Wow, I actually remembered I had this post going on ....
If you're afraid to provide a model specification, I'm not going to step up and provide a "theoretical model" which can then be criticized on the basis of its conformity to an expected spec. Either put up, or shut up.
The specification is simple:
Create a model describing ethnic exclusion that can be carried out peacefully.
The rest is entirely up to your free intellect.
It's a simple specification, which derives from your own position in this topic:
I do not see any reason why it is necessarily non-peaceful however. After all, if we're all adults here, we can recognize what is good and simply work to create it. Some might not be happy about having to leave, but no one is happy with every decision in society.
If ethnic exclusion can be accomplished peacefully, as you assert, I would hope you could provide some sketch of the model that would accomplish that. I'm not asking you to be Max Weber or Karl Marx. I'm asking you for a basic thumbnail sketch of how you would accomplish ethnic exclusion peacefully. We can fill in the details or debate the gaps as necessary.
So perhaps you can get around to providing that model sometime before we're all turned to dust.
Second, there's no new content in your post, which I take to mean you accept my previous points.
There wasn't anything new to respond to. Point it out if you like.
Third, I asked a question regarding peaceful ethnic exclusion, which is in itself a working model for the concept - you're simply attempting to divert attention from the issue itself, in hopes of finding an issue to criticize.
That's like a demolition crew saying, "The building falling down is in itself a working model for the concept." Well? Are they going to use cranes? Bulldozers? Dynamite?
Are there any _experienced_ debaters here?
There are many here who would be happy to give you lessons if you were to show any willingness.
It seems that many people don't think ethnic exclusion can be carried out peacefully. That's the first hitch you're running into. Secondly, how long do you think diversity can be maintained? Is it good enough to keep genetic diversity just until the end of your foreseeable life? Or is it better to plan down the road? NASA's projection of 200 will still require new genetic material from time to time, unless, of course, you can project the end of that process. But since nature can create inbreeding over generations by necessity of human placement and economy, it is fair to consider how long that original 200 can hold out. To extrapolate, then, well into the future, there will come a day when everyone in a grouping shares common enough genes to cause problems. After all, there
is no new genetic material coming into the pool. And cataclysm is more likely to reduce the population than increase it.
Now, to look at your original question, the reasons why not are various:
• "Peacefully" ... would you like to establish what counts as "peacefully"?
• What authority will create this condition?
• Who gets what, and how are those priorities decided?
Consider: I live in the pacific northwestern United States. This area happens to be, for natural resources, one of the best in the world. Underneath Seattle, for instance, is great farmland. The scenery is superb, and the weather, while a little wet and chilly for parts of the year, certainly beats the LA heat, or the African droughts. It's the kind of real estate that, if put up for grabs, everyone would want. There's very few poisonous critters in the western half of Washington and Oregon, and earthquakes are the biggest natural cataclysm you face; in my lifetime, we've had relatively few.
So who gets it? The Scandanavians? (Seattle has heavy Norwegian and Swedish influence.) The Brits? (Seattle has its share of British and Irish.) The Germans (Seattle has a lot of Lutherans.) The indigenous tribes? (It was theirs before it was ours.)
Who gets the Australian coast? Who gets Ireland?
What is the basis for restricting the liberty to live where one chooses in such a fashion?
Who gets the Alaskan tundra? How about the Sahara?
Who gets to live over the oil in this or that country, or region of the world?
There are reasons that ethnic exclusionism is generally regarded as separate from peace. I would hope you would be ready to address the implications of that which you have put forward.
In the meantime, I can steal from someone peacefully. Why not allow that?
As to what I am guessing your point is:
The reason we don't allow ethnic exclusionism, even if done peacefully, is that it is stupid. "Ethnicity" is a label, a mere classification we use to identify someone based on a set of traits. In the end, we're all human beings, and as with all broad and shiny political ideas, "peaceful ethnic exclusionism" does not account for human nature. Sure, we're all adults (not--there are children in the world) but maturity does not imply the acceptance of any bonehead idea that comes along.
Why not allow "peaceful ethnic exclusionism"?
• Sure, why not? I have a problem discussing the merits of something that won't work. When we see a proposition of how to make it work, then we can start discussing the implications of that proposition. But if you are afraid to put your mind to any test, that's fine. Just don't expect me or anyone else to respect the position.
After all, we could examine why "benevolent dictatorships" aren't around. After all, if it could be done benevolently and peacefully ....
• Ethnic exclusionism has the effect of killing passion, making life boring. It makes children ugly and offers justification to those who would seek to establish supremacy based on ethnic "qualities". Ne'er before in the history of the world has such segregation offered benefit to human beings.
How deep of specifications do you want? A model representing a healthy human result, harmony among peoples, proper apportionment of lands and wealth (after all, it will all have to be uprooted in some way or another), and full ethnic exclusion. You may wish to account for various clans within various ethnicities that just can't seem to get along, as well.
By the way ... how will you prevent future generations from getting bored with the homogeny and "coloring it up" a little for a change of scenery? What kind of philosophical base can maintain an exclusionary society beyond the lifespan of its founders?
These are all things you could choose to discuss instead of hiding behind your paucity of ideas. The problem with hiding behind a lack,
Prozak, is that you're hiding behind, essentially, nothing.
I would ask you to flesh it out, but you haven't even given a skeletal sketch of what you're talking about with "peaceful" ethnic exclusion.
I think that's the thing, Prozak. Wow us. Look around: nobody thinks you can do it. Nobody thinks you can propose a method for accomplishing peaceful ethnic exclusion. Nobody seems to see the reason to, so you'll have to sell it better, too. But if you absolutely wow us with something we've never thought of before, if you can show the benefit and even the slightest inkling of how it would be accomplished, I'm sure you would get a lot more enthusiastic debate going on.
It's up to you.
I, for one, would like to see a model for peaceful ethnic exclusion. Just to know one exists. Then I'll have something better to do about separatists, supremacists, and exclusionists than simply laugh at them.
Do us all a favor, Prozak: cough up the scheme.
thanx,
Tiassa
