On Jan 30, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM, James Heartfield
>> wrote:
>>
>> Tibet ain't a nation by you?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well maybe it is a nation, but for some time now ethnic Han Chinese
>>> have outnumbered Tibetans in Tibet.
>>>
>>
> Perhaps, if you count the occupying army. Not perhaps: for some time now
> ethnic Americans, Europeans, Moroccans and Russians have outnumbered
> Palestinians in Palestine.
I'm not sure they do anymore. I seem to recall hearing shortly before the Zionist withdrawal from Gaza that historic Palestine once again had an Arab majority. The Internet isn't being helpful with sources, though, and I don't have a great deal of time to search.
I'm curious, though: Why do you draw your line in the sand at "nationhood"? It may be that Tibetans actually don't fit the Enlightenment-era European understanding of nationality (which, if our words are to mean anything, is the one we have). Indeed, for most of their history, it would be strangely anachronistic if they did. But so what? Why should self-determination be predicated upon a fairly arbitrary list of shared characteristics that, when it was composed by imperialists, was far more prescriptive than descriptive with regard to the overwhelming majority of the world?
For that matter, why do you imply that nationhood must result in statehood? Do you actually believe that it would be useful to a revolutionary project for every group possessing national characteristics to exercise sovereign statehood, regardless of its size or the degree to which it has integrated with surrounding cultures?
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."