Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2014, 08:19:39 PM
Anyway nothing to do but just hope the Scots end up doing the right thing.
So you support scottish independance?
Quote from: viper37 on September 06, 2014, 05:52:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 05, 2014, 09:09:36 PM
Faceless corporations and rich fucks in general have a lot easier time subverting tiny nations than they do real ones.
so, everything is fine in the US, I guess? :)
Alright. That's a palpable hit.
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2014, 11:03:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 06, 2014, 05:52:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 05, 2014, 09:09:36 PM
Faceless corporations and rich fucks in general have a lot easier time subverting tiny nations than they do real ones.
so, everything is fine in the US, I guess? :)
Clearly all of our problems would be solved if we split into a bunch of smaller countries.
Had the South been allowed to secede, do you think things would be better or worst for the rest of the USA?
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2014, 10:26:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 06, 2014, 05:51:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2014, 08:19:39 PM
Anyway nothing to do but just hope the Scots end up doing the right thing.
So you support scottish independance?
Of course not. It is based on lies and vanity.
If the Scots decide to secede, that means you believe a majority of them are vane and believe in lies?
Anyway, I read this morning that UK government is about to offer much more autonomy to Scotland. I'm just wondering why is it that they now recognize there is a problem of governance while there was none 5-10 years ago? It just looks like Canada where politicians, and militant, suddenly realize there is a problem when things go horribly wrong for their option.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2014, 12:19:37 PM
The country would have been weakened which would be worse for the world.
The Congress would not be paralyzed. You would not have to subsidy those states, there would never have been such a huge loss of life, there would have been 0$ invested by the North to rebuild the South, and eventually, Massachussets industries could have delocalized their production to Alabama or Mississipi instead of China. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2014, 04:08:22 PM
The Congress would not be paralyzed. You would not have to subsidy those states, there would never have been such a huge loss of life, there would have been 0$ invested by the North to rebuild the South, and eventually, Massachussets industries could have delocalized their production to Alabama or Mississipi instead of China. ;)
I look forward to Quebec's next vote of secession, when they vote yes and start their inevitable transformation to Haiti.
;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2014, 04:13:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2014, 04:08:22 PM
The Congress would not be paralyzed. You would not have to subsidy those states, there would never have been such a huge loss of life, there would have been 0$ invested by the North to rebuild the South, and eventually, Massachussets industries could have delocalized their production to Alabama or Mississipi instead of China. ;)
I look forward to Quebec's next vote of secession, when they vote yes and start their inevitable transformation to Haiti.
;)
with the current PQ, it's likely to happen :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 07, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
There's also rumours that the Scottish Sun will back independence, over the howls of the London editor of The Sun.
Would they have done so if the polls were reversed?
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2014, 11:59:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2014, 11:03:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 06, 2014, 05:52:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 05, 2014, 09:09:36 PM
Faceless corporations and rich fucks in general have a lot easier time subverting tiny nations than they do real ones.
so, everything is fine in the US, I guess? :)
Clearly all of our problems would be solved if we split into a bunch of smaller countries.
Had the South been allowed to secede, do you think things would be better or worst for the rest of the USA?
Worse. Having a large hostile nation next door is probably not going to end well. Plus they would have controlled most of the shoreline.
Quote from: Tamas on September 06, 2014, 12:52:51 PM
Quote from: Grallon on September 05, 2014, 08:53:28 PM
Ask yourself if you'd still like to be part of Austria-Hungary?
G.
Hells yeah.
Oh look - a self hating Magyar!
Once again we in Quebec know all about it. We have boatloads of self-hating Quebecers here who preferred, when asked (twice), to stay within Canada and cozy it up to an Anglo majority that despises them - rather than assuming who and what they are, that is to say: their own distinct nation. As Sheilbh mentioned already this is about identity - not about money grubbing. However, and contrary to the Scots, a significant portion of my own people feel they don't deserve to be what they know they are. Talk about psychological scars...
EDIT: I pray for a YES victory so that Quebecers are shown that it *is* possible to be one's own man rather than somebody else's bitch.
G.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 10:35:35 PM
Why is it self-hating to wish to be absorbed into a better, larger, more diverse culture? :unsure:
Yeah. Especially, as the only thing more despicable than a Frenchman or a Belgian that I can think of is a Quebecois. I'd rather be British than a cheese-eating surrender monkey.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 10:35:35 PM
Why is it self-hating to wish to be absorbed into a better, larger, more diverse culture? :unsure:
Anyway, if you lived in Hungary, you'd probably be self-hating too.
Well I suppose 'wishing to be absorbed' is good enough for those without any personality to speak of. But for those who do have an identity, individual or collective, being absorbed isn't a choice. Oh and in the future - do *not* presume to speak for me you fucking little wanna be lawyer!
G.
Quote from: Martinus on September 07, 2014, 11:31:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 10:35:35 PM
Why is it self-hating to wish to be absorbed into a better, larger, more diverse culture? :unsure:
Yeah. Especially, as the only thing more despicable than a Frenchman or a Belgian that I can think of is a Quebecois. I'd rather be British than a cheese-eating surrender monkey.
Well Fuck you too. Remind me to not vote for your reinstatement next time you get banned for spewing faschist insult. You sure you aren't russian now?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2014, 04:13:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2014, 04:08:22 PM
The Congress would not be paralyzed. You would not have to subsidy those states, there would never have been such a huge loss of life, there would have been 0$ invested by the North to rebuild the South, and eventually, Massachussets industries could have delocalized their production to Alabama or Mississipi instead of China. ;)
I look forward to Quebec's next vote of secession, when they vote yes and start their inevitable transformation to Haiti.
;)
So you think independence would benefit Quebec?
Quote from: Grallon on September 07, 2014, 09:47:47 PM
Oh look - a self hating Magyar!
Once again we in Quebec know all about it. We have boatloads of self-hating Quebecers here who preferred, when asked (twice), to stay within Canada and cozy it up to an Anglo majority that despises them - rather than assuming who and what they are, that is to say: their own distinct nation. As Sheilbh mentioned already this is about identity - not about money grubbing. However, and contrary to the Scots, a significant portion of my own people feel they don't deserve to be what they know they are. Talk about psychological scars...
EDIT: I pray for a YES victory so that Quebecers are shown that it *is* possible to be one's own man rather than somebody else's bitch.
G.
it is a testament to the incompetence of the PQ leadership that they lost twice to the exact same tactics. As if they were totally unprepared.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 07, 2014, 10:35:35 PM
Why is it self-hating to wish to be absorbed into a better, larger, more diverse culture? :unsure:
Anyway, if you lived in Hungary, you'd probably be self-hating too.
are many culture are really larger and more diverse? The way it usually works is the dominant culture establish itself and shapes everything to its image.
Look at Canada, it's an english country, not a bilingual one. The Federal capital is officially unilingual english. How is it diverse and larger?
The country has an official policy of bilinguism, but in reality, outside Quebec and New Brunswick, getting access to bilingual government services is hard to come by, even in Ontario.
The rate of assimilation for French canadians has been going at a steady pace outside of Quebec, and even in Quebec, despite all kinds of protective measures, the use of French as declined a little in the last 25 years.
What you're really asking is "why not assimilate yourself to the larger culture". Forget anything about "being part of larger more diverse culture", that's just nonsense. What you want is dominance of the strongest, most numerous one.
How many people on this forum would be willing to convert to Islam because it's the largest most diverse culture? I suspect not many.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2014, 02:50:08 AM
I would think those with their own personality could find an identity even without their own postage stamps and national bird.
Not really. Would you really be who you are today have the 13 colonies remained part of the British Empire? I don't think so. We're all byproducts of our cultural environment. Wich is shaped by our history.
A predominently muslim Austria instead of a predominently christian austria would be a radically different country today. But that's something for alt-hist fans...
Quote from: celedhring on September 08, 2014, 04:25:37 AM
I consider myself a Catalan and I don't really need a passport of border guards for it, really. As long as I live in a democratic state that's respectful of my language and culture, I'm fine. Spain sort of behaves in that regard.
Ultimately "language/nationhood" is only a part of what I am. Should we really make a state for say, gay people? Star War fans? Shy people?
if there was a large concentration of Star Wars fans in a country dominated by Star Trek fans, they would probably seek independance ;)
I feel the same way as you do toward my Québécois identity, but I don't feel the respect of my language and culture coming from Canada. Not when we have a Constitution that we did not signed imposed on us that no one feels it's a problem.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2014, 12:45:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2014, 02:50:08 AM
I would think those with their own personality could find an identity even without their own postage stamps and national bird.
Not really. Would you really be who you are today have the 13 colonies remained part of the British Empire? I don't think so. We're all byproducts of our cultural environment. Wich is shaped by our history.
A predominently muslim Austria instead of a predominently christian austria would be a radically different country today. But that's something for alt-hist fans...
Viper, the various regions of the US have very distinct cultural identities, despite being part of a larger country. Try comparing Oregon, to Kansas, to Alabama, to Massechussets - four very, very different states and identities.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 08, 2014, 01:02:10 PM
BB I would contend there is more in common culturally between an Oregonian and an Alabaman than between you and me.
En commencant par la langue.
Probably, due to language.
But the point still stands, you can and do see thriving distinct and unique cultures within a single country.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2014, 12:48:50 PM
Viper, the various regions of the US have very distinct cultural identities, despite being part of a larger country. Try comparing Oregon, to Kansas, to Alabama, to Massechussets - four very, very different states and identities.
The US states also have much more autonomy then a Canadian province.
And people in the various States get to vote for the head of state. Something I am not allowed to do.
I wonder how they managed to survive for so long...
Anyway. They have the same culture, with small local differences. Architecture of Oregon, is similar to California. Texas, Nebraska and Oklaohama are very similar. And they all speak the same language, with little or no difference. In fact, the difference in speech between a Texan and a Californian could be equated with the difference between a Québécois from Gatineau and one from Saguenay.
If you look at Toronto, it's very similar to New York. Or Boston, but Boston is prettier. Similar to Buffallo. To Ottawa. To St-John. To Moncton. Same language, same architecture. If you look at Quebec, the part that was develop before 1763, it is radically different. The land division system is not the same, the language is not the same, the architecture is not the same.
Values, I don't make much of it. Constitution and language aside, it's not radically different than Ontario or New Brunswick, but there are differences. Overall, though, there is a radical difference bettween Quebec's culture and Canadian culture.
Quote from: Maximus on September 08, 2014, 12:56:19 PM
Hell, compare Saskatchewan, lower mainland BC and Nova Scotia. There's no more similarity there than between any of them and Quebec
Take a plane to Charlottetown. Walk in the city centre. Take a plane to Ottawa. Walk in the city centre. Ottawa is bigger, it has more space, but aside that, it's very similar. The buildings look the same. The streets look the same. The people speak the same language.
If you visit PEI's country side, it's highly similar to Northern New Brunswick's country side.
From Moncton to Halifax and St-John, you'll see similar buildings, you'll eat similar food, you'll hear the same language.
Can't tell of the west, haven't been there yet.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2014, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 08, 2014, 01:02:10 PM
BB I would contend there is more in common culturally between an Oregonian and an Alabaman than between you and me.
En commencant par la langue.
Probably, due to language.
But the point still stands, you can and do see thriving distinct and unique cultures within a single country.
And what is different, culturally speaking, exactly, between say, Ontario Saskatchewan? Architecture? Music? Language? Religion? Republicans vs Monarchists?
Scottish idependence: so boring a topic, it must be replaced by Quebecs'? :hmm:
Quote from: Maximus on September 08, 2014, 12:56:19 PM
Hell, compare Saskatchewan, lower mainland BC and Nova Scotia. There's no more similarity there than between any of them and Quebec
They all speak English, they all watch american tv shows, they drink undrinkable coffee at Tim Horton's and they like to listen to a girl swinging on a metal ball (well, considering how out of touch I am with pop culture, they're most likely over that :P ).
What I see is sligh variation of the same culture. Southern BC being the exception, with the influx of Chinese immigrants and their descendants. You could make the argument that there is not much difference between British Columbia and the US West Coast. Should they merge in their own country because they apparently share a similar culture?
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2014, 01:17:28 PM
Scottish idependence: so boring a topic, it must be replaced by Quebecs'? :hmm:
Plus Im sure we'll finally convince each other right? :sleep:
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2014, 01:17:28 PM
Scottish idependence: so boring a topic, it must be replaced by Quebecs'? :hmm:
Well, I didn't want to talk about Quebec's independance, that being a non issue for the next 50 years, at least.
From a total outsiders perspective, they seem not just similar, but almost identical.
A "difference" that mostly exists as a matter of perception and perceived victim-hood/martyrdom where neither "nation" would practically or economically be better off independent, and the injustices that drive the emotional argument seem to be mostly imaginary.
But whatever - knock yourselves out. I wish one of them would succeed, if for no other reason than watching it crash and burn might make the other STFU already with their constant whining.
But hey, I am just an outsider.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2014, 01:46:46 PM
From a total outsiders perspective, they seem not just similar, but almost identical.
A "difference" that mostly exists as a matter of perception and perceived victim-hood/martyrdom where neither "nation" would practically or economically be better off independent, and the injustices that drive the emotional argument seem to be mostly imaginary.
But whatever - knock yourselves out. I wish one of them would succeed, if for no other reason than watching it crash and burn might make the other STFU already with their constant whining.
But hey, I am just an outsider.
I disagree on a couple of fronts.
First, it is possible to argue that an independent Quebec and Scotland would be economically better off. Primarily by having control over their own currency and central bank they would be able to seek exchange rates and interests rates that would better reflect their own local economy. You can definitely argue that the Canadian dollar is high because of the demand for Alberta (and Sask) oil, and that Quebec would be better off with a lower exchange rate. Of course this is the exact opposite of what the Yes side is arguing, but it doesn't make it wrong.
As for the "imaginary injustices" - I don't think there's any independent way of measuring "injustice". If you feel like you're being unjustly treated, almost by definition you are. As everyone has said, a lot of the motivation is emotional, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2014, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2014, 09:46:51 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2014, 08:17:07 AM
10 days to save the Union. :hmm:
How do you fight this, can you even? :
By pointing out that it guarantees Tory rule to the south for the forseeable future, and the likely exit from the EU of independent Scotland's most important economic partner.
To think that won't impact Scotland is bonkers.
Are these the best arguments "Yes" has? Seems incredibly poorly thought through.
Most Scots wouldn't be bothered by that, which is incidentally my principle concern and some might even take pleasure in it.
I don't think a political argument needs to be logical or sound, it just needs to be strong enough to move people, primarily on an emotional level, to get them to change their vote.
I think history shows plenty of poorly thought through arguments have won at the ballot box. :(
if in this modern day and age, in a liberal democracy, you can move people's emotions sufficiently to make them seperate for their country, it has to be grounded on at least some facts. Overblown, maybe, but not totally imaginary.
Imho, the failure of the United Kingdom here is dismissing these scottish concerns at being irrational and not caring about them until it's too late.
The Scots maybe swayed in by a massive lovefest where bureaucrats from all across the country get a free plane ticket and a paid day off to show their love for the Scots, maybe the promise of change will sway them, I don't know (and it's not my place to tell them, and it won't change anything for my life, it affects Scots and other British), but if all this is genuine, why didn't it happen before?
That's the question I'd be asking myself if I were a Scot. Not so long ago, many British were even denying there was a problem with out Scots perceived themselves inside the British Empire. Seperation was only the idea of a few lunatics waving Braveheart's DVDs menacingly toward London.
And now...
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2014, 02:24:13 PM
East Germany.
Did they ever vote on the issue in the first place?
Scotland, I don't know. The monarchy decided of the union, the people followed. Don't know enough about Scottish and British history beyond that for that time period.
Quote
Now I don't think that an independent Quebec, or an independent Scotland, would ever "crash and burn". They'd still be developed first world nations with well-educated workforces. But I do have concerns that economically they would lag behind the countries they are leaving behind - that standards of living in either country would be lower than if they'd stayed with the greater political entity.
It really depends on the choice the people make afterwards.
In Quebec, most sovereignists expect to bonify the inneficient leftist state by controlling 100% of our revenues. The simple fact is, this Federation is what allows us to be über generous with other people's money.
I've long tought seperation would be a kick in the butt and force Quebecers to wake up on economical issues, but I've lost hope of that.
It's not something I have a desire to see happening now, and I don't think the current seperatists are realists enough to admit they need to change a lot of things, from their economic approach to the way they want to sell and realize independance.
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2014, 03:26:28 PM
Slovaks are definitely worse off.
Worse off than the Czechs, or worse off than they were under communism? :hmm:
It seems weird to claim that the Czechs are better off than they were in 1914 or whatever. So much changed since then it is impossible to know if the region would have been better off staying as part of a united Danubian Monarchy/Confederation whatever. Well ok they would have been just take my word for it.
If we are talking about better of than as the richer part of Czechoslovakia than sure, they got to dump their smaller and poorer partners. But that would be more like claiming Canada would be better off without Quebec not the other way around.
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2014, 03:26:28 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2014, 02:17:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2014, 01:46:46 PM
But whatever - knock yourselves out. I wish one of them would succeed, if for no other reason than watching it crash and burn might make the other STFU already with their constant whining.
Czechs don't seem worst than they were. Slovakia had a rough patch getting out of communism but seems better of today than they were before.
I'm not sure about Kosovo, but I doubt it can be worst than in Yugoslavia. Or Serbian domination.
Incidentally, can you name one failed country, following democratically attained independance, who chose to rejoin the motherland?
Slovaks are definitely worse off.
The economy of Slovakia is a high income economy.[9] With the highest sustained GDP growth in the European Union, reporting 10.4% in 2007 and the highest rating from V4 countries,[10] the Slovak economy has been considered a tiger economy known as the Tatra Tiger. Slovakia has been an EU member state since 2004 and adopted the euro currency at the beginning of 2009. Its capital, Bratislava, is the largest financial centre in Slovakia. Unemployment has fallen considerably, although long-term unemployment remains high. GDP per capita at purchasing power parity was €18,100 in 2010, which was 74% of the EU average [1].
GDP per capita 16,892.55 USD (2012) (no PPP)
Of the countries in central and eastern Europe, the Czech Republic has one of the most developed industrialized economies. It is one of the most stable and prosperous of the post-Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. GDP per capita at purchasing power parity was $27,100 in 2011, which is 85% of the EU average.
Czech Republic: 18,861.43 USD (no PPP)Does not seem so bad. Better than Hungary, better than many east european countries including Poland.
The Czech took the lead, but the Slovaks are coming back. Peter Stasny will fix everything. There's nothing he can't fix.
Maybe Poland should have remained split between Germany and Russia. Seems you were better off that way, since it's always better to be part of a larger culture, as IDE said. There are more Germans and Russians than Poles, so they got to be superior, numbers always speak. Maybe, once Russia is done with Ukraine, you could ask them to help you reach the civilized world of economic prosperity? I'm pretty sur Russia's GDP is superior to Poland. And you're both slavic people, adaptation should not be that hard. You're like cousins or something like that. You spent a great deal of your existence partly under russian domination, so it's like returning to your natural state. But if you fear the russians, maybe the Belarusians could annex you. Many of them speak russian, so the transition might be easier, until Mother Russia envelops you all with its loving arms of cultural supremacy :)
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2014, 07:38:37 PM
Maybe Poland should have remained split between Germany and Russia. Seems you were better off that way, since it's always better to be part of a larger culture, as IDE said. There are more Germans and Russians than Poles, so they got to be superior, numbers always speak. Maybe, once Russia is done with Ukraine, you could ask them to help you reach the civilized world of economic prosperity? I'm pretty sur Russia's GDP is superior to Poland. And you're both slavic people, adaptation should not be that hard. You're like cousins or something like that. You spent a great deal of your existence partly under russian domination, so it's like returning to your natural state. But if you fear the russians, maybe the Belarusians could annex you. Many of them speak russian, so the transition might be easier, until Mother Russia envelops you all with its loving arms of cultural supremacy :)
Well clearly we must be 100% an insane Lettowist or desire to divide the world between three super states.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2014, 01:12:07 PM
...
Overall, though, there is a radical difference bettween Quebec's culture and Canadian culture.
Viper, Viper, Viper...
How many times must I repeat this to you!? The cornerstone of Canadian identity, what little of it there is, is the negation of our own national identity and the pretense, since they cannot reasonably deny that Americans do have a collective identity, that theirs is morally superior to that of their cousins.
That is the reason why you can hear them say or write, with a straight face, that Quebec's nationalism is *BAAAAAD* while their own, when compared to the US, is virtuous...
While individuals will delude themselves for any number of reasons, collectives can do so as well. Canada is a 'shining' example of that.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2014, 08:15:28 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2014, 08:15:28 PM
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.
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Quote from: Viking on September 09, 2014, 03:40:35 AM
Scotland did vote, The scottish parliament and the english parliament negotiated the union agreement. There was a dynastic union, but the united kingdom is a union of two parliaments.
Allright, so after fighting for their independance, they united some 300 years later and wish to seperate some 300 years later. And Scotland will likely vote to rejoin UK in some 300 years from now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2014, 09:10:16 AM
One of the curious aspects of the Yes position is the apparent assumption that if Scotland is de jure independent, somehow it won't matter who is running things just next door across the invisible line we call a political boundary.
That's the kind of things that Scotland could develop in time. It's certainly better for them to start by using the GBP, and eventually, either develop their own currency or adopt the Euro. Changing currency by next week would create some havoc in the economy. Heck, the referendum, no matter the result, might create havoc in Scotland's economy.
If the Canadian example serves, the British will try to punish the Scots any way they can for daring to be different. If Scotland remains part of UK, a financial drain, as UK corporations based in Scotland move back to England is to be expected. If they are independant, these same UK businesses will be tempted to leave the place too, but eventually, Scotland can attract other foreign investements and develop it's own financial institutions. It'll take time, but they'll eventually succeed. Or fail miserably and forever depend on Euro subsidies.
They are in for a rough ride anyway, no matter the result.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain? Did Americans of this time feel insecure?
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain? Did Americans of this time feel insecure?
I didn't realise Scots have no political representation in the UK.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain? Did Americans of this time feel insecure?
Don't ask me. I wasn't alive then and I have never held that the US had great reasons for leaving.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain? Did Americans of this time feel insecure?
They were infringing on our rights not to spell "color" with a u :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2014, 09:33:23 AM
Why would that happen? I would think that UK corporations based in Scotland (such as certain banks and pension funds) know better than to do something purely out of spite. I was under an impression that the UK is not Russia, so their corporations do not necessary follow the government's bidding.
I'm basing myself on the Canadian situation. Many financial institutions decided to abandon Quebec. Eventually, they came back, but they're struggling to get past those who stayed. SunLife comes to mind. Laura Secord is another, they were eventually bought by a Quebec based company. It was hard for Quebec at first.
One could argue that the move from Montreal (Quebec) to Toronto (Ontario) had already begun with the construction of the St-Laurent seaway, but the rise of Quebec's nationalism accelerated this. Many English Quebecers felt uneasy at leaving in a province dominated by francophones and chose to leave the country.
After the 1995 referendum, Quebec was crushed by the government. Money transfer from the Feds were drastically reduced (those that represent our share of taxes we send to the federal gov) as well as equalization payments (the wellfare of Canada), only to be re-established by the current governement a few years ago. Pro-Ontarian policies were adopted, i.e. subsidizing Ontario's industries while cutting those for Quebec. Later on, it was more a pro-oil shift that was mostly beneficial to the West. But I don't consider a high valued currency to be a real problem, we need to adapt, simply, so it's not really the worst policies of all. Environmental policies however, subsidizing the oil industry instead of leveling the playing field for all, that is detrimental to Quebec.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2014, 09:42:00 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain? Did Americans of this time feel insecure?
They were infringing on our rights not to spell "color" with a u :contract:
it's a valid reason as any! :)
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
Don't ask me. I wasn't alive then and I have never held that the US had great reasons for leaving.
You're just being influenced by Prince Harry. King George was a tyrant :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2014, 09:47:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
Don't ask me. I wasn't alive then and I have never held that the US had great reasons for leaving.
You're just being influenced by Prince Harry. King George was a tyrant :angry:
My point was that viper can't call me out for being hypocritical as I wouldn't have supported that move either. :contract:
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain? Did Americans of this time feel insecure?
It certainly wasn't nationalism.
I'd have put it all on the line for independence. And honestly I've become a bit more sympathetic to the Quebecois point of view than I used to be. I don't quite get the Scottish Independence movement, but if they want to split away let them learn by their own mistakes.
Quote from: Maximus on September 09, 2014, 09:53:04 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain? Did Americans of this time feel insecure?
It certainly wasn't nationalism.
really? Americans did not feel Americans? They all felt they were the same people as the soldiers of the Empire who recently disembarked in their lands? They considered themselves loyal subjects of His Majesty and were ready to accept his rule&judgment just as any other British citizen was expected to? In the preceding years, there were no feeling at all that they were abandonned by Great Britain, left to fend for themselves against the French & Indians? No feeling that they should decide of their own war policies during the French&Indian Wars? No resentment against heavy taxation from a Tyrant oversea, Great Britain's legitimate ruler, in the years to come? No feeling that they were treated differently than other British subjects?
And as the war passed, they still considered themselves British citizens?
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2014, 09:54:08 AM
And honestly I've become a bit more sympathetic to the Quebecois point of view than I used to be.
I knew Grallon would win you over to the cause :wub:
Quote from: Viking on September 09, 2014, 09:43:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2014, 09:33:23 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:31:01 AM
If Scotland remains part of UK, a financial drain, as UK corporations based in Scotland move back to England is to be expected.
Why would that happen? I would think that UK corporations based in Scotland (such as certain banks and pension funds) know better than to do something purely out of spite. I was under an impression that the UK is not Russia, so their corporations do not necessary follow the government's bidding.
Scottish banks probably would be English banks after de-union.
being "at the mercy" of London's financial sector who doesn't care about Scotland isn't something that could happen
only if Scotland secedes, imho.
If Scotland has no financial sector of its own, it can't have that much influence on UK bank's policies right now. Other than the occasional Scot working in London, but secession does not affect that issue in the short-medium term horizon.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:42:26 AM
After the 1995 referendum, Quebec was crushed by the government. Money transfer from the Feds were drastically reduced (those that represent our share of taxes we send to the federal gov) as well as equalization payments (the wellfare of Canada), only to be re-established by the current governement a few years ago. Pro-Ontarian policies were adopted, i.e. subsidizing Ontario's industries while cutting those for Quebec. Later on, it was more a pro-oil shift that was mostly beneficial to the West. But I don't consider a high valued currency to be a real problem, we need to adapt, simply, so it's not really the worst policies of all. Environmental policies however, subsidizing the oil industry instead of leveling the playing field for all, that is detrimental to Quebec.
Heh.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/29/time-for-quebec-to-end-equalization-addiction-montreal-think-tank/
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:00:25 AM
Quote from: Maximus on September 09, 2014, 09:53:04 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
Nah, mostly just sounds like personal insecurity.
Tell me again why your country seceded from Great Britain? Did Americans of this time feel insecure?
It certainly wasn't nationalism.
really? Americans did not feel Americans? They all felt they were the same people as the soldiers of the Empire who recently disembarked in their lands? They considered themselves loyal subjects of His Majesty and were ready to accept his rule&judgment just as any other British citizen was expected to? In the preceding years, there were no feeling at all that they were abandonned by Great Britain, left to fend for themselves against the French & Indians? No feeling that they should decide of their own war policies during the French&Indian Wars? No resentment against heavy taxation from a Tyrant oversea, Great Britain's legitimate ruler, in the years to come? No feeling that they were treated differently than other British subjects?
And as the war passed, they still considered themselves British citizens?
As far as I know, the original aims were to get a better shake from Britain, not declare independence because they were Americans.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:00:25 AM
really? Americans did not feel Americans? They all felt they were the same people as the soldiers of the Empire who recently disembarked in their lands? They considered themselves loyal subjects of His Majesty and were ready to accept his rule&judgment just as any other British citizen was expected to? In the preceding years, there were no feeling at all that they were abandonned by Great Britain, left to fend for themselves against the French & Indians? No feeling that they should decide of their own war policies during the French&Indian Wars? No resentment against heavy taxation from a Tyrant oversea, Great Britain's legitimate ruler, in the years to come? No feeling that they were treated differently than other British subjects?
And as the war passed, they still considered themselves British citizens?
Many of those things have nothing to do with nationalism.
AFAIK even after the war many Americans still considered themselves culturally British, especially in New England where the revolution started. The US descended into nationalism later, in the 19th century, but I don't think it was a driving factor in the revolution.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:42:26 AM
...
After the 1995 referendum, Quebec was crushed by the government. Money transfer from the Feds were drastically reduced (those that represent our share of taxes we send to the federal gov) as well as equalization payments (the welfare of Canada), only to be re-established by the current governement a few years ago. Pro-Ontarian policies were adopted, i.e. subsidizing Ontario's industries while cutting those for Quebec. Later on, it was more a pro-oil shift that was mostly beneficial to the West. But I don't consider a high valued currency to be a real problem, we need to adapt, simply, so it's not really the worst policies of all. Environmental policies however, subsidizing the oil industry instead of leveling the playing field for all, that is detrimental to Quebec.
The detriments have been piling up in recent years - in fact there are less reasons to remain in Canada now then there were in 1995. But it has to happen for us soon or not ever. Too many immigrants who don't give a shit about our own culture and history allied with the Anglo minority and that portion of our own people who always shit their pants at the thought of independence will soon have a deadlock on the National Assembly - preventing any move towards separation. That is quite obviously the strategy of the federasts.
I'd say if it's not done by 2020 then there won't be a point to pursue it anymore. The next election in 2018 will therefore be crucial.
G.
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".
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 10:04:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:42:26 AM
After the 1995 referendum, Quebec was crushed by the government. Money transfer from the Feds were drastically reduced (those that represent our share of taxes we send to the federal gov) as well as equalization payments (the wellfare of Canada), only to be re-established by the current governement a few years ago. Pro-Ontarian policies were adopted, i.e. subsidizing Ontario's industries while cutting those for Quebec. Later on, it was more a pro-oil shift that was mostly beneficial to the West. But I don't consider a high valued currency to be a real problem, we need to adapt, simply, so it's not really the worst policies of all. Environmental policies however, subsidizing the oil industry instead of leveling the playing field for all, that is detrimental to Quebec.
Heh.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/29/time-for-quebec-to-end-equalization-addiction-montreal-think-tank/
I support that point of view. Just as I support ending our dependance to fossil fuels. And I'm pretty sure you would agree with me on both counts. However, let's say OPEC decided to end our dependance to fossil fuels for us, but restricting supply. What do you think would happen to our economy? Canada's oil production isn't enough for domestic production, and the last time the Federal government tought it a good idea to fix gaz prices for Canadians, that created some resentment in the West.
My point is this has to come from inside Quebec, not be imposed on Quebec. If you want to end equalization payments, end it for all provinces, so the playing field is even for all.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
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.
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. Not a realistic option for Scotland.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 10:13:25 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 10:13:25 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2014, 10:18:32 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2014, 10:18:32 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 10:13:25 AM
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:
QuoteNationalism 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:
Quotea 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:
Quote
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.
Quote
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 communityThis 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.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:34:56 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 10:27:28 AM
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?
Quote
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?
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:34:56 AM
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?
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2014, 08:15:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 10:46:18 AM
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?
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?
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 10:58:55 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2014, 08:15:28 PM
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! :)
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
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?
So every time you disagree with the outcome of an election and have contempt for the way a campaign is being handled it means you want to use force? Or is that your solution for how to solve Quebec's problems?
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 10:46:18 AM
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?
If that is how you feel, good on you.
Tell me, if Scotland votes for independence, would you then support some subset of Scotland demanding independence because 51% of the voters in that area don't want to be part of Scotland? And then a subset of that subset voting to rejoin Scotland?
This is all strictly about the will of the people, right? No need to actually evaluate what is happening - as long as 51% of *some* population wants to secede, they should be allowed?
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
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! :)
Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea. It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:02:58 AM
This is all strictly about the will of the people, right? No need to actually evaluate what is happening - as long as 51% of *some* population wants to secede, they should be allowed?
It just drives me crazy how this is being run like our retarded presidential elections with empty rhetoric and bullshit and gotcha moments all driving up to capture a narrow majority. If a place really should be independent the vote should be nearly unanimous and there should be real grievances not this garbage. Just my opinion.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 10:58:55 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2014, 08:15:28 PM
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! :)
SO if Quebec were to vote and successfully secede and form their own country, you would then support the right of some potential portion of Quebec that say had a 51% majority of Islamic people living there to secede from Quebec and form their own state...right?
I mean, this isn't just about YOUR narrow "nationalist" views...right?
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:05:14 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 10:58:55 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2014, 08:15:28 PM
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! :)
SO if Quebec were to vote and successfully secede and form their own country, you would then support the right of some potential portion of Quebec that say had a 51% majority of Islamic people living there to secede from Quebec and form their own state...right?
I mean, this isn't just about YOUR narrow "nationalist" views...right?
Or, say, the natives in the northern half of Quebec.
"But no, that's totally different."
The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here. With the added incentive, in Scotland's case, that they were an independent realm in the past. In both cases the long standing legal jurisdiction also happen to coincide with the existence there of a historical ethno-cultural majority...
There's nothing difficult to comprehend here. Really I can't explain this vehement opposition. In fact I was expecting that kind of reaction from the Canadians here who always so hysterical about it for reasons I mentioned above.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 11:03:13 AM
Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea. It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.
I don't think that should be much of a concern for modern Western societies. Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, etc. seem to do okay.
Because modern western societies have largely rejected the concept.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:34:56 AM
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.
But right there, I wouldn't agree with that analysis. The American Revolution didn't take place because Americans felt they were a different culture.
Quote from: Maximus on September 09, 2014, 11:24:03 AM
Because modern western societies have largely rejected the concept.
Suffering from an intoxication to multiculturalism I see. You should consult a professional - it can be cured.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2014, 11:16:57 AM
The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here.
Oh so if historical actors decided not to treat you as a separate legal jurisdiction then you are shit out of luck?
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2014, 11:27:32 AM
Suffering from an intoxication to multiculturalism I see. You should consult a professional - it can be cured.
G.
Don't worry. Your society is trying to join the modern world and will likely succeed at some point.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2014, 11:16:57 AM
The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here.
No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.
And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.
You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?
If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
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! :)
Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea. It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.
I have to disagree - basing countries off of ethnicities has proven to be a fantastic way of organizing nation states. It gives countries a shared sense of history, culture, belonging and language.
Multi-ethnic states have proven to be particularly fractitious - see Austro-Hungaria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Congo, british India...
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:41:15 AM
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2014, 11:16:57 AM
The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here.
No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.
And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.
You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?
If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.
I fully support Quebec's right to secede. I go back and forth on whether 50% + 1 is enough, but the principle of self-determination is a good one and worth defending.
That does, of course, apply more broadly, and includes the rights of Quebec's native (or Shetland, or the western isles, or wherever) to separately vote their own self-determination.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 11:45:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:41:15 AM
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2014, 11:16:57 AM
The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here.
No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.
And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.
You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?
If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.
I fully support Quebec's right to secede. I go back and forth on whether 50% + 1 is enough, but the principle of self-determination is a good one and worth defending.
That does, of course, apply more broadly, and includes the rights of Quebec's native (or Shetland, or the western isles, or wherever) to separately vote their own self-determination.
Where does it stop?
How many people are needed to form a mass sufficient to justify their "self-determination"?
And how do you handle the fact that whatever number you come up with, the remainder who do NOT want to secede could then just congregate and form their own local majority and repeat the process?
Where does it stop?
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:48:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 11:45:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:41:15 AM
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2014, 11:16:57 AM
The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here.
No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.
And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.
You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?
If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.
I fully support Quebec's right to secede. I go back and forth on whether 50% + 1 is enough, but the principle of self-determination is a good one and worth defending.
That does, of course, apply more broadly, and includes the rights of Quebec's native (or Shetland, or the western isles, or wherever) to separately vote their own self-determination.
Where does it stop?
How many people are needed to form a mass sufficient to justify their "self-determination"?
And how do you handle the fact that whatever number you come up with, the remainder who do NOT want to secede could then just congregate and form their own local majority and repeat the process?
Where does it stop?
"Slippery slope" has never been a terribly effective argument, in my opinion.
I think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession. Well no, I can think of one - Texas. But I think that only works if you're dealing with a lightly populated area living next to a fairly densely populated one (on that note, the Russian far east should be concerned).
As for "how small it too small"... I think you know it when you see it. I recall that some of the votes following WWI covered some pretty small regions, and they were all given the right to self-determination about which country they would join. So the granularity would be bigger than a household or a neighborhood - probably something along municipality / county sized.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 11:56:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:48:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 11:45:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:41:15 AM
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2014, 11:16:57 AM
The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here.
No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.
And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.
You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?
If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.
I fully support Quebec's right to secede. I go back and forth on whether 50% + 1 is enough, but the principle of self-determination is a good one and worth defending.
That does, of course, apply more broadly, and includes the rights of Quebec's native (or Shetland, or the western isles, or wherever) to separately vote their own self-determination.
Where does it stop?
How many people are needed to form a mass sufficient to justify their "self-determination"?
And how do you handle the fact that whatever number you come up with, the remainder who do NOT want to secede could then just congregate and form their own local majority and repeat the process?
Where does it stop?
"Slippery slope" has never been a terribly effective argument, in my opinion.
Pointing out the practical flaws in your argument, if effected as stated, is a perfectly effective argument, actually.
Quote
I think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession.
I think you won't find examples where it has worked because it is universally agreed that strict "self-determination" is a non-started when it comes to valid claims for secession. But there are certainly plenty of examples where groups have tried to claim Independence based on some majority (real or imagined) wanted it - and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they do not. Hence the idea that this could be done based *only* on the will of the majority is clearly a non-starter. It has *never* worked that way, because it never COULD work that way. For precisely the reasons I've just stated.
Quote
Well no, I can think of one - Texas. But I think that only works if you're dealing with a lightly populated area living next to a fairly densely populated one (on that note, the Russian far east should be concerned).
According to you there is nothing for them to be concerned about. If 51% of the Donetsk region wants to join Russia, they should be allowed. Why is that a concern if self-determination is all that matters? If then 51% of some smaller portion wants to be part of the Ukraine, then THAT should be ok as well. And if 51% of some subset of THAT group wants to go back to Russia, no problem. Repeat over and over until you cannot get your magic number larger than a county size.
Then redo in 10 years as people move around, of course.
Quote
As for "how small it too small"... I think you know it when you see it. I recall that some of the votes following WWI covered some pretty small regions, and they were all given the right to self-determination about which country they would join. So the granularity would be bigger than a household or a neighborhood - probably something along municipality / county sized.
Could not possibly work.
Quote from: Maximus on September 09, 2014, 11:07:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:05:14 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 10:58:55 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2014, 08:15:28 PM
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! :)
SO if Quebec were to vote and successfully secede and form their own country, you would then support the right of some potential portion of Quebec that say had a 51% majority of Islamic people living there to secede from Quebec and form their own state...right?
I mean, this isn't just about YOUR narrow "nationalist" views...right?
Or, say, the natives in the northern half of Quebec.
"But no, that's totally different."
Argument goes both ways : they would have more weight in an independent Québéc. A Québec that has a French tradition of treating the natives better than everywhere else in the Americas (truth be said standards were low) . Not so many "
Grande paix de Montréal around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Peace_of_Montreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Peace_of_Montreal)
In more recent times, the Cris natives signed earlier with Québec the
Paix des Braves in 2002, than with Ottawa (2007)...
It stops where the state in question says so. Modern secession is done with the approval of the state. If a village (we can call it Koreshia) decides it's no longer part of the state and the state is fine with it then the village is gone. If the state isn't fine with it then the village stays. It's a wonderfully self-regulating process.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2014, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 11:03:13 AM
Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea. It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.
I don't think that should be much of a concern for modern Western societies. Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, etc. seem to do okay.
Interesting cherry picking of countries there. I disagree I think this is a concern for modern western countries. These countries theoretically are based on sovereignty of an ethnicity. But what happens when immigrants from outside do not fit well with the established ethnicity? Observe the rise of far right parties. Obviously not like it is in places like Iraq or whatever but I am baffled you think it is not much of a concern when it has been huge concern.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 11:43:38 AM
I have to disagree - basing countries off of ethnicities has proven to be a fantastic way of organizing nation states. It gives countries a shared sense of history, culture, belonging and language.
Oh yeah really fantastic. It has really been a boon to ethnic minorities the world over. A country does not need ethnic homogeneity to provide these things. I mean heck you are ethnically Ukrainian, wouldn't it have been great if Canada was just for British ethnicities? Remember all that shit we did in the US because this country was for the Christian white man? That was fantastic.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 11:03:13 AM
Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea. It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.
So, Mexico and United States should really be one country? And Spanish should be the only official language?
How do we determine exactly how a country should be formed, nowadays? We enforce the actual borders now & forever, by force if necessary?
Europeans countries have been formed over centuries of warfare with each another, delocalization and colonisation for some of them. How was it better than a democratic referendum? Should the ex-Yugoslavian republic be re-merged because they were stronger together?
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 11:04:34 AM
It just drives me crazy how this is being run like our retarded presidential elections with empty rhetoric and bullshit and gotcha moments all driving up to capture a narrow majority.
Do you have any example of recent political campaigns made the way you want to be made, with rational arguments, no inflated hysteria, half-truths or outright lies?
How many people do you know make their democratic choice following a rational process, attributing points on a grid to each political parties position according to what is objectively best for the country, as demonstrated by scientific facts (as in, demonstrated and proven, not a matter of beliefs)?
As a percentage of the American population, how many such people are there currently? Would you say 90%? 80%? 50%?
Assuming you are right and the YES campaign is solely based on bullshit. How is it worst than a campaign solely based on bullshit against any form of gun control?
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
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! :)
Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea. It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.
Nation states are a very successful basis for long-lasting and peaceful states.
Multi-ethnic areas e.g. in Eastern Europe have created countless conflicts. As brutal and cruel as it was, the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Prussia and Silesia nowadays allows us to have very friendly relations with Poland. That would probably not be the case if there was several million Germans living in Poland.
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 01:18:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
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! :)
Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea. It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.
Nation states are a very successful basis for long-lasting and peaceful states.
Multi-ethnic areas e.g. in Eastern Europe have created countless conflicts. As brutal and cruel as it was, the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Prussia and Silesia nowadays allows us to have very friendly relations with Poland. That would probably not be the case if there was several million Germans living in Poland.
You might even call it a "final" solution. :D
Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 11:05:14 AM
SO if Quebec were to vote and successfully secede and form their own country, you would then support the right of some potential portion of Quebec that say had a 51% majority of Islamic people living there to secede from Quebec and form their own state...right?
I mean, this isn't just about YOUR narrow "nationalist" views...right?
Canada is a creation of provinces. They united together to create a country that would let them build a railroad and stop american expansionism. There is no provision in the Constitution, wich we have not signed and the Supreme Court has decided should still apply to us preventing secession.
Cities and territorial subdivisions are creations of provinces. Modalities could be negotiated between a city or a county (technically, MRC) for it to secede.
So far, only the English Montrealers wish to secede. Blanc Sablon has talked about it, but the indian community next to them told the mayor to fuck off. And it seems the citizens aren't too inclined on following.
But if, like Scotland, we agree on how the campaign would be conducted, that we allow a certain time frame after independance to shape a constitution, organize the sharing of power, provide sufficient autonomies to counties (technically, MRC) and big cities, if they still wish to secede, it could be arranged, I suppose.
We got the Germans out of Poland, but now the Poles are in London.
This is all going to end up with war between Scotland and Poland.
Quote from: Maximus on September 09, 2014, 11:07:21 AM
Or, say, the natives in the northern half of Quebec.
"But no, that's totally different."
It's funny how things change when the Liberals are not in power. 20 years ago, they all wanted to secede.
Today? Some white mayor talk about leaving Quebec for Newfoundland. Indian response: go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 12:15:57 PM
Interesting cherry picking of countries there. I disagree I think this is a concern for modern western countries. These countries theoretically are based on sovereignty of an ethnicity. But what happens when immigrants from outside do not fit well with the established ethnicity? Observe the rise of far right parties. Obviously not like it is in places like Iraq or whatever but I am baffled you think it is not much of a concern when it has been huge concern.
Wich is why you should have plans in place to integrate immigrants in your society and remind them of the core values of your country. They can adhere to the same basic principles as most people, or they can stay where they were.
That's for stick. On the carrot side, strickly speaking for Quebec, a better recognition of foreign diplomas to avoid condemning immigrants to poverty and the frustations that comes with leaving a doctor job to become a taxi driver.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:27:55 PM
Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.
You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2014, 12:19:05 PM
Remember all that shit we did in the US because this country was for the Christian white man? That was fantastic.
Why the past tense? Did you elect an atheist president or something? ;)
QuoteI think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession.
No - what tends to happen is that other people get kicked out, or massacred.
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 01:38:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:27:55 PM
Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.
You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.
Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.
Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 01:38:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:27:55 PM
Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.
You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.
Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.
Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.
idle hope
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 01:38:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:27:55 PM
Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.
You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.
Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.
Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.
idle hope
I dunno, the EU strikes me as an example. Within the EU itself, ethno-nationalist tensions aren't as acute as they once were.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 11:56:01 AM
I think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession.
Israel
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:46:43 PM
Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.
Because you killed or ethnically cleansed the existing Native American population and replaced it with immigrants that didn't have strong ethno-nationalist roots anymore, having left their homes. Despite countless genocides and ethnic cleansings, there are just more coherent ethnic groups left in the old world.
Switzerland would be a better example of a country that is based on an idea despite ethnicity.
QuoteNow, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.
Yes, but that doesn't seem to be human nature. Let's see if increased globalization will eventually change that.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 12:06:00 PM
According to you there is nothing for them to be concerned about. If 51% of the Donetsk region wants to join Russia, they should be allowed. Why is that a concern if self-determination is all that matters? If then 51% of some smaller portion wants to be part of the Ukraine, then THAT should be ok as well. And if 51% of some subset of THAT group wants to go back to Russia, no problem. Repeat over and over until you cannot get your magic number larger than a county size.
If Donetsk, or Crimea, or wherever wants to join Russia, they absolutely should be allowed (note I never endorsed 50%+1).
But, of course, it has to be done democratically. Which means a free and fair debate and exchange of views. It means international observers. It means an election free of violence and intimidation.
Precisely none of which took place during the Crimea "referendum" - hell the status quo wasn't even on the ballot!
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 01:38:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:27:55 PM
Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.
You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.
Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.
Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.
Canada and the US (and I suppose some/most South American states) are not entho-nation states to be sure, but we are cultural-nation states. We have a common language (or dual language), common political beliefs, common cultural heritage. We have mostly removed ethnicity from the equation, but still have a common national ideal to try and hold us together.
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 02:23:23 PM
Because you killed or ethnically cleansed the existing Native American population and replaced it with immigrants that didn't have strong ethno-nationalist roots anymore, having left their homes. Despite countless genocides and ethnic cleansings, there are just more coherent ethnic groups left in the old world.
Switzerland would be a better example of a country that is based on an idea despite ethnicity.
No, here in Canada at least, that most certainly was
not the case. Not that the British Empire/Canada was nice and perfect in its relations to native Canadians, but they did not, by any reasonable description, "kill or ethnically cleanse" the existing Native American population (which very much still exists today).
QuoteYes, but that doesn't seem to be human nature. Let's see if increased globalization will eventually change that.
I'm not so sure a romantic notion essentially invented over the last couple of centuries is an inevitable part of "human nature".
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 02:38:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 01:38:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 01:27:55 PM
Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.
You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.
Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.
Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.
Canada and the US (and I suppose some/most South American states) are not entho-nation states to be sure, but we are cultural-nation states. We have a common language (or dual language), common political beliefs, common cultural heritage. We have mostly removed ethnicity from the equation, but still have a common national ideal to try and hold us together.
Um, yes? Are you disagreeing, when I just said "... the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity", or agreeing?
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 02:39:16 PM
I'm not so sure a romantic notion essentially invented over the last couple of centuries is an inevitable part of "human nature".
Well, maybe. Nationalism is basically scaled-up tribalism.
If things go the way I now suspect they will, this might turn out to one of the longest Languish threads ever. <_<
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 02:39:16 PM
No, here in Canada at least, that most certainly was not the case. Not that the British Empire/Canada was nice and perfect in its relations to native Canadians, but they did not, by any reasonable description, "kill or ethnically cleanse" the existing Native American population (which very much still exists today).
Maybe not actively, but I am sure the natives in Canada also died in droves from Eurasian diseases. Or there were just barely any people living in Canada which would also not make it an example for the old world, which happened to be full of people when states started to form.
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 02:23:23 PM
Despite countless genocides and ethnic cleansings, there are just more coherent ethnic groups left in the old world.
:huh:
Despite?
Might be the wrong word in English. Would "Even after" work better?
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 03:04:42 PM
Might be the wrong word in English. Would "Even after" work better?
"because of" might be the better term.
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 03:04:42 PM
Might be the wrong word in English. Would "Even after" work better?
No, I think Garbon is intimating that that ethic cleaning, war and genocide have defined and delineated those coherent ethnic states ?
Quote from: mongers on September 09, 2014, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 03:04:42 PM
Might be the wrong word in English. Would "Even after" work better?
No, I think Garbon is intimating that that ethic cleaning, war and genocide have defined and delineated those coherent ethnic states ?
Yeah exactly. Genocide/ethnic cleansing lead to more coherent ethnic states. After all, that's their whole goal.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 03:15:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 09, 2014, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 03:04:42 PM
Might be the wrong word in English. Would "Even after" work better?
No, I think Garbon is intimating that that ethic cleaning, war and genocide have defined and delineated those coherent ethnic states ?
Yeah exactly. Genocide/ethnic cleansing lead to more coherent ethnic states. After all, that's their whole goal.
Bugger, Garbon agrees with me on something; I'll have to give up and close my account. :P
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 02:55:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 02:39:16 PM
No, here in Canada at least, that most certainly was not the case. Not that the British Empire/Canada was nice and perfect in its relations to native Canadians, but they did not, by any reasonable description, "kill or ethnically cleanse" the existing Native American population (which very much still exists today).
Maybe not actively, but I am sure the natives in Canada also died in droves from Eurasian diseases. Or there were just barely any people living in Canada which would also not make it an example for the old world, which happened to be full of people when states started to form.
There are currently 1.4 million native Canadians living in Canada, as of 2011.
Estimates as to the pre-Columbian population vary widely - some claim a low of 900,000, others a (considered by most absurd) high of 18 million
for the population of North America north of the Mexican border as a whole:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1357826/Native-American/261421/Plains-Woodland-and-Plains-Village-cultures#toc273135
The current US population is, of course, much larger than that of Canada, and would reasonably have been much larger in antiquity. Say that Canada made up about 1/10th of the total. That would put the native population (according to the very highest estimate, which no-one seriously believes nowadays) at about the same now as then; by the lowest possible estimate, it has grown by more like 15 times.
I see your point now.
It's not what I originally wanted to say but I somehow left half of my thought unwritten. What I wanted to say is that despite those genocides and ethnic cleansings there are coherent ethnic groups that are still intermingled geographically in the old world. So the group is clearly defined against other groups (that's what I meant with coherent), yet it might still be mixed with those other groups.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:19:42 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 02:55:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 02:39:16 PM
No, here in Canada at least, that most certainly was not the case. Not that the British Empire/Canada was nice and perfect in its relations to native Canadians, but they did not, by any reasonable description, "kill or ethnically cleanse" the existing Native American population (which very much still exists today).
Maybe not actively, but I am sure the natives in Canada also died in droves from Eurasian diseases. Or there were just barely any people living in Canada which would also not make it an example for the old world, which happened to be full of people when states started to form.
There are currently 1.4 million native Canadians living in Canada, as of 2011.
Estimates as to the pre-Columbian population vary widely - some claim a low of 900,000, others a (considered by most absurd) high of 18 million for the population of North America north of the Mexican border as a whole:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1357826/Native-American/261421/Plains-Woodland-and-Plains-Village-cultures#toc273135
The current US population is, of course, much larger than that of Canada, and would reasonably have been much larger in antiquity. Say that Canada made up about 1/10th of the total. That would put the native population (according to the very highest estimate, which no-one seriously believes nowadays) at about the same now as then; by the lowest possible estimate, it has grown by more like 15 times.
I believe, but would have to check some books, that not only do people seriously believe the higher estimates, but there is evidence to support even higher numbers.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:19:42 PM
There are currently 1.4 million native Canadians living in Canada, as of 2011.
Estimates as to the pre-Columbian population vary widely - some claim a low of 900,000, others a (considered by most absurd) high of 18 million for the population of North America north of the Mexican border as a whole:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1357826/Native-American/261421/Plains-Woodland-and-Plains-Village-cultures#toc273135
The current US population is, of course, much larger than that of Canada, and would reasonably have been much larger in antiquity. Say that Canada made up about 1/10th of the total. That would put the native population (according to the very highest estimate, which no-one seriously believes nowadays) at about the same now as then; by the lowest possible estimate, it has grown by more like 15 times.
Fine. So Canada was empty and can't serve as an example for the densely populated Eurasian continent and state formation there.
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2014, 03:27:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:19:42 PM
There are currently 1.4 million native Canadians living in Canada, as of 2011.
Estimates as to the pre-Columbian population vary widely - some claim a low of 900,000, others a (considered by most absurd) high of 18 million for the population of North America north of the Mexican border as a whole:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1357826/Native-American/261421/Plains-Woodland-and-Plains-Village-cultures#toc273135
The current US population is, of course, much larger than that of Canada, and would reasonably have been much larger in antiquity. Say that Canada made up about 1/10th of the total. That would put the native population (according to the very highest estimate, which no-one seriously believes nowadays) at about the same now as then; by the lowest possible estimate, it has grown by more like 15 times.
Fine. So Canada was empty and can't serve as an example for the densely populated Eurasian continent and state formation there.
I thought the example was just that Canadians/Americans are actually the balls of light that Euros should aspire to be. ^_^
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
I believe, but would have to check some books, that not only do people seriously believe the higher estimates, but there is evidence to support even higher numbers.
From what I remember, the controversey is mostly over the alleged high density population of the agricultural tracts in the US South - such as those villages and cities that supported the Missisipian culture (and still existed after its more or less collapse - for example, to form the villages and cities reported by De Soto's expedition).
Even assuming these ancient demographers are correct - and their numbers tend to be pretty flimsy in support - that's a controversy that would not impact much on native demographics in Canada.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:38:56 PM
Now, in point of fact, some places were temporarily not inhabited when European colonization took place - mostly because of inter-native wars, such as the infamous war of extermination between the Iroquous confederacy and the Hurons.
That is clearly bullshit.
We all know Native Americans just rode around on their horses "counting coup" on each other - war for them was really more of a sport, to pass the time between their careful husbandry of the forest and occasional hunting of a deer or buffalo, which they scrupulously used all of for some purpose after asking the animals forgiveness for any pain they may have caused.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 03:42:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:38:56 PM
Now, in point of fact, some places were temporarily not inhabited when European colonization took place - mostly because of inter-native wars, such as the infamous war of extermination between the Iroquous confederacy and the Hurons.
That is clearly bullshit.
We all know Native Americans just rode around on their horses "counting coup" on each other - war for them was really more of a sport, to pass the time between their careful husbandry of the forest and occasional hunting of a deer or buffalo, which they scrupulously used all of for some purpose after asking the animals forgiveness for any pain they may have caused.
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/245305510927148043/
;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2014, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 09, 2014, 10:08:13 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:00:25 AM
really? Americans did not feel Americans? They all felt they were the same people as the soldiers of the Empire who recently disembarked in their lands? They considered themselves loyal subjects of His Majesty and were ready to accept his rule&judgment just as any other British citizen was expected to? In the preceding years, there were no feeling at all that they were abandonned by Great Britain, left to fend for themselves against the French & Indians? No feeling that they should decide of their own war policies during the French&Indian Wars? No resentment against heavy taxation from a Tyrant oversea, Great Britain's legitimate ruler, in the years to come? No feeling that they were treated differently than other British subjects?
Many of those things have nothing to do with nationalism.
Most of them are though. Did they feel American? Was there a sense of difference - and will for self-reliance - about Americans than Britain? Those are feelings of American nationalism.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, aside from the misquote.
However to address some of viper's questions now that I have some time, the only one that has anything to do with nationalism is the first one:
QuoteThey all felt they were the same people as the soldiers of the Empire who recently disembarked in their lands?
My understanding is yes, they saw themselves as the same people for the most part. The grievances against British soldiers weren't that they were foreigners, but that they perpetrated and enforced what were viewed as unjust practices. The soldiers that were actually viewed as foreigners were the Hessian mercenaries and that was a separate grievance.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 03:42:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:38:56 PM
Now, in point of fact, some places were temporarily not inhabited when European colonization took place - mostly because of inter-native wars, such as the infamous war of extermination between the Iroquous confederacy and the Hurons.
That is clearly bullshit.
We all know Native Americans just rode around on their horses "counting coup" on each other - war for them was really more of a sport, to pass the time between their careful husbandry of the forest and occasional hunting of a deer or buffalo, which they scrupulously used all of for some purpose after asking the animals forgiveness for any pain they may have caused.
Umm, everything you said is true - up to a point.
Native Amnerican war wasn't just counting coup, but was not "wars of extermination" either. They would kill a brave or two, maybe still some women, but mostly just try and drive the other tribe off of the lands.
The evidence is they were involved in careful husbandry of the forest / plains. They did scrupulously use every part of the animal (more driven by need, but they did thank the animal for giving itself to them).
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 03:42:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:38:56 PM
Now, in point of fact, some places were temporarily not inhabited when European colonization took place - mostly because of inter-native wars, such as the infamous war of extermination between the Iroquous confederacy and the Hurons.
That is clearly bullshit.
We all know Native Americans just rode around on their horses "counting coup" on each other - war for them was really more of a sport, to pass the time between their careful husbandry of the forest and occasional hunting of a deer or buffalo, which they scrupulously used all of for some purpose after asking the animals forgiveness for any pain they may have caused.
Umm, everything you said is true - up to a point.
Native Amnerican war wasn't just counting coup, but was not "wars of extermination" either. They would kill a brave or two, maybe still some women, but mostly just try and drive the other tribe off of the lands.
The evidence is they were involved in careful husbandry of the forest / plains. They did scrupulously use every part of the animal (more driven by need, but they did thank the animal for giving itself to them).
What happened between the Iroquois and the Huron could, without exageration, be described as a "war of extermination". Certainly, thousands were killed or captured, not just "a brave or two". These were major wars with tens of thousands of combatants in which whole peoples were destroyed or driven off of their lands.
You are heavily romanticizing native north americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars
QuoteThe wars were brutal and are considered one of the bloodiest series of conflicts in the history of North America. As the Iroquois succeeded in the war and enlarged their territory, they realigned the tribal geography of North America, and destroyed several large tribal confederacies—including the Huron, Neutral, Erie, Susquehannock, and Shawnee—and pushed some eastern tribes west of the Mississippi River, or southward into the Carolinas. The Iroquois also controlled the Ohio Valley lands as hunting ground, from about 1670 onward, as far as can be determined from contemporary French (Jesuit) accounts. The Ohio Country and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan were virtually emptied of Native people as refugees fled westward to escape Iroquois warriors. (Much of this region was later repopulated by Native peoples nominally subjected to the Six Nations; see Mingo.)
Both Algonquian and Iroquoian societies were greatly disrupted by these wars. The conflict subsided with the loss by the Iroquois of their Dutch allies in the New Netherland colony, and with a growing French objective to gain the Iroquois as an ally against English encroachment. After the Iroquois became trading partners with the English, their alliance was a crucial component of the later English expansion. They used the Iroquois conquests as a claim to the old Northwest Territory.
I would be very surprised if one could accurately generalize like that for hundreds of tribes over an entire continent.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2014, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 09, 2014, 10:08:13 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 10:00:25 AM
really? Americans did not feel Americans? They all felt they were the same people as the soldiers of the Empire who recently disembarked in their lands? They considered themselves loyal subjects of His Majesty and were ready to accept his rule&judgment just as any other British citizen was expected to? In the preceding years, there were no feeling at all that they were abandonned by Great Britain, left to fend for themselves against the French & Indians? No feeling that they should decide of their own war policies during the French&Indian Wars? No resentment against heavy taxation from a Tyrant oversea, Great Britain's legitimate ruler, in the years to come? No feeling that they were treated differently than other British subjects?
Many of those things have nothing to do with nationalism.
Most of them are though. Did they feel American? Was there a sense of difference - and will for self-reliance - about Americans than Britain? Those are feelings of American nationalism.
Sure now those things exist, but then?
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 03:42:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:38:56 PM
Now, in point of fact, some places were temporarily not inhabited when European colonization took place - mostly because of inter-native wars, such as the infamous war of extermination between the Iroquous confederacy and the Hurons.
That is clearly bullshit.
We all know Native Americans just rode around on their horses "counting coup" on each other - war for them was really more of a sport, to pass the time between their careful husbandry of the forest and occasional hunting of a deer or buffalo, which they scrupulously used all of for some purpose after asking the animals forgiveness for any pain they may have caused.
Umm, everything you said is true - up to a point.
Native Amnerican war wasn't just counting coup, but was not "wars of extermination" either. They would kill a brave or two, maybe still some women, but mostly just try and drive the other tribe off of the lands.
The evidence is they were involved in careful husbandry of the forest / plains. They did scrupulously use every part of the animal (more driven by need, but they did thank the animal for giving itself to them).
Eh. No. Those are enormous generalization about people inhabiting an entire continent. Plains Indians were known to drive buffaloes off cliffs creating much more meat then could be carried away are used. There are many species of mega fauna that are extinct from when the the paleo-Indians arrived. We know of places where large numbers of Indians were killed violently in one place. Driving people off their land is going to result in the destruction of a people. Even if they find new land they are going to have to take it from somewhere else. The end result is extermination. There are plenty of examples of that. It's now believed that the sedentary peoples sometimes overextended the carrying capacity of the land resulting in collapses.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2014, 05:02:48 PM
Nationalism isn't about grievance, though that's often a motivating factor. It's about a sense of separate identity especially culturally and believing that because of that it needs its own political expression around that geographic, ethnic or civic identity.
Nationalism based on civic or geographic identity? That's a lot more broad definition than I am used to, and seems awfully close to defining any meaning out of the term.
If you define it that way then sure, the American revolutionaries were nationalists. Pretty much any halfway-functional, halfway-westernized state is a nation-state.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2014, 05:15:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 04:33:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 03:42:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 03:38:56 PM
Now, in point of fact, some places were temporarily not inhabited when European colonization took place - mostly because of inter-native wars, such as the infamous war of extermination between the Iroquous confederacy and the Hurons.
That is clearly bullshit.
We all know Native Americans just rode around on their horses "counting coup" on each other - war for them was really more of a sport, to pass the time between their careful husbandry of the forest and occasional hunting of a deer or buffalo, which they scrupulously used all of for some purpose after asking the animals forgiveness for any pain they may have caused.
Umm, everything you said is true - up to a point.
Native Amnerican war wasn't just counting coup, but was not "wars of extermination" either. They would kill a brave or two, maybe still some women, but mostly just try and drive the other tribe off of the lands.
The evidence is they were involved in careful husbandry of the forest / plains. They did scrupulously use every part of the animal (more driven by need, but they did thank the animal for giving itself to them).
Eh. No. Those are enormous generalization about people inhabiting an entire continent. Plains Indians were known to drive buffaloes off cliffs creating much more meat then could be carried away are used. There are many species of mega fauna that are extinct from when the the paleo-Indians arrived. We know of places where large numbers of Indians were killed violently in one place. Driving people off their land is going to result in the destruction of a people. Even if they find new land they are going to have to take it from somewhere else. The end result is extermination. There are plenty of examples of that. It's now believed that the sedentary peoples sometimes overextended the carrying capacity of the land resulting in collapses.
The death of megafauna by native americans is quite dubious. Megafauna died all over. We have little to justify any possible explanation.
Tribes would drive bison off a cliff (there's a famous spot in Alberta - Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo-Jump), but they were quite effective in processing and curing the meat.
Driving people off their land is in fact quite disruptive and may even result in death - didn't mean to imply otherwise. But what they didn't do is just start butchering entire tribes left and right. They fought the warriors, took women as wives and drove off or destroyed enemy tribes in that fashion.
If we are being honest, Europeans did bring a lot of bad stuff to Canada.
On the plus side, they did plant Riesling.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 05:19:52 PM
Driving people off their land is in fact quite disruptive and may even result in death - didn't mean to imply otherwise. But what they didn't do is just start butchering entire tribes left and right. They fought the warriors, took women as wives and drove off or destroyed enemy tribes in that fashion.
This sounds a bit too much like a narrative of noble savages.
Given this is quite an important* current issue, can we hive the off Native American/colonization discussion into another thread?
* a country could cease to exist** in a few days by peaceful means.
** well the divorce is decided and the breakup begins.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 05:19:52 PM
Driving people off their land is in fact quite disruptive and may even result in death - didn't mean to imply otherwise. But what they didn't do is just start butchering entire tribes left and right. They fought the warriors, took women as wives and drove off or destroyed enemy tribes in that fashion.
They didn't commit Nazi-style extermination, that is true. But if you read about the Iroquis wars, they were pretty damn brutal within the limitations of their tech. Certainly, is isn't a disservice to the historical record to describe depopulation of what are now almost entire states/provinces as "wars of extermination". Yes, often some of the women were spared (basically, captured and raped, then forcibly incorporated into the winning tribe), and yes many survirors escaped the reach of the enemy by running far, far away, but the net effect was thousands of deaths and large areas completely depopulated.
The notion that native american warfare was always a matter of ceremonyial counting coup, with maybe a warrior killed, is simply wrong. It is romanticism, and applying what may have been true in one time and place to all times and places. It is the equivalent of describing the Thirty Years War in terms of "knighly jousting".
We have a very good idea why Megafauna died out. Their extinction across the world matches up to when modern people showed up! But, yeah, butchering whole tribes was something that was done. Here's an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre)
These sites are hard to find, due to the fact that nobody who involved was literate and had stone age technology. But yeah, all these "Noble Savage" myths are bullshit.
Quote from: mongers on September 09, 2014, 05:26:10 PM
Given this is quite an important* current issue, can we hive the off Native American/colonization discussion into another thread?
* a country could cease to exist** in a few days by peaceful means.
Hardly seems more important than many of the other "current issues" we are discussing.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 05:22:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 05:19:52 PM
Driving people off their land is in fact quite disruptive and may even result in death - didn't mean to imply otherwise. But what they didn't do is just start butchering entire tribes left and right. They fought the warriors, took women as wives and drove off or destroyed enemy tribes in that fashion.
This sounds a bit too much like a narrative of noble savages.
Of course it is - the reality is that there was nothing "special" about human being sliving in North America versus anywhere else in the world. They killed, raped, warred on one another, destroyed their environment, acting like assholes, etc., etc. etc.
There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 02:39:16 PM
No, here in Canada at least, that most certainly was not the case. Not that the British Empire/Canada was nice and perfect in its relations to native Canadians, but they did not, by any reasonable description, "kill or ethnically cleanse" the existing Native American population (which very much still exists today).
Because it's a thread about Scotland's possible independance and because Mongers ask that we cease that, I'm going to let that pass. But I don't agree with this revision of history.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 04:43:15 PM
What happened between the Iroquois and the Huron could, without exageration, be described as a "war of extermination". Certainly, thousands were killed or captured, not just "a brave or two". These were major wars with tens of thousands of combatants in which whole peoples were destroyed or driven off of their lands.
You are heavily romanticizing native north americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars)
You're making this hard on me, aren't you? You want me to keep going off topic?
Fine. Look at the date: post-European colonization. Look at the name. Why was this animal so precious now?
Quote from: mongers on September 09, 2014, 05:21:59 PM
The Queen , so to speak, wades out of the debate:
Quote
Scottish independence: Monarch 'above politics', Buckingham Palace says
Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the Scottish referendum campaign is "categorically wrong", Buckingham Palace has said.
The statement follows press reports that Her Majesty was concerned about the prospect of Scottish independence.
It also follows comments from First Minister Alex Salmond, who said the Queen "will be proud" to be the monarch of an independent Scotland.
The Palace insisted the referendum was "a matter for the people of Scotland".
A spokesman said: "The sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign.
"As such the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case.
"Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong.
"Her Majesty is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland."
....
Full article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29136149 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29136149)
Funny. I don't remember such reservations from 1995. From the same Queen. For Canada. And Quebec.
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.
They were nomads and semi-nomads. That makes it easier on the land than permanent settlement.
They also had a bigger territory for less people, compared to say, the Middle East at the time of ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
They did not have wheels nor horses, wich made construction of stone roads not widely popular in North America.
The climate being what it is for many part of our countries, it's likely they would have waged war in winter. Compared to countries with barely no winter, that means less frequent wars.
The accurate portrayal of north american indian is about halfway between the myth of the noble savage and the bloodthirsty barabarians you and Malthus are trying to portray. Denying that European arrival had any effect on their society is silly. Both groups learned a lot from each other, for better or for worst.
What has changed, as evidenced by the beaver wars, was territorial domination for economic resources, instead of food&settlement. And land trading by the Iroquois, English style, in the name of their "allies" and conquered tribes. Individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 06:47:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.
They were nomads and semi-nomads. That makes it easier on the land than permanent settlement.
They also had a bigger territory for less people, compared to say, the Middle East at the time of ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
They did not have wheels nor horses, wich made construction of stone roads not widely popular in North America.
The climate being what it is for many part of our countries, it's likely they would have waged war in winter. Compared to countries with barely no winter, that means less frequent wars.
The accurate portrayal of north american indian is about halfway between the myth of the noble savage and the bloodthirsty barabarians you and Malthus are trying to portray. Denying that European arrival had any effect on their society is silly. Both groups learned a lot from each other, for better or for worst.
What has changed, as evidenced by the beaver wars, was territorial domination for economic resources, instead of food&settlement. And land trading by the Iroquois, English style, in the name of their "allies" and conquered tribes. Individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact.
Is there any actual evidence of Indians not having a concept of private property?
The hunter-gatherers probably didn't worry about private property when it came to land (at least on an individual basis). I am sure most tribes thought certain lands were "theirs".
Probably everybody had "stuff" that they believed was "theirs".
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 09, 2014, 08:31:24 PM
The hunter-gatherers probably didn't worry about private property when it came to land (at least on an individual basis). I am sure most tribes thought certain lands were "theirs".
Probably everybody had "stuff" that they believed was "theirs".
Well a lot of Indians in North America were not hunter-gatherers. I imagine that some people had responsibility for some fields and were the primary beneficiaries of the fruits of these fields. It's hard to say with hunter-gatherers, since they were almost always illiterate. Fisherman are in a sense hunter-gatherers, and they typically have an concept of private property.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2014, 08:26:34 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 06:47:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.
They were nomads and semi-nomads. That makes it easier on the land than permanent settlement.
They also had a bigger territory for less people, compared to say, the Middle East at the time of ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
They did not have wheels nor horses, wich made construction of stone roads not widely popular in North America.
The climate being what it is for many part of our countries, it's likely they would have waged war in winter. Compared to countries with barely no winter, that means less frequent wars.
The accurate portrayal of north american indian is about halfway between the myth of the noble savage and the bloodthirsty barabarians you and Malthus are trying to portray. Denying that European arrival had any effect on their society is silly. Both groups learned a lot from each other, for better or for worst.
What has changed, as evidenced by the beaver wars, was territorial domination for economic resources, instead of food&settlement. And land trading by the Iroquois, English style, in the name of their "allies" and conquered tribes. Individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact.
Is there any actual evidence of Indians not having a concept of private property?
private property of the land was non existant. Land belonged to the tribe, prior to european's arrival. Most indians were either nomadics or semi-nomadics.
Did you find some archelogical evidence attesting to land property like a form of deeds? Something similar to what Europeans used? If so, please share it, it'll be an interesting read.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 11:41:35 PM
private property of the land was non existant. Land belonged to the tribe, prior to european's arrival. Most indians were either nomadics or semi-nomadics.
Did you find some archelogical evidence attesting to land property like a form of deeds? Something similar to what Europeans used? If so, please share it, it'll be an interesting read.
Do you actually have any proof for this contention? It seems rather unlikely. I sincerely doubt that "most Indians were nomadic", since nomadic cultures don't have large populations and would be quickly dwarfed by those dwelling in villages or cities. We do know that many peoples were sedentary and lived in houses. Presumably some houses were owned by individuals or families. It seems unlikely that any person in the tribe could live in any house at any given time.
But as a matter of fact I do have a link purporting evidence of people owning property prior to the Europeans. http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/aztec/aztec_property.html
Do you not see he's talking specifically about land ownership?
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 02:33:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 12:06:00 PM
According to you there is nothing for them to be concerned about. If 51% of the Donetsk region wants to join Russia, they should be allowed. Why is that a concern if self-determination is all that matters? If then 51% of some smaller portion wants to be part of the Ukraine, then THAT should be ok as well. And if 51% of some subset of THAT group wants to go back to Russia, no problem. Repeat over and over until you cannot get your magic number larger than a county size.
If Donetsk, or Crimea, or wherever wants to join Russia, they absolutely should be allowed (note I never endorsed 50%+1).
But, of course, it has to be done democratically. Which means a free and fair debate and exchange of views. It means international observers. It means an election free of violence and intimidation.
Precisely none of which took place during the Crimea "referendum" - hell the status quo wasn't even on the ballot!
I have to jump in here despite several pages unread.
Crimea and such are tip of the iceberg, even if we just concentrate on Russian minorities living en-block in other countries. If you really start to apply the noble idea of national self-determination across Europe, you would quickly find that it is a farce. Why? Because it supposed to define the borders we have today, but if you started applying it in earnest, few current borders would remain as where they are now.
The Balkan political borders cut into ethnicity borders left and right.
Also there are still much more than a million Hungarians on the other side of the Hungarian border, that is more than 10% of the world's Hungarian population as a whole. Heck, there is like a 300 000 - 400 000 (IIRC) enclave of them deep in today's Romania, with practically zero percent Romanian population in their area.
Nationstates are a joke. These states have borders where their expansions and wars drew them, and then they proceeded to declare these borders as ethnically/nationally correct,
AFTER other organising factors like God-given rights of sovereigns stopped having tractions. Some of them managed to assimilate and/or drive away/massacre the other ethnicities but a lot hasn't.
It is just tribalism. It has no deeper roots than the human instinct to belong to a tribe and to define yourself against something. It is by no means a more stable or righteous organising principle of states than religion or sovereignty was. In fact while does still had their meaning, ethnicity was largely irrelevant.
Not to mention that I am getting the feeling that most Scottish yes votes are eyeing the hopeful bigger welfare checks out of the grabbed North Sea oil money.
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2014, 04:26:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2014, 02:33:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 12:06:00 PM
According to you there is nothing for them to be concerned about. If 51% of the Donetsk region wants to join Russia, they should be allowed. Why is that a concern if self-determination is all that matters? If then 51% of some smaller portion wants to be part of the Ukraine, then THAT should be ok as well. And if 51% of some subset of THAT group wants to go back to Russia, no problem. Repeat over and over until you cannot get your magic number larger than a county size.
If Donetsk, or Crimea, or wherever wants to join Russia, they absolutely should be allowed (note I never endorsed 50%+1).
But, of course, it has to be done democratically. Which means a free and fair debate and exchange of views. It means international observers. It means an election free of violence and intimidation.
Precisely none of which took place during the Crimea "referendum" - hell the status quo wasn't even on the ballot!
I have to jump in here despite several pages unread.
Crimea and such are tip of the iceberg, even if we just concentrate on Russian minorities living en-block in other countries. If you really start to apply the noble idea of national self-determination across Europe, you would quickly find that it is a farce. Why? Because it supposed to define the borders we have today, but if you started applying it in earnest, few current borders would remain as where they are now.
The Balkan political borders cut into ethnicity borders left and right.
Also there are still much more than a million Hungarians on the other side of the Hungarian border, that is more than 10% of the world's Hungarian population as a whole. Heck, there is like a 300 000 - 400 000 (IIRC) enclave of them deep in today's Romania, with practically zero percent Romanian population in their area.
Nationstates are a joke. These states have borders where their expansions and wars drew them, and then they proceeded to declare these borders as ethnically/nationally correct, AFTER other organising factors like God-given rights of sovereigns stopped having tractions. Some of them managed to assimilate and/or drive away/massacre the other ethnicities but a lot hasn't.
It is just tribalism. It has no deeper roots than the human instinct to belong to a tribe and to define yourself against something. It is by no means a more stable or righteous organising principle of states than religion or sovereignty was. In fact while does still had their meaning, ethnicity was largely irrelevant.
Not to mention that I am getting the feeling that most Scottish yes votes are eyeing the hopeful bigger welfare checks out of the grabbed North Sea oil money.
Ironic that you criticize the notion of nation states and yet finish off with a gross stereotype of another people, that sort of thing helps to set peoples apart from each other too.
Well yes that was completely beside my main point, although I don't see how stereotypes are an argument for the significance of nation states. If you want to fight stereotypes, dividing the continent into nation states is the worst fuckin' idea.
And I am merely referencing the earlier quoted Scottish Labour argument that people should vote yes to drive low taxes and low welfare out and back to England.
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 06:24:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2014, 04:43:15 PM
What happened between the Iroquois and the Huron could, without exageration, be described as a "war of extermination". Certainly, thousands were killed or captured, not just "a brave or two". These were major wars with tens of thousands of combatants in which whole peoples were destroyed or driven off of their lands.
You are heavily romanticizing native north americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars)
You're making this hard on me, aren't you? You want me to keep going off topic?
Fine. Look at the date: post-European colonization. Look at the name. Why was this animal so precious now?
The available evidence shows that the situation was no different
pre-colonial contact.
Within the last decade, a "mega village" was discovered north of Toronto, known (today) as "Mantle". The reason for this massive village's existence?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/mantle-site-ancient-new-york-canada-lake-ontario_n_1661911.html
Quote
"Historically, we know that the Huron and the Iroquois were not only at odds, they were mortal enemies," Williamson said in the documentary.
In the period before Mantle there is evidence of widespread warfare throughout southern Ontario and New York as well as parts of Michigan and Quebec, a period known as "the dark times." Human remains from that period show evidence of scalping and torture.
Mantle, with its large size and palisade defense, may have discouraged this type of warfare, making an attack risky. Other settlements in southwest Ontario were getting larger and sites in New York were clustering together, suggesting that they too were becoming harder to attack.
Birch compares the situation at Mantle and other sites to what happened after World War II, with the formation of the United Nations and NATO, institutions that discouraged warfare, allowing for trade and cultural interaction.
Williamson noted that, sadly, with the arrival of Europeans, this peace did not last, with warfare intensifying in the 17th century. "When Europeans arrive the whole thing is re-fired over economic reasons related to the fur trade," he said in the interview.
In summary, the known history of this region is as follows:
(1) a purely pre-Columbian period of anarchic, widespread warfare known to acheologists as the "the dark times." in which "Human remains from that period show evidence of scalping and torture". Note: this was
pre-Columbian. Europeans had
fuck-all to do with it.
(2) The formation, in response, of 'mega-villages' like "Mantle". Warfare dies down, Indian polities get much larger.
(3) This brief period of peace is disrupted by European arrival and new economic and political pressures, leading to the Beaver Wars.
See the difference having some actual, you know, knowledge of the history and archeology makes?
Quote from: viper37 on September 09, 2014, 06:47:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 09, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
There was nothing about their culture that was any different from other cultures around the world in that particular stage of social evolution.
They were nomads and semi-nomads. That makes it easier on the land than permanent settlement.
They also had a bigger territory for less people, compared to say, the Middle East at the time of ancient Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
They did not have wheels nor horses, wich made construction of stone roads not widely popular in North America.
The climate being what it is for many part of our countries, it's likely they would have waged war in winter. Compared to countries with barely no winter, that means less frequent wars.
The accurate portrayal of north american indian is about halfway between the myth of the noble savage and the bloodthirsty barabarians you and Malthus are trying to portray. Denying that European arrival had any effect on their society is silly. Both groups learned a lot from each other, for better or for worst.
What has changed, as evidenced by the beaver wars, was territorial domination for economic resources, instead of food&settlement. And land trading by the Iroquois, English style, in the name of their "allies" and conquered tribes. Individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact.
There is exactly zero evidence of this.
No-one is denying that European contact had no effect on their society. But your portrait of that society is not accurate.
The vast majority of Native Americans were not "nomads", but village-dwelling agriculturalists. Villages did move locations when immediate local resources played out, but were not by any stretch of the imagination "nomadic or semi-nomadic". They had defined territories, and warfare over territory was common. How individual Natives felt about private property is not known with any certainly, but if later examples are any guide, they certainly did not lack any notion of property.
Far from portraying them as "bloodthirsty savages", I'm portraying them as similar to other tribal, agricultiural peoples worldwide - pretty well
all of whom engage in warfare over territory. The claims that the native Americans were somehow totally different, in the face of all the copious evidence to the contrary, is the product of decades of myth-making and romanticism.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2014, 08:26:34 PM
Is there any actual evidence of Indians not having a concept of private property?
Tecumseh's address to Harrison, maybe.
Quote from: Tyr on September 10, 2014, 01:09:08 AM
Direct promises like that are pretty hard for politicians to go back on. And there's no reason for them to do so
Quebec has been promised that for 2 referendums, it never happenned. The first time, they signed the Constitution without us, the second time they passed some bullshit that the Federal parliament sould decide the question and the modality of independance.
Great Britain and Canada are two different countries, but I'm very suspicious of politicians promising change only when they have a gun to their head.
Of course, it's all to the Scots to decide if they can trust their politicians, one way or another. But if these promises for more autonomy had been made 5 years, would we have a referendum today? I doubt it, but at the same time, I'm willing to admit my ignorance of the finer details of the Scottish independance plan.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2014, 08:42:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2014, 08:26:34 PM
Is there any actual evidence of Indians not having a concept of private property?
Tecumseh's address to Harrison, maybe.
Was that pre-contact or post-contact? And was Tecumseh in a position to know the concepts of every Indian tribe ever?
Shit, man. I don't know. WTF
Techumseh's vision was expressly utopian. His idea was that all natives should unite as one, to avoid the tribes peacemeal selling out to the Americans.
QuoteHouses are built for you to hold councils in. The Indians hold theirs in the open air. I am a Shawnee. My forefathers were warriors. Their son is a warrior. From them I take my only existence. From my tribe I take nothing. I have made myself what I am. And I would that I could make the red people as great as the conceptions of my own mind, when I think of the Great Spirit that rules over us all. I would not then come to Governor Harrison to ask him to tear up the treaty [the 1795 Treaty of Greenville, which gave the United States parts of the Northwest Territory].
But I would say to him, "Brother, you have the liberty to return to your own country." You wish to prevent the Indians from doing as we wish them, to unite and let them consider their lands as a common property of the whole.
...
The way, the only way to stop this evil, is for the red people to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was at first, and should be now -- for it was never divided, but belongs to all.
This was not an anthropological description of actual pre-Columbian practices, but a vision of what the future
should look like, based on an allegation of a past golden age of equality and unity that, in point of fact, never actually existed - something this vision has in common with similar visions of past golden ages made by others throughout history.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/nativeamericans/chieftecumseh.htm
Well, I did say "maybe" :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2014, 10:08:59 AM
Shit, man. I don't know. WTF
The problem with gross generalizations like "individual possession of land was unknown to them, pre-european contact" is that it flies in the face of the human experience undergone by pretty much every people that have lived, and assumes that lack of evidence is proof of lack. Pretty much the best we can say based on evidence to date is that, based on the experience of similar cultures elsewhere, some tribes/peoples probably didn't employ private possession of land, and, again based on the experiences of similar cultures elsewhere, some probably did,.
Tecumseh was, of course, pleading a specific case with specific language; he never says that no Indian society anywhere has ever had a concept of individual ownership of land.
It is interesting how pervasive the "noble savage" meme is though - and not just around Native Americans.
And while it is obviously very difficult to study, actual scholarship around aboriginal societies suggests that the reality is that they were probably much *more* violent overall than later social societies.
Was it Diamond's book that was pointing out that murder was a leading cause of death in many relatively primitive societies?
Could somebody rename this thread to "Two guys from Quebec want independence badly" please?
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2014, 10:27:19 AM
Could somebody rename this thread to "Two guys from Quebec want independence badly" please?
Well there's two things mongers and Tamas having in common - both live in the UK and both are whiny bitches.
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2014, 10:22:17 AM
Tecumseh was, of course, pleading a specific case with specific language; he never says that no Indian society anywhere has ever had a concept of individual ownership of land.
Well, I didn't say he was. I was just answering Raz.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2014, 10:26:02 AM
Was it Diamond's book that was pointing out that murder was a leading cause of death in many relatively primitive societies?
You're not allowed to call NA societies "primitive" :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2014, 08:41:14 AM
There is exactly zero evidence of this.
Iroquois and Hurons were semi-nomadics, staying in one place for about a decade, until the land production started to decay and game was rarer. Once that happenned, they moved to another location.
Quite often you would see women managing the fields and men hunting during summer&fall.
And they were using most of the animal. You wouldn't see north american indians, on the east coast at least, hunting solely for trophy. Or for just one part of the animal. Skin, bones, meat, horns, everything was used. That changed with the European's arrival.
Quote
The vast majority of Native Americans were not "nomads", but village-dwelling agriculturalists. Villages did move locations when immediate local resources played out, but were not by any stretch of the imagination "nomadic or semi-nomadic".
Take the Montagnais (Innus nowadays, for most of them) for example. Their territory extended from northern Quebec and Labrador, close to the Inuits to the St-Lawrence river, on both side. They were hunting and fishing all accross the area, established non permament camps, and go back to a winter village. Once people got to old to follow, they were left behind.
Iroquois and Hurons were semi-nomads, meaning they had agriculture, but instead of using lay-farming, they were simply moving elsewhere, letting the land "heal". they could move to a place for 10 years, and come back near their original place 10 years later.
Quote
They had defined territories, and warfare over territory was common. How individual Natives felt about private property is not known with any certainly, but if later examples are any guide, they certainly did not lack any notion of property.
Individual property of the land was non existant. No individual could possess land, land was not seem as a commodity to be traded, unlike, say, a woman, for some tribes.
They usually claimed a territory, not that well defined, as their hunting grounds. Even agricultural societies were hunting. And fishing.
Warfare was made for various reasons, most often to capture slaves from other tribes. Women and children, sometimes warriors. Sometimes they were adopted in the tribe, sometimes not. Sometimes they were boiled and eaten. Sometimes they were burned alive. Sometimes they were cooked over a great fire, sometimes not.
But examples of one tribe launching a war of extermination, or domination, over another tribe are pretty rare. I can think of "canniabalistic" raids, when food was scarce, where one tribe would hunt another tribe for food, somewhere around 1100-1200, IIRC, mostly in the southern US. No such evidence in north east NA, so far.
Quote
Far from portraying them as "bloodthirsty savages", I'm portraying them as similar to other tribal, agricultiural peoples worldwide - pretty well all of whom engage in warfare over territory. The claims that the native Americans were somehow totally different, in the face of all the copious evidence to the contrary, is the product of decades of myth-making and romanticism.
Mound culture aside, for wich we don't know much, it was totally different than ancient Israelites, or Hittites, or Egyptians. These people had well defined territories and fortified permanent cities made of stone. Iroquois, Hurons, Micmacs, Algonquins, Montagnais... they had nothing of the sort. The best you could expect would be a walled city made of woods. Something that could be easily dismantled.
In the prairies, the introduction of the horses and various epidimics certainly made them nomads, buffalo hunters, mostly.
Prior to the first european contacts, say, 1200-1300, I have no ideas how they lived exactly, if they were semi-nomads like the Hurons of the 1600s*, or if they were totally sedentary like ancient Egyptians.
Of course, they were quick to adapt to Europeans arrivals. Iroquois tried to establish their own little empire, selling lands of other tribes to English and Dutch merchants, and establishing themselves as intermediaries between the tribes of the Ohio valley and the French&English merchants for the fur trades. This is what led to the Beaver Wars: control of the resources for the Iroquois to be the sole, exclusive dealers with European buyers.
Specific to warfare, prior to European arrivals, you wouldn't see wars of extermination in eastern north america. It's not that they lived along merrily, just that there was lots of space for not so many people. There was ritual cannibalism in some tribes, boiling and eating a captive. There was torture, it's something anyone with a Catholic education in Quebec will certainly learn in school (torture of the missionaries by the Iroquois tribes). There were wars to supplement one's tribes with captives from another, but the goal was not to kill everyone of tribe X to take their lands. Push them out of the way, sure. Capture women, children, and warriors for torture, sure. Wars of extermination? Not so much. Wars of total conquest like in Europe, where you annex one's village to yours and subdue the new subjects? Not so much. Did it happen? Not really. Was it frequent? No. Was it the norm? No.
Once the Europeans set foot here though, things started to change, with tribes in contact to the Europeans, the Beaver wars being a good example.
*If the subject is of interest to you, I would recommend visiting the Huron-Wendake museum and village in Quebec city.
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2014, 10:27:19 AM
Could somebody rename this thread to "Two guys from Quebec want independence badly" please?
Wich ones? I certainly don't want independance badly.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2014, 10:26:02 AM
It is interesting how pervasive the "noble savage" meme is though - and not just around Native Americans.
And while it is obviously very difficult to study, actual scholarship around aboriginal societies suggests that the reality is that they were probably much *more* violent overall than later social societies.
Was it Diamond's book that was pointing out that murder was a leading cause of death in many relatively primitive societies?
I know it gets a mention in Keegan's
History of Warfare.
Also, people in North America tend to imagine Native Americans as far more "primitive" than they in fact were. The mental imagry comes from the nomadic indians of the great planes and of the 19th century, while the vast majory (by population) of actual native americans, pre-columbian, lived in agricultural villages. Hence in this very thread people with a straight face claiming that native north americans were "nomadic or semi-nomadic" and knew nothing of property rights (highly unlikely in agricultiral societies!).
Few people, for example, would associate north American natives with building towns or cities - but they did, in several places. In the southwest, they even built them out of stone, including buildings with several sories.
As far as "knowing nothing of property rights" goes, the natives of the pacific northwest certainly did - although again, we know little of their culture pre-contact, there is no reason to suppose this was a purely post-contact invention: they even competed with each other in rituals designed to show off their weath - the famous "potlatch" ceremony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
This isn't unusual in anthropology. It would be very unusual if a society of that complexity *lacked* notions such as property or aristocracy.
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 10:37:29 AM
Wars of total conquest like in Europe, where you annex one's village to yours and subdue the new subjects? Not so much. Did it happen? Not really. Was it frequent? No. Was it the norm? No.
Then how did they get those huge tribal confederations and empires? Seems like you would have to subdue new subjects to me.
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2014, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2014, 10:27:19 AM
Could somebody rename this thread to "Two guys from Quebec want independence badly" please?
Well there's two things mongers and Tamas having in common - both live in the UK and both are whiny bitches.
Come on, it is the Scottish Independence thread, and I can summarise almost half of it as follows:
"Viper/Grallon: QUEBEC's INDEPENDENCE IS DESERVED AND NECESSARY
Others: well there are two sides to that argument
Viper/Grallon: NO
Others: yes
Viper/Grallon: NO
etc
"
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2014, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2014, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2014, 10:27:19 AM
Could somebody rename this thread to "Two guys from Quebec want independence badly" please?
Well there's two things mongers and Tamas having in common - both live in the UK and both are whiny bitches.
Come on, it is the Scottish Independence thread, and I can summarise almost half of it as follows:
"Viper/Grallon: QUEBEC's INDEPENDENCE IS DESERVED AND NECESSARY
Others: well there are two sides to that argument
Viper/Grallon: NO THERE ISN'T
Others: yes there is
Viper/Grallon: NO THERE ISN'T
etc
"
Tamas is to create summaries as Mart is to creating analogies? :unsure:
Being half a page long does not by default makes an argument any more relevant or correct or interesting than a simple yes/no.
I did like them explaining how Scotland should not be suckered by the British government like they were by Canada's...because the situations are perfectly analogous for some reason.
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 10:37:29 AM
Iroquois and Hurons were semi-nomadics, staying in one place for about a decade, until the land production started to decay and game was rarer. Once that happenned, they moved to another location.
Quite often you would see women managing the fields and men hunting during summer&fall.
And they were using most of the animal. You wouldn't see north american indians, on the east coast at least, hunting solely for trophy. Or for just one part of the animal. Skin, bones, meat, horns, everything was used. That changed with the European's arrival.
Take the Montagnais (Innus nowadays, for most of them) for example. Their territory extended from northern Quebec and Labrador, close to the Inuits to the St-Lawrence river, on both side. They were hunting and fishing all accross the area, established non permament camps, and go back to a winter village. Once people got to old to follow, they were left behind.
Iroquois and Hurons were semi-nomads, meaning they had agriculture, but instead of using lay-farming, they were simply moving elsewhere, letting the land "heal". they could move to a place for 10 years, and come back near their original place 10 years later.
This isn't "semi-nomadic". They moved villages to be sure, but that did not stop them from coinsidering a defined territory as their territory, and defending it against outsiders intent on encroaching.
The Innuit of course had a completly different lifestyle, and the pre-columbian Huron or Iroquis were, quite frankly, more "like us" than they were like the Innuit.
Quote
Individual property of the land was non existant. No individual could possess land, land was not seem as a commodity to be traded, unlike, say, a woman, for some tribes.
We have exactly zero evidence that this was the case. We simply do not know how they felt about land ownership.
Relatively modern-day Algonkians certainly have claimed heritary rights to traplines (basically, hunting grounds) - and they were, and are, nore 'primitive'.
Quote
Warfare was made for various reasons, most often to capture slaves from other tribes. Women and children, sometimes warriors. Sometimes they were adopted in the tribe, sometimes not. Sometimes they were boiled and eaten. Sometimes they were burned alive. Sometimes they were cooked over a great fire, sometimes not.
But examples of one tribe launching a war of extermination, or domination, over another tribe are pretty rare. I can think of "canniabalistic" raids, when food was scarce, where one tribe would hunt another tribe for food, somewhere around 1100-1200, IIRC, mostly in the southern US. No such evidence in north east NA, so far.
So, the actual evidence to the contrary - posted above - doesn't change your mind on this point?
QuoteMound culture aside, for wich we don't know much, it was totally different than ancient Israelites, or Hittites, or Egyptians. These people had well defined territories and fortified permanent cities made of stone. Iroquois, Hurons, Micmacs, Algonquins, Montagnais... they had nothing of the sort. The best you could expect would be a walled city made of woods. Something that could be easily dismantled.
In the prairies, the introduction of the horses and various epidimics certainly made them nomads, buffalo hunters, mostly.
Prior to the first european contacts, say, 1200-1300, I have no ideas how they lived exactly, if they were semi-nomads like the Hurons of the 1600s*, or if they were totally sedentary like ancient Egyptians.
Of course, they were quick to adapt to Europeans arrivals. Iroquois tried to establish their own little empire, selling lands of other tribes to English and Dutch merchants, and establishing themselves as intermediaries between the tribes of the Ohio valley and the French&English merchants for the fur trades. This is what led to the Beaver Wars: control of the resources for the Iroquois to be the sole, exclusive dealers with European buyers.
Specific to warfare, prior to European arrivals, you wouldn't see wars of extermination in eastern north america. It's not that they lived along merrily, just that there was lots of space for not so many people. There was ritual cannibalism in some tribes, boiling and eating a captive. There was torture, it's something anyone with a Catholic education in Quebec will certainly learn in school (torture of the missionaries by the Iroquois tribes). There were wars to supplement one's tribes with captives from another, but the goal was not to kill everyone of tribe X to take their lands. Push them out of the way, sure. Capture women, children, and warriors for torture, sure. Wars of extermination? Not so much. Wars of total conquest like in Europe, where you annex one's village to yours and subdue the new subjects? Not so much. Did it happen? Not really. Was it frequent? No. Was it the norm? No.
Again, the evidence that exists demonstrates the contrary - that the "Beaver Wars" were not a unique event, but a continuation of wars that had happened long before Europeans arrived, whivch had been (briefly) interrupted by the creation of mega-villages. See the article on Mantle, above.
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2014, 10:50:47 AM
Being half a page long does not by default makes an argument any more relevant or correct or interesting than a simple yes/no.
I am bored so I took a quick look. Grallon has made 9 posts in a thread that has 407 replies. ;)
How do you see how many posts people have in a thread? (Besides manually counting them, which is hardly a "quick look". )
Calling all British patriots and fellow travelers/UK residents, let's rally our forces and invade that long winded devoid of significance of a threat that is the Canadian politics one.
I know it won't be easy, some of us will succumb to the bleakness of the page long multi-quote nested posts, but we'll have the consolation in winning through, that the summer patriots who fell by the wayside in the face of yet another BB/Grallon slugfest will not see. :bowler:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 10, 2014, 11:21:25 AM
How do you see how many posts people have in a thread? (Besides manually counting them, which is hardly a "quick look". )
I used control F and changed number of posts shown on a page. Only 9 pages worth of posts, which is pretty quick.
That said, there is a reason I didn't count viper's posts. :P
I miss that feature where you could click on the number of posts in the thread and see a breakdown. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 10, 2014, 12:01:59 PM
I miss that feature where you could click on the number of posts in the thread and see a breakdown. :(
Me too. :(
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2014, 10:43:54 AM
Then how did they get those huge tribal confederations and empires? Seems like you would have to subdue new subjects to me.
Pre-contact, the only tribal confederation we know of was the Iroquois, and that was after a period of war, where the chiefs united in 5 nations. The 6th nations begged the Iroquois to be part of their league, after conflicts with the Dutch & British settlers.
Since we have no written record, we only rely on oral tradition and archeological evidence.
Indians later allied with the French came in 1701. Prior to the destruction of the Hurons, the French had a policy of not giving firearms to non converts. That changed afterwards.
Quote from: mongers on September 10, 2014, 11:47:23 AM
Calling all British patriots and fellow travelers/UK residents, let's rally our forces and invade that long winded devoid of significance of a threat that is the Canadian politics one.
I know it won't be easy, some of us will succumb to the bleakness of the page long multi-quote nested posts, but we'll have the consolation in winning through, that the summer patriots who fell by the wayside in the face of yet another BB/Grallon slugfest will not see. :bowler:
We should have recruited Languish's Canadians into the referendum campaign if we wanted to keep Scotland in the UK. "Project Tedium" would have assured a low turnout and NO vote :cool:
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2014, 10:48:18 AM
Come on, it is the Scottish Independence thread, and I can summarise almost half of it as follows:
"Viper/Grallon: QUEBEC's INDEPENDENCE IS DESERVED AND NECESSARY
Others: well there are two sides to that argument
Viper/Grallon: NO
Others: yes
Viper/Grallon: NO
etc
"
Funny, I don't see things your way. What I saw were a few Americans and a Hungarian saying the Scots were morons subject to propaganda by the YES side and unable to see for themselves what was good for them, for that, they needed American enlightment, wich holds that patriotism is totally different than nationalism, being a positive force, while nationalism is the root of all evil. According to Valmy, Nationalists are worst than nazis.
Grallon believes independance should happen right now, I think it's a lost cause for now, but will eventually resurface because of the nature of our political system wich concentrates powers in the hands of the central governement and barely leaves any room to provinces to really govern themselves the way they see fit.
I'd be more than satisfied with a renewed deal with Canada, one that allows us to sign the Constitution on terms we can agree with. Grallon would totally reject that, though.
Gossip I hear is that the high-ups in the Better Together campaign are privately conceding it's all over - they sense the Yes vote has it. Edit: And a choice quote I got, 'If the No vote wins, it will not have been because of the campaign.' :lol:
All I can say as a half-Croat is, an awful lot of nationalist Scots are going to be rather disappointed when they find out you can have useless, out-of-touch leaders in a state of 5.1 million just as much as you can in a state of 61 million. (Still, at least my relations had the excuse of actual repression to escape from.)
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 12:13:29 PM
for that, they needed American enlightment, wich holds that patriotism is totally different than nationalism, being a positive force, while nationalism is the root of all evil. According to Valmy, Nationalists are worst than nazis.
You're just straight up on crack if you got this from the discussion. :blink:
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 12:13:29 PM
...
Grallon believes independance should happen right now, I think it's a lost cause for now, but will eventually resurface because of the nature of our political system wich concentrates powers in the hands of the central governement and barely leaves any room to provinces to really govern themselves the way they see fit.
I'd be more than satisfied with a renewed deal with Canada, one that allows us to sign the Constitution on terms we can agree with. Grallon would totally reject that, though.
No Viper, Grallon believes we've given more than enough chances to our neighbors to make amends and he is convinced their mind is set to the "our way or the highway" attitude. They will not accommodate any demands or suggestions coming from Quebec. Not that our current government would make any such demands of course - witness the general confusion Couillard is mired in whenever the topic is raised.
As a matter of fact many suspect the treacherous motherfucker is intent on signing the accursed 1982 constitution - proclaimed without the consent of the National Assembly - for the 150th anniversary of the 1867 agreement in 2017. All that without a referendum and while he's been elected by only 30% of the population. I loathe that criminal cabal with a passion!
So in that light there's nothing more to be said and we shouldn't waste any more time in a federation that is strangling us one step at a time.
And so I wish the Scots well. And I am convinced that if they hesitate and vote No - they *will* get fucked over and end up in a worse position than they are now - just like we were.
G.
Those poor strangling Quebecois. Man, that really does sound terrible. Strangling. With a wire, or just random lynching?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2014, 01:55:31 AM
Do you not see he's talking specifically about land ownership?
I regard farmland and houses as "land ownership".
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 12:09:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2014, 10:43:54 AM
Then how did they get those huge tribal confederations and empires? Seems like you would have to subdue new subjects to me.
Pre-contact, the only tribal confederation we know of was the Iroquois, and that was after a period of war, where the chiefs united in 5 nations. The 6th nations begged the Iroquois to be part of their league, after conflicts with the Dutch & British settlers.
Since we have no written record, we only rely on oral tradition and archeological evidence.
Indians later allied with the French came in 1701. Prior to the destruction of the Hurons, the French had a policy of not giving firearms to non converts. That changed afterwards.
:huh: There were plenty of tribal confederacies prior to the Europeans. The first Europeans often made note of them. Here's one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Confederation You haven't actually provided any evidence for your ideas. On the other hand many things you have said have been demonstrated to be false like this tribal confederacies.
Can't the Francophonies just give up their language? My ancestors did no problem.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2014, 12:49:12 PM
Those poor strangling Quebecois. Man, that really does sound terrible. Strangling. With a wire, or just random lynching?
You're being irritating now. I'll let Viper try to explain this to you - one more time (I marvel at his patience in fact) - although in order to avoid coming to the same conclusion I came to he'll most likely downplay everything I said...
G.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2014, 12:49:12 PM
Those poor strangling Quebecois. Man, that really does sound terrible. Strangling. With a wire, or just random lynching?
Shoelaces.
Berkut, look at Grallon's avatar. That should tell you what you need to know about his ideology.
Is quebec going to give back the 250 billion in equalization payments it received?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 10, 2014, 12:10:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 10, 2014, 11:47:23 AM
Calling all British patriots and fellow travelers/UK residents, let's rally our forces and invade that long winded devoid of significance of a threat that is the Canadian politics one.
I know it won't be easy, some of us will succumb to the bleakness of the page long multi-quote nested posts, but we'll have the consolation in winning through, that the summer patriots who fell by the wayside in the face of yet another BB/Grallon slugfest will not see. :bowler:
We should have recruited Languish's Canadians into the referendum campaign if we wanted to keep Scotland in the UK. "Project Tedium" would have assured a low turnout and NO vote :cool:
Yes, that would have been a better campaign, but all is lost, let them drone on, maybe a new thread? :(
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2014, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 10, 2014, 07:34:51 PM
This is after all, at heart, a divorce; you can't force one partner to stay in the marriage if they longer wish it.
I think you can. We did it. :D
That was different since it was a result of the Slave Power Conspiracy.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2014, 05:05:29 PM
LOL all I said was that ethnically based states are a bad idea.
I do remember our previous conversations on the subject. I was just describing your general feeling, not your textual words.
There's just no difference between nationalism and patriotism, except that patriotims requires a state.
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 10:14:21 PM
There's just no difference between nationalism and patriotism, except that patriotims requires a state.
I mean was Valmy or any American decrying nationalism as an evil? (Though clearly it can be when taken to extremes) I only recall raising an eyebrow that nationalism was a cause of the American Revolution.
Quote from: Grallon on September 10, 2014, 12:42:59 PM
No Viper, Grallon believes we've given more than enough chances to our neighbors to make amends and he is convinced their mind is set to the "our way or the highway" attitude. They will not accommodate any demands or suggestions coming from Quebec. Not that our current government would make any such demands of course - witness the general confusion Couillard is mired in whenever the topic is raised.
Unlike you, I'm an optimist on this issue.
But it takes time and patience, and it will require a referendum where the choice is the best possible deal we negotiated or independance.
Quote
As a matter of fact many suspect the treacherous motherfucker is intent on signing the accursed 1982 constitution - proclaimed without the consent of the National Assembly - for the 150th anniversary of the 1867 agreement in 2017. All that without a referendum and while he's been elected by only 30% of the population. I loathe that criminal cabal with a passion!
that's wishful thinking from the PQ. It would give them a just cause to push for another referendum, and this time, get elected by luck.
QuoteSo in that light there's nothing more to be said and we shouldn't waste any more time in a federation that is strangling us one step at a time.
It ain't as bad as it used to be. The problem is, we're still dependant on the Feds good will.
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2014, 10:18:36 PM
I mean was Valmy or any American decrying nationalism as an evil? (Though clearly it can be when taken to extremes) I only recall raising an eyebrow that nationalism was a cause of the American Revolution.
See past threads. We've been discussing that for 14 years, at least.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2014, 10:52:38 PM
I do not recall ever distinguishing between nationalism and patriotism. You might have me confused with somebody else. Didn't the US have patriots before there was a state? Anyway...
The patriot word was used after 1775-1776, iirc, when the colonies decided they would unite together and declare their independance. I don't think I've ever read about it in the context of the 7 years war. I could be mistaken. I'd have to re-watch that Mel Gibson movie... ;)
Quote
My point has always been, so far as I am aware, that individuals have rights. Groups of people do not. Ethnic nationalism is the idea that states should express the sovereignty of an ethnic group. Further that ethnic groups require one to express their will and protect their interests somehow.
It's not solely ethnic. Nowadays, it's more much regional, territorial than ethnic. I don't think the Scots will expel all Englishmen from their newlyformed country, if that happens, because it's the Land of the Scots from now on.
Just as Quebec will not expel English speakers if it attains independance in the next century.
The recent charter fiasco aside (wich was a political ploy, not a real conviction, as we can see from the current PQ debates that it's nowhere to be seen), Quebec nationalism has always been inclusive, even of those who reject us, like English speaking indian tribes and some english montrealers who still cling to the idea that Britain's policy is to make the world British.
I believe that decisions affecting people should be taken at the local level. If it were up to me, I'd decentralized Quebec rather than having all decisions taken in Montreal with Montreal's interests in mind.
I believe I am better placed than someone in Ottawa or Toronto or even Montreal to decide what is good for me and how to achieve it.
Ideally, we'd be all in some libertarian paradise where people organize themselves without government and form ad-hoc association to solve more complex tasks. But that's just bullshit utopia and we know it.
We need rules, we need governance, we sometimes - and it pains me to admit it - need government intervention in the economy.
Now, if we pool our resources together, we are indeed, theoritically, stronger. However, once the money is in the pot, there's just no way to know who contributed what. If we all put 1$ in a pot, we can't easily trace back whom that exact 1$ bill belong to in the first place. All we know is we put 1$.
Things get murkier when not everyone puts 1$. We decide it should be pro-rata split for what we give back.
But in a large country, you don't have the same interests, the same value. What if part of a country is heavily urbanized and don't see the need for firearms? Let's forbid those, they are evil, unnecessary and only used to kill people. When you happen to have another part of the country wich is more rural, then conflicts arise. These poeple want their guns, they need it for hunting and for self defence, since it takes 10-20 minutes to get a cop at home when you dial 911.
Now what happens when one part of the country experience an economic boom and the other part is barely keeping it's head out of the water? How do you adjust economic policies, like interest rates, currency value and wich industries to subsidize? That last part will make you laugh, but we know that even in fiscally conservative societies, like some parts of the US electing GOP candidates or Alberta, they do like their subsidies for sure. So long as it's for their industries.
And then you got the social programs. Some states want more government funded stuff, other states want less of that. If everything is decided by one big government wich collect funds and redistribute it to local communities, you'll have a fiscal imbalance at some point. Some communities will never receive enough money to fund the stuff they want, and the government to appear "fair", will have a tendancy to finance unuseful stuff in some communities that want less government funding just to appear as the "good" guy and not only the paychek thief.
Add this cultural differences, and unless the country is decentralized, it's a recipe for disaster and eternal conflicts.
Wich is when ideas of independance arises.
Quote
Not only do I find this idea absurd (why would people represent my interests and share my policy preferences just because we are of the same ethnic group?) but problematic. Because then minorities represent a threat to the 'rights' of the group. There is something pretty visceral about ethnic state aspirations that seems to me makes very good people do very bad things. And then you have impacts like people who have been living in a town for five hundred years still be considered foreigners.
Wich is not the way of the Scots, nor the way of Quebec, not even the way of the Catalans or the Flemish.
Well, maybe not the Flemish.
It's based on language and/or local culture. The idea that one person living in an area should adapt to that area, not the other way around.
Quote
My preference is that states should be formed around political ideas
There lies a problem of geography. If people are grouped around political ideas and geography, that's great. Otherwise, you end up moving people. Like the Loyalist exodus after your independance. People who believed in the wrong idea were often expelled, or harassed.
In their case, they emigrated to Canada and Florida. Geographical division, because the political idea that formed the country wasn't too keen on having a bunch of royalists at home.
Is it less silly than those who are expelled for their religion? ethnicity? culture? I think it's all the same to me.
Quote
Also remember I live in a state where my ethnic group is no longer a majority but a plurality. And I see people freaking out about it and it fills me with a certain amount of amusement and contempt.
What will happen when the Spanish speaking population asks for Spanish public (as in, government funded) schools and colleges?
I'm betting there'll be fierce resistance to that idea.
In any case, English, American English, even if it's no longer a majority in some states, is not about to disapear. And I'm betting that what you see in Texas, is not people leaving english for spanish, but simply spanish speaking immigration and increased birth rate compared to the english speaking population. Wich is different than a steady decline worldwide of your language.
Eventually, I guess, Texas will either offer full bilingual services to both languages, equal fundings for schools, colleges and hospitals, or more likely, try to restrict the use of spanish by various measures.
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2014, 10:30:32 PM
Languish has only been around for about 11 though. :hmm:
Paradox forum was there before. There was that thing we called EUOT. Ask Berkut and Malthus, they certainly remember that place ;)
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 11:28:37 PM
The patriot word was used after 1775-1776, iirc, when the colonies decided they would unite together and declare their independance. I don't think I've ever read about it in the context of the 7 years war. I could be mistaken. I'd have to re-watch that Mel Gibson movie... ;)
1773 actually. Before independence was seriously considered. Please never watch that horrible Mel Gibson movie.
QuoteIt's not solely ethnic. Nowadays, it's more much regional, territorial than ethnic. I don't think the Scots will expel all Englishmen from their newlyformed country, if that happens, because it's the Land of the Scots from now on.
Nonsense. It is something but it is not "territorial". Scotland is not voting for independence because of some sort of geographical concern.
QuoteJust as Quebec will not expel English speakers if it attains independance in the next century.
No. But it might, say, pass restrictions on them to protect the Quebec identity. But we are talking about a new world country, not an old world one. Is a Quebecois really an ethnicity? Ah well you make some interesting points and I want to address those.
QuoteThe recent charter fiasco aside (wich was a political ploy, not a real conviction, as we can see from the current PQ debates that it's nowhere to be seen), Quebec nationalism has always been inclusive, even of those who reject us, like English speaking indian tribes and some english montrealers who still cling to the idea that Britain's policy is to make the world British.
Was that really Britain's policy? We wanted to be British but they were having none of that :P
QuoteBut in a large country, you don't have the same interests, the same value.
I would agree with other Texans on their interests and values more if Texas became independent? Why? Pretty sure most of us would be just as insane as before.
QuoteWhat if part of a country is heavily urbanized and don't see the need for firearms? Let's forbid those, they are evil, unnecessary and only used to kill people. When you happen to have another part of the country wich is more rural, then conflicts arise. These poeple want their guns, they need it for hunting and for self defence, since it takes 10-20 minutes to get a cop at home when you dial 911.
Well theoretically cultural issues like this would be decided on a local level in my perfect state. We have this pesky deal where being heavily armed is one of our founding principles. But in a smaller state why would this not be an issue? Unless we are talking about a microstate but those countries have policies heavily at the mercy of their neighbors.
QuoteNow what happens when one part of the country experience an economic boom and the other part is barely keeping it's head out of the water? How do you adjust economic policies, like interest rates, currency value and wich industries to subsidize? That last part will make you laugh, but we know that even in fiscally conservative societies, like some parts of the US electing GOP candidates or Alberta, they do like their subsidies for sure. So long as it's for their industries.
And if you had a bunch of small countries you would have deal with those same issues, only it would be even more contentious and probably even more counter-productive. Economics do not stop at the border and subsidizing industries can lead to costly trade wars and WTO battles. In a federal system certain economic powers are left in the hands of locals. In a more centralized one you would need mechanisms to ensure each part of the country has the means to let its interests be known. But Quebec and Scotland, for example, are both dominated by southern urban centers with sparsely populated areas to the north. Why wouldn't these cities just dominate everything in the country? How did independence lessen these problems? And if you break them down into even smaller countries you run into that state rivalry business.
QuoteAnd then you got the social programs. Some states want more government funded stuff, other states want less of that. If everything is decided by one big government wich collect funds and redistribute it to local communities, you'll have a fiscal imbalance at some point. Some communities will never receive enough money to fund the stuff they want, and the government to appear "fair", will have a tendancy to finance unuseful stuff in some communities that want less government funding just to appear as the "good" guy and not only the paychek thief.
Um dude if Scotland goes independent it will be commie as hell and plenty of communities in Scotland will think that sucks balls. Even if just Edinburgh became its own city state I am pretty sure there would be disagreements and debates on this sort of thing. You can actually form a polity where everybody agrees with how government spending is done?
QuoteAdd this cultural differences, and unless the country is decentralized, it's a recipe for disaster and eternal conflicts.
Wich is when ideas of independance arises.
Yes but nations do not have friends, they have interests and they squabble. Are disastrous external conflicts superior in some way? Independence does not transfer you to Mars where Canada is gone and no longer impacts your life. Except now Canada will be a rival and not a state that, however grudgingly, has to consider your interests its own. And yes I think a decentralized federal polity where local customs is the way for local issues. The central government should only be for economic and security issues to coordinate things in such a way as to give the ruling party as much patronage...err....I mean devise policies that benefit all. Still better than a bunch of squabbling states.
QuoteWich is not the way of the Scots, nor the way of Quebec, not even the way of the Catalans or the Flemish.
Well, maybe not the Flemish.
Interesting cherry picking. Also note that none of those ethnicities presently has an ethnically based state.
QuoteIt's based on language and/or local culture. The idea that one person living in an area should adapt to that area, not the other way around.
No both things should adapt. Now I think people will adapt to the culture eventually.
QuoteThere lies a problem of geography. If people are grouped around political ideas and geography, that's great. Otherwise, you end up moving people. Like the Loyalist exodus after your independance. People who believed in the wrong idea were often expelled, or harassed.
In their case, they emigrated to Canada and Florida. Geographical division, because the political idea that formed the country wasn't too keen on having a bunch of royalists at home.
That's awesome and I applaud you for trying to turn this on its head. However the primary people who were murdered and harassed who were loyalists primarily happened because of an ethnic conflict between the English Patriots and the Scotch-Irish Loyalists in the south. And the Scotch-Irish just stayed in the Appalachian highlands doing their own thing, nobody forced them out. Granted we just had a civil war but I don't think it was the systematic expulsion of people you are presenting here. We saved that for ethnic conflicts with the Native Americans. Hard for me to see the Loyalists were worse off for not sharing the values as opposed to the far worse crime of being born in the wrong ethnic group. Besides a lot of the loyalists came back later. However, like I said, once you have class enemies things get ugly.
QuoteIs it less silly than those who are expelled for their religion? ethnicity? culture? I think it's all the same to me.
It is easier to change your mind about being loyal to King George than it is to magically become ethnically Polish.
QuoteWhat will happen when the Spanish speaking population asks for Spanish public (as in, government funded) schools and colleges?
I'm betting there'll be fierce resistance to that idea.
I honestly have no idea, public education is funded and governed in this bizarre decentralized way here. I know we used to have German speaking schools and Spanish speaking schools. There is fierce resistance to educating certain people because the assumption is they are all illegal immigrants of course.
QuoteIn any case, English, American English, even if it's no longer a majority in some states, is not about to disapear. And I'm betting that what you see in Texas, is not people leaving english for spanish, but simply spanish speaking immigration and increased birth rate compared to the english speaking population. Wich is different than a steady decline worldwide of your language.
Well it is not just Spanish speakers. We have shit tons of Asians coming in who are not about to learn Spanish. That is what is nice about having a multi-ethnic state.
QuoteEventually, I guess, Texas will either offer full bilingual services to both languages, equal fundings for schools, colleges and hospitals, or more likely, try to restrict the use of spanish by various measures.
We do offer lots of bilingual services. And equally funding schools is just not something we do, each district funds its own schools which gives us the fantastically dysfunctional educational system we have today.
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 11:28:37 PM
Well, maybe not the Flemish.
No one will be expelled from Flanders if and when we achieve independence. It's rather well known that francophone press is not shy of blatant (and no so blatant) lying when it comes to portraying Flanders. No wonder when you know that they get their queue from francophone politicians.
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2014, 04:20:59 AM
Europe is competing with massive continent-spanning entities like US, China, India, Russia, and here everyone is busy breaking up into smaller and smaller states. :bleeding:
There's more to life than making money you grubby fool! <_<
G.
Quote from: viper37 on September 10, 2014, 11:34:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2014, 10:30:32 PM
Languish has only been around for about 11 though. :hmm:
Paradox forum was there before. There was that thing we called EUOT. Ask Berkut and Malthus, they certainly remember that place ;)
I echo, V's statements of the vague summary then. Hard to combat such a loose statement.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2014, 08:00:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2014, 04:20:59 AM
Europe is competing with massive continent-spanning entities like US, China, India, Russia, and here everyone is busy breaking up into smaller and smaller states. :bleeding:
There's more to life than making money you grubby fool! <_<
G.
Well I doubt defense of a state becomes easier as one becomes weaker.
The big bad "other" is such a big part of the Scottish and Quebecer mythos that you'll never convince the separatist that separating could actually harm their beloved nation. Economic realities (subsidies and common currency), political realities and the like mean nothing when someone is focused on the wrongs done 100 plus years in the past.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2014, 08:00:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2014, 04:20:59 AM
Europe is competing with massive continent-spanning entities like US, China, India, Russia, and here everyone is busy breaking up into smaller and smaller states. :bleeding:
There's more to life than making money you grubby fool! <_<
G.
Smug feeling of national pride hasn't fed anyone.
Worst of this is of course, that if Scottish/French American independence becomes a reality but these states fail or at least end up worse than before, that will do zero to convince the likes of you. It would still be the fault of the English/Canadian state, not yours.
Of course, it won't Tamas.
Grallon's and all other independantiste reasons to want a Free Quebec, none of them are economical.
As for the Canadian Federal system. I really wish Alberta, BC & Sask get down from their high horses and stop crying about péréquation and start dialogue with Quebec so We, together, can reshape(fuck up) our federal government.
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprojectmentalchemistry.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F11%2Ffreedom.png&hash=59271df366057c1d4f96d1c7523cd62ac8700718)
Honestly, if the French Canadians want Mel Gibson, they can have him. :hmm:
I am really curious - it has to be something pretty terrible. Grallon said they were being "strangled", and apparently he didn't mean literally, but he does mean something pretty horrific.
I am surprised that in our modern times a western, liberal nation like Canada is cruelly oppressing a significant portion of their population in such a manner, but I can't quite figure out exactly what that manner of strangling oppression is...
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
From a few searches of "what does Quebec want from Canada" - it sounds like they just want to be primarily in charge of their own affairs. Distrust that Canada (as a whole) has Quebec's best interests at heart with a dash of Quebec could do it better if they were given free rein.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 08:30:24 AM
Of course, it won't Tamas.
Grallon's and all other independantiste reasons to want a Free Quebec, none of them are economical.
As for the Canadian Federal system. I really wish Alberta, BC & Sask get down from their high horses and stop crying about péréquation and start dialogue with Quebec so We, together, can reshape(fuck up) our federal government.
But I don't want to "fuck up" our federal government. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 09:44:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
From a few searches of "what does Quebec want from Canada" - it sounds like they just want to be primarily in charge of their own affairs. Distrust that Canada (as a whole) has Quebec's best interests at heart with a dash of Quebec could do it better if they were given free rein.
That is completely vague though, and hardly the basis for dissolving a political union.
What in particular is Canada doing to strangle Quebec that if only they would let them go Quebec could stop doing or having done to them?
Honestly, the only thing concrete I've heard from the pro-independence "crowd" is that they want more power to create a more intolerant society towards those who are not French enough, or god forbid, dirty furriners.
But I know that is just a fringe element, and most of the pro-independence crowd have much less contemptible grievances. I just want to know what they are...
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:51:14 AM
That is completely vague though, and hardly the basis for dissolving a political union.
Hey that's what kept popping up. Along with spirited defenses that it is a fiction that Quebec would be intolerant.
I could kind of dig it, insofar as if one thinks that one's nation would be better off when independent - as opposed to hitched to a federal government that doesn't care about it, then one could be inclined to separatism. Trouble for me is that I don't think either of those assumptions are true.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
Here we go again - there has been countless threads about this where I and Viper and Oex and Rex Francorum tried in our various ways to explain this - only to have our explanations thrown back in our face with a contemptuous dismissal as expressions of tribalism, xenophobia, etc. That gets old after a while.
But to answer your question, they will not agree that as the heartland of the French Canadians Quebec should be more than merely a province like the others. Which means it should have a different status within the federation - and that in turn means more powers and less interference from the federal govt. in those areas that pertain to the maintaining and furthering of our national culture. They will not agree that whatever 'national policy' they cook between themselves - according to their values and culture should not be automatically applied to Quebec-a-province-like-the-others. And they will not do these things because, as I've stated numerous times, they don't recognize us as a nation. They actively deny it. They're so mired in the Trudeau ideology of state mutliculturalism they can't even fathom it - for them we're merely another minority. And if some do aknowledge the fact it's only to deride the notion as a relic of the past.
When you have a Malthus pompously quoting the dogma of the Canadian state religion that 'ethnic identity will fade overtime' - it's not conducive to further dialogue. And I for one will not have my identity dismissed as irrelevant by people strutting about and crowing about their *own* brand of identity as something 'ball-of-light' superior. And when we speak of identity it obviously means more than folk songs - it means a way of life that is unique. According to those people Quebecers or Scots or Catalans should simply abandon who they are to disappear in whatever dominant culture they are surrounded with, which in recent years also imply surrendering everything to the globalization process, its institutions, and those (mostly unelected and unaccountable) who control it.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2014, 10:07:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
Here we go again - there has been countless threads about this where I and Viper and Oex and Rex Francorum tried in our various ways to explain this - only to have our explanations thrown back in our face with a contemptuous dismissal as expressions of tribalism, xenophobia, etc. That gets old after a while.
But to answer your question, they will not agree that as the heartland of the French Canadians Quebec should be more than merely a province like the others. Which means it should have a different status within the federation - and that in turn means more powers and less interference from the federal govt. in those areas that pertain to the maintaining and furthering of our national culture. They will not agree that whatever 'national policy' they cook between themselves - according to their values and culture should not be automatically applied to Quebec-a-province-like-the-others. And they will not do these things because, as I've stated numerous times, they don't recognize us as a nation. They actively deny it. They're so mired in the Trudeau ideology of state mutliculturalism they can't even fathom it - for them we're merely another minority. And if some do aknowledge the fact it's only to deride the notion as a relic of the past.
When you have a Malthus pompously quoting the dogma of the Canadian state religion that 'ethnic identity will fade overtime' - it's not conducive to further dialogue. And I for one will not have my identity dismissed as irrelevant by people strutting about and crowing about their *own* brand of identity as something 'ball-of-light' superior. And when we speak of identity it obviously means more than folk songs - it means a way of life that is unique. According to those people Quebecers or Scots or Catalans should simply abandon who they are to disappear in whatever dominant culture they are surrounded with, which in recent years also imply surrendering everything to the globalization process, its institutions, and those (mostly unelected and unaccountable) who control it.
G.
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading. The fact is that Canada is already about as decentralized a federation as one could find, and Quebec already exercises all sorts of powers within that. Note the lack of any specifics as to what, exactly, Quebec needs additional powers *for* that it does not have *right now*. What could Quebec do when it is its own country, that it can't do now? You will never see an actual answer to that question, just more Grallonesqe huffing and puffing.
Also it is "ethno-nationalism" I hope to see fade, not "ethinic identity". Sad that Grallon apparently can't tell the difference.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 09:49:27 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 08:30:24 AM
Of course, it won't Tamas.
Grallon's and all other independantiste reasons to want a Free Quebec, none of them are economical.
As for the Canadian Federal system. I really wish Alberta, BC & Sask get down from their high horses and stop crying about péréquation and start dialogue with Quebec so We, together, can reshape(fuck up) our federal government.
But I don't want to "fuck up" our federal government. :huh:
Then cut the French Canadians loose.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:40:31 AM
I am really curious - it has to be something pretty terrible. Grallon said they were being "strangled", and apparently he didn't mean literally, but he does mean something pretty horrific.
I am surprised that in our modern times a western, liberal nation like Canada is cruelly oppressing a significant portion of their population in such a manner, but I can't quite figure out exactly what that manner of strangling oppression is...
You can read Grallon's explanation.
I will try to make it way more simpler.
We are different, much different. Culturally, politically, economically, etc from Rest of Canada. They have trouble with that fact.
Independantist believe we are being opressed and the only way to fix that is too gain independance. I believe differently that creating a less powerfull with a lot less spheres of responsability Federal government (with no taxation power!*) is a much better idea.
*It can have tax revenue & set a rate but Provinces will collect the money & redistribuate.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2014, 12:44:59 AM
Please never watch that horrible Mel Gibson movie.
too late for that. I even made the mistake of buying it on Blu Ray. This is what happens when you drink a lot and watch movies, your memories of it are always positive. I had the same problem with that horrible movie on a masked twin to Louis XIV with DiCaprio. Meh. Glad this period of my life is over and done.
Quote
Nonsense. It is something but it is not "territorial". Scotland is not voting for independence because of some sort of geographical concern.
I must be expressing it wrongly.
Trying to correct it...
They will vote on independance because they feel "Scottish", not "British". From there, there are other issues that arises with the central government in terms of governance. Because they feel different, they feel the policies of the central government are misadapted to their reality, wich is mostly a geographic one: how they are felt by those in this particular territory. And once independance is declared, I doubt there will be two classes of Scots: those whose ancestors fought with William Wallace and those who came later...
Quote
No. But it might, say, pass restrictions on them to protect the Quebec identity. But we are talking about a new world country, not an old world one. Is a Quebecois really an ethnicity? Ah well you make some interesting points and I want to address those.
Ah, but it seems to me the general consensus among anglo-saxons is that language is just a tool, not a basis for identity.
As such, if Quebec were to pass legislation promoting the use of French, it would simply a matter of deciding wich hammer is the best... And shouldn't cause any concern to the population...
Anyway, this is slightly off-topic.
Quote
Was that really Britain's policy? We wanted to be British but they were having none of that :P
I don't know, honestly :) It's just my favorite quote from
The Last of the Mohicans ;)
Later policies in Canada where certainly to keep the place British. American colonists like Franklin were arguing we should be deported and make room for Loyal Subjects of his majesty (how things changed quickly in a decade! :P ).
The rights we were given (rights to hold a state job, right to practice religion) where to prevent us from joining the American rebellion, first, and later, to avoid Quebec joining the United States, as other British colonies&territories were starting to think. But the official policy of the British was that French was a non-culture, English culture&history was superior and we should be assimilated for our own good. Wich is something that persisted until the second half of the 20th century. But you'll find people who are still seriously advocating that, albeit a minority.
Quote
Well theoretically cultural issues like this would be decided on a local level in my perfect state. We have this pesky deal where being heavily armed is one of our founding principles.
But in the case of Scotland and Canada, these issues are decided by the central government. And calls for change mostly go unanswered for.
Over time, these little grievances accumulate.
Quote
And if you had a bunch of small countries you would have deal with those same issues, only it would be even more contentious and probably even more counter-productive. Economics do not stop at the border and subsidizing industries can lead to costly trade wars and WTO battles.
See agricultural and oil subsidies. All countries, do it, even the US. Even conservative Alberta is attached to its oil&gaz subsidies by the Federal government (or rather, generous tax credits). No WTO battles here. No NAFTA problems either.
Some US States, like, recently, Tennessee, like to heavily subsidized their industry to attract them. California, Quebec and British Columbia offer very generous tax credits for the film industry, but these are done at the local level, so they do not cause any issues. Same for video games. Again, no issues with WTO or NAFTA here.
All these treaties contain loopholes that still let the states finance an industry the way they want. Even if you are prevented from subsidizing an industry directly, you could still be able to tax it at 0% and make it a refundable tax credit so it can be used when you finally turn a profit.
Now, in a big country, it stands that some places will have a dominant industry different than another part of the country. When the central authorities decide to favor one industry over another with its fiscal policies, they hurt the other industries. It gets even worst when the tax credits and subsidies are industriallyy & geographically linked. Example: Quebec once a tax credits for video game makers and film producers. It applied only if you built a studio in a specific area of Montreal. What it did was crushed the burgeoning video game industry of Quebec city and helped Montreal established itself as the capital of movies and video games for Quebec. And it let one entrepreneur take subsidies to build movie studios denied to other and today he can impose his will on anyone else trying to shoot a movie in Montreal (the case of Mel's Studios is quite documented).
This is the kind of stuff that create resentment.
Quote
In a federal system certain economic powers are left in the hands of locals. In a more centralized one you would need mechanisms to ensure each part of the country has the means to let its interests be known.
And when that does not happen, you give rise to an ethnic and geographic nationalism.
More often than not, central authority fears that decentralization will lead to a loss of "national feeling".
QuoteBut Quebec and Scotland, for example, are both dominated by southern urban centers with sparsely populated areas to the north. Why wouldn't these cities just dominate everything in the country? How did independence lessen these problems?
The closer the center of decision is, the more effect you can have on it.
Does that solve everything? Of course not. In the case of Scotland, I don't really know the differences.
In the case of Quebec, there are conflicts, and there are places in the province we can't reach by road. Small thriving communities of white and indian people, despite their isolation. Independance would not solve any of that. But massive federal centralization is even worst.
It all depends on the level of decentralization of the new State. If Scotland replicates the UK model once it's independant, it might be a failure. If Quebec replicates the Canadian federal structure in its independant country, no matter when it happens it will be a failure.
QuoteAnd if you break them down into even smaller countries you run into that state rivalry business.
You find your niche and you develop it. This is how smal businesses survive. My company is small, smaller than most of our competitors, but we have found our niche that many people do not want to touch. If I wanted to, I could again work in Montreal, because there's close to zero competition. But since I hate working for dishonest people, I don't do it.
This is what small countries do. They find a niche, they specialize in it. Swiss financial services being one example. Had Switzerland been divided between Italia, France and Austria, it is doubtful any of these countries could have developped extensive financial services that ultimately benefited many of their citizens.
Quote
Um dude if Scotland goes independent it will be commie as hell and plenty of communities in Scotland will think that sucks balls. Even if just Edinburgh became its own city state I am pretty sure there would be disagreements and debates on this sort of thing. You can actually form a polity where everybody agrees with how government spending is done?
You said yourself that a state based on sharing political ideas was better...
For better or for worst, Scots feel they need to be more to the left than the actual United Kingdom is. They believe that by seperation they will be able to preserve their social programs so dear to them. I actually doubt it, I believe it more likely that they will follow the Slovakian model and gradually move away from socialism as they realize it is a failure.
But it will be their choice.
Quote
Yes but nations do not have friends, they have interests and they squabble. Are disastrous external conflicts superior in some way? Independence does not transfer you to Mars where Canada is gone and no longer impacts your life. Except now Canada will be a rival and not a state that, however grudgingly, has to consider your interests its own.
When you reach a point where the idea of independance reach a large part of the population, it is because you consider the central authorities' decision to be mostly against your own interests. Doesn't have to be 100% of the time, but this is generally grounded in facts. Wether or not making your own decisions would give a better result is a matter for debate.
QuoteAnd yes I think a decentralized federal polity where local customs is the way for local issues. The central government should only be for economic and security issues to coordinate things in such a way as to give the ruling party as much patronage...err....I mean devise policies that benefit all. Still better than a bunch of squabbling states.
That's like asking a question: "Do you like apple pie?". Not many people will say no.
Of course, everyone wants an ideal state.
But neither the United Kingdom nor Canada are decentralized states, at least, no up to what you propose. Remember that both in the case of Scotland and Quebec, we have much less autonomy than a US State. And you went to war because some States felt the Fed gov was too powerful... And given that you'll reply that their rebellion was a failure due to lack of a centralized effort, the obvious answer would be that you require a balance between centralization and autonomy. ;)
My own ideal version of governance is close to the US, but a tad more decentralized. I would be against any federal initiative in health care and leave the matter entirely to the States. Except maybe for coordination of local efforts in a pandemic situation, I don't see how a central authority should decide for everyone what level of healthcare should a state offer to its citizens. Even if I wish to preserve the publically funded health care of my country, I disagree with the Federal law forcing it on the provinces.
QuoteInteresting cherry picking. Also note that none of those ethnicities presently has an ethnically based state.
We do not really exists as pure individuals. We are byproducts of the society we live in. A Québécois Garbon would be a different individual, all things being equal.
Nationalism in a democratic country is bound to be different than in a place where force was use to push people in a united federation/empire. I admit I was unprepare to Serbian nationalism invoking events of the 15th century (in all seriousness) to justify their 20th century conduct.
I don't want to cherry pick, but I will insist on a difference between a democratic nationalist movement and a military nationalist movement.
Quote
No both things should adapt. Now I think people will adapt to the culture eventually.
It's been 255 years since the first British settlers established themselves in Quebec. As of 1976, when bill 101 was implemented, there were still many unilingal anglophones in a predominantly french Quebec, and it was very difficult for french speakers to find decent paying job in Quebec without speaking english. In a time where international contacts were still pretty limited...
So, no, I do no think they will adapt to the culture eventually, unless they receive a small push in the back. Not when you don't even control your immigration (wich is partly solved now).
Quote
It is easier to change your mind about being loyal to King George than it is to magically become ethnically Polish.
But most form of nationalism aren't ethnically based.
Everyone can become Polish. Or American, or Canadian. You just have to emigrate to the country, live&work there for a while, apply for citizenship. Some countries ask for knowledge of the local language, and I don't disagree with that. If you recite a pledge of allegiance, you have to at least understand what you're doing.
I would argue that if you hate English with a passion, consider Americans to be nothing more than barbarians with writing skills, you have no business emigrating to the USA, even if it's the best job offer you'll ever have in your life.
Replace the language and the people by any other one in the world if you wish...
Quote
Well it is not just Spanish speakers. We have shit tons of Asians coming in who are not about to learn Spanish. That is what is nice about having a multi-ethnic state.
Asians in Texas, really? Seems I haven't kept close enough attention to southern US demographics lately :)
I blame Dallas for not featuring enough Asians on television. :mad:
Quote
We do offer lots of bilingual services. And equally funding schools is just not something we do, each district funds its own schools which gives us the fantastically dysfunctional educational system we have today.
if it's funded by district, than it is radically different than what I imagined. I always tought the bulk of the money came from the State, redistributed to local districts.
The argument does not really apply then. I'm guessing you are seeing predominantly asian or spanish districts wich fund their own schools then.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 10:40:44 AM
We are different, much different. Culturally, politically, economically, etc from Rest of Canada. They have trouble with that fact.
Can you quantify that a bit? Seems less like RoC has a problem with Quebec being different and more that Quebec is upset that RoC won't recognize those differences / allow Quebec a more privileged place.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2014, 10:07:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
Here we go again - there has been countless threads about this where I and Viper and Oex and Rex Francorum tried in our various ways to explain this - only to have our explanations thrown back in our face with a contemptuous dismissal as expressions of tribalism, xenophobia, etc. That gets old after a while.
But to answer your question, they will not agree that as the heartland of the French Canadians Quebec should be more than merely a province like the others. Which means it should have a different status within the federation - and that in turn means more powers and less interference from the federal govt. in those areas that pertain to the maintaining and furthering of our national culture. They will not agree that whatever 'national policy' they cook between themselves - according to their values and culture should not be automatically applied to Quebec-a-province-like-the-others. And they will not do these things because, as I've stated numerous times, they don't recognize us as a nation. They actively deny it. They're so mired in the Trudeau ideology of state mutliculturalism they can't even fathom it - for them we're merely another minority. And if some do aknowledge the fact it's only to deride the notion as a relic of the past.
When you have a Malthus pompously quoting the dogma of the Canadian state religion that 'ethnic identity will fade overtime' - it's not conducive to further dialogue. And I for one will not have my identity dismissed as irrelevant by people strutting about and crowing about their *own* brand of identity as something 'ball-of-light' superior. And when we speak of identity it obviously means more than folk songs - it means a way of life that is unique. According to those people Quebecers or Scots or Catalans should simply abandon who they are to disappear in whatever dominant culture they are surrounded with, which in recent years also imply surrendering everything to the globalization process, its institutions, and those (mostly unelected and unaccountable) who control it.
G.
Ah, the I'm-a-Special-Snowflake Doctrine. A very powerful force to those that subscribe.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 10:40:44 AM
We are different, much different. Culturally, politically, economically, etc from Rest of Canada. They have trouble with that fact.
Can you quantify that a bit? Seems less like RoC has a problem with Quebec being different and more that Quebec is upset that RoC won't recognize those differences / allow Quebec a more privileged place.
I can try.
Culturally. There is obviously the language. That is the driver of most of the differences. We, as customers, consume a lot less American cultural products than the rest of Canada. Our TV, Movie & Radio industry are more popular than their English-Canada counterparts. We don't get married anymore. Religion is not talked about in the public sphere(unless to try to minimize the small influence it has).
Politically. We are more socialist then the RoC. As provincial parties go, none are really right. In Federal Election, while Alberta votes PCC blindly, Ontario votes Liberals & PCC blindly. Last election, Quebecers elected a majority of NDP mps(because the Bloc Québécois wasn't an option anymore) and the Liberals had a deadstart Leader.
Economically. I am not sure how it works in all provinces but the Quebec government is involved in many spheres. We, has a province, don't really have non-governemental Venture Capitals.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2014, 08:00:41 AM
There's more to life than making money you grubby fool! <_<
G.
I'm not so sure about that...
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 08:02:15 AM
I echo, V's statements of the vague summary then. Hard to combat such a loose statement.
than surrender to my superior arguments & feelings and we'll call it quits ;)
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2014, 08:12:48 AM
The big bad "other" is such a big part of the Scottish and Quebecer mythos that you'll never convince the separatist that separating could actually harm their beloved nation. Economic realities (subsidies and common currency), political realities and the like mean nothing when someone is focused on the wrongs done 100 plus years in the past.
well, it's hard to foccus on the wrongs that will be done 100 years from now...
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 08:02:15 AM
I echo, V's statements of the vague summary then. Hard to combat such a loose statement.
than surrender to my superior arguments & feelings and we'll call it quits ;)
Alternatively, you could debate with what people are saying now instead of what someone, theoretically said more than a decade ago. :P
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2014, 08:17:30 AM
Worst of this is of course, that if Scottish/French American independence becomes a reality but these states fail or at least end up worse than before, that will do zero to convince the likes of you. It would still be the fault of the English/Canadian state, not yours.
One theory holds that once independant, Quebec would have no one else to blame for its economic difficulties. but I fear you are right, we would still blame the Americans and the Canadians for our troubles.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 11:06:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 10:40:44 AM
We are different, much different. Culturally, politically, economically, etc from Rest of Canada. They have trouble with that fact.
Can you quantify that a bit? Seems less like RoC has a problem with Quebec being different and more that Quebec is upset that RoC won't recognize those differences / allow Quebec a more privileged place.
I can try.
Culturally. There is obviously the language. That is the driver of most of the differences. We, as customers, consume a lot less American cultural products than the rest of Canada. Our TV, Movie & Radio industry are more popular than their English-Canada counterparts. We don't get married anymore. Religion is not talked about in the public sphere(unless to try to minimize the small influence it has).
Politically. We are more socialist then the RoC. As provincial parties go, none are really right. In Federal Election, while Alberta votes PCC blindly, Ontario votes Liberals & PCC blindly. Last election, Quebecers elected a majority of NDP mps(because the Bloc Québécois wasn't an option anymore) and the Liberals had a deadstart Leader.
Economically. I am not sure how it works in all provinces but the Quebec government is involved in many spheres. We, has a province, don't really have non-governemental Venture Capitals.
Okay sure, I can dig those differences. What's RoC's beef with those though? Particularly on the political front, those seem more like issues for Quebecers in dealing with RoC rather than the other way around (as in Fed establishment is then biased for RoC instead of Quebec).
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
The minimal conditions that were rejected by English Canada, under the influence of intense Liberal Party's campaigning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord#Agreement
It led directly to the second referendum.
Hope!
Yes is Kim Jong-un's choice
No is mine!
Hey it worked in 2004.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 11:13:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 11:06:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 10:40:44 AM
We are different, much different. Culturally, politically, economically, etc from Rest of Canada. They have trouble with that fact.
Can you quantify that a bit? Seems less like RoC has a problem with Quebec being different and more that Quebec is upset that RoC won't recognize those differences / allow Quebec a more privileged place.
I can try.
Culturally. There is obviously the language. That is the driver of most of the differences. We, as customers, consume a lot less American cultural products than the rest of Canada. Our TV, Movie & Radio industry are more popular than their English-Canada counterparts. We don't get married anymore. Religion is not talked about in the public sphere(unless to try to minimize the small influence it has).
Politically. We are more socialist then the RoC. As provincial parties go, none are really right. In Federal Election, while Alberta votes PCC blindly, Ontario votes Liberals & PCC blindly. Last election, Quebecers elected a majority of NDP mps(because the Bloc Québécois wasn't an option anymore) and the Liberals had a deadstart Leader.
Economically. I am not sure how it works in all provinces but the Quebec government is involved in many spheres. We, has a province, don't really have non-governemental Venture Capitals.
Okay sure, I can dig those differences. What's RoC's beef with those though? Particularly on the political front, those seem more like issues for Quebecers in dealing with RoC rather than the other way around (as in Fed establishment is then biased for RoC instead of Quebec).
Perequation, basically. Quebec (for negotiated reasons) gets the vast majority of the redistribuation money.
Also, the RoC Canadians are not-something. Not-Americans, Not-British, Not-Quebecers. Western Canadians are Not-Ontarians. That must hurt.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 12:08:37 PM
Perequation, basically. Quebec (for negotiated reasons) gets the vast majority of the redistribuation money.
Also, the RoC Canadians are not-something. Not-Americans, Not-British, Not-Quebecers. Western Canadians are Not-Ontarians. That must hurt.
In short, 'we have a special culture, which emphasizes a lot of socialist redistribution, but we don't have the money to pay for that. You, the RoC, please fund it.' :)
'Why should we?' :hmm:
'Because if you don't, we will take that as proof you hate us and leave the country'. :mad:
It's a financial shake-down, pure and simple. It also leads one to wonder WTF would happen to their much-vaunted socialism if they did leave.
As far as the "you guys don't have a real identity" thing goes - in point of fact, we do, and the Grallons among you are constantly upset about it. It is simply not one based on ethno-nationalism, but on a shared patriotism based on a pride in our history and institutions (maybe misplaced at times :D ).
Though as always, it is fun to be told that we don't have an identity and so have a duty to pay for those who do. How could that possibly lead to resentment? :hmm:
That's bullshit.
You don't fund it. There is a long list of services that the Federal government doesn't provide in Quebec but the provincial government does.
The federal government is only giving the money it collected for those services back.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 12:17:22 PM
As far as the "you guys don't have a real identity" thing goes - in point of fact, we do, and the Grallons among you are constantly upset about it. It is simply not one based on ethno-nationalism, but on a shared patriotism based on a pride in our history and institutions (maybe misplaced at times :D ).
based on love and submission to foreign non elected leader. It makes sense, when you don't think about it... ;)
Canadien identity evolved as not-American from the American Revolution up to today. Just as an American president can win a debate by saying "He wants Canada!", the biggest slur you can adress to a Canadian Prime Minister candidate is to say "he wants to make us Americans" or "he has American values".
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 12:17:22 PM
It's a financial shake-down, pure and simple. It also leads one to wonder WTF would happen to their much-vaunted socialism if they did leave.
We could simply perceive 100% of our taxes and redistribute to Canada a share of it, previously agreed, for the services we really use.
And we could modify at our will, depending on how we feel. I mean, just like the actual system, but with role reversal ;)
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 12:08:37 PM
Perequation, basically. Quebec (for negotiated reasons) gets the vast majority of the redistribuation money.
So RoC cares not because of any of the differences you listed about Quebec but rather because of what it perceives as unfair payments to Quebec?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 12:08:37 PM
Also, the RoC Canadians are not-something. Not-Americans, Not-British, Not-Quebecers. Western Canadians are Not-Ontarians. That must hurt.
You've lost me here.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading.
...
What was I saying again about contemptuous dismissal? I rest my case.
G.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading. The fact is that Canada is already about as decentralized a federation as one could find,
that's Canadian propaganda for you :)
We are much more centralized the the United States and the Prime Minister office has a lot more power in Canada than does the Presidential office in the US.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 12:20:00 PM
That's bullshit.
You don't fund it. There is a long list of services that the Federal government doesn't provide in Quebec but the provincial government does.
The federal government is only giving the money it collected for those services back.
Not sure what you mean. Quebec gets the lion's share of 'equalization payments' and has for a long, long time. The amount of payment is not linked, as far as I am aware, to specific programs.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/24/mark-milke-quebecs-fiscal-independence-myth/
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2014, 12:37:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading.
...
What was I saying again about contemptuous dismissal? I rest my case.
G.
Stop producing steaming piles, and I will stop contemptuously dismissing them. :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 12:31:36 PM
Just as an American president can win a debate by saying "He wants Canada!",
Link plz.
Quote from: Grallon on September 11, 2014, 12:37:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading.
...
What was I saying again about contemptuous dismissal? I rest my case.
G.
What sort of powers do you want for Quebec? What do you intend to do with them? What federal interference bothers you?
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 12:31:36 PM
based on love and submission to foreign non elected leader. It makes sense, when you don't think about it... ;)
See? The British Monarchy has been in America since 1585 and ethno-nationalists like Viper still consider them foreigners. She has accepted your culture and calls herself 'Reine du Canada' and yet that integration STILL isn't enough. Ethnic intolerance at its worst.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading. The fact is that Canada is already about as decentralized a federation as one could find,
that's Canadian propaganda for you :)
We are much more centralized the the United States and the Prime Minister office has a lot more power in Canada than does the Presidential office in the US.
How many US states have their own "de facto"
foreign embassies? :hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Relations_(Quebec)
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
they don't know what they want, but they know that they want it :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 12:20:00 PM
That's bullshit.
You don't fund it. There is a long list of services that the Federal government doesn't provide in Quebec but the provincial government does.
The federal government is only giving the money it collected for those services back.
if they're only giving back what they collected why are you getting 7 billion more back than you gave?
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 11, 2014, 04:15:02 AM
No one will be expelled from Flanders if and when we achieve independence. It's rather well known that francophone press is not shy of blatant (and no so blatant) lying when it comes to portraying Flanders. No wonder when you know that they get their queue from francophone politicians.
Didn't the old VB (Vlaams Block) push for expulsion of immigrants, 2nd generation included?
not even in their 1992-version of their "70-punten plan" do they call for the rounding up and expulsion of immigrants from what I can tell. Making remigration more interesting, yes (even via the use of pay-outs) and access to the social-system harder for non-citizens, also yes (but that is hardly extra-ordinary in the world, even in the west.)
Who really knows given the time and leftist & francophone hystrionics over the past 25 years.
Not that it matters atm as they didn't even manage to clear the 5% hurdle in half the provinces in the last elections.
The NVA -also flemish nationalists and the largest party of Belgium- holds more to the following idea of citizenship: i.e. everyone who comes here and makes a positive contribution to flemish society is welcome to stay and become flemish. It's also the party that provides the first immigrant-origin-districthead in Antwerp and the first immigrant-origin-mayor in Flanders.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2014, 12:41:39 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 12:31:36 PM
Just as an American president can win a debate by saying "He wants Canada!",
Link plz.
Bush, 2000. 2nd debate with Kerry, IIRC. Talking about the healthcare proposals of the Democrat candidate: "He wants Canada!".
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 10:58:16 AM
allow Quebec a more privileged place.
a more privileged place than we have now, for sure.
What other provinces do is of no concern. If they don't want more autonomy and are ready to throw away their freedoms to be schakled by the Federal government, who am I to tell them it's bad?
Just the same, they shouldn't get in the way of accrued autonomy for Quebec just because they don't want it for themselves.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 09:49:27 AM
But I don't want to "fuck up" our federal government. :huh:
that's a common belief in Canada, that any change to the way the country is governed will fuck up things. Canada is perfect, it should not change. In the off chance that it would not be perfect, it should certainly not change to accomodate the desire of a predominently francophone province.
It's been the dominant factor in Canadian politics since Trudeau came to power.
I would not have expected an Albertan to share his point of view though... ;)
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2014, 10:58:16 AM
allow Quebec a more privileged place.
a more privileged place than we have now, for sure.
What other provinces do is of no concern. If they don't want more autonomy and are ready to throw away their freedoms to be schakled by the Federal government, who am I to tell them it's bad?
Just the same, they shouldn't get in the way of accrued autonomy for Quebec just because they don't want it for themselves.
It's the combination of (a) being lectured about Quebec's infinitely superior brand of socialism and independent culture, while (2) being shaken down for "equalization payments" to fund all that wonderful independence, that rankles.
If Quebec wants its own embasies, or $7-a-day daycare, that's Quebec's business. When we are expected to pay for such extravagance, you are making it our business, whether we like it or not.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:51:14 AM
Honestly, the only thing concrete I've heard from the pro-independence "crowd" is that they want more power to create a more intolerant society towards those who are not French enough, or god forbid, dirty furriners.
Coming from someone who though Chirac was my President not so long ago, I quite understand your distorted visions of Canadian politics...
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 01:01:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading. The fact is that Canada is already about as decentralized a federation as one could find,
that's Canadian propaganda for you :)
We are much more centralized the the United States and the Prime Minister office has a lot more power in Canada than does the Presidential office in the US.
How many US states have their own "de facto" foreign embassies? :hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Relations_(Quebec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Relations_(Quebec))
They ain't "de facto"
foreign embassies.
They are akin to California's international trade offices.
Link (http://www.caltrade.com/news/california/foreign-relations/california-plans-to-reopen-international-trade-offices/)
Other link (http://www.mbda.gov/node/2194)
You don't go to a Quebec "embassy" because you lost your passport, are trapped in a war zone, disaster zone or because you face criminal charges. You go there to build a social network that will help you develop your business in these foreign countries. Wether it works or not, if we have enough for our money is another matter. But they are nothing like embassies and are primarly asked at businesses rather than individuals (keep in mind that culture is a big business).
Next question?
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 01:01:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading. The fact is that Canada is already about as decentralized a federation as one could find,
that's Canadian propaganda for you :)
We are much more centralized the the United States and the Prime Minister office has a lot more power in Canada than does the Presidential office in the US.
How many US states have their own "de facto" foreign embassies? :hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Relations_(Quebec)
I don't know about US states, but Alberta does. :smarty:
http://www.international.alberta.ca/933.cfm
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 01:42:46 PM
If Quebec wants its own embasies, or $7-a-day daycare, that's Quebec's business. When we are expected to pay for such extravagance, you are making it our business, whether we like it or not.
Than stop the equalization payments. What are you waiting for?
Either you give the money to everyone unconditionnaly, or you establish some sort of rules for everyone to be followed. You don't get to cherrypick what should one province do or do not do with the money transfer from equalization.
Quebec politics would be infinately easier without the Fed gov constant interventions, equalization payments included.
As for the superior model of socialism, every socialists believe their model is the best. Have you ever met a socialist who told you his government was doing too much socialism?
Grallon is a socialist. His vision of Quebec is that of a socialist heaven, like the majority of current PQ supporters. Wich explains partly why they fell below 25% at the last election. I think even Grallon did not vote for the PQ for fear of seeing a Liberal majority (it didn't work though). Even the latest "frontal attacks" on Quebec's values have failed to convince a majority of people to hit the streets. Union thugs can barely gather a few hundred people at the same place; not that it's not enough to intimidate politicians, mind you, but we're far, very far, from what we were seeing at the time of Bouchard's term as Premier. And he did build a large social consensus before cutting anything, ensuring the union's approval. Something the Liberals didn't ever bother with.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 01:51:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 01:01:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading. The fact is that Canada is already about as decentralized a federation as one could find,
that's Canadian propaganda for you :)
We are much more centralized the the United States and the Prime Minister office has a lot more power in Canada than does the Presidential office in the US.
How many US states have their own "de facto" foreign embassies? :hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Relations_(Quebec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Relations_(Quebec))
They ain't "de facto" foreign embassies.
They are akin to California's international trade offices.
Link (http://www.caltrade.com/news/california/foreign-relations/california-plans-to-reopen-international-trade-offices/)
Other link (http://www.mbda.gov/node/2194)
You don't go to a Quebec "embassy" because you lost your passport, are trapped in a war zone, disaster zone or because you face criminal charges. You go there to build a social network that will help you develop your business in these foreign countries. Wether it works or not, if we have enough for our money is another matter. But they are nothing like embassies and are primarly asked at businesses rather than individuals (keep in mind that culture is a big business).
Next question?
Uh, no. They go far, far beyond "foreign trade".
Check out the Ministry website.
http://www.mrif.gouv.qc.ca/en/ententes-et-engagements/presentation
To provide just one example - Quebec has its very own system for sponsoring refugees. Canada has one, and Quebec has another.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 01:54:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 01:01:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 10:15:13 AM
This is, of course, a steaming pile of special pleading. The fact is that Canada is already about as decentralized a federation as one could find,
that's Canadian propaganda for you :)
We are much more centralized the the United States and the Prime Minister office has a lot more power in Canada than does the Presidential office in the US.
How many US states have their own "de facto" foreign embassies? :hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Relations_(Quebec)
I don't know about US states, but Alberta does. :smarty:
http://www.international.alberta.ca/933.cfm
... which supports my point about how Canada is a pretty decentralized federation.
Though far as I know, Alberta does not have its own systems for (say) dealing with refugees.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 01:39:48 PM
that's a common belief in Canada, that any change to the way the country is governed will fuck up things. Canada is perfect, it should not change. In the off chance that it would not be perfect, it should certainly not change to accomodate the desire of a predominently francophone province.
It's been the dominant factor in Canadian politics since Trudeau came to power.
I would not have expected an Albertan to share his point of view though... ;)
Please, tell us more about this mythical 'Canada' that you have constructed.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 09:49:27 AM
But I don't want to "fuck up" our federal government. :huh:
that's a common belief in Canada, that any change to the way the country is governed will fuck up things. Canada is perfect, it should not change. In the off chance that it would not be perfect, it should certainly not change to accomodate the desire of a predominently francophone province.
It's been the dominant factor in Canadian politics since Trudeau came to power.
I would not have expected an Albertan to share his point of view though... ;)
You forget my politics though - there are plenty of things I'd like to see changed in Ottawa (and in Edmonton, for that matter).
But what I'd like to see are concrete proposals - what specific areas would be better run by the province, rather than the federal government, and explanations why. It's just I don't typically see that - demands from Quebec (and Scotland) are just for "more" powers.
Having worked for both the federal government, and the provincial government, I don't see any as more virtuous or capable than the other.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 01:59:19 PM
Uh, no. They go far, far beyond "foreign trade".
Check out the Ministry website.
http://www.mrif.gouv.qc.ca/en/ententes-et-engagements/presentation
To provide just one example - Quebec has its very own system for sponsoring refugees. Canada has one, and Quebec has another.
Somewhere around 2002-2003, a few deals were made the Federal government:
- control of immigration. This avoids the Federal government sending unilingual anglophones in rural Quebec who are there forced to emigrate in Ontario because they are unable to function and adapt in this cultural background, leaving us with all the expenses and zero revenue. I can relate to that, I would have a hard time if someone dropped me in the middle of Mexico. No money was attached to this deal.
- Parental insurance. Extended unemployement benefits for mothers&fathers of a newborn child. The fed agreed to cut their EI rates in Quebec and Quebec took the space left.
- Employement and education. Well, post-work education, the one you get from your employers. Quebec develop it's own program, and again the federal left some taxation space. Something that we came very close to lose last year, as you well know.
I'm not complaining on this, but they are nowhere permanent and rely on the Federal government's good will to renew them. Had the Conservatives been a great shape all accross Canada, with a 10% lead in the polls just about everywhere, they whould have had their own programs, on top of the provincial ones. For twice the cost.
International agreements are something many US States have. We have international agreements with California and New York, so I guess they are able to sign international treaties... I can't believe politicians of both countries would agree to sign treaties that are de facto null and void...
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 02:08:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 01:59:19 PM
Uh, no. They go far, far beyond "foreign trade".
Check out the Ministry website.
http://www.mrif.gouv.qc.ca/en/ententes-et-engagements/presentation
To provide just one example - Quebec has its very own system for sponsoring refugees. Canada has one, and Quebec has another.
Somewhere around 2002-2003, a few deals were made the Federal government:
- control of immigration. This avoids the Federal government sending unilingual anglophones in rural Quebec who are there forced to emigrate in Ontario because they are unable to function and adapt in this cultural background, leaving us with all the expenses and zero revenue. I can relate to that, I would have a hard time if someone dropped me in the middle of Mexico. No money was attached to this deal.
- Parental insurance. Extended unemployement benefits for mothers&fathers of a newborn child. The fed agreed to cut their EI rates in Quebec and Quebec took the space left.
- Employement and education. Well, post-work education, the one you get from your employers. Quebec develop it's own program, and again the federal left some taxation space. Something that we came very close to lose last year, as you well know.
I'm not complaining on this, but they are nowhere permanent and rely on the Federal government's good will to renew them. Had the Conservatives been a great shape all accross Canada, with a 10% lead in the polls just about everywhere, they whould have had their own programs, on top of the provincial ones. For twice the cost.
International agreements are something many US States have. We have international agreements with California and New York, so I guess they are able to sign international treaties... I can't believe politicians of both countries would agree to sign treaties that are de facto null and void...
I'm not saying they are "null and void", I'm merely pointing out that Quebec already has plenty of room to arrange programs as it sees fit: Canada is relatively decentralized, for a country, with robust provincial powers.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 02:08:00 PM
I'm not complaining on this, but they are nowhere permanent and rely on the Federal government's good will to renew them. Had the Conservatives been a great shape all accross Canada, with a 10% lead in the polls just about everywhere, they whould have had their own programs, on top of the provincial ones. For twice the cost.
That doesn't sound like something Harper would do...
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 12:20:00 PM
That's bullshit.
You don't fund it. There is a long list of services that the Federal government doesn't provide in Quebec but the provincial government does.
The federal government is only giving the money it collected for those services back.
Soo, the federal government is collecting the tax for it, and the federal government giving that money to Quebec and telling them how to spend it.
Of course it is the federal government providing that service then.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 02:01:45 PM
Having worked for both the federal government, and the provincial government, I don't see any as more virtuous or capable than the other.
It's more a question of having stuff in one place, one government decision only, not 3-4 governments (city, county, province, federal) each having their own legislation.
Take environmental issues. If you want to build something that would affect a river, you need the authorization of the city it is located in to do any work. You need the approval of the MRC (Municipalité Régionale the Comté - similar to County). You need the approval of Quebec's Environment Minister. If that river ends directly or indirectly in the St-Lawrence river, you need the authorization of the Federal Environment Minister to proceed.
I think things would be much more efficient if you only required one, or at most two authorization. MRC and provincial government. The localized organisation are much more able to evaluate the impact of some construction project than bureaucrats in a distant city acting along a general guidelines sheet.
Although the Federal government has never dared to do it, even though it has threatened to, it could very well authorize a project that a province has judged bad for its environment and we could do nothing about it.
And maybe the province would be wrong, that it wouldn't be anymore dangerous than anything else we already do. But as a general principle, I prefer the provinces to make these kind of decisions, even though they not always 100% correct.
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2014, 02:13:22 PM
Soo, the federal government is collecting the tax for it, and the federal government giving that money to Quebec and telling them how to spend it.
Of course it is the federal government providing that service then.
Wich is why the system is fucked up and we need to reform it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 02:12:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 02:08:00 PM
I'm not complaining on this, but they are nowhere permanent and rely on the Federal government's good will to renew them. Had the Conservatives been a great shape all accross Canada, with a 10% lead in the polls just about everywhere, they whould have had their own programs, on top of the provincial ones. For twice the cost.
That doesn't sound like something Harper would do...
He almost did it last year... Chrétien often did it. Didn't Trudeau do something that pissed off Alberants for generations to come? ;) What do you think will be Trudeau Jr's inspiration? His dad or is political ennemy? And what about Mulcair, does he strike you as someone willing to respect the provinces or someone who will decide of new mandatory federal "guidelines" and programs to achieve his agenda?
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 01:58:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 01:42:46 PM
If Quebec wants its own embasies, or $7-a-day daycare, that's Quebec's business. When we are expected to pay for such extravagance, you are making it our business, whether we like it or not.
Than stop the equalization payments. What are you waiting for?
Either you give the money to everyone unconditionnaly, or you establish some sort of rules for everyone to be followed. You don't get to cherrypick what should one province do or do not do with the money transfer from equalization.
Quebec politics would be infinately easier without the Fed gov constant interventions, equalization payments included.
As for the superior model of socialism, every socialists believe their model is the best. Have you ever met a socialist who told you his government was doing too much socialism?
Grallon is a socialist. His vision of Quebec is that of a socialist heaven, like the majority of current PQ supporters. Wich explains partly why they fell below 25% at the last election. I think even Grallon did not vote for the PQ for fear of seeing a Liberal majority (it didn't work though). Even the latest "frontal attacks" on Quebec's values have failed to convince a majority of people to hit the streets. Union thugs can barely gather a few hundred people at the same place; not that it's not enough to intimidate politicians, mind you, but we're far, very far, from what we were seeing at the time of Bouchard's term as Premier. And he did build a large social consensus before cutting anything, ensuring the union's approval. Something the Liberals didn't ever bother with.
I think you are missing the point. I for one do not care what Quebec does with the money it gets from equalization - I care that Quebec has, consistently, over decades, essentially blackmailed the rest of the country into getting the lion's share of that money - in effect, a tax on the rest of us - because of its constant threats to break up the country if it doesn't get it. Evidence is that the feds constantly tinker with the (complex) funding formula to ensure that Quebec is paid at the expense of Ontario.
Combine that with boasting about how superior Quebec is because it is more socialist, and you get an annoying situation. Yes, Quebec is more socialist - it can afford to be, because the rest of us are paying for it, meaning the non-Quebec provinces can't afford the same programs!
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/11/04/equalization-payments-make-for-unequal-services-study/
Sure, Quebec isn't the only one in this pot - the Altantic Provinces are too - but they are (1) very small, and (2) not lecturing everyone about the superiority of their system.
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2014, 02:13:22 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 12:20:00 PM
That's bullshit.
You don't fund it. There is a long list of services that the Federal government doesn't provide in Quebec but the provincial government does.
The federal government is only giving the money it collected for those services back.
Soo, the federal government is collecting the tax for it, and the federal government giving that money to Quebec and telling them how to spend it.
Of course it is the federal government providing that service then.
thats the health transfer and social transfer, the equalization transfers are meant to ensure that provinces are fiscally balanced (the haves to the have nots).
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 02:10:54 PM
I'm not saying they are "null and void", I'm merely pointing out that Quebec already has plenty of room to arrange programs as it sees fit: Canada is relatively decentralized, for a country, with robust provincial powers.
The Federal parliament can still declare a provincial law null&void, IIRC. Same power as Queen had prior to 1982.
Mulcair talked about using it against Quebec's charter, IIRC. Of course, that was one of the main goal of the PQ charter.
The Federal government his by no right forced to follow provincial laws, and the english minority of Quebec has been historically protected by the Federal while the French communities outside of Quebec have been left to fend for themselves.
The Federal government can create it's own program anywhere it sees fit. If the Federal government wishes to transfer funds to provinces on the exclusive condition that they do not fund climate or evolution research, they could theoritically do so (though such an extreme example would certainly create an uproar).
One recent exemple were the Millenium grants. The Federal government, after cutting fund transfer to provinces decided to create it's own student grant program. With a Red Maple leaf on the check, so as to promote canadian unity among students. Why not increase provincial transfers to education instead of half duplicating an existing system and giving roughtly the same amount to students regardless if they needed it or not?
The infamous sponsorship scandal. Do you think our tax dollars were justly spent in this?
The flag scandal. Quebec being inundated by Canadian flags on July 1st. Really? That was an efficient use of our money?
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 02:24:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 02:10:54 PM
I'm not saying they are "null and void", I'm merely pointing out that Quebec already has plenty of room to arrange programs as it sees fit: Canada is relatively decentralized, for a country, with robust provincial powers.
The Federal parliament can still declare a provincial law null&void, IIRC. Same power as Queen had prior to 1982.
Mulcair talked about using it against Quebec's charter, IIRC. Of course, that was one of the main goal of the PQ charter.
The Federal government his by no right forced to follow provincial laws, and the english minority of Quebec has been historically protected by the Federal while the French communities outside of Quebec have been left to fend for themselves.
The Federal government can create it's own program anywhere it sees fit. If the Federal government wishes to transfer funds to provinces on the exclusive condition that they do not fund climate or evolution research, they could theoritically do so (though such an extreme example would certainly create an uproar).
One recent exemple were the Millenium grants. The Federal government, after cutting fund transfer to provinces decided to create it's own student grant program. With a Red Maple leaf on the check, so as to promote canadian unity among students. Why not increase provincial transfers to education instead of half duplicating an existing system and giving roughtly the same amount to students regardless if they needed it or not?
The infamous sponsorship scandal. Do you think our tax dollars were justly spent in this?
The flag scandal. Quebec being inundated by Canadian flags on July 1st. Really? That was an efficient use of our money?
Your examples seem to fall into three categories: (1) totally symbolic stuff (little red maple leaves on cheques? Canadian flags on our country's day? The horror! The Horror!!!), (2) completely theoretical possibilities (the feds *could* do this or that) or (3) stuff the Nationalist party attempted to do to deliberately *troll* the feds into doing something (use your powers or we will ritually humiliate these dirty foreigners, haw haw).
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 02:22:01 PM
I think you are missing the point. I for one do not care what Quebec does with the money it gets from equalization - I care that Quebec has, consistently, over decades, essentially blackmailed the rest of the country into getting the lion's share of that money - in effect, a tax on the rest of us - because of its constant threats to break up the country if it doesn't get it. Evidence is that the feds constantly tinker with the (complex) funding formula to ensure that Quebec is paid at the expense of Ontario.
There is no blackmail. The PQ lost the referendum in 1995. It was impossible for them, despite what some are saying now, to hold a new referendum on the issue in 1996. If anything, that fact has been exploited by the Federal government to cut transfer funds and change the equalization formula multiple times in Quebec disfavour. After all, natural resources are excluded from the calculations of equalization payments, but hydro-electricity is not a natural resources...
And from 2003 to very recently, there as been a total of 0 majority independantist government.
But there could be autonomy and no perceived blackmail.
Quote
Combine that with boasting about how superior Quebec is because it is more socialist,
Because there's no boasting about the "most best country in the world"? Let me raise en eyebrow here...
QuoteYes, Quebec is more socialist - it can afford to be, because the rest of us are paying for it, meaning the non-Quebec provinces can't afford the same programs!
Only part of it is true. You forget the other part: we are the most heavily taxed state on this continent.
Quote
Sure, Quebec isn't the only one in this pot - the Altantic Provinces are too - but they are (1) very small, and (2) not lecturing everyone about the superiority of their system.
As I said, just stop the damn thing! All we have to do is take 100% of our taxes and pay for the services we use. We agree on the cost before hand, long term deal, renewable later on. Using Canadian embassies to promote the goodness of tarsands does not benefit Quebec. Having Harper boycott a climate panel where other leaders attend does not benefit Quebec. Yet I pay the same for it...
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 02:24:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 02:10:54 PM
I'm not saying they are "null and void", I'm merely pointing out that Quebec already has plenty of room to arrange programs as it sees fit: Canada is relatively decentralized, for a country, with robust provincial powers.
The Federal parliament can still declare a provincial law null&void, IIRC. Same power as Queen had prior to 1982.
Mulcair talked about using it against Quebec's charter, IIRC. Of course, that was one of the main goal of the PQ charter.
The Federal government his by no right forced to follow provincial laws, and the english minority of Quebec has been historically protected by the Federal while the French communities outside of Quebec have been left to fend for themselves.
The Federal government can create it's own program anywhere it sees fit. If the Federal government wishes to transfer funds to provinces on the exclusive condition that they do not fund climate or evolution research, they could theoritically do so (though such an extreme example would certainly create an uproar).
One recent exemple were the Millenium grants. The Federal government, after cutting fund transfer to provinces decided to create it's own student grant program. With a Red Maple leaf on the check, so as to promote canadian unity among students. Why not increase provincial transfers to education instead of half duplicating an existing system and giving roughtly the same amount to students regardless if they needed it or not?
The infamous sponsorship scandal. Do you think our tax dollars were justly spent in this?
The flag scandal. Quebec being inundated by Canadian flags on July 1st. Really? That was an efficient use of our money?
Your examples seem to fall into three categories: (1) totally symbolic stuff (little red maple leaves on cheques? Canadian flags on our country's day? The horror! The Horror!!!),
Unlike you, I am not fond of wasting money for frivoulous thing. If Ontario wanted those flags, they could have kept them, instead of bitching we receive the lion's share in money transfer and government services.
I'd have gladly taken those subsidies to the auto industry - wich were denied for Quebec as a way to protect Ontario's industry - and all those federal research grant to universities and private corporations.
If I am to be forced into a socialist state, I sure want the benefits.
Quote
(2) completely theoretical possibilities (the feds *could* do this or that)
Wich is why we usually laws. There are laws that make it illegal for me to kill anyone, even if I have no intention of killing anyone.
Quote
or (3) stuff the Nationalist party attempted to do to deliberately *troll* the feds into doing something (use your powers or we will ritually humiliate these dirty foreigners, haw haw).
There was no humiliation except in the heads of English Canadians and religious extremists. But seeing how the Lev Tahor things turned, I'd sure want a clarification of what is expected from immigrants when they come to live here.
What there was though, was a fucked up proposed bill that would have made any lawyer in the province happy for the next 20 years. At least. And while I don't harbour any hard feeling toward the lawyers of this province, I do not believe we, as a society, should go out of our way to find them lucrative work opportunities at our expense.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 02:35:11 PM
There is no blackmail. The PQ lost the referendum in 1995. It was impossible for them, despite what some are saying now, to hold a new referendum on the issue in 1996. If anything, that fact has been exploited by the Federal government to cut transfer funds and change the equalization formula multiple times in Quebec disfavour. After all, natural resources are excluded from the calculations of equalization payments, but hydro-electricity is not a natural resources...
And from 2003 to very recently, there as been a total of 0 majority independantist government.
But there could be autonomy and no perceived blackmail.
I find the word "blackmail" to be very negative and hostile in this context, and thus I don't use it.
But I can tell you that in negotiations over anything with Quebec, the issue of sovereignty always sneaks in. Even when it's a federalist government, there's always the notion (sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes not) that if the federal government doesn't give Quebec what it wants, then "that will only play into the PQ's hands".
So to some, I guess it feels like blackmail.
As for the :scots: latest opinion polls still show a narrow but consistent lead for "No", 48-42%.
http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:51:14 AM
Honestly, the only thing concrete I've heard from the pro-independence "crowd" is that they want more power to create a more intolerant society towards those who are not French enough, or god forbid, dirty furriners.
Coming from someone who though Chirac was my President not so long ago, I quite understand your distorted visions of Canadian politics...
I have no idea what that means.
My vision of Quebec politics is mostly informed by you and gallon and such.
And so far, the only concrete complaint I've seen is that you aren't allowed to discriminate against those who are not French enough. I am sure there are better reasons, surely there must be, but you've failed to articulate them with any specificity at all.
It is all very general - "we are different!".
Ok, you are different. Congrats. You are special unique snowflakes. So are Mormons, or Hispanics or Texans. You seem to manage be special and different in Canada for a very long time, and I am sure you will continue to be special and different without dissolving Canada. So what us the problem that requires radical change (other than the Evil Feds not allowing you to persecute others to the extent grill on et al would like)?
Specifics?
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 02:42:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 02:24:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 02:10:54 PM
I'm not saying they are "null and void", I'm merely pointing out that Quebec already has plenty of room to arrange programs as it sees fit: Canada is relatively decentralized, for a country, with robust provincial powers.
The Federal parliament can still declare a provincial law null&void, IIRC. Same power as Queen had prior to 1982.
Mulcair talked about using it against Quebec's charter, IIRC. Of course, that was one of the main goal of the PQ charter.
The Federal government his by no right forced to follow provincial laws, and the english minority of Quebec has been historically protected by the Federal while the French communities outside of Quebec have been left to fend for themselves.
The Federal government can create it's own program anywhere it sees fit. If the Federal government wishes to transfer funds to provinces on the exclusive condition that they do not fund climate or evolution research, they could theoritically do so (though such an extreme example would certainly create an uproar).
One recent exemple were the Millenium grants. The Federal government, after cutting fund transfer to provinces decided to create it's own student grant program. With a Red Maple leaf on the check, so as to promote canadian unity among students. Why not increase provincial transfers to education instead of half duplicating an existing system and giving roughtly the same amount to students regardless if they needed it or not?
The infamous sponsorship scandal. Do you think our tax dollars were justly spent in this?
The flag scandal. Quebec being inundated by Canadian flags on July 1st. Really? That was an efficient use of our money?
Your examples seem to fall into three categories: (1) totally symbolic stuff (little red maple leaves on cheques? Canadian flags on our country's day? The horror! The Horror!!!),
Unlike you, I am not fond of wasting money for frivoulous thing. If Ontario wanted those flags, they could have kept them, instead of bitching we receive the lion's share in money transfer and government services.
I'd have gladly taken those subsidies to the auto industry - wich were denied for Quebec as a way to protect Ontario's industry - and all those federal research grant to universities and private corporations.
If I am to be forced into a socialist state, I sure want the benefits.
Quote
(2) completely theoretical possibilities (the feds *could* do this or that)
Wich is why we usually laws. There are laws that make it illegal for me to kill anyone, even if I have no intention of killing anyone.
Quote
or (3) stuff the Nationalist party attempted to do to deliberately *troll* the feds into doing something (use your powers or we will ritually humiliate these dirty foreigners, haw haw).
There was no humiliation except in the heads of English Canadians and religious extremists. But seeing how the Lev Tahor things turned, I'd sure want a clarification of what is expected from immigrants when they come to live here.
I'm talking about $7 billion a year in transfer payments, and you are talking about little red maple leaves on cheques and flags. One of these things is ... more significant. :hmm:
The PQ's "Charter" plan did achieve one goal - it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the PQ had an ugly parochial side to it - which is of course something I used to catch shit on this site for noting. Thanks, PQ. :)
To the people of Quebec's credit, they saw this as well and rejected the PQ resoundingly.
Quote
What there was though, was a fucked up proposed bill that would have made any lawyer in the province happy for the next 20 years. At least. And while I don't harbour any hard feeling toward the lawyers of this province, I do not believe we, as a society, should go out of our way to find them lucrative work opportunities at our expense.
People say that like it's a bad thing. :(
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2014, 02:51:43 PM
I'm talking about $7 billion a year in transfer payments, and you are talking about little red maple leaves on cheques and flags. One of these things is ... more significant. :hmm:
Maybe we would not receive 7 billion a year (for wich a good part is our money too, though I won't dispute the fact we receive more than we pay) if this federation was correctly decentralized and rest on clear seperation of powers?
Quote
The PQ's "Charter" plan did achieve one goal - it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the PQ had an ugly parochial side to it - which is of course something I used to catch shit on this site for noting. Thanks, PQ. :)
The PQ of 2014 is not really the same PQ as the one from 1998. Two very different leader, many moderates have left over the years.
Many opportunists have joined.
Quote
People say that like it's a bad thing. :(
yep. You should push for something like that in Ontario, insuring your son's future and stuff like that :P
I can certainly understand the frustration of people like Malthus. The problem here is that the Quebec crowd has convinced themselves that they are victims - they are "being strangled".
Well, every victim has to have an oppressor. So when they say they are being strangled, what they are saying is that people like Malthus are strangling them.
Pretty understandable that that is a role most people don't much care to be cast in, especially in a liberal democracy where the victims havew the exact same representation and rights as the supposed evil strangling oppressors.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 02:59:26 PM
Well, every victim has to have an oppressor. So when they say they are being strangled, what they are saying is that people like Malthus are strangling them.
Semantics. Were the Southerners feeling oppressed by the Northerners or by the Federal government? Did they loathe the Federal government or every citizen of the North?
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 03:03:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 02:59:26 PM
Well, every victim has to have an oppressor. So when they say they are being strangled, what they are saying is that people like Malthus are strangling them.
Semantics. Were the Southerners feeling oppressed by the Northerners or by the Federal government? Did they loathe the Federal government or every citizen of the North?
I think they loathed both. Plenty of examples of Yankees being attacked in the months leading up to the war for example.
Ironic that in your analogy you cast yourselves in the role of the south, fighting for "states rights".
Right to do what, in this case?
I am sitting here in Toronto airport talking about this. Across the aisle from me us a French Canadian couple and a female friend. And both women are just seriously beautiful.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 02:51:18 PM
I have no idea what that means.
Back in EU-OT times. When we were both moderators. Because I was french speaking, you assumed Chirac was my President, you did not know who was Canada's prime minister, and you seemed unaware that there was a French speaking minority in Quebec.
Given this, and given this:
Quote
My vision of Quebec politics is mostly informed by you and gallon and such.
it seems you have distorted view of Canadian politics shaped by your opinion of the people talking about it rather than objective facts.
Quote
And so far, the only concrete complaint I've seen is that you aren't allowed to discriminate against those who are not French enough. I am sure there are better reasons, surely there must be, but you've failed to articulate them with any specificity at all.
And again, you are either ignorant of the facts, or you are distorting them on purpose, as many English Canadians like to do. The English Speaking Quebecers have much more rights than any French speaking minority in Canada.
Quote
It is all very general - "we are different!".
Well you know, you could all be just one giant state down there instead of a multitude of tiny different territories with each their own laws and peculiar tax rules.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 03:10:50 PM
it seems you have distorted view of Canadian politics shaped by your opinion of the people talking about it rather than objective facts.
The irony is strong in this one.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 03:07:12 PM
I think they loathed both. Plenty of examples of Yankees being attacked in the months leading up to the war for example.
Ironic that in your analogy you cast yourselves in the role of the south, fighting for "states rights".
Right to do what, in this case?
I'm not trying to cast myself in any role, I'm trying to give you an example that you will understand because your comprehesion of US history is better than your knowledge of Quebec & Canada's politics.
We do not hate English Canadians. Well, sure, some do hate them, and you'll find people that hate Jews too, and people that hate Arabs, black, gays, and even gays that hate heteros.
To say they form a coherent majority of any political force is simply stupid.
We do not like the current power sharing agreement with the provinces and the Federal government. Most provinces are happy the way things are, Quebec is not. Alberta has its own issues, but now that they have a political party in power whose base is in their province, they have no real problems with the Federal government.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 03:08:45 PM
I am sitting here in Toronto airport talking about this. Across the aisle from me us a French Canadian couple and a female friend. And both women are just seriously beautiful.
Heading to Edmonton again? :)
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 03:10:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 02:51:18 PM
I have no idea what that means.
Back in EU-OT times. When we were both moderators. Because I was french speaking, you assumed Chirac was my President,
So I assumed some one that spoke French was from France, and that is evidence of my ignorance? Right.
Quote
you did not know who was Canada's prime minister, and you seemed unaware that there was a French speaking minority in Quebec.
Lol. That is just pure bullshit.
Quote
Given this, and given this:
Quote
My vision of Quebec politics is mostly informed by you and gallon and such.
it seems you have distorted view of Canadian politics shaped by your opinion of the people talking about it rather than objective facts.
I admit my ignorance of these facts you speak of and keep asking for them so you can enlighten me, but you never actually articulate them. So I remain ignorant do these theoretical facts and can only conclude that the reasons that HAVE been articulated are the primary reasons.
Those who want independence are primarily motivated by their desire to create a more homogenous ethnic nation - in other words, they want to be able to discriminate against others more effectively. Hence my happiness that only 42% of the people feel like that. Over time, the humanist in me believes that those kind of bigoted views will continue to decline,
Quote
Quote
And y mso far, the only concrete complaint I've seen is that you aren't allowed to discriminate against those who are not French enough. I am sure there are better reasons, surely there must be, but you've failed to articulate them with any specificity at all.
And again, you are either ignorant of the facts, or you are distorting them on purpose, as many English Canadians like to do. The English Speaking Quebecers have much more rights than any French speaking minority in Canada.
Oh? Wow, I had no idea there were different rights for each group! Now we are getting somewhere!
What rights do the English speakers have that the French speakers do not? This is fascinating, how does the state enforce these extra rights? What if the French speakers can speak English as well, can they trick the Feds in that case to get those extra rights?
Please tell me more about these rights that the French speakers are denied!
Quote
Quote
It is all very general - "we are different!".
Well you know, you could all be just one giant state down there instead of a multitude of tiny different territories with each their own laws and peculiar tax rules.
We could, but why? Our current system works ok, and nobody is wailing about wanting to secede so they can more effectively discrimante against people not sufficiently like them, and when some states do try to betray what the USA is about there is an effective check on them - they have to pass federal legal muster and review. I would certainly oppose, say, Arizona demanding that the Feds let them discrimante against Spanish speakers or they will secede,
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 03:22:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 03:08:45 PM
I am sitting here in Toronto airport talking about this. Across the aisle from me us a French Canadian couple and a female friend. And both women are just seriously beautiful.
Heading to Edmonton again? :)
Yep. Maybe we can get that game of Twilight Struggle in this time...I brought it...
Again exactly what rights and powers do the people and government of Quebec want? What is the National government preventing you guys from doing.
Oh, and here's a tip. Don't compare yourselves to the US south. That isn't going to help you one bit?
Canadian politics is rather like a poor quality port or sherry, it doesn't travel at all well. :bowler:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2014, 03:35:15 PM
Again exactly what rights and powers do the people and government of Quebec want? What is the National government preventing you guys from doing.
Oh, and here's a tip. Don't compare yourselves to the US south. That isn't going to help you one bit?
I gave a link to Berkut 10 pages ago. Not my problem if you don't read.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 11, 2014, 02:23:26 PM
So, how about them Scots? :scots:
Who cares when there is the odd chance that Quebec has only 95% say in her own stuff?!!!
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 03:24:08 PM
Lol. That is just pure bullshit.
I remember it, because it was part of a discussion we had on you, Yi and I, when we met in Quebec city in the early 2000s.
I usually have a long and good memory for stuff I read.
Quote
I admit my ignorance of these facts you speak of and keep asking for them so you can enlighten me, but you never actually articulate them. So I remain ignorant do these theoretical facts and can only conclude that the reasons that HAVE been articulated are the primary reasons.
I gave you a link to Lake Meech accord, wich was rejected as being too much by English Canada and led directly to the PQ victory and the second referendum.
If you want an explanation on why there was a referendum in 1980 and the rise of an independantist movement in Quebec in the 1960s, I will, again, provide you of examples that happenned in the early part of the 20th century. At wich point you will declare them silly, because they are past acts from so long ago.
If I give you possible acts for the future, since unfortunately I can not accurately predict future events down to the small details, you will, just like Malthus, say that is "theoritical" and has no ground in reality.
Either way, I'm fucked.
Quote
Those who want independence are primarily motivated by their desire to create a more homogenous ethnic nation - in other words, they want to be able to discriminate against others more effectively. Hence my happiness that only 42% of the people feel like that. Over time, the humanist in me believes that those kind of bigoted views will continue to decline,
If that is your belief, who am I to argue? You tell me you see fairies in your backyard, I tell you there are no fairies to wich you reply there are fairies, I just don't see them because I don't believe in them...
You see what you want to see, despite any facts to the contrary.
Quote
Oh? Wow, I had no idea there were different rights for each group! Now we are getting somewhere!
Of course there are.
QuoteWhat rights do the English speakers have that the French speakers do not? This is fascinating, how does the state enforce these extra rights? What if the French speakers can speak English as well, can they trick the Feds in that case to get those extra rights?
Quality public education. Making you own decisions about it, not being subject to an english schoolboard. Adequate fundings for schools.
Healthcare in your own language. Bilingual services from the provincial government, albeit not officially.
The right to work your own language (wich is nearly impossible for any French outside of Quebec, even in the theoritically bilingual Federal government).
The right to not be thrown out of an airplane for asking to be served in French.
Heck, Ontarians will protest when an hospital wants to hire bilingual staff in an hospital. Quebec anglophones refuse to have bilingual hospitals, they need their own english hospitals, at twice the cost. But we are horribly and actively discriminating them...
In Ottawa, the provincial government merged the subburbs with the the central city. the new city, the capital city, is not even officially a bilingual city. It creates too much controversy, apparently... But we're the intolerant one :)
You remove rights to French citizens in predominantly french areas by merging them with the english majority, and that's ok.
Doing that in Quebec gets you called a nazi, see the Federal government threaten intervention and ultimately a referendum on de-merger is allowed, with the predicted result that predominantly english suburbs will choose to un-merge from Montreal, while Montreal keeps paying for the services they all benefit and there's a strange super structure added with two levels of governance inside the city that paralize everything. But it's ok, it was done to protect the Anglo minority rights of being unilingual english. I guess that was ok, they were English speakers. It doesn't matter if Montreal's governance is now a mess and all of Quebec has to pay for that, we got to please the poor, discriminated anglos. How terrible that would have been for them to hear other people speak- gasp, french! Horrible!
QuotePlease tell me more about these rights that the French speakers are denied!
Since you don't believe me, why don't you try reading about it for yourself?
Quote
We could, but why? Our current system works ok, and nobody is wailing about wanting to secede so they can more effectively discrimante against people not sufficiently like them, and when some states do try to betray what the USA is about there is an effective check on them - they have to pass federal legal muster and review. I would certainly oppose, say, Arizona demanding that the Feds let them discrimante against Spanish speakers or they will secede,
If that how you see your fairies, again, who am I to argue with your visions?
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 02:45:41 PM
But I can tell you that in negotiations over anything with Quebec, the issue of sovereignty always sneaks in. Even when it's a federalist government, there's always the notion (sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes not) that if the federal government doesn't give Quebec what it wants, then "that will only play into the PQ's hands".
So to some, I guess it feels like blackmail.
As for the :scots: latest opinion polls still show a narrow but consistent lead for "No", 48-42%.
http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker (http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker)
don't deviate this thread with :scots: politics Mister!
;)
Playing in the "PQ" hands has been successfully used by Federalist politicians to toughen their stance toward Quebec.
See 1982. Most of the Premiers had a deal with Levesque. One by one, Trudeau and his team rallied them: "Do you really want to side with the seperatists?". And that worked like a charm, isolating Levesque, who felt betrayed by his partners.
As for the blackmail thing, it is possible the Liberal government tried that. But neither Charest nor the actual Premier were very nationalist themselves, so, imho, it was more to try and secure their own political carreer by appearing to make gains at the expanse of the Federal government than for anything else. The PQ, and the Bloc, have been on the decline for a decade now, with the occasional come back to almost life following extreme&dire circumstances.
To get the the 1980 referendum, we needed the FLQ crisis, the subsequent massive arrests and the army patrolling the streets to finally push Lévesque into power. In 1995, it required the double rejection of Meech and Charlottetown to push people close to independance. Charlottetown was especially seen as a slap in the face, since it basically shackled the province to the Feds with the Canada clause, yet, it was felt as still being too much.
Quote from: mongers on September 11, 2014, 05:28:44 PM
Canadian politics is rather like a poor quality port or sherry, it doesn't travel at all well. :bowler:
I normally care about Canadian politics, but right now in this thread it's pretty damn tedious.
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2014, 06:57:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 11, 2014, 05:28:44 PM
Canadian politics is rather like a poor quality port or sherry, it doesn't travel at all well. :bowler:
I normally care about Canadian politics, but right now in this thread it's pretty damn tedious.
Yes it is rather killing off us Britisher's interest in the thread. Pity as the content could possibly turn out to be a Languish 'historic document' if we get a dramatic result.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 11:14:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
The minimal conditions that were rejected by English Canada, under the influence of intense Liberal Party's campaigning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord#Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord#Agreement)
It led directly to the second referendum.
Is this what you mean? It is kinda vague, does not contain any "rights" as I know them, and as you said is the minimum conditions. What else do you want?
As I far as I can tell the demands are a bit odd.
The recognition that French speaking Canada is important and fundamentally distinct. In the US that would be a fluff piece like naming a state fossil or something.
Parliament and provincial legislatures are to be devoted to preserving these fundamental characteristics. Exactly who decides that is fundamentally distinct that needs preserving. And what is the government going to do about it? That seems arbitrary and open to abuse.
The next bit is about immigration. Quebec wants a bigger say in immigration. What does it mean that government will guarantee certain numbers of immigrants to Quebec? And why does Quebec want Canada to withdraw support for services of immigrants in Quebec?
The last part is about the Supreme Court. There must be a guarantee that at least 3 of 9 of the Supreme Court members are part of the civil Bar. Is that proportional to the population of Canada or is this in reconigintion that the people who practice civil law are more unique and important?
How did the discussion about Scots turn into a discussion about primitives and Quebecoise?
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 09:49:27 AM
But I don't want to "fuck up" our federal government. :huh:
that's a common belief in Canada, that any change to the way the country is governed will fuck up things. Canada is perfect, it should not change. In the off chance that it would not be perfect, it should certainly not change to accomodate the desire of a predominently francophone province.
It's been the dominant factor in Canadian politics since Trudeau came to power.
I would not have expected an Albertan to share his point of view though... ;)
You forget my politics though - there are plenty of things I'd like to see changed in Ottawa (and in Edmonton, for that matter).
But what I'd like to see are concrete proposals - what specific areas would be better run by the province, rather than the federal government, and explanations why. It's just I don't typically see that - demands from Quebec (and Scotland) are just for "more" powers.
Having worked for both the federal government, and the provincial government, I don't see any as more virtuous or capable than the other.
I am willing to discuss a reformation of our federal system, not tainted by the independantist movement and bias, any time. Maybe in the Canadian thread?
@everyone, We did it! we turned another thread into Canadian politics, well done people.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2014, 07:44:15 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 11:14:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:23:12 AM
What is it that the French Canadians want that they aren't getting?
What are these demands/suggestions that the Feds are refusing to grant/consider?
The minimal conditions that were rejected by English Canada, under the influence of intense Liberal Party's campaigning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord#Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord#Agreement)
It led directly to the second referendum.
Is this what you mean? It is kinda vague, does not contain any "rights" as I know them, and as you said is the minimum conditions. What else do you want?
As I far as I can tell the demands are a bit odd.
The recognition that French speaking Canada is important and fundamentally distinct. In the US that would be a fluff piece like naming a state fossil or something.
Parliament and provincial legislatures are to be devoted to preserving these fundamental characteristics. Exactly who decides that is fundamentally distinct that needs preserving. And what is the government going to do about it? That seems arbitrary and open to abuse.
The next bit is about immigration. Quebec wants a bigger say in immigration. What does it mean that government will guarantee certain numbers of immigrants to Quebec? And why does Quebec want Canada to withdraw support for services of immigrants in Quebec?
The last part is about the Supreme Court. There must be a guarantee that at least 3 of 9 of the Supreme Court members are part of the civil Bar. Is that proportional to the population of Canada or is this in reconigintion that the people who practice civil law are more unique and important?
Immigration : Since the Federal gov. decides how many total immigrants gets in, Quebec wants a fix number that will be aimed for Québec immigrations (French speaking).
Judges : proportionnaly would be 2.5, I guess they rounded up.
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2014, 08:50:13 PM
How did the discussion about Scots turn into a discussion about primitives and Quebecoise?
Because the thread title has the word independance in it & it's what we do.
So you define a "right" as something that just kind of happens, like the "right to have government services in your language"?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Are you concerned about all the non-English, non-French speaking people in Quebec's "right" to have someone serve them in their language? Or are their rights not important, since you've defined a "right" to other people being forced to speak some arbitrary language (that you happen to speak).
Oh wait - in the Perfect Quebec, there would be no such people, hence the problem would be solved, of course. You guys have made me go from "Meh, what do I care" to full on absolute opposition to the idea of what you would want in a separate nation of Quebec. And I am a dis-interested third party who has no dog in the race at all. It sounds very much like Quebec would be vastly less liberal and free than any part of Canada, and certainly Quebec itself would be vastly more restrictive and intolerant than the province of Quebec in the country of Canada. I suppose if I were a French speaking person who wants my ethnicity to get special treatment, and the federal government refused to allow it, I would be pro-independence as well.
And we are right back to what I've been saying all along - the only concrete and real positions you have all appear to revolve around the desire to institutionalize bigotry. We want to make sure people speak OUR language! We want to make sure we can keep non-French speakers from immigrating! Bah, what a bunch of d-bags.
You don't have a "right" to have everyone in your nation speak the same language that you want to speak. That is just plain silly. Like all the other examples of "strangling" you keep coming up with.
Grallon & Viper disagree but they are fair points Berkut and I kinda agree.
It annoys me that my entire cultural identity is define by the fact that I speak French. It's important part of it, yes but it's the catalyst of that identity not the identity in of itself.
I understand where it is coming from tho. English-Canadian(really Victorian British bullshit) found passive-agressive way to oppress the french majority in Quebec for 200 years that it's going to take a couple of generations to get over.
Berkut, I believe the rights viper refers to are enshrined in Canadian law.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:47:27 PM
And we are right back to what I've been saying all along - the only concrete and real positions you have all appear to revolve around the desire to institutionalize bigotry. We want to make sure people speak OUR language! We want to make sure we can keep non-French speakers from immigrating! Bah, what a bunch of d-bags.
You don't have a "right" to have everyone in your nation speak the same language that you want to speak. That is just plain silly. Like all the other examples of "strangling" you keep coming up with.
And I don't see a problem with Quebec (and the Quebecois) wanting to ensure that the French language continues to survive and thrive within Quebec.
Berkut - it's easy to be blasé about languages when you speak what is the single most dominant language on the planet.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 11, 2014, 10:13:34 PM
Grallon & Viper disagree but they are fair points Berkut and I kinda agree.
It annoys me that my entire cultural identity is define by the fact that I speak French. It's important part of it, yes but it's the catalyst of that identity not the identity in of itself.
I understand where it is coming from tho. English-Canadian(really Victorian British bullshit) found passive-agressive way to oppress the french majority in Quebec for 200 years that it's going to take a couple of generations to get over.
I just don't understand the idea that your cultural identity is under attack in a Western, modern, liberal country like Canada.
What I suspect is really happening is that the culture is in fact eroding just because that is what happens to isolated cultures in diverse environments - they blend in with the cultures around them, and this is a perfectly normal, even natural, process. People see that their kids don't speak quite as much French as they do, and they get upset, and they want someone to blame.
I don't doubt that there is historical injustice, passive aggressive or even aggressive-aggressive. England and France have had historical conflicts, and I am quite aware of the power of tribal thinking to create animosity, and then throw in the religious angle as well, and yeah, it comes as no surprise that the French and English portions of Canada have had their historical issues, and since the English were dominant, I would frankly be shocked if there weren't plenty of examples of historical discrimination.
But we live in modern, liberal democracies. And if someone is claiming that this discrimination is ongoing and active today (much less to the extent that a minority on the body politic is "being strangled"), what they are really saying is that the political system overall (in this case the Canadian political system) is NOT in fact particularity liberal or democratic as we understand the term.
And I am frankly skeptical of that claim. Note that not winning in the battle of ideas within a democracy is NOT the same things as being oppressed or not having a voice. And that seems to be what grallon and viper are really saying - they cannot convince enough other people to think like they do, so they cannot get things setup the way they want, so they feel they should have the right to simply secede. To basically just decide that if they cannot convince enough of their fellow countrymen to think in their fashion, they should just find an area where their thinking has at least 51% of the vote and bail.
It is like the worst possible example of the tyranny of the majority - one where we get to create the majority we wish so we can impose the tyranny we demand.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:47:27 PM
So you define a "right" as something that just kind of happens, like the "right to have government services in your language"?
Is having a gun a right in your country? Most poeple not from the US find it pretty silly that anyone is entitled to owning a gun.
How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"
...
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 10:43:49 PM
What I suspect
I suspect you ignore how we came to that point. Despite my previous explanations.
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
Is having a gun a right in your country? Most poeple not from the US find it pretty silly that anyone is entitled to owning a gun.
How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"
...
Well it made perfect sense when 99% of the population was rural and the plan was for the military to consist entirely of citizen militias armed with their own weapons. That and the thing the British did that finally started the war was trying to seize people's guns.
Having said that in the 80s the majority of the population was for gun control. The whole 'I should be able to carry an automatic rifle to shop at Target' thing is new.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:47:27 PM
And we are right back to what I've been saying all along - the only concrete and real positions you have all appear to revolve around the desire to institutionalize bigotry. We want to make sure people speak OUR language! We want to make sure we can keep non-French speakers from immigrating! Bah, what a bunch of d-bags.
You don't have a "right" to have everyone in your nation speak the same language that you want to speak. That is just plain silly. Like all the other examples of "strangling" you keep coming up with.
And I don't see a problem with Quebec (and the Quebecois) wanting to ensure that the French language continues to survive and thrive within Quebec.
Berkut - it's easy to be blasé about languages when you speak what is the single most dominant language on the planet.
Meh, that is a cheap response Beebs. It is easy to be blase, but that doesn't mean I am in fact being blase. I would feel the same if I spoke some other language, or if I spoke English but lived somewhere where it wasn't the dominant language.
However, that isn't really the point.
The point is that speaking French in Quebec is something that French speakers want to do - so fine, let them speak French. What is stopping them? Is there some law against it? If there is, I would strongly oppose such a law.
So what is it about speaking French in Quebec that requires indepence in order to keep speaking it? Nothing - except for this:
I don't think the real problem is that people want to speak French and are not allowed - that isn't what upsets the grallons. It is that there are people who do not want to speak French, and THEY are allowed. The problem isn't that people are not allowed to speak French, the problem is that people are allowed to speak something else. They want the power to enforce French in some fashion, and they likely cannot do that while they are a subset of a greater political entity. They know that the trend is towards anglophone, and suspect that in the long run the only way to stop it is to mandate even me heavily that French be spoken whether people want to or not.
I think this is, frankly, a pretty terrible thing - it is just as bad to have french people force other to speak french than it is to have english people force the french to speak english. It is counter to liberal ideals to use the power of the state, IMO, to force some language preference on citizens. And that is why people like grallon want to form an independent Quebec - so they can have the power to do exactly what they accuse the Federal government of doing - legislate language.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:47:27 PM
And we are right back to what I've been saying all along - the only concrete and real positions you have all appear to revolve around the desire to institutionalize bigotry. We want to make sure people speak OUR language! We want to make sure we can keep non-French speakers from immigrating! Bah, what a bunch of d-bags.
You don't have a "right" to have everyone in your nation speak the same language that you want to speak. That is just plain silly. Like all the other examples of "strangling" you keep coming up with.
And I don't see a problem with Quebec (and the Quebecois) wanting to ensure that the French language continues to survive and thrive within Quebec.
I don't see a problem with it either.
But that isn't what we are talking about - nobody is stopping anyone from working to see that French survives and thrives in Quebec.
There is a huge difference between working towards a desired goal, and just saying "How about we just create a country where the state has the power to simply demand that things work the way we want???"
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2014, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:47:27 PM
And we are right back to what I've been saying all along - the only concrete and real positions you have all appear to revolve around the desire to institutionalize bigotry. We want to make sure people speak OUR language! We want to make sure we can keep non-French speakers from immigrating! Bah, what a bunch of d-bags.
You don't have a "right" to have everyone in your nation speak the same language that you want to speak. That is just plain silly. Like all the other examples of "strangling" you keep coming up with.
And I don't see a problem with Quebec (and the Quebecois) wanting to ensure that the French language continues to survive and thrive within Quebec.
Berkut - it's easy to be blasé about languages when you speak what is the single most dominant language on the planet.
Meh, that is a cheap response Beebs. It is easy to be blase, but that doesn't mean I am in fact being blase. I would feel the same if I spoke some other language, or if I spoke English but lived somewhere where it wasn't the dominant language.
However, that isn't really the point.
The point is that speaking French in Quebec is something that French speakers want to do - so fine, let them speak French. What is stopping them? Is there some law against it? If there is, I would strongly oppose such a law.
So what is it about speaking French in Quebec that requires indepence in order to keep speaking it? Nothing - except for this:
I don't think the real problem is that people want to speak French and are not allowed - that isn't what upsets the grallons. It is that there are people who do not want to speak French, and THEY are allowed. The problem isn't that people are not allowed to speak French, the problem is that people are allowed to speak something else. They want the power to enforce French in some fashion, and they likely cannot do that while they are a subset of a greater political entity. They know that the trend is towards anglophone, and suspect that in the long run the only way to stop it is to mandate even me heavily that French be spoken whether people want to or not.
I think this is, frankly, a pretty terrible thing - it is just as bad to have french people force other to speak french than it is to have english people force the french to speak english. It is counter to liberal ideals to use the power of the state, IMO, to force some language preference on citizens. And that is why people like grallon want to form an independent Quebec - so they can have the power to do exactly what they accuse the Federal government of doing - legislate language.
No, I don't think it's a cheap point at all. And wherever you might go in the world, you would find that English is still the dominant language world-wide (even if not in your particular corner of it).
Now there are better, and worse, ways to try and ensure the survival of the French language, but wanting to ensure that it does in fact survive seems like a perfectly valid policy to follow.
QuoteNow there are better, and worse, ways to try and ensure the survival of the French language, but wanting to ensure that it does in fact survive seems like a perfectly valid policy to follow.
No argument from me, but that isn't what we are talking about.
Quote from: Berkut on September 11, 2014, 09:47:27 PM
So you define a "right" as something that just kind of happens, like the "right to have government services in your language"?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I don't disagree with the idea of a right to having government services in a language you can understand. For instance, if I am put on trial I should be provided an interpreter so that I may be able aid in my own defense. If I report a crime, the police should find someone who can speak to me so that I can properly report it. I should be able to request government forms (like say, taxes), in a language I can understand. Now obviously, there is a practical element to this. The local police station may not have someone on hand at all times who can speak Albanian and so that service may be delayed till they can find some one, but a good faith effort must be attempted. I believe this is covered in the Equal protection clause.
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2014, 12:04:44 AM
Alright, I shovelled out most of the pointless Quebec wankery into its own thread. Let's try not to shit this thread up again?
Holy crap - your "Quebec edition" thread has even more posts than this original thread. :o
But while I thought (and continue to think) that the whole Quebec situation has very valid parallels to Scotland, it was hijacking the thread (and hence my own attempts to bring it back on topic).
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2014, 12:11:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2014, 12:04:44 AM
Alright, I shovelled out most of the pointless Quebec wankery into its own thread. Let's try not to shit this thread up again?
Holy crap - your "Quebec edition" thread has even more posts than this original thread. :o
But while I thought (and continue to think) that the whole Quebec situation has very valid parallels to Scotland, it was hijacking the thread (and hence my own attempts to bring it back on topic).
It ain't "my" Quebec Edition thread, it's your Quebec Edition thread. And feel free to explore the exciting parallels in this thread.
One day I want to set up that Malthus-Grallon Languish meet up so they can finally have the fist fight they have been warming up to all these years.
Malthus doesn't strike me as the violent type. I would be honored to take his place.
Anyway.
THe most recent polls have shown a bit of movement away from "yes", with the noes pleading by 5-6 points according to the last two.
Salmon is going apeshit about the alleged leaking by the Treasury to the BBC of information that he Royal Bank of Scotland planned partial relocation in the event of a yes vote. Since the announcement was made a few hours later in any event, this seems poor tactics, drawing attention to a story that doesn't help him.
Having rather hoped for a yes vote a few months ago, the prospect of several years of negotiation and economic and political uncertainty has made me realise that it woudl be a disaster. If we are ever to go through this again following a "no", it really must be after the basic terms have been agreed.
I think you wanted the other Scottish Independence thread Guppy. :D
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2014, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 03:10:50 PM
it seems you have distorted view of Canadian politics shaped by your opinion of the people talking about it rather than objective facts.
The irony is strong in this one.
:lol: Yep. That's one of the most LOL-worthy statements here in a long time (may even beat my evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Michigan and Notre Dame football teams!). This is the guy who told me I should read the book that shaped most of my views on British colonial attitudes in the 1750s and '60s, thinking, because he had heard talking about the book, that it supported, rather than fatally undermined, his own position.
His erroneous (though strongly stated as "facts") views on the pre-Contact Indian populations of North America also come to mind.
Quote from: mongers on September 11, 2014, 07:02:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 11, 2014, 06:57:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 11, 2014, 05:28:44 PM
Canadian politics is rather like a poor quality port or sherry, it doesn't travel at all well. :bowler:
I normally care about Canadian politics, but right now in this thread it's pretty damn tedious.
Yes it is rather killing off us Britisher's interest in the thread. Pity as the content could possibly turn out to be a Languish 'historic document' if we get a dramatic result.
I think the best part of the thread is the Brits moaning about the fact that they are losing interest in the thread (but are sufficiently egotistical that they think others really care if they don't care).
I'd say that was a "Languish 'historic document'"-worthy sentiment except that it is absolutely the bog-standard Mongers approach to any topic, so not very historically significant at all. :(
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
Is having a gun a right in your country? Most poeple not from the US find it pretty silly that anyone is entitled to owning a gun.
How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"
...
Surely you cannot be so ignorant of US history as to fail to understand the importance of the concept of the militia to its founders. I could enlighten you, but if you don't get it by now (or have forgotten it so easily), any enlightenment would be ignored or forgotten, so I shan't bother.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
Is having a gun a right in your country? Most poeple not from the US find it pretty silly that anyone is entitled to owning a gun.
How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"
...
Well it made perfect sense when 99% of the population was rural and the plan was for the military to consist entirely of citizen militias armed with their own weapons. That and the thing the British did that finally started the war was trying to seize people's guns.
Having said that in the 80s the majority of the population was for gun control. The whole 'I should be able to carry an automatic rifle to shop at Target' thing is new.
The point is, it is enshrined in your Constitution. From there, it can lead to abuses, of course, but it's seen as a basic right in the US, and it has been confirmed by the US Supreme court.
It's not something the NRA decided. But they sure will push for the extension of that right everywhere.
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2014, 06:21:48 AM
Quote from: Maximus on September 11, 2014, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 03:10:50 PM
it seems you have distorted view of Canadian politics shaped by your opinion of the people talking about it rather than objective facts.
The irony is strong in this one.
:lol: Yep. That's one of the most LOL-worthy statements here in a long time (may even beat my evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Michigan and Notre Dame football teams!). This is the guy who told me I should read the book that shaped most of my views on British colonial attitudes in the 1750s and '60s, thinking, because he had heard talking about the book, that it supported, rather than fatally undermined, his own position.
His erroneous (though strongly stated as "facts") views on the pre-Contact Indian populations of North America also come to mind.
you should re-read the book then. And btw,read again on how european contact changed indian warfare in North America.
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2014, 06:34:29 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
Is having a gun a right in your country? Most poeple not from the US find it pretty silly that anyone is entitled to owning a gun.
How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"
...
Surely you cannot be so ignorant of US history as to fail to understand the importance of the concept of the militia to its founders. I could enlighten you, but if you don't get it by now (or have forgotten it so easily), any enlightenment would be ignored or forgotten, so I shan't bother.
try to read the thread Grumbler. See what I was answering to, so that you can understand the conversation. It's not that hard, but it's harder than simply posting contrary opinions for the sake of posting contrary opinions.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2014, 12:11:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2014, 12:04:44 AM
Alright, I shovelled out most of the pointless Quebec wankery into its own thread. Let's try not to shit this thread up again?
Holy crap - your "Quebec edition" thread has even more posts than this original thread. :o
Well, of course, that's how the hijack happened. There were not, and so far continue not to be, many people interested in discussing the Scottish situation. Likely do to less familiarity/ no one seems to be championing the Scottish independence cause.
I suppose I could champion the Scottish independence cause.. :unsure:
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2014, 07:41:02 AM
you should re-read the book then. And btw,read again on how european contact changed indian warfare in North America.
Perhaps it is you who should re-read it. I have read it, and explained in this very thread what the author's thesis is. You simply assert, without evidence, that the author agrees with you that nationalism was the cause of the American War of Independence. The change to Indian warfare isn't relevant to any arguments I have made or any from you that I have read.
Do try to keep your story at least somewhat coherent.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2014, 07:43:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2014, 06:34:29 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
Is having a gun a right in your country? Most poeple not from the US find it pretty silly that anyone is entitled to owning a gun.
How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"
...
Surely you cannot be so ignorant of US history as to fail to understand the importance of the concept of the militia to its founders. I could enlighten you, but if you don't get it by now (or have forgotten it so easily), any enlightenment would be ignored or forgotten, so I shan't bother.
try to read the thread Grumbler. See what I was answering to, so that you can understand the conversation. It's not that hard, but it's harder than simply posting contrary opinions for the sake of posting contrary opinions.
Do try to keep your argument coherent, vIper. "How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"" isn't an answer to anything. It is bullshit rhetoric, which could only be indulged in by someone ignorant 9or willfully ignorant) of US history. It's not that hard to be logical in arguments, but it's harder than simply posting bullshit rhetoric for the sake of posting bullshit rhetoric.
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2014, 12:19:21 AM
One day I want to set up that Malthus-Grallon Languish meet up so they can finally have the fist fight they have been warming up to all these years.
Not at all, I've grown to like Viper - even though he is a coward when it comes to independence - like too many French-Canadians.
Which brings me to my next point:
Anyone who isn't a complete faithless hypocrite will see the parallels between these 2 cases and acknowledge that one can inform the other - for better or worse. There are many similarities as well as many differences - but being told that what happened in Quebec is completely irrelevant - and nothing more than 'wankery' really illustrates what I was writing yesterday.
But one cannot expect anything better from Canadians of course.
G.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 12, 2014, 01:44:23 AM
Malthus doesn't strike me as the violent type. I would be honored to take his place.
He'd unleash his army of insects at Grallon.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
The whole 'I should be able to carry an automatic rifle to shop at Target' thing is new.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Grallon on September 12, 2014, 08:09:35 AM
Not at all, I've grown to like Viper - even though he is a coward when it comes to independence - like too many French-Canadians.
Which brings me to my next point:
Anyone who isn't a complete faithless hypocrite will see the parallels between these 2 cases and acknowledge that one can inform the other - for better or worse. There are many similarities as well as many differences - but being told that what happened in Quebec is completely irrelevant - and nothing more than 'wankery' really illustrates what I was writing yesterday.
But one cannot expect anything better from Canadians of course.
G.
For fucks sake you pompous solipsistic windbag... it was wankery because it was primarily the same four or five people beating the same dead horse they've beaten for the last decade+ over and over again with no reference whatsoever - whatever parallels you may see - to the Scottish situation. It was wankery because you completely drowned out anything to do with the actual situation in Scotland.
Quebec is super important. That's why you get your very own, separate, thread to discuss this very important subject in relation to Scottish independence.
:lmfao:
Although I am sure jacob has similar views towards myself, but still...
Quote from: derspiess on September 12, 2014, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
The whole 'I should be able to carry an automatic rifle to shop at Target' thing is new.
:bleeding:
This is the kind of pedantic nonsense I will not put up with. Whatever sort of fucking rifles they were carrying.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2014, 07:43:25 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2014, 06:34:29 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 11, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
Is having a gun a right in your country? Most poeple not from the US find it pretty silly that anyone is entitled to owning a gun.
How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"
...
Surely you cannot be so ignorant of US history as to fail to understand the importance of the concept of the militia to its founders. I could enlighten you, but if you don't get it by now (or have forgotten it so easily), any enlightenment would be ignored or forgotten, so I shan't bother.
try to read the thread Grumbler. See what I was answering to, so that you can understand the conversation. It's not that hard, but it's harder than simply posting contrary opinions for the sake of posting contrary opinions.
To take on your original question...
Having a gun is indeed seen as a right. It came to be a right, at least in the constitutional sense, with origins in the debate that surrounded the drafting of the Constitution. The founders didn't care for the idea of the U.S. having a standing army (though General Washington had one, though often supplemented with militia), and preferred the idea of having state militias (trained and officered locally) that could be called up when necessary. And from that idea, it was pretty much necessary that each person who could be called up for the militia have their own gun...and most probably did anyway. Of course, back then, it was a pretty simple rifle, which in most cases I am sure, acted more as a tool for survival (hunting, etc.) than as a weapon for war. Good background for the constitutional debates on the militia idea can be found in the Federalist Papers, (most notably #29 and #46, and a little in a few others). This all led to the 2nd Amendment of course.
Now, as our country evolved and grew to accept the idea of a standing military, that idea of individuals keeping their own guns never went away, and as in most things, science and technology advanced the lethality of firearms by leaps and bounds. So in today's world, that first clause of the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." is too most laymen here, mostly ignored and meaningless. But the follow up "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is often held to a very strict meaning.
Does even simple regulation of firearms constitute "infringement"? Or would common-sense regulations, provided they don't prohibit guns entirely make sense? If you keep that militia idea...wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the guns people own should be appropriate as if they were to be called into military service? And where do we draw that line, if we think about how in the days of the Revolution, we didn't even conceive of tanks, bombers, and nuclear missiles? (Though I suppose one could say, most members of the militia didn't have their own cannons :P ).
That's what we mostly argue about these days.
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2014, 07:40:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 12, 2014, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
The whole 'I should be able to carry an automatic rifle to shop at Target' thing is new.
:bleeding:
This is the kind of pedantic nonsense I will not put up with. Whatever sort of fucking rifles they were carrying.
Compared to a flintlock musket, your average 1776-ian would probably think a semi-auto AR-15 is pretty darned "automatic".
The idea of a militia being important to national defense was pretty iffy even when they wrote it. A lot of the founders liked the idea because it was cheap, and it seemed less a threat to civilian government then a standing army.
Hmm, if you read #29, the by Alexander Hamilton (probably the most pro-central power guy of the founders) you can kinda read between the lines that he probably had some doubts, but was accepting of it with conditions.
The big factor was that most of the states saw themselves as far more independent than they see themselves today...and that is what would help cause that ACW blowup.
The ACW pretty much severely diluted that idea of mostly independent states, and arguable, made the idea of the standing army more acceptable. It was a turning point in national ideology and practice in a multitude of ways...arguably, the ACW was as equally important to our modern national idea as the creation of the country itself.
Kind of like how Shelby Foote said, the ACW turned us from the United States "are" into the United States "is".
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2014, 07:48:13 PM
To take on your original question...
Having a gun is indeed seen as a right. It came to be a right, at least in the constitutional sense, with origins in the debate that surrounded the drafting of the Constitution. The founders didn't care for the idea of the U.S. having a standing army (though General Washington had one, though often supplemented with militia), and preferred the idea of having state militias (trained and officered locally) that could be called up when necessary. And from that idea, it was pretty much necessary that each person who could be called up for the militia have their own gun...and most probably did anyway. Of course, back then, it was a pretty simple rifle, which in most cases I am sure, acted more as a tool for survival (hunting, etc.) than as a weapon for war. Good background for the constitutional debates on the militia idea can be found in the Federalist Papers, (most notably #29 and #46, and a little in a few others). This all led to the 2nd Amendment of course.
Now, as our country evolved and grew to accept the idea of a standing military, that idea of individuals keeping their own guns never went away, and as in most things, science and technology advanced the lethality of firearms by leaps and bounds. So in today's world, that first clause of the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." is too most laymen here, mostly ignored and meaningless. But the follow up "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is often held to a very strict meaning.
Does even simple regulation of firearms constitute "infringement"? Or would common-sense regulations, provided they don't prohibit guns entirely make sense? If you keep that militia idea...wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the guns people own should be appropriate as if they were to be called into military service? And where do we draw that line, if we think about how in the days of the Revolution, we didn't even conceive of tanks, bombers, and nuclear missiles? (Though I suppose one could say, most members of the militia didn't have their own cannons :P ).
That's what we mostly argue about these days.
Thanks, but I knew that. :) My question was rethorical to Berkut who seems to think I invent "rights" on the spot and decide of their abritrary applications to justify my position.
I know how it came to be at first and it made very good sense. I know how it came to be what it is today with various interpretations from the tribunals (though I do not know the specific judgements by wich court, only one or two by the USSC, vaguely).
My point was to illustrate that language rights are something that were more or less guaranteed in the first Constitution of 1867 (unlike the USA, Canada used to rely much more on "tradition" than specifically written articles of law in a Constitution founding the country - heck, we weren't technically a country until 1931), and reaffirmed as collective rights in the 1982 Constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
There is a whole history, how it came to be, what it meant then, what it means now. Just like the "gun rights" you americans have.
And I'm pretty sure if I asked every Americans on this board, what it means for them, having the right to a firearm (disregarding the legalities), I'd a have a few different opinions.
Just as it is with language laws, rights to have an education in your language, when it is French or English, one of the two official languages of the country, as per the original Constitution (and it's 1982 follow up).
Quebec agreed to form a union of provinces with the other three, provided it would be a decentralized federation with 2 official languages. Unfortunately, some things went wrong along the way... But that's another debate, for another time.
So, short version: I did not invent the right to get government services in French no more than he invented the right to posess a gun.
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2014, 07:56:23 AM
Do try to keep your argument coherent, vIper. "How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"" isn't an answer to anything. It is bullshit rhetoric, which could only be indulged in by someone ignorant 9or willfully ignorant) of US history. It's not that hard to be logical in arguments, but it's harder than simply posting bullshit rhetoric for the sake of posting bullshit rhetoric.
Did you even read what I was answering to? No, of course not.
I think my basic position on Scotland vs Quebec is this:
I think Scotland would be making a mistake to become independent because I think the average Scot would be worse off and the average English person would be worse off. However, I don't think there is any liberal issue involved, so I largely don't care that much. The liberal in me is ambivalent. I think Scotland as a separate nation will be poorer, but just as free (and maybe even slightly more free) as they are now. Same with England.
But the more I am enlightened about the reasons for why some people want Quebec to be free, the more I think that it is a terrible idea, regardless of the practical and economic effects, since I think the end result will be a nation that is considerably less free than the nation they seceded from. The very point of the secession is to allow the people who want a separate nation to more effectively discriminate against others - the thing they do not like about the current setup is that their province lacks the power to effectively restrict others freedom in the fashion they desire.
So while the broad strokes are similar (two ethnically distinct groups wishing to go their seperate ways from the whole), the details about *why* they want to do so, and what they would intend to do if they were to suceed are vastly different. Scotland would not be practically any different from England, as far as the rights of Scots are concerned. Quebec would be VERY different from Canada as far as the rights of people living in Quebec are concerned. And while the majority may be ok with that, the tyranny of the majority is something to be be avoided, not embraced, even if it is wrapped in the fig leaf of "protecting our culture".
Quote from: viper37 on September 13, 2014, 12:25:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2014, 07:56:23 AM
Do try to keep your argument coherent, vIper. "How did it came to be a fundamental right of your country to eat a burger with your rifle? Did it just "kind of happens"" isn't an answer to anything. It is bullshit rhetoric, which could only be indulged in by someone ignorant 9or willfully ignorant) of US history. It's not that hard to be logical in arguments, but it's harder than simply posting bullshit rhetoric for the sake of posting bullshit rhetoric.
Did you even read what I was answering to? No, of course not.
I didn't? I am glad you are here to tell me what I read and didn't read. Egotism much?
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2014, 12:40:29 AM
But the more I am enlightened about the reasons for why some people want Quebec to be free, the more I think that it is a terrible idea, regardless of the practical and economic effects, since I think the end result will be a nation that is considerably less free than the nation they seceded from.
You still see fairies.
Quote
The very point of the secession is to allow the people who want a separate nation to more effectively discriminate against others - the thing they do not like about the current setup is that their province lacks the power to effectively restrict others freedom in the fashion they desire.
Fairies, again.
Quote
Quebec would be VERY different from Canada as far as the rights of people living in Quebec are concerned.
Take two similar documents, voted closely by.
The first one: Quebec charter of rights and freedoms (1975)
The second one: Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (1982).
Both documents are available in english, so dig them.
If you need a summary comparison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Charter_of_Human_Rights_and_Freedoms#Comparison_with_other_human_rights_instruments)
The Quebec charter was voted 5 years before the first referendum.
So, again, how is it that you come to the conclusion that nation using this bill as a basis for a future Constitution would be worst than Canada, when this fundamental document goes beyond and precedes the Canadian attempt at protecting minority rights?
Quote And while the majority may be ok with that, the tyranny of the majority is something to be be avoided, not embraced, even if it is wrapped in the fig leaf of "protecting our culture".
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Charter_of_Human_Rights_and_Freedoms#Comparison_with_other_human_rights_instruments)
So, tyranny by the english majority = ok. Tyranny by the french majority = bad.
Restricting access to public education in english for immigrants = tyranny.
Chosing your own immigration = tyranny.
Having one Minister of the environment = tyranny.
Having one tax form = tyranny.
Promoting bilinguism = tyranny.
Preventing discrimination against french speakers = tyranny.
Zoning laws = tyranny.
Wow. You have a broad definition of tyranny my friend! Every single governmental entity must seam like a dictatorship to you!
It's fun to watch the very people who think America's "States' Rights" people are kooks spout their exact line when it comes to their own tribal rights.
I don't have a problem with the people of Quebec insisting that immigrants attend French-language schools. I think that's just common sense if you want the immigrants to be able to be successful in that society. But whining about not having one tax form? Ye gods.
One thing in curious about is; how do you keep immigrants in Quebec?
Do immigrants have visas that restrict them to one province?
No, we don't do anything to keep them here. Nor is there provincial visas.
Quote from: grumbler on September 13, 2014, 07:32:45 PM
But whining about not having one tax form? Ye gods.
the other provinces chose to delegate that responsibility to the Federal government. Before the 50s, that was the same for Quebec, but we did not receive our share of the money we sent, so the government created it's own taxes to force the Feds to back up.
Every now and then, you hear some province whine about the same fact - that they don't get enough money - and threaten to create their own taxation level. Then the Feds give them more money and it's quiet for a while.
I suppose for an American, it's an efficient way of governance, but I don't feel that way. And since I don't like to be cheated on my taxes twice and feel that once is enough, I'd prefer it if my province would collect 100% of its taxes and then send its share to the Feds. Whatever other provinces do is none of my concern, so long as they don't whine we get too much powers.
Quote from: Tyr on September 14, 2014, 12:11:04 PM
One thing in curious about is; how do you keep immigrants in Quebec?
the same way they are kept elsewhere: efforts are made for ther integration and eventually they decide to settle here or move to another province/country.
Quote from: Tyr on September 14, 2014, 12:11:04 PM
One thing in curious about is; how do you keep immigrants in Quebec?
The nefarious Committee for Francophone Public Safety guillotines any who dare try to leave.
Unless you are an anglo, then you get a get out care package.
Quote from: Tyr on September 14, 2014, 12:11:04 PM
One thing in curious about is; how do you keep immigrants in Quebec?
Do immigrants have visas that restrict them to one province?
You don't.
Plenty of people immigrate to Quebec, because they fit those particular provincial requirements a bit better than other ones, and settle elsewhere in Canada. It's not just Quebec who faces that issue, however.
Of course, there's nothing preventing immigrants from moving to Quebec after immigrating to another province either.
QuoteYou don't.
Plenty of people immigrate to Quebec, because they fit those particular provincial requirements a bit better than other ones, and settle elsewhere in Canada. It's not just Quebec who faces that issue, however.
Of course, there's nothing preventing immigrants from moving to Quebec after immigrating to another province either.
It strikes me that Quebec would get more of them. Apparently studying French is pretty big with educated Iranians largely for the reason of the big extra points it gives with Quebec and it being the easiest place to migrate to.
Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2014, 07:50:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 14, 2014, 12:11:04 PM
One thing in curious about is; how do you keep immigrants in Quebec?
the same way they are kept elsewhere: efforts are made for ther integration and eventually they decide to settle here or move to another province/country.
How does it work though?
In the UK efforts to spread immigrants out tend not to work, they all just head to London or wherever their group already has a large presence.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
How does it work though?
In the UK efforts to spread immigrants out tend not to work, they all just head to London or wherever their group already has a large presence.
It doesn't work.
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2014, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
How does it work though?
In the UK efforts to spread immigrants out tend not to work, they all just head to London or wherever their group already has a large presence.
It doesn't work.
It works somewhat.
Manitoba has a provincial nominee program to try and encourage immigration there. I think the experience has been that while some do in fact eventually move to Vancouver / Toronto, many wind up staying. I think they also try to encourage people to come who have family, or have a large pre-existing ethnic community in Winnipeg to rely on for support.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2014, 12:04:02 PM
It works somewhat.
Manitoba has a provincial nominee program to try and encourage immigration there. I think the experience has been that while some do in fact eventually move to Vancouver / Toronto, many wind up staying. I think they also try to encourage people to come who have family, or have a large pre-existing ethnic community in Winnipeg to rely on for support.
Yeah sure. What I meant is that it doesn't work in keeping people who intend to move elsewhere from moving there. At best it gives immigrants a slight window to consider staying in the province where they were PNP immigrants (especially if it's tied to a specific job, of course - it's harder to move out on a job offer, usually).
The bottom line is that immigrants can move where ever they fancy as soon as they're in, and they do. The incentives to keep them in-province are pretty soft.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
It strikes me that Quebec would get more of them. Apparently studying French is pretty big with educated Iranians largely for the reason of the big extra points it gives with Quebec and it being the easiest place to migrate to.
Who can emigrate is in the hands of the Federal government.
Quebec gets to pre-select immigrants, but in the end, the Fed gov decides who comes in or not.
Since there's no Canadian embassy in Teheran* and no Quebec's office either, the only Iranians we would really get a are refugees and these are strictly in the hands of the Federal government who decides where they go.
*Canadian embassy was closed in 2012.
Quote
How does it work though?
In the UK efforts to spread immigrants out tend not to work, they all just head to London or wherever their group already has a large presence.
Efforts are made to find them a suitable location to live first, try to help them find a job, give them french classes.
There are various measures they can benefit, depending on how they arrived here and where they came from.
I know some immigrants are offerend financial incentives, but I don't know the specifics (how it applies, to whom it applies, when it applies)
Quebec has deals with some countries or part of countries to recognize their school diplomas, but it's still a fucking mess for most places, especially for doctors and engineers coming from Switzerland, Eastern Europe, India, the Middle East, North Africa and various African countries with semi-decent university systems. Quite often, they are being asked to redo their entire university classes here, wich discourages most and then they either leave elsewhere in the country where it will be easier (Ontario has great program to encourage foreing doctors to immigrate there) or for the US or simply go back home.
It's the area where we have the most work to do, and where the provincial government needs to take a strong stance against the unions and professional corps restricting access to work. Fat chance of that happening with any government in the current situation.
Also, I think the hardest part is not to attrack immigrants, or even keep them in Quebec (when we have a pre-selection process), but to keep them where they are needed. If we pre-select a doctor from France, he might be more interested to live in Montreal than to live in a small town ad the end of nowhere in eastern Quebec where there's an actual shortage of doctors. And just imagine when they are "visible" minorities who get to immigrate in a small place 99,9% white and french, the shock is brutal for some of them. We've had an influx of spanish speaking immigrants (Columbians, mostly) in my area, but eventually most of them left to where they could find a bigger community of their peers.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2014, 12:40:29 AM
I think my basic position on Scotland vs Quebec is this:
I think Scotland would be making a mistake to become independent because I think the average Scot would be worse off and the average English person would be worse off. However, I don't think there is any liberal issue involved, so I largely don't care that much. The liberal in me is ambivalent. I think Scotland as a separate nation will be poorer, but just as free (and maybe even slightly more free) as they are now. Same with England.
But the more I am enlightened about the reasons for why some people want Quebec to be free, the more I think that it is a terrible idea, regardless of the practical and economic effects, since I think the end result will be a nation that is considerably less free than the nation they seceded from. The very point of the secession is to allow the people who want a separate nation to more effectively discriminate against others - the thing they do not like about the current setup is that their province lacks the power to effectively restrict others freedom in the fashion they desire.
So while the broad strokes are similar (two ethnically distinct groups wishing to go their seperate ways from the whole), the details about *why* they want to do so, and what they would intend to do if they were to suceed are vastly different. Scotland would not be practically any different from England, as far as the rights of Scots are concerned. Quebec would be VERY different from Canada as far as the rights of people living in Quebec are concerned. And while the majority may be ok with that, the tyranny of the majority is something to be be avoided, not embraced, even if it is wrapped in the fig leaf of "protecting our culture".
Yeah, it's a bit like Palestine wanting to leave Israel so they can institute sharia.