A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't get why economic growth and prosperity lead to ethnic awareness. Can you explain this?

1) Economic growth and democracy both empower the people. When the ethnic groups are empoyered they are better able to push for what they want

2) When people are poor they are too worred about every day life to worry about some abstract concept like ethnic nationhood. But with more money they have the time and resources to join groups, learn to read etc. That is why nationalism grew hand in hand in Europe with the growth of the middle class.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Also, since most places are usually experiencing economic growth over time, it seems like you could explain separatism anywhere as a function of economic growth.

If that were only true. Economic growth is only useful if it out paces population growth. So you need incomes to rise. In the history of the world governments that have been able to achieve consistent income increases for the whole population are a lot rarer than you think.

But having said that, the pressure for ethnic nationalism is always there. Economic growth is just one way the pressure is released into action.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've heard that too, but that doesn't mean that it's growing significantly.

In order for the Tibetan movement to be more successful the Tibetans need to be empoyered. The area is growing but the Tibetans are not benefitting much form the growth. In order for them to be more of a signficant political force they need to have members in the middle class, which they don't. The middle class is all Han Chinese, who will push against independence not for it. And the fact that the Han chinese now represent almost fifty percent of the population makes the possiblity of independence even more remote.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's easy to say that after the fact. If Yugoslavia had stayed together, you could attribute it to Yugoslav nationalism. It didn't, so that sounds nuts now. What you're saying sounds like, it was inevitable that things would turn out the way they are.

I said it oncee, I have said it a thousand time there is no such thing as Yugoslavian ethnic nationalism. In my opinion mutli-ethnic states always fall apart eventually. Yugoslavia was doomed from the day it was created, as was Czechoslovakia (as is Belgium). There is no such thing as Belgian ethnic nationalsim. Just Waloon nationalism and Flemish nationalism.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nationality and ethnicity are two different things. Referring to nationalism when you have ethnicity in mind is just confusing.

I was using the term nationalism, as it applies to the nation state. A nation is a group of people with a common culture and language.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop There are plenty of places in the world where national boundaries do not follow ethnic "boundaries." For example, Quebec is still a part of Canada. Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland.

There is strong pressure for Quebec to split off. I think it eventually will. There is also strong pressure for Ireland to reunite. I think it eventually will.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What are you looking at to determine that Europe's national boundaries conform more closely to the distribution of ethnic groups than, say, Asia's? It strikes me as such a broad proposition as not to be useful.

Have you ever looked at an ethnologue map of europe and looked at national boundaries. They are awfully close. The farther east you go the messier they get, but they are always pretty close. Not so with the middle east and Central Asia. There is nothing like Kurdistan (an ethnic nation with pretty distinct boundaries spread over four other political entities) in Europe. Kurds are the fourth largest ethnic group in the middle east yet they don't have their own country. There is nothing like that in Europe. Iran is only fifty percent persian, more Azerbaijanis live in Iran than live in Azerbaikan. Except for the arab countries, the political boundaries and ethnic boundaries do not coincide much at all.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If this is an argument, what is it based on, and how can one test it? It seems like you can explain away as counter-evidence by saying that things will change in the future.

The pressure is there and countries are either fighting or giving in but the constant pressure eventually wins out. Kurdistan is on its in way to independence, the multiethnic Soviet Union split up, Multiethnic Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia just split up, Quebec and Scotland will eventually leave, Ireland will eventually reunite, Belgium (the last multiethnic state in Western Europe except for Swizerland will split). I believe Pakistan will break apart into Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, and Pashtunistan. Persia will lose its non persian parts and all the non-indoeuropean and non hindi parts of Inda will eventually break off.

Eventually the ethnic boundaries in the Middle East and Central Asia will conform more to ethnic boundaries just like Europe does.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The phenomenom of ethnic groups being under- or over-represented is hardly unique to underdeveloped countries. In the United States, both Mormons and Jews (the former not an ethnic group, I concede) are over-represented (proportionately to their share of the population) in the Senate, and blacks and Hispanics are under-represented.

Obviously this doesn't work unless the opressed ethnic group is in a distinct area that has somewhat reasonable borders. Like in Pakistan, the Punjabis are in one part of the country and the Baluchis are in another. Yet the Punjabis rule over the nation. That is the way empires work. In persia, the persians rule over the other ethnic groups like the kurds, azerbaijanis Arabs and Baluchis. When you have an ethnic nation that rules over another ethnic nation that is when the smaller and less powerful ethnic nation wants out. Tibet and Uighurstan are perfect examples of this, however China has dealth with the problem with ethnic cleansing. Once you mix up the population it is very hard for ethnic groups to split off.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do oppressed ethnic groups gain more power with development? Maybe they just get more oppressed, no?

The stronger an economy is growing the harder it is to keep the benefits from all the people. Governments try and keep ethnic groups poor and disnefranchised but it is hard. In addition, it is hard to give democracy to one ethnic group but not to all. South Africa was one of the few that was able to pull this off for a long time.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You're echoing my point about Rwanda, which was that the "perfect storm" was not inevitable, but rather the result of a constellation of factors.

And separate countries could never really be formed because the ethnic groups were too mixed up.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So ethnicity only matters when people think it matters? That's not much of a test.

When they become empowered they almost always think it matters. Like I said, the sole exception in central europe and the middle east is the Persians.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Anyhoo, you're wrong about the demographics of Hawaii, if you by "haole" you mean "white." Whites are about 40% of the population. Asians are about 60%, of which 25% are native Hawaiian.

When I said Haole I meant whites and Asians. I meant all non-Hawaiins. Almost all the non native Hawaiians think of themselves as Americans and not Hawaiins, and therefore, don't think of themselves as being part of an empire.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Compared to what, I guess is the question.

Most countries are not nearly ethnically divided, and don't have nearly the ethnic tensions India has. It is a huge problem there. People dont' think if themselves as Indian, they think of themselves as Bengali, Punjabi, Tamil, Kashiri etc.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When is a country not become more prosperous?

Cuba and Burma are two examples who are not growing. A lot of Subsaharan Africa, some of the middle east. Now that most of the world has accepted free market capitalism most countries are growing. But up until very recently a large part of the world was not experience much growth.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the war had been confined to the Balkans, then I would agree, but the fighting on the Western Front (e.g.) didn't have much to do with Balkan nationalism.

There were interlocking alliances. Once a war started between two partys everyone else was automatically dragged in. The first two went to war because of nationalism. Everyone else was dragged in because of alliance. So yes, the war on the western front was caused by Serbian nationalism.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I am familiar with all of the facts you mention here, and think the problem is that you are using nationalism and ethnicity synonymously. I agree that Hitler's views and actions were strongly informed by his racial views, and that he saw Germany through an ethnic lens. I don't think it adds much analytically to call that "nationalism." And certainly one can debate whether Hitler was able to do what he did because Germans supported those particular views. Which is to say, the argument you're making about causation seems strained to me.

Hitler was a rabid ethnic German nationalist. Ethnic nationalism (serbian) caused the outbreak of WWI, ethnic German nationalism caused the outbreak of WWII, and ethnic nationalsim caused the balkan wars. All three major european wars of the last century were wrapped up in ethnic nationalism. That was my original point and all the evidence supports that.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
India has an incredible array of ethnic groups. I'm not sure how you can say they are cleanly divided.

The Bengalis are in Bengal, the Tamils are in Tamil, the Kashmiris are in Kashmir, the Punjabis are in Punjab etc.. It is not lilke Bosnia where all the groups are mixed up. People of the same language group and culture generally live all in the same place making a political division very easy.