Home » Editorials »
Micronationalism is serious business
EDITORIAL
Seemingly gone are the days when micronationalism in Microwiki was what you wanted it to be. Gone are the days when micronations in the Microwiki Sector could invent outrageous and humerous aspects for themselves without being reprimanded by those on their self-made moral pedestal. This entire recent business over East Kozuc outlawing walruses only serves to help confirm what many have suspected for some time – the misconception that micronationalism is always somehow ‘serious business‘.
As a general rule, micronationalism can be pretty much whatever you want it to be, within certain boundaries of course (put away those swastikas Vedistan…). We all, as micronationalists, each have different opinions on what micronationalism should and shouldn’t be, but to a large extent, they should remain just that – opinions. Nobody has any right to go around and prescriptively apply labels like ‘Not Micronationalism’ or ‘Not Serious’ on any micronation or other micronational entity. Micronationalism incorporates so many different aspects that it’s well nigh impossible to come up with a single definitive definition that every single entity claiming to be a micronation fits into. Even if it was possible, it still gives no right for micronations like Sandus to go around slapping ‘You Are Not Serious’ stickers on other micronations, just because of a view that they hold.
The fact that people do that is a very sad and demeaning part of micronationalism, which has manifested itself largely, as far as one’s anecdotal observations can ascertain, in the MicroWiki Sector. We’ve seen Bradley and others attack Micras nations as “not micronationalism”, Westantarctica attack A1 for having a “silly name” and in the latest episode, Sandus attacking and derecognising East Kozuc for declaring walruses illegal. It is East Kozuc’s right to be able to go about their own humerous ways within their micronation without having to be told off and fobbed off. Most micronations have or have had as some point in their history some humerous or ‘non serious’ part to their micronation. The MGPRA1, for instance, had in its national anthem many references to throwing off the chains of the “Tasmanian capitalists”. St.Charlie had Whiskey I, a dog, as its head of state for many months. Even Molossia has had a declaration of war on East Germany for decades, despite East Germany ceasing to exist. It is not uncommon and it is not unusual for a micronation to have something humerous or ‘non serious’, for whatever reason, and it is wrong for micronations like Sandus to try to push their own views of what micronationalism is or isn’t on other micronations or micronationalists.
The central issue at stake here is not necessarily the Sandus condemnation and derecognition per se, but the general trend of MicroWiki micronations passing their judgement on what is ‘serious’ and ‘not serious’. Professionalism may be the aim of some micronations, and that’s absolutely fine. However, one crosses the line when one tries to impose one’s standards of ‘professional micronationalism’ on others. Once this begins to happen, the whole spirit of micronationalism is ignored and demeaned.
Leave a Comment
Subscribe
Recent articles
-
This is why we have a right to privacy
-
Cirrus Party releases election platform
-
Nominations extended as elections postponed
WINNER 2011 Fnords - Iain Jacobson Award for Journalism
12 Comments
Fish, I must hand it to you, this is no doubt the best article I’ve seen on this subject and I couldn’t possibly agree more.
Fishy Sir you have superbly put it and with that I am off to the Storþingment to make Slamming Car doors whilst in posseion of a cat between the hours of 1am and 1 30am Illegal (Just because I can)
This is what I’m advocating; a place where everybody can be as unserious & “unencylcopediac” as possible. Good job advocating that idea, Philip!
Fantastic article, Mr. Fish; I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been keeping tabs on this whole situation and it seems to me that it’s been blown WAY out of proportion. Once again, you’ve brought that oh-so-needed voice of reason to a situation such as this, and for that I commend you.
My dream: serious laws in diplomatic fashion, that ban walruses
+1
Fishy, you’ve excelled yourself here. Micronationalism is designed to be a bit silly. In the National Capital District, any Apple product that is not an iPod, iTunes or Safari is banned. Verboten. Prohibited. Why? Because I can.
Honestly, I do not care about Kozuc’s ideas regarding walruses. Those nasty, creepy things – the world would be better off without them. On the other hand, if a micronation de-recognised us, I would genuinely not care either. I run a micronation, not an online simulation that will die when someone does not respect my political choices.
Congrats – this is the 200th comment approved on the A1NS. You win cookies
As much as it is East Kozuc’s right to ban walruses, it is Sandus’ right to exclude East Kozuc from their allies for this reason. A multitude of nations, including my own, do not officially recognise Micras because our foreign policies deem it “not micronational” – you may think otherwise, and that is your opinion.
You are all acting as if Sandus marched into Riley’s house armed with an AK47 – all he said was that he dissapproved of the law, argued for its’ changing as a third party to the Parliamentary procedures (whatever they are) in East Kozuc, and, since it went against his foreign policy, he had to (by law) cease recognising East Kozuc.
Of course everyone has the right to pass absurd laws, but we also have the right to criticise.
Our First Commissioner and I have supreme legislative power. Anyway, I think that Sandus had no right to revoke recognition of our government over this law so I have to disagree with you. Also, derecognition is not taken lightly by my government or the community so no one is overreacting.
Entirely on the money. The inherent absurdity of micronationalism is the only thing that makes it worthwhile.
Also, walruses must DIE!