Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're wasting your time with this. These malcontents would not be making this claim had the French thought the colony worthy and spent the money to win the battles.. Then these same boobs would be going "yep we're a REAL country 'cuase after all, we won the wars and we're FRENCH!"
History.. I see certain parallels with the history of Switzerland to being designated "not a country" and being a make believe entity using the proposed faux logic. With four languages, and a widely accepted fifth, with at least three distinct cultures within it's borders and quite happily ALL of them refer to themselves as SWISS. No one constantly whining over considering themselves the redheaded step-child given short shrift by another of their cultures. Even the more dominant culture is accepted and respected thusly.
They arrived at their current juncture in a process "further refined" in the 1800's by agreement to create a STRONGER federal constitution, while at the same time allowing the various cantons self rule.
Imagine that! Would that we were as intelligent.
I think the two most important words in there are "self" and "rule".
There aren't really rules (as I am sure a budding collegiate such as yourself is aware) but a general consensus among people of the world. A colony that relatively recently was granted independence by it's master and retains a distant foreign monarch ruling over two groups of people who stay completely seperate except in matters of politics is hardly what most world citizens look at as a "real country". The fact that anglo Canadians have no unique national culture to separate them from being more than only the Americans-who-couldn't-get-real-independence is just icing on the cake.
Yeah, but I don't see why people in a young, new world country aren't more open to just trying something kind of new in contrast, and not relying so much on individual culture and specific independence, as much as progressive, more liberal attitudes and policies for people across the board. I don't see why you can't have two very different languages and regions existing peacefully under one relatively loose federal jurisdiction. If anything, it could stand to set a nice example.
Even the more dominant culture is accepted and respected thusly.
.
The more dominant culture in Switzerland might be accepted and respected, but it has virtually no local rights or credence outside of its "home" territory. At least, this has been my observation regarding the presence of German in the French-speaking Swiss cantons.
It's not "my" reasoning. It's just what I hear from lots of people. And not always just in Quebec. Just repeating it.
As for the legality of Canada, obviously we all see it and recognize it.
That's not what we are talking about here.
If a country is strictly limited to having defined borders, a seat at the UN, and army, then of course, Canada is a real country.
I sense that what most people are talking about, though, isn't really related to that administrative stuff.
And I'd argue that if so many people think that Canada has all the boxes for nationhood checked off simply based on that administrative stuff, then you have a good explanation for why you always get annoying comments about Canada not being a real country (from PQ politicians but also from foreigners as well) and feeling more like a corporate shareholders' meeting than a bona fide "nation" in the usual sense.
Which is all well and good if that's what Canada aspires to be.
Now... that being said. There is a growing sentiment in Canada that is building on stuff that makes Canada "feel Canadian" more in the sense that the US feels American, Australia feels Australian, and so on.
But it's still in the fairly nascent stages IMO and also butts heads with a lot of people when it crosses the Ottawa River.
It is what we are talking about here. PBeauchamp mentions the monarchy as an example of why he believes that we are not a real country.
A totally bogus argument.
Jambo seems to think separation is possible regardless of the legalities, so not all seem to recognize the legality of Canada.
As BruSan has pointed out, other countries have multiple cultures AND languages and yet somehow they are
" real countries ".
However none of what people " feel " can change the process of separation as it stands now. The SSC has ruled, we know that Quebec can not just declare independence without dealing with the ROC.
If they did, what other countries would recognize them as such. France? Perhaps.
I think the two most important words in there are "self" and "rule".
Which in practice gives them PROVINCIAL LIKE legislatures to enact PROVINCIAL LIKE governance.
The Swiss carry one passport. And allow referendae to settle polarizing issues.
"The 22 cantonal coats of arms (all but Jura, with the half-cantons represented jointly) in stained glass set in the dome of the Federal Palace of Switzerland (ca. 1900)
Each canton has its own constitution, legislature, government and courts.[10] Most of the cantons' legislature are unicameral parliaments, their size varying between 58 and 200 seats. A few legislatures are general assemblies known as Landsgemeinden. The cantonal governments consist of either five or seven members, depending on the canton.[11] For the names of the institutions, see List of legislative and executive councils of the Cantons of Switzerland.
The Swiss Federal Constitution declares the cantons to be sovereign to the extent their sovereignty is not limited by federal law.[10] The cantons also retain all powers and competencies not delegated to the Confederation by the Constitution. Most significantly, the cantons are responsible for healthcare, welfare, law enforcement and public education; they also retain the power of taxation. The cantonal constitutions determine the degree of autonomy accorded to the municipalities, which varies but almost always includes the power to levy taxes and pass municipal laws. The sizes of the cantons vary from 37 km² to 7,105 km²; the populations vary from 15,471 to 1,244,400.
I see the parallels and with the ability to perhaps learn from their example as it would apply to sovereignty and it's self-rule practical application.
It is what we are talking about here. PBeauchamp mentions the monarchy as an example of why he believes that we are not a real country.
A totally bogus argument.
Jambo seems to think separation is possible regardless of the legalities, so not all seem to recognize the legality of Canada.
As BruSan has pointed out, other countries have multiple cultures AND languages and yet somehow they are
" real countries ".
However none of what people " feel " can change the process of separation as it stands now. The SSC has ruled, we know that Quebec can not just declare independence without dealing with the ROC.
If they did, what other countries would recognize them as such. France? Perhaps.
I happen to think that the whole Supreme Court reference and Clarity Act is more of a reassurance pacifier or placebo for Anglo-Canada than anything that would carry signficant weight in a real-life situation. (Or at least, certainly not carry enough weight to prevent separation from happening if we got to that point.)
If you look at history, independence isn't really something you ask permission for, or follow a defined process in order to obtain.
It's more like a "damn the torpedoes" kind of thing.
I don't hope we ever get to that point, but if we do that's how I would expect things to go.
It is what we are talking about here. PBeauchamp mentions the monarchy as an example of why he believes that we are not a real country.
A totally bogus argument.
Jambo seems to think separation is possible regardless of the legalities, so not all seem to recognize the legality of Canada.
As BruSan has pointed out, other countries have multiple cultures AND languages and yet somehow they are
" real countries ".
However none of what people " feel " can change the process of separation as it stands now. The SSC has ruled, we know that Quebec can not just declare independence without dealing with the ROC.
If they did, what other countries would recognize them as such. France? Perhaps.
That unilateral decision would also influence how the ROC dealt with a resultant acrimonious separation of state and powers as it applies to everything from freight rates to military equipment while any court challenge was being patterned.
Tempers would fray and national temperament would not be influenced positively by Quebec's noted "passions extraordinaire".
It would get nasty and anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming in monochrome.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
