Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

azazel the cat wrote:
Actually, that's kinda on-topic, at least as far as this conversation has been going.

Anyway, 'nation' does actually apply here... you're thinking of 'nation-sate', which is what Canada is.

Yeah, there are plenty of nations that are not states, though they usually exist at the behest of the state. There's an argument in comparative politics as to whether or not a nation can exist for a sustained period of time without being a state, though.

dogma wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:
Actually, that's kinda on-topic, at least as far as this conversation has been going.

Anyway, 'nation' does actually apply here... you're thinking of 'nation-sate', which is what Canada is.

Yeah, there are plenty of nations that are not states, though they usually exist at the behest of the state. There's an argument in comparative politics as to whether or not a nation can exist for a sustained period of time without being a state, though.

I think some people would say that argument is very eurocentric.

azazel the cat wrote:
I think some people would say that argument is very eurocentric.

Well, the argument is that Canada basically gives them their nationhood, or allows them to have it. If you look at Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, SE Asia, or basically any place where there's been a significant amount of genocide or imperial division you see a survival rate that's much lower.

I don't exactly see much to Quebec's argument as a "nation", unless you're arguing from the same standpoitn that the states within the US are "nations" (and even then, Texas, Vermont, California, and Hawaii all still have more say there, having actually been nations at one point).

Having a different culture doesn't make one a separate nation... it just means that the country is more diverse.

Melissia wrote:I don't exactly see much to Quebec's argument as a "nation", unless you're arguing from the same standpoitn that the states within the US are "nations" (and even then, Texas, Vermont, California, and Hawaii all still have more say there, having actually been nations at one point).

Having a different culture doesn't make one a separate nation... it just means that the country is more diverse.

Nouvelle-France might have been a colony to France, but it was pretty quickly home to it's own nation of French and Metis settlers.

If you take all the different points sets in the definition given by Wiki : ''A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.'', Quebec is a closed community within Canada which is distinct in all those aspects : language : French, values : a mix of American and Latin values different from the rest of Canada (there are studies in publicity about this), French ethnicity (that's lowering), Catholicism (less important nowadays), and a history going back to Nouvelle-France.

Nations might well exists within the States, as groups of closed communities, or they might be emerging. I believe that the Prairie are a distinct society and quite possibly a distinct nation having just emerged within Canada. Let's also point out that the referent doesn't need to vary : there could be a Texan nationalism that still refers to itself as an 'American nationalism'. The individuals aren't always aware of the limits of the population they claim to be part of or that they project values on.

Finally, despite the subtleties on the concept, most people agree with each other that a nation means a large community of like-minded people. At the very least, 2 to 3 million people (those currently for Quebec sovereignty, that doesn't mean that those against are necessarily denying Quebec as a nation, but let's assume so) in Quebec agrees that we are a distinct Nation from the rest of Canada.

''A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.'

By that definition, the city of Austin is its own nation.

Melissia wrote:

''A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.'

By that definition, the city of Austin is its own nation.

Is that a burn at Austin's residents?

I don't accept the argument that because X is gakky, Y should be made gakky too.

Melissia wrote:
Having a different culture doesn't make one a separate nation... it just means that the country is more diverse.

Its a question of how different the culture is, one of the nominal standards is percentage of language commonality. As in, how many people in place X and place Y are native speakers of the same language.