David Hobby wrote: > > Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the > > world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say > 'language' do you > > mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump > > their chests and ask for a separate nation? > > Just languages! I'd even call Hindi and Urdu one > language, if that helped. : )
*g* Depends on what you want to achieve really - it can certainly throw up a number of protests, marches, fiery speeches and the like. But we can always group Hindustani and its parent languages [Hindi and Urdu] together. :) > >>Separate countries created this way could always decide to > >>merge; I'm sure the three or four parts of Switzerland would. > > > > > > Yeah right. You create different states, make random > politicians heads > > of state instead of mere heads of provinces/areas, and you > expect them > > to give that up to merge...? > > Well, the PEOPLE would decide, in my system. It would > just go to a popular vote. We can't trust politicians > to decide things like this... > > >>Many countries exist for historical reasons, it's not > >>clear to me that one should expend much energy trying to > >>keep them together. > > > > What is wrong with historic reasons? Why should they be considered > > obviously inferior to linguistic or ethnic reasons? > > "Historic reasons" was my euphemism for "somebody conquered > all these places, and decided to call it a country". If > history matters that much, the groups can always choose to > stay together. > > > I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not > > share this love of dismemberment, David. :) > > Ritu-- I was overstating things to get a reaction, I guess. > If a whole bunch of really different regions want to be one > country, fine. On the other hand, what would be so wrong > with them being many different countries, bound together as > the countries in the EU are? > > >>I do agree with you, the people involved should get to decide. I'm > >>not sure what the best mechanism for this would be. One > could start > >>by giving every linguistically (or however) distinct group its own > >>homeland, ideally a place where they made up most of the population. > >>(I'm not sure what to do with the Gypsies, for instance, > >>assuming they'd want a homeland.) > > > > Who will 'give' these homelands? > > I'm presuming that the groups would already be in > de facto possession of their "homelands". Having to > clear out the indigenous people to create a homeland > for others is not an ideal solution! (This could > now turn into an argument about Israel, but let's > refrain.) > > > And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in > distinct > > localities? > > Well, it's not. It's something you would create if > they demonstrated they can't share localities. But > just having a homeland might take some pressure off > of a group? > > >>Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries > >>are, we get to negotiate their borders. > > > > Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? > > And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? > > 'We' would include everybody involved. The group of > neighboring countries, together with the outside power > (hopefully the UN) who was trying to help produce a solution. > You didn't think this was going to happen without an outside > power intervening, did you? > > >>Some people > >>would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's homeland, one > >>could either move there, or stay where one was as a minority. > > > Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that > > choice in 1947. > > This might be a tangent, but here goes: The Hindus got > India, the Muslims got Pakistan, and what region did the Sikhs get? Sikhs, along with Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Chritians, Jews etc, got India. The demand was for a separate state for Muslims, and some of them got it and chose to move there. But more Muslims stayed in India than went to Pakistan, and there never was a demand for a separate homeland for Hindus. And neither was India ever meant for Hindus alone. > >>There would have to be some > >>carefully designed laws to stop minorities from being > >>oppressed. Certainly they should always be able to get fair > >>compensation for property they leave behind, and to then go > >>to their homeland, or wherever. > > > > This is nice in theory but sometimes just doesn't work too well in > > practice. New nations are free to form their own > constitutions, they > > are free to choose what rights they do or do not bestow upon their > > minorities. They are also free to choose just how often and > how well > > these laws would be enforced. Property prices crash when > the nation is > > in a turmoil due to a partition and relocation, government > funds are > > tied up in protective and relief measures. New nations are > also free > > to go to war with each other and then make it close to > impossible for > > their new enemy's citizens to enter their nation. > > > > Ritu > > You have hit on a flaw of my argument, it does presume that > there is an outside power which can enforce justice. Maybe > there would have to be a period of a year before the > constitution took effect. If it was sufficiently bad for > some groups, that would be their time to get out. What I was > getting at is that it is certainly unjust to force a group > out AND confiscate their possessions. So I was trying to > remove an economic motivation for picking on minorities. > > Now if one's property becomes worthless because the > government of one's country messes up, that's too bad, but it > would not be considered "actionable". (One could for > instance have removed assets from the country before the > one-year waiting period took effect.) > > ---David > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
