My conclusion was without a doubt that the FCNM and the ECRML have a lot more more upside than downside, make a major contribution to peace and are the best remedy against all forms of extremism and their often violent subcultures.
In most cases, the ratification of these conventions has been the opportunity to underline the major contribution these native nations have made and the peace factor intervenes when the poor conditions under which they have lived is lifted as the conventions provisions are implemented and make progress. Simultaneously, extreme views and bitterness recede.
Are identity policies just wrong by themselves, either answer you choose, you are promised to end in the same place and that is how are you going to remedy the wrong identity policies of the passed, what they were whether you have answered positively to the first or witnessed the chaos in which these native nations find themselves dealing with a passed that once the state identity policies have said had no future? The most obvious is to consider, regardless of one's opinion of identity policies, what is the right thing to do to help these populations in dealing with their linguistic and cultural heritage in an interconnected society, securing their heritage future for the role it plays as a moderator and in the safety of their homeland.
That's what came to my mind but why did you ask? Don't know since I wasn't there but most of the time people that try to use the ambiguous designation of identity policies for the FCNM and the ECRML do it to throw dirt at it. Excluding partisanship these conventions pursue one goal which is to repair the wrong that has been done to a wide range of nations precisely under an identity policy umbrella when the long term negative consequences on the populations and their descent were ignored.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire