It happens in africa so who cares ?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Why not? Why isn't canada rent by civil war resulting from it's arbitrary borders? none of which were established by Canadians.

Are you serious? Europeans imported both their borders and their peoples to Canada, whereas elsewhere they just imposed borders on existing populations.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Flubber


Because the aboriginal population is too small to really bring on an effective civil war and the vast majority of the early settlers were French and English and pretty much accepted the authority of those colonial powers that had drawn the borders

What relevance do ethnic divides have to good civics? Shouldn't good government transcend ethnic divisions? Why if a state fails due to ethnic strife is it somehow the fault of those who put the ethnic groups into a common state rather than the fault of those who placed ethnic interests above the common good? Why doesn't Canada neatly divide itself along french and english speaking lines? Why would that make it a better place?

If Kenya had been divided along ethnic lines rather than peace and harmony wouldn't we expect to see flagrant persecution of ethnic minorities in the ethnically defined states? How harmonious has India/Pakistan/Bangladesh really been in comparison to Kenya?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Are you serious? Europeans imported both their borders and their peoples to Canada, whereas elsewhere they just imposed borders on existing populations.

I'm completely serious in that no country really gets to choose it's own borders ever. I'm also completely serious in that I believe that borders don't cause states to fail. Poor civic attitudes cause states to fail.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Why not? Why isn't canada rent by civil war resulting from it's arbitrary borders? none of which were established by Canadians.

I'm a bit worried that I really has to answer this - it should after all be obvious if you have just a bit of knowledgede of history.

First, us and canada had only a very thin population of locals wich easily could be rounded up in death camps and exterminated to a reasonable size.

Second, while similiar method was used locally, it was not the standard for EU in africa.

Third, EU left africa leaving artificial countries based upon colonial conquests - not based upon locals. Just imagine the problems if the us in 1918 had demanded that some french and german areas should be joined into a new state).

Last, you are still sitting heavily on those people that might want to get into a dispute - guess that it's a good thing for colonialists when they are occupying terroritory beloning to other people.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Geronimo


What relevance do ethnic divides have to good civics? Shouldn't good government transcend ethnic divisions? Why if a state fails due to ethnic strife is it somehow the fault of those who put the ethnic groups into a common state rather than the fault of those who placed ethnic interests above the common good? Why doesn't Canada neatly divide itself along french and english speaking lines? Why would that make it a better place?

If Kenya had been divided along ethnic lines rather than peace and harmony wouldn't we expect to see flagrant persecution of ethnic minorities in the ethnically defined states? How harmonious has India/Pakistan/Bangladesh really in comparison to Kenya?

Actually I touch this in a prior post when I comment that regardless of the cause of a mess, people cannot simply blame others from long ago. Regardless of the cause people need to try to move forward.

Oh and a goodly percentage of French HAVE been trying to divide Canada on linguistic lines for a fairly long time. But I don't think it would make things necessarily any better

But back to Africa-- there have been a pretty violent history of ethnic strife in many parts of Africa. Obviously some of these divisions are deeper than any that currently exist among European ethnicities. You cannot ignore all of history and culture and assume that an ethnic division in one part of the world is alike with an ethnic division in another part of the world

[Geronimo]

If the europeans had tried to divide africa along ethnic lines not only would there be an appallingly vast number of economically non viable states but it would have invited a zillion little Sudetenland wars. Did ethnically defined states make europe a peaceful place? Why did europeans start to push for the EU after wwII?

One of the worst things we can do today is to write off the failures of states as somehow an inevitable outcome of expecting multiple ethnic groups to live under one government.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by BlackCat


I'm a bit worried that I really has to answer this - it should after all be obvious if you have just a bit of knowledgede of history.

First, us and canada had only a very thin population of locals wich easily could be rounded up in death camps and exterminated to a reasonable size.

Second, while similiar method was used locally, it was not the standard for EU in africa.

Third, EU left africa leaving artificial countries based upon colonial conquests - not based upon locals. Just imagine the problems if the us in 1918 had demanded that some french and german areas should be joined into a new state).

Last, you are still sitting heavily on those people that might want to get into a dispute - guess that it's a good thing for colonialists when they are occupying terroritory beloning to other people.

Why in the hell is it only "aboriginal" populations who require ethnically pure states to have peace? What makes you think Canadians set their borders? Locals had absolutely no hand in setting those borders either aboriginal or imported.

Finally given how well events following 1918 turned out I would seriously consider your German/french buffer state idea to be at least no worse than the alternative.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Why in the hell is it only "aboriginal" populations who require ethnically pure states to have peace?

They don't. Its just that the aboriginals that pre-existed the boundaries in North America were not powerful enough to stop the migration that happened

The migrants came largely in state-sponsored ships and were settled in the areas claimed by their nation-state.

Later boundaries werre set when the bulk of the west was empty and there was still considered to be ample land for the settler's needs. So why exactly would any of the settlers be particularly aggrieved by the boundaries? The settlers did have beefs with the colonial powers which did lead to American independence and some minor wars--- But since the only boundaries of consequence were those between France and England and later those between canada and the US, I am not seeing why any North Ameriacan would be THAT upset.

Originally posted by Geronimo


Locals had absolutely no hand in setting those borders either aboriginal or imported.

True-- but since their colonial power was generally trying to get as much land for itself at the time as possible and the settlers had more land available than people to settle it, there was little reason for locals to get upset. As for the western boundary, I'm not aware of anything hugely significant that locals would be wanting that would come from moving it even 500 miles north or south ( its a whole lot of prairie)

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Did ethnically defined states make europe a peaceful place?

YES.

[Geronimo]

Flubber you cite all sorts of legitimate border considerations. My point would be that ethnic considerations were not among them and that there is no reason to believe that border considerations could diffuse the tensions in Kenya. At best they would transfer intrastate ethnic conflict into inter state ethnic conflict.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by VetLegion


YES.

So now the EU must have been formed because europeans were so tired of all the peace that resulted from keeping those pesky other ethnic groups on the other side of the border?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Geronimo


So now the EU must have been formed because europeans were so tired of all the peace that resulted from keeping those pesky other ethnic groups on the other side of the border?

Nope. EU has become possible because there have been a lot of bloody ethnic wars for centuries that have made stable countries. Not that it's ended - there are still parts of europe that are fighting ethnical wars. There is kind of a peace in northern ireland but it's still pretty (relatively) hot in the Basque area.

Btw. Flubber made excelent answers on your questions aimed at me.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Nope. EU has become possible because there have been a lot of bloody ethnic wars for centuries that have made stable countries. Not that it's ended - there are still parts of europe that are fighting ethnical wars. There is kind of a peace in northern ireland but it's still pretty (relatively) hot in the Basque area.

Btw. Flubber made excelent answers on your questions aimed at me.

Then the EU will undermine that stability by erasing the borders in so many important ways. If the stability arose from ethnically cleansed states then the EU undermines it in various ways such as allowing massive influence of other ethnic groups on domestic law and by allowing essentially free and unfettered migration of other ethnic groups en masse into previously largely ethnically homegenous states.

Curious that europeans were so keen on quickly undermining the basis of the peace they had paid so dearly to achieve.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Then the EU will undermine that stability by erasing the borders in so many important ways. If the stability arose from ethnically cleansed states then the EU undermines it in various ways such as allowing massive influence of other ethnic groups on domestic law and by allowing essentially free and unfettered migration of other ethnic groups en masse into previously largely ethnically homegenous states.

Curious that europeans were so keen on quickly undermining the basis of the peace they had paid so dearly to achieve.

You certainly isn't up to date with EU policy or for that what is going on in the EU states.

You also blatantly ignores under wich circumstances things are done.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Then the EU will undermine that stability by erasing the borders in so many important ways. If the stability arose from ethnically cleansed states then the EU undermines it in various ways such as allowing massive influence of other ethnic groups on domestic law and by allowing essentially free and unfettered migration of other ethnic groups en masse into previously largely ethnically homegenous states.

Curious that europeans were so keen on quickly undermining the basis of the peace they had paid so dearly to achieve.

Despite your sarcasm, that is partially correct. It is not entirely unfathomable that there would be ethnic tensions and perhaps violence should say 20% of the population of England one day become Polish or something. Europeans aren't vaccinated against xenophobia just because they have EU.

And they can't be vaccinated against it because it is genetic. Built into all of us by evolution.