linguoboy wrote:My prescription as world dictator? Plebiscites for everyone what wants 'em. "Geopolitical stability" is just another convenient excuse for perpetuating an unjust status quo.
Ludwig Whitby wrote:All Serbs did was assimilation of the people of Southern Serbia, that mostly did consider themselvs Bulgarian, but had no strong national feeling which is proven by the fact that it took them only a few years to change their mind and become Serbs. They were living in the Ottoman empire and hadn't felt the wave of nationalism before Serbs arrived and Serbia took advantage of that. Oh, Serbia took Macedonia as well and what Serbia did in Macedonia was a mistake (as much you would like that, still no ethnic cleansing), but they're not Bulgarians, they're Macedonians.
So what is the difference between what was done in Macedonia to what was done in those areas of southern Serbia? That it wasn't fully succesful?
Ludwig Whitby wrote:2. They are a nation of their own, a young nation, but a nation nontheless, with a language of their own (officially since 1945) and are brutally aware of the past attempts at serbification and bulgarization. So, no to any possible union with one of those two countries.
How do you Bulgarize something that is already Bulgarian? Can you find any evidence of any Macedonian ethnic identity before Yugoslav times?
I'm tempted to see the Macedonian ethnogenesis as a Serb/Yugoslav-provoked phenomenon, just as Moldovans are just those Romanians that ended up under Russian occupation, and Valencians are just Catalans that ended up with a Hispanophile (I mean, Castilophile) bourguoisie.
That doesn't mean that Macedonians aren't now a distinct ethnic group, or that they don't have a right to their state, of course. They have every right to their identity and sovereignty, I'm just not a fan of all the denial of Bulgarian roots and erroneous assertions of ancient Macedonian origins.
Yasna wrote:1. Falkland Islands returned to Argentina.
When were the Falklands ever part of Argentina?
3. Dravidian speaking South India becomes an independent country.
4. Pakistan is dissolved and everything west of the Indus river goes to Iran and Afghanistan. Every to the east goes to India.
I'm more of a fan of dissolving both India and Pakistan, and then creating a looser South Asian (con)federation with a large number of member states. That would be for Sindh and Punjab especially, but I wouldn't be against Balochistan or Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa joining in.
The Baloch I think have been fighting long enough against both Punjabi and Persian oppression, so I don't see what freeing them from Pakistan just to have them all under Iranian rule would solve - they need their own state. The Pashtuns I think could stand being united in a single state, but I don't see how nowadays given the state of Afghanistan these days.
mōdgethanc wrote:So they can live under Palestinian tyranny. Great!HoItalosPhilellên wrote:1. Liberate West Bank and Gaza from Israeli tyranny for an independent Palestine.
That's the same argument used by opponents of decolonisation in India, Africa and other areas. Those darkies just can't govern themselves, apparently.
What you and they are forgetting is that decolonisation is a necessary condition in development of these societies. Palestinian society doesn't have the opportunity to open up and develop precisely because of what Israel and the Western powers have been doing in the region. Israel is the biggest friend of Islamic extremism, because without an external enemy they would be toast.