Cjara B
Citizen since 5-3-2007
Citizen of Talossa, and now Florencia
Posts: 368
|
Post by Cjara B on Sept 14, 2007 21:08:13 GMT -6
Ián Txaglh -
Is the Talossan Republic joining the micronation war? Do you feel that you are part of and therefore able to join a war of micronations??
I, as a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa feel as called to join a war of micronations as the government of France would feel called on to quell a strike in the Indian Railways.
I don’t think it’s something that would even be thought of.
Our nation is enjoying much Peace at the moment, there for we have a lull and time to spend on silliness that in all honesty we have no say in, as it’s so below our radar that even if there was any real interest how would England deal with a workers strike in IBM located in the continental US?
I see nothing beyond a small typed article on a page of a newspaper’s worth of interest for the Kingdom in the ‘micronation war.’
Cjara
|
|
|
|
Post by txaglh on Sept 15, 2007 2:13:03 GMT -6
I had initially wondered if The Kingdom and the Republic had a relationship similar to China and China-Taiwan. much better, being CultMini of Taiwan, i would be never allowed to publicly speak in China. we have (had?) goodwill visitor and ambassador, Xhorxh Asmour and GV, AFAIK. all our relation are based on an agreement of good relations. well, no recognitions at all, we are Talossa(s) anyway  Perhaps you see YOUR Talossa as a micronation. OUR Talossa is not. Ián Txaglh - Is the Talossan Republic joining the micronation war? Do you feel that you are part of and therefore able to join a war of micronations?? ok, i humbly apologise for using delicate irony in easily over-interpretable text of my message no.39 (by means of U. Eco's concept of over-interpretation), me will never do it here again, i swear. you know, laibachian thinking is my illness... |
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Sept 15, 2007 9:39:46 GMT -6
On a different note, the republic's wittenberg confuses me... I think you guys should get something different. Forumer.com is pretty good...
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Sept 15, 2007 11:10:01 GMT -6
Dear firend Ián,
I'm still a goodwill visitor and have been reading the RepWitt posts. I just haven't posted lately, but that doesn't mean we're not friends anymore. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicola Damiana Aseria on Sept 15, 2007 15:04:16 GMT -6
It's amazing how violent we can get without ever even seeing each other. It seems we're having our own War of the Bold Letters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Sept 15, 2007 15:22:43 GMT -6
NO WE'RE NOT!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Tony Weckström on Sept 15, 2007 16:16:26 GMT -6
The war which came and went between the micronations of the Principality of New Texas and the Grand Duchy of Elsanor seems to have at least opened a lively discussion on the issue of us being either a micronation or a nation. Some say we are a micronation, some say we are a nation. What is then a micronation by it's official definition?
And what is a nation, by it's official definition?And quite frankly - the word 'micro', I think refers to something small, which would mean ' a small nation'. Is the Talossan nation then so large, that it CANNOT be in the same league as micronations are? Also, if you take the word nation from for example movies, we can see 'nations' that call themselves the Aryan Nation, or the Nation of Islam, in prison movies etc.. - are we to be categorized in that manner(?) ...or might we mean that we are a nation such as the native aboriginal tribes of Australia (?), or the Indian Nations of the US(?) In every search engine, or wikipedia, encyclopedia etc, The Kingdom of Talossa, and the Republic of Talossa is without exceptions called a ' micronation' - are they then all wrong?As your Royal Ambassador, if I ever face this question again from someone, I will have a hard time explaining the whole story so that someone would understand it completely, a s obviously we do not even do so ourselves. Kind regards, Tony Weckström Royal Ambassador to the Republic of Finland And this "war" affects us how? One more time, Talossan Law prohibits dealing with micronations. We are a nation, we don't really care what micronations do. |
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Sept 15, 2007 16:29:28 GMT -6
the Vatican only has 800 some citizens, does that make it not a country TW?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Tony Weckström on Sept 15, 2007 16:34:45 GMT -6
The Vatican/Holy See is a COUNTRY, listed everywhere as a sovereign territory, but never have I heard the Vatican to be called a nation... In fact, the Vatican IS NOT A NATION!!!But this discussing on what a micronation and a nation is, and the differences in the meanings of the two words are what is causing the heated discussion, and open confusion to many. Perhaps this following link would share some light on the subject. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationEspecially to the passage explaining the following:" A nation is not a state, and while traditionally monocultural, it may also be multicultural in its self-definition. The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual." the Vatican only has 800 some citizens, does that make it not a country TW? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2007 18:30:24 GMT -6
The Vatican/Holy See is a COUNTRY, listed everywhere as a sovereign territory, but never have I heard the Vatican to be called a nation... In fact, the Vatican IS NOT A NATION!!!But this discussing on what a micronation and a nation is, and the differences in the meanings of the two words are what is causing the heated discussion, and open confusion to many. Perhaps this following link would share some light on the subject. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationEspecially to the passage explaining the following:" A nation is not a state, and while traditionally monocultural, it may also be multicultural in its self-definition. The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual." the Vatican only has 800 some citizens, does that make it not a country TW? In fact, TW, you are dead wrong: na·tion /ˈneɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax. 2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America. 3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation. 4. an aggregation of persons of Number 2 suffices to show that the Vatican is, indeed, a nation. It also falls under the definition of "nation-state" |
|
|
|
Post by txaglh on Sept 16, 2007 2:16:55 GMT -6
hopefully, state equals not to nation, because this means an oppression to national minorities. the thesis state = nation ( = language) is mainly French device, resulting in cultural suppression of e.g. Bretons. opposite, even an open official support of "micronation" followed by indirect suppression leads to same effect, see Sorbians in Germany. being born as Czech, me knows pretty well what cultural oppression means, personally.
there is a saying, assigned to Max Weinreich, to Joshua Fishman, to Antoine Meillet or to Louis-Hubert Lyautey: "A language is a dialect with an army and navy". does it go for "micronation" and "nation" too? don't know...
the definitoric lines between words are thin and fuzzy, as any borders between man deviced terms. leading wars for words is as dumb as for anything else. know man because of his deeds, not words. so it is hell unimportant how do anyone call zer, unless ze acts as is the meaning of the name.
we are Talossans, we share common heritage and Talossanity should be not only on our shields, but in our hearts and hands. the way is the aim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Sept 16, 2007 7:51:31 GMT -6
We have laws defining our borders, as well as an active army and navy. Also, as far as I am concerned, as a native English speaker, when used in those contexts the words "State" and "Nation" mean precisely the same thing.
-Gavárþic'h
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Tony Weckström on Sept 16, 2007 9:43:40 GMT -6
I am sorry if I'm wrong here, but if you consider yourself an english speaking person, you might be referring to American-English, which is not the same a British-English - there are many words that do not have the same meaning in British English (the Original English), and the American English.
For example. The Finnish nation, are the Finnish people (whom to be politically correct are Finnish citizens, and not only by the right of birth to the nationality), and the Finnish State, is the actual body of government for the Republic of Finland, which is bound by it's national borders.We have laws defining our borders, as well as an active army and navy. Also, as far as I am concerned, as a native English speaker, when used in those contexts the words "State" and "Nation" mean precisely the same thing. -Gavárþic'h
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2007 10:57:14 GMT -6
" am sorry if I'm wrong here, but if you consider yourself an english speaking person, you might be referring to American-English, which is not the same a British-English - there are many words that do not have the same meaning in British English (the Original English), and the American English."
Actually to say "British English" is the original English is grossly wrong. Both the English that developed on either side of the Pond retain elements from early modern English, which is what was brought over. In fact, much of American English is considered more archic than their British counterparts. One might say, the English spoken in England today is more evolved then that of American Standard. Not to mention American English is more widely spoken than British English.
I'm also going to point out, being as your being so anal about what words should be used. British is not a language, you would want to say "English-English."
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Sept 16, 2007 11:43:19 GMT -6
Actually, people from England during Shakespeare's time, spoke with what we now call "Southern Accents" go figure!
|
|
