Manetheren Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I assume then that you consider your far flung island possessions to be a colony as well, since they are not geographically a part of your home islands, New Zealand. As to the rest of your point, it is completely irrelevant. Such could be said about any part of any nation, regardless of geographic location. There are rural regions of Tahoe that any average Tahoan would find more strange and foreign than Hawaii, are they colonies as well? No, of course not. Your mindless bickering is rather grating, and the nations of America have made it quite clear that colonies are unacceptable on our continent. Leave us in peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 the nations of America have made it quite clear that colonies are unacceptable on our continent. Leave us in peace. Are not the nations of the Pacific entitled to the same curtsey regarding our ocean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Are not the nations of the Pacific entitled to the same curtsey regarding our ocean? Tahoe's livelyhood is based around the Pacific Ocean. A vast majority of our trade, economy and history is based in the Pacific. Early American explorers strove to find the Pacific and when Tahoe was founded, 90% of the population lived within 50 miles of the ocean. So yes, I would say as a Pacific rim nation, Tahoe is entitled to the courtesy of controlling its own land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) The Republic of Tahoe can correct me if I am wrong, though I doubt I am, but I believe that there are very few traces of the native people left on Hawaii. Very much like there are very few traces of the Seminole tribe here in Xaristan. I'm sure many, if not all, citizens on Hawaii can trace their heritage back generations to Irish-Americans. Therefore, they are not a people subject to a foreign rule. Well then it it would be a territory subject to foreign rule, under your definition. Moreover that the indigenous population has been more or less wiped out in fact really only cements their status as a colony even more. A colony generally speaking is produced when a nation transplants its own populous into a given area. This specific definition I draw from is the same one used by tahoe when I was arguing against abandoning the norfolk settlement. Please show me a single history book with a continent labeled the "Pacific Islands". And people wonder why we don't listen to such an incompetent government. I am sure the history books in GA separate the pacific isles as their own entity as many other history books. Generally its referred to as "oceania". As GA has de-facto pre-eminence over the pacifican area then then I suppose their definition is really the only one that matters. As you stated the maps and conceptions of "continents" and "regional spheres" are human creations. They were original conceived of by cartographers in Europe. Therefore their definition is subject to change. Just because the islands were not strong enough to repel invasion by foreign continents doesn't mean that is the fact anymore. So basically my entire point out of all this is, either the hawwian islands are a colony by definition and its merely a hypocritical act, or all settlements on north america that do not have any of the indigenous population in their area of influence are legal settlements. And not colonies. Oceania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania Except that all islands are, inherently, tied to a continent. All of your islands are considered a part of the Australian continent. I ask you again, where is Hawaii closer to? If we base it off the mainlands, Hawaii is 2000mi from the mainland North America and 5200mi from mainland Australia, and approximately 4000mi from Japan. 2000 seems a lot less than 5200 or 4000, therefore it only makes sense that Hawaii is considered part of the North American continent. The way the geo-political realm has worked things out the pacific has always been considered a separate sphere of influence. Indications of this being, it has its own bloc, Pax Pacifica like any other continent. It has a strong regional power, GA like the DE, or like Tahoe. It has a separate and distinct history which is interlined to itself, not linked to a foreign separate continent. Also new Zeland isn't part of the Austrialian continent as has been pointed out, they are like the kerguelens or india, attached to a larger submerged sub-continent. That is exclusively theres. In either case as we have said before we don't really care, we would just like to see a little consistency and a greater sense of openness in the world. These doctrines are very outdated in our opinion. Edited July 7, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tahoe's livelyhood is based around the Pacific Ocean. A vast majority of our trade, economy and history is based in the Pacific. Early American explorers strove to find the Pacific and when Tahoe was founded, 90% of the population lived within 50 miles of the ocean. So yes, I would say as a Pacific rim nation, Tahoe is entitled to the courtesy of controlling its own land. Please Clarify. Is Tahoe a Pacific Nation, or is a North American Nation? Common sense would put it as a North American Nation, however, if you want to be classified as a Pacific Nation, then please inform us. The slight problem is that as a North American Nation, you have the ability to sign articles like this, however, while holding your colony of Hawaii, it is highly hypocritical. As a Pacific nation, it would not be hypocritical, however, you would have no right or ability to sign these articles. As a nation Tahoe is entitled to the courtesy of controlling its own land. We just wish for you to admit you own a colony (and hence are highly hypocritical in signing these articles) or for you to preserve your integrity by releasing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 We fail to see the difference between The Alliance's pre-reduction enclave in Norfolk and a state such as Ecuador, a part of Rebel Army. As we recall, the infrastructure was as developed as possible and the people were given both home rule and representation in the government of The Alliance. As such, we fail to see the differences between Ecuador and Norfolk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted November 23, 2009 Report Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) did not realize this was a gravedig, thought this was an active thread please dont punish me Edited November 23, 2009 by graniteknight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.