1.) People don't have to integrate "into" anything. I already put this clearly enough: integration and a "melting pot" absorbtion into a dominant culture are not the same thing.

It's good to have a common language, but it isn't necessary for one language or one ethnotype to dominate the others. Switzerland, for instance, has been a stable, multilingual country for quite a long time.

2.) You say that developing countries "need" to become ethnic tyrants. Why? You never say. Britain didn't need to hold on to its colony in Ireland, and finally gave it up. Both countries are better off for it, though Britain made the mistake of holding on to Ulster, to its considerable regret.


3.) China is not weak or divided or ornamental, now. Why, then, does it need to erase the ethnic distinctiveness of its internal colonies? It's not like Tibet had distinct security or development advantages -- the vast majority of it is a nearly empty upland plateau with a tiny migrant population.

4.) You list a bunch of ethnic and national terms of identity that have damned little for the most part to do with France. France is a good example, though: despite the most nationally uniform educational system on earth, and despite a central academy that militantly excludes all usages that aren't properly French, local dialects continue to be spoken in Provence and Gascony, and there are still plenty of Alsatian "frenchmen" who still speak German at home.

What China is doing in Tibet and to the north and west in its Muslim possessions, has little to do with building a strong and cohesive country. That's one of those euphamism programs, like the french "civilizing mission" or our own advancement of "freedom and democracy."

I don't wish to debate this topic with you, partly because it has damned little to do with the top post, and partly because you seem to think you can continue to change the topic and redefine its terms as you please. You probably think you're being really smart, doing that. I find responding to this tiresome and boring.