Beijing Olympics Terrorist Threat from Separatists

A bus attack in China was performed by an Uyghur separatist group (see Uighur Group Claims Bus Attacks). Many have heard about Tibet being oppressed by the Chinese. However, to the north-west of China is another autonomous region called Xinjiang, which is made up of many Uyghur people.

The history of humankind is filled with people claiming that certain groups should separate. Not only do Tibetans claim this but so too do Scottish people who want to be separate from the British.

Although I personally think that the CCP's treatment of Tibetans is horrific, I do not think any group of people should simply separate. The problem lies in the definition of a people. Many nationalists claim that all groups should have sovereignty over their own land. However, these people never define what a people is. They never define what an ethnic group is. Looking at the issue objectively and scientifically, it is clear and obvious that due to subjectivity there is no such thing as an ethnic group. There can be one or infinite groups of people depending on who you question. If in theory there can be infinite groups and if the nationalist ideal of giving all groups sovereignty and territory is met, then what we will witness is constant splitting. For example, if Tibetans control Tibet, one group of Tibetans will claim that they are different to other Tibetans and will demand separation. This continues ad infinitum. It is impossible for infinite groups of people to share finite land.

Does this mean Tibetans should be tortured and oppressed by Chinese Communists? Certainly not. Just because we cannot draw lines between ethnic groups, it doesn't mean we cannot draw lines between individuals. It is difficult to know where an ethnic group starts and where it stops, but it is relatively simple to know where an individual starts and stops. Demarcation of individual identity is achieved using the skin. Everything within my skin is me including my heart, my brain, my lungs, etc. Everything within your skin is you. Because it is so easy to define the individual, we can easily set up political systems that give freedom to the individual. These freedoms exist in many countries that emphasize individual liberty such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

Sexual Nationalism and Pedophile Nationalism

One of the arguments for nationalism is that if you allow different groups to live together then conflict will erupt. For example, Jews and Muslims living in the Middle East just don't seem to get along. The answer, according to nationalists is to divide people up so they can live among their "own people." Jews live among Jews and Muslims live among Muslims.

Every day I hear about homophobia. Most people in the world are religious and most people tend to follow an Abrahamic religion, i.e. Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. The Abrahamic religions all seem to denounce homosexuality. Throughout history this has been the case. Sometimes I wonder why so many Christians hate homosexuals because it seems to go against the teachings of Christ of the New Testament who taught about love and tolerance, etc. But anyway, because of the influence of the Abrahamic religion, it is probably not surprising that many people are homophobic.

If Jews and Muslims can't get along and the answer is to separate them into their own nations, then why don't we apply the same concept to the conflict between homosexuals and heterosexuals? If homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot get along then why not just create a separate nation for homosexuals? Maybe slowly change an existing nation (e.g. America) into one that is fully tolerant of homosexuals or establish a country where homosexuality is actively practiced and is declared as the state sexual orientation.

There are many pedophile activists around and many pro-pedophile organizations like NAMBLA. Pedophile activism has created a lot of controversy, as you can imagine. There are websites like Perverted Justice that tries to bait pedophiles and shame them using public humiliation. Another site that I think is strong on child protection is Warriors for Innocence. These people claim that they are the "only thing that stands between evil and the innocent." Pedophiles can be divided into two groups: those who are attracted to little boys and those who are attracted to little girls. The former are labelled boylovers, and there is a wiki available called BoyWiki that, according to the site, is designed to "record and preserve our own history, culture, and heritage." This sort of language is very similar to the language of other nationalists.

Given that there seems to be so much conflict between pro-pedophiles and anti-pedophiles, why not just allow pedophiles to have their own country where they can do whatever they want? This may not work because, for most people, even just the thought that a child in another country is abused causes discomfort. However, even a Muslim who believes that some child in Israel is reading the Torah instead of the Koran might be uncomfortable as well, so if nationalism applies to religion then why shouldn't it apply to sexual orientation?

Update 3/7/2007:
What I would like to know is how pedophile nationalism fits into Christian morality. The bible says that followers must submit themselves to the authorities. Romans 13 says, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." In other words, do what the government does. However, what if the government in power is corrupt. Does a Christian have to submit to the power of a dictatorship? No, because there are exceptions to this rule of following the government. Acts 5:29 says, "We must obey God rather than men." Therefore, if any country were formed that supports pedophilia and child molestation, Christian citizens can refuse to submit to it if pedophilia is forbidden by God. But is it? Does the bible condemn pedophilia? According to Positive Liberty, the bible does not actually condemn pedophilia. However, even though the bible doesn't explicitly condemn pedophilia, it does condemn fornication and sins of the flesh, which would include pedophilia.

Update 3/12/07:
Note that this entry is not pro-pedophilia. It is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum that highlights how silly nationalism is.

Image: Girl is Alice Liddell, photograph by Lewis Carroll

Questioning Nationalism

Some people label themselves nationalists, which means they believe in the significance and value of the nation. What I want to know is what is the nation? Is it defined by genetics, traditions, political power, or a mixture of many things, and if a mixture then what weighting is given to each component? E.g. to be black do you need to have, say, skin lightness that refracts a certain amount of light plus willingness to practice some ritual or custom? Are nations just subjective definitions or are nations ingrained in reality?

Living organisms can be categorized at many levels. E.g. You have species, subspecies, and sub-sub-species, and you can continually divide humans until you reach a terminal level, the individual. Suppose the ideal of nationalism is achieved, i.e. a nation is segregated and allowed to exist by itself. Within that nation there are subnations and each of those subnations may then assert their uniqueness and each subnation will have sub-sub-nations ad infinitum. It seems then that nations are just a subjective and arbitrary way of categorizing humanity when what seems to be the case is that we are just a bunch of individuals. This idea of us humans being just a bunch of individuals fits well within the capitalist and libertarian political systems that dominate the world today.

I'd also like to ask another question, and this is in reference to ethnic nationalism, the idea that ethnic groups are significant. Did God make ethnic groups or did they evolve? Suppose they evolved. If so, say, the Tibetan ethnic groups may be a recent phenomenon because of evolution. But many scientists say that before many Asians and European people were around their ancestors were dark-skinned people from Africa. Before these dark-skinned Africans, humans were non-human apes and going back even further in time we were bacteria. Many people say things like "I am 1/2 Mexican" but that assumes that your nationality or ethnicity is defined by your parents one generation back. If you say you are "1/4 Mexican" then that assumes that your nationality or ethnicity is defined by your grandparents two generations back. But the decision to define ethnicity based on x generations back is arbitrary. You could easily just choose 100 or 10,000 or more generations back and say something like "I am 1/100,000,000 e coli bacterium." Before we were humans we may have been some sort of ape and that species of ape may have had subspecies and ethnic groups as well, so do you go back to when we were ape and define your ethnicity according to the ethnicities of these apes?