Can a country be established and/or maintained without the use of violence?

[Rigs83]

Canada and Singapore are the only examples I can think of at the moment.

Technically, some former colonies could count, like French Guiana, Iceland, or Swaziland, since violence wasn't involved in their independence and they don't have many if any violent disputes with those around them.

Canada loses because of what was done to the indigenous people.

Wiped out due to disease?

And bullets

 

[Ophiuchus]

Yes it can. Just ask Danny Wallace.

 

[DemonicVixen]

If only... I wish it could but noone bothers to try. Im sure there are ways around ruling a country without the need for crime, violence and hurt. Why can't we live in harmony?

 

[quiet_samurai]

Established: Possibly

Maintained: No, look at Tibet.

 

[Lonan]

Canada. YAY US!

We'll see when Quebec finally decides that they're going to break off ;P

Quebec is overwhelmingly a part of Canada, and will never separate. That ended a long time ago. But I doubt an American constantly wanting to divide and conquer would understand that.

 

[Lavi]

Canada. YAY US!

We'll see when Quebec finally decides that they're going to break off ;P

Every Albertan would be lining up to get to go to war with them, that much is assured. I would never allow them to leave the dominion while I draw breath.

Seconded! The moment those seperatists had any kind of success, us Ontarians would be up in arms to invade them and stamp out their language.

Besides, they'll never vote to seperate, they just like to whine. There are several nationalists.

EDIT: Actually, something that suprised me while I was knocking around Canada, BC is one of the worst provinces for anti-french sentiment.

by they, I mean seperatists.

Saskatchewan here. We HATE Quebec... and Natives, but I blame the news for the perpetuation of racism in this goddamn old-people province! Anyways, who actually LIKES Quebec other than... Quebec?

 

[Lonan]

Canada and Singapore are the only examples I can think of at the moment.

Technically, some former colonies could count, like French Guiana, Iceland, or Swaziland, since violence wasn't involved in their independence and they don't have many if any violent disputes with those around them.

Canada loses because of what was done to the indigenous people.

Wiped out due to disease?

And bullets

You're a dumbass, that was in the U.S.

 

[Rigs83]

Canada and Singapore are the only examples I can think of at the moment.

Technically, some former colonies could count, like French Guiana, Iceland, or Swaziland, since violence wasn't involved in their independence and they don't have many if any violent disputes with those around them.

Canada loses because of what was done to the indigenous people.

Wiped out due to disease?

And bullets

You're a dumbass, that was in the U.S.

You are ignorant of history.
From the late 18th century, European Canadians encouraged Aboriginals to assimilate into their own culture, referred to as "Canadian culture".[98][99] These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration. Due to laws and policies that encouraged or required Aboriginals to assimilate into a Eurocentric society, Canada may be in violation of the United Nations Genocide Convention that Canada signed in 1949 and passed through Parliament in 1952.[100] The residential school system that removed Aboriginal children from their homes for placement in Christian-run schools has led scholars to believe that Canada can be tried in international court for genocide.[100] In 2008 Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of the Canadian government and its citizens for the residential school system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada

 

[yankeefan19]

Fuck no. Pretty much to be a country you must be able to defend yourself if attacked. I mean, Switzerland never fights but even they have an army, the reason being if another country wanted to attack them, well they're fucked if they're attacked without weapons.

 

[Soxafloppin]

They could 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' over it, i guess.

 

[Lonan]

Canada and Singapore are the only examples I can think of at the moment.

Technically, some former colonies could count, like French Guiana, Iceland, or Swaziland, since violence wasn't involved in their independence and they don't have many if any violent disputes with those around them.

Canada loses because of what was done to the indigenous people.

Wiped out due to disease?

And bullets

You're a dumbass, that was in the U.S.

You are ignorant of history.
From the late 18th century, European Canadians encouraged Aboriginals to assimilate into their own culture, referred to as "Canadian culture".[98][99] These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration. Due to laws and policies that encouraged or required Aboriginals to assimilate into a Eurocentric society, Canada may be in violation of the United Nations Genocide Convention that Canada signed in 1949 and passed through Parliament in 1952.[100] The residential school system that removed Aboriginal children from their homes for placement in Christian-run schools has led scholars to believe that Canada can be tried in international court for genocide.[100] In 2008 Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of the Canadian government and its citizens for the residential school system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada

There's a big difference between putting people into residential schools and shooting them with bullets. I'm not ignorant of history for saying that natives were not wiped out by bullets. And as for the residential schools, they were to try to integrate natives into Canadian society. Those who did not integrate live on about $2300 a month living on a reserve. It's just enough to survive, not enough to go on a vacation, not enough to be at the standard of living of the majority of Canadians. The government knew this would happen, and tried to prevent it. It had success and failure in it's attempts, but don't try to make the government's efforts to bring natives out of reserves and poverty and into the highly prosperous mainstream Canadian society into genocide, which involves outright killing people based on perceived similarities. And certainly don't equate that to the completely fictitious use of bullets and violence.

Don't even THINK about bringing up the UN when it comes to genocide. They didn't have the balls to stop the REAL genocide in Sudan, so they're rubbing their clits and trying to squeeze out their pathetic attempts at morality on Canada. It's sort of like when when you take out the bullying problems you had at school out on the only people who aren't mean to you, you're parents. And Canada is definitely the parents of the UN, and our kids should really stop pounding on our chests and then crying into our arms when the big bad warlords start picking on them at school. But the UN is well over 18, so there isn't much we can do.

 

[Rigs83]

Canada and Singapore are the only examples I can think of at the moment.

Technically, some former colonies could count, like French Guiana, Iceland, or Swaziland, since violence wasn't involved in their independence and they don't have many if any violent disputes with those around them.

Canada loses because of what was done to the indigenous people.

Wiped out due to disease?

And bullets

You're a dumbass, that was in the U.S.

You are ignorant of history.
From the late 18th century, European Canadians encouraged Aboriginals to assimilate into their own culture, referred to as "Canadian culture".[98][99] These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration. Due to laws and policies that encouraged or required Aboriginals to assimilate into a Eurocentric society, Canada may be in violation of the United Nations Genocide Convention that Canada signed in 1949 and passed through Parliament in 1952.[100] The residential school system that removed Aboriginal children from their homes for placement in Christian-run schools has led scholars to believe that Canada can be tried in international court for genocide.[100] In 2008 Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of the Canadian government and its citizens for the residential school system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada

There's a big difference between putting people into residential schools and shooting them with bullets. I'm not ignorant of history for saying that natives were not wiped out by bullets. And as for the residential schools, they were to try to integrate natives into Canadian society. Those who did not integrate live on about $2300 a month living on a reserve. It's just enough to survive, not enough to go on a vacation, not enough to be at the standard of living of the majority of Canadians. The government knew this would happen, and tried to prevent it. It had success and failure in it's attempts, but don't try to make the government's efforts to bring natives out of reserves and poverty and into the highly prosperous mainstream Canadian society into genocide, which involves outright killing people based on perceived similarities. And certainly don't equate that to the completely fictitious use of bullets and violence.

Don't even THINK about bringing up the UN when it comes to genocide. They didn't have the balls to stop the REAL genocide in Sudan, so they're rubbing their clits and trying to squeeze out their pathetic attempts at morality on Canada. It's sort of like when when you take out the bullying problems you had at school out on the only people who aren't mean to you, you're parents. And Canada is definitely the parents of the UN, and our kids should really stop pounding on our chests and then crying into our arms when the big bad warlords start picking on them at school. But the UN is well over 18, so there isn't much we can do.

You seem to not notice that the reason why Native peoples in the Americas are impoverished is because much if not all of their ancestral lands were taken from them by force. If I show up at your house, kick you out, make you live in a tent buy the trash dump for a few weeks and then offer you the chance to move into the garden shed in the back I still screwed you out of your rightfullly owned home. Truth be told all none native peoples (that includes me and perhaps you)living in the Americas are the benefactors of ethnic cleansing.
In the US they implemented similar plans of moving Native Americans from the reservations to the cities but all that did was turn poor Native Americans living in a reservation into poor Native Americans living in a city. As for the casinos they are all loosing money since the recession hit.
And concerning Sudan, every initiative taken to try to stop the violence is blocked by China because it is the Sudanese governments biggest trade partner.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Sadly no, it is human nature to be violent.
Sure you could make a society where everyone is equal, but there will be at least one person who thinks, Why be equal? Why cant i be better?

 

[Jory]

First of all, you would have to be completely out of touch with the rest of the world. You would have no never be at risk from invasion. Then I think if you hand picked your society and started small, it could possibly work.

 

[Kollega]

Establish a country without violence? Why yes, you can. Maintain and defend it? Certainly not.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

Buhtan would be a good first example.

Maybe Finland (though I wouldn't try to fight a war against them... ever.)

 

[Lonan]

Canada and Singapore are the only examples I can think of at the moment.

Technically, some former colonies could count, like French Guiana, Iceland, or Swaziland, since violence wasn't involved in their independence and they don't have many if any violent disputes with those around them.

Canada loses because of what was done to the indigenous people.

Wiped out due to disease?

And bullets

You're a dumbass, that was in the U.S.

You are ignorant of history.
From the late 18th century, European Canadians encouraged Aboriginals to assimilate into their own culture, referred to as "Canadian culture".[98][99] These attempts reached a climax in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with forced integration. Due to laws and policies that encouraged or required Aboriginals to assimilate into a Eurocentric society, Canada may be in violation of the United Nations Genocide Convention that Canada signed in 1949 and passed through Parliament in 1952.[100] The residential school system that removed Aboriginal children from their homes for placement in Christian-run schools has led scholars to believe that Canada can be tried in international court for genocide.[100] In 2008 Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of the Canadian government and its citizens for the residential school system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada

There's a big difference between putting people into residential schools and shooting them with bullets. I'm not ignorant of history for saying that natives were not wiped out by bullets. And as for the residential schools, they were to try to integrate natives into Canadian society. Those who did not integrate live on about $2300 a month living on a reserve. It's just enough to survive, not enough to go on a vacation, not enough to be at the standard of living of the majority of Canadians. The government knew this would happen, and tried to prevent it. It had success and failure in it's attempts, but don't try to make the government's efforts to bring natives out of reserves and poverty and into the highly prosperous mainstream Canadian society into genocide, which involves outright killing people based on perceived similarities. And certainly don't equate that to the completely fictitious use of bullets and violence.

Don't even THINK about bringing up the UN when it comes to genocide. They didn't have the balls to stop the REAL genocide in Sudan, so they're rubbing their clits and trying to squeeze out their pathetic attempts at morality on Canada. It's sort of like when when you take out the bullying problems you had at school out on the only people who aren't mean to you, you're parents. And Canada is definitely the parents of the UN, and our kids should really stop pounding on our chests and then crying into our arms when the big bad warlords start picking on them at school. But the UN is well over 18, so there isn't much we can do.

You seem to not notice that the reason why Native peoples in the Americas are impoverished is because much if not all of their ancestral lands were taken from them by force. If I show up at your house, kick you out, make you live in a tent buy the trash dump for a few weeks and then offer you the chance to move into the garden shed in the back I still screwed you out of your rightfullly owned home. Truth be told all none native peoples (that includes me and perhaps you)living in the Americas are the benefactors of ethnic cleansing.
In the US they implemented similar plans of moving Native Americans from the reservations to the cities but all that did was turn poor Native Americans living in a reservation into poor Native Americans living in a city. As for the casinos they are all loosing money since the recession hit.
And concerning Sudan, every initiative taken to try to stop the violence is blocked by China because it is the Sudanese governments biggest trade partner.

Well, I didn't know about China interfering with the genocide in Sudan, the UN usually takes more initiative, but I guess their hands are tied since China is a permanent member of the Security Council. However, you initially said that Canada wiped out natives with bullets, which is completely untrue.

 

[FungTheDestroy]

I'm thinking back to Social Studies 11, but wasn't a reason Canada was given independence in the 1900s was because of their successful campaigns, and overall involvement in the World Wars? You know, as in killing people?

And then obviously pointed out already were the Residential Schools, and also there are the Japanese internment camps.

Yay Canada...

 

[manaman]

There lies a rather Marxian way to lead to a society like that. Unfortunately, it is linked with the line of reasoning that leads to socialism where one man or one small group has all the power. The idea, according to Marx, is that you can reshape society to its needs when you're the one in power, and then you have to be willing to give up all power to let the country you've created rule itself in the manner of a Social-Democracy. That is, it's not the same kind of democracy the U.S. is suppose to be, but this crazy form of it born of a socialistic formula and avoiding outright dictatorship. I didn't get a full grasp of the idea, but I know how unlikely it is to go through with that final step, giving up power. How many people will actually do that?

I wouldn't you lot would never be rid of me if someone let me get some power.

As far as violence goes, eh, it would be nice if it was not necessary, but when has that ever happened.