Talk:Knootian independence

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

OK, I'll offer my comments on this "historical account" and document. First of all, I wouldn't have a problem with this thing if you hadn't decided to play on the historical Netherlands territory. If "Knootoss" was a fictional piece of land, I'd probably be lauding this as a piece of writing. I really don't see why you mock my position - which has no problem with adding events to history but has much concern over people taking events away from history - as hypocritical and whatnot. That aside, I read your independance "declaration" and see it as a giant "rip-off" of the Declaration of Independence of the United States. The format is the same "Government comes from the people, etc, etc., the meany evil tryant did all these bad things to us etc., etc., therefore we declare our independence etc., etc." Though I think Jefferson's was better written. Not to mention you claim the be OMG TEH 1ZT N8T10N 2 S8Y RUL3RZ AR3 ACC0UNT8BL3 TO TEH P30PL3 B3CUZ W3 R S0 L33T OMG OMG!!!!!! Let me guess... William of Knootcap tapped the ground and out sprang the great general Vogels, fully grown, in uniform, on a horse; and the three of them, William, Vogels, and the horse, single-handedly conducted the entire 40-years war.  :roll: So first you rewrite history, and then you give yourself this great big and worldwide important event. Sheesh. Give me a break. ~Syskeyia

People all over NS (and NSwiki) have located their nations on "historical whatever territory", and rewritten the history to suit their own desires. There are at least three different Soviet Unions here already, and dozens of US states in International Incidents that have radical departures from RL history. Despite that, you seem to be picking primarily on Knootoss. You also once again imply that there is a "single coherent history" that translates over to NationStates, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. Frankly, your attitude is far more arrogant that Knoot's on this, as you claim that your (and only your) interpretation can be considered 'historic'. Sheesh. Give me a break. Frisbeeteria Θtalk 14:40, 25 Oct 2004 (GMT)

I agree, of course. Knootoss' back story, and everyone's else's, is FICTIONAL and RL events are irrelevant. And Syskeyia, if you insist on having this inflexible & unilateral view of history and what others can and can't do, at least try to get your history right. The Dutch declaration of independence from Spain WAS the first assertion of popular sovereignty. The US came long, long after it. It's either arrogant or ignorant to claim that Jefferson invented these ideas, which had long been current in France, the Netherlands and elsewhere -- as Jefferson would have been the first to admit. But that doesn't matter so much, next to this campaign of harassment you're on. Why not just stop it?

Oops, forgot to sign. TB 15:55, 25 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Well, what they said. Knootoss is fiction, and it will remain fiction. Deal with it. That your approach might be different is just part of the Multiverse. Read that article for more info.

Now, about the history part. It is quite ridicilous to suggest that it was a ripoff of the United States declaration. How very US-centric. First of all, you obviously did not read the declaration well. See my expose in Divine Right of Kings. I'll even have to disagree with TB that it was not a "willed" assertion of popular sovereignty, rather it was the unintentioned result of history. The United Provinces sought overseas help from France and England even offering them the monarchy of the Netherlands, which both declined. After much whining of Dutch diplomats Elizabeth I of England did sign the Treaty of Nonsuch, under which she sent troops under the command of Earl of Leicester. This Leicester guy, however, was wildly unpopular, incompetent and had no authority so basically he returned to England after some very stupid diplomatic slip-ups. (Incidently, the English intervention was a major reason for launching the Spanish Armada against England later on - it all neatly ties in. The Dutch tried again with the French later but the French were playing their own iternal thingies so that did not work out either.)

The RL Acthe van Verlathinge (which this thing is based on) did *not* say that government came from the people, as Jeffersons thing did. Rather, it proposes the idea that, while the right to rule is God-given there are certain limitations to what a King can do. Don't belive me? Read:

"It is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people" (first sentence) HOWEVER "God did not create the people as slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince)," concluding that "When he does not behave thus, but, o­n the contrary, oppresses them [...] then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view." and in that case "they may not o­nly disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defence." (England and France, see above)

That is the basis of the freedom of my country. Not some stupid rip-off of the All of this Hardly a Jefferson rip-off. The Divine Right of Kings is maintained, in an amended way. This is also signified by Dutch history: when the States declared independence they sought antother monarch. (Applying to become part of France and England respectively.)

However, it is a deviation from history because the idea of Republican and constitutional government *was* clearly espoused in the historical declaration of independence AND it is a central theme to the Knootoss declaration of independence. Which part of "REPUBLIC" did you miss here, exactly? The enlightenment and the ideas that you ascribe to these Americans were all old ideas imported from Europe.

I can understand that for a non-Dutchman (and, I presume, a non-European) thes are all things you are blissfully unaware off. That is no problem, but don't pretend you do know what you are talking about. Or does your obsession with these historic documents have something to do with the fact that Catholics were the opressors in this case and... maybe you just want to downplay it?

Your other vitrol is unneeded. There was no general Vogels. The Knootcap family and the Vogels family are unrelated. Yes, I gave my own family name a role in the history of my own fictional nation. Does that bother you? Tough luck, cuz its my fictional nation. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 18:15, 25 Oct 2004 (GMT)

My bad. Never knew about the RL Dutch declaration. Perhaps you could send me a link to an English translation of the document? ~Syskeyia

By request Link I used for ripping text:

And I'll be adding some more original stuff to this soonishly to make it more original. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 16:00, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)