Being an American mutt of mixed Euro ethnicity, I don’t really understand (or sympathize with) ethnic or tribal identification. I don’t feel that I and my kin are somehow entitled to a specific piece of this planet for eternity. And I tend to be a pragmatist, acknowledging that whatever group has the resources sufficient to seize and hold a plot of earth is “entitled” to that plot as long as they can hold it.
Is it possible to identify a set of factors that make a group’s claims to a “homeland” legitimate in your eyes? Are there any generaly agreed upon criteria? Does it depend on the size/strength/coherence of the group in question? Other current groups’ claims on the same land? The length/recency of a group’s ties to a specific land?
Don’t need to turn this into a debate of Israel, but they have been in the news lately and got me thinking along these lines. As a pragmatist, I tend to think whatever their historical claims as opposed to anyone else’s, they are there now and clearly have the resources and determination to hold on to it. Which is enough for me.
But I’ve also been doing a bit of reading about native Americans - and I started wondering whether they might have at least as legitimate historical claims to parts of the US as their “homelands.”
Any thoughts? Or am I just being incredibly ignorant, immature and naive here? (Wouldn’t be the first time! ;))
I don’t think any group inherently deserves a nation of their own. Balkans style micro nationalism usually occurs in response to some internal strife or ethnic conflict. I think it is incredibly destructive and tragic that people are driven to fragment themselves into progressively smaller blocs, regardless of whether they are self sufficient.
Almost every border in the world was determined by some war or other at some time in history. Very few borders are like the one between the Czech Republic and Slovakia-- actually agreed upon by the parties involved. Except in very rare instances, or when existing regimes are autocratic, I think we are best served by accepting history and moving on.
“Deserves” has nothing to do with it. Ethnic nationalism is one possible source of the patriotic self-identity necessary to create a country - not the only one. Others include allegance to a common political creed, or self-interest of some form or another.
It’s a bit more complicated in this case. Israel considers itself as the homeland of all Jews, not only those living there and currently holding on it. Given your approach, do you think it’s legitimate too? And if you do, do Romas, for instance, “have a right” to a homeland (despite not having currently any territory nor the means to hold on one?)
It also seems that your approach is pretty close to “might makes right”. Let’s assume that China conquers Australia next year and has the military means and determination to keep it. Is it it still enough for you? Does Australia immediately becomes the legitimate homeland of hypothetical Chinese colonists? Does it require that they keep Australia for some time? In this case, how long? And do Australians and in particular Aborigenes lose their right to call Australia their “homeland”? What about the real example of Tibet? Or, taking your Amerindians example, does it means that as soon as Spaniards or British nexcomers had kicked their ass and had the means to hold on the conquered territory, it was their homeland and not anymore the natives’ ?
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
And do Australians and in particular Aborigenes lose their right to call Australia their “homeland”?
[/QUOTE]
They can call it whatever they like, but the reality is that the Aussies aren’t going to be giving it all back to the Aborigines, regardless, so they have to make as equatable a situation as is possible. If the Aborigines attempt to take their ‘homeland’ back by force of arms then they probably aren’t going to fair too well.
Well, you tell me…what about it? Do you see any realistic way that the Tibetans will regain their homeland from the Chinese unless the Chinese give it back to them (or unless China goes completely tits up)? I’m all for Tibet regaining it’s independence, but it’s not going to happen as long as China remains strong militarily…THAT’S the reality, and everything else is wishful thinking. Certainly I can sympathize with the Tibetans and understand why they would continue to struggle…but, realistically, it’s just not going to happen.
Again, they can call it whatever they like. No one is going to object to any American Indian group calling this or that land their homeland, unless they try and actual enforce their claims to territory outside of their respective reservations…and even on their reservations they aren’t fully autonomous or sovereign. If they tried to be either of those even on their own reservations there would be issues…and if they decided that they wanted, oh, say Manhattan back, and they attempted to do so by force of arms, well…let’s just say it’s doubtful they would be able to do so unless the US fell apart completely (probably not even then, unless most of the inhabitants of New York also died off first).
If the Romans could muster the economic, military and political will to take back Central Italy from the current government then it would be a fait accompli (:p)…so, it would be ‘legitimate’ by the fact that they COULD and DID do such a thing. Israel is Israel not because the Jews claimed it was their homeland, but because they worked to make it so via economic, military and political means. They MADE it a reality.
And if, say, a conquered France decided to reconstitute itself and toss out the Germans and their puppet government, then they would also be ‘legitimate’ in all of the aspects of that term that matters, because, well, they would have done it and pulled together a viable (economically, politically and militarily) nation state with it’s own unique identity. Just theoretical of course, since I’m sure in real life that wouldn’t happen, but it makes a good talking point, wouldn’t you say? Hows the weather in Paris btw? I was in Paris in November years ago and it was freezing. Brrrr…
One could also ask the aboriginal inhabitants of Taiwan, who probably have a more “legitimate” claim than to the Fujian immigrants of the past few centuries.
Many homeland type places also boast natural borders. Take Tibet for example.
Not so. Maori in New Zealand have no military arm but over the past 20 years they have been regaining land, money/businesses, and customary rights, as redress for their losses in the colonial era.
Canada similarly is recognising Inuit (and others) claims.
Our good mates in Australia have an appalling history with the Aboriginals (at an early time they were not even considered to be humans) and even there, giving back land etc etc is at least being discussed.
Do they deserve this? Mostly, yes. Are they getting homelands? Yes, in the sense they live in their homelands already but now get some ownership and dignity.
I was talking about the Romas (Gypsies) not the Romans.
As for the rest, I was asking the poster I quoted if his position wasn’t equivalent to "might makes right"and if he would apply the same reasonning to Chinese invading Australia tomorrow, or to the conquistadores when they first seized American territory, not to old grievances. IOW, for how long a group has to be able to hold on a territory before it should be considered a “fait accompli”?
At the extreme, much longer than 1900 years: the Romans held Palestine for 300 years, followed by Arab caliphates, followed by the newly Arab moslems, then the Crusaders, and then a long period under the Ottoman Empire, and finally by the British. Who under pressure from the UN, stood back and said to the Arab and Jewish people - its all yours.
And so Israel came to be - after 1900 years. Astonishing and good.
Consider the Balkans: the individual cultures there trace themselves back to the 12th century and discuss events 300 years old as though it was only last year.
I sometimes wonder if the lack of a deep cultural identity is the flaw in colonial societies such as the US, Australia, and NZ. We (colonialists) are genuinely bewildered by the strong enduring protests of the unlucky natives. Surely they should be grateful to us - guns, blankets, Christianity, measles - what’s not to like??
I’ve sometimes thought it was a virtue. Whatever our other sins, we don’t harbor genocidal inclinations against another group over grievances centuries in the past. Two generations ago, the Japanese here were villified here because of WWII. Now they are considered upstanding citizens. We have a short history, true, and a shorter attention span, but if that means historical grievances tend to be forgotten quicker - perhaps that’s not always a bad thing. I perfer that to the long memories and hatreds of the Balkans and the Middle East.
And with so many mutts out there, how do you even start to pidgeonhole them into nice little ethnic boxes for resettlement or citizenship programs? Do African-Americans deserve their own sovereign homeland within the borders of the old US or should we give them all Jamaican citizenship and tell them that’s their homeland? Are black Jamaicans sufficiently ethnically different from African-Americans from the US that they both deserve separate states? Do Appalachian hillbillies of Scottish descent deserve their own Republic of Moonshinia in what was West Virginia or should we ship them all to Glasgow? Should an independent Quebec join up with Cajuns in Louisiana and Acadians in New Brunswick to become one (discontiguous) nation under language laws, indivisible, with crawfish and poutine for all?
If I had citizenship in every European country where I have documented ancestry, I would be a citizen of at least four countries. And those countries might be broken apart because they also have different ethnicities living in them.
And, especially for the mutts out there, what’s the smallest blood quantum that qualifies you as a true member of the ethnicity? Does having a single Welsh ancestor guarantee you a right to citizenship in a future Independent Republic of Wales or do you need to be at least 1/4 Welsh? What about people who are literally a mix of everything and don’t have enough of any one thing to get them citizenship anywhere? Where do they go? Are we going to go by strict paternal ancestry? Sounds doable at first but I actually don’t know where my direct paternal line comes from - it sort of gets lost in Early America, the land of poor record keeping.
