Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
See - give me a shorter take and I can get back into it.
I'm not at all convinced people are nationalistic; I think that we all identify ourselves in a variety of ways, and that those ways vary depending on time and place. There is a need for group identity, but it can be a religious, linguistic, regional, tribal or ethnic identify, or some combination of them.
What was Yugoslavia is a great example. Today, there are almost tribal nationalisms. A hundred years ago, the Pan-Slavic movement reigned supreme (Yugoslavia translates to "South slav", and the country itself was the outcome of a very conscious effort to develop a Slavic consciousness out of the mess that was the disintegrating Ottoman empire), and declaring a strong affinity to being "Bosnian" would have been unthinkable.
Nationalisms also come and go. I don't think Cornish national sentiment is strong any more, for example. And the people who are the Scots today developed from many very different tribal configurations.
|
I wish this were true but I don't think it is. Regional or Relgious identity makes sense to me. You want to cooperate with your neighbors because you have shared interests, or you want to be around people that share your value system.
But it seems to me, for some reason people want to be governed by people who have the same native tongue. If they didn't then why is Europe, which is the most affluent and democratic part of the old word, divided by language. That is the biggest factor in determining what country you are born in. Your native language. If your native langue is French, and you were born in Europe, there is like a 95% you were born in France. That is true for almost every language.
For hundreds of years the borders had nothing to do with language. But now it is the single most important factor when it comes to borders. If you are French, and live in a French speaking area, you and your French neighbors seem to be much happier being ruled by a corrupt and evil French King or parliament, than a highly benevolent, prudent and competent German or Spanish King or Parliament.
It doesn't make any rational sense (actually, like racism it is downright stupid and counterproductive) but it seems to be part of the human condition like hemorrhoids.
As for Yugoslavia:
I thought Yugo meant "pan" for panslavia.
I think Pan Slavism was doomed because the people can't really talk to each other. It seems to be part of human nature to not trust someone whose native tongue is unintelligible to you or at least hard for you to understand.
