Middle East/North Africa 12 - Armageddon Anyone?

[Ser Reptitious]

Are you saying Yugoslavia should NOT have been broken up into its component parts?

I don't think the answer to your question is as self-evident as you seem to think it is. If Milosevic hadn't deliberately pandered to Serbian ultranationalists (which, much like extremists elsewhere constitute a small minority of Serbs) in order to preserve his position (and if others, such as Tudjman in Croatia hadn't played the same game), who is to say that Yugoslavia was better off breaking apart? I'm sure the Serb minority who lived in Dalmatia and Slavonia, as well as basically everyone who lived intermingled in Bosnia, - and even today the Serbs who still live in Kosovo and the Muslims who live in Serbia - would probably be much happier if Yugoslavia had stayed together.

You seem to be buying into the "ancient hatred" myth, which completely ignores the fact that the South Slavs intermarried and lived together unified in one country - which they themselves wanted to create, btw - for the better part of a century.

And each state that is broken up into ethnic or cultural or idealogical components, is one step closer to that future.

As I already pointed out to you previously, the reason why people dismiss your idea is because it is far too simplistic. Those different ethnic/cultural/religious groups don't all conveniently live in separate areas, ready for partition.

Take Syria, for example: The Alawites may have a "heartland" along the coast, but I highly doubt that this means that they make up 100 percent of the population there and 0 percent elsewhere. The Kurds may predominate along the north-eastern corner, but what about Kurds living elsewhere in Syria? And what about the 10 percent of Syrians that are Christians? To the extent of my (admittedly limited) knowledge they are sprinkled throughout Syria. So how exactly would you propose to carve up Syria? I'm not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious.

[Galactus]

And each state that is broken up into ethnic or cultural or idealogical components, is one step closer to that future.

Except that states also re-form. Germany, Italy... Even the EU and various other transnational orgs can be seen as a step in that direction.

My point is that the basis on which many post colonial nation states were created is flimsy, and their territorial integrity is not as holy a cause as it is made out to be in most cases.

And my point is that there is no way to draw up borders that do not end up as flimsy.

[Free Northman]

I don't think the answer to your question is as self-evident as you seem to think it is. If Milosevic hadn't deliberately pandered to Serbian ultranationalists (which, much like extremists elsewhere constitute a small minority of Serbs) in order to preserve his position (and if others, such as Tudjman in Croatia hadn't played the same game), who is to say that Yugoslavia was better off breaking apart? I'm sure the Serb minority who lived in Dalmatia and Slavonia, as well as basically everyone who lived intermingled in Bosnia, - and even today the Serbs who still live in Kosovo and the Muslims who live in Serbia - would probably be much happier if Yugoslavia had stayed together.

You seem to be buying into the "ancient hatred" myth, which completely ignores the fact that the South Slavs intermarried and lived together unified in one country - which they themselves wanted to create, btw - for the better part of a century.

As I already pointed out to you previously, the reason why people dismiss your idea is because it is far too simplistic. Those different ethnic/cultural/religious groups don't all conveniently live in separate areas, ready for partition.

Take Syria, for example: The Alawites may have a "heartland" along the coast, but I highly doubt that this means that they make up 100 percent of the population there and 0 percent elsewhere. The Kurds may predominate along the north-eastern corner, but what about Kurds living elsewhere in Syria? And what about the 10 percent of Syrians that are Christians? To the extent of my (admittedly limited) knowledge they are sprinkled throughout Syria. So how exactly would you propose to carve up Syria? I'm not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious.

It is a geniunely difficult question to address.

My view would be a long term one, that inevitably leaves some people unhappy, but the majority in each area happy. Basically, it comes down to minorities moving to areas where they are the majority. If you don't want to, well, then you have to be happy living in a new state where you are the minority and the customs of the majority are adopted.

Natural migration should eventually redraw the demographic maps after a generation or so, as people leave to settle in areas they feel more comfortable in.

[DanteGabriel]

Natural migration? What if people don't want to move and feel happy in a diverse area?

Also... "minorities moving to the areas where they are the majority" -- sounds like "separate but equal" to me.

Is this all a long-winded and exhaustively (but shallowly) rationalized paean to segregation?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It is a geniunely difficult question to address.

My view would be a long term one, that inevitably leaves some people unhappy, but the majority in each area happy. Basically, it comes down to minorities moving to areas where they are the majority. If you don't want to, well, then you have to be happy living in a new state where you are the minority and the customs of the majority are adopted.

Natural migration should eventually redraw the demographic maps after a generation or so, as people leave to settle in areas they feel more comfortable in.

The problem I see with this, uh, balkanization, is that you are deliberately encouraging people to align themselves along ethnic lines, then putting in national borders. I think such situations raise the likelihood of military confrontations and increasing antipathy between groups being told that their ethnicity is more important than learning to live with other people. And I think it encourages mistreatment of those who choose to stay in the homes/communities in which they've lived their entire lives, because your official policy is to "stick with your own kind."

I wonder the results of such an approach in the U.S. after the Civil War. "Okay, we're hereby designating Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana as "colored" states. We encourage all negruhs living in other states to move there, and all white folks in those states to move elsewhere."

Would that really have been better?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Natural migration? What if people don't want to move and feel happy in a diverse area?

Also... "minorities moving to the areas where they are the majority" -- sounds like "separate but equal" to me.

Is this all a long-winded and exhaustively (but shallowly) rationalized paean to segregation?

This has got to stop. I have been agreeing with you way too much in too many different threads.

[DanteGabriel]

This has got to stop. I have been agreeing with you way too much in too many different threads.

I was just noticing this myself. I chalk it up to me getting older. I found my first ear hair the other day.

[Free Northman]

Natural migration? What if people don't want to move and feel happy in a diverse area?

Also... "minorities moving to the areas where they are the majority" -- sounds like "separate but equal" to me.

Is this all a long-winded and exhaustively (but shallowly) rationalized paean to segregation?

In areas where there is conflict between groups that clearly see themselves as seperate - such as Sunnis and Shia's in Iraq, for example, it makes perfect sense. The Kurds were once a third group in Iraq, but they got their own autonomous territory and are much better off now.

And many places don't have such divisions, and thus would not need to even consider such a course of action. But the fact remains that there are many countries in the world today that were artificially created out of diverse groups of people, whether ethnically, culturally or religiously diverse, and where much conflict takes place.

Such regions would in many cases be better off by splitting up. If you are stuck on the wrong side of this split, well, you would just have to accept that you now live in a country that adheres to the customs of the opposing group. If you're happy with that, then I see no reason why you should feel compelled to move.

[thecryptile]

I get the impression that Free Northman isn't really talking about the US or Canada, and that he wants ethnic self-determination to apply mainly outside of North America. Like, it's good for Sudan, but we don't need it here. I may be wrong.

ETA: From FN's post, it looks like that is what he meant.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't think this ethnic alignment really makes much sense unless you're talking about large groups of people getting a sustainable place of their own, after lots of strife with neighbors that can't otherwise be resolved. So, while I see the appeal of the argument with respect to the tens of millions of Kurds, I really don't see that it makes much sense for small groups inhabiting what amount to rump states, many of which may not end up with access to the ports, or be lacking in mineral or other wealth.

It's kind of the problem with the Sunnis in Iraq. If you divide the country up, they basically get left with the worst land, and little oil. From which, they'll still have to maintain all the overhead and infrastructure of a full nation. That was one of the factors that made an all-out civil war less likely, simply because the Sunnis did not want to be completely independent.

[DanteGabriel]

I get the impression that Free Northman isn't really talking about the US or Canada, and that he wants ethnic self-determination to apply mainly outside of North America. Like, it's good for Sudan, but we don't need it here. I may be wrong.

So which countries get ethnically re-divided, and which don't? Maybe just the ones that are predominantly peopled by the dark-skinned get re-segregated, eh?

I'm still curious about the mechanism by which people get sorted back into their tribe. Does the UN do it? Or are they supposed to magically drift together because they'll be so much happier when they're among their own "kind?"

[Free Northman]

The problem I see with this, uh, balkanization, is that you are deliberately encouraging people to align themselves along ethnic lines, then putting in national borders. I think such situations raise the likelihood of military confrontations and increasing antipathy between groups being told that their ethnicity is more important than learning to live with other people. And I think it encourages mistreatment of those who choose to stay in the homes/communities in which they've lived their entire lives, because your official policy is to "stick with your own kind."

I wonder the results of such an approach in the U.S. after the Civil War. "Okay, we're hereby designating Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana as "colored" states. We encourage all negruhs living in other states to move there, and all white folks in those states to move elsewhere."

Would that really have been better?

The key difference is that I am not talking about just ethnicity. It could be religion, customs, culture or whatever. I don't know if Shia's and Sunnis in Iraq are of different ethnicities or just different religious denominations. But the fact remains that they are killing each other in the thousands.

Clearly there is a case to be made for giving each their own part of the country, and maybe leaving Baghdad as a kind of neutral zone, or whatever.

The issue I come across quite a lot, whether talking about limiting the world population to 2 kids per couple, or giving different peoples their own territories or whatever, is that no, I have not got a solution for every practical challenge in the way of this proposal. But neither are there solutions to every practical challenge for virtually every other proposal out there.

To do that, you need to take it on a case by case basis, get experts to study the situation in detail for multiple years, and then maybe come up with ways to address most of the issues. I'm certainly not going to come up with all of those answers in some casual chat on a random internet forum.

But that doesn't mean that the idea lacks all merit. It just means that it has challenges. Just like keeping Syria together and violence free have apparently insurmountable challenges. The same goes for Sudan, or Iraq. Or Palestine.

[Free Northman]

I get the impression that Free Northman isn't really talking about the US or Canada, and that he wants ethnic self-determination to apply mainly outside of North America. Like, it's good for Sudan, but we don't need it here. I may be wrong.

ETA: From FN's post, it looks like that is what he meant.

The easiest way to discredit an idea is to try and reduce it to race. To the extent that race plays a part in group identity I guess race would play a role in this issue, yes, but from the look of it, religion, cultural heritage and language plays a much bigger role in most cases of such conflict.

So to try and reduce it to race is disingenuous, in my view.

To come back to my overall point. Quite frankly, if I was a minority in some large country - say 20% of the population - and if the other 80% largely ran the country, determined its customs and laws and dominated pretty much all public decisionmaking, then hell, I would MUCH rather want my own small country carved off from the rest than have to live under the control of this majority.

Hency my sympathy for guys like the Sunnis in Iraq.

Frankly, since all countries are artificial, I reject the power of governments to determine laws that govern substantial minority groups that are opposed to the views of the central government. Give those minorities their own territories instead, where they can live according to their own conscience.

[thecryptile]

So which countries get ethnically re-divided, and which don't?

The ones that already are split by ethnic/religious/cultural violence, I guess. Of course, Northern Ireland shows that breaking into more homogenous enclaves doesn't always guarantee peace.

Maybe just the ones that are predominantly peopled by the dark-skinned get re-segregated, eh?

I dunno, Yugoslavs and Soviets are/were predominantly light skinned. Chechens would get their own country, the Pennsylvania Dutch wouldn't.

I'm still curious about the mechanism by which people get sorted back into their tribe. Does the UN do it? Or are they supposed to magically drift together because they'll be so much happier when they're among their own "kind?"

The latter I presume. Admittedly, then you might run into the problem that some people will disagree on what constitutes that particular ethnicity. "You can't be a proper Lilliputian, you crack your egg from the big end." Then the new country might have to subdivided further.

I don't see Free Northman's ideas as racist or evil, but they seem to apply more to Chechnya or Tibet than to Red States vs. Blue States.

ETA:

The easiest way to discredit an idea is to try and reduce it to race. To the extent that race plays a part in group identity I guess race would play a role in this issue, yes, but from the look of it, religion, cultural heritage and language plays a much bigger role in most cases of such conflict.

So, it would apply to the US and Canada then. The Francophones might be happier in a Republic of Quebec, and the Pennsylvania Dutch might want an independent Amish Theocracy.

ETA2: I think it's an interesting debate we've got going on here. I'm not sure which side I fall on. Both viewpoints have their merits.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The problem is that you insist on identifying everyone by membership in some group, which very well may not be the most important factor for a great many people.

If all these problems are as bad as you say, then it seems that we should have seen a great deal of natural migration anyway,by all these people who just want to live with others like themselves. At least, like themselves with respect to the particular criteria you have identified. People have had hundreds of years to congregate in purely insular groups, if that's what they truly want.

Yet, we find that people are generally becoming more intermingled geographically, even intermarrying, etc.. So why aren't we generally seeing this migration you wish to formalize with hard lines?

I think most people like having the freedom to move to different places, and not be relegated to living their entire lives inside some little rump state of people. Over time, people have generally become less tribal than their ancestors, and much greater communication and ease of travel is likely to continue that trend. Yet when we advocate more borders, and smaller and smaller boundaries, we're pushing against that historical trend. I don't think that's a good idea.

[Free Northman]

The ones that already are split by ethnic/religious/cultural violence, I guess. Of course, Northern Ireland shows that breaking into more homogenous enclaves doesn't always guarantee peace. I dunno, Yugoslavs and Soviets are/were predominantly light skinned. Chechens would get their own country, the Pennsylvania Dutch wouldn't.

The latter I presume. Admittedly, then you might run into the problem that some people will disagree on what constitutes that particular ethnicity. "You can't be a proper Lilliputian, you crack your egg from the big end." Then the new country might have to subdivided further.

I don't see Free Northman's ideas as racist or evil, but they seem to apply more to Chechnya or Tibet than to Red States vs. Blue States.

I think I've made it clear that I'm talking about many of the artificially created nation states that resulted from the post colonial reality.

As for the US. Who knows? If 100 years from now the idealogical differences between Red and Blue become so great that they almost become different cultures, then yes, then there would be a case to be made for the states going their own way. LIke Texas has already alluded to, albeit not with any great degree of seriousness. Yet.

[DanteGabriel]

The ones that already are split by ethnic/religious/cultural violence, I guess. Of course, Northern Ireland shows that breaking into more homogenous enclaves doesn't always guarantee peace. I dunno, Yugoslavs and Soviets are/were predominantly light skinned. Chechens would get their own country, the Pennsylvania Dutch wouldn't.

America seems to have a lot of racial violence. Here's his description of the kind of country that is ripe to be ethnically re-organized:

"artificially created out of diverse groups of people, whether ethnically, culturally or religiously diverse, and where much conflict takes place"

Well, isn't the United States a country artificially created out of diverse groups of people, where much conflict takes place? So who decides which countries need to be split up?

I don't see Free Northman's ideas as racist or evil, but they seem to apply more to Chechnya or Tibet than to Red States vs. Blue States.

I think his ideas spring from a place of racial essentialism, where who you are is determined by your ethnicity, and a lot of perniciously racist thought has originated from that same space.

[Free Northman]

The problem is that you insist on identifying everyone by membership in some group, which very well may not be the most important factor for a great many people.

If all these problems are as bad as you say, then it seems that we should have seen a great deal of natural migration anyway,by all these people who just want to live with others like themselves. At least, like themselves with respect to the particular criteria you have identified. People have had hundreds of years to congregate in purely insular groups, if that's what they truly want.

Yet, we find that people are generally becoming more intermingled geographically, even intermarrying, etc.. So why aren't we generally seeing this migration you wish to formalize with hard lines?

I think most people like having the freedom to move to different places, and not be relegated to living their entire lives inside some little rump state of people. Over time, people have generally become less tribal than their ancestors, and much greater communication and ease of travel is likely to continue that trend. Yet when we advocate more borders, and smaller and smaller boundaries, we're pushing against that historical trend. I don't think that's a good idea.

Well here's the crucial bit of emphasis. Just because the bottom third of Iraq becomes for argument's sake a Sunni nation, does not mean that Sunnis are FORCED to live there, or that Shia's are FORBIDDEN to venture there. It just means that for those Sunnis who wish to live under their own jurisdiction, there is a place to call home.

If a Sunni then chooses to go live or work in the Shia region, that's up to him. Just because you have France and Germany, doesn't mean that Germans aren't allowed in France, or that French aren't allowed to marry Germans and settle in Germany.

But there is still a France to go back to where people speak French and have French customs, just like there is a Germany.

The only difference is, there is not an artificial state combining Germany and France into one country.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think his ideas spring from a place of racial essentialism, where who you are is determined by your ethnicity, and a lot of perniciously racist thought has originated from that same space.

Well, in fairness, he did say it could also be based in religious sectarianism. That's what happened with India and Pakistan, right? And really, with Northern Ireland, and parts of the former Yugoslavia as well.

My issue is with the presumption that such breakdowns are necessarily a good thing. I think they may be necessary under some circumstances -- India/Pakistan may be a good example -- but really only when there seems to be a significant problem with violence that can't otherwise be resolved. It's a solution of last resort, not first.

[Free Northman]

Well, in fairness, he did say it could also be based in religious sectarianism. That's what happened with India and Pakistan, right? And really, with Northern Ireland, and parts of the former Yugoslavia as well.

My issue is with the presumption that such breakdowns are necessarily a good thing. I think they may be necessary under some circumstances -- India/Pakistan may be a good example -- but really only when there seems to be a significant problem with violence that can't otherwise be resolved. It's a solution of last resort, not first.

I certainly don't suggest that every country on earth has this problem. But where there is long standing conflict, well, I think it bears serious consideration.