Why "Canada and Greenland" rather than saying "Canada and Denmark" or "Inuit Nunangat and Greenland". I believe this language of talking about "Canada and Greenald" is itself a critical category error.

The issues I’m thinking about aren't about individuals, or the short timespans of any human.

If we were having this discussion in the context of a Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre and a US President Zohran Mamdani, should we then evaluate the past two centuries differently?

I understand the marketing used during the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama eras is different from the marketing used during the George Bushes or Donald Trump eras, but for much of the world the doctrines, foreign interference and other impacts have been the same.

I also know the marketing and myths from Canada are different from the myths of the USA. It feels like your time in the USA has caused you to question some of the myths of the USA, but I don’t know if you have done the same yet for Canada. Comparing something closer to reality to something closer to myths isn’t apples-to-apples.

I'm not an individualist, and don't actually see Donald Trump (the individual person) as being all that interesting in the context of the past few centuries, or even the geopolitics impacting this hemisphere since 1946 (when that individual was born).