Yeah, I do think there are some interesting questions in this area, but the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world, and has led to countless civil wars. The most obvious one being “Israel is primarily a country for Israelis.”
But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.
> the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world
That’s true in some parts of the world. But the opposite idea — that the people who’ve lived somewhere for thousands of years have no moral claim to their inheritance over the people who just arrived — has been equally destructive in other parts.
> one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.
That’s a bad thing, is it? Is diversity not their strength?
A stable country is a country that is primarily a country of X. What constitutes X may change over time, but it works fine if it is slow and gradual.
> But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.
If it is not gradual and you have Y and Z beside X, is when trouble start. Middle East and lot of African countries is the example of this. Those people where unable to live together (too many cultural differences) in their home country, why should be different in Europe, where cultural differences will be even higher ?
That’s the point—- definitions of culture and identity can change over time. Since I’m from the US, I don’t have much more to say about lands belonging to people, but my comment about Japan is meant to highlight problems with the idea of islands being naturally “for” people.
>That was then. Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
One of the core tenets of liberalism is that multi cultural societies and nations are just as good as mono cultural ones. what are you trying to imply here with the africa and middle eastern examples
Oh that’s a core tenet? Since when? Did Adam Smith write about that? John Locke? Thomas Paine? Heck I’ll even take a Milton Friedman citation if you have one.
Probably since about early 1990s. Maybe I should say civic nationalism instead of multiculturalism but I think most liberals would reject the idea that ethnicity or heritage were important in determining nationality.
this is categorically different from multiculturalism. all cultures are not equal, and some are antithetical to liberal values. a diversity of people is good, but as much as possible society should prefer a common banner and shared loyalty, or view of civic duty. America has for a long time shown that there can be a combination of national identity and ethnic and religious diversity.
to that end, i think arguments for or against different degrees of immigration are valid and worth engaging (as opposed to shunning under false labels).
But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.