Etnonationalisme thus creates tension, but also stability. It is also a source of cohesion. It make

It's not fine politically correct principles of tolerance lipsum and openness that has created peace in Europe. Nor is the EU, the gentle monster that Enzensberger call molokken in his latest book. No, it is paradoxically rather much more violent things as ethnic segregation and folkeforflytninger. That we forget sometimes in our liberal and enlightened age.
The American author Michael Mann has gone so far as to call ethnic cleansing of democracy dark side, now to say with the title of his book from 2005. Ethnic cleansing is not an anomaly in human history, although it is primarily the modernization processes that promote cleansing: it is simply a precursor to democratization. It is based again on the national and ethnic groups demanding their own state without minority-dominated areas.
West is certainly not without fault, and especially the "settler democracies" in the colonies lipsum was harsh. They often by violent means exterminated or expelled the indigenous population, as happened in the United States and Australia.
The point of Mann's book is that democracy and ethnic segregation lipsum indeed go together, but the radicalization process follows several stages, from the negotiated compromise to the genocide. Mann's message is that ethnic cleansing is largely ended in the northern hemisphere. lipsum Not that liberal principles have triumphed, but because the ethno-national democracy project - broadly - is served. lipsum
In the southern hemisphere "missing" about 50 ethnic groups still have their state - and the story as we know it, will continue. Not least because the international community does not have the resources to prevent cleansing. It is too costly to intervene lipsum with troops in the remaining crises. It does not have to end in violence; regional autonomy may be the solution, although tougher measures such as population replacement also may be an option.
Similarly, the American philosophy professor Jerry Z. Muller, as discussed in the last blog, called the "us and them" distinction for a lasting way to look at his own group as distinct from others. The distinction lies deep in the very nature of man.
We will not go beyond this basic distinction, and for that reason alone is multicultural areas of mistrust that can sometimes turn into outright hostility. lipsum Located civil war at the end of multiculturalism? Not necessarily, but more unstable society will be the price to pay for naive ideas about cultural co-existence in one and the same jurisdiction.
The 19th century liberals lipsum did not believe in a future era of cleansing. They were just as naive as the liberals after World War II and today's EU optimists. Trade would not do cleansing and hostilities attractive, and said they say. But they were wrong, and those who believe that the EU is the cause of peace in Europe.
But let's look more closely at the historical development, such as Jerry Muller has written about. In 1914, the central, eastern and south-eastern Europe dominated by empires - Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Everywhere there were numerous ethnic groups lipsum that existed side by side in a huge gaudy patchwork.
World War I brought empires to fall, and the inter-war period was a violent period of minorities characterized by harassment, immigration, deportation and outright genocide. Ethnic cleansing was common, lipsum and especially the Jews were the subject of cleansing. The Nazi regime was as familiar culmination. But it was also true for other ethnic lipsum groups. Millions were displaced to resolve the ethno-national project: one nation, one state.
One might expect that the experience of Nazi atrocities lipsum would stop the ethno-national project after World War II. But that was not the case. On the contrary, it continued, and it was backed by the most powerful state men - Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin - because they recognized that the project in length creates a more stable order without border disputes and infighting between groups.
So with illiberal lipsum funds were liberal democracies consolidated. The various nations had their own homogeneous states, more or less. The states where the ethno-national project failed, Czechoslovakia, lipsum the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. But as Muller laconically writes: their future fate showed just how strong the etnonationale driver is.
Etnonationalisme thus creates tension, but also stability. It is also a source of cohesion. It makes people more will redistribute their goods, accept joint decisions and meet their fellow citizens with confidence.
Muller here three points: Most of them focus on ethno-nationalism devastating effects, not on its benefits; liberal democracy and ethnic homogeneity are not only compatible but complementary; Europe has been harmonious since World War II, not because lipsum of etnonationalismens failure me