|
Riptor posted:This reminded me of a To be even more  , didn't the Aztecs smoke chocolate, while the Spanish were the first ones to turn it into a drink? So technically Trader Joe's would be correct.Edit: Nope, I was wrong, it was used as a drink by the Mayans and the Aztecs for hundreds of years. Abilifier fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Oct 18, 2013 |
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:Why does Montreal get to "stay" Canadian when the rest of the province becomes independent? I think Montreal is too major of a Canadian city with way too much going on Canada-wide to ever truly split off. But it could be worse, at least you're not visiting Dahala Khagrabari (I think they were previously mentioned in this thread). They're the world's only counter-counter enclave, a Matryoshka doll of border shenanigans (first you go to Bangladesh, and then to an Indian enclave within that, which itself contains a smaller Bangladeshi enclave, which finally has the Indian Dahala Khagrabari):  They're E.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
univbee posted:I think Montreal is too major of a Canadian city with way too much going on Canada-wide to ever truly split off. But it could be worse, at least you're not visiting Dahala Khagrabari (I think they were previously mentioned in this thread). They're the world's only counter-counter enclave, a Matryoshka doll of border shenanigans (first you go to Bangladesh, and then to an Indian enclave within that, which itself contains a smaller Bangladeshi enclave, which finally has the Indian Dahala Khagrabari): That border is kind of a mess, there are 106 Indian enclaves and 92 Bangladeshi enclaves along it. 
SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
I'm curious as to how that sort of thing happens. Is it just the result enacting an actul "let every town vote on what country they want to be part of" policy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
made of bees posted:I'm curious as to how that sort of thing happens. Is it just the result enacting an actul "let every town vote on what country they want to be part of" policy? India and its neighbors are batshit insane and will fight tooth and nail for every bit of land they can. They fought over a completely useless mountain glacier region for almost 20 years and lost thousands due to the harsh weather conditions, all because, useless though it may be, letting the other guys have it would be way worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_Conflict If I remember right, it's the highest-altitude conflict known and still has a military presence not unlike the North-South Korean border (which is its own  as far as borders go).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Sometimes you just need a little forced migration and ethnic cleansing if you want :prettyborders:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:It'd be pretty presumptuous for a Western scholar to try and solve such a complex conflict with a map change! The whole map is presumptuous to begin with yet for some reason Israel and Palestine's borders are never changed in these types of "redraw the Middle East" maps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Yeah they need to get cut up into West Israel and Hasidistan and there city state of Jerusalem. Then we'll be in business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:The whole map is presumptuous to begin with yet for some reason Israel and Palestine's borders are never changed in these types of "redraw the Middle East" maps. It's easy to say "yeah, give Sunnis and Shiites their own states" because despite how uninformed it is, you're unlikely to get many really vocal complaints about it and people will just roll their eyes over it. You change the status quo in Israel and Palestine, and your editor's going to be drowning in hate mail from one or most likely both sides.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Sometimes you just need a little forced migration and ethnic cleansing if you want :prettyborders: No no, this is a modern world with modern solutions. I propose a forced integration and ethnic mixing program. Only when every child knows the Poetry of Barry White can we truly believe ourselves to be an enlightened and borderless people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:Re: Middle East maps, yeah, they're terribly lazy. Also, does anyone seriously think breaking up countries is going to solve anything? As if Iran and Turkey would be cool with an independent Kurdistan? And something tells me that multiple small and unstable Shi'a-majority states, as well as the break-up of Saudi Arabia, would play into the hand of Iran, something that I thought was pretty much against the US's vested interests in the region. No, it wouldn't solve a damned thing. You'd be back in an "Eastern Europe in the 20s" or "India-Pakistan post-'47", where everyone involved would be agitating to liberate the little enclaves of people who should be in state X, not state Y. It makes much more sense to just help them build functioning pluralistic states, but that would be expensive, so we'll fantasize about solving their problems by drawing maps instead. DrBouvenstein posted:Why does Montreal get to "stay" Canadian when the rest of the province becomes independent? Because it's jammed up with so many Anglophones. Even in the (currently remote) scenario where Quebec does gain sovereignty, it's doubtful they'd truly go it alone. When the sovereignty movement was still really chugging along in the 90s, I think the idea was to retain the Canadian currency in Quebec, and I'd expect there to be a customs union or at least the pretty free border crossings we used to see before you Yanks flipped your collective lids in the wake of 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
What money would Quebec use? The livre? The louis?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:No, it wouldn't solve a damned thing. You'd be back in an "Eastern Europe in the 20s" or "India-Pakistan post-'47", where everyone involved would be agitating to liberate the little enclaves of people who should be in state X, not state Y. It makes much more sense to just help them build functioning pluralistic states, but that would be expensive, so we'll fantasize about solving their problems by drawing maps instead. The combination of these two replies is fantastic. I am picturing future-independent Quebec with scads of tiny enclaves around the houses of English speakers. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:What money would Quebec use? The livre? The louis? What makes you think they wouldn't use the Canadian dollar or just make their own Quebec dollar? Also an independent Quebec is not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
I believe they say the same things about Scotland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
univbee posted:I think Montreal is too major of a Canadian city with way too much going on Canada-wide to ever truly split off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I would counter with the possibility of Montreal being too major a Quebecois city to split it off from Quebec. It's a historically French city, with a majority French-speaking population (56,9% speaking French at home vs. 18.6% English), and the metropolitan area as a whole skews even more French. When considering its future in a plebiscite, it seems unlikely to me that a majority French city would prefer being an exclave of the Anglo-Canadian Canada, instead of joining its brethren in a free Quebec. To me, it kinda sounds like arguing that Glasgow is far too important to the UK, and thus it should remain part of the UK even if the rest of Scotland goes. You bring up an interesting point, now I'm just imagining Westmount becoming a counter-counter-enclave. Kurtofan posted:What money would Quebec use? The livre? The louis? West Island Shilling. :Montreal Flag with a crying Youppi:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Riso posted:I believe they say the same things about Scotland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Three referendums? I thought it was two.Riso posted:I believe they say the same things about Scotland. Scotland is where Quebec was in the 90s. There's been more than one plebiscite on the issue, and independence was voted down each time. And that was when the independence movement was really at it's peak; sovereigntist sentiments seem to have only declined since that. Which may well be what happens in Scotland. Time will tell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I would counter with the possibility of Montreal being too major a Quebecois city to split it off from Quebec. It's a historically French city, with a majority French-speaking population (56,9% speaking French at home vs. 18.6% English), and the metropolitan area as a whole skews even more French. When considering its future in a plebiscite, it seems unlikely to me that a majority French city would prefer being an exclave of the Anglo-Canadian Canada, instead of joining its brethren in a free Quebec. To me, it kinda sounds like arguing that Glasgow is far too important to the UK, and thus it should remain part of the UK even if the rest of Scotland goes. Plus, the dominant principle in international law (e.g. Yugoslavia) is that pre-existing administrative borders are maintained in the case of secession. That's why Croatia was allowed to secede from Yugoslavia, but Krajina wasn't allowed to secede from Croatia, and why Kosovo seceded from Serbia including the parts with Serbian majorities. Of course, that also means that Canada is unlikely to allow a Québécois secession any time soon. HookShot posted:The difference is Scotland hasn't had three referendums that all failed after a major push to seceed, and that the secession movement since hasn't had nearly as much support as it did when they held the referendums? One of the referenda failed with like 49%, which means that the majority of the French-speaking population supported it. That's huge for a Western secession movement. Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
It makes very little sense regardless. Pretty much ever major urban area stays part of Canada while the rural conservative parts split off. It really isn't much different from rural Americans thinking they don't need fancy government or city folk, they're just fine by themselves and can get everything they need independently. Of course, the catch here is that people who live in Montreal or Quebec City are never going to vote in favor of secession, making Quebec separatism a far deader issue than most foreigners realize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It makes very little sense regardless. Pretty much ever major urban area stays part of Canada while the rural conservative parts split off. It really isn't much different from rural Americans thinking they don't need fancy government or city folk, they're just fine by themselves and can get everything they need independently. Lots of people in Montreal or Quebec City voted in favor of secession. This is not as much a rural vs urban Quebec issue as it is a French vs English Quebec issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Not enough voted in favor of secession, and the number that would has shrunk ever since. I find it hard to believe that anyone but the most hard-line conservative Quebecois would vote purely based on language without considering other factors such as for example, the fact that Montreal and Quebec in general has stagnated horribly since the referendum because business fled the province for Ontario. And that was a failed referendum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
made of bees posted:I'm curious as to how that sort of thing happens. Is it just the result enacting an actul "let every town vote on what country they want to be part of" policy? Apparently, it was more of a case of some of the old rulers of the area, getting into some serious gambling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Not enough voted in favor of secession, and the number that would has shrunk ever since. I find it hard to believe that anyone but the most hard-line conservative Quebecois would vote purely based on language without considering other factors such as for example, the fact that Montreal and Quebec in general has stagnated horribly since the referendum because business fled the province for Ontario. And that was a failed referendum. Business has been fleeing Montreal to Toronto for several decades now, even before the first referendum even happened. Part of it was due to the Quiet Revolution (which goes back to the French vs English thing), but also Montreal's location used to be very preferential compared to Toronto. The St. Lawrence River was originally navigable until the rapids just south of Montreal, so it was the last place to dock to transfer goods inland. The Great Lakes Seaway now means that Montreal is just another point on the road. Later, it was a popular stop for airplanes before they took off to Europe. But now planes have much longer range and don't need to refuel in Montreal anymore (see why the Mirabel airport eventually failed.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Here's a politically loaded map of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum:  The final tally was razor thin, at 49.42% yes, 50.58% no. During the leadup to the vote, the leader of Bloc Quebecois at the time declared that in the event of victory all Canadian Air Force planes in the province would be Quebec property, but the Canadian defense minister moved them out beforehand so they couldn't be used as pawns in any later negotiations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here's a politically loaded map of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum: Regarding the influence of language on votes in the 95 referendum, it's pretty telling that you can tell right away where the Main is on that map.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Plus, the dominant principle in international law (e.g. Yugoslavia) is that pre-existing administrative borders are maintained in the case of secession. That's why Croatia was allowed to secede from Yugoslavia, but Krajina wasn't allowed to secede from Croatia, and why Kosovo seceded from Serbia including the parts with Serbian majorities. E: The "Plebiscite after secession!" argument seems to be a common way for people opposed to separatism to hedge their bets. Fojar38 posted:It makes very little sense regardless. Pretty much ever major urban area stays part of Canada while the rural conservative parts split off. It really isn't much different from rural Americans thinking they don't need fancy government or city folk, they're just fine by themselves and can get everything they need independently. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
^^^Vote map, let's see... That piece of the Gaspésie peninsula is the Anglophone zone on the Baie des Chaleurs from New Richmond to Restigouche; the dark red salient to the west is probably distorted by the shape of the Pontiac region, same as the exaggerated dark blue Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean in the middle. The southern districts have just enough of an english minority to go pale red, Montreal we've talked about. The real weird one is the Beauce and Chaudière. Francophone au boutte and yet voted no. These days, they vote Conservative (gently caress you Paradis, gently caress you Bernier, gently caress youuuuuuuuuuuu) univbee posted:quebec.jpg Okay, those are understandable, if not necessarily workable: -Nord-du-Québec-Jamésie: Inuit and Cree territory; -Chunks off the Outaouais: High proportion of Anglophones; -West Island: English and else; But what the heck is with this Megali idea of the Eastern Townships? It's completely out of whack, it goes from the Richelieu to Mégantic to the Fleuve! That's like (fakeedit, checked) 88% Francophone. I mean, I know a few Anglo bastions, Stanstead, Lennoxville, Compton, Eaton, the Magog border, hell my homevillage of Bury, but these are on a different scale with the West Island or the Ontario borderline. Even going by the vote map provided just above, it should be much smaller.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
It's called the clarity act. Quebec leaving canada is a tad bit more complicated than a %50+1 vote. And as has been stated before, support for sovereignty in Quebec has been on the decline ever since 1995. It also doesn't help that most of the PQ are outright racists. Parizeau and his comments on the "ethnic vote" come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
ecureuilmatrix posted:-Chunks off the Outaouais: High proportion of Anglophones; ...and a local economy highly reliant on the federal public service.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
 ~2.2 million acres or ~3500 square miles or ~60x60 miles of land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
SineNobilitate posted:...and a local economy highly reliant on the federal public service. That, too, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:
mmmm, bison. I love me a bison burger at Ted's Montana Grill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:mmmm, bison. I love me a bison burger at Ted's Montana Grill.  http://www.tedturner.com/turner-ranches/turner-ranch-map/ Kind of unfortunate that his land is mapped out on his site as points rather than polygons so we can actually see their shape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:
It's kind of funny that there's only one Ted's Montana Grill in Montana. Also that west of the Rockies there's not any of them at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
 http://www.policymic.com/articles/67467/this-map-shows-what-europe-will-look-like-in-2022
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
KoldPT posted:
This is kind of amazing, I laughed out loud a couple of times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I kind of want this to be a Paradox grand strategy game. It reminds me of the Holy Roman Empire! My borders!! DrSunshine posted:I still find it incredible that the entire state of Montana is just one single congressional district! Possibly an interesting idea -- has anyone ever proposed apportioning house districts based on population alone? A lot of these districts abut fairly awkwardly against the state borders. I assume two people just on either side of a state border have more in common than with the people in their respective state capitals. Of course that would probably mean people in, say, Wyoming would be divided among something like south Idaho, west Dakota, and north Colorado and Utah, but in general I'd think this might make a more equitable division of people, with representatives of actual geographic areas, rather than only subsets of states. With the way culture tends to accumulate according to number of people, I'd think these representatives' constituents might be more homogeneous than in the current system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Possibly an interesting idea -- has anyone ever proposed apportioning representative districts based on population alone? A lot of these districts abut fairly awkwardly against the state borders. I assume two people just on either side of a state border have more in common than with the people in their respective state capitals. You'd need a constitutional amendment to change it because the idea when the Constitution was made is that states are essentially independent countries that have voting representatives in a common council (think akin to the EU). Besides that though, most districts are fairly representational, at least in terms of "has the same number of people per Representative". They'll all roughly 700,000 people per rep +/- 10% (so 630,000 to 770,000), with some exceptions (Iowa is like 600,000 people per rep while Utah is 920,000 people per rep). Here's a map that details it: (interactive link here)  edit: The data might be a little out of date as it's from 2008 but you get the general idea. computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 15:28
|
|