Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : A CENTURY OF LIONS/THE 20TH CENTURY TOP 100 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (1083)	11/1/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3246

In Defense of Ethnic Self-Determination Ethnic self-determination sounds pretty indefensible to most Americans (and perhaps to Australians as well). That is true for at least three reasons: 1) "Americanness" is based on citizenship, not nationality; 2) We practically exterminated the native population, so no single large national group can stake a claim to being the "original" or "most important" people; 3) With the notable exception of the blacks, immigrants came here voluntarily, and by the act of immigration explicitly renounced their claim to a "homeland." (One would have to treat the Puerto Ricans as an exception as well, I suppose.) The issue of self-determination is largely, if not exclusively, a European issue, because European countries are, basically, monoethnic states. (For that very reason, they cannot tolerate the amount of immigration that we take for granted.) And, as it happens, the only kind of ethnic nationalism, or self-determination, we disapprove of is that professed by the smaller nationalities, who frequently have suffered discrimination (or worse) at the hands of the larger nationality that dominates the country whose "territorial integrity" we are so solicitous of. Let us take the example that is most familiar to me, the Russian example. In Stalin's day, it was customary to refer to the Great Russian people (Ukrainians are "Little" Russians, and Belorussians are "White") as the "older brother" of all the other peoples. And I don't need to point out to you that older brothers can be really bossy and mean. No one uses that expression anymore, but the attitude endures. Another problem: suppose you have a small people, once the majority in its homeland, that has become a minority thanks to deliberately encouraged immigration into the area (the Abkhaz situation in Georgia, for example). Are they supposed to submit without a whimper to becoming overwhelmed and possibly even extinct? Remember, these folks have not emigrated to America; they want to stay in their homeland, and they want to keep it. Finally, contemplate the following question: is there some international law that says that larger nationalites have an inherent right to dominate small ones? Because that is what is implied by our emphasis (over-emphasis, in my opinion) on the concept of "territorial integrity." It is because of this concept of territory as the inalienable property of the "big boys" that Russians can (and do) say to Chechens: your land is our territory; and if you want to stay on it, you'd better acknowledge our supremacy. Personally, I am uncomfortable with any principle that bestows inordinate privilege on any one group, at the expense of another. Joan

To: Neocon who wrote (1083)	11/1/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3246

In Defense of Ethnic Self-Determination Ethnic self-determination sounds pretty indefensible to most Americans (and perhaps to Australians as well). That is true for at least three reasons: 1) "Americanness" is based on citizenship, not nationality; 2) We practically exterminated the native population, so no single large national group can stake a claim to being the "original" or "most important" people; 3) With the notable exception of the blacks, immigrants came here voluntarily, and by the act of immigration explicitly renounced their claim to a "homeland." (One would have to treat the Puerto Ricans as an exception as well, I suppose.) The issue of self-determination is largely, if not exclusively, a European issue, because European countries are, basically, monoethnic states. (For that very reason, they cannot tolerate the amount of immigration that we take for granted.) And, as it happens, the only kind of ethnic nationalism, or self-determination, we disapprove of is that professed by the smaller nationalities, who frequently have suffered discrimination (or worse) at the hands of the larger nationality that dominates the country whose "territorial integrity" we are so solicitous of. Let us take the example that is most familiar to me, the Russian example. In Stalin's day, it was customary to refer to the Great Russian people (Ukrainians are "Little" Russians, and Belorussians are "White") as the "older brother" of all the other peoples. And I do nt need to point out to you that older brothers can be really bossy and mean. No one uses that expression anymore, but the attitude endures. Another problem: suppose you have a small people, once the majority in its homeland, that has become a minority thanks to the deliberately encouraged immigration into the area (the Abkhaz example). Are they supposed to submit without a whimper to becoming overwhelmed and possibly even extinct? Remember, these folks have not emigrated to America; they want to stay in their homeland, and they want to keep it. Finally, contemplate the following question: is there some international law that says that larger nationalites have an inherent right to dominate small ones? Because that is what is implied by our emphasis (over-emphasis, in my opinion) on the concept of "territorial integrity." Personally, I am uncomfortable with any principle that bestows inordinate privilege on any one group, at the expense of another. Joan