Re:China issues demolition order on world’s largest religiou...
by auganov on Saturday June 18, 2016 @06:34AM
(#11927863)
No. My point was/is:
1. Stronger vs Weaker is a common pattern in such conflicts.
2. Tibet vs China :: Palestine/Arab states vs Israel differ in almost every other feature.
3. There's places in the world that better mimic the Tibetan situation.
4. Hence the analogy isn't very good.
Re:China issues demolition order on world’s largest religiou...
by coldtea on Saturday June 18, 2016 @09:03AM
(#11928408)
>Your point of view, the powerful ethnic groups win and the weak lose and that is how the world works, justifies slavery, South African apartheid
Or a legal system, where blacks are hugely over-represented, the takeover of native american land, Puerto Rico, etc.
"Universal human rights" take usually less precedence to "my country, right or wrong".
> Isn't that the nature of almost every conflict with an ethnic context? If there's no clear weaker and stronger you usually end up with two independent states.
Your statement is sort of weird in the above. It presupposes that subjugation of a weaker ethnic group by a more powerful ethnic group is acceptable -- that is how these conflicts are resolved. It is counter to the idea of universal human rights that arose because of the the atrocities that arose because of the ethnic issues in WW2. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights#After_...
Your point of view, the powerful ethnic groups win and the weak lose and that is how the world works, justifies slavery, South African apartheid, and many other situations where one ethnic group is more powerful and wishes to impose its wishes on the less powerful. That is an allowable perspective, but that is antithesis to universal human rights.