The Big Debate: The Future of Talossa

[Owen Edwards]

I've been ruminating. This is a dangerous thing for me to do, as those of you who know me would agree.

I've been thinking, in this post ICE XIV era, what is the future of Talossa? We've decided to stop being a true "micronation", engaging in bizarre intercinine forum wars and shared citizenship and so forth, and consider ourselves a true nation; what does that MEAN?

There are three main answers to that question, I think.

1) We stay as we are. Isolated from other true nations and other micronations, with a fantastic claim to the Greater Talossan Area, and toddle along for the time being.

2) We seek to enter the international community, by one route or another, with our territorial claims intact. Apart from anything else, this would not please the United States, and would, I think, effectively hamstring our effots for the time being.

3) Week to enter the international community, by one route or another, with our territorial claims abrogated, for the time being at least. We consider ourselves a PEOPLE, with a KING, and a GOVERNMENT, and a means of raising money, but without a land.

I think this debate HAS to be had. What do you, Talossa, think?

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

As I said a while ago. This is the old "Peculiarism" vs. Nationalism argument, come back to life.

Now that Ben is gone, this is indeed a VERY important issue to discuss... and I'm really not even sure what my views are, on this yet.

[EM Vürinalt]

See, I think involvement in the international community is risky simiply because how spread out our citizenry is. We have few members in the GTA and many spread out all across the globe, which would make it hard to say we are an unrecognised or persecuted (if that's the right word) peoples.

I think, as members of the LRT have heard me say, that Talossa must get on the map. We could do this by engaging in mass media options such as local/national/major newspapers and television stations. I have no doubts that a local Milwaukee newspaper would have any major arguements against an article on Talossa. If this was made real, thousands would be exposed to Talossa, and many, undoubtedly, would petition for citizenship.

Anyways, that's what I think the future of Talossa is at the time being.

This will provide a stepping stone to political involvement in the future.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I applaud MC Edwards for bringing this up; it is indeed a conversation that needs to be had. You summary of options was admirable and accurate, I believe... here they are again:

1) We stay as we are.

2) We enter the international community with our territorial claims intact.

3) We enter the international community with our territorial claims abrogated.

I think that either 1 and 2 are admirable options that should be considered, but 3 is absolutely not. Let me address why it is not, before I further parse the other two later.

There are a great many little internet clubs out there. We have somewhat greater longevity than most, but not all. We certainly aren't the biggest, and are outpaced by several orders of magnitude by many others. What makes us unique are not any of these other attributes, charming though our quirks may be. We are unique in that we are a nation-state that exists along a new paradigm. Many try to classify us as a "micronation," which is another word for "club." But we are not just another joking club.

Years ago, Talossans saw what the fate of "micronations" would be and their innate reality, and separated ourselves from that label and that identity for the purpose of avoiding it. The "bathtub nations" were perhaps ill-used by the description, but it rightly describes the change in attitude necessitated by the understanding of the fundamental flaw of "every man's a nation": if everyone is, then no one is. Talossa, in fact, means nothing when you consider it a collection of a hundred-odd other nations. Talossa means something only when you consider that it is a single nation, proud and whole with its citizenry.

But, of course, it is not simply our choice about the matter that determines whether or not we are a micronational club. Our attitude has a great deal to do with it, but there is something else, something that is vital. Our country.... our land.

Since the first day it was founded almost thirty years ago, Talossa has been linked to her soil. It was a bedroom and then a house on that soil that seceded. It was vast swaths of Milwaukee that were occupied in a quiet manner. The Cone Wars were fought over thirty yards of Talossan asphalt, with paint and tears shed to preserve it. Our inextricable and inexplicable Berber connection arrives through a torturously circuitous explanation via the land's inhabitants. And every Living Cosa, with a rattle of gavel and debates over policy, has been held on that land.

There are a great many internet clubs out there. There are a great many micronations out there. But what makes us a nation is not just our camaraderie or our king or our kindness. We are a nation in large part because of our thirty years protecting and living on our soil. It is the greatest tragedy of our time that a confluence of events - the embittered most prominent resident of the GTA departing and dragging many friends with him - that we have so few resident citizens. And that should be one of our first priorities, above all else, to safeguard this sacred national soil.

[Deleted]

One must also be careful to avoid having Talossa become a fad or even worse, a complete joke to people. We are not the Conch Republic...

[Owen Edwards]

I think if we are to look at Option 2 as the "best" of the three - option one being inadvisably ivory towered and option three undermining our true nature - we have to be looking at flying pretty low under the radar.

I also think Option 2 may be best preceded by a PR campaign. Create a bit more consciousness, especially in Milwaukee.

I'm reminded of Norton's keys to success, in fact.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

I would also encourage everyone to seriously consider what happened to the last fellows who succeeded from the USA.

That is a serious problem. What if the US took us TOO seriously, and accused every US citizen here as a traitor. I'm too young to go to jail.

[Flip Molinar]

Then a traitor I shall be. I would love to retain my US Citizenship, but if that is not possible, then so be it.

[Vit Caçeir]

alexandreu said:

That is a serious problem. What if the US took us TOO seriously, and accused every US citizen here as a traitor. I'm too young to go to jail.

I get only the strangest feeling if the United States considered Talossa a "threat", they a.) would have "silenced us" by now and b.) not given Ben copyrights to Talossa-related.... stuff.

I agree with most things said here, I think it's time for the Kingdom to "come out of hiding". However, might I point out that secession is not our only option...

As many of us know, the small tract of land known as Gibraltar on the Iberian peninsula is a British Overseas Territory (the "pretty word" for colony). This land was captured from the Spanish in 1713, and the British have controlled it ever since. For centuries, Spain has requested the peaceful cession of Gibraltar by Spain, a request that went ignored by the British until about 2002.

In 2002, a referendum was voted on by Gibraltarians, which would have given "shared sovereignty" over Gibraltar to both Spain and the United Kingdom. While the referendum was rejected, it proves that the international community would be willing to validate and accept claims over land by two political entities at the same time.

Perhaps the same could be attempted with Talossan claims over the GTA, if enough support was drummed up within the GTA. It's an idea that might have something going... I dunno, just thought I should put it out for consideration and discussion.

[french99]

edwardwadas said:

British Overseas Territory (the "pretty word" for colony).

Although the term 'colony' has been used for Gibraltar we have to accept that the Gibraltarians themselves have repeatedly declined union/shared rule with Spain. They seem quite determined to remain British and quite right that choice is!

The conclusion of the Gibraltarian issue seems likely to be in the growth, development and deepening of the European Union (EU) itself as an umbrella organization within which long standing territorial disputes can be settled. Individual countries have little actual and diminishing power when faced by the option of a shared or 'pooled' territoriality. Ireland seems to be in the peace process (partly) because the border between North and South becomes meaningless and permeable within the context of an EU framework.

In relation to Talossa, we can see that competing claims and counter claims between Talossa and the USA would mean either compromise and perhaps a ‘shared’ control of Talossan mainland under the aegis of the USA and what would this have gained? Alternatively, we can foresee an increasingly bitter struggle (A bitter struggle seems inconceivable between American citizens especially when one party to the dispute has a rather large nuclear arsenal).

My feeling, as a prospective citizen, is that we may appropriately look to a none territorial sovereignty as a model, much like that held by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. This would reserve the present position of Talossa and the soverignity that is already in place but refrain from unseemly confrotation with larger and more bellicose neighbours. In effect, Talossa would have a "functional sovereignty" - due to the fact that it did not have all that pertained to true sovereignty, such as territory”.

Is this "functional sovereignty" something that could be accepted by citizens? It seems OK to me although as a Citizen of the European Union I’m well versed in the subtle vagueries of statehood, reconcilliation and Balkan affairs.

In the meantime have a happy and Holy Easter

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

owenfsf said:

1) We stay as we are. Isolated from other true nations and other micronations, with a fantastic claim to the Greater Talossan Area, and toddle along for the time being.

I think we could do far worse than to "toddle along" as we have over the past 28 years. Talossa is at once a very proud and very humble nation. We don't need to worry too much about how others think of us.

As others have said, it would be a big mistake to abandon our territorial claims. Talossa is East Side Milwaukee. Our territory is, quite literally, what keeps us grounded.

[Vit Caçeir]

french99 said:

Although the term 'colony' has been used for Gibraltar we have to accept that the Gibraltarians themselves have repeatedly declined union/shared rule with Spain. They seem quite determined to remain British and quite right that choice is!

I know this. The referendum of 2002 failed miserably, the Gibraltarians seem adamant to remain part of (what's left of) the British colonial "empire". And contrary to the popular belief of the American populous, "colonialism" is not quite synonymous with "oppression". Most citizens of British Overseas Territories (Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and the like) are quite content with being part of the United Kingdom.

french99 said:

Ireland seems to be in the peace process (partly) because the border between North and South becomes meaningless and permeable within the context of an EU framework.

I would tend to disagree. Although "The Troubles" largely seem to have ended, many Northern Irishmen and "Republican" Irishmen I've spoken to are still adamant in their believes that Northern Ireland should be incorporated into the Republic of Ireland.

french99 said:

In relation to Talossa, we can see that competing claims and counter claims between Talossa and the USA would mean either compromise and perhaps a ‘shared’ control of Talossan mainland under the aegis of the USA and what would this have gained? Alternatively, we can foresee an increasingly bitter struggle (A bitter struggle seems inconceivable between American citizens especially when one party to the dispute has a rather large nuclear arsenal).

Firstly, I strongly, STRONGLY doubt the United States would use nuclear weapons on Talossa, especially when they haven't already used them on Palestine, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and France (the lattermost to my dismay). Secondly, any referendum voted on TODAY in Eastern Milwaukee for "shared sovereignty" would fail miserably, due to the complete lack of Talossan citizens within the GTA. However, with increased citizen numbers within the GTA, in my opinion such a referendum is at least feaseable.

Unlike most United States Congressman, I feel there is no "quick fix" to this problem. No one action is going to solve the whole problem. I agree with everyone here that we should not and cannot sacrifice our territorial claims, but without a substantial amount of citizens within the GTA, the claims would have little justification in the eyes of the international community. I feel that, regardless of what path we take, increasing awareness about Talossa in the GTA is a mandatory action that we must take.

french99 said:

Is this "functional sovereignty" something that could be accepted by citizens? It seems OK to me although as a Citizen of the European Union I’m well versed in the subtle vagueries of statehood, reconcilliation and Balkan affairs.

The Balkans are certainly a good model to learn about the resolution of territorial disputes. I feel the situation should be closely monitored, especially in regards to the future fates of Kosovo and the (Bosnian sub-province of) Republika Sprska.... or whatever it's called.

[Owen Edwards]

Well as long as the striking majority of the Northern Irish desire to retain British citizenship, I don't think there's a discussion to be had (contrary to the Republican movement's claims - what they have finally got to discussing is INTEGRATION etc).

We've hardly remain unchanged in the last 28 years. This is especially true re: foreign policy. We no longer deal with micronations. We consider ourselves a real nation. What is our foreign policy, then? Do we choose to live in a fantasy vacuum? I think claims of us roleplaying at nations would be far fairer if that was the decision made.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

A quick note:

Talossa terminated its connection to micronations so that Talossans could not simultaneously be citizens of Talossa and Penguinea.

[Owen Edwards]

And?

You don't think there might be other side effects?

Other purposes?

I've seen everyone consider it part of seperating ourselves from the GENERAL issue of bathtub nations.