Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[viper37]

One of the largest struggles the colonies had during the war was getting the colonies to act like a nation, rather than a bunch of separate colonies.

The history of the US through the Civil War was one of a constant struggle to actually identify as "Americans" rather than "Virginians" or "Pennsylvanians".

but that's the same.  They didn't feel British.  Wether they felt Virginians or Americans is beside the point, it is still nationalism as in the didn't feel just like the British citizens of London, they felt they were treated differently.  They may have had a point, they may not have had a point, that I leave to you all Americans to decide if it was a good thing or not

The simple fact is, Americans felt they were different from the British, felt they were treated differently, and they decided to eventurally secede from the British Empire.  I doubt it's something that happenned in 1775, "hey we're Americans, we're not British guys!  Let's arm ourselves, prepare a declaration of independance and fight the British!".

Same as for the Scots, the Quebecois, the Catalans or any other nationalist group.  Over time, there's a feeling of difference that establish itself, grievances are accumulated, some group wants more power for the central authority while others are perfectly happy with the way it works.  Doesn't mean one group is childish and the other is reasonable.  Doesn't mean one group is morons and the other colinized and brainwashed.  It just means some people feel different.

[Eddie Teach]

the federasts.

[garbon]

One of the largest struggles the colonies had during the war was getting the colonies to act like a nation, rather than a bunch of separate colonies.

The history of the US through the Civil War was one of a constant struggle to actually identify as "Americans" rather than "Virginians" or "Pennsylvanians".

but that's the same.  They didn't feel British.  Wether they felt Virginians or Americans is beside the point, it is still nationalism as in the didn't feel just like the British citizens of London, they felt they were treated differently.  They may have had a point, they may not have had a point, that I leave to you all Americans to decide if it was a good thing or not

The simple fact is, Americans felt they were different from the British, felt they were treated differently, and they decided to eventurally secede from the British Empire.  I doubt it's something that happenned in 1775, "hey we're Americans, we're not British guys!  Let's arm ourselves, prepare a declaration of independance and fight the British!".

Same as for the Scots, the Quebecois, the Catalans or any other nationalist group.  Over time, there's a feeling of difference that establish itself, grievances are accumulated, some group wants more power for the central authority while others are perfectly happy with the way it works.  Doesn't mean one group is childish and the other is reasonable.  Doesn't mean one group is morons and the other colinized and brainwashed.  It just means some people feel different.

That's a very, very loose definition of nationalism.

[viper37]

Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain?  Did Americans of this time feel insecure?

A combination of real grievances - lack of representation in parliament, suspension of colonial charters, collective punishment in closing the port of Boston -- and hysteria.

I don't think either motivation is applicable to the present Scottish situation.

In the specifics? Most likely not.  But in the larger picture:
A combination of real grievances [...] and hysteria.
most likely.

Hysteria is part of any democracy.  Can't escape it.  The US has its own hysteria campaigns nowadays (death panels comes to mind, WMDs is another recent one) to justify political action.

The Scots will decide for themselves if their real grievances justify seceding from the UK, I wish them good luck either way.

[derspiess]

The US experience also suggests that the mere act of declaring independence and having separate political institutions doesn't undo de facto influence and economic domination from a former mother country.  The US only escaped that domination because it grew much bigger. 

And because we kicked their redcoat asses at New Orleans.

Okay, not really.  But we did kick their asses.

[Berkut]

You are stating the obvious like it is some great revelation.

Just because some people "feel different" doesn't mean they are nationalists. Nor does it mean that all people who feel differently and claim to want "independence" have equally valid grievances, or equally practical positions.

Britain treated the America's as what they were - colonies. There for the express and stated purpose of enriching the British. That doesn't really need much in the way of justification for change - it is pretty obvious that such a relationship simply cannot last, and must change.

There is no parallel between that and Quebec, and no parallel between that and modern Scotland. Both of those groups might have valid grievances, but they are certainly not the same grievances as the Americans.

[viper37]

One of the largest struggles the colonies had during the war was getting the colonies to act like a nation, rather than a bunch of separate colonies.

The history of the US through the Civil War was one of a constant struggle to actually identify as "Americans" rather than "Virginians" or "Pennsylvanians".

but that's the same.  They didn't feel British.  Wether they felt Virginians or Americans is beside the point, it is still nationalism as in the didn't feel just like the British citizens of London, they felt they were treated differently.  They may have had a point, they may not have had a point, that I leave to you all Americans to decide if it was a good thing or not

The simple fact is, Americans felt they were different from the British, felt they were treated differently, and they decided to eventurally secede from the British Empire.  I doubt it's something that happenned in 1775, "hey we're Americans, we're not British guys!  Let's arm ourselves, prepare a declaration of independance and fight the British!".

Same as for the Scots, the Quebecois, the Catalans or any other nationalist group.  Over time, there's a feeling of difference that establish itself, grievances are accumulated, some group wants more power for the central authority while others are perfectly happy with the way it works.  Doesn't mean one group is childish and the other is reasonable.  Doesn't mean one group is morons and the other colinized and brainwashed.  It just means some people feel different.

That's a very, very loose definition of nationalism.

From Wikipedia English:

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions.[1]

From Webster:

a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries

: a desire by a large group of people (such as people who share the same culture, history, language, etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of their own

The first definition here could apply to Canadians, Americans, British or French or many other countries.  The majority of Americans believe America is the best country to live in.  The majority of Canadians believe Canada is the best country to live in.

The second one would apply to Quebec, Scotland, and many other smaller countries who seceded from a big one or wish to secede.
Could even apply to the Confederate States, at State level.

From Larouse:

Mouvement politique d'individus qui prennent conscience de former une communauté nationale en raison des liens (langue, culture) qui les unissent et qui peuvent vouloir se doter d'un État souverain.

Political movement of indivuduals who realize they form a national community in regards to their links (language, culture) who unites them and who may wish to have their own sovereign state.
Again, this could describe any country in the world.

Théorie politique qui affirme la prédominance de l'intérêt national par rapport aux intérêts des classes et des groupes qui constituent la nation ou par rapport aux autres nations de la communauté internationale.

Political theory who affirms predominance of national interest opposite class interests and groups constituing the nation or other nations on the international community

This here would fit more the extreme right wing fringe movements we see developping in Europe, US and Canada.  Nazis, neo-nazis, White Power groups, etc,.
But again, it could be simply applied to American politics where America will act in the best interest of its citizens, even if it is detrimental to another country. And you could replace "American" by "French", "British" or just any other adjective.

So yeah, my large definition is appropriate.

[garbon]

So yeah, my large definition is appropriate.

Not for what was being discussed - aka the American Revolution...and that's where I thought you were being very loose.

[Berkut]

Sometimes if your "national identity" is based on a sense of martyrdom, then if there aren't any real or substantive grievances, you are just forced to make some up.

[viper37]

Nor does it mean that all people who feel differently and claim to want "independence" have equally valid grievances, or equally practical positions.

That's irrelevant.
You don't live in Quebec and I don't live in Scotland.  In a democracy, people decide for themselves what is a valid grievance and what is a practical position.

They can be influenced. They can be convinced some facts are not important and other more importants.  But eventually, they make their own choices.  Do you the think people voting in US elections all do so on a totally reasonable basis with no emotional attachment to one candidate or another, only judging valid grievances and practical positions or each party platfom on each issues?

There is no parallel between that and Quebec, and no parallel between that and modern Scotland. Both of those groups might have valid grievances, but they are certainly not the same grievances as the Americans.

Can you find me two democractic countries in the world today where people have exactly the same grievances?  Do you think the grievances you have against your government are the same Malthus has against his?  If you take a poll all accross the US as to what is the #1 political concern and do the same with Canada, do you think we will see the same answer?
Does that invalidate one or the other's #1 concern?

[viper37]

So yeah, my large definition is appropriate.

Not for what was being discussed - aka the American Revolution...and that's where I thought you were being very loose.

American Revolution was brought as an example of a nationalism.  Americans started feeling different than other British citizens and eventually rebelled to form a nation of their own.  Most poeple felt attached to their own State first&foremost instead of the newly formed United States, but they still didn't feel British like a Londoner.

That the grievances maybe real of frivolous in my own eyes is totally irrelevant, I'm not American, and I wasn't there either

Trying to judge the validity of one's grievances through what we perceive of a country we don't live in nor understand is a bit silly.

The United Kingdom is a democracy and they convened with Scotland of the rules under wich and independance referendum should be held.  The Scottish people will vote on the issue and decide what is best of them.  Maybe they will make a mistake, like the Americans who voted for GW Bush (or those who voted for Obama if you're Republican ), but it's their mistake to make.

America, in its first years of independance looked like a failed country.  There was economic turmoil and lots of citizens emigrated to Canada - British territory.  Yet, were there any talks of rejoining the British Empire at this time?  Despite the concessions offered by the British during the War of Independance, did Congress ever seriously think of rejoining the Empire to end the war?

[Valmy]

Well clearly we must be 100% an insane Lettowist or desire to divide the world between three super states.

And every single nationalist wants the world to be filled with micro-states, only for the fun of it.

Sure seems that way.

[viper37]

Sometimes if your "national identity" is based on a sense of martyrdom, then if there aren't any real or substantive grievances, you are just forced to make some up.

Then Scots are a bunch of braindead voters who can't decide for themselves what's good or not, and they need someone to remind them, by force if necessary, that they are wrong?

[Berkut]

I don't even know what point you are trying to make now.

Just because some people think that they are being oppressed doesn't make it so.

And democracies, at least modern ones, are not strictly about the will of the masses.

What I am saying is that just because people say they have grievances, and just because a bunch of people like you are willing to exaggerate them and appeal to people simplest and often most immature emotions, doesn't actually mean that they are right. It might even work - but that doesn't make it true.

What is the french word for pravda?

[viper37]

Well clearly we must be 100% an insane Lettowist or desire to divide the world between three super states.

And every single nationalist wants the world to be filled with micro-states, only for the fun of it.

Sure seems that way.

just like it seems to me you all want to live in a few big multi-ethnic empires.  Governed by a non elected leader for many.
Great, we make a lot progress when we understand each other like that!