[Mustang1]

Canadianiam Canadianiam:

30% is huge, no nation or province can be considered stable when there is a hardcore 30% that want out. History has shown us that a much smaller minority than that can destroy or create an empire, a nation or a province.

Personally I think it would be a good idea for the provinces, or regions (some provinces might work together) to have their own programs. They could still compete under the great Canadian flag but each region could have it's own programs. Then we could have the Canada games to determine who gets to move on.

Of course before that point each region would have to support itself and pay to support the program. Some how I think Quebec, maybe even that 30%, would prefer to keep things as they are.

Of course if Quebec really wants their own program, it is clear we would not stand in their way as long as they shut up and get on with it.

No, 30% is not, in fact, "huge". It's a minority and a overwhelming majority disagrees with it. This has been the history of Quebec nationalism and so far, it's failed in its divisive goals.

And history, the Canadian variety, has demonstrated that a minority of separatists don't mean squat in plebiscites and if one delves deep enough, one should find, that many regions, provinces have had small, fringe separatist movements that momentarily become vocal, only to slip back to the fringe.

[Proculation]

The nations that separate from a state have a an overwhelming majority anyway. In the 90%+.

So no, 30% is not huge at all. It's a low minority.

[kenmore]

PimpBrewski123 PimpBrewski123:

Most, if not all, of the Quebec athletes went on Quebec TV and stated they were proud to be part of Team Canada.

Thats true.. most Québecers are proud Canadians, its just not politically correct in the province to say so.. kind of like the will of a few enforcing their view on the many.

[Canadianiam]

$1:

So no, 30% is not huge at all. It's a low minority.

I could make reference to many political systems that at the time seemed fine but in hindsight we can see that a significant percentage, often less than 30%, were dissatisfied. So much so that they (again in the hindsight that history gives us) became key players during a transition or change. I seem to recall that Rome supplies a few examples but Canada can also supply some examples.

In the case of Newfoundland there was almost certainly less than 30% that wanted to leave Britain before or just after WWII. In 1948 when they first voted on such a question a mere 41% wanted to join Canada. A minority that could be ignored?

Sometimes it is just a progression that unties the knot but one measure of stability is how well a country can handle a major shock or challenge or change.

In Canada it seems obvious (again at this point in time) that the change is going to be less money flowing into Quebec and the demand for them to start paying.

Sure at that point these Quebec nationalists might just say, C'est la vie and accept the decreased standard of living or the majority 70% might reject whatever arguments the 3 in 10 in the street are yelling. History we know, the future we do not, so yeah 30% of a population being hard core separatist might be nothing, mean nothing, and result in nothing even if the money is shut off.

But history tells us if we want a stable country, a province that can ride out the tough times, then we ignore a hard core 30% at our own risk.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

<ribbit>Round up the separatists, all 29% of them, exile them to one of those big Arctic circle islands of ours, and leave them there. They can have a sovereign chunk of ice.

But seriously, message to Quebec: GET OVER IT AND STFU ALREADY. </ribbit>

-J.

[stemmer]

Polls and surveys are fine. But the truer tally would be the votes cast in a referendum... The last one was too close for comfort....

[Arctic_Menace]

I have only two words for those who proposed this: Fuck. Off.

[Smacle]

The Vandoos had the quebec flag in the Mess Hall here in KAF instead of the Canadian flag.. that was it for me. Fuck Quebec.

[Regina]

Maybe they should have went to Quebec House at the Olympics to see what the rest of the world thought about them and their "culture" too. While ALL other provinces and country's venues were a complete successes, Quebec's was dead empty night after night. Every other was full with line ups but theirs had no wait and was sparsely attended.......for two weeks.

[Mustang1]

Canadianiam Canadianiam:

$1:

So no, 30% is not huge at all. It's a low minority.

I could make reference to many political systems that at the time seemed fine but in hindsight we can see that a significant percentage, often less than 30%, were dissatisfied. So much so that they (again in the hindsight that history gives us) became key players during a transition or change. I seem to recall that Rome supplies a few examples but Canada can also supply some examples.

In the case of Newfoundland there was almost certainly less than 30% that wanted to leave Britain before or just after WWII. In 1948 when they first voted on such a question a mere 41% wanted to join Canada. A minority that could be ignored?

Sometimes it is just a progression that unties the knot but one measure of stability is how well a country can handle a major shock or challenge or change.

In Canada it seems obvious (again at this point in time) that the change is going to be less money flowing into Quebec and the demand for them to start paying.

Sure at that point these Quebec nationalists might just say, C'est la vie and accept the decreased standard of living or the majority 70% might reject whatever arguments the 3 in 10 in the street are yelling. History we know, the future we do not, so yeah 30% of a population being hard core separatist might be nothing, mean nothing, and result in nothing even if the money is shut off.

But history tells us if we want a stable country, a province that can ride out the tough times, then we ignore a hard core 30% at our own risk.

And yet, this minority in Quebec hasn't seen its goals realized in over 40 years. In fact, when minorities do affect change, it's largely based on conditions (which hardly present themselves in contemporary Canada), elite manipulation and a significant component of the population that can be apathetic (thus presenting a majority that is disenchanted). Trying to force a incongruous historical comparison (Rome?!?!) proves nothing as it's massively more complex than simply suggesting a minority was agitated, therefore successful system change resulted.

The Newfoundland Confederation issue doesn't prove your point as the first plebiscite suggested no absolute majority in any political configuration. The subsequent one did, in fact, and showed a majority of districts polling for Confederation (over 51% of the approx 85% electorate). This example demonstrates that not only was a majority required, but a further majority was needed by the Canadian federal goverment to pass the Terms of Union.

The nation is stable and a 30% minority (and political fringe minorities have always been present in Canada) in one province, Canadian history has demonstrated, doesn't necessarily amount to radical system upheaval.

[whiskeyjack]

so apparently 30% of quebecers are babies, ahh look at the little babies.....baby want there bottle?

[2Cdo]

Regina Regina:

Maybe they should have went to Quebec House at the Olympics to see what the rest of the world thought about them and their "culture" too. While ALL other provinces and country's venues were a complete successes, Quebec's was dead empty night after night. Every other was full with line ups but theirs had no wait and was sparsely attended.......for two weeks.

I can just see all the athletes walking by and asking "What's a Quebec"?

[Canadianiam]

$1:

The nation is stable and a 30% minority (and political fringe minorities have always been present in Canada) in one province, Canadian history has demonstrated, doesn't necessarily amount to radical system upheaval.

History is easily one of Canadians weakest subjects. It is not well covered in school because as a nation we have so many different histories, often conflicting histories. So we choose to ignore history.

The downsides are many including the idea that a country which spans 10,000,000 square kilometers, rules over many different peoples with different cultures, different histories, in different regions with different desires and visions for the future is ever stable.

As is the idea that comparisons cannot be found with Rome. You can always find lessons from Ancient History. A reminder that while everything changes, nothing changes. We play the same political games over and over again. Scale may change, players change, location changes but the game is always the same.

Which is why any historian knows Canada is not stable. Never has been. Canada is not immortal as one PM said.

It will change. Provinces, Nations onto themselves said Tupper, are like colonies.

This is particularly true of the western provinces, which are to this day treated as colonies. Colonies are not stable. These provinces and all provinces, are like fruit, which cling to the tree only until they reach maturity. Once the Phoenician colonies had become self sufficient they did what Carthage did, once the Americans became self sufficient they did what they did.

Often colonies leave before they are ready but leave they will. Without the use of force, something Canadians abhor, you cannot rule a far away people, with a different history, from a different culture, with any long term stability.

Even with force such systems are not always stable though they can appear to be. Before the Iron Curtain fell it was felt by most to be stable. Sure there were some minorities causing problems but nothing a few tanks could not and did easily control. Stability is an illusion.

We will have a radical system upheaval, maybe many. The real question is how we are going to do it.

Will we do it as I suggest, progressively, peacefully or will we ignore the instability and allow fault lines to built pressure?

So far Canada has only concerned itself with one fault line and there is still significant pressure there, which is seen in the 30%. This suggests Canadians want to believe, and are acting as though they believe, Canada is stable. No significant action is required, besides it can be hard, even painful.

That does not bode well for those who wish to see a peaceful transition into the future. A future where all Canadians have equal rights, regardless of race or founding peoples status. A future where the regions will have equal rights and control over their own future.

We can make that future or continue to stand back and wait for the future providence chooses for us.

[andyt]

stemmer stemmer:

Bodah Bodah:

Has someone told them their doing this shit backwards, you need your own country first before you have your own olympic team.

Seperate already or stfu.

I don't think Quebec wants to be a separate country but more likely they want to be recognized as a nation... Let's not confuse nation and country...

That's it. Basically they want to be one big reservation for Froggies. They see what a good deal the Indians are getting with their First Nations crap - money for nothing and your chicks for free - and they just want the same deal. We could call them Second Nations. Everybody else, who's actually paying the freight would be called Hind Tit Nations.

[Mustang1]

Canadianiam Canadianiam:

$1:

The nation is stable and a 30% minority (and political fringe minorities have always been present in Canada) in one province, Canadian history has demonstrated, doesn't necessarily amount to radical system upheaval.

History is easily one of Canadians weakest subjects. It is not well covered in school because as a nation we have so many different histories, often conflicting histories. So we choose to ignore history.

The downsides are many including the idea that a country which spans 10,000,000 square kilometers, rules over many different peoples with different cultures, different histories, in different regions with different desires and visions for the future is ever stable.

As is the idea that comparisons cannot be found with Rome. You can always find lessons from Ancient History. A reminder that while everything changes, nothing changes. We play the same political games over and over again. Scale may change, players change, location changes but the game is always the same.

Which is why any historian knows Canada is not stable. Never has been. Canada is not immortal as one PM said.

It will change. Provinces, Nations onto themselves said Tupper, are like colonies.

This is particularly true of the western provinces, which are to this day treated as colonies. Colonies are not stable. These provinces and all provinces, are like fruit, which cling to the tree only until they reach maturity. Once the Phoenician colonies had become self sufficient they did what Carthage did, once the Americans became self sufficient they did what they did.

Often colonies leave before they are ready but leave they will. Without the use of force, something Canadians abhor, you cannot rule a far away people, with a different history, from a different culture, with any long term stability.

Even with force such systems are not always stable though they can appear to be. Before the Iron Curtain fell it was felt by most to be stable. Sure there were some minorities causing problems but nothing a few tanks could not and did easily control. Stability is an illusion.

We will have a radical system upheaval, maybe many. The real question is how we are going to do it.

Will we do it as I suggest, progressively, peacefully or will we ignore the instability and allow fault lines to built pressure?

So far Canada has only concerned itself with one fault line and there is still significant pressure there, which is seen in the 30%. This suggests Canadians want to believe, and are acting as though they believe, Canada is stable. No significant action is required, besides it can be hard, even painful.

That does not bode well for those who wish to see a peaceful transition into the future. A future where all Canadians have equal rights, regardless of race or founding peoples status. A future where the regions will have equal rights and control over their own future.

We can make that future or continue to stand back and wait for the future providence chooses for us.

Actually, i'm well versed in Canadian history (i'll assume you'll be abandoning the Nfld tangent), so maybe you could outline these "historical" illustrations that demonstrate "Which is why any historian knows Canada is not stable" with some objective evidence from the last century?

Politically, Canada is one of the strongest sovereign states in the world and while change (social, economic) has occurred here, it's been one of pragmatism, moderation and ideologically centrist (despite influence from spectrum extremes)