Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I suppose it's odd that white Lutherans of Scandanavian heritage in North Dakota feel that (e.g.) Spanish-speaking Floridians of Cuban descent are a part of their national community but that white Lutherans of Scandanavian heritage a few miles away in Sasketchewan are not.
I don't deny the phenomenom. I'm just saying it works in different ways.
|
But you are the only one that is disuputing that is omnipresent in Europe. Yes there are exceptions. Some Italians do live in England but that doesn't mean that England and Italy are divided ethno linguisticaly. In Europe, as I have said, 95 percent of the people in Europe live in a country that has the same name as the language that is their native tongue (or have the samne native language as 97% of the people that live in the same political boundaries as they do.) And a lot of people died and it took incredible effort and sacrifice to make the borders the way they are. Yet you seem to be implying that this force isn't pervasive. An exception (or many exceptions) does not disprove this rule.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Really? You've said this, but I'm not seeing it. The collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't count, it seems to me, since the various SSRs were nominally separate countries. (The EU runs the other way.) Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, I grant you. But borders don't change all that often.
|
When have borders changed in Europe recently where they didn't conform more to ethnolinguistic borders? Nine out of ten of border changes in this century have been towards more consistent political borders with ethnolinguistic borders. The last border changes you cite were some of the only mulitethnic countries left. In other words, some of the only borders that didn't mirror ethnolinguistic lines. Most every other country was already divided by ethnolingquistic lines. After Czechoslavkia and Yugoslavia fell apart that just leaves Belgium and Swizerland as multiethnic, and Austria as the only country that has resisted irrdentism. But Austria had to be separated and its separation built into a treaty. And Belgium may still yet fall apart.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop So was the marriage. And you don't see a lot of agitation for Austria to reunite with Germany.
|
Considering what Germany did during WWII, you don't think the Austrians have been at pains to separate themselves from Germany? They may like the idea of a united uniting with their coethnic bretheren but until the Nazi memory is long gone, they are not going to bring it up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's been a while now in Africa, and it's not like you see that many borders being redrawn.
|
There are thousands of ethnolinguistic groups in Subsaharan africa. If it was to divide along ethnolinquistic lines almost every country would have to collapse into at least ten states. Nigeria into like 200.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While that kind of ethnic cleansing seems to be the 20th century's gift to world history, mass movements of peoples go way back (e.g., Romans) and have continued (e.g., the colonization of North America, the slave trade, etc.).
|
Ethnic cleansing is the ultimate expression of the force I am talking about. These people that are engaged in ethnic cleansing are convinced that ethnolinguistic borders are the only ones that count and that can be counted on. In other words, a political boundary is only valid if it copies an ethnolinguistic border exactly. If you want a country to claim an area, the only way to secure that area is fill it with people that have the same native language as the name of the state, and expel anyone that doesn't have that same native language.
