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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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

With economic growth and democracy both, the question is not whether a particular ethnic group has "more" or "less" power in some abstract way, but whether they have more or less power relative to the central government of the country in which they are a majority.

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.

See my point above. Also, you're not explaining why people identified with their nation as the middle class grew, as opposed to their class, religion, ethnic group, guild, etc. There are all sorts of affiliations that people might emphasize. Why the nation?

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.

I will disagree with you about that. In the history of the world, over time, there has generally been per capita economic growth. The reason is that techology keeps advancing.

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.

I don't think I disagree with what you say here, but I don't think it responds to what I was trying to say. Let's call it a meeting of the minds and move on.

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.

You are not making an argument that can be falsified. You are pointing to historical facts and calling them inevitable, or pointing to future possibilities and saying they will happen. You have every right to do this, but it leads to a boring conversation, because there is no way to confirm or disprove your views. They just are.

A more interesting question would be to try to find an explanation for why some separatist movements have failed to date (Canada, Belgium) and why others succeeded. And why some borders (in Ireland, e.g.) remain.

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.

No, it isn't. Many nations encompass a variety of cultures. And many nations have multiple languages. By your usage, Switzerland isn't a nation. The Swiss would disagree.

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.

They are close, but not the same, which causes problems for the arguments you make. And I keep resisting what you say about Europe because as you go south and east, it gets harder and harder to say this.

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.

An "ethnic nation"? It's very hard to follow what you're trying to say when you use terms like this.

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.

I think this is quite an overstatement, but we are discussing these things at such a degree of generality that it seems silly to pursue it.

The pressure is there and countries are either fighting or giving in but the constant pressure eventually wins out.

But then there's Hawaii. So the constant pressure doesn't always win out. It wins out except when it doesn't.

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.

These aren't facts (yet), so they don't support for an argument. As we've been discussing, there are plenty of places around the world where national borders don't follow ethnic divisions, and specific reasons for this that seem to persist.

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.

Does it fall to me to point out that whites and Asians are different ethnic groups, and that Asians and native Hawaiians would seem to be closer -- from an ethnic perspective -- than Asians and whites?

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.

This is like saying that the American Revolution was caused by colonists' dislike for tea. Maybe not that silly, but you take my point. If you were going to list the reasons that the UK and Germany started fighting, you would have to put a lot of other things on the list if you were going to include Serbian nationalism.

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.

(1) You didn't respond to what I said about Hitler, Germany, ethnicity, and nationalism, other than to repeat yourself. Which is an interesting topic.

(2) What is "ethnic nationalism"? Since your use of these terms is obscure, it's hard to tell what you are saying.

(3) What does it mean to say that the major European wars of the last century were "wrapped up" in nationalism? Unlike the Crusades, nations were fighting. That is because Europe is now full of nations. The same was true in the 19th century, more or less.

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.

I don't think this is right. I'll take the example of the Sikhs. Per Wikipedia:

• Numbering approximately 23 million worldwide; over 60 percent of Sikhs live in the Indian state of Punjab, where they form about two-thirds of the population. Large communities of Sikhs live in the neighbouring states of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, and Delhi. Sikhs compose less than 2% of the Indian population, however more than 90% of Sikhs live in India.

One-third of Punjab is not Sikh. About a third of the Sikhs in Indian live outside Punjab. Do you see the problem?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I got me 2 copies.

1 to shit on, and 1 to cover it up with!*





* and an obscure Pop culture Texas reference to boot. Anyone know it?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I got me 2 copies.

1 to shit on, and 1 to cover it up with!*

Not bad, but it would work better if he were holding the Constitution.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

See my point above. Also, you're not explaining why people identified with their nation as the middle class grew, as opposed to their class, religion, ethnic group, guild, etc. There are all sorts of affiliations that people might emphasize. Why the nation?

I have no idea why. Some sort of weird tribal instinct. Scotland splitting off from Engand, Quebec from Canda, Belgium apart, all make no economic sense at all. Or for that matter any sense at all. But the desire always seems to be there (and grows when people get more affluent, which you would think it would be the opposite because the more educated you are the more you would see that ethnic nationalism is just a stupid prejudice).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I will disagree with you about that. In the history of the world, over time, there has generally been per capita economic growth. The reason is that techology keeps advancing.

From the six hundred to the Renaisaance Europe went backwards economically and technolgogically. Since the sixties most of Subsaharan Africa has gotten poorer. But you are right in that technology does help, but only if you can affort it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A more interesting question would be to try to find an explanation for why some separatist movements have failed to date (Canada, Belgium) and why others succeeded. And why some borders (in Ireland, e.g.) remain.

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, it isn't. Many nations encompass a variety of cultures. And many nations have multiple languages. By your usage, Switzerland isn't a nation. The Swiss would disagree.

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They are close, but not the same, which causes problems for the arguments you make. And I keep resisting what you say about Europe because as you go south and east, it gets harder and harder to say this.

Yes and when you get to areas where they are messed up you get wars and tension. But even so the political lines follow the language lines much more in Europe than they do in Asia.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
An "ethnic nation"? It's very hard to follow what you're trying to say when you use terms like this.

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. 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.

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?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think this is quite an overstatement, but we are discussing these things at such a degree of generality that it seems silly to pursue it.

Have you ever seen an ethnoanguage map of Europe? It is very easy to confuse it as thge political map of Europe? The lines are so similar you could think that you are looking at the political boundaries when in fact you are looking at ethnic and linquistic boundareis . Have you ever seen an ethnolinquistic map of the middle east and central Asia? There is no way to confuse it with a political map. There is almost no relationship between where a country is and where an ethnic group is.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But then there's Hawaii. So the constant pressure doesn't always win out. It wins out except when it doesn't.

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
These aren't facts (yet), so they don't support for an argument. As we've been discussing, there are plenty of places around the world where national borders don't follow ethnic divisions, and specific reasons for this that seem to persist.

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).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does it fall to me to point out that whites and Asians are different ethnic groups, and that Asians and native Hawaiians would seem to be closer -- from an ethnic perspective -- than Asians and whites?

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is like saying that the American Revolution was caused by colonists' dislike for tea. Maybe not that silly, but you take my point. If you were going to list the reasons that the UK and Germany started fighting, you would have to put a lot of other things on the list if you were going to include Serbian nationalism.

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) You didn't respond to what I said about Hitler, Germany, ethnicity, and nationalism, other than to repeat yourself. Which is an interesting topic.

What did you say I didn't respond to?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (2) What is "ethnic nationalism"? Since your use of these terms is obscure, it's hard to tell what you are saying.

See above.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (3) What does it mean to say that the major European wars of the last century were "wrapped up" in nationalism? Unlike the Crusades, nations were fighting. That is because Europe is now full of nations. The same was true in the 19th century, more or less.

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. WWII was all about German ethnic nationalism, and the balkan war was about ethnic nationalism.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (
I don't think this is right. I'll take the example of the Sikhs. Per Wikipedia:

• Numbering approximately 23 million worldwide; over 60 percent of Sikhs live in the Indian state of Punjab, where they form about two-thirds of the population. Large communities of Sikhs live in the neighbouring states of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, and Delhi. Sikhs compose less than 2% of the Indian population, however more than 90% of Sikhs live in India.

One-third of Punjab is not Sikh. About a third of the Sikhs in Indian live outside Punjab. Do you see the problem?

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.

And even though Sikh Punjabis are completely mixed up with nonsikh punjabis in Punjab, they still have been pushing for their own state called Khalistan (land of the pure) in Punjab. I am sure that the Hindi Punjabis would not appreciate that.

etft -- T.S.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Ty, Spanks,

Can I ask that you provide us with an executive summary of your discussion at some point? I'm sure I'd find it interesting, but I'm not reading these long-ass posts any more.

Your only somewhat less verbous friend,

G--

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ty, Spanks,

Can I ask that you provide us with an executive summary of your discussion at some point? I'm sure I'd find it interesting, but I'm not reading these long-ass posts any more.

Your only somewhat less verbous friend,

G--

I find what he say interesting, and since I am the epicenter of the universe, that is all that matters.

Did you see the $64,000 questions? Why are people nationalistic? Why do they like to live in countries whose political boundaries conform to national boundaries?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Meanwhile, in North Korea:

• The United States has offered a detailed package of economic and energy assistance in exchange for North Korea’s giving up nuclear weapons and technology, American officials said Tuesday.

NYT.

Suggested response: It's an unnamed source cited by the NYT! So it must not be true.

eta: I won't be able to respond to the nationalism point for a few hours, and I'll try to focus things when I do.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why are people nationalistic? Why do they like to live in countries whose political boundaries conform to national boundaries?

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.

[Replaced_Texan]

heh

Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work 5 Days a Week

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; Page A01

Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January.

The horror.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who will become House majority leader and is writing the schedule for the next Congress, said members should expect longer hours than the brief week they have grown accustomed to.

"I have bad news for you," Hoyer told reporters. "Those trips you had planned in January, forget 'em. We will be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Meanwhile, in North Korea:

• The United States has offered a detailed package of economic and energy assistance in exchange for North Korea’s giving up nuclear weapons and technology, American officials said Tuesday.

NYT.

Suggested response: It's an unnamed source cited by the NYT! So it must not be true.

eta: I won't be able to respond to the nationalism point for a few hours, and I'll try to focus things when I do.

Wasn't it administration policy not to offer pay-offs?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Wasn't it administration policy not to offer pay-offs?

Drudge is reporting that the Democrats are secretly meeting with those terrorists, Hamas.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Drudge is reporting that the Democrats are secretly meeting with those terrorists, Hamas.

And also that Jim Baker wants to hold Middle East peace conferences that include Syria and Iran and exclude Israel. Your point?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
And also that Jim Baker wants to hold Middle East peace conferences that include Syria and Iran and exclude Israel. Your point?

Baker is a douche. And more of an idiot than I gave him credit for.

And this is why the Dems love him and rank and file Republicans cannot stand him.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Baker is a douche. And more of an idiot than I gave him credit for.

And this is why the Dems love him and rank and file Republicans cannot stand him.

That douche delivered Florida for W. I don't think Dems hold any particular love for him, and probably feel the same way about him as the Rs who had their party stolen away from them by W's election.