Do The Kurds Deserve Their Own Nation State?

[viper37]

I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union.

They probably should have been allowed to break away.

it would have been less bloody.  The North could have engaged in rapid certification of the new territories, surround the independant South, and the Indians would have tried to play both powers for a little longer.

[Razgovory]

 

[Josquius]

I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union

That logic doesn't follow at all.
The CSA should have been allowed to break away....except for the fact one of their central tenements was a grave human rights abuse. They got off easy.
Equally one could say if you don't support self determination then you support the soviets in Hungary.
There is no connection . This kind of thing has to be taken on a case by case basis and consider more than  just the basic "they want self determination"

[Richard Hakluyt]

Tenet...tenet....tenet....

Though people usually use "tenant" when they get it wrong, so 10/10 for originality.

[Martinus]

Tenet...tenet....tenet....

Though people usually use "tenant" when they get it wrong, so 10/10 for originality.

This.

[Valmy]

I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union.

They probably should have been allowed to break away.

And allow the slave power to destroy our country? Why?

it would have been less bloody.  The North could have engaged in rapid certification of the new territories, surround the independant South, and the Indians would have tried to play both powers for a little longer.

Yeah ok the South had big plans. They were not going to sit around and be surrounded.

[Valmy]

Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

Um ethnic nationalism was a driving force in the creation and sustaining those empires. Serbia wanted their own little empire where they would be the dominant southern slav power.

[Malthus]

Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

'Your evil imperialism got in the way of the natural expansion of our righteous ethnic nationalism' 

[Valmy]

'Your evil imperialism got in the way of the natural expansion of our righteous ethnic nationalism' 

[OttoVonBismarck]

That logic doesn't follow at all.
The CSA should have been allowed to break away....except for the fact one of their central tenements was a grave human rights abuse. They got off easy.
Equally one could say if you don't support self determination then you support the soviets in Hungary.
There is no connection . This kind of thing has to be taken on a case by case basis and consider more than  just the basic "they want self determination"

That really has nothing to do with it, part and parcel of the concept of independent states is that some states have domestic policies we would consider evil. It's really got nothing to do with whether the concept of self-determination is valid. I don't believe that countries should buy into the concept of self-determination in cases of national secession movements. For one, in almost every such scenario the regions that want to break away have a pretty sizable population of people who aren't members of the majority ethnic group in that region and who do not wish to break away.

You could argue "but, majority rules", and yes, you can make that argument--but that argument is always subject to checks on it, and I think "breaking up the country" is a good check on the concept of democracy in a small-area of the country.

I'd be much more inclined to accept secession movements that are the result of mutual consent--where both a majority of the breakaway province and a majority of the country as a whole agree to the secession.

[viper37]

Yeah ok the South had big plans. They were not going to sit around and be surrounded.

Of course not.  But they had much less people than the northerners, still plenty of lands and a diminishing number of slaves.  It would have been easy for the North to act like the British and fight against the Atlantic slave trade.
Meanwhile, arm the indians, form militia and assist them in repelling the Southerners encroaching on their lands instead of fighting against the Indians to protect the colonists

Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

'Your evil imperialism got in the way of the natural expansion of our righteous ethnic nationalism' 

Sometimes, you invade a country, you conquer them, you massacre them, and without reason any, they rebel against your rule.


So, the creation of Israel, should it be seen as the triump of righteous ethnic nationalism when they carved themselves a Jewish State out of the British colony (sorry, "mandate")?  Should Israelis today declare Yom Ha'atzma'ut to be a shameful day, the triumph of ethnic nationalism over tolerant imperialism?

Let's be honest for two seconds: real multicultiralism, were a variety of cultures each work together for the same goals, each being entirely equal to one another rarely exists.  The natural way is for one ethnicity to take control, usually the majority one, but sometimes the minority one can achieve the same goals with violence.  Anglo saxon culture is dominant in the US and Canada.  In the past, whenever a cultural group could pose a threat, the legislator made sure it would not happen, and it is still going on today with the latest CSC decisions regarding bilinguism.  We just can't have a French revival in part of the country, that would be shameful.

In the US, as fear of the Mexican, and now Arab "invasion" grows, you see near fascist candidates going on the rise in voters intentions.  People talk or fences, registers, deportation, anchor babies and they are cheered on by a growing proportion of the electors.  20 years ago, someone suggesting that in the US would have been shunned by all medias and electors.  Today, they are treated as saying the truths no one dares speaking of.  That's the dominant cultural group fighting back against what they perceive as an erosion of their power: if things keep going, they fear they will no longer be able to shape the country to their image, it will transform into something else.

By comparison, a portion of a country, usually conquered by military might or annexed by a royal marriage, threatening to hold a democratic process on secession is not really scary to me.  I'd much prefer a country to be partionned than wait for a Syrian like civil war to happen because some groups simply can't stand themselves anymore, at all, and 5 centuries old grievances resurface.

I remember the the Yugoslavian civil wars, and it was nasty.  Serbs, Croats and Kosovars each accusing the other of war crimes committed in the distant middle ages and being deadly serious about it...  Should we have let them slaughter each another or did we do the right thing by officially dismantling the countries in seperate entities?  Was nationalism the greatest of evil?

[Malthus]

Yeah ok the South had big plans. They were not going to sit around and be surrounded.

Of course not.  But they had much less people than the northerners, still plenty of lands and a diminishing number of slaves.  It would have been easy for the North to act like the British and fight against the Atlantic slave trade.
Meanwhile, arm the indians, form militia and assist them in repelling the Southerners encroaching on their lands instead of fighting against the Indians to protect the colonists

Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

'Your evil imperialism got in the way of the natural expansion of our righteous ethnic nationalism' 

Sometimes, you invade a country, you conquer them, you massacre them, and without reason any, they rebel against your rule.


So, the creation of Israel, should it be seen as the triump of righteous ethnic nationalism when they carved themselves a Jewish State out of the British colony (sorry, "mandate")?  Should Israelis today declare Yom Ha'atzma'ut to be a shameful day, the triumph of ethnic nationalism over tolerant imperialism?  

Undoubtedly the creation of Israel was the consequence of the triumph of an ethno-nationalist movement ("Zionism"). Is there anyone who doubts it? 

Let's be honest for two seconds: real multicultiralism, were a variety of cultures each work together for the same goals, each being entirely equal to one another rarely exists.  The natural way is for one ethnicity to take control, usually the majority one, but sometimes the minority one can achieve the same goals with violence.  Anglo saxon culture is dominant in the US and Canada.

Canada makes an odd example of triumphant Anglo Saxon culture lording it over everyone.   

But then, you actually believe that to be true, so I shouldn't mock.

[Savonarola]

Did we just go from an American Civil War hijack to a Quebec Sovereignty / le Québec libre hijack? 

The future looks dim for the Kurds.   

[viper37]

Canada makes an odd example of triumphant Anglo Saxon culture lording it over everyone.   
But then, you actually believe that to be true, so I shouldn't mock.

Really?  What is the most spoken language in the country and by what margin?  Who is the head of State?  How many unilingual english provinces in the country?  Where do your civil laws come from?

[Josquius]

That really has nothing to do with it, part and parcel of the concept of independent states is that some states have domestic policies we would consider evil. It's really got nothing to do with whether the concept of self-determination is valid. I don't believe that countries should buy into the concept of self-determination in cases of national secession movements. For one, in almost every such scenario the regions that want to break away have a pretty sizable population of people who aren't members of the majority ethnic group in that region and who do not wish to break away.

You could argue "but, majority rules", and yes, you can make that argument--but that argument is always subject to checks on it, and I think "breaking up the country" is a good check on the concept of democracy in a small-area of the country.

I'd be much more inclined to accept secession movements that are the result of mutual consent--where both a majority of the breakaway province and a majority of the country as a whole agree to the secession.

This wasn't the US invading an established country that was a bit of a dick though. It was part of the US deciding to break free specifically so it could be really fucking evil.
To stand by and let that happen would be immoral.

In a more neutral situation where self determination is the only issue in play then nations deserve self-determination.
There should of course be rules around this- they have to continue to respect minorities, maintain a lot of integration and free movement with the country they're leaving for the next few decades at least, etc.... but to be against self-determination as an absolute is just wrong.