Oh, you Canuckistanis are funny.

There, there, now. 

I think both of you have hit on parts of it (at least in my opinion).  For the most part the spanish did not send women, just men to take the riches back to the country.  And they interbred (and as Leauki said, the nobles did not do anything noble).  And yes, the english, upon realizing they missed El Dorado, came to settle, so they brough families and saw no reason to intermix.

I have not studied the mindset of that period so do not really know if there was an aversion to intermingle (except for John Rolfe), or a more willingness to.  Another thing to consider is that with the Spanish (and Portugese) came the missionaries and it was seen as a "god's mission" to convert the heathens.  The English really were not into that at the time either.

Now one nation is not really represented, because of their loss of their lands.  And that is France.  But with very few exceptions (Montreal), the French came to tap the natural resources, not plunder for gold and silver.  They lived well with the natives (and that was why they fought on the French side disproportionately during the wars before the revolution).

Since they were not here to settle, or convert, they fall into a 3rd category, but there is no real nation that reflects their heritage since all their colonies were taken over by the English (or later lost for other reasons).

Anyway, this is far afield of the topic.  I just have always found the differences somewhat intriguing.  And I suspect what Leauki said about Nobles may be a prime reason for the difference between the development of the english new world and the hispanic new world.

Ann coulter hunts seals?????

The americans often become outraged at issues that they take out of context, without prior knowledge of our own laws, political climate, or actual realities. If you think we have a distorded view of the U.S., just think a second how much the U.S. have a distorded view of Canada.

Seal Hunting is such an issue. Anyone knowing anything about that issue without having a furthering agenda cannot blame the Canadian government over it. But yet, European countries and the U.S. still do.

Ann Coulter's recent visit.. Just let it be known that Ann Coulter's own opinion of the situation is hardly an unbiased report. Also, pry tell me how you would react if you had a Russian pundit coming over to the U.S. arguing that you should be invaded? Ann Coulter has been openly hostile to Canada for irrational reasons in the past, without even knowing what she spoke about. And yet, she expected a bunny ride over here?

She was the one to decide to cancel her speech because there was manifesters around. But then again, those manifesters were not violents. They were clearly not overstepping their bound, by all police reports, and they were quite far away from Coulter's speaking position. I think she just wanted to make a victim out of herself.

The logic here is weak, Cikomyr.  She didn't need to cancel to 'make a victim out of herself' - she was a victim before she ever set foot on Canadian soil.

As for Russian pundits, that's an oxymoron.  Kidding aside, people are allowed to come to the US and say anything they want.  Our sycophant media celebrates them if they're critical of us, 'cause our sycophant media want us to know how evil we are.

As for being openly hostile to Canada, two things: 1) consider the possibility of political satire, and 2) her hostility toward Canada's irrational 'hate speech' laws (at least as enforced by CHRC) might not be so irrational.

It was a joke.  I knew what you were talking about, just playing with you.

1. Russian Coming over - How about Amedinijad?  Done. How about Chavez?  Done.  I do not like it and I sure as hell would not go to see them, but as I said, Done.  It is the price we pay for free speech.

2. Well, I guess you better tell your press corps who shot whom since it was reported the university cancelled the speech because of the threats.  Now I may not know a lot about Canada, but I do know how to read.  Given my opinion of the MSM down here, I should have known not to trust them that much.

No you aren't. Amhadinejah wasn't allowed on the ground of 9/11.

I know it might be a weak example, but foreign people in the USA aren't allowed to say what they want outside of the U.N. free zone. Right of Free Speech only applies to your citizen, after all.

She only got on her horse about the "Hate speech" law recently. Her open hostility about Canada goes WAY far back.

Political satire? Is that how you justify

Satire, eh?

You know, I know another great satire. He always rants on Israel and "calls for his destruction". But he's really funny, just a simple satire. He's president of Iran.

/sarcasm

Mahmoud?  His standup routine is hysterical.  Having to wait for the translation dulls it a little but not much.

What if he merely said that some of your land was somebody else's and you must leave it?

I believe that's how it's done in the UN.

Yes they are.  He came, he spoke, he said what he wanted to.  But then there are limits to WHERE you can say things.  YOu do not have the right to jump up on stage at a broadway play and recite the communist manifesto.  You can go outside and do it.  He could have gone outside and done it.  he chose not to.  But his right to blather on about his bigotry and hatred was not abridged.

It is like i can stand on the sidewalk and yell fire!  But not in a crowded theater.  Again, you have the right to free speech, but not the right to take away other people's rights when exercising yours (for then it is not a right).

That's right. You are not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Not even if there is a fire.

A union worker has to shout it.

  You have a perfect understanding of America, Leauki.  Karma to you.

the best humor has an element of truth.