With racism, no. With intolerance, yes. By definition, it closes a group, in a national/bordered way, based on ethnicity.
Nothing wrong with that. There are 193 UN recognized countries most of which are based on the principle of self-determination of peoples. Portugal is one, just like Lebanon, Syria, Panama and Russia... having a 194th member doesn't make in any way or shape an intolerant place.
Talk to me about shared values, shared societal projects, shared ideals, shared economies/markets, shared etc...
Have you ever even listened to an independentist point of view?
Shared ethnicity and not much else...not ao much. Heck, even shared ethnicity even if it goes against other more rational objectives....and I gotta ask....why?
You can say that you're not in favor of a split with Canada, but trying to portray independentists as a bunch of inbred retards who want to build a fence around their ethnically pure state is outright dishonest.
I can understand if the culture is treatened and political sovereignty needed to preserve it. I can understand if there is abuse or oppression. I can’t understand it in its own right. As a goal in of itself, even when otherwise preserved, even if otherwise better...simply out of a belief that ethnicity needs a state.
You keep conflating independance with intolerance and racism and whatnot. We had experience with violent separatism (FLQ), we've rejected it. We had experience with non-inclusive separatism (Parizeau's statements), we've rejected it. A modern approach to independence is an all inclusive model based the importance of preserving le fait français en Amérique
. It's also about the proximity of decision making and the ability to fully control the necessary levers to create a more harmonious and prosperous society.
You can say you don't believe in it, but just stop saying it's about evil nazis trying to preserve the purity of their nation... I don't even know why I should be explaining this to a smart person like you.