undefined | Better HN

0 pointsorwin4y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

cmrdporcupine4y 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)

jollybean4y 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_...

[1] https://geology.com/world/europe-satellite-image.shtml

cmrdporcupine4y 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.

orwinOP4y ago

Again, dismissing my points. What about Britanny (breton and Gallo, see my previous post)? What about the Basque country? What about Alsace? What about Savoy then, if it was "mostly a political organization" (that created modern Italy by the way)? What about Occitanie? and Catalonia (Roussillon mostly)? Aquitaine? Do we talk about northern France then, since we saw pretty much All the south is NOT French? Is Normandy French? Culturally? When the original normand had so many word from the danes, and even the name tell us where they come from (NOR-mand)? Picardia (from Baie de Somme to liege basically), do you consider it French? Because i'm pretty sure, it use to be way closer to the lowlands than France, culturally (when the Duchy of Artois existed, at least).

I only know one contry well, mine, and a bit of northern Italy (i'm a 1750-1911 history nerd).

So now i'm gonna dissect northern Italy: you can count Liguria (closer to Occitan than Rome), as well as Piedmont ethnicity (but since the Duchy of Savoy is mostly political, i guess it doesn't exist... Ho, wait, did this duchy not inherit Sardinia from the pope and the Hasburg and form the kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont? I guess it was based on ethnicity then.) Do you think Venitians where closer to Roman (or i guess Piedmont) than they were to Dalmatians before the 18th century? I am sure it wasn't the case.

You map of Rome is funny. Here is what i found [0]. This is obviously not following ethnic divisions. Unless the basques moved during the time period, but i'm certain they did not.

[0]https://www.worldhistory.org/uploads/images/266.png?v=162592...

jollybean4y ago

I'm not dismissing your points - I accept there's a lot of ambiguity.

Given the level of fragmentation you want to get into by highlighting tiny, short-lived political entities that had small populations and exited only for a blip in history ... well, you'll find many of them.

But you're missing the forest through the trees: the borders are unambiguously ethnic, to the point where it's not really even an argument.

'So What about Basque Country'?

Yes - thanks proving my point!

The 'Basque' fit so poorly within the constraints of Spanish borders that there is literally 'terrorism' and a systematic malaise: separatists groups and violence!

It might very well bode better if there was a separate nation state, or some degree of sovereignty there. I don't know, that's besides the point.

And what about Occitane, Catalonia, Alscace? They are, for the most part, ethnic subdivisions that fit more or less within the bigger systems they are in. Some better than others, but almost all of them to some reasonable degree.

But you're arguing against reality to insist that the line between Poland and Germany isn't relatively clear at some point, even if it's not perfect. It fuzzes over a few leagues, but by the time you hit Warsaw or Berlin it's clearly 'a different culture'. Again that there are strong subdivisions in Germany doesn't change the fact because the subdivisions are 'mostly' Germanic.

The Swedes and Finns have very distinct ethnostates, even if they have pockets of Swedes (historically, not just expats) in Finland, and even with distinct 'aboriginal' groups within both.

Again, in the big picture - hard ethnic delineation.

The map of the Roman Empire you provided only reinfornces my case: many of regions form the basis for many nation states today.

The more developed the system, the more likely it would be to have continued existence.

The demarcation point between the old Roman Empire and the Germanic states today is stark - written in politics, language, culture.

Europe didn't end up with a bunch of Switzerland - it ended up mostly with a bunch of Germanys, i.e. the sub-fragmentation is mostly related in some way and the external boundaries forming a kind of ethnic delineation.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsorwin4y ago0 comments

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.

> Napoleon failed outside his borders whereas within France, it might have just worked for him.

> Greece is still Greece today after 2500 years, the borders are similar.

0 comments

cmrdporcupine4y 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.

jollybean4y 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..

"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'.

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_...

[1] https://geology.com/world/europe-satellite-image.shtml

cmrdporcupine4y 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.

orwinOP4y ago

I only know one contry well, mine, and a bit of northern Italy (i'm a 1750-1911 history nerd).

You map of Rome is funny. Here is what i found [0]. This is obviously not following ethnic divisions. Unless the basques moved during the time period, but i'm certain they did not.

[0]https://www.worldhistory.org/uploads/images/266.png?v=162592...

jollybean4y ago

I'm not dismissing your points - I accept there's a lot of ambiguity.

But you're missing the forest through the trees: the borders are unambiguously ethnic, to the point where it's not really even an argument.

'So What about Basque Country'?

Yes - thanks proving my point!

The 'Basque' fit so poorly within the constraints of Spanish borders that there is literally 'terrorism' and a systematic malaise: separatists groups and violence!

It might very well bode better if there was a separate nation state, or some degree of sovereignty there. I don't know, that's besides the point.

The Swedes and Finns have very distinct ethnostates, even if they have pockets of Swedes (historically, not just expats) in Finland, and even with distinct 'aboriginal' groups within both.

Again, in the big picture - hard ethnic delineation.

The map of the Roman Empire you provided only reinfornces my case: many of regions form the basis for many nation states today.

The more developed the system, the more likely it would be to have continued existence.

The demarcation point between the old Roman Empire and the Germanic states today is stark - written in politics, language, culture.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse