Talk:Secession
"A common historical misrepresentation made by today's small community of active secession advocates is that the U.S. was born by an act of secession. This lie pops up on virtually all of their websites. While a group may attempt to secede from a voluntary association, an act of separation made by a colony is a rebellion and those framing the secesher narrative know this. So why believe anything else they have to say?"
If we're going to take this... odd... position, well, okay, but our list of secessions will need appropriate axing to make it consistent with this definition. PacWalker 04:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Secession / independence movement[edit]
Is there any real difference in substance apart from the attitude the speaker has towards it? Usually secession movements are seen as negative whereas movements to gain independence are seen favorably. Or am I mistaken? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Paravant y u do dis?[edit]
Why are you reverting Avenger's edits? The CSA did have a temporary success at secession (before they lost the Civil War) and Taiwan is a de fact secession from China without Taiwan or China agreeing with it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Because losing a civil war and relocating to a portion of your territory you didn't lose isn't Secession by any meaning of the word. And the CSA was not successful, successful implies it'd either still be here or fell for some other reason, not fell in it's war of secession. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- The outcome is a de facto secession, no matter the BS the world likes to make up to please China. I thought we want to describe the world as is and not the particular BS some guy made up... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Calling it a Secession is more bullshit brown-nosing to China than saying it isn't, because it implies that the PRC is "China and nobody else is allowed to be". the ROC never seceded from China, it relocated to another part of it's territory. That isn't secession in any way.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- You know the history of house Braganza? (No I neither know their words nor their sigil) The point is: During the Napoleonic wars the king and heir apparent went to Brazil (not unlike the way the ROC came to go to Taiwan, which until 1945 was de facto Japanese). After said war, the heir apparent said: Fuck this, Brazil is nice. Thus came into being the Empire of Brazil. Now is this secession in any way shape or form according to Paravant? Are its result not indistinguishable from secession? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Brazil actually declared independence from Portugal. The period between the Fall of Lisbon and the return to Lisbon is not a Secession because Brazil was still a part of Portugal. That the capital was elsewhere from Portugal does not mean it was still not Portugal. All you've accomplished is you don't know Portugese history, not that Taiwan seceded from China, interestingly enough despite it's government being the older of the two. If we accept that the ROc "Declared independence from the PRC" it's more accurate to say the PRC declared independence from the ROC.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- You know the history of house Braganza? (No I neither know their words nor their sigil) The point is: During the Napoleonic wars the king and heir apparent went to Brazil (not unlike the way the ROC came to go to Taiwan, which until 1945 was de facto Japanese). After said war, the heir apparent said: Fuck this, Brazil is nice. Thus came into being the Empire of Brazil. Now is this secession in any way shape or form according to Paravant? Are its result not indistinguishable from secession? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Calling it a Secession is more bullshit brown-nosing to China than saying it isn't, because it implies that the PRC is "China and nobody else is allowed to be". the ROC never seceded from China, it relocated to another part of it's territory. That isn't secession in any way.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- The outcome is a de facto secession, no matter the BS the world likes to make up to please China. I thought we want to describe the world as is and not the particular BS some guy made up... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
You do know that there is a quite large actual "independence" movement in Taiwan. It even predates the ROC even in its 1912-1949 incarnation.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is, but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Feel free to put it in the Movement section however. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does my edit look good in the "movements" paragraph?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say so. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have some changes ill make when I'm off my phone but yes, overall.
- I'd say so. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does my edit look good in the "movements" paragraph?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
You know...[edit]
Putting your hands on your ears and shouting lalala the secession never happened is not the way you "solve" the American Civil War. Though it might in fact make legal sense. I think it should be clear that RW only gives de jure the light of the day where it actually matters and de facto some part of the South formed an independent entity at war with the US throughout 1861-1865.... And everybody should be able to agree on this de facto state of things. RW is not and should not strive to be a legal blog... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's still worth pointing out that the official government position is not only did they fail at Seceding form the Union but they never actually did in the first place. As for pretending it didn't happen, we aren't, it's in the unsuccessful section because it was an unsuccessful secession. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Btw why did you remove the "yet"? Some of them are still active movements. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- And thats why I moved what I could tell as "movements" from full blown attempts to become independent from oneanother. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- What separates the IRA and the Polisario from the ones you put under "movements"? The fact that they are violent? That never preoccupied you when it came to Hamas... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- You enjoy complaining about Mona spreading the fight across the website and yet you do it more than her. And mostly that they fought an actual fight/held referendums. Listing, say, the Georgian breakways I forget the names of and Kosovo at the moment alongside the Cornish 5th home country movement is a bit silly, wouldn't you say? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- So I am not allowed to make even a joking reference to Hamas? Or are you now claiming they are not violent? And well, you don't list the Kurds who've had both violent (AKP, Peshmerga, others I am too lazy to look up) and non violent attempts to gain independence as well as an actual freakin' independent government in Northern Iraq (de facto but who gives a crap about de jure when it means Saddam?) for thirteen years. In fact, Kurdistan is only officially a part of Iraq because their government chose to. Beat that with a stick. I have to be blunt: Your edits made the article a lot worse. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thankfully your edits listing a 5 year government that fell apart due to its own failings as succesful are worse. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- ¡Qué me juzguen! ¡La historia me absolverá! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thankfully your edits listing a 5 year government that fell apart due to its own failings as succesful are worse. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- So I am not allowed to make even a joking reference to Hamas? Or are you now claiming they are not violent? And well, you don't list the Kurds who've had both violent (AKP, Peshmerga, others I am too lazy to look up) and non violent attempts to gain independence as well as an actual freakin' independent government in Northern Iraq (de facto but who gives a crap about de jure when it means Saddam?) for thirteen years. In fact, Kurdistan is only officially a part of Iraq because their government chose to. Beat that with a stick. I have to be blunt: Your edits made the article a lot worse. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- You enjoy complaining about Mona spreading the fight across the website and yet you do it more than her. And mostly that they fought an actual fight/held referendums. Listing, say, the Georgian breakways I forget the names of and Kosovo at the moment alongside the Cornish 5th home country movement is a bit silly, wouldn't you say? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- What separates the IRA and the Polisario from the ones you put under "movements"? The fact that they are violent? That never preoccupied you when it came to Hamas... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- And thats why I moved what I could tell as "movements" from full blown attempts to become independent from oneanother. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Btw why did you remove the "yet"? Some of them are still active movements. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Defining "successful"[edit]
In my humble opinion any secession movement that at any point in time achieved de facto rule over at least part of their claimed territory is to be deemed at least partially successful. That does not mean, they are still successful in an independent entity of said name and/or territory still existing, but they are different from the (unsuccessful) movement to the succession of John Doe's bedroom. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Being vaguely in control of your territory for 5 years before being beat down in a war you started is hardly a successful secession. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's more successful thaen money and the ethnic vote Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- It still ultimately failed during its Secession war. If Quebec declared independence right now and managed to hold out for, idk, a year orr two before the canadian military put it down would you call it a successful movement? You would have to if this is. Chechnya would also count as succesful because it was, by wikipedia description, De-facto independent from the first to second wars. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Still more successful thaen money and the ethnic vote or Operation Sealion, for that matter. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- That it lasted longer is not a definition of success. it declared independence and when it fought a war to become actually independent it lost. Again, if, idk, Scotland declared itself its own country and lasted a few years before being crushed, in such a way that completly changed the dynamic of government in favor of the opposing side, would that be a successful secession? The american civil war was not only a unsuccessful secession, it did more harm to the causes of the Secessionists than it did good. The only reason I put Chechnya in the succesful category was because it not only fought a war against russia, it WON that war. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well there are successes that set you up for even more humiliating and crushing defeats later on. The Secession prior to the Civil War was such a success for secessionist slavers in the South. Especially elections can be this. In a sense the 1964 landslide set up the crushing defeat of 1968. Just as the Congressional landslides of the GOP since 2010 will set them up for crushing senatorial and presidential defeats (the House is too gerrymandered for any of that to matter). And after all, all independence (like all earthly things) are fleeting. What should we call the movement for an independent X, if said X currently finds itself annexed occupied or what have you by some other power? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- In no way can you still define the southern states as a successful secessionist movement A brief period of actual Succession is not enough to be "successful'. A country that declares independence and then loses its war over the matter was "successful" in that it was indeed briefly independent, but that doesn't mean it succeeded in any real form. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Am I so unclear in my formulations or do you intentionally misunderstand me? They were successful in actually forming a de facto independent entity. They aren't successful any more as said entity does not exist any more. That's what I put the headline in for. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Declaring an independent government isn't enough to be a -successful- independence movement, otherwise this list would Balloon to gigantic proportions for every briefly "successful" attempt to do so. Even if we accept that they were "successful" in declaring self-rule, that doesn't make them a successful secession movement because they then lost the war to become so. Again, if Right now Quebec declared itself an independent nation and after, idk, 2 or 3 years was finally beaten, and in that time the Canadian government enacted laws that strongly centralized rule in such a way that the net effect is Quebec is now even less independent than it was beforehand, would they be a successful secessionist movement? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- They would be - and continue to be for all times - a once successful independence movement. Just like the Schwäbisch Hall Unicorns will continue to be German Champions of 2011 and 2012 even though they lost the 2014 and 2015 finals. Hey I did a weird example that does not involve Israel. Oh shit.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- except for the part where they lost the war over the matter. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- They would be - and continue to be for all times - a once successful independence movement. Just like the Schwäbisch Hall Unicorns will continue to be German Champions of 2011 and 2012 even though they lost the 2014 and 2015 finals. Hey I did a weird example that does not involve Israel. Oh shit.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Declaring an independent government isn't enough to be a -successful- independence movement, otherwise this list would Balloon to gigantic proportions for every briefly "successful" attempt to do so. Even if we accept that they were "successful" in declaring self-rule, that doesn't make them a successful secession movement because they then lost the war to become so. Again, if Right now Quebec declared itself an independent nation and after, idk, 2 or 3 years was finally beaten, and in that time the Canadian government enacted laws that strongly centralized rule in such a way that the net effect is Quebec is now even less independent than it was beforehand, would they be a successful secessionist movement? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Am I so unclear in my formulations or do you intentionally misunderstand me? They were successful in actually forming a de facto independent entity. They aren't successful any more as said entity does not exist any more. That's what I put the headline in for. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- In no way can you still define the southern states as a successful secessionist movement A brief period of actual Succession is not enough to be "successful'. A country that declares independence and then loses its war over the matter was "successful" in that it was indeed briefly independent, but that doesn't mean it succeeded in any real form. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well there are successes that set you up for even more humiliating and crushing defeats later on. The Secession prior to the Civil War was such a success for secessionist slavers in the South. Especially elections can be this. In a sense the 1964 landslide set up the crushing defeat of 1968. Just as the Congressional landslides of the GOP since 2010 will set them up for crushing senatorial and presidential defeats (the House is too gerrymandered for any of that to matter). And after all, all independence (like all earthly things) are fleeting. What should we call the movement for an independent X, if said X currently finds itself annexed occupied or what have you by some other power? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- That it lasted longer is not a definition of success. it declared independence and when it fought a war to become actually independent it lost. Again, if, idk, Scotland declared itself its own country and lasted a few years before being crushed, in such a way that completly changed the dynamic of government in favor of the opposing side, would that be a successful secession? The american civil war was not only a unsuccessful secession, it did more harm to the causes of the Secessionists than it did good. The only reason I put Chechnya in the succesful category was because it not only fought a war against russia, it WON that war. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Still more successful thaen money and the ethnic vote or Operation Sealion, for that matter. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- It still ultimately failed during its Secession war. If Quebec declared independence right now and managed to hold out for, idk, a year orr two before the canadian military put it down would you call it a successful movement? You would have to if this is. Chechnya would also count as succesful because it was, by wikipedia description, De-facto independent from the first to second wars. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's more successful thaen money and the ethnic vote Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Bavaria[edit]
Ain't Bavarian separatism more of a shtick of the Bayernpartei?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Heidazackn! Edit conflict! do is aa da Saubreiß dran schuld! Baiern kann es auch allein! HUAWAMÜLLA!) It is. But they are so small nobody knows about them. However, all CSU leaders worth their salt have toyed with one form of secession or another from time to time. FJS for instance once made the famous Kreuther Trennungsbeschluss where he announced that the CSU would run against the CDU in all elections on the federal level. Someone pointed out to him that this would result in his party being an "also ran" in most of Germany so he quietly walked said statements back. But even when the CSU is in government in Berlin (or Bonn), some would say, especially when they are in government they like to howl with the secessionist and anti-federal wolves saying stuff like "this latest Bullshit from Berlin" or "We need to show those dumbshits in Berlin how we do stuff in Bavaria". The most recent CSU shenanigan was Seehofer (head of CSU) threatening to sue Merkel over the refugee thing and further announcing to "close the border" if their "demands" were not met. Yes, the CSU is a bit of a German Orbán. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- That still looks like just mere "fuck you Berlin" instead of any kind of serious notions of separatism, whereas the Bayernpartei does have that in their party manifesto, even though even in Bavaria no-one gives a flying fuck about them.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- True. You can of course mention them if you like. Though they are so unknown that the last tiem they got any media attention was when they put "get rid of Bavaria" posters up in Berlin for an election... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- That still looks like just mere "fuck you Berlin" instead of any kind of serious notions of separatism, whereas the Bayernpartei does have that in their party manifesto, even though even in Bavaria no-one gives a flying fuck about them.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we do need a section for crushed or formerly successful independence movements[edit]
There appear to be quite a lot of independence movements that achieved their main goal or came awfully close to it, only to lose it all at a later point in time. And before it rains dismissals... The Baltic States had the same weird limbo state for most of the existence of the USSR. They were de facto independent for almost two decades, before being de facto annexed by the USSR in the 1940s. And most observers from - say - Uruguay would have said in - say - 1985 that they were a formerly successful independence movement at best. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- most of the failed ones are crushed ones, I'd say a seperate one for referendum movements would be better as they stand out more as nonviolent secessionist movements. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fight through the bullet and the fight through the ballot are mostly a choice your opponent makes. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- True enough, though I'm surprised to hear that from you. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:28, 11 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
- The fight through the bullet and the fight through the ballot are mostly a choice your opponent makes. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Division[edit]
It makes sense to separate those that are independent (successful) from those which aren't (although almost every independent country was at one time subject to a secession movement so maybe it's not that useful to list the successful but I digress). But the division between crushed, unsuccessful, and "movements" isn't clear, and is subject to change as time passes. It would be easier to update and structure if there wasn't this complex division. --Annanoon (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Also it might make sense to group unsuccessful/ongoing movements by the country they're attempting to escape from, as is done with the US states. This is particularly relevant in countries with multiple secession movements, such as the UK, France, Canada, China, Russia, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Indonesia, etc. --Annanoon (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)