The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission of the United States has just released its final report on the causes of the economic catastrophe that has so impacted the world. The report concludes that the monumental economic collapse was largely avoidable and occurred mostly because of "human action and inaction"; that is to say, in so many words, insufficient regulatory practices at all levels of government and the private sector combined with an excessive drive to accumulate more wealth by financial institutions, ultimately leading to the worst economic crisis in 80 years. At the same time that the institutions were causing this financial meltdown, which economically crippled millions of people who had contributed nothing to the crisis, they were rewarded with massive tax-payer-funded bailouts by the government and lavished themselves with massive bonuses.
While this type of financial bust is inherently systemic in a capitalist economy, the magnitude of this crisis should have, in particular, irrevocably damaged right-wing, neoliberal economic practices that preached deregulation of financial sectors and, more broadly, strengthened parties on the Left that are more anti-free market or less pro-capitalism. Yet, despite this demonstration of the deficiencies in neoliberalism or capitalism, the Right appears to have emerged stronger, while the Left is in disarray.
In Europe, only a few countries are currently governed by left-wing parties (Norway, Spain, Portugal among them), while the majority of the rest, including the large economies of Germany, Britain, France, and Italy are run by conservatives and/or neoliberals. Support for social democratic parties like Britain's Labour or Germany's SPD are the lowest they've been in decades. In the U.S., the Tea Party advocated for even less government regulation and the right-wing Republican Party just won control of the House of Representatives. A Conservative minority government in Canada has remained in power for the past 5 years, despite the opposition's best efforts at unseating them. Chile elected its first conservative president in years.
Certainly, some of the Right's success in Europe can be attributed to a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, but this doesn't explain wholly why they control a majority of ruling governments on the continent.
Whither the Left? Why has the left wing been unable to conquer the right at a time when they should have already easily done so?
Some think that it's because they have nothing new to offer. If that were true, though, then why did the Republican Party gain so many seats after having essentially the same platform that Americans overwhelmingly rejected in 2006 and 2008?
Perhaps it's because the message isn't getting out about what the Left stands for. This is a possibility. The center/center-left Liberal Party of Canada has been having somewhat of an identity crisis for the past several years, with voters unsure of what the party stands for; their traditional support has steadily eroded. But, if one looks at the fracturing of the Left in European countries, voters are clearly given a variety of options of left-wing choices and it's still not been enough, even for traditionally strong leftist countries like Sweden or Denmark.
One of the major problems facing the Left is this fracturing. The German Left is composed of the Greens, SPD, and Die Linke. The SPD has ruled out the possibility of any future coalition governments with Die Linke, who should be a natural ally. So has the Liberal Party of Canada thus far appeared offended at even the mention of joining with the social democratic NDP. The Obama administration's disdain for the "Professional Left" has been well-documented. If everyone on the Left apparently hates each other, then they cannot unite and therefore allow the Right to take control. The French Right is united behind the UMP, after several conservative and center-right parties merged together several years ago. For so-called "Big Tent" parties who were recently unseated by their conservative counterparts, like Labour in Britain or the SPD in Germany, the fracturing of the Left attributed to their decline in popularity, as traditional core supporters disliked Tony Blair's Third Way and support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, while German voters questioned just how socialist the SPD were after they introduced more right-wing policies, like raising the retirement age and changing the way social welfare payments were distributed. The SPD reached a new low in the 2009 Federal election, while the other parties on the German Left achieved historically high percentages.
American liberals became disillusioned with the Democrats when they perceived certain right-wing policies of the Obama administration, and they stayed home during the 2010 midterms. It can be inferred, therefore, that supporters of center-left or Left wing parties expect these parties to behave in a certain ideological fashion, an expectation that can be sometimes harsh on parties that have to develop policies in a more pragmatic fashion due to the circumstances of the situation.
The mutual dislike the Left feels for itself has only done more to damage to its common cause; austerity is the new nationalization in Europe as a result of conservative governments who proclaim to want to rein in spending and reduce deficits, but possibly have a thinly-veiled desire to tear up the social safety net. Pillars of Left-wing political monuments, like Britain's NHS or America's Social Security program are inching closer to the chop-block. For those who believe in a large government presence and social programs designed to smooth the rough edges of capitalism, they face a severe threat to their cherished ideals.
With in-fighting, blame, and accusations the order of the day for the Left, however, the defense of these pillars has become weaker at a time when they should be assured. For a resurgence of the Left, common cause and consensus will have to be found. As well, the impatience of many who want change and progress will have to be overcome, as the journey in the future will be a long, bumpy ride.
In the fictional science-fiction world of Star Wars, there is a constant battle fought between those who wield either one side or the other of the all-encompassing Force: the light side and the dark side. Fervent debate usually ensues whenever the question of which side is "better", but that's really the wrong question to be asking. The light side has certain advantages over the dark side, just as the dark side is better at other things that the light side is not. Both the light and dark side of the force are capable of being used to do incredible things; Yoda pulling the X-Wing out of the swamp or the Emperor's use of lightning from his fingertipsto inflict pain. But it's clear, from the evidence gathered from the six Star Wars films, that the dark side is the more powerful side of the force. This superior trait can be seen not just in lightsaber battles but also in the more subtle use of the force to confuse and mislead foes.
For example, a single Sith lord was able to masquerade as a seeming leader of the Galactic Senate, masking his intentions and clouding portions of the force from the most powerful Jedi in the galaxy for years. Darth Sidious, also known as Emperor Palpatine, engineered an incredible ruse whereby he became Chancellor, instigated a war, and managed to keep his identity as a powerful Sith lord from the legions of Jedis that surrounded him secret long enough to complete his coup d'etat over the entire galaxy. He somehow turned the vast majority of the Galactic Republic's military forces against the Jedi, effectively defeating the Jedi as an organized sect and ending the war with the Trade Federation virtually overnight. As well, Sidious managed to manipulate and exploit one of the most powerful wielders of the force to be seen in centuries when he turned Anakin Skywalker against his former brothers-in-arms, especially his mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Such feats can only be attributed to an incredible use of the dark side of the force, whose power was demonstrated by how long and total the charade of Palpatine as an ally endured. Darth Sidious wasn't just powerful in the use of the dark side for manipulation, however. He also, after being confronted as to his true identity, easily killed several Jedi Knights in mere seconds with the overwhelming power of the dark side. It is unsure whether or not his failure to also dispose of Mace Windu in single-combat was due to the Jedi's own prowess or if Palpatine was simply delaying the fight until he knew Anakin would be there to finally complete his betrayal.
In any case, there are other examples of Sith taking on multiple Jedi and barely breaking a sweat. Darth Tyranus fended off the challenge of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker at the same time, crippling Anakin and disabling Kenobi rather easily. After this battle, he fought Yoda, the greatest, most powerful Jedi, to a standstill. In the next film, Tyranus again fights two Jedi at the same time, and is only defeated when the more powerful Anakin (who wields two lightsabers) is manipulated into embracing his anger and exploiting the arrogance of Tyranus (both traits of the dark side).
As well, in his attempt to cut off the Sith takeover before it could finish, Yoda only manages to fight Sidious to a draw, not defeat him. Yoda failed in part because he refused to tap into the dark side of the force - something which light side wielders used at other times as the only apparent way to defeat a Sith.
Darth Maul easily handled two Jedi Knights at once, and the minute he was in single-combat with one, he again seemingly kills Qui-Gon Jinn with ease. It was only when a young Obi-Wan Kenobi felt anguish and anger at his friend's death that he began to defeat Darth Maul, but the Sith's defeat had more to do with his own arrogance than Kenobi's powers of the force; instead of simply finishing off the unarmed Jedi, Maul taunts him long enough to be taken by surprise when Kenobi rises up from the pit and destroys him.
It also appears that younger, less-experienced Sith are at least equal if not more powerful than many older, more-experienced Jedi. Darth Maul had recently finished his training and he was able to defeat the much older and more-experienced Qui-Gon Jinn. Darth Vader, very shortly after embracing the dark side, fought the older and more-experienced Obi-Wan Kenobi to a standstill; it was only when his arrogance took hold that he was defeated ("You underestimate my powers" he yells to his former Master, before being crippled and terribly burned).
The reverse doesn't appear to be true for the Jedi. Younger Jedi are unable to defeat older Sith, such as when Luke Skywalker was easily handled by Darth Vader and Darth Tyranus handled Obi-Wan and Anakin with relative ease.
While it's obvious, then, that use of the dark side results in, as Darth Sidious put it, "unimaginable power", its one great weakness appears to be pride and arrogance. Darth Maul was defeated when he began taunting his opponent; Darth Tyranus was defeated when he overestimated his own skill against that of a superior opponent; Darth Vader was defeated when he again overestimated his own skill and understimated his opponent's; the Emperor was eventually defeated because he felt too superior, too confident in his own skills to sense the danger in Vader possibly betraying him (itself a characteristic of the dark side).
If one seeks power and dominance, or if one sees the need to kill an opponent in combat, one should embrace the dark side. Obi-Wan defeated Darth Maul by embracing his anger at Qui-Gon's death; Luke Skywalker defeats Darth Vader by becoming incensed with rage at the mention of his sister turning to the dark side. When the Sith are able to overcome the one great weakness of the dark side of the force - arrogance -, as Darth Sidious was able to do for decades to great effect, they become unstoppable. The Jedi's great mistake is that they refuse to have anything to do with such a potent use of the force, while the Sith's is that they don't do enough to restrict the dangers of too much power gained too quickly. While the dark side is clearly more powerful, it is not "better" in that sense; the uses and abilities of the force are there for those who choose how to use it.
Several months ago, this blog advised the Democrats to grow a pair. They did not, and they paid for it in the midterms. Now, two months into the presidency of Barack Obama, what is the country's stance on the President and his policies? Those on the Right are unsurprisingly against almost everything he has ever said or done (though it must be said that this level of vehement rhetoric goes above and beyond that which was applied to Bill Clinton). The Left are equally as annoyed and disappointed in Obama, just for radically different reasons than the Right is. How has the President managed to dismay and anger just about everybody?
Conservative critics point out that the Obama administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars that would reduce unemployment to under 8%; when this number stayed relatively high, they could then claim that the stimulus was a waste of money, government spending was out of control, and the size of the government had substantially increased. As Paul Krugman has pointed out on several differentoccasions in several different ways, this critique is almost completely false: while it was naive to claim the stimulus would reduce unemployment to under 8%, it was largely composed of tax cuts/credits and only a fraction as large as it needed to be to spur economic growth; the supposed "huge increase in government spending" is almost entirely related to increased unemployment benefits, health care spending, etc., as a result of the financial crisis. While small-government conservatives were bound to be aggrieved at any perceived government interaction in the economy, the Left is equally up in arms over the Obama presidency. Their disillusionment with the course of the administration had a huge effect on allowing the Republicans to sweep back into power in the House. This disillusionment springs from the perceived disparity in "campaign Obama" and President Obama. Now, anyone who had read his books or looked into his political views during the 2008 primaries would not be surprised by how his presidency has gone; he has largely stuck with a cautious, well-thought out approach that clings to the center and attempts to gain bipartisan consensus on important issues. But voters by and large didn't want a centrist, get-'er-done president. They wanted true "change to believe in", like Obama himself talked about whilst campaigning:
Conservatives might take his "fundamentally transforming the United States" quote in a decidedly darker direction, but many of those rapturous faces on November 4, 2008 hoped and believed in this fundamental transformation. This perception of who they wanted Obama to be and who he has governed as has led to the classic situation of glass half-full/glass half-empty.
The half-full view has a pretty favorable view of the president: he's actually been the most progressive president the country has seen for decades (which says a lot about the political spectrum in the U.S.); Congress has been more productive in 2 years than many other sessions were in entire terms; the stimulus bill and other financial measures halted what could have been a Great Depression-like meltdown; he's been hampered not only by vociferous Republican dissent, but also members of his own party (other liberal presidents like FDR and LBJ had well over 60 Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation, a luxury Obama could have only dreamt of); the Affordable Care Act is a giant step closer to providing if not single-payer then more affordable health care to as many Americans as possible; the financial reform bill will help to prevent future Wall Street excesses from getting out of hand and damaging the economy; Obama is after all, not a wizard, but rather just one part of the three branches of government - he cannot force his will upon the rest of the government to do what he wants.
From this point of view, the Obama presidency has been pretty productive so far, despite some setbacks and downers that are inevitable for any presidency. This perspective on the president is, unfortunately for Obama, in a constant fight for supremacy against the glass half-empty critics on the Left; the half-empties apparently were winning the fight enough for the midterms to be a "shellacking" for Obama and the Democrats.
Those on the Left who truly wanted fundamental change wanted a president who would fight for them, not the plutocrats. They wanted the banks nationalized, a bigger stimulus, single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an end to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay closed, etc. Instead of breaking up the banks or nationalizing them, Obama's "socialist" policies supported those of George Bush, who essentially threw money at the Big Banks without asking them what they were going to do with it (by comparison, Germany's government - composed of conservatives and neoliberals - enacted a financial rescue package to the left of Obama and the Democrats).
The stimulus was decently-sized, but needed to be much larger; Obama could have fought for a bigger piece of the pie, but instead paraded around the insufficient stimulus as if it would truly cure the country's financial woes. After almost ruining health care reform, the Democrats had to settle for leaving the industry in private hands, thereby ensuring a morally and fiscally irresponsible system could continue. Not even the weak-sauce public-option was that important to the President, apparently.
The financial reform bill did not go nearly far enough in making sure Wall Street's influence on the overall economy would be reduced, letting them off the hook once again. At a time when corporate profits and hedge funds are raking in the dough more than ever, Obama's response was to ensure they keep making millions and billions of dollars while middle-class and poor Americans remain homeless and jobless. On the civil liberties front, Obama's track record is downright deplorable: Guantanamo Bay remains open, the Patriot Act and its flagrant violations of basic rights, including torture, was continued. Such continuations of Bush-era policies were not what people had in mind when they voted for "Change we can believe in". Obama's lukewarm support for gay rights has become increasingly irritating to those who no longer wish to wait for progress. Many wonder why he does not simply issue an executive order to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell - much like Truman did when he desegregated the Army in 1948.
While it is true that Obama has reduced troop levels in Iraq, 50,000 soldiers still remain as occupiers in a foreign country while 30,000 additional troops were sent to continue the occupation of another foreign country - costing precious lives and dollars in the process.
To top off the right-wing health care reform, right-wing stimulus, right-wing violations of civil liberties, and right-wing financial reform, Obama basically told the Left "shut up and take what we give you". No wonder many liberals were unmotivated to vote in the midterms - Obama had turned out to be much more like Mitt Romney than Dennis Kucinich.
Where does the truth lie among all these views, opinions, and condemnations of President Obama? Things are certainly not so black, white, and gray like the Left, the Right, and the middle seem to think.
Republican obstructionism cannot be overstated - the filibuster has been used by Republicans more in the last 2 years than in the entire nineteenth century -, meaning that a simple majority is no longer enough to pass legislation. And the president can only sign the bills that come before him; while the House has passed an array of progressive legislation, this has often been watered-down or rejected by the Senate. Clearly, the president would prefer to have passed a more comprehensive climate-change bill, a bigger stimulus, or let tax cuts for the rich expire. In his opinion, the votes weren't there and these were the best options he could come up with. Unfortunately for Obama, the Democrats' failure to break Senate filibusters is frustrating to many voters who view them as being more weak-kneed than they might actually be. This in turn reflects badly upon the president, who must shoulder much of this criticism. Not to mention the vitriol being spewed about the President from the Right - it's quite breathtaking in its hysterics and predictions of doom. Perhaps the reason the Right's criticism has been so vicious is because of Obama's success - conservatives would absolutely love it if one of their candidates had been a media darling like Obama was in 2008.
The president seems to think that a lot of the criticism coming his way is because he hasn't enacted enough change in a quick enough fashion. But partisan supporters aren't idiots or overly optimistic. They realize that politics is politics and they won't get everything they want right away and in exactly the way they want it to. No doubt conservatives were annoyed with Bush for not being able to make abortions illegal or privatize social security. No, the problem many disappointed Obama supporters have with the president is not that he hasn't enacted change fast enough, but that he hasn't even really attempted to be the president he persuaded people he would be.
The President showed an embrace of the kind of leftist-populism motivating progressives when running in 2008, but has since showed a sort of apprehension or even disdain for actually governing from the center-left. Perhaps afraid of the political/social ramifications of enacting truly progressive legislation too rapidly, Obama has often said that he is looking farther down the road with his policies than many are seeing. This trepidation for more leftist policies seems to be borne from a desire to win over moderates and gain some support from the Right, which is slightly naive in that he has stuck with trying to be bipartisan after it had become abundantly clear to everyone that there was no interest on the other side of the aisle. There are, however, examples of politicians steering to the left and achieving success, which gives credence to the notion of a different tack for the administration. Obama's enthusiasm gap stems from the changed perception of him as bringing change to being a "business-as-usual" guy. If voters had wanted someone who could be a good politician, beat the Republicans at their own game, and knuckle-down to get things done, surely they would have voted for Hillary Clinton. But voters wanted radical transformation, not business as usual.
To think that one man could change an entire faulty, broken system is ridiculous - the problem lies rather in that Obama hasn't looked like he wants to change the system. If the president had railed against Big Banks and Wall Street, advocated for a much larger stimulus and outlined a comprehensive plan, clearly calling for single-payer health care but had then been stymied in Congress, he could rightfully say to voters "I'm trying my best here to get the things done that this country truly needs, to truly help change our nation for the better. But these other guys don't want that; they want business as usual. If you want to see true change, vote against them and vote for change in 2010." In such a scenario, even if Obama loses, he wins. Instead, he began bargaining in the middle, hoping for bipartisanship and then paraded around such little victories as though they were V-E Day, while also castigating the Left for wanting a bit more than standard Democratic politicos. Such a maneuver has clearly failed to motivate or inspire those who voted en masse for Obama.
Motivation was always going to be difficult to maintain after the euphoria that greeted Barack Obama's presidential election. The disillusionment that has gradually increased from Obama supporters is perhaps slightly unfair, as the president is simply being the kind of politician he's always been. It is, however, his fault for embracing progressive rhetoric to get elected and then dropping the brand when he entered the White House.
While some of his policies aren't as strong or effective as they could be - the Bush-era continuation of civil liberties violations is scandalous - much good has come from his presidency. Though one step forward instead of three or five is a small step, it is a step nonetheless. The alternative is and will remain unthinkable and unforgivable. Much of politics is about perception. Obama needs to persuade those who most want to believe in him that it is worth doing so.
Just two years after sweeping to power and gaining control of the Presidency and Congress, the Democrats lost a massive amount of seats in the House and Senate, as well as several state governorships, during the 2010 midterm elections in a stunning resurgence for the Republican party. Is this turnaround the "will of the people", a strong rebuke of the "liberal policies" of President Obama and the Democrats, as many Republicans are wont to say? Well, that depends. It depends on how many people voted, who voted, and why they voted for whom they did.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are roughly 210 million or so eligible voters in the United States. In 2008, 63% or 131,000,000 voted in the Presidential election. The 2010 midterms saw this number fall to just 89 million, which translates to about 40% voter turnout. This kind of lower turnout is normal for midterm elections, but nevertheless it means that a substantial amount of citizens stayed at home, either those who voted in 2008 and those who did not.
Does a 40% minority of eligible voters represent the "will of the American people"? No, not really. Not at all, actually, when one examines a bit further who of this 40% voted.
According to exit polls, embarrassingly low amounts of young people and minorities exercised their democratic rights this past November. Millions of Obama supporters, who had helped elect him in 2008, stayed home. 29 million or so, to give an estimate. On top of that, 13% of people who had voted for Obama in 2008 switched sides and voted Republican in 2010. As well, the people who did vote tended much more strongly to be middle-aged or senior citizens, white, and conservative or at least Republican-leaning. Many self-proclaimed moderates also favored the Republicans more so than Democrats.
This older, more homogeneous, more Republican demographic that turned out returned to the Republicans previously conservative strongholds that had swung to Obama and the Democrats in 2008, as well springing a few surprises on established Democratic incumbents, like in Illinois and Wisconsin. Indeed, the more fiscally conservative and moderate Blue Dogs lost half of their seats to Republicans in districts that had gone to the Democrats in the previous election.
The reasons for why so many Obama supporters and Democratic voters either didn't show up or voted Republican can be discussed in a separate article. The main question is what the most important issue was to those who bothered voting, and the answer is overwhelmingly because of the poor state of the economy. It's clear that few Americans have much faith, if any, in Congress and that President Obama's fiscal policies have not done enough to spur economic growth. Despite some neo-conservative claims that voters were rejecting the Democrats' and Obama's liberalism, the fact is that most people didn't consider the President's policies when deciding for whom to vote. 63% of voters said the economy was the most important issue to them, and those who said so voted 54% to 43% for the Republicans.
So moderate voters went more for Republicans to see if they could fix the economy any better than the Democrats had for the past 2 years (no doubt unaware, unwilling to recognize, or uncaring that the Republicans had in the most dickish fashion possible blocked and obstructed any and every form of economic assistance put forth by the Democrats). Republican voters unsurprisingly voted for Republicans, which combined with the moderate voters' economic concerns and liberal disillusionment with President Obama and the Democrats to hand the GOP a huge political win.
Pretty straightforward, really. The 2010 midterms seemed to be more a fragmented, haphazard display of the American two-party system, albeit accidentally. Of course, there are also the plutocratic reasons for the GOP victory: Some voters might have thought evil things about government, health care, Obama, the deficit, etc. But in American politics, money talks and money largely went with the Republican party; conservative organizations outspent liberal ones 2-1, and large special-interest industries bankrolled Republican campaigns. This was the most expensive midterm election ever, with over $4 billion spent; is it surprising that special-interests, corporations, and Big Money industries spent large amounts of cash on politicians who were far to the right of the President's mildly liberal rhetoric of reform?
A representative democracy should reflect the wants, needs, and opinions of the populace; American democracy increasingly is representative of only a small portion of population, either through plutocracy or voter apathy as a indirect result of plutocracy. The will of conservatives is certainly clear now; they demonstrated that simply by showing up at the polls, something that liberals and Democrats did not nearly do enough of to hold back the Right. Conservatives clearly want less government spending, lower taxes, a repeal of healthcare, blah, blah, blah. But what does the rest of the country want? What do the vast majority of Americans want? Not what the GOP is selling, that's for sure.
What does this mean for the future? The Republicans can no longer simply oppose any and everything the Democrats propose for the purpose of painting the President a failure...or maybe they can. They may try to throw some meat to their base and repeal health care, but that is extremely unlikely to pass. They may end up compromising with Democrats on certain issues, and be obstructionist and irresponsibly selfish on other subjects, which very well could end in a suspension of the government. Such a fiasco would unquestionably harm the country, but this is what people voted for and what they may receive.
At a time of deep economic crisis, the United States requires leadership, responsibility, cool heads, and sensibility. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the people will get this with the incoming group of Republicans, but time will only tell.
What's the difference between Quebec and the Sudetenland? Aside from the obvious different eras of time in which they exist, the two regions have both much in common and quite a bit that's different. The major theme binding the two together though, is the question of autonomy and how a state can deal with its disparate regions in a practical manner. The idea of self-determination, self-autonomy, sovereignty, whatever you want to call it, has led to bloodshed in the past, and continues to disrupt life as we know it in places all over the world, from Russia to Kosovo, from Turkey to Sri Lanka.
The first thing to consider with autonomy is the historical context. Quebec's is pretty straightforward: Originally colonized by the French, the sparsely-populated northeastern part of North America was a French-speaking outpost mainly used to sell furs for the European market. As France's other colonies in the Caribbean were much more valuable, they basically gave Quebec over to the British in relief after the latter won the Seven Years' War (French and Indian War).
Quebec's geographic position in Canada
Thus, the mainly Catholic and French-speaking former colony of France became a part of the British Empire, where Anglicanism and the English language were dominant. It wasn't as bad as it sounds, though, considering that the English actually gave Quebec quite a bit of leniency in regards to their civil laws, courts, language, and religion. Sure, they were still not allowed to independently rule themselves, something which helped cause the rebellions of 1837 and 1838, but these were put down relatively easily by the ruling British. As the decades passed and British North American turned into the Dominion of Canada, things were relatively quiet on the cultural radar of Quebec.
The 1960s is when things really heated up, during the so-called "Quiet Revolution". In only two decades, Quebec transitioned into a secular and industrialized province with a rather large portion of the population advocating separation from Canada, or at the least, significantly more autonomy. The sovereigntists helped elect the new Parti Québécois to power in the province, the first time a provincial government actively advocated secession from Canada. Two referendums on the subject of whether or not Quebec should be independent (or semi-independent), one in 1980 and one in 1995, both rejected outright independence, albeit by merely a whisker in 1995.
The Sudetenland's tale is quite different than Quebec's. Most people learn about the Sudetenland when studying the origins of World War II, in which the mainly German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia was willingly handed over to Hitler by the Allies in exchange for peace in 1938. The story behind the Munich Conference is, however, much more complex than this simple rendition shows.
The term Sudetenland didn't even come into usage until the 1930s, and was only then used as a way of differentiating German-speaking Bohemians from Czech-speaking ones. The history of Germans and Czechs in Bohemia goes back centuries, as ethnic Germans began settling on Bohemian crown lands around 1100. The two groups generally lived in harmony over time, though they did indeed have separate existences, divided into their own ethno-cultural groups. But Bohemia was included in first the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, then the Habsburg Monarchy, in which the German language and culture was accorded the highest status. To be non-German or speak a Slavic tongue meant to be backwards, a peasant, uncultured. Until the 19th century, Germans considered Bohemia and Prague as German as Bavaria and Munich.
Problems only really began to arise when nationalism was awakened in the Slavic peoples of East and Central Europe, who resented the condescension and privileges awarded to the smaller German group. As the Empire became more liberal and allowed greater freedoms to its constituents, the balance of power among Germans and Czechs began to drastically change from a German position of power to that of the Czechs.
Beginning in the 1850s and carrying through to the start of World War I, Czechs slowly began to award themselves more privileges and powers previously given only to Germans, causing both Czech and German nationalism to rise in competition. With the influx of nationalism, what would otherwise have been normal democratizations of daily life became battles in a struggle of "nations"; the reduction of German-language schools was seen as catastrophic, the question of an official language provoked heated debate, and tempers on both sides came to a breaking point.
World War I postponed a possible violent destruction of the Habsburg Monarchy, but the war's aftermath wasn't very acceptable to German-speakers either. Despite plebiscites held that declared German-Bohemian desire to join the new Austrian or German Republics, the Allies unilaterally declared the eastern rim of Czechoslovakia that was called the Sudetenland to remain under Czech control. The central government in Prague then ruled over some three and a half million Germans who did not desire to be a minority in a Slavic state. The questions with which to be concerned are now: Is/were the minority justified in wanting more autonomy? In what way did/do the majority deal with the question of autonomy in regards to their minority? How were the situations of the Sudeten Germans and Francophone Canadians similar or different?
For both cases, both French-speaking Quebeckers and German-speaking Bohemians were justified in wanting some form of autonomy, but a better question would be as to how much autonomy they should be granted. Similar complaints from both groups were that they were underrepresented in the civil service, their language was not regarded in the same way as the majority's, and they both felt at least slightly oppressed. The major difference that enabled Quebec to peacefully remain part of Canada and allowed the fascist dictatorship in Germany to annex the Sudetenland was in how the federal government responded to calls for autonomy.
In Canada, French became an official language, the national flag got rid of any British sentiment, the national anthem is sung in both languages, and some accommodations were made to promote bilingualism, equality, and justice for both Anglophones and Francophones. Being a Canadian province means that Quebec is somewhat independent, having their own government and premier. As well, despite the rise of sovereigntist parties in Quebec, there was always still the option of voting for federal parties that were open to every province and every person, regardless of language or ethnicity. With the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, Francophones could at least perceive that the government was making an effort to achieve some kind of balance, even if this attempt was ultimately dissatisfying and unsuccessful.
Notwithstanding the rather stark contrasts in the geo-political situations facing Canada and Central Europe in the 1930s, the central government in Prague made some major mistakes in attempting to deal with the issue of autonomy. In Czechoslovakia, the Germans were not the only ones who desired some form of autonomy; there were many Slovakians who also wanted to be free of what they saw as Czech dominance, as well as thousands of Poles, Ruthenians, and Hungarians. The problem with the First Czechoslovak Republic was that its leaders saw it as a nation-state, when in actuality it was 50% non-Czech. The national flag reflected on Czech and Slovak cultures; passports were in "Czechoslovak" and French only; coins, stamps, and other minutiae of daily life were only in Czech or presented Czech nationalist images; even political parties were divided along ethnic lines, meaning that a German in Bohemia could not vote for any party but the ethnically German ones. There was no "Bohemian Party" that was open to every ethnicity. There were no provincial parliaments in Czechoslovakia, meaning that the fervent German desire to at least partly govern themselves went unfulfilled. In Czechoslovakia's case, the German's perception was that they were unfairly persecuted and ignored because of their Germanness; this perception led to an opportunity for the National Socialist regime to exploit the situation, which they did with great aplomb.
Though calls for sovereignty or independence for Quebec have recently quieted down, the continuing strong showings of the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois demonstrate it still is an issue. When compared with the situation of the Sudeten Germans and Czechoslovakia - an experience that saw fascism, murder, and expulsion -, French-Canadians can count themselves lucky and fortunate to live in the tolerant, responsible, and open-minded country that they do.
The rap and hip-hop scene is constantly seeing new artists emerge with smash-hits; a recent example can be seen in the new-found popularity of B.O.B. (who was written about earlier on this blog). This trend is continuing in spectacular fashion, as can be seen in the following four young rappers.
