Zach WeinersmithSomething I've been thinking about lately is this weird thing where the project of national self-determination (meaning every people deserves a right not to be oppressed *as a people*) conflicts with the project of free movement between nations. That is, part of the tragedy of the 20th century is that as decolonization creates new nations that often experience a lot of strife between peoples inside their borders, the world tightens up to immigrants. But that's likely not a coincidence?
I guess another way to say it is how do you get the good aspects here, like the idea that groups have certain rights that shouldn't be alienated, and which may culminate in the right to their own territory, without also accepting the bad - that ethnicity-based states are inherently exclusionary, even (sometimes especially) to people in grave situations.
will-r-s-hansenJust saw this Takei post: https://universeodon.com/@georgetakei/111613738449966529
Wouldn't the solution be to focus hard on the freedoms and rights side of the equation, so no need to separate them by borders in ethnostates?
If rights and freedoms aren't being protected by a government, forming a separatist ethnostate is more a GTFO-for-self-preservation move than an ideal solution. The good solution is a government that just protects everyone.
Don't know much about "groups have certain rights".
George Takei :verified: 🏳️🌈🖖🏽 (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image Hear, hear!
@twelve_floating_hands Agree, and I'm a free movement guy, but often when a minority group wants turf it's because they are deeply oppressed and no country is willing to take them en masse. This creates additional problems, but I think it's a tough position to say to e.g. people of Bangladesh under Pakistan that they shouldn't want their own state, given that it's non optimal for the longterm.
Assuming staying is non-viable for oppression reasons (I don't know the details), splitting off in a GTFO-for-self-preservation move sounds like the right move.
I think the key thing to note is that if the original government is an oppressive ethnostate, the newly split off state does not need to be.
Isn't the oppressive state the problem? The new state doesn't need to just switch which group is oppressed/favored. If it protects everyone, that's good.