Race and Nations

[Trajan]

@mbewane always goes in.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Thanks for the reply.

Do you see no connection between race and nationhood, however new? And how new would you say this idea is?

mbewane basically answered for me:

Exactly. It looks like OP is referring is the nation-state in the European sense, which is an invention of the late 19th century only. In this understanding, nation=group with same language, ethnicity, "values", and state is indeed the political entity in which said nation (=group) lives.

And, as he points out, the connection is not only new, but also limited to a single continent. Tell me, what is the single ethnic group/race that any major African country has its borders defined by? Where are India's lines drawn? Or China's? South America is a joke if you try to look at it from a racial perspective.


I should have included the Persians in my earlier list of ancient race-mixed empires. They were famously inclusive of a ridiculous number of races and tribes. The Mongol Empire and the USSR would be more good examples of recent ones too.

 

[Starman]

Exactly. It looks like OP is referring is the nation-state in the European sense, which is an invention of the late 19th century only. In this understanding, nation=group with same language, ethnicity, "values", and state is indeed the political entity in which said nation (=group) lives.

So it means that all of this isn't even 2 centuries old, but it has indeed shaped the minds to such an extent that we think it's the only way to go. But if you take any Euro nation-state, they all have very different "nations" in them. France for example has Basques, Bretons, Occitans etc...you don't hear about them now because they were culturally crushed by the central government in Paris, precisely to establish the "nation-state". The mistake you make, no offense, is that you use the US frame of "race" so you see all French people are white, so they're the same "nation". Nope, it's a construct. And that's not even talking about Euro countries with real separatist movements, such as Belgium, Spain, Italy. And obviously, the fact that the nation-state and the new-foound patriotism (and its ugly-cousin nationalism) is one of the main reasons for WW1.

So even on the continent that invented the concept of nation-state (Europe), that concept is shaky at best and is under serious discussion at all levels. If you go back in history all the major empires were an insane mix of various ethnicities, languages, etc. It's the so-called "rationalism" that led people to believe that simplifying things (one nation one language one ethnicity) would be better. Problem is, people move, languages travel, cultures change. So instead of finding ways of living together (as in olden days), you're looking for ways to move towards that elusive "unicity", which means putting up borders (hence the invention of ID and passports in that same area) and finding ways to define who's in and who's out. With all the xenopoby and racism that ensues.

Actually if you look around the world very few countries are "nation" unified. None on continental Western, Central, Eastern Europe or the Balkans, that's for sure. Not even GB. MAYBE Norway and them, Greenland, Iceland. I doubt any Asian country is (even Japan has aborigenal type populations in the north that have damn near been eradicated), African countries def not, Middle-East neither, America (the continent) obviously not.

So this idea of a nation-state in the sense of a homogeneous group (or race) = a country hardly exists anywhere.

Great post!

I agree you'll almost never find a completely homogeneous nation-state, at most you'll find a relatively homogeneous one. I also think it's easier to incorporate people into your near homogeneous nation-state if there are relatively few of them and the more similar they are to the general population in terms of race, language, and culture.

What interest did France, for instance have, in creating a "nation-state"?

Also, now that the world seems to be moving in the opposite direction, weakening sovereignty, more globalism, further from nation-states, what are your thoughts?

 

[mbewane]

Great post!

I agree you'll almost never find a completely homogeneous nation-state, at most you'll find a relatively homogeneous one. I also think it's easier to incorporate people into your near homogeneous nation-state the more similar they are to the general population in terms of race, language, and culture.

What interest did France, for instance have, in creating a "nation-state"?

Also, now that the world seems to be moving in the opposite direction, weakening sovereignty, more globalism, further from nation-states, what are your thoughts?

The thing is that what we see today as relatively "homogeneous" populations is mostly a RESULT of decades of creating such a homogeneity. To stick with a country I know a little (France), one may look today and see it as a relatively homogenous country with regards to its majority population : white, traditionaly catholic, one language. But that is a result of a process over the centuries. France had a sizeable protestant population, which led to extremely bloody internal wars (meaning, among white french people), which explains part of migrations to the Americas (US and Canada) as well as South Africa or the Netherlands for example. So the country BECAME religiously "homogenous" by killing protestants or forcing them to leave (basically they were refugees to use modern terms). Same for language : what is now known as the french language was mainly the language spoken in Paris and by part of the elite. I think that up until the 18th century it was spoken by a minority of people in France, because local languages were still strong and people held to it as a link to their own history/culture. But the french central power imposed (sometimes brutally : speaking Breton at school led to children getting punished) French as the standard, and everything that was linked to local traditions/customs/etc was ridiculed. In a way, you could argue that the creation of the "French nation" meant destroying all the local "nations" that existed on the French territory.

Same thing in Italy. For someone looking from the outside in, it looks homogenous. White, catholic, one language. But in the South people damn near look North African, while those totally at the North look Austrian/German (and speak German). The way italian is spoken is very diverse from one region to another. The current form of "standard" Italian seemingly comes from Florence and the region of Tuscany : that was the center of political, economical and cultural power for a long time in Italy, so it had ways to impose their brand of Italian. But the formal power wasn't as strong as in France, and Italy has a long tradition of "city-states" all very attached to their autonomy : Italy only became a single unified country ("nation-state") in the late 19th century. And those cities were fighting against each other, and to this day there are VERY STRONG local particularities. Rome is not Milan which is not Florence which def is not any place in the south of Italy. Sardegna still has its own language, and they talk about "the Italians" when referring to people from the continent. I speak Italian but hardly understood a word when I went to Sicilia.

So yeah there are nuances : a Belgian is closer to a French than an Estonian is, so it would be easier to build a french "nation" with the Belgian than with the Estonian. Geographical proximity works like that. But it does in no way mean that that Belgian and that French are "homogenous", because I know first-hand (I'm Half-Belgian) how different the culture, values and whatever are in France and Belgium. (I also take that example because Belgium once was part of the French empire and could very well have been part of France, in which case we would have been "frenchisized", "made French" by the same process that happened in French regions. Didn't happen that way, so the differences between Belgians and French remain).

The interest? Power of course. It's much more easy for the rulers to rule in one language, with one central government and with a set of unified rules for the whole territory. Basically it was local colonization. Some countries had a central power that was powerful enough to do so (France) others not (Italy). De Gaulle once jokingly said "It's impossible to govern a country that has 400 different types of cheese" What he was really saying is that France, in all its "homogeny" (White, traditionnaly Catholic and speaking the same language) is STILL extremely diverse, even without taking into account immigration. Sidenote : As France moved forward, it realized that it was better management to delegate more and more power to local (Regions) levels, and to better take into account local particularities.

My thoughts is that we should do what we should've done all the time : accept the fact that people move, countries evolve, languages are learned, etc. It makes no sense in this current world for any country imo to only teach one language to its children : 2 or 3 should be the minimum. Luxemburg does that already (French, German, Luxemburgish), it's a sure way of opening to diversity as well as a plus on the labour market. We should also accept that diversity is not a threath, and that we are all ALREADY diverse as well. France has had influences and contributions for centuries from Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Turkey, Northern Africa, England, the US, Muslims, Jews, all the former African colonies...the list goes on and on. Sarkozy's family is from Hungary. Valls' from Spain. Same in Belgium : our former PM is the son of Italian migrants (lest we forget that 60 years ago racism in Belgium was primarly directed at Italians, as people thought "they would not integrate". Same old story). Borders have never and will never stop people from moving around, it only makes it more difficult. It serves no purpose to cling to some kind of "identity" because said identity simply does not exist : it is a mix over various influences that make a country what it is today. France in the 40s is not France in the 80s which is not current France. The EU had an opportunity to surpass all that nationalism, but old habits die hard. It's interesting that most "nationalists" now (Extreme-Right or not) cling to something who itself is a political construct. There's a reason that the term and the process of "nation-building" exists : it implies that nations are built, it's not something natural. So if it's built, then you can choose to build something else. But like I said, we are all so stuck in our habitual frames of thinking that it LOOKS that it's impossible to have something else than nation-states. Euro countries, especially France, missed an amazing historical opportunity : we are historically and culturally linked to North America, historically, culturally and geographically linked to North Africa and the Middle-East, historically and linguistically linked to half of Africa. Why turn our backs to all of that? All because of the fear of diversity. And then they lament the fact that France has lost influence in the world. No shyt.

Anyways I think we are at the end of the nation-state framework as we know it. It has never really worked anyway, and there is a big push towards federalization and respecting local particularities. People travel more and more, have access to other cultures, whatever. I'm Half-Belgian Half-Centralafrican, grew up in the US, CAR, and teh country I know the most is France. Which "nation-state" am I part of?

There is a lot of talk in France about how to reform the institutions in order for them to be more in phase with what is actually happening on the ground. New forms of doing politics are being experienced at the local level already. And like the wounded lion, the fact that Extreme-right and nationalist parties are being more heard is a direct reaction to the fact that the world is changing in a direction they don't like. The problem is that it's much easier to defend a crumbling system than to build up a new one.

 

[Red Shield]

Damn good posts

Anyways I think we are at the end of the nation-state framework as we know it.

I disagree with you about this, but agree with you at the same time. I think globalism is on it's deathbed, and what a nation is.. will definitely be undergoing a change over the next century.

 

[mbewane]

Damn good posts



I disagree with you about this, but agree with you at the same time. I think globalism is on it's deathbed, and what a nation is.. will definitely be undergoing a change over the next century.

Could you expand your views on this breh?

 

[Starman]

The thing is that what we see today as relatively "homogeneous" populations is mostly a RESULT of decades of creating such a homogeneity. To stick with a country I know a little (France), one may look today and see it as a relatively homogenous country with regards to its majority population : white, traditionaly catholic, one language. But that is a result of a process over the centuries. France had a sizeable protestant population, which led to extremely bloody internal wars (meaning, among white french people), which explains part of migrations to the Americas (US and Canada) as well as South Africa or the Netherlands for example. So the country BECAME religiously "homogenous" by killing protestants or forcing them to leave (basically they were refugees to use modern terms). Same for language : what is now known as the french language was mainly the language spoken in Paris and by part of the elite. I think that up until the 18th century it was spoken by a minority of people in France, because local languages were still strong and people held to it as a link to their own history/culture. But the french central power imposed (sometimes brutally : speaking Breton at school led to children getting punished) French as the standard, and everything that was linked to local traditions/customs/etc was ridiculed. In a way, you could argue that the creation of the "French nation" meant destroying all the local "nations" that existed on the French territory.

Same thing in Italy. For someone looking from the outside in, it looks homogenous. White, catholic, one language. But in the South people damn near look North African, while those totally at the North look Austrian/German (and speak German). The way italian is spoken is very diverse from one region to another. The current form of "standard" Italian seemingly comes from Florence and the region of Tuscany : that was the center of political, economical and cultural power for a long time in Italy, so it had ways to impose their brand of Italian. But the formal power wasn't as strong as in France, and Italy has a long tradition of "city-states" all very attached to their autonomy : Italy only became a single unified country ("nation-state") in the late 19th century. And those cities were fighting against each other, and to this day there are VERY STRONG local particularities. Rome is not Milan which is not Florence which def is not any place in the south of Italy. Sardegna still has its own language, and they talk about "the Italians" when referring to people from the continent. I speak Italian but hardly understood a word when I went to Sicilia.

So yeah there are nuances : a Belgian is closer to a French than an Estonian is, so it would be easier to build a french "nation" with the Belgian than with the Estonian. Geographical proximity works like that. But it does in no way mean that that Belgian and that French are "homogenous", because I know first-hand (I'm Half-Belgian) how different the culture, values and whatever are in France and Belgium. (I also take that example because Belgium once was part of the French empire and could very well have been part of France, in which case we would have been "frenchisized", "made French" by the same process that happened in French regions. Didn't happen that way, so the differences between Belgians and French remain).

The interest? Power of course. It's much more easy for the rulers to rule in one language, with one central government and with a set of unified rules for the whole territory. Basically it was local colonization. Some countries had a central power that was powerful enough to do so (France) others not (Italy). De Gaulle once jokingly said "It's impossible to govern a country that has 400 different types of cheese" What he was really saying is that France, in all its "homogeny" (White, traditionnaly Catholic and speaking the same language) is STILL extremely diverse, even without taking into account immigration. Sidenote : As France moved forward, it realized that it was better management to delegate more and more power to local (Regions) levels, and to better take into account local particularities.

My thoughts is that we should do what we should've done all the time : accept the fact that people move, countries evolve, languages are learned, etc. It makes no sense in this current world for any country imo to only teach one language to its children : 2 or 3 should be the minimum. Luxemburg does that already (French, German, Luxemburgish), it's a sure way of opening to diversity as well as a plus on the labour market. We should also accept that diversity is not a threath, and that we are all ALREADY diverse as well. France has had influences and contributions for centuries from Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Turkey, Northern Africa, England, the US, Muslims, Jews, all the former African colonies...the list goes on and on. Sarkozy's family is from Hungary. Valls' from Spain. Same in Belgium : our former PM is the son of Italian migrants (lest we forget that 60 years ago racism in Belgium was primarly directed at Italians, as people thought "they would not integrate". Same old story). Borders have never and will never stop people from moving around, it only makes it more difficult. It serves no purpose to cling to some kind of "identity" because said identity simply does not exist : it is a mix over various influences that make a country what it is today. France in the 40s is not France in the 80s which is not current France. The EU had an opportunity to surpass all that nationalism, but old habits die hard. It's interesting that most "nationalists" now (Extreme-Right or not) cling to something who itself is a political construct. There's a reason that the term and the process of "nation-building" exists : it implies that nations are built, it's not something natural. So if it's built, then you can choose to build something else. But like I said, we are all so stuck in our habitual frames of thinking that it LOOKS that it's impossible to have something else than nation-states. Euro countries, especially France, missed an amazing historical opportunity : we are historically and culturally linked to North America, historically, culturally and geographically linked to North Africa and the Middle-East, historically and linguistically linked to half of Africa. Why turn our backs to all of that? All because of the fear of diversity. And then they lament the fact that France has lost influence in the world. No shyt.

Anyways I think we are at the end of the nation-state framework as we know it. It has never really worked anyway, and there is a big push towards federalization and respecting local particularities. People travel more and more, have access to other cultures, whatever. I'm Half-Belgian Half-Centralafrican, grew up in the US, CAR, and teh country I know the most is France. Which "nation-state" am I part of?

There is a lot of talk in France about how to reform the institutions in order for them to be more in phase with what is actually happening on the ground. New forms of doing politics are being experienced at the local level already. And like the wounded lion, the fact that Extreme-right and nationalist parties are being more heard is a direct reaction to the fact that the world is changing in a direction they don't like. The problem is that it's much easier to defend a crumbling system than to build up a new one.

Again, great posting. Quality stuff. Not that I agree with it all.

Is it just that the nation state is more difficult to achieve that makes it less preferable to you than the...uh, diverse state? What are the other benefits of this post racial, post ethnic state?

Are you apart of the new world order?

 

[mbewane]

Again, great posting. Quality stuff. Not that I agree with it all.

Is it just that the nation state is more difficult to achieve that makes it less preferable to you than the...uh, diverse state? What are the other benefits of this post racial, post ethnic state?

Are you apart of the new world order?

Thanks breh, appreciate it.

I think that it's closer to reality than an elusive homogeneous "nation-state", because history (and current reality) shows us that in order to achieve the nation-state, you have to have people "forget" part of their history, culture, language, religion, traditions, etc...in order to "fit" that nation-state. That's what happened in France, that's what was behind pan-Germanism and eventually the Nazi project, early Belgium...Actually that is EXACTLY how the French Republic was built and how it works, that's why racial statistics are forbidden in this country, because supposedly once you're French you don't have a colour, you're just a French citizen. That's all fine and dandy, but we know that it doesn't work like that. Same for all the rest : every single "nation-state" to some extent expects people to shed deeply rooted parts of their identities to fit in the country : it's a very brutal process when you really think about it. That's what "integration" or "assimilation" are about. And it always leaves the door open to some to say "Yeah but he's not REALLY French" (or Belgian, or Italian or whatever) on one side, and on the other there is resentment because why should I as a Belgian citizen learn only your history and not the history of where I came from too? Aren't we supposed to be equal? It's no surprise that France is the country in which the system seems most outdated today in Europe imo, it's because it's the country that went the furthest in the central government nation-state frame-work.

I'm not denying the alternative is complicated. Every single system is complicated, because whatever framework we choose we are talking about political constructions in which we are trying to put extremely diverse people together. No system is perfect, all have flaws. But I do believe that recognizing and seeking the positive in diversity allows for everyone to really feel part of this new society, and thus take more active part in it (more people involved in politics, politics in this case meaning "taking care of where I live and trying to improve it"), respect it (less crime, "unruly behavior", and less extreme "militantism") and just in general bring more to the table : you spoke one language, now maybe you speak two or three, opening horizons, as well as contact with other countries, etc. I'm not one to believe that diversity is "great" or whatever PER SE, but I believe that if managed well it can be an incredible force that benefits all. I believe countries and societies grow when they are in contact with others and take what is best there. That's one of the reasons the Middle-East and the Meditteranean were where all those empires came about in the old days, because it was at the crossroads of Africa, Europe, Asia. Well, now you don't have to go to find those other societies, they are already here.

We've seen what the nation-state system led us to, and I don't think anyone can deny we've reached its limits. Maybe it's time to change the framework and seek new ways of organizing our socities. There is a lot of political experiments going on right now in Europe, mostly at local levels, we all see that people vote less and less and when they do it's for extreme parties, no one (right OR left) really believes in politicans anymore, etc. A couple years ago political experts mistaked that for people not caring about politics anymore, but that's not the case. It's that they don't believe and recognize themselves in HOW politics are organized today, but it doesn't mean they don't want to have their say. Especially "minorities" : they want to be heard, but mostly how the system is set up now doesn't give them a real voice. And it makes sense, the system was set up like 40-50 years ago. The world has changed A LOT in those 40 years. We're already in the "diverse" state imo, it's just that the political system hasn't adapted to it yet. It's understandable, it takes time. I think it's only a couple years ago that Germany went from Jus Sanguinis (you need German parents to have the German citizenship) to Jus Soli (if you're born on German soil, you're German). Those are the kind of steps that recognize the country and its population as they are (a form of Jus Soli is what most Western countries have). That's just an example, but it does take time to adapt institutions especially since who says institutions says power and those who benefit from it. But yeah, if you look at France it's already a very diverse society, and the idea of a somewhat homogenous nation-state already doesn't reflect its reality imo

 

[mbewane]

Again, great posting. Quality stuff. Not that I agree with it all.

Is it just that the nation state is more difficult to achieve that makes it less preferable to you than the...uh, diverse state? What are the other benefits of this post racial, post ethnic state?

Are you apart of the new world order?

Lol didn't see the question about NWO

Naw I'm just really interested in these issues, for personal reasons (I'm mixed and grew up in different places) and the fact that I'm Half-Belgian and live in France means I've read a lot about identity politics

 

[Red Shield]

Could you expand your views on this breh?

Over the past few months I've come into the belief that...

globalism basically began when the west/euro's started rolling outta europe and conquering the rest of the world. I don't feel that it's some shyt that just came about over the last 30yrs.

It's obvious the average "native" westerner will be getting ever decreasing benefit from globalism. shyt was cool when the benefits greatly outweighed the costs



So as the west goes...so goes globalism. You and I probably won't agree about that. But that's fine

 

[mbewane]

Over the past few months I've come into the belief that...

globalism basically began when the west/euro's started rolling outta europe and conquering the rest of the world. I don't feel that it's some shyt that just came about over the last 30yrs.

It's obvious the average "native" westerner will be getting ever decreasing benefit from globalism. shyt was cool when the benefits greatly outweighed the costs



So as the west goes...so goes globalism. You and I probably won't agree about that. But that's fine

Yeah indeed I wouldn't agree, because globalism far predates Europe conquering the world. It's the western-centric history that leads us to believe that they started that, but Africa, Europe and Asia were all well-connected for thousands of years. Europe just came up with more technological power (and more incentive to go out of Europe than other continents, for various reasons) so it gives us that impression. But it's not like people were living in autarcy before. Again, the Middle-East and the whole Meditteranean area is the perfect example of this. For some reason people think Africa was all disconnected from the world before Euros started the slave trade, which is an incredibly condescending view on a sidenote, but nothing is farther than the truth.

I think the West will indeed try to withdraw from globalism, but the only way they can do so is stop people from the South from coming to Europe/North America. And that, contrary to how media portrays things, is just a part of worldwide movement. Most movement nowadays is already South-South and North-North, not South-North. There's no reason to believe that's gonna stop, quite on the contrary actually. Plus the West will never stop wealthy/useful people from coming in, because they fill a need. Those people will come in with their diversity, just as they do now, and be cultural bridges. And of course you can't just start kicking out all the diversity that is ALREADY in the West. That local diversity will still have children, travel home, speak other languages, etc. So you can "close" borders, won't stop diversity from being there or ideas from travelling...agree to disagree

 

[Red Shield]

00000000000000000000000000015097

Yeah indeed I wouldn't agree, because globalism far predates Europe conquering the world. It's the western-centric history that leads us to believe that they started that, but Africa, Europe and Asia were all well-connected for thousands of years. Europe just came up with more technological power (and more incentive to go out of Europe than other continents, for various reasons) so it gives us that impression. But it's not like people were living in autarcy before. Again, the Middle-East and the whole Meditteranean area is the perfect example of this. For some reason people think Africa was all disconnected from the world before Euros started the slave trade, which is an incredibly condescending view on a sidenote, but nothing is farther than the truth.

I think the West will indeed try to withdraw from globalism, but the only way they can do so is stop people from the South from coming to Europe/North America. And that, contrary to how media portrays things, is just a part of worldwide movement. Most movement nowadays is already South-South and North-North, not South-North. There's no reason to believe that's gonna stop, quite on the contrary actually. Plus the West will never stop wealthy/useful people from coming in, because they fill a need. Those people will come in with their diversity, just as they do now, and be cultural bridges. And of course you can't just start kicking out all the diversity that is ALREADY in the West. That local diversity will still have children, travel home, speak other languages, etc. So you can "close" borders, won't stop diversity from being there or ideas from travelling...agree to disagree

Well no they can't kick out all of the diversity.. but I only think they would want to get rid of select types of diversity. Which they would be able to do..


Good post

 

[mbewane]

00000000000000000000000000015097

Well no they can't kick out all of the diversity.. but I only think they would want to get rid of select types of diversity. Which they would be able to do..


Good post

Thx...I don't agree with the bolded, if only for practical/financial reasons, let alone political/legal ones

 

[WaveCapsByOscorp™]

it's true, wherever there's an urban center or high concentration of people, you usually get high rates of ethnic diversity. i think, conceptually speaking, people have a hard time grasping when shift happens and how to accommodate it properly. that's why certain laws (conditions) are created that end up not benefiting certain groups, prejudices ensue, blame is cast, etc. everyone's trying to figure out how/why we don't get along. and, some people are just trying to maintain what they have without changing themselves.

 

[shonuff]

The world is probably more mixed than it ever was. I saw lots of Chinese people in Ghana, Africans in Italy, and then there's the "melting pot" that is America. But I have a hard time of separating race from nations. To me, the Chinese guy born in Ghana isn't Ghanaian, the African guy born in Italy isn't Italian. On and on.

Is this an outdated world view? If so when did it change?

it is

the world is getting smaller by the day ..year

and race is an artificial concept - who you are as a "race" differs from one place to the next