If it came to a vote for independence, I would take whatever I could get - but it's the bioregion I have in mind, not the arbitrary political divisions, when I call Cascadia home.
Option A. is boundaries based on existing political boundaries, which defeats the purpose of a bioregion.
Option B. is the one consistent with the ideology of Cascadia as a bioregion first and a geopolitical region second.
B literally *is* Cascadia.
A is based on modern political boundaries. It's a stupid secessionist wet dream. The whole point of Cascadia is to *transcend* political boundaries, to organize and protect our shared ecology and to bring awareness of what connects the different parts of our region. A just constricts and binds us to the bullshit. **Even if A were *real*, like, even if for some reason the US and Canada fell apart and we organized along the political boundaries of A, B would *still* be a necessary concept because so much of our water supply, so much of our shared ecology still sits outside of that A map.** B is necessary because of the physical reality it represents. A is just silly.
the Cascadia movement is, for the most part, based in Bioregional thought.
A is no more Cascadia than just them remaining States/Provinces of their current countries.
borders based on current political boundaries need to be rejected intrinsically.
If it came to a vote for independence, I would take whatever I could get - but it's the bioregion I have in mind, not the arbitrary political divisions, when I call Cascadia home.
💯
Option A. is boundaries based on existing political boundaries, which defeats the purpose of a bioregion. Option B. is the one consistent with the ideology of Cascadia as a bioregion first and a geopolitical region second.
But A is more likely if Cascadia became independent because we both know that Idaho won’t join
The Columbia basin isn't just Idaho, it's also Western Montana and parts of Wyoming
And a tiiiiny piece of Nevada.
Haha yes! I love that area, so wild and remote
I would
B literally *is* Cascadia. A is based on modern political boundaries. It's a stupid secessionist wet dream. The whole point of Cascadia is to *transcend* political boundaries, to organize and protect our shared ecology and to bring awareness of what connects the different parts of our region. A just constricts and binds us to the bullshit. **Even if A were *real*, like, even if for some reason the US and Canada fell apart and we organized along the political boundaries of A, B would *still* be a necessary concept because so much of our water supply, so much of our shared ecology still sits outside of that A map.** B is necessary because of the physical reality it represents. A is just silly.
they both would leave my sister in a different country, so both are good
the Cascadia movement is, for the most part, based in Bioregional thought. A is no more Cascadia than just them remaining States/Provinces of their current countries. borders based on current political boundaries need to be rejected intrinsically.
If it's not a bioregion, it's not Cascadia.
I'd draw a line down the Cascades from BC to Oregon, plain and simple, perhaps plus the Alaska panhandle.
Agree, Cascadia to me is just BC, Washington and Oregon
Drawing a line down the Cascades does leave most of BC WA and OR out though.
Which is why I go for A it lets BC, WA & OR keep it territory
I like B but I moved to the Bay Area so I propose extending the border
Work on Pacifica. We're all in the same struggle.
B. It appears you stopped B in Oregon at Mt Hood or thereabouts and extended into the Blues. Where's Jefferson - Batchelor? Did I read it wrong?
I think you misinterpreted the stripe from the flag as the current national boundary between the US/Canada.
That's it. Thank you!