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

[ingemann]

Does an ethnic group have a right to a national homeland? Do they have the right to try to maintain a majority for their own group as part of their immigration and refugee policy?

Some of you seem to think that is illegitimate or immoral. for me those are fundamental right.

The issue suffer from one potential point one this board, we're descendant from the people who stayed in sh**tty swamps, marches and heaths, and while fighting and quite often losing against our just as bad off neighbours, our ancestors slowly remade the poor wasteland our nation was born in to what it is today.

Most posters here on the other hand are descendants of the people who didn't have the guts to do that and stole better land from others.

Of course their persepective are difference, their views may be immoral and disgusting, but it's understandable that they don't share our view.

[ingemann]

Of course not.

You do realize what sorts of rabbit holes this way of thinking takes people down right?

To well functioning states with low crime rates and a large degree of solidarity between the difference classes?

[ingemann]

Of course not.

You do realize what sorts of rabbit holes this way of thinking takes people down right?

To well functioning states with low crime rates and a large degree of solidarity between the difference classes?

Haha.

I would point you to the former Yugoslavia, but since your ideology seems to be akin to lovely fellows like Tujdman and Milosevic, I would assume you are already familiar.

Yugoslavia's problem seem more the fact that a bunch of different people was forced to live in the same state (and while their historical hatred is revisionism, there's no doubt they really began to hate each others when they shared a state), and the Serbs was never really strong enough to hold the al other down. So I really think it's a weird example, when you decides to use a failed multi-ethnic state everyone wanted out of except for the dominant group as example of why people don't have a rights to national homelands, in fact denying people's right to national homeland (at least other people) was something Milosevic pushed. So I guess you can change your username from Sol to Milo.

If you really want to push these arguments and you're clearly unable to find examples on your own, well I would say that early Czech nationalism is a better example.

[ingemann]

Does homeland necessarily mean nation-state?

Of course not, in many cases a national state are not a viable solution for a ethnic group, either because of small size, the presense of other ethnic groups in the same area or that the group in question are spread out over several enclaves/exclaves. Could we really imagine a independent Welsh (as in Celtic speaking) state, but they still have a right to not being overrun and their language and culture disappearing. National states are useful when they're viable, but a structure like India, where the different ethnic groups get a sub-federal state are a legitimate alternative.

[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.

[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.