I am reading your posts guys, so don't think your efforts are wasted. I'm quite fascinated to be honest and thank you all for taking the time to post.
We weren't taught anything (that I can remember) about North American history/politics, at school. Though I didn't do history at a high level.
It amazes me how/why things are so different either side of the
US/Canada border when the formation of those countries seems to have been by people from the same part of the world.
Also, I've often wondered why Britain gave/allowed national status to all of her discoveries/conquests (particularly the discoveries). Perhaps if Britain had incorporated each of those territories into 'The United States of Britain', treating each member state and it's populace with equal respect, the British Empire would still cover a quarter (rough guess) of the globe. Indeed, it would probably have grown and grown.
Que sera sera.
By the way, what is the criteria for becoming a member-state of the USA?
We weren't taught anything (that I can remember) about North American history/politics, at school. Though I didn't do history at a high level.
It amazes me how/why things are so different either side of the
US/Canada border when the formation of those countries seems to have been by people from the same part of the world.
Also, I've often wondered why Britain gave/allowed national status to all of her discoveries/conquests (particularly the discoveries). Perhaps if Britain had incorporated each of those territories into 'The United States of Britain', treating each member state and it's populace with equal respect, the British Empire would still cover a quarter (rough guess) of the globe. Indeed, it would probably have grown and grown.
Que sera sera.
By the way, what is the criteria for becoming a member-state of the USA?