Self-Determination

LeoCasey at aol.com LeoCasey at aol.com
Wed Aug 9 23:02:56 MDT 1995


In a message dated 95-08-09 22:39:38 EDT, Paul C. writes:

>vis a vis Ireland and South Africa
>
>The war in ireland these last 20 years stems from an
>unwillingness by Irish irredentism to recognise the
>rights of the Ulster Scots to self determination.
>There remains a valid democratic case for a re-drawing
>of the actual line of the border taking local opinion
>into account.
>
>There is no democratic basis for denying the Zulu's a right
>to seceed should a majority in a free election so decide.
>Whether Inkatha would actually win such a vote is open
>to question.
>

Paul --

I certainly give you credit for the consistent application of your
principles. It beats Louis' method for deciding who has the right to
self-determination -- he decides, and he likes  the nationalist Irish (what a
relief), but not the Zulus.

But how far does this principle extend? Why should a Nationalist majority
community in the North have to accept Orange rule? And what happens when us
irredentists are a majority in the North, as is clearly on the way? Does the
Orangemen's right to self-determination end at that point, or do we have
three counties that secede from the six counties? Why should a non-Zulu
community in the Natal accept Zulu rule, should Zulu national independence be
voted for in that context? Moreover, does it make no difference that some
nations (Orangemen, Boers) are settler colonies in origin, imposed by
imperialism against the right to national self-determination?

I think that you solve the problem of drawing a line between a nation and a
national minority by making every national minority into a nation. The
consistent application of _this_ principle will lead you into some messy
thickets, I am afraid. But at least you address the issue, and do so with
consistent principle.



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list