Rational Treatment of Ethno Secessionism vs Multicultural Accessionism?

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:33.

The idea that ethnostates are the root of all evil is so embedded in political theory that it is considered axiomatic. A case in point is Stanford University’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Secession which blithely dismisses “Ascriptivist Theories” of secession as a “Primary Right” with the statement introducing such theories: This approach to unilateral secession has a long pedigree, reaching back at least to Nineteenth Century nationalists such as Mazzini, who proclaimed that every nation should have its own state… this appears to be not only unfeasible, but a recipe for increasing ethno-national conflict… given the historical record of ethno-nationalist conflict, the worry remains that institutionalizing the principle that every nation is entitled to its own state would exacerbate ethno-national violence, along with the human rights violations it inevitably entails.

So I have a question: Has anyone bothered to check—objectively and rationally—to assure themselves that accessionism has a history less tarnished by “human rights abuses”, violence/coersion (state directed violence/coersion/bias on behalf of politically enfranchized ethnicities) and other “inevitable” consequences of accessionism?

Certainly the origin of the word “racism” as an epithet was with Trostky aka Braunstein during the dawn of the less-than-exemplary Soviet State—with its very accessionist and open anti-nationalism.

Tags: Immigration

Comments:

Posted by Amalek on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:29 | #

The only ethnostate which is morally justifiable, as we all know, is the one whose denizens patiently teach the rest of us why ethnostates are a Bad Thing.

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:37 | #

A case in point is Stanford University’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Secession which blithely dismisses “Ascriptivist Theories” of secession as a “Primary Right” with the statement introducing such theories: This approach to unilateral secession has a long pedigree, reaching back at least to Nineteenth Century nationalists such as Mazzini, who proclaimed that every nation should have its own state… this appears to be not only unfeasible, but a recipe for increasing ethno-national conflict… given the historical record of ethno-nationalist conflict, the worry remains that institutionalizing the principle that every nation is entitled to its own state would exacerbate ethno-national violence, along with the human rights violations it inevitably entails.

Buchanan is a moron.

To deny the right of secession is to assert a right of slavery. But there can be no such right as it would defy reciprocity.

As embarrassing as my alma mater’s antics can be, I am glad I declined Duke’s invitation to study political philosophy there.

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:09 | #

Nevertheless, given the historical record of ethno-nationalist conflict, the worry remains that institutionalizing the principle that every nation is entitled to its own state would exacerbate ethno-national violence, along with the human rights violations it inevitably entails.

In other words, genocide is morally permissible; resistance is not.

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:17 | #

The second type of justification for the view that nations are entitled to their own states also has two variants: The first, which dates back at least to John Stuart Mill’s Considerations On Representative Government, (Mill, 1991) asserts that democracy can only flourish in mono-national states, because states in which there is more than one nation will be lacking in the solidarity, trust, or shared sentiments and values that democracy requires.

Wow! Mill actually got something right for once. Democracy is government by “the people”, singular, not “the people”, plural. If more than one “people” are lumped together, democracy is impossible.