Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think some of them remain because they are practical and make some sort of sense politicaly or economically. But this irrational push towards border that follow language borders always seems to be there.

Except when it isn't. And it's not clear to me that the number of exceptions is falling.

What other states in Western Europe have multiple languages besides Belgium and Swizerland?

Spain. Finland has a Swedish-speaking minority and is officially bilingual. (I learned this from a Swedish-speaking Finn who was at our house for Thanksgiving.) Aren't there plenty of Italian speakers in Italy and Austria?

It is hard to think of one in central and eastern europe. Maybe Romania because of all the hungarians and Ukraine becuase of the Russians in the Eastern part.

I have spent some time in Switzlerand. Each ethnic group does not like the other one and they each form their own distinct culture. The only thing holding them together is economic and political expediency. But I think most Swiss think of theselves as Swiss German, or Swiss French, etc. as opposed to just Swiss.

But still Swiss German or Swiss French, as opposed to German or French. Their nationality means something, distinct from their language. And c'mon -- don't they all love chocolate and St. Bernard's?

When you are talking about the nation state, when most people refer to a nation they are referring to a people with a common language, culture, history liteature etc, not a political boundary. The state part refers to the political boundaries. So a when the national boundaries conform to political boundaries you get a nation state.

A nation may have all those things, but not necessarily. Many nations do not share a common language, etc. And yet they still cohere as nations.

The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia where not nation states in the classical sense. When I was refering to nationalism I was talking about pride in ones people, not to the political entity that is their home, that is patriotism.

The USSR claimed to be a consortium of nations, some of which had their own UN seats, etc.

Yugoslavia worked longer than a lot of people thought it would.

But often the term nation and nationalism are used to refer to any political entity and ones pride in it, and you seemed to be getting confused about which type of nation I was talking about (the non-political kind). So to make it clear that when I was talking about nation and nationalism, I was referring to the cultural and language identity, and not polical entities, I used the term ethnic nation. There is no way to confuse ethnic nation because it is redundant. It just reconfirms what definition of nation I am using. Kurdistan is an ethnic nation. It is not a state. How can the term ethnic nation be confusing?

Because ethnicity and nationality are two different things. They often overlap, but sometimes not. In many nations, ethnicity is a core party of people conceive the nation. In others, not. The United States does not share a common ethnicity.

Kurdistan is a funny case. Maybe they'll have a nation soon. Kurdistan is close, but not there yet.

Is there a part of Hawaii that is all Hawaiin but there are no Howlis? If one part of the Island was all Hawaiin with no Howlis my guess is that some of them would be pushing for independence.

I was trying to point out that if you wind the clock back, Hawaii was much more Hawaiian that haole.

But there pressure is there. The Whistle on the tea post doesn't have to sound, for you to be able to show that there is pressure on the pot. Some pots are stronger than others, and some water boils hotter than others, but there is always heated water in the Kettle (as long as there are ethnic groups that are lumped together and aren't either separate or part of larger nation made up of their kin).

I don't disagree with you that nationalism has something going on. I don't yet buy your claim that economic development makes it more likely that national and ethnic identity will coincide.

When you have soup you don't get ethnic movements. The Hawaiins are the only peole on the island that could form a "nation". They have a common language, heritage etc. Unless a bunch of Chineses or ethnic group moves en mass to Hawaii and then comprised at least eighty percent of the population of a defined area, there will be no Hawaiin separatist movement.

I don't understand how you can look at Hawaii and think it supports the larger argument you are making.

Wouldn't you say that the American Revolution was pretty much a tax revolt. And if the taxes hadn't been instituted there probably would have been no revolution. Tea might be an oversimplificatin, but taxes are not. Same thing with Serbian nationalism. But of the three wars in the twentieth century WWI was the least about nationalism.

The American Revolution was more about American nationalism than WWI was about Serbian nationalism.

What did you say I didn't respond to?

Let me put it this way: Austria had been a country for a long time. Its residents perceived it as such. People there weren't agitating (for the most part) to became part of Germany. Yes, Hitler occupied Austria, claiming to protect the ethnic Germans there. But how can you claim that this was "about" German nationalism, as opposed to racial or ethnic identity?

Garibaldis revolution of and unification of Italy was a classic nationalistic war. Most wars in Europe were about gaining land or power. WWI was because the Austrian Empire decided to stomp on Serbian nationalism and it let to a huge war.

OK, but Germany and Turkey were not fighting to suppress Serbian nationalism, and the British, French and Italians were not fighting for it.

Sikhism is a religion. Everyone in Pujab is an ethnic Punjabi. The ones that are not Sikh are just Hindi and not Sikh but they are still Punjabi. When Pakistan split from India, Punjab was divided into two parts. So Punjab in Pakistan also has a lot of Sikhs but everyone in Pakistani Punjab speaks Punjabi and same goes for Indian Punjab.

Many of the Sikhs that live outside of Punjab are other ethnicites that have been converted to Sikhism. So they are the ethnicity of whatever region they live in. There are a lot of Punjabis that live outside of Punjab but they are not concentrated anywhere. They are spread out over a country of a billion people. There are lot of French that live outside of France(scattered throughout Europe) but that doesn't mean that it isn't easy to draw where the French language starts and where it ends in Europe. Same goes for India. Languages stop and start at borders just like they do in Europe. It is just as easy to draw a line around where Punjabi is spoken as it is to draw a line around where French is spoken in Europe.

But you're not drawing a line "around" where Punjabi is spoken -- you've just acknowledged that it's spoken by minorities elsewhere in India. You're just drawing a line around the places where it's a majority.