From: roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca (R Ross Holder Jr)
Subject: Re: More Sovereignty...
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:11:47 GMT

In <1992Dec7.180535.3606@csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk> philboys@lt11.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (Philip Boys) writes:


>In article <1fuh04INN111@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:

[much deleted.]

> 1. Why would they be second class citizens?
>
>    Some conquerors improve the conquered nation, the Romans everywhere,
>    the British in India perhaps, Alexander the Great and so on.

Improved?  Well there was certainly an exchange of ideas, but "improved" is
a very evaluative term.  One could speculate that after the fall of Rome a
different kind and even superior English civilzation would have evolved;
unhindered by the meddling of Roman philosophy and ideas.

>    It is not reasonable to assume a conqueror less civilised or
>    philosophically enlightened.
>
>    This applies to Northern Ireland especially, the people of Eire are
>    generally charming, but they live under one of the most primitive
>    constitutions in the Developed West.
>
>    Homosexuality, Abortion and Divorce are illegal, recently a 15 year old
>    rape victim was forcably repatriated from the UK to prevent her having
>    an abortion.
>
>    Even though I am myself half Irish, I would be philosophically opposed to
>    any expansion of Eire for the above reasons.

How tragically egotistic.  A study of Natural Law Theory may reveal a coherent
reasoning and justification of laws against homosexuality, abortion and divorce!
The illegality of such in Ireland is no more evidence of a primitive civiliation
than the concept of a poll tax in England, the rise of violent crime in urban
America, or the existance of a "cattle herders" Act in my own province.
Further, this is exactly the type of justification often used by English
Impreialists to extend the British Empire.  Are we to adopt the justification
"We have the better constitution; therefore we should rule the world"?  This
is exactly why there's organizations like the IRA - attempting to destroy this
'English tyranny' and it's 'patronizing doctrine.'
    
> 2. Free English Republicans have the right to relocate in Free England
>    and be first class citizens.

As has been suggested elsewhere in related threads, this means that some
citizens of "Free" England feel even more like second-class citizens.

> 3. People are free to live their lives in a way largely independent of
>    the state. I don't walk along the road thinking :
>
>    'I Philip, an Englishman, fancy a coke.'
>
>    Similarly, I don't define myself in terms of my colour - I wonder why some
>    people do, again often identifying with cultures that they may have no real
>    experience of.

The subject of, I'm sure, a wonderful psychological experiment.  Nevertheless,
I can say that both myself and many of my peers are at least semi-concious
of our respective ethnic backgrounds.  This may have something to do with living
in a nation that considers itself a "multicultural society".  England is
mostly English (demographically).  And anyway, when one visits a foreign 
country, does not one oft feel that (s)he is in some way different from those
around them?

>    States don't treat people, only other people do. It is a question of your
>    attitude and prejudices to 'external' groups.

Tell that to the Curds of Iraq.

> Roundup
> -> I guess my point here is that I don't understand why people find it so
>    necessary to define themselves in terms of groups. This applies not just
>    to nationalism, but sport, religion and culture in general.

Again, this is a question for psychologists, but the very fact such people
exist suggests it needs to be a consideration when considering the interests
of a society.

> The one great thing that reading Philosophy ( all be it a small amount )
> has taught me is that I should never be confident enough to think that I
> am definitely in the right when I choose to do something. It is very likely
> that you can not prove anything, certainly not to the point where you would 
> kill to achieve an abstract ideal of past nationhood.

No small measure of philosophy deals exactly with the question of "how do we
_know_ what we know?"  Epistemology is an interesting area of study, though
it's not my favourite subject.  I tend to get lost, confused and upset
over the idea that I don't know what I know. :-)

> How would I achieve this?
>
> Stop religious teaching in schools, replace it with Philosophy.

I disagree.  Philosophy should complement all areas of study in primary and
secondary education.   Unfortunately, ethics are of little political concern
in this day and age and it is therefore not an urgent item on the agendae of
school trustees in this country.

> More naive ideas, Philip Boys.

On that loaded political note, I close looking forard to future articles on
this subject.
-- 
R. Ross Holder, Jr.    INTERNET: roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca   (Winnipeg, Manitoba)
         Department of Philosophy     -     The University of Manitoba
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The views I express are not neccessarily those of the U of Manitoba.