|
Belgians, for what it's worth, have used the FAL and the FNC since forever. I'm not sure if we use the f2000 and SCAR rifles ourselves. Maybe some special forces do.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Boiled Water posted:And almost immediately regretted that decision as the Steyr Augs magazine are plastic and would, at sub-zero temperatures celsius, crack if hit or dropped. here's the thing about australia: we don't have much in the way of sub-zero temperatures (having used both, for my money i prefer the steyr, though i will say the m-16's ability to be switched from left- to right-handed on the fly is pretty useful)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
I haven't used an assault rifle and I really don't want to either, at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:I haven't used an assault rifle and I really don't want to either, at all. i thought you were finnish? doesn't finland have national service? i could be wrong about one or both of those things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:I haven't used an assault rifle and I really don't want to either, at all. Why not, it's pretty fun!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Why not, it's pretty fun! eh it's like bowling. It's fine for a little hour or so but then it's really time to go do something else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Tony Jowns posted:i thought you were finnish? doesn't finland have national service? i could be wrong about one or both of those things. The national service can be completed as a civilian service too, you can choose where you want to go during the draft (or even after you have started your military service, you can apply for a civilian service instead). You can also not consent to neither of those options and go straight to jail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Tony Jowns posted:here's the thing about australia: we don't have much in the way of sub-zero temperatures Welp read 'aug' thought austria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:This map is about a week old. Does anybody have one that is both more recent and shows other groups besides IS like this one does? Last page I know but that map is based on one produced by Thomas van Linge, if you subscribe to his twitter (@arabthomness) he routinely publishes updated versions which are probably the most detailed maps I've seen. He doesn't do it anywhere as frequently as I would like but this set are from about 5 days ago:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Last page I know but that map is based on one produced by Thomas van Linge, if you subscribe to his twitter (@arabthomness) he routinely publishes updated versions which are probably the most detailed maps I've seen. He doesn't do it anywhere as frequently as I would like but this set are from about 5 days ago: That Aleppo dot... yikes what a clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Why not, it's pretty fun! Eh, after the first couple of times it loses its luster. After you have to lug the drat thing around for months on end and clean it on a daily basis it definitely does. kustomkarkommando posted:Last page I know but that map is based on one produced by Thomas van Linge, if you subscribe to his twitter (@arabthomness) he routinely publishes updated versions which are probably the most detailed maps I've seen. He doesn't do it anywhere as frequently as I would like but this set are from about 5 days ago: Is it me or is there basically no reason why there shouldn't be an independent Kurdistan formed from the yellow/green parts bordering each other? For like the first time ever it really seems that Kurds are the one group in Middle East that has their poo poo together pretty well. EDIT: I mean obviously I get the diplomatic/regional cluster fuckery but I think Sunnis and Shias in Iraq are too busy hating on each other to save a thought for the Kurds and Syria...well they're too busy to even notice, probably. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Eh, after the first couple of times it loses its luster. After you have to lug the drat thing around for months on end and clean it on a daily basis it definitely does. Turkey pretty much. If the Kurdish minority there does not push for independence as well it could maybe work. ISIS really changed the game completely so a Kurdish state is more possible now then ever before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Turkey pretty much. If the Kurdish minority there does not push for independence as well it could maybe work. ISIS really changed the game completely so a Kurdish state is more possible now then ever before. I thought they would be happy that they can point to an independent Kurdistan that doesn't have an inch of Turkey in it and just go "Well look at that, what are you still crying about? Kurdistan exists, just go there!" Aside from the neighbors, Iraqi/Syrian Kurdistan does seem like it could function as a country pretty well, they have oil and pretty stable institutions. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Is it me or is there basically no reason why there shouldn't be an independent Kurdistan formed from the yellow/green parts bordering each other? For like the first time ever it really seems that Kurds are the one group in Middle East that has their poo poo together pretty well. But yeah, the reason why a Kurdish state does not exist now is because Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:30
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
DarkCrawler posted:I thought they would be happy that they can point to an independent Kurdistan that doesn't have an inch of Turkey in it and just go "Well look at that, what are you still crying about? Kurdistan exists, just go there!" Iraqi Kurdistan would probably be tolerable for Turkey but the Syrian areas are another matter, largely because of the different political parties that control the different regions - the major Syrian faction is aligned with the PKK while the major Iraqi party has traditionally been hostile to the PKK and has clashed with them in the past. An independent Kurdistan that shuffles arms to the PKK is definitely something that Turkey does not want at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I for one like to think that maybe states can succeed without needing to be based on single majority ethnic groups? Creating breakaway states will always just create disputed border regions and conflicts based on them anyway. I don't dispute states can succeed without being based on single majority ethnic groups, many have. These states, however, were created by drawing lines on the map by a bunch of Europeans who didn't knew poo poo about the region and were ruled by horrible apartheid-loving dictators who hijacked any notions of a national identity for their personal propaganda vehicles. As far as I've understood, the Kurds have very little relation to countries whose entire history of independence has included a significant amount of just loving them over, really hard. Is there a reason why Iraq or Syria should stay together in this case? I don't see much point. Kurdistan seems like it could function and it's secession would not change much for the countries themselves - presumably ISIS for example wouldn't stop bothering them once they declare independence and they would still be fighting against them. This method does not really work in Africa where they have like 20+ ethnic groups stuffed in each country and living everywhere around it...see how South Sudan ended. But the groups are pretty conveniently located here, and I don't think the Kurds have significant internal disputes or divides. It seems like a solution that would work here. kustomkarkommando posted:Iraqi Kurdistan would probably be tolerable for Turkey but the Syrian areas are another matter, largely because of the different political parties that control the different regions - the major Syrian faction is aligned with the PKK while the major Iraqi party has traditionally been hostile to the PKK and has clashed with them in the past. Yeah, but wouldn't it be easier to solve the issue with a functioning state instead of a bunch of militant groups in a state of anarchy? I wouldn't imagine Iraqi Kurds, close US/French allies as they are, would be too hot about supporting an insurgency against an NATO ally and would probably rein it down. I just don't see Turkey's agenda for resisting this hypothetical solution, it seems like literally everything they could ask for as an useful political excuse in their own Kurdish issues. Hell, if they start smuggling arms to PKK they can just go "Well look, this is what they do when they get independence! Support terrorists!" Besides, the peace process is going better, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_process DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
The Kurds are actually deeply divided by ideology and tribal affiliation, but I'm still generally in favor of an independent Kurdistan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I thought they would be happy that they can point to an independent Kurdistan that doesn't have an inch of Turkey in it and just go "Well look at that, what are you still crying about? Kurdistan exists, just go there!" Aside from the neighbors, Iraqi/Syrian Kurdistan does seem like it could function as a country pretty well, they have oil and pretty stable institutions. That only goes so far, lets say a bunch of them DO emigrate to Kurdistan, now you have a possible overpopulation problem in Kurdistan and a whole bunch of people pointing at Turkey and blaming them while at the same time depopulating the Turkish border with ISIS. ISIS however may be enough of a reason for the Turkish govt to treat the Kurds there real nice now and say "yeah you guys can stay and have it better now while your buddies across the border have their own state. Enjoy your mutual commerce and oh yeah please fight ISIS if they gently caress around thanks."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:The Kurds are actually deeply divided by ideological and tribal affiliations, but I'm still generally in favor of an independent Kurdistan. I would say any nation has its internal divides. I'm more curious as to how hostile Kurds would prove to be to any ethnic or religious minorities in their hypothetical future state. Generally they seem to be pretty tolerant with regards to faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:The Kurds are actually deeply divided by ideology and tribal affiliation Well, sure, I don't claim to be an expert. It might devolve into a massive internal bloodbath once the independence/ethnic issues is sorted out and the ideologues and politics get the front seat. Because gently caress humans  WoodrowSkillson posted:That only goes so far, lets say a bunch of them DO emigrate to Kurdistan, now you have a possible overpopulation problem in Kurdistan and a whole bunch of people pointing at Turkey and blaming them while at the same time depopulating the Turkish border with ISIS. True, but this wouldn't be an overpopulation problem caused by the Turks unless they start pogroms against the Kurds living in Kurdistan. It wouldn't be a working excuse against equal rights for Kurds in Turkey (though let's face it, they would probably try and use it, again gently caress humans) but against any calls for independence. It would be another country annexing Turkish territory in the new case, which is a lot more easier thing to make palatable worldwide then denying an oppressed minority their independence. Especially when there would be a shitload of Turks living in that territory too, who actually like their government (as opposed to Iraqi/Syrian Arabs). New Division posted:I would say any nation has its internal divides. I'm more curious as to how hostile Kurds would prove to be to any ethnic or religious minorities in their hypothetical future state. Generally they seem to be pretty tolerant with regards to faith. Well right now at least Iraqi Arabs probably would prefer living in an independent Kurdistan, even with the linguistic issues  http://www.irinnews.org/report/74780/iraq-iraqi-arabs-seek-refuge-in-kurdish-north EDIT: OK I actually looked into this more, gently caress humans once more: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/video-anti-arab-march-held-kurds-erbil-397174944 http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/23082014 http://www.kurdishglobe.net/article/9C2341C583ED6016053010AB35A5BE28/Displaced-Arabs-may-stay-in-Kurdistan-for-good.html http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/221120131 DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
New Division posted:I would say any nation has its internal divides. I'm more curious as to how hostile Kurds would prove to be to any ethnic or religious minorities in their hypothetical future state. Generally they seem to be pretty tolerant with regards to faith. In this case they had a civil war in the mid-nineties, so I feel that we can say there are some serious divides within Iraqi Kurdish society, never mind the various other Kurdistans. Yes, they seem relatively good towards ethnic and religious minorities, even if they're currently playing it up for public relations purposes. I have seen some people talk about Arabs being persecuted in certain areas, but I don't think I've seen any sources so far. e: yeah, DarkCrawler's links seem to confirm it. Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:These states, however, were created by drawing lines on the map by a bunch of Europeans who didn't knew poo poo about the region and were ruled by horrible apartheid-loving dictators who hijacked any notions of a national identity for their personal propaganda vehicles. As far as I've understood, the Kurds have very little relation to countries whose entire history of independence has included a significant amount of just loving them over, really hard. Is there a reason why Iraq or Syria should stay together in this case? I don't see much point. Kurdistan seems like it could function and it's secession would not change much for the countries themselves - presumably ISIS for example wouldn't stop bothering them once they declare independence and they would still be fighting against them. Yeah, but all state borders are ultimately arbitrary. Whether they were drawn by foreign aristocrats or local aristocrats really shouldn't make any drat difference. Given time, and less corrupt leadership, you'll start to see a new ethnic identity develop, and that will be the glue around which your country solidifies. The problem is getting enough political, institutional, and economic stability to develop that government. We in the west should really be helping, but we won't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:EDIT: OK I actually looked into this more, gently caress humans once more: I just spent a couple of minutes trying to find that Middle East Eye video but you beat me to it, anti-Arab sentiment is defo a thing in Iraqi Kurdistan that is being exacerbated by the recent influx of refugees and the involvement of Sunni Tribes in the insurgency. The government takes a pretty dim view of it though so I wouldn't worry too much about it becoming official policy anytime soon, that doesn't mean there isn't a potential for grass roots ethnic cleansing organized by mobs/militias.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I for one like to think that maybe states can succeed without needing to be based on single majority ethnic groups? Creating breakaway states will always just create disputed border regions and conflicts based on them anyway. PittTheElder posted:Yeah, but all state borders are ultimately arbitrary. Whether they were drawn by foreign aristocrats or local aristocrats really shouldn't make any drat difference. Given time, and less corrupt leadership, you'll start to see a new ethnic identity develop, and that will be the glue around which your country solidifies. The problem is getting enough political, institutional, and economic stability to develop that government. We in the west should really be helping, but we won't. Also, Iraq's borders aren't arbitrary, they were specifically drawn to create the perfect unstable state, where the minority on top was dependent on Britain to maintain their power thus ensuring its opposition to any nationalist uprising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I've seen this claim before, but is there any support for this idea of a new ethnic identity being created? Should not the whole area then be part of the Ottoman nation state, the Iraqis a mere subgroup within the Ottoman ethnicity? Aren't these new identities usually just another word for assimilation? Just as one example the identity of being "American" rather than Virginian, etc only dates to the past 150 years. National identity is usually related to who has the monopoly on force in a region and whether the locals who have power (traditionally nobles, these days "the people") are interacting in the government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Just as one example the identity of being "American" rather than Virginian, etc only dates to the past 150 years. computer parts posted:National identity is usually related to who has the monopoly on force in a region and whether the locals who have power (traditionally nobles, these days "the people") are interacting in the government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's more a case of shifting your core identity "up", not a new being created, surely? Or would you have me believe the people who fought the American War of Independence did not have some sense of common identity, even if ultimately they might have identified more closely with their colony/state? They had a common purpose, but so did (eg) Hindus and Muslims during British rule of India. These differences are masked when you have a more frightening Other to contend with, but once they're gone you can see if a true national identity really exists. quote:I have no idea what you're saying. People consider themselves as part of a nation for two reasons: 1. If the government/regime of that nation is willing and able to protect you. If you have to do everything and they just try to take your money, why should you agree to that? 2. If the people with local power agree with and help the government. In olden times, if the duke of a region didn't like the King, he could make life hell for the King and give neighboring kingdoms an excuse to invade to "liberate" the province. Nowadays if you don't have the support of the church leader/tribal leader/etc, then they're not going to want to be part of your nation. In developed nations you also have the prospect of the popular vote - if the common people feel their needs aren't being met, they won't feel as though they're really part of your country, and (if possible, eg Scotland) will want to leave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, but all state borders are ultimately arbitrary. Whether they were drawn by foreign aristocrats or local aristocrats really shouldn't make any drat difference. Given time, and less corrupt leadership, you'll start to see a new ethnic identity develop, and that will be the glue around which your country solidifies. The problem is getting enough political, institutional, and economic stability to develop that government. We in the west should really be helping, but we won't. Some borders are thousands of years of old and exemplify some of the most important natural barriers and defenses of the world. Others were drawn up by half a dozen white guys in a boardroom in Berlin. There are degrees of arbitrariness. Now I'm not saying that a state with recent borders can't triumph - again, many cases in Africa - but if there is really nothing worthy to salvage, what's the point? What is the worth of the idea of Iraq or an united theme that the Iraqis simply have to try and maintain? If they're happier apart - and this has been a case, Czechoslovakia, etc. - do we really have to maintain the existence of Iraq? 'cause you know...gently caress Iraq. It's been mostly a miserable run for Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see a borderless world, but that isn't realistic at the moment. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They had a common purpose, but so did (eg) Hindus and Muslims during British rule of India. These differences are masked when you have a more frightening Other to contend with, but once they're gone you can see if a true national identity really exists. computer parts posted:People consider themselves as part of a nation for two reasons:
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Some borders are thousands of years of old and exemplify some of the most important natural barriers and defenses of the world. Others were drawn up by half a dozen white guys in a boardroom in Berlin. There are degrees of arbitrariness. I'm not sure there are particularly many state borders that have remained unchanged for thousands of years -- not even for hundreds of years. There are a few gee-whiz anomalies like San Marino or Liechtenstein, though even those certainly aren't 'thousands of years old', but otherwise borders have always been very fluid up until the ascendancy of the idea of the fixed territorial nation-state in the past two hundred years or so. And of course huge swathes of the world have been subject to colonial processes that make the idea of thousands-of-years-old borders impossible, not even getting into the fact that the states of, say, precolonial Subsaharan African tended to be diffuse and without clearly defined borders at all. In any case, a so-called 'natural border' doesn't become any less arbitrary on account of being 'natural': calling it natural is simply a mode of legitimising it. Specifically, the fact that there's a huge mountain range or a big river somewhere might make maintaining a border there easier but it doesn't trivially enshrine it with inherent legitimacy. The long-cherished Republican/Napoleonic goal of expanding France to its 'natural borders' -- defined as the Rhine, the Pyrenees, the Alps, etc -- is a perfect example of this. On the other side of the coin, the portrayal of a state as somehow unnatural, arbitrary, etc., serves the particular function of delegitimising the shared experiences of the people who might live there. During the great African wars of the 90s and early 2000s a similar discourse was propagated in the West about the current DR Congo which portrayed it as a 'Zaire-shaped hole in the middle of Africa' and an inherently illegitimate state entity which needed to be split up, despite the fact that opinion surveys showed that the vast majority of Congolese did feel some kind of unified national identity and a preference for remaining in one overarching state unit. Similarly, to my knowledge there are no significant Sunni or Shi'ite factions in Iraq advocating a breakup of the country down 'ethnic' lines, though the Kurds are of course another story. The unfortunate consequence of this kind of discourse is, like other people have already pointed out before here and in the Middle East thread, that it legitimises the kind of ethnic cleansing that the ideology of the nation-state in practice demands as a prerequisite to stability. The fact that it's in effect an analysis imposed from outside means that, if the US were to put into practice, it'd be precisely the sort of well-meaning colonial meddling that created the 'mess' in the first place. A Buttery Pastry posted:That's more a case of shifting your core identity "up", not a new being created, surely? Or would you have me believe the people who fought the American War of Independence did not have some sense of common identity, even if ultimately they might have identified more closely with their colony/state? I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, in the sense that there certainly wasn't a commonly-held perception of an 'American nation' or 'American race' fighting the English and if anything this actually seems to devalue your argument. By and large the early American separatists held themselves to be defending English liberty against an empire that had become English in name only. It's ultimately a fairly striking irony that a lot of the greatest defenders of a universal nation-state model, like Woodrow Wilson, emerged from the US, a consummate non-national state. With respect to the Ottomans, though it seems to also apply fairly well to the US: sociologists and historians have for a while now tended to distinguish between 'imperial' and 'national' concepts of state legitimacy. These are fairly diffuse concepts and as an intellectual historian I tend to dislike ahistoricism, but they do serve as decent ideal types highlighting a very important contrast. The imperial concept of legitimacy pays little attention to ethnicity and emphasises the universal and all-encompassing character of the state. Culture, rather than race or blood, is the key, and ideally anyone who adopts the imperial culture is a full member of the imperial community irrespective of their ethnic origins. The Roman Empire at its height, the Chinese Empire at various points in its history, certainly the Ottomans, and to some extent the US all embody this sort of legitimacy. They don't need to establish a national identity because they already draw their legitimacy from other roots in particular kinds of universal ideals. (Of course in the last phases of the Ottoman empire this idea broke down and there was ultimately a turn towards imposing Turkish particularism, with the tragic results we know.) By contrast, the 'national' concept of legitimacy emphasises the particular rather than universal roots of the state, and also tends to be established in reaction to imperial states. In a recent book Caspar Hirschi has traced the deep origins of European nationalism in medieval reactions against the concept of the universal Roman empire, especially in France. A more esoteric example is Cambodia, which has also been held to exemplify this sort of nationalism with respect to the Vietnamese empire. Many decolonised states also naturally strive for this form of legitimacy. Zohar fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Zohar posted:I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, in the sense that there certainly wasn't a commonly-held perception of an 'American nation' or 'American race' fighting the English and if anything this actually seems to devalue your argument. By and large the early American separatists held themselves to be defending English liberty against an empire that had become English in name only. It's ultimately a fairly striking irony that a lot of the greatest defenders of a universal nation-state model, like Woodrow Wilson, emerged from the US, a consummate non-national state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I never said the common identity was American. If "defending English liberty" was the goal for the separatists, then that does mean they saw a common identity in their Englishness, which was then over time re-imagined as a separate American identity. (Which is not the same as the creation of a new common ethnic identity out of two or more separate identities.) It wasn't, because like I explained in my post there isn't generally held to be a widely-accepted 'American ethnic identity' at all even today. (e: i.e. it wasn't the same, like you said) If you want examples of the construction of ethnic identities there are plenty of well-studied cases in Europe and Asia -- Germany is probably the one with the widest literature. There's even been a book on the construction of Luxembourgish identity, though I can't remember the name right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Zohar posted:It wasn't, because like I explained in my post there isn't generally held to be a widely-accepted 'American ethnic identity' at all even today. (e: i.e. it wasn't the same, like you said) Zohar posted:If you want examples of the construction of ethnic identities there are plenty of well-studied cases in Europe and Asia -- Germany is probably the one with the widest literature. There's even been a book on the construction of Luxembourgish identity, though I can't remember the name right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's more a case of shifting your core identity "up", not a new being created, surely? Or would you have me believe the people who fought the American War of Independence did not have some sense of common identity, even if ultimately they might have identified more closely with their colony/state? Correct. Are you really that ignorant of pre-Constitution America? Do you not understand why everybody was initially so happy about an extremely weak confederal government with nearly all powers in the hands of the new states? And even shortly afterwards, the new Constitution still had a lot of explicitly state powers, like states choosing electors for President rather than them being chosen by popular vote, the senators being chosen by the state legislatures, etc. And a lot of people still only saw a shared identity above state level in regionalism; your New Englanders tended to hang together, as did Mid-Atlantic and then two seperate regions of South, as well as Virginians particularly seeing themselves as separate from all as the oldest colony. It really did take the civil war and the aftermath to really cement an American identity, in part in combination with the masses of people from all sorts of different regions migrating west to newly bought/seized lands around the Civil War times. And explicit efforts were made in wars after the civil war to ensure that deployed military units had mxitures of people from different states and regions sharing commands and quarters. A Buttery Pastry posted:I meant American as a geographic term, not ethnic. Basically the acknowledgment that whatever British English origin these people might have had at one time they had now become separated from that. This group being the core of the construction of the white "race" as a concept in America, which allowed the assimilation of other nationalities into the common identity without having them conform to the same degree as you see in nation states. Especially in the south, you had tons of the upper class happy to call on their British upper class and even royal lineages. It wasn't really about being American then, even though several decades later it started to become about being American (but this was more often proclaimed by lower and middle class people angry about more people coming in, who tended to be manipulated by people who still proudly held the family seal granted by the King in 1550-whatever or their lineage from Lord Soandso).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Correct. Are you really that ignorant of pre-Constitution America? Do you not understand why everybody was initially so happy about an extremely weak confederal government with nearly all powers in the hands of the new states? And even shortly afterwards, the new Constitution still had a lot of explicitly state powers, like states choosing electors for President rather than them being chosen by popular vote, the senators being chosen by the state legislatures, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Nitpick: states have always had the responsibility of choosing their own electors, however they see fit. Most of them didn't have the people involved more than tangentially the first few times, but a general election across the state, winner takes all the electors, was an established method soon, and I think a majority of Jackson's EC votes in 1824 came from people rather than legislatures. Right, but 1824 also involved the election having to be thrown to the Congress for a final ruling since there was no electoral majority (and thus Adams winning).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The German identity existed before the German state though? It was just that the historical circumstances meant regional identities controlled their own states for a long time. Obviously the exact form was shaped to some degree by the state, but the fact that you had people clamoring for a German decades before Germany was created seems like evidence enough that a German nationality existed already. Right, and this gets at another distinction between what we can call top-down and bottom-up forms of nationalism (as well as integrative/dissociative/etc). Germany actually illustrates both rather nicely; in the original Vormärz period German nationalism subsists basically as a limited topic of concern for a particular class of liberal intellectuals, but once Bismarck's Prussia had taken up the banner of German nationalism and certainly once the German Empire had formed it gradually switches to a top-down form of nationalism which is disseminated by the state into the general population -- which in turn is why it seems to abandon its liberal roots and ends up largely entangled with authoritarian conservatism by the Wilhelmine period. So even with Germany, where clearly the national idea did precede the formation of the state as you point out, it took the involvement of the state to actually inculcate national identity on the massive scale it requires. If you want a cleaner example of a state producing a nation, then France is the big obvious case in Europe, but we can also see plenty of examples among the Spanish-speaking states of Latin America, where the production of a national identity clearly came after the creation of an independent state in virtually every instance. As an oversimplified picture: the original juntas of the independence period had only the vaguely defined idea that sovereignty belonged to the people in the absence of a legitimate king to work from, and when it became clear that a unified South America was not on the cards the political elites needed something more coherent in order to justify their newfound autonomy. So if we take, say, Uruguay, the production of a 'Uruguayan nation' was a pretty much conscious project of political legitimation that spanned the second half of the 19th century to the first few decades of the 20th.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Also, Iraq's borders aren't arbitrary, they were specifically drawn to create the perfect unstable state, where the minority on top was dependent on Britain to maintain their power thus ensuring its opposition to any nationalist uprising. Iraqs borders (and those of most Middle Eastern states for that matter) are based on the borders between provinces in the Ottoman Empire. Iraq itself was three provinces - Mosul in the north, mainly Kurd; Baghdad in the centre, Sunni; Basra in the south, Shia - which governed the area together as Ottoman Iraq. They governed together for the opposite reason you state: the Ottomans kept the three groups in a permanent state of flux so one group would never become more powerful than the others. Britain wanted Iraq to be a self-governing state but very friendly to British business interests and creating an unstable country wasn't what they were trying to do. Although Gertrude Bell and others played prominent roles in restructuring the civil services and governments in the Middle East after WW1 the widely believed idea that they arbitrarily drew all the borders in an afternoon is little more than anti-Arab/Turk racism. The suggestion that the area was an ungoverned and unadministered hellhole which needed sorting out by some wise Europeans is false; all the British really did was rename everything, install a King and leave. The trouble with our western notion of borders is that they're literally just lines on a map and unless they have any meaning beyond that to people then they will be (and in the Middle East, are) ignored. You can draw lines all over Iraq all day but guess what? People who dislike each other or feel they're being bullied or want someone elses resources are not going to stop fighting those people because of a big black line on a map drawn by the Ottoman Sultan in the 14th century. In Kurdistan (in northern Iraq) they actually speak two seperate languages. Each side distrusts the other which influences the economy, politics and quite a few other things. A line on a map is not going to bridge that divide. It simply isn't the answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Germany is a good example of a country with both physical and cultural borders. They even have a song explaining them!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Germany is a good example of a country with both physical and cultural borders. They even have a song explaining them! I too long for the days when Germany included significant parts of Italy, Belgium and Denmark, as well as the whole of Austria, Switzerland and Poland.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 20:07
|
|
