Hacker News Reader

>The fact that the US has indivisibility in it's constitution is a weird historical wrinkle, and one I find hard to reconcile given that they chose to separate from Britain. How they didn't recognise a general right for self determination is beyond me. But then I am a Brit.

This is incorrect. The US Constitution doesn't mention indivisibility [1]. The Tenth amendment provides some Rights to self determination:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

So while the constitution doesn't address succession by a state, the historical context of our Civil War, and court cases in its aftermath ended most of the debate on if and how states could succeed from the Union.

From Texas v. White [2]:

>When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

That establishes that succession must have the consent of the States, which is a similar bar to amending the Constitution. But its interesting that the case cited pre-constitutional law, i.e. the Articles of Confederation.

[1] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Yes that was an unfair dig, my apologies.

> Examples of regions that have peacefully seceded from a nation abound. Norway from Sweden, Greenland and Iceland from Denmark, multiple states from the former Soviet Union.

Czechia and Slovakia in 1993.

> The result is that the vast majority of official members of 'ethnic minorities' have virtually, or actually no connection with the ethnic culture, but get full say in how their 'minority' is represented and treated

Your whole last paragraph was genuinely interesting and not something I've heard of before. Do you have a source I could read for more information?

It's really just my own observation and discussion with family and friends. We can see it happening.

This phenomenon is certainly not limited to China. Elizabeth Warren is the public example who comes to mind, although I suspect that many of us know people who claim particular backgrounds for their personal advantage.

Warrens actions were misguided, but it’s a stretch to read malice into it. To me the line not to cross is marginalising the voices or representation of those genuinely culturally indigenous, or of a minority.

> It's oppressive enough of minorities just in the relatively peaceful areas I've visited.

What first-hand things (that you saw for yourself) can you use to corroborate this?

When I first went to China I read up on my wife’s home town online and found out about a native book store trying to preserve their culture so I though I’d check it out. When I visited it had been raided by the police ‘to prevent copyright violations’ and closed down. The shops everywhere were chock full of ripped off CDs and movies, but here this one time they decide to enforce that?

My wife is native Han but about a third of her relatives are officially minorities. None of them speak the minority language or read the script or have anything to do with minority culture. Minority script is used all over the place, but I talked to a university lecturer that’s a friend of the family, he told me most of the signs are gibberish, and told me how to spot ones that had been put up upside down. It’s a farce.