Talk about obnoxious...

[ShadowHM]

And then, what happened?  Did their linguistic Jones overcome common sense?  :P

Occhi
[right][snapback]107487[/snapback][/right]

I am hesitant to summarize a couple of hundred years of history in too short a package... :P

But the main impetus, IMO, was creeping loss of power. Quebec used to have a high birth rate, and, hence, a growing population. That population stayed numerous enough to be able to keep a 'balance of power' within Parliament for quite a long time. However, that power base began to erode after WW 2, and the Separatist movement, with its desire to negotiate for 'more' began to grow in influence.

[Occhidiangela]

I am hesitant to summarize a couple of hundred years of history in too short a package...    :P

But the main impetus, IMO, was creeping loss of power.  Quebec used to have a high birth rate, and, hence, a growing population.    That population stayed numerous enough to be able to keep a 'balance of power' within Parliament for quite a long time.    However, that power base began to erode after WW 2, and the Separatist movement, with its desire to negotiate for 'more' began to grow in influence.
[right][snapback]107499[/snapback][/right]

Balkanization, Canadian style.

Does it come with fries as a side, or can I get grits? :lol:

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Balkanization, Canadian style. 

Does it come with fries as a side, or can I get grits?  :lol:

Occhi
[right][snapback]107629[/snapback][/right]

We don't eat grits here. :P

But we all like Poutine ! :lol:

[Occhidiangela]

We don't eat grits here.    :P

But we all like Poutine !  :lol:
[right][snapback]107644[/snapback][/right]

How sad, not a breakfast food. :( Found some nice recipes for poutine, but there is no way I can ever cook it. Can't get the right kind of cheese "round here." The sauce looks promising for fries, but absent the correct cheese, what is to be done?

Would a fresh mozerella get me close? The problem of flavors, with Fresh Mozeralla in no way approximating cheddar, strikes me as nearly insurmountable.

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

How sad, not a breakfast food.  :(  Found some nice recipes for poutine, but there is no way I can ever cook it.  Can't get the right kind of cheese "round here."  The sauce looks promising for fries, but absent the correct cheese, what is to be done?

Would a fresh mozerella get me close?  The problem of flavors, with Fresh Mozeralla in no way approximating cheddar, strikes me as nearly insurmountable.

Occhi
[right][snapback]107741[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, I don't think that a mozzarella would do it. Mmmmmm! There's nothing like the poutine at the annual Quebec City pee-wee hockey tournament (le colisee concession stands :)) during Carnivale. I've had lots of other (and more expensive) poutine, but none better!

[Occhidiangela]

Yeah, I don't think that a mozzarella would do it.  Mmmmmm! There's nothing like the poutine at the annual Quebec City pee-wee hockey tournament (le colisee concession stands :)) during Carnivale.  I've had lots of other (and more expensive) poutine, but none better!
[right][snapback]107750[/snapback][/right]

I regret to report that once one has done frites in Belgium, with their variety of delicious sauces specifically made for frites, one finds few pomme frites dishes that can measure up.

YMMV

Occhi

[Rhydderch Hael]

... Note: I didn't call it America, at that stage, although it was, having been named such by Amerigo Vespucci long before the USA ever existed. ...[right][snapback]106883[/snapback][/right]

RH Fun Fact: Vespucci didn't tag his name to the land. Waldseemüller named the New World 'America' in honor of Vespucci.

[Occhidiangela]

RH Fun Fact: Vespucci didn't tag his name to the land. Waldseemüller named the New World 'America' in honor of Vespucci.
[right][snapback]107768[/snapback][/right]

Good tidbit Rhydd, thankee.

Jester's line of argument on that trivial point is irrelevant. The name given to a land is inherently cultural and political in basis.

Case in point: Are they Las Malvinas or The Falklands? Same rocks, different name based on the political/cultural frame of reference. Or should we ask the penguins, and make a complete farce of this whole exercise?

Using Jester's framework -- the requirement to go back an arbitrary number of centuries to get "the true name" of the land and its ex post facto application to its denizens -- I suppose Russia must renounce its name, once again call itself the Golden Horde, and now call themselves Hordians. :P

Wait a minute, is that anything like a Horadrim? :w00t:

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Using Jester's framework -- the requirement to go back an arbitrary number of centuries to get "the true name" of the land . . .
Occhi
[right][snapback]107770[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps we should all move back to the Olduvai Gorge since that seems to be our point of origin ;)

Arguments based on who was where when (e.g., Israel) don't much impress me. I'm reminded of a dialog from a book I read as a teen:

"Whose land is this?"
"Mine."
"How did you get it?"
"From my father."
"How did he get it?"
"From his father."
"And how did your grandfather get it?"
"He fought for it."
"Fine. I'll fight you for it."

Pretty much every piece of land that is populated is populated by a mixture of people that were there 'originally' (i.e., before the latest batch of conquerors) and the people who moved in by force and then took over, renaming the land, changing the language, establishing new customs, and even persecuting those who cling to the old. Those that can't accept that are ignoring the past and will thus be condemned to make the same stupid mistakes their forbearers did.

-Pete

EDIT: Changed 'i.e.' to 'e.g.' since Israel is by no means the only case.

[Jester]

Using Jester's framework -- the requirement to go back an arbitrary number of centuries to get "the true name" of the land and its ex post facto application to its denizens -- I suppose Russia must renounce its name, once again call itself the Golden Horde, and now call themselves Hordians. :P
[right][snapback]107770[/snapback][/right]

I'm not quite sure exactly what you're considering to be my "framework" here. All I'm saying is that, acknowledging that every country is a mad mixture of founders, immigrants, conquerors, travellers, and any other group that might happen by, nobody should claim too strongly their rights to keep other people out of their countries. It is almost invariably the case that someone from everyone's ancestry forced their way into wherever it is they now live. Again, let's grant the liberties that our ancestors took by force. The alternative is continued force, which I think is a poor idea.

If you were to apply "my framework" to Russia, you certainly wouldn't end up with the Golden Horde, which was, historically speaking, quite a recent phenomenon. You'd end up with some Turkic steppe peoples, and whatever it was they called the land.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. Thanks.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Nobody should claim too strongly their rights to keep other people out of their countries. -Jester
[right][snapback]107780[/snapback][/right]

Elephants and dentistry.

Asserting one's rights to one's land is precisely the "what and why" of contemporary politics, no matter the era. It still boils down to might makes right, it still boils down to 'they'll take it if they can get away with it.' Though sometimes rhetoric and argument allow some parties to avoid brute force as a means of conflict resolution, that form is not a universal solution to inter group conflict. It is sheerest self delusion to presume that it is, or ever shall be, so.

Borders are more often draw in blood than not. It is not a purely rational process, the emotional human element has primacy over "reason" when it comes to blood and soil.

"This land is mine, God gave this land to me." (Did you ever hear that lyric? It was a political statement. Theme song from the movie Exodus)

"This land is your land, this land is my land." A political statement.

"Oh, Canada!" A political entity's self declaration.

Why do believe that the theoretical attributes of a conflict resolution have primacy? Diplomacy and negotiation have to be backed up by something. The arguments of "that is mine" are drawn from powerful emotional wells.

Put another way, history moves forward.

PS: The Golden Horde predated the discovery of America. The intial discussion had to do with that time frame.

But let's take it to a sillier extreme, a true reducto absurdum., Go back a few millenia for legitimacy, and insist that the old "Holy Land" be returned to the Jews.

Wait a minute, that happened, but not by force of argument, nor by appeals to legitimacy. It was done via Blood and Iron. Otto von Bismarck would be so proud.

Talk about a time warp: Arabs died for the sins of Rome, 70 AD.

Occhi

[Ashock]

If you were to apply "my framework" to Russia, you certainly wouldn't end up with the Golden Horde, which was, historically speaking, quite a recent phenomenon. You'd end up with some Turkic steppe peoples, and whatever it was they called the land.

-Jester
[right][snapback]107780[/snapback][/right]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. True original russians were Vikings. What we have now is a mix of that blood with that of the Mongols.

I won't touch the rest of this though.


-A

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. True original russians were Vikings. What we have now is a mix of that blood with that of the Mongols.

I won't touch the rest of this though.
-A
[right][snapback]107872[/snapback][/right]

The point I was whittling away at was the fallacious "pick a conqueror/resident of a land -- Mongols in Russia, Mexicans/Spanish (over the Indians) in the New World -- and arbitrarily set that straw man up as so-called legitimate residents" in lieu of who has, via the usual political processes, possessin and title in the here and now. History moves forward. You either shape it to your vision, or someone else will shape it to theirs. There is no absolute stability. There is relative stability, at best, or varying degrees of chaos.

That the contemporary Russian Empire shrank a bit when all of those Farbakistans seceded from the CIS, post Cold War, has less to do with "legitimacy" and more to do with blood and soil at the local level.

Occhi

[Jester]

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. True original russians were Vikings. What we have now is a mix of that blood with that of the Mongols.

I won't touch the rest of this though.
-A
[right][snapback]107872[/snapback][/right]

Well, the territory Russia is enormous, and is much larger than any ethnic group's original space. To reduce it to Vikings + Mongols is to miss the vast majority of the ethnic mix, including the most important one: Slavs.

The mix of the 'Rus was a predominantly Slavic group of agriculturalists who were dominated by Viking raiders moving down the rivers for exploration and plunder. The Vikings were integrated into slavic society as an elite, and were assimilated into Slavic culture over many generations, hence why we call Russian men Igor, not Ingvar.

However, that comes later in the history than the original inhabitants of the southwestern steppes, which was inhabited by Turkic nomads much earlier than either Mongols or 'Rus. They were, in turn, displaced by Huns, Avars, Khazars, Ghuzz, and all sorts of other pre-Mongol groups. The Slavs then moved south and west in their wake, establishing sedentary communities. However, this is a different part of modern Russia than the northern, Viking-dominated areas. So, take your pick of areas, there's no single correct answer for who first inhabited "Russia."

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Well, the territory Russia is enormous, and is much larger than any ethnic group's original space. To reduce it to Vikings + Mongols is to miss the vast majority of the ethnic mix, including the most important one: Slavs.
-Jester
[right][snapback]107878[/snapback][/right]

And what about the Scythians? :w00t: No love for them?

I find puzzling the habit of selectively choosing genetic groups for establishing identity. How do you account for the mestizo, who evolved over less than two centuries? The mixing in what we today call Russia has been going on for well over a millenium. It isn't just blood, it is culture. When cultures collide, they sometimes mix, and sometimes bounce off of each other, and more often do something in between. I see no imperative for a culture to be preserved. It either has value and resilience, or becomes over time redundant and/or obsolete.

Where does your model account for Scots and Irish, who are (allegedly) proto Celts?

Where does it account for the Slavs (Southern) in Yugoslavia, as it broke up, whose core differences are almost purely cultural rather than blood related?

Occhi

[Taem]

[right][snapback]107881[/snapback][/right]

I'm looking for your post in Threaded view but can't find it! Is this a normal occurance when a thread gets too long in a post? Or perhaps an error of sorts? Curious to see where this post ends up on the thread.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm looking for your post in Threaded view but can't find it! Is this a normal occurance when a thread gets too long in a post? Or perhaps an error of sorts? Curious to see where this post ends up on the thread.
[right][snapback]108003[/snapback][/right]

MEAT:

It is as you suspect, you'll need to change to regular view to get the last pages of threads. Not sure why threaded view does that, but at some point it truncates long threads. (I wonder if the software is telling us something with that feature. :unsure: )

Occhi