Posted on 05/30/2011 3:10:09 AM PDT by 1010RD
The whole idea of homogeneous ethnic/linguistic “nationalities” grew up in the modern period in western Europe, where the facts on the ground bore some vague resemblance to the lines on the map.
It has been an utter disaster in eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world, where villages of different “nationalities” lived intermingled for many centuries, more or less in peace most of the time. When nationalism hit, the neighbors suddenly became interlopers in “my nation.”
There were parts of Macedonia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were claimed as their rightful property by Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey and Serbia all at the same time. The Albanians and/or Montenegrins might have been in on the act, too.
Claims ranged from historic to linguistic to racial. Maps were produced showing the “true boundaries” of the various “nations,” with massive overlapping.
Yet it’s perfectly obvious that it wasn’t possible for more than one of these claims to be implemented.
America has managed to dodge most of these bullets, as one can easily become and be accepted as an American. If you’re born a Bulgarian, you can’t become a Serb, at least not without betraying your entire heritage.
The Habsburg (Austr0-Hungarian) Empire lasted centuries under the rule of a more or less absolute autocrat. Aristocrats of all the “nationalities,” (German, Hungarian, Polish, Croat, Czech, etc.) all worked for the empire, more or less in equality. That being of course an equality between nobles. All of them together lording it over the peasants.
When nationalism became popular, this all fell apart. If the empire was to be German or Magyar, then the Slavs had no real place in it. Unless they wanted to stop being Slavs and become Germans or Hungarians. Assuming the Gs or Hs would let them do so.
Meantime: America has managed to dodge most of these bullets, as one can easily become and be accepted as an American.
Agreed. In your view, when & how did it become possible? How can it be sustained?
America, despite various attempts to make it so, has never been an ethnic nation. Madison (I think) said that two churches in a nation are a recipe for disaster. Many churches even things out, with none having a real potential to gain power, as a church, they give up the notion.
Similarly, the many ethnic groups among whites prevented any one of them from becoming dominant. Despite various attempts, Kno-Nothings and others, to make it so. Prejudice against Irish and Catholics, for example, prominent at the time of the Mexican War, seems to have largely dissipated by the time of the WBTS. Leastwise a very comprehensive history of the War I’m reading now seems to find only respect and admiration for the Irish on both sides.
America was a binary nation, white and black, for centuries. The great blot on our nation, of course, was how blacks were treated. But it was still only two groups in conflict.
Now we are so diverse I suspect we’re heading back towards the many ethnies/churches balancing each other out.
Much no doubt to the chagrin of the race-baiters, who have tried desparately to make the idea of “people of color” popular. IOW, all non-whites ganging up on whites. I see this notion gaining little traction outside the professional activist in-group.
John Derbyshire, OTOH, says that functionally America has only two races, black and non-black. Or possibly one could call the two races black and “people of pallor.”
As many have said, what makes an American an American is a belief system. It seems very odd to me that so many of those promoting immigration from everywhere are so interested in destroying or discrediting the belief system that makes one an American. I guess they don’t want the immigrants to become American, they want them to change (overthrow) the America they hate.
Interestingly, for the last couple of months I’ve worked closely with a young lady of dark complexion from Nigeria. How refreshing to have a “black” coworker who doesn’t seem to function with a constant undertone of hostility to whitey! I keep forgetting she’s black till I look up and see her again. Startles me each time.
They will unify against the infidels, even if they kill each other before, during, and after; hence their united opposition to Israel even existing.
Actually the Ottoman Empire at its height was a fairly successful multicultural state, like the Byzantine and Roman Empires it superseded. The Turkish nationalists not so much.
It, IMO, cannot function, by definition, in a constitutional republic where one culture is “the people” in control of the government. All other “peoples” in such a case will feel oppressed.
Had a chance to re-read your posts. Whilst I thought I understood your comments, my questions are:
How can a “constitutional republic” (a system of government), by which I assume you also mean a “representative democracy”, only represent “one culture is the people in control of the government”, hence alienating or antagonizing “other peoples” to feel oppressed ? Did/do you have a specific country in mind ?
If a constitutional republic (or monarchy) i.e. a representative democracy genuinely, i.e. not just on paper or superficially allows all its citizens to participate in choosing the government, and having the opportunity to run for office, regardless of gender, race, religion, or ethnicity, then I’m unsure how it would lead to oppression.
Nationality can be defined in two ways: a) the official right to belong to a particular country, e.g. he has British nationality, or she is an Iranian, or Australian national (citizen). Or, b) a group of people of the same race, religion, traditions, etc
My definition of ‘nationality’ or ‘nationalism’ was point (a).
Agreed. A reason why Eastern Europe, for example & as you put it, has been an utter disaster, is because they have continuously tried to define ‘nationality’ along ethnic, racial, geographic, religious & linguistic lines, for centuries. This approach can naturally be divisive, but is part of the culture that was embedded centuries ago.
USA, OTOH, officially is, relatively, a young “nation” (country) just over 200 yrs old. It is largely a nation of immigrants (with due respect to indigenous Americans), who, largely, chose to immigrate there from various backgrounds. Historically, it is vastly different to Europe or many older ‘nations’. Her foundation, per US constitution & bill of rights, obviously was set quite differently to Europe. Moreover, the US constitution & bill of rights not only defined the political landscape, but also set the scene for the broader, overall & common culture. By culture, I mean a set of all encompassing, acceptable & common values, beliefs, behaviours & laws.
Of course, there have been challenges in the US too. Namely, the one you mention (in #64) regarding ‘black & white’. The racial tensions did exist right up to mid to late 20th century (African-American Civil Rights movement 1955-1968), despite the US Declaration of Independence some 150 yrs earlier which says: “ all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Overall, I think younger Nations such as the US & Australia have done remarkably well, as far as assimilation & integration of varying backgrounds are concerned. But, no doubt, there will always be those who want to deliberately be divisive, by claiming discrimination, racism or persecution. That said, I don’t think any system of government is ‘perfect’, but there are those that offer more equality & work far better than others.
Compared to countries such as: USA, Australia, or even Iran (all very multicultural societies within One nation), Europe is still inherently divided; geographically, culturally, religiously & linguistically.
The problem with Iran, for example, is not so much divisions along ethnicity, language, or race, or religion as they’ve, mostly, lived peacefully together for many more centuries than those of various European countries.
Yes, there are separatist movements among some ethnic groups, mostly, Balouch, Kurd, Azeri, and Arab, who constantly like to add fuel to fire. These specific individuals/groups have been & are in the minority. Though, because they are the most vocal, often making 'headlines' in the news, they may seem mainstream movements.
Most Iranians, regardless of ethnicity, language or religion, do consider themselves “Iranians”. They have their sub-culture, traditions, customs, dialects, etc.. but most, comfortably accept & live under the broader culture & language that is labelled "Persian".
Broadly, the problem/issue with Iran has been twofold. 1) a Lack of genuine representative democracy (whether a constitutional republic or monarchy – per my points in post #67). 2) the imposition of theocracy, at best, with semblance of a representative democracy, for the last 32 yrs (aka the Islamic Republic of Iran).
Otherwise, IMO, an “Iranian” monarch, under a constitutional monarchy system where there is a genuine Representative Democratic process (similar to the system in Australia), can be a unifying symbol & the system can work quite well.
Let's look at Turkey.
Till the 19th century it was an autocracy ruled by a Sultan, in theory absolute in power. (In practice he had to move pretty quickly at times to avoid getting the chop. Same has been true of pretty much all "absolute monarchies" down through history.)
While everyone knew the monarch was a Turk, the Turks were in theory and practice just another of the peoples (millets) under his rule. There was discrimination against various millets, but generally more on the basis of religion than ethnicity.
When the Young Turks took over, suddenly Turkey became a specifically Turkish linguistic/ethnic nation-state. Other groups might be tolerated, but they by definition were not "real Turks" and by definition it wasn't "their country" anymore.
Some of this was religious, and there is no doubt non-Turkish Muslims fared better than other religious/ethnic groups. But even the Kurds, Circassians and Arabs were not "real Turks" anymore.
Meanwhile the same corrosive desire for a "nation of their own" that led the Young Turks to want one for the Turks led all the other groups to want one for themselves too.
Things spiraled downward from there.
To look at it another way, let's imagine if USA defined itself as a nation-state for "white Americans," defined as people of northern and western European ancestry. While we might talk a good game about how us "real Americans" would tolerate and provide civil rights to Italians, and Mexicans, and blacks, and Chinese, all these groups would be perfectly aware they were not and could not be "Americans."
Or look at Sri Lanka. For centuries it was ruled by colonialists. The two main ethnic groups, Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamil Hindus, had lived together more or less in peace.
After independence they continued to get along more or less as you say. Then Sinhalese "nationalists" came to power on a program of "Sri Lanka for the Sinhalese." Sri Lanka was to be the Sinhalese nation-state. The Tamils, a definite minority, could never win an election, whether they took place or not. So many of them responded by launching a decades-long war for autonomy and/or independence. They too wanted "their own" nation-state.
Same thing happened to Yugoslavia and in various other places around the world.
IMO nationalism of the ethnic-linguistic variety is pretty much always a negative thing and is disastrous when the territory of the "nation" is not homogenous.
A further emphasis on religious (Islamic) variety in this case & nowadays. Yes, it is dysfunctional. Also that Iranians, in this case, are not Turks. Completely different history, culture & more. Though they are neighbours & able to influence one another.
Btw, unsure if you speak or understand Turkish and/or Persian (farsi) - they are completely different languages. Though your grasp of the meaning of the word "millet" is very accurate. Only that the word "millet" (Turkish pronunciation) is pronounced as "Mel-lat" in Persian. In Persian (farsi) language & context - it is literally & often used as "Mel-lat_e Eeraan" (Nation of Iran) - in which case, it means all Iranians, regardless of ethnicity, language, race, or religion.
What I mean by ethnic/linguistic nationalism, you can pitch religion in there if you like, is as opposed to what we might call territorial nationalism.
IOW, is an Iranian (or Persian) an inhabitant of the geographic territory known as Iran or Persia, or is he a member of the specific ethnic/linguistic that describes itself as Persian or Iranian, thereby excluding all other groups?
Don’t speak a word of Persian or Turkish, but I’m well aware they are from completely different language families and have nothing in common.
Yes, provided they live in Iran and/or are Iranian nationals.
or is he a member of the specific ethnic/linguistic that describes itself as Persian or Iranian,
Yes, provided their description of themselves is genuine.
thereby excluding all other groups?
Which other groups?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.