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 (85178)	8/9/2000 8:18:54 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

Jeez, Cosmo. The "right of self-determination" means simply the right to determine one's own destiny. It is quite possible that the people involved might not want independent statehood. For example, in the recent Puerto Rico referendum, the Puerto Rican voters were offered three alternatives: 1) complete independence; 2) joining the US as a state; 3) remaining in their present commonwealth status. Exercising their right of self-determination, this last time round the Puerto Ricans chose (3). (And what do you mean by "free countries"? Last I looked the Cold War was over, and that terminology is dead, dead, dead.) I find myself puzzled by your list of ethnicities that will never have a state that is the product of self-determination: Puerto Ricans (See above.) Irish (They HAVE a state, as a result of a long struggle with England. If you mean Northern Ireland, the problem there is disagreement among the local Irish themselves.) French Canadians (The referendum vote in Quebec was very close; next time round, the result could possibly be different.) Hawaiians (The self-determination issue is much bigger in Hawaii than you think, although independent statehood is supported only by a minority of native Hawaiians.) American Indians. May I remind you that American Indians are not a single entity. Individual tribes (and then not all) are already recognized by treaty as "sovereign nations." Scots. (There is an independence movement in Scotland, although I have to say I don't know how much support it has.) etc. Of course, it is not feasible for every ethnic group in the world to have its own state. Not every ethnic group wants one, for that matter. Some are/would be content with full cultural autonomy, as I mentioned in an earlier post. (I do wish you would actually read my posts through.) At the same time, you must remember that who has a state, and who does not, is often a matter of historical accident. Decolonization, for example, produced some weird "countries." Vanuatu, for example: 83 islands, with a total population of only 173,000. Oh, heck, take Tuvalu: 9 coral atolls, with a total population of about 10,500! Kind of hard to tell other peoples that they are too small to "merit" states of their own, under the circumstances... Dispersed peoples, like the Gypsies, are unlikely to seek a state, let alone get one. But even there, there is a precedent: the Jews. The Jews had been dispersed all over the globe for centuries, before the reestablishment of Israel. That is the best example of "going back to the past" that I can think of. You may think it was a good idea, or a bad idea, but the fact is that it happened. One of my favorite activities as a youngster was to leaf through historical atlases. One of the things I learned from it is that no one has ever succeeded in freezing the map.