Nations & States
R. Alex Whitlock
The Canadian Prime Minister has recognized Quebec as a "nation within a nation". In my mind Quebec should either become independent or be a province and that solutions like this don't really solve anything. Does anyone really think that this will convince Quebecois that they don't want to run themselves? Notably, however, nobody asked me.

Also, polls in both Scotland and English suggest that the people of both think that they should be independent and not part of a United Kingdom. I don't begrudge them their opinion, but wouldn't that leave Northern Ireland somewhat screwed? Is the peace they've found over there in the last few years stable enough to survive a transition like this?

Lastly, I read recently an article about how call centers in The Philippines are having difficulty finding English-language calltechs because of an ill-advised decision to shift away from English and more towards their historic language of Tagalog. I may be in for sensitivity training or a history lesson, but my tentative thoughts on the Philippines and Cuba is that we made a mistake leaving them with their sovereignty and that they would both be a lot better off if we had been more, rather than less, imperialistic. Maybe I'm reading too much Orrin Judd lately.

Part of me thinks that the Guadalupe-Hildalgo treaty was a mistake and we left too much of Mexico to the Mexicans, but if we'd taken over substantial parts south of the current border the Civil War quite possibly would have had a very different ending.
Posted to Around the World
 
 

Observations

 
MIKE wrote:
Re: Quebec - what a nightmare.

Re: Scotland and I presume you meant Ireland? That's another one that probably was more of a disaster, all told. Trying to hold together the "United Kingdom" is rickety enough as is.

Re: Phillipines and Cuba, I couldn't agree more. Then again, there are probably a lot of nations like that (certain African nations like Zimbabwe come to mind) that got their independence and then had no freaking clue what to do with it.

Re: Mexico, given what a corrupt joke its government is, I'd argue we could do a lot of good by annexing it. But that would do a lot of harm to us in the process.
12/4/2006
 
RAW wrote:
Canada - Logistically messy, but even the worst case scenarios aren't that bad as far as sovereignty disputes go, this is the kind of one that you want to have. Same thing if Hawaii ever moves towards independence.

UK - Ireland (or at least the Republic of Ireland, which is generally what we are referring to when we say "Ireland") is a sovereign state. I'm talking about Northern Ireland, which (as I understand it) is still a UK province. Without the UK, Northern Ireland would have to either become independent or join the Republic. The question, I guess, is whether the stability rests on it being a state-within-a-state of the UK as it is now. If so, Northern Ireland would be headed back to Troublesville.

Mexico/Philippines/Cuba - The opportunity we had with Mexico has passed. The same is true with Cuba and the Philippines. There was a window of opportunity that has long since closed. The EU aside, statehood is trending towards dissolution and not annexation. Annexing any of those places now would be disastrous for all parties involved. In any event, I am curious why no alternative history novel (that I know about) has been written questioning what would have happened if the G-H treaty hadn't been signed and if we'd tried to hold on to Mexico City. Mighta lost it anyway, would have completely changed the dynamic of the Civil War, but whatever happened would have left the continent and our nation looking very, very differently.
12/4/2006
 
ADAM wrote:
Not QUITE the alternate history novel you wondered about, but Harry Turtledove has a great series that starts out with the South winning the Civil War based on the conceit that the North DIDN'T intercept some war plans of Lee's that they did in real life and thus Lee won a crucial battle and thus England and France recognized the South as a separate country (which they were on the verge of doing at the time). The first novel in the series is set 20 years later when the CSA buys two states from cash-strapped Mexico, thus giving them a port on the Pacific and almost starts Civil War II. The rest of the series jumps forward to World Wars I and II, with the CSA allied with England and France (as they had been since the Civil War ended) and the USA siding with Germany. Nice stuff.
12/4/2006

Add an Observation

Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.

:

:
:



 

 

Home || RSS || Archives || Ten Second News || FURL || Blogrolodexical (Full)