That is the essay I was remembering.

I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that the essay was longer, but such are the tricks that memory plays on you.

And apparently I was wrong about the author being a famous Jazz player as well. Although at the age I first read it, I probably did not understand the difference between Jazz poetry and Jazz music.

That error explains why I could not find it again though. I went through the biographies of most of the famous Jazz players trying to find that essay again.

http://www.courses.vcu.edu/ENG200-dwc/hughes.htm

I look forward to reading the finished work.

Having read your entire essay I am still unable to understand why we should regard the death of the Archduke as some magical dividing line in history. No one would argue that The First World War was anything but the most unfortunate occurrence. But the sweeping away of imperial authority would have happened regardless. One of the things that drove the German war mongers on was fear of a revolution in their own homeland. The changes that you talk about had their roots in a time long before the poor Archduke was killed.

Your fundamental problem is that you do not allow for the reality of progress. Contrary to your assertions, the French Revolution had a lasting impact on Europe. And so did many reform efforts and revolutions in the pre world I era. Some of the outcomes of these efforts were regrettable, but that is how evolution works. The end result of this evolution has been a greatly increased understanding of the sciences of government. We now know a great deal about what works and what does not work.

Yes, governments of today don’t have same religious character of those old empires. But seeing as all those religious attachments brought about a lot of bloodshed I don’t lament their absences. Have you ever heard of the 30 Year War? If that is the type of stability that “authority” brings I think I shall pass thank you very much.

Good government should be boring. It is all about bringing about increasing basic human happiness, not satisfying the longing of disturbed men to feel part of something bigger then themselves. Governments should inspire men to improve their lives, not give them up. The fact that governments around the world now owe their legitimacy to their management of the economy is a good thing. It is far superior to a government based on chest thumping. In the long run, it is more stable as well. It is unlikely to get you into wars that you can’t get out off.

You asked an interesting question. What defines Canada indeed? Why don’t you elaborate on what you think defines Canada?

Having known people from the South and people from Canada I can tell you they are very different cultures.

Why is it that Canada has an economic system that is more akin to Europe then America?

As to your second point, maybe you could elaborate more on the similarities you see between the position of woman and the position of slaves in the early 1800’s.

In reality, slavery is what came to define the South.

After partition, the South wouldn’t need a peculiar institution to define it. What defines Canada?

You don’t come to the position where you have four million people in slavery without structuring your whole society around those things that are necessary to keep those people in slavery.

This is an argument that proves too much, e.g. that emancipation of women could never have come about except by external force.