The news recently has been all about Crimea's vote to exit life as part of the Ukraine and join Russia again. A history which is not as simple as joining a motherland because Crimea's history as part of Russia is not all that dissimilar to California's history as part of Spain (which is that it's tangential at best). The reason for the Crimea's break from Ukraine shares some similarities with that of Scotland's upcoming vote on whether to remain in the UK or to become independence. The two cases differ greatly, of course, but they share one large common theme: the idea that ethnic nationalism is a valid reason for succession.
The international legal foundation for this idea of independence based on nation states can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson during the formation of the UN. Wilson's points on self-determination were framed through in the context of post-colonialism-- the secession of nations that had been forcefully ruled by governments seated miles away.
Wilson viewed nationalism in a very American lens and saw national sovereignty as a right. While theoretically the idea falls on sympathetic ears, in practice the idea of the nation-state has been linked with ethnocentrism and has been both dangerous and a flawed view on the ties that make for a strong state, let alone a strong humanity.
"National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action. . . . "
—Woodrow Wilson's famous self-determination speech,
11 February 1918
Wilson viewed nationalism in a very American lens and saw national sovereignty as a right. While theoretically the idea falls on sympathetic ears, in practice the idea of the nation-state has been linked with ethnocentrism and has been both dangerous and a flawed view on the ties that make for a strong state, let alone a strong humanity.
With regards to views on nationalism, America differs greatly from its European counterparts in its beliefs regarding the implications of the concept. America was built on ethnic multi-culturalism. From colonialist, to slaves, to a constant flow of immigrants, for good and bad, America could not claim nationalism on the basis of ethnicity. It was based, thus, on the idea of the right to individualism and the common belief that government should support all different types of people and beliefs.
The founders of the United States didn't imagine the extent to which the words in constitution would guide the country's search for human equality, and it's certainly been an up and down road toward the ideal of becoming a truly fair society, but the point is that while people of America argue and disagree, they all say they are Americans. Texans and Californians might "joke" about succession or breaking apart, for example, but it's the battle over which state is getting policies right and wrong that move America forward.
The founders of the United States didn't imagine the extent to which the words in constitution would guide the country's search for human equality, and it's certainly been an up and down road toward the ideal of becoming a truly fair society, but the point is that while people of America argue and disagree, they all say they are Americans. Texans and Californians might "joke" about succession or breaking apart, for example, but it's the battle over which state is getting policies right and wrong that move America forward.
In the case of Crimea, Russian speakers decided to leave Ukraine, albeit with a little push and a helpful military hand, to join Russia. In the case of Scotland, the Scottish believe they're culture is both unique and strong enough to leave a more conservative UK that often not treated the region and people with deserved respect.
They are right on many counts. The Scottish have an amazing culture and they are a strong people, but those points along with the questionable financials of independence are beside the point. Leaving the UK because they are a different ethnic culture is, in the end, their strongest reason for leaving. It's about the pride and history of the Scottish people--and it's a terrible reason for secession.
They are right on many counts. The Scottish have an amazing culture and they are a strong people, but those points along with the questionable financials of independence are beside the point. Leaving the UK because they are a different ethnic culture is, in the end, their strongest reason for leaving. It's about the pride and history of the Scottish people--and it's a terrible reason for secession.
Ethnic nationalism is the same societal building block that has historically led to ethnic cleansing. The same idea led to Germany in the 1940s, Rwanda in 1994, and Bosnia in the 1995, for example. In the case of Scotland, cleansing Scotland of those frustrating people in the South.
These brutal examples of ethnocentric self-determination prove that Wilson's self-determination premise is flawed. During his reign as "leader of the free world," it made sense in the context of colonial powers letting go of foreign territory. Nations, however, don't become strong by grouping people together due to shared characteristic in DNA or ethnic history, nations become strong by showing that differences are, in fact, a strength.
These brutal examples of ethnocentric self-determination prove that Wilson's self-determination premise is flawed. During his reign as "leader of the free world," it made sense in the context of colonial powers letting go of foreign territory. Nations, however, don't become strong by grouping people together due to shared characteristic in DNA or ethnic history, nations become strong by showing that differences are, in fact, a strength.
Alan Cummings recently appeared on the WSJ to explain his take on the case for independence. Scotland could run its country better than the UK government, it has done better since devolution, it has different values than the rest of the the UK, and it would like to further implement those values without having to go through the Parliament in London. At first glance these arguments make a lot of sense. They also sound very similar to quotes made by Californians when some occasionally wish they were untethered to Texans or Floridians (abortion rights and hanging chads anyone?), or recently Californians who want six seperate states.
My response to these sentiments is always the same.
It's the responsibility of all citizens to try to reasonably argue and push for what they believe is right for everyone. In doing so they are trying ensure that all people have the rights they deserve. If someone in Texas is unhappy with the gay rights situation there, they can hope that the movements from other states in the union will spread through shared borders and policies. People can feel assured knowing they have allies and partners throughout the country, not just within their state.
Perhaps overoptimistically, I believe the correct and moral views do win out eventually and it's best when people choose to work together to achieve change. I shudder to think about what the US would look like if the American Civil War turned out differently.
As someone who lived in Scotland for two years and adores the culture and people, there was a moment in time when I wished Scotland could be independent. Selfishly, I wished that they could have less stringent visa policies than the Cameron government so that I could stay and work there. But as someone who has also lived in London, I know that all people in the UK share more in common than they do not.
Scotland and England have been in a union since 1707, whereas the US has been a union since 1776. To remain a union the US fought a bloody war, one in which more Americans died than in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined. The outcome led the north to help end slavery countrywide, and thereafter the civil rights movement, women's rights, and gay rights became nationwide movements.
And this is why Scotland should vote against independence. Not because the people and culture aren't as wonderful as Alexander Salmond says, not because they should or shouldn't be worried about what happens next economically, or whether they will immediately enter the EU if they choose independence. The Scottish should vote against independence because they are a better people for having to compromise with all their British brethren, for having to lead all people to be better.
The same reason that the UK should stay with the EU.
If the Scottish want to prove that they are not ethnocentric, they should vote to stay in the Union and they should continue to fight for the morals and benefits in which they believe from within the borders of United Kingdom. In doing so, they will show that they care about more than just the Scottish people, but care for people in general. Scotland could be the people to openly declare that the world should be trying to grow together, not further apart. Instead of splitting the union, Scotland, along with Wales, Northern Ireland, and England should spend more time examining how they can better accept more cultures into their nation, not less.
My response to these sentiments is always the same.
It's the responsibility of all citizens to try to reasonably argue and push for what they believe is right for everyone. In doing so they are trying ensure that all people have the rights they deserve. If someone in Texas is unhappy with the gay rights situation there, they can hope that the movements from other states in the union will spread through shared borders and policies. People can feel assured knowing they have allies and partners throughout the country, not just within their state.
Perhaps overoptimistically, I believe the correct and moral views do win out eventually and it's best when people choose to work together to achieve change. I shudder to think about what the US would look like if the American Civil War turned out differently.
As someone who lived in Scotland for two years and adores the culture and people, there was a moment in time when I wished Scotland could be independent. Selfishly, I wished that they could have less stringent visa policies than the Cameron government so that I could stay and work there. But as someone who has also lived in London, I know that all people in the UK share more in common than they do not.
Scotland and England have been in a union since 1707, whereas the US has been a union since 1776. To remain a union the US fought a bloody war, one in which more Americans died than in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined. The outcome led the north to help end slavery countrywide, and thereafter the civil rights movement, women's rights, and gay rights became nationwide movements.
And this is why Scotland should vote against independence. Not because the people and culture aren't as wonderful as Alexander Salmond says, not because they should or shouldn't be worried about what happens next economically, or whether they will immediately enter the EU if they choose independence. The Scottish should vote against independence because they are a better people for having to compromise with all their British brethren, for having to lead all people to be better.
The same reason that the UK should stay with the EU.
If the Scottish want to prove that they are not ethnocentric, they should vote to stay in the Union and they should continue to fight for the morals and benefits in which they believe from within the borders of United Kingdom. In doing so, they will show that they care about more than just the Scottish people, but care for people in general. Scotland could be the people to openly declare that the world should be trying to grow together, not further apart. Instead of splitting the union, Scotland, along with Wales, Northern Ireland, and England should spend more time examining how they can better accept more cultures into their nation, not less.
No comments:
Post a Comment