"Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?)
Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:30:28 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> Behalf Of Russell Turpin
> (a) Some group is so successful in its
> conquest that it establishes a nation or empire
> in which the conquered groups no longer fight
> each other.
> (b) Modern democracies give rise to secular
> states where all ethnic and religious
> groups are given the same legal standing.
The problem is that all examples of (b) are also in fact examples of
(a), with an enormous amount of assimilation for the losers.
Where the losers, or new immigrants that are not members of the winning
group and do not sufficiently assimilate, and these groups then begin to
challenge the previous winners demographically, a society may very well
regress to internal combat between groups.
Peace and coexistence takes two. War only one. Kosovo and Israel can
happen here, too. Intentionally weakening the forces of assimilation as
we have done for the last 35+ years is a really _bad_ idea.
Attempts to construct 'Modern democracies' in cultures that are hostile
to it have not had the effects you wish, and have been spectacularly
unsuccessful. I can think of only one (Japan) and the things which made
that work are probably unique. [Germany, in contrast, was a much easier
Even Ghandi made sure that India had an overwhelming Hindu majority.
A second Holocaust in Germany in another 50-100 years is not out of the