Native v Immigrant Populations

[Cencus]

Theres been quite a few topics popped up lately where the arguement has been relating to the self determination of populations, Tibet, Kosovo, Ireland, Israel/Palestine etc.. Anyway on to my point.

The question is when is the right of the native population more important than that of the people as a whole?

Take for example Ulster, in elections parties which support staying part of the U.K. win the popular vote, but yet many on here support the removal of British rule, against the wishes of a large chunk of the population who moved there in the 18th and 19th centuries (feel free to correct my historical analysis I'm just throwing ideas about). Why should people's wishes be ignored just because their forefathers lived elsewhere?

I think Ireland should never have been divided and before the good Friday agreement the catholic minority was treated like shit, and probably still is to some degree, but that's all history, we have to live in the present, and currently from any scources of opinion available, the collective will of the people of Ulster is to remain British, I just don't know what's right.

Another example would be the natives in North America, who have virtually no say in the running of what was their land, but yet no real movement exists to return those lands to the native tribes.

In Israel, a state was created against the will of the natives, and turned out to be utter bastards to those natives, who are now a minority due to immigration and ethnic cleansing. Does the will of the indigenous population trump that of the new comers?

I'm not trying to score political points here, I'm just trying to get an idea of what folks think of this issue, and get some help clarifying my own opinions. :confused::confused:

[Red_or_Dead]

Why should people's wishes be ignored just because their forefathers lived elsewhere?


I think that about sums it all up. I cant think of a single race or a nation that has historicaly always lived where it does at present. Like, our nationalists say that "this is our land, we have always lived here, they (the immigrants) dont have any right to be here". Not true, we came from Asia, even tho that was more than 1500 years ago. Or better said it was our ancestors who lived there.

Not to stray away from the point, and to answer your question: I dont think that any group, be it indeginous or not, should have a more important role. If one group has a more important role, its discrimination of other groups, no matter what their historic relations were like. Also, majority and minority dont have anything to do with it, as minority can be just as bad and opressive as the majority (Apartheid in South Africa, for example).


Take for example Ulster, in elections parties which support staying part of the U.K. win the popular vote, but yet many on here support the removal of British rule, against the wishes of a large chunk of the population who moved there in the 18th and 19th centuries

A referendum would be the best option, imo. Then it can clearly be seen how many are in favor of staying in the UK, and how many are not. Idk, has there ever been a referendum about that?

[BobKKKindle$]

The question is when is the right of the native population more important than that of the people as a whole?

We shouldn't every give rights to groups of people based on their ethnicity - it doesn't make sense to speak of a group having a right to live in a certain part of the world, because rights should only apply to individuals.

[jake williams]

I think it's an extremely complex issue. To some degree you have to work between the horrors of colonialism and the nonsense of giving all territorial rights to those who can argue that their great-great-greatest grandfather was "there first".