Language and ethnicity tend to trump borders (JE-free post)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Throughout history mismatches of national borders and linguistic and/or ethnic borders are trouble spots.

If the northernmost province of Mexico were English speaking and/or ethnically anglo we would have "rescued" it long ago by absorbing it into the US. Oh wait, we did! That was Texas.

It's depressing to think that stable national boundaries have to follow ethnic/linguistic/religious/tribal lines, but on the other hand, national borders are arbitrary to begin with so why do we respect them above less arbitrary demarcations. (Like ethnic/linguistic/religious/tribal lines).

From the Sudetenland to the Balkans to Rwanda to Iraq to today's Georgian conflict... wars involve such border mis-matches more often than not. (Whether as central to the conflict, or as pretext.)

I am not taking sides on the question of whether language and ethnicity should dictate political boundaries. I can see arguments on both sides. Friction-avoidance has short-term benefits. Melting-pots have long term benefits. The treatment of ethnic/linguistic minorities within ones borders makes a big difference. Diverse populations lead to both civil war and civil rights. Just offering the topic for discussion.

Example: The Kurds being divided between (at least) three countries is a perpetual source of conflict. But the fact that Turkish, Iranian and Iraqi Kurds feel kinship to each is a source of commonality between Iran, Turkey and Iraq. If borders followed ethnicity perfectly then all nations would be aliens to each other, potentially resulting in more conflict than that caused by border/ethnic mis-matches.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. .