Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[viper37]

Interesting cherry picking of countries there.  I disagree I think this is a concern for modern western countries.  These countries theoretically are based on sovereignty of an ethnicity.  But what happens when immigrants from outside do not fit well with the established ethnicity?  Observe the rise of far right parties.  Obviously not like it is in places like Iraq or whatever but I am baffled you think it is not much of a concern when it has been huge concern.

Wich is why you should have plans in place to integrate immigrants in your society and remind them of the core values of your country.  They can adhere to the same basic principles as most people, or they can stay where they were.

That's for stick.  On the carrot side, strickly speaking for Quebec, a better recognition of foreign diplomas to avoid condemning immigrants to poverty and the frustations that comes with leaving a doctor job to become a taxi driver.

[Zanza]

Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.

You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.

[viper37]

Remember all that shit we did in the US because this country was for the Christian white man?  That was fantastic.

Why the past tense?  Did you elect an atheist president or something?

[Warspite]

I think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession.

No - what tends to happen is that other people get kicked out, or massacred.

[Malthus]

Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.

You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.

Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.

Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism. 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.

You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.

Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.

Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.

idle hope

[Malthus]

Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.

You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.

Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.

Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.

idle hope

I dunno, the EU strikes me as an example. Within the EU itself, ethno-nationalist tensions aren't as acute as they once were.

[Zanza]

I think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession.

Israel

[Zanza]

Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.

Because you killed or ethnically cleansed the existing Native American population and replaced it with immigrants that didn't have strong ethno-nationalist roots anymore, having left their homes.  Despite countless genocides and ethnic cleansings, there are just more coherent ethnic groups left in the old world. 
Switzerland would be a better example of a country that is based on an idea despite ethnicity.

Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.

Yes, but that doesn't seem to be human nature. Let's see if increased globalization will eventually change that.

[Barrister]

According to you there is nothing for them to be concerned about. If 51% of the Donetsk region wants to join Russia, they should be allowed. Why is that a concern if self-determination is all that matters? If then 51% of some smaller portion wants to be part of the Ukraine, then THAT should be ok as well. And if 51%  of some subset of THAT group wants to go back to Russia, no problem. Repeat over and over until you cannot get your magic number larger than a county size.

If Donetsk, or Crimea, or wherever wants to join Russia, they absolutely should be allowed (note I never endorsed 50%+1).

But, of course, it has to be done democratically.  Which means a free and fair debate and exchange of views.  It means international observers.  It means an election free of violence and intimidation.

Precisely none of which took place during the Crimea "referendum" - hell the status quo wasn't even on the ballot!

[Barrister]

Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.

You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.

Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.

Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.

Canada and the US (and I suppose some/most South American states) are not entho-nation states to be sure, but we are cultural-nation states.  We have a common language (or dual language), common political beliefs, common cultural heritage.  We have mostly removed ethnicity from the equation, but still have a common national ideal to try and hold us together.

[Malthus]

Because you killed or ethnically cleansed the existing Native American population and replaced it with immigrants that didn't have strong ethno-nationalist roots anymore, having left their homes.  Despite countless genocides and ethnic cleansings, there are just more coherent ethnic groups left in the old world. 
Switzerland would be a better example of a country that is based on an idea despite ethnicity.

No, here in Canada at least, that most certainly was not the case. Not that the British Empire/Canada was nice and perfect in its relations to native Canadians, but they did not, by any reasonable description, "kill or ethnically cleanse" the existing Native American population (which very much still exists today). 

Yes, but that doesn't seem to be human nature. Let's see if increased globalization will eventually change that.

I'm not so sure a romantic notion essentially invented over the last couple of centuries is an inevitable part of "human nature".

[Malthus]

Joking aside, I can't see "we had a terrible genocidal war, which is what was required for the present peace" as good evidence for the superiority of ethno-nationalism in terms of peacefulness.

You are right. It is an argument against the multi-ethnic empires some here seem to consider good forms of state organisation.

Multi-ethnic empires, in their time, tended to be one ethnicity militarily conquering several others and ruling over them. That is very different from today's Western nations, such as Canada and the US, which may have their roots in such empires but really are not that any more - they are, rather, countries in which the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity. They may be "multi ethnic" but this is incidental - what they are not, is ethno-nationalist.

Now, ethno-nationalism is a fact, and must be dealt with; only utopians want ot to dissapear altogether overnight. But in the grand sceme of history, I think it is a better and more 'progressive' or 'evolved' method of organizing a country, than ethno-nationalism. The hope is that ethno-nationalism can quietly fade away or be subsumed into political units not dependent on ethno-nationalism.

Canada and the US (and I suppose some/most South American states) are not entho-nation states to be sure, but we are cultural-nation states.  We have a common language (or dual language), common political beliefs, common cultural heritage.  We have mostly removed ethnicity from the equation, but still have a common national ideal to try and hold us together.

Um, yes? Are you disagreeing, when I just said "... the basis of loyalty is a set of laws and insitutions, not ethnicity", or agreeing?

[Maximus]

I'm not so sure a romantic notion essentially invented over the last couple of centuries is an inevitable part of "human nature".

Well, maybe. Nationalism is basically scaled-up tribalism.

[mongers]

If things go the way I now suspect they will, this might turn out to one of the longest Languish threads ever.