|
TheBalor posted:Yeah, between that and his glorification of the KKK, I think he had basically never had serious interactions with anyone who wasn't from his social class. Wealthy white unhyphenated Americans all the way down. Then there's the part where he thought single nationality states was apparently the only way to go to fix Europe's post-WWI blues, despite the nation he himself was in charge of being the poster boy of why that isn't the case.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
To be fair (sort of) he was reeaaally big on the separation of the white and black nations...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Then there's the part where he thought single nationality states was apparently the only way to go to fix Europe's post-WWI blues, despite the nation he himself was in charge of being the poster boy of why that isn't the case. That's because the USA is rather unique that way. People go there with the express purpose of leaving everything behind. Pretty much every other multi-ethnic state so far has broken up: Austria-Hungary, the Russian/Soviet Empire, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, The Ottoman Empire, ...
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
Riso posted:Austria-Hungary, the Russian/Soviet Empire, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, The Ottoman Empire, ... All of the successor states to these countries contain sizable minorities though. There are very few true homogeneous countries in the world. You can make a good argument for the Koreas and Japan to a certain extent, but they've only seen themselves as homogeneous in relatively recent history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
Riso posted:That's because the USA is rather unique that way. People go there with the express purpose of leaving everything behind. Not really. India and pretty much every country in South America stands in opposition to that hypothesis. Russia still has a vast array of ethnic minorities. The Ottomans managed nearly 500 years of continued existence before finally collapsing, and as far as countries go I think that's a pretty good track record.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
Riso posted:That's because the USA is rather unique that way. People go there with the express purpose of leaving everything behind. It's not unique at all. Most of the nations in the New World are ethnic blends. Just as European states were, before national identities really started coming together in the early modern period. The whole idea of "multi-ethnic states" is kind of a crock in the first place, since every nation is one, and people don't have one single ethnicity. And trying to break countries apart into single nationality states has been mostly a complete disaster, as it's impossible to cut clean lines. Look at what happened in Eastern Europe post-WWI, India after '47, Israel-Palestine, and Yugoslavia. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It's not unique at all. Most of the nations in the New World are ethnic blends. Just as European states were, before national identities really started coming together in the early modern period. The whole idea of "multi-ethnic states" is kind of a crock in the first place, since every nation is one, and people don't have one single ethnicity. In addition, the United Kingdom is made up of English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish (some people in Cornwall consider themselves a unique Gaelic ethnicity as well), whilst Spain has so much regional ethnic variance they don't even have words for their national anthem in case it pisses one of those groups off. Belgium is split between two seperate groups and they seem to hold it together (more or less) whilst Switzerland uses three languages and there doesn't appear to be much chance of them splitting up in the near or even far future. Apparently some people in Finland consider themselves European whilst others consider themselves Russian; I believe Poland might be similar. I'm not very clued up on those ones though. I'd say most countries in the Old World are ethnic blends as well, which is possibly one of the reasons the American hyphenisation Wilson was talking about does actually look quite ridiculous (although I don't agree with his reasoning for it). We see Americans calling themselves German-American or whatever and we wonder what the German bit actually refers to, when being "German" is itself a mixture of ethnicities. Look at England as a good example; English might be considered an ethnicity, but really the ethnicity is Anglo-Saxon, itself another hyphen. So are English-Americans Anglo-Saxon-Americans? What about the Norman and Viking influence on Anglo-Saxonism? Are they Viking-Norman-Anglo-Saxon-American? How far do we take this?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:So are English-Americans Anglo-Saxon-Americans? Yes, that's why the acronym is WASP
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Riso posted:That's because the USA is rather unique that way. People go there with the express purpose of leaving everything behind. Also, most of those fell apart thanks to external pressures and in a specific, turbulent time period. The insistence on ethnic-states was probably not a leading cause of stability in the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Apparently some people in Finland consider themselves European whilst others consider themselves Russian; I believe Poland might be similar. I'm not very clued up on those ones though.Anglo-Saxon- I doubt any Finn besides people with direct Russian ancestry would consider themselves Russian, there is a lot of anti-Russian sentiment still under the surface because of all that happened in the late 19th and early 20th century (also plain racism, of course). Most Finns would consider themselves "European" if asked. However, Finland is not ethnically entirely homogenuous because there's a 5 percent minority whose mother tongue is Swedish instead of Finnish and they mostly live in coastal areas and cities. Increasing Russian immigration to the eastern parts of the country means that the relative amount of Russian speakers to Swedish speakers is higher there. On the map, orange areas have more Swedish than Russian speakers, red is vice versa, green is equal, white is that there's less than 10 of either group: Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
If you guys are suggesting Irish/Italian/Czech-Americans constitute distinct ethnic groups you should probably get your heads checked... There's really no comparison between the USA and India or Austria-Hungary. Even today White Americans, by far the largest ethnic group in the United States, constitute more than 70% of the population, and I suspect most of the Asian population is eventually going to be acculturated into this ethnicity, maybe some non-white hispanics too. I certainly haven't noticed many cultural differences between 2nd or third generation asian americans and white americans. Acculturation is not a uniquely American phenomena, see France for a good example that's not a settler state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If you guys are suggesting Irish/Italian/Czech-Americans constitute distinct ethnic groups you should probably get your heads checked... No, at this point, they really don't, because of acculturation and redefinition of ethic identities by those immigrants. There is no axiomatic reason that would not work literally anywhere in the world, is our point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:English-Americans Anglo-Saxon-Americans? What about the Norman and Viking influence on Anglo-Saxonism? Are they Viking-Norman-Anglo-Saxon-American? How far do we take this?! The Mexican, which is really "New Mexican" which has its own distinctions, side of my family married into a different ethnic group. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_Mexican_American I really wish there was an accurate one word name for this ethnic group but because most people integrated into Mexican culture, one doesn't exist. Hyphenated names are stupid but not for the reason Teddy Roosevelt was saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Hah, I love that the groups of Punjabi communal workers were called "Hindu Crews". Despite only 10% of Punjabis being Hindu (now anyway, but I doubt it was all that different). Indian guy eh? Hindu. Case closed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
quote:All of the successor states to these countries contain sizable minorities though. These countries are today 80-90% homogeneous. It is rare that a single minority becomes big enough to have enough influence to start affecting changes. quote:India and pretty much every country in South America stands in opposition to that hypothesis. I dont know about India, but South America falls under the same heading as the US. New World nations are special places where you go to start over and leave your old life behind. quote:Russia still has a vast array of ethnic minorities. The Ottomans managed nearly 500 years of continued existence before finally collapsing, and as far as countries go I think that's a pretty good track record. The Russian Empire and the Habsburg monarchy lasted the better part of 400 years, so are they disqualified? Rome endured the better part of 1500. They all dealt the same way with minorities: Violent repression. Let up the use of force and they'd all go, or do you think Chechnya in Russia doesn't want to be independent? They only started a war about it, no biggie. Violent repression is the way these countries held/hold together. Bohemians defenestrate? Send in the army! Dutch revolt? Send our best commander! Hungarians want to be free? Better call Russia to help us with their army! Poles revolt? Send in the army! Kurds get unruly? Send in the army! Tibetans revolt? Crush them! Revolt in India against our rule? ARMY. Be nice and stop using violence? Whoops, they just declared independence! quote:Also, most of those fell apart thanks to external pressures and in a specific, turbulent time period. The insistence on ethnic-states was probably not a leading cause of stability in the world. They had significant internal pressures already, the external ones just gave the last push. quote:Acculturation is not a uniquely American phenomena, see France for a good example that's not a settler state. France, like America, is pretty unique in that respect. To be French you have to a) speak the language, b) respect French habits and traditions, c) hold the same values. Unlike most other European countries it's not really based on blood. When you move to Italy/Germany/Russia, you'll never really be one of them, even 20 years later. quote:And trying to break countries apart into single nationality states has been mostly a complete disaster, as it's impossible to cut clean lines. Look at what happened in Eastern Europe post-WWI, India after '47, Israel-Palestine, and Yugoslavia. Post-WW2 the same Eastern European countries solved part of their minority problems, either by losing territory like Poland, or by kicking out the Germans. In Yugoslavia not only did Tito repress any conflicts, but he also tried to mix the population through population transfers. After his death, the Croatians for example, used the opportunity to kick out as many non-Croats as they could. quote:In addition, the United Kingdom is made up of English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish (some people in Cornwall consider themselves a unique Gaelic ethnicity as well), whilst Spain has so much regional ethnic variance they don't even have words for their national anthem in case it pisses one of those groups off. Belgium is split between two seperate groups and they seem to hold it together (more or less) whilst Switzerland uses three languages and there doesn't appear to be much chance of them splitting up in the near or even far future. Today, all these countries grant significant local autonomies, whereas in the past they would probably have regularly sent in the army. The UK has a Scottish independence referendum scheduled. Belgium is mostly still together because they can't agree on who should get Bruxelles, a French enclave in Flemish territory. Spain tries to ignore it has minorities as best as it can, because they're all Spaniards drat it. Basques and Catalans are the loudest to disagree and would like to be independent tomorrow. Switzerland is not only highly decentralised with Cantons ruling themselves, the country is also heavily desegregated along linguistic lines with only 4/26 multi-lingual Cantons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
Riso posted:Bohemians defenestrate? Send in the army! Not to mention that after 1648, the Empire continued for another one and a half hundred years, for a total history of more than 800 years. At what point in its nearly thousand-year history was the Holy Roman Empire "doomed to fail"? If you want to argue that it only survived through "violent repression" of its subject "ethnicities," I've seen no evidence of that. Bohemia was pretty prosperous, as were the Imperial parts of Italy.  The Empire (approx.) c. 1600, superimposed atop modern state boundaries.  From Wikipedia: "The Quarter Eagle, hand-colored woodcut (c. 1510) by Hans Burgkmair, showing a selection of 56 shields of various Imperial States in groups of four on the feathers of a double-headed eagle supporting, in place of a shield, Christ on the Cross. The top, larger shields, are those of the seven Prince Electors, the ecclesiastical: Trier, Cologne and Mainz as well as of the titular "Prefect of Rome" on the right wing; the secular: Bohemia, Electorate of the Palatinate, Saxony and Brandenburg on the left." These are, of course, not the only political entities extant in the Empire at this time. Note that the guiding ideas are political (the Prince Electors in their serried ranks) and religious (the entire thing is supported by Christ). HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
I did not mention the HRE, but the Habsburgs specifically, which means: Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, Netherlands, Northern Italy, and various other attached nations. The HRE itself was a mess of individual fiefdoms that only paid lip service to higher authority outside moments of foreign crisis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 11:11
|
|
|
Riso posted:The Russian Empire and the Habsburg monarchy lasted the better part of 400 years, so are they disqualified? Rome endured the better part of 1500. Modern Russia is basically contiguous with the Russian empire so yes it certainly can't be said to have fallen, which was your original claim, so the fact that violent repression is a good way to keep minority territories from breaking off is irrelevant to the point that not "basically every" multiethnic country has split up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Modern Russia is basically contiguous with the Russian empire so yes it certainly can't be said to have fallen, which was your original claim, so the fact that violent repression is a good way to keep minority territories from breaking off is irrelevant to the point that not "basically every" multiethnic country has split up. Not split up? I remember Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and many more being part of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
Riso posted:These countries are today 80-90% homogeneous. It is rare that a single minority becomes big enough to have enough influence to start affecting changes. It is fairly rare and drat if it doesn't scare some people when a minority seems to have any sort of influence. In French: http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2013/07/19/le-lobby-breton-drague-la-republique_3449367_823448.html Riso posted:France, like America, is pretty unique in that respect. This is largely true but French people will still sometimes put qualifiers on foreigners that have been here for a long time. Just look at the poo poo Eva Joly got during the last Presidential election about how she wasn't really French. People were actually making fun of her accent on national TV. That said, when people aren't aware of my citizenship status (I'm American and in the process of getting French citizenship), they refer to me as being of American origin rather than being American. duckmaster posted:In addition, the United Kingdom is made up of English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish (some people in Cornwall consider themselves a unique Gaelic ethnicity as well) On a rather pedantic note, Cornish people aren't Gaelic. The Celtic peoples are usually split into two groups, the Gaels in Ireland, Man and Scotland and the Brynthonic Celts (or whatever this is called in English) in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:No, at this point, they really don't, because of acculturation and redefinition of ethic identities by those immigrants. There is no axiomatic reason that would not work literally anywhere in the world, is our point. Yeah I wrote that post without refreshing so it wasn't in response to either your comments or some other replies that made similar points. Beaten on the draw! Squalid fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
I definitely wouldn't call modern India a multicultural success story since it has like about half a dozen active insurgencies and persistent history of communal violence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Riso posted:Not split up? There are still 21 Republics within Russia which are based off of the "titular nationality" and have their own parliaments, laws, and can assign their own language but Russia represents them for international relations. Over the last 10 years, Putin has been trying to lean on them more. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Hah, I love that the groups of Punjabi communal workers were called "Hindu Crews". Despite only 10% of Punjabis being Hindu (now anyway, but I doubt it was all that different). Indian guy eh? Hindu. Case closed. My grandfather organized the burial plots for all the Muslims. It was cheaper to buy a whole bunch decades in advance to make sure everyone would be facing toward Mecca. A couple of the earlier deaths have "Hindustanee" or "Hindustan" written on them. It wouldn't be just those words but like "Abdul Khan from Hindustan" or "Abdul Hindustanee." LP97S posted:There are still 21 Republics within Russia which are based off of the "titular nationality" and have their own parliaments, laws, and can assign their own language but Russia represents them for international relations. Over the last 10 years, Putin has been trying to lean on them more. I always kind of wondered how countries with autonomous republics worked. I've read about them on wiki but it'd be interesting to actually experience it and visit to get a more in depth perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Riso posted:That's because the USA is rather unique that way. People go there with the express purpose of leaving everything behind. This sounds like American exceptionalism. Apart from the countires other people brought up, don't forget: Bolivia is officially known as the Plurinational State of Bolivia (Spanish: Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, Quechua: Bulivya Mamallaqta, Aymara: Wuliwya Suyu)  
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:neo_colonialsim.bmp Is there a reason poor Burkina Faso, Senegal, and Tunisia don't get to join the francophonie party, but Egypt does? -EDIT- vvv my bad, senegal is in the party. Spirit Tree fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Sep 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
That is Senegal. Just not all of Senegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:
It looks like Burgenland wasn't a part of the HRE but is a part of modern-day Austria. Wonder how that worked out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:It looks like Burgenland wasn't a part of the HRE but is a part of modern-day Austria. Wonder how that worked out. It was part of Royal Hungary (the remaining part of the Kingdom of Hungary not conquered by the Ottomans) but was split after the end of ww1. Most of it voted to become Austrian, but a portion around Soporon voted to remain Hungarian later on. It is a pretty nice place to visit if your in the area, especially if your into old soda bottles filled with wine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:It looks like Burgenland wasn't a part of the HRE but is a part of modern-day Austria. Wonder how that worked out. The Kingdom of Hungary used to be massive is the basic answer: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Beaten to answering, but here's a map with 1914 borders. Can't find a modern one. Why wasn't the Kingdom of Hungary under the Hapsburgs part of the HRE? Was it like an earlier form of the German Question?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
ptk posted:Why wasn't the Kingdom of Hungary under the Hapsburgs part of the HRE? Was it like an earlier form of the German Question? They certainly weren't part of the HRE when it was first established, of course, and Hungary was I believe still regarded as a separate kingdom from Austria until the creation of the dual monarchy in the 1800s, even though they had the same monarch from the mid-1500s onward. They had a separate Diet and at least some sort of domestic autonomy. (It also may have played a role that an enormous portion of what would later be regarded as the Hungary half of Austria-Hungary was controlled either directly by the Ottoman Empire or its vassal state Transylvania from the 1500s until about 1700.) I think something similar probably applied during the period when Bohemia and Hungary were in personal union (late 1400s/early 1500s). Basil Hayden fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Sep 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
There were significant advantages to having territories outside of the HRE proper. Territories within were restricted by Imperial law, and many of the Hapsburg properties could theoretically be lost in the unlikely event that they failed in an election for emperor (which did almost happen several times). Territories they kept outside of the empire were a hedge against future unrest inside of it, such as another 30 Years War. I can't back this up, but I'd also suspect that the German princes would be skeptical of introducing a territory as large as Hungary to the empire, as well, since it would automatically be the strongest state outside of Austria itself. Looking at that map, you can also see why Hungary allied with Nazi Germany after WWII. Before WWI, Hungary considered itself nearly a great power in its own right, and the loss of so much territory must have been enormously traumatic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:It is fairly rare and drat if it doesn't scare some people when a minority seems to have any sort of influence. Apparently Le Monde is behind a paywall now. Any chance you could summarize beyond "Bretons are flying their Ermines and Stripes abroad now and they're getting representation in the cabinet a-bloo-bloo-bloo." Ministers in France are like Cabinet members in the US, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Looking at that map, you can also see why Hungary allied with Nazi Germany after WWII. Before WWI, Hungary considered itself nearly a great power in its own right, and the loss of so much territory must have been enormously traumatic. Or look at Russia today compared to the USSR, and its legacy. I think the anti-gay laws are more than Russians being "naturally bigots." I do think adding Royal Hungary, a land that was politically, historically and culturally separate from the HRE, was going to be a hard push. Remember for most of the 17th and 18th century, Royal Hungary was an armed border region which experienced frequent raids. I could see other realms not wanting to get dragged into it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Apparently Le Monde is behind a paywall now. Any chance you could summarize beyond "Bretons are flying their Ermines and Stripes abroad now and they're getting representation in the cabinet a-bloo-bloo-bloo." Ministers in France are like Cabinet members in the US, right? There's also a lot of "Bretons have so much, they don't need more!" in it as well as a comment about Breton influence isn't quite at the point of threatening the unity of the Republic. I guess you always have to watch out for that, it's in their blood you see. And yes, ministers are like cabinet members in the US. Someone earlier talked about Bolivia and mentioned Quechua. Quechua is the most widely spoken Native American language with 8.9M speakers, or about as many speakers as Swedish. edit: It's more fair to say Quechua is a language family, but Southern Quechua has something like 6M speakers. Where Quechua is spoken. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
lonelywurm posted:On the 2000 census, 32,765 people nationwide identified their ancestry as "Texas". A further 6,510 reported it as "Southerner". That said, it looks like every state had at least some people use it to identify their ancestry, though the next-largest (California) is only at 8,000 and some. Aryan - 3,308 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
lonelywurm posted:On the 2000 census, 32,765 people nationwide identified their ancestry as "Texas". A further 6,510 reported it as "Southerner". That said, it looks like every state had at least some people use it to identify their ancestry, though the next-largest (California) is only at 8,000 and some. Corsican - 1840. not too shabby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Aryan - 3,308 "Other Responses" are amazing 3.349 Million "White" 11,945 "Appalachian" 9,681 "Acadian" 1.089 Million "Religious Response" does that mean they filled in the wrong box or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
Peanut President posted:"Other Responses" are amazing Probably just means they wrote "Christian" or something like that, for ancestry it's not boxes you just write it in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2013 17:54
|
|
