Friday, August 19, 2016

Tibet versus Sweden: A Simple Test

Here is a simple thought experiment by which we can discover how reasonable a person is.

Case 1: Tibet
Imagine the native people of Tibet whose ancestors have lived in Tibet for hundreds, if not thousands of years. We can take a poll of all people in Tibet and discover the following:
(1) the majority of the people of Tibet regard Tibet as the homeland of the Tibetan people, but

(2) at the same time they are perfectly willing to accept a reasonable number of migrants and refugees and even ethnic minorities as equal citizens with full rights, provided that these are, and continue to remain, a small minority of the total population (say, < 10%), and anybody who wishes to live permanently in Tibet must integrate and assimilate into Tibetan culture and adopt Tibetan values, and

(3) the majority of the Tibetan people also strongly believe that Tibet must remain a nation where the Tibetan culture is preserved as the national culture and the Tibetan people remain the majority of the population.
Does this seem reasonable to you?

Do you support the democratic right of the Tibetan people to hold these beliefs and implement policies to maintain their country in this way?

The Tibetans would have strong reasons to hold these views, since the Chinese government is subjecting Tibet to Han Chinese mass immigration on a large scale that might eventually make them a minority in their own country.

Case 2: Sweden
Imagine the native people of Sweden (including the Sami people) whose ancestors have lived in Sweden for hundreds, if not thousands of years. We can take a poll of all people in Sweden and discover the following:
(1) the majority of the people of Sweden regard Sweden as the homeland of the Swedish people, but

(2) at the same time they are perfectly willing to accept a reasonable number of migrants and refugees and even ethnic minorities as equal citizens with full rights, provided that these are, and continue to remain, a small minority of the total population (say, < 10%), and anybody who wishes to live permanently in Sweden must integrate and assimilate into Swedish culture and adopt Swedish values, and

(3) the majority of the Swedish people also strongly believe that Sweden must remain a nation where the Swedish culture is preserved as the national culture and the Swedish people remain the majority of the population.
Would this be unreasonable?

Do you support the democratic right of the Swedish people to hold these beliefs and implement policies to maintain their country in this way?

Conclusion
If you said “yes” for Case 1, but “no” for Case 2, why exactly would you hold such contradictory views?

If Case 1 is a normal, natural and even healthy wish that a nation of people would have, why isn’t this true of Case 2?

And, come to think of it, we could have written the name of many other nations in Case 2, e.g., Nepal, East Timor, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Cameroon, Finland, Austria, Denmark, etc.

8 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Not really. I have a feeling a tumbleweed will blow in the wind, and all the usual suspects will be nowhere to be seen.

      Delete
  2. Yes to both instances. Was this supposed to be hard or something?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually I am not as sure about Tibet but quite sure about Sweden (for I cherish scandinavian social-democracy much more than tibetan former theocratic system).
    But I am afraid the real issue would be the policies that must be implemented if we are to prevent or deter people from coming against our will.
    Are we entitled to implement ANY policies to that effect ? including resort to lethal force ?
    Sincerely that is the point where I stumble. And I guess the majority of those who advocate open orders do so for that kind of reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Are we entitled to implement ANY policies to that effect ? including resort to lethal force"

      Agreed, those are tough issues. I support your right to your self-determination. That doesn't always mean I think such policies are wise.

      The question should have been asked: What do you think of the United States enacting such policies?

      Delete
  4. I think the general sense among the people you are trying to argue with is that Tibet is a poor, 'third world' country, whereas Sweden is an affluent Western nation and can somehow afford more immigration. Of course Sweden is 'Poor' in on key way: native birth rates. But I guess it would be horribly sexist and racist to bring that up , wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "it would be horribly sexist and racist to bring that up"

      I'm not up on all the PC-stuff, so I don't see how that follows. To me, that just seems like the Elephant in the Room.

      Delete