Similarly, the existence of Indian territory in the US and Canada is a concession to native American/Indian/First Nation nationalism.
The what now?
Are those a thing we still believe actually exist in any meaningful respect?
They exist in a more meaningful respect than if they didn't exist at all. Of course, I'd rather see the entirety of the Americas ceded back to the peoples that has ur-claim on them, or at least that the nations were given status as sovereign states, but that's me.
I'm opposed to the existence of states as formal entities and the existence of a single global government both.
IMO, it's communities that should govern themselves
That's a state
I think a critical disconnect here is that nationalists, patriots, or whatever else they call themselves will claim that this "community" applies to millions of imagined people they actually have no connection with (beyond ordinary impersonal engagement with society as currently organized), going so far as to imagine a direct connection with a simplified version of history that in reality varied wildly between generations (e.g. few people think about the year 1340 as being composed of very different people from 1370, let alone 1500 BC and 2000 BC, it all gets retroactively homogenized to fit a preconceived continuity).
On the contrary, there is only one stronger connection than the bond of shared history, culture, language, customs and rights, and that is the familial one. The idea that the national bond is false or imaginary is the idea of people who must have very limited experience of what it's like to be in a place where your nation is not a foreignity.
All you people better properly define what each of you means by nationalism before you spend the next ten pages talking past one another.
Coming up on Page 2 of this now.
True, but I at l did make an effort to bring up my thoughts in relation to the double definitions of the word.
I mean sitting here in the states, I would be totally fine having the government over in Denmark making federal level decisions right now.
Strictly speaking between the way the senate and electoral college works the US literally has the vast majority of the population in a handful of states being forced to accept the stupid fucking whims and bullshit of entirely different parts of the country.
What the fuck does Wyoming or Kansas or Arizona have in common with California, New York, Florida, or Texas?
I read an idea last night which I'm fucking pissed off because I've never heard it seriously discussed if at all before, despite people talking about things like packing the supreme court, trying to amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college, and whatnot.
We need to make sure we keep the House, get dumpfuck out of office, and get a bare majority in the Senate at least so we can use the constitutionally granted powers of congress to divide a couple of states.
It can only be done with consent of said state, but oh look at that, California and New York just happen to be two such states which are massively underrepresented currently, while just something basic like a North and South California plus New York and Long Island would add 4 democratic senators and I have no idea how the reapportionment of house seats would go, though it would also tilt the electoral college, as would giving D.C. proper statehood.
Naturally republicans would scream and bitch and claim it is wrong to do something like add states for political gain... though damn near every single state joined the union as just such a political calculation, and any sort of arguments that we should continue to allow further disastrous republican minority rule can straight up get fucked.
I remember when Owlbread was still around here there was much fun discussion about how to divide the US up further, but that was a long time ago now