Does an ethnic group have a right to a national homeland?

[politicus]

People have rights. Peoples do not have rights.

Why not? Would that apply for fx. Native American nations as well?

National self determination was recognized as a basic principle for the international community at Versailles and later played a significant role as legitimization in the decolonization proces.

(though not significant enough IMO, colonies being split more according to ethnic groups whereever practically possible would have been preferable to upholding colonial borders)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Doesn't this "right" justify the sort of irredentism that is causing so much chaos in the Ukraine at the moment?

I think ethnic groups are entitled to have a "nation", but not a geographic state per se.

[politicus]

Doesn't this "right" justify the sort of irredentism that is causing so much chaos in the Ukraine at the moment?

I think ethnic groups are entitled to have a "nation", but not a geographic state per se.

As previously said - autonomy works fine in many cases, but a nation without a designated homeland somewhere is vulnerable.

The right is to have a homeland, not necessarily for that homeland to incorporate every area where your group is in the majority. It is the second principle that causes problems.

Besides most Russians in Eastern Ukraine likely feel Russo-Ukrainian/Russophone Ukrainian rather than Russian. Ukraine is a complex case - with the Russian Federation interferring being the main problem.

[politicus]

I think ethnic groups are entitled to have a "nation", but not a geographic state per se.

Give me a couple of examples of what you are thinking o (unless it is just regional autonomy, but we covered that already).

[ingemann]

Doesn't this "right" justify the sort of irredentism that is causing so much chaos in the Ukraine at the moment?

I think ethnic groups are entitled to have a "nation", but not a geographic state per se.

What you said here was completely meaningless, a nation are just a name for a group who define itself as a common people. Yes it's often used as a shorthand for a political entity in English, but that's the result of the success of national states, which have made them the norm, but a nation are no political entity it's solely a socio-cultural identity. As example the Germany's Germans and Austria's Germans was (and in many opinion is) a common nation, but they wasn't and isn't a unified political entity. A nation doesn't necessary need to talk the same language as the Swiss are example off, but groups who share languages, like the three different linguistic group Serbo-Croats, Scandinavian and Urdu-Hindis are example off, often don't see themselves as a nation either.

[mencken]

I acknowledge only the existence of negative rights, thus I believe in nationalism to the extent that it can be enforced without infringing on other nations' national inspirations. For example, I would argue that the Kurds have a right to their own nation, and Syria, Iraq, and Turkey have no higher claim to jurisdiction over predominantly Kurdish areas. The only possible objectors would be the Assyrians in the region, and while I would prefer that they have a right to self-determination as well, in the meantime they would likely prefer Kurdish suzerainty to that of Islamist Arab radicals. Israel is a bit of a touchier matter. However, while the Jewish settlers are not without their share of culpability in the current conflict (cough Irgun cough), for the most part they legitimately purchased land in Palestine and made constructive improvement to it. Thus, I am inclined to sympathize with the Israeli's national determinism. However, that should not be taken to denigrate Palestinian national determination, conditional upon a recognition from the Palestinian leadership that Israeli nationhood would be recognized and not threatened. That, however, is a long way away, if ever.

[ingemann]

Very good points Mencken.

Through my opinion about Israel are slightly different, I would not have supported the establishment of a Zionist state after WW1 and I would have been against the European Jews colonising the area. But after WW2 and the expulsion of the Jewish Arabs from the Arab world, I would begin to support it. today after several generation of Israeli have been born in the country, I fully support Israel's right to exist, I do n ot support their continued colonisation of the West Bank.

[Figueira]

No, I don't support ethnic cleansing, and it's pretty sad that so many people on a supposedly socially liberal forum do. If, say, Catalan people vote to secede and create their own country, that's cool. But they shouldn't complain if non-Catalans start moving there.

And also, if the question was "Should languages and cultures be protected?" then the answer would be, of course they should. It's when you start forcibly removing people from their homes that it gets problematic.

By arguing against the existence of ethnically based states (or autonomous areas) you are de facto saying that smaller ethnic groups should be destined to become minorities in every country on earth.
Easy position to take if you belong to a large and dominant culture, but deeply discriminatory. There is an inherent paradox in that by saying every ethnic group should be equal everywhere you are de facto discriminating the smaller ones. Anglophone Liberals and leftists always seem not to understand this.

So we should fight racism with more racism? That's pretty horrible.

[politicus]

Need to do this in two, because the answer is too long. Please do not post in between. Thx.

Part I.

No ethnic group "deserves" anything. If an ethnic group can "deserve" a state, then you can also say an ethnic group "deserves" punishment for something.

Firstly, a national homeland does not equal a state, it can be a region with far reaching autonomy or part of a federation.

Secondly, it is a bizarre argument, one does in no way follow from the other. Saying that because an ethnic group or people has a rights it can also "deserve" something negative is incorrect. If I say the Greenlandic people deserves to have Greenland as a homeland, I have said nothing about any other collective responsibility or culpability (for what?). I have simply stated an opinion. Nations, peoples and cultures are not collectively responsible (only individuals and legal entities like companies, municipalities or states are responsible), but they still ought to have rights as they form the basis for most peoples identity (seen worldwide). The idea that you can not have rights without responsibility is moralistic mumbo-jumbo. It doesn't even make sense on the individual level, where basic human rights exists irrespective of whether are responsible for your actions and it makes even less sense when applied to cultures or ethnic groups.

If you want to make this point, you need to argue why? it is by no means self evident or logical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once established ethnic groups are usually quite stable over time. Again, lets use Greenlanders as an example. Prior to the mid 19th century they had no common identity, but still recognized each other as related when they met. Once the creation of a common written language developed and interaction increased they came to see each other as a people inhabiting the same island, even while their are three rather distinct Inuit languages they continue to do so. This definition might be "arbitrary" since it might as well have been three peoples, but once established it is fairly stable and durable. Either an ethnicity is ancient (like the Japanese), or has ancient ties (like the Danish) or forged from different groups and consolidated after the establishment of written languages (many sub-Saharan ethnicities). Ethnicities are not some ever floating ever changing mass. It is generally quite easy to establish what ethnicity actual people identify with. So while this may sound like very important, it is empirically not, and it is not outsiders who divide, but the people who self identify as x or y.

(notice that I do not mean ethnicity in the superfluous "Italian-American" like definition, but entities that are central to peoples identity - deeper than national allegiance)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, keep religion out of this.

Secondly. The important thing is what people want. Saying that people have a right to something does not equal that they should necessarily use that right. If I say the Welsh have the right to form a separate nation state, that doesn't mean that they have to split from the UK, or that a minority should be allowed to do it. Only that I recognize that right, and that if at some point people of Welsh stock became a minority in Wales, I would still argue a majority of them would have the right to establish a Welsh speaking autonomous area somewhere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pure strawmaning. I am not arguing Australia, Brazil or Canada should be dissolved. Of course multiethnic and multicultural countries can exist and thrive. I am just arguing that people shouldn't be forced to live in them and that every ethnic group deserves somewhere were their culture and language is the dominant. The intolerance consists of the idea that multiculturalism should be universal, that we should have no choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very hyperbolic. Homo sapiens is a species, not a people. A national homeland can easily be a secular liberal democracy and respect human rights - incl. minority rights (most European countries fulfill those criteria).
Why would it be a defeat for multiculturalism that it can not be global? Being one succesful model of organizing human societies ought to be enough. Forcing everyone to live in multicultural societies makes multiculturalism unpopular. Why not give people a choice?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Says who? Why not respect the will of the people. If they occupy a territory and wants to make it a state, why shouldn't they? (provided it can be done without infringing on the rights of others, but we are talking principles here).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't that be up to the people? You know, democracy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should all countries be alike? We already have those countries you describe, why force everyone to chose that model?

This is also very easy to say, when you belong to a large and dominant culture, but in reality it means small and vulnerable people have little protection of their culture. They are forced to be minorities in countries dominated by other cultures and languages and can not do anything to protect their own culture - like insists their language should be used by everyone. In your logic if 30.000 Danes immigrated to Greenland due to some mineral boom, we should just be allowed to reverse the promotion of Greenlandic as official language, even if their entire identity is connected to preserving the language (one of the hardest to learn in the world, so no immigrants use it).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There isn't one path that a belief in the right to a homeland takes you. Nationalism can be harmful and taken to excess, but so can religion, atheism, individualism, Socialism, hedonism or any other set of beliefs. As previously said I think this connection with collective responsibility is illogical and quite frankly bogus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not? That would be the best way to secure their rights.

[politicus]

Part II.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The co-existence of religions is different than co-existence of cultures/languages. It is possible to keep religion as a private and/or congregational matter - even desirable seen from a secularist view, whereas an ethnicity often needs control of a public apparatus (state, autonomy etc.) and dominance in the public sphere in order not to be assimilated or suppressed. If a language is relegated to a home language only to be used with family it generally lose out and dies, if a religion is relegated to the private sphere it can easily thrive as Judaism has for centuries in Denmark despite being a perpetual minority). If mores and ways of doing things are not the way the majority do them, the minority is often forced to adapt and give up. Even the influx of large foreign minorities force a nation to give up valuable traditions and fx adapt different and less negotiating and relaxed relations between authorities and citizens, a necessity of written agreements in cultures were "a word is a word" and less freedom in expressing sexuality for fear of being slutshamed or groped (to take some Danish examples, you are always closest to your own culture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(#) a religious minority can of course also need control of a state to have a safe haven - as the Jews are again a prime example of, but generally religions do not need homelands as much as peoples, also because most religions are shared by different cultures and peoples. Your colonial example deals with English people differing over ideology and tolerance, but still being English and acting within a broadly common cultural background, with a shared language and a shared legal tradition, despite their differences.

[Figueira]

I appreciate your response to Blue3 and the time you took to write it, and while I still disagree with you on some things, your views aren't as bad as I had previously thought. I do have a couple of questions though:

1. Would you be okay with a Palestinian state that has a "Jewish Autonomous Zone" within it, rather than an actual Jewish state?

2. What happens if the majority of people who are ethnically Welsh vote for independence or greater autonomy or whatever, but the non-Welsh minority within Wales tips the balance in favor of the unionists? Even if Wales (or a subregion within Wales) was 99% ethnically Welsh, this still could end up happening if the election is close enough. I think there might be a real-life example of this in Quebec (I could be wrong, though).

[mencken]

I appreciate your response to Blue3 and the time you took to write it, and while I still disagree with you on some things, your views aren't as bad as I had previously thought. I do have a couple of questions though:

1. Would you be okay with a Palestinian state that has a "Jewish Autonomous Zone" within it, rather than an actual Jewish state?

The Palestinians are in no position to be dictating terms to the Israelis at the moment. The only reason they do not have a state of their own is because they have given Israelis absolutely no reason to believe they would acknowledge the sovereignty of the Jewish state if the occupation ended. Had they set a good precedent with Gaza and demonstrated that an independent Palestinian state could respect their neighbors, then I am sure the situation would be a lot different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it would depend on the electoral geography of the vote. If there are strong areas of unionism neatly divided from strong areas of separatism, then there is a strong possibility for partition. Areas of mixed nationality could be designated free cities.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think this is one of those things where you have to accept that nationalism exists (for better or for worse) and that it is a little late in the day to consider the implications in the abstract...

Only that I recognize that right, and that if at some point people of Welsh stock became a minority in Wales, I would still argue a majority of them would have the right to establish a Welsh speaking autonomous area somewhere.

Though here is one of the central problems (as in: politically) with Welsh nationalism: even within Wales only a relatively small minority of people of Welsh stock know much more Welsh than "nos da" or "cwtch".

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Rights are a pretty dubious concept to begin with when applied to individuals (who gives you rights? Well, it is the State. Unless you continue to believe in 'natural rights' in which case I really can't help you). But as applied to collectivities? Who grants the state rights? Itself, of course, by its own power. But who grants rights to those without a defined state? Well..... that's your problem right.

[politicus]

Rights are a pretty dubious concept to begin with when applied to individuals (who gives you rights? Well, it is the State. Unless you continue to believe in 'natural rights' in which case I really can't help you). But as applied to collectivities? Who grants the state rights? Itself, of course, by its own power. But who grants rights to those without a defined state? Well..... that's your problem right.

Sure, but this was intended as a normative discussion. "Do you think an ethnic group should have the right to a national homeland?" or " Does an ethnic group have a moral right to a national homeland?"
States also often grant historical ethnic group rights. The US fx maintains Native American Nations that are supposed to act as homelands for specific ethnic groups (and do to a certain extent).

The other aspect is whether an ethnically defined state has the right to preserve its character as a national homeland. This is the element most often attacked as "illegitimate" or immoral by forum progressives of various ilks.

[Famous Mortimer]

Immigration policy based around ethnicity is inherently, implicitly racist.

There are, however, legitimate economic reasons a country might not want to start giving out free homes on demand to everyone in the third world.

[YL]

Only that I recognize that right, and that if at some point people of Welsh stock became a minority in Wales, I would still argue a majority of them would have the right to establish a Welsh speaking autonomous area somewhere.

Though here is one of the central problems (as in: politically) with Welsh nationalism: even within Wales only a relatively small minority of people of Welsh stock know much more Welsh than "nos da" or "cwtch".

What does "of Welsh stock" even mean anyway?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, again, what does this mean?  If it means aiming for ethnic purity and trying to keep  incomers, especially Muslims, out, which is the impression I tend to get of most current European nativist movements, no I'm not sympathetic at all.  If it means trying to protect a culture/language against a dominant, aggressive neighbour or colonial power, then yes I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't find it very relevant to current events in Europe other than that it might say something about what's happening in the countries the refugees are leaving.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

People have rights. Peoples do not have rights.

Peoples have rights in the sense that most states are "nation-states". States certainly have rights on an international level.

This is a pretty difficult question to answer. I'd argue that communities should have the right to self-determination, so long as it established through the democratic process. For this to be moral, it can't be rooted in any ideas about ethnicity or homelands. Of course, the right to self-determination tends to be expressed in terms of ethnic community.