first post, any sort of American Union would have rocky relationships in the short term, but I'm confident in the long-term of such a Union becoming much more stabilized between the countries.

Early rocky relations can easily break any nation, as seem by Gram Colombia and the first Mexican Empire

[Gallia-]

This will be a significant shock to the large majority of people who are not Anglo-Americans.

I think I get where they're coming from, but to be fair there is a major difference between south and North America culturally. However the major barrier to the establishment of sure a union is the lacking of a pan-American identity amongst those in the Americas.

There's a large difference between the USA and itself, culturally.

Besides, the OAS already exists.

No.

The cultural differences between those of Spanish and Anglo descent are pretty much equal, not including Brazil's Portuguese-esque culture. It would not work

You do realize practically the largest minority group in the US-of-A is Hispanic, right?

They are not the most successful.

Sure, the world is more interconnected, but there are still divisions. For example, lets have Colombia and Venezuela. They both came from the same nation, but relations between the two are balanced on needle points. Would the more right wing Colombians really want a political union with the socialist Venezuelans?

Well, like I said in my first post, any sort of American Union would have rocky relationships in the short term, but I'm confident in the long-term of such a Union becoming much more stabilized between the countries.

There is already an American Union.

It's called the USA.

It's like the EU, but done right and proper.

[Torrocca]

Well, like I said in my first post, any sort of American Union would have rocky relationships in the short term, but I'm confident in the long-term of such a Union becoming much more stabilized between the countries.

Early rocky relations can easily break any nation, as seem by Gram Colombia and the first Mexican Empire

Yes, and if an American Union is going to happen and succeed, then the concerns of that early, rocky relationship need to be properly addressed.

[Gallia-]

Early rocky relations can easily break any nation, as seem by Gram Colombia and the first Mexican Empire

Yes, and if an American Union is going to happen and succeed, then the concerns of that early, rocky relationship need to be properly addressed.

Which will not happen for many, many years.

When everyone south of USA is as red as it is on this map (and slightly green on the second), you can consider an American Union. That would depend on wealth inequality present, but since it's America I imagine that the average person in Rich!Mexico will be living not terribly different from today, while the Gini coefficient approaches 0.8 or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... P_(nominal)_per_capita#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_(nominal)_2015.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coef ... d_Bank.svg

Unfortunately, the USA is slipping more towards the corruption and inequalities present in the systems and institutions of its less than fortunate Southern neighbours. Thankfully this means that if the USA becomes as corrupt and broken as, say, Brazil or Mexico, then it could be advised to enter into a dysfunctional union with them. No worse harm than what would already be occurring internally, unlike a hypothetical "American Union" today.

The only thing such supranational cosmopolitanism promises is an increase in the sovereignty and importance of local politics. Cities and sub-national entities will increasingly take on roles that national and supra-national bodies are incapable of handling. The ability to provide for national and global public goods decreases, and perhaps with it the rights of citizens decrease according to their net worth. I suppose that's why libertarians support open borders or whatever (presumably at some point you are allowed to literally murder poor people if you are rich enough), but that's a bit bad because I like having functional police forces, public education, rail and road transportation, and armed forces.

I'm not sure why some liberals (the OP) and some rightists (white nationalists) have taken up the cause of cosmopolitanism though, since mixing huge numbers of disparate and competing political factions/ethnic groups only leads to gridlock and inability to reach consensus, as can be seen from the European Union currently staggering along, the US Congress not working for the past thirty-odd years, and any sort of hypothetical political union that tries to pretend that nations and nationalism do not exist or are meaningless. It's hard enough making a single country work together, why talk about trying to make a continent work together.

[The Emerald Legion]

Yes, and if an American Union is going to happen and succeed, then the concerns of that early, rocky relationship need to be properly addressed.

Which will not happen for many, many years.

When everyone south of USA is as red as it is on this map (and slightly green on the second), you can consider an American Union. That would depend on wealth inequality present, but since it's America I imagine that the average person in Rich!Mexico will be living not terribly different from today, while the Gini coefficient approaches 0.8 or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... P_(nominal)_per_capita#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_(nominal)_2015.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coef ... d_Bank.svg

Unfortunately, the USA is slipping more towards the corruption and inequalities present in the systems and institutions of its less than fortunate Southern neighbours. Thankfully this means that if the USA becomes as corrupt and broken as, say, Brazil or Mexico, then it could be advised to enter into a dysfunctional union with them. No worse harm than what would already be occurring internally, unlike a hypothetical "American Union" today.

The only thing such supranational cosmopolitanism promises is an increase in the sovereignty and importance of local politics. Cities and sub-national entities will increasingly take on roles that national and supra-national bodies are incapable of handling. The ability to provide for national and global public goods decreases, and perhaps with it the rights of citizens decrease according to their net worth. I suppose that's why libertarians support open borders or whatever (presumably at some point you are allowed to literally murder poor people if you are rich enough), but that's a bit bad because I like having functional police forces, public education, rail and road transportation, and armed forces.

I'm not sure why some liberals (the OP) and some rightists (white nationalists) have taken up the cause of cosmopolitanism though, since mixing huge numbers of disparate and competing political factions/ethnic groups only leads to gridlock and inability to reach consensus, as can be seen from the European Union currently staggering along, the US Congress not working for the past thirty-odd years, and any sort of hypothetical political union that tries to pretend that nations and nationalism do not exist or are meaningless. It's hard enough making a single country work together, why talk about trying to make a continent work together.

Because the whole planet must become American property. Obviously.