No, I am not confused. I just think that looking at this issue from an international perspective might be a useful approach (by linking things we don't normally link together). ETA: I could also justify putting the thread here by imagining a sovereign Quebec already existed.

So, here's a question. If I support, in principle, the idea of a sovereign Quebec, then must I also support the idea of a sovereign Tibet? Or can I pick and choose? And, what principles justify this "picking and choosing" ?

Of course, this thread COULD degenerate into dung-flinging. But how could that be any worse than the previous thread?

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Saying Tibetans in 2008 is a different thing than saying Tibetans in 1959. The ethnic makeup of the people who inhabit Tibet includes Chinese Tibetans. There are far more of them now especially in relative terms to the ethnic Tibetans but they too need to be given the right to determine the future of the place they live in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
What utter nonsense. I'm sick of your anti-Québec crap.

---

viigan's remarks seem to be aimed at turning the wheel of history backwards and denying the necessity of the national struggle of the Québécois. It's accompanied by the usual playing of FN rights against the Québécois, which is a dead giveaway for anti-Quebec venom.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
If Québécois national aspirations are trivialized to the point that they are called imperialist, colonial or usurpation - as viigan has done on this thread - then presumably there was no need for the Quiet Revolution and the Québécois should just shut up and Speak White.

viigan's remarks seem to be aimed at turning the wheel of history backwards and denying the necessity of the national struggle of the Québécois. It's accompanied by the usual playing of FN rights against the Québécois, which is a dead giveaway for anti-Quebec venom.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

There's no ne plus ultra to national aspirations, to paraphrase C.S. Parnell. I think it's important to underline that idea for national minorities who have had to struggle for equality. I mean, Quebec has "moved forward" precisely because of that struggle.

Furthermore, If a political party can win the majority of seats in the province of Quebec based on getting the best deal for Quebecers, then it's pretty obvious that the "struggle" is far from over. C'mon. This stuff is obvious.

...............

quote:

---

Originally posted by viigan:
I think each area must be looked at with respect to its own history. The quest for sovereignty for Quebec is not the same as the struggle for liberation that people such as the Kurds face.
Quebec is a colonized territory where one faction/ethnic group of the imperialists is seeking to revisit the days of its complete hegemony over the area. To me, it's not so much a question of whether the English or the French have more of a claim. Since the days of colonization, Canada has evolved into a multicultural country that hosts people from all over the world. We have a new identity that goes above and beyond the narrow confines of two ethnic groups that have parcelled these territories. French nationalism at this point of our history is an affront, in my opinion, to the immigrants that have been a part of modern Canada and see themselves as Canadian, and more so, to the indigenous people of this country who's moral and historical rights and experiences have been usurped by those that colonized them, and used as a propagandistic tool to extend their political control over lands that in any ethical argument, have only one rightful claimant.

The quest for sovereignty in this case, must not be confused with those historical struggles of liberation in other parts of the world. It's really a continuation of colonization where one of the principal players is dissatisfied with the results of its original conquests and seeks to reassert its political and ethnic dominance.

---

That statement does not appear in my post. Obviously, you didn't fare too well in Comprehension.

"Our principles shouldn't change just because we're more fond of one particular national struggle over another"

Maybe you can point out the similarities between liberation struggles like Vietnam, Tibet, Palestine, the Kurds and Quebec. I think you'll find that the French presence in Quebec has much more in common with the oppressor groups than with the victim groups.
The French experience in Quebec is part of the same imperialistic tendencies that stationed French soldiers and settlers from Africa to South East Asia. I appreciate your romanticized view of the present situation, but I think it falls short of reality. Effectively, there is zero difference between the French and the imperialist English. They only differ in the extent of their success. The Quiet Revolution was, in fact, a clash between two imperialist cultures arguing over the same bones, and not so much a liberation struggle of the oppressed. It's a close parallel to the clash between the Dutch and the English in South Africa, while the indigenous population remained under the thumb of both contestants.

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: viigan ]

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: viigan ]

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: viigan ]

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: viigan ]

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: viigan ]