|
menino posted:I do remember reading that the Hutus and Tutsis were originally the same ethnic group but one group herded while the other farmed, and that eventually there existed a small distinction that the colonizers took and exploited. Am I off on this? Did anyone else read this? I think it may have been a War Nerd column, and he tends to get over his head when he writes about Africa. They were separate tribes beforehand, but you couldn't tell them apart afaik. Belgian colonists started separating the people into the two groups based off of physical appearance mostly. One group was made to be short in stature, round face, flat nose. The other was tall in stature, angular face, long pointed nose. I can't remember which was which though. The Tall group was elevated into positions of power within the colonial regime, the colonists saw them as being closer to themselves, and the other group was restricted to being farmers/peasants and other such stuff. The Nazis later used the same techniques to identify Jews by their appearance.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:Many went to Trinidad i think edit: Countries ranked by Hindu population (I realize not all Indians are Hindu, but it gives a good idea of Indian migration to South and Central America). 
Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
I don't understand that map. Is it an ranking of absolute numbers of Hindus in each country, or it is based on the fraction of Hindus in each country? Mostly I'm confused because I don't see 35 countries colored on that map.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:25
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I think it's actually supposed to be top 25. Blue is 21-25: Canada, Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand. However I can only find 7 magenta ones: Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, United Kingdom and 9 red ones: India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Barbados, Mauritius So maybe it's just a bad map, unless anybody can spot the missing ones? A better map illustrating the same point about South America: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Here's a Wikipedia Greater India or otherwise known as the "Indies"
PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
For reference: The Luxembourgish revanchists have annexed a small bit of Belgium comprising some eastern villages of Arlon. Interestingly, Luxembourg does have some cause for irrendentism. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
Have any countries actually formed (and kept) the "greater" versions of themselves? The only one I can think of is the US with manifest destiny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Have any countries actually formed (and kept) the "greater" versions of themselves? The only one I can think of is the US with manifest destiny. France with Alsace-Lorraine comes to mind as a relatively recent example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
twoot posted:They were separate tribes beforehand, but you couldn't tell them apart afaik. Belgian colonists started separating the people into the two groups based off of physical appearance mostly. One group was made to be short in stature, round face, flat nose. The other was tall in stature, angular face, long pointed nose. I can't remember which was which though. The Tall group was elevated into positions of power within the colonial regime, the colonists saw them as being closer to themselves, and the other group was restricted to being farmers/peasants and other such stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:France with Alsace-Lorraine comes to mind as a relatively recent example. We're missing a whole lot of departments  
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Have any countries actually formed (and kept) the "greater" versions of themselves? The only one I can think of is the US with manifest destiny. The Kingdom of England spent almost a millenium attempting to enforce its claim of overlordship over the other kingdoms of the british isles, and although in the end the integration of the last holdout (Scotland) was in a sense voluntary, unification of the British Isles under a single state was the culmination of an England's primary foreign policy goal since before England was even a permenant state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:The Kingdom of England spent almost a millenium attempting to enforce its claim of overlordship over the other kingdoms of the british isles, and although in the end the integration of the last holdout (Scotland) was in a sense voluntary, unification of the British Isles under a single state was the culmination of an England's primary foreign policy goal since before England was even a permenant state. But even then you can't say they kept it, since most of Ireland achieved independence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Elim Garak posted:But even then you can't say they kept it, since most of Ireland achieved independence. I suppose you could say that, I'd be more inclined to define "kept" as "held for a significant length of time" instead of "still owns the area to this day". In that sense England kept Ireland for several centuries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Have any countries actually formed (and kept) the "greater" versions of themselves? The only one I can think of is the US with manifest destiny. China? They don't have the ROC borders but Taiwan isn't considered a separate part by either government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:We're missing a whole lot of departments That map is missing a few too  Algeria
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:That wasn't exactly what I was referring to, though. They were different tribes in that they generally lived in separate communities (which seems logical if you have nomadic herdsmen and farmers), but they were essentially the same ethnic group. Moreover, you could switch between being a Hutu or a Tutsi by simply taking up the lifestyle of the other group, which did happen. IIRC, the herdsmen were the upper class and the farmers were the lower class. Then the Belgians came (after they took Rwanda from the Germans) and said: well, this wont' work and suddenly they were ethnic groups. They did try to use physical appearance to divide them, but not all the tall, angular faced people were necessarily herdsmen and not all short, round faced people were farmers. The pseudoscience wasn't even consistent. Though generally, the groups did conform to those physical markers, because the lifestyle/diet of herdsmen generally generates tall, skinny people, while farmers tend to be more stocky. Something like that. Well it didn't really matter in the end because what they wanted was an over-class and an under-class, one that they can have be educated and moneyed and use to both maximise their own profits out of it while keeping the local population under more control. The British did the same with their empire all over the world especially with Indian peoples and you ended up having situations like in Fiji where in latter 1900s the Fijian-Indian population was more than local polynesian. They've since had 2 sets of Polynesian military dictatorships which have caused exoduses of the Fijian-Indians though. Fun thing is they have their own Fijian Hindi language which has its own wikipedia translation: http://hif.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahila_Panna
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:China? I wouldn't count China, because they don't actually control Taiwan and plus there's a number of islands in the South China Sea that they don't control either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Have any countries actually formed (and kept) the "greater" versions of themselves? The only one I can think of is the US with manifest destiny. (In which case the US hasn't either, because it doesn't have Canada, which it originally considered an issue.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:I wouldn't count China, because they don't actually control Taiwan and plus there's a number of islands in the South China Sea that they don't control either. I don't think those islands count towards any notion of Greater China (and Taiwan is debatable as to how to count it). What China does lack, however, is Outer Mongolia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Australia. Unless you're going to be ridiculously irredentist and claim New Guinea, which I don't think anybody does. Isn't the whole point of these "greater" countries to claim every scrap of land that has the slightest ethnic or historical connection to that country's rule?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Isn't the whole point of these "greater" countries to claim every scrap of land that has the slightest ethnic or historical connection to that country's rule?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Australia. Unless you're going to be ridiculously irredentist and claim New Guinea, which I don't think anybody does. Does the US claim Canada other than parts of Columbia? I thought the deal was that English Canada was "invited" to join if they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:China? Yeah modern China is at just about its historical maximum. The only thing they could claim as historically theirs that they don't now have is Mongolia and areas of northern Korea and northern Vietnam, and some tiny islands nobody cared about until undersea oil and gas exploration became a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Does the US claim Canada other than parts of Columbia? I thought the deal was that English Canada was "invited" to join if they wanted. That's the comparison I was making with Australia though, Australia has all of the territory that could be considered to be 'Greater Australia', unless you are willing to go to nonsensical lengths like just picking anywhere that is near you that was also British.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
ptk posted:For reference: The area that was annexed by Belgium in 1839 was Walloon-speaking (and now francophone), except for the area around Arlon. That's probably why. Luxembourg would probably refuse if you offered to return the territory that was taken from it throughout the centuries. Edit: the Peeters surname in Belgium, evidently concentrated in Brabant and Limburg:  You can look up the distribution of various family names here. Unfortunately, it's somewhat outdated since it's based on data from 1998. Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Does the US claim Canada other than parts of Columbia? I thought the deal was that English Canada was "invited" to join if they wanted. Before 1812 it was considered inevitable in some quarters that the Canadian territories would end up joining up with the US, and the Articles of Confederation did include a clause saying if Canada wants in they're allowed in. Whether the belief it was inevitably going to happen is the same as an active desire for it to happen for our purposes I can't say, but annexing Canada isn't the craziest of irridentist ideas; there's the same language and pretty darned similar cultures (Apologies to any Canadians, but none of us in the Anglosphere are terribly distinct      :kiwi:).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:They were considered a potential future problem if they continued to exist in their Imperial form, but I don't think anybody made a serious claim after the events of 1812. Papua and New Guinea were a territory of Australia under its administrative control for thirty years so there is a closer history than you suggest. Edible Hat fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Elim Garak posted:But even then you can't say they kept it, since most of Ireland achieved independence. The English were really bad at erasing other peoples' historical identities (unlike France), but they were very good at imposing their language (like France). In a certain cultural sense, they did succeed in durably establishing a Greater England. Never tell an Irishman or a Scotsman that, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
After 1812 there were competing claims on the Pacific Northwest. Britain long has a fur trade along the Columbia River and it's tributaries, while American settlers were pouring in along the Oregon Trail. The two sides agreed to peacefully cohabit and revisit the issue every 10 years or so. Extreme British claims would have given them present day Oregon, Washington and Idaho (42°), while extreme American claims would have given them present day British Columbia (54° 40', famous in the "54° 40' Or Fight!" political slogans at the time). Then in the 1840's the spiritual ur-Beaver, noblest of all animals, visited James K. Polk in a dream inspiring him to implement the glorious compromise of the 49th parallel which we enjoy today. The US controls most of the Columbia River area, but Canada has the headwaters so they can pee in it if we make them upset. I wish I had a nice map of it instead of the fat stupid ones from Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:...annexing Canada isn't the craziest of irridentist ideas; there's the same language and pretty darned similar cultures (Apologies to any Canadians, but none of us in the Anglosphere are terribly distinct No, despite how we love to define ourselves as Not-America, I think we're all pretty willing to admit to ourselves that we're basically the same as the Americans. Our rural accent is slightly different (although Canadian accents are a tremendously variant bunch anyway), and our political system used to function noticeably better, but has been sprinting after America for 20-30 years now. We really are basically America with national health care and more snow. As for our irredentist claims, having just spent a week working in Portland, I really wish Britain had come away with Washington and/or Oregon somehow. I'd move there right now and live the dream of the 90s (in American Vancouver if necessary).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:No, despite how we love to define ourselves as Not-America, I think we're all pretty willing to admit to ourselves that we're basically the same as the Americans. I took a geopolitics class in college where one of our texts was called "Canada and the United States: Differences That Count". It was actually a good book, but the title came off as sounding a little desperate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Haschel Cedricson posted:I took a geopolitics class in college where one of our texts was called "Canada and the United States: Differences That Count". Any choice factoids from it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
I too would love to hear them if you can recall any.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I too would love to hear them if you can recall any. The main ones I remember focusing on are the attitudes on the treatment of indigenous people, philosophical differences on the role of supernational institutions, and how the differing versions of federalism in each country affect everything from environmental issues to tax policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Clearly Greater China would be the borders of the Yuan Dynasty  http://yanxishan.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/8-most-impressive-dyansty-the-yuan/
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Americans can't handle poutine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Clearly Greater China would be the borders of the Yuan Dynasty Was the Qing dynasty bigger? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_and_geographic_subdivisions_by_total_area_%28all%29  And I think Ukraine has just about all lands it could possibly consider "historically theirs," Though I have found this Edit: oops. Wrong on that. 
PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Qing was definitely bigger in terms of actual control over Chinese provinces, (if we consider taxation to be the metric of government, Kublai's control was very much diminished in the lower reaches of China while 18th century Qing was the apex of Imperial control, probably greater than any other Chinese state). Also that previous map included a broad range of Mongolian conquests under the misleading header of Yuan. Edit: It also seems that the map of Ukraine includes lands that were controlled during the civil war (1917-1921), up to the Brest-Litovsk. Quite a display of chutzpah, consiering how much land they got on Poland's account. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Well knowing what nationalists use to justify these claims that actually seems pretty conservative for Ukraine; I'd have thought they'd be going for "the entirety of Scythia".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:32
|
|
