Interesting. Why do they call it nation-building instead of country-building then?

>>>>>>>>I would appreciate understanding this is all. The idea of a "Nation" is what I don't understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think it is clear. A nation is a people with a distinct culture, history... Quebecers in the context of North America fit that definition. Confusing country with nation is why people become become cheezed off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unfortunately, that definition can be also applied to Newfoundland, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and probably a few others.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>
>>>>Are you suggesting that Newfoundland does not have a unique culture and history in Canada? If so, then I think you must have very odd definitions of culture and history.
>>>
>>>I'll give you Newfoundland, but not Alberta.
>>
>>I guess we could argue it, but in some way just about every province has a unique culture and history. Saskatchewan, for example, has a culture and history built in large part (at least in the north) on the settling of the Dukhobors and their pacifist farm culture. People who left Russia and the Ukraine to open up the Canadian west. For a good part of their history well into the 20th century, most of them spoke no English.
>>
>>I honestly think a case could be made for most provinces on the basis merely of culture and history.
>
>Sure they have a history, but this has become largely watered down to generic Canadian culture today. Because of this assimilation, they would no longer quailify as nations.