user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, it seems she is consistently supporting the democratic principle of self-determination
Indeed. And I am a strong supporter of the right for self-determination also.
I am sympathetic toward the likes of Quebec, The Basque, Tibet, and such. I believe the peaceful and democratic separation of Czechoslovakia was a good thing, as it dispelled the myth that self-determination cannot be done peacefully and always leads to long-term tension. I believe that nations within countries should indeed have the right to the great democratic principle of self-determination.
Voted : No, not at all
To say that the French people wouldn't be opposed to the idea of Corsican independance is a massive understatement. I believe Ms Royal asked the "Quebec minister" to keep that shred of information to himself.
winston- That's not how it has been interpreted in France. Sarkozy especially is asserting that her remark was sympathetic toward Corsican nationalists. And a lot of what I read in the media portrays it as being soft on Corsican separatists. If she meant to say what you assert, then I do not see any reason why that would get her in trouble from the electorate at all.
I think the fake Quebec Premier should of also mentioned the Basque as well though.
I am sympathetic toward the likes of Quebec, The Basque, Tibet, and such.
Soc, how can you lump Quebec in with the likes of Tibet and the Basque? Quebeckers may feel somewhat alienated with teh rest of Canada (teh young are not as angry as the older generation), but Quebeckers are not beaten, browbeat or forced into submission with the likes of the Tibetans.
by aya on Sun Jan 28, 07 2:00pm
[+]
Maybe if the rest of Canada cuts off its provincial transfer payments Quebec would get to feel a little more beaten and browbeat...I say lets...
aya- Oh, of course each and every separatist movement is unique. Responses to Tibet nationalists in comparison to Quebec nationalists is obviously very different. I didn't state both to imply that both are exactly the same, but rather to indicate that I am sympathetic of varying separatist movements.
Regarding Tibet: Hypothetically, if China were to democratise, respect human rights everywhere around its territories and such, would that mean that Tibetans would no longer have the right to self-determination? Is it only appropriate for a separate nation to want a separate state only if they are wishing to escape some kind of oppression? I don't think so, not at all. For me, even if China democratised, had a good human rights record and so on, I would still strongly favour the Tibetan right to separate if that is what they wished. And I believe Tibetan nationalists would feel the same way- that is, even if China improved itself- the separatist movement would continue anyway. But why?
The plain fact is that separatist movements are NOT truly or purely about escaping 'oppression'. That is a naive assumption to believe that if oppression is removed that the separatist tendencies would decrease or stop (in fact, when oppression is removed, separatism is allowed to flourish even more so, as seen by most historical cases). Rather, the separatist goal is about nationalism, and a desire to protect ones cultural identity in the long term future. And the best way that is seen to be done is to instutionalise culture into a nation-state. Regardless of whether a government responds to a separatist threat with oppression or not, in the end the desire to protect ones culture can persist nonetheless, and is the heart of every separatist movement.
Canada is not opressing Quebec, but that is completely beside the point. The right of a nation to decide if it wants to become a state is for me a 'right', it is not about there being some conditions where it is only permissable in response to oppression. A nation's right to sovereignty is absolute- that is how philosophers and political theorists of old had always thought of the democratic nation-state as being- each nation with its own right to sovereignty. Not all nations have nation-states.
When defining and understanding separatist movements- one must first ask what is a 'nation-state' and what is it for? The nation-state implies a government capable of exercising sovereignty. According to the tradition of this, each 'nation' has the absolute right to sovereignty of a nation-state, its as simple as that. A 'nation is a collection of people on the basis of linguistics and culture who perceive themselves to form a distinct society.
And the MOST IMPORTANT characteristic of a nation is... language. Indeed, it is the heart of every nation. And around the world, nations without a state, such as Quebec and the Basques, do feel that their languages, the very most important characteristic of any nation, is vulnerable- and they are right to think so. It is fact that a nation that is stuck inside another nation-state usually eventually lose their separate language. The Welsh language in Wales is pretty much non-existent now for example. The Breton language in Brittany is sharply declining. This kind of thing doesn't occur immediately- it is a slow and steady process, and does indeed occur. Reflecting on this, it is not surprising that any nation without a state, including Quebec, would feel vulnerable and insecure about the stability and endurance of their language in the long-term.
Yet, the misconception continues everywhere that separatism is only permissable to escape from oppression. No wonder some Canadians react to Quebec separatism with: "but Canada treats Quebec very nicely." They have missed the point altogether I am afraid. It is not about claiming that Canada is oppressing them, or that they dislike Canada- but rather that they perceive Canada as one nation, and themselves as another, which is a reality. The point is culture expressed through nationalism.
Separatism is about protecting ones culture. It is a right of all nations to sovereignty if that is what they want.
"teh young are not as angry as the older generation"
- I disagree. It is both the older and the younger generations in Quebec whom are more prone to be nationalistic. It is the middle-aged whom are not really prone to be so as much. The new generations appeal for independence is emphasised by the rise in votes for the 'yes' camp in teh 1995 referendum in comparison to the 1980 referendum.
"Maybe if the rest of Canada cuts off its provincial transfer payments"
- Indeed, independence would be independence. Quebec is easliy capable of such a thing. Slovakia separated from union with the Czechs, and things have never been better there. Latvia separated from Russia, and things have never been better there. Slovenia separated from Yugoslavia, and things could never be better there. I believe Quebec could do fine without provincial pay-outs from Ottawa.
"Slovenia separated from Yugoslavia, and things could never be better there."
- I meant to say "HAVE (not could) never been better."
Actually Soc, the young REALLY aren't as angry as the older generation, as told by a Quebecker herself, but they vote yes to seperation b/c they feel Canada has become irrelevant.
by aya on Mon Jan 29, 07 11:34am
[+]
aya- Yes, fair enough, that makes sense. I'm sure they would feel such 'Canadian' characteristics, such as having the Queen of England on their money, as something very irrelevant to them indeed.
|
|
