The bounderies of a nation is not always to the good of all the people, as is shown many places around the world even today.
In historical terms, some powers would overpower other nations, and make it their law that they should accept it, like it or not.
So the question is: whose law?
Is law more important than freedom?
True, but even so, the situation was different. They came to the country over a short time and had to start over all together in a new place - largely at the same time.Yes, but most of the Americans, especially during the times running up to the civil war, were transplanted Europeans who brought many of the cultural, and political, biases over with them.
I am not sure of your point here?Whites and Indians were not competing on a relatively equal technological level, nor on an equal racial level. In Europe it was difficult to distinguish between natives of different countries simply by their appearances, especially in border areas. And generally all of the European nations were at comparable levels of technology.
You think? There were no problems under a united government, just as US citizens are just one big, happy family?The problem isn't that they were forced to become a country, but that once that central government collapsed each tiny region reverted to centuries old hatreds and prejudices. And with few exceptions the individual nations which returned were far worse off than when they had been "united" under a central government.
Anyway, you have to go further back. There were functioning nations or areas which were cut to pieces and divided and made into new nations as it suited other powers, expecially after WW1. And it did not work! Obviously the lid comes off when the overall structure collapses, as with the previous Sovjet Union.






Reply With Quote