Speaking of Nation-Breaking

[dewline]

I blame joe_szilagyi and for this.

Joe's been musing over the prospects of a break-up of the American Union of late. He's not the first and won't be the last to consider the prospect any time in the foreseeable. I've been guilty of the practice myself, whilst parochially considering the prospect of my own nation going to pieces out-of-bounds. I freely admit this chauvinism in spite of separatist movements that have been afoot from one end of Confederation to the other ever since I was old enough to understand a newscast on either TV or radio(particularly in the Prairie provinces, Québec and Newfoundland+Labrador).

Anyway.

Bought this book collecting and updating several dozen items from by Frank Jacobs yesterday, which reminded me of Matt Kirkland's Ex Unum, Pluribus! Some of the proposals are intriguing, others laughable. Which ones go in which columns? I'll leave that to you to debate, possibly at Mr. Kirkland's or Mr. Jacobs' websites more often than here.

Back to you...

Comments

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Anti-Confederation movements go back to 1867. The first one was, IIRC, in Nova Scotia.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

I'd almost forgotten that one, despite having read of it thanks to Bastards and Boneheads years back. Thanks for the refresher!

Noting that "Prepper Movement" linkage in your latest commentary (http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/2277939.html) for a second, I'm wondering if some of those "Preppers" might not be reassured by having Mr. Kirkland's site pointed out to them as an alternative suggesting a negotiated breakup with a greater chance of preserving useful infrastructure...?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

My impression is that calamity is big part of the attraction.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

You may well have a point there.

[jennawaterford.livejournal.com]

That guy's post reads like near-future SF. Still, I commented. Thanks for the link!

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

The best guide I have to seen to possible new nations (and existing regions) is Joel Garreau's The Nine Nations of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America). My own belief is that North America will break up largely along the lines envisaged in this book, with some changes taking place later. [For example, I really doubt that the "Empty Quarter" will become a single nation; it will probably be partly absorbed by its neighbors.]

[dewline.livejournal.com]

And what of the resource-burdened/resource-rich regions of Alberta and Saskatchewan? Might those provinces not find an excuse - and patrons - to engineer a separate nation, if things go wrong in specific directions?