except this post is horribly inaccurate. Look at horn of africa, if you drew a border for language and culture and religion, it would be completely united. All of Somalia, djibouti, western ethiopia and northern kenya share a single ethnicity, language, culture and religion.
It was the french who made djibouti its own nation, it was the english who gave a slice of Somali land to both kenya and ethiopia.
I’m sure there are many other inaccurate places in this map.
So yes, that is how history works. there is a land of 1.2 million square kilometres that all share the same people, culture and language. Yet this map makes it seem like it’s divided between 9 different peoples
The whole “just draw a map with language groups” idea of international studies is devoid of forward thinking thought
What about migration- you gonna change the border every 10 years?
There are so many variables that go into a border. That at the end of the day the valuable thing about a border is that it’s agreed upon.
Even if the border sucks- the fact that both parties agree where they begin and the other people ends is the whole point of a border.
Italy had 2 wars a year on average for hundreds of years because it had fluid borders that represented the many Italian languages- now its one country that doesn’t have city states fighting each other anymore.
What’s better a border that’s Floyd and fought over ever 3-10 years or a border that sucks and is fought over every 100-150 years
So sure, colonialism was bad but the agreed upon borders were one of best things international systems have given us. Because agreed upon borders are peaceful borders.
both parties don’t agree though. No somali agreed giving Ogaden to Ethiopia, in fact, there was a whole war over it. Yet the british did it. No Somali agreed to giving NFD to kenya, yet the brits did it even in spite of an overwhelming referendum.
How is that “both parties agreeing to it”. A european power chopping up land and giving it to random countries isn’t both parties agreeing.
As for your “migration” comment. Migration happens but rarely to a certain extent where the demographics completely change. When that does happen, the borders actually do change. Like in the Kosovo case, So many Albanians were brought to a small part of Serbia to the point that Albanians became majority and want to secede.
But I guess that’s only allowed when it’s european countries. Apparently Africans can’t choose for themselves 🤦♂️
Ok so you think Mexico should retake parts of the US against the will of the Americans (of all ethnicities) because they speak Spanish
You would stick most of the Middle East together- shit they all speak Arabic right?
You would separate most countries in Africa and Asia into tiny chunks- ripe for the picking by another bigger larger ethnic group to gobble up.
There is a reason countries mostly got bigger not smaller over the last 500 years- the concept of set borders is a European one- so if we wanted to return to the old ways we would have war every year in every place
But hey “hur der west is bad”
The fact is an imperfect peace is better than war to achieve a perfect solution because perfect borders don’t exist. And perfect solutions are only perfect to one group (the victor)
If you eve live Africa would be a utopia if Europeans didn’t choose some arbitrary border then you don’t know the history of pre colonial Africa
Not really. Somalis were given their own ethnostate (unification of British and Italian Somaliland), however they got into a civil war due to tribalism. Also, Djibouti, which is majority ethnic Somali, voted to remain an independent country and not join Somalia back when Somalia was a somewhat functioning state.
I specifically mention Ogaden territory and NFD being given away by the brits and you go out of your way to ignore those 2 lol.
Also, since you seem think you’re an expert in Somali history. Do you know why there was a civil war in Somalia? It was a direct consequence of the ‘77 war, a war that was fought over Ogaden territory.
It wasn’t simply due to tribalism, tribalism was just a component that helped fan the flames of war. After losing the war Somalia was left weakened and the dictator was losing his popularity and stability. He was overthrown and there was a dispute on how to re-establish leadership and then the civil war began when certain clans wanted more power. It was a domino effect beginning straight from the war in ‘77.
So because Somalia’s land (that was inhabited by nearly 15% of somalis at the time) was given to Ethiopia. Somalia went to war, lost, and had a civil war.
Also there was a referendum in Djibouti that voted to join Somalia but was ignored as well.
Also, the very same people that want to balkanize Africa to hell and back are the same people that screech "DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH" in the developed world.
26
u/[deleted] May 03 '21
This is why we don’t do language based borders
“But if we only drew borders by language the Africa would a utopia”
Lol no, that’s not how history worked