4 ms·
That is not legitimizing but contortion of history into nationalist sentiment. No one takes these stories seriously, aside from the easily impressed, that don't
by maze-le 8y ago
That is not legitimizing but contortion of history into nationalist sentiment. No one takes these stories seriously, aside from the easily impressed, that don't have a solid grasp on history. Besides, most of these "claims" are already invalidated by contracts between modern states. A state and its borders is not legitimized by fancy ahistorical fiction but by mutual recognition and contracts.
---
[0]: https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrin...
- coldtea 8y ago>That is not legitimizing but contortion of history into nationalist sentiment. No one takes these stories seriously, aside from the easily impressed, that don't have a solid grasp on history. That's absolutely wrong. All kinds of "hundreds and thousands" year old arrangements are part of modern borders and state relationships. This includes purchases, centuries old loans, and other such matters. European borders, for example, depend on arrangements going back to the time of Charlemagne. >A state and its borders is not legitimized by fancy ahistorical fiction but by mutual recognition and contracts. Which is neither here nor there, because today's contracts are still based on arrangements made hundreds and thousands years ago (as well as later arrangements, of course).