[QUOTE=Miskav;32098501]Why though?
You'll still be living in the same place, you'll be living with the same people.
Like in my area, we have 1 mayor for basically 12 towns/cities, yet we all still live in our respective towns.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't know about Italy, but we have this idea over here that nobody but a certain area's populace has any idea how life is for them, thus they are the only ones qualified to make laws pertaining to that. Even our large cities like Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco are really just lots of small independent cities.
Call me "dumb," but look where Italy has been for the past century ever since the peninsula became a nation.
There's a very good reason why Italy has had such weak governments for so long. It's part of the same reason that 20th century Italian immigrants didn't identify themselves with Italy, but the (former) city-state they were a part of.
[QUOTE=Robber;32098333]First Greece and now Italy are protesting against SPENDING LESS MONEY. I don't get it. They have so much dept the US looks wealthy compared to them.[/QUOTE]
If you were going with a warm view that 'cutting' spending is the only part that austerity entails, then you are looking at it from the wrong angle.
Its 'cutting spending' but often in areas a good deal of the populace relies on- education, infrastructure, healthcare, public sector, etc. that are substational in many European countries. Not only are those cut but taxes are hiked up on them too.
All the while the people who arguably cause these problems- the businessmen and corruption in the government- are hardly addressed. These people feel that they are being made to bear the sacrifice and costs of a problem they didn't even cause.
I don't blame them for being angry.
Awesome
more of those retarded bite-size european countries :geno:
I readed the title "Italian town Fellatio declares independence".
Oh man, Veneto are gunna be piiiiiiissed
I'm ready for Sicily to gives a resounding middle finger and leave Italy already.
[QUOTE=Reimu;32097218]Italy really never should've been its own country in the first place, personally-speaking.
Unifying Italy destroys the dynamic of competition.[/QUOTE]
yes because balkanisation is really such a wonderful thing
Oh hey, a third miniature country within Italy. What's up with Italy and mini-countries? They got San Marino and they got the Vatican.
[QUOTE=mac338;32099457]Oh hey, a third miniature country within Italy. What's up with Italy and mini-countries? They got San Marino and they got the Vatican.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of the Vatican, did you know that the age of consent there is 12?
Themoaryouknow.jpg
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32099414]yes because balkanisation is really such a wonderful thing[/QUOTE]
Well I'm not saying it should go ahead and fall apart now. That's the last thing the EU needs.
But Italian Unification to begin with was an awful, awful idea. Italians never saw themselves as Italians, they saw themselves by their city-states. There's no way you can have a strong national government if the people can't find a strong national identity. Italian Unification was basically trying to build a sturdy house on mud.
[QUOTE=Reimu;32099612]Well I'm not saying it should go ahead and fall apart now. That's the last thing the EU needs.
But Italian Unification to begin with was an awful, awful idea. Italians never saw themselves as Italians, they saw themselves by their city-states. There's no way you can have a strong national government if the people can't find a strong national identity.[/QUOTE]
Ima be a historytard and rant for a bit.
Correction, they didn't start to see themselves as Italians until the Napoleonic era. From 1796-1798 Napoleon, still a general, had created several Italian republics (which later joined to become a single Cisalpine Republic) that were free from the Austrians and had elective government for the first time, and said republic drew a great deal from the ideals of the French Revolution. Given, many Italians weren't used to this type of government, but nor were they particularly of the opinion that it was a bad idea either, thus it left behind the seeds of nationalism that survive to the present day. Semi-useless note, the Cisalpine Republic was the first entity to use the flag of Italy we know today. In addition, later in 1805 it became the Kingdom of Italy, which to my knowledge is the first state in the peninsula that used the term "Italy" in its name.
So in other words, Italians definitely had a strong sense of nationalism from then on which reached its peak in the late 19th century. Admittedly though, I am oversimplifying it. It really depends on the parts of Italy you go to. Some identify themselves as Italian first, others don't. But overall there is a strong national identity, at least that's how I gauged it everytime I visit Italy or talk to Italian people. Although I can't say the same for Sicily since I haven't been there yet.
To be fair, you can also look at the strong sense of nationalism in the 20th century with Italian fascism, which is a strong evidence of a focus in a higher, national power. And it really isn't right to say that Italy doesn't have a national focus in the modern day, though.
I think the real lost, though, is that there was no strong desire [i]to[/i] nationalize or have a republic government. The fact that Garibaldi was at odds with the Piedmontese at the end of the Expedition of the Thousand, when the two were essentially allies, is a somewhat frightening example. Italy could have easily fallen apart if Garibaldi had not appeased. There wasn't really a centralized process to forming Italy, and I've felt that that has hindered the country to the modern-day.
Now if only South Tyrol did this.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;32100003]History Channel International, basically, but with words and I don't fall asleep.[/QUOTE]So it's a lot like how individuals from certain states identify themselves as being from said states? I mean, if prompted we'll say "I'm American" but we automatically say "Oh, I'm from X state." This is especially true with states that have a very strong identity, I think. It makes sense, Italy has had quite an interesting history and the individual city states had to fight hard to stay independent. Identities are formed and despite having an Italian national identity, the original ones are still intact and preserved.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;32100334]So it's a lot like how individuals from certain states identify themselves as being from said states? I mean, if prompted we'll say "I'm American" but we automatically say "Oh, I'm from X state." This is especially true with states that have a very strong identity, I think. It makes sense, Italy has had quite an interesting history and the individual city states had to fight hard to stay independent. Identities are formed and despite having an Italian national identity, the original ones are still intact and preserved.[/QUOTE]
I was actually thinking about how you could compare the US and Italian states very closely during this discussion. My perspective on Italian identity in Italian Unification has always been a little similar to the Articles of Confederation-style US identity, which was more state-focused primarily.
[QUOTE=Reimu;32100207]To be fair, you can also look at the strong sense of nationalism in the 20th century with Italian fascism, which is a strong evidence of a focus in a higher, national power. And it really isn't right to say that Italy doesn't have a national focus in the modern day, though.
I think the real lost, though, is that there was no strong desire [i]to[/i] nationalize or have a republic government. The fact that Garibaldi was at odds with the Piedmontese at the end of the Expedition of the Thousand, when the two were essentially allies, is a somewhat frightening example. Italy could have easily fallen apart if Garibaldi had not appeased. There wasn't really a centralized process to forming Italy, and I've felt that that has hindered the country to the modern-day.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's accurate to say Italy has a problem with national unity, not any more than any other country that had to unite from disparate political entities. Much less that it is somehow the reason for its economic problems currently. I don't want to come off as mean, but that really has little basis at all.
All countries that exist in Europe (and the rest of the world, for that matter) formed themselves from smaller political entities as you probably know Italy isn't unique with this. Germany had just as much of a problem with its smaller political units when it truly unified, having to overcome differences in religion, dialect, and differences between nobility, the emerging capitalists and industrialists, and commoners. France before the centralization of the state had components like Burgundy, Normandy, Brittany, Occitania, etc ...
In the aftermath a lot of countries would lionize their unification, and claim that the majority of the populace supported it. This is not completely true, and in this we lost the fact that in fact unification into nation-states was a much longer and tougher process for all involved.
Italy's unification was more difficult than others due to issues resulting from industrialization. Unlike in Germany and France where economic development (and the resulting social changes) was mostly even, in Italy it was not. This made it difficult for post-unification government to impose a more 'modern' system from Turin onto the ones in other parts of the country in different phases of development. For example, Southern Italy was by and large backwards to the point that it still ran the latifundium system- basically a throwback to feudalism- and this wasn't even completely resolved until land reforms in 1950s. This is also why most Italians in the United States and South America were themselves mostly from the south and Sicily.
It also is worth noting that the biggest threat to Italy post-unification was hardly secessionist groups but commoners demanding changes to civil code. One such example was Fasci Siciliani which took inspiration from republican and even socialist views in their drive to get a nation-wide system of legislation to address working conditions and the rights of commoners. The government had largely settled on not attempting to break apart the lifestyles of nobility in other parts of Italy and accommodated them where they could- this is what retarded economic progress the most.
It doesn't make sense to blame Italy's current problems on not being a national entity because it is imaginary and divorces history from its social and political context. The only political group that really agitates for this is Lega Nord, and that's mainly because businessmen from richer cities in the north want to separate their economy from the rest of the economy, and get some citizens to go along with it due to the conception that southern cities are draining their taxes and leeching off welfare or something. It is worth noting that the concept of 'seceding' was so unpopular in the national scene that the Lega Nord had to say 'federalism' instead.
This conversation would be more relevant if we had it before WW I when there active secessionist groups and issues with the weak central government, in particular the Sicilian and Sardinian movements. Such organizations are negligible if not nonexistent currently.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;32100334]So it's a lot like how individuals from certain states identify themselves as being from said states? I mean, if prompted we'll say "I'm American" but we automatically say "Oh, I'm from X state." This is especially true with states that have a very strong identity, I think. It makes sense, Italy has had quite an interesting history and the individual city states had to fight hard to stay independent. Identities are formed and despite having an Italian national identity, the original ones are still intact and preserved.[/QUOTE]
Basically, yes. The exception of course being immigrants and minorities, though some also want to be American first. In Italy it's more of a wild card really since as you said, Italy's history is much more older and richer than ours. Not saying our history sucks though, but you get the idea.
Given, I don't know Italian history very well, since my specialization in history (ie the period of time I nerdgasm over the most) is the Napoleonic era, so I'm basing a lot of this on my visits there. Seems like Merc knows what he's talking about though :v
Yeah, my focus on Italian history is very broad and is more about comparing Italy to Europe as a whole.
Merc has a lot more knowledge of Italy's national formation than I do.
City states are coming back? What is this, the medieval era?
[editline]4th September 2011[/editline]
A city state could go bankrupt very quickly if they don't have the resource to run it as a nation.
[QUOTE=shrinkme;32097226][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/M8tl2.jpg[/IMG]
DOSH[/QUOTE]
Mio nome, mio nome, mio nome, é Loadsamoney
[QUOTE=BCell;32105617]City states are coming back? What is this, the medieval era?
[editline]4th September 2011[/editline]
A city state could go bankrupt very quickly if they don't have the resource to run it as a nation.[/QUOTE]
San Marino are running a surplus.
[QUOTE=shrinkme;32097226][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/M8tl2.jpg[/IMG]
DOSH[/QUOTE]
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/888382/DOSH.jpg[/img]
[b]DOSH[/b]
all that effort for a photoshop and I don't even get a single artistic rating... woe is me
[QUOTE=Careld;32078522]I wonder if Italy should break up back to city states..[/QUOTE]
I TOLD YOU BRO!
I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE CITY STATES!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.