Balkan Trouble

The rioting in Serbia complete with an attack on the U.S. embassy in Belgrade is the headline news out of the Balkans. The real action, though, is a bit further afield. In particular, now that majority-Albanian Kosovo is formally getting out of Serbia, the majority-Serbian part of Kosovo centered around Mitrovica wants out of Kosovo and back into Serbia. On one level, that sounds eminently reasonable. On another level, people I've talked to explain that the problem here is that region contains its own Albanian minority. Similarly, there are Serbs in the majority-Albanian parts of Kosovo.

This is, of course, the general problem with partition as the solution to ethnic conflicts. Like those little Russian dolls you can almost always bore down one level deeper. French Canadians want independent for Québec? Sure. But then what about those parts of Québec that are majority Anglophone? And then what about the Francophones living in those Anglophone enclaves?

At the end of the day, the only just solution for Canada, or for the former Yugoslavia, or for Iraq or Lebanon or anyone else necessarily involves the creation of tolerably liberal rights-respecting governments or else intolerably illiberal population transfers and ethnic cleansing. There's no administrative fix whereby simply drawing the boundaries in just such a way solves the problem. To create really adequate solutions, the international community will have to find a way to create liberal regimes. And this, of course, is precisely what we don't know how to do. This is the point I was trying to make in my Kosovo article from yesterday -- the 1999 bombing campaign made accomplished some important things at a reasonable cost, but while some took our success there as opening a new chapter of a grand new era of military humanitarianism, a more sober look at Kosovo actually highlights rather sharp limits to what we can achieve even under favorable circumstances.

Photo courtesy of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Comments

Staying out of the Israel-Palestine imbroglio I see.

Posted by The Other Alan | February 22, 2008 9:59 AM

Despite all of the obvious and continuing problems, I think that the India-Pakistan split was probably better than most alternatives. There probably is a way to develop tolerably illiberal population transfers. Not the ideal solution, but perhaps the best.

Posted by zaleriana | February 22, 2008 10:01 AM

At the end of the day, the only just solution for Canada, or for the former Yugoslavia, or for Iraq or Lebanon or anyone else necessarily involves the creation of tolerably liberal rights-respecting governments or else intolerably illiberal population transfers and ethnic cleansing.

Exactly. The question is how do you actually create such a tolerably liberal, rights-respecting government? Haven't you learned anything from the mistake of our getting into Iraq in the first place (or do you think that if the right leader were in charge and invading Iraq for the right reasons, the pony would have been found?).

If illiberal population transfers were good enough for solving the Sudeten problem, the Karelian problem, the Jewish problem (let's not forget how many Arab-Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel), why isn't it good enough to solve other ethnic problems?

Posted by DAS | February 22, 2008 10:05 AM

I have to strongly disagree with zaleriana.

The India-Pakistan split was and remains a disaster. The British and the Muslim League ended up created two states, of different sizes, with intense animosity toward each other.

So, 10 million or so people were ethnically cleansed and 1 million died in the month after Partition. The Kashmir problem was created and continues to this day. Pakistan was left with a strongly revanchist ideology that leads it to continuously start wars with India to distract its people from its own failings.

The ideology of two peoples led Pakistan to impose Urdu on East Bengal, where it was basically unknown and to deliberately restrict East Bengal's contribution to governance of Pakistan. This lead directly to a military coup in Pakistan (which keeps happening to this day) and the Bangladesh Liberation War, where the Pakistani army deliberately targeted Hindus and intellectuals with death squads and something like a million more people died.

The idea of Pakistan/India has also meant that there are almost no Hindus and Sikhs left in Pakstan and the rise of Hindutva in India and Hindu-nationalist groups and the accompanying pogroms against Muslims in India.

Not to mention that India/Pakistan is the most likely setting for the next nuclear war, which might have happened in Kargil.

No, I think zaleriana is completely wrong.

Posted by Hektor Bim | February 22, 2008 10:12 AM

India-Pakistan I should think would be regarded as one of the major failures of ethnic cleansing. Over one million people died in partition in 1947, there have been numerous wars since then between India and Pakistan, and the subsequent East Pakistan (Bangladesh)war for independence resulted in at least another 300,000 deaths and created millions of refugees. Not to mention the rapes, mutilations, etc. etc. Perhaps India is better off without places like Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier, but the negatives on the balance sheet in terms of lives destroyed is pretty high.

Posted by vanya | February 22, 2008 10:19 AM

DAS,

You're joking right? You think the "Jewish problem" by which you mean of course Israel/Palestine, is solved? Just as an example, many of those ethnically-cleansed Mizrahi favor a hard-line against the Palestinians and are a vote bank for the Likud.

Posted by Hektor Bim | February 22, 2008 10:27 AM

This is, of course, the general problem with partition as the solution to ethnic conflicts. Like those little Russian dolls you can almost always bore down one level deeper. French Canadians want independent for Québec? Sure. But then what about those parts of Québec that are majority Anglophone? And then what about the Francophones living in those Anglophone enclaves?

Ethnic cleansing developed a bad rep, but it appears to be the only way to reliably ensure an end to ethnic conflicts outside genocide.

And even in countries not contemplating partition or cleansing, (aside from slums concentrating an ethnic or racial underclass in one place), the more ethnically/racially pure a neighborhood is - the safer it is and the more people trust and interact with their neighbors.

Posted by chris ford | February 22, 2008 10:27 AM

This is what you get when romantic 19th century and early 20th century views about nations and peoples and national self-determination take root among political leaders, along with the notion that the division of political communities into ethnic or sectarian enclaves is more "natural".

The popularity of these conservative and reactionary views among Americans and their leaders is a sign of the decadence of American political culture, which was once based on a constitutional tradition that gives precedence to the political community over tribes, clans and nations, and is rooted in contractarian views of voluntary political union among free individuals, not organicist views about natural communities, and reactionary calls for continual the "liberation" of tribes from political unions.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 22, 2008 10:29 AM

Good post.

Just because the Serbs led by Milosevic behaved like d***s (although there are no saints in the region), they should not be collectively punished. If history is any guide, punishment never works. The treaty of Versailles failed (and maybe largely resulted in Hitler and WWII) because it was so unfair and discriminatory to Germany. Contrast that with the post WWII where Germany was not similarly punished even despite the horrendous crimes committed by the Nazis. Serbia was slowly moving towards then U.S. and Europe. In time Serbs may have even owned up to their dreadful war crimes. That should have been encouraged. I think Kosovo independence was needless and unnecessary provocation at exactly the wrong time, and as such, it will probably achieve nothing for either side. All it does is create another failed state, and push Serbia to the welcoming arms of Mr. Putin.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | February 22, 2008 10:33 AM

Two points:

1. (Minor pedantry) As a French Canadian, I have to object to the generalisation that "French Canadians want independence for Québec". Only a small minority (less than 25%) of FC's *living in Québec* (about 20% live outside the province) have ever wanted outright independence. "Sovereigntists" (the Orwellian word invented by separatists in Québec to distance themselves from violent post-colonial struggles) have never managed to amass support for even a limited increase in provincial autonomy (note: Canadian provinces are already vastly more powerful and autonomous than US states).

2. Notwithstanding (1), I fully agree with the sentiment of Matt's post. The real problem in these situations (Canada included) is that many people assume that there is a natural and inescapable connection between identity and political structures. In other words, 'nationalists' (but I would include Muslims in the India-Pakistan debate) assume that the state in which one lives must correspond to one's ethnocultural identity, and that the purpose of states is to allow 'nations' to fulfill their destiny (épanouissment) by enabling 'collective action'. However, these are merely assumptions and there is no necessary reason why this should be so. Those of us in Canada who oppose Quebec seperatism generally believe that states should not be at the service of any one group, qua group, and that identity is a personal characteristic, rather than a collective endeavour. Obviously, individuals who have been persecuted on account of their membership in a group can be forgiven a desire to want to band together and "keep to their" own, and in some circumstances (like Kosovo) that may be the only viable solution. But it should be very, very rare, and identity politics should by no means be the cornerstone of state legitimacy.

Posted by Érik Labelle Eastaugh | February 22, 2008 10:33 AM

Two points:

1. (Minor pedantry) As a French Canadian, I have to object to the generalisation that "French Canadians want independence for Québec". Only a small minority (less than 25%) of FC's *living in Québec* (about 20% live outside the province) have ever wanted outright independence. "Sovereigntists" (the Orwellian word invented by separatists in Québec to distance themselves from violent post-colonial struggles) have never managed to amass support for even a limited increase in provincial autonomy (note: Canadian provinces are already vastly more powerful and autonomous than US states).

2. Notwithstanding (1), I fully agree with the sentiment of Matt's post. The real problem in these situations (Canada included) is that many people assume that there is a natural and inescapable connection between identity and political structures. In other words, 'nationalists' (but I would include Muslims in the India-Pakistan debate) assume that the state in which one lives must correspond to one's ethnocultural identity, and that the purpose of states is to allow 'nations' to fulfill their destiny (épanouissment) by enabling 'collective action'. However, these are merely assumptions and there is no necessary reason why this should be so. Those of us in Canada who oppose Quebec seperatism generally believe that states should not be at the service of any one group, qua group, and that identity is a personal characteristic, rather than a collective endeavour. Obviously, individuals who have been persecuted on account of their membership in a group can be forgiven a desire to want to band together and "keep to their" own, and in some circumstances (like Kosovo) that may be the only viable solution. But it should be very, very rare, and identity politics should by no means be the cornerstone of state legitimacy.

Posted by Érik Labelle Eastaugh | February 22, 2008 10:34 AM

Dan Kervick, the flip side is that Yugoslavia itself was founded on the anachronistic notion that disparate groups speaking a similar language could create among themselves a unified national identity like Germany did in the 1800s.

And then you had the entire conundrum of the chattering classes contradictory views of Bosnia: defending the right of Bosnia to secede from Yugoslavia combined with a determination to keep Bosnia a unified, multiethnic utopia by preventing factions within the country from seceding from Bosnia itself.

Posted by Tyro | February 22, 2008 10:35 AM

In situations such as these, one does not mess with well established and historical borders. Period.

The Quebec sovereigntists do not stake a claim to territories with a majority of French speakers located in Ontario and New Brunswick (I could provide you with maps showing these areas); in return we expect the same from Canada. Your call for partitioning Quebec (or Kosovo) is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by ClaudeB | February 22, 2008 10:35 AM

Even the present situation in Kosovo is due to ethnic cleansing, mostly by the Kosvars under our protection after the bombing raids when they pushed out (or around) a large number of Serbs. This was a perfectly predictable development of our approach there. I am amused, if saddened, to see people coming out in favor of ethnic cleansing here, though. "Many states did bad things in the past, so we should do them again" or "maybe this time two wrongs _will_ make a right!" really are not that good of arguments.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 22, 2008 10:37 AM

Sorry: "Sovereigntists have never managed to amass *majority* support for even a limited increase in provincial autonomy."

Posted by Érik Labelle Eastaugh | February 22, 2008 10:37 AM

I don't think it's fair to compare Kosovo and Quebec.

For one, as annoying as the Quebecois are, there is no recent history of warfare or NATO bombing campaigns.

Seperatings Serbs and Albanians (as was separating Serbs from everyone else in the former Yugoslavia) has been necessary.

As Canadians of both stripes have shown - they can hate eachother without blowing eachother up - they don't need such an extreme model.

Mitrovica is not Westmont, Montreal West or Hampstead.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 10:40 AM

Érik,

A beau mentir qui vient de loin.

Your first assertion is simply not true. Only "25% of French Canadians living in Quebec" in favour of independence? Are you kidding me? Last I remember, the 1995 referendum was 49.4% Yes. And if the Quebec sovereigntist movement is so marginal, how do you explain the fact Quebec has sent a majority of separatist MPs to the federal parliament for the last FIVE elections (1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006)? You can bury your head in the sand but Quebec is one major crisis away from splitting.

As for the Francophones living outside Quebec, let's be real. If you look at the last census numbers, the assimilation rate varies from 7% in New Brunswick to 75% in Saskatchewan. So the 1 million francophones myth is just that... a myth.

À bon entendeur, salut.

Posted by ClaudeB | February 22, 2008 10:49 AM

Expelling millions of Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, etc. post-1945 also cost several million lives, and unspeakable suffering. This issue should have been settled a long time ago--Woodrow Wilson's naive and fundamentally racist idea that every ethnic group should have their own little country was perhaps the principal cause of WWII. That seems like pretty strong evidence of the bankruptcy of this concept.

The only thing that looks remotely like a solution to me is to have an effective international authority with a sufficiently robust enforcement mechanism that enables that authority to enforce minimal standards of minority rights within the boundaries of nation states. Which is pretty damned remote, about like resolving that every kid in the world will get that pony next Christmas.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 22, 2008 10:54 AM

ClaudeB, I think Érik means that there's a hard core of about 25% of Francophone Québécois who want independence under any circumstances (I think he underestimates somewhat), with a bunch of other people who are willing to vote for it under some but not all circumstances. This is more or less why the hard core people have to be willing to bolt for the door as soon as they get 50%+1 votes, even though hanging independence on the opinion of those last two people seems a bit dubious.

Posted by fuxisrad | February 22, 2008 11:07 AM

ClaudeB,

You're the one that is dreaming.

Quebec is one major crisis away from splitting.

Despite having the most charismatic leaders, multiple opportunities to form provincial governments and an ideological lock on francophone intellectuals, les independentistes have not managed to separate Les Quebecois from their profound attachement to Canada. The Meech Lake fiasco led to a pro sovereignist bubble, but the long term opinion trend remains the same 60-40 we had after 1980. Independence is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem and a majority of Quebeckers are smart enough to determine that they would be the greatest victims of an independent Quebec.

Demographic trends are making the debate irrelevent, soon their won't be enough pure laine francophone children to make a nation. This is the real crisis Quebec faces, not Canada.

Posted by Northern Observer | February 22, 2008 11:10 AM

This issue should have been settled a long time ago--Woodrow Wilson's naive and fundamentally racist idea that every ethnic group should have their own little country was perhaps the principal cause of WWII. - Robert Powell

Not to discount Wilson's interesting combination of naivite, racism and general being a prick, but it wasn't (just) Wilson's idea. Indeed, the argument was that the reason WWI happened was that every ethnic group wanted a nation-state, so the best solution would be to just give them one. The problem was exactly as MY points out ... and after WWII, the solution (in those areas where a liberal democracy couldn't be established) turned out to be massive population transfers.

Posted by DAS | February 22, 2008 11:13 AM

I see that SoCalJustice has managed to diagnose Canada's problem: the Québécois are annoying! I learn something new about myself every day...

Posted by fluxisrad | February 22, 2008 11:18 AM

Thanks for proving it, sir/madam. Cheers.

The larger point was that despite all the foodfights between you and your Anglophone "friends," you guys don't kill eachother.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 11:22 AM

Ethnic cleansing developed a bad rep, but it appears to be the only way to reliably ensure an end to ethnic conflicts outside genocide.

Well, no, ethnic cleansing is not the only non-genocidal way to end racial conflicts. Truth and reconciliation seems to work pretty well too. I'm not saying that South Africa is a particularly nice place to live right now by Western standards (for the black majority it never was prosperous or safe) but they seem to be resolving their history of racist oppression without mass killings. "Ethnic cleansing developed a bad rep" because it inevitably involves a lot of people dying and even more people being made refugees.

the only just solution for Canada...necessarily involves the creation of tolerably liberal rights-respecting government

Ahem. We've already done that. Thank you for your concern.

A majority (though a rather thin majority in the 90's) of Quebecois resist separation at least in part because they value living in a pluralist society which protects and celebrates minority communities.

Posted by Ian | February 22, 2008 11:26 AM

The trouble is, we tried that approach in 1919. You could pick up any of the books on the Paris Peace Conference to see how well that worked out - Try "A Shattered Peace", or "A Peace to End all Peace".

The reality is, the US, Canada, and Australia are the only successful attempts at what you advocate, and that's been due (historically) to our ability to take in outsiders and turn them into Americans (or Canadians, or Australians). The various multi-culti theories the left seems to love are more likely to bring Balkan style conflicts than they are to do anything else.

Here's the dirty secret of how Europe got out of this mess (other than the Balkans) after WWII - massive ethnic cleansing. I'm not advocating that, simply pointing out the rather ugly and grim reality.

Posted by James Robertson | February 22, 2008 11:28 AM

Claude -

Calling me a liar is precisely the kind of knee-jerk reaction that makes these debates so intractable. Identity and politics should be seperated (as much as possible) precisely because identity is personal and intensely emotional.

Fuxisrad is correct about what I meant. There has never been more than 25% who would vote yes to the question: "Do you want Québec to become an independent country?" Intellectually honest separatists admit this all the time. They also admit that this is why Lévesque invented the concept of "souveraineté-association", and why the referendum questions in 1980 and 1995 were so convoluted and confusing--the only way to get above 50% is give people the impression that voting yes would *not* result in independence. The 1995 referendum result is totally meaningless, except perhaps as an indication that Quebeckers were frustrated by what happened with Meech. Even staunch federalists like André Pratte voted yes in that referendum.

You argument about the Bloc Québecois is the usual disingenuous prattle one hears from separatists all the time. Yes, the Bloc has a 'majority' of *seats*, but it has never won over 50% of the vote, and much of its support comes not from seperatists but from people who are dissaffected from the traditional national parties. Until the sponsorship scandal and Martin's idiotic decision to call an inquiry, the Liberals were well on their way to recovering their dominant position in Québec; they won more of the vote than the BQ in 2000 and they were expected to take more than 40 of 75 seats under Martin. Bref, claiming that there is some kind of deep, underlying trend towards greater support for independence is, as Northern Observer noted, total nonsense which can only believed by those without full knowledge of the facts or by ideologically blinkered members of the nationalist movement.

Posted by Érik Labelle Eastaugh | February 22, 2008 11:29 AM

Yglesias seems to have made part of his argument in a manner which is right, but too cute by half judging from a couple of comments.

The fact that there is no history of warfare in Canada like in Kosovo is not an argument against his use of the analogy, it is the point of the analogy.

What Yglesias is arguing is that it is the presence or absence of liberal rights respecting government that determines peace, not the distribution of people into properly homogenous groupings. In the latter respect Quebec and Kosovo are analogous. In the former sense they are not. The differences between the two with regard to peace therefore supports the contention that it is the former point of comparison and not the latter that is important for peace.

Of course how one imposes the Canadian form of government on Kosovo is a different question. And Yglesias' point is that it is harder to use armies to produce the Canadian style of government than it is to use armies to ethnically cleanse.

Posted by Lon | February 22, 2008 11:29 AM

the only just solution for Canada...necessarily involves the creation of tolerably liberal rights-respecting government

I was going to say, despite my bashing earlier on a separate note, that's an awfully strange thing to write about Canada.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 11:32 AM

The world needs more Canada.

Posted by Heather Reisman | February 22, 2008 11:33 AM

Thanks for proving it, sir/madam. Cheers.

Ok, I deserve that. Apologies. To be less sarcasmic: casually dropping that unnecessary adjective in the midst of a cogent point that reasonable people have no cause to disagree with, well, that's just not cool.

Posted by fluxisrad | February 22, 2008 11:34 AM

James Robertson -

Your casual dismissal of multiculturalism shows that you have a very weak grasp of history and, well, facts. Firstly, Great Britain has functioned as a multi-national, multicultural state for hundreds of years (try telling a Scot he's English and see what kind of reaction you get). Second, Canada is *very* different from Australia and the US. It does not rely on a 'melting-pot' strategy to maintain cohesion, but negotiates compromises between different groups. If you try and claim that there is a 'Canadian' identity in the way that there is an Australian one, I think Claude's head will simply explode.

Thirdly, there are MANY successful, multicultural, multinational states in the world: Spain, Switzerland, Malaysia, India (!!!!), South Africa, New Zealand and China. China even grants exceptions to its one child policy for cultural minorities in order to allow them to sustain or expand their numbers.

Posted by Érik Labelle Eastaugh | February 22, 2008 11:41 AM

The fact that there is no history of warfare in Canada like in Kosovo is not an argument against his use of the analogy, it is the point of the analogy.

That's easy to say/write in a comfortable Western country, but probably much more difficult to accept for some people living in Mitrovica/Pristina, Beirut or Baghdad. Some might prefer to daydream about a Canadian-style government, others might prefer a real-time alternative while dodging bullets and carbombs.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 11:42 AM

fluxisrad,

Fair enough. No need for you to apologize - you were only reacting to me. I hope you can accept mine.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 11:45 AM

If you try and claim that there is a 'Canadian' identity in the way that there is an Australian one

I'm curious what exactly you mean by that, Érik.

As travellers/backpackers know, almost where ever you go, you run into both sizeable numbers of Aussies and Canucks.

I have seen way more Maple Leafs than Kangaroos on backpacks. There seems to be quite an enormous bit of Canadian pride out there, even if it is mainly a reaction to not wanting to be confused for an American while on the road.

And don't get them started on hockey, either. Or American beer (they have a point there).

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 11:51 AM

Okay, so the partition of British India has manifold problems (as noted) and wasn't handled well. What, Hektor and Vanya, would have worked better? Should it all have remained a single "nation"?

Vanya even notes that India is probably better off w/o the NW Frontier and Baluchistan. Would the "right" solution have been to keep them as part of the whole or split them off? I'm not contending that appropriate lines were drawn, or that anyone handled it well, just that drawing lines and moving people was the better alternative to doing nothing.

Posted by zaleriana | February 22, 2008 11:54 AM

Firstly, Great Britain has functioned as a multi-national, multicultural state for hundreds of years (try telling a Scot he's English and see what kind of reaction you get).

Perhaps the Scot could also remind you of the political repression involved in getting Great Britain to be a functioning "multi-national, multicultural state": ever hear of the highland clearances? Before then, of course, Britain got some of the more troublesome borderers to move to Northern Ireland and then to the US to pester Irishmen and then Native Americans rather than pestering English folk.

Second, Canada is *very* different from Australia and the US. It does not rely on a 'melting-pot' strategy to maintain cohesion,

It doesn't? If anything, Canada (at least when it came to the 1900-era immigrants) outdid our melting-pot with their policy to break-up immigrant communities and settle immigrants evenly throughout the country.

Érik Labelle Eastaugh, I'm as much of a DFH moonbat liberal as anyone here and love the idea of multicultural nations (if only 'cause I lurve to eat all sorts of good food): but let's not be naive about how some of these multi-cultural nations came about.

Just like free-traders trying to promote economic growth by prohibiting un-developed countries from doing exactly what historically allowed economic development to occur in developed countries, too many liberals (rightly) praise liberal, democratic, multi-cultural states but then say countries which are doing the same unsavory things done in the past by the countries praised by liberals (without which those countries wouldn't have been stable enough to build these wonderful, multicultural societies) are teh evil for doing what they are doing. And then when people like me call liberals on their double standard and say "well, it's not surprising that some of my ethnicity find 'liberals' to be prejudiced", too many liberals don't even get it.

Posted by DAS | February 22, 2008 11:56 AM

Second, Canada is *very* different from Australia and the US. It does not rely on a 'melting-pot' strategy to maintain cohesion

I actually had a very good Canadian friend insist and attempt to explain that this is the case. But when I pushed her on what she actually meant, she had a very difficult time verbalizing it and was, in the end, unable to demonstrate a difference between the way immigrant communities/minorities are absorbed into the U.S. and Canada.

It's as if she was told this in public school at a young age (she was, in fact) and then that became the "line" as to how to differentiate Canadians and Americans.

Canadians might not have the pathological need to hyphenate immigrant communities/ethnicities the way Americans do, but they are integrated into the country in much the same way, for good and for bad.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:03 PM

Northern Observer,

I think you underestimate the glue of a common language. It's true that the echt Quebecker is declining as a proportion of Quebec, but the Francophone population is increasing in terms of political power and numbers. Many of these are called "allophones", but as long as they get their education in French (which they do) and think in French, they may end up supporting an independent Quebec.

Posted by Hektor Bim | February 22, 2008 12:04 PM

DAS -

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the thrust of my post. JR appeared to be claiming that overtly multi-cultural states were not viable. My post was aimed at demonstrating that that is not at all the case.

You're of course correct that the English were hardly models of fairness in their dealings with the national minorities (Irish, Welsh and Scottish). In fact, I'm surprised you didn't bring up Britain's policy during the Irish famine. But all of that was in a different time, at a different place.

As for Canada, your argument here seems bizarre. English Canada hasn't tried to assimilate the French Canadians (at least not since Confederation in 1867), and over time has granted progressively greater rights to cultural minorities. The fact that it couldn't simply absorb French Canadians led English Canada to adopt a less culturally chauvinistic attitude towards minority groups. I'm not sure what the point of going back to 1900 is. By that logic, you could accuse Canada of being anti-Chinese since we didn't let them immigrate (only come temporarily to build railroads). In any case, I've never heard of a case where the government broke up an existing, settled immigrant community for the sole purpose of assimilation.

Posted by Érik Labelle Eastaugh | February 22, 2008 12:11 PM

zaleriana,

India itself is the best counterexample to your statement about drawing lines. It's a huge multicultural country with many different ethnic groups, religions, etc. It has suffered severe intercommunal violence and responded with a strategy of decentralization that has helped in coping with tensions. It has also maintained a democracy.

Nothing has happened in India internally to compare with the massive death tolls of Partition and the Bangladesh Liberation War.

So, no you're still wrong - drawing arbitrary lines to carve up British India was unnecessary and has lead directly to millions of deaths and the prospect of nuclear war.

Posted by Hektor Bim | February 22, 2008 12:12 PM

I think most of you are too wrapped up in the "right" thing to do and ignore the practicalities of how these issues need to be handled.

You can either choose to support a centralizing force in one of these situations, and then when the crisis passes, you force the central government to guarantee minority rights to prevent irredentism to take hold in the future. Or you pick a side for whatever reason, nurture it towards independence, and then force it to guarantee minority rights within its borders.

[The third option, of not giving a damn and just letting events take their course, is of course also always on the table. See: Darfur.]

During the breakup of Yugoslavia, the West was at first inclined to believe that Serbia was acting in the name of a unitary Yugoslavia, and were therefore inclined to support them. When it became painfully obvious that the Serbs were not in fact trying to quash nationalist uprisings but were instead creating absolute majorities for their people by ethnically cleansing other groups from land, the West's attitude correctly changed. Serbia, it turns out, was the key aggressor state which was the motor of destabilization in the region. They weren't trying to recreate Yugoslavia, they were partitioning and land-grabbing.

Two different approaches were tried after the war. Croatia's Serbs fled during Croatia's U.S.-backed offensive in 1995 creating a fairly homogeneous Croatian state in its wake. This Croatian state was prodded and coerced into guaranteeing all sorts of rights and inducements to Croatia's Serbs to return to their lands. It was slow going during Tudjman's reign, but the country has been coming around recently, especially as EU accession has loomed nearer and nearer. The current government has a Serb party in the governing coalition, with its leader in the cabinet.

A different model was applied to Bosnia, where a completely cloven society was stitched together into a loose confederation of national statelets with a seemingly unworkable central government structure in place. Today, you have the completely autonomous Serbian mini-state threatening to secede, which could precipitate Croatian minorities in rump Bosnia to agitate for their own independence. Pandora's box is straining at the seams.

It'll be interesting to see what the West chooses to do with Kosovo. Will they grant the Serbs in the north autonomy, thereby paving the way to a failed state along the lines of Bosnia? Or will they compel the Serbs to participate in a central Kosovo government, all the while pressuring the Albanians to live up to their promises of guaranteeing minority rights in the country?

Matt's argument despairs of the Russian Doll syndrome, of ever-smaller ethnic groupings coming to the fore when you intervene in ethnic conflicts. While he's technically right that the issue exists, it needn't be an overriding concern. Building liberal-leaning states with guarantees for minority rights is not easy, but it's slowly working even in the wayward Balkans. It's important to pick the right people upon whom to bestow the responsibility of being the central government; and it's important to keep these people accountable to their commitments to minority rights using as many levers as possible.

Posted by Damir | February 22, 2008 12:19 PM

It's hard to tell from the outside how many states are multicultural, because when a state is successful the different cultural/tribal identities tend to get relegated to quaint ethnic rituals and the national identity takes over. Look at the history of how "French" identity got created -- France is made up of multiple different cultural/linguistic groups, from the Bretons in the North to the Occitan/Provecal groups in the south.

Bottom line: state organization takes place on a larger geographic scale than previous localist organization did, so major states will *always* be conglomerations of local/tribal groups in one way or another.

Posted by mq | February 22, 2008 12:19 PM

DAS -

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the thrust of my post. JR appeared to be claiming that overtly multi-cultural states were not viable. My post was aimed at demonstrating that that is not at all the case.

You're of course correct that the English were hardly models of fairness in their dealings with the national minorities (Irish, Welsh and Scottish). In fact, I'm surprised you didn't bring up Britain's policy during the Irish famine. But all of that was in a different time, at a different place.

As for Canada, your argument here seems bizarre. English Canada hasn't tried to assimilate the French Canadians (at least not since Confederation in 1867), and over time has granted progressively greater rights to cultural minorities. The fact that it couldn't simply absorb French Canadians led English Canada to adopt a less culturally chauvinistic attitude towards minority groups. I'm not sure what the point of going back to 1900 is. By that logic, you could accuse Canada of being anti-Chinese since we didn't let them immigrate (only come temporarily to build railroads). In any case, I've never heard of a case where the government broke up an existing, settled immigrant community for the sole purpose of assimilation.

SoCalJustice -

What I mean is that there are very strong regional identities in Canada which often trump the 'national' identity in importance. French Canadians are an obvious example, especially if they're from Québec. Acadians are another. Newfoundlanders are another (they were, after all, an independent country for several decades). Albertans also have a very strong identity. Canadian political rhetoric explicitly acknowledges these identities and doesn't try to erase them with some common, unifying theme ('We hold these truths to be self-evident' etc.).

Yes, of course, immigrants are expected to integrate with the host culture. By 'not a melting-pot' I meant simply that Canada doesn't try or purport to weld its *existing* minority communities into a homegeneous whole. This does, however, have an impact on immigrant communities. If they arrive in large enough numbers, they can establish self-sustaining, distnict communities, and they won't be viewed as a threat (by many, if not all people). Vancouver, for instance, has HUGE numbers of Chinese (Hong Kong) and Indian immigrants, and there are large swaths of the city where nary an English word is spoken.

Posted by Érik Labelle Eastaugh | February 22, 2008 12:21 PM

mq,

The reason you don't hear about quaint French cultural groups is through French government policy enacted via an iron fist. France doesn't allow minority ethnic groups any community rights at all, like education in their native languages. It considers this a betrayal of equality and denounces them as communitarians. French government policy since the Revolution has been based on the need to destroy indigenous cultural differences to bind the state together from its internal enemies. Any cultural or ethnic difference (apart from culinary) is considered to be borderline treasonous.

Posted by Hektor Bim | February 22, 2008 12:24 PM

Here's the dirty secret of how Europe got out of this mess (other than the Balkans) after WWII - massive ethnic cleansing. I'm not advocating that, simply pointing out the rather ugly and grim reality. - James Robertson

As you know, I agree with your point here (at least about Eastern/Central Europe ... although, did Communism play a role in diffusing nationalism as well?): but what of Alsace and Lorraine? I dunno enough of the history there. How much of the Alsatian and Lorrainian(?) identity is maintained (other than the winemaking tradition -- I lurve me some good Alsatian wines and cremants!)? Were ethnically Germanic Alsatians kicked into Germany? What of the language, etc.? I actually don't know ... but perhaps how France (a democracy but not with the same sense of security and democratic traditions as Canada/USA) dealt with Alsace after WWII should be the model of how to deal with ethnic minorities ... rather than looking to Canada (naive) or to dictatorships in Eastern/Central Europe?

*

China even grants exceptions to its one child policy for cultural minorities in order to allow them to sustain or expand their numbers. - Érik Labelle Eastaugh

Other than this (which I'm sure causes no resentment among Han people ), China is a paragon of multi-culturalism how?

*

Re zaleriana's point ... indeed about India not having to deal with those places. A similar argument could be made that Turkey has suffered because (understandably given that they just lost an empire) Turkey insisted on keeping eastern Anatolia, which has just been a drag on their nation as well as been a hotbed of Kurdish seperatism. Looking back, Turkey should have partitioned itself further, concentrated on its "European" side and had a Kurdish ally to its east, extending Turkish influence eastward rather than having a constant fear of Kurdish separatists.

Posted by DAS | February 22, 2008 12:25 PM

Every time Alsace-Lorraine has changed hands, a not insignificant number of people have fled the conquerors. That was true when Louis XIV took Strassburg, when the Germans took it back in 1871, when the French reconquered it in 1918, when the Germans reconquered it in 1940, and when the French once more reconquered it in 1945. There have also been people who moved in with the conquering armies.

Since the revolution, France has attempted to suppress German language and culture in Alsace-Lorraine, and each time they regain it, they get more ferocious about it. 4% of the population of Alsace-Lorraine spoke French fluently in 1918, despite French efforts until 1871 to extirpate German. Today, almost no one under 40 speaks alsatian or franconian, though some people speak standard German through contact or work with Germany. French attitudes toward minority languages in France are venomous, and speaking a language that is not French and agitating for its inclusion in schools is frequently viewed as a traitorous act.

When Germany has controlled Alsace-Lorraine, there usually was some provision for French-language schooling.

Posted by Hektor Bim | February 22, 2008 12:35 PM

What I mean is that there are very strong regional identities in Canada which often trump the 'national' identity in importance.

Same in America.

Californias, New Yorkers, New Englanders, Midwesterners, Southerners, Cajuns, etc...

For example, I know in Alberta, there is a huge rivalry between people from Edmonton and people from Calgary, often verging on hate. Well, aside from the fact that it's Alberta and relatively small, that rivalry tracks fairly well with your L.A./San Fran, or your Houston/Dallas, etc.. But in the end, they are all Californians, and all Texans - and then the rivalry turns to California v. New York, or Texans v. Oklahoma (or whatever).

Just like there's a sense of "Alberta" against "Ontario" (or all Canadians against Toronto) - where Edmontonians and Calgarians are on the same page.

As for us, we are all Americans (for example) come the Olympics even though - from my personal, anectodal experience, growing up, people from West L.A. expended far more venom upon people from the "valley" than they did against the Soviets. That's just how society works - a series of regional identities and rivalries where people sometimes coalesce against the greater "enemy." That's not Canadian, that's human.

I can't speak to Australia, but it doesn't seem beyond reason that there are regional differences/identities between someone from Perth and someone from Sydney.

By 'not a melting-pot' I meant simply that Canada doesn't try or purport to weld its *existing* minority communities into a homegeneous whole. This does, however, have an impact on immigrant communities. If they arrive in large enough numbers, they can establish self-sustaining, distnict communities, and they won't be viewed as a threat (by many, if not all people). Vancouver, for instance, has HUGE numbers of Chinese (Hong Kong) and Indian immigrants, and there are large swaths of the city where nary an English word is spoken.

While we might "purport to," we do not actually succeed - or really try - all the time, and the end result ends up being pretty much the same as in Canada.

The part about self-sustaining, distinct communities that don't speak English happens here too, schoolhouse rock cartoons about the "melting pot" notwithstanding.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:37 PM

French attitudes toward minority languages in France are venomous, and speaking a language that is not French and agitating for its inclusion in schools is frequently viewed as a traitorous act.

How does this compare to the situation in the US? Will they teach kids who don't speak French in their native language or is that what they refuse to do?

Posted by mpowell | February 22, 2008 12:58 PM

JR appeared to be claiming that overtly multi-cultural states were not viable. My post was aimed at demonstrating that that is not at all the case.

You're of course correct that the English were hardly models of fairness in their dealings with the national minorities (Irish, Welsh and Scottish). - Érik Labelle Eastaugh

Indeed. As you demonstrate such states are viable. But, the reason why I did bring up the English here is that I doubt that a multi-national Britain would be the bastion of stability that it is today if the English did treat the Irish, Welsh and Scottish fairly. England may have turned itself into the UK and allowed some degree of multi-nationalism to occur within its borders, but only after it safely quashed any real political challenges by the Scottish, et al.

What I was talking about in Canada was specifically the "no melting pot" statement, not its binationalism with Anglo/French Canadians ... perhaps I am wrong but while I too have never heard of this ...

In any case, I've never heard of a case where the government broke up an existing, settled immigrant community for the sole purpose of assimilation.

... my understanding was that the Canadian government went out of its way to ensure that such communities would not exist (at least on the scale that they did, at one time, in the USA) in the first place. Canada may have vibrant Chinese and other communities that put those in the US to shame, but did Canada in the early 1900s have the Slavic or German or Italian or Irish or Jewish ghettos that the US did about 100 years ago?

Before we were all fretting about large populations of poor, urban underclass African-Americans (who at the time were still part of the larger rural underclass of the South), we were fretting about the large populations of poor, urban underclass immigrants in this country. People may nowadays, talking about Latinos, say "but my great-grandparents assimilated" ... but by and large, they did not.

However, my understanding is that in Canada they made sure that immigrants didn't just settle in coastal cities and made sure such urban ghettos didn't form.

Posted by DAS | February 22, 2008 1:08 PM

Matthew,

While I appreciate the tendency to compare the Quebec separatist movement with Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, I believe that it is incorrect. Granted, concerns about Quebec separation are driving the Canadian government’s fence sitting on the political front. However, on the legal front, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 proves instructive on both a national and an international level.

As I previously mentioned, “[u]nder Canadian constitutional law: Quebec cannot unilaterally secede based on the results of a referendum to that effect. If a clear majority of Quebecers vote for separation, then a positive obligation rests with the Federal government and ALL the provinces to negotiate. At international law, Quebec cannot unilaterally secede, because the province “does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development.” However, the SCC did not answer the third question, finding that no conflict between constitutional and international law existed in this case.”

In contrast, “[t]he people of Kosovo may arguably meet the necessary threshold for self-determination at international law, and thereby legitimately secede unilaterally.”

Also, please note that not all French Canadians are Québécois. I’m proof of that. There are a number of different Francophone communities throughout Canada, including Acadiens, Franco-ontariens, Brayons, etc. In fact, Quebec separatism has the unfortunately tendency to ignore or contest the notion of what it means to be “French Canadian”.

Posted by Canadian Tar Heel | February 22, 2008 1:52 PM

I think this question of seperation was anticipated and answered by the powers that be. The national flag of Kosovo sports as its central element the shape of the country.

The only other country with such a flag is Cyprus, another country with disputed borders.

If such gleening is sound, then one look at the flag would also lead one to conclude that Kosovo will soon be seeking EU membership.

Posted by John Stephen Lewis | February 22, 2008 2:05 PM

As for the argument that we pushed Serbia into Putin's arms, nonsense. Serbia has been leaning East for sometime. Rather, the west yanked Kosovo into the sphere of Europe.

Posted by john stephen lewis | February 22, 2008 2:16 PM

French Canadians want independent for Québec? Sure. But then what about those parts of Québec that are majority Anglophone? And then what about the Francophones living in those Anglophone enclaves?

As mentioned above, one should not confuse "French Canadians" with Quebec nationalists. The French speaking communities outside of Quebec are strongly against any Quebec secession - perhaps in part because of fear that with the loss of Quebec Canada will abandon its bilingual policies, but probably more simply because they are Canadians first, French speaking second.

But Matthew hits on an important issue with respect to Quebec independence. There are large enclaves inside Quebec that are fiercely anti-independence, and would favour remaining a part of Canada. The island of Montreal would almost certainly be a large sticking point, as would the Gatineau region near the Quebec border with Ottawa (the Gatineau region, incidentally, is majority francophone, but is also strongly anti-independence). Then there is the issue of the north: the aboriginal populations would also strongly favour staying part of Canada, and have a much stronger historic claim to large swaths of territory in the north than French Quebecers; indeed, the historic Quebec "nation" is a fraction of the territory currently occupied by modern day Quebec, and to the extent that secession is premised on historic ties, Canada would have a strong moral and legal claim to retaining much of the territory an independent Quebec may claim.

Posted by McKingford | February 22, 2008 2:20 PM

Kosovo had virtual autonomy before all the stuff hit the fan in the ninties, right? I'm no expert, but I always thought the problems began as Milosevic began tearing down their independence and escalated as Kosovo pushed back. It is also my limited understanding (wish I could rely on the NYT but who knows these days) that since things simmered down, Serbia has resisted efforts to formalize any mechanisms by which Kosovo could regain its former autonomy, and has instead just negleted the area generally.

People of the Catalans, Wales, Scotland and largely enjoy a level of autonomy that had been stripped from Kosovo and never restored despite the bloodshed and peace offerings. Am I victim to propagandist Western spin? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Posted by john stephen lewis | February 22, 2008 2:32 PM

Sometimes the best solution is subsidized home exchanges -- i.e., financially compensated ethnic cleansing. X and Y exchange houses and some higher organization kicks in some cash to both parties to sweeten the deal. It has solved some border disputes in the past (I believe Denmark and Prussia) and Israel has done it unilaterally to get its settlers to leave Gaza and Sinai. For details, including a price tag, on how it could have worked instead of bombing in Kosovo:

http://www.isteve.com/kosovo.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 22, 2008 2:37 PM

There is simply no substitute for strictly enforced institutional supports for individual rights and the rule of law. As in the illustration of the Russian dolls, and as many of the posters above demonstrate, the opportunity people have to define themselves in terms of ever-smaller groups is practically infinite. As soon as a society divides itself up into groups with status-based privileges or liabilities, ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is only a circumstance away.

During the period of the Bolshevik revolution and the consolidation of Soviet power, citizens were defined in terms of class in ways that for millions became a matter of life and death--"poor peasants", "weak middle peasants", "strong middle peasants", "well-off peasants" often had little to distinguish them. "Kulak" had a definition that was remarkably flexible as well as being a nearly certain death sentence. Similar kinds of "class enemies" have been victims in revolutions from Paris to Phnom Penh. It wasn't ethnic or sectarian differences that killed millions in the Cultural Revolution.

When we figure out a way to enforce minimal standards of human rights inside the borders of national states, we won't need to worry about seperatist movements. And all the kids will get a pony.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 22, 2008 2:44 PM

On the issue of Canadian national identity vs. regionalism, isn't it interesting that Steve Nash is way more popular in Toronto than in Seattle (near where he grew up) or California (where he went to college)?

Posted by nbt | February 22, 2008 3:37 PM

john stephen lewis, that's sort of correct. The "national question" in Yugoslavia was always been a complicated and vexing one and every thumbnail sketch of the situation is bound to be incomplete and at least somewhat misleading. Nevertheless, here I go:

In 1974 Yugoslavia's constitution was revised to provide increased autonomy for all the republics, and it granted Kosovo and Vojvodina, which were then autonomous provinces of the republic of Serbia, near-republican status.

When Tito died a few years later, Serbian nationalists started whipping up largely unfounded fears that increased autonomy for the republics meant that Serbian national minorities within the republics were under grave threat. Milosevic's rise to power came as a result of these fears. He consolidated power by installing cronies in Vojvodina, Kosovo and Montenegro and in the process sparked fears among the remaining republics that their freedoms would be curtailed as well. This fanned the flames of national feeling in Croatia and Slovenia in particular and started the country down the road to war.

The interesting thing is that after Milosevic revoked all autonomy to the Kosovar Albanians, the Albanians, under the leadership of Ibrahim Rugova, declared de facto independence as early as 1991, and set up a parallel shadow government structure which provided many services for the Kosovar Albanians throughout the 1990s. The Albanians technically had seceded from Serbia's governmental institutions more than a decade and a half ago.

Posted by Damir | February 22, 2008 4:30 PM

"At the end of the day, the only just solution for Canada, or for the former Yugoslavia, or for Iraq or Lebanon or anyone else necessarily involves the creation of tolerably liberal rights-respecting governments or else intolerably illiberal population transfers and ethnic cleansing."

this seems like a hugh over generalisation. In some situations. surely there are situations which don't fall into these 2 categories. why not just take things on a case by case basis.

"Kosovo actually highlights rather sharp limits to what we can achieve even under favorable circumstances."

well yes but that doesn't make the decision on military intervention in any particular situation any less difficult.

MY, you are determined to make this all about Iraq to the detrement of exploring a difficult issue. All I hear is the grinding of axes rather than anything that might inform a debate about any future possible intervention.

Posted by Neil | February 22, 2008 4:49 PM

Re: the flip side is that Yugoslavia itself was founded on the anachronistic notion that disparate groups speaking a similar language could create among themselves a unified national identity like Germany did in the 1800s.

Not counting the Hungarian and Albanian minorities, there were three languages in Yugoslavia: Serbo-Croatian, Slovene and Macedonian. That would only compare to the unification of Germany if the Kaiser had added the Netherlands and Denmark to his domains in 1871 as well.

Re: Thirdly, there are MANY successful, multicultural, multinational states in the world: Spain, Switzerland, Malaysia, India (!!!!), South Africa, New Zealand and China.

This seems to be a case of defining success down to the level where it means the nation stays together (however much force is employed) and wholesale genocide is avoided. Switzerland is probably the best example on your list, but the others nations all have had episodes of ethnic violence or terrorism, and sometimes of majorities oppressing minorities. Ask the Tibetans or Uighurs how successful they think China's unification policies are.

Re: There seems to be quite an enormous bit of Canadian pride out there, even if it is mainly a reaction to not wanting to be confused for an American while on the road.

That would seem to be the key to the Canadian (at least Anglo-Canadian) identity: that they aren't to be confused with Americans.

Posted by JonF | February 22, 2008 7:03 PM

If Serbia, or should I say ethnic Serb Serbians, decided after 1999 that they had been on a strange and crazy trip and they wanted no more of it, one could (barely) imagine Kosovo remaining part of Serbia as an autonomous region. But that wasn't the decision, so far as I can tell--rather, the decision was that Milosevic had fucked up the ethnic-chauvinist project, and he oppressed Serbs too much in the process, so he had to go. That had been the extent of the self-examination. To even suggest that any ethnic group that has a substantial population majority in a substantial contiguous territory of that kind of country should stay in it and hope for the best strikes me as ridiculous. Serbia can go suck eggs.

Posted by Rich | February 22, 2008 8:42 PM

Canadian identity actually isn't all that wrapped up in 'not being American,' or at least not any more than anyone's culture is defined in part by what it isn't. (Americans aren't Brits, the French aren't German, and so on.) A quick comparison of politics in our respective nations is enough to how that we're pretty different. Obama is probably somewhat to the right of Steven Harper, our most right-wing PM in over a generation.

One of the reasons, I'd say the main reason, why us Anglo Canucks don't want to be mistaken for Americans while traveling is that being mistaken for an American in most parts of the world is a serious pain in the ass.

Sure, no one wants to be taken for something they're not (a New Yorker is likely to get pretty pissed at being mistaken for a Texan, were such a thing possible) but the whole 'flag on the backpack' thing is largely a strategic defensive move: when traveling, we don't want to answer questions about US foreign policy, get heckled, get cheated, and so on, and we think (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) that lots of people in the rest of the world aren't to fond of Americans and will heckle them, cheat them, and interrogate them about Iraq. Aussies and Kiwis just need to say a few words to achieve the same effect, but (some Atlantic Canadians aside) most Anglo Canadian accents sound a lot like American accents. Hence the flags.

Posted by Matt D | February 22, 2008 9:06 PM

Re: A quick comparison of politics in our respective nations is enough to how that we're pretty different.

Canada is certainly more like Britain or Australia in that it has a parliamentary form of government instead of America's fairly unique presidential system (which set the US apart from most of the world). But ignoring various passing issues of the day, the two countries are rather like fraternal twins: not identical certainly, but closer than anything else except identical twins.
By the way your comment actually supports my point since after asserting that Canadians do dfine themselcves by other criteria than not being American, you hasten to draw distinctions between the US and Canada.

Re: we don't want to answer questions about US foreign policy, get heckled, get cheated, and so on, and we think (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) that lots of people in the rest of the world aren't to fond of Americans

Maybe, maybe not. It's been my experience and the experience of others who have traveled (at least in Europe) that it isn't Americans who are unpopular, it's George Bush and the GOP. As long as you assert that you don't support Bush, no one has a problem with you. They may even be sympathetic at our plight. By the way, why would anyone mistake a Canadian for an American? It's not like the US is the only country that speaks English and you folks do have a different accent than we do. OK, it's not too very different from our northern tier accents, but it's worlds apart from our Southern dialects, and the American South is really where the trouble with this country mainly lies. I've heard it claimed that if you could take Quebec out of Canada, and the South out of the US, the two countries' cultures would blend into each other quite smoothly.

Posted by JonF | February 23, 2008 5:15 PM

If you took Quebec out of Canada and the South out of the US, there wouldn't be anything that could properly be described as "culture" left.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 24, 2008 2:58 AM