5 ms·

What shines through is that you believe in segregating ethnicities because they just can't live peacefully together. Which is bullshit, looking at almost any c

What shines through is that you believe in segregating ethnicities because they just can't live peacefully together. Which is bullshit, looking at almost any country that is not currently embroiled in a civil war. Many of them combine tons of ethnicities... USA, Canada, Australia, India, even countries like Germany just aren't that "ethnically pure" as they are sometimes stylized...

crassus 13y ago
> "What shines through is that you believe in segregating ethnicities because they just can't live peacefully together." Some can, some can't. I do think that Democracy is more sensitive to national separatism than other forms of government. The great multiethnic empires of history weren't democratic. The Chinese have held together a multiethnic society for 3,000 years without holding a vote. The Northern coalition in the Afghanistan civil war was composed of many ethnic groups fighting together against the Pashtun south. There is enough common ground between the groups of the north that a two state solution may suffice. Nationalism is a powerful force that has great appeal to human psychology. Every successful multi-ethnic, multi-religious, or multi-lingual empire has to address it. Even the Canadians have struck an uneasy balance between the French speaking Quebecois and the rest of the country. Separation was a close thing. And nationalism doesn't skip Europe. Try to find Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia on a map. And soon Spain might be joining them in the historical deadpool if the Catalan independence movement gets its way.
- thesash 13y ago
  Well, look at the centuries of violent war that preceded most modern, stable nation-states. Europe was pretty much in a constant state of conflict from the fall of the Roman Empire until WWI. Nationalism is also an interesting phenomenon, in that over time it tends to transcend ethnic groups, but only once the thread of common identity has established itself. Take a look, for instance, at the post WWI Middle East, where the imposition of arbitrary zones of influence (the origins of many modern states) disrupted a budding pan-Arab nationalism in favor of keeping a balance of influence between the colonial powers. The United States is a completely different case in that the nationalism that took root here was based on a shared identity among immigrants of (relatively speaking) diverse ethnic groups-- but even so, our early history had no shortage of atrocities committed agains native populations, as well as conflict among the constituent religious and ethnic groups that comprised the nation. That being said, nation states seem to be a very stable and agreeable governance paradigm once they become established, but a shared identity amongst diverse groups (ethnic or otherwise) takes time to develop, and as history has demonstrated, it certainly can't be imposed from the outside.
dodyg 13y ago
The issue of ethnicity will still rear its ugly head from time to time. Take Mali as the latest example. The Tuareg rebellion didn't come from nowhere. The US went through some real nasty war to live together. Regarding India, check out Pakistan. Australia has some really dark history. For Germany, check out the holocaust.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  Holocaust? That almost sounds as if it was the jews' fault for living in a country where they weren't the ethnic majority. Otherwise "ethnic tensions" had nothing to do with it. The tension if at all was pretty one-sided, and the genocide on this scale and sophistication can't easily be compared to multi-ethnic nation-states. Segregation makes problems worse, not better.
  - dodyg 13y ago
    I am just pointing out your great examples of ethnic harmony went through some terrible stuff. To discount the effect of ethnic tension in the holocaust is disingenuous. Antisemitism is largely ethnic based hatred. My point is simply the issue ethnicity is a complex one. There are societies where largely mono culture works quite well and it is not a deficiency. My country, Indonesia, is pretty diverse (300 ethnics plus) but it had to go to some fire as well to get some resemblance of harmony.
glesica 13y ago
It's easier to live peacefully with people who are different than you when you are all relatively prosperous. Look at the rioting in France a couple years ago, or the rise of far-right politicians in many European countries that have become more ethnically diverse in recent decades. Additionally, race and ethnicity are still strong factors in the US. People don't kill one another as often in wealthy countries because the rule of law is stronger and there is more to lose, but the divisions exist. Regarding India, my understanding is that Indian states have a great deal of autonomy, but I'm certainly no expert.
- gnufied 13y ago
  > Regarding India, my understanding is that Indian states have a great deal of autonomy, but I'm certainly no expert. So by and large Indian states have lesser autonomy than US states. Central govt. controls large chunk of Income Tax and redistributes it. Unlike US, State govts can't enact their own laws and all of India is ruled by one law.
  - chetanahuja 13y ago
    "Unlike US, State govts can't enact their own laws and all of India is ruled by one law" Mmmm... what? States may have less powers in India than in the US but they do have their own legislature and do have their own legal system. Here's an example (state of Maharashtra): http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/acts/listofmahacts.html http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/acts/listofmahacts.html
- frozenport 13y ago
  India's bureaucracy is dysfunctional for many of the many of the same reasons as the author mentioned. Everybody wants part of the pie so the bureaucratic overlap is total.
coldtea 13y ago
>What shines through is that you believe in segregating ethnicities because they just can't live peacefully together. And what also shines through, is that from an ivory tower of ignorance some people advocate forcing people to "live peacefully together" through their social engineering, enforced borders and when that doesn't work violence. Because, those outsiders know what is proper for those "savages" that "can't live peacefully together" better than they do themselves, right? >Which is bullshit, looking at almost any country that is not currently embroiled in a civil war. Many of them combine tons of ethnicities... USA, Canada, Australia, India, even countries like Germany just aren't that "ethnically pure" as they are sometimes stylized... USA decimated and confined the natives into "reservations", then had the blacks as slaves or second rate citizens up until the sixties. Oh, and they had a big nasty civil war, because two groups had different views on such issues. Blacks still have a huge over-representation in prison sentenses and poverty and still live pretty much seggregated. As for the rest: Australia killed the natives and closed them in concentration camps and has had rampant racism against non-anglosaxon immigrants. In Canada there is the francophone and anglophone divide and tension, which is even worse for Belgium and it's two national cultures. The same goes for Catalonia and Basque country in Spain. USSR and Yugoslavia, examples of getting "different nations to live peacefully" all blew up in consisting nations after 1989, with civil wars and tension. Same for Chechoslovakia. Heck, even Italy has tension between the North and South parts. As for Germany, it might not be ethnically pure, but it's not all fun and games either. Germans are still quite racist with immigrants, even those that live there for many decades (tons of hate crimes, neo-nazi groups, casual racism and such). Oh, and they have eliminated some million jews back in the 40s. But it's putting up India as an example that really shows up the total lack of understanding of the issues and a bad command of history. India, if anything is the perfect counter-example: national, ethnic and religious tensions there broke the country into Bagladesh and Pakistan, and they still ran rampant in each of the new countries between sub-groups.
- RodericDay 13y ago
  the guy is called bayesianhorse. you shouldn't waste so much breath on him.
- lake99 13y ago
jgon 13y ago
Well to be honest I think that the jury is still kind of out in that regard, at least somewhat. I mean in the case of 3 of the countries that you listed, Canada, the US, and Australia, are still very much majority European descent white. And even with this majority you can still see what happens when other ethnic groups become large enough. In Canada, the francophone minority has repeatedly tried to separate and form their own nation, and in the 70s created disruption to such a degree that the government declared essentially martial law in the province of Quebec. In the US the treatment of the African-American ethnic group has been terrible to say the least. And we'll see what happens as the latino ethnic group continues to increase in size, there is already some reactionism in the form of laws passed in Arizona, etc. The fourth nation you listed, India, had to separate into two separate nations that have been repeatedly on the brink of war on basis of religious groups! So I think it is easy to say that western nations have been able to work and experience peace, but in most cases there is either one ethnic group that is a clear majority and all other groups bend to its will, or there actually is a bunch of friction and conflict when those minorities become sizable enough. Obviously not to the point of civil war, but I don't think we can say that things are just "working" elsewhere.

crassus 13y ago

> "What shines through is that you believe in segregating ethnicities because they just can't live peacefully together." Some can, some can't. I do think that Democracy is more sensitive to national separatism than other forms of government. The great multiethnic empires of history weren't democratic. The Chinese have held together a multiethnic society for 3,000 years without holding a vote. The Northern coalition in the Afghanistan civil war was composed of many ethnic groups fighting together against the Pashtun south. There is enough common ground between the groups of the north that a two state solution may suffice. Nationalism is a powerful force that has great appeal to human psychology. Every successful multi-ethnic, multi-religious, or multi-lingual empire has to address it. Even the Canadians have struck an uneasy balance between the French speaking Quebecois and the rest of the country. Separation was a close thing. And nationalism doesn't skip Europe. Try to find Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia on a map. And soon Spain might be joining them in the historical deadpool if the Catalan independence movement gets its way.

thesash 13y ago
Well, look at the centuries of violent war that preceded most modern, stable nation-states. Europe was pretty much in a constant state of conflict from the fall of the Roman Empire until WWI. Nationalism is also an interesting phenomenon, in that over time it tends to transcend ethnic groups, but only once the thread of common identity has established itself. Take a look, for instance, at the post WWI Middle East, where the imposition of arbitrary zones of influence (the origins of many modern states) disrupted a budding pan-Arab nationalism in favor of keeping a balance of influence between the colonial powers. The United States is a completely different case in that the nationalism that took root here was based on a shared identity among immigrants of (relatively speaking) diverse ethnic groups-- but even so, our early history had no shortage of atrocities committed agains native populations, as well as conflict among the constituent religious and ethnic groups that comprised the nation. That being said, nation states seem to be a very stable and agreeable governance paradigm once they become established, but a shared identity amongst diverse groups (ethnic or otherwise) takes time to develop, and as history has demonstrated, it certainly can't be imposed from the outside.

dodyg 13y ago

The issue of ethnicity will still rear its ugly head from time to time. Take Mali as the latest example. The Tuareg rebellion didn't come from nowhere. The US went through some real nasty war to live together. Regarding India, check out Pakistan. Australia has some really dark history. For Germany, check out the holocaust.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
Holocaust? That almost sounds as if it was the jews' fault for living in a country where they weren't the ethnic majority. Otherwise "ethnic tensions" had nothing to do with it. The tension if at all was pretty one-sided, and the genocide on this scale and sophistication can't easily be compared to multi-ethnic nation-states. Segregation makes problems worse, not better.
- dodyg 13y ago
  I am just pointing out your great examples of ethnic harmony went through some terrible stuff. To discount the effect of ethnic tension in the holocaust is disingenuous. Antisemitism is largely ethnic based hatred. My point is simply the issue ethnicity is a complex one. There are societies where largely mono culture works quite well and it is not a deficiency. My country, Indonesia, is pretty diverse (300 ethnics plus) but it had to go to some fire as well to get some resemblance of harmony.

glesica 13y ago

It's easier to live peacefully with people who are different than you when you are all relatively prosperous. Look at the rioting in France a couple years ago, or the rise of far-right politicians in many European countries that have become more ethnically diverse in recent decades. Additionally, race and ethnicity are still strong factors in the US. People don't kill one another as often in wealthy countries because the rule of law is stronger and there is more to lose, but the divisions exist. Regarding India, my understanding is that Indian states have a great deal of autonomy, but I'm certainly no expert.

gnufied 13y ago
> Regarding India, my understanding is that Indian states have a great deal of autonomy, but I'm certainly no expert. So by and large Indian states have lesser autonomy than US states. Central govt. controls large chunk of Income Tax and redistributes it. Unlike US, State govts can't enact their own laws and all of India is ruled by one law.
- chetanahuja 13y ago
  "Unlike US, State govts can't enact their own laws and all of India is ruled by one law" Mmmm... what? States may have less powers in India than in the US but they do have their own legislature and do have their own legal system. Here's an example (state of Maharashtra): http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/acts/listofmahacts.html http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/acts/listofmahacts.html
frozenport 13y ago
India's bureaucracy is dysfunctional for many of the many of the same reasons as the author mentioned. Everybody wants part of the pie so the bureaucratic overlap is total.

coldtea 13y ago

>What shines through is that you believe in segregating ethnicities because they just can't live peacefully together. And what also shines through, is that from an ivory tower of ignorance some people advocate forcing people to "live peacefully together" through their social engineering, enforced borders and when that doesn't work violence. Because, those outsiders know what is proper for those "savages" that "can't live peacefully together" better than they do themselves, right? >Which is bullshit, looking at almost any country that is not currently embroiled in a civil war. Many of them combine tons of ethnicities... USA, Canada, Australia, India, even countries like Germany just aren't that "ethnically pure" as they are sometimes stylized... USA decimated and confined the natives into "reservations", then had the blacks as slaves or second rate citizens up until the sixties. Oh, and they had a big nasty civil war, because two groups had different views on such issues. Blacks still have a huge over-representation in prison sentenses and poverty and still live pretty much seggregated. As for the rest: Australia killed the natives and closed them in concentration camps and has had rampant racism against non-anglosaxon immigrants. In Canada there is the francophone and anglophone divide and tension, which is even worse for Belgium and it's two national cultures. The same goes for Catalonia and Basque country in Spain. USSR and Yugoslavia, examples of getting "different nations to live peacefully" all blew up in consisting nations after 1989, with civil wars and tension. Same for Chechoslovakia. Heck, even Italy has tension between the North and South parts. As for Germany, it might not be ethnically pure, but it's not all fun and games either. Germans are still quite racist with immigrants, even those that live there for many decades (tons of hate crimes, neo-nazi groups, casual racism and such). Oh, and they have eliminated some million jews back in the 40s. But it's putting up India as an example that really shows up the total lack of understanding of the issues and a bad command of history. India, if anything is the perfect counter-example: national, ethnic and religious tensions there broke the country into Bagladesh and Pakistan, and they still ran rampant in each of the new countries between sub-groups.

RodericDay 13y ago
the guy is called bayesianhorse. you shouldn't waste so much breath on him.
lake99 13y ago

jgon 13y ago

Well to be honest I think that the jury is still kind of out in that regard, at least somewhat. I mean in the case of 3 of the countries that you listed, Canada, the US, and Australia, are still very much majority European descent white. And even with this majority you can still see what happens when other ethnic groups become large enough. In Canada, the francophone minority has repeatedly tried to separate and form their own nation, and in the 70s created disruption to such a degree that the government declared essentially martial law in the province of Quebec. In the US the treatment of the African-American ethnic group has been terrible to say the least. And we'll see what happens as the latino ethnic group continues to increase in size, there is already some reactionism in the form of laws passed in Arizona, etc. The fourth nation you listed, India, had to separate into two separate nations that have been repeatedly on the brink of war on basis of religious groups! So I think it is easy to say that western nations have been able to work and experience peace, but in most cases there is either one ethnic group that is a clear majority and all other groups bend to its will, or there actually is a bunch of friction and conflict when those minorities become sizable enough. Obviously not to the point of civil war, but I don't think we can say that things are just "working" elsewhere.