Should the Copts have their own state?

[Zeta333]

Mother of offtopic posts...

you asked if we should make a new country cus some people think some different imaginary person is real. I say no. stop catering to religion, its a cancer.

[Hyperborean]

the muslims want to annihilate the copts almost as much as they want to annihilate the jews. i think that they should be accepted as refugees from the rise of wahabist terrorism and oppression, and a state solution should be looked into in the future. A new state between the ethiopian/egyptian border, on the sea, would be excellent for both our coptic brothers and sisters, and europeans in general.

[Kalis]

I'm not by any means dismissing that antagonism. I agree it's an issue. But providing a separate state for the Copts will serve to inflame that antagonism, and allow it to boil over into outright warfare, particularly with the regional conflict over land, because that state's going to be carved out of SOME country that doesn't want to lose the land.

I don't see it as a solution to the problem. It'll make it worse, not better. I agree that the prejudice is an issue, but helping people to live side-by-side without conflict is going to provide better long-term results than making them sit in separate corners and stew.

They haven't been able to live side-by-side without conflict since forever, so how do you propose we get them to do so now? Play 'I'd like to teach the world to sing' at them 24/7?

Have you been to Egypt? Or anywhere in the Middle East? These aren't problems that are going to go away anytime soon.

[Airlick]

Holing yourself up in your own little magic fairy land where no other cultures ever enter has never worked out well in the history of the world. No, seriously it hasn't.

Not holing yourself up has worked out pretty damn badly for many cultures in the history.

There is no good answer, though. If you don't hole yourself up and your culture is too weak (as in: not appealing enough), it will disintegrate. If you do, you can delay the inevitable, but it will end all the same in time. Japan is a good example of this as well, its culture is disintegrating over time because of the influence of the West. It still has its characteristics, many traditions are still alive, but its on a good way to losing them. Then look at Christianity, even despite the fact that the Roman Empire fell, Christianity stayed strong because of how appealing it was. Not only stayed strong, but grew and became the binding material of all the barbarian tribes that later formed medieval countries. Or look at Chinese culture, the dynasties of China may have been weak, China may have been ruined by civil wars lasting centuries, but whenever a foreign force came in and defeated them, they immediately became Chinese themselves - simply because of how appealing and superior the Chinese culture was.

All that being said, Copts are probably doomed without some heavy involvement from outside forces. They can't compete with islam by any means.

[Tailswipe]

How would this work exactly? Copts live in towns all over Egypt, would you force them to move to one location to form a state?

[Orrin]

I don't think that providing ethnic groups with their own individual nation-states is a way to mitigate tensions. It certainly didn't work out that way for Israel. Better to encourage better integration and acceptance, wherever they make their homes.

Plus the pretty darned arrogant idea that we can "give" them a state of their own.

Problem with your example is, Israel was not created on a territory of a single nation. Another problem is, current countries in the Middle East and Africa were created by European powers without much regard to national tensions (or maybe quite the contrary). WHereas before that different ethnic groups were separated by either state borders or lived in a territories called differently

[Stelio Kontos]

No thanx.
We don't want another Israel like situation.

Then Muslim countries need to learn to be tolerant and not butcher Christians and Jews who were in those lands long before Islam.

[derpkitteh]

if we'd do that, it should be one of the no-name islands in the middle of the ocean with no inhabitants so nobody could possibly bitch about it.

[Sunseeker]

Japan and China did quite well doing just that.

No, they didn't. This is a lie both of their countries perpetuate in order to rationalize their decisions. When both nations came out of their isolationism they were still majorly technologically behind the rest of the world. Their cultural preservation was achieved through heavy-handed government enforcement. Don't worship the right god? Jail, exile, death. Don't follow the most absurd of laws correctly? Beatings, jail, death. Question the emperor? Beatings, jail, death. Countries do not achieve and historically have never achieved the sort of social, cultural and economic isolationism concepts like "having your own culture means you get your own country" promote without heavy-handed totalitarian measures.

You want to invite the Coptics to live among Americans as part of The Great Experiment? Sure, I'm all for it. But the idea that having your own culture means you should get your own land is an entitlement complex that needs to die a swift death.

- - - Updated - - -

Not holing yourself up has worked out pretty damn badly for many cultures in the history.

There is no good answer, though. If you don't hole yourself up and your culture is too weak (as in: not appealing enough), it will disintegrate. If you do, you can delay the inevitable, but it will end all the same in time. Japan is a good example of this as well, its culture is disintegrating over time because of the influence of the West. It still has its characteristics, many traditions are still alive, but its on a good way to losing them. Then look at Christianity, even despite the fact that the Roman Empire fell, Christianity stayed strong because of how appealing it was. Not only stayed strong, but grew and became the binding material of all the barbarian tribes that later formed medieval countries. Or look at Chinese culture, the dynasties of China may have been weak, China may have been ruined by civil wars lasting centuries, but whenever a foreign force came in and defeated them, they immediately became Chinese themselves - simply because of how appealing and superior the Chinese culture was.

All that being said, Copts are probably doomed without some heavy involvement from outside forces. They can't compete with islam by any means.

Cultures are not artifacts that live in glass jars and adorn your walls, unchanging, unmoving, fixtures. Cultures change, grow and parts of them die and parts of them live on. There are numerous facets of Japanese culture that make them astoundingly different from "the West".

I can't even begin to address the rest of your argument without my brain figuratively imploding. Christianity stayed strong because it was more appealing? What the ever loving fuck butchery of history is that? Christianity stayed strong because it literally murdered everyone who didn't obey. It took over the largest empire at the time, spread for several hundred years, collapsed and then returned to conquer. The appeal of not dying because you worship a tree instead of a dead guy on dead tree is indeed quite strong.

[Afrospinach]

yeh fuck a better world without imaginary gods telling people to kill each other, or people killing or discriminating against each other based on thier religion.

The other imaginary part of this is your "better world". Won't happen.

[Zeta333]

The other imaginary part of this is your "better world". Won't happen.

would be better than this one. The middle east is on par with the dark ages thanks to religion.

[Kalis]

Not holing yourself up has worked out pretty damn badly for many cultures in the history.

There is no good answer, though. If you don't hole yourself up and your culture is too weak (as in: not appealing enough), it will disintegrate. If you do, you can delay the inevitable, but it will end all the same in time. Japan is a good example of this as well, its culture is disintegrating over time because of the influence of the West. It still has its characteristics, many traditions are still alive, but its on a good way to losing them. Then look at Christianity, even despite the fact that the Roman Empire fell, Christianity stayed strong because of how appealing it was. Not only stayed strong, but grew and became the binding material of all the barbarian tribes that later formed medieval countries. Or look at Chinese culture, the dynasties of China may have been weak, China may have been ruined by civil wars lasting centuries, but whenever a foreign force came in and defeated them, they immediately became Chinese themselves - simply because of how appealing and superior the Chinese culture was.

All that being said, Copts are probably doomed without some heavy involvement from outside forces. They can't compete with islam by any means.

Appeal of a culture is often forced by the state, such as through imposition of a tax on the non-dominant culture, e.g. previous taxes on Christians and Jews in the Middle East that Muslims didn't have to pay, which made Islam more appealing. Turning a blind eye to injustices against a group, or outright persecution, such as England's treatment of Catholic Christians.

You can't really claim that Catholicism is a culturally weak form of Christianity, as it is the largest group, yet Anglican Christianity came to dominate England at the expense of it.

Military force plays a huge part in whether or not cultures survive, as does political pragmatism.

[Stelio Kontos]

I can't even begin to address the rest of your argument without my brain figuratively imploding. Christianity stayed strong because it was more appealing? What the ever loving fuck butchery of history is that? Christianity stayed strong because it literally murdered everyone who didn't obey. It took over the largest empire at the time, spread for several hundred years, collapsed and then returned to conquer. The appeal of not dying because you worship a tree instead of a dead guy on dead tree is indeed quite strong.

I'd say both arguments are far too simplistic.

In north Europe I would agree Christianity was imposed and maintained through a large degree of violence, but in other places the transition was far more willing, like Italy, Greece, Armenia, Georgia, Ethiopia, etc. in Greece and Italy much of the populace was willing to switch from state-sponsored imperial paganism to state-sponsored imperial Christianity.

Let's try not to be too reductionist on either side.

[Macaquerie]

No, they didn't. This is a lie both of their countries perpetuate in order to rationalize their decisions. When both nations came out of their isolationism they were still majorly technologically behind the rest of the world. Their cultural preservation was achieved through heavy-handed government enforcement. Don't worship the right god? Jail, exile, death. Don't follow the most absurd of laws correctly? Beatings, jail, death. Question the emperor? Beatings, jail, death. Countries do not achieve and historically have never achieved the sort of social, cultural and economic isolationism concepts like "having your own culture means you get your own country" promote without heavy-handed totalitarian measures.

It's also worth noting that this sort of policy ironically tends to stifle native culture, leaving it forever trapped in amber as it was before the white man came and ruined everything, as anything created afterward is tainted by foreign influence and hence is to be shunned as impure and unnatural. Hence there is this massive divide between a native culture forever stuck in the past, and modern culture which most people live by but can never fully embrace because of its Western origins.

[Racthoh]

if they had their own state who would enforce the law in our states? doesn't make sense.

[Airlick]

I can't even begin to address the rest of your argument without my brain figuratively imploding. Christianity stayed strong because it was more appealing? What the ever loving fuck butchery of history is that? Christianity stayed strong because it literally murdered everyone who didn't obey. It took over the largest empire at the time, spread for several hundred years, collapsed and then returned to conquer. The appeal of not dying because you worship a tree instead of a dead guy on dead tree is indeed quite strong.

You have absolutely no knowledge of the history of christianity shortly before the fall of Roman Empire up until ~12th century, which is the period I'm talking about. You know, the period when barbarian tribes rolled freely all around western Europe... and guess what... they ALL accepted christianity as their religion. Who do you think was forcing them to do so or killing them if they didn't obey? Civilian citizens of the cities they sacked? Priests with their sticks? All the way from year ~400 there was absolutely no coherent military force in the western Europe that could have forced any barbarian to accept christianity against their wills. Get educated before you get into arguments like this.

It wasn't much different in the East, even after islam appeared, Eastern Roman Empire has been extremely tolerant toward other religions (though not so much for sects within the Church). The difference is that ERE COULD have enforced christianity over the people it ruled. It could have, but it didn't.

It's true that christianity has a good amount of blood spilled on its account, but it all started with crusades.

[Tackhisis]

The national states is a failed idea in the 21st century. The less puppet states are on USA, China or Russia strings, the healthier the world is.

[Sunseeker]

I'd say both arguments are far too simplistic.

In north Europe I would agree Christianity was imposed and maintained through a large degree of violence, but in other places the transition was far more willing, like Italy, Greece, Armenia, Georgia, Ethiopia, etc. in Greece and Italy much of the populace was willing to switch from state-sponsored imperial paganism to state-sponsored imperial Christianity.

Let's try not to be too reductionist on either side.

Well sure but really that's still violence. It's just not bloody violence. It's still that same self-preservation, you do what the government says because it makes your life easier. And frankly towards the end of the Pagan eras of Rome, most people really didn't "worship" the gods anyway. They just went through the motions. The smart people understood what the gods were really and what religion was useful for and the poor people really didn't care. They said the right prayers at the right time of year and life went on as usual.

For many people at the time, "Yahweh" was just seen as another god in the pantheon and Rome had no rule against false gods, they did the same things the Christians did later with saints. New gods were just added to the array. Rome only had a rule against preaching no gods. After a few generations the "One God" took over the domains of the lesser gods and people just switched from praying to the tree to praying to bush. Eventually it got ingrained in society, the old ways died off and ta-da, we have Christianity reigning supreme.

The idea of picking your culture because it is "more appealing" is really quite silly because very few people ever actually do that. It's also a very white, very western, very modern concept.

[Mavett]

Then Muslim countries need to learn to be tolerant and not butcher Christians and Jews who were in those lands long before Islam.

His place of origin caused the issue to begin with ( He's Saudi afaik ), with a force that arrived and started Islamic conversions on local indigenous Copts and the Arabization of the culture.

Gosh..

[Macaquerie]

His place of origin caused the issue to begin with ( He's Saudi afaik ), with a force that arrived and started Islamic conversions on local indigenous Copts and the Arabization of the culture.

Gosh..

That was no worse than the Romans imposing Christianity on them in the first place, which must have especially sucked given how much of the Bible is dedicated to vilifying Egypt and painting THEM as the big evil bastards oppressing everyone.