|
Koramei posted:What? Their families had been living there for hundreds of years. That they aren't "native" to the land doesn't mean they have no right to live there. Or should we all be okay with getting expelled from the Americas because it's not where we're "actually" from. England belongs to the Celts.  vv England belongs to the sheep, then? Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Apr 18, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
Actually, Celts are Indo-European invaders themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Return Europe to the Neanderthals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Return Europe to the Neanderthals. Already done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Actually, Celts are Indo-European invaders themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Really because the jews were not originally from Spain, their expulsion was totally justified.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:But Canada is a bad example. First of course in that these two languages are not native languages but instead imported from Europe, which points to the origin of Canada's success. Insofar as the First Nations can be ignored, the Canadians started with a mostly clean slate. You cannot compare Canada to Greece, which suffered under Turkish/Ottoman rule for centuries, after being conquered only a few decades after Columbus voyages. In a series of holy wars no less. Is it any wonder that there is animosity between the Turks/Muslims and the Greeks/Christians, which far exceeds any ethnic/religious conflicts in Canada? Well, I guess I was responding to Riso's point, as I took it, that multicultural states ipso facto are historically unstable or require brutality to be maintained. It's not that I think no multicultural state is socially unstable. There's plenty of examples of that. It's that it's not the fact of multiculturalism that's to blame. There are just as many if not more examples of functional multicultural states. Historically, I think multicultural states are probably more stable in the long run and maintaining a monocultural state is what requires brutality. So, to the take the Roman example, sure Christian martyrs were killed. However, literally dozens and dozens of religious movements coexisted peacefully within the Empire and the city of Rome. People worshiping Sol Invictus and Magna Mater or Egyptian deities or whatever were unmolested. So the deaths of Christians is an outlier and not indicative of a general trend. Also, obviously the Roman Empire split and the western half collapsed. But, every government ever has eventually collapsed. The point is that it was an extremely successful state for a very long time while being bilingual and I think that that openness to outside ideas, cultures and religious movements was an important element of that success. Really, it was at the end of the empire, when they became more xenophobic and closed to outsiders (Germans, in that case) that things fell apart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
The Roman Empire was partitioned (by Latin-speaking emperors) along a linguistic line because of economic and administrative reasons, not social ones. And it had survived as officially multilingual before that for centuries upon centuries. For other examples you can look at pretty much the majority of all stable empires ever. Some ruled with an iron fist but that was definitely not the norm. But then why are we arguing with Riso anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Gleri posted:This is straight nonsense. The single clearest counterpoint is the Roman Empire which was officially bilingual, in the sense that officials did and were expected to speak two languages, and very multicultural for virtually its entire history. The Roman empire can be seen as a good example of autonomy. The only time you interacted with the state was when a tax official came around. Plus living inside was a lot safer and comfortable than living outside. quote:The Austrian and Turkish empires, as European examples, particularly point to that. They collapsed, but they successfully did not collapse for literally hundreds of years, which seriously challenges the thesis that multiethnic states are unstable. They had constant troubles and used a large military force to repress any revolts. You also admit they did not last. You disprove your own point. If you want modern examples we have Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. China also seems to regularly fall apart and come together again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Gleri posted:Well, I guess I was responding to Riso's point, as I took it, that multicultural states ipso facto are historically unstable or require brutality to be maintained. It's not that I think no multicultural state is socially unstable. There's plenty of examples of that. It's that it's not the fact of multiculturalism that's to blame. There are just as many if not more examples of functional multicultural states. Historically, I think multicultural states are probably more stable in the long run and maintaining a monocultural state is what requires brutality. Also a friendly reminder that Christians were executed not because of their religious beliefs, but simply because saying the Emperor holds no authority over you and you only answer to the Lord is a good way to get on the Emperor's bad side. I don't even remember which governor wrote this to a Roman emperor, but his letter was somewhere along the lines of "Yo, there's a bunch of Christians here who in public say that only their God holds authority over them, but they tell the judge that they believe the Emperor has final authority. What do you want me to do? I can't just convict them for their religion." Basically the Christian persecutions were less one of religion and more one of open rebellion and subversive actions against the emperor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Riso posted:The Roman empire can be seen as a good example of autonomy. The only time you interacted with the state was when a tax official came around. Plus living inside was a lot safer and comfortable than living outside. Or when the state needed troops, or stationed legions near you, or built public works in your cities, or completely built your cities, or put up statues, or made you pray for the emperor, or ... The Roman Empire was one of the most hands-on empires in history dude. quote:If you want modern examples we have Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. China also seems to regularly fall apart and come together again. "Regularly" as in after centuries. Mono-ethnic empires don't last that long either. And China generally hasn't been falling apart because of ethnic tension? Dude you're just wrong about this. Koramei fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
How about the United States of America? Close to 240 years now and it's still going pretty strong!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:How about the United States of America? Close to 240 years now and it's still going pretty strong! Any day now...  Just kidding, but US is a particularly interesting case where you take immigrants from different cultures and kinda mash them together to create a somewhat unique culture, made out of others. A melting pot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Or modern South Africa with eleven official languages and mandatory bilingualism in education. It has a lot of problems sure, but it would be hard to argue that apartheid philosophy was correct and that if only the various homelands had been fairly and equitably sized, then carving up the country and forcibly relocating everyone would have made the region more stable. If your ideal is homogeneous monlingual, monocultural states, you're a supporter of apartheid. It doesn't matter whether you believe in it because of "stability" or because of ethnocentrism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:But Canada is a bad example. First of course in that these two languages are not native languages but instead imported from Europe, which points to the origin of Canada's success. Insofar as the First Nations can be ignored, the Canadians started with a mostly clean slate. You cannot compare Canada to Greece, which suffered under Turkish/Ottoman rule for centuries, after being conquered only a few decades after Columbus voyages. In a series of holy wars no less. Is it any wonder that there is animosity between the Turks/Muslims and the Greeks/Christians, which far exceeds any ethnic/religious conflicts in Canada? Oh yes those poor Greeks suffering under the horrible Ottoman empire, notable for levying an extra tax on non-Muslims. Truly awful
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
And most other immigrant societies in Latin America and the Caribbean as well! Granted, all of the New World countries have had a long and sordid history of ethnic violence/oppression, thanks to the slave trade and the colonization of native peoples and so forth, but it doesn't seem that their multiculturalism and religious diversity has led to declines and collapses, at least not yet at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Oh yes those poor Greeks suffering under the horrible Ottoman empire, notable for levying an extra tax on non-Muslims. Truly awful Don't forget about the takings of firstborn sons for Janissary corps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Koramei posted:The Roman Empire was partitioned (by Latin-speaking emperors) along a linguistic line because of economic and administrative reasons, not social ones. And it had survived as officially multilingual before that for centuries upon centuries. Yeah. Greek became the language of the Eastern Empire (Byzantium) kinda by mistake. It was founded as latin speaking, but with the dramatic decline of the East latin fell out of favour and a more local language was adopted instead. Linguistic lines were drawn after the political ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Oh yes those poor Greeks suffering under the horrible Ottoman empire, notable for levying an extra tax on non-Muslims. Truly awful Didn't they have to give some of their children to Ottomans for slavery? When did that end?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
From an Economist article:
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:Don't forget about the takings of firstborn sons for Janissary corps. The royal guards and such were largely recruited from Albania and Bosnia, the amount of Greeks in the Janissaries was trivial iirc. And tbf it's not an entirely simplistic matter of, you know, just "enslaving Christian children", since what they were doing was looking for talented kids that were put on a career path that could lead them to become some of the most powerful men in the Empire. Some families abhorred the practice and tried to hide their kids and whatnot (the recruitment happened every few years, not every firstborn was taken or anything like that), while others tried to market their sons to the army.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:The royal guards and such were largely recruited from Albania and Bosnia, the amount of Greeks in the Janissaries was trivial iirc. And tbf it's not an entirely simplistic matter of, you know, just "enslaving Christian children", since what they were doing was looking for talented kids that were put on a career path that could lead them to become some of the most powerful men in the Empire. Some families abhorred the practice and tried to hide their kids and whatnot (the recruitment happened every few years, not every firstborn was taken or anything like that), while others tried to market their sons to the army. Yeah, iirc the Devshirme system in the classical period drew from rural populations almost exclusively, for two reasons: farm children were generally healthier/stronger and their families were less involved in local politics, which allowed the Ottomans to easily mould them into soldiers or administrators loyal only to the Sultan. Though by definition any non-muslim (or Bosnian muslim, as per the agreement made during their conquest) was eligible for Devshirme, the preference for rural children meant that they were almost all Christian/Bosnian (since Jews were pretty much an entirely urban faith). Greeks were also predominantly urban, and so weren't commonly found in the Devshirme system. Families that only had one son were exempt from Devshirme. I don't know that much about the decline in quality and allegiance of the Janissary Corps and civil administration, so I don't know how this changed after Suleiman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:The royal guards and such were largely recruited from Albania and Bosnia, the amount of Greeks in the Janissaries was trivial iirc. And tbf it's not an entirely simplistic matter of, you know, just "enslaving Christian children", since what they were doing was looking for talented kids that were put on a career path that could lead them to become some of the most powerful men in the Empire. Some families abhorred the practice and tried to hide their kids and whatnot (the recruitment happened every few years, not every firstborn was taken or anything like that), while others tried to market their sons to the army. This is the quote I was replying to: Farecoal posted:Oh yes those poor Greeks suffering under the horrible Ottoman empire, notable for levying an extra tax on non-Muslims. Truly awful And he was replying to: Torrannor posted:But Canada is a bad example. First of course in that these two languages are not native languages but instead imported from Europe, which points to the origin of Canada's success. Insofar as the First Nations can be ignored, the Canadians started with a mostly clean slate. You cannot compare Canada to Greece, which suffered under Turkish/Ottoman rule for centuries, after being conquered only a few decades after Columbus voyages. In a series of holy wars no less. Is it any wonder that there is animosity between the Turks/Muslims and the Greeks/Christians, which far exceeds any ethnic/religious conflicts in Canada? Now of course it's not as simplistic as "enslaving Christian children", nothing is. The gist is that I don't think that you'll hear stories in Canada about those damned Québécois coming and taking your sons to serve as a slave army, or whatever the conquering armies did to conquered populations. Turks were probably less brutal than other conquerors, at least in the beginning of their empire, but they were our brutal conquerors so of course there will be bad blood that will be passed from generation to generation on both sides. In the balkans half the old-wives stories are about Turks, and all of them are in negative light. Many celebrations and dates of notice are about them, victories against them and more often than not defeats by them. Even to this day Serbs celebrate the Battle of Kosovo which was a defeat that made their state stop being independent. My own city, Zagreb, shots a blank shot every day at 12:00 PM because that was the lucky shot that broke the Turkish siege. These things stay with you, they become a part of your culture and they influence you. Now, this is not an endorsement, I repeat NOT AN ENDORSEMENT for ethnic cleansing and genocide. It is for people in this thread to try to understand where it's all coming from and more importantly why. That hate against the Turks was what preserved national identities of most balkan nations that existed today, and even changed some of them (Bosniaks, Albanians). Now Ras Het, this isn't directly aimed at you, I just used your post as a springboard, this is directed for all those "but why do they hate each other so much  " posters. And again, it isn't an endorsement for all the horrible thing that happens, it's for people to understand from where this is all coming from, and that it has nothing to do with logic, but with national emotions that were passed down for generations. These feelings will take time to heal, and until they do, Balkans will be a home of squabbling and petty nations, that are trying to survive in a world where they are surrounded by much larger nations that, let's face it, kinda completed their own ethnic cleansings before newspaper was invented.Oh, and using the Canadian analogy, both English and French Canadians are "Turks". "Greeks" of Canada live in "Territories" and I don't think that they are a very active part of multiculturalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
After Suleiman, the Janissaries become entrenched in Ottoman politics, and they began to basically stop being a fighting force and more of an exclusive and politically powerful club. By the late 18th century many of its members never even did military service and recieved money and privileges for nothing, and the rule disallowing them from having families was essentially gone (and some began to build up local dynasties). They heavily resisted any attempted reforms and were only disbanded by force in the early 1800s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:After Suleiman, the Janissaries become entrenched in Ottoman politics, and they began to basically stop being a fighting force and more of an exclusive and politically powerful club. By the late 18th century many of its members never even did military service and recieved money and privileges for nothing, and the rule disallowing them from having families was essentially gone (and some began to build up local dynasties). They heavily resisted any attempted reforms and were only disbanded by force in the early 1800s. And even when they were disbanded it was still a really delicate affair because they had a track record of killing any sultans that didn't want to play ball with them. In fact, to bring this all back around to Balkan mapchat, the first Serbian uprising against Ottoman rule during the 1800s wasn't an expression of national identity but a rebellion against some local Janissary elites that were treating the Pashalik of Belgrade like their personal fiefdom (which it pretty much was, but still). I think there's a similar pattern throughout the Balkans as a whole, such as when the Danubian Principalities refused to join in an early Greek play at independence because the ruling Phanariot class was not popular among the Danubians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:Oh yea, I can see how it could be read that way. I assumed that it was his way of putting what I said. Not like, "well you get Bir Tawil, so we get Hala'ib, otherwise I'm telling mom you can't share!" Yeah I was playing up the latter slant for fun really. It does basically boil down to that in my eyes, but the basis is a bit less juvenile, as you outlined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Speaking of 
Farecoal fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
 drat, Switzerland, Italy and those microstates are really falling behind. Wasn't expecting that. EDIT: Falling behind the west of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:
Is this from before the infamous Croatian referendum, or after?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:
There has to be some sort of faulty methodology behind that. There's no way were on top of any list of any thing good. v Even rarer a year ago. Rumda fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Rumda posted:There has to be some sort of faulty methodology behind that. There's no way were on top of any list of any thing good. Isn't gay marriage kind of rare in Europe? e: I guess not Western Europe though. e2: I found an index: http://www.ilga-europe.org/media_library/ilga_europe/publications/reports_and_other_publications/rainbow_map_2013/index computer parts fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Speaking of Yeah I read a piece of ottoman writing for a grad class on the empire where a reformist pro-tanzimat noble talked about the need to reform the "coarse, hairy Turks" of eastern Anatolia. 19th century Ottoman Empire was a strange place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:drat, Switzerland, Italy and those microstates are really falling behind. Wasn't expecting that. I bet if you compared a microstate to an equivalently rural area of the neighboring country it wouldn't be that different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Rumda posted:There has to be some sort of faulty methodology behind that. There's no way were on top of any list of any thing good. That doesn't even account for the legalisation of same-sex marriage, so the UK should actually be 12% higher this year. e: Dusseldorf posted:I bet if you compared a microstate to an equivalently rural area of the neighboring country it wouldn't be that different. I don't know, Monaco and Vatican City are obviously highly urbanised, and apparently San Marino, Andorra and Luxembourg (if you want to count them) are too. Liechtenstein is fairly rural, so that might be fair. I think the common thread is just them having weird forms of government and being pretty Catholic. XMNN fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:
Eh, one of Andorra's head of state is a Catholic Archbishop, Monaco has Catholicism as a state religion, and the Liechtenstein prince is vehemently opposed to legalizing abortion. They never struck me as very progressive types.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
mcustic posted:Is this from before the infamous Croatian referendum, or after? May 2013, so before. Rumda posted:There has to be some sort of faulty methodology behind that. There's no way were on top of any list of any thing good. It seems like you can't make fun of the French anymore 
fuck off Batman fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Rumda posted:There has to be some sort of faulty methodology behind that. There's no way were on top of any list of any thing good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Upper-class muslims in the empire considered themselves "Ottomans" and spoke and wrote in Ottoman Turkish, which was the Turkish language (awkwardly) adapted to the Arabic script. Perhaps not as awkward an adaption as Arabic-script Afrikaans!  For the politically-loaded maps portion of this post, here are the South African cities with active mosques: 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
XMNN posted:I think the common thread is just them having weird forms of government and being pretty Catholic. I think the case with Switzerland is the cantonal system, note how the map indicates "national" status. Regions have relatively high autonomy and certain legislative changes need both a majority of both votes and cantons in favour, so smaller rural cantons with low populations have higher proportional power. Its the same as US senators.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:33 |
|
|
Bensa posted:I think the case with Switzerland is the cantonal system, note how the map indicates "national" status. Regions have relatively high autonomy and certain legislative changes need both a majority of both votes and cantons in favour, so smaller rural cantons with low populations have higher proportional power. Its the same as US senators. IIRC, some of those rural cantons are regressive as hell and didn't give women the vote till the late 80s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:33
|
|