Dear BSDetector,

Thank you. May we have another discussion. I shall ramble on. Of course you may wish to respond.

The scientific method is a great way of finding out about the world. We look at the world and make generalisations or in scientific language, hypotheses, based on observations and experiments conducted on what exists.

Look at the existing nations and the way ethnic or religious categories have survived as distinct entities.

I make the hypothesis that a big factor in creating a nation is simply the act of drawing a political boundary around an area. Another is a successful struggle to survive. The evidence is those factors are more important than a shared religion or language.

Two long lived small nations are Switzerland and the Netherlands. The political boundaries in both cases were defined by the battle lines when the Thirty Years War ended. They have retained their national boundaries since 1648. Switzerland has four official languages and two main religions with a small minority of other religions. The Netherlands has one official language with a significant Frisian speaking minority and two main religions with a small minority of other religions. What preserved those nations is their early years was the strength of its armies. People within those two countries feel like Dutch and Swiss even though they do not have a common language or religion.

Almost all the nations of North America, South America and Africa are former colonies of the great European Empires. Their boundaries in general follow those that existed during colonial rule. Yet most Brazilians feel like Brazilians and most Ghanaians feel like Ghanaians. Within the boundaries of all those nations are a disparate conglomeration of peoples, language and religions.

The reality is that most nations are not formed by self-determination. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are two examples of nations formed by peaceful self-determination, and the nations formed from the former Yugoslavia are examples of nations formed by non-peaceful self-determination. The evidence is that self-determination is only a minor factor in nation formation.

continued

Continued

Look at the long existence of the Jewish people.

Jews come in many shades and languages. Among my relatives are Jews who range in colour from very blond to very dark. Among my relatives are people I can’t speak to because we don’t have a common language.

One factor in our survival was anti-Semitism. As long it didn’t destroy us it kept us together by not allowing us to leave the community or allowing us to forget we were Jews.

Another factor was dispersion. As horrible as the Holocaust was many of us were not in the Nazi occupied area and survived. There have been other massacres. If Jews had all been gathered in one place that would have been the end.

Another factor is that Jews were not identified with any particular nation state. If a people is than the disappearance of the state generally means the disappearance of the people.

Another factor has been religion. Although there are fundamentalists there is also a questioning attitude.

Another factor has been the unity of community. Jews range in opinion from atheists to those of fervent religiosity. However, all of the ranges of opinion with the general exception of those who have seriously converted to another religion are accepted within the community.

Another factor existing in modern democracies is the separation of religion and state which maintains that the religion of citizens is no business of the government.

To a large extent Israel has succeeded in gathering Jews in one area which is surrounded by enemies. Ethiopian Jews along with other minority Jewish groups find problems being accepted. Jews outside of Israel get blamed for what Israel does whether or not we identify with Israel. People are not always easily accepted as Jews since an orthodox rabbinate decides who is a Jew. Since religion is connected with government those elements such as the orthodox rabbinate which have an official status put restrictions on other Jews. Haredim are at odds with secular and modern Orthodox Jews.

I think one big reason for our long survival was the absence of a state.

Let's see if I have your worldview correct, DavidF.

You seem to think that a state can exist with no defining culture that represents the majority consensus as to what constitutes correct and legally enforceable behaviour? And you think it is possible to create secular democratic states made up of people with different ethnicities with diametrically opposed values?

Could I submit that stable nation states are one's where there is general agreement on what constitutes legally enforceable behaviour? It is precisely those countries which are cursed with multiculturalism where different groups have opposing values which are the most unstable and strife ridden.

Minorities can be tolerated provided that their numbers are small, their cultural differences are not major, and if there are major differences, that their abhorrent cultural practices are not plainly displayed. They can be tolerated provided that significant numbers of that minority do not engage in acts hostile towards the majority, and their numbers are not growing to the extent that the majority feels that its dominant culture is under threat.

A nation can not exist with two legal codes, because if that happens you no longer have one country, you have two.

You seem to agree that a cultural group has a right to self determination, and the right to create their own territory? But then you curiously seem to suggest that once that cultural group sets up its own state with its own cultural values defining the law, it has no right to defend it from other cultural groups within its territory who want to change it?

Could I suggest a hypothetical here?

The David F tribe finds an empty bit of land and it creates a secular democracy where is does not discriminate against anybody. Along comes another tribe of people who want to live in your territory with you and they have the power to outnumber your tribe. They do not believe in secular democracy and they are racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic into the bargain.

1. Do you all live happily ever after?
2. Start stacking stones on your ramparts?

Dear Lego,

Nations have not come about by a cultural group taking a piece of land and creating a nation. That is fantasy.

The nation of Australia came about because the English colonised it. Although it has accepted other people it is still basically English in culture. It was not established by a cultural group. It was established by the armed forces of the British government and colonists from that country not a cultural group as the original settlers and convicts were not just English. The convicts in addition to English were Irish, Jews and probably other elements.

Other nations have come about in different ways. Many are simply former colonies which are now under the control of descendants of the pre-colonial inhabitants. South Africa and India are that type of nation.

We do not have a single tribal identity since we identify with religious belief, ethnic group, nation, race and other criteria. However, different people give different values to the different identities.

Nations have forces pulling them apart and keeping them together.

If national identity is important to people we have a stable nation. If other forces are more compelling then the nation will come apart.

We do not have to have a dominant culture to keep a nation together. Although Switzerland has been peaceful in recent history Swiss soldiers have been quite effective in the past in preserving their nation even though there was no dominant culture. Switzerland stays together because the Swiss feel their identity as Swiss is more compelling than their ethnic identities.

The United Kingdom is coming apart because the Scots are feeling their identity as Scots is more important than their citizenship in the UK.

My primary allegiance is to the United States of America. If the US were no longer a secular democracy my allegiance would disappear. Force may be necessary to preserve the nation.

After the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Ben Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”.

Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

Posted on Thursday 15th @ David G

((" Israel doesn't have wagons! It has F-16s and nukes, lots of them.

"It also is driven by a deranged notion that some god or other has chosen its people to be his or her children.

"Israel, along with the U.S., should be BDS-ed out of existence. If that happened, world tensions would decline by 50%!"))

That comment David G I think the AHRC would be interested to see and no doubt take action on it. That is pure racial and religious hatred.

Seeing as to how you are *trying*, very, to be a smart Alec, maybe you should learn what the expression “G-d’s chosen people” means.

It means that G-d chose Jews to follow his religion, because all other peoples at the time were idolaters. Not chosen for anything else.

As for your comment “world tensions would decline by 50%”
I won’t bother answering that.
You tell me what planet you are living on if you think that for one moment.
Israel would love to live in peace and security, but the Arabs don’t.
If Israel failed to exist tomorrow, the Arabs would go back to what they’ve always done and war amongst themselves.

Thank you DavidF for this comment

“A democratic state must make no distinction among its citizens on the basis of religion, ideology, sexual orientation and ethnicity. However, to single out Israel, the only Jewish state, and to ignore Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Marxist or other states that also discriminate on the basis of religion, ideology, sexual orientation or ethnicity sure smells like Jew hatred to me.”

That is exactly what antisemitism is.

Dear Lego,

The United States is a stable entity which is not going away soon.

You wrote: “A nation can not exist with two legal codes, because if that happens you no longer have one country, you have two.”

The United States has many legal codes and many laws which are quite different from one area to another. Laws of marriage and divorce are determined by the state. Some states allow same sex marriage. Other states don’t. Louisiana is not even under English Common Law. It was a French colony which was purchased by Jefferson from France. Louisiana still operates by the Code Napoleon. Some of the American Indians live separately in areas operating under their own laws.

The United States exists quite well with many legal codes and remains a superpower.

The United States has a predominately white population which has elected a black man as its president. The American tribe is not determined by colour.

You wrote: “You seem to agree that a cultural group has a right to self determination, and the right to create their own territory?”

I don’t agree with self-determination at all. I think no group should have a right to claim a territory on the basis of a shared ethnic identity. That condemns those people within that territory who do not share that identity to second-class citizenship. As I have stated in a previous post: “Nations should make no distinction among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity, religion, ideology, sex, gender identification and any other matter which should not be related to citizenship.”

You don’t have my world view correct.

Although I disagree with many of your positions I think you probably are more honest about them then most people who post, but I wish you would read my posts more carefully.

I oppose self-determination. I think nations should make no distinction among their citizens on the basis of ethnicity, religion, ideology, sex, gender identification and any other matter which should not be related to citizenship. One cannot have such a nation along with self-determination based on religious, cultural or ethnic identity.