sum won,
for one minute u are talking about politics, next moment u are talking about resurrection of an old culture. i think u are contradicting urself, and i.m.o. no politics stand alone without culture. anyway, i am not a chinese nationale so there is no nationalistic ideas or 'dismantelling of china' thingy with me. just that i think its not practical.
A Separate Cantonese Republic???
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
Actually, I'm not contradicting myself one bit. There is nothing wrong with seperating politics and cultural issues, in this forum. Sure, when looking into the history and culture of a country/people, you'd also have to take into account the political atmosphere. The reason why I tried to seperate the political comments from the cultural ones in this forum, was because most of the comments which make up http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 1510&t=400
are political, when the original question was merely cultural.
I want to resurrect a dead culture, because culture's a part of humanity, so to do such a thing, would mean bringing back a part of our humanity.
On the issue of "dismanteling" country boundaries, I'll have to make another one of my many apologies; this time, for making it so sino-centric. What about dismanteling Singapore (and any other country for that matter of fact) as a sovereign nation, and incorporating it's territory into the World-nation? Maybe some of you don't harbor any "nationalistic feelings for China", but what about the countries you live in? Would you mind giving up your citizenship for your country if it means becoming a citizen of the world-nation, or do you have too much pride for that?
are political, when the original question was merely cultural.
I want to resurrect a dead culture, because culture's a part of humanity, so to do such a thing, would mean bringing back a part of our humanity.
On the issue of "dismanteling" country boundaries, I'll have to make another one of my many apologies; this time, for making it so sino-centric. What about dismanteling Singapore (and any other country for that matter of fact) as a sovereign nation, and incorporating it's territory into the World-nation? Maybe some of you don't harbor any "nationalistic feelings for China", but what about the countries you live in? Would you mind giving up your citizenship for your country if it means becoming a citizen of the world-nation, or do you have too much pride for that?
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
to a certain degree yes, based on fair and acceptable grounds, and a genuine need for that, it's possible to merge with another country.
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
Just for a note: It's not just merging one country with another, it's merging all the countries of the world into one nation, and then restructuring districts/provinces. Not necessarily keeping the borders of a country.
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
only when there is a genuine need, or obvious advantage. if u took up some economics u would probably know 'economies of scale', that is to say, a company will cut down costs as it grows bigger and purchase raw materials in bulk, producing larger volumes etc, and make more money. supermarkets also enjoy larger discount from distributors than small shops cos they get things in bulk. but there will be a saturation point, where growing bigger doesnt make more money, but increased costs instead, due to management problems and other issues. so merging of countries will also have to face the same problem. there will be a optimal size, depends on the various conditions/backgrounds of the country or the region itself. going beyond that limit may give more problems than benefits, and things might as well stay as it is. being global does not necessary meant merging blindly for the sake of merging. the benefits to the ppl concerned is probably still the no.1 priority.
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
You're not going against globalization of the economy, are you? If we focus on the trading aspect of the economy, the system just means "people leeching off of each other". When you talk about size, input/output, you'd have a point. I hate economics personally (so "yeah, that might explain why I choose 'leeching' for the word, or how about 'symbiotic parasites trying to outwin each other for a better deal'?"). I'm a simple man when it comes to economics, what ever happened to "just make what you need"? Obviously, the human race is always looking for an advantage of some type over the other one (particularly, money in this case).
Your mention of "raw resources" is pretty accurate in the contemporary economic sense. However, don't count out the environmentalists and recycling as an alternative source for resources. Many products formerly made with metal, are now being replaced by some plastic-alloy (which is recyclable), and cars of the future will most likely be made with a plastic-alloy, instead of using something as heavy as metal (lighter weight, equals better milage, and less oil). Cars of the future will not require gasoline to be powered, which might put OPEC in a bind. So, these OPEC countries will have to change their economic strategy. Rather than selling oil off to outher countries to make gasoline, they might make more plastic (which is very easily molded into many other things, and has a different type of molecular bond, so as to let it combine with metals and other substances, to result with something like the previous example of plastic-alloy). Many other things are being recycled, but I won't go into them any further...
Other areas of change will happen. For one, companies that have contracts with governments to make certain weapons and tools for war will not longer be need, because with the Earth itself as a nation, and no contact with any life forms outside our solar system (assuming if there are any), who are we going to fight? So these companies will obviously make something else like better airplanes, or maybe rockets for space exploration. Whatever changes they make, it will affect this economy, by what products they provide.
Now, with the world-economy at present, countries competing with other countries (and in some cases, conglomerates like the EU) is the "prime directive". Why do they compete? To gain more money than the other, obviously. For without currency, there would be no economy whatsoever. Now, without any national boundaries, who are they competing with? They [the country] won't be competing with each other at all. The companies will be the only ones fighting with each other for markets to the point of monopolies in each industry forming, as a result of too much competition to the point of wiping out your competitors. Don't forget government intervention though. How much or how little the government intervenes on business, is unknown to any of us however. Then of course, that's using contemporary methods to solve a problem of the future --not a good idea, as history shows. A new economy means new ways of doing things.
One new thing for the economy would be our currency. When the economy combines into one giant freak-of-nature, that means our level of currency will be the same --no need for exchange rates-- so certain things will be at the same price no matter which country you visit. So, using contemporary measures, companies will try to out beat the other in reducing their prices. People will flock to the place with the lowest price, which means nearly depleting our natural resources (to the point that recycling won't do much), and according to supply and demand, prices will rise dramatically. (I believe this is what you were referring to, right?)
Let's look at this dilemma carefully though. One major resource any human must need is food --without it, we die, so it's something pretty important! The stuff that grows out of the ground (crops) will be sold off, while something else will grow on top of it (part of the crop rotation method). Every plot of crop will take time to grow. During this time, the crop that’s been sold, will obviously be bought by some consumer at some point. With the prices being cut down on the market’s behalf, will it mean that people will be buying as much as they can? Not if they’re smart consumers who know that this crop won’t taste that good if left in the refrigerator too long. Most likely, they’re only going to buy as much as they need for the day(s)/week(s), instead of stockpiling it. So competition will become stagnant when it comes to crops, because a vegetarian can only take so much food a day.
Now the meat we eat comes from killing animals (sorry for not surgar-coating the phrase, but it’s basically true). Steak is pretty expensive, because it’s good in quality and rare in quantity (not cooking method). The steak and other meat are always prepared with a little different variety, which will possibly be the only cause for going to different restaurants in the future. Does this mean everyone will be flocking to restaurants to try the newest twist on their steak or poultry? No, because even though the prices for a “type of food” are the same, there is still variety in the type of meat we buy, and the quality of it, so prices vary accordingly. People might go for the more expensive meat for its quality (but buy less), while some go for the not-so-good quality, but maybe buy more (if the quality is good enough). This also relates to restaurants: High-quality restaurants will go for the previous, while fast-food restaurants will follow the latter. How can fast-food restaurants survive? Easy, with this world going so fast, who has time to cook other than the chefs themselves? Now, demands for crops won’t get out of hand, because demand only reaches to a certain level –in other words, it doesn’t taste as good as meat. How do we stop the demand for meat? Let the market remedy itself. Prices go up, less people buy it. This allows time for farmers to let nature take its course, and as the animals multiply, the meat level will rise again. While the prices are up for meat, how do we get our protein if it drops to a dramatic level? There are always tofu products that are made to taste like some of the meat we’re used to (don’t know if they’re really good though). If not, there are always nuts… These last two products are crops, for my ideas of what happens to them, look at the previous paragraph.
Don’t forget however, everything living is always vulnerable to diseases. Genetics won’t play a role, because that means making exact copies of something that will be resistant to a type of bacteria/virus, while the disease just mutates, or rather “adapts” to its environment, killing off all the copies. Once again, variety in anything is necessary. The selective process will not longer be used, because it means keeping our food.
As a result of more food reaching the markets, our population will skyrocket. Poverty will be solved. What do we do? For starters, the one-child policy will be the first choice. What do we do with a family that breaks this policy? That’s a different issue.
Another solution would be to invest in technologies to allow us to colonize other areas of our solar system, like the moon. Or, develop better technology to make space stations habitable for humans. Both however, will take centuries of time before it actually happens. The only alternative to this is cannibalism –I’m sure none of us here are in favor or that however! (the one-child policy still stands…) Not only that, but we also have to have enough nutrients for our animals, so they can grow up, and give us their meat (or help in the birth process and give us more meat for the future).
Basically, what it all comes down to, is us. Economics in general, means the management of resources. I may have some flaws here, but I know I can always count on all of you to make suggestions.
Your mention of "raw resources" is pretty accurate in the contemporary economic sense. However, don't count out the environmentalists and recycling as an alternative source for resources. Many products formerly made with metal, are now being replaced by some plastic-alloy (which is recyclable), and cars of the future will most likely be made with a plastic-alloy, instead of using something as heavy as metal (lighter weight, equals better milage, and less oil). Cars of the future will not require gasoline to be powered, which might put OPEC in a bind. So, these OPEC countries will have to change their economic strategy. Rather than selling oil off to outher countries to make gasoline, they might make more plastic (which is very easily molded into many other things, and has a different type of molecular bond, so as to let it combine with metals and other substances, to result with something like the previous example of plastic-alloy). Many other things are being recycled, but I won't go into them any further...
Other areas of change will happen. For one, companies that have contracts with governments to make certain weapons and tools for war will not longer be need, because with the Earth itself as a nation, and no contact with any life forms outside our solar system (assuming if there are any), who are we going to fight? So these companies will obviously make something else like better airplanes, or maybe rockets for space exploration. Whatever changes they make, it will affect this economy, by what products they provide.
Now, with the world-economy at present, countries competing with other countries (and in some cases, conglomerates like the EU) is the "prime directive". Why do they compete? To gain more money than the other, obviously. For without currency, there would be no economy whatsoever. Now, without any national boundaries, who are they competing with? They [the country] won't be competing with each other at all. The companies will be the only ones fighting with each other for markets to the point of monopolies in each industry forming, as a result of too much competition to the point of wiping out your competitors. Don't forget government intervention though. How much or how little the government intervenes on business, is unknown to any of us however. Then of course, that's using contemporary methods to solve a problem of the future --not a good idea, as history shows. A new economy means new ways of doing things.
One new thing for the economy would be our currency. When the economy combines into one giant freak-of-nature, that means our level of currency will be the same --no need for exchange rates-- so certain things will be at the same price no matter which country you visit. So, using contemporary measures, companies will try to out beat the other in reducing their prices. People will flock to the place with the lowest price, which means nearly depleting our natural resources (to the point that recycling won't do much), and according to supply and demand, prices will rise dramatically. (I believe this is what you were referring to, right?)
Let's look at this dilemma carefully though. One major resource any human must need is food --without it, we die, so it's something pretty important! The stuff that grows out of the ground (crops) will be sold off, while something else will grow on top of it (part of the crop rotation method). Every plot of crop will take time to grow. During this time, the crop that’s been sold, will obviously be bought by some consumer at some point. With the prices being cut down on the market’s behalf, will it mean that people will be buying as much as they can? Not if they’re smart consumers who know that this crop won’t taste that good if left in the refrigerator too long. Most likely, they’re only going to buy as much as they need for the day(s)/week(s), instead of stockpiling it. So competition will become stagnant when it comes to crops, because a vegetarian can only take so much food a day.
Now the meat we eat comes from killing animals (sorry for not surgar-coating the phrase, but it’s basically true). Steak is pretty expensive, because it’s good in quality and rare in quantity (not cooking method). The steak and other meat are always prepared with a little different variety, which will possibly be the only cause for going to different restaurants in the future. Does this mean everyone will be flocking to restaurants to try the newest twist on their steak or poultry? No, because even though the prices for a “type of food” are the same, there is still variety in the type of meat we buy, and the quality of it, so prices vary accordingly. People might go for the more expensive meat for its quality (but buy less), while some go for the not-so-good quality, but maybe buy more (if the quality is good enough). This also relates to restaurants: High-quality restaurants will go for the previous, while fast-food restaurants will follow the latter. How can fast-food restaurants survive? Easy, with this world going so fast, who has time to cook other than the chefs themselves? Now, demands for crops won’t get out of hand, because demand only reaches to a certain level –in other words, it doesn’t taste as good as meat. How do we stop the demand for meat? Let the market remedy itself. Prices go up, less people buy it. This allows time for farmers to let nature take its course, and as the animals multiply, the meat level will rise again. While the prices are up for meat, how do we get our protein if it drops to a dramatic level? There are always tofu products that are made to taste like some of the meat we’re used to (don’t know if they’re really good though). If not, there are always nuts… These last two products are crops, for my ideas of what happens to them, look at the previous paragraph.
Don’t forget however, everything living is always vulnerable to diseases. Genetics won’t play a role, because that means making exact copies of something that will be resistant to a type of bacteria/virus, while the disease just mutates, or rather “adapts” to its environment, killing off all the copies. Once again, variety in anything is necessary. The selective process will not longer be used, because it means keeping our food.
As a result of more food reaching the markets, our population will skyrocket. Poverty will be solved. What do we do? For starters, the one-child policy will be the first choice. What do we do with a family that breaks this policy? That’s a different issue.
Another solution would be to invest in technologies to allow us to colonize other areas of our solar system, like the moon. Or, develop better technology to make space stations habitable for humans. Both however, will take centuries of time before it actually happens. The only alternative to this is cannibalism –I’m sure none of us here are in favor or that however! (the one-child policy still stands…) Not only that, but we also have to have enough nutrients for our animals, so they can grow up, and give us their meat (or help in the birth process and give us more meat for the future).
Basically, what it all comes down to, is us. Economics in general, means the management of resources. I may have some flaws here, but I know I can always count on all of you to make suggestions.
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
i am not against globalisation but i think there are more ways to do it than simply merging.
i meant 'raw materials' as in unprocessed materials, opposite of end products. sources not exactly directly from nature, could be recycled ones, and newly invented raw materials is in this category too.
i dun think the world will merge into a big country. even if it does, and we use one currency, prices will still be very different when buying thngs at different places. even within the same country now, we can see that places nearer to the source or have a lower rent or a cheaper crew will have lower prices. in places where only few competitors there might be higher prices, and not all have the means to flock to the cheaper source, if its on a global scale. would u want to fly to the land of japan for a sushi meal, if u can get it at ur neighbourhood, even if they charged 50% higher than in japan? the price of the ticket would made the trip worthless.
i meant 'raw materials' as in unprocessed materials, opposite of end products. sources not exactly directly from nature, could be recycled ones, and newly invented raw materials is in this category too.
i dun think the world will merge into a big country. even if it does, and we use one currency, prices will still be very different when buying thngs at different places. even within the same country now, we can see that places nearer to the source or have a lower rent or a cheaper crew will have lower prices. in places where only few competitors there might be higher prices, and not all have the means to flock to the cheaper source, if its on a global scale. would u want to fly to the land of japan for a sushi meal, if u can get it at ur neighbourhood, even if they charged 50% higher than in japan? the price of the ticket would made the trip worthless.
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
"No" would be my response to that last question. However, as I pointed, there will be changes in the economy, but surely enough, there will be similarities and things that stay the same.
You don't like globalization of the economy (I don't either, for it's environmental effects, and the ignoring of people's demands on political issues for the sake of corporations), however the one-world nation will be forced to acknowledge the minority people of the world, such as the Native-Americans, Micronesians, and others, who are actually environment-cautious. With this system of balancing nature, our resources (be it recycled or raw), and our needs and wants, they will work out in the end.
Putting the one-world nation aside, back to the "globalization vs. [Cantonese] seperation issue":
If China won't dissolve it's government institute to join the one-world nation, that would mean we have an excuse not to stick with China as a people. Once again, this brings us back to the Cantonese-Chinese-Yue issue. As established in this forum, "Cantonese" [the people] are a mixed race of "Chinese" and "other" (I'll cover this "other" in further detail later). Here's where the split begins....
You define "Chinese" as a mixed race of people. If we see it that way, then "yes" there have justification for keeping the Cantonese with the Chinese.
I define "Chinese" by the sense of location, that they originated from the upper central valley near the Yellow River. So if they weren't originally from the south, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Now, with the "other" category. I still remain unwaivering on the concept that "Yue" is a nomenclature given to the local inhabitants of LingNan, and prefer to call the "Lac Viet" (Luo Yue) residing within Modern-day GuangDong and eastern section of GuangXi as "proto-Cantonese" (and believing that the "Lac Viet" in modern-day Northern VietNam are Champas who absorbed "proto-Cantonese" and "Xi Ou" culture), while you still "go straight with the books", and still refer to them as the "Yue". To add to this "other" interpretation, the person who goes under the alias of "Yue", refers to these same people as the VietNamese.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "Yue" is right, then these same people should become a part of the VietName territory. If anyone disagrees to this arrangement, then China might as well annex VietNam and the rest of IndoChina while they're at it. This however, goes against anything the UN stands for, and wouldn't look good for China.
The real debate however, is between the justification between keeping the Cantonese regions as a part of China, and forming a seperate Republic, for which I shall re-present my arguements in advocating a seperate Cantonese government...
1. We aren't fully "Chinese" (in the context of my definitions).
2. If you look at the Confucian texts, you'll notice that Confucious was only worried in the governance of people, not land. Hence, advocacy for assimilation rears it's ugly head. Homogeny, and better communication is a plus for assimilation. Ignorance towards the truth of the past, is a minus for assimlation. Another minus would be the denial to these people for their own development of their own culture.
2-i. A killing of a culture, is a killing of part of humanity. Restoring it means bringing a part of humanity back.
3. Ironically, the advocacy for a seperate has a model, described here:
http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 359&t=1350
You don't like globalization of the economy (I don't either, for it's environmental effects, and the ignoring of people's demands on political issues for the sake of corporations), however the one-world nation will be forced to acknowledge the minority people of the world, such as the Native-Americans, Micronesians, and others, who are actually environment-cautious. With this system of balancing nature, our resources (be it recycled or raw), and our needs and wants, they will work out in the end.
Putting the one-world nation aside, back to the "globalization vs. [Cantonese] seperation issue":
If China won't dissolve it's government institute to join the one-world nation, that would mean we have an excuse not to stick with China as a people. Once again, this brings us back to the Cantonese-Chinese-Yue issue. As established in this forum, "Cantonese" [the people] are a mixed race of "Chinese" and "other" (I'll cover this "other" in further detail later). Here's where the split begins....
You define "Chinese" as a mixed race of people. If we see it that way, then "yes" there have justification for keeping the Cantonese with the Chinese.
I define "Chinese" by the sense of location, that they originated from the upper central valley near the Yellow River. So if they weren't originally from the south, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Now, with the "other" category. I still remain unwaivering on the concept that "Yue" is a nomenclature given to the local inhabitants of LingNan, and prefer to call the "Lac Viet" (Luo Yue) residing within Modern-day GuangDong and eastern section of GuangXi as "proto-Cantonese" (and believing that the "Lac Viet" in modern-day Northern VietNam are Champas who absorbed "proto-Cantonese" and "Xi Ou" culture), while you still "go straight with the books", and still refer to them as the "Yue". To add to this "other" interpretation, the person who goes under the alias of "Yue", refers to these same people as the VietNamese.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "Yue" is right, then these same people should become a part of the VietName territory. If anyone disagrees to this arrangement, then China might as well annex VietNam and the rest of IndoChina while they're at it. This however, goes against anything the UN stands for, and wouldn't look good for China.
The real debate however, is between the justification between keeping the Cantonese regions as a part of China, and forming a seperate Republic, for which I shall re-present my arguements in advocating a seperate Cantonese government...
1. We aren't fully "Chinese" (in the context of my definitions).
2. If you look at the Confucian texts, you'll notice that Confucious was only worried in the governance of people, not land. Hence, advocacy for assimilation rears it's ugly head. Homogeny, and better communication is a plus for assimilation. Ignorance towards the truth of the past, is a minus for assimlation. Another minus would be the denial to these people for their own development of their own culture.
2-i. A killing of a culture, is a killing of part of humanity. Restoring it means bringing a part of humanity back.
3. Ironically, the advocacy for a seperate has a model, described here:
http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 359&t=1350
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
u are not reading carefully. i meant 'not merging beyond marginal economies', not 'not merging at all'. so your following argument dont stand.
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
i think i have to make myself clear, thou i dun really support merging blindly, that doesnt make me automatically a supporter for separation. i am not supportive of any separation, esp on ridiculous reasoning. anyway, u cant say accurately which race u actually belong, so ur call for separation dun stand. if u think that u are not totally chinese, neither are u totally viets, and so ur revival of your ancient culture, whose culture? and i guess u are probably genetically more chinese than viets, and its pretty safe for me to conclude that u should put ur affiliation to chinese culture.
refusing separation doesnt mean that china have to go to the other extreme. i think u are restricting ur choices. things can just remain the way it is for another 1000 yrs and i dont see the problem.
even if u are supportive of yue's idea, he counldnt prove his true racial origins too. who are the vietnamese? for vietnamese is, also racially (at least)a mixture of 54 races, and can he be sure of which race he came from? so his claim of guangdong as a 'vietnamese' land, too, dont stand. cos who are the real people among the (at least)54 existing vietnamese races lived in guangdong before the chinese came, so that we can return the land to them? both of u cannot tell either. may i ask yue why not the vietnamese return the south vietnamese land to the chams, which the vietnamese have annexed since the 15th century? vietnam should set a good example for the chinese to follow, isnt it? i can tell u sum won, that ur racial defination wont stand. u can only take my citizenship defination for whatever '-nese' or '-ians' or '-ans' u are talking about.
and bringing up confucianism is pointless. at present nobody is using confucianism as a guide line for international matters anyway, the standard is not acceptable. why? cos if u really wanna talk confucian, then i can tell u, 'the lands bound by the seas belonged to the emperor and the people under the sun are the subjects of the emperor'(率土之滨，莫非王土，普天之下，莫非王臣), do u accept this confucian doctrine from 'shangshu'? according to this, the whole of indochina will go directly under china without questions. and who said confucianism lay no rules on land?
restoring a culture have no direct relation with merger or separation of land, politics does. do u mean the restoration of the roman culture will have to start with the restoration of the territory of the roman empire? or restoring the mongolian cultural will have to restore the territory of mongolian empire first? in history, different people from different culture backgrounds destroy, assimilate, or adopt other cultures. the restoration of one, with the land to come along, will mean the destruction of another. which one have the priority? in singapore, the city state i lived in, restoration of different cultures doesnt mean that the country have to be split among the 3 major races. i am sure u must have heard of the term 'co-existance'.
refusing separation doesnt mean that china have to go to the other extreme. i think u are restricting ur choices. things can just remain the way it is for another 1000 yrs and i dont see the problem.
even if u are supportive of yue's idea, he counldnt prove his true racial origins too. who are the vietnamese? for vietnamese is, also racially (at least)a mixture of 54 races, and can he be sure of which race he came from? so his claim of guangdong as a 'vietnamese' land, too, dont stand. cos who are the real people among the (at least)54 existing vietnamese races lived in guangdong before the chinese came, so that we can return the land to them? both of u cannot tell either. may i ask yue why not the vietnamese return the south vietnamese land to the chams, which the vietnamese have annexed since the 15th century? vietnam should set a good example for the chinese to follow, isnt it? i can tell u sum won, that ur racial defination wont stand. u can only take my citizenship defination for whatever '-nese' or '-ians' or '-ans' u are talking about.
and bringing up confucianism is pointless. at present nobody is using confucianism as a guide line for international matters anyway, the standard is not acceptable. why? cos if u really wanna talk confucian, then i can tell u, 'the lands bound by the seas belonged to the emperor and the people under the sun are the subjects of the emperor'(率土之滨，莫非王土，普天之下，莫非王臣), do u accept this confucian doctrine from 'shangshu'? according to this, the whole of indochina will go directly under china without questions. and who said confucianism lay no rules on land?
restoring a culture have no direct relation with merger or separation of land, politics does. do u mean the restoration of the roman culture will have to start with the restoration of the territory of the roman empire? or restoring the mongolian cultural will have to restore the territory of mongolian empire first? in history, different people from different culture backgrounds destroy, assimilate, or adopt other cultures. the restoration of one, with the land to come along, will mean the destruction of another. which one have the priority? in singapore, the city state i lived in, restoration of different cultures doesnt mean that the country have to be split among the 3 major races. i am sure u must have heard of the term 'co-existance'.