 | | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) I noticed the examples you gave were from nations where democracy was inexistent at the time of the breakup. So I ask: is a democratic nation immune to separatism? I mean, not the sociological phenomena in itself, rather the effective (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Doesn't Texas every once in a while talk about being 'separate' or is that just a figment of my imagination... Just wondering... Dave K (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Not sure what you mean by immune in this context. Some democratic nations have resisted mightily. The US Civil War was at least partly about separatism. Other democratic nations have not resisted (Czechoslovakia seems to have peacefully (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Nope. They're the only (?? (1) ) state that joined by treaty after being an independent republic rather than being an original founder (that ratified the constitution as the means of joining) or a state formed from unorganised territory that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) K, my misremembery--I thought I read somewhere about a decade ago that there were some Texans talking about forming a 'separatist' movement... (...) That is, until, as some Canadians talk about, Canada becomes the 51st state. Is Puerto Rico (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Whoops! I meant "nope" as in "nope, you're not misremembering", sorry about that. Texans talk about separatism more often than most, for sure. (...) More like 51st through 64th or whatever, one state for each province/territory I would (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) True, but the US was hardly even partly democratic at the time (except on paper)! Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Less democratic, yes. Less free (at least in the free states anyway)? Arguable. (Free society == democratic society) == false (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Sure the free states were more free, if you were a white male (and a landowner, IIRC). But in terms of restrictive laws, I suppose you're correct. Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Sure the free states were more free, if you were a white male (and a landowner, IIRC). But in terms of personally restrictive laws, I suppose you're correct. Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: Whoops! That's the one I meant to delete. Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Puerto Rico occasionally holds referendums to decide whether to remain a territory (technically a commonwealth) or become a state. I found this on the web as an example: (URL) fairly sure PR would benefit greatly from becoming a state. In the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: La belle province
|
|
(...) Well, in a democracy the people get to self-determine already - so one can argue about the use of having two states in similar circumstances taking similar decisions, when this only works to double institutions. The more states there are, the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
