NATION

PASSWORD

Is Diversity and Multiculturalism a Good or Bad Thing?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46294
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:52 am

Neanderthaland wrote:
San Lumen wrote:wouldn't you say there's more of that now?

I see what you mean. There are Asians and Blacks and many other backgrounds in France too.

Well we were talking about before 1800. I'm sure there may have been Asians in Blacks in France at that time, but not in great numbers.

The point, and I may have expressed it poorly, is that "French" as an identity is sort of made up. All national identities are. You take people who don't necessarily have much in common, like Celtic Bretons, Nordic Normans, Romantic Gascons, and Germanic Alsatians, and convince them them all that their actually French. And, over time, their cultures begin to blend, and they tend to adopt the most common form of national language, and the fiction you've created becomes true.

I see your point but What fiction do you mean?

User avatar
The Parkus Empire
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43030
Founded: Sep 12, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Parkus Empire » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:16 am

San Lumen wrote:wouldn't you say there's more of that now?

No, I would say Medieval Britain had much more cultural diversity than contemporary Britain. I would say a second-generation Muslim from London has much more in common, culturally and linguistically, with some other random person from the UK, than two random Brits would have had in common the first millenium. Cultural and linguistic variation between areas and classes was enormous, the number of British ethnicities has been drastically consolidated over the last few hundred years.
American Orthodox: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Jesus is Allah ن
Burkean conservative
Homophobic
Anti-feminist sexist
♂Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know men and women aren't the same.♀

User avatar
Neanderthaland
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6398
Founded: Sep 10, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neanderthaland » Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:51 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Neanderthaland wrote:Well we were talking about before 1800. I'm sure there may have been Asians in Blacks in France at that time, but not in great numbers.

The point, and I may have expressed it poorly, is that "French" as an identity is sort of made up. All national identities are. You take people who don't necessarily have much in common, like Celtic Bretons, Nordic Normans, Romantic Gascons, and Germanic Alsatians, and convince them them all that their actually French. And, over time, their cultures begin to blend, and they tend to adopt the most common form of national language, and the fiction you've created becomes true.

I see your point but What fiction do you mean?

The fiction of a "French" identity.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, because there were procurers to the modern French identity. But a lot of people have come to see themselves as "French" who historically wouldn't have. Would have identified themselves some other way. Toulousain perhaps. Or Occitan if they were feeling nationalistic.

And it could have easily gone another way. There was a time where it looked like Southern France might join up with Aragon. And then you might have a sort of Occitan-Catalonian state that eventually would have started to think of themselves as one people as well. Distinct from the French or the Spanish.

This sort of thing happens everywhere. No nation ever popped into existence with a massive, homologous population. It always takes time and effort to drag all these various groups into a single identity.
Ug make fire. Mod ban Ug.

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46294
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:24 pm

Neanderthaland wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I see your point but What fiction do you mean?

The fiction of a "French" identity.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, because there were procurers to the modern French identity. But a lot of people have come to see themselves as "French" who historically wouldn't have. Would have identified themselves some other way. Toulousain perhaps. Or Occitan if they were feeling nationalistic.

And it could have easily gone another way. There was a time where it looked like Southern France might join up with Aragon. And then you might have a sort of Occitan-Catalonian state that eventually would have started to think of themselves as one people as well. Distinct from the French or the Spanish.

This sort of thing happens everywhere. No nation ever popped into existence with a massive, homologous population. It always takes time and effort to drag all these various groups into a single identity.

I can see what your saying. I never thought of it that way.

User avatar
Agland
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Sep 08, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Agland » Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:26 pm

A terrible thing, indeed.

As a nationalist who believes in the Blood and Soil ideology, each land belongs to its native people, who lived there for many generations, not to complete foreigners, outsiders, outlanders.

Diversity is a an awful word. As we understand humans are naturally divided by many factos, we must consider that "dieversity" generates conflicts. Different people don't get along well, as many naive and childish politically correct individuals believe.

The nation must serve its own people, and, in exchange, its people must serve its beloved fatherland and be protective of it and very wary of outsiders.

Why ethnic heterogeneity is bad? I will explain:

Ethnic nepotism (Ethnic nepotism refers to an argued genetically caused preference for and altruism towards the ethnic group (or race) a person belongs to. This is argued to be caused by ethnic groups often being (or in the past often being) genetically similar. Giving support to the ethnic group/race that a person belongs to is therefore argued to increase the probability of survival of a person's genes. It can be seen as an extension of the genetically caused preference for and altruism towards relatives (kin altruism).

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Ethnic_nepotism

Ethnic heterogeneity (One cause for the problems in areas with high ethnic heterogeneity has been argued to be that when an area is no longer ethnically homogeneous then ethnic nepotism will cause the different ethnicities to try to promote their own ethnic interests and it becomes difficult to govern the whole area rationally)

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Ethnic_heterogeneity

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37428
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby New haven america » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:09 am

Isn't summer supposed to be over by now?
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2020

That's all folks~

User avatar
Petrolheadia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11356
Founded: May 02, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Petrolheadia » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:17 am

You know what gives even bigger mean IQ differences than race? Level of educational attainment. There is quite a lot of diffference between different levels.

Image
Capitalism, single-payer healthcare, pro-choice, LGBT rights, progressive personal taxation, low corporate tax, pro-business law, welfare for those in need.
Nazism, edgism, dogmatic statements, most of Abrahamic-derived morality (esp. as law), welfare for those not in need.
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, classic rock fan, gamer, agnostic.
Not sure if left-libertarian, ex-libertarian or without a damn clue.
Where you can talk about cars!
"They're always saying I'm a Capitalist pig. I suppose I am, but, ah...it ah...it's good for my drumming, I think." - Keith Moon,
If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron. - Jan Nowicki.

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46294
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:10 am

Agland wrote:A terrible thing, indeed.

As a nationalist who believes in the Blood and Soil ideology, each land belongs to its native people, who lived there for many generations, not to complete foreigners, outsiders, outlanders.

Diversity is a an awful word. As we understand humans are naturally divided by many factos, we must consider that "dieversity" generates conflicts. Different people don't get along well, as many naive and childish politically correct individuals believe.

The nation must serve its own people, and, in exchange, its people must serve its beloved fatherland and be protective of it and very wary of outsiders.

Why ethnic heterogeneity is bad? I will explain:

Ethnic nepotism (Ethnic nepotism refers to an argued genetically caused preference for and altruism towards the ethnic group (or race) a person belongs to. This is argued to be caused by ethnic groups often being (or in the past often being) genetically similar. Giving support to the ethnic group/race that a person belongs to is therefore argued to increase the probability of survival of a person's genes. It can be seen as an extension of the genetically caused preference for and altruism towards relatives (kin altruism).

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Ethnic_nepotism

Ethnic heterogeneity (One cause for the problems in areas with high ethnic heterogeneity has been argued to be that when an area is no longer ethnically homogeneous then ethnic nepotism will cause the different ethnicities to try to promote their own ethnic interests and it becomes difficult to govern the whole area rationally)

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Ethnic_heterogeneity

You know that blood and soil is a Nazi ideology? Who do you define as native people? From what you wrote is it also to be implied you don't believe in interracial marriage?

I guess we should give Canada and the United States back to the Native peoples. Visit Frankfurt, London, Los Angeles, New York or Jersey City sometime and you'll see how diversity and multiculturalism works.

User avatar
Aellex
Senator
 
Posts: 4635
Founded: Apr 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Aellex » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:39 am

Neanderthaland wrote:We think of people living in France as being "French."

But they're Cosmopolitan, and Gascon, and Occitan, and German, and Flemish, and Burgundian, and Norman, and don't even get me started on the Bretons.

They ain't, tho.

Neanderthaland wrote:The point, and I may have expressed it poorly, is that "French" as an identity is sort of made up. All national identities are. You take people who don't necessarily have much in common, like Celtic Bretons, Nordic Normans, Romantic Gascons, and Germanic Alsatians, and convince them them all that their actually French. And, over time, their cultures begin to blend, and they tend to adopt the most common form of national language, and the fiction you've created becomes true.

Language is also made-up and so is Civilisation. What's your point?

Btw, Bretons aren't Celtic, they're closer to Gallic and Belgian; Normans never were more Nordics than Bourbonnais nor Orléanais were as the Nordic migration to the region was short and small, influencing neither the language nor the local culture; calling Gascons "Romantic" is quite a stretch they would most likely decry themselves and Alsatians always were French-Speaking with their bishopric being considered as part of the "French Nation" in the Early Middle Ages already.

Anyway, that's not what happened, tho. There was little to no blend of cultures, quite the contrary rather, and French was spoken by little to no one south of Lyon prior to the 20th century. There was no "peaceful acculturation" like what you describe. What there was was the Vergonha, a brutally effective up-rooting of the local culture, language and even nationality to replace it by the official one. Had it not happened, "Occitania", "Breizh" and "Gasconia" would still be nations within a nation within entirely different cultures and language.
Citoyen Français. Disillusioned Gaulliste. Catholique.

Tombé au champ d'honneur, add 11400 posts.

Member of the Committee
for Proletarian Morality


RIP Balk, you were too good a shitposter for this site.

User avatar
The Conez Imperium
Minister
 
Posts: 3053
Founded: Nov 23, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Conez Imperium » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:49 am

Aellex wrote:
Neanderthaland wrote:We think of people living in France as being "French."

But they're Cosmopolitan, and Gascon, and Occitan, and German, and Flemish, and Burgundian, and Norman, and don't even get me started on the Bretons.

They ain't, tho.

Neanderthaland wrote:The point, and I may have expressed it poorly, is that "French" as an identity is sort of made up. All national identities are. You take people who don't necessarily have much in common, like Celtic Bretons, Nordic Normans, Romantic Gascons, and Germanic Alsatians, and convince them them all that their actually French. And, over time, their cultures begin to blend, and they tend to adopt the most common form of national language, and the fiction you've created becomes true.

Language is also made-up and so is Civilisation. What's your point?

Btw, Bretons aren't Celtic, they're closer to Gallic and Belgian; Normans never were more Nordics than Bourbonnais nor Orléanais were as the Nordic migration to the region was short and small, influencing neither the language nor the local culture; calling Gascons "Romantic" is quite a stretch they would most likely decry themselves and Alsatians always were French-Speaking with their bishopric being considered as part of the "French Nation" in the Early Middle Ages already.

Anyway, that's not what happened, tho. There was little to no blend of cultures, quite the contrary rather, and French was spoken by little to no one south of Lyon prior to the 20th century. There was no "peaceful acculturation" like what you describe. What there was was the Vergonha, a brutally effective up-rooting of the local culture, language and even nationality to replace it by the official one. Had it not happened, "Occitania", "Breizh" and "Gasconia" would still be nations within a nation within entirely different cultures and language.


From my understanding, he seems to be talking about the process. Identify is a constant process and there is really no end to that process. Subsequently, it would be silly to say that you are the pinnacle of that identity since you are at the "end" because history would prove you wrong. Unless you wish to stop the nations history books.

In ancient times what was Athens, the most powerful polis is now Greece. Greece in itself is a fabrication - the result of a long process. Imagine if you told an Athenian citizen that Sparta would be citizens along with you.
Salut tout le monde, c'est moi !

User avatar
The Conez Imperium
Minister
 
Posts: 3053
Founded: Nov 23, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Conez Imperium » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:56 am

HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:As a white, I am also pretty frightened that my grandchildren are going to be murdered because of imaginary crimes they supposedly inflicted on dumber races. I'd like to avoid that.
Genetic superiority is a smart and almost certainly true idea. Is it bad to wipe out inferior races? I make no comment. But I will say that it is bad for inferior races to wipe out superior races, whether that be by actual violence or simply swamping via differential birth rates.


I don't think skin colour is a good metric to judge genetic superiority. I believe you state that race is a social reality, yet you equate it with genetics - a physical feature ???
Salut tout le monde, c'est moi !

User avatar
Albrenia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12595
Founded: Aug 18, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Albrenia » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:12 am

I find it a little sad that people still believe in concepts like 'the dumber races'.

Also find it a bit odd they can say a group is 'superior' but in the same breath claim it can be eradicated by merely competing in the same space with others.
Last edited by Albrenia on Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Socialist Czechia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6183
Founded: Apr 06, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Socialist Czechia » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:09 am

Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.
"Those who reached my boundary, their seed is not; their hearts and their souls are finished forever and ever. As for those who had assembled before them on the sea, the full flame was their front before the harbour mouths, and a wall of metal upon the shore surrounded them. They were dragged, overturned, and laid low upon the beach; slain and made heaps from stern to bow of their galleys, while all their things were cast upon the water." - Ramesses III., Battle of the Delta

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46294
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:51 am

Socialist Czechia wrote:Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I don't think thats true.

User avatar
Tekeristan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5343
Founded: Mar 08, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tekeristan » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:31 pm

Socialist Czechia wrote:Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I mean, it only took the Ottomans 600 years to 'fail and break', and they controlled a good segment of the world where a good number of people probably imagine would be one of the worst to do so in.

So besides all the revolts and internal clashes even in single-ethnic states that occured over 600 year spans.. What's the definition of fail here?
Last edited by Tekeristan on Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Trumptonium
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Jan 27, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Trumptonium » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:36 pm

Tekeristan wrote:
Socialist Czechia wrote:Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I mean, it only took the Ottomans 600 years to 'fail and break', and they controlled a good segment of the world where a good number of people probably imagine would be one of the worst to do so in.


They did so through Stalin-style oppression with an iron hand, so you're essentially reinforcing his point. It only broke down because of the Young Turks attempting to reform the Empire and weakening it within temporarily by doing so, allowing nationalities that are disillusioned to go off and explode their anger out of the box they've been forced to contain it in for centuries.
Pro: Things and people I like
Anti: Things and people I dislike

https://www.bolsonaro.com.br/

User avatar
HMS Queen Elizabeth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1991
Founded: Feb 06, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby HMS Queen Elizabeth » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:21 pm

The Conez Imperium wrote:
HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:As a white, I am also pretty frightened that my grandchildren are going to be murdered because of imaginary crimes they supposedly inflicted on dumber races. I'd like to avoid that.
Genetic superiority is a smart and almost certainly true idea. Is it bad to wipe out inferior races? I make no comment. But I will say that it is bad for inferior races to wipe out superior races, whether that be by actual violence or simply swamping via differential birth rates.


I don't think skin colour is a good metric to judge genetic superiority. I believe you state that race is a social reality, yet you equate it with genetics - a physical feature ???

They're not contradictory. "Green" is a social construct, but that doesn't mean that photons aren't real or that they don't vary in frequency. Most social constructs were constructed to describe or manipulate some underlying physical reality.
Last edited by HMS Queen Elizabeth on Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Crown the King with Might!
Let the King be strong,
Hating guile and wrong,
He that scorneth pride.
Fearing truth and right,
Feareth nought beside;
Crown the King with Might!

User avatar
Lowell Leber
Minister
 
Posts: 2123
Founded: Jan 27, 2010
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Lowell Leber » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:22 am

San Lumen wrote:
The Parkus Empire wrote:Cultures come and go, sometimes very rapidly. You can't put them in a stasis. Some cultures are detrimental in terms of values, but some are quite conducive, so it is impossible to say broadly whether diversity and multiculturalism is good or bad. Overall though I oppose discrimination against human beings based on cultural background, and I think trying to keep your "nation" pure by weeding out certain nationalities simply doesn't work.

I agree with you for the most part. When you say detrimental what do you mean? You can't keep any nation "pure" we have an interconnected planet now. You cannot stop people from immigrating.

Yes you can. Just do not let them into your country.
IC The Leberite Empire


New Nicksyllvania - Unjustly Deleted 4/2/11

User avatar
The Cosmic Frankish Empire
Envoy
 
Posts: 251
Founded: Sep 09, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cosmic Frankish Empire » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:32 am

San Lumen wrote:
Socialist Czechia wrote:Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I don't think thats true.

"Think" and "believe" are two different words with two different definitions. Just a heads up.

User avatar
Sovaal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13696
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Sovaal » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:32 am

Neanderthaland wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I see your point but What fiction do you mean?

The fiction of a "French" identity.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, because there were procurers to the modern French identity. But a lot of people have come to see themselves as "French" who historically wouldn't have. Would have identified themselves some other way. Toulousain perhaps. Or Occitan if they were feeling nationalistic.

And it could have easily gone another way. There was a time where it looked like Southern France might join up with Aragon. And then you might have a sort of Occitan-Catalonian state that eventually would have started to think of themselves as one people as well. Distinct from the French or the Spanish.

This sort of thing happens everywhere. No nation ever popped into existence with a massive, homologous population. It always takes time and effort to drag all these various groups into a single identity.

Occitan separatists when?
Most of the time I have no idea what the hell I'm doing or talking about.

”Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." -
Winston Churchill, 1947.

"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.” - George Orwell

User avatar
The Sauganash Union
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1146
Founded: Mar 08, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Sauganash Union » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:53 am

Tekeristan wrote:
Socialist Czechia wrote:Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I mean, it only took the Ottomans 600 years to 'fail and break', and they controlled a good segment of the world where a good number of people probably imagine would be one of the worst to do so in.

So besides all the revolts and internal clashes even in single-ethnic states that occured over 600 year spans.. What's the definition of fail here?


Is it a coincidence that the former Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empire became hotbeds of ethnic cleansing and genocide?
A nation founded in the early 1800s by Federalist immigrants from the United States. Has since developed an identity of its own and imperial ambitions.


Handshakes and tie knots. I don't have time for someone who can't master these simple things.

User avatar
The Sauganash Union
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1146
Founded: Mar 08, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Sauganash Union » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:53 am

San Lumen wrote:
The Parkus Empire wrote:Cultures come and go, sometimes very rapidly. You can't put them in a stasis. Some cultures are detrimental in terms of values, but some are quite conducive, so it is impossible to say broadly whether diversity and multiculturalism is good or bad. Overall though I oppose discrimination against human beings based on cultural background, and I think trying to keep your "nation" pure by weeding out certain nationalities simply doesn't work.

I agree with you for the most part. When you say detrimental what do you mean? You can't keep any nation "pure" we have an interconnected planet now. You cannot stop people from immigrating.


Yeah you can. The US used to do it pretty regularly for most of its history.
A nation founded in the early 1800s by Federalist immigrants from the United States. Has since developed an identity of its own and imperial ambitions.


Handshakes and tie knots. I don't have time for someone who can't master these simple things.

User avatar
Neanderthaland
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6398
Founded: Sep 10, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Neanderthaland » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:38 am

Sovaal wrote:
Neanderthaland wrote:The fiction of a "French" identity.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, because there were procurers to the modern French identity. But a lot of people have come to see themselves as "French" who historically wouldn't have. Would have identified themselves some other way. Toulousain perhaps. Or Occitan if they were feeling nationalistic.

And it could have easily gone another way. There was a time where it looked like Southern France might join up with Aragon. And then you might have a sort of Occitan-Catalonian state that eventually would have started to think of themselves as one people as well. Distinct from the French or the Spanish.

This sort of thing happens everywhere. No nation ever popped into existence with a massive, homologous population. It always takes time and effort to drag all these various groups into a single identity.

Occitan separatists when?

Mostly during the Albigensian Crusade.

It really did look like they were going to join up with Aragon until Pedro II got himself killed.
Ug make fire. Mod ban Ug.

User avatar
Aellex
Senator
 
Posts: 4635
Founded: Apr 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Aellex » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:50 am

Sovaal wrote:Occitan separatists when?

Never since based Jules Ferry removed them from the premises. :^)
Neanderthaland wrote:Mostly during the Albigensian Crusade.

It really did look like they were going to join up with Aragon until Pedro II got himself killed.

Utterly unlikely. The local lords got themselves steam-rolled by the Croisade des Barons alone so they had no chance to stand up against the King's intervention (which was proven true as they got flattened again when Louis le Lion decided to join in the fun officially) if they dared to try to break free.
As for the Kings of Aragon, they were too dependent on the France's support and arbitration against Castille to make such a move.
Citoyen Français. Disillusioned Gaulliste. Catholique.

Tombé au champ d'honneur, add 11400 posts.

Member of the Committee
for Proletarian Morality


RIP Balk, you were too good a shitposter for this site.

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46294
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:08 pm

Lowell Leber wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I agree with you for the most part. When you say detrimental what do you mean? You can't keep any nation "pure" we have an interconnected planet now. You cannot stop people from immigrating.

Yes you can. Just do not let them into your country.

So you'd just close the border and not let anyone in?

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arlenton, Auristania, Auze, Emblehem, Ethel mermania, Eukaryotic Cells, Gandhian India, Google Adsense [Bot], Greater Eireann, Greater Miami Shores, Kafyland, Kannap, Kowani, Necroghastia, Ngelmish, Penguinya, Philippinia, Qassadia, Rusozak, Shrillland, Tarsonis, The Black Forrest, The Greater Ohio Valley, The Reformed American Republic, Washington Resistance Army, Western Fardelshufflestein

Advertisement

Remove ads