![]() |
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
|
| | Thread Tools |
| | #61 (permalink) (top) | |
| Molten Ash Location: NYC area Posts: 95 | Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #62 (permalink) (top) |
![]() Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,444 | You're dodging the issue, JB. Czechoclovakia don't work cause its borders were drawn precisely along ethnic lines (well, a bit rough here and there but pretty well). This was the bee in Woodrow Wilson's bonnet, dismantling the Austro-Hungarian Empire in a manner that would let the different peoples have their own country -- unlike the situation in Africa. Canada, it's true, has borders meaningless re the territory of its original inhabitants, but those peoples are now a tiny minority of the population -- unlike the situation in Africa. India? So tell us, which ethnic groups are artificially divided there? Careful not to say Punjabi and thus confuse things with the Partition, which was a wholly Indian affair -- unlike the situation in Africa. And anyway, India is a byword for crippling ethnic strife. Poland? Well Poland regained much of its territory after WWII. Yes, there are a few small groups of ethnic Poles elsewhere -- nothing to compare to the situation in Africa. The "trough", eh? Revealing choice of words. (I'd like to see you have to live the way most Africans do.) Nothing you have said negates the glaring truth of what I said about borders. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne Last edited by Nono; Aug 8, 2005 at 01:11 pm. Reason: spelling -- damn |
| | |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |