Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Modern Ukrainian national identity is at least 5 centuries old, mostly defined against Polish domination.

Name me recent examples (past 3 or 4 centuries, when the concept of nation-state really emerges) and I'm ready to bet that 9 out of 10 have disappeared under either mass migrations, forced cultural assimilation or outright genocide, not mere evaporation into thin air.
by Francois in Paris on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 03:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Modern Ukrainian national identity is at least 5 centuries old

I don't think so. If it can be said to exist at all.

Ukraine can be divided into at least 3, but even better 9 regions with separate history, culture and 'identity'. They could really start to flow together only 14 years ago. Tough the Russian-speaking Southeast doesn't like it, and the Centre/North won't accept it as exclusive, the origin of the current national mythology and language is in the Western part - and formed in the 19th century, mostly on area held by the Habsburg Monarchy (and Western Christian like the Poles). The North has history as Eastern Slav political (Kyiv Rus) and religious centre (in conflict with Poland 400-300 years ago), the Centre has history as free Kossacks (in conflict with Poland at similar times). Meanwhile, the Southeast had not much to do with Poland 500 years ago, as the population is more recent settlement from central Tsarist Russia after conquest from the Ottoman Empire.

It may yet fall apart - don't you remember the tensions during the 'Orange Revolution'?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 04:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dodo,

Oh!
They could really start to flow together only 14 years ago.
And I'm the one putting too much emphasis on nation-states...

I don't have the time for a debate on linguistic differentiation in the 14th century, the significance of the Zaporozhian Host in 16th century and cetera, but, dear Dodo, you are pulling a fast one there.

As the nationalist movements of the 19th century, you are indulging in anachronism and anti-causality. Gimme a Warp drive :> Those movements in Ukraine, but similarly in Germany, and pretty much everywhere in Europe, do not appear out of thin air. Following the French Revolution (France's last truly serious contribution to History), they formalise nationalities, making them explicit in contemporary terms but they do not create them.

As for the tensions between the Ukrainian majority and the Russian (or more largely Russian-speaking) minority, we're talking about two fairly recent phenomenons: the overlap between the 2 populations on the eastern marches of the modern Ukrainian territory (with some Ukrainians in Russia, by the way) and even more recently, the forced Russification policy under Stalin and the continued integration of Ukraine into the USSR after him.

By the way, regarding the Stalinian Russification, I must say I'm pretty impressed to see how a nation which is not supposed to exist has managed to preserve its identity under very serious pressure. I'm saying that as a Breton French, that is someone who knows quite a bit about enforced acculturation in modern times.
by Francois in Paris on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 05:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Name me recent examples (past 3 or 4 centuries, when the concept of nation-state really emerges) and I'm ready to bet that 9 out of 10 have disappeared under either mass migrations, forced cultural assimilation or outright genocide, not mere evaporation into thin air.

And if so, then what? Current France is a result of all three (in the last few centuries especially the second - living at the centre of this expansion, you may be much less aware of it), so are you saying we just should dismiss this happening in the future? But, you should also think of countries falling apart. Of course, believers in nationalism will claim post-facto that there never 'really' was a national feeling corresponding to that country.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 04:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dodo,

I'm French and I can tell you that France does exist.

I'm also of Breton roots and how nations die is part of my family lore. My late grandfather told me often enough about the "It is prohibited to spit on the floor and speak Breton" notices in public places and the many whippings he got for opening his mouth in the wrong language when he was a kid. And Brittany is dead.

Anyway, this thread is going off track. My point is not to celebrate nation-states per se or idealise their genesis (which was often repressive) and their histories (bloody enough, thank you very much) but to acknowledge the present situation and to :
  • Recognise the virtues of nations-states as an efficient and proven space for liberal (US sense) democracy and pretty much the only one with a serious track record.
  • Warn that ignoring them is a recipe for disaster in Europe.
Europe's problem is precisely that it doesn't have the coercive tools that were available to, let's say, the Jacobins in France or the Prussians in Germany, to build a nation.

And yet, if we want a democracy in Europe, we have to build a European national identity. Otherwise, we'll remain stuck in situations like the current EU budget catfight or worse.

So how do we get there?

PS: And how the Hell did we get so far down this matter? We were talking corporate taxes to start with, weren't we?
by Francois in Paris on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 06:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And yet, if we want a democracy in Europe, we have to build a European national identity. Otherwise, we'll remain stuck in situations like the current EU budget catfight or worse.

So how do we get there?

PS: And how the Hell did we get so far down this matter? We were talking corporate taxes to start with, weren't we?

The issue is, how can nations stand up to corporations in a globalized (or regionally integrated) economy? Herman Daly advocates steering away from globalization into internationalism (with a focus on a return to national economic policy) as a way to foster a sustainable economy. The economic issues within the EU can be reframed (as you have done) in political terms thus: the EU can be a force for economic good (within the EU, never mind globally) only if a European national identity develops. Otherwise it may well be a damaging development.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 07:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and absent that, EU institutions should thread very lightly on sovereign domains like taxation. The ECJ may be right in law but it is also completely tone-deaf on that case and is playing against its own legitimacy.

It clearly hasn't heard of the Constitution referendums, has no realisation of what most Europeans think of private corporations (that they are barely tolerated nuisances) and it also clearly hasn't understood, that being the final jurisdiction, its decisions are highly political, a bit like the Supreme Court is in the US.

If it had any political sense, the ECJ should have told M&S to move along.
by Francois in Paris on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 08:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, so the Nation-State is a modern concept tied to the emergence of European authoritarian/absolute monarchies.

In almost all cases in Europe the strong State predates the Nation and is a necessary precondition for the National identity to set in. Then the Romantic movement of the 19th hundred constructed a lot of new national identities around linguistic communities. Italy and Germany were only recently unified and linguistic and national homogenization is still under way.

In Latin America, Bolivar's Gran Colombia split into three separate states but to a large extent the nationality still straddles the borders. Decolonization has imposed artificial states on underlying populations and created national identities.

It is unclear whether China should be considered a nation or a civilization. Ethnically and linguistically homogeneous it is not, regardless of what the Communist Party would have us believe.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My only quip:

Decolonization has imposed artificial states on underlying populations and created national identities.

In the same vein, we could say that European states are artifical states imposed by feudal/absolutist rulers or post-war imperialist peace dictates on underlying populations, some of which created ntional identities, others forced pre-existing national identities on a far from completely identical underlying population.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 05:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series