But are they synonymous, yes or no? If not, what is the difference?
The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.
Examples please?
If they were, in fact, one and the same, then your (and rockrr's) need for subjects to have only one describable attribute would finally be satisfied. Alas, the world is just complicated enough to allow things to be multifaceted. The difference between the two is that it is possible to be in rebellion against an authority about matters other than secession. The difference between the colonies rebelling AND seceding and the colonies JUST rebelling is that the first case potentially produces a group of independent states while leaving the authority of the crown unchallenged within its own shrunken dominion, whereas the second case has no potential for separation and challenges the power of the king throughout his realm.
Compare King John's baronial rebellion, which forced him to sign Magna Charta in 1215, to Robert the Bruce's war for a separate Sottish kingdom a century later. They were both rebellions against the English Crown, but only one sought separation from it.
It is with some humor that I note that the original full text to which you were responding above accused you of binary thinking, and that your immediate return was to demand that I answer a yes/no question.
The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.
Examples please?
Really? I am going to have to ask whether you don't accept Tibet as an example because you truly believe they are represented in the Chinese government, or because you don't believe that the Chinese are running Tibet? But since the original statement was about separating from a unrepresentative government of late Eighteenth Century, I'm going ask if you think contemporary Blacks were represented within their political unit? Proceed to squirm.
If they were, in fact, one and the same, then your (and rockrr's) need for subjects to have only one describable attribute would finally be satisfied. Alas, the world is just complicated enough to allow things to be multifaceted. The difference between the two is that it is possible to be in rebellion against an authority about matters other than secession. The difference between the colonies rebelling AND seceding and the colonies JUST rebelling is that the first case potentially produces a group of independent states while leaving the authority of the crown unchallenged within its own shrunken dominion, whereas the second case has no potential for separation and challenges the power of the king throughout his realm.
Compare King John's baronial rebellion, which forced him to sign Magna Charta in 1215, to Robert the Bruce's war for a separate Sottish kingdom a century later. They were both rebellions against the English Crown, but only one sought separation from it.
It is with some humor that I note that the original full text to which you were responding above accused you of binary thinking, and that your immediate return was to demand that I answer a yes/no question.
The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.
Examples please?
Really? I am going to have to ask whether you don't accept Tibet as an example because you truly believe they are represented in the Chinese government, or because you don't believe that the Chinese are running Tibet? But since the original statement was about separating from a unrepresentative government of late Eighteenth Century, I'm going ask if you think contemporary Blacks were represented within their political unit? Proceed to squirm.