Monday, December 6, 2010

Soveriegnty and Difference

How does one protect difference? As to the idea that sovereignty protects difference I believe that this is mostly correct. Throughout history groups of people, especially minorities have been weak and easily exploited if they were diffused in a country. To gain support and a voice they had to band together into groups. These groups were stronger than just a bunch of individuals trying to protect themselves.

Now I think its really difficult to label someone as "different" to begin with, but I guess if you go along the line of diversity, than all groups have their advocacy groups. Blacks have the NAACP for instance. Should all these groups be sovereign unto themselves? No, definitely not. We would have way too many separate entities and trouble governing them all. Ideally if you can integrate everyone as much as possible under a single identity, that is the best answer. We all have different backgrounds in America, but we are all Americans.

But to purely answer the question of sovereignty protecting differences, I still think that it does. A success story could be Israel. They have a very tight-knit strong country of people that have been seen as "different" for one reason or another through history. Granted, they have many troubles with those who still disagree with their way of life, land they hold, etc... but comparatively they are doing much better than ever before. We should try to avoid separating into groups based on our differences, because it will undoubtedly create animosity towards others based on material wealth, power, and other things that groups may hold over others.

Bottom Line: Integration of multiple differences under a single identity is desirable, but sovereignty does in fact protect difference which may explain why groups like the Palestinians desire a state of their own.

4 comments:

  1. You really have to consider that in countries such as the United States, minorities are still confronting difficulty being able to merge efficiently. Although the country is sovereign, it doesn't compensate for a racist population. For instance, you have the immigration law that was passed in Arizona, and you could only wonder what would have happened to "difference" if a supporter the immigration law (AKA McCain) would have won the presidential election. Although we can agree that differences do add to the unique culture and way of thinking in a country, one has to consider that for a minority group to have their voice heard, there must be a degree of sacrifice. Is that actually sovereign if one has to sacrifice to be able to execute a right? I would most definitely say that sovereignty does not protect difference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rowland- I agree with you that minorities must band together to make their voices heard. An example would be the Republicans in Congress. Even before the recent mid-term elections, they succeeded in sticking together. Democrats had the power to charge through with their legislation, but they couldn’t live with themselves for having barely any Republicans on their side. For the better or worse, this helped Republicans take back many seats in the House and the Senate.

    Diana- I think human nature plays a lot into how the U.S. treats minorities. People stick together with others who are like them, and especially for immigrants, often times those are people of the same ethnicity or race. The U.S. has always treated new immigrants with disrespect, so I’m not surprised that the Arizona law passed. Many people hypocritically believe that certain jobs “belong” to them. Yet somewhere along the ancestral line their immigrant ancestors most likely “took” the job from an American who already lived there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "which may explain why groups like the Palestinians desire a state of their own."

    Rowland, "groups like the Palestinians" did have a state of their own, it was called Palestine, and their sovereignty did not protect them against the delegitimization of their people and land.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do agree that Sovereignty protects difference, but not necessarily in the way you present it. You express that the sovereignty of the US protects the differences of the minorities that inhabit it, but I find thus to be untrue. The US is made up of tons of different nationalities and cultures, but I do not believe that it always United them under a single identity. Immigrants are coming into the United States in rediculous numbers, and when they get here, they usually band with groups of people from their own country and seperate themselves from the American Identity completely.

    I had a lot of Japanese friends in the town I lived in in New York, and it was amazing how strongly they held onto their own nationality and culture. I noticed their mothers generally made friends with other Japanese women and that they seemed to never really want to integrate into American society. My own mother, being a proud Scot till the day she dies, spent the first few years in this country banding with other Scots and separating herself from American Society. Even though at this point I have spent the majority of my life in this country, I still consider myself English. So I would place the US as a general exception to the idea that sovereignty protects difference, instead of a component to the idea.

    ReplyDelete