Alex Salmond to let 16-year-olds vote in bid to secure independence

[The Minsky Moment]

If a state is as mono-cultural as possible, including religion where it matters, it makes things easier.

How many mono-cultural states are there?

Different communities tend to have different priorities.  And altough in theory everyone should work together toward a unique goal, it's not that easy in practice.  The Tutsis and the Huttus were merged in one country. I don't think it worked that well.  They saw themselves as different, one group had power more often than not, it led to conflict, then genocide.

That's really a terrible example to use, given the origin of the Tutsi-Hutu distinction.

[Razgovory]

So say the winner   I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.

It ain't a question of winner.
Regarding the Mohawks and Iroquois, again, those who converted to catholicism relocated near Montreal (present day Oka) and this is where there was some problems a few years ago.  Not that they were entirely wrong, but the method used to protest was not the good one.

Regarding the Iroquois, well, look at the Beaver Wars.  It's not a question of sacred grounds, really.

Of course it's a question of winner.  Or perhaps survivor.  We don't know what 17th century tribes thought were theirs.  They didn't write much down.  We have only oral traditions, and the records of Europeans.  Since there was fighting in modern day Quebec, it is reasonable to think that the Indians had a different opinion of who that land belonged to then the Europeans.

You still never actually answered my question.  Is it acceptable to divide up Quebec amongst First Tribes.  And you never answered why First Nations languages aren't protected in Quebec.  That last one you've avoided every time I put it to you.

[viper37]

How many mono-cultural states are there?

Depends what you define by mono-cultural.  If you include immigrants, probably close to zero.  If you're talking about founding nations and how it evolved, many, including the United States.  The US was never a union between different nations.
And Israel is trying very hard to be mono-cultural state.  They certainly don't want Palestinians in Israel proper, otherwise, there wouldn't be any issue with the right of return for the refugees, Israel would welcome them with open arms.

[The Minsky Moment]

Israel is far from mono-cultural, even if the analysis is restrictied to Jewish population.  You have secular Jews and haredim, Russian immigrants, Mizrahi, falashas, etc.

As for the US, while it is true by definition that the original 13 colonies were not separate nations prior to independence, even restricting to that group, it was no a mono-cultural society.

[viper37]

So say the winner   I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.

It ain't a question of winner.
Regarding the Mohawks and Iroquois, again, those who converted to catholicism relocated near Montreal (present day Oka) and this is where there was some problems a few years ago.  Not that they were entirely wrong, but the method used to protest was not the good one.

Regarding the Iroquois, well, look at the Beaver Wars.  It's not a question of sacred grounds, really.

Of course it's a question of winner.  Or perhaps survivor.  We don't know what 17th century tribes thought were theirs.  They didn't write much down.  We have only oral traditions, and the records of Europeans.  Since there was fighting in modern day Quebec, it is reasonable to think that the Indians had a different opinion of who that land belonged to then the Europeans.

you ever heard about history?  Among the things hi

You still never actually answered my question.  Is it acceptable to divide up Quebec amongst First Tribes.

Based on their reservations&communities, yes.  they could seperate and be autonomous if they wanted too.
Many of the tribes living in Quebec today are refugees from the Seven Years War, the American Revolution and the War of 1812, so they have well definied lands here.

And you never answered why First Nations languages aren't protected in Quebec.  That last one you've avoided every time I put it to you.

I already told you they are protected.  They receive government funds for their education, in their native language where available.  Hurons have the Wendat language, by I am unsure it is spoken or merely written.  Any way, all signs are bilingual in their reservation. 

So really, I fail to see what you're getting at, especially when I already answered that.

[Razgovory]

Depends what you define by mono-cultural.  If you include immigrants, probably close to zero.  If you're talking about founding nations and how it evolved, many, including the United States.  The US was never a union between different nations.
And Israel is trying very hard to be mono-cultural state.  They certainly don't want Palestinians in Israel proper, otherwise, there wouldn't be any issue with the right of return for the refugees, Israel would welcome them with open arms.

Actually the US is a union of different nations.  Hawaii had a monarchy and had it's own society.  Puerto Rico has a different culture, and of course much of the area that was conquered from Mexico was populated by Hispanics and Indians.  Incidentally when this country had it's greatest crisis, it was the more homogenous groups that rebelled, not the non-English speakers.  In fact German speakers kept Missouri in the Union.

[Razgovory]

So say the winner   I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.

It ain't a question of winner.
Regarding the Mohawks and Iroquois, again, those who converted to catholicism relocated near Montreal (present day Oka) and this is where there was some problems a few years ago.  Not that they were entirely wrong, but the method used to protest was not the good one.

Regarding the Iroquois, well, look at the Beaver Wars.  It's not a question of sacred grounds, really.

Of course it's a question of winner.  Or perhaps survivor.  We don't know what 17th century tribes thought were theirs.  They didn't write much down.  We have only oral traditions, and the records of Europeans.  Since there was fighting in modern day Quebec, it is reasonable to think that the Indians had a different opinion of who that land belonged to then the Europeans.

you ever heard about history?  Among the things hi

You still never actually answered my question.  Is it acceptable to divide up Quebec amongst First Tribes.

Based on their reservations&communities, yes.  they could seperate and be autonomous if they wanted too.
Many of the tribes living in Quebec today are refugees from the Seven Years War, the American Revolution and the War of 1812, so they have well definied lands here.

And you never answered why First Nations languages aren't protected in Quebec.  That last one you've avoided every time I put it to you.

I already told you they are protected.  They receive government funds for their education, in their native language where available.  Hurons have the Wendat language, by I am unsure it is spoken or merely written.  Any way, all signs are bilingual in their reservation. 

So really, I fail to see what you're getting at, especially when I already answered that.

I think you missed the point.  How about this, would it be acceptable if French had the same status as First nation languages in Quebec and the rest of Canada?  I don't think the law requires you be served in Cree on an Air Canada flight.  I don't think any First Nation language has the protection status as French.

What is this "Based on reservations" caveat?  I'm thinking of huge chunks of Canada.  The Francophones can have St. Lawrence river valley, the rest go to the Indians.

[viper37]

Israel is far from mono-cultural, even if the analysis is restrictied to Jewish population.  You have secular Jews and haredim, Russian immigrants, Mizrahi, falashas, etc.

But they are all Jews.  Even if they disagree on minor things, at the core, they are all Jews.
Like Frenchmen are all French, despite being Bretons and Corsicans.  And they do have differences.

Of course, if you go on a strict cultural basis, you could make the arguments that Montrealers are different from Gaspesians wich in turn are different from Quebecers living in Quebec city.  But the core values are the same.

If we nitpick on the small cultural differences, then of course, each individual is different, each family would represent a cultural identity in itself.

As for the US, while it is true by definition that the original 13 colonies were not separate nations prior to independence, even restricting to that group, it was no a mono-cultural society.

White, english, protestants for the most part.  And they evolve into a sort of melting port where all cultures merge toward the dominant ones.  That's not multi-cultural.

[Valmy]

White, english, protestants for the most part.  And they evolve into a sort of melting port where all cultures merge toward the dominant ones.  That's not multi-cultural.

Nonsense.  That is exactly what it is despite how offensive that is to your nationalistic mind.  That is what makes it awesome.

[Razgovory]

But they are all Jews.  Even if they disagree on minor things, at the core, they are all Jews.
Like Frenchmen are all French, despite being Bretons and Corsicans.  And they do have differences.

Oh, man.  You have no idea

[garbon]

If we nitpick on the small cultural differences, then of course, each individual is different, each family would represent a cultural identity in itself.

Not sure why you narrow down to the individual and then go macro by focusing on the family.

[Valmy]

But they are all Jews.  Even if they disagree on minor things, at the core, they are all Jews.

Yet the Croats and the Serbs who speak the same language and share a practically identical culture differed only on minor things.  Yet it was huge because nationalists assholes split the people.  What are minor and what are not minor differences are completely and utterly arbitrary in the deranged world of nationalism.

[garbon]

White, english, protestants for the most part.  And they evolve into a sort of melting port where all cultures merge toward the dominant ones.  That's not multi-cultural.

Nonsense.  That is exactly what it is despite how offensive that is to your nationalistic mind.  That is what makes it awesome.

Anyway, despite efforts - I don't think the demographic of the US is becoming whiter or more English.

[viper37]

I think you missed the point.  How about this, would it be acceptable if French had the same status as First nation languages in Quebec and the rest of Canada?  I don't think the law requires you be served in Cree on an Air Canada flight.  I don't think any First Nation language has the protection status as French.

Different matter entirely.
For once, most of the indians do not speak their ancient native language, they have assimilated to English&French for the most part.  It just wouldn't be practical for them.

What is this "Based on reservations" caveat?  I'm thinking of huge chunks of Canada.  The Francophones can have St. Lawrence river valley, the rest go to the Indians.

The claims were relinquished in various treaties with the British, the Canadians and later Quebec.  Indians that were expelled from the US by British, Americans or Iroquois have no claims in Canada, unfortunately.

[Valmy]

Anyway, despite efforts - I don't think the demographic of the US is becoming whiter or more English.

Well right white English people have not been moving here in large numbers in a very long time.