Many Independence movements are alive in different parts of the world however I don't see any of them being successful in recent times, Dialogues only result in hollow promises and If they try to force their way through they get labelled as terrorists e.g. tamils in Srilanka, the Khalistan Movement from India etc What path these struggles should follow so they can gain Independence ?
Martin Luther King, Jr. showed how a movement that is right can do it without physical violence. As the leader of the movement he made sure to condemn the actions of those who did things violently. He also has an example to follow of one who is still conquering the world one person at a time, from the heart of a person and not by physical force or violence. Some called the one he followed merely a man or simply a prophet, others call the one he followed King, Majesty, Holy One, Master, Savior, and more. So if the movement is good with motives that are pure it can be done without the physical violence.
Movement of MLK was not for a separate homeland, Independence movements have dynamics of their own and can't be compared with movements of rights do you think Tibetans can get freedom from China ?
Every single motion for independence, usually through a revolution, relies on a very unique mindset that separates oneself from the most basic and original first dogmas we are indoctrinated with. No society that believes in the creation myth of Genesis in the Bible will follow through with the French or American revolutions for Independence. All men are created equal is NOT a Christian dogma, but an ideology. To gain independence you need to show you are not afraid to die; willing and eager to do so even. That will instill a fear so great in those opposing you, they'll see true followers and protectors of humanity and their oppressing of you will only give greater strength to your cause.
with that , by today standards, you will be quickly termed terrorist and all the World Govt's will turn against you can we say that no matter what, you will be called as terrorist if you are freedom fighter ?
I hope that most governments would see the taking over of peaceful nations by people who want to kill as terrorist in nature. This isn't your great-great-great-great-grandfathers century anymore. Welcome to the 21st century and beyond where the common people want to have peace with all nations. Leave the stone/bronze/iron ages behind.
so what should the people struggling do to achieve their goal ? why do you assume that the people struggling only want killing in 1st place? so there were never any independence movements ? it was always the terrorists creating mischief in land ? but since that was in dark ages so it was acceptable a bit . but now as we are in 21st century so struggling for Independence is a big no no ?
It is a matter of relative perspective. I'd fight for my neighbors and protection of free and diversified thought, not a state; I've studied America's founding and history too much to be deceived into wanting to protect my government. America was intended to be like the Greek states, not a gigantic federation; but a Republic of States. My opinion on the difference is that Freedom Fighters act on the defensive, terrorists offensive. When someone defending their town is presented with an opponent that has no regard for their life or humanity, it is that individuals responsibility to channel whatever higher power is within them and bring fear to the opponents. They will call, because they are afraid and weak, this immeasurable power and desire to resist, terrorism. Attack civilians and you are a terrorist. Defending your village in a way that makes the invaders think it's populated with demons is not. War is not fair. If you're in the service, be prepared to encounter hell if you're ordered to cause hell.
World Governments crave stability. Formation of new governments(Independence/Revolution) creates instability by nature. I suspect the majority would like to keep the borders on the map exactly as they are right now. Just last night Obama acknowledged Tibet to be part of China. So much for a peaceful revolution to gain independence. By the way, Terrorism cant be used to create a government. Its primary purpose is to make an area ungovernable, therefore without governance. The US could easily drop bombs at random on cities in Afghanistan(or anywhere else for that matter) and accomplish pretty much the same thing. Projection of sufficient force to create stability for nation building is extremely costly and difficult.
so if seeking Independence is inherently wrong than we should denounce all the 'independence wars and movements and their hero's' all those who fought against the colonial occupations were in fact terrorists so If tomorrow Russia attacks and takes over Canada than those who will raise voice against russia will be terrorists ? As If it doesn't do already from yesterday http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Drone-Pakistan-70607257.html @RapidRippeR what do you mean ? I am not Indian .
it is not the Tamils or Sikhs who were labeled terrorists, but the groups who had taken up terrorism. LTTE is a terrorist group and no one can deny it. =================================== coming back to your question, there is no easy answer. it is clash between principle of "nation first" and the principle of "people first". tell me one thing... if 100 people in a country come together and say that they want an independent country, what should the government do?
Exactly. Not every independence movement should be allowed to succeed. Some would be destructive and are unwarranted by the facts or justice. Thankfully, the United States prevented the South from seceding.
talking about 100 people would be naive e.g. the movements of Tamils, Sikhs, Tibetans did have substantial support do you guys believe in democracy ? why not hold a poll or election in such regions ? If people vote for independence will you be willing to accept that
What part of "the majority would like to keep the borders on the map exactly as they are right now" did you not understand. Russia expanding territory to Canada, or anywhere else for that matter would obviously violate that. There are many countries that considered some portion of their own population "occupiers" and "imperialists". Usually, ethnic cleansing is soon to follow.
that's the problem. how does one determine what is substantial and what is not? any region of a country is not owned by a particular group of people. it belongs to the entire nation. then how can the nation allow just a particular group to determine the status of that region?
~ Beyond, above or below the politicians there are the militarys that basically are beholden mostly for there own self preservation that somehow is mixed with patriotism and are probably the true terrorists as they simply use there instruments to destroy everything in site when ordered to do so without any real recourse than for those it is being used against and being destroyed to the delight of the politicians and clerics.
USA is a leader and major player in the world, most people look up to them, so look at their examples.