Talk:Felipia

Please tell me how I can change this if it violates QSS or QAA. I wrote it knowing nothing about the Isidorian rite in IB, so please help me fit this into IB Duane 20:45, 19 December 2005 (PST)

I would think that now that Her Majesty the Queen is in power they are better treated than under Jorge Bush, and that the sentiment would be shifting away from independence. I'll give it a better review tomorrow, but I feel this is a very good initial proposal! BoArthur 22:25, 19 December 2005 (PST)

Not necessarily. During Bush's reign, he might well have been content to let the Felipese go about their business as long as they didn't cause him any trouble. Given their location among the Mejican border, he may even have dealt with them as (reluctant) allies. Alternately, Mejico may have enforced a form of autonomy in the area (similar to the Kurds in Iraq *here* between the Gulf Wars I and II) Now that hostilities are lowered, the queen could well be looking forward to strengthening the union, curtailing the limited autonomy the Felipese had before, or, alternately, Mejico's protection would be dropped, and they'd be left with Tejas trying to reintegrate them. Again, not unlike the Kurds *here* reluctantly being brought back into Iraq. Nik 22:42, 19 December 2005 (PST)

I really don't think Mr Bush would have been content to "let the Felipese go about their business" just because they didn't give trouble!

Their very location (straddling the Rio Grande) means that by definition, Felipese = Trouble. Even before Mr Bush came to power, previous prsidentes and kings would have had to keep an Eye on that region. In a similar way that Dûnein and Brehon Becq (Little Britain) are thorns in the sides of France and Kemr, the Felipese regions of Mejico and Tejas would be troublesome to those two countries. I'm sure that smuggling, criminal activity and uprisings were the national sports (much like they have been in Dûnein and Brehon Becq!).

Smuggling may well have been why Bush was so lenient on them. I imagine that there would probably have been economic sanctions against Tejas by at least Mejico. If the Felipese helped smuggle in needed supplies, that might well have been a point in their favor in Bush's eye. Nik 20:04, 20 December 2005 (PST)

I'm sure that Mejico and Tejas would alternately adopt policies of tolerance and oppression depending on the present situation. The current government of Tejas would probably follow in those footsteps too.

Quick note--I like what I've seen. How did the Felipese end up in America? And about when did this happen? Zahir 07:08, 20 December 2005 (PST)

Me too. I would have thought that they were more appreciative of the liberalising aspects of Her Majesty's government since the overthrow of the previous Dictator. Who knows? Perhaps the Felipese idea if "libertà" is a little bit different than everyone elses! They would be smart to curb the more radical secessionists, though. Wiser heads would undoubtedly caution that the new government is not entirely secure in its possession of Tejas, and might react a little too strongly if the Felipese push too hard for an independence they're unlikely to secure. They might take notes on how their Latvian and German bretheren in Tejas behave. They're more than happy to do their own thing within the confines of Tejan sovereignty. Elemtilas 11:00, 20 December 2005 (PST)

---

Notes on Religion:

Note that Isidorian/Mozarabic Rite Catholicism IS the rite of Iberia and Latin America. There was no assertion of the Latin Rite *there*.

I was rather hoping that the Felipese might include some Moslems. Perhaps the flowering of Iberian Islam can escape the dark age that Islam has been going through the past couple centuries?

Elemtilas 11:00, 20 December 2005 (PST)

The proposal continues to flower! I would like to say that I'm liking the proposal. I also like Padraic's suggestion above! Now, on to matters at hand.

Now, while you say that they're Islamic, I would like to know how they managed to remain islamic with the following points against them:

1. Both countries in which the region of Felipia is situated are very strongly Catholic. While I don't know for sure if the Spanish Inquisition happened there, I do know that they would've been hard pressed to survive as an Islamic population.
2. Where do you propose they came from in Castile i Leon? How did they manage to remain undiscovered for so long? Why didn't the government of Castile i Leon try to forcibly convert them to Isidorian catholicism?
3. What reason would there be for the slaves to integrate? I know that in many cultures the former-slave population doesn't always integrate well. What causative factors have historians discovered for them to have integrated so well?
4. Describe the conflict and how they managed to survive. Why weren't they cast as the scapegoat by the Tejan/Castilians and the Mejicans?
5. Why did the convention come about? What was the causative factors?
6. What is the Tejan/Mejican response to this group?

All those being said, what do you feel about them being a condominium area? Or a supra-national organization of the Autonomous areas of Felipia in Mejico and Tejas. Padraic? Duane? Nik? Zahir? That considered, you may also want them to simply be a notable minority group in Tejas and Mejico. (I think this one is currently the most believable.) BoArthur 15:59, 20 December 2005 (PST)

Well, I'm not saying all the Felipese áre Moslems (I don't think Catholic Mejico and Tejas would put up with that kind of thing). I wonder, though, if there might not have been some crypto-Moslems -- ostensibly Christian conversos who have secretly devised ways to maintain some form of Islam in the way that the crypto-Jews of Mejico and Tejas were able to keep their Judaism. Yes, the Inquisition happened in Mejico too -- though it took a little while for it to catch on.

According to Duane, the Felipese dialect is a form of Castilian, so the original population would have come from Castile. I'll leave the other questions for him to answer! Elemtilas 18:42, 20 December 2005 (PST)

Motion to DeProposalize

I think this has sat long enough; I have no problem with it. If Barry and Carlos and other interested parties are not bothered by it, then I think that it should be deproposalized.

I second that emotion. Er...motion. Whatever. Zahir 14:45, 19 February 2006 (PST)

Just to be sure, voting for it won't result in independance within the week will it ? --Marc Pasquin 14:55, 19 February 2006 (PST)

Heck no! I was under the impression that they were a vocal minority, like Quebec *here*, that they threatened secession, but by and large don't do much more than that. I would like to see the Felipese remain an interesting quirk in the region. BoArthur 15:02, 19 February 2006 (PST)

not much more then that ? we started a civil war in 1837, kidnapt a british politican in the 1970s (killed one of our own too) and have been firebombing US imperialistic compagnies for the last decade. What more do you want ? --Marc Pasquin 15:31, 19 February 2006 (PST)

No, I think that's quite what I had in mind. ;) Of course, you're a gentler québecois I'm sure...not of that firebombing kidnapping and whatnot.  :) BoArthur 16:15, 19 February 2006 (PST)

Not anymore.... Not in any way that can be proven anyway. --Marc Pasquin 16:19, 19 February 2006 (PST)

I second the motion, too. Let's deprop it! One thing though: where's Duane? —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 23:29, 19 February 2006 (PST)

A note

I would like to note that part of the Felipese territory is on the coast of Tejas and thus, as large parts of the coastline of Tejas, it was part (maybe not the whole area, but parts of it at least) of one of the Lithuanian autonomous areas during the interwar. As such, there would have been Lithuanian immigration into the areas. Not sure how that would have influenced history of the Felipese nation (e.g. did they see Lithuanians as oppressors or as a possible alliance or did that changed with time and such) Abdul-aziz 15:23, 19 February 2006 (PST)

Keep in mind that, while the Lithuania may have sent colonists to Tejas, Lithuania had no territorial jurisdiction over any part of Tejas nor were the immigrants subject to Lithuanian laws, though naturally, Lithuania would have some interest in the actions of individual Lithuanians. If they broke Lithuanian laws by "oppressing" native Felipese, they might be compelled to return home. I have no comment on any cultural interactions or reactions to Lithuanian presence, but I am sure that there must have been some kind of chemistry between two such groups in close proximity. Elemtilas 15:15, 20 February 2006 (PST)

I wonder if there might not be some sort of rivalry, since of course Lithuanian settlers wouldn't be granted territory (and considering Tejas' expansionist policy, I don't see them giving up territory). I'd think that there'd be friction for competing for resources, rather than cooperation, as well as a "well, WE were here first" attitude. Doobieous 16:27, 20 February 2006 (PST)

Such friction could certainly be a factor -- but then I'ld have to wonder: why send colonists who expect territorial sovereignty to a sovereign nation that ain't gonna give it to them? One thing for sure about Lithuania *there*: that is one strange country!

How would that attitude have been changed or altered under Jorge's regime? I would think that he would've been repressive to the minorities, and thus, the Lithuanians and Felipese....What do y'all think? BoArthur

As I understand it, the other known European minorities (Germans and Felipians) had already been in Tejas for a while, so they'd be well acquainted with Tejas and the whims of its various rulers. I think the Lithuanians are supposed to be late comers -- they might not be quite as accepting of Tejan ways. If that's the source of their friction, I doubt Jorge Bush would either be able to make it better or make it worse. I wouldn't say he was "repressive" so much as a one man drain on the national economy. He didn't hit particular groups so much as the Tejan people as a whole. He was a rich foreigner who'd found himself autocratic ruler of a country well used to despotism. And he was quite willing to play the part. I really don't think the Lithuanians' lot would be appreciably worse than anyone elses, however, as the Bush regime wore on and the economic situation worsened, any friction already existing between groups of Tejanoes could only flare up.

Thus far, the new Government has done a pretty good job of cleaning up, and the main cities are now pretty safe and mostly rebuilt. There is undoubtedly an amount of unrest in the country -- that's only to be expected. But even though the queen and much of her cabinet is American educated and more or less aligned with the notion of "sane and responsible republican monarchy", this is still Tejas we're talking about and who knows what sort of reaction could be forthcomming if some one of those restive groups decides to start a fight.

And frankly, I could see (European) Lithuania trying something stupid like that. They tried it without success in Tobago (and have ended up with an embarassingly large amount of egg on their collective face), so why not try it again in a place that's not so totally pro-England / pro-America? Keeping in mind that Tejas is an associate member of the Commonwealth, through the aegis of the NAL, I wouldn't put it past Lithuania to stir up a heap of trouble there. Elemtilas 19:27, 20 February 2006 (PST)

A Padraic...you're meaning Latvia. Lithuania won't be doing anything unless the RTC agrees to it, since it is a part of the RTC. ;) BoArthur

Dog gone it! That's got to be the second or third time I've transposed Lithuania for Latvia. Elemtilas 20:25, 21 February 2006 (PST)

As it is written in Lithuanian colonies, the colonists were sent not by government (as back then the government did not support the idea) but by Pakštas and his group of interesants. The goal (at least officially) was not to create a sovereign state but to create a place far from Lithuania where Lithuanians could be in majority and thus their culture could thrive especially in case Lithuania-proper would have been occupied (Pakštas thought that it is only a question of time). Who knows however, maybe Pakštas as well thought that once te Lithuanians in Tejas would reach political freedom in those areas as well - anywyas, his plans never came to full extent because after 1926 revolution in Lithuania the government started to support his ideas and thus Maasai was overtaken, making a seemingly more reliable place to emigrate. As for territory, Lithuanians were granted autonomy in some areas in exchange for paying tribute to the Tejan king - as this idea was supported by some rich people in Lithuania, they had money; flow of money however became slower later with Second Great War, and thus the autonomies were terminated when Lithuania was occupied by Russia. Abdul-aziz 15:06, 21 February 2006 (PST)

Sorry about confusing Lithuania with Latvia! My comments regarding a small minority in a larger pluralistic countty stand: of course, they shouldn't expect autonomy in Tejas, and to be honest, I'm not sure how well they could "be in a majority" in Tejas for very long. Sooner or later, they'd be expected to catch up with other minority groups or ship out. A group of xenophobes living on the margins of Tejan society would be seen as a danger at best. Anyway, sooner or later, the younger generations born in Tejas would become progressively more Tejano than Lithuanian. As for (local) autonomy in exchange for tribute: that's certainly a nice sentiment, but kings come and go. Dictators like getting money, but not at the expence of losing control of a segment of the population! Such tribute must by now be quite ancient history. Elemtilas 20:25, 21 February 2006 (PST)

Yes, indeed, as I said the autonomies were abolished in 1940; and as for majority, of course, it was not meant to be a majority in whole Tejas as that would have been impossible, but only in those areas that were given autonomy. After the abolition of the autonomies there were various policies - some governments placed various afirmative action policies against Lithuanians and tried to disperse them more across the country so that they wouldn't be concentrated so much (explained at Lithuanian colonies I believe) while some dictatorships later allegedly were supported by money of Lithuanians and thus had different policies. Abdul-aziz 02:48, 22 February 2006 (PST)