la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | > Having a land claim or not makes us no more a micronation than any other micronation until those land claims can realistically be actualized.
Every other micronation has land claims, unless I missed something.
> Until that moment 'land claims' are just what they are - words. It can make us seem more legitimate, but that is really an illusion that is used to help justify claims to sovereignty.
No, it's a link to twenty-seven years of continuous cultural history, which is precisely what makes us different (and IMHO better) than other micronations. Except perhaps Nova Roma, who have even more history. :)
> The interesting thing about history is that it is in the past. History advances, moves on, changes. If it did not we would still be in the Kingdom.
Talossa is a nation bounded by Edgewood Avenue and the Milwaukee River, of which the Republic claims the lower half. If we give up that claim, we are no longer Talossa. We are something else. Frankly I think the Progressives want us to be "something else" a lot of the time. (Please note that there's nothing wrong with that, it's a valid political position, just not one I agree with.)
The really scary thing is that I've been here before, on the other side of the debate. The Free Commonwealth of Penguinea gave up its land claims and pretentions to nationhood a couple of years into its existence. It never made it to a third year, because once we declared ourselves "not a micronation" there was never another consensus on what the hell we were.
Miestrâ Schivâ
Seneschál dal Repúblicâ Talossán etc.
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
|
