 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:26
|
|
Is it right that there are countries organized specifically for one ethnic group?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:26
|
|
The United States and a few other countries in Latin America and lesserly England are ethnically diverse... most of the rest of the world is not. they are racial states
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:26
|
|
the thing that bothers me about Israel is that it is a racial state but is artificially one... Sweden is filled with Swedes and is Swedish culturally but Swedes have been living there continuously for centuries. Israel, however, was sanctioned to be a racial-based state (look at the name of the country which hardly is religious neutral) though most jews at the time lived no where near the middle east
thanks
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:26
|
|
Hueij:
I just dont see why Israel can't be a multiethnic state like the US...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:26
|
|
Siro:
I'm glad to hear that there's a party in Israel like that. It just always disturbed me that Israel was so religiously and ethnically based. As an American, I take some pride in the fact that the US is now a country where people of all groups are generally accepted. we're ethnically neutral so any country that is ethnically specific bothers me. It just dont make sense to me why Israel got to be the jewish homeland... why can't it just be a country on the Levant that is ethnically neutral? It can be the the shining star of democratic ideals in the middle east that is prone to dictatorships...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:26
|
|
Siro:
here in the US, schools get out for Jewish holidays... they're not federal holidays though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:26
|
|
Actually, while Israel is a nationstate, and represents the will of a nation, it is not based on racial bias, since a jewish ethnicity doesn't exist, just like a Russian one, or a french one of an enlish one, for that matter. While the first jews, the hebrew refugees were typical eastern-mediterrenean people, there are definetly extremely strong signs of other ethnicities, but suprisignly enough, much less than expected. This has to do with the isolation of the jewish communities, and the fact that many of the ethnicities that also took part in the creation of the jewish nation were somewhat close to the hebrews themselves.
For example, perhaps the strongest influx of "foreign blood", was the Khazar Empire, an empire that was created by a Turkish group of tribes, that was strongly influence by far-eastern europeans, and by slavic groups. The turkish and the far eastern europeans have originally came into the lands before they occupied before the great migrations, from persia, ( very early times ), just like the cannanites, of which the hebrews are part, came to the levant from the north, from persia, displacing some African tribes.
There are also smaller cases of judaism being a state religion, most notably pre-islam yemen, and communities of a relatively small amount of hebrew population converting a fraction of the local population of countries: Ethiopia, India. This occurs in the pre-Islam ages.
conclusion: "race" and nationhood don't always go together. Actually there are almost no states in which the nation is based on a single ethnicity.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
i'm mixed on the subject.
if the region was originally a racially homogenous group, a la japan, korea, or denmark, it naturally makes sense to have a "racial" state.
in many of the modern cases, it's harder to call. i have to say, i believe more in primordialism, meaning that i don't hold out for too much hope between racially mixed countries where war is common, as in the case with africa. to be fair, many of the countries in africa have extremely artifical borders, created by colonial masters who selected their territories as a matter of convenience, rather than what would be best; in many of those cases, i wouldn't have much trouble with allowing the formation of racial states.
that said, there are instances where forcing the creation of a racial state might not be a great idea--israel comes to mind, as that particular region of the world had been cursed with the creation of three major religions, all causing more divisiveness. although the need for a jewish state, i believe, was quite clear, i'm uncertain as to whether placing it there was a bright idea or not~
racial states are a touchy thing, and i don't think you can have a general solution. it's a case-by-case scenario.
give the basques and the kurds a country. why not?
in the end, it won't matter. all these countries will mean squat when the world ends.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Viceroy
|
 |
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000 time: 05:26
|
|
I think its important to not mix race and culture up here. Britain is extensivly multicultural and multiracial, however, places like India are very much more multicultural, and less so multiracial.
Apart from Zimbabwe, I don't know many nations that are activly bi-racial, although there are many states that are actively bi-cultural.
I think its because the line between culture and race is so blurred, that people mix them up, and see a threat where there is none ..
Me personally, I see the ideal state for me being one that is both multi racial, and multi cultural, and gains it strength from being confident enough of its own culture to enjoy the delights of others without fearing loss of identity.
However, there is one important aspect that should be considered before judging a nation . How was it born ???
How many of us have had to fight for our freedom ? Been persecuted for the colour of our skin ?? seen our entire family gassed and the gold from their fillings sold for profit ?? How many of us have been tortured and had our wives and daughters raped and murdered in front of us ?? These things and more occur in this world, and have occured, and we wonder why some nations feel so strongly about their culture, their race ?? We (that have not suffered) should not judge them for that.
Celebrate your race and your culture, and have a place where you can do it amongst others who share your heritage... and never forget, to treat other races and cultures as you wish to be treated yourself, especially if they are away from home, and you will honour your own heritage by doing so.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
I strongly disagree with the idea that states should be based around ethnic groups. Ideally, there should be confederations of autonomous communes traversing the globe, etc., etc. But, pragmatically, it's fine to draw borders around ethnicities as long as there are is no oppression of other ethnicities (i.e. ethnic cleansing, selective immigration, etc.). But, as a long term goal, there should be movements towards multi-ethnic societies.
While we're on the subject of Israel, I think this is the primary problem Israel has had; it has never made a decision on whether the West Bank and Gaza Strip are part of Israel. On the one hand, it's been occupied for some 35-odd years, and on the other hand its Arab inhabitants (past and present) are being disenfranchised by Israel.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:26
|
|
quote: Azazel:
I thought Israel considers you to be a Jew if your mother is a Jew.
|
You can also become jew, if you convert to judaism. but since the instances of that are very rare, we have by far and large kept a separate national identity.
quote:
While we're on the subject of Israel, I think this is the primary problem Israel has had; it has never made a decision on whether the West Bank and Gaza Strip are part of Israel. On the one hand, it's been occupied for some 35-odd years, and on the other hand its Arab inhabitants (past and present) are being disenfranchised by Israel.
|
Actually, the more I think and read about it, it seems that Israel didn't always have this problem. In 67', Israel would agree to withdraw from the all the lands ( most of them, Jerusalem is quite a separate issue ), in exchange to peace with its' neighbours. There is even a government declaration on the subject from the 60s. But there were no buyers on the other side. ( Khartoom declaration was a reply to the Israeli government's offer, you can clearly see it by stressing the fact that the signatories wouldn't agree to peace if all the lands conquered in 67' would be returned). It also couldn't let the palestinians govern themselves, since there would be little chance for co-existance there.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|