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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (85153)	8/9/2000 12:37:17 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Gosh- I think I agree with you 100%. I have a policy paper on this somewhere "X the Unknown's international policy on generic wars, border disputes, vanquished peoples and civil wars". I keep it handy for the time I KNOW is coming when I am implored to run for President of the World.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (85153)	8/9/2000 3:58:49 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Okay, here it is, simply. Freeze territories where they are. It's usually too impractical to "go back" to some previous position.>> In other words, to put it into the jargon of international law, you, Cosmo, support 100% the principle of territorial integrity, and would give the old heave-ho to the principle of self-determination. Of course, the "haves" prefer to freeze the status quo. The "have-nots" prefer to challenge it. My only comment is that freezing history in its tracks is even more impractical than "going back." It literally cannot be done. At least, it never has been done, even though God knows how many statesmen have tried!

To: cosmicforce who wrote (85153)	8/9/2000 4:42:22 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Countries where former aggressors and former vanquished mixed seem to be the most stable. Keeping and actively maintaining separate identity only serves to continue the hostility between both sides.>> Boy, Cosmo, you ARE an American. I say that because Americans seem to have trouble grasping the reasons why smaller national groups in large countries usually cling to their separate identities (as do American Indians in this country). When we say we are Americans, we do not mean that we belong to an American "nationality" -- there is no such thing. We mean we have a common citizenship. However, many countries of the world (including most European countries)are ethnically-based. There is one dominant nationality: French, German, Swedish, Russian, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. And all too often, "mixing" means that the minority nationalities are, quite simply, assimilated totally: they literally "disappear," losing their customs, their culture, and most importantly, their language' becoming, in effect, members of the dominant nationality/ethnic group. (The Irish are the only case I can think of when a distinctive people endured, despite the almost complete loss of their language.) IMO, this is a loss to humanity as a whole, and I think it a pity when it occurs. In a well-governed state, granting minority ethnic groups full cultural autonomy may be sufficient to avoid the Scylla of complete assimilation on the one hand, and the Charybdis of ethnic conflict and/or separatism on the other. Unfortunately, the dominant nationality/ethnic group in a state may (and often does) lack the wisdom to pursue such a course, insisting instead that everyone be "like them." I am sadly reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with an acquaintance of mine. She could not understand why I took such an interest in the many little national groups of the Soviet (now Russian) North Caucasus. Who cares about them? was her question. My somewhat stunned response was -- well, I care about them. I like human variety, and these particular varieties of humanity are very interesting, very etc. etc., and I would hate to see them disappear. Her response was: So, they disappear. So what? Mine again: Well, what about endangered animal species? You care about the snail darter, don't you? (I knew she was an environmentalist.) Why wouldn't you care about the Ingush, say? Her final riposte: The snail darter is necessary to keep the ecological balance. We don't need Ingush for ecological balance. The kicker, for me, was that my acquaintance was Jewish... jbe P.S. Just what countries do you have in mind, in the example I have quoted above?