A country for each ethnic group?

[princess]

Should each ethnic group in the world be allowed to maintain their ethnic majority within the boundaries of their traditional homeland? This would obviously involve a lot of border alterations and migrations, so how plausible do you think this would be?

Similarly, many Europeans emigrated to other continents, mainly North America and Australia. Would ethnic Europeans be given a right of return to their countries of origin? If Europeans remain on these continents how does this affect the rights of aboriginals to preserve their own cultures? I think ethnic preservation can only be achieved on a global scale, since if things weren't so interconnected, we wouldn't be in this predicament anyway. I'm interested in your thoughts!

[Savant]

Well, that was merely common sense until not very long ago in human history...


In fact, the very word "nation" originally meant a group of PEOPLE, not a parcel of land.


Should each ethnic group in the world be allowed to maintain their ethnic majority within the boundaries of their traditional homeland? This would obviously involve a lot of border alterations and migrations, so how plausible do you think this would be?

Similarly, many Europeans emigrated to other continents, mainly North America and Australia. Would ethnic Europeans be given a right of return to their countries of origin? If Europeans remain on these continents how does this affect the rights of aboriginals to preserve their own cultures? I think ethnic preservation can only be achieved on a global scale, since if things weren't so interconnected, we wouldn't be in this predicament anyway. I'm interested in your thoughts!

[Peerkons]

What about gypos?

[Savant]

Genetic testing suggests they originated in India, I understand...


What about gypos?

[steppe]

Genetic testing suggests they originated in India, I understand...

What about Irish Gypsy ? They doesn't looks Gypsy/Indian at all.

[princess]

Irish Travellers aren't the same as the Romani people who are usually thought of as gypsies. They're of Irish descent and their language (Shelta) is a mix of Irish and English.

[Peerkons]

Genetic testing suggests they originated in India, I understand...

Who is going to transport and take them?:D

[Savant]

The baltics...


Who is going to transport and take them?:D

[Fortis in Arduis]

No. This idea is too simple and straightforward and so is not permitted.

[Aemma]

Should each ethnic group in the world be allowed to maintain their ethnic majority within the boundaries of their traditional homeland? This would obviously involve a lot of border alterations and migrations, so how plausible do you think this would be?

Similarly, many Europeans emigrated to other continents, mainly North America and Australia. Would ethnic Europeans be given a right of return to their countries of origin? If Europeans remain on these continents how does this affect the rights of aboriginals to preserve their own cultures? I think ethnic preservation can only be achieved on a global scale, since if things weren't so interconnected, we wouldn't be in this predicament anyway. I'm interested in your thoughts!

But my country of origin IS Canada. In this sense, I'm no more "European" than an Australian is. Besides the French and English, two peoples from which I hail, would no more consider me one of theirs than they would consider any other immigrant to their country. And rightfully so! I'm Canadian first and foremost but enjoy my European-ness if you will. But I make no mistake in thinking I'm even remotely "European" in the sense you seem to be using it.

No thank you. Canada IS my home.

As for the aboriginal folk who were "here before the White man came" and who, I might remind you, are still very much here, I think they're fully able to take care of themselves as they have been all these centuries. They can look after themselves quite adequately I assure you. They don't need the likes of me interfering in their own quest for self-determination. As it should be.

[antonio]

No thank you. Canada IS my home.

As for the aboriginal folk who were "here before the White man came" and who, I might remind you, are still very much here, I think they're fully able to take care of themselves as they have been all these centuries. They can look after themselves quite adequately I assure you. They don't need the likes of me interfering in their own quest for self-determination. As it should be.

That's debatable because you're missing the right of conquest. For example, Romans conquered what they called Hispania. Even if their descendants were not fully miscigenated but distinguisable from native population, native ones should be grateful on them, acknowledging all the cultural and technological progress they brought...including (as in Canada) the very limits of the nation. Unless, of course, if Canadian natives decide to severe all links with modern civilization and turn back to arch hunting.

To sum up my stand: I guess Whites (as rulers of a fuzzy but real White empire) should be allowed to live elsewhere, the rest should try to constrain themselves (or with a reasonable force) to their own lands.

[princess]

I meant ethnic Europeans rather than civic Europeans. Nations like the U.S. or Canada are more melting-pots where nationality is based on shared values rather than Japan or Greece where nationality is based on common ancestry and heritage. I think it's interesting how this interplay between ethnicity and culture affects preservation because sometimes they don't overlap.

[Baron Samedi]

Dumb thread is dumb.

[Wyn]

This would obviously involve a lot of border alterations and migrations, so how plausible do you think this would be?

Not plausible at all, an idea completely incompatible with modernity. Few, if any states, are willing to give up portions of territory.


Would ethnic Europeans be given a right of return to their countries of origin?

Disastrous. Consider the size of countries like England, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Then consider how many English-descended Australians, Irish-descended Americans etc. there are. Giving these groups an actual right of return? No way.

[Talvi]

Ideal but impossible.

[princess]

I think if people worldwide recognized the importance of preserving their own cultures and heritages, such international action could be enacted. I suppose it would be more plausible once certain "grand challenges" had been met such as poverty, energy etc.

[Aemma]

That's debatable because you're missing the right of conquest. For example, Romans conquered what they called Hispania. Even if their descendants were not fully miscigenated but distinguisable from native population, native ones should be grateful on them, acknowledging all the cultural and technological progress they brought...including (as in Canada) the very limits of the nation. Unless, of course, if Canadian natives decide to severe all links with modern civilization and turn back to arch hunting.

To sum up my stand: I guess Whites (as rulers of a fuzzy but real White empire) should be allowed to live elsewhere, the rest should try to constrain themselves (or with a reasonable force) to their own lands.

What do you mean by this statement? :confused:

[antonio]

Ideal but impossible.

I would simply advocate for a low-intensity racism (at state and society) which gradually could made societies tend to that ideal point.

[Talvi]

Lots of people would also have to redefine who they are and where they belong. There are those nations who dont have the experience in properly governing themselves either, nor an economy they can survive on.

[antonio]

What do you mean by this statement? :confused:

Right of conquest (derecho de conquista) is more or less the right of conquerors to do whatever they want on conquered lands. Indeed a very ancient one. I wonder if it is already present at Human Rights Declaration. :D

[Aemma]

I think if people worldwide recognized the importance of preserving their own cultures and heritages, such international action could be enacted. I suppose it would be more plausible once certain "grand challenges" had been met such as poverty, energy etc.

But you're making the assumption that such people aren't. I have to ask now why are you?

But honestly, it is impractical for ethnicities to have their own nations in the manner in which you propose. It goes again everything that history has taught us about the nature of human beings: man when limited in resources seeks other areas, read lands, which are richer in resources for the most part.

Besides I would be the first one to vote against some international monolithic group that would have the power to say where my people could settle or not. Anybody with a lick of sense would oppose this as well.

I recognise your idealism in this princess. And although it is commendable to some degree since I see it as being one of good intentions by you, in the end it is highly implausible and not to mention unhealthy for all peoples of the world to be directed by any one monolithic group.

[antonio]

Lots of people would also have to redefine who they are and where they belong. There are those nations who dont have the experience in properly governing themselves either, nor an economy they can survive on.

Many countries (where Whites are minories) are not able to manage themselves under occidental democracy based systems. That's a straight fact.

[princess]

At present, I suppose ethnocultural issues are superseded by more pressing concerns like economic, social and political ones. I suppose the only possible chance of this happening would be if all states were equal which I do believe will happen someday since the march of progress is inevitable. How long this will take is anyone's guess however.

I agree about the implausibility of European emigrants returning from Australia and North America - I didn't mean to suggest all should return to their countries of origin, I just wondered how it would conflict with natives' rights to preservation. Do you think giving them increased land rights such as by the UNCIR is the way to go?

[Talvi]

Many countries (where Whites are minories) are not able to manage themselves under occidental democracy based systems. That's a straight fact.

Well Im confused. Why are you saying this?:confused:

[Wyn]

I wonder if it is already present at Human Rights Declaration. :D

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't say anything related to it, but Article 33, Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations effectively delegitimises it directly:


The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

[Aemma]

I meant ethnic Europeans rather than civic Europeans. Nations like the U.S. or Canada are more melting-pots where nationality is based on shared values rather than Japan or Greece where nationality is based on common ancestry and heritage. I think it's interesting how this interplay between ethnicity and culture affects preservation because sometimes they don't overlap.

Well not quite. You make an assumption that most Europeans do in that there is no sense of nationality based on ancestry or heritage in North America. You're very far from the mark on that, if you speak to most of us of European descent who live in North America, well at least the Old Guard people here anyway.

But culture and ethnicity most often do overlap is the thing. My culture is mostly French Canadian and partly English yet ethnically I do identify as French Canadian. I hardly ever call myself just a Canadian unless the debate/discussion just needs that much from me. Otherwise, I'm almost nearly always French Canadian. If that's not culture and ethnicity overlapping in a new world country, I don't know what is. :/

[Lurker]

This could get complicated, specially in places where ethnicities are too chaotically distributed, like most African nations and the Balkans. Also, some ethnicities are just tribes, composed of very few people, some families (think about Brazilian Native Americans). How much land should they get?

[antonio]

Well Im confused. Why are you saying this?:confused:

Because is a proven fact democracy do not work at all on 2/3 part of the known world. Even in the 1/3 left, as current situation shows miserabelly up, there are no clear evidences about that. Although, in discharge of modern democracy, it's not clear that (even in Occident) people's were really ruling their own countries.

[Aemma]

Ideal but impossible.

The ideal for whom exactly?

I don't want to be "repatriated". Le Canada est ma patrie, merci beaucoup!

[princess]

I don't mean to suggest that every single ethnic group get their own independent state but I think it's worth considering that larger stateless groups with traditional homelands, like the Cornish in Cornwall, the Basques in the Basque Country etc. get their own states, or at least self-determination.

[antonio]

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

But these lovely words applies just on the previous prebelic situation. Right of conquest operates on a later state of things. :D

[Wyn]

like the Cornish in Cornwall

Around a quarter of the people in Cornwall identify ethnically as Cornish, and I don't know how much of that quarter would even support a completely independent Cornwall.

[Aemma]

Right of conquest (derecho de conquista) is more or less the right of conquerors to do whatever they want on conquered lands. Indeed a very ancient one. I wonder if it is already present at Human Rights Declaration. :D

Leave it to a Spaniard to tell me that my French forebears didn't have any "rights of conquest" to this country when they came here. :rolleyes: Puhlease!

I think the French and thereafter the English bloody well did whatever they wanted on thesee lands. Do you not think so? What are you going on about antonio?

[Talvi]

Because is a proven fact democracy do not work at all on 2/3 part of the known world. Even in the 1/3 left, as current situation shows miserabelly up, there are no clear evidences about that. Although, in discharge of modern democracy, it's not clear that (even in Occident) people's were really ruling their own countries.

Im not sure why we are talking about democracy...

But what I was trying to say that .. if at the moment there are minorities (even in Europe!) who are part of a country and dont really govern themselves, its being done for them, by the country. If they now had to start their own country because every ethnicity should they would be quite lost since they dont have any experience. They would also want to be a part of the modern world, which means they couldnt live a completely traditional lifestyle either.

Ive thought about this before ... although not just solely on the European scale.

[antonio]

I don't mean to suggest that every single ethnic group get their own independent state but I think it's worth considering that larger stateless groups with traditional homelands, like the Cornish in Cornwall, the Basques in the Basque Country etc. get their own states, or at least self-determination.

You and Cornish will be both surprised on how much extent Basques have the right of self-determination.:thumbs up

[princess]

I know we all have quite considerable individual rights nowadays but I just wondered about collective rights. My country (England) is quite possibly going to be majority non-native by 2050. I don't know whether it has the right to maintain its traditional majority, nor indeed whether it should.

[Aemma]

Lots of people would also have to redefine who they are and where they belong. There are those nations who dont have the experience in properly governing themselves either, nor an economy they can survive on.

Have you never heard of the right to self-determination of a people before? Why should it be our business how Insert-name-of-third-world-country-of-your-choice governs itself? I really couldn't care less and think less intervention by us is needed, not more!

[Aemma]

Im not sure why we are talking about democracy...

But what I was trying to say that .. if at the moment there are minorities (even in Europe!) who are part of a country and dont really govern themselves, its being done for them, by the country. If they now had to start their own country because every ethnicity should they would be quite lost since they dont have any experience. They would also want to be a part of the modern world, which means they couldnt live a completely traditional lifestyle either.

Ive thought about this before ... although not just solely on the European scale.

I really challenge this kind of thinking. Who said they do?

[antonio]

Im not sure why we are talking about democracy...

But what I was trying to say that .. if at the moment there are minorities (even in Europe!) who are part of a country and dont really govern themselves, its being done for them, by the country. If they now had to start their own country because every ethnicity should they would be quite lost since they dont have any experience. They would also want to be a part of the modern world, which means they couldnt live a completely traditional lifestyle either.

Ive thought about this before ... although not just solely on the European scale.

Decolonization was about that. They got lost and they remain lost. Even civilized countries are getting lost. We're currently living in a very bizarre circunstances. Look at Arab world...they're so uneducated and naive that they think that by simply removing their more or less corrupt and sclerotic systems, they could rise up and progress as if that kind of systems were not a direct consequence of their own inabilities.

[antonio]

I know we all have quite considerable individual rights nowadays but I just wondered about collective rights. My country (England) is quite possibly going to be majority non-native by 2050. I don't know whether it has the right to maintain its traditional majority, nor indeed whether it should.

It will be simply a question of whether English value the most: phony democracy or their own essence as nation.:coffee:

[Talvi]

Have you never heard of the right to self-determination of a people before? Why should it be our business how Insert-name-of-third-world-country-of-your-choice governs itself? I really couldn't care less and think less intervention by us is needed, not more!

I MEAN is that some people are being largely governed by others, like Canada with the natives. If those people now "got back" their land and wanted to stay "modern" it would be difficult for them!

Like the Seto in Estonia. Some think they are Estonian, some think they are a separate group, some of them feel more like Russians, but the thing is they dont govern themselves, nor would they have the necessary means to survive as a modern country on their own.

I dont think anybody should have bothered them in the first place, but it is sadly too late for many of them. If the Yupik would now say that nobody has the right to tell them what to do or who to be and they want to live their traditional life, Im all for it. But It has been largely ruined for them. There are tribes totally untouched by "modernity" but its getting more and more difficult to survive without it.


Also, this thread is actually about EUROPEANS, so I do think most here would like to stay a bit more modern than the average tribesman.

[Aemma]

I don't mean to suggest that every single ethnic group get their own independent state but I think it's worth considering that larger stateless groups with traditional homelands, like the Cornish in Cornwall, the Basques in the Basque Country etc. get their own states, or at least self-determination.

Well I was under the assumption that this was your original post. :confused: The discussion of some peoples' right to self-determination in the sense of acquiring their own home state is another issue altogether.

[princess]

I'm sorry Aemma, I should have clarified that I only meant sizeable ethnic groups. I know there are lots of small ethnic groups within European countries like the Izhorians or the Livonians but there's so few of them that it would be impossible for them to become independent.

[Aemma]

I know we all have quite considerable individual rights nowadays but I just wondered about collective rights. My country (England) is quite possibly going to be majority non-native by 2050. I don't know whether it has the right to maintain its traditional majority, nor indeed whether it should.

What's this mean exactly?

[Comte Arnau]

Every ethnic group which has the political will to form a state of their own should have the possibility to do so.

Of course supremacists of the ethnic groups that conquered others' territories will say the contrary and defend their rights of conquest, whether it is moral or not. To everyone, his moral. If law allowed me tomorrow to kill people in the street, I still wouldn't do it.

[princess]

Ethnic English people in England currently constitute the majority of people in the country but their fertility rates are below replacement levels whereas immigrant populations have fertility rates far above replacement levels. According to most estimates, they will overtake ethnic English people as the largest single group in England sometime this century.

I mean does the continued survival of ethnic English people as a separate group justify adopting stricter immigration controls?

[Curtis24]

Theoretically, each self-defined ethnicity should have political autonomy. In reality, borders of nations are formed and enforced because of geographic and economic-political factors. Case in point - Russia, where the Russian government must repress numerous minority groups because they are located on buffer territory necessary for Russia's protection.


I mean does the continued survival of ethnic English people as a separate group justify adopting stricter immigration controls?

Stricter immigration controls don't need any justification, its the right of a people to determine who is allowed to come into their country... I mean I guess if a people are fleeing actual genocide it would be the moral thing to let them into the country, but otherwise...

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by princess
Should each ethnic group in the world be allowed to maintain their ethnic majority within the boundaries of their traditional homeland? This would obviously involve a lot of border alterations and migrations, so how plausible do you think this would be?



Certainly a nice idea in principle, but the practicalities are not so nice, nor have they been nice historically...



Would ethnic Europeans be given a right of return to their countries of origin?

The 'right of return' already exists in some European countries.


I think ethnic preservation can only be achieved on a global scale, since if things weren't so interconnected, we wouldn't be in this predicament anyway.

In less interdependent times whole tribes were often annihilated by genocide all over the world. Provincialism and isolation is no safeguard for preservation, I'm afraid.

[Aemma]

Ethnic English people in England currently constitute the majority of people in the country but their fertility rates are below replacement levels whereas immigrant populations have fertility rates far above replacement levels. According to most estimates, they will overtake ethnic English people as the largest single group in England sometime this century.

I mean does the continued survival of ethnic English people as a separate group justify adopting stricter immigration controls?

Where is Beornie to answer this question?

Why wouldn't it? Isn't this part and parcel of cultural and ethnic preservation as well, made especially more urgent for the English to still be known as English living in their own land?

Unless I am misreading you, you are advocating something entirely different then? :confused: Do you not recognise the English as a distinct ethnic/cultural group worthy of its own fight for survival in its own lands?

[Wyn]

Ethnic English people in England currently constitute the majority of people in the country but their fertility rates are below replacement levels whereas immigrant populations have fertility rates far above replacement levels. According to most estimates, they will overtake ethnic English people as the largest single group in England sometime this century.

This goes for most ethnic groups in Europe.


I mean does the continued survival of ethnic English people as a separate group justify adopting stricter immigration controls?

Since you are a foreigner born and residing in England (or whatever your situation was), it's not surprising that you have to ask this. The answer is of course yes.

[princess]

I do think the English have a right to preserve their culture and ethnicity but I also think the same is true of other ethnic groups which is what I meant from this thread. I think giving the Cornish people autonomy, for instance, would do a great deal for Cornish preservation/revival.

[antonio]

Leave it to a Spaniard to tell me that my French forebears didn't have any "rights of conquest" to this country when they came here. :rolleyes: Puhlease!

I think the French and thereafter the English bloody well did whatever they wanted on thesee lands. Do you not think so? What are you going on about antonio?

Curiously theoretically-allied English army caused great confusion among Spaniards because their behaviour with civilian population was as bad as French enemies if not worse. :D

[Wyn]

I think giving the Cornish people autonomy, for instance, would do a great deal for Cornish preservation/revival.


Around a quarter of the people in Cornwall identify ethnically as Cornish, and I don't know how much of that quarter would even support a completely independent Cornwall.

[princess]

Since you are a foreigner born and residing in England (or whatever your situation was), it's not surprising that you have to ask this. The answer is of course yes.

I'm of mixed European ethnicity (variously English, German, Greek and Italian) but I consider myself English because I was born and raised here as my mother was.

[princess]

With regards to Cornwall, as your statistics show, Cornish culture and identity is dying out. I think this would be a great shame and perhaps more autonomy could help revive it, such as by Cornish-medium education, more celebrations of Cornish culture.

[Wyn]

I'm of mixed European ethnicity (variously English, German, Greek and Italian) but I consider myself English because I was born and raised here as my mother was.

Which surely influences your perceptions. You should not have to ask if the English have a right to maintain their traditional majority in their own country. That is ridiculous and a red herring as their situation applies to many European countries.


With regards to Cornwall, as your statistics show, Cornish culture and identity is dying out. I think this would be a great shame and perhaps more autonomy could help revive it, such as by Cornish-medium education, more celebrations of Cornish culture.

So, you think Cornwall should have autonomy forced upon it, despite the fact that most people there are English? I'm all for education etc. in Cornish. Their ethno-culture should be prized.

[princess]

The only reason I asked is that there are no laws upholding such a right. Individual rights are highly prized in today's world but collective rights are seen to be to the detriment of the individual. And the necessary consequences of enacting such a right could conflict with other people's, which might include things like forced repatriation.

[angelica]

There is an indigenous group in Sweden - the Sami people. They inhabit the North of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia (Sápmi or Lapland as most people prefer to say). I think they should have their own country - they don't really belong in a Swedish nation-state or indeed any of the others :/ It's weird.

[Sarmata]

I think that only those nations who spilled their blood(I mean that their forefathers fought and died for motherland) really deserve for their own country.

[Beorn]

Does the continued survival of ethnic English people as a separate group justify adopting stricter immigration controls?

Yes. The stricter the better.

[HispaniaSagrada]

Every ethnic group which has the political will to form a state of their own should have the possibility to do so.

Of course supremacists of the ethnic groups that conquered others' territories will say the contrary and defend their rights of conquest, whether it is moral or not. To everyone, his moral. If law allowed me tomorrow to kill people in the street, I still wouldn't do it.

I agree. This thing with "rights" is an opinion and desire backed by biggest muscle. There is no such thing as rights, really. A "right to conquest" is like saying someone has the right to be a serial killer as long as they can get away with it. Everything operates based on world views and feelings and butting heads and whoever wins wins. IMO unless there is a God who determines what is right and wrong (which is what law really is) everything else people say is just rationalizing behavior.

But even if you wouldn't kill people in the street if I were you I'd still get a gun, learn how to use it and get street smart, because there are those who might kill you.