What’s the alternative?
I would agree with this statement.
However, the reality is that the white population is saying “the whites should have their own county.” And the Navajos are opposed to a secession.
Are they though? All the articles I have seen so far have one of the Native councilmen saying it wouldn’t be good. It could very well be that the majority of Navajo would be fine with it. Have I missed something where the tribal leadership has spoken on the issue?
Maybe if things were starting from scratch.
But the reality is that there are already-established foci of power (at many scales) that aren’t gonna go away. To ignore their existence is just a fantasy.
Right. First they were recast as something they were not, namely the lost tribe of Israel, itinerant Jews who came to the New World, where they flat-out rejected Jesus when they had the chance to do otherwise. This kind of false narrative is a great way to get people seething with unspoken accusations against members of some out-group.
Now, they are recast as something they are not, namely “liberals” (and you know what That means). This kind of false narrative is a great way to get people seething with unspoken accusations against members of some out-group.
Just to be clear: there would be very few people in the UK who think that states should be allowed to secede from the union without any power of veto from the federation. The Irish clearly thought that, but they aren’t part of the UK anymore.
The issue with the EU was that the UK did not want to become part of that country: had been promised all along that economic union did not mean political union, and are in the process of breaking the economic union to prevent political union.
Don’t assume that the rest of the world sees politics the way you do.
I’m not assuming in the post you quoted. I was asking people to share their thoughts on the subject.
A break up of political entities should be mutual.
If both sides no longer wish to be associated with each other, then they can work out an equitable split. If they cannot come to a compromise on division of assets, then they stay together.
It should not be unilateral.
The bolded bit ain’t true, though. Sorry for slight detail. Political cooperation and plans for a European Union were well known before the UK even joined the EC.
Carry on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
A county government isn’t a sovereign entity. A county split is nothing like withdrawing from a political union. It’s not a group of people refusing to treat another group of fellow citizens as deserving of the benefits of the advantages of living in the same society and a refusal to share political power and societal resources with others based on their race or class status. It’s just another form of white flight.
The government ambulance service is as adequate as the previous county commissioners were willing to fund (which is in fact apparently a significant reason why the Navajo majority thinks they haven’t been treated particularly fairly by the previous county commissions).
However, your statement here doesn’t seem to accord with your previous statement:
Who, exactly, are you calling ridiculous? I don’t see that the Navajo residents of southern San Juan County are ridiculous for thinking that more of the county’s budget should be spent on providing ambulance service in their neighborhoods, as opposed to locating the service primarily for the benefit of the (mostly white) residents of northern San Juan County. Are you arguing that they are ridiculous for thinking that, or what?
Saying “well, the government should not be involved in ambulances at all” ignores the reality of life in San Juan County, or for that matter most of rural America, where private health care providers don’t operate ambulances because there isn’t a profit to be made. Whoever is making decisions about ambulance location in San Juan County, public money is ultimately paying for it, so who should the deciders be?
(As it happens, after years of inaction by the white-dominated county, the Utah Navajo formed their own separate ambulance service, funded mostly with tribal and federal monies, so ambulance service probably isn’t as big a deal as it used to be in county politics.)
No, you haven’t missed anything. I assumed (yes, I know what that means) that the councilman who was quoted was speaking on behalf of the tribe, when clearly he was not.
For that matter, we don’t know if the majority of whites are in favor of secession, either.
Africa as a whole, and places like Zimbabwe in particular, just show that what goes round goes round.
As for decolonization, the former colonies cut across ethnic and tribal borders, but none of the now independent countries have ever adjusted their borders.
By someone who wanted to derail the conversation.
I think I speak for at least one of us when I say that it might be intriguing to hear your best example of a city-state.
Sparta is famous as a progressive city-state — indeed Aristotle called it a gynecocracy! — but it was class-conscious. Is classism a libertarian ideal? :—
Of course the Perioikoi had it better than the Helots:
You missed your calling by 150 years with the Confederacy.
Seriously, many states require agreement by all parties in the partitioning of counties.
Sometimes they do agree, other times not. There is no unilateral leaving.
The losers must accept the order of things. Especially when the winners were magnanimous in not reducing their status back to territories that would have needed to earn back the benefits of full statehood.
So, the political disputes of 150 years from now should be settled by the results of brute force conflicts today. Gotcha.
I think secession should have a high bar for both parties. At least 100% of the combined vote between both the child territory and the remaining parent territory must agree to the breakup. (i.e, if 90% of the child territory votes to leave, then at least 10% of the parent territory must also approve the split).
This county was a loser in the Civil War?