All Lettowist sympathizer must be crushed! :mad:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/catalan-independence-declaration-puts-region-on-course-for-madrid-showdown
Quote
Catalan 'independence declaration' to trigger showdown with Madrid
Non-secessionists condemn resolution calling for 'beginning of a process of the creation of an independent Catalan state'
Stephen Burgen in Barcelona
Tuesday 27 October 2015 20.19 GMT Last modified on Wednesday 28 October 2015 00.55 GMT
Catalonia has put itself on a collision course with the Madrid government after the newly elected parliament put forward a resolution calling for "the beginning of a process of the creation of an independent Catalan state in the form of a republic".
Effectively a unilateral declaration of independence, the resolution has already been condemned by the non-secessionist Catalan parties as a coup d'etat.
In Madrid the ruling People's party government and the Socialist opposition both issued statements condemning the move.
The prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, called it a provocation and said: "As long as I am president of a nation of free and equal citizens, justice will prevail over unreason."
He added that the state would not shy away from using "all political and judicial mechanisms in defence of the common good and the sovereignty of Spain as laid down in the constitution".
However, the resolution proposed by the new parliamentary president, Carme Forcadell, states explicitly that "the process of democratic disconnection [from Spain] will not be subject to decisions made by the institutions of the Spanish state and in particular the constitutional court", which she said has been "delegitimised".
Forcadell, the former head of the hardcore secessionist Assemblea Nacional Catalana, was elected leader at the weekend thanks in part to the votes of five Podemos deputies, even though the group has always declared itself to be against secession.
The resolution pledges to "adopt all means necessary to begin this process of democratic, massive, sustained and peaceful disconnection".
Forcadell called for civil disobedience in the face of moves by Madrid to block secession and finished her acceptance speech crying out: "Viva the Catalan republic!"
In last month's regional elections, the pro-secessionist coalition won a majority of seats but failed to secure a majority of the popular vote.
With only 48% voting in favour of secession, the victors then gave the impression that the time was not ripe to break away from Spain. But it appears they have had a change of heart and are impatient with the 52% of Catalan voters who do not share their point of view on national sovereignty.
In an online poll in the Barcelona-based newspaper La Vanguardia on Tuesday, 64% of 1,500 respondents said they did not support the motion to create an independent state.
With a general election due in seven weeks, the move could have enormous and unpredictable repercussions. On the one hand it could work in the beleaguered Rajoy's favour, as he could play the champion of Spanish unity and distract from his weak performance on jobs and the economy.
The anti-austerity Podemos party, and especially its leader Pablo Iglesias, could suffer as its supporters in Catalonia and the rest of Spain may not understand why it has supported Forcadell and the secessionist resolution.
On the other hand, the declaration may serve as a call to arms to the half of Catalan voters who do not favour independence and who could vote massively for non-secessionist candidates in Spain's December elections.
Some inaccuracies in this article:
1) Podemos hasn't supported this declaration. Only the appointment of Forcadell (which was weird, mind). Also, it's not 100% clear that Podemos candidates voted for her; the vote was secret and Podemos ran in a coalition with other far-left parties, some of which have supported the independence process in the past.
2) The separatists haven't had a change of heart, they always said that a majority of seats was enough. They have been calling for this move since election night.
3) We already had a massive turnout for the election, there won't be more non-secessionists that will magically appear in the general election. What can happen is that the separatists won't care to vote for the Spanish parliament.
4) A Catalan separatist will never hail a Catalan independent state saying "Viva". :bleeding:
"With only 48% voting in favour of secession"
-> also incorrect of course since there are pro-independence people in other parties too.
That's highly suspect. Given that the pro-independence parties presented this election as an ersatz-referendum, if you are pro-independence methinks you would have voted them and not the wishy-washy dudes.
Still, it tramples on everything. With that "majority" you can't even rewrite the Catalan regional statute, yet it's enough to declare independence? What a shitty state we are going to build if we take shortcuts at every corner at the whim of those in power.
If separatists want an independent state what they should do is to work hard to convince the rest of us and achieve the kind of majority you can build these irreversible changes upon.
I symphatise with the Catalans. They basically finance Spain, while not being Spanish.
On the one hand an independent catalonia would be cool. On the other hand republics suck.
Overall though the catalans have lost some of my sympathy here. Seems it's not just the Spanish government being unreasonable dicks. A majority voting for a pro independence party in an election (which they don't even have) would be enough for independence?
That's freaking dumb. What about their other policies?
In the UK the SNP gets plenty of anti independence votes.
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2015, 04:44:48 AM
I symphatise with the Catalans. They basically finance Spain, while not being Spanish.
Oh dear... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2015, 04:44:48 AM
I symphatise with the Catalans. They basically finance Spain, while not being Spanish.
If Catalans are not Spanish then there is no such thing as Spanish.
Well, "Spain" survived the fact that the Portuguese are not part of it but this whole national identity debate is pretty pointless. Nation states are a lie and hopefully in time they will become a thing of the past.
I speak Catalan and identify with our small little culture, but I don't need a separate state to make that happen. A decent democracy already allows for that, and I have no trouble being Catalan in modern, democratic, Spain.
Spain is a shitty place in many ways, and those should be addressed, but getting the fuck out to build up a shittier state doesn't seem much of a solution to me.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 05:41:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2015, 04:44:48 AM
I symphatise with the Catalans. They basically finance Spain, while not being Spanish.
If Catalans are not Spanish then there is no such thing as Spanish.
Do you really think that's a problem for separatists? ;)
Spain only took the modern meaning of Iberia minus Portugal (and Gibraltar) in the 18th century in Portuguese, no clues about Castilian. The Bourbon centralist regime certainly advanced or accelerated the process.
Before that Spain/Espanha = Iberia i.e a geographical expression.
PS: don't know about Catalan either
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2015, 04:44:48 AM
I symphatise with the Catalans. They basically finance Spain, while not being Spanish.
Just like the Hungarians in the EU.
Quote from: celedhring
Well, "Spain" survived the fact that the Portuguese are not part of it but this whole national identity debate is pretty pointless.
Portugal was never a part of Spain.
The union that lasted between 1580 and 1640 was a Personal Union, with the papers that certified it expressly stating that each country remained separate under the same monarch.
And our independence was against Castille and León, which were not officially Spain at the time (Aragón and Navarra were not even part of the country).
Quote from: celedhring
Nation states are a lie and hopefully in time they will become a thing of the past.
I've seen Valmy say this nonsense in other threads and wonder how do you people get so indoctrinated as to actually believe this utter lie.
So, nation states are a lie and will become things of the past, you say?
Let's see...
Is China becoming less Chinese? No, it is in fact strenghening its homogenity, to the point that the Xinhiang Uighurs are carrying out terrorist attacks because at this rate they will be wiped out of their homeland. Tibetans are also on the way to become non-existant.
Is Japan becoming less Japanese?No, Japan doesn't even have the legal concept of 'immigration'. And it only took 13 refugees last year.
Is Korea becoming less Korean?Nope. No significant migration from other countres comes to Korea. Muss less refugees (the odd North Korean, being Korean, do not count. And most of those went to China)
Is India getting less Indian?India has many ethnicities, but they hark back to the days before its unification. And while it has problems with its Muslim minority, the ethnic makeup of the country is the same that it was when it declared independence, minus the millions of Muslims that went to form Pakistan [and later Bengladesh, created when India invaded East Pakistan in 1971]
Are Islamic countries becoming less Arab/Iranian/Berber/their etnicity?Of course not. Bar small Lebanon, well known for being in the crossroads between Islam and Christianity (as well as the Egyptian copts, who have been in the county since before the Islamic conquest), none of those countries is experiencing a significant ethnic shift. The Gulf States even recieved zero of the migrants coming out of Syria.
Are subsaharan nations becoming less African?Not at all. Barring the entry of some skilled europeans after the financial crisis, these countries all remain very much the domain of the tribes that ruled them since independence. They even attack the different africans that try to move there, last year the Mozambicans that lived in South Africa were victims of tons of murderous attacks, even though almost all of those involved are of Bantu stock.
With the exception of Latin America (whose states were not founded on ethnic grounds), virtually no country in the world is at risk of losing its nation-state.
So, the exception are the western white countries. Only there is the fairy tale of "the nation-state is a thing of the past" told. It makes zero sense to people outside them, and the only thing it does is make the locals less able to protect themselves against large influxes of foreign populations.
In the rest of the world, National Identities are not only common, but often the basic pillar of existance for many nations... Cambodia is very proud that it's Khmer, Thailand that is the land of the Thais, Khazaks love their Khazak homeland, and so forth....
In practice, the false mantra of the "end of the nation-state" merely traduces to: "end of white countries".
Nothing else.
(separate because now it's about Catalonia)
While I don't like the idea of Catalonia separating, the catalan constitutionalists are saying the local government has legitimacy to push forward with this because they won legislative elections, and in those what matters is who has the most elected MPs, not votes.
They also note that, since the left coalition where Podemos is was not clear where it stood in the independence issue, in practice this means more people voted for the independence parties than for the clearly anti-independence ones.
(sounds like pushing the envolope to me, but that's their line)
What should happen now is that Madrid will send their resolution (to be voted on Nov.6th) to the Constitutional Court, where it will be struck down.
The catalonians will, of course, ignore this.
The spanish Constitutional Court will then use the new powers it got from the reform of its statute to apply sanctions against Catalonia.
We will need to see what these will be to appreciate their impact, but it's sure that the catalonian government won't accept them.
Quote from: The Larch on October 28, 2015, 04:51:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2015, 04:44:48 AM
I symphatise with the Catalans. They basically finance Spain, while not being Spanish.
Oh dear... :rolleyes:
I know -- it's obviously the Galicians. :P
I do think it's an ironic statement in light of Catalunya's legendary anarchist/Marxist/syndicalist heritage (and lefty tendencies through the present). :lol:
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 28, 2015, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: celedhring
Nation states are a lie and hopefully in time they will become a thing of the past.
I've seen Valmy say this nonsense in other threads and wonder how do you people get so indoctrinated as to actually believe this utter lie.
Some people in the West feel guilty over their privileges, so they want to give them away.
Quote
Is Japan becoming less Japanese?
No, Japan doesn't even have the legal concept of 'immigration'. And it only took 13 refugees last year.
:huh:
1: Japan is very big on encouraging immigration.
It is nothing compared to Europe of course but it does have a fairly substantial non-ethnic Japanese population which is growing.
2: The Japanese right would very much disagree with your idea that Japan isn't becoming less Japanese. Immigration is only a part of this however, far more important are old beliefs dying off, demographics changing in a fairly fucked up fashion, and an increasing Englishisation of the Japanese language.
Quote
I've seen Valmy say this nonsense in other threads and wonder how do you people get so indoctrinated as to actually believe this utter lie.
We open the door and get out of the house once in a while.
Nation states are a historic blip which lost their full relevance some time ago.
I'm pretty sure the Chrysanthemum Throne Ambassador wasn't lying at the dinner party last week.
Pretty much every country MS named is a shithole. In fact, we get a lot of immigrants from these countries, so the whole obviously not everyone in those countries is on board with the nationalism thing.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2015, 11:27:33 AM
Some people in the West feel guilty over their privileges, so they want to give them away.
I feel zero guilt. All I did was be born here.
I am just talking about a modern world with easy means of movement of peoples, economy, and ideas. I don't really see how nation states are going to survive that. Or really what purpose they serve.
QuoteEffectively a unilateral declaration of independence, the resolution has already been condemned by the non-secessionist Catalan parties as a coup d'etat.
:huh:
Quote from: Alcibiades on October 28, 2015, 11:04:05 PM
QuoteEffectively a unilateral declaration of independence, the resolution has already been condemned by the non-secessionist Catalan parties as a coup d'etat.
:huh:
What? :unsure: They are seizing control of the government.
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 28, 2015, 08:41:59 AM
I've seen Valmy say this nonsense in other threads and wonder how do you people get so indoctrinated as to actually believe this utter lie.
Quote from: celedhring
Nation states are a lie and hopefully in time they will become a thing of the past.
Nope. No significant migration from other countres comes to Korea. Muss less refugees (the odd North Korean, being Korean, do not count. And most of those went to China)
Nothing else.
Maybe because the wealthiest and most powerful western state is the USA, and it is not a nation state.
There's a small but growing influx of foreigners here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#Ethnic_groups
Anyways, Nation States are social constructs, they're not an immutable truth of the universe.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2015, 11:48:52 PM
Mabe because the wealthiest and most powerful western state is the USA, and it is not a nation state.
:huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2015, 11:54:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2015, 11:48:52 PM
Mabe because the wealthiest and most powerful western state is the USA, and it is not a nation state.
:huh:
Are you ragging on my typos or are you claiming the US is a nation state?
The second. The term nation state does not require the state to be ethnically based.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2015, 12:02:57 AM
The second. The term nation state does not require the state to be ethnically based.
:huh: That's specifically what the term nation, in nation state refers to.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 01:10:08 PM
Pretty much every country MS named is a shithole. In fact, we get a lot of immigrants from these countries, so the whole obviously not everyone in those countries is on board with the nationalism thing.
Many immigrants are very nationalist about the countries they come from. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 29, 2015, 12:11:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2015, 12:02:57 AM
The second. The term nation state does not require the state to be ethnically based.
:huh: That's specifically what the term nation, in nation state refers to.
A nation is a group of people sharing the same culture (usually, it goes with language too, since it's the basis for culture) living in the same area:
A nation, by comparison, is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[2]From Wikipedia.
Unless you want to prove that the US States have no cultural-political ties and are not conscious of their autonomy&unity, it is hard to imagine the US not being a nation.
Also:
According to Ford's National Question: "a nation is not a racial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29) or tribal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe), but a historically constituted community (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community) of people;" "a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conglomeration), but a stable community of people"; "a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_communication), as a result of people living together generation after generation"; and, in its entirety: "a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture)."
The United States of America are a nation, but Europe is not nation. Europe may become a nation, eventually, but it ain't there yet.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2015, 12:02:57 AM
The second. The term nation state does not require the state to be ethnically based.
Ok then if it doesn't then please provide me with a term that does so we can discuss the same thing.
I was told that a 'nation' was a political expression of an ethnic group in this context.
Its irrelevant. If nation states start to fade, there will be another mobilisation-mechanic to manipulate the masses with. Just like how nationalism came forward when the cohesive force of religion started to fade.
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2015, 08:45:38 AM
Its irrelevant. If nation states start to fade, there will be another mobilisation-mechanic to manipulate the masses with. Just like how nationalism came forward when the cohesive force of religion started to fade.
Yes. What is your point?
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2015, 08:48:41 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2015, 08:45:38 AM
Its irrelevant. If nation states start to fade, there will be another mobilisation-mechanic to manipulate the masses with. Just like how nationalism came forward when the cohesive force of religion started to fade.
Yes. What is your point?
My point is, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on October 29, 2015, 01:23:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 01:10:08 PM
Pretty much every country MS named is a shithole. In fact, we get a lot of immigrants from these countries, so the whole obviously not everyone in those countries is on board with the nationalism thing.
Many immigrants are very nationalist about the countries they come from. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
Cause they left their nations. In the US we've had lots of people who left their nations and then waged war on them.
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2015, 08:45:38 AM
Its irrelevant. If nation states start to fade, there will be another mobilisation-mechanic to manipulate the masses with. Just like how nationalism came forward when the cohesive force of religion started to fade.
May I suggest message-board patriotism? ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2015, 09:07:39 AM
May I suggest message-board patriotism? ;)
QuoteLet 'em all go to hell, except Cave 76!
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2015, 09:17:39 AM
QuoteLet 'em all go to hell, except Cave 76!
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2015, 09:07:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2015, 08:45:38 AM
Its irrelevant. If nation states start to fade, there will be another mobilisation-mechanic to manipulate the masses with. Just like how nationalism came forward when the cohesive force of religion started to fade.
May I suggest message-board patriotism? ;)
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2015, 09:07:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2015, 08:45:38 AM
Its irrelevant. If nation states start to fade, there will be another mobilisation-mechanic to manipulate the masses with. Just like how nationalism came forward when the cohesive force of religion started to fade.
May I suggest message-board patriotism? ;)
Languish needs a national anthem.
Quote from: celedhring on October 30, 2015, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2015, 09:07:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2015, 08:45:38 AM
Its irrelevant. If nation states start to fade, there will be another mobilisation-mechanic to manipulate the masses with. Just like how nationalism came forward when the cohesive force of religion started to fade.
May I suggest message-board patriotism? ;)
Languish needs a national anthem.
"Fish Heads" by Barnes and Barnes.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2015, 08:39:51 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2015, 12:02:57 AM
The second. The term nation state does not require the state to be ethnically based.
Ok then if it doesn't then please provide me with a term that does so we can discuss the same thing.
I was told that a 'nation' was a political expression of an ethnic group in this context.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
When I was a history student, studying 19th century history, that was the terminology we used. So when I say 'nation' or 'nationalism' I am talking about the political expression of an ethnic group. If there is another word you people want me to use just tell me what it is.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2015, 10:00:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2015, 08:39:51 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2015, 12:02:57 AM
The second. The term nation state does not require the state to be ethnically based.
Ok then if it doesn't then please provide me with a term that does so we can discuss the same thing.
I was told that a 'nation' was a political expression of an ethnic group in this context.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation)
Unlike Canada we are not intimidated by the pre-modern doctrine of using the French language espoused by the terrorist FLQ so take your goddamn pig Latin elsewhere.
I thought Catalan was a Euro game with no panzers. :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2015, 10:04:58 AM
When I was a history student, studying 19th century history, that was the terminology we used. So when I say 'nation' or 'nationalism' I am talking about the political expression of an ethnic group. If there is another word you people want me to use just tell me what it is.
That's the German vision of nation, before self-loathing and self-flagellation became the norm. There is another one by Renan, one you ought to know, as a Francophile:
QuoteDefinition of nationhood[edit]
Renan's definition of a nation has been extremely influential. This was given in his 1882 discourse Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? ("What is a Nation?"). Whereas German writers like Fichte had defined the nation by objective criteria such as a race or an ethnic group "sharing common characteristics" (language, etc.), Renan defined it by the desire of a people to live together, which he summarized by a famous phrase, "avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore" (having done great things together and wishing to do more). Writing in the midst of the dispute concerning the Alsace-Lorraine region, he declared that the existence of a nation was based on a "daily plebiscite." Some authors criticize that definition, based on a "daily plebiscite", because of the ambiguity of the concept. They argue that this definition is an idealization and it should be interpreted within the German tradition and not in opposition to it. They say that the arguments used by Renan at the conference What is a Nation? are not consistent with his thinking.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan#Definition_of_nationhood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan#Definition_of_nationhood)
More detailed in French wikipedia
QuoteDans cette conférence prononcée le 11 mars 1882, Renan se positionne contre une vision allemande de la nation, dans le contexte de la défaite de 1870 et de l'annexion par l'Empire allemand de l'Alsace-Lorraine. Il formule l'idée qu'une nation repose à la fois sur un héritage passé, qu'il s'agit d'honorer, et sur la volonté présente de le perpétuer.
« Une nation est une âme, un principe spirituel. Deux choses qui, à vrai dire, n'en font qu'une, constituent cette âme, ce principe spirituel. L'une est dans le passé, l'autre dans le présent. L'une est la possession en commun d'un riche legs de souvenirs ; l'autre est le consentement actuel, le désir de vivre ensemble, la volonté de continuer à faire valoir l'héritage qu'on a reçu indivis. »
Ce texte est devenu l'emblème d'une conception française de la nation, basée sur la volonté d'une population de former une nation, par opposition à une conception allemande contemporaine censée être beaucoup plus essentialiste (fondée sur la culture, la langue, la religion comme la race).
« L'homme n'est esclave ni de sa race, ni de sa langue, ni de sa religion, ni du cours des fleuves, ni de la direction des chaînes de montagnes. Une grande agrégation d'hommes, saine d'esprit et chaude de cœur, crée une conscience morale qui s'appelle une nation. »
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%27est-ce_qu%27une_nation_%3F (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%27est-ce_qu%27une_nation_%3F)
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2015, 09:58:36 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 30, 2015, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2015, 09:07:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2015, 08:45:38 AM
Its irrelevant. If nation states start to fade, there will be another mobilisation-mechanic to manipulate the masses with. Just like how nationalism came forward when the cohesive force of religion started to fade.
May I suggest message-board patriotism? ;)
Languish needs a national anthem.
"Fish Heads" by Barnes and Barnes.
Ahem.
Frank Carter & The Rattlesnakes - I Hate You
Quote
You are nothing
You are nothing to me
You're a useless fucking cunt
You are nothing to me
I don't ever wanna feel like anything I do
Ever had a fucking resonance or meant a thing to you
I fucking hate you
Yeah I hate you
[Chorus]
And I wish you would die
It makes me violently angry when I see you alive
You're a fucking mistake, You're an embarresmant mate
You think you're funny and you're clever but you're just a disgrace
I wanna hit you with the force of an asteroid from space
I wanna fall out of the sky right into your stupid face
I wanna smash you like extinction as if you life was just a waste
I wanna be a fucking dagger right between your shoulder blades
I fucking hate you
Oh I hate you
[Chorus]
I hate you
And I wish you would die [x3]
I fucking hate you
[Chorus]
I fucking hate you
I hate you
I fucking hate you
I fucking hate you
Yes I do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EqtY_VbD8I
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2015, 04:44:48 AM
I symphatise with the Catalans. They basically finance Spain, while not being Spanish.
Gotta love tribalism. :rolleyes:
And the US is quite clearly not a nation state - it is the classic counter-example whenever nation states are discussed. Nation state is a state created specifically for a given nation - the US "nation" was created by the state, not the vice-versa.
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 01:15:48 PM
And the US is quite clearly not a nation state - it is the classic counter-example whenever nation states are discussed. Nation state is a state created specifically for a given nation - the US "nation" was created by the state, not the vice-versa.
I'm pretty sure the Americans felt different than the other British when they decided to go for independance. By 1775, the felt they were Americans, not just British colonists. They felt entitles to certain rights, first as British subjects, yes, but eventually as Americans.
But of course, nationhood is not a on/off switch. It's built over the years, some events triggers it, then it grows up or disapears.
Quote from: viper37 on November 01, 2015, 01:32:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 01:15:48 PM
And the US is quite clearly not a nation state - it is the classic counter-example whenever nation states are discussed. Nation state is a state created specifically for a given nation - the US "nation" was created by the state, not the vice-versa.
I'm pretty sure the Americans felt different than the other British when they decided to go for independance. By 1775, the felt they were Americans, not just British colonists. They felt entitles to certain rights, first as British subjects, yes, but eventually as Americans.
But of course, nationhood is not a on/off switch. It's built over the years, some events triggers it, then it grows up or disapears.
Has nationalism really played any material role during the American revolution? I thought it was mainly about political representation (or lack thereof).
Americans didn't think of themselves as Americans at this time. They thought of themselves as British Virginians, British New Yorker, British Pennsylvanians etc. The idea of an American nation was cultivated by people like Ben Franklin for political expediency. What they were really interested in was political change.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2015, 05:57:45 AM
Americans didn't think of themselves as Americans at this time. They thought of themselves as British Virginians, British New Yorker, British Pennsylvanians etc. The idea of an American nation was cultivated by people like Ben Franklin for political expediency. What they were really interested in was political change.
My thoughts exactly. So America clearly wasnt created as a nation state.
Then again you could arguably say the same about the French revolution as well. The whole concept of a nation state wasn't really defined before the late 18th century anyway.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2015, 05:57:45 AM
Americans didn't think of themselves as Americans at this time. They thought of themselves as British Virginians, British New Yorker, British Pennsylvanians etc. The idea of an American nation was cultivated by people like Ben Franklin for political expediency. What they were really interested in was political change.
that doest not change anything. They felt they were no longer British. Were they tribal? Were Franklin, Washington and others tribal leaders?
Quote from: PJL on November 02, 2015, 06:20:43 AM
Then again you could arguably say the same about the French revolution as well. The whole concept of a nation state wasn't really defined before the late 18th century anyway.
Building the French nation was definitely about banging down square pegs into round holes.
I would suggest, viper, that you would do better not to project your hang ups onto other people and times.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 08:52:30 AM
that doest not change anything. They felt they were no longer British.
I am glad you are confident enough with American History to make conclusive and sweeping pronouncements on very controversial topics.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2015, 09:03:16 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 08:52:30 AM
that doest not change anything. They felt they were no longer British.
I am glad you are confident enough with American History to make conclusive and sweeping pronouncements on very controversial topics.
You can trace the source of American independance in the 7 years wars as Americans felt more&more disenfranchised. As time evolved, there was this feeling that they were no longer British and by the time of the declaration of independance, that was a given they would never go back willingly into the British Empire. That they felt Virginian and New Yorkers instead of American is irrelevant. Most Québécois felt they were Canadian long before we became Québécois. The feeling is the same, the description evolves over time: there is us, there is the other. That a country represents 300 000 000 people or 3 million people does not make it any less of a State or a nation. There's probably not much cultural differences between a Norvegian and Swede, yet, they are now two seperate countries. Would you argue there is only one scandinavian nation and insisting on seperate borders is a form of tribalism? Bigger is better?
As I said before, it's not a on/off switch like you seem to think. These feelings evolve over time, usually due to problems with the central authority.
If we look at the state of affaires today, not many Canadians would willingly join America, despite having close cultural ties (they watch the same tv shows, the same movie, they have the same language (albeit with local dialects), they eat the same food, they dress the same). Americans would never willingly submit to another country's authority. Heck, most Repulicans can't even stand the UN and if there ever was a UN resolution condemning the US on anything it would be ignored by any party holding the government.
I don't see how that is different from any nationalist movement anywhere in the world. People feel different and they believe they are better at taking care of their things than others who favour another group over them. Don't blame the nationalists, blame the central authority.
To reuse the example of the American Revolution, if you go back to the 7 years wars, the Americans weren't too kean on fighting another British war. Only when Pitt started treating them like allies instead of colonials subject to British rule as they see fit did the people rally the army to fight against the French. Had the British continued to treat Americans like that and gave them autonomy, the colonies would likely have evolved into another Canada, probably faster due to the number of people, but still subject to British rule, with a limited independance.
Instead, there were people like you and Marti in power who tought all these calls for autonomy were a traitor's way and only the central authority would decide what was good or not. So, eventually, rebellion broke out. History being written by the victors, these independantists are the good guys. Every other is a bad guy. That's just silly.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 11:48:01 AM
You can trace the source of American independance in the 7 years wars as Americans felt more&more disenfranchised.
Yes but in a very British way. We demanded to be taken seriously as British subjects and went on babbling about the British Constitution and defending our British liberties many months after we started shooting each other. Many of us decided they still were British and moved to Canada afterwards. It was really similar to what the English had done in the English Civil War.
QuoteTo reuse the example of the American Revolution, if you go back to the 7 years wars, the Americans weren't too kean on fighting another British war. Only when Pitt started treating them like allies instead of colonials subject to British rule as they see fit did the people rally the army to fight against the French.
Only when Pitt went along with our interpretation of the British Constitution rather than Parliament's interpretation. But again we had 'virtual' representation and that was not going to fly for proud British subjects. But I don't see how this is relevant to anything going on today. Pitt was a huge supporter of us to the end Godbless him. And then we named a terrible place like Pittsburgh after him. That is gratitude for you.
QuoteInstead, there were people like you and Marti in power who tought all these calls for autonomy were a traitor's way and only the central authority would decide what was good or not.
Huh. Are you ignoring everything I have said on this topic on purpose? And in any case it is not nearly as simple as this caricature.
Besides there were not 'calls for autonomy'. The colonies being autonomous was how it had always been done for over 100 years. Rocking the status quo with radical redefinitions of a political relationship is rarely going to go over well.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 08:52:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2015, 05:57:45 AM
Americans didn't think of themselves as Americans at this time. They thought of themselves as British Virginians, British New Yorker, British Pennsylvanians etc. The idea of an American nation was cultivated by people like Ben Franklin for political expediency. What they were really interested in was political change.
that doest not change anything. They felt they were no longer British. Were they tribal? Were Franklin, Washington and others tribal leaders?
No, they felt quite British. They felt
neglected. For both Washington and Franklin there was a personal element. As a young man Washington wanted a commission in the army that was denied to him and Franklin had been humiliated before the Kings Court. During the war and and in the aftermath Americans really didn't know what to think of themselves as. Most didn't think of themselves as Americans. It took a long time for a new identity to form. And it's never been very rigid; what an American is has always been hazy. That's probably why we integrate immigrants so well in this country. They change to become more like us, and we change to become a bit more like them. Of all the examples of nationalism you picked one of the worst.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2015, 11:55:35 AM
Yes but in a very British way. We demanded to be taken seriously as British subjects and went on babbling about the British Constitution and defending our British liberties many months after we started shooting each other. Many of us decided they still were British and moved to Canada afterwards. It was really similar to what the English had done in the English Civil War.
Only when Pitt went along with our interpretation of the British Constitution rather than Parliament's interpretation. But again we had 'virtual' representation and that was not going to fly for proud British subjects. But I don't see how this is relevant to anything going on today. Pitt was a huge supporter of us to the end Godbless him. And then we named a terrible place like Pittsburgh after him. That is gratitude for you.
If only George III hadn't sacked him, he had plans to give the colonies representation and expidite the settlement of the Ohio valley by using the army against the natives. This would have ensured the revolution would never have taken place as the political and economic desires of the colonial elite would have been satisfied. I blame cricket for killing Prince Frederick. :mad:
Oh, there would eventually be a revolution. The needs of Britain and the needs of her colony in North America were pulling them apart. The growing disgust over slavery in England and the American reliance on it could have fractured it, or the different attitudes toward Indian policy, or Britain's need for captive markets or the growing Catholic and Irish population in North America or the simple inability to transport enough British soldiers to hold down a rebellion. The American colonies had simply grown to large to hold.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2015, 11:55:35 AM
Yes but in a very British way. We demanded to be taken seriously as British subjects and went on babbling about the British Constitution and defending our British liberties many months after we started shooting each other. Many of us decided they still were British and moved to Canada afterwards. It was really similar to what the English had done in the English Civil War.
Yeah, well, of course that moved to Canada did not feel they were Americans. I suspect you would see such an exodus everywhere there is independance from a larger country. I'm sure there were Tunisians & Algerians who felt more French than anything else and moved back to the mainland and many others stayed, even if not arabs.
The moment Americans and British started shooting each another, especially as there were many German soldiers, technically part of the larger British Empire, it was impossible for the Colonials to simply lay down their arms and agree to peace talks that did not involve complete independance. Not that the British would have agreed to that early in the war any way. But that is my point, that the fault lies in the central government, not in those for which the idea of independance was born.
Quote
Only when Pitt went along with our interpretation of the British Constitution rather than Parliament's interpretation. But again we had 'virtual' representation and that was not going to fly for proud British subjects. But I don't see how this is relevant to anything going on today. Pitt was a huge supporter of us to the end Godbless him. And then we named a terrible place like Pittsburgh after him. That is gratitude for you.
Basically, the Americans felt they were different than other British subjects and subject to special rules voted by their Parliament rather than the British parliament. All other colonies were governed the same ways, including Canada, pre-loyalist exodus.
In Great Britain proper, only 3% of the population had the right to vote at the time, compared to 10-20% in the colonies
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation )
Although the colonials based their demands on the British Constitution, namely the Magna Carta, there were no such provision for the people to rule themselves.
And by 1774, the Americans pretty much disregarded anything from London, including the Quebec acts. Had they still felt themselves British, they would have obeyed the law and accepted the provisions it contained for the French population of Canada.
Quote
Huh. Are you ignoring everything I have said on this topic on purpose? And in any case it is not nearly as simple as this caricature.
Nothing is simple, yes. I did not ignore your argument that a parliamentary vote has little legitimacy to declare independance.
But there are many historical examples where a referendum was never required.
I believe a referendum, today, in the 21st century, is the best and most legitimate way to achieve independance, but it is not the only way.
And I also believe that independance movement are created by the attitude of the central government, not the other way around. When you treat people with respect, they don't rebel. When you disregard them, when you insist there's only one culture, yours, eventually, if enough people in a defined territory feel different, there is a call for independance or revolution, depending on the severity of the situation.
By your very strict position of who's allowed to declare independance, pretty much only the Kurds would be allowed to secede from Turkey and Syria, and only after a valid referendum... That puts the bar pretty high.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2015, 06:14:47 PM
Oh, there would eventually be a revolution. The needs of Britain and the needs of her colony in North America were pulling them apart. The growing disgust over slavery in England and the American reliance on it could have fractured it, or the different attitudes toward Indian policy, or Britain's need for captive markets or the growing Catholic and Irish population in North America or the simple inability to transport enough British soldiers to hold down a rebellion. The American colonies had simply grown to large to hold.
as the Southern War of Independance has proven ;) , European powers would have been very reluctant to side with a pro-slavery state. Had England abolished slavery and some of the colonies declared their independance, they would have had no support from France, Spain or any other country and would have been left to fend for themselves against a majority of northern loyalists + Great Britain.
But that is total fiction.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2015, 12:01:49 PM
Besides there were not 'calls for autonomy'. The colonies being autonomous was how it had always been done for over 100 years.
Were there significant difference between colonial law and England law? What was forbidden in England bu legal in America and vice-versa?
EDIT:
Never mind, this deserve its own thread.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 06:23:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2015, 06:14:47 PM
Oh, there would eventually be a revolution. The needs of Britain and the needs of her colony in North America were pulling them apart. The growing disgust over slavery in England and the American reliance on it could have fractured it, or the different attitudes toward Indian policy, or Britain's need for captive markets or the growing Catholic and Irish population in North America or the simple inability to transport enough British soldiers to hold down a rebellion. The American colonies had simply grown to large to hold.
as the Southern War of Independance has proven ;) , European powers would have been very reluctant to side with a pro-slavery state. Had England abolished slavery and some of the colonies declared their independance, they would have had no support from France, Spain or any other country and would have been left to fend for themselves against a majority of northern loyalists + Great Britain.
But that is total fiction.
What the hell are you talking about? Britain abolished slavery before Spain and France and shut down the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in the decline of slavery in the Americas. I'm confused as to what your point is or what you are even on about.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2015, 06:14:47 PM
Oh, there would eventually be a revolution. The needs of Britain and the needs of her colony in North America were pulling them apart. The growing disgust over slavery in England and the American reliance on it could have fractured it, or the different attitudes toward Indian policy, or Britain's need for captive markets or the growing Catholic and Irish population in North America or the simple inability to transport enough British soldiers to hold down a rebellion. The American colonies had simply grown to large to hold.
If the Southern colonies had revolted over slavery in the 19th century the British and the Northern colonies would have put them down and the American independence movement would have been premantly discredited.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2015, 06:29:06 PM
What the hell are you talking about? Britain abolished slavery before Spain and France and shut down the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in the decline of slavery in the Americas. I'm confused as to what your point is or what you are even on about.
We're talking an hypothetical scenario where the American Revolution is pushed back much later, and the split is done on slavery, not taxation.
Slaves were declared free on French soil as soon as 1315. Officially it was abolished in 1794, reinstated by Napoleon for the colonies, but he had plans to reabolish it after Waterloo. 1818 is when slave trade is abolished, then gradually slavery is abolished in all colonies until the end of the 19th century. It wasn't until 1833 that Great Britain abolished slavery, and only for direct posession of the crown, meaning the East India company was still free to use slavery.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 06:47:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2015, 06:29:06 PM
What the hell are you talking about? Britain abolished slavery before Spain and France and shut down the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in the decline of slavery in the Americas. I'm confused as to what your point is or what you are even on about.
We're talking an hypothetical scenario where the American Revolution is pushed back much later, and the split is done on slavery, not taxation.
Slaves were declared free on French soil as soon as 1315. Officially it was abolished in 1794, reinstated by Napoleon for the colonies, but he had plans to reabolish it after Waterloo. 1818 is when slave trade is abolished, then gradually slavery is abolished in all colonies until the end of the 19th century. It wasn't until 1833 that Great Britain abolished slavery, and only for direct posession of the crown, meaning the East India company was still free to use slavery.
If they still owned the American colonies that late they would have had some form of political representation in parliament, and significant economic influence. Such a decision would have been pushed back some time.
I don't want to get in a debate about alternate history, we have enough nonsense with your separatism and you telling us about American history, we don't need more stupid shit.
I'm sorry Raz. I was unaware someone was forcing you to read threads you have no interests in. It must suck to be you, being held at gunpoint like that, forced to read stuff you don't like :(
I wrote a more in-depth response, but ran into a problem. I'm not sure if there is a fundamental difference between the type of alternative history where you claim nationalism started the American Revolution and the kind where you create a scenario where the American Revolution occurs in the 19th century instead of the 18th.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 06:18:54 PM
Yeah, well, of course that moved to Canada did not feel they were Americans. I suspect you would see such an exodus everywhere there is independance from a larger country. I'm sure there were Tunisians & Algerians who felt more French than anything else and moved back to the mainland and many others stayed, even if not arabs.
Well if they felt they were not "Americans" or "Colonists" or whatever they just would have returned to Great Britain.
QuoteThe moment Americans and British started shooting each another, especially as there were many German soldiers, technically part of the larger British Empire, it was impossible for the Colonials to simply lay down their arms and agree to peace talks that did not involve complete independence.
False. See 'Olive Branch Petition'. By the way many Germans fought on the American side as well. I think the Germans referred to Yorktown as the German battle since huge percentages of all three armies were Germans.
QuoteNot that the British would have agreed to that early in the war any way. But that is my point, that the fault lies in the central government, not in those for which the idea of independence was born.
I am not sure what 'fault' means in this case but I believe I already covered this earlier. A justifiable revolutionary action like this requires abuses on the part of the rulers, ones that cannot be solved peacefully. And the American Revolution is, IMO, just that sort of situation.
Quote
Basically, the Americans felt they were different than other British subjects and subject to special rules voted by their Parliament rather than the British parliament.
No they felt they were the same as other British Subjects and entitled to representation. Also, as I said, there was over 100 years of precedent that said that was how British Colonies worked and you know how British people are about precedent.
QuoteIn Great Britain proper, only 3% of the population had the right to vote at the time, compared to 10-20% in the colonies
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation )
While I am not familiar with the specific franchise rules in each colony this might just be because a much higher percentage of Americans were land owners. The Brits back in blighty lacked Native Americans to steal land from.
QuoteAlthough the colonials based their demands on the British Constitution, namely the Magna Carta, there were no such provision for the people to rule themselves.
Ah but you forget that most of the colonies were set up during the era of the English Revolution/Civil War which was all about taxation having to be approved by consent of the governed.
QuoteAnd by 1774, the Americans pretty much disregarded anything from London, including the Quebec acts. Had they still felt themselves British, they would have obeyed the law and accepted the provisions it contained for the French population of Canada.
Which Americans? There were pretty much 14 different responses and 14 different policies.
Quote
Nothing is simple, yes. I did not ignore your argument that a parliamentary vote has little legitimacy to declare independance.
I do not think I ever addressed parliamentary votes at all.
QuoteBut there are many historical examples where a referendum was never required.
And?
QuoteI believe a referendum, today, in the 21st century, is the best and most legitimate way to achieve independance, but it is not the only way.
And I also believe that independance movement are created by the attitude of the central government, not the other way around. When you treat people with respect, they don't rebel. When you disregard them, when you insist there's only one culture, yours, eventually, if enough people in a defined territory feel different, there is a call for independance or revolution, depending on the severity of the situation.
If all that is required then each time a region is on the short end of election they can threaten independence to get their way and intimidate the majority into giving them concessions. You just cannot run a democracy or government like that.
QuoteBy your very strict position of who's allowed to declare independance, pretty much only the Kurds would be allowed to secede from Turkey and Syria, and only after a valid referendum... That puts the bar pretty high.
My position is neither strict nor does it require a valid referendum. My position is it requires both a demonstration of overwhelming popular support and a valid grievance. So, for example, 100% of the South Carolina Legislature voted to secede from the Union in December of 1860. A clear demonstration of overwhelming popular support. But their grievance, that their right to keep slaves was being endangered, is not sufficient a grievance for me to consider that a valid cause for independence.
But in most situations where it makes sense to break off and form a new country you probably lack the ability to hold a valid referendum so that would be a pretty ridiculous requirement. I mean if a central authority is enabling you to hold free fair elections on things like that then I would question the entire justification for thinking your rights were being abused. I mean during the Scottish referendum, the pro-independence people were attacking the Tories implying that one should vote yes because of party politics rather than outrages and abuses.
Your problem is in Quebec or in Catalonia there exists neither a valid threat to human rights nor an overwhelming popular support so you reduce it to 'feelings' and the absurd idea that if an independence movement exists at all it is always 100% due to abuses by a central government. This is ridiculous, the slave owners who controlled the press in the American South twisted even conciliatory speeches by dough faced northerners into calls for the enslavement of the South. Nationalists can spin and twist and create discord without any actual abuses. Merely things that are not entirely in a province's best interests might be spun as such.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2015, 09:40:55 PM
Well if they felt they were not "Americans" or "Colonists" or whatever they just would have returned to Great Britain.
Choice #1: Get to Great Britain. Start from scratch, buy your own house or farm after you lost everything. Plus, you get a month long boat trip.
Choice #2: 2 days boat trip. Get to Nova Scotia, Eastern Townships or Upper Canada. Get free land, the natives and the pesky French Catholic have been deported a few years earlier. Get monetary compensation for your property lost while you were loyal to the crown. Get to be with other people thinking just like you.
I can't see why I would chose #1. Some certainly did, but they had positions waiting for them over in the UK.
Quote
False. See 'Olive Branch Petition'.
However, the petition was followed by the July 6 Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, making its success in London improbableFrom what I remember of that, and Wiki seems to confirm my memory, it was an attempt by a few delegates to avoid a full blown confrontation with the British, but most weren't serious about it, and the fact that the other declaration of July 6th was passed even before the first one reached London makes the attempt dubious in its sincerity. Maybe Adams&co where stuck in the bathroom while the first one was voted ;)
Quote
By the way many Germans fought on the American side as well. I think the Germans referred to Yorktown as the German battle since huge percentages of all three armies were Germans.
Well, the Hessian troops (technically, only half of the Germans) represented 25% of all British troops during the Revolution. I'd say that's pretty big. And American propaganda did portray them as strangers (technically true) to this conflict.
Quote
And the American Revolution is, IMO, just that sort of situation.
Because you were victorious. The same sort of abuse, even worst, happenned in England, Ireland, Scotland, Quebec, India, all over British territories. Only the 13 colonies rebelled. The Canadians did not follow, the Yankee settlers of Nova Scotia did not follow, the Newfoundlanders did not follow, half of the Iroquois did not follow, people from the Bahamas and other British posession did not rebel.
And there is this part:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies#Government
QuoteThe Royal government in London after 1680 took an increasing interest in the affairs of the colonies—which were growing rapidly in population and wealth so as to rival the homeland. In 1680, only Virginia was a royal colony; by 1720 half were under the control of Royal governors. These governors were appointees closely tied to the government in London. Historians before the 1880s emphasized American nationalism. However Intellectual leadership after that was held by the "Imperial school" led by Herbert L. Osgood, George Louis Beer, Charles McLean Andrews, and Lawrence H. Gipson. They dominated colonial historiography into the 1940s. They emphasized, and often praised, the attention London gave to all the colonies. There was never a threat (before the 1770s) that any colony would revolt or seek independence.[10]
Quote
No they felt they were the same as other British Subjects and entitled to representation. Also, as I said, there was over 100 years of precedent that said that was how British Colonies worked and you know how British people are about precedent.
The British were very invested in their colonies, and I've already demonstrated that most other British did not enjoy the priviledges Americans were asking in the names of their british rights.
Quote
While I am not familiar with the specific franchise rules in each colony this might just be because a much higher percentage of Americans were land owners. The Brits back in blighty lacked Native Americans to steal land from.
The vast majority of whitemen were eligible to vote in America.
Quote
Ah but you forget that most of the colonies were set up during the era of the English Revolution/Civil War which was all about taxation having to be approved by consent of the governed.
Yeah, I'm not too strong on British history. Not even sure what Cromwell really changed. Most people who talk about British history emphasize the Magna Carta but seem to pass over Cromwell revoltion. or maybe it's just a Canadian thing, rebelling against the King and such.
Quote
Which Americans? There were pretty much 14 different responses and 14 different policies.
I don't know which Americans, I wasn't there, so I couldn't tell you which one of your ancestors thought it was a bad thing for Catholic french speakers to hold any kind of position in a government ;) But seeing as the Quebec act was considered an intolerable act, there must have been something there.
Quote
I do not think I ever addressed parliamentary votes at all.
In the other thread, you were opposed to a declaration of independance by the parliament, the way the Catalan government wants to do it.
Quote
And?
It's not a prerequisite or a necessity, although the preferred way according to me, for whatever it is worth.
Quote
If all that is required then each time a region is on the short end of election they can threaten independence to get their way and intimidate the majority into giving them concessions. You just cannot run a democracy or government like that.
Then the other way is to crush the minority?
Quote
My position is neither strict nor does it require a valid referendum. My position is it requires both a demonstration of overwhelming popular support and a valid grievance. So, for example, 100% of the South Carolina Legislature voted to secede from the Union in December of 1860. A clear demonstration of overwhelming popular support. But their grievance, that their right to keep slaves was being endangered, is not sufficient a grievance for me to consider that a valid cause for independence.
the problem is you pose yourself as an external observer to determine what is a valid grievance. I do not live in Catalonia. I have no rights to vote there, or to tell them what option is the best. My position is the same as for Scotland: the people will decide by themselves if they have valid grievances or not. All I can says is any promise of decentralization by the Federal government during an independance campaign is a lie, like it was in Canada, like it was in the UK.
Quote
But in most situations where it makes sense to break off and form a new country you probably lack the ability to hold a valid referendum so that would be a pretty ridiculous requirement. I mean if a central authority is enabling you to hold free fair elections on things like that then I would question the entire justification for thinking your rights were being abused.
Now, by your own admission, you say the the kind of abuse you require for there being a real reason, in your eyes, to declare independance, would not allow for a democratic process to take place for achieving independance, leaving only one option, outright rebellion.
So, basically, what you need to achieve independance is get right to the point where there will one slaughter to many. Take the Syrian revolution. Not an independance fight, but a revolution to change the government, it is not identical, but similar to the situations you describe. For years, the government has abused its population, executed citizens, tortured them, probably repressed a rebellion or two in a blood bath.
At the right moment, there was a peaceful protest (though Assad's supporters maintain the rebels fired first, the protest was not all peaceful), like there were others in many other Arab countries. The repression was brutal and violent. As it is in Saudi Arabia with any kind of protest, is it was in Bahrein during the Arab spring.
I am likely to think that these people felt oppressed by their government. If I look at this map here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#/media/File:Arab_Spring_and_Regional_Conflict_Map.svg
I see a lot of protest in many countries. But only minor protests in Saudi Arabia. According to you, since there is no popular support for changes in Saudi Arabia, it would mean their rights are not oppressed at all. Am I correct?
See, I believe you put the bar way too high with only one solution possible, rebellion, and it takes *a lot* and I mean *a lot* of abuse to push a people toward rebellion and even then, you need extraordinary timing.
I, on the contrary, believe in democracy. If part of a State wishes to secede, then by all rights, it should have this right. Otherwise, you are creating an abuse, just as the European colonial powers fighting to keep their empires.
Quote
Your problem is in Quebec or in Catalonia there exists neither a valid threat to human rights nor an overwhelming popular support so you reduce it to 'feelings' and the absurd idea that if an independence movement exists at all it is always 100% due to abuses by a central government.
Not 100%, but at least 50%+1 ;)
QuoteThis is ridiculous, the slave owners who controlled the press in the American South twisted even conciliatory speeches by dough faced northerners into calls for the enslavement of the South. Nationalists can spin and twist and create discord without any actual abuses. Merely things that are not entirely in a province's best interests might be spun as such.
There was a clear abuse for the South has you threatened their way of life and their financial security. That it was justified to be threatened because slavery was (and is) immoral is another debate, entirely.
Okay, Grumbler has a point that you need to stop using Wikipedia as your source.
The independence resolution will be voted on November 9th, exactly 1 year after the ersatz referendum the separatists organized one year ago (they have a truly odd fixation with anniversaries).
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 10:37:46 PM
Not 100%, but at least 50%+1 ;)
Well I disagree. I think creating independent nations deserves a larger standard than electing city dog catcher. So our discussion has been pretty pointless.
Quote
There was a clear abuse for the South has you threatened their way of life and their financial security. That it was justified to be threatened because slavery was (and is) immoral is another debate, entirely.
Why is it another debate entirely? This is a pretty central point. How can it be another debate entirely when it is central to the entire discussion?
It is either a clear abuse or it is not. Since a clear abuse generally needs to be a human rights violation it is pretty clear it is not.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2015, 10:37:46 PM
Because you were victorious.
Nope.
QuoteThe same sort of abuse, even worst, happenned in England, Ireland, Scotland, Quebec, India, all over British territories.
I think I am pretty consistent claiming that most of the independence declarations from the British Empire were legitimate for reasons I do not need to go into. The British could not really give them equal rights without making it no longer a British Empire. But if they had well that would have made the situation different...and weird...but also different.
QuoteOnly the 13 colonies rebelled.
Well that is obviously untrue.
But, as I said, independence is ultimately a revolutionary act. Just because there are reasons to have a revolution does not mean one will always take place.
I will note that the collapse of the Soviet Union followed roughly Valmy idea of a democratic separation. There were very legitimate reverences and a free vote. It was a bit of a rarity, but it happened. Valmy's general requirement of needing more then just a 51% majority before separation is not only reasonable, but typical of separating powers. The Confederate Constitution expressing forbid secession form the CSA. An independent Quebec would likely be the same. A state that splits over every issue simply isn't viable. I have to say, that viper's constant talk of "culture" is a bit off putting. I really get the feeling that he doesn't give a shit about what's just or legal so long as Francophone culture holds special status over other cultures in Quebec.