The Real problem with cancel culture

[The Brain]

[viper37]

It seems to me that your argument overall lacks coherence. Your claim is that "a region" can secede, but what defines a region?

Generally speaking, a region part of a supra-organization with its own laws governing its territory.

The United Kingdom had the right to secede from the European Union just as Scotland would have the right to secede from the United Kingdom, if the people living in these States are willing to vote on the issue.

Edinburgh could not secede from Scotland on its own, nor could Yorktown decide on its own to join an independent Scotland.

Cities typically have only very limited sovereignty, which are only devolved by the central authority.

And Indian reservation in Canada could declare its independence over the territory it administers, but there not lies the problem.

  The American South?  The State of Delaware?  Dixville Notch, NH? My local school district?  Any of these entities are capable of "organizing elections" - in fact all of them do (except of course "The South").  The implicit claim is that a region can secede because it is "sovereign" but that is circular.

"The South" is used as a shortcut.  Individual States, who once banded together to form the United States decided to pack and leave the Union.  Then, they decided to form a new entity called the Confederate States of America.

  In the specific US example, individual US states have recognized sovereign attributes, but only in the particular context of a constitutional system that denies the right of states to secede without permission from the others -

If that was the case, all former Confederate politicians, civil servants, army officers or enlisted men would have been arrested and tried for treason.  It wasn't so because the Federal government knew it was on shaky ground and could very well lose the case, which would justify the rebellion of the States.

thus a US state that attempted to secede would be repudiating the basis of the very sovereignty that supposedly undergirds its right to secede.  As for "regions" - that is a concept that has no status in America, much less a sovereign one,

I used "region" because elsewhere, it might be "province", "autonomous territory", "territory", "republic", "colony" or any other label.

My understanding is that North Sea oil rights are owned by private operators.  Presumably underlying ownership of the sites would be governed by application of usual international law, including the LOS convention and thus I would guess an independent Scotland would obtain royalty and taxation rights with respect to sites within their economic zone.

Scotland would receive 100% of the royalties for the oil.  The British government could decide it does not want to share, does not recognize Scottish sovereignty, or decides to nationalize the entire oil industry.

What I've been told repeatedly on this forum is that in international law, might makes right.

UK military bases and other UK government property OTOH would and should remain under UK control until or unless an agreement was reached over their disposition.

And that's what grown ups do: negotiate.  Not stall, not lie, not say one thing and do the other.

I find it hard to blame one's side only for starting a war when the other did everything it could to let the fire spread.

[Habbaku]

Secondly there's a history podcast with Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland called the Rest is History, which is very fun.

This has been one of my faves over the past several months. Always great banter and content as well. 

[viper37]

I would also point out the the justice and right of Quebec's case for independence - which I suspect may be a factor driving the intellectual juggling act here - rises and falls on its own merits. The justice of the cause of the Southern Confederacy has nothing to do with it, and from a practical point of view of presenting a persuasive and politically attractive case, it seems to be very much NOT in the interest of partisans of an independent Quebec to draw close analogies to such a notoriously racist historical regime. 

The analogy was done by many others, not me. 

I only said a region (read: State, Province, etc) has the right to democratically secede.  I compared the Secession of the Confederacy to that of the US from the British Empire and Texas' secession from Mexico.  Both had economic reasons to secede, and some political ones over the degree of centralization the State should have.

I advocated that the reasons where one secede are irrelevant, only the manner in which it does it is relevant.

Say, if Crimea had voted to secede from Ukraine on its own, I would think it's up to the people there to make their choice.  But a referendum organized by the Russian army after they had invaded the region is not democracy.  That and the use of terrorism to achieve one's goal are pretty much the only limitations I would impose on a State's rights to leave a Union.

Ideally, in all cases, the central authority and the entity willing to accede sit and discuss matters.  Like the UK and EU, like UK and Scotland.  Others prefer to send in the army to arrest everyone participating in an election, or lament the fact that not everyone was executed.

Just as if I were an American neocon making the case for a preventative war against an increasingly dangerous adversary, I would hesitate to use the 1939 invasion of Poland as my illustrative example.

I would use the lack of a preemptive strike against Germany in 1936-37 and the following 50 million casualties as a good justification for a preemptive strike.

[Berkut]

Psst.

In his analogy, he is putting you in Hitlers chair, not the allies.

[The Minsky Moment]

Generally speaking, a region part of a supra-organization with its own laws governing its territory.

That doesn't seem to be a very precise demarcation but I suppose YMMV.  Most cities for example have laws governing their own territories, executive and legislative authorities, and even paramilitary forces.

If that was the case, all former Confederate politicians, civil servants, army officers or enlisted men would have been arrested and tried for treason.  It wasn't so because the Federal government knew it was on shaky ground and could very well lose the case, which would justify the rebellion of the States.

It had nothing to do with that. Andrew Johnson advocated quick reconciliation and a soft reconstruction for political reasons and because of practical expediency; he issued a general amnesty and then pardons on condition of an oath a loyalty.  But the amnesty and pardons presumed that the rebels had committed criminal acts for which pardons were required.  There was no "case" to lose, and the only Supreme Court case that really touched on these issues - Texas v. White - ruled that Texas's declaration of succession was a nullity because states did not have the legal right to secede.

What I've been told repeatedly on this forum is that in international law, might makes right.

You shouldn't believe everything you're told

And that's what grown ups do: negotiate. 

Sure.  But some initial negotiating positions are stronger than others.

[viper37]

That doesn't seem to be a very precise demarcation but I suppose YMMV.  Most cities for example have laws governing their own territories, executive and legislative authorities, and even paramilitary forces.

Like, I said, it depends on the local name.
In Canada, it would be a province.  Provinces joined together to form a supra-entity, the Federal government and delegated some of their authority (way too much ) to that entity.  Technically, in our case, it's a British parliament law, but whatever.

In the US, it would be a State.  In Fance, it would be a department, even though France is supposedly indivisible. Algeria was considered part of France, an indivisible part.  Until it wasn't anymore and France let them go, after a referendum, following a bloody war.  My opinion is that instead of all this bloodshed, Algerians should have been democratically consulted before it reached the state of war.  But most French citizens of the 50s reacted like good imperialists and went to war to prevent that, like other European powers.  The vast difference was the status of French Algeria, as an integral part of the country, instead of a colony like Indochina.

It had nothing to do with that. Andrew Johnson advocated quick reconciliation and a soft reconstruction for political reasons and because of practical expediency; he issued a general amnesty and then pardons on condition of an oath a loyalty.  But the amnesty and pardons presumed that the rebels had committed criminal acts for which pardons were required.  There was no "case" to lose, and the only Supreme Court case that really touched on these issues - Texas v. White - ruled that Texas's declaration of succession was a nullity because states did not have the legal right to secede.

That came after the war, after the general amnesty, IIRC.

You shouldn't believe everything you're told

I shall never listen again to Canadian Jewish lawyers on Languish.

Sure.  But some initial negotiating positions are stronger than others.

Scotland and Catalonia were in similar positions.  I don't think we could find a written article in the British constitution that allows Wales, or England, or Scotland or Northern Ireland to declare its independence, no more than Spain's constitution does.

Spain chose to send the army to fight democracy.  Great Britain sat down and negotiated how things could go, made empty promises that it never intended to keep (max devo), but that's still democracy speaking.

Had the British army been sent to occupy Scotland, I don't think they could have resurrected William Wallace and Robert the Bruce to fight back
England had the most to lose there, by allowing a referendum.  Yet it did.

The European Union, however, did not have much to lose by letting the UK go.  They could have easily played hardball with England, refusing to negotiate, adopting a take it or leave it attitude.  But they sat down, for many months, years even, to negotiate an agreement.

It's not everyday that I praise the mighty British Empire, so take it.

In the case of the Confederacy, it's clear Lincoln did not want to negotiate with the Southern States. At all.  It had nothing to do with slavery, if it had, he would have decreed its abolition all over the US right after being sworn in.

From there, really, when you have the popular will to secede and the central entity refuses to let you go, what is the appropriate recourse, in the context of the mid 19th century?  Plead their case to the UN?

The Southern States wanted to secede, the North did not want them to leave.  The rest is pretty much irrelevant.  No union should be perpetual, just like no constitution or any kind of law should be perpetual. 

The British Empire was supposed to be perpetual, always expanding, never retreating.  The myth of US independence is pretty much your country fighting against tyranny. We could sit down and analyze the causes of US bid for independence.  We could analyze each and every intolerable acts.  We could do as Berkut does and look at it with 21st century eyes.  We would reach a vastly different conclusion than the Americans of 1776 did.  And it would be irrelevant.  America decided it was time to leave the British Empire, they left.  End of story.

[Razgovory]

Wait, in Canada the power of the government is derived from the consent of the provinces?

[Sheilbh]

Did You Kay miss out on politically correct?  Seems that's what they're using woke to mean.

What I mean by just generally things the author/Daily Mail dislikes. There's a headline today : "Forget fancy floral displays...eco-friendly wild hedges rule as Britain in Bloom goes woke"

So we can add the Royal Horticultural Society/British tourism award for the town or village with the best floral displays and hedges to the list of things the Daily Mail considers woke.

[grumbler]

The whole "woke" issue is an example, like "pants" or "chips," of the US and UK simply having common-sounding and common-spelled words that have very different meanings

[Josquius]

The joke of cancel culture has passed its peak I think.
Last night flipping through the channels I stumbled on the local news summing up the stories for the night. One was "Cancel culture bites as new covid wave pushes companies to call off Xmas parties"

[Sheilbh]

Whatever the term for something, two things are going to be a constant.  If the term is applied to something that is legitimately dumb, then the term is going to become pejorative almost by definition.  It's hard for a term to be positive when it's associated with something legitimately non-positive.  The second thing is that if a term becomes pejorative, it will also be abused by those who want to tar non-stupid things with it.

If we are to have effective discussion, hopefully so that we can address the legitimately dumb things, we can't be sidetracked by these two things happening. They're always going to happen.  We'll never get to have an effective discussion if we can't get past "oh, no, you used the same term that some Nazi used".  Whatever term is going to come after "PC" or "woke" is going to live through exactly the same dynamic, so let's just get over it.

But I think this underestimates the power in the way words are used in politics very deliberately. It's why I think most of these words don't work is because they are very often defined by their opponents who can use it for anything - see the Mail's expansive interpretation. That doesn't mean we don't discuss it, it just means the first step is defining it and trying to get a common understanding of what it is. I think it's similar to the way Republicans/the right managed to discredit the concept of "liberalism" and "liberals" for a very long time (and look where that got us ).

So an example isn't specifically wokeness but there is a discourse on the right that wokeness is basically a new religion. I don't entirely disagree with it - in that I think there is clearly something from a strand of American identity of a perfectible world in wokeness and that probably comes from the Puritan wing. I also think there is something of the character of a reformation in the cultural shift since the 60s in the US and the West more generally.

But in the hands of the American right when they're saying wokeness is a religion I don't think that's the point they're making. I think what they're trying to do is say therefore wokeness backed by Federal, State and City governments is a state-imposed/backed religious morality - in other words they did it first. And so because left/progressives/liberals have abandoned the founding and the first amendment all bets are off to "save" it.

That idea is interesting and could be worth talking about - but I don't think that's the purpose the idea is serving for the American right, and it's similar with the way they are themselves defining wokeness.

[Sheilbh]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-59494786

A slightly fuller Guardian article on this and I'm not sure - I can definitely see both sides here. What's quite nice is it feels like all of the people can too and are being thoughtful in their responses:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/21/linlithgow-campaigners-fight-against-renaming-of-black-bitch-pub

[Josquius]

How on earth are they pinning that one on wokeness?
Remove a word which these days is mostly just known a a swear word... Is being against swearing woke now? As someone fine with swearing am I anti woke?
Really shows the meaningless of the term.
The comments are stupid too "it's not racist it's about loyalty and preserverance!" - and hound doesn't do this as well as bitch?
Blackie Boy in Newcastle I think is a better example. Though it looks equally awful for the anti woke cult.

[garbon]

I can see being annoyed your pub is having its name changed. That's different from running a campaign to fight the change.