As I understand it, the Inuit of the northern regions also ate roots, greens,and berries. Apparently the stomach contents of the animals they harvested were also consumed, having been already partially processed by the animal. I imagine these brief variations in diet would be a very welcome change!
At the same time, the first peoples had extensive trade networks. This is why camas was grown in such large quantities, so it could be traded to those without a regular supply of it.
Trade was important to be able to get resources unavailable in one's own area. There is no source of obsidian here on Vancouver Island, but we find a lot of it. Some we have had tested came from Idaho, as well as Mt Hood & the Newbury Volcano in Oregon (about 400 miles away).

While the Inuit do eat berries, the growing season is extremely short. Roots don't like to grow in permafrost and I've never seen greens growing up there. Having spent some time working in Barrow, we were occasionally invited to Eskimo get-togethers and were offered some of the local food. It would have been very rude to refuse, so we did eat some, but found it absolutely disgusting. Muktuk comes to mind: whale blubber. For entertainment we'd often go to the local grocery store to watch the occasional tourist freak out over the prices, since everything was flown in.

We know that a function of capitalism is to benefit the holders of wealth.

Yep! You might say that capitalism is the absolute worst economic system ever devised by mankind ... except for all the others.

By all measures, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, helped raise the standards of living in Canada, Mexico, and United States. The problem with agreements of this type is that the results are uneven and messy. There are winners and losers and unforeseen and unintended consequences. My apologies in advance for suggesting that my Fellow Zihua Lovers read reputable articles on such matters. However, one only has to enter a phrase such as "nafta benefits and harmful effects" into the Internet search engine of your choice (or -- Heaven forbid! -- visit the local library of your choice) and one will be inundated with information on the effects of this agreement and its Trump-induced successor, USMCA, the United States Mexico Canada Agreement.

It would be so nice if we could wave a magic wand and have everyone amply blessed with the basics of life: food, clothing, and shelter ... and high-speed Internet access. Sad to say, it jest ain't so. In the meantime, we have to do our best and use the economic tools at our disposal. And ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution when Adam Smith recommended free trade as an important tool for increasing the standard of living of economies in his monumental work The Wealth of Nations, we have seen him proved correct over and over again.

-------------------------

Warning! Discussion of one of the unfortunate but completely expected consequences of NAFTA follows:

When NAFTA was fleshed out in the early 1990's, one of the industries opened was agriculture. The negotiators knew that Mexico's agriculture sector was going to be hammered by the U.S. and Canada. They knew beforehand that farmers in Mexico were going to see prices of corn and sorghum and other food commodities being sold for less than it cost the Mexican farmers to grow them. In a perfect world, they would have included a provision for a guest worker program so that the Mexican workers could legally work in the U.S. and Canada since the farm jobs in Mexico would be reduced drastically. At the same time, farms in the U.S. and Canada were in dire need of workers. Of course, NAFTA was such a hard sell in the U.S. that any hint of a guest worker program would have scuttled it completely. The result? Before NAFTA, an estimated 2 million undocumented workers lived in the U.S. By 2007, an estimated 7 million undocumented workers were living in the U.S. (The latter number is sometimes reported as much higher.) Again, ain't nuthin' we humans have done is perfect!

The article mostly concentrated on the economic similarities. The economies of both countries are heavily influenced by their proximity to the world's largest economy. Reread the article from this perspective and you will find that Canada and Mexico share much in common, whether they like it or not.

I think the article is premised on an assumption that is faulty, “It is remarkable that Canada and Mexico have so much in common, beginning with our values…”. Our histories have contributed to different perspectives and values as I briefly outlined above.

It then suggests not that we have economic similarities, but economic differences that would match each other for the purpose of exploitation. “As the report highlights, our economies are almost perfectly complementary, with Mexico’s young population potentially serving as a much-needed source for labour in Canada.”

And there is where we start getting to the orientation of the article. It was written not from a human rights perspective or a labour rights perspective, but from the perspective of business interests.

“Louise Blais is … a special adviser for international affairs for the Business Council of Canada. Blais is writing as an apologist for Canadian business interests.

My view of the trilateral agreements might not be shared, but I see them as fundamentally a method of exploitation of Canada and Mexico, not specifically by the USA, but by the principles of modern capitalism.

Canada is rich in primary resources. Mexico has cheap labour. The USA has investment money.

The agreements promote the use of American investment funds to benefit from the exploitation of Canadian primary resources (that are collectively owned by the people of Canada) and Mexican labour (That experiences substandard terms and conditions of employment).

We know that a function of capitalism is to benefit the holders of wealth. Trilateral agreements have not significantly improved the lives of Mexican workers who continue to experience substandard terms and conditions of employment. Canada’s ability to establish laws to enhance its own control of its natural resources is fettered by the ability of foreign businesses to sue a government for laws the business considers discriminatory.

This is by design, not accident. They are “free trade” agreements, not “fair trade” agreements.

I suggest that the article advances another venue for exploitation of Canadian resources and Mexican workers by investment capital, not fair trade that would require comparability of terms and conditions of employment information workers in both countries. No more Mexican minimum daily wages that look like Canadian hourly minimum wages.

Another general thought seems to be that 'Indians' lived on meat or fish. No one can live on those alone. Just watch "Alone" and see how those folks make out!
Makes sense to grow your food and keep it handy, rather than traveling to go get it all the time.
Hope that helps. Cheers

As far as I know, the Eskimos on the North Slope of Alaska only survive on meat and fish, since nothing edible (for humans) grows at those latitudes. The caribou make do with what grows on the tundra.

This isn't quite accurate.
Many of Canada's Indigenous nations practiced farming and gardening for many thousands of years before Europeans showed up.
It has been well documented that the people of the Iroquois Confederacy of a large area of Eastern Canada and the USA, were accomplished horticulturalists. They relied on the Three Sisters - Corn, Beans and Squash, but grew other crops as well.
Many of the Indigenous peoples of British Columbia's coast and interior were horticulturalists and aquaculturalists. A study of pre-European cultivated areas that I am working on is really exciting in that these 'gardens' are actually turning out to be 'fields', which we predict may turn out to be hundreds and hundreds of acres. We suspect that they were also growing potatoes and cucumbers before the arrival of Europeans. Camas, a starchy carbohydrate bulb, was grown, consumed and traded extensively, forming a major component of the Indigenous economy, as well as diet.'Clam gardens', a sophisticated form of aquaculture, were unknown until recognized about 20 years ago, and what we are learning from them is amazing!
Recently, it has been found that the Indigenous people of the prairies, formerly thought to simply follow the herds of bison, were also actively practicing horticulture to produce food, medicines and materials.
For some reason, Joe Public seems to think that we know everything there is to know about our North and South American Indigenous cultures (not pointing at you Little Guy). I suspect this is tool of colonization, encouraged by greedy governments and enterpeneurs. You can't justify stealing people's lands and resources, if you praise them and their culture. You have to denegrate and disparage them, so that it is ok to subjugate them and take over the territory of these lesser beings that clearly don't know the value of that land or the resources anyway.
Another general thought seems to be that 'Indians' lived on meat or fish. No one can live on those alone. Just watch "Alone" and see how those folks make out!
Makes sense to grow your food and keep it handy, rather than traveling to go get it all the time.
Hope that helps. Cheers

I am a Canadian citizen and permanent resident of Mexico. I have paid attention to similarities and differences between the countries and cultures for decades. I find the piece in the Globe to be naïve at best.

The article mostly concentrated on the economic similarities. The economies of both countries are heavily influenced by their proximity to the world's largest economy. Reread the article from this perspective and you will find that Canada and Mexico share much in common, whether they like it or not. As Porfirio Diaz is (most likely erroneously) quoted as saying, "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the US."

As to the much trumpeted violence in Mexico, nothing will change until we in the United States acknowledge the massive failure of the War on Drugs. But we aren't supposed to talk about that anymore here on Zihuatanjo.net. It hurts people's feelings.

I am a Canadian citizen and permanent resident of Mexico. I have paid attention to similarities and differences between the countries and cultures for decades. I find the piece in the Globe to be naïve at best. Let’s look at just a tiny bit of the premise.

It is remarkable that Canada and Mexico have so much in common, beginning with our values,

Something I value about my relationships with Canada and Mexico are differences in values. When in Mexico, I appreciate the emphasis on family, friends, and attachment to community as well as heritage. I know Mexicans who have lived their lives in one state or even one town and have lived near relatives their entire lives.

In Canada, I appreciate the highly mobile nature of the culture and economy. I have lived in over a dozen communities in five provinces and one territory. As adults, my three siblings and I have never lived in the same community. Sometimes we went years without seeing our parents, not because of breaches in the relationships, but because of mobility.

I suggest that Canadians value education and relocations as means of achieving the value of upward economic and social mobility over Mexican values of family relationships, multi-generational connectivity, and being part of a community.

Both countries rose from their colonial pasts to become modern democracies…

The colonial pasts could hardly be more different. Mexico was an urbanized society at the time of European invasion. Indigenous peoples were largely militarily overpowered, and subjugated through effective enslavement. Canadian indigenous people were largely hunter-gatherers. This is not to suggest they were somehow inferior to Mexican indigenous people, but they did not witness the destruction of their universities, temples, palaces, etc. because they had not been built. Instead, in the early years of colonization, Europeans benefited from and relied on indigenous people for their own survival.

Mexico had a history of multiple foreign invasions, occupations, and subjugations of its peoples resulting in a long violent past. It experienced losses of huge parts of its country to American “manifest destiny”. Canada’s colonial history is one of two European countries, Britain and France, that scrapped between themselves until sorting out two colonial spheres of influence in a single country, followed by integration of territories already dominated, largely by the British.

The American invasion of “Canada” (then “British North America”) in 1812 was handily rebuffed.

American president Polk also intended to acquire most of Canada. His slogan of “54 40 of Fight” and his commitment to invade to acquire the territory came to nothing.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/29b.asp#:~:text=Polk%20called%20for%20expansion%20that,to%20victory%20against%20all%20odds.

The only thing remotely similar to Mexican revolutions was the comparatively modest Northwest Rebellion in which dozens, not thousands or hundreds of thousands died.

Although Mexico has made progress in governance in recent years, it is naive to forget the 70 year history of the PRIista hegemony or the even longer history of “strongman” rulership, whether by colonial powers or by domestic autocracy. This is very different from Canada’s long history of federal and provincial multi-party politics.

Nice comparisons. Thanks.

With everything that happened in Sinaloa last week I would argue vehemently against a more open relationship with Mexico I was unable to breach the paywall on the Globe and Mail article so I can’t speak directly to it.

What does the arrest of a criminal have to do with not wanting a more open relationship with Mexico? Canada doesn't have criminals? You don't arrest them?

So you don't want a more open relationship with Mexico, but you want Mexico to continue welcoming Canadian tourists and investors with open arms.

Canadian Investment in Mexico Has Grown in Recent Years

SHARE

BOOKMARK
Louise Blais is a former senior diplomat and a special adviser for international affairs for the Business Council of Canada.

As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, U.S. President Joe Biden and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador prepare to participate in the North America leaders summit in Mexico City on Tuesday, this is an opportunity to reflect on the sleeper story: why Canadians and Mexicans do not truly appreciate the untapped potential of their bilateral relationship.

The summit will, again, put the spotlight on the trilateral partnership. Yet, while we have a strong multifaceted bilateral alliance with the United States, Canada and Mexico lack a comprehensive engagement strategy. Sure, we have the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. And those trade pacts are critical. Yet, multilateral economic deals are but a component of what should be a more fully encompassing and thoughtful co-operation framework.

It is remarkable that Canada and Mexico have so much in common, beginning with our values, yet we have primarily seen each other through the prism of our relationship with our superpower neighbour. Both countries rose from their colonial pasts to become modern democracies, have rich cultural heritages, and are seeking reconciliation with their Indigenous populations, yet Canada and Mexico have not actually sought close strategic ties.

This is all the more perplexing since Canadians travel to Mexico in droves every year, despite the occasional flare ups of violence. And geopolitically, we both have Pacific links and are increasingly wary of external influence in our hemisphere.

With so much in common, why have we invested so little in our bilateral relationship? Perhaps the obvious answer is that we have both let ourselves be distracted by our common neighbour’s outsized influence. Yet, that does not fully explain the neglect.

During my time at the United Nations, it always struck me that while enjoying cordial relations at the personal level with each other’s delegation, there was little in the form of co-ordination on resolutions and voting. Mexico belonged to the Latin American group, and Canada strategized with its like-minded peers in the Western Europe and others group. There was no continental co-operation in the multilateral arena. We just do not see each other that way. That always struck me as a missed opportunity. If we had joined forces, each bringing our own spheres of influence, we could have strengthened our positions and driven positive change.

One recent positive development was the launch last year of the Canada-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue, which included discussions on the need to “nearshore” to protect our critical supply chains. And the private sector is also leading the charge. The Business Council of Canada and its Mexican counterpart, the Consejo Mexicano de Negocios, recently released a report entitled Primed for Growth: Optimizing Opportunities in the Canada and Mexico Economic Partnership. The report, presented to both governments last December, calls for greater two-way investment, enhanced cross-border mobility to address labour shortages, closer collaboration to defend infrastructure against cyberattacks, and increased engagement from regional governments.

As the report highlights, our economies are almost perfectly complementary, with Mexico’s young population potentially serving as a much-needed source for labour in Canada. Leveraging our respective strengths, we could expand our prosperity agenda by insulating our critical sectors, such as energy, health and transport, from planetary shocks that are now sure to come.

However, for a strong economic partnership to develop and flourish, we need trust as the foundation. We should establish academic and cultural exchanges, such as the kinds we have with the U.S. and our European allies. These people-to-people ties would help dispel preconceived impressions and open the door to opportunities we fail to recognize today.

A stronger Canada-Mexico pillar will only enhance our continental alliance with the United States and could bring greater equilibrium in this trio. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement should be seen as the beginning of the North American Way, not an end in and of itself.

At a time of global disruption and great uncertainty, forging a true partnership with Mexico, like the one we built with the United States, has never made more sense.

It is remarkable that Canada and Mexico have so much in common, beginning with our values,

Something I value about my relationships with Canada and Mexico are differences in values. When in Mexico, I appreciate the emphasis on family, friends, and attachment to community as well as heritage. I know Mexicans who have lived their lives in one state or even one town and have lived near relatives their entire lives.

In Canada, I appreciate the highly mobile nature of the culture and economy. I have lived in over a dozen communities in five provinces and one territory. As adults, my three siblings and I have never lived in the same community. Sometimes we went years without seeing our parents, not because of breaches in the relationships, but because of mobility.

I suggest that Canadians value education and relocations as means of achieving the value of upward economic and social mobility over Mexican values of family relationships, multi-generational connectivity, and being part of a community.

Both countries rose from their colonial pasts to become modern democracies…

The colonial pasts could hardly be more different. Mexico was an urbanized society at the time of European invasion. Indigenous peoples were largely militarily overpowered, and subjugated through effective enslavement. Canadian indigenous people were largely hunter-gatherers. This is not to suggest they were somehow inferior to Mexican indigenous people, but they did not witness the destruction of their universities, temples, palaces, etc. because they had not been built. Instead, in the early years of colonization, Europeans benefited from and relied on indigenous people for their own survival.

Mexico had a history of multiple foreign invasions, occupations, and subjugations of its peoples resulting in a long violent past. It experienced losses of huge parts of its country to American “manifest destiny”. Canada’s colonial history is one of two European countries, Britain and France, that scrapped between themselves until sorting out two colonial spheres of influence in a single country, followed by integration of territories already dominated, largely by the British.

The American invasion of “Canada” (then “British North America”) in 1812 was handily rebuffed.

American president Polk also intended to acquire most of Canada. His slogan of “54 40 of Fight” and his commitment to invade to acquire the territory came to nothing.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/29b.asp#:~:text=Polk%20called%20for%20expansion%20that,to%20victory%20against%20all%20odds.

The only thing remotely similar to Mexican revolutions was the comparatively modest Northwest Rebellion in which dozens, not thousands or hundreds of thousands died.

Although Mexico has made progress in governance in recent years, it is naive to forget the 70 year history of the PRIista hegemony or the even longer history of “strongman” rulership, whether by colonial powers or by domestic autocracy. This is very different from Canada’s long history of federal and provincial multi-party politics.

Have a look. Thinks makes a lot of sense on so many levels.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-relationship-with-mexico-must-go-beyond-trade/

Thank you for this great perspective from The Globe and Mail, especially the issue of "near shoring." For those UnitedStaters not familiar, The Globe and Mail is Canada's hallmark newspaper. Typically excellent reading, ah, um, for those who still read, that is.

To those souls unfortunate enough to enter into a conversion about world economics with Your Humble Zihua Lover, I have always beaten the drum for a North American Economic Union, along the lines of the European Union. It would not be an easy nor trouble-free endeavor but it is something that we must consider and I believe implement over the next few decades, if only to keep ourselves from being overwhelmed by Asia. Of course, the benefits are not limited to competing with Asia. For all its faults, the European Union has risen the standard of living for millions in Europe. Eventually, the union could be expanded to include Central and South America.

Can you see how popular I would be if I ran for office?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-relationship-with-mexico-must-go-beyond-trade/