What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Little Frog. Big Mission. Can Sgt. Frog conquer the Earth? view!
funimation.com - Watch the wacky miss-adventures of froggy aliens marooned on Earth. Season 1, Part 2 available 11/24
67 Comments
- Coven, on 11/26/2007, -10/+42FTA: "North America must have the lowest nation/surface ratio in the world. The huge subcontinent is made up of only two sovereign states: Canada and the US (*). This is not to say that this was a ‘Manifest Destiny’: many regionalist revolts were crushed to form these two monoliths."
Somebody needs to learn how to count. Or needs to go back to elementary school to study geography. North America is comprised of over 20 different countries. "Central" America is also technically part of North America, as are all of the Caribbean Island nations. Even if you want to look at the largest countries, the author of the article leaves out Mexico! - harmonix, on 11/26/2007, -1/+24Wow, so Winnipeg would still be cold and poor.
That's about right.
Yes, I'm from Winnipeg. - sjbdallas, on 11/26/2007, -5/+24Hmm, i kind of like the idea of a "republic of texas"
- dillyhoo, on 11/26/2007, -1/+19Brought to you by the Historical Preenactment Society.
- jiub, on 11/26/2007, -5/+19Look at the footnote:
(*): Please note that the definition of ‘North America’ varies: in Anglo-America (i.e. English-speaking Canada and the US) it is often held to be synonymous with the US and Canada. Sometimes, Mexico is included. And/or St Pierre and Miquelon (a French-administered collectivité territoriale off Canada’s Atlantic coast). And/or Bermuda. All of which would take the number of sovereign states covering North America up to five – still a very small number.
Basically he just limits himself to the landmass, not any of the Caribbean/Bahamas. While Mexico technically is part of North America, culturally it fits better in Central America which is why it is often omitted. - cyberdork, on 11/26/2007, -1/+14Here is another small nation for you: Rwanda.
- sundancekid503, on 11/26/2007, -0/+13Republic of Oregon(Cascadia?) has the best beer
- thesmrt12004, on 11/26/2007, -3/+14i don't think this would be too bad
- thelastknowngod, on 11/26/2007, -4/+13sometimes i wish it was like this. it would have eliminated the "america is the best" attitude long ago.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -5/+14Central America is not a continent. Every Central American country from Panama north to Mexico is part of North America.
- iching, on 11/26/2007, -3/+11Interesting site with other what ifs?:
Surreal Histories
by Matthew White
* History Site of the Week or Month or Something
* E Pluribus Unum: The chilling similarities between the SPQR and the USA.
* CSA Today Who won the Civil War anyway?
* Domini: an illuminated manuscript.
* Medieval America: What would America have looked like in the Middle Ages?
* Middle Earth: The map for J.R.R. Tolkein's lost sequel to Lord of the Rings.
* Moslem Australia: What if Australia had been contacted by Asians 150 years before the Europeans arrived in the Indian Ocean?
* Perotista Revolution! What would an American Civil War of the 1990s have looked like?
* Balkanized North America: What would America have looked like if every separatist movement in U.S. and Canadian history had succeeded? - cavergeek, on 11/26/2007, -3/+10I second that. Lets kick that wasteland of a state out of the United States.
- cersad, on 11/26/2007, -2/+8Interesting map, but I think this guy doesn't give enough credit to the Midwestern region. The actual Republic of Texas, after it won its independence from Mexico, was a good deal larger than he shows it here; all the disputed territory during the war became part of Texas and was then ceded to the USA after it was annexed. (http://www.answers.com/topic/republic-of-texas) Of course, there is a counter argument that with a fragmented US, fewer Americans would have gone to help fight with the war effort; nevertheless, the war was won by strategically ambushing the Mexican army during a siesta.
Also, he acts as though the Trail of Tears (1838) was still a success in spite of the much more fragmented United States, and that the Native Americans submitted to being sent to a territory smaller than Oklahoma! I'm not so sure that the West would have been taken from the Native Americans as easily if the USA were splintered and infighting instead of focusing its military (and civilian) resources on expansion. - jiub, on 11/26/2007, -2/+8Yes, but for use in this article he is not speaking of the traditional landmasses; rather using the terms "North America" and "Central America" as cultural and/or political regions.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Can you seriously act surprised?
He cropped the image centered to the United States. Alaska isn't there, neither is half of Canada, and Mexico. - inactive, on 11/26/2007, -1/+6Being with your mom last night was a "though experiment"
- Dunge, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4Where does that Quebec flag come from (green, white, red)?? I checked and there's no such country with this flag... and ours don't look like that at all.
- nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -5/+9Local government is so much more efficient than larger governments. Looking at history, you can see that larger nations like Russia and China have horrible human rights records while smaller nations like Norway and Holland have great records. Large nations tend to commit genocide while smaller nations respect human life.
- tzustrategy, on 11/26/2007, -1/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_191
Now that's a great alternate history. - TheOneKen, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3Europe would also be communist or fascist, Democracy would not exist in any meaningful way, the American economy would be nearly non-existant, the EU wouldn't exist because they wouldn't have had the American model or American protection, and we would likely be living with early 1900's technology.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3Mexico has twice the population of Canada.
- jacko7, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3Bombers suck.
:) - Elranzer, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3The "Republic of Oregon" would have actually been known as the "Republic of Cascadia", which includes pretty much the entire Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington and British Columbia). Thomas Jefferson was even in favor of making this a small nation rather than part of the union...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independe ... - Elranzer, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3And Texans belong no where near Federal Government.
- ZenMojo, on 11/26/2007, -2/+5So every Native American tribe would have been shoved into that tiny little section of government? Considering the massive exodus was primarily spurred on by US incursions into the west, I think the complexion of the region would have been significantly different.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/26/2007, -4/+6but it doesn't recognize the Aaron Burr conspiracy.
- MacEnvy, on 11/26/2007, -2/+4Really? Ask New Orleans how their local government worked out for them when the feds neglected to step in.
- FortyCaliber, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Shays Rebellion is a great example of one of those possibilities.
- FortyCaliber, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2You were dugg for the amount of laughter that caused me.
- Bamborzled, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Oh my god! Saskatchewan still exists?
- annonimality, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2"Tojo Japan most of Asia." - And to add to that, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor they destroyed the entire Pacific Fleet, meaning the United States was defenseless all the way to the Mississippi. What if the United States and the Pacific Fleet didn't even exist? How hard would it have been for Japan to conquer the entire west?
- FortyCaliber, on 11/26/2007, -2/+4Or where Lewis and Clark tag teamed Sacajawea
- theutopian, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2They forgot the Cherokee nation. I think It was in Georiga and they had a constitution and government but it was destroyed by the Union and the Cherokee were relocated to Oklahoma.
- nicholai, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2These nations are ***** up because of imperialism. The borders were not created by the locals but the super powers that decided to divide the land.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3Yeah right, either Hitler or Stalin would have dominated Europe and Tojo Japan most of Asia.
- TheOneKen, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2More peaceful? Well aren't you brainwashed. Without a central government, the US would have been at war with itself. In addition, no outside power would have been able to enforce peace in Europe.
- nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -2/+4I would be glad if my state was allowed to govern itself. The federal government is not just worthless, it is harmful.
- genezorz, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3admit it... this would be pretty cool.
- evodude, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Well, I'd still be an American. Which may or may not be a good thing, provided I still exist in this alternate world.
- lampiaio, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Alaska would still probably be Russian territory.
- doublehead, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1With over 80 million people with some Native American blood running through their veins I would suspect the Metis Nation would be somewhat larger.
- sjbdallas, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Fantastic! Let's do that then elect Nolan Ryan president of Texas
- FortyCaliber, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Don't admit that. At least say Saskatchewan... it's more fun to say anyways.
- Misesean, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1See this for example: http://antiwar.com/horton/?articleid=5711
Also, it's probably safe to assume a more libertarian America (allowing secession, etc.) wouldn't be alone in the world; a more libertarian Europe wouldn't have got involved in WWI either - e.g., the Austro-Hungarian Empire might have already broken up relatively peacefully, like the alternate America described here, before 1914. - davdev, on 11/26/2007, -2/+3I meant to dig nicolai down, but I dugg him up.
Ever hear of the following:
Haiti
Congo
Liberia
Sudan
Pretty much any country in central America
Myanmar
Rwanda
Somalia
Ivory Coast
All of those countries are know for being very respectfull of Human Rights... idiot - miriv365, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1No, it can't secede. It can split up into as many as 5 states though.
- inactive, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1How so? America had very little involvement in the first World War which was the precursor to WW2. Germany would have still lost and been affected by the Treaty of Versailles, the Bolsheviks would have still risen to power, I think the consequences would be the same.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2Bush is a yank.
- mindwalker, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Roswell, Texas offers another fascinating alternative history. http://www.bigheadpress.com/roswell?page=1
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is