You get close enough to the southern border of the USA, it’s a blended culture. You get up against the Canadian border, and aside from the coinage, boy you’re really living the same life on either side.
Is the artificial bordering of countries something that has almost NO impact on cultural patterns? You speak what you speak, you live in French Alps, you speak that dialect. It’s quasi-Swiss, quasi-French, IIRC. And, so on. Is there a border where the fact that you have one nation stop and another nation start REALLY defines a major shift in peoples and culture, across a few hundred yards?
I have thought about South and North Korea. The border is a large wide physical forest at this point, the No Man’s Land at the 38th parallel is actually a rarity on this planet. Untouched lands for the last 50 years in all ways. So, they are not exactly co-joined, geographically. Still one people, however.
Any thoughts on the issue of a line defining a people opposed to a border?
I live on the U.S. Mexico border, and one thing that is apparent is that in terms of culture we are very “Mexican” to those living to the north - but very “American” to those to the south. I imagine those who live along those other borderlands have the same “neither here nor there” complex.
It’s beautiful, I agree. What exactly does it demark? Why is Canada more “red”? And what are the impact-site like circular markings? If this is infra-red imaging and those impact-site like markings are heat zones created by population, ground lights and whatnot, uh…why is Canada so much warmer?
