Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 30, 2011 20:47:05 GMT -6
Er, Deet, the Jahn quote on Peculiarism was just something I thought was funny as well as showing how far back Peculiarism goes in Talossan tradition. I don't literally agree with it (or indeed anything else he said before 1991) so I'm not "fearmongering". I entirely support you attempting to build Peculiarism into a pan-Talossan political force.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Dec 30, 2011 21:47:01 GMT -6
I myself am a Derivatist (anti-Peculiarist) with pro-Peculiarist tendencies. Meaning that I disagree with Peculiarism, but I don't want it to go away. It helps define what Talossa is, and I often use it as the answer to the common question "what is left and what is right in the Talossan political spectrum?" (no, not that it is the only answer, and many liberals are not Peculiarists, and many conservatives are not Derivatists, but hey, it's something we Talossans have -- something all our own -- that has two sides to it, so I love it).
Hool
P.S. This is a great thread.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Dec 30, 2011 21:53:13 GMT -6
To add some context, here is a post by Sir Cresti Siervicül, Justice of the Uppermost Cort, commenting on (and incorporating) a post by Dieter N. Vercáriâ, made in 2008. Those who have had more acquaintance with Penguinea than I can surely comment here:
|
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Dec 30, 2011 22:14:27 GMT -6
I myself don't give a ten pence fuck about politics. Just thought I'd throw that out there.  |
|
|
|
Post by Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu on Dec 30, 2011 23:00:22 GMT -6
To a certain degree, sustainable work in micronations requires a certain Peculiarist outlook. It was the Talossans who first sat down and made a working ideology out of it. And, to a certain degree, I feel it is one of the keys to long-term sustainability.
Though the original root had a goodly about of "baby with the bathwater" effect, the new Synthetic Peculiarism is more widespread and workable than a lot of people realize.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 31, 2011 4:55:29 GMT -6
I myself don't give a ten pence fuck about politics. Just thought I'd throw that out there. But this thread went from mere politics to philosophy. Kind of, Peculiarism is one possible answer to the question what Talossa is and what it could and should be. Maybe one might say, the Derivatists pretend to know a simple answer, while the Peculiarists are mining for an answer. Btw., thanks to the good Baron for digging out this old piece of reasoning (the one from 2008). And thanks to Miestrâ and Ián for throwing in interjections that made me go on tangents that may clarify what the project of a pan-Talossan peculiarist party would be about. Thanks to the Jahnian Termites, the little critters. |
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Dec 31, 2011 10:27:29 GMT -6
I bet Peculiarism will thrive among young leftists here because of its honest, true-to-life, no-nonsense approach. We are rescuing one of the most authentic Talossan values. |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Dec 31, 2011 13:41:27 GMT -6
The no-nonsense approach, right? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 31, 2011 23:28:30 GMT -6
Peculiarism has always seemed, well, peculiar. In what sense does it differ from rendering Talossa into a generic Internet-based club?
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 1, 2012 4:51:19 GMT -6
I guess I have to read the secret Peculiarist Manual first. "But we want to make Talossa a generic internet club." Beep, wrong answer, zero points.  For the record, we don't want to make Talossa a generic internet club. I hoped I had explained it in this thread, but apparently I failed. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 1, 2012 6:00:18 GMT -6
I am of course familiar with Peculiarism as a movement, but nothing I have read either before or here has ever enlightened me on my aforementioned confusion. To wit, in this thread, Peculiarism has been described thus:
"Peculiarism is a philosophy that recognizes and embraces the distinct character of a nation, particularly if it differs from other nations in areas such as territorality and choice of citizenship. In other words, we believe that Talossa doesn't have to be a nation like every other nation in this world, with exactly the same prescribed trappings of nationhood. Being different won't make us a lesser nation."
Now, to be frank, I am not sure that this actually defines or describes anything. It does say that Talossa is not exactly the same as every other country and that it has its own distinct character, but not what that distinct character might be. To illustrate the vagueness of this statement, I can say that I actually wholeheartedly agree with every bit of it, even though I am a Derivativist. But following the link also provided with further discussion, as well as a further link (http://www.eispetz.com/mrp/mphil.html) doesn't yield any real or more solid definition of modern Peculiarism as you guys see it.
I understand that you consider Peculiarism to have its roots in European liberalism, and that it has been extremely important historically, and I know the various policies on which it has been a matter of conflict and some of the heated rhetoric. But what do you consider to be Peculiarism today, exactly?
Would it be fair to describe it as the belief that Talossa is not a nation like other nations, and accordingly need not seek to defend or obtain the relevant trappings of nationhood and characteristics generally considered de rigeur for nations, such as currency or citizens, even though we can choose to pursue those things if we so choose? In other words, a Peculiarist might say that Talossa could cede all of its territory back to the United States, or overturn the Organic Law and not have any process of government, without ceasing to be the country of Talossa?* This is not to say that such ceding would be mandatory for Peculiarists - we might like to keep it - but would it not be fair to say that in the Peculiarist view, there is no particular element of Talossa-as-a-country aside from the general desire of Talossans to be associated in a vaguely Talossan way?
*As an independent political entity, not as a cultural force.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 1, 2012 7:53:27 GMT -6
From the practical side, I'm not trying to be original here, everything that makes Talossa more "three-dimensional", is making it a more real experience, i. e., something that is more than but an internet community. In the Republic we, the Republican Talossans (and not exclusively us Peculiarists) tried to create Talossan artefacts such as a sash for our President, printed citizenship certificates etc for the benefit of such a "three-dimensionality"; the Peculiarists endorsed this, and made contributions to this (still small) Republican treasure.
You are right, to some extend we (the Peculiarists now) are saying, that Talossa will be and stay Talossa without average trappings of nationhood. For instance, we don't need to enforce our control over our national territory; in fact we better don't wake up sleeping dogs, because too many too intensive attempts of gaining said control may be illegal not only in the big countries that are surrounding Talossa. Also I bet none of us would be peculiar enough to sacrifice their citizenship in their "native" home countries. (It's not the worst thing in the world to be a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, for instance. It comes with a lot of advantages.) Anyway, that doesn't mean that we want to abolish trappings of nationhood, which can be created and kept without exposing us to the danger of commiting crimes against the "native" home countries.
As I said, I'm not trying to be original at any possible price - it's more like being realistic. For instance, having a "navy" that is consisting of various ranks and one little civil rowing boat is fine with me - the difference to some Derivatist may be, that Peculiarists are admitting what they see, said little civil rowing boat instead of a fregate, for instance. Peculiarists are daring to call the Emperor's new clothes the Emperor's new clothes, like in the fairy tale, and still they can enjoy and love Talossa in its form and shape as it is.
It is kind of the strange Talossan oxymoron, that the allegedly strictly realistic Derivatists need to erect a lot of scenery and to put on a lot of theatre makeup to be able to enjoy the Talossan experience, while the Peculiarists in their alleged zen-like afterglow-world can live quite well without this, if and when they have to.
I hope this has been a little bit more precise description, whereas I know that the great convincing at-one-glance abstract is still missing. In this Peculiarism is more like a way that still has to be explored, and less of a ready state of a doctrine.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 1, 2012 8:20:39 GMT -6
One more point: I've seen a lot of "micronationalists" out there in the interweb who firmly believe that any good nation has to be built on the fundament of an economy, and therefore they're trying hard to make their lives complicated by implementing some sort of a narrow-gauge model economy.
We, the Peculiarists, say that a nationette like Talossa can and should be built on the solid fundament of a good sense of humour instead.
I just made this up, but you can quote me on this.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jan 1, 2012 12:29:59 GMT -6
We, the Peculiarists, say that a nationette like Talossa can and should be built on the solid fundament of a good sense of humour instead. I just made this up, but you can quote me on this. Done. You've been quoted. :-) And it's a good quote. I definitely agree that it takes a...Talossan...sense of humour to build (and understand) Talossa. Hool |
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jan 1, 2012 13:02:43 GMT -6
A nation is a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history, not necessarily with a territory (e.g. the Kurdish nation).
According to about.com/geography,
"a State or an independent country:
•Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
•Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
•Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
•Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
•Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
•Has a government which provides public services and police power.
•Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
•Has external recognition. A country has been 'voted into the club' by other countries."
A few quotes from the micronations.eu forum:
George Cruickshank said,
"Talossa claims land, and its geography is intrinsic to its culture - but it doesn't own or control any, and is unlikely ever likely to."
... The objective definition of a "micronation" as I've come to understand it, is any entity which meets both the following 2 criteria:
(a) it gives the appearance of being a sovereign state, but isn't
(b) it was founded or is maintained largely by a single person, family or group of no more than a few dozen people - often on grounds that most informed outsiders have judged to be eccentric - and thus is not synonymous with broadly-based self-determination movements of the sort that are sustained by extant cultural minorities in many parts of the world."
According to David V, micronations can be divided into:
"Territorial entities- those that possess land and thereby have some sort of economy to go with it, such as Hutt River, Sealand and Molossia.
Non-territorial entities- those that do not possess land in their title but have organs of state, they may be purely a political simulation or more than just that, a "community" sort of micronation- Talossa, Reunion and Aerican Empire are prime examples of such.
Specific mission entities- those that have a very particular, clearly defined mission. Atlantium and Torhavn are the most significant examples of such."
"In Talossa's case, I would put it that rather than being physically claiming land, it is really in effect a more spiritual and cultural link to a geographic area, i.e. that East Side Milwaukee is the spiritual home of Talossa."
Thus, IMHO, Talossa is clearly not a country, but a nation without territory and, consequently, without boundaries, including members from all world countries who share a common language (El Glhetg), a history and a culture, with no ethnic or religious homogeneity.
|
|
"Ceterum censeo republicam proclamandum esse."
For the record, we don't want to make Talossa a generic internet club. I hoped I had explained it in this thread, but apparently I failed.