Talk:Lists of active separatist movements

I more or less trust this list, but am perplexed. Is the sovereignty of England, for example, vested in the United Kingdom (just guessing)? From a strictly practical standpoint, England seemed sovereign enough to launch a war in the Falkan Islands. What legal construct denotes sovereignty?

Could you please site some source for this list or for the legal doctrine that delineates sovereign from non-sovereign states? What about dependant sovereigns?

Sovereign states have a seat at the United Nations while non-sovereign states do not. That is the most official delineation you will find. For the definition of sovereignty in your language, I recommend http://www.dictionary.com/ or http://www.hyperdictionary.com/ or even http://www.wikipedia.org/ . However, this is not a list of non-sovereign states, but a list of non-sovereign nations. (See the very good definition of nation in Wikipedia).

There might be a problem with this list in the future though: some nations do not exactly have a territory on which they are the majority. This was the case with the Jews before the creation of Israel in 1948 and still is the case for tons of aboriginal peoples. For example, the Crees are a nation but I don't know how they refer to their own country in English or in the Cree language. I am thinking now that it might be a good idea to change them all to the name that we use to refer to these nations rather than the name of the territory on which they live. What do you think? Mathieugp 21:06, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's not an entirely satisfying answer, because until very recently Switzerland did not have a seat at the UN, despite being by all accounts a sovereign nation. --Delirium 05:07, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

The definition of the word nation at http://www.dictionary.com/ reads as follows:

1. • a) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
   • b) The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).
4. • a) A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
   • b) The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

Therefore, there really is no opposition between a nation and a nationality. Depending on the context, one is more prefereable than the other. Mathieugp 23:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In theory several First Nations of Canada should be in this article. In the 1980s the government of the province of Quebec officially recognized the Amerindian nations which were on its territory. Let's see, there is the Attikamek nation, the Abenaqui nation, the Algonquin nation, the Huron-Wendate nation, the Innu nation...

You are right. Add them in. This planet is big enough for all of us. Also, I think that a nation doesn't exist when other powerful nations deem to look upon them and recognize them as such. A nation exists the moment a national consciousness is born within a distinct human community. Mathieugp 13:50, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

How can the Flemings and the Walloons both be non-sovereign nations? Who is running Belgium? Martians? Adam 14:00, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Belgium is an independent federal state with a population that is not culturally unified. There are three offially recognized communities within Belgium, each having its own non-sovereign (federated) state and some protected collective rights. If I read correctly on Politics of Belgium, there are the Flemish, the Francophones, and the Wallons "states" inside the federation. Depending on how the seats are distributed, it is possible that the Flemish hold the majority in the federal state (which is sovereign). I am not certain. However, the sovereignty lies in the people, and in the case of Belgium, this people is composed of different nations, hence their very unique form of government. The sovereignty is shared between rather small peoples who, for now, think it in their interest not to "disband". I don't think that the Francophones see themselves as a distinct nation though. We would need to ask them or read all of their literature to know how they see themselves now and how they saw themselves later. From what I personally know, the Francophone Belgians consider themselves Belgian or French living in Belgium. They don't really have a distinct identity like the Walloons for example.

The Walloons are francophone, you silly, silly person. john 06:54, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Walloons are often francizied of course, being such a small minority. However the Walloon language is a separate language. Some people call it a dialect, usually derogatorily. It's not because one does not know of something that it doesn't exist. Mathieugp 17:04, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While the Walloons certainly speak or spoke a distinct romance dialect, the basic fact is that there is no distinction between "Walloons" and "Francophone Belgians". the two terms are synonymous. john 21:01, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That is a mistake on your part. Since I am convinced you are the kind of person who is open-minded enough to speak multiple languages, you will have no difficulty reading this French La Communauté française de Belgique. A lot of Francophone Belgians also speak Walloon. Since January 24, 1983, this language is taught it some elementary schools. Mathieugp 01:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

How about this question to clarify: Were Americans a non-sovereign nation from ????-1783? If the UN seat is the criterion, are the Taiwanese a non-sovereign nation today? -- Alan Peakall 14:06, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Americans as we know them today did not exist as a nation before 1776. I guess we would need to ask the Americans themselves, but from what I gather, the national consiousness of the American people was really crystalized after the revolution. After that, it was "us" the Americans, and "them" the British. The majority of Americans who back then were of English, Scottish, and Irish origin united to form a new nation with a new culture. It's in fact since 1776 and 1789 that we are able to think of nations as essentially cultural and political rather than ethnic and hereditary. Unfortunately, not all nations have attainted the level of political automony they wish for themselves like the Americans.

If a nation is not represented at the United Nations, they are non-sovereign yes. Mathieugp 22:10, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think this is just plain stupid. There have been, and are still, sovereign states not members of the UN, and for any definition of any term including the word "sovereign", there is no reason to separate between concepts that apply to sovereign UN-members and concepts that apply to sovereign non-UN-members.

Well, if we were to list all nations that may have been at some point non-sovereign, than you would be entirely right. However, currently, all nations that are sovereign tend to want to join the UN because it is through this official recognition that they can participate to the international community and actually profit from the advantages of being independent. It would be very illogical for a free nation to wish to not be recognized as such by the UN. It would mean to choose to be an outlaw essentially. Are there such independent nations still in existence today in 2004 outside some isolated island providing a fiscal paradise to our world's best crooks? The best list of sovereign nations that we have right now is the one the UN provides, the one that keeps growing since the end of the Second World War. Mathieugp 22:10, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is possible that the already mentioned Republic of China is quite unique, I don't know (and admittedly some people would argue against its sovereignity as well). Also the Holy See is not a full member, though, and more importantly, Switzerland only became a member two years ago. I do see your point, though: almost all sovereign states are members of the UN, and it's a good rule of thumb: "What's a sovereign state?" -"It's the kind of thing that can be a UN member." But the membership is not what makes them sovereign. Perhaps I over-interpreted that statement; perhaps nobody here has actually meant that. (Also, historically, the rule of thumb doesn't quite work, seeing how the Belarussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR were both UN members while being parts of the USSR (which was also a member) and so anything but sovereign.) -- Jao 22:48, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Mathieugp 23:04, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also, for the main issue, I think the only possible definition of a "sovereign nation" (a term that doesn't sound all too good to me anyway) is a nation that is in majority within a sovereign state. So a non-sovereign nation must be one that is not. -- Jao 15:59, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's pretty much what we are saying here. Sovereign states tend to be members of the UN. Mathieugp 22:10, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To think that the UN Security Council is an impartial arbiter is a rididuclous idea. The states that stand on this coucil vote for their own national interests and the five permanent members would not hesitate to use their veto to defend such interests. According to the Montevideo Convention, "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states."--Jiang 02:34, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it can be argued that all sovereign nations are in fact UN members. The Holy See is technically a state, but there is no "Holy See nation." Taiwan is not a member, but then Taiwan doesn't claim to be a state or a nation. It claims to be the government of China, which it isn't. Adam 02:14, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The Republic of China claims to be a sovereign state. (Of course, calling Taiwan a nation is POV and should not be done.) The only political entity with "Taiwan" in its name is Taiwan Province. They've stopped asking to replace/expel the PRC a long time ago. Instead, recent resolutions make it clear that they want to coexist in the UN with the PRC. --Jiang 02:34, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that I am using "Taiwan" as shorthand for the ROC, as does everyone else including its government. What are we arguing about here anyway? I must say I think this whole article is pretty pointless. If people wants to know about the Kurds or the Tibetans they will look in the appropriate place. Adam 02:51, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Taiwan" the shorthand for the ROC does claim to be an independent state. --Jiang

Yes, but the independent state it claims to be is China, which is an unsustainable claim and not one which (most) other countries can recognise. Adam 02:59, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Read the UNSC resolutions it proposed in the past decade. It clearly speaks of representing 23 million people, not 1.3 billion. The official claim over mainland China and outer Mongolia is all but ignored. Take a look at this: [1]. It's the PRC that is blocking all this. --Jiang

I suggest you read the ROC Constitution some time. When and if that document is amended to make it clear that the territory of the ROC is confined to the island of Taiwan, then you will have a point. Anyway this debate is not relevant to whatever the topic of this article is. Adam 03:09, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Acutally, I have and it makes no claim to national borders. Instead, it only gives the authority designate the national borders to the National Assembly, which has not convened to change them. This is not the only case of overalapping territorial claims in the world.--Jiang 03:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since when were Sardinians a nation? Who says they are? Why aren't Sicilians a nation, or people from the Isle of Wight? I am beginning to think this whole article is silly. If you are going to list Cree and Micmacs as nations, I could list hundreds of indigenous Australian peoples. Adam 04:55, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do the Sicilians have a national consciousness? Do they have cultural and social institutions of their own? Do they have a language of their own? Do they have a common history? I think the word nation is well-defined inside Wikipedia and this list uses it in its original meaning. To answer the question: "Who is a nation and who is not?", I think we just need to ask the people concerned. This list doesn't try to answer the question: "Should all peoples be sovereign?". It only lists those nations which currently do not self-govern. Mathieugp 16:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And I find it puzzling that the majority group in Belgium counts as a non-sovereign nation yet the majority group in the United Kingdom does not. From where I stand the English are as much controlled by the Government as the Scots or the Welsh. Only the Government is sovereign within the UK and even it is not allowed to deal with certain religious matters in Scotland. Sometimes that Government has a majority of Scots in Cabinet and sometimes it has a majority of Englishmen, so which nation is ruling which ? It depends upon which date you are talking about. I'm inclined to agree with Adam. This appears to be an ill-defined list some of whose contents are highly dependent on Point Of View at the moment. -- Derek Ross 05:12, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This list refers to the current situation only of course. It's actually quite simple. The English do not have a sub-national state inside the UK, unlike the Scots and the Welsh. If there were 3 States, England, Scotland, and Wales inside a federation of Great Britain, than England would be a non-sovereign nation like Scotland and Wales. The English people is represented inside the House of Commons where they are the overwhelming majority. Inside the House of Commons, the Scots and the Welsh, however well-represented they may be, only have the power to lobby the decisions taken by the English people. Or the Lords. Or the Queen. :-) Mathieugp 16:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The House of Commons isn't like that. It doesn't represent component nations. For the most part it represents pan-British political parties (nationalist parties are a minority everywhere except Northern Ireland), so it's not a case of Scots or Welsh lobbying the English, or the English people taking decisions. It's a case of the opposition parties lobbying or obstructing the Government while the Government takes decisions. Here are two examples of situations which some English people complain about. Firstly the Labour party has never had a majority in England. Thus if the English people were fully sovereign there would never have been a Labour Government. Yet the Labour party has managed to form UK Governments in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Scottish and Welsh folk and against the wishes of the majority of English folk. Secondly expenditure per capita on Health, Roads, and various other infrastructure is higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, partly because of poorer health, partly because of worse weather but mainly because of lower population density. Many, if not most, English people feel that this is unfair, yet they can't do anything about it because it is the UK Government with its strong Scottish representation at the highest level which is sovereign, not the English people. These are some of the reasons why I would say that none of the British nationalities are completely sovereign. Rather they hold the balance of sovereignty between them. The English may often have the upper hand, but not always, nor in all cases. -- Derek Ross 21:46, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Surely only HM The Queen is sovereign within the UK? ;-) john 06:50, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem is this: there are clearly some nations, with a clear historical and linguistic claim to nationhood, such as the Kurds and the Tibetans, who are denied both national sovereignty and democratic participation. Where we get into trouble is when we start drawing analogies between these peoples and peoples such as the Scots, the Quebecois or the Catalans, who do not have national sovereignty but who do have full democratic rights within they states they live in, and who could have national sovereignty if they really wanted it (the Quebecois have twice rejected sovereignty at plebiscites).

There are two fallacies in this paragraph.

1. Having a representative democracy doesn't give access to sovereignty. If the people of the UK were to be annexed to, let's say, the United States, the British would have what you call "full democratic rights" but, these would proove pretty useless as the English, the Scots, and the Welsh would become minority nations within the American melting pot. The British would loose their political and consequently social, economic, and cultural independence and their right to be different. Their members would have children who would think that "World culture" is Hollywood. The centuries old collective memory of the English, the Scots and the Welsh would be reduced to folk tales and archeology. They would, essentially, be digested. However, as history proved numerous times, peoples stuck in this position tend to resist until they have regained a decent level of collective autonomy.
2. Read http://english.republiquelibre.org/myths-and-fallacies.html Mathieugp 16:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In democratic states, particularly federal ones, no one people exercises sovereignty over any other.

That's the theory. There is a lot of people who would love for things to be like that in practice. We could federate the entire world right now. Mathieugp 16:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is silly to refer to the English or the Quebecois or the Flemings as being non-sovereign. As citizens, they have equal sovereignty with everyone else.

Can you explain? These two sentences do not make sense to me. Mathieugp

Then we have dubious cases like the Sardinians, whose "nationhood" is asserted only by a handful of romantics. These should not be included.

Well, the men who drove the French out of England were also romantics. Mathieugp 20:26, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Finally we have pre-modern entities such as the "First Nations" of Canada. As I said above, if they are included then every indigenous or tribal people in the world will have to be included, a list of hundreds if not thousands.

You really seem to confuse a lot of ideas together. As stated above, this list doesn't have an opinion on this question. We both do, but that doesn't belong inside Wikipedia. Mathieugp 16:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

These are not nations in the modern sense of the word, and in any case they also have full democratic rights within their states. I think the premises on which this article is based need to be re-examined, and its scope carefully defined. Adam 07:27, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

These are definitely not nation-states indeed. That doesn't mean that we should remove them from a paragraph free list of non-sovereign nations. Millions of people of all nationalities emigrated to the US over the past two centuries. Yet, there still is only one hegemonic English speaking American nation today. Individual rights granted to all within a state is not the same as collective self-determination for a people. Mathieugp 20:26, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Scots have a parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish have assemblies, yet there is no prospect of there being an English parliament. One or two regions might get an assembly, but that is all. Then of course there is always the West Lothian question: Scottish MPs can (and do) vote on matters that are purely English. 217.155.205.64 08:18, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But that is because the English have no sense of separate nationhood. Most English identify as "British" in a political context. It was after all the English who created the United Kingdom in which their nationhood was fused with that of the Welsh, Scots and Irish. It is perfectly absurd to compare the English with, say, the Kurds, when they dominate the UK and all its political institutions. Adam 09:26, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was not comparing the English with the Kurds or any other nation outside the UK, merely pointing out that the English are not as all-powerful in the UK as outsiders might think. As for having no sense of separate nationhood, did you watch the final of the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup? 217.155.205.64 09:50, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I carefully said "in a political sense." Many people have parochial sporting loyalties that do not translate into a desire for political separation. (Besides, I come from Melbourne where we carefully ignore rugby and all its horribleness.) Adam 11:47, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like British people. You guys have such a civilized way of arguing. ;-) Mathieugp 16:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to weigh in on this debate, but the Sicilians were mentioned above, and I want to mention that there is definitely a Sicilian identity distinct from a pan-Italian one. My grandmother claims to be Sicilian and actually corrects anyone who refers to her as Italian. I don't think she desires Sicilian independence though (might be different if she were still living there and not in the States).

It might be best to make it a list of nations who have a significant faction agitating for sovereignity. Which nations would be excluded? AFAIK, the English, Andalusians and Catalans, Sicilians and Sardinians, etc may see themselves as separate nations but don't have a very strong independence movement (could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any).

Just to bring up another talking point -- what about U.S. Southerners and African Americans? Both have had independence movements (American Civil War, pan-Africanism) of some sort and are united by culture (distinctive dialects, if nothing else), making them both a nation. Would they qualify for this list? Tuf-Kat 21:22, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

As is usually the case at Wikipedia, this debate is leading in the direction what I call "everythingism," in which a combination of political correctness and a desire to please everyone leads to an expansion of categories and a blurring of distinctions to the point of meaninglessness. If England and Sardinia and the American South are to be listed as nations, why not Hawaii and Cornwall and Baden-Wurttemberg and Tasmania and Dagestan and Sichuan and KwaZulu-Natal and New Britain and Amazonias and Chubut and Tuscany and Andalucia? I could make a good case for all of them, and hundreds more. Eventually the article would become List of political, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and historical subdivisions of all countries and be totally useless. I am beginning to think this article should be abolished, and replaced by Movements for national independence or something like that. Adam 23:53, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There already exists articles dealing with political movements for independence and separatism. This is not an article, it is a list of non-sovereign nations. The words sovereignty and nation have been given an article inside Wikipedia. If this list is to have a purpose, it will be to let people know of the other components of humanity they don't hear about very often because they have small populations or are oppressed. It will also demonstrate how the word nation is misunderstood even though everyone is free to read its definition in a dictionary. Mathieugp 01:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, then, if it is a list of nationalities who are oppressed, then it can be shortened considerably. The English, the Scots, the Quebecois, the Catalans are not "oppressed" in any correct use of the word. In fact all ethnic or national minorities living in democratic states can be deleted. The list would be confined to nations like the Kurds, the Palestinians and the Tibetans who are being genuinely denied both their national and their democratic rights. Adam 02:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Responding to Mathieu, not to Adam) I think that's a pretty poor purpose for an article. As Adam points out, if we want to list oppressed peoples, than it should be a list of oppressed peoples and not simply non-sovereign nations. But a "List of oppressed nations" would be a hopeless POV battlefield as this list will be too. An NPOV way to do this would be to create a list of movements for separatism or autonomy and let the readers decide for themselves which of the movements were justified, if they're so inclined. We have a short, bad list of separatist movements at separatism. It could be greatly improved to everybody's benefit. DanKeshet 02:52, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Not all non-sovereign nations have separatist movements. Also, with a term life "separatism", it is difficult to include non-violent movements who seek a renegociation of a country's constitutional law or a devolution of powers. As I stated many times, this is just a list. All the debates on the legitimacy of such and such ideology or political movement are futile. They should be delt with in their own articles. (Most probably do already). Mathieugp 03:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Questions about adding peoples to this list:

1. Puerto Ricans?
2. Formosans?
3. Samoans who live in American Samoa?
4. Marshall Islanders?
5. all the Native American nations?

RickK 03:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Puerto Rico is a self-governing state in free association with the US. It can have independence any time it asks for it. Pro-independence parties poll about 5% of the vote.
• "Formosans" (Taiwanese) are citizens of the Republic of China, a fully democratic and (de facto) sovereign state. The only disability they have is that foreign governments can't recognise them de jure until they drop their claim to be the government of China.
• American Samoa is a self-governing dependency of the US. I don't know much about but I assume it could have independence if it wanted it.
• The Republic of the Marshall Islands is a sovereign state.
• "Nations" when applied to the Native Americans is a polite euphemism for "tribes," pre-modern entities which linger on in the modern world. It is true that they have 19th century treaty relations with the US and are therefore in some sense de jure nations, but the residents of these "national territories" (aka reservations) are US citizens and vote in US elections. They are not nations in any real sense. They deserve to be listed and discussed somewhere at Wikipedia, but not here.

I hope that's helpful. Adam 03:23, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If they fit the definition of the word nation, consider themselves as such, and do not self-govern (which is obviously the case if they are not independent), than there is no reason for them not to be in the list. However, we should be warry of listing nations we no nothing about. How many Marshall Islanders did you meet in your life? Can you really be sure that they see themselves as distinct from the other cultures in the world? Mathieugp 03:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1. I meant the ethnic people of Taiwan, who are called the Formosans, a different nationality from the Han Chinese who rule Taiwan.
2. OK, then, what about the Guamanians?
3. Why are the First Nations of Canada here and not the Native Americans of the United States?

RickK 03:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because nobody added them in yet. Mathieugp 03:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But Adam said they shouldn't be here. RickK 03:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All by the 2% aboriginal population on Taiwan are Han Chinese. The concept of "ethnic Taiwanese" is POV and believed by the few. No group "rules" another there. Elections do exist. "The only disability they have is that foreign governments can't recognise them de jure until they drop their claim to be the government of China." This is a really silly view. Countries dont refrain from establishing diplomatic relations because they havent amended their outdated territorial claims. They do this because they believe relations with the PRC are necessary for their economic interests. If the PRC did not put the restriction that countries it does business with not recognize the ROC, countries (save Mongolia and the PRC itself) would not hesitate to do so. As shown by the news link I posted above, the claim is all but a formality.--Jiang 03:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because it doesn't seem to be clear ...

Here is the definition of what a nation is in Wikipedia:

"A nation is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity. The name derives from Latin natio and originally described the colleagues in a college or students, above all at the University of Paris, who were all born within a pays, spoke the same language and expected to be ruled by their own familiar law. In 1383 and 1384, while studying theology at Paris, John Gerson was twice elected procurator for the French 'nation' (the French-born Francophone students at the University).

While today many nations appear to co-incide with an independent state (a nation-state), this happenstance occurred comparatively rarely in pre-modern history; the rise of nationalism in the 18th and 19th century saw the idea that each nation deserves its own state gain momentum in Europe. Today too, however, many nations exist without a state, such as the Kurds and the native American nations, whereas many states comprise several nations, such as Belgium and Spain.

In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.

In a somewhat more strict sense, however, nation denominates a people in contrast to country which denominates a territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative institution. "

Let's see what the definition is in the language the word originated from:

"Nation. n. f. 1. Communauté humaine caractérisée par la conscience de son identité historique ou culturelle, et souvent par l'unité linguistique ou religieuse. La nation kurde. La nation arabe. 2. Communauté (sens 1), définie comme entité politique, réunie sur un territoire ou un ensemble de territoires propres, et organisée institutionnellement en État. La nation française. "

Which gives:

"1. Human community characterized by the consciousness of its historical or cultural identity, and often by it linguistic or religious unity. The Kurd nation. The Arab nation. 2. Community (meaning 1.), defined as a political entity, gathered on a given territory or a ensemble of territories, and institutionally organized as a State. The French nation."

So in at least two languages, it is clear that there are stateless nations (like the Jews before Israel) and "stateful" or sovereign nations. This is simply a List of non-sovereign nations. They can be de jure or de facto so long as they are not de imaginatio. ;-) Mathieugp 03:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In that case I revert to my previous point, that such a list would include thousands of so-called nations. Papua New Guinea, for example, has over 800 linguistic communities. None of them are "sovereign" in the sense that Danish-speakers are sovereign in Denmark. This is a 19th century definition of sovereignty. In a democracy the people are sovereign, not any ethnic or linguistic group. Adam 04:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The definition doesn't say each ethnic group is a nation, although it could very well be that. The people in question needs to have a collective memory and a shared consciousness. There are a lot of ethnic groups who share a common identity with their neighbours. The Angles and the Saxons fused to become what we call English today. The Jews considered themselves a nation and they spoke many different languages before they resurrected Hebrew. You are right though that this list will be awfully long eventually. Maybe List of non-sovereign states would be shorter? We could then put List of ethnic groups in Related topics? Mathieugp 04:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rename List of nations that are not states? --Jiang

We would still have the problem of defining a nation. If we used the definition above ("A nation is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity") we would have to include every linguistic group in the world except those (maybe 100 out of tens of thousands) who constitute a majority within a state. This would be a pointless excerise. Adam 04:13, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does knowledge about the state of our common planet need to have a point? I think if it had one, it would necessarily be a POV. Mathieugp 04:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just so you know, we estimate that there are about 6,000 human languages on earth today, half of which are targeted for extinction by the end of the current century. Mathieugp 04:37, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And this is relevant because... ? Adam 04:38, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because some people are curious about human collectivities and care about linguistic and cultural diversity? Mathieugp 04:40, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fine, then create an article called List of human collectivities and spend the rest of your life completing it. That would be a worthy project. But it has nothing to do with the topic of this article, whatever it is. Adam 04:44, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I had carefully chosen the word "nation" because "people" and "human community" are just too imprecise. I didn't want to choose the word "state" either because I thought of all the human cultures who are not equipped with such a modern invention. Who was I to exclude them? These borders were created without their approval, always against their interests, often with the express purpose of erasing them from the surface of the earth. Are there still people who think survival of the fittest is applicable to humans? Mathieugp 04:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't engage with this level of rhetorical abstraction. The purpose of encyclopaedia articles is to provide readers with information, not to remake the world. I maintain my view that this article is not doing this. This is becasue there are deep difficulties with the definitions of both "nation" and "sovereignty." The former is being defined in a 21st century politically correct manner (ie, far too broadly), while the latter is being defined according to some 19th century definition that says that every linguistic group must either be "sovereign" or "non-sovereign" within a state. The result is a hopeless semantic mess. Adam 05:01, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You clearly maintain your Point Of View for sure. I don't understand how you can say the exact opposite of the truth so bluntly. A List of trees with non-green leaves would be exaclty the same as a List of non-sovereign nations. If there is a difference, it is that with the later, there will be some to deny that the world may be more complex than they think it is and push for censorship in the name of an obscure ideology they dare not name.

What is green exactly? I mean, some people are colorblind, we can't use that as a criterion. And where does the leave start and end? Are flowers also leaves? Mathieugp 05:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't really encyclopedic, as it seems more like primary research. There is a large gray area in what is a "nation". Should Texas be added to this list? A small group of Republic of Texas separatists would argue yes, that it is a distinct ethnicity within the United States. Etc, ad infinitum. --Delirium 05:11, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

And what special "ethnicity" would the Texans have that doesn't exist everywhere else in the US? Should we have also let neo-nazi lunatics write their own articles for every stupid misuse of language they perform? You two are right, there clearly is a "grey area" in the mind of a lot of people. I will move this list over to List of non-sovereign states, let the native peoples die off for good and give legitimacy to the claims of a handful of retarded Cowboys. Amen. Mathieugp 05:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

The problem with this list is that it doesn’t distinguish between ethnic groups/"nations" living within the nation state of another ethnic groups, and ethnic groups which live as either part of a multi-national/ethnic state (Belgium, UK, etc.) or an explicitly a-national state (US, Canada, South Africa, etc.).

There’s a very clear difference in my mind between a Scott who lives in a country (the UK) which recognizes his ethnicity on equal terms with the Welsh, English, and Irish, or an Acadian who lives in a country (Canada) with no officially or popularly recognized dominant ethnicity, compared to say an Ainu who lives in a country (Japan) which is intrinsically associated with a single ethnicity (Japanese) by law and custom.

Either the definition of "non-sovereign nation" has to be limited here or we need to list all of the many, many ethnicities present within multi- and a-national states.

In fact this list is even more complicated by the fact that some native North American groups that do indeed have some form of national sovereignty are listed here, yet the dominant ethnicities which do not have sovereignty in themselves are not. Suffice it to say this is an article with a political agenda... -- stewacide 15:18, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To list things which exist in real life could never be a political agenda, unless informing people is an agenda. That would make Wikipedia the ultimate political agenda.

However, the often stated argument that this list will be ultimately too long, that it would group peoples who's political situation is very different does make sense. It also seem to frustrate some individuals who do not like that the national minorities in their home country are listed as not being in a position to self-govern. As a result, a lot of people have tried to push for this list not to exist. This sentiment is at the origin of this very long and pointless talk.

There is a need for a different categorization that would be clearer but at the same time would also allow people to know the political situation of many of our planet's cultural and linguistic groups (whatever the name we want to give to those).

How should we do that? Mathieugp 15:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it can't be done in anything close to an encyclopedic maner. Besides the impossibility of deciding what is a valid ethnicity and what is not, you have a thousand and one different levels of sovregnity and opression to categorize. The only way something like this could be done in a systematic way is to identify all nationalities which are officially linked to a nation state, and then state that all the worlds other (unlisted) ethnicities (the vast, vast majority I would imagine) are "stateless".

Can you explain how some ethnicities could be invalid? Also, knowing the definition of the word sovereignty, can you explain what levels of it you think exist? What criteria do you think should a nation have to deserve the highest level of sovereignty?

More fundamentally, the problem is that you're trying to apply European concepts of unitary nationality (which are a recent creation and far from universal) to the rest of the world. There are only a VERY few countries you can point to as pure nation states that have undergone a process of cultural cleansing (e.g. France, Japan) and even in these cases there are exceptions (e.g. the Bretons and Okinawans).

It's funny how you think I think the exact opposite of what I think. I think you are confusing the ethnic or cultural origin of individuals with the culture they may share with the other members of the given community they live in. Ethnic cleansing is a very serious topic one should not use to promote his/her political view. I recommend you grab a book and read on the history of Europe to get rid of your prejudice against Europe's multiple nationalities.

In most of the world however there are no clear dividing lines either geographic or cultural that seperate one "nation" from another. Depending on your personal POV you could argue that all of the Arabic speaking Middle East or English speaking North America is one nationality or several thousand. Most people in the world likely ascribe to several perhapse contradictory nationalities (e.g. how do you lable someone who comsiders themself a Catholic Texan American Southenor of Mexican and Chinese decent?).

Again, you are confusing individual identity and collective identities. Let's take me for example. I speak two languages. I could be, without changing myself, very well at home in a lot of places on this planet. This has nothing to do with the subject matter. We are discussing the political status of nations which are not garanteed to pass their culture and language to the future generations of humans. Please learn on the state of linguistic and cultural diversity on this planet and also stop linking race, ethnicity, and language the way you do. I recommend you begin with the articles on anthropology, ethnology, sociology, assimilation to begin your exploration of human knowledge.

If as a human being, you can be of Chinese and Mexican decent, be an Anglophone, and be of Texan culture, it kind of has something to do with the fact that in some unique region of the world, the English language was born, the Chinese civilization existed and Mexico was colonized by Spain. What makes it possible for this individual to fit in Texan society does have something to do with the fact that humans all belong to the same specie and can all learn the language of a given group and even end up identifying to a new people. In the longrun, only the groups which are in a position of determining their own future are garanteed to keep their language and their cultural memory alive.

I'm aware of your political agenda and I don't want to get into a sovregnity argument but I have to say your views on nationality and ethnicity are very primitive and don't have much meaning outside the borders of the French Republic. -- stewacide 16:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Or the American Republic. Or the Italian Republic. Or the German Republic. I think you need to read more and maybe open up to some other cultures, maybe by emigrating to place where nobody speaks English. I suggest you reflect on this: Are the United States, or just one State of the US, ethnically unified because they are linguistically unified? Did you ever consider that Quebec might be pretty much like the US but with the French language instead of the English language as the common denomintor among all its citizen? A common misrepresentation in North America is to think that inside European countries there is not the same kind of diversity as in the US or Canada.

Where would the diversity of North America come from if in all other parts of the world there were no other nationalities? If you like cultural diversity as much as us Quebecers do, you should consider learning how languages and politics make it possible for it to even exist. Mathieugp 19:18, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...to clarify further, to attempt to group people by ethnicity/nationality is as futile as attempting to group people by race. It's very easy to point to two people and say they're different (either ethnically in terms of nationality or biologically in terms of "race") but impossible to say two people are the same and be objective about it. Grouping people by something as subjective as nationality systematically simply can't be done in a POV manner - at least not without this article ending up far, far, far too long. A simply list certainly doesn't cut it. -- stewacide

A few notions of history will allow you to learn that in almost all cases that existed in the past, nations were multiethnic. Maybe because men tend to fall in love with exotic beauties? ;-) Mathieugp 19:27, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand your point about many ethnicities not being afforded the tools of state in order to perpetuate themselves. What I pointed out that it's impossible to list all the ethnicities which DON'T have this opportunity, and rather that it would be much more logical and correct to list those ethnicities which DO (but even that would be frought with ambiguity).

I agree with you on that. I do think it would be possible to list the all though, but it would be too long because of aboriginal peoples. The list of sovereign nations is a good idea. There could also be a list of non-sovereign states (that's how it started originally).

What's a non-sovereign state? Any regional government that isn't a country under the UN?

Again that list would be far too long. It would have to include not only constitutional entities within federations but the MUCH larger number of non-constitutional regional governments that often exercise just as much power. That would include every municipality and territorial government in the world - which is a LOT.

I know. That's a problem.

There are also certainly many levels of national sovregnity. Iceland is certainly much more culturally sovreign than say the United States in that has much more sway over the cultural lives and identity of its citizens and has an actual mandate to perpetuate the culture. There are also issues of regional ethnic sovregnity and ethnic federalism that is tied to geography vs. multi-nationalism which is not.

I am not sure what you mean with your second sentence, but I see some truth in the first sentence. I think the Americans also have a serious cultural problem but of a different nature than elsewhere. Their society so market-driven that they consider culture to be just another product. The American people has more to offer to the world than movie sequels for "infantilized" adults.

That's pretty much what I mean: some governments (e.g. the US, or Canada for the most part) take a very laissez faire approach to culture, while others (e.g. Iceland, Bhutan) are very controlling - and every shade in between.

And while I'm not all that impressed with American culture for the most part I wouldn't write off the laissez faire approach so easily. While it has a tendency to play to the lowest common denominator, it also sometimes allows the best to float to the top. The onus is on the individual to search out the best. I'd also imagine that most of your and my objections to American culture has to do with American values, not with how that culture is created.

I disagree. Culture and education are tied together. One must learn how to appreciate it. Laissez faire, a stupid French doctrine of the 19th century is what gave us Armaggeddon. There is always a market for big explosions and mass stupidity. That these kind of movies exist is not the problem. The problem is that they dominate and bring back more cash for yet more such "products".

Those who don't evolve die: simple as that. Countries like France that try to preserve and controll their culture and language are killing both. IMHO a diverse, ever-changing city like Montreal is much more vibrant and has much more claim to being the capital of the francophone world than a sterile museum piece like Paris - too bad so many Quebecois can't see that.

I can't really agree with that. That France is a fossile is a myth in the Anglo world only. Everywhere else, people can see that France simply dismantled it's Empire so well that it lost its former influence over the course of the world. I also cannot agree with the rule of "survival of the fittest" being applied to culture. That's not the way it ought to work if we are more than animals.

And I understand very well that every society is "multicultural" to some extent, and that no country in a monolith (I gave exaples to that effect), but it is certainly true that the natural tendency towards cultural conformity has reached a higher level in some countries than in others. Europe was more diverse 100 years ago just as it was more diverse 1000 years ago, etc. The most primitive, small-scale societies (e.g. pre-contact North America, New Guinea, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc.) are the most diverse by far. When I said "ethnic cleansing" I didn't mean in the sense of outright genocide (although it sometimes takes that form) but rather the process of cultural assimiliation and unification.

If you read some French, I suggest you read this site:

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/monde/index_politique-lng.htm

Empires have produced what we call today multi-national or multi-cultural states. As for linguistic unification, it has always been a state policy throughout history. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even if that's true it doesn't mean it can't change. While globalization has certainly made it harder for marginal languages to survive the technologies which created globalization in the first place make it easier. How long, I wonder, untill we have an all-purpose 100% acurate program able to translate instantly to and from any language? IMHO computers and the global media are becoming the new lingua franca, not English (or Chinese or whatever).

That's funny. That's what I think too: that the solution is the universal translator of Star Trek. :-) Until then, the second best option is esperanto or ido maybe. Unfortunately, English is the only language in a position to impose itself to others. The trojan horse is computer technology. This thing is spreading English so much faster than literature when French was the all threatning language. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: Quebec sepratism the issue I think is not of Quebec having a secular identity but how that identity differs from the rest of Canada excluding the issue of simple ethnic nationalism. Besides the sepratism issue itself the unifority of opinion across Canada is extreely consistent (compared to most other much less culturally diverse countries) and no greater than between any other provinces when you compare ipinion surveys for instance. In fact the greatest opinion split is almost always between B.C. and Alberta, and damn' if I can tell them apart by looking at 'em, and even then it doesn't anywhere compare to the massive regional opinion gaps that exist for instance in the US.

The only reason that we call ourselves Québécois today is precisely because our nationalism has shifted from an ethnic form of nationalism based on the ideology of survival to a secular territory-based nationalism based. This change made Quebec what it is today. Since then, there is a battle between those who want to reform Canada to accomodate Quebec and those who want Quebec to be independent. Both sides failed to achieve their goal. Divided and Conquered. Some things just don't evolve. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To consider Quebec as only a region of Canada is at best insulting to most of us here. As insulting as being taken for an American when you are Canadian. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many in Quebec who would be insulted by being describes as being from just another region of Quebec. So what? It's an incredibly diverse country, but that doesn't mean there isn't more than enough common ground to make it work.

Or we could say that we live in an incredibly diverse planet and wish for all to be in a position of equality. Is there a law that says we must not touch the constitution passed on to us by the British? The common ground has to be an equivalent level of autonomy for all national communities. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are a lot of Quebecers who (in my opinion wrongfully) believe that one day English Canada will discover that we exist, that we existed before the Confederation existed, that the situation is unacceptable and has to change some way or another. I think the best scenario is that of Sweden and Norway. Norway was once controlled by the Kingdom of Sweden. Norway became independent. After ignoring each other for a while, they got closer together in a relation beneficial to both sides. It seems the Vikings are a lot more mature than we are. ;-) Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wonder also if you don't appreciate the diversity of English Canada. Especially within Ontario and points west outsiders are often confused by the fact that the language and accent is the same and don't appreciate the regional diversity (largest area of a single accent and dialect of any language in the world in fact... talk about linguistic uniformity!).

Living and growing up in South-Western Ontario as I do I feel much more cultural affinity to people in SE Michigan than I do with someone in Toronto or Ottawa, but that doesn't change the fact that in terms of my political values I have much more in common with most people from Newfoundland, BC, or Quebec than someone just across the US border (which is only ~400 metres away).

You have illustrated very well that the territory you evolved in has something to do with who you are and how you end up relating to the world. I like English Canada. I lived in Alberta for 3 and 1/2 years. That's why I speak English now. In spite of all that we have in common, I can say without hesitation that we are two foreign cultures. Much closer to each other than let's say German and Japanese, but still foreign. In the end, what we have in common really feels like the little part of Yankee that we have inside of us. That's the scary part. In that regard, we are all becoming alike. I'd rather we all get together by learning of our respective identities even if it takes many more generations. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And to say language changes things fundamentally isn't bared out by the success of any multi-lingual countries. It's also taking a very Euro-centric world view when in fact the linguistic uniformity that exists in Europe and its daughter colonies are the exception not the rule. Even the US is becoming increasingly bilingual (despite some resistance) and the political elites and media are adapting by becoming bilingual themselves, just like they do in most societies. South Africa works just fine with +10 official and commonly-spoken languages. -- stewacide 19:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I cannot agree here. The US have recently moved from a policy of non-intervention which favored English to a policy of promotion of English. (As if English needed to be promoted somewhere on Earth.) Mathieugp 17:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's lots of scare-mongering and ineffective legistlation but that hasn't change the fact that Spanish is becoming a major langage in the US, especially in the southern border states which are as effectively bilingual as Eastern Ontario or New Brunswick. Some states (e.g. New Mexico that I know of) have also adopted Spanish as an official language on par with English.

I am aware of that, but that is nothing new. It just happens that the Americans woke up to it recently. What? The still speak Spanish even after learning English? The language of social and economic promotion in the USA is English. I'd like the Hispanics to destabilize them a bit, but all other important minorities eventually blended in. Which is OK with me. The Americans are a nation. They never pretended to be a Union of nations like Europe. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Northern Ontario is not exactly the best example of a linguistic minority doing well. The assimilation rate is really high. Being close to Quebec does help. All these jobs asking for French are what's keeping the language from being forgotten like elsewhere in the same Province. The case of Acadia is very different. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's also a signifigant French revival in Louisiana BTW but I'm not sure how successful it's been - I'm pretty sure French has official status at least. -- stewacide 21:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I really wish that were true. There is a lot of pride in their French & Cajun heritage over there. They recently gained back their schools. French has an official status. Language revival is difficult. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Interesting discussion. I's getting kinda' hard to follow so I'll quote bits down here:

I disagree. Culture and education are tied together. One must learn how to appreciate it. Laissez faire, a stupid French doctrine of the 19th century is what gave us Armaggeddon. There is always a market for big explosions and mass stupidity. That these kind of movies exist is not the problem. The problem is that they dominate and bring back more cash for yet more such "products".

...I can't really agree with that. That France is a fossile is a myth in the Anglo world only. Everywhere else, people can see that France simply dismantled it's Empire so well that it lost its former influence over the course of the world. I also cannot agree with the rule of "survival of the fittest" being applied to culture. That's not the way it ought to work if we are more than animals.

I'm not suggesting that it's best to take a completely laissez faire approach to culture by importing foreign culture wholesale. In fact I beleive very much in the need for things like domestic content requirements. I also believe in Bill 101. What I object to is the idea that the state (or any other singular entity) should try to direct or maintain culture. It should be up to the people in that society to decide where they want the culture to go, and they certainly shouldn't be discouraged from abandoming past customs if that's what's best.

I a true democracy, the state is transparent and is controlled by the people. Fear of the State is justified in a corrupted political system. Unfortunately, that seems to be the norm worldwide. ;-) Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those that don't evolve die. I didn't say those that don't adopt American culture die. There's more than one way to skin a cat - it doesn't have to be the American way.

Where I have a problem with France is they way they believe their current values and culture are perfect and don't need changing. As if a baret is fundamentally better than a head scarf, or a souffle and wine than a hamburger and pop.

That's simply laughable Anglo chauvinism against a France that only exist in American movies. France is busy building Europe right now, together with Germany and a bunch of other smaller countries. The Euro is now a very strong currency. I hope there will finally be a balance of power again on this planet so that English, Spanish, Scottish, Irish, French, Italian, German, Greek cultures are made equal to American culture in spite of their smaller population and economy.

Or we could say that we live in an incredibly diverse planet and wish for all to be in a position of equality. Is there a law that says we must not touch the constitution passed on to us by the British? The common ground has to be an equivalent level of autonomy for all national communities.

There are a lot of Quebecers who (in my opinion wrongfully) believe that one day English Canada will discover that we exist, that we existed before the Confederation existed, that the situation is unacceptable and has to change some way or another. I think the best scenario is that of Sweden and Norway. Norway was once controlled by the Kingdom of Sweden. Norway became independent. After ignoring each other for a while, they got closer together in a relation beneficial to both sides. It seems the Vikings are a lot more mature than we are. ;-)

It seems to me that the nationalists draw the entirely wrong lessons from the advent of the European Union, and the entire 20th century itself (nationalism, along with the equally irrational forces of religion and ideology, have threatned to destroy all of civilization!)

So you think a planet of nations who respect themselves in spite of their size, their cultural differences is the end of civilization? I think it's the end of imperialism and the beginning of a humanity that will finally know peace. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As if the heavens ordained that the current state of affair is perfect and should never be changed? What is so special about the current state of culture and "nations" worldwide that we should attemps to preserve it? Is this the end of history?

I am confused here. I think my way is obviously about changing the state of the world, not keeping it the way it is. Currently, we estimate that half of the 6000 spoken languages are going to be extinct by the end of this century. What we must preserve is as much of humanity's collective memory as possible. Culture is not meant to be preserved, it is meant to be promoted and passed on to the next generation. To fight colonialism and its offspring neoliberal globalization is pretty much in line with history. The starting point would be 1776 in America and 1789 in Europe. Unfortunately, the world did not yet adopt liberté, égalité, and fraternité as its universal motto. Mais ça ne saurait tarder... ;-) Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What's important is not the current stage of development of nationalism/multiculturalism in Europe, but the trend. The EU is not more advanced than Canada in being a loose confederation of sovereign ethnic nations but rather it's many decades behind us! It's only very recently in fact with the young there that a secular European identy, founded in European values (rather than whiteness or Christianity), and not conflicting with their cultural and national heritage, has begun to develop which mirors the current Canadian identity. The idea of "multiculturalism" which was adopted in Canada many decades ago is also only recently becoming somewhat popular (again mostly among the young), just as there was a signifigant gap between North America adopting multi-racialism and Europe only more recently.

That is just plain wrong. Europe is light years ahead of the fake federalism of Canada. I am all for a supra-national identity. I already have it. I am a eathling! After that, I am a Quebecer and a Montrealer.

Multiculturalism was adopted to wash away the colonial past of Canada and shut Quebec up. There is hardly any difference between the state of immigration to Canada and the US. Both became "multicultural" as a result.

I agree that regardless of labels immigration works basiclaly the same in the US and Canada, but at least Canada adknowledges the fact that immigrants will retain much of their own culture, unlike Europe which naively seem to believe immigrants will adopt the host countries culture wholesale.

The linguistic transfer rate of Canada (outside Quebec) is 96% towards English. That's the same assimilation rate as in the USA. Here in Quebec, we are at 60% or so. A normal rate, one where nothing changes, would be 80%. That's after 25 years of Bill 101. Before that, even the Francophone majority was sending its children to English school. Immigrants want the best for their children. That's normal. Every country has a unique situation. We cannot generalize about how Europe fairs. Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All we can and should demand is that immigrants adopt our values, which is something the US and Canada have been much more successful at (e.g. compare alienated, marginalized muslims in Europe becoming increasingly radical to in my experience very well adjusted muslims in North America).

The reason that the USA and Canada are successful is that they have been doing it for a long time. Every ethnic group can recognize itself in American culture. Here in Quebec, we started to have partial control over immigration in 1982 with Rene Levesque. It is taking time, but being Québécois has less and less something to do with tuque and maple syrup. The blending of culture here is particulary interesting. Musicians are really getting a blast with all the diversity you can find in Quebec. Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that what Canadians and Americans do not see is that Europe is not a land of immigration. It simply doesn't get to experience massive immigration. Europe has a long history of overpopulation, which in fact created the Americas we have now. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Europe is becoming a land of imigration and multiculturalism and they're dealing with it very badly IMHO. Minorities will simply never be content to be second-class citizens in someone elses nation state no matter how many rights and how much equality you try to give them.

That's partly why people assimilate eventually. For the third generation, the home country of the grand-parents is a very distant memory. Take the Franco-Americans for example. In some parts of New England, there used to be living French Canadian communities. The migration was the result of the political and economic situation in Quebec after the Union Act of 1840. For a while, they had everything down there: their churches, their shops, their parish schools, their newspapers. They were somewhat in contact with Quebec. However, as time went by, being an American of French Canadian extraction was seen as an obstable to the atainment of a normal situation in life. They no longer wanted to be different. Eventually, one generation just stopped speaking French to its children. Today, out of some 4 million Americans of Quebec origin, a very small percentage still speak French, and even when they do, it doesn't leave their private life. You can read a good article on it here:

http://www.vigile.net/01-2/boston-globe-patois.html

A nation-state is not the place for special group rights. The nation-state is what a nation gives itself, often through war, to be treated as an equal by the other nations. Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fundamentally this is why the existing state of affairs in Europe is flawed, and why the vision of a Quebec for the Quebecois is a step backwards. You can talk all you want about a secular civil society but any independent Quebec state, or even one which is deemed "distinct" within Canda, will be intrinsically linked to the Quebecois ethnicity and hence discriminatory by definition towards all those within it who do not identify with that culture.

I find nothing wrong with the current state of affairs in Europe. Especially when compared to only half a century ago when its strongest nations were oppressing the rest of the world with their tentacles. Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If wishing that French be, as a first, second, or third language, the common denominator through wich the Quebec people expresses its culture, if that is discriminatory, then we are as guilty as all our neighbours. To fully participate to Quebec society, one needs to learn French to some degree. That requirement is not discrimination, it is a right. You can complain to the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal if someone refuses you this right. That is why we are against laissez faire assimilation here. We have experienced it for 2 centuries, and the conclusion is that it is not human to put people in that position. A lot of immigrants to Quebec would be placed in a position of inferiority if we didn't provide free French lessons for them. Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, there is no such thing as a Quebecois ethnicity. Unless there is a Canadian ethnicity? Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I for one am very happy to be a part of a society that's ahead of the curve and charting the course for the rest of the world to follow.

I am aware of that, but that is nothing new. It just happens that the Americans woke up to it recently. What? The still speak Spanish even after learning English? The language of social and economic promotion in the USA is English. I'd like the Hispanics to destabilize them a bit, but all other important minorities eventually blended in. Which is OK with me. The Americans are a nation. They never pretended to be a Union of nations like Europe. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's a start. Really it isn't workable for the US to function as a bilingual untill the media and the elites are bilingual, which is happening slowly (e.g. it's becoming expected that high profile politicians speak at least some Spanish).

And America definately was a union of nations in the past. The first century or so of American union for instance was much looser than even the EU today, and a pan-American identity was almost unheard of (people identified with their states). There were even several pre- and post-union wars, including but not only the Civil War (the war between Michigan and Ohio over the Toledo area comes to mind, Pensylvania and New York fought several wars, etc.). It's flat-out wrong to say the US is a "nation" because they speak more-or-less the same language and have similar customs - it's because they share values that transcend language and culture.

Actually, you will find many people to disagree there. The so-called American values are in reality universal human values. They transcend nationality. The United States would not exist as a huge nation of 300 million without a common language and a common culture. If North America is diverse from the inside, it is because so many people immigrate to it year after year. They bring their culture from their native country and blend it with us. Ideally, every country should be like that. Immigration is the best way to connect us all without erasing the original culture. That is a world of free nations. The next step is economic and political integration. That's where Europe is at right now. Mathieugp 17:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't call American values universal. While there is certainly only so much room for manuvering within the modern liberal democratic tradition the the US is still unique in a number of ways. For example Americans embrace libertarian ideas of governance to a far greater degree than Canadians, and there seem to be a general sense in the US that people get what they deserve in life. Really it's more complicated but basically you could break it down by saying Americans are just more right-wing than comparatively left-wing Canadians.

The Americans are clearly less open to left-wing ideas. That goes back to the communist witch hunt that took place in their country during the cold war. I think the only way to change it would be for them to get proportional representation. More women, more blacks, more hispanics in the Congress. Amen. ;-) Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, the American experience mirrors almost exactly the later Canadian experience which again mirrors the current European experience (the rest of the world to follow). Where Canada has differed in that it has been able to maintain more cultural and linguistic diversity in the process. Europe will be even more successful... -- stewacide

I guess in all these discussions we forget one essential thing: the institutions. The institutions are concretely what transmit a people's heritage to the next generation. That's why the State sort of molds or shapes the culture of a nation. The culture is renewed and transformed with every generation, but the heritage of the past is not lost. Mathieugp 17:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But why can culture only develop within the confines of a single nation? I for one would like to pick and choose between the heritages of all cultures and traditions to find what's best for me in the modern world. I rocognize that I was raised with cultural "defaults" but where I find something better I see no reason not to adopt it.

As an individual, you can choose what cultural items you like, but you can only see them through your own eyes. Are you familiar with the term the "representation of culture"? I am not sure how to express that in English. In French it is la représentation de la culture. That is, how cultures see themselves and the other cultures. The perception that we have of each other. For example, cheese, wine, berret, mustache, stinky feet are elements of the representation of French culture that the Americans have. There is of course some truth in this, but there is obviously a lot more than that to millenia-old France. Selfishness, fat asses (mcdonald), greed, militarism, are French representation of American culture. There is a lot more to American culture than that, but aside from a few chauvinist Americans, most of the people on earth will recognize America there. Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cultural elements can sometimes become universal, but they always originate from a specific region of the world and a specific period of time. If the people in all these regions were continually brainwashed with the same monolithic culture and evolved within the same political and social institutions, there would be a lot less diversity, that follows from logic. Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cultures and "nations" have been converging and devergeing and mixing and dieing out and being born since time immorial. Why should be try and artificially maintain the status quo? It's just part of the same natural evolutionary processes which share and create all things. -- stewacide 20:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The day I believe in this I will also believe in magic and santa claus. If we consider human action to be "artificial", then the dying of nations is artificial because it is always the result of a policy somewhere. The evolution of mankind has nothing to do with abandonning small populations to their faith. If the English had not considered their existence important, then "evolution" would have made them not exist. After 300 years of French domination, they were not exactly "doing well" culturally. It would have been easy for them to abandon their heritage and adopt the prevailing French culture. Thanks to a few leaders who believed their people to be worth something, in spite of French opulence and sophitication, they became a fine Empire later on in history. Unfortunately, the English aristocracy also became as vile as the French aristocracy and decided to take their revenge on the rest of the world by conquering it... ;-) Mathieugp 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A New Start?

So, List of nationalist movements? The nationalist movements are typically either autonomist or separatist, violent or non-violent. There is also past and present I guess.

We could have something like that:

Region or people in such country.

There is already the beginning of such a list in the article on Separatism.

I found these links on the net:

• Homeland movements worldwide (Looks incomplete)
• Separatist and Independence Movements (Looks outdated)

UPDATE:

• eLandnet (Very complete)
• Movements for National, Ethnic Liberation or Regional Autonomy (Leftist)

Mathieugp 19:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so I am considering moving this page to List of active nationalist movements. The article would be structured like that :

Europe

Country

people

• Civil: Civil movement A, B, C etc.
• Cultural: Cultural movement A, B, C etc.
• Political: Political party A, B, C etc.
• Terrorist: Terrorist group A, B, C etc.

Oceania

Does that make sense? Mathieugp 19:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)