You are hoping to divide our country. We Turks do not like you. Actually, many many Kurds don't like you either. You think Kurdish people want independence but you have no idea actually.
Khalistan (the Sikh Empire) used to be independent, India promised things that were still never fulfilled, let alone the mass genocide, less rights, colonization etc there’s a whole great playlist and within are a couple videos going into detail how Sikhs were screwed over in every possible way before and after the British left the playlist is called twgc
@@AbyssalSkum-gd5ly they are like, "The whole world has been an integral part of Chinese territory since humans first walked the Earth." Or something like that.
Unfortunately just not feasible , many regions have been forced and struggle to operate under the modern nation state structure and would not be able to survive on there own if separated even further, the best hope is to focus on unite within the different cultural groups
well that's the problem, a lot of those groups are either divided by a border they didn't choose, or are thrown together in a nation state that can't possibly represent all their people @@Know_Clu
Somaliland is also interesting since it's not recognized by pretty much anyone while, in every conceivable criteria, being an independent state just as much as any other one.
@@igorlopes7589 No I mean to Save Sudan from Sudan itself. I mean Save Sudanese people from Rapid Support Forces supported by the stupid national army. they are persecuting the locals. It has nothing to do with South Sudan. it's a civil war.
@@gregsquires6201i think @adolfojuangarcia1906 is making a metaphor of how borders aren’t permanent ✍️ but i agree, given how so many borders are demarcated in stone it is definitely ironic 🤣
They are if by regognized treaties that involve multiple parties and a signed document at the UN. That is in fact one of the reasons for the creation of the UN. Or else all would be at the whims of imperialists with the largest army
As a Quebecois myself, I want to stay in Canada and I dont mind being called a Canadian, but I do respect other Quebecois in their desire to want an actual country
@@Illjwamh yeah, that could happen too. But most often a dominant etnicity wants to retain a minority so they can blame them for all the wrongs they are actually responsible for. Also to exploit too. Almost all societies,.especially those who have one group as the historical dominant, love to have a stractified society of the betters and the scum. Its how assholes justify themselves.
So was Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, Brittany, Catalon, Sardinia, Hawaii, Tonga (eh pretty much any Island the US has), eh I guess the entire US as well, Alaska, Australia (the whole thing), NZ, parts of Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey.
@@Devilishlybenevolentain’t no way u think alaska has a real risk of leaving the us, plus most states in the us don’t even wanna leave, this is just propaganda
@@alienngl The only propaganda I see here is you ignoring the native Alaskans and by that I mean natives and not the white Americans. Lmao go find them and speak to them, they want to be a free nation.
@@Devilishlybenevolent the native Alaskans? Bro that’s likes 10k people max, what kind of nation is that. Most of them are free anyway bc the US doesn’t care abt them roaming in the artic. Your being naive and honestly regarded if u think that 10k people is going to remove 1m square kilometres from the US
@@derikans Could also be that you said something that RU-vid doesn't like and it automatically deleted your comment. Sometimes it just does that. Sometimes swear words get the comment deleted, sometimes not.
I immediately thought of Catalonia. It's probably because it's much closer to home compared to the other examples, and their last attempt at independence was only in 2017, so it still feels like it happened recently. Ignoring the obvious country of Scotland just above my own, which is a country, but also forms part of an even bigger country. It's complicated.
The catalan thing us just funny, spain has done everything that is legal, and ilegal, to prevent their independence and now the catalans and the basques have the hole goverment hostage and are forcing amnisty laws, special privileges, the right to vetoe any law, the ability to aprove laws for spain but not have to follow them etc. Basically spain is willing to suffer a miserable life waiting for the collapse than aknoledge reality and let them go
Ye in the case of Scotland I'd say different to say Catalonia or East Turkestan, as Scotland has voted to stay and the UK is a union with Scotland having by far the greatest Autonomy of the 4 countries. Its also far too important to give up due to nuclear bases, oil fields and the Intrests of NATO and the GIUK gap.
@@igorjee he obviously cares a lot about correct pronunciation, he says many words properly or close to it, but a simple google on how to pronounce Baloch, or YouTubing videos about Balochistan, would have fixed this issue.
The idea of ethnicity and nationality being linked is fairly modern, i think it's better argument to say increased representation/democracy of all is more important than setting up states upon ethnic lines.
On my great grandparents passport from the Russian Empire it said Nationality Jewish not Russian. Idk if I would say ethnicity and Nationality have always been linked but having an ethnically homogeneous state is a different question
Wrong it goes back to the era of human tribes. Lol and when ancient multi-ethnical States would exist they'd always be surrounded by a dominant culture bound to assimilate others e.g han China/ Roman Empire/The Macedonian Empire
@@nigstar1239 the idea of ethnicity wasn't about then. I'm not saying similar people weren't together. But there has been a great homogenising of smaller cultures. Think of France, if they had a nation for all their cultures that did exist it would have dozens of not more. But even if I am not right, and I think there is at least something from what I'm saying, the need for ethnostates is not necessary when all that is needed is more democratic and representative models
My girlfriend is persian, and grew up in the province of Ilam (near to the kurdistan province, and with a large kurdish population), and she says that from what she remembers, the kurds there always talked about independence and stuff, but had to do it in secret because of how Iran is staunchly against kurdish independence.
And your gf must say all kord people real home and land is iran, they language, there culture, there DNA are the same as irainan. If they say noting about that because the old fox(England) that real enemy of iranic people for many years Baloch people aloso iranic just like kords
Bro, Iranian ethnicities were living toghether for 12000 years. Kurds, along with ilamites were the first ethnicities who created Iran. Cyrus mother was Kurd! The father was ilamite. Read the history plz @@محیمحیان
@@محیمحیانand english people are Germanic but it doesn't mean they're German, sure we share the same roots but it's still different ethnic groups with their own distinct people, culture and language
Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Arameans are ignored even more because they're marginalized twice. I can't imagine any peaceful conclusion to their independence as they will be massacred immediately...
The Roma also do not have a state. (I am not sure whether they actually want a state for themselves or just to be accepted within whichever state they currently reside.)
@@edwardblair4096 The Roma are a different case because unlike the Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians they aren't native to the lands they primarily inhabit. Part of their whole identity is traveling and not being attached to a specific piece of land
It was a total coincidence! I had this script since December. Balochistan was actually not on the original thumbnail and was the last country I mentioned in the video. I bumped it up to the first one due to those corrent events though.
@@General.Knowledge what about native Americans native Australians and native new zelanders what about Palestinians shouldn't they have a country of their own or that part won't fit to your agendas
@@محمدالحلبي-ح2ي palestine is recognized as independent by the UN and a lot of other countries, hence why they arent included. The natives do deserve special treatment for the genocides they have faced, yes, but giving them a country in the lands that they are a minority in would not work.
@@localshitdealer Palestine does not have a state in case you didn't notice only an authority called the palastinian authority and yes even that is colonized just look at the west bank and you will see that it is filled with Israeli settlements
I ended up with a set of 1897 encyclopedias that I think my great grandfather Swan bought from a traveling salesman. They are out of date now but a map shows an independent Baluchistan. As for Quebec, even nationalist MPs plan their retirements based on expected federal pensions.
We don't have federal pension in Quebec. We have our own separate pension plan. The only group who does receive federal pensions are federal government employees and federally elected representatives. In their case, it's legitimate to plan based on the pension allowed by their employment.
For Kurdistan, I think the most likely outcome will be Kurdish Iraq and Kurdish Syria becoming independent and possibly forming a single state but I suspect it would lead to some very sad times for the Kurds in Turkey who would almost certainly be cracked down on even harder, if not outright expelled from the region inside Turkey.
Nah, none of them. If even one of them gets independent, the rest will be more invigorated. Kurdistan is basically fighting 4 countries and 2 of them are quite powerful
Sadly, I can see that happening by Turkey. Oh, the Kurds have their own state now? Let's kick them out, then. They sure did a number on the Greeks and Armenians about 100 years ago.
I hate to say it, but I seriously doubt there is any probability of any of them achieving any kind of autonomy, much less independence, within the next 100 years. It is more likely I will win the lottery some day.
Have you ever thought of talking about former unions that split out, like south and north korea, US and UK, mexico and spain, china and taiwan, texas and california, soviet union, india, vietnam, and many others, i think that would make a good video idea!
You did not discuss the overlap between Ogoniland and Biafra. As near as I can tell the proposed Biafra contains the entirety of Ogoniland. Is there any cooperation between the groups behind these movements? For example, if Biafra was successfully separated from Nigeria, would Ogoniland then fight for independence from them too, or are there plans to become a autonomous entity within Biafra?
It's a good question! I also wondered this when I looked at both maps. I would assume each would support each other's movements due to their discontent with the status quo.
@@General.Knowledge Unfortunately that can not be assumed. Theoretically the group that wants Biafra to leave Nigeria might also want to exploit the resources and people of Ogoniland, with them equally wanting to be independent from Biafra as they want from Nigeria. Or maybe the Biafrans will accept any support they can get and will do what is needed to secure that support. Or maybe they are both part of the same group seeking the same goals and there aren't any actual or potential conflicts between them.
@@edwardblair4096 I'm Igbo myself, the Idea of Biafra "exploiting" the Ogoni for their resources is unlikely, 70% of the so called resources is already situated in Indigenous Igboland, IPOB (Indigenous Peoples of Biafra) the main organisation which heads the Biafran cause currently has made peaceful separation by way of referendum their motto, meaning association/integration into Biafra would be strictly by choice, so depending on the choice of the different ethnicities they may not even be added into a Biafra, The first declaration of Biafra in 1967 was based on popular choice of the consultative assembly of the region at the time, the other constituent ethnic groups were just as enthusiastic about Biafra, it wasn't just by singular decision of the Igbos, There have also been suggestion of a Confederate system whereby each ethnic group maintains a significant amount of autonomy sort of like the UK again based on popular choice, so I hope that serves to put things in perspective a little bit more
I appreciate your perspective as a Quebecois, and it's great that you embrace being Canadian while respecting the diverse views within Quebec. Dreams of a more organized Africa reflect a shared hope for stability and unity. As for the video responses, optimism for respectful and mature discussions is always a positive outlook. Let's foster understanding and open dialogue.
An excellent list of worthy causes. I might suggest also the Hazara people of central Afghanistan, the Melanesian Papuans of Indonesian occupied western half of the island of New Guinea and perhaps the inhabitants of Norfolk Island
Good luck at breaking away when you inhabit the central parts of a country. Those borders won't be pretty. Yes, I know. There is Lesotho. But it's one of a kind.
Not all Balochis wanted Independence .....Its a rebelious group that wants too....The Balochis are Related to Pakistani,Irani,Afghans and they are pretty happy.... I am saying this as an Persian/Afghan and Arab
Parabéns pelo excelente conteúdo produzido neste canal. É um orgulho ter um canal português🇵🇹 assim de tão grande dimensão, que nunca falha em entregar videos interessantes e que ajudam-nos a conhecer melhor a história e cultura de outros países, tornando-nos pessoas mais cultas.
@@zombiekilldemoni thought puerto ricans liked being a territory ? they don’t have to pay federal income tax and their american citizenship is very valuable
@@nauridea the only reason why some stick with the status quo of "Territory" (aka Colony) is due to the propagandised fear campaign by many to paint independence as "Well we will just become Haiti" when that is not true. So people get scared of independence but still don't want to be a state so they stick to the status quo. Those that want statehood are Stockholm syndrome victims that think they are white enough to assimilate into white American culture like Irish and Italians did but that will NEVER happen. They will never accept us without the dissolution of our culture. That is why independence is the true solution.
@@MrTaxiRob Actually people mostly live in Montreal or on the South Shore (the missing part) so we would lose more than half of the of the population lol
@@goundydowhat’s ironic is that the only thing that held us from being independent is Montréal if you look at the first and second referendum you can see the clear pattern
I am actually surprised that the North of Italy has remained part of the rest of Italy given how much they complain about being dragged down by the central and southern regions of Italy. By the same token it is also surprising that South Tirol, Sardinia, Sicilia and Triestre have remained in Italy as well.
I am from Pakistan so let me correct you on Balochistan's issue. So first of all, Balochistan was never annexed by Pakistan. The entirety of modern-day Balochistan province of Pakistan was called the Balochistan Agency under the British Raj. This Balochistan Agency was comprised of territories that British annexed from Afghanistan after defeating numerous Afghan dynasties during several Anglo-Afghan wars of the 19th & early 20th centuries, and some princely states (small kingdoms, states, vassals, etc.) that joined the British Raj under the agreements that the British would protect them in return for their full sovereignty. Balochistan Agency was never ruled unilaterally by the British but rather through two separate administrations. One in the North known as the Commissioner's Province of Balochistan, administered by a Commissioner appointed by the British, that included the districts of Quetta-Pishin, Chagai, Sibbi, Bolan, Zhob, Loralai & the Bugti-Marri tribal confederacy. The rest of Balochistan comprised of 4 Baloch (princely) states: Kalat, Kharan, Makran & Lasbela. These 4 states were collectively called the 'Balochistan States Union (BSU)', which was headed by a Jirga (council/assembly) of the rulers of these states. The British appointed a 'Political Agent' to the Agency as Viceroy's representative & a link between the British crown and these states. When the British decided to leave India, they created two separate dominions: India & Pakistan. To transfer power from the crown to these newly independent dominions, the British parliament passed a law on 3rd June, 1947 known as the '3 June Plan', 'Partition plan' or just simply Lord Mountbatten Plan. This plane set down a formula according to which administration, territory, revenue & military would be divided among the two dominions. According to the law, all the rulers (Princes, Kings, Rajas, Maharajas, Khan, Malik, Nawab, etc.) were given three options: 1) they could join either India or Pakistan 2) they could continue their current relationship with the British crown 3) they could establish their own independent state. In order to join either India/Pakistan, these states were given some conditions like if they wanted to join these two states, they had to take their demographics, geography & economic dependence into consideration while joining either two dominions. There were 565 princely states in British India & only 4 were part of the Balochistan States Union (BSU). The 3 out of 4 Baloch states unanimously joined the Dominion of Pakistan. These three states were Kharan, Makran & Lasbela. The only exception was the state of Kalat. The only obstacle was the state's unelected parliament which was dominated by the Tribal leaders associated with the Congress party that opposed the creation of Pakistan. The Khan (ruler) of Kalat was in fact wanted to join Pakistan. He was a very close friend of MA Jinnah (the first governor general of Pakistan). He asked Mr. Jinnah in 1943 that his state would join Pakistan only under the condition that Mr. Jinnah would implement Sharia (Islamic law) across Pakistan. Jinnah ignored his demand by telling him that it's completely up to the elected legislature (parliament) of Pakistan to decide. This created some resentment among the few tribes of Kalat. Another reason was Kalat's claim over other 3 states. Kalat had a territorial conflict with the British. They claimed that other 3 states i.e. Kharan, Makran & Lasbela were not separate states of the BSU but rather they are all part of the state of Kalat. The other 3 obviously never liked that position of Kalat. So, the unilateral decision of these 3 states to join Pakistan was severely unpopular among the people of Kalat. Anyways, the final decision was still up to the Khan to decide & he decided to join Pakistan on March 21, 1948. Disappointed with the decision, the Khan's brother started a rebellion against his own brother's monarchy. The fighting continued for the next month when Khan finally asked the Government of Pakistan to send the military to curb the rebellion. The modern insurgency in Pakistani Balochistan is led mostly by two major separatist Marxist organizations: Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) & Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF). Overall, the demand of an independent Balochistan is currently very low as Pakistani side of Balochistan has a lot of freedoms & autonomy as part of a federal structure of Pakistan when you compare it with the Iranian or Afghan Balochistan.
0:40 using Japan as an example of a country were there is only one native ethnic group is kind of wrong. There are also the Ryukyuan people and the Ainu people (though these two are essentially almost entirely assimilated into Japanese culture through centuries of forcefully supressing their cultures). If you want to get even more concise, then you should also bring up the Korean minorities in Japan (that even have their own Japan specific dialect). If you really wanted to bring up a country that actually has that situation, then it would make more sense to choose tiny countries like Liechtenstein.
Japan is just the most well known example. It is practically a single ethnic state. Ainu have almost all assimilated with the only reported Ainu people counting at 25,000. With that metric there are 10x more Brazilians than Ainu in Japan. So for what it is, Japan is overwhelmingly a single ethnic state not including people unknowingly being partially Ainu or ryukuan.
their population is in decline because they don't want immigrants to dilute their culture @@enterfil. It's a test case for (mostly) liberalized economics and nationalism combined, and it's not going well.
@@MrTaxiRob that’s true for Japan as a whole but for the Ainu in specific it’s a similar situation as with Native Brazilians or Taiwanese. Most of them mixed with the dominant population with only some left purely identifying with their local group. In the end of the day the Japanese blood IS also Ainu. The Ainu didn’t just live in Hokkaido but they lived in all of Japan. But over the millennia as more Korean farmers settled in Japan they expanded into ainu lands also mingling with them. So it is worth noting being Japanese is also being part Ainu throughout history, Hokkaido only had the remnants of those left in tribal lifestyle :)
@@ryboi1337 Many of them do, but the biggest problem is that they'd not survive on their own because they have virtually no economy to sustain themselves. Edit: forgot to add that the lack of economic development makes many Corsican feel that they are failed by the rest of France.
Another one that should have been mentioned is Puerto Rico!! Statehood is never going to happen and it never should. So Independence is the way, but the only problem is that the majority of Puerto Ricans have Stockholm syndrome and fight over either becoming a state or just remaining a US territory, but slowly that is starting to change because of all the corruption being exposed in the pro statehood movement and neglect by the US government, Independence support is growing.
The highest % of puertoricans to vote in favor of independence is around 4% to 8 %. Don't believe it? Check the results of the referendums/plebiscites held by the locals. I have some puertorican acquaintances & they will leave the island if independence wins or it's given via the kitchen door.
@@FQT_Keller-Ash The U.S.A. treats Puerto Rico horribly, and contrary to popular opinion, there is literally no evidence to suggest that independence would be worse than statehood. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. I am Puerto Rican. I was born and raised there, but I did also live in mainland U.S.A. for 10 years. I know the ins and outs of both the U.S.A. and P.R. very well. Independence is definitely the superior of the two options. Unfortunately, most Puerto Ricans are politically illiterate and treat politics like a sport: in the TV media, commentators have called politics "the Puerto Rican national sport." The majority of Puerto Ricans have become deluded and think statehood will solve all of our problems like it is some magic spell. The relationship between P.R. and the U.S.A. can be summarized as being a perfect textbook example of Stockholm syndrome, or a victim of domestic abuse who believes the abuser actually loves them. As much as I am proud of the historical and cultural heritage, I have given up on the political situation of my country, because it is a lost cause. Puerto Ricans are doomed to suffer for centuries more to come, simply because wool has been pulled over their eyes. I left the country, and so has everyone else in my family, and I am never coming back. I also decided to leave the U.S.A., since I cannot stand the place at all, especially given the sheer hypocrisy and anti-intellectual culture inherent to modern U.S.A. identity. I now live in Chile. I wish Puerto Rico the best of luck, but if every decision we as a people make is just going to be intentional self-harm, then I would rather stay as far away as possible.
@@FQT_Keller-Ash For the record, I said most Puerto Ricans are politically illiterate, but this is also true of the people of the U.S.A. Arguably, worse so.
You should do a "What countries might have existed if the Confederacy had won the United States Civil War." Would Canada have more territory? Would California have declared independence? Would the South have remained unified or would Texas and or Florida have become independent nations? Who would control Alaska and Hawaii?
Hi, I'm an Iranian who lives in Canada. I think one the biggest problems in the middle east is the danger of Balkanization! Iran is a country belonging to more than 30 nations living toghether throughout the history for more than 12000 years. The United States wants to make bigger countries apart in small pieces to have a dominant power on the region. US has been supporting the Islamic Regime in Iran behind scenes Everyone who follows the news, such as Iranian people knows this reality. We all know that. If states really cares about the situation of people and humanitarian issues, they should support Iranian people against the regime. but they just want Iran to be torn apart. How? by supporting any voice that supports separation, and giving them a megaphone: Media! This used to be the policy of England (separating Afghanistan and Pakistan), then Russia (Separating Azerbijan, Armenia, and Georgia), and now USA! Instead of making decision for countries, help their people in developing a democracy, which in Iran's case, the only problem is united states not stopping its hidden support for the extremest regime. Support Iranian peaceloving people agaisnt the Islamic Regime! not to abuse the chaotic situation in Iran to break this oldest country in the world into smaller countries. This only creates never ending wars between the new smaller countries. Just look at what's going on Africa and Balkan. We Iranians don't want to lose our country forever. Enough.
Baluchistan, with “ch” pronounced as in China, is the province of Pakistan, it is mostly a tribal society and the only reason it is still backward as compared to the rest of Pakistan is due to tribal leaders called Sardars who don’t want to educate their people or else they will fight for their rights. It’s a very sparsely populated area with almost 6% population but have more than 40% area within Pakistan. Tribal Sardars are instigating separatists movements to avoid people getting out of their hegemony, as they don’t to give up their power to democratic govt control and keep treating their people as slaves. There are more than 20 nationalities living inside Pakistan peacefully with full and equal rights and there is no reason Baluch cannot do the same, they just need to break the shackles of slave mentality and become equal citizens under constitution of Pakistan.
@@kutaykalender2321 Yes bro. Fun fact : These are agendas that for some reason, only happen in Muslim countries. Like Sudan And South Sudan Indonesia And Papua New Guinea Pakistan Iran And Balocistan Turkiye Iraq And Kurdistan Uzbekistan And Karakal Pakstan And Many Others.
Please investigate Kashmir too which is divided into 2 countries with major part in India, the Kashmiris in India are fighting for their independence for more than 3 decades now and deserve an audience in your documentary
The people u call freedom fighters have conducted a genocide of innocent hindus sikhs and buddhists in kashmir all they want is to establish a ISIS like state thats why they are terrorists
I don't think that ancient ethnicity is not enough to form a modern nation-state. There is more to a modern country and this includes a certain geography and access to natural resources. I think that Nigeria geographically speaking has huge potential as a modern nation-state despite the complicated ethnical make-up, while former Soviet republics are often doomed to be in conflict with each other due to their messy geographical borders.
As an Anglophone in Quebec (and a die-hard federalist who feels that Quebec is just a Francophone version of Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, etc.), and as someone who just saw that video, it's noteworthy to point out that Canada and Cameroon are the other way around from each other in Anglophone-Francophone population compositions and tensions.
@@wenbo595 Nah it won't. Falklands and Gibraltar are both above 95% in favour of staying with the UK and Scotland has persistently polled at 45-50% in favour of independence for decades. With the recent high court ruling and the SNP being disgraced, I foresee the movement dying down like it did with Quebec in Canada.
You fail to mention that Spain is a tyranny of illegitimate Castilian rule over several nations that demand and deserve their own sovereignty. Catalonia, Basque, and Galicia. The Basque movement actually includes part of France, which has some other nationalities that are similarly repressed into submission by the French state, like the Occitanian, Brittany, Coriscans, and Alsace/Lorraine.
My understanding is that the majority of those regions just want a huge amount of autonomy without actually becoming independent. I am open to learning that I'm wrong on this if anyone wants to provide me with information to change my mind.
@@bigdaddyeddy1252 In what regard? Are you trying to deny that those nationalities have been fighting for freedom from Castile? Catalan had referenda violated by the corrupt Castile government twice in the past decade.
Balochs and Pashtuns were part of Iran, some of these peoples still live there. But these lands were occupied by the British during colonial times and became part of India (then Pakistan) and Afghanistan. Likewise in the north, the Russian Empire captured the northern halves of the land of the Turkmen, Tajiks and Uzbeks, and the southern parts became part of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was created as a buffer state between the Russian and British empires. And also, between Iran and China, which did not have the opportunity to resist the influence of the Russians and the British, but were powerful enough not to become colonies themselves. In fact, Afghanistan and later Pakistan are states stitched together from different pieces that the British and Russians left behind. That’s why there are always wars there, since different peoples cannot share power in one state.
@@ssjgogeta1979 There are not only Shiites in Iran. The provinces of Khuzistan and Balochistan are Sunni. Zoroastrians, Christian Armenians and Jews also live in Iran.
SHOULD is a strong word. Your "SHOULD" will it apply to Greater united Ireland, Scottish independence, Native American New Republics, they were all affected by colonization maybe Māori and Aboriginal nations restorations.
Dude you can't even read Balochi correctly and you think they should be an independent country!? You are probably hyped over some bombing that happened in Iran
Just to point it out, the map you've used for Québec at 3:58 is incorect, it doesnt include the south part of the St-Lawrence river aswell as the Anticosti Island, the Magdalen Islands and the archipelago of Montréal.
I think this error is important to correct. This map shows a land route from eastern Canada into Ontario that would not exist. In other words it under sells the dramatic effect Quebec independence would have on eastern Canada.
turkey but it won't be for much longer (its greek land) also the central balkan republic (skopje) Cyprus (it should be part of Greece since its a Greek island) Israel and Palestine (the holy lands belong to christians only) Azerbaijan (its armenian land)
Uyghurs are forced to assimilate, this is not some kind of stigma. I am Uyghurs living in Australia. My family had to flee due to no freedom of speech and no freedom of religion in East Türkistan, due to Communist Chinese Government interference into personal life of Uyghurs.
A multi enthic nation is a thing like you said, but they are called multi ethnic states not nations. A nation is like an ethnicity, while a state is a nation. I am taking a class about that kind of stuff so wanted to clear this up, thank you!
1:08 I simply don't get the idea of Balochistan when the Baluchis are just 1 of the 4 main ethnicities of 🇵🇰Pakistan along with the Pathaans, Sindhis & Punjabis - so what makes them unique & different? Side fact: Balochistan has only 35% native Blochis anyways - which is exactly the same as 35% Pashtuns!
Nah the ethnic groups of Balochistan love Pakistan Idk why people like to portray Balochistan as this rebellious area that can break away at any moment when the reality is most of us love our nation and it's only a small portion that thinks that way
When it comes to Balochistan, the Baloch people make up a simple 30% of the population there. They aren't even a majority in a province named after them. And it's not because of settling either, the population has remained that way for centuries. Most Baloch people are scattered communities in and around the eastern half of Pakistan. That's the main reason it can't become independent, there's simply no support beyond the fringe minority which resorts to guerilla warfare.
@@WastedBananas The leader of Kalat, Ahmed Yar Khan wished to join Pakistan and signed the article of accession. The source of the claim that he wanted to join Pakistan is dubious at best.
Slight correction: Xinjiang was not first incorporated by the Qing but the Tang dynasty of China. The Chinese name is a misnomer since the area wasn't new to the Chinese, only the ruling Manchus
@TheLucidDreamer12 Xinjiang was not incorporated by the tang dynasty, it was a protectorate. It was for the first time incorporated by the Qing dynasty but there was no real Chinese influence until 1949.
@@Imicrowavedmyfriendbullshit. There have been about 40%-50% Han people in Xinjiang since at least the 19th century when the Qing government made census.
Is it just me that realized that that the Quebec pie chart added up to only 90%, not 100%? There was 32% for continued union, 28% for an independent state, and 30% for more autonomy. Why is that? What happened to the other 10%?
Other than speaking french there is not very much in the eay of cultural differences between quebec and elsewhere.. catholics reside everywhere in Canada and there are francophone communities all across canada and each province has their own unique french group as well.. thr Canadian identity is based on the Canadien identity. ( not a spelling mistake, it's intentional, if you know you know.)
2:55 You made a technical mistake here, no politics involved. Historically East Turkestan is ruled interchangeably by Chinese dynasties and other empires/self rule. While you have shown a brief moment during Song dynasty where the region is independent. This region has been ruled by Western Han, Xin, Eastern Han, Western Jin, Northern Wei, Northern Qi, Tang, and Liao dynasties, along with also Tibet. While there is no denial that the Uyghur people share a distinct and beautiful culture separate from that of Han Chinese and the Chinese government persecution is undoubtedly horrific, whether they should be independent is a complicated topic with sufficient counterargument.
It's what India and Pakistan are USUALLY fighting over @@ryboi1337. The border runs right through it, and the people who live there don't really get heard.
Imagine Baluchistan & Kurdistan both become national state countries. Then add in that the Azeri-majority areas of Iran become part of Azerbaijan (iirc this new part would become the larger more populous part of the country?), and let's add the Arabic southwestern parts of Iran becoming part of Iraq (that has lost the Kurdistan area too). What remains of Iran then? One can see why building the identity of Iran on religion instead of it being "just" an ethnostate makes sense in a way. Maybe add in a united Pashtunistan in this scenario? And give the areas of Afghanistan dominated by Uzbeks, Turkmen, & Kyrgyz to those countries (and maybe do some swapping of their border areas too? iirc Stalin set those borders to keep things unstable and needing Moscow's constant aid). What would remain of Afghanistan then? Would it be a viable state? If not, could it be split & joined to the ethnically closest bordering countries? And what of Punjab & Sindh in this scenario? A much smaller Pakistan? By the gods, Partition was not good. A fully secular federal united south asia might have worked better ("might" since we don't know at all what would have happened)
South Asia is not only diverse in religion but diverse in region too, no common language is bigger issue plus culture somewhat looks common but is actually really different we will have same festival with different names and rituals. Plus the fight to grow certain religions is also a issue to the secular thought
Iranian identity is more than ethnicity or religion. It has roots in pre Islamic Iran. Basically you are looking at a new nation like pakistan and an ancient one like iran the same way. Iranian identity was working pretty well for Iranians until 1979. Actually with the exact sense of unity they had over that Iranian identity were they able to overthrow shah. If it wasn't for that Iran would have been partitioned right after the revolution.
@@irani544 Good to get insights from an actual Iranian :) From an outside perspective it does indeed even today look like the protests etc against the regime are clearly more against the regime than against being part of Iran.
Look, in the case of the Kurds, I am viewing this from Federal Iraq, i do think the autonomy we gave them is good, but i do not think splicing four countries to gain a Kurdish state is a good idea. It seems like its a Turkish-Kurdish issue, and the general Iraqi populous does not think that we should break our backs over Turkey's issue. However, to note, the Northern region of Iraq, Kurdistan, has been under intense economic difficulties in part caused by Baghdad's refusal to pay works over a ruling that said that Turkey has to speak to Baghdad in matters related to oil and other natural resources instead of Erbil. Just because a group of people gain autonomy, does not mean that everything will be peachy. Edit: The Kurdish region in Iraq is also very diverse, it is not 100% Kurdish, It contains Assyrians, Turkmens, and Yazidis.
I believe the 'stan' suffix simply means 'land of'. Essentially the same you have with Ice-Land. If it were an islamic nation it would maybe be called Ice-stan.
@@General.Knowledge -stan is Iranic, not Arabic/Islamic. It is actually from the same Indo-European root as "stand", "stone", "still", "stead", "state", "station", "static", etc.
@@3Midlo No, you're right actually. The creator of the term "Pakistan", Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, had "tan" represent Balochistan. The full term was "Panjab, Afghania (this is an archaic term for the modern day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province because the majority of people there are ethnic Afghans aka Pashtuns), Kashmir, Sindh, and BaluchisTAN." The "i" was added in to make it make sense as a word, because most such names have a vowel before the "stan" part of the word (kurdistan, afghanistan, hindustan, etc.)
