Why is it so hard for these and other peoples (also the Roma, Navajo, Aborriginals, Taiwanese, North Cyprus, Ndebele, Kwazulu, Yakut, Tatar,...) to get a country of their own, when hundreds of other nationalities/peoples/languages/societies (such as the Slovenes, the Latvians, the Israelis, the Birmese,...) have had an entitlement to a country which did not seem to be such an issue to our governments?
2006-11-06 20:46:24 · 8 answers · asked by profound insight 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
Kurds: because they also claim part of Turkey, which Turkey doesn't accept.
Chechen: Because Russia doesn't want a hostile third world Islamic republic out of it's control right next door.
Tamil: They probably could, if their territorial claims were more realistic.
Basque: because then all the other Spanish regions would want to go too.
Kosovan: They're about to get one.
Roma: have never had one, nor seemed to want one.
Navajo: heard of reservations?
Aboriginals: they have all the space they want, they just can't seem to adapt to the prescence of the modern world.
Taiwan: Don't forget that they also claim to be the rightful rulers of mainland China...
North Cyprus: is the result of an illegal invasion.
Other African: with hindsight, we wouldn't have partitioned Africa in the same way; now we know where the natural resources are, no-one wants to give up any land that anyone else would actually want.
Other ex-Soviet: the far-flung bits have all the good natural resources, so Russia won't be letting them go.
2006-11-06 20:59:07 · answer #1 · answered by rosbif 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For a number of reasons, mostly historical. Creating your own state is not an easy task and so those who have a long history of statehood are already established in the international community.
The Roma for instance never had a state and, as far as I know, never wanted one. The Roma within the various countries are in fact so different, including the languages spoken by them, that their unification based on ethnicity may be seriously questioned. Confining them for instance to the boundaries of one country would be a challenge for them in the first place.
The issue is also related to immigration - like should a homogeneous group which migrated to a country be allowed to form a state on its territory? The answer is no. If yes, there could be Mexico 2 in the USA, Turkey 2 in Germany, etc.
North Cyprus was the result of an invasion and is populated not by some unique ethnic group, but with ethnic Turks. If accepted by the international community, invasion will be legalised.
It should be remembered that most counties are multi-ethnic, i.e. different ethnic groups co-habit mostly peacefully.
Problems arise when the citizens of one country with various ethnic origins are not treated equally - such was the case in Kosovo, where the citizen of Albanian ethnicity were not treated on an equal basis with their co-citizens.
The Navajo and the Aborigines were conquered - simple as this. Plus they too never had a state of their own.
So, there are many answers to your question, very much depending on the specific situation, but mostly the reasons are the result of history, as any existing state is the result of history.
2006-11-06 21:45:32 · answer #2 · answered by Eve 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There countries that closely connected to western governments and some are not. Israelis - a lot of powerfull Jewish in US and Europe which make a big different to economy and politics.It is all about politics.
2006-11-06 21:08:01 · answer #3 · answered by Lilu 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
communicate appropriate to the Lutherans,why no longer provide them Palestine for now? The friends could particularly be taken care of with a greater humanity than what they're getting from a %. of crazed extremely-extraordinary Russian atheists. yet heavily,no faith can "declare" a u . s . a ..
2016-12-17 05:43:51 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dont know about the rest but the only tamil people who want a seperate country is the politician. its becoz india was divided into states primarily on the basis of the language spoken there.seperating it from india wld be disasterous for both them and india financially
2006-11-06 20:59:23 · answer #5 · answered by darkshadows_24m 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Fate
2006-11-07 08:52:37 · answer #6 · answered by Kostka 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is because a country is something you must MAKE but not something you simply get and own.
2006-11-06 20:56:09 · answer #7 · answered by mekaban 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
why? afterall we r the united kingdom, we should all be united!
2006-11-09 03:30:42 · answer #8 · answered by Janey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋