1.5 million Catalans are marching for independence!what's next?Scotland,w-Sahara, Kur

Wait what? Are we talking genetics? Here i thought we were talking culture

 

might as well make it about genetics as we're obviously not talking about culture if you think that 20% of our population defines our canadian culture and of that 20% many have been here for generations...that 20 percent's ties with england are long gone, dissolved in our multi-cultural melting pot...the english speakers of canada are no more english than our 15% ethnic francophones are french...

 

No, I'm speaking about the anlgo-saxon culture that dominated canada. Yes, there has been immigrants but they are assimilating or integrating into the anglo culture, the people of english descent doesn't matter. Canada isn't as multicultural as you'd think it is. Don't come and indirectly say foolish things like canada being as much like china as the UK; it's obviously not true.

Those french canadians are french in the same way that english canadians are british/anglo. I will again make clear that I don't mean british as in the british isle, or the modern british culture there, but british in the sense that canadian culture comes from, and is thus releated and similar too, british culture. And that they are different, but very similar, under a broader anglo-saxon/british/whatever group.

What's your point in denying this anyways? Don't you like canada being a former colony? Want to pretend that canadians are a completely seperate people? Why? It's your history, just live with it.

 

There is no accurate statistics on the ethnic background of Canadians.

 

I'm speaking culture wise.

 

Culture wise Canada is essentially, with the exception of Quebec British and substantially so in origin. Obviously heavily Influenced by the USA , in itself of British derived culture although less so than Canada..

 

X1, that why Quebec wants independence

 

Most quebecois do NOT want independence

 

The 'English', like all the peoples of Britain and Ireland, are genetically related to the Basques. You are quite right: the English culture has done rather well, and has no connection to genetics at all. Few such things do, in my opinion.

 

Iolo is correct here. genetics and culture are not the same thing. I am an Ánglo Saxon Englishman but my maternal DNA indicate that my mothers femal line come from the west of england and thats at least 8,000 years ago. My Paternal DNA inducates the South-eastern mediterrenean.

 

and vote for separatists 50 years or so,?

 

most quebecois do not vote for separatists

 

Their mass organisation can lead to their independence, but at the same time to a totalitarian state (so what means that independence exactly?) Because after years of fear, worsen economy and politics, these 1.5 million people have grouped together (this happens when people feel trouble, or when in danger (mass organization has taken place, you see the same happening in the East, in Egypt and Turkey)
Humanity is facing the biggest organisation ever, because you see mass organisation taking place all over the world (you can't see it directly, until you start to look at large numbers of citizens marching or ralling in the streets, or casting their vote on a single party) Media and politics are the same everywere, people are completely deceived and blinded for what is happening to them. The Catalans will have their independence, but not the independence the US people got since end of the civil war, because if they succeed 'independence' from Spain, this is not after a war. Lliberation and indepence is always after a war, now we see mass organisation and no end of a war.

 

Utter nonsense. Lots of countries have gained independence with no war at all.

 

Correct.

More countries gained their independence from Britain than from any other country, and the vast majorioty of them got their independence from Britain peacefully.

 

Only because Britain was too weak to maintain its imperialism. They're reduced to wasting dosh on "where will they go when the Scots do one?" nuclear subs in their insipid efforts to count

 

What an absolute load of toss. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all became independent when Britain was at the height of its power. It could have put down an uprising in any of the Caribbean countries and Malaysia actually had to Request Britain back to put down its own insurgency.

 

Just historical fact. Take, for example, how the great imperialist Churchill was forced to accept the self-determination vocab in the atlantic charter.

 

Which has damned all to do with the premise. You are just trying to find anything to back the stupid assertion that independence has always to be fought for.

 

Of course it is. Acknowledging the right to self determination reflected Britain's weak bargaining position. She was already losing her empire due to her reduced power. Had that power been maintained, despite the costs for the British peoples, she would have aggressively sought to maintain the imperialist position. You might want to play pretend, but I leave that to Play School and Rainbow

 

We had every intention to give up the empire because it was costing us a fortune. We were bringing in a welfare state and there was no way we could have extended it to the empire so we got rid of it. We wouldn't have agreed to the self determination business if we had no intention of getting rid of the empire. Post WW2 there was no point in having an Empire.

Anyway teh original point was:

Which is cleary not the case as events have proven.

 

Reflecting the reduced power of Mother England and her inability to maintain an imperialist outlook.

The welfare state's origins is actually through imperialist competition, with Britain reacting to the lessons from Bismarck

Untrue! Churchill was forced into signing it. Not surprisingly, given his imperialist nature, he subsequently tried to backtrack.

 

Utter ideological tripe. Boring marxist claptrap.

 

There was no Marxist comment made. For that I'd have to refer to the likes of Luxemburg and military burden effects, coupling it with reference to early analysis into militarisation.

That you made this charge only described to me that you're the one ideologically hampered. Tut tut!

 

Its all Marxist with that Imperialism nonsense.