If, in Canada, we already have "First Nations", who then would be "Second Nations"?
820263
Have another vote on the issue,,,  Why does Canada want to become a weaker nation if you seperate that will be the net result?
513339
Not French revolution. We are not French. We are Québécois/ Québécoises. Most of us do originate from France, but we're native of here. We're Québécois.\n\nI foresee not a revolution, but a referendum.
212425
Canada allow their citizens to hold as many citizenships as they like. As for the US,\nActually, in theory armystud_yo is correct, US may ask you to renounce your Canadian citizenship ,however, this rarely ever happens.\nI don't think you will have any problem as I know a lot of people who have done it.
842440
Could be the question is about the Iroquois league.  The five are: the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the Cayugas, and the Senecas.
807341
the phrase is Quebecois, and Prime Minister. You can check it out on Government of Canada website. Under history.
806521
Canada's northest point would be Baffin Island. It's part of Nunavut, a territory in Canada.
19189
I think the word you want could be "indigenous".\n\nSome other words would be "native" or "aboriginal".
980176
I am Canadian. We don't have States of Mind. We have *Provinces* of Mind. And, as i am currently watching a hockey game, i am in a very *Canadian* Province of Mind. Eh?
222102
I think eventually it will happen, though doubt in my lifetime.  I think we'd 'want' Canada first, but we might as well take Mexico first since most of them want to live here anyway ;)  Canadian's don't generally want to live in the US and pretty much see us as bully's.  Not sure what the general consensus is of Mexico, but the illegal immigration issues would suggest that they would support that idea.\n\n**  LOL  These answers cracked me up!  :)  We HAVE A donkey for president here in the USA - his name is Goerge W. Bush!  LOL  Nice one ;)
255596
The First, the Second, and the Third World.\nWhen people talk about the poorest countries of the world, they often refer to them with the general term Third World, and they think everybody knows what they are talking about. But when you ask them if there is a Third World, what about a Second or a First World, you almost always get an evasive answer. Other people even try to use the terms as a ranking scheme for the state of development of countries, with the First world on top, followed by the Second world and so on, that's perfect - nonsense.\n\nTo close the gap of information you will find here explanations of the terms. \n\nThe use of the terms First, the Second, and the Third World is a rough, and it's safe to say, outdated model of the geopolitical world from the time of the cold war.\nThere is no official definition of the first, second, and the third world. Below OWNO's explanation of the terms. \n\nFour Worlds\nAfter World War II the world split into two large geopolitical blocs and spheres of influence with contrary views on government and the politically correct society: \n1 - The bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere, the "First World".\n2 - The Eastern bloc of the communist-socialist states, the "Second World". \n3 - The remaining three-quarters of the world's population, states not aligned with either bloc were regarded as the "Third World."\n4 - The term "Fourth World", coined in the early 1970s by Shuswap Chief George Manuel, refers to widely unknown nations (cultural entities) of indigenous peoples, "First Nations" living within or across national state boundaries. \n\nFirst there was the three worlds model\nThe origin of the terminology is unclear. In 1952 Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer, wrote an article in the French magazine L'Observateur which ended by comparing the Third World with the Third Estate: "ce Tiers Monde ignoré, exploité, méprisé comme le Tiers État" (this ignored Third World, exploited, scorned like the Third Estate). Other sources claim that Charles de Gaulle coined the term Third World, maybe de Gaulle only has quoted Sauvy. However... \n\nThe term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after word war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia. \n\n"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China.\n\n"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.\nThe term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.
934331
ooh that is a scary thought, bad enough living above them. makes me wonder though:\nif we did join with the usa, would Americans be able to find us on a map then?\ndo Americans think that as soon as they joined Canada, the states would suddenly turn colder?\nwould Canadians have to start hating minorities?\nwould Americans think that Canadians would want to replace there igloos with wooden houses?\nwould Canadians have to drill holes in our head and suck out half our brains?\nwould Americans have to finish high school and stop sleeping with their cousins?\nthere is just too much to think about!!
256546
Who are my other choices?
951093
Having to do with Eskimos/ but Inuit is the right word for that.
503176
The use of the terms First, the Second, and the Third World is a rough, and it's safe to say, outdated model of the geopolitical world from the time of the cold war.\nThere is no official definition of the first, second, and the third world. \n\nFour Worlds\nAfter World War II the world split into two large geopolitical blocs and spheres of influence with contrary views on government and the politically correct society: \n\n1 - The bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere, the "First World".\n2 - The Eastern bloc of the communist-socialist states, the "Second World". \n3 - The remaining three-quarters of the world's population, states not aligned with either bloc were regarded as the "Third World."\n4 - The term "Fourth World", coined in the early 1970s by Shuswap Chief George Manuel, refers to widely unknown nations (cultural entities) of indigenous peoples, "First Nations" living within or across national state boundaries.\n\nHere is a map showing which ountries are which:\nhttp://www.nationsonline.org/bilder/third_world_map.jpg
656536
There are a number of islands in northern Canada that appear to be unexplored-there are areas of the Amazon that may also be-there is no way of knowing if Amazonian aboriginals were once there.  There are a great many areas in the Himalayas that likely have never felt the foot of man.  Huge tracts of Antarctica that have not been visited.
138604
the so-called first world countries. US, Canada, Japan and the rest of Europe.
610080
The so-called developed nations (those that we think of as capitalist) are the first world nations. Countries with state planned economies (such as those under communist regimes) are the second world nations.  Third world nations are those we think of as under-developed or just plain poor.  The United States is a first world nation.  The old Soviet Union was a second world nation, as is current Cuba.  Zimbabwe, Chad, Honduras, Bolivia, and many others are third world examples.\nFirst world nations are no longer truly, purely capitalistic.  They are now highly planned economies that cater to coprorate designs (such as a push for a one-world socialistic economy, and therefore dictatorship).  Nationalism is a GOOD thing: it nurtures TRUE FREEDOM!