6 ms·

Do I misunderstand these terms, or hasn't ethnonationalism been the norm historically and pluralism quite rare?

tgv 5y ago
I think so. IMO, tolerance is a result of education, easily unlearned under pressure.
jollybean 5y ago
I think we could make a distinction between 'ethnocentrism' as identification with culture and being 'historically normative' at least somewhat, and 'ethnonationalism' which is the addition of the nation state, where it can possibly get more extremist under an operationally effective entity and codified/organized ideology aka Nazism. That's just my view.
smnrchrds 5y ago
Recent history, 19th and 20th century, yes. Older than that, no. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't French a minority language in France until the government decided to pursue a policy of francisation?
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
No, the existence of ethnicities is old but the concept of tying them to national borders is very young (modern era, and mostly 19th century and beyond) and the specific interpretation of ethonationalism here (ethno exclusionism within a set of borders) is even younger. I have to work right now so can't work through all the examples listed by another poster below, but will try to come to this thread later. But if you look at e.g. historical Europe or Rome you will rarely find borders defined by ethnicity, and you will rarely even find people defining themselves by a singular ethnicity. Look at the e.g. Franks, the Germanic political entity that ended up defining modern France (and Holland and Germany and Belgium, etc.) A Germanic-speaking tribe that took over a Celtic (Gaulic) and Latin speaking territory, went to war with other "Germans", switched to speaking Latin in some places, but not all, and on the territory where they once ruled you now have a shattered mirror of dozens of ethnicities ("German", "Dutch", "Walloon", "French", "Alsatian", etc) in a nested fractal pattern depending on what lense you use, none of which correspond to any exact political border and which are fluid and changing from decade to decade. My take: Ethnicity exists, is fluid, etc. Ethnonationalism is a tool, an ideological tool, mobilizing ethnicity for its own ends, using a specifically modern era mechanism ("nations", which are only ~200-300 years old) for the purposes of whoever is wielding it. E.g. the ambitions of an e.g. Milosevic type personality. My ancestors are from both Alsace and Germany, so I take an interest in this topic.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I'm still a bit confused, but I think the takeaway is that I was conflating "any ethnic persecution" with "ethnonationalism". It sounds like the latter is much more specific ("we don't want Jews in our country" versus "this country belongs to Germans"?)?
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    I think it's normal to be confused, because the terms and history all have different interpretations and meanings. What is German? What is Jew? What is "country"? And what is nation? The answer to all those questions changes. Which is one of the reasons why I think it's important to be incredibly suspicious of any person who claims to have the answer, and to be able to state with certainty that this country belongs to Germany or this is the homeland of the Jews. What are they really trying to accomplish? Also, I'm super suspicious of anybody who says about any topic "it's always been this way" or "it's just common sense"... because a) they're usually wrong b) that's usually just obscuring a proposition or action they don't want to justify or defend using arguments so they appeal to nature/God/common-sense/natural-rightness instead.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > What is German? What is Jew? What is "country"? And what is nation? I agree about ethnicities being mercurial; I'm not espousing "ethnicity" as a good way of organizing the world, but it's an established convention. WRT "country", here I mean it in a political/territorial sense--i.e., a territory under control of a sovereign government. > Also, I'm super suspicious of anybody who says about any topic "it's always been this way" or "it's just common sense" I'm not asserting anything. Ethnicity seems much too mercurial for me to understand well, and it seems like it's easy for people on either side of an argument to flex the definition to suit their ideological ends.
- 74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago
  The concept of a territory been defended by tribe against other tribes is as old as mammals.
michael1999 5y ago
No. Consider France -- until Napoleon forged modern France, it contained dozens of languages and ethnicities. Then the modern world steam-rolled them into Frenchmen.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I don't think "the modern world" can be faulted. The French explicitly had a top-down campaign to forge a French national identity/ethnicity. But I take the broader point, I thought "ethnonationalism" was any kind of persecution of ethnic minorities.
  - michael1999 5y ago
    What could be more modern than a top-down, homogenous education campaign?

tgv 5y ago

I think so. IMO, tolerance is a result of education, easily unlearned under pressure.

I think we could make a distinction between 'ethnocentrism' as identification with culture and being 'historically normative' at least somewhat, and 'ethnonationalism' which is the addition of the nation state, where it can possibly get more extremist under an operationally effective entity and codified/organized ideology aka Nazism. That's just my view.

smnrchrds 5y ago

Recent history, 19th and 20th century, yes. Older than that, no. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't French a minority language in France until the government decided to pursue a policy of francisation?

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

No, the existence of ethnicities is old but the concept of tying them to national borders is very young (modern era, and mostly 19th century and beyond) and the specific interpretation of ethonationalism here (ethno exclusionism within a set of borders) is even younger. I have to work right now so can't work through all the examples listed by another poster below, but will try to come to this thread later. But if you look at e.g. historical Europe or Rome you will rarely find borders defined by ethnicity, and you will rarely even find people defining themselves by a singular ethnicity. Look at the e.g. Franks, the Germanic political entity that ended up defining modern France (and Holland and Germany and Belgium, etc.) A Germanic-speaking tribe that took over a Celtic (Gaulic) and Latin speaking territory, went to war with other "Germans", switched to speaking Latin in some places, but not all, and on the territory where they once ruled you now have a shattered mirror of dozens of ethnicities ("German", "Dutch", "Walloon", "French", "Alsatian", etc) in a nested fractal pattern depending on what lense you use, none of which correspond to any exact political border and which are fluid and changing from decade to decade. My take: Ethnicity exists, is fluid, etc. Ethnonationalism is a tool, an ideological tool, mobilizing ethnicity for its own ends, using a specifically modern era mechanism ("nations", which are only ~200-300 years old) for the purposes of whoever is wielding it. E.g. the ambitions of an e.g. Milosevic type personality. My ancestors are from both Alsace and Germany, so I take an interest in this topic.

throwaway894345 5y ago
I'm still a bit confused, but I think the takeaway is that I was conflating "any ethnic persecution" with "ethnonationalism". It sounds like the latter is much more specific ("we don't want Jews in our country" versus "this country belongs to Germans"?)?
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  I think it's normal to be confused, because the terms and history all have different interpretations and meanings. What is German? What is Jew? What is "country"? And what is nation? The answer to all those questions changes. Which is one of the reasons why I think it's important to be incredibly suspicious of any person who claims to have the answer, and to be able to state with certainty that this country belongs to Germany or this is the homeland of the Jews. What are they really trying to accomplish? Also, I'm super suspicious of anybody who says about any topic "it's always been this way" or "it's just common sense"... because a) they're usually wrong b) that's usually just obscuring a proposition or action they don't want to justify or defend using arguments so they appeal to nature/God/common-sense/natural-rightness instead.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > What is German? What is Jew? What is "country"? And what is nation? I agree about ethnicities being mercurial; I'm not espousing "ethnicity" as a good way of organizing the world, but it's an established convention. WRT "country", here I mean it in a political/territorial sense--i.e., a territory under control of a sovereign government. > Also, I'm super suspicious of anybody who says about any topic "it's always been this way" or "it's just common sense" I'm not asserting anything. Ethnicity seems much too mercurial for me to understand well, and it seems like it's easy for people on either side of an argument to flex the definition to suit their ideological ends.
74d-fe6-2c6 5y ago
The concept of a territory been defended by tribe against other tribes is as old as mammals.

michael1999 5y ago

No. Consider France -- until Napoleon forged modern France, it contained dozens of languages and ethnicities. Then the modern world steam-rolled them into Frenchmen.

throwaway894345 5y ago
I don't think "the modern world" can be faulted. The French explicitly had a top-down campaign to forge a French national identity/ethnicity. But I take the broader point, I thought "ethnonationalism" was any kind of persecution of ethnic minorities.
- michael1999 5y ago
  What could be more modern than a top-down, homogenous education campaign?