What is wrong to want to keep (or recover) a territory which belongs to us historically??

Question

Chinese Tibet, Russian Osset, Irish Ulster, etc....

Answer 1

A lot is wrong with it.

Look at Jerusalem, for example, the so-called "spiritual center" of the Jews, and how the Jews keep repeating to everyone that historically it is their city.

For crying out loud the darn thing wasn't even founded by the Jews. It was founded by the Canaanites at least 800 years before any Jews set foot on it.

And look at the city today, it's dozens of times bigger than what it originally used to be because Israel keeps confiscating land from the West Bank and adding it to Jerusalem.

Some 5 to 7% of the WB has been transfered this way to that city and now Israel keeps crying that it will never be divided.

The whole thing is absolutely rubbish, and like most posters here have already said, it's all a matter of who owns the land and the house they live on.  

Answer 2

because whats wrong with what you already have?

Answer 3

The problem is that before it belonged to you it belonged to somebody else...you could keep on going down the ages till we were monkeys.

For example the Scots Irish who now inhabit Ulster have ancestors that originally came to Scotland from Ireland so you could say they have just been coming home whereas Irish Republicans don't see it that way of course.

Answer 4

It all depends how far you want to go back historically. A different century, a different border.

Ossetia might have been part of the USSR, but before that were they governed by Moscow? Does Moscow have their best interests at heart?

Tibetans have a unique culture and ethnicity compared to the rest of China. Do the party leaders in Beijing have the Tibetans best interests at heart? Clearly no, they've been driving them off their traditional lands by the thousands, and sterilising their women.

As for Irish Unionists, who can figure that out. EU membership should be enough for them in this modern age.

Answer 5

You see the problem is that even such to first sight objective thing as past/history/ has different interpretations.

Everyone has his own view of history and justice so if one territory/ or other resource/ is a "property" for you it can be perceived as the same for others.

But the main problem in the field of international relations is the dualism between the terms on territorial "wholeness" or sovereignty and the right of a nation for self-determination.

Some of those who chose the right of self-determination. are called separatists others- fighters for freedom and some of those states which want to /as you said/ keep or recover their historical territory are called crime states others receive the support of UN)))

We live in a world of double standards! That's the fact!

But to me the only wrong thing is the price you pay!

Sometimes the price is ethnic cleanings, genocides, ruined cities, damaged images of the countries.

May be it is worth it?

Answer 6

Nothing wrong with wanting it. But territory belongs to whoever can hold it, not to whoever used to live there.

Answer 7

Nations come and go. Rome has an historical claim on most of present-day Europe. More recently, Lithuania stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Multiple nations have an historical claim to the Falklands. The Isle of Man, the Hebrides, the Orkneys and Shetland were once a single Viking kingdom. How far back do you go before an historical claim on territory is no longer valid? Whose claim is the best when it's been passed between nations for centuries? How much bloodshed is it worth?

As far as I'm concerned, the people who reside within a territory should have the say about which country it should be part of. That has problems of its own, of course, but it seems like the most just solution.

Answer 8

It's never that simple.I'm an Irish republican.The British still have part of my island(it's my island,I own it :) and I want it back.Getting it back is never simple,it's always painful and someone else has a different point of view.There's nothing wrong with wanting to hold on or recover territory but it usually involves deaths,lots and lots of deaths.

Answer 9

err no, as a Brit I will have a third of the world again thankyou! if countries have self determination and recognised boundaries other countries must repsect that. Hitler used that excuse before the second world war and look where that got everyone.  

Answer 10

Nothing is wrong, if you do have all the facts right.  Otherwise...everything will go wrong.  So firstly you really have to get the right fact with supporting documents.  With it...go ahead man.

Answer 11

Nothing wrong with this, I suggest to recover most of the USA to UK, France, Spain... Alaska and part of the California to Russia.

Answer 12

possession is nine tenths of the law, so no.

otherwise I guess that means britain can wage war against the US? hmm?

Answer 13

the idea of the 'nation state' is relatively new in human history - however, certain groups have a 'relationship' with the land

all of your above examples tend to regard boarders, rather than indigious populations - and so then it becomes about money and resources - whether that is wrong or not won't be decided in our lifetimes!

Answer 14

I'm formerly south African, so this question makes me ponder.  Is it right for the Black government to take away land from white farmers and give it black to the Black population?  And where did those black farmers come from - usually from tribesmen who came from ...

who knows where?  What about the people who were originally there, and when was "originally", anyway?

I think there comes a point where we must learn to let go, so that we can move forward.