Talk:Cascadia (independence movement)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
Contents |
[edit] Cascadian secession/autonomy groups
I will continue to revert the inappropriate deletion of references to historically verifiable Cascadian secessionist/autonomy movements by Chris, as his stated grounds for doing so are fallacious. That there have been and continue to be groups of people in the Pacific northwest who advocate the creation of new geopolitical political entities of various sorts, and that the term "Cascadia" is applied to many of them - is a documented historic fact extending back to at least WW2. Asserting that "there is no facility for secession" in the US Constitution is irrelevant in the context of that discussion. Secessionist groups exist, and Wiki's business is to document them, just like it documents the existence of political parties, sects, terrorist groups and other notable organisations that posses a clear dogmatic foundation. After all, there was "no facility for secession" from the British Empire in 1776 either, but that didn't stop a buch of tax-avoiders founding the United States. There are dozens of other equally appropriate historic examples. --Gene_poole 01:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I support this user, and will do so in action as well as text. Canaen 05:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks ...
Gene, thank you for reverting the deletion of details regarding the historical aspects of Cascadian secession/independence.
We in Cascadia thank you! --Nagasaki Sullenhorde 04:48 GMT, 3 July 2005
[edit] First Use of Name?
The following has been moved from Talk:Cascadia#First Use of Name? when the article was split on 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the name's use for the political concept came from that professor; it's not organic or related either to the architectural style or the town-name; but comes from an amalgam of the Cascades and the idea of "cascades" ("all the rivers cascading to the sea" etc). Yawn. The article reads, by the way, as if Cascadia actually exists, e.g. "places inside Cascadia", which is pretty misleading. I was tempted to put a POV tag on it but will give that some thought as to why. If you'd like I could write up some issues to do with the political logistics of trying to integrate BC into WA/OR (different political and legal systems extant for one thing, unresolved native land claims another, multicultural/Asiana issues and more).Skookum1 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Shockingly, there's no article on western separatism or even western alienation yet. We do have articles on politcal parties like Western Canada Concept etc. heqs 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Found: Alberta separatism, Secessionist movements of Canada heqs 18:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox?
| Republic of Cascadia | |||||
|
|||||
| Anthem: > | |||||
| [[Image:|250px|center|Location of Cascadia]] | |||||
| Capital (and largest city) |
|||||
| Official languages | English | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government | Republic | ||||
| President | |||||
| Area | |||||
| - Total | km² {{{areami²}}} sq mi |
||||
| Population | |||||
| - Density | /km² ([[List of countries by population density|]]) {{{population_densitymi²}}}/sq mi |
||||
| Time zone | PST (UTC-8) | ||||
| - Summer (DST) | PDT (UTC-7) | ||||
| Internet TLD | .rc | ||||
| Calling code | +1 | ||||
Should there be a infobox on this possible state? 159753 21:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, because not being a state, most sections are unclear. There are no agreements on anything on that info sheet, except probably the time zone and maybe the calling code. Even the official language is up for debate, since Oregon and Washington have none, and likely wouldn't want one. I also have my doubts it would be a Republic, or have a President. So no, I think it's a terrible idea, since no one would agree on anything, and Wikipedia isn't exactly the place to draft a Constitution. Sarge Baldy 22:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be an info box, however it should conform to a standard that can be used for all micronations and similar unrecognised entities that have articles in Wikipedia - and be sufficiently identifiable that it's clear they are not "real" countries. I've been meaning to start a project on this subject for some time. Drop me a private message if you'd like to help out.--Gene_poole 02:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Micronations have agreed statistics, in this case there is very little agreement on anything. If you do want to set up an infobox, I suggest creating a new template entirely, and make it clear that it's for the most part only a subjective interpretation. Most things would need to be dropped entirely, like "capital", "government type", etc etc. "Primary language" would make more sense than "official language", and "principle cities" could take the place of "capital". Area and population could be measured in a "minimum to maximum" format, so as to show there are no established boundaries. Instead of "Republic of Cascadia" I think it would be more fair to say "Cascadia", although I feel the flag should be represented, although with a note that that hasn't been established either. I don't see any hope in such a project surviving here if you try to make the template pretend it's an actual state rather than a loose bioregion with a shared culture, but with a modified format I think it would be workable. Sarge Baldy 03:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- If we are going to have an infobox, and it's not clear that we should, it should describe the movement rather than the proposed state. —Ashley Y 03:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
-
Firstly, on behalf of those who are involved with Cascadia, let me please extend our thanks to those of you who are taking this matter seriously. We appreciate that very much. In regards to Sarge Baldy's comments, he is indeed correct: it should not be "Republic of Cascadia", but just "Cascadia". The term Republic of Cascadia originates through a site called Zaptoi.net and though there is a lot of evidence that the owner of that site is a supporter of a Free Cascadia, his site was originally developed as tongue-in-cheek joke to help introduce the concept of Cascadia to a wider audience. On that note, there are several other similar sites, including one called the "Kingdom of Cascadia" where the owner suggests that we should be a monarchy (and of course, he has volunteered to be the King!) Though sites of the nature of Zaptoi's "Republic of Cascadia", Roger's "Kingdom of Cascadia", the "Commonwealth of Arcadia", etc. are not intended to be serious, they do illustrate just how widespread the concept of an independent Cascadia is today.
As well, a form of government has not been decided upon and has been a debated topic, along with the concepts behind a constitution. At this point, some of us are leaning more toward the idea of a Commonwealth versus a Republic, but I suspect that in the end, we will end up with something completely unique. Keep in mind, that as this is a serious movement that has developed over the last 25 years, we are taking our time on many of these topics simply because we feel it would be a dire mistake to rush into them blindly.
On the subject of language, we typically regard ourselves as speaking "Cascadian English" which is a regional dialect of neutral English that differs from that spoken in other regions of North America. Though the majority of us speak our regional dialect of English, Chinook Jargon (not to be confused with the Native American language of Chinook), was a trade language widely spoken in this region prior to 1860 and is now very much on the rise again. Though it never actually ceased to exist and has always been spoken by very few (as one example, the state motto of Washington: "Al-ki" is a Chinook Jargon phrase meaning "bye and bye"), classes teaching Chinook Jargon are now appearing at community colleges region-wide and there are a host of new web sites appearing on the web that feature online lessons in Chinook Jargon. Our hope is that in the years to come, it will be more widely spoken, much as Gaelic is in Scotland, which though no longer the dominant language, is widely studied for its cultural and historical significance.
On the subject of flags, the one depicted in the InfoBox is the most widely accepted and is commonly known as the "Doug" due to the Douglas Fir tree adorning it.
If I can be of any assistance on this matter, please feel free to contact me at:
nagasakisullenhorde@yahoo.com —Nagasakisullenhorde 10:18, July 29, 2005 (GMT)
[edit] Verification of the article should be done
Verification of notability for this article is needed. IOW, whether this movement and ideas are supported for long time by significant group of people, not just by someone's fantazy. The verification should contain reference to journals, books or historical material rather than a website (everyone can created dozens of them). Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 20:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Portland Indymedia [1] is one source with a lot of information and discussion on the subject (a search for Cascadia lands 1075 hits on the site). As for "historical material" and the like, I think that might be more difficult to dig up since as far as I know the movement, while quickly emerging, is not yet firmly established. Certainly the idea of a common culture in the area is older though, and some info might be dug up on that. Sarge Baldy 21:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- This is a well known regional secession movement, documented in the media since the late 1940s, as anyone bothering to research the subject can easily see for themselves.--Gene_poole 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Yes, of course, if it's in a book, magazine or journal it MUST be true, right? Keep in mind that YOUR own country didn't exist 20 years ago save for the goals of a few forward thinking people.
For the record, you won't find ANY mention of ANY American secession movements in history books save for the Confederacy (which I guess they couldn't ignore). History books are written by those currently in charge and those in charge would not like to make it widely known that secessionist ideas are common here. That is despite the fact that there are currently at least 20 secession movements going on as we speak inside of the United States and at least three others in Canada. Of these 20+, Cascadia is probably among the top four best known ones. The other three are the Free State Project (New Hampshire), The Second Vermont Republic (Vermont) and the New California Republic. As Gene pointed out, secession in this region received extensive NATIONAL news coverage in 1941. Though it's now a little known fact elsewhere, it's still widely known in this region.
The San Francisco Chronicle considered the 1941 State of Jefferson important enough to dispatch a reporter to the scene as it unfolded. His articles on the "Yreka Rebellion" garnered him the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for his efforts in 1942. Both Life and Time magazines also sent photographers out on December 4th, 1941. Regrettably, due to their age, these documents are not widely available anymore.
I do happen to agree that the details do need to be better documented than they have been (which is being worked on, slowly but surely - for history sake alone), but to use the word "fantasy" in regard to ANY movement in this region is simply proof that you obviously don't know too much about the region you are commenting on, let alone any of its history. The fact is, there have been activities like this going back to the time when the first Americans set foot on Cascadian soil (and Europeans were living here long before that).
In the meantime, have an animated GIF of some of the 1941 activities that show secessionists from "Jefferson" changing the California border.
--NagasakiSullenhorde 05:41, 4 August 2005 (GMT)
P.S. - Google gives 858,000 returns for the word "Cascadia", most of which point to sites that originate in this region.
[edit] If this helps anyone.
The population would be about 13,500,000 assuming no one left. 13,522,874 to be exact. I would add this myself, but I really don't know enough about the topic.
- Well, that also depends exactly what split off. It's possible some areas (such as eastern Oregon and Washington, and northern British Columbia) might opt out, or that other areas (parts of Idaho, Northern California, the Yukon, or Alaska) might join in. While the two states and the province are the obvious core, and that number might be a good guesstimate, it's really not so easy to say definitively. Sarge Baldy 00:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Silly question
Hawaii has some distinct cultural connections with mainland Cascadia. Why not include Hawaii in Cascadia? Cnoizece 12:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hawaii has an independence movement of its own. Independentists in Hawaii have no desire to become part of Cascadia --Revolución (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Silly question
The reason that Hawaii has never been included lies in the fact that 1.) it is located thousands of miles away and 2.) Hawaii has its own secession movement. Nagasakisullenhorde 08:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] czechoslovakia comparisson
I'm always looking for intelligent writing on the subject of Cascadia, preferably something that goes beyond wishful thinking and enters into the realm of real-politik. I would suggest leaving out the reference to the "velvet revolution" of Czechoslovakia. I understand wanting to give the Cascadian movement a certain historical legitimacy, preferably a nice clean European one, but I think it's historically misguided to say that PNW has anything in common with Czechoslovakia. Yes, a will for a peaceful revolution, but that's where the comparison stops. To me, as a historian, it's a disconsonant note, and comes across as a bit hystrionic. At the risk of being pedantic:
1. It overdramatises the PNW "plight", as if Oregon/Wash/BC have been held down by the thumb of a great Tyranny all these years .
-
- Well, BC actually has, but it's too lengthy a discussion on Canadian federal policies and electoral structure to get into here; write me if you're interested mikecleven_at_gmail.com
2. It ignores the fact that Czechoslovakia was already an (officially) sovereign nation with representation in the UN.
3. Czechoslovakia did not seceed from anything, it threw off the yokes of a foreign power and a tyrannical domestic regime.
4.The two components that it eventually split into (Slovakia/Czech Republic) already had previous lives as sovereign states, with clear recognized borders and distinct languages.
5. The situation was in Czechoslovakia was quite dire, the population was almost universally dissatisfied and mobilizable.
The truth is, I can't think of any historical precedent out of recent history that would be applicable for a trans-national region that peacefully acquires autonomy from 2 separate federal governments. Cascadia has a clear opportunity to be historically groundbreaking in it's own right. If you are looking for historically comparisons, you are jsut as well off looking at the United Arab Emirates or Micronesia than to Czechoslovakia.
Tvanhulzen 11:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Since nobody disagreed, I'll remove the passage. It's unreferenced, anyway. — Sebastian (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] violent revolution?
The "movements and ideas" section had the following paragraph:
Supporters of the Evergreen Revolution, hope to one day achieve the independence of Cascadia through peaceful means versus the use of violent revolution, much the same way as was done in the former Czecho-Slovakia's Velvet Revolution in 1989.
I'm pretty sure that "nonviolent" was meant here; otherwise the Velvet Revolution reference doesn't make sense. I've changed it; please revert it if I was mistaken...
Jamie 09:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, it was correct, just confusing. It meant through peaceful means rather than the use of violent revolution. Still, there's no reason to even mention violent revolution, particularly since it transitions poorly into the mention of the Velvet Revolution. Sarge Baldy 10:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cascadian References
I think someone should mention the cascadia scorecard [2] in this article. Also there is a movement to rename Washington State Cascadia that has been brewing for sometime now.
Here's some info I've found on the state renaming:
[[3]] I do not know who the person who brought this initiative in is, not one of the people I've heard about in the struggle to change the name.
[edit] Userbox
There used to be a userbox for supporters of Cascadian independence. Does anyone have the code for that one?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wandering Star (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 July 2006.
- You'd have to get an admin to grab it from the history of Template:User independent Cascadia. I think it could be recreated now, but I haven't been following the ubx-politics lately... There's also Category:Cascadian Wikipedians. heqs 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Looks like User:Sarge Baldy has it on their user page. heqs 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Popular Support
If this article is going to plausibly speak of Cascadian secession, it should offer some data demonstrating what level of popular support there actually is for that idea. What percentage of PNW residents have been documented to actually support this? (This IS an encyclopedia, after all.) 69.241.235.253 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
