Could you name a country that would not qualify as an ethnostate by your definition? We’re clearly using different definitions of ethnostate, and I’m trying to understand yours, although the definition you linked includes a key word that I think supports my position: dominate. I also think that my definition isn’t absurd, but whatever you want to call it, any state that explicitly identifies one or more ethnic groups over others should not exist. America is flirting with this now, and probably every nation on earth has at least some tendency towards it, which is why we must be on guard and oppose it wherever it shows its ugly head.
I don’t see how merely having an ethnicity or culture as the predominant group in a country would qualify it as an ethnostate unless the government uses it as an excuse to oppress those that are not in that selected group(s).
When you agreed that “All ethnostates should be dismantled” which ones came to your mind?
If I said “all murder should be illegal”, do I have to have every conceivable instance in mind before I can make that declaration? We can whittle down my opinions through argument, for example to see if I think non-human animals should be included, or if killing in self-defense should be considered murder, but those kinds of things would not negate the original declaration, unless in doing so I changed my mind. And it’s fair that you’re trying to get me to do just that, but so far you haven’t been very persuasive.
I have not said anything that argues what is happening over their needs to continue. Just that I’d also take issue if you were arguing American Politics is immoral and so democracies need to be dismantled.
I think you’re conflating things a little bit here. I think a more apt analogy would be saying if the American government took the position that Mexico was US territory and invaded with the military, or settlements, or used its power to disenfranchise American citizens of Mexican heritage, I would agree that that government should be abolished. That doesn’t mean democracy has failed, and the same form of government could be reinstated without the oppression, or even just voting out the people that put those measures in place. These kinds of things all have the same result, and all could be called dismantling the government, or the patriarchy, or whatever else is the problem.
America, Belgium, Israel, Russia, the Vatican… anywhere people are oppressed with official backing for things that are out of their control, cannot be just, and those systems (be it the whole government, a department, a policy, etc.)
Again, I think our disagreements hinge on this definitional difference. I think your definition for ethnostate (as I understand it) is too broad to have bearing in the discussion. I think you’re conflating an ethnostate with an ethnicity. Having a nation made up of exclusively (for argument’s sake) one ethnicity isn’t necessarily an ethnostate, but a nation exclusively for one ethnicity is.
That’s what I’m arguing against. Using “ethnostate” in the broader meaning you seem to be advocating for unnecessarily complicates the arguments and allows the potential for racism into a place it shouldn’t be. It gives the people that would seek to use racism as a weapon a foothold into a discussion they should be excluded from.
People arguing against Israel’s government (or the government’s actions or whatever else) are not necessarily arguing against the concept of Israel (and if they were, I’d be against that), and using this broader definition allows bad actors to disrupt efforts to reduce the harm being perpetrated by interjecting a very emotionally charged element where it doesn’t belong. Racism may be (I think it is) the root of the problem, but focusing on the “ism” here is like fighting the idea of fire rather than the flames. We’re trying to stop people from being burned first, and then deal with the flames after.
I have other things I need to be doing, so I’m done here for now. Thanks for taking the time to engage with me.