The Scots should be crushed with fire and sword.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-to-let-16yearolds-vote-in-bid-to-secure-independence-2368105.html
QuoteAlex Salmond to let 16-year-olds vote in bid to secure independence
By Hamish Macdonell
Monday, 10 October 2011
Sixteen year-olds are going to be allowed to vote in the referendum on Scottish independence in an attempt to maximise nationalist support for the break-up of Britain, the Scottish Government confirmed last night.
The current age limit for voting in elections is 18, and it is controlled by Westminster. But the proposed referendum on Scottish independence is being organised by the Scottish Executive and it can set the rules for every part of it, including the franchise.
Alex Salmond has made it clear that he intends to use his majority in the Scottish Parliament to drive through a new, lower voting age for the referendum because he knows that younger Scots are generally more nationalistic than their older counterparts.
The plan to extend the franchise to potentially another 125,000 voters – adding 3 per cent to the Scottish electorate – is just one of a number of schemes the SNP leadership is working on to maximise their chances in the referendum. Other moves include the decision to appoint a senior civil servant in the Scottish Government to focus on the push for independence and demands for new powers from Westminster.
Critics have complained that the SNP's record on domestic issues has been marked by a lack of ambition but this approach just appears to be part of the Nationalist strategy of doing nothing potentially divisive ahead of the independence poll. Mr Salmond wants to go into the referendum having cultivated a reputation for sensible, uncontroversial management of the economy. So far at least, that strategy appears to have been successful with polls showing a rise in support for independence – a trend Mr Salmond is sure to highlight when his party gathers for its annual conference in Inverness later this month.
A year ago, independence was supported by about 30 per cent of the population. According to the most recent polls, independence now commands the support of between 35 per cent and 39 per cent of the population, while support for the Union is down to 39 or 38 per cent. Mr Salmond is confident that small gap can be closed by the time the referendum is held – probably in late 2014 or early 2015.
A recent TNS poll actually put independence ahead by just 1 percentage point, by 39 per cent to 38 per cent. Crucially, though, it showed support for independence running at 40 per cent among 18-24 year-olds, with just 32 per cent in favour of the Union. Mr Salmond's spokesman said: "All sections of Scottish society will come together to choose Scotland's future and independence in the referendum, and it is only right that young folk – who can legally marry and join the armed forces – should have their say."
A senior UK government source confirmed Westminster could do nothing to stop the SNP lowering the franchise. He said: "If the Scottish Government brings forward legislation to hold a referendum on independence then it would be for the Scottish Government to decide on the franchise."
Voting ages worldwide
* If 16- and 17-year-olds are allowed to participate in the referendum on Scottish independence, they will be among the youngest voters in the world. Three British dependencies – Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man – reduced their voting ages to 16 between 2006 and 2008, and 16-year-olds can also go to the polls in a handful of states including Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua. A few more countries, including Indonesia, North Korea and Sudan, allow voting at 17. However, 18 remains by far the most common voting age. Young people in Malaysia, Lebanon, Oman, Singapore and Saudi Arabia are among those who wait longest for the franchise, which comes at 21.
Alex Salmond :wub:
Also he'll campaign for independence but that's unlikely so he'll be aiming for 'independence-lite' which will call for Scotland to have total fiscal autonomy and basically be in charge of everything but defence and foreign policy. I think the Lib Dems support it too, they rather historically, call it 'home rule'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 01:31:12 PM
Also he'll campaign for independence but that's unlikely so he'll be aiming for 'independence-lite' which will call for Scotland to have total fiscal autonomy
Surely that doesn't mean what I think it means? How can Scotland survive without English money?
Salmond needs the NEDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_%28Scottish%29) to win the referendum? My opinion of Scots just improved.
Quote from: Neil on October 10, 2011, 01:32:58 PM
Surely that doesn't mean what I think it means? How can Scotland survive without English money?
I think he'd still want the Barnett formula. Failing that they could raise taxes or cut spending as they saw fit and they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue, including the Chancellor's recent levy (which I think the SNP want to cancel).
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 10, 2011, 01:32:58 PM
Surely that doesn't mean what I think it means? How can Scotland survive without English money?
I think he'd still want the Barnett formula. Failing that they could raise taxes or cut spending as they saw fit and they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue, including the Chancellor's recent levy (which I think the SNP want to cancel).
So it's typical sovereigntist horseshit. They want independence, but they'll be damned if they have to give up money from the productive parts of the country as well.
I think we should pre-empt him and gain English independence first, why should we be lumbered with the Welsh and Irish?
Quote from: Neil on October 10, 2011, 01:53:08 PMSo it's typical sovereigntist horseshit. They want independence, but they'll be damned if they have to give up money from the productive parts of the country as well.
Not necessarily. I think the SNP have suggested slashing corporate tax for example. They're big on trying to compete with England by becoming more competitive rather than having to depend on the teat of Westminster which has been the Scottish Labour Party's strategy.
The SNP's models however were Ireland, Iceland and Norway. They look a bit more shaky now...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2011, 01:23:35 PM
The Scots should be crushed with fire and sword.
No. Not sword. Trident.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 02:02:51 PM
Not necessarily. I think the SNP have suggested slashing corporate tax for example. They're big on trying to compete with England by becoming more competitive rather than having to depend on the teat of Westminster which has been the Scottish Labour Party's strategy.
The SNP's models however were Ireland, Iceland and Norway. They look a bit more shaky now...
So their plan is to adopt a model that is a proven failure?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 10, 2011, 01:53:08 PMSo it's typical sovereigntist horseshit. They want independence, but they'll be damned if they have to give up money from the productive parts of the country as well.
Not necessarily. I think the SNP have suggested slashing corporate tax for example. They're big on trying to compete with England by becoming more competitive rather than having to depend on the teat of Westminster which has been the Scottish Labour Party's strategy.
The SNP's models however were Ireland, Iceland and Norway. They look a bit more shaky now...
Britain's model for how to deal with the SNP should be Culloden Moor.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue
Suddenly everything makes more sense.
How much of a hole would that blow in the UK's finances if they got that?
While the legal voting age is, after all, set at an arbitrary limit, it's really dodgy and a pretty distasteful to manipulate the franchise with an eye towards getting a particular voting result. Much worse than the gerrymandering that some of the Euros were giving us about in a recent thread.
Why would people want to vote for this?
It is crystal clear this dude wants power.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue
Suddenly everything makes more sense.
How much of a hole would that blow in the UK's finances if they got that?
And this is exactly why secession from a liberal democracy should never be allowed, and should be laughed off as a serious idea when broached and met with force if need be. Secession in such a state has exactly zero philosophical underpinnings and is simply one segment of British nation seeking to profit at the expense of the whole. It's a monstrous ideology, essentially a form of geopolitical anarchy and taken to its absurd conclusions any pissant political unit, down to an individual, could secede from a nation at will when it was no longer immediately advantageous to remain. It is the end of Western civilization, and those who hold to it should be destroyed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue
Suddenly everything makes more sense.
Yeah, but good luck with that, Scots. The British are no more likely to let an independent Scotland have all the oil money than they are to divide among the top 150 posters on Languish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue
Suddenly everything makes more sense.
How much of a hole would that blow in the UK's finances if they got that?
Why would the Scots be entitled to it? I thought the fields were way out in the North Sea not in Scottish territorial waters.
Coming soon: North Venezuela.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2011, 03:38:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue
Suddenly everything makes more sense.
How much of a hole would that blow in the UK's finances if they got that?
Why would the Scots be entitled to it? I thought the fields were way out in the North Sea not in Scottish territorial waters.
The vast majority of British oil and gas reserves are in what would be a Scottish Economic Zone upon independence.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2011, 03:38:13 PM
Why would the Scots be entitled to it? I thought the fields were way out in the North Sea not in Scottish territorial waters.
You draw a line out in the sea from the Scottish/English border and I think they fall on the Scottish side. Same as with a country's Exclusive Economic Zone (tm).
Fucking Puffin.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2011, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 01:44:11 PM
they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue
Suddenly everything makes more sense.
How much of a hole would that blow in the UK's finances if they got that?
And this is exactly why secession from a liberal democracy should never be allowed, and should be laughed off as a serious idea when broached and met with force if need be. Secession in such a state has exactly zero philosophical underpinnings and is simply one segment of British nation seeking to profit at the expense of the whole. It's a monstrous ideology, essentially a form of geopolitical anarchy and taken to its absurd conclusions any pissant political unit, down to an individual, could secede from a nation at will when it was no longer immediately advantageous to remain. It is the end of Western civilization, and those who hold to it should be destroyed.
Hear Hear! :cheers:
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Quote from: Viking on October 10, 2011, 03:41:25 PM
The vast majority of British oil and gas reserves are in what would be a Scottish Economic Zone upon independence.
Got it. Well that is what this crap is all about isn't it?
Nationalists really are scum.
How much of the oil and gas fields are actually left?
My understanding was that the North Sea hydrocarbon bonanza was well and truly past.
If the Scots want to go, that's cool, but I don't believe 16 is a good voting age.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2011, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 10, 2011, 03:41:25 PM
The vast majority of British oil and gas reserves are in what would be a Scottish Economic Zone upon independence.
Got it. Well that is what this crap is all about isn't it?
Nationalists really are scum.
Nope. The issue is that everything that the English blame The Conservatives for the Scots blame the English for.
swooon
this referendum is ill-timed, but I wish it every success
<3
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2011, 03:31:04 PM
While the legal voting age is, after all, set at an arbitrary limit, it's really dodgy and a pretty distasteful to manipulate the franchise with an eye towards getting a particular voting result. Much worse than the gerrymandering that some of the Euros were giving us about in a recent thread.
The article's misleading - as are all English articles about Scottish politics. The SNP announced it years ago and have had as their policy that 16 should be the age of suffrage. But the age for elections is set by Westminster, in elections controlled by Holyrood - like some local ones I think and this referendum - they've extended the franchise. It's also Lib Dem party policy.
I'm a unionist but I would vote SNP over Scottish Labour every single time (and the Scottish Lib Dems and Tories aren't much better). I'd reconsider my support of the union if the only good reason for Scotland remaining is money.
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2011, 03:45:20 PM
Got it. Well that is what this crap is all about isn't it?
Nationalists really are scum.
:blink: No. On both points.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2011, 03:31:04 PM
While the legal voting age is, after all, set at an arbitrary limit, it's really dodgy and a pretty distasteful to manipulate the franchise with an eye towards getting a particular voting result. Much worse than the gerrymandering that some of the Euros were giving us about in a recent thread.
The article's misleading - as are all English articles about Scottish politics. The SNP announced it years ago and have had as their policy that 16 should be the age of suffrage. But the age for elections is set by Westminster, in elections controlled by Holyrood - like some local ones I think and this referendum - they've extended the franchise. It's also Lib Dem party policy.
Ah, that's a bit different. Though I'd have major misgivings about extending the vote to 16 year olds--actually I still have some doubt about the wisdom of lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.
Quote from: dps on October 10, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Ah, that's a bit different. Though I'd have major misgivings about extending the vote to 16 year olds--actually I still have some doubt about the wisdom of lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.
Yeah I'm a bit dubious myself. I get the argument that they can work (and pay taxes) and join the forces at 16 but still...
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:33:46 PM
And this is exactly why secession from a liberal democracy should never be allowed, and should be laughed off as a serious idea when broached and met with force if need be. Secession in such a state has exactly zero philosophical underpinnings and is simply one segment of British nation seeking to profit at the expense of the whole. It's a monstrous ideology, essentially a form of geopolitical anarchy and taken to its absurd conclusions any pissant political unit, down to an individual, could secede from a nation at will when it was no longer immediately advantageous to remain. It is the end of Western civilization, and those who hold to it should be destroyed.
what a load of horseshit... you're as bad as Raz.
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2011, 04:58:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:33:46 PM
And this is exactly why secession from a liberal democracy should never be allowed, and should be laughed off as a serious idea when broached and met with force if need be. Secession in such a state has exactly zero philosophical underpinnings and is simply one segment of British nation seeking to profit at the expense of the whole. It's a monstrous ideology, essentially a form of geopolitical anarchy and taken to its absurd conclusions any pissant political unit, down to an individual, could secede from a nation at will when it was no longer immediately advantageous to remain. It is the end of Western civilization, and those who hold to it should be destroyed.
what a load of horseshit... you're as bad as Raz.
Did I hurt your wee Quebecois feelings? In that case, at least you have the dubious rationale of language difference.
Viper thinks I'm picking on him, because I genuinely don't understand Quebeci Nationalism.
Ide just hate the nation-state for some reason. It might not make economic sense to have independence, so why is the option polling in the 40%?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 06:13:35 PM
Ide just hate the nation-state for some reason. It might not make economic sense to have independence, so why is the option polling in the 40%?
Who knows why the option is polling in the 40's? Hell, you'll find similar number of people in this country who think that people used to ride dinosaurs. All kinds of bizarre things poll highly.
I have nothing against the Nation-State. Seems good a way of organizing a country as any other.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 06:13:35 PM
Ide just hate the nation-state for some reason.
I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation. The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.
*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 06:13:35 PM
Ide just hate the nation-state for some reason. It might not make economic sense to have independence, so why is the option polling in the 40%?
Why should we give any validity to the concept of the nation state. Human governments should not be founded on the basis of ethnic groups.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions
Never.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:33:46 PM
And this is exactly why secession from a liberal democracy should never be allowed, and should be laughed off as a serious idea when broached and met with force if need be. Secession in such a state has exactly zero philosophical underpinnings and is simply one segment of British nation seeking to profit at the expense of the whole. It's a monstrous ideology, essentially a form of geopolitical anarchy and taken to its absurd conclusions any pissant political unit, down to an individual, could secede from a nation at will when it was no longer immediately advantageous to remain. It is the end of Western civilization, and those who hold to it should be destroyed.
:lmfao: Nuthin' funnier than bumper-sticker politics!
By your lights, both the Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia should be burned to the ground, because they dared to go against your silly bumper-sticker rhetoric! :P
Succession should obviously be approached with the utmost seriousness, but lazy thinking by its opponents is as silly as lazy thinking by its proponents.
Sneaky fuck.
QuoteI think he'd still want the Barnett formula. Failing that they could raise taxes or cut spending as they saw fit and they'd almost certainly want all North Sea oil revenue, including the Chancellor's recent levy (which I think the SNP want to cancel).
Which is just bollocks. Why should Glasgow get a penny of Shetland`s oil money?
QuoteIde just hate the nation-state for some reason. It might not make economic sense to have independence, so why is the option polling in the 40%?
Amongst kids.
Most young people aren`t known for fully thought out political beliefs.
Amongst the general population support is much lower, overall common sense trumps nationalism.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*;
Haven't seen the Grossdeutschland theory (even modified) espoused since WW2.
"The Anglo people...." :lmfao:
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2011, 09:03:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*;
Haven't seen the Grossdeutschland theory (even modified) espoused since WW2.
"The Anglo people...." :lmfao:
Don't be ridiculous. We all speak English, we all use common law jurisprudence. Close enough.
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2011, 09:03:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*;
Haven't seen the Grossdeutschland theory (even modified) espoused since WW2.
"The Anglo people...." :lmfao:
I dunno. You see this sort of thing from China a lot.
Ide's ethnocentrism is duly noted by his Chinese handlers.
It's not ethnocentrism.
Quote from: citizen k on October 10, 2011, 09:10:26 PM
Ide's ethnocentrism is duly noted by his Chinese handlers.
The "anglo" nations are hardly ethnically homogenous, it's more of a cultural and linguistic description.
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2011, 09:03:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*;
Haven't seen the Grossdeutschland theory (even modified) espoused since WW2.
"The Anglo people...." :lmfao:
I'd prefer to think of myself separate from the British. You see things like this from third worlders and Balkantards. Greater Serbia, United Arab Republic etc. Not the biggest fan of Irredentism myself. There are a few exception. Korea should be reunified under a Southern style government.
I like Britain. :wub:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2011, 09:13:06 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 10, 2011, 09:10:26 PM
Ide's ethnocentrism is duly noted by his Chinese handlers.
The "anglo" nations are hardly ethnically homogenous, it's more of a cultural and linguistic description.
I'm just reporting what the Chinese said.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2011, 09:03:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*;
Haven't seen the Grossdeutschland theory (even modified) espoused since WW2.
"The Anglo people...." :lmfao:
Don't be ridiculous. We all speak English, we all use common law jurisprudence. Close enough.
The Scots don't use common law jurisprudence. :mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2011, 08:54:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 03:33:46 PM
And this is exactly why secession from a liberal democracy should never be allowed, and should be laughed off as a serious idea when broached and met with force if need be. Secession in such a state has exactly zero philosophical underpinnings and is simply one segment of British nation seeking to profit at the expense of the whole. It's a monstrous ideology, essentially a form of geopolitical anarchy and taken to its absurd conclusions any pissant political unit, down to an individual, could secede from a nation at will when it was no longer immediately advantageous to remain. It is the end of Western civilization, and those who hold to it should be destroyed.
:lmfao: Nuthin' funnier than bumper-sticker politics!
By your lights, both the Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia should be burned to the ground, because they dared to go against your silly bumper-sticker rhetoric! :P
Succession should obviously be approached with the utmost seriousness, but lazy thinking by its opponents is as silly as lazy thinking by its proponents.
When the Czech-Slovak split occurred Czechoslovakia had no significant history of liberal democracy upon which to legitimize itself, outside of the period 1918-1939. They therefore fall outside of the condemnation box, although I see of no compelling reason why dissolution struck anyone as a good idea, other than simple nationalism.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2011, 09:29:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2011, 09:03:44 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*;
Haven't seen the Grossdeutschland theory (even modified) espoused since WW2.
"The Anglo people...." :lmfao:
Don't be ridiculous. We all speak English, we all use common law jurisprudence. Close enough.
The Scots don't use common law jurisprudence. :mellow:
That is true, and I forgot about that.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 09:08:10 PM
Don't be ridiculous.
You cannot have
my line, Mr "Anglo People."
Ide, I would have expected something silly like that from Tim, not you.
What the fuck do you think makes a distinct culture?
Ide, I don't think you'd feel at home in Australia or Ireland. Even London for that matter.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 11, 2011, 12:05:20 AM
Ide, I don't think you'd feel at home in Australia or Ireland. Even London for that matter.
Or New York. But they're still Anglophones, and I can do business with, understand the laws of, comprehend and be entertained by the culture of, and feel a kinship toward New Yorkers.
But fwiw, in the same vein there's no particularly compelling reason for (at least) an EU-style Oceania to not exist, there's not much more of particularly compelling reason why there's no overarching Western superstate, other than a lack of sanguinity in regards to fighting totalitarianism (our national reserve of which we've pretty much used up by this point anyway).
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2011, 01:53:39 PM
I think we should pre-empt him and gain English independence first, why should we be lumbered with the Welsh and Irish?
What's next? A separate chav state?
I think Wales is too English to ever leave. In Northern Ireland we await the time when a majority will vote for Irish unification. Scotland has it's own legal system, it's own history and culture; I think they will leave at some point............the reasons for the Union have faded.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 11, 2011, 02:00:57 AM
I think Wales is too English to ever leave. In Northern Ireland we await the time when a majority will vote for Irish unification. Scotland has it's own legal system, it's own history and culture; I think they will leave at some point............the reasons for the Union have faded.
Wales - will not secede, the road from south wales to north wales goes through England.
Ulster - will not secede, local majority's paranoia is just as anti-irish as scottish paranoia is anti-english.
Scotland - will remain in limbo like Quebec and the Faroe Islands, the locals want to separate but when faced with the actual choice they will choke. Basically, too many scots live in London to make full independence possible.
The sooner they leave the better. And none of this independence lite shit either. Proper independence, making their own spending decisions and raising their own revenue.
No hard feelings and good luck to them.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 09:31:01 PM
When the Czech-Slovak split occurred Czechoslovakia had no significant history of liberal democracy upon which to legitimize itself, outside of the period 1918-1939. They therefore fall outside of the condemnation box, although I see of no compelling reason why dissolution struck anyone as a good idea, other than simple nationalism.
It was almost as much a matter of the Czechs kicking Slovakia out as the Slovaks leaving. While no doubt some Slovaks wanted independence, from what I've read the Slovaks were mostly using the threat of seceding as a negotiating tactic to get more of what they wanted within a federated state, and the Czechs essentially called their bluff--"Oh, you're secede if you don't get us to agree to these policies? OK, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out".
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 09:31:01 PM
When the Czech-Slovak split occurred Czechoslovakia had no significant history of liberal democracy upon which to legitimize itself, outside of the period 1918-1939. They therefore fall outside of the condemnation box, although I see of no compelling reason why dissolution struck anyone as a good idea, other than simple nationalism.
A classic weasel; when your point is disproven, you start to change your point.
Irish independence was succession from a "liberal democracy" as well, though I would suppose that you would argue that the UK didn't have a "significant history of liberal democracy upon which to legitimize itself" in that case, either.
It would appear that your argument is that states which have seen parts secede = illegitimate, and states which have not = legitimate and therefor succession from the latter should be violently opposed.
Completely circular.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 06:13:35 PM
Ide just hate the nation-state for some reason. It might not make economic sense to have independence, so why is the option polling in the 40%?
Strange - same results as our own secessionist movement.
G.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 01:14:57 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 11, 2011, 12:05:20 AM
Ide, I don't think you'd feel at home in Australia or Ireland. Even London for that matter.
Or New York. But they're still Anglophones, and I can do business with, understand the laws of, comprehend and be entertained by the culture of, and feel a kinship toward New Yorkers.
But fwiw, in the same vein there's no particularly compelling reason for (at least) an EU-style Oceania to not exist, there's not much more of particularly compelling reason why there's no overarching Western superstate, other than a lack of sanguinity in regards to fighting totalitarianism (our national reserve of which we've pretty much used up by this point anyway).
Cause we don't want to govern the British. As I told Tim, it would take vast amounts of money to get them up to speed. It's like West Germany and East Germany except the East Germans eat eels.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 08:07:46 AM
Cause we don't want to govern the British. As I told Tim, it would take vast amounts of money to get them up to speed. It's like West Germany and East Germany except the East Germans eat eels.
See, and this is the problem. Ultimately, the rest of the Anglosphere wants no part of any kind of government that has Americans involved. You guys are decent fellows, but your system of government is totally fucked and you're overly attached to it.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2011, 08:44:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 08:07:46 AM
Cause we don't want to govern the British. As I told Tim, it would take vast amounts of money to get them up to speed. It's like West Germany and East Germany except the East Germans eat eels.
See, and this is the problem. Ultimately, the rest of the Anglosphere wants no part of any kind of government that has Americans involved. You guys are decent fellows, but your system of government is totally fucked and you're overly attached to it.
We already have Mississippi, we don't need Wales and Scotland.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 01:14:57 AM
But fwiw, in the same vein there's no particularly compelling reason for (at least) an EU-style Oceania to not exist
Not if it means war with Eastasia.
Quote from: Grallon on October 11, 2011, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 10, 2011, 06:13:35 PM
Ide just hate the nation-state for some reason. It might not make economic sense to have independence, so why is the option polling in the 40%?
Strange - same results as our own secessionist movement.
G.
You above most have contempt for the masses. they're easily swayed by emotion and ignore facts.
Quote from: HVC on October 11, 2011, 09:56:45 AM
You above most have contempt for the masses. They're easily swayed by emotion and ignore facts.
Debatable. Besides this is all subjective. What constitute a 'fact' varies from whomever invoke said 'facts'. Even numbers can be bent to say one thing and the other. And in a debate as emotional as collective identity...
G.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2011, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2011, 03:45:20 PM
Got it. Well that is what this crap is all about isn't it?
Nationalists really are scum.
:blink: No. On both points.
You have to admit it does look suspicious. 'Our condition for secession is we get this resource located miles off our shores currently being split among the UK all for ourselves.' Meh.
And nationalists seek to use ethnic divisions as political fodder. I would rather politics be based on what sort of laws need to be passed not setting people off against each other. Ah well.
So does this mean Parliament will be forever Tory?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 12:30:52 PM
So does this mean Parliament will be forever Tory?
Well hold on now it doesn't sound like this plan is likely to succeed.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 12:27:27 PMYou have to admit it does look suspicious. 'Our condition for secession is we get this resource located miles off our shores currently being split among the UK all for ourselves.' Meh.
It's not split among the UK, we're not that sort of country. Decentralisation's a very new thing for us. It goes to Westminster as part of general revenue and leaves Westminster as part of general expenditure.
Edit: And the oil fields are west of Shetland, I can't see who else's they'd be.
QuoteAnd nationalists seek to use ethnic divisions as political fodder. I would rather politics be based on what sort of laws need to be passed not setting people off against each other. Ah well.
This simply isn't the case with the SNP. They're not terribly anti-English (far less so than the average Scot) and they're certainly not racist in any way.
In addition the problem the other parties have is precisely that last point. The SNP have spent their time in government for the most part trying to govern. They have their top talent in Holyrood (I think Salmond's probably the best politician in the UK, far less Scotland) and they've got an agenda which goes far beyond simply independence.
The other three parties on the other hand have no agenda for Scotland. Labour treat it like a part of their patrimony and the Tories are the only centre-right party in the world who don't have a reputation for being patriotic. They seem to spend all their time talking about the need to stop Salmond and 'save the union' while the SNP are loudly getting on with the business of government and talking about education, crime, health and, every so often, independence.
In addition the best Scottish Lib Dem and Labour politicians are all in Westminster. There's no Donald Dewar's left. So the SNP look like they rule the roost in Holyrood regardless. I don't know if there's any Tory talent in Scotland. I understand Tories and wolves have been reintroduced in Scotland recently, but I'm not sure if the breeding program's succeeded.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 12:42:44 PM
The other three parties on the other hand have no agenda for Scotland. Labour treat it like a part of their patrimony and the Tories are the only centre-right party in the world who don't have a reputation for being patriotic. They seem to spend all their time talking about the need to stop Salmond and 'save the union' while the SNP are loudly getting on with the business of government and talking about education, crime, health and, every so often, independence.
Well wait a second. I thought you guys had constituencies that had to be catered to. Aren't there Labour Scots out there building platforms and campaigning for office in Scotland in those constituencies? I mean there is even a Scottish Parliament. They run for office up there by standing up and saying 'you are all going to vote for us anyway so sod off'?
Also aren't the Tories sorta part of the national government? Are they not doing anything about crime, health, education or any of that?
QuoteIn addition the best Scottish Lib Dem and Labour politicians are all in Westminster. There's no Donald Dewar's left. So the SNP look like they rule the roost in Holyrood regardless. I don't know if there's any Tory talent in Scotland. I understand Tories and wolves have been reintroduced in Scotland recently, but I'm not sure if the breeding program's succeeded.
Well I presume if one of those Pols gets elected to the Brit Parliament they do have to go there. There are no Lib Dems or Labour pols in a local office or the Scottish Parliament? Are they like absentee office holders in the finest tradition of the late Medieval Catholic Church?
QuoteThis simply isn't the case with the SNP. They're not terribly anti-English (far less so than the average Scot) and they're certainly not racist in any way.
So then what is their point for existance? If they are not about nationalism what is their ideology?
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 01:03:55 PMWell wait a second. I thought you guys had constituencies that had to be catered to. Aren't there Labour Scots out there building platforms and campaigning for office in Scotland in those constituencies? I mean there is even a Scottish Parliament. They run for office up there by standing up and saying 'you are all going to vote for us anyway so sod off'?
A lot of Scottish Labour candidates run that sort of campaign. What you're saying's a bit of an exageration but not far off the truth. The other parties don't seem to have a message or ideas beyond 'stop Salmond'. I think parties should offer a positive reason to vote for them, rather than just a negative and the SNP are really the only party in Scotland that does that.
QuoteAlso aren't the Tories sorta part of the national government? Are they not doing anything about crime, health, education or any of that?
Scotland's always had their own legal and education system. Since devolution they've more powers over that and now have it over health too.
QuoteWell I presume if one of those Pols gets elected to the Brit Parliament they do have to go there. There are no Lib Dems or Labour pols in a local office or the Scottish Parliament? Are they like absentee office holders in the finest tradition of the late Medieval Catholic Church?
The best Scottish Lib Dem and Labour politicians want to be Prime Minister or party leader, so they run for Parliament. The left-overs run for the Scottish Parliament. It's mildly above the European Parliament for a politician in a national party. The SNP on the other hand aren't so interested in Westminster, it's mainly about foreign and defence policy for them (where they kick up a fuss over the abolition of the Black Watch, for example). Salmond stayed there for a while but saw that for his party the future was in Edinburgh.
This wasn't always the case. The first First Minsiter, Donald Dewar, was a very impressive politician who resigned from Westminster to run as an MSP. Trouble is none of the other good Scots Labour MPs of that time (Gordon Brown, Robin Cook for example) joined him and since then the best politicians are still in Westminster (Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander spring to mind).
QuoteSo them what is their point for existance? If they are not about nationalism what is their ideology?
They are about nationalism, but it's not ethnically based. It's Rabbie Burns and Scots Law, historically it was the Kirk too. It's about national identity more than an ethnic or linguistic identity like in Belgium or the Balkans.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 01:12:15 PM
They are about nationalism, but it's not ethnically based. It's Rabbie Burns and Scots Law, historically it was the Kirk too. It's about national identity more than an ethnic or linguistic identity like in Belgium or the Balkans.
What does this nationalism envision as to the level of friendship between England and Scotland? Is there any possibility for the UK to function in a way that would please them? Are there any practical benefits to independence?
If what you are saying is true it is pretty obvious how the Labour party lost or is losing Scotland. Likewise what would a Tory Scot look like? Does the SNP cover right wing Scots or is there an opening there? Or do they tend to go Lib Dem?
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 01:20:34 PMWhat does this nationalism envision as to the level of friendship between England and Scotland? Is there any possibility for the UK to function in a way that would please them? Are there any practical benefits to independence?
It's not clear what independence would look like. Probably something a bit more intimate than what Australia and Canada have. Alex Salmond's suggested keeping the pound, keeping the British army regiment names (or restoring them) and keeping the royal family - who already have to swear a separate oath for Scotland anyway (it boils down to doing even more to keep the Papists out).
Salmond's 'independence-lite' would, from what I can see, basically be like dominion status in the early 20th century. They'd have fiscal autonomy and home rule in all areas but foreign and defence policy which would be decided - with Scottish votes - in Westminster.
QuoteIf what you are saying is true it is pretty obvious how the Labour party lost or is losing Scotland. Likewise what would a Tory Scot look like? Does the SNP cover right wing Scots or is there an opening there? Or do they tend to go Lib Dem?
I haven't a clue what a Tory Scot would look like. They're having a leadership contest at the minute and one of the candidates wants to disband the party and start a new centre-right Scottish party that's in alliance with the Tories in Westminster (as was the case before the 1960s merger of the English Conservative and Scottish Unionist parties).
As I say the Scottish Tories are the only centre-right party in the world, that I can think of, who aren't the default patriotic party. If anything they're perceived as anti-Scottish due to campaigning against devolution in the referendum (75% voted 'yes') and things that happened in the 18 years of Tory government. Plus the SNP often tack right on things of national identity, law and order and the like which is where the Tories would be naturally if they were as vigorous as they are in England.
The Lib Dems are, as everywhere, just an odd bunch.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 01:31:31 PM
Salmond's 'independence-lite' would, from what I can see, basically be like dominion status in the early 20th century. They'd have fiscal autonomy and home rule in all areas but foreign and defence policy which would be decided - with Scottish votes - in Westminster.
That makes very little sense. What is the purpose of independence if you can not have an independent foreign policy? How would you send MPs to Westminster if all they could vote on was matters or foreign and defence policy (or why would the rest of the union allow Scotland to send MPs if Scotland has devolved almost all powers)?
The PQ ran the 1995 referendum saying many similar things. It was revealed afterwards they intended to do a unilateral declaration of independence within days of a yes vote (and that France was prepared to recognize same). I rather suspect something similar here.
Ian Smith. :wub:
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2011, 01:39:49 PMThat makes very little sense. What is the purpose of independence if you can not have an independent foreign policy? How would you send MPs to Westminster if all they could vote on was matters or foreign and defence policy (or why would the rest of the union allow Scotland to send MPs if Scotland has devolved almost all powers)?
It's not independence. For Salmond it's to get people used to the idea of Scotland effectively running everything before the big leap into independence. Plus I think it's Lib Dem policy so he gets to cause some trouble for the coalition.
I think the government's already trying to address the West Lothian question.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation. The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.
*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?
Are you a Scot? And what about the Irish? On what basis do you determine how people see themselves? Are you a girl or a boy? If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?
A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons. Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation. The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.
*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?
Are you a Scot? And what about the Irish? On what basis do you determine how people see themselves? Are you a girl or a boy? If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?
A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons. Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.
:lol:
Oh wait...you were serious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 01:45:01 PM
For Salmond it's to get people used to the idea of Scotland effectively running everything before the big leap into independence. Plus I think it's Lib Dem policy so he gets to cause some trouble for the coalition.
I think the government's already trying to address the West Lothian question.
Yet what independence would mean is not even clear you say...so why is it seen as some sort of aspiration? Is Scotland suffering to some extent in the union and there are issues that only Independence could solve?
What is the West Lothian question?
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 01:50:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2011, 01:45:01 PM
For Salmond it's to get people used to the idea of Scotland effectively running everything before the big leap into independence. Plus I think it's Lib Dem policy so he gets to cause some trouble for the coalition.
I think the government's already trying to address the West Lothian question.
Yet what independence would mean is not even clear you say...so why is it seen as some sort of aspiration? Is Scotland suffering to some extent in the union and there are issues that only Independence could solve?
What is the West Lothian question?
Why are you asking about practical reasons for independence?
While I'm sure the SNP can give you some, it's clearly an issue that revolves around self-identity - how individuals and a group see themselves. It's much more an emotional question than a practical one. And I don't mean that it a negative way.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2011, 08:23:24 PM
Why should we give any validity to the concept of the nation state. Human governments should not be founded on the basis of ethnic groups.
Really? Since when? Why isn't a cultural or ethnic group a valid difference? Why is there a border between the various Central and South American countries? They all speak spanish, save for one whose language is Portuguese, close enough, imho. Why not one single country there? Since a human government shouldn't be founded on the basis of ethnic groups (and presumably, cultural groups) I don't see a problem.
It worked wonders for the USSR of old, integrating all these different communities under one single government. That's why all of them remained part of Russia, willingly after the fall of the Soviet bloc :) Wait? It didn't happen this way? How silly of them.
The problem with regions wanting independence is that if they had been fit for it they would have already been independent. You can deny Darwin but it won't make him wrong.
The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell, MP for that constituency at the time. Essentially, because of devolution, there are a huge range of issues in Scotland, Wales and NI that English MPs have no vote on. But, conversely, MPs from these areas can vote on such matters which affect England, as England does not have a devolved government.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
While I'm sure the SNP can give you some, it's clearly an issue that revolves around self-identity - how individuals and a group see themselves. It's much more an emotional question than a practical one. And I don't mean that it a negative way.
Why can't symbolicy yearnings like this be lived out in symbolic ways? I mean identity is just made up anyway. Why do they need to do drastic political moves just to satisfy vanity, but not provide any obvious benefit and perhaps even have large costs? That strikes me as pretty irresponsible. But these are politicians so that is not surprising.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 01:56:02 PM
Really? Since when? Why isn't a cultural or ethnic group a valid difference?
For the reasons that became immediately obvious once this principle was put into effect. You create a state that by its very raison d'être makes all minorities less than full citizens.
Why would you use Russia, the prime example of how ethnic nation states are very very bad, as a counter-example is amusing.
This is what Tam said in the Commons, according to wiki :
"For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate ... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?"
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 11, 2011, 02:01:17 PM
The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell, MP for that constituency at the time. Essentially, because of devolution, there are a huge range of issues in Scotland, Wales and NI that English MPs have no vote on. But, conversely, MPs from these areas can vote on such matters which affect England, as England does not have a devolved government.
I understand the theoretical issues but what is the practical impact of this?
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 02:05:04 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 11, 2011, 02:01:17 PM
The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell, MP for that constituency at the time. Essentially, because of devolution, there are a huge range of issues in Scotland, Wales and NI that English MPs have no vote on. But, conversely, MPs from these areas can vote on such matters which affect England, as England does not have a devolved government.
I understand the theoretical issues but what is the practical impact of this?
I don't know. What would be the practical impact of the US being ruled by Mexico?
Well, English people are slowly getting rather irritated by the discrepancy. It is not good for the Union as it decreases support for the Union.
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2011, 02:06:18 PM
I don't know. What would be the practical impact of the US being ruled by Mexico?
The practical impact of a theoretical situation?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 11, 2011, 02:06:47 PM
Well, English people are slowly getting rather irritated by the discrepancy. It is not good for the Union as it decreases support for the Union.
So if there was an English...Witenagemot or whatever...Westminster would be reduced to determining foreign policy and regulating trade between the...um...statish things.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
While I'm sure the SNP can give you some, it's clearly an issue that revolves around self-identity - how individuals and a group see themselves. It's much more an emotional question than a practical one. And I don't mean that it a negative way.
Exactly. And this is the problem unionism has. They never get beyond 'it's bad' and 'it'll cost us' which are undeveloped and kind of insulting arguments. Nationalism tugs at the heart-strings, a union worth saving should do the same.
Quote
I understand the theoretical issues but what is the practical impact of this?
I think the last government passed a few laws that would only have effect on England with Scottish and Welsh votes. A majority of English MPs are Tory and voted against various measures.
It should be said that before devolution it cut both ways. I seem to remember that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland in the 80s was done with predominately non-Northern Irish votes.
Quote
So if there was an English...Witenagemot or whatever...Westminster would be reduced to determining foreign policy and regulating trade between the...um...statish things.
Basically, but trade is for the EU anyway.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 01:47:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation. The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.
*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?
Are you a Scot? And what about the Irish? On what basis do you determine how people see themselves? Are you a girl or a boy? If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?
A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons. Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.
:lol:
Oh wait...you were serious.
following the Federalists point of view, I always wonder why they don't push for one big country on Earth? Or one country by continent. Like Israël as part of Saudi Arabia. That would work well :) After all, as Tim said, we shouldn't have government founded on an ethnic basis. So, why not?
Americans may see themselves as Americans first, but they have their local "specificities" they want to keep, hence so many States. Otherwise, why not 12 States?
@Valmy:
QuoteFor the reasons that became immediately obvious once this principle was put into effect. You create a state that by its very raison d'être makes all minorities less than full citizens.
That's why there are nationalists. Big countries tend to be centralized. Once centralized a group will dominate the other, rarely are all groups truly equal. More often than not, it's the majority, but sometimes, it's the minority.
I think Serbia was a prime example of a multi-ethnic country that failed. Most cultures don't mix. If you want it to work, it needs to be heavily decentralized.
AFAIK, the Catholic Irish weren't too happy about being part of England. Hence a few rebellions over time. Yet, they speak English too. And genetically speaking, they're probably not far. Should all of Ireland be a part of the United Kingdom, with the same government, the same Head of State? Are they morons for not seeing the logic in that? What's the difference between Ireland and Scotland? Why should one be part of the United Kindgom and not the other?
The American speak english like the Canadians. How many Canadians support annexation with the US? Those who don't support annexation, are they patriots or nationalists? Are they heroes or scums?
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 02:53:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 01:47:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation. The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.
*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?
Are you a Scot? And what about the Irish? On what basis do you determine how people see themselves? Are you a girl or a boy? If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?
A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons. Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.
:lol:
Oh wait...you were serious.
following the Federalists point of view, I always wonder why they don't push for one big country on Earth? Or one country by continent. Like Israël as part of Saudi Arabia. That would work well :) After all, as Tim said, we shouldn't have government founded on an ethnic basis. So, why not?
Americans may see themselves as Americans first, but they have their local "specificities" they want to keep, hence so many States. Otherwise, why not 12 States?
@Valmy:
QuoteFor the reasons that became immediately obvious once this principle was put into effect. You create a state that by its very raison d'être makes all minorities less than full citizens.
That's why there are nationalists. Big countries tend to be centralized. Once centralized a group will dominate the other, rarely are all groups truly equal. More often than not, it's the majority, but sometimes, it's the minority.
I think Serbia was a prime example of a multi-ethnic country that failed. Most cultures don't mix. If you want it to work, it needs to be heavily decentralized.
AFAIK, the Catholic Irish weren't too happy about being part of England. Hence a few rebellions over time. Yet, they speak English too. And genetically speaking, they're probably not far. Should all of Ireland be a part of the United Kingdom, with the same government, the same Head of State? Are they morons for not seeing the logic in that? What's the difference between Ireland and Scotland? Why should one be part of the United Kindgom and not the other?
The American speak english like the Canadians. How many Canadians support annexation with the US? Those who don't support annexation, are they patriots or nationalists? Are they heroes or scums?
So nations should be decided on how people feel about themselves? So NYC should secede and form its own republic?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 02:53:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 01:47:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation. The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.
*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?
Are you a Scot? And what about the Irish? On what basis do you determine how people see themselves? Are you a girl or a boy? If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?
A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons. Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.
:lol:
Oh wait...you were serious.
following the Federalists point of view, I always wonder why they don't push for one big country on Earth? Or one country by continent. Like Israël as part of Saudi Arabia. That would work well :) After all, as Tim said, we shouldn't have government founded on an ethnic basis. So, why not?
Americans may see themselves as Americans first, but they have their local "specificities" they want to keep, hence so many States. Otherwise, why not 12 States?
@Valmy:
QuoteFor the reasons that became immediately obvious once this principle was put into effect. You create a state that by its very raison d'être makes all minorities less than full citizens.
That's why there are nationalists. Big countries tend to be centralized. Once centralized a group will dominate the other, rarely are all groups truly equal. More often than not, it's the majority, but sometimes, it's the minority.
I think Serbia was a prime example of a multi-ethnic country that failed. Most cultures don't mix. If you want it to work, it needs to be heavily decentralized.
AFAIK, the Catholic Irish weren't too happy about being part of England. Hence a few rebellions over time. Yet, they speak English too. And genetically speaking, they're probably not far. Should all of Ireland be a part of the United Kingdom, with the same government, the same Head of State? Are they morons for not seeing the logic in that? What's the difference between Ireland and Scotland? Why should one be part of the United Kindgom and not the other?
The American speak english like the Canadians. How many Canadians support annexation with the US? Those who don't support annexation, are they patriots or nationalists? Are they heroes or scums?
So nations should be decided on how people feel about themselves? So NYC should secede and form its own republic?
I'm not even following this thread any more.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
The PQ ran the 1995 referendum saying many similar things. It was revealed afterwards they intended to do a unilateral declaration of independence within days of a yes vote (and that France was prepared to recognize same). I rather suspect something similar here.
That is not correct.
The referendum provided for a one year period during wich the Quebec and Ottawa government would negotiate the transfer of power based on the proposals agreed between the PQ and the ADQ following a previous public inquiry (The Liberals refused to participate).
The proposals was to keep the Canadian nationality (passport) and the Canadian dollar.
If after one year, the negociations would fail, then the government could do a unilateral declaration of independence.
This wasn't what Parizeau wanted, but this is what he got. And he would have been legally bound to stick to those terms.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 02:53:12 PM
The American speak english like the Canadians. How many Canadians support annexation with the US? Those who don't support annexation, are they patriots or nationalists? Are they heroes or scums?
Wait I am against nationalism why would I push for an annexation of another country on nationalistic 'anglo-unity' or whatever grounds?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 03:00:49 PM
So nations should be decided on how people feel about themselves? So NYC should secede and form its own republic?
The State of New York could de that, in my opinion (what your Constitution says, I don't know), if a democratic majority decided they would be better off as independant. It is their choice, and a political solution should be negociated with the Federal government.
As for the city of New York, I do not know how this works in your country. Here, the cities are creation of the provinces. They exist, they live or die by the will of the provincial governments. Their laws are set in accordance to the laws of the Province, they have very limited powers. They can be merged or unmerged by the provincial government at any time. So, here, Montreal couldn't secede, because it is not a political entity. But NYC? I honestly don't know.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 03:08:18 PM
Wait I am against nationalism why would I push for an annexation of another country on nationalistic 'anglo-unity' or whatever grounds?
The French and English definitions seems to vary greatly...
But the anti-thesis of nationalism is usually the one were all cultures should be merged in one country. No individual states/countries for each nations, but one big country were everyone is happy, theoritically. Canadians always advocate Quebec nationalism is silly because we are not different from other Canadians. Hence the comparison with US/Canada division.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 02:53:12 PM
That's why there are nationalists. Big countries tend to be centralized. Once centralized a group will dominate the other, rarely are all groups truly equal. More often than not, it's the majority, but sometimes, it's the minority.
That makes no sense. A smaller country would necessarily be more centralized and why would no groups dominate in a smaller country? Certainly a group will dominate but that group should be based on its political agenda not on its touting of some ethnicity. Nationalists create conflict by creating groups around what people are, not what they believe.
QuoteI think Serbia was a prime example of a multi-ethnic country that failed. Most cultures don't mix. If you want it to work, it needs to be heavily decentralized.
Serbia is a prime example of how nationalism can create violence and conflict where none really needed to take place. Besides Serbia was a very small country. Heck please explain the vast cultural difference between Montenegro and Serbia? Besides the country itself was created to be a nation state and thus had that poison pill already firmly in its mouth at birth.
QuoteAFAIK, the Catholic Irish weren't too happy about being part of England. Hence a few rebellions over time.
And why was that?
QuoteYet, they speak English too. And genetically speaking, they're probably not far. Should all of Ireland be a part of the United Kingdom, with the same government, the same Head of State? Are they morons for not seeing the logic in that? What's the difference between Ireland and Scotland? Why should one be part of the United Kindgom and not the other?
This sounds like you are lecturing Ide. I am not in favor of his 'all English speaking peeps UNITE' idea.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 10, 2011, 08:23:24 PM
Why should we give any validity to the concept of the nation state. Human governments should not be founded on the basis of ethnic groups.
Really? Since when? Why isn't a cultural or ethnic group a valid difference? Why is there a border between the various Central and South American countries? They all speak spanish, save for one whose language is Portuguese, close enough, imho. Why not one single country there? Since a human government shouldn't be founded on the basis of ethnic groups (and presumably, cultural groups) I don't see a problem.
If I was God for a day it would be.
In this age of mass transit and communication, nations and peoples should be uniting into greater unions, not splintering apart. The former would promote peace and prosperity, while the latter will only result in the spread of poverty and war.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 03:14:47 PM
The French and English definitions seems to vary greatly...
But the anti-thesis of nationalism is usually the one were all cultures should be merged in one country. No individual states/countries for each nations, but one big country were everyone is happy, theoritically. Canadians always advocate Quebec nationalism is silly because we are not different from other Canadians. Hence the comparison with US/Canada division.
No I think countries work best when formed by basic principles of government. The Canadians are not really on board with how we run our country and our central values and likewise. Even though we are very culturally similar.
My definition of a nationalist is somebody who puts ethnic and religious identity into political action. And generally I find it a recipe for ethnic cleansing, genocide, and political instability. After all you cannot easily turn a Serb into a Bosniak but you can convince a Serb to agree with that Bosniak on certain political beliefs.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 03:16:10 PM
That makes no sense. A smaller country would necessarily be more centralized and why would no groups dominate in a smaller country? Certainly a group will dominate but that group should be based on its political agenda not on its touting of some ethnicity. Nationalists create conflict by creating groups around what people are, not what they believe.
If a state is as mono-cultural as possible, including religion where it matters, it makes things easier.
Different communities tend to have different priorities. And altough in theory everyone should work together toward a unique goal, it's not that easy in practice. The Tutsis and the Huttus were merged in one country. I don't think it worked that well. They saw themselves as different, one group had power more often than not, it led to conflict, then genocide.
Quote
Serbia is a prime example of how nationalism can create violence and conflict where none really needed to take place. Besides Serbia was a very small country. Heck please explain the vast cultural difference between Montenegro and Serbia? Besides the country itself was created to be a nation state and thus had that poison pill already firmly in its mouth at birth.
Montenegro remained part of Yugoslavia with Serbia for a while. A better example would be Kosovo, Bosnia and Serbia. Where these people better together? Should NATO have bombed the Kosovars and Bosnians into submission, for their own goods?
Quote
And why was that?
Abuse by the central power? No freedom or religion? Slaughters? Historical grudged with a people seeing themselves as inherantly superior to the other cultures?
Pick one. There are possibly many others.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 03:14:47 PM
The French and English definitions seems to vary greatly...
But the anti-thesis of nationalism is usually the one were all cultures should be merged in one country. No individual states/countries for each nations, but one big country were everyone is happy, theoritically. Canadians always advocate Quebec nationalism is silly because we are not different from other Canadians. Hence the comparison with US/Canada division.
No I think countries work best when formed by basic principles of government. The Canadians are not really on board with how we run our country and our central values and likewise. Even though we are very culturally similar.
My definition of a nationalist is somebody who puts ethnic and religious identity into political action. And generally I find it a recipe for ethnic cleansing, genocide, and political instability. After all you cannot easily turn a Serb into a Bosniak but you can convince a Serb to agree with that Bosniak on certain political beliefs.
Way to wave the red flag to the Quebec nationalism bull. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
My definition of a nationalist is somebody who puts ethnic and religious identity into political action. And generally I find it a recipe for ethnic cleansing, genocide, and political instability. After all you cannot easily turn a Serb into a Bosniak but you can convince a Serb to agree with that Bosniak on certain political beliefs.
This is closer to the French definition. The english text of wikipedia, is, as alwyas, more fleshed out than the french one. They seperate nationalism in multiple forms, here's the first one:
Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[26] Ernest Renan[27] and John Stuart Mill[28] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[29] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[30]
Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's "daily referendum" formulation in What is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France (see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789).Nationalism is being proud of what you are, and you define what you are by your culture, you heritage, you country's history. The people of the land share a difference with other groups just as much as the individual has a difference with the larger group.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2011, 03:26:00 PM
Way to wave the red flag to the Quebec nationalism bull. :lol:
i think a referendum is coming soon. every week there's a new free Quebec thread (or hijack to the same ) :D
Quote from: HVC on October 11, 2011, 03:29:32 PM
i think a referendum is coming soon. every week there's a new free Quebec thread (or hijack to the same ) :D
There won't be a referendum in my life time, that I am sure of. I won't say never, because I honestly don't know what will happen in 100 years from now, but for the foreseeable future, it's not gonna happen. Even with the Royal fetish or our new govt and the celebrations of 1812 as Canada's foundation (and I got laughed at for quoting that from a journalist...).
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 03:29:10 PM
This is closer to the French definition. The english text of wikipedia, is, as alwyas, more fleshed out than the french one. They seperate nationalism in multiple forms, here's the first one:
Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[26] Ernest Renan[27] and John Stuart Mill[28] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[29] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[30]
Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's "daily referendum" formulation in What is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France (see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789).
Nationalism is being proud of what you are, and you define what you are by your culture, you heritage, you country's history. The people of the land share a difference with other groups just as much as the individual has a difference with the larger group.
What they are calling "civic nationalism" is just vanilla patriotism. The wiki article sucks. Nationalism has an ethnic component to anyone who hears the word used in normal parlance. Any other use is just asking for unfortunate misunderstanding.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2011, 03:18:38 PM
In this age of mass transit and communication, nations and peoples should be uniting into greater unions, not splintering apart. The former would promote peace and prosperity, while the latter will only result in the spread of poverty and war.
So you can see the logic in a greater Saudi Arabia that would include Israel? 'Cause I don't. Of course you prevent war! Duh. It's not a war when you slaughter civilians who won't fit the mold. WWII started in 1939, but before that, there were no casualties? C'mon. You're brighter than this. Raz&Ide, I get it. But you?
Look at Europe. They're trying for a big country. With lots of different people. They so wanted this big country, for peace&prosperity that they closed their eyes on Greece cheating in its entry application. It was more important to build the foundation of a new country than to ask questions on how Greece solve its debt&deficit problem in 2 years. Look where they are now. They're even dragging us with them.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 03:35:27 PM
What they are calling "civic nationalism" is just vanilla patriotism. The wiki article sucks. Nationalism has an ethnic component to anyone who hears the word used in normal parlance. Any other use is just asking for unfortunate misunderstanding.
I disagree. I think you're assuming that nation and nation state are one. In the case of Scots and English in the UK, that isn't the case. It's also not the case in Quebec and Canada. So what would be patriotism in an entirely independent Scotland, England or Quebec is actually nationalism in the context of the larger nation-state.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2011, 03:35:27 PM
What they are calling "civic nationalism" is just vanilla patriotism. The wiki article sucks. Nationalism has an ethnic component to anyone who hears the word used in normal parlance. Any other use is just asking for unfortunate misunderstanding.
No, nationalism is not solely used with the ethnic component, far from it. And there's really not much difference between patriotism and nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 04:34:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2011, 03:18:38 PM
In this age of mass transit and communication, nations and peoples should be uniting into greater unions, not splintering apart. The former would promote peace and prosperity, while the latter will only result in the spread of poverty and war.
So you can see the logic in a greater Saudi Arabia that would include Israel? 'Cause I don't. Of course you prevent war! Duh. It's not a war when you slaughter civilians who won't fit the mold. WWII started in 1939, but before that, there were no casualties? C'mon. You're brighter than this. Raz&Ide, I get it. But you?
Look at Europe. They're trying for a big country. With lots of different people. They so wanted this big country, for peace&prosperity that they closed their eyes on Greece cheating in its entry application. It was more important to build the foundation of a new country than to ask questions on how Greece solve its debt&deficit problem in 2 years. Look where they are now. They're even dragging us with them.
The Ottomans seemed to rule Palestine fine, though I wouldn't trust the Saudis. I don't really see why the emirates, Oman or Yemen need to exist.
It prevents ethnic cleansing and genocide as well.
The problem in Europe is that they haven't centralized enough.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation. The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.
*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?
Are you a Scot? And what about the Irish? On what basis do you determine how people see themselves? Are you a girl or a boy? If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?
A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons. Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.
And that's why I do not have as visceral a reaction to federalism as I do to separatism. Because federalism is an acceptable phase, and local control tends to gradual erosion in a stable federalist system, until the differences become less and less divisive. Greater devolution, of course, presents opposite results.
The problem with permitting secession is that it amounts to an abdication of duty on the part of the state to protect its citizens. If 60% of Scots wished to leave, and 40% wished to stay, the United Kingdom has a duty to protect the rights as Britons which that 40% possesses; it has no duty to permit the 60% to carve a new sovereign government out of the UK's territory.
No one should ever have to surrender their rights as a British citizen because a small majority of their pseudo-ethnic group decided they'd like to destroy everyone's life; no one should ever be forced flee to the south like a refugee in order to retain those rights. Even foolish libertarians agree that it is the job of the state to ensure that its citizens are protected from foreign threats to their liberty, property, and way of life. Clearly, a change in sovereignty is a threat to that, and foreign by its own declaration.
If my state again attempted secession, should myself and my family have to uproot itself because it has no desire to live in the Republic of South Carolina? Should they expect no action from the government they've served faithfully for decades?
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 04:34:50 PM
You're brighter than this. Raz&Ide, I get it. But you?
P.S. Fuck you, Lettow of the North.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
The PQ ran the 1995 referendum saying many similar things. It was revealed afterwards they intended to do a unilateral declaration of independence within days of a yes vote (and that France was prepared to recognize same). I rather suspect something similar here.
That is not correct.
The referendum provided for a one year period during wich the Quebec and Ottawa government would negotiate the transfer of power based on the proposals agreed between the PQ and the ADQ following a previous public inquiry (The Liberals refused to participate).
The proposals was to keep the Canadian nationality (passport) and the Canadian dollar.
If after one year, the negociations would fail, then the government could do a unilateral declaration of independence.
This wasn't what Parizeau wanted, but this is what he got. And he would have been legally bound to stick to those terms.
That was correct. A few years after the referendum result that news came out. They would declare that Canada was unwilling to negotiate, and would make a UDI.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 04:34:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2011, 03:18:38 PM
In this age of mass transit and communication, nations and peoples should be uniting into greater unions, not splintering apart. The former would promote peace and prosperity, while the latter will only result in the spread of poverty and war.
So you can see the logic in a greater Saudi Arabia that would include Israel? 'Cause I don't. Of course you prevent war! Duh. It's not a war when you slaughter civilians who won't fit the mold. WWII started in 1939, but before that, there were no casualties? C'mon. You're brighter than this. Raz&Ide, I get it. But you?
Look at Europe. They're trying for a big country. With lots of different people. They so wanted this big country, for peace&prosperity that they closed their eyes on Greece cheating in its entry application. It was more important to build the foundation of a new country than to ask questions on how Greece solve its debt&deficit problem in 2 years. Look where they are now. They're even dragging us with them.
What the hell are you going on about?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
What the hell are you going on about?
When people speak against independence, his brain breaks. He used to do a similar number about homosexuality but now he wisely keeps his trap shut.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 06:52:04 PM
When people speak against independence, his brain breaks.
I don't understand how people who believe independance is silly never apply this concept to themselves.
No one is willing to abandon the sovereignty of their country, yet, they believe anyone seeking independance is mad. It is an odd concept to grasp, you have to admit that.
As for the issue homosexuality... Well, forget it. You guys tend to go crazy whenever we discuss this. You start inventing things, like you just did. Supporting gay marriage is apparently not enough; nowadays, if you don't say you want a cock in your ass, you're homophobic. So be it, I shall be the anti-gay then.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:31:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 06:52:04 PM
When people speak against independence, his brain breaks.
I don't understand how people who believe independance is silly never apply this concept to themselves.
No one is willing to abandon the sovereignty of their country, yet, they believe anyone seeking independance is mad. It is an odd concept to grasp, you have to admit that,
Of course I am. You don't read well.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 07:34:14 PM
Of course I am. You don't read well.
well you propose an alliance of all anglos. Not the creation of one big country for all culture. Or one where english-speakers would be a minority.
Gays are not people.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:31:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 06:52:04 PM
When people speak against independence, his brain breaks.
I don't understand how people who believe independance is silly never apply this concept to themselves.
No one is willing to abandon the sovereignty of their country, yet, they believe anyone seeking independance is mad. It is an odd concept to grasp, you have to admit that,
Er, I don't care if you seek independence, so long as it's done in a lawful way. I took issue with your petty and vindictive policies to communicate the superiority of your ethnic group over others.
Would you support independence for First Nations in Quebec?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 07:46:43 PM
Er, I don't care if you seek independence, so long as it's done in a lawful way.
You fooled me!
QuoteI took issue with your petty and vindictive policies to communicate the superiority of your ethnic group over others.
Did we? Really? I can't remember when we did that. We prevented the English from having their schools? No, we didn't do that. We forced them to convert to Catholicism? No, didn't even try. Ah, I got it: we deported them. No, we didn't do that either.
I still fail to see what you're babbling about.
Quote
Would you support independence for First Nations in Quebec?
Wich one? For wich territory? They don't form a single nation over a well defined territory. There are multiple nations over multiple territories.
Many deals were put in place with them regarding the sovereignty of their areas, control of natural resources, and no policemen dare to enter a Mohawk reservation.
Most of the nations today abandoned their claim in exchange of money over the years. Last deal was struck 9 years ago for a few billion dollars.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2011, 07:45:46 PM
Gays are not people.
it's ok, they love you still. Somehow, they decided I'm the bad one. I'm gonna cry tonight because of Garbon. :cry:
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:31:55 PM
nowadays, if you don't say you want a cock in your ass, you're homophobic. So be it, I shall be the anti-gay then.
:lol:
So Marti is homophobic then? ^_^
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:57:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2011, 07:45:46 PM
Gays are not people.
it's ok, they love you still. Somehow, they decided I'm the bad one. I'm gonna cry tonight because of Garbon. :cry:
Oh buck up. Don't be such a fag.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 07:46:43 PM
Would you support independence for First Nations in Quebec?
There weren't any natives when the french came over, silly.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 07:46:43 PM
Er, I don't care if you seek independence, so long as it's done in a lawful way.
You fooled me!
QuoteI took issue with your petty and vindictive policies to communicate the superiority of your ethnic group over others.
Did we? Really? I can't remember when we did that. We prevented the English from having their schools? No, we didn't do that. We forced them to convert to Catholicism? No, didn't even try. Ah, I got it: we deported them. No, we didn't do that either.
I still fail to see what you're babbling about.
Quote
Would you support independence for First Nations in Quebec?
Wich one? For wich territory? They don't form a single nation over a well defined territory. There are multiple nations over multiple territories.
Many deals were put in place with them regarding the sovereignty of their areas, control of natural resources, and no policemen dare to enter a Mohawk reservation.
Most of the nations today abandoned their claim in exchange of money over the years. Last deal was struck 9 years ago for a few billion dollars.
Clearly you are easily fooled. Your language policies communicate superiority over other groups. Why aren't First Nation languages protected in Quebec?
All the First Nation in Quebec! They could have a bunch of little countries. Francophones could have the St. Lawrence river valley (since there weren't any Indians there), the Indians can have the rest. You know, to protect their cultural distinctiveness.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:42:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 07:34:14 PM
Of course I am. You don't read well.
well you propose an alliance of all anglos. Not the creation of one big country for all culture. Or one where english-speakers would be a minority.
An Anglo Union would simply be righting a historical wrong (American independence).
But I'm flexible. The opportunity to join the European Union would suit just as well (which a union of the Anglo countries under the auspices of the United Kingdom would achieve by default, although obviously it'd probably break the EU entirely, since the outnumbering thing? Not by my count).
Actually, even in a world state that let anyone in, English speakers would still form a plurality. Over 400 million native speakers, some 2 billion total. The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
You jest but let's just suppose that everyone would speak that...:crafty:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:42:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 07:34:14 PM
Of course I am. You don't read well.
well you propose an alliance of all anglos. Not the creation of one big country for all culture. Or one where english-speakers would be a minority.
An Anglo Union would simply be righting a historical wrong (American independence).
But I'm flexible. The opportunity to join the European Union would suit just as well (which a union of the Anglo countries under the auspices of the United Kingdom would achieve by default, although obviously it'd probably break the EU entirely, since the outnumbering thing? Not by my count).
Actually, even in a world state that let anyone in, English speakers would still form a plurality. Over 400 million native speakers, some 2 billion total. The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
What are you, Neil now? What what purpose would we want such a union?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 09:19:08 PM
What are you, Neil now? What what purpose would we want such a union?
Hey now. I hate the idea of a union, mainly because Americans are dangerous lunatics.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2011, 09:21:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 09:19:08 PM
What are you, Neil now? What what purpose would we want such a union?
Hey now. I hate the idea of a union, mainly because Americans are dangerous lunatics.
So the American Revolution was a good thing?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 09:25:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2011, 09:21:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 09:19:08 PM
What are you, Neil now? What what purpose would we want such a union?
Hey now. I hate the idea of a union, mainly because Americans are dangerous lunatics.
So the American Revolution was a good thing?
Not at all. It let Americans run amok rather than being governed by more reasonable people. It also permanently skewed you guys towards a dangerous extremism.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:31:55 PMif you don't say you want a cock in your ass, you're homophobic. So be it, I shall be the anti-gay then.
BTW, to be specific. If you don't want any cock in your ass you are a homophobe, if you don't want a specific cock in your ass you are a slut.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 09:52:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:31:55 PMif you don't say you want a cock in your ass, you're homophobic. So be it, I shall be the anti-gay then.
BTW, to be specific. If you don't want any cock in your ass you are a homophobe, if you don't want a specific cock in your ass you are a slut.
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 09:52:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 07:31:55 PMif you don't say you want a cock in your ass, you're homophobic. So be it, I shall be the anti-gay then.
BTW, to be specific. If you don't want any cock in your ass you are a homophobe, if you don't want a specific cock in your ass you are a slut.
:hmm:
let me try the joke again... I think I screwed it up first time round
QuoteBTW, to be specific. If you don't want any cock in your ass you are a homophobe, if you somebody else's cock in your ass you are a slut.
[insert laugh track]
better?
If you somebody else's cock?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 10:02:43 PM
If you somebody else's cock?
sigh...
QuoteBTW, to be specific. If you don't want any cock in your ass you are a homophobe, if you want somebody else's cock in your ass you are a slut.
Nope, still not funny. Maybe try again?
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 10:10:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 10:02:43 PM
If you somebody else's cock?
sigh...
QuoteBTW, to be specific. If you don't want any cock in your ass you are a homophobe, if you want somebody else's cock in your ass you are a slut.
But what if you just want one cock to be monogamous with? How's that slutty?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 10:10:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 10:02:43 PM
If you somebody else's cock?
sigh...
QuoteBTW, to be specific. If you don't want any cock in your ass you are a homophobe, if you want somebody else's cock in your ass you are a slut.
But what if you just want one cock to be monogamous with? How's that slutty?
A theoretical construct, like a tachyon or closed timelike curve. The equations permit such a phenomenon, but they have not yet been observed in nature.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 10:39:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 10:18:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2011, 10:10:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 10:02:43 PM
If you somebody else's cock?
sigh...
QuoteBTW, to be specific. If you don't want any cock in your ass you are a homophobe, if you want somebody else's cock in your ass you are a slut.
But what if you just want one cock to be monogamous with? How's that slutty?
A theoretical construct, like a tachyon or closed timelike curve. The equations permit such a phenomenon, but they have not yet been observed in nature.
I wasn't talking about me! :o
I'm sure there are some purely monogamous gay folk around, but I've never met one; the ones that have serious committed relationships are still pretty open about getting strange. I assume they operate on some sort of honor system. I think one of the great advantages is that there need be no tit-for-tat bedpost notching, or feeling of exploitation, since the whole family can enjoy, unlike heteros with open relationships who will need a finer tuned arrangement.
Oh, also, you don't have to deal with women. That's the other great advantage.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2011, 08:13:07 PM
Clearly you are easily fooled. Your language policies communicate superiority over other groups. Why aren't First Nation languages protected in Quebec?
In a way, they are. Inside their communities, the native languages are sometimes taught in schools. Nobody speaks Huron anymore, and I think it's the same for the Mohawk communities. But other languages, like Montagnais are part of the education program in their communities. They are semi-autonomous, so they pretty much decide what they want to do. In the Huron village, signs are in some indian language as well as in French, depending on what they choose.
Quote
All the First Nation in Quebec! They could have a bunch of little countries. Francophones could have the St. Lawrence river valley (since there weren't any Indians there), the Indians can have the rest. You know, to protect their cultural distinctiveness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_Respecting_a_New_Relationship_Between_the_Cree_Nation_and_the_Government_of_Quebec
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 10:50:07 PM
I'm sure there are some purely monogamous gay folk around, but I've never met one; the ones that have serious committed relationships are still pretty open about getting strange. I assume they operate on some sort of honor system. I think one of the great advantages is that there need be no tit-for-tat bedpost notching, or feeling of exploitation, since the whole family can enjoy, unlike heteros with open relationships who will need a finer tuned arrangement.
Oh, also, you don't have to deal with women. That's the other great advantage.
I think Dan Savage is all about instructing people that it is okay to be monogamish, these days.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 08:05:08 PM
There weren't any natives when the french came over, silly.
There weren't any conflict over lands with indians in what is today's Quebec, no.
Outside of the actual boundaries, yes. Also, trade wars with the Iroquois (Beaver Wars). Well, technically, between Iroquois and Hurons, allied to French.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Peace_of_Montreal
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Actually, even in a world state that let anyone in, English speakers would still form a plurality. Over 400 million native speakers, some 2 billion total. The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
Mandarin and Spanish come first in a world state, speaking of the natives. Arabic must be close too.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 11:44:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Actually, even in a world state that let anyone in, English speakers would still form a plurality. Over 400 million native speakers, some 2 billion total. The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
Mandarin and Spanish come first in a world state, speaking of the natives. Arabic must be close too.
Which is why I added second-language speakers.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 11:44:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Actually, even in a world state that let anyone in, English speakers would still form a plurality. Over 400 million native speakers, some 2 billion total. The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
Mandarin and Spanish come first in a world state, speaking of the natives. Arabic must be close too.
Arabic "dialects" are as distinct from each other as the Romance languages are.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 11:11:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2011, 08:05:08 PM
There weren't any natives when the french came over, silly.
There weren't any conflict over lands with indians in what is today's Quebec, no.
Outside of the actual boundaries, yes. Also, trade wars with the Iroquois (Beaver Wars). Well, technically, between Iroquois and Hurons, allied to French.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Peace_of_Montreal
So say the winner :lol: I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 12:54:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 11:44:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Actually, even in a world state that let anyone in, English speakers would still form a plurality. Over 400 million native speakers, some 2 billion total. The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
Mandarin and Spanish come first in a world state, speaking of the natives. Arabic must be close too.
Arabic "dialects" are as distinct from each other as the Romance languages are.
I'm not sure how unified the Chinese dialects are.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 11:44:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Actually, even in a world state that let anyone in, English speakers would still form a plurality. Over 400 million native speakers, some 2 billion total. The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
Mandarin and Spanish come first in a world state, speaking of the natives. Arabic must be close too.
None of those are the language of civilization, culture and commerce.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 11:44:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2011, 08:26:15 PM
Actually, even in a world state that let anyone in, English speakers would still form a plurality. Over 400 million native speakers, some 2 billion total. The language of world administration would not be Belgianese.
Mandarin and Spanish come first in a world state, speaking of the natives. Arabic must be close too.
But Mandarin and to a lesser extent Spanish are far more geographically concentrated than the spread of effective English speakers. Go to most places in the world and you'll find someone with at least basic English.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 11:44:58 PM
Mandarin and Spanish come first in a world state, speaking of the natives. Arabic must be close too.
The Chinese all learn English and do not want us to learn Mandarin.
But Spanish is fine by me. Easy to learn for any Indo-European language speaker.
But English is more widely spoken than either just not as a first language...but in a word state most people would be speaking a second language anyway so number of native speakers seems odd to preference over number of speakers.
Anyway without some sort of big founding myth complete with heroes and basic political principles and values no world state is possible. That would be a pretty profound political shift. It would take an enormous crisis to bring that about.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 12:50:07 AM
So say the winner :lol: I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.
It ain't a question of winner.
Regarding the Mohawks and Iroquois, again, those who converted to catholicism relocated near Montreal (present day Oka) and this is where there was some problems a few years ago. Not that they were entirely wrong, but the method used to protest was not the good one.
Regarding the Iroquois, well, look at the Beaver Wars. It's not a question of sacred grounds, really.
Quote from: Warspite on October 12, 2011, 07:54:03 AM
But Mandarin and to a lesser extent Spanish are far more geographically concentrated than the spread of effective English speakers. Go to most places in the world and you'll find someone with at least basic English.
true, there are far more non native english speakers than native.
But given a choice, most people would prefer to use their first language.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 08:05:16 AM
true, there are far more non native english speakers than native.
But given a choice, most people would prefer to use their first language.
I think given a choice most people would prefer to use a language they know versus one they do not know :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 12:54:15 AM
Arabic "dialects" are as distinct from each other as the Romance languages are.
it ain't what I was told. There are differences, like Quebec-French and France-French, but not to the extent where it would be like Italian and French.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 08:06:34 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 12:54:15 AM
Arabic "dialects" are as distinct from each other as the Romance languages are.
it ain't what I was told. There are differences, like Quebec-French and France-French, but not to the extent where it would be like Italian and French.
Ank told me that a Saudi Arabic speaker is pretty much unintelligible to a, say, Moroccan Arabic speaker. That makes it more akin to Italian and French.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2011, 03:25:28 PM
If a state is as mono-cultural as possible, including religion where it matters, it makes things easier.
How many mono-cultural states are there?
QuoteDifferent communities tend to have different priorities. And altough in theory everyone should work together toward a unique goal, it's not that easy in practice. The Tutsis and the Huttus were merged in one country. I don't think it worked that well. They saw themselves as different, one group had power more often than not, it led to conflict, then genocide.
That's really a terrible example to use, given the origin of the Tutsi-Hutu distinction.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 07:59:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 12:50:07 AM
So say the winner :lol: I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.
It ain't a question of winner.
Regarding the Mohawks and Iroquois, again, those who converted to catholicism relocated near Montreal (present day Oka) and this is where there was some problems a few years ago. Not that they were entirely wrong, but the method used to protest was not the good one.
Regarding the Iroquois, well, look at the Beaver Wars. It's not a question of sacred grounds, really.
Of course it's a question of winner. Or perhaps survivor. We don't know what 17th century tribes thought were theirs. They didn't write much down. We have only oral traditions, and the records of Europeans. Since there was fighting in modern day Quebec, it is reasonable to think that the Indians had a different opinion of who that land belonged to then the Europeans.
You still never actually answered my question. Is it acceptable to divide up Quebec amongst First Tribes. And you never answered why First Nations languages aren't protected in Quebec. That last one you've avoided every time I put it to you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 09:14:50 AM
How many mono-cultural states are there?
Depends what you define by mono-cultural. If you include immigrants, probably close to zero. If you're talking about founding nations and how it evolved, many, including the United States. The US was never a union between different nations.
And Israel is trying very hard to be mono-cultural state. They certainly don't want Palestinians in Israel proper, otherwise, there wouldn't be any issue with the right of return for the refugees, Israel would welcome them with open arms.
Israel is far from mono-cultural, even if the analysis is restrictied to Jewish population. You have secular Jews and haredim, Russian immigrants, Mizrahi, falashas, etc.
As for the US, while it is true by definition that the original 13 colonies were not separate nations prior to independence, even restricting to that group, it was no a mono-cultural society.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 09:30:22 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 07:59:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 12:50:07 AM
So say the winner :lol: I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.
It ain't a question of winner.
Regarding the Mohawks and Iroquois, again, those who converted to catholicism relocated near Montreal (present day Oka) and this is where there was some problems a few years ago. Not that they were entirely wrong, but the method used to protest was not the good one.
Regarding the Iroquois, well, look at the Beaver Wars. It's not a question of sacred grounds, really.
Of course it's a question of winner. Or perhaps survivor. We don't know what 17th century tribes thought were theirs. They didn't write much down. We have only oral traditions, and the records of Europeans. Since there was fighting in modern day Quebec, it is reasonable to think that the Indians had a different opinion of who that land belonged to then the Europeans.
you ever heard about history? Among the things hi
Quote
You still never actually answered my question. Is it acceptable to divide up Quebec amongst First Tribes.
Based on their reservations&communities, yes. they could seperate and be autonomous if they wanted too.
Many of the tribes living in Quebec today are refugees from the Seven Years War, the American Revolution and the War of 1812, so they have well definied lands here.
QuoteAnd you never answered why First Nations languages aren't protected in Quebec. That last one you've avoided every time I put it to you.
I already told you they are protected. They receive government funds for their education, in their native language where available. Hurons have the Wendat language, by I am unsure it is spoken or merely written. Any way, all signs are bilingual in their reservation.
So really, I fail to see what you're getting at, especially when I already answered that.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 10:26:45 AM
Depends what you define by mono-cultural. If you include immigrants, probably close to zero. If you're talking about founding nations and how it evolved, many, including the United States. The US was never a union between different nations.
And Israel is trying very hard to be mono-cultural state. They certainly don't want Palestinians in Israel proper, otherwise, there wouldn't be any issue with the right of return for the refugees, Israel would welcome them with open arms.
Actually the US is a union of different nations. Hawaii had a monarchy and had it's own society. Puerto Rico has a different culture, and of course much of the area that was conquered from Mexico was populated by Hispanics and Indians. Incidentally when this country had it's greatest crisis, it was the more homogenous groups that rebelled, not the non-English speakers. In fact German speakers kept Missouri in the Union.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 10:44:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 09:30:22 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 07:59:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 12:50:07 AM
So say the winner :lol: I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.
It ain't a question of winner.
Regarding the Mohawks and Iroquois, again, those who converted to catholicism relocated near Montreal (present day Oka) and this is where there was some problems a few years ago. Not that they were entirely wrong, but the method used to protest was not the good one.
Regarding the Iroquois, well, look at the Beaver Wars. It's not a question of sacred grounds, really.
Of course it's a question of winner. Or perhaps survivor. We don't know what 17th century tribes thought were theirs. They didn't write much down. We have only oral traditions, and the records of Europeans. Since there was fighting in modern day Quebec, it is reasonable to think that the Indians had a different opinion of who that land belonged to then the Europeans.
you ever heard about history? Among the things hi
Quote
You still never actually answered my question. Is it acceptable to divide up Quebec amongst First Tribes.
Based on their reservations&communities, yes. they could seperate and be autonomous if they wanted too.
Many of the tribes living in Quebec today are refugees from the Seven Years War, the American Revolution and the War of 1812, so they have well definied lands here.
QuoteAnd you never answered why First Nations languages aren't protected in Quebec. That last one you've avoided every time I put it to you.
I already told you they are protected. They receive government funds for their education, in their native language where available. Hurons have the Wendat language, by I am unsure it is spoken or merely written. Any way, all signs are bilingual in their reservation.
So really, I fail to see what you're getting at, especially when I already answered that.
I think you missed the point. How about this, would it be acceptable if French had the same status as First nation languages in Quebec and the rest of Canada? I don't think the law requires you be served in Cree on an Air Canada flight. I don't think any First Nation language has the protection status as French.
What is this "Based on reservations" caveat? I'm thinking of huge chunks of Canada. The Francophones can have St. Lawrence river valley, the rest go to the Indians.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 10:42:12 AM
Israel is far from mono-cultural, even if the analysis is restrictied to Jewish population. You have secular Jews and haredim, Russian immigrants, Mizrahi, falashas, etc.
But they are all Jews. Even if they disagree on minor things, at the core, they are all Jews.
Like Frenchmen are all French, despite being Bretons and Corsicans. And they do have differences.
Of course, if you go on a strict cultural basis, you could make the arguments that Montrealers are different from Gaspesians wich in turn are different from Quebecers living in Quebec city. But the core values are the same.
If we nitpick on the small cultural differences, then of course, each individual is different, each family would represent a cultural identity in itself.
Quote
As for the US, while it is true by definition that the original 13 colonies were not separate nations prior to independence, even restricting to that group, it was no a mono-cultural society.
White, english, protestants for the most part. And they evolve into a sort of melting port where all cultures merge toward the dominant ones. That's not multi-cultural.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
White, english, protestants for the most part. And they evolve into a sort of melting port where all cultures merge toward the dominant ones. That's not multi-cultural.
Nonsense. That is exactly what it is despite how offensive that is to your nationalistic mind. That is what makes it awesome.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
But they are all Jews. Even if they disagree on minor things, at the core, they are all Jews.
Like Frenchmen are all French, despite being Bretons and Corsicans. And they do have differences.
Oh, man. You have no idea :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
If we nitpick on the small cultural differences, then of course, each individual is different, each family would represent a cultural identity in itself.
Not sure why you narrow down to the individual and then go macro by focusing on the family.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
But they are all Jews. Even if they disagree on minor things, at the core, they are all Jews.
Yet the Croats and the Serbs who speak the same language and share a practically identical culture differed only on minor things. Yet it was huge because nationalists assholes split the people. What are minor and what are not minor differences are completely and utterly arbitrary in the deranged world of nationalism.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2011, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
White, english, protestants for the most part. And they evolve into a sort of melting port where all cultures merge toward the dominant ones. That's not multi-cultural.
Nonsense. That is exactly what it is despite how offensive that is to your nationalistic mind. That is what makes it awesome.
Anyway, despite efforts - I don't think the demographic of the US is becoming whiter or more English. :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 10:55:49 AM
I think you missed the point. How about this, would it be acceptable if French had the same status as First nation languages in Quebec and the rest of Canada? I don't think the law requires you be served in Cree on an Air Canada flight. I don't think any First Nation language has the protection status as French.
Different matter entirely.
For once, most of the indians do not speak their ancient native language, they have assimilated to English&French for the most part. It just wouldn't be practical for them.
Quote
What is this "Based on reservations" caveat? I'm thinking of huge chunks of Canada. The Francophones can have St. Lawrence river valley, the rest go to the Indians.
The claims were relinquished in various treaties with the British, the Canadians and later Quebec. Indians that were expelled from the US by British, Americans or Iroquois have no claims in Canada, unfortunately.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
Anyway, despite efforts - I don't think the demographic of the US is becoming whiter or more English. :unsure:
Well right white English people have not been moving here in large numbers in a very long time.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
Anyway, despite efforts - I don't think the demographic of the US is becoming whiter or more English. :unsure:
But they still assimilate to the general US culture. And there's no specific exceptions in the laws of the countries for a particular group. No islamic tribunal, afaik. No officially bilingual states for Spanish. Unilingual states, howere, do exists, like California and Arizona. That ain't exactly multi-cultural. One could argue that building a fence around the country, on its southern border as well as its norther border ain't exactly a sign of opening to immigration.
Blacks may have a different skin color, but their culture have merged with the general white population.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 10:55:49 AM
I think you missed the point. How about this, would it be acceptable if French had the same status as First nation languages in Quebec and the rest of Canada? I don't think the law requires you be served in Cree on an Air Canada flight. I don't think any First Nation language has the protection status as French.
Different matter entirely.
For once, most of the indians do not speak their ancient native language, they have assimilated to English&French for the most part. It just wouldn't be practical for them.
Quote
What is this "Based on reservations" caveat? I'm thinking of huge chunks of Canada. The Francophones can have St. Lawrence river valley, the rest go to the Indians.
The claims were relinquished in various treaties with the British, the Canadians and later Quebec. Indians that were expelled from the US by British, Americans or Iroquois have no claims in Canada, unfortunately.
Ah, so you aren't so keen on protecting their language. Your definition of "protect" seems to be "don't overtly hinder to much". Though apparently even reservations must be bilingual. Like I said, you don't offer the same status to First Nation languages as the Anglophones offer to French. Practical is not a consideration in Identity politics as the pro-Independence types in Quebec aptly demonstrate.
The French relinquished their claims on Quebec through treaties. As the people of Quebec were French Subjects, those claims were relinquished on their behalf. So using your logic, Quebec shouldn't be independent either.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:14:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
Anyway, despite efforts - I don't think the demographic of the US is becoming whiter or more English. :unsure:
But they still assimilate to the general US culture. And there's no specific exceptions in the laws of the countries for a particular group. No islamic tribunal, afaik. No officially bilingual states for Spanish. Unilingual states, howere, do exists, like California and Arizona. That ain't exactly multi-cultural. One could argue that building a fence around the country, on its southern border as well as its norther border ain't exactly a sign of opening to immigration.
Blacks may have a different skin color, but their culture have merged with the general white population.
Culture is solely an artifact of language? :yeahright:
Also, you should probably get your facts straight. California's official language is English but about 1/4 of Californians speak Spanish as well and it looks like Arizona has a comparable statistic. Additionally there is Spanish on many signs and products all over the southwest. According to wiki, some legal documents in New Mexico are required to have Spanish.
Oh and were you aware that in California it is no longer mandatory for employers to check immigration status? Illegal immigrants can also get financial aid and in-state tuition for college. Sounds exactly like a sign of being close to immigration. :rolleyes:
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:14:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
Anyway, despite efforts - I don't think the demographic of the US is becoming whiter or more English. :unsure:
But they still assimilate to the general US culture. And there's no specific exceptions in the laws of the countries for a particular group. No islamic tribunal, afaik. No officially bilingual states for Spanish. Unilingual states, howere, do exists, like California and Arizona. That ain't exactly multi-cultural. One could argue that building a fence around the country, on its southern border as well as its norther border ain't exactly a sign of opening to immigration.
Blacks may have a different skin color, but their culture have merged with the general white population.
We also don't have any official language. It would be difficult to claim that the culture of the US in 1811 is the same culture as that of 2011. Saying they "assimilated" is inaccurate. Hell most of us are descended from Germans. Like me.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 11:29:50 AM
We also don't have any official language. It would be difficult to claim that the culture of the US in 1811 is the same culture as that of 2011. Saying they "assimilated" is inaccurate. Hell most of us are descended from Germans. Like me.
Actually many individual states do have official languages.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 11:25:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 10:55:49 AM
I think you missed the point. How about this, would it be acceptable if French had the same status as First nation languages in Quebec and the rest of Canada? I don't think the law requires you be served in Cree on an Air Canada flight. I don't think any First Nation language has the protection status as French.
Different matter entirely.
For once, most of the indians do not speak their ancient native language, they have assimilated to English&French for the most part. It just wouldn't be practical for them.
Quote
What is this "Based on reservations" caveat? I'm thinking of huge chunks of Canada. The Francophones can have St. Lawrence river valley, the rest go to the Indians.
The claims were relinquished in various treaties with the British, the Canadians and later Quebec. Indians that were expelled from the US by British, Americans or Iroquois have no claims in Canada, unfortunately.
Ah, so you aren't so keen on protecting their language. Your definition of "protect" seems to be "don't overtly hinder to much". Though apparently even reservations must be bilingual. Like I said, you don't offer the same status to First Nation languages as the Anglophones offer to French. Practical is not a consideration in Identity politics as the pro-Independence types in Quebec aptly demonstrate.
The French relinquished their claims on Quebec through treaties. As the people of Quebec were French Subjects, those claims were relinquished on their behalf. So using your logic, Quebec shouldn't be independent either.
The Anglos, they offer nothing. We made it happen.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 12, 2011, 11:32:10 AM
The Anglos, they offer nothing. We made it happen.
There are lots of Democracies that don't extend such rights and privileges to minority languages. France for example. A minority doesn't force a majority to do something with out the majority allowing it to happen unless by force of arms.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 11:29:50 AM
We also don't have any official language. It would be difficult to claim that the culture of the US in 1811 is the same culture as that of 2011. Saying they "assimilated" is inaccurate. Hell most of us are descended from Germans. Like me.
Actually many individual states do have official languages.
The Feds don't. The states are like retarded children off getting into trouble. They often do stupid things. When they do, we just sigh and shake our head.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:06:51 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
If we nitpick on the small cultural differences, then of course, each individual is different, each family would represent a cultural identity in itself.
Not sure why you narrow down to the individual and then go macro by focusing on the family.
well, I don't know the english word for the term I'm seeking. The smallest unit we analyzes in micro-economy.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Indians that were expelled from the US by British, Americans or Iroquois have no claims in Canada, unfortunately.
Do the Quebecois have claims within Canada?
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:29:04 AM
Culture is solely an artifact of language? :yeahright:
Quebec sovereigntists have created some rather intricate philosophical constructions to try and justify their position.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 11:29:04 AM
Culture is solely an artifact of language? :yeahright:
No. But it's the basis.
Quote
Also, you should probably get your facts straight. California's official language is English but about 1/4 of Californians speak Spanish as well and it looks like Arizona has a comparable statistic. Additionally there is Spanish on many signs and products all over the southwest. According to wiki, some legal documents in New Mexico are required to have Spanish.
While the judicial system has noted that the laws are largely symbolic and non prohibitive, public school staff often interpret them to mean English is the mandatory language of daily life.[citation needed] In one instance, an elementary school bus driver prohibited students from speaking Spanish on their way to school after Colorado passed its legislation.[21] In 2004 in Scottsdale, a teacher claimed to be enforcing English immersion policies when she allegedly slapped students for speaking Spanish in class.[22] In 2005 in Kansas City, a student was suspended for speaking Spanish in the school hallways. The written discipline referral explaining the decision of the school to suspend the student for one and a half days, noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school." [23]And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_227 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_227)
No bilingual education for California.
Quote
Oh and were you aware that in California it is no longer mandatory for employers to check immigration status? Illegal immigrants can also get financial aid and in-state tuition for college. Sounds exactly like a sign of being close to immigration. :rolleyes:
Let's talk about Arizona.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Indians that were expelled from the US by British, Americans or Iroquois have no claims in Canada, unfortunately.
Do the Quebecois have claims within Canada?
Labrador.
But not Quebec itself? Interesting. Upon what would you base this claim?
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
[But they are all Jews. Even if they disagree on minor things, at the core, they are all Jews.
They disgaree on very major things, including the very basis and legitimacy of the shared state. The differences in "core values" as between say Haredim and secular liberals could not be greater.
QuoteWhite, english, protestants for the most part. And they evolve into a sort of melting port where all cultures merge toward the dominant ones.
At the time of the 1790 census, almost 20% were of African origin. Another 15% or so were German, Dutch, French or Irish. And among the WASPs, there were very significant cultural differences between Puritan New Englanders, Episcopalian New York merchants, and Pennsylvania Quakers; not to mention the vast cultural gulf between North and South that ended up in civil war.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2011, 12:01:53 PM
But not Quebec itself? Interesting. Upon what would you base this claim?
There is no "claim", Quebec has well defined borders that are recognized by everyone.
Quebec occupies the territories and legislate all who inhabits it. There is no denial about that.
Except for Labrador where we never agreed with the British decision, but couldn't oppose it as Quebec was not a country. But that point is moot anyway. It's one of the numerous injustice of Canada, but it will stay that way until such a time as we are all dust and maybe beyond that.
The only other claim would be about territorial waters. According to the Constitution, apparently, the borders of Quebec in James Bay and Hudson bay do not extend beyond the lower limit of waters.
So the injustice is that the federal government set that border without the consent of the Quebecois? Were any Quebecois living there at the time?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 12:09:15 PM
They disgaree on very major things, including the very basis and legitimacy of the shared state. The differences in "core values" as between say Haredim and secular liberals could not be greater.
How many Israeli disagree that Israel should exist right now?
Quote
At the time of the 1790 census, almost 20% were of African origin.
Slaves don't really count, you know. They had no rights at all.
Quote
Another 15% or so were German, Dutch, French or Irish. And among the WASPs, there were very significant cultural differences between Puritan New Englanders, Episcopalian New York merchants, and Pennsylvania Quakers; not to mention the vast cultural gulf between North and South that ended up in civil war.
Having German, Dutch, French or Irish origins doesn't really matter. At the time of Independance, certainly a majority felt as Americans. AFAIK the US Constitution doesn't mention anything about German, Dutch, French or Irish. They don't even specify that blacks are 'men'.
The rest are minor divisions between religions. The vast cultural gulf between North and South wasn't so vast at the time. It's not like the Northern merchants weren't selling or owning slaves:
William Henry Seward, Lincoln's anti-slavery Secretary of State during the Civil War, born in 1801, grew up in Orange County, New York, in a slave-owning family and amid neighbors who owned slaves if they could afford them. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.Over the years the North became more industrial and the South remained agricultural. But in 1775? I have doubts.
And I've been told more than once that after 1865, you were all Americans. No more distinction.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2011, 12:17:12 PM
So the injustice is that the federal government set that border without the consent of the Quebecois? Were any Quebecois living there at the time?
Not the Federal Government. The British privy council. The Feds only let the matter stand. It was better to give a territory to Loyal Subjects of His Majesty than to have it fall in the hands of those French devils, I suppose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador#Boundary_dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador#Boundary_dispute)
Anyway, it's not like there would be anything done about it, even if Quebec was to seperate. Most likely, the First Nations will want their own territory carved out of Labrador.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2011, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2011, 12:17:12 PM
Were any Quebecois living there at the time?
It was never about the people, you know... But yeah, there must have been some French settlements there. Québécois? Hard to tell. We didn't call ourselves Québécois until the 60s. There were Canadiens, and there were English. Most of the population of 1927 must have been native. There weren't much French in norther Quebec until the 50s, when Duplessis developped the area.
So you don't know. Ok, but if it wasn't about the people then what claim does Quebec have to that land?
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 07:59:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 12:50:07 AM
So say the winner :lol: I imagine the Mohawk and Iroquois had a different opinion.
It ain't a question of winner.
Regarding the Mohawks and Iroquois, again, those who converted to catholicism relocated near Montreal (present day Oka) and this is where there was some problems a few years ago. Not that they were entirely wrong, but the method used to protest was not the good one.
Regarding the Iroquois, well, look at the Beaver Wars. It's not a question of sacred grounds, really.
Okay, you're getting on my nerves with this Raz = Ide shit.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2011, 12:30:32 PM
So you don't know. Ok, but if it wasn't about the people then what claim does Quebec have to that land?
Before 1809 it was in Lower Canada. I think that's the claim.
So the argument is that the British Government didn't have the right to alter the boundaries between its possessions?
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
The PQ ran the 1995 referendum saying many similar things. It was revealed afterwards they intended to do a unilateral declaration of independence within days of a yes vote (and that France was prepared to recognize same). I rather suspect something similar here.
I always found that process semi-retarded. If Quebec wants to become an independent state, no need for a referendum. Just have a vote in the national assembly.
There. Done.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 12:37:18 PM
Okay, you're getting on my nerves with this Raz = Ide shit.
You should be flattered.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 12:18:47 PM
How many Israeli disagree that Israel should exist right now?
That's a very low bar for demonstrating the existence of a mono-culture. Circular argument, really.
QuoteSlaves don't really count, you know.
:blink:
QuoteAt the time of Independance, certainly a majority felt as Americans. AFAIK the US Constitution doesn't mention anything about German, Dutch, French or Irish.
Of course it doesn't because the from the very beginning, the US was not designed as a mono-cultural nation. That's the point.
You are now making a perfectly circular argument that every nation without a strong separatist movement can be said to be mono-cultural, because "culture" is you are defining "culture" merely as sharing a national affiliation or identity.
I don't know how many of the former colonists considered themselves "Americans" after the Revolution. People were identifying with their home state more up until the Civil War.
Viper's arguments are becoming increasingly bizarre.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 01:00:36 PM
That's a very low bar for demonstrating the existence of a mono-culture. Circular argument, really.
That would also suggest Canada is a monoculture since the majority of Canadians believe that Canada should exist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 01:00:36 PM
Of course it doesn't because the from the very beginning, the US was not designed as a mono-cultural nation. That's the point.
Very few were, for very few nations were "designed".
This is the usual problem in such debates.
Some will accuse others of glossing over differences internal to some nations - but then, one is left with the question as to what binds a nation together, instead of simply being an addition of individuals. The easy way out is to turn to law, , because it can be described in the terms law itself provides to do so. But then it looks unsatisfactory to explain the interaction between people who care little about the wording of the law, and does little to explain the preexistence of nations. The hard way is to claim to look at culture - and then we are faced with the difficulty of pinpointing what, in fact, culture is - either generally (but then it becomes too general), or specifically (but then, it seems tailored to each case, or, indeed, tautological).
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 11:59:27 AM
Let's talk about Arizona.
Focusing on one data point to suit your purposes? Cool.
So, Ide...would you like to commission a map?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 01:00:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 12:18:47 PM
How many Israeli disagree that Israel should exist right now?
That's a very low bar for demonstrating the existence of a mono-culture. Circular argument, really.
QuoteSlaves don't really count, you know.
:blink:
QuoteAt the time of Independance, certainly a majority felt as Americans. AFAIK the US Constitution doesn't mention anything about German, Dutch, French or Irish.
Of course it doesn't because the from the very beginning, the US was not designed as a mono-cultural nation. That's the point.
You are now making a perfectly circular argument that every nation without a strong separatist movement can be said to be mono-cultural, because "culture" is you are defining "culture" merely as sharing a national affiliation or identity.
The world according to viper is an interesting place.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2011, 12:49:50 PM
So the argument is that the British Government didn't have the right to alter the boundaries between its possessions?
The British Gov has the right, the problem is when Canada achieve full independence, the Federal government didn't revisit the situation, still hasn't. Since Quebec isn't a country The Provincial Gov doesn't have any recourse other then saying it doesn't recognize the 1927 decisions, just like they do with the 1982 constitution.
And then, all this argument will get much more complicated once we include Nunatsiavut in the discussion.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 01:00:36 PM
That's a very low bar for demonstrating the existence of a mono-culture. Circular argument, really.
it's the one you gave me. I'm simply asking how many Israelis believe their country shouldn't exist. It sounds bizarre to me that someone emigrates and chooses to live in a such a country.
Quote
:blink:
Ok, what I mean is that they had no say in the foundation of America, like the Indians.
Nobody asked the slaves to vote on independance, no one asked the Shawnees if they tought forming a new country with the Americans was a good idea for them. No one asked the tribes beyond the Mississipi, in yet uncharted lands what they tought about it.
This is what I meant. Not that there were no slaves.
To determine the foundation of a country, you have to look at the people who created it. And that wasn't the black slaves, nor the indians. So saying the US was a multi-cultural entity because there were indians and black slaves, wich were practically denied all rights in the US Colonies is a dubious argument, imho.
Quote
Of course it doesn't because the from the very beginning, the US was not designed as a mono-cultural nation. That's the point.
You are now making a perfectly circular argument that every nation without a strong separatist movement can be said to be mono-cultural, because "culture" is you are defining "culture" merely as sharing a national affiliation or identity.
Well, a seperation movement usually occur when a distinct nation occupies a distinct territory.
Multiculturalism is the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nationsOne could say it describes Canada, partly. In theory, certainly. It's Trudeau's dream, certainly.
In practice, lots of work to do. But that's really not what I'm seeing in the US:
The melting pot is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous, the different elements "melting together" into a harmonious whole with a common culture. It is particularly used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States; the melting-together metaphor was in use by the 1780s.
What more work do you think Canada need to do on the Multicultural front? From your previous complaints it seems that what you want is everyone to speak French.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 01:27:15 PM
Focusing on one data point to suit your purposes? Cool.
I haven't searched the policies of all US States, no. I know the list for non-bilingual education in US states is more than 2 States, but that's pretty much irrelevant in itsefl without correlating it with the number of non english speakers in the particular State. What I do know is that States who feel threatened by mass immigration from a different culture, mainly Spanish today, but I'm also seeing movement against building a Mosquee in some States/Counties. Not only on the 9/11 site, but also in Tennessee.
It's hard to imagine a real multi-cultural state protesting against a symbol of difference.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 01:42:37 PM
What more work do you think Canada need to do on the Multicultural front? From your previous complaints it seems that what you want is everyone to speak French.
take your pills Raz. You're hallucinating again.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 01:46:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2011, 01:42:37 PM
What more work do you think Canada need to do on the Multicultural front? From your previous complaints it seems that what you want is everyone to speak French.
take your pills Raz. You're hallucinating again.
Okay, enlighten me. What do you want from Multiculturalism?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 12, 2011, 01:13:09 PM
Very few were, for very few nations were "designed".
I disagree - most nations were designed, quite consciously, and the US is definitely among those. Indeed, in the that specific case there was a long, open and extensive debate as to whether such a nation should come into being at all, and what the basis for such a project should be. In other cases, the discussion was not quite as obvious and open, but it happened nonetheless.
QuoteSome will accuse others of glossing over differences internal to some nations - but then, one is left with the question as to what binds a nation together, instead of simply being an addition of individuals. The easy way out is to turn to law, , because it can be described in the terms law itself provides to do so. But then it looks unsatisfactory to explain the interaction between people who care little about the wording of the law, and does little to explain the preexistence of nations. The hard way is to claim to look at culture - and then we are faced with the difficulty of pinpointing what, in fact, culture is - either generally (but then it becomes too general), or specifically (but then, it seems tailored to each case, or, indeed, tautological).
Historically, the dynamic of nation-states using the formal and informal powers of the state to mold a national culture has been at least as much if not more of a phenomenon then some pre-existing cultural unity coming together organically to form a nation-state. For example, the French Republic(s) took the geographic shape they took because those happened to be the lands that Capets, Valois and Bourbons happened to cobble together; but it was the republican nationalists who sanded the down the disparate groups of Bretons, Alsatians, Normans, Occitan and Italian speakers of various types, etc. into "Frenchmen"
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2011, 01:27:15 PM
Focusing on one data point to suit your purposes? Cool.
I haven't searched the policies of all US States, no. I know the list for non-bilingual education in US states is more than 2 States, but that's pretty much irrelevant in itsefl without correlating it with the number of non english speakers in the particular State. What I do know is that States who feel threatened by mass immigration from a different culture, mainly Spanish today, but I'm also seeing movement against building a Mosquee in some States/Counties. Not only on the 9/11 site, but also in Tennessee.
It's hard to imagine a real multi-cultural state protesting against a symbol of difference.
I think that it would be a bad idea to judge a whole based on a few random anecdotes from a few states...but that's just me. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 01:48:33 PM
I disagree - most nations were designed, quite consciously, and the US is definitely among those.
States, institutions, constitutions were designed. But nations? This makes most sense if one takes the legalistic point of view of nations as states. And, indeed, there is a great temptation to make the slippage between states and nations, but I hold the terms to be dissimilar. And while nations can display themselves in various ways, can partake in shared mythologies, and projects, they do not seem to me to be "designed" (which suggests the idea of an author). Political projects can certainly give rise to a nation, but so does military conquest, acts of resistance, religious affiliation, etc. In most cases, it is precisely the interplay between self-identification and political definition that shape nations.
The French Republic seems a rather particular example too, given the nature of French nationalism and identity and the way that's been tied into 'republicanism'. That could possibly havehad a cultural effect on Quebec?
But I'd say France is a different example than relatively accidental nations like Britain, Belgium, Spain or even Italy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:43:19 PM
The French Republic seems a rather particular example too, given the nature of French nationalism and identity and the way that's been tied into 'republicanism'. That could possibly havehad a cultural effect on Quebec?
But I'd say France is a different example than relatively accidental nations like Britain, Belgium, Spain or even Italy.
Nothing accidental about Italy. 'Italy has been made; now it remains to make Italians'
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:43:19 PM
The French Republic seems a rather particular example too, given the nature of French nationalism and identity and the way that's been tied into 'republicanism'. That could possibly havehad a cultural effect on Quebec?
But I'd say France is a different example than relatively accidental nations like Britain, Belgium, Spain or even Italy.
What is accidental about Italy?
Together with Germany, they were quite deliberately created in the 19th century.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2011, 02:46:59 PMWhat is accidental about Italy?
Together with Germany, they were quite deliberately created in the 19th century.
So was Belgium. I feel Italy's creation was more due to lucky outside circumstances than Germany's. I also think there must be some distance because I don't know of any serious internal fissues in Germany like they have in Italy. But really I was just being careless :sadblush:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 01:31:24 PM
So, Ide...would you like to commission a map?
Why would I need to commission you to use the fill command in Photoshop six times? It would essentially be a special, and rather handy, case of lineart coloring, which I do all the time.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2011, 02:46:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:43:19 PM
The French Republic seems a rather particular example too, given the nature of French nationalism and identity and the way that's been tied into 'republicanism'. That could possibly havehad a cultural effect on Quebec?
But I'd say France is a different example than relatively accidental nations like Britain, Belgium, Spain or even Italy.
What is accidental about Italy?
Together with Germany, they were quite deliberately created in the 19th century.
Why would you unite with the Two Sicilies on purpose?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 02:55:07 PM
Why would you unite with the Two Sicilies on purpose?
Because in Napoli love is king.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 02:55:07 PM
Why would you unite with the Two Sicilies on purpose?
Because you are a Guiscard?
:secret:
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 12, 2011, 02:22:56 PM
States, institutions, constitutions were designed. But nations? This makes most sense if one takes the legalistic point of view of nations as states. And, indeed, there is a great temptation to make the slippage between states and nations, but I hold the terms to be dissimilar. And while nations can display themselves in various ways, can partake in shared mythologies, and projects, they do not seem to me to be "designed" (which suggests the idea of an author). Political projects can certainly give rise to a nation, but so does military conquest, acts of resistance, religious affiliation, etc. In most cases, it is precisely the interplay between self-identification and political definition that shape nations.
This is stepping in a terminological morass. Medievals might speak of a "nation" as referring to a group of people of roughly common regional origin living as expatriates, as in a university or a trading comptoir or a banking house. But that is not the usage you are proposing. In modern parlance, nation and state are inextricably tied - not all states are necessarily nations, but every nation is either a state or has claims or pretensions to be one. The usage you propose here is not merely imprecise, it begs the question by confounding nationality with other, unspecified forms of possible cultural identity.
To get straight to the concerete example that has viper exercised, the French-speaking inhabitants of Quebec can claim to be a nation not because of shared history or cultural characteristics -- many groupings of people can claim to that without constituting a "nation" in the way that any modern would understand - but because they have mobilized behind a political project that seeks to make that commonality, whether real or mythical, the basis for a form of political organization.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 12, 2011, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2011, 01:31:24 PM
So, Ide...would you like to commission a map?
Why would I need to commission you to use the fill command in Photoshop six times? It would essentially be a special, and rather handy, case of lineart coloring, which I do all the time.
That's boring.
Here's your Anglo-American Confederation, Viper's South American Federation and some random stuff. Superstates ftw!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg209.imageshack.us%2Fimg209%2F7610%2Fideb.png&hash=6b8b6e929fb172c12ce037c72379387e5d2e1d3c) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/ideb.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
The Phillipines as part of the anglo union?
Indonesia / Thsiland / Burma / India???
Taiwan / Japan?
Israel as part of Europe???
What are you smoking Tim?
Quote
Israel as part of Europe???
Germany was starting to need lebensraum again.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2011, 03:37:45 PM
Israel as part of Europe???
I like how Cyprus gets taken over by the super Kaliphate thingy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 03:17:25 PMThis is stepping in a terminological morass. Medievals might speak of a "nation" as referring to a group of people of roughly common regional origin living as expatriates, as in a university or a trading comptoir or a banking house. But that is not the usage you are proposing. In modern parlance, nation and state are inextricably tied - not all states are necessarily nations, but every nation is either a state or has claims or pretensions to be one. The usage you propose here is not merely imprecise, it begs the question by confounding nationality with other, unspecified forms of possible cultural identity.
I am merely reminding you that nation and state are not synonymous. States have benefited, and were shaped, from the clarity of many discourses on their very nature and origin. Nations never had that luxury - and the very medieval definition you evoke precisely became bounded around self-identification and political definition (here: jurisdiction and representation). I am, of course, in agreement on the example of Quebec, or Palestine - that their claim to nationhood is tied with their political aspirations. I am stepping short of equating political aspirations with state, simply because I think that a nation - in modern parlance - can exist by virtue of such aspirations (and not necessarily by the effectuation of such aspirations), that it can exist in various forms of states (in itself, a problematic term), and that it can exist in various political configurations (i.e., empires, bi-national states) which are not synonymous with, say, the 19th c. Nation-State.
There will ever be a fuzziness to the definition, if only because it relies on "imagined communities", to borrow from B. Anderson. This ensures that modern nations might aim for a state to mold themselves, and to fashion it to their liking, but they never completely dissolve in it. Which is why one can attack, reform, modify, the State in the name of the Nation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 02:43:19 PM
The French Republic seems a rather particular example too, given the nature of French nationalism and identity and the way that's been tied into 'republicanism'. That could possibly havehad a cultural effect on Quebec?
But I'd say France is a different example than relatively accidental nations like Britain, Belgium, Spain or even Italy.
AFAICT, French republicanism had a very limited cultural influence in Quebec. With its anticlerical bent, first in 1792, and then in 1905, it was denounced in French Canada, paradoxically helping to secure a distinct national identity.
What seems to remain, however, is a different "echo" of the word
nation in French and English.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 12, 2011, 03:42:31 PM
There will ever be a fuzziness to the definition, if only because it relies on "imagined communities", to borrow from B. Anderson.
Sure but in Anderson's narrative, the "imagined communities" are to a significant extent constructions of a politicized elite taking advantage of the emergence of mass literacy. Thus, Anderson, like most theorists of nations and nationalism, places the phenomemon in time no earlier than the late 18th century.
Why is brazil part if the Hispanic super state but Mexico isn't? You fail at failing
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2011, 03:37:45 PM
The Phillipines as part of the anglo union?
It's like a lovable English speaking Mexico, they're in.
Quote
Indonesia / Thsiland / Burma / India???
Lots of historical cultural overlap.
Quote
Taiwan / Japan?
Israel as part of Europe???
They both need to go somewhere, and those were the best bets. From what I hear Taiwan's not nearly as bitter about the colonization as Korea is.
Tim, you are such a dolt.
Poland should be part of the Soviet Union.
Quote from: viper37 on October 12, 2011, 01:39:34 PM
it's the one you gave me. I'm simply asking how many Israelis believe their country shouldn't exist. It sounds bizarre to me that someone emigrates and chooses to live in a such a country.
I'd argue a solid majority of the Arab Israelis probably believe that Israel should not exist. It sounds bizarre to me that a supposedly educated member of the board doesn't think there are differences within Israel, with such a polyglot population.
In any case, what percentage of Israelis have to "believe their country shouldn't exist" to prove, or disprove, the argument that you never actually made that used "how many Israelis believe their country shouldn't exist" as a metric?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 12, 2011, 03:45:59 PMAFAICT, French republicanism had a very limited cultural influence in Quebec. With its anticlerical bent, first in 1792, and then in 1905, it was denounced in French Canada, paradoxically helping to secure a distinct national identity.
This is a totally separate issue and a very broad question but what sort of impact did France and changes there have on Quebec in the 19th century? I'm assuming that Canada in general was looking to the UK and, possibly to a lesser (or greater) extent to the US. What sort of cultural kinships did Quebec have in the same period?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 12, 2011, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2011, 01:48:33 PM
I disagree - most nations were designed, quite consciously, and the US is definitely among those.
States, institutions, constitutions were designed. But nations? This makes most sense if one takes the legalistic point of view of nations as states.
I agree that nations are different from states, and have not been
successfully designed. There have been attempts, though. I think you would conclude that those attempts are/were doomed to failure, and I would tend to agree.
Tim is awesome, all you other people are just jealous of his milkshake.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 05:37:47 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 12, 2011, 03:45:59 PMAFAICT, French republicanism had a very limited cultural influence in Quebec. With its anticlerical bent, first in 1792, and then in 1905, it was denounced in French Canada, paradoxically helping to secure a distinct national identity.
This is a totally separate issue and a very broad question but what sort of impact did France and changes there have on Quebec in the 19th century? I'm assuming that Canada in general was looking to the UK and, possibly to a lesser (or greater) extent to the US. What sort of cultural kinships did Quebec have in the same period?
I have no idea, but I'm curious too. Oex? Enlighten us svp.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2011, 07:57:04 AM
The Chinese all learn English and do not want us to learn Mandarin.
Don't take Mono's opinion to represent all of China.
I mean... you can... it's funny. But it's not always that accurate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2011, 05:37:47 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 12, 2011, 03:45:59 PMAFAICT, French republicanism had a very limited cultural influence in Quebec. With its anticlerical bent, first in 1792, and then in 1905, it was denounced in French Canada, paradoxically helping to secure a distinct national identity.
This is a totally separate issue and a very broad question but what sort of impact did France and changes there have on Quebec in the 19th century? I'm assuming that Canada in general was looking to the UK and, possibly to a lesser (or greater) extent to the US. What sort of cultural kinships did Quebec have in the same period?
As I understand it (as an outsider) Quebec (or at least French Quebec) was a very insular place, deeply tied to the Catholic church, and very rural. Montreal was a much more multicultural, and English-speaking place than it is now. I don't think it had a ton of "cultural kinships" until the Quiet Revolution of the 60s.
I don't understand "Cultural kinship"?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 13, 2011, 09:38:02 AM
I don't understand "Cultural kinship"?
You know, reading French books and watching French films and thinking 'hey you know those Euros are not so different from us'.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2011, 09:41:08 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 13, 2011, 09:38:02 AM
I don't understand "Cultural kinship"?
You know, reading French books and watching French films and thinking 'hey you know those Euros are not so different from us'.
I see.
I'd say we never had one, before the 60s & the Quiet Revolution the Catholic church held a firm grip on everything.
The church spent 200 years building a very successfull regiment & indoctrination that French Canada = A Rural & deeply catholic society.
After, It was a series of imitation of France & American culture until it settle in the late 70s & early 80s.
Now, I'm not sure.