4 ms·

Ok, so you take belgium "as a failed state", and the "Quebec factor", while ignoring, let's say... Switzerland? > If you look at the borders of Europe and how

by orwin 5y ago

Ok, so you take belgium "as a failed state", and the "Quebec factor", while ignoring, let's say... Switzerland? > If you look at the borders of Europe and how they flop around over time, it becomes clear that the 'delineating' factor is mostly ethnicity, at least crudely. No. I don't know why you would think that. Brittany was Gallo-Breton, and the two ethnicity almost cut the duchy in two. Two very, very different languages and ethnicity. I would know, i was born on the lingual border. Occitan was closer to Ligurian than to Paris' French, Normand was closer to London's, I would like to think that Liege was always speaking alsacian rather than French, and that Burgundy was speaking more French than the Armagnac Duchy was. The Basque ethnicity was always separated between two crowns (at least) You know what defined the national borders during the nationnalism epidemic of the 19th century? Natural borders. And when none exist, you create artificial ones, not a all following ethnicity. Ukraine? Lithuania? Poland even? No natural borders => the borders cut with forests or swampsm not "ethnical divide" (or else eastern Europe would NOT look like this). > Napoleon failed outside his borders whereas within France, it might have just worked for him. Yes, and what was France looking like when he took power? How yeah, Savoy, Piedmont, Liguria are really French. As are the netherlands... It worked for him until he started to meddle into other kingdom's/Empire internal affairs. > Greece is still Greece today after 2500 years, the borders are similar. Yeah, no. The old Greece western borders stopped before that (linguistically at least), the northern border reached higher, as were the eastern borders. I know that Iran fancy themselve as persia successor, but let's be honest, their border follow more natural borders than the old Persian Empire. If ethnocentrism were "as old as time", what about the Mughals? What about the Romans? What about the "King of Franc" ruling over a lot of non-Franc (a majority of non-Franc even)? And the Holy Roman empire? What about the Commonwealth of Poland? The truth is, ethnicity is a lot like language, and follow the same rules language used to do.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Just want to say thank you, you made all the points that I wanted to make (but could not summon the energy to) in a reply to this comment. Should add re: Greece that there was few points at which the Greeks ever even considered themselves any kind of "ethnic "nation"; in pre-Roman times they recognized the existence of "Hellenes" but were constantly at war with each other. In Roman times (which went on much longer there than in the west) they came to consider themselves Romans. And in post-Roman Ottoman times they were one of ethnicity of many in what is now Greece and Asia-Minor and identified more around religion. Until the great ethnonationalist catastrophe of the forced population relocation of Greeks and Turks in the last century in which all sorts of people who didn't fit the "right" categories were mixed up (Christian Turks? Muslim Greeks? etc)
jollybean 5y ago
This line of reasoning of 'finding examples where ethnicity fails to provide the boundary distinction' doesn't make your case. I know about 'Switzlerand', thanks. Which is why I brought up USA/Australia/Brazil etc.. Nobody is going to argue that there are many factors that drive boundaries (aka natural boundaries) merely highlighting some counter examples doesn't deconstruct the fact that ethnicity is the primary marker. "No. I don't know why you would think that. " Well I don't know what to say because to me, it's 'very obvious' that ethnic boundaries are strong - I don't know how anyone could think otherwise. In fact, if there is 'nuance' it's probably the things that you are stating that are 'less obvious'. Here is a map of Rome in the year 0 [0] Here is a map of Europe today [1] They are incredibly similar. By pointing out 'that there are differences' doesn't deny that fact. Again: "Yeah, no. The old Greece western borders stopped before that (linguistically at least), the northern border reached higher, as were the eastern borders." That borders have shifted materially, doesn't change the underlying fact that 'Greece is strongly related to Greece'. I think that's the clearest example of where your argument does not cross the threshold you think it does. You say 'the borders have changed' - fine - I say 'it's still pretty much Greece', which it is. The Duchy of Savoy was mostly a political organization, not an ethnic one, and guess what? It doesn't exist. The fragmented borders have mostly collapsed - along the lines of ethnicity, crudely. And of course, within those borders, it's fragments like a fractal (great analogy by the commenter above). And finally, yes, 'natural borders' are obviously a framing reference, because they keep people apart, which allows groups to develop, we agree there. [0] https://www.conformingtojesus.com/images/webpages/map_roman_empire_in_jesus_time1.jpg https://www.conformingtojesus.com/images/webpages/map_roman_... [1] https://geology.com/world/europe-satellite-image.shtml https://geology.com/world/europe-satellite-image.shtml
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  It's a bit precious to point to the Greek borders and say "look, there's Greece" when you're pointing to a territory in which a half million people were forcibly expelled based on ethnonationalist politics and ideology, only 100 years ago. Likewise to "French ethnicity", a place where government policy is still actively engaged in destroying minority languages (and their cultures) and has been since Napoleon. These "ethnic" borders you're pointing to are as much a product of political maneuverings using ethnicity as a platform, as they are any kind of "natural" product of ethnicity.

by orwin 5y ago

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

Just want to say thank you, you made all the points that I wanted to make (but could not summon the energy to) in a reply to this comment. Should add re: Greece that there was few points at which the Greeks ever even considered themselves any kind of "ethnic "nation"; in pre-Roman times they recognized the existence of "Hellenes" but were constantly at war with each other. In Roman times (which went on much longer there than in the west) they came to consider themselves Romans. And in post-Roman Ottoman times they were one of ethnicity of many in what is now Greece and Asia-Minor and identified more around religion. Until the great ethnonationalist catastrophe of the forced population relocation of Greeks and Turks in the last century in which all sorts of people who didn't fit the "right" categories were mixed up (Christian Turks? Muslim Greeks? etc)

jollybean 5y ago

This line of reasoning of 'finding examples where ethnicity fails to provide the boundary distinction' doesn't make your case. I know about 'Switzlerand', thanks. Which is why I brought up USA/Australia/Brazil etc.. Nobody is going to argue that there are many factors that drive boundaries (aka natural boundaries) merely highlighting some counter examples doesn't deconstruct the fact that ethnicity is the primary marker. "No. I don't know why you would think that. " Well I don't know what to say because to me, it's 'very obvious' that ethnic boundaries are strong - I don't know how anyone could think otherwise. In fact, if there is 'nuance' it's probably the things that you are stating that are 'less obvious'. Here is a map of Rome in the year 0 [0] Here is a map of Europe today [1] They are incredibly similar. By pointing out 'that there are differences' doesn't deny that fact. Again: "Yeah, no. The old Greece western borders stopped before that (linguistically at least), the northern border reached higher, as were the eastern borders." That borders have shifted materially, doesn't change the underlying fact that 'Greece is strongly related to Greece'. I think that's the clearest example of where your argument does not cross the threshold you think it does. You say 'the borders have changed' - fine - I say 'it's still pretty much Greece', which it is. The Duchy of Savoy was mostly a political organization, not an ethnic one, and guess what? It doesn't exist. The fragmented borders have mostly collapsed - along the lines of ethnicity, crudely. And of course, within those borders, it's fragments like a fractal (great analogy by the commenter above). And finally, yes, 'natural borders' are obviously a framing reference, because they keep people apart, which allows groups to develop, we agree there. [0] https://www.conformingtojesus.com/images/webpages/map_roman_empire_in_jesus_time1.jpg https://www.conformingtojesus.com/images/webpages/map_roman_... [1] https://geology.com/world/europe-satellite-image.shtml https://geology.com/world/europe-satellite-image.shtml

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
It's a bit precious to point to the Greek borders and say "look, there's Greece" when you're pointing to a territory in which a half million people were forcibly expelled based on ethnonationalist politics and ideology, only 100 years ago. Likewise to "French ethnicity", a place where government policy is still actively engaged in destroying minority languages (and their cultures) and has been since Napoleon. These "ethnic" borders you're pointing to are as much a product of political maneuverings using ethnicity as a platform, as they are any kind of "natural" product of ethnicity.