Chinese-Dragon
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,932
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
I am not so sure whether this would have worked in reality.
Iraq does not even speak it's own language and therefore there would have been nothing unique about being an Iraqi. A sunni-Arab Iraqi will always feel more kinship with a Sunni Arab Syrian than with either a Sunni Kurdish Iraqi or a Shia Arab Iraqi.
If you look at the states that have held together throughout history, you see the one common glue is a common religious,language and cultural identity. Think England, France and China.
Most Arab countries are destined to eventually disintegrate and the only question is when it will happen.
Agreed.
My personal opinion is that when a country is in the "developing" stage, it benefits them to have a dominant ethnic/cultural majority. Since developing countries all too often fall into tribalism and infighting between different groups.
All Western countries had a dominant ethnic/cultural majority during their developing stage, so too did East Asian nations.
After they reach "developed" status, then it's easier for them to be united by a "national identity", for example how Americans of various ethnic/cultural backgrounds can be united under a single national identity, without falling into tribalism over ethnic/cultural divisions. Though it should be noted that they still do have a dominant ethnic/cultural majority even now.
That's why it is of utmost importance to reach developed status. That is our primary goal right now.
Middle Eastern nations that were drawn up during the age of colonialism should heed the same advice, develop as fast as possible.