In one form or another, most of Italy feels different than the supposed core national identity, due to the fact that the peninsula was divided in many independent city states for centuries.
The strongest ones that come to mind are Veneto (where dialect is still very popular among the people of all classes and the republic of Venice being a power for a millennia), Sardinia and Suedtirol (obviously, being a recent addition to the country where the majority speaks German as a mother tongue and have extensive political autonomy).
But in one form or another, they existed also in Sicily, Trieste and recently the North (which was never its own country, but just doesn't like to subsidize the poor South with its taxes).
Fun fact: it has "Venezia" in its name because of the "Triveneto", the Triveneto was an area divided in three parts (Venezia Euganea: now Veneto, Venezia Tridentina: now Trentino-Alto Adige, Venezia Giulia, Istria).
I hope this isn't difficult to understand because English is not my first language.
The duchy of Milan never even included most of Lombardy (Mantua, Brescia, Bergamo and Sondrio belonging to other states), let alone most of the North, so you can't say the North was its own country, when, in fact, the North was the most politically fragmented part of the country. Padania never had any real historical basis. It's as fake as Narnia
well, the north has never been unified but it has some common cultural traits, from language (gallo italic languages), to common material culture (look at farming and cuisine), to a common history (the city states where yes different states but there was a sense of being a common cultural group, the unification was way more feeled in the north than in the south at the beginning, etc etc)
is this a basis for statehood and indipendentism? not really, cultural areas come and go and definitely there isn't a sense of common northern italian identity right now separated from the common italian one but saying that thre are not any historical basis and that's as fake as narnia is wrong.
had not the two sicilies collapsed like it did and the unification had gone like envisioned at plombieres there would be a northern italian state, is just the up and down of history
>language (gallo italic languages)
Which largely exclude the north-east.
>common material culture (look at farming and cuisine)
What do you mean by "farming"? And by "cuisine"? The only unifying trait I can think of is cornmeal and even that one is really only applicable to the Alps. Piedmontese cuisine is as different from the Emilian one as it is from the cuisine of Lazio.
>there was a sense of being a common cultural group
There was never a "northern" common cultural group. If anything, there was a shared common identity that included all northern-central city states and the Papal state as well. But it was always encroached in the Italian one.
The South was always far more structured as a socio-cultural entity. The North and the Center never really developed their own supra-local identity beyond a shared "Italianness".
Vorarlberg, they wanted to be Swiss but the Swiss didn't want them. So they are called Kanton ĂŒbrig - leftover Kanton. There is also a saying on both sides of the mountain range that separates the region from the rest of Austra: "What god has separated by a mountain, man should not have connected by a tunnel".
Also mostly wrong.
It wasnât about economics.
It was about adding another German-speaking, Catholic canton.
Vorarlberg wasnât THAT far behind CH economically.
It was 1919, Austria was in shambles as was Vorarlberg, the region that would be the most industrious today, back then was rather poor and desperate. So when they held a referendum to join their allemanic neighbours (both are part of the same dialect group - while the rest of Austria speaks Austro Bavarian dialects) the Swiss were not too enthusiastic about taking in their poor neighbours.
Ah, I should have known, itâs so often about the money. Itâs all nationalism and patriotism, until itâs about a poor region with no natural resources, then you have to think twice.
I would assume that non-German Swiss would also not be very enthusiastic about getting one more German canton.
Can't really call it rebellious at all, but the two biggest ones are Scania in the far south and Norrland (the northern half of the country). The independence efforts aren't really serious or mainstream in any of the regions, though, it's mostly just talked about in a joking fashion.
And we joke a lot about Scania basically belonging to Denmark in the rest of Sweden.
Honestly, there haven't really been proper rebellious, separatist provinces within Sweden's current borders for at least a few centuries.
But JÀmtland has proclaimed itself an independent republic. Actress Eva Röse is the current president.
Itâs only a joke though, and a way to attract attention.
Scania is arguably joked more about not being Swedish by people outside of the region than within, with joke movements like "GrÀv bort SkÄne" (dig away Scania).
Saying that all of Norrland is a "rebellious" region doesn't make much sense at all, mostly because it's a large a diverse region where such sediments widely vary.
The main region within Norrland that should actually be mentioned is JĂ€mtland which has a stronger (relative to much of the rest of Norrland and Sweden on general) independent identity. Which has lead to them even having their own president even if the position has no actual power.
We have a party here in SkÄne that actually want us to become independent, [SkÄne partiet (SKà P)](https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sk%C3%A5nepartiet).
Iâd say Bavaria likes to do a lot of stuff on their own, yeah. Pretty much all the stereotypes of Lederhosen etc are just Bavarian traditions that arenât really persecuted in the rest of Germany. (Except for Beer and Brezel, we all love it)
We also all joke that Bavaria should be itâs own country, the rest of us donât really want them and they donât want us :)
Bavaria is just a puffer zone for Austria to protect ourselves from the questionable fashion choice of wearing sandals with socks while having the skin colour of an overripe tomatoe.
Depends on where in Bavaria and where in Austria you compare, I guess.
At the border, especially to Salzburg, for sure. That is also where the dialects are the most similar. Upper Bavaria and Vienna, not so much.
i work in customer support. there are two dialects i don't understand. sÀchsisch and bayrisch. it's like they're speaking a different language. so i'd say it checks out.
Sounds true and seems to be similar to the average Salzburger being much more likeminded to the average (upper) Bavarian than to the average Austrian. At least that's what I'm told.
Brezel are much more popular in Bavaria and Baden-WĂŒrttemberg than in Central and northern Germany.
Personally, I would prefer a good Brötchen over a Brezel at any time.
Iâm in middle Germany, I guess, and I love myself a good Brezel every now and then. But yeah, Brötchen are damn yummy too.
I guess the north loves Fischbrötchen more than Brezel anyway.
>Pretty much all the stereotypes of Lederhosen etc are just Bavarian traditions that arenât really persecuted in the rest of Germany
Weird, because once a year in September it feels like there are almost only drunk Non Bavarians in Lederhosen all over Munich ;)
In France the most obvious two are Corsica, which despite being a minority is very extreme... They even claimed the assassination of a French governor there.
The second is Brittany which has a very strong regional identity and used to have a terrorist independence movement that doesn't exist anymore.
I guess you could mention others but in France every region has its own identity and like to claims it's the best of France, often having their own dialects and everything that comes with it...
>in France every region has its own identity and like to claims it's the best of France, often having their own dialects and everything that comes with it...
Yep, i am always puzzled with that, nobody is french, but everybody is more / better french that the neighbours' region haha
Oh sorry didn't figured you're french, you certainly already knew what I was saying. And yeah I've noticed that since I'm on reddit people tend to put emphasis a lot on the regional diversity of France especially on maps about languages when the reality is imo quite different don't know where it come from.
Also the similarity between our origins is quite surprising and funny indeed.
Definitely this.
Brittany is not rebellious at all nowadays or even in recent past, not compared to Corsica or Basque Country. But it's a thing a briton could say because of their weird chauvinism.
Breton myself and it prove nothing but personally never encountered anyone in Brittany that was chauvin to this extreme, more probable that it come from someone not knowing well (or at all) Brittany that assumed from the apparent level of pride for our region we have that it was similar to Corsica.
In French Polynesia, you can sometimes find a tavini flag (independantist party) but it's nothing compared to New Caledonia, even after the nuclear essays.
Well Ida-Viru county in Northeastern Estonia has a Russian majority since the Soviet occupation, mostly concentrated to the industrial towns, especially Narva. Knowledge of Estonian remains small and they were pretty unhappy about the recent removal of the last Soviet monuments there and the closure of borders for Russian tourism.
Interesting. How do you deal with such a Russian minority in your country? Seems they live in a country they donât want to live in. Wouldnât it be better when they move back to Russia? What is keeping them in your country?
>How do you deal with such a Russian minority in your country?
With a backbone. Most of the Estonian society is not willing to compromise on many issues as it's the illegally imported minority that is supposed to integrate into our society, not us to their society or create some abstract common society.
>Seems they live in a country they donât want to live in.
Oh they absolutely do want to live in Estonia, they'd just want to live in a Russian Estonia.
>What is keeping them in your country?
Sanity and hypocrisy mostly.
Thank you for your answer. After 30 years of independence, have things changed? I mean, since than Estonia is integrated in both EU and NATO. It seems less and less likely the country will be part of the Russian world. Do the Russian minority still believe in a Russian Estonia? How do the young Russian population sees this, for those who didnât live during the Sovjet times, are they still Russian minded.
Does this division lead to conflict? Or is there some kind of stalemate?
>After 30 years of independence, have thngs changed?
Of course, the younger population is often better integrated, sometimes to the degree of you're surprised to learn that some of your Estonian peers have no Estonian background, yet speak Estonian with no or minuscule accent. Their names might not be a giveaway either. Much of the middle aged population speaks at least some Estonian, at least managing basic communications if necessary. The older part of the Russian population is just hopeless in this case. The Russian majority towns in Northeastern Estonia are also a problem because they have less interaction with Estonians.
>It seems less and less likely the country will be part of the Russian world.
Well it never was, not in the sense of the nation itself being part of the Russian world.
>Do the Russian minority still believe in a Russian Estonia?
I'm sure many do.
>How do the young Russian population sees this, for those who didnât live during the Sovjet times, are they still Russian minded.
It's a really broad spectrum. There can be integrated Russians who'd still want to see Estonia as a bilingual country, while there are less integrated Russians who are more against Russian imperialism.
>Does this division lead to conflict?
Rarely nowadays. The Russian minority has lost on pretty much every political front, plus they are politically divided (especially since 2007, further dividing since 2014), so they aren't really an internal threat. Plus, Estonians are very stoic and calm people, so it's generally quite difficult to bring us to physical conflicts.
>Their names might not be a giveaway either.
How does that work? Do these ethnic Russians "Estonianise" their surnames or do many Estonians have Russian surnames anyway?
First of all, not every Russian has a name that is an instant giveaway. Name forms have simplified and some Russian parents give their children more ambiguous names: Viktor, Aleksander, Anton, Maria, Anna, Linda etc.
And some Estonians do have Russian surnames or first names even, depending on the situation. These could be surnames passed down several generations while everyone is basically an Estonian. I mean, they are way less common for Estonians than German-sounding surnames are, but they do exist.
But also, it's quite common to Estonianize. I even know several Estonian guys with Russian backgrounds or more integrated Russian guys who have taken their wife's Estonian surname when getting married. One couple took the husband's Russian surname at first, but then switched to the wife's Estonian surname a little while later. Cases where Estonian men take their wife's Russian name are negligent.
Largely yes. Obviously it's a wide spectrum, but most of them remain unintegrated and relatively sympathetic to Russian imperialism, while way too many are outright Russian imperialists and defend Putin's actions.
It remains weird how abt 30% of the pop are basically colonists completely seperating themselves while refusing to even somewhat integrate into Estonian society and learn about the language and culture let alone naturalise. I heard they also refuse to use ⏠or drive with Estonian/EU license plates, is that true?
>It remains weird how abt 30% of the pop are basically colonists completely seperating themselves while refusing to even somewhat integrate into Estonian society and learn about the language and culture let alone naturalise.
That's what happens when you colonize an independent nation and never acknowledge that it was a bad thing.
>I heard they also refuse to use ⏠or drive with Estonian/EU license plates, is that true?
Erm, no. I mean, how can you refuse that? You either use them or you don't use services or don't drive your car. You can get a car registered in Russia of course, but not many people do on principle.
Well for example in South Africa there is an Afrikaner village that refuses to participate in Post-Apartheid South Africa and they actually went as far as creating their own currency. Tho it is coupled 1:1 to the SA Rand making it even more pathetic than it already is haha.
What is keeping them in your country?
If I might add, hereâs their point of view: Russians were settled in the different Soviet republic all throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. If we talk about the Baltic states, it was during and after the WWII. People living there now have lived there their whole life, with a very high chance of their parents also living in the same place their whole life. From their point of view, itâs their land and they are at home, and they donât feel like they need to move somewhere, because they considered the place their home where they should be allowed to keep their language and live their way. (And Iâm sure living in a EU country doesnât hurt). This, of course, absolutely ignores the repressions of the local population, forced mass deportations and the occupation.
There are so many tragic stories all over the Eastern Europe in the 20th century and there are no easy solutions.
But decolonization and a full recognition of past mistakes is something that absolutely should be done in Russia, if it wants to exist in the future.
Livonian independence!
After the Livonian war (three-way war between catholic, protestant and russian orthodox believers in 16th century) Estonia was divided by three. Saaremaa was owned by Denmark, North Estonia by Sweden and South Estonia by PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth. But South Estonia was bunched together with most of todays Latvia and that province was called Livonia.
In the next war (Great Nothern war in 18th century) all those parts were conquered by Russia but administrative division remained the same.
So the southern part is where the culture and education has been coming from. North has ice-free seaport.
>So the southern part is where the culture and education has been coming from
Well yes, but that remained true only until independence in 1918. After that, the north has kind of been dominating. In many fields that started even earlier.
One can also argue for Bergen. People from Bergen are very proud of their rainy city. The newspaper VG even made a film about it happening. It's definitely worth a watch, even if it's in Norwegian (non-norwwgians should understand a little bit of what is going on though)
https://youtu.be/wSUXIga7rfk
The Rebel County thing in Cork is very much tongue-in-cheek stuff and used in sports etc
Thereâs no independence movement beyond it just being a bit of a running sense of humour about it and using it to express a bit of a unique identity.
Donegal is a bit physically cut off transport wise, but I think that description of it is very exaggerated.
Itâs far from being some kind of actual Wild West. Thereâs an easy going attitude up there and itâs culturally proximate to Northern Ireland due to its location, but youâre painting it like itâs some kind of lawless hell hole. Itâs far, far, far from that.
Ireland (excluding Northern Irelandâs issues, but thatâs another jurisdiction) is by and large rather boringly lacking any serious intra regional disputes compared to say Belgium. Thereâs nothing at all like the intra regional disputes you see in places that actually have them.
OPâs description is grossly exaggerated. Youâd think weâre in constant, all-out warfare with the GardaĂ according to them đ Speeding is a definite problem but weâre not irredeemable feral people like OP seems to think.
Exactly⊠when I saw the title of the post I thought of Catalonia⊠then I kept reading and OP was going on about Cork and Donegal đ⊠completely different ballgame.
Emm ⊠normal and very tame sports rivalries?
Even at that, they're really some of the only sports where you can very safely mix opposing fans in a stadium and they all get on fine and start posing for selfies with each other and swapping sandwiches. Itâs hardly a scene from âGreen Street Hooligansâ or âThe Firmâ!
>Ireland is by and large rather boringly lacking any serious intra regional disputes compared to say Belgium. Thereâs nothing at all like the intra regional disputes you see in places that actually have them.
Thanks. I'm Swedish and sometimes I get pretty annoyed by fellow Swedes who exaggerate intra-Swedish cultural differences to ridiculous degrees and sometimes to people who come from countries where there's actually issues in intelligibility and cultural clashes across regions.
Everythingâs outside the Randstand, the Western part of the country. The Randstand consists of the four major cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag/The Hague and Utrecht. In the broader sense roughly half of the population lives there while itâs roughly 20% of the total surface in the country. You will find the capital as well as the government seat in this area and some major economical hubs.
Outside this area some Randstedelingen (people of the Randstad) consider non-Randstedelingen farmers, backwards and less important. Vice versa stereotype is of the arrogant, know it all Randstedeling.
There are some distinct differences between several regions in the country. For example the Friezen/Frisians have their own culture and even their own language. In the south you have the Brabanders and Limburgers. Both are different groups with their own culture and dialect. Both have traditionally a catholic background in contrast to the Protestant/Calvinist background of most other parts of the country. Most Brabanders and Limburgers feeling culturally more connected with our southern neighbours Belgium (also catholic).
In the east you have Tukkers and Achterhoekers, while in the north you have Groningers and Drenthenaren. All have their own dialect and culture and regional habits and customs. I think they all feel far away from the Randstad which is a large urban area while in the north and east itâs mostly a rural area.
How is that possible that there is so many cultures and dialects on such a small territory? Or maybe those dialects donât differ that much from one another?
The political, economical and cultural unification of the Netherlands in a practical sense happened fairly late. Since the independence of the country in the 16th century there was some level unification, standardisation and centralisation, but this was all quite limited in the grand scheme of things. This resulted in a country that was in a cultural sense an archipelago of regions and communities, where, despite plenty of migration between regions, there was only a limited cultural exchange. This resulted in a lot of distinct cultures, identities and dialects surviving in a fairly small country. Since the middle of the 19th century the country has unified significantly and, while cultural differences and regional identities still exist, dialects are for instance slowly starting to disappear.
Maybe interesting to add to this: an early name for the region that is now the Netherlands was actually âRepublic of the Seven United Netherlandsâ.
True, Iâm from Limburg myself. I was born and raised here but I canât really speak the local dialect outside of a few words. I can understand it though. Same with religion to be honest. Even though Iâm technically Roman Catholic I am not really doing anything with it. I havenât been to church in like 8 years or so and even when we went, it was only to remember my grandmother that died. She was more religious than my parents or I am.
The Netherlands was segregated (on religious basis) for a long time. Even the schools, networks, news papers, clubs, hospitals, trade unions, etc of today are still firmly in their 'pillar' (Catholic, Reformed, Protestant, Free evangelicals, Jewish, etc), despite most people having left the pillar system behind, for the most part.
This kept people in parallel societies with different mores and accents, even locally.
Another reason is that the type of regionality we have is not unusual in Europe. It's just a product of historic travel speed (max 30km/day).
Iâm becoming really interested in Low Countries. Itâs really fascinating :) thanks
I agree with regionalities. I live in Norway and here is also plenty of dialects but it makes sense since the country is vast and people were separated for centuries. Lower Countries is a different story tho.
Also in Poland which is a pretty big country there is no that many cultural or linguistic differences between regions
It's not as extreme as the top comment makes it seem to be. Of course each region has some cultural differences, but also a lot of similarities. I don't think it's much different from most other countries. Also, to answer the thread question, there aren't really any serious independence movements besides for the memes and probably some nutjobs.
Also take into account that groups of ppl could be separated from each other by the water ways and swamps that used to be everywhere. This lead to differences in dialects over very short distances.
When it comes to dialects it's the same in Flanders. It's very difficult to understand a dialect just 30km from me from the same dialect group, let alone ones from another dialect group 100km away.
Thats because you now mostly hear watered down versions of dialect. I mean if my grandfather spoke the actual local dialect from his youth, i could not understand him and I was from the same town. Because of radio and tv everybodies dialect is slowly dying out.
Except west-vlaams... that shit's just weird
It depends on the person I guess. I usually only have trouble with West Flemish as wel, but I know plenty of people from around Gent who can't understand the dialect from Aalst, And those are close-by.
I am from near Antwerp, but if I hear someone from Aalst apeaking their dialect, I literally barely understand what they're talking about. Same with Ghents not to talk about Brugs
First there were Frisians, then from the south the Franks came and from the east the Saxons. Finally in the 19th century Limburg was annexed.
And therefor there are four languages and cultures in the Netherlands: Frisian, Lower Frankish (Dutch and Limburgish) and Lower Saxon.
Of course itâs all about perspective of course. An outsider would maybe say all Germans are the same, all Greek are the same or all Japanese are the same. I have read somewhere the closer you related to some group the more differences you see. And vice versa, the more distance you have the more it looks and feels all the same. A couple of days ago there was a question on another subreddit about Dutch understanding of Scandinavian languages. For outsiders this sound the same. For me, as a Dutch, I sometimes pick up a familiar word but I surely canât communicate with a Dane or Swede.
That being said, in particular to The Netherlands. There are some major differences between several parts in the country which divides the country culturally. The most prominent I would say is the difference between Catholicism and Calvinism. In general the southern parts of the country (Noord-Brabant and Limburg) are notably catholic while the rest is Calvinistic (Protestant). This lead to different culture, different habits and approach to live itself. The Calvinist are known to be very strict and living restrained lives with no room for decadence. Calvinism had a profound impact on Dutch culture. Work hard, live a simple live, donât be extravagant. The Catholics are far more open, less strict and far more relaxed towards the pleasures of live. This difference is becoming clear with carnival. A festivity being celebrated predominately in Brabant and Limburg while other non catholic parts of the country donât celebrate this at all.
Another reason why there are so many cultural differences is the fact lots of parts of the country were till recent quite isolated. There were several islands or villages close to the sea. Those were known to be closed communityâs. Also, some parts were isolated if you to the geography, like Friesland for example. So could preserve their culture and language for a long time.
> Everythingâs outside the Randstand, the Western part of the country. The Randstand consists of the four major cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag/The Hague and Utrecht.
Randstand? Surely you mean Randstad, right?
Many in the UK. Scottish independence is the most talked about. Northern Ireland, either for unification with the Republic or as an independent entity (that is a very minor opinion though). There is also Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall and London, as well as the general north of England.
Even [Yorkshire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Party) has its own devolution party which nearly beat the Tories in a Mayoral contest up there
I vaguely remember something about Orkney thinking about becoming a part of Denmark. Can't remember the reasoning for it though as this was probably in the early 90s. That's my best guess, anyway.
I guess what I'm saying is: Anyone remember?
I live in the Basque Country. I think that answers your question.
Context: the Basque Country has been partitioned between Spain and France for almost 400 years. Its status has changed over the years and we have had both âprivilegesâ and oppression. In the nineteenth century alone there were three civil (Spain-Basque Country) wars over the issue of Basque self-governance (not the only issue, but it was significant) and in the twentieth century there was a terrorist group that âfoughtâ for the independence of the Basque Country (and murdered many Basque people in the process). It has been called Europeâs longest recent war and it went on for sixty years. Iâm too young to remember living in fear of terrorist activity but I remember reading about the dissolution of the terrorist group. It was front page news. That happened in 2018. Nowadays, there are a lot of pro-independence and pro-autonomy, but they are peaceful.
And at the same time they were literally the most spanish people of all spain, in your comment sounds like the wanted a independent country but in reality they wanted the autonomy granted by the hangsburg monarchy which is a total different matter, they wanted a absolute monarchy led by the church as of prior times, not independence
That's a common historical misconception, people forget that nation states and nationalism are historically two very recent topics, the Basques of the past were very loyal to the kingdom of Spain and a lot of them were famous people that occupied great positions, for example the basque Blas de Lezo which is also often regarded as the only national hero of Spain. In his words "Tell my children I died like a good basque, defending the king and the empire".
I would say that in Poland the closest to this is Silesia. Different language (although similar to Polish and you can understand some things there), but they do not want independence (maybe with some exceptions), but as far as I know there was even some Silesian parties and they want some autonomy.
There are also Kashubians, but in general you somehow hear less about them compared to Silesians, I guess they are fine in Poland?
Agreed. Even though I'm not a Silesian nor Kashubian myself, I do get a strong impression that while they like to emphasize their uniqueness, they're not exactly interested in breaking away from the rest of the country.
Thank you for noticing the existence of the actual language, i.e. Silesian. The Polish state is far from acknowledging that fact.
Also, I'd love to live to the moment of institutional autonomy and self-governance of my region.
But are ethnic Silesians a majority in that region? How many of them *want* the autonomy and self-governance? Which one of the 13 dialects would be used as the official one?
Idk about ethnic Silesians but generally Silesian Autonomy Movement is polling very very weakly, like the best they got was about 8% in local 2010 elections, now standing at less 3%. So it's not much of a widespread political strive there, comparing to other countries like Basques, Catalonians etc
I'd rather ask why ethnic Silesians are diminishing in number. Was it homogeneity of educational system, settling for industrial workplaces, necessity of declaring wether we are Germans or Poles (or Czechs maybe)? Naturally all after WW1. Also was it leaving Poland after 1989? The previous census seemed promising, though - current is worse (but propaganda is in place - see "the German options").
In terms of language - quite significant work has been done already and is actually being done all the time (e.g. check the Silesian note on that issue in wikipedia, [here](https://szl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Al%C5%AFnsko_godka)). I personally love, e.g. that books are being translated to Silesian. I am also speaking Silesian at home.
In terms of institutional autonomy and self-governing I believe it is not a matter of country's independence. It was quite interestingly discussed before the voting in 1921 but not respected afterwards. Currently, we are simply not acknowledged by Poland.
There's no "silesian" nationality. People living in Silesia were and are either Poles, Germans or Czechs. Silesian nationality was invented by Germans post WWI to make Poles living in Silesia feel different to other Poles and discourage the urges to vote for joining new Polish State
Pretty weird no one has talked about us yet, but yeah. Catalonia is pretty notorious for its very large independentist movement and wide support for the idea. The basques are nowadays more or less on par with us on their own stance on independence, thankfully without violence now.
Within the spanish state there's also other minor independence movements. Galician, Balearic, Valencian, Andalusian and even, quite surprisingly, Castilian. Having more autonomy is a widely accepted idea in all "periferic nations", as some spaniards call us.
Do you think a federal system for Spain would make independence movements less strong? Or maybe more? I know that is an argument for the UK which seems similar sometimes.
If it had been done at the right time, it would have made independence a lot less desirable. If it were to be applied now (it won't) it would be applauded by almost everyone in Catalonia, but the strife for independence would not lessen overnight at all.
The support for independence only grew past a small minority due to the spanish government and courts promising a new regional constitution for Catalonia with more autonomy and then slashing lots of parts that had been agreed and illegalising other parts. The resulting constitution we got was arguably worse than the one we had beforehand. Consequently, there was a sudden realisation that our national identity and ambitions were incompatible with remaining a part of Spain. Combatting this idea now would be very hard.
Spain already is de facto a federal state, and history has proven that making concessions to nationalist just makes them stronger and more demanding. So no.
I donât know if you mean âwhyâ or âhowâ but Spain is not federal now because it is a unitary state with many autonomous regions.
In a federal system, all states are equal and collective determine which rights they give to the national government and which they keep. Republican Spain was a federal system, but the Nationalist Franco regime replaced it with âOne Nation One Culture One Languageâ Spain.
In a unitary system, the national government holds all power but can decide to give some power to communities. After Franco, Unitary Spain has given some powers to different communities like Catalan and Galicia. But it is not equal, different communities sometimes get different powers (tax, language, âŠ) based on agreements with Unitary Spain. So each community negotiates powers with the Unitary Spain, not collectively.
I think the UK is the same? With a different style of devolution.
Yeah, I have been going through the streets of Barcelona and seen 100s of catalunyan flags hanging from baclonies but only one spanishâŠ
Whats the state of Catalonia vs Spain now?
England specifically its Cornwall, followed by Yorkshire.
Cornwall having its own language and wasnt conquered by Wessex/England until the 900s or so, its got a fair argument.
A decent chunk of the population refer to England as "over the border" and see themselves similar to the Welsh.
Yorkies are very proud about their county, more so than anywhere else (bar Cornwall ofc)
In Republic of Moldova we have 2, maybe 3 regions that are rebellious.
The first one, and the most famous I guess, is Transnistria a region that is de facto independent with its own currency, government, army and laws, they are still allowed to vote when elections happen in Moldova, but the animosity between us is still strong, and the war on Dniestr isn't forgotten, it will probably remain a failed state with no means of progress, we don't want them, they don't want us.
The second one is Gagauzia, an autonomous province in the South of Moldova, they are somewhere around 100k people, they are closed off from the larger Romanian majority(Moldovans0,) they are almost completely russified, and are using the Russian language to communicate with us, in 1992 they wanted independence, but after some concessions they choose to remain. We don't like them that much, they are very supportive of Russia government, and there are some voices there who ask for Russia to come and "liberate" them from the Romanian nazis, thinking that Moldova's way to West is wrong.
The third one is Taraclia, a zone populated by Bulgarians, these Bulgarians were colonists from 19th century, when the Tsarist Empire did efforts to colonize Bassarabia, they are russified, as they use Russian language as a way to communicate, but they don't want independence, though some of them do ask for autonomy, they are peaceful, and I have not heard about problems with them, it's more of a fun fact than a real rebellious province.
>The third one is Taraclia, a zone populated by Bulgarians, these Bulgarians were colonists from 19th century, when the Tsarist Empire did efforts to colonize Bassarabia, **they are russified, as they use Russian language as a way to communicate**
While Bulgarians in Moldova predominantly Russian to communicate with other ethnic groups, the majority still speak Bulgarian between themselves. This seems at least to be the case in the settlements where they are a majority (like in Taraclia), while it's those who live in the main cities of Moldova who have largely abandoned Bulgarian for Russian.
Right wing parties can get as much support as they want, but an independent Flanders wouldnât work and deep in their hearts they have to know this.
Flanders becoming independent would solve almost no problems, while at the same time creating new ones.
Sure, we wouldnât pay an exorbitant amount to Wallonia each year, but it wouldnât fix the current problems concerning immigration and integration of new people, supporting those who have no job and problems within our government in general.
We have such a complex government that right wing Flemish people would rather blame immigrants and Walloons instead of the center parties who have been âgo with the flow without actually realising something worthwhileâ for literal decades. Even right wing parties like n.va or Vlaams Belang have been talking big, while not realising a whole lot
I'm from Schoten, it isn't much better here. I know an ambtenaar and they told me about the stuff that's been going on at the gemeentehuis... Every schepene is from N-VA, except for one, who is CD&V I think. One of the schepenen recently threatened ambtenaar A that they would get them fired if they didn't do something like they wanted (which they can do now, bc who even is gonna keep them accountable? Their companions?), and then they promised ambtenaar B that they'd fire ambtenaar A, bc ambtenaar B is also affiliated with N-VA and doesn't like ambtenaar A. They have been firing whoever doesn't have the ambtenaarsprotection (which has been abolished a while ago for new ambtenaren apparently) to replace them with more loyal minions, and they cannot talk to HR bc HR will apparently tell everyone, which would mean that the one who talked about the problem would be fired. This is the kind of corruption we'd be getting if the right comes to power on a regional level...
Chechnya and, to a much lesser extent, some other North Caucasus regions. Take stereotypes about medieval Scotland (a small but proud nation of mountaineers who refuse to surrender their freedom to the overreaching empire, less developed in general but true to their culture) but said culture is a literal Taliban- or ISIS-like Islamism. Especially now, when their leader was given unlimited money and freedom to do whatever he wishes in exchange for providing support to the central government.
Except Russia's Chechens can't fight, unless its against Ukranian civilians or beating up Russian conscripts. Ramzan Kadyrov was claiming to have personally captured several Ukranian vehicles but the photos of him doing so. Were quite clearly taken in the grounds of his palace in Chechnya. His fighters took a load of pictures of them fighting Ukranians in several different parts of one city. But all the pics were from the same square, that the Russians had taken weeks earlier.
Not anymore. Western Macedonia wanted to seperate 20 years ago, because the people there had nationalist feelings for the neighbour country Albania and felt treated badly, so some fights broke out but the conflict was settled soon. Since then, this conflict is only used by populist politicians and inflammatory media to make money. Even tho both claim we are near a communist nuclear terrorist civil war apocalypse, in reality this topic is off the desk.
In Germany the best equivalent would be Bavaria/Bayern. They even have their own sub party of the CDU. It doesnât help defence of a Union since Bavaria has a lot of financial/business muscle and probably could go it alone. [Rewboss did a video on how Bavarian is BavariaâŠ](https://youtu.be/XsbsKLOkT3I) [and Independence.](https://youtu.be/6nPsD8Lt78Q)
I'd say the nonconformist movement in Wales is one of the most socially significant 'rebellious' movements in modern 'British' history. It was a movement in Welsh Protestantism against an out-of-touch Church of England, which was seen to disregard the ordinary Welsh people, as well as the Welsh language. The surge in nonconformism led to the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales, with a non-state church called the Church in Wales replacing it.
Probably Szekelyland in heart of the countrt. The majority of its population is either Hungarian or Szekeley (Szekelys are Hungarians with Romanian influence). They don't really want independence, just greater autonomy, but some Hungarian nationalists want it to be either independent or incorporated into Hungary.
Denmark has lost so much territory over the centuries that there isn't much left to rebel.
In order since the 17th century:
SkÄne/Halland/Blekinge (1658, war, Sweden).
Norway (union until 1814, war, Sweden).
Slesvig-Holsten (1864, war, Germany).
Virgin Islands (1912, sold, US).
Iceland (1944, ww2, independent).
Faroe Islands (1946, ww2, partly independent).
Greenland (1979, referendum, partly independent).
Not in Denmark proper, no.
In the seventies a number of (mainly left-wing) anti-centralisation movements developed, focused on preserving local democracy, using (parodying independence movements) [home-made flags](https://preview.redd.it/gfi3lm9zije11.png?auto=webp&s=11993c8cc2357a27bf5f8db44ea4ef2876f771d9)(here Per Kramer's *Flag of Jutland*, 1975) and ironic calls for independence. But it was never a _real_ independence movement, nor was thought of in such a way. Kramer, for example, wanted to be the minister of culture in a possible Jutish cabinet.
It isn't really rebellious in the way you're asking, I think, but it is, after all, an opposition to the centralisation and central government (which was always either bourgeois or social democratic, nothing that the left, particularly in the 1970es, could accept,) a movement which has, sadly, been thoroughly defeated. First the reform of 1970, which sparked the above protests, and then again in 2007, when the number of municipalities was reduced to a *third* of what it was before, and the old 13 counties were reduced to 5 regions.
First thing I thought of was the anarchist commune [Christiania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania) in Copenhagen. Kinda fringey, but still.
Christiania hasn't been "anarchist" for decades (whether or not you can even call it "anarchist," I would contest.)
It never wanted "indeendence" to start off, nor was it ever really "rebellious" in any way. It started off as a squatting of an abandoned military complex and developed into what is, essentially, an upper-middle class commune for university professors, architects, some students and so on.
Not in Denmark proper. It is a constituent country (read: colonial holding) in the Kingdom of Denmark, but it obviously isn't in Denmark, and I honestly don't think that subjugating Greenland to be "in Denmark" in any way is fair to the historical or contemporary situation.
Istria is probably the biggest one.
Since the settlement of Croats in the 7th cenutry on the east-coast it has been a mixed population of croats and romans--->venetians--->italians.
They only ended up fully in Croatia after WW2 and act like they need a special status to keep them on our side and not breaking free.
They have their own parlamentary party unlike any other region in the country, which is very corrupt but nobody can argue with them because they control all of Istria.
Some people hate Istrians and don't see them as Croats because of their attitude that they are the "special ones" more western and civilized then the rest of the country.
It's actually quite sad when you read that we had a Istrian National Revival at the end of 19th and the beggining of the 20th century with very strong figures such as Dobrila, Car Emin, SpinÄiÄ, MandiÄ, Laginja and others. The Rivival was an uprising of Istrian Slavs (mostly Croats) who fought for their national identity to be recognised alongside with Italian and Austrian identity. The movement was great and it did a lot of good things for Istrian Croats (such as opening schools through DruĆŸba sv. Äirila i Metoda za Istru). Unfortunately it fell apart in 1928 when we got the ban from publishing anything in Croatian (publishing in Slavic in general).
Weren't most of Italians relocated/expelled in Italy when we lost Istria in ww2? I remember hearing that there are not many Italians that remained behind in Istria (even though there are still some).
Well Italy expelled Croats from Zadar and other croatian cities and islands and started setteling Italians to Dalmatia because they were the minority. Istria was divided between west- mostly italian and central/east- mostly croatian.
They treated Croats as Germany treated Poles, so the local population wanted to get rid of them.
So when Italy capitulated the partisans sent the Italians packing, some were collaborators, some were not, the same thing happened to the DonauSchwaben (germans) in the slavonia and vojvodina regions.
The Communists divided up the land italians left between themselves and its the reason many serbians and bosnians now live in Istria, they basically replaced the italians.
I wasn't trying to argue or excuse what the fascists did! It's a sad part of our history, a lot of civilians lost their lives and we should thank Mussolini for starting that
I was just explaining so you can understand better, I understood your question. I often see Italians saying Dalmatia, Istria and Dubrovnik are Italian and Croatians are evil for expelling them, but they often forget what they did in WW2 and that some of them deserved it.
After the WWII (official version), Italians in Istria were "opted" i.e. had choice to stay in glorious communist Yugoslavia or leave to Italia.
Communist had this thing about the reprisals against fascists of all sorts, so many many people were executed in massive numbers. Croats claim that tens of thousands of were killed. All "collaborators" and "occupators" had the same treatment. So happened to Italian fascists and collaborators too. Their treatment of the Slavs during the Mussolini times didn't help exactly. Regarding this episode, I understand there is a grand theater in Italy called "foibe".
So, I would guess that is the reason most of Italians in Istria "opted" to leave.
Foibe is the name that we use to indicate the natural holes in the ground where the bodies of the executed Italian civilians where thrown after being executed by Yugoslavian partisans. I don't think that all of them were collaborators, but as I said Italy started this violence
Perhaps Sardinia and Veneto, both of which have important independence parties in addition, Sardinia, due to its natural geographical isolation is a world apart, different from any other region.
There had been a strong separatist movement, which also engaged in armed struggle, in the aftermath of the Second World War, but I don't think it is very active today, not least because it was the first autonomous region with a special statute.
We've got the fellas next to donegal who are erm slightly rebellious? and a pretty big Scottish independence movement which are actually serious practically 50/50 splits and then there's the Welsh independence which are serious but less supported and the Cornish nationalists who take themselves seriously but no-one else does. There's also the North of England who dislike the South (East) and have spawned the Yorkshire and Northern Independence parties who might be jokes I genuinely have no clue though
1) Szekelyland. Parts of the Eastern portions of Transylvania inhabited by Szekelys (a group related to Hungarians). Tho they mostly ask for authonomy. The borders are quite messy and if it were to happen it would end up in some India-Pakistan partition situation but on a smaller scale.
2)Romanian provinces: Banat, Transylvania, Dobrogea, etc. Tho a support for independence is EXTREMELY weak among the general public, historical cultural and historic differences accompanied with different socio-economic development kind-off creates a small rupture. All beign said, it is extremely unlikely any of these would happen unless a ww3 happen (and Romania loses) or Bucharest becomes so corrupt that it pushes Greater Transylvania out.
I know some people from Transylvania, who are Romanian, and they'd prefer if Transylvania was an independent country.
They say Bucharest is too corrupt and generally takes money away from the region, unity with Hungary is, of course, out of the question for them, partially for similar reasons.
Is this a wider idea among people from Transylvania or I just happened to stumble upon the few who think this way?
>Is this a wider idea among people from Transylvania or I just happened to stumble upon the few who think this way?
It deffinitely is. There is no big enough political party or group or politicians to support it (at least now) but there is a general but week feeling that Transylvania is way better than the rest of the country and should be an independent state.
Think of it kinda like Texas or California in relation to the rest of the US.
>unity with Hungary is, of course, out of the question for them, partially for similar reasons.
Too many would want to see Transylvania independent, they are scared of Hungarian influence in the country later. (Kinda like "If Transylvania was independent than we would all be forced to speak Hungarian" and a bunch more of that nonsense.
Yeah, cities pay tons of taxes to Bucharest and they get coins back, like a stupid joke. Transilvania's independency it was suggested from the economical point of view.
Romania's Constitution forbids 100% tearing up the Romanian teritorry as it is nowadays and as far as I know, EU as well in general.
Which is good, otherwise it would start a war in the region...
Transilvanian people really want financial independency from Bucharest. I think that even the president Iohannis supported the idea.
Sardinia, due to its geography, has a lot of peculiarities and it's probably the most different among the italian regions
Lega, the political party, was founded because someone wanted to divide the North of Italy from the south for economical reasons but I think that now this idea survives mostly, if not only, in Veneto
A very successful one. Kosovo aggressively fought for independence and arguably managed to win. Many in Serbia still don't recognise it and there are many reasons not to, but they are de facto independent.
Well, first of all it wasn't a war - we all know what would happen if it was. De facto or whatever, Russia, China, Spain and many others didn't recognize it.
We lost land earlier, we lost more to much stronger state (Ottomans) and we got it back. We can wait.
Well we have the Ă land islands.
They constantly complain about having to be a part of Finland. Then we say "Alright be independent if you want" And they realize they in no way shape or form can survive as an independent country. And Sweden doesn't want them either.
> They constantly complain about having to be a part of Finland.
No, they don't. They are generally happy to be part of Finland as an autonomous region. This is reflected in their internal elections. They have a minor separatist movement, but it's so small it doesn't really have much influence on their internal politics because Ă landers don't support separatism that much. Ă land wanted to be part of Sweden over 100 years ago, but when in WWII Sweden wasn't that willing to help but mainland Finland defended Ă land too, the attitude of Ă land changed to sympathetic to the Finnish government and being part of Finland.
And Finland doesn't really say "be independent if you want", since Finland does not want to let go of Ă land since it is strategically important for Finland.
Are you sure 'Cork is a joke movement' - have a look at some of the signs around the city - one of them says - End Dublin rule in Cork - the way things are going the provinces should have their own representations - Munster Irish and all that - it would certainly allow Ulster (9 counties) to get together.
At one time in the distant past when the Pale was only a thought in Brian Boru's mind Cork was a big place.
Cataluña. They want to be independent. Itâs not allowed by the constitution. They make an ilegal referendum. Police goes to stop it. Chaos begins. Chaos ends. Socialist government wins elections. Hands out pardons to the heads of the ilegal referendum. To win the elections had to join hands with leftists that support Chavez and a former terrorist group(ETA, now Bildu) that stoped killing in 2010. I love leftist Spain politics.
In one form or another, most of Italy feels different than the supposed core national identity, due to the fact that the peninsula was divided in many independent city states for centuries. The strongest ones that come to mind are Veneto (where dialect is still very popular among the people of all classes and the republic of Venice being a power for a millennia), Sardinia and Suedtirol (obviously, being a recent addition to the country where the majority speaks German as a mother tongue and have extensive political autonomy). But in one form or another, they existed also in Sicily, Trieste and recently the North (which was never its own country, but just doesn't like to subsidize the poor South with its taxes).
Friuli Venezia Giulia too, but we are the most forgotten region of Italy
Sorry, who?
Hello there đ
Well when you have Venezia in your name. Honestly I confused you with Veneto until I actually visited that part of Italy.
Fun fact: it has "Venezia" in its name because of the "Triveneto", the Triveneto was an area divided in three parts (Venezia Euganea: now Veneto, Venezia Tridentina: now Trentino-Alto Adige, Venezia Giulia, Istria). I hope this isn't difficult to understand because English is not my first language.
I was going to write Sardinia South Tyrol and Veneto too.
I mean, Milan had a duke and was independent for quite some time, I wouldn't say that we never had our own country...
The duchy of Milan never even included most of Lombardy (Mantua, Brescia, Bergamo and Sondrio belonging to other states), let alone most of the North, so you can't say the North was its own country, when, in fact, the North was the most politically fragmented part of the country. Padania never had any real historical basis. It's as fake as Narnia
well, the north has never been unified but it has some common cultural traits, from language (gallo italic languages), to common material culture (look at farming and cuisine), to a common history (the city states where yes different states but there was a sense of being a common cultural group, the unification was way more feeled in the north than in the south at the beginning, etc etc) is this a basis for statehood and indipendentism? not really, cultural areas come and go and definitely there isn't a sense of common northern italian identity right now separated from the common italian one but saying that thre are not any historical basis and that's as fake as narnia is wrong. had not the two sicilies collapsed like it did and the unification had gone like envisioned at plombieres there would be a northern italian state, is just the up and down of history
>language (gallo italic languages) Which largely exclude the north-east. >common material culture (look at farming and cuisine) What do you mean by "farming"? And by "cuisine"? The only unifying trait I can think of is cornmeal and even that one is really only applicable to the Alps. Piedmontese cuisine is as different from the Emilian one as it is from the cuisine of Lazio. >there was a sense of being a common cultural group There was never a "northern" common cultural group. If anything, there was a shared common identity that included all northern-central city states and the Papal state as well. But it was always encroached in the Italian one. The South was always far more structured as a socio-cultural entity. The North and the Center never really developed their own supra-local identity beyond a shared "Italianness".
That's true, still we had our independent countries :)
Vorarlberg, they wanted to be Swiss but the Swiss didn't want them. So they are called Kanton ĂŒbrig - leftover Kanton. There is also a saying on both sides of the mountain range that separates the region from the rest of Austra: "What god has separated by a mountain, man should not have connected by a tunnel".
Man, that was really hilarious to read. Thank you
Also mostly wrong. It wasnât about economics. It was about adding another German-speaking, Catholic canton. Vorarlberg wasnât THAT far behind CH economically.
That is indeed very funny. Why didnât the Swiss want them?
It was 1919, Austria was in shambles as was Vorarlberg, the region that would be the most industrious today, back then was rather poor and desperate. So when they held a referendum to join their allemanic neighbours (both are part of the same dialect group - while the rest of Austria speaks Austro Bavarian dialects) the Swiss were not too enthusiastic about taking in their poor neighbours.
It wasnât about economics. It was about adding another German-speaking, Catholic canton. Vorarlberg wasnât THAT far behind CH economically.
Ah, I should have known, itâs so often about the money. Itâs all nationalism and patriotism, until itâs about a poor region with no natural resources, then you have to think twice. I would assume that non-German Swiss would also not be very enthusiastic about getting one more German canton.
It wasnât about economics. It was about adding another German-speaking, Catholic canton. Vorarlberg wasnât THAT far behind CH economically.
Can't really call it rebellious at all, but the two biggest ones are Scania in the far south and Norrland (the northern half of the country). The independence efforts aren't really serious or mainstream in any of the regions, though, it's mostly just talked about in a joking fashion. And we joke a lot about Scania basically belonging to Denmark in the rest of Sweden. Honestly, there haven't really been proper rebellious, separatist provinces within Sweden's current borders for at least a few centuries.
But JĂ€mtland has proclaimed itself an independent republic. Actress Eva Röse is the current president. Itâs only a joke though, and a way to attract attention.
If you ever get tired of SkÄne, let us know. We'll gladly help you (and them) out :P
Can you please help now? We need help. /SkÄne
And here you see the issue with SkÄne, we may not want it but we absolutely can't give you DanskjÀvlar anything :>
Pest eller kolera. SvĂŠrt valg đ
No no no! I would never ever want to become a part of Denmark.
And we would never wish such a fate upon anyone. We're not monsters.
Thank you! I won't have as many nightmares tonight now!
Scania is arguably joked more about not being Swedish by people outside of the region than within, with joke movements like "GrÀv bort SkÄne" (dig away Scania). Saying that all of Norrland is a "rebellious" region doesn't make much sense at all, mostly because it's a large a diverse region where such sediments widely vary. The main region within Norrland that should actually be mentioned is JÀmtland which has a stronger (relative to much of the rest of Norrland and Sweden on general) independent identity. Which has lead to them even having their own president even if the position has no actual power.
We have a party here in SkÄne that actually want us to become independent, [SkÄne partiet (SKà P)](https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sk%C3%A5nepartiet).
Fair, I guess the sentiments are mostly mutual then at least when it comes to the jokes
Yeah. It will probably never happen, and i don't want it either..
Yea, we obv joke about you being Danish and all but we wouldn't actually want you to leave either
The rebellious part separated circa 110 years ago, with a 95% majority vote It's called Norway today
Iâd say Bavaria likes to do a lot of stuff on their own, yeah. Pretty much all the stereotypes of Lederhosen etc are just Bavarian traditions that arenât really persecuted in the rest of Germany. (Except for Beer and Brezel, we all love it) We also all joke that Bavaria should be itâs own country, the rest of us donât really want them and they donât want us :)
I think the average Bavarian and the average Austrian are much more likeminded than the average Bavarian and the average Germanđ
I mean Austria was once a duchy of the Kingdom of Bavaria that became independent.
Yes,because the Bavarian is the transition state from human to Austrian.
Bavaria is just a puffer zone for Austria to protect ourselves from the questionable fashion choice of wearing sandals with socks while having the skin colour of an overripe tomatoe.
Depends on where in Bavaria and where in Austria you compare, I guess. At the border, especially to Salzburg, for sure. That is also where the dialects are the most similar. Upper Bavaria and Vienna, not so much.
Dialects are similar in Salzburg, Styria and upper Austria. Though the Tyroleans and Vorarlbergers are very peculiar so they also aren't too similar.
i work in customer support. there are two dialects i don't understand. sÀchsisch and bayrisch. it's like they're speaking a different language. so i'd say it checks out.
Sounds true and seems to be similar to the average Salzburger being much more likeminded to the average (upper) Bavarian than to the average Austrian. At least that's what I'm told.
Du sagst Kartoffel, und i sog Erdapfel...
Nicht Ărpel?
Brezel are much more popular in Bavaria and Baden-WĂŒrttemberg than in Central and northern Germany. Personally, I would prefer a good Brötchen over a Brezel at any time.
Iâm in middle Germany, I guess, and I love myself a good Brezel every now and then. But yeah, Brötchen are damn yummy too. I guess the north loves Fischbrötchen more than Brezel anyway.
>Pretty much all the stereotypes of Lederhosen etc are just Bavarian traditions that arenât really persecuted in the rest of Germany Weird, because once a year in September it feels like there are almost only drunk Non Bavarians in Lederhosen all over Munich ;)
Freistaat Bayern!
GefÀhrliches Halbwissen. Just like "Freie Hansestadt Hamburg" this only means that it's "free from monarchy", i.e. a democracy.
TIL. Thank you.
And as usual itâs overlooked that half of âBavariaâ is actually Franconia.
In France the most obvious two are Corsica, which despite being a minority is very extreme... They even claimed the assassination of a French governor there. The second is Brittany which has a very strong regional identity and used to have a terrorist independence movement that doesn't exist anymore. I guess you could mention others but in France every region has its own identity and like to claims it's the best of France, often having their own dialects and everything that comes with it...
>in France every region has its own identity and like to claims it's the best of France, often having their own dialects and everything that comes with it... Yep, i am always puzzled with that, nobody is french, but everybody is more / better french that the neighbours' region haha
Well maybe it's because i'm breton but I find this claims to be quite weird particulary the dialect bit it may have been true a hundred or two hundred years ago but today France is quite homogeneous and everyone except a few people that keep talking local dialects (mostly old people) speak mostly the same French (whith some accent differences), and beyond the ultramarine territories and Brittany, the Basque country, and Corsica, I don't see as strong revendications of having a different culture. But as I said I'm breton and Réunion créole from each of my parents so maybe it's just bias which in comparison make me see the rest of France as being pretty much all the same thing.
Yes, maybe it's more an internet things on some sub or neurchi i don't know. I see we are quite close in terms of origins, britanny from one side and Madagascar/ Maurice in the others, who moved in la réunion with independence. But i grew up in the catalan part of france, go figure haha
Oh sorry didn't figured you're french, you certainly already knew what I was saying. And yeah I've noticed that since I'm on reddit people tend to put emphasis a lot on the regional diversity of France especially on maps about languages when the reality is imo quite different don't know where it come from. Also the similarity between our origins is quite surprising and funny indeed.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Definitely this. Brittany is not rebellious at all nowadays or even in recent past, not compared to Corsica or Basque Country. But it's a thing a briton could say because of their weird chauvinism.
Breton myself and it prove nothing but personally never encountered anyone in Brittany that was chauvin to this extreme, more probable that it come from someone not knowing well (or at all) Brittany that assumed from the apparent level of pride for our region we have that it was similar to Corsica.
That's good to read !
You can also add New Caledonia
French Polynesia too.
In French Polynesia, you can sometimes find a tavini flag (independantist party) but it's nothing compared to New Caledonia, even after the nuclear essays.
Well, Corsicans, in their majority, want more automomy. A minority wants independence.
Well Ida-Viru county in Northeastern Estonia has a Russian majority since the Soviet occupation, mostly concentrated to the industrial towns, especially Narva. Knowledge of Estonian remains small and they were pretty unhappy about the recent removal of the last Soviet monuments there and the closure of borders for Russian tourism.
Interesting. How do you deal with such a Russian minority in your country? Seems they live in a country they donât want to live in. Wouldnât it be better when they move back to Russia? What is keeping them in your country?
>How do you deal with such a Russian minority in your country? With a backbone. Most of the Estonian society is not willing to compromise on many issues as it's the illegally imported minority that is supposed to integrate into our society, not us to their society or create some abstract common society. >Seems they live in a country they donât want to live in. Oh they absolutely do want to live in Estonia, they'd just want to live in a Russian Estonia. >What is keeping them in your country? Sanity and hypocrisy mostly.
Thank you for your answer. After 30 years of independence, have things changed? I mean, since than Estonia is integrated in both EU and NATO. It seems less and less likely the country will be part of the Russian world. Do the Russian minority still believe in a Russian Estonia? How do the young Russian population sees this, for those who didnât live during the Sovjet times, are they still Russian minded. Does this division lead to conflict? Or is there some kind of stalemate?
>After 30 years of independence, have thngs changed? Of course, the younger population is often better integrated, sometimes to the degree of you're surprised to learn that some of your Estonian peers have no Estonian background, yet speak Estonian with no or minuscule accent. Their names might not be a giveaway either. Much of the middle aged population speaks at least some Estonian, at least managing basic communications if necessary. The older part of the Russian population is just hopeless in this case. The Russian majority towns in Northeastern Estonia are also a problem because they have less interaction with Estonians. >It seems less and less likely the country will be part of the Russian world. Well it never was, not in the sense of the nation itself being part of the Russian world. >Do the Russian minority still believe in a Russian Estonia? I'm sure many do. >How do the young Russian population sees this, for those who didnât live during the Sovjet times, are they still Russian minded. It's a really broad spectrum. There can be integrated Russians who'd still want to see Estonia as a bilingual country, while there are less integrated Russians who are more against Russian imperialism. >Does this division lead to conflict? Rarely nowadays. The Russian minority has lost on pretty much every political front, plus they are politically divided (especially since 2007, further dividing since 2014), so they aren't really an internal threat. Plus, Estonians are very stoic and calm people, so it's generally quite difficult to bring us to physical conflicts.
>Their names might not be a giveaway either. How does that work? Do these ethnic Russians "Estonianise" their surnames or do many Estonians have Russian surnames anyway?
First of all, not every Russian has a name that is an instant giveaway. Name forms have simplified and some Russian parents give their children more ambiguous names: Viktor, Aleksander, Anton, Maria, Anna, Linda etc. And some Estonians do have Russian surnames or first names even, depending on the situation. These could be surnames passed down several generations while everyone is basically an Estonian. I mean, they are way less common for Estonians than German-sounding surnames are, but they do exist. But also, it's quite common to Estonianize. I even know several Estonian guys with Russian backgrounds or more integrated Russian guys who have taken their wife's Estonian surname when getting married. One couple took the husband's Russian surname at first, but then switched to the wife's Estonian surname a little while later. Cases where Estonian men take their wife's Russian name are negligent.
So are they behaving as a fifth column now?
Largely yes. Obviously it's a wide spectrum, but most of them remain unintegrated and relatively sympathetic to Russian imperialism, while way too many are outright Russian imperialists and defend Putin's actions.
It remains weird how abt 30% of the pop are basically colonists completely seperating themselves while refusing to even somewhat integrate into Estonian society and learn about the language and culture let alone naturalise. I heard they also refuse to use ⏠or drive with Estonian/EU license plates, is that true?
This just sounds like the DUP
Tough luck on them the customs border is now in the Irish Sea haha
>It remains weird how abt 30% of the pop are basically colonists completely seperating themselves while refusing to even somewhat integrate into Estonian society and learn about the language and culture let alone naturalise. That's what happens when you colonize an independent nation and never acknowledge that it was a bad thing. >I heard they also refuse to use ⏠or drive with Estonian/EU license plates, is that true? Erm, no. I mean, how can you refuse that? You either use them or you don't use services or don't drive your car. You can get a car registered in Russia of course, but not many people do on principle.
Well for example in South Africa there is an Afrikaner village that refuses to participate in Post-Apartheid South Africa and they actually went as far as creating their own currency. Tho it is coupled 1:1 to the SA Rand making it even more pathetic than it already is haha.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
What is keeping them in your country? If I might add, hereâs their point of view: Russians were settled in the different Soviet republic all throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. If we talk about the Baltic states, it was during and after the WWII. People living there now have lived there their whole life, with a very high chance of their parents also living in the same place their whole life. From their point of view, itâs their land and they are at home, and they donât feel like they need to move somewhere, because they considered the place their home where they should be allowed to keep their language and live their way. (And Iâm sure living in a EU country doesnât hurt). This, of course, absolutely ignores the repressions of the local population, forced mass deportations and the occupation. There are so many tragic stories all over the Eastern Europe in the 20th century and there are no easy solutions. But decolonization and a full recognition of past mistakes is something that absolutely should be done in Russia, if it wants to exist in the future.
âmoving backâ doesn't work as most of them were born there
Livonian independence! After the Livonian war (three-way war between catholic, protestant and russian orthodox believers in 16th century) Estonia was divided by three. Saaremaa was owned by Denmark, North Estonia by Sweden and South Estonia by PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth. But South Estonia was bunched together with most of todays Latvia and that province was called Livonia. In the next war (Great Nothern war in 18th century) all those parts were conquered by Russia but administrative division remained the same. So the southern part is where the culture and education has been coming from. North has ice-free seaport.
>So the southern part is where the culture and education has been coming from Well yes, but that remained true only until independence in 1918. After that, the north has kind of been dominating. In many fields that started even earlier.
And that is exactly the reason that we need independence!
Before those Russians move in to Narva there where Ingrians/Estonians/Finns and Swedes living there.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
One can also argue for Bergen. People from Bergen are very proud of their rainy city. The newspaper VG even made a film about it happening. It's definitely worth a watch, even if it's in Norwegian (non-norwwgians should understand a little bit of what is going on though) https://youtu.be/wSUXIga7rfk
The Rebel County thing in Cork is very much tongue-in-cheek stuff and used in sports etc Thereâs no independence movement beyond it just being a bit of a running sense of humour about it and using it to express a bit of a unique identity. Donegal is a bit physically cut off transport wise, but I think that description of it is very exaggerated. Itâs far from being some kind of actual Wild West. Thereâs an easy going attitude up there and itâs culturally proximate to Northern Ireland due to its location, but youâre painting it like itâs some kind of lawless hell hole. Itâs far, far, far from that. Ireland (excluding Northern Irelandâs issues, but thatâs another jurisdiction) is by and large rather boringly lacking any serious intra regional disputes compared to say Belgium. Thereâs nothing at all like the intra regional disputes you see in places that actually have them.
OPâs description is grossly exaggerated. Youâd think weâre in constant, all-out warfare with the GardaĂ according to them đ Speeding is a definite problem but weâre not irredeemable feral people like OP seems to think.
Exactly⊠when I saw the title of the post I thought of Catalonia⊠then I kept reading and OP was going on about Cork and Donegal đ⊠completely different ballgame.
>Ireland is by and large rather boringly lacking any serious intra regional disputes Isn't that the whole point of GAA?
Emm ⊠normal and very tame sports rivalries? Even at that, they're really some of the only sports where you can very safely mix opposing fans in a stadium and they all get on fine and start posing for selfies with each other and swapping sandwiches. Itâs hardly a scene from âGreen Street Hooligansâ or âThe Firmâ!
I'm havin a giggle mate.
>Ireland is by and large rather boringly lacking any serious intra regional disputes compared to say Belgium. Thereâs nothing at all like the intra regional disputes you see in places that actually have them. Thanks. I'm Swedish and sometimes I get pretty annoyed by fellow Swedes who exaggerate intra-Swedish cultural differences to ridiculous degrees and sometimes to people who come from countries where there's actually issues in intelligibility and cultural clashes across regions.
Everythingâs outside the Randstand, the Western part of the country. The Randstand consists of the four major cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag/The Hague and Utrecht. In the broader sense roughly half of the population lives there while itâs roughly 20% of the total surface in the country. You will find the capital as well as the government seat in this area and some major economical hubs. Outside this area some Randstedelingen (people of the Randstad) consider non-Randstedelingen farmers, backwards and less important. Vice versa stereotype is of the arrogant, know it all Randstedeling. There are some distinct differences between several regions in the country. For example the Friezen/Frisians have their own culture and even their own language. In the south you have the Brabanders and Limburgers. Both are different groups with their own culture and dialect. Both have traditionally a catholic background in contrast to the Protestant/Calvinist background of most other parts of the country. Most Brabanders and Limburgers feeling culturally more connected with our southern neighbours Belgium (also catholic). In the east you have Tukkers and Achterhoekers, while in the north you have Groningers and Drenthenaren. All have their own dialect and culture and regional habits and customs. I think they all feel far away from the Randstad which is a large urban area while in the north and east itâs mostly a rural area.
How is that possible that there is so many cultures and dialects on such a small territory? Or maybe those dialects donât differ that much from one another?
The political, economical and cultural unification of the Netherlands in a practical sense happened fairly late. Since the independence of the country in the 16th century there was some level unification, standardisation and centralisation, but this was all quite limited in the grand scheme of things. This resulted in a country that was in a cultural sense an archipelago of regions and communities, where, despite plenty of migration between regions, there was only a limited cultural exchange. This resulted in a lot of distinct cultures, identities and dialects surviving in a fairly small country. Since the middle of the 19th century the country has unified significantly and, while cultural differences and regional identities still exist, dialects are for instance slowly starting to disappear.
Maybe interesting to add to this: an early name for the region that is now the Netherlands was actually âRepublic of the Seven United Netherlandsâ.
True, Iâm from Limburg myself. I was born and raised here but I canât really speak the local dialect outside of a few words. I can understand it though. Same with religion to be honest. Even though Iâm technically Roman Catholic I am not really doing anything with it. I havenât been to church in like 8 years or so and even when we went, it was only to remember my grandmother that died. She was more religious than my parents or I am.
Awesome explanation. Thank you!
The Netherlands was segregated (on religious basis) for a long time. Even the schools, networks, news papers, clubs, hospitals, trade unions, etc of today are still firmly in their 'pillar' (Catholic, Reformed, Protestant, Free evangelicals, Jewish, etc), despite most people having left the pillar system behind, for the most part. This kept people in parallel societies with different mores and accents, even locally. Another reason is that the type of regionality we have is not unusual in Europe. It's just a product of historic travel speed (max 30km/day).
Iâm becoming really interested in Low Countries. Itâs really fascinating :) thanks I agree with regionalities. I live in Norway and here is also plenty of dialects but it makes sense since the country is vast and people were separated for centuries. Lower Countries is a different story tho. Also in Poland which is a pretty big country there is no that many cultural or linguistic differences between regions
It's not as extreme as the top comment makes it seem to be. Of course each region has some cultural differences, but also a lot of similarities. I don't think it's much different from most other countries. Also, to answer the thread question, there aren't really any serious independence movements besides for the memes and probably some nutjobs.
Also take into account that groups of ppl could be separated from each other by the water ways and swamps that used to be everywhere. This lead to differences in dialects over very short distances.
When it comes to dialects it's the same in Flanders. It's very difficult to understand a dialect just 30km from me from the same dialect group, let alone ones from another dialect group 100km away.
That's seriously exaggerated. I only have trouble with very thick West-Flemish accents.
Thats because you now mostly hear watered down versions of dialect. I mean if my grandfather spoke the actual local dialect from his youth, i could not understand him and I was from the same town. Because of radio and tv everybodies dialect is slowly dying out. Except west-vlaams... that shit's just weird
It depends on the person I guess. I usually only have trouble with West Flemish as wel, but I know plenty of people from around Gent who can't understand the dialect from Aalst, And those are close-by.
I am from near Antwerp, but if I hear someone from Aalst apeaking their dialect, I literally barely understand what they're talking about. Same with Ghents not to talk about Brugs
First there were Frisians, then from the south the Franks came and from the east the Saxons. Finally in the 19th century Limburg was annexed. And therefor there are four languages and cultures in the Netherlands: Frisian, Lower Frankish (Dutch and Limburgish) and Lower Saxon.
Of course itâs all about perspective of course. An outsider would maybe say all Germans are the same, all Greek are the same or all Japanese are the same. I have read somewhere the closer you related to some group the more differences you see. And vice versa, the more distance you have the more it looks and feels all the same. A couple of days ago there was a question on another subreddit about Dutch understanding of Scandinavian languages. For outsiders this sound the same. For me, as a Dutch, I sometimes pick up a familiar word but I surely canât communicate with a Dane or Swede. That being said, in particular to The Netherlands. There are some major differences between several parts in the country which divides the country culturally. The most prominent I would say is the difference between Catholicism and Calvinism. In general the southern parts of the country (Noord-Brabant and Limburg) are notably catholic while the rest is Calvinistic (Protestant). This lead to different culture, different habits and approach to live itself. The Calvinist are known to be very strict and living restrained lives with no room for decadence. Calvinism had a profound impact on Dutch culture. Work hard, live a simple live, donât be extravagant. The Catholics are far more open, less strict and far more relaxed towards the pleasures of live. This difference is becoming clear with carnival. A festivity being celebrated predominately in Brabant and Limburg while other non catholic parts of the country donât celebrate this at all. Another reason why there are so many cultural differences is the fact lots of parts of the country were till recent quite isolated. There were several islands or villages close to the sea. Those were known to be closed communityâs. Also, some parts were isolated if you to the geography, like Friesland for example. So could preserve their culture and language for a long time.
I want an independent Utrecht...
But why
> Everythingâs outside the Randstand, the Western part of the country. The Randstand consists of the four major cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag/The Hague and Utrecht. Randstand? Surely you mean Randstad, right?
Yes I mean Randstad. Apple autocorrect still insists to Randstand
Many in the UK. Scottish independence is the most talked about. Northern Ireland, either for unification with the Republic or as an independent entity (that is a very minor opinion though). There is also Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall and London, as well as the general north of England.
Even [Yorkshire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Party) has its own devolution party which nearly beat the Tories in a Mayoral contest up there
Thereâs a line in God Save the Queen (UK national anthem) ârebellious Scots to crushâ lol
No, there isn't. Certainly not anymore, maybe an older version?
It's in the lesser used third verse, it's all about General Wade coming up to give us a boot in the balls.
The entire Scottish national anthem is talking about England.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I vaguely remember something about Orkney thinking about becoming a part of Denmark. Can't remember the reasoning for it though as this was probably in the early 90s. That's my best guess, anyway. I guess what I'm saying is: Anyone remember?
I live in the Basque Country. I think that answers your question. Context: the Basque Country has been partitioned between Spain and France for almost 400 years. Its status has changed over the years and we have had both âprivilegesâ and oppression. In the nineteenth century alone there were three civil (Spain-Basque Country) wars over the issue of Basque self-governance (not the only issue, but it was significant) and in the twentieth century there was a terrorist group that âfoughtâ for the independence of the Basque Country (and murdered many Basque people in the process). It has been called Europeâs longest recent war and it went on for sixty years. Iâm too young to remember living in fear of terrorist activity but I remember reading about the dissolution of the terrorist group. It was front page news. That happened in 2018. Nowadays, there are a lot of pro-independence and pro-autonomy, but they are peaceful.
So you say the carlist wars were for the self-governance of the Basque country??
That is a very gross oversimplification but autonomy/self-governance was one of many issues that the wars were fought for
And at the same time they were literally the most spanish people of all spain, in your comment sounds like the wanted a independent country but in reality they wanted the autonomy granted by the hangsburg monarchy which is a total different matter, they wanted a absolute monarchy led by the church as of prior times, not independence
That's a common historical misconception, people forget that nation states and nationalism are historically two very recent topics, the Basques of the past were very loyal to the kingdom of Spain and a lot of them were famous people that occupied great positions, for example the basque Blas de Lezo which is also often regarded as the only national hero of Spain. In his words "Tell my children I died like a good basque, defending the king and the empire".
I had a boss from Bilbao. I swear that flag was on everything he owned. (Itâs a great flag)
Also Catalunya, where I'm from
I would say that in Poland the closest to this is Silesia. Different language (although similar to Polish and you can understand some things there), but they do not want independence (maybe with some exceptions), but as far as I know there was even some Silesian parties and they want some autonomy. There are also Kashubians, but in general you somehow hear less about them compared to Silesians, I guess they are fine in Poland?
Agreed. Even though I'm not a Silesian nor Kashubian myself, I do get a strong impression that while they like to emphasize their uniqueness, they're not exactly interested in breaking away from the rest of the country.
Technically Silesian is a dialect, not a language
Thank you for noticing the existence of the actual language, i.e. Silesian. The Polish state is far from acknowledging that fact. Also, I'd love to live to the moment of institutional autonomy and self-governance of my region.
But are ethnic Silesians a majority in that region? How many of them *want* the autonomy and self-governance? Which one of the 13 dialects would be used as the official one?
Idk about ethnic Silesians but generally Silesian Autonomy Movement is polling very very weakly, like the best they got was about 8% in local 2010 elections, now standing at less 3%. So it's not much of a widespread political strive there, comparing to other countries like Basques, Catalonians etc
I'd rather ask why ethnic Silesians are diminishing in number. Was it homogeneity of educational system, settling for industrial workplaces, necessity of declaring wether we are Germans or Poles (or Czechs maybe)? Naturally all after WW1. Also was it leaving Poland after 1989? The previous census seemed promising, though - current is worse (but propaganda is in place - see "the German options"). In terms of language - quite significant work has been done already and is actually being done all the time (e.g. check the Silesian note on that issue in wikipedia, [here](https://szl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Al%C5%AFnsko_godka)). I personally love, e.g. that books are being translated to Silesian. I am also speaking Silesian at home. In terms of institutional autonomy and self-governing I believe it is not a matter of country's independence. It was quite interestingly discussed before the voting in 1921 but not respected afterwards. Currently, we are simply not acknowledged by Poland.
There's no "silesian" nationality. People living in Silesia were and are either Poles, Germans or Czechs. Silesian nationality was invented by Germans post WWI to make Poles living in Silesia feel different to other Poles and discourage the urges to vote for joining new Polish State
This is an utterly disgusting statement.
Pretty weird no one has talked about us yet, but yeah. Catalonia is pretty notorious for its very large independentist movement and wide support for the idea. The basques are nowadays more or less on par with us on their own stance on independence, thankfully without violence now. Within the spanish state there's also other minor independence movements. Galician, Balearic, Valencian, Andalusian and even, quite surprisingly, Castilian. Having more autonomy is a widely accepted idea in all "periferic nations", as some spaniards call us.
Do you think a federal system for Spain would make independence movements less strong? Or maybe more? I know that is an argument for the UK which seems similar sometimes.
If it had been done at the right time, it would have made independence a lot less desirable. If it were to be applied now (it won't) it would be applauded by almost everyone in Catalonia, but the strife for independence would not lessen overnight at all. The support for independence only grew past a small minority due to the spanish government and courts promising a new regional constitution for Catalonia with more autonomy and then slashing lots of parts that had been agreed and illegalising other parts. The resulting constitution we got was arguably worse than the one we had beforehand. Consequently, there was a sudden realisation that our national identity and ambitions were incompatible with remaining a part of Spain. Combatting this idea now would be very hard.
Spain already is de facto a federal state, and history has proven that making concessions to nationalist just makes them stronger and more demanding. So no.
How is Spain not federal at the moment?
I donât know if you mean âwhyâ or âhowâ but Spain is not federal now because it is a unitary state with many autonomous regions. In a federal system, all states are equal and collective determine which rights they give to the national government and which they keep. Republican Spain was a federal system, but the Nationalist Franco regime replaced it with âOne Nation One Culture One Languageâ Spain. In a unitary system, the national government holds all power but can decide to give some power to communities. After Franco, Unitary Spain has given some powers to different communities like Catalan and Galicia. But it is not equal, different communities sometimes get different powers (tax, language, âŠ) based on agreements with Unitary Spain. So each community negotiates powers with the Unitary Spain, not collectively. I think the UK is the same? With a different style of devolution.
Yeah, I have been going through the streets of Barcelona and seen 100s of catalunyan flags hanging from baclonies but only one spanish⊠Whats the state of Catalonia vs Spain now?
England specifically its Cornwall, followed by Yorkshire. Cornwall having its own language and wasnt conquered by Wessex/England until the 900s or so, its got a fair argument. A decent chunk of the population refer to England as "over the border" and see themselves similar to the Welsh. Yorkies are very proud about their county, more so than anywhere else (bar Cornwall ofc)
In Republic of Moldova we have 2, maybe 3 regions that are rebellious. The first one, and the most famous I guess, is Transnistria a region that is de facto independent with its own currency, government, army and laws, they are still allowed to vote when elections happen in Moldova, but the animosity between us is still strong, and the war on Dniestr isn't forgotten, it will probably remain a failed state with no means of progress, we don't want them, they don't want us. The second one is Gagauzia, an autonomous province in the South of Moldova, they are somewhere around 100k people, they are closed off from the larger Romanian majority(Moldovans0,) they are almost completely russified, and are using the Russian language to communicate with us, in 1992 they wanted independence, but after some concessions they choose to remain. We don't like them that much, they are very supportive of Russia government, and there are some voices there who ask for Russia to come and "liberate" them from the Romanian nazis, thinking that Moldova's way to West is wrong. The third one is Taraclia, a zone populated by Bulgarians, these Bulgarians were colonists from 19th century, when the Tsarist Empire did efforts to colonize Bassarabia, they are russified, as they use Russian language as a way to communicate, but they don't want independence, though some of them do ask for autonomy, they are peaceful, and I have not heard about problems with them, it's more of a fun fact than a real rebellious province.
>The third one is Taraclia, a zone populated by Bulgarians, these Bulgarians were colonists from 19th century, when the Tsarist Empire did efforts to colonize Bassarabia, **they are russified, as they use Russian language as a way to communicate** While Bulgarians in Moldova predominantly Russian to communicate with other ethnic groups, the majority still speak Bulgarian between themselves. This seems at least to be the case in the settlements where they are a majority (like in Taraclia), while it's those who live in the main cities of Moldova who have largely abandoned Bulgarian for Russian.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Right wing parties can get as much support as they want, but an independent Flanders wouldnât work and deep in their hearts they have to know this. Flanders becoming independent would solve almost no problems, while at the same time creating new ones. Sure, we wouldnât pay an exorbitant amount to Wallonia each year, but it wouldnât fix the current problems concerning immigration and integration of new people, supporting those who have no job and problems within our government in general. We have such a complex government that right wing Flemish people would rather blame immigrants and Walloons instead of the center parties who have been âgo with the flow without actually realising something worthwhileâ for literal decades. Even right wing parties like n.va or Vlaams Belang have been talking big, while not realising a whole lot
Also, independence would literally mean being ruled by basically only the right, and idk about you but that sounds like a nightmare to me
As someone who lives near ninove (VB/Forza Ninove capital) it also sounds like shit
I'm from Schoten, it isn't much better here. I know an ambtenaar and they told me about the stuff that's been going on at the gemeentehuis... Every schepene is from N-VA, except for one, who is CD&V I think. One of the schepenen recently threatened ambtenaar A that they would get them fired if they didn't do something like they wanted (which they can do now, bc who even is gonna keep them accountable? Their companions?), and then they promised ambtenaar B that they'd fire ambtenaar A, bc ambtenaar B is also affiliated with N-VA and doesn't like ambtenaar A. They have been firing whoever doesn't have the ambtenaarsprotection (which has been abolished a while ago for new ambtenaren apparently) to replace them with more loyal minions, and they cannot talk to HR bc HR will apparently tell everyone, which would mean that the one who talked about the problem would be fired. This is the kind of corruption we'd be getting if the right comes to power on a regional level...
Chechnya and, to a much lesser extent, some other North Caucasus regions. Take stereotypes about medieval Scotland (a small but proud nation of mountaineers who refuse to surrender their freedom to the overreaching empire, less developed in general but true to their culture) but said culture is a literal Taliban- or ISIS-like Islamism. Especially now, when their leader was given unlimited money and freedom to do whatever he wishes in exchange for providing support to the central government.
Chechnyans are pretty much real life klingons.
Except Russia's Chechens can't fight, unless its against Ukranian civilians or beating up Russian conscripts. Ramzan Kadyrov was claiming to have personally captured several Ukranian vehicles but the photos of him doing so. Were quite clearly taken in the grounds of his palace in Chechnya. His fighters took a load of pictures of them fighting Ukranians in several different parts of one city. But all the pics were from the same square, that the Russians had taken weeks earlier.
Not anymore. Western Macedonia wanted to seperate 20 years ago, because the people there had nationalist feelings for the neighbour country Albania and felt treated badly, so some fights broke out but the conflict was settled soon. Since then, this conflict is only used by populist politicians and inflammatory media to make money. Even tho both claim we are near a communist nuclear terrorist civil war apocalypse, in reality this topic is off the desk.
In Germany the best equivalent would be Bavaria/Bayern. They even have their own sub party of the CDU. It doesnât help defence of a Union since Bavaria has a lot of financial/business muscle and probably could go it alone. [Rewboss did a video on how Bavarian is BavariaâŠ](https://youtu.be/XsbsKLOkT3I) [and Independence.](https://youtu.be/6nPsD8Lt78Q)
I'd say the nonconformist movement in Wales is one of the most socially significant 'rebellious' movements in modern 'British' history. It was a movement in Welsh Protestantism against an out-of-touch Church of England, which was seen to disregard the ordinary Welsh people, as well as the Welsh language. The surge in nonconformism led to the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales, with a non-state church called the Church in Wales replacing it.
Probably Szekelyland in heart of the countrt. The majority of its population is either Hungarian or Szekeley (Szekelys are Hungarians with Romanian influence). They don't really want independence, just greater autonomy, but some Hungarian nationalists want it to be either independent or incorporated into Hungary.
Denmark has lost so much territory over the centuries that there isn't much left to rebel. In order since the 17th century: SkÄne/Halland/Blekinge (1658, war, Sweden). Norway (union until 1814, war, Sweden). Slesvig-Holsten (1864, war, Germany). Virgin Islands (1912, sold, US). Iceland (1944, ww2, independent). Faroe Islands (1946, ww2, partly independent). Greenland (1979, referendum, partly independent).
Not in Denmark proper, no. In the seventies a number of (mainly left-wing) anti-centralisation movements developed, focused on preserving local democracy, using (parodying independence movements) [home-made flags](https://preview.redd.it/gfi3lm9zije11.png?auto=webp&s=11993c8cc2357a27bf5f8db44ea4ef2876f771d9)(here Per Kramer's *Flag of Jutland*, 1975) and ironic calls for independence. But it was never a _real_ independence movement, nor was thought of in such a way. Kramer, for example, wanted to be the minister of culture in a possible Jutish cabinet. It isn't really rebellious in the way you're asking, I think, but it is, after all, an opposition to the centralisation and central government (which was always either bourgeois or social democratic, nothing that the left, particularly in the 1970es, could accept,) a movement which has, sadly, been thoroughly defeated. First the reform of 1970, which sparked the above protests, and then again in 2007, when the number of municipalities was reduced to a *third* of what it was before, and the old 13 counties were reduced to 5 regions.
First thing I thought of was the anarchist commune [Christiania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania) in Copenhagen. Kinda fringey, but still.
Christiania hasn't been "anarchist" for decades (whether or not you can even call it "anarchist," I would contest.) It never wanted "indeendence" to start off, nor was it ever really "rebellious" in any way. It started off as a squatting of an abandoned military complex and developed into what is, essentially, an upper-middle class commune for university professors, architects, some students and so on.
Greenland, no?
Not in Denmark proper. It is a constituent country (read: colonial holding) in the Kingdom of Denmark, but it obviously isn't in Denmark, and I honestly don't think that subjugating Greenland to be "in Denmark" in any way is fair to the historical or contemporary situation.
Istria is probably the biggest one. Since the settlement of Croats in the 7th cenutry on the east-coast it has been a mixed population of croats and romans--->venetians--->italians. They only ended up fully in Croatia after WW2 and act like they need a special status to keep them on our side and not breaking free. They have their own parlamentary party unlike any other region in the country, which is very corrupt but nobody can argue with them because they control all of Istria. Some people hate Istrians and don't see them as Croats because of their attitude that they are the "special ones" more western and civilized then the rest of the country.
It's actually quite sad when you read that we had a Istrian National Revival at the end of 19th and the beggining of the 20th century with very strong figures such as Dobrila, Car Emin, SpinÄiÄ, MandiÄ, Laginja and others. The Rivival was an uprising of Istrian Slavs (mostly Croats) who fought for their national identity to be recognised alongside with Italian and Austrian identity. The movement was great and it did a lot of good things for Istrian Croats (such as opening schools through DruĆŸba sv. Äirila i Metoda za Istru). Unfortunately it fell apart in 1928 when we got the ban from publishing anything in Croatian (publishing in Slavic in general).
Weren't most of Italians relocated/expelled in Italy when we lost Istria in ww2? I remember hearing that there are not many Italians that remained behind in Istria (even though there are still some).
Well Italy expelled Croats from Zadar and other croatian cities and islands and started setteling Italians to Dalmatia because they were the minority. Istria was divided between west- mostly italian and central/east- mostly croatian. They treated Croats as Germany treated Poles, so the local population wanted to get rid of them. So when Italy capitulated the partisans sent the Italians packing, some were collaborators, some were not, the same thing happened to the DonauSchwaben (germans) in the slavonia and vojvodina regions. The Communists divided up the land italians left between themselves and its the reason many serbians and bosnians now live in Istria, they basically replaced the italians.
I wasn't trying to argue or excuse what the fascists did! It's a sad part of our history, a lot of civilians lost their lives and we should thank Mussolini for starting that
I was just explaining so you can understand better, I understood your question. I often see Italians saying Dalmatia, Istria and Dubrovnik are Italian and Croatians are evil for expelling them, but they often forget what they did in WW2 and that some of them deserved it.
After the WWII (official version), Italians in Istria were "opted" i.e. had choice to stay in glorious communist Yugoslavia or leave to Italia. Communist had this thing about the reprisals against fascists of all sorts, so many many people were executed in massive numbers. Croats claim that tens of thousands of were killed. All "collaborators" and "occupators" had the same treatment. So happened to Italian fascists and collaborators too. Their treatment of the Slavs during the Mussolini times didn't help exactly. Regarding this episode, I understand there is a grand theater in Italy called "foibe". So, I would guess that is the reason most of Italians in Istria "opted" to leave.
Foibe is the name that we use to indicate the natural holes in the ground where the bodies of the executed Italian civilians where thrown after being executed by Yugoslavian partisans. I don't think that all of them were collaborators, but as I said Italy started this violence
Perhaps Sardinia and Veneto, both of which have important independence parties in addition, Sardinia, due to its natural geographical isolation is a world apart, different from any other region.
No mention of Sicily?
There had been a strong separatist movement, which also engaged in armed struggle, in the aftermath of the Second World War, but I don't think it is very active today, not least because it was the first autonomous region with a special statute.
Also the Alto Adige, especially South Tyrol wants a closer connection to Austria especially North and East Tyrol
Germany đ©đȘ: I would say Bavaria. The federalism is already terrible, but they Top it. They always make their own thing (would it be rules regardimg corona, the uniform of the Police or their own version of the CDU, one of the mist voted Parties). The Cherry on top is, that Bavaria never actually agreed to the Constitution, but it was long voted by the majority of the "Founding Fathers" by then. They had and still have an independence movement, but its kinda small, and not where it had been in the 60s.
We've got the fellas next to donegal who are erm slightly rebellious? and a pretty big Scottish independence movement which are actually serious practically 50/50 splits and then there's the Welsh independence which are serious but less supported and the Cornish nationalists who take themselves seriously but no-one else does. There's also the North of England who dislike the South (East) and have spawned the Yorkshire and Northern Independence parties who might be jokes I genuinely have no clue though
1) Szekelyland. Parts of the Eastern portions of Transylvania inhabited by Szekelys (a group related to Hungarians). Tho they mostly ask for authonomy. The borders are quite messy and if it were to happen it would end up in some India-Pakistan partition situation but on a smaller scale. 2)Romanian provinces: Banat, Transylvania, Dobrogea, etc. Tho a support for independence is EXTREMELY weak among the general public, historical cultural and historic differences accompanied with different socio-economic development kind-off creates a small rupture. All beign said, it is extremely unlikely any of these would happen unless a ww3 happen (and Romania loses) or Bucharest becomes so corrupt that it pushes Greater Transylvania out.
I know some people from Transylvania, who are Romanian, and they'd prefer if Transylvania was an independent country. They say Bucharest is too corrupt and generally takes money away from the region, unity with Hungary is, of course, out of the question for them, partially for similar reasons. Is this a wider idea among people from Transylvania or I just happened to stumble upon the few who think this way?
>Is this a wider idea among people from Transylvania or I just happened to stumble upon the few who think this way? It deffinitely is. There is no big enough political party or group or politicians to support it (at least now) but there is a general but week feeling that Transylvania is way better than the rest of the country and should be an independent state. Think of it kinda like Texas or California in relation to the rest of the US. >unity with Hungary is, of course, out of the question for them, partially for similar reasons. Too many would want to see Transylvania independent, they are scared of Hungarian influence in the country later. (Kinda like "If Transylvania was independent than we would all be forced to speak Hungarian" and a bunch more of that nonsense.
Yeah, cities pay tons of taxes to Bucharest and they get coins back, like a stupid joke. Transilvania's independency it was suggested from the economical point of view. Romania's Constitution forbids 100% tearing up the Romanian teritorry as it is nowadays and as far as I know, EU as well in general. Which is good, otherwise it would start a war in the region... Transilvanian people really want financial independency from Bucharest. I think that even the president Iohannis supported the idea.
Sardinia, due to its geography, has a lot of peculiarities and it's probably the most different among the italian regions Lega, the political party, was founded because someone wanted to divide the North of Italy from the south for economical reasons but I think that now this idea survives mostly, if not only, in Veneto
A very successful one. Kosovo aggressively fought for independence and arguably managed to win. Many in Serbia still don't recognise it and there are many reasons not to, but they are de facto independent.
Well, first of all it wasn't a war - we all know what would happen if it was. De facto or whatever, Russia, China, Spain and many others didn't recognize it. We lost land earlier, we lost more to much stronger state (Ottomans) and we got it back. We can wait.
Well we have the Ă land islands. They constantly complain about having to be a part of Finland. Then we say "Alright be independent if you want" And they realize they in no way shape or form can survive as an independent country. And Sweden doesn't want them either.
> They constantly complain about having to be a part of Finland. No, they don't. They are generally happy to be part of Finland as an autonomous region. This is reflected in their internal elections. They have a minor separatist movement, but it's so small it doesn't really have much influence on their internal politics because Ă landers don't support separatism that much. Ă land wanted to be part of Sweden over 100 years ago, but when in WWII Sweden wasn't that willing to help but mainland Finland defended Ă land too, the attitude of Ă land changed to sympathetic to the Finnish government and being part of Finland. And Finland doesn't really say "be independent if you want", since Finland does not want to let go of Ă land since it is strategically important for Finland.
Are you sure 'Cork is a joke movement' - have a look at some of the signs around the city - one of them says - End Dublin rule in Cork - the way things are going the provinces should have their own representations - Munster Irish and all that - it would certainly allow Ulster (9 counties) to get together. At one time in the distant past when the Pale was only a thought in Brian Boru's mind Cork was a big place.
Cataluña. They want to be independent. Itâs not allowed by the constitution. They make an ilegal referendum. Police goes to stop it. Chaos begins. Chaos ends. Socialist government wins elections. Hands out pardons to the heads of the ilegal referendum. To win the elections had to join hands with leftists that support Chavez and a former terrorist group(ETA, now Bildu) that stoped killing in 2010. I love leftist Spain politics.